A defense of the sincere and true translations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong against the manifolde cauils, friuolous quarels, and impudent slaunders of Gregorie Martin, one of the readers of popish diuinitie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rhemes. By William Fvlke D. in Diuinitie, and M. of Pembroke haule in Cambridge. Wherevnto is added a briefe confutation of all such quarrels & cauils, as haue bene of late vttered by diuerse papistes in their English pamphlets, against the writings of the saide William Fvlke.

A BRIEFE CON∣FVTATION OF SVNDRY CAVILS AND QVARELS, vttered by diuerse Papistes in their seuerall bookes & pam∣phlets against the wri∣tings of William Fulke.

I Were verie much to blame, if I would not confesse with S. Augustine, that as* 1.1 in my maners, so in my writings manie things may be iustly reprehended, at which I ought not to be offended, no not although I were reproued by mine aduersaries. But when the enimies of Gods holie reli∣gion, & of the quiet state of this realme, seeke by woun∣ding of mee, to hurt the trueth, and if it were possible through my sides, to wound her to death: I ought not to be silent in this case, but by shewing mine honest de∣fence, as it were by holding vp my buckler, to beare off their blowes as wel as I can, to maintaine the credit of that cause which I haue taken in hande: lest whilest I forbeare to defende my selfe, the truth might seeme to haue takē a foyle. And yet I meane not so to confound my case with the state of truth, that wheresoeuer I may be iustly conuinced, trueth should be thought to haue

lost the victorie. For I am but one poore souldiour among manie thousand captaines, that fight vnder the banner of truth, which if I haue not in euery respect perfourmed al dueties of an expert warrior, it is reason the reproche of my defaultes should rest and stay onely in mine owne ignorance or rashnesse which haue not so happily executed that which of good will to fight in truthes cause I haue attempted within these fiue or sixe yeares. I haue set abroad sundrie treatises in confutati∣on of popish bookes written in English, which purpose if God giue me strength, to aunswere as manie as with∣in twentie yeares of her maiesties reigne, had beene set foorth by the Papistes, and are not yet confuted by any other. This purpose of mine, the Papistes haue not greatly hindered by replyes, for (except one onely Bri∣stowe, who obseruing no good order of replying, but gathering here and there at his pleasure, whatsoeuer he thought himself best able to reproue, hath made a shew of defence of Allens Articles and Purgatorie) none o∣ther haue as yet set foorth any iust replication to the rest of my writings. And as for Bristow, he hath my re∣ioynder vnto his reply these two yeares in his hand to consider vpon, the other that of late haue set forth Po∣pish treatises, haue indeuoured themselues almost cue∣ry one of them, to haue a snatch or two at some one od thing or other in my bookes, wherin they would seeme to haue aduantage, & that belike they would haue their simple readers thinke, to be a sufficient confuration of al that euer I haue written against them. I haue thought good therefore as neere as I can, to gather all their ca∣uils together, and briefely to shape an answere to euery one of them, that the indifferēt reader may see & iudge what sound matter they haue brought against me wher with in shewe of wordes, they would haue it seeme, as though they had confuted me.

First Master Allen in his late Apologie. fol. 63. ac∣cusing the Protestants to feigne an appellatiō vnto the

iudgement of the most auncient fathers of the primi∣tiue Church, and yet not to abide by it, not esteeming them better than the present gouernment of the Popish Church, but as of men deceiued, as of humane traditi∣ons, &c.

As in their writings saith he, it is most eui∣dent, where from Peters time downward, they make the chiefest fathers the ministers and furtherers of Anti∣christ. For this euidence he quoteth Beza in 2. Thess. 2. & Retentiue p. 248.

How vniustly Beza is slandered to be a witnesse of this accusation, they that vnderstande y^• Latine tongue, may see in the places quoted. But tou∣ching my selfe, the booke which he quoteth hauing scarse halfe so many pages, I might intreat him for a new quotation, but that I gesse he meaneth a place in my confutation of Sanders booke which he calleth the Rocke of the church, which was printed with the Re∣tentiue, and continueth the number of pages from it. In that booke pag. 248. there is nothing that soundeth toward such a matter, except it be these wordes:

As for Leo and Gregorie bishops of Rome, although they were not come to the full pride of Antichrist, yet the mysterie of iniquitie hauing wrought in that seat, neere fiue or sixe hundred yeres before them, and then great∣ly increased, they were so deceiued with the long conti∣nuance of error, that they thought the dignitie of Pe∣ter was much more ouer the rest of his fellow Apostles, than the holy scriptures of God (against which no con∣tinuance of errour can prescribe) doth either allowe or beare withall. Wherefore although he haue some shew out of the old writers, yet hath he nothing directly to prooue, that Peter did excell the other Apostles in bi∣shoplike authoritie: and out of the worde of God, no one iote or title, that Peter as a bishop excelled the other Apostles, not as Apostles but as bishops. First it is mani∣fest euen to the eye, that Allens slander is not expressed in these wordes.

Then let vs see, if it may be imployed. The mysterie of iniquitie did worke in the see of Rome

from the Apostles time, taking increase by litle & litle, vntill sixe hundred yeares and more after Christ, when Antichrist began to be openly shewed: and manie of the ancient fathers not espying the subtiltie of Sathans secret purpose, were deceiued to thinke something more of Peters prerogatiue, & of the bishops of Romes dignitie, than by the worde of God was granted to ei∣ther of them: this is in effect as much as I affirme, but here of it followeth not, that I make them the ministers and furtherers of Antichrist. For those are the mini∣sters and furtherers of Antichrist, which willingly lend all their power to maintaine, and vphold his kingdom, after he hath inuaded the tyrannie: The auncient fa∣thers meant nothing lesse by admitting of the bishops of Romes prerogatiue, vnder colour of Peters succes∣sour, than to serue him or aduance him into the throne of Antichrist. Not euerie one whome Satan hath sedu∣ced that he might prepare a way for the aduauncement of his tyrannie, is a minister and furtherer of Satan or his tyrannie, for then should all men be counted mini∣sters or furtherers of Satan, seeing the kingdome of sinne is increased by the frailtie of all men, which by temptation of the diuell fall into sinne. Beside that, ma∣nie of the auncient fathers, openly resisted the vsurped power of the bishops of Rome, when it began onely to budde vp, and was yet farre off from Antichristian ty∣rannie, although it tended somewhat toward the same.* 1.2 So did the bishops of the East churches countermaund Victor bishop of Rome, contending about the celebra∣tion of Easter. So did Irenaeus, Polycrates, and many o∣ther* 1.3 godly fathers, in publike writings openly repre∣hend him. So did Cyprian in diuerse Epistles expostu∣late with the bishops of Rome, for medling with causes* 1.4 that pertained to his iurisdiction. So did all the bishops of Aphrica make decrees against the vsurped authoritie* 1.5 and titles of the bishops of Rome, denying all appeales vnto the sea of Rome, & excōmunicating all them that

would appeale to any place beyond the sea, discouering also the forged Canon of the Nicen Councel, by which the bishops of Rome challenged that prerogatiue. So that M. Allen by this his slander, hath done iniury to mee, and hurt to himselfe, while men by this example may iudge of his synceritie in other matters.

Next commeth in the discouerie of I. Nicols, de∣nying that they make the Catholike religion locall, or of one prouince, as he chargeth mee (with some scorne∣full termes of reproche) to affirme in my bad answere to Howlet. I said in deede, that S. Augustine De vnit. Ec∣cles. Cap. 4. doth cleare vs of schisme, who willingly com∣municate with all the whole bodie of Christs Church, dispersed ouer the world, and charge the Popish faction both of schisme & heresie: of schisme, because they maintaine the Church to be onely in a part of Europe, as the Donatistes did in Aphrica, &c. And what iniury haue I done to the Papistes in so saying? The Donatists sayd, the Church was perished out of all the worlde, & remained only in Aphrica: not assigning any place of Aphrica, whereunto the Church must be regardant, as the Papistes do the citie of Rome: but affirming that true Catholikes remained onely in Aphrica, being con∣sumed out of all other partes of the earth. And what say the Papistes of all the Oriental churches of Greece, of Asia, of Aphrike, that acknowledge not the Popes authoritie? Doe they not accompt them all for here∣tikes or schismatikes? Then it followeth, that they ac∣knowledge the Church to remaine only in those partes of Europe, that are subiect to the Pope, and Church of Rome. But perhaps they wil alledge their newly foun∣ded Churches in India and America, which vaine brag I will not stand to confute: but seeing this enlargement is but newe begun, in our graundfathers dayes, before those partes of the earth were discouered by nauigation òf the Portingals and Spaniardes, where was the Ro∣mish church & pope thereof acknowledged but onely

in a piece of Europe. If yet they will alledge the sub∣mission of any Patriarkes or Prelates of the Aethiopian or Armenian churches made to the Pope by some wan∣dring pilgrimes, which are of no credit among wise∣men, yet all men may knowe, that those Christians con∣tinuing to this day, in the same religion, rites and ce∣remonies, that they did before such pretended submis∣sions, holding and doing manie things contrarie to the Romish religion and custome, which argueth plainly, that they neither were, nor meane to become mem∣bers of the church of Rome, and subiects to Popish re∣ligion, which they refuse to receiue in as manie points, as euer they did. Wherefore the Popish church re∣maineth still shut vp within the streites of Europe, for any accession of them. And what enlargement so euer it hath in the newe world, it is rather by colonies of Portingals & Spaniardes, than by conuersion of those barbarous nations. For as for them that were for feare of death compelled to receiue baptisme, as manie of the barbarous people haue been, no true Catholike can ac∣knowledge for good and Catholike Christians, who as occasion alwayes serued them, spared not to giue suffi∣cient testimonie of their counterfeit conuersion, where∣by it appeared, that the sacrament of baptisme was in them prophaned, rather than that they by it were san∣ctified. As for my bad answere to Howlet, as it seemeth was so sufficient, that neuer a Papist these two yeares can finde time to confute it. Although if they thought it too bad to confute, there hath beene since a better set forth with more aduise, by master Wyborne, but the replie we shall haue at greater leasure, the Howlet as I gesse being otherwise occupied in defence of his Cen∣sure, for that his proude stomack had rather play the Iudge than the defendant.

The next quarell followeth in the thirde lease after, where he approueth I. Nicols affirming, as he sayeth, that Purgatorie, prayer for the dead, and inuocation of

Saints, are late inuentions of Popes & Papists.

Where∣as his owne companions, namely Fulke in his late an∣swere to doctor Allen and doctor Bristowe confesseth that all these three errours were receiued in the church aboue 1200. yeares, that is in the times of Augustine, Ierome, Ambrose and vpwarde, and that these fathers with other beleeued them also. If to those three do∣ctors which he named,

he had not added vpward, I must haue abated one hundred yeres at least of his account. But now let vs see, what I haue confessed of these do∣ctors and vpward. First against Purgatorie, page 306. But whosoeuer shall vouchsafe to turne the booke to that page, shall finde neuer a word of my writing, good or bad, but onely the first section of the ninth Chapter of Allens second booke. Wel, this may be the printers fault, peraduenture it is page 106. because it is not like that 306. should come before 115. the next quotation that followeth, but neither is there any thing to this purpose. Then let vs see what may be founde page 115. euen as much as in page 306. for there is neuer a worde of my writing in that page, but all is Allens. 8. chapter of the first booke. Then come we to the thirde quotation page 316. and there in deede is something sounding to∣ward this matter, touching prayer for the dead, which Augustine did allowe, but of purgatorie there is no∣thing. Of inuocation of Saints there is mention, but no affirmation that Augustin did beleeue it, for in the next page followeth a discourse to prooue that S. Augustine, as he declareth in his booke De cura pro mortuis &c. was not certaine how the Saints departed should knowe a∣ny thing that is done in this worlde, although he in∣clined to that opinion, that they might haue know∣ledge by relation of dead men, or of Angels, or else hee knoweth not howe, and so doth plainly confesse. From hence we must passe to page 320. where in deede, I doe confesse that Ambrose alloweth prayer for the dead, as it was a common error of his time, but not sacrifice of

the masse in that sense that Papistes do. Last of all. Ar••. page 39. I denie, that for 200. yeares after Christ, it can be prooued, that any Catholike writer doth allow praier for the dead, or inuocation of Saints, and that the later error was not confirmed 400. yeares after Christ, name∣ly in Saint Augustines time, in that small helpe was ac∣knowledged by Chrysostome, to come to the dead by prayers made for them. In all those places S. Ierome is not once named, nor purgatorie confessed to bee receiued, whereof S. Augustine the laste of the three sometime doubteth, sometime vtterly denyeth any third place: neither did I euer cōfesse, that any of those three errors were holden by these auncient fathers in all respects, as they are by the Papistes, nor that purga∣torie was euer beleeued of any of them, onely Augu∣stine sometimes speaketh of it, as of a doubtful matter,* 1.6 which he sayeth may be inquired, whether there be a∣ny such place or no: and yet confuted those interpre∣tations of the scriptures which the Papistes make their chiefest groundes of it. By this you may see, how libe∣rall this Iesuite is in extending my confession further than euer it was made or meant by mee, or can be pro∣ued by him or any Papist of them all.

The third leafe againe, after this, he saieth that Ni∣cols by citing a place of Augustine, woulde haue men thinke that S. Augustine disallowed prayer to Saints, which is contrarie to Fulkes opinion, who confesseth Augustine to haue defended this superstition, as hee termeth it, and rayleth on him for it. For this is quo∣ted Purg. pag. 315. 316. 317. Howe hee gathereth, what Nicols would haue men thinke, let other men iudge. And what mine opinion is of Augustines allowing of prayer to Saints, I haue before expressed out of the places quoted: but where he sayeth, I raile on him for it, that is but a fryers report, which seldome differeth from a lie. For this is all I say of him for it. By such places as I haue in those pages cited out of Augustine,

it is proued,

that although Augustine were willing to maintaine the superstition, that was not throughly con∣firmed in his time, about burials and inuocation of Saints, yet he hath nothing of certeintie out of the worde of God, either to perswade his owne conscience, or to satisfie them that moued the doubtes vnto him.

Whether in these wordes I haue rayled, I submit my selfe to the iudgement of the reader, that will weigh what I haue cited out of S. Augustine, in the pages mentioned.

In the same leafe, and the next page, the margent is painted with quotations out of my booke against Pur∣gatorie. But what thinke you to proue? Forsooth, that his aduersaries do confesse all the olde fathers to be on their side, and to haue erred with them,

as Fulke doth of S. Ambrose, Austen, Tertullian, Origen, Chrysostom, Gregorie, and Bede by name, with most reprochefull and contemptuous words against them. This is spoken generally,

as though we confesse all the doctors to bee on their side, in euery controuersie, which we doe not acknowledge to be true in any one, although many of the later sort do in some part fauour one or two errours of theirs among an hundreth. But let vs examine his prooues, which seeme to be verie plentifull, yet of nine quotations I must needes strike out two, page 306. and 279. because in them is not one syllable of my writing, but all of Allens. In the pages 315. & 316. is nothing more contained touching this matter, than I haue al∣readie declared. There remaineth nowe, page 349. where I say touching a rule of S. Augustine, which hee giueth to trie faith and doctrine of the Church onely by the scripture, that if he had as diligently followed it,

in examining the common error of his time, of prayer for the dead, as he did in beating downe the schisme of the Donatistes, or the heresie of the Pelagians, hee woulde not so blindly haue defended that which by holy scrip∣ture he was not able to maintaine, as he doeth in that

booke De Cura pro mortuis agenda, and else where.

