¶ A REPLY TO Fulke, In defence of M. D. Allens scroll of Articles, and book of Purgatory.  
By Richard Bristo Doctor of Divinity.  Tit. 3. 
Haereticum hominem post unam & secundam correptionem devita: sciens quia subversus est, qui eiusmodi est, & deliquit cum sit proprio judicio condemnatus.  
Avoid the Heretic man after the first and second correption: knowing that he which is such, is subverted and sinneth, sith that he is condemned by his own judgement.  
Perused and allowed by me Th. Stapleton.  
Imprinted at Louvain by john Lion. Anno Dom. 1580.   

¶ TO THE READER.  
IT may serve greatly to thy edification (gentle Reader) as it also pertaineth much to my purpose in this book, to let thee understand, that where as there are two ways of finding out Christian truth when it is in controversy, the one by treating of every matter in particular, the other by giving certain general rules that are infallible: Twelve or thirteen years ago M.D. Allen, having amongst other learned Catholics of our time and country on this side the sea, opened and defended in print most perspicuously and substantially, certain special articles of the Catholic saith: and being driven not long after by sickness to seek to the air of his native soil, did in the short space of his abode there, deal also the other way with many Gentlemen, confirming some, and setting up again others, by most evident and undoubted rules of truth, which were always common for the most part among Catholics, but the weight of them deeply considered of very few, and the number of them as yet neither by him nor by any other bound up together. Only to one gentleman requesting so much, he gave a copy of them, such a one as of extemporal and private writing might be looked for.  
It is now nine years since I heard the same of his own mouth, what time I came first into his blessed family, and was present very often when amongst us he discoursed familiarly upon the said rules, to such liking of my part, that I left him not until I had entreated him to take his pen one morning, and out of his memory to frame me also a copy. Which copy a friend having seen here with me, who afterward was sent home into our lords harvest, in a letter from thence desired instantly to be made partaker thereof, affirming that he saw how medicinable it would be to many souls, I communicated the matter to the Author of it. He being wholly occupied himself in public teaching of Divinity, would have me who then had more leisure, though for skill not worthy to bear his book, to devise somewhat upon those and the like rules, which might in print be published to the world: not as though the very bare rules, as in the foresaid copies, were not convenient and sufficient, specially for men of intelligence and that willingly would be informed, but that by the declaration and confirmation of them the rude also and obstinate might be induced. And this was the occasion of my Motives in the end of the year 1574. and also of my Demands in the beginning of the year 1576, which I made upon the motion of certain, who desired to have the Motives printed again, because the first impression was for the greater part taken and destroyed by the adversaries.  
And now after all this, the last year 1577. cometh forth from one W. Fulke an heretic, a pretended answer to the first copy above mentioned, or to some extract thereof, joined with another like answer of the same Authors to D. Allens book of Purgatory, and to my hands it came a few weeks ago, even 
an. 1578 stylo R.  this late Christmas. Sith which time reading it twice over, I find, that he never so much as once mentioneth either my Motives, or my Demands, and much less doth he ever go about to infringe any of my probations therein contained. And yet notwithstanding this deep silence, 
Fulke li. 2. p. 107.  in one place he bewrayeth himself to have known of them, where he glanceth at the divine work of a certain healing which I reported in my Motives, 
Moti. 5. fol. 19  and saith, As you have miracles now in Flaunders of the honest woman of the old bailie in London. Although otherwise also who can think it possible for him to have heard nothing (at least when he sought to print his) of books written so late of the same matter, and so well known to the superintendant of London and innumerable others of that side, which also any man that had seen the copy that Fulke answereth, might easily conceive to proceed from the same Author, and me only to be his scholar, howbeit I also not obscurely professed as much, where I said: 
Mot. f. 2·  [The preiudices and evidences for the Catholic faith against all heresies, are innumerable and superable: and my chance it hath been, through the merciful providence and goodness of God, to live certain years in company with Catholic men of great virtue, wisdom, and knowledge, blessed of God most liberally with his graces, such as our miserable country is not worthy of: whose daily familiar talk of such things I have used to hear, as to my great admiration, so likewise with all diligence and attention. And what I have through such communication at sundry times, or of myself at other times, by means thereof observed, I purpose as memory shall serve me, and God assist me, being thereunto both justly moved, and earnestly required, in this book at once to utter it in part.]  
If I may say what I do guess hereat, I suppose that it should still have lain by him, 
Fulk to the Reader.  as it hath done (he saith) these eight or nine years, and never have been put in print, but only for show of an answer to my Motives and Demands, specially seeing that, where as D. Allens writing was called only by the name of Articles, this man at every Article hath also printed the word Demands, because every Article consisteth of certain Demands: by mean whereof I know already myself, some that are deceived, and think it to be an answer unto me, yet in truth it toucheth not me at all, neither maketh any just answer to D. Allen, but all so simply and so féebly, that he is fain to set it out without privilege, as also his other book against Purgatory, 
Ibidem.  though that book was authorized (he saith) almost two years ago, wherein I know not whether we may believe his bare word, for many causes easy to be here noted, and one namely, for that he thus writeth in the same: We believe that 
Pa. 450 What if the Church were in England only: or one were king of all countries sometime where it is?  the Catholic Church hath no chief governor upon earth but Christ, unto whom all power is given in heaven and earth. Well, if it have authority, at the least without privilege it hath it, and his former book neither hath privilege nor authority. and yet out it cometh, by permission at the least, to make forsooth a face and show of somewhat for a time, and if after it chance to be of some Catholic dashed out of countenance, than the shame to be no man's but only Fulkes.  
All which considered, I doubted a while, whether it were good to return him an answer, or no, lest peradventure I should but lease my labour, & rather to expect yet somewhat longer, whether any do answer my Motives or Demands, as by advise out of England, I have now more than this twelvemonth waited thereupon. Yet my resolution hath been, seeing that abundans cautio non nocet, to put out my hand a little, and take of his vizard, that being plainly discovered, every man may behold and abhor his foul favour, and bear me witness that he had been better to keep in, not only those nine years and two years, but also for ever, following rather the ensamples of those other two brethren mentioned in his preface to the Reader, of whom the one purposed to have answered the book of Purgatory himself, but afterward undertook rather the printing of Fulkes answer: the other learnedly began the answering of it, but was, he knoweth not how, letted from the accomplishing of the same. So hath Satan hitherto hindered the setting abroad of this answer (saith he of his own) but God hath now at length brought it forth: I doubt not (he addeth) but to his glory, and the confusion of satan in his members the Papists. As I also doubt not, but God in deed hath brought it forth, to his glory, and to the confusion of heresy, so, that satan had done more politicly, to have hindered still, if he could, the setting abroad of it, such stuff it containeth. Better stuff we should have had, if better had they had.  
Well, seeing that M.D. Allen is otherwise and better occupied, I, who have already succeeded him in his Articles, and do owe unto him (at one word) all duty, both for the public, and namely for my private, will here with the help of God, lay so much of Fulks wares open, out of both his books, that although my meaning is directly against his first book, yet my treatise shall appear to be a just reply to both his books.  
First therefore I will show briefly, how he confesseth, that out of the true Church is no salvation, 
See the contents more at large in the end of this book.  to this end, that when as in my process it shall be manifest, that he and his fellows are out of the true Church, and that we have the true Church, both they may clearly see in what case they stand, and their fellows may look in time unto their reconciliation.  
Secondly, I will show somewhat more at large, for what space he granteth the true Church to have continued in sight and knowledge of the world, and what persons and companies to have been of it: to the end, that neither he nor no man else being able to prove that we agree not with those times and persons in substance of religion, or have gone out of the unity of their communion, it may evidently be seen, that we likewise at this time be of the same true Church, and he with his fellows to be without the true Church, because they be out of our Church.  
Thirdly, for as much as on the other side he could not deny, but that he and his agree not with the said true Church, I will show, how he is fain to hold that the true Church may err, and that he chargeth it then with the same errors, with the which he chargeth us now: to the end that thou mayst see, that for all those surmised errors, he hath not any just cause to deny us the true Church, which he giveth to them that with us were in the same errors.  
Nay, I will further declare in the fourth place, that he chargeth them with divers errors, wherewith he neither can nor doth charge us: that it may much more appear, that we have the true Church now, if they so much worse than we, had the true Church then.  
Fiftly, I will report the reason for which (by his saying) they had the true Church then, notwithstanding their errors: to the end, that where thou shalt see it to be such a reason as agreeth to us now as well, thou mayst perceive, that he must no less grant us the true Church now.  
After this I will note briefly his zeal towards Calvin and others that in deed are, or at least be unfeignedly thought of him to be of his Church at this time, how that he can not in any wise bear any thing to be spoken against them, whereas yet he not only can bear, but also himself speaketh so much against the old ancient Church, and the members thereof. And in consideration hereof my Catholic zeal must do no less (as being in deed with all other Catholics of this time, a member of the very same ancient Church in old time) but answer for the said Church, showing in every particular, how unworthily and unjustly he chargeth it with erring. Which I will in like manner do for the Church also of later times, defending it likewise against all his like accusations of it.  
Seventhly, I will declare, how that, seeing manifestly the true Church, Counsels, Fathers, and all other evidences of Christian Religion, to make clearly against him and his, he is feign, and nothing abashed at the matter, to take exception against all, by the bare name and colour of Only Scripture: and therein behaveth himself so boldly, as if the holy Scripture were as manifestly with him, as all the other are manifestly against him. Where also because, like an other Phormio homo confidens, he provoketh us to a disputation of Scripture, I will make him a reasonable offer.  
Eightly, I will most clearly show, how that, not withstanding all these great cracks and bold facinges of his, he hath not for all that in these two books alleged so much as one text of Scripture that maketh any whit against us. And to that purpose, I will answer all his allegations: first, concerning Only Scripture to be credited: next, concerning the Church, whether it can err, and whether we have it or they: then, concerning Purgatory: and last of all, concerning all other matters that any where he mentioneth by the way.  
Ninthly, I will likewise show, whereas he maketh himself so sure of Scripture, that he holdeth the testimonies of Counsels and Fathers to be no confirmation of truth, and allegeth them sometimes notwithstanding: although because of his so holding, I might neglect those allegations, yet I will show (I say) that of all which he allegeth, no one, neither expoundeth any Scripture, nor beareth any other testimony with him against us. Which will be a plain demonstration of that which I proposed here above in the second Chapter, to wit, that we have still the true Church, because we still so thoroughly and entirely agree with them, who by his own confession had in their time the true Church.  
Tenthly, because all D. Allens Articles are in effect contained in my Motives and Demands, I will examine what he answereth, not to my probations (for to them, or any one of them, he lightly answereth not, as I say afore) but even to the bare titles of them. And for as much as his answers will soon appear to be no answers, I will examine, whether at the leastwise he objecteth any thing to the purpose: to the end, that when thou shalt see that all is so little or rather nothing at all, thou mayst perceive, that God for his Church's glory blinded them, to send such a book abroad.  
Which thou shalt again more plainly perceive in the eleventh Chapter, where I will lay forth his marvelous gross and palpable contradictions, yea and in great numbers also.  
And again, as plainly in the twelft Chapter, where I will display certain strange and detestable positions of his, and also his ignorance in the Scriptures and other learning theological. To the which I might but for prolixity join many ensamples pertaining to a falsary, putting him in mind withal, of his horrible blasphemies, as himself also must confess them to be, because he can not avoid it but that the Church against whom he hath poured them, is the true Church.  
In the conclusion, I will amongst some other things advertise the Reader, what more may be desired for the full justifying of the book of Purgatory, though this much be enough and superabundaunt. but, for justification of the Articles, that no more can be desired.  
But now, let us come to the performing of these our promises.  Ar. and Pur. in the margins, signify the page of Fulkes books against the Articles and against Purgatory.  

¶ A REPLY TO Fulke, In defence of M. D. Allens scroll of Articles, and book of Purgatory.  

¶ The first Chapter. That he confesseth out of the true Church to be no salvation.  
THis I show briefly and most plainly by his own words, as where he saith: The house of refuge or defence, may be applied to the Church, 
Ar. pag. 108.  out of which is no salvation: and in whose bosom it becometh every man to rest, which shall look for the refuge and defence of God. 
Ar. 83.  And in an other place: There is no man of what age or years soever he be, that can be saved, except he be a member of the Catholic Church. Again: This we affirm, that out of the Church there is no salvation. Again: We utterly deny, that beside the true Church, 
Ar. 62. Ar. 76.  there was an untrue church, that practised those offices (of baptizing and other spiritual actions) to the salvation of any man. And again: No man alive, 
Ar. 73.  that knoweth what the true Church meaneth, will say, that any man can be saved out of the true Church. For he that is not a member of the body of Christ, can by no mean receive any benefit of Christ to his salvation. Therefore this is certain, that out of this Church none could be saved. This then being so confessed (as in our Church it is also openly practised, first in baptism to take men in, then in reconciliation, if they went or were cast afterward out, to receive them in again) I will stand no longer upon it, but proceed further.   

¶ The second Chapter. That he confesseth the known Church of the first 600. years after Christ, and the known members thereof.  
THis likewise will be evident by his own words (if the Catholic ear can bear his blasphemies withal) & first if we consider what he writeth of the Romans and their Bishops, both since Bonifacius the third, and also afore him.  

Are 35.  Being asked, [What year the religion of the Papists came in and prevailed?] Thus he answereth: We may well say, that the religion of the Papists came in, and prevailed, that year in which the Pope first obtained his antichristian exaltation, which was in the year of our Lord 607, when Boniface the third for a great sum of money, obtained of Phocas, the traitorous murderer and adulterous Emperor, that the Bishop of Rome should be called and counted the head of all the Church. And what after that? Since that time (saith he) that devilish heresy hath always increased in error, until the year of our Lord 1414. Whereupon in other places he saith again: 
Ar. 27. Pur. 344  From Boniface the third all blasphemous heretics, and antichrists. And again: Or any succeeded Boniface the third, which beside their abominable life, were all heretics and antichrists. And where he speaketh of the old Doctors, by and by he addeth as in an antithesis: 
Pur. 405  Nay rather count upon the Popes to be pillars of your Church, Doctors of your learning, and Fathers of your faith, that have been within these seven or eight hundred years.  
By this that he saith of the time after Boniface the third, you perceive his confession as touching the time afore him. Yet to make it more plain, he shall expressly make himself his own confession: 
Pur. 194.  Gregory was the last of all the romish Bishops in whom was any spark of goodness: because Boniface his successor, 
See pag.  and all the rest, by Gregory's own judgement and prophecy, were all Antichristes. And most manifestly in an other place, 
Pur. 372  where D. Allen urgeth the succession of the Roman Bishops by example of Ireneus, Cyprian, Tertullian, Optatus, Jerome, Augustine, and Vincentius Lirinensis, who confounded therewith all heretics, and saith: [It is a strange thing, that the Father's having then store of Apostolic Successions, did ever choose out for the warrant of their faith, from amongst the rest, the Roman Seat: and now when there is no Apostolic Church left in the whole world but it, that they will not have us refer our faith to it, which was ever of all other most free from falsehood.] To this Fulke in his answer saith: That these men specially named the Church of Rome, it was, because the Church of Rome at that time, as it was founded by the Apostles, so it continued in the doctrine of the Apostles. And a little after: As for that which M. Allen counteth so strange, it is for lack of skill and right judgement. For the same cause that moved those ancient Fathers to appeal to the judgement of the Church of Rome, moveth us now to condemn the Church of Rome of heresy. Wherefore did they reverence the Church of Rome? Ask Tertullian, he answereth, 
True doctrine in the true Church, how long?  because it had by Succession retained even until his days, that faith which it did first receive of the Apostles: Therefore it was a true Church, therefore it was an Apostolic Church. This answer he learned of his master calvin, who in his Institutions first putteth down our allegation, saying: 
Cal. Ins. li. 4. ca 2 nu. 2.3.  Magnifice illi quidem suam nobis Ecclesiam commendant. Allegant enim eam apud se initio sana doctrina & sanguine Martyrum bene fundatam, perpetua Episcoporum Successione conseruatam fuisse ne intercideret. Commemorant quanti hanc Successionem fecerint Irenaeus, Tertullianus, Origenes, Augustinus, & alij. that is: They in deed set forth unto us their Church very gloriously. for they allege that being in the beginning well founded amongst them with sound doctrine and with the blood of Martyrs, it was by the continual Succession of Bishops preserved from decaying. They report out of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origene, Augustine, and others, how highly they esteemed this Succession. And then he putteth hereunto his own answer, saying: Cum extra controversiam esset, nihil a principio usque ad illam aetatem mutatum fuisse in doctrina, etc. that is: Considering that it was a plain case, that from the beginning even until that time nothing was changed in doctrine, the holy Doctors took in argument that which was sufficient for the overthrowing of all new errors, to wit, That they oppugned the doctrine which even from the very Apostles themselves had been inviolably and with one consent retained. This grant both of the master and of his Scholar, as more by a great deal, then in this Chapter we needed, The true Church not only to have continued so long itself, but also to have kept inviolably and generally with one accord the true faith and true doctrine which of the Apostles themselves she had received. The like he confesseth of our own Country also, 
Ar. 49.  where he saith: The Church of the Britons before Augustine (whom Saint Gregory sent from Rome to convert the English in our said country of Britanny) came in with Romish service, had they not trow you Authentical Service: which continued in the faith of Christ even from the Apostles time. To which confession let it be added out of S. Bedes Story, that the 
a Bed. hist. li. 2. ca 4.2. & li. 3. ca 25.  greatest point wherein the Christian Brytons and our Apostle S. Augustine differed, was about the keeping of Easter day, and that also not so great as in old time between S. Victor of Rome and the Christians of Asia (as this man ignorantly 
b Pur. 371. here. ca 10. pag.  somewhere affirmeth) that is to say, not whether it should be always kept with the jews upon the very day of the full Moon according to the heresy of the 
c Aug. heresi. 29.  Tessaresdecatite or Quartadecimani. (for that observation, 
d Eus. in vita Const. li. 3. ca 28.  Britanny, as the Emperor 
d Eus. in vita Const. li. 3. ca 28.  Constantinus witnesseth, detested no less than other provinces at the time of the Nicene Council) but only upon what 
e Beda supra.  sunday it should be kept. So then this being their greatest difference, and yet therein also the right observation being that which was brought from Rome, as no man will deny, you see what grant this man must make, as to Britanny, so likewise to Rome at that time, to wit, not only the true Church, but withal the same faith which the Apostles taught, though in this Chapter (as I have already said) we look no more but for the true Church.  
Which same true Church he granteth again many other ways unto the Romans and their Bishops, in that he giveth it to sundry notable personages and companies that were in unity and in one Church with the said Romans: as to the ancient Doctors and Counsels, to the Martyrs, Monks, and other Christians, not only that frequented those Cryptes or holy vaults under the heathen and persecuting Emperors, but also that gathered themselves afterward in those magnifical new Temples under the Christian Catholic Emperors: and finally to those Catholic Emperors themselves, even to Mauritius who lived with S. Gregory.  

Ar. 60.  Of the Doctors his confession is this: The most approved writers, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Epiphanius, Hilarius, Chrysostamus, jeronymus, Ambrose, Augustinus, etc. were doubtless members of the true Church of Christ. Again, 
Ar. 71.  The Church of the Arians, was not the Catholic Church: but Athanasius, and a 
a Such is his skill in the story of that time.  few other, that were banished and persecuted, were the true Catholic Church. Again, 
b Ar. 59  justinus Martyr, and Irenaeus, two of the most ancient authentical writers, that the Church next unto the Apostles had. And again, 
c Pur. 434.  The old doctors had their measure of God's spirit. Cyprian and Cornelius were both endued with God's spirit, and both martyrs. Again, 
Pur. 405.  The Doctors of God's Church, Augustine, Ambrose, chrysostom, basil, etc. Again, It is a good argument, 
Ar. 27.  that the Popish Church is not the Church of Christ, because it was never hidden since it first sprang up, in so much that you can name all the notable persons in all ages in their government and ministery, and especially the succession of 
d A proper distribution, the Popes in all ages to be ours: and yet the Apostles & Doctors, to be his. Sapientes confitentur & non abscondunt patres suos: quoth Eliphaz against job. cap. xv.  Popes you can rehearse in order upon your fingers. But our Church (which hath not had so many registers, chroniclers, and remembrancers) hath perhaps fewer, but yet honester men to name: we can name Peter, Paul, etc. justinus, Irenaeus, Cyprianus, Athanasius, Hilarius, Ambrose, Augustinus, Gyldas, etc. Then as touching ancient Counsels, thus he saith: 
f Ar. 97.  The four best general counsels were gathered by our Church. Again, 
g Pur. 430. Pur. 296.  If any Council decree according to the Scriptures (as the Council of the Apostles did, Act. 15, and the Council of Nice, with divers other) we receive them with all humility as the oracles of God. To this place of Doctors and Counsels pertaineth that also which he confesseth of the Church that resisted and overcame the old heresies: as where D. Allen had said, [It is not you that shall outface God's Church. she hath by the spirit of God beaten down your proudders, the Arrians, the Macedonians, the Anabaptists (as the Donatists, etc.) and all your predecessors.] He answereth, 
297.  You boast that your Church hath beaten down our proudders, the Arrians, Macedonians, anabaptists. It was the Church of Christ, that overthrew those Heretics. And in an other place likewise: 
Ar. 10.  [I demand (saith D. Allen) what Church hath mightily gone through, borne down, & fully vanquished, all heresies in times past, aswell against the blessed Trinity, as other articles of our Religion?] I answer, (saith Fulke) the true Catholic Church hath always resisted all false opinions, contrary to the word of God, as her duty was: and fought against them with the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God, and by the aid of God obtained the victory, and triumphed over them. So did the fathers of the primitive Church, from time to time, confute heresies by the Scriptures, and declare in their writings, that by them they are to be confuted. for example's sake of a great number, I will allege a few: and he allegeth Hilarius, Basilius Magnus, chrysostom, Augustine, Leo the first Bishop of Rome, and the whole Council of Constantinople the sixth. And so concludeth saying: Thus I have declared by ensample and authority of these fathers, that the true Church of Christ, hath convicted all heretics, only by the Scripture. If only by the scriptures, 
See cap. 9 par. 2. pag. Ar. 52.  so much the better you do like of her, and that in this Chapter nothing misliketh me. Now let us see what he confesseth of the ancient Monks also. The Church of God (saith he) hath always had Schools or Universities for the maintenance of godly learning: for the first colleges of Monks in solitary places, were nothing else, but Colleges of students, that were afterward, as occasion served, taken to serve in the Church, as appeareth by Chrisostom in his book de Sacerdotio, where he showeth that Basilius, who was a Monk with him, was taken by violence and made a minister of the Church, as he himself was afterward. Also in the Bishop's house was a College of students: and our histories testify, that at Bangor in Wales was a great university of learned men. Whether S. chrysostom, S. basil, and those other ancient Monks, both in our own and also in other countries, were nothing else but students, it is not the question of this place: 
See cap. 10. dem. 25. pag.  but only do I note here, that he confesseth them to have been of the Church of God.  
Then as concerning the times first of persecution, afterward of peace, under the Emperors both heathen and Christian, he uttereth his confession of the true Church, in these words: Our assemblies were kept in secret places, 
Ar. 51.52.  long time after Christ's ascension, in most Countries that were subject to the Roman Empire, and when Constantinus had given peace to the Church, he builded Oratories and great synagogues called Basilicas, for our assemblies and Service. Also, necessary furniture (for the service of God) was decreed to the Church by the Emperor Constantine and his Successors, that were of our Church, before the revelation of Antichrist, that is (as before you heard his meaning) before the time of Bonifacius the third. 
Pur. 342.  Likewise in an other place he confesseth both those Caves and Vaults under the earth that the old Christian Bishops were content to serve in, before the time of Constantine, and also, those princely buildings that by Constantine and other Christian Princes were first set up for the public exercise of Christian Religion. To which times belongeth also that, wherein he confesseth the conversion of Nations by the true Church, saying: It did not only require, but also subdue all Nations to the obedience of the faith, 
Ar. 97.  so many as were ever subdued, in the days of the first Christian emperors, and before. Finally, he confesseth the Emperors yet more expressly and more particularly, saying: 
Ar. 33.  It is an easy matter, to name you the Emperors and princes, which both offered to the ministers of justice in the right of our Church, and also maintained our faith and congregation, by Civil laws: as Constantine the great, iovinianus, Valentinianus, Theodosius, Archadius, Honorius, Marcianus, justinianus, Mauricius, and divers others. And to signify that he meaneth these Emperors to have been such as he would wish for, he addeth of the latter Emperors, and saith: I pass over as to well known many of the Grecian Emperors. Likewise I pass over Charles the great. I will not rehearse those (later German) Princes, that, etc. For although these and such like defended some part of the truth, which we hold against you, yet lest you should object, it was but in one or two points, I pass them over with silence. And so much for the true Church in the first. 600. years.   

¶ The third Chapter. That he confesseth the foresaid true Church to have made so plainly with us in very many of the controversies of this time, that he is feign to hold, that the 
But not his Caluinicall Church.  true Church may err, and also hath erred.  
AFter all this so smoothly by him confessed of the true Church, and sometime also of the long continuing thereof in incorruption, if any man marvel to hear now, that yet withal he holdeth, the same true Church at the same time to have been corrupted and to have erred, let him see here in the eleventh Chapter his manifold manifest contradictions, & he will quickly leave his marveling: the matter (he shall perceive) is not so strange in this man, but very usual & common to contrary himself, as it is also no rare thing in his master calvin and the other heretical writers of our time. But here in the mean while, be it disagreeing, or be it agreeing with that which he hath confessed already, 
Infra ca 11. contradict. 4.  I will in this present Chapter lay forth his words, first generally that the true Church may err, and afterward of the particular errors common to the true Church then, and to our Church now.  

The first part. That the true Church may err.  

Ar. 86  Therefore that the true Church may err, thus he saith: The true and only Church of Christ can never be void of God his spirit, and yet she may err from the truth, and be deceived in some things. And a little after: Wherefore the whole Church militant consisting of men, which are all liars, may err all together. 
Ar. 88  Again: The true and only Church of God, as it is declared before, hath no such privilege granted, but that she may be deceived in some things. And there beneath: And if it may err, and be deceived itself, what man is he that need to doubt, whether it may induce any error among the people? In so much that he is bold to say in an other place: 
Pur. 367 368.  Of an hundred arguments that S. Augustine useth against the Pelagians, this insultation (that their heresy was contrary to the public prayers of the Church) was one of the feeblest: which took no hold of the Pelagians by force of truth that is in it, but by their confession and grant. In so much again that a few lines after he saith to D. Allen, or rather to S. Augustine if it be truly scanned: In deed they were but sorry whelps, that could not say baff to the bleating of such a calf as you are, 
Modestly.  which think that such a foolish cavil can carry credit with them that have any crumb of brain in their heads, to wit, The Church prayeth so, therefore it is true. 
Ar. 83.84.  Moreover in an other: If you mean (as it seemeth, and as the rest of the Papists do interpret that Article) I believe the Catholic Church, that is, I believe whatsoever the Church doth allow, to be true: I deny that it is necessary to salvation, that a Christian man should so believe the Catholic Church, because the Church may err. Again in the same place: But to believe all and every thing that the Catholic Church by common consent doth maintain, is no Article of our faith, and therefore not necessary to salvation.   

The second part. That the true Church did also err: and that in the same points as we now do err in.  

j Where he chargeth them with many points together.  
Now further that the true Church did also in deed err, & first in the same points wherein our Church now erreth, as they charge it, thus he saith: 
Ar. 35. Si patrem f. Beelzebub vocauerun● quanto magis domesticos eius● Matt. x.  Many abuses and corruptions were entered into the Church of Christ immediately after the Apostles time, which the devil planted as a preparative for his eldest son Antichrist. By Antichrist he meaneth (God forgive him his blasphemy) the vicar of Christ himself, and so consequently by that preparative he meaneth such points of the Pope's religion as are found against the Protestants in antiquity. Where to minister him some light by the way (if it may please God to open his eyes) let him consider that he must confess no less, 
Infra c. 11. cont. 8.  yea much more, that the Arian, Sabellian, Nestorian, and infinite other old Heresies detested now of both our parts, were a preparative for Antichrist: and therefore seeing that Bonifacius the third, and the other Popes after him, have not received those confessed heresies, that it followeth necessarily thereof, that the Popes are not Antichrist. But that I stray not further from my matter, but rather reserve every thing to his proper place: he cometh else where to particularities, and saith: 
Pu. 419.  And this was a great corruption of those ancient times, that they did not always weigh what was most agreeable to the word of God, but if the Gentiles or Heretics had any thing that seemed to have a show of piety or charity, they would draw it into use. What, any thing, without exception? Go too then, and name somewhat for ensample. So they took the sign of the cross from the Valentinians. What more? Oblations for the days of death and birth, of the Gentiles. Forth a God's name. Prescript times of fasting, and unmeasurable extolling of Sole life in the ministers of the Church, from the Manichees, Tacianistes, and Montanistes. And yet what more? Prayer for the dead, of the Montanistes. Forth again? Purgatory fire, of the Origenistes. Say on still: Yea jeronym was almost fallen into the heresy of Tertullian, in condemning second marriage. Once more to ease that stomach: Yea even the name of sacrifice which was commonly used for the celebration of the Lords supper, they took up of the Gentiles. All these eight points he so noteth in the Fathers of God's Church together in one place. Again in an other place after the sayings of justinus Martyr and Ireneus alleged: 
Ar. 60.  The other writers of later years (saith he) we are not afraid to confess that they have some corruption, whereby you may seem to have colour of defence for Invocation of saints, prayers for the dead, and divers superstitious & superfluous Ceremonies. And that to the same they were no less addicted than we are, he confesseth plainly, where he granteth that they accounted the contrary for no better than heresy. 
Ar. 44.45 46.  You may perchance (saith he) note the names of them, that preaching the truth of our doctrine, against your received errors, were accounted of the world for Heretics. And a little after: I will not dissemble that which you think the greatest matter. Well then confess the truth: Aerius taught that prayer for the dead was unprofitable, as witnesseth both Epiphanius and Augustinus, which they count for an error. Also he taught that fasting days are not to be observed. if he espied the superstition of fasting days, and reproved it, that was no error at all. And who else? jovinian affirmed that virginity was no better than marriage: which if it be well understood, is no error at all. And if he taught further, that such as could not contain, though they had vowed virginity, should nevertheless be married. Moreover, if he taught that fasting, abstinence from certain meats, and other bodily exercise, of themselves profit little: it was no error, he saith, and yet S. jeronyme was a most bitter enemy unto jovinian. Any more? Last of all Vigilantius wrote against Invocation of saints, superstition of Relics, and other Ceremonies. Him jeronym reproveth, or rather raileth on him: 
Modestly.  for his reasons are nothing worth that he hath against him. Therefore howsoever jeronym esteemed him in his rage, if he had none other opinions contrary to the truth, we doubt not to acknowledge Vigilantius (as many godly and learned Bishops of his time did) for a true preacher and reprehender of that superstition whereunto jeronym was to much addict. He said afore that he would not dissemble, and yet you see his ifs, and Jerome alone against many godly and learned Bishops. Therefore to make it yet more plain, how in clearing these Heretics he chargeth the Fathers, I must report what he hath likewise in other places.   

ij. As touching Vigilantius, and invocation of saints, by itself.  
As where D. Allen said: 
Pur. 306 310.  [So their citing out of S. Ambrose for the improving of the invocation of holy Saints, is no more but an abuse of the simples ignorance: knowing well that he and all other of that time did practise prayers both often to all holy Martyrs, and sometimes peculiarly to such, whom for patronage they did especially choose of devotion amongst the rest.] To this he answereth: 
Honourably.  Touching Ambrose (which was suddenly made a Bishop, before he was a perfect Christian) if some steps of heathenish Invocation or Rhetorical apostrophees and prosopopees appear to be in him, and some other about his time, yet was not that generally received of all the Church in his time. Also where the question is asked, 
Ar. 39  [Whether men began suddenly to require the help of Saints in heaven?] He answereth: Whether suddenly or by little and little man were brought to such superstition, that they required help of saints, it maketh little matter, yet it is to be thought, that it grew up, as other errors, by little and little. And S. Augustine in his book, De cura pro mortuis agenda, wearieth himself, and in the end can define nothing, in certain, How the Saints in heaven should hear the prayers of men on earth. 
Pur. 315.316.317.  Although he can not define, How, yet nevertheless (saith D. Allen) he nothing doubteth but intercession may profitably be made to them, and that also for the deceased.] Whereunto Fulke saith again: Augustine in his book De cura pro mortuis agenda, is full of doubts, that he knoweth not himself what to determine, but that he will hold the common opinions received in his time. And beneath: M. Allen affirmeth, that S. Augustine never doubteth, but intercession may be made unto them for the dead: whosoever will take the pains to read the treatise, de cura pro mortuis agenda, shall find nothing else but doubts and questions of that matter. So he saith, not marking what himself there citeth out of that book, 
August. de ●ur. cap. 16.  to wit, where S. Augustine concludeth the whole matter in the end, and saith: [Ista questio vires intelligentiae meae vincit, quemadmodum opitulantur Martyres ijs, quos per eos Certum est opitulari: This question passeth the strength of mine understanding, how the Martyrs help them, whom it is certain to be helped of them.] Certum est, saith S. Augustine, and Fulke allegeth it, and even so Englisheth it, it is certain: and yet, only because he can not define, How, as to this day also it remaineth a very hard question, he sticketh not again to say there immediately, These places and the whole discourse of that book, doth prove, that although Augustine were willing to maintain the superstition that was not thoroughly confirmed in his time, about Burials and Invocation of saints, yet he hath nothing of certainty, etc. At least wise, this declareth that S. Ambrose and S. Augustine are joined of him with S. Jerome in that error, 
Hier. li. 2. con. Vigil.  and not with Vigilantius amongst those many godly and learned Bishops of that time, of whom also he hath no author, so to count them. by S. Jerome it appeareth that they were very few ungodly and unlearned, and against all the three Patriarchal Churches, of the East, of Egypt, and of the See Apostolic, in that they took part with Vigilantius, and so with iovinianus condemned by the authority of the Roman Church. And so much of the ancient true Churches erring in Invocation of saints.   

iij. As touching jovinian: of fasting, of Virginities merit, of V●●aries marriage.  
Now to add more likewise of their erring in condemning of jovinian, D. Allens words are these: [iovinianus taught the contempt of Christian fasts: matched marriage with holy maidenhood, 
Pur. 11.13.  and afterward (to the great wonder of all the Church) persuaded certain religious women in Rome to forsake their first faith, 
Hier. con. iovi. li. 2.  and marry to their damnation: for which plain supporting of undoubted wickedness, S. Jerome calleth them often, Christian Epicures, boulsterers of sin, and doctors of lust and lechery. Nevertheless the force of God's grace, which was great in the spring of our Religion, (the sin of the world not yet ripe for such open show of licentious life) speedily repressed that wicked attempt. for as S. Augustine declareth, it was so clear a falsehood, that it never grew to deceive any one of all the Clergy.] Fulkes answer hereunto is no more but this: If jovinian were so great an heretic, as you make him, yet he himself (as you show after out of Augustine) offended not in that which he persuaded others to do. He meaneth that place when D. Allen somewhat after speaketh of these new Superintendentes and ministers, and saith, that [they much exeede iovinianus, 
Pur. 17.22.  who (as Augustine reporteth of him) being a Monk, maintained the marriage of Votaries: but yet for divers inconveniences, himself for all that would not be married. 
August. ad quod. haer. 28.  And there to S. Augustine by name he saith nothing, but turneth his talk to D. Allen, demanding of him thus: Where learned you but of the devil himself, to command abstinence from meats and marriage for Religion's sake, to some men at all times, and to all men at some times? If for these and for an hundredth such, you can show no better warrant, than the terms of your fathers, 
A good child.  the practice of your elders, or the authority of mortal men, the curse of God pronounced by Esay, against them that call evil good, or good evil, must needs be turned over unto you. With the same boldness in an other place, where D. Allen had given this observation [You shall not lightly hear an heretic that denieth praying to saints, 
Pur. 4●1 402.  or holdeth with open breach of holy vows, allege iovinianus or Vigilantius. But they will travail to writhe, with plain injury to the author, some sentence out of Augustine, or Ambrose, or some other, that by their whole life and practice open them selves to the world to believe the contrary.] He saith thereunto. M. Allen giveth a special note, that we name not jovinian or Vigilantius, but rather hang upon some sentence of Augustine or Ambrose, and thinketh we are ashamed of the other. But we neither boast upon Augustine, nor Ambrose, when they descent from (our) doctrine: neither are ashamed of Vigilantius nor Berengarius, when they agree therewith.   

iiij. As touching Ceremonies.  
Likewise of their erring in Ceremonies, and such other traditions, this he saith more, besides that which I have already reported: 
Pur. 256  Their time (he speaketh of Gregory Nissen, and Athanasius the great) had divers errors and superstitious Ceremonies. Again, 
Ar. 91.  If the Church had not approved many unprofitable and hurtful usages among the people in S. Augustine's time, what need had he to complain, that many of God his commandments were little regarded, and man's presumptions so highly esteemed? 
See the answer. cap. 6. pag.  [Sed hoc nimis doleo, etc. But herewith I am to much grieved, that many things which in God his book are most wholesomely commanded, are less regarded: and all things are so full of so many presumptions, that he is more grievously reproved, which in his Vtas hath touched the earth with his bare foot, than he that hath buried his mind in drunkenness:] So far out of S. Augustine. Therefore if it be an unprofitable and hurtful usage, to prefer man's traditions before God his commandments, the Church in S. Augustine's time approved an unprofitable and hurtful usage. Furthermore if the Church can not approve an unprofitable or hurtful usage, wherefore are so many Ceremonies, as were approved in S. Augustine and S. Ambrose's times, abrogated and disannulled, either because they were unprofitable, 
Pur. 391. Tert. de coro. mil.  or else hurtful? Again where D. Allen saith: [They confess Tertullian. 1300. years ago to have practised oblations for the dead. And ask him where he had it (for surely he invented it not himself) and he appointeth us to his forefathers: He nameth the Apostles for the authors and founders thereof, as of many other things, which he there reckoneth beside, that were generally received, and now be of heretics likewise condemned. 
Pu. 400 393.264 ] He answereth: Tertullian fathered manifest fables upon the institution of Christ and the Apostles, as you yourself 
* Infra- cap. 6. pag.  can not deny, if you have any conscience at all. As, On the Sunday and between Easter and Whitsuntide not to fast or pray upon our knees. Also, To cross ourselves in the forehead at all things whatsoever we do. Also, To give to them that are newly baptized, a temper of milk and honey: and from the day of their Baptism, forbidden daily washing all the week after.   

v. As touching Purgatory and Praying for the dead.  
But for Purgatory and Praying for the dead, because his whole book is of that matter, he is most profuse in charging that ancient true Church both fathers and people thereof: and therefore I must stand the longer hereabout, specially because the Reader shall see therein as in a notable example, to what shameful confessions against themselves they are driven, whensoever they take in hand to answer thoroughly to any learned Catholic that hath thoroughly written of any controversy. And first I will show what he saith of particular Doctors and their particular times: secondly, of the whole Church in some of those times: thirdly, of the glorious original that they refer it unto: and lastly, of the shameful original or head that he referreth it unto, and them also for it.  

j What he saith of particular Doctors, and their particular times, for it.  
And for the first to begin allow and so go upward: 
Pur. 158.  Bernard (saith he) is a very late writer, and therefore his authority with us is of small account in such cases, as he followeth the common error of his time. I take this in the way, without our compass, yet not without good cause, that conferring the times both within and without those first .600. years, thou mayst behold how he chargeth both a like.  
Well then, to come now into our compass, 
Pur. 166.  of S. Gregory thus he saith: When the proof cometh, you leap but 600. years from Christ to Gregory's Dialogues: from which time I will not deny but you may have great store of such stuff. And not afore that time likewise?  
Theodoret was an .100. years before S. Gregory: 
Pur. 123.  and what of him and his time? Oecumenius and Theodoretus (saith he) were writers about that time, when corruption of doctrine had greatly prevailed. Again before that time, from the year .430. up to .360. much about one time these did flourish, Augustine, 
See M. Rishtons table.  Ambrose, Jerome, Paulinus, Efrem, chrysostom, Basil, and Epiphanius. And what of them and their time? I have already rehearsed what he saith of S. Augustine upon his book De cura, 
Pur. 315.317.  that he would hold the common opinions received in his time, and that he was willing to maintain the superstition that was not thoroughly confirmed in his time. 
349.  As again: If he had diligently examined the Common error of his time, of prayer for the dead, he would not so blindly have defended it, as he doth in that book De cura pro mortuis agenda, and else where. And again: In celebration of the Sacrament, 
326.  the superstitious error of that time allowed prayers for the dead generally, and special remembrance of some in the prayers, as of Monica & Patritius the parents of S. Augustine. 
78.  Again: But Augustine speaketh of the amending fire in the place alleged by M. Allen. He doth so in deed: but Augustine had no ground of that fire, but in the common error of his time. 
161.  And again: Concerning Augustine, that error of Purgatory was somewhat rifely budded up in his time. Then of Paulinus: 
322.  Purgatory in those days was but even a breeding, and yet not thoroughly shaped out of prayers for the dead, and such other superstitious ceremonies as were used about the departed. How handsomely he agreeth here with himself, I dissemble till 
* Contr. 46.47.  the 11. Chapter. Now of Ambrose and others: Ambrose in deed alloweth prayer for the dead, as it was a Common error in his time. 
Pur. 320 262.  Again: But of memories of the dead, and prayers for the dead also, we will not strive, but that they were used before the times of Beda, Ephraim, & Ambrose. Moreover, chrysostom and jeronym allowed prayers for the dead. 
194. 370.  Then of Epiphanius: Because the old Liturgies used to make memory of all sorts of men that were dead in Christ, he expoundeth it according to the error of his time, that this memory was a prayer for the sinners: for the just, as patriarchs, Prophets, etc., a signification that they were inferior to Christ. a simple cause why they should be remembered: but this shift he is driven unto. So S. Augustins' exposition of the like practice, 
279.280 August. euc. 110. & ad dull. q. 4.  saying: [When the sacrifices either of the Altar or of any kind of Alms, be offered for all men departed and baptised: for the very good, they are Gratiarum actiones, thanks giving: for them that be not very evil, they are Propitiationes, procurements of mercy: for the very evil, although they be no succour to them being dead, yet they are certain comforts to the living.] He condemneth it likewise in these words: These matters stand all upon a false supposition, that any prayers are available for the dead. which when it can not be proved, it is in vain to show who taketh profit by them, who not. And so much of that time, yea and of more than that time, where he said, before the times of Efrem and Ambrose.  
Let us now ascend to Constantinus Magnus his time, who was the first full Christian Emperor, and began his reign soon after the year .300. 
Pur. 313.  In the burial of Constantinus (saith he) there is mention of prayer for his soul, according to the error of the time, which was 
* Enough for any Christian man.  the time even of the first Nicen Council also, and he buried in the Greek Church at Constantinople.  
Long afore that again about the year .200. flourished Tertullian and Origines, of that time so he saith, after a certain saying of origen's alleged: By this place it is manifest, 
Pu. 249.  that Origen (whom notwithstanding here a little after we shall have for the founder of Purgatory) and the East Church in his time acknowledged no Purgatory pains. Again: This one testimony of Origen shall testify, what the judgement of the Greek Church was concerning Purgatory and prayers for the dead, from the Apostles time unto his days. 
Pag.  To origen's place I must answer in the ninth Chapter: but now do you say on: I wot well superstition in the Latin Church was somewhat forwards, in as much as there was the seat of Antichrist appointed to be set up. Where by the way may be noted his 
For the xii Chapter.  ignorance, being the foundation of his malice, that he knoweth not, all the old heresies to have sprung of the Greeks (whereupon also were holden in the Greek Church those first four general Counsels against them) and not of the Latins, but contrawise the Roman Church specially to be commended of the fathers, 
Vinc. Lir. cap. ix. Ruf. in expo. Symb▪ num. iii.  For maintaining always most earnestly susceptae semel Religionis integritatem, the purity of Religion which it first received, neque heresis ulla illic sumpsit exordium, and that no heresy did spring there. But to our matter, that forwardness in the Latin Church he confesseth, I think in respect of Tertullian, whose manifest testimonies he could not otherwise shift him of, and therefore of him somewhere he saith thus: I deny that any of the ancient Fathers in Christ his time, or Scholars to his Apostles, 
Pu. 435.  or within one or two hundredth years after Christ (except one that had it of Montanus the heretic, as he had more things beside) in any one word maintained your cause, for Purgatory or Prayers for the dead. Marry, Montanus of whom Tertullian received his heresy, had in all points the opinion of the Papists. Again, I will not deny but you have much dross and drags of the later sort of Doctors, 
Pur. 247.  and the later, the fuller of dross. But bring me any word out of any that did write within one .100. years after Christ, that alloweth prayer or alms for the dead. Where (as we see) by the later sort of Doctors, he showeth himself to mean such as were without one .100. years after Christ. But of that one .100. years also, together with Tertullian, and the Fathers afore him up unto Christ, we shall have occasion to say more anon in our third Article.  
Having therefore thus showed in this first Article, how he chargeth the true confessed Fathers of the true confessed Church with this error (as which he summeth up together in an other place, 
Pur. 458.  and saith: The error was continued from a corrupt state of the Church of Christ, unto a plain departing away into the Church of Antichrist.) Let us now see, how he chargeth the same whole true Church for some time with the same, and that the more briefly, because we have now so often hard him say of so many times, that it was the common error of that time and that time.   

ij. What he saith of the whole Church in some of those times.  

Pur. 382.  Thus he saith in one place: If we be asked, how we can shift ourselves against the general practice of God's Church, for all popish assertions, and namely this of praying for the dead: We answer, that we deny the practice to be general, because we find it 
Is nothing general, but that which you find in them?  not in the most ancient writers, that lived within an hundredth years and more, after the time of Christ. But what say you to the later practice, which for places than was general, though for times you count it particular? And to the particular practice of later times, we answer, that it is not sufficient to control the ancient doctrine and primer practise. Again in an other place: 
370.  The same order (that was before Epiphanius) and error (that was in Epiphanius time) do all the later Liturgies follow (and therefore, say I, all the later bishops and Priests, and people, because they used those Liturgies) making memory and prayers for all them that are departed in the faith. What say you then to that practice so general? In the memory of all departed, they follow the old order: in praying for all, they follow the later error, which had changed the sacrifice of thanks giving into the sacrifice of prayer. But more of the old Liturgies now in the third Article, which must be of the original that the Fathers referred this their practice unto.   

iij. To what origin he confesseth the Doctors to refer it, to wit, unto Scripture, and Tradition of the Apostles.  
And here first, for perspicuity, I remember to the Reader, what S. Augustine saith of fasting: 
August ●pist. 86. Casul.  [In the Scriptures of the new Testament, Video praeceptum esse jeiunium, I see that fasting is commanded: But what days we must keep fast, Non invenio in illis literis evidenter praeceptum, I find not in those scriptures evidently commanded.] And yet the fast of forty days before Easter, and some others, both he & many more of the Fathers do say to be 
Au. in p● 110. & e● 119. cap Hie● ep● Marcel. Monta●  commended unto us in the Scripture of the new Testament: but specially that it cometh expressly unto us of the 
Au. in p● 110. & e● 119. cap Hie● ep● Marcel. Monta●  Apostles tradition without Scripture. The like they say of prayer for the dead, that it is expressly found in the holy Scripture: But the certain times that it is solemnly practised as upon the burial day, the third, seventh, thirteth, fourteth, years day, and also in a certain special prayer of the holy Mass: are (they say) either all or some of them, of the Apostles plain Tradition, though also commanded to us out of Scripture. So say the Fathers: and for their so saying, let us now see what this man saith of them. And to omit, (because it requireth a longer treaty) that he maketh in effect no less than heretics, of S. Augustine with others, 
Infr ca ● Pur. 214  for avouching sacrifice for the dead, out of the book of Maccabées as out of Canonical scripture: Gregory, Bernard, & Bede, (whom D. Allen allegeth upon the place of Matthew. 12) are of opinion, 
Pur. 19 ● Gre. 4.19. Ber. Ser. in Cant Bed. in Mar. 3.  saith Fulke, that sins not remitted in this world, may be remitted in the world to come. But how happeneth it, that chrysostom and jeronym, which both interpreted that place, could gather no such matter, although they otherwise allowed Prayer for the dead? the reason must needs be, because the error of Purgatory growing so much the stronger, as it were nearer to the full revelation of Antichrist, Gregory and Bede sought not the true meaning of Christ in this Scripture, but the confirmation of their plausible error. Then S. chrysostom belike will please him: 
Pur. 251.247. Chris. ho. ●4. in. 1. cor. 15. Such pity may bring you into the pit of hell. Pur. 237.  but hear I pray you, out of an other place: I deny not but that chrysostom doth allege this example (of job sacrificing for his children. Cap. 1.) for prayers to profit the dead. What shall we say? Those good men in that declining state of the Church to superstition, being destitute of the clear testimonies of Scripture, to maintain those plausible errors, are driven to such simple shifts to uphold them, as it is great pity to see. Again, But where learned chrysostom, that prayers and alms had any comfort in them for the dead? surely he allegeth Scripture, but he apply it madly, and yet he often apply it to the same purpose. 
Pur. 226. Amb. de. obit. Theod.  Alas good man. Likewise, Ambrose commendeth Honorius (the young Emperor) for solemnizing the funerals of Theodosius (his father) by the space of .40. days after the example of joseph. Genesis .50. such superstition crept into the Church first by emulation of the Pagans, and after seeking for colourable confirmation in the examples of the patriarchs. 
Pur. 363.  Again, Those Doctors that would seek confirmation of prayer and oblation for the dead in the Scriptures, as chrysostom and such like, do manifestly wrest them to their purpose. I do here no more but note that he chargeth them whom he confesseth to have been of the true Church, even so as he chargeth us: But what Scriptures, and how substantially they alleged, I must reserve to 
* See ca 13.  an other place: As that also which 
* See cap. 9 pag.  he grateth upon so often out of Tertullian, as if he should confess, that prayer and oblation for the dead is not taken at all out of the Scriptures: Whereas in deed he doth not so say, but only of the solemn times of such oblation, in such manner as I alleged a little before out of S. Augustine concerning fasting and fasting days. The offering anima die, upon the years myndday for the dead, and the solemn memory of them in the Canon of the Mass, these things Tertullian and others ascribe to the Apostles traditions, and not to precept of the Scripture.  
And now for making it such a tradition, what saith Fulke again of them? 
Pur. 39●.  Think you, that prayers for the dead came from the Apostles because Tertullian saith so? And a little after: If Tertullian had no ground of his saying when he affirmed that oblations for the dead came from the Apostles, what ground can Augustine have which was 200. years further from the Apostles time than he? And again: Where chrysostom saith, 
Pur. 303.  It was agreed by the Apostles, that in the celebration of the holy mysteries, a remembrance should be made of them that be departed, for they right well knew great profit to arise thereupon unto them: he must pardon us of crediting him. It is no marvel now after this to see him feign to deny the 
See cap. 13.  most certain works of the Apostles Scholars, Clemens Romanus, & Dionysius Areopagita, witnessing the same tradition, and to say, that we have them but of some counterfeiting knave that could not otherwise maintain his heresy to be old, 
Pur. 268. The modesty of the man towards the old writers.  but by falsifying and counterfeiting anew, that which never was in the old writers heads. Finally unless he make the like counterfeiting knave of S. chrysostom also, he may see by this testimony of his, that he had no cause for this point to charge him or any other after him with such a change of the old Liturgies, as he doth in many places, saying: But be it that chrysostom & Basil did write these Liturgies, 
Pur. 356. Iten. 360.371.  the oldest Fathers that can be given them: I would know what Liturgies they had in those Churches, before chrysostom and Basil devised those forms that are said to be theirs. If you would in deed know it, and namely for this point about the dead, chrysostom himself, as also Augustine, Epiphanius, Tertullian, and others alleged by D. Allen, hath told you, that it was all one and the same, afore and after. It followeth in him: And why chrysostom, basil, Gregory, or any other that prescribed new forms of service, were not content with the old forms that were used in their Churches before their days: 
* See his boldness.  undoubtedly because they were too simple for their curiosity, too sincere for their superstition, savouring of the ancient truth, not favouring their lately received errors. And a little after: The authors of these Liturgies thought to confirm it by public authority, which was before but a blind error without a head. I shall answer this why of yours in the sixth Chapter, where I must answer for these Fathers.   

iiij. He contrariwise feareth not nor basheth not to say, they had it from the devil and his limbs.  
Now let us come to the fourth and last article, to see him so far confronting those Fathers which have thus fathered this matter upon the Apostles partly their writings, partly their tradition, that he clean contrary fathereth it upon the devil himself & sundry limbs of his, saying boldly that thence the holy Fathers had it. 
Ar. 39  It is certain (saith he) that prayer for the dead was first planted by the devil, as were other abuses: and because it hath a great pretence of charity, deceived simple men the sooner. 
Pur. 386.  And with more particularity in an other place: First the devil suggested superstitious devotion into the Gentiles: by perverse emulation of whom, judas Machabaeus might be deceived. And his fact gave occasion to the ignorant people of error: And their ignorance first winked at, because it had a show of piety, confirmed by custom, might at length, (
Pur. 436.  for none of the ancient Fathers within four hundred years was wholly of your error) be allowed of Augustine and others, who never weighed the matter by Scriptures, but by the common practice. And this I think (saith he) is the right pedigree of prayers for the dead and Purgatory. And in an other place yet more particularly: 
Pur. 416. Pur. 152.266.386.410.  I have promised (saith he, and that very often, and therefore so much the more to be noted) to prove that the opinion of Purgatory had the same original that the most notable Heresies had. He beginneth that paragraph with these words: Now at the length cometh the author of this Heresy, by the testimony of Epiphanius and Augustine: whom D. Allen there allegeth, that Aerius an Arian was the first that denied prayers and oblations to profit the dead. Unto that Fulke goeth about there to answer, to quit Aerius, and to counteraccuse those Fathers and their fellows. Well then, Purgatory (saith he) had the same original that the most notable Heresies had. And what was that? Heresy was received from the devil by Philosophers and Gentiles. And how prove you that Purgatory was so received? Marry, all Philosophers which granted the Immortality of the soul, as Phythagoras, Empedocles, and Plato, assigned three places for the souls departed. And who else? Carpocrates was a great admirer of Philosophy. This Heretic learning out of Plato his Philosophy, that men's souls must be purified after their death, invented a kind of Purgatory out of the opinion of Pythagoras. Yet forward: Origen to much a Philosopher, was not content with Plato his purification, but he must bring in Plato's fire also. Is this all? afterward about S. Augustine's time, the name of Purgatory was first invented, by some mediators and conciliators of origen's error with the erroneous practice of the Church. Here lo we have the third place, the purification, the fire, and the name: We lack now but the relieving of the Souls there. For that he saith: The Heracleonites would redeem their dead after a new manner, namely by oil, balm, water, and Invocation said over their heads in the Hebrew tongue. But (at one stroke to strike us stark dead) Montanus had in all points the opinion of the Papists. First that the patriarchs before Christ's coming were in hell: That Abraham's bosom was in hell, or in the lower parts: That only Martyrs and perfect men are privileged of God to go to Paradise: That all small offences must be punished after this life, where the prison is, and the uttermost farthing to be paid. Then for prayers a little after: And therefore (saith he) it is not otherwise to be thought, but that the Montanistes upon the ground of this opinion, not content with the oblations for the dead (which the Church then had by perverse emulation of the Gentiles, 
Oblations of thanks giving also, are heathenish.  and yet were but oblations of thanks giving) they added also prayers for the spirits of them that were dead, whereof Tertullian maketh mention. And that you may not doubt whether he charge us alone, or also the ancient Fathers, with all this, go to his words alleged out of the same place in this Chapter by me afore, beginning thus: And this was a great corruption of those ancient times, that if the Gentiles or Heretics had any thing that seemed to have a show of piety, or charity, they would draw it into use, etc. After all this he concludeth in the end, saying: Wherefore it is left that Montanus and his fellows were the first that taught prayers for the dead to be profitable. And again: Therefore Aërius was not the first that held our opinion: but Montanus before him was the first that held your opinion thoroughly. Marry you have played the man in deed, and performed (I trow) every jot of the vaunting promise that you made a little before, when you said: 
Pur. 410.  That we can not read out of the word of God, we shall hear of Purgatory, among the Pagans, Carpocratians, Heracleonites, and Montanistes, of whose heresies and pestilent practices, the whore of Babylon (that is as your own mouth hath here confessed, the Church at the farthest by S. Augustine's time) hath patched up her Purgatory and sacrifices for the dead, as by and by I shall declare.  
Thus I have showed, how he noteth the true Church for so many particular errors of ours, as about Ceremonies, about the Cross, about the name of Sacrifice, about Fastingdayes, and abstinence from certain meats, about Sole life of the Clergy, and vow of virginity, about merit of the same & of abstinence, about invocation of Saints, and worshipping of their Relics, about Purgatory, and relief of the souls in Purgatory: and that they were so much addicted thereunto, that they counted the contraries to be Heresies, and being opposite to the holy Scriptures, and Traditions of the Apostles.    

vj. As touching the Pope's primacy.  
To all these errors I will yet add one more, which he maketh so much of, that he ascribeth the Apostasy of the Church by him imagined, to the same. Which, for all that, I will here show to be imputed by him also to the true Church that in the second Chapter we heard him to confess. It consisteth in the matter of the Pope's Superiority. To begin therefore with him an high & come downward along the true Church until it 
And yet no man then in the world that went out from the Pope. Ar. 47. Ar. 36.  vanished quite away forsooth upon a sudden by force of a sum of money given & taken of Bonifacius the third and Phocas the Emperor, thus he hath first of Pope Victor: Victor went about to usurp authority over other Churches. And again: Victor Bishop of Rome about the year of our Lord 200. passed the bounds of his authority, in excommunicating of all the Churches of Asia. afterward he noteth Cornelius and Stephanus Bishops of Rome for the like, in S. Cyprians time for meddling with Africa, Asia, and Spain. Furthermore, Anastasius, Innocentius, Zozimus, Bonifacius, Bishops of Rome all in a row, challenged prerogative over the Bishops in Aphrica, by forging of a false Canon of the Nicene Council. And again: Celestinus Bishop of Rome dealt hardly with the novatians. And there in the end: By these examples it is plain, that the mystery of iniquity began to work (or as he spoke there a little before, The Pope's authority first began to advance itself) in Victor, Cornelius, Stephanus, Anastatius, Innocentius, Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Caelestinus. And in an other place of some of them again: 
Pur. 255.  The Nicen Council the first and the best, was corrupted with counterfected Canons by the Bishops of Rome, to maintain their usurped authority, in the days of S. Augustine. And in the next Chapter we shall hear him call the Church in Innocentius his time, 
Pur. 148.  the company which hath the Pope for their head, Item, the Pope and all them that take his part. Finally to come to S. Gregory's time: where D. Allen saith thus: [So if thou would know whether that place that our adversaries impudently do allege out of Gregory the great, against the Sovereignty of the See of Rome, 
Pur. 305.310.194.  was in deed written for their seditious purpose: behold the practice of the same father, and thou shalt find himself exercise jurisdiction, at the very same time when he wrote it, in all Provinces Christianed throughout the world: both by excommunication of Bishops that governed not well, by often citation of persons in extreme provinces, by many appeals made unto him, by continual legacies to other Nations, sent either to convert them to the Faith, or to govern them in their doubtful affairs, and by all other exercise of spiritual jurisdiction, etc.] He in his answer is driven to say to this: The practice of Gregory although it were much more modest then of his Successors, yet can it not be excused, but it was contrary to his doctrine whereby he reproveth an other (to wit the Bishop of Constantinople) in that he was not altogether clear himself. As though either he or any his successor used the style of universal Bishop, and not all the clean contrary, [servus servorum Dei, Servant to God's servants.]  
All this I have so copiously alleged out of him (though not so copiously as I might) for these three purposes: First that the Reader might clearly see, that in so many points he confesseth himself and his fellow protestants to dissent from them whom he confesseth to have been of the true Church: Secondly, that again he confesseth us in the same points to agree with the same: Thirdly therefore and especially, that he hath not for these points (and so neither for such as depend of these) just cause to deny us the true Church, 
Note well whosoever seek the Church.  which he so granteth to them that hold the same points, and that upon the same grounds, and as earnestly, or (if he will) even as obstinately, as we do now, condemning their adversaries therein of heresy, and so consequently of separation from the true Church, howsoever themselves rather are charged by him to have received of older heretics their opinions: but that contrariwise we are for so much to be more excused than they, as we do err by their authority and the authority of their Successors after them to this time, no greater authority in the mean time clearly ruling over the case to the contrary part, but rather the more it is scanned, the more continully it appeareth, that their part is still to be followed, and the contrary part still to be condemned and accursed.     

¶ The fourth Chapter. That he chargeth the said Primitive true Church with sundry errors, wherewith he neither doth, nor will, nor can charge us.  
HEre I have to present him with an other reason, why he should grant unto us the true Church, rather than to the old Fathers, for so much as he will confess us to be free from divers errors, that he chargeth them withal: most of them also being so great and so gross, that none of the errors that he imputeth to us, can be thought comparable, by the judgement of any man that is any whit indifferent, and not altogether blinded with an huge beam of partiality. And let the Reader lay this to the last Chapter before, and confer all diligently together: That he confesseth (I say) that there may be a Company which erreth, not only some principal members, but also the whole body of it, and which erreth obstinately, and moreover which erreth the grossest errors that can be, and them in no small number: and yet the same company may be the true Church, and in deed also hath been the true Church: so that no piece of this, nor all this together will serve him (him I say) to prove, our company not to be the true Church. And then afterward let it be considered, what better, or what other stuff he hath to prove the same: and if he have any such, either better, or other than this, refuse (a God's name) to be of our Church, and seek after him thy salvation where else thou canst find it.  
Well then, to come to those other errors that were (as he saith) the Primitive Churches, and are not ours, and to begin at the top: 
Ar. 35.  D. Allen [requireth the Protestants to declare, when the true Church decayed.] To this: I answer (saith Fulke) First, Even in the Apostles time there arose many heresies which did not a little trouble the Church. secondly: But immediately after the Apostles time (while the Fathers of the Church were earnestly occupied in resisting of horrible heresies) by the craft of Satan, some errors and abuses crept into the true Church of Christ: which at the first, because they were small, and men occupied in greater matters, were either not espied, or not regarded. And how declareth he this? justinus Martyr was in this error that the Angels lusted after women, and therefore were turned into devils. What more? Irenaeus affirmeth that our Saviour Christ lived here .50. years. And what more? Also both he and Papias the Disciple of S. john held this error, that Christ should reign a thousand years after the Resurrection here in flesh. And what of all this? Whereby it is manifest, seeing these ancient Fathers and pillars of the Church, were thus stained with errors, that the Church in their time could not be free from the same. Again, It seemeth also, that the Church in justinus his time was in some error about Second marriages and divorcements. After all which he concludeth in the end: And so it is evident, that the true Church decayed immediately after the Apostles time. Where the diligent Reader marketh, that he useth, decaying and erring, indifferently one for the other. As for that which he sayeth there, of abuses and corruptions entered into the Church of Christ as a preparative to the Religion of the Papists, it belonged to the last Chapter, and therefore I noted it there. 
Supra pag.  And so much of the Apostles time, and also of the time immediately after the Apostles. Let us proceed and come down lower: Cyprians time was such a time (saith he) as Cyprian and all the Bishops of Africa decreed in Council, 
Pur. 287.  that those which were baptized by heretics, should be baptized again. And therefore it was no such time, but that he and all his fellows might and did err, in some opinions, contrary to the truth of God's word. And lower again, Under the Emperors, 
Ar. 15.  Constantius, Constans, and Valence, the true Church was greatly infected with the heresy of Arius: what time also Liberius Bishop of Rome was infected with the same heresy. Strait after that time did Saint Jerome flourish, whom amongst others in the second Chapter he confessed to be a member of the true Church: And him he chargeth not only, 
Supra. pag.  as I alleged in the last Chapter, that he was almost fallen into the heresy of Tertullian in condemning Second marriages: 
Pur. 419. Ar. 46.  But also thus in an other place: Consider what perilous assertions these be: that the Lamb is every where: and that the Martyrs are every where: this is to destroy the humanity of Christ, and to give divinity unto the Martyrs. I doubt not but Saint jeronym, if he had quietly considered these absurdities, 
He lacked but such a monitor.  would have revoked them as erroneous and heretical: but while he rather followed affection then judgement, you may see how he was deceived. At the same time was the third Council of Carthage, and Saint Augustine one of the Bishops thereof. 
Ar. 89.  It he chargeth thus: The Council of Carthage the third, Cap. 23. determined, that all prayers at the Altar should be directed only to the Father, and not to the Son, or the holy Ghost. Whether this be an error, to define, That it is unlawful to pray to God the Son, and God the holy Ghost, let every man judge. And to put more weight to this his accusation, he addeth: But you will except that this was a provincial Synod, and not a General Council. But I answer you, it hath the authority of a general Council, because it was confirmed in the sixth general Council holden at Constantinople in Trullo.  
But of all others most insolently he insulteth and triumpheth against the ancient Church, for ministering the blessed Sacrament to Infants. 
Ar. 87.  I will prove unto you (saith he) that the Church of Rome hath falsely interpreted divers sentences of Scripture: and therefore by that which she hath done, it can not be doubted but that she may do it. One than for example: S. Augustine was in this error, that he thought Infants must receive the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, under pain of damnation: and was deceived by false interpretation of this Scripture, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, & drink his blood. etc. joh. 6. This error and false interpretation he affimeth to be common to all the Western Church, and to Pope Innocent himself. Contra duas Epist. Pelag. ad Bonifacium li. 2. cap. 4. & contra julianum li. 1. cap. 2. Again in an other place where D. Allen admonished his Reader, saying: [Pose M. jewel, where he had, 
Pur. 145.148.  that the Church of God might err.] Behold, I pray you, the confidence of this man in his answer thereunto. Whatsoever M. jewel hath affirmed against the Papists, he hath so substantially and learnedly defended, that 
For many P●testants nee● no other bo● to become C●●tholikes.  he need not to have any other man to answer for him. Therefore if it were not to choke M. Allen in his own collar, I would travel no further in this question. How then doth he strangle the man? The Church (you say) can not err: and that company is the Church which hath the Pope for their head. Very true, both the one and the other. If therefore it can be proue●, that the Pope and all they that take his part have erred, it is sufficiently showed, that the Church may err. Say then: S. Augustine was in this error (as you will not deny) that the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ was to be ministered to Infants: But of the same opinion he affirmeth that Innocentius Bishop of Rome, and all the Church in his time was: Therefore the Pope and all the Church did err. Read Augustine contra jul. li. 1. cap. 2. Whether he saith of Innocentius, Qui denique paruulos definivit, nisi manduc auerin● carnem filii hominis, vitam prorsus habere non posse, Which hath defined, that Infants, except they eat the flesh of the son of man, can have no life at all in them. And by eating the flesh of the son of man, he meaneth eating the sacrament of his flesh and blood, as it is evident to them that will bestow the reading of Augustine's discourse in that place. 
Pur. 309.  Again in an other place. And by the way note here, one practice of a notable error in Augustine's time, that the Sacrament of the Lords supper was given to children, which witted not what it meant, contrary to the word of God, who requireth men to examine themselves before they receive it. Wherefore if any other practice were in his time, or allowed by him, contrary to God's word, we are no more bound unto it, then unto this, which even the Papists themselves 
Or else you can not ●e●l.  will confess to be erroneous. Yea he is not afraid to prefer the very Pelagians in this point before all God's Church of that time, 
Pur. 390.  saying: In S. Augustine's days (of whose time the history of the Church is 
By what Historiographa●?  largely set forth unto us) who preached or writ against that error, which he and Innocentius Bishop of Rome, and all the Church (as he confessed) did hold, that Infants must receive the holy Communion or else they should be damned? who preached against this error, except perhaps the Pelagians that were horrible heretics. Again: Why was it revealed to the Pelagians, 
Pur. 422.  that Infants might be saved without the participation of the sacrament of Christ's body and blood, rather than unto S. Austin, Innocentius Bishop of Rome, and (as Augustine saith) and the Catholic Fathers of that time? which thought it was as necessary for them to receive the Communion, as to be baptised. The revealing of his ignorant sauciness herein, I reserve to the sixth Chapter. Here I do no more but note what errors he layeth to the true Church's charge, which been these that you have heard.   

¶ The fift Chapter. What reason he rendereth▪ why they in those ancient times had the true Church, notwithstanding these their errors.  
THus have we heard of him, that the true Church may remain the true Church although it err, and that it hath erred in many of the same articles wherein we do now err, and moreover in many other articles beside wherein we do not err, whereof it followeth plainly, that neither our erring, nor these our errors, no nor any other our errors, are alone sufficient for him to deprive us of the true Church.  
And now, not being able to deprive us of the true Church, if any man do yet think, that for all that he is not constrained to grant to us the true Church, let the same man in this Chapter consider, what reason he yieldeth why our Fathers, notwithstanding their foresaid errors, had the true Church: and he shall most evidently perceive, that by the same reason we, notwithstanding our errors, have likewise the true Church.  
He nameth somewhere, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, 
Ar. 61.  Epiphanius, Hilarius, Chrysostomus, Hieronymus, Ambrose, Augustinus, etc. and saith of them as followeth: But for as much as they hold the foundation, that is Christ, though they have divers errors and superstitions, they were doubtless, the members of the true Church of Christ. 
Pur. 336  In an other place having said that in S. Augustine's time, they used unprofitable prayers for the dead, and many other superstitions, he addeth: neither doth it follow that all that taught or believed those errors, so long as they builded upon Christ the only foundation, have perished. Again: 
Ar. 74.  We take not upon us to meddle with God his judgements, whom he condemneth, or for what causes, further than the word of God teacheth us, namely that as many as have not believed in the only son of God, are condemned for their unbelief: other secret causes we remit to his secret counsel and knowledge. 
Pur. 34●  In so much that where D. Allen presseth this new found Clergy in our country, for usurping those Colleges & other ecclesiastical provisions against the wills of the first founders, who meant them to such as should pray for their souls, and not to such as should preach against the same: he answereth of them likewise & saith: Whether any meant to maintain preaching against Mass or prayers for their own souls, as we know not whether they did or no, so we count it not material, etc. and whether the builders of such places be saved or damned, it pertaineth not to us to judge, or to inquire. Again, where D. Allen had showed by example of S. Augustine, of his mother, and of others, that they offered prayers and the sacrifice of the Altar for the dead, 
Pur. 325 328.  and thereupon concludeth, saying: [Thus lo all these Fathers taught, thus they practised, thus they lived, thus they died: none was saved then but in this faith, let no man look to be saved in any other now.] Nay, saith Fulke, not so: For although they were in that time infected with some errors, yet was the faith of their salvation in the only foundation jesus Christ, 
Pur. 238.  etc. in the only mercy of God. Again: We confess that in Chrysostom's days the only foundation jesus Christ was taught, and the article of justification by the only mercy of God was preached: but yet we affirm that much straw, wood, and other impure matter was builded upon the foundation, which was a preparative to the kingdom of Antichrist which was not long after to be revealed. 
Pur. 287.  And in an other place, Cyprians time was no such time but that he and all his fellows, though they held the foundation of Christ, yet might, & did err in some opinions, contrary to the truth of God's word. And again: Cyprian and all the Bishops of Aphrica, were, notwithstanding their error (of Heretics baptism to be no baptism) in the unity of the church.  
In all these places he alludeth (although he never express it) to S. Paul's saying, 
1. Cor. 3.  that, The foundation is jesus Christ, and, if any man build upon this foundation, he shallbe saved, yea also though his building or work be wood or straw, such (to wit) as will waste away in the day of fire. Let us confer with it this saying, Matt. 7. He buildeth upon the Rock which heareth or believeth my sayings, 
Aug. in Ps. 103. cor. 3. & de fide & op. ca 16. Gala. 5.  and worketh them. S. Augustine expoundeth it most aptly in very many places, when he saith, that, Christ to be in the foundation, is, that he have the principal place in our heart, and nothing at all be preferred before him. Which is done, if he dwell in our hearts by a working faith: for, That faith which by love worketh, being laid in the foundation, suffereth none to perish. So that if we be either out of faith, or out of charity, then be we without this saving foundation: As are all they that either believe any one heresy, or break any one commandment by any mortal sin. For so saith S. Paul expressly of Heresies with all other works of the flesh, 
Gala. 5.  That they which do such things, shall not inherit the kingdom of God. For which purpose again three places are diligently to be conferred, in all which the first part of the sentence he changeth not at all, but the other part he varieth three ways, 
1. Cor. 7. Gala. 5. Gala. 6.  giving us plainly thereby his meaning: In Christ jesus (saith he) neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is aught, or can do aught, but a new man, but faith working by charity, but keeping of God's commandments. This is the truth. But now cometh Fulke with an other exposition, which first requireth not works of charity, or observation of the commandments, nor secondly also so much as fidem integram inviolatamque, a sound and uncorrupted faith: but only to hold this one article of faith, to believe in the only Son of God, and, in the only mercy of God. And if any man err about other articles, and that also so obstinately that he condemneth his adversaries for heretics, yet he holdeth the foundation, and by virtue of it shall be saved notwithstanding: and so did S. Augustine and those other Fathers, and therefore they were of the true Church, and are saved.  
How much more warily dealt your master Peter Martyr upon this place to the Corinthians, who seeing the absurdities hereof, 
Pet. Mar in. 1. Cor.  thought better to say that the Fathers in the agony of their death acknowledged their errors. Et non raro fit, etc. It happeneth often (saith he) that such as in their whole life time had not the gift to think a right of Religion, have it often given them at the last hour: to understand in the agony of death, that the superstitions and abuses to which afore they had yielded them selves, were both vain and also hurtful. Which thing I would not doubt to have happened to Bernard, Frauncise, Dominike, and many of the ancient Fathers: because living in the foundation, that is, in Christ, although they builded many abuses and very many superstitions, yet they might be saved: howbeit through fire, what time at the last hour they wrestled against death and the terrors of their sins, and in that wrestling acknowledged the vanity of their fancies.  
Thus you see how they are troubled to save them whom (no less than us) they should, but dare not to condemn: and while they labour so to do, they do it (specially Fulke) by such means, as no less serveth to save us. For who knoweth not, that we believe in the only Son of God, and in the only mercy of God? and that therefore we look not to be saved by our own works, that is to say, which we did without him, as when we were in Paganism, or in judaisme, or in Caluinisme, and any other heresy, or finally in any mortal sin, but only by his works, that is, by his Sacraments that of his great mercy he hath instituted for us, & the good deeds that of his great mercy he hath created in us, in Christ jesus? even as S. Paul saith: 
Tit. 3.  Not for any works of righteousness, that we did (before Baptism quae fecimus nos) but for his mercy he hath saved us, by Baptism per lanacrum generationis: that thou mayst see his mercy and his sacrament stand well together. 
Eph. 2.  And again: for we be his (new) creature, created in Christ jesus, in good works. And therefore afore we were in Christ jesus, we had no works to save us: but they are our works only in Christ jesus, that save us. For so the same S. Paul teacheth us (as I said afore) what it is, that in Christ jesus is of power to save us, to wit, our new creation in these good works, our faith working by charity, our keeping of God's commandments: so that again his mercy in Christ jesus, and his creature or good works in Christ jesus, stand well together. And even thus did also those old fathers believe of the Sacraments, & of good works, 
Supra. pag.  whom he confesseth notwithstanding to have believed in the only jesus Christ, & the only mercy of God: believing likewise the communion of prayers betwixt all that are in Christ jesus, 
Infra. pag.  either quick or dead, as himself likewise confessed of them in the .3. 
Supra. pag.  Chap. And therefore seeing they notwithstanding that, are confessed to have believed in the only son, & the only mercy of God, we no less for all that our belief, must be likewise confessed to believe the same only foundation, and so consequently to have likewise the true Church and salvation: be the impudent audacity of Fulke never so great, to say, that we build upon no foundation at all, and seek by all means to dig up the only true foundation of our faith jesus Christ, making him nothing better than a common person, except his bare name. Even as his friends and masters be altogether as lusty with the Fathers themselves, 
Flaccus Illyric. in clave Scripturae, part. i. in praef.  one of them saying of S. Jerome by name, that he was Et morbi humani & medici Christi ignarus, ignorant both of man's disease and of Christ the Physician. Therefore let him wrangle as much as he will, this is the plain case, every indifferent man doth see, all like both in us and in the Fathers, about his supposed foundation: if they held it, we hold it, if we hold it not, 
Infra. pag.  they held it not: and therefore both to be alike justified, or both alike condemned, as I shall have a place again in the .9. Chapter to declare further, when I answer to all that he allegeth up and down to prove that we agree not thoroughly with the Fathers in substance of doctrine.   

¶ The sixth Chapter. An answer first to all the foresaid errors wherewith he hath charged the Church of the first .600. years: and afterward likewise to all errors that he layeth to the Church of these later times.  
HItherto I have so proceeded in this my defence of our Church that now is, as supposing that both it & the ancient Church before it hath erred in manner as he chargeth it: and declaring that he must confess it to be the true Church still notwithstanding that it erreth now, as he confesseth it to have been the true Church afore, notwithstanding that it erred in many of the same articles, and also in sundry others, then. But now if I can further defend it, that for all his accusations, yet it hath not ever erred, neither in those former, nor in these later ages: 
Note well, you that seek for the Church.  then will the curable Reader (I hope) much more acknowledge, that it is most worthily to be sought unto and obeyed, and their Antisynagogue to be forsaken and abhorred: and that much more again, if moreover I defend it, that also it can not err. For then, seeing they confess, that theirs may err, it will follow thereof, that theirs is not the true Church. But that point I will reserve to the .8. and .9. Chapter, where I will answer the Scriptures and fathers that he any where allegeth to prove, that the true Church may err, here I will but maintain, that it hath not erred.  

Fulkes zeal in answering for calvin and others being in deed of his Church.  
And this to do I am moved specially by the truth of the matter itself, but secondarily also by example of this same Fulke. who though he say that their Church may err, yet can not his zeal abide to hear that it doth err: or rather he saith no more, but that the true Church may err, so, as where he may seem to speak of a true Church distinct from their Church now, to wit, of the Father's Church: But else when he speaketh expressly of their own Church that now is, as he holdeth always earnestly that it doth not err, so he never saith so much plainly, as that it may err: yea sometimes also in his zeal he breaketh out against the Fathers themselves at once and against us: as where D. Allen said: 
Pur. 369.371.  [One of them was so impudent, to say in an open book, that the Liturgies of the Fathers made all against the catholics.] And a little after: [If their Service like you so well, or at least better then S. Gregory's Mass: you might with more honesty have coped for any one of them, then have forged a new one of your own: which in deed is directly repugnant to all other; rites in the Christian world.] To this: I answer, saith Fulke, We have with more honesty reform our Liturgy according to the word of God, & example of the oldest Church, than Gregory, basil, chrysostom (if they were theirs) or whosoever were authors of those Liturgies did: leaving the ancient Liturgies that were used in the Church before their time, because they did not sufficiently express their errors & superstition, & forge them new of their own contrary to the word of God. And in another place first on the one side he accuseth S. Ambrose & the Church afore & in his time, 
Pur. 226.  saying, Such superstitions crept into the Church, by emulation of the Pagans. Then on the other side, of his own he saith: For avoiding of all which inconveniences, that have risen and may rise, 
The wise Church of Geneva.  by ceremonies practised at burials, the Church of Geneva very wisely & godly, useth no more ceremonies in burying their dead, then are convenient for the reverent laying up of the corpse. 
Pur. 412.  Again where D. Allen saith: [They be as saucy with God's Church, councils, and chief governors, as we be with the jackestrawes of Geneva.] See here, I pray you, the zeal of the man: You confess hereby yourself to be a saucy jacke. And he addeth, that the world can testify, that there is (passing) gravity and modesty in the lightest persons of all that Church. Again where D. Allen saith, 
Pur. 341.  [If all Ecclesiastical foundations should return to the founders again, because their wills are not fulfilled, that then perhaps this wived new Clergy might be driven to serve in a reformed French barn.] his zeal is so great that he can not hold, but, You jest (saith he) like a scornful caitiff, of those holy assemblies of God's children in France. 
Pur. 203.205. Infra. ca 12. num.  So likewise by name, for Calvin & other his masters, let us a little behold his impatience. D. Allen toucheth calvin for denying all communion between Christ's members that are in this life and in the next. For this, Fulke saith unto him: You have a pleasure to spew out your pestilent poison against that noble light of God's Church, M. calvin. Again where he noteth his strange doctrine about Christ's descending into hell, Fulke answereth: 
Pur. 61.63 Infra. ca 1 pag.  He uttereth his spite against calvin: he spiteth out against him most impudent slanders, railings, and lies: not satisfying himself with the voice of a man, he hath borrowed the tongue of the devil himself. Whose doctrine God himself, the Angels, and all the world doth know and testify, to be directly contrary to these slanders. And strait after: But because he would not be thought to have spewed out all his poison, against calvin, he goulpeth up another bowlefull of railing & slandering, against our Bishops, who have not only suffered, but also commended Caluines books to be read and studied of the simple Curates, affirming that they do privily set forth by books, that which they dare not openly preach. All this and more of like sort he hath there, and yet saith in the very same place that he doth somewhat moderate his corrupt affections. Also in an other place: 
Pur. 45.  Without all shame or show of truth most impudently, he feigneth a contrariety between Melancthon and Caluine. O brazen face and iron forehead. With little zeal he saith for another: 
Pur. 147.89.  Whatsoever M. jewel hath affirmed against the Papists, he hath substantially and learnedly defended. Again: As for that reverend father M. jewel, whom this arrogant Lovanist calleth the English bragger, how well he hath answered his challenge, his own learned labours do more clearly testify unto the world, then that it can be blemished by this sycophants brainless babbling. In deed he hath so well quitted himself, that the very reading of his answer hath turned many earnest Protestants into earnest Catholics, as both by the numbers and by the nobleness of the persons it is notoriously known. And even no better stuff in Caluines Institutions find they, that take the like pains to examine them and are of judgement to discern, although you trust so much therein, and say: I would to God that all Papists in England would read that book, and pray unfeignedly, 
Pur. 45●  that God would open their eyes, that they may see the truth if it be taught therein. No sir, not so, that is not the way: There is no book of Heresy, judaisme, nor Mahometism, but it would overthrow or shake the common sort: and therefore to read them, and pray, that is not the way to truth, no more then to swallow poison, and pray, is the way to get or keep health of the body. You should rather have exhorted men that can, to read the ancient Father's works, or such parts of their works as are Institutions or sums of our faith, as S. Augustine's Enchiridion ad Laurentium, also, De heresibus ad quoduultdeum, the books De fide ad Petrum, and De Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus: Vincensis Lirinensis his general rules, as it were preservations against all heresies, with diverse other: or because we speak of books written at this time, specially and above all others the Council of Trent, where it entreateth of doctrine. But your zeal is to calvin & his doctrine, as here you have showed: it is not to the Fathers and their doctrine, no nor to the doctrine of the whole Church, which also yourself confess to be such. For calvin erreth not, you say, D. Allen slandereth and belieth him: but the Fathers and the whole Church have erred. Well touching Calvin, Melancthon, and such others, you shall (I trust) in time convenient hear D. Allen answer to you for himself. My purpose here is only, by this ensample of your zeal towards your Fathers, to show a little of my zeal for our Catholic Fathers, though not with such big words and loud exclamations against you as you have done against D. Allen, yet with such truth and reason, as even yourself also, if God of his mercy will take from you that stout heart, may well confess that you are fully satisfied.  

¶ The first part. Concerning the errors that he laid (ca 3. par. 2.) both to the Fathers, and to us.  
And because I divide this matter into three parts, to wit, the errors that you lay both to them and to us, the errors that you lay to them and not to us, and finally the errors that you lay to us, or to the Church of later times: and not to them. As concerning the first sort which I collected in the third Chapter, I answer plainly and briefly at once, that they are no errors. But you will prove it: let us see how.  

j Of the Cross and Images.  
They took the sign of the Cross from the Valentinians, 
Pur. 419.416.  you say. And a little before in the same Paragraph. I could prove out of Irenaeus and Epiphanius, that the first that brought in estimation the figure of the Cross and Images, were the Valentinians and Carpocratians. And a little after, Carpocrates (as Irenaeus doth testify) was a great admirer of Philosophy, in so much that with the Images which he made of Christ, he joined the Images of Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle. Elsewhere you quote also the places, saying to us: 
Ar. 22.  Of the Valentinians you learned to have in price the sign of the Cross, and to abuse the places of Scripture for the same superstitious use: as, God forbidden that I should rejoice but in the Cross of Christ, etc. Irenaeus li. 1. ca 1. 
Gal. 6.  Epiphan. li. 1. Tom. 2. heraes. 31. And there afore: To make the Images of Christ and the Apostles, and to cense them, you learned of the heretics called Gnostici and Capocratitae, Epiphan. li. 1. Tom. 2. in the Preface, and li. 1. Tom. 2. haer. 27. And Irenaeus, li. 1. cap. 23.  
I answer (that the Reader may wonder at your audacity) that those authors there speak not a word of the figure, nor sign, nor use of the Cross: they tell how those heretics in their fables invented .30. Gods which they called Aeones, and in them two or three Christ's, and one of the Christ's they called (amongst other names) stauros, or Crux: And to that Christ they racked that saying of Saint Paul with others, as also other Scriptures they wrested to their other Aeones: even so properly as you allege this same Cross of theirs against our Crossing, as well might those Christ's be alleged against our Christ.  
And as properly again do you against our Images allege the Images of those heretics: 
Epiph. li. ●… Tom. 2. in praef. & Haer. 21. Simonianorum. Iren. li. 1. c●… 1. in fine.  Simon Magus (of whom those Gnostici did begin) gave to his Disciples his own Image In specie iovis, In form of jupiter, and also the Image of his strumpet Helena in figura Mineruae in form of Minerva: Et adorant has high qui ab ipso decepti sunt, and these Images do they adore. As if the Lutherans should have and adore the Images of Luther and of Katherine his woman, and a Catholic note them for it: that were you know a sore argument for us to answer.  
Likewise the Carpocratians, who also were Gnostici, had the Images of jesus, 
Epiph. li. 1. To. 2. in pr. & Haer. 27. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 24.  and withal of certain Philosophers: Cum quibus Philosophis etiam alias Imagines jesu collocant, etc. With which Philosophers they set up those Images of jesus, and then adore them, and celebrate the mysteries of the Pagans. For having set up these Images, they do afterward keep the rites of the Pagans. And what be the rites of the Pagans other, than sacrifice, and so forth? Which Epiphanius addeth upon those words of Irenée: Et reliquam obseruationem circa eas similiter ut Gentes faciunt, They set them together with the Images of the Philosophers of the world, and keep about them the other rites like as the Pagans do to their Idols, of whom we read in the times of persecution, that the worship which they would have the Martyrs to give to their Idols, was partly sacrifice, partly Incense, which whosoever did, were called Sacrificati, and Thurificati. And so this manner of those heretics, maketh even as much against our Images, and against the worship that we give to God in the place where they are, as the Samaritans example maketh against the worshipping of our Lord, because with him they worshipped other Gods, 
4. Reg. 17.  as it is written: They both worshipped our Lord, and also their own gods withal. Or rather maketh less against our doing, because we agree not with those heretics in neither side, neither making Gods of the Philosopher's Images, nor yet of jesus his Images, but only of jesus himself, who is God in deed above all, and of all to be blessed for evermore.  

Ar. 22.  And the same answer take you to that you object to us in like sort again in one of the places above noted, saying: Of the Colliridianes you learned to make Images of the virgin Mary, and worship them and her, with offering of candles, etc. as they did of cakes, etc. Epiph. li. 3. Haer. 79. These Collyridianes heresy was this, that certain women at a certain solemn time of the year certain days together did deck a square table, and upon it Offerebant panem, etc. They did offer a cake in the name of Mary, as if Mary were either a God, or a Priest, and women her ministers to sacrifice for her. So saith Epiphanius confuting them at large, and showing that women could never sacrifice, and that none but one is to be adored as God, though our Lady be most honourable. Sat in honore Maria: Pater & filius & Spiritus sanctus adoretur. Revera sanctum erat corpus Mariae, non tamen Deus. My purpose is here but to answer: else if any man desire testimonies for our Images & for our use above them, he may read D. Saunders book and many other of that matter: It is enough for me here that Fulke himself hath acknowledged, 
Supra. ca 3. pag.  Tertullian to hearse it as a thing then undoubted, that our crossing of ourselves (which is a making of Imagesa, and a great religion to the same) cometh unto us from the Apostles by tradition. And because we are thus come from Images to the Saints, let us hear what more you have against the Fathers and us in that behalf.   

ij. Of Invocation of Saints, and worshipping of their Relics.  
You remember since the third Chapter that (by your own report) the true Church counted Vigilantius an heretic for denying the Invocation of Saints and the worshipping of their Relics (of which and of their Images, again, 
Supra. pag  the case is all one.) But now you will prove, that the Church's opinion rather was heresy: for thus you say to us for that matter: 
Ar. 21.  Of the Ossenes, you received the superstition of Relics: for they used to take the spittle and other filth from the bodies of Marthys and Marthana, which were of the seed of Elxai (that is, 
In peregrinatione religion ergo?  great Saints with them) and used them to cure diseases: as Erasmus witnesseth at Caunterbury were kept the clouts that Thomas Becket did occupy to wipe of his sweat, & to blow his nose on, which were kissed as holy Relics, and thought also to be wholesome for sick folks. Epiph. li. 1. Tom. 1. Haer. 19 This again maketh as much against our Relics, as the Valentinians Cross against our Crosses, and the Carpocratians Images against our Images. Epiphanius telleth, that this Elxai was in Traianus time a great master of that sect, and that Marthys his kinswoman and Marthana his sister, In the Ossenes country were adored in their life time as Gods. Pro dijs adorabantur, etc. Because they were of the said Elxai his stock. quarum etiam sputa, etc. which women's spittle also, and other filth of their bodies the foresaid heretics in that country took to them, in auxilium videlicet morborum, as to cure diseases: nihil tamen efficiebant, but yet without any effect at all. As for Erasmus, he knoweth now (if he did not afore) what it is to have Religion in derision, and you may remember from whose body were carried to the sick Sudaria vel Semicinctia, 
Act. 19  and their diseases, and evil spirits went away therewith. Open your mouth also against those Napkins, and call them likewise Clouts for sweat and for the nose. Or rather do you apply them (with good counsel) to your disease also, 
Chris. To. ●. De vita Bab contra Gentiles.  as S. chrysostom apply them and the Relics of the Martyr Babylas together, unto the Pagans, declaring thereby most excellently that Christ must needs be God, seeing he could give such passing power to the clothes and bones of his servant.  

Ar. 22.  You say moreover to us: Of the Cayanes', you learned to call upon Angels. Epiph. li. 1. To. 3. haere. 38. Those heretics worshipped Cain, judas, & such like: & little esteemed Abel, & such others, yea and (some of them) also Christ himself. They said also, that none could be saved until they had gone through all sins. And therefore committed all abominations, & referred them to this Angel & that Angel, with this invocation: O tu angel utor tuo opere, O tu potestas ago tuam actionem. O thou such an Angel, I work now thy work: O thou such a power, I now do thy action. And this with them was called perfecta cognitio, 
Epip. Haer. 26. & 21. & 27.  even doctorship itself. They agreed in this with the Simonianis, Gnostici, and Carpocratite, who in their beastliness directed the like most horrible invocations to God himself, whom they termed Patrem universorum. Which is as substantial an argument against all invocation of God, as the other is against the invocation of Angels. Simon Magus was (you know) in the Apostles time. He invented many heavens, and many names of Angels, placing these in this heaven, and those in that heaven, with sundry sacrifices for men to offer by them that they might so be brought at length to the Father of all. And that none might otherwise be saved, 
Epip. Haer. 21.  except he learned, hunc mysticum ductum, this mystical passage, and how to offer such Sacrifices by those Angels, to the Father of all. Against these fables it is, that S. Paul instructeth the Ephesians and Colossians in those two Epistles so like in words also, 
Colos. 2.  that no man deceive them with those invocations of Angels Religion, non tenens caput, not holding the head jesus Christ. But otherwise holding him for the head, that we are brought to the Father by the holy Angels, as by Christ's ministers, 
Hebr. 1.  who seeth not in the Scriptures in infinite places? And so doth the Church make all her petitions, all through Christ our Lord, Per Christum dominum nostrum, to none she commendeth her otherwise, neither in heaven nor in earth, so do we all pray and desire to be prayed for one of another: 
Apoc. 1. Apo. 4. v. 5 & 5. ver. 6. with Heb. 1 ver. 14. Apo. 1. ver. 16.20. Heb. 3. ver. 1. Apo. 19.22. Apoc. 3.  and so prayed S. john, saying: Grace and peace to you from God the Trinity: and from the seven Spirits that are before his throne: and from jesus Christ according to his humanity: putting Christ in the last place, that he might so, more handsomely add the rest which he had to say there of him? And this in that very book, out of which the Protestants abuse two places against the worshipping of Angels, forgetting also where in the same book God doth promise to make the obstinate jews to come, and to adore before the feet of one Angel. Et scient quia ego dilexi te: and they shall know that I have loved thee. Which all if you also did know, you would not say thus in one place to us: Even in the Apostles time, when the superstition of Angels began to be received, there was one step of your way, 
Pur. 287.  which you hold even to this day, Colos. 2.   

iiij. Of abstinence from fleshmeat and from marriage.  
Now to another error common to the Fathers and to us: 
Supra. ca 3. pa. 2. diui. 2.  You said in the same third Chapter, and confessed, that they counted Aerius an heretic, for teaching against our prescript Fastingdayes, and so iovinianus likewise, for denying the merit of abstinence from flesh and from marriage, and for licensing thereupon Votaries and Priests to marry. You on the other side charged the Fathers, and said, 
Pur. 419.  that they took prescript times of Fasting, and unmeasurable (so you term it) extolling of Sole life in the Clergy, from the Manichees, Tacianistes, & Montanistes. But you bring no proof thereof. 
Ar. 45.  Only this you have in another place: Augustine by authority of Philaster, chargeth the same Aerius, with abstinence from flesh. If this be an heresy, then be all Papists heretics, which count abstinence from flesh an holy fast. Still you take Richard for Robert. These three heresies condemned flesh & marriage as pertaining to the ill God, and not to the good God, according to the heresy of the Valentinians before them. So writeth S. Augustine of the Tocianistes or Eucratites: Nuptias damnant, etc. They condemn marriages, 
August. ad quoduult. haer. 25.40 53.  and esteem of them all a like as of fornications and other pollutions: neither admit they to their number, any that useth marriage, be it man, or be it woman. Non vescuntur carnibus, easque omnes abominantur: They eat no flesh, but count all flesh abominable. He hath there of Apostolici or Apotactite likewise, saying: Eucratitis isti similes sunt, etc. These are like to the Eucratites. They receive not into their Society them that use marriage, and have propriety: Such as the Catholic Church hath both Monks and of the Clergy very many. Sed ideo isti haeretici sunt, etc. But therefore these are heretics, because separating themselves from the Church, they think that there is no hope for them which use these things, that they do not use. Now saith he of the Aerians afterward: Some say that these do not admit into their Society, but only such as contain them from marriage, and have renounced all propriety: being therein like to the Eucratites or Apotactites. Yet from flesh meat, Epiphanius saith not that they abstain: But Philaster layeth to them also this abstinence. What abstinence, and how from fleshmeate, but such as in those Eucratites he had said afore? Sure it is, that this Aerius of his master, called Eustathius, 
Gang. con. Can. 1.19. Soc. li. 2. cap. 33.  had this heresy, to whom therefore Concilium Gangrense sayeth Anathema, and to all that hold the like, to wit, that a Christian using marriage, and eating flesh, in Regnum Dei introire non possit, can not enter into the kingdom of God. Et spem non habeat, Nor hath aught to hope for. Though withal he taught jejunia praescripta aversanda, that the prescript fasts should be detested, Dominicisque diebus ieiunandum, and to fast on Sundays.   

iiij. Of Ceremonies and Liturgies.  

Ar. 91.  Next after this you charge the ancient Church with approving Ceremonies that were (as you think) unprofitable and hurtful, because S. Augustine complained them of presumptions, and because many of them are now abrogated. I might here, and in many other places, exclaim against you (as you did often against D. Allen upon light causes) for not quoting your testimonies, and that you have not read them in the authors, but taken them out of some blind or wilful collector. But to spare words all that I can, and let the things only to cry against you: Doth not S. Augustine in the very same Epistle and the very same Chapter (whence your place is taken of certain that were more earnest for their own private observations, 
Au. ep. 119. ad januar. cap. 19  then for God's commandments, as that against drunkenness) say constantly, Tamen Ecclesia dei quae sunt contra fidem vel bonam vitam, non approbat, Yet the Church of God approveth not any thing that is against the faith or against good life. And there also plainly distinguished those presumptions, from such things as are either contained in the authorities of holy Scriptures, or, found in the statutes of Bishop's Counsels, or, fortified by custom of the whole Church. Saying also in the Epistle next afore to the same man, 
Au. ep. 118 ad januar cap. 5.  that if the whole Church use any thing, it is a point of most insolent madness, only to call in question, whether that thing should be so used. Neither if some such usages be afterward abrogated, doth it follow thereof, 
Pur. 265.393.400. Tertul. de Cor. mil. Hier. adue● Lucif. Act. 15.  that therefore they were before unprofitable, or hurtful, or not of the Apostles tradition, though Tertullian affirm it, & S. Jerome also even in Tertullian'S words, or else that the Church is blasphemous which abrogateth them, as you conclude. For there might be good cause both of that afore, and of this after: as you see even in that decree of the Apostles which is recorded also in the Scripture, Of not eating blood, nor flesh that hath not the blood let out of it. Likewise in that custom of the Apostles and of the Churches of God, 
1. Cor. 11.  for men (publicly) to pray and prophecy (or preach) bareheaded. Which of Bishops in old time, and now also of Doctors, yea in many countries, of all preachers, is not observed. What ordinary authority the Church had in the Apostles time, the same it hath still, and also the same spirit to understand what are the immutable grounds of Religion, and what traditions how and upon what causes may be changed. Of every particular to give a reason, requireth a special work by itself: but generally the quicker witted may consider, that in a Nation, when the fullness thereof is baptised, and the articles of faith thoroughly rooted, there may justly & must néedefully be a great mutation in the Ceremonies, specially of Baptismus adultorum, and Missa Catechumanorum. And so to plant the evangelical article of the Resurrection, the Apostles upon Sundays and in Quinquagesima, did forbid Solemn fast and Solemn genuflexions: and the Church afterward much more straictly, what time the Manichées & other heretics put all their strength to pluck up again the Apostles plant. But now all such heresies being by such diligence of the Church quite confounded, and that marvelous article so fastened in all Christian hearts, as it is wonderful, specially knowing what resistance and rebellion it hath suffered: Now (I say) the Church might well be more remiss therein, though yet she keepeth those Ceremonies still. 
Aug. ep. 86  Read S. Augustine ad Casulanum of those matters, where also besides this you shall find also another general reason according to the divine wisdom of that most Ecclesiastical doctor, to wit, that it sufficeth if the Church have unity of faith, as it were intus in membris, inwardly in her limbs, and that she well may withal have diversity of observations, as it were varietatem in vest, variety in her queenly garment, according to the Psalm. 
Psal. 44.  Which he speaketh for diversity of Ceremonies in sundry places at one time▪ but it serveth for the like diversity in one place at sundry times, as it is evident.  
As for your boldness with the Fathers for their Liturgies, pronouncing that undoubtedly they changed the ancient truth into their own lately received errors, 
Proc. apud Claud. de Saints praef. in Liturg.  or else why were they not content with the old form? Proclus Bishop of Constantinople about a thousand years ago answereth your Why, & telleth you, that S. basil, and S. chrysostom did no more but abridge the Liturgy of S. james the Apostle (which three Liturgies the Council in Trullo also doth acknowledge) and that upon just cause. 
Can. 32.  But that with errors they corrupted either it or any other form which was used before them, if any man be so far gone so to think upon your light word for all the most renowned credit of those Fathers, let the studious of truth notwithstanding take the pains to confer those Liturgies, and they shall easily be able of their own inspection to control you, 
Supra pag. 21.  as I also before in the third Chapter by plain demonstration disproved you for the same, and namely in the very same article that forced you to this absurd and shameless shift.   

v. Of Sacrifice: and for the dead.  
Now are we come to your next accusation of the ancient Church, concerning Sacrifice, & concerning the dead. The name of Sacrifice, 
Pur. 419.  which they commonly used for the celebration of the Lords supper, they took up of the Gentiles: so you say, but you prove it not. You might as well say, that they or the Apostles had it of the Gentiles, to name that Sacrifice which Christ offered upon the Cross. No sir, they named it so, because it was so: and therefore Christ also said not, This is I that was borne of the virgin, though that were true, but, This is my body, upon the one, 
Matt. 26.  and, This is my blood, upon the other. The Apostle also for the same cause saying of him that cometh thereunto unworthily, not that he is guilty of Christ, though that be true, 
1. Cor. 11.  but that he is guilty of his body and of his blood, because it is such a celebration of his death. Whereupon if you knew what is the sacrificing of alive thing, you should see, that how properly he was sacrificed on the Cross in an open manner, even as properly he is sacrificed here in a mystical manner. The same Apostle therefore again saying, that we have an 
a Heb. 13.  Altar to eat of, (which place your blindness 
b Pur. 45●  allegeth against this Sacrifice) and also calling it 
c 1. Cor. 10  The table of our Lord in that form of speech as he calleth 
c 1. Cor. 10  The table of the devils the sacrifice of the Gentiles, and the levitical sacrifices likewise the levitical 
c 1. Cor. 10  Altar. Yet you can not find 
d Pur. 200 289.  one word, nor one syllable in the Scripture, of any Sacrifice instituted by Christ at his last Supper. Whereof we shall say more Cap. 10. Dem. 24.     

Purgatory.  
But to go forward with you to your accusation first of Purgatory, and afterward of Purgatory fire: To prove that Purgatory came of the Philosophers, as all most notable heresies did, 
Pur. 416. Tertul. de anima cap 31.32.  you allege out of Tertullian De anima, that all Philosophers which granted the soul's immortality, assigned three places for the souls departed, heaven, hell, and a third place of purifying. This argument proveth as well, that heaven, and hell, and the Immortality of the soul, had their original of the Philosophers. Howbeit also to report the truth, there is no word of any third place of purifying: but only that such Philosophers made two sorts of Receptacles, to wit, Supernas mansiones, for Philosopher's souls only, and Inferos, for all other souls: and that about the first they did vary, for Plato placed it in aethere: Aerius in aëre: the stoics, circa lunam. This is all. Again you prove out of Irenéeus, that Purgatory came of Carpocrates the Heretic, 
Iren. li. 1. cap. 24.  because he invented a kind of Purgatory, and proved it out of that place of S. Matthew, Thou shalt not come forth until thou hast paid the uttermost farthing, 
Mat. 5.  even as the Papists do. By this argument again you will win much honesty. 
Epiph. li. 1. To. 2. Haer. 27. Tertul. de anima. c. 17  Ireneus, and after him Epiphanius, as also Tertullian in your own book De anima, do write that the Carpocratians held, that a man must wallow in a●l the filth of sin that is in this world, before he can come to life everlasting: and therefore if he have miss any sin, his soul is reversed into a body, and so again, and again, until he have fulfilled all. And for this purpose jesus (they say) used this Parable of agreeing with the adversary in the way, 
Matt. 5.  etc. Corpus enim dicunt esse carcerem, etc. For that prison they say is the body: and that which he saith, Thou shalt not go out thence, until thou hast paid the last farthing, they interpret as if the soul should be turned over by certain Angels from body to body, semper quoadvsque in omni omnino operatione▪ quae in mundo est, fiat, Continually even until it have been in all and every act of this world, ut nihil amplius relinquatur (saith Epiphanius) ad nefarium quicquam faciendum, so that nothing remain that is abominable but it is fulfilled.   

Purgatory fire.  

Pur. 419.418.  You go forward and say, that they took Purgatory fire of the Origenistes, and the name of Purgatory of certain Mediators who about S. Augustine's time would accord origen's error with the erroneous practice of the church. For it was Origen that brought in the fire also, and that he would build (as the Papists do, 
See here ca xii. of Christ's damnation temporal, according to calvin.  and as he had better reason than the Papists have, out of the 1. Cor. 3. This you say, but you prove it not, origen's error was that hell fire is not an everlasting fire, but only a temporal fire, which should in time purge not only them that had ended their lives in most horrible sins, but also the devils themselves, 
Augu. ad quod. haer. 43. Origenist.  (as S. Augustine writeth) and so restore them to the kingdom of God: Et rursus post longissima tempora omnes, etc. And that all again should at length return to the same miseries: And that the felicities and miseries of men and Angels, have always had, and always shall have, their turns and courses after this manner. Thus he erred (you see) about hell and heaven, and about Purgation of the damned: but of the Purgation of such as die in God's favour, here is no word. Unless you reason thus: There is no such Purgatory as Origen and Carpocrates would have, ergo, no Purgatory at all. Which followeth even as necessarily as this doth: There is no such hell nor such heaven as Origen did put, ergo, no hell at all, nor heaven at all.   

