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.

The second part. Of his Doctors particularly. First, whether they expound any Scripture against vs.

I find that he alleageth the Interpretors about thrée matters, which are these, Antichrist, Onely faith, and Purgatory.

j About Antichrist, and Babylon.

* 1.1As touching Antichrist, he saith: The Seate of Antichrist was appoynted to be set vp in the Latin Church, according to the Re∣uelation of S. Iohn, & the exposition of Ireneus, who iudged that Lateinos was the number of the Beastes name spoken of Apo. 13. Sée I pray you, what ragged wares are these. First, these two conclusions how well they follow: Antichri•••• was appoynted to be set vp in the Latin Church, Ergo, the Pope of Rome is Anti∣christ. Whereas it foloweth as well, that Luther or Caluine is Antichrist, for they are in the Latin Church in the same sense as

you count the Pope to sit in the Latin Church, that is, where the Latin Church was afore, but now is not. The other conclusion: Ireneus iudged that Lateinos should be the name of Antichrist, (as Iesus was and is the name of Christ) Ergo, he iudged that Antichrist was appoynted to be set vp in the Latine Churche. These are his necessarie conclusions. Besides that, it is false that he saith Ireneus iudged Lateinos to be the name. He saith,* 1.2 Valde verisimile est, It is very likely.

But yet of all names that we find, Teitan (sayth he) magis fide dignum est, is most credible. Nos ta∣men non periclitabimur in eo, nec asseuerantes pronuntiabimus, But yet neither that name will I venture to affirme and pro∣nounce, that he shall haue it: knowing that if his name should be manifestly preached in this time, (to wit, afore his comming) no doubt it had bene vttered by him who also saw the Apocalypse. In so much that he there inueigheth agaynst such as Definierint, Will define the name that they inuent, to be the name of him that is to come. Considering also that there is no small daunger there∣in. For if they pardie thinke one name, and he come with ano∣ther name, they shall be easily seduced of him, quasi necdum ad∣sit ille quem caueri conuenit, As though he that they should be∣ware of is not yet come. In which respect, you my Masters of this new Religion, haue deserued a special reward of Antichrist, (as I noted also afore in y^e last Chapter (for casting this straunge miste vpon Christes Vicar in the eyes of the blinde,* 1.3 that Anti∣christ when he commeth may walke more boldly.

To that purpose you alleage S. Hierome also, and say:* 1.4 He was not such a slaue to the Church of Rome, that••whatsoeuer plea∣sed the Bishoppes of that Sea, he was ready to accept. For then he would not haue ben so bold to cal Rome the purple whore of Babylon. Praef. ad Paulin. in lib. Didym. As though when he cal∣leth Rome so, or (a) 1.5 when S. Augustine calleth it the Westerne Babylon, they meane the (b) 1.6 Church of Rome. No syr, S. Augu∣stine meaneth no more but the Empire which was to be there set vp, speaking of the beginning of Rome: and S. Hierom meaneth the Gentility or Paganisme of Rome, which was there as yet in his time against the Church of Rome: as it was muche more, when S. Peter also called Rome Babylon for y^e same Paganes, and yet saide of that Church for all that,* 1.7 Ecclesia electa quae

est in Babylone, The elect Church which is in Babylon. In which maner S. Hierome him selfe distinguisheth in another place,* 1.8 hauing called Rome Babylon there also, and saith:

Est quidem ibi Sancta Ecclesia, I graunt, there is the holy Church, there are the Triumphes of the Apostles and Martyrs, there is the true confes∣sion of Christ,* 1.9 there is the faith commended of S. Paule: & Genti∣litate calcata, in sublime se quotidie erigens vocabulum Christia∣num, And treading gentilitie vnder foote, the name of Christians dayly erecting it selfe a loft.

So, that within two ages after S. Hieromes time, there were no Gentiles leaft in Rome, but all conuerted into Christians, and so Babylon fully and throughly become Hierusalem. And you know, I thinke, if you reade his preface that you alleage, that he there doth say, that what time he was in Babylon, Damasus was the Bishop.

Remember then, what he writeth to the same Damasus, by occasion of certaine suspected felowes in the East,* 1.10 which would néedes haue him to confesse three Hypostases, not content with three persons, and to communicate with them. I folowing none first but Christ (wher∣as the Arrians followed Arrius, &c.) am ioyned in Communi∣on to thy beatitude, that is to saye (by reason of Damasus his lawfull succeding) to the Chaire of Peter.* 1.11 Vpon that Rocke I know the Church to be builded. Whosoeuer eateth the Lambe without this house, he is a prophane man. If any man be not in Noes Arke, he shall perish when the Deluge ouerfloweth: desy∣ring him in the end most instantly, and saying, That by your let∣ters authoritie may be geuen me, whether it be to refuse, or to vse this worde Hypostases, and withall to signifie, with whom I shall cōmunicate at Antioch, because of the Schisme which was there at that time betwéene Paulinus and others.

By this you sée, that in doubt both of faith in time of Heresie, and also of com∣munion in time of Schisme, S. Hierome was readie to be ruled by the B. of Rome, and that all others (by his iudgement and expositiō of Scripture) must likewise do, in so muche that he saith further to Damasus in the same Epistle:

Whosoeuer gathereth not with thee, he scattereth: hoc est, that is to say, Qui Christi non est,* 1.12 Antichristi est, Whoso is not Christes, he is Antichristes, be∣cause (as S. Leo the great saith) Petrum in consortium indiuiduae vnitatis assumpsit Christus, Christ tooke Peter into the participa∣tion

of vndiuided vnitie,

so that it should be all one, to be Peters and to be Christes, to be in vnitie with Peter and his Successor, and to be in vnitie with Christ.

One more expositor yet, you alleage saying:* 1.13 Which of your Pre¦lates will folow Ambrose in his Commentary vpon the Apoca∣lypse, where he interpreteth the whore of Babylon to be the citie of Rome? I will recite his wordes for you:* 1.14

This whore doth be∣token, in some places, Rome in speciall, quae tunc ecclesiam Dei persequebatur, which then, (in S. Iohns time) did persecute the Church of God: In some places, in generall, the citie of the Diuell, that is to say, the whole bodie of the Reprobate. Is not this now a perilous point with our Prelates, so to touch the citie of Rome in S. Iohns time, which did persecute the Church of Rome, that is, the Clargie and other Christians of Rome?

But of the Church of Rome, the vndoubted Ambrose saith if you remember:* 1.15 In all thinges I couet to folow the Romane Church, so protesting, be∣cause he had occasion there to defende a certaine custome of his owne Church at Millaine,

which the Romane Church had not, cuius typum in omnibus sequimur et formam, whose paterne and samplar we follw in all thinges

, which notwithstanding, he there declareth, that other Churches may vpon good cause haue some ceremonie that the Church of Rome hath not. Likewise he cal∣leth Peter

primum and fundamentum, the first and the foundati∣on, in y^e very same place, where (say you) he affirmeth,

* 1.16 that Peter is not the foūdation. So faithfully you deale with your Reader. He doth there excellently cōfute by Peters confession, the Here∣sies that were against Christes Diuinitie & Incarnation. While other mens opinions were in rehearsing, Peter, though alwaies most forward, held his peace. But when he once heard,

Vos autē, now what do your selues say of me? statim loci non immemor sui, Primatum egit, Immediately being not vnmindefull of his place, he exercised the Primacie. The Primacie of confession pardie, not of (worldly) honor: the Primacie of faith, non ordinis, not of (worldly) degree And beneath: Faith is the foundation of the Church. Non enim de carne Petri, sed de fide dictum est: For it was not said of Peters flesh, but of his faith,* 1.17 that the gates of death shal not preuaile against it, his confession ouercommeth hel. Al which we say in the same maner:

Heretikes and other ministers of the

diuel may preuaile against the flesh of a Pope: but his faith, but his confession (aswell in the articles that be now in controuersie, as in those at that time) will stand when they shall all be sunke downe into their due place.

* 1.18And here by the waye (because the place is most conuenient, and because it is sone done) to answer vnto that you say, Ireneus, Polycrates, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Cyprianus, the Councell of Africa, and Socrates the Historiographer, did preach or write a∣gainst the Popes authoritie, when it first began to aduance it selfe in Victor, Cornelius, Stephanus, Anastasius, Innocētius, Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus. I say, first, that all those Popes were of the true Church by your owne confession here cap. 2. and there∣fore you are contrarie to your selfe in making other Popes to be Antichrist, for claiming suche authoritie as these did. Secondly, that all those writers did communicate with those Popes. And therefore your Schismaticall separation hath no helpe of them. Thirdly, that no one of them wrot against the Popes authoritie, as you pretend.

What did they then? of Ireneus, Polycrates, and Dionysius, touching S. Victor, and of Cyprianus touching S. Stephanus, I report the trueth here ca. 10. in the 28. demaund.

* 1.19The same S. Cyprian doth exhort S. Cornelius to be as stout in not loosing certaine Africane heretikes vnder the degrée of Bi∣shops, as their owne Bishop had bene in binding them. He al∣so noteth in S. Stephanus some litle negligence, but much more, wilfull obreption in those two lapsed Bishops of Spaine, Basi∣lides and Martialis, who had cōcealed from him the truth that in their supplication they should haue expressed, which because they did not, he sayth wel, that their restitution by the Pope, could not stand them in stéede against their former deposition by the Bi∣shops of their owne prouince. This which so plainely maketh for the Popes authoritie, you are so blinde to bring against it.

As concerning the Councels of Africa & Milenis: the question betwene them & those other fiue Popes was not about y^e matters of the vniuersal Church, as for example, matters of the faith, quo∣ties fidei ratio ventilatur, (for such matters they also them selues did referre to the Apostolike iudgement of those Popes, antiquae scilicet regulae (et traditionis) formam secuti, quam toto semper

ab orbe mecum nostis esse seruatam,* 1.20 following the forme of the old (tradition and) Canon, which (saith Pope Innocentius vnto them in those Epistles which S. Augustin being one of them doth often commend most highly as very answerable to the Sea Apo∣stolike) you as well as I do know to haue bene kept alwaies of all the world) but about matters of perticuler persons, as Appeales of Bishops.

And that question also was not about the Popes authoritie therin, but what order the Nicene Councel (which first was con∣firmed, and always afterward most exactly obserued of S. Peters Sée, as Municipall lawes are of good kings) had taken therein.

And of the inferior Cleargie there was no such question, but they should holde them selues quiet with the iudgement of theyr owne prouince, if not of their owne Bishop, without appealing further, according to Con. Aphric. cap. 92. which you alleage, and according to Concil. Sardicen. Can. 17. which is alleaged Concil. Carthag. 6· cap. 6. & 7.

But that Bishops might so appeale, y^e Popes auouched both by the old continual custome, Con. Cart. 6. ca. 2. (wherof no man can denie but there are exāples of such appeales out of all prouinces, & namely of the Patriarks of Alexandria & Constantinople, & S. Austine himself Epi. 162. in y^e cause of Cecilianus. B. of Carthage deposed by the bishops that began the Schisme of Donatus, vseth it as a plea y^e Cecilianus was readie causam dicere apud caeteras ecclesias extra Africam, To be iudged by the other Churches out of Affrike. Ne{que} enim de presbyteris, aut diaconis, aut inferioris gradus clericis agebatur, For the matter was not about any prie∣stes, or Deacons, or inferiors of the Cleargie, but about Bishops, qui possunt aliorum Collegarum iudicio, praesertim Apostolica∣rum Ecclesiarum, causam suam integram reseruare, Who may re∣serue their cause whole to the iudgement of their felowbishops, specially of the Apostolike Churches, where also he saith, In Ro∣mana Ecclesia semper Apostolicae Cathedrae viguit principatus, The Princedome of the Chayre Apostolike hath alwayes flori∣shed in the Romane Church. Also by the Councel Sardicēse ca. 7. (in the same Carthage Councel, cap. 3. whose authoritie none of those African Bishops did denie, for the same Bishops were of it that were of the Nicen, & S. Austine (ca. 7.) did expresly admit in

the cannon of the Inferiors appealing from theyr owne Bishop.

Thirdly by the Nicen Councell also, wherevpon you say, ve∣ry insolently trusting ouermuche your lying Lutherane friendes the Magdeburgians in their Centuries, that S. Augustine and his fellowes tooke those Popes with plaine forgerie and falsi∣fication of the Canons of the Councell of Nice, and fetched them meetly well ouer the Coles for it. You imagine that their Catho∣like grauities were as maleperte with the Popes of their time, as you and such other skipiacks be at this time. Cleane contrarie to the whole storye of that time, and the very wordes and déedes of those Affrike Councels them selues, where we reade no other∣wise of those Popes, then of such as were honored of all for their holines both in their liues, and also after their death euen to this day. And if you of your heades will call all forgerers and falsifiers which aleaged for Canons of the Nicene Councel, more then are conteined in those twentie, how many of the Auntients shal you spare, yea or S. Augustine also himself? How often doth he aleage the Nicen Councel against the Donatists about baptisme? How often do all aleage it about Easter day? and against the Arrians? & for many other matters not once mentioned in those Canons?

And therfore as you had no cause to inuent this forgerie, so al∣so the African fathers had small cause (as any man may perceaue by this) to stand so much with the Popes in those Appeales of Bishops from prouinciall Councels: by which their doing for all that, can not be inferred any thing against the Popes authoritie aboue prouinciall Councells, no more then against a generall Councels authoritie aboue a prouincial. For at this day also Ca∣tholike Kinges and Bishops stand with the Popes by the Coun∣cell of Trent, by his owne grauntes, pragmatical compositions, &c. in the right of geuing benefices, of Appealles, &c. with his owne good leaue, without any preiudice to his Superioritie: vn∣les you thinke y^e good kings be preiudicial to their own Crowns, when they are content to trie by lawe with their Nobles clay∣ming some priuiledge in the kings royalties.

* 1.21But most ridiculous of all you be, where you alleage Socra∣tes the Nouatian speaking against P. and S. Celestinus for ta∣king awaye the Nouatians Churches in Rome, (as before hée touched S. Chrysostome also for the like in Asia) and counting it

a point of foreine Lordship, not of Priesthood. Nouatians,* 1.22 spe∣cially in their owne cause, may not depose: Neither yet doth hée denie the Popes Supremacie ouer all, in carping that facte, no more then he denieth S. Chrysostomes Superioritie in the com∣passe of his Patriarkship of Constantinople.

As litle is it to your purpose,* 1.23 that the forsaid Aphrican Coun∣cell, cap. 6. decréeth, that any Primate of Afrike shall not be called princeps Sacerdotum, aut Summus Sacerdos, prince of priestes, or highest Priest, but onely thus, Primae sedis Episcopus, the Bishop of such or such a first See. What perteinech this to the titles, and much lesse to the Primacie (beeing the thing) of the Bishop of Rome? whom the Africans them selues (as appeareth in S. Au∣gustines works) neuer called Primae sedis Episcopum, but,* 1.24

Apo∣stolicae Sedis Episcopum, the Bishop of the See Apostolike.

ij. About onely faith.

For only faith thus you say:* 1.25 Which of your Prelates will fo∣lowe Ambrose in his commentarie vpon the Epistle to the Ro∣manes: where he so often affirmeth, that a man is iustified before God by faith onely. And againe: Cyprian taught,* 1.26 that faith onely doth profit to saluation. To. 2. ad Quirin. ca. 42. And that he bele∣ueth not in God at all, which placeth not the trust of all his felici∣tie in him onely, de duplici martyrio. And once againe:* 1.27 What O∣rigens iudgement was concerning Satisfaction for sinnes, he decla∣reth sufficiently in his 3. booke vpon the Epist. to the Rom. cap. 3. where often times he repeateth, that a man is iustified before God by faith onely: affirming that in forgiuenes of sinnes, God respec∣teth no worke but faith onely, as he proueth by the parable that our Sauiour vsed to Simon the Pharisee. Luke. 7. and answereth also those obiections, which euen the Papistes at this day make against vs for teaching that faith only doth iustifie vs in the sight of God.

The same which in the last chapter I declared to be S. Paules meaning, to wit, that a man may be iustified by faith,* 1.28 although before his faith, that is, before he was a Christian, before he was a Catholike, he did not good workes, but euill workes, the same (I saye) doth S. Ambrose and also Origen expresly declare to be their meaning also, and it is false that you say,

Origen to answer our obiections which we make against you for teaching that the

good workes which after faith Christ worketh in vs, doo not aug∣ment our iustification. He that onely beleeueth (saith Origen) is iustified, etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum, although no whit of works haue bene done by him. S. Cyprians woordes in Latine are but these thrée, Fidem tantum prodesse, faith onely to profit:* 1.29 meaning that faith profiteth, and, without faith nothing profiteth, alleaging his Testimonies for it accordingly, that A∣braham beleued God, & it was reputed to him vnto iustice. Gen. 15. and, If you will not beleue, you shall not vnderstand. Esay. 7. according to the Septuaginta.

The booke de duplici Martyrio is thought to be supposition, coyned by Erasmus: though that saying which you alleage, is of it selfe Catholike inough. For, to trust in Gods giftes, as in the Catholike faith, and good workes that hée worketh in vs, also to trust in his Sainctes: to trust in these, I say, as they be his, is to trust in him onely.

iij. About Purgatorie. Touchin•• Scripture expounded against it.

* 1.30Concerning the l••t of the thrée: where D. Allen hauing allea∣ged for his part the consent of all auncient Doctors, said boldly to his Reader: [Aske your new teachers, whether they haue any ex∣presse words in Scripture that denie prayers to be profitable for the dead, or at least (which is libertie enough) expounded for that meaning by any one man of all the antiquitie.] Fulke answering therevnto, saith: As for a place so expounded by an auncient wri∣ter, I will seeke no further, then the place of Hieronym euen nowe alleaged out of your owne Canon lawe, vppon 2. Cor. 5. referring the Reader to many other places alleaged in this aun∣swere, as out of Cyprian, Origen, and others: by whiche, the intollerable lying, and bragging, and rayling of this miscreant, shalbe better confuted, then by any contradiction of woordes. So hotte hée taketh that which D. Allen with all mildnes and swéetenes speaketh for saluation of Soules, [to suche as maye for theyr simplicitie be soone deceaued by following other mens errors, with whome the names of Doctors, or the onelye bare bragge of Scriptures, are as good as the alleagation of places.] And sée whether he did not worthily so say: for I assure thée Rea∣der,* 1.31 it is yet bare names of Doctors, that this Answerer also saith, out of Ciprian, Origen, & others▪ He cānot shew, that in his

whole booke, neither afore this place nor also after, he alleaged any exposition of a text by Cyprian, or Origen, for that purpose, no nor by any other at all (as thou shalt here perceaue) excepting onely S. Hierome.

And touching him also, what a coosining is it of the Reader, to pretend that Hierome expoundeth Scripture against prayer for the dead, considering that you confesse your selfe, that

Hierome allowed prayer for the dead,

as in the third chapter I noted:* 1.32 As if you would beare the simple in hand, that we also who now al∣low prayer for the dead, do expound Scripture against prayer for the dead? Is this to shew that the Doctors be of your side in déede, or onely to abuse their bare names? The place of S. Hierome is not vpon the 2. Cor. 5. but vpon Gal. 6. And in the Canon lawe (if Gratians booke be Canon law) you haue the meaning of it: Verum hoc de impaenitentibus accipiēdum est, saith Gratian,

But this is to be vnderstood of the vnpenitent: de mortuis damnatis, of the dead that are damned, saith the Summe ouer the head. Neither do the wordes enforce ought els, alleage you them ne∣uer so often. These they are:* 1.33 In this present worlde we knowe that one of vs may be helped of another, either by prayers or by counselles, but when we shall come before the iudgement seate of Christ, neither Iob, nor Daniell, nor Noe, can intreate for any man, but euery man must beare his owne burden. For any man (you sée) whose burden weigheth contrarie to all intreatie of others, because he dyed impenitent.

But otherwise who so dyeth penitent, deserueth thereby that the intreatie of others maye helpe him (as you heard S. Augustine saye in the laste Chapter, answering the texte, (2. Corinth. 5.* 1.34) and so he beareth his owne burden, and yet may be holpen by others. For suche is the poise of his burden, that it weigheth this way, and not the other way.

In an other place D. Allen rehearseth foure textes that they alleage agaynst Purgatorie,* 1.35 Eccle. 11. Mat. 7. 2. Cor. 5. Apoc. 14. (the aunsweres I haue put downe in the last Chapter) and then saith, [I aske them sincerely, and desire them to tel me faith∣fully, what Doctor or wise learned man of the whole antiquitie, euer expounded these textes, or any one of them agaynst Pur∣gatorie or practise for the dead.] Herevnto Fulke answereth:

Before the heresie of purgatorie was planted in the world, how could the old Doctors interpret these places by name against that which they neuer heard named?* 1.36 this poore shift he falleth vnto, not considering that it is contrarie to his bragges here a litle before, of Cyprian, Origen, and others, nor remembring that in the third Chapter he confessed, the old Doctors both heard & allowed, both the name & the thing, both of purgatory and prayer for the dead.

Yet haue they (he saith) so interpreted some of them, that their interpretation can not stande with Purgatorie or prayer for the dead, as I will shew in their particuler answers. So he promiseth: and yet wheras they are foure texts, only at one of them be brin∣geth the Doctors interpretation, and that also none but S. Hie∣romes, whom also he confesseth (as I haue said) to allow prayer for the dead. Let vs sée thē how you shew that his interpretation is against his owne beliefe. And because you crake of the expo∣sition of the Fathers (you say to D. Allen) Hieronym in his com∣mentarie vpon this place, Eccle. 11. expoundeth the north and the south not for the states of grace and wrath (as diuers of the aun∣cient Fathers do, saith D. Allen) but for the places of rewarde or punishment of them that dye. Why? what repugnance is be∣twéene those two expositions? They agrée both so well, that S. Hierome hath them both. First, the two states of them that dye:

Whersoeuer thou doest fall, there shalt thou alwayes remayne, Siue te rigidum, &c. Whether thy last time find thee rigorous and cruell to the poore, or milde and mercifull. Then the two places of payment: The tree either did sinne before while it was stan∣ding, and then it is put afterwardes in the North coste: or if it did beare fruites worthy of the South, it shall lye in the South coste. And immediatly: Neither is there any tree, but it is either in the North, or in the South.

Vnderstanding by the North any place of punishment, not onely eternall, but also temporall, in so much that he there sheweth out of Esay, that the North may bring to the South. These are his two last expositions of that place: his first is this: Keepe the foresaid commaundementes. For where∣soeuer thou preparest thee a place, futuram{que} sedem, and a seate for hereafter, whether it be in the South or in the North, there when thou art dead thou shalt continue.

