A reply to Fulke, In defense of M. D. Allens scroll of articles, and booke of purgatorie. By Richard Bristo Doctor of Diuinitie ... perused and allowed by me Th. Stapleton.

j Ab authoritate Scripturae, negatiuè.

First therfore, whatsoeuer you say negatiuely out of a piece, whether it be one place, or one booke, you haue your selfe answe∣red it for me,* 1.1 whatsoeuer it be, in these words: It is no good Lo∣gike, to conclude negatiuely of one place or booke of Scripture, This is not conteined in it, therefore it is not true. These be your owne words, euen also speaking there of this selfe same matter, euen of Purgatory. Neuerthelesse (to deale more substantially) I will not sticke to rehearse those places also, and to answere them particulerly.

[ 1] One of them is 1. Thes. 4. vpon which in your negatiue diui∣nitie you demaund and say:* 1.2 How hapneth it, that in so necessary a place S. Paule findeth no other comfort to moderate the mour∣ning of the faithfull, but only the quiet rest of thē that are asleepe in the Lord, and the hope of their glorious resurrection? Sruely if S. Paule had bene of Chrysostomes mind, he would haue prescri∣bed other maner of comfortes,* 1.3 as Chrysostome doth, to wit, ex∣horting them to prayers and almes for their friendes departed, rather then to mourne so immoderatly. Séeing you so reason out of this place, I pray you let me aske you: Haue you, when∣soeuer in Sermon or otherwise you would moderate the mour∣ning of the faithfull, no other comfort but onely these two? yea I say more, If you haue no mo comforts in that case, and if there be no moe then S. Paule there prescribeth, surely there is but onely one, to wit, the hope of resurrection. For although he name them that are asleepe in the Lorde, yet of their quiet rest after that sléeping, that is to say, after their death, he saith nothing, it is but your owne addition.

[ 2] Another place, with your negatiue Logikes demaund, is, where hauing graunted,* 1.4 that Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Ieronym, and many more, are witnesse that the solemne prayer for the dead in celebration of the Sacrament, is the tradition of the

Apostles: you pose the Papistes notwithstanding, and aske, Why then the same is not set foorth by Matthew, Marke, Luke, or Paule, where they set foorth the institution of the Sacrament? Your wordes at large, and my aunswere, go afore in the laste Chapter, pag. ••. sauing that piece of your wordes, which con∣teineth your negatiue reason most clearely, and most boldly, say∣ing: But agaynst this faigned tradition S. Paule cryeth with open mouth 1. Corin. 11. That which I deliuered vnto you, I receyued of the Lorde, &c. This is the onely true substance of the Sacra∣ment, and onely right order of ministration, and onely right vse and proper end thereof. So you make as though the Apostle there prescribeth the whole order of ministration, in so muche that it onely and no other may be the right order thereof: con∣trarie to that whiche followeth in the same place,* 1.5 The rest I will set in order when I come. You declare your great skill in the Scripture, when here so farre you misse of the Apostles pur∣pose, which was onely agaynst vnworthy receauing. The great∣nesse of that sinne he sheweth, because of the Reall presence of Christ, yea and that in the same maner as he was in his death. Looke better vpon the place, and sée whether it be not as I saye, or rather as S. Augustine sayth:* 1.6

Inde enim & Aposto∣lus indignè dicit acceptum ab eis, qui non discernebant a cete∣ris cibis veneratione singulariter debita. quod satis toto ipso lo∣co in Epistola ad Corinthios prima, si diligenter attendatur, ap∣paret: For that respect the Apostle also doth say, that they receaue it vnworthily, who doe not by due and singularlye due worshippe discerne it from the rest of meates: as sufficient∣ly appeareth through that same whole place in the firste Epi∣stle to the Corinthians, if it be diligently considered. So then, where the Apostle intended no more but to correct the sinne of vnworthye receyuing, there to require of vs to shewe that he prescribeth it to be offered for the dead, yea and the whole order of ministration, haue not you forsooth great reason?

And euen as great you haue, where you argue out of particu∣lar [ 3] places of the Old Law, saying:* 1.7 What law was appoynted touching lamenting for the dead, you may reade Leuit. 21. how the Priest was forbidden to lament for any, but speciall persons.

Also Num. 19. Diuerse ordinances concerning the dead. yet neuer any sacrifice or prayer for the dead. With like reason you might conclude vpon the same places, that the dead should not be buried, because in these places no mention is made thereof: and againe of sundrie other places,* 1.8 where the people are bidde to keepe them selues warily from diuerse contaminations of them selues by towching certaine persons aliue, that therefore in the same places they are forbidden to pray for the saide persons aliue, and namely during the cause of such contamination, as for a man or woman whose séede or flowers runneth. You suppose ignorantly that in those places orders are giuen what shall be done for the dead, but it is not so: onely it is decréed, that whosoeuer entreth the tabernacle or house of him that is there departed, shal be con∣taminate or vncleane after the Mosaicall maner: and that the high priest shall not enter to any such at all, nor other priests but to certayne. What maketh this agaynst doing ought for the soule of the dead, in other places, and specially in the holy place? As when againe you say:* 1.9 When Nadab and Abihu were slayne, their father and brethren were forbidden to mourne for them, the peo∣ple were permitted. By all which it appeareth that no Sacrifice for the dead was offered. As though holy Sacrificing were as vnfit for the Priest as prophane mourning: And as though this speciall case were a generall rule, whereas Leuit. 21. it is expre∣sly said to the Priestes, that they may be contaminated (which with you is mourning) vpon their brother, notwithstanding that for the plague of their two brethren Nadab and Abihu they might not in some maner mourne.