What most reprochefull or contemptuous wordes are here a∣gainst S. Augustine? Seeing the holie scripture is a light shining in a darke place, as S. Peter sayeth, who so goeth without it must walke blindly, which I say in commen∣dation of the light of the scripture, not in contempt of Augustines reason, whome as I may not honour, with contempt of the trueth: so when he is a patrone & main∣tainer of the truth, I honour him from my heart. Like∣wise page 78. Saint Ambrose is named, but nothing ac∣knowledged to fauour any popish errour. Augustine is againe noted speaking of the amending fire, whereof he hath no ground, but in the common errour of his time, and whereof he affirmeth sometimes, that it is a matter that may bee doubted of, sometimes that there is no third place at all. Wherefore this place hath neither re∣prochful wordes, nor confession of any constant opini∣on of Augustine, inclining to your errours.

Then let vs passe to the next place which is page 435. where con∣cerning this matter, I haue written thus: I denie that any of the auncient fathers in Christs time, or scholers to his Apostles, or within one or two hundreth yeares after Christ, except one that had it of Montanus the heretike, as he had more things beside, in any one word, maintained your cause for purgatorie or prayers for the dead. Secondly of them that maintained prayers for the dead, the most confessed, they had it not out of the scriptures, but of tradition of the Apostles, and cu∣stome of the church, therefore they are not to be com∣pared vnto vs in better vnderstanding of the scriptures, for that point, which they denyed to be receiued of the scriptures. Thirdly, those of the auncient fathers that agreed with you in any part of your assertion (for none within 400. yeares was wholly of your errour) notwith∣standing manie excellent gifts that they had, yet main∣tained other errors beside that, and about that, diffen∣ted one from another, and sometime the same man

from himselfe, and that is worst of all, from manifest truth of the holy scriptures. Therefore neither is their erronious interpretation in this matter to be receiued, nor M. Allens wise iudgement of vs to bee regarded.

Here also I appeale to the iudgement of indifferent readers, what confession I haue made of the fathers to be on their side, or what reprochefull or contemptuous wordes I haue vsed against them, for dissenting from vs. The next place is quoted, page 247. where I say against Allen, boasting of auncient testimonies, for prayer for the dead:

I will not denie but you haue much drosse and dregges, of the later sort of doctors, & the later, the fuller of drosse. But bring me any worde out of Iustinus Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandri∣nus, or any that did write within one hundreth yeares after Christ, that aloweth prayer or almes for the dead, & I will say you are as good as your word.

Here except he will cauil, that I acknowledge much drosse and dregs to be in the later sort of doctors, I knowe not what hee findeth that hath any shadowe of his slander. But the trueth must be confessed, that the pure waters of life are to be founde onely in the worde of God, and beside that the best and purest liquors that are to bee seene, are not cleare from all dregges and drosse of humane error and frailtie. In the next page Origen deliuered from the shamefull mangling of Allens allegation, is shewed plainly to be an enimie of purgatorie & prayer for the dead, in that he affirmeth the day of a Christian mans death to be the ende of all sorrowe, and the beginning of all felicitie. There remaineth nowe the last place quoted, page 194. where I acknowledge, that Grego∣rie, Bernard, & Bede, vpon the text Matth. 12. are of opinion that sinnes not remitted in this world, may be remitted in the world to come. But how happeneth it (say I) that Chrysostome & Ieronyme which both in∣terpreted that place, could gather no such matter, al∣though they otherwise allowed prayer for the dead.

The reason must needes be, because the errour of pur∣gatorie growing so much the stronger, as it was neerer to the full reuelation of Antichrist, Gregorie and Bede sought not the true meaning of Christ in this scripture, but the confirmation of their plausible error.

Here is all the confessions, most reprochefull & contemptuous wordes, that are conteined in so manie of those places as he hath quoted, in which I will not tarrie to rehearse how manie vntruthes he hath vttered against mee, but wish the indifferent reader to consider, that if he be so bolde to slander mee concerning a booke printed in English, by which he may be conuinced of euerie sim∣ple reader, what dare he not aduouch of matters done and past at Rome, whither none may trauell to trie out his tretcherie, but he is in manifest danger neuer to re∣turne the answere of his message?

From this Popish Parson whatsoeuer his name be, I must passe to another gentleman namelesse in deede, but not blamelesse, yea much more blame worthie than the other: who among so manie and so great flanders, as it is wonder howe they could bee conueyed into so* 1.7 small a booke, against our prince, her lawes, her coun∣cellors, her iudges, her officers, the nobilitie, the com∣minaltie, the church, the gouernors, the pastors, & the people thereof, against all states & persons of the land, in whome there is religion towardes God, ioyned with dutie towarde their prince and countrie, hath founde yet some emptie corners where he might place me in particular. And first of all, page 46. of his Latine Epi∣stle, after he hath described the manner of quartering vsed in the execution of traytors, and most impudently flandered the officers of Iustice, to make such haste in cutting downe the Papistes, which are hanged, as they vse not in punishment of other traytours, to the ende they might satisfie their cruel minds in their torments, which is proued false by manie thousand eye witnesses, that haue not lightly seene any of them reuiue with

any sense of their paynes, except one Storie, who also did hang so long before he was cut downe, that it was great wondering to manie to see him so soone recoue∣red, not onely in life, but also in strength. At length he commeth in his tragical manner, to inueigh against the crueltie of their aduersaries, whome this cruell sight doth nothing at all moue to pitie, but they laugh and make sport at it,

and insult against them that are a dy∣ing. But especially (saieth hee) if any ouercome with paine, hath giuen foorth any groning which yet happe∣neth most seldome, so one of them no meane prea∣cher in a certeine imprinted booke, doeth gather that ours are not true martyrs, because one of them (as he himselfe affirmeth) gaue foorth a certaine howling as of an helhound, that I may vse his owne wordes. O sen∣tence worthie of a preacher! O new charitie of the new gospel! What ruffinaly theefe at any time hath not blushed to vtter such a voice? What murtherer did euer shewe a minde so cruell and barbarous?

This froth of wordes I might easily match with like rhetoricall ex∣clamations. O impudent lyer, O shamelesse slanderer▪ O trayterous backbyter, &c. But I had rather beat it downe with trueth of matter. Bristowe in his booke of Motiues, maketh Martyrs his 15. Motiue. Among whome hee commendeth as well for the goodnes of their cause, as also for their patient suffering:

The good Earle of Northumberland (I vse his owne traiterous wordes) Storie, Felton, Nortons, Woodhouse, Plom∣tree, and so manie hundreths of the Northeren men,

whome approued by miracles vndoubted he opposeth against Foxes martyrs as he calleth them. Against this traiterous commendation of open rebels and traitors, among other things thus I haue written, Retent. page 59.

Seeing not the paine but the cause, maketh a mar∣tyr, whosoeuer haue suffered for treason and rebellion, may well be accounted Martyrs of the popish church, but the church of Christ condemneth such for enimies

of Christes kingdome, and inheritours of eternall de∣struction, except they repent and obteine mercie for their horrible wickednesse. And seeing patient suffe∣ring is by Bristowes owne confession, a gift of God vnto all true martyrs, such as were manifestly voyde of pa∣tience can be no true martyrs, as were most of these re∣bels and traitors, and Storie by name: who for all his glorious tale, in the time of his most deserued execu∣tion by quartering, was so impatient, that he did not onely roare and crye like an helhound, but also strake the executioner doing his office, and resisted as long as strength did serue him▪ being kept downe by three or foure men, vntill he was dead. O patient martyr of the popish church!

What cause had this slaunderous spirite vppon these my wordes, to make such hydeous outcryes, what theefe? what ruffian? what murderer? or what matter is ministred in this my saying, to accuse all the aduersaries of Papistes in England, of such bar∣barous crueltie? We are not so voide of humanitie, but we lament y^e miserie euen of our greatest & most grace∣les enimies: but yet wee are not so voide of vnderstan∣ding, to acknowledge impatient suffering to bee true martyrdome, no not if the cause were neuer so good. Not that wee thinke true martyrs to be voide of sense and feeling of their torments, or that they may not te∣stifie their paines, euen with teares and strong crying sometimes, but that there is a great difference between the crying of patient martyrs vnto God for strength & comfort, and the brutish roaring of impatient sufferers, expressed only with paine and torment, as was this of Storie, who vttered no voice of prayer in all that time of his crying (as I heard of the verie executioner him∣selfe, beside them that stoode by) but onely roared and cryed as one ouercome with the sharpnes of the paine, as no martyr is, whome God is faithfull to deliuer out of temptation: so that although they haue neuer so great sense of their torment, yet are they neuer ouer∣come

thereby. But peraduenture this orator for the popish traytors, wil take me vp, for concluding against Storie, that he did not pray, because no voice of prayer was heard to come from him▪ as though I could not consider, that he was immediatly before strangled, so that the passage of his voice might be stopped, that al∣beit that roaring were his prayer, yet it might not bee vnderstood by them which heard it. In deede if there had beene no other signe of his impatiencie, but his cry∣ing, I would not haue beene bolde to haue iudged ther∣of, and made him an example of impatiencie, as I did. But what patient martyr euer strake his tormentor? Who praying for his persecutors, would striue to buffet and beat them. What man submitting himselfe to the will of God in his suffering, would resist the executio∣ners that he might not suffer? yea, when there was no remedie but he must suffer? except God for his crueltie shewed against his patient saints, had not onely giuen him a taste of such torments as he procured to others, but also made him an open spectacle of the impatient & vncomfortable state of them, that suffer, not in a good cause, and with a good conscience. By this it is manifest how honestly this proctor of the persecuted Papistes re∣porteth, that vpon a litle groning I gather that hee was no true martyr, and further rayleth as his facultie well serueth him.

The like honest dealing and trueth is shewed in the English translation of this pamphlet, toward the latter ende, where hee speaketh of certaine imprisoned & py∣ned with famine at Yorke. There in the margent, Fulke is placed, as though he had beene author or exe∣cuter of some persecution at Yorke, neere to which ci∣tie, he neuer came by 40. miles. But this will be excu∣sed perhaps by the printers fault, because it is not men∣tioned in the Latine. Howsoeuer it be, it argueth a lying and a slaunderous stomack of the setters foorth of this treatise, that would suffer so open and so appa∣rent

a slander, to passe vncorrected being in such a place where it could not escape their sight and knowledge.

But the storie of the conference at Wisbich, is a wor∣thie matter, wherein not onely this rhetoritian, but al∣so the confuter of M. Charke (if they be not both one Parson, as I gesse they be) haue thought good to exer∣cise their stile. The trueth whereof is this, as it is easie to be prooued in euery respect by sufficient testimonies. It pleased the Lordes and other of her maiesties coun∣cell, after those obstinate recusantes were committed to safe keeping in Wisbich castell, to direct their let∣ters to the Bishoppe of Elye (in whose diocesse and ca∣stle the prisoners were kept) requiring him to prouide, that they might haue conference, if they would admit any, and be called vppon to come to the Church, and heare the preaching there: whereupon the Bishoppe making choise of me, among other whom he purposed to sende vnto them, desired mee by his Chauncellor M. Doctor Bridgewater, to repayre vnto him into the Isle, from whence he sent me with a gentleman of his house, to signifie to them that had the charge of those prisoners, the cause of my comming. Whereupon en∣sewed that speeche in the presence of certaine honest men specially called and required to be witnesses, be∣sides a number of other of good credite, the summe wherof as it was written at the present time, by three or foure that came with mee, of which one is a learned preacher, was collected to certifie the Bishop as neere as could be, what communication had passed betweene vs, without any further purpose of publishing the same. But the copie thereof comming into the handes of a friende of mine at London, and by him communicated to some other of his friendes, at last came into a prin∣ters hande, who sodenly set it abroade vnknowing to my friende and me. Which how well it was liked of me & my friende, some of the best of the companie of Stationers can testifie, by that, meanes was made to

haue the printer punished, and hadde not Campions proude and vaine chalenge come euen in the nicke, I could not haue beene perswaded by my friendes, to haue suffered the partie to goe so cleare as he did. This is the whole truth & euery part thereof, which if this dainty orator durst shew his face in any honest presēce in England, may be prooued by such sufficient witnesse and euidence, as no reasonable person coulde refuse. Notwithstanding let vs see, what a rhetorical lier with∣out feare of God, or shame of the worlde, without knowledge of the matter, or meanes to haue intelli∣gence, can deuise to publish in the face of the world, to bolster the obstinacie of those wilfull recufants, and to deface the honest indeuour of them that seeke first to reforme them, and if that can not be, to take away ex∣cuse of ignorance from them. There is a certaine mi∣nister (sayth he) great in his owne opinion, but in other mens opinion but meane, &c. Marke how boldly euen in the beginning he blusheth not to affirme, that which it is impossible for him to knowe. For albeit I were as great in mine owne opinion, as he reporteth me to be, yet howe coulde hee bee priuie to my concept, who though he knowe my person, yet is he not acquainted with my maners, that hee might make coniecture by them. Neither is it like, he can heare it by report of o∣ther men. For I trust they which knowe me most fa∣miliarly, cannot report, that my behauiour argueth any such great opinion of my selfe. But he gathereth it per∣haps either by my preaching, or by my writing. What skill I haue in any thing God knoweth best, and then they with whom I liue. And that I make as litle shewe of that I knowe, as any man in such cases may conue∣niently, I answere, they that haue most cause to vnder∣stand what I am, will not refuse to testifie. That he sayth I am meane in other mens opinions, it greeueth me no∣thing: rather I am afraide least a great number accept me to be better than I deserue. But to omitte this mat∣ter,

by which yet you may gather, what likelihoode of trueth is in the rest of his assertions, he proceedeth to accuse me that for hope of a litle vaineglorie, by con∣tending with noble men, cum magnatibus (so the honest subiect calleth Watson the Bishop, and Fecknam the Abbot so long since by lawefull authoritie depriued of those dignities) I crept secretly into the castle vnloo∣ked for. But if my comming were of hope to winne glorie, why did I not rather come openly, or cause them to be brought into the Church before the whole multitude? Well, admit I was so blinde with desire of vaineglorie that I could not see▪ which way I might best come to it. Why should he say that I crept into the castle, as it were by stealth? Belike because I came without authoritie, for so he sayth afterwarde, the pa∣pistes sawe that I came to offer them conference by no publike authoritie. If that had beene so, howe coulde this stande which he sayth, Sisti iubet omnes ad s••••m con∣spectum, he commandeth them all to be brought into his presence. Did he commaund them by his priuate au∣thoritie? or were they which had them in custody so simple, that they would obey an vnknowne person, a meane man, of small or no account, comming without authoritie or commanding in his owne name, or pre∣tending the name of them that had authoritie without sufficient warrant? or rather was it not well saide, that a lyer in a large tale is the best confuter of himselfe? Although in verie truth, I gaue no commandement for their appearance before me, onely the bishoppes will was declared by the gentleman his seruant, vnto their keeper. But what should I stande to rippe vp those va∣nities? All reasonable conditions of bookes, time and order for the conference were offered them. To con∣clude, I am certainely perswaded, that something per∣haps the disdaine of my person, but more the feare of the weakenesse of their cause stayed them, that they would not aduenture their credit in triall by disputati∣on.

