A defence of the Apologie of the Churche of Englande conteininge an answeare to a certaine booke lately set foorthe by M. Hardinge, and entituled, A confutation of &c. By Iohn Iewel Bishop of Sarisburie.

The B. of Sarisburie.

Good Christian Reader, this whole mater concerneth onely the credite, and certainetie of General Councelles. Sotus, and Hosius saie, what so euer is deter∣mined in Councel, must be taken, as the vndoubted Iudgemente, and VVoorde of God. Hereunto the Godly Learned Father, Iohannes Brentius, replieth thus, Councelles sommetimes haue erred, and haue vtterly wanted the Sprite of God: as it maie appeare by that in a Councel the Sonne of God was condemned, and iudged to die the deathe. Hosius answeareth, When Annas, and Caiphas sate as Presidentes in the Coūcel, and Christe y^• Sonne of God, was by them condēned to die, yet neuerthelesse y^• same Coūcel had the assistance of the Holy Ghoste, and the vndoubted Sprite of Truthe. For,* 1.1 speakinge of the same Councel, he saithe thus, Vides, Brenti, quemadmodum non defuerit Sacerdotio Leuitico Spiritus Propheticus, Spiritus Sanctus, Spiritus Veritatis: Yee see, frende Brentius, how that the Leuitical Priesthoode (that pro∣nounced sentence of deathe against Christe) wanted not the Sprite of Prophesie, the Holy Ghoste,* 1.2 the Sprite of Truthe. Againe he saithe, Ex quo tempore Primus Parēs noster de vento ligno gustauit, factus est Mortis Reus Christus Dei, &c. Nec fal∣sum fuit illud,* 1.3 quod dixerunt, Nos legem habemus, & secundum Legem hanc de∣bet mori: From the tune, that oure Firste Father tasted of the forebidden fruite Christe the Sonne of God became guilty of deathe: Neither was it false, that the Iewes saide, VVee haue a Lavve, and accordinge to that Lavve he ought to die. With this Sprite, I trowe, he was inspired, that wrote this Marginal Note vpon your De∣crees, Iudaei mortaliter peccassent,* 1.4 nisi Christum Crucifixissent: The levves had committed mortal sinne, if they had not nailed Christe vnto the Crosse. Againe, Hosius saithe,* 1.5 Nulla esse potest tanta Pontificum improbitas, quae impedire queat, quo' minùs vera sit illa Dei Promissio, Qui indicabunt tibi Iudicij Veritatem: Be the wicked∣nesse

of Bishoppes neuer so greate, it can neuer hinder, but that this promisse of God shal euer be true, The Bishoppes shal shevve thee the truthe of Iudgemente.

This therefore, M. Hardinge, is your Doctoures meaninge: It is sufficiente, that Bishoppes onely méete in Councel. God wil supplie al the reste. What so e∣uer they determine, the Holy Ghoste wil assist them: they cannot erre. Al this is as true, as that Hosius your Doctoure saithe, Annas, and Caiphas coulde not erre in pronouncinge Sentence of deathe againste Christe.

But, for excuse hereof, sommewhat to salue a festry mater, yée tel vs a longe tedious tale, without heade, or foote: & that your Reader maie thinke, yée saie some∣what, ye crie out alowde, Shamelesse railinge Heretiques: VVee belie Hosius: vvee belie Sotus: Our false dealinge: our shamelesse lieinge: vvee are impu∣dente, and continevve in lieinge. These, M. Hardinge, be the proufes, and groundes of your Doctrine, and the moste sauerie, and fairest Floures in your garlande.

The substance of your tale is this: The Actes of the Councel, where Christe was condemned, were lewde, and wicked: But the Sentence of deathe pronounced by the Bishoppes against Christe, was iuste, and true. And thus by your dalliance in darke woordes, and by your blinde Distinction, bitweene Acte, and Sentence, yée seeke shiftes, to mocke the worlde. Yée shoulde plainely haue tolde vs, what were these Sentences: and what were these Actes: and what greate difference yee canne espie bitweene Acte, and Sentence: or, when euer yee hearde of Sentence in Iudgemente with∣out Acte: or, of perfite Acte without Sentence: or, howe the Sentence of the Iudge maie be true, if the Acte be false: or, how the Acte maie be righte, if the Sentence be wronge. For your credites sake, leaue these toies, M. Hardinge. Yee haue vsed them ouer longe. They are too childishe for a childe: they becomme not your gra∣uitie: they deceiue the simple.

