To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
HAVING so wel acquited your selfe against the auncient fa∣thers in the matter of pe∣nāce, in the cōclusion there∣of, vpon smal occasion you renew M. Iewels old challenge, & verie fearcely prouoke M. Martin to oppugne it if he
dare. thus you say: Touching the principall partes of religion, most true it is, that I haue vvritten, that the same faith is taught and preached in our Churches, (that is, Zuingliā not Lutherane) vvhich the most auncient fathers held. nether feare I to renevv that challenge of the most learned M. Ievvel, vvhich you haue mentioned, if you daere take it. They are in number 27 articles, vvherein consisteth the cheefest force of papistrie. of all these articles choose vvhich you vvil, I pro∣test my selfe your aduersarie in the cause so long as I liue. To perfourme so much as you say, though of your abilitie I doubt greatly, yet of your good wil, I doubte not a whit. for I see you sticke at no∣thing, nether care what you say, or vn∣say, deny or affirme, be it right, be it wronge, true of false, nothing commeth amisse. and many tymes you shew this skill, within the compasse of one page. And to go about to proue to one, who after so long tyme, and so many, & eui∣dent, and inuincible proofes of a mat∣ter historical, which of it selfe was amōg sober men neuer doubted of (I meane, S. Peters being at Rome, and founding the Church there) yet now denyeth the same: to one, that had read in D. Sāders, the same confirmed by al maner testi∣monies
whereby such a matter may be cōfirmed, by those that thē liued & frō tyme to tyme ensued, by Papias S. Ihon the Euāgelists scholer, by Hegesippus, by Caius, by Dionisius bishop of Co∣rinth, by S. Ireneus, by Tertullian, by S. Ciprian, al these most auncient, and li∣uing not long after (for S. Ciprian the yongest is almost of 1400. yeares anti∣quitie) by S. Athanasius, S. Hierome, S. Optatus, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, S. Epiphanius, S. Leo the greate, S. Au∣gustine, S. Gregorie, by Eusebius, Lac∣tantius, Dorotheus, Orosius, Maximus Taurinensis, Sulpitius Seuerus, Pros∣per, Theodoretus, Gregorius Turonen∣sis, these al (sauing S. Gregory the great and Turonensis) beinge within the first ••00. yeares: some of them also groun∣ding them selues vppon the verie wor∣des of scripture, as Papias, Tertullian, Eusebius, and S. Hierome, the question also being a matter of storie and fact, which can not possiblie be knowē, but by the narration of such writers as then liued, and receaued it from their elders, so that herein M.W. hath not that liber∣tie to cauil, by comparinge together phrases, & expounding literal speaches by mystical Allegories, as in the sacra∣ment
and other controuersies of reli∣gion their maner is, the thinge also vn∣til our age being neuer denied by any writer of credit or estimation, and in our age confessed and proued by pro∣testātes them selues of greatest learning and knowledg: to go aboute (I say) to proue, that Christ is really in the B. Sa∣crament (a matter more hard and intri∣cate) to a man who knoweth this of S. Peter (a thing most plaine & euident) and yet after al this, and much more, saith notwithstanding obstinatlie, that Peter vvas at Rome, and there, vvith Paule laid the foundation of that church, no papist could euer yet shevv & proue: to me it see∣meth labour as madly imploied, vt si quis asellum in campo doceat parentē curre∣refraenis, or if to Anaxagoras affirming stoutlie that the snow is blacke, one would with sage reasons labour to per∣swade that the snow is white. and per∣haps it is not greater stupiditie (how shal I cal it) vnsensiblenes, in him to auouch the first, then it were follye in an other, to labour about proofe of the second.
Wherefore leauing that thing to M. Martin him self, as being fitter for a dead man to handle then a liuing, espe∣cially
hauing to deale against you M. W. who in this point seeme as dead and sensles as he, I wil for the readers in∣struction speake a litle of M. Iewels challenge which you so magnifie. which albeit it hath bene examined sufficientlie, and so, as no one thinge in my opinion, hath brought ether more shame to the author, or hinde∣rance to your Gospel, though at the first for a while it astonished many, as a thing bearing great countenance of learning, vntil in tyme by learned men the visard was pulled from it: yet seing you proclaime it agayne so couragi∣ously, I wil in few wordes touch the substance and meaning of it. It contey∣neth in effect 2. or 3. heretical articles, which M. Iewel dilated and parted into a great number, as it were some poore rag cut out into many shriddes, partly of pride and brauery to win among the simple an opinion of learning, partly of spite and malice against the Catho∣like church, which he sought specially to disgrace, and which by nothing could be disgraced more, then if she held and mayntened 27. articles the highest misteries and greatest keyes of her religion (as he termeth them) without
any authoritie, example, clause, or sen∣tence, of ether scripture, father, Coun∣cel, or writer, that liued within the first 600. yeres of the primitiue church.