For if the contempt of my lightnesse and rashnesse (as their proctor sayeth) had beene the onely cause of their refusall, why did they not yeelde to dispute in the vniuersitie in which are many of more grauitie or lear∣ning, yea why did they conclude in the ende that all disputation in matters of faith, was vnprofitable, allea∣ging examples of the disputation in the conuocation house, in the beginning of the Queenes maiesties raigne▪ and the conference at Westminster in presence of almost all the learned and wise of the realme in the beginning of her maiesties reigne? For the publishing of the report and the certeinty of the contents thereof, I haue shewed sufficiently, as the truth of the matter was, and as I will be able to iustifie by good witnesse, whatsoeuer this impudent lier hath aduouched to the cōtrarie. The same is also sufficient to confute the same slander repeted by the confuter of Maister Charke in Epist. pa. 9. concerning my onely looking into Wisbich castle, and printing a pamphlet in mine owne praise, where if I had fained matter for my prayse I might as well haue faigned, howe valiantly I had vanquished mine enemies. For small praise is gotten where there is no victory, & victory can be none where there is no bat∣tell. The like slander he hath, but with more wordes of reproch pag. 2. of his defense, where beside his ruffian∣like rayling, which is a greater fault in him that repro∣ueth others, for intemperate speech, there is nothing more in substance, but that I did set foorth that pam∣phlet in mine owne commendation, and I attempted the matter without authoritie, wherein without all rhe∣torike I must tell him plainely, hee lyeth impudently. As for the disputation he sayth they haue sued for in se∣ditious maner, and for a purpose of seditiō by Campion their valiant champion▪ for other suite they cannot prooue that euer they made, or by any other meanes that euer I hearde of, howe like it is they would sewe for it we may knowe by this, that they would not accept it

when it was offered, and howe well it was discharged by Campion their lusty chal••nger, when he could not refuse it, there be many both wise and learned witnes∣ses, that can testifie, to the reproofe of such impudent reportes, as haue beene bruted in popish pamphlets, by ignorant asses: to whom their owne champion is so litle beholding, that they haue for the most part made his answere a great deale more absurde, and further from shewe of learning, than in deede it was. But if you be so sharpe set vpon disputation, as you pretende, why doth neuer a papist of you all aunswere my cha∣lenge made openly in print to all learned papists, al∣most three yeere ago, set before my Retentiue against Bristowes Motiues, wherein you may expresse, what you haue in mainteinaunce of your opinion, without suite, without danger, and to the best and surest try all of the trueth. But nowe it is time to come to other cauilles of this syrly censurer. They are of two sorts, the one concerning wordes, the other touching matter. I will beginne first with the wordes, and as neere as I can readily finde them, I wil quote the places of my bookes where I haue vsed them. And letting the reader see what cause moued mee sometimes to such vehement termes, I referre it to his iudgement. whether I haue passed the bondes of modestie, or equitie, yea or nay. First he chargeth me with a ruffianlike spirite, because I say to Allen: Shewe me Allen if thou canst for thy guttes. pag. 241. In that place I answere to Allen, which scornefully biddeth the Papistes say vnto vs:

M. Pro∣testant, let me haue sight of your onely fayth, I would be of that religion, &c.

that Iames calleth pure and vn∣spotted, &c. Whiles he requireth a sight of our fayth by our good workes, I aunswere that because the tryall of singular persons is vncertaine, and vnpossible, let vs consider the whole states. Then followeth: Shewe me if thou canst for thy guttes, or name any popish citie, that hath made such prouision for the fatherlesse and

widowes, as the citie of London, &c. What speech is heare like a ruffian? Except the delicate censurer, can∣not abide to heare Allens guts named, but he thinketh it russianlike: as though he had neuer hearde of these phrases, ruparis licet, non si te ruperis inquit, rumpantur ut ilia Codro. In which, sauing the authoritie of this noble censurer, no wise man did euer conceiue any ruffianlike spirite. It sauoureth a great deale more of a ruffianlike spirite, that himselfe abuseth the phrases of the holie Ghost, to scorning and scoffing, as heare in the mar∣gent, Doctor Fulkes tallent in rayling, and pag. 50. Lu∣thers* 1.8 lying with a nunne in the lord, who but an atheist, would not abhor to speake so? But let vs examine what rayling he hath noted out of my Retentiue against Bri∣stowes Motiues. First, leaud Losell, and vnlearned dog∣bolt, which I finde pag. 6. where I say, that some of the Papistes were moderators of the conference at West∣minster, at least one:

namely, D. Heath then occupi∣ing the place of the Bishoppe of Yorke. Therefore not onely lay Lordes and vnlearned heretikes, as this leaude losell, and vnlearned dogbolt, and trayterous papist (I am bolde with him because he is so malepeart with the learned and godly nobilitie of England) most slaunderously and maliciously affirmeth, were onely moderators of that disputation, but some of the popish faction, were not onely present, but presidentes of that action, beside all the rest of the popish prelates, which then were of that parliament, for information whereof that conference was appointed.

I say let the reader iudge, whether hee haue not deserued those termes, that being but a man of verie meane learning, as his writinges declare, was not ashamed to call all the nobilities and cōmons of the parliament, lay lorde•• and vnlearned heretikes.

Againe, pag. 58. I call Bristowe a traiterous Papist, because he slaundereth our state not onely for publike execution of open rebelles and errant traytours, as the

Earle of Northumberlande, Storie, Felton, Nortons, Woodhouse, and so many hundreths of the northeren men, whom all hee calleth holy martyres, prooued by miracles vndoubted, but also with priuie murthe∣ring by poysoning, whipping, and famishing, what lesse I could haue sayde of him for this hygh treason openly printed, and what an honest Papist the censurer is for reproouing me in so terming him, I refer to the iudge∣ment of all Christian and faithfull subiectes.

To proceede I call him shamelesse beast pag. 18. be∣cause he maketh a shamlesse and beastly conclusion in those wordes: Whosoeuer haue at any time, set them∣selues against any doctrine confirmed by miracle, they haue beene against the trueth. There can to this no instance bee giuen: our doctrine which they resist hath beene confirmed by miracles, therefore playne it is that they are enemies of the trueth. Doe you not heare this shamelesse beast say (quod I) there can be no instance giuen against his proposition, when the Lorde himselfe giueth an expresse lawe against a false pro∣phet, which sheweth signes and miracles?

Deut. 13. &c. Weigh the terme with the desert of the person in this bolde assertion, and if it bee too extreme, I desire no fauour.

Yet againe pag. 10. I write thus: Where Luther con∣fesseth that the mockers of the true Church were com∣monly called heretikes, his conscience did not accuse him (as Bristowe sayde of him) that his side were here∣tikes. For hee was able to put a difference betweene him that by heretikes is called an heretike, and him that is so indeede: although Bristowe, either for his blockish wit cannot, or for his spitefull malice will not conceiue it.

Heere I doe not simply accuse his wit, but either his wit or his malice: and that one of them was to blame, if not both, euery wise man may see by his argument.

Furthermore, pag. 39. I say, he is an impudent asse,

which to stablish his grounde of custome, is not asha∣med to falsifie the wordes of holy scripture. For hee had said, that Saint Paul after many reasons 1. Cor. 11. for the vncomlinesse of womens going bareheaded, re∣coyleth to this inuincible fort: Si quis &c. But if any man seeme to be contentious, we haue no such custom (for women to pray vncouered) nor the church of God. His ignorance and impudence is manifest in this place. If the terme asse offende any man, let him consider that nothing but an ignorant person is noted thereby, as al∣so pag. 88. where hee is called a blinde bayarde and blockheaded asse, because he disdainefully vpbraydeth all our doctors, and vniuersities of much ignoraunce, and lacke of learning, and Caluine he sayth erred about the trinitie through ignorance, with such odious com∣parisons, as in so vaine and vnlearned a fellowe, as Bristowe sheweth himselfe to be, is intollerable.

To note his bolde ignorance also I sayd pag. 74.

The more beastly is the blundring of this Bristowe, who dreameth that the councell of Constantinople the first, which made this confession by the Apostolike Church, did not onely meane the Romaine Church, but also none other but the Romaine church: whereas the councell knowing well the catholike church of the worlde,

from the particular Church of Rome, gaue like priuiledges of honor to the Church of Constantinople to those which Rome had, reseruing onely senioritie to old Rome: beside many other reasons, they alleadged to prooue, that they acknowledged no such authoritie of the Church at Rome, as the papistes nowe defende.

Likewise pag. 89. I call him blundring Bristowe▪ for charging M. Iewell with ignoraunce, for affirming Christ to be a priest according to his deitie, of which as∣sertion I shal haue occasion to speake afterward against the last slander.

And pag. 75. where Bristowe sayth, that in all inno∣uations both great and small that euer by heretikes

were attempted, they can shewe vnder what pope they chanced, what tumultes rising in the world there∣on, what doctors withstande it, what councels accur∣sed it, &c. I reply thus:

What an impudent lyer is this Bristowe, to bragge of that, which at this day is vnpos∣sible to be done, by any man liuing in the worlde? For of so many heretikes as are rehearsed by Epiphanius and Augustine, not the one halfe of them can bee so shewed, as Bristowe like a blinde bayarde boasteth they can doe.

Yet more touching his ignorance pag. 43. I say Hie∣rome was not so grosse, to count walking about the ci∣tie, to be a peregrination. But what is so leaden or blockish, which these doltish papistes will not aduouch for the mainteinance of their trumperie?

This I write because Bristowe would haue Hierome, by often ente∣ring into the cryptes or vaultes of the Churches at Rome, to signifie, that he went on pilgrimage. Where the collector of the phrases doeth me some wrong, to say I call Bristowe leaden, blockish, and doltish Papist▪ where I say those doltish papistes which auouch any thing, neuer so leaden or blockish. Onely I require the indifferent reader to consider whether I haue iust cause to charge him with ignorance and impudence: as for the termes, I will not stande, either to iustifie them, or to reuoke them, but referre them to euery reasonable mans censure.

Furthermore pag. 48. I say that proude scoffe, of par∣liament religion, (which Bristowe vseth) bewrayeth the stomacke of a vanteparler, and not the spirite of a diuine, or good subiect. Heare I thinke the terme of vantparler, was too milde for such a knowne trayterous Papist, as commendeth open rebelles for martyres, as affirmeth that the Queenes subiectes are lawfully dis∣charged of the othe of obedience giuen to her maiestie, as derideth the religion established by parliament pag. 51. I say, the Papistes like impudent dogges, yelpe and

barke against vs, that the fathers are all on their side, because they haue sucked out of their writinges, a fewe dregges of a great quantitie of good liquor conteined in their vessels, hauing the fathers in the most and greatest matters wholly against them. And pag. 55. I say that Bristowe quarelling with D. Humfrey, yelpeth like a litle curre, against a great lion, and snatching pee∣ces of his sentences, gnawen from the rest, squeleth out as though hee had hearde some meruelous straunge soundes, &c. If this allegorie be too base for Bristowes dignitie, let him humble himselfe and craue pardon of his treasons, for I will doe no reuerence to a traytour, that openly bewrayeth himselfe in a printed booke, as he and other of his complices haue doone. A proude hypocrite priest, of stinking, greasie, antichristian and execrable orders, I cannot finde where I haue termed him, except I should reade ouer the whole booke: but if I haue vsed such speeches, I thinke they are no woorse than his wicked behauiour, & popish sacrificing priest∣hoode deserue to haue. Blasphemous heretike he giueth mee often occasion to call him, and namely pag. 81. where I reprooue him for calling the blessed sacrament his Lorde and God, which although transubstantiation were graunted, yet because the Papistes affirme, that this sacrament consisteth of accidentes, as the signe or externall part thereof, seeing accidentes are neither God nor in God, it could not be saide, without blasphe∣mie, that the sacramentis Lorde and God.

Next followe reprochfull termes vsed against Allen. The first, brasen face and yron foreheade, I doe not yet finde: but it signifieth nothing but notable impudence, which is noted pag. 23. where I call him impudent blas∣phemer because he had sayde of vs:

That to such as make no store of good workes, they cast onely faith vn∣der their elbowes to leane vpon: where as none of vs did euer teach that such a faith as is not liuely & fruit∣full of good workes,

did euer profite any man but to the

encrease of his damnation.

Againe pag. 24.

I note him to passe impudencie it self in shamelesse lying, where he sayth: Commit what you lyst, omit what you list, your preachers shall praise it in their wordes, and practise it in their workes.

Also pag. 147. I charge him with an impudent lye, where he saieth, that M. Caluine doeth expounde the oyle whereof Saint Iames speaketh cap. 5. for a medici∣nable salue or oyntment, to ease the sicke mans sore, when it is manifest, that Caluine vtterly reiecteth and confuteth that exposition. Likewise pag. 259. I con∣uince him of impudent lying, because he doth wilfully falsifie the decrees of two councels at a clappe, saying they excommunicate all such as in any wise hinder the oblations for the departed, when both the councelles Vase, and Carthage speak of them that detaine the ob∣lations or bequestes of the dead giuen to the church for the vse of the poore. These and many like shamelesse assertion••, doe prooue that he hath a brasen face and Iron foreheade, which shameth not to put in print such monstrous vntruthes, and wilfullyes. But let vs passe to other points. Where this impudent marchant Allen had rayled intollerably against the reuerende father M. Iewell, calling him the English bragger, one that in summer games might winne two games of cracking & lying, with like shamelesse stuffe:

I sayde and doe not a whitrepent me: Howe M. Iewell hath aunswered his challenge, his owne learned labours doe more clearely testifie vnto the worlde, than that it can be blemished by this sycophants brainelesse babling.

Moreouer pag. 343. where Allen had called that learned father M. Pilkington a mocke Bishoppe: I said▪ If he be a mocke Bishoppe, which beside his excellent learning, is also a paineful and diligent preacher of the gospell, what are those vnlearned asses, and retchlesse ruffi••ns of your sect, which haue nothing of a Bishop, but a rotchet and a myter? Such are many of the pre∣lates

of other countryes. Erasmus sayde that onely Englande had learned Bishoppes. Likewise I say that Allen rayleth like a ruffian at our ministers in the ruffe of their newe communion. pag. 259. The terme of scornefull caytife, I finde not, but well he deserueth it, by deryding and scoffing at such godly learned and ho∣norable fathers, as you may perceiue by that which I haue noted in him against the Bishops of Salisbury and Durisme, which is not yet the 40. part of his proude mockes and disdainefull gibes.

Desperate dicke I finde pag. 371. where Allen had picked a quarell to M. Pilkington of Durisme, as hee calleth him in his margent, scoffing at him in his text, that he was ashamed of his name, and therefore should loose the glorie of his assertion, &c. I aunswered: you would faine haue such a man to be your aduersarie, that though you tooke the foyle, yet you might boast, that you were so bolde as to fight with him. But it is an ea∣sier matter for such a desperate dicke to beginne a fraie than to ende it.

Pag. 97. where Allen saide, that Dauid seeketh to be better cleansed than by remission of sinnes only, and to haue his sinnes wholly blotted out, and to be made as white as snowe, by his owne suffering, which was not doone by Gods mercifull pardon in the sprinkeling of the bloude of Christ, I could not forbeare, but crie out, O horrible blasphemer. Likewise pag. 298. where hee challengeth to the popish clergy, the priesthoode after the order of Melchisedeck confirmed by an othe Psal. 110. which is peculiar onely to our sauiour Christ, I af∣firme it more horrible blasphemy, than euer turke or Iewe durst presume to boast of.

Also pag. 240. where we affirme, that mens workes must not presume to win heauen, nay to purge sinnes, nor to meddle with Christes worke of redemption and the office of onely fayth, which assertions Allen calleth corruptions of Christian cōditions, I say, it is a blaspho∣mous

barking of an horrible hell hounde. And I thinke I haue sayde nothing more hardely, than such a deui∣lish blasphemy deserueth to heare.

But leauing Allen, let vs come to Stapleton, where he sayeth, our preachers haue a newe tricke,

to make the audience crie, Amen. But to teares, to lamenting or bewailing of their sinnes, no Protestant yet moueth his audience, (which is such a lie, as the diuell in his owne person for his credites sake would bee ashamed to pro∣nounce) I say it is an olde tricke of a cancred stomac∣ked Papist. page 112.