Relieving of the dead by prayer.  
Now for the relieving of them which else must (as we say, 
1. Cor. 3. Supra. ca 3 pa. 2.  and as S. Paul saith) endure a fiery and therefore a most painful Purgation: you granted in the third Chapter, that the ancient Fathers of the true Church, as Epiphanius & Augustine, counted Aerius an heretic, for teaching, 
Aug. hae. 5. Epi. hae. 75 Such absurd shifts he is driven unto.  That Prayer for the dead was unprofitable. Orare, vel offerre pro mortuis oblationem non oportere, he taught (saith S. Augustine) That we must not pray, nor offer oblation for the dead. But you will now prove, and that also 
Ar. 45.  by the self same Fathers, and out of the self same books of theirs, that their doctrine rather was heresy. For, If Aerius (say you) was an heretic for denying prayer for the dead to be profitable: why were the Heracleonites accused of heresy, because they buried their dead with invocations? Epipha. li. 1. Tom. 3. haere. 36. Epiphanius after Secundiani, and Ptolomaitae, writeth in order of Marcosiani, Colarbasiani, 
See Epip● ab. haer. 32. ad haer. 36.  and Heracleonitae, saying that they were all Gnostici, (as their predecessors the Valentinians and Carpocratians) that is to say, men of knowledge. Which Gnostici, all of them, did count perfectam cognitionem, perfect knowledge or perfection to be this, if a man forsooth had wallowed himself like a swine in all and every filth that is, otherwise his soul after death should by the judge and his Minister (who were, according to their fables, two of the Angels that created the world) be imprisoned again in a body. This said all the Gnostici, and I touched it also above. But the later of them (after the usual manner of heretics, as Epiphanius noteth) not content with their Father's inventions, would add somewhat also of their own invention. They invented therefore a certain Redemption, as they called it: which consisted in a fond imitation and corruption of the Sacraments of Christ, but in that again, after the manner of heretics, disagreeing much amongst themselves. For look how many are the professors of this doctrine, 
Epiph. haer. 34. Iren. li. 1. cap. 18.  so many are their Redemptions, sayeth Ireneus, and out of him Epiphanius speaking of the Marcosians. Some did it by way of a marriage. Some as it were at Baptism, one sort by water, an other sort by a mixture of oil and water, both which sorts did after anoint the party with balm: and all, with certain fond words according to the fables of their heresies. Alij verò haec anima aversantes, etc. But some other would none of all these, saying, that the mystery of the unspeakable and invisible power, ought not to be celebrated in visible and corruptible creatures. Esse autem perfectam redemptionem, ipsam cognitionem inenarabilis magnitudinis. But that the very knowledge of the unspeakable majesty, was perfect Redemption. 
Epiph. haer. 36.  After the foresaid Marcus, came Heracleon, taking his occasion of Marcus, yet not redeeming any more as he did, but otherwise, redimens videlicet ad finem vitae eos, etc. at the hour of their death he redeemed his followers: pouring on the head of the party, either oil mingled with water, or balm & water (such again was the unity of these Heracleonites) together with Marcus his mad invocations, and some others: All this to this end, that by virtue of such anointing and such Invocations, his body being left here, & his Anima, Soul, being cast of, apud Opificem, where the Angel or God Creator is, his Interior homo, Inward man, might invisibly pass the said Creator & them that are beneath & about him, & so scape up to his proper place above all: specially, if withal he could remember to say to the Creator & those other powers, as Heracleon had instructed him. The words are to be seen in Epiphanius, who at length concludeth all this gear, & saith: Et de Redemptione quidem haec sunt quae ad nos devenerunt, And concerning the redemption, this is all that hath come to my knowledge.  
Now this forsooth maketh much against our Solemnisation of Marriage, much also against our Baptism or baptizing with water. And even as much against our oil in Baptism, or Chrism made of oil and balm, after Baptism: as much also against our Anealing at the hour of death, and our prayers for men after their death: howbeit of praying for the dead in all this was never a word, neither in itself, nor in any likeness of it, unless you will thereunto liken those words that the Heracleonites were taught to say after their death, I know not to whom, that they might go invisible. And yet you do so triumph in the Heracleonites, that you are up with them against us, in more places also, saying: The Heracleonites (as Augustine witnesseth) came yet a step more towards the Papists: 
Pur. 417.  for they would Redeem their dead after a new manner, namely by oil, balm, water, and invocations said over their heads in the Hebrew tongue. And again: Of the Heracleonites you learned to anoint men at the point of death, with oil, and balm, 
Ar. 22.  and to cast water upon dead men, with Invocations. Epiphani. lib. 1. Tom. 3. Haeres. 36. Even as of the foresaid heretics we learned to Baptize men, and to marry men. Who seeth not rather, that those heretics took their rites of the Catholic rites, with such mutation as they thought good, so as now the calvinists have made them out of our Mass, a Communion of bread only and wine.  
But if the Heracleonites fail you, 
Pur. 417.  Montanus had in all points the opinion of the Papists. All those points I did put in your words, in the third Chapter. But how do you now prove the same? Because Tertullian was a Montanist: 
Supra. ca 3. pa. 2. diui. 4  and he hath all these points in his Books that he made being a Montanist, specially in his Book De anima, where also he telleth a Miracle that confirmeth prayers to profit the dead: this is all your proof. But I pray you sir, is all Montanisme, that Tertullian hath in his Book De anima, and in so many other Books which he wrote being a Montanist? then what article of our creed almost is not Montanisme? Even in those few lines that you cite, he hath Immortality of the soul, & Resurrection of the flesh, and that which is his scope in the same place, to wit, (for you seem not to understand it) the souls suffering in her between this and the Resurrection. If otherwise therefore, some be truth, though some other be Montanisme, what should you have done but to look in Epiphanius, in Augustine, and such others, what were the heresies of Montanus: and not finding prayer for the dead amongst them, to have refrained your rashness.  
You knew this well enough, & therefore notwithstanding your brags to prove it, etc. you confess that it is but your own light suspicion, 
Pur. 417.  saying: And therefore it is not otherwise to be thought, but that the Montanistes added (to the abuse in the Church afore) also prayers for the spirits of them that were dead, whereof Tertullian maketh mention in his books De Castitate & De Monogamia, which were both written to heretics of his sect, and by those prayers laboureth to prove (his Montanisme, to wit) that Second marriages are not lawful. And again: And therefore it may well be, 
Pur. 263.  that all that Tertullian speaketh of prayers and oblations for the dead, was only in the conventicles of the Montanistes. 
All in Tert. is Montanisme, that Cypr. doth not mention.  And this conjecture (you say) seemeth the more probable, (not, because it is by any imputed to Montanus, but) because Cyprian (which was afterward a Catholic Bishop in the same City, where Tertullian some time had lived) maketh no mention of prayers for the dead. A goodly cause: and yet in deed Cyprian maketh such mention thereof, as D. Allen allegeth him, 
Pur. 239. Infra. pag.  that yourself do say there: This place of Cyprian hath more colour, but yet not so clear for Purgatory as M. Allen would seem to make it. And when you have all done, you stick fast in the lime. But this by the way. Again you utter your suspicion, 
Pur. 419.  saying: Finally it appeareth that the faithful in Tertullian'S time, etc. allowed no Prayers for the dead. And yet of this, least for lack of courage so great a verse should give us so much as a fillip, though you have been so uncertain in your premises, you must needs be certain in your conclusion notwithstanding, and say to us: Therefore Aerius was not the first that held our opinion (although Epiphanius and Augustine say it never so much) but Montanus before him was the first that held your opinion thoroughly, against the Catholics of his time.   

Oblations for the dead.  
And so much of prayers for the dead. But because Aerius denied not only the profit of them, but also of oblations for the dead, and was no less for that also condemned of the Church, you must take pains to quit him of that heresy likewise, and to charge the Church rather that condemned him, yea & the Church long before he was borne. Thus than you say, speaking of the times of Tertullian & Montanus before him: 
Pur. 417.418.419.  The Church then had oblations for the dead by perverse emulation of the Gentiles, and yet they were but oblations of thanks giving. You go about to prove it a little after, saying: And that the practice of the Church for oblations for the dead at the yearly day of their death, were taken from the Gentiles, it appeareth by this that Tertullian counteth them of all one origen (to wit, of the Apostles tradition) with the oblations pro Natalitijs, that is, for the birth days. And if this be not enough, Beatus Rhemanus (you say) a Papist, and a great antiquary, doth confess it, affirming that by the Canons of the Nicene Council and other Counsels, which he hath seen in Libraries, those oblations pro Natalitijs, with other superstitions, that Tertullian fathereth upon tradition of the Apostles, were abrogated. After this you be bold to crow against those ancient times, and to say amongst many other corruptions which they took of the Gentiles and Heretics. So they took oblations for the days of death and birth of the Gentiles.  
He is a poor antiquary, which knoweth not what Natalitia were in old time, and still are, to wit, the days of Martyrs, 
Natalitia.  so called, because they were then after many sore pangs delivered out of their mother the militant Church's womb, and borne unto the life & joy of the world to come. Which mother of theirs and ours used therefore always, and still useth, 
joan. 6.  for joy that a man is borne to heaven, to offer from year to year upon the days of their martyrdom, the oblation or sacrifice of the Altar. For any other of her children she offereth also the same oblation upon the day of his death, and so forth upon his years Mindeday, year by year, but not with such joy, but rather mourning with them, and for them, to get them comfort, knowing that though they also be borne into the world to come, yet, it may be, crying for a time as all children into this world, and not laughing by and by as the glorious Martyrs. And these two sorts are the oblations that Tertullian speaketh of, saying: Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitijs, 
Tertul. de Coro. mil. Cypr. Epi. 37.34.  anima die facimus: We make oblations for the dead, and for the births (of Martyrs) upon their years day. S. Cyprian likewise: We celebrate the passions and days of Martyrs with an yearly commemoration. We celebrate oblations and sacrifices for their commemorations. And in 
See Molanus de Martyrolog● ca xv. after Martyrol. usuardi. Aug. in ps. 118. in. res.  all Martyrologies you may see them called Natalitia, or, Natales. S. Paulinus hath left verses that he wrote ten years together upon the Natalis of S. Felix. S. Augustine showing that the old persecutors could not hurt the Church, but rather that they did much good against their wills, amongst other utilities, as that the whole earth is clad in purple by the blood of Martyrs: Heaven is all in flowers by the garlands of Martyrs: Churches are decked with the Relics of Martyrs: Often cures are done by the merits of Martyrs, hath also to our purpose, and saith: Insignita sunt tempora Natalitijs Martyrum, Times are notably marked with the birthdayes of Martyrs. 
Orig. li. 3. in job.  Finally Origen saith expressly (& the place is often alleged by yourself) Nos itaque non nativitatis, etc. We do not celebrate the day of birth (into this world) considering that it is the entry into dolours and temptations: but we celebrate the day of death, as being the laying off of all dolours, and profligation of all temptations.  

Pamel. in Cyp. ep. 34  And therefore it little forceth what your antiquary saith against antiquity, of whom also for so saying Pamelius a far better antiquary than he, saith thus: Quod quàm sinistrè detorqueat Rhenanus ad dies natalitios Ethnicorum, nemo ignorare debet, etc. Rhenanus turneth this (place of Tertullian) from the right meaning very untowardly, to the byrthdayes of the Gentiles. Howbeit in my judgement Rhenanus there might be better construed, not to say that the oblations of Christians were ever for their own birthdayes, but that upon the byrthdayes of the Martyrs which the Church did celebrate with the solemn oblations of the Altar, many of the people kept drunken feasting, as the Gentiles did, every one upon his proper byrthday: Which drunken utas the Church was fain to tolerate for a time, but afterward the Canons of the Nicene Council, and others following did forbid it, and change it into alms. If you could show those Canons, we might be more certain of his meaning. Plain it is, that he speaketh very confusely of birthdayes: And plain again it is, that such rioting was used of some in Paulinus (whom he there citeth) and S. Augustine's times, long after the Nicene Council. 
See Rhen● himself 〈◊〉 Tert. add M●tyres, num. ●  And again most sure it is, that the Church always from the beginning hath used, and no Council ever did forbid the keeping of the Martyr's birthdays with oblations of the Altar. Finally Rhenanus in those annotations is full of 'scapes & oversights (and noted accordingly by the learned of this time, very much) though no ill meaning.   

Beeres to carry home the Corpses.  
One error more you charge us withal about the dead, touching their bodies, as the former were touching their souls, 
Ar. 22.  George the Arian Bishop of Alexandria, invented Beres to carry dead corpses, charging all men to use them for his own advantage: as do you Papists your Bearing clothes, and other toys for funeral pomps, Epiph. li. 3. tom. 1. haer. 76. Epiphanius doth not say, that George invented Beres, but that he devised to have them in a certain number. His words are these, to show the miserable covetousness of that man: No trade almost so base, no thing so mean, whereof he sought not gain. For, so much as Beres for the dead, he devised to make the number of them certain, & without those that he ordained, no corpse of the dead, specially of strangers, was buried: non propter hospitalitatem, not for any charity towards strangers, but (as I have said) for lucre's sake. For if any buried a corpse otherwise, he came in danger. Now if this or the like miserableness be in any Bishop of ours or yours, either to rack his people, or to usurp the living of his Clergy, what is that against Béeres, or Bearing clothes, or comely pomp of funerals, or against the Church that useth them, specially yourself also commending in your Geneva Church, 
Pur. 22●  such Ceremonies as are convenient for the reverent laying up of the Corpse? unless you think it much for the Church to reap their Carnalia, to whom she soweth Spiritualia: or would provide for yourself a Beer & Bearing clothes against you shall be buried, 
1. Cor. 9  rather than to pay the common duties to your parish Church.  
Thus have I followed you through all the errors common to us with the ancient true Church, taken (as you say) of the Gentiles or of Heretics: but (as I have plainly showed) not any one of them so nor so. What more you have of them, belongeth to the eight and ninth Chapters, where I have promised to answer all your testimonies out of Scripture and others, about any matter to day in controversy▪ and thither I refer the Reader for the last error also about the Pope's Superiority, having nothing here to be answered, because though you say, that the ancient Church had that error also, yet you do not say, that it took it of the Gentiles or of any Heretics.  

The second part. Concerning the errors that he laid (Cap. 4.) to the Fathers, and not to us.  

j Touching the heresies which were in their times.  
Now followeth the second sort of the Church's errors, that is, those errors which you lay to the ancient true Church, and not to us also. To answer you thereunto likewise, and that very briefly: What a thing is this that you charge the Church in the Apostles time, with the heresies that were in the Apostles times? And the same Church again in the three Arian Emperors time, with the heresy of Arius? As if a man would charge the same Church now, that is, our Roman Church, with your heresies. For you say, 
Ar. 15, 35. Dem. 45.46.  not only Pope Liberius (of whom I must answer in the tenth Chapter) but the true Church was greatly infected with the heresy of Arius: And you bring in the heresies of the Apostles time, to declare that even than the Church decayed, counting it also all one to err and to decay. And yet of your own imagined Church that in the time of Pope Bonifacius the third fled into the wilderness, you can say thus: Where she hath not decayed, 
Ar. 16.15. Infra. ca 11 cont. 31.  but been always preserved. D. Allen notwithstanding when he saith, that [the Church always stood still and steadfast, whilst all other Congregations, as Arrians, etc. have decayed:] must be controlled, and told of the persecutions until the time of Constantine, and of great detriment under julianus the Apostata, and of a great Eclipse under the barbarous Goths, etc. Besides the foresaid infection under the three Arrian Emperors. If amid those persecutions and heresies it had not been always preserved, than you might have said, that it had decayed. You show well that hell gates have fought sore against it: but you show not that they have at any time prevailed. Yea the truth is (& in my Book of Demands, in the second Demand, you have it) that the Church always prevailed, according to Christ's promise and predictions, and that so clearly and so gloriously, that both the persecuting Roman Emperors gave over at length their obstinacy and vain kicking against the prick, submitting themselves to the very same Church which afore they persecuted, yea moreover continuing Christians even to this day: and also all heresies, Arrians, and others, vanished quite away: neither the persecutions being ought else in effect, but an occasion of innumerable Martyrs, the commodities of whom we heard a little 
Supra 55. Greg. ●ral. li. 9▪ 7.  before out of S. Augustine: nor again the heresies ought else, but an occasion of so many most worthy Doctors both Greek & Latin, and their most excellent writings, at which to this day all the later heretics do quake and tremble, by which to this day the Catholic Church always conquereth and triumpheth.   

ij. Touching the errors of S. Cyprian, S. Irenee, and S. justinus.  
Which Doctors, if any of them have erred in some thing or other, yet this is notable, that not so much as in their errors or any one error of theirs, they are of your side. The Luciferians and the Donatists had for them the error of S. Cyprian and of his Council in Africa, and therewith they urged the Catholics very sore, as we see in S. Jerome and in S. Augustine. But the Protestants (I say) have not so much as any error of any father to urge us withal.  
And to charge the Church with the errors of those Fathers, as you do, What a thing again is that? as if you would charge Pope Stephanus and the other Catholics that erred not, with the foresaid error of S. Cyprian. For so you charge the Church in the times of Papias, justinus Martyr, and Ireneus, with their errors, to show that it decayed (at least) immediately after the Apostles time.  
But at leastwise (you will say) some Fathers have erred in some thing, and therefore it is true that the Fathers may err. Why sirs? Do we attribute infallibility to every father? Deceive not the people, 
Pu●. 383.432.  make not as though you had infringed the father's authority, when you have showed that a father hath erred, that is not the point between us, therein we agree together. But this it is that we charge you with, that you resist their full and whole consent. For to these we ascribe infallible truth: To the Canonical Scriptures, and tradition of the Apostles, without any limitation at all: in matters of Religion, To the decrees of Peter and his Chair, because it is the rock of the Church: and to the whole Church, and therefore again to the Consent of the Fathers, and to General councils confirmed by Peter's Successor, because these two employ the whole Church. Yea also to Provincial councils confirmed by the same Chair. And therefore any one of these (we say) can not be against any other of these, no more then Canonical Scripture can be against Canonical Scripture. And therefore again, if against these or any one of these, there be (as it may be) any Doctor or Doctors, any provincial Council, or any General Council, it is therein with us of no authority, as you see in Saint Cyprian and his Council of Africa. But yet so long as the matter is not plainly against these, the particular Doctors and Council are with us of great authority, though some more than some, according to the persons, number, question, and other circumstances. And hereupon it is, that we are not hasty (as you are) to charge them with errors when they did not err, nor also to reveal and to amplify their errors when they did err, but rather when you reveal them and amplify them, to cover them and make the least of them, 
Iren. li. 2. cap. 39.40.  so far as truth will permit us. Now the truth is, that, seeing the Gnostici said that Christ began to preach in the beginning of his thirtieth year, and preached but one year, and then suffered in the twelfth month of the same year, being so of the age of thirty years, to signify their thirty Aeones: Ireneus had occasion hereby to rack the age of Christ not only above thirty years, but also toward .50. years, being able, as he thought, to yield a good reason against their fabulous reason, why Christ would be so old, which was, to be an infant with infants, and so forth, till he were at length also an old man with old men, as the sanctification and example of all ages: specially because he thought he had both the 
joan. 8  Gospel, and also tradition of his side, having heard of Saint john's Scholars in Asia, that seniorem aetatem habens dominus noster docebat, Our Lord was of old age when he Preached, and thinking by old age they must have meant above .40. towards .50. howbeit the matter of itself is not great, and then also it was much less. Again, the Gnostici rejected the God Creator withal his creation, 
Iren. li. ●… in fine.  as another God from God the Father of our Lord jesus Christ. Therefore was Ireneus glad, if he could show that Christ not only took his own flesh, and made his own Sacraments, of the Creator's Creatures, and raised from death his said own flesh, and so will raise our flesh likewise, but also that he will after our Resurrection dwell here in the Creator's earth with us for a thousand years: 
Apoc. 2●…  so well he liketh the Creator and his Creatures: specially because he thought the Apocalypse of Saint john to be on his side herein, and had in deed on his side Papias, who either was scholar to Saint john, or rather scholar to his scholars, 
Euseb. li. 3. ca v  but homo ingenij pertenuis, a man of a very slender wit, as it is easy to gather of his writings, saith Eusebeus, and therefore not altogether such a one as Saint Paul required, 
2. Tim. ●…  speaking of the scholars of his scholar Timothy, qui idonei erunt, etc. such as shall be meet to teach others also: because himself was not sufficient to understand Apostolicas interpretationes, etc. The Apostles expositions being made in mystical figures and dark parables. Howbeit the matter was not then so great, until 
b Eus. li●… 7. ca 19 Au. de. 〈…〉 li. 20. ca●… 〈…〉 See Bib … cta sixth Se. li. 5. not. 233  afterward the Church condemned peradventure that opinion in the Heretics called Chiliastae or Millenarij (who according to 
d Au. 〈…〉  Cerinthus the Heretic in the Apostles time) increased the error with 
b Eus. 〈◊〉 7. ca 19 Au. de. 〈◊〉 li. 20. ca● 〈◊〉 See Bib … cta sixth Se. li. 5. not. 233  intolerable augmentations of belly cheer and fleshly lust which they expected in those thousand years, as the Turks and jews do. Dionysius Alexandrinus wrote against Nepos for it, as 
f Eus. s●… Hic. C … in Dio … Alex. 〈◊〉 per Esa 18. in p … justi. i●… pol. ad natum.  Eusebius hath recorded: and also Saint Jerome De viris illust. And therefore it seemeth, some words to be lacking in another place of his, where now we read as though it was Ireneus, against whom Dionysius wrote. No more was it at that time a great matter for (g) justinus Martyr to be overseen in the sin of the Angels: both because his whole drift there, is, notwithstanding this by word, very true, that one God made all, but some of his Angels did fall from him, & usurp a tyranny over men, till Christ came to deliver us, and therefore the same wicked Angels do stir up their Gentiles now against the Christians being men most innocent and the faithful servants of the true God: And also because that place Gen. 6. is the first place in the Scripture where express mention is made of the Angels and of their sin: for that place Gene. 3. The serpent was craftier than any beast of the earth, how parabalicall it is? but Gen. 6. the Septuaginta in their authentical translation had then (as S. Augustine witnesseth) plainly Angeli Dei, 
August. de. Ciu. li. 15. cap. 22.23.  The Angels of God, where we have now but only filii Dei, The sons of God, meaning (as it is now commonly thought) The offspring of Seth, that they married with the daughters of men, that is with the offspring of Cain, which a●ore they refrained religiously.   

iij. Touching Second marriages, and Saint Jerome.  

Ar. 35.  But of justinus his time you say further: It seemeth also that the Church in his time was in some error, about second marriages and divorcements. Had you no more to say, but It seemeth: and yet could not abstain from accusing the Church of God? neither yet do you tell us why it seemeth so, you neither allege, nor so much as quote any place to prove it. In the works of justinus himself, I dare say you have it not. If you took it out of the Magdeburgian Centuries, follow my counsel hereafter, and look every thing first yourself in the Authors, before you believe your fellows or masters any more: otherwise they will deceive you still, and so you again deceive your puenies, if they again will trust your word.  

Supra. ca 4  Of like stuff it is that you accuse S. Hierom also for Second marriages, & say: 
a Pur. 419.  Yea jeronym (
b Ar. 46.  the great advancer of virginity, & dispraiser of marriage) was almost fallen into the heresy of Tertullian in condemning 2. marriages. You say but almost, & that also without any testimony either alleged or quoted. belike you never read S. Hieroms, apology pro libris adver. iovi. where at large he defendeth himself against all such cavils of his enemies. Amongst much more, thus he saith there: Non damno digamos, 
prope ●  imò nec trigamos, etc. I do not condemn them that are twisemaried, no not thrisemaried, also (if it may be said) eightmaried. Read that book from the beginning, and stand out (if you can) that very countenance only of this most grave & singular doctor, wherewith he speaketh to his backbiters, saying: An ego rudis in Scriptures, etc. O belike I was altogether ignorant in the Scriptures, and began then first to read the holy books: and therefore was not able in my writing to walk strait between virginity and marriage: but whiles I exalted virginity against jovinian, I condemned marriage with Martion and Manicheus.  
And yet so bold you be with him, behind his back as you think, that you lay unto him again other two such perilous assertions▪ such erroneous and heretical absurdities, 
Ar. 46.  as no young scholar of divinity would fall into, To destroy the humanity of Christ, and, To give divinity under the Martyrs. To report the truth, Vigilantius the heretic did say, against praying to Saints, 
Hier. ad Vigil. 2  That the souls of the Apostles and Martyrs can not be present at their sepulchres, and where else they would. This doth S. Hierom prove to be absurd and against the Scripture: considering that The devils gad over all the world, and with marvelous celerity are present every where. And the Apocalypse saith of the Saints, 
Apoc. 1●  They follow the Lamb whither soever he goeth. Of which place S. Jerome gathereth thus: Si agnus ubique, etc. If the Lamb be every where, Ergo, also these that are with the Lamb, must be believed to be everywhere. Not meaning in personal presence every where at once, for so much needeth not to the Invocation of saints: but of such power they be that they hear their suitors in all places at once, and can be personally present to heal and help whom they will: even as the Lamb (that is Christ according to his humanity, as yourself confess, and as throughout that book the word is used) heareth his suitors in all places at once, and in personal presence assisted S. Stephen, 
Act. 7.  & whomsoever else he will: I say according also to his humanity, as in that respect likewise he said: 
Mat. 2. ●  All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. And therefore you shall never be able in the matter of Invocation of Saints to answer that text, They follow the Lamb whither soever he goeth, having said afore that he stood over the mount Zion, so as Stephen saw him standing: But you must be fain to deny the Invocation, hearing, assisting of Christ according to his humanity, as much as you deny the invocation, hearing, and assisting of them that be so with Christ. S. Jerome is to old a scholar in the Scriptures, or rather to perfect a master, for you to answer or oppose him.   

iiij. Touching praying to the Son, and to the holy Ghost.  
If these afore be but particular or such other persons as imply not the whole Church: but yet two most evident examples you have in store against the whole universal true Church. The first, that the third Council of Carthage (though a Provincial Synod, yet having the authority of a general Council, because it was confirmed in a general Council) defined that it is unlawful to pray to God the son, and God the holy Ghost. Marry this is a great matter in deed, and incomparably worse, then for Vigilantius or you to say, that it is unlawful to pray to Christ according to his humanity, or to his Apostles and Martyrs. But how appeareth it that they defined so? because they determined, that all prayers at the Altar should be directed only to the Father, and not to the Son, 
Con. Car. 3. ca 23.  or the holy Ghost. The words of the Council truly reported, are these:  nemo in precibus, etc. That no man in prayers name either the Father for the Son, or the Son for the Father. For that were to confound the persons, after the heresy of Sabellius. It followeth: And when the Altar is stood at, let the prayer be directed always to the Father. Now doth it follow of this, that no prayers may be directed to the Son and holy Ghost? 
Such are his necessary collections.  or also, that the very prayers at the Altar, may not be directed to them, that they may not (I say) because for order sake they are appointed to be directed to the Father?  
The Arrians in S. Fulgentius time, above a thousand years ago, 
Fulgen. ad Moninum li. 2. quaest. 2. ca 2.5.  knowing this self same order to have proceeded from the Apostles, and to have been received and always continued in all Liturgies or Masses throughout all Christendom, esteemed it amongst their arguments as aperse. But he teacheth the Catholics to answer both those Arrians, and this Protestant. First he repeateth the argument, speaking to his friend Moninus: Dicis a nonnullis te interrogatum, etc. Thou sayest that many have asked thee of the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, which many think to be offered to the Father only. Also thou sayest that this argument is as it were the triumph of the heretics. Then he answereth it at large, to our purpose at length he saith, that the Catholics must understand, that all service of any honour and sacrifice is given of the Catholic Church together both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the holy Ghost, that is, to the holy Trinity. For though he that offereth, directeth the prayer to the person of the Father, this is not any prejudice to the Son, or to the holy Ghost. He declareth it thus, because The conclusion of the same prayer, for so much as it hath the name of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, showeth that there is no difference in the Trinity. Look in the Canon of the Mass, and you shall more easily perceive his meaning. The prayer there beginneth thus, being directed to the Father: Te igitur clementissime pater, etc. Therefore o most merciful Father, with humble supplication we beseech thee for jesus Christ his sake thy son our Lord, etc. And it is in the end concluded thus: Per ipsum, & cum ipso, & in ipso, etc. By him, and with him, and in him, is to thee God the Father, in the unity of the holy Ghost, all honour and glory world without end, Amen. Whereupon also among his instructions to his friend Petrus Diaconus (which you allege under the name of S. Augustine, here cap. 10. dem. 24. 
Fulg. (alias Aug.) de fi● de ad Pet. Diac. ca 19 ) being too light in very diverse companies in his pilgrimage to Jerusalem, he saith: Hold most firmly, and in no wise doubt, but to the Son with the Father and the holy Ghost, they did sacrifice those beasts in the time of the old Testament: And to him now in the new Testament, with the Father and the holy Ghost, (cum quibus illi est una divinitas, he having one Godhead with them) the H. Church Catholic over all the world ceaseth not to offer in faith and charity the sacrifice of bread and wine, etc. Therefore you might as well have charged Christ himself, for directing so likewise the prayer that he taught us: Our father, etc.   

v. Of ministering the blessed Sacrament to Infants.  
But the other error is (he saith) a notable error, and such a practice as even the Papists themselves will confess to be erroneous. This it was: S. Augustine, and Pope Innocentius, and all the Catholic Fathers of that time, and all the Western Church, yea all the Church, excepting none but only the Pelagians: ministered the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood to Infants, yea and thought it as necessary for them as Baptism, to wit, that they must receive it, or else they should be damned. And will not D. Allen deny this, will the Papists themselves confess it? for so you say boldly, but in your boldness you open withal your wilful ignorance. 
Fulke never read the Council of Trent.  Who would think it, if yourself did not by this confess it, that you never read the Council of Trent? And what a presumption is this, for you to preach, yea and to write against the doctrine of the Catholic Church, nothing regarding either what it is, or how it is explicated, defended, defined, by occasion of your heresies, of the Catholic Bishops in their General Council: As if an Arrian doctor should never have seen the Council of Nice. Well, our country men may perceive by this, what blind guides they have of you▪ Read the Council of Trent (I exhort both you and all other that can) specially that half of it which is of doctrine, and you will either embrace it, as it is most worthy, and as I pray God to give you the grace: or at leastwise you shall better know thereby what it is that you must confute, where now most of you do commonly fight only with your own shadows, either of ignorance, or (which is worse) of wilfulness, not knowing what in deed we teach.  
There (to our present purpose) you shall find the said Council, after that it hath said, 
Trid. Con. Se. 21. ca 4.  That Infants lacking the use of reason, are by no necessity bound to the sacramental receiving of the Eucharist, to declare moreover, and say: Neque ideo damnanda est antiquitas, etc. Neither for all that is antiquity to be condemned, if it practised that manner sometime in some places: For as those most holy Fathers had pro illius temporis ratione, answerable to that time, sui facti probabilem causam, a reasonable cause of their so doing: so verily that they did it not for any necessity to salvation, without controversy it must be believed. This declaration of the Council may satisfy not only all Catholics, to whom it is the declaration of the Holy Ghost himself, but also any other reasonable man, to whom it can not possibly be less than the declaration of many most learned and most discrete men, which knew well what they said, and that they could not be therein disproved. In so much that Kemnitius the Lutheran Protestant not so much as once toucheth the Council for this, though he writ of purpose against the Council.  
Yet for more satisfaction of all men, I say further to open the case particularly: The heresy of the Pelagians was, that Man or free-will of man, is still, notwithstanding the fall of Adam, 
See A● ad quo haer. 88 lagian●  sufficient of his own natural strength, without Christ or the grace of Christ, to salvation: And so consequently they said, children to be borne in innocency, and not in sin. The Catholics to prove the contrary of children, alleged the necessity of their Baptism, confirming it by that Scripture, Except one be regenerate of water, non potest introire in Regnum Dei, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. 
joan. 3  The Pelagians seeing so plain a text, confessed they Original sin? No, heretical pertinacy would not let them: but a strange shift they had. They granted upon this text, that children unbaptized should not in deed come into the kingdom of God, for lack of Baptism: but yet for their natural innocency without Christ, they should have life everlasting in a certain other place out of the kingdom of God. The Catholics replied against that vain shift, and alleged this text: 
joan. 6  Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, non habebitis vitam in vobis, you shall not have life in you. Who now would accuse those Fathers of error? Yea who would not admire in them such readiness to reply so properly to the purpose? or let any man stand up, and say, that the Pelagians are not by this confuted: and their children excluded, as before from the kingdom of God, so now also from life, and so left in death, and therefore in sin, and therefore again not innocent, and all this for lack of the Grace of Christ in Baptism? But now putting the case, that a child were baptised, and then immediately died before he received sacramentally the Eucharist, who reading innumerable places of those father's concerning the force of Baptism, seeth not that they give to such a child remission of sins, and therefore also, livery from death, & therefore again life everlasting & the kingdom of God? Or let any man bring me one place of those Doctors, speaking to this case, (of a child I say baptised but not communicated,) & holding the contrary. For between them & the Pelagians that was not the case, nor the question as I have showed, but they brought in the Eucharist only to prove that Baptism is necessary to the everlasting life of children.  
All which by this one place of S. Augustine's will be evident: even for your own purpose also it is plainer than the two places that yourself allege: 
Augu. De pec. mer. & rem. li. 1. ca 20.  If a child (saith Augustine) having received baptism departed out of this life, soluto reatu cui originaliter erat obnaxius, etc. Seeing the guilt is loosed to the which he was bond by birth, he shall be perfit in that light, which with the presence of the Creator doth lighten such as are justified. Peccata enim sola separant inter Deum & homines, for nothing but sins maketh separation between God and men, and sins are loosed by the grace of Christ. Then a little after, of the Pelagians he saith: They would give to children unbaptised salvation and life everlasting, for cause of their innocency, but shut them from the kingdom of heaven, because they are not baptized. For they have forsooth a starting & a lurking hole, because our Lord said not, If one be not regenerate of water and the spirit, non habebit vitam, he shall not have life: but he said, non intrabit in Regnum Dei, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God. Nam si illud dixisset, for if he had said that, (quoth they) it had been so plain that no doubt could have risen thereof. How then doth S. Augustine join issue with them hereupon? Auferatur ergo iam dubitatio, etc. Say you so? Now then away with doubting, let us hear our Lord, not the suspicions & conjectures of mortal men. Why? have you a plain word of our Lords own mouth, for the necessity of Baptism, also to life everlasting? Dominum audiamus, inquam, non quidem hoc de Sacramento lanacri dicentem, Let us hear our Lord, I say: I grant he speaketh it not of the Sacracrament of Baptism: sed de Sacramento sanctae, etc. but of the Sacrament of his holy table, quo nemo rite nisi, etc. And yet nevertheless it serveth well to our question of Baptism, because no man cometh lawfully to that table unless he be baptized. Then he bringeth forth the place, Except ye eat, etc. you shall not have life in you. And so he triumpheth, saying: What seek we further? what can they answer to this, if they will not be obstinate? By and by he declareth, though it were said of baptism, Qui non renatus fuerit, He that is not regenerate, and here it is not said likewise, He that doth not eat, but, If you do not eat, as though he spoke to men of understanding, and not to Infants, yet that this place must needs pertain also to Infants. And so it is evident, that, although he understand the place of the Sacrament and of Infants, yet he bringeth it not to prove the necessity of that Sacrament to Infants, but the necessity of Baptism to Infants. Marry, perceiving that he might be mistaken of his Reader, he doth commonly, though it needed not against the Pelagians, insinuate most vigilantly by the way, that in Baptism itself, they receive also the other Sacrament, not sacramentally, but spiritually, that is, 
Augu● pec. m● 3. cap.  the effect of the other Sacrament, Quoniam nihil agitur aliud cum paruuli baptizantur, nisi ut incorporentur Ecclesiae, id est, Christi Corpori membrisue socientur, Because when Infants are baptized, it is for no other cause, but that they may be incorporated to the Church, that is to say, joined to the body and members of Christ. 
See D● len d● cha. ● 31. pa●  It is so therefore with children by Baptism, as it is with older people by an earnest desire to the Eucharist: for as these have Votum explicitum, an express desire to it: so they have Votum implicitum a close desire to it, and that serveth them both, to obtain the effect thereof, though not in so great measure, as if they received it also sacramently. Nevertheless there may be just causes, to keep it from children generally, as there are just causes to keep it sometime, yea at Easter also, from some of the older sort.  
But if antiquity did not count it necessary for children, at least wise they gave it (you will say) to children, and that is contrary to, Probet semet ipsum homo, 
1. Co●  let a man examine himself before he receive it. Why sir? is there any fear, least children that are baptized, come to it unworthily, that is, being in mortal sin? hath any adultus by penance a better warrant to presume unto it, than a child by Baptism? Know you not how S. Augustine and the whole Church holdeth, that in Baptism a child repenteth and believeth by others? even so he there also examineth himself by others. As other repenting, and other believing, so likewise other examining is not necessary for a child, though for so great a sacrament it be more convenient. And so both the Church now doth well not to Communicate children, & they also afore did not ill, who did Communicate them, who yet were not so many as Fulke doth make them. We heard erewhile what the Tridentine Fathers said, 
Falsification by adding.  Aliquando in quibusdam locis, that manner was sometime in some places.    

The third part. Concerning the errors that he layeth to the Church of later times, and not of old.  
And thus much of the second sort of errors, laid by you to the ancient true Church, and not also to the Church of these later times, which you take not to be the true Church. Now therefore (as it followeth) let us hear and examine the third & last sort of errors, such as you lay to this Church of later times, and not also to the primitive Church as you call it, meaning the first .600. years. Which errors will be so few, & so light (in respect of those which he hath already charged the true Church withal) specially when they are duly scanned, 
Note you that would the true Church.  that it may be both a sure confirmation to the Catholics, and a just motive to all others to embrace the Church of this time, no less then of old time, considering that it is no less, yea much more unreprovable of the adversary: as in deed also of good reason it must so be, because more time hath given to the Holy Ghost and still doth give more occasions to define and declare many points, that were afore doubted of by some. Referring them to the .10. Chapter, 
a Cap. 10. de. 45.46  such errors as he layeth to the later Popes personally, because they concern not the whole Church, as neither the pretenced Arrianisme of Liberius in old time: 
b Cap. 10. dem. 38.  such errors also as he layeth to us now, in respect of our shaven beards, rounded heads, with other like, taken (as he saith) of certain old heretics, because he himself also counteth these but small matters: Therefore (I say) reserving these to their proper place, we have here no more but four or five to speak of.  

j Touching the bodies of Angels.  
One he reporteth thus: 
Ar. 90.  The second Council of Nice determined that Angels and souls of men, had bodies, were visible, & circumscriptible, and therefore might be painted. And this it affirmeth to be the judgement of the Catholic Church. Con. Nice. 2. Actio. 5. I answer, you mispeport the matter: for it is not the Counsels determination, no nor saying also, but the saying only of joannes Bishop of Thessalonica, rehearsed in the Council amongst many other authors, with this admonition given after it to the Council by Tharasius Bishop of Constantinople, that they consider hereby the madness of them that overthrew the Images of our Lord and of his undefiled mother, seeing this holy father doth show, that Angels also may be painted. And touching joannes himself, his error is not so great as your ignorance maketh it, saying: If this be not to induce an error, to make men believe that Angels and spirits have bodies visible and circumscriptible, there was never any error since the world began. Soft man, you go to far, other manner of errors (you may remember) have been since the world began, which might not be defended, as he defendeth his, saying to the Gentle (with whom he there talketh) of Angels, ipsa Catholica Ecclesia sic sentit, The Catholic Church so thinketh, (quibus & animas nostras adiungo, To whom I join also our souls) that they are pardie intellectual, 
Heb. 1 of psa  but not altogether unbodily and invisible, as you Gentiles do say, but of a thin, and airy, or fiery body, as it is written, His Angels he maketh spirits, and his ministers burning fire. And by the Catholic Church what he meaneth, he strait declareth, saying: So thought 
And so P● must put 〈◊〉 rather to errors of primitive Church.  many of the holy fathers, we know, as Basilius, Athanasius, Methodius, and they that hold with them, qui stant ab illis: signifying that some other Catholics held otherwise. 
Aug. ● cap. 5  And not only S. Augustine numbereth it amongst the things, That without sin a man may be ignorant of, and therefore need not cum discrimine, with peril to be affirmed, or denied, or defined: but also to this day no such determination or declaration of the question is made, (as the 
a Th● in q. d moni.  best also do grant) to condemn the assertion as heretical, though 
b Co● sub I● cap. 1▪ ●  sufficient to count it now temerarious and erroneous.   

ij. Touching the Pope's superiority over the Council.  
But the next error of our Church, is (I trow) unanswerable, being such a one also, as not only showeth us to err, but moreover depriveth us of all certainty of truth. Marry that in deed must be seen unto, as you tell us, saying, that we have need to lay our heads together about it. 
Ar. 63.85.  And this it is: Your canonists and Divines (he saith) be not agreed about the chiefest articles of your Religion, that is, 1 Whether the Pope be above the Council, or the Council above the Pope. 2 Whether the Pope may err and not the Council, or whether the Council may err and not the Pope. And what then? These two, The Pope's determination, and the Counsels determination, being the rules of truth in your religion, and not agreed upon: how can any truth be certain in your Church? Again by and by after: You Papists, some holding of the Pope, and some of the Council, as rules of truth, can have no ground nor certainty of truth. Therefore if you would have me, or any man to be of your belief, first determine how I shall know when I am in a right belief. And that be all which troubleth you, me thinketh I should be able to satisfy you or any other reasonable man as you are, if I say, that you may know, (and that by the consent of both these parties) that you are in a right belief, when you hold those determinations, that without controversy are jointly the determinations both of the Pope and of the Council together, as the determinations of the Council of Trent, and of all other Counsels without controversy confirmed by the Pope. Other Counsels that are certain not to be confirmed by him, or also not certain to be confirmed by him, no man will bind you to believe them, or at the least not before it be certain, and so are you easily answered, though it be supposed the matter to be so uncertain amongst us as you make it. But now how much more, if it be not so? For how do you prove this disagreement: The Council of Ferraria and Florence, determined, That the Pope was above the Council, and that the Council might err. And Eugenius quartus, that gathered the Council of Ferraria and Florence, was of the same judgement. All this I grant. Now what have you for the other side? The Counsels of Constance and basil, determined, That the Council was above the Pope, and that the Pope may err. Let this also be granted. And Martinus quintus the Pope, chosen by the Council of Constance, was of the same judgement. Nay sir, who there, that you prove not, nor never shall prove: but only, that 
a Sess. v●… Con. Con …  Martinus quintus, at the petition of the Polonian Ambassador, confirmed those determinations alone of the Council of Constance, which were against the errors of Wiclefe, Hus, and Jerome of prague. And that 
b Sess. 4 Con. Ba …  Nicolaus quintus, to avoid much confusion, ratified the collations of Benefices and such like things done in the Council of basil. And that 
c Sess. 16 Con. Ba …  Eugenius quartus did no more but declare, that from the beginning to a certain time the same of basil was Legitimum Concilium, a lawful Council, and lawfully continuated. But otherwise, as concerning the determinations and decrees of it, neither Eugenius, nor he that 
d Ar. 91.  you name, to wit, Nicolaus, confirmed it, yea Leo decimus afterward in his 
e Sess. 〈…〉  Lateran Council most expressly rejected it, comparing it to the second Ephesine Synod commonly called Lestrice, which was repealed afterwards by commandment of Pope Leo the first, in the Council of Chalcedon. Go now, and say still in your vain spirit of childish insultation: Gentle master N. reconcile me these together: 
This triu … wanteth ●●thing but 〈◊〉 victory.  because it is a case, that may trouble a man's conscience that would believe your Church, and if he have any wit, restrain him for ever coming into your Church. If you can not untie this knot, nor wind yourself out of this maze, etc. So insoluble forsooth are your arguments against the Church of God.   

iij. Touching the Constance Council presumption.  
But the third error (I trow) will stick faster by us, because it is amongst those determinations of the Council of Constance which were made against the foresaid Heretics, which I have confessed to be confirmed also by the Pope. And this it is in Fulke his own words: 
Pur. 4.  It is horrible presumption, that any man, or multitude of men, should take upon them authority to define against the word of God: as the Council of Constance, which decreeth in plain words, That notwithstanding Christ instituted the Sacrament to be received in both kinds, and that the faithful in the Primitive Church did so receive it, 
Manifest falsification.  yet the custom of the Church of Rome shall prevail, and whosoever saith contrary, is an heretic, etc. These he printeth in a distinct letter as the plain words of that Council, 
Con. Const. Sess. 13.  but the words truly reported are otherwise. The Council first telleth that certain temerarious persons not only do communicate the lay people in both kinds, and after supper, but also obstinately hold that they must be so communicated. 
See Augu. ep. 118. ca 6  Then saith the Council, Hinc est, etc. Upon this occasion this Council doth declare, determine, and define, that although Christ did institute after supper this venerable sacrament (there is one piece:) And did minister it to his disciples under both forms of bread and wine, (there is the other piece:) yet this notwithstanding, the authority of the sacred Canons, also, the laudable and approved custom of the Church, hath observed, and doth observe, that this same sacrament must not be consecrated after supper, nor received of the faithful when they have broken their fast, etc. (there is again for the first piece:) And likewise, that although this same sacrament were in the primitive Church received of the faithful under both forms: yet for the avoiding of certain dangers and scandles, this custom was reasonably brought in, that they which consecrate, receive it under both, and the laity only under the form of bread, etc. (there is again for the second piece.) That which you report is one thing, and this is an other thing. For you also yourself (I think) will not deny, but that it is a good custom, not to consecrate nor receive it after supper, although Christ did institute it after supper. Neither do you therein grant, Christ's institution to be against that custom. 1 No more doth the Council grant, that practice of the primitive Church to be against the custom of one form. For both are very reasonable, and therefore both standing well together, not only at divers times, but also at one time in divers places, or of divers persons. 2 Much less doth the Council grant (as you make it to do) that Christ's institution was against this custom of one form, 3 adding also such presumptuous words, to say, and yet the custom of the Church of Rome shall prevail. No such words are there, read the whole Chapter who will, he shall find to be spoken very reasonably, very modestly, and every way as may beseem a Council.   

iiij. Touching certain false interpretations of Scripture.  
To the last error I refer certain outcries that he maketh against our Church, for the false interpretation of certain scriptures.  
But first let the Reader hear D. Allen out of his book of Purgatory: [Mark well, (he saith) and you shall perceive, 
Cap. 11. Pur. 14  that the Church of Christ hath ever given room to the diversity of men's wits, the division of graces, and sundry gifts, in exposition of most places of the whole Testament: with this proviso always, that no man of singularity should father any falsehood or untruth upon any text.] And to declare this doing of the Church, he there allegeth that worthy Doctor of the Church S. Augustine, 
Au. co● li. 12. c● ad. 32. Doc. C●sti. li. 1.36 & li cap. 27  who in two books writeth excellently and copiously to this purpose, requiring principally that in every text a man always shoot at the sense of the writer, Lest by use of missing the way, he be brought to go also the sideway or the contrary way. But although he miss that sense, if he hit any other sense, quae fidae rectae non refragatur, that is not repugnant to the right faith, or, quae aedificandae charitati sit utilis, that may serve well to the edifying of charity towards God and our neighbour: that then nihil periculi est, there is no danger, non perniciosè fallitur, he is not harmefully deceived, nec omnio mentitur, no nor is a liar at all: But rather the writer himself, Et ipsam sententiam forsitan vidit, peradventure saw even that sense also, or at the least, the Spirit of God which was in him, foresaw that the same sense also would come in the Readers way, Imò ut accurreret, quia, etc. Yea and ordained that it should come in his way, for it also standeth on truth.  
Now upon this in his article of the Churches erring, 
Ar. 86.  he offereth the Protestants, & saith: [Let any man prove unto me, that the true and only Church of God, may falsely interpret any sentence of holy Scripture, & I recant.] Fulke hereunto saith: This gentle offer must needs be taken. I will prove unto you, that the Church of Rome hath falsely interpreted divers sentences of Scripture: and therefore by that which she hath done, it can not be doubted but that she may do it. And for the first he there bringeth forth Pope Innocentius with S. Augustine and all the Western Church at that time, falsely interpreting this Scripture, 
Supra. ca 6 pa. 2.  Except ye eat the flesh, etc. Whereunto I have already answered.  
For the next, he saith: Furthermore, the second Council of Nice, how many texts of Scripture doth it salsely interpret? which it were to tedious to repeat: yet for example sake, I will rehearse some of them:  
God made man to his own image, Gen. 1. therefore we must have Images in the Church.  
No man lighteth a candle and setteth it under a Bushel. Mat. 5. therefore Images must be set upon the Altars.  
As we have heard, so we have seen in the City of our God, Psal. 48. that is: God must not be known by only hearing of his word, but also by sight of Images.  
If these be not true interpretations, I report me to you. This is answered already by the which hath been said out of S. Augustine. For, to interpret any text for Ecclesiastical Images, is to interpret it, for the right faith, & not to interpret it falsely, or to father any falsehood upon it. We need not to defend in councils any more but their definitions: & therefore if they define, that this text hath this sense, as the Council of Trent hath done in some, we defend it accordingly. Otherwise neither the council taketh upon it to hit always the very sense of the text. And yet notwithstanding (by S. Augustine à maiori, in the places above noted) I advise all men, not to be saucy with Counsels, no nor with particular Doctors, lightly judging them, and saying, that they miss the right sense: lest their sauciness have one day sour sauce. And specially you Sir, if you make not amends in time, look you to drink of your Master calvin's Cup, 
Calu. Insti. li. 1. ca 11.  whose malicious steps you here blindly follow, neglecting to look before you leapt. For I must tell you yet further, that the Council, for all your saying, doth not so interpret those texts. But only the little Emperor Constantinus & his mother Irene in their Epistle to the Synod, do exhort the father's being then gathered, to declare their Synodical judgement, 
Actione. 1.  as other Synods before them had done, & so to give forth the world their light and the light of the Holy ghost. For as much as no man lighting a Candle, putteth it under a bushel, according to our Lords saying, but upon a Candlestick, that it may give light to all that are in the house. Is not this application most apt to that text, and even to the intention of our Lord when he spoke it?  
Likewise it is not the Council, but the Pope Adrianus, which in his Epistle to the foresaid Emperors saith, 
Acti●  Yea also our Maker & worker God our Lord, after his own Image and likeness did shape man of the clay, and did lighten him, setting him in free power of himself. Not citing it to conclude, that therefore we must have Images in the Church: but to answer Nugas the trifling objection of the Heretics, who pretended, the making of an Image to be against the article of one God. Not so, saith the Pope: Nequaquam autem sic statuamus, Let us not be so persuaded. For all that we exhibit, in desiderium dei Sanctorunque eius perficitur, is in fine a great list to God & to his Saints. For (as he there citeth the saying of Stephanus Episcopus Bostrorum) If Adam had been an Image of the devils, that is to say, of false or other Gods, undoubtedly he had been to be rejected, and unworthy to be received: But seeing that he is the Image of God, he is to be honoured, and worthy to be admitted. For even so every Image is holy, that is made in the name of God, be it an Image of the Angels, or of the Prophets, or of the Apostles, or of the Martyrs, or of other just persons. Reply now upon this answer, if it be so unapt, and prosecute the former trifling objection.  
Neither again is it the Council, which citeth that verse of the Psalm of hearing & seeing, but a Deacon called Epiphanius, 
Action tom. 1.  readeth to the Council a confutation that he himself (as it seemeth) made for Images against the book of the Image breakers Synod: and therein having showed, that the tradition of the Church always used to paint Christ's life, as well as to read the Gospel of it: he descanteth by and by thereon, both out of true Philosophy, how that reading, by the ear, and painting, by the eye, engender in the mind unam cognitionem, qua ad recordationem rerum gestarum pervenitur, One knowing, whereby to come in remembrance of the acts themselves▪ & also out of divine scripture 
a Can●  where the bride desireth to see the face of her bridegroom, & not only to hear his voice: where also we sing out of the 
b Psa●  Psalm, As we have heard, so also have we seen. To this purpose he citeth those texts, not to show how God must be known, as you pretend, but, About the story of Christ's Manhood and merciful acts thereof: neither to prove immediately, that the said story must be painted, but to declare, that whereas it must be remembered, the Church therefore hath done conveniently always both to read it and to paint it, because both these together tend to one remembrance. What is here for Momus to carp or cavil at?  
Let us see what more he hath of this sort, for false interpretation of Scripture. Beside these, I will bring you (saith he) a sentence of holy Scripture, not only falsely interpreted in sense, but also falsified in words, and concerning not a small matter, but even one of the chief articles of our faith. This ensample shall be a knocker I trow, and without all redemption, manifestly against some article of faith. Let us hear it then: It is written in the .10. Chapter of the Gospel after S. john, the .29. verse. My father which gave them unto me (speaking of his sheep) is greater than all. 
Cap. 2.  This sentence hath the Council of Laterane, holden under Pope Innocent the third (where were present 70. metropolitans, 400. Bishops, 12. Abbates, and, 800. Prior's conventualles, in all .1300. Prelate's) falsified in words, after this manner, Pater quod dedit mihi, maius est omnibus, that is, That which the father hath given me, is greater than all. This sentence they allege, to prove, that God the father begetting his Son from everlasting, gave his own substance unto him. Why? is that to prove a falsehood, or the truth? yourself seem to have confessed, or no doubt you will confess, that it is to prove the truth: And yet what a do you make about it? for you say again: Go your ways now and persuade us, that your Church can not interpret any sentence of the Scripture falsely, when the Lateran Council, which is your represented Church, hath thus both falsified, and falsely interpreted this Scripture. And again: Persuade men, that they may safely lean to the interpretation of your Church, when among a thousand and three hundred Prelates, gathered Canonically in a Council, not one was found that could espy such gross abusing of the word of God, but let it pass in a Canon, under the name of the whole Council. And yet once again: Persuade men, that in all controversies, & condemning of errors they must be revealed by the determination of your Church, when the Fathers of the Lateran Council, can not confute the error of joachim Abbot, concerning the divinity of Christ, but by falsifying and false interpreting of Scripture. By this we may, I think, easily persuade the Reader, that if you had in deed any matter against our Church, you would both let us hear it, and also never have done with it. Why man? here is no false determination any way, nor no false interpretation, in D. Allens sense, and therefore also here is nothing to the purpose. Yea I add moreover, here is no false interpretation also in your own sense, that is to say, no unapt interpretation, as yourself also will grant, supposing once the text to be as the Council allegeth it. And therefore, of your two crimes, you must strike out the one, to wit, false or unapt interpretation, and then all is about the other, wherein you say no less than four times, that the Council hath falsified the words of that text. And what reason, yea what colour have you for that? Is it not in the vulgar Latin translation verbatim as the Council allegeth it? And so is the Council cleared of that crime also. Will you now charge your copy, and frame your accusation anew against the translation, as differing from the original, that is, from the Greek? But afore you do so, take my counsel with you, and be sure first that the Greek is so as you say. For some Greek copies, 
Cyr. ● joan. Au. i● 10. tr● Hila. li. 7. p● medi● Amb● Spi. S● li. 3. c●  of ancient also had even as we have: as namely the copy which S. cyril, being a Greek Doctor, expoundeth. And who can doubt, but the copy also of our most ancient, yea and most authentical Translator, had even as he translated? Which also the most ancient Latin Doctors, as S. Augustine by name, S. Ambrose, yea and S. Hilary too, did read jump as we do. And the Latins 
a) vi● Amb● Rom●  by reason should in this matter be better witnesses than the Greeks, specially seeing such variety among the Greeks also themselves, for as much as the Arrians never reigned so, nothing like, in the Latin Church, as they did in the Greek, where they were to cancel, to change, to corrupt, what they would. And so are you answered fully in every side, nor you only, but joachim also himself, if he would go about to make his vantage as you instruct him.  
One text more corrupted by our Church, as he saith, and then an end. These be his words: 
Ar. 7●  How corrupt that Latin translation is, which they would needs thrust upon us, is sufficiently known to all learned men, even in such texts as are the most colourable places for the defence of Popish doctrine. I will give one example for all: They allege the text 1. Cor. 10. Qui stat, videat ne cadat, He that standeth let him take heed he fall not) against the certainty of faith. Whereas the Greek hath not, He that standeth, 
Stand out of his light that the child may see.  but, He that thinketh he standeth, let him take heed he fall not. Why man? look better in the text. 1. Cor. 10. our translation is there, not as you charge it, but even as you say the Greek to be: Qui se existimat stare, videat ne cadat. And yet you infer, saying: Thus the Popish Church can not altogether excuse herself, from corrupting the text of the Testament: whether it was of fraud, or of ignorance, or of negligence, the Lord knoweth.  
This is your goodly substantial stuff that you have against the Popish Church: which may seem you well amongst the blind, that will needs follow such blind guides. But us that have eyes, how can you alienate from it with such gear? yea could you more confirm us in our liking of it, then after this sort to bewray yourselves, that you have no matter, no substance, yea no shadow of any thing, against it? Well, in the name of God bethink yourselves in time, and humble yourselves to your loving Mother, this one only Church of God. In old time it was the true Church, as yourself confess, and therefore if you had lived then, you would not have spurned against it, you would have been a good child of it, yea also though you thought it to err. How much more, considering now you see that it erred not, as you thought it did? Prove therefore that your heart meaneth, as your tongue speaketh: Prove it (I say) by yielding to the same Church now, which you see now no less, yea much more cleared from all errors, in this answer to each error that you have charged it withal. Or at leastwise let all other men, as they love their souls, forethink themselves, and ponder well, whether these objections are like to be admitted of their judge, the head & husband of this Church, for good pleas, in that general and most terrible Court day.      

¶ The seventh Chapter. That he hath no other shift against our manifold Evidences (so clear they be) but the name of Only Scripture, as well about each controversy, as also about the meaning of Scripture itself: And how timorous he maketh us, and how bold he beareth himself hereupon.  
WHat shameful confessions he hath been fain to make against his own side, and for our side, it hath here many ways in sundry chapters appeared already. But the same will now again appear much more clearly, if in this Chapter we run over the common Evidences of Christian truth, out of which I framed my declaration in my books of Motives and Demands, and consider that he is fain to confess them all to be against him, and therefore to take exception against them, and say, that neither they, nor any thing else that can be brought forth, is good evidence in such suits, but Scripture alone, and such Scripture also as is so plain and manifest for the matter, that it can not by any subtlety be avoided of the adversary. For he knoweth well pardy, that we bring forth not other evidences alone, but Scripture also with them. But the others he seeth to be so plain, that there is no remedy unless they be canceled. Marry from our Scriptures he hath an evasion, as he thinketh, to wrangle and say that they be not plain and evident for us, but so that he can wrest them to an other meaning.  

The first part. How he excepteth by Only Scripture, against all other Evidences in the controversies that are between us.  

j Against the rule to know heresy, etc.  
Well then, let us hear him speak in his own words: and first, how he maketh his exception, being charged many ways with the crime of heresy. Notable it is, both to the confirmation of the Catholic, and also to the conversion of the Heretic, to behold how the more that he fluttereth to get out, the more he wrappeth himself in the lime.  

Ar. 44. First Authors. As in my fourth demand. old heresies demand xxxviij.  Whereas you brag (saith he to D. Allen) to note unto us every one of our Captains, by their names, and the several errors that they taught, and the time and year when they arose against the former received truth: Except you note unto us the patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, and Christ himself, you shall never be able to perform that you promise. For we teach nothing but the eternal truth of God. Wherefore we refuse not to be counted heretics, if you can prove that we hold any one article of faith contrary to the Scripture. And immediately: You may perchance note the names of them, that preaching the truth of our doctrine against your received errors, were accounted of the world (so he termeth them whom he himself confesseth to have been the true Church) for heretics. But you must prove that their opinions are contrary to the word of God, or else all your labour is in vain. 
Supra pag. 10.  And for example: (more store the Reader may see here in the third Chapter,) I will not dissemble, (saith he) Aërius taught that prayer for the dead was unprofitable, as witnesseth both Epiphanius and Augustinus: which they account for an error. But neither of them both reproveth it by the Scripture. 
Pur. 416.  And the same again in another place: Now at the length cometh the author of this heresy by the testimony of Epiphanius and Augustine. But neither of them confuteth it by the Scriptures. 
Pur. 426.  And in an other place, thus boldly: For our part it is sufficient, that we know God in his holy word to be the first founder of our doctrine, and therefore that they lie blasphemously, which would make any heretic the author of it. And thereupon he concludeth, forsooth with great honesty, saying: Wherefore, 
Ar. 44.  if Aërius had not been an Arrian, this opinion could not have made him an heretic. Where, to pass that blasphemy, only this I say, 
August. ad quoduu. in praef. & in epilogo.  that he seemeth not to know the purpose of S. Augustine in that book De haeresibus ad quoduultdeum, which he saith was likewise the purpose of Epiphanius, not to confute, but only to report the heresies that had been before his time, and that not without great profit to the Reader, Cum scire sufficiat, etc. because it is enough only to know, that the Catholic Church's judgement is against these, and that no man must receive into his belief any one of these. And again: Multum adiwat cor fidele, etc. It greatly helpeth the faithful heart▪ only to know what must not be believed, although he be not able to confute it by disputing. Lo then, you faithful hearts, the case is so clear, 
Note, ● seek th● this con● of Fulke●  that the very adversary confesseth, both that the same was the true Catholic Church, and also that it judged Aerius to be an heretic: help yourselves therefore, and make your profit of this confession, assuring yourselves upon the Catholic Doctor's lesson, that seeing the Church was against Aerius, the scripture could not be with him, because one Spirit of truth speaketh both in the Church and in the Scripture. As for Fulke, and all that he here saith, you see it is no other than if Aerius, iovinianus, or Vigilantius had said unto you, Ask my fellow whether I be a thief. nought else it is that he there again concludeth for those three heresiarkes, saying: Thus, 
Are 4●  you are not able to name any, which preached any article of our doctrine, but the same was consonant to the Scripture. Of the same sort also in an other place: Therefore (M. Allen, or, 
Pur. 3●  S. Augustine rather) if you will teach your Scholars to keep us at the bay as heretics, you must not teach them to bark and bawl, nothing but the Church the Church, like tinker's curs, 
O wor● stimatio● he hath Church.  but you must instruct them to open cunningly out of the Scriptures, how our doctrine is contrary to the truth, and yours agreeable to the same. Again like one that would appoint his enemy not to invade him with a gun, because he knoweth not how to save himself from the shot of it, but to take some other weapon, & that of his making, in an other place he saith, And especially in this controversy, 
Pur. 12  where either party chargeth other with heresy (howbeit, I trow, his party chargeth not so S. Epiphanius, & S. Augustine, though they so charge his Patriarch Aerius) it had been convenient, that the right definition or description of an heretic had been first set down, that men might thereby have learned, who is justly to be burdened with that crime. For an heretic is he that in the Church, obstinately maintaineth an opinion, that is contrary to the doctrine of God contained in the holy Scriptures, which if any of us can be proved to do, then let us not be spared, 
An her● a man in Church 〈◊〉 Fulk, F● a nobis, 〈◊〉 john. Infra.  but condemned for Heretics. In deed if an Heretic, be a man in the Church, you are cockesure, and not only you and Aerius, but Arrius, Pelagius, & all other heretics that ever were: & we rather with S. Augustine, S. Epiphanius, and such others, in danger. To this place it belongeth that again he sayeth: 
Pur. 402.  M. Allen giveth a special note, that we name not jovinian, or Vigilantius, the plain avouchers of our opinions: but rather labour to writhe with plain injury to the Author, some sentence out of Augustine, or Ambrose, or some other, that opened themselves to the world to believe the contrary: And thinketh we are ashamed of the other. In deed if we depended upon any man's authority, or that any man or men were the Authors of our faith, we should be injurious unto them if we did not acknowledge our founders, But seeing God himself is the Father of that doctrine, which we have received by his holy word, we are not ashamed of Vigilantius nor Berengarius, when they agree therewith. Only the Canonical Scriptures are the rule, by which we judge of all men and their writings, of all doctrine and the teachers thereof. 
Pur. 409.  Again: And therefore it is but vain bragging, that you promise to seek out other Fathers of our persuasion, than the Apostles of Christ▪ by whose holy writings, we never refuse to be judged. For the Scripture is the only high way to the truth, with the guidance of God's spirit. And again: You spend many words in vain, 
Pur. 412.  to pro●e, that the first author of an opinion being found, the opinion is found to be an heresy. It shall be granted with all favour, but so that no man shall be counted the first author of an opinion that is able to prove his opinion out of the word of God. And withal, that whosoever is not able to prove by the word of God, any opinion, that he holdeth obstinately, though he have many authors before him, yet he is nevertheless an 
Though i● be S. Augustine himself, & though he hold the foundation here cap. v.  heretic. And so much of their first authors found out by us, as Aerius, iovinianus, Vigilantius, and such other old heresiarchs, condemned (he confesseth) by the true Church of Christ, but contrary (he saith) to the Scriptures of Christ.  
Now on the other side, being urged by D. Allen to find in like manner our first Authors, or else it will follow, the Apostles to be our authors, 
Pur. 391.  hear what he saith thereunto: Must we find out the authors of your heresies? nay justify them yourselves by the word of God if you can. You shall not compel us to tell you, where, when, or how your heresy came in. It chaufeth him, that we show so plain an evidence against his side, & he can not show the like against us: and therefore he is feign to fly again to his cold exception of only Scripture, as though to justify our doctrine by the Apostles, and that so sensibly, were not enough.  
But most ridiculous of all it is, to see him come in with this exception, where D. Allen alleged Tertullian for this rule. 
Pur. 4 Ar. 42  That doctrine (saith Fulke) which is first (agreeable to Tertullian'S rule) is undoubtedly true, and that which is later, is false. But how shall the first doctrine be known, but by the word of God, wherein all the doctrine of God is taught? 
Tert. 〈…〉 praesc.  Tertullian there hath an other rule against such heresies as presumed Inserere se aetati Apostolicae, To say that their founders lived in the Apostles time. But this our rule he giveth against all such as rise any time after, as Aerius, Luther, Calvin, etc. bidding us then to consider what was taught & believed immediately before they arose: for the undoubtedly is the truth, and their later doctrine is falsehood. Now then how ridiculous is it for Fulke to run from Tertullian'S meaning, & yet to pretend that he agreeth to Tertullian'S Rule?  
The same rule, with an amplification also, 
Antiq … Dem.  & in the same meaning, doth likewise Vincentius Lirinensis give, to wit, If any Novelty arise at any time, yea & prevail so much afterward in process of time, as to make an universal corruption, so that almost no country of Christendom be free from it, (as this merchant boasteth at this day of the most of Europe, England, Scotland, Ireland, 
Ar. 3. Infra. Dem. 〈…〉  France, Germany, Denmark, Suetia, Bohemia, Polonia, & a great number also in Spain, & Italy) that then we look unto Antiquity, that is, to the time before such novelty prevailed, & before it arose: as what was taught & believed immediately before Luther began these innovations. And therefore alike ridiculous it is, that he saith: We refuse not the rule of Vincentius Lirinensis, 
Pur. 3●…  concerning Antiquity: so you can prove that it hath God to be the Author, the Prophets, and Apostles. As for witnesses under this antiquity, we pass not for them. Why man? The rule that you receive, proveth it? The Apostles (I say) to be the Authors of our solemn prayer for the dead in the holy Mass, and of any other such article, because it hath such antiquity as I have now said, and as Vincentius meant.  
And so much, upon the Rule of finding out the first authors of any doctrine, and the same therefore to be heretical: or not finding them, and the same therefore to be Apostolical. Whither is to be referred that Rule also of D. Allens, that such as commonly by Christian people be named Heretics, 
Names: dem. 7.8.  always prove in the end to be heretics in deed, notwithstanding their craking of God's word. Whereunto Fulkes exception is the self same again, saying: 
Ar. 65.  The true Christians at this day being of the Papists (which after a sort are named Christians) called heretics, and in reproach Protestants and calvinists: in that their faith agreeth with the word of God, prove themselves in deed to be true Christians and no heretics.   

ij. Against the Apostles Traditions.  

Traditions. Dem. 29. Pur. 362.  Now let us hear, how he maketh his said exception also against the Traditions of the Apostles. Thus he speaketh: M. Allen referreth the institution of Prayer and Sacrifice for the dead, to the tradition of the Apostles. Of whom will he be afeard to lie, when he fathereth such a blasphemy upon the Apostles. Soft man, be good to D. Allen for their sakes that follow. For you yourself go forward in the same place, and say: But who is witness that this is the tradition of the Apostles? Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, jeronym, and a great many more. This you could not, and therefore do not deny, but come in with your stolen exception, saying: But if it be lawful for me once to pose the Papists, I would learn why the Lord would not have this doubtless institution, plainly, or at leastwise obscurely set forth by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or Paul, which all have set forth the story of the institution of the Sacrament? If it were not meet at all to be put in writing, why was it disclosed by Tertullian, Cyprian, 
Pur. 387.  Augustine, & c? Likewise in an other place: If prayer for the dead was appointed by the Apostles commandment, why is there never a word thereof in their writings? If I were disposed to pose you, this question would make you claw your poll a hundred times before you could imagine any collourable answer: for right answer you shall never be able to make. In deed a doughty question it is. As though if a Christian can not answer every why of the Infidel, our Religion therefore is strait in hazard. 
Ar. 48.  It may trouble a wise man to answer all the questions that a fool can propound, you say yourself. And yet neither you, nor any other Infidel shall ever find the learned to seek. It is for your religion to be to seek of answers, because it began but yesterday, and is neither yet thoroughly shaped. But the Catholic, which is the only Christian Religion, coming of God, & so many hundred years since continuing, hath been by our forefathers and the holy Ghost so sifted to our hands, that the answer is always ready, afore the question be demanded. Briefly therefore S. Augustine one of our Masters and Doctors in Christ, hath taught us, if we be posed about the Church's order in Baptism, to answer, 
Au. d● & op.  that Serie Traditionis scimus, By the course of tradition we know what things are to be done therein, although they be not expressed in the Scriptures, and that, for brevities sake. So likewise, being posed about the order of this other Sacrament, to answer, Quia multum erat, etc. 
Au. E● ad Ia● cap. 6  Because it was much for the Apostle to signify in his Epistle to the Corinthians the whole order of the action that the universal Church through all the world observed: therefore having said somewhat of the same Sacrament, yea and as much as all the Evangelists, by and by he added, And when I come, 
1. Cor  I will prescribe the rest of the orders. unde intelligi datur (saith S. Augustine) And thereby we may understand, that whatsoever is not varied in any variety of usages, was of his prescribing. This is our answer, and you knew it partly before. For you say: I know the Papists will fly to those words of the Apostle, 
Pur. 3●  The rest I will set in order when I come. And good reason, S. Augustine teacheth us so to do. And what say you to him for it: But that is so manifest to be spoken of matters of external comeliness, (and not of doctrine of the Sacrament, as Prayers and Sacrifices) that no man which understandeth what diatazesthai doth signify, can doubt or make any question of it. Be it so, as you say: But what? have you forgotten the thing whereof you speak? Is it not of that Solemn prayer for the dead in the celebration of the Sacrifice? That prayer (we say) is diatazis, one of S. Paul's ordinations: What unproper speech is here? specially S. Augustine saying again in another place: 
Aug● ver. ● Ser. 3  Hoc enim a patribus traditum universa observat Ecclesia. This being a tradition of the Fathers, (that is, the Apostles) the whole Church observeth (and therefore it is such a thing as nulla morum diversitate variatur) when they which are departed in the communion (or unity) of the body and blood of Christ, be in their place mentioned at the same Sacrifice, To pray for them, and to mention that for them also it is offered.  
Thus you have a piece of the cause, why the Scriptures contained not the whole order of celebration of the Sacraments, to wit, for brevities sake. And what doth that or any other cause let other writers to make mention of such things, when Aerius the heretic compelled them, or any other just occasion was ministered? You imagine, (and that deceiveth you) as though the Apostles purposed to put all in writing. Which if they had, neither so many of them, 
That all is not written.  nor one of them so often, would have mentioned one thing. But as the purpose of the holy Ghost in the books of the Old Testament, was principally, to foreshow manifoldly Christ and his Church: so in the books of the New Testament, as in the gospels, 
joan. 19 Luk. 24.  to show Christ, even to Consummatum est, and Impleri omnia quae scripta sunt de me. And in the Acts of the Apostles, to show Christ's Church according to the old predictions, beginning amongst the jews, and increasing to the Gentiles, yea and removing with S. Paul from Jerusalem the head of the jews, worthily reprobated, and setting in Rome the head of the Gentiles, by mercy elected. And all this but as it were the first birth of the Church: for Consummatum est, could not be told by way of a Story, before the end of the world: though foretold it is (the whole course, I say, of the Church, even to the glorious consummation thereof) in the Apocalypse. The other Books were written, specially against the perfidious jews, and other false Masters of that time: As likewise in every age afterward, against the several heresies of each age, we have the Ecclesiastical (I say not, Canonical) writers and Counsels. And therefore, unless any thing belonging to each time, be omitted in the writings of each time, no marvel at all for the omission of other things, which there was then no such occasion to express. This I should have reserved to an other place, but that this insolent Poser might not abide any delay.  

Pur. 264.  Now then to go forward with him: I know (saith he) the Papists will answer, that Tradition is of as good credit as the Scripture, 
1. Thes. 2. 2. Thes. 2. 1. Cor. 11.  and is the word of God unwritten, as well as the Scripture is the word of God written. And good reason, for the Scripture itself so teacheth us. But why then (saith he) do they not observe all things that Tertullian in the same place affirmeth to be Tradition? This Why, I have answered in the sixth Chapter. 
Supra ● par. 1. d● Pur. 36  Moreover he saith: Their writings are to us the only true testimony of their tradition. So were they not to the Thessalonians. For they had of S. Paul, Traditiones per sermonem & per epistolam, 
Pur. 40  Traditions partly by word of mouth, partly by writing. Yea he saith further: When the Apostolic writing can not be showed, it is but the point of an Heretic to boast of Apostolic tradition. So he saith to D. Allen. But to the old Fathers I hope he will be somewhat better, and content to take only his exception against them: as where he saith: 
Pur. 39 ●  If Tertullian had no ground of his saying, when he affirmed that Oblations for the dead came from the Apostles, what ground can Augustine have, which was 200. years further from the Apostles time than he? Again: 
Pur. 39  chrysostom can no more prove, that Prayer for the dead came from the Apostles, than Tertullian can prove that oblation for the dead came from them. Again: But where he saith, 
Pur. 30 304.  It was decreed by the Apostles that in the celebration of the holy mysteries a remembrance should be made of them that are departed, He must pardon us of crediting, because he can not show it out of the Acts and writings of the Apostles. We must not believe chrysostom without Scripture, affirming that it was ordained so by the Apostles. Howbeit sometime he is bolder yet with the Fathers for avouching this Tradition. He dare not call them heretics for it: but yet he dareth to charge them with doubtfulness & contradiction about it. For of chrysostom he saith: 
Pur. 39 Chrysom Ep. ad ● Hom. 3  Lo (M. Allen) your own Doctor confesseth it is but small help, that can be procured by prayers, alms, or remembrance of them at the celebration of the holy Mysteries. You will say, that soon after he saith, The Apostles that instituted such memory, knew that much commodity came to the dead. Then see how soon he forgetteth himself, when he followeth not the rule of holy scripture. And again: 
Ar. 39  Yet did not praying for the dead so prevail in the Primitive Church, that they durst define, what profit the souls received thereby: for chrysostom saith: Let us procure them some help, small help truly, but yet let us help them. Likewise Augustine, 
Aug. ● fes. lib. cap. 13.  where he prayeth for his father and mother, declareth how uncertain he was of the matter. One while he feareth the danger of every soul that dieth in Adam: An other while he believeth, that they need not his prayer, yet he desireth God to accept the same, and move other men to remember them in their prayers. Thus it is necessary that they wander, which lean unto men's traditions without the word of God. And in the same place: S. Augustine in his book De cura pro mortuis agenda, wearieth himself, and in the end can define nothing in certain, how the Saints in heaven should hear the prayers of men on earth. Such doubtfulness they fall into, that leave the word of God, & lean to traditions. Although he were willing to maintain Invocation of Saints, 
Pur. 317.  yet he hath nothing of certainty out of the word of God, either to persuade his own conscience, or to satisfy them that moved the doubts unto him. For S. Augustine De cura, I have answered in the third Chapter. 
Supra pag. 12.  In his Confessions he is not uncertain of the matter, as you pretend, but of the persons need, and that but of his mother's need (not also of his fathers, as you say) because she was so perfect a woman. Even as our faith also of the matter is most certain: though of our particular friends state after their departure, we be uncertain. For concerning the living also, 
job. 1.  was job uncertain of the profitableness of Sacrifice, because early in the morning he used to offer for his children, after they had been feasting together, Dicebat enim, ne forte peccaverint filii mei, For he said, lest peradventure my children have sinned? And touching S. chrysostom, whom you think so very a child to forget himself so soon, yourself in deed a very child for so thinking: He there speaketh first of 
a) For such as die unreconciled.  them, Qui cum peccatis suis hinc abscedunt, Which go hence with their sins, and saith, that they can not be helped after their death. Then he speaketh 
b) For Catholics that be rich.  of them, Who are departed in the faith, but yet being rich, they did not procure by their riches any comfort to their own souls. To these, we that are their friends, may with our riches & prayers procure some help, but little in respect of that they might have procured themselves. So saith he. He speaketh in such a comparison. Neither is the Apostolic Memento within his comparison, although it might have been well enough. For although by it come much commodity, much utility, to the dead: yet nothing so much when it is procured by their friends, as when it is procured by themselves: specially, because a man's own works are also meritorious of everlasting reward. so are not his friends works, they are not meritorious unto him at all, no nor so satisfactorious of temporal pain, as his own, nothing like.   

iij. Against the Church's authority.  
And so much of the Apostles and their Traditions. 
Authority Dem. 34. Divine service, Dem. 22. Pur. 264.  You shall now hear him make the same exception against the Church's Practice and judgement. But admit (saith he) that the Church of God in Tertullian'S time used prayers and oblations for the dead. Let us consider upon what ground they were used. Tertullian himself shall say for me, that the same custom, with many other which he there rehearseth, as coming from the Apostles, hath no ground in the holy Scripture. It is good to take that which is so frankly given: and more is Tertullian to be commended, that confesseth the ground of his error not to be taken out of the word of God, than they that labour to wrest the Scriptures to find that which Tertullian confesseth is not to be found in them. You are hasty to take it, but Tertullian doth not give it, as I have plainly showed you in the third Chapter. 
Supra. pa. 2 diui. 3.   
Again, he excepteth against the Church's Practice in her Liturgy or Mass, and saith: We have with more honesty reformed our Liturgy according to the word of God, than Gregory, 
Pur. 371.  Basil, chrysostom, or whosoever were authors of those Liturgies, did leave the ancient Liturgies that were used in the Church before their time, and forge them new of their own, contrary to the word of God: we neither refuse the Latin Church, while it was pure, nor receive the East Church wherein it was corrupt: But the Scripture is a rule unto us to judge all Churches by. And yet that we may not think him a coward, he saith else where to D. Allen. But to follow you at the heels (as far as you dare go: 
Pur. 349.  I will agree with S. Augustine's Rule▪ (quod legem credendi, lex statuit supplicandi, the order of the Churches prayer, is ever a plain prescription to all the faithful what to believe: so saith S. Augustine, and so doth D Allen allege it: but because Fulke could not make his flourish with that end forward, he turneth the staff, as though S. Augustine and D. Allen had said: 
Falsification by changing. ) that the law of believing, should make a law of praying. And then he bestirreth himself like a man, and addeth of his own: But faith if it be true, hath no other ground but the word of God: Therefore prayer if it proved of true faith, hath no other Rule to frame it by, but the word of God. And by and by after: Which rule (of only Scripture) if Augustine had diligently followed, in examining the common error of his time, Of prayer for the dead at that time, he would not so 
* O videns.  blindly have defended that which by holy Scripture he was not able to maintain.  
And no less bold he is with the Practice commended even in the Canonical Scripture itself: Seeing this fact of judas Machabaeus, 
Pur. 210.  hath no commandment in the Law, it is so far of that it is to be drawn into example, that we may be bold to condemn it for sin and disobedience.  
Now concerning the judgement of the Church, he excepteth against it likewise, 
Ar. 86.  saying: As for doubts that arise by difficulty of Scripture, or contention of heresy, they must be resolved and determined, only by Scriptures. For there is never 
a● cause heretics make doubt of the Church, this heretic will that no Christian lean unto it.  heresy, but there is as great doubt of the Church, as of the matter in question. Only the Scripture is the stay of a Christian man's conscience. As though that heresies never made doubt of the scriptures also, either of all, or of some piece, namely yourselves now of the Machabées. And expressly against his own Church he maketh the same exception, 
Ar. 58.  saying: And the Protestants in Europe will also be ruled by their Superiors, so far as their Superiors are ruled by God's word. Again, Among the Protestants, to the Church of Saxony, humbly affected is the Church of Denmark: to the Church of Helvetia, the Church of France: to the Church of England, the Church of Scotland: But so, that none of these allow any consent or submission, but to the truth, which must be tried only by God's word. With that but so you will consent, I trow, to jackstrawe also: and therefore it is a marvelous humble affection, that your Churches have one to an other. 
Anno. 1. Elizab.  Your own Church of England in general Parliament, was then much to blame, to enact four Rules for condemning of heresy. First, if it were against Canonical Scripture. Secondly, if it were against the first .4. General Counsels, or against any one of them. Thirdly, if against any other general Council also, but the with your acception, to wit, so far as the said Council followed the line of Scripture: and four, simpliciter whatsoever this high Court of Parliament shall adjudge to be heresy. You notwithstanding have written, as before. And again: Neither do we require you to believe any one company of men, 
Ar. 62.  more than another: but to believe the truth before falsehood, which you must search in the word of truth. It was belike for this, & much other such Apocryphal stuff, that your book was kept in so long, and in the end also feign to come forth without privilege.  
Yea he is so peremptory in his exception, 
Fu●e will not believe the Apostles nor the Angels without Scripture.  the most absurdly he attributeth to the Apostles themselves without scripture no more then to jackstraw, and consequently with scripture as much to jackstraw as to the Apostles. For thus he saith speaking of D. Allen: He speaketh it because he believeth it. 
Pur. 24.4. 2. Cor. 4.  He would feign counterfeit his speech like the Apostle: but the ground of his belief is not, as the Apostles was, the word of God, but the practice of men, which though they were never so good, yet they were such as might deceive and be deceived. Again, 
Pur. 449. Gal. 1.  where he abuseth that which S. Paul speaketh to the Galathians of preaching, & their receiving of it, & turneth it as spoken of only Scripture. It vexeth you at the very heart (saith he) that we require the authority of the holy Scriptures, to confirm your doctrine, having a plain commandment out of the word of God, that, if any man teach otherwise then the word of God alloweth, he is to be accursed. As though S. Paul there commanded to accurse himself, and all the Apostles, & the universal Church of Christ, if they confirmed not all their doctrine, with express Scriptures, in such manner as you here require. No Sir, nothing so: Only he accurseth them, which should preach contrary to that he had preached, & the Galathians had received, which was (as you see) tradition by mouth, in which manner he taught them & other Churches all Christian Religion, & therein as one principal point, the Canon of the scriptures, both old & new, if at the leastwise any Books of the new as then were written, which could not be many before the Epistle to the Galathians, being (as by conference of times it may well be proved) the first of all S. Paul's Epistles.  
And so much of the Church's authority in her judgements, and Practise, namely of her divine Service. Whereunto I join, as the principals in the authority, first the councils, and secondly the Popes. For to them likewise he maketh his exception, 
Pur. 430. Counsels. Dem. 27.  saying: Wherefore if any Council decree according to the Scriptures, (as the Council of the Apostles did Act. 15. & the Council of Nice, with divers other,) we receive them with all humility, as the oracles of God. But if any Council decree contrary to the authority of the Scriptures, (as many did) without all presumption or pride we may justly reject them. 
Pur. 194. See Apostolic. Dem. 28.  Then of the other: Yet is not all that Gregory writ, of equal authority with the word of God: without authority whereof, we believe not an Angel from heaven, as I have often showed, much less a Bishop of Rome. And not only against each Pope severally, but also against their whole line and entire Succession he excepteth in like manner, saying: 
Succession: Dem. 43. A●. 28.  Although we could rehearse in order as many Successions in our Church, as the Papists boast of in theirs, yet were that nothing to prove it to be the Church of Christ, which must be tried only by the Scriptures. And a little after: We require at the Papists hands, that they show themselves to hold the Church, not by Succession of Bishops, or rehearsing of their names, but only by the Scriptures. For although we did rehearse innumerable names of Bishops in orderly Succession on our side, we would not require men to believe us, but only because we prove the doctrine of our Church by the authority of the Scriptures. In deed we must acknowledge, 
Fulke what a frankeling.  that you deal very frankly with us, to renounce so freely such a goodly evidence, because you can not make so much as any show thereof. For otherwise, when you have any colour of any thing at all, what mountybanke peddler is so facing, so boasting, so vaunting, as you and your fellows.   

iiij. Against the Fathers.  

Fathers. Dem. 26.  Now after all this I will open his like excepting against the Fathers both in general, and also expressing diverse of their names, although it hath been opened in part already by other occasions.  
And touching the first: true it is that he often braggeth much of the Fathers which lived in the first 
a Ar. 39 Pu. 30.177 435.370.371.  two hundred, or 
b Pur. 186.247.304.331.357.364.382.  one hundred years, challenging us to prove our doctrine out of them, and not out of the later Fathers after them, even with as much reason as he commonly challengeth us to prove all out of the scriptures, utterly without all ground, & but mere voluntarily, 
* Fulkes two Onelies.  the one, as the other: which ensample therefore is much to be noted. But here notwithstanding I shall declare, how he excepteth smoothly and simply, against all the Fathers, against all in general, and expressly also saying were they never so ancient. Wherein how well he agreeth with himself I defer to the eleventh Chapter. And in effect he hath already so done, in calling so often afore for Only Scripture. But yet to show it more manifestly, and as it were the very face itself, thus he saith: 
Pur. 205.  Whatsoever he was, or how long soever it be since he wrote, because it hath not authority in the word of God, I weigh it as the words of a man, whose credit in divine matters is nothing without the word of God. Again: 
Pur. 202.  When all authority out of God's word faileth you, whereby you should prove that the souls departed receive benefit by the merits of the living, you fly to the authority of men. But man's authority is to weak to carry away so weighty a matter. Away with men's writings, show me but one Scripture to prove it. Again: If for these and an hundred such, 
Pur. 22.  you can show no better warrant than the terms of your fathers, the practice of your elders, or the authority of mortal men, the curse of God by Esay, must needs be turned over unto you. Again: 
Pur. 58.  Your reasons either be manifest wrestings of the holy Scripture, or else are builded upon the authority of mortal men. Again: 
Pur. 386.  We need no shift, M. Allen, for the authority of the Doctors, whom we never allow for Canonical Scriptures: and therefore we may boldly say, Whatsoever we find in them agreeable to the Scriptures (he meaneth, expressed in the Scriptures) we receive it with their praise? and whatsoever is disagreeable to the Scriptures, we refuse with their leave. Again: 
Pur. 363.  Now touching the credit and worthiness of these whom M. Allen so highly extolleth: as I would not go about to diminish it, if they were to be compared with us: so when they are 
As though we opposed the doctors to the Apostles.  opposed against the manifest word of God, and the credit of the holy Apostles the ministers of the holy Ghost: there is no cause that we should be carried away with them.  
That which he saith here (as his Masters taught him) of mortal men, D. Allen knew aforehand, and forewarned the Reader thereof, where he said: [Melancton, 
Pur. 384.  as though he were no man that might err himself, saith the Doctors were men.] And again to see their absurdity, in the same term of mortal men, 
Mortal men.  are comprehended also the Apostles themselves: and if they sometime seem to separate themselves from it, they mean then by the Apostles nothing but the Scriptures of the Apostles. As Fulke in certain places noted before, and again where he saith to D. Allen: 
Ar. 59  You shall never bring us to acknowledge that S. Paul is against us in any article of our faith, but we agree wholly with him. Nevertheless I know what you mean, and I will not be afraid to utter it. For as much as immediately after the Apostles time corruption entered into the Church, you think that we dare not depend upon any one man's judgement, and therein you are not deceived, for we must depend only upon God's word. Even so dealt the unbelievers and the doubtful and weak with the Apostles in their life time, yea and with Christ himself: and yet to win such persons, both the Apostles, yea and Christ himself, condescended to them accordingly. If the Protestants would in like sort have dealt with him & them, not to have believed them in any thing without Scripture, the faithful (I think) for all that were not so strait laced, but believed them upon their own word, not Christ only, but also his Apostles, because of the spirit of truth that he sent to them, and not to them only, but also to his Church after them for ever: and therefore they will also no less at all times believe the said Church for the same spirit, assuring themselves, that the said spirit agreeth still with himself, wheresoever and howsoever he speaketh, be it in the Scriptures, or be it in the Church, and in the Church Primitive, or in the Church of later times: and again in the Pastors of the Primitive Church, as the Apostles, or in the Pastors of the Church afterward at any time in general Council or otherwise consenting together.  
It is no marvel after this generality, to see him now except against the Fathers in particular, naming the times, and the persons. 
Ar. 60.  as first the times, where he saith: The other writers of later years (after Ireneus and justinus) we are not afraid to confess that they have some corruption, whereby you may seem to have colour of defence for Invocation of saints, prayer for the dead, 
Pur. ●87.  and divers Ceremonies. And, Although the custom of praying for the dead be an ancient error, so that few of the later writers there are, but they show themselves to be infected therewith, yet they had no ground out of the Scriptures to warrant their doing. 
Pur. 262.  Again: But of memories of the dead, and prayers for the dead also, we will not strive but that they were used before the times of Cyprian & Ambrose: but without warrant of God's word or authority of Scriptures, but such as is pitifully wrested and drawn unto them. Again: 
Pur. 30.  But it sufficeth you that your forefathers, more than a thousand years ago, called the place of sufferance, Purgatory. But I pray you what is it called in the Scripture, either of the old Testament, or the new? divers errors be older than a 1000 years: but age can never make falsehood to be truth, and therefore I weigh not your 
* It is pride to follow the fathers and humility to condemn them.  proud brags worth a straw. Again: And this was a great corruption of those ancient times, that they did not always weigh what was most agreeable to the word of God, but if the Gentiles or Heretics had any thing, 
Pur. 419.  and the rest as above in the third Chapter. And again: 
Supra. pag. 9  Those of the ancient Fathers that agreed with you in any part of your assertion, notwithstanding many excellent gifts that they had, 
Pur. 436.  dissented (therein) from manifest truth of the Scriptures.  
And so by name likewise he saith of certain, as for example: Damascene your doctor should first have reproved that persuasion by Scripture. Again: 
Pur. 412. Pur. 60.  The supposal of S. Augustine is set down, which because it is but the authority of a man, it is not of sufficient weight to bear down the testimony of God's word. Again: 
Pur. 395.  And even the authority of Athanasius without the word of God, is the authority of man. We count not all his writings for Canonical Scriptures, but we judge them by the Canonical Scriptures. And again: 
Pur. 255.256.  Gregory Nissene and Athanasius the Great, There is no cause why we should believe either of them both in an article of faith without the authority of the word of God.    

The second part. Being told that the question between us is not (as he maketh it) of the Scriptures authority, but of the meaning: how there likewise against all the Expositors he maketh the same exception of Only Scripture, requiring also Scripture to be expounded by Scripture.  
Now after all this froth of words, let us see him come once to the point, & report himself the substance of our matter. These be his own words: But the controversy is not (M. Allen faith) of the authority of the Scriptures in this matter, 
Pur. 363,  but of the true meaning of them, which it is more like that they (the Doctors) being such men, than we so far inferior to them, should know. And what saith he thereunto? I answer, saith he, and yet not one word there to the question. Else where he saith thereunto, (as I will report anon his words) that also the meaning of the Scriptures must be searched out of the Scriptures only. Well sir, but whencesoever and wheresoever it must be searched, who is more like to find it, the Doctors, or you? and so, neither that which you say in other places, answereth the question. But in this place (read it who list) your answer is quite & clean from the question, which was, Whether be more like to know the true meaning of the Scriptures, the Doctors, or you? And yet you pipe up the triumph there and say: Thus have these Heretics no ground of their heresy: but shift from the word of Scripture to Tradition, from Tradition to the meaning of Scripture, from the plain meaning of Scripture to the opinions of men. Yea and he counteth himself and his companies happy for such blind presumption to search the meaning of the Scriptures only out of the Scriptures without the commentaries of the Doctors, (but not also) I trow, without the Commentaries of calvin and such like companions) thus he saith: 
Pur. 407.  And happy be those, which not regarding the streams of waters that run through the veins of earth, but seeking to the only fountain of heavenly truth, contained in the holy Scriptures, have certain comfort of salvation. 
Pur. 285.  And again to the same purpose: Surely as the Sun is not obscured with the dust that a Cock casteth up when he scrapeth on the dunghill: 
The Doctor's writings a dunghill.  no more is the Son of righteousness, or the light of his holy word, darkened by all the mist of men's devices, which Allen, or his complices can raise out of the whole heap of superstition and error, to deface the glory of his Church. The word of the Lord is a light unto our steps, and therefore we will not walk in the darkness of men's traditions. Our doctrine shall one day be tried before God, and therefore we make no account how we be judged by man's day. 
1. Cor. 4.  (So properly he uttereth his presumption in the words that the Apostle clean contrary did speak in exceeding great fear.) It followeth: Your way is your own way, & not the way of the Lord: and because you take another way unto salvation then the only right way jesus Christ, therefore by his own sentence, you are all thieves and murderers. Hath any seen a man so drunken, so blinded, with pride?  
Well then: in the other place, of searching the meaning out of the Scriptures themselves alone, and neglecting the received Expositors, what saith he? Whether the old Doctors be more like to understand the Scriptures than the Protestant's: 
Pur. 434.  I have answered before, we will make no comparison with them. Modestly spoken, a man would think: but what followeth? Neither will we challenge the likelihood to us, neither will we leave it to them. I marry, hold your own we pray you. And why so? For whether soever we do, we shall be never the more certain of the truth. You say true, for so much as concerneth yourselves. For in deed no certainty of truth, but most certain certainty of error, in your understanding. But in what so ever the Doctors do agree, who so expoundeth the Scripture unto that, shall be ever most certain of the truth (which is enough) though not always certain of that same very places meaning, as in the sixth Chapter I declared more at large. Forth now, a God's name: 
Supra. cap. 6. par. 2.  But this will we set down as a most certain principle, that no man can understand the Scriptures, but by the same Spirit by which they were written. The meaning of some place one may attain unto, which hath not that Spirit: but to understand them always agreeably to the truth, can not be without that same Spirit. Forth again: What then? shall we arrogate the Spirit as proper to us, and deny it to them? God forbidden. They had their measure of God's spirit, and so have we. Hereof ariseth an objection. How then? is the Spirit of God contrary to itself, because they and we agree not in all things? He answereth, God forbidden. Cyprian and Cornelius were both endued with God's Spirit, yet they agreed not both in one interpretation nor judgement of the scripture. Yea Sir, Cyprian as he was of Cornelius his Spirit, so was he likewise of Cornelius his judgement, implicitè as we term it, though explicit he were of an other, of an erroneous judgement, and that according to his own human spirit, and not according to God's Spirit. As at this day likewise, and always, whensoever any Catholic man of ignorance erreth expressly, yet notwithstanding in effect he is of the truth with the other Catholics which err not, because he quietly continueth in unity with them, nor doth not obstinately hold his own error against them. Now whether the case be so between the old Doctors and you, briefly and manifestly it is declared by this, that neither you at this time will be reformed by them, nor they in their time would be reformed by your forefathers, Aerius, iovinianus, and such like.  
But now that you have abrogated the understanding of the Scriptures from God's spirit both in the Doctors and in yourselves, say on, and tell us your advise: What then? there remaineth but this second principle as certain as the first, That the Spirit of God hath a meaning in the Scriptures, which is not to be sought out of the Scriptures in the opinions of deceivable men, but only in the Scriptures, where is nothing but the spirit of truth. No sir, why? suppose those men were the Apostles themselves, or any other having the same spirit of truth that the Apostles first had, but of that enough before: forth therefore: Therefore that the spirit may declare his own meaning, 
Ar. 86.  one place of Scripture must be expounded by an other, (for the hard places of Scripture must be opened by easy places) all other ordinary means and helps, of wit, learning, knowledge of tongues, diligence in hearing, reading, and praying, are subordinate, and serving to this search and trial. And is this way so sure and certain? I marry. For who soever observeth this search and trial most precisely, shall come to the knowledge of the truth most certainly. And may he not trust an other which hath so precisely observed it? as for example, the Protestants, me thinks, as yourself, or M. calvin, etc. but I cry you mercy, you meant not them. Well then, may he not trust the old Fathers therein? 
A comfortable doctrine for the ignorant, forsooth.  or did not they observe it diligently? No: for who so ever is negligent in this search and trial, though he have otherwise never so many and excellent graces and gifts, may easily be deceived, yea (you speak now a great word) even when he thinketh he followeth the authority of the Scriptures. Which (search) if the ancient Fathers had always followed, they should not so lightly have passed over some things (as to condemn the Protestants in Aerius and Vigilantius, etc.) and other things so slenderly have maintained, (as the doctrine of the Papists.)  
Well then, I see, all is in a man's own diligence, to trust no man nor men, but to read the Scriptures, confer the places, and so gather the meaning by himself: this is your most certain way. I must therefore tell you a little of our diligence therein, that you may certify us whether it be enough, or no. and the rather because you exhort our master D. Allen, and say to him: 
Pur. 9  Try the rule of the Protestants, and search the word of God in the holy Scriptures, and then undoubtedly you shall find the truth, and the Church also that is the pillar of truth. And again, 
Ar. 62.  Who have the truth, you must search in the word of truth, desiring the spirit of truth, that you may understand and believe the truth: and so without doubt you shall come to the knowledge of the truth, and of the Church of God which is the pillar of truth. So it is then good sir: In this Seminary of English divines under the government of D. Allen, maintained by his holiness for the salvation of our country (as he maintaineth the like for Germany also, for Bohemia, and Students of Polonia, 
The Pope's Seminary for England.  Suetia, Slavonia, Hungaria, etc. yea for the Greeks likewise, yea also for the hebrews) we have such exercise in the scriptures, that we read over the old Testament, in every three years, twelve times, one of which times hath joined with it an examination by conference from Chapter to Chapter, and from verse to verse. The new Testament we read over in the same three years, sixteen times, with a triple examination of the same sort. And not content with those examinations, we afterwards write moreover in paper books, & lay together all the sentences that belong to the controversies of this time, every one in his place. And without all vanity, to speak one word of myself, after many years study afore after the manner of England (as many of your own side can bear me witness) I have since then followed this foresaid trade nine years. This is partly our diligence in the scriptures, besides much other exercise both in the same and in all the study of divinity. What more diligence would you have us use? this is the principal, and (as you make it) all in all. All other helps you count but subordinate and serving unto this. And yet in them also, I dare say, if you knew us, you would allow us for sufficient at the least: You may, by the trace of God, ere it be long, have some taste of us therein, when one of us shall set forth a book to show to the world, that the Hebrew and Greek texts, in nothing make for you against us, and in very many things make for us against you much more plainly, than our vulgar Latin text. Now then, how much more certain of the truth be we, than you, also by your own rule, because your diligence herein is nothing comparable: but specially, because together with this rule we use the expositions that you renounce, of the ancient Fathers, who for such conference of places, and all other study of the Scriptures, were peerless.   

¶ The third part. What he meaneth by his Only Scripture: and that thereby he excepteth also against Scripture itself.  
Thus have we heard this Protestant call for express Scripture in all things, yea also in the expounding of Scripture. Now, that he seem not too strait and rigorous in his exception, he will tell us what he meaneth thereby, as it were to give us more scope, but in deed (as we shall hear soon after) to shut us straighter up, and to except also against Scripture itself, unless it be so plain and evident for us, that by no subtlety of theirs they may avoid it.  
Concerning the former, thus he saith: When we require express Scripture for every controversy, we do not require that every thing should be named in Scripture, but necessarily concluded out of the true meaning of the Scriptures and purpose of the holy Ghost in them. Then on the other side, he almost repenteth himself again for granting so much, and saith: And yet we may say, 
Pur. 438.  it is a great prejudice against your Purgatory and prayer, that it is not so much as once named in the Scriptures. Again, If the holy Ghost had ever allowed Prayer for the dead, he would once at the least have uttered the same plainly, in holy Canonical Scriptures. 
Pur. 452.  Canonical he saith, to except against the very meaning of it also, which he seeth in the books of the Machabées: rather shall that Canonical Scripture not be Canonical, for so plainly naming that which the ears of the Protestants can not abide.  
Well, in the other Canonical Scriptures the name is not, and that is a great prejudice against us. But he will be favourable unto us, a great prejudice shall not make him give judgement against us, if at least The thing itself be taught or can be proved by the Scriptures. Yet again he remembreth himself, 
Pur. 452.  that D. Allen hath alleged many Scriptures for that thing, and the old Fathers likewise before him: and therefore to tie us yet straighter with another exception, he said here a little afore, But we require that every thing be necessarily concluded out of the true meaning of the Scriptures. And again he saith, speaking of D. Allen: See the confidence of the man, he is sure, 
Pur. 364.  that if we were examined of our conscience, what trial of this doubt we would wish, there is none we could name, but his cause might well abide it. Whereunto he answereth, saying: Why M. Allen, we have testified of our conscience long ago, that the only authority of God's word written, shall satisfy us, as well in this as in all other matters. If you were able we should have heard before this time some sentence of Scripture, to maintain prayer and sacrifice for the dead. (Why? in the third Chapter here you confessed that you have heard of him diverse sentences, and not of him alone, 
Supra. pag. 19  but also of the Fathers of the true Church. Yea but now saith he, I add my exception, and say therefore, some sentence) not standing upon voluntary collection, but either in plain words or necessary conclusion. For there is nothing that we are bound to know, nothing that we are bound to do, but either in express words, or in necessary collection (which is as good as express words) it is set forth in the holy Scriptures. Again, 
Pur. 452.  All truth may be proved by Scripture, either in plain words, or by necessary conclusion, which is all one. And again: 
Pur. 189.  There is 
* For example: your own heresy.  no heresy so absurd, which Satan putteth into the head of wicked men, but it may find some sound of words in so many Books of the holy scriptures, that by perverse wits may be wrested unto it. But the doctrine of God's truth and all articles of our belief, are plainly taught in the Scripture, either by manifest words, or by necessary conclusion and argument, which by no subtlety of Satan or his instruments, may be avoided or deluded. And this is the difference between heresy and truth, when they both appeal to the authority of Scripture. Which difference as it may be found in all heresies, so in none more notably, then in this error of Purgatory. Consider what texts of holy Scripture are alleged 
* against it, rather.  for it, & you shall see they can not bring one, out of which any necessary argument may be framed to prove their cause, or which hath not by learned interpreters of the old time been otherwise expounded then of their cause. 
Pur. 176.  Yea and more than that, The word of God doth neither expressly, nor by any probable collection allow it, but manifestly condemn it. 
Pur. 185.  Again, He could not with any seemly colour establish purgatory, by the authority of the Scripture, the only testimony of God's word and will revealed, and confirmed by his holy Spirit. The Machabées to be even so confirmed as well as the other books, he can never avoid, and in effect he granteth, as I shall note in the eleventh Chapter amongst his contradictions. Which is sufficient, I trow, to make at the least a seemly colour, and a probable collection: but in deed also a conclusion so necessary, that he can never answer it, but by shaking the authority of all the Canonical Scriptures, in derogating from their confirmation which yet himself doth attribute to the holy Spirit.   