This exposition with D. Allen I followed in y^e last chapter, for it is nothing els to say,

but that no man after death can merite, either to change altoge∣ther, or so much as to better his state.

Touching Scriptures for Purgatorie, and prayer for the dead.

And touching Scriptures expounded by the Doctors agaynst Purgatorie and prayer for the dead, these two places of S. Hie∣romes are all that he alleageth. Now touching Scriptures that we alleage for Purgatorie and prayer for the dead: it is good, al∣though it be not necessary, vnlesse he can fortify his new castellet of Onely Scripture better then yet he hath done) to examine whether the Doctors do say (as he pretendeth) either generally that no Scripture at all maketh for Purgatory & prayer for the dead, or so much as namely this place or that place doth not.

Whether the Doctors say, no Scripture to make for it.

For the first: Tertullian speaking no more but of the Oblations for the dead which we make vpon their yeres mindday, saith,* 1.37 Hu∣ius disciplinae si legem expostules Scripturarum, nullam inuenies, For this discipline if thou require a lawe out of the Scriptures, thou shalt finde none. Traditio tibi praetendetur autrix, Consue∣tudo confirmatrix, & Fides obseruatrix, Tradition shal be decla∣red to be the author of it, Custome the corfirmer, & Faith the ob∣seruer. Nowe commeth Fulke (which also I noted in the third Chapter) and for this one particuler is bold to say generally,* 1.38 that all offering and all praying for the dead is confessed of Tertul∣lian to be beside the Scripture. As where he saith:* 1.39 They (that is S. Chrysostome with some other old Doctors, as also nowe their Successors the Catholikes) labour to wrest the Scriptures to find that which Tertullian confesseth is not to be founde in them.* 1.40 A∣gaine: Tertullian hath discharged you of authoritie of the Scrip∣ture already. Againe: Tertullian, as wise a man as M. Allen,* 1.41 af∣firmeth (as we heard before) that prayer for the dead hath no foundation in the Scriptures. Againe:* 1.42 Neuer once mentioned in the Scripture, and so confessed by Tertullian, one that leaned to some part of your cause. Againe:* 1.43 He vtterly denieth that they came from the Scriptures. Therfore by Tertullians iudgemēt you do abuse the Scriptures. Agayne:* 1.44 Praying and offering for the dead, as Tertullian himselfe confesseth, is not taught by the Scrip∣tures.

Yet soone after, to shew that Tertullian with Montanus had in all poyntes the opinion of the Papistes, amongest other poyntes of his opinion he noteth,* 1.45 that all small offences must (as he thought) be punished after this life, where the prison is, and the vttermost farthing to be paide. Mat. 5. But reseruing that to the eleuenth chapter as one of his grosse contradictions, I will here note, how vpon the foresaid particular of only Tertullian, he is farre more bold then yet we haue heard.* 1.46 For thus he saith: They them selues (that is, the old Doctors) for the most part confesse, that prayer & oblation for the dead, is not taken at all out of the Scriptures,* 1.47 as Tertullian, Augustine, and other. Againe: Of them (amongst the auncient Fathers) that mainteined prayers for the dead, the most confessed they had it not out of the Scriptures, but of tradition of the Apostles, and custome of the Church. They denied it to be receiued of the scriptures. This he saith of S. Augu∣stine by name, and withall of the most part of the fathers, hauing in his whole booke no such saying of any other, neither euen that of Tertullians importing so much, but only as I haue declared.

So then haue I shewed, that he fayleth in this that he brag∣geth of the Doctors confessing against them selues and vs, as though generally no Scripture at all doth make for Purgatory or prayer for the dead. Now let vs come to particuler Scrip∣tures. Thus he sayth:

Of certayne particuler textes.

* 1.48S. Augustine, although otherwise inclining to the error of Pur∣gatory, yet he is cleare, that this texte (1. Cor. 3. of him that shall be saued through fire) proueth it not, neither ought to be ex∣pounded of it, and that he sheweth by many reasons, Enchirid, ad Laur. ca 68. where he affirmeth, that by the fire is ment the triall of tribulation in this life. You say that he affirmeth it: but he saith, that it is an harde place, and with doubtfulnesse speaketh accordingly, Non absurdè accipi possunt, So may this and this be interpreted not absurdly. And where you say, he is cleare that this texte proueth not Purgatorie: and agayne, that it ought not to be expounded of it: and agayne, that he sheweth the same by many reasons. All is false: No such matter. Onely he sheweth, that it ought not to be expounded after the Heresie of the Orige∣nistes, of hell fyre, as though they that be in it may at the length

be saued, and that it may be expounded of the fyre of tribulation in this life. Yea moreouer he sayth expresly, that it may be ex∣pounded also of some other like fire after this life: cleane con∣trarie to that whiche you here reporte of him: though in other places you also your selfe contrarie to your selfe do reporte the same. Whereof I shall anone haue occasion to say more in the third diuision of this chapter.

This is the onely place, of all that D. Allen doth alleage for Purgatorie and prayer for the dead, which Fulke pretendeth any Doctor to say that it ought not to be expounded thereof.

But where he sayth thus, speaking of D. Allen:* 1.49 For my part I will not refuse to satisfie his demaunde. He will knowe and haue vs aposed, from whence wee haue that newe meaning of our Sauiours wordes, that he whiche is caste into prison for neglecting of reconciliation while he is in the way,* 1.50 is caste into hell, from whence he shall neuer come: and then allea∣geth for that sense Chrysostome, Augustine, Hierome, and Chromatius. This (I saye) is passing childishe, (althoughe it were true, as it is not, that all those Doctours haue that sense,) for D. Allen demaundeth no suche thing, reade his wordes whosoeuer will. Yea straight after reciting the Protestantes obiection, [That the places of the Olde and Newe Testament,* 1.51 alleaged for Purgatorie, though they be thus expounded of the Doctors for Purgatorie, yet sometimes they be construed other∣wise by the Fathers them selues.] I answere to this (he sayth) [and freely confesse it.] For that is not the question betwéene vs, whether the Fathers haue expounded those textes of other poyntes of our Catholike faith (for if they haue, what maketh that agaynst vs?) but this, whether they haue expounded those textes for Purgatorie (which if they haue, that maketh with vs) and whether they haue expounded them or anye other agaynst Purgatorie (which if they haue, that maketh with you.) As for the diuersitie of true senses, the Churche hath euer gi∣uen roome (saith D. Allen) to the Expositors, according to eue∣ry ones gifte, onely prouided that no man of singularitie fa∣ther any falsehood vpon any text: Howbeit also euery ones true sense is not alwayes the very right and proper sense of that same text. Whereof I spoke more playnely in the sixt Chapter.

But Fulke replieth, to this and saith: Wheras M. Allen alloweth all the interpretations that the Fathers haue made of the text (1. Cor. 3.) by him alleaged, as true, so long as they affirmed no error: he may by the same reason affirme, that Contradictories are true. As in that saying (Mat. 5.) of him that shall not come out vntill he haue payd the vttermost farthing: some haue expounded that he shal be alwaies punished, some that he shall not be alwaies pu∣nished. How is it possible, that both these interpretations can be true? Mary, thus it is true: those He & He are not one He: but He that shalbe alwaies punished, is he that to the end of the way, that is, of this life, agréeth not with his aduersarie whom he had dead∣ly iniuried, as saying vnto him, Fatue, and thereby incurring the gilt of Gehenna ignis, which is the prison of the damned. He that shall not be alwaies punished, is he whose iniurie was but veni∣all,* 1.52 as Racha. And so both interpretations agrée wel not onely to∣gether, but also with the text it selfe: as likewise in the last chap∣ter I declared.

And so much of the Doctors interpretations. Now to the other kind of their Testimonies, which he alleageth against vs about any of our Controuersies.

Secondly whether the Doctors geue any other kinde of testimonie against vs.

j About the Bookes of Machabees.

And first (although it be but a by matter) whether the Macha∣bees be Canonicall Scripture, or no: because the last thing that I intreated of, was the Scriptures that be of purgatorie, and the Protestantes denie the Machabées for this expresse saying 2. Mac. 12.

It is an holy and healthfull meaning, to pray for the dead, that they may be released of their sinnes.

And touching this matter he alleageth no Doctor,* 1.53 but onely S. Hierome in two places. The answere wherof D. Allen gaue before, and that rightly and truly, as we shall well perceaue if first we remember what he alleaged for the other part. Fulke briefly both reporteth it, & also replieth vnto it, in these wordes: M. Allen pretendeth to proue the booke of Machabees Canonicall by authoritie of the Church,* 1.54 when he can not by consent that it hath with the Scriptures of God. As though all bookes are Canonicall Scripture which haue consent with y^e Scriptures. The Machabées in déed haue so (as also innu∣merable

bookes of Catholike writers, and Caluins Institutions too, I trow.) But the Churches authoritie, and not such Consent, it is, that proueth them Canonical.* 1.55 And the Churches authoritie D. Allen bringeth out of the third Carthage Councell: whiche Fulke in his answere saith was a Prouinciall Councell: but he must remember, that in the 4. Chapter to proue the whole true Church to erre, he told vs, that this Prouinciall Synode hath the authoritie of a Generall Councell, because it was confirmed in the Sixt Generall Councell holden at Constantinople in Trullo. And therfore he cannot auoid it, but that the Machabées are Ca∣nonicall by authoritie of the whole true Church, and therfore in déede also Canonicall, if any Scripture at all (and specially such as was euer by any doubted of) be Canonicall: whether the true Church may erre, or no. And therfore againe, he doth but labour in vaine, to shew, that the Carthage Councell did erre in that Canon, because it nameth among the Canonicall Scriptures also fiue bookes of Salomon, whereas the Church (sayth Fulke, as though he had not confessed this Councell to be the Church as much as any other) alloweth but three, namely the Prouerbes, the Preacher, and the Canticles. Not knowing what S. Augustine, that was one of that Councell (as Fulke him selfe saith,) writeth as it were of purpose to geue vs the meaning of that Councell, and of others likewise speaking, where he also reconeth vp all the same Canonicall Scriptures, as the Councell doeth.* 1.56 And three bookes of Salomon (sayth hée)

the Prouerbes, the Canticles of Canticles, and Ecclesiastes. For those two bookes, the one inti∣tuled Wisdome, the other Ecclesiasticus, de quadam similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur, for a certaine likenes are saide to be Sa∣lomons,

although in déede the be not his, but Ecclesiasticus is Iesus Siraches, and Sapientia is an incertaine authors,* 1.57 as S. Augustine partely in the same place, partly in his Retractations doth say.

Againe (saith Fulke,* 1.58 for an other answere to the Carthage Councell) in what sense they did call those bookes Canonicall, appeareth by Augustine, that was one of that Councell: And this Scripture of the Machabees non habent Iudaei sicut, &c. The Iewes compt not as the Law and the Prophetes and the Psalmes. What then? Here you see (saith Fulke) that Augustine howsoe∣uer

he alloweth those bookes, yet he alloweth them not in ful au∣thoritie with the law, Prophets, and Psalmes.

That which S. Au∣gustine reporteth of the Iewes, he ascribeth to S. Augustine him selfe. Although also it follow in Augustine immediatly: Sed re∣cepta est ab Ecclesia. But it is receiued of the Church not vnprofi∣tably, if it be soberly read and heard.

Which wordes also Fulke there alleageth, with this note, that S. Augustine alloweth not these bookes,* 1.59 without condition of sobrietie in the reader or hea∣rer. As though he allowed no booke of Scripture in ful authoritie, because both he & all other Catholikes with S. Péeter do require the same condition in the reader of the whole Scriptures, that he wrest them not like a madde man to his owne damnation, as all heretikes do, and as the Donatistes did, compting them selues Martyrs if they killed them selues, and mainteining it with the example of Razias out of the Machabées, to which S. Augustine there answereth. He that would in déede know, in what sense S. Augustine and his Councell call those bookes Canonicall, let him consider, that vnder one name of Canonicall, they recken at once these with all the other Holy bookes of both Testaments.* 1.60

Totus Canon Scripturarum his libris continetur. The whole Canon of the Scriptures is conteined in these bookes: Fiue of Moises, that is,

* 1.61 Genesis, &c. sayth S. Augustine. And the Councell in like ma∣ner: Sunt autem canonicae Scripturae, and the Canonical Scriptures are these, Genesis, &c. Loe, they call them all Canonicall in one and the same sense, although S. Augustine there instructeth the student of diuinitie, whilest all were not yet generally receaued of the whole Church, to preferre some before others.

* 1.62Read the chapter afore, where S. Augustine requireth seauen conditions in the student of Scripture, before he be perfect: and you shall perceiue, that it is but for lacke of the second, which is Mitescere pietate, to be meeke by pietie, that you so presumptuou∣sly make obiections,* 1.63 calling them in your pryde, vnauoidable re∣sons, against those bookes which by your own confession the whol true Church hath Canonized. And what be these vnauoidable re∣sons? First because the author of the (second) booke commendeth one Razis for killing himselfe,* 1.64 which is contrary to the worde of God. S. Augustine answereth the Donatistes & you at once, say∣ing: Touching this his death, the Scripture hath told it, how it was done: it hath not commended it, as though it was to be done.

Secondly you say, he abridgeth the fiue bookes of Iason. But the Holy Ghost maketh no abridgementes of other mens writinges. The booke of the Kinges, in how many places it singnifieth, that it abridgeth stories, telling where they be written more at large in other bookes that were not Canonicall? And is not S. Marke commonly called Breuiator, the abridger of S. Mathew? Also eue∣ry Sermon, and letter in the Actes of the Apostles,* 1.65 is it not an a∣bridgement? The Holy Ghost knoweth, to poure againe through his new vessels, both péeces of other mens writinges, as you see Act 17. Tit. 1. and also bookes, & much more of Iason the Hebrew. as also of Ethnike Poetes.

Thirdly, He confesseth that he tooke this matter in hand, that men might haue pleasure in it, which could not away with the te∣dious long stories of Iason. But the Spirit of God serueth not such vaine delight of men. Is it vaine delight, to desire profitable bre∣uitie? In your preface to y^e Reader, you say: I haue vsed great bre∣uitie, by a naturall inclination, whereby I loue to be shorte in any thing that I write. Do you compt your inclination a vaine incli∣nation? And who séeth not, that in al the bookes of holy Scripture, there is great obseruation of breuitie, & that (amongst other cau∣ses) also to auoide tediousnes?

Fourthly, He sheweth what labour and sweat it was to him, to make this abridgement, ambitiously commendeth his trauill, and sheweth the difference betwene a story at large, & an abridgemēt: al which things sauour nothing of Gods Spirit. And specially that in y^e end (for al this you carp in the preface 2. Mac. 2.) he cōfesseth his infirmitie, & desireth pardon if he haue spoken slenderly and barely. Wherby he testifieth sufficiently, that he was no scribe of the Holy Ghost. That he ambitiously commendeth his trauell, is but your blasphemie, without any occasion geuen by him. All the rest standeth wel ynough with the assistance of y^e Holy Ghost, vn∣lesse you think that y^e scribes of the Holy Ghost may not speak of themselues as of men, humano more, or y^e they must alwayes be eloquent, & alwaies able to do al without swet & without labour. Doth not S. Paul asmuch cōfesse his like infirmitie, whē he saith 2. Cor. 11.

Etsi imperitus sermone, though I be rude in speking?

Yea doth he not excuse

his bouldnes

for writing to the Romanes, who were so full of all knowledge, and saith that he did it not but

onely to put them in remembrance of that which they knew well ynough before? Rom 15. did he not also in that Epistle for his ease vse Tertius his hand? Rom. 16. and the like commonly in wri∣ting all his other Epistles also, as appeareth 2. Thes. 3? That I speake nothing of his intollerable paines taken in Preachinge, wherein also he was the instrument of the Holy Ghost, and not onely in his Epistles. These are forsooth your vnauoideable rea∣sons. Now to S. Hierome.

* 1.66M. Allen aleageth the authoritie of Hieronym in prol. Mach. But what he meaneth thereby or what place he noteth, I know not, quoth you, Who wil beléeue that you are so dul?

In the vul∣gare Latin Bibles is a preface vpon the bookes of Machabées: in it are these wordes: The Bookes of Machabees although in the Canon of the Hebrewes they be not had, yet of the Church they are noted among the Stories of the diuine Scriptures.

Those vsual Prefaces are taken commonly of S. Hierom, somtime for word, somtime for sense, and so is this, as will appeare by the two pla∣ces that you bring out of him. In his preface vpon the Booke of Kings (you say) he doth not onely omit it in rehersall of the Ca∣nonicall bookes, but also accompteth it plainly among the Apo∣cryphal.

He there reporteh, how many letters are apud Hebraeos, with the Hebrewes, to wit, two and twentie: and that according∣ly (number for number) primus apud eos liber, the first booke with them is Genesis, and so forth to two & twentie.

So expressy he sheweth that he rekoneth the bookes there after the Hebrewes, and therefore that he speaketh of their Canon, when he saith af∣terward, that all without these is to be put among the Apocry∣phall. Therfore Sapientia, which is commonly intituled Salo∣mons, and Iesus booke the sonne of Sirach, and Iudith, & Tobias and Pastor (for that booke also he mentioneth among the bookes of the old Testament, of which onely, and not of any of the new Testament, he there speaketh) non sunt in Canone, are not in the Canon. The first booke of the Machabes I found in Hebrew. The second is a Greeke.

Now what maketh this for you or a∣gainst vs? doth any of vs affirme that these bookes were in the Hebrewes Canon?

* 1.67But you haue another place out of S. Hierome, to proue that they were neither in the Churches Canon. In his Preface vpon

the booke of Prouerbes: Therfore euen as the Church readeth in deede the bookes of Iudith, Tobias, and Machabees, but yet recei∣ueth thē not among the Canonicall Scriptures: So also these two bookes (Ecclesiasticus, and Sapientia) let her reade (as she doth) for the peoples edification, but not to confirme the authoritie of the Churches doctrines: to wit, against the Iewes (that is the an∣swere,) because their Canon hath not these bookes in it. But a∣mong the Churches people they were also then read publikly and solemly in their course as well as the other bookes of Scripture: As S. Augustine also witnesseth of one of them by occasion, say∣ing:* 1.68

The booke of Sapientia hath bene thought worthy to be recited at the deske in the church of Christ, tam longa annositate, so long a rew of yeres: and with worship belonging to a booke of diuine authoritie, to be harkened vnto of all Christian men, from Bishops, euen to the lowest sort, of laymen, faithfull, peni∣tentes, and Catechumenes. This was that reading of it to the peo∣ples edification.

And euen so S. Hierome expoundeth him selfe in his Preface vpon the booke of Iudith, saying:

With the Hebrues the booke of Iudith is read among the Hagiographal (not amōg the (a) 1.69 nyne Hagiographal that be Canonical, but among others being Apocryphal.) Cuius authoritas, &c. The authoritie of which boke is thought lesse fit to confirme those things that come into contention (betwéene the Hebrewes, no doubt, and vs.) But (not∣withstanding the Hebrues counting it Apocryphal) the Nicene Councell (as we reade) hath reckned this booke in the number of the Holy Scriptures. As also S. Augustine distinguisheth, saying:* 1.70 The supputation of the times after Esdras to Aristobulus, is not found in the holy Scriptures which are called Canonicall, but in others: among which (others) are also the bookes of the Ma∣chabees, which, though the Iewes do not, yet the Church counteth for Canonicall. By all which it is playne, that S. Hierome mea∣neth not as the Protestantes do, when he saith, that the Church receiueth not the bookes of Iudith, Tobias, and the Machabees, among the Canonicall Scriptures. (For him selfe saith, that the booke of Iudith is Canonicall by the Councell of Nice) but only as I haue saide, he instructeth the Christians béeing ignorant in the Hebrue tongue, what bookes they should vse against the Iewes (for which cause he also addressed his new Translation

of the olde Testament out of the Hebrew, as in many places he protesteth,* 1.71) and that the Church in Canonizing those other bookes, meant not for all that that they should be vsed agaynst the Iewes, who receiue them not, and therfore would but laugh at vs for our labour.

Howbeit also, if S. Hierome did saye in the Protestantes sense, that the Churche then receyued not those bookes neither in her owne Canon, that maketh nothing for the Protestantes. For we graunt, the time was when the Church did not generally receiue some of those bookes. To make for the Protestantes he should haue saide, that the Church, (and not on∣ly any priuate person) neither did then, nor ought afterwardes to receiue them.

* 1.72Where now is Fulke, that saith, Hieronym doth simply re∣fuse these bookes of the Machabées? Agayne: Hieronym saith, the Church receiueth them not for Canonicall.* 1.73 Yea moreouer: I haue by the consent of the Catholike Church aunswered them. And agayne of Tobias booke:* 1.74 I haue shewed by authoritie of Hieronym, which is proofe sufficient agaynst the Papist, that the Church receiueth not this booke of Tobias for Canonicall Scripture. All this you saye: but I haue shewed, that not so muche as Hierome him selfe maketh with you, though also if he did,* 1.75 that is not proofe sufficient agaynst vs: as I haue tolde you playne inough before, that it is onely the consent of the Doctours to whiche we attribute infallibilitie, and the scope that of confidence of our cause we geue you, to bring one Doctour if you can, is not in these bymatters, but in our princi∣pall controuersies.

And this much of the Canonicall Scriptures, though it be somwhat besides my limites. Whervnto yet I must néedes adde the place where you say thus:* 1.76 If Martyn Luther and Illyricus haue sometimes doubted of S. Iames Epistle, they are not the first that doubted of it. Eusebius sayth playnely, it is a counterfeite Epistle, lib. 2. cap. 23. and yet he was not accounted an heretike. I say not this to excuse them that doubt of it: for I am perswaded they are more curious then wise in so doing. Do you make it but curiositie to doubt of that Scripture which your selfe also con∣fesse to be Canonicall? Howbeit Luther not onely doubted of it, but also vtterly reiected it, euen with as great courage as you

haue here reiected the second of the Machabées: and that also af∣ter the consent of the whole Church. Is this no worse then Eu∣sebius his fault, before the Churches declaration? O worthy e∣stimation of Canonicall Scripture. What matter will not you license them of your side to doubt of, without note of Heresie, when you dare so do in that which with you is the greatest? And yet also to shewe what a marchaunt you are,* 1.77 Eusebius saith not as you charge him, but the cleane contrarie.* 1.78 His wordes are these:

Of Iames I reade so muche. By whom the first of the E∣pistles, which are named Catholicae, is saide to be written. But this one thing I maye not omit, that although of some it is taken for a counterfeite, because no suche number of the auncient wri∣ters maketh any mention at all of it (as neither of that which is saide to be the Epistle of Iude, which also is sette in the num∣ber of the seuen Epistles Catholicall.) Tamen nos istas cum re∣liquis, in quamplurimis Ecclesijs publicè receptas approbatas{que} cognouimus: Yet we haue founde these, with the residue to be publikely receiued and approued in very many Churches.

ij About onely Scripture.