To proceede, page 110. & 111. where Stapleton had alledged, that which Eusebius speaketh of a heauenly crowne of glorie the ornament of Gods friends and priests, to proue y^• antiquitie of Popish shauen crownes: I thought I had good reason to say, he is worthie to bee shorne on his poll with a number of crownes, that vn∣derstandeth this of a shauen crowne. And I aske if there be any blocke so senselesse, to thinke that Eusebius cal∣led a shauen head, the heauenly crowne of glorie?

Page 98. I sayd: They had in the first 600. yeres men that liued a solitarie life called Monachi, Anachoritae, He∣remitae, &c. but no more like our Popish boares, liuing in their frankes, than Angels are like diuels, noting the Epicurian markes of these last times.

Also page 103. where Stapleton had cited a falsified Canon of the Nicen Councell, confuted by the Greeke copies and the right translation of the Latine, by Ruf∣finus, by Peter Crabs confession. I conclude, But such draffe and dregges of falsifications, additions, detra∣ctions, mutatiōs, &c. are good ynough for popish swine.

Page 79. where he complaineth, that Protestants haue taken away Aucthoritie of making that which Christ bad them to make, in his last supper. I answere.

If you say you make the bodie of Christ, in such sense, as you affirme he sacrament to bee the bodie of Christ, Gods cursse light on you. For to say, they can make

the naturall bodie of Christ it is blasphemie, and there∣fore they are to be accursed. Otherwise I saide, The do∣ing of all that which Christ commaunded to be done in remembrance of him,

(which Hierome calleth making the bodie of Christ meaning the sacrament of his bo∣die) we take not away.

The terme of brasen faced Stapleton, I finde not, but notable impudencie proued by him in sundrie places. As page 28. where he is noted for charging the Prote∣stants to say: That these 900. yeares and vpwarde the church hath perished, it hath beene ouerwhelmed with idolatrie and superstition,

which is a lowd impudently, for the Protestants neuer saide so. Againe, page 39. where he is reproued for affirming Caluin to teach,

that God is the cause and author of euill, which blasphemie Caluine alwayes abhorreth and confuteth. Also page 40. he is conuicted of manie impudent slaunders. And page 46. where he sayeth the Protestants commonly call S. Gregorie that Antichrist, which I knowe not whether to impute it to impudence or madnes. These fewe examples among a great number, doe prooue that he deserueth the epithets of brasen faced or impudent Stapleton.

Page 77. I call him blockheaded papist, hauing often before detected his grosse ignorance, because hee scor∣neth at M. Haddon, as though he alledged prescription of 30. yeares continuance, except sixe of the Prote∣stants doctrine: whereas the Papistes as he saith haue 900. yeares.

Page 75. thus I write:

The myracles reported by M. Foxe, the shameles beast when he cannot deny, be∣ing testified by witnesses aboue all exception hee can make, affirmeth to be esteemed of his own fellowes but as ciuill things, and such as may happen by course of reason. I say not this as though I would haue our do∣ctrine to be credited one iote more, for any such mira∣cle, but to shewe the shameles dogged stomacke of this

Popish slaunderer, which when he had none other an∣swere to make, as concerning such miracles, forgeth that wee our selues denie all such to haue beene mira∣cles, which he is not able to prooue, although he would burst for malice against the truth.

The terme of grosse and beastly ignorance, although I finde not, yet I thinke I haue vsed, as I had often oc∣casion, whereof I will note one, that page 99. To proue the antiquitie of Augustine fryers, he translateth in S. Augustine frater a fryer, whereras that order began more than a 1000. yeares after S. Augustine, Anno Do∣mini 1406.

Finally, page 43. where he wil proue that the church of the Iewes neuer erred, because the high priestes an∣swered truelie of the natiuitie of Christ, and because Cayphas prophecied vnwittingly of y^e vertue of Christs death, I say there can be nothing more blockish, than such kinde of reasoning. Againe, where he sayeth, the whole synagogue, before the lawe of Christ tooke place, in necessarie knowledge of the lawe did neuer erre. For proofe of this (saide I) more like a blocke than a man, he bringeth such places of Scripture, as either shewe what the priestes duetie should be, but affirme not what their knowledge was,

or else prophecie a reformation of the corrupt state of the clergie from ignorance to knowledge. Last of all, I say, what drunken flemming of Doway would reason thus (as Stapleton doeth?) The Scribes and the Pharisees sate in Moses chaire, therfore the Synagogue did neuer, or not then erre. Whereas the false doctrine of the Scribes and Pharisees, concer∣ning adulterie, murther, swearing, the worship of God, not onely the person but also the qualitie of Messias & his kingdome, our Sauiour Christ him selfe so often and so sharply doeth reproue.

Thus haue I set downe the occasions of as many of these speaches as I could finde, except I should haue read ouer the whole bookes, that the indifferent rea∣der

may see, when they be in their proper places, they sound not so hardly, to prooue mee a rayler, as they seeme for the most part, by extreme malice, impudence, ignorance, vngodlines, disdainfulnes of the aduersaries to haue beene rather wrested from mee, than of any vn∣charitable affection vttered by mee. But in common ci∣uilitie, as our stately Censurer iudgeth, I should haue forborne these learned and reuerend men, which in ma∣nie respects to say the least, may be counted my equals: seeing these or the like termes, were not vsed amongst the Gentiles, nor of any honest or Christian writer since. I answere, ciuilitie is to be vsed with citizens, but not with traytors: learning and other good qualities to be respected in Christian Catholikes, or at the leastwise in them that are no professed enimies of Christian Ca∣tholike religion, not in malicious heretikes. For equa∣litie in learning I will not contende with them, but for superioritie in trueth. And yet as vnlearned as I am, let the proudest of them all, or this Censurer, whome in pride and disdainfulnes I thinke to passe them all, at∣taint mee of such ignorance, as I conuince these lear∣ned principall pillers of Poperie, in their seuerall prin∣ted bookes, in so manie books as I haue written against them: and then let mee iustly beare the reproche that I shall be proued to deserue. Where he saith these termes were not vsed among the Gentiles, (I will adde with approbation of Christians) nor of any honest or Chri∣stian writer since: his penne runneth before his me∣morie, if he haue read: or before his wit and modestie, if he haue not read, what both Gentiles against tray∣tours, and Christians against heretikes and traytours haue written. And if this issue might bee tryed in pre∣sence, I would not doubt but make his blushing coun∣tenance bewray his guiltie conscience. But of this mi∣nisters scurrilitie against manie men, he saith he might repeate a great deale more. I would hee might come foorth, and shewe what bull hee hath, to rayle, and vse

scurrilitie against all men, and yet condemne whome it pleaseth him of rayling scurrilitie. But because this minister answereth many men forsooth, one saide well of him, that he is the common posthorse of the Prote∣stants, to passe you any answere without a baite, against any Catholike booke which commeth in his way. This is euen as good, as because this Censurer slaundereth manie men, another might say of him, he is the cōmon packhorse of the Papistes, to carrie any fardell of lyes deuised against any Christian man or booke that com∣meth in his way, and the rather because he weareth a paire of winkers ouer his eyes like a milhorse, being a∣shamed to shewe either his face or his name. And more truely than of mee, for (with what speede soeuer) I passe no mans answere but mine owne: where as hee taketh vp the bundell of slanders, deuised by Staphylus, Eccius, Cocleus, Lindanus, Bolsec, and a number of o∣ther beside. But mine answeres are not passed in such hast as the replyes are returned with laisure, it seemeth the beastes that should bring them, are afraide of stum∣bling. Yet Martials epithetes remaine to be exami∣ned, who being a person so vile and absurde, to rayle so vnmeasurably and continually against that godly lear∣ned man M. doctor Calfhil of learned and Christian memorie, I was bolde in my Reioynder against him, to handle in part, according to his vertues.

In the beginning, which is page 121. of the volume, in consideration of his intollerable ignorance, arrogan∣cie & impudencie, which appeareth throughout all his booke, I say that whereas he termeth himselfe to bee a bachiler of the lawe, he is more like a wrangling petti∣fogger in the lawe, than a sober student in diuinitie, which also he professeth to be, for he doth in a manner nothing else but cauil, quarel, and scolde. Likewise in the verie ende of my booke, exhorting the Papistes for their credits sake, to make out a better champion here∣after, I tell them as the trueth is, that in this his replie,

he doth nothing in a maner but either construe like an Vsher, (as he was sometimes of Winchester schoole) or quarell like a dogbolt lawyer. To the same purpose, page 128. where master Calfehil said: If an Angel from heauen teache otherwise than the Apostles haue prea∣ched vnto vs, be he accursed: Martiall the quarelling lawyer findeth fault with his translation, because Euan∣gelizamus may be referred, as well to the disciples as to the Apostles, so that the disciples preaching are to bee credited as well as the Apostles.

No doubt (say I) if they preach the doctrine of the Apostles, of which the con∣trouersie is, and not of the persons that preached. But these quarels sir Bachiler, are more meete for the bum∣courts, where perhaps you are a prating proctor, than for the schooles of diuinitie. In this saying, if the terme of bumcourts seeme too light, I yeeld vnto the censure of graue and godly men.

Page 138. where Martiall citeth Constantinus for the commendation of his crosse, I say, he sheweth him selfe an egregious ignorant person. For the signe which the Emperour commended to be a healthfull signe and true token of vertue, was the name of Christ, expressed in the Charecter which he sawe. And page 154. where he maketh this syllogisme to prooue that in time of the Eliberin Councell, pictures were worshipped, which he sayeth, followeth necessarily vpon the words of the Ca∣non thus: That was worshipped that was forbidden to be painted on the walles: but pictures were forbid∣den to be painted on the walles, ergo pictures were wor∣shipped. Answere master Calfe. Hereunto I reioyne. Who would haue thought that an vsher of Winchester and student in Louaine that teacheth vs (as he said) an olde lawyers point, would also teach vs a newe Logike point, to conclude affirmatiuely in the second figure, & that all vpon particulars? Answere master Calfe, quod Martiall. Nay aunswere goose to such an argument. And reason who will with such an asse any longer about

this matter, for I will hearken to his law, seeing his Lo∣gike is no better.

If sir Censurer will defende this syllogisme, & prooue it to be good and lawfull, I will reuoke my termes.

Page 142. where he sayeth, that bread and wine of the sacrament haue no promise, I tell him he lyeth like an arrogant hypocrite, for bread and wine haue as good promise in the one sacrament as water in the other.

Pag. 178. where M. Calfebill had distinguished tra∣ditions into some necessarie, some contrary to the worde, some indifferent: I say Martiall like an impu∣dent asse, calleth on him to shewe in what scripture, doctor, or councell he findeth this distinction of tradi∣tions. As though a man might not make a true distin∣ction in disputation, but the same must bee founde in so many wordes, in scripture, doctor, or councell, when he himselfe cannot denie, but the distinction is true, and euery part to be founde in the scriptures, doctors, and councelles.

Pag. 133. I call Martiall blockeheade and shamelesse asse, because he would proue, that the spirite of God is not iudge of the interpretation of the scriptures: be∣cause Paule and Barnabas in the controuersie of cir∣cumcision, went not to the worde and spirit, but to the Apostles, and elders at Ierusalem.

Also pag. 213. I call him asseheade, because he sayth that M. Calfehill condemneth his doctrine of only faith iustifying, when he affirmeth that outwarde profession is necessarie for euery Christian man.

Likewise pag. 215. where Martiall would learne whe∣ther M. Calfehill kneeling downe before his father to aske him blessing, did not commit Idolatrie? I say hee is an asse that can not make a difference betweene ci∣uill honour and religious worship.

Pag. 202. I call not onely Martiall, but all Papistes shamelesse dogges and blasphemous Idolaters, which mainetaine, and make vowes to Images, which trauell

to them, and offer vp both prayers and sacrifices, of candels, money, Iewels, and other thinges vnto Ima∣ges. Whose Idolles haue giuen answeres, haue wagged their heades and lippes.

Pag. 198. I say he rayleth vpon Caluine, like a ruffi∣on and slandereth him like a deuill, because hee sayeth a shippe would not carrie the peeces of the crosse that are shewed in so many places, which yet is confirmed by testimonie of Erasmus.

Pag. 170. where Martiall goeth about to proove that the sacramentes are no helpes of our fayth, I said, Did you euer heare such a filthy hogge grunt so beastly, of the holie sacramentes, that they should be no helpes of our faith?

These are as many of the speeches noted by the censurer, as I can finde, wherein I trust the indifferent reader, weighing vpon what cause they were vttered, will not so lightly condemne me for a rayler, seeing to rayle is of priuate malice to reuile them, that deserue no reproch, and not of zeale in defence of truth, to vse vehement and sharpe speeches, as all the prophets, and the mildest spirited men that euer were haue vsed a∣gainst the aduersaries thereof. But the most heynous accusation is behinde, that I call Staphylus a counsellor to an Emperour rascall. I might answere as S. Paul did, when hee was reprooued for calling the high priest, painted wall: Brethren, I knewe not y^t he was an Empe∣rors counsellor: or in very deede, I know nothing in him worthy to be an honest mans counsellour. But seeing it pleased an Emperour to accept him, it is as great a fault, as if an enemie of meane condition, should call an English counsellour, rascall. So sayth our sharpe cen∣surer. But if he meane those that be of the Queenes maiesties priuie counsell, I will not say he playeth the rascall, but either the ignorant foole, or the malicious vile person to cōpare y^• Apostata Staphylus, euen in his counsellership, with the meanest of their honors. For

they that knowe the maner of the princes of Germanie and of other foreine princes can testifie, that persona∣ges of meane estate, only being learned in y^e lawes, are accepted of the Emperour and other states, as their counsellours, whose counsell perhapes they neuer vse, but may if it please them, as of counsellors at lawe. So that one man is counseller to the Emperour, and to many other princes. As for example, Lutolphus Schra∣derus doctor of both lawes, was ordinary professor in the Vniuersitie of Frankeforde, and counsellour of the Emperor, of the Elector, & Marquis of Brandeburge, of the dukes of Brunswich, Luneburge, Megelburge, and of many other princes of Germanie. This was a very great and wise man, but Cassanaeus in Cat. glor. ••••••di, part. 10. Consid. 41. sayth, that euery simple aduo∣cate did vse to call him selfe the kinges counseller of Fraunce, before order was taken, that none should v∣surpe that title, except he were called vnto some office in the courtes. And speaking of such as were counsel∣lers in office, in his time, of whose dignity hee writeth much, he complayneth that they were promoted vnto that dignitie in parliamentes, by meanes of money, or some other vnknowen meanes part. 7. Conf. 13. Such a noble counseller was Staphylus, hauing some know∣ledge in the lawes, being preferred to that title by the Papists of fauour more than of worthinesse to giue him some shadowe of countenaunce, when hee became an Apostata from true religion, and from those Christian princes and noble men, by whom he was before vphol∣den. And yet in trueth, if the printer had not mistaken my writing, I called him Renegate and not rascall, as before I called him beastly Apostata. Perhaps the cen∣surer will say, I mende the matter well to call an Empe∣rors counseller, a beastly Apostata. But so might I haue done, though he had beene an Emperour himselfe, for what else was Iulian the Emperor but a beastly Aposta∣ta or Renegate from Christian religion which once he

professed? Yea such an Apostata is worse than a beast, for he declareth himselfe thereby to bee a reprobate. Therefore the Christians in his time, whereas the church had alwayes vsed to pray for heathen tyrantes, that helde the empyre, and made hauocke of the church by persecution, contrariwise prayed against this Apostata, that God would confound him and shorten his time. Yea the godly constant Bishops, did openly inueigh against him, as Mares Bishop of Chalcedon, which openly called him impious, Atheist & Apostata. And when Iulian counterfaiting mildenes did nothing but reuile him by his blindenesse, saying the Galilean thy God cannot cure thee, he answered, I thanke my* 1.9 God Christ, that I am blinde, that I might not see one so voyde of godlinesse as thou art. Therefore Staphy∣lus being but an Emperours counseller, as he was, ••••y endure to heare worse for his Apostasie, than I haue spoken against him.