The insolent vanitie of which bragge, to my seeming, is much like to that, which T. Quintius the Romane Consul, noted in the Embassadors of King Antiochus. who comming into Grece to perswade that people to take part with Antiochus against the Ro∣manes, they magnifyinge the force of Antiochus their maister, aduaunced infinitly the great hoastes which he would bringe, and terrified the simple Grecians, with straunge names of men neuer heard of before. he wil bringe (sayd they) into the field, Dahas, & M••∣dos, and E••imaeos, and Cadusios. and tou∣ching his nauie, so great as no porte of Grece is able to receaue, the one parte thereof is guided by Sidonians and Tyri∣ans, the other, by Aradians and Side••ians of Pamphilia, nations that haue no peere in the world, for skilfulnes in war by sea. Here vnto T. Quintius re∣plying, this king (quoth he) by these his embassadors vaunteth of clowdes of horsemen and footemen, and couereth the seas with his nauie. but al the matter
is verie like to a feast, which once mine host at Chalcis made me. of whom be∣ing enterteyned at a certen tyme, when I marueyled at so great prouision, and demaunded, how so suddenly he came by such varietie and store of venison, he not so glorious as these men, smiling answered, that al was but the art of his cooke, and dyuers dressinge of the same thinge. for otherwise touching the sub∣stance of the feast, tota illa varietas et spe∣cies ferinae carnis, er at ex sue mansueto facta. al that varietie and shevv of venison, vvas made of a tame sovv: so it is of these strāge and terrible names, Dahae, Medi, Aradi∣ans, and Sidonians. for al these are but Sy∣••ians, touching any valour that is in them, more fit to make slaues, then souldiers.
The selfe same, may be trewly verifi∣ed of M. Iewels so many and so great articles. for al that straunge varietie and multiplication of particulars, is made but, as it were ex mansueto sue, of two or three heretical propositions, thorough his skil in that kind of varying, so dra∣wen forth and minced, that it mustereth in the eye of the ignorant, as though it had great store of new matter. for graū∣ting to him one, and the same no gene∣ral
but a particular heresie, that the Zuinglian opinion is true touching the Sacrament, that there is no real pre∣sence, which is his fift article, thereof foloweth directlie the 6. that the body of Christ, is not in a 1000 places. the 8. that no diuine honor is due to it. the 10. that bread and vvine remaine as vvel after con∣secration as before. the first, and 13. that there could not be any priuate or many pri∣uate masses sayd, whereas there was no masse at al. the 17. that Christ could not possiblie be offered in sacrifice, whereas there was not any such sacrifice, nor the substāce thereof, in rerum natura. the 21. that Christian men could not cal that, lord or God, which was nothing but bread & wine. and so forth many other, which a man of meane skil, may see to be as plainlye included in that one, as manie lesse numbers are included in a greater, or many partes and qualities are neces∣sarily consequent to a perfect bodie. as on the cōtrarie side, put the Catholike opinion to be true, which he denieth in the tenth article, then al, or most of the same articles folow as clearly. vz. [Article 5] That the body of Christ is really, substantially, &c. in the sacramēt. [Article 6] That Christes body is & may be in a thousand places or moe at once. [Article 8] That
diuine honor is due vnto it. [Article 22] That a man may cal it his Lord and God, &c. and likewise many of the rest. So that in deed, that glorious challenge is altogether such, as if Marciō in aunciēt tyme, or some of your brethren (who in this point seeme as verie heretikes as he) should haue prouoked the Catholikes to defend S. Lukes Gospel after this sorte.
[ 1] If any learned man of my aduersaries, or if al the learned men aliue be able to proue, that S. Lukes Gospel is canoni∣cal scripture.
[ 2] Or that the first chapter is canonical scripture.
[ 3] Or that the second chapter is cano∣nical scripture.