Next vnto this I take in hande the question of Onely Scrip∣ture: thinking better to deferre the rest touching Purgatorie, to the end of the chapter, dispatching also all other questions be∣fore, because they be shorter.

Howe he ascribed all authoritie to Onely Scripture, and no∣thing to ought els, we heard in the seuenth chapter.* 1.79 Now he will beare the ignorant in hande, that the Doctors were of the same opinion, yet confessing withall that they helde the contrarie no lesse then we doo, as partly in that same chapter we saw, partly here agayne we shall sée. And therefore in this question agayne as in others afore, it is no more agaynst vs, then agaynst those Doctours them selues, whatsoeuer he wresteth oute of their writings.

Cyprian would haue nothing done in the celebration of the Lords supper, & namely in ministring of the cup,* 1.80 but that Christ him selfe did, li. 2. Epist. 3. I answere: he writeth there, contra A∣quarios, against them that offered in the Chalice water onely, whereas Christ offered wine. That he calleth,

aliud quàm quod

pro nobis dominus prior fecit, An other thing then that which Christ did first for vs,

as being cleane against Christes doing, and such a doing as he did for a tradition to vs. But otherwise, to mingle the wine with water S. Cyprian there requireth, and that also by Christes tradition: and therfore he buildeth not vp∣on onely Scripture, as you in alleaging him séeme to pretend.

* 1.81Now for an other Doctor: where Chrysostome sayth, It was decreed by the Apostles that in the celebration of the holy My∣steries, a remembrance should be made of them that are departed: we will be bold to charge him with his owne saying. And there you alleage foure places out of him against him selfe, as it were for onely Scripture. Is not this pretie shewing of the Doctors to be of your side? And what are these places of S. Chrysostome? First,* 1.82 Hom. de Adam et Heua: Satis sufficere, &c. We thinke it suffiseth enough whatsoeuer the writinges of the Apostles haue taught vs, according to the foresayd rules: in so much that wee compt it not at all Catholike, whatsoeuer shall appeare contrarie to the rules appointed. You are a great reader of y^e Doctors, I sée. Whosoeuer made that Homilie, he tooke those wordes out of that brief Instruction which in the first Tome of y^e Councels foloweth the Epistle of Pope Celestinus to the Bishops of Fraunce con∣cerning the Semipelagians, which Bishops I thinke to be y^e Au∣thors of the same Instruction. They take it (and so they say) out of the determinations of those Bishops of Rome in whose time Pelagius and Celestius beganne their Heresie, that is, P. Inno∣centius and P. Zozimus, and out of certein Aphrican Councels approued by those Popes.

And after 8. or 9. such Canons or arti∣cles, they make an end, saying: As for certaine more suttle points, we are not bound to resolue vpon them. We thinke, all that suf∣ficeth enough, which the writinges of the See Apostolike haue taught vs, according to the foresayde rules (or Canons:) in no wise thinking it Catholike, that shal appeare to be contrarie, prae∣fixis sententijs, to the resolutions set here before.

Againe, in Gen. Hom. 58. Thou seest into what great absur∣ditie they fal, qui diuinae Scripturae canonem sequi nolunt, Which will not follow the Canon of Holy Scripture, but permit all to their owne cogitations. Hée answereth the Heretikes, which said, that our Lord tooke not true flesh. Then (saith Chrysostome)

he

neither was crucified, nor dyed, nor was buried, nor rose agayne.

Into such absurditie they fall, because they will not followe the playne line of Scripture, but their owne imaginations of puta∣tiue flesh, such as was in the Apparitions of the old Testament. What is this for onely Scripture?

But if we be further vrged, we will alleage that which he saith, In Euang. Ioan. Hom. 58. He that vseth not the holy Scripture, but climbeth another way, id est, non cōcessa via, that is, by a way not allowed, is a Theefe. O Christian spirite, if you be vrged, you will call S. Chrysostome a Theefe by his owne saying, for vsing Tradition. As though he vseth not Scripture, which vseth Tra∣dition: or that Scripture doth not warrant Tradition, as 2. The. 2. The thing which S. Chrysostome there speaketh of, is this: that Antichrist, and those pseudochristes, Iudas Galileus, Theu∣das, and such others, also heretikes & Schismatikes, as Luther, Caluine, &c. cannot shew any commission out of Scripture. But Christ, and his Apostles, with the other Catholike Pastors that succede them, come into their cure by good warrant of Scripture. These therfore are true Pastors, the other are théeues.

We may be as bould with Chrysostome, as he sayd he would be with Paule himselfe, in 2. ad Tim. Hom. 2. Plus aliquid dicam, I will say somewhat more, we must not be ruled by Paule him∣selfe, if he speake any thing that is his owne, and any thing that is humane, but we must obey the Apostle when he carieth Christ speaking in him. And when is that? when he speaketh all only by Scripture? Will you not obey him then, when he sayth,

Ego e∣nim accepi a domino, For I receiued it of our Lordes mouth.

1. Cor. 1••. Sée in what a proper sense you vse Chrysostoms words. These are the foure places. One other you haue elsewhere, say∣ing: Chrysostome vpon Luke, cap. 16. saith,* 1.83 that ignorance of the Scriptures hath bred heresies, and brought in corrupt life, yea it hath turned all things vpsidedowne. By which it appeareth by what means he would haue heresies kept away, namely by know∣ledge of the Scriptures. And who would not the same? It is ther∣fore our dayly studie, and we sée our selues, and shewe others thereby the abomination of your Heresies, and how you would face them out with a carde of tenne. But what maketh this for Onely Scripture to be of authoritie?

As S. Chrysostome, so in like maner S. Leo is of your side, you say, against vs, and against him selfe. For where D. Allen alleaged this saying of his:* 1.84 It is not to be doubted, but whatsoe∣uer is in the Church by (generall) custome of deuotion kept and reteined, it came out of the Apostles tradition, and doctrine of the Holy Ghost? You answere that the saying of Leo the great, may be backed with the writing of Leo the great, Epist. 10. They fall into this folly, which when they be hindred by some obscuritie, to know the truth, haue not recourse to the words of the Prophets, nor to the writings of the Apostles, nor to the authorities of the Gospell, but to them selues. In these wordes, Leo as Great as you would haue him, maketh the Scriptures, and not Customes or Traditions, the rule of trueth. So you gather of those words: as also in another place, That the Church should ouerthrow here∣sies,* 1.85 by the word of God onely, Leo the first, Bishop of Rome, in his Epist. 10. ad Flauianum contra Eutichen, playnely confes∣seth. He doth not saye that all truthes are expressed in the Scrip∣tures, though that be whereof he there intreateth, to witte, the Incarnation of Christ. Mary, when a trueth is expressed in the Scriptures, recourse muste be had to the Scriptures. So he sayth: but he sayth not, to the Scriptures onely: yea in the ve∣ry same tenth Epistle he blameth Eutiches the Heretike, much more, for not hauing recourse neither so muche as to our com∣mon Creede, whiche is not Scripture (you wotte well) but a Tradition.

* 1.86Of the same iudgement (you say) was (not Leo onely, but) the whole Councell of Constantinople the sixt, Actione 18. con∣fessing that the Heretikes and Schismatikes growe so fast, because they were not beaten downe by preaching of the Gospel and au∣thoritie of the Scriptures. I confesse the same, howbeit the Coun∣cell doth not. But what is that for Onely Scripture? yea the place is playne for the other side.

I maruell you could not espie as much euen by the piece that you alleage, althogh you saw not the whole circumstance. Béeing truely translated, this it is: If al men had simply and without calliditie from the beginning recei∣ued the Gospels preaching, and bene content with the Apostles institutions, the matters verily had bene well a fyne, and neither the authors of the heresies, nor the fautors of the Priests, had bene

put to the paines of conflictes. Who would rest here, as you do, and not imagine somewhat to follow, with a (but) necessary to be séene?

Sed quia Satanas &c.

But because the diuell not resting raiseth vp his squires, therfore Christ also in time conuenient hath raised vp his warriers against them, to wit, the Generall Coun∣cels that to this time haue ben holden by the dilligence of the Em∣perours and the Popes, being Sixe in number.

So expresly they auouch the authoritie of the Councels, and you alleage them for Only Scripture, wheras also in the words that you alleage there is no mention at all of Scripture, but onely of preaching and teaching.

Likewise S. Hillarius most expresly auoucheth euery where the authoritie of the Nicene Councell against the Arrians: and yet you pretend, that he would haue heresies against the Trinitie,* 1.87 to be confuted, not by mens iudgement, but by Gods word. You marke well what he doeth in that place. How heresies must be confuted, is not his purpose, but to answere the Scriptures, that the Heretikes abused and misconstrued, which he there had reci∣ted at large, therefore he saith:

Cessent propriae hominum opiniones, neque se vltra diuinam constitutionem humana iu∣dicia extendant. Let mens proper opinions cease, neither let the iudgementes (or fancies) of men stretche them selues beyonde Gods limite. Therefore against these prophane and impious in∣stitutions (or Catechismes) of God, let vs followe the selfe-same authorities of Gods sayinges, which they alleage in their owne false sense, restoring euery one of them to his true mea∣ning.

Which there consequently he doth. A goodly testimonie for your purpose.

The saying of S. Basill is in euery mans mouth,* 1.88 that the Doctrines preached in the Church, we haue them partely by writing, partely by the Apostles Tradition without writinge. And if we go about to reiect suche vnwritten customes, we shall vnawares condemne the Gospell also. Imo ipsam fidei predica∣tionem ad nudum nomen contrahemus, yea wee shall bring the verye preaching of our faith to a bare name.

And you your selfe doe note it as a greate matter, that by his confes∣sion here,* 1.89 the wordes of Inuocation when the Blessed Sacra∣ment is shewed, are not taughte by the Scripture, no more

then many other ceremonies that he rehearseth in the same place. And yet must he also beare you witnesse against himselfe for On∣ly Scripture.* 1.90 Well, what saith he? In his treatise of faith: We know, that we must now, and alwayes, auoyde euery worde and opinion that is differing from the doctrine of our Lord. I say the same. But it is not all one, to be differing from our Lords doc∣trine, and not to be expressed in Scripture. In so muche that he alloweth wel of those words, in speaking of the Trinitie,

Quae a∣pud Sanctos viros in vsu fuisse reperirentur, Which had bene vsed of the holy fathers

, although they were not in Scripture.

* 1.91Two sayings more of his you alleage, In his short definitions to the first interrogation: Whether it be lawfull or profitable for a man to permit vnto him selfe, to do or say any thing which he thinketh to be good, without testimonie of the holy Scriptures? He answereth: For as much as our Sauiour Christ saith, that the Holy ghost shall not speake of him selfe: what madnes is it that any man should presume to beleue any thing, without the autho∣ritie of Gods word? If you saw the place, your malice passeth.

The words are these Quis esse tanta vesania, &c. Who can be so madde, that he dare so much as to thinke any thing of himselfe? And it followeth: But because of those things and words that are in vse amongst vs, some are playnly taught in the holy Scripture, some are omitted: Concerning them that are written, they must precisely be so obserued: and, concerning them that are omitted, we haue this rule, To be subiect to other men for Gods com∣maundement, renouncing quite our owne willes.

Which he saith, because he writeth there to Monkes, who vow obedience to their Superiours.

* 1.92Agayne, In his Morals, Dist. 26. Euery word or deede must be confirmed by the testimonie of holy Scripture, for the perswasion of good men, and the confusion of wicked men. He there admo∣nisheth his Monkes, béeing studentes of Diuinitie to be so per∣fect in the Scriptures, that they may haue a text ready at euery néede, so as Christ had to repel the diuels temptation, Mat. 4. and Peter to answere the Iewes scoffe, Act. 2. And we desire y^e same: in so much as when you bid vs cast all away that is not written, we haue this text ready, where S. Paul biddeth vs the contrarie,

To hold the Traditions which we haue learned, whether it be by

his Scripture, or by his word of mouth.

2. Thes. 2.

Last of all we haue to sée what you alleage likewise out of S. Augustine for your onely Scripture.* 1.93 For you play with his nose also, as you haue done with his fellowes the foresaid Doctors, confessing that he is for vnwritten Traditions and suche other authorities as we stand vpon, and yet alleaging him for Onely Scripture. Your confession I haue reported at large in the se∣uenth chapter: as for example, where you say, Augustine blindly defendeth (in his booke De cura pro mortuis agenda,* 1.94 and else where) the cōmon error of his time, of prayer for the dead, which by holy Scripture he was not able to mainteine, contrarie to his owne rule of only Scripture, in beating downe the Schisme of the Donatistes, and the heresie of the Pelagians. Well then, how do you shew out of Augustine against Augustine him selfe, that this was his rule?

You make your shew in thrée partes:* 1.95 First you quote onely without recitall of any words, eleuen or twelue places out of him, In which he preferreth the authoritie of the Canonicall Scripture, before all writings of Catholike Doctors, of Bishops, of Councels, before all customes and traditions. So you gather of those places. But that is not the question, Which is to be prefer∣red: but this, Whether nothing but Scripture be of authoritie. And touching the preferment also, recite the wordes when you will, and it will appeare playnly, that he neither preferreth the Scripture otherwise then we do.

Your second part is about this one question,* 1.96 Who haue the true Church: Of whiche question you saye, that S. Augustine would haue the Church fought only in the Scriptures. Reade my first Demaund, and you shall sée what S. Augustine would haue in that question, and that I would haue the same: to wit, that you answere the Scriptures that he alleageth for his Church and for ours together: and that you bring one text for the visible Churches perishing after a time, or vanishing out of sight: and one text, that one Luther, or one Caluine should after so many hundred yeres restore it againe. This is the summe of al. In dede he is content in that question to set aside all other authorities, so to draw the Donatists (who drew backe al that they could, stan∣ding vpon other things impertinent) to try it by the Scriptures.

But that nothing els is good authoritie in that question, that he neuer saith.

You allenge him De 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ecclesia, cap. 2. where he saith, (and the like cap. 3.5.6. The question betwene vs and the Do••stes is, Vbi sit ecclesia, where the Church is, whether with vs, or with them? What shall we do then? shall we seeke her in verbis nostris, in our owne wordes, or in the wordes of her head our Lorde Iesus Christ? I thinke we ought rather to seeke her in his wordes who is trueth, and beste knoweth his owne body.

Where by our owne wordes you vnderstande all besides Onely Scripture. But S. Augustine doth not so. quicquid nobis inui∣cem obricimus, verba nostra sunt, Our wordes are whatsoeuer we obiect one to another, of deliuering the diuine bookes (in Dioclesians time) of burning frankinsence to the Idols, of per∣secuting▪

As all your declayming also at this time against vs, is for certayne crimes of certayne men: We hauing the like, yea and them more haynous; and that more truely, to charge you withall. But these words S. Augustine will, (and we with him) to be silent, when the Church is sought, and the words of Christ in the Scripture to sound.

Againe you alleage him Epist. 48. ad Vincentium Rogatistā, where he ••aith, We are sure that no man could iustly separat him selfe (as Luther did) a communione omnium gentium, from the communion of all nations: because none of vs seeketh the Churche in his owne righteousnesse, but in the holy Scriptures. Wherevnto you adde your fiue ••gges▪ saying: So if the Pa∣pistes would not presume of their owne righteousnesse, but seeke ••he Churche of Christe in the Scriptures: they would not sepa∣••ate them selues from the communion of Christes Church, now ••y Gods grace inlarged further then the Popish Church. There 〈◊〉〈◊〉 no crooked gambrell bow that casteth so wide, as you do the ••octors wordes, these specially, from their scope. I maruell ••uche at you for it, and muche more if you sawe the place. By 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Communion of all Nations, so often agaynst the Dona∣••es, Saint Augustine meaneth the Societie of that visible ••urch, which as it beganne visibly at Hierusalem, so visibly grewe on afterwardes, and groweth on to this day, and to the worldes ende, ouer all nations. From whiche Societie or Companie,* 1.97

fieri non potest, it is impossible, saith he, that any can

haue iuste cause to separate their companie.

Because the Dona∣tistes saide that Cecilianus the Catholike Bishop of Carthage had yéelded in Dioclesians persecution, and that all the other Catholikes by communicating with him after that, whereas they should haue excommunicated him for euer, were also defiled thereby: and therefore that them selues who had not yéelded, did well to separate them selues from the Catholikes, as the iust from the vniust. Therevpon Saint Augustine saith notably:* 1.98

If any may haue a iust cause to separate their companie from the companie of all Nations, and to call that, Ecclesiam Christi, the Church of Christ: Vnde scitis, How know you in all Christen∣dome beeing so wide and side, lest perhaps before you did sepa∣rate your selues, some did afore separate them selues for some iust cause in some so farre countreys, that the bruite of their iustice is not come to you? How can the Church (béeing but one) be in you rather then in them who before perhaps haue separated them selues? Ita fit, &c. So it remayneth, that seeing you know not this same, you be vncertayne of your selues. Which likewise must needes happen to all (others) who vse for their Societie the testimonie not of God, but of them selues (that is, of their owne iustice.) And then a litle after: Nos autem ideo certi su∣mus, But we (Catholikes) are certayne that none can haue iust∣ly separated himself from the companie of all Nations: quia non quisque nostram in iustitia sua, because any of vs doth not in his owne iustice, but in the diuine Scriptures seeke for the Church: Et vt promissa est, reddi conspicit, and seeth it to be represented euen as it was promised, to wit, from Hierusalem to Rome, from the Iewes, ouer all nations, being mixt both of good and bad, and the good (not consenting) no whit defiled by the companie of the bad.

And therefore whether any of our Popes, any of our other Bi∣shops, any of our other fathers, any of our Catholike brethren, haue bene so yll as y^e Protestants make them, or no: sure we are, that Luther possibly could not (as neither euer any could, or can) iustly separate him selfe, because by the holy most euident Scrip∣tures, that only is the true church, which beginning at Ierusalē, groweth ouer all Nations: in which by the same Scriptures, we sée that once the Romanes were, and from which the said Ro∣manes did neuer separate thē selues afterward: and with which

Romanes Luther first was, and afterwardes did Separate him∣selfe from them, and so therfore from the true Church. And yet come you, like a blinde beetle, and say that the Papistes did Se∣parate them selues from your Church: bragging as blindely of your inlarging. For once hauing made a separation, it is no in∣larging afterwardes, that can winne you the true Church from them that had it afore. Of whose largenes yet also aboue your largenes, read my 9.31.32.33.47. Demaundes, and ioyne with me if you list vpon them.

Your third parte out of Augustine, is more generall, to wit, about all questions with any Heretikes whatsoeuer▪ thereof you say,* 1.99 that he would haue heresies confuted only by Scriptures. For, writing against Maximinus the Arian, li. 3. ca. 14. (a place com∣monly and often cited) he saith: Sed nunc nec ego Nicenum, &c. Of which place your gathering is this: If Augustine would not oppresse the Arians by the authoritie of the Nicene Councell, which was the first and the best generall Councell that euer was, but only by the Scriptures: how much lesse would he charge them with other authorities▪ that the Papistes alleage: beside the autho∣ritie of holy Scriptures? It is for your owne vantage, or els you would not so play the proctor for Heretikes. S. Augustine would not oppresse the Arians, nor would not charge them, but onely with Scripture, you say. But doth he say, that he might not? (for there is the question.) You know, (I doubt not) how commonly he presseth the Donatistes with the authoritie of the sayd Nicen Councell,* 1.100 graunting that in S. Cyprians time it was a doubt∣full thing, whether Heretikes can baptize. But, nullo iam quaestio est, now it is out of all doubt: because in that same Councell it had bene discussed, considered, ended, and ratified.

And euen so in your owne place, a litle before, hauing proued inuincibly by the Scriptures, that the Father & the Sonne are vnius eiusdem∣q́ue substātiae, of one and the same substance, he sayth immediat∣ly: This is that Homousion which against the Arrian heretikes was in the Nicene Councell ratified of the Catholike fathers, ve∣ritatis authoritate & authoritatis veritate, not onely by authoritie of truth (as your selfe do graunt) but also by truth of authoritie, (which you denie.) It followeth: Which Homousion afterwards in the Councell of Atiminum, hereticall impietie vnder the here∣ticall

Emperour Constantius endeuoured to infirme, But all in vaine, For soone after the libertie of the Catholike faith preuai∣ing, Homousion was defended vniuersally. Then come the words that you alleage: Sed nunc nec ego Nicenū, nec tu debes Ariminēse tanquam praeiudicaturus proferre cōcilium. But now (in this dis∣putation betwene vs two, being vpon the matter it selfe in it selfe) as it were to preiudicate, neither must I alleage the Councell of Nice, nor thou the Councell of Ariminum. For so that Arrian Bishop Maximinus being both to encounter with S. Augustine vpon the matter it selfe, sayd in the very beginning of the dispu∣tation:

If thou demaund my faith, I hold that faith which at A∣riminum of three hundred and thirtie Bishops was not onely no∣tified, but also by their subscriptions ratified.* 1.101

Therefore S. Au∣gustine said as before, and further as followeth. Nec ego huius authoritate, nec tu illius detineris. Neither doth the authoritie of the one holde me, nor of the other holde thee. Where your false translation maketh him to say, that the Arrian was not bounden to the authoritie of the Nicene Councell, contrarie to that which he said afore, calling it veritatem authoritatis, the truth of autho∣ritie.

Therefore they were bound to it, as you also now be bound to the Tridentine Councell: but they would not be holden with∣in their boundes, as neither you will. And therefore it was to no more purpose to alleage against them that of Nice, then it is to alleage against you this of Trent, specially they hauing that of Ariminum to pretend for them, such a one as you (being of all great Heresies, the beggerliest) haue none. Neither would we in the like altercations alleage against you the olde Councels, if you would plainely confesse them to be against you, so as you do confesse the Tridentine to be against you, and so as the Arrians did confesse the Nicene to be against them. Wherevpon S. Au∣gustine there sayth:

By authorities of the Scriptures, being wit∣nesses not proper to one side, but common to both, let matter trie with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason. The like would we by his ensample in the like case say to you: in the meane time also not refusing to answere al that you can alleage, be it Scripture, be it Councell, or whatsoeuer els, as in this booke you finde: nor requiring you to answere any priuate wit∣nesses, but onely common, considering that not we onely, but

you also (whatsoeuer you say of onely Scripture) do make claime for all that and appeale to the first 600. yeares, namely your Iewell, in those two Goticall Sermons of his at Powles crosse Anno 1560.