The fourth part. What great promises he maketh to bring most evident Scripture against us, and also by Scripture to prove his sense of the Scripture: Triumphing also before the victory, & saying, that we dare not be tried by Scripture, but reject the Scriptures. Whereupon a fourfold offer is made unto him.  
Now that we have seen how precise he is with us, to admit (1) no evidence that we allege, but Scripture only, both in all controversies, and also in the exposition of Scripture: and again (2) no Scripture, which maketh so plainly with us, that he can not avoid it but by denying it to be Canonical, though he grant it to have the confirmation of the same true Church, which moveth him, as the holy Ghost, to receive the other Scriptures for Canonical: and again (3) no Scripture that he confesseth to be Canonical, unless it make so expressly, so plainly, so manifestly, and so necessarily with us, that it can not by any subtlety be avoided. It were to be seen now on the other side, what Scriptures he allegeth against us, whether he observe himself the law that he so rigorously prescribeth to us, whether his Scriptures be so plain, so manifest, so evident, that by no subtlety they can be avoided. But that we shall see in the next Chapter: no need of subtlety, I assure you, to avoid or delude them, so frivolous are his allegations, that with all facility and truth we shall answer them. Here in the mean time, in the end of this Chapter, I will only lay forth his great promises aforehand, and so come orderly to the matter.  
And to omit, if he should have to do with all the old and new heresies, what manifest & necessary confutations he would frame against them all and every one, out of the Scriptures alone, having freely afore them renounced all other probations, according to his former sayings here, that all truth, and, all articles of our belief are plainly taught in the Scripture, and may be so proved by Scripture, & that there is nothing that we are bound to know, nothing that we are bound to do, but it is so set forth in the scriptures: 
His great promises.  I will charge him no more but with his promise that he maketh of so confuting us by plain Scriptures, notwithstanding that all other evidences make for us in such sort as he hath already confessed. Thus he saith: 
Pur. 187.  And that which I have to say in confutation of your heresy, shall be no worse than the very word of God itself, which is better than the consent of all the world against it. And again: 
Pur. 30.  I am one of the least of God's Ministers, yet by his grace and authority of his holy word, I shall be able to overthrow both this and all other Babylonical bulwarks that are cast up by Satan & all his instruments for the defence of Popish heresy against the truth of God. And neither the mist of men's inventions (which you call the light of Apostolic tradition) shall be able to darken the truth of the Gospel: nor the errors of mortal men (which you term the force of God's truth) shall bear down the authority of God's holy spirit. Again: 
Pur. 12.  We be able to show manifest evidence that our adversaries doctrine is clean contrary to the Scriptures of God. Again: 
Ar. 3.  We affirm that the Apostles taught none other faith in stead of true Christianity, but that which we hold, as we are ready to prove by the word of God. Again: I can prove by S. Paul's writings, 
Ar. 59  that in all articles of faith, he taught the same which we believe. And for trial of this, because it would require a whole volume, if I should prove every particular article, wherein we descent from you Papists: If you will name an article (in the next Chapter yourself shall name enough. Yet, if you will, let it be this: that Antichrist is not one certain person, and that the Churches fleeing into the wilderness at his coming, is to become invisible to the world: and that the beginning of that coming and fleeing, should be so soon after Christ's passion: the continuance, so many ages: the end, so long before Christ's second coming.) wherein we agree not with S. Paul, If I be not able to prove that we agree with him in the meaning thereof, I will revoke that article and agree with you therein. Yea and also to prove his own meaning, and to disprove our meaning, when we both allege Scriptures, he will seek, as he required of us, to nothing likewise but Scripture itself. For the meaning of the word (he saith) you should believe us rather than the Papists, because our grounds and proves are better than theirs: or else we require not to be believed better than they. And there again: If you bring out a false sense, we believe you not, because we know it to be false, and are able to prove by the word of God, that it is contrary to the meaning of the holy Ghost.  

His triumphing in lying.  These are his worthy promises. Of which he hath been so liberal, belike, because he knew that we dare not once appear, when Scriptures be alleged by the Protestants. For such are his words. 
Pur. 380.  We can show no cause in the world (you say) why we need in any one point of controversy departed from your Church. Yet M. Allen, this one cause shall serve for all, because your Church is departed from the truth of God's word, and dare not abide the trial thereof, but will sit like a proud dame in a Chair, 
Ar. 28.  and control the Scriptures. Again: The Popish Church can by no reason challenge Apostles, Evangelists, and Prophets, seeing she refuseth to be tried by their doctrine uttered in their writings. Again: The spouse of Christ, heareth the voice of Christ, 
Ar. 99.6.  and is ruled thereby. But the Romish Church will in no wise be ruled Only by the voice of Christ: therefore she is not the Spouse of Christ.  
Where, by his foisting in of the word (Only) in the Minor, we may note the cause that moveth him to say, that our Church refuseth the Scriptures: as if he should say, that we refuse faith, because we refuse only faith: or that any man refuseth his own best evidence, because he will not at the instance of his adversary renounce all his other evidences, be they never so many, never so good, never so well tried and so much used by his ancestors, & also most agreeable, every one of them, to his foresaid best evidence. 
Ar. 85.   
He saith moreover, She hath nothing less than the true sense of God's word, which submitteth the same to her own judgement. 
Ar. 107.  Again: The Popish Church so manifestly dissenteth from the word of truth, that she dare not be judged thereby, but most blasphemously submitteth the same to her own judgement. Again, In the Popish Church God's word is made subject to men's determinations and authorities. And again, 
Pur. 219.  By which it is manifest that you do reject the whole authority of all the Canonical Scriptures: when you affirm that no book of holy Scripture is Canonical, but so far forth as your Church will allow it. Moreover when you will not admit any sense of the Scripture, but such as your Church will allow.  
Here are two other causes of the same again: As if he would say, that the Apostles in their time, or the Church then, 
Note which is this Popish Church.  submitted and made subject the Scriptures to men, most blasphemously, and only of their own will, 
2. Pet. 3.  because they took upon them to judge of the true sense: and namely S. Peter, for saying, that the unlearned (him self being but a fisherman) and the unstable, do misconstrue S. Paul's Epistles, sicut & caeteras Scripturas, as also the other Scriptures, to their own damnation. And again, as though the same Apostles, and the Church after them, manifestly rejected the whole authority of all the Canonical Scriptures, 
Canonical.  & did all only of their own will, because they made a Canon or Canons (as all the laws of the Church are called Canons) whereof the said Scriptures were and are called Canonical, whereupon himself also counteth them as confirmed by the holy Ghost.  
Well, for these goodly causes he is bold to say, that the Church (of which Christ said generally, If he will not hear the Church, 
Mat. 18.  count him for an heathen and a publican) refuseth and rejecteth the Scriptures. And again to D. Allen: 
Pur. 438.  As for the evident word of God, you shame not to boast of that to be your trial, which you dare as well eat a faggot as abide the judgement of it, in any lawful conference or disputation. Your great belwethers and bishops declared before the whole world in the conference of Westminster, what they durst abide; when they came to handstrokes. It is a gay matter for such a chattering Pie, as you are, to make a fond flourish a far off in words, to please your patrons and exhibitioners: it is an other thing to stand to the proof in deed. And again to him: 
Pur. 346.  Where as you wish that Bedes history were made familiar unto all English men, they were better to consider the word of God and the history of the Acts of the Apostles: Which if you durst abide the trial thereof, you would exhort men to read it, at least wise that understand Latin. And if you were as zealous to set forth the glory of God, as you are to maintain your own traditions, one or other of you, which have so long found fault with our translations of the Scriptures, would have taken pains to translate them truly yourselves, as well as to translate Bedes book.  
You say the disputation at Westminster Anno 1. Elizab. was before the whole world, as one that care not what you say, which you declare again in speaking of D. Allens exhibitioners, and his pleasing of them, a thing whereof you know nothing, nor (as I think) no body else, unless some body may know that which is not. He is rather himself the Exhibitioner of our whole country (like an other joseph) and might be yours also, if you were happy. How much more justly than may we say, that the Council of Trent was holden before the whole world? And what conference will you admit for lawful on our part, when as you refused to come to that assembly at Trent, being yet so earnestly, so safely, and so honourably invited thither, as the Safeconduites extant in the Acts of the Council do witness, together with the very experience also of those few petites of Germany that came thither? Or what conference shall on your part be thought iniquous and unjust towards us, when you shame not to extol that mock conference of Westminster?  

A fourfold offer.  Well, because you challenge us to a disputation, and are suffered to set it forth in print, hear what I will say unto you: The Council of Trent counted you their subjects as much as you count us the subjects of England, and the state there, is of all Catholic Princes granted to be far pre-eminent. Do you therefore procure us a safe-conduct from the Court in such form as the Council gave it to you, and certain of us will in the name of God come in, be the danger to our lives otherwise never so great, and for the glory of God in the victory of his truth, we will join with you in any conference that shall be prescribed according to the common laws of a Conference. See in my xix Demand, which is of Kings, what I said to this effect before I knew of this your challenge. See likewise of the same in my first Demand, which is of old Conference at Carthage betwixt the Catholics and the Donatists, about the true Church which the Scriptures commend unto us: Whereof I shall have occasion to say more in the tenth Chapter.  
If to reject this offer, the Governors by your procurement, or of their own minds will stand upon their points, whereas we seeing the cause is God's cause, are content not to stand upon our lives, to save your souls, and to redeem the unmerciful vexation and intolerable persecution of our brethren over all that Realm, whom your Bishops and other Commissioners do oppose with heavy irons and bouchers axes sorer than you can oppose us or the learned of them with Scriptures: Do you sir, at the least wise for your own credit's sake, take your pen in hand, and join with me upon that same Collatio Carthaginensis, in such manner as I have briefly required in my said first Demand.  
Or if you dare not do that neither for all your cracks, thirdly I require you to send to us some of your fellows or scholars, such as will behave themselves quietly and modestly, other safe-conduct they shall not need: as divers of your side have already at sundry times, partly of their own heads, partly at their private friends motion, come hither, and found all safe and sure for their persons, and not one of them but he was (thanks be to God) thoroughly satisfied by our conference, and namely by seeing and hearing our foresaid daily reading and examination of the Scriptures. Which being by D. Allen our Precedent his order used amongst us, who can doubt but he exhorteth men to read the Scriptures, them specially that understand Latin, much more than S. Bedes history? And namely the Acts of the Apostles, what book do I his scholar more often use in my Motives and Demands, then that? And touching a Catholic translation of the Scriptures, you show yourself to know little, God wotteth, what is D. Allens desire and mind therein. But all men may assure themselves, that any thing lacketh thereunto rather then good will and fervent zeal, specially because we see it translated already by Catholics into all other languages almost, and because we know sundry commodities that might ensue thereof, & namely because we lament to see so many souls to die in the most wholesome waters, being turned into deadly bitterness by your Star Absinthin, 
Apoc. 8.  your blindness withal being such, that leaving both the authentical Greek of the Septuaginta, which the Apostles and Primitive Church did use, and also the authentical Latin, which the Church hath used so many hundred years, in some part even from the beginning almost: you have served our country with the old Testament of the late obstinate jews vowelling, dividing, and reading, it being of itself but one verse in the whole Psalter, and each other particular book, & only consonantes, and to be read according to the tradition of the faithful (which tradition we know by our authentical translations) and not of the incredulous and perfidious.  
No, no, whensoever we should make (if we were in case and place) a Catholic translation, and send the copies in, they should be in no less danger of your searchers and fires, than our other books have been, and are every day more and more: but yet that danger should not stay us, if nothing else did: knowing that such a translation will confound you ten thousand times more than all the other books have done.  
Last of all, if none of my former requests can find place with you, at the least wise you shall have here in the Chapter following an answer to all your Scriptures hither unto alleged in both your books, to chaw upon for a while. And then tell your Reader, when, as you have here renounced all other evidences, so he shall see that you are no less destitute of Scripture also: tell him then (I say) blaming D. Allen, 
Pur. 364.  and saying: And yet he wondereth that we are so blind that we can not see the clear light of truth. And again in the end of your book, 
Pur. 458.  In God's name let the Readers way indifferently, and as they see this point (of the dead) handled, so let them judge of the rest. The truth is upholden by evident testimony of Scripture: the error by custom, practice, and judgement of men. The truth seeketh understanding of the Scriptures, of the spirit of God in the Scriptures: error, at the mouths of mortal men. Now them to these evident Scriptures, in the name of God, and to your divine understanding of them.    

¶ The eight Chapter. To show his vanity in his foresaid rigorous exacting of plain Scripture, and great promises to bring plain Scripture, conferring place with place so evidently. All the Scriptures that he allegeth are examined, and answered.  
ALL the Scriptures that he allegeth against us throughout his two books, I do sort and distribute into four parts. The first, concerning the question of only Scripture: the second, concerning the question of the Church: the third, concerning the question of Purgatory: the fourth, concerning all other questions that he mentioneth.  

The first part. Concerning the question of Only Scripture.  
And as touching the first: In the last Chapter we saw, how to make exception against all our other evidences, he evermore said, that in all matters Only evident Scripture must be brought and heard: confessing those other evidences to be so evident for us, that they can not otherwise be avoided. Now then, this being his only refuge, how many and how evident Scriptures hath he alleged for it, as you think? Surely in all his first book to D. Allens Articles, they being altogether our foresaid Evidences, he allegeth but one place only: and not many more neither in his other book of Purgatory. And what manner of place also, think you, that it is? specially considering how much he craketh of it, as where he saith: Thus I have declared, 
Ar. 11.15  etc. that the true Church of Christ hath convicted all Heretics, only by the Scripture. Again, it hath been already proved sufficiently, 
Ar. 16.  that the true Catholic Church which is led only by the word of God, the only weapon by which heresies are cut down, counting it to be sufficient for that purpose, hath overthrown heresies of all sorts. And again: Doctrine is to be sought out and tried only by the Scriptures, 
Ar. 82.  as we have declared at large in the answer to the fourth Article, first Demand. And once again: 
Ar. 86.  As for doubts that arise by difficulty of Scripture, or contention of heresy, they must be resolved and determined, as it is abundantly declared before, only by the Scriptures. With that place of Scripture he alleged certain Fathers, as Hilarius, Basilius, chrysostom, Saint Augustine, Leo the first, and the Council of Constantinople the sixth. To whom I must answer in the next Chapter. 
Infra pag.  But he granteth pardie, that the Father's authority is no warrant to him so to crack: as another where also expressly he saith, 
Pur. 383.  It is not for confirmation of the truth, that we allege the authority of the Doctors and old Counsels. Then must all these cracks be only in respect of the Scripture that you there alleged. Let us therefore now hear that Scripture: So did Paul overcome the jews, Act. 18. that is to say, 
Ar. 11.  only by the Scripture. That he often disputed against the jews, proving jesus to be Christ, I there find, but that his arguments were none but Scriptures, I find not. But read you Acts .13. and you shall find, that he used also other arguments against them, to wit, the testimony of certain men, as of S. john Baptist, and of his own Disciples, that saw him many days together after his resurrection, qui usque nunc sunt testes eius ad plebem, Who to this day are witnesses for him to the people. Read likewise Act. 4. for the argument of Miracles, specially where it is said, Hominem quoque videntes stantem cum eis qui curatus fierat, nihil poterant contradicere, Seeing the man also standing with Peter and john, whom they had healed, the Governors of the jews were quite put to silence. And therefore also if S. Paul had in your place overcome them only by Scriptures, it would not follow thereof, that no other arguments are good enough against jews and Heretics.  
Now to the places alleged in your other book: Other persuasion (say you) than such as is grounded upon the hearing of God's word, 
Pur. 6.  will never of Christians be counted for true belief, so long as the tenth Chapter to the Romans remaineth in the Canon of the Bible. S. Paul there saith, that hearing is presupposed to believing, and again to hearing is presupposed the word of God. But in what sort, the word of God? only in writing? doth he not there express, that by the word of God he meaneth preaching, and preaching of such as be Sent? for that which he saith in one place, Hearing is of God's word, the same he saith afore, How shall they hear without preachers? 
1. Thes. 2.  And what is more common in the New Testament, then to call the preaching of God's messengers, the word of God? Even as we to this day count it the word of God, which we hear of the Church of God, either in her Counsels, or in her Doctors, or any other way, for so said God to them, He that heareth you, 
Luc. 10.  heareth me.  
And so S. Paul said to the Galathians, If any man preach unto you any other Gospel, 
Gal. 1.  then that which we have preached unto you, and which you have received, hold him for accursed He speaketh of preaching, and you allege it as spoken of writing, and of only writing. For thus you say to us: It vexeth you at the very heart, 
Pur. 449.163.  that we require the authority of the holy Scriptures, to confirm your doctrine, having a plain commandment out of the word of God, that if any man teach otherwise then the word of God alloweth, he is to be accursed. No sir, it rather rejoiceth us at the heart, to see that this very same text which you 
Falsification by changing.  corrupt, is so plain a warrant to our brethren the Romans accursing your masters Luther and calvin, for preaching an other Gospel, 
Act. 28.  then that which S. Paul preached to the said Romans, and which they received of him, the Scripture also testifying in other places, 
Mat. 28. Act. 20. Rom. 15.  that S. Paul and the other Apostles taught the Romans and other Churches, all things: but not likewise that he or they wrote all which they taught: neither again, that in such things as they wrote, the Churches always should be required to bring forth their writing, & not otherwise to be credited, although they alleged their preaching or tradition by word of mouth.  
Whereby you perceive that your conclusion followeth not, though it were true that you bring out of another place, saying: All good works are taught by the Scriptures: 
Pur. 410.  it is S Paul's 2. Tim. 3. the holy Scriptures are able to make the man of God perfect and prepared to all good works. Suppose this to be S. Paul's saying: will you conclude thereof, that Timothy himself commending any thing for a good work, and saying that he had it of S. Paul's own mouth, where he had all things, should not be credited, but needs he must prove the same by Scripture? We say, all good works were taught the Church by the Apostles speaking, and that saying doth not take away the Apostles writing. Even so, if all good works were taught in the Apostles writing, that taketh not away such arguments as are made upon their speaking. As again, if a certain article be confessed to be taught in S. Paul's Epistles, or also if all Articles (for so your words pretend here in the last Chapter) will it not suffice for all that, to prove any article out of some other book of Scripture? What a fond reasoning is this, that because one evidence proveth all, therefore I can not have any other evidence but that only? And this I say, supposing that S. Paul had said, as you make him, All good works are taught by the Scriptures, etc. But now I say further, that he doth not say so: but being now at the point of martyrdom, he exhorteth his Disciple not to faint, but to fulfil his office to the end, as he had done, the office (I say) of an Evangelist or Preacher, 
2. Tim. 4.  saying, that although he should now be deprived of his master, yet he had still the holy Scriptures with him, which be profitable, saith he, to teaching of truth, 
2. Tim. 3.  to disproving of falsehood, to correcting of vices, to instructing in righteousness, that the man of God (that is, the Evangelist, be perfit, that is to say, furnished to every good work, meaning thereby those foresaid works of an Evangelist, as he also there had said, 
1. Tim. 3.  he that desireth a Bishop's office, desireth a good work. Now it is one thing, the Scripture to be profitable to this, and another thing, to be able, or sufficient unto it. Again it is one thing, the Scripture to be profitable to every part of preaching, and another thing, the Scripture to teach (expressly) all good works, in every particular, as Oblations for the dead, (for of that you speak) and so forth.  

Pur. 434.  Moreover you allege these two places, Search the Scriptures, and, Try the spirits: and these you allege for Only Scripture to be required both in all questions, and also in exposition of Scripture, declaring thereby, that you either know not or care not, what nor how you allege. For where our Saviour saith to the jews, 
john. 5.  Search the Scriptures, for they it are which bear witness of me, in the very same place he saith also unto them, And john did bear witness to the truth. And again, My works, 
Who ever alleged Scripture more blindly.  or Miracles, do bear witness of me, that my Father sent me, and that, a greater witness than john. And again, Also my Father who sent me, he hath given witness of me.  
Likewise upon your other place, Try the Spirits, you say, And the Spirits are not tried but by the Scriptures. So you say, 
1. john. 4. Ar. 4.  but your text doth not so say: yea the Apostle S. john saith there strait after, By this we know a spirit (or Prophet, or teacher) of truth, and a spirit of error. Look in the text, man, & see what is that whereof he saith, by this, whether it be by Only Scripture, or by some thing else. Briefly, Believe not every spirit (saith he, but try the spirits whether they be of God, for than you may be bold to believe them. By this is known a spirit of God first in one particular, which I pass over, then in general, after this manner: You my children (you Romans and other Catholics) be of God. We (Apostles and other Catholic teachers) be of God. And therefore, He that knoweth God, heareth us: and he that is not of God, doth not hear us. By this we know a spirit of truth, and a spirit of error, or a false Prophet: to wit, by considering whether he agree with them that are of God, with them that received and keep the unction or spirit of truth which was sent to the Church for ever, with them that depart not after any Seducers, but continue in that which they heard in the beginning, as the Romans do most manifestly, no Antichrist nor Heretic being able to name the time, the novelty, the Seducer, that ever they went after, so as Wittenberg, Geneva, England and all other that we charge with it, have done most notoriously. This is the effect (in general) of S. john's Epistles.  
Again you allege, and say: The word of the Lord is a light unto our steps, and a lantern unto our feet, 
Pur. 285.364. Psal. 118.18.  Therefore we will not walk in the darkness of men's traditions. Item▪ The faithful testimony of God's word only giveth true light unto the eyes, as the Prophet saith. And by and by after you call it, The only authority of God's word written. But the Prophet neither hath the word only, neither saith, that God's word is not but in writing, but rather most evidently by God's word there he meaneth the preaching of his Apostles, 
Rom. 10.  S. Paul also himself referring that verse of the same Psalm unto them accordingly, Into all the earth their sound is gone forth, and their words to the ends of the world. And so you may see, the light of God's word to be not only in writing, but also in tradition by mouth.  

Pur. 210.  Last of all you allege and say against judas Machabeus: In the Law not so much as one pin of the Tabernacle was omitted, lest any thing might be left to the will of man, to devise in the worship of God. 
Deut. 12. ver. 8. & 32.  You shall not do (saith the Lord) what seemeth good in your own eyes, but that which I command you, that only shall you do, without adding any thing to it, or taking away any thing from it. You are very dainty of your quotations, in manner none at all in your margin, because you allege so few places, and commonly omitted in your text also, because you allege your places without book. This is my conjecture, let the Reader look in the places, as I do quote them, because for brevity sake I omit many things that were worth the noting. Well in this place, Moses saith not, That only which I do write, but, That only which I command you. And so our Saviour said long after to the jews accordingly: 
Mat. 23.  The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chair: and therefore whatsoever they command you, observe it and do it. As for the pings of the Tabernacle, they are so mentioned for other causes, as you may see in the Doctor's Commentaries, and not for the cause that you imagine, that is, to leave nothing to any man afterward in the worship of God, for how say you then by David and Solomon, who changed not only a pin yea all the pings, but also that whole Tabernacle, building in steed of it, a Temple in Jerusalem, and there ordaining musical instruments, and many other things, for the worship of God, that the law did not mention. You always err, because you do not distinguish between men that have only their own human spirit, and men that have the spirit of God, as Moses, the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Catholic Church.  
And so having answered all your places, I would your Unlearned Brother to know of it, him that every year sendeth out the Newyeres gifts, and what else I know not, and to tell me now, why I might not in my last Motive call this your Castle of Only Scripture, 
Only Scripture.  Your weak and false Castle: Weak, because you have no defence at all for it, neither of Srripture, as I have here declared, neither of Doctor, as in the next chapter I will declare. False, because not so much as one word of Scripture, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Apocalypse, maketh for you in any thing, nor against us in any thing, as in this Chapter I do enough to persuade therein any reasonable man, and therefore it is but a false sleight of you Heretics, and a mere deception of the simple, when you be overthrown by Apostolic traditions, by ancient Fathers, and so by many other our weapons in Christ, as in the last Chapter yourself have confessed, to set a bold face upon it, and vaunt, that yet for all that the Scriptures be plainly for you, and plainly against us. In which boldness your impudency crieth even to heaven, when you dare yet vaunt thereof so far, to say, that the Church of God is feign therefore, to blaspheme the holy Scriptures, seeing them to make so plainly for you. When you here in the last Chapter, and your Masters and Scholefelowes commonly in their writings fear not to open your mouths thus against God's holy Tabernacle in earth: I that am nothing, and in very deed nothing, and less than nothing, may not disdain the like opening at me by the foresaid Unlearned, but contenting me with mine own conscience, and the conscience of God himself and his Angels, and all his Servants that know me by my person, or by my writings, being most certain how always in heart and word I have honoured the most holy Scriptures, even as gods own lively and infallible word, I submit myself with David in an humble and contrite heart, to all that Semei hath or shall utter against me, if peradventure my Lord God most merciful will accept it to forgiveness of my manifold and heinous sins: desiring of him no other revenge, but the party's conversion and reconciliation to him and his sweet spouse my lief Mother the Catholic Church. And so much in this place to that man.  
In which place you also, Fellow Fulke, 
Arg. ab authoritate negatiuè.  may be admonished to look better to your Logic, concerning your argument ab authoritate negatiuè, that you oppose it no more to our so many arguments ab authoritate affirmatiuè. I gave you a little before two causes thereof: consider them well I pray you. All knowledge that Christian men have of heavenly things (you say, 
Pur. 449.  to maintain your argument) is grounded upon the authority of God's word, meaning the Scripture. Therefore as it is no good Logic, to conclude negatively of one place or book of Scripture, This is not contained in it, therefore it is not true: So of the whole doctrine of God, wherein all truth necessary to salvation is contained, the argument is most invincible that concludeth negatively thus: All true doctrine is taught in the Scripture, Purgatory is not taught in the Scripture, therefore Purgatory is no true doctrine. Letting Purgatory alone till anon, there are two faults, I say, in this reasoning. One, because the Mayor is false, as to all your texts alleged for it, I have answered. The other, because although the Mayor were true, yet can not the argument be opposed to our arguments, as you oppose it in the last Chapter. You might, if the Mayor were true, labour to the purpose (I grant) in proving the Minor. But you might not, I say, for all that, make of it an opposition or exception, when we make arguments out of Traditions, Counsels, Fathers, etc. as in the like I show unto you: I prove a doctrine unto you out of the Old Testament, you oppose thereunto your negative argument, and say to me: All true doctrine is taught in the New Testament (for so you do hold, and must hold) that doctrine is not taught in the New Testament: therefore that doctrine is no true doctrine. Is this well opposed of you? May not I say to you notwithstanding, Yea sir, but for all that, what say you to my place alleged out of the Old Testament? unless you have any thing against the Old Testament itself. Even so, unless you have any thing directly against Traditions themselves, Counsels, Fathers, and such others, our arguments do prevail, and you in vain do flee to Only Scripture, although all true doctrine were taught in Scripture. Now to the second question concerning the Church.   

¶ The second part. Concerning the question of the Church.  
About the Church, his contradictions are very many and very palpable, as I will declare in the eleventh Chapter. Here I have to examine, what he allegeth first indefinitely, That the Church may err, That it may be divorced, That it is a base and contemptible company, That it may, and also should become invisible: and then by name, That the Protestants have the true Church, or, That the Papists have it not.  

j Of the Church indefinitely.  
That the whole Church may err, he allegeth and saith, According to the saying of the Scripture, Every man is a liar. 
Ar. 86.  Wherefore the whole Church militant consisting of men, which are all liars, may err altogether. Why do you say, The church militant? Doth not the Church triumphant also consist of men? If therefore all men be liars, why may not they also err? No doubt, because although all men are liars of themselves, yet some men may notwithstanding by the gift of God be veraces, true. And so where you conclude thus upon us: God only is not true, 
Pur. 451.  for the Pope can not err, you might conclude aswell, God only is not true, for the Apostles can not err.  
Again you allege and say: The true and only Church of God hath no such privilege granted, 
Ar. 88  but that she may be deceived in some things. For her knowledge is unperfect, & her prophesying is unperfect. 1. Cor. 13. Where you, her, S. Paul saith, our, including himself also in that speech: Ex part enim cognoscimus, etc. For our knowledge is unperfect, and our prophesying is unperfect, so long as we be in this life, whether we speak or write. And yet you will not say, I trow, that S. Paul therefore might be deceived in his writings and Epistles. So then, the Church's privilege, knowledge, prophesying may be unperfect, and yet she withal so free from erring, that she may be bold in her determinations to say, Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis, 
Act. 15.  It hath been thought good of the holy Ghost, and of us.  
Again you say, And it is true that S. Augustine saith: Even the whole Church is taught to say every day, 
Are 88 Pur. 393. Aug. Retra. li. 2. ca 18.  forgive us our trespasses. But why so? because the whole Church doth err in her determinations every day? It were ridiculous so to say. Why then? Propter quasdam ignorantias & infirmitates membrorum suorum, Because of certain venial sins of her members, proceeding of ignorance & frailty, saith S. Augustine. In which members the Apostles also in their time were, and therefore they also accordingly were taught to say every day, forgive us our trespasses, and did say accordingly, 
jac 3. 1. Io. 1.  We do all offend in many things. And yet (I trow) they did not err, nor could err in their Canonical writings, and determinations.  
This is all that you bring to prove, the whole Church of Christ may err. Though you allege one other place, that the whole Synagogue did err, and yet that also only in a fact, not in a doctrine, yea neither the whole Synagogue, but a piece only. So that there be, as you see, no less than three walls, as it were, between the Church and this shot of yours. These are your words: 
Pur. 224.456.  David transgressed the law of God, to carry the Ark upon a new chariot, which should have been borne upon men's shoulders, 
… y blindness.  1. Chron. 13. wherein not only David but so many priests and Levites, so good a Bishop, and the whole General Council of Israel did err. So say you: but so saith not the text, yea it utterly confoundeth both you, and all these profane innovations made by your lay heads and parliaments. David took counsel (saith the text) with his Tribunes and Centurions, 
1. Par. 13. & 1●….  and all his Nobles. He did not so much as consult, no not with the inferior sort of the Priests: but only, If you please (quoth he to his temporal Lords) and if the motion be of God, let us send to the rest of our brethren in all the land of Israel, and to the priests and Levites in their Suburbs (as you would say, the hedge Priests) that they gather unto us, and we fetch again to us the Ark of God. And so they began in such manner as you report, until God killed Oza the Levite, in the procession, and so made David afraid to carry it any further. But three months after having found his error, he gathered not only, all Israel into jerusalem, but also filios Aaron, Sadoc et Abiathar Sacerdotes, The Successors of Aaron, Sadoc and Abiathar the (high) priests, & Levitas, and the Levites, with the heads of them, being these six, Vriel, Asaias, joel, Semeias, Eliel, and Aminadab: These two Bishops and these six archdeacon's (that I may so term them) he called, and said unto them: You that are the heads of the levitical families, prepare yourselves together with your brethren, and bring the Ark of our Lord God of Israel to the place which is dressed for it: lest that, as before, because you were not present, our Lord did smite us, so now also it happen, for our unlawful doing. A notable ensample for all Princes and for all nobles, to remember how they have offended, and to amend it accordingly, and all A maiori, in every respect, above the highest degree.  
One more of your places I think good here to examine, though you bring it not to prove that the Church may err, but only to answer a place that we bring for the contrary. 
Ar. 86.  The true and only Church of Christ (you say) can never be void of God's spirit, and yet she may err from the truth, and be deceived, in some things: even as there is no true Christian man, that is void of God's spirit, for he that hath not the spirit of Christ, is none of his, Rom. 8. yet may every true Christian err, and be deceived in some things. This your sophism consisteth in speaking confusely of God's spirit, as though the gift of it were always but one, whereas it is one in the whole Church, and another in every particular true Christian man. For neither do we argue simply of God's spirit, but of God's spirit so as it is the spirit of truth, and of all truth. 
joan. 14.  My Father (saith our Comforter, at the instant of his departure) will give you another Comforter, to remain with you for ever, the Spirit of truth. And after in the same Sermon: I have yet many things to say unto you, but you can not now carry them: but when the Spirit of truth cometh, he will teach you all truth. This place (we say) must needs be understood of the whole Church, 
1. Tim. 3.  and of a gift convenient to make her (as she is said to be) the Pillar of truth: because it is evident, that every one member of the Church by himself may err, and in that case needeth no more but the Spirit of obedience, to hear her which hath such a Spirit or gift that she can not err. And this is enough to make that no damnation be by erring to them that are in jesus Christ, that is, which have his spirit, 
Rom. 8.  so that (saith he) they walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit, and namely, in this case, after this spirit of obedience, as I have said. Thus much by occasion, though my purpose is not here neither to allege places, nor to defend the alleged, but only to answer the enemy's allegations.  
Now that the Church may be divorced, his allegation is this: The visible Church, 
Are 79.  by Idolatry and superstition may separate herself from Christ, and be refused of him, as God speaketh by Esay to the Church of jerusalem. Cap. 1. How is the faithful City become an harlot? It was full of judgement, and justice lodged therein, but now they are murderers. Thy silver is become dross, and thy wine is mixed with water. Thy princes are rebellious and companions of thieves, etc. Even so may he say to the Church of Rome. May he, forsooth? but whether doth he say so unto it? or doth the Prophet say that he may? you are too too ignorant in the Scriptures, if you know not the difference herein between the synagogue of the jews, & the Church of Christ: to wit, that the synagogue with her jerusalem might be & should be divorced: but that the Church of Christ with her jerusalem (which is Rome, if you have any sight in the Acts of the Apostles) should never, nor never might, nor may be divorced, but contrariwise should begin in the faithful jews, being a very small number in respect, and so call in all nations, even Plenitudinem gentium, 
Rom. 11. Mat. 13.  The fullness of all nations, fishing for that purpose in the wide Sea of this world continually without any intermission, in so much that immediately after that all Nations or Gentiles be entered in, Omnis Israel saluus fiet, All the jews, even their fullness also, shall be Christened in the end of the world.  
To this place pertaineth this strange imagination of his and his fellows, that even the Church of Christ itself, should prepare the way to Antichrist, inventing forsooth or receiving of others invention, all the superstitions, all the errors, all the heresies that have been or may be, even unto plain defection & Apostasy: Whereas the clean contrary is most evident and notorious, that the Church should and hath (as the pillar of truth) from time to time accursed and commanded us to accurse all the heresies that have been, yea, and with due animadversion noted unto us all errors whatsoever of her own Doctors also, who themselves sometime and in some things, some of them have erred as men. Therefore against this most certain & clear truth, what allegeth these Heretics for their most fond and most absurd imagination aforesaid? 
Divinity without Scripture.  It is the total sum of all their new Divinity: yet no warrant at all have they for it out of Scripture. 
Ar. 35.  Many abuses and corruptions (saith Fulke) were entered into the Church of Christ, immediately after the Apostles time, which the devil planted as a preparative for his eldest son Antichrist. But let us hear your Scripture for it: 
Ar. 38.  The Scripture telleth us (saith he) that the mystery of iniquity preparing for the 
* General, is your w●rd, no● S. Paul's.  General defection, & Revelation of Antichrist, wrought even in S. Paul's time. 2. Thes. 2. But doth the Scripture tell you that it wrought in the Church of Christ? No word so. It wrought in the Persecutors of the Church of Christ, and in the sundry Seducers that arose against the doctrine of Christ's Church: as now it worketh in your Heresy, being (as it shall appear anon) the very next and ultima, or at the least penultima, Mystical working, before the Revelation itself.  
Next of all, what have you for this, that the Church of Christ is always a contemptible company? D. Allens Demand was: 
Ar. 8●.  [Let the adversary show, that Christ's only kingdom should become so contemptible.] You allege certain places for answer, and conclude upon them, saying: So that the Church in the sight of the world hath always been most base and contemptible, though in the sight of God and his Saints, 
1. Cor. 1. Gal. 6. Rom. 1.  most glorious and honourable. Always you say: but your places import not always. Some of them contain, that her Cross, and her Crucifixus, are condemned of the world, that is, of the Infidels. But that may be, and yet the Church not be in their sight a contemptible company. Even as we Christians contemn the Turks Mahometan Religion, and the old Romans pagan religion, (for one of their gods was a goose) yet no man, I trow, will say, they were, or these are now a base and contemptible company.  
An other of your places is this: You shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. 
Mat. 10.  As though it must needs be always a base & contemptible company, which is hated of all sorts of men: or even then also, when it is so hated. Doth it seem unto you, that it was of contempt, that the Roman tyrants so persecuted the Roman Bishops and their Christian flock so vehemently all the first 300. years? 
Cyp. epist. 52. n. 3.  Have you not read what S. Cyprian writeth of Decius the Emperor, Multo patientius & tolerabilius audiebat, levari adversus se aemulum principem, quàm constitui Romae Dei Sacerdotem, To hear that an Emperor was set up against him, that sought his Crown, he was much more patiented, then that (in Fabianus place whom he had martyred) another should be ordained at Rome as the Priest of God. And therefore, Infestus Sacerdotibus Dei fanda atque infanda comminabatur, The Tyrant being mad at the Priests of God for that fact, threatened as the Devil. Which he speaketh in exceeding praise of Cornelius, qui sedit intrepidus Romae, etc. Because he sat boldly at Rome in the priestly Chair even at that time. Whereby you see in what dread the tyrants stood of the Church, though they so hated, and so persecuted it. Who ever more hated the same Priest and the Church with him, than you yourselves, who at every word do blaspheme and call him Antichrist? and yet, I think, you will not say, that they are, & have been these thousand years, a base and a contemptible company.  
Another place you allege blindly against yourself, saying: And S. Paul biddeth us look on our calling, 
1. Cor. 1.  not many wise men according to the flesh, not many mighty men, & not many noble men: but God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise, and the weak of this world to confound the strong. So was the beginning of the Church: What? ergo always? Doth not your text say, that the wise also themselves, & the strong, at length were confounded, that is to say, converted? Do you not see, how it followeth against you, If the Church were then a base and contemptible company (as you say) because it had not many wise, mighty, noble: ergo afterward it was otherwise, when it had gotten in also the Princes, Kings, & Emperors of the world, and as Esay speaketh, 
isaiah. 60.  The multitude of the Sea, the fortitude of the Gentiles? Was it then also a contemptible company? yea or shall it, according to the Scriptures, ever after be? no verily, not so much as in the time or revelation of Antichrist, whereof I shall say more anon. In so much that in another place yourself also, alleging to the clean contrary, 
Ar. 73.  do say: And Esay declareth, when the people should be almost all destroyed, yet a remnant should be saved, which though it seemed to be small, yet it should overflow and fill all the world with righteousness, Esay. 10. But this I must reserve to the Chapter of your gross contradictions.  
Last of all, as concerning the Inuisiblenes of the Church, you allege so as, 
Pur. 450.  I think, no sober man would: One while, that the universal Church is not seen at all of men: So we believe (you say) because it is in heaven. Gal. 4. Why do you say, The universal Church? Is not also every good member of it in heaven, as the Apostle saith, Our conversation is in heaven? 
Philip 3.  And yet you believe not, I trow, that the Apostle was not seen at all of men.  
Another while you say, 
Ar. 80.  It sufficeth that the Church be known to Christ the head, As he saith, My sheep hear my voice, & I know them, john. 10. Adding for all that text, immediately, And to them that be of the members of the same body. If your text import, that it sufficeth to be known to the head, why do you jumble in the members afterward? Chrestes knowing of his sheep, is his loving of them, as contrariwise to the goats he will say, 
Mat. 25.  I know you not: Whereupon if it follow not necessarily, forsooth, that the Church may be invisible, I report me to you.  
Another while you allege, that although not always, yet at one certain time it should become invisible, to wit, at the coming of Antichrist. And what Scriptures have you for that? thus you say: It was prophesied that the Church should fly into the wilderness, 
Ar. 27.  that is, be driven out of the sight & knowledge of the wicked. So you expound that text of your own head. Again, 
Ar. 77.  If the Church should stand always in the sight of the world, than the defection which S. Paul speaketh of, could not have come, neither should the Church fly into the wilderness, as was declared to S. john. Substantial arguments. That defection is your heresy, as I shall straightway declare, & yet notwithstanding, the Pope & the church standeth at this time in the sight of the world, 
The Church in the time of Antichrist, both visible and universal.  as it hath always done. Yea in the time that is to come, when your great lord Antichrist shall appear in person, even then also the Church shall stand still in the sight of the world, as it did in all the former persecutions in the first 300. years. For there shall be preaching all the time of the persecution, even 1260. days, 
Apoc. 11.  as the persecution shall last 42. months, which both cometh to three years & a half, & the preaching shall be as general as the persecution, to them that sit upon the earth, 
Apo.. 14.  and upon every nation, & tribe, & language, & people, exhorting them mightily, that they fear not the Beast, nor adore him, but that they fear the Lord, & give honour to him, because the honour of his judgement is come. As when it is said again, that the persecutors being in number as the sand of the sea, 
Apoc. 2●  shall flow over the wide world, super latitudinem terrae, and so compass the camp of the faithful, and the beloved City: is it not thereby plainly signified, that the Church shall at the same time together with her enemies be universal and super latitudinem terrae? And therefore her flying then into the wilderness, cannot be understood, as you expound it, that she shall be driven out of the sight and knowledge of the wicked, but the meaning of it is this, that she shall then abandon, more than ever before, all worldly pleasures, being content to be turned out of all she hath, and nevertheless sustained by God's provision, and fed both in body and soul, during all the time of that strait necessity, 
Apoc. 12.  to wit, 1260. days.   

ij Namely of their Church, and of ours: by conference of places that are about Antichrist.  
And so having answered all that you allege about the Church indefinitely, I am now come to that you allege of your Church, and of our Church by name. Which is nothing in effect, but only your own fond and voluntary applying of the two texts last rehearsed, whither the spirit of your error moved you.  

That neither Antichrist, nor the Apostasy agreeth to Bonifacius the third.  

Of the Churches fleeing into the wilderness.  For so you said in the second Chapter, that the Religion of the Papists came in, and prevailed An. Dom. 607. when Boniface the third, for a great sum of money, first obtained of Phocas the Emperor, his Antichristian exaltation, that the Bishop of Rome should be called and counted the head of all the Church. And now we shall hear what Scripture warranteth you so to say: 
Are 16.  When Antichrist the Pope, in the West, seduced the world with most detestable heresy, than was fulfilled that which was revealed to S. john in the twelfth of the Apocalypse, The woman clothed with the sun, which you yourself confess to be the Church, was so persecuted by the Dragon, that she fled into the wilderness, there to remain 
* Idem etiam, Ar. xxvij. narrowly persecuted of the Romish Antichrist for a long season.  a long season. So far printed by you in the letter of the Scripture.  
A world to see your bold blindness. You do so apply this prophecy only because of the Pope's Primacy, which yet is a truth of the Gospel, practised also notoriously in all ages as well afore Bonifacius the third as after him, (which two points the Reader may see evidently in the Seventh book of M. D. Saunders Monarchy: yea by yourself also confessed before the said Bonifacius, and the Church the true Church notwithstanding (your words I reported in the 3. Chapter: 
Supra. pag. ) yea moreover your own self do say Articulorum pagina 38, that All nations never consented to the doctrine of the Papists, for the Greek Church, and other oriental Churches, never received the Popish Religion, in many chief points, and especially in acknowledging the Pope's authority, clean contrary to that which both the Scripture and also yourself do hold of Antichrist and of his universal exaltation, as I shall lay your words together in the 11. Chapter amongst your other gross contradictions. And therefore you can not, for the Pope's authority, so expound this prophecy. As for that Sum of money, you tell us not what author you follow therein, neither is the thing material, unless you will condemn your own side also of Antichristianisme, for their infinite contributions to maintain these Rebellions every where, which you call your Gospel.  
But O Sir, I pray you, I thought, seeing your goodly promises in the last Chapter, that to find out the meaning of a text of Scripture, you would have brought us nothing but Scripture, and so clear Scripture, that by no subtlety it might be avoided. How is it then, that now you bring nothing but your own conceits.  
Yea furthermore, how is it, that to make a show of a text, which you saw, not to be with you, but plain against you, you corrupt the text? For by your opinion, Antichrist reigned in the world, and the Church continued in the wilderness, 
Ar. 36.79. The time of the Churches being in the wilderness.  the space of 807. years, from the year .607. the time of Bonifacius the third, to the year 1414. being the time of the Constance Council, and of john Hus your supposed great Grandfather. All this while (you say) Christ hath preserved her now to bring her out of her secret place in the wilderness, into the open sight of the world again. And therefore you make the text to say here before, that being persecuted by the Dragon, she fled into the wilderness, 
Falsification most detestable.  there to remain a long season. But the text hath the clean contrary, a very short season, to wit, but three years and a half. These are the words truly reported, as Catholics are wout to do: And the woman fugiebat, 
Apoc. 12.  fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God, that they may there feed her 1260. days. And the same again a little after: And to the woman were given two wings of a great Eagle,  volaret, that she might fly (whether this be flying in body, as you say, or in mind, as I say) into the wilderness unto her place, where she is fed one time, and two times, and half a time, from the face of the Serpent. Where is now your long season, your 807. years?  

Whether Antichrist should come An. 607. Apoc. 12.  Your folly will again be manifest, if I report the truth of the Dragon's persecution, because you make it to have been in the time of Bonifacius An. 607. But what saith the Scripture? First that great Dragon is the old Serpent, called the Devil and Satan, the Seducer of the whole world. But Christ in consideration of his passion then at hand, and the conversion of the world immediately ensuing thereupon, said of him: Now is the judgement of the world: 
joan. 12. Mat. 12.  now shall the prince of this world be expelled. And the same in the Apocalypse in these most evident words: 
Apoc. 12.  And he took the Dragon, and he bound him the space of a thousand years, and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and he shut and sealed upon him, that he should no more deceive the Nations, or the Gentiles, until the thousand years were consummate. So expressly to confound you utterly with your impious Gospel of Caluenisme (who set the losing of the Dragon, the coming of Antichrist, his persecution, and the Church's desolation, (which all do go together) at the year 607.  

The time of Antichristes reigning.  It followeth as expressly: And after this he must be loosed, modico tempore, for a little season. And the same again: And when the thousand years be consummate, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and he shall go forth, and shall seduce the Nations which are upon the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, and shall gather them unto battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. And they ascended upon the latitude of the earth, and compassed round the camp of the Holy ones, and the City beloved. But all in vain, and to their own destruction: for Fire descended from God out of heaven, and devoured them: and the devil who seduced them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where also the Beast, (that is, Antichrist) and his notable falseprophet shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.  
That which the Apocalypse here calleth, 
Consummation.  The consummation of the thousand years, the Gospel (that no man be deceived) calleth it, Consummationem seculi, The consummation of the world, 
Mat. 24. Mar. 13.  and meaneth thereby that Modicum tempus, little season aforesaid. For so the Apostles ask our Saviour, What sign shall there be of thy coming, and the consummation of the world? He answereth and telleth them of sundry things which must be, Sed nondum est finis, but the consummation notwithstanding is not yet. What then? Marry, This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the universal world, for witness to all Nations. Et tunc veniet consummatio, and then shall come the consummation. And in the short season of the consummation, what shall be? Tribulatio magna, and, Seductio magna: So great a persecution, and so great a Seducing, that the Elect also would not be saved, but that for their sakes Breviabuntur dies illi, Those days shall be shorter, than any man would think it possible, seeing the Persecutors greatness: only three years and a half. Statim autem post tribulationem dierum illorum, And strait after the persecution of those (short) days, there shall be marvelous alterations in the heavens, and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with passing power and majesty. He exhorteth also there to the flight spoken of in the Apocalypse: Cum ergo videritis Abominationem desolationis, quae dicta est a Daniel propheta, stantem in loco sancto, The consummation being now come, you shall see the Abomination of desolation which was spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, standing in the holy place, ubi non debet, where (alas) it should not: 
Mar. 13.  And afore that time, Videte ne turbemini, Look that you be not disquieted. But when you see this, tunc qui in judaea sunt, fugeant ad montes, Then to prevent the horrible persecution imminent, let all sorts of good people flee, and with all hast flee, not standing to consult, but renouncing at once all that they have, and committing themselves roundly and wholly to the help of God from above. Which the Elect then shall do with all alacrity, even as willing to be martyred, as the Dragon and Antichrist shall be to martyr them. And that is it that the Apocalypse hath in these words: And the earth (the elect over all the world) did help the woman, when the Serpent did pour out of his mouth, after her now fleeing into the wilderness, water like a flood, and the earth opened his mouth, and supped up the flood.  

Abomination.  The Abomination of Desolation standing in the Holy place, and that to be seen so universally, which is here given for the watchword to the woman to flee in such manner, the same of S. Paul is said to be Antichrist himself, so proud above all measure, 
2. Thes. 2.  Ita ut in templo Dei sedeat, That he will sit in the temple of God, setting out himself as if he were God. To know what Daniel meaneth by Desolation of the Temple, 
Desolation.  we must look in him, 
Pa. 11. & 12.  what occupied the temple daily before: and we find it to be called of him Inge Sacrificium, The continual Sacrifice. By the which S. Paul also prophesied, 
1. Cor. 11.  that we should announce our lords death, 
Hippo. Martyr. ●rat. de Antich. & Consumma. mundi. Higher in Da. xii.  Donec veniat, Until his coming. And the ancient Fathers do say thereupon accordingly, The precious body and blood of Christ, non extabit, shall not be extant, to be openly seen, in those days of Antichrist, The Liturgy, or Mass, shall be extinguished, The Psalmody of the Canonical hours shall cease. So then, the taking away of this daily Sacrifice out of all Churches, is the Desolation: And the Abomination set there in stead thereof, is that man of Sin, that son of perdition, Antichrist himself, partly in his own person, partly in his Image whereof the Apocalypse speaketh, 
Apo. 13.14.16.19.  as it doth also of his Characters or Marks both in men's hands, and in their foreheads. And for the time when this shall be, Daniel agreeth with the Gospel and Apocalypse. for he saith: And from the time when the daily Sacrifice shall be taken away, and the Abomination set up for Desolation: days 1290. Blessed is he that expecteth and cometh to days 1335. Likewise S. Paul agreeth upon the same time. 
Mat. 24.  For as the Apostles would learn of our Lord a sign of his coming, and of the consummation of the world, so the Thessalonians likewise being troubled, 
2. Thes. 2.  quasi instet dies Domini, As though the day of our Lord had then been instant, the Apostle teacheth them the contrary, and saith, Nequis vos seducat vllo modo, Let not any seduce you in any case: for Antichrist must first be revealed, and then in deed the day of our Lord is instant, for our Lord jesus will kill him with the breath of his mouth, so easily him that seemeth so mighty, and will make frustrate all his proceedings by the manifestation of his own coming.  
Another thing also he there nameth, 
Defection.  which must be afore our Lords coming be instant, saying, Nisi venerit discessio primum, That same Apostasy must come before. Which thing he so distinguisheth from the other thing, that is, from the revelation of Antichrist, that for this he remembreth them of a certain token thereof, which he had more plainly told them, as also all the rest, by word of mouth, and it is commonly taken to be the utter abolishing of the Roman Emperor, Donec de medio fiat qui tenet nunc: & tunc, And then shall be revealed that impious man. But to the coming of the Apostasy he giveth not that token: signifying that although it also shall be at the instant of our Lords coming, yet nevertheless while the Roman Emperor is in a sort remaining.   

Whether Antichrist or the Apostasy agree to the Protestants.  
So that by the time it is evident, that neither Antichrist, 
Antichrist and the protestant  nor the Apostasy agreeth to Bonifacius the third, neither do I say, that Antichrist agreeth to Luther, or Calvin, or any other of you: He shall be another manner of fellow, Iwis: also the time of his reign in persecution, jump three years and a half, according to the foresaid Scriptures. Howbeit this is certain, that you amongst you have done Antichrist most notable and worthy service, to make the fools that hear you, not think of his coming, nor to think that he shall be One certain person, 
Si patrem f. Beelzebub vocaverunt, quanto magis domemesticos eius?  as the Scripture is evident: but rather take Christ's Vicar, and so many his vicars, to be the man: that so when he cometh, he may go away withal more smoothly. Yet the Elect will be, we know, better advised.  
But this I will boldly say, 
The Apostasy and the Protestants.  that your Heresy is so like to the foresaid Apostasy, that but for one place in the apocalypse I would boldly pronounce (with my Mother and Mistress the Churches leave) that it is even the self same. The place is in the first Vae, 
Apoc. 8.9.10.11.  under the first Angel trumpeter. For the second Vae, under the sixth Angel, is plainly of Antichrist. And the third or last Vae, under the seventh and last Angel, is plainly of doomsday. Therefore the first vae must be the next thing immediately before Antichrist: And it is of marvelous Locusts by a certain falling star let out of hell: 
Apo. .9. Locusies.  Their king is the Angel of hell, called in Hebrew, Abaddon, in Greek Apollyon, in Latin Exterminans, in English Destroyer. Their power is not to kill the faithful, but to torment them five months, yet that in so miserable a manner, that they shall desire rather to be killed. All this, & more in that place. Now the time of their persecution cometh to short of yours: Also the universality, item, the vehemency thereof overreacheth yours, though your will be as good as theirs, as by Elmers' Racks some Catholics have had experience. But otherwise manifold & passing similitude between you & them, in the smoke, in the horses, in the whole Anatomy of the Locusts, and above all, in the like destroying and sacrilegious waist of God's Churches and their sacred vessel and holy ornaments, which they shall make in all places, as unto you is permitted of God only in some places.  

The desolation.  The like is seen in the Desolation made by you, & to be made hereafter by Antichrist himself: it is even all one and the same: but that he shall do universally, that which you may not do but here & there: he in all the Churches of the world, casting out the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, with all divine service thereunto belonging, as you have done in all the Churches of England, and wheresoever else you are permitted to set Sedem Satanae, your Satanical seat. As he also shall in place of the foresaid daily Sacrifice bring in his Abomination, 
Abomination.  even himself and his Image to be in all Churches adored above all Divinity, (O most abominable desolation.) So have you likewise not only made desolation of the Sacrifice, but also in stead thereof set up every where your abomination of Luther's & Calvin's invention, the Images also of king's arms in the very place of the most sweet and most glorious Rood, yea the Image of a vile grasshopper in a Church that is well known, in the very place where afore did stand God's Crucifix. I say not that this is the very self Abomination of Antichrist: but I say, and I say boldly, that none other of the old figures thereof was ever more lively, more nigh, more like unto it, not the Idols or Statuees of jupiter set up in the Temple by Antiochus in the umbratical desolation of that time being the time of the Machabées, nor the like of certain Roman Emperors in the umbratical desolation of their time, nor any thing in the sundry umbratical desolations by diverse heresies, which S. Basil and other of the holy Fathers, have, as it were jeremies' lamentation again, pitifully recorded. You have I say, in this your umbratical desolation pricked beyond them all, approaching in the very kind of desolation so much nearer than any to the desolation of Antichrist, as you do in time, so jointly, so identically, that you have represented unto us a plain example, how a thing itself may be a shadow or a figure of the same thing itself, only differing in some manner. And therefore seeing it hath been Prophesied, that one certain heresy, and that towards the end, should so far prick beyond all other heresies, 
Apoc. 8.  according also to the fourth Trumpet being compared with the third, that it should be not only an heresy, but also a plain Apostasy: whether the same be not this present heresy of yours, let the world judge. I do not charge you, as you do us, by bare words, vain cracks, yea and falsifications of the text, but I allege plain Scriptures, and I allege them truly, and I confer divers places together that one may expound another, which you are wont to talk so much of, but you in talk only, and we in deed. Besides much more that I have (if I were the opponent here, and not the answerer) to prove your Apostasy, and that in all the three species of Apostasy, being these, Apostasy from Religion Monastical, Apostasy from holy Orders, Apostasy from our Christian faith: challenging you otherwise to join with me upon my last Demand (in my book of 51. Demands, which concerneth your said Apostasy.  
Therefore such being your Newinuented Gospel, in this time of the fourth Trumpet, no doubt they that embrace the same, 
A gospel pedagogue to Antichrist.  will as readily embrace the next in the time of the fifth Trumpet, and again as readily, & much more readily embrace Antichrist himself in the time of the Churches sixth Trumpet Angelical. For, whom, and what will not they believe, which without all proof, yea against so evident Scriptures, only upon your bold and impudent asseverations, being men so impotent, so unlearned, even in the Scriptures also, and so notorious and confessed wicked livers, have believed that Christ's Vicar, and therefore in effect that Christ himself is Antichrist, & that Christ's Church, the woman clothed with the sun, the new and glorious city of Jerusalem coming down from heaven is the 
(a) Fulke Ar. 33.38.57.100.102.106. and Pur. 287.298.336.391.409.460.  Synagogue of Antichrist, the great whore, and city of Babylon? No, my masters, no, it will never be: Gods elect do to well know the pillar that always hath, and still must hold them up in truth, even against the mighty seductions of Antichrist himself, of his 
(b) Apo. 13.16.  singular falseprophet, and of his three lesser, and all his other inferior falseprophetes, much more against you. And therefore it is not your ignorant and absurd detorting & depraving (as the 
(c) 2. Pet. 3.  first of Christ's Vicars did term it, when he gave us warning of such fellows) of the woman's gorgeous garments, nor of the seven hills, that can deceive them, no more than the false depraving of the woman's flight, whereof I have already spoken: for they know to distinguish the Gorgeous garments used always in God's divine service, which your king Abaddon maketh waste and havoc of, 
The gorgeous garments.  from the gorgeous profane garments and infinite vain pomp that the world of the wicked triumpheth in. 
Infra. ca 10 Dema. 21.  They know also by the commentary which the Scripture itself maketh, what are both the Seven heads, 
Apo. .17.  or Seven hills, and also the Ten horns, to wit, that they all be kings (not the Catholic kings which have and do so humbly adore our Zion, and lick the very dust of her feet, knowing that the nation & kingdom, which serveth not her, shall surely perish. Esay 49. and 60. but) the kings that are with the world against the said Church and people of God. So saith the Scripture: 
The seven heads and hills.  The Seven heads, are seven hills, upon which the woman sitteth, and they are seven Kings. And mark the division of them: quinque ceciderunt, Five of them are fallen: Who therefore are all the persecuting kings in the time of the Old Testament, before the coming of Christ, before the time when this was spoken. unus est, One presently is. Who therefore is meant of the Roman Emperors and all other kings persecuting with them. Alius nondum venit, etc. The other is not yet come: and when he cometh he must remain (not a long season, as the five, and as the one, but) a short season, only three years and a half: Who evidently is Antichrist in proper person. There have you plainly the Seven. Now touching the other Ten, this saith the Scripture: 
The ten horns  And the ten horns, are ten kings, which, like as hath been said of Antichrist, have not yet taken kingdom, but they shall take power as kings, una hora post Bestiam, even within one hour after the Beast, that is, together with Antichrist, 
The whore Babylon.  to serve him as his feed knights. And so you see evidently by these Seven hills thus expounded, that the woman which sitteth upon them, is not so little a one, as you do make her, but that she is Mundus impiorum, the whole multitude of the wicked, even from the first beginning of the world, to the last end thereof, even all in effect that at the later day shall be drowned in hell, either for being of her, 
Apo. 14.15▪ 16.17.18. 2. Pet. 2.  or conforming themselves unto her (which in the Apocalypse is most manifest) as the world of the wicked it was, which was in the time of Noah drowned in the umbratical deluge. So that Rome with the Emperor of it, while it was against the Church, was a member, yet but a member of that woman: As England contrariwise, which was before, so long together, a notable member of the woman clothed with the Sun, is now become a member most miserable of the contrary woman, and for reward of her mutation and Apostasy thus plagued of God, that now she must hear the Scriptures so perniciously detorted in all pulpits at large, and may not hear them, truly, sincerely, healthfully reported, so much as in poor papers: which if she might freely, and much more in pulpits, down, down, god wots, full soon, would this lying and absurd new Gospel come, as by this little which hath been here said, any man of reason will not deny. And now to our third question, which is of Purgatory.     

The third part. Concerning the question of Purgatory.  
D. Allen in the end of his book of Purgatory, made two chapters of answer to their Scriptures: yet saith Fulke at the first of the two: This Chapter is but, Pro forma tantum, 
Pur. 437.  To make a show of a confutation, where the tenth part of our arguments are not rehearsed: notwithstanding, there, and other where up and down he said enough to answer all. But I shall endeavour therefore to satisfy the man better in this behalf, collecting together not only the tenth part, but even all his scriptures, not omitting as much as one, by my will, though such collecting and disposing of things so dispersed, cost me in every Chapter of this book, as much or more labour, then to answer the same afterward.  
Well sir then, you reason against Purgatory by authority of Scripture, in part negatively, in part affirmatively. And your negative reasoning, is sometimes of a piece only, sometimes of the whole Scripture. Again, when it is out of a piece only, it is partly out of some one place, partly out of some one book.  

j Ab authoritate Scripturae, negatiuè.  
First therefore, whatsoever you say negatively out of a piece, whether it be one place, or one book, you have yourself answered it for me, 
Pur. 449.  whatsoever it be, in these words: It is no good Logic, to conclude negatively of one place or book of Scripture, This is not contained in it, therefore it is not true. These be your own words, even also speaking there of this self same matter, even of Purgatory. Nevertheless (to deal more substantially) I will not stick to rehearse those places also, and to answer them particularly.  
One of them is 1. Thes. 4. upon which in your negative divinity you demand and say: 
Pur. 236.  How happeneth it, that in so necessary a place S. Paul findeth no other comfort to moderate the mourning of the faithful, but only the quiet rest of them that are asleep in the Lord, and the hope of their glorious resurrection? Sruely if S. Paul had been of Chrysostom's mind, he would have prescribed other manner of comforts, 
Against the Fathers also.  as chrysostom doth, to wit, exhorting them to prayers and alms for their friends departed, rather than to mourn so immoderately. Seeing you so reason out of this place, I pray you let me ask you: Have you, whensoever in Sermon or otherwise you would moderate the mourning of the faithful, no other comfort but only these two? yea I say more, If you have no more comforts in that case, and if there be no more than S. Paul there prescribeth, surely there is but only one, to wit, the hope of resurrection. For although he name them that are asleep in the Lord, yet of their quiet rest after that sleeping, that is to say, after their death, he saith nothing, it is but your own addition.  
Another place, with your negative Logikes demand, is, where having granted, 
Pur. 362.  that Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, jeronym, and many more, are witness that the solemn prayer for the dead in celebration of the Sacrament, is the tradition of the Apostles: you pose the Papists notwithstanding, and ask, Why then the same is not set forth by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or Paul, where they set forth the institution of the Sacrament? Your words at large, and my answer, go afore in the last Chapter, pag. ●. saving that piece of your words, which containeth your negative reason most clearly, and most boldly, saying: But against this feigned tradition S. Paul crieth with open mouth 1. Corin. 11. That which I delivered unto you, I received of the Lord, etc. This is the only true substance of the Sacrament, and only right order of ministration, and only right use and proper end thereof. So you make as though the Apostle there prescribeth the whole order of ministration, in so much that it only and no other may be the right order thereof: contrary to that which followeth in the same place, 
Infra. ca 11. contr. 44.  The rest I will set in order when I come. You declare your great skill in the Scripture, when here so far you miss of the Apostles purpose, which was only against unworthy receiving. The greatness of that sin he showeth, because of the Real presence of Christ, yea and that in the same manner as he was in his death. Look better upon the place, and see whether it be not as I say, or rather as S. Augustine saith: 
Au. ep. 118. ad jan. ca 3  Ind enim & Apostolus indignè dicit acceptum ab eyes, qui non discernebant a ceteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita. quod satis toto ipso loco in Epistola ad Corinthios prima, si diligenter attendatur, apparet: For that respect the Apostle also doth say, that they receive it unworthily, who do not by due and singularly due worship discern it from the rest of meats: as sufficiently appeareth through that same whole place in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, if it be diligently considered. So then, where the Apostle intended no more but to correct the sin of unworthy receiving, there to require of us to show that he prescribeth it to be offered for the dead, yea and the whole order of ministration, have not you forsooth great reason?  
And even as great you have, where you argue out of particular places of the Old Law, saying: 
Pur. 455.  What law was appointed touching lamenting for the dead, you may read Leuit. 21. how the Priest was forbidden to lament for any, but special persons. Also Num. 19 diverse ordinances concerning the dead. yet never any sacrifice or prayer for the dead. With like reason you might conclude upon the same places, that the dead should not be buried, because in these places no mention is made thereof: and again of sundry other places, 
levit. 15.  where the people are bid to keep themselves warily from diverse contaminations of themselves by touching certain persons alive, that therefore in the same places they are forbidden to pray for the said persons alive, and namely during the cause of such contamination, as for a man or woman whose seed or flowers runneth. You suppose ignorantly that in those places orders are given what shall be done for the dead, but it is not so: only it is decreed, that whosoever entereth the tabernacle or house of him that is there departed, shall be contaminate or unclean after the Mosaical manner: and that the high priest shall not enter to any such at all, nor other priests but to certain. What maketh this against doing aught for the soul of the dead, in other places, and specially in the holy place? As when again you say: 
Pur. 456.  When Nadab and Abihu were slain, their father and brethren were forbidden to mourn for them, the people were permitted. By all which it appeareth that no Sacrifice for the dead was offered. As though holy Sacrificing were as unfit for the Priest as profane mourning: And as though this special case were a general rule, whereas Leuit. 21. it is expressly said to the Priests, that they may be contaminated (which with you is mourning) upon their brother, notwithstanding that for the plague of their two brethren Nadab and Abihu they might not in some manner mourn.  
From the particular places of the Law, I come now with you to the whole Law thus, according to your good Logic, you conclude negatively thereupon: 
Pur. 455.  All lawful sacrifices were prescribed by the Law: Sacrifice for the dead was not prescribed by the Law, Therefore it was no lawful Sacrifice. A seely argument was made by grindal, which D. Allen there returneth upon him, and in this form here rehearsed you go about to better it. The answer still is, 
Infra ca 12. num.  as it was before, by returning it upon yourself: All lawful Sacrifices, to wit, these four in general, Holocaustum, pro peccato, hostia, oblatio (as the Psalmist and the Apostle do gather the sum) were prescribed by the Law: Sacrifice for the dead is one of those four, to wit, pro peccato, for sin: Therefore Sacrifice for the dead was prescribed by the law. To this you would make a reply, and therefore you correct your Mayor with an addition, and say, that not only all lawful Sacrifices were prescribed by the law, but also with peculiar mentioning and plain rehearsing of all such persons for whom Sacrifice was to be offered, both men & women, the princes and the private persons, the priest and the whole congregation, yea and special regard of the oblations of the poor, as may be seen Leuit. 4.5.12.15. But because all these persons are found in the dead, as well as in the living, your addition reacheth yet farther, saying, And in the peculiar rehearsing of divers kind of persons, and the form of the Sacrifice, named according to every particular state, it is so far off that the dead shall be reckoned, that such things are enjoined every of these particular persons to do, as it is plain that none but the living could offer, or have Sacrifice offered for them. And in confidence of this addition, jesus, how you befool D. Allen: And yet it containeth this gross absurdity, which you saw not, that none could offer or have Sacrifice offered for them, but only such as were both living and also present in the place, yea also able to do by themselves those things enjoined, and moreover that none might offer for their friends, or for any other, but for themselves only. And what place is then left for offering for their children, for the sick at home, for their brethren in other countries captive or pilgrims, for the kings and cities of the world, uncircumcised, & for divers other sorts, for which there was offering, as partly in other places is expressed, partly may easily be proved? And therefore all this ado concludeth nothing against Sacrifice for the dead, although it could not be proved: much less, considering that it is in an other place so plainly expressed. For the fact of judas Machabeus putteth all out of doubt, say we: though you say that he therein transgressed the law. But your proof thereof is yet to be made, unless this prove it that you say, It is like, that judas Machabeus, 
Pur. 456.  if he devised not that Sacrifice of his own head, yet took by imitation of the Gentiles, whose studies and practices, the Author of that Story confesseth were more frequented in those days among the jews, than the preaching or keeping of the Law. Why sir, doth the Story say that judas Macabeus was one of those gentilical jews, or that he joined with those Apostatical priests: Yea doth it not plainly say, that all his fighting was against the gentiles and against gentilizing, and that he made his reformation by no Priests but such as were Unspotted in the law? But of your ignorance in that Story (if no worse) I must speak more in another place. 
Infra ca 12.   
Now to end this part, Let us hear how you conclude of the whole Scripture: 
Pur. 449.  As it is no good Logic (you say) to conclude negatively of one place or book of Scripture, this is not contained in it, therefore it is not true, (as you have hitherunto concluded:) So of the whole, the argument is most invincible that concludeth negatively thus: All true doctrine is taught in the Scripture: Purgatory is not taught in the Scripture, therefore Purgatory is no true doctrine. O invincible argument. The Mayor is false, and to all your texts for it, I have answered above. 
Ca isto. p. 1  The Minor likewise is false. for Purgatory is taught in the Maccabees, which is in the Canon of the true Church which you also confess to be the true Church (you know the 
(a) Infra pag.  third Council of Carthage:) and therefore it is Canonical, if any other Scripture be Canonical. It is taught likewise 1. john. 5. so plainly, that you could not avoid the place but by falling into this horrible absurdity, That we may not pray for all men living, as anon I shall report your words. It is also taught, specially against you Sir, joan. 11. for you say after your manner passing confidently, 
Pur. 236.  that Martha and Mary (as the Scripture is manifest) did not hope for any restitution of their brother Lazarus to his body before the general Resurrection. If that be so manifest, what else was it then, but the rest of his soul, that Martha would have Christ to pray for, when she said thus unto him: But also now I know, that whatsoever things thou shalt ask of God, God will grant thee. To which purpose also some ancient writers expound that place. But to allege places is not my intent here, it is only to answer your allegations. And now having done with all your negatives, we are come to your affirmatives.   

ij Ab authoritate Scripturae, affirmative. First, about certain foundations of Purgatory, and prayer for the dead.  
For brevity, to speak jointly of Purgatory, and of relieving the souls that be there: your affirmative allegations against both, are levied by you, partly at the foundation of them, partly at the two themselves. And the foundations being diverse, you have both several shot against the severals, and also one common shot against all or many of them in common. To each sort I shall with the help of God, whose cause it is, make answer most easily and most truly.  

The distinction of Venial and Mortal sin.  
And first, D. Allen declareth out of the Doctors, 
Pur. 126.127.128.  what sins may be purged in Purgatory, to wit, not only such as are Venial of their own nature, but also such as are mortal of their own nature, so that they were in God's Church remitted afore. Fulke saith, that This is manifestly overthrown by the word of God, even from the foundations. For the foundation of this doctrine, is the distinction of venial and mortal sins. Not so sir: the doctrine is, that mortal sins by the Church's remission become as venial: and you grant it yourself, saying, All sins (except certain, of which your good exceptions I shall say more anon) by God's mercy are pardonable or venial. Thus you grant the doctrine, and yet you grant not the foresaid distinction, therefore the distinction is not the foundation of that doctrine, but the doctrine may stand well without it.  
But yet for other causes we must be content to see what you allege against the distinction: The word of God plainly determineth, that every sin is mortal & deserveth eternal death, seem it never so small. So you say, and you allege three places for it. The first: Cursed is every one that abideth not in all things that are written in the Law to fulfil them, Deut. 27. I sir, but find you in the Scripture no other Curse, that is to say, pain for sin, but eternal death? Is it not written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on tree? yet hanging on tree, or crucifying, 
Deut. 21. Gal. 3.  is not eternal death. Again every one in that saying, is meant (by the Apostles exposition) not of Christians, but of them only which trust in the law for itself, who in deed can never attain to no remission neither of their mortal nor of their venial sins. But we that hold of Christ, and of his spirit, are in case always to receive remission whensoever we sin venially: 
1. joan. 1.3.  for so we can. But we can not sin mortally, holding (I say) Christ and his spirit. And therefore if we do sin mortally at any time, depriving ourselves thereby of Christ's spirit, the remedy is to seek for the same again by the Sacrament of penance, and then are we in good case again as before.  
Your other two places are these: The soul that sinneth shall die, Ezech. 18. and, The reward of sin, is death. Rom. 6. S. james giveth us the meaning of these & such like places, where he saith, Peccatum verò cum consummatum fuerit, generat mortem, 
jac. 1.  Sin, when it is consummate, gendereth death: But not so soon as it is gendered, and yet it is sin as soon as it is gendered. Therefore some sin there is, which yet gendereth not death. Mark the order: Deinde concupiscentia cum conceperit, parit peccatum: peccatum verò cum consummatum fuerit, generat mortem: First cometh the temptation of our concupiscence, as it were of a lewd woman: Secondly, concupiscence when she hath conceived (by obtaining some light consent) beareth sin, venial sin. Mary thirdly, Sin, when it is consummate (by our full and perfect consent yielded unto it) gendereth or bringeth forth death, if the matter be of weight accordingly. For else that the lightness of the matter, as an idle word, bringeth not death, he sufficiently signifieth, in saying, that in a weighty matter the lightness or imperfection of consent doth it not.   

Whether after sin remitted, pain may remain.  
Now to another foundation, to wit, That culpa, the fault, both in Venial and in Mortal sin, may be forgiven of God and of his Church, and yet some pain (though not eternal) be owing for it sometime, so that the same must in such case be in this life either paid or pardoned, or else in Purgatory it will be exacted.  

Pur. 45.  This is against Ezechiel, saith Fulke, What time soever a man doth truly repent, the Lord doth put all his sins out of his remembrance. You might have done well to quote the place where Ezechiel so saith ad verbum. The truth is, that in a moment the repentance may be so great, that there is no more remembrance at all. But Ezechiel (if you mean the 18. Chapter) speaketh of a longer time, so that The wicked man must repent him of all his sins, and keep all God's commandments, and do right and justice, and then vita vivit, & non morietur, when the day cometh to reward every one according to his works here, He shall live, & not die. All his iniquities that he worked, I will not remember (saith God:) for his justice that he wrought, he shall live. For otherwise, who knoweth not those voices, 
Psal. 24.78  Lord remember not the sins of my youth: and, Lord remember not our old sins? Are they not the words of men which had already repent them? acknowledging nevertheless that God may yet remember them.  
Again you say, It is against David, 
Pur. 45.46 Psal. 102.  The Lord hath removed our sins from us as far as the east is from the west. Who may not say this, for being removed from eternal damnation, although he have yet to abide never so much temporal punishment? Howbeit those words, as the whole Psalm, are not spoken of the time of our first receiving again into the favour of God by absolution, but to magnify his mercy in our final restitution which shall be at the later day. For which cause the Church very aptly singeth that Psalm upon the feast of Christ's Ascension.  
Also out of the New Testament you say: The Publican, 
Pur. 43.  the Prodigal child, the debtor, all clearly remitted, do plainly prove, that God freely forgiveth, justifieth, rewardeth, the penitent sinners, without exacting any punishment of them for answering of the debt, satisfying for the sins, abusing his fatherly clemency, Luk. 7.15.18. You speak here very indefinitely, as though God never exacteth no punishment neither aforehand. Which to be always (specially in adultis) clean contrary, any may perceive, that considereth this punishment whereof we speak, to be the work of penance, chiefly the internal works, and secondarily the external also. But to let go this vantage, and howsoever you speak to take it, yet that you mean not but of the punishment which we now entreat of, to wit, which is owing sometime after forgiveness: what make those ensamples against the same?  
Of the Publican no more is said, but that he went home from the Temple justified more than the Pharisée. How prove you now, 
Luk. 18.  that he which is justified, may not withal be in some debt? Is it not the justified or children of God that are taught to say unto the Father, forgive us our debts? Debt not only of temporal punishment, but also of the fault itself being venial, may stand well enough with justification.  

Luc. 15.  The prodigal child, is the Gentile received by Baptism, as the Elder son, is the jew that will not now come in. In Baptism we hold the forgiveness to be such, that neither any temporal punishment is owing afterward: But if he play the prodigal child again after that most ample grace, then, returning yet again, and to be now received no more by the Sacrament of Baptism (for we are not anabaptists) but by the Sacrament of Penance (for we are not novatians, 
Infra ca 12. ) that then also we must deal with him like liberally in his person whose ministers we are, and enjoin him no more then at the other receiving, that you have not yet proved.  

Luc. 7.  The two debtor are in the texts Marry Magdalen owing 500 pence, and Simon the Pharisée, owing 50. pence. And they not having to pay, as no sinner of himself hath, donavit utrisque, Christ forgave both. And yet they both had to be forgiven after, according to the proportion of their love: in so much that both of Mary Magdalen he saith, Much sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much, as he there reckoneth up the works of her love, far above the works of Simons love: and also to her he saith, so long after her hearts conversion, & therefore after her first forgiveness, Thy sins are forgiven thee. Again of Simon and to Simon he saith, But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less: giving him to understand, that he owed more yet than he was ware of, wherefore that he had to imitate her whom he did set so light by, and to increase, as she did, in penitential love.   

Whether Purgatory follow upon this last foundation.  
Upon this second foundation is set the third foundation by D. Allen, 
Pur. 44.46.  in these words: If any debt or recompense remain to be discharged by the offender after his reconcilement, it must of necessity be induced, because every man can not have time (either for the hugeness of his sins past, or his late repentance, or his careless negligence) to repay all in his life, that there is all, or some part answerable in the world to come. Against this Fulke allegeth, that otherwise saith the spirit of God in the person of the faithful: He hath not dealt with us according to our sins, 
Psal. 103. or 102.  neither rewarded us after our iniquities. But as heaven is above the earth, so great is his mercy: as a father hath compassion on his children, so hath the Lord compassion on them that fear him. I said afore, these words to be spoken in the person of the faithful in deed, but for the time of the final most merciful reward, and not for the time when they die, whereof now we speak. And therefore they make nothing (as you pretend they do) against the necessity of the foresaid conclusion.  
Again you say against it, that It riseth of devilish envy, 
Pur. 51.  that God should be more liberal to them that repent at the hour of death, then to them that were but small offenders, converted long before. And therefore (M. Allen) I will answer you, as the householder answered those murmurers, which grudged that they which wrought but an hour, were made equal in reward with those that had borne the burden and heat of the day. Is thy eye evil, because God is good? Is it not lawful for him to do what he will with his own? Mat. 20. But this is that which always deceiveth the Papists, because they measure the reward by justice, and not by mercy. Nay it is this that deceiveth you, that you can not see any justice in mercy. And therefore upon your ground, the Origenistes might as well have said to our Catholic forefathers, that it rose of envy that God should be more liberal to them that repent, then to them that repent not at all: and might urge them thereupon, and say: Is thy eye evil, because God is good? Is it not lawful for him to do what he will with his own? But the Catholic might answer the Origenist, saying: I syr: but how prove you that mercy, that God (I say) is good to them that repent not? that he will give his own so freely to them, to whom was not applied at all the Satisfaction of his justice made by Christ? Even so we answer you, and say: I sir, but how prove you, that God is alike good to all, that he hath once showed mercy unto for Christ, that is to say, to all the baptised, although they in their works afterward which they work through Christ, be not like? The spirit of God saith otherwise to the baptised: And all Churches shall know, 
Apoc. 2.  that I am a searcher of the very reins and hearts: and will give to every one of you according to his works.  
The meaning of the Parable than is this: The jews did murmur at the promotion of the Gentiles, because to their own works as their own, they ascribed their salvation, thinking that they needed not any mercy at al. But we must not do so, we must ascribe all to God's mercy: it is his mercy that he calleth us being idle afore, yea sinfully occupied, into the vineyard of his Catholic Church, there to work for the penny of everlasting life: it is his mercy, whatsoever we do work in the said vineyard, one more and in short time, as Mary Magdalen, another less, though in longer time, as Simon the Pharisée, but all is of his mercy, of his grace, according to the measure as Christ (he also being his Christ) by his merits requireth for every one, of his justice: and therefore both the works with all their variety, and the pence in the end with all their variety, are both of Gods giving, though the pence be the merces, wages for the working, and that also by bargain.  
Seeing therefore that the mercy of God, even within his vineyard, within his Churches, is with such variety, and with such justice, you have not to accuse us of envy, for holding that (ceteris paribus) he is not so liberal where penance is unperfect, as where it is full. Nor yet to say as you do in the same place, I think M. Allen is angry with Christ, that he did not send the penitent thief into Purgatory, but even that day promised to be with him in Paradise. You rather might be angry with that penitent, for thinking it enough, if he might be remembered when Christ should come in his kingdom, though in the mean time he did among such as he, abide for his sins in another place. But to think that D. Allen would be angry with Christ our high priest, for giving a pardon, and that a plenary, how could you, knowing that the Vicar of Christ gluing a plenary, offendeth him not? for the merciful justice of God in which he governeth us that are his family, is as thoroughly answered by Christ our Lord, when by himself or by his Ministers he giveth us full pardon, as when he giveth us full penance.  
And in this I have at once answered your like objecting to D. Allen in another place, 
Pur. 64.  that He will not suffer God to show mercy upon whom he will show mercy, Rom. 9 without his blasphemous and envious murmuring. I have told you where God will show full mercy, comparing his elect and just together (howbeit that sentence is not in comparison of them among themselves, but comparing them with the reprobate) to wit, where he seeth full penance, or full pardon by Christ. If you can prove that he will show as full mercy also where he findeth not that fullness of Christ's grace, then call us hardly enemies for not suffering God to show mercy upon whom he will.   

Whether in Christ, the works of one may help another?  
The fourth and last foundation concerneth the relief of them in Purgatory, and it is this, that within the Church or body of Christ one member may help another by virtue of the Communion of saints. Against this Fulke saith: 
Pur. 198. Infra ca 12.  I have learned in the Scripture, that there is no name given under heaven, by which they may be helped, which are not helped by Christ's death. Act. 4. Who doubteth of that? But sir have you learned in the Scripture, that they which are helped by the death of Christ, can not through his grace help and be helped, one of another? Surely I learn in the Scripture, that, as the rich of this world may help the poor with their substance, so the rich in good works may spiritually help the poor of that kind. 
2. Cor. 8.  Let your abundance in this present time (saith the Apostle to the wealthy Corinthians) supply their (the poor Hebrews) lack, 
Act. 2.4.  that also their abundance (spiritual (as in the Acts it is passing singular) may supply your lack.  
But at the least, 
Pur. 199.  It is not possible that other men's works alive should profit them that are dead, you say. And why so? For as much as without Faith it is not possible to please God, Heb. 13. That is most true, as you and all other Heretics shall one day find it. Therefore without faith it is not possible that they should profit them. Be it so? What then? We alive, and our brethren in Purgatory, both have faith. Yea, but D. Allen granteth, that they which are in Purgatory, can not by any motion of mind, attain more mercy, than their life passed deserved. That is true. Therefore their faith profiteth them nothing, for that is a notable motion of the mind. And what more? Then the merits of other men must profit without faith. Two iron conclusions. Although by their faith they can not attain mercy, or profit themselves, yet by their faith they are in case to be profited by the prayers & works of their fellow members alive. And so are these two iron bars at once broken with so little a do. Example of a child new borne: without life it were not possible to feed him, nor to baptise him: and though he be alive, he can not procure himself food, nor baptism: yet because he is alive, he is in case to be helped by others thereunto.   

Fulkes common argument of the omnisufficiency of Christ's Passion.  

Infra ca 12.  Now remaineth in this part, but only your common argument of Christ's Passion, by it you think to overthrow the foundations that stand even upon it, such is your folly. D. Allen in his book reported the said argument of yours, in these words: [Their extreme and only refuge is, that the pain of Christ's passion, 
Pur. 152.  and his sufficient payment for our sins, standeth not with our satisfaction or penance in this life, nor with pain or Purgatory in the next.] Whereunto he there answereth, as the Reader may see. the effect is, that an Origenist, or one worse than an Origenist, might likewise say, The passion of Christ, because it is omnisufficient, standeth not with hell neither. But a Catholic would answer him, and the Protestants at once, that we must not consider only the omnisufficiency of it, but rather the will of Christ that suffered it, whether he would have it to work● upon all and every where, because it is omnisufficient, or only upon his members within his Church: and upon them also whether always and straightways to the very full, and without all working of any thing or person with it, or rather by degrees and proportions, by means and instruments.  
Which being considered, all Fulkes allegations will be quickly answered. And first whether it follow, because it is so sufficient, that therefore it worketh always at full. If any man sin after baptism (saith he, 
Pur. 45. 1. joh. 2.  alleging S. john) jesus Christ is our advocate with the father, and propitiation for our sins. That is true. But that in playing the advocate for sins after baptism, he requesteth the like and equal grace, as he did in baptism for sins afore baptism, where have you that?  

Pur. 95. 1. Io. 1.  In another place you allege, that the blood of Christ doth purge us from all our sins. It is taken out of the same place, and hath the same answer, to wit, that his blood doth work more graciously in the Sacrament of baptism, then in the Sacrament of penance.  
And being washed by him, we are thoroughly clean, joh. 13. So you allege immediately in the same place, adding also: So that although our sins were as red as scarlet, they are made as white as snow, Esay. 1. These two places are evident of baptism (read the text) and therefore we admit willingly that which you infer there, saying, Then being thoroughly purged washed and cleansed as white as snow, we are made capable (without delay) of the heavenly inheritance & the fruition of eternal glory. Nevertheless I must put you in mind that your former place john. 13. truly alleged, were thus: He that is washed (in baptism,) needeth not but to wash his feet (that is, his venial sins, which he committeth afterward, although he continue withal in the cleanness of his baptism) but he is all clean. I ask you then, what if he die before he wash his feet? He is clean, and therefore he shall not to hell, as the unclean judas. Yet he is not so clean, but that he needed more washing: shall that then be quite omitted which so needed, and he to heaven before he be all clean?  
Well, by all this you have not yet proved, that Christ's blood whensoever it washeth, washeth continually and at once to the full. Yea the saying of David is manifest for the contrary: He was washed from his sin by Christ, and yet he prayeth for the same sin, saying, Amplius lava me, wash me more from my iniquity, & cleanse me from my sin. In answering unto it, 
Psal. 50. Pur. 97.78  you have nothing to say, but that it was at God's hands, and by the means of Christ's blood, that he prayed to be cleansed. Yea sir, but the place teacheth us, that God and that blood do not at every time wash one so fully, but that they reserve yet to wash him more, when it is thought good.  
Now let us hear also whether it follow that in such washing nothing worketh with the blood of Christ, because the blood is of itself omnisufficient. The sufficiency of Christ's Passion (saith he) is counted a light argument to M. Allen. 
Pur. 154.  Too light in deed, to bear down any doctrine of Christ. But (saith he) thus we reason: Christ hath paid the full price of our sins, hath fully satisfied for them, therefore there is no part of the price left to be paid by us, there remaineth no satisfaction for us. And yet saith he again, We neither exclude repentance, nor good works. For Christ hath paid the price of their sins, that repent and believe in him, that follow his steps, that walk in his precepts. So then, he misliketh not, that our works should be with the passion of Christ, but that they should work with the passion of Christ: and therefore he saith, the absurdity of our doctrine is this, that we say: [Christ by his suffering is become a cause of salvation to all that believe in him, yet every man by good works must procure his own salvation.] These (he saith) are the enemies of the Cross of Christ. And yet it is the Scripture that saith, 
Philip. 2.  Work your own salvation. Neither will he, I trow, call the Apostle an enemy of God, because he there saith, It is God that worketh in you, and yet work your own salvation. Much less will he reason thus: God is sufficient and able to work our salvation, therefore there is no part of our salvation left to be wrought by the Passion of Christ. For he seeth, the reason to be a false reason: and his reason is even of the same fashion, as both he and every body beside may see.  
Therefore to agree all these Scriptures and Truths together, what could be more apt, then (as we be taught in the Schools) that there be three sorts of working causes, Agens principale, Instrumentum coniunctum, Instrumentum separatum, as in one writing, I do write as the principal, my hand doth write as the instrument united unto my person, and my pen doth write as the instrument separated from my person: Each of these working the whole work, and not parting it between them. It is so in the working of our Salvation: The Godhead worketh it principally: The Manhood of Christ, and the works of it, namely his Passion, worketh it, as the arm of God: The Sacraments work it, as his instruments divided from his person: And so likewise his mystical members, the faithful, with their works, do work it, as it were means and agents personally separated from him, though mystically united unto him. And they part it not between them, but each after his manner worketh the whole. And that is it which the Scripture meaneth by helping, 
Pur. 241.  (the word that your ignorance so much abhorreth, when it so often saith, that God helpeth both Christ, Psa. 17. and us, 2. Cor. 2. Heb. 13. And also that Christ helpeth us. Heb. 2.  
But yet there is a difference in this similitude. For God were sufficient to save without the passion of Christ, and that by baptism, yea and without baptism also and other such instruments. Likewise the passion of Christ were sufficient to save, though not without God, yet without baptism and all other like. But I can not write without my hand, nor without a pen.  
If then the Godhead, (or to use your words, the infinite and only cause of our salvation, the mere mercy of God) although it be so singularly omnisufficient, doth not exclude neither Christ's passion, nor the working of it, or merits of that man: how doth the omnisufficiency of Christ's passion enforce you to exclude either his baptism and his good works in his members, or also the working of his baptism and the working or efficacy of those good works? specially considering the Scripture is plain for al.  
For as it is written, 
Pur. 97.  That he hath washed us from our sins by his blood, Apoc. 1. So likewise, that he hath saved us by the laver of Regeneration, Tit. 3. He cleanseth his Church by the laver of water, Ephe. 5. Baptism doth save you. 1. Pet. 3. So again, He hath made us kings and priests to God, Apoc. 1. If (spiritual) priests, ergo to offer our spiritual Sacrifices, (as our mortification, Rom. 12. our almesdéedes, Hebr. 13.) both for our own sins, and for the sins of other: because the external Priest is ordained to offer external Sacrifices for sins, both for himself, and for the people, Heb. 5.  
Which places I allege rather than other as plain or plainer, because you were so blind to allege the self same for the contrary, to prove, that Christ saveth us by his blood alone, as though the grace thereof might not work in his Sacraments, and in his members works. Whereupon also, upon the Angels saying, Apo. 7. These are they that came out of great affliction, 
Pur. 95.  and have washed their stoles and made them white in the blood of the Lamb: therefore they are in the presence of the throne of God: you make this clerkly note, and say: Mark here, that they which came out of this great affliction, were not purged thereby, but that they washed and made white their garments, in the blood of the Lamb: by whose righteousness being clothed, they may appear in innocency before the throne of God. The text saith plainly, that therefore they are before the throne, to wit, because they came out of such affliction, & so whited their stoles: and yet this gloser taketh it away from the affliction, whereas that whiting was nothing else but that affliction. He forgot to do himself that which he so loftily would seacute; eme to teach us, To confer other places when there is a doubt. for in another place of that book it is expressly written thus: Who so overcometh, shall be clothed with white garments. Apoc. 3. And if you yet doubt, by what they overcome, whether by the lambs blood alone, or also by their own patiented confession or affliction unto death, it is written there again: And they overcame the devil by the blood of the Lamb, and by their own martyrdom (dia ●on logo●●es martyri●s au●on,) and loved not their life even unto death, Apoc. 12. And S. Paul accordingly calleth it, 
2. Cor. 4.  the mortification of jesus, when the Apostles were mortified for jesus: and saith, they carried the same about continually in their bodies, that also the life of jesus might be manifested in their self same bodies at the latter day, which is the same thing, that the Apocalypse calleth to appear before the throne in white stoles. Whereby you see, that as the blood of Christ, so by it martyrdom also, worketh such glory. For so it followeth there again: This our affliction, although it is but short and light, operatur, worketh us everlasting weight of glory exceeding measure above measure. Because affliction here for jesus doth so wash our stoles or bodies, therefore it procureth that they shallbe so glorious in the Resurrection. this say these Scriptures. And so much of the foundations, and by occasion of them. Now to Purgatory itself, and prayer for the dead.   

Secondly: directly of Purgatory itself and prayer for the dead. whether all the elect go strait to Heaven: Afore Christ's coming. Limbus patrum.  
Directly against Purgatory, & prayer for the dead, you shoot divers arrows, or rather cockshotles, so deadly are the wounds that your shot doth make. First you will prove by many and evident Scriptures, that all the Elect do go, yea and always from the beginning of the world have gone strait to heaven, & therefore never no Purgatory, never no Limbus Patrum. Which if you can do, your skill in the Scripture no doubt far passeth all the ancient Doctors, were they never so well studied therein. For they all could not find so much as one text, that all or any one also went to heaven before Christ: yea and not many texts, 
Vide Saunder. monar. li. 7. pag. 518.520. Pur. 57  that any one after him also, goeth thither before the general Resurrection, but rather very many texts, that until the Church within these 300. years defined the contrary, made it very probable, that none are there till then.  
Well thus you begin, That the Fathers of the Old law before Christ, were not in hell, it is to be proved with manifest arguments, and authorities out of holy Scriptures. But first you think necessary to answer one text that stood in your way, saying: Although they were not, nor yet are in perfect blessedness, God providing a better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Heb. 11. By that they of the old Testament were not made perfect or consummate, without us of the new Testament, S. Paul there doth mean evidently that their Souls were not yet admitted into heaven: As in that whole Epistle he showeth, that the Old Testament did consummate nothing, but contrariwise, 
Heb. 7. Heb. 10. Heb. 9  that it made continually every year a commemoration of their sins, because they remained still and were not perfectly remitted, and therefore that Christ died In Redemptionem earum praevaricationum quae erant sub priore Testamento, To buy out the prevarications that were all that while, that so at length the heirs might attain the everlasting inheritance which was promised. 
Heb. 9  Nondum enim propalatam esse Sanctorum viam, adhuc priore tabernaculo habente statum, For the way into Sancta or heaven, was not yet opened, until the high Priest jesus entered first thereinto: 
Heb. 10.  qui initiavit nobis viam novam, It was he that began this new way unto us, who now therefore have fiduciam in introitu Sanctorum, Confidence to enter in after him being our forerunner, into the same Sancta. And all this is spoken of our Souls: As for our bodies, neither yet is the way open, unless Sancta were open when only the High priest entered into them. This was the providence of God for us that we should not think we come to late, if the Father's souls had been admitted in before us. Confer the end of your own text with the beginning of it, 
Heb. 11.  ut non consummarentur, and, non acceperunt repromissionem. See how plainly he expoundeth, their not consummating to be their not attaining of the promise. And what promise? 
Heb. 9  Confer this other place, ut repromissionem accipiant aeternae haereditatis, That the heirs might attain the promise of everlasting inheritance. I might at large declare the same by the whole course of Scripture, as D. Allen saith very well, but that I am not here to allege, 
Pur. 439.  but only to answer. Well then against these most manifest Scriptures let us hear the manifest authorities of Scripture which you pretend.  

Pur. 57.58.  For you say, Seeing they all believed in Christ, they had everlasting life, and entered not into condemnation, but passed from death to life, Io. 5. To what life, but the life or resurrection of their bodies? for until the last day, all the dead are in death, but then some shall come forth into resurrection of life, some others into resurrection of damnation, but he that believeth in me, hath (that is, most certainly shall then have, john. 11.) life everlasting, and cometh not into damnation, but passeth from death, (wherein he hath so long been) to life. This is the plain text of that place: As likewise in all the New Testament, lightly every where, life after corporal death, signifieth the resurrection of the bodies, where the souls be in the mean time, here is never a word: no nor of the Saints of the old Testament afore the institution of Baptism: whereunto belief in him giveth now access, joa. 1. and 3, that believing in him, they may have life, Io. 20. But their state we must gather out of other places of holy Scripture.  
And to what end (again you say) was Christ called the Lamb that was slain from the beginning of the world, but that the benefit of his passion extendeth unto the godly of all ages alike? This is your expounding of Scripture by Scripture: you are a true man of your word. The place is Apo. 13. Whose names were not written in the book of life of the Lambs that was slain from the beginning of the world. Conferring it with this place, Apo. 17. Whose names were not written in the book of life from the beginning of the world, you perceive the error of your construction. It is not said, that the Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world, but that all the reprobate shall adore Antichrist when he cometh, as the Gospel also saith, 
Mat. 24.  that the Elect also should be then deceived, if it were possible. Nevertheless, that the lamb was slain from the beginning of the world, is true, though not in your fond sense, but because his death was so long before preordained of God and prefigured, as the Apostles do often say to stop the mouths of them that objected newness to our Religion of salvation by a dead man. As the like would be a justification of your new Gospel, if you could show out of Scripture, that Luther was preordained for that purpose.  
Again in the same place you allege, that Esay speaking of the righteous that are departed out of this life, saith that there is peace, and that they shall rest in their beds, Esa. 57 Like as he affirmeth that Tophoth, which is Gehinnone or hell, is prepared of old for the wicked, isaiah. 30. isaiah speaketh not of his own time, but (as a Prophet) of the time now since the coming of Christ who is our peace. There is peace, say you: but he saith, There shall come peace, or as the Church's translation hath no less agreeably to the Hebrew, Let peace come I pray. Moreover if it were granted, that then also they did rest in their beds, because the death of the just is but a sleep, for the assurance of their resurrection, what were this to their souls? Also if their souls did rest, must every rest needs be the bliss of heaven? We say not that Limbus patrum was Purgatory, but that it was a place of rest, because without poena sensus, though not without poena damni for the time. Suppose a king's son and heir, that by some crime deserved disheriting, but the king his father of grace will let him inhirite, marry not at the time he otherwise should, but certain years after, yet during those years also he shall be well and honourably provided for: may we not say that this man is at ease, considering his provision, and yet in punishment also, considering his loss for the time? Such was their case in Limbo. It was not hell, you say, because it was not Tophet or Gehenna. Why? our creed and the Scripture saith, that Christ's Soul was in hell, 
Infra ca 12.  and yet no man so wicked except it were calvin himself (I think) to say, it was in Gehenna. Therefore Gehenna or Tophet, the place for the wicked, was not the only hell.  
As vainly, and more falsely you argue that it was not hell, because Luc. 16. Lazarus was carried by Angels not down to hell, but up to Abraham's bosom. Carried up? is that portari, or, apenechthinai? But the rich man is in hell, you say, and he looketh up, and seethe a far of Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham. The same wise argument again: In this place this is called hell, therefore no other may be called hell, although the Scripture itself else where nameth to us another hell. The places might in situation (at least in respect of the heavenly mantions being so far distant from them both) be nigh together, although one were upward, and also far of both in state & situation (purgatory peradventure being between them.) Again if it were granted that they were no way nigh together, yet it would not follow, that Abraham's bosom was heaven. As neither, if Lazarus were carried upward. 
4. Reg 2.  For so was Elias: who yet was not carried into heaven that now we speak of.  
Another of your manifest arguments, being the last in that place: If righteousness belongeth to Abraham's children, the reward of righteousness also pertaineth unto them. Therefore Abraham's bosom was open to receive all the children of Abraham, even as 
joan. 1.  the bosom of God was ready to receive Abraham, because he was his son through faith. Nay you should have said, because he was 
That which is proper to unigenitus, he maketh common to Abraham.  unigenitus qui est in sinu patris, The only begotten son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and then you had said somewhat. But these your gross ignorances in the scripture, I must reserve to their own proper Chapter. To your argument I say, 
Infra ca 12.  that the reward of righteousness may belong to one, and yet not paid him as soon as he dieth. S. Paul naming both Abraham himself and many children of his, saith expressly: According to faith all these departed, 
Heb. 11.  not receiving the promises, but beholding them a far of. And again, And all these renowned by faith, received not the promise, that is, the inheritance, the reward of righteousness.  

Pur. 441.451.  In two other places also you prate against Limbus, but you allege no other Scripture against it. Well then, you have not proved, that afore Christ's coming any one went to heaven: nor that all went strait to Limbus, and therefore none to Purgatory. Now whether since Christ's coming they all go strait to heaven, and therefore none to Purgatory, let us likewise examine.   

Whether since Christ all go strait to heaven.  
There is no prayer for the dead nor Purgatory after this life (you say) because they that live unto Christ, die unto him, 
Pur. 451.  and being dissolved are with him. joa. 17. And in another place more distinctly, 
Pur. 276.  We believe that the souls of the faithful & the repentant are where Christ is, as he prayeth, joa. 17. Father I will that those whom thou hast given me, where I am they also may be with me, that they may see my glory. And even so he saith to the Thief no perfect just man, but a sinner repentant: This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise. Luc. 23. And S. Paul desireth to be dissolved and to be with Christ. Philip. 1. That to be with Christ, is to see his Godheades glory, and not only his manheades glory, would hardly be proved out of the Scripture. Yet because it maketh with the foresaid definition of the Church, I grant it. So then, the example of the Apostle S. Paul declareth, that a perfect just man goeth strait to Christ: The example of the Thief declareth, that likewise a penitent sinner, goeth strait to Christ, if either his penance be full and perfect, or his pardon, which is a remission of his penance, be a plenary. And the saying, joan. 17. specially being illustrate with these two examples, declareth as much: howbeit by itself alone it declareth no more, but that they which are Christ's, may and shall be with Christ, but when, it saith not. You allude there to one place more, which is Rom. 14. We live to our Lord, and we die to our Lord. Whereby he meaneth not, that we be with our Lord when we die, no more than he meaneth that we be with our Lord when we live: but that both in our life and at our death, from the beginning to the end, we be not our own men, but servants to another, and that he therefore is my judge if I do not well, and not thou: also to him I myself must make my count, and not thou for me. This being the sense of that place, you had forsooth great reason to confer it with Apoc. 14. to control S. Augustine's sense, 
Pur. 436.446.  who expoundeth it of Martyrs, which is there said, Blessed are the dead that die in our Lord: now after that the spirit saith that they shall rest from their labours. You reply, saying, that D. Allen understanding it only of Martyrs, 
Aug. ca 9 li. 20. de Ci.  calleth Augustine to witness thereof: but that it is spoken of all the faithful, and therefore overthroweth Purgatory, witness hereof I will not take of flesh and blood, say you, (see what he maketh of S. Augustine,) but of the holy Ghost. Rom. 14. we all die unto the Lord. Your skill in the Scripture is great, that make it all one, to die in the Lord, and, to die to the Lord. All that die to the Lord, have (as the Apostle there saith) to make their accompt● to him, which may and will to some fall out to their damnation. but blessed are all they that die in the Lord. Wherefore these two are not all one. True it is, that all, which die well and in the Church's peace, die in our Lord, as they are called also dormientes in Christo. 1. Cor. 15. and mortui in Christo. 1. Thes. 14. they that sleep in Christ, the dead in Christ, wheresoever their Souls be after that sleeping and dying, in heaven or in purgatory. But yet the place Apoc. 14. is very well said of D. Allen to be spoken not of all that so die, but only of martyrs, neither of all martyrs, but of them only that shall suffer in the time and rage of Antichrist, for so the circumstance of the letter plainly giveth. You therefore that will have one place always conferred with another, consider the circumstance, see what goeth afore, what cometh after, and you shall find, that he speaketh of the last time, exhorting the faithful than not for any fear to adore the beast, but to die constantly in our Lord, for now the Resurrection is even at hand, and therefore their labours all at an end. Fear the Lord (saith one Angel, preaching to all the world at that time) and give honour to him: because the very hour of his judgement is come: and adore him, adore not Antichrist. And another Angel followeth, saying: Cecidit, cecidit, down down is fallen Babylon. And another Angel: If any adore the beast, he shallbe tormented in fire and brimstone for ever and ever. Then a voice from heaven: Blessed are the dead that (will not adore the beast, but) die in the Lord. Now after this the Spirit saith, that they shall rest from their labours. For their works (that is, their reward) do follow them now at hand. And immediately there after cometh forth the judge upon a white cloud, and the Siethes, and down goeth all the world. Lo this is the circumstance. Whereby you see, the place saith not so much as those Martyrs to be at rest so soon as they die, but only within a very short time after. This is the place that quite overthroweth Purgatory.  
And so I have examined all that you allege for going strait to heaven. Another way you proceed against Purgatory and prayer for the dead, by the judgement which is after this life.   

Whether the judgement may stand with Purgatory.  
The tree, whether it fall to the South or the North, 
Pur. 436.439.441.  it lieth ever where it lighteth. Eccl. 11. Your commentary upon this place is, that the fall of the tree to the south or to the north, is the judgement of God concerning every man, either of reward or of punishment, which can not be altered after a man's death: and therefore by this place prayers be not profitable. Why? who saith that prayers shall so alter their judgement? Some be judged to heaven, but differred, as they in Limbo at the very same time when this was written, and others not so good both then and now in Purgatory. To bring these to heaven whereunto they be so judged, prayers do serve. And this differing is signified by the Wiseman even in the same place, quia post tempora multa invenies illum. He exhorteth them to do almesdéedes and all other good works that they can, because a great while after thou shalt find it. The tree that fell in the South, it may be a good while after before he be all trimmed. For not the soul only, but also the body falleth to be rewarded or punished. And who seeth not how long after the fall it is, before the body have accordingly? Only before his fall let every one look to his works: for after the fall, 
Luc. 16.  he shall find Chaos magnum, a huge distance between the north and the south, and therefore no possibility of removing from the one to the other. This is the sense of that place, as D. Allen told you before, and your reply against it is too-too frivolous. For you say, that then they should always lie in Purgatory, because the certainty of their salvation, is as great before they were borne, as after they be dead. Certainty of their salvation, that by him the Wiseman speaketh of, riseth after their dying in grace, of the unalterable judgement, that by yourself the Wiseman speaketh of, and it is the impossibility of removing to the north or to damnation. What maketh this against removing out of Purgatory into heaven, which is not removing out of the south into the north, but only further into the south, even into the final place that strait after his fall both his soul and body were judged unto.  
You argue again of the judgement, saying, 
Pur. 281.  Immediately after death followeth judgement, but prayers either need not or boot not when the party is either acquitted or condemned by the sentence of the judge, which (as S. Augustine saith) can not be indifferent between reward and punishment, De lib. arb. li. 3. cap. 23. S. Augustine saith there the contrary rather, as you shall see if you read the place. And to your argument I say: In that judgement, some be condemned to hell, for whom prayers boot not. Others be acquitted from hell: and of these, some strait rewarded in their souls, and so prayers need not, but not yet rewarded in their bodies, and for that therefore they pray, Apoc. 6. until they be heard, Apoc. 11. Others not strait rewarded neither in their souls. And of these again, some, without poena sensus, punishment of sense, only differred, as they in Limbo, who prayed accordingly, no less than the foresaid for the redemption of their bodies. Others first to be punished temporally, according to their debts, 
Mat. 5.  to wit, for being angry, or saying Raca, and them to be not only let out of their prison, because it is not Gehenna ignis, for they said not Fatue, but also rewarded for their merits. And for these again, while they be in prison, prayers, as they need, so also they boot, because the judge is merciful. And so you see no less than three sorts, which your division lacketh.  

Pur. 436.444.  And thereby at once is answered your other objection of the wide way, and the narrow way, Mat. 7. If there be but two ways in this life (you say) there are but two abiding places after this life. In the wide way of breaking Gods commandments, some go wider than some, with infinite variety, yet all in the wide way: and these after death go to damnation, namely their souls, and strait to damnation, because they have nothing to stay them out of it, so much as a minute of an hour. In the narrow way of keeping Gods commandments, some go narrower than some, with infinite variety likewise, yet all in the narrow way: and these after death go to life, though not strait in body, none of them, neither in soul also many of them, because they have somewhat to stay them out of it for a time, to wit, temporal debt of venial sin, & also of mortal sin forgiven but the due penance not fully paid nor fully pardoned. And so you see, that the two ways of this life stand well enough with Purgatory.  