[ 4] Or that the third chapter is canoni∣cal scripture.
[ 5] Or that the storie of Marie Magda∣lene cap. 7. is canonical scripture.
[ 6] Or the tale of Lazarus and the riche man cap. 16.
[ 7] Or that wicked doctrine touching the real presence in the 22. chapter, &c. I am content to yeld and subscribe.
For as here, one article agreed on draweth the rest, & one denied denieth the rest, so is it in the deuise of M. Iewel. & therefore as Marcion, the more
particulars he had vttered, if he had run into as many ORS, as there be chap. or stories, or verses, in S. Luke (which wel he might haue done by M. Iewels ex∣ample) the farther he had run in that vayne, the more notably he had layd open to the world, his owne ambitious itching folie, pride, and arrogancy: the verie selfe same is to be deemed of this conceyte of M. Iewel, touching the far greater number of his articles. Three he hath of weight, and more principal then al the rest. the primacie of the Sea Apostolike, the real presence, and the sacri∣fice. vnto these 3. let vs applie his chal∣lenge, and see (now he is gone) how wel you can supplie the office of his cham∣pion to maynteyne it.
O Gregorie (saith he) O Austine, O Hie∣rom, O Chrisostome, O Leo, O Dionise, O Ana∣cletus, O Xistus, O Paule, O Christo if vve be deceaued, you have deceaued vs. you taught vs these heresies. thus ye ordered the holy Cōmu∣nion in your time, the same vve receaued at your handes, &c. None of our aduersaries that stād against vs, are able or euer shalbe able to proue against vs any one of al these pointes ether by scripture, or by the example of the primitiue Churche, or by the old Doctors, or by the auncient general Councels. and if any man
aliue be able to proue any of these articles by any one cleare or playne clause, or sentence, ether of scriptures, or of the old Doctors, or of any old general Councel, or by any example of the primitiue Church vvithin 600. yeres af∣ter Christ, I promise to geue ouer and subscribe vnto him.
Thus M. Iewel promised, and do you promise as much? what els and so longe as you haue a day to liue, you wil stand in defence here of. But how dare you say so? whereas litle know you what al the doctors haue written, and much lesse know you, what books of theirs hereafter may be found. and your selues (if you remember) not long sithence in your owne wasted librari∣es, found out certaine straunge sermons in the Saxon tonge, against some kno∣wen and confessed partes of religion, as you wold pretend. And how cā you so confidently hazard your faith (if you haue any) vpon one sentence or clause of those men, of whom sundrie times you professe, that they wrote clauses, sentences, chapters, and bookes, in de∣fence of as grosse errors as these. Remē¦ber your stomake against them, in this same booke. thus you write. Al our faith and religion (you meane I suppose,
so far as it is allowed by act of Parlamēt and practised within the Q. dominions, for other ye defend not) is grounded not vpon humane, but vpon diuine autoritie.a Therefore if you bring against it, vvhat some one father hath beleeued, or vvhat the fathers al together haue deliuered, except the same be proued by testimonies of scripture it vvaygheth nothing, it proueth nothing, it concludeth nothing. for the fathers are such vvitnesses, that they also haue neede of scriptures to be their vvitnesses. if deceaued by error, they haue said ought differing from the scriptures, hovv soeuer they may be par∣doned erring through vvant of vvit, vve can not be pardoned, if because they erred, vve also vvil erre vvith them. Being thus perswaded touching them all, how dare you venture your faith, vppon a clause or sentence of any one? It is a peece of faith, far more sure by al antiquitie, and more surely grounded in the hart of any catholike, that Christ is perfect God consubstantial and equal to his father, then any of these paradoxes can be possiblie setled in your opinions, and we ho∣nour the fathers much more then you do. yet was there euer any Catholike, so frantike & mad, that would promise to subscribe to Arianisme, if out of any
father greeke or latin, within 600. yeares, any one clause or sentence might be brought against the catholike beleefe? wherefore this verie assertion is a most sure argument, that you haue no kind of faith. no faith (I say) at all nether diuine nor humane. not diuine, because you would neuer so lightlie es∣teeme it, nor vpon so smal warrant ha∣zard it: not humane, because it wel ap∣peareth, that nether you, nether mais∣ter Iewel euer meant to stand to that, which to the world in publike writing ye haue so solemly promised.