The other places also that you alleage out of Augustine for this generall parte, are but particular, and concerne no more but that one question of the Church, whereof your second parte was: as this former place cōcerned no more but y^e question of the Tri∣nitie. And therefore your probation is not so large, as your affir∣mation, where you say, that although Augustine proue against the Pelagians by the prayers of the Church,* 1.102 yet he doeth not meane to defend, that whatsoeuer the visible Church receiueth, is true: and therefore all other perswasions set aside, he prouoketh onely to the Scriptures, to trie the faith & doctrine of the Church. How true that is, appeareth by the very same booke De vnitate Ecclesiae, out of which you go about to shewe such prouoking of his. for there, when he hath proued against the Donatistes, the Church to be his, he sayth expresly, that to be ynough also for all other questions.* 1.103 Sufficit nobis. &c. It is ynough for vs, that we haue that Church, which is pointed to by most manifest testimo∣nies of the Holy and Canonicall Scriptures.

And touching the very question it selfe of the Church againe, what doe you alleage out of him? what you gather of his saying, I sée,* 1.104 for you say: By this Augustine declareth, first that Heretikes must be confuted onely by the Scriptures: and secondly, that nei∣ther Councels, Succession of Bishops, Vniuersalitie, Myracles, Visions, Dreames nor reuelations, are the notes to trie the Ca∣tholike Church, but onely the Scriptures. So you gather, but he sayth not so.* 1.105 Remoueantur omnes moratoriae tergiuersationes, sayth he:

Away with all dilatorie drawinges backe: such as is Quicquid de peccatis hominum obijcitur, all that the Donatist Bishop obiecteth of certeine mens crimes. Also when he saith for his Church, Verum est, quia hoc ego dico. It is true, because I say this: or, because this said that felowbishop, or those felowbishops of mine, or, those Bishops (in their Councels) or Clarkes or Lay of oures: aut ideo verum est, or, therefore it is true, because such and such meruailes did Donatus, (who was as it were their Lu∣ther,) or Pontius, (as it were their Caluine,) or any other: or,

because men do pray at the memories of our departed & be hard, or, because this and that there doeth happen: or, because such a brother of ours or such a sister of ours, sawe such a vision wal••ng, or dreamed such a dreame sleeping. Remoueantur ista, Awaye with these dilatories: and let them shew their Church in the Ca∣nonicall authoritie of the Holy books. Nec ••ta, vt ea colligant &c. Neither so as to gather & rehearse those places which are obscure or ambiguous or figuratiue, that euery man maye interpret them as he list after his owne sense. But bring you forth some place so manifest that it needeth no interpreter.* 1.106 Because neither we do say, that men ought to beleeue vs that we are in the Church, for that, that the Church which we holde hath bene commended by Optatus of Mileuis, or by Ambrose of Milayne (as now, by Fi∣sher of Rochester, or Hosius of Warmes) or by other inumerable Bishops of our communion: or because she hath ben set forth by Councelles of our fellowbishopps. For these were priuate to S. Augustines side, as those other Bishopps and Councelles were priuate to the Donatistes side.

So are they not now, but both sides, we and you, do claime them. And therfore now better cause to alleage them, euen also in the question of the Church, then was in S. Augustines time: how be it then also he might well haue alleaged them, although in that booke he did not, and sayth he did not. For in them was veritas authoritatis, trueth of authoritie, as here aboue pag. (179.) he sayd to the Arrian, and no lesse also to the Donatistes.

It followeth on further (as you also alleage) Aut quia per totum orbem,* 1.107 or Because ouer all the world in the Holy places that our communion doth frequent, so great Mira∣cles partely of exauditions, partely of curinges, are done, in so much that the bodies of (Geruasius and Protasius) Martyrs, which laye hidden so many yeares (they were Martyred in the Apostles time) were reuealed (as if they will aske, they may heare of many) vnto Ambrose, and that at the same bodyes, one that had bene many yeares blynde, very well knowen in the Citie of Millayne, receiued his eyes and eye sight. Or because such a man had a dreame, and such a man in Spirite heard a voyce, that he should not enter into the side of Donatus, or that he should goe out from the side of Donatus Where hee addeth of these mira∣cles and visions, saying: Whatsoeuer suche thinges are done

in the Catholike Church, therefore they are to be allowed, be∣cause they are done in the Catholike Church, (otherwise not, be they done in Donates side, or in Luthers, or in Caluines.) Non ideo ipsa manifestatur Catholica, quia haec in ea siunt, But not therby is the Catholik church made manifest, because these things are done in her.

You translate it, that she is not proued therby, as though S. Augustine said, that also true allowed Miracles & vi∣sions (wherby in the Scripture also it selfe we sée Christ him self and so many other things purposely proued) lacke weight and fashion of iust probation. Whereas in deede he saith no more of thē, then he saith of Scripture which is obscure: not that it wan∣teth authoritie to proue the Church, but that it doth not make the Church manifest, requiring therfore the Donatistes to bring such Scripture,

as needeth no interpreter, Sicut non eget inter∣prete.

Which we alleage (saith he) out of so many most manifest places for the Church beginning at Hierusalem, and thence gro∣wing on continually ouer al Nations euen till Domesday. Such Scriptures do make the Church manifest: but so do not obscure Scriptures, vntill the interpretation be allowed: Neither Mi∣racles and visions, vntill they be allowed. Now the Donatistes would none of the Catholike Church in their time: but both we and you confesse it. And therefore when we alleage the Miracles done in it, you haue not to except agaynst vs by this place of S. Augustine. And that againe, because we also do apeale with him to such & the same Scriptures for manifest triall of the Church, so that my v••ry first demaund is therof: though we vse also other probations, to shew that Scripture and all is for vs, and nothing for you. As he also doth, where he saith to the Manichees vpō the same matter:* 1.108

In Catholicae Ecclesiae, &c. Many things there be, which in the Catholike Churches lappe most worthily do keepe me. There keepeth me, Consensio, Consent of peoples and Na∣tions: There keepeth me, Authoritas, Authoritie, by Myracles be∣gon, nourished by Hope, by Charitie encreased, by Antiquitie made firme and sure: There keepeth me Successio Sacerdotum, Succession of Priestes from the very See of Peter the Apostle, (to whom our Lord after his Resurrection committed the feeding of his sheepe) euen to the Bishop that now is: There keepeth me fi∣nally,* 1.109 ipsum Catholicae nomen, the very name Catholike, which

not without cause among so many Heresies this Churche alone hath obteined, Ista ergo tot, &c. These then so many & so great most deare bonds of Christian calling, do wel keepe the man that beleueth in the Catholike Church, although as yet he vnderstand not the truth which he beleeueth.

To which place of S. Augustine you pretend to answere, say∣ing vnto vs: All this, you will say, maketh exceding much for vs:* 1.110 yea but heare that which followeth: Apud vos autem, &c. But with you (Manichées and Protestantes) where there is none of these to allure me and keepe me, sola personat veritatis pollici∣tatio, there ringeth onely a promising of trueth. Then to your purpose as you think: quae quidē si tam manifesta mōstratur, &c. Which trueth if it be shewed so manifest, that it can not come in doubt, is to be preferred (I graunt) before all those things, by which I am holden in the Catholike Church. And what of this? By this you may playnly see (quoth you) that though Consent, (and vniuersalitie) Antiquitie, Succession, and the name Catho∣like, be good confirmation, when they are ioyned with the truth: yet when a truth is seuered from them, it is more to be regarded then they all. As though S. Augustine graunted, that the trueth might be seuered from them. Where he playnly saith, also

moste sincere wisdome, syncerissimam sapientiam,

that is, truth and vn∣derstanding of it without all corruption, to be in the said Catho∣like Church, though the Heretikes will not beléeue so muche, but thinke that the Catholikes are grosse heades, and blind folowers of mens commaundements. But them selues, though destitute of all that should moue any man to be of their side, yet to haue the truth most manifestly and without all doubt. For that cause S. Augustine ioyneth with them in that booke, and answereth their foundations, as I do yours in this booke, shewing that all this glorious talking of trueth, is but winde of vayne words.

One such place more you alleage twise to the same purpose.* 1.111 De pastoribus, cap. 14. To a strayshepe seeking the Church what say you, Syr Donatist? Partis Donati est Ecclesia.

The peece of Donatus hath the Church. Reade me that out of the Scriptures, out of the Shepeheards voyce. For out of them do I recite Eccle∣siam toto orbe diffusam, The Church which is not any mans piece, but (beginning at Hierusalē) spreadeth ouer al the world.

Sed illi codices tradiderunt, But (thou sayst) such men trayterously deliuered the holy bookes to Dioclesians ministers, and suche men offered incense to the Idols, such a one and such a one. Quid ad me de illo & de illo? What is that to me of such a one & such a one? quia nec de illis vocem pastoris annuntias, For it is thy selfe that accusest them. But tell me the Shepheards voyce, if that voyce accuse one, I beleeue it, alijs non credo, other accusers I do not beleeue. Sed acta proferes, But thou wilt bring foorth Court rolles, wherein their crimes are registred. Acta profero, And I also bring foorth Court rolles, wherein the same mens innocen∣cie is registred. Credamus tuis? crede & tu meis, Shall we beleeue thine? beleeue thou mine also. Non credo tuis: noli credere meis. I do not beleeue thine: and I geue thee leaue also not to beleeue mine. Auferantur chartae humanae: sonent voces diuinae. Let mens Court papers be remoued: and let Gods sayings be rehearsed. E∣de mihi vnam Scripturam pro parte Donati, Geue me one place of Scripture for the piece of Donatus, or of Luther, or of Cal∣uine, or of any other broken piece. Audi innumerabiles pro orbe terrarum, But for the Church of the whole world, I am ready to rehearse innumerable places.

Nowe what maketh all this for Fulke? vnlesse he thinke he hath any vauntage in his owne false translation of Acta, turning it Decrees. Yea doth it not make a∣gainst him most inuincibly, as all the rest also that S. Augustine hath written against the Donatistes for his Church & ours? that is, for the Church beginning at Hierusalem, and thence spreding ouer all Nations to the very last time, euen in the same maner altogether as it had done to S. Augustines time?

iij About certaine Traditions.

Vpon this question of Onely Scripture I haue stood long, be∣cause Onely Scripture & Onely faith are with the Protestantes all in all, howbeit they haue neither Scripture nor Faith. Now to dispatche other questions very briefly, agaynst certayne Tra∣ditions Fulke alleageth, saying: Beatus Rhenanus a Papist, and a great Antiquarie, affirmeth, that by the Canons of the Ni∣cene Councell and other Councels, which he hath seene in Libra∣ries, those oblations pro Natalitijs, with other superstitions that Tertullian fathereth vpon Tradition of the Apostles, were

abrogated. As touching oblations pro Natalitijs, I haue answe∣red in the sixt Chapter.* 1.112 But as for abrogation of any other Tra∣ditions, Rhenanus hath neuer a word.

iiij About the mariage of Votaries.

For the mariage of such as haue vowed virginitie,* 1.113 you alleage one place of Epiphanius thrise, & another of S. Hieromes twise, and all about a matter that we hold euen as they did. Thus you saye: Epiphanius,* 1.114 although he count it an offence to marrie af∣ter their vowe (therein he is with vs you know) yet he saith, (speaking of such as secretly liue in fornication sub specie soli∣tudinis aut continentiae) vnder the colour of vowed singlenes or continencie) It is better to marrie then to burne (that first is not in Epiphanius). Melius est itaque vnum peccatum habere, & non plura, It is better to haue one sinne rather then many. It is better for him that is fallen from his course (wherein he beganne to runne for the Crowne of Virginitie) openly to take a wyfe according to the lawe, & a virginitate multo tempore poeni∣tentiam agere, and a long time to repent (to do penaunce for breaking) that vowe of his virginitie, and so (hauing done his full penaunce) to be brought agayne into the Churche (out of the which he was caste as an excommunicate person for brea∣king his vow) as one that hath done amisse, as one that is fal∣len, and broken, and hauing neede to be bound: rather then to be wounded dayly with priuie dartes, of that wickednesse whiche the diuell putteth into him. So knoweth the Church to preach: Haec sunt sanationis medicamenta, These are the medicines of healing. Whereof you gather, and say, that Epiphanius calleth marriage of suche men, an holsome medicine, contrarie to that you confesse your selfe that he calleth it a sinne, (for so doth the Apostles Tradition, saith he) vnlesse perhaps you thinke Sinne to be an holsome medicine. No syr, the holsome medicins are his long penance, and his reconcilement to the Church againe. But at the least (say you) Epiphanius alloweth marriage in them, whereas the Popish Church did separate them from their wiues in queene Maries time. After a solemne vow, (which is made but only two ways, by taking holy orders, & by professing some com∣mon

approued rule of Religion) to marrie, is * 1.115no mariage, and therevpon it is that no Doctor can be alleaged which alloweth it for mariage, if Priests or such professed Monkes and Nunnes do marrie. But the sole vow of virginitie, and of widowhood, is none of those two, and therfore but a simple vow: and therefore to marrie after it, although it be a great mortall sinne, yet the mariage holdeth. So saith Epiphanius, and so say we, as some widowes in England hauing taken the mantle and the ring, and marrying afterwards, can beare vs witnesse, whose mariage we haue allowed of (though they may not vse it so fréely without iust dispensation, as other maried Folke, and as their husbandes may, because of their vow) and cured them by penance & reconci∣liation, altogether as Epiphanius here witnesseth of the Church in his time.

* 1.116So is it likewise of the simple vow of virginitie, that S. Hie∣rome speaketh, saying:

The name of certayne virgins, which be∣haue them selues not well, doth slaunder the holy purpose of vir∣gins, and the glory of the heauenly and angelike familie. To whō must be playnly said, vt aut nubant, that either they marrie, if they can not conteine, or els conteine, (suing to God to giue them strength) if they will not marrie.

We say the same to the same, and generally to all others, which of two sinnes wil nedes com∣mit one, counsayling them rather to commit the lesser then the greater: As for example, to say that they will come to your schis∣matical and Heretical seruice, when the Commissioners require no more, rather then to come vnto it in déede: not omitting to tell them withal, that they should neither so much as say they wil come, because that also is a sinne, and a mortall sinne: as Epi∣phanius told those virgins, that their mariage also is sinne.

v. About the Real presence, and Transubstantiation.

About the blessed viuificall Sacrament of the Altar you al∣leage one Doctor against the Real presence, and thrée others a∣gaynst Transubstantiation.

* 1.117It was not the beleefe of S. Augustine, nor of any other in that time (you say) that the Sacrament is the naturall body and bloud of Christ. As though it were the mysticall body of Christ, which is his Church: Vnlesse you finde more then these two, his natu∣rall body, and his mysticall body. Or, as though it were not his

naturall body which was the morow after his Supper to dye for vs, and his naturall bloud which was to be shedde for vs. When will you euer admit any text for plaine and euident Scripture, standing so obstinately against these most cléere woords of Christ,

This is my Body, that is geuen (and broken) for you, Luc. 22.1. Cor 11. This is my bloud (Mat. 26. Mar. 14.) that is shedde for you (and for many. (Luc. 22. Mat. 26. Mar. 14. And what a grosse blindnes is this, considering the infinit difference betwene bread and Christ, to thinke, that being in S. Augustines time taken for bread, it could afterward in all Christendome be taken for Christ himselfe, and that without all contradiction?

wheras also at this time you the Sacramentaries, could not chaunge the doctrine of it from Christ to bread, but heauen and earth cryeth out against you for it, not the Catholikes alone, but also the Lu∣therans.

But S. Augustine forsooth saith:* 1.118 Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis &c. I will recite the whole circumstance, that the world may sée your dealing.* 1.119

I finde (saieth he) how without Idolatrie earth may be adored, without Idolatrie Christes foote∣stoole may be adored. For he tooke earth of earth: because flesh is of earth, and of Maries flesh he tooke flesh. Et quia in ipsa carne hic ambulauit, et ipsam carnem nobis manducandam, &c. And because he walked here in the same flesh, and gaue to vs the same flesh to eate for our saluation, and no man eateth that flesh but first he adoreth (it:) we haue found, how such a footestoole of our Lordes may be adored, and not onely we sinne not in adoring (it) but we sinne in not adoring (it.) Sée now how properly Fulk answereth hereunto: Augustine in deede alloweth the adoration of the body of Christ whereof that is a Sacrament, but neither can you proue out of that place, that he would haue the Sacrament honored, nor that the Sacrament is the very body of Christ.

As though the same flesh which he tooke of the Virgin Marie, and in which he walked, is not his very body, for, the same (saith he) we eate, and we adore it before we eate, bowing and prostrating our selues euen to euerie particulare holy hoste, as now in the Ca∣tholike Churches you know, and as S. Augustine witnesseth of his time. For it foloweth in most manifest wordes:

Et ad terram quamlibet cum te inclinas atque prosternis, non quasi terram in∣tuearis,

And when thou doest bow and prostrate thy selfe vnto any earth, do not consider as it were (bare) earth: Sed illū Sanctū, but that holye one whose footestoole it is that thou adorest. Et cum adoras illum, ne cogitatione remaneas in carne, Also when thou adorest him, let not thy thought rest in flesh: So as they that thought the same an hard saying, Vnles a man eate my flesh,* 1.120 he shall not haue euerlasting life. Acceperunt illud stultè, they tooke it folishly, they thought it carnally, and imagined that our Lord would cut off certaine pieces from his body, and geue to them. Whereas they should haue said to them selues, Non sine causa dicit hoc, &c. He saith not this without cause, but because some hidden Sacrament is therein.

For so he instructed the twelue that did sticke vnto him, when the other had for misliking that saying, plaide the Apostates: Vnderstand spiritually that which I spoke. You shall not eate this Body which you see, and drinke that bloud which they shal shedde that shall crucifie me: that is, you shall not eate it & drinke it in such forme (so as these others imagined.) I commended vnto you (in those words) some Sa∣crament, that is, such a thing as beeing spiritually vnderstoode, will giue you life. Although needes it must be visibly celebrated (by the visible formes of bread and wine,) yet it must be inuisibly vnderstood, to be not the thing which is séene in the celebration, but which is not séene, to wit, my very body and bloud, my very flesh taken of the Virgin.

In so much that yong children (Infants) in S. Augustines time at celebrations of the Sacramentes,* 1.121 beeing tolde with most graue authoritie, whose body and bloud it is, will thinke nothing els, but our Lord verily to haue appeared in that forme to the eyes of men: and that liquor verily to haue flowed out of suche a side beeing striken: if they neuer learne by their owne or others experience (as striking it, and yet no bloud flowe out of it) and neuer see that forme of things but at Celebrations of the Sacramentes when it is offered (to God) and ministred (to the receauers:) because they know not that which is sette on the Altar, and after the holy Canon is consumed, whence or howe it is made (by consecration: like as no man knoweth, howe the Angels made or assumpted those cloudes and fires to signifie that which they did announce, though the Lorde or the holy Ghost was shewed by those corporal formes.)

And therefore those children would imagine that Christ appea∣red here, and suffered in no other forme, hearing that this in the Sacrament is his body, and his bloud which was shedde for vs. Nowe commeth Fulke, and gathereth cleane contrarie to D. Allen, as if S. Augustine saide,* 1.122 that these children would ima∣gine nothing of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, where∣as he saith playnely, that hearing thus his presence in the Sacra∣ment, and that in such sort that it is his bloud whiche was shed, they would imagine of no other forme of his appearing & suffe∣ring: signifying as playnely that they néeded onely to be instru∣cted of his other forme, and not of any difference at all otherwise betwéene him selfe in his appearing and suffering, and him selfe in this Sacrament.

The next Doctor may be Iustinus Martyr, of whose wordes you gather agaynst Transubstantiation, thus:* 1.123 Here he playne∣ly affirmeth, that the substance of ••he Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of our bodies. Therefore it remayneth still af∣ter consecration. That will appeare by his owne words, which béeing truely translated are these (in his seconde Apologie for the Christians, to the Heathen Emperour Antonius Pius:)

This meate with vs is called Eucharistia. To the which none is admitted, but suche as beleeueth our doctrine to be true, and is washed with the Lauer for remission of sinnes and to regenera∣ration, and so beleeueth as Christ hath taught. And why suche reuerence? For we take not these as the common bread and a common cuppe: but euen as our Sauiour Iesus Christ beeing through Gods worde incarnate, had fleshe and bloud for our saluation: Sic etiam per verbum precationis quod ab ipso est sacratam alimoniam quae mutata nutrit nostras carnes & sanguinem, illius incarnati Iesu carnem & sanguinem esse di∣dicimus: So we haue learned in the Gospelles, that the meate which beeing chaunged nourisheth our fleshes and bloud, being consecrated through his worde of prayer, is the flesh and bloud of that Iesus incarnate. He saith not here that the substance of the Sacrament is turned into the nourishment of our bodies, as you pretend: but cleane against you he sheweth, that it is not absurd, bread and wine to be turned into the flesh & bloud of Christ, seing

that euery day vsually they be turned by nature into oure fleshe and bloud, when we take them at diner and supper for our nou∣rishment: and that to be done by the diuine worde, séeing that by Gods worde hée tooke the same fleshe and bloud of the Virgine Marie.

* 1.124You gather likewise of Ireneus his wordes, and say: Here you see plainely that Ireneus affirmeth, the Sacrament after the Consecration to consist of the earthly substance of bread. He doth not so affirme. Hée there treateth against the olde Heretikes, who said,* 1.125 all these bodilie creatures, yea and our owne bodies al∣so, not to be of Gods making, who is the Father of Christ oure Lord, but of another God whome they call the Creator, & coun∣ted him an yll one, and so likewise all his workes to be euil, and our bodies not to ryse againe.