The quarell of wordes being ended, it is time to goe to the matter. First pag. 14. of his aunswer to Maister Charkes preface, he noteth that D. Fulke against Bri∣stowes Mot. pa. 98. findeth, that it is euident by scrip∣ture, that heretikes may bee burned, against Luther. That blasphemous heretikes are to be put to death, I finde in scripture, by the lawe of blasphemers Leu. 24. and by the lawe of false prophetes Deut. 13. neither doth Luther (I thinke) denie, but the equitie of the same lawes doth still remaine, although not euery one that erreth obstinately, ought to bee delt with so ex∣tremely. Also pag. 82. of that booke I say, that all pro∣testantes are one in God and Christ, their redeemer, from which vnitie, dissention about ceremonies can∣not separate them: and yet I except such schismatikes as delight in contention. The controuersie betweene Luther and vs, doth not hinder vs from this vnitie, al∣though Luther and other of preposterous zeale of godlinesse, do otherwise account of vs, which errour is

of infirmitie and not of malice.

The pag. 23. of the same aunswere, there is another charge where I say: that text, Vow ye and render your vowes to the Lorde, is a text that pertaineth to the old Testament, meaning that it must haue the exposition according to the lawe, of such thinges as God did al∣lowe and were in mens power to perfourme. For what if a man vowed to sacrifice a dogge? What say wee to Iepthes rash vowe? To the vowe of them that vowed to kill Paul? Our censurer reporteth my wordes,

that this text belongeth onely to the olde Testament, as though I sayde, there was no vse of it in the newe Testament.

There is one lie by addition. In the same place to the text, If thou wilt bee perfect, goe and s••ll what thou hast, &c. I say, it is a singular triall, to that one person. F•••• euery man is not bounde so to doe, yet our censu∣r•••• cauileth, that so all the other wordes spoken to that young man, may be restrained and made singular, as whatsoeuer else was spoken to any singular person. As though my reason were, that therefore it was singular, because it was spoken to one man. As if wee had not generall lawes and rules to knowe what is enioyned to all men, what to some men, and what to a singular person. In the next pag. 24. hee quarelleth at my expo∣sition of the saying of S. Iames cap. 2. that a man is iustified of workes, and not of faith onely. Where I say, workes, are not denyed to iustifie before men, and one∣ly faith without workes, is thought to iustifie before God, Rom. 3. This he calleth a poore deuise, because Saint Iames talking of faith without workes, sayth it cannot saue a man. Nay rather this is a poore cauill. For S. Iames talketh of another kinde of faith, as well as of an other kind of iustification, when his saying see∣meth to be contradictory to Saint Paule. And that in the place in question hee meaneth iustification before men as in the other place a fayth voyde of good works, it is manifest, both by his owne wordes: Shewe me thy

faith by thy workes, and also by the example of Abrahams tryall, which was not to enforme God of his iustificati∣on, but to giue testimony before men.

Pag. 25. to shewe how protestants deny all fathers, he bringeth me for an example in many places. First he sayth, the consent of ancient fathers is alleaged, at∣tributing superioritie to Peter, vpon that text Math. 16. Thou art Peter, &c. This he sayth I auoyde very lightly, saying that diuerse of the auncient fathers were decei∣ued in opinion of Peters prerogatiue. As for the con∣sent of all, which he would seeme to make for it, is false: but this is not all mine answere, but that this preroga∣tiue appeareth not in the scriptures, which was heuier than the answerers penne could beare: or if he thinke it doeth, let him prooue by syllogisme out of the scrip∣tures if he can. But vntill he can, I will say this is a lie by detraction.

Secondly where I say, those ancient fathers that ex∣pounde* 1.10 the text Iohn 5. I came in my fathers name, &c. of antichrist, haue no grounde of their exposition. I proue it by example of Theudas, the Aegyptian, Co∣cabus, and other that deceiued the Iewes in their owne name, yet none of them was antichrist.

Thirdly where he sayth, Ierome with all the ecclesi∣asticall writers, are alleaged for the interpretation of the wordes of Daniel cap. 7. which interpretation I do not admit, because it hath no direction out of the scrip∣tures, hee maketh a lie by multiplication: for onely Ie∣rome, with such ecclesiasticall writers out of whom he gathered his interpretation, is alleaged.

Fourthly he slandereth me, when he chargeth mee* 1.11 to say, Austine doth wrongfully interprete the place, for I allowe of Augustines sayinges to be true, but I say hee speaketh it vppon a text wrongly interpreted, that is falsly translated. He hath placed his Tabernacle in the sunne, whereas the truth is, He hath made in the heauens a Taber∣nacle for the sunne, and so doth Hierome interprete it ••o••i

posuit tabernaculum in eis.

Fifthly. where he sayeth, that S. Ambrose, Ephrem,* 1.12 and Bede are alleaged for interpretation of certaine scriptures, he sayth, he noteth not what, for they are alleaged for memories of the dead,

which I say I will not deny but they were vsed before their times, and prayer for the dead also: but without warrant of Gods worde, or autoritie of scriptures, but such as is so piti∣fully wrested and drawen vnto them, as euery man may see, the holy ghost neuer meant any such thing, as they gather of them.

This I speake not of these three, but of such as would goe about to proue prayer for the deade out of the scripture:

as Chrysostome, who fol∣loweth* 1.13 in the sixt place, who in deede I say alleadgeth scripture for it, but hee applieth it madly, and yet hee often applyeth it to the same purpose, belike it was the best he had for that purpose. God sayth vnto Ezechias, I will defende this citie, for mine owne cause, and for Dauid my seruantes sake. Alas good man, what maner of reason is this? Be it as he sayth, that the memorie of Dauid being a righteous man, and not rather the truth of Gods promise made to Dauid, moued him to defend the citie from the enemies: doth it therefore followe that prayer and almes are auayleable for the dead?

&c. If M. Censurer thinke Chrysostome haue applyed the scripture rightly, let him gather his argument into a syllogisme, and we will shape him another aunswere.

Seuenthly I will not denie, but I sayde that those fa∣thers,* 1.14 whom Martiall coted, did rather dally in trifling allegories, than soundly prooue, that the crosse was prefigured in such places of scripture as they alleadge. As Augustine maketh the two stickes, that the widowe of Sarepta gathered, a figure of the crosse. Augustine and Tertullian, the lifting vp of Moses handes, &c. in which places yet they ment the vertue of Christs death, rather than the holinesse of the signe.

Moreouer, page 33. Master Fulk is charged to abuse

the simple people, in saying often times: prayer for the dead is an heresie, because the Montanistes, which were heretikes helde it. Nay sir, because the Montanistes are the first that inuented prayer for the dead, & Pur∣gatorie, seeing neither in scripture, nor doctor, is any mention of either of both before Montanus, therefore he sayeth prayer for the dead is an error. But hee will haue mee prooue, that this was euer accounted one of Montanus heresies. Tertullian beeing a Montanist prooueth it sufficiently, for hee inueigheth against the Catholikes of his time, whome he vsed to call Psychi∣cos, for de••••••ing Purgatorie, & obiecteth against them the paraclet which was the spirite of Montane, which affirmed, that none but martyrs went streight to hea∣uen, and that all other went to hell, where they must pay the vttermost farthing before they come foorth, lib. de anima, capite de inferis, & an aliquid patiantur apud inferos animae, whereas hee was of another iudgement, while he was a Catholike, and did write against Marci∣on, noting it as one of his errors, that hee affirmed all the fathers before Christ, to haue gone to hell, as you Papistes do. Aduersus Marcionem lib. 4. whereas he sayth against Martion, aliud enim Inferi vt puto, aliud quo{que} A∣brahae sinus: Hel I trowe is one thing, and Abrahams bo∣some another thing. But against the Catholikes, hee writeth, that Christ descendeth to hell, to make the pa∣triarches and prophets partakers of him,

wherby (saith he) you may knocke them on the elbowe, qui satis super∣be non pu••ent animas fidelium inferis dignas: serui super do∣minum, & discipuli super magistrum, aspernati si forte in A∣brahae sinu, expectandae resurrectionis solatium capere, which proudly ynough thinke, the soules of the faithfull are not worthie of hel, being seruants aboue their Lorde, & scholers aboue their master, which disdaine to receiue the comfort of the resurrection looked for, if it were perhaps in Abrahams bosome. That other later Ca∣tho like writers,

which liued long after Tertullian, al∣lowed

prayer for the dead, it prooueth not that it was no error in Montanus, but rather that it was an errour in them, seeing before Montanus no Catholike allowed prayer for the dead. To his proude challenge, I offer not onely this that I haue saide, of the error of praying for the dead, and Purgatorie, but of some partes of the heresie of the Pelagians, condemned in olde time, and accused for heresie: reuiued by the Papistes, and the contrarie doctrine by them accursed. As the Triden∣tine Councell, Sess. 6. Can. 7.

Accurseth them that say•• that all works done before iustification, howsoeuer they are done, are sinnes in deede, or deserue the hatred of God, or by how much so euer a man doeth indeuour to dispose himselfe to grace, that he sinneth so much the more grieuously.

This doctrine, and that which neces∣sarily followeth of it, is directly contrarie to the scrip∣ture, saying that whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne, and to the decree of the Mileuitane Councell, Cap. 5. and to the scripture there alledged, Without mee you can do no∣thing, ergo a man without grace cannot dispose himselfe to grace. For no man can dispose himselfe to grace, except he please God, but without faith it is impossible to please him.

Againe, where the 16. Can. of the same Tridentine Chapter, accurseth him that shall say: That the com∣maundements are impossible to be kept, by a man iusti∣fied and set vnder grace: it is contrarie to the sixt Ca∣non of the Mileuitane Councell, which concludeth, that no man can be without sinne, according to the say∣ing of the Euangelist: If wee say wee haue no sinne, &c.

But whereas we acknowledge, that we hold for truth, that which by Epiphanius and Augustine was helde for an error, in Aerius, namely, prayer for the dead, aunswe∣ring that those two doctors were deceiued, he sayeth, we condemne the whole church, as though it were ne∣cessarie that the whole church were deceiued as much as they, or if the whole church were deceiued, that wee

condemne it of heresie, seeing prayer for the dead as it was allowed by those fathers, was an errour, not an he∣resie. But when by Epiphanius images in the Church are condemned and defaced, when the worshipping of the image of Christ and his Apostles, is both by Epi∣phanius and Augustine condemned for an heresie of the Carpocrati••es & Gnostikes, what haue they to aun∣swere but either to condemne those fathers, or them∣selues of error, or else to finde out some cauil against their owne conscience, and against the knowledge and iudgement of all learned and indifferent men?

Page 54. against Bristowes Motiues, I say that Vigi∣lantius (whome the Papistes make so great an heretike, for denying inuocation of Saints & superstitious reue∣rence of their reliques) was banished onely by Hie∣rom, of other learned men in his time he was counted a godly man, and a learned. Master Censurer chan∣geth my wordes, as pleaseth him. The pride & cru∣eltie* 1.15 of Augustine the Monke, which came to conuert the Saxons, is accused by our British stories, and proofe thereof brought of his disdainfulnes, in receiuing the British bishops, and in procuring the slaughter of so manie hundred students of Bangor. His ignorance & vnskilfulnes is bewrayed by him selfe in his writing to Pope Gregorie: where hee mooueth questions, which a meane licentiate in Louaine, woulde bee ashamed to doubt of. And truely I said of him, that hee did not so* 1.16 much good in planting faith where it was not, as in cor rupting the synceritie of the faith where it was before he came. And if he planted any humane traditions, & confirmed them by lying signes and miracles, as a fore∣runner* 1.17 of Antichrist, which was euen immediatly after his time to be openly shewed: or if by subtile practise, miracles haue beene fained to haue beene done by him and reported by a credulous man Bede, it hurteth not* 1.18 our cause: seeing other writers report him to haue bin both a proude and a cruell man. And yet we receiue al

that doctrine which he taught, agreeable to the do∣ctrine of the Apostles of Christ: whatsoeuer hee taught beside, we are not to receiue it of an Angel from hea∣uen, much lesse of Augustine from Rome. But where the Censurer reporteth, that I should call Bede a fa∣bulous man, he is not able to bring any proofe thereof: for albeit I acknowledge, that he reporteth many fa∣bles for true miracles, yet this reuerence I professe to haue of him, that I thinke, he fained not one of them him selfe, but had them as hee confesseth by relation of other. Purg. 333. But a fabulous man is he, that ma∣keth lyes, and ••uenteth fables. Page 97. he accuseth me of palpable flatterie, because I say, that Howlet had no consideration of her maiesties singular vertues, and other of high estate vnder her, while he complaineth of the wicked and loose times: and this I did to scrape a litle fauour from the court, and to make the other o∣dious. I thanke God, fauour is not so harde for mee at the court, that I neede to scrape it, especially by such fond meanes which hath rather flowed towards mee from her maiestie and other of high place more than I haue deserued: But to make the other odious for his slaunderous rayling and hypocrisie, I will not denie but my purpose was, and yet with trueth, & sufficient ground of his owne writings. For whereas in publike writing, both he and some other of his complices haue pro∣fessed their reuerent opinion of her maiesties singular vertues, and other of high estate, that are vnder her, in his familiar letter to his worshipful friend, he condem∣neth all persons of this time, to be voide of all sense of vertuous life, except these few popish gentlemen, which he tearmeth precise in matters of religion, and respe∣ctiue of their conscience, whom he doth so ambitiously commend, that he doth most slaunderously condemne all other, that be friendes to religion and the state, a∣mong whome there be (God he praised) great numbers to speake nothing of the prince and nobilitie, who in

godly life and precise walking in the feare of God, and the obedience of his lawes, may shame all the popish hypocrites in the world. But it is best to set down How∣lets owne wordes & mine answere to them, that the rea∣der may iudge, whether I haue flattered as the Censu∣rer saith more palpably, or Howlet slaundered more ve∣nemously.

It was no meane comfort vnto me (sayth Howlet) to consider that in those wicked and loose times of ours, wherein there is no feeling or sense of vertue left, but all men enwrapped in the loue of Gods professed ene∣mie, the worlde, following with all force and fully sayle the vanities & ambition of the same: that there should be founde in Englande so many gentlemen both for their yeares, liuinges, and other abilities, as fitte to be as vaine as the rest, yet so precise in matters of religi∣on, and so respectiue to their consciences, as that they will prefer their soule before their bodie, &c.

Heereto I began to aunswere thus:

In deede syr you haue folowed your shamelesse slan∣der with full sayle, and haue had winde at will. What say you? Is there no sense or feeling of vertue left, but all men enwrapped in the loue of Gods enemie, except those few gentlemen, the matter of your rare comfort? In your familiar letters, wee must suppose you write as you thinke, and as to your deere and worshipfull friende: Wherefore whatsoeuer you doe in common writinges professe, of your reuerent opinion of her maiesties singular vertues, and other of high estate, that are vnder her, executers of her christian lawes, all is but dissimulation and hypocrisie, fayned glo∣sing and seruile flattery. For you acknowledge not onely no vertue, but not so much as any sense or fee∣ling of vertue, to be left in any other, than those gen∣tlemen recusantes, all other men not allured nor in∣tangled, but inwrapped in the loue euen of Gods pro∣fessed enemie the worlde, not seduced and drawen

thereby, but following and that not slowely, but with all force and full sayle, vanities and ambitions of the same. If this were true, it would make a more mise∣rable estate of Englande, than you before imagined, by imprisonment of a fewe good housekeepers. And I would heartily wish that you falsely say of all, might not be verified of some. But that there is no sense or feeling of vertue, but all men enwrapped in the loue of Gods professed enemie, and that in so extreeme a de∣gree: except a small number of obstinately and wil∣fully blinded Papistes, that is more than euer could be iustly sayde, almost of any Heathenish or Turkish state, in which the sense or feeling of vertue, was neuer so wholy extinguished, but some remained euen in thē that knewe not God nor serued him aright, &c.