In deede, I can easily beleeue, that neither Sotus, nor Hosius was euer so wic∣ked, to saie, that Christe vvas rightly, and vvorthily donne to deathe. How be it, he, that saithe, The sentence of deathe, pronounced in Councel againste Christe, vvas iuste, and true, seemeth in deede to saie no lesse. The very case, and course of your Doctrine vndoubtedly forced them thus to saie. For, if al Coūcelles be good, and Holy, without exception, then muste that also be a good, and a Holy Councel, that was assembled againste God, and againste his Christe.

Hosius your Doctours,* 1.6 to make the mater plaine, saithe thus, Iudásne sit, an Petrus, an Paulus, Deus attendi not vult: Sed solùm hoc, quo'd sedet in Ca∣thedra Petri: quo'd Apostolus: quo'd Christi Legatus: quo'd Angelus est Do∣mini exercituum: de cuius ore Legem requirere iussus es. Hoc solùm specta∣ri vult. Si Iudas est, quandoquidem Apostolus est, nihil te moueat, quo'd Fur est: God wil neuer haue thee consider, whether the Pope be a Iudas, or a Peter, or a Paule. It is sufficiente, onely that he sitteth in Peters Chaire: that he is an Apostle: that he is christes Embassadoure: that he is the Angel of the Lorde of Hostes: from whose mouthe thou arte commounded to require the Lawe. This thinge onely Christe would haue thee to consider. Be it Iudas: for as mutche as he is an Apostle, let it not moue thee, though he be a Theefe.

But Caiphas saide, It is good, that one man die for the people, leste al the people perishe. Ergo, saie you, Caiphas had the Sprite of God. Alas, M. Hardinge, although you litle passe for your Diuinitie, yet why haue you nomore regarde vnto your Logique? Euery childe knoweth, that this is a Paralogismus, or a deceiteful kinde of reasoninge, called Fallacia Accidentis. And, that yee maie the better espie your ouersight, Like as yée saie, Caiphas prophesied blindely, him selfe not vnderstandinge, what he saide, Ergo, he had the Holy Ghoste:

Euen so maie yée saie, Balaams Asse reproued his maister, and spake the Truthe, as Caiphas did. Ergo, Balaams Asse had the Holy Ghoste. S. Paule saithe, No man can saie, The Lorde Iesus, but in the Sprite of God. Hereof, by your Lo∣gique, yée maie reason thus: The Diuel saide vnto Christe, I knowe, that thou arte Christe the Sonne of the Liuinge God:* 1.7 Ergo, the Diuel had the Sprite of God.

It pitieth me, M. Hardinge, to sée your folies. Although Caiphas vnwares, and against his wil, by the enforcemente, & power of God, at one onely time spake woordes of Truthe, as did also Balaams Asse, and the Diuel, yet it foloweth not, that wée should therefore at al times renne to Caiphas, to séeke the Truthe.

S, Augustine saithe,* 1.8 Quando Deus voluit, etiam mutum iumentum rationabiliter loquutum est. Nec ideo' admoniti sunt homines, in deliberationibus suis, etiam Asinina expectare Consilia: VVhen it pleased God, Balaams Asse, beinge a doum be beaste, was hable to speake, as a man. Yet are not menne therefore commaunded, in al their Consultati∣ons, and doubteful cases to seeke Counsel of an Asse.

As for the Lies, Shames, and Sclaunders, yée would so liberally laie vpon vs, it maie please you, to take them fréely home againe. If yée be ful freight, and haue stoare sufficiente of your owne, yet maie you diuide them emonge your poore Lo∣uanian Brethren. It shalbe a woorke of Supererogation. For yewisse, thei haue of their owne yenough already. To conclude, your whole drifte herein is, to force your Reader, to haue a good opinion of Annas, & Caiphas, that condemned Christe, to die the deathe: for that, as Hosius saithe, they had the Sprite of Prophesie, the Holy Ghoste, and the Sprite of Truthe: and therefore coulde not erre in their Iudgemente.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Hosius, Li. 2. con∣tra Brentium.
• * 1.2

  Pagi. 62. b.
• * 1.3

  Pagi. 63. a.
• * 1.4

  Dist. 13. Item. In Margine.
• * 1.5

  Hosius contra Brent. Pag. 63. b
• * 1.6

  Hosius in Con∣fessione Petri∣couien. Ca. 29.
• * 1.7

  1. Corin. 12.
• * 1.8

  August. Epist. 58.