But this cannot stande with the Eucharist (sayth Ireneus:* 1.126) séeing there, to make an oblation to the father, the Creators creatures, (that is, bread and wine,) are taken and made the body and bloud of Christ, and our fleshe is nourished to incorruption of the same body and bloud. But oure doctrine (sayth he) is consonant to the Eucharist in the oblation. (Offerimus enim ei quae sunt eius, for, holding Christes father to be the Creator, we offer to him the thinges that are his, whereas the Heretikes cupidum alieni ostendunt eum, doe make him gre∣dy of anothers, for that he hath commaunded an oblation to bée made to him of the Creators Creatures, him selfe not béeing the Creator:) Et Eucharistia rursus confirmat nostram sententiam, and againe the Eucharist in the receiuing cōfirmeth our doctrine of the resurrection, congruenter communicationem & vnitatem praedicantes carnis & spiritus, considering that agreable to it wee teach ioyning and vnion of flesh and spirite. quemadmodum e∣nim qui est a terra panis, praecipiens vocationem dei ••am non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena & caelesti: sic & corpora nostra, percipientia Eucharisti∣am, iam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia. For like as the bread which is of earth, receiuing Gods inuocation (that is, the wordes of Consecration,) now is not common bread as in substance also it was before,) but Eucharistia consisting of two thinges, one earthly (which before he called carnem, the flesh of Christ vnder the forme of earthly bread, as also S. Augustine

aboue page calleth it earth, both in that forme, and also in his owne forme) the other heauenly, (which before he called spiritum because it is the Godhead: so also our bodies receiuing the Eu∣charist, now are not corruptible, hauing hope of resurrection, and therfore now consisting as it were of two things, so as the Eucharist doth, earthly and heauenly, flesh and spirite.

Which his comparison is very excellent, yet as all comparisons and simili∣tules, vnlike in some things: because the heauenly thing is in the Eucharist in re, in déede, in our bodies onely in spe, in hope. And there it is a substance, to wit, the Godhead: here but a qualitie, to wit, the glory of the resurrection. Againe the earthly thing there, to wit, Christes flesh, is vnder the forme of the former cō∣mon bread, without the substance of the same: here the earthly thing, to wit, our flesh after receiuing, is vnder the forme of the former corruptible bodies with the substance, yea and also with the corruptibilitie of the same bodies. The likenes, for which he made the comparison, is betwéene the two receiuings, and the o∣perations of the two things receiued: For the bread receiueth, and our bodies receiue, though againe differently. And the words of consecration which the bread receiueth, worketh marueilou∣sly, and the Eucharist which our bodies receiue, worketh mar∣ueilously, though againe differently, as I haue said.

Your last Doctor is Theodoret, Whose words (you say) be directly against Transubstantiation.

If they were so,* 1.127 it were no∣thing to the matter in it selfe, as I tolde you in the beginning of this Chapter, and specially this béeing suche a matter, as some auncient Father (all yet agréeing vniuersally vpon the Reall presence) might be ignorant of, considering that some late schole∣men, also after the Church had declared for transubstantiation of the bread, thought notwithstanding, that they might holde some part of the breads substance to remayne, either the matter (as it doth in all substantiall transmutations of nature) or els the sub∣stantiall forme, vntill this last Councel at Trent declared ther∣fore further, that the Church meaneth by Transubstantiation, the turning of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the substāce of the bloud of Christ. Sess. 13. ca. 4. But because I there saide, that your Apostasie hath no patron at all among the old Doctors

in no article, (so inexcusable it is both of you, and of your folow∣ers,) and that remembring well at the same time this place of Theodoret: you shall heare what I can say thereunto: although the Lutherans might better alleage it then you

First the Catholike asketh: Mystica Symbola, quae deo a dei Sacerdotibus offeruntur, quorumnam dicis esse Symbola? The mysticall likenesses, which Gods Pristes do offer to God (that is, the body and bloud of Christ vnder the formes of bread and wine) Whose likenesses be they? The Eutychian Heretike answereth: The likenesses of the bodie and bloud of our Lord in their owne formes. Thereupon the Catholike inferreth, Ergo our Lords bo∣die in his owne forme, is yet also a true bodie, and not turned in∣to the nature of Diuinitie, though filled with Diuine glorie: O∣portet enim imaginis esse exemplar archetypum, for an image must haue a paterne that is.

The Heretike there thinketh that the example of these miste∣ries maketh rather for him, and saieth: Nay rather, As these like∣nesses of our Lordes body and bloud, Alia quidem sunt, are one thing before the Priestes Inuocation, to wit, bread and wine, but after the Inuocation are turned, and be made other things, to wit, Christes bodie and Christes bloud: So also our Lordes body after his assumption is turned into the diuine substance, being therefore extant no more in his owne forme. The Catholike answereth saying: Nay, you are caught in your owne nette. Neque enim signa, &c. For the mysticall signes do not after consecration de∣part (to sense, as you teach of Christes body after his ascention) from their nature. For they abide (to sense) in their former sub∣stance, and figure, and forme, and may be seene and felt as before. Intelligūtur autem ea esse quae facta sunt, & creduntur: But to vn∣derstanding (though not to sense) and to faith, they be the things which they are made: & adorantur vt quae illa sint quae credun∣tur, and they be adored (by inclination and prostration, as we heard afore out of S. Augustine, because Fulke sayth here, Not by any knocking or kneeling) as being in deede the things which they are beleued. Thus it is in the Mysteries, béeing liknesses or an image. Therefore the veritie in like maner (saith he) that is, our Lords body in heauen, habet priorem quidem formam, &c. Hath pardie the former forme, and figure, and circumscription,

and (to say all at once) the bodies substance: though it be after the Resurrection made immortall and incorruptible, and sitting at Gods right hande, and adored of all creatures. Meaning (as you sée) by substance of the bread and substance of the body, all that is externall, as figure, forme, circumscription, &c. Which we in Englishe do by a like terme call the boulke of a thing. As for the interior substance, that question belonged to his Incarna∣tion, not to his assumption, whereof nowe they talke. Neither may any Logician thinke it straunge for the worde Substantia to be so vsed, if he consider well, howe the worde Corpus is vsed in the predicament of Quantitie, though it be otherwise a species of Substantia.

But the mysticall likenes (saith the Heretike) chaungeth at the least his former calling. For it is no more named, that which it was tearmed before, but it is called Body. Therefore also the veritie in heauen must be called God, and not Body. Not so, saith the Catholike: It is named not onely Corpus, Body, but also panis vitae, Bread of life. And so likewise the body in hea∣uen, we name it Diuinum corpus, & viuisicum, & dominicum, docentes non esse commune alicuius hominis, &c. The diuine and viuificall, and Dominicall body, teaching that it is not a com∣mon one of some mans, but our Lordes Iesus Christ, who is God and man. Where you sée, that suche a difference as he put∣teth betwene our common bodies and our Lord Gods body, the like he putteth betwene common bread and this bread of life, which therefore with him is Christes body vnder the forme of bread (béeing thereby become as properly bread, as cōmon bread is bread) and not the common substance of common bread, which no man can say to be bread of life.

vj. About the Sacrament of Penance.

Now to approche nearer to Purgatorie, about the Sacrament of Penance the Church of God saith foure things. First, that by the Priestes absolution the guilt of sinne is remitted, and so the penitent reconciled to God, and therefore pardoned the eternall payne of hell. Secondly, that after this remission: for all that, he may yet be in debt of some temporall payne. Thirdly, that he may and must pay the same temporall debt by workes of

Satisfaction. Fourthly, that vpon good cause a Bishop may par∣don it in parte, and the Pope wholly. Against these foure points Fulke alleageth, saying:

Absolution.

* 1.128But what auayleth this submission (to Gods ministers) when the Priest doth not by his Absolution take away one houres tor∣mentes in Purgatorie, as both M. Allen him selfe in effect confes∣seth, and the master of Sentences also teacheth. It auayleth to take away the eternall torments of hell. Is that nothing with you? When you be in them, your saucie tong would giue all the world for the least touch of the fingers ende of Gods Priestes, whom now in your hereticall pride you despise farre more then the riche Iewe did poore Lazarus.

Temporall debt remayning after Absolution.

Agaynst the second you alleage Augustine and Chrysostome, euen against themselues, for in the third chapter pag. 16. you con∣fessed them both to stand for Purgatorie, which implieth debt of payne after remission of sinnes. But go to, what saith Austine? He saith (quoth you) of the deaths of Moises & Aaron,* 1.129 that they were signes of things to come, not punishments of Gods displea∣sure. This is your sinceritie. His wordes immediatly afore be these:

When it is said to them, Vt apponantur ad populum suū, that they should be gathered to their people: It is manifest, that they be not in the wrath of god, which separateth from the peace of the holy eternall societie. And thereby it is manifest, that also their deathes were signes of things to come, which things he there declareth) and not punishments of Gods indignation.

You sée how precisely he speaketh, to wit, of Gods wrath & indignation which punisheth by death to separate from his people for euer: least he should haue spoken contrarie to the most manifest texte, and to him selfe a litle before, where he said, that God foretolde them both, quod ideo non intrarent, that therefore they should not enter into the lande, quia non eum sanctificauerunt, because they doubted of his gifte that water could flowe of a Rocke.

And so is the text it selfe moste euidently:* 1.130 You shall not bring this people into the lande, but you shall dye, because you did not beleeue me, because you offended me, because you trespassed against me. And yet you will not graunt, that for their sinne, the

fault béeing remitted: they were punished by death. These are they that will not stand agaynst euident Scripture.

Likewise about the example of Dauid you say:* 1.131 I would wish no better authoritie of the auntient Fathers, then euen that which M. Allen him selfe alleageth out of Augustine contra Faustum li. 22. cap. 67. that the punishment of Dauid was, flagelli paterni disciplina, the chastisement of Gods fatherly scourge: as he doth moste playnely declare the same in his booke De pec. mer. ac rem. li. 2. ca. 23. Is suche authoritie so good to proue that after the fault is forgiuen, that is, after the sonne is receiued againe into fauour, no payne is owing? Belike then you scourge your chil∣dren that offend not, aswel as them that haue offended, and them also that haue offended, you scourge not only after that you haue receiued them agayne into fauour, but also after that you haue pardoned them all punishment. Then surely are you as wise a father, as a diuine. No reasonable man, but hearing of a fathers scourge, would by & by gather of it, punishment for some offence, where you gather the contrarie, A fathers scourge, ergo no pu∣nishmēt. But your author S. Augustine doth not so. In the chap∣ter before commending his humility sub flagello dei,* 1.132 vnder Gods scourge, when Semei so diuelishly reuiled him, he reporteth how Dauid said,

Meritis suis hoc redditum superno iudicio, That this was executed vpon him by Gods iudgement for his desertes,

that is, for the same matters of Vrias, wherof he speketh in the place by you alleaged out of the Chapter following, and saith, that the Prophet Nathan told him,

quòd acceperit veniam, that he had forgiuenes, ad sempiternam quidem salutem, as to euerlasting sal∣uation But notwithstanding, as God had threatened him, fla∣gelli paterni disciplina non est praetermissa, The fatherly scourges chastisement was not omitted: to the end, that both for his con∣fession of his sinne, he might be deliuered euerlastingly, and by such affliction he might be tried temporally. Where also he com∣mendeth him for not murmuring agaynst God, as if he had sent him a false pardon of his sinnes. Intelligebat enim, &c. For by his profound wisedome he vnderstood, but that God was gratious to him confessing and repenting, how worthy his sinnes were of euerlasting paynes, for the which (sinnes) being beaten with tem∣poral corrections, he saw that vnto him continued the forgiuenes,

and Phisicke withall not neglected.

So expresly he saith that he was beaten for his sinnes, for his deserts, although withall it was Phisicke for him and pr••bation. Neither in the other place De pec. mer. doth he say the contrarie. For these be his wordes:

That forgiuenes of his sinnes was graunted, that he might not be stopped from receiuing life euerlasting: and yet the effect of that same threatening followed, that his godlines mighte in that hu∣militie be exercised and proued: not onely, but also (as he saide in another place) that he might thereby be beaten temporally for his deserts: though he expresse not this cause also in this place, for that he had here to answere the Pelagians, and shewe some cause, why death, if it came onely by sinne (by originall sinne,) remaineth still vpon all men, euen them also whose originall sinnes are so fully forgiuen in Baptisme, that they owe nothing, neither eternally, neither temporally, for them.

* 1.133But for a slat conclusion contradictory to M. Allens assertion, I will vse (you say) the very words of Chrysostome in the 8. Hom. vpon the Epistle to the Rom. Vbi veni••, ibi nulla erit poena, Where there is forgiuenes, there is no punishment, One may sée by this, that you would vse the Doctors words as couragiously as we do, if they were on your side, as they be on ours▪ But it coo∣leth your courage, because you are faine to cōfesse them in many things to be playne against you: and not able neither to main∣teine that they be with you, when you pretende they be. As here S. Chrysostome speaketh of the forgiuenes geuen in Baptisme to the Iew passing from the wrath of the Lawe to the grace of Christ. But our assertion speketh of the forgiuenes geuen in the Sacrament of penance, to the Christian that hath shamefully dis∣honored the grace of Christ. If such be contradictories with you, then as your Diuinitie is new, so is your Logicke also new.

Satisfaction.

* 1.134Against the third you alleage Chrysostome & Ambrose: but how fondly, the very words that you alleage, though we seeke no fur∣ther,* 1.135 will declare.

Non requirit Deus ciliciorum pondus, &c. God requireth not the burden of shirtes of heare, (saith Chrysostome) nor to be shut vp in the straites of a litle Cell, neque iubet, neither doth he commaunde vs to sit in obscure & darke Caues: this only

it is which is required of vs, that we alwayes remember and ••∣count our sinnes, &c. He there reproueth them▪ that 〈…〉〈…〉 ••∣rie mourning for their owne soules, quasi quidum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 labor sit, as if it were a labour intolerable.

Therefore he saith, that God doth not commaund as necessarie that 〈…〉〈…〉 take him selfe to the straite ••mourning of Monkes.* 1.136 And 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for∣sooth do tell vs therupon, that Chrysostome ••f any man had 〈…〉〈…〉 ••∣ther beleeue him, speaking of such kind of wo•• 〈…〉〈…〉 his fellowes count to be the chiefe works of p••n, 〈…〉〈…〉 that they serue not for satisfaction for our sinnes vnto God 〈…〉〈…〉 againe: Therfore by Chrysostomes iudgement, that 〈…〉〈…〉 satisfaction of Gods righteousnes, nor any obedience of Gods commaundement, hath banished the Heremites, 〈…〉〈…〉 Anachoretes, and cloyed the world with cloysterers: but the su∣perstitious and slauish feare of Purgatorie, and the blasphemous presumptuous pride of mens merites. Thus you take on as it were vpon S. Chrysostomes saying, not considering that Deme∣trius was a Monke, to whom he there writeth, commending 〈◊〉〈◊〉 singulerly for the very same works of penance:* 1.137 nor that Chryso∣stome also him selfe was a Monke (and that by your owne cōfes∣sion, and wrote a booke which is extant, Aduersus vituperatores vitae Monasticae, Against the dispraysers of the Monasticall life, that is, euen against you also for saying as you do in this place.

Againe you say:* 1.138 What S. Ambrose thinketh of that kind of sa∣tisfaction, whereof M. Allen speaketh, is plaine by those words which he vttereth of Peter: Lachrymas eius lego, satisfactionem non lego. I reade of his teares, I reade not of his satisfaction. He vttereth these words also there immediatly before: Non inuenio quid dixerit, inuenio quod fleuerit: I find not what he said, I find that he wept.

Whatsoeuer you gather hereof, he that readeth the place, must néedes gather the contrarie, so wit, that he thinketh Confession necessarie, and satisfaction necessarie: but that teares are both a special kind of cōfession, for Lachrymae crimen sine of∣fensione verecundiae cō••tentur, Teares confesse the crime without touch of shamfastnes, quod voce pudor est consiter••▪ that to con∣fesse with voyce is a shamefast thing: and also a speciall kind of Satisfaction, forLachrymae veniam, Teares though they do not aske pardon, they obteine it. Which yet againe he saith not as

though onely teares woulde serue, but, Pete•• opened not his mouth, least so quicke requesting of pardon might more offend. First we must weepe, and then request.

But a playne place to know what S. Ambrose thought of Penance and Satisfaction, is his whole booke To the Virgin that had broken her vow, and namely these words,* 1.139 Grande s••elus grandem habet necessariam satisfactionem, For a passing great crime, is necessarie a passing great satisfaction. Which words import none other thing (you say) but that an haynous offence must be earnestly bewayled, if repentance be not counterfaited. As though he there doubted lest her repentance were counterfaite, and not earnest: saying yet vnto her,

Tu quae iam ingressa es agonem poenitentiae, Thou who art already entred into the

* 1.140field of penance, with muche more to the same effect: declaring (I say) that he tooke her penance to be vnfaigned, as béeing well begon, but yet besides, that her whole life is litle enough to make iust satisfaction vnto God.

Pardons.

Wherein he is so vehement, that you come agayne on the o∣ther side (touching our fourth Article) and pretende by the same word of his, that the Church can not pardon the penance or satis∣faction which sinners do owe. Where I say nothing how you o∣uerthrow your owne ignorant imagination, that the old Cano∣nicall satisfaction was onely to satisfie the Church,* 1.141 and not to sa∣tisfie Gods iustice. As though not only the Church, but also euery priuate man may not pardon such kind of satisfaction as the sin∣ner oweth to him, and hold himselfe contented with as litle as he list. Therfore to omit this: He assureth her (you say) as Cyprian in his Sermon de Lapsis, doth the fallen men of his time, that for∣giuenes of sinnes is proper vnto God onely, and followeth not of necessitie the sentence of men, but the sentence of men ought to follow the iudgement of God.* 1.142 Alluding belike to the place where somewhat afore you alleaged Cyprian, & gathered of his words, that not onely he plainly denieth that absolute & soueraigne au∣thority of men, which M. Allen affirmeth, but also declareth what he meaneth by satisfaction of God, to wit, inwarde and hartie conuersion.

The two places in déede are like (although the fall of that Vir∣gine

was breaking of her vow, and the fall of those men was de∣nying of Christ in persecution.) but they make not against Par∣dons, no neither of those most heinous sinnes, vnlesse you thinke that the Churches binding is preiudicial to her lowsing, both be∣ing giuen her of Christ. For what els doth S. Ambrose there, but bind that virgine (as béeing her Bishop) to do penance al her life? Inhaere poenitentiae vsque ad extremam vitae, &c.

Sticke to pe∣nance euen to the end of thy life, and presume not that pardon may be giuen thee of mans day, for he deceiueth thee that so pro∣miseth thee. For thou that hast in special sinned against the Lord (because she was his vowed spouse) it is meete that of him onely thou looke for remedie in day of Iudgement. So that all her life he bindeth her to penance, bidding her not to hope for any pardon at his hands.

The Emperour Theodosius he bound also,* 1.143 though indefinitely: but after eight monethes penance loused him again with a pardon. Who séeth not that all this maketh playnely for pardons, and not against them?

Likewise S. Cyprian in that Sermon, and in twenty Epistles at the least, maketh playnly for Pardons, in that he doth no more but reproue them that be giuen partly of such as had not authori∣tie to louse, at least those deniers, as of Lay martyrs, & of méere Priestes: partly of suche as had authoritie, but without cause, without moderation, and to vnpenitent persons: partly & moste of al, both these defects concurring. But otherwise, although (be∣ing Primate of all Affrike) he reprehended a certaine Bishop for geuing pacem, peace to a certaine Priest,* 1.144 before he had done poe∣nitentiam plenam, full penance, (which manifestly was a Par∣don) contra decretum de Lapsis, contrarie to the Councels decrée touching such deniers:

Pacem tamen quomodocunque à Sacer∣dote dei, &c. Yet (saith he) being once giuen by * 1.145the Priest of God, in what maner soeuer, we will not reuoke it: and therefore we permit Victor to enioy the leaue to communicate which hath bene graunted him. Notwithstāding that, to those Impenitents, trusting also but in lay mens pardons, he crieth as you alleage: Nemo se fallat, &c. Let no man deceiue him selfe,* 1.146 let no man be∣guile him selfe, onely our Lord can giue mercy: onely he can graunt pardon to sinnes as beeing cōmitted agaynst him. Homo Deo esse non potest maior, nec remittere aut donare indulgentia

sua seruns potest, quod in dominum delicto grauiore commissum est: ne adhuc lapso, & hoc accedat ad crimen, si nesciat esse prae∣dictum,* 1.147 maledictus homo, qui spem habet in homine. Man can not be greater then God (to louse the impenitent whom God bindeth) neither can the seruaunt (who hath no commission) re∣mit, in part, or forgeue, in the whole, with his indulgence, that which by so great a fault was committed against the Lord: least furthermore to the fallen person be added this cryme also, if he be ignoraunt that it was forespoken, Cursed is the man that hath his trust in man.* 1.148 Dominus orandus est. Dominus nostra satis∣factione placandus, qui negantem negare se dixit: Our Lorde must be prayed vnto, our Lorde must by our satisfaction be pa∣cified, who hath saide, that he will denie his denier.

His seconde Epistle is to those Martyrs in prison, instructing them not to giue pardons them selues, nor to appoynt the Bishops so or so to pardon him and his, and him and his, but to make their suite for those whose

Poenitentia est Satisfactioni proxima, pe∣naunce is very nighe to satisfaction,

that is almost all fulfilled, and to remitte the matter to the Bishoppes power,* 1.149 sicut in prae∣teritum semper sub Antecessoribus nostris factum est, As in time past alwayes it was done vnder our predecessors. And yet Epistle 54. the Councell giueth a plenarie to all the Deniers at once that were doing their penaunce, because of another perse∣cution at hande. Epistle 52. he sheweth Clerus Romanus, Se∣de vacante, appoynted that the like pardon should be geuen to euery one in extreme sicknes. But I forget my selfe, to alleage so much, béeing here onely to answere.

vij. Of Purgatorie.

This Chapter is growen to such length, and yet is Purgato∣rie behinde. But the gentle Reader will consider, I trust, howe lightly any beast may trouble the pure water, but that it is not so soone cleared agayne: not doubting also but the varietie pas∣seth away his wearinesse. As I am likewise studious of method, to put all in conuenient order, for the same cause. And the order that in this part I thinke good to follow, is, to speake first of the Churches practise, and then of particular Doctors.

Of the Canonicall memento of Oblations, and of Sacrifice for the dead practised by the Church.

First then, to proue that for a certayne space after the Apo∣stles, there was no praying for the dead, at least in some Chur∣ches, this Companion reasoneth ab authoritate negatiu••, nega∣tiuely of the authoritie of Iustinus Martyr, and of Tertullian, (to which I must ioyne Origen, Epiphanius, and a Councell of Spayne) though him selfe, vnmindfull in one place what he saith in another, playnly * 1.150affirmeth, that such an argument euen of all mens authoritie, is false.