Beside this intollerable slander of the whole state, and all the professers of the trueth, from the prince to the poorest subiect, I would the hypocrisie and flat∣terie of this Papist, and other of his cote were knowen, who in his publike epistle which he presumeth to de∣dicate to the Queenes maiestie, not a litle extolleth her princely vertues, with no small commendation of the nobilitie, but heere in his familiar letter, sent ouer sea to his friende, bewrayeth that he hath no opinion in deede of any sense of vertue, remaining in any per∣son, saue only in a fewe obstinate Papistes. Wherefore let men of vnderstanding iudge, whether he in his de∣dicatorie epistle, or I in this reproofe of his familiar letter, haue flattered so palpably: and whether in this reply I haue played the parasite, or the censurer in this malignant slander, the shamelesse sycophant. But let vs heare what reason he hath to conuince mee of flatterie. When men accuse the times (sayth he) must they except Princes by name or else be accounted traytors? As though Howlet accuseth the times onely and not the persons also. Yea all men except the recusantes, are with him vtterly voyde of all sense of vertue, and in

worse case also. But why say you, men must be accoun∣ted traytors? I accused Howlet but of dissimulation, and flatterie▪ but belike you acknowledge such slaunder more meete to discry an heynous traytour, than a dis∣sembling flatterer. I doe not altogether mislike your censure▪ although for that matter my purpose was not to accuse him so deepely. But you proceede and aske, What Apostle, what auncient fathers did euer so? And I will aske you againe, what Apostle, what ancient father, did euer in publike writing professe his reuerent opinion of any princes singular vertues and of other of high estate vnder him, and yet neuerthelesse in a fa∣miliar letter, condemne the whole state of that princes gouernement (as Howlet doeth) excepting no per∣sons, but such as are disobedient subiectes, and the princes, either priuie or professed enemies? Beside that the comparison is verie odious, betweene an A∣postle and an Howlet, a publike trumpet sounding a∣gainst sinne, and a birde of the night schriching in a secret and familiar letter. And if you will say, it was not meant, that the letter should be priuate, but publike, as I can easily beleeue you, if you doe affirme it: I will an∣swere, that such Howlets come not from Athens, as can no better obserue the measure and comelinesse of the person they pretende to be. For to vse such hyperbo∣licall amplifications, in a familiar epistle as by zeale could not honestly be excused in a publike sermon, sa∣uing your censure and his correction, I take it to be but homely rhetorike. But you pardon our necessitie, be∣cause extreeme pouertie driueth vs to these shiftes. You are a man of great consideration, to beare with our infirmities: yet I hope you shall finde fewe men so easie to beleeue, as you are bolde to affirme, that onely want of other reasons, maketh vs flie to accusing of your persons, of disloyalty and disobedience to the prince and state. But if you will in deede discouer our pouertie, answere our writinges throughly, directly,

and orderly, or else giuing ouer all preiudicate con∣ceipt of former handling or mishandling any cause. Take any question in controuersie, and set foorth the riches of your arguments in plaine syllogismes, & trie whether we be able to answere you, or else if you had rather answere vs, let vs knowe your minde, and you shall finde some readie to maintaine any cause of ours, by plaine syllogismes onely. In the meane time to finde you occupie••▪ ••here hath beene a booke called syllogisticon set foo••th by maister Foxe, more than twentie yeares agoe: let vs see in a sheete of printed pa∣per, what ye haue to answere those syllogismes, whe∣ther you will finde them defectiue in forme or matter, or else there is no reason, but you should graunt their conclusion.

Pag. 146. to prooue that protestantes are lordes of the scripture, to make them say what they list, D. Fulkes* 1.19 wordes to maister Bristowe are cited.

For the diuision of pa∣rishes, excommunication, suspension, publike solemni∣zing of mariages, with the lawes thereof, and puni∣shing of heretikes by death, they are all manifestly prooued out of the scripture.

This I say alleaging no one place of scripture to prooue it, sayth our censurer. I say as much of holding of councels, which Bristowe with the rest, wil haue vs as apes to haue borrowed of the popish church. Whereas I affirme, they are proued out of the scriptures, if Bristow wil reply & denie, y^t such things may be proued out of the scriptures, it shall be no harde matter to do it.

Yet in the meane time, if you thinke I haue sayde more than I can shewe, I will giue you this tast. For di∣uision of Churches or parishes Act. 14. v. 23. Elders in euerie church and Tit. 1. v. 5. elders in euerie citie or towne. Holding of councelles Act. 15. excommunica∣tion where the partie cast out is to be taken for an hea∣then or publicane. Math. 18. v. 17. separation or suspen∣sion where the partie separated is to be taken as a bro∣ther.

2. Thess. 3. publike solemnizing of mariage Mat. 1. v. 18. where betrothing and publike comming toge∣ther are expressed. Example Ioan. 2. for punishment of heretikes, I haue cited before. What the Puritans will grant, I care not, although I thinke there are none of them that are so called will denie any of these except he be some madde schismatike: and for the last, which you say, was for a long time denied by our selues, till nowe we haue burned some for religion in Englande, you should haue tolde howe long. For we haue not now first of all consented to the burning of heretikes. The Arrians and Anabaptistes burned in king Edwardes dayes, for thirtie yeares agoe can beare witnesse. But you may say your pleasure. I knowe few in other coun∣tries, but heretikes themselues, that denie it to be law∣ful to punish blasphemous obstinate heretikes by death. If any haue any priuate opinion, what haue we to doe wich it, or to bee charged by it? If I shoulde note your phrase, when you say that protestantes doe now reigne in Englande, as though there were more kinges than one: you would say perhaps I were ouer captious. Well, let it passe. But such thinges (sayde I) as are not eui∣dently conteined in the worde, a Christian is not abso∣lutely bounde to beleeue them. In plaine dealing you should haue bestowed a note in your margent, where I haue so sayde, as well as placed there hereticall auda∣citie, of your papisticall charitie. The saying I confesse or the like, yet the circumstances of the place, where it was vttered, would perhaps haue bewrayed some part of your vsuall and honest dealing. But what cause haue you to cri•• ••ut so loude. Behoulde the last refuge of a proude hereticall spirite, in breaking where he cannot otherwise get out? Call you it proude heresie to holde that nothing is to be credited vpon necessitie of saluati∣on, which hath not authoritie of the holy scripture, which are able to make a man wise to saluation, which are written that beleeuing we might be saued, which

are able to make the man of God perfect prepared to euerie good worke?

And why doe yee dare M. Charke to a••ouch, that which I haue affirmed? I knowe he dare affirme and is able to defend this truth, but there is no reason that he should be dared with my assertiōs. I dare affirm to your face, if you dare shewe it, that a christian man is not bounde to beleeue, that the common creede was made by the Apostles, after that fabulous maner that you pa∣pistes doe teach: Namely, that Peter made one peece, Andrewe another, and so of the rest: yet I doubt not, but it is gathered out of the doctrine and writinges of the Apostles. But you haue ancient doctors, which af∣firme that it was made by the Apostles. Origen, Ter••lli∣an, Ierome, Ruffinus, Ambrose, Austen, and all the primitiue church doe so constantly affirme to be their doing••s. Let vs consider then in order. First Origen in pro••••. lib. de princip. testifieth, that the Apostles by their preaching did most plainely deliuer y^e summe of faith according to the capacitie of the most simple, whereof hee maketh a rehearsall contayning in deede some articles of the creed, but neither al nor any one in such forme of words as our creede doth expresse them. And before he be∣ginneth the rehearsall of them, thus he sayeth: Species verò eorū quae per praedicationem Apostolicā manifesté tradun∣tur, istae sunt. These are the particulars of those thinges, which by the preaching of the Apostles are manifestly deliuered. Which wordes doe shewe, that the Apostles in deede taught the doctrine, yet prooue not that they made this creede, rather than the Nicen creede or A∣thanasius Creede.

Tertullian against Praxeas, much after the same maner,

yet more neere the wordes of the creede re∣hearseth the articles pertaining to the three persons of the deitie, and then he addeth: H••••c regulam ab ini∣tio euangelii de cucurrisse, etiam ante priores quosque haeretic••s, nedum ante Praxeam hesternum, probabis •••••• ipsa posterita••

omnium h••••••••icorum, quàm ipsa nouellitas Praxeae hesterni. That this rule hath runne downe from the beginning of the gospell, euen before all former heretikes, not onely before Praxeas a yesterdayes birde, as wel the later spring of all heretikes shall prooue, as the verie nouel∣tie of Praxeas one that came but yesterday.

That the rule of faith contained in the Creede, is as auncient as the preaching of the Gospel, I alwayes a∣greed with Tertullian: but that the Apostles made the Creede, I heare him yet say neuer a worde.

Ierom ad Pammachium against the errours of Iohn of Ierusalem, sayth:

In symbolo fidei & spei nostrae, quod ab Apostolis traditum, non scribitur in charta & atramento, sed in tabulis cordis carnalibus, post confessionē trinitati••, & vni∣tatem ecclesiae, omne Christiani dogmatis sacrament••m carnis resurrectione includitur. In the symbole of our faith and hope, which being deliuered from the Apostles, is not written in paper and ynke, but in the fleshie tables of our hearts: after the confession of the Trinitie, and the vnitie of the Church, all the mysterie of Christian do∣ctrine is inclosed in the resurrection of the flesh. Al∣though it be graunted that Saint Ierome here speaketh of our common Creede,

yet it followeth not, that hee affirmeth it to bee made by the Apostles, which it is suf∣ficient, that it is receiued of the doctrine of the Apo∣stles. Ruffinus in deede, expositione in symbolum, sayeth it was an opinion receiued from the elders, that the A∣postles before their dispersion made this briefe forme of beliefe, which is called their Creede. And I acknow∣ledge the opinion hath some probabilitie, but that it is to be beleeued of necessitie of saluation, neither Ruffi∣nus sayeth, nor if he did were he able to prooue it. Am∣brose, Ep. 81. Syricio, to prooue that Marie in the birth of Christ was a virgine, sayeth: Credatur symbolo Apo∣stòlorum quod Ecclesia Romana iteratum semper custodit & seruat. Let credit bee giuen to the Apostles Creede, which being repeted often, the Church of Rome doth

alwayes keepe and obserue. That this Creede is cal∣led the Apostles symbole or Creede, it may well be, be∣cause it containeth the summe of the Apostles doctrine although it had not beene compiled by them. The te∣stimonie of Augustine, which you quote Serm. 118. De tempore, must needes be some yonger mans, because he repeteth the verie wordes of Ruffinus. which Augu∣stine liuing almost in his time, woulde not repete as his owne. You might as well, and more for your purpose haue quoted Serm. 115. De tempore, where euery Apo∣stle maketh an Article, which is the absurde opinion of the late Papistes, but neuer was credited by Augu∣stine himselfe, howsoeuer these sermons haue gotten vnder the shadow of his name. To conclude, as some of the auncient fathers thinke the Creede was of the Apostles making, so none of them affirmeth, that it is damnable to doubt thereof, so a man doubt not of the doctrine contained therein, whereof the holy ghost is author, as it is proued by the holie scriptures, whether the Apostles or their successours did gather this short summe or forme of beliefe, which we call the Apostles Creede.

For the obseruation of the Easter day, which is the seconde point wherein you dare Master Charke, I dare affirme, that seeing it is not commaunded in the scrip∣ture, the obseruation thereof is not necessarie to salua∣tion. That Eusebius calleth it an Apostolike tradition, it is not materiall, seeing that verie contention, which he reporteth was about the obseruation of Easter, ac∣cording to the Apostolike tradition, by the immediate successors of the Apostles, Anicetus and Polycarpus doe plainly testifie, what credit is to bee giuen to the traditions of the Apostles without the warrant of the Apostles writings. Euseb. lib. 5. Cap. 26. For while A∣nicetus pretendeth the tradition of S. Peter, and Poly∣carpus S. Iohn, and neither would yeelde to other, they teache vs what to esteeme of traditions apostolical, not

contained in the holy scriptures: Namely, that in these dayes there can bee no certeintie of them, when they which might see and heare the Apostles themselues, could not agree about them. Last of all, which you make the greatest matter, the perpetuall virginitie of the mother of Christ after his birth, although for my part I do beleeue it, and wish all men so to doe, yet dare I affirme, that it is not damnable, not to beleeue it ex∣cept it can be prooued, that the scripture hath taught it. But you obiect against mee, first the condemnation of Heluidius, testified by Sozomenus. Whereto I aun∣swere, that he was iustly condemned, not because he be∣leeued not, but because he did obstinately denie it, & troubled the peace of the church, about an vnnecessary question.

But you aske vs, if wee remember not the solemne curse for this matter, of so many holy bishops recorded and confirmed by S. Ambrose. Ep. 81. & 79. It seemeth you remember it not your selfe, for that curse contai∣ned in the ende of the Ep. 81. was against them that like Manichees, denyed that our Sauiour Christ tooke flesh of a virgine. And Ep. 79. he reprooueth them which did contende, that the virgine Marie had more sonnes than our Sauiour Christ, which to affirme is a great errour: and conuinced by the authoritie of the scripture, see∣ing as Ambrose well noteth, our Sauiour Christ com∣mitted his mother to Iohn the Euangelist, which had not beene needefull, if shee had naturall sonnes of her owne, which might take care of her.

But you will stoppe our mouthes if you can, (as you say) with these wordes of Saint Augustine, Integra fide credendum est, &c.

Wee must beleeue with a sounde faith blessed Marie the mother of Christ to haue con∣ceiued in virginitie, to haue brought foorth her sonne in virginitie,

and to haue remained a virgine after her childbirth, neither must wee yeeld to the blasphemie of Heluidius. Your author goeth on and telleth, what

that was. Qui dixis, fuit virgo ante partum, non virgo post partum. Who sayd, shee was a virgine before her child∣birth, shee was no virgine after her childbirth. But where shall wee finde this saying in Saint Augustine? Your quotation directeth vs to Augustine in Encherid. Cap. 34. where in deede some mention is of Maries virginitie, namely, that she conceiued in virginitie, but nothing of Heluidius or his heresie. Wherefore it sec∣meth, that out of Canisius, or some other mans collecti∣on, your common places of the doctors sayings are bo∣rowed, and not taken out of your owne reading. There∣fore howsoeuer you haue mistaken the matter, the say∣ing you alledge is in the bastarde booke De dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis, Cap. 69. which may as easily be knowen from Augustines writing, as a goose from a swanne. And yet if it were of as good authoritie as Augustines owne wri∣ting, it were not sufficient to stop our mouth, when wee heare that wee are slaundered. For wee dare not say, with Heluidius, (which is the blasphemie noted by that writer) that the virgine Marie was no virgine after her childbirth, although wee say, that it is no article of faith, necessarie to saluation, except it haue demonstra∣tion out of the holy scriptures: neither doth your author say, it is blasphemie to doubt of it, but to denye it, al∣though for my part I do neither denie it, nor doubt of it, but beleeue it as I do manie other truethes, not ex∣pressed in the scripture, but yet not as articles of Chri∣stian faith necessarie to saluation. I will conclude with a saying of Saint Ierome, and stoppe your mouth if I can, which concerning this verie question in contro∣uersie against Heluidius, to shewe what a man is bound to beleeue vpon necessitie of saluation, euen that which is contained in the scriptures: and that which is not cō∣teined, that he is not bound vpon losse thereof, to be∣leeue, thus writeth: Sed vt haec quae scripta sunt, non nega∣••ius, ita ••a quae non sunt scripta, renuimus. Natum D•••••• es••e de virgine credimus, quia legimus: Mariam ••••psisse post

partum non credimus, quia non legimus.