Pur. 436.444.  Again you allege that it is written of the judgement, 2. Cor. 5. we shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ, to receive each of us the own of his body, according as he did, either good or evil. Not D. Allen, but (as he allegeth) S. Augustine, 
Aug. Ench. cap. 100 Dion, Ec. Hier. ca 7.  as also S. Dionysius Areopagita, answereth, that the Churches praying for the dead, is nothing repugnant hereunto, because the dead in our Lord, in his life deserved, that these works after his death might be profitable unto him. And to this answer you have no reply, to maintain that Scripture against such prayer. Only you oppose a saying of S. Hierom, very fond, as in the next chap. I will show.  
Once again you reason of the judgement: If Purgatory be so necessary to satisfy God's justice by temporal pains of sinners, 
Pur. 85.  according to the time, etc. and Purgatory shall cease at the day of judgement, as you affirm out of Augustine: how shall the same be satisfied in such as die immediately before the day of judgement, so that they have not had time enough there to be sufficiently purged? The like may be demanded of all them which in a moment shall be changed from mortality to immortality, at the very coming of jesus Christ to judgement. These questions, M. Allen, will trouble your head to answer and retain your former principles. Two doughty questions. Where did D. Allen set down that principle, that Purgatory is necessary to satisfy according to the time? I find where he saith, 
Pur. 44.  [If any debt or recompense remain to be discharged by the offender after his reconcilement, it must needs rise by proportion, weight, continuance, number, and quantity of the faults committed before. Whereby it must of necessity be induced, that because every man can not have time to repay all in his life, that there is all, or some part, answerable in the world to come.] Here we have continuannce of the faults, and time of his life: but time of Purgatory, that you have to tell us where you had it. The truth is, that a short time in Purgatory will so pay the sinner, that it had been better for him to spend much longer time in penance, as in this life also a little while in fire passeth, I trow, the pain of longer time, in fasting, etc. Neither is it hard for god to punish one in the shortest time, as grievously as an other in 1000 years. Nor again repugnant to his mercy, to remit such punishment at the request of his glorious Saints (which is S. Augustine's answer to your objection) as he now doth to the like, for the Church's prayers. 
Aug. de Ci. li. 21. ca 24.27  Lo what a hard thing it was to answer your Demands.   

Whether Faith, Hope, and Gods Will, may stand with Purgatory.  
After these two assayling of Purgatory, by going strait to heaven, and by the judgement, there remaineth your third & last assault, 
Pur. 421.  wherein you say to us: We learn by Scripture, that your doctrine is contrary to the faith, and hope of Christians. And how show you that? 
Pur. 382.  If it be against the hope of Christians to mourn for the dead, much more it is against the faith and hope of Christians to pray for them. For by our prayer we suppose them to be in misery whom the word of God doth testify to be in happiness, to be at rest, to be with Christ, Io. 17. Apoc. 14. Neither those Scriptures, nor any other by you alleged, as I have showed, do testify, that all strait after death be so, and therefore to suppose some of them to be in misery, and so to pray for them, is not proved to be against the word of God. Neither to mourn for some, yea and for all, is said to be against Hope. I would have you know that they shall rise again, saith the Apostle, to the end that you mourn not for them, 
1. Thes. 4.  sicut et ceteri qui spem non habent, in such sort as others that have not hope of their Resurrection. So then, there is one manner of mourning without hope, and there is another manner of mourning with hope, and such is our mourneing with prayer. When Christ prayed for his own Resurrection, Psal. 15. Act. 2. did that argue him to be void of hope, or rather to have hope? When also we all pray for the general Resurrection, Thy kingdom come, and mourn and groan for the dilation, do we against hope, do we not rather most manifestly declare our hope thereby?  
Moreover you say there: To that which is required of the express word of God, forbidding prayers for the dead, we answer that all places of the Scripture that forbidden prayers without faith, forbidden prayers for the dead. For faith is not every man's vain persuasion, but an assurance out of the word of God. Which because we can not have in praying for the dead, therefore we are forbidden to pray for them This argument supposeth, 
Cap. eodem, part. 1.  that the word of God is only Scripture, which you can not prove, as in the one place here above I have declared. Again it supposeth, that prayer for the dead is not assured by Scripture, which besides the most express place of the Machabées, and divers others, now shall another evident place control even the same place that you allege against us. Thus you say: 
Pur. 281.  We learn out of God's word, that whatsoever we do pray for according to Gods will, we shall obtain. 1. Io. 5. Therefore this one Hatchet shall cut a sunder all: Prayers for the dead are not according to the will of God, and therefore they are not heard at all. I deny the Minor: you have not, nor can not prove it. Yea I say further, It is against that which the Apostle there both intendeth and expresseth, to wit, that we should pray for our brethren after they be dead, if they ended not their life in sin, because that praying is according to Gods will. For it followeth there immediately: Who so knoweth his brother to sin (he useth the present tense, and not the preterfect tense, to have sinned, because his intent is to exhort also the sinner to leave by time) a sin not to death, (as one that lived in Schism, but yet was reconciled before he died) let him (after his death) request of Christ, and life shall be given unto him, to one, I say, sinning not unto death. Sin there is unto death: I say not that any pray for that, (because it is not according to Christ's will to pray for them that be in hell.) All iniquity is sin, and therefore to be diligently avoided, and not so much as one moment to be incurred: And there is sin unto death: As if he would say, if you avoid not that, no hope after your death, your brethren can not help you by praying for you. This is the plain and smooth sense of that whole place: and so must needs be, because there is no man nor no sin in this life, but we may pray for him and it, as neither the novatians (as bad as they were) did deny. Only the Protestants deny it, because they have no other shift to avoid this place: And thereby let any indifferent, any Christian man judge, whether this be not a plain place for praying for the dead. Fulkes words of sins in this life, and men in this life not to be prayed for, and that to be this sin, and sinner unto death, I shall recite in the twelfth Chapter amongst his grossest errors and absurdities.  
Thus I have answered (thanks be to God) all his Scriptures against Purgatory, and all his arguments made out of the Authority thereof, both negatively and affirmatively. 
Cap. 7. part. 4.  Whereby appeareth to the full the vanity of his brags in the last Chapter against the church of God, that he could & would produce against the doctrine thereof, such plain testimonies of Scripture, such Scripture also for the meaning of each place, as by no means might be avoided. Whereas amongst all his testimonies, you see there is not one, but it hath been clearly answered. As now in this fourth & last part shall be answered likewise, with the like help of god, all other Scriptures that in these two most insolent Libels in any place up and down he allegeth against any other point of the Church's doctrine.     

The fourth part. Concerning all other questions that he mentioneth.  
And first to put all the same in some order, for the more utility of the Reader: I conceive all the differences that are between us and the Protestants in this division: Some are about the witnesses of God's word, the principles of Divinity, or grounds of all truth: which by them is only Scripture, by us not only Scripture but also the Church, and certain others: whereupon we frame our Motives to all men, to believe us & not the Heretics, showing them, that such and such are the principles which they must believe, and withal, that the said principles, every one of them, stand for us, and not for the Protestants. Some are about other particular or private controversies: Which may be reduced unto these two heads, Good-workes, and the Sacraments, the doctrine of which both, they corrupt with their new invention of Only faith, 
Only Scripture▪ and Only Faith  as they do the foresaid with their toy of Only Scripture.  
What Scripture he allegeth about the first sort, I have in the two first parts of this chapter reported them all, & answered them, saving a very few, which I reserve to the tenth chapter which shall be of every Motive or Demand apart by itself. There in these five Motives, of Churches, Service, Priesthood with Sacrifice, Monks and Pope, I will answer his few Scriptures thereunto belonging.  
Now then, concerning the second sort, and first Good-workes, what he allegeth about them, concerneth them partly in general, partly in special, that is to say, prayer, fasting, or alms.  

About Good-works in general.  

justification.  Good works in general it concerneth, that he saith, They do not justify: whereunto he allegeth two places, one of S. Paul, 
Pur. 450.  the other of Esay, We believe (saith he) that a man is not justified by works, but by faith only, Rom. 3. And yet we believe that good works are necessary to be in every man that is justified, 
A fa●sarie.  jac. 5. The words of S. james be not as he saith, but expressly against him: A man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Where you see also, that it is in all one sense, that works do justify and faith. The words of S. Paul likewise be not as he saith, but thus: A man is justified by faith, without the works of the law. That is to say, although he have not evermore done the works which the law commandeth, to wit, good works, yea although he have sometimes, yea and always done the clean contrary, to wit, all evil works: yet let him come to the Catholic faith, and he shall there find a remedy for all, and of a wicked and so wicked a man be made just, all his sins and wickedness being remitted him. This saith S Paul, and the same say we. But after he is so justified, he must not do the like again, he must then keep the commandments of the Law, being now by Christ made a new man, and able thereunto, and by so doing he shall be more justified, as S. james saith. Confer these two places of S. Paul's also. The justice that is of the Law, qui fecerit homo, the man that hath done it, shall live by it, Rom. 10. ex levit. 18. Which is in effect that no man shall live by it, because no man hath done it, but all men have done against it, all being borne in sin, & therefore not by the works of justice which we had done, but according to his own great mercy he saved us by baptism. Tit. 3. Do you mark the tense? He speaketh of works before faith, where you should have alleged of works after faith. And so withal is answered your other place, 
Ar. 102.  where you say, that the Popish Church is not content to be clothed in the white shining silk, which is the justification of saints, made white in the blood of the Lamb, but with the filthy rags of man's righteousness, isaiah. 64. If God convert your heart, that you may return to your mother the Catholic Church, you shall find that she will make nothing of all the good works which you do now in Heresy, because it is but man's righteousness. But the good works which afterward in the Church you should have of her husband the Lamb, where learned you to call them The filthy rags of man's righteousness? 
Apoc. 19  He that doubteth whether those justifications of the faithful in the Apocalypse, be (as I say) just works, the same Apostle (if he will confer places) in his first Epistle telleth him: 
1. joh. 3.  O my children let no man deceive you: he that worketh justice, is just.  

Free-will.  You allege also two places against Frée-will, which again concerneth Good works in general: 
Pur. 450.  We believe that man after his fall hath not Free-will, no not aptness of will to think any thing that is good, 2. Cor. 3. S. Paul's words are these: We are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing, as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. This doth not take away from us natural free-will, nor natural aptness of will, as it doth not take away ourselves from us; but only it showeth, from whence we have power to do as we do in matters of salvation, to wit, of God's gift, and not of ourselves. If your scholar should upon just cause commend himself for writing (as S. Paul there commenmendeth himself for converting hearts to God,) and then to avoid arrogancy should say, that it is not of himself, but of his Master's instruction, that he can write so well, the scholar, for all this (I trow) had understanding and aptness to understand. For else how could he have been taught to write? You know, the Scripture likeneth the holy Ghost to a teacher, 
joan. 6. Heb. 10. Psa. 118.  and the grace of God to teaching, and to teaching of our hearts or wills. Your other place I find, Pur. 35. How shall Free-will be maintained, if God's Spirit have any place, that distributeth to every one according to the good pleasure of his own will. 1. Cor. 12. You do not deny, but Man afore his fall had free-will, and yet God's spirit then also did distribute to every one according to the good pleasure of his own will. And now likewise after the fall, doth not S. Paul in the very same Chapter give some place to men's wills in the gifts of God's spirit? saying to the Corinthians: Covet after the better gifts, but specially after charity, because that passeth all those gifts, 
1. Cor. 12.13 14.  yea and faith and hope also: therefore Sectamini, Labour all that you can for Charity: marry covet also after those gifts, to speak with tongues, and to prophecy, but of the two, rather for to prophecy. Again: He that speaketh with a tongue, let him pray to interpret. See how plainly he stirreth their minds or wills to seek for the gifts that God giveth to every one according to his own will. This deceiveth you, that you do not consider, that God can work his own will upon our wills: and therefore you imagine that he is not omnipotent, if we have wills of our own. Yes sir, be our wills never so unwilling, he can (as you may see by the conversion of S. Paul, turn them to his own will, and to the very bend of his own will, more or less, even as much as he wil Howbeit I am not ignorant, that S. Paul there treateth specially of the gifts called Gratiae gratis datae, and not gratum facientes: in the distribution whereof, Gods will may and did commonly work, without cooperation of man's will, although man's will may in such also, and did sometimes concur, as in them that prayed for the gift to interpret tongues.   

About Good-workes, in special.  
I come with you now to the species of Good-workes, 
Prayer to saints.  and first to prayer. And of prayer for the dead I have already dispatched. Then against prayer to saints, what have you? 
Pur. 451.  We call not upon saints, because we believe not in them, for how should we call upon them, in whom we believe not? Rom. 10. Again: 
Pur. 310.  Touching Ambrose, and some other also about his time, their Invocation of saints, was not agreeable to the doctrine of S. Paul, who showeth that we can invocate none but him in whom we believe, which to all true Christians is God only And yet if you remember since the second Chapter) S. Ambrose and his fellows of that time, were true Christians. But I must keep that to your contradictions in the eleventh Chapter. 
Heb. 13. Eph. 6.  And again S. Paul himself was (I trow) agreeable to his own doctrine: who yet so often invocateth and calleth upon the faithful, beseeching them to pray for him. Well then, to your objection: where is your scripture (for you will not, if you be a man of your word, run to Doctors) that we must believe in God only, and that we may not believe 
(a) Exo. 14. in Heb. 2. Par. 20. in Heb. Philem.  in his Saints also? The Scripture in your own place and in sundry other places teacheth me to believe also 
(b) john. 14 Rom. 3.  in Christ according to his humanity, and namely in his blood. Also the creed of the first Nicene Council teacheth me to believe 
(c) Ar. 83. Epi. in fine Aucorat.  In the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as you may see also in the end of the New Testament set forth by your own master, 
Higher contr. Lucif. Infra ca 10 dem. 34.  Beza. And S. Jerome saith, that it was solemn, the custom in Baptism, after confession of the Trinity, to ask, Credis in Sanctam Ecclesiam? Dost thou believe in holy Church? And immediately he addeth: In what Church believed the Arrian? In the Arrians Church? But they have not the Church. In our Church? sed extra hanc baptizatus, but being baptised out of her, he could not believe in her that he knew not. Even as S. Paul saith of Christ in the place that you allege, How shall they believe (in him) whom they have not heard of? 
His intent there is, that the Apostles preaching to the Gentiles is of God.  Whereby you perceive, that S. Jerome remembered the place well enough. Briefly therefore, we believe not in the Arrians Church, nor in the Arrians Saints, nor in your Church, nor in your Saints: but we believe in the Catholic Church, and in her Saints, because it is God and Christ his Church, God & Christ his Saints. And so we do not invocate Arius, nor Hus, nor Luther, nor calvin, nor any other falsenamed Saints of Heretics, but after God we invocate Christ the man our Lord, and his most glorious mother our Lady, and S. Peter, S. Paul, with the rest of the Catholic Saints: both believing in God, in Christ, in his Saints, and also invocating God, and Christ, and his Saints, not all alike, but every one in his degree, the degree of the Saints being so far different from the degree of God, as it is incomparable. You deceived yourself with this distinction, Credo in deum, Credo deo, Credo deum, I believe in God, I believe (to) God, 
Aug. in Io. tr. 29. Theoph. in Io. 12.  I believe God, having heard that some Authors do (in a certain sense) make it be God alone in whom we believe: and not knowing, that other authors, & also the Scriptures will (in another sense) have us to believe in such as be of God. As of a stone falling from an high, although it be most properly said, tendit in centrum terrae, yet is it well said also, tendit in superficiem terrae, as in order to the centre, whereupon in saying it tendeth to the superficies, we do in deed say, it tendeth to the centre. I know some Catholics in answering to this objection, do say, that the Apostle meaneth such invocation as tendeth immediately to the last end, that is, to god, & so do grant accordingly, that it is believing in God alone, whereof he speaketh, which is a sufficient answer to the objection. But I considering that he speaketh of Christ as mediator, & therefore as man▪ have said what I think most agreeable to the text.  
As for your jangling there without allegations, that if Saints be invocated, than God alone knoweth not the hearts of all men, 
Pur. 451.  and God only is not to be worshipped (and served,) and Christ is not our only Mediator and advocate: Where you say this to us now whom you deny to be the true Church, and to S. Ambrose with others of old whom you confess to have been the true Church notwithstanding: so you must say it likewise to S. john, for invocating the holy Angels, Apoc. 1. and to God himself for making an Angel to be worshipped, Apo. 3. (as more at large I told you in the 6. chapter, to the Angel also that in his golden censer offereth our prayers, making such a perfume of them before God, 
Supra pag. 42.  by means of his incense mingled with them Apo. 8. To the 24. Seniors also, which semblably have phialas adoramentorum quae sunt orationes Sanctorum, sweet odours, that is to say, our prayers in bowls for the purpose, singing accordingly praises to Christ in the person of all tribes, & tongues, & people, & nations. Apoc. 5. Finally to all which in the holy Scriptures recommend others to God, or desire to be recommended of others. If you will not quarrel with these likewise, you must let fall your suit against the former, and confess that it is nothing against one mediator to god, though we are & have never so many mediators, so that all make suit to God by him. Nothing also against god alone to be worshipped, so that we worship none but for him. Nothing finally against God alone to know our hearts, so that all others know them by him. For otherwise your argument proceedeth aswell against christ the man, that neither he is to be worshipped, 
1. Tim. 2.  nor knoweth the hearts of men. For as he hath it by the gift of God, so his Saints likewise by gift have it in their degree.  
So much of prayer: now to fasting. 
Fasting.  About which you have again two texts. Thus you say to D. Allen: You are they that attend to spirits of error & doctrines of devils, forbidding to marry, 
Pur. 391.20 22. Ar. 20.93.  and abstaining (or, commanding to abstain) from meats which God hath created to be received with thanks giving. 1. Tim. 4. There is the brand mark of Romish religion, that all the water in Tiberis, nor in the Ocean sea, shall not be able to wash out. Well & lustily crowed. But soft a little, & you shall see me strait draw enough and enough again, even out of your own puddle, to wash all sufficiently. In the third chapter I have recorded your own words, 
Supra pag. 10.  how Aerius taught that Fasting-days are not to be observed. And how jovinian taught that fasting and abstinence from certain meats profit little or nothing at all. 
Ar. 45.46  And that for this cause S. Epiphanius and S. Augustine counted Aerius for an Heretic, as S. Augustine counteth jovinian likewise for no better, for that he said, 
Au. Her. 82 & de Ec. dog. ca 68  Nec aliquid prodesse, That fasts and abstinence from certain meats do not profit any thing: or as we have in another place, for that he did believe, nil meriti accrescere, That it is no increase of merit, to them, that for love to chastise their bodies, do abstain from wine or flesh. Of that judgement were these Fathers, and yet they were (if you remember your own confession since the second Chapter) of the true Church, and in high favour with God. And therefore this is not such a mark in Romish religion, but that it may be currant enough. How much more, considering that you confess further, 
Pur. 75. 1. Cor. 9  and say: In deed S. Paul commandeth, and by his example commendeth christian chastisement of men's bodies, by abstinence and fasting, and that for danger of eternal damnation. Is not here then great need of all Tiberis, yea and of all the Ocean sea: Well then, whom & what doth S. Paul mean there? The Manichées, the Tacianistes, & other such Heretics (of whom I noted more in the sixth Chapter) which said, that certain meats were the creatures of the devil. Mark the words, and confer them together: To abstain from the meats, which God hath created: And why is that an error and a doctrine of the devils? because every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected. And therefore S. Augustine answering the Manichées, (as I do now the Protestants) noted in like manner upon the very words, 
Aug. contra Faust. li. 30 ca 6.  that there is much difference between them that abstain from meats for a sacred signification (as they in the old Testament,) or for chastising of the body (as now the Catholics:) and them that abstain from meats which God hath created, dicendo quod eos deus non creavit, saying, that God did not create them. Therefore the former is the doctrine of the Prophets and of the Apostles, the later, of the lying devils.  
Your other text is for jovinian, against the merit of fasting: If jovinian taught, 
Ar. 46.  that fasting, abstinence from certain meats, and other bodily exercise, of themselves profit little, his doctrine agreeth with S. Paul. 1. Tim. 4. but if he taught (as he is charged) that such things profit nothing at all, we agree not with him in that opinion. You would fain wipe your hands of jovinians heresy, but it will not be, the brandmarke is imprinted to deep, it will not out. For his heresy was (as you heard even now) that Fasting & abstinence is not more meritorious, then eating with thanks giving. So S. Augustine meaneth, 
Merits.  when he chargeth him to have taught, Nec aliquid prodesse, That they profit nothing, as by another place I have told you more plainly: And as in the same place, in the very next article of his heresy, he chargeth him, that Meritis adaequabat, To the merits of chaste and faithful matrimonies he made equal (and not more meritorious, as the Catholics did, and do) the virginity of Nuns, and the continence of the mansexe in holy persons that choose the single life. S. Paul's words to Timothée, are these: Exercise thyself unto Religion, or godliness. For bodily exercise is profitable unto little: but religion is profitable unto all things, having promise of this present life, and of the life to come. Now what Scripture confer you, to show that by bodily exercise he meaneth fasting and abstinence from wine or flesh? The thing is plain, if we mark and confer no more but the words of this place itself: that bodily exercise is that, which is done for the body, to preserve it in health, & in this present life. to the which most men, yea priests and bishops sometimes are too much given, misspending much time in walking, riding, hunting, hawking, and such like, for the preservation of their bodies: and little or no time at all in spiritual exercise, that is to say, for the preservation and increase of their souls in godliness & religion, whereas the same notwithstanding is (as we know by God's promise in divers places of holy Scripture) profitable both to that little, which they seek for by such bodily exercise, that is, to this present life (in so much that many holy Ermites' & Monk's, living continually in such exercise, have passed the age of a hundred years) and also which is incomparable to the life to come. And therefore S. Paul abstained and fasted himself, to avoid eternal damnation, as yourself confessed a little afore, Ne reprobus efficiar, lest I become a reprobate, 
1. Cor. 9  saith he, and not only that, but also to get coronam incorruptam, a crown incorruptible. And the place is much to be noted for conference with this place which we have in hand, because he there calleth it his running, and fight, that he did so sharply use his own body, saying that he did therein imitate the scholars of bodily exercise, to wit, the runners in goal, and fighters at barriers, who, to make themselves more nimble & active, abstain from all things, and yet no more but to win a corruptible crown, being as little a thing as that little that he speaketh of to Timothy, or rather much less, though of some esteemed much more, such present glory (I say) compared with this present life and health thereof. Thus you see by conference most manifestly, what is bodily exercise, and that you clean contrary, not knowing white from black, take it for fasting & abstinence, for that exercise (I say) which the Apostle there opposeth to it, and counteth spiritual, or exercise unto Godward. Which spiritual exercise, as S. Paul, so his disciple also S. Timothy used in like champion manner: Amongst other points of it, to keep himself chaste, he abstained wholly from wine, & drunk nothing but water, though being marvelous weak of body. Whereupon the Apostle, like a tender father, writeth unto him: 
1. Tim. 5.  Keep thyself chaste, by other exercise: but do not yet drink water: but use a little wine for thy stomach & thy often sickning. Which place again you deprave, & say, that the Apostle writeth this unto him, assuring him that such bodily exercise profiteth but a little. 
Pur. 76.  No sir, I have showed you what the Apostle calleth bodily exercise, and that he counteth this to be exercise unto godliness, and that it profiteth so much as importeth, besides this life, which is but little, the avoiding of damnation, & the winning of a crown in heaven. Howbeit for all that, they which are weak of body, must run & wrestle as they may: Timothy must consider that he is exceeding feeble, and therefore not always to drink water only, and yet withal, that he is young, and therefore not to be very bold of wine, but use a little only. The measure of all is, as S. Paul hath taught us, 
1. Cor. 9  to tame the pride of the body, to subdue it, to bring it under, that it be not our master, that it be our servant, neither rebelling against our commandment, nor fainting in our necessary work. Which measure is set & prescribed, so as it might in general, by his Spirit, and by his Spouse, who prophesied of such prescript fasting, like to the fasts prescribed by S. john to his disciples, 
Mat. 9  as also of the pharisees, and filii sponsi, the children of the Bridegroom, do fast them, howsoever the children of Aerius & of iovinianus, do break them, contemn them, blaspheme them. So much of Good-works: now to the Sacraments.   

About the Sacraments, in general.  
Of the Sacraments in general, first you say: 
Pur. 450.  We believe that there are but two Sacraments of the New Testament, Baptism and the Lords Supper, instituted by Christ. 1. Cor. 10. You mean belike the beginning of that chapter, where it is said that the Israelites were in Moses baptised in the Cloud and in the Sea, and did eat and drink of Manna & of the Rock. Are those the sacraments of the new Testament instituted by Christ? Again suppose they are: what a reason is this, In that place we read of two, 
Supra pag.  ergo there are but two? It is no good Logic (you said yourself in this chapter above) to conclude negatively of one place of Scripture, This is not contained in it, therefore it is not true. For we read as plainly, yea more plainly, of the other five sacraments in other places, as of Confirmation, joa. 7. of Penance, Io. 20. of Extreme unction, jac. 5. of Orders, Mat. 26. of Matrimony, Mat. 19, and of most of them, in many other places also. That they be Sacraments I confess we read not there: no more do we 1. Cor. 10. or any where else read that the other two be Sacraments, but that we gather of that which we read, and as well in the five as in the two. This is enough: yet for further satisfaction, the studious may consider that S. Paul, 1. Cor. 10. had just cause to mention those two or three figures only. For his purpose there is, 
1. Cor. 9.10  to warn us, that it is not enough that we be entered within the bars, but that we must afterward run and fight courageously, to win the prise. Therefore he nameth these Mosaical mysteries, that were figures of the Sacraments which we began withal, to wit, Baptism and the complement of Baptism which is Confirmation, & the Eucharist: which three were then commonly, and yet be at once ministered adultis, at their first entering into the Church, as it is manifest in antiquity, 
Infra ca .12  and may be gathered Heb. 6. Now than what reason is it to try the number of the Sacraments by that place: as though because those be at the first▪ entrance, therefore there be no more in the whole course, nor in the end, nor to govern the knights, nor to increase them, nor to saulue them.  

Pur. 450.  Moreover you say of the Sacraments in general: We believe that they give not grace (ex opere operato) of the work wrought, but after the faith of the receiver, and according to the election of God. 1 Cor. 10. Again, And how should the Sacrament give grace of the work wrought, if faith were requisite in them that receive them? You quote for this also 1. Cor. 10. but you have no such thing there. And touching your argument, it holdeth aswell against the working of Christ's passion. For how should that work of his give grace, if faith be requisite in us? Is not this a witty demand, trow you? I have above alleged manifest Scripture, 
Cap. eodem. pag.  that Christ washeth us both by his blood, and also by baptism. Those are the instruments which his mercy (Tit. 3.) useth in this work. As for our faith & all other actions, they are not instruments, they are not workers, they are only dispositions, though necessary dispositions: as the dryness of the wood is a disposition, but it is the fire that worketh. True it is, and the Scripture saith it, that by believing and by other good actions we work our own salvation. Philip. 2. as by way of meriting: but it saith not, that we work the effect of any Sacrament, as our regeneration when we are baptised, our Corroboration when we are confirmed, our cibation when we are housled: though our faith and other virtues be necessary therein, that by our indisposition we do not put obicem. Christ's passion as it did both merit and work all, so to our deeds it giveth virtue to merit, to the Sacraments it giveth virtue to work. Thus the Scripture teacheth, and thus the Catholic Church believeth, what soever you mean by your Church, 
Pur. 241.  when being told by D. Allen, that the blood of Christ maketh men's works meritorious, you tell him again, that the Church of Christ abhorreth that blasphemy.  
By all which is revealed your manifold ignorance, in that you say, 
Pu. 35.155  The mean on God's behalf, by which we are made partakers of the fruits of Christ's passion, and so grafted into his body, is his holy spirit of promise, which is the earnest and assurance of our inheritance: who worketh in us faith, as the only mean by which the righteousness of Christ is applied unto us. Ephe. 1. And as for the Sacraments (which you seem to make the only condites of God's mercy) we are taught in the holy Scriptures, that they are the Seals of God's promises, given for the confirmation of our faith, as was Circumcision to Abraham, when he was justified before through faith. Rom. 4. Here are divers points of Caluinisme boldly affirmed, & two places of Scripture quoted for them, but how falsely and fond, I shall easily declare.  
S. Paul Rom. 4. declareth, that it was a seal or confirmation on God's part, that also the uncircumcised, shall be justified by faith, because with Abraham being so justified Gen. 15. he entered afterward, Gen. 17. such a bargain. As we may likewise say, 
Mat. 16.  that it was a Seal, that we are blessed by confessing, Thou art Christ the son of the living God, because S. Peter being for the same confession blessed, had also the keys of heaven given him in reward. And as this would serve us well, if they which have the keys after Peter, should say that none are blessed but they: so the other served well, when they which were Circumcised in flesh after Abraham, did say, that none were justified but they. Is this to say, that all men are justified before they come to the Sacraments, and that all Sacraments be Seals of such a matter? yea or so much, as that all jews were justified before they came to Circumcision, and that Circumcision itself was to them a Seal of such a matter? This is your evident Scripture, this is your necessary concluding upon it. Goodly gear forsooth, that for it we must leave the Catholic Church and her guide the holy Ghost, and go to school to calvin.  
Other points of your ignorance are about the Holy spirit of promise. You say, it is the mean to make us partakers of the fruits of Christ's passion, Item, the mean to graff us into his body, Item, that it worketh in us faith. By all which you declare that you know not what the Spirit of promise is, and that you are no conferrer of Scriptures together, how much soever you brag thereof. Variety of matter breedeth prolixity against my will, though of every one I say never so little: which I beseech the gentle Reader to consider. Otherwise in this matter I might lay together so many Scriptures as would fill the most greedy that is. Briefly, Christ the day he ascended (as often afore both he, 
The Spirit of promise. Sac. of Confirmation.  and S. john Baptist, and the Prophets, namely joel) said: And I send the promise of my Father upon you. Luc. 24. And he commanded them not to return home into Galilée, but to expect in jerusalem his father's promise, which you have hard (quoth he) of my mouth: for john baptised with water, but you shall be baptised with the holy Ghost, not many days hence, to wit, the tenth day off, being Whitsonday. They had faith afore, and they were baptised afore, and therefore graffed into his body afore, (though not fully baptised, not fully graffed:) and yet they were to receive this spirit, this promise, as being (not the mean, etc. but) the very greatest fruit of Christ's passion, the complement of baptism, the full engraffing into his body which is his church, yea the very inheritance itself. For the inheritance is the Father's promise, Rom. 4. and so in Genesis, and in all the Old Testament: And this spirit is) as you hear) the Father's promise, called therefore of S. Paul, the earnest of our inheritance, because it is the full first fruits thereof. And therefore so far as the Gospel goeth, so far always goeth this spirit together with it: to the jews, Act. 2. to the Samaritans, Act. 8. to the Gentiles, Act. 10. As to this day in the Catholic Church, where the same Gospel continueth, it is still given to all the baptised, by imposition of the bishops hands. Mark it well: it quite overthroweth your new invented Gospel, wherein after faith, and after baptism, you give not this spirit: even also your own place to the Ephesians Cap. 1. condemneth you: for there it is said to the Ephesians, that first they heard the word of truth, the Gospel of their salvation, then that they believed in Christ,, and then after believing, you were sealed with the holy spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance. If this be not plain enough, confer Acts. 19 where the very story of it is reported, concerning twelve Ephesians, who were baptised with john's Baptism, afore S. Paul came unto them: and then were taught by S. Paul, that they must believe in jesus. Which when they heard, they were baptised (by some minister of S. Paul's) in the name of our Lord jesus. Et cum imposuisset, etc. And after that Paul himself laying his hands over them, the holy spirit came upon them. By this little the Reader may judge who findeth out in deed the meaning of Scripture by plain conference of other Scriptures, & who only talketh thereof. And also how far the Protestants err, 
Note their ignorance.  when they hold, this spirit promised to be nothing else but the gift of tongues: that is to say, Christ's greatest gift (for so it is clear by these places) to be his least gift of al●, for so were tongues, witness S. Paul 1. Cor. 14.  
Your last error in that place, is, that faith is the only mean to apply Christ unto us. Whereof I said enough before. Neither is it the only mean, nor any mean at all, in this sense, as the Sacraments are means, that is to say, instruments. 
Why faith so much in the Scriptures.  It is a disposition to receiving of the Sacraments, and otherwise also a merit of salvation, yea the first of all dispositions, and the first of all merits, and that is the cause why it is so much spoken of in the Scriptures. They then had to do with unbelievers, that is, with jews and Gentiles, as we now likewise have to do with unbelievers, that is, with Heretics. Therefore both they and we are evermore in commending of faith, of the Catholic faith, (for other faith there is not) and namely of these articles thereof which each time and place requireth, because they which are without, must first of all be gotten in, if we can, for until then, although we be never so rich within, yet we have nothing to relieve their need.   

About the Sacraments, in special. The necessity, and effect of Baptism.  
After the Sacraments in general, 
Baptism. Pur. 450.  as touching particular Sacraments, thus you say: Baptism is necessary for all Christians to receive▪ that are not by necessity excluded from it. 1. Pe. 3. For all Christians? Baptism maketh Christians, being therefore called Christening, and it is necessary for all men to receive it. But when it can not be actually had, the effectual desire of it supplieth the want. Which desire Infants have not, and therefore only the actual having of Baptism, 
Rom. 5.  doth quicken them in Christ, being dead in Adam. I know your master calvin teacheth you otherwise, to wit, that some infants be saved, although they be not baptised (wherein he is a Pelagian,) and again, that some others be not saved, although they be baptized, 
Supra. pag.  whereupon you said erewhile (for I did mark it well enough) that the Sacraments give grace according to the election of God: as though all Infants baptised, and so dying, be not of Gods elect. What Scripture have you for this gear? Surely 1. Peter 3. hath no such thing, but rather the contrary. For he saith plainly, that Baptism saveth us now, us that be baptised. And you say, that it saveth not some of us, some (I say) which most certainly departed hence with it, even so as they received it. Again he doth liken it to the water which saved them in the Ark of Noe. Were any of them saved or borne up from drowning, without the water? How then find you there some saved without Baptism?   

Real presence.  

Eucharist. Pur. 450.  Touching another Sacrament, thus you say: Christ is present at his Supper, but not after a gross and a Capernaical manner, but as he was present in Manna to the Fathers, 1. Cor. 10. S. Paul's purpose there is (as I said also before) to warn us, 
Supra pag.  that we be not secure and careless, leaning upon this only, that we have begun well, as with Faith, and with Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist. For (saith he) our fathers, all of them, were under the cloud, and all of them went through the sea, yea & it was a spiritual or mystical thing, that being (I say) in the Cloud and in the sea, it was a figure of Baptism, It was baptizing in Moses. Moreover all of them did eat of the same Manna, and all of them did drink of the same water, yea and it was a mystical, a spiritual meat, a spiritual drink, for it signified Christ. All of them were partakers of all these mystical benefits. But what followed for all that? All of them did not afterward so as they should do, but some of them sinned, and offended God, and therefore they were laid along in the desert, they came not into the land of promise. So you therefore (saith the Apostle) must beware all sin hereafter, beware of falling, and not think it enough that you are now in the race, yea and running in the race, but run so that you may catch the garland. This is the effect of that place. No word of that you say. For it is one thing, that they all, aswell they that sinned afterward, as they that sinned not, did eat one & the same meat: and another thing, that they and we eat one and the same meat. As likewise they all had one baptism, but not they and we have one baptism.  
As for the Capharnaites, you understand not the Chapter: their grossness was, that they did not believe him to have descended from heaven, 
joan. 6.  to be the son of God, & able therefore to do that he said, to give his flesh in deed for meat. But he proveth that he descended from thence, and that he was there afore, because they shall see him ascend thither again: granting them in deed, that flesh (that is to say, man) is not able so to do, but that he is spirit, that is to say, God, and therefore the words that he speaketh, to be effectual. And so they departing like Apostates, the true disciples do there confess the foundation, saying: Thou hast the words of everlasting life, and we believe and know that thou art Christ the son of God. And so the whole drift of that chapter (considering that most evidently it is, to build in this manner upon his omnipotency, his Real presence in the Sacrament, and divine virtue thereof to raise the dead) proveth most clearly, you, my masters, to be no better than the Capharnaites, 
Protestants be Caphernaites.  who will no more than they, believe his omnipotency to that effect, but rather departed from him, that is, from his Church, saying as they said: Durus est hic sermo, et quis potest eum audire: This doctrine is against all reason, and who can endure to hear it.   

Transubstantiation.  
Again you say of the same Sacrament: 
Pur. 295.  But of all follies this is the greatest, that when the Papists have prated never so long of the Sacrifice of (Melchisedeches) bread and wine, at the last they will have no bread nor wine at all in their Sacrifice. That Melchisedeches Sacrifice consisted in bread and wine, 
Dem. 24.  I shall declare in the 10. chapter, for those of the old writers that you confess so to have said. Now only to your wise argument, that proveth the Papists and their Fathers the old writers to be such fools. Yourself confess (as afore it is manifest) and the truth it is, that the drink of the water of the Rock was a figure of our drink in Christ's Chalice, although that were water, and this is no water, no nor made of water: How much more than might Melchisedeches' bread and wine be a figure of it, although there be no bread nor wine in it, considering that yet of bread and wine it is made, yea and so retaineth still the same forms of bread and wine, that he could say unto us, Take eat it, and drink it. O most sweet jesus, in deed thou hast the words of life everlasting, omnipotent son of God omnipotent. Whosoever go to calvin, it is good for us to stick to thee who givest us such a meat, and in so usual, so natural, so sweet a manner.   

Marriage of Votaries: of Bishops, Priests, & Deacons.  
One Sacrament more, and then an end of this long Chapter. 
Marriage.  For marriage of Votaries, as Friar Luther and Catharine his Nun, with such like, because we say it is sin, and no Marriage, 
Pur. 391. & 20.22.  he sayeth, that we are the forbidders of Marriage that S. Paul speaketh of 1. Tim. 4. You are they (saith he) that attend to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, forbidding to marry, and abstaining from meats, and so forth, as I recited a little afore about Abstinence: where I showed, that the Apostle there noteth the Eucratites, Manichées, and such other heretics, that taught, fleshmeat and wine to come of the devil, and not of God. And likewise, that they condemned Marriage in itself, for they said that our bodies also are of the devil, and therefore the propagation of them by Marriage to be his service. And yet they durst (such is the impudence of Heretics) charge the catholics for their Nuns, to be prohibentes nubere, those forbidders of Marriage that S. Paul speaketh of. 
Aug. count Faustum Manich. li. 30. ca 6.4  But S. Augustine answereth them, & Fulke at once, saying: Ille prohibet nubere, qui hoc malum esse dicit, He forbiddeth to marry that saith it is a naughty thing (as did those Heretics) non qui huic bono aliud melius anteponit, and not he which to this good thing preferreth another better thing, that is, virginity to Marriage, as the Catholics now do, and also then did, and that so peremptorily, that they counted jovinian an heretic (as we do the Protestants) for the contrary. A joviniano quodam Monacho ista haeresis orta est, 
Aug Haer. 82. & Retr. li. 2. ca 22.  saith S. Augustine, This heresy did spring of one jovinian being a Monk. Virginitatem Sanctimonialium, the virginity of Nuns, and the continence of the mansex in holy persons choosing the single life, he said, to be no more meritorious, then chaste and faithful Matrimonies. In so much that certain sacred Virgins, of good years, in the City of Rome, where he taught this gear, hearing him, are said to have married, but no Priest could he deceive. For the holy Church which is there, did most faithfully & most manly withstand this monster, and quickly oppressed and extincted his heresy.  
Yet cometh Fulke so long after, raketh the ashes, thinketh he hath found a sparkle, 
Ar. 45.  and saith: If jovinian taught that such as could not contain, though they had vowed virginity, should nevertheless be married, this was the doctrine of S. Paul, It is better to marry then to burn. 
Pur. 22.32. Am. ad Vir Laps. ca 5.  Again, where D. Allen saith, [How can they for sin and shame honour that with the name of holy marriage, that S. Ambrose termeth Adultery, S. Augustine worse than adultery, and they with all the residue of Doctors, horrible incest?] He replieth, 
Aug. de bono vid. c. 8.  The holy Ghost hath taught us to call marriage honourable in all men, and the bed undefiled, whatsoever any man hath said to the contrary, and to allow marriage in them that cannot contain, although they have vowed virginity, because It is better to marry then to burn. Thus he allegeth Scriptures for heretics against God's Church (as he confesseth it was) and against the fathers thereof. But how doth he prove his interpretations of those Scriptures: out of other Scriptures as he promised? No I warrant you, he is always like himself, a cloud without water. Let us then (following our father's steps) confer a little to find the true sense.  
First, what is to burn? To be troubled with the pricking of the flesh, say the heretics. Not so, say we: for S. Paul himself was troubled much with such pricking, 2. Cor. 12. and yet he was not bid to marry, when he prayed so instantly against it, but it was said unto him by Christ: My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is perfected in infirmity, that is, where one acknowledgeth his infirmity, and seeketh to me for strength, there do I most strongly work. A notable ensample thereof is S. Augustine, read his confessions, how impossible he thought it afore to live without a woman, 
Aug. conf. li. 6. ca 15. &. li. 8. c. 12  and how perfectly he was afterward changed by grace. As also millions of millions in the Catholic Church have experience in themselves, néeding therefore no other argument against you all, but their own conscience, to condemn your brutish assertion of such impossibility. What is it then to burn, or to be burned? we need not to seek far, S. Paul himself telleth us, it is non continere, not to contain. Mark the words: If they do not contain them, let them marry, for (of the two) it is better to marry, than (not to contain, or) to be burned. And the same as plain in your other place Heb. 13. Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed (that is matrimonial copulation) undefiled, for fornicators and advowters' God will judge. Confer all this, and what saith he else, but, Let the married ●olke use their own bed, have their own wives, rather than defile another man's bed, commit adultery with another man's wife. And let the unmarried folk enter into marriage, rather than not to contain, to burn, to commit fornication.  
Now to what unmarried folk he saith this, let us also try by conference, as the Fathers have done before us. To them also which have vowed virginity, say the Heretics. Not so, saith S. Augustine, 
Aug. de bono vid. ca 8 De aedul. con. li. 1. ca 15. 1. Tim. 5.  but, quae se non continent. etc. They which do not contain them, let them marry before they profess continency, before they vow it to God, for after they have vowed, unless they perform it, they be justly damned. And what other place doth he confer, to prove this? Alio quip, etc. For in another place he saith of such, Cum enim in delitijs egerint in Christo, When the young widows have lived delicately in (or against) Christ, upon the Church's charges, they will marry, having (thereof) damnation, quoniam primam fidem irritam fecerunt, Because they have made frustrate their first faith, or troth: that is (saith S. Austin) from the purpose of continency they have deflected their will to marriage. For frustrate they made that faith, and troth, wherewith they had vowed afore the thing which they would not fulfil with perseverance. So smoothly and gently doth the text follow this construction: as yet also more plainly you shall see, if you confer nubere volunt, with this that followeth, jam enim quaedam conuer●ae sunt retro satanam. As if he had said: but what do I say, They will marry, They will play the Apostates: Yea already some are turned back after Satan. Therefore I say of these young widows, admit them not to vow. Doth he not hereby evidently expound himself, that in such widows, to marry, he calleth to turn back after Satan. Again in saying, Let a widow be admitted no less than three score year old, and refuse the younger ones, I will that they marry: Doth he not plainly signify, that the admitted may not marry, and therefore the young ones, because they will marry after their admission, do incur damnation? This is our conference of the text itself with itself. But in cometh Fulke, and will needs for all that have it meant of the faith of Baptism and Christianity, 
Pur. 147.  because S. Paul in the same Chapter saith of another matter, that, who so neglecteth to provide for his own family, hath denied the faith, meaning the faith of a Christian man. Specially because he calleth this that we speak of, the first faith. Neither is pist●s in the Scripture used for a vow o● promise. Why? do not you say yourself, that both there, and once afore in the same Chapter it is used for the vow or promise made in Baptism? And can you remember never a place, where the faith of God is the promise of God? look Rom. 3. Who hath not heard of the three good things in marriage, that S. Augustine talketh so much of, Fides, Proles, Sacramentum, faith or troth, issue, and Sacrament? And where you triumph in your own conceit against S. Augustine's most natural and most certain exposition, as though by it the first faith is expounded for the last vow: now sir, thus the text runneth, They will marry (that is, fidem dare, make promise, betrothe themselves to another husband, to a mortal man) and therefore to be damned, because in so doing they have broken their first faith, that is, the promise that they made, the troth that they plighted afore to their husband Christ, in their admission among these widows. What absurdity, what inconsequence is in this? let any man judge, whether hangeth better together, it, or the exposition of your companions, that D. Allen chargeth them with, to wit, She that breaketh her faith of Baptism, shall be damned for marriage, which you say, is a cavil, and not worth a rush. What then is your exposition? That belike hangeth exactly. Thus you say: S. Paul saith not she shall be damned for marriage, but because she hath rejected the first faith: that is, such wanton young housewives proceed so far, that at length they forsake widowhood, Chritianitie, and all. Lo, 
Fulke it goeth hard with you.  yourself are compelled to grant that which you denied, to wit, that they shall be damned because they forsake widowhood? and how forsake they widowhood, but by marrying? Ergo S. Paul saith, they shall be damned for marrying. So unvincible is the text in our exposition.  
One text more you allege about marriage, 
Pur. 17.25.  to salve your Bishops itching lust, who, as though it were annexum ordini (saith D. Allen very aptly) must out of hand, for the most part, have a wife: whereas yet never from the Apostles time to this day, 
Not one. Mark it well.  any one Bishop or priest, that is confessed to have been a good one, did marry afterwards, neither for all jovinians plausible arguments: no not jovinian himself. What have you then to defend yours withal, that are so contrary to all others? 
A Bishop is not perfect with Fulke unless he have a wi●e  Belike (say you) S. Paul taketh marriage to be so annexed to the order of an Ecclesiastical minister, that he never descrbeth the perfect pattern of a Bishop or Deacon, but one of the first points is, that he be the husband of one wife. Belike you know not, nor care not what you say, for you should have gathered the clean contrary, if you had looked what he meaneth by the husband of one wife. A Bishop (saith he) must be the husband of one wife, 1. Tim. 3. A Priest, the husband of one wife. 1. Tim. 3. The meaning thereof you might have learned, 1. Tim. 5. where he commandeth about the choosing of a professed widow, and saith, quae fuit unius viri uxor, Let her be such a one, as hath been the wife of one husband. So then he requireth in a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon to be made, that he have had only one wife: How much better than if he have had none, but is a virgin? This you should have gathered of his words, and you gather the clean contrary, that needs he must have had a wife, or else if he be a virgin, he swerveth from the perfect pattern: yea more absurdly, not that he must have had one, but that he must presently have one, for of that D. Allen did speak, and to that you allege S. Paul.  
And thus (gentle Reader) I have with God's assistance gone through all the Scriptures (reserving only a few to other places) which this Heretic allegeth in his two books for any matter against the Catholic Church: and answered every one of them so clearly, that I trust thou art fully satisfied, and dost perceive plainly, that he had no cause to brag of Scripture, as in the last Chapter he did most insolently, saying still an end, that he cared not what was against him, seeing Scripture was so expressly with him. But he may (and it please God who is most merciful) by this occasion better bethink himself, and leave his kicking against the prick, that is, against our Lord jesus in his Church. Act. 9 specially understanding by this little (as he may sufficiently) that much more, either he or any other of his side should be thoroughly satisfied in all & every thing, if he were present here with us, to see and hear our daily conference in the Scriptures: as very many of his side, yea and Ministers above a dozen, divers of them being also of no vulgar wits, have come already, have heard our examining of the Bible (specially of the New Testament) over and over, have asked, objected, replied, whatsoever they list, & have to every thing been so well answered (the praise is Gods and his Catholic truths) and on the other side so hardly posed, all (I say) out of the holy Scripture it self, that ever after a few days they have had more list to hear then to speak, specially seacute; eing us at every text to allege sincerely for their side whatsoever they could, and more than they could themselves: and now are, every one of them, become so firm, so sure, so perfect Catholics, as none can be more, and some of their suffering in England for the Catholic faith, in prison, in irons, and that after the most terrible and most cruel manner, doth most gloriously declare.     

¶ The ninth Chapter. To defend, that the Doctors, as they be confessed to be ours in very many points, so they be ours in all points, and the Protestants in no point: All the Doctor's sayings that he allegeth are examined & answered.  

The first part. Of his Doctors, generally.  

j His challenging words.  
THat out of the old Doctors Church is no salvation, & that they make with us in many things against the Protestants, I declared in the three first Chapters by Fulkes own confession. Now to declare further, that they be wholly ours, with the 
* Aug. sic invocat Cyprianum, de Bapt. con. Don. lib. 5. ca 17. &. li. 7. cap. 1. Pur. 432. Pur. 383.  help of their prayers I will defend, that in nothing they make for the Protestants against us: because he saith unto D. Allen, speaking of the ancient Doctors and Counsels: Among whom as we will not deny, but you have some patrons of some of your errors, so will we affirm, that you have more enemies in the greatest. Again, The Papists offer to stand to their judgement in all things: and yet in most things, yea in the chiefest points of religion, they are contrary to the Doctors and old Counsels. Again, Brag of them as much as thou wilt, 
Pur. 406.  thou shalt never be able to prove, that of 20. errors which thou defendest, 
Rusticus es Corydon.  they did hold one. If they have spoken otherwise then truth in any matter, they must be 
* In the zeal of the Scribes against Christ.  told of it as well as other men. But thou must not think, that for one error common with them, thou must hold an hundred contrary to them. He saith, in most things, and, 
Pur. 238.  in an hundred for one. Yea more than that, in another place: It may be a shame to you Papists (saith he) to leave & condemn for heresy, all that is true in those men's writings, and agreeable to the Scripture: and to make such vaunt for a few superstitious ceremonies, 
Pur. 407.  and uncincere opinions. And again: Nay M. Allen, though those Doctors build some hay or stouble, upon the only foundation Christ, their case is ten thousand times better than yours, which build nothing but dirt and dung tempered with hay and stubble, upon no foundation at all, and seek by all means to dig up the only true foundation of our faith jesus Christ, making him nothing better than a common person, except his bare name. 
Ar. 60.  And once again more particularly, The other writers of later years (he spoke before of justinus Martyr and Ireneus) we are not afraid to confess that they have some corruption, whereby you may seem to have colour of defence for invocation of saints, prayer for the dead, and divers superstitious and superfluous Ceremonies. But for the chief points of Christian religion, and the foundation of our faith, that is, for the honour of God, the offices of Christ, Redemption, justification, satisfaction, the fruits of Christ his passion, Grace, faith, works, authority of God's word, authority of the Pope, Real presence, Transubstantiation, Communion in both kinds, Images, etc. the most approved writers, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Epiphanius, Hilarius, Chrysostomus, jeronymus, Ambrose, Augustinus, etc. are utterly against you, and therefore can not be of your Church. Lo, this he saith of our differing from the Doctors. First touching the number of the points, to wit, in most things, in many hundreds, yea in all that is true in their writings: and secondly, touching the weight of the points, to wit, in the greatest and chiefest, even about God, and Christ himself, with those other that he named.   

ij A general answer to his challenge, declaring that we need not to answer his Doctors particularly.  
Wherein, I think (Reader whatsoever thou art) thou dost of thyself abhor the mouth which so filthily runneth over: and therefore desirest not that I take the pains which I have promised, to join with him in this Chapter upon the Doctors. As also other good causes there are why I might spare that labour. 
Pur. 383 432.  First, because speaking of the old Doctors, and old Counsels, and the most ancient primative Church, he saith: 
Pur. 383.432.  For which cause (that is, because the Papists do offer to stand to their judgement in all things) and not for Confirmation of truth, we allege the authority of men, we stand for authority only to the judgement of the holy Scriptures. In which saying as he agreeth well with himself above in the seventh Chapter, where he did set at nought all but only Scripture: so I having in the last Chapter answered all his Scriptures, have by this his own judgement fully satisfied him, although I meddle not at all with his Doctors, unless he require me to spend time, only to maintain their honour which make the foresaid offer, being otherwise (as he here saith) nothing to the matter which is the Confirmation of truth.  
Again, because he himself for me doth answer all his own Doctors, if it be rightly considered, 
See cap. 5. in the end.  in that he confesseth them to have held with us the very same points, for the which we must be condemned (no remedy) as differing from the Doctors in the greatest points. For why doth he say, that we are against the honour of God, and against the Offices of Christ, but because we hold Invocation of saints, and worshipping of their Relics? But the Doctors held the same, he confesseth both here, 
Sup. cap. 3. part. 2. Sup. cap. 7. par. 1. in Traditions  and more amply in the 3. chapter. Why doth he say, that we are against the authority of God's word, but because we hold with Traditions? But the Doctors held with the same, he confesseth in the 7. Chapter. And so forth, in the residue of those great points, as may easily be deduced in like manner, or at the least so proved that he shall be feign to confess as much. In somuch that of one of those points he saith thus expressly: I confess with M. Allen, 
Pur. 156.  that the old writers not only knew, but also have expressed the value of our redemption by Christ in such words, as it is not possible that the Popish Satisfaction can stand with them. And yet on the other side, see what followeth immediately: Against the value of which Redemption (saith he) if they have uttered any thing, by the word of Satisfaction, or any thing else, we may lawfully reject their authority, not only though they be Doctors of the Church, but also if they were Angels from heaven. So that now, we no more need to defend against him, that we are not contrary to the Doctors in such great points, then that the Doctors are not contrary to themselves in the same, as also, that we are not contrary to our selves in the same. For in what words the Doctors speak thereof, the same do we.   

iij I join with him nevertheless, particularly.  
For these causes, this Chapter might well perhaps be spared. Nevertheless for more evident clearing of all, I think better to examine every particular of his allegations, reserving only a few to their more proper places in the next Chapter. 
Idem in my 33. Dem.  Well then, I offer (as he saith the Papists do) to stand to the Doctor's judgement in all things that are in question between us and the Protestants. 
part. 2.  Howbeit, as I said in the 6. Chapter, it is not every one Doctor, but only the uniform consent of the Doctors, to the which we ascribe infallibility: to one, or two, or a few we ascribe no more but probability, and that also no longer than the matter is vndefined of the Church. But yet I say, that the Protestants have not against us, for any one article at all, not only the Doctor's consent (and there, I say, standeth the point) but neither so much as any one Doctor at all, and therefore they are destitute even of that probability also, which some old Heretics could pretend, as the Donatists in the matter of S. Cyprians error. Let us therefore hear what Doctors Fulke allegeth, and for what matters. And first whether they interpret any Scriptures against us, because the last Chapter was of Fulkes Scriptures.    

The second part. Of his Doctors particularly. First, whether they expound any Scripture against us.  
I find that he allegeth the Interpreters about three matters, which are these, Antichrist, Only faith, and Purgatory.  

j About Antichrist, and Babylon.  

Pur. 249.  As touching Antichrist, he saith: The Seat of Antichrist was appointed to be set up in the Latin Church, according to the Revelation of S. john, & the exposition of Ireneus, who judged that Lateinos was the number of the Beasts name spoken of Apo. 13. See I pray you, what ragged wares are these. First, these two conclusions how well they follow: Antichri●● was appointed to be set up in the Latin Church, Ergo, the Pope of Rome is Antichrist. Whereas it followeth as well, that Luther or Caluine is Antichrist, for they are in the Latin Church in the same sense as you count the Pope to sit in the Latin Church, that is, where the Latin Church was afore, but now is not. The other conclusion: Ireneus judged that Lateinos should be the name of Antichrist, (as jesus was and is the name of Christ) Ergo, he judged that Antichrist was appointed to be set up in the Latin Church. These are his necessary conclusions. Besides that, it is false that he saith Ireneus judged Lateinos to be the name. He saith, 
Iren. lib. 5.  Valde verisimile est, It is very likely. But yet of all names that we find, Teitan (saith he) magis fide dignum est, is most credible. Nos tamen non periclitabimur in eo, nec asseuerantes pronuntiabimus, But yet neither that name will I venture to affirm and pronounce, that he shall have it: knowing that if his name should be manifestly preached in this time, (to wit, afore his coming) no doubt it had been uttered by him who also saw the Apocalypse. In so much that he there inveigheth against such as Definierint, Will define the name that they invent, to be the name of him that is to come. Considering also that there is no small danger therein. For if they pardie think one name, and he come with another name, they shall be easily seduced of him, quasi necdum adsit ille quem caveri convenit, As though he that they should beware of is not yet come. In which respect, you my Masters of this new Religion, have deserved a special reward of Antichrist, (as I noted also afore in the last Chapter (for casting this strange mist upon Christ's Vicar in the eyes of the blind, 
Par. 2. diu. 2  that Antichrist when he cometh may walk more boldly.  
To that purpose you allege S. Jerome also, and say: 
Pur. 373.  He was not such a slave to the Church of Rome, that●whatsoeuer pleased the Bishops of that Sea, he was ready to accept. For than he would not have been so bold to call Rome the purple whore of Babylon. Praef. ad Paulin. in lib. Didym. As though when he calleth Rome so, or 
(a) Pu. 409 Aug. de Ci. dei li. 16. ca 17. li. 18. ca 22.27.  when S. Augustine calleth it the Western Babylon, they mean the 
(b) Ar. 10.  Church of Rome. No sir, S. Augustine meaneth no more but the Empire which was to be there set up, speaking of the beginning of Rome: and S. Hierom meaneth the Gentility or Paganism of Rome, which was there as yet in his time against the Church of Rome: as it was much more, when S. Peter also called Rome Babylon for the same Pagans, and yet said of that Church for all that, 
1. Pet. 5.  Ecclesia electa quae est in babylon, The elect Church which is in Babylon. In which manner S. Jerome himself distinguisheth in another place, 
Hiero. ad Marcel. ep. 16. tom. 1.  having called Rome Babylon there also, and saith: Est quidem ibi Sancta Ecclesia, I grant, there is the holy Church, there are the Triumphs of the Apostles and Martyrs, there is the true confession of Christ, 
Rom. 1.  there is the faith commended of S. Paul: & Gentilitate calcata, in sublime se quotidie erigens vocabulum Christianum, And treading gentility under foot, the name of Christians daily erecting itself a fit. So, that within two ages after S. Hieromes time, there were no Gentiles left in Rome, but all converted into Christians, and so Babylon fully and thoroughly become Jerusalem. And you know, I think, if you read his preface that you allege, that he there doth say, that what time he was in Babylon, Damasus was the Bishop. Remember then, what he writeth to the same Damasus, by occasion of certain suspected fellows in the East, 
Hier. tom. 2 ep. ad Dam.  which would needs have him to confess three Hypostases, not content with three persons, and to communicate with them. I following none first but Christ (whereas the Arrians followed Arrius, etc.) am joined in Communion to thy beatitude, that is to say (by reason of Damasus his lawful succeeding) to the Chair of Peter. 
Mat. 16. Exod. 12. Gen. 7.  Upon that Rock I know the Church to be builded. Whosoever eateth the Lamb without this house, he is a profane man. If any man be not in noah's Ark, he shall perish when the Deluge overfloweth: desiring him in the end most instantly, and saying, That by your letters authority may be given me, whether it be to refuse, or to use this word Hypostases, and withal to signify, with whom I shall communicate at Antioch, because of the Schism which was there at that time between Paulinus and others. By this you see, that in doubt both of faith in time of Heresy, and also of communion in time of Schism, S. Jerome was ready to be ruled by the B. of Rome, and that all others (by his judgement and exposition of Scripture) must likewise do, in so much that he saith further to Damasus in the same Epistle: Whosoever gathereth not with thee, he scattereth: hoc est, that is to say, Qui Christi non est, 
Leo Epist. 89. ad Epis. vien. provi.  Antichristi est, Whoso is not Christ's, he is Antichristes, because (as S. Leo the great saith) Petrum in consortium individuae unitatis assumpsit Christus, Christ took Peter into the participation of undivided unity, so that it should be all one, to be Peter's and to be Christ's, to be in unity with Peter and his Successor, and to be in unity with Christ.  
One more expositor yet, you allege saying: 
Pur. 320.  Which of your Prelates will follow Ambrose in his Commentary upon the Apocalypse, where he interpreteth the whore of Babylon to be the city of Rome? I will recite his words for you: 
Amdro. in Apoc. 17.  This whore doth betoken, in some places, Rome in special, quae tunc ecclesiam Dei persequebatur, which then, (in S. john's time) did persecute the Church of God: In some places, in general, the city of the Devil, that is to say, the whole body of the Reprobate. Is not this now a perilous point with our Prelates, so to touch the city of Rome in S. john's time, which did persecute the Church of Rome, that is, the Clergy and other Christians of Rome? But of the Church of Rome, the undoubted Ambrose saith if you remember: 
Ambro. de Sacramen. lib. 3. ca 1.  In all things I covet to follow the Roman Church, so protesting, because he had occasion there to defend a certain custom of his own Church at Milan, which the Roman Church had not, cuius typum in omnibus sequimur et formam, whose pattern and sampler we follw in all things, which notwithstanding, he there declareth, that other Churches may upon good cause have some ceremony that the Church of Rome hath not. Likewise he calleth Peter primum and fundamentum, the first and the foundation, in the very same place, where (say you) he affirmeth, 
Pur. 320. Ambro. de Inc. d. c. 4.5.  that Peter is not the foundation. So faithfully you deal with your Reader. He doth there excellently confute by Peter's confession, the Heresies that were against Christ's Divinity & Incarnation. While other men's opinions were in rehearsing, Peter, though always most forward, held his peace. But when he once heard, Vos autem, now what do yourselves say of me? statim loci non immemor sui, Primatum egit, Immediately being not unmindful of his place, he exercised the Primacy. The Primacy of confession pardie, not of (worldly) honour: the Primacy of faith, non ordinis, not of (worldly) degree And beneath: Faith is the foundation of the Church. Non enim de carne Petri, sed de fide dictum est: For it was not said of Peter's flesh, but of his faith, 
Mat. 16.  that the gates of death shall not prevail against it, his confession overcometh hell. All which we say in the same manner: Heretics and other ministers of the devil may prevail against the flesh of a Pope: but his faith, but his confession (aswell in the articles that be now in controversy, as in those at that time) will stand when they shall all be sunk down into their due place.  

The rest of the Pope's Supremacy. Ar. 36.37. Pur. 287.373.374.  And here by the way (because the place is most convenient, and because it is soon done) to answer unto that you say, Ireneus, Polycrates, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Cyprianus, the Council of Africa, and Socrates the Historiographer, did preach or write against the Pope's authority, when it first began to advance itself in Victor, Cornelius, Stephanus, Anastasius, Innocentius, Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus. I say, first, that all those Popes were of the true Church by your own confession here cap. 2. and therefore you are contrary to yourself in making other Popes to be Antichrist, for claiming such authority as these did. Secondly, that all those writers did communicate with those Popes. And therefore your Schismatical separation hath no help of them. Thirdly, that no one of them wrote against the Pope's authority, as you pretend.  
What did they then? of Ireneus, Polycrates, and Dionysius, touching S. Victor, and of Cyprianus touching S. Stephanus, I report the truth here ca 10. in the 28. demand.  

Cyp. ep. 55 68 seu. li. 1. Ep. 3.4.  The same S. Cyprian doth exhort S. Cornelius to be as stout in not losing certain African heretics under the degree of Bishops, as their own Bishop had been in binding them. He also noteth in S. Stephanus some little negligence, but much more, wilful obreption in those two lapsed Bishops of Spain, Basilides and Martialis, who had concealed from him the truth that in their supplication they should have expressed, which because they did not, he saith well, that their restitution by the Pope, could not stand them in steed against their former deposition by the Bishops of their own province. This which so plainly maketh for the Pope's authority, you are so blind to bring against it.  
As concerning the Counsels of Africa & Milenis: the question between them & those other five Popes was not about the matters of the universal Church, as for example, matters of the faith, quoties fidei ratio ventilatur, (for such matters they also themselves did refer to the Apostolic judgement of those Popes, antiquae scilicet regulae (et traditionis) formam secuti, quam toto semper ab orb mecum nostis esse seruatam, 
Apud Aug Epi. 94.93. Innocen. ad Con. Cart. & Milenit. Aug. e. 106. Con. jul. li. 1. cap. 2. De pec. ori. con. Pelag. cap. 8.  following the form of the old (tradition and) Canon, which (saith Pope Innocentius unto them in those Epistles which S. Augustin being one of them doth often commend most highly as very answerable to the Sea Apostolic) you as well as I do know to have been kept always of all the world) but about matters of particular persons, as Appeals of Bishops.  
And that question also was not about the Pope's authority therein, but what order the Nicene Council (which first was confirmed, and always afterward most exactly observed of S. Peter's See, as Municipal laws are of good kings) had taken therein.  
And of the inferior Clergy there was no such question, but they should hold themselves quiet with the judgement of their own province, if not of their own Bishop, without appealing further, according to Con. Aphric. cap. 92. which you allege, and according to Concil. Sardicen. Can. 17. which is alleged Concil. Carthag. 6· cap. 6. & 7.  
But that Bishops might so appeal, the Popes avouched both by the old continual custom, Con. Cart. 6. ca 2. (whereof no man can deny but there are examples of such appeals out of all provinces, & namely of the patriarchs of Alexandria & Constantinople, & S. Austin himself Epi. 162. in the cause of Cecilianus. B. of Carthage deposed by the bishops that began the Schism of Donatus, useth it as a plea the Cecilianus was ready causam dicere apud caeteras ecclesias extra Africam, To be judged by the other Churches out of Africa. Neque enim de presbyteris, aut diaconis, aut inferioris gradus clericis agebatur, For the matter was not about any priests, or Deacons, or inferiors of the Clergy, but about Bishops, qui possunt aliorum Collegarum judicio, praesertim Apostolicarum Ecclesiarum, causam suam integram reseruare, Who may reserve their cause whole to the judgement of their felowbishops, specially of the Apostolic Churches, where also he saith, In Romana Ecclesia semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus, The Princedom of the Chair Apostolic hath always flourished in the Roman Church. Also by the Council Sardicense ca 7. (in the same Carthage Council, cap. 3. whose authority none of those African Bishops did deny, for the same Bishops were of it that were of the Nicen, & S. Austin (ca 7.) did expressly admit in the cannon of the Inferiors appealing from their own Bishop.  
Thirdly by the Nicen Council also, whereupon you say, very insolently trusting overmuch your lying Lutheran friends the Magdeburgians in their Centuries, that S. Augustine and his fellows took those Popes with plain forgery and falsification of the Canons of the Council of Nice, and fetched them meetly well over the Coals for it. You imagine that their Catholic gravities were as malapert with the Popes of their time, as you and such other skipiacks be at this time. Clean contrary to the whole story of that time, and the very words and deeds of those Afrique Counsels themselves, where we read no otherwise of those Popes, then of such as were honoured of all for their holiness both in their lives, and also after their death even to this day. And if you of your heads will call all forgerers and falsifiers which alleged for Canons of the Nicene Council, more than are contained in those twenty, how many of the Ancients shall you spare, yea or S. Augustine also himself? How often doth he aleage the Nicen Council against the Donatists about baptism? How often do all aleage it about Easter day? and against the Arrians? & for many other matters not once mentioned in those Canons?  
And therefore as you had no cause to invent this forgery, so also the African fathers had small cause (as any man may perceive by this) to stand so much with the Popes in those Appeals of Bishops from provincial Counsels: by which their doing for all that, can not be inferred any thing against the Pope's authority above provincial councils, no more then against a general Counsels authority above a provincial. For at this day also Catholic Kings and Bishops stand with the Popes by the Council of Trent, by his own grants, pragmatical compositions, etc. in the right of giving benefices, of Appealles, etc. with his own good leave, without any prejudice to his Superiority: unless you think the good kings be prejudicial to their own Crowns, when they are content to try by law with their Nobles claiming some privilege in the king's royalties.  

Ar. 37. Soc. l. 7. c. 11 So. li. 6. c. 10  But most ridiculous of all you be, where you allege Socrates the Novatian speaking against P. and S. Celestinus for taking away the novatians Churches in Rome, (as before he touched S. chrysostom also for the like in Asia) and counting it a point of foreign Lordship, not of Priesthood. novatians, 
Secularem is not foreign, ● you trans●a●●, but worldly  specially in their own cause, may not depose: Neither yet doth he deny the Pope's Supremacy over all, in carping that fact, no more than he denieth S. Chrysostom's Superiority in the compass of his Patriarkship of Constantinople.  
As little is it to your purpose, 
Ar. 37.  that the foresaid Aphrican Council, cap. 6. decréeth, that any Primate of Africa shall not be called princeps Sacerdotum, aut Summus Sacerdos, prince of priests, or highest Priest, but only thus, Primae sedis Episcopus, the Bishop of such or such a first See. What perteinech this to the titles, and much less to the Primacy (being the thing) of the Bishop of Rome? whom the Africans themselves (as appeareth in S. Augustine's works) never called Primae sedis Episcopum, but, 
Aug. e. 157  Apostolicae Sedis Episcopum, the Bishop of the See Apostolic.   

ij. About only faith.  
For only faith thus you say: 
Pu. 320.  Which of your Prelates will follow Ambrose in his commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans: where he so often affirmeth, that a man is justified before God by faith only. And again: Cyprian taught, 
Pur. 287.  that faith only doth profit to salvation. To. 2. ad Quirin. ca 42. And that he believeth not in God at all, which placeth not the trust of all his felicity in him only, de duplici martyrio. And once again: 
Pur. 81.  What origen's judgement was concerning Satisfaction for sins, he declareth sufficiently in his 3. book upon the Epist. to the Rom. cap. 3. where often times he repeateth, that a man is justified before God by faith only: affirming that in forgiveness of sins, God respecteth no work but faith only, as he proveth by the parable that our Saviour used to Simon the Pharisee. Luke. 7. and answereth also those objections, which even the Papists at this day make against us for teaching that faith only doth justify us in the sight of God.  
The same which in the last chapter I declared to be S. Paul's meaning, to wit, that a man may be justified by faith, 
Ca 8. pa. 4  although before his faith, that is, before he was a Christian, before he was a Catholic, he did not good works, but evil works, the same (I say) doth S. Ambrose and also Origen expressly declare to be their meaning also, and it is false that you say, Origen to answer our objections which we make against you for teaching that the good works which after faith Christ worketh in us, do not augment our justification. He that only believeth (saith Origen) is justified, etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum, although no whit of works have been done by him. S. Cyprians words in Latin are but these three, Fidem tantum prodesse, faith only to profit: 
Cyp. Test. ad Quir. lib. 31.42.  meaning that faith profiteth, and, without faith nothing profiteth, alleging his Testimonies for it accordingly, that Abraham believed God, & it was reputed to him unto justice. Gen. 15. and, If you will not believe, you shall not understand. Esay. 7. according to the Septuaginta. The book de duplici Martyrio is thought to be supposition, coined by Erasmus: though that saying which you allege, is of itself Catholic enough. For, to trust in God's gifts, as in the Catholic faith, and good works that he worketh in us, also to trust in his Saints: to trust in these, I say, as they be his, is to trust in him only.   

iij. About Purgatory. Touching Scripture expounded against it.  

Pur. 380.383.  Concerning the l●t of the three: where D. Allen having alleged for his part the consent of all ancient Doctors, said boldly to his Reader: [Ask your new teachers, whether they have any express words in Scripture that deny prayers to be profitable for the dead, or at least (which is liberty enough) expounded for that meaning by any one man of all the antiquity.] Fulke answering thereunto, saith: As for a place so expounded by an ancient writer, I will seek no further, than the place of Hieronym even now alleged out of your own Canon law, upon 2. Cor. 5. referring the Reader to many other places alleged in this answer, as out of Cyprian, Origen, and others: by which, the intolerable lying, and bragging, and railing of this miscreant, shallbe better confuted, then by any contradiction of words. So hot he taketh that which D. Allen with all mildness and sweetness speaketh for salvation of Souls, [to such as may for their simplicity be soon deceived by following other men's errors, with whom the names of Doctors, or the only bare brag of Scriptures, are as good as the alleagation of places.] And see whether he did not worthily so say: for I assure thee Reader, 
Fulke taken in a vain brag.  it is yet bare names of Doctors, that this Answerer also saith, out of Cyprian, Origen, & others▪ He cannot show, that in his whole book, neither afore this place nor also after, he alleged any exposition of a text by Cyprian, or Origen, for that purpose, no nor by any other at all (as thou shalt here perceive) excepting only S. Jerome.  
And touching him also, what a coosining is it of the Reader, to pretend that Jerome expoundeth Scripture against prayer for the dead, considering that you confess yourself, that Jerome allowed prayer for the dead, as in the third chapter I noted: 
Cap. 3. pa. ● diui. 1.  As if you would bear the simple in hand, that we also who now allow prayer for the dead, do expound Scripture against prayer for the dead? Is this to show that the Doctors be of your side in deed, or only to abuse their bare names? The place of S. Jerome is not upon the 2. Cor. 5. but upon Gal. 6. And in the Canon law (if Gratian'S book be Canon law) you have the meaning of it: Verum hoc de impaenitentibus accipiendum est, saith Gratian, But this is to be understood of the unpenitent: de mortuis damnatis, of the dead that are damned, saith the Sum over the head. Neither do the words enforce aught else, allege you them never so often. These they are: 
Pur. 382.383.445.  In this present world we know that one of us may be helped of another, either by prayers or by counsels, but when we shall come before the judgement seat of Christ, neither job, nor Daniel, nor No, can entreat for any man, but every man must bear his own burden. For any man (you see) whose burden weigheth contrary to all entreaty of others, because he died impenitent. But otherwise who so dieth penitent, deserveth thereby that the entreaty of others may help him (as you heard S. Augustine say in the last Chapter, answering the text, (2. Corinth. 5. 
Cap. 8. par. 3. diui. ) and so he beareth his own burden, and yet may be helped by others. For such is the poise of his burden, that it weigheth this way, and not the other way.  
In an other place D. Allen rehearseth four texts that they allege against Purgatory, 
Pur. 436.437.438.  Eccle. 11. Mat. 7. 2. Cor. 5. Apoc. 14. (the answers I have put down in the last Chapter) and then saith, [I ask them sincerely, and desire them to tell me faithfully, what Doctor or wise learned man of the whole antiquity, ever expounded these texts, or any one of them against Purgatory or practice for the dead.] Hereunto Fulke answereth: Before the heresy of purgatory was planted in the world, how could the old Doctors interpret these places by name against that which they never heard named? 
Cap. 3. pa. 2 diui. 1. Infra ca 11. contra. 45.  this poor shift he falleth unto, not considering that it is contrary to his brags here a little before, of Cyprian, Origen, and others, nor remembering that in the third Chapter he confessed, the old Doctors both heard & allowed, both the name & the thing, both of purgatory and prayer for the dead.  
Yet have they (he saith) so interpreted some of them, that their interpretation can not stand with Purgatory or prayer for the dead, as I will show in their particular answers. So he promiseth: and yet whereas they are four texts, only at one of them be bringeth the Doctor's interpretation, and that also none but S. Hieromes, whom also he confesseth (as I have said) to allow prayer for the dead. Let us see them how you show that his interpretation is against his own belief. And because you crack of the exposition of the Fathers (you say to D. Allen) Hieronym in his commentary upon this place, Eccle. 11. expoundeth the north and the south not for the states of grace and wrath (as divers of the ancient Fathers do, saith D. Allen) but for the places of reward or punishment of them that die. Why? what repugnance is between those two expositions? They agree both so well, that S. Jerome hath them both. First, the two states of them that die: wheresoever thou dost fall, there shalt thou always remain, Sive te rigidum, etc. Whether thy last time find thee rigorous and cruel to the poor, or mild and merciful. Then the two places of payment: The tree either did sin before while it was standing, and then it is put afterwards in the North cost: or if it did bear fruits worthy of the South, it shall lie in the South cost. And immediately: Neither is there any tree, but it is either in the North, or in the South. Understanding by the North any place of punishment, not only eternal, but also temporal, in so much that he there showeth out of Esay, that the North may bring to the South. These are his two last expositions of that place: his first is this: Keep the foresaid commandments. For wheresoever thou preparest thee a place, futuramque sedem, and a seat for hereafter, whether it be in the South or in the North, there when thou art dead thou shalt continue. This exposition with D. Allen I followed in the last chapter, for it is nothing else to say, but that no man after death can merit, either to change altogether, or so much as to better his state.  

Touching Scriptures for Purgatory, and prayer for the dead.  
And touching Scriptures expounded by the Doctors against Purgatory and prayer for the dead, these two places of S. Hieromes are all that he allegeth. Now touching Scriptures that we allege for Purgatory and prayer for the dead: it is good, although it be not necessary, unless he can fortify his new castelet of Only Scripture better than yet he hath done) to examine whether the Doctors do say (as he pretendeth) either generally that no Scripture at all maketh for Purgatory & prayer for the dead, or so much as namely this place or that place doth not.   

Whether the Doctors say, no Scripture to make for it.  
For the first: Tertullian speaking no more but of the Oblations for the dead which we make upon their years mindday, saith, 
Tertul. de corona Militis.  Huius disciplinae si legem expostules Scripturarum, nullam invenies, For this discipline if thou require a law out of the Scriptures, thou shalt find none. Traditio tibi praetendetur autrix, Consuetudo confirmatrix, & Fides obseruatrix, Tradition shall be declared to be the author of it, Custom the corfirmer, & Faith the observer. Now cometh Fulke (which also I noted in the third Chapter) and for this one particular is bold to say generally, 
Par. 2. diu. 3  that all offering and all praying for the dead is confessed of Tertullian to be beside the Scripture. As where he saith: 
Pur. 264.  They (that is S. chrysostom with some other old Doctors, as also now their Successors the Catholics) labour to wrest the Scriptures to find that which Tertullian confesseth is not to be found in them. 
Pur. 268.  Again: Tertullian hath discharged you of authority of the Scripture already. Again: Tertullian, as wise a man as M. Allen, 
Pur. 275.  affirmeth (as we heard before) that prayer for the dead hath no foundation in the Scriptures. Again: 
Pur. 286.  Never once mentioned in the Scripture, and so confessed by Tertullian, one that leaned to some part of your cause. Again: 
Pur. 393.  He utterly denieth that they came from the Scriptures. Therefore by Tertullian'S judgement you do abuse the Scriptures. Again: 
Pur. 410.  Praying and offering for the dead, as Tertullian himself confesseth, is not taught by the Scriptures. Yet soon after, to show that Tertullian with Montanus had in all points the opinion of the Papists, amongst other points of his opinion he noteth, 
Pur. 417.  that all small offences must (as he thought) be punished after this life, where the prison is, and the uttermost farthing to be paid. Mat. 5. But reserving that to the eleventh chapter as one of his gross contradictions, I will here note, how upon the foresaid particular of only Tertullian, he is far more bold than yet we have heard. 
Pur. 363.  For thus he saith: They themselves (that is, the old Doctors) for the most part confess, that prayer & oblation for the dead, is not taken at all out of the Scriptures, 
Pur. 435.  as Tertullian, Augustine, and other. Again: Of them (amongst the ancient Fathers) that maintained prayers for the dead, the most confessed they had it not out of the Scriptures, but of tradition of the Apostles, and custom of the Church. They denied it to be received of the scriptures. This he saith of S. Augustine by name, and withal of the most part of the fathers, having in his whole book no such saying of any other, neither even that of Tertullian'S importing so much, but only as I have declared.  
So then have I showed, that he faileth in this that he braggeth of the Doctors confessing against themselves and us, as though generally no Scripture at all doth make for Purgatory or prayer for the dead. Now let us come to particular Scriptures. Thus he saith:   

Of certain particular texts.  

Pu. 103.  S. Augustine, although otherwise inclining to the error of Purgatory, yet he is clear, that this text (1. Cor. 3. of him that shall be saved through fire) proveth it not, neither aught to be expounded of it, and that he showeth by many reasons, Enchirid, ad Laur. ca 68 where he affirmeth, that by the fire is meant the trial of tribulation in this life. You say that he affirmeth it: but he saith, that it is an hard place, and with doubtfulness speaketh accordingly, Non absurdè accipi possunt, So may this and this be interpreted not absurdly. And where you say, he is clear that this text proveth not Purgatory: and again, that it ought not to be expounded of it: and again, that he showeth the same by many reasons. All is false: No such matter. Only he showeth, that it ought not to be expounded after the Heresy of the Origenistes, of hell fire, as though they that be in it may at the length be saved, and that it may be expounded of the fire of tribulation in this life. Yea moreover he saith expressly, that it may be expounded also of some other like fire after this life: clean contrary to that which you here report of him: though in other places you also yourself contrary to yourself do report the same. Whereof I shall anon have occasion to say more in the third division of this chapter.  
This is the only place, of all that D. Allen doth allege for Purgatory and prayer for the dead, which Fulke pretendeth any Doctor to say that it ought not to be expounded thereof.  
But where he saith thus, speaking of D. Allen: 
Pur. 145.  For my part I will not refuse to satisfy his demand. He will know and have us aposed, from whence we have that new meaning of our saviours words, that he which is cast into prison for neglecting of reconciliation while he is in the way, 
Mat. 5.  is cast into hell, from whence he shall never come: and then allegeth for that sense chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome, and Chromatius. This (I say) is passing childish, (although it were true, as it is not, that all those Doctors have that sense,) for D. Allen demandeth no such thing, read his words whosoever will. Yea strait after reciting the Protestants objection, [That the places of the Old and New Testament, 
Pur. 148.151.  alleged for Purgatory, though they be thus expounded of the Doctors for Purgatory, yet sometimes they be construed otherwise by the Fathers themselves.] I answer to this (he saith) [and freely confess it.] For that is not the question between us, whether the Fathers have expounded those texts of other points of our Catholic faith (for if they have, what maketh that against us?) but this, whether they have expounded those texts for Purgatory (which if they have, that maketh with us) and whether they have expounded them or any other against Purgatory (which if they have, that maketh with you.) As for the diversity of true senses, the Church hath ever given room (saith D. Allen) to the Expositors, according to every one's gift, only provided that no man of singularity father any falsehood upon any text: Howbeit also every ones true sense is not always the very right and proper sense of that same text. Whereof I spoke more plainly in the sixth Chapter. But Fulke replieth, to this and saith: Whereas M. Allen alloweth all the interpretations that the Fathers have made of the text (1. Cor. 3.) by him alleged, as true, so long as they affirmed no error: he may by the same reason affirm, that Contradictories are true. As in that saying (Mat. 5.) of him that shall not come out until he have paid the uttermost farthing: some have expounded that he shall be always punished, some that he shall not be always punished. How is it possible, that both these interpretations can be true? Marry, thus it is true: those He & He are not one He: but He that shallbe always punished, is he that to the end of the way, that is, of this life, agreeth not with his adversary whom he had deadly injuried, as saying unto him, Fatue, and thereby incurring the gilt of Gehenna ignis, which is the prison of the damned. He that shall not be always punished, is he whose injury was but venial, 
Cap. 8. par. 3. diui. 2.  as Racha. And so both interpretations agree well not only together, but also with the text itself: as likewise in the last chapter I declared.  
And so much of the Doctor's interpretations. Now to the other kind of their Testimonies, which he allegeth against us about any of our Controversies.   

Secondly whether the Doctors give any other kind of testimony against us.  

j About the Books of Maccabees.  
And first (although it be but a by matter) whether the Maccabees be Canonical Scripture, or no: because the last thing that I entreated of, was the Scriptures that be of purgatory, and the Protestants deny the Machabées for this express saying 2. Mac. 12. It is an holy and healthful meaning, to pray for the dead, that they may be released of their sins. And touching this matter he allegeth no Doctor, 
Pur. 214.  but only S. Jerome in two places. The answer whereof D. Allen gave before, and that rightly and truly, as we shall well perceive if first we remember what he alleged for the other part. Fulke briefly both reporteth it, & also replieth unto it, in these words: M. Allen pretendeth to prove the book of Maccabees Canonical by authority of the Church, 
See cap. 11. cozad 35  when he can not by consent that it hath with the Scriptures of God. As though all books are Canonical Scripture which have consent with the Scriptures. The Machabées in deed have so (as also innumerable books of Catholic writers, and Caluins Institutions too, I trow.) But the Church's authority, and not such Consent, it is, that proveth them Canonical. 
The Church's authority for the Macchabees.  And the Church's authority D. Allen bringeth out of the third Carthage Council: which Fulke in his answer saith was a Provincial Council: but he must remember, that in the 4. Chapter to prove the whole true Church to err, he told us, that this Provincial Synod hath the authority of a General Council, because it was confirmed in the sixth General Council holden at Constantinople in Trullo. And therefore he cannot avoid it, but that the Machabées are Canonical by authority of the whole true Church, and therefore in deed also Canonical, if any Scripture at all (and specially such as was ever by any doubted of) be Canonical: whether the true Church may err, or no. And therefore again, he doth but labour in vain, to show, that the Carthage Council did err in that Canon, because it nameth among the Canonical Scriptures also five books of Solomon, whereas the Church (saith Fulke, as though he had not confessed this Council to be the Church as much as any other) alloweth but three, namely the proverbs, the Preacher, and the Canticles. Not knowing what S. Augustine, that was one of that Council (as Fulke himself saith,) writeth as it were of purpose to give us the meaning of that Council, and of others likewise speaking, where he also reckoneth up all the same Canonical Scriptures, as the Council doth. 
Au. de doc. christ. lib. 2. cap. 8.  And three books of Solomon (saith he) the proverbs, the Canticles of Canticles, and Ecclesiastes. For those two books, the one entitled Wisdom, the other Ecclesiasticus, de quadam similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur, for a certain likeness are said to be salomon's, although in deed the be not his, but Ecclesiasticus is jesus Siraches, and Sapientia is an incertain authors, 
Aug. Retr. li. 2. ca 4.  as S. Augustine partly in the same place, partly in his Retractations doth say.  
Again (saith Fulke, 
Pur. 215.457. Aug. con. 2 Gaudentij Ep. li. 2. c. 23  for an other answer to the Carthage Council) in what sense they did call those books Canonical, appeareth by Augustine, that was one of that Council: And this Scripture of the Maccabees non habent judaei sicut, etc. The jews count not as the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms. What then? Here you see (saith Fulke) that Augustine howsoever he alloweth those books, yet he alloweth them not in full authority with the law, Prophets, and Psalms. That which S. Augustine reporteth of the jews, he ascribeth to S. Augustine himself. Although also it follow in Augustine immediately: Sed recepta est ab Ecclesia. But it is received of the Church not unprofitably, if it be soberly read and heard. Which words also Fulke there allegeth, with this note, that S. Augustine alloweth not these books, 
If Fulke be sober the Maccabees are Gods word. If he be not, whose fault is that? 2. Peter 2.  without condition of sobriety in the reader or hearer. As though he allowed no book of Scripture in full authority, because both he & all other Catholics with S. peter do require the same condition in the reader of the whole Scriptures, that he wrist them not like a mad man to his own damnation, as all heretics do, and as the Donatists did, counting themselves Martyrs if they killed themselves, and maintaining it with the example of Razias out of the Machabées, to which S. Augustine there answereth. He that would in deed know, in what sense S. Augustine and his Council call those books Canonical, let him consider, that under one name of Canonical, they reckon at once these with all the other Holy books of both Testaments. 
Au. 2. doc. christ. 8.  Totus Canon Scripturarum his libris continetur. The whole Canon of the Scriptures is contained in these books: Five of Moses, that is, 
Conc. Cart. 3. Can. 47.  Genesis, etc. saith S. Augustine. And the Council in like manner: Sunt autem canonicae Scripturae, and the Canonical Scriptures are these, Genesis, etc. Lo, they call them all Canonical in one and the same sense, although S. Augustine there instructeth the student of divinity, whilst all were not yet generally received of the whole Church, to prefer some before others.  

Fulkes objections.  Read the chapter afore, where S. Augustine requireth seven conditions in the student of Scripture, before he be perfect: and you shall perceive, that it is but for lack of the second, which is Mitescere pietate, to be meek by piety, that you so presumptuously make objections, 
Pur. 386.208.  calling them in your pride, unavoidable reasons, against those books which by your own confession the whole true Church hath Canonised. And what be these unavoidable reasons? First because the author of the (second) book commendeth one Razis for killing himself, 
2. Mac. 7. Au. 2. Gau. 23. & ep. 61  which is contrary to the word of God. S. Augustine answereth the Donatists & you at once, saying: Touching this his death, the Scripture hath told it, how it was done: it hath not commended it, as though it was to be done.  
Secondly you say, he abridgeth the five books of jason. But the Holy Ghost maketh no abridgementes of other men's writings. The book of the Kings, in how many places it singnifieth, that it abridgeth stories, telling where they be written more at large in other books that were not Canonical? And is not S. Mark commonly called Breviator, the abridger of S. Matthew? Also every Sermon, and letter in the Acts of the Apostles, 
Aug. de consen. evang. li. 1. ca 2.3.  is it not an abridgement? The Holy Ghost knoweth, to pour again through his new vessels, both pieces of other men's writings, as you see Act 17. Tit. 1. and also books, & much more of jason the Hebrew. as also of Ethnic poets.  
Thirdly, He confesseth that he took this matter in hand, that men might have pleasure in it, which could not away with the tedious long stories of jason. But the Spirit of God serveth not such vain delight of men. Is it vain delight, to desire profitable brevity? In your preface to the Reader, you say: I have used great brevity, by a natural inclination, whereby I love to be short in any thing that I writ. Do you count your inclination a vain inclination? And who seeth not, that in all the books of holy Scripture, there is great observation of brevity, & that (amongst other causes) also to avoid tediousness?  
Fourthly, He showeth what labour and sweat it was to him, to make this abridgement, ambitiously commendeth his travill, and showeth the difference between a story at large, & an abridgement: all which things savour nothing of God's Spirit. And specially that in the end (for all this you carp in the preface 2. Mac. 2.) he confesseth his infirmity, & desireth pardon if he have spoken slenderly and barely. Whereby he testifieth sufficiently, that he was no scribe of the Holy Ghost. That he ambitiously commendeth his travel, is but your blasphemy, without any occasion given by him. All the rest standeth well enough with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, unless you think that the scribes of the Holy Ghost may not speak of themselves as of men, humano more, or the they must always be eloquent, & always able to do all without sweat & without labour. Doth not S. Paul as much confess his like infirmity, when he saith 2. Cor. 11. Etsi imperitus sermone, though I be rude in speaking? Yea doth he not excuse his boldness for writing to the Romans, who were so full of all knowledge, and saith that he did it not but only to put them in remembrance of that which they knew well enough before? Rom 15. did he not also in that Epistle for his ease use Tertius his hand? Rom. 16. and the like commonly in writing all his other Epistles also, as appeareth 2. Thes. 3? That I speak nothing of his intolerable pains taken in preaching, wherein also he was the instrument of the Holy Ghost, and not only in his Epistles. These are forsooth your unavoideable reasons. Now to S. Jerome.  

Hieromes testimonies. Pu. 214.  M. Allen allegeth the authority of Hieronym in prol. Mach. But what he meaneth thereby or what place he noteth, I know not, quoth you, Who will believe that you are so dull? In the vulgar Latin Bibles is a preface upon the books of Machabées: in it are these words: The Books of Maccabees although in the Canon of the Hebrews they be not had, yet of the Church they are noted among the Stories of the divine Scriptures. Those usual Prefaces are taken commonly of S. Hierom, sometime for word, sometime for sense, and so is this, as will appear by the two places that you bring out of him. In his preface upon the Book of Kings (you say) he doth not only omit it in rehearsal of the Canonical books, but also accounteth it plainly among the Apocryphal. He there reporteh, how many letters are apud Hebraeos, with the Hebrews, to wit, two and twenty: and that accordingly (number for number) primus apud eos liber, the first book with them is Genesis, and so forth to two & twenty. So expressy he showeth that he reckoneth the books there after the Hebrews, and therefore that he speaketh of their Canon, when he saith afterward, that all without these is to be put among the Apocryphal. Therefore Sapientia, which is commonly entitled salomon's, and jesus book the son of Sirach, and judith, & Tobias and Pastor (for that book also he mentioneth among the books of the old Testament, of which only, and not of any of the new Testament, he there speaketh) non sunt in Canone, are not in the Canon. The first book of the Macchabees I found in Hebrew. The second is a Greek. Now what maketh this for you or against us? doth any of us affirm that these books were in the Hebrews Canon?  

Pur. 215.  But you have another place out of S. Jerome, to prove that they were neither in the Church's Canon. In his Preface upon the book of proverbs: Therefore even as the Church readeth in deed the books of judith, Tobias, and Maccabees, but yet receiveth them not among the Canonical Scriptures: So also these two books (Ecclesiasticus, and Sapientia) let her read (as she doth) for the people's edification, but not to confirm the authority of the Church's doctrines: to wit, against the jews (that is the answer,) because their Canon hath not these books in it. But among the Church's people they were also then read publicly and solemnly in their course as well as the other books of Scripture: As S. Augustine also witnesseth of one of them by occasion, saying: 
August. de Praed. San. cap. 14.  The book of Sapientia hath been thought worthy to be recited at the desk in the church of Christ, tam longa annositate, so long a rew of years: and with worship belonging to a book of divine authority, to be hearkened unto of all Christian men, from Bishops, even to the lowest sort, of lay-men, faithful, penitentes, and Catechumenes. This was that reading of it to the people's edification. And even so S. Jerome expoundeth himself in his Preface upon the book of judith, saying: With the hebrews the book of judith is read among the Hagiographal (not among the 
(a) Hieron. prol. galeato in li. Regum.  nine Hagiographal that be Canonical, but among others being Apocryphal.) Cuius authoritas, etc. The authority of which book is thought less fit to confirm those things that come into contention (between the Hebrews, no doubt, and us.) But (notwithstanding the hebrews counting it Apocryphal) the Nicene Council (as we read) hath reckoned this book in the number of the Holy Scriptures. As also S. Augustine distinguisheth, saying: 
Aug. de Ci. dei. li. 18. ca, 36  The supputation of the times after Esdras to Aristobulus, is not found in the holy Scriptures which are called Canonical, but in others: among which (others) are also the books of the Maccabees, which, though the jews do not, yet the Church counteth for Canonical. By all which it is plain, that S. Jerome meaneth not as the Protestants do, when he saith, that the Church receiveth not the books of judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, among the Canonical Scriptures. (For himself saith, that the book of judith is Canonical by the Council of Nice) but only as I have said, he instructeth the Christians being ignorant in the Hebrew tongue, what books they should use against the jews (for which cause he also addressed his new Translation of the old Testament out of the Hebrew, as in many places he protesteth, 
Hie. Apol. ad Ruff. ) and that the Church in Canonizing those other books, meant not for all that that they should be used against the jews, who receive them not, and therefore would but laugh at us for our labour. Howbeit also, if S. Jerome did say in the Protestants sense, that the Church than received not those books neither in her own Canon, that maketh nothing for the Protestants. For we grant, the time was when the Church did not generally receive some of those books. To make for the Protestants he should have said, that the Church, (and not only any private person) neither did then, nor ought afterwards to receive them.  

Pur. 216.  Where now is Fulke, that saith, Hieronym doth simply refuse these books of the Machabées? Again: Hieronym saith, the Church receiveth them not for Canonical. 
Pur. 386.  Yea moreover: I have by the consent of the Catholic Church answered them. And again of Tobias book: 
Pur. 215.230.  I have showed by authority of Hieronym, which is proof sufficient against the Papist, that the Church receiveth not this book of Tobias for Canonical Scripture. All this you say: but I have showed, that not so much as Jerome himself maketh with you, though also if he did, 
Supra pa. 1. eodem cap.  that is not proof sufficient against us: as I have told you plain enough before, that it is only the consent of the Doctors to which we attribute infallibility, and the scope that of confidence of our cause we give you, to bring one Doctor if you can, is not in these bymatters, but in our principal controversies.  
And this much of the Canonical Scriptures, though it be somewhat besides my limits. Whereunto yet I must needs add the place where you say thus: 
Pur. 218.  If Martin Luther and Illyricus have sometimes doubted of S. james Epistle, they are not the first that doubted of it. Eusebius saith plainly, it is a counterfeit Epistle, lib. 2. cap. 23. and yet he was not accounted an heretic. I say not this to excuse them that doubt of it: for I am persuaded they are more curious than wise in so doing. Do you make it but curiosity to doubt of that Scripture which yourself also confess to be Canonical? Howbeit Luther not only doubted of it, but also utterly rejected it, even with as great courage as you have here rejected the second of the Machabées: and that also after the consent of the whole Church. Is this no worse than Eusebius his fault, before the Church's declaration? O worthy estimation of Canonical Scripture. What matter will not you licence them of your side to doubt of, without note of Heresy, when you dare so do in that which with you is the greatest? And yet also to show what a merchant you are, 
A falsary.  Eusebius saith not as you charge him, but the clean contrary. 
Eu. li. 2. c. 22  His words are these: Of james I read so much. By whom the first of the Epistles, which are named Catholicae, is said to be written. But this one thing I may not omit, that although of some it is taken for a counterfeit, because no such number of the ancient writers maketh any mention at all of it (as neither of that which is said to be the Epistle of Jude, which also is set in the number of the seven Epistles Catholical.) Tamen nos istas cum reliquis, in quamplurimis Ecclesijs publicè receptas approbatasque cognovimus: Yet we have found these, with the residue to be publicly received and approved in very many Churches.   

ij About only Scripture.  
Next unto this I take in hand the question of Only Scripture: thinking better to defer the rest touching Purgatory, to the end of the chapter, dispatching also all other questions before, because they be shorter.  
How he ascribed all authority to Only Scripture, and nothing to aught else, we heard in the seventh chapter. 
If the Doctors be not of their own side, they be on ●ulks side  Now he will bear the ignorant in hand, that the Doctors were of the same opinion, yet confessing withal that they held the contrary no less than we do, as partly in that same chapter we saw, partly here again we shall see. And therefore in this question again as in others afore, it is no more against us, then against those Doctors themselves, whatsoever he wresteth out of their writings.  
Cyprian would have nothing done in the celebration of the Lords supper, & namely in ministering of the cup, 
Pur. 287.  but that Christ himself did, li. 2. Epist. 3. I answer: he writeth there, contra Aquarios, against them that offered in the Chalice water only, whereas Christ offered wine. That he calleth, aliud quàm quod pro nobis dominus prior fecit, An other thing then that which Christ did first for us, as being clean against Christ's doing, and such a doing as he did for a tradition to us. But otherwise, to mingle the wine with water S. Cyprian there requireth, and that also by Christ's tradition: and therefore he buildeth not upon only Scripture, as you in alleging him seem to pretend.  

Pur. 303.  Now for an other Doctor: where chrysostom saith, It was decreed by the Apostles that in the celebration of the holy Mysteries, a remembrance should be made of them that are departed: we will be bold to charge him with his own saying. And there you allege four places out of him against himself, as it were for only Scripture. Is not this pretty showing of the Doctors to be of your side? And what are these places of S. chrysostom? First, 
Idem Ar. 69.  Hom. de Adam et Heva: Satis sufficere, etc. We think it sufficeth enough whatsoever the writings of the Apostles have taught us, according to the foresaid rules: in so much that we count it not at all Catholic, whatsoever shall appear contrary to the rules appointed. You are a great reader of the Doctors, I see. Whosoever made that Homily, he took those words out of that brief Instruction which in the first Tome of the Counsels followeth the Epistle of Pope Celestinus to the Bishops of France concerning the Semipelagians, which Bishops I think to be the Authors of the same Instruction. They take it (and so they say) out of the determinations of those Bishops of Rome in whose time Pelagius and Celestius began their Heresy, that is, P. Innocentius and P. Zozimus, and out of certain Aphrican Counsels approved by those Popes. And after 8. or 9 such Canons or articles, they make an end, saying: As for certain more subtle points, we are not bound to resolve upon them. We think, all that sufficeth enough, which the writings of the See Apostolic have taught us, according to the foresaid rules (or Canons:) in no wise thinking it Catholic, that shall appear to be contrary, praefixis sententijs, to the resolutions set here before.  
Again, in Gen. Hom. 58. Thou seest into what great absurdity they fall, qui divinae Scripturae canonem sequi nolunt, Which will not follow the Canon of Holy Scripture, but permit all to their own cogitations. He answereth the Heretics, which said, that our Lord took not true flesh. Then (saith chrysostom) he neither was crucified, nor died, nor was buried, nor rose again. Into such absurdity they fall, because they will not follow the plain line of Scripture, but their own imaginations of putative flesh, such as was in the Apparitions of the old Testament. What is this for only Scripture?  
But if we be further urged, we will allege that which he saith, In evang. joan. Hom. 58. He that useth not the holy Scripture, but climbeth another way, id est, non concessa via, that is, by a way not allowed, is a Thief. O Christian spirit, if you be urged, you will call S. chrysostom a Thief by his own saying, for using Tradition. As though he useth not Scripture, which useth Tradition: or that Scripture doth not warrant Tradition, as 2. The. 2. The thing which S. chrysostom there speaketh of, is this: that Antichrist, and those pseudochristes, judas Galileus, Theudas, and such others, also heretics & Schismatics, as Luther, calvin, &c. cannot show any commission out of Scripture. But Christ, and his Apostles, with the other Catholic Pastors that succeed them, come into their cure by good warrant of Scripture. These therefore are true Pastors, the other are thieves.  
We may be as bold with chrysostom, as he said he would be with Paul himself, in 2. ad Tim. Hom. 2. Plus aliquid dicam, I will say somewhat more, we must not be ruled by Paul himself, if he speak any thing that is his own, and any thing that is human, but we must obey the Apostle when he carrieth Christ speaking in him. And when is that? when he speaketh all only by Scripture? Will you not obey him then, when he saith, Ego enim accepi a domino, For I received it of our lords mouth. 1. Cor. 1●. See in what a proper sense you use Chrysostoms' words. These are the four places. One other you have elsewhere, saying: chrysostom upon Luke, cap. 16. saith, 
Ar. 12. Chrys. con. 3. de Lazaro.  that ignorance of the Scriptures hath bred heresies, and brought in corrupt life, yea it hath turned all things upside-down. By which it appeareth by what means he would have heresies kept away, namely by knowledge of the Scriptures. And who would not the same? It is therefore our daily study, and we see ourselves, and show others thereby the abomination of your Heresies, and how you would face them out with a card of ten. But what maketh this for Only Scripture to be of authority?  
As S. chrysostom, so in like manner S. Leo is of your side, you say, against us, and against himself. For where D. Allen alleged this saying of his: 
Pur. 387. Leo Ser. 2. de jeiunio Pentecost.  It is not to be doubted, but whatsoever is in the Church by (general) custom of devotion kept and retained, it came out of the Apostles tradition, and doctrine of the Holy Ghost? You answer that the saying of Leo the great, may be backed with the writing of Leo the great, Epist. 10. They fall into this folly, which when they be hindered by some obscurity, to know the truth, have not recourse to the words of the Prophets, nor to the writings of the Apostles, nor to the authorities of the Gospel, but to themselves. In these words, Leo as Great as you would have him, maketh the Scriptures, and not Customs or Traditions, the rule of truth. So you gather of those words: as also in another place, That the Church should overthrow heresies, 
Ar. 14.  by the word of God only, Leo the first, Bishop of Rome, in his Epist. 10. ad Flavianum contra Eutichen, plainly confesseth. He doth not say that all truths are expressed in the Scriptures, though that be whereof he there entreateth, to wit, the Incarnation of Christ. Marry, when a truth is expressed in the Scriptures, recourse must be had to the Scriptures. So he saith: but he saith not, to the Scriptures only: yea in the very same tenth Epistle he blameth Eutiches the Heretic, much more, for not having recourse neither so much as to our common Creed, which is not Scripture (you wot well) but a Tradition.  