Therefore thus he saith: Seeing it is certayne by testimonie of Iustinus Martyr, that there was no mention of the dead in the ce∣lebration of the Lords Supper,* 1.151 for more then an hundred yeres after Christ: we must not beleeue Chrysostome without Scrip∣ture affirming that it was ordeined so by the Apostles. Wel then, Chrysostome your elder ones, affirmeth it as more at large you confessed the same in the 3. and 7. Chapters.) but you and certain of the contrarie by his elder Iustinus. What be Iustinus his words? Where you recite them, you say agayne:* 1.152 By which it is manifest, that in those first and purer days there was ••o mention at all of Sacrifice for the dead. But no word so in Iustinus: Yea in reporting there the order of y^e 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ist, he saith expresly, that the Bishop is long about it,* 1.153 you also after he is com•• ••o Conse∣cration. And when he hath ended Those prayers and the Con∣secration, all do answer•• Amen, as also at this day we sée at the later Eleuation, where the Consecration is concluded. In that long space you can find no time for

memento domine defuncto∣rum.

But certayne it is, and manifest (say you) that there was none, and that Chrysostome and al his felowes must not be bele∣ued. You might as wel say, that in S. Augustines time also there was no mention of the dead,* 1.154 because he also reporteth sometimes the summe of the Canon without naming y^e dead: yea & that your owne next witnesse Tertullian must not be beléeued, because he expresseth certaine prayers, which Iustinus doth not. And yet be∣twéene them two you find no repugnance, but set vpon D. Allen, as afore vpon S. Chrysostome, with them both at once, saying: And where he saith, there was euer found in the celebration of the Sacrament, a solemne prayer for all the departed in Christ:

To reproue his vanitie, the order of prayers and administration of the Holy mysteries,* 1.155 described by Iustinus, and of Tertullian al∣so, do sufficiently declare, what was the vsage of the Chrystians in those purer times.

Because there it is expressed for whom and what they prayed. Oramus etiam (saith Tertullian) pro Impe∣ratoribus, pro ministris eorum, & potestatibus seculi, pro rerum quiete, pro mora finis. We pray also for the Emperours, for their officers, and powers of the world, for peace, for delay of the end.

Do you not sée, that in saying, we pray also for these, he signifieth that these were some, but not all they prayed for? as if he should say, Among other things we pray for these. Which other things he had not cause to expresse there, as he had cause to expresse these, to wit, for that the Christians were charged of the Heathen thus:

Deos non colitis, & pro Imperatoribus sacrificia non impenditis. First, you do not worship the goddes. Secondly, you do not be∣stow sacrifices (with the Heathen at certaine appoynted times) for the Emperours.

Therfore making his Apologie, he expresseth the Emperours & suche persons & things as concerned their Ro∣maine Empire, as you may reade more amply somewhat afore.

This is a cleare answere, and therfore inough. Howe muche more, considering that your selfe also confesse, that Tertullian is against you.* 1.156 In so much that you are fayne to say: To leaue out of our Seruice, prayers and sacrifice for the dead, we haue sure warrant by example of the eldest Church, & nearest to the Apo∣stles times, as we haue shewed out of Iustinus Martyr, and Ter∣tullian before he became an Heretike, meaning a Montanist. To which your cauill I haue answered cap. 6. pag. 49. And therfore Tertullian standeth vpright against you with your owne con∣fession more at large cap. 3. pag. 15.

How much more againe, considering that about the very same time Arnobius to the same purpose wrote thus:

Cur immaniter nostra Conuenticula meruerunt dirui?* 1.157 &c. Why deserued our Churches to be pulled downe barbarously? in which the highest God is prayed vnto, peace and pardon is asked for all men, for the Magistrates, for friends, for enemies, for the liuing, and for the dead?

So expresly he sayth, to confound your arguing out of o∣thers ab authoritate negatiuè.

You ioyned Tertullian to Iustinus. The matter ioyneth also

Epiphanius to them. Of him you saye:* 1.158 It is easie to be gathe∣red by Epiphanius, that the olde forme of Liturgie was but to make mention of the dead, to haue them in remembraunce. And because they vsed to make memory of all sorts of men that were dead in Christ, he expoundeth it according to the error of his time. That this memory was a prayer for the sinners, for the iust, as Patriarkes, Prophets, &c. a signification that they were inferior to Christ. A simple cause why they should be remembred (so that neither the old forme of Liturgie liketh you in remembring the dead at al:* 1.159 no more then the old oblatiōs for the dead thogh they were only oblations of thanksgiuing, for they were taken vp of the Church in Tertullian and Montanus time by peruerse emu∣lation of the Gentiles, so you said cap. 6. pag. 53.) But this shifte Epiphanius is driuen vnto, because he did not consider, that the memorie and oblation which the old Fathers made for al the de∣parted in Christ, was a sacrifice of thanks giuing, and not of pra∣yers for them. And againe: They had in deede in elder time,* 1.160 as appeareth by Epiphanius, the name of oblation: but it was for the Patriarkes, Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs. Which playnly she∣weth, that it was but an offering of thanks giuing. You are decei∣ued by thinking that it is but one memorie whereof Epiphanius speaketh. Looke in the Liturgie of S. Iames, as also of S. Basil, and of S. Chrysostome, & diuers places of S. Augustines, and you shall find two distinct memories. And therfore Epiphanius saith:* 1.161 Et pro iustis, & pro peccatoribus memoriā facimus, Both for the iust, and for the sinners we make memorie. And that by tradition of the Apostles, as he there saith against your friend Aerius.

Pro peccatoribus quidem, misericordiam dei implorantes, For sinners pardie requesting Gods mercy. Which is not his exposition, as you pretend, but the very words of the Tradition, that is, of the memorie it selfe.

Pro iustis verò, &c. For the iust both Fathers and Patriarks, Prophets, and Apostles, Euangelistes, Martyrs, and Confessors, Bishops also, and Anchoretes, and for euery order: Vt D. I. Christum ab hominum ordine separemus, To the ende we may seperate our Lord Iesus Christ from mens order, ponde∣ring in our mind, that our Lord is not egalled to any mā, althogh a thousand times, & vpward, that man do liue in iustice. For how is it possible? for he is God, and the other is a man. Which reason

of his was to déepe for your diuinitie.

He saw that the like me∣morie might be made also for our Lord him selfe, if it were but a thanks giuing. And therfore not being made for him likewise, he conceiued that the Apostles had another reason therin, so to sepa∣rate the iust from Christ, & not only the sinners from the iust. Al∣though otherwise when the iust & the sinners are not seperated, but ioyned both together in some one Collet of the Church, then (as S. Augustine said ca. 3. pag. 16.) the same one Collet is at once a propitiation for the sinners, and a thanks giuing for the iust.

Now to the place of Origen, which is another of your trumpes that you trust so much in,* 1.162 saying: This one testimonie of Origen shal testifie, what the iudgement of the Greeke Church was con∣cerning Purgatorie and prayers for the dead, from the Apostles time vnto his dayes. And yet you are fayne to confesse not onely thus in the same place, I wotte well superstition in the Latine Church was somewhat forwarder: but also of Origen him self in another place,* 1.163 & to say: But howsoeuer he doteth about passage through fire, and purifications after this life: yet he affirmeth in another place, that the daye of Christian mens death is the de∣position of payne. Wherby it appeareth, that either he was not constant with him selfe, or els that Origens Purgatory was a paynlesse Purgatory. Why? speaketh he of any paynes, but the paynes of this life? Marke his words once again:

We do not ce∣lebrate the day of Natiuity, cum sit dolorum at{que} tentationum in∣troitus, seing it is the entrance of sorowes and tentations: but we celebrate the day of death, vtpote omnium dolorū depositionem at{que} omniū tentationum effugationem, as that which is the doing off of all sorowes, and the driuing away of all tentations. Of all sorowes and of all tentations (you sée) which our day of Nati∣uitie is the entrance vnto. Therfore (saith he) we both celebrate the Memories of Saintes, and deuoutly keepe the Memories of our parents or friends dying in the faith.

But it followeth, you say: Tam illorum refrigerio gaudentes, quam etiam nobis piam consummationem in fide postulantes, Partly reioysing for their ease, partly also requesting for our selues a godly finishing in the faith. Do you not see, that he expoundeth their ease to be their godly finishing in faith? for then they rest according to the body from all the sorowes & tentations of this bodily life, in hope also

to liue for euer after a while a••cording to y^e same bodies. Which causeth vs also at this day to reioyce vnspeakeably when we heare that our friendes in Englande dye in the Church of God a∣mong so many tentations there to the contrarie, and to thanke God for it with all our heartes, though withall we say Masse of Requiem for their soules. For so it foloweth after in Origen,* 1.164 touching their friendes soules:

Celebramus nimirum, &c. And this we do in our celebration for our parentes or friendes: We call together the religious with the Priests, the faithfull with the Cleargie, (meaning by the Religious,

the Monkes, which were the principall order of the faithfull or Layetie, as the Priestes were the principall order of the Cleargie: whiche I note by the way, because of your saucines with D. Allen here, procéeding of your ignorance in Antiquitie, neither vnderstanding so much as these very words of Origen)

Inuiting moreouer the needie and poore, filling with foode the fatherlesse and widowes. That our solemnitie may be made to be a memorie of rest to the soules de∣parted whose memorie we celebrate, and maye to our selues be made to be a sauor of swetenes in the sight of God eternall.

That is,

a sacrifice of thankes giuing for them that were aliue,

as you interprete it, shewing your great skill in the Scriptures.

He al∣ludeth to Philip. 4. where S. Paule speaketh of the like charitie of the Philippians towards him, calling it odorem suauitatis, a sweete sauour, that is, as there it followeth, a sacrifice accepta∣ble and pleasing to God, signifying that such works are passing meritorious, as béeing in the morall sense meant by those burnt Sacrifices of the Lawe, whiche all (and not onely when they were for thankes giuing) were called sweete sauours to God.* 1.165

The like ignorance you shew also in the former clause (which is more to our purpose) to thinke that memorie for one can not be a prayer for him:* 1.166 as though S. Paule in prison did not com∣mend him selfe to the Colossians prayers, in saying: Memores estote vinculorum meorum, Remember my gyues.* 1.167 And to the He∣brues, Remember them that are in gyues, as if you were in gyues with them. And as S. Augustine writeth,* 1.168

Quod frequentatur ore Christiano, That which is common in Christian mouthes, eche humble person to commend him selfe to the deuout, and to say, Remember me, deseruing also at his hands, so to do.

And so in our

Masse, when we make for our fri••d aliue memoriam patientiae, a memory of patience, for our friend departed memoriam requiei a memory of rest, it is a prayer to God to giue him patience, to giue him rest. And that Origen meaneth euen so, you may sée in S. Iames Masse, where be the very words that he alludeth vnto:

Remember O Lord our God the soules of all fleshe of the right beleeuers, from Abel the iust euen to this day. Fac eos requiescere, make them to rest in the land of the liuing in thy kingdome, &c. Nostrae vero vitae fines, and direct in peace the finishing of our liues to be Christian, acceptable, and pure from sinne.

* 1.169And therefore againe, where S. Cyprian saith of one Victor be∣ing departed, Neque enim ad Alta••e dei meretur nominari in Sa∣cerdotum prece, For he is not worthy to be named at Gods altar in the prayer of the Priestes: what exposition is this of yours? By prayer he meaneth not prayer for deliuery of the dead out of Purgatory,* 1.170 but as Origen saith, for the faithfull liuing, to haue the like godly departure as he had that was fallen asleepe. Origen helpeth you not, as I haue shewed: and S. Cyprians words be so playn, that you do nothing els but shew your obstinacy in wran∣gling vpon them, and your ignorance in Antiquity. Thrée things at Masse were (and are) vsually done for the dead: First, his friends offred for him, partly his owne bequest, partly their own charities,* 1.171 to the sustenance of the Cleargie & reliefe of the poore. Secondly, the Priest offered the Sacrifice it selfe of our price for him. Thirdly, he named him after consecration in the memorie of the dead, to commend his soule to God among the rest. All these thrée S. Cyprian hath there expresly: Touching the first he saith,

The Councell decréed, that if any do such a thing, Non offeretur pro eo, there should be no offering for him. And therfore there is no cause that any offering should be made there with you (he writeth to the Priests, Deacons, and Laity of the parish) for the sleeping of Victor. (so he calleth the offering at the day of ones death, because there are other offerings besides, as at the months minds day, and the twelue monthes mindday.) Touching the se∣cond he saith: The Councel decréed also, Ne sacrificium pro dor∣mitione eius celebraretur, That the Sacrifice should not be cele∣brated for the sleeping of such a one. And touching the third, He is not worthy to be named in the Priestes prayer at the Altar.

Et

ideo non est, &c. And therfore there is no cause, that any praying should there with you be vsed in the Church in his name. For heede may be taken hereafter, that this be done no more, if this fact now, be punished.

By which appeareth againe, that it is but méere cauilling, whē you distinguish betwene Oblations of the dead,* 1.172 & Oblations for the dead: because oblations of the dead them selues, no lesse then of their friends, were oblations for the dead, as S. Cyprian here expresly calleth it, offerri pro eo, to offer for him.

And therefore maketh against you not onely the second Tole∣tane Councell, as you also confesse,* 1.173 which decréeth of such Peni∣tents as dye before reconciliation, saying:

Placuit nobis, &c.* 1.174 It pleaseth vs, that both the memory of suche may be commended (to God) in their Churches, (in the memento of the dead) and of∣ferings for their sinnes may be taken by the Priestes. Item thré others, which you neither would confesse, nor could denie, to wit, the fourth of Carthage (whervnto the Toletane doth allude) de∣créeing of the same Penitents,* 1.175 vt memoria eorum & orationibus & oblationibus commendetur, that their memory may be com∣mended both with prayers and with oblations (or offerings) of their owne and their friends almes, and of the Altar.* 1.176 The first Bracarense, decréeing of such as kill them selues, vt nulla pro il∣lis in oblatione commemoratio fiat, neque cum Psalmis ad sepul∣turam eorum cadauera deducantur, That no memorie be made for them in the oblation of the Altar, nor their corpses brought with Psalmes to their buriall. Simili modo, In like maner, that vpon Catechumenes, dying without the redemptiō of Baptisme, (through their own fault,* 1.177 bicause they were not disposed to leaue as yet their yll liuing, for which cause many nowe also in Eng∣land do deferre reconciliation) neque oblationis sanctae comme∣moratio, neque Psallendi impendatur officium, should be besto∣wed neither the memorie of the holy oblation (which afore they called commemorationem in oblatione, the memorie in the time of the oblation: but you could not sée so much) neither the office of Psalmes. Appoynting moreouer, that if any thing by contri∣bution of the faithfull be offered eyther at the Feasts of Martyrs, or at the minddayes of the dead, the Hebdomadarie haue it not, but to auoyde inequalitie and discord, it be reserued of one of the

Cleargie, and once or twise a yere diuided betweene all of the Cleargie.

Not onely these Councels (I say) do so clearely make against you, but also Vasense, and the saide fourth of Carthage, which you pretende to haue answered, in saying that they are flatly falsified by D. Allen, because you thinke that Oblations of the dead: and Oblations for the dead, are not with them, as with D. Allen, all one. But to sée your wrangling, let anye reasonable man conferre the two Canons as well of the fourth of Carthage, as also of Vasense, which D. Allen doth alleage.

The one Canon,* 1.178 béeing the 95. of Carthage, and the fourth of Vasense, excommunicateth the Executors, qui oblationes de∣functorum, aut negant Ecclesijs, aut cum difficultate reddunt, Who either denie to the Churches, or pay very hardly, the Obla∣tions of the dead: qui Oblationes defunctorum retinent, aut Ec∣clesijs tradere demorantur, Who keepe backe, or be slowe in de∣liuering to the Churches, the Oblations of the dead.

The other Canon, béeing the 79 of Carthage, and the second of Vasense, decréeth of obedient Penitentes, dying by chaunce without re∣conciliation, Vt eorum memoria & orationibus, & oblationi∣bus cōmendetur, That their memorie be cōmended to God, both with prayers and with oblations, as also afore was alleaged: Ho∣rum oblationem recipiendam, & eorum funera, ac deinceps me∣moriam Ecclesiastico affectu prosequendam, &c. That their ob∣lation be receiued, and on the day of their buriall, and afterwards vpon their other minddays, the churches affection bestowed vpō them, because it is vnreasonable to exclude their cōmemorations out of the healthfull sacrings, to whom, for their passing prepara∣tion to the same mysteries, Fortasse nec absolutissimam reconci∣liationem Sacerdos denegandam putasset, The Priest peraduen∣ture would haue thought that neither the most absolute reconci∣liation should be denied.

For though to all obedient Penitents at the point of death they gaue both reconciliation, and the fruite therof which is the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, yet they gaue not to all such full absolution from the residue of their penance, in case they recouered, as we sée Con. Cart. 4. Can. 76.78.

So then these foure Councels are against you (besides the two General Councels of Florence and Trent, which your Caluini∣call spirite contemneth, like an Heathen and a Publicane.)

You promise D. Allen, saying,* 1.179 Your Prouinciall Councels shal be answered by as good Prouinciall Councels as they are. But where be those good Prouinciall Councels of yours? I find where you promise agayne afterwarde, and say:* 1.180 The Councell Bracharense (as afterward I shall more playnly shew) doth insi∣nuate, that no prayers were made at all for the soules of the de∣parted in their Churche at their burials: but onely a remem∣braunce of them in prayers, with thankes giuing and singing of Psalmes. For Purgatorie should seeme had not yet trauelled in∣to Spayne. But when you come to the place,* 1.181 you playnely con∣fesse the contrarie, to wit, a memorie for the dead, in that Coun∣cell. Mary the third Toletan Councell you there produce, as for you, in that it decréeth, Religiosorum omniū corpora, cum Psal∣mis tantūmodo, & Psallentium vocibus debere ad sepulchra de∣ferri, That the Corpses of all Religious (at the least, if the Bishop can not prohibite it in all Christians,) be caried to their graues with Psalmes onely, (without that funebre carmen quod vulgo defunctis cantari solet) funerall heathen song which is wont to be song to the dead) and with the voyces of the Psalmessingers, (without that heathen beating themselues, or their neighbours, or their families, on the breastes.) And to make all sure against any reply, you adde: If you say, this doth not exclude prayers and oblations: they adde, that it must be thought sufficient, that in hope of the Resurrection, vpon the Corpses of Christians is bestowed Famulatus diuinorum canticorum, the office of the di∣uine Psalmes. For so ought Christian mens bodies throughout the whole world to be buried. So then, this is your argument: In carying the Corpses to their graues, they did sing Psalmes: Ergo in their Churches they had no prayers nor oblations for the Soules, namely in Spayne, whereas S. Augustine at the same time saide,* 1.182

Vniuersae Ecclesiae authoritas in hac consue∣tudine claret, Although no where at all in the olde Scriptures it were read (as it is in the bookes of the Machabees) that Sacri∣fice was offered for the dead: yet greate is the authoritie of the whole Church, which in this custome is cleare: where in the prayers of the Priest, which are made to our Lorde God at his Altar, the commendation also of the dead hath his place.

But to returne to your reason: you might with it proue as well

that now also we haue no prayers nor oblations for the dead, be∣cause we carie the Corpse with Psalmes: as also the whole dirige in effect is Psalmes: and namely De profundis for the dead, be∣cause it is a Psalme, is it not a prayer for thē, trow you? or was not Purgatorie trauelled into Affrike neither, when S. Augu∣stine wrote as aboue, because there also they caried their corpses with Psalmes? In so much that soone after S. Augustines death Victor bishop of Vtica reporting the lamentable deuastations of the Catholike Churches there by the Arrian king Gensericus,* 1.183 saith among other things:

Quis vero sustineat sine Lachrymis, &c. And who can abide without teares, to remember, when he com∣maunded our deads corpses to be caryed vnto burying with sci∣lence without the solemnitie of Psalmes?

Which lamentation you haue in England renewed to vs, with addition also, in that our Priests neither with scilence may burie the corpses of our Catholike brethren, but your Ministers (a Gods name) with whom they would not communicate in their life, must haue the laying vp of their bodies after their death: a disordered folly in you Heretikes, and the sinne of Schisme in suche Catholikes as geue consent vnto it.

* 1.184To these memories, oblations, and sacrifice for the dead, doth belong also the place of Possidonius, whiche you saye, proueth plainly that it was the sacrifice of thanks giuing that was offered for the commendation of the godly, and quiet deposition or put∣ting off of his body. Where he writeth of S. Augustine thus: Nobis coram positis, &c. In our presence the sacrifice was offered vnto God,* 1.185 for the cōmending of his bodies deposition, and so he was buried. Meaning by y^e bodies deposition, not the putting off by death, but the laying downe of it in y^e earth by burying: as by leuatio corporis, the taking vp againe of the bodies or Relikes of Saintes you might haue perceiued, if you had beene skilfull in Antiquitie. And by commending the deposition, he meaneth the commendation of his soule to God vpon that day, as I tolde you before. Both which you might haue playnly vnderstoode by that which D, Allen in the very same paragraph alleageth out of S. Augustine speaking of his mother:* 1.186

Nam neque in eis precibus ego fleui, quas tibi fundimus, cum offeretur pro ea sacrificiū precij nostri, iam iuxta sepulchrū posito cadauere, priusquam depone∣retur:

For neither in those prayers did I weepe, which (according to her request vpon her deathbed, memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri, that memory of her might be made at thy altar) we made vnto thee O God, when the sacrifice of our price was offered for her, the corpse nowe standing by the graue, before it was laide downe. Which place is so plaine, that your selfe are faine to con∣fesse, that in the celebration of the Sacramēt, the error of that time allowed prayers for the dead generally, and speciall remēbraunce of some in the prayers, (namely because S. Augustine ther more∣ouer desireth God, to inspire all his Priestes reading that booke, Vt meminerint, To remember at thy Altar Monica thy seruant, and Patrike once her husband, my Parents.)

Repeating the same againe a litle after, in these words: In ministration of the Com∣munion, there was a speciall remembrance of her in the prayers, as there was of all dead in the faith a generall memorie. So that you vse indifferently these two, prayers for the dead generally, and, a generall memory of the dead, because you saw euidently, that S. Augustine by remembring of his father & mother at the Altar, meant praying for them. And yet such a cauiller you are,* 1.187 that D. Allen in saying, memoriam sui, a memory of her, to be a memory for her, must be charged with pseudologia, & as though she would haue her sonne to be a chauntrie Priest to sing for her: not béeing able for all your gybing to deny, but that he did both himselfe pray for her at the Altar (if that be to be a Chauntrie Priest) and procure other Priests to do the same.