But as wee do not deny those things that are written, so we do refuse those things that are not written. That God was borne of a virgin wee beleeue, because we haue read it: that Marie vsed marriage after her childbed, wee beleeue not, be∣cause wee haue not read it. That you say, Lo M. Chark S. Augustine maketh it both a matter of faith, and the doubting thereof to be blasphemie: how will you auoid this? It is easily auoyded, for it is false in many respects, first S. Augustine fayeth it not, but some obscure man of much latter time,

lesse learning, and authoritie, as the barbarous stile in many places declareth▪ secondly, hee fayth not, that it is a matter of faith, to beleeue the per∣petuall virginitie of Marie, but that shee conceiued, brought foorth, and remained a virgine after her child∣birth. Thirdly, he maketh not the doubting thereof to be blasphemie, but the obstinate denying of Heluidius, which saide shee was no virgine after her childbirth. But how will you auoide that which S. Ierome writeth, We refuse those things that are not written, we beleeue not because wee haue not read in y^e scripture, anything hereof as necessarie to saluation.

Pag. 158. you do not see why you should beleeue a Charke or a Fulke, comming but yester day from the grammar schole, before a Cyprian, a Tertullian, a Ba∣sil, a Ierom, an Ambrose, or an Augustine, especially in a matter of fact (as your case is) seeing they liued more than twelue or thirteene hundred yeares nearer to the deede dooing than these ministers do. Why sir, I pray you, who requireth you to beleeue any minister of these dayes, before any of those auncient fathers, in respect of the credite of the persons, and not of the truth which they bring? You knowe that Panormitane thinketh more credite is to be giuen to one lay man, speaking the trueth according to scripture, than to all men of all a∣ges, speaking contrarie to the trueth or beside the truth of the scriptures. But it is a matter of fact you say, whe∣ther

such and such traditions came from Christ & his Apostles or no, and therefore they that liued neerer the time of the deede dooing by twelue or thirteene hundreth yeares, are more like to knowe the trueth than wee. I answere, that all things that you pretende for traditions, are not of one sort, some are contrary to the word of God, and are reproued by euidence of the holy scriptures, other are beside the worde of God, and therefore not necessarie to bee receiued, because they are not found in the holie scriptures. As for the pre∣rogatiue of antiquitie, cannot argue a certaine know∣ledge of the fact in these ancient fathers, seeing in two or three hundreth yeares, that was before their time, and the time of the deede supposed to be done, any fa∣ble might be obtruded vnder pretence of such tradition as we prooue that many were. Yea when they that were neerest of all to the Apostles time, as Polycarpus and Anicetus, do not agree what was the Apostles traditiō, which was not expressed in their writing, it is manifest, that they of much latter time, coulde haue no certein∣tie thereof. And that whatsoeuer ceremonie or pra∣ctise the Apostles deliuered, which was not expressed in the scripture, was but temporall or arbitrarie in the power of the Church to vse, or not vse, as it might best serue for edifying. Finally, where you affirme, that Fulk came but yesterday from the Grammar schole▪ to make it seeme that he is but a yong grammatian, either your dayes be neere as long as thirtie yeres, or else your pen runneth beyond your knowledge of him, or at leastwise your malice ouer reacheth your knowledge. But yet to this extremitie (of crediting one Charke, or Fulke be∣fore so many auncient fathers) you say you are driuen, and bid men hearken a little howe D. Fulke handleth these men about traditions. And first S. Cyprian alled∣ging* 1.20 the tradition of Christ himselfe, concerning the mingling of wine and water in the chalice: but if Cy∣prian had beene well vrged (faith Fulke) he would haue

better considered of the matter. Thus you woulde make men beleeue, that I oppose nothing but mine owne authoritie or credit against S. Cyprian. But then you shamefully beelie me: for this is the matter, and these are my wordes which you haue gelded at your pleasure.

Whereas Cyprian ad Pompei•••• calleth all traditions to the writinges and commandements of the Apostles, Martiall cryeth out, that Cyprian is slandered, because he himselfe alleageth the tradition of Christ, for ming∣ling of water with wine. If Cyprian breake his owne rule, who can excuse him? But if he had beene vrged as much for the necessitie of water, as he was for the ne∣cessitie of wine in the sacrament, he would haue better considered of the matter.

Who seeth not I suppose no lesse authoritie against Cyprian, than of Cyprian him∣selfe, and therefore I boast not of mine owne credite a∣boue his?

To proceede, Tertullian is alleaged saying that the blessing with the signe of the crosse, is an apostolike tra∣dition. Fulke: Tertullians iudgement of tradition with∣out scripture in that place is corrupt. If I should search no further,

heere is a reason of Fulkes mislike of Tertul∣lians iudgement added, because he affirmeth tradition* 1.21 of the Apostles, without the writing of the Apostles. But in deede there is in the place by you noted, other argu∣mentes in these wordes: Tertullians iudgement of tra∣dition without scripture in that place is corrupt,

for Martiall himselfe confesseth, that a tradition vnwritten should be reasonable and agreeable to the scriptures: and so he sayth the tradition of blessing with the crosse is, because the Apostles by the holy ghost deliuered it: But who shall assure vs thereof? Tertullian and Basill are not sufficient warrant for so worthy a matter, seeing S. Paule leaueth it out of the vniuersall armour of God.

This last and inuincible argument in rehearsing my wordes you leaue out, which because perhaps you could

not see in sewe wordes, I will set it more abroade. The vniuersall spirituall armour of God, is deliuered by S.* 1.22 Paule Eph. 6. blessing with the signe of the crosse is not there deliuered by S. Paul: therefore blessing with the signe of the crosse is no part of the spirituall armour of God. Nowe let vs see, whether you will beleeue a Paule before a Tertullian, or a Basill: or a Fulke with S. Paule, before a Basil with Tertullian without S Paule or against S. Paule?

But you goe forwarde. S. Ierome is alleaged, saying that lent fast is the tradition of the Apostles. Fulke. Ie∣rome vntruely ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles. My wordes are against Bristowes Mot. pag. 35. these:

Againe S. Ierome fayth, it was a tradition of the Apo∣stles to fast 40. dayes in the yeare. If this be true, then is the popish storie false, that maketh Telesphorus bi∣shoppe of Rome author of that lenten fast. Eusebius sheweth y^e great diuersitie of fasting before Easter. li. 5. cap. 26. saying that some fasted but one day, some two dayes, some more, some 40. houres of day and night. This diuersitie prooueth, that Ierome vntruely ascri∣beth that tradition to the Apostles, which should haue beene kept vniformely, if it had any institution of the Apostles.

Among so many argumentes and authorities, cited for proofe you can finde nothing, but Fulke faith bluntly, Ierome vntruely ascribeth that tradition to the A∣postles. Sed perge mentiri. S. Chrysostome is alle••ged saying that the Apostles decreed, that in the sacrifice of the ••••••tar, there should be made prayer for the departed: Fulke: where he sayth, it was decreed by the Apostles, &c. he must pardon vs for cre∣diting him, because he cannot shewe it out of the actes and writinges of the Apostles. If I had added none other argu∣ment, this had beene sufficient for vs, to for beare cre∣diting any thing of the Apostles, whereof we haue not the holy ghost in their writinges to be witnesse. But you shall heare what I oppose against Chrysostome, beside this. Against pag. 303. it followeth immediatlie vpon

these wordes noted by M. Censurer: And wee will be bolde to charge him with his owne saying:

Hom. de A∣dam & Heus, S••••is sufficere. &c. Wee thinke it suffiseth ynough, what soeuer the writinges of the Apostles haue taught vs, according to the foresay de rules, insomuch that we count it not at all catholike, whatsoeuer shall appeare contrarie to the rules appointed. And againe in Gen. H. 58. Vides in quantam, &c. Thou seest into howe great absurditie they fall, which will not followe the canon of holy scripture, but permitte all thinges to their owne cogitations. But if we be further vrged, we will alleadge that which hee sayeth in Euang. Ioan. H. 58. Quisacra. &c. he that vseth not the holy scripture, but clymeth another way, that is by a way not allowed, is a theefe. We may be as bolde with Chrysostome, as hee sayd he would be with Paule himselfe, in 2. ad Tim. Hom. 2. Plus aliquid dicam, &c. I will say somewhat more, we must not be ruled by Paule himselfe, if he speake anie thing that is his owne, and any thing that is humane, but we must obey the Apostle, when he carrieth Christ speaking in him. Wherefore seeing it is certaine, that by testimonie of Iustinus Martyr, that there was no mention of the dead, in the celebration of the Lordes supper, for more than an hundred yeares after Christ, we must not beleeue Chrysostome without scripture, affirming that it was ordeyned so by the Apostles. As though this place had not beene sufficient to conuince your impudent lying,

you goe forwarde, and say that page 362. and 363. of the same booke I aunswere to di∣werse fathers alleaged together, beside Chrysostome, for the same purpose: Who is witnesse that this is the tradi∣tion of the Apostles? you will say: Tertullian, Cyprian, Austen, Ierome, and a great many more. But I would learne why the Lorde would not haue this set forth by Matthew, Marke, Luke, and Paule? Why they were not chosen scribes hereof rather then Tertullian, Cyprian, Ierome, Austen, and other such as you n••me? But this is a counterfaite institution, and fained tra∣dition.

Heere you note in the margent a proude questi∣on, which is not so right as if I should note against it a proude censure. For it is a question that may be de∣maunded in humilitie, why the Lord if it were his plea∣sure, that the dead should be prayed for at the commu∣nion, as a thing necessarie for them, and dutifull for vs: would not reueale so much by those witnesses that are aboue all exception, rather than by such as are all ma∣nifestly conuicted of errors, as you Papistes cannot de∣nie. But because neuera Papist of you all is able to an∣swere this question, to the satisfaction of any mans doubtfull conscience, you thinke best to reiect it, and say it is a proude question. As though it were pride for any man to seeke confirmation of his faith, against so* 1.23 iust a cause of doubt. But in truth, my wordes are more full than you alleage them, against the pretended insti∣tution. If it be lawfull for me once to pose the Papists, as you doe often the protestantes,

I woulde learne why the Lorde would not haue this doubtlesse institution, and as you take it the most necessarie vse of the sacra∣ment, plainely, or at the leastwise obscurely set foorth by Matthewe, Marke, Luke, or Paule, which all haue set foorth the storie of the action of Christ, the institu∣tion of the sacrament, and the ende or vse of the same. If it were not meete at all to be put in writing, why was it disclosed by Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, &c? If it were meete to be put in writing, why were not those chosen scribes, Matthew, Marke, Luke, and Paul, wor∣thy of all credite, rather appointed for it, than Tertul∣lian, Cyprian, Augustine, and such as you name? But against this counter faite institution, and fayned tradi∣tion S. Paule cryeth with open mouth vnto the Corin∣thians 1. Cor. 11. That which I deliuered to you I recei∣ued of the Lorde, &c.

which wrote to that effect. Last of all you say, that being vrged by the like, I discredite all* 1.24 antiquitie, saying: It is a common thing with the ancient wri∣ters to defende euerie ceremonie which was vsed in their time,

by tradition of the Apostles. In deede the wordes are mine, the occasion as of all ••he rest frandulently and falsely omitted. For vpon occasion of Chrysostome, alleaged to proue that mention of the dead was made at the cō∣munion, by tradition of the Apostles, for which I re∣mit him to mine answere of Allen lib. 2. ca. 5. I ad more∣ouer these wordes.

If we should admit all thinges to be ordeyned of the Apostles, which some of the olde wri∣ters doe ascribe to their traditions, we should receiue many thinges, which euen the Papistes themselues do not obserue. As that it is a wicked thing to fast on sun∣day, or to pray kneeling, that oblations are to be made for mens birth dayes, &c. Which with diuerse other superstitions, Tertullian fathereth vppon the tradition of the Apostles, as well as oblations for the dead. De cor. Mil. Hearing therefore such manifest vnthruthes, are fathered vpon the Apostles tradition, by most ancient writers, what certainety can we haue of their traditi∣on, without their writing? By this the reader may see, howe honestly and truely,

you say there are set before you, a payre of balances, with Charke and Fulke, in one ende: and Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian, Basill, &c. in an other ende. And Fulke opposeth himselfe against them all. Whe••••as in euerie place by you noted, hee opposeth either the holy scriptures, or other auncient writers, or the same writers themselues, or euident and manifest reason, to proue that such thinges are vntruly fathered vpon the Apostles tradition.

Last of all, for your farewell, you charge D. Fulke to affirme, that the booke of the Maccabees was written with a prophane and Ambitious spirite. Against purg. pag. 209. In deede in that place among many other rea∣sons which I bring, to prooue that storie not to bee the Canon of the scriptures, I say, that hee maketh a verie prophane preface, ambitiously commending his trauels and shewing the difference betweene a storie at large and an abridgement &c. If you be able to defende that

booke to be Canonicall, answere my reasons, & prepare your selfe to answere as many ••••re, as may bee alled∣ged to conuince the vanitie and falshod of that stories and so I leaue you to a better minde, if it be Gods will to giue it you.

I finde also, that in the Popish annotations, vpon the new Testament printed at Rhemes, my writings are carped at in two places, the former vpō 2. Thes. 2. where my wordes against Saunders Rocke, page. 248. & page 278. are rehearsed: In which I say that Leo & Gregorie bishops of Rome, although they were not come to the full pride of Antichrist, yet the mysterie of iniquitie ha∣uing wrought in that seate neere fiue or sixe hundred yeares before them, and then greatly increased, they were so deceiued with the long continuance of errour, that they thought the dignitie of Peter, was much more ouer the rest of his fellowe Apostles, than the ho∣ly scriptures of God (against which no continuance of errour can prescribe) doeth either allowe or bear•• withall.

Againe, the testimonies of Leo & Gregorie, bishops of Rome, as alwayes so nowe I deeme to bee vnmeete to be heard in their owne cause, though otherwise they were not the worst men, yet great furtherers of the au∣thoritie of Antichrist, which soone after their dayes tooke possession of the chayre, which they had helped to prepare for him.