Wherefore albeit touching you af∣fected as you are, I accompt this labour as clearly lost, as if I should water a fruitles tree, tvvise dead and plucked vp by the rootes, yet for the readers cōmoditie, that he may perceaue, how ignorant, and foolish, and proude, and fantasti∣cal, that vaunte of M. Iewels was, and how like it is that you who know much lesse (yet comonly who more bold then such?) can maynteine the quarel, and wade thorough that myre, wherein M. Iew. him self stucke fast, I wil speake a few wordes of these his principal questions. And because I couet (so far as may be) to cut of al occa∣sion
of cauilling, I wil not run to any other doctors (lest you take exceptiō against them) then those who are na∣med here of M. Iewel, as his pretended maisters in these heresies. and againe out of them I wil bring nothing, but that only which I haue learned of your owne writers, and read in your owne bookes. and that againe, in such sense, without any alteration, as your selues alleage them. So that your heroical courage in answering, shal first be exer∣cised vpon these your owne brethren, and what so euer blunted dartes you shal cast against me, they shal not reach vnto me, but thorough their sydes.
I wil passe ouer Christ and S. Paule▪ vvho taught M. Ievvel these heresies, as he saith, which is not verie likely▪ whe∣ther he meane in ieast, or in earnest: se∣ing S. Paule willeth vs so to detest any kind of heretike, that after one or two warninges, we should let him alone, and suffer him to perishe in his sinne, knovving that he is damned in his ovvne iudgment: our sauiour chargeth vs to hold them for no better then ethniks and publicanes, who shal oppose them selues vnto his church and therefore i•• can not be that ether of those should
teach you that, for which, before hand they threaten and assure you of damna∣tion. But Anacletus and Xistus old bis∣shops of the Romane church before that Sea grew to this vsurped prima∣cie, they perhaps taught you this heri∣sie, that the bishop of Rome hath no soueraintie ouer the rest of bishops, and that such claime is altogether Antichri¦stian. If that be so, then egregious lyers are your brethren the makers of the Centuries, who tel vs the cleane con∣trarie. Anacletus (say they) in the epistles vvhich beare his name, in the general regi∣ment of churches, so ioyneth them together, that to the Romane churche, he attributeth primacie and excellencie of povver ouer al churches, and ouer the vvhole flocke of the Christian people, and that, by the autoritie of Christ saing to Peter, thou art Peter and vpon this rocke vvil I build my church &c. the second sea after that, he maketh the church of Alexandria, by reason of S. marke scoler of S. Peter. The third, Antioche, because S. Peter abode there, before he came to Rome. degrees of Bishops he maketh thus. The bis∣shop of Rome is placed first, as the supreme head of the church: vvho though he erre yet vvil he not haue him to be iudged of others, but to be tolerated. the second place haue Pa∣triarkes
or primates, the third, Metropolita∣nes, the fovrth, Archbishops, and aftervvard bishops. he saith also, that certaine cities receaued primates from the blessed apostles, and from S. Clement. epist. 3.1. Tom. Concilio∣rum pa. 63. The same Anacletus, appoin∣ting how controuersies in particular churches should be taken vp & ended, after the order of S. Paule. 1. Cor. 5. willeth that greate matters should be referred to the higher bishops and pri∣mates, but if greater difficulties arise, or causes fal out among the bishops & primates them selues, let them be brought to the Sea Apostolike, if such appealt be made. for so the Apostles ordayned by the apoinment of our Sauiour, that the greater and harder questiōs should alvvayes be brought to the Apostolike Sea, vpon vvhich Christ builte his vniuersal church. Mat. 16. And Xistus (who succe∣ded not long after Anacletus) in his 2. epistle, nameth him selfe, the bishop of the vniuersal Apostolike church. and vvilleth others to appeale to the Apostolike Sea, as to the head.
These are the first and most auncient that M. Iewel findeth, of whom he lear∣ned his heresie against the primacie of the Romane church. and verie aunciēt they are in deede, the one being the
fourth, the other the eight, in order frō S. Peter. But (Christian reader,) was he not a good scholer, that of these mais∣ters could gather such doctrine? of such flowers, could sucke out such poyson? or can we marueyle, if they haue a feate to peruert any thing be it neuer so plainelie and trulye spoken, who can crie out vpon such fathers speaking so roundly, & say, O Xistus, O Anacletus, you taught vs these heresies, you taught vs that the bishop of Rome for challenging primacie ouer the church, is the precur∣sor of Antichrist?