Well, by this practise about S. Monica, the Reader percei∣ueth how properly you affirmed, that it was only thanks giuing which Possidonius reporteth was done for S. Augustine. But for al this (you say) although a memory or prayer was made for her in the celebration of the Sacrament, yet was it not offered for hir as a Sacrifice, and as a propitiation of hir sinnes. No syr? doth he not say expresly, The sacrifice of our price was offered for her? Yea, but he expounded before in plaine words,* 1.188 that he mea∣neth thereby nothing els but the foresaid memorie. Those plaine words neither you recite out of him, nor no man els can finde in him: as neither he nor any other reasonable man would vtter such a meaning in such words. But these most playne words I find in him in another place:

Hoc a patribus traditum vniuersa

obseruat Ecclesia, vt pro eis qui in corporis & sanguinis Christi communione defuncti sunt, cum ad sacrificium salutare loco suo commemorantur, oretur: This as a Tradition of her Fathers, the whole Church obserueth, when they which are departed in the cōmunion of Christes body and bloud (for the excōmunicate so were not) be in their place mentioned at the healthfull sacrifice: to pray for them. What more? Ac pro illis quo{que} id offerri com∣memoretur, and to expresse that for thē also the sacrifice is offred.

Of particular Doctors. Whether S. Augustine doubted of Purgatory.

Notwithstanding all this: you will néedes haue fooles beléeue that S. Augustine was doubtfull in the matter of Purgatorie: notwithstanding also that he so playnly prayeth for his mother,

Therefore O Lord God,* 1.189 setting aside her good dedes for a while, for which with ioy I do giue thee thanks, Nunc pro peccatis ma∣tris meae deprecor te, now I beseeche thee for my mothers sinnes (for which at this day we also pray for y^e most * 1.190perfect, excepting vndoubted Martyrs, vntill by Canonization they be knowen to be Saintes) Heare me for the medicine of our wounds that hung on the Crosse, and sitting at thy right hand, intreateth for vs, &c.

So playnely,* 1.191 I say, that you confesse, this place to proue prayer for the dead vsed by S. Augustine, and are fayne to saye, It was all but superstition or will worship in him, according to the cor∣rupt motion of his owne minde.* 1.192 In another place also, that he alloweth oblations for them that sleepe, to profite somewhat. Oblationes pro spiritibus dormientium vere aliquid adiuuare credendum est. And yet for all this Augustine was very vncer∣tayne (you saye very often) vnconstant▪ and doubting of it, so that Satan (whose instrument you make that blessed Doctor) was but then laying his foundations of Purgatory: though in o∣ther places contrarying your selfe after your maner, you say, It was somewhat risely budded vp in his time, yea and throughly finished. And to proue this his pretensed doubtfulnes, you al∣leage foure bookes of his, Enchir. ad Laur. cap. 69. Ad octo Dulc. quaest. q. 1. De fide & op. ca. 16. and De Ciui Dei. li. 21. ca. 26. In al which places he repeateth one saying, as D. Allen noted before you, answering it moste clearely, and shewing against this pre∣tensed vncertayntie of his, that not onely in other bookes, but in

all the same bookes also, and almost in the very same chapters,* 1.193 he holdeth as a matter of faith, and to be beleeued of all Chri∣stian men, that the prayers of the liuing do release some of their paynes in the next life. And constantly, (as al other Catholikes euer did) cōfesseth, that the sinnes or vncleane works of the liuing not duely by penance wyped away in this world must be mended after our death. For De Ci Dei these words he hath,* 1.194 Tales con∣stat, ante Iudicij diem per poenas temporales, quas eorum spiri∣tus patiuntur, purgatos, &c. It is certayne, that suche men beeing purged before domesday by temporall paynes, which their soules do suffer, shall not after the resurrection be committed to the tor∣ments of the euerlasting fire And a litle after:

Temporali sup∣plicio ac sanctorum orationibus mundatos, being clensed by tem∣poral torment and prayers of the holy ones.

Which declaration of D. Allens was so euident, that your selfe are compelled to say:* 1.195 Howbeit 21. booke. c. 13. of the same work De ci. dei, he cōcludeth very clerely (and that vpon the texts Mal. 3. Esa. 4. Mat. 12.) that some suffer tēporall payns after this life. This may not be denied.

And yet that in the same bookes he was vncertaine, you haue so playne words, that you suppose D. Allen neuer read the places in Augustines owne bookes, but onely receiued his notes of some elder Papists, that had spēt more time in gathering them, but had not such audacitie to vtter them as M Allen. Who but you could or would for shame of heauen & earth set such a face vpō a matter so cleare of it selfe, and so confessed of your selfe. But which are those so playne words?* 1.196 Nonnullos fideles per ignem quendam purgatorium, quanto magis minusue bona pereuntia dilexerunt, tanto tardius citius{que} saluari: Some of the faithful after this life to be saued so much later or sooner, by a certaine Purgatory fire, as the more or lesse they loued transitory goods, (but yet hauing Christ in their heart for the foundation, that is, so as they pre∣ferred nothing before him, but were ready to forsake all rather then him.) This to be so is not vncredible, Et vtrum ita sit, quaeri potest, & aut inueniri, aut latere, And whether it be so in deede, it may be searched, and (by search) either found, or not found.

These are the plaine wordes, in which, to replye to D. Allens answere, you will néedes haue S. Augustine so often in one booke and almost in one Chapter, to be grossely contrary to him selfe,

one while certaine, another while vncertaine of one and the selfe same thing.

But D. Allens answere (according to S. Augustines plaine wordes in these chapters also, as well as in the others is, as it was, that he speaketh not still of one thing, or of one Purgatorie fire, but of two diuerse. The one Purgatorie fire, is, to punish (& so to purge) by temporall paines, the soules for there sinnes, for their euill life, though not so euill, vt misericordia habeantur in∣digni, that they may be thought vnworthy of mercy. Of this Purgatory S. Augustine, with all the faithfull of all ages, holdeth him selfe ••o certaine. The other Purgatorie fire is, as the fire of Tribulation in this life, for the most perfit also to passe through, euen them whose life was talis in bono, vt ista non requirat, so good that they neede not to be releeued with the prayers of the Church: and therfore not to punish sinne (as now we speak of it) but only to weare out by litle and litle rerum secularium (quam∣uis licitè concessarum, &c. suche affections to worldly lawfull things, as to wife, &c. that without griefe of mind he can not part from them: so as the other can which builded golde, siluer, and pearles, whose worke therfore is not burned vp, quia non ea di∣lexit quorum amissione crucietur, because he did not loue those things, with the losse wherof to be tormented, And of this Pur∣gatorie S. Augustine was vncertaine, as it is in dede very doubt∣full (saith D. Allen) to this day also,* 1.197 not onely because we know not whether such worldly lawfull affections do remayne in the Elect soules departed, but also because nothing but sinne, and the debt of sinne, séemeth to endaunger the soule to any payne, whe∣ther it be poena sensus, or onely poena damni. Whervpon (to say the truth) it séemeth to me more probable (although S. Augu∣stine inclined more to the other side) that there is not any suche Purgatory, but rather that after full penance for sinne, or full pardon of it, the soule goeth without all delay straight to heauen.

And so I haue shewed plainly what S. Augustine was certain of, and what he was vncertaine of: thinking good withall to ad∣monish the Reader, that although for more perspicuitie I name two Purgatories out of S. Augustine, yet I meane but one pur∣gatory with two diuers operations, as it is but one fire of tribu∣lation in this life, though it haue those two operations, to purge

sinne with punishment, and to purge worldly lawfull affections with griefe of minde when we must in persecution depart from our beloued. That also Purgatorie fire after this life, is for the first of these operations, it is certayne. Whether it be also for the other, it is vncertayne.

Hithervnto perteineth that also, where you say:* 1.198 M. Allen af∣firmeth that S. Augustine De cura pro mortuis agenda, neuer doubteth, but intercession may be made vnto the Saintes for the dead: and oppose to his affirming cap. 5. of the same booke, Cum ergo mater fidelis, &c. Therfore when the faithful mother desired (of Paulinus Bishop of Nola) to haue her sonnes body laide in the Martyrs Church: Si quidem credidit, eius animam meritis Martyris adiuuari, hoc quod ita credidit, supplicatio quaedā fuit, If she thought his soule to be holpen with the Martyrs merites, this her thinking was a certaine supplication: & haec profuit, si∣quid prosuit, and this (supplication) profited, if any thing profi∣ted. Here Augustine, you say, doubteth whether supplications to the Martyr profit any thing, or no. You are a mā past al shame,* 1.199 and so shall the Reader well perceiue if he reade the place.

S. Au∣gustine doth not doubt, whether supplications to that Martyr S. Felix, or to any other Martyr, profite: nor whether they profite the dead: (yea cleane contrary, he exhorteth there very earnestly to those and all other supplications for the dead, saying that Non inaniter siunt, they be not made in vayne, cap. 1. Prosunt quibus∣dam mortuis, They profite one sort of the dead, cap. vlt. Non sunt praetermittendae, they must not be omitted, cap. 4. Religiosus a∣micus nullo modo debet a supplicationibus necessarijs in eius cō∣mendatione cessare, They be necessary, & the deuout friend must in no case omit them, cap. 5. Fiunt recta fide ac pietate, They be made with right faith and pietie, cap. 4.) neither doth he doubt, whether Affectus matris locum eligens sanctum, The mothers af∣fection choosing an holy place to bury her sonne in, be a suppli∣cation to the Martyr of the place: but onely whether that mother had that cogitation.

For that (saith he) is all the profite that cō∣meth to your friend departed, by your burying of him in suche a place (for of his owne deuotion therein more doth come) to wit, if you had aforehande suche cogitations of the Martyrs merites, that they should helpe him: and again, if afterwards by occasion

of the place when you thinke vpon it, you commend affectually eidem Martyri animam dilectam, the beloued Soule to the same Martyr, ca. 4.5.

Whether S. Augustine denied Purgatory.

Not content to say S. Augustine was doubtful of Purgatory, you say further, that also he denied it, de verbis Apost. Ser. 14. and Hypog. con. Pel. lib. 5.* 1.200 where he acknowledgeth the kingdome of heauen for to receiue the godly, and hell fyre for the punishment of the wicked: but a third place (saith he) we are altogether ig∣norant of, neither do we finde it in the holy Scriptures. Nowe take the paynes to report also the answere your selfe: He wri∣teth against the Pelagians, that imagined a third place for the (euerlasting) rest of Infants, that were not baptised. And what can you reply therevnto? But the same reason serueth as well a∣gainst the Popish Purgatorie, because we finde it not in the holy Scriptures. But doth S. Augustine so reason against it? for him you pretended to bring as denying Purgatory. Or doth he saye, that he found it not in the Scriptures?

Yea you confesse (though with muche wrangling) the contrarie, to wit, that he saith the Scriptures to make for it, some (I say) to suffer temporal payns after their death, Veruntamen ante illud nouissimum iudicium, but before that last iudgement, that is, before the Iudge hath said, Venite, and discedite: Come ye blessed, Away ye cursed. For vntil then Purgatory is not ended. As also in this same chapter, pag. he said:* 1.201 In the books of the Machabees we reade, Sacrifice offered for the dead. And immediatly after against your reason also: Sed etsi nusquam in Scripturis veteribus omnino legeretur: non parua est vniuersae Ecclesiae, quae in hac consuetudine claret, auctoritas: But although it were not read any where at all in the auncient Scriptures, the whole Churches authoritie, which in this custome is euident, is not smal.

So that you sée the said reason by S. Augu∣stines iudgement, not to be any whit preiudicial to such matters as stand vpon the whole Churches authority, although to al new inuentions of Heretikes against y^e church, it be a plain preiudice.

And now I must remember the Reader of that place where D. Allen biddeth him to require of these new Teachers, before hee beléeue them,* 1.202 To alleage some place of any auncient writer, which doth expresly denie Purgatory or prayers for the dead: as

we (saith he) for the confirming thereof haue alleaged in playne termes very many. And heare what Fulke there answereth: If we be required to shew some place of any auncient writer, which denieth Purgatorie or prayers for the dead: we haue already she∣wed, that Augustine sometime doth doubt whether there be Pur∣gatorie: sometime affirmeth, there is no meane or third place, but heauen for the elect, and hell for the reprobate. Considering ther∣fore, that S. Augustine in those places maketh nothing for him, as I haue shewed, but expresly against him, as him selfe also con∣fesseth: thou séest, gentle Reader, that he hath no Doctor to bring which denieth Purgatory. Let vs come then to the other parte, whether any Doctor denie prayers for the dead.

Other Doctors about praying for the dead.

Likewise for praying or satisfying for the dead (you say) we haue alleaged Cyprian and others, your Canon law,* 1.203 out of Hie∣ronym, &c. Yea Gelasius the Pope saith, that no man can be ab∣solued of the Pope after his death, 24. q. 2. cap. Legatur. Where∣fore serue the Popes pardons then? The place of S. Hierome is answered already, pag. Your great place of Gelasius is of certaine Heretiks in Constantinople, that said to the Popes Le∣gate there:

Date veniā nobis, dum tamen nos in errore duremus: Giue vs absolution, notwithstanding we continue in our errour.

Therefore he biddeth them shewe, euen from the beginning of Christian Religion,

Veniam nisi se corrigentibus fuisse cōcessam, that absolution was euer giuen but to suche as did amend them∣selues. And because they would not onely them selues be absol∣ued, but also their felowes who were dead, that they might be named anong others in the Canonical memorie of the dead, ther∣vpon he saith againe, that it can not be shewed, our Sauiour, or any after him,

In errore mortuos absoluisse, to haue absolued such as dyed in their error. Nam in ligatione defunctum nunquā dixit absoluendum: For he neuer saide, that we should absolue one that dyed in the bond of excommunication. It is a signe you lacked witnesses against praying and pardons for the dead that dyed in our communion, for whom onely all our suffrages are, when you were faine to alleage, and to make so muche of him that spoke onely of them that dye in excommunication.

* 1.204Like stuffe it is that you bring out of S. Cyprian. For he spea∣keth it to the Idolatrous and persecuting Paganes, exhorting them, and saying: We exhort you, whilest you may, whilest as yet somewhat of this life remaineth, to satisfie God, and to rise out of the botome of darke superstition, into the shining light of true Religion. Quando isthinc excessum fuerit, nullus iam locus poe∣nitentiae est, nullus satisfactionis effectus. Hic vita aut amittitur, aut tenetur,* 1.205 (&c. you say, omitting that which foloweth, because it shewed playnly S. Cyprians purpose not to be your purpose.) Hic saluti aeternae cultu dei & fructu fidei prouidetur. When you are gone hence there is now no place of penance, no effect of sa∣tisfaction. Here life is either lost, or saued. Here euerlasting sal∣uation is procured by the worshipping of (one) God, and by the fruitfulnes of faith. This forsooth is that which can not stande with the Papists opinion of Purgatory. By this forsooth appereth what Cyprians iudgement was of Purgatory (and the effect of satisfaction) after this life. And againe because exhorting there Demetrianus him selfe (Proconsul of Africa) to repētance, which had bene (so you say deceitfully,* 1.206 as though he now were conuer∣ted, for that you should haue said, which presently was) a wicked man, and a persecutor of the Christians: he saith to him, Tu sub ipso licet exitu, & vitae temporalis occasu, &c. Do thou, although it be but a litle before thy end, and setting of this temporall life, pray for thy sinnes to the God, which is the one and true God: Confessionem & fidem agnitionis eius implores, Do thou hum∣bly call for confession, and faith of acknowledging him (he allu∣deth to the ceremonie, quid petis? Fidem.) Venia cōfitenti datur, & credenti indulgentia salutaris de diuina pietate conceditur: Par∣don is giuen to him that confesseth, and healthfull forgiuenes is graunted by Gods goodnes to him that beleeueth: Et ad immor∣talitatem sub ipsa morte transitur, and euen at the poynt of death is passage to immortalitie. Because Christ doth quicken him that is mortall, by the heauenly regeneration, viuificat mortalem rege∣neratione coelesti. This which is so expresly written of the In∣fidels in hell, and of Baptisme, to pretend it (as you do) to be written of the faithfull in Purgatory, and of penance after Bap∣tisme, argueth playnly, that either you sawe not the place in S. Cyprian, or rather that séeing you would not sée.

Of the same sort it is, that,* 1.207 where S. Cyprian speaketh of De∣niers of Christ in persecution, which would not afterward come to the Priestes to confession, and saith,

Euery one, I beseeche you brethren, confesse his sinne, whilest yet he that sinned is in this world, whilest his confession may be receiued, whilest satisfaction and remission facta per Sacerdotes, made by the authoritie of the Priestes, is acceptable with our Lord: you gather therevpon, and say: If men can not satisfie, nor Priest remit, but whilest men are in this life, then farewell satisfaction for the dead, and Purgatory.

As though we hold, that they which will not submit them selues to the Priestes in this life, may be holpen after their death: Or that confession may be made by the dead, and satisfaction enioy∣ned them, and that béeing done, absolution giuen them by the Priestes.

Againe it is of the same sorte, which you alleage out of S. Chrysostome, where first you confesse that he holdeth expresly,* 1.208 prayers to profite the dead, and alleageth Scripture for it (your words I recited in cap. 3. and that notwithstanding, say after∣ward: Otherwise when he iudged vprightly & according to the Scripture, his words sounde cleane contrarie to the opinion of Purgatory, and works of other men to be meritorious for the dead, as in the very next Homily, being the 42. in 1. Cor. Quapro∣pter oro, &c. What a worthy S. Chrysostome was euery kinde of way, I néede not to saye. I can admire him, I am not able to commend him sufficiently. But what a base opinion haue you of him (as also of so many others his peares) to think him so grosse,* 1.209 to speake cleane contrarie to him selfe, and that vpon one Epi∣stle, yea & in the very next Homily? You do herein nothing els, but iustifie my saying in the beginning of this chapter, that you can not in déede shew the Doctors to be for you against vs, but that in déede you cōfesse them to be with vs against you, and pre∣tend onely that they be agaynst vs in so much as they be preten∣siuely against them selues. But why did you not aswell say, that D. Allen him selfe is against vs, in that in the seuenth chapter of his second booke he sheweth,* 1.210 That the benefite of prayer & almes apperteineth not to such as dye in mortall sinne? For what els doth S. Chrysostome say in that long allegation of yours, but that no friend, no iust, shall helpe him that dyeth in mortal sinne,

either committing euill that he ought to refrayne, or omitting good that he ought to atchieue: beséeching them therefore

to con∣uert and amend,

and to get agaynst they dye, good words of their owne to trust in before that Iudge.

* 1.211Likewise of S. Ambrose you confessed cap. 3. pag. 16. Ambrose in deede alloweth prayer for the dead. And yet because he saith: Bene addidit (in terra,) quia nisi hic mundatus fuerit, ibi mundus esse non poterit: The Prophet did well to adde (on earth) for if he be not clensed here, he can not be clensed, from his mortall sinnes. But the true translation is, he can not be cleane there, neither from his veniall sinnes, though from them he maye be clensed there, as also from the temporall debte of his remitted mortall sinnes: yet, I saye, by these words it is playne inough with you, that Ambrose allowed no purging after this life.

One place more, or two, you alleage more out of the same Doctor,* 1.212 with this note therevpon: Thus saith Ambrose playnely in this place, whatsoeuer he speaketh allegorically of the Fyerie sworde in other places, as in Psal. 118. Ser. 20. and in Psal. 65. by occasion of which two places you graunt not long after, that the Old writers opinion was,* 1.213 that all men, were they neuer so iust, passed through that fire into Paradise, and were purified thereby: because they ascribed to Purgatory fire those two ope∣rations, the one whereof S. Augustine & we (as I said erewhile) do doubt of. All this notwithstanding, the same Ambrose (you say) vpon Rom. 5. ouerthroweth Purgatorie, in that it followeth of his words there,* 1.214 that no man feeleth paine after this life, but he that shal feele it eternally.

And surely to the same effect he spea∣keth in his booke De bono mortis, you say, onely because cap. 4. where he concludeth, that death in euery respect is good, (yea al∣though a man haue liued yll, and shall after death abye for it, for also in that case, non mors malum, sed vita, Not his death, but his life was euill) among others, this cause he rendreth: quia deterio∣rem statum non efficit, sed qualem in singulis inuenerit, talem iu∣dicio futoro reseruat: because it maketh not the (yll) state worse, but such state as it findeth in euery one, suche it reserueth to the iudgement to come.

Now who saith, that Purgatory after death altereth the state of the euill to worse? yea or also that it promo∣teth the state of the good to better. Euery mans state (we saye)

both is at his death, and shal be at domesday, according to his me∣rites in his life. Neither he that is clensed in Purgatory, hath his merites either multiplied or amplified thereby, but onely his ve∣niall sinnes and temporall debtes taken away. In the former place his words are these:

Although Abraham were in hell, (or in the inferior partes) yet he was seuered with a long space be∣tweene, so that there was an huge chaos inter iustos & peccatores, quanto magis impios? Betweene the iust and the (Catholike) sinners, how much more the impious (Heretikes?) Vt iustis esset refrigerium, & peccatoribus aestus, impijs vero ardor: That to the iust might be ease, and heate (as it were of the sunne) to the sin∣ners, but fierie heate to the impious: vt ante iudicium, quo vnus∣quisque dignus esset, non lateret: that which eche sort were wor∣thy of, might before the iudgement, be partly knowen. Now how you can inferre of these words, that no man feeleth payne after this life (although S. Ambrose him selfe say it expresly in other places) but he that shall feele it eternally, I sée not. Vnlesse per∣happes you would binde him to yéelde a reason of Purgatory paynes withall, when he yéelded a reason of Abrahams bosome, and of the damned Soules hell, or els haue him pronounced guil∣tie of contradiction, and Purgatorie by your argument ab au∣thoritate negatiuè quite subuerted.

From this saying of S. Ambrose we might well passe to the sayings of other Doctors alleaged agaynst Limbus patrum a friend of Purgatories, but onely that we must stay a litle while for your pleasure,* 1.215 with Eusebius Emissenus (though him you take for a counterfaite) and S. Bernard. Because these two set foorth very terribly, but truly, the paynes of Purgatorie, therfore with you the one sheweth him selfe an vtter enemie to the release of the same, and the other denieth the remedie or remission of them. As if you would say, that the holy Scripture also where it preacheth Gods iustice, denieth his mercy, though in other pla∣ces it preach his mercy no lesse. For sée you not S. Bernard as earnest also for the remedie of those paynes, where D. Allen al∣leageth him calling your friends the Apostolicie of his time,* 1.216 mis∣creants, and doggs, for laughing vs to skorne (saith Bernard) that we baptize infants, that we pray for the dead, that we require the helpe of the holy Saintes? In so much that your self also confesse

in another place, saying:

Bernard is of opinion, that sinnes not re∣mitted in this world,* 1.217 may be remitted in the world to come.