Ar. 15.  Of the same judgement (you say) was (not Leo only, but) the whole Council of Constantinople the sixth, Actione 18. confessing that the Heretics and Schismatics grow so fast, because they were not beaten down by preaching of the Gospel and authority of the Scriptures. I confess the same, howbeit the Council doth not. But what is that for Only Scripture? yea the place is plain for the other side. I marvel you could not espy as much even by the piece that you allege, although you saw not the whole circumstance. Being truly translated, this it is: If all men had simply and without calidity from the beginning received the Gospel's preaching, and been content with the Apostles institutions, the matters verily had been well a fine, and neither the authors of the heresies, nor the fautors of the Priests, had been put to the pains of conflicts. Who would rest here, as you do, and not imagine somewhat to follow, with a (but) necessary to be seen? Sed quia Satanas etc. But because the devil not resting raiseth up his squires, therefore Christ also in time convenient hath raised up his warriors against them, to wit, the General Counsels that to this time have been holden by the diligence of the Emperors and the Popes, being Six in number. So expressly they avouch the authority of the Counsels, and you allege them for Only Scripture, whereas also in the words that you allege there is no mention at all of Scripture, but only of preaching and teaching.  
Likewise S. hilarius most expressly avoucheth every where the authority of the Nicene Council against the Arrians: and yet you pretend, that he would have heresies against the Trinity, 
Ar. 11. Hilar. li. 4. de Trin.  to be confuted, not by men's judgement, but by God's word. You mark well what he doth in that place. How heresies must be confuted, is not his purpose, but to answer the Scriptures, that the Heretics abused and misconstrued, which he there had recited at large, therefore he saith: Cessent propriae hominum opiniones, neque se ultra divinam constitutionem humana judicia extendant. Let men's proper opinions cease, neither let the judgements (or fancies) of men stretch themselves beyond God's limit. Therefore against these profane and impious institutions (or Catechisms) of God, let us follow the self-same authorities of God's sayings, which they allege in their own false sense, restoring every one of them to his true meaning. Which there consequently he doth. A goodly testimony for your purpose.  
The saying of S. basil is in every man's mouth, 
Basi. de spi. Sanc. ca 27  that the Doctrines preached in the Church, we have them partly by writing, partly by the Apostles Tradition without writing. And if we go about to reject such unwritten customs, we shall unawares condemn the Gospel also. Imo ipsam fidei predicationem ad nudum nomen contrahemus, yea we shall bring the very preaching of our faith to a bare name. And you yourself do note it as a great matter, that by his confession here, 
Pur. 380.  the words of Invocation when the Blessed Sacrament is showed, are not taught by the Scripture, no more than many other ceremonies that he rehearseth in the same place. And yet must he also bear you witness against himself for Only Scripture. 
Ar. 11. Basi de vera side, in prooem. Moralium.  Well, what saith he? In his treatise of faith: We know, that we must now, and always, avoid every word and opinion that is differing from the doctrine of our Lord. I say the same. But it is not all one, to be differing from our Lord's doctrine, and not to be expressed in Scripture. In so much that he alloweth well of those words, in speaking of the Trinity, Quae apud Sanctos viros in usu fuisse reperirentur, Which had been used of the holy fathers, although they were not in Scripture.  

Basi. in Regulis breu. Interrog. 1.  Two sayings more of his you allege, In his short definitions to the first interrogation: Whether it be lawful or profitable for a man to permit unto himself, to do or say any thing which he thinketh to be good, without testimony of the holy Scriptures? He answereth: For as much as our Saviour Christ saith, that the Holy ghost shall not speak of himself: what madness is it that any man should presume to believe any thing, without the authority of God's word? If you saw the place, your malice passeth. The words are these Quis esse tanta vesania, etc. Who can be so mad, that he dare so much as to think any thing of himself? And it followeth: But because of those things and words that are in use amongst us, some are plainly taught in the holy Scripture, some are omitted: Concerning them that are written, they must precisely be so observed: and, concerning them that are omitted, we have this rule, To be subject to other men for God's commandment, renouncing quite our own wills. Which he saith, because he writeth there to Monks, who vow obedience to their Superiors.  

Basil. Mor. Reg. 26. c. 1.  Again, In his Morals, Dist. 26. Every word or deed must be confirmed by the testimony of holy Scripture, for the persuasion of good men, and the confusion of wicked men. He there admonisheth his Monks, being students of Divinity to be so perfect in the Scriptures, that they may have a text ready at every need, so as Christ had to repel the devils temptation, Mat. 4. and Peter to answer the jews scoff, Act. 2. And we desire the same: in so much as when you bid us cast all away that is not written, we have this text ready, where S. Paul biddeth us the contrary, To hold the Traditions which we have learned, whether it be by his Scripture, or by his word of mouth. 2. Thes. 2.  
Last of all we have to see what you allege likewise out of S. Augustine for your only Scripture. 
Augustine.  For you play with his nose also, as you have done with his fellows the foresaid Doctors, confessing that he is for unwritten Traditions and such other authorities as we stand upon, and yet alleging him for Only Scripture. Your confession I have reported at large in the seventh chapter: as for example, where you say, Augustine blindly defendeth (in his book De cura pro mortuis agenda, 
Pur. 349.  and else where) the common error of his time, of prayer for the dead, which by holy Scripture he was not able to maintain, contrary to his own rule of only Scripture, in beating down the Schism of the Donatists, and the heresy of the Pelagians. Well then, how do you show out of Augustine against Augustine himself, that this was his rule?  
You make your show in three parts: 
Ar. 12. Pur. 383.405.368.451.  First you quote only without recital of any words, eleven or twelve places out of him, In which he preferreth the authority of the Canonical Scripture, before all writings of Catholic Doctors, of Bishops, of Counsels, before all customs and traditions. So you gather of those places. But that is not the question, Which is to be preferred: but this, Whether nothing but Scripture be of authority. And touching the preferment also, recite the words when you will, and it will appear plainly, that he neither preferreth the Scripture otherwise then we do.  
Your second part is about this one question, 
Ar. 12.  Who have the true Church: Of which question you say, that S. Augustine would have the Church fought only in the Scriptures. Read my first Demand, and you shall see what S. Augustine would have in that question, and that I would have the same: to wit, that you answer the Scriptures that he allegeth for his Church and for ours together: and that you bring one text for the visible Churches perishing after a time, or vanishing out of sight: and one text, that one Luther, or one calvin should after so many hundred years restore it again. This is the sum of al. In deed he is content in that question to set aside all other authorities, so to draw the Donatists (who drew back all that they could, standing upon other things impertinent) to try it by the Scriptures. But that nothing else is good authority in that question, that he never saith. You allenge him De 〈◊〉 Ecclesia, cap. 2. where he saith, (and the like cap. 3.5.6. The question between us and the Do●stes is, Vbi sit ecclesia, where the Church is, whether with us, or with them? What shall we do then? shall we seek her in verbis nostris, in our own words, or in the words of her head our Lord jesus Christ? I think we ought rather to seek her in his words who is truth, and best knoweth his own body. Where by our own words you understand all beside Only Scripture. But S. Augustine doth not so. quicquid nobis invicem obricimus, verba nostra sunt, Our words are whatsoever we object one to another, of delivering the divine books (in Dioclesian's time) of burning frankincense to the Idols, of persecuting▪ As all your declaiming also at this time against us, is for certain crimes of certain men: We having the like, yea and them more heinous; and that more truly, to charge you withal. But these words S. Augustine will, (and we with him) to be silent, when the Church is sought, and the words of Christ in the Scripture to sound.  
Again you allege him Epist. 48. ad Vincentium Rogatistan, where he ●aith, We are sure that no man could justly separat himself (as Luther did) a communione omnium gentium, from the communion of all nations: because none of us seeketh the Church in his own righteousness, but in the holy Scriptures. Whereunto you add your five eggs▪ saying: So if the Papists would not presume of their own righteousness, but seek ●he Church of Christ in the Scriptures: they would not separate themselves from the communion of Christ's Church, now ●y Gods grace enlarged further than the Popish Church. There 〈◊〉 no crooked gambrel bow that casteth so wide, as you do the doctor's words, these specially, from their scope. I marvel ●uche at you for it, and much more if you saw the place. By 〈◊〉 Communion of all Nations, so often against the Dona●es, Saint Augustine meaneth the Society of that visible ●urch, which as it began visibly at Jerusalem, so visibly grew on afterwards, and groweth on to this day, and to the worlds end, over all nations. From which Society or Company, 
Epist. 48.  fieri non potest, it is impossible, saith he, that any can have just cause to separate their company. Because the Donatists said that Cecilianus the Catholic Bishop of Carthage had yielded in Dioclesian's persecution, and that all the other Catholics by communicating with him after that, whereas they should have excommunicated him for ever, were also defiled thereby: and therefore that themselves who had not yielded, did well to separate themselves from the Catholics, as the just from the unjust. Thereupon Saint Augustine saith notably: 
Just separation impossible.  If any may have a just cause to separate their company from the company of all Nations, and to call that, Ecclesiam Christi, the Church of Christ: unde scitis, How know you in all Christendom being so wide and side, lest perhaps before you did separate yourselves, some did afore separate themselves for some just cause in some so far countries, that the bruit of their justice is not come to you? How can the Church (being but one) be in you rather than in them who before perhaps have separated themselves? Ita fit, etc. So it remaineth, that seeing you know not this same, you be uncertain of yourselves. Which likewise must needs happen to all (others) who use for their Society the testimony not of God, but of themselves (that is, of their own justice.) And then a little after: Nos autem ideo certi sumus, But we (Catholics) are certain that none can have justly separated himself from the company of all Nations: quia non quisque nostram in justitia sua, because any of us doth not in his own justice, but in the divine Scriptures seek for the Church: Et ut promissa est, reddi conspicit, and seethe it to be represented even as it was promised, to wit, from Jerusalem to Rome, from the jews, over all nations, being mixed both of good and bad, and the good (not consenting) no whit defiled by the company of the bad. And therefore whether any of our Popes, any of our other Bishops, any of our other fathers, any of our Catholic brethren, have been so ill as the Protestants make them, or no: sure we are, that Luther possibly could not (as neither ever any could, or can) justly separate himself, because by the holy most evident Scriptures, that only is the true church, which beginning at jerusalem, groweth over all Nations: in which by the same Scriptures, we see that once the Romans were, and from which the said Romans did never separate themselves afterward: and with which Romans Luther first was, and afterwards did Separate himself from them, and so therefore from the true Church. And yet come you, like a blind beetle, and say that the Papists did Separate themselves from your Church: bragging as blindly of your enlarging. For once having made a separation, it is no enlarging afterwards, that can win you the true Church from them that had it afore. Of whose largeness yet also above your largeness, read my 9.31.32.33.47. Demands, and join with me if you list upon them.  
Your third part out of Augustine, is more general, to wit, about all questions with any Heretics whatsoever▪ thereof you say, 
Ar. 13.  that he would have heresies confuted only by Scriptures. For, writing against Maximinus the Arian, li. 3. ca 14. (a place commonly and often cited) he saith: Sed nunc nec ego Nicenum, etc. Of which place your gathering is this: If Augustine would not oppress the Arians by the authority of the Nicene Council, which was the first and the best general Council that ever was, but only by the Scriptures: how much less would he charge them with other authorities▪ that the Papists allege: beside the authority of holy Scriptures? It is for your own vantage, or else you would not so play the proctor for Heretics. S. Augustine would not oppress the Arians, nor would not charge them, but only with Scripture, you say. But doth he say, that he might not? (for there is the question.) You know, (I doubt not) how commonly he presseth the Donatists with the authority of the said Nicen Council, 
Aug. con. Ep. parm. li. 2. ca 8. De bap. con. Don. l. 1. c. 7  granting that in S. Cyprians time it was a doubtful thing, whether Heretics can baptise. But, nullo iam quaestio est, now it is out of all doubt: because in that same Council it had been discussed, considered, ended, and ratified. And even so in your own place, a little before, having proved invincibly by the Scriptures, that the Father & the Son are unius eiusdemue substantiae, of one and the same substance, he saith immediately: This is that Homoousion which against the Arrian heretics was in the Nicene Council ratified of the Catholic fathers, veritatis authoritate & authoritatis veritate, not only by authority of truth (as yourself do grant) but also by truth of authority, (which you deny.) It followeth: Which Homoousion afterwards in the Council of Atiminum, heretical impiety under the heretical Emperor Constantius endeavoured to infirm, But all in vain, For soon after the liberty of the Catholic faith prevaiing, Homoousion was defended universally. Then come the words that you allege: Sed nunc nec ego Nicenum, nec tu debes Ariminense tanquam praeiudicaturus proferre concilium. But now (in this disputation between us two, being upon the matter itself in itself) as it were to prejudicate, neither must I allege the Council of Nice, nor thou the Council of Ariminum. For so that Arrian Bishop Maximinus being both to encounter with S. Augustine upon the matter itself, said in the very beginning of the disputation: If thou demand my faith, I hold that faith which at Ariminum of three hundred and thirty Bishops was not only notified, but also by their subscriptions ratified. 
Au. contra Max. li. 1. in principio.  Therefore S. Augustine said as before, and further as followeth. Nec ego huius authoritate, nec tu illius detineris. Neither doth the authority of the one hold me, nor of the other hold thee. Where your false translation maketh him to say, that the Arrian was not bounden to the authority of the Nicene Council, contrary to that which he said afore, calling it veritatem authoritatis, the truth of authority. Therefore they were bound to it, as you also now be bound to the Tridentine Council: but they would not be holden within their bounds, as neither you will. And therefore it was to no more purpose to allege against them that of Nice, than it is to allege against you this of Trent, specially they having that of Ariminum to pretend for them, such a one as you (being of all great Heresies, the beggerliest) have none. Neither would we in the like altercations allege against you the old Counsels, if you would plainly confess them to be against you, so as you do confess the Tridentine to be against you, and so as the Arrians did confess the Nicene to be against them. Whereupon S. Augustine there saith: By authorities of the Scriptures, being witnesses not proper to one side, but common to both, let matter try with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason. The like would we by his ensample in the like case say to you: in the mean time also not refusing to answer all that you can allege, be it Scripture, be it Council, or whatsoever else, as in this book you find: nor requiring you to answer any private witnesses, but only common, considering that not we only, but you also (whatsoever you say of only Scripture) do make claim for all that and appeal to the first 600. years, namely your jewel, in those two Goticall Sermons of his at Paul's cross Anno 1560.  
The other places also that you allege out of Augustine for this general part, are but particular, and concern no more but that one question of the Church, whereof your second part was: as this former place concerned no more but the question of the Trinity. And therefore your probation is not so large, as your affirmation, where you say, that although Augustine prove against the Pelagians by the prayers of the Church, 
Pur. 349.  yet he doth not mean to defend, that whatsoever the visible Church receiveth, is true: and therefore all other persuasions set aside, he provoketh only to the Scriptures, to try the faith & doctrine of the Church. How true that is, appeareth by the very same book De unitate Ecclesiae, out of which you go about to show such provoking of his. for there, when he hath proved against the Donatists, the Church to be his, he saith expressly, that to be enough also for all other questions. 
Aug. de unitate Eccl. cap. 18.19.  Sufficit nobis. etc. It is enough for us, that we have that Church, which is pointed to by most manifest testimonies of the Holy and Canonical Scriptures.  
And touching the very question itself of the Church again, what do you allege out of him? what you gather of his saying, I see, 
Ar. 13.14.  for you say: By this Augustine declareth, first that Heretics must be confuted only by the Scriptures: and secondly, that neither Counsels, Succession of Bishops, Universality, Miracles, Visions, Dreams nor revelations, are the notes to try the Catholic Church, but only the Scriptures. So you gather, but he saith not so. 
Au. de uni. Eccl. ca 16.  Removeantur omnes moratoriae tergiversationes, saith he: Away with all dilatory drawinges back: such as is Quicquid de peccatis hominum obijcitur, all that the Donatist Bishop objecteth of certain men's crimes. Also when he saith for his Church, Verum est, quia hoc ego dico. It is true, because I say this: or, because this said that felowbishop, or those felowbishops of mine, or, those Bishops (in their Counsels) or Clerks or Lay of ours: aut ideo verum est, or, therefore it is true, because such and such marvels did Donatus, (who was as it were their Luther,) or Pontius, (as it were their calvin,) or any other: or, because men do pray at the memories of our departed & be hard, or, because this and that there doth happen: or, because such a brother of ours or such a sister of ours, saw such a vision waling, or dreamt such a dream sleeping. Removeantur ista, Away with these dilatories: and let them show their Church in the Canonical authority of the Holy books. Nec ●ta, ut ea colligant etc. Neither so as to gather & rehearse those places which are obscure or ambiguous or figurative, that every man may interpret them as he list after his own sense. But bring you forth some place so manifest that it needeth no interpreter. 
Ar. 13. Pur. 333.  Because neither we do say, that men ought to believe us that we are in the Church, for that, that the Church which we hold hath been commended by Optatus of Milevis, or by Ambrose of milan (as now, by Fisher of Rochester, or Hosius of warms) or by other innumerable Bishops of our communion: or because she hath been set forth by Councils of our fellowbishopps. For these were private to S. Augustine's side, as those other bishops and Councils were private to the Donatistes' side. So are they not now, but both sides, we and you, do claim them. And therefore now better cause to allege them, even also in the question of the Church, than was in S. Augustine's time: how be it then also he might well have alleged them, although in that book he did not, and saith he did not. For in them was veritas authoritatis, truth of authority, as here above pag. (179.) he said to the Arrian, and no less also to the Donatists. It followeth on further (as you also allege) Aut quia per totum orbem, 
Moracles and visions.  or Because over all the world in the Holy places that our communion doth frequent, so great Miracles partly of exauditions, partly of curinge, are done, in so much that the bodies of (Geruasius and Protasius) Martyrs, which lay hidden so many years (they were Martyred in the Apostles time) were revealed (as if they will ask, they may hear of many) unto Ambrose, and that at the same bodies, one that had been many years blind, very well known in the City of milan, received his eyes and eye sight. Or because such a man had a dream, and such a man in Spirit heard a voice, that he should not enter into the side of Donatus, or that he should go out from the side of Donatus Where he addeth of these miracles and visions, saying: Whatsoever such things are done in the Catholic Church, therefore they are to be allowed, because they are done in the Catholic Church, (otherwise not, be they done in Donates' side, or in Luther's, or in Caluines.) Non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica, quia haec in ea siunt, But not thereby is the catholic church made manifest, because these things are done in her. You translate it, that she is not proved thereby, as though S. Augustine said, that also true allowed Miracles & visions (whereby in the Scripture also itself we see Christ himself and so many other things purposely proved) lack weight and fashion of just probation. Whereas in deed he saith no more of them, than he saith of Scripture which is obscure: not that it wanteth authority to prove the Church, but that it doth not make the Church manifest, requiring therefore the Donatists to bring such Scripture, as needeth no interpreter, Sicut non eget interpret. Which we allege (saith he) out of so many most manifest places for the Church beginning at Jerusalem, and thence growing on continually over all Nations even till doomsday. Such Scriptures do make the Church manifest: but so do not obscure Scriptures, until the interpretation be allowed: Neither Miracles and visions, until they be allowed. Now the Donatists would none of the Catholic Church in their time: but both we and you confess it. And therefore when we allege the Miracles done in it, you have not to except against us by this place of S. Augustine. And that again, because we also do appeal with him to such & the same Scriptures for manifest trial of the Church, so that my v●ry first demand is thereof: though we use also other probations, to show that Scripture and all is for us, and nothing for you. As he also doth, where he saith to the Manichees upon the same matter: 
Aug. con. ep. Fund. ca 4.  In Catholicae Ecclesiae, etc. Many things there be, which in the Catholic Church's lap most worthily do keep me. There keepeth me, Consensio, Consent of peoples and Nations: There keepeth me, Authoritas, Authority, by Miracles begun, nourished by Hope, by Charity increased, by Antiquity made firm and sure: There keepeth me Successio Sacerdotum, Succession of Priests from the very See of Peter the Apostle, (to whom our Lord after his Resurrection committed the feeding of his sheep) even to the Bishop that now is: There keepeth me finally, 
john. 21.  ipsum Catholicae nomen, the very name Catholic, which not without cause among so many Heresies this Church alone hath obtained, Ista ergo tot, etc. These then so many & so great most dear bonds of Christian calling, do well keep the man that believeth in the Catholic Church, although as yet he understand not the truth which he believeth.  
To which place of S. Augustine you pretend to answer, saying unto us: All this, you will say, maketh exceeding much for us: 
Ar. 69.70.  yea but hear that which followeth: Apud vos autem, etc. But with you (Manichées and Protestants) where there is none of these to allure me and keep me, sola personat veritatis pollicitatio, there ringeth only a promising of truth. Then to your purpose as you think: quae quidem si tam manifesta monstratur, etc. Which truth if it be showed so manifest, that it can not come in doubt, is to be preferred (I grant) before all those things, by which I am holden in the Catholic Church. And what of this? By this you may plainly see (quoth you) that though Consent, (and universality) Antiquity, Succession, and the name Catholic, be good confirmation, when they are joined with the truth: yet when a truth is severed from them, it is more to be regarded than they all. As though S. Augustine granted, that the truth might be severed from them. Where he plainly saith, also most sincere wisdom, syncerissimam sapientiam, that is, truth and understanding of it without all corruption, to be in the said Catholic Church, though the Heretics will not believe so much, but think that the Catholics are gross heads, and blind followers of men's commandments. But themselves, though destitute of all that should move any man to be of their side, yet to have the truth most manifestly and without all doubt. For that cause S. Augustine joineth with them in that book, and answereth their foundations, as I do yours in this book, showing that all this glorious talking of truth, is but wind of vain words.  
One such place more you allege twice to the same purpose. 
Ar. 14. Pur. 203.  De pastoribus, cap. 14. To a strayshepe seeking the Church what say you, Sir Donatist? Partis Donati est Ecclesia. The piece of Donatus hath the Church. Read me that out of the Scriptures, out of the Shepherds voice. For out of them do I recite Ecclesiam toto orb diffusam, The Church which is not any man's piece, but (beginning at Jerusalem) spreadeth over all the world. Sed illi codices tradiderunt, But (thou sayest) such men traitorously delivered the holy books to Dioclesian's ministers, and such men offered incense to the Idols, such a one and such a one. Quid ad me de illo & de illo? What is that to me of such a one & such a one? quia nec de illis vocem pastoris annuntias, For it is thyself that accusest them. But tell me the shepherds voice, if that voice accuse one, I believe it, alijs non credo, other accusers I do not believe. Sed acta proferes, But thou wilt bring forth Court rolls, wherein their crimes are registered. Acta profero, And I also bring forth Court rolls, wherein the same men's innocency is registered. Credamus tuis? crede & tu meis, Shall we believe thine? believe thou mine also. Non credo tuis: noli credere meis. I do not believe thine: and I give thee leave also not to believe mine. Auferantur chartae humanae: sonent voces divinae. Let men's Court papers be removed: and let Gods sayings be rehearsed. Ede mihi unam Scripturam pro part Donati, give me one place of Scripture for the piece of Donatus, or of Luther, or of calvin, or of any other broken piece. Audi innumerabiles pro orb terrarum, But for the Church of the whole world, I am ready to rehearse innumerable places. Now what maketh all this for Fulke? unless he think he hath any vantage in his own false translation of Acta, turning it Decrees. Yea doth it not make against him most invincibly, as all the rest also that S. Augustine hath written against the Donatists for his Church & ours? that is, for the Church beginning at Jerusalem, and thence spreading over all Nations to the very last time, even in the same manner altogether as it had done to S. Augustine's time?   

iij About certain Traditions.  
Upon this question of Only Scripture I have stood long, because Only Scripture & Only faith are with the Protestants all in all, howbeit they have neither Scripture nor Faith. Now to dispatch other questions very briefly, against certain Traditions Fulke allegeth, saying: Beatus Rhenanus a Papist, and a great Antiquary, affirmeth, that by the Canons of the Nicene Council and other Counsels, which he hath seen in Libraries, those oblations pro Natalitijs, with other superstitions that Tertullian fathereth upon Tradition of the Apostles, were abrogated. As touching oblations pro Natalitijs, I have answered in the sixth Chapter. 
Cap. 6. par. 1. v.  But as for abrogation of any other Traditions, Rhenanus hath never a word.   

iiij About the marriage of Votaries.  
For the marriage of such as have vowed virginity, 
Ar. 45. Pur. 22.23.  you allege one place of Epiphanius thrice, & another of S. Hieromes twice, and all about a matter that we hold even as they did. Thus you say: Epiphanius, 
Hpiph. li. 2 Haer. 61.  although he count it an offence to marry after their vow (therein he is with us you know) yet he saith, (speaking of such as secretly live in fornication sub specie solitudinis aut continentiae) under the colour of vowed singleness or continency) It is better to marry then to burn (that first is not in Epiphanius). Melius est itaque unum peccatum habere, & non plura, It is better to have one sin rather than many. It is better for him that is fallen from his course (wherein he began to run for the Crown of Virginity) openly to take a wife according to the law, & a virginitate multo tempore poenitentiam agere, and a long time to repent (to do penance for breaking) that vow of his virginity, and so (having done his full penance) to be brought again into the Church (out of the which he was cast as an excommunicate person for breaking his vow) as one that hath done amiss, as one that is fallen, and broken, and having need to be bound: rather than to be wounded daily with privy darts, of that wickedness which the devil putteth into him. So knoweth the Church to preach: Haec sunt sanationis medicamenta, These are the medicines of healing. Whereof you gather, and say, that Epiphanius calleth marriage of such men, an wholesome medicine, contrary to that you confess yourself that he calleth it a sin, (for so doth the Apostles Tradition, saith he) unless perhaps you think Sin to be an wholesome medicine. No sir, the wholesome medicines are his long penance, and his reconcilement to the Church again. But at the least (say you) Epiphanius alloweth marriage in them, whereas the Popish Church did separate them from their wives in queen Mary's time. After a solemn vow, (which is made but only two ways, by taking holy orders, & by professing some common approved rule of Religion) to marry, is 
* Chry. ep. 6 ad Theod. Monachun lapsum. Basil. lib. de virginitate.  no marriage, and thereupon it is that no Doctor can be alleged which alloweth it for marriage, if Priests or such professed Monks and Nuns do marry. But the sole vow of virginity, and of widowhood, is none of those two, and therefore but a simple vow: and therefore to marry after it, although it be a great mortal sin, yet the marriage holdeth. So saith Epiphanius, and so say we, as some widows in England having taken the mantle and the ring, and marrying afterwards, can bear us witness, whose marriage we have allowed of (though they may not use it so freely without just dispensation, as other married Folk, and as their husbands may, because of their vow) and cured them by penance & reconciliation, altogether as Epiphanius here witnesseth of the Church in his time.  

Hie. ad Demetriad. tom. 1.  So is it likewise of the simple vow of virginity, that S. Jerome speaketh, saying: The name of certain virgins, which behave themselves not well, doth slander the holy purpose of virgins, and the glory of the heavenly and angelic family. To whom must be plainly said, ut aut nubant, that either they marry, if they can not contain, or else contain, (suing to God to give them strength) if they will not marry. We say the same to the same, and generally to all others, which of two sins will needs commit one, counselling them rather to commit the lesser than the greater: As for example, to say that they will come to your schismatical and Heretical service, when the Commissioners require no more, rather than to come unto it in deed: not omitting to tell them withal, that they should neither so much as say they will come, because that also is a sin, and a mortal sin: as Epiphanius told those virgins, that their marriage also is sin.   

v. About the Real presence, and Transubstantiation.  
About the blessed vivificall Sacrament of the Altar you allege one Doctor against the Real presence, and three others against Transubstantiation.  

Pur. 326.  It was not the belief of S. Augustine, nor of any other in that time (you say) that the Sacrament is the natural body and blood of Christ. As though it were the mystical body of Christ, which is his Church: Unless you find more than these two, his natural body, and his mystical body. Or, as though it were not his natural body which was the morrow after his Supper to die for us, and his natural blood which was to be shed for us. When will you ever admit any text for plain and evident Scripture, standing so obstinately against these most clear words of Christ, This is my Body, that is given (and broken) for you, Luc. 22.1. Cor 11. This is my blood (Mat. 26. Mar. 14.) that is shed for you (and for many. (Luc. 22. Mat. 26. Mar. 14. And what a gross blindness is this, considering the infinite difference between bread and Christ, to think, that being in S. Augustine's time taken for bread, it could afterward in all Christendom be taken for Christ himself, and that without all contradiction? whereas also at this time you the Sacramentaries, could not change the doctrine of it from Christ to bread, but heaven and earth crieth out against you for it, not the Catholics alone, but also the Lutherans.  
But S. Augustine forsooth saith: 
Pur. 3●8.  Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis etc. I will recite the whole circumstance, that the world may see your dealing. 
Aug. in Ps. 98.  I find (saith he) how without Idolatry earth may be adored, without Idolatry Christ's footstool may be adored. For he took earth of earth: because flesh is of earth, and of Mary's flesh he took flesh. Et quia in ipsa carne hic ambulavit, et ipsam carnem nobis manducandam, etc. And because he walked here in the same flesh, and gave to us the same flesh to eat for our salvation, and no man eateth that flesh but first he adoreth (it:) we have found, how such a footstool of our Lords may be adored, and not only we sin not in adoring (it) but we sin in not adoring (it.) See now how properly Fulk answereth hereunto: Augustine in deed alloweth the adoration of the body of Christ whereof that is a Sacrament, but neither can you prove out of that place, that he would have the Sacrament honoured, nor that the Sacrament is the very body of Christ. As though the same flesh which he took of the Virgin Marie, and in which he walked, is not his very body, for, the same (saith he) we eat, and we adore it before we eat, bowing and prostrating ourselves even to every particular holy host, as now in the Catholic Churches you know, and as S. Augustine witnesseth of his time. For it followeth in most manifest words: Et ad terram quamlibet cum te inclinas atque prosternis, non quasi terram intuearis, And when thou dost bow and prostrate thyself unto any earth, do not consider as it were (bare) earth: Sed illum Sanctum, but that holy one whose footstool it is that thou adorest. Et cum adoras illum, ne cogitatione remaneas in carne, Also when thou adorest him, let not thy thought rest in flesh: So as they that thought the same an hard saying, Unless a man eat my flesh, 
joan. 6.  he shall not have everlasting life. Acceperunt illud stultè, they took it foolishly, they thought it carnally, and imagined that our Lord would cut off certain pieces from his body, and give to them. Whereas they should have said to themselves, Non sine causa dicit hoc, etc. He saith not this without cause, but because some hidden Sacrament is therein. For so he instructed the twelve that did stick unto him, when the other had for misliking that saying, played the Apostates: Understand spiritually that which I spoke. You shall not eat this Body which you see, and drink that blood which they shall shed that shall crucify me: that is, you shall not eat it & drink it in such form (so as these others imagined.) I commended unto you (in those words) some Sacrament, that is, such a thing as being spiritually understood, will give you life. Although needs it must be visibly celebrated (by the visible forms of bread and wine,) yet it must be invisibly understood, to be not the thing which is seen in the celebration, but which is not seen, to wit, my very body and blood, my very flesh taken of the Virgin. In so much that young children (Infants) in S. Augustine's time at celebrations of the Sacraments, 
August. de Trin. lib. 3. ca 10.  being told with most grave authority, whose body and blood it is, will think nothing else, but our Lord verily to have appeared in that form to the eyes of men: and that liquor verily to have flowed out of such a side being stricken: if they never learn by their own or others experience (as striking it, and yet no blood flow out of it) and never see that form of things but at Celebrations of the Sacraments when it is offered (to God) and ministered (to the receivers:) because they know not that which is set on the Altar, and after the holy Canon is consumed, whence or how it is made (by consecration: like as no man knoweth, how the Angels made or assumpted those clouds and fires to signify that which they did announce, though the Lord or the holy Ghost was showed by those corporal forms.) And therefore those children would imagine that Christ appeared here, and suffered in no other form, hearing that this in the Sacrament is his body, and his blood which was shed for us. Now cometh Fulke, and gathereth clean contrary to D. Allen, as if S. Augustine said, 
Pur. 309.  that these children would imagine nothing of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, whereas he saith plainly, that hearing thus his presence in the Sacrament, and that in such sort that it is his blood which was shed, they would imagine of no other form of his appearing & suffering: signifying as plainly that they needed only to be instructed of his other form, and not of any difference at all otherwise between himself in his appearing and suffering, and himself in this Sacrament.  
The next Doctor may be justinus Martyr, of whose words you gather against Transubstantiation, thus: 
Ar. 60.  Here he plainly affirmeth, that the substance of ●he Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of our bodies. Therefore it remaineth still after consecration. That will appear by his own words, which being truly translated are these (in his second Apology for the Christians, to the Heathen Emperor Antonius Pius:) This meat with us is called Eucharistia. To the which none is admitted, but such as believeth our doctrine to be true, and is washed with the Laver for remission of sins and to regeneraration, and so believeth as Christ hath taught. And why such reverence? For we take not these as the common bread and a common cup: but even as our Saviour jesus Christ being through God's word incarnate, had flesh and blood for our salvation: Sic etiam per verbum precationis quod ab ipso est sacratam alimoniam quae mutata nutrit nostras carnes & sanguinem, illius incarnati jesu carnem & sanguinem esse didicimus: So we have learned in the Gospels, that the meat which being changed nourisheth our flesh's and blood, being consecrated through his word of prayer, is the flesh and blood of that jesus incarnate. He saith not here that the substance of the Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of our bodies, as you pretend: but clean against you he showeth, that it is not absurd, bread and wine to be turned into the flesh & blood of Christ, seeing that every day usually they be turned by nature into our flesh and blood, when we take them at dinner and supper for our nourishment: and that to be done by the divine word, seeing that by God's word he took the same flesh and blood of the Virgin Marie.  

Ar. 59  You gather likewise of Ireneus his words, and say: Here you see plainly that Ireneus affirmeth, the Sacrament after the Consecration to consist of the earthly substance of bread. He doth not so affirm. He there treateth against the old Heretics, who said, 
Iren. li. 4. cap. 34.  all these bodily creatures, yea and our own bodies also, not to be of Gods making, who is the Father of Christ our Lord, but of another God whom they call the Creator, & counted him an ill one, and so likewise all his works to be evil, and our bodies not to rise again. But this cannot stand with the Eucharist (saith Ireneus: 
Et li. 4. c. 32 & li. 5. ) seeing there, to make an oblation to the father, the Creator's creatures, (that is, bread and wine,) are taken and made the body and blood of Christ, and our flesh is nourished to incorruption of the same body and blood. But our doctrine (saith he) is consonant to the Eucharist in the oblation. (Offerimus enim ei quae sunt eius, for, holding Christ's father to be the Creator, we offer to him the things that are his, whereas the Heretics cupidum alieni ostendunt eum, do make him greedy of another's, for that he hath commanded an oblation to be made to him of the Creator's Creatures, himself not being the Creator:) Et Eucharistia rursus confirmat nostram sententiam, and again the Eucharist in the receiving confirmeth our doctrine of the resurrection, congruenter communicationem & unitatem praedicantes carnis & spiritus, considering that agreeable to it we teach joining and union of flesh and spirit. quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis, praecipiens vocationem dei ●am non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena & caelesti: sic & corpora nostra, percipientia Eucharistiam, iam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia. For like as the bread which is of earth, receiving God's invocation (that is, the words of Consecration,) now is not common bread as in substance also it was before,) but Eucharistia consisting of two things, one earthly (which before he called carnem, the flesh of Christ under the form of earthly bread, as also S. Augustine above page calleth it earth, both in that form, and also in his own form) the other heavenly, (which before he called spiritum because it is the Godhead: so also our bodies receiving the Eucharist, now are not corruptible, having hope of resurrection, and therefore now consisting as it were of two things, so as the Eucharist doth, earthly and heavenly, flesh and spirit. Which his comparison is very excellent, yet as all comparisons and similitules, unlike in some things: because the heavenly thing is in the Eucharist in re, in deed, in our bodies only in spe, in hope. And there it is a substance, to wit, the Godhead: here but a quality, to wit, the glory of the resurrection. Again the earthly thing there, to wit, Christ's flesh, is under the form of the former common bread, without the substance of the same: here the earthly thing, to wit, our flesh after receiving, is under the form of the former corruptible bodies with the substance, yea and also with the corruptibility of the same bodies. The likeness, for which he made the comparison, is between the two receiving, and the operations of the two things received: For the bread receiveth, and our bodies receive, though again differently. And the words of consecration which the bread receiveth, worketh marvelously, and the Eucharist which our bodies receive, worketh marvelously, though again differently, as I have said.  
Your last Doctor is Theodoret, Whose words (you say) be directly against Transubstantiation. If they were so, 
Pur. 307. Theod. in poly. mor. dial. 2.  it were nothing to the matter in itself, as I told you in the beginning of this Chapter, and specially this being such a matter, as some ancient Father (all yet agreeing universally upon the Real presence) might be ignorant of, considering that some late schoolmen, also after the Church had declared for transubstantiation of the bread, thought notwithstanding, that they might hold some part of the breads substance to remain, either the matter (as it doth in all substantial transmutations of nature) or else the substantial form, until this last Council at Trent declared therefore further, that the Church meaneth by Transubstantiation, the turning of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of the blood of Christ. Sess. 13. ca 4. But because I there said, that your Apostasy hath no patron at all among the old Doctors in no article, (so inexcusable it is both of you, and of your followers,) and that remembering well at the same time this place of Theodoret: you shall hear what I can say thereunto: although the Lutherans might better allege it then you  
First the Catholic asketh: Mystica Symbola, quae deo a dei Sacerdotibus offeruntur, quorumnam dicis esse Symbola? The mystical likenesses, which Gods priests do offer to God (that is, the body and blood of Christ under the forms of bread and wine) Whose likenesses be they? The Eutychian Heretic answereth: The likenesses of the body and blood of our Lord in their own forms. Thereupon the Catholic inferreth, Ergo our Lord's body in his own form, is yet also a true body, and not turned into the nature of Divinity, though filled with Divine glory: Oportet enim imaginis esse exemplar archetypum, for an image must have a pattern that is.  
The Heretic there thinketh that the example of these mysteries maketh rather for him, and saith: Nay rather, As these likenesses of our lords body and blood, Alia quidem sunt, are one thing before the priests Invocation, to wit, bread and wine, but after the Invocation are turned, and be made other things, to wit, Christ's body and Christ's blood: So also our lords body after his assumption is turned into the divine substance, being therefore extant no more in his own form. The Catholic answereth saying: Nay, you are caught in your own net. Neque enim signa, etc. For the mystical signs do not after consecration depart (to sense, as you teach of Christ's body after his ascension) from their nature. For they abide (to sense) in their former substance, and figure, and form, and may be seen and felt as before. Intelliguntur autem ea esse quae facta sunt, & creduntur: But to understanding (though not to sense) and to faith, they be the things which they are made: & adorantur ut quae illa sint quae creduntur, and they be adored (by inclination and prostration, as we heard afore out of S. Augustine, because Fulke saith here, Not by any knocking or kneeling) as being in deed the things which they are believed. Thus it is in the Mysteries, being liknesses or an image. Therefore the verity in like manner (saith he) that is, our Lord's body in heaven, habet priorem quidem formam, etc. Hath pardie the former form, and figure, and circumscription, and (to say all at once) the body's substance: though it be after the Resurrection made immortal and incorruptible, and sitting at God's right hand, and adored of all creatures. Meaning (as you see) by substance of the bread and substance of the body, all that is external, as figure, form, circumscription, etc. Which we in English do by a like term call the boulke of a thing. As for the interior substance, that question belonged to his Incarnation, not to his assumption, whereof now they talk. Neither may any Logician think it strange for the word Substantia to be so used, if he consider well, how the word Corpus is used in the predicament of Quantity, though it be otherwise a species of Substantia.  
But the mystical likeness (saith the Heretic) changeth at the least his former calling. For it is no more named, that which it was termed before, but it is called Body. Therefore also the verity in heaven must be called God, and not Body. Not so, saith the Catholic: It is named not only Corpus, Body, but also panis vitae, Bread of life. And so likewise the body in heaven, we name it Divinum corpus, & vivisicum, & dominicum, docentes non esse commune alicuius hominis, etc. The divine and vivificall, and Dominical body, teaching that it is not a common one of some man's, but our Lords jesus Christ, who is God and man. Where you see, that such a difference as he putteth between our common bodies and our Lord God's body, the like he putteth between common bread and this bread of life, which therefore with him is Christ's body under the form of bread (being thereby become as properly bread, as common bread is bread) and not the common substance of common bread, which no man can say to be bread of life.   

vj. About the Sacrament of Penance.  
Now to approach nearer to Purgatory, about the Sacrament of Penance the Church of God saith four things. First, that by the priests absolution the guilt of sin is remitted, and so the penitent reconciled to God, and therefore pardoned the eternal pain of hell. Secondly, that after this remission: for all that, he may yet be in debt of some temporal pain. Thirdly, that he may and must pay the same temporal debt by works of Satisfaction. Fourthly, that upon good cause a Bishop may pardon it in part, and the Pope wholly. Against these four points Fulke allegeth, saying:  

Absolution.  

Pur, 168.  But what availeth this submission (to God's ministers) when the Priest doth not by his Absolution take away one hours torments in Purgatory, as both M. Allen himself in effect confesseth, and the master of Sentences also teacheth. It availeth to take away the eternal torments of hell. Is that nothing with you? When you be in them, your saucy tongue would give all the world for the least touch of the finger's end of God's Priests, whom now in your heretical pride you despise far more than the rich jew did poor Lazarus.   

Temporal debt remaining after Absolution.  
Against the second you allege Augustine and chrysostom, even against themselves, for in the third chapter pag. 16. you confessed them both to stand for Purgatory, which implieth debt of pain after remission of sins. But go to, what saith Austin? He saith (quoth you) of the deaths of Moses & Aaron, 
Pur. 42. Aug. in vet. Test. lib. 4. ca 53  that they were signs of things to come, not punishments of God's displeasure. This is your sincerity. His words immediately afore be these: When it is said to them,  apponantur ad populum suum, that they should be gathered to their people: It is manifest, that they be not in the wrath of god, which separateth from the peace of the holy eternal society. And thereby it is manifest, that also their deaths were signs of things to come, which things he there declareth) and not punishments of God's indignation. You see how precisely he speaketh, to wit, of God's wrath & indignation which punisheth by death to separate from his people for ever: lest he should have spoken contrary to the most manifest text, and to himself a little before, where he said, that God foretold them both, quod ideo non intrarent, that therefore they should not enter into the land, quia non eum sanctificaverunt, because they doubted of his gift that water could flow of a Rock. And so is the text itself most evidently: 
Nu. 20.27. Deut. 32.  You shall not bring this people into the land, but you shall die, because you did not believe me, because you offended me, because you trespassed against me. And yet you will not grant, that for their sin, the fault being remitted: they were punished by death. These are they that will not stand against evident Scripture.  
Likewise about the example of David you say: 
Pur. 43.  I would wish no better authority of the ancient Fathers, then even that which M. Allen himself allegeth out of Augustine contra Faustum li. 22. cap. 67. that the punishment of David was, flagelli paterni disciplina, the chastisement of God's fatherly scourge: as he doth most plainly declare the same in his book De pec. mer. ac rem. li. 2. ca 23. Is such authority so good to prove that after the fault is forgiven, that is, after the son is received again into favour, no pain is owing? Belike than you scourge your children that offend not, aswell as them that have offended, and them also that have offended, you scourge not only after that you have received them again into favour, but also after that you have pardoned them all punishment. Then surely are you as wise a father, as a divine. No reasonable man, but hearing of a father's scourge, would by & by gather of it, punishment for some offence, where you gather the contrary, A father's scourge, ergo no punishment. But your author S. Augustine doth not so. In the chapter before commending his humility sub flagello dei, 
2. Reg. 16.  under God's scourge, when Semei so devilishly reviled him, he reporteth how David said, Meritis suis hoc redditum superno judicio, That this was executed upon him by God's judgement for his deserts, that is, for the same matters of Urias, whereof he speaketh in the place by you alleged out of the Chapter following, and saith, that the Prophet Nathan told him, quòd acceperit veniam, that he had forgiveness, ad sempiternam quidem salutem, as to everlasting salvation But notwithstanding, as God had threatened him, flagelli paterni disciplina non est praetermissa, The fatherly scourges chastisement was not omitted: to the end, that both for his confession of his sin, he might be delivered everlastingly, and by such affliction he might be tried temporally. Where also he commendeth him for not murmuring against God, as if he had sent him a false pardon of his sins. Intelligebat enim, etc. For by his profound wisdom he understood, but that God was gracious to him confessing and repenting, how worthy his sins were of everlasting pains, for the which (sins) being beaten with temporal corrections, he saw that unto him continued the forgiveness, and Physic withal not neglected. So expressly he saith that he was beaten for his sins, for his deserts, although withal it was Physic for him and probation. Neither in the other place De pec. mer. doth he say the contrary. For these be his words: That forgiveness of his sins was granted, that he might not be stopped from receiving life everlasting: and yet the effect of that same threatening followed, that his godliness might in that humility be exercised and proved: not only, but also (as he said in another place) that he might thereby be beaten temporally for his deserts: though he express not this cause also in this place, for that he had here to answer the Pelagians, and show some cause, why death, if it came only by sin (by original sin,) remaineth still upon all men, even them also whose original sins are so fully forgiven in Baptism, that they own nothing, neither eternally, neither temporally, for them.  

Pur. 43.  But for a flat conclusion contradictory to M. Allens assertion, I will use (you say) the very words of chrysostom in the 8. Hom. upon the Epistle to the Rom. Vbi veni●, ibi nulla erit poena, Where there is forgiveness, there is no punishment, One may see by this, that you would use the Doctor's words as courageously as we do, if they were on your side, as they be on ours▪ But it cooleth your courage, because you are feign to confess them in many things to be plain against you: and not able neither to maintain that they be with you, when you pretend they be. As here S. chrysostom speaketh of the forgiveness given in Baptism to the jew passing from the wrath of the Law to the grace of Christ. But our assertion speaketh of the forgiveness given in the Sacrament of penance, to the Christian that hath shamefully dishonoured the grace of Christ. If such be contradictories with you, then as your Divinity is new, so is your Logic also new.   

Satisfaction.  

Pur. 87.  Against the third you allege chrysostom & Ambrose: but how fond, the very words that you allege, though we seek no further, 
Chryso. de compun. cordis. li. 1. in fine.  will declare. Non requirit Deus ciliciorum pondus, etc. God requireth not the burden of shirts of hear, (saith chrysostom) nor to be shut up in the straits of a little Cell, neque jubet, neither doth he command us to sit in obscure & dark Caves: this only it is which is required of us, that we always remember and acount our sins, etc. He there reproveth them▪ that 〈…〉 ●rie mourning for their own souls, quasi quidum 〈◊〉 labour sit, as if it were a labour intolerable. Therefore he saith, that God doth not command as necessary that 〈…〉 take himself to the strait ●mourning of Monks. 
〈…〉  And 〈◊〉 forsooth do tell us thereupon, that chrysostom ●f any man had 〈…〉 ●ther believe him, speaking of such kind of wo● 〈…〉 his fellows count to be the chief works of p●n, 〈…〉 that they serve not for satisfaction for our sins unto God 〈…〉 again: Therefore by Chrysostom's judgement, that 〈…〉 satisfaction of God's righteousness, nor any obedience of God's commandment, hath banished the Eremites, 〈…〉 Anachoretes, and cloyed the world with cloisterers: but the superstitious and slavish fear of Purgatory, and the blasphemous presumptuous pride of men's merits. Thus you take on as it were upon S. Chrysostom's saying, not considering that Demetrius was a Monk, to whom he there writeth, commending 〈◊〉 singularly for the very same works of penance: 
〈…〉  nor that chrysostom also himself was a Monk (and that by your own confession, and wrote a book which is extant, Aduersus vituperatores vitae Monasticae, Against the dispraisers of the Monastical life, that is, even against you also for saying as you do in this place.  
Again you say: 
Pur. 8●. A●. in 〈◊〉 22. li. 1●.  What S. Ambrose thinketh of that kind of satisfaction, whereof M. Allen speaketh, is plain by those words which he uttereth of Peter: Lachrymas eius lego, satisfactionem non lego. I read of his tears, I read not of his satisfaction. He uttereth these words also there immediately before: Non invenio quid dixerit, invenio quod fleverit: I find not what he said, I find that he wept. Whatsoever you gather hereof, he that readeth the place, must needs gather the contrary, so wit, that he thinketh Confession necessary, and satisfaction necessary: but that tears are both a special kind of confession, for Lachrymae crimen sine offensione verecundiae cō●tentur, Tears confess the crime without touch of shamefastness, quod voce pudor est consiter●▪ that to confess with voice is a shamefast thing: and also a special kind of Satisfaction, forLachrymae veniam, Tears though they do not ask pardon, they obtain it. Which yet again he saith not as though only tears would serve, but, Pete● opened not his mouth, lest so quick requesting of pardon might more offend. First we must weep, and then request. But a plain place to know what S. Ambrose thought of Penance and Satisfaction, is his whole book To the Virgin that had broken her vow, and namely these words, 
Ambro. ad virg. lapsan. ca 8. Pur. 84.  Grande s●elus grandem habet necessariam satisfactionem, For a passing great crime, is necessary a passing great satisfaction. Which words import none other thing (you say) but that an heinous offence must be earnestly bewailed, if repentance be not counterfeited. As though he there doubted lest her repentance were counterfeit, and not earnest: saying yet unto her, Tu quae iam ingressa es agonem poenitentiae, Thou who art already entered into the 
or, exercise  field of penance, with much more to the same effect: declaring (I say) that he took her penance to be unfeigned, as being well begun, but yet beside, that her whole life is little enough to make just satisfaction unto God.   

Pardons.  
Wherein he is so vehement, that you come again on the other side (touching our fourth Article) and pretend by the same word of his, that the Church can not pardon the penance or satisfaction which sinners do owe. Where I say nothing how you overthrow your own ignorant imagination, that the old Canonical satisfaction was only to satisfy the Church, 
ur. 8 5.  and not to satisfy God's justice. As though not only the Church, but also every private man may not pardon such kind of satisfaction as the sinner oweth to him, and hold himself contented with as little as he list. Therefore to omit this: He assureth her (you say) as Cyprian in his Sermon de Lapsis, doth the fallen men of his time, that forgiveness of sins is proper unto God only, and followeth not of necessity the sentence of men, but the sentence of men ought to follow the judgement of God. 
Pur. 73.  Alluding belike to the place where somewhat afore you alleged Cyprian, & gathered of his words, that not only he plainly denieth that absolute & sovereign authority of men, which M. Allen affirmeth, but also declareth what he meaneth by satisfaction of God, to wit, inward and hearty conversion.  
The two places in deed are like (although the fall of that Virgin was breaking of her vow, and the fall of those men was denying of Christ in persecution.) but they make not against Pardons, no neither of those most heinous sins, unless you think that the Churches binding is prejudicial to her lousing, both being given her of Christ. For what else doth S. Ambrose there, but bind that virgin (as being her Bishop) to do penance all her life? Inhaere poenitentiae usque ad extremam vitae, etc. Stick to penance even to the end of thy life, and presume not that pardon may be given thee of man's day, for he deceiveth thee that so promiseth thee. For thou that hast in special sinned against the Lord (because she was his vowed spouse) it is meet that of him only thou look for remedy in day of judgement. So that all her life he bindeth her to penance, bidding her not to hope for any pardon at his hands. The Emperor Theodosius he bond also, 
Theo. hist. li. 5. ca 17.  though indefinitely: but after eight months penance loosed him again with a pardon. Who seeth not that all this maketh plainly for pardons, and not against them?  
Likewise S. Cyprian in that Sermon, and in twenty Epistles at the least, maketh plainly for Pardons, in that he doth no more but reprove them that be given partly of such as had not authority to louse, at least those deniers, as of Lay martyrs, & of mere Priests: partly of such as had authority, but without cause, without moderation, and to unpenitent persons: partly & moste of all, both these defects concurring. But otherwise, although (being Primate of all Afrique) he reprehended a certain Bishop for giving pacem, peace to a certain Priest, 
Cyp. ep. 59  before he had done poenitentiam plenam, full penance, (which manifestly was a Pardon) contra decretum de Lapsis, contrary to the Counsels decree touching such deniers: Pacem tamen quomodocunque à Sacerdote dei, etc. Yet (saith he) being once given by 
a Bishop.  the Priest of God, in what manner soever, we will not revoke it: and therefore we permit Victor to enjoy the leave to communicate which hath been granted him. Notwithstanding that, to those Impenitents, trusting also but in lay men's pardons, he crieth as you allege: Nemo se fallat, etc. Let no man deceive himself, 
Cyp. sermo de Lapsis.  let no man beguile himself, only our Lord can give mercy: only he can grant pardon to sins as being committed against him. Homo Deo esse non potest maior, nec remittere aut donare indulgentia sua seruns potest, quod in dominum delicto graviore commissum est: ne adhuc lapso, & hoc accedat ad crimen, si nesciat esse praedictum, 
jere. 17.  maledictus homo, qui spem habet in homine. Man can not be greater than God (to loose the impenitent whom God bindeth) neither can the servant (who hath no commission) remit, in part, or forgive, in the whole, with his indulgence, that which by so great a fault was committed against the Lord: lest furthermore to the fallen person be added this crime also, if he be ignorant that it was forespoken, Cursed is the man that hath his trust in man. 
Mat. 10.  Dominus orandus est. Dominus nostra satisfactione placandus, qui negantem negare se dixit: Our Lord must be prayed unto, our Lord must by our satisfaction be pacified, who hath said, that he will deny his denier. His second Epistle is to those Martyrs in prison, instructing them not to give pardons themselves, nor to appoint the Bishops so or so to pardon him and his, and him and his, but to make their suit for those whose Poenitentia est Satisfactioni proxima, penance is very nigh to satisfaction, that is almost all fulfilled, and to remit the matter to the bishops power, 
Note the antiquity of pardons.  sicut in praeteritum semper sub Antecessoribus nostris factum est, As in time passed always it was done under our predecessors. And yet Epistle 54. the Council giveth a plenary to all the Deniers at once that were doing their penance, because of another persecution at hand. Epistle 52. he showeth Clerus Romanus, Sede vacant, appointed that the like pardon should be given to every one in extreme sickness. But I forget myself, to allege so much, being here only to answer.    

seven. Of Purgatory.  
This Chapter is grown to such length, and yet is Purgatory behind. But the gentle Reader will consider, I trust, how lightly any beast may trouble the pure water, but that it is not so soon cleared again: not doubting also but the variety passeth away his weariness. As I am likewise studious of method, to put all in convenient order, for the same cause. And the order that in this part I think good to follow, is, to speak first of the Church's practice, and then of particular Doctors.  

Of the Canonical memento of Oblations, and of Sacrifice for the dead practised by the Church.  
First then, to prove that for a certain space after the Apostles, there was no praying for the dead, at least in some Churches, this Companion reasoneth ab authoritate negative, negatively of the authority of justinus Martyr, and of Tertullian, (to which I must join Origen, Epiphanius, and a Council of Spain) though himself, unmindful in one place what he saith in another, plainly 
〈…〉 Pu●. ●  affirmeth, that such an argument even of all men's authority, is false.  
Therefore thus he saith: Seeing it is certain by testimony of justinus Martyr, that there was no mention of the dead in the celebration of the Lords Supper, 
〈…〉  for more than an hundred years after Christ: we must not believe chrysostom without Scripture affirming that it was ordained so by the Apostles. Well then, chrysostom your elder ones, affirmeth it as more at large you confessed the same in the 3. and 7. Chapters.) but you and certain of the contrary by his elder justinus. What be justinus his words? Where you recite them, you say again: 
Pur. 259.  By which it is manifest, that in those first and purer days there was ●o mention at all of Sacrifice for the dead. But no word so in justinus: Yea in reporting there the order of the 〈◊〉 ●ist, he saith expressly, that the Bishop is long about it, 
just. Apol. 2. in fine.  you also after he is com●●o Consecration. And when he hath ended Those prayers and the Consecration, all do answers Amen, as also at this day we see at the later Elevation, where the Consecration is concluded. In that long space you can find no time for memento domine defunctorum. But certain it is, and manifest (say you) that there was none, and that chrysostom and all his fellows must not be believed. You might as well say, that in S. Augustine's time also there was no mention of the dead, 
Aug. epist. 59 q. 5.  because he also reporteth sometimes the sum of the Canon without naming the dead: yea & that your own next witness Tertullian must not be believed, because he expresseth certain prayers, which justinus doth not. And yet between them two you find no repugnance, but set upon D. Allen, as afore upon S. chrysostom, with them both at once, saying: And where he saith, there was ever found in the celebration of the Sacrament, a solemn prayer for all the departed in Christ: To reprove his vanity, the order of prayers and administration of the Holy mysteries, 
Tert. in Apolog. adversus Gentes.  described by justinus, and of Tertullian also, do sufficiently declare, what was the usage of the christians in those purer times. Because there it is expressed for whom and what they prayed. Oramus etiam (saith Tertullian) pro Imperatoribus, pro ministris eorum, & potestatibus seculi, pro rerum quiet, pro mora finis. We pray also for the Emperors, for their officers, and powers of the world, for peace, for delay of the end. Do you not see, that in saying, we pray also for these, he signifieth that these were some, but not all they prayed for? as if he should say, Among other things we pray for these. Which other things he had not cause to express there, as he had cause to express these, to wit, for that the Christians were charged of the Heathen thus: Deos non colitis, & pro Imperatoribus sacrificia non impenditis. First, you do not worship the gods. Secondly, you do not bestow sacrifices (with the Heathen at certain appointed times) for the Emperors. Therefore making his Apology, he expresseth the Emperors & such persons & things as concerned their Roman Empire, as you may read more amply somewhat afore.  
This is a clear answer, and therefore enough. How much more, considering that yourself also confess, that Tertullian is against you. 
Pur. 369.  In so much that you are fain to say: To leave out of our Service, prayers and sacrifice for the dead, we have sure warrant by example of the eldest Church, & nearest to the Apostles times, as we have showed out of justinus Martyr, and Tertullian before he became an Heretic, meaning a Montanist. To which your cavil I have answered cap. 6. pag. 49. And therefore Tertullian standeth upright against you with your own confession more at large cap. 3. pag. 15.  
How much more again, considering that about the very same time Arnobius to the same purpose wrote thus: Cur immaniter nostra Conuenticula meruerunt dirui? 
Arnob. li. 4 contra Gentes, sub finem.  etc. Why deserved our Churches to be pulled down barbarously? in which the highest God is prayed unto, peace and pardon is asked for all men, for the Magistrates, for friends, for enemies, for the living, and for the dead? So expressly he saith, to confound your arguing out of others ab authoritate negatiuè.  
You joined Tertullian to justinus. The matter joineth also Epiphanius to them. Of him you say: 
Pur. 370.  It is easy to be gathered by Epiphanius, that the old form of Liturgy was but to make mention of the dead, to have them in remembrance. And because they used to make memory of all sorts of men that were dead in Christ, he expoundeth it according to the error of his time. That this memory was a prayer for the sinners, for the just, as patriarchs, Prophets, etc. a signification that they were inferior to Christ. A simple cause why they should be remembered (so that neither the old form of Liturgy liketh you in remembering the dead at all: 
Will you see a pure Puritan.  no more than the old oblations for the dead though they were only oblations of thanksgiving, for they were taken up of the Church in Tertullian and Montanus time by perverse emulation of the Gentiles, so you said cap. 6. pag. 53.) But this shift Epiphanius is driven unto, because he did not consider, that the memory and oblation which the old Fathers made for all the departed in Christ, was a sacrifice of thanks giving, and not of prayers for them. And again: They had in deed in elder time, 
Pur. 356.  as appeareth by Epiphanius, the name of oblation: but it was for the patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs. Which plainly showeth, that it was but an offering of thanks giving. You are deceived by thinking that it is but one memory whereof Epiphanius speaketh. Look in the Liturgy of S. james, as also of S. Basil, and of S. chrysostom, & divers places of S. Augustine's, and you shall find two distinct memories. And therefore Epiphanius saith: 
Epip. Hier. 75. Aerij li. 3. tom. 1.  Et pro justis, & pro peccatoribus memoriam facimus, Both for the just, and for the sinners we make memory. And that by tradition of the Apostles, as he there saith against your friend Aerius. Pro peccatoribus quidem, misericordiam dei implorantes, For sinners pardie requesting Gods mercy. Which is not his exposition, as you pretend, but the very words of the Tradition, that is, of the memory itself. Pro justis verò, etc. For the just both Fathers and patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, and Confessors, Bishops also, and Anchoretes, and for every order:  D. I. Christum ab hominum ordine separemus, To the end we may separate our Lord jesus Christ from men's order, pondering in our mind, that our Lord is not egalled to any man, although a thousand times, & upward, that man do live in justice. For how is it possible? for he is God, and the other is a man. Which reason of his was to deep for your divinity. He saw that the like memory might be made also for our Lord himself, if it were but a thanks giving. And therefore not being made for him likewise, he conceived that the Apostles had another reason therein, so to separate the just from Christ, & not only the sinners from the just. Although otherwise when the just & the sinners are not separated, but joined both together in some one Collet of the Church, than (as S. Augustine said ca 3. pag. 16.) the same one Collet is at once a propitiation for the sinners, and a thanks giving for the just.  
Now to the place of Origen, which is another of your trumps that you trust so much in, 
Pur. 249.427.  saying: This one testimony of Origen shall testify, what the judgement of the Greek Church was concerning Purgatory and prayers for the dead, from the Apostles time unto his days. And yet you are fain to confess not only thus in the same place, I wot well superstition in the Latin Church was somewhat forwarder: but also of Origen himself in another place, 
Pur. 116. Orig. in je. Ho. 12. In Num. ho. 25. In psal. 36. ho. 3. Ori. in job. lib. 3.  & to say: But howsoever he doteth about passage through fire, and purifications after this life: yet he affirmeth in another place, that the day of Christian men's death is the deposition of pain. Whereby it appeareth, that either he was not constant with himself, or else that origen's Purgatory was a paynlesse Purgatory. Why? speaketh he of any pains, but the pains of this life? Mark his words once again: We do not celebrate the day of Nativity, cum sit dolorum atque tentationum introitus, seeing it is the entrance of sorrows and temptations: but we celebrate the day of death, utpote omnium dolorum depositionem atque omnium tentationum effugationem, as that which is the doing off of all sorrows, and the driving away of all temptations. Of all sorrows and of all temptations (you see) which our day of Nativity is the entrance unto. Therefore (saith he) we both celebrate the Memories of Saints, and devoutly keep the Memories of our parents or friends dying in the faith. But it followeth, you say: Tam illorum refrigerio gaudentes, quam etiam nobis piam consummationem in fide postulantes, Partly rejoicing for their ease, partly also requesting for ourselves a godly finishing in the faith. Do you not see, that he expoundeth their ease to be their godly finishing in faith? for than they rest according to the body from all the sorrows & temptations of this bodily life, in hope also to live for ever after a while according to the same bodies. Which causeth us also at this day to rejoice unspeakably when we hear that our friends in England die in the Church of God among so many temptations there to the contrary, and to thank God for it with all our hearts, though withal we say Mass of Requiem for their souls. For so it followeth after in Origen, 
Oblations for the dead.  touching their friends souls: Celebramus nimirum, etc. And this we do in our celebration for our parents or friends: We call together the religious with the Priests, the faithful with the Clergy, (meaning by the Religious, the Monks, which were the principal order of the faithful or laity, as the Priests were the principal order of the Clergy: which I note by the way, because of your sauciness with D. Allen here, proceeding of your ignorance in Antiquity, neither understanding so much as these very words of Origen) Inviting moreover the needy and poor, filling with food the fatherless and widows. That our solemnity may be made to be a memory of rest to the souls departed whose memory we celebrate, and may to ourselves be made to be a savour of sweetness in the sight of God eternal. That is, a sacrifice of thanks giving for them that were alive, as you interpret it, showing your great skill in the Scriptures. He alludeth to Philip. 4. where S. Paul speaketh of the like charity of the Philippians towards him, calling it odorem suavitatis, a sweet savour, that is, as there it followeth, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God, signifying that such works are passing meritorious, as being in the moral sense meant by those  Sacrifices of the Law, which all (and not only when they were for thanks giving) were called sweet savours to God. 
Pur. 427.  The like ignorance you show also in the former clause (which is more to our purpose) to think that memory for one can not be a prayer for him: 
Col. 4.  as though S. Paul in prison did not commend himself to the Colossians prayers, in saying: Memores estote vinculorum meorum, Remember my gives. 
Heb. 13.  And to the hebrews, Remember them that are in gives, as if you were in gives with them. And as S. Augustine writeth, 
Au. de Ciu. li. 21. ca 27.  Quod frequentatur ore Christiano, That which is common in Christian mouths, each humble person to commend himself to the devout, and to say, Remember me, deserving also at his hands, so to do. And so in our Mass, when we make for our fried alive memoriam patientiae, a memory of patience, for our friend departed memoriam requiei a memory of rest, it is a prayer to God to give him patience, to give him rest. And that Origen meaneth even so, you may see in S. james Mass, where be the very words that he alludeth unto: Remember O Lord our God the souls of all flesh of the right believers, from Abel the just even to this day. Fac eos requiescere, make them to rest in the land of the living in thy kingdom, etc. Nostrae vero vitae fines, and direct in peace the finishing of our lives to be Christian, acceptable, and pure from sin.  

Cyp. ep. 66  And therefore again, where S. Cyprian saith of one Victor being departed, Neque enim ad Alta●e dei meretur nominari in Sacerdotum prece, For he is not worthy to be named at God's altar in the prayer of the Priests: what exposition is this of yours? By prayer he meaneth not prayer for delivery of the dead out of Purgatory, 
Pur. 284.  but as Origen saith, for the faithful living, to have the like godly departure as he had that was fallen asleep. Origen helpeth you not, as I have showed: and S. Cyprians words be so plain, that you do nothing else but show your obstinacy in wrangling upon them, and your ignorance in Antiquity. Three things at Mass were (and are) usually done for the dead: First, his friends offered for him, partly his own bequest, partly their own charities, 
Pur. 244. out of Chrysost.  to the sustenance of the Clergy & relief of the poor. Secondly, the Priest offered the Sacrifice itself of our price for him. Thirdly, he named him after consecration in the memory of the dead, to commend his soul to God among the rest. All these three S. Cyprian hath there expressly: Touching the first he saith, The Council decreed, that if any do such a thing, Non offeretur pro eo, there should be no offering for him. And therefore there is no cause that any offering should be made there with you (he writeth to the Priests, Deacons, and Laity of the parish) for the sleeping of Victor. (so he calleth the offering at the day of ones death, because there are other offerings beside, as at the months' minds day, and the twelve months mindday.) Touching the second he saith: The Council decreed also, Ne sacrificium pro dormitione eius celebraretur, That the Sacrifice should not be celebrated for the sleeping of such a one. And touching the third, He is not worthy to be named in the priests prayer at the Altar. Et ideo non est, etc. And therefore there is no cause, that any praying should there with you be used in the Church in his name. For heed may be taken hereafter, that this be done no more, if this fact now, be punished.  
By which appeareth again, that it is but mere cavilling, when you distinguish between Oblations of the dead, 
Pur. 259.  & Oblations for the dead: because oblations of the dead themselves, no less then of their friends, were oblations for the dead, as S. Cyprian here expressly calleth it, offerri pro eo, to offer for him.  
And therefore maketh against you not only the second Toletane Council, as you also confess, 
Pur. 426.  which decreeth of such Penitents as die before reconciliation, saying: Placuit nobis, etc. 
2. Tole. c. 12  It pleaseth us, that both the memory of such may be commended (to God) in their Churches, (in the memento of the dead) and offerings for their sins may be taken by the Priests. Item three others, which you neither would confess, nor could deny, to wit, the fourth of Carthage (whereunto the Toletane doth allude) decréeing of the same Penitents, 
4. Carth. ca 79.  ut memoria eorum & orationibus & oblationibus commendetur, that their memory may be commended both with prayers and with oblations (or offerings) of their own and their friends alms, and of the Altar. 
1. Brac. c. 34 35.39.  The first Bracarense, decréeing of such as kill themselves, ut nulla pro illis in oblatione commemoratio fiat, neque cum Psalmis ad sepulturam eorum cadavera deducantur, That no memory be made for them in the oblation of the Altar, nor their corpses brought with Psalms to their burial. Simili modo, In like manner, that upon Catechumenes, dying without the redemption of Baptism, (through their own fault, 
Dying unreconciled passing dangerous.  because they were not disposed to leave as yet their ill living, for which cause many now also in England do defer reconciliation) neque oblationis sanctae commemoratio, neque Psallendi impendatur officium, should be bestowed neither the memory of the holy oblation (which afore they called commemorationem in oblatione, the memory in the time of the oblation: but you could not see so much) neither the office of Psalms. Appointing moreover, that if any thing by contribution of the faithful be offered either at the Feasts of Martyrs, or at the minddayes of the dead, the Hebdomadarie have it not, but to avoid inequality and discord, it be reserved of one of the Clergy, and once or twice a year divided between all of the Clergy. Not only these Counsels (I say) do so clearly make against you, but also Vasense, and the said fourth of Carthage, which you pretend to have answered, in saying that they are flatly falsified by D. Allen, because you think that Oblations of the dead: and Oblations for the dead, are not with them, as with D. Allen, all one. But to see your wrangling, let any reasonable man confer the two Canons as well of the fourth of Carthage, as also of Vasense, which D. Allen doth allege. The one Canon, 
4. Car. c. 79 95. Vase. c. 2.4.  being the 95. of Carthage, and the fourth of Vasense, excommunicateth the Executors, qui oblationes defunctorum, aut negant Ecclesijs, aut cum difficultate reddunt, Who either deny to the Churches, or pay very hardly, the Oblations of the dead: qui Oblationes defunctorum retinent, aut Ecclesijs tradere demorantur, Who keep back, or be slow in delivering to the Churches, the Oblations of the dead. The other Canon, being the 79 of Carthage, and the second of Vasense, decreeth of obedient Penitentes, dying by chance without reconciliation,  eorum memoria & orationibus, & oblationibus commendetur, That their memory be commended to God, both with prayers and with oblations, as also afore was alleged: Horum oblationem recipiendam, & eorum funera, ac deinceps memoriam Ecclesiastico affectu prosequendam, etc. That their oblation be received, and on the day of their burial, and afterwards upon their other minddays, the church's affection bestowed upon them, because it is unreasonable to exclude their commemorations out of the healthful sacrings, to whom, for their passing preparation to the same mysteries, Fortasse nec absolutissimam reconciliationem Sacerdos denegandam putasset, The Priest peradventure would have thought that neither the most absolute reconciliation should be denied. For though to all obedient Penitents at the point of death they gave both reconciliation, and the fruit thereof which is the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, yet they gave not to all such full absolution from the residue of their penance, in case they recovered, as we see Con. Cart. 4. Can. 76.78.  
So then these four Counsels are against you (besides the two General Counsels of Florence and Trent, which your Caluinicall spirit contemneth, like an Heathen and a Publican.)  
You promise D. Allen, saying, 
Pur. 187.  Your Provincial Counsels shall be answered by as good Provincial Counsels as they are. But where be those good Provincial Counsels of yours? I find where you promise again afterward, and say: 
Pur. 277.  The Council Bracharense (as afterward I shall more plainly show) doth insinuate, that no prayers were made at all for the souls of the departed in their Church at their burials: but only a remembrance of them in prayers, with thanks giving and singing of Psalms. For Purgatory should seem had not yet traveled into Spain. But when you come to the place, 
Pur. 426.427. 3. Tol. c. 22.  you plainly confess the contrary, to wit, a memory for the dead, in that Council. Marry the third Toledan Council you there produce, as for you, in that it decreeth, Religiosorum omnium corpora, cum Psalmis tantummodo, & Psallentium vocibus debere ad sepulchra deferri, That the Corpses of all Religious (at the least, if the Bishop can not prohibit it in all Christians,) be carried to their graves with Psalms only, (without that funebre carmen quod vulgo defunctis cantari solet) funeral heathen song which is wont to be song to the dead) and with the voices of the Psalmessingers, (without that heathen beating themselves, or their neighbours, or their families, on the breasts.) And to make all sure against any reply, you add: If you say, this doth not exclude prayers and oblations: they add, that it must be thought sufficient, that in hope of the Resurrection, upon the Corpses of Christians is bestowed Famulatus divinorum canticorum, the office of the divine Psalms. For so ought Christian men's bodies throughout the whole world to be buried. So then, this is your argument: In carrying the Corpses to their graves, they did sing Psalms: Ergo in their Churches they had no prayers nor oblations for the Souls, namely in Spain, whereas S. Augustine at the same time said, 
Aug. de cu. pro mor. ca 1. 2. Mac. 12.  universae Ecclesiae authoritas in hac consuetudine claret, Although no where at all in the old Scriptures it were read (as it is in the books of the Maccabees) that Sacrifice was offered for the dead: yet great is the authority of the whole Church, which in this custom is clear: where in the prayers of the Priest, which are made to our Lord God at his Altar, the commendation also of the dead hath his place. But to return to your reason: you might with it prove as well that now also we have no prayers nor oblations for the dead, because we carry the Corpse with Psalms: as also the whole dirige in effect is Psalms: and namely De profundis for the dead, because it is a Psalm, is it not a prayer for them, trow you? or was not Purgatory traveled into Africa neither, when S. Augustine wrote as above, because there also they carried their corpses with Psalms? In so much that soon after S. Augustine's death Victor bishop of Utica reporting the lamentable devastations of the Catholic Churches there by the Arrian king Gensericus, 
Victor de pers. Vand. li. 1. fol. 3. b.  saith among other things: Quis vero sustineat sine Lachrymis, etc. And who can abide without tears, to remember, when he commanded our deads' corpses to be carried unto burying with silence without the solemnity of Psalms? Which lamentation you have in England renewed to us, with addition also, in that our Priests neither with silence may bury the corpses of our Catholic brethren, but your Ministers (a God's name) with whom they would not communicate in their life, must have the laying up of their bodies after their death: a disordered folly in you Heretics, and the sin of Schism in such Catholics as give consent unto it.  

Pur. 327. from .323.  To these memories, oblations, and sacrifice for the dead, doth belong also the place of Possidonius, which you say, proveth plainly that it was the sacrifice of thanks giving that was offered for the commendation of the godly, and quiet deposition or putting off of his body. Where he writeth of S. Augustine thus: Nobis coram positis, etc. In our presence the sacrifice was offered unto God, 
Possid. in vita Aug. cap. 31.  for the commending of his body's deposition, and so he was buried. Meaning by the bodies deposition, not the putting off by death, but the laying down of it in the earth by burying: as by levatio corporis, the taking up again of the bodies or Relics of Saints you might have perceived, if you had been skilful in Antiquity. And by commending the deposition, he meaneth the commendation of his soul to God upon that day, as I told you before. Both which you might have plainly understood by that which D, Allen in the very same paragraph allegeth out of S. Augustine speaking of his mother: 
Aug. 9 conf. ca 12.14.  Nam neque in eyes precibus ego flevi, quas tibi fundimus, cum offeretur pro ea sacrificium precij nostri, iam juxta sepulchrum posito cadavere, priusquam deponeretur: For neither in those prayers did I weep, which (according to her request upon her deathbed, memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri, that memory of her might be made at thy altar) we made unto thee O God, when the sacrifice of our price was offered for her, the corpse now standing by the grave, before it was laid down. Which place is so plain, that yourself are feign to confess, that in the celebration of the Sacrament, the error of that time allowed prayers for the dead generally, and special remembrance of some in the prayers, (namely because S. Augustine there moreover desireth God, to inspire all his Priests reading that book,  meminerint, To remember at thy Altar Monica thy servant, and Patrick once her husband, my Parents.) Repeating the same again a little after, in these words: In ministration of the Communion, there was a special remembrance of her in the prayers, as there was of all dead in the faith a general memory. So that you use indifferently these two, prayers for the dead generally, and, a general memory of the dead, because you saw evidently, that S. Augustine by remembering of his father & mother at the Altar, meant praying for them. And yet such a caviller you are, 
Fulke the answerer: Fulke the replier.  that D. Allen in saying, memoriam sui, a memory of her, to be a memory for her, must be charged with pseudologia, & as though she would have her son to be a chantry Priest to sing for her: not being able for all your gibing to deny, but that he did both himself pray for her at the Altar (if that be to be a chantry Priest) and procure other Priests to do the same.  
Well, by this practice about S. Monica, the Reader perceiveth how properly you affirmed, that it was only thanks giving which Possidonius reporteth was done for S. Augustine. But for all this (you say) although a memory or prayer was made for her in the celebration of the Sacrament, yet was it not offered for her as a Sacrifice, and as a propitiation of her sins. No sir? doth he not say expressly, The sacrifice of our price was offered for her? Yea, but he expounded before in plain words, 
A friend of trust for Protestants. August. de verb. Apo. Ser. 34.  that he meaneth thereby nothing else but the foresaid memory. Those plain words neither you recite out of him, nor no man else can find in him: as neither he nor any other reasonable man would utter such a meaning in such words. But these most plain words I find in him in another place: Hoc a patribus traditum universa observat Ecclesia, ut pro eis qui in corporis & sanguinis Christi communione defuncti sunt, cum ad sacrificium salutare loco suo commemorantur, oretur: This as a Tradition of her Fathers, the whole Church observeth, when they which are departed in the communion of Christ's body and blood (for the excommunicate so were not) be in their place mentioned at the healthful sacrifice: to pray for them. What more? Ac pro illis quoque id offerri commemoretur, and to express that for them also the sacrifice is offered.   

Of particular Doctors. Whether S. Augustine doubted of Purgatory.  
Notwithstanding all this: you will needs have fools believe that S. Augustine was doubtful in the matter of Purgatory: notwithstanding also that he so plainly prayeth for his mother, Therefore O Lord God, 
Aug. 9 confes. 13.  setting aside her good deeds for a while, for which with joy I do give thee thanks, Nunc pro peccatis matris meae deprecor te, now I beseech thee for my mother's sins (for which at this day we also pray for the most 
Pur. 328.  perfect, excepting undoubted Martyrs, until by Canonization they be known to be Saints) Hear me for the medicine of our wounds that hung on the Cross, and sitting at thy right hand, entreateth for us, etc. So plainly, 
Pur. 327.  I say, that you confess, this place to prove prayer for the dead used by S. Augustine, and are fain to say, It was all but superstition or will worship in him, according to the corrupt motion of his own mind. 
Pur. 270.279.315. Au. ep. 64. Enchi. c. 110 de cur. c. 18. Pu. 54.110 121.161.187 382.  In another place also, that he alloweth oblations for them that sleep, to profit somewhat. Oblationes pro spiritibus dormientium vere aliquid adiuuare credendum est. And yet for all this Augustine was very uncertain (you say very often) unconstant▪ and doubting of it, so that Satan (whose instrument you make that blessed Doctor) was but then laying his foundations of Purgatory: though in other places contrarying yourself after your manner, you say, It was somewhat rifely budded up in his time, yea and thoroughly finished. And to prove this his pretenced doubtfulness, you allege four books of his, Enchir. ad Laur. cap. 69. Ad octo Dulc. quaest. q. 1. De fide & op. ca 16. and De Civi Dei. li. 21. ca 26. In all which places he repeateth one saying, as D. Allen noted before you, answering it moste clearly, and showing against this pretenced uncertainty of his, that not only in other books, but in all the same books also, and almost in the very same chapters, 
Pur. 118.  he holdeth as a matter of faith, and to be believed of all Christian men, that the prayers of the living do release some of their pains in the next life. And constantly, (as all other Catholics ever did) confesseth, that the sins or unclean works of the living not duly by penance wiped away in this world must be mended after our death. For De Ci Dei these words he hath, 
August. de Civi li. 21. ca 24. & 13 Ench c. 110. Ad Dulcit. q 2.  Tales constat, ante judicij diem per poenas temporales, quas eorum spiritus patiuntur, purgatos, etc. It is certain, that such men being purged before doomsday by temporal pains, which their souls do suffer, shall not after the resurrection be committed to the torments of the everlasting fire And a little after: Temporali supplicio ac sanctorum orationibus mundatos, being cleansed by temporal torment and prayers of the holy ones. Which declaration of D. Allens was so evident, that yourself are compelled to say: 
Pur. 110.196. Aug. ciu. li. 20. c. 25. li. 21. c. 13.24. Pur. 121.  Howbeit 21. book. c. 13. of the same work De ci. dei, he concludeth very clearly (and that upon the texts Mal. 3. Esa. 4. Mat. 12.) that some suffer temporal pains after this life. This may not be denied.  
And yet that in the same books he was uncertain, you have so plain words, that you suppose D. Allen never read the places in Augustine's own books, but only received his notes of some elder Papists, that had spent more time in gathering them, but had not such audacity to utter them as M Allen. Who but you could or would for shame of heaven & earth set such a face upon a matter so clear of itself, and so confessed of yourself. But which are those so plain words? 
Ench. c. 69.68.  Nonnullos fideles per ignem quendam purgatorium, quanto magis minusue bona pereuntia dilexerunt, tanto tardius citiusque salvari: Some of the faithful after this life to be saved so much later or sooner, by a certain Purgatory fire, as the more or less they loved transitory goods, (but yet having Christ in their heart for the foundation, that is, so as they preferred nothing before him, but were ready to forsake all rather than him.) This to be so is not uncredible, Et utrum ita sit, quaeri potest, & aut inveniri, aut latere, And whether it be so in deed, it may be searched, and (by search) either found, or not found.  
These are the plain words, in which, to reply to D. Allens answer, you will needs have S. Augustine so often in one book and almost in one Chapter, to be grossly contrary to himself, one while certain, another while uncertain of one and the self same thing.  
But D. Allens answer (according to S. Augustine's plain words in these chapters also, as well as in the others is, as it was, that he speaketh not still of one thing, or of one Purgatory fire, but of two diverse. The one Purgatory fire, is, to punish (& so to purge) by temporal pains, the souls for there sins, for their evil life, though not so evil, ut misericordia habeantur indigni, that they may be thought unworthy of mercy. Of this Purgatory S. Augustine, with all the faithful of all ages, holdeth himself ●o certain. The other Purgatory fire is, as the fire of Tribulation in this life, for the most perfect also to pass through, even them whose life was talis in bono, ut ista non requirat, so good that they need not to be relieved with the prayers of the Church: and therefore not to punish sin (as now we speak of it) but only to wear out by little and little rerum secularium (quamuis licitè concessarum, etc. such affections to worldly lawful things, as to wife, etc. that without grief of mind he can not part from them: so as the other can which builded gold, silver, and pearls, whose work therefore is not burned up, quia non ea dilexit quorum amissione crucietur, because he did not love those things, with the loss whereof to be tormented, And of this Purgatory S. Augustine was uncertain, as it is in deed very doubtful (saith D. Allen) to this day also, 
Pur. 119.  not only because we know not whether such worldly lawful affections do remain in the Elect souls departed, but also because nothing but sin, and the debt of sin, seemeth to endanger the soul to any pain, whether it be poena sensus, or only poena damni. Whereupon (to say the truth) it seemeth to me more probable (although S. Augustine inclined more to the other side) that there is not any such Purgatory, but rather that after full penance for sin, or full pardon of it, the soul goeth without all delay strait to heaven.  
And so I have showed plainly what S. Augustine was certain of, and what he was uncertain of: thinking good withal to admonish the Reader, that although for more perspicuity I name two Purgatories out of S. Augustine, yet I mean but one purgatory with two divers operations, as it is but one fire of tribulation in this life, though it have those two operations, to purge sin with punishment, and to purge worldly lawful affections with grief of mind when we must in persecution departed from our beloved. That also Purgatory fire after this life, is for the first of these operations, it is certain. Whether it be also for the other, it is uncertain.  
Hitherunto pertaineth that also, where you say: 
Pur. 317.  M. Allen affirmeth that S. Augustine De cura pro mortuis agenda, never doubteth, but intercession may be made unto the Saints for the dead: and oppose to his affirming cap. 5. of the same book, Cum ergo matter fidelis, etc. Therefore when the faithful mother desired (of Paulinus Bishop of Nola) to have her sons body laid in the Martyr's Church: Si quidem credidit, eius animam meritis Martyris adiwari, hoc quod ita credidit, supplicatio quaedam fuit, If she thought his soul to be helped with the Martyr's merits, this her thinking was a certain supplication: & haec profuit, siquid prosuit, and this (supplication) profited, if any thing profited. Here Augustine, you say, doubteth whether supplications to the Martyr profit any thing, or no. You are a man past all shame, 
Such are the enemies of the Church of Christ.  and so shall the Reader well perceive if he read the place. S. Augustine doth not doubt, whether supplications to that Martyr S. Felix, or to any other Martyr, profit: nor whether they profit the dead: (yea clean contrary, he exhorteth there very earnestly to those and all other supplications for the dead, saying that Non inaniter siunt, they be not made in vain, cap. 1. Prosunt quibusdam mortuis, They profit one sort of the dead, cap. vlt. Non sunt praetermittendae, they must not be omitted, cap. 4. Religiosus amicus nullo modo debet a supplicationibus necessarijs in eius commendatione cessare, They be necessary, & the devout friend must in no case omit them, cap. 5. Fiunt recta fide ac pietate, They be made with right faith and piety, cap. 4.) neither doth he doubt, whether Affectus matris locum eligens sanctum, The mother's affection choosing an holy place to bury her son in, be a supplication to the Martyr of the place: but only whether that mother had that cogitation. For that (saith he) is all the profit that cometh to your friend departed, by your burying of him in such a place (for of his own devotion therein more doth come) to wit, if you had aforehand such cogitations of the Martyr's merits, that they should help him: and again, if afterwards by occasion of the place when you think upon it, you commend affectually eidem Martyri animam dilectam, the beloved Soul to the same Martyr, ca 4.5.   

Whether S. Augustine denied Purgatory.  
Not content to say S. Augustine was doubtful of Purgatory, you say further, that also he denied it, de verbis Apost. Ser. 14. and Hypog. con. Pel. lib. 5. 
Pur. 110.  where he acknowledgeth the kingdom of heaven for to receive the godly, and hell fire for the punishment of the wicked: but a third place (saith he) we are altogether ignorant of, neither do we find it in the holy Scriptures. Now take the pains to report also the answer yourself: He writeth against the Pelagians, that imagined a third place for the (everlasting) rest of Infants, that were not baptized. And what can you reply thereunto? But the same reason serveth as well against the Popish Purgatory, because we find it not in the holy Scriptures. But doth S. Augustine so reason against it? for him you pretended to bring as denying Purgatory. Or doth he say, that he found it not in the Scriptures? Yea you confess (though with much wrangling) the contrary, to wit, that he saith the Scriptures to make for it, some (I say) to suffer temporal pains after their death, Veruntamen ante illud novissimum judicium, but before that last judgement, that is, before the judge hath said, Venite, and discedite: Come ye blessed, Away ye cursed. For until then Purgatory is not ended. As also in this same chapter, pag. he said: 
2. Mac. 12.  In the books of the Maccabees we read, Sacrifice offered for the dead. And immediately after against your reason also: Sed etsi nusquam in Scriptures veteribus omnino legeretur: non parva est universae Ecclesiae, quae in hac consuetudine claret, auctoritas: But although it were not read any where at all in the ancient Scriptures, the whole Church's authority, which in this custom is evident, is not small. So that you see the said reason by S. Augustine's judgement, not to be any whit prejudicial to such matters as stand upon the whole Church's authority, although to all new inventions of Heretics against the church, it be a plain prejudice.  
And now I must remember the Reader of that place where D. Allen biddeth him to require of these new Teachers, before he believe them, 
Pur. 380.382.  To allege some place of any ancient writer, which doth expressly deny Purgatory or prayers for the dead: as we (saith he) for the confirming thereof have alleged in plain terms very many. And hear what Fulke there answereth: If we be required to show some place of any ancient writer, which denieth Purgatory or prayers for the dead: we have already showed, that Augustine sometime doth doubt whether there be Purgatory: sometime affirmeth, there is no mean or third place, but heaven for the elect, and hell for the reprobate. Considering therefore, that S. Augustine in those places maketh nothing for him, as I have showed, but expressly against him, as himself also confesseth: thou seest, gentle Reader, that he hath no Doctor to bring which denieth Purgatory. Let us come then to the other part, whether any Doctor deny prayers for the dead.   

Other Doctors about praying for the dead.  
Likewise for praying or satisfying for the dead (you say) we have alleged Cyprian and others, your Canon law, 
Pur. 382.  out of Hieronym, etc. Yea Gelasius the Pope saith, that no man can be absolved of the Pope after his death, 24. q. 2. cap. Legatur. Wherefore serve the Pope's pardons then? The place of S. Jerome is answered already, pag. Your great place of Gelasius is of certain Heretics in Constantinople, that said to the Pope's Legate there: Date veniam nobis, dum tamen nos in errore duremus: Give us absolution, notwithstanding we continue in our error. Therefore he biddeth them show, even from the beginning of Christian Religion, Veniam nisi se corrigentibus fuisse concessam, that absolution was ever given but to such as did amend themselves. And because they would not only themselves be absolved, but also their fellows who were dead, that they might be named anong others in the Canonical memory of the dead, thereupon he saith again, that it can not be showed, our Saviour, or any after him, In errore mortuos absoluisse, to have absolved such as died in their error. Name in ligatione defunctum nunquam dixit absoluendum: For he never said, that we should absolve one that died in the bond of excommunication. It is a sign you lacked witnesses against praying and pardons for the dead that died in our communion, for whom only all our suffrages are, when you were feign to allege, and to make so much of him that spoke only of them that die in excommunication.  

Cyp. contra Demet. in fine. Pur. 140.  Like stuff it is that you bring out of S. Cyprian. For he speaketh it to the Idolatrous and persecuting Pagans, exhorting them, and saying: We exhort you, whilst you may, whilst as yet somewhat of this life remaineth, to satisfy God, and to rise out of the bottom of dark superstition, into the shining light of true Religion. Quando isthinc excessum fuerit, nullus iam locus poenitentiae est, nullus satisfactionis effectus. Hic vita aut amittitur, aut tenetur, 
Clipping.  (etc. you say, omitting that which followeth, because it showed plainly S. Cyprians purpose not to be your purpose.) Hic saluti aeternae cultu dei & fructu fidei providetur. When you are gone hence there is now no place of penance, no effect of satisfaction. Here life is either lost, or saved. Here everlasting salvation is procured by the worshipping of (one) God, and by the fruitfulness of faith. This forsooth is that which can not stand with the Papists opinion of Purgatory. By this forsooth appeareth what Cyprians judgement was of Purgatory (and the effect of satisfaction) after this life. And again because exhorting there Demetrianus himself (Proconsul of Africa) to repentance, which had been (so you say deceitfully, 
Changing.  as though he now were converted, for that you should have said, which presently was) a wicked man, and a persecutor of the Christians: he saith to him, Tu sub ipso licet exitu, & vitae temporalis occasu, etc. Do thou, although it be but a little before thy end, and setting of this temporal life, pray for thy sins to the God, which is the one and true God: Confessionem & fidem agnitionis eius implores, Do thou humbly call for confession, and faith of acknowledging him (he alludeth to the ceremony, quid petis? Fidem.) Venia confitenti datur, & credenti indulgentia salutaris de divina pietate conceditur: Pardon is given to him that confesseth, and healthful forgiveness is granted by God's goodness to him that believeth: Et ad immortalitatem sub ipsa morte transitur, and even at the point of death is passage to immortality. Because Christ doth quicken him that is mortal, by the heavenly regeneration, vivificat mortalem regeneratione coelesti. This which is so expressly written of the Infidels in hell, and of Baptism, to pretend it (as you do) to be written of the faithful in Purgatory, and of penance after Baptism, argueth plainly, that either you saw not the place in S. Cyprian, or rather that seeing you would not see.  
Of the same sort it is, that, 
Pur. 82. Cyp. de Lapsis.  where S. Cyprian speaketh of Deniers of Christ in persecution, which would not afterward come to the Priests to confession, and saith, Every one, I beseech you brethren, confess his sin, whilst yet he that sinned is in this world, whilst his confession may be received, whilst satisfaction and remission facta per Sacerdotes, made by the authority of the Priests, is acceptable with our Lord: you gather thereupon, and say: If men can not satisfy, nor Priest remit, but whilst men are in this life, then farewell satisfaction for the dead, and Purgatory. As though we hold, that they which will not submit themselves to the Priests in this life, may be helped after their death: Or that confession may be made by the dead, and satisfaction enjoined them, and that being done, absolution given them by the Priests.  
Again it is of the same sort, which you allege out of S. chrysostom, where first you confess that he holdeth expressly, 
Pur. 2●1.  prayers to profit the dead, and allegeth Scripture for it (your words I recited in cap. 3. and that notwithstanding, say afterward: Otherwise when he judged uprightly & according to the Scripture, his words sound clean contrary to the opinion of Purgatory, and works of other men to be meritorious for the dead, as in the very next Homily, being the 42. in 1. Cor. Quapropter oro, etc. What a worthy S. chrysostom was every kind of way, I need not to say. I can admire him, I am not able to commend him sufficiently. But what a base opinion have you of him (as also of so many others his pears) to think him so gross, 
Caluins' intolerable light hath marred Fulkes eyes.  to speak clean contrary to himself, and that upon one Epistle, yea & in the very next Homily? You do herein nothing else, but justify my saying in the beginning of this chapter, that you can not in deed show the Doctors to be for you against us, but that in deed you confess them to be with us against you, and pretend only that they be against us in so much as they be pretensively against themselves. But why did you not aswell say, that D. Allen himself is against us, in that in the seventh chapter of his second book he showeth, 
Pur. 271.  That the benefit of prayer & alms appertaineth not to such as die in mortal sin? For what else doth S. chrysostom say in that long allegation of yours, but that no friend, no just, shall help him that dieth in mortal sin, either committing evil that he ought to refrain, or omitting good that he ought to achieve: beseeching them therefore to convert and amend, and to get against they die, good words of their own to trust in before that judge.  

Pur. 112. Ambro. in Psal. 40.  Likewise of S. Ambrose you confessed cap. 3. pag. 16. Ambrose in deed alloweth prayer for the dead. And yet because he saith: Bene addidit (in terra,) quia nisi hic mundatus fuerit, ibi mundus esse non poterit: The Prophet did well to add (on earth) for if he be not cleansed here, he can not be cleansed, from his mortal sins. But the true translation is, he can not be clean there, neither from his venial sins, though from them he may be cleansed there, as also from the temporal debt of his remitted mortal sins: yet, I say, by these words it is plain enough with you, that Ambrose allowed no purging after this life.  
One place more, or two, you allege more out of the same Doctor, 
Pur. 106.  with this note thereupon: Thus saith Ambrose plainly in this place, whatsoever he speaketh allegorically of the fiery sword in other places, as in Psal. 118. Ser. 20. and in Psal. 65. by occasion of which two places you grant not long after, that the Old writers opinion was, 
Pur. 132.  that all men, were they never so just, passed through that fire into Paradise, and were purified thereby: because they ascribed to Purgatory fire those two operations, the one whereof S. Augustine & we (as I said erewhile) do doubt of. All this notwithstanding, the same Ambrose (you say) upon Rom. 5. overthroweth Purgatory, in that it followeth of his words there, 
Pur. 105.  that no man feeleth pain after this life, but he that shall feel it eternally. And surely to the same effect he speaketh in his book De bono mortis, you say, only because cap. 4. where he concludeth, that death in every respect is good, (yea although a man have lived ill, and shall after death abye for it, for also in that case, non mors malum, sed vita, Not his death, but his life was evil) among others, this cause he rendereth: quia deteriorem statum non efficit, sed qualem in singulis invenerit, talem judicio futoro reseruat: because it maketh not the (ill) state worse, but such state as it findeth in every one, such it reserveth to the judgement to come. Now who saith, that Purgatory after death altereth the state of the evil to worse? yea or also that it promoteth the state of the good to better. Every man's state (we say) both is at his death, and shall be at doomsday, according to his merits in his life. Neither he that is cleansed in Purgatory, hath his merits either multiplied or amplified thereby, but only his venial sins and temporal debts taken away. In the former place his words are these: Although Abraham were in hell, (or in the inferior parts) yet he was severed with a long space between, so that there was an huge chaos inter justos & peccatores, quanto magis impios? Between the just and the (Catholic) sinners, how much more the impious (Heretics?)  justis esset refrigerium, & peccatoribus aestus, impijs vero ardour: That to the just might be ease, and heat (as it were of the sun) to the sinners, but fiery heat to the impious: ut ante judicium, quo unusquisque dignus esset, non lateret: that which each sort were worthy of, might before the judgement, be partly known. Now how you can infer of these words, that no man feeleth pain after this life (although S. Ambrose himself say it expressly in other places) but he that shall feel it eternally, I see not. Unless perhaps you would bind him to yield a reason of Purgatory pains withal, when he yielded a reason of Abraham's bosom, and of the damned Souls hell, or else have him pronounced guilty of contradiction, and Purgatory by your argument ab authoritate negatiuè quite subverted.  
From this saying of S. Ambrose we might well pass to the sayings of other Doctors alleged against Limbus patrum a friend of Purgatories, but only that we must stay a little while for your pleasure, 
Pur. 142.143. Emis. ho. 3. de Epipha. Ber. in vita Humberti.  with Eusebius Emissenus (though him you take for a counterfeit) and S. Bernard. Because these two set forth very terribly, but truly, the pains of Purgatory, therefore with you the one showeth himself an utter enemy to the release of the same, and the other denieth the remedy or remission of them. As if you would say, that the holy Scripture also where it preacheth God's justice, denieth his mercy, though in other places it preach his mercy no less. For see you not S. Bernard as earnest also for the remedy of those pains, where D. Allen allegeth him calling your friends the Apostolicie of his time, 
Pur. 420. Ber. Ser. 66 in Cantica.  miscreants, and dogs, for laughing us to scorn (saith Bernard) that we baptise infants, that we pray for the dead, that we require the help of the holy Saints? In so much that yourself also confess in another place, saying: Bernard is of opinion, that sins not remitted in this world, 
Pur. 194.  may be remitted in the world to come.   

Whether Purgatory be only for Venial sins.  
One other little stay we must make about S. Augustine's judgement, 
Pur. 122.448.  being this, as you say, That Purgatory serveth to purge none but very small and light offences: Whereas D. Allen saith, that it is for great faults also, which by penance are made small, alleging for it this plain place: Quaedam enim peccata sunt quae sunt mortalia, 
Pur. 128. August. de ver. & fall. Poen. ca 18.  & in paenitentia fiunt venialia, non tamen statim sanata: For there be certain sins which be mortal, and in penance be made venial, but not strait healed. As oftentimes certain sick persons would die but for Physic, yet are not strait healed. Lanquet victurus, qui prius erat moriturus: Feeble he is, though now to live, and not to die as before. And therefore although one truly converted at the point of death, from his wickedness (nequitia, etc.) shall be saved. Yet we do not promise him that he shall escape all pain. Nam prius purgandus est igne purgationis, qui in aliud seculum distulit fructum conversionis: for he must first be purged with the fire of Purgatory, (who in this world converted, but) deferred the fruit of conversion to the other world. Studeat ergo quilibet sic delicta corrigere, ut post mortem non oporteat talem poenam tolerare: Therefore let every one labour so to amend his sins (also after his conversion, because he is now as the sick person past danger of death, but not healed as yet) that after death he suffer not such passing grievous pain. You took not the pains to take the book, and read the place, and therefore blindly you say, that this Doctor's words are plainly of light and small offences, and not of heinous and great offences, even also against your own eyes that saw the word Mortalia. And again, that the manifest meaning of his words, is not of a mortal sin forgiven, as though he said, that it become a venial trespass, but that a mortal sin may be pardoned. Whereas he speaketh so manifestly of a mortal sin after penance, as of a mortal disease after Physic: the danger of soul death in the one, as of bodily death in the other, being now past, but the healing behind, and therefore also danger of Purgatory pain for it behind.  
D. Allen allegeth for the same, also Enchir. cap. 71. where S. Augustine affirmeth, that, Et illa peccata a quibus vita Fidelium sceleratè etiam gesta, sed poenitendo in melius mutata discedit, Also those sins in the which the faithful have wickedly lived, but now by penance left them, changing their lives to better, are after taken away by the same remedies, as minimums & quotidiana peccata, brevia leviaque peccata, the least and daily, the short and light sins, to wit, among other remedies, by the Pater noster, which is the daily prayer of the faithful. Which also in the next world he admitteth ca 69. and 70. of the said Infanda crimina, qualia qui agunt regnum dei non possidebunt, 
Gal. 5.  heinous crimes which deprive the parties of God's kingdom: Si convenienter poenitentibus eadem crimina remittantur, If the same crimes be forgiven them (in the Church) upon their due penance: then he granteth, I say, that such persons also may be saved by Purgatory fire after this life, and not they only that die with Venial sins. This D. Allen there allegeth briefly, and you say never a word unto it. 
Pur. 120.  Only you snatch those words (which he allegeth among others out of another place to another purpose) Illo enim transitorio igne, non capitalia, 
Au. Ser. 41. de Sanctis. 1. Cor. 3.  sed minuta peccata purgantur, By that transitory fire, (whereof the Apostle saith, He shall be saved by fire) are purged not mortal, but light offences: neither considering that he speaketh of purging culpam, the fault itself, for he speaketh against them that continue still in committing mortal sins, and deceive themselves with false security, while they think that peccate ipsa, those sins may be purged by the transitory fire, & themselves afterwards come to everlasting life. Nor knowing, that he there also very often, as above in his Enchiridion, granteth, the same fire to be also for the said mortal sins, if one have left committing of them, but not yet fully redeemed them poenitentiae medicamentis, with the plasters of penance.    

viii. Of Limbus patrum.  
And now we are come to your Doctor's that you allege against Limbus Patrum. The one is S. Augustine, 
Pur. 56.60 Au. ep. 99  of whose most clear testimony alleged by D. Allen (Because the 
(a) Act. 2.  Scriptures make evident mention both of hell and of pains, I see no other cause why our Saviour came thither according as we believe, nisi ut ab eius doloribus saluos facerit, But to rid some of the pains thereof. Fuisse enim apud inferos, & in eorum doloribus constitutis hoc beneficium praestitisse non dubito: I am out of doubt that he was in hell, and that he bestowed that gracious benefit upon some that were in the pains thereof. You are fain to say, that it is but the authority of a man. But you have another place, a God's name, Where he seemeth utterly to deny, that he came in that prison of hell. And to make all sure, you imagine what we will answer to it, and then you make your reply. But all besides the text, like one that never saw the book. For he saith there as plainly as in the other place: Fuit apud inferos Christi Anima, & divinitas, 
Aug. in Felicianus Arrianun. ca 17 18.15.  Both the soul and the divinity of Christ was in hell. But for what cause?  anima animas reparet, That his soul might repair our souls, and (as above he said) deliver some souls out of their pains there. But not to suffer any pains there itself, as the Arrians did blaspheme. For if (saith he in the words that you allege) his, or the good thieves (for it may be understood of either) body being dead, his soul is immediately called to Paradise: do we think any man yet so impious, that he dare say, our saviours soul, in that three days of his bodily death, apud inferos custodiae mancipetur, is in hell committed to prison? Lo sir, what he utterly denieth, to wit, that his soul was committed there to prison: not, that it came in that prison as to deliver the prisoners.  
Your other Doctor is S. Ireneus, whom D. Allen first alleged saying manifestly, 
Pur. 55.59 Iren. lib. 3. cap. 33.  that Adam was Implens tempora eius condemnationis, quae facta fuerat propter inobedientiam, Fulfilling the times of that condemnation, which came by disobedience, until our Lord came, and then solutus est condemnationis vinculis, he was released of the bonds of his condemnation. And you answer, that the name of Adam seemeth to be taken in these words, rather for a name common (signifying all mankind) then for a proper name. jesus, how blindly? Do you not know, that he reporteth li. 1. ca 31. that the proper Heresy of Tacianus was, Adae saluti contradictionem faciens, 
His ignorance.  that he gainsaid the salvation of Adam: and after him S. Augustine Haer. 25. Saluti primi hominis contradicunt, The Tacianistes gainsay the salvation of the first man? And do you not see that he disputeth against that Heresy in the said place, li. 3. even from cap. 33. to 39  
But you have another place of his, 
Iren. lib. 5. in fine.  where he plainly overthroweth our fantasy, in that he saith of the place where Christ's soul was those three days, that it was such a place as all his disciples shall rest in until the time of the general Resurrection. He saith not so: he disputeth against those old Heretics, Who said that immediately assoon as they were dead, they ascended above heaven, and above the Creator, and came to the mother, or to their feigned father, leaving their body for ever, never to rise again, and therefore attaining all perfection and the highest promotion at once. S. Irenée therefore avoucheth against them not only the Resurrection, but also the order of the Resurrection, and saith, that if this were so, than our Lord giving up his Ghost upon the Cross, would strait have gone upward, leaving his body to the earth. But he did not so: Three days he conversed where the dead were, in the inferior parts of the earth, in the midst of the shadow of death. And then after that he arose corporally, and after his resurrection was assumpted. Seeing therefore no disciple is above his master, saith he, it is manifest by this, that also his disciples souls shall go (he saith not, into the same place, but) in invisibilem locum definitum eye a deo, into an invisible place, appointed for them by God, and there shall tarry until the resurrection, abiding the resurrection: and afterwards receiving again their bodies, and rising perfectly, that is, corporally, sic venient ad conspectum Dei, so shall come to the sight of God: to wit, the whole man both in soul and body. So he may well be understood: because the Soul of Christ also had the sight of God before his Resurrection. Yet supposing that he thought, neither so much as the Souls to see God, before the Resurrection (as some other Doctors did think, until it was of late defined by the Church, as I noted afore in the eight chapter, yet that doth not declare, as you pretend, that he thought of Limbus Patrum otherwise than we do. For you heard him say afore, that Adam at our Lords coming was released out of that place, being a place of captivity: and now, by him, his soul is in that other invisible place. Whereof it followeth manifestly, that by him the former place is not all one with the later.  
And so, thanks be to God, I have fully answered all that you allege against Purgatory, or any other Article of the Catholic faith, according to my promise in the beginning of this Chapter. Whereby the Reader may perceive, perfect unity of faith to be betwixt the Fathers then, and us now, notwithstanding all that you could bring. And that so evidently, that in most matters, & in most of the Fathers, you were feign to pretend no less, that one and the same man was not in unity with himself: so that this chapter needed not so much for defence of our doctrine, as for the defence of the Doctors themselves against your childish and arrogant detractions.       