But you wil answere, as M. Iewel tea∣cheth you, that these epistles be not the epistles of Anacletus or Xistus, but counterfeit, and set forth by some other in their names. But what vncredible peruersitie, and contradiction, and im∣pudencie is this? or how can he so say? for saw he euer any other bookes of theirs, besides these epistles? could he for him selfe, or you for him, pretēd any such knowledge? most certaine it is, you can not. and therefore learning ought against the Romane Sea, from Xistus and Anacletus, he must needes learne it hence. and so, ether this ma∣keth against the Romane Sea, which
thing by Illyricus and other your owne writers is at large refuted (and who ha∣uinge the forehead of a man can say otherwyse?) or M. Iewel in naming these two Popes at Paules crosse for his maisters in that heresie, may be an ex∣ample of a more dissolute man, and more rechles in lying and abusing his audience, then euer before, or perhaps euer sithence occupied that place.
Let vs trie some other of his maisters, S. Gregorie and S. Leo, vpon whom first, in like maner he exclameth. and the protestants them selues, those that be farthest gone in bold deniall of any thinge, yet denie not but the bookes and epistles extant in their names, were truly made and leaft vnto vs by them. And did they (trow you) teach him these heresies? let vs heare vvhat they say, and that in no other vvordes and sense, then those forenamed your owne doctors make them to speake, and point you to the bookes, epistles, and chap∣ters, vvhere you shal find that vvhich they vvrite. The bishops of Rome that liued in this fift age (vvithin 500 yeres after Christ) affirme, that the Romane church is chiefe of al others. so doth Leo in his sermon de anniuersario assumptionis, et epistola
89. ad episcopos per prouinciam Viēnensem. The bishops that gouerned the Romane church in that age, required of other Arch∣bishops, that they should make relation to them, if there fell any matter of controuersie. so Leo vvriteth in his 46. epistle to Anatolius Archbishop of Constātinople: If there be any thing that doth require consultation, vvith speede let relation therof be made vnto me, that after I haue examined the matter, my diligence may apoint vvhat is to be done. Againe, epist. 62. he requireth of Maximus Archbishop of Antioche, that he acknovv∣ledge the priuileges of the third Sea, and oftē tymes vvrite to the Sea Apostolike, hovv the churches there increase. Also they tooke to thē this authoritie, to reproue other bishops, if they did ought amisse. they prescribed vnto them vvhat they should do, and apointed them orders in ceremonies. so Leo epist. 86. reprehēdeth Nicetas (patriarch) of Aquileia, because he receaued to communiō the Pelagi∣ans, before they had condemned their error. He reprehendeth also the Africane bishops in the prouince of Mauritania Caesariensis, for making bishops, certaine persōs vnlavvfully. epist. 87. and he rebuketh the bishops of Ger∣manie & Fraunce, for contemning the order of their felovvbishops. epis. 88. And vvher∣as Anatolius bishop of Constantinople see∣med
not to beleeue rightly of the incarnation of the sonne of God, Leo chargeth him to put his faith in vvriting, and send it to the bi∣shop of Rome, and therein to protest openly, that he vvil excommunicate that man, vvho so euer beleeueth or teacheth of the incarna∣tion of Christ, othervvise then is the professiō of the Catholikes, and of the bishop of Rome. epist. 33. So Proterius Archbishop of Alexan∣dria, is reported to haue sent letters touching his faith to Leo. epist. 68. And Leo, epist. 