For this I am called a malepeart scholer of Bezaes impudent schoole. But by what reason? For placing the mysterie of Antichrist, as woorking in the see of Rome euen in S. Peters time. That the mysterie of An∣tichrist did worke in S. Peters time, the text of S. Paul is plaine. That it did worke in Rome, where Antichrist should be openly shewed, S. Iohn is plaine in the Re∣uelation. Ca. 17. ver. 9. & 18. yea, the Papists confessing that S. Peter called Rome Babylon, must needes grant as much: this onely then remaineth in controuersie,

whether in the sea or church of Rome, the mysterie of iniquitie did worke, from the Apostles time, vntill Anti∣christ was openly shewed. Seeing it wrought at Rome, it wrought either in the church or altogether out of the church: but it wrought not altogether out of the church, therefore it wrought in the church. That the mysterie of iniquitie preparing for that Antichrist wrought not altogether out of the church, it is manifest, because the seat of Antichrist is prophesied to bee in the Temple and Church of God. Without the Church, was not the mysterie of iniquitie against Christ, but open wicked∣nesse and persecution of Christes Church. Therefore within the Church that mysterie did worke. By what meanes first, it is not certaine, because it was a secrete, not reuealed by the Apostle. Some coniecture that it was by preferring one bishop before all the clergie of elders or priests, which at the first were equall. Some thinke that such factions began at Rome, as afterwarde were at Corinth, one holding of Cephas, that is Peter, another of some other. How euer it was, the challenge made to Peters chayre, and from the dayes of Victor, diuerse bishops of Rome creeping vp by litle and litle, & pretending authoritie ouer other Churches, & other churches reuerencing that see, for many good respects, were abused by Satan to set forwarde his purpose in ad∣uauncing the throne of Antichrist. And where I saide, that Leo & Gregorie were great furtherers of the au∣thoritie of Antichrist, my meaning was not, that they did wittingly & willingly prepare a seat for Antichrist, but that the d••uel by Gods permission, because he was to send the efficacie of error into the world, tooke hold in the time appointed of that authoritie, which the bi∣shops for the dignitie of their see, and as they thought for the benefite of the church, did labour so greatly to maintaine & encrease. Neither write I any thing con∣trarie to the challenge of that reuerend father the bi∣shop of Sarum, as they charge mee, who saide at Paules

crosse, O Gregorie, O Leo, if we be deceiued, you haue deceiued vs: For his meaning was not thereby to al∣low whatsoeuer they had done or written, but that in some such matters as are in controuersie betweene the Papistes and vs▪ euen Gregorie and Leo are witnesses against them.

A great accusation is in the note vpon Heb. 5. ver. 6. in these wordes: You must beware of the wicked here∣sie of the Arrians and Caluines (except in these latter it be rather an error proceding of ignorance) that stick not to say, that Christ was a priest, or did sacrifice, ac∣cording to his godhead, which is to make Christ God the fathers priest, and not his sonne, and to do sacrifice and homage to him, as his lorde, and not as his equall in dignitie and nature. Therefore S. Augustine sayeth: in Psal. 109. That as he was man▪ he was priest: as God, he was not priest. And Theodoret in Psal. 109. As man he did offer sacrifice, but as God he receiued sacrifice. And againe, Christ touching his humanitie was called a priest, and hee offered none other host but his owne* 1.25 bodie, &c. D••m. 1. circa med. Some of our newe masters not knowing so much, did let fall out of their pennes the contrarie▪ and being admonished of the error, and that it was verie Arrianisme, yet they persist in it, of meere ignorance in the grounds of diuinitie.

First note the intollerable pride of these Popish interpreters▪ that challenge to themselues all learning and knowledge in diuinitie, condemning all other men of ignorance & meere ignorance in the groundes of diuinitie. So play∣eth Bristowe with the bishop of Sarum, whome in the place by them quoted, I reproued in these words: The like impudent cauil he bringeth against M. Iewel, whō no man I thinke without laughter can read, to be char∣ged with ignorance by blundering Bristowe, for affir∣ming Christ to be a priest according to his deitie, whom the Apostle expressely sayeth by his eternall spirite to haue offered himselfe, Heb. 9. ver. 14. But that you may

the better vnderstand this controuersie betweene vs, we denie not that Christ was a priest according to his humanitie, but wee affirme that whole Christ is a priest as he is both God and man. For in the office of priest∣hood two things must be considered, a ministerie and an authoritie. In respect of the ministeriall part, our Sauiour Christ perfourmed that office as man: but in respect of authoritie of entring into the holiest place, & reconciling vs to God & presenting vs vnto God, which was the principall part of his priesthood, hee did per∣fourme it, as the sonne of God, as Lorde and maker of the house, and not as a seruant, but as God, which hath created all things. Heb. 3. vers. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. & 6. Against this sound doctrine, let vs examine what the heretikes alledge. First, they charge it most odiously with Arria∣nisme, but without all ••parke of reason, seeing wee di∣stinguish plainly the authoritie of God the sonne, which is equall with his father▪ from the ministerie of y^e man Iesu Christ inferior to his father as touching his man∣hood. Secondly, they charge vs that we sticke not to say: Christ was a priest or did sacrifice according to his Godhead. Wee say he was a priest and did offer sacrifice, both according to his godhead & according to his manhood. And the same sa••eth the Apostle in effect, when he saith: The bloud of Christ, which by his eternal spirit offered himself vnreprouable to God, shal purge your conscience, &c. Heb. 9. 14. For not y^e bloud of beastes, nor of any man though he had beene inno∣cent, but the bloud of that man which was God, was the price of our redemption, in which respect the Apo∣stle Act. 20. ver. 28. sayeth that God purchased his Church vnto him selfe by his owne bloud. For by the eternall spirite is vnderstood that infinite power of the diuinitie, vnited to the humanitie, by which the sacri∣fice of Christ was consecrated, that by the same liuely or quickening vertue, by which he created vs he might also restore vs. Whereunto our Sauiour Christ had re∣gard,

when he saide Ioh. 6. It is the spirite that giueth life, the flesh profiteth nothing. But this (say the Pa∣pistes) is to make Christ God the fathers priest, & not his sonne. Nay rather, this is to acknowledge Christ to be both his fathers sonne, and his priest, euen as the Apostle sayeth: The law appointeth priestes, men that haue infirmitie: but the worde of the othe which is af∣ter the lawe, the Sonne for euer perfected. Heb. 7. v. 28. Where by the oppositiō of men hauing infirmitie, with the Sonne perfected for euer: it is most cleare, that the worde of the othe maketh Christ, as he is the Sonne of God, a priest after the order of Melchisedech. Where I cannot omitte the shamefull corruption of this text, in the popish translation, which to hide this opposition, betweene men, and God the sonne of God, hath altogi∣ther left out this worde, men, although it be in the La∣tine expressed manifestly: Lex enim homines constituit sa∣cerdotes infirmitatem habentes, which they translate thus: For the law appointeth priestes, them that haue infir∣mitie.

But to proceede. Our accusers adde further, that our assertion is to make Christ to doe sacrifice and ho∣mage to God his father, as his Lorde, and not as his equall in dignitie and nature. I aunswere no more than when S. Paul sayeth, that Christ when hee was in the forme of God, and thought it no robberie to bee equall with God▪ he made himselfe of no reputation, tooke vpon him the shape of a seruant, became obedient to the death, euen the death of the crosse. I haue suffici∣ently before distinguished, that all partes of his priest∣hood that required obedience, seruice, homage, mini∣sterie, subiection, he perfourmed as man: but the autho∣ritie of reconciling men vnto God, he wrought as God and man, euen as the Apostle writeth: God was in Christ reconciling the world to him selfe, 2. Cor. 5. ver. 19. That he might be a priest therefore able and wor∣thie to make attonement with God, he was God: that

his reconciliation and satisfaction might extende to men, he was man: and so beeing God and man he is •• perfect mediator betweene God and man, and an high priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech.

All this notwithstanding, they oppose against vs the authoritie of the fathers, who doubtlesse had no o∣ther meaning, than we to keepe this distinction. First Augustine in Psal. 109. is produced to say: that▪ as hee was man he was priest: as God he has not priest. But Augustines wordes are somewhat otherwise vppon the text, Iurauit Dominus, &c.

Ad hoc enim natus ex vtero ante luciferum, vt esses sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinē Mel∣chisedech. Si natū ex vtero de virgine intelligimus ante Luci∣ferū noctu, sicut ••uangelia contestantur, procul dubio inde ex vtero ante luciferū, vt esset Sacerdos in aeternū secundū ordi∣nem Melchisedech. Nam secundum id quod natus est de patre Deus apud Deum, coaeternus gignenti, non Sacerdos: sed sacer∣dos propter carnem assumptam, propter victimam, quam pro nobis offerre••: á nobis acceptam. The Lorde hath sworne, &c. For to this ende thou wast borne out of the wombe before the day starre, that thou mightest be a priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech. For according to that he is borne of God the father God with God, toeternall with him that begetteth, he is not a priest: but a priest for his flesh assumpted, for the sacrifice which being taken of vs, he might offer for vs.

In these words Augustines meaning is plaine ynough that Christ according to his diuine and eternall gene∣ration, could not haue beene a priest for vs, except hee had taken our flesh and beene borne a man, which wee doe alwaies confesse. But that our redemption by his sacrifice was the meere worke of his manhoode onely, he sayth not but the contrarie if he be marked. For he sayth that the sonne of God was a priest, for the fleshe which he tooke of vs, that he might offer for vs that sa∣crifice which he tooke of vs. Heere it is plaine that Christ as God offereth sacrifice, but he offereth as a

priest, for to offer sacrifice pertayneth to a priest, there∣fore Christ as God, is a priest: yet not as God only, but as God and man. Whereupon the same Augustine saith afterwarde: O domine qui i••rasti, &c.

O Lorde which hast sworne and sayde, Thou ar•• a priest for euer, after the order of M••lchis••dech, the same priest for euer, is the Lorde on thy right hande, the very same I say priest for euer, of whom thou hast sworne, is the Lorde on thy right hande, because thou hast sayde to the same my Lorde, Sit thou on my right hande, vntill I make thine enemies thy footestoole.

Heere he affirmeth, that the eternall God Dauids Lorde, as he was God, Dauids sonne as he was man, is that eternall priest. And to what ende? but to perfourme those partes of a priest, which were proper to God, that is to reconcile vs vnto God, to haue authoritie of himselfe and of his owne na∣ture and worthynesse, to come before God, and to re∣maine in the fauour of God alwayes, which no creature hath but through his worthinesse and gracious gift.

The next authoritie brought against vs is Theodoret in Psal. 109. who is cited thus: As man he did offer sa∣crifice, but as God he did receiue sacrifices: verily, we say as much and more also, that he offered sacrifice as God also reconciling the world to himselfe.

But in truth the wordes of Theodoret are otherwise and to an other ende. Sacerdos autem non est Christus, qui ex Iuda secundum carnem ortus est, non ipse aliquid offerens, sed vocatur caput e∣orum qui offerun••: quandoquidem eius corpus ecclesiam vocat, & propterea sacerdotio fungitur, vt homo, recipis autem ea quae offeruntur vt Deus: offeri verò ecclesia, corporis eius & san∣guinis symbola, omne fermentum per primitias sanctificans. And Christ is nowe a priest, which is sprung of Iuda ac∣cording to the flesh, not offering any thing himselfe, but is called the head of them that offer, seeing he cal∣leth the church his bodie, and therefore he exerciseth the priesthoode as a man, and hee receiueth those thinges that are offered, as God:

and the church truely

doth offer the tokens of his bodie and bloud sanctifying euerie leauen by the first fruites. In these wordes The∣odoret speaketh not of the sacrifice that Christ offered himselfe, but of the spirituall sacrifice of thankesgiuing which the church offereth to him in celebrating the memorie of his death. Not of the priesthoode which Christ did exercise in earth, but of the priesthoode that he doth exercise in heauen, not now offering anie thing, but as God receiuing oblations. And where he sayth that nowe he exerciseth the priesthoode as man, he denieth not but that he doeth exercise it as media∣tor, God and man. Which is more plaine in his expo∣sition of the Epistle to the Heb. cap. 8. where he enqui∣reth how Christ doth both sit at the right hande of ma∣iestie, and yet is a minister of the holy thinges.

Quonam enim munere sacerdotali fungitur qui seipsum semelobtuli••, & non offert amplius sacrificium? Quomodo autem fieri potest vt idem & sedea••, & socerdotali officio fungatur? Nisi fortè dixe∣rit quispiam esse munus sacerdotale, salutem quam vt dominus procurat. Tabernaculum autem vocauit coelum, cuius est ipse opifex, quem vt hominem dixit Apostolus fungi sacerdotio. For what priestly office doth he exercise, which hath once offered vp himselfe, and doth no more offer any sacri∣fice? And howe can it be that the same person shoulde together both sit, and exercise the priestly office? Ex∣cept perhaps a man will say that the saluation which he procureth as Lorde, is a priestly office.

Neither hath he any other meaning: Dialog. prime, where his purpose is to prooue, that Christ had a body. Si est ergo sacerdonum proprium, offerre munera,

Christus au∣tem quod ad humanit atem quidem attinet, sacerdos appellatus est, non aliam autem hostiam quam suum corpus obtuli••, Do∣minus ergo Christus corpus habui••. If therefore it be proper for priestes to offer giftes, and Christ as concerning his humanitie truely is called a priest, and he offered none other sacrifice but his owne bodie, therefore our Lorde Christ had a bodie. He sayth not that Christ is a priest

according to his humanitie onelie,

whereas the excel∣lencie of his person being both God and man, caused ••is sacrifice to be acceptable, and auaileable for the re∣demption of man. But to make the matter cleare, be∣side that which the Apostle writeth to the Hebrues ca. 9. these argumentes may plainely be drawen out of the 7. cap. where he speaketh expresly of his priesthood af∣ter the order of Melchisedech.

Christ as he is without father and without mother is •• priest after the order of Melchisedech:

Christ as he is God and man is without father and without mother, therfore Christ as he is God and man is a priest after the order of Melchisedech.

Againe, Christ as he hath no beginning of his dayes nor ende of his life, is a priest after the order of Mel∣chisedech:

Christ according to his diuinitie hath no beginning of his daies nor ende of his life according to his whole person:

Therefore Christ according to his diuinitie and ac∣cording to his whole person is a priest after the order of Melchisedech.

Againe, except you vnderstand Christ to haue beene a priest according to his diuinitie, he was tythed in the loynes of Abraham as well as Lcui, but according to his diuinitie hee was not in the loynes of Abraham, and therfore payde no tythe in Abraham as God, though as man he was subiect to the law, but receiued tythes of Abraham in his priest and figure Melchisedech. For the priest receiueth tythes in the name of God, as also he blesseth in the name of God. Therefore if Christ giue priestly blessing in his owne name, he giueth it as he is God and not as man onely. Finally to say, that that Christ was a priest only in respect of his manhood, ••auoreth rankely of Nestorianisme, whereas our asser∣tion that Christ is an high priest both according to his deitie, in which he is equall with his father, and also

according to his humanitie, in which the father is gre∣ter than he, is as farre from Arrianisme, as the Pa∣pistes are from honestie and synceritie, to charge vs with such open blasphemie.

God be praised▪

Notes

• * 1.1

  Ad Victor. lib. 4. cap. 1.
• * 1.2

  Euseb. lib. 5 ca. 25. & 26 Conc. Carth.
• * 1.3

  3. ca. 26. Gratian dist. 99.
• * 1.4

  Mileuit. ca. 22.
• * 1.5

  Conc. Aph. ad Celestin.
• * 1.6

  De oct. Dul∣cit. quest. q. 1. De fid. & op. c. 16. ser. in mont. lib. 1.
• * 1.7

  The epistle ••f persecu∣tion.
• * 1.8

  Def. pa. 13.
• * 1.9

  Trip. hist. li. 6. Cap. 6.
• * 1.10

  Against the Rocke p. 291
• * 1.11

  Against the Foretresse. pag. 52.
• * 1.12

  Against pur gatorie. p. 262.
• * 1.13

  Pag. 237.
• * 1.14

  Against Martiall. P. 146.
• * 1.15

  pag. 333.
• * 1.16

  Against Brist. M••t. pag. 19.
• * 1.17

  Against Stap pag. 1.
• * 1.18

  Gal. Mon.
• * 1.19

  Against Mot. p 6. 8.
• * 1.20

  Against Mart. p. 170
• * 1.21

  Against Mart. p. 178.
• * 1.22

  Ephes. 6.
• * 1.23

  In diuerse proude and foolish que∣stions.
• * 1.24

  Ag. Brist. M••t. p. 36.
• * 1.25

  Re••em. p. 89