¶ The tenth Chapter.  
That notwithstanding all which Fulke hath said against D. Allens Articles, in his first book being of that matter, or also in his other of Purgatory: every one of my 51. Demands (and therefore also, every one of my Motives, and likewise every one of those Articles) standeth still in his force. Every one (I say) and much more all of them, to make any man to be a Catholic, and not a Protestant.  
BY the Sums or Arguments of the chapters aforegoing, the Reader may perceive, that being laid together, they make a manifold evident demonstration to the condemnation of the Protestants side and justification of our side, so that whosoever will be saved, must neither believe them, nor communicate with them, as being Heretics, and Schismatics, but must be of our belief in all things, and of our Communion, as who have both the truth and the Church of Christ, even the same that our ancestors, to wit, the Apostles, and their Successors after them, had in their several times. Which also was the total sum of M.D. Allens Articles first, and after them, both of my Motives, & Demands. Nevertheless I have thought good, for the more manifest clering of all, to have this chapter apart, and following the order of my Demands, one by one, (which if Fulke had done, he had saved me some labour) to sift all, in substance and effect, that he hath said to D. Allens Articles, in the former of his two books, answering withal these few Scriptures and Doctors of his, which in the two last Chapters I pretermitted, and reserved to this place. By this the Reader shall see evidently, the force of each one Demand (how much more of all?) to hear the Protestants quite down, considering that all is nothing, which this fellow, in both his books, could either answer unto them, or object against them. Specially, if he will first read over every Demand, as it lieth in my book, and then, that which here is correspondent unto it.  

1. Collatio Carthaginensis touching the Church of the Scriptures.  
FIrst therefore, by reason of their trivial position of Only Scripture in all questions (for the which notwithstanding, they have neither Scripture, nor Doctor, as I have sufficiently declared cap. 8 pag. 110. and cap. 9 pag. 171. to 183.) and because the question of the Church is of all other the principal, as one which being agreed upon, and so the House of salvation found, all brabble is at an end, also by Fulkes own confession here cap. j Whether it can not err, as we say, or may err, as they say: Hereupon in my very first Demand, on the one side I ask them (as S. Augustine did the Donatists) some evident Scripture for their Church, that is to say, for Luther's piece, or for Calvin's piece of Luther's piece: on the other side I point them to very many most evident Scriptures for our Church (in S. Augustine's two books against the Donatists, de Collatione Carthaginensi, and de unitate Ecclesiae) that is to say, for the Church beginning at Jerusalem, Act. 1. like the little mustardseed, Mat. 13. and growing and spreading thence over all Nations, over S. Augustine and his fellows in the Christian Nations of their time, and over us and our fellows in the Christian Nations of our time, and so forth to the end of the world.  
Now Fulke, wheresoever he maketh mention of the said Carthage Conference, etc. What doth he? doth he reply, and show, that the same most evident Scriptures make for his Church: or, that they make not for S. Augustine's Church, and our Church, that is, for the visible Church of all Christian Nations? yea like a blind buzzard, he there overthroweth quite his own Church, and plainly confirmeth ours, as I have noted cap. 9 pag. 176. to 183. in the question of Only Scripture, upon the places of S. Augustine (which he there allegeth) requiring and bringing Scriptures for the Church. And as I offer cap. 7. pag. 106. to show more copiously, if he dare join with me upon this Demand: and stand to S. Augustine's Disputation at Carthage, etc. and to the evident Scriptures there recited as concerning this question of the Church. And as touching certain dark and obscure Scriptures, such as S. Augustine would have to be set aside in this question: the Donatists in deed alleged some such for their Church, that is, for Donates' piece cut of from the Church of all Nations. But for Luther or Calvin's piece, Fulke hath alleged neither so much as any such. Howbeit against our Church he hath alleged some such. But I have cap. 8. pag. 124. to 133. most clearly showed, that neither they make any whit at all against our Church (as neither certain expositions of some Fathers cap. 9 pag. 155) and that they make unavoideably against the Protestants. Being ready to show the like, in those more evident Scriptures also, which the donatists alleged against our Church, if Fulke list to repeat them, and in any other likewise that he can allege.   

2. Building of the Church amid persecution.  
In the 2. Demand I report S. Chrysostom's argument (which is not his only, yea it is the Scriptures) against the jews and paynims, to prove, that Christ is God, because no Persecution of theirs or any others could, or can suppress Christ's Church, though in the first beginning of it, it were so poor and small, and they so mighty and cruel against it: but that it hath, and shall continually stand in the sight of the world, maugre all the Gates of Hell.  
Now Fulke to this argument hath answered nothing, nor to the Doctors, and Scriptures that make it. The jews and paynims are not yet so much beholding unto him. Marry an objection against it, I grant, may be made of the text of the Apocalypse here cap. 8. pag. 124. as you allege it, and understand it, to wit, that the Persecution of Antichrist shall drive the Church into the Wilderness, that is (you say) into a secret place, out of the open sight of the world, 
Fulk a falsary.  there to remain for a long season. But I have there declared manifestly, by the text itself, that both in your alleging you play the falsary, putting a long season, for a very short season, and in your understanding a depraver of Scripture to your own damnation, expounding that which is meant of fleeing in heart to God in time of worldly desolation, to be meant, of becoming corporally invisible.   

3. Going out. 
Motive 18.   
Thirdly I demand of them, to show when we went out of the foresaid Church of all Christian Nations, seeing they deny us to be still within it. As we say, and the world seethe, and Fulke himself confesseth here cap. 7. pag. 103. that they are departed from our Church, and goeth about to yield a cause for their so doing: Whereas by S. Augustine (whom himself allegeth here cap. 9 pag. 177. as it were against our separating of ourselves from them, which is one of his gross contradictions: and this also no better, 
Ar. 66.  that we Catholics are departed from the Grecians) it is impossible for any to have a just cause to Separate themselves from the said Church. In so much, that no company can be named, from the very beginning of the same Church, which so did, and obstinately stood in it (as they do,) but it was Schismatical. Yea and against his imagined Church in the wilderness here cap. 8. pag. 124. we are expressly warned, If they say unto you, Ecce in deserto est, Behold Christ is in the wilderness, nolite exire, do not go out, Matth. 24. but keep still in the visible everlasting Church that visibly cometh of me, beginning at Jerusalem.   

4. Rising after. 
Motive 19 Article. 11.   
Fourthly I require them, to show any beginning of our Church, other than the beginning of Christ's Church at Jerusalem, Act. 2. As we show, and the world seeth the beginning of their company now of late by Luther, who afore was one of us, nor he only, but all that he drew away after him. So that no man can say, they were afore that, invisible Protestants, because it is so evident, that they were visible Papists. And to these two, or either of them, Fulke answereth nothing.  
I require them moreover in the same Demand, to show so much as any first beginner of any one Article of our doctrine, so as he received it not at the hands of his Predecessors, and they of theirs, and so forth, even up to the Apostles. As we show that Luther began his new Articles of himself, and received them not at any man's hands. And also, if any of the same Articles had in old time any patron, (as Aerius against praying for the dead) that he likewise in his time was the first beginner of it, and received it not of his Elders, but that his Elders held the contrary of his Article, so that his Article evidently was of himself, and not of the Apostles. 
How this iiij. and xxxviij. Demand do differ.  I do not here charge them with such Articles as they were of the Church then condemned for heresies (for that is enough of itself against them, whether they were then first begun, or afore: and therefore I have of that a several Demand num. 38.) but as they were then first begun, which of itself is enough to show that they were not received from the Apostles, whether they were condemned of the Church then for Heresies, or no. Now of these matters there are two long Treatises between D. Allen and Fulke, first in the book of Articles, Art. 11. pag. 35. to 47. Secondly, in the book of Purgatory lib. 2. ca 13. and 14. pag. 387. to 424. In which places the old Heresies that they charge one another withal, I reserve to their proper place in the Demand aforesaid: as also the changes that he saith some Popes to have made, to the 45. Demand. What then belongeth to this Demand? First touching the arguments or consequences: secondly touching the antecedents.  

The 1. Arg.  The one argument is this: Our first Authors can not be named: Ergo, they were none other but the Apostles. His first answer is, that it followeth not. And one while he doth nothing but chafe at us for it, saying, Must we find out the authors of Heresies? 
Pur. 391.  Nay justify them yourselves by the word of God if you can, etc., as I noted here cap. 7. pag. 79. Another while he will answer it with a witty example of the common wealth, saying: Must the Magistrate either justify a thieves possession, or else bring out the author where he had it? Nay the thief must bring out good proof, how and by whom he came by such goods, or else he is worthy to be served like such a one. If that would serve, we bring so good proof for the Article of praying for the dead whereof you there entreat, that yourself confess we stole it not, but that we received it from hand to hand of our ancestors, ca 3. whom yourself confess to have been the true Church of Christ cap. 2. Will you then quit us, & with your witty example charge Christ's Church to be a thief? But you confess, cap. 3. pag. 19.20.21. that she telleth you how she came by it, to wit, by the Scripture and Tradition of the Apostles. And moreover, how your friend Aerius would have stolen it from her, as now your grandsire Luther would steal it from her heir. What Magistrate after all this will admit the thief to plead against the lawful heir in such childish manner as you do, having nothing neither to disprove the possession, or the Evidences of the heir, nor to bring as Evidence for yourself: as by my answers in the chapters aforegoing it is most manifest. 
Pur. 388.  Again (you say) the first author of every heresy can not be named. Where you reckon ten, and say: These and a hundred more heresies, shall they be thought to have their heresy from Tradition of the Apostles, if the first author of them can not be named? For example: There was one heresy of them that were called Acephali, because there was no head known of them. Where have you that cause? I 
Nicenum 2. con. pa. 62. tomo. 3, Nicep. li. 16 ca 27.  find that Severus B. of Antioch was their head, whose name was Severus Acephalus. And again, that they were but a piece of the Eutychians, whose head was Eutyches: as the Puritans, whose special head we be not certain of, are a piece of the Caluinists. In such sort to show the author, is enough: or also to show the beginning itself, for that is the cause why we seek for the author, to show the beginning. Which again is showed even by this that the primitive name of Christians would not serve them, but they must have new names to be called by, that, I say, declareth that they began after the beginning. And so we can show the authors also of the other nine Heresies that you name (which also yourself do in naming of them) and of all other, if it were worth the while, as partly you may see noted in M. Rishons' Table. And in no such sort can you show our first authors.  
And so I am now come to your second answer, wherein you deny our Antecedent. For you say: 
Pur. 402.413.  If any man or men were the authors of our faith, as it fareth with the Popish faith, we should be injurious unto them, if we did not acknowledge our founders, as they do some of theirs. Tute Lepus es, & pulpamentum quaeris. You make D. Allen to be that same non plus of Cambridge, 
Pur. 64.  who when he lacked an argument, said, he would dispute ex concessis. You are he even yourself. Do we acknowledge any founders of our faith, but the Apostles of Christ?  

Ar. 47.  Again you say: Thus we have noted to you the names of divers Heretics, which first preached certain Articles of your doctrine. Those notes you mean wherewith you noted here cap. 3. pag. 24. the confessed true Church, aswell as us: which I have clean wiped out cap. 6. pag. 57.58. and will wipe away the rest likewise here in the 38. Demand.  

Ar. 39 Pur. 389.  Again for the first beginning of one particular, you say: It can not be proved out of any authentical writer, or by any credible author, that any before Tertullian, who was almost two hundred years after the incarnation of Christ, either named or allowed prayer for the dead, or that it was used in the Church. Tertullian himself flourishing within one hundred years after the Apostles, doth witness, that it was used before his time, and that it came to his time by Tradition of the Apostles. The same doth S. chrysostom, S. Augustine, S. Epiphanius, and many more, witness, by your own confession here cap. 3. pag. 2.3.4. Are not these authentical writers, nor credible authors now with you, who here cap. 2. pag. 11. to 22. were with you, the most approved writers, and the Doctors of God's Church? I think God's Church may believe her Doctors better than you her rebels. Howbeit also any reasonable man will think it enough for us, to bring it up to Tertullian'S time, and put you to prove that then it began, if you will not grant that it came from the Apostles.  

Ar. 43.  Of another particular you say: Transubstantiation, no small Article of your Religion, was not decreed until the year of God (of our Lord you would say) 1215. But you will not, I trow, infer thereupon, that then it began. For by the same reason an Arrian may say, that Homoousion, no small Article of our Religion, began in the first Nicene Council, because it was not decreed until then. Both words were then decreed, but the things meant by them, came even from the Apostles, 
Lanfrancus lib. contra Bereng.  and was decreed also, the one of them 200. years afore that time, to wit, when the Heresy of Berengarius (superesse in Altari post consecrationem substantiam panis & vini, the substance of the bread and wine to remain after Consecration, and not only against the Real presence) was condemned in divers Counsels, and he glad to recant it: as by the writers of the same time we know.  
The other Argument is directly against you (as this was directly for us. 
The 2. Arg. ) Your first Authors can be named after the beginning of the Church, rising with their new opinions: Ergo, their opinions were Heresies, and they were Heretics, and you be Heretics, namely maintaining the same obstinately. Here again you deny both the consequence, and the antecedent: but how frivolously, I have at large reported cap. 7. pag. 80. where you put in your poor and cold exception of Only Scripture, having nothing else to stay against the Ancient Fathers, who both made that consequence, and also noted your beginners, but that they must prove all by Scripture, or else neither doth their argument hold, neither was Aerius (&c.) your first Author. As also in another place you say to D. Allen thereupon: Your rule is false. For you leave out the chiefest condition, 
Pur. 413.  which, js, that the opinion itself be contrary to the truth first preached by the Apostles, or else it is no Heresy, though it may be truly fathered upon any man, sooner or later. Full wisely. D. Allens rule is this: [Any opinion that may be truly fathered upon any man, that was long after the truth was first preached by the Apostles, if it be upon a point of Faith, and contentiously maintained, it is an Heresy,] that is to say, contrary to the truth first preached by the Apostles. And you can by no exception, by no reason disprove it. Now your rule is this: Any opinion that may be truly fathered upon any man long after the Apostles, if it be upon a point of Faith, etc., and contrary to the truth first preached by the Apostles, it is an Heresy, that is to say, contrary, etc. Are not you then a proper rule giver? Any opinion that is contrary to the truth first preached by the Apostles, is contrary to the truth first preached by the Apostles. No doubt but D. Allen should do wisely, to correct his rule, which is not his, but the Father's rule, by such learned advise.   

5. Contradicted.  

Motive 20. Article. 11.  Another rule of D. Allens is, according to my next Demand, 
(a) Pur. 412.  Whosoever was wondered at and withstand and in his first arising and preaching, by such as were in the unity of the Church, (as Aerius by S. Epiphanius, S. Augustine, etc. and now Luther and calvin by the Romans, etc.) he was (according to the matter) an Heretic, or a Schismatic, if he were obstinate. I ask them therefore, who so withstood us at any time, or what heresy was not so withstood, according to God's promise to his Church: Upon thy walls, 
Esa. 62.  O Jerusalem, I have set watchmen: all day, and all night, even for ever, non tacebunt, they shall not be silent. Whereupon S. Augustine saith confidently, by the warrant also of the Parable: 
Aug. ep. 119 cap. 19 Mat. 13.  Ecclesia dei inter multam paleam, etc. The Church of God beset with much chaff and with much cockle, although she tolerate many things, not being able to redress them, yet such things as be against faith or good life, she neither alloweth, nor is silent, nor practiseth. And Fulke himself saith as much: The Church of Christ in such places as she is (join hereunto ca 2. 
Ar. 92.  where he confesseth the known Church of the first 600. years) suffereth no man damnably abusing her Religion, without open reprehension.  
Now against this, and so against himself to, what hath he to say? One while he bringeth causes, why and how our Religion entered into the true Church with silence. 1 For because it came not in suddenly, 
Ar. 43.39.35. Pur. 256.  but entered by small degrees at the first: and therefore was less espied by the true Pastors, (where he addeth) especially being earnestly occupied against great Heresies, and open adversaries, that sought to beat down the chief foundations of Christian faith, as the Valentinians, Marcionistes, Manichees, Arrians, 
Pur. 419.  Sabellians, and such like monsters. 2 Another mean or cause was this, that in those ancient times if the Gentiles or Heretics had any thing that seemed to have a show of piety, or charity, they would draw it into use, with such correction as they thought was sufficient. And this was a great corruption. Where he addeth, So they took of them, etc. eight or nine things of ours he there nameth, his words are here cap. 3. pag. 9 Amongst the which prayer for the dead is one, 3. the causes and manner of the entering whereof he rendereth in like sort more at large. cap. eodem pag. 14. to 20. as, because it had a pretence of Charity, 
Ar. 39 Pur. 386.78.  it deceived simple men the sooner. And the ignorant people's error first winked at, because it had a show of piety, was allowed at length of Augustine, and others, who followed the common errors of their time. To omit, that D. Allen foresaw and prevented these goodly causes (Pur. 384. etc.) I say it is a fond part, to tell why and how a thing was done, which thing was never done. For so the Scripture before alleged promiseth, and S. Augustine affirmeth, that there should not be, nor was, any such silence in the true Pastors. In so much, that you can not name any confessed Heresy, but it was so contradicted, howsoever the Fathers were at the same time otherwise occupied. And we show, that these supposed Heresies were not (as you blaspheme) taken into the Church by emulation of Pagans or Heretics, as here cap. 6. pag. 36. to pag. 56. In how many places doth S. Augustine say, that origen's heresy of the Damneds salvation after a while, was joined with a certain human piety: And yet, who knoweth not, how the Origenistes for all that, were most earnestly and continually resisted. And the like may be showed in all the like, that as well the Heresies which had a show of piety and charity, were faithfully resisted, as the others, no Heresy at all lacking some show for the time. And howsoever now you make a small matter of prayer for the dead, 
Cap. 11. contradict. ●1.  in the next Chapter (after your usual manner of contradicting yourself) you will make it equal to the greatest, most blasphemous against Christ and against God, and occasion of most licentious wickedness in all that believe it, etc. Besides that the Fathers in deed withstood your friend Aerius, who would have entered with the contrary, and likewise all those other known friends of yours, the old Heretics. Had they, for all their being occupied against those horrible Heresies, leisure to withstand truth, and had they not leisure to withstand corruptions of truth? You think your followers very béetles, if you hope to blind them with such gross conveyance.  
But you have also Scripture forsooth, to cover your juggling. 
Ar. ●8. 2. Thes. 2.  For, when the Scripture telleth us, that the Mystery of iniquity, preparing for the General defection, & Revelation of Antichrist, wrought even in S. Paul's time: it is folly to ask, whether suddenly and in one year, (and consequently, with much preaching against it, Ar. 43) all Religion was corrupted. Against your blaphemous understanding of this text, as if it said, that the Church of Christ wrought the mystery or preparation of Antichrist, I have replied cap. 8. pag. 121. But now, whosoever wrought it, doth your text say, that there was then no preaching against it? No such word. Besides, what a mad imagination is this of yours, that if all Religion had been corrupted in one year, than the Pastors would have cried out against it: but being wrought by little and little, they either could not espy it, or were content to wink at it? For who seeth not in the Ecclesiastical Histories and other monuments of Antiquity, that they gave warning vigilantly and faithfully, as well against those Heretics that would have corrupted but one or a few Articles, as against those others that sought to corrupt many or all? So have they done all the time of the mystery, against all the Heresies that from the beginning have wrought it, 
1. joan. 2.  covertly therein serving Antichrist, themselves also therefore termed Antichristes. So they do now also, being the time of the defection or Apostasy, (though not General. S. Paul doth not so call it) of which Antichristian Mystery you Protestants are the workers, as I have declared cap. 8. pag. 124. to .133. And after all the mystery, when his Revelation cometh, shall that at least pass uncontrolled? You, according to the blasphemies of your Apostasy, do make, that Antichrist is long ago revealed (to the which I have in the same place answered most irrefragably by the Scriptures themselves that you abuse.) But now, whensoever his Revelation be, doth any text say, that there is then no preaching against him? 
Ar. 36. 2. Thes. 2. Mat. 24. Apoc. 12.  For so you say: When the coming of Antichrist was in all power of lying signs and wonders, in so much that (if it were possible) the very Elect should be deceived: and a general departing from the faith was foreshowed: and the Church to be driven into the wilderness: What marvel were it, if none of our Church could preach against it, as it first entered? As though the Scripture were not plain, that not only as he shall enter, when the time of his Revelation cometh, but also even during the whole time of his reign, there shall be open and stout preaching against him over all the world, with most mighty working of true Miracles against his lying wonders, and most constant resisting of him to blood and to death, though his torments and tormentors be never so horrible and Satanical. As I have partly noted in the same 8. chapter, pag. 124. to 130.  
All this you have said, to defend, that our Religion might be false and of a later entrance, 
Ar. 36.  although it were not gaynesaid at the first entering of it. As for that which you say of preaching and writing against the Pope's authority, when it first began, it is answered above cap. 9 pag. 157.  
Now on the other side, that your Religion is not false, though it were withstood by the true Pastors in Aerius, iovinianus, etc. this you say: 
Pur. 413.  They that defended that Heretics should not be baptised, were withstood by Cyprian and all the Bishops of Africa, who were in the unity of the Church: yet were they not heretics, nor their opinion heresy. Much forsooth to the purpose. Were withstood (you should have added) at their first arising and preaching. But than you had marred your example yourself. For their opinion did not then first arise, but came by lineal tradition from the Apostles. And the contrary opinion of Agrippinus and his successor S. Cyprian did then first arise, and was withstood by Pope Stephanus, etc. who 
(a) Aug. de bap. count Don. li. 5. ca 23.  wrote and commanded, 
(b) Vincen. Lirin. ca 9 apud Cyp. epist. 74.  nihil novandum, nisi quod traditum est, to make no innovation, but keep the Tradition. And therefore it was an heresy, and they that held it obstinately (as afterward the Donatists and Luciferians) were Heretics, and the 
(c) Eus. li. 7. ca 2.3.4. Niceph l. 6. ca 7. Hier. contra Lucif. Bed. l. octo quest. q. 5. Aug. contra Cresc. li. 3. ca 1.2.3. & de Bap. li. 2. ca 4. & Ep. 48.  catholics recanted it, both in Africa & in Phrygia, though S. Cyprian himself peradventure was martyred in the mean time.  
But yet you have in store one example about this rule, to dorre us withal, and to show, that 
(d) Ar. 93.  the Romish Church can well enough abide, the true Religion of Christ to be damnably abused (by wicked men) not only without (open or privy) reprehension, but also with allowing. Which is no worse than you hold here of the true ancient Church which you call your own. But your example out of Matthaeus Paris. is clean against yourself. For it showeth manifestly, that neither those Friars preachers, which attributed too much to Religion or life Monastical, nor those Parisian Doctors, which detracted too much from it, lacked their reprehenders among the Catholics, as they were all, until some of the Doctors afterwards proved obstinate heretics. And that when the matter was brought before the Pope, he took such blessed order with it, as was very meet for his Apostolic See, to wit, that the Friars new scandalous book secreto combureretur, should be privily burned: for shaming their order, say you. And what fault was that, I pray you? Know you not, how S. Augustine used Pelagius and his disciples in the beginning of their new doctrine, when he first wrote against them? Tacenda adhuc arbitratus, 
Aug. Retr. li. 2. ca 33.  etc. I thought good not to express as yet their names, hoping that so they might more easily be amended. Imo Pelagij ipsius nomen non sine aliqua laud posui: quia vita eius a multis praedicabatur: Yea in my next writing expressing the name of Pelagius himself, I did it not without some praise: because his life was commended of many. Thus did S. Augustin use one Monk, and him the author of a most pestilent Heresy, as he proved afterwards. And your Christian spirit would have all the order, all Monks, the innocent also, shamed for the fault of a few. Such would have been your care to amend those few: and such your providence to save the wheat, whereof these few might have made as great waste, if they had not been wisely handled, as Friar Luther now hath made, for lack of a silver spur and a Cardinal's hat: and as Erasmus also might have made, had he not been made of by Catholic Bishops far above his merits.  
Yet one shift more you may seem to have, where you say for your argument ab authoritate negatiuè, of the whole Scriptures authority negatively: 
Pur. 449.  And this conclusion M. Allen himself made of man's authority, cap. 13. Purgatory and prayers for the dead were not preached against at their first entry: Ergo they are true, or rather, there was no such entry of them as you imagine, but they came lineally and quietly from the Apostles. But of all men's authority it is false, you say. Howsoever the argument of all men's authority negatively be, good or bad, who but you would call this such a one: All heresies (according to the Scriptures, Fathers, and Histories) have been preached against at their first entry. This was never preached against: Ergo this is no heresy, nor never since the Apostles time did enter.  

¶ Names.  
In the three next Demands I have three easy and familiar notes, by our bare names, to know which side is right, 
Ar. 66.  and which is wrong. To that generally Fulke saith: He is a foolish sophister that reasoneth from names to the things. In what Logic he hath that axiom, I know not. But this I know, and you shall hear it 
* In the 7. Dem. See cap. 11. his 37. x Aug. in Ps. count. partem Donat. Ar. 68  anon, that also himself so reasoneth. I know moreover, that S. Augustine so reasoneth: Dicitis, mecum vos esse (saith the Church to the Donatists) sed falsum videtis esse. Ego Catholica dicor, & vos, de Donati part: You say that you be with me. But you see it is false. For I am named Catholica, and you, Of Donates' part. S. Augustine, I trow, he will not call a foolish sophister, nor himself a foolish sophister. Again he saith generally: If the only name of an honest man, of a learned man, of a good Christian, is enough to prove the thing: many a knave, ass, hypocrite, may prove himself an honest man, a learned man, a good Christian. As though we said, the argument to be good from every name to the thing. No sir, we say it no more but of three sort of names: of which the Fathers said it before us, and experience teacheth it, and you can not disprove it by giving any instance. For there are in it further reasons, then only arguing from names to things.    

6. Catholics. 
Motive 1. Article. 20.   
First then we say, that sith the Apostles did bid us believe that church which is named The Catholic Church, evermore to this day they have been true Catholics in deed, which were in times of Heresies and Schisms commonly called Catholics, and easily known thereby. For this we allege among others, S. Augustine: whereof you take notice (which may be written, it is so rare a thing in this your book against the Articles) and go about to answer him with his own words: but very fond, as I have showed cap. 9 pag. 182. The rest that you have, is oppositions after your custom. As where you oppose to this name, your stolen exception (which here cap. 7. 
Ar. 69.  you oppose to all things) of Only Scripture, saying: Wherefore howhoever you boast of the honourable name of Catholic, except you prove that your opinions agree with the Scripture, they are not Catholic in deed, by Chrysostom's judgement. Again: By this you may see, that chrysostom thought it not sufficient to have the name of Catholic. Your folly in this allegation I detected cap. 9 pag. 172. neither is it Chrysostom's, neither doth he speak of the name Catholic, nor of the Apostles writings, but of the Apostolic Sees writings.  

Ar. 66.  Another opposition: You yourselves will not account the Grecians (now since their separation) for true Christians. And yet as many nations have since then called them Catholics, as you are able to show on your side. Though they are not so called by you: for no more are you so called by them. Be bold to say enough, how little soever you be able to prove. To say, the Grecians be called Catholics, is like as to say, the Latins be called Catholics: which were forsooth a proper saying, considering that not only we but you also be Latins. But this I say, that as among the Latin or Western Christians, he that in common talk or writings heareth Catholics named, understandeth us therein, & not you: so likewise if he hear the Catholic Grecians, or the Catholics of the East, whether he be Latin or Grecian, he understandeth them that be with the Pope, & believe the holy-Ghost to proceed of the son also, & not the Schismatical & Heretical Grecians. And therefore in this example is nothing to the contrary, but that they be true Catholics, which are known by the name of Catholics. And so much you say of the name and rule itself. Now which of us two have that name, whether we, or you?  

Ar. 66.  The Heretic Grecians do not call us Catholics, you say. No more do you that be Heretic latins. But yet both you and they mistake not the person, when common talk and books so calleth us. Therefore (I say) we be true Catholics. On the other side you say: 
Ar. 68  And we have as many Nations, and more than you have, that by public authority call us Catholics, and you Heretics. Who be so called any where by public authority, is not the question, but who be commonly called & known by that name. Howbeit also of any such public authority no man knoweth but yourself. But this all men know, that those also of your own side, in France, Flaunders, etc. in their public Edicts, call us Catholics, and themselves by other names.  
Now supposing that it is our name, yet you have a shift, saying, 
Ar. 67.  that we boast and trust only in these names, (Catholic) and (Church,) without the things themselves, as the wicked jews did, crying, The Temple of the Lord, when they had nothing less than the Temple of the Lord, 
jere. 7. Mat. 21.  but rather a den of thieves. Our Lord both in the Prophet, and in the Gospel, acknowledgeth it to be his Temple, although they in it were thieves and wicked persons. So is ours his Catholic Church, although some of us were so wicked as you make us. Howbeit the wicked both then and now, trusting only in the Temple and in the Church, and not amending their lives, deceive themselves: how much more they that trust in the conventicles of Heretics, which are the Synagogues of Satan.  
On the other side, supposing that it is not your name, you have also your shift, saying: 
Ar. 68  If you have no greater argument to condemn us, than that we are not called The Catholic Church, than you can no more condemn us then Christ and his Apostles, that were not only not called the true Church, but also were called Heretics and deceivers, by the jews, which were as rightly called God's people, as they that give you the name of Catholic Church, are called the Christian world. Nay, bate me an ace of that, I pray you: unless you can likewise show by predictions of the Prophets, and correspondence of Luther, the reprobation of the Christian world in these days, as we all see the reprobation of the people of God the jews in those days. Besides that you have great reason forsooth, to require that the jews should have used those names which they never heard of, or else you not to be tried now by them after their institution, receiving, and universal using.  
And yet again you will needs have the name from us. 
Ar. 95.  For why might not our Church, when it was most hidden (you say) be as rightly called Catholic, as the Church of the Apostles, when it was so particular, that it was contained in the narrow bonds of jury? For (you say) it is not called Catholic, because it should be every where (for that it never was, nor never shall be) But because that wheresoever it be in parts, it is one body of Christ. I read of many old Heretics, that gave many interpretations of that name, to draw it to themselves: but you are the first, to my knowledge, that said, because it is una, therefore it is called Catholica. The old fathers in their creed were of another meaning, when they said distinctly: I believe One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic (that is, Roman) Church. No Sir, S. Augustine telleth you another interpretation: 
Aug. de un. Eccl. ca 2.  Ecclesia utique una est, quam maiores nostri Catholicam nominarunt, ut ex ipso nomine ostenderent, quia per totum est. Secundum totum enim, cath olun Grecè dicitur. There is no doubt but only one Church, even that same, which our ancestors named Catholica, to declare by the very name itself, that she is over all, to wit, beginning at Jerusalem, and from thence growing over all Nations, continually till the end of the world, when having taken in the fullness of Nations, she shall be wholly assumpted in glory. And therefore your Church, neither when it was hidden as you imagine, neither now that it is open as we all see (God hide it again) can be called Catholic, 
Au. Callat. 3. diei. nu. 2. post. Collatine. c. 27.28. Epist. 48.  because (as S. Augustine so often reasoneth against the Donatists) you do not communicate with totius Orbis Ecclesia, the Church of the whole world, but have separated yourselves from it, from the Church (I say) which began in jury, and groweth on to this day, and therefore as well then in the beginning, as any time after, was the same and had the same name, as the tree of musterdséede is the tree of musterdséede, whether it be grown little or mikle.  

Ar. 95. Pur. 14.  But what a thing is this, that you speak with the spirit of the Donatist, and say? The Popish Church is not in every part of the world: For Mahomet's sect is in the greatest part: Many countries are Idolaters: and the most part of them that profess the name of Christ, are not in the fellowship of the Popish Church. It is jump the argument of Cresconius: 
Aug. contra Cresc. li. 3. ca 63.  Argumentaris, quod ideo nobis non totus Orbis communicet, etc. Thou makest this argument (saith S. Augustine) that therefore the whole world doth not communicate with us, because as yet either many men there are of the Barbarous Nations which have not yet believed in Christ, or many Heresies under the name of Christ, abhorring from the communion of our fellowship. The full answer thereof you may read there in S. Augustine. Although I allege almost nothing, but only answer, my length groweth tedious to myself, and I fear, to the Reader also: not for any substance of your arguments, but for the multitude of your trifles, to say the least and best of them. As again where you say (like non plus) that Most Papists will confess, 
Ar. 69.  that many things in their Church have need of reformation, as not being universally perfect, and that it is halting in many things from the truth of God's word, neither yet dispersed over all the World, but contained in a corner of Europa. and therefore it is not by S. Augustine's rule, the Catholic Church? Is yours then by that rule, the Catholic Church? As the jews care not, if none be Christ, so that jesus be not Christ: even so you reason like men, that care not if none be the Church, so that the Roman be not. O miserable People that must have such Leaders. The Church now may vouchsafe to be so spoken of by you, when you speak no better (here cap. 3.) of the same Church also in S. Augustine's time. But we tell you, with the words of S. Augustine (for we confess no more than he also doth) by you alleged, where he repeateth the creed: 
August. de Gen. ad 〈◊〉. imperfect. ca 1.  Constitutam ab illo Matrem Ecclesiam, That the Holy Ghost being given, founded the Church our Mother, quae Catholica dicitur, her that is called Catholic, ex eo quia universaliter perfecta est, et in nullo claudicat, et per totum orbem diffusa est, of this, because she is universally perfect, and halteth in nothing (though the Donatists and other like Heretics do never so much triumph in that interpretation) and is spread over all the World, in manner aforesaid. Both interpretations agree to our Mother, and we claim them accordingly, saith S. Augustine and we, whereas the Heretics are compelled to renounce the later, which is the more proper and plainly peremptory, and to shrewd themselves in the former most vainly, saying, that the Church is called Catholic, non ex totius orbis communione, 
Epist. 48.  sed ex observatione omnium Praeceptorum Divinorum, atque omnium Sacramentorum, Not of the whole world's communion, but for the keeping of all God's commandments and of all the Sacraments.  
By all this wrankling you win nothing but this, that you declare thereby the name to be ours, and not yours: as also by this, that you defend your fellows, for saying Universal in steed of Catholic, and Congregation in steed of Church: 
Ar. 67.  because (say you) they are so in English, and are not else commonly understanded. You should have said rather, that they are so in Latin, and then by your wise conceit, one should tell the people of the gathering over all, and they would understand that better than the Catholic Church, because these be Greek words. Even as if you would not name Baptism unto them, but rather Ablution or washing: 
Apostasy the cause of changing these words.  nor Heretic, but a chooser: nor Schismatic, but a Cutter. No my masters, it was not for more perspicuity, it was not, that you changed those known and worn names: it was because they were preoccupated by us afore you were borne, and therefore were as a great block in your way, to be removed afore you could enter into the Christian hearts that you were to seduce. for which cause, your Apostasy hath gone about to change & translate more Greek names also than those as you know, Priest, Bishop, etc. though they were understanded well enough before.   


Motive 2. Article. 19  7. Heretics.  
The second rule is of the name Heretics, being the contrary to the name Catholics, and therefore we need now stand less about it: That such as are of Christian men commonly called and known by the name of Heretics, are always Heretics in very deed. To this Fulke agéeth not, but correcteth it, saying: 
Ar. 65.  Those that by (true) Christians have been called and counted for Heretics, have proved so in deed, (and therefore say I, Aerius, iovinianus, and Vigilantius, were Heretics in deed, because you confess here cap. 2. that they were true Christians, who called and counted them so. But this not being for your vantage, you infer otherwise.) And therefore the Papists, being called and counted Heretics of true Christians, without doubt are Heretics in deed Even as undoubtedly as you be true Christians, that so call them. That briefly is our answer to your rule, though you answer it yourself also, where you say, The Devil stirred up Tyrants, Heretics, Popes, Saracenes, and Turks, 
Ar. 78.  to destroy the Church, who that counteth Popes to be Heretics, would so divide?  
What is now your answer to our rule? Forsooth, The true Christians were of the Arrian people (who were people commonly called Christians) called and taken for Heretics. What is that to the purpose? but were they commonly called Heretics, even so much as of the Arrians? Even as much as we now be commonly called Heretics of you. For you know pardie yourselves, that if you should in your talk and writing say, Heretics, simpliciter as we do: you could not be understanded to speak of us, so as we be with all perspicuity understanded to speak of you. Yea, but although we be called Heretics (you say here cap. 7. pa. 80.) yet in that our faith agreeth with the word of God, we prove ourselves in deed to be no Heretics. Witness here cap. 8. where all your depravations of God's word are revealed to your confusion.   

8. Protestants. 
Motive 3. Article. 18.   
The third rule is upon the name Protestants, and such like: That they have always been Heretics, who have had such new names in respect of their several faith and doctrine: and always Schismatics, who have had the like in respect of their several communion: namely, if they were obstinate therein. To this Fulke answereth: We desire most of all to be called Christians, 
Ar. 65.66.  counting it a most honourable name: although in reproach we be called of you, Caluinists and Lutherans. As the true Christians of old were of the Arrians called in reproach Homousians', and Athanasians. I told you in my Demands, that to be like rather to this that Luther invented to call us Papists. For we were, you know, before Luther began, as they were before the Arrians began. And neither they, nor we, then without a name. What other than was our name, but the name of Christians? In unity of the name were all together at that time. And when afterward Arius, and Luther began their parts, what offended the old Christians, I pray you, to lose their old name? And keeping their old name, what need had the Arians to call them Homousians and Athanasians, or Luther to call them Papists? was it of necessity, or of reproach? And therefore on the other side, the name Christians being preoccupated, how could men talk of Arrius his faction, or of Luther's faction, without some new names, as Arians & Lutherans? Therefore it was not of reproach, but of necessity: in so much that your own side also in their talk, in their Edicts, and in their books, specially one against another, are constrained to use those or other Names. But we are not constrained, nor do not call ourselves Papists: but we call ourselves still, as before, Christians, or (for more distinction & perspicuity, 
Pacia. Ep. 1. & 2. ad Sy. Habetur in Bibliotheca edita Paris. 1575.  when we deal with you) Catholic christians. For (as S. Pacianus saith passing finely in his Epistle De Catholico Nomine, to Sympronianus a Novatian, though he then took him to be a Montanist) Christianus mihi nomen est, Catholicus vero cognomen. Christian is my name, but Catholic is my surname. And therefore you may long desire the name of Christians, before you get it. The great count that you make of it, is to our glory whose name it is.  
But this is notable, that howsoever you be ashamed of those names, you confess two other names, (granting withal that they which choose to themselves such new names, 
Ar. 87.  are none of the Catholic Church) to wit, Gospelers and Protestants. Specially where you say: 
Ar. 65.  As for the name of Protestants came first of them that made protestation against the decree of Spires in Germany, (Anno 1529. twelve years after Luther began) and from that time hath been attributed to professers of the Gospel. Of whom soever it first came, it is within the compass of our rule. And therefore you had good cause to add and say: Which name they do not so much delight in, as you do in the name of Papists. We delight even so much in the name of Papists, as in the invention of your Patriarch Luther. Howbeit we say not that a Catholic may to the Heretics deny himself to be a Papist: no otherwise then to the Arrians, to be an Homousian. If you Sacramentaries or calvinists delight not in the name of Protestants, the Lutherans do, and stand as earnestly against you upon their seniority for that name, as we do stand against you both upon our seniority for the name of Christians & of Catholics. But your confessing of the name, on the one side, and yet saying on the other side, that your true Christians delight not in it, 
Ar. 65. Infra ca 11. cont. 50. Ar. 65.  as also that they desire to be called Christians, without choosing any other name, I reserve to the place of your contradictions.  
But of us you say as much: They can not be content with the name of Christians, but choose unto themselves new names after the calling of their Sect-masters: as franciscans, Dominicanes, Benedictins, Gilbertins, Augustinians, Scotistes, Thomists, Albertistes, etc. This is answered in my Demands & Motives (as all the rest also in effect.) Yet I say again to it: A Sect importeth a division. Now what division is between those Catholics, and us the other catholics that have none of those names? Be we not all of one faith, and of one communion? So easily is your accusation wiped away, and not only from us (I say) who have none of those names, but also from our brethren who have them. They be not of that sort as the name of Christians, and therefore (by Logic you know) not privatively opposite thereunto. But such are these: Arrians, Pelagians, Lutherans, calvinists, Protestants. Because being before, of Christ, of his unity, of his communion, all called Christians: they for some matter, either of faith or other, dividing themselves from the same, follow the communion or fellowship of Arius, of Pelagius, of Luther, of Calvin, of those Protesters. Why then are those our brethren so named, if S. Augustine, S. Benet, S. Francis, S. Dominike: if S. Thomas, and Scotus, were not Sect-masters? I answer: the first sort, because they profess to live after the rules of those principal Abbots: the other sort, because they hold certain Scholastical questions (which either can not be matters of faith, or else as yet be not, because they be not yet defined by the Church) according to the opinions of those principal School Doctors.   

9 Conversion of Heathen Nations. 
Motive 25. Article. 1.   
My ninth Demand doth note, who are (after the Apostles) the Converters of all Nations from Paganism, (whom the Scripture calleth, the witnesses of Christ to the extremes of the earth. Act. 1.) to wit, we, and not the Protestants. According to Tertullian'S most singular observation, speaking of Heretics, and saying: As touching the ministery of the word, 
Tertul. de Praesc.  what should I speak? considering that this is their endeavour, non Ethnicos convertendi, sed nostros evertendi: Not to convert the Heathen, but to subvert our people. This glory they do more seek after, Si stantibus ruinam, non si iacentibus elevationem operentur, To work ruin to such as are standing, and not raising to such as are lying. And so Fulke may glory, I do not deny, as he doth also, where he saith: 
Ar. 33. Ar. 95.  The Land of Bohemia was converted by john Hus, and Hieromyn of prague. Again in another place: And at this day the most part of Europe, is converted from Idolatry, Heresy, and antichristianity (such he counteth the Catholic faith) unto the same true faith that we maintain: as in England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, Denmark, Suetia, Bohemia, Polonia, by public authority: in Spain and Italy, a great number under persecution and tyranny. That is your glory in deed, that you have subverted many in many Christian nations. We can not so glory, nor you can not show that we have done the like in any Nation, although you say with a brazen face, 
Ar. 3.  It is certain that the Popish Church hath perverted and corrupted all parts of the Latin or Western Church, with Idolatry and false religion. But that you have converted any Nation from Paganism, you do not, nor you can not boast. But the truth is, although you say that we have not converted the Nations to Christ's faith, 
Pur. 460.  but perverted all nations from the faith of Christ, that our Church, that is to say, the Communion of S. Peter's See Apostolic, or the church beginning visibly at Jerusalem, and visibly growing on to this day, is she that converteth all pagan Nations to be Christians, not only at this present, so many nations of both the Indies, and in Africa: item so many others that this last thousand years have been converted, three whereof you name, Livonia, Prussia, Lithuania, 
Ar. 3.85.  with this lying censure, that we converted them by force of arms, rather than by preaching and teaching: but also all them that were converted either in the 500 years afore that, or also in the Apostles time itself. Against this clear truth what mist have you to cast? Forsooth, not we, but certain Heretics & Schismatics converted some nations to the profession of Christ's name, 
Ar. 2.3.  though to false religion. Do you grant that it was to false religion, & yet bring that for an instance? It is an evident argument that you had no instance in the nations that we confess to have been converted to the true faith of Christ. Was not this scope enough for you, & reason enough for us when we say, (as in my Demand you may see) that it was our Church, by which all Nations were converted or corrected to the true faith of Christ?  
And yet also for your said instancies, where you quote your Authors, they shall be answered. In the mean time I quote to you Eus. li. 2. ca 1. reporting the conversion of Ethiopia to have been of the right stamp, according to Psal. 67. and Act. 8. which two places he there doth cite: 
Ar. 2.3.  because you to show, that the true Church of Christ did not convert all, do say, For in Aethiopia there are yet people converted by the False Apostles, which taught circumcision & observation of the Law: in which heresy they continue unto this day. Who should tell that better than the Ethiopians themselves? whom we see to have their house at Rome, and to be Catholics. And yourself do say in another place, 
Pur. 357.  that their Liturgy doth savour plainly the usage of the Greek Church. Their Emperor did his obedience to Paulus III, and also an Ethiopian Abbot, which Abbot in his Epistle dedicatory before the rites of their Baptism & Liturgy, doth expressly inveigh against them that did falsely report of them as not Catholics and obedient subjects to the See Apostolic, much rejoicing therein, and desiring that they might be so taken. Howbeit I deny not, but there might be some corruption, though not of heresy peradventure, but for lack of free conversing (being intercluded by the Turks and Saracenes, and often oppressed by Tyrants and Infidels of their own) with the Roman Church, In qua semper ab ijs qui sunt undique, 
Ire. li. 3. ca 3  conseruata est ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio, In which Church (saith S. Irenée, that is, by repairing to it) the faithful that be all about, have always preserved themselves in the tradition that cometh from the Apostles.  
And where you say for another instance, 
Ar. 2.3. Pur. 337.  It is manifest by all Histories, that the Nations of the Alanes, Goths, & Vandals, were first converted by the Arrians: in so saying you declare that you never read the Ecclesiastical Histories, presuming notwithstanding to write against these Articles which are in manner nothing else but certain observations thereof. Read Socrates li. 2. ca 32. (and not only li. 4. ca 27. and Sozomenus li. 6. ca 37. but specially Theodoret li. 4. ca 32. who, as a Catholic Bishop, of purpose to take from the Arrians that vain brag of theirs, showeth, that the Goths were first Catholics, and not (as you say) first converted by the Arrians: but, only by false informations and to much trusting of their Bishop ulphilas, being another Balaam, led out of the way.  
You talk also of the Nations that were converted by the Donatists & Novatians. 
Pur. 337.  But we shall know your Histories & authors hereafter. Again you say: And it is also manifest by Histories, 
Ar. 3.  that the Grecians (whom the Papists count no part of their church, but Schismatics) converted the Moscovites first of all. Did the Grecians convert them since their Schism? O great Historian. The truth is, there was great emulation then in the Grecians against the Latins, but not schism nor heresy as yet, nor long after, and therefore of our Church they were then: Howbeit it is not the true faith, nor our religion (as you say truly) which the Moscovites have, but such as they themselves did list to receive, with many qualifications and modifications of their own. such was the fruit of the Grecians emulation, and such is the necessity that S. Peter cast the net.  
But if Histories fail you, yet one demonstration ex per se notis you have, to prove, that not we, but you converted all true Christian Nations. 
Ar. 2.  And what is that? If the Papist can prove, that we hold not the same faith and truth, unto which the Apostles converted the Nations, we refuse to be called the Church or Congregation of Christ. The Papist proveth (to omit a 1000 others of his proofs) that you be Heretics (and therefore hold not the same faith etc.) by the testimony of that which yourself confess to be the true Church of Christ: here cap. 2. and cap. 3. Again: We are members (witness your Separation, here Dem. 3. 
Ar. 2.3. ) of that Church, which converted all Lands in the earth that are converted to the true Religion of Christ: and we affirm, that the Apostles taught none other faith in steed of true Christianity, but that which we hold, as we are ready to prove by the word of God. Witness here cap. 8. Where all your absurd Depravations of God's word are answered, and not that only, but also showed by the express word of God among other things, that the Sacrament of Confirmation went every whither together with the Apostles Gospel, as the chiefest point of Christianity, 
Ar. 3.  pag. 145. But no marvel of your audacity, to say, we are ready to prove it, considering that you are bold to conclude of this, saying thus: I have showed, that our church, holding the true Doctrine of the Apostles, is that which converted all Nations to true Religion. Then belike all those Nations were (and are) of your Religion, and you will be content to be tried by them, as by Africa (for example) whose Religion we know by Tertullian S. Cyprian, S. Optatus, S. Augustine, etc. Or if you have better Monuments of any other Nations Religion, name it, and let us try it between us. But whosoever seeth here cap. 3. how you are feign to charge the true Church, the primative Church, with erring, may easily conjecture, what you dare do.   


Motive 17.  11. Britanny.  
Well, we be English men, and therefore in a several Demand I name our Country, England or Britanny, unto you. Specially because the Prophets (as you know) speak much of the conversion of islands expressly, and namely of such islands as were farthest of: As also because there are extant such monuments of our islands conversion and religion, in Tertullian, Origen, S. Jerome, S. chrysostom, S. Gregory the Pope, with many other like, and specially in the History of our own countryman S Bede.  
But here Fulke telleth such English men that list not to be deceived, 
Pur. 346.  but to see into what faith all Nations were converted that were turned by the Apostles, that they were better to consider the word of God & the History of the Acts of the Apostles: and biddeth us of so many Nations there recorded, to name one, 
Pur. 166.332.  unto which Purgatory, or praying and sacrificing for the dead, was taught. You are profoundly seen in the Scriptures, I perceive by this. Why? was the Acts of the Apostles written, to show, into what faith all Nations were converted, that were turned by the Apostles? Nay, is there so much as any mention of the twelve Apostles preaching to any nation of the Gentiles? No sir, that book was written to show only the beginning of the Church (according to the Prophets) to wit, at Jerusalem and among the jews, and the taking of it from them for their deserts, and giving of it to the Gentiles, even from Jerusalem the head of the jews, to Rome the head of the Gentiles: And there S. Luke endeth it, not caring to tell so much as the fulfilling of that which our Lord had foretold Act. 27. to S. Paul (in whose person this translation was wrought, and not in S. Peter's, nor any others of the Twelve, for causes to long to be here rendered) Caesari te oportet assistere, Thou must stand before the Emperor. Because his purpose was no more but to show the new Jerusalem of the Christians, and so to leave them to it, to know what are the particulars that the Apostles taught. And so withal, you have one of those Nations named in the Acts, and that no common one, ●o wit, the Romans, which received of the Apostles not only the Article that you require, but also all the rest which at this time it hath, neither you being able by Scripture or otherwise to prove the contrary so much as in any one, and we proving it both a particulars and in the total sum, partly by Scriptures, partly by other unavoidable demonstrations.  
Well, for all this trigiversation (by which you see what you have won) you will yet be content to be tried by our Britanny. 
Ar. 49.  For you confess, that the Church of the Britons, or Welshmen, before Augustine came in to convert the Englishmen Anno 597. continued in the faith of Christ, even from the Apostles time, 
Pur. 332.  so that for six hundred years almost this land was never void of Christians. Go to then, and prescribe us the form of this trial. Prove (you say) that Paul, or Simon, or Taddeus, or joseph, or whosoever first preached the Gospel in this Island (in the reign of Tiberius' the Emperor, as Gildas testifieth) taught prayers or sacrifices for the dead: prove it I say, and the day is yours for ever. In this brief answer one probation may suffice. If you require us to prove it out of the Scripture, considering that the Scripture doth not tell of our Lands conversion, you declare yourself to be but a prattler. If other authors will content you, what greater ones can you ask, than those so many, whom here cap. 3. pag. 20. you confess to witness that the Apostles, and namely S. Paul (cap. 7. pag. 86.) left that Tradition? Another probation thereof you fear, if the Britons received the faith from Rome of Pope Eleutherius (which is most certain) as the Englishmen did afterwards, of Pope Gregory. And therefore you talk so willingly of the Apostles preaching there afore, not considering how that maketh more for us, in that the Britons thereby could judge the better of the matter, 
The Britons begun by the Apostles and Romans, accomplished by Eleutherius.  and so would not have received from Eleutherius (to whom they sent for their accomplishing) the contrary of that which the Apostles so little before had planted among them. Which probation proceedeth aswell, although not the Apostles (which yet I believe) but the Christian Romans (to whom they were then subject) began the matter, which again is most certain.  
But you are so afraid of Christ our great king's City, that is, of Rome, 
Pur. 371.  the Christian Jerusalem, that yet again you say: It were easy to prove by that controversy which the britains and the Scots had against the Saxons about the celebration of Easter, that our Country first received their conversion from the East Church, whose ceremony they did then defend, even as the East Church did long before against Victor Bishop of Rome. By which it appeareth, that this land did never receive the doctrine and ceremonies of the Latin Church, before the time of the Saxons. But this your reason hath no other ground, but only your own ignorance in the History, as I have noted ca 2. pa. 4. Where also you have an evident demonstration, that the faith of the Britons first, and of the Saxons after, was all one, because the greatest paint wherein their Bishops differed from S. Augustine, was that same about Easter Sunday: in so much that S. Augustine was very earnest with them to join with him and preach to the Saxons. Which according to your imagination, had been as wisely done of him, as if we now should move you (considering that you keep Easter when we do) to preach and teach as you do.  
All this considered, no man may marvel to see you in such a peck of troubles about the Religion of the Saxons: one while allowing it, as it had been yours: another while condemning it, 
Infra ca 11. contrad. 50.  because it was ours. Your allowance you utter in the very same words, wherewith here cap. 5. you allow of them that you confess to have been the true Church of which all aught to be that would be saved. Thus you say: 
Pur. 335.  All that was then taught the Saxons for Christianity was not false. For the Bishops and Christian teachers of the British nation, whose aid they (that came from Rome) required, and at last obtained, to the converting of the Saxons, retained the foundation of faith jesus Christ, and the only sacrifice of his death. Again: 
Pur. 337.  Many things and the principal were true, that were taught unto the Saxons. Now for us you confess, and say: 
Pur. 346.  You think it is the surest way to look to that faith in all points, which this Land first received: If men should follow your counsel, in some things they should follow your faith which you now teach. Namely, 
Pur.. 335 336.  they received & used unprofitable prayers for the dead, & many other superstitious opinions. Neither doth it follow, that all that taught or believed those errors, so long as they builded upon Christ the only foundation, perished. If the Saxons received prayer for the dead, why do you say of the britains (whom erewhile you confessed to have taught them) that although Gildas accuse the Priests of his time for seldom Sacrificing, 
Pur. 332.  and although the error of praying for the dead were received in other places, yet whether this Country were free from it, I am not able to say, nor you to prove, that it was infected with it?  
Because of these points which you confess, and many others that you can not deny: 
Ar. 49.  therefore now the English Nation received their Religion first from Rome, at such time as religion there was very corrupt: The Saxons were converted by superstitious Romanists: 
Pur. 337.348.  Yea (as some think) they were not so much converted from Gentility to Christ, as perverted from pure Christianity to superstition. See I pray you, they were not only Christians before, but so pure as no other Christian Nation in the world, if you remember what he said of all others here cap. 3.  
And yet again on the other side, were their corruption by those Romans never so great, 
Pur. 335.336.346. Ar. 49.  yet such was the faith that was received even of the Saxons, that you can show us if we will, plain and pithy confutations (at that time) of many points of Popish doctrine, and namely (that which we count the chief) the Real presence and transubstantiation, yea and direct invectives against the Pope and all Popish doctrine. Marry in deed that were worth the sight. Do you grant, that in some things. and namely prayer for the dead, they received the faith which we now teach: & yet have you cards of them to show not only against many points of Popish doctrine, but against all popish doctrine? And what be your cards? divers monuments of antiquity, (as Prayers, Psalms, Homilies, with divers other small Treatises and pamphlets) in the old English or Saxons tongue, in old English written hand, and namely that printed Saxon Homily, which was appointed to be read at Easter. Belike they were of S. Bedes making (for so we read in his life) that he compiled many godly things in the vulgar tongue, and not only in Latin, and his Homilies to this day are read in the Churches,) or rather of some his Elders, such as he in his History maketh mention of, because it was one hundred years after our first conversion, before Bede himself did flourish. Is this possible, think you? No, no. Non sunt rectè divisa temporibus tibi Daue haec. In S. Bedes story, and in all his works, and all other writers of his time, and before his time you find nothing against the Pope, nor against any one point of his doctrine. But clean contrary we find so plainly for the Pope and for every point of his doctrine, that you are feign to put the revelation of Antichrist, and the disparition of the Church (here cap. 2.) at the very time of our conversion. For which cause also you refuse (as we saw before) to be tried by Bedes history, 
Pur. 333.  telling our countrymen, that they were better to consider the Acts of the Apostles: and saying in another place, that you way not worth a sly that which D. Allen telleth out of Beda. For who seeth not there our Religion most plainly, and namely for 
(a) Beda hi. li. 1. ca 24. Greg. li. 12. epist. 15.  the Pope's authority, and 
(b) Beda li. 1. ca 25.27.29.  Mass, the very points that your Saxon Homilies do impugn? But what say we then to those godly monuments? Who can not say and see, that if they were such as you make them, they should not all this while be kept vnprinted, neither should that which was printed, so soon and so diligently have been called in again: for why? either they contain not such matter as you report, or they be but of some of these late Wiclesistes making, such as (by your own saying) are yet common to be seen. Disprove my conjecture if it be wrong, 
Ar. 34.  and then you shall see whether I can reply.   

10. 12. Miracles and Visions.  
Unto these two Demands I couple two others, of Miracles, 
Motive 5.6.7.  and of Uisions, noting that the very Scriptures do by them commend unto us Christ himself, his Apostles with their successors the converters of all Nations, and their doctrine: and saying accordingly, that the Miracles and visions of our Church, are infinite, 
Pur. 166.331.333. Greg. Dial. li. 4. ca 24. Et Epist. l. 7 ep. 30. li. 9 ep. 58. & mora. l. 27. c. 6. in job. 36. Damas'. ser. de defunctis. Beda hist. li. 1. c. 31. l. 3. c. 13. li. 4. c. 21. li. 5. c. 13.  alleged also by the Doctors against the jews also & Paynims, to convert them to Christ: Whereas the Protestants have not all this while been able so much as to heal a lame horse, though Luther and Caluine (as we read in their lives, namely set out in French) attempted wonders. Now what saith Fulke to this? The examples out of Gregory, Damascene, Bede, you may spare for your friends: there is none of us that maketh great account of them. Again: I force little what Augustine (our Apostle, of whose Miracles and holiness S. Gregory also, whose Monk he was, doth testify, as also of his learning, Hebrew psalters written with his own hand, which you count a high point, etc.) wrought to confirm his errors: neither do I way worth a fly that long tale you tell out of Beda, of him that had his chains fallen of in Mass time: that credulous and superstitious age had many such feigned Miracles. Again: You leap but 600. years from Christ, to Gregory's Dialogues, from which time I will not deny but you may have great store of such stuff: as you have miracles now in Flaunders of the honest woman of the old bailie in London. Happy it were for you, and you were so honest. Neither when she was in Heresy, was she unhonest for aught that I have hard, and the Miracle even as I tell it in my Motives, is most gloriously known at Bruxelles. You should have better played the Doctor of Divinity, if you could have informed the simple how to know feigned Miracles from unfeigned: and why Miracles unfeigned may not be after S. Gregory's time aswell as before. You will tell them (as here cap. 2.) that strait after his time was the Revelation of Antichrist, 
Pur. 336.338.  and that these were and are his lying signs and wonders, 2. Thes. 2. such as errors had always great plenty to establish them withal. This is the very bones and marrow of your new Gospel: and yet all wormeaten and rotten. For first, what Scripture telleth you that after the Revelation of Antichrist (supposing it at that time which you would have) there shall be none but feigned Miracles? Apoc. 11. telleth me the clean contrary. Secondly, why cannot you for the defence of Christ his true Miracles against the Infidels, discover the fainednes of Antichrist his wonders, whereas we discover the lying of all fond Miracles which sundry errors (though not in such great plenty) have pretended? Thirdly, what Scripture telleth you, that the time of Antichrists revelation was so long ago? It telleth me the clean contrary, as I have most evidently declared cap. 8. pag. 125. Discovering therewithal your gross falsation of the Scripture to rack it to your blasphemous purpose. A wise Revelation, that was yet so many hundred years hidden, and the party revealed, taken yet for Christ his own Vicar? 
Consider their absurdness.  No, no sir: you that be mystical Antichristes, may of fools be mistaken, and thought to be the Ministers of Christ jesus: but your Lord in proper person shall show himself openly enough, and expressly against the only Christ, our Lord and Saviour jesus, not so much as desiring to be thought of his side. Fourthly, what say you then at the least to our infinite Miracles afore S. Gregory's time? as those, which S. Augustine De Civitate Dei. li. 22. ca 8. rehearseth to the Pagans, wrought by the Relics of the first Martyr S. Steven, after many particulars, even six Resuscitations of the dead, saying generally: Si enim Miracula sanitatum (ut alia taceam) modò velim scribere, quae per hunc Martyrem, id est, gloriosissimum Stephanum, facta sunt in colonia Calamensi, & in Nostra, plurimi conficiendi sunt libri: For if I would write but the Miracles of healings (to omit the others) which by this Martyr, that is, by the most glorious S. Stephen, have been wrought, but in two Cities, Calama, and Hippo, (where his familiar friend Possidonius, and himself were Bishops) very many books were to be made. What Scripture have you against these Miracles? Either you must remove the coming of Antichrist so much higher (which a little thing would make you to do) or else you must bring your blind followers some text that testifieth his lying Miracles to go also so long before his coming, and the workers of them for him to be the very Martyrs and ministers and true Church of Christ himself. For else how will you now defend that our Church hath no true Miracles, 
Ar. 85.  but the power of Antichrist in lying signs and wonders?  
As for your censure of Miracles and Uisions, that what soever is consonant to the word of God, is to be received, 
Pur. 163.333.  that which is not agreeable therewith, is to be detested, although an Angel from heaven were the bringer of it: as though these were against the truth of God uttered in the holy Scriptures. All this hangeth but upon the twined thread of your own poor word, though you say never so much, that it is briefly and plainly so set forth in the word of God, as I have showed in the eight chapter, answering all the texts that you pervert for Only Scripture, & namely that text of an Angel from heaven, pag. 110. And the place also of Saint Augustine, chapter 9 pag. 181. 
Pur. 333.  In so much that where you say thereupon, He will not allow (Miracles and Visions) for sufficient proofs, without the authority of the Scriptures, you do shamefully abuse your Reader, for he saith expressly, that whatsoever such things are done in the Catholic Church (as he there also mentioneth many generally, and some particularly) therefore they are to be allowed, because they are done in the Catholic Church. And you grant that these of S. Augustine's reporting, were done in the Catholic Church: Ergo, by S. Augustine even in that place, you must allow them, and so condemn your own Religion.   


Motive 26.  

13.15. Honour of Crosses and of saints.  
14.16. Virtue of Crosses and of saints.  
17. Exorcisms. 18. Destroying of Idolatry.    
In the next five Demands I report certain arguments made of the old Doctors in their books, against the Paynims, to prove that Christ is God, and not their Idols, by certain points of our Religion, as the Sovereign Honour both of his Cross, and of his Saints, and the miraculous power not only of them two, but also of his Church in her ordinary exorcisms: requiring the Protestants to help here the Paynims, if they be either able, or not ashamed, and also in the next Demand bidding them open their eyes at length, and behold, that our Religion hath been and is the bane of Idolatry, yea and those very points of our Religion, which their perverse blindness counteth and calleth Idolatry itself. To all this Fulke had nothing, but like a Cuckoo, You have not (saith he) destroyed Idolatry, 
Pur. 460.  but set up Idolatry. Not weighing what I tell him according to the prophets, that we have so thoroughly converted all Nations from Idolatry, that we have made them forget also the names of their Idols.   


Motive 41. Article 10.  19 Kings.  
My 19 Demand is of the Christian Emperors and Kings, of whose conversion together the Scripture speaketh expressly, and of the conversion of Nations. The chief of them Fulke nameth here cap. 2. and confesseth (with us and for us) that they were of the true Church in the first 600. years: yea and challengeth them to have been of his Religion, no less than we do. But what proofs doth he bring thereof? Not one. Neither doth he answer so much as any one of our proofs, no not that which D. Allen allegeth, 
Pur. 429.  how Constantinus honoured the Sentence of the priests Council (at Nice) tanquam a deo prolatam, as pronounced of God. 
Pur. 313.  Ruff. li. 1. ca 5. yea he is feign to confess, that in the burial of Constantinus himself, the very first Christian Emperor, 
Eus. in vita Const. li. 4 c. 58.59.60.66.71.  there was prayer for his soul, according to the error of the time, being the time of the first Nicen Counsel. In Eusebius is much more, Sacrifice also for his soul, with the intercession of the Apostles, in whose honour it was offered at their Relics, in their Temple, 
Pur. 312.  and all by the procurement of Constantinus himself. Again, That the Emperor Theodosius junior prayed for his fathers and mother's souls, Arcadius and Eudoria. But the story saith not (quoth he) that he prayed to S. chrysostom for them, as M. Allen thinketh. The story is Theodoret's, and his words are these: 
Hist. Trip. li. 10. c. 26. ex Theo. l. 5. c. 35.36 Pur. 222.226. Amb. super obitum Theod.  And he setting his face and eyes upon the shrine of that holy man, made supplications for his parents, and prayed (him) ut veniam illis tribueret, that he would pardon them the injuries which of ignorance they had done him in working his death. Again, as touching Honorius of the west, brother to the said Arcadius of the East, where S. Ambrose saith, Eius principis (Theodosij Senioris) et proximè conclamavimus Obitum, et nunc quadragesimum diem celebramus, assistente sacris Altaribus Honorio Principe, We finished of late (upon the seventh day) this Princes Obite (Theodotius Senior their father) and now we celebrate his fourtyth day, our Prince Honorius standing by the sacred Altars. To this Fulke had nothing, but partly to reprehend the thing as superstitious both in the Bishop and in the Emperor, partly to inveigh blindly against D. Allens translation. For Ambrose speaketh not (he saith) of his fortyth days mind, but of the solemnity of his funeral kept 40. days together. As though the fortyth day is not one of the forty, and yet also how plainly he expresseth the singular solemnity of the fortyth day, as of the Obite before, saying, And now we celebrate his fortyth day, whereas others use to keep the third day and the thirtieth, (which was and is the use of the Roman Church:) But the Church of Milan kept the seventh day, and the fortyth.  
All this considered, who seethe not, that aswell the Catholic Emperors within the first 600. years be against him, as the others of later times: and therefore that it is but a cast of his facing & deceiving art, that he saith: 
Ar. 33.51.  Before the general Defection (and Revelation of Antichrist) it is an easy matter to name you the Emperors and Princes of our Church, as Constantine the great, 
See the impudent Heretic, them wh●m he condemned before.  iovinianus, Valentinianus, Theodosius, Arcadius, Honorius, Martianus, justinianus, Mauritius, & divers other. But when the Kings of the earth had committed fornication with the great Whore of Babylon (as the holy ghost foreshoweth Apo. 17. & 18.) it is no prejudice to our cause, if we cannot show any of them, that have maintained our Religion. Your malicious and ignorant setting of the Defection & Antichrists revealing, at the year 607, I have confuted cap. 8. pag. 126. by the Scriptures most manifestly. But that you point the same time for the Kings of the earth to have fornicated with her, your ignorance and malice surmounteth itself, as it is evident by that which I say there pag. 126. that Babylon is this world from the beginning to the ending thereof, and called a Whore for that it hath such allurements, whereupon the same S. john exhorteth us in his Epistle, 
1. joan 2.  and saith: Love not the world nor the things that are in the world. The world is transitory, and also the concupiscence of it. And therefore in his Apocalypse, he maketh her to sit upon all the earthly & worldly Kings that ever took or shall take her part against God's Church. But your blindness could find no earthly Kings in the world but within these last 900. years: yea none to be the Kings of the Earth, but those that be the Kings of the Church, and their fornication to consist In humbly adoring her, 
Esa. 49.60.  & licking the very dust of her feet, which they are commanded by the Prophet to do under pain of Damnation. 
Ar. 17. Discipline.  And thereupon D. Allen told you, that to be the true Church, Which exerciseth Discipline upon offenders in all degrees, And that all true the Christian Kings have and do obey her accordingly: which is an unvincible argument for us against you, in this Demand.  
And yet you have Kings on your side, also since the Revelation of Antichrist: 
Ar. 33.34.32.  The Grecian Emperors that were Image-breakers: Charles the great, who wrote a book against Images, and called Bertrame to declare his mind upon the Real presence and transubstantiation: and those Princes that defended their married Priests. But lest we should object, that it was but in one or two points, that these did favour you: Edward the third defended Wickleve. Also Zisca & Procopius defended the Bohemians: and George king of Bohemia was deprived of his kingdom by the Pope, for defending the Protestants An. 1466. Which is well towards an hundred years before the name of Protestants (by your own confession here Dem. 8.) and much more before the religion of the Protestants, was coined. For though you say, Wickleve, I ween, you will not deny but he was of our Church and Religion, yet you may see in my 40. Dem. that in deed he was not, neither also the Bohemians or Hussits. But that Edward the third was a Wicklevist, who ever heard? though I deny not, but that Catholic Princes are often times passing negligent in their office and oath, to extirpate Heresies, until by God and his Church's admonition on the one side, and by the waist (on tother side) that Heretics in time do make both spiritually and temporally of all Common wealths, they be spurred thereunto. The like absurd ignorance in stories, or rather malice, you and your brethren declare, in saying that fond book against Images to be Charles the great, who was clean contrary, 
Cop. Dial. 4. c. 18.19. Saunder. de Imag. li. 2. ca 5.  an enemy of the Image-breakers, as is at large & learnedly declared in M. Copes Dialogues. Neither is it Carolus Magnus, but Carolus rex, brother to Lotharius the Emperor An. 840. (by Trithemius) to whom Bertrame wrote De corpore & sanguine Domini. Neither was that (as the learned think for good causes) this Heretical book which Oecolampadius set forth under Bertrames name. And is not this a substantial reason, He declared that he liked not the Real presence and Transubstantiation, in that he called Bertrame to declare his mind of that matter? How much better may I reason, that both the Emperor or King, and all Christendom held the Real presence and transubstantiation, because this Bertrame durst not but so timorously & about the bush (after the manner of all heretics in the beginning) go against it, as we see in that book? No no, syr: As I said before of Nations, so I say of Princes: If any were everted, he might in some thing fall on your side. But those Princes in all countries that were converted from Paganism, & also their Successors, that continued in their steps, were in no point yours, but ours in all things.   

20 In all Persecutions. 
Motive 15. Article. 7.   
My 20. Dem. is of the persecutions both before the Emperors became Christians, & also afterwards when some of them were perverted again with Apostasy or Heresy: saying, that the Religion which we read of in those times, being the Religion of all Martyrs, and (by Fulkes confession here cap. 2. pag. 4. 
Pur. 258.312. Ar. 23.24.25. ) of the true Church, is in all points ours, and in no one point the Protestants. And to this he hath nothing, but only this, that all true saints held the foundation jesus Christ, (which we do in his sense, & he doth not in the true sense, as I showed cap. 5. and therefore forsooth it is proved that they all were of his Church: notwithstanding he is fain to say, that some of them builded straw and stubble upon the foundation, they were ours so plainly in many things, as he confesseth cap. 3. yea and in all things, as I show cap. 9 In so much as they have scraped most of their names out of the Calendar, whereof I shall speak more Dem. 46.   


Motive 33. Article. 14.  21. Churches.  
In the 21. Demand I challenge for ours the ancient Christian churches with their furniture both afore and after the conversion of the Roman Emperors: also in our country namely, as in all others. And Fulke no less challengeth them to his side, here cap. 2. pag. 6. But before we come to the particulars, let us see his answer to D. Allens argument: What if it were granted that all Churches (that now remain, 
Ar. 53. Pur. 339.340.  that he addeth, whereas D. Allen speaketh generally) were builded by Papists, and for Popish uses: what have you won thereby? As much as needeth, I think. Why not? For the same challenge might the Idolaters have made to the Apostles: Show us a Temple in all the world, that was not builded by Idolaters and to maintain Idolatry? Were that the same challenge, I pray you? The Apostles renounced both those Temples, and that Religion: you renounce Popish religion: but do you also renounce all Churches that now remain? If you do, than you renounce also the Churches of the first 600. years, for innumerable of them (as at Rome, etc.) now also remain. But because you may not leave to us the Churches of that time also, for fear of afterclaps: you think good to come to the matter, and to say: But for all your brags, we are able to show, that such Churches as were builded by true Christians, were not builded to such end as yours are. Constantinus Magnus was a true Christian with you also, and of him I told you erewhile in the 19 Dem. out of Eusebius, that he builded Apostolorum templum, A temple of the twelve Apostles, in his city of Constantinople, appointing his own body to lie in the middle of their 12. shrines,  defunctus queque precationum, quae ibidem essent ad Apostolorum gloriam offerendae, particeps efficeretur: That also after his death he might be partaker of the prayers, which there should be offered to the Apostles glory. And at his burial accordingly, Much people with the Priests, preces pro anima Imperatoris Deo fundebant: made prayers to God for his soul. And likewise to this day we see, saith Eusebius, that he enjoyeth there the divine Ceremonies, and the Mystical Sacrifice & the society of the holy prayers. This was his end (among others:) and the same was the end of all our Church founders, 
a Pur. 338. to 347.  saith D. Allen. Not so, saith Fulke: for 
b Pur. 339. Ar. 52.57. Fulk is no babe you may see,  our Stories testify, that at the first conversion of this Land to Christianity, the Temples of the pagan Britons, and of the Idolatrous Saxons, were converted into Churches of the Christians. Therefore these Churches forsooth had pagan founders, and not believers of Purgatory: as likewise Pantheon in Rome. As though that they which converted them to the Christian use, were not rather their founders: as now also king Henry the eight is called of you, a founder of many places that he did not build, but only alter. So then here is one end of their Churches, all one and of our Churches, to wit, to pray for the dead.  
But they were all builded in the honour of God, of Christ: 
Ar. 53. to 55.  and the most of yours in the honour of creatures, of Saints. Marry, well ymet. The aforesaid Church of Constantinus was it not called, The twelve Apostles Church? And doth not S. Augustine De civit. Dei talk of Basilicae Martyrum & Apostolorum, 
Au. de Ciu. li. 1 ca 1.4.  The Apostles and the Martyr's Churches or Palaces, calling them also Christi Basilicas, The Churches of Christ, which you make to be opposite one to the other? beside infinite like examples. And therefore your places out of S. basil and Didymus, & S. Augustine, 
Bas. ep. 141 Did. de sp. sanct. Au. ep. 174 Ench. c. 56. Cont. Maxim. Ar. l. 1. Titul. 11. De ver. rae. ca 55.  that a Temple is only for God, make no more against our Churches now, then against theirs at that time. But the places, where S. Augustine answereth the matter, for you to allege them against it, is most vain impudency. He 
a Au. de ci. li. 8. c. 27. & li. 22. ca 10.  telleth you & the Pagans for himself and for us together: But we do not to our Martyrs build Temples as to Gods, but Memories as to dead men, their souls yet living with God. Nec ibi erigimus Altaria, in quibus sacrificemus Martyribus, sed uni Deo, etc. Neither in those memories do we erect Altars (etiam super sanctum corpus Martyris, Not so much as them that are made over the holy bodies of Martyrs) upon them to sacrifice to the Martyrs: But to the one, both ours and the Martyr's God, do we offer the Sacrifice. Although at that Sacrifice, they, as the men of God, be in their place and order named, and we honour the Memories of them as of holy men of God. 
Ar. 55. Sozo. li. 2. ca 2.  This is the meaning and none other of S. Peter's Church, S. Laurence Church, of S. Peter's Altar, S. Laurence Altar. And even so of Angels Churches also, Sozomenus telling of a Church in Constantinople called Michaelium, S. michael's, in memory of an Apparition of that Archangel there.  

Pur. 344.345.  But in the third end you pay us home, for the great grants that Constantine made to Sylvester Bishop of Rome, he made to married Bishops of Rome. And that were so, then cry on a God's name, Vivat iovinianus, Blessing upon jovinian, and Anathema to S. Augustine who called him a monster, yea and upon all the Church of Rome, where not so much as one Priest would marry for all his persuasions, but so faithfully resisted him, that out of hand they extincted his heresy, here Cap. 8. pag. 149. Seeing this your impudent most false assertion of Rome, who will marvel to hear you say as boldly of England? Many of these Churches and Colleges, yea the most notable Cathedral Churches in England, were builded, for Preachers of the Gospel, and their wives to 
* Then is the Q. Injunction to blame.  dwell in, and they were first inhabited of married Priests. Is it possible? Our stories are plentiful in that point: if you be skilful in antiquity, you cannot be ignorant of this, which is testified of Ranulphus Castrensis, Matthaeus Westmonasteriensis, the story of Peterburghe and many other. You talk sometimes of a Whetstone as big as a Mountain? You have won it, you must needs have it. This our Stories tell, that many of our Priests had need sometimes of reformation, and that also with violence, such was their obstinacy in that dirt: as also in other Countries, too often. But that any Churches were builded for such swine, or first inhabited by such, is a chicken of your own hatching.  

Ar. 55.56.57.  After this we have to consider what you say of Chauncells and the Rood loft, of Altars, of Chalices, and Uestmentes. The Church of Tyrus (Eusebius lib. 10. cap. 4.) had (Cancellos) the Chancel in the midst: and the Altar being but one, 
Fulk driven to confess altars in the Church.  in the midst of the Chancel. So also as the Priests and Deacons stood round about it. Again, Many Churches have Cross Iles. Belike you are suddenly become our Proctor. For chancels, Altars, and Crosses were not (I trow) in your fellows late buildings (which you mention Pur. 342.) at Orleans, Antwerp, and other places. And therefore as suddenly you change again, and say, that the chancels are but additions builded since the Churches, of likelihood by the persons that disdained to have their place in the midst of the people as the old manner was. Even as likely as that it was of disdain, that Saint Ambrose by his Archdeacon commanded the Emperor Theodosius signior, 
Theo. li. 5. ca 17. Sozom. li. 7. ca 24.  out of the Chancel, telling him that it was for the Clergy only, solis sacerdotibus. If you know that marvelous Story, you may better remember yourself, because you say, In the Oriental Church, as their Ceremonies are divers from yours, so no doubt the fashion of their Temples differeth from yours. You may there perceive that both in the East and West Church, the diversity was not in the Ceremonies nor Temples, but in the Bishops, for many were flatterers, or unskilful, every one was not an Ambrose. Howbeit some little differences are in the Temples also of one City, but without jar, yea all very sightly becoming our Church, 
Psal. 44.  as variety in the queens goodly garment. But your Religion may not bear any Chancels at all, neither in the midst nor at the East end. It may not bear the length into the East, which was and is the common and Apostolic form, but will have all rather to be round, according to the example of those few which before were lightly Temples and Synagogues of the Pagans and jews: as Saint Maria Rotunda in Rome, which was Pantheon, and those two at London and Cambridge which you do mention. It may not bear the out Isles to make it in form of a Cross lying along upon the ground. No it may not bear any Cross or Rood at all, to be in the Church, although Constantinus had 
a Eus. in vi. Const. li. 2. c. 12. l. 4. c. 56 Soz. li. 1. c. 8.  Tabernaculum Crucis, a Tabernacle or movable Church of the Cross, carried about with him in the wars: and also in Jerusalem 
b Eus. or. de laud. Const. pag. 367.  dedidicated an holy Temple Salutari Signo Crucis, to the healthful sign of the Cross: and also set up 
c Euseb. de laud. Const. pa. 368.388  Trophaea victoriae contra mortem partae, Triumphant signs of the victorious Cross, in the Churches and Temples consecrated to God. And in his Church of our Lord's Passion, the very Cross itself that our Saviour died upon kept in secret. Quam Episcopus urbis eius quotannis, 
Paulin. ep. 11. ad Seu.  cum pascha domini agitur, adorandam populo, princeps ipse venerantium, promit, The which most holy Cross, the Bishop of Jerusalem (as S. Paulinus Bishop of Nola, and S. Augustine's great familiar friend writeth) bringeth forth every year to be adored of the people, himself being the first & chiefest of them that worship it: and that at Easter, die qua Crucis ipsius Mysterium celebratur, ipasque sacramentorum causa est, quasi quoddam sacrae solennitatis ensign, 
Creeping to the Cross upon good Friday. ●ere cap. 3. pag. 9 and cap. 6. pag. 39  Upon the day that the mystery of the Cross itself is celebrated, and itself is the cause of the service, as it were a certain banner of the holy solemnity. Your religion may not bear these things, as which (you say) the ancient Church took of Valentinian Heretics: nor so much as one Altar in a Church, howbeit then also were many Altars in one Church. For the same Paulinus in the same place writeth, that the same Church was Auratis corusca loquearibus, & aureis dives Altaribus, glistering with gilded Roses, and rich with golden Altars. 
Beda hi. l. 5 c. 16.17.18.  And his Church of the Resurrection, tria Altaria continebat, had three Altars, as we read in S. Bede.  
And what do you talk again of Chalices of wood and of glass, and of selling the golden and silver vessels, even the holiest vessels of all, to redeem captives? seeing that you may bear no Chalices at all, 
Ar. 57 Pur. 69.  no holy vessels at all, but say plainly: Your vestments are of as good stuff as your Chalices, the old Church knew none such. Then belike you never read of that Sacra Stola ex aureis filis contexta, 
Theod. li. 2 ca 27.  Holy Cope, woven of gold threads, the which Constantinus gave to the Bishop of Jerusalem,  ea amictus sacrosancti Baptismatis ministerium obiret, to wear when he did solemnly celebrate the administration of holy Baptism. Because S. Fulgentius (out of 
a Vita S. Fulg. c. 18.  whose life 
b Ant. 2 p. hi. li. 11. c. 12.  your author S. Antoninus took it) had never an 
c Hier. li. 1. con. Pelag.  holiday coat, but only one ●oate for all times, and for all things, you imagine that he said Mass (sacrificabat) without holy vestments. When those most perfect Monks are in Histories noted to have been monochitonos, do you so understand it? How then was S. Sasill so commended of the Emperor Ualens, Quoth in Natali Domini tanto cum ornatu, tamque decenter sacerdotio fungeretur, For executing in Christmas with such ornaments, and such comeliness? As also, 
Sozo. li. 8. ca 21.  when S. Chrisostomes' Priests and Deacons were beaten at Easter by his enemies in the Church, Et in ornatu (ut erant) per vim rapti, and in their ornaments (so as they were) carried away violently. For though some in great poverty, as commonly in times of persecution and spoil, as now also in England, used either none or very simple vestments, and wooden, glasen, leaden, or copper Chalices: and although you say, 
Ar. 57  The service of God hath small need of furniture in outward things, for God being a spirit, is not worshipped with outward pomp: yet it is evident, that the Churches then, in times of peace, were much richer in such stuff and (as Paulinus calleth it) in alma sacri pompa ministerij, 
Paulin. epi. 12. ad Seu.  in the magnifical pomp of the holy ministery, than they be now: in so much that Acacius Bishop of Amida (of whom you talk) was able therewith to redeem at once seven thousand captives, 
Socr. li. 7. ca 21.  to feed them, and to give them to bring them home into Persia. There was belike in England such necessity to redeem Captives, or to build Temples of God, 
Ambr. off. li. 2. ca ●8.  for the enlarging of the Martyr's monuments, or to provide that requies defunctorum might be at the burial of Christian men, which are the three uses that S. Ambrose hath in the place that you allege. Sane si in sua aliquis deriuat emolumenta, crimen est. Marry if any man turn them to his own commodity, it is an heinous fault. 
As you have done in England.  But it was not for that, it was for the foresaid causes: and then withal a reverent choice was made first of non initiata vasa, unconsecrated vessel, and after when necessity urged also to the consecrated, great respect was had, ne Ecclesia Mystici poculi forma non exiret, that a Mystical cup went not from the Church in his own form, ne ad usus nefarios sacri calicis ministerium transferetur, lest the instrument of a sacred Chalice (which he there calleth also a vessel of our Lord's blood, & Gold in which our Lords blood is powered) might be converted (by the buyers) into wicked uses. Are you not ashamed to cite such places out of antiquity, you that hate Chalices because they be Chalices, and because they be consecrated?  
After all this you say full wisely: We are content, 
Ar. 57  that your Church by her gorgeous garments, aswell as by other things, should declare itself to be that woman which is prescribed to be clothed in purple, gold, pearls, and such like ornaments, Apoc. 17. The true sense of which place I have given cap. 8. pag. 126. But you in the mean time to give us a blow, care not that the stroke lighteth withal upon the Primitive Church (for it was not yours, why should you spare it?) as I have here showed, & as yourself confess in speaking above of those golden and silver vessels that Acacius sold, 
Pur.. 342.  and elsewhere of those Princely buildings, that by Constantine and other Christian Princes were first set up, & must confess much like of those former Cryptes, Caves or vaults under the earth, if you know well the story of S. Laurences martyrdom, namely that the Tyrant said to him. 
Prud. Him de S. Laur. peristeph. ij.  Hunc esse vestris Orgijs 
 Moremque & arten, proditum est, 
 Hanc disciplinam foederis, 
 Libent ut auro antistites: 
 Argenteis scyphis ferunt 
 Fumare sacrum sanguinem: 
 Auroque nocturnis sacris 
 Adstare affixos cereos.  
This is the use and order of your Ceremonies, as some have confessed, this is the doctrine of your Testament, That the Prelates do sacrifice in gold: In silver cups (they say) the sacred blood doth smoke: and that the tapers stand upon gold, at the sacrifice in the night.  
Likewise by that little which I have said of the Cross and the Signs thereof, it is evident that in your usual railing against dumb Images, 
Ar. 4. Pur. 20.21.22.460. 2. Cor. 6.  stocks, and stones, you do no more but utter that you are no more of the ancient true Church, then of our Church now which you deny to be the true Church. S. Paul in deed saith, that the Temple of God and Idols can not agree together, speaking of Christians that did draw with Infidels, as receiving of meat sacrificed to their Idols, such as now receive of Caluins' bread. But that the true Temples of God, and Images belonging to the same God, agree well together, you can not deny, but you must revoke your own confession made here of those ancient Temples of Christ. And therefore you do but like yourself, to say: I care not what your fathers called or counted Sacrilege. But God our heavenly father commanded us to break, burn, and destroy all your Idols, and to deface all the monuments of them, Deut. 12. And all the godly patriarchs and Fathers both before Christ's coming and since, have given us example hereof. What else? they gave us example to set up Crosses, & you example to pull them down. You may roll in such Rhetoric before fools that receive your absurd principles, to wit, that the Idols of the Pagans were Images of the Christians. But when the simplest Catholic doth no more but deny your principle, you are by and by non plus. No sir, but to avoid prolixity, I could tell you plainly and at large who were your fathers in these spoils that you have made of Christ's churches, to wit, the Donatists, the Arrians, the Eutychians, yea julianus Apostata, yea and that you have outshot them all, and left nothing to Antichrist himself but only to fill up the measure, as I have sufficiently touched cap. 8. pag. 128. And therefore neither will that serve, which again you say: 
Pur. 341.  Such livings as are appointed us by the Prince, and the law, we may enjoy with a good conscience. No sir, it will not serve. For you may remember the story in S. Ambrose, De Basilicis tradendis. 
Ambr. li. 5. post epist. 32. & ep. 33.  He would die rather than to deliver the Churches to the Emperor, and the Arrian Empress his mother. And so you enjoy our Churches with as good a conscience, as the Arrians should have done at that time: as you shall feel when you come in your course, after your seniors, before the just judge our mother's husband, whose Dowries they be.   

22. Service. 
Motive 32. Article. 6.   
The 22. Demand is of the Service, which Fulke in word challengeth no less than we, saying here cap. 2. pag. 4. Constantinus builded those Churches for our assemblies and Service, and in the Cryptes also before that, our assemblies were kept. But in deed he confesseth that it was ours, and rejecteth it accordingly: so that I must stand here to defend it rather than to claim it. 
Pur. 377.  His defence of their new Communion book is this: Whosoever were children of the true Church, would never find fault with our Communion, which can not be condemned by the word of God: and therefore careth not for the comparison of the custom of other men, which whether they used the like or not, in form of words ( is not material) so they used not other substance of matter, except they did it besides the word of God. And yet it must be prejudicial to our Mass book, (not that the hook was made since the Apostles time, 
Ar. 21.38. Pur.. 402.413.  but) that any piece was added since by certain Popes, yea though the very same pieces be retained in their communion book also. Let all men therefore consider, how just the defence is that I made in this Demand, to wit, that no piece, be it never so new, neither in the Mass book, nor in our other Service books, is contrary to the old faith of the Apostles contained in the word of God written or unwritten: yea the same in substance, and commonly in form of words also, was in the Apostles and Fathers Churches.  

The Primitive Church had the same service that the church 〈◊〉 hath.  Let one example hereof be, Prayer for the dead, and that also in the Canon of the Mass, as Fulke himself confesseth here at large cap. 3. pag. 16. to .21. And whatsoever he objecteth against the Primitive Church and us for it, saying they had it of the Devil &c. (cap. 3. pag. 22.) that it is against the Scriptures, and contrary to the same Doctors themselves: I have answered all cap. 6. pag. 47. to 56. and cap. 8. pag. 133. to 134. and cap. 9 pag. 161. to 164. pag 193. to 214.  
Let another example be, praying to Saints, as he also confesseth here cap. 3. pag 10. And what he objecteth against the Faters and us for it, I answer cap. 6. and cap. 8. pag. 138. saving one place of S. Augustine's, 
Ar. 55.  upon which he saith: Note that no Sacrifice ought to be offered to Martyrs, but prayer is a Sacrifice, therefore it ought to be offered only to God. Secondly, that Martyrs were not called upon in the time of the Sacrifice, but only named for remembrance. Cunningly noted, as appeareth by these words of his in another place: 
Aug. tract. 84. in joa. De ve. Ap. sermo 17.  Non sic beatos Martyrs, etc. We do not make such a commemoration of the blessed Martyrs as of other that rest in peace: that we also pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us. Was this, to be only named for remembrance? Neither in the 
* Aug. civi. li. 22. ca 10.  place that you allege doth he say, that they were not called upon in the time of sacrifice, but, Non tamen a Sacerdote qui sacrificat, invocantur, The Priest that sacrificeth, 
Aug. Civit. li. 8. ca 27. Offerimus (domine pater) praeclare maiestati tuae, etc.  doth not invocate them. And what he meaneth by his invocation that sacrificeth, he declareth there afore, saying: Which of the faithful ever heard the Priest standing at an Altar, though also made upon the holy body of a Martyr for God's honour and service, to say in the prayers or Canon: Offero tibi Sacrificium Petre, vel Paul, vel Cyprian, I offer sacrifice to thee, O Peter, or Paul, or Cyprian? But otherwise for praying to Martyrs, S. Augustine is very plain in the same work, the same book, and almost the same chapter, telling certain Miracles, one in a woman, that prayed to the holy Martyr S. Steven, 
Aug. ci. l. 2. ca 8.9.10.  in S. Augustine's own Church, ad sanctum Martyrem orare perrexerat: another in a poor man, that prayed aloud to the twenty Martyrs in the same town, ad viginti Martyres clara voce oravit. And such Miracles are done (he saith) by God, at the Martyr's suit & instance, eye orantibus & impetrantibus. And therefore whether prayer be a sacrifice, or no: and how it is, or is not, we need not stand here about it. As also, because he doth not say, that no sacrifice ought to be offered to Martyrs, as you pretend, but he speaketh of external sacrifice (the definition whereof you may conceive by that little which I said cap. 6. pag. 49.) and of one certain external sacrifice, We offer the sacrifice to the one God, 
Aug. de ci. li. 8. ca 27. That prayer to saints is not a sacrifice to saints.  who is both the Martyr's God, & ours: At which sacrifice they be named in their place and order. In so much that by this one Sacrifice he answereth the Pagans, touching certain dishes of meat brought by some christians to the Martyr's churches, even as I answer you touching prayer made to them. Non autem ista esse, etc. But that these be not sacrifices to the Martyrs, he knoweth that knoweth the One Sacrifice of the Christians, which is there offered to God. Those Christians do mean no more, but to have them there sanctified by the merits of the Martyrs, in the name of the Lord of the Martyrs.  
Let the third example be of ceremonies generally, such as he confesseth here cap. 3. pag. 15. to have been in the primitive church also. And two objections of his against them, I have answered cap. 6. pag. 45. But now he will reprove them out of Scripture also, & first by his usual argument ab authoritate negative. 
Ar. 19  Because they are destitute of God his word, which only is able to give them strength and estimation. And yet in other places, clean contrary, not only Scripture, but also example of the Primitive church is sufficient for them: as where he saith: 
Ar. 21.42.  If any thing be allowed without controversy on both sides, it did either proceed from the Scripture of God, or from the Primitive Church, 
Ar. 48. just. Apol. 2.  or else it is a thing merely indifferent. And to this purpose he citeth justinus Martyr, who declareth plainly (he saith) what order of service and ministration of Sacraments our Church used before Papistry prevailed. As though the book or books of service were no more than these few lines in justinus. And yet also to see the blindness of this man, so little as he bringeth out of that Martyr, yet is there plain against his Communion book, Water mingled with wine, But no one word against the Mass book, yea it is the very sum of the Mass, unless you be so foolish to think, that the Bishop's sermon, the Receiving of all present, the Carrying of it to them that be absent, and the Rich men's offering, may not be omitted in any Mass, nor for any cause. Now let us here against Ceremonies, 
Ar. 19  your authorities of Scripture affirmatively. We detest and abhor all your beggarly Ceremonies which you count holy and solemn observations. For we know, that God is not to be worshipped with such things, but that the true worshippers must worship him in spirit and verity. joa. 4. Then belike you detest all Ceremonies and all outward things, those also of the Primitive Church, yea and of the Scripture itself, which erewhile you allowed. You saw this reply and therefore in another place you would moderate the matter, saying: The service of God hath small need of furniture, 
Ar. 51.  in outward things. For God being a spirit, is not worshipped with outward Pomp, but with spiritual and inward reverence. And as for other furniture that is necessary, was decreed to the Church by the Emperor Constantine and his Successors: Notwithstanding the Church was in better case before such furniture was granted, then since. Like one that will not hold his peace, and yet cannot tell what to say. If Gods being a spirit admitteth some outward furniture well enough, then have you missensed that text. The meaning is, that outward things, without the inward man please not God: But for all that the inward man may use outward gestures, outward words, and other outward things, as Christ himself, his Apostles, and all the Church ever did. For so to do, is to adore God who is a spirit, in spirit & truth. And touching the other text that you allege not, but allude unto, those weak & beggarly elements Gal. 4. are the Ceremonies of the old law, specially after the death of Christ whom they shadowed, and much more the Galathians being Gentiles, to whom they never pertained: and you wrest it against the Ceremonies that are used in the administration of the gracious Sacraments of Christ, and that by the order of them that could say, Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis: 
Act. 15.  It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to us. Like as against the Lessons, Responses, Versicles, and such other distinctions or varieties in the Service, you allege Matth. 15. 
Ar. 20.  In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrine the precepts of men. Such is your ignorance in the Scripture, by reason of your malice. The precepts of men, are those which be of men, and not of God: as those traditions of the two late Elders, Hilleb & Sammai, being partly frivolous, as those vain lotions, partly also contrary to God's Commandments, as that of Corban, 
Tit. 1.  whereupon S. Paul biddeth Titus to be earnest wi●h the Cretensians, that they listen not to judaical fables, & mandatis hominum, and to the precepts of men that turn away from the truth: Whereupon the inventions also of Luther, calvin, and all other Heretics, are the precepts of men, and their followers worship they know not what, joan. 4. 
Pur. 21.  and if they be also zealous, it is without knowledge, Rom. 10. But so are not likewise the precepts of them, to whom our Saviour said, He that heareth you, heareth me, and he that despiseth you, 
Luc. 10.  despiseth me. And therefore S. Paul commanded them of Syria and Cilicia, 
Act. 15.16.  to keep the precepts of the Apostles and Priests, that were decreed in the Council of Jerusalem. S. Augustine likewise (here cap. 6. pag. 45.) embraceth the Ceremonies decreed in Counsels of Bishops, and much more them that are used throughout the whole Church. And you falsify the Council of Laodicia, when you say, It decreed, 
Conc. Lao ca 59  that nothing should be song or read in the Church, but the Canonical books of holy Scripture. No Sir, that did rather your friend Paulus Samosatenus, who rejected the Psalms and Songs which to the honour of our Lord jesus Christ, 
Eus. li. 7. c. 24.  decantari solent, are wont to be song (saith Eusebius) tanquam recentiores, as being but lately made, and set out by men of late memory: Renewing the Heresy of Artemon against the Godhead of Christ, the which a certain Catholic doth there confute long afore ex Hymnis a fidelibus fratribus antiquitus perscriptis concentu quodam, 
Eus. li. 5. c. 27.  By the Hymns made of old in meeter by faithful brethren. He maketh mention also of 
a Eus. li. 7. ca 19  the Hymns of Nepos: Theodoretus and Zosomenus of 
e Theo. lib. 4. ca 24. Zoso. l. 3. ca 15.  the Hymns of S. Esrem in the feasts of Martyrs, and S. Augustine very often of 
f Aug. retr. li. 1. ca 21. Confess l. 9 ca 6.7.12.  the Hymns of S. Ambrose. The Council of Laod. doth no more but forbidden privatos & vulgares Psalmos, private and vulgar Psalms (made by simple men) to be said in the Church, as the 
g Con. Mil. ca 12. Con. Cart. 3. ca 23.  Milevitane Council also commandeth, that no other prayers, or collects, or Masses, or prefaces, or commendations, or handlaying be said in the Church, nisi quae a prudentioribus tractatae. But such as have been examined by some more skilful, or allowed in the Synod, lest it chance something to be made against the faith, or by ignorance, or by negligence. Likewise touching lessons, the Council of Laod, doth no more but forbid the Apocryphal Scriptures, libros non Canonicos, to be read, sed solos Canonicos veteris & novi Testimenti, but the only Canonical books of the old and new Testament: 
Con. Cart. 3. ca 47. Ar. 20.  as also the .3. Council of Carthage decreeth, that beside the Canonical Scriptures, nothing be read in the Church under name of the divine Scriptures, for which cause both Councils doth there declare, which books be Canonical, and the Carthage Council addeth also, that the Martyr's Passions may be read, when their anniversary days be celebrated.  
These examples declare manifestly, that you detest in our service even those things, which were in the service of the Primitive Church, and all without cause: and that it is an horrible blasphemy, where you say: If you demand, whence your Ceremonies, 
Why then do you keep them now.  festival days, feasts, and varieties of Service did proceed? I answer plainly, out of the bottomless pit of Hell.  
For touching days also (which may be the last example) of Fasting, and Feasting: you confess (cap. 3. pag. 13. and cap. 6. pag. 43.) that Aerius and iovinianus were condemned in the Primitive Church for Heretics, because they denied the days and merits of Fasting, and the Scriptures that you object against the Fathers, & us for it, I have answered cap. 8. pag. 140. to .143. 
Ar. 20.  Likewise you confess, that Festival days were used in the Primitive Church: adding, to show of what Church you be, that they might have been omitted, without any hurt of Christian Religion well. But they were not kept in honour of the Saints as they are of the Papists (for that is great Idolatry, as also to build Churches in the honour of Saints, but only for the memory of the martyrs and other Saints, that their good life might be followed. Whether for that only, let S. Augustine be witness, where he saith: The Christian people doth celebrate together the martyrs memories with religious solemnity, 
Aug. contra Faust. l. 20. ca 21.  Et ad exitandam imitationem, et ut meritis eorum consocietur, atque orationibus adiwetur, Both to stir up imitation, and to be joined in fellowship to their merits, and helped with their prayers. Was not this to keep their memories in their honour also? As again it is manifest not only by certain places alleged before, but also in the very words that you allege, de ver. Relig. cap. 55. 
Ar. 20.54.  The saints must be honoured for imitation, not adored for religion. Honoramus eos charitate, non servitute, We honour the blessed Angels with charity, not with service. Doth he not here expressly avouch their honouring? As for your note, that servitus is the same that Dulia is, contrary to the Papists which will worship them with service called Dulia or servitus, it is but your unacquayntance in S. Augustine's writings. Read De Civit. Dei li. 10. ca 1. 
servitus. Latria.  Latriam quip nostri, ubicunque sanctarum Scripturarum positum est, interpretati sunt servitutem: For wheresoever in the holy Scriptures in Greek is put Latria, our Latins have translated it servitus. And so you may see, that he useth servitus for Latria, not for Dulia, as also he useth Religio for thresceia being synonymum to Latreia. But saith he, speaking of cultus Deitati debitus, the worship due to the Godhead, Propter quem uno verbo significandun, quoniam satis mihi idoneum non occurrit Latinum, Greco, etc. Because to signify it in one word, I find no Latin word apt enough (neither Religio nor servitus, although in that book De vera Relig. he so used them, being yet but a Lay man) I do, where it is necessary, utter my mind by the Greek word, Latria.  
Lo I have alleged here no more but as an answer. And yet I have made it manifest, that notwithstanding all his objections, yea also by his own confession, the Service of the Primitive Church was ours, and not the Protestants: defending it also easily against his vain cavils. 
Ar. 38.40.49.  Neither shall he ever be able to show that any Church, Latin or Greek, British or other, had authentical service, but it was ours, as D. Allen told him before.  
Now as for the Language in which the Service is, 
Service in Latin.  that maketh no difference in the Service itself. For praying for the dead is all one, whether it be in Latin or in English. Yet because he holdeth, that it ought to be in the vulgar tongues, let us see what be his grounds thereof.  

Ar. 49.40.  We can easily show it out of the Scripture, so he saith, but no word that he allegeth any where. But belike he meaneth the place to the Corinthians, by which his fellows do commonly reject the Latin Service, as if it were that miraculous gift which the Apostle there calleth, 
1. Cor. 14.  Loqui linguis, to speak with tongues. Which also he doth not reject, but moderate, for the variety of certain much like to 
* Pur. 7.  some Protestants that think all learning to be the tongues. Now if any learned man, seeing it is not the service that S. Paul there speaketh of, think yet that one may argue thence at the least a simili: Let him consider, first, that so the manner of the simple Catholics, who pray to themselves privately in the Latin tongue which they understand not, is not condemned, but justified. For, He that speaketh in a tongue, speaketh not to men, but (yet) to God. And, he that speaketh in a tongue, doth also edify himself (in spirit, that is, in affect.) For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit (or affection) prayeth, though my understanding be without fruit. And therefore If thou bless, or give thanks in spirit, thou dost it well. But if there be no Interpreter, let him be silent in the Church, and speak to himself and to God. The difference is only this, that those Corinthians received immediately of the holy Ghost, such prayers in such a tongue. And these Catholics now receive the like prayers of the same holy Ghost, but by the Church. Secondly, that the Church in her public prayers doth not speak in a tongue, because the Latin tongue is not in England a strange tongue, so, as it were if one should say Mass at Rome in the English tongue. And so the question is not now the same, as was between the Apostle and the Corinthians: but, whereas the Church would do all things for edification, (as S. Paul commandeth,) the question is, whether this be obtained in the Public prayers of the whole world, rather by the Latin tongue, that is to say, by the Common tongue, or else by the several vulgar tongues, that is to say, by the Private tongues, To which question, the Catholics, drawing all to common or unity, have one answer: Heretics and Schismatics, drawing from the Common, and scattering into many Privates, have an other. At Corinth the case was otherwise, both because the tongues were utterly strange, and also because the prayers were not Set and Solemn, in writing and custom, but momentaneous, suggested of the Holy ghost to some one for the time, so that of them they were not understood, there was no profit at all in their publication. And therefore they should not publish them, but speak to themselves and to God. Read the learned Latin book of F. Ledesima the jesuite upon this matter. He showeth at large and substantially, that it is neither necessary, no nor expedient, the Public Service to be in all vulgar tongues, howbeit the Pope's holiness may (by the Council of Trent) do therein with any Nation as he seethe cause.  
And Fulke can not nor doth not deny, but that in the Primitive Church all the Nations of the Latin Church had the service in Latin, neither can he, or doth he deny, but many of the same Nations had vulgar tongues of their own which were not Latin, as the Punic tongue, the Dutch tongue, the British tongue etc. What doth he then? He holdeth, that all the people (and yet once he dare not but add, For the most part, which is enough against him) of the said Nations, besides their vulgar tongues, spoke and understood Latin. And how doth he prove this absurd position? By the German or French Councils of Towers, 
Turon. 3. c. 17. Magunt. c. 25.45.43. Rhem. c. 15.  Magunce, and Rheims, in the time of Carolus Magnus. Whereas one of his places is so plain against him, that it saith, as we do now also, if any man cannot learn (so strange and hard was the Latin tongue unto them) his creed and Pater noster in Latin, Vel in sua lingua hoc discat, Let him learn it at the least in his own tongue. One other taketh order for Homilies to be translated out of Latin into the Rustical 
* The French is yet in some place called, the Roman.  Roman or dutch tongue, plainly: quo facilius cuncti possint intelligere quae dicuntur, that all may more easily understand that which is said. Whereof he gathereth, that all the Dutch men understood also the pure Latin tongue, though hardly and not perfectly. He might gather aswell, that all English men understand the Latin tongue, and the pure Latin tongue, if the Bishops should say as they may, Let Latin Homilies be translated into the English tongue plainly, that all may more easily understand what is said. Another doth forbid the Priest to say Mass alone, because some body must answer to Dominus vobiscum, and Sursum corda, etc. as also at this time, and therefore he gathereth properly forsooth, that the people commonly understood the Latin Service. 
Ar. 41.49. Cap. 9  Last of all he allegeth the great Council of Laterane An. 1215. as though it commanded the Bishops to translate the Service into English and other vulgar tongues, whereas it doth no more but command them (because at that time the Latins were Lords of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.) to provide ministers according to the rites and languages in which the Service presently was, as it is evident by the words of the Council. And otherwise I ask him, why it provideth but only for those Cities and Dioceses, in which people of divers languages be mingled together, and not for all in general? Besides, that in no place any such translating of the service was put in execution. Amongst those 1300. Prelates, was there not one but he was either so negligent, or so desirous of the people's blindness? And that neither among those of them which procured the making of that Canon? This is the stuff that they have against God's Church, or rather this is the execation and infatuation of them that have forsaken God's Church.   