69. signifieth to the Emperour Marcianus, that Proterius is a Catholike. They also confirmed bishops in their bishopriks. so Leo confirmed Maximus patriarch of Antioche in his bishop∣rike, though he vvere made in the Councel of Ephesus, of vvhich Councel al other acts vvere abrogated. act. 7. Concil. Chalced. and that the same Leo confirmed to Proterius bi¦shop of Alexandria, the old rights of that Sea according to the Canons and (aūcient) priui∣leges, it is noted epist. 68. Leonis ad Iulianū et 69. ad Imperatorem Marcianum. Leo in his 33. epistle to Theodosius, requireth that he take order, that the bishop of Constantinople send to him a vvriting, vvherin he professe to embrace the true doctrine, and to condemne al that dissent from the same. Also they sent abrode legates, vvho in far distant prouinces, tooke notice of the errors of heretikes, and cor∣rected
them. so Leo sent his legates to Cōstan∣tinople to vvithdravv Eutiches from his er∣ror, as appeareth epist. 11. ca. 6. ad Flaui∣anum. so he sent legates to the Emperour, epist. 34. & to Ephesus, that they taking vn∣to them the Archbishop of Constantinople should absolue those that had bene deceaued by Dioscorus, and vvere novv content to do penance. epist. 44. & 46. In like maner epist. 87. sending legates in to Africa, he cōmaun∣deth that Donatus a Nouatian be receaued (to communion) if he send to Rome, a vvri∣tinge touching the condemnation of that er∣ror. They required also of Archbishops, that if of themselues they could not determine any thing, they should send it to the Sea Aposto∣like, & vvithal they charged thē to receaue and obserue their decrees made against here∣tikes. so Leo epist. 84. cap. 7. prescribeth this order to the bishop of Thessalonica in Thra∣cia, that tvvo prouincial Councels be held euery yere. & if there fal out any hard mat∣ter, and it be not decided by the iudgement of the bishop of Thessalonica, that it be referred to the bishop of Rome. and cap. 11. he vvilleth that the contentions risinge among the bi∣shops, be referred to him, vvith a declaration of things done in such matters. The same Leo cōmaundeth Nicetas patriarch of Aquileia, that he cause al his bishops, priestes, & clearks
openly to cōdemne certaine heresies and their authors, and to approue al synodal decrees, vvhich the authoritie of the Apostolike Sea had confirmed for the rooting out of heresie, & that they testifie so much by their subscrip∣tions. epist. 86.
Many things (Christian reader) of good weight & importāce I passe ouer, because I couet to be short, and these matters are now so cleare and manifest to men neuer so litle exercised in these questions, that I do rather marueyle & wonder at the dulnes and passing ether ignorance or shamlesnes of our aduer∣saries, then greatly take care how to re∣fute so sensible and knowen a falshode. Yet one thing I may not pretermitte, which the foresayd historiographers most euidently affirme, and by plaine demonstration proue, and wherein the primacie of the Romane Church shy∣neth as bright, as the sunne at noone in a somers day, that is, the demeanure of the bishop of Rome in generall Coun∣cels. in which the whole church being gathered together, if at any time or place, then, and there, this power is prin¦cipally to be considered. And haue we any thing there, for our purpose? Is it possible that within the first 500. yeres,
in the aunciēt general Councels, ought should be found for proofe of this su∣preme authoritie, vvhich is plainelie con∣trarie to the auncient Councels, & inuaded the church vnder Phocas, many yeres after the tyme we speake of, except the Apologie of the English Church, and the Protestantes in their writinges lye to notoriously? It is verie true (saith Lu∣ther) and the Pope him selfe knovveth it vvel inough, and nothing is more manifest by al the decrees of the old Councels, and al vvritings and stories of al holy fathers vvhich vvere before the first Pope by name Bonifacius 3. that the bishop of Romes authority vvas no greater then the authority of other bishops.