From the particuler places of the Law, I come now with you to the whole Law thus, according to your good Logike, you con∣clude negatiuely therevpon:* 1.10 All lawfull sacrifices were prescri∣bed by the Law: Sacrifice for the dead was not prescribed by the Law, Therfore it was no lawfull Sacrifice. A séely argument was made by Grindall, which D. Allen there returneth vpon him, and in this fourme here rehearsed you go about to better it. The answere still is,* 1.11 as it was before, by returning it vpon your selfe: All lawfull Sacrifices, to wit, these foure in generall, Ho∣locaustum, pro peccato, hostia, oblatio (as the Psalmist and the Apostle do gather the summe) were prescribed by the Law: Sacri∣fice

for the dead is one of those foure, to wit,

pro peccato, for sinne: Therfore Sacrifice for the dead was prescribed by the law.

To this you would make a reply, and therefore you correct your Maior with an addition, and say, that not onely all lawfull Sa∣crifices were prescribed by the law, but also with peculiar men∣tioning and playne rehearsing of all such persons for whom Sa∣crifice was to be offered, both men & women, the princes and the priuate persons, the priest and the whole congregation, yea and speciall regard of the oblations of the poore, as may be seene Le∣uit. 4.5.12.15. But because all these persons are founde in the dead, as well as in the liuing, your addition reacheth yet farther, saying, And in the peculiar rehearsing of diuers kind of persons, and the fourme of the Sacrifice, named according to euery parti∣cular state, it is so farre off that the dead shall be reckned, that such things are enioyned euery of these particular persons to do, as it is playne that none but the liuing could offer, or haue Sacri∣fice offered for them. And in confidence of this addition, Iesu, how you befoole D. Allen: And yet it conteineth this grosse ab∣surditie, which you saw not, that none could offer or haue Sacri∣fice offered for them, but onely such as were both liuing and also present in the place, yea also able to do by thē selues those things enioyned, and moreouer that none might offer for their friendes, or for any other, but for them selues only. And what place is then left for offering for their children, for the sicke at home, for their brethren in other countreys captiue or pilgrimes, for the kings and cities of the world, vncircumcised, & for diuers other sortes, for which there was offering, as partly in other places is expres∣sed, partly may easily be proued? And therefore all this adoe con∣cludeth nothing against Sacrifice for the dead, although it coulde not be proued: much lesse, considering that it is in an other place so playnly expressed. For

the fact of Iudas Machabeus putteth all out of doubt,

say we: though you say that he therein transgressed the law. But your proofe thereof is yet to be made, vnlesse this proue it that you say, It is like, that Iudas Machabeus,* 1.12 if he deui∣sed not that Sacrifice of his owne head, yet tooke by imitation of the Gentiles, whose studies and practises, the Author of that Sto∣rie confesseth were more frequented in those dayes among the Iewes, then the preaching or keeping of the Law. Why syr, doth

the Storie say that Iudas Macabeus was one of those gentilicall Iewes, or that he ioyned with those Apostaticall priestes: Yea doth it not plainely say, that all his fighting was against the gen∣tiles and against gentilizing, and that he made his reformation by no Priestes but such as were

Vnspotted in the law?

But of your ignorance in that Storie (if no worse) I must speake more in another place.* 1.13

Now to ende this part, Let vs heare how you conclude of the whole Scripture:* 1.14 As it is no good Logike (you say) to conclude negatiuely of one place or booke of Scripture, this is not contei∣ned in it, therefore it is not true, (as you haue hithervnto con∣cluded:) So of the whole, the argument is most inuincible that concludeth negatiuely thus: All true doctrine is taught in the Scripture: Purgatory is not taught in the Scripture, therefore Purgatory is no true doctrine. O inuincible argument. The Maior is false, and to all your textes for it, I haue answered a∣boue.* 1.15 The Minor likewise is false. for Purgatory is taught in the Machabees, which is in the Canon of the true Church which you also confesse to be the true Church (you knowe the (a) 1.16 third Councell of Carthage:) and therefore it is Canonicall, if any other Scripture be Canonicall. It is taught likewise 1. Iohn. 5. so playnely, that you could not auoyde the place but by falling into this horrible absurditie, That we may not pray for all men liuing, as anone I shall report your wordes. It is also taught, specially agaynst you Syr, Ioan. 11. for you say after your maner passing confidently,* 1.17 that Martha and Mary (as the Scrip∣ture is manifest) did not hope for any restitution of their brother Lazarus to his body before the generall Resurrection. If that be so manifest, what els was it then, but the rest of his soule, that Martha would haue Christ to pray for, when she saide thus vnto him:

But also now I know, that whatsoeuer things thou shalt aske of God, God will graunt thee.

To whiche purpose also some auncient writers expound that place. But to alleage places is not my intent here, it is onely to answere your allega∣tions. And now hauing done with all your negatiues, we are come to your affirmatiues.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pur. 449.
• * 1.2

  Pur. 236.
• * 1.3

  Against the Fathers also.
• * 1.4

  Pur. 362.
• * 1.5

  Infra. ca. 11. contr. 44.
• * 1.6

  Au. ep. 118. ad Ian. ca. 3
• * 1.7

  Pur. 455.
• * 1.8

  Leuit. 15.
• * 1.9

  Pur. 456.
• * 1.10

  Pur. 455.
• * 1.11

  Infra ca. 12. num.
• * 1.12

  Pur. 456.
• * 1.13

  Infra ca. 12.
• * 1.14

  Pur. 449.
• * 1.15

  Ca. isto. p. 1
• (a) 1.16

  Infra pag.
• * 1.17

  Pur. 236.