Motive 34.  23. Apish imitation.  
The next Demand showeth them to be but the Apes of the Catholic Church, in so much as they retain of her Service and other orders: leaving it to the consideration of the learned in the Scriptures and other writings, that false Religion was always the Ape of true Religion, as in the rest that they have rejected, they show themselves to be Apostates, according to that I noted here cap. 8. pag. 144. Wherein the Puritans are offended with their brethren the Protestants, only because they will not proceed so far in this Apostasy, as they and their master Antichrist who cometh to meet them as it were half way, would have them. 
Pur. 379.  And that is it which Fulke saith to D. Allen: The civil Magistrates have thought good in some outward ceremony or usage, to bear with the infirmity of the weaker sort of your side, 
Fulke is no Puritan.  in hope to win them. Where he saith further: All your doctrine is abolished, and nothing left but a few rags of your robes to look upon. And therefore I accord with you, that in deed they be infirm, or rather down & dead already, that will be won from God's Church to such companions by so babish means. Whether that were the civil Magistrates meaning or no, I seek not, but his meaning who mystically worketh in you, was and is, as I have said, Apostasy. And therefore again, where you say: I will urge the Papists to tell me, 
Pur. 295.  what we say or do in the celebration of the Communion, which Christ commanded us not to say and do, or what Christ did or commanded us to do, which we do not therein. I say that you be answered already, that whatsoever is therein against the holy Mass, (of which we urge you in like sort) is against Christ's commandment, who said expressly to his Apostles and their Successors, being the orderers of the same: He that despiseth you, despiseth me. 
Luc. 10.  Insomuch that S. Augustine talking of such matters, condemneth you (here cap. 6. pag. 45.) of most insolent madness, only for calling in question the Mass or any part thereof that is universally received. Of which matter, and of your said Apostasy, this Demand following giveth further occasion.   

24. Priesthood and Sacrifice. 
Mot. 21.38. Article. 13. Heb. 7.   
In the 24. Demand, being of the Priesthood and Sacrifice, I touch your Apostasy at the very root. For S. Paul saith, The Priesthood being translated (from Aaron and them of his order, to Melchisedec or Christ and them of his order,) it is necessary that translation of the Law also be made. That your Heresy of Caluinisme is not a mere Heresy, that is, a corruption of Christianity in one or two points, but a mutation of the whole new Law almost of Christ, it cometh of this (I say) that you have made a mutation of the new Priesthood. And that you have changed the new Priesthood, or Priesthood of the New Testament, I show, because you have changed our Catholic Priesthood. For this Priesthood wherein we serve, came to us from no other, but from Christ and his Apostles. The Priesthood that they delivered, our forefathers and we have to this day kept the same unchanged. To be perspicuous, I come to particulares.  
First, the very Apostolic names, Episcopus and Presbyter, 
Note.  that is, Bishop and priest, we never went about to change them, you have laboured to change them into these, superintendant and Elder. Whereupon it followeth that you have changed the Apostolic order, as it followeth, the Apostles to have changed the aaronical order, because they changed the former names, Pontifex & Sacerdos, for which we have no English. I touched this here afore in the .6. Dem. pag. 231. and you have no where answered it. but I find where you have helped it. For whereas the Father's keeping those new names, 
Isa. 66. s. 21.  yet (according to the prophesy of Esay) used evermore also the former names, considering that the new order no less than the old, is a true species of that genus, Sacerdotium: & whereas we accordingly do in translating put the English word Priest not only for Presbyter, 
Pur. 283.  but also for Sacerdos: you sir translating a passage of S. Cyprians, do put the Priests twice, where he putteth Sacerdotes, but where he putteth Presbyterum, you shun the word Priest, which is the very same, and put your new invented word, an Elder.  
Secondly, you help another argument of ours, where you say: I would desire none other place in all the scripture, 
Ar. 29. Pur. 297.  to overthrow the Popish Hierarchy (which is the greatest glory of their Church) than this place of Paul Eph. 4. He speaketh of Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Pastors & Teachers. But where are Popish Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, Exorcists, Cantors (or Lectors) Acolytes, Ostiares? By this you declare that you have changed the order, Hierarchy, or Priesthood of the Primitive church, wherein, as it is infinitely 
Eus. li. 6. ca 34.  witnessed, & you cannot deny, but the same degrees were, which here you call Popish. And doth not S. Paul himself in other places make express mention of Bishops, Priests, & Deacons? And so you might aswell by your wise reason out of Ephe. 4. overthrow S. Paul's Hierarchies. Who also in the names of Deacons. 1. Tim. 3. includeth subdeacons and the other inferiors, as in the name of Priests. Tit. 1. he includeth likewise Deacons themselves. And the like is common in the ancient Fathers, who yet because Deacons or Ministers is a distinct order, 
Sup. p. 251.  do like better to call all under Priests by the name of Levites, 
Pur. 383.  because that was the general term in the old Law, of all the varieties of them that were not Sacerdotes, & to call all to-together Clerum the Clergy, or in Clericos, or in Clericali ministerio constitutos, 
●yp. ep. 66  or ad ordinatione clericalem promotos. All which terms S. Cyprian hath in one Epistle, with the names of Episcopus and Presbyter, & Sacerdos common to them both. And it is but your ignorance, to think that S. Paul should have named them Eph. 4. considering that he speaketh there only, of the ministery of the word, only of preachers, ut iam non circumferamur, etc. that we be not now carried about with every wind of doctrine, whereas these other are belonging to the ministery of the Altar. Which are two distinct offices, as you may see Act. 13. where some preachers had not orders as yet, & 1. Tim. 5. where some good Priests do not labour in the word and doctrine.  
Thirdly, the Apostles Bishops & Priests were made by other Bishops and Priests, as also with us it continueth to this day. But yours be only of Lay men's making, as of Kings and other Civil Magistrates. I pass over the difference of living Single & Marrying, as a thing extrinsical, & touched before in the .21. Dem. 
Pag. 250.   
Fourthly, yourselves confess our orders to be good enough, in that having been ordered by us, you seek not to be reordered, as Cranmer, Parker, grindal, Sands, Horn, etc. whereas we (as you know) account your Orders for no orders. 
Ar. 50.51.  To this you say: You are highly deceived, if you think we esteem your offices of Bishops, Priests, Deacons, any better than the state of Lay men. For we receive none of them to minister in our church, except they forswear your religion, & so their admission is a new calling to the ministery. How true it is that you receive none otherwise, I pass that over. But sir, 
A new way to give Orders.  we also make your ministers to abjure, & yet after that, they be but lay men still. And I would ask you, if two Catholics abjure with you, one a layman, the other a Priest, are they both Priests ipso facto? O your divinity, O your scripture As for the Sacraments of Baptism & Matrimony, we do not iterate them after you (though we supply the Ceremonies) because a Bishop or a Priest is not the necessary & sole minister of them, as he is of the Sacraments of orders & of our lords Body. Which is a sounder cause, than yours of retaining the form of words, and for as much as the Sacraments take not their effect of the minister, but of God. For hereupon you allow (you say) our Baptism. If that be enough, what needeth abjuring? Yea belike with you it is the Sacrament of our lords Body, if a lay man, or woman also, retain the words, for as much as the Sacraments take their effect of God. What is this but to deny the Priesthood, and so to run headlong to Apostasy. As that also, where to defend Pilkinton not to be a mock Bishop, 
Pur. 343.428. Ar. 72.  you bring no more but his excellent learning, and diligent preaching: inveighing against our Catholic Bishops, as unlearned or unpreaching, and therefore no Bishops. Whereas in deed we that knew both sides by experience, can truly testify that in Catholic Countries, where your Desolation could not yet remove the Orders of seculare and religious Preachers, there is more preaching (to say nothing of the stuff) in so many Churches for so many, in one year then with you in ten, and namely to declare the effect of the Sacraments (according to the Council of Trent, 
Sess. 8. c. 7.  which in another place you cite) to such as receive them.  
Fiftly, arguments need not you say plainly, The spiritual Priesthood is common to all Christian men and women, 
Pur. 450.451.299.  1. Pet. 1. (as true it is) and against all other Priesthood of any Christian men, you say in the same place: There is no Priesthood to offer sacrifice propitiatory, but only the Priesthood of Christ according, to the order of Melchisedech. Heb. 7. By and by after making us as in a great absurdity, to say: Christ is not only our high Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, For every hedge Priest is of the same order. Why you call them hedge Priests look you. But this cannot be denied, that in the Scriptures and in the Primitive Church certain Christian men were Priests otherwise then Lay men and women, as the Apostles, S. Timothy, S. Jerome, S. Cyprian, etc. And therefore then there was some other Priesthood besides the spiritual Priesthood which is common to all. And therefore again you have taken away the Priesthood, by your own confession.  
Sixtly and lastly if to salve this deadly sore, you will invent some third kind of Priesthood: I say that the primitive or father's Priesthood was according to the order of Melchisedech, & to offer a sacrifice in bread & wine, 
The sacrifice of the Mass.  as Melchisedech and Christ did. And therefore you be against the Priesthood, because you be against this Priesthood, arguing & railing at it all that you can. But we Christians to whom this Priesthood is plainly descended from the Apostles and Fathers, none of you all being able to show any later origine of it, regard not your arguments, they be but objections. And yet to defend the truth more fully, for our Fathers and not only for ourselves, we solve them every one.  
But first, that the Reader may see whose adversary you be herein, he shall hear S. Augustine. The Manichée had falsified S. Paul, making him to say, qui sacrificant, 
Au. con. Ad ver. leg. & prophet. li. 1. c. 19.20. 1. Cor. 10.  daemonijs sacrificant, They which sacrifice, do sacrifice to devils: quasi omnes qui sacrificant, non sacrificent nisi daemonibus, as if all that sacrifice, do not sacrifice but to devils. He therefore showeth the Apostle not to say, qui sacrificant, they which sacrifice, but quae sacrificant, the things that they sacrifice, speaking of the Idolaters. They do sacrifice to the devils, and you therefore are communicantes with the devils, if you eat of those sacrifices: even as Israel secundum carnem, the judaical people, eating of their sacrifices, was thereby partaker of the Altar in their Temple. Deinde secutus adiunxit, ad quod sacrificium iam debeant pertinere, Then he followeth and addeth, to what sacrifice the Corinthians now must pertain, being Christians and Israel secundum spiritum, saying: The Chalice of blessing which we do bless, is it not the Communication of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the participation of the body of our Lord? ut intelligerent ita se iam socios esse Corporis Christi, quemadmodum illi socij sunt altaris. That they might understand, themselves now to be Communicantes of the body of Christ, so, as the jews are Communicantes of their Altar. And then a few lines after: The Church, from the Apostles time, by most certain Successions of Bishops, to our time and hereafter doth continue, et immolat Deo in corpore Christi sacrificium laudis, and doth sacrifice to God in Christ's Body, a sacrifice of praise. 
Psal. 49.  For this Church is Israel after the spirit, from whom is distinguished that Israel after the flesh, who served in the shadows of sacrifices, by which was signified the singular Sacrifice which now Israel secundum spiritum doth offer. Iste immolat Deo sacrificium laudis, etc. 
Psal. 109.  This Israel doth sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, not after the order of Aaron but after the order of Melchisedech. Noverunt qui legunt, etc. 
Gene. 14.  The Readers know, what Melchisedech did bring forth when he did bless Abraham. And now they be partakers thereof, they see such a sacrifice now to be offered to God over all the world. 
Mala. 1.  Et quod Deum non paenitebit, etc. And where the Psalm sayeth, God will not repent him, it is a signification, that he will not change this Priesthood, for he changed the Priesthood after the order of Aaron. And not only S. Augustine, but the whole rank of the holy Fathers doth teach the same, such a Priesthood to be and to continue in the Church, to offer such a sacrifice in the form of bread and wine, terming it after the order of Melchisedech, 
Pur. 295.  in so much that you also confess, and say: Those of the old Writers which compare the celebration of the lords Supper with Melchisedeches' bread and wine, which, you say, they call sometime the Sacrifice of bread and wine, noting that as though it made against Transubstantiation, (which vain collection I have refuted here cap. 8. pag. 148.) and also adding further, And yet but a sacrifice of thanksgiving. Whether but for thanksgiving, and not also for procuring mercy, I have here at large examined cap. 9 pag. 196. to 204. But that is nothing to the matter which we have now in hand. For a Sacrifice of thanksgiving, is, and in the old Law was a Sacrifice, no less properly than a Sacrifice of propitiation. And the Sacrifice of the Cross was both, I trow: and therefore the Sacrifice of the Altar to be the one, what doth that let but it may be the other also? Likewise a memorial Sacrifice of Christ's passion, no less than a prefigurative Sacrifice, is a true sacrifice, though it be not called his very passion, but by a similitude. And therefore all that you allege out of Augustine, 
Pur. 292.316.320.  chrysostom, Cyprian, Irenée, justine, Ambrose, although they said all as you would have them, that this is a memory of Christ's passion, and not his passion but only in a mystery, is all nothing to the purpose.  

Pur. 292.294.320.321.326.  And therefore you have yet a better answer in store: We confess (you say) that of the old Writers it is commonly called a Sacrifice, but unproperly. And how do you show that? Because 
* Ambr. ad virg. lapsan. De virg. l. 1. orat. in fr. satire.  one of them saith of a virgin that to her death is unspotted, that her Parents might count her Hostiam vivam, a living Sacrifice, propitiatricem suorum videlicet delictorum, a Propitiatrix or procurer of mercy for their sins, by making intercession for them to God in heaven. You might as well argue, that S. Paul in saying, Christ's body by death to be made a Sacrifice, Heb. 10. speaketh unproperly, because he also saith, our bodies by mortification to be made a living Sacrifice, Rom. 12. To know what is properly or unproperly called this or that, you should see to the natures of the things in themselves. And then seeing in Christ's death, open separation of his body from his blood, and in Consecration mystical separation of them (because the words do work that which they signify) you should say, in both those Christ's body to be properly a Sacrifice (as I told you likewise before cap. 6. pag. 47.) but in perpetual virginity, and other mortification, because there is no such separation of our substantial parts, but only of our affections from us, they be called Sacrifices not properly, but only by a metaphor and similitude.  
Well then, what objections have you now against this Priesthood and Sacrifice of the Fathers and ours? Either that it is none at all: or that it is not a Sacrifice in Christ's body, as S. Augustine said?  
First, Out of doubt, 
Pur. 294.295.  if the bringing forth of bread and wine had been any thing pertaining to the Priesthood of Melchisedech, the Apostle, Heb. 7. would not have omitted to have compared it with Christ. But the Apostle comparing Melchisedech with Christ in all things in which he was comparable, never teacheth it as any part of his Priesthood. If it were no part of his Priesthood, what was it then? It is plain by the text that Melchisedech being both a king and a Priest, as a king liberally entertained Abraham and his army, and as a Priest blessed him. The text in our vulgar Latin translation is this: Proferens panem & vinum, erat enim Sacerdos Dei Altissimi. In your vulgar English translation, this: He brought forth bread & wine. For he was the Priest of the most highest God. And in the Hebrew, the pointing declareth that also the Rabbins themselves take it in the same sort, as also the very words do signify, specially standing in such order. And all our Fathers do agree. 
Cyp. ep. 63.  S. Cyprian shall suffice for all, who declareth the order of Melchisedech, De sacrificio illo venire, to come of that Sacrifice, not of every Sacrifice, but of that Sacrifice. And more distinctly, to descend of these three things: quod Melchisedech Sacerdos Dei summi fuit, that he was (not a common Priest, but) the Priest of the highest God, as S. john Baptists pre-eminence among all the Prophets is signified by this word, Propheta altissimi, the prophet of the highest. 
Luc. 1.  quod panem & vinum obtulit, (having said afore protulit, which two you think cannot stand together) that he offered (not as other Priests, but) bread and wine. Quod Abraham benedixit, that he blessed) not every body, but) Abraham, the father of all the faithful of Christ. And in deed who is so blind not to see the corresspondence in Christ, but you only that are not Abraham's children? We Catholics, his children in faith, and soldiers in confession of the same, do see plainly before our eyes, our true Melchisedech, as first by himself at his last Supper, so still by his ministers to bring forth bread and wine, and thereof, as our High Priest to offer for us this most acceptable Sacrifice, and as our king of kings (who with so few loaves fed many thousands) to prepare for us this most Royal feast which we can never enough admire: 
Mat. 14. & 15.  so singularly by this, blessing both God and us, that the sacrifice and feast itself is named Benedictio, and Eucharistia, Blessing, and Thanksgiving. Which S. Cyprian doth there prosecute very sweetly, saying: For who is more the Priest of the highest God, than our Lord jesus Christ? who offered Sacrifice to God the Father, and offered the same (against those Aquarij, who offered water in the Chalice, and not wine) which Melchisedeth had offered, that is, bread and wine, suum corpus & sanguinem, his own body perdie and blood. Also that blessing going afore about Abraham, ad nostrum populum pertinebat, belonged to our people, saith he as a Bishop & minister of the true Melchisedech. To 
* The end of bringing forth was to bless, as also S. Augustine said above.  the end therefore that in Genesis the blessing about Abraham might by Melchisedech the Priest be duly celebrated, there goeth afore an Image of Christ's sacrifice, an image I say, consisting in bread and wine, etc. Where is now your argument ab authoritate Heb. 7. negatiuè, with your out of doubt, contrary to your own Logic here cap. 8. pag. 134.  
For besides all this, I ask you, whether Melchisedeth were a Priest without all sacrifice at all? If you say, yea, your Divinity is contrary to Heb. 8. For every high Priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices. 
Note.  Wherefore it is necessary, & hunc habere aliquid quod offerat, this (Priest) also to have somewhat to offer. If you say, he had some sacrifice, tell us, I pray you, how he was comparable to Christ in his Priesthood, unless he were also in his Sacrifice, considering that his Priesthood consisted in his Sacrifice? And so you see that he was comparable to Christ in some thing, to wit, in his Sacrifice, (supposing also that it was not the sacrifice of bread & wine) in which the Apostle compareth them not. What a blindness is this in you, not to see Melchisedech in his bread and wine, so expressly mentioned, to be comparable unto Christ, whereas by the Apostle also the very omitting of his father and mother and genealogy is in Genesis a shadowing of Christ? seeing also bread and wine so notably used in the world by the institution of Christ. Such is either your ignorance in the Scriptures, or also perverseness against your own knowledge.  
Your second argument may be, where you take on like Caiphas, Mat. 26. and say, it is a blasphemy, 
Pur. 298.299.  etc. for the Fathers and us to say that we have the Priesthood after the order of Melchisedech, confirmed unto us by oath, Psal. 109. For then (you say) we must be Christ himself, with his eternal divinity and everlasting nativity, and sitting on the right hand. Why sir, doth not the Scripture likewise say, that there is one Baptizer, 
joan. 1. Mat. 3.  Hic est qui baptisat, and he such a one as upon whom the holy Ghost cometh and abideth, and to whom the Father saith, This is my natural son? Must we then be said to blaspheme, 
What a doctor Fulke is  and take all that to ourselves, if we say that we are baptizers? You are a great Doctor forsooth, so to argue. No sir, we are baptizers and priests, 
Aug. de ci. li. 17. c. 17.  but as his ministers (we offer Sub Sacerdote Christo quod protulit Melchisedech, Under Christ the Priest, saith S. Augustine:) and therefore he singularly is the one baptizer, and the one priest. So were not all the rest in the time of the old Testament, the ministers of Aaron: but Aaron himself was Priest only in his own time, and after him every one in his time was priest aswell as he: and therefore in that law were many Priests. So that the old Testament was like to England since the Conquest, having successively many kings. But the new Testament is like to England during the time of one king: who being but one, yet hath many ministers, as one might say, so many ministerial kings.  
Your third argument: The Apostle to the hebrews teacheth us, cap. 10. 
Pur. 289.201.45.451.  that Christ offering but one sacrifice for our sins (& that but once, cap. 9) hath made perfect for ever those that are sanctified: that our sins are taken away by that Sacrifice, and therefore there is no more sacrifice for sins left. Do you understand the words that you allege? Do you know what he meaneth by those that are sanctified? by their making perfect? by Sacrifice for sin? Verily you do not, as by & by it will appear. The scope of that Epistle is to exhort the Hebrews, that is, the Christian jews (who were sore assaulted of the other jews, partly with objections, partly with persecutions) to persever in the faith of Christ. He doth therefore tell them, that in the old Testament there was not Remission of sins, but continual commemoration of them, Heb. 10. But now that Christ hath offered himself upon the Cross, una oblatione consummavit in sempiternum, by that one oblation he hath made perfect for ever, sanctificatos, the sanctified, Heb. 10. that is (1. Cor. 6) the baptised. So that of their former sins there is now no more remembrance, jere. 21· & therefore no more any offering for the same, Heb. 10. but if they die, they go strait to heaven. So mightily and so graciously doth that one oblation work in baptism. But what if after baptism they sin again? For that S. Paul there doth not (at the least, 
The true meaning of the Epistle to the Heb.  directly) tell any remedy, because his purpose there was no more but to exhort the standing to perseverance: and therefore he doth rather terrify them saying, If they fall again, jam non relinquitur pro peccatis hostia, now is not least Sacrifice for sins, that is to say, Christ's death will not work with them in another baptism. This he telleth them: but remedy he doth tell them none. But we by his other Epistles, & by the other Scriptures, and by Tradition of the Church, do tell such also against the Novations, that the same one oblation of Christ hath prepared for them also a remedy, though not another baptism, yet the Sacrament of Penance. We magnify it yet moreover, and say, that it hath also prepared many other Sacraments besides these, to other singular effects, and in one of these Sacraments, a Sacrifice also, in which it worketh to sundry purposes. By this appeareth (I say) your ignorance in things which yet you fear not to affirm, as that the Catholics should say, Christ hath not made them that are sanctified, 
Pur. 451.  perfect by a Sacrifice once offered for all: for the greatest part is left to the Mass. As though when one cometh to us to be baptised, we divided the remission of his sins between Baptism and the Mass. This is your blindness, to think that to be against the honour of this one Priest, and of his one Sacrifice, which is highly for it, to wit, to have under him many ministers, and many ministries as it were conduits, to derive his purchase and redemption to his people. If we ascribed aught to any man, or to any thing, but from that Priest, and from that Sacrifice, than you might well exclaim against us. And we in the mean time worthily exclaim against you, for Apostating from the ministerial Priesthood, the mystical sacrifice, and gracious Sacraments, which he by his death purchased and left to his Spouse the Church our mother for our salvation, and she hath kept them to this day, & deinceps, and will keep them (as S. Augustine said) hereafter even to the end, at what time your vile tongue shall reap as now it soweth.  
Now after your Scriptures let us hear your Doctors against this Sacrifice, to prove that there is none such, or at the least not consisting in Christ's body. 
Pur. 316.292.  That Augustine by this Sacrifice meaneth not the body of Christ, is manifest in his book De fide ad Petrum Diac. cap. 19 Because there he calleth it Sacrificium panis & vini, the Sacrifice of bread and wine. The same writeth (being Fulgentius, and not Augustine) in the very like place (as you may see here cap. 6. pag. 63. and calleth it Sacrificium Corporis & Sanguinis Christi, The Sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. By the first name, for the matter: by the second, for the host. But he saith further (you object) that In isto Sacrificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit, & sanguinis quem pro nobis effudit: In this sacrifice is thanksgiving, and commemoration of the flesh of Christ which he offered for us upon the Cross, and of his blood which he shed for us. But what a commemoration? In illis Sacrificijs, quid nobis esset donandum, figuratè significabatur: In hoc autem Sacrificio, quid nobis iam donatum sit, evidenter ostenditur: In the Sacrifices of the old Testament, was figuratively signified what should be given us. But in this Sacrifice is (not figuratively signified, but) evidently showed, what is already given us. In them praenunciabatur occidendus, He was prenounced to be killed for us: in this annunciatur occisus, he is announced already killed. In such manner as in Rome the martyrdoms of S. Peter & Paul are, upon their feast commemorated, evidently showed, and announced by their very bodies and heads then seen and visited. For which cause the Relics of Martyrs be often in 
* Aug. de ci. li. 22. ca 8.  antiquity called The memories of the Martyrs. And yet no Martyrs Relics or body doth so express the very species of his martyrdom, as the mystical separation of Christ's body and blood in this divine Sacrament doth express the species of his passion.  

Ar. 55.  But you have one wonderful place of S. Augustine's. For if it were well weighed, it will (you say) interpret and answer all places of the ancient Doctors, where mention is made of sacrificing the body of Christ at the time of the Communion. In that place go first the words which I put here in the 22. Dem. pag. that he calleth it the one singular sacrifice of the Christians. Then follow afterwards the words that you mean: Ipsum vero sacrificium corpus est Christi, And that same (one singular) Sacrifice is the body of Christ, quod non offertur ipsis, quia hoc sunt & ipsi: Which (body) is not offered to the Martyrs, for this be they also. This, to wit, the body of Christ. Hereof you gather, that the body of Christ, which he saith was the Sacrifice that was offered, was not the natural body of Christ, but his mystical body: because he saith, the Martyrs and it were all one. He saith not so, not that they are all one or the same: but that they are of the mystical body of Christ, which whole mystical body is offered there to God in the offering of his natural body, (for there are special memories of every sort, of the Saints in heaven, of the Souls in Purgatory, of the catholics in earth. The bread & wine also, in which his said natural body and blood are consecrated, are such things, 
a Au tract. 26. in joan.  Quae in unum rediguntur ex multis, as of many corns and grapes are brought into one loaf and cup: Water also, 
b Cyp. epi. 63.  to signify us again, being mingled with the wine: Hereupon he saith in the same 
c Aug. ciu. li. 10. c. 6.20  work, that in the Sacrament of the Altar it is showed to the Church, that in the oblation which she doth offer, herself is offered. And that aswell she by him, as he by her is usually offered.) And therefore it can not be thought that this natural body there offered, is offered to the Martyrs (or to the Church) as the Pagans and Manichées did charge the Christian Catholics, upon their offering of that natural body over the shrines of Martyrs. You might therefore have gathered as well, that the Body which he offered upon the Cross, was not his natural body, but his mystical body the Church, because in offering it there for his Church, he offered his Church to God with it. Read De Ciu. li. 10. ca 6. and there you shall see that he showeth, how the works of mercy are a sacrifice, item a person consecrated to God. Item, our body, Item our soul, Item tota ipsa redempta Civitas, hoc est, congregatio societasque sanctorum, the whole redeemed City itself, that is, the congregation and society of the holy, which he calleth universal sacrificium, An universal Sacrifice. And that after all these metaphorical Sacrifices, he distinguisheth from them all, not only the Sacrifice of the Cross, but also the Sacrifice of the Altar, which you confound with that universal Sacrifice, not considering that he so often calleth it the one and the singular Sacrifice of the Christians.  
Besides these, 
Pur. 361.293.  you have two places out of Tertullian and Ireneus. The former showeth (you say) what was the chiefest Sacrifice that they did offer, to wit, Prayer. The other likewise showeth, that by the name of the Sacrifice of the Church, he meaneth not the Sacrifice of the Mass (which they call propitiatory for the sins of the quick and the dead) but the Sacrifice of thanksgiving and prayers. 
Tertul. in Apol.  Tertullian telleth there the Gentiles in defence of the Christians, first, what things they prayed for in the Canon of the Mass, to wit, for their Roman Empire among other things (the place goeth here before cap. 9 pag. 197.) Then, why not to their Gods: Haec ab alio orare non possum quam, etc. These things I cannot pray for, of any other, but of whom I know that I shall obtain them, quoniam et ipse est qui solus praestat etc. For both he it is who only doth give them, and I am he to whom is due to obtain, being his servant, which worship him only. Then also, why not with their blood Sacrifices of fat calves etc. qui ei offero opimam et maiorem hostiam, quam ipse mandavit, orationem de carne pudica, de anima innocent, de spiritu sancto profatam, which offer to him a fat and greater host, that which he himself commanded, to wit, prayer pronounced out of a chaste body, out of an innocent soul, out of an holy spirit. Where in the name of that Prayer he comprehendeth all that is said and done in the Mass of the faithful, which to this day also the Priest therefore beginneth, saying unto us after the Gospel, Dominus vobiscum: Oremus, Let us pray, and immediately goeth to the bread and wine, 
Hier. epist. ad Euagrium.  etc. Because this pure Sacrifice is made & celebrated with Prayer (ad Presbyterorum preces Christi corpus sanguisue conficitur, Christ's body and blood is made by the priests prayers, saith S. Jerome,) and because even the old house of those levitical blood Sacrifices also was called, 
Mat. 21. Isa. 56.  Domus orationis, The house of prayer.  
And as Tertullian setteth out against the impure Pagans, the purity of the Church in her Sacrifice, so doth S. Irenée set out the same against the jews and Heretics, 
Iren. li. 4. cap. 34. Mala. 1.  to show, that the pure Sacrifice in Malachi is offered by her alone, quoniam cum simplicitate Ecclesia offered, Because the Church offereth with simplicity of faith, hope, and charity, whereas the jews hands are now full of blood, and all the Synagogues of those old Heretics held the bread and wine to be of an ill creation. For this cause he telleth them, that the conscience of him that doth offer being pure, doth sanctify the Sacrifice, and causeth God to accept it as coming from a friend. And that the Sacrifices do not sanctify a man, Non enim indiget Sacrificio Deus, for God doth not need a Sacrifice, so as need should make him glad of it, as it maketh a beggar glad, whether the giver be a friend or a foe. And do not we say the same? Can any Heretic plead as upon our verdict, that he pleaseth God in offering to him bread or wine, yea or also the body itself and blood of Christ, so as all Priests do in their Caluinicall Communion, no less than we do in the Mass? And yet the Sacrifice of itself is such, as pleaseth God, and sanctifieth the offerer, but for his own indisposition. Like as Baptism of itself would cleanse the conscience, 
Heb. 9.10.  though oftentimes it doth not for fault in the receivers of it. For it is not the worthiness of men, but the worthiness of Christ, whereof the own and proper virtue of his Sacraments, and of his Sacrifice both of the Altar and of the Cross, dependeth.   


Motive 35.  25. Monks.  
My 25. Demand noteth, that these Heretics have cut off from the Church, her best and perfectest member, to wit, Monks and Nuns, who were so common in the Primitive Church, that to bring all to the fashion of the Primitive Church, as they pretend, they should have made all to be Monks, rather than none to be Monks. And Fulke doth nothing here, but help our side, in that he 
* Ar. 29.85. Pur. 87.297.250. Hic cap. 9  often rejecteth Monks, hermits, Anachorites, Canons, Friars, Nuns, granting them no place in the Church of Christ, partly by an argument ab authoritate Ephes. 4. negatiuè, which I answered here in the 24. Demand, treating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, whom he likewise rejected thereby: partly by a saying of S. Chrysostom's, which I returned clean against him, cap. 9 pag. 193. And yet confesseth, the first Colleges of Monks in solitary places to have been of the Church of God, 
Ar. 52.  and namely them at Bangor in Wales. Saying further, that they were as occasion served, taken to serve in the Church, as appeareth by chrysostom in his book De Sacerdotio, of Basilius, who was a Monk with him. Among the infinite utilities that come to the Church by the Religious, that is one to this day, that the Church hath out of them most excellent Pastors, as of late that worthy Pope Pius quintus, who was a Dominicane, besides infinite more at all times, as then S. basil and S. chrysostom. Of this utility, and of all the rest your Heresy hath spoiled the Church of God, in suppressing the Monasteries. As for that you say, they were nothing else but Colleges of Students, any that is skilful in antiquity can tell, that the number rather were no students at all, and that their profession was then even as it is now. Witness S. Augustine, telling of an evil Monk in his own Monastery, 
Au. de bono perseve ca 25.  and saying: Vsque adeo profecit in malum, ut deserta Monasterij societate, fieret 
* 2. Pet. 2.  canis reversus ad suum vomitum. He did so much proceed in evil, that forsaking the fellowship of our Monastery, he became a dog that turneth back to his vomit. Of others also in another place, that enter into Religion, and finding there some evil brethren, after their Vow go forth again through impatience. Of such a one he saith: 
Aug. in Ps. 99  Paucorum hominum molestia irritatos dum non perseveravit implere quod vovit, fit desertor tam sancti propositi, & reus voti non redditi. Being incensed with the vexation of a few persons, whilst he doth not continue to fulfil that he vowed, he becometh a forsaker of so holy a profession, and guilty of not performing his vow. In Colleges of students they are not Votaries, I trow, nor Apostates when they give over. And therefore it is more wisdom for you to stick to your old set song, 
Pur. 297.  that they have no testimony out of the word of God either of their names, or of the signification of their names: as your friends the Donatists said long ago to our Catholic Fathers: 
Aug. in Ps. 132. Con. Petil. li. 3. ca 40. Hier. contra Vigil. Chrys. adu. vitup. vitae Monasticae  Ostendite ubi scriptum sit nomen Monachorum, Show us in what place of the Scripture is the name of Monks. But it is well, that the Donatists, Vigilantius, and such like companions were the dispraisers of Monks and their profession: And S. Augustine, S. Jerome, S. chrysostom, S. Paulinus, with such like, were their defenders, yea and themselves Monks also. Of whom also you may learn, in what Scriptures are found both their poverty, continency, obedience, and also the vowing of the same. So wisely you have made your match.   


Motive 14.  26. Fathers.  
The 26. Demand noteth, that none but Heretics refuse to be tried by the Fathers, in such manner as I declared ca 6. pa. 58. to wit, by their consent. And that Fulke refuseth to be so tried (though he confess them to have been of the true Church, cap. 2. pag. 4.) I have showed out of his own words, cap. 7. pag. 89. to 92. For the which he hath two pretences: the one, in charging the Fathers with sundry errors, partly denied, partly confessed of us to be errors. Which both sorts I have answered cap. 6. pag. 39 to 43. The other in holding, that Only Scripture is of authority: for which point notwithstanding, I have showed that he hath neither Scripture to avouch it, cap. 8. pag. 109. to 116 nor Father. cap. 9 pag. 171. to 183.  
We on the other side, as the Catholics always, are content to stand to the judgement of the Fathers: which is for us so plainly, that Fulke doth confess it in many points, here cap. 3. and is fain to refuse it, as I now said. And for the Protestants in no point, no not so much as the judgement of any one Father at all, as I have showed cap. 9 in answering all that he allegeth out of them against us. Or if any few testimonies be missing there, it is because in some other Chapters they are answered more conveniently.   

27 Counsels. 
Motive 13.   
The next Demand is of Counsels confirmed by the See Apostolic, which (as I have said here cap. 6. pa. 60.) can not err. And therefore none but Heretics do obstinately resist such Counsels. But Fulke here, to save himself, chargeth such Counsels with errors, those also which himself confesseth to have been of the true Church, as the third of Carthage (for which I have answered cap. 6. pag. 62.) and not only those that are without his compass of the first 600. years, though for them also I have answered in the same chapter pag. 63. to 78. Where I showed, that the Council of basil was not so confirmed as he pretendeth: and therefore it might err well enough in deposing Eugenius quartus, 
Ar. 91.  howbeit also that is not such an error as he should bring us, to wit, an error of doctrine. For who doubteth, but also the Pope himself may err in deposing a bishop, or a king? Who doubteth also but a General Council may use that prayer when it endeth: Precamur ut ignorantiae parcas, & errori indulgeas: 
Ar. 90.  We pray thee to spare our ignorance, and to pardon our error, fearing in their conscience, lest either ignorance hath drawn them into error, or perhaps rashness of will hath driven them to decline from justice? As both every general Council, and the universal Church useth this prayer, Forgive us our trespasses. Of which also you would no less infer that the universal Church may err. But you have the answer cap. 8. pag. 117. to wit, that they both do so pray, by reason of certain ignorances and frailties of their members, not for any false decrees or beléeving of their whole bodies. 
Ar. 89. Au. de bap. count. Donat. li. 2. ca 3.  And that which S. Augustine saith even also of plenary Counsels which are made of the whole Christian world, we say the very same, Saepe priora posterioribus emendari, That the former oftentimes be amended by the later, yea and by the See Apostolic alone, when they come to the Pope to be confirmed. But what is this to prove that Counsels already confirmed did err in doctrine? Even in one Council sometime the later Session doth amend the former, Cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod clausum erat, & cognoscitur quod latebat, When by some experience is opened that which was shut, or is known that which was unknown. This is done in the Catholic Church with holy humility, with Catholic peace, with Christian charity. And much more do Provincial Councils yield to the general, sine ullis ambagibus, without any more ado: and much more again particular Doctors. And yet you with your swelling of sacrilegious pride, with your stubbornness of arrogant Ventosity, with your contentiousness of peevish envy, will not yield neither to Provincial, nor to general Council, neither after their confirmation and receiving, so much more desperate than those Donatists of whom he speaketh, as they had one Doctor, to wit, S. Cyprian, plainly of their opinion, and you have near a one: and yet will neither yield to all the Counsels together, but against them all come in with your ambages, and ask, But where is their Scripture? as here cap. 7. pag. 89. thinking that you have a witty devise for this your tergiversation, when you say: 
Pur. 430.  The Councils that are received, are therefore received because they decreed truly: and not the truth received because it was decreed in Counsels. Else why is the determination of the Nicene Council which is but one, believed, against ten Counsels holden by the Arrianes, but that the Nicene decreed according to the word of God, & all the rest against it? You might aswell say: The Scriptures that are received, are therefore received because they are written truly, and not the truth received because it is written in the Scriptures. Else why is the Gospel according to Matthew believed, and not the Gospel according to the twelve, but that the former is the word of God, and the other is not? But we say, that the Scriptures being once received into the Canon, and the Counsels being once received by the See Apostolic, what soever they say must be believed to be truth, and that then none but Heretics do make exceptions against them. And that you therefore be an Heretic, who not only against all Counsels so received for these 900. years, but also against the very Nicene itself, which you yourself receive, do take your exception of Only Scripture, and that as it were by authority of S. Augustine, cap. 9 pag. 179. and 173.180.   


Motive 12.  28. See Apostolic.  
Now for the See Apostolic itself (which as it was the confirmer, so was it both the gatherer with the emperors help, and also the Precedent by the patriarchs and other Bishops, and sometimes Priests also being her vicars, of all approved General councils: what soever 
* Ar. 97.  you or any other Heretic affirm to the contrary without any testimony:) I say in my 28. Demand, that none ever but Heretics and Schismatics did obstinately refuse either the faith or the communion of that See. Behold two notable examples, one under Pope Victor about the question of Easter, the other under Pope Stephanus about the question of Heretics Baptism. We shall catch this Rat in them through his own rumbling. Victor anno 200. 
Ar. 27.36. Pur. 373.  (saith he) was the first that went about to usurp authority over other Churches. He passed the bonds of his authority, in excommunicating of all the Churches of Asia. Then many Bishops withstood him, specially Ireneus of Lions, and Polycrates of Ephesus, as 
a Eus. li. 5. c. 23.24.25.  witnesseth Eusebius. But who saith, that he either usurped authority, or passed the bonds of his authority? No doubt Polycrates and his fellows of Asia would so have said if they had been of your opinion about the Bishop of Rome, or if that bishops authority over all▪ had not been in those Primitive days a plain matter. The Story was thus: The Churches of Asia minor had received of S. john Evangelist to keep our Lords Pasch or Easter day not always upon Sunday, but with the jews, upon the 14. of the Moon. In which custom the Bishops of Rome (who had received of S. Peter and Paul the other manner) did tolerate them, so long as it tended to the honour of burying the Law, and not to the necessity of observing the Law. But when they saw that a 
b Niceph. li. 4. ca 36.  necessity was put therein, in so much that the other manner was condemned by the judaizing Heretic 
c Tertul. d● Praes. Eus. li. 5. ca 14  Blastus, then lo they thought good to tolerate them no longer, but S. Victor, after that his 
b Niceph. li. 4. ca 36.  predecessors Pius, Anicetus, Eleutherius, had sent out decrees against that manner, and 
d Eus. li. 5. ca 22.  all Bishops had ratified Decretum Ecclesiasticum, the Ecclesiastical Decree, seeing that they of Asia neither so obeyed to walk unto the truth of the Gospel, using severity when it was high time, commanded them either to obey without any more ado, or to be deprived of the Church's communion. Which censure of his did seem to sharp to S. Irenée and other Bishops of his own observance. As now also if he would excommunicate them which receive not the Counsel of Trent, it would seem likewise to many, who notwithstanding confess that he hath authority over all. But what was the end of the matter? At length followed the first Nicene Council, and confirmed the same that the Popes had commanded: in their Epistle to them of Alexandria, writing this of the asians also: You shall understand, 
Apud Theod. li. 1. ca 9  that the controversy of Easter is wisely pacified: in so much that all our brethren, that inhabit the East, will now hereafter with one accord in keeping the same, follow the Romans, us, and all you. So they promised the Council. And who so refused yet after that to do it, were counted obstinate Heretics, 
Aug. Haer. 29. Soc. li. 6. ca 10.20. Ar. 37.  both in the Greek and Latin Church, named testarescaidecaticai, that is quartadecimane: some such being yet in Asia in S. Chrysostom's time, were by him, as Bishop of Constantinople, turned out of their Churches, no less than the Novatianes'.  
Likewise (saith Fulke, touching the other case) when Pope Stephanus threatened excommunication to Helenus and Firmilianus, and almost all the Churches of Asia, because they thought that such as were baptised by Heretics should be baptized again: 
Diony. Al. ep. ad Xystum Papam. Success. Ste. apud Eus. li. 7. ca 2.3 4.5.  he was misliked by Dionysius of Alexandria and divers other godly Bishops. Cyprian also reproveth him very sharply for the same opinion, accusing him of presumption and contumacy, 
a Cypr. ep. 74.  Epist. ad Pompeium. And in his Epistle to 
b Cyp. epi. 71.  Quintus, he saith plainly, that Peter himself was not so arrogant, nor so presumptuous, that he would say, he held the Primacy, and that other men should obey him as his inferiors. You would make the Reader believe, that he there saith Peter had not the Primacy, whereas he saith expressly in the very same Period, Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit, & super quem edificavit Eccleam suam, Peter whom our Lord chose the first, and upon whom he builded his Church. Neither he, nor Dionysius, nor Firmilianus denieth the Primacy of Peter, or of Stephanus his successor and a most glorious Martyr. They thought that they had reason and Scripture on their side, and the Pope nothing but authority and custom. And thereupon when he had written and commanded to the contrary, contra scripsisset atque praecepisset, they made much a do for a while, and in anger (as S. Augustine writeth, poured out words against him. But in the end, 
Au. de bap. con. Dona. li. 5. ca 23 25.  when they must needs either yield or be Schismatics, because he would tolerate them no longer, they did like Catholic men, they conformed their new practice (for all their Counsels both in Phrigia and in Africa) to the old custom that the Pope observed, as I noted here in the 5. Dem. pag. 272. And at the last the Nicene Council also gave voice with the Pope, and condemned the Donatists (who pretended to follow S. Cyprian) of Heresy for their obstinacy.  
Therefore these are two notable examples of unity with S. Peter's chair, as a thing most necessary. And generally all other Catholic writers that you do (here cap. 9 pag. 218.) or can allege as it were against that See, did stick unseparably to that See. 
Aug. epist. 166.  Which S. Augustine for that cause calleth Cathedram unitatis, The Chair of unity, in which he saith God hath placed Doctrinam veritatis, the doctrine of verity.  
But you for all this have found a place in S. Hierom to break this bond. For you say upon it: Lo Sir, here is 
Pur. 374. Hier. evag. How agreeth this with himself here, cap. i. and ij.  a Church, and Christianity, and a rule of truth, without the Bishop of Rome, without the Church of Rome, yea and contrary to the Church of Rome. Notably gathered. For he saith the clean contrary. Nec altera Romanae urbis Ecclesia, altera totius orbis existimanda est. We must not think that there is one Church of the City of Rome, another of all the world. But both is one. And why? because the Galls, and the Brytons, and Africa, and Persia, and the Orient, and India, and all the Barbarous Nations, unum Christum adorant, unam observant regulam veritatis, Do worship the one Christ, do observe the one rule of truth, and so be not divided from the one Church by any Schism, nor by any Heresy. So perfect was the unity of all Catholics at that time, which agreeth handsomely with your imaginations of local yea & universal corruptions, here cap. 3. Now in this unity of truth, yet was there diversity of usages. In Rome a Priest was ordained at the Deacons witness: which is now observed every where. Thereupon, and specially for the great estimation of the Archdeacon's, some Deacons thought themselves higher in order then Priests. S. Hierom saith therefore: Quid mihi profers urbis consuetudinem? etc. What bring you me the custom of the City? If authority be sought, the world is greater than the City. And who doubteth, but the usages of the whole Church in unity, be of greater authority than the private custom of Rome alone? He telleth them also that a Bishop of the meanest City, is eiusdem Sacerdotij, of the same order as the Bishop of Rome, of Constantinople, of Alexandria. And consequently, that a Priest, who by his order may do all things that be of order, saving only giving of orders, is of another manner of order then a Deacon. All this is most true, and much for us, nothing for you.  
You have also a few texts of Scripture against this head of the Church's unity. But by the argument ab authoritate negative, which your own Logic condemned here cap. 8. pag. 134. I would desire none other place in all the Scripture, 
Ar. 29.  etc. but Eph. 4 of Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Pastors, and Teachers. And especially seeing the Apostle both there and 1. Cor. 12. by these offices proveth the unity of mind, he acknowledgeth no Pope as one supreme head in earth, which might be very profitable (as the Papists say) to maintain this unity. Which he would in no wise have omitted, 
Pur. 450.  etc. Again: We believe that the Catholic Church hath no chief governor upon earth but Christ, unto whom all power is given in heaven and earth, Mat. 28. Supreme head and chief governor be terms of your own school. Belike therefore you would, as a Puritan, pull down also your own setting up, specially 
* Suppose also one Christian king or Emperor to reign sometime as far as the Church reacheth.  considering that Kings or Queens be no more than Popes named among S. Paul's officers. And truly you might also as an Anabaptist pull down all Governors no less than the chief, by that reason of Christ's power over all. You might also deny Evangelists and Pastors (which are named Ephe. 4.) because they are omitted 1. Cor. 12. Likewise Powers, Healers, Helpers, Governments, Tongues, Interpreters, (which are named 1. Cor. 12. with Apostles, Prophets and Teathers) because they are omitted Ephes. 4. I must often say, you understand not the Scripture, you do so often utter your ignorance. Our Saviour did say after his Resurrection to his Apostles, All power is given to me in heaven and earth, to signify that he might with good authority commit what power to them he would, inferring thereupon, Ite ergo, Go ye therefore, and teach and baptise 
Each of the twelve had Apostolic power over all.  all Nations. And to one of them singularly, Feed my Lambs, and my sheep. Wherefore S. Paul also in those two places doth say, that all diversity of gifts and offices is, Secundum mensuram donationis Christi, according to the measure that it pleased Christ to give to every one, and the holy Ghost to divide to every one as him pleaseth. Therefore no cause why the lesser should envy the greater, or the greater despise the lesser Schismatically, but all in unity content themselves with Christ's distribution, specially being so made by him for the necessity and good of the whole. He had therefore in such places to express the diversity of greater and lesser: but not necessarily of the greatest and least. And yet to stop such Heretical mouths, he saith 1. Cor. 12. expressly, Non potest caput dicere pedibus, The head (under Christ) can not say to the feet, you are not necessary unto me. Also Ephe. 4. in the name of Apostles, he includeth the Successors of the Apostle S. Peter, whose See for that cause is called The Apostolic See in singular manner, and their Decrees and Acts esteemed of Apostolic authority, in all antiquity, I say of S. Peter's authority, to whose Chair comparing it with the Chair of Carthage, S. Augustine doth ascribe Apostolatus principatum, The principality of Apostleship, Apostolicae Cathedrae principatum, 
Au. de bap. con. Dona. li. 2. ca 1. Epist. 162.  The principality of the Chair Apostolic, which (saith he) hath always flourished in the Roman Church.  
All this considered, no reasonable man can doubt, but this present plague and thraldom of the Greeks is fallen upon them (and the like or worse to fall upon the like) for their departing from the Church of Rome, as it was foretold them full often: though you count it false and unreasonable so to say. And why? 
Pur. 396.  because the africans were plagued and subverted for other sins. So substantial are your reasons. As if you would say: Ten Tribes were not subverted for their Schism, because the two Tribes were subverted for other sins.   

29. Traditions. 
Motive 9   
The 29. Demand mentioneth, that the Apostles left to the Church not Only Scripture (as Fulke would prove by the Scriptures and Fathers here cap. 8. pag. 100 to 110. and cap. 9 pag. 171. to 183. which all I have answered,) but also unwritten Traditions, whereof no one is against us, and many of them so directly against the Protestants, that although he confess them, (as, for example, the memory of the dead in the Canon of the Mass) to have the most approved Father's testimony to be Traditions Apostolic, here cap. 3. pag. 15. to 20. yet he is fain to deny that either they or any Traditions at all be of the Apostle, ca 7. pa. 80. to 89. So as never did the Catholics (I say in this Demand) but only Heretics.  

Pur. 383.409.412.  But against this I find that he allegeth a saying of S. Irene, as though by his judgement we rather be (Valentinian) Heretics, who (with the Fathers, here cap. 3. & 7. pag. 19 & 84. besides Scripture do hold with Tradition of unwritten verities. And Lord, how he croweth against D. Allen, for alleging the same saying against the Protestants, upon their denying of the Machabées: not considering, that by S. Irenée there they no more be Heretics, who will have Tradition, than they who will have Scripture. 
Iren. li. 3. ca 2.3.  S. Irenée himself, as all Catholics, will have both. But those old Heretics would in effect (saith he) have neither: Neque Scripturis iam neque Traditioni consentire, etc. They would yield neither to the Scriptures nor to Tradition. For when they be confuted out of the Scriptures, they turn to accuse the Scriptures themselves, as though they be corrupted, nor be not Canonical, and that they be ambiguous, and that out of them can not be found the (sincere) truth by such as know not the Tradition: because that was not delivered by writings (but a certain mingle mangle: and the sincere truth) by word of mouth. Well then, saith the Catholic, let us hardly try by Tradition. What do they then? they say, that the Apostles either themselves knew not all things, or that they taught their Successors of one sort in open place, and these men's patriarchs in secret of another sort. Cum autem ad eam iterum Traditionem, etc. And when again to that Tradition which is from the Apostles, which is conserved in the Churches, by Successions of the Priests, we provoke those (Heretics) who are adversaries to Tradition (as the former were to Scripture:) they will say, that they being wiser than not only the Priests, but also the Apostles, have found the sincere truth. Aduersus tales certamen nobis est, O dilectissime, Against such we have to fight, O my dearest, who as slippery as snakes seek on every side to fly. What way shall we then take with them? Traditionem Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam, in Ecclesia adest perspicere omnibus qui vera velint audire He that list to hear lies, may seek to these Heretics and the secret Tradition which they pretend. But all that will hear the truth, may in the Church see the Apostles Tradition which was published in the whole world. Et habemus annumerare, And we can rehearse them, who were of the Apostles ordained Bishops in the Churches, and their Successors even unto us. Who taught nor knew no such thing as these men dote upon. For if the Apostles had known strange mysteries, which they taught the perfect Seorsim & latenter ab reliquis, apart from the rest, and privily: no doubt they would have committed them specially to those, to whom they committed also the Churches. And then, because it is to long (he saith) to rehearse all Successions, he reckoneth the Successors of S. Peter and Paul in the greatest and ancientest, and known to all men, in the Roman Church, Whose Tradition which she hath from the Apostles, coming even unto us by Successions of Bishops, we reporting, confundimus omnes eos, do confound all Heretics and Schismatics. Et est plenissima haec ostensio, And this is a most full demonstration, that it is all one quickening faith, which from the Apostles is kept in the Church till now, and delivered in truth. Lo now Sir, who hath such ill grace to allege the Doctors against himself? For who denieth (here cap. 9 pag. 165.) the authority of such Scriptures as are Canonised by the Church which himself confesseth to be the true Church? Who also refuseth the Tradition and saith (I say not, by those Heretics pretended, but even) of the Apostolic Churches, even of the Roman Church, and not now only, but then also when yourself do grant that it was the true Church? As for us, we reject neither the Churches Scriptures, nor the Church's Tradition, but answer all that you detort to maintain your Heresies, and restore it to the right meaning.   

30 Their own Doctors. 
Motive 16.   
That the Apostles, and all men and things that be of them, are against our Protestants, and in no point with them against us, it is many ways showed by the aforesaid. Besides all these, I note in the next Demand, also their own masters and fellows, namely Luther and calvin, to have condemned them: Such leaders hath our miserable Country chosen to follow, forsaking the sure guydance of God's Church, in which our Forefathers together with the Catholics of all other Countries so many ages before prospered in earth, and achieved to heaven.   

31.32.33. Universality, Antiquity, and Consent.  
In three Demands following I do show that the rules of Universality, Antiquity, and Consent, taught by Vincentius Lirinensis and the other Fathers, do make for us, and against the Protestants. Which is so plain, that Fulke is feign to refuse those rules, abusing a saying of S. Augustine's, as it were for Only Scripture against them (here cap. 7. pag. 80. and cap. 9 pag. 180.)   


Motive 10.11.28. Arti. 15.26.  34. Authority  
The Protestants finding the Primitive Church (which they dare not deny, but it was the true Church, here cap. 2.) to be in many points so plainly against them, that they must confess it themselves, (as here cap. 3.) do hold, that the true Church may err universally, and also did err, cap. 3.4. And therefore make their exception against it also, cap. 7. pa. 89. And that with pretence of Scripture to warrant their so doing, cap. 8. pag. 117. unto which I have fully answered. Hereupon in my 34. Dem. I affirm, that the universal Church's authority was always counted so irrefragable, that she would be and was believed upon her only word in all matters, before she yielded or we could conceive the reasons of her doctrine. And that S. Augustine wrote a book upon this against the Manichées, which he called De utilitate credendi, Of the utility of believing first, before you understand. 
Aug. retra. li. 1. ca 14.  Because his friend Honoratus being a Manichée, did irride in the discipline of the Catholic faith, quod iuberentur homines credere, that men were commanded to believe, and not taught by certainty of the grounds (certissima ratione) what was true. Which to our Doctor Fulke is so strange, that of D. Allen, saying he taketh it to be the natural order of a Christian school, 
Pur. 4.5.  he requireth to show where he learned that method, & affirmeth S. Paul Rom. 10. to teach a contrary order, and calleth it a blind faith which must be thrust upon men's consciences, to be accepted before they see what ground it hath. Whereas S. Paul doth not say, that men must understand the grounds of every matter before they believe (for that were contrary to his own doing, who did not always to all at the first speak wisdom, 1. Cor. 2. but that they must hear first the Churches preaching, to know which be the articles, before they can believe them. And that is it which we say, that hearing what the Church teacheth, they may be bold to believe it forthwith, although they hear not or can not attain to the grounds: even as they which heard Christ himself, and his Apostles after him, might boldly believe them. As he also did work those Miracles in the beginning to commend his own authority & credit, and thereby to draw unto him a multitude, which multitude should always after him move the world to believe, as Miracles did at the first. 
Au. de util. cred. ca 13.  S. Augustine in that book deduceth this at large, and concludeth: Rectè igitur Catholicae disciplinae maiestate institutum est, ut accedentibus ad Religionem fides persuadeatur ante omnia: It is rightly therefore appointed by the majesty of the Catholic Church's School, that they which come to Religion, be first and foremost moved (or persuaded by certain general motives) to believe.  
Wherefore I say, that the Protestants can not possibly be the Church, because they do renounce the claim of such authority. I say also, that neither they nor no other sect in the world is so happy & sure of their faith, as we be, having a School and Masters that we may boldly believe in all things, because Christ hath given them the Spirit of truth, 
joan. 14.  and to us also accordingly (saith D. Allen) the spirit of obedience. But thereunto Fulke answereth, as more at large, here cap. 7. pag. 90. That also the Protestants will be ruled by their Superiors. What, simply? 
Ar. 58.  so far as their Superiors are ruled by God's word. Any other submission they allow not. O humble submission of yours, who will overrule your Superiors as it were by God's word: and O worthy authority of theirs, who by your own confession may serve from the truth of God's word. But howsoever the Protestants are affected to their Superiors, the Greek Church (with the Moschovites and Russianes) in doubts will be ruled by their patriarch of Constantinople, and so will the rest of the Oriental Churches by their chief patriarchs & Bishops: though they be not of our fellowship and Catholic communion: So you say. But if you knew the story of the Florentine Council, wherein their patriarchs agreed with the Catholic latins in all things, and yet could not for all that reduce their Countries from Schism, you would not so say.  

Ar. 83.84.  And as touching your grammatication upon the article of our creed, I believe the H. Catholic Church, I have showed plainly (cap 8. pag. 138) out of antiquity, that the meaning of it is, according to this present demand, I believe in the H. Catholic Church. And therefore you err where you say: To believe all and every thing that the Catholic Church, by common consent doth maintain, is no article of our faith. And is not this a goodly interpretation which you bring, We say & confess against all Heretics and Schismatics, I believe that there is a Catholic Church, or that God hath an Universal Congregation? For, what Heretic and Schismatic may not say the same? And what Catholic may not also confess that there is a Lutheran Church? The meaning of the creed is as I have said, I believe that to be the true Church, whose name is Catholic (as in the Articles afore going, I believe that Christ which is named jesus, and that God who is the Creator) and I believe all which the same Church doth bid me to believe, as being the mouth of the Holy Ghost, and by her (being the communion or company of the Holy, so that none be Holy which do not communicate with her) I believe that we have remission of our sins in the Sacraments, and shall have Resurrection of our bodies in glory, and for ever afterwards in Soul and Body together life everlasting. All which is the work of our Sanctification, and appropriated in the creed to the Holy Ghost, as our redemption to the Son, and Creation to the Father. In calling this a foolish and false interpretation, you do but utter your ignorance in the ancient Doctors. They are the boys that you count worthy to have many stripes for their construing it otherwise then thus, I believe that there is a Catholic Church. Suppose the Apostles had said, Credo S. Romanam Ecclesiam, how would you have construed it? not, I believe that there is a Roman church, for so much you may confess being yet a Protestant, but, I believe the Roman Church. And what should that mean, but as I have here said out of the Fathers? As also, against all Apocriphalles, to say, Credo Sanctas Scripturas Canonicas. I believe the H. Canonical Scriptures. Item against Manicheus, Montanus, Luther, and all other falsenamed Apostles or Evangelists of Christ, to say, Credo S S. Duodecim Apostolos, Credo S S. quatuor Euangelistas, I believe the H. Twelve Apostles, I believe the H. Four Evangelists.   

35 Unity. 
Motive 27. Arti 15.17.   
Well, of this irrefragable authority of God's Church over us, and of our humble submission again and affection unto it, proceedeth (I say in my next Demand) our inseparable unity, 
Aug. contra Epi. Fund. ca 4. joan. 17.  which S. Augustine in his Motives to the manichees calleth Confentionem Populorum, atque Gentium, Consenting of Peoples, and Nations in one. Which Christ in his prayer for it, accounteth a most just motive for the world to believe in him. But Fulke notwithstanding, because his Protestants have it not, 
Ar. 93.  nor can not possibly attain unto it, telleth us, that also the Mahometistes and Turks have their Unity. As though Christ, or S. Augustine, or we, did speak of any other then Unity of Christian People and in Christian faith. And if any Heresy among the Christians have had their unity also, that doth no more but declare, that the same Heresy, whatsoever it were, might, for this at the least, claim the true Church better than the Protestants.  
For another shift he sayeth: 
Ar. 107.  that the Church may be called the house of peace, because there is in it peace and agreement in the chiefest Articles of the Faith. By which reason he might say, that very many of the old Heresies were within the House of Peace, because they agreed with the Church in the chiefest Articles. But we say that any one Article, be it of the chiefest or of the meanest, may break the peace, as quartadecimani did disagree only in the day of Easter, and many other like in S. Augustine's Catalogue of Heresies to Quodvultdeus. And therefore it helpeth his side nothing, that he saith to excuse their division, 
Ar. 63.61.62.10.58.96.103.  that the Lutherans & zwinglians do differ but in one matter, and that not the greatest, to wit, concerning the Sacrament, the one affirming a Real presence, the other denying it. Be it so, that among them are no more but these two Sects, and between these no more difference (which yet is most false, as not only large tables of their names set out by Catholics, but also innumerable Books about innumerable matters set out be themselves against one another, and even their own Puritans now at home do notoriously declare.) One matter, I say, is enough, yea also if it be but a ceremony, though you say of some of yours, They differ only in Ceremonies, which can not divide them from the faith. Yes Sir, when they hold their own Ceremonies to be necessary, or condemn the Church's Ceremonies as unlawful, as those Quartadecimani did, they are Heretics, and therefore divided from the faith. Howbeit also division is made sometimes without any disagréement so much as in a ceremony, as when it is a mere Schism, & not mixed with any Heresy at all. Such were the Schisms that were towards among the Corinthians, 
1. Cor. 3.4.  swelling one against another, only upon their Baptizars and Teachers. And therefore what is the matter that you differ in, forceth not. Only if you divide yourselves, and will not come to one another's Churches, where is your unity:  
As for difference of opinions between our Canonists and Divines, or also between our School Divines among themselves, it is (as I said in the 8. Dem. pag. 283. all without division, all in unity, 
Aug. contra jul. li. 1. c. 2. De bap. con. Donat. li. 1. ca 18.  all no otherwise then as S. Augustine saith: Sometime also the most learned and best defenders, regulae Catholicae, of the Catholic rule, do without breaking the frame of faith not accord, and divers be of divers judgements without any break of peace, until a general Council allow some one part for clear and pure. Such was the difference of S. Cyprian & his fellows from the other Catholics about Baptism (here in the 28. Dem.) And such was the difference between some about the Popes or Counsels superiority, before the Florentine Council, which by your own confession (here cap. 6. pag. 70.) resolved the matter. But your differences, we say, are with division, with pertinacy, without end: a general Council can not finish them: yea to nourish them for ever, your very doctrine is, that in Church or General Council is no authority of such importance.   

36 Owners and keepers of the Scriptures. 
Moti. 8.30. Articl. 2.3.   
My next Demand to the Protestants, is S. Augustine's Demand to the manichees, which D. Allen doth prosecute in two Articles. And it is grounded upon the foresaid authority of the Church. 
Aug. contra Ep. Fund. ca 5.  If thou shouldest meet with one (saith S. Augustine to a Manichee) who doth not yet believe the books of the Gospel, what wouldst thou do to him saying unto thee, Non credo, I do not believe them? As of his own self he there saith: Ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas. I verily should not believe the Gospel, but that the Catholic Church's authority did make me. And then he gathereth thereupon, and asketh, Quibus ergo obtemperavi dicentibus, crede evangelio, cur eye non obtemperem dicentibus mihi, Noli credere Manichaeo? Those therefore to whom I obeyed saying, Believe the Gospel: Why should I not obey the same men saying unto me, Do not believe Manicheus, do not believe Luther? Now to this what shift hath Fulke? He can not deny, but that our Demand is upon that Churth which is called Catholic, now (according to my sixth Demand, pag. 227.) as S. Augustine's Demand was upon that Church which was called Catholic then, and as much maligned of those Manichees, as now of these Protestants. Neither can he show, but that as it hath still the same name, so it is still the same Church, as I have defended against all his vain cavils either out of the Scriptures (cap. 8. pag. 124.) or out of the Doctors (cap. 9 pag. 155.) And therefore being still all one Church, you shall see, if you mark, that he saith in his answer nothing of the one, but it is common to the other: and that it is all one for us to frame our Demand of the Catholic Church then, 
Ar. 10.  and of the Catholic Church now. For thus he saith: The Primitive Church's testimony of the word of God we allow and believe. But I deny, that the Primitive Church did affirm Luther to be an Heretic, or the doctrine which he taught, which we hold, to be Heresy. Here you deny it, but in other places you confess it, where you grant that they affirmed Aerius to be an Heretic for denying prayer for the dead, and were fain thereupon to take exception against the same Primitive Church by your cold shift of Only Scripture, cap. 7. pag. 79. Tell us then (we say) why we should obey the same Primitive Church commanding us to believe the Gospel, and not obey it commanding us not to believe Aerius, iovinianus, Vigilantius, etc. (cap. 3. pag. 9 to 14.) and consequently not to believe Luther, nor to care for all your carping (in these two Artiticles) of her Images and Invocation of saints, of her Sacrifice, of her estimation of Customs, Traditions, writings of Doctors, Decrees of Popes and Counsels, of her ancient Latin Translation, of her corrupting either of the text of the Testament, or of the true Religion contained therein, of her not translating of the Scriptures into all vulgar tongues, of her works of supererogation, Abbeys, Priories, and chantries. For touching all these things, either it is evident in itself, or in sundry places either you have confessed, or I have proved, or at least I have defended that they were the Primitive Churches also, no less than they be the Churches now, answering whatsoever objections you have brought against them.  

Ar. 5.  Again you say, As for the Popish Church, she is so blind that she can not discern between the Canonical books of the Scriprere, from the Apocryphal writings: as appeareth by receiving the books of the Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, etc. to be of equal authority with the books of the Law, Psalms, etc. The Popish Church that Canonised those books, was the Primitive (although ye call them Heretics which did it) as I have showed plainly, 
Pur. 214.  and by your own confession, cap. 9 pag. 165. and that you are fain to say, that also the Primitive Church therein did err. S. Augustine therefore, as he saith to the manichee denying the Acts of the Apostles, Cui libro necesse est me credere, si credo evangelio: quoniam utramque Scripturam similiter mihi Catholica commendat authoritas. I must needs believe this book, if I believe the Gospel: because the Catholic authority commendeth unto me both those Scriptures alike: so he saith unto you denying the Machabées, Ecclesiasticus, judith, etc. I must needs believe them if I believe the Gospel: because they also be in the Canon of the same Church: as he telleth you plainly here cap. 9 pag. 165. And therefore they are but words, when you said erewhile, We allow and believe the Primitive Church's testimony of the word of God. And again: 
Ar. 10.9.  We have most steadfast assurance of God's Spirit, for the authority of God's book, with the testimony of the true Church in all ages: and so we know it to be true. You believe the Gospel for the Church's testimony, even as much as the manichees did: because you reject her authority & Canon in other books, as they did in the Acts. And therefore again you do but condemn yourself, when you say: 
Ar. 4.5.  The Church of Christ commended the books of holy Scriptures to be believed of all true Christians. And again: The Church of Christ hath of the holy Ghost a judgement to discern the word of God of infallible verity, from the writing of men which might err. In so saying you both justify us, who as we confess that Church, so we believe her Canon, and condemn yourselves, who confess it to be the true Church, and yet deny her Canon, yea and generally her authority (here in the 34. Dem.) holding stiffly, that she may err, and did err in many things, and therefore making Only Scripture your ground for all things. Wherein how contrary you be to yourself, any man may see, and I must note it in the next Chapter. In the mean time I note, 
Cap. 11. contradict. 33.34.35. Ar. 8.  that you show yourselves not to be the Church that commanded S. Augustine to believe the Gospel, in that you say freely: We do not challenge credit to ourselves, in any point, so presumptuously as the Papists, that men must believe it because we affirm it: but because we prove it to be true by the word of God. By what place of Scripture did either the Primitive Catholic Church prove to S. Augustine, or could you prove to the Manichée, the Acts of the Apostles to be of Canonical authority? The true Church of all times is of like authority, and therefore that which was not presumption then, is not presumption now.  
But what will not your term of Only Scripture serve you unto? when by it you argue & say: 
Ar. 6.  Our Congregation hath ever had both right and possession of the Scriptures: as appeareth by this, that our Church & Congregation believeth nothing but that she learneth in them. And that be not a notable plea to prove a right and a possession, yea and a continual possession, I report me to your Lawyers. What a forehead and face have you, to say, 
A substantial lie.  that your company had evermore possession of the Bible? Is it not evident, that Luther and all that are come of him, took their Bibles of the Papists? Leave your impudent facing: it is not your new upstart Congregation, it is our Catholic Roman Church, which hath continually kept her possession of this Treasure, which she received of the Apostles. She it is that rejecteth no one book thereof: she it is, that with God's spirit hath kept them from corruption of all Heretics. 
Ar. 5.  If also the Arrians, Donatists, Novatians, Eutychians, and other Heretics, received all the books of Scripture, What doth that prove, but only, that those Heretics should rather be the true church, than you, and that we might not use against them this piece of our argument, as we do against you: but this rather, that they had those Scriptures of us, and carried them out with them when they went out from us. So did also the Greek Church, 
Ar. 6.  and other Eastern Churches of Asia, and therefore If unto this day they have kept them never so safely, they are not for all that the true Church. Every Article of D. Allens is not to prove absolutely, that we be the church, but some only, that you be not the Church. When our Church was oppugned by other enemies, she knew what she had then also to do. So she had, & hath her proper Motives against the jews: and therefore it is a wise Demand of yours, when you say, Why are not the jews, the Catholic Church, which have kept the old Testament in Hebrew, more faithfully than ever the Papists? We do not now encounter with the jews, but presupposing the Religion and Church that Christ and his Apostles did institute, to be true, we give plain notes, how a man may know, that the Protestant's have it not, (as because they deny some Canonical books of Scripture, & the Church's authority which is the foundation of the Canon.) And therefore that no wise man should be moved when he heareth them to claim it (and that by pretence of Scripture, and false card of Only Scripture) from us who do so faithfully believe, and have so uncorruptibly kept all the books of the same. As for the jews old Testament, I touched your blindness therein cap. 7. pag. 103. sufficiently, and also your desperate impudency (pag. 103.) in charging the Church with rejecting of the Scriptures.   

37. Stoarehouse of all Truth. 
Motive 29.   
As in our Church at this day a man may find all the holy books which the Church in old time laid up in her Canon thereof: so likewise all other Truths (I say in my next Demand) which in any of her Counsels or otherwise she ruled over & canonised at any time against any Heresy of her rebels, or against any error of her own obedient children: & that the Protestants & all other Heretics have no truth among them, but they had it of our Church: which Church therefore, I say, is now and ever, and she only, the Stoarehouse both of Canonical Scripture, 
Iren. contra Heraeses. li. 3 ca 4.  and of all truth beside. And therefore again (as S. Irenée saith) Non oportet adhuc quaerere apud alios veritatem, quam facile est ab Ecclesia sumere, No man must yet (after all these most evident Demonstrations) seek the Truth among any others, which they may so easily take of the Churth, because it is Depositorium dives, the rich Stoarehouse of the Apostles.   

38 Old Heresies. 
Motive 4.   
Among the Protestants, on the contrary side, I say, that there are to be found very many of the Old condemned Heresies. Which is so plain, that Fulke confesseth (here cap. 3.) Aerius, iovinianus, and Vigilantius, to have been counted Heretics of the true ancient Church, for sundry opinions of theirs, now revived by the Protestants. And therefore is fain (cap. 7. pag. 80.) for his own cause to go about to defend them, partly with his stale of Only Scripture (cap. 7. pag. 80.) to the which I have made answer cap. 8. pag. 110. and cap. 9 pag. 171. partly with abusing sundry places of the Scriptures, and of the same Fathers which condemned those Heretics, to the which I have answered cap. 8. and 9 partly also with more insolency to charge those Fathers rather as defending Heresy against Aerius, etc. (cap. 3.) whereunto I have answered cap. 6. saving that the two Heresies which he layeth to them that hold with the Machabées and with Traditions (as the Fathers do cap. 9 pag. 165. & cap. 3.7. pa. 12.85.) I have answered in this present chap. in the 36. & 29. Demands. And so with one labour I have cleared both the Fathers & ourselves together, not to be Gnostici, Valentinians, Carpocratians, Collyridians', Ossenes, Caianes, in our Traditions, in our Crosses and other Images, in our Invocation of Angels and Sants and worshipping of their Relics: nor to be Manichées, Tiacianistes, Montanistes, Aerians, in our Abstinence and Fastingdayes, in our single life: nor Gentiles, Carpocratians, Origenists, Heracleonites, Montanistes, in our name of Sacrifice, in our Purgatory, Anealing, and praying for the dead: nor Arrians in our beeres for burying. For such is his modesty and Christianity and truth, to charge the Pillars of Christ with such heresies, yea and moreover to say generally, (as I noted cap. 3. pag. 9) that if the Gentiles or Heretics had any thing that seemed to have a show of piety or charity, they would draw it into use: which was the great corrupting of those ancient times. That we may now be more content to hear him charge us, and say with all generality that is possible: 
Pur. 287.  In all times when soever, and wheresoever, was any piece of mist, or dark corner (though all the rest were light) there were the steps of your walk. Which two golden sayings of his, proceed of these two divine opinions of their new Gospel, that the Primitive Church should prepare the way to Antichrist, and that Christ's Vicar should be Antichrist. Whereof I have spoken enough cap. 8. and 9 Such opinions must utter such sayings. And yet not able for all that, truly to charge the Church either Primitive or of later time, with so much as one point of Antichristianisme or Heresy, as partly I have declared cap. 6. and now will declare for the rest. They are such matters as agree no otherwise to us, then to them whom he dare not to condemn, and therefore not in the same manner as to the old Heretics.  

Ar. 21.22. Epiph. s. 3. Haer. 80. 1. Cor 11. Hier. in Ezech. 44.  Of the Messalians or Martyrians, you learned (saith he) to shave your beards, and to let your locks grow long, Comas muliebres producunt, They keep their hear long, like women. Do we so? Be our heads like women's long heads? women's heads belike are rounded heads: or S. Paul did mean that men should poll their heads, Ita ad pressum tondentes ut rasorum similes videantur, Cutting them so near the skin that they should be like to shaven heads. Or do not some Protestants wear round heads and shave their beards, as well as some Catholics: and some Catholics, even also the Clergy in Italy and Spain, wear beards and polled heads, as well as some Protestants? Epiphanius noteth it in those Monks, because they did it, in contentione, of contention, and at that time and in that place, when and where the Apostles statutes and the Church's orders were to the contrary, as yet they be touching womanly heads, but not also every where touching shaven beards. It is a sign, that you abound with substantial stuff against us, that you lay our hears to our charge. Nothing was wont with you to be heresy, unless it could be proved contrary to express Scripture, 
Sup. dem. 36.  (so easily we might answer all, by your principles) and that also excepting ceremonies. Yet now conformity and obedience to comely order for lack of better matter must go for heresy. See, whether we do not more substantially charge you with the Messalians heresy, for saying, that the Sacraments, and namely Baptism, 
Theo Haer. fab. li. 4. Dam. Haer. 80.  Eucharist, and Orders, do not confer grace. Read Theodorete and Damascene.  
Of the Pharisees you received your superstitious masking garments, which you call Amictus, Dalmaticus, and Pallia, as witnesseth Epiphanius in his Epistle to Acacius and Paulus. Doth not also your own order appoint special and gorgeous garments in the ministrations? And that in the Primitive Church also were such, I have showed here in the 21. Demand: and by name, if you will, you may read of the Deacons Dalmatica and Alba, to be worn in the time of the oblation, and lesson out of the Gospel, Con. Carth. 4. cap. 41. as also in other places both of them and the rest. You might as well, or also better have brought this against the levitical garments in the ministries of the judaical Temple. 
Epipha. ep. ante lib. de Haer. & Haer. 15.16.  You do not consider that Epiphanius there reporteth the seven sects of the jews, and describeth them, namely the Scribes and the pharisees, in their common daily garments, being Stolae sive Pallia, and Dalmaticae sive amicula, as we might say, cassocks and gowns or cloaks upon them, with simbriae, fringes commanded Nu. 15. Deut. 22. to have made for ostentation of holiness certain superstitious additions & enlargementes, by which our Saviour, Mat. 23. doth note their hypocrisy. Doth not this make sore against holy vestments in the Service of God?  
another sect of the jews were Hemerobaptistae (touched by our Saviour Mar. 7. 
Epipha. ep. ad Acac. & Paulum. & Haer. 17. ) who said, Neminen assequi vitam aeternam nisi qui quotidie baptizaretur, None to obtain life everlasting, but such a one as were baptised (or washed) every day. Of these were derived your holy water, saith Fulke to us, which you say you use to put men in mind of their Baptism. O I see our fault: although we baptise but once for life everlasting, yet we would have men to remember it every day. S. Paul deceived us Rom. 6. he was to blame. As also to tell us that the Creatures of God are Sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, 1. Tim. 4. Specially to attribute so passing much to the prayers of the holy Ghost, that is, to the prayers of the Church, encouraging us, and saying: 
Rom. 8.  the Holy Ghost also doth help our weakness, praying for us with groans unspeakable, as he that knoweth the hearts of the Catholic Church can tell, howsoever blind Heretics do think, that God will do nothing by water for prayer.  

Epip. Haer. 19  Again he sayeth: Of the Ossenes (who were another sect of the jews) you took the great estimation of water, salt, oil, bread, etc. And use to swear by them, as they did. You do not charge us, I trow, as teaching this swearing in common talk without truth or without cause. Nor you be not, I trow, an Anabaptist, to condemn either all swearing, or swearing by Creatures. What besides these you should mean to charge us withal, I know not. But I know what Epiphanius chargeth the Ossenes withal, to wit, for frequenting oaths, as we do prayers, and that for divine honour of septem testes, seven witnesses prescribed unto them by their master Elxai, which were these: Salt, Water, Earth, Bread, Heaven, Air, and Wind. At another time these: Heaven, Water, Spirits, the holy Angels of prayer, Oil, Salt, and Earth, but in no case fire. Therefore if Catholics be not plain Ossens, I report me to you.  
The same Elxai prescribed a prayer, saying in the book of his fables: Let no man seek the interpretation, but only say these words in his prayer: [Abac anid moib nochile daasim ani daasim nochile moib anid abac selam.] Of him therefore we learned (saith Fulke) to command the people to pray in an unknown tongue. Epiphanius showeth, that his prayer was nothing at all when it was interpreted. Belike the Pater noster and ave, are such: or else the Private prayers of the Corinthians in more strange tongues than the Latin is to the people of the Latin Church, which yet S. Paul commendeth, as I showed in the 22. Dem. But he cometh also to our public prayer and saith: 
Epip. Haer. 34.  The Marcosians, when they baptised (after their strange manner mentioned here cap. 6. pag. 50.) used to speak certain Hebrew words, quae magis admirationi sint, that the ignorant people might marvel the more at them: as you do in Baptism, Ephata, etc. 
Mar. 7.  Even as truly as S. Mark in his Greek Gospel sayeth the same in the very same manner with the interpretation, 
Ambro. de Sac. li. 1. c. 1. Apoc. 19  as we do in Baptism, and as in S. Ambrose time also we did, to be (forsooth) marveled at the more: Epphatha, quod est, adaperire, which is to say, Be thou opened. And as S. john in his Greek Apocalypse so often useth for marvel (forsooth) the Hebrew words Amen, (which in other Scriptures also, yea and in your own prayers is commonly used) and Alleluia, of which two S. Augustine saith (that I may note somewhat here against your Service, where you note nothing against ours) not only that in the Latin translations of the Bible they be retained Propter sanctiorem authoritatem, for more holy authority, 
Au. de doc. Chri. li. 2. c. 11. & inter. Epist. 174.  although it was possible to interpret them, but also that all Nations do sing them in the Hebrew word, quod nec Latino nec Barbaro licet in suam linguam transfer, Not being lawful neither for the Latin, nor for the Barbarian to translate them into his own language.  
Of the Marcionistes you learned to give women leave to baptize. You do therein yourselves by order of your book, 
Epip. Haer. 42.  as much as we do. Martion is noted for confounding all order, as consecrating the mysteries in presence of Catechumeni: so likewise allowing women to Baptize solemnly, as though they might have that office as well as Priests. We say only, that for necessity Christ alloweth any person to Baptize: 
Ruff. hist. li. 1. ca 14.  in so much that the Primitive Church also hath allowed the baptism which a boy hath given to his playfellows. Which you would never carp, but that like a Pelagian Puritan, (here cap. 6. pag. 65.) you deny the necessity of Baptism, 
Aug. Haer. 88 Pelagia.  saying that children, etiam si non baptizentur, although they be not baptised, may come to life everlasting, and to the kingdom of God.  

Pu. 13.405 Ar. 44.  So plainly you are proved to be Pelagians. But yet we in our consciences forsooth must needs be Pelagians for holding Free will, and merits of works as they did, and not Predestination and grace as Augustine did. How they did hold it, either you knew not, or it was not for your hypocrisy to report it. Sure it is, that 
a Hier. pro. con. Pelag. Au. de fide con. Mani. ca 9 10. Chry. hom. 45. in Io. 6.  Manichaeorum est, liberum auserre arbitrium, It is the Heresy of the manichees to deny Free-will. Sure it is again, that S. Augustine denying the Pelagians merits, that is, such as proceed of man himself, and go before grace: yet holdeth the Catholic merits, that is, such as proceed of grace. 
b Aug. epi. 46.  The Pelagian Heretics do say (quoth he) the grace of God to be given according to our own merits. quod omnino falsissimum est, Which is utterly most false, not that there is no merit, either good of the godly, or evil of the ungodly: but the grace of god doth convert a man, that of a wicked one he may be made a just one, and so may begin to have good merits, which God shall crown when the world shall be judged. This is the doctrine of the Catholics, and is most evident to be seen in the Council of Trent. 
Con. Trid. Ses. 6.  But you denying all good merits, do like Hypocrites conceal from the people that distinction of merits before grace and merits after grace, making as though all which hold merits, so much as after grace, be Pelagians. But that we hold also merits before grace, as they did, you will prove by the distinction De congruo & condigno: For God is as much bound to congruity as to dignity or worthiness: and as he can do nothing against worthiness, no more can he do any thing against congruity, which is a kind of equity. We also ourselves do hold, that a man of himself without God's special help, can not merit so much as de congruo, the grace of God (though we have no resolute warrant to call the contrary Pelagianism or Heresy) and that with better arguments than this of yours, or else we might hold our peace, which you can not. For you imagine that if God do not that which is congruous, he doth against congruity. Not so, good sir, for it is congruous to his mercy to save the simple, that follow you only of ignorance, and otherwise do live in good works, especially his well-beloved servants also praying for them. Yet to damn such also because they be out of the Church, is congruous to his justice. Yea for God to save all the world, is condign to the merits of Christ: yet he damneth innumerable, because that it is condign to their own merits.  
Thus while you went about to stain God's Church in vain, it is fallen out only by the way, that you yourselves are Messalians for denying the grace of the Sacraments: Pelagians, for denying the necessity of Baptism: and Manichees, for denying Frée-will. This is all that you have gained.   

39 In confessed Heretics only. 
Motive 46   
When we make the Protestants to confess (as in the last Demand) that the Primitive Church noted certain to be Heretics for holding their doctrine, they set themselves against the Primitive Church also (such is their obstinacy) & say, that those persons were not Heretics therein. We therefore not leaving them so (if it be possible any way to open their eyes, or at lest the eyes of the poor deceived people) do show them (as in this next Demand) that the same persons were Heretics in other points also so plainly, that we make them to confess that also. And neither yet will their hard stony hearts relent. 
Ar. 44.  If Aerius had not been an Arrian (saith Fulk) his opinion (against praying for the dead could not have made him an heretic, though both Epiphanius (of the Greek Church) and Augustinus (of the Latin Church) do so register him. Then what do we more? We ask them, 
Pur. 421.  Why God openeth these mysteries always and only, to such as you yourselves (saith D. Allen to them) can not deny to be Heretics: and not to Athanasius, Epiphanius, Augustinus, or some other blessed men of that time? but contrariwise leaveth these his elect and doctors of his Church in ignorance, yea and with pertinacy condemning those true mysteries for soul Heresies, and hath no body in the mean time to be their reformers, but such as are infamous and of no credit by reason of abominable confessed heresies? And do they yet relent? No, I warrant you. Such a yoke it is to be once wedded to heresy. And yet they have no answer hereunto, that may satisfy any man of reason, as now we shall see.  
For thus saith Fulke unto it: 
Pur. 409.422.424. Ar. 44.  What if any Heretic hath affirmed some thing that is true? Is truth worse in an Heretics mouth? The devils themselves confessed Christ. As though it were agreed that it was truth which those Heretics affirmed, as it was agreed that he was Christ whom those devils confessed. No sir, that is the question. But if the devils had said one thing, and the Apostles the contrary: which then were like to have been the truth? For so the Catholic Fathers said with us, and the Arrians said with you: which therefore is like to be the truth? You say: truth hath testimony of God's word, and whether it be affirmed or denied by the devil, it is all one. Marry in deed, he that would defend the devil saying against the Apostles, affirming that he can bring God's word, must needs have audience though he put us to our trumps. So you defending Aerius the Arrian Heretic against the Catholic fathers, & bringing Scripture do trouble us forsooth, as the reader hath seen here in the 8. chapter, where I have answered all your Scriptures, as all must needs be answerable that is brought against truth: and so they find which read our writings. But because that way (to read all, is long, we tell such as would not make so great a journey, that they may be sure without more travel, that not to be of God the revealer of all truth, which Heretics held against the catholics, as also that which the devils might hold against the Apostles, And the more, because we read that Christ and his Apostles commanded the devil to silence, 
Luc. 4. Act. 16.  when also he confessed truth, for proceeding out of his lying mouth, it might (as Fulke saith well) the sooner be discredited. Whereas in our case (by the saying of the Protestants) he commanded the devil and his Heretics to teach the truth, and the Fathers to silence, or rather not to silence, but suffering them to resist the truth all that they could.  

Pu. 422.421.  But he can answer one question with another: Why was it first revealed (saith he) to the Arrians in Council, that the Article of Christ's descent into hell, was meet to be added to the Crede, which was not revealed to so many godly men as set forth the Symbol, nor to the holy Nicene Council? Answer me if you can. He speaketh so of this matter without any quoting of Author, as if it were a thing notoriously known. Belike it is received among them who would put it out of the Crede again, as a principle of their Aristotle, and I (who read not their books, but with leave and for necessity) am not so well acquainted in their mysteries. Perhaps a friends guess of mine is true, that they say so, because they find it in some Arrian Crede that is recorded in the Ecclesiastical Story. 
Theo. li. 2. cap. 21.  For it is found in deed in Theodorete, that the false Nicene Arrian Synod said in their new Crede, Crucified, dead, and buried, descended into hell, whom hell itself did tremble at. According to the idle or rather hypocritical diligence of Heretics, who use in Credes or confessions of their false doctrines to infarse some needles truths. Whereas the Catholic Nicene Council thought it enough in their Crede, to repeat and explicate only those Articles of the Apostles common Crede, of which Articles Heretics had as then made question. Is not this then a substantial cause, to say that it was first revealed to the Arrians to put it in the creed: whereas it was before in the Apostles creed? Though also if it were true, that the Arrians did first put it into the creed, what is that to our case? They had not the Catholics in that against them: yea it was a common Article of the Catholics faith. The Articles of the Arrian Aerius were not such. As also the Article against Rebaptisation, which Article some Heretics perhaps held right, when S. Cyprian and some other Catholic Bishops were deceived in it. But yet the Pope with the rest of Christendom held it as they had it of the Apostles. What is this to your Articles, which only old wicked Heretics did hold (we say) against all Catholics: They were fit Articles for Heretics at all times (but never for Catholics:) as at this time also for Anabaptistes, Seruetians or Arrians, Suenkfeldians, 
Pur. 421.  & all the others that you count Heretics as well as we do, saith D. Allen, because they are their inheritance as well as yours, descending from your common father Luther.  
But for that wound also you have a plaster, if not to heal it, yet to cover it as you hope. 
Ar. 96. Pur. 423.  For there were many more Heresies at the first preaching of the Gospel, in and immediately after the Apostles time: then at the last restoring of the public preaching thereof unto the world in our days: when the Gentiles continued constant, and the jews without schism in their errors. This is jump as I say in my 35. Demand, That you be not able to allege any excuse for your division into so many Sects, which the Arrians, Donatists, and other old Heresies might not as well allege for excuse of their divisions: 
Aug. de agone Christi. ca 29.  and so, when S. Augustine noteth, that as Donatus went about to divide Christ, even so he himself is of his own (donatists) divided every day into sundry pieces, to tell him, as you do us, that also in the Apostles time the professors of Christianity were rend and torn into an hundred Sects and Heresies. You want but that (which is soon had, we know) figures and prophets of another old Testament, and miracles of healing the diseased of all sorts, of raising the dead, and such other petite matters, to make demonstration, that Donatus then, or Luther now, is another Christ: and then we must be forced to grant that you are as the Apostles, and they as you. And yet for all that I think we should not be forced to grant that you have the truth: but rather it would follow (per impossibile) that the Apostles had not the truth. But it is well, that the Apostles were not the cause of those Sects and Divisions, no more than we now, their heirs, be cause of your Sects and Divisions. Your own Dividing of Christ (which is the Apostles and ours by seniority in right possession) is the meritorious cause of them, as S. Augustine told the Donatists. And the efficient cause, is your denying of all Catholic Principles, and holding of Only Scripture, and that but so much as you list of your own heads, and to be interpreted by every ones private fantasy, which you call the Spirit. Finally your Articles do fit them all very well, in so much that their Sectiones lightly be not made by going from any Article of yours, but from some more Articles of ours, as the Anabaptistes, from baptizing of Infants, from lawful swearing, etc. If the case had been thus with the Apostles, the world had never believed them.   


Ar. 27.  40 They never afore now.  
Next after this I note, that the Protestants were never in the world before our time. Fulk saith: With the Apostles, Evangelists, and Prophets, we consent wholly in all points of Doctrine. No, not in one point at all (unless it be such a one as with us also you consent in) as I have showed cap. 8. and much less wholly in all points. He saith further: With justinus, Irenaeus, Cyprianus, Athanasius, Hilarius, Ambrose, Augustinus, etc. Gildas, we consent (though not wholly in all points of Doctrine, yet) in the chief and most substantial articles of faith. Neither with them in any one point (in manner aforesaid) as I have showed cap. 9 Howbeit in this your own saying, you confess my purpose. For Vigilantius, iovinianus, etc. did much more agree with them in the chief and most substantial Articles which you mean: and yet were not of their Church, could not be, nor would not be. If you say, that you were then in those Heretics, Vigilantius, and iovinianus (for I trow, you will not say, that you were in Aerius the Arrian, nor in the Manichées, nor Pelagians, though they were your partners in some points, as we saw erewhile in the 38. Dem.) that is a plain confession that you were not in the Church of the Fathers. Yet also that you were not in those Heretics, is plain by this, because they held no more of yours then the Fathers noted them for, who would have noted them also for denying prayer for the dead, as they noted Aerius for it, if they had denied it as he did.  
If you say, that you were in that Church which went out of sight▪ an. 607. (as you say here cap. 2.) it is a chimaera only of your own imagination, you can not show any company of Christians that departed from that Pope Bonifacius the third and his adherents, much less that they were Protestants.  
You come lower to Bertramus, Marsilius de Padua, 
Ar. 27.30.33.34.75.77.95.97. Pur. 420.341.344.345.  joannes de Gauduno (al. de Gaudano, you call him) Bruno Andeganensis, Wickleve, john Hus and Jerome of Praga with their Bohemians, etc. (as Berengarius, Apostolici, Waldo with his French Waldenses and Pauperes de Lugduno, and Albigenses, the Grecian Image breakers, the married Canons sometime in England, and Emperors that defended their married Priests. Of these you say as you did of the Fathers: We consent with them in the chief and most substantial articles of faith: saving that in one place where you pass some of them over with silence, lest we should object that they held with you but in some one or two points: 
Wal. tom. 3. ca 7.8.9. Melan. epi. ad Fred. Micon.  there you say: But Wickleve, I ween, you will not deny, but he was of our Church and Religion. Against this ignorant ween of yours the Catholic may read Thomas Waldensis, that excellent writer our Countryman, the Protestant may read Philip Melancthon: who report sundry articles of Wickleves which you yourself will detest, namely humane merits, as Pelagius held them, in so much that Waldensis doth exhort Catholics to say at every word, the grace of God (as now we see used in our language) because Wickleve did teach his to have always in their mouths merita propria, their own merits. And Melancthon saith, Prorsus non intellexit, nec tenuit fidei justitiam, Verily he did not understand, nor hold the justification of faith. He nameth five other points of like weight: and besides them all, Deprehendi in eo multa alia errata, ex quibus judicium de eius spiritu fieri potest, Looking in Wicklefe, I found in him many other errors, whereby one may judge of his spirit. Of Hus the like is written by Luther himself: 
Luther apud Roffen. ar. 30.  Non recte faciunt qui me Hussitam vocant. Non enim mecum ille sentit. They do not well that call me an Hussite. For he is not of my judgement: as there he exemplifieth, in the Pope's Supremacy, etc. And how say you to the seditious article (as Melancthon calleth it) of both Wickleve and Hus, 
Con. Constan. Sess. 8. art. 15.17.  touching civil dominion, that it is lost immediately if the King do fall into mortal sin?  
Having showed this in them, whom you thought yourself most sure of, I need not to go particularly through the rest: which otherwise, and if it were not too long, I might easily do to your confusion. For what a poor and fowl shift is this of yours? Whether Apostolici in Bernardes' time, were slandered for denying of Baptism to Infants, I am not able to say. 
Bern. Ser. 66. super Cant.  Saint Bernard himself (no meaner witness) at the very same time writeth it: and you doubt whether they were not slandered. But certain it is, that the godly called Pauperes de Lugduno and Waldenses, were slandered with many detestable opinions, which it is now well known that they never did hold. So you say, but you show it not. I refer the Reader (for brevity) to Doctor Saunders Monarchy lib. 7. pag. 493. who allegeth his Authors, and them of just credit, that these Pauperes de Lugduno were a very order of friars, begun by one Valdesius, and that they held many detestable opinions (as you do well term them) namely against all judging to blood or to any other corporal punishment, Item, all carnal commixtion, etc.  
Finally therefore I note that you say: We have always abhorred the (detestable) Heresies of the Anabaptistes, 
Ar. 61.62.63. Pur. 19.420.  Libertines, Suenkefeldians, Davidians, Seruitians, and all such detestable and abominable Heretics of this time. None but fools will think them to be Protestants. So say we, that none but fools will think those others to be Protestants, although they agree with you in some things? For so do these also in some things, yea and in more things, than any of the others.   

41. Studying all Truth. 
Motive 31.   
Having in these last Demands showed, that our Church is the Conserver and Keeper of all truth, and the Protestants contrariwise no more but brochers of old and new heresies: I do in this Demand note what Schools and Universities our church hath erected, and what orders she hath set for the Teaching and learning of all divine truth, to defend all against all sorts of enemies, whereas the Protestant students for the most part know not, what the course of Divinity meaneth. Touching this matter, I find where Fulke saith, that of late days, 
Ar. 52.53.  diverse Universities, Schools, and Colleges are erected by Protestants in Germany and other Countries that have received the Gospel. Whereas Doctor Allen demandeth of such erections as were any time before Luther began: them he noteth all to have been ours, and none of the Protestants, which is so plain, that Fulke rehearseth the first Colleges of Monks, saying, they were Colleges of students, and like a blind man seethe not, that to make with us, as more at large I have showed here in the 25. Demand, being of Monks. Now when certain Princes seduced by you, destroyed all Monasteries (with the which also the Colleges of the Universities in England went together by the Parliament, in such an hazard they were) was it not forsooth a gracious provision of them, to set up a few petite Schools in steed of them, howbeit that also no otherwise then by apish imitation of the Catholic Churches schools, nor before that they saw by experience all learning to be packed away together with the Friars & other catholics? And yet you brag that there was never so great store of learning in any age, 
Pur. 7.8.  as there is now in these our days, in the Protestants. Wherein you show yourself to be still as we were when we were children in the Grammar school, where we thought that no man could be better learned then our Master: you may brag so before babes. We that know both your and the Catholic schools, can but laugh at your childishness. You speak of knowledge of the tongues and rational sciences. There are more declamations in Greek, in one common school of the jesuits, then in both your Universities (I dare say) being joined together: and better Masters of Art, of two or three years teaching through all Logic and Philosophy, then with you in seven years. And the very Masters of such things with us, of Hebrew, of Greek, of Latin, of Poetry, of Logic, of Philosophy, do they (think you) count themselves therefore learned in Divinity, which they never studied? or better learned in it then the professors of it, lacking the tongues or the eloquence of them, as S. Thomas Aquinus, S. Augustine, the Apostles? What a madness were that. This rather is rudeness and barbarousness, as in our Country to think a mere Grammar Schoolmaster sufficient to be Doctor of Divinity, yea and a Bishop also, not for other qualities (of them I speak not) but even for Divinity. No, no, M. Fulke, Regnum Grammaticorum is past date, all are not children as they were when this gear began, your tongues will not now serve, no nor your study of Divinity itself in Calvin's school. Come once to the Catholic schools (as God's grace can bring you, and I beseech him to do it) and you will be ashamed of yourself as many a one already is, that thought himself, and was thought of others at home a jolly fellow. Peradventure you have read Francis. Stancarus, (a Doctor proceeded out of your own School, and hath his Gnatonicos, 
Stanc. li. de Trin. & Mediatore.  as well as your other Gnatoes) where he writeth thus: Plus valet unus Petrus Lomberdus, etc. One Petrus Lombardus (who is, you know our Master of the Sentences) is more worth, than 100 Luther's, 200. Melancthons', 300. Bullingers', 400. Peter Martyrs, et 500 calvini, and 500 Caluines. Who all if they were pounded together in one Mortar, there could not be beaten out of them one ounce of true Divinity, specially in the Articles of the Trinity, Incarnation, Mediator, and Sacraments. He useth here his fellows, your Masters, very boldly, but what remedy?  
So ill were they studied in those Articles, and specially in the three foremost, because their care and study was not to understand and defend Christian truth, but only to pick vain quarrels against God's Church in other matters. And therefore you the petite Protestant's, must needs forsooth be great Doctors.   

42. Unsent. 
Motive 21.   
In my next Demand I note, both those your Masters, and you their Disciples, to be such as God speaketh of by his Prophet: They did run, and I did not send them. A wise Church, 
jere. 23.  that hath no Preachers and Teachers, but only such as took the honour to themselves, or at their hands who took to themselves the authority to send, which no man gave them. Mere lay men are the root, the spring, and the givers, both of your Orders (as here in the .24. Dem. I said) and also of your Commission and of your spiritual jurisdiction. Who ever heard the like in the Church of Christ? You have no answer unto it. You are (as the ancient writers do term such) children without any Fathers. You are like the poets men that Deucalion made of stones, you do not descend of Adam.  
Rail as long as you may at God's Church and her spiritual external jurisdiction in her Censures, penalties, 
Ar. 17.18.19.30.98.  and all other discipline, as Excommunication, Suspension, Interdighting, also Dagradation, etc. you do no more but show that you understand not the things whereof you speak. All is done still as it was in the Primitive Church with the self same authority, and with the same affection and discretion, if the judges do not serve from the Church's Laws.   

43. Succession. 
Motive 22. Article 8.   
Consequently in the next Demand I say, that the true Church must be descended by lineal and continual Succession from the Apostles, and that our Church is so descended, and that the Protestants Church is not so descended. About this Fulke doth many ways contradict himself (as I will show in the next Chapter) because he can not tell what to say unto it. Yet to help him as much as may be, and as I do use every where, to frame his arguments to his purpose, and to bring them into some order: He may say two things: first, that they may have the true Church, although they have not Succession: secondly, that we may lack the true Church, although we have succession.  
To the first he may refer these words of his own, unto D. Allen: 
Ar. 26.  You are never able to prove that any such orderly Succession according to persons and places, was promised to the Church: that we should show you the performance thereof in our Church. Whether that can not be proved, my first Demand here will show, which declareth that S. Augustine hath already proved out of the Scriptures for us, that the Church should begin at Jerusalem, and from thence grow over all Nations continually to the worlds end: as also with our eyes we see that unto this our time it hath done. And even the place which you go about to answer, proveth it plainly: Continual Succession of persons in the ministery (I say with D. Allen) even until Christ's coming again. 
Ephe. 4.  Christus ascendens, etc. Christ ascending gave gifts to men: some to be Apostles, some Evangelists, some Prophets, some Pastors and Teachers, to the completing of the holy for the work of ministery, for the building of the body of Christ: Donec occurramus omnes, etc. Until we meet all in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, in a perfect man, in the measure of the age, plenitudinis Christi, of the fullness of Christ, that is (Ephe. 1.) of his Church. He saith so expressly, until the finishing of the Church. But that you would not see: you thought better to cavil, and say: The offices of the Apostles, Evangelists, and Prophets, were not appointed to continue always in the Church, but for a time until the Gospel had taken root in the world. Why do you not say the like of the other two, Pastors and Teachers? if they at the least, were appointed to continue always, you see a Succession of Persons. And how can Saint Paul's saying be otherwise verified, unless some of those five should always continue, if not all, as the words do rather import? For you seem to deceive yourself, by thinking that none are Apostles but the twelve, none Evangelists but the four, none Prophets but the foretellers of things to come. Whereas in deed all the Successors of Saint Peter are Apostles (as I noted in the .28. Demand,) and also whosoever else be the first converters of any Nation: and all the expounders of the Evangelists and Prophets, are Evangelists and Prophets, which you will not deny if you have any skill in understanding the Scriptures. No difference being between these offices in the beginning and now, but only that then they were given by miracle, and now by order.  
As touching the second, you grant our Church to have such continual Succession, and infer thereupon, Ergo it is not the true Church (here Cap. 2. Pag. 5.) because the true Church should at some time or other be driven out of sight. Whereunto I have answered Cap. 8. Pag. 144. showing that you do foully abuse the Scripture to that false conclusion, and namely, that the time of the Churches flying into the wilderness is not yet come. Again you argue: If it be sufficient, 
Ar. 27.  or any thing worth to rehearse the names of them that have orderly succeeded in all ages in the Bishops Sees, in an outward face of the Church: the Greek Church is able to name as many as the Latin Church, and in as orderly succession: What of that, but only this, that they therefore may better claim the Church than you? And yet in truth these Heretical and Schismatical Greeks can no more show Succession▪ then you. For your false Bishops are now in the Sees of C. Pole, of B. Bonner, of B. Therlebie, etc. and yet I trow, you will not thereby claim Succession. So these later Greeks have not Succession but from them only, who began this Separation of theirs, and their heresies about the H. Ghosts proceeding, etc. For in Saint Gregory's time (which is enough) they were in unity. Nam de Constantinopolitana Ecclesia, 
Greg. li. 7. Epist. 63.  quis eam dubitet Sedi Apostolicae esse subiectam? etc. For as touching the Church of Constantinople (saith he) who can doubt that it is subject to the See Apostolic? which thing both our most clement Lord the Emperor, and our brother Eusebius Bishop of the same City, do daily profess.   

44. Apostolic Church. 
Motive 23.   
Next unto this I say, that it is we, & not the Protestants, which believe the Apostolic church, because we believe the Roman church, which hath the See of the two most glorious Apostles S. Peter & S. Paul, & which was meant by those Fathers who in their Council added to the article of the creed the word Apostolic, thereby to specify the better the Catholic Church against such heretics, as durst challenge to themselves the Catholic Church, but had no colour to challenge the Roman Church, namely that Bishop of Rome which sat in the Apostles chair, that is, which orderly and canonically succeeded the Apostles. For otherwise the Donatists and some others (we know) had their mock bishop at Rome in a corner, whom they sent thither out of other countries, to lurk there for a stolen to their simple people, which thing (among others) might cause the Fathers in their exposition of the creed, to say rather, the Apostolic Church, then, the Roman Church.  

Ar. 96.  Unto this, Fulke hath two shifts. First he saith: You are never able to answer the arguments that are brought to prove that Peter was never Bishop at Rome. And then where is all your brags of Apostolic Sea, and succession, & c?  
See here cap. 2. pag. 3. how he confesseth, that S. Augustine and many other of the Fathers did likewise allege against Heretics, the succession of that Apostolic See. And therefore consider to whom and for whom, it is that now he saith: And then where is all your brags, etc. I would not desire a better cause to discredit quite these absurd Protestants, then that they deny S. Peter to have been ever at Rome. For who knoweth not, that all the ancient writers are against them therein? and that no man for much more than a .1000. years together after the Apostles time, either denied it, 
Roff. in. li. A● Petrus fuerit Romae. con. Vellaeum. Cochl. de Petro & Roma, con. Velli. Wald. li 2. Doct. ar. 1. c. 7. & tom 3. ca 129. Cop. dial. 1 ca 15.  or doubted of it? Besides sundry most manifest arguments to prove it: whereas the Wickle●istes and Protestants arguments against it (which he saith can never be answered) are the most ridiculous things that ever man heard. Though Fulke bring not forth any one of them, yet I have answered the very best of them here Pag. 237. And most excellent authors among the Catholics have already written whole Books of this question, as Roffensis, & Cochleus: besides Thomas Waldensis, and many others that have chapters of it in other books. Howbeit the scripture also itself is plain enough in it (if one be not too contentious) where S. Peter himself doth say that he wrote his first Epistle in Rome, calling it Babylon, as I noted cap. 9 pag. 156. And for S. Paul's being there (which is enough to prove the Apostolic See of that Church) the Acts are most evident, Act. 28. In so much that also Fulke himself (after this manner to contrary himself) doth confess (here cap. 2. pag. 3.) that the Church of Rome was founded by the Apostles. In which place also he granteth, that in the Father's time it was an Apostolic Church, howsoever now he would draw his neck out of the collar by denying Peter to have been there.  
But be it that Peter was there (he saith in his 2. shift:) except you prove Succession of doctrine and faith aswell as Succession of men, your Succession is not worth a straw. Yes sir, in proving the Succession of men only, we do as much as the Fathers did: unless you will say, that their doing also was not worth a straw. For, a Succession of men there must be (the Scriptures are plain therein, as the Father's show.) But no company, saving the Romans company, can show a Succession of men: Therefore no company but theirs, is the Church. In so much also that the Scripture and Fathers together do say of that Succession, and of that only: Ipsa est Petra, 
Mat. 16. Aug. in Ps. count. partem Donati.  quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae. That is the Rock, which the proud gates of hell do not overcome. And yourself with your master Calvin do confess (here cap. 2. pag. 3.) that it continued in the Apostles faith and sound doctrine for the first .400. years: which is enough against you, because you also confess (cap. 3.) that within the same time in it was praying for the dead, and many other points against your doctrine.   