Whether Purgatory be only for Veniall sinnes.

One other litle stay we must make about S. Augustines iudge∣ment,* 1.218 being this, as you say, That Purgatory serueth to purge none but very small and light offences: Wheras D. Allen saith, that it is for great faultes also, which by penance are made small, alleaging for it this playne place:

Quaedam enim peccata sunt quae sunt mortalia,* 1.219 & in paenitentia fiunt venialia, non tamen sta∣tim sanata: For there be certaine sinnes which be mortall, and in penance be made veniall, but not straight healed. As oftentimes certen sick persons would dye but for Phisick, yet are not straight healed. Lanquet victurus, qui prius erat moriturus: Feeble he is, though now to liue, and not to dye as before. And therefore although one truely conuerted at the poynt of death, from his wickednes (nequitia, &c.) shall be saued. Yet we do not promise him that he shall escape all payne. Nam prius purgandus est igne purgationis, qui in aliud seculum distulit fructum conuersionis: for he must first be purged with the fire of Purgatorie, (who in this world conuerted, but) deferred the fruite of conuersion to the other world. Studeat ergo quilibet sic delicta corrigere, vt post mortem non oporteat talem poenam tolerare: Therfore let euery one labour so to amend his sinnes (also after his conuer∣sion, because he is now as the sicke person past daunger of death, but not healed as yet) that after death he suffer not such passing grieuous payne.

You tooke not the paynes to take the booke, and reade the place, and therefore blindly you say, that this Doctors words are playnly of light and smal offences, and not of heinous and great offences, euen also against your owne eyes that sawe the word Mortalia. And againe, that the manifest meaning of his words, is not of a mortall sinne forgiuen, as though he said, that it become a veniall trespasse, but that a mortall sinne may be par∣doned. Whereas he speaketh so manifestly of a mortall sinne af∣ter penance, as of a mortall disease after Phisicke: the daunger of soule death in the one, as of bodily death in the other, béeing now past, but the healing behinde, and therefore also daunger of Purgatory payne for it behind.

D. Allen alleageth for the same, also Enchir. cap. 71. where S. Augustine affirmeth, that,

Et illa peccata a quibus vita Fidelium sceleratè etiam gesta, sed poenitendo in melius mutata discedit, Also those sinnes in the which the faithfull haue wickedly lyued, but nowe by penance lefte them, chaunging their liues to better, are after taken away by the same remedies, as minima & quoti∣diana peccata, breuia leuia{que} peccata, the least and daily, the short and light sinnes, to wit, among other remedies, by the Pater no∣ster, which is the dayly prayer of the faithfull. Which also in the next world he admitteth ca. 69. and 70. of the said Infanda cri∣mina, qualia qui agunt regnum dei non possidebunt,* 1.220 heinous crimes which depriue the parties of Gods kingdome: Si conueni∣enter poenitentibus eadem crimina remittantur, If the same crimes be forgiuen them (in the Church) vpon their due penance: then he graunteth, I say, that such persons also may be saued by Pur∣gatory fire after this life,

and not they onely that dye with Veni∣all sinnes. This D. Allen there alleageth briefly, and you say ne∣uer a word vnto it.* 1.221

Onely you snatch those words (which he al∣leageth among others out of another place to another purpose) Illo enim transitorio igne, non capitalia,* 1.222 sed minuta peccata pur∣gantur, By that transitorie fire, (whereof the Apostle saith, He shal be saued by fire) are purged not mortall, but light offences: neither considering that he speaketh of purging culpam, the fault it selfe, for he speaketh against them that continue still in cōmit∣ting mortall sinnes, and deceiue them selues with false securitie, while they think that peccate ipsa, those sinnes may be purged by the transitorie fire, & them selues afterwards come to euerlasting life. Nor knowing, that he there also very often, as aboue in his Enchiridion, graunteth, the same fire to be also for the said mor∣tall sinnes, if one haue left committing of them, but not yet fully redéemed them poenitentiae medicamentis, with the plaisters of penance.

viij. Of Limbus patrum.

And now we are come to your Doctors y^t you alleage agaynst Limbus Patrum.

The one is S. Augustine,* 1.223 of whose most cleare testimonie alleaged by D. Allen (Because the (a) 1.224Scriptures make euident mention both of hell and of paynes, I see no other cause why our Sauiour came thither according as we beleeue, nisi vt ab eius

doloribus saluos facerit, But to ridde some of the paynes therof. Fuisse enim apud inferos, & in eorum doloribus constitutis hoc beneficium praestitisse non dubito: I am out of doubt that he was in hell, and that he bestowed that gratious benefite vpon some that were in the paynes therof.

You are fayne to say, that it is but the authoritie of a man. But you haue another place, a Gods name, Where he semeth vtterly to deny, that he came in that pri∣son of hell. And to make all sure, you imagine what we will an∣swere to it, and then you make your reply. But all besides the text, like one that neuer saw y^e booke. For he saith there as plain∣ly as in the other place: Fuit apud inferos Christi Anima, & diui∣nitas,* 1.225 Both the soule and the diuinitie of Christ was in hell. But for what cause? Vt anima animas reparet, That his soule might repayre our soules, and (as aboue he said) deliuer some soules out of their paynes there. But not to suffer any paines there it selfe, as the Arrians did blaspheme.

For if (saith he in the words that you alleage) his, or the good théefes (for it may be vnderstoode of either) body being dead, his soule is immediatly called to Para∣dise: do we thinke any man yet so impious, that he dare say, our Sauiours soule, in that three dayes of his bodily death, apud infe∣ros custodiae mancipetur, is in hell committed to prison?

Lo syr, what he vtterly denieth, to wit, that his soule was committed there to prison: not, that it came in that prison as to deliuer the prisoners.

Your other Doctor is S. Ireneus, whom D. Allen first allea∣ged saying manifestly,* 1.226 that Adam was Implens tempora eius cō∣demnationis, quae facta fuerat propter inobedientiam, Fulfilling the times of that condemnation, which came by disobedience, vn∣till our Lord came, and then solutus est condemnationis vinculis, he was released of the bonds of his condemnation. And you an∣swere, that the name of Adam seemeth to be takē in these words, rather for a name common (signifying all mankinde) then for a proper name. Iesu, how blindly? Do you not know, that he re∣porteth li. 1. ca. 31. that the proper Heresie of Tacianus was, Adae saluti contradictionem faciens,* 1.227 that he gainsaide the saluation of Adam: and after him S. Augustine Haer. 25. Saluti primi homi∣nis contradicunt, The Tacianistes gaynsay the saluation of the first man?

And do you not sée that he disputeth against that He∣resie

in the said place, li. 3. euen from cap. 33. to 39.

But you haue another place of his,* 1.228 where he plainly ouerthro∣weth our fantasie, in that he saith of the place where Christes soule was those thrée dayes, that it was suche a place as all his disciples shall rest in vntill the time of the generall Resurrection. He saith not so: he disputeth agaynst those old Heretikes, Who said that immediatly assoone as they were dead, they ascended a∣boue heauen, and aboue the Creator, and came to the mother, or to their fayned father, leauing their body for euer, neuer to rise againe, and therefore attayning al perfection and the highest pro∣motion at once.

S. Irenée therfore auoucheth against them not only the Resurrection, but also the order of the Resurrection, and saith, that if this were so, then our Lorde giuing vp his Ghost vpon the Crosse, would straight haue gone vpwarde, leauing his body to the earth. But he did not so: Three dayes he conuersed where the dead were, in the inferior parts of the earth, in the mid∣dest of the shadow of death. And then after that he arose cor∣porally, and after his resurrection was assumpted. Séeing there∣fore no disciple is aboue his master, saith he, it is manifest by this, that also his disciples soules shall goe (he saith not, into the same place, but) in inuisibilem locum definitum eis a deo, into an inui∣sible place, appoynted for them by God, and there shall tarrie vntill the resurrection, abiding the resurrection: and afterwards receiuing agayne their bodies, and rising perfectly, that is, corpo∣rally, sic venient ad conspectum Dei, so shall come to the sight of God: to wit, the whole man both in soule and body. So he may well be vnderstood: because the Soule of Christ also had the sight of God before his Resurrection.

Yet supposing that he thought, neither so muche as the Soules to sée God, before the Resurrection (as some other Doctors did thinke, vntill it was of late defined by the Church, as I noted afore in the eight chap∣ter, yet that doth not declare, as you pretende, that he thought of Limbus Patrum otherwise then we do. For you heard him saye afore, that Adam at our Lordes comming was released out of that place, béeing a place of captiuitie: and nowe, by him, his soule is in that other inuisible place. Whereof it follo∣weth manifestly, that by him the former place is not al one with the later.

And so, thankes be to God, I haue fully answered all that you alleage against Purgatorie, or any other Article of the Catholike faith, according to my promise in the beginning of this Chapter. Whereby the Reader may perceaue, perfect vnitie of faith to be betwixt the Fathers then, and vs now, notwithstanding all that you could bring. And that so euidently, that in most matters, & in most of the Fathers, you were faine to pretend no lesse, that one and the same man was not in vnitie with him selfe: so that this chapter néeded not so much for defense of our doctrine, as for the defense of the Doctors them selues against your childish and arrogant detractions.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Pur. 249.
• * 1.2

  Iren. lib. 5.
• * 1.3

  Par. 2. diu. 2
• * 1.4

  Pur. 373.
• (a) 1.5

  Pu. 409 Aug. de Ci. dei li. 16. ca. 17. li. 18. ca. 22.27.
• (b) 1.6

  Ar. 10.
• * 1.7

  1. Pet. 5.
• * 1.8

  Hiero. ad Marcel. ep. 16. tom. 1.
• * 1.9

  Rom. 1.
• * 1.10

  Hier. tom. 2 ep. ad Dam.
• * 1.11

  Mat. 16. Exod. 12. Gen. 7.
• * 1.12

  Leo Epist. 89. ad Epis. vien. proui.
• * 1.13

  Pur. 320.
• * 1.14

  Amdro. in Apoc. 17.
• * 1.15

  Ambro. de Sacramen. lib. 3. ca. 1.
• * 1.16

  Pur. 320. Ambro. de Inc. d. c. 4.5.
• * 1.17

  Mat. 16.
• * 1.18

  The rest of the Popes Supre∣macie. Ar. 36.37. Pur. 287.373.374.
• * 1.19

  Cyp. ep. 55 68. seu. li. 1. Ep. 3.4.
• * 1.20

  Apud Aug Epi. 94.93. Innocē. ad Con. Cart. & Milenit. Aug. e. 106. Con. Iul. li. 1. cap. 2. De pec. ori. con. Pelag. cap. 8.
• * 1.21

  Ar. 37. Soc. l. 7. c. 11 So. li. 6. c. 10
• * 1.22

  Secularem is not fo••rei••e, •• you trans••a••••, but vvorldly
• * 1.23

  Ar. 37.
• * 1.24

  Aug. e. 157
• * 1.25

  Pu. 320.
• * 1.26

  Pur. 287.
• * 1.27

  Pur. 81.
• * 1.28

  Ca. 8. pa. 4
• * 1.29

  Cyp. Test. ad Quir. lib. 31.42.
• * 1.30

  Pur. 380.383.
• * 1.31

  Fulke taken in a vayne brag.
• * 1.32

  Cap. 3. pa. •• diui. 1.
• * 1.33

  Pur. 382.383.445.
• * 1.34

  Cap. 8. par. 3. diui.
• * 1.35

  Pur. 436.437.438.
• * 1.36

  Cap. 3. pa. 2 diui. 1. Infra ca. 11. contra. 45.
• * 1.37

  Tertul. de corona Mi¦litis.
• * 1.38

  Par. 2. diu. 3
• * 1.39

  Pur. 264.
• * 1.40

  Pur. 268.
• * 1.41

  Pur. 275.
• * 1.42

  Pur. 286.
• * 1.43

  Pur. 393.
• * 1.44

  Pur. 410.
• * 1.45

  Pur. 417.
• * 1.46

  Pur. 363.
• * 1.47

  Pur. 435.
• * 1.48

  Pu. 103.
• * 1.49

  Pur. 145.
• * 1.50

  Mat. 5.
• * 1.51

  Pur. 148.151.
• * 1.52

  Cap. 8. par. 3. diui. 2.
• * 1.53

  Pur. 214.
• * 1.54

  See cap. 11. co••ad 35
• * 1.55

  The Churches authoritie for the Machabes.
• * 1.56

  Au. de doc. christ. lib. 2. cap. 8.
• * 1.57

  Aug. Retr. li. 2. ca. 4.
• * 1.58

  Pur. 215.457. Aug. con. 2 Gaudentij Ep. li. 2. c. 23
• * 1.59

  If Fulke be so∣ber the Macha¦bees are Gods vvord. If he be not, vvhose fault is that? 2. Peter 2.
• * 1.60

  Au. 2. doc. christ. 8.
• * 1.61

  Conc. Cart. 3. Can. 47.
• * 1.62

  Fulkes obiecti∣ons.
• * 1.63

  Pur. 386.208.
• * 1.64

  2. Mac. 7. Au. 2. Gau. 23. & ep. 61
• * 1.65

  Aug. de cō∣sen. Euang. li. 1. ca. 2.3.
• * 1.66

  Hieromes testi∣monies. Pu. 214.
• * 1.67

  Pur. 215.
• * 1.68

  August. de Praed. San. cap. 14.
• (a) 1.69

  Hieron. prol. galea∣to in li. Re∣gum.
• * 1.70

  Aug. de Ci. dei. li. 18. ca, 36
• * 1.71

  Hie. Apol. ad Ruff.
• * 1.72

  Pur. 216.
• * 1.73

  Pur. 386.
• * 1.74

  Pur. 215.230.
• * 1.75

  Supra pa. 1. eodem cap.
• * 1.76

  Pur. 218.
• * 1.77

  A falsarie.
• * 1.78

  Eu. li. 2. c. 22
• * 1.79

  If the Doctors be not of their ovvn side, they be on ••ulks side
• * 1.80

  Pur. 287.
• * 1.81

  Pur. 303.
• * 1.82

  Idē Ar. 69.
• * 1.83

  Ar. 12. Chrys. cō. 3. de Lazaro.
• * 1.84

  Pur. 387. Leo Ser. 2. de ieiunio Pentecost.
• * 1.85

  Ar. 14.
• * 1.86

  Ar. 15.
• * 1.87

  Ar. 11. Hilar. li. 4. de Trin.
• * 1.88

  Basi. de spi. Sanc. ca. 27
• * 1.89

  Pur. 380.
• * 1.90

  Ar. 11. Basi de ve∣ra side, in prooem. Moraliū.
• * 1.91

  Basi. in Re∣gulis breu. Interrog. 1.
• * 1.92

  Basil. Mor. Reg. 26. c. 1.
• * 1.93

  Augustine.
• * 1.94

  Pur. 349.
• * 1.95

  Ar. 12. Pur. 383.405.368.451.
• * 1.96

  Ar. 12.
• * 1.97

  Epist. 48.
• * 1.98

  Iust separation impossible.
• * 1.99

  Ar. 13.
• * 1.100

  Aug. con. Ep. parm. li. 2. ca. 8. De bap. cō. Don. l. 1. c. 7
• * 1.101

  Au. contra Max. li. 1. in principio.
• * 1.102

  Pur. 349.
• * 1.103

  Aug. de v∣nitate Eccl. cap. 18.19.
• * 1.104

  Ar. 13.14.
• * 1.105

  Au. de vni. Eccl. ca. 16.
• * 1.106

  Ar. 13. Pur. 333.
• * 1.107

  Moracles and visions.
• * 1.108

  Aug. cō. ep. Fund. ca. 4.
• * 1.109

  Iohn. 21.
• * 1.110

  Ar. 69.70.
• * 1.111

  Ar. 14. Pur. 203.
• * 1.112

  Cap. 6. par. 1. v.
• * 1.113

  Ar. 45. Pur. 22.23.
• * 1.114

  Hpiph. li. 2 Haer. 61.
• * 1.115

  Chry. ep. 6 ad Theod. Monachū lapsum. Basil. lib. de virginitate.
• * 1.116

  Hie. ad De∣metriad. tom. 1.
• * 1.117

  Pur. 326.
• * 1.118

  Pur. 3••8.
• * 1.119

  Aug. in Ps. 98.
• * 1.120

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.121

  August. de Trin. lib. 3. ca. 10.
• * 1.122

  Pur. 309.
• * 1.123

  Ar. 60.
• * 1.124

  Ar. 59.
• * 1.125

  Iren. li. 4. cap. 34.
• * 1.126

  Et li. 4. c. 32 & li. 5.
• * 1.127

  Pur. 307. Theod. in poly. mor. dial. 2.
• * 1.128

  Pur, 168.
• * 1.129

  Pur. 42. Aug. in vet. Test. lib. 4. ca. 53
• * 1.130

  Nu. 20.27. Deut. 32.
• * 1.131

  Pur. 43.
• * 1.132

  2. Reg. 16.
• * 1.133

  Pur. 43.
• * 1.134

  Pur. 87.
• * 1.135

  Chryso. de compun. cordis. li. 1. in fine.
• * 1.136

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.137

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.138

  Pur. 8••. A••. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 22. li. 1••.
• * 1.139

  Ambro. ad virg. lapsā. ca. 8. Pur. 84.
• * 1.140

  or, exercise
• * 1.141

  ur. 8 5.
• * 1.142

  Pur. 73.
• * 1.143

  Theo. hist. li. 5. ca. 17.
• * 1.144

  Cyp. ep. 59
• * 1.145

  a Bishop.
• * 1.146

  Cyp. sermo de Lapsis.
• * 1.147

  Iere. 17.
• * 1.148

  Mat. 10.
• * 1.149

  Note the anti∣quitie of par∣dons.
• * 1.150

  〈…〉〈…〉 Pu••. ••
• * 1.151

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.152

  Pur. 259.
• * 1.153

  Iust. Apol. 2. in fine.
• * 1.154

  Aug. epist. 59. q. 5.
• * 1.155

  Tert. in A∣polog. ad∣uersus Gen¦tes.
• * 1.156

  Pur. 369.
• * 1.157

  Arnob. li. 4 cōtra Gen∣tes, sub finē.
• * 1.158

  Pur. 370.
• * 1.159

  VVil you see a pure Puritane.
• * 1.160

  Pur. 356.
• * 1.161

  Epip. Hier. 75. Aerij li. 3. tom. 1.
• * 1.162

  Pur. 249.427.
• * 1.163

  Pur. 116. Orig. in Ie. Ho. 12. In Num. ho. 25. In psal. 36. ho. 3. Ori. in Iob. lib. 3.
• * 1.164

  Oblations for the dead.
• * 1.165

  Pur. 427.
• * 1.166

  Col. 4.
• * 1.167

  Heb. 13.
• * 1.168

  Au. de Ciu. li. 21. ca. 27.
• * 1.169

  Cyp. ep. 66
• * 1.170

  Pur. 284.
• * 1.171

  Pur. 244. out of Chrysost.
• * 1.172

  Pur. 259.
• * 1.173

  Pur. 426.
• * 1.174

  2. Tole. c. 12
• * 1.175

  4. Carth. ca. 79.
• * 1.176

  1. Brac. c. 34 35.39.
• * 1.177

  Dying vnrecon¦ciled passing dangerous.
• * 1.178

  4. Car. c. 79 95. Vase. c. 2.4.
• * 1.179

  Pur. 187.
• * 1.180

  Pur. 277.
• * 1.181

  Pur. 426.427. 3. Tol. c. 22.
• * 1.182

  Aug. de cu. pro mor. ca. 1. 2. Mac. 12.
• * 1.183

  Victor de pers. Vand. li. 1. fol. 3. b.
• * 1.184

  Pur. 327. from .323.
• * 1.185

  Possid. in vita Aug. cap. 31.
• * 1.186

  Aug. 9. cōf. ca. 12.14.
• * 1.187

  Fulke the an∣svverer: Fulke the re∣plier.
• * 1.188

  A friend of trust for Pro∣testants. August. de verb. Apo. Ser. 34.
• * 1.189

  Aug. 9. confes. 13.
• * 1.190

  Pur. 328.
• * 1.191

  Pur. 327.
• * 1.192

  Pur. 270.279.315. Au. ep. 64. Enchi. c. 110 de cur. c. 18. Pu. 54.110 121.161.187 382.
• * 1.193

  Pur. 118.
• * 1.194

  August. de Ciui li. 21. ca. 24. & 13 Ench c. 110. Ad Dulcit. q 2.
• * 1.195

  Pur. 110.196. Aug. ciu. li. 20. c. 25. li. 21. c. 13.24. Pur. 121.
• * 1.196

  Ench. c. 69.68.
• * 1.197

  Pur. 119.
• * 1.198

  Pur. 317.
• * 1.199

  Such are the enemies of the Church of Christ.
• * 1.200

  Pur. 110.
• * 1.201

  2. Mac. 12.
• * 1.202

  Pur. 380.382.
• * 1.203

  Pur. 382.
• * 1.204

  Cyp. cōtra Demet. in fine. Pur. 140.
• * 1.205

  Clipping.
• * 1.206

  Chaunging.
• * 1.207

  Pur. 82. Cyp. de Lapsis.
• * 1.208

  Pur. 2••1.
• * 1.209

  Caluins intole∣rable light hath marred Fulkes eyes.
• * 1.210

  Pur. 271.
• * 1.211

  Pur. 112. Ambro. in Psal. 40.
• * 1.212

  Pur. 106.
• * 1.213

  Pur. 132.
• * 1.214

  Pur. 105.
• * 1.215

  Pur. 142.143. Emis. ho. 3. de Epipha. Ber. in vita Humberti.
• * 1.216

  Pur. 420. Ber. Ser. 66 in Cantica.
• * 1.217

  Pur. 194.
• * 1.218

  Pur. 122.448.
• * 1.219

  Pur. 128. August. de ver. & fal. Poen. ca. 18.
• * 1.220

  Gal. 5.
• * 1.221

  Pur. 120.
• * 1.222

  Au. Ser. 41. de Sanctis. 1. Cor. 3.
• * 1.223

  Pur. 56.60 Au. ep. 99.
• (a) 1.224

  Act. 2.
• * 1.225

  Aug. in Fe∣licianū Ar∣rianū. ca. 17 18.15.
• * 1.226

  Pur. 55.59 Iren. lib. 3. cap. 33.
• * 1.227

  His ignorance.
• * 1.228

  Iren. lib. 5. in fine.