45. Changing. 
Moti. 24. Article 11. Dem. 14.   
But that you should not have any such evasion, I made my next Demand expressly of that matter, noting, that the Roman Church as it hath succession of men, so also hath succession of doctrine and faith, never to this day changing the doctrine and faith which it received of the Apostles. Now, what have you to the contrary? Of S. Victor who excommunicated the Asians, 
Ar. 47.  I have answered Dem. 28. that it is nothing else but your blasphemous audacity, to say, that he changed from his predecessors and usurped authority in that doing. Touching also S. Boniface the third, against whom you allege the saying of his Predecessor S. Gregory, None of my Predecessors would use this profane title, to call himself Universal Bishop: I have answered Cap. 3. pag. 24. that you bely S. Boniface. For neither he nor any since him, no more than they before him, used that title, but the clean contrary title, servus servorum dei, which S. Gregory of humility did begin. Thirdly you say, that the same Gregory (as Hulderichus Bishop of Auspurge doth testify) was the first that compelled Priests to live unmarried. Which afterward, when he saw the inconvenience, he revoked. And so you destroy your own ensample: for if he revoked it, then is not he one that made a change from his Father's faith. You that will not believe all Antiquity saying that Peter was at Rome, will yet have no man doubt, but S. Gregory saw such inconvenience in so short a time, that six thousand Infants were strait begotten by the fornications of only Subdeacons, yea and cruelly murdered, yea and all their heads cast into one certain pool, and therefore found and taken up by tale. Witness of all this, one that being Bishop of Auspurge wrote to Pope Nicolas the first, who was dead 56. 
Cop. dial. 1 cap. 22.  years before this man was made Bishop. He that will Laugh more at large at the fable, let him read M. Cope. As for priests Marriage, I noted cap. 3. pag. 12. & cap. 6. pag. 43. How they counted jovinian an Heretic and a monster, long before S. Gregory's time, for allowing of it.  
These are all the changes, that you note in the Church of Rome: unless I must count this another, where you note D. Allen to confess, 
Pur. 68  that the old usage of the Church was, first to set satisfaction, and then to absolve, though now of late, to absolve before satisfaction hath been more used. Both manners have been always used, but the first, of old more than the second, and the second, of late more than the first. This saith D. Allen, and it is evident to them that are skilful in Antiquity: namely such as did not make their confession before they fell sore sick, they were absolved incontinently, and did their Penance afterwards if they recovered. Heretical Bishops and Priests were oftentimes received (upon cause) by only absolution, without all satisfaction, yea and permitted to continue in their honours also. The Churches care both then and now, was and is, to have all sinners truly contrite, before absolution: and that is sufficient before God. Nevertheless such as have offended afore also, are caused to do their duty accordingly. A strange matter that these Heretics, who have quite taken all away, should control the Church although she also had taken all away: how much less, considering that she hath not taken any piece away, but only putteth that more often to the second place, which she was wont (as it is a thing indifferent) to put in the first place more often: and that according to her power to edify and not to destroy, seeing the people now so careless, that rather than they will do such penance for satisfaction, they will not come to confession, and so dying without absolution go to damnation: and seeing withal, that whereas satisfaction is no satisfaction unless the party be first in grace, his own contrition before was alone, but now it hath the help of absolution which of itself conferreth grace, that now his satisfaction much more probably than before, is not barren. And therefore much less satisfaction now, like to be more available then much more before: and yet he is warned withal if he be a great sinner, not to think but that he oweth much more than he is enjoined: and therefore that he must either pay it otherwise in his life, or procure pardon for it by greater authority, or else most certainly it will be exacted after his death.  
These (I say) are all the changes, to belong any way to the controversies of this time, though you note some others, not so belonging. Which therefore I might omit well-enough. For it is enough for us, that we can say with S. Augustine: 
Aug. epist. 165.  In hoc ordine successionis nullus Donatista Episcopus invenitur: In this orderly succession no Donatist (nor Protestant) Bishop is found. As for other matters, if julianus Apostata changed into Paganism, what were that to our purpose? Would that do any thing to prove a change against us, namely that the Emperor which now is, Rodolph the second, is changed from the Religion of Constantinus the great? So therefore if any Pope had changed the Romans into Arrians, or into Monothelites, that were no vantage for you. How much less, considering you show neither so much as that. You tell us, 
Pur. 376.  that Sabinianus condemned the Decrees of his predecessor Gregory, and Stephanus the Decrees of Formosus, etc. Why then do not you make Sabinianus rather the first Antichrist, but skip him, and make the next to him the first, to wit, S. Boniface the third? Both he and some other Popes are said (I grant, though you allege no author) to have disannulled certain Acts of their next predecessors, but not one to have condemned any decrees made of doctrine. Again you tell us, 
Ar. 27.85.92. Pur. 344. Act. 23.  that many of them were tyrants, traitors, whoremongers, Sodomites, murderers, poisoners, sorcerers, necromancers, warriors, and one whore also. So you blaspheme the Princes of your people. But you show not, that any of these (if they were such) did for all that change Religion at Rome. S. Augustine long ago told us, where he reckoneth up the Bishops of this Chair, that it were nothing against the Church, 
Aug. epist. 165.166.  Si quisquam Traditor per illa tempora subrepsisset, if any Traitor had crept into it all the while, because our Heavenly Master hath said unto us of evil Prelates, Do what they say, but do not what they do, for they say and do not, 
Mat. 23.  warning us thereby and assuring us: That for them the Chair of healthful doctrine should not of us be forsaken, in which the evil also are compelled to say that which is good. For it is not their own that they say, but it is Gods, who in the chair of unity hath set the doctrine of verity. Wherefore also if any heretic creep into it, we are secure, because we are warranted that he shall not teach his heresy out of it, much less shall he change them whom he teacheth. For none teach heresies, but you and such others, that separate yourselves from the unity of that Chair. 
Ar. 91. Pur. 376.  Therefore supposing that Honorius was a Monothelite, both in opinion and in some secret writing, yet did he not change, nor go about to change the Romans into Monothelites. Yea both he and the Church of Rome in his time and after his time did faithfully resist and mightily overthrow that heresy, as you may see in D. Saunders 
a San. Mo. li. 7. pa. 418  Monarchy. Where you shall find also the case of 
b Ib. p. 518. Ar. 91. Pur. 443.  john .22. truly reported (he was so far from changing the Romans faith, that he utterly denied the error which his contentious enemies laid unto him: Which was not, as you and calvin do bely the story, against the Immortality of the Soul, and resurrection of the body, but whether any Souls do see God before the General Resurrection.) Also of S. 
c Sand. ib. pa. 324. ad 336.  Liberius (of whom I also will report the truth in the next Demand, howbeit, yourself likewise confessed Cap. 2. Pag. 3. the Romans long after his time to have continued without all change.) Finally that fable of 
d Sand. ib. pa. 436. Onuph. addit. ad Plat. in vita joan. 8. Cop. Dial. 1.5.8.  the woman Pope clearly confuted, and more copiously by Onuphrius and others. Mine own chance it was in England long ago, hearing a Protestant (who was counted a great Historian) stand upon it, to say unto him, that it was marvel, why among so many Historiographers not one made mention of her before Martinus Polonus, who was .400. years after her time. He thereupon brought out the same Martinus in a fair written hand, turned to the place, and behold, she was not in the text, but in the Margin in an other hand. Now (quoth I, when I saw that) I perceive, that also this Author faileth you. He was confounded to see it, and said, he would at leisure look his Books better. Therefore in harping continually upon these most unconsonant strings, you do no more but declare yourselves to be such as the Apostle prophesied of: They will turn their years away from truth, 
2. Tim. 4.  they will not abide it, as that S. Peter was ever at Rome, etc. but unto fables they will turn themselves most willingly, be they never so false, improbable, and absurd.   

46. Our ancestors saved, and theirs damned. 
Motive 36.   
To make it yet more plain, what a madness it is to forsake our Church, and turn to the Protestants, I note in the next Demand, Salvation to be so certainly in our company and Religion, that the Protestants themselves dare not say, our people to have been damned for so many hundred years as they lived and died in our side. Whereas we say boldly, with the holy Fathers here Cap. 3. that whosoever is a Protestant, not only in all, but so much as in any one point (as were Aerius, iovinianus, Vigilantius, etc.) is therefore a damnable Heretic. But they dare not so say, neither of our Masters, who knowing the preaching of those fellows, condemned them, and therefore could not be excused by ignorance. No not so much as of the very Authors of our Monks and Friars, as S. Bernard, Saint Francis, S. Dominike, of whom what Peter Martyr said, I reported Cap. 5. Pag. 33. the whole Chapter is also of Fulkes own words to the same effect, specially Pag. 30. where he dare not pronounce of manifest Papists but that they might be saved for building upon the foundation in his sense, though no Protestant build upon the foundation in S. Paul's sense, as there I show.  
Therefore his Divinity maketh with me in this Demand, rather than against me: although he denieth some particular Saints of ours, 
Ar. 23.24.25.85.  and also the Canonization of saints. An easy matter it is for Heretics, when they can not prove the Catholic religion to be heresy against God, to make it by their Parliament Treason against the king, and then when they put us to death for it, 
joan. 19  to say, we be no Martyrs, but Traitors. Even as the perfidious jews made as though our Master could not be king over our Souls, but by Treason against Cesar. So the Heretics say of his Vicar. In such casting of their blasphemous mouths into heaven, they do but consent to the wicked that shed the Saints blood. Those whom God's Church hath declared to be Saints, it is not Fulke, nor his bawdy Bale that with all their dirt can blot them out of the book of life. If S. Liberius were once an Arrian, might he not be canonised for a Saint repenting afterwards? Was not S. Augustine once a Manichée? Yet the truth is (as D. Sanders showeth at large) that he never was an Arrian, nor never said of any so to be, but only by compulsion to have subscribed to the Arrians against his own conscience, or rather not to the Arrians, but only to the deposition of Athanasius: So one or two of the Doctors wrote, being deceived with the false rumour that the Heretics had spread, before the truth was set out in the Ecclesiastical History. But where was your wit, when you alleged against Canonization, the example of burning Hermannus the Heretics bones (who never was canonised) by commandment of Bonifacius 8. in Ferraria, where they had worshipped him twenty years Apocryphally? You say, king Henry the sixth should have been canonised, but only for lack of money enough. When you bring your authors, you shall receive your answer. We can not prove, you say, that the Pope and our Church hath canonised the Apostles and principal Martyrs. To make holidays of them, & to name them among the Saints in Diptychis, in the holy Canon of the Mass, is not this proof sufficient of their canonisation? yea and that the Primitive Church which did so canonize them was not your church, because you have taken away their Dyptica, and their days, of S. Laurence (I say) and of so many other most glorious Martyrs, which had such canonical memories in the Primitive Church also. Yea and would take away the Apostles days also, if you might have your will, as you uttered here in the 22. Dem. in speaking against all days of saints. O but you have a better way to know Saints, to wit, they whose names are written in the book of life. You might do well to set out that book in print, that we might correct our calendar after it. If you have not the book itself, have you any more certain way to know who are written in it, then is the Church's declaration? Or do you allow her testimony in canonizing some Scripture for God's word, 
Saint Fulke by his own industry.  & reject it in canonizing some men for God's Saints? But it is great injury to the Saints of God, that they be not so accounted while they live. Belike you would be called Saint Fulke, & that out of hand. But for aught that I know you must tarry, until you extend your doctrine and certainty of Predestination farther. For as yet you teach no more but that yourself must and do know yourself to be predestinate, and so may canonize yourself for a Saint for ever: when you teach that others must know as much of you, then blame them if they also do not canonize you. And in the mean time blame not the Pope for canonisation, nor compare it to the making of Gods which the Heathen used: seeing it is no greater a matter then yourself can do, nor the title greater than men alive should have, and specially seeing john Hus and Jerome of prague have (as you say) as solemn feasts in your Bohemians Calendar, as Peter and Paul. No man else needeth to take the pains, yourself build up again with one hand, that which you pulled down with the other.   

47 Communion of saints.  
The next Demand is about The Communion of saints, 
Moti. 43.  that is to say, of all Christians: to show our Countrymen to what a paucity, and against what a multitude they join themselves, and that in the matter of salvation or damnation. So it is, that Fulke doth brag of the most part of Europe, here in the 9 Dem. and cap. 9 pag. 177. naming England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, Denmark, Suetia, Bohemia, Polonia, Spain, & Italy. I deny not, but there are Heretics in all these Countries, at the least in corners. And therefore if all Heretics be of your religion and communion, that you may brag as you do. But the truth is, that even those Heretics also which be of your Religion out of England (if any be, for I doubt whether any will allow a woman to be head of the Church, but only yourselves, to name no other of your peculiar articles) yet are they not, I say, of your communion, nor you of theirs, as appeareth evidently by this, that neither in a General Council, if you should hold any) you have authority one over another, no more than two distinct Realms with their several kings have authority one over the other in worldly matters. But Catholics in the mean time, wheresoever they are, they be all of one Religion & of one communion. Therefore to give the ignorant some light in these matters: as S. Augustine said often against the Donatists, 
Aug. de un. Eccl. 3. De pastorib. ca 8.  so do I. I say two things: first, that in all Nations & parts of Nations where any of all these Sects are found, Catholics also are found, & daily do increase. One example for all, of our own Country, best known to our Countrymen: where although they be turned out of all their Churches (as in very few others) yet the multitude of the people is known to be still Catholic, & in heart of our communion, though drawn against their wills to the contrary, yea and innumerable of them reconciled, as all in manner would be (who seeth not?) if they were at their own liberty. Secondly I say, that Catholics are in many Nations and parts of Nations, where none at all of the Sects are, or so few that they are not to be counted of: as in all Spain, all Portugal, all Italy, most parts of France, many parts of Germany, etc. Whereby any man may easily conceive, that the Catholics at this day in Europe are incomparably more than all the Sectaries put together, increasing withal every day (specially by means of Seminaries and jesuits for the purpose) and they diminishing. How much more, adding to these the Catholics that be in Africa, and in Asia, among the old named Christians of those parts? And more again infinitely, adding yet the innumerable new Christians in the farther parts of them both, converted within these fifty years by the jesuits? And again the like in Novo orb under the king of Spain, by the Friars: in so much that many years since it is written of that alone: 
Surius ad An. do. 1558.  Tot autem hominum millia in illo novo orb Christi, etc. So many thousand men have in that new world received the faith of Christ, as may be in this our old world. So is the comparison at this present time. But how much greater yet is the odds, if we look back to the times past, and consider, that in the Nations where now the Sects are, a few years ago all were Catholics, they occupied all the Churches, so many hundred years together as from the first conversion of each Nation. Yea generally in all other Christian Nations also wheresoever & whensoever, even from the Apostles time, all were of our communion, because all at each time were of the Pope's communion, who for the time was, and all the Popes from the first to the last of one communion, no one of them separating himself from his predecessors communion, as of purpose I showed in the 28. Demand. This is the Communion of Saints in deed, & not these scattered Sects, much less any one of them by itself alone as our English Protestants, etc. Who also (as I showed in the 40. Dem.) were never afore now: & therefore accordingly they profess to have no communion with the Christians that lived before us, & be now in Heaven & in Purgatory: whereas with them also we have communion of mutual prayer & help, even in the same manner as S. Augustine had (whose communion is confessed to be the communion of all Saints) as this one place of his shall testify for all, where he showeth, that to be buried in the Martyr's Church doth profit the dead, in this that their friends alive remembering the place, eisdem Sanctis illos, 
Au. de cura pro mort. ca 4. & vlt.  tanquam patronis susceptos, apud dominum adiwandos orando commendent. do pray and commend them to the same Saints, as clients to their patrons, to be helped with our Lord. This is the most glorious infinite Christian company, that our Country hath forsaken, to follow a few miserable blind guides into the pit of everlasting ruin.   

48. By their fruits. 
Motive 39   
In the next Demand is noted (according to S. Augustine's writing against the Manichées, De moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae) the fruits of the Catholic Religion, that Christ worketh in this foresaid communion, both now & ever, in the good life even of the common sort of our seculare people, and much more in the perfection of our Religious. And contrariwise the waste of all perfection and of all virtue, which the Protestants Doctrine hath brought wheresoever it reigneth, by setting men at liberty to do what they list, with vain security of Only faith, not the Catholic faith (which only is faith) but of a new invented faith or persuasion for every one that he is predestinate. That if ever any False prophets might be known by their fruits, 
Mat. 7.  these may. I need not repeat the rest that I say in this Demand to this effect, 
Pur. 1. to 31 241.459. Ar. 94.  whereof D. Allen also hath in his Preface said sufficiently. Fulke in comparing with us to the contrary, bragging at his fellows holiness, and railing at some of our evil lives, thinketh belike that he can with words turn midday and midnight, one into the other. He nameth London as it is now, and biddeth D. Allen (if thou canst for thy guts) name any city in the world that is comparable unto it. Who would require us to answer such beastly impudency? With like audacity he raileth at Rome, as if it were hell itself. I marvel then how it cometh to pass, that nothing more confirmeth our Countrymen in the Catholic faith, nor alienateth them from the Protestant's, then to go and see Rome. Whereof we have innumerable experiences. 
2. Reg. 10.  At one word, we find there as the Queen of Saba did find with Solomon, whatsoever we hear by reading in S. Jerome, etc. Also by revelation of our brethren, when we come to the place, and see with our eyes, we are forced to say, that half was not told us. I hope the world shall know Rome to your confusion ere it be long, by a book that may with the grace of God be set forth to report the truth. As for London, no true and godly English heart can but fear unto it even as to Sodom and Gomorre. We need to name unto you no other city, but London itself when it was Catholic: and let the Ancients be judges between us both. They can tell you, that if any good orders be there at this present, they are lightly but the relics of the Catholic time, as it were feathers sticked down by such as stole the geese. So can they tell you of the whole realm, and the like of all other realms. 
Pur. 238.236.  You charge D. Allen, that he appealeth to the younger sort, who have not known, etc. But you charge him falsely. He telleth good young men, that they must look back a great way, to learn their duties of the blessed times past. Which (thanks be to God) great numbers have done, and daily do, and thereby return and submit themselves to their mother the Catholic Church: which if the elder sort who know these things better than the younger, do not in like manner, it is for no other cause, but that they be more entangled with the world, than the younger are: otherwise if the world were not on your side, 
2. Cor. 5.  it is well known to them specially in whom God hath put the word of reconciliation, that your ministers might in all places almost read and preach to the bare walls.   

49 All enemies. 
Moti. 44. Article. 4.   
The 49. Demand noteth, that it is our Church, against which all enemies of Christ have fought, and which hath prevailed against them all. As it is evident by this, that our Church holdeth still all those truths, which Arrius, Aerius, or any other of hell gates did ever impugn, and because it joineth friendship with no enemy, but defieth them all alike: whereas the Protestants join in opinion with many old Heretics, and in friendship with all the miscreants of this time, because their endeavour is not against falsehood, but only to overthrow our Church. Against this Fulke hath nothing, but rather with it expressly, where he saith: 
Ar. 11.15.  The true Catholic Church hath always resisted all false opinions, and by the aid of God obtained the victory. The true Church of Christ hath always stood steadfast, when all Heretics have been, and shall be confounded.   

50 Sure to continue. 
Motive 47   
After this I tell the Protestants, that they were best to leave their vain kicking with Saul against the prick, 
Act. 9  because they can not prevail, as neither their prowders could. The Fathers even so told those prouder and mightier Heretics in their time, that the Church (I say) and namely the Church of Rome is the Rock, which the proud gates of hell do not overcome. And we see, that time hath justified their saying. And so will it justify our saying also for hereafter. Even as Fulke also himself saith: 
Ar. 78. Pur. 298.  In despite of the devil and all her enemies, she is to this day preserved, and shall be to the world's end: and none other but she.   


Moti. 48.  51 Apostasy.  
Last of all I show, that it is not so much an Heresy, as a plain Apostasy from Christ, that the Protestants have brought in under the name of the Gospel: Whereof also I have said enough ca 8. pag. 118. So, that if it were ever damnable to give ear to any Heretics, it is damnable to give ear to these. Which it were good for all men to think earnestly upon, before it be to late.    

¶ The eleventh Chapter. What gross Contradictions Fulke is driven to utter against himself, while he struggleth against God's Church and the Doctrine thereof.  
BEsides all that hath been yet said, another most just motive, not to follow the Protestants, may be this to any reasonable man, because they know not themselves what to hold nor what to say, and therefore do utter strange contradictions in their books, by reason that they will say any thing rather than yield plainly to the truth. A notable ensample hereof we have in Fulke, specially about the question of the Church in his book of the Articles, as I will here note very briefly, leaving to the discrete Readers consideration, what I might enlarge upon every particular.  
First, as touching the Church of Rome, on the one side, thus he saith: 
Ar. 96.  You are never able to answer the arguments that Peter was never at Rome. And then where is the Apostolic Sea, & succession, & c? Then on the contrary side: The Church of Rome was founded by the Apostles, 
b Pur. 373.361.374.  it was an Apostolic Church.  
2 
c Pur. 373.374.  Those ancient Fathers (whom D. Allen doth name, the last of them is Vincentius Lirinensis An. 420.) did appeal to the judgement of the Church of Rome, against all heresies, and 
c Pur. 373.374.  among the Apostolic Churches, specially named the Church of Rome: because it continued in the doctrine of the Apostles. Yet contra, where 
d Apud Au. de gra. Chr. count Pelag. c. 43  Pelagius within that compass commended S. Ambrose for the Roman faith, and most pure sense in the Scriptures: Fulke saith thereupon, 
e Pu. 405.  And by the way note here the Heretical brag of the Roman faith.  
3 Speaking of the same Fathers and Church of Rome: 
f Pur. 374.  It had by Succession retained even until (their) days, that faith which it did first receive of the Apostles. Contra: 
g Ar. 85.  She (the Church of Rome) hath had no orderly Succession of Bishops: except so many Schisms as they writ of, be orderly Successions. By the time of those Fathers, there had been four Schisms.  
4 
h Pur. 373.374.  It continued at that time in the doctrine of the Apostles, 
h Pur. 373.374.  it retained by Succession that faith which it did first receive of the Apostles. Contra: He charged it with sundry errors here, Cap. 3. & .4. namely P. Liberius with Arrianisme, P. Innocentius for housling of Infants, & eight Popes for the Supremacy.  
5 
i Pur. 374. Ar. 79.  It was a true Church, an Apostolic Church, 
i Pur. 374. Ar. 79.  a faithful Church, true (
i Pur. 374. Ar. 79.  and Apostolic) Faith and Religion have dwelled in her. Contra: 
k Ar. 85.16 106.10.27.  The Church of Rome never preached the word of truth. She never had sense she first arose, the ministering of Sacraments according to Christ's institution. The true Catholic Church hath overthrown Heresies of all sorts. But the Popish Church was never able to encounter with Heretics. 
k Ar. 85.16 106.10.27.  Rome may be a nurse of Antichristians, but never did good unto Christians. 
k Ar. 85.16 106.10.27.  I am able to prove, that the Primitive Church affirmed, 
a Supra pag. 29.  your Church to be the Church of Antichrist. He meaneth the 
l Supra ca 9 pag. 155.  places of S. Irenée, S. Jerome, S. Augustine, calling Rome Babylon, which he understandeth as though they had so called the Church of Rome in their time also, as the Protestants do now at this time.  
6 
m Ar. 102.38. Pur. 287.  The Popish Church is a puddle of all false doctrine and heresy, whereof the whore beareth a cup full, out of which all Nations have drunk. 
m Ar. 102.38. Pur. 287.  Even from the Apostles time the devil never left to set in his foot, for his son Antichristes dominion, until he had placed him in the Temple of God, & prepared the wide world for his walk, and then came 
m Ar. 102.38. Pur. 287.  The General defection. Contra: 
Ar. 38.16.33.34. Supr. p. 117.  All Nations never consented to the doctrine of the Papists. For (as it hath been often said) the Greek Church and (all) other Oriental Churches (of Asia and Africa) never received the Popish Religion, in many chief points, and specially in acknowledging the Pope's authority, they will not unto this day acknowledge her doctrine to be Catholic, nor her authority to be lawful. And yet we shall now hear that the prevailing of the Pope's religion, and his Antichristian exaltation consisteth specially in that point.  

Ar. 36.  7 The religion of the Papists came in, and prevailed in the year of our Lord 607. in which the Pope first obtained his Antichristian exaltation, to wit, Bonifacius the 3. of Phocas the Emperor, that the Bishop of Rome should be called and counted the head of all the Church. Contra in the same place: Because you speak of the first entering of Popish religion, which dependeth chief upon the Pope's authority: it first began to advance itself in Victor, about the year of our Lord 200. And likewise in divers others before S. Bonifacius the third, as he confesseth here cap. 3. and withal, that the Church of Rome all that while was the Church of Christ, and not of Antichrist.  

Ar. 102. Pur. 287.238.  8 The Popish Church is a puddle of all false doctrine and heresy. Even in the Apostles time, and from that time, in all times, whensoever, and wheresoever was any piece of mist, or dark corner (though all the rest were light) there were the steps of your walk. It may be a shame for you Papists, to leave and condemn for heresy all that is true in the Father's writings, and agreeable to the Scripture. 
Ar. 43.  Contra, where he distinguisheth the Religion of the Papists, from the great heresies, and open adversaries, that sought to beat down the chief foundations of Christian faith, as the Valentinians, Marcionistes, Manichees, Arrians, Sabellians, and such like monsters.  

Ar. 43.36.38. Supra c. 10. pag. 223.  9 We say not that the Religion of the Papists came in suddenly, but that it entered by small degrees at the first: and therefore was less espied by the true Pastors being earnestly occupied against great heresies, not preached against, winked at because it had a show of piety and charity, and at length allowed of Augustine and others, who followed the common errors of their time. Specially when a General defection and departing from the faith was foreshowed, what marvel were it, if none could preach against it as it first entered? 
Ar. 92.36.37.  Contra: The Church of Christ in such places as she is, suffereth no man damnably abusing her Religion, without open reprehension.  

Ar. 11.  10 The true Catholic Church hath always resisted all false opinions, contrary to the word of God, as her duty was, and fought against them, and obtained the victory, and triumphed over them. 
Pur. 419. Ar. 35.36.  Contra: In those ancient times (they of the true Catholic Church) did not always weigh what was most agreeable to the word of God: but if Heretics had any thing that seemed to have a show of piety or charity, they would draw it into use. So they took into the Church of Christ, many abuses and corruptions, until at the length, An. 607. the religion of the Papists prevailed. And (c) since that time, that devilish heresy hath always increased in error, until the year 1414.  
11 That blasphemous heresy of Purgatory, 
To the Reader. Pu. 26.166.184.177.269.362.363.419.186.  which is most blasphemous against Christ, against the blood of Christ, against his merits and satisfaction for our sins, and against God's unspeakable mercies: and occasion of most licentious wickedness in all them that believe it, nothing convenient for the disciples & members of Christ. No suffrages were made for the dead by the Apostles or their lawful successors. Contra here cap. 3. he confesseth that the Fathers held it, and yet notwithstanding that they were members of the true Church (ca 2.) and held the foundation jesus Christ (cap. 5.) and all the substance of true doctrine. 
z Pur. 393.405.  And also that they did invocate Saints: denying in other 
y Supr. pa. 139.140.  places, that such be true Christians. The like 
q Su. p. 141.  of Fasting.  
12 
x Pur. 51.26.166.177.184.  The opinion of Purgatory & satisfaction of sins after this life, is the very doctrine of licentiousness, to maintain wicked men in their presumptuousness. For what haste will they make to amendment & newness of life, when they have hope of release after their death? Contra: As S. Augustine saith, 
Pur. 448.  it is but for small faults: or as M. Allen saith, for great faults that by penance are made small. And is God such a merciful father to punish small faults so extremely in his children, whom he pardoneth of all their great and heinous sins? O blasphemous hellhounds. See how vehement he is in contradicting himself, to justify that saying of D. Allens, [I am well assured there dare no man, 
Pur. 150.  though he were destitute of God's grace, yet not for shame of himself, affirm that the doctrine of Purgatory is hurtful to virtuous life.] Considering that people with us are told, that to escape hell itself, they must do much more than the Protestants require, and more again to escape Purgatory, according to S. Augustine's threatening here cap. 9 pag. 212.  
13 How long soever the true Church were hidden, 
Ar. 73. Supra ca 1.  whether it were a 1000 years, or 2000 years, this is certain, that out of this Church none could be saved. Contra, here ca 5. he counteth it enough, if the faith of their salvation were in the only foundation jesus Christ, and that in such a sense, as agreeth to men in deed out of the Church.  

Ar. 61 74. Pur. 238.  14 They which hold the foundation that is Christ (to wit the Article of justification by the only mercy of God, and of the only Son of God) are doubtless members of the true Church of Christ. Contra here cap. 10. pag. where he saith, that the Anabaptistes are abominable heretics, and that they are not Protestants: who yet do hold that article jump as the Protestants do.  

Ar. 36.38. Ar. 71.78.79.80.  15 A general departing from the faith, was foreshowed: and it was fulfilled An. 607. Contra: The Church was never lost (neither when the departing was General) but hidden (in the wilderness, that is) from the eyes of the world. She is to this day preserved, and shall be to the worlds end. Christ hath never wanted his Spouse in earth, he hath never been a head without a body.  

Ar. 2.96.26.27.  16 The Primitive Church of the Apostles hath continued unto this day by succession not of persons and places, but of doctrine, faith, and truth. These very words contain a manifest contradiction. For how can a Church, or doctrine, faith, and truth continued, but in persons and places? in so much that he saith also: We doubt not, but God hath always stirred up some faithful teachers, that have instructed his Church in the necessary points of Christian doctrine.  

Ar. 15.79.  17 The true Church of Christ hath always stood steadfast & inseparable from Christ her head, though the blind world, when they see her, will not acknowledge her to be his Spouse, but persecute her, as if she were an adulteress, Contra in the same place: The true Church under the emperors Constantinus, Constans. and Valens, was greatly infected with the heresy of Arius. And in another place: 
Ar. 79.  The visible Church may become an adulteress, and be divorced from Christ. And so is that faithful Church of Rome become an harlot.  

Ar. 79.  18 The true Church consisting of Gods elect, and the lively members of the body of Christ, shall never commit such adultery, etc. But the visible Church may separate herself from Christ. As though there were another Church besides the visible Church, and so two Churches. 
Ar. 65.  Contra: Wheresoever the Catholic Church be in parts, it is one body of Christ. And therefore in deed there is never no Church, but the visible Church, the other is but an imagination of the Protestants to delude the world withal. As though Luther and the rest that appeared with him, had afore their appearing been secret Protestants, whereas in deed they were open Papists.  
19 Anno 607. the Church fled into the wilderness, that is, 
Ar. 16.27.79.36.  out of the sight and knowledge of the world, there to remain a long season: where all this while God hath preserved her until such time as he thought good, now in our days to bring her out of her secret place in the wilderness, into the open sight of the world again. Contra: 
Ar. 77.  divers times it was bold to challenge preaching and ministering of the Sacraments, yea and so boldly, that it cost many of the challengers their lives. As Berengarius, Bruno, Marsilius de Padua, joannes de Gaudano, joannes Wickleve, Walden, joannes Hus, jeronymus de Praga, etc. Where besides his manifest contradiction, I note two things against him: one, that it cost not all these, yea very few of these, their lives, as by the story it is certain. The other, that neither these afore their appearing were secret Protestants or Heretics, but open Papists or Catholics, as I noted before of Luther. And so he hath not yet found his Chimaera or invisible Church.  
20 To bring her again into open light. 
Ar. 16.96.  Which is now brought to pass in our days. Contra: From the year of our Lord 1414. 
Ar. 36.  (being the time of the Council of Constance) the bright beams of the Gospel have shined in the world.  
21 The Revelation of Antichrist (with the Church's flight into the wilderness) was An. 607. when Bonifacius the third, etc. 
Ar. 38.36.16.  For until then the mystery of iniquity was preparing for his revelation and coming, and for the General defection. Contra: 
Ar. 16.  She hath not decayed there in the wilderness, but been always preserved, until god should reveal Antichrist, which is now brought to pass in our days.  
22 The Churches being in the wilderness, was, 
Ar. 27.95.  to be out of the sight & knowledge of the wicked. Contra, speaking of the same space, She was narrowly persecuted of the Romish Antichrist for a long season. Again: Although it were unknown to the Papists, yet it was in Italy when Marsilius of Padua preached: in France, when Waldo: in England, when Wickleve: in Bohemia, when Hus, and jerom of prague did flourish. Why? all these were well known to the Papists.  

Ar. 80.  23 A rule of the Logicians: No man knoweth a relative, except he know the correlative thereof: Therefore though Christ had a body in earth, yet could it be known of none, but such as knew Christ the head of that body, of whom the Papists were ignorant. 
Ar. 96.  Contra: Our Church is now again brought to light and knowledge of the world. So that now belike the Papists know Christ: 
Pur. 450. Ar. 77.79.80.  or the Logicians rule is verified only for the time of the Churches being in the wilderness, according as in other places he moderateth the matter, saying: We believe that the Church is not always known to the wicked upon earth.  

Pur. 405. Ar. 95.82.74.80.  24 We believe that the universal Church is not seen at all of men, because it is in heaven. Contra: Our Church, when it was most hidden, might rightly be called Catholic (that is universal) etc. Here cap. 10. Dem. 6. And whereas you say, that no man alive could name the place where it was, you make an impudent lie: For although it were unknown to the Papists and enemies thereof, yet was it known to the true members thereof.  

Pur. 377.  25 And as for our Mother Church is no certain place, or company of men in any one place upon earth, but jerusalem which is above, is mother of us al. Contra: 
c Ar. 95.79.82.106.  That no man alive could name the place where it was, is an impudent lie. It was in Italy, when Marsilius preached, etc.  supra in contrad. 22. 
c Ar. 95.79.82.106.  Chrs; s; t hath never wanted his Spouse in earth, though the blind world when they see her, will not acknowledge her to be his Spouse, but persecute her as if she were an adulteress. 
c Ar. 95.79.82.106.  She was known to them that were her children. 
c Ar. 95.79.82.106.  The Church of Christ is the nurse of Christians. jerusalem that is from above, is mother of us all.  

Ar. 95.  26 It is not called Catholic because it should be every where. For that it never was, nor never shall be. Contra: 
d Ar. 73.83.80. Sup. pa. 117  It should overflow and fill all the world with righteousness. Esa. 10. 
d Ar. 73.83.80. Sup. pa. 117  That God hath an holy universal Congregation, it is necessary to believe. 
d Ar. 73.83.80. Sup. pa. 117  It is dispersed in many places over all the world.  
27 
e Ar. 12.3.69.  Christ's Church is now by God enlarged farther than the Popish Church. Contra: 
f Ar. 73.80  It is but a small flock in comparison of the malignant Church (of Antichrist) whose number is as the sand of the sea. Apoc. 20.  
28 It is a good argument that the Popish Church is not the Church of Christ, 
Ar. 27.  because it was never hidden since it first sprang up: in so much that you can name the notable persons in all ages in their government and ministery, and especially the succession of Popes, you can rehearse in order upon your fingers. And it were a token that our Church were not the true Church, if we could name such notable persons in their government and ministery. Contra: 
a Ar. 28.27.9.6.5.52.11.74.75.26.82.  Such officers as are necessary for the conservation of God's people in the unity of faith and the knowledge of Christ, our Church hath never lacked, notwithstanding that through injury of the time 
a Ar. 28.27.9.6.5.52.11.74.75.26.82.  (because our Church had not so many Registers, Chroniclers, and remembrauncers) the remembrance of all their names is not come unto us. 
a Ar. 28.27.9.6.5.52.11.74.75.26.82.  For the authority of the Bible we have the testimony of the true Church in all ages. 
a Ar. 28.27.9.6.5.52.11.74.75.26.82.  Our Congregation hath ever had possession of the Scriptures. 
Their invisible Church had always the Scripture in the vulgar tongues  
a Ar. 28.27.9.6.5.52.11.74.75.26.82.  God hath never suffered the true Church to be destitute of the necessary use of the Scripture: Which the Popish Church hath so kept in an unknown tongue, that the people could have no use, much less the necessary use thereof. 
a Ar. 28.27.9.6.5.52.11.74.75.26.82.  The Church of God hath always had Schools and Universities for the maintenance of godly learning. 
a Ar. 28.27.9.6.5.52.11.74.75.26.82.  The true Catholic Church hath always resisted all false opinions. 
a Ar. 28.27.9.6.5.52.11.74.75.26.82.  It was never so secret nor hidden, but it might be known of all those that had eyes to see it. 
a Ar. 28.27.9.6.5.52.11.74.75.26.82.  That thousand years there was gathering together for preaching, ministering, and correcting. 
a Ar. 28.27.9.6.5.52.11.74.75.26.82.  God hath always stirred up some faithful teachers. 
a Ar. 28.27.9.6.5.52.11.74.75.26.82.  The Church hath never been afraid to do her office towards her children and true members, in teaching, exhorting, comforting, confirming, etc.  
29 The Popish Church was never hidden since it first sprang up. Contra: 
Ar. 27. Ar. 85.  The Church of Rome hath not always practised open preaching, and never preached the word of truth.  
30 Touching the text Mat. 5. of a City builded upon an hill, 
Ar. 100  which can not be hidden, after he hath given his sense of it, he saith: Hereby it appeareth how fond some Papists (and some of the Doctors in their error) do expound this place to prove, that the Church must always be visible. Contra even in his own exposition there: It is properly meant of the Apostles and their successors the ministers of the Church: he teacheth them above all other men, to look diligently to their life & conversation: for as they excel in place & dignity, so the eyes of all men are set upon them. As a city builded upon an hill, must needs be seen of all that come near it, so they being placed in so high an office and dignity, shall be noted and marked above all other men. One part of the Church is always visible to the eyes of all men, and can not be hidden: and yet the whole Church, and so also that part, is not always visible, but may be hidden, and was hidden for a 1000 years. So he saith.  
31 
b Ar. 35. Pur. 458.  The true Church decayed immediately after the Apostles time. And so the error of praying for the dead was continued from a corrupt state of the Church of Christ, unto a plain departing away into the Church of Antichrist. Contra: The Primitive pure Church for the space of an hundredth years after Christ. Again: 
Ar. 16. Pur. 458.  An. 607. The Church fled into the wilderness, there to remain a long season, where she hath not decayed, but been always preserved, until God should bring her again to open light now in our days. 
c Pur. 364.  The true Church shall never decay, but always reign with Christ. The false synagogue shall daily more and more decay, until it be utterly destroyed with Antichrist the head thereof. If this be not contradiction, it is much worse, to wit, that Luther and his Apostles have given us a visible Church which shall not decay, Whereas Christ and his Apostles gave us a visible Church which did decay, yea and plainly depart away into Apostasy.  
32 At every word he calleth the Pope Antichrist and the head of the malignant Church. Contra: in some places he maketh two distinct heads and their distinct companies. 
Ar. 16.95.  As, when Mahomet in the East, and Antichrist the Pope in the west, seduced the world, than the Church fled into the wilderness. Again: The Popish Church is not in every part of the world: for Mahomet's sect is in the greatest part.  
33 That the true Church may err, and hath erred, notwithstanding any privilege it hath by God's Spirit, we heard him say cap. 3. Now to the contrary. 
Ar. 82.81.93.99.62.77.100.108.62.  Neither hath the Spirit of God failed to lead her into all truth. 
Ar. 82.81.93.99.62.77.100.108.62.  There be some prerogatives of God's Spirit, that are necessary for the salvation of Gods elect, as the gift of understanding, the gift of faith, etc. And these the Spouse of Christ hath never wanted. 
Ar. 82.81.93.99.62.77.100.108.62.  True Faith etc. might be signs of the true Church. The Spouse of Christ heareth the voice of Christ, and is ruled thereby. The Church of God is the pillar & stay of truth, 
Ar. 82.81.93.99.62.77.100.108.62.  so called because that wheresoever the Church is, either visible or invisible, there is the truth. 
Ar. 82.81.93.99.62.77.100.108.62.  S. Paul by this title doth admonish Pastors and preachers, how great a burden and charge they sustain, that the truth of the Gospel can not be continued in the world but by their ministry in the Church of God which is the pillar and stay of truth. This their duty true preachers considering, are diligent in their calling to preach the truth. 
Ar. 82.81.93.99.62.77.100.108.62.  As our Church is the pillar and stay of truth, so is she also the house of truth, which knoweth nothing but him that is the truth itself jesus Christ, & his most holy Scripture, in which this truth is signed and testified. 
Ar. 82.81.93.99.62.77.100.108.62.  We require you to believe the true Cathòlike Church only: and immediately again to the contrary: We require you not to believe any one company of men, more than another.  
34 The error (of Purgatory and praying for the dead) is continued from a corrupt state of the Church of Christ, 
Pur. 458.  unto a plain departing away into the Church of Antichrist. Contra: The true and only Church of God is so guided by God's spirit, 
Ar. 88  and directed by his word, that she can not induce any damnable error to continue: No, nor suffereth any man damnably abusing her religion, without open reprehension: and yet Purgatory, etc. came in with silence.  
35 
Ar. 5.4.9.  The Church of Christ hath of the holy Ghost a judgement to discern true writings from counterfectes, and the word of God of infallible verity, from the writing of men which might err. 
Ar. 5.4.9.  She hath commended the books of holy Scripture to be believed of all true Christians. 
Ar. 5.4.9.  We persuade us of the authority of God's book, because we have most steadfast assurance of God's spirit for the authority of it, with the testimony of the true Church in all ages. Contra: 
Pur. 219.  All other writings are in better case than the Scriptures are with you. For other writings may be counted the works of their authors, without your censure: the holy Scripture may not be counted the word of God, except you list so to allow it. Other writings are of credit according to the authority of the writers: The holy Scriptures with you have not credit according to the authority of God the author of them, but according to your determination.  

Ar. 65. Ar. 82.  36 Those that by true Christians have been called and counted for Heretics, have proved so in deed. Contra: This Demand hath a false principle: that the Church ought to be a Christian man's (only: it is not in D. Allens principle) stay in all troubles and tempests.  

Ar. 65.  37 And therefore the Papists, being called and counted Heretics of true Christians (that is, of the Protestants) without doubt are Heretics in deed. Contra: He is a foolish Sophister, 
Ar. 66.  that reasoneth from names to things: as you do most vainly and childishly.  

Ar. 86. Pur. 367.  38 There is never Heresy, but there is as great doubt of the Church, as of the matter in question. Contra: Augustine's argument of the public prayers of the Church, took no hold of the Pelagians by force of truth that is in it, but by their own confession and grant, of that prayer to be godly, and them to be of the Church that so prayed. But now the controversy is not only of the substance of doctrine, but of the Church itself also. The donatists challenged the Church to themselves.  

Ar. 60.61.  39 But for the chief points of Christian Religion, and the foundation of our faith, that is, Real presence, etc. the most approved writers are utterly against you, and therefore can not be of your Church. Contra: But the Lutherans and zwinglians (as it pleaseth you to call them) are of one true Church, although they differ in one opinion concerning the Sacrament, the one affirming a Real presence, the other denying it. Out of the same place may be deduced also many other contradictions, in that among the same chief points and foundation he reckoneth also, the honour of God, the offices of Christ, the fruits of his passion, the authority of God's word, Images, saying that the Fathers in these also were against us, and therefore not of our Church, and yet granteth that the same Fathers held with us even those very points which in us he counteth contrary unto these and to the foundation, to wit, Honouring of Relics, Invocation of saints, Merits, Traditions unwritten, Images of the Cross: as by his own words appeareth here cap. 3. and 7. And them so earnestly also, that they condemned the contraries for Heresies. Yet saith Fulke: 
Pur. 412.  Whosoever is not able to prove by the word of God any opinion that he holdeth obstinately, he is an Heretic.  
40 
Ar. 10.61. Pu. 403.  We know that Luther did not obstinately and maliciously err in any article of faith, concerning the substance of Religion. 
Ar. 10.61. Pu. 403.  Luther, calvin, and Bucer, shall come with Christ to judge the world. 
Ar. 10.61. Pu. 403.  As for Illyrians, if you call them of Flaccius Illyricus, they be Lutherans in opinion of the Sacrament, & differ only in Ceremonies, which can not divide them from the faith. Contra: What Flaccius, or any such as he is, hath said, 
Pur. 147.  neither do I know, neither do I regard, let them answer for themselves: But whereas you charge M. calvin, etc.  
41 There is never Heresy, 
Ar. 86.  but there is as great doubt of the Church as of the matter in question. Therefore only the Scripture is the stay of a Christian man's conscience. Contra: 
Pur. 367.  The Church is the stay of truth. If that argument of the Church without trial which is the Church, might take place, it would serve you both for a sword and a buckler. The Church saith it, and we (or they of the first 600. years: for that needeth no trial, you confess it yourself) are the Church. Therefore it is true.  
42 Among the arguments that Augustine useth against the Pelagians, one (though the feeblest of an hundred) is, 
Pur. 349.367.  that their Heresy was contrary to the public prayers of the Church. Contra: All other persuasions set aside, he provoketh only to the Scripture, to try the faith and doctrine of the Church, namely in beating down the Schism of the Donatists, & the heresy of the Pelagians. Where also he contradicteth himself again, in showing the reason why he argued against the Donatists of only Scripture, but against the Pelagians of the Church's prayers also: The Pelagians granted them to be of the Church that so prayed. And therefore when Augustine had to do with the Donatists that challenged the Church unto themselves, he setteth all other trials aside, and provoketh only to the Scriptures.  
43 
a Pur. 432.  We stand for authority only to the judgement of the holy Scriptures. Contra: 
b Ar. 9.5▪ 10  The ground that we have to persuade us of the authority of god's book, is, because we have most steadfast assurance of God's spirit, for the authority of that book, with the testimony of the true Church in all ages. 
b Ar. 9.5▪ 10  The church of Christ hath a judgement to discern the word of god, from the writings of mem. 
b Ar. 9.5▪ 10  The primitive Church's testimony of the word of God we allow & believe. 
c Pur. 364. ●31. Supra ca 7. pag. 89. Ar. 21.39.42.  You should bring a great prejudice against us and passing well proved for the credit of your cause, and the discredit of ours, if you could bring the consent and practise of the primitive pure Church for the space of 100 years after Christ, or some thing out of any Authentical writer, which lived within one hundred years after the Apostles age.  

Pur. 362.  44 S. Paul 1. Cor. 11. declareth without cooler or coverture, the only right order of ministration. Contra, in the next line: I know the Papists will fly to those words of the Apostle, The rest I will set in order when I come. That is manifest to be spoken of matters of external comeliness, and therefore (say we) of the order of ministration.  

Pu. 438.  45 The old Doctors never heard Purgatory named, nor, prayer for the dead. Contra: About S. Augustine's time the name of Purgatory was first invented. 
Pur. 356.  And long afore that also, Montanus had in all points the opinion of the Papists. etc. Here cap. 3. pag. 23. And yet again, Before Chrysostom's time it was but a blind error without a head.  

Pur. 54. Pur. 161.  46 In S. Augustine's time, Satan was but then laying his foundation of Purgatory. Contra: That error of Purgatory was somewhat rifely budded up in his time. And specially here cap. 3. pag. 14. saying: And this I think is the right pedigree of prayers for the dead and Purgatory, where he putteth the very last generation of it to have been in S. Augustine's time, and the foundation long afore Christ's time.  

Pur. 242.243.  47 M. Allen affirmeth, that after men's departure, the representation of alms by such as received it, shall move God exceedingly to mercy. O vain imagination, for which he hath neither Scripture nor Doctor. 
Pur. 236. ●37.  Contra: chrysostom alloweth rather alms that men give before their death, or bequeath in their Testament, because it is a work of their own: then that alms which other men give for them, howbeit also such alms are available for the dead, he saith.  
48 Here cap. 5. pag. 31. Fulke saith, that The ancient Doctors did hold the foundation. Contra: cap. 4. pag. 28. He saith, The third Council of Carthage did define, that it is unlawful to pray to God the Son, and God the holy Ghost.  
49 Here cap 8. pag. 127. he saith, that the just of the old Testament went not to Limbus Patrum after their death, but to heaven immediately. Contra: 
Pur. 183.  The fiery and shaking sword that was set to exclude man from Paradise, was taken away by the death of Christ, when he opened Paradise, yea the Kingdom of Heaven (whereof Paradise was but a Sacrament) unto all believers, so, that the Penitent thief had passage into Paradise.  
50 Who so denieth the authority of the holy Scriptures, 
Pur. 214.  thereby bewrayeth himself to be an Heretic. Contra: I say not this (here cap. 9 pag. 170. 
Pur. 218. Ar. 10.  that Eusebius was not accounted an Heretic) to excuse them that doubt of the Epistle of S. james. As Martin Luther and Illyricus, for I am persuaded that they are more curious than wise in so doing.  
Lo here are 50. Contradictions, and divers of them more than single ones. Yet do I find in him many others besides these which I omit for brevities sake, and because these may suffice to show what a writer he is, and what a Religion it is, that agreeth no better, he with himself, and it with itself. As also because I have in sundry places up and down noted no small number over and above these: As (to repeat a few) that Origen acknowledged no Purgatory pains, And yet he it was that brought in the Fire. And the like of Tertullian. Item that the definition of the 3. Carthage Council was the definition of the Church: And yet the Church doth not that which the same Council did, Yea he is an Heretic that admitteth the Machabées, etc. for Scripture, 
Pur. 214.  as that Council did. Item that to conclude negatively of one place of Scripture is no good Logic: and yet he concludeth so himself very commonly. Item that to conclude negatively of all men's authority, is a false argument: and yet he useth it himself very often, yea and of one man's authority. Item that pistis is never, and yet twice taken for a promise. And that widows (1. Tim. 5.) shall be damned for forsaking their widowhood, and yet not for marrying. Item that they choose to themselves no new names, and yet these two, Protestants and Gospelers. Item, that the first Religion of our Saxons was in some points Popish, and yet against all Popish Doctrine. Item, that the Primitive Church did affirm Aerius to be an heretic, and his doctrine against prayer for the dead to be Heresy: and yet did not affirm Luther to be an Heretic, nor his doctrine to be Heresy.  
This is he, that chargeth the holy Fathers with contradictions, both of the Greek Church, as S. chrysostom, S. Epiphanius, S. basil: and also of the Latin Church, as S. Augustine, S. Jerome, S. Leo, S. Bernard: and some of them with many contradictions: partly unawares, I grant, but for the most part wittingly and willingly, though always unjustly and falsely, as I have showed in every particular. And so in conclusion, he hath in so charging the Fathers, done nothing else but added to the heap of his own contradictions, and declared his double blindness, that he hath neither eyes to see when he contradicteth himself, nor when others do not contradict themselves. And of the same sort also be the Contradictions, which here and there he chargeth D. Allen withal. Let the Reader consider them but a little, and he shall strait perceive, that either they be not contradictions, or (which is more common) that to make a show of a contradiction he falsifieth D. Allens words. One example for all: 
Pur. 135.133.  To this, that Purgatory serveth, but for venial sins, or else such Mortal sins as were forgiven in this life, He maketh D. Allen contrary thus: He that not only leadeth a loathsome life but also contemneth all those means that Chritst hath wrought to redeem him to the perfection of a Christian godly life. (I use his own words, saith he) and therefore can not have remission of his sins in this life, shall notwithstanding by toleration of the bands in the Prison of Purgatory recompense his debt, and come from thence into the blessed Presence of Christ. This Proposition neither in form nor in sense, is D. Allens. Doth he say, He that leadeth a loathsome life? Yea doth he not plainly speak of him that now leadeth a Christian godly life, but will not be reduced to the perfection thereof, by repentance or satisfaction of his loathsome life passed? Lo, such are those Contradictions. And therefore to conclude, It is not M. Allen, but M. Fulke, that hath the most passing faculty of any that ever I heard, to build one thing in one leaf, and to overthrow it himself again in the next.   

¶ A Nosegay of certain strange Flowers picked out of Fulke, that they which delight in such a Gardener, may see his handy work. The twelfth Chapter.  
NOw remaineth only the last Chapter of my promise, which I made in my Preface: Wherein I have to note certain examples of his passing ignorance, & foul erring in the Scriptures, in the Histories, and in Doctrine.  
First, 
Pur. 283.  as for the Sacrifice propitiatory (saith he) it was offered in the Law, only by the High Priest once in the year. And besides this, he findeth none but Sacrifices of thanksgiving in the Law. Whereas Sacrifice propitiatory and pro peccata, for sin, are all one: 
Leu. 16.  and Sacrifice for sin was offered not only that one day in the year which he meaneth, to wit, in the feast of expiation being the tenth day of the seventh month, but also in many others of the Feasts ordinarily. Nu. 28.29. and extraordinarily whensoever occasion was ministered by sin of the Priest, prince, multitude, or any one private person. Leu. 4.5. and upon sundry 
* Leu. 6.  other occasions beside. And touching the division of Sacrifices, there were four kinds of them, as S. Paul showeth out of the Psalm, 
Heb. 10. Psal. 39 Leu. 1..23.4.7. Pur. 455. Pur. 224.456.  and it is to be seen plainly in Leviticus: Hostia, Oblatio, Holocaustum, & pro peccato. For these other two, Sacrifice for thanksgiving, and pro delicto, belong to the first, and the last. I will not here say to you as you do to D. Allen: But you that so like a proud fool, take upon you to help his ignorance, bewray your own intolerable arrogancy and more than beastly blindness. For if you had read the Law whereof you make yourself such a rabbin, etc. So to say to any man, is not for modesty. But whether it might not be more justly said to yourself, I report me to this point of your ignorance in the Law, on the one side, and to the point (on the other side) for which you so take up D. Allen, whose right understanding of the Law you call ignorance, as I have declared cap. 8. pag. 136.  
Another point of your ignorance is, where to deface the Sacrifice that judas Machabeus caused to be offered for the dead, you say, that both the High Priest at that time was a wicked and ungodly man, to wit, either jason, Menelaus, or Alcimus, and namely Menelaus, the worst of them all three: and also that the other Priests of that time were given to the practices of the Gentiles. 2. Mac. 4. In so much that it is like, that judas Machabeus, if he devised not that sacrifice of his own head, yet took it by imitation of the Gentiles. I marvel how you could read that Story, and yet think that judas Machabeus had any communion or society with those Gentilizers, against whom all his fighting was. And when he had gotten Jerusalem and the Temple, is it not written plainly, 
1. Mac. 4. vers. 42.  that for the repurgation thereof he chose Priests without spot, having their heart in the Law of God? After which time he made 
a 1. Mac. 5. 2. Ma. 12. v. 3.  many expeditions from Jerusalem against the Gentiles: In one of which expeditions or voyages, 
b 2. Mac. 12. ver. 9  being to jamnia, certain of his soldiers did take De donarijs Idolorum, some of the presents of the Idols of jamnia: for the which God suffered 
c 2. Mac. 12. ver. 32.40.  them to be overthrown after Pentecost by the soldiers of Gorgias. And then judas sent that money to those unspotted Priests at jerusalem to offer Sacrifice for their sin. The chief of which Priests in the absence of judas himself, were his brethren jonathas and Simon, and not Menelaus, nor any of those other Apostates. You might have learned by those books, that the succession of the true Pontifices or High Priests for that time, was this: 
a 2. Mac. 3. ver. 1. 2. Ma. 4. ve. 7.10.14.26 2. Ma. 4. ve. 33 34. 2. Ma. 5. ve. 5.7.9.  Onias, 
e 1. Mac. 2. ver. 1.70.  Mathathias, 
f 1. M. 3. v. 1. 1. M. 9 v. 18  judas, (i) jonathas, (k) Simon. And that these others, 
a 2. Mac. 3. ver. 1. 2. Ma. 4. ve. 7.10.14.26 2. Ma. 4. ve. 33 34. 2. Ma. 5. ve. 5.7.9.  jason, 
b 2. Mac. 4. v. 24.29. 2. Ma. 13.  Menelaus, 
c 2. Ma. 4. ver. 29.41.  Lysimachus, g Alcimus, were but Antipontifices, or false usurpers against these: to wit, 
a 2. Mac. 3. ver. 1. 2. Ma. 4. ve. 7.10.14.26 2. Ma. 4. ve. 33 34. 2. Ma. 5. ve. 5.7.9.  jason (the author of the Apostasy from the Law) against his brother Onias, and secondly Menelaus against the same 
a 2. Mac. 3. ver. 1. 2. Ma. 4. ve. 7.10.14.26 2. Ma. 4. ve. 33 34. 2. Ma. 5. ve. 5.7.9.  Onias, and thirdly Lysimachus brother to Menelaus. After the Apostasy thus begun, that lively Image of Antichrist king 
d 1. Mac. 1. 2. M. 5. v. 11  Antiochus Epiphanes taketh jerusalem, martyreth the Law-kéepers, & finally setteth up in the Temple the abomination of Desolation, being a Statuee of jupiter. Against him & his riseth the foresaid 
e 1. Mac. 2. ver. 1.70.  Mathathias, and after him, his son 
f 1. M. 3. v. 1. 1. M. 9 v. 18  judas Machabeus, who repurged the Temple the same day three years that it was polluted, Anno 148. And the next year Antiochus dieth, his son Antiochus Eupator succeedeth: with him striveth for the kingdom g Demetrius Soter, An. 151. to whom fled the wicked of Israel, and Alcimus their captain. (qui volebat fieri Sacerdos) to complain of judas. 
g 1 Mac. 7. ver. 1.5.9. 1. Mac. 9 ver. 54.55.  Which Alcimus died of God's hand the next year after the kill of judas, 
i 1. M. 9 ve. 31.10. v. 18.13. v. 23.  and could never get jerusalem & the Temple: but always after the repurgation it continued in the government of judas, and of jonathas after him, and then of his other brother 
k 1. Mac. 13. v. 8.36.41.43.  Simon. Of whose Priesthood also & High priesthood, the text is plain in their several places here noted in the margin. I will recite the words that are written of the last: 
* 1. Mac. 13. ver. 42.  The year 170. the people of Israel began to write in their Court-rolles and Records, thus: Anno primo sub Simone Summo Sacerdote, magno Deuce & Principe judaeorum. The first year under Simon the High Priest, the great Duke and Prince of the jews.  
Certain other points of your gross, or rather malicious ignorance in the Scrirtures, are about Antichrist. As, that the Church of Christ should prepare his way or work his mystery: that his Revelation or coming should be so soon after the beginning of the Church, and so long before the consummation of the world: that the Churches flying into the wilderness in his time, should be to be driven out of the sight of the wicked and knowledge of the world: that his reign should last so many hundred years: that he should be a Succession of certain men, and not one only certain person: that the Church should be come again out of the wilderness, and yet Antichrist reigning still. These are the very foundations of your new Lutheran and Caluinistical Gospel, and yet no ground at all for them or any one of them, in the holy Scriptures of God, but only in the weak sand of your own blasphemons, but bold asseverations in presence of fools, who have averted their unhappy years away from truth, and converted them unto your fables.  
Again, that the body of Christ is not offered to himself, but thanksgiving is offered to him for the offering of his body for us. 
Pur. 316.  Why Sir, did not he upon the Cross offer his own body, as a man and a priest, to himself as to God? You noted others (here cap. 4. pag. 28. and cap. 6. pag. 63.) as for saying, that it is not lawful to pray to God the Son: and there S. Fulgentius told you as the Fathers creed doth, that each person of the blessed individual Trinity, Simul odoratur & conglorificatur, Is with other at once adored and conglorified: no sacrifice, neither that of Christ's body, whether it be upon the Cross, or upon the Altar, being private to one, but common to all three.  
Again, that you call it a vain amplification and fond supposition, 
Pur. 155.  to extend the force of Christ's death beyond the limits of his will. As though it were not of force to work any whit more than it worketh in act, as to save so much as one of them that shall not be saved. Contrary to this express Scripture: He is the propitiation for our sins, 
1. joan. 2.  and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. And contrary to this saying of your own in another place: 
Pur. 34.  Concerning the sufficiency of Christ's Redemption, there is nothing can be spoken so magnifically, but that the worthiness thereof passeth and excelleth it.  
Again, that to remit sins is proper unto his Divinity. As though he, 
Pur. 26.  that is to say, our Saviour Christ, doth not remit sins according to his humanity also. No marvel to see you deny this power to his ministers, when you deny it to the Son of man himself. 
Mat. 9  The people in the Gospel understood him otherwise, when your fathers the Scribes called it a blasphemy for any to remit sins but only God, and the people contrariwise, seeing his mirable that he wrought to prove his and his Church's doctrine herein, did glorify God for giving such power to men, hominibus. Whereupon he, when the time was come, gave commission to his Apostles, 
joan. 20.  saying: As my Father sent me, I also send you. Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them.  
Again, that pestilent doctrine of desperation, wherein you say, 
a Pur. 274.127.128.135.283.  There be sins for which the Church ought not to pray, even of men remaining in this life: 
a Pur. 274.127.128.135.283.  for which it is not lawful to pray: 
a Pur. 274.127.128.135.283.  which by the mercy of God are not pardonable: for 
a Pur. 274.127.128.135.283.  it is false, that so long as men are in this world they may repent. And how many such sins are there, and which? In one place you name two: Obstinate and wilful Apostasy, and blasphemy against the holy Ghost: & after them you add there, etc. Therefore looking in other places which be those caetera, I find where you name 
a Pur. 274.127.128.135.283.  Contempt of all that preach Christ and repentance of our loathsome life passed, and say, than the which no vice is more mortal, nor farther from forgiveness. In another place you name Saul, 
1. Sam. 16.  for whom Samuel was not heard when he prayed: and the obstinate jews, 
jer. 7.11.14. Ezech. 14.  for whom jeremy is often times forbidden to pray, and the wicked generally, because the Lord testifieth, that if Noah, Daniel, & job prayed for them, they should not be heard. And you conclude thereupon: Therefore there be sins for the which the Church ought not to pray: and though she should pray, yet she should not be heard, even of men remaining in this life. Whereby it appeareth, that in sum you say, that it is unlawful to pray for any wicked person, of what sort soever his wickedness be, so long as he continueth in his wickedness: yea and that 
a Pur. 274.127.128.135.283.  it is unpossible for the wicked but to continue in his wickedness. Such wholesome doctrine you teach, and that so often and so constantly: yea also abusing the holy Scriptures for the same, not only in those places before noted, 
1. joan. 5. Mat. 12. Heb. 6.  but also three places more: There is a sin unto death, for which we ought not to pray. and, He which sinneth against the holy Ghost, shall never be forgiven, (whosoever prayeth for him.) and, There be some which sin so horribly in this life, that it is unpossible for them to be renewed by repentance.  
We were wont to match you with your fathers the novatians, 
Another old Heresy of the Protestants.  for denying the authority of Priests to remit either all sins, or some certain sins, and reserving it to God alone. But now, when you say, that some sins neither by the mercy of God are pardonable, we must needs confess that you have outshot them, and therefore won the game from them.  
What Acesius a Bishop of the novatians said to Constantinus the Emperor in the Nicen Council, yielding the reason of their Schism, you may see in Socrates, who as a fautor of the novatians, doth report it for their praise, 
Soc. li. 1. ca 7.9.  That they who after Baptism fall into that kind of sin, which the holy Scriptures call, Peccatum ad mortem, Sin unto death, ought not to be admitted to receive the Divine mysteries, (as other sinners customably were and are admitted, after confession and the priests absolution) but to exhort them to repentance or penance, and that they look for hope of forgiveness not of the Priests, but of god, who both can & hath authority to forgive sins. But with you it is unlawful, as to pray for them, so also to exhort them to repentance & hope of forgiveness at God's hands. Well, it is enough for a Christian man, that it is the heresy of the novatians which you hold, yea, a maiori also, and that the Catholic Church did then also practise as now, 
The Protestant's also admit all to their Caluines bread.  by her Priests to forgive all sins without any such exception, and so to admit all to our lords Body. Yet for more comfort against all desperation, I will answer to your places particularly.  

1. joan. 5.  I say therefore, that Sin unto death, (for the which S. john saith not as you make him, but only thus: Non pro illo dico ut roget quis, I bid not any man to pray for that) is when one is dead in Mortal sin, and therefore now damned in hell: which I showed (cap. 8. pag. 134.) out of the text itself. If that be not enough with you (because you say, 
Pur. 273.274.  It is a new exposition, and not only void of all ancient authority, but also hath all the old writers against it, and yet you do not, nor can not allege so much as one) I say further, 
Au. in r. 19 de Cor. & gra. ca 12.  it is S. Augustine's exposition in divers places, and namely in his Retractations (which is much to be noted) where to take away occasions from such novatians, having aforetime written that he thought, Peccatum fratris ad mortem, The brother's sin unto death, to be oppugning of the Brotherhood, and envying at grace itself, he saith, Addendum fuit, Si in hac scelerata mentis perversitate finierit hanc vitam: It should have been added thereunto, If in this wicked perverseness of mind he finish this life: quoniam de quocunque pessimo in hac vita constituto non est ubique desperandum, For because no man, be he never so wicked, is to be despaired of, so long as he is in this life: Nec pro illo inprudenter oratur, de quo non desperatur, Neither is it undiscreetly done to pray for him, who is not despaired of. Which is all one, almost word for word also, with that which D. Allen saith, 
Pur. 274.  and you gainsay, where you say twice, I deny your antecedent.  

Heb. 6.10.  Of S. Paul's place also I gave the right sense ca 10. Dem. 24. He speaketh of Lapsi by name, that is, of such as deny their faith in persecution. Of whom alone, the novatians Heresy against the priests Power of forgiving sins, was in the first beginning, 
Soc. li. 4. ca 23. & li. 7. ca 25.  as we read in Socrates and others. Now will you that all such despair? But the Catholic Church in time of the novatians would not, no nor the novatians themselves would so much (as I have showed,) neither would S. Paul. He saith, Impossibile est eos qui prolapsi sunt revocari ad paenitentiam, It is unpossible for such deniers to be renovated again unto repentance. To be renovated again, what is that, but all which he there said was done once afore, to be done again, eos qui semel sunt illuminati, they who once have been baptised, (for that Sacrament the Greeks call Illumination) have also tasted the heavenly gift and been made partakers of the holy Ghost (in the Sacrament of confirmation, 
Act. 2. ver. 33.38. ) and have tasted (in the Sacrament of the Altar) the good word of God and the puissances of the world to come. For these Sacraments were and are ministered adultis together with Baptism. And even so the Fathers constantly expound this place against the novatians, that it saith no more, but that a sinner can not be rebaptized, can not be renovated ad inchoationem Christi, to begin Christ again, or ad fundamentum paenitentiae, etc. to the foundation of repenting from dead works and of believing in God, of Baptisms and of Hands imposition. They be the Apostles words in the same place, and to them is linked your place with enim, Impossibile est enim, for it is unpossible, etc.  
And that which our Saviour saith to the pharisees & Scribes, 
Mat. 12. Mar. 3.  of Sin or blasphemy against the holy Ghost, because they said, Spiritum immundum habet, He hath an unclean spirit, even Beelzebub the prince of the devils, to cast out devils by: doth he say it, to drive them to desperation? yea, doth he not plainly speak it, to move them the more and to the greater repentance? As yourself also, contrary (after your manner) to yourself, 
Pur. 461.  though in express words counting D. Allen and his fellows such as Heb. 6. can not (by you) repent, having sometime been lightened, 
As though D. Allen had ever been a Protestant.  and tasted of the good gift of God: do yet exhort them, truly to repent, and to return to the acknowledging of truth once known and professed, and do beseech God that so many among them as are curable, may have grace so to do. So the whole circumstance showeth, that Christ there exhorteth them to most humble penance. For, neither doth he otherwise say, that such sin & blasphemy shall not be remitted, than he saith, that all other sin and blasphemy shall be remitted. And yet, I trow, many a one, yea above all number, may be and is damned in hell for other sin and blasphemy. Even so many a one, yea and above all number, may be and is forgiven the sin against the Holy Ghost. Whereby it is evident, that he doth no more in that place, but report the ordinary rules of God's providence: to wit, To forgive all other sin ordinarily, by giving the party grace to repent: and, not to forgive ordinarily the sin against the holy Ghost, that is, when one maliciously calleth the Miracles of Christ and of his Servants, the works of the Devil, or the lying signs and wonders of Antichrist. Which sin, your new Gospel hath made very common in these days. But yet that no such also should despair, one of these 
a Act. 23.26. Philip. 3.  pharisees, & he the very worst of them all, saith most comfortably: 
b 1. Tim. 1. Act. 7.9.  A sure saying, and worthy of all embracing, that Christ jesus came into the world to save sinnerss of whom I am the principal. But to this end I had mercy, that in me the principal (who afore was a blasphemer, and a persecuter, and an oppresser in my 
c Vide Au. expo. inch. ad Rom. prope finem.  blind incredulity) Christ jesus might show all clemency, for a sampler to all that should after believe in him.  
Now for that which you alleged out of Samuel, jeremy, and Ezechiel: it is all spoken (in one sense) of temporal matters, to wit, of casting Saul from his kingdom, and the jews into captivity: in another sense, of the jews general reprobation in which they presently be, since their crucifying of their Messiah and ours. But to pray for the salvation of Saul or the jews no man was forbidden: no, nor for their temporal felicity to continue, until it was quite past. So did Samuel mourn for Saul, even to the moment that he was sent to anoint David in his place. So did jeremy still continue praying for the jews, as appeareth in the same Chapters, 
Rom. 10.  and as Saint Paul writeth of his own doing afterwards, when the time of their reprobation was now present. Finally, there is in Ezechiel a notable and a comfortable rule for the wicked also by name, how to take and understand the comminations of God, to wit, not simply (as you do) and absolutely, 
Ezech. 33. jere. 18.  but with a condition: If I say to the wicked, Thou shalt die the death, (see, as it were absolutely: but yet it followeth nevertheless,) and he repent him of his sin, and work judgement and justice, and make restitution of pledge and of robbery, and (generally) walk in the commandments of life, nor do any evil: he shall live the life, and shall not die.  
Another point is, that strange interpretation of the Article of our Creed: Christ descended into Hell to redeem us out of Hell by suffering the wrath of God for our sins. Hebr. 5. In that place is never a word of that Article, and much less of that interpretation: neither that Christ suffered the wrath of God, although that may be said, so as the Scriptures do term pain or punishment by the name of wrath. But than what other wrath did he suffer, then that which is expressed plainly in the words afore, passus, crucifixus, mortuus, He suffered, was crucified, and died? Belike you mean the pad that your Master calvin left in the straw: 
Pur. 451. Cal. Insti. li. 2. ca 16. sect. 10.  that all this which I have said, was nothing, Nihil actum erat si Christus corporea tantum morte defunctus fuisset, It had availed nothing if Christ had died bodily death only. And so you will bring us when you reply, 
b Aug. ep. 99  how he died some death of Soul also, either that which mortal Sinners do die here in sinning, or that which they die afterwards in Hell when they be in damnation for their sin. You say, 
Pur. 63.  that calvin affirmeth his descending into Hell to be understood of the wrath of God, which he sustained for our sins before his death, at that time especially when he that was God, complained that he was forsaken of God. What other forsaking was that, but that he did not deliver him from the Cross, which was to forsake by the judgement both of natural desire, and especially of his most wicked enemies, who said there in their devilish insultation: 
Mat. 27.  He trusted in God: let him now deliver him, if he will have him: for he said, That I am the Son of God. Neither was it a complaint, as you say, but a prayer, as you might have seen even hebrews .5. if you had not been blind: Who in the days of his flesh with a mighty cry and with tears offered up prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him out of death: and was heard for his reverence, to wit, bein● raised by him again. Whereby you see, that in deed he was not forsaken neither corporally. Where now is your Scripture, or Caluins, for any other but bodily death of Ch●ist, for any other wrath, for any other forsaking? Or what Christian man did ever think, that Christ's bodily death alone was nothing, yea or that it was not the full sufficient and abundant ransom or redemption of the world? All the world must go to school again to Calvin, to learn, that Christ's soul (besides his bodily death) was in such horrible distress of conscience, in such marvelous anguish, horror, frayeur, yea and damnation, that his case was for the time (despairing & blaspheming excepted) even the self same that the case of the damned is for ever: yea, that he was in fear lest he should have been damned 
* Fulke will avouch this out of Heb. v. in his Reply.  for ever also. This is the doctrine of that beast (as D. Allen doth most worthily call him for it) against our saviours corporal death, which was his only death: and that in many of his impious books, and namely in that Catechism which they have joined with their French Bibles in the end, belike that it may among fools creep in time into Canonical authority, as already Luther with the Lutherans, and calvin with the calvinists is peer to the Apostles themselves. And for touching of this doctrine it is, that Fulke, more zealous for calvin then for Christ, goulpeth up such gear against D. Allen as the Reader may see in the place: falsifying also D. Allens words, because otherwise he had no mark to shoot at, as though he had said, calvin to affirm that Christ went down into hell after his death. Whereas D. Allen saith nothing of the time when he descended by Calvin, but only of the hell-like torments which calvin buildeth upon his descending. Howbeit I would ask Fulke, why it is such a mystery, that Christ's soul was in damnation for the time upon the Cross, and not also and rather after his death for the time until his resurrection, specially considering, that in the creed, Crucifixus goeth before Sepultus, and Descendit ad inferos followeth Sepultus, as also commonly in the Scriptures the time of his Soul in hell, is made concurrant with the time of his body in the grave? And who seeth not thereby, that the Catholics interpretation is also most natural and proper, that after Mortuus, which signifieth the separation of his body and soul by death, followeth Sepultus to show where his body was afterwards, & Descendit ad inferos to tell where his Soul was afterwards, (though not in damnation, according to these men's new blasphemy) until both were conjoined again in his Resurrection, as there it followeth immediately, Tertia die resurrexit a mortuis. Thus I am feign to stand long upon every point, be it never so absurd and impious against our Lord God himself, and against our only Redemption in his blood. For they can wrest the Scriptures to such points also. We should (I think) afore now, if this point of Christ's damnation for our Redemption had not been by divers Catholics so handled to their shame, have had that other point likewise of some calvinists made more common, that Christ also did despair in God, or blaspheme God, or commit some other sin against God for our Redemption. 
Synod. Gen. 5. Ses. 4. & Ses. 8. ca 12.  For I see not but they are already come to say with that old most detestable blasphemous Heretic Theodorus Mopsuestenus master to Nestorius, that he had in him fomitem peccati, inclination to sin, and that he was not from his conception impeccabilis, that is, unsinable, considering they say he feared to be damned for ever: unless they will say, that he was so ignorant to fear a thing that was unpossible to befall unto him. Which yet themselves can not fear, because of their Special faith forsooth. 
Pur. 290.296.298.  O Lord these blasphemous hellhounds are more worthy to be beaten down with thunderbolts, and so forth, as Fulke knoweth how to amplify, but that afore he lacked matter.  
It is no marvel now after this, to see this man so cold for the honour, or rather so impiously set against the honour of Christ's Mother. As first to quit the Heluidians and Antidicomarianitae, 
August. ad Quodvult. Haer. 84. Epip. Haer. 78. Pur. 453.  who were by the Primitive Church condemned as Heretics, for denying her perpetual virginity. But he notwithstanding saith: As for the perpetual virginity of the Mother of Christ, as we can think it is true, so because the Scripture hath not revealed it, neither pertaineth it unto us, we make no question of it. No, it pertaineth not unto you to accurse old Heretics: but to join with old Heretics, that pertaineth unto you, and also to forge new principles, as that same of Only Scripture, in their favour, yea and also to contradict yourself for the matter. For but four lines afore you say: All truth may be proved by Scripture. And now of this, We can think it is true: and yet the Scripture hath not revealed it. You might with more honesty have said, that it may be proved by Scripture, namely where she saith, Quoniam virum non cognosco, Because I know not man: that is, 
Luc. 1. Au. de san. virg. ca 4.  because I have made a vow of virginity, how therefore can I have a child? But this place you could not aleage (you wots) for another cause: neither do I say that it proveth invincibly her perpetual virginity, although it so prove her vow. For I know, that besides her vow, it should be proved that she never sinned against her vow, nor had a dispensation of God for it. Secondly you control D. Allen, 
Pur. 86.87.  where, saying, that the justest person sinneth, he excepteth Christ, and for his honour his mother. You think, it must then be said, that he was not saviour of his Mother, and she had no need of his salvation. If you had been a reader of S. Augustine, as you be of calvin, you might have easily remembered that he saith the very same that D. Allen doth. A piece of Pelagius his heresy being that a man may live without all sin, 
Au. de nat. & gra. c. 36.  he alleged for it the example of so many just persons commended in the Scriptures, and among the rest, our Lord and saviours Mother, saying, that to confess her without sin, necesse est pietati, It is necessary for him that will not be impious. How you would have answered him, we see: specially thinking you have Scripture for her sinning, because Christ said unto her: Why did you seek me, 
Luc. 2. joan. 2.  etc. and, What to me and thee, O woman? etc. you think that Christ here reproveth her, and that he had done her wrong herein if she did not sin. You might do well to tell us what were those sins of hers. S. Augustine could not see any there, nor else where, but saith plainly in his answer to Pelagius▪ although the contrary had been for his vantage against him: Excepting the holy Virgin Mary, of whom for the honour of our Lord, I will have no question in the world, when we talk of sins. Ind enim scimus, for by this we know, that more grace was given to her to overcome sin altogether, because she was worthy to conceive and bring forth him, whom it is certain to have had no sin. 
The honour of our Lord is by Fulke his dishonour.  Where also you see, that her not sinning doth not argue (as after your Divinity) that she had no need of Christ's grace, 
Con. Tri. Ses. 6. can. 23.  but the clean contrary, that she had so much the more of his grace, than any other of all the Saints: as you may also see in the Council of Trent.  
Another point of your great skill, is, where to supply D. Allens lack, 
Pur. 12.  you bring forsooth the right definition or description of an Heretic, and say, that an Heretic is a man in the Church, etc. Whereof what pretty conclusions do follow, you may consider: as because Papists be Heretics with you, 
Ministerlike conclusions of Fulke.  therefore they be in the Church: item anabaptists, Seruetians, etc. and of old, the Arrians, Pelagians, etc. again on the contrary side, because these are not, nor were not (by you) in the Church, therefore they be not Heretics. It followeth in your definition, That obstinately maintaineth an opinion contrary to the doctrine of the Scriptures. And then you add: Which if any of us can be proved to do, then let us not be spared, but condemned for Heretics. We say to you the same of any of us also. But you should have defined also who is obstinate. You bring no Scripture against us, but we answer it clearly, much less do you prove us to be obstinate. But we bring plain Scriptures against you, to prove that also the doctrine of the Apostles Traditions is the doctrine of the Scriptures, with very many particular points of controversy, expressly against you, as namely, that neither the Church of Christ should ever fly out of sight, much less any thing near the year 607. nor Antichrist reign so long as from that time, nor the day of judgement to be so long after the coming of Antichrist. Again for the Real presence, This is my body: and so forth. And if you also go about to answer some of our Scriptures, it is no otherwise then the Arrians, Pelagians, etc. did in old time, who notwithstanding were obstinate against the truth, because they yielded not neither when the Church had given her sentence. So do we prove you to be obstinate, & much more than any, because you neither yield after sentence, and also do hold that the Church hath no such authority to end contentions.  
Your ignorance in so wondering at D. Allen for saying, that a Christian Scholar should first believe, and after seek for understanding, I noted before cap. 10. Dem. 34.  
Of the like ignorance it is, where you wonder to hear, that the Sacrifice of the Mass is a likeness of the Sacrifice of Christ's death upon the Cross, and say, 
Pur. 200.  that it is contrary to the whole 
a See here cap. 10. Dem. 24.  scope of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that there should be now any shadows, or resemblances, when the body and substance itself is come. As though we had now no Sacraments at all. Do you not know, that all Sacraments be liknesses of other things? as S. Augustine, (whom yourself somewhere allege) saith: Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem, etc. 
Aug. ep. 23. Pur. 292. Sup. de. 24.  For if Sacraments had not a certain likeness of those things whose Sacraments they be, they should not at all be Sacraments. And so you may remember that S. Paul himself will have Baptism to be a likeness or similitude of Christ's death, 
Rom. 6.  burial, and resurrection. As again S. Augustine in the foresaid place noteth that it is truly said, Christum immolari quotidie in Sacramento, Christ to be sacrificed every day in the Sacrament, although he were but once sacrificed, in seipso, in himself, that is, in his own visible and not sacramental form: because of the likeness in the Sacrament, to that immolation upon the Cross. For, there was visible separation of his Body and Blood, the one from the other: Here is mystical or sacramental separation of the same, as the sacramental words do signify. And therefore this separation is but like to that, if we attend the manner of both: and yet it is the very same separation, if we attend the things that were and are separated. Which D. Allen uttered very aptly in these few words: It is the self same in another manner. 
Pur. 198.201.  Whereunto you say, that Every boy in Oxford can tell him, that by Logic, like is not the same. An high point: D. Allen knew it not. How then did he say, in another manner? Did he not thereby give you the meaning of that Logical Principle, to wit, that like is not the same with the same manner. But otherwise what boy hath not heard it said of one and the same man, being changed by age, sickness, apparel, shaving, etc. He is like, or unlike himself? Against so plain a declaration you could not reply, and yet you must needs say something, but yet that which neither boy, nor man, nor yourself can understand. This it is: to say, It is the self same in another manner, will not help, so long as the same respect remaineth. Which same respect, I pray you? for I am not so quick, to understand him who understandeth not himself. For who can imagine that the very same respect remaineth, when the same manner doth not remain  

Pur. 20.21.  Again, where you attribute that to divorcement, which the Scripture in many places both 
a Mat. 5. Mar. 10. Luc. 16. ●. Cor. 7.  deny to divorcement, and doth 
b Rom. 7.  attribute only to death, to wit, to make her no wife that was a wife: there you utter your great skill in many matters. As in saying, that such marriage after divorcement is dispensed withal by the Pope. Item, that the Pope's Canon Law hath far many more causes of divorcement then for adultery, which only Christ alloweth and we, 
Mat. 5.  quoth you. As though also the Canon Law allow not that only as a cause of perpetual divorce, in such sort that if the Adulterer become afterwards never so chaste, yet the innocent cannot be compelled to receive him again. But otherwise if the man's fury be such, that the wife in his house is in continual fear & danger of her life, do not you also allow her to dwell away from him until such time as his amendment do appear sufficiently? Item, you speak there as though Moses' judicial Law ought to be still observed. 
Leu. 20.  We wish that adulterers were punished as God commanded in his Law: it followeth, and then the other question of Marriages were soon answered. As though the man were punished by death, if he sinned against his wife with a single woman. If not, how then is the question of his wives Marriage with another resolved by his punishment? Such is your skill in the Law. I note here your ignorance, but I mislike not your moderation in saying, we wish. Why then do I charge you with such an opinion of that Law? For this, that you there charge the Catholics, to allow dispensation for such persons to marry, as the Law of God and nature abhorreth. What Law of God do you mean, but Levi. 18? Do you think then, that Law to bind Christians? and that so straightly, as neither to allow any dispensation in it, be it otherwise never so just? As for any Law of Nature, you can allege none against the Church's dispensations, no otherwise then against Gods own dispensations in the time of the old Testament: yea & if you remember yourself well, they were allowed then, some of them at the least, by law also, and not only by dispensation sometimes, which you mean now to be against the Law of Nature.  
Being so many ways ignorant in God's Law, it is less marvel, that you be ignorant in the Church's Law: and again in the Church's Divinity, so, that in one place you make it a thing certain: 
Pur. 35.  that the Pope giveth his pardons by the Sacrament of penance. As though the Pope being at Rome might be minister of a Sacrament to one in England. You might as well think that he doth excommunicate by the Sacrament of penance. So great a Doctor doth not know, that the power of binding and losing is exercised many other ways, besides that Sacrament.  
Yea not only in our divinity, but also in your own, you be so ignorant, 
Pur. 13.  that you wonder, that a Catholic should say, that God sometime punisheth sin with sin: which is a position common to be seen in all Catholic Doctors: 
Thom. 1.2. q. 87. ar. 2.  & complain, that when you say but half so much we charge you, to make God the Author of sin. Why? is not that a common position, and long discourses upon it, in your master's books, that God is the author of sin? 
Cal. Insti. li ca 14. num. 17.18. Melanct. in Epist. ad Rom.  If you be ashamed thereof, and therefore do say, not as an evil author, but as a righteous judge, I do not reprehend you. But if you say it of ignorance in your own Schools learning: you must know, that your Masters hold it of all sins alike, as well of that sin which goeth first in any man, as of that sin which cometh after in him and is sometime the punishment of the former sin. And therefore they hold it of God otherwise then as of a righteous judge, Ergo (by your own division) as of an evil author. For the difference between them and us, is this: They deny our free-will, and make God to work all sin in us, in the same sort, as he worketh all good in us, to wit, per se, willing, appointing, and predestinating us to sin: even no less, than he which leadeth a blind man to fall. But we say no more, but that when a man hath sinned against him mortally, God taketh away his inward grace, and sometime also his outward assistance, more or less according to his most just will. So as if a blind man's guide should for his desert, as because he will needs fall when he might stand, forsake him either quite or for a time, and he afterwards fall, the cause of that fall, per se, he only is himself, as of the former, & his guide, only per accidens, though of the former neither per accidens. Even so doth God, who is both the light of our eyes by his grace infused, and also our guide by his infinite helps external. Howbeit he dealeth not with us all and always according to his justice: but of his infinite mercy commonly he will not let us fall when we will needs fall, and when we be fallen, he will not let us fall farther, yea he raiseth us often again when we would lie still, yea also when we resist him and fight against him rebelliously: a notable example in S. Paul's conversion, 
Act. 9 jac. 1.  that most worthily S. james is so vehement to hold and affirm, that all good is of him, but no evil at all, not so much as tentation to evil.  
Moreover your great skill in Histories Ecclesiastical, appeareth by that you say, 
Supra. ca 2. & ca 10. Dem. 11.3. Ar. 15.16.  the Britons to have kept their Easter so as the Asians did: and the Latins to be departed from the Grecians, in this present Schism. Which both I noted before. Again, because you say (as it seemeth) that julianus the Apostata was Emperor after Valens the Arrian. Again, speaking of the Estern Churches of Asia at this present: that the new Testament is printed in the Syrian tongue, at the emperors charges, 
Ar. 6.  for the increase of Christian faith among them. What Emperor and what faith, I pray you, but Catholic or Popish? 
Pur. 373.  Again, that the Father's alleging Succession of Bishops against Heretics, specially named the Church of Rome, it was because those Heretics for the most part had been sometimes of the Church of Rome, as Valentinus, Marcian, Novatus. Those Heretics that D. Allen speaketh of, were not only the Valentinians and novatians, but also the Donatists, the Arrians, yea and all Heretics in general. Now, had the most part of these been sometimes of the Church of Rome? Yea Novatus himself, 
Supra p. 16  was he not a Priest of the Church of Carthage under S. Cyprian? Who can read S. Cyprian, and be ignorant thereof, specially now a days, after that so many have noted the error of some Greek Historians, who in old time and being far of, could not distinguish Novatus of Carthage, from Novatianus of Rome? And also of Valentinus and Martion, where have you that they were of Rome? unless all that go to Rome be of Rome: For so we read in Ireneus, 
Iren. l. 3. ca 4. & li. 1. ca 29. Philast. in Catal.  the time noted when Valentinus came to Rome (for by Philastrius, he was of Cypress) and that Martion was of Pontus, being therefore called Ponticus. You might in another sense say, that they & all other Heretics were sometimes of the Church of Rome, because all lightly were first Catholics, and all Catholics were (as all aught to be) of that Church's communion. And that to have been the cause, why the Fathers named that Church specially. But so you would not say, because you would not condemn yourself for a Schismatic.  
Last of all, where you must show us, wherein the Communion of saints consisteth: you show yourself again a great clerk. 
Pur. 199.200.  The Scriptures make the Communion of Saints to be, as is the Communion of our members in our body. Yet you say, One can not merit for another, no not for himself, but every man hath his worthiness of Christ. As though neither Christ could merit for any other, no nor for himself, because he had his worthiness of God. Again granting, that some of the members be here on earth, and some elsewhere, & yet denying that they may either by prayer also help one the other: you so define the Communion, that you allow it no place for the prayers also of the members alive to be made for others alive. But only for the dispensation of the grace and gifts of God, which as every one hath received of God, so of charity he is bound to employ the same, to the profit of his fellow members here on earth. And why is he not of charity bound as well to pray for them? And if he be, why are not those members in heaven as well? or have not they also received of God some gifts? If they have, why are not they of charity bound as well? or doth not the Scripture say plainly, the Christ's friends in heaven, do rejoice with his penitentes in earth? How then could you pretend, 
Luc. 15.  as though the mutual offices of love whereby one member hath compassion with another, can by no means touch the state of the dead? Is not the state of the holy Angels, now the state also of some that be dead? Be not they also among Christ's friends in heaven? So much you say touching the Communion of the Church militant here on earth. For you have another besides it, which you call the communion of the whole body, & that you make to be the participation of life, from Christ the head. If that be all, then is there no Communion. For what communion were it between the members of your natural body, if they did only receive life, from your head, and could not use their said life to profit one another, but lived every one to himself alone? How much better had you been to follow D. Allens most proper and true description of it, then to utter thus you know not what? at the least, if you could not correct him, yet you could belie him: as to say, that he will have other works and ways of salvation, beside the blood of Christ. He saith, that in this Communion all works, and all ways of salvation, are common to the whole body, & all grounded in the blood of Christ. But of any beside the blood of Christ, he saith not. Yea it is clean contrary to that which he saith.   

¶ The .13. Chapter, or Conclusion. That in his two writings against D. Allen, there is yet stuff enough to make another Book as big as this, to the further discredit of his party.  
THus at the length with the help of God I am come to the end. And yet the Reader must understand, that I find in this man such store of this stuff, as would suffice to make another volume as big as this: partly by enlarging these two last Chapters with many more of his like contradictions, & errors or ignorances (for all the former Chapters be full freyted) partly by making many new Chapters upon new matters. As one, to show how he behaveth himself in all places where he chargeth either the Catholics doctrine or D. Allen himself, with contradictions. Another, to lay together all his falsifications of the Scriptures, Doctors, and D. Allen, by adding, diminishing or changing their words. Another, of his most impudent facing lies without any colour of truth. Another, of his detestable railings not only at D. Allen, but also at the old Doctors, and at Rome, and at the whole Church, which he can not avoid (the Scriptures, with his own confession, are so plain for it) but it is the true Church his own Mother, and Spouse of Christ. Another of his ridiculous answers to many of D. Allens Demands, sometimes like him that answered a pokefull of plumes when he was demanded the way to London: sometimes to answer the very same thing that is in question, etc.  
Moreover, divers others chapters yet of Purgatory, about his answers to D. Allens allegations, to see, whether he have so answered them, as I have here answered all his allegations against it yea & against any other Article of ours. One of those Chapters might be, to gather all the Scriptures alleged by D. Allen, & the ancient Fathers before him, and Fulkes answers unto them, with my replies which are e dispersed in this book: like as in the 8. chapter I have gathered all Fulkes scriptures, & answered them. Another, of such books in antiquity, as he denieth, namely the works of S. Dionysius Areopagita, and the Constitutions of the Apostles by S. Clement: because he could not otherwise avoid their plain testimonies for prayer for the dead, they also living even in the Apostles time, and familiarly with the Apostles. Of which books notwithstanding there are such probations as can not possibly be answered. Read the Preface of Fr. Turrianus in his new edition of those Constitutions: and the Preface of Mat. Galenus ad Areopagitica, 
Cop. Dial. 2. ca 5.  as also the Preface and Scholies in the Greek edition by Morelius at Paris Anno. 1562. In another Chapter I might show, how vainly he laboureth to answer certain testimonies of the other Doctors, considering that he granteth other testimonies of the very same Doctors them selves, or of their several times, to be so evident for it, that they can not be answered: for which cause also he passeth by many of them with silence: as, that S. Augustine in one place prayed for his mother's soul, and yet to stand with D. Allen about other places of his, that they prove it not: as though Doctor's opinion and judgement being confessed, there needeth any more to do to be made about his sayings. And yet it is nothing also which he answereth to those other places, as I have showed in very many of them. Another might be, to lay together all D. Allens arguments or reasons for it, with my replies to Fulkes answers, such as I have made in divers places of this book. In another I could show, that Fulke hath made no answer lightly to these Scriptures, Doctors, or reasons, but D. Allen did foresee it afore hand, warned the Reader of it, and made so just a reply unto it, as standeth still upright, even after that Fulke hath done the worst he could. Another might be, to show out of justinus Martyr, Ireneus, and Clement Alexandrinus, in how many things they also make with us most evidently (as in nothing against us) because he doth so often require us, to prove prayer for the dead by any of them, as though he would yield to them, although he will not to their fellows: whereas in deed he excepteth against them no less, as I have showed, then against the rest. Another might be by occasion of his zeal for calvin, Luther, and such other his Masters and fellows: to show more copiously, that they are worthily charged, not only with those shameful opinions by D. Allen, but also that they may be likewise charged with very many more no less, yea and much more shameful than those.  
These matters are such, as being so handled, would work the further discredit of Fulke and of his side, and yet being no more handled, then already, do leave no blot in our side, no nor so much as in D. Allen particularly. For which cause I mind not neither hereafter, to prosecute them, unless I have greater occasion given then yet I see. But presently I omitted them, to avoid more prolixity, and specially because in this book I took in hand to defend, not D. Allen, but the Church: and therefore whatsoever this Heretic pretended against the Church or against any thing of hers, I have answered it all and every whit, omitting nothing to my knowledge: and so shall be able (with the grace of God) and also ready, to answer him hereafter also, if he harden his heart yet further to make more resistance against the truth. counseling him rather, yea and beseeching him in the bowels of the mercies of Christ, to be better to his own soul, and to so innumerable other souls redeemed with the most precious blood of Christ, then to stand any longer against the Church of Christ, to the damnation of so many souls, specially having neither any text of Scripture, nor any other authority Catholic, against the same Church, as I have here most evidently declared. But if he list still without cause to blaspheme the Holy City and Tabernacle of God, let him know, 
Apoc. 13.22.3.  and all such as he is, that his name will be stricken out of it to his eternal confusion, when our names, that through the mercy of God be of it, shall before all the world to our unspeakable glory appear written in it together and in the book of life of the Lamb and Son of God, to whom be glory in the Church throughout all ages for ever and ever. Amen.   
FINIS.   

The Printer to the Reader.  
In two things I am to desire thee (courteous and friendly Reader) to extend thy accustomed gentleness in perusing and reading of this godly work: One is, that thou wilt friendly correct with thy pen these faults, and what others else thou shalt therein espy committed in the Printing: for although I have had great care and been very diligent in the correcting thereof, yet because my Compositor was a stranger and ignorant in our English tongue and Orthographic, some faults are passed unamended of me. The other, that thou wilt not like the worse of this learned work, because it hath not the variety of letters which is requisite in such a book, and as the Printers in England do customably use, my ability was not otherwise to do it, and having these Characters out of England, I could not join them together with any others, and so was forced to use one Character both for the words of Fulke, and for all Allegations. Remember that when man can not do as he would, he must do as he may.  
john lion.   

The Errata.  
Cap. 3. Fol. 11. for, man read men  
Pag. 80. for anima read omnia.  
Pag. 54. for anima read anna  
Pag. 66 for obnaxius read obnoxius for lanacri lavacri  
Pag. 190. for milenis read millevis  
Hag. 355. for Ephata read Epheta for Ephphata Ephpheta.   

¶ The contents of this Book at large.  
¶ Chapter. 1. 
Fulke confesseth, out of the true Church to be no salvation.  ¶ Chapter. 2. 
He confesseth the known Church of the first. 600. years after Christ, and the known members thereof.  ¶ Chapter. 3. 
He confesseth, the foresaid true Church to have made so plainly with us in very many of the controversies of this time, that he is feign to hold, that the true Church may err, & also hath erred. 
The first part of this Chapter. 
That the true Church may err.  The second part. 
That the true Church did also err: & that in the same points as we now do err in. 

i. Where he chargeth them with many points together.  
two. As touching Vigilantius, & Invocation of saints, by itself.  
iij. As touching jovinian: of Fasting, of Virginities merit, of Votaries Marriage.  
iiij. As touching Ceremonies.  
v. As touching Purgatory, and praying for the dead. 

1. What he saith of particular Doctors, and their particular times, for it.  
2. What he saith of the whole Church in some of those times.  
3. To what origin he confesseth the Doctors to refer it, to wit, unto Scripture and Tradition of the Apostles.  
4. He contrariwise feareth not nor basheth not to say, they had it from the devil and his limbs.    
vj. As touching the Pope's primacy.      ¶ Chapter. 4. 
He chargeth the said Primitive true Church also with sundry errors, wherewith he neither doth, nor will, nor can, charge us.  ¶ Chapter 5. 
What reason he rendereth, why they in those ancient times had the true Church notwithstanding these their errors.  ¶ Chapter. 6. 

An answer first to all the foresaid errors, wherewith he hath charged the Church of the first. 600. years, & afterward likewise to all errors that he layeth to the Church of these later times.  
His zeal in answering for calvin and others being in deed of his Church.  
The first part of this Chapter. 
Concerning the errors that he layeth (cap. 3. part 2.) both to the Fathers and to us. 

1. Of Cross and Images.  
2. Of Invocation of saints, and worshipping of their Relics.  
3. Of Abstinence from fleshmeate, and from Marriage.  
4. Of Ceremonies.  
5. Of Sacrifice. 

And for the dead.  
Purgatory.  
And Purgatory fire.  
Prayer for the dead.  
And Oblations for the dead.  
Beeres to carry home the corpses.      The Second part. 
Concerning the errors that he laid (cap. 4.) to the Fathers & not to us. 

1. Touching the Heresies which were in their times.  
2. Touching the errors of S. Cyprian, S. Irenee, and S. justinus.  
3. Touching Second Marriages, And S. Jerome.  
4. Touching praying to the Son, and to the Holy ghost.  
5. Of ministering the B. Sacrament to Infants.    The third part. 
Concerning the errors that he layeth to the Church of later time, and not of old. 

1. Touching the bodies of Angels.  
2. Touching the Pope's Superiority over the Council.  
3. Touching the Constance Counsels presumption.  
4. Touching certain false interpretations of Scripture.      ¶ Chapter. 7. 
That he hath no other shift against our manifold Evidences (so clear they be) but the name of Only Scripture, as well about each controversy, as also about the meaning of Scripture itself, & how timorous he maketh us, & how bold he beareth himself thereupon. 
The first part. 
How he excepteth by Only Scripture against all other Euidencies, in the Controversies that are between us. 

1. Against the Rule to know Heresy by finding the first authors and their old Heresies. 

By Antiquity.  
By names.    
2. Against the Apostles Traditions.  
3 Against the true Church's Authority, that is, against her practice, and her judgement, Against her Counsels, Against her Chief Pastor's Determinations, and their whole Succession.  
4 Against the Fathers both in general, and in particular.    The second part. 
Being told that the question between us is not (as he maketh it) of the Scriptures authority, but of the meaning: How there likewise against all expositors he taketh the same exception of only Scripture, requiring also Scripture to be expounded by Scripture.  The third part. 
What he meaneth by his Only Scripture: and that thereby he excepteth also against Scripture itself.  The fourth part. 
What great promises he maketh to bring most evident Scripture against us, and also by Scripture to prove his sense of Scripture: Triumphing also before the victory, and saying, that we dare not be tried by Scripture, but reject the Scriptures. Whereupon a fourfold offer is made unto him.    ¶ Chapter 8. 
To show his vanity in his foresaid rigorous exacting of plain Scriptures, and great promises to bring plain Scripture, conferring place with place so evidently: All the Scriptures that he allegeth, are examined, and answered. 
The first part. 
Concerning the question of Only Scripture.  The second part. 
Concerning the question of the Church. 

1. Indefinitely. 

Whether the whole Church may err.  
Whether she may be divorced.  
Whether she it is that should prepare the way to Antichrist.  
Whether she be always a base company.  
Whether it be always invisible, yea or so much as then when Antichrist cometh.    
2. Namely of their Church and of ours. 

Certain places conferred diligently together, concerning the Defection and Antichrist.      The third part. 
Concerning the question of Purgatory. 

1. Ab authoritate Scripturae negatiuè, that is, by the Scriptures authority negatively.  
2. Ab authoritate Scripturae affirmitiuè. 

First, about certain foundations of Purgatory and prayer for the dead.  
The distinction of venial and mortal sin.  
Whether after sin remitted, pain may remain.  
Whether Purgatory follow thereupon.  
Whether in Christ, the works of one may help another.  
His common argument of the omnisufficiency of Christ's passion.  
It is omnisufficient, ergo it worketh always to the full.  
It is omnisufficient, ergo nothing worketh with it.  
Secondly, directly of Purgatory itself, & prayer for the dead.  
Whether all the elect go strait to Heaven.  
Afore Christ's coming.  
Or at the least, since Christ's coming.  
Whether the judgement may stand with Purgatory.  
Whether faith, hope, and Gods will.      The fourth part. 
Concerning all other questions that he mentioneth. About Good works. 

1. In general. 

Whether they do justify.  
Whether we have free-will.    
2. In special. 

Of prayer.  
Prayer to saints.  
Of Fasting.    
About the Sacraments. 

1. In general. 

Whether they be but two.  
Whether they do confer grace.    
2. In special. 

Baptism, the necessity, and effect of it.  
Eucharist: Real presence.  
Transubstantiation.  
Marriage of Votaries.  
Of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.        ¶ Chapter. 9 
To defend, that the Doctors, as they be confessed to be ours in very many points, so they be ours in all points, and the Protestants in no point. All the Doctor's sayings that he allegeth, are examined and answered. 
The first part. 
Of his Doctors generally. 

1. His challenging words.  
2. A general answer to his challenge, declaring that we need not to answer his Doctors particularly.  
3. I join with him nevertheless particularly.    The second part. 
Of his Doctors, particularly. 

First, whether they expound any Scripture against us. 

1. About Antichrist, and Babylon.  
2. About Only faith.  
3. About Purgatory. 

Touching Scripture expounded against it.  
Touching Scriptures for it.  
Whether they say no Scripture to make for it.  
Of certain particular texts.      
Secondly, whether they give any other kind of testimony against us. 

1. About the Books of Maccabees. 

Whether, somewhat also of other controversed Scriptures, specially.    
2. About Only Scripture. 

Where, of S. Augustine threefoldly alleged.    
3. About certain Traditions.  
4. About the Marriage of Votaries.  
5. About the Real presence. And Transubstantiation.  
6. About the Sacrament of penance. 

Absolution.  
Temporal debt remaining after Absolution.  
Satisfaction.  
Pardons.    
7. Of Purgatory. 

Of the Canonical Memento, of oblations, and of Sacrifice for the dead practised by the Church. Of particular Doctors.  
Whether S. Augustine doubted of Purgatory. Or denied it.  
Other Doctors about praying for the dead.  
Whether it be only for Venial sins.    
8. Of Limbus patrum.          ¶ Chapter 10. 
That, notwithstanding all which he hath said against D. Allens Articles, in his first book being of that matter, or also in his other of Purgatory: Every one of my 51. Demands (and therefore also every one of my Motives, & likewise every one of those Articles) standeth in his force (every one I say) and much more all of them, to make any man to be a Catholic, and not a Protestant. 

1 Collatio Carthaginensis touching the Church of the Scriptures.  
2 Building of the Church amid persecution.  
3 Going out of the Church.  
4 Rising after the beginning of the Church.  
5 Contradicted of the Church.  
6 This name Catholics.  
7 This name Heretics.  
8 This name Protestants.  
9 Conversion of heathen Nations.  
11 Our Britanny.  
10.12. Miracles & Visions.  
13.15. Honour of Crosses and Saints.  
14.16 Virtue of Crosses and Saints.  
17 Exorcisms.  
18 Destroying of Idolatry.  
19 Kings and Emperors.  
20 In all persecutions.  
21 Churches.  
22 Service.  
23 Apish imitation.  
24 Priesthood and Sacrifice.  
25 Monks.  
26 Fathers.  
27 Counsels.  
28 See Apostolic.  
29 Traditions.  
30 Their own Doctors.  
31 Universality.  
32 Antiquity.  
33 Consent.  
34 Authority.  
35 Unity.  
36 Owners and keepers of the Scriptures.  
37 Store house of all truth.  
38 Old Heresies.  
39 In old Heretics Only.  
40 They never afore now.  
41 Studying all truth.  
42 Unsent.  
43 Succession.  
44 Apostolic Church.  
45 Changing.  
46 Our ancestors saved, & theirs damned.  
47 Communion of saints.  
48 By their fruits.  
49 All enemies.  
50 Sure to continue.  
51 Apostasy.    ¶ Chapter 11. 
What gross contradictions Fulke is fain to utter against himself, while he struggleth against God's Church and the Doctrine thereof.  ¶ Chapter. 12. 
A Nosegay of certain strange flowers piked out of Fulke: that they which delight in such a Gardener, may see his handiwork.  ¶ The .13. Chapter, or Conclusion. 
That in his two writings against D. Allen, there is yet stuff enough to make another Book as big as this, to the further discredit of his party.