How the honor of that Apologie & Luther may be saued, I leaue it to M. W. but otherwyse then as of an incredi∣ble fowle lye I can not iudge of that as∣sertiō, except I would discredite these other writers, who affirme the contra∣rie, and proue the contrarie, & that out of most autentical recordes, and that by this very Leo magnus, in M. Iewels iudgement, so greate an enemy of this supremacie. For continuing there nar∣ration of the same Popes, They summoned general Councels (say these writers) they vvere the Presidents in general Councels, they
confirmed general Councels, and sometimes in part, sometimes vvholie, they disanulled gene∣ral Councels. and this is manifest in Leo his epi∣stles and the general Councels thēselues keapt vnder him. Epist. 93. ca. 17. vve haue sent letters (saith he) to our brethren and felovv-bishops of Tarraco in Spayne, of Carthage in Afrike, of Portugal and Fraunce, and haue sommoned them to meete at a general Councel. and Leo sent Paschasinus bishop of Sicilia to be President in the Councell of Chalcedon: vvhich is manifeste in the Acts of that Coun∣cel. And the same Paschasinus the Popes vicar condemned Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexan∣dria, for this reason, because he durst hold a Councel vvithout the authoritie of the Sea Apostolike. and Cecropius bishop of Sebasto∣polis, saith in the same place, vve may not call the second Councel of Ephesus, by the name of a Councel, because it vvas nether gathered together by the Aposto∣like authoritie, nether proceeded it orderly. in actis Concilii Chalcedonensis. See Leo epist. 10. ad Flauianum, and 12. ad Theodosium. Thus Leo condemned the second Councel of Ephesus, and required an other to be gathered, epist. 24.25.28.30.31.32. and vvhereas Anatolius bishop of Constantinople, vvould haue set him self before the churches of Alex∣andria and Antioche, Leo epist. 53. vvriteth
vnto him most vehemently, and shevveth that to be against the canons of the Nicene Councel, and that he vvil not permit those churches to leese their old prerogatiues: vvhich thing he auoucheth also in his epistle to Pulcheria. and there againe he rebuketh the ambition or insolencie of that Anatolius, and signifieth expresly, that he doth abro∣gate and disanulle all the decrees of the bi∣shops there gathered together, so many as vvere contrarie to the rules of the Nicene Coūcel. And the Coūcel of Chalcedō (of 630. bishops assembled out of al the world) thus vvriteth to Leo. vve beseech you, that you vvil honour our iudgement vvith your appro∣bation, and as vve of zeale haue put our con∣sent to these good decrees, so let your Suprema∣cie fulfill to vs your children, that vvhich is conuenient. Finally, this principalitie of the Romane church, Leo laboureth to persvvade in most of his epistles, as in his epistles to Ana∣stasius bishop of Thessalonica, to the bishops of Germanie and Fraunce, to Anatolius bishop of Constantinople, & in sundrie other, vvhere very painfully he goeth about to proue, that singular preeminence vvas geuen to Peter aboue the other Apostles, and that thence rose the distinction of bishops, and especially the primacie of the Romane church, and that therefore he is bound to take the care of al
churches. Thus far they. whereby we see, that S. Leo thought this primacy due to the church of Rome, not by de∣cree of Emperours or Councels, but by the expresse ordinance of Christ him selfe in the Gospel.
And in all this, can M. W. fynde ne∣uer a sentence, clause, or example, for the Supremacie? thinketh he that M. Iewels grāmatical diuinitie of compa∣ring wordes and phrases, tempered to∣gether with a huge heape of corruptiōs & lyes, wil serue, in the iudgmēt of any reasonable man, against such a troupe of sensible demonstrations, gathered & vrged to this purpose by his owne bre∣thren? whē as the greate generall Coū∣cels acknowledge such authoritie, the greatest patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioche, Alexandria, submit them selues to such authoritie, the bishop of Rome, a man of such excellencie for learning, wisdom, and godlines, as Leo was, exercyseth vpon them such au∣thoritie, prescribeth to them lawes, Ca∣nons, and decrees, gouerneth in their prouinces, and in al other, in Africa, in Mauritania, in Aegipte, in Syria, in Asia, in Grece, in Spaine, in Fraunce, in Germanie, in al parts of the Christi∣an
world? Remembreth he not that Theodore Beza and the church of Ge∣neua answere these places, by calling him plaine Antichrist for vsing this au∣thoritie? Cōstat Leonem in epistolis, Romanae Sedis Antichristianae arrogantiam planè spi∣rasse. It is manifest (say they) that Leo in his epistles doth clearly breath forth the arro∣gancie of that Antichristiā Romane Sea. & yet S. Leo in Geneua a verie Antichrist for his writing & behauiour about the Supremacie, for the self same matter, in England is a pure Protestāte. He taught M. Iewel that the authoritie of the bi∣shop of Rome, was no greater then the authority of any other bishop, & of thee ô Leo, he learned this heresie. & if he vvere de∣ceaued, thou Leo deceauedst him. Surely it was an ouersight, that he forgat to put in the rolle, S. Bernard, the bishop of Ro∣chester, and Sir Thomas More. For of them in this case he learned as much as of S. Leo, or of S. Gregorie, who notwithstanding is an other of his mai∣sters. But what a froward and ouer∣thwart scholer he was, who here againe so blyndly mistooke his maister, I thinke few of his schole-felowes are ignorant, and it is so cleare, that in truth it greueth me to spend tyme therein.
and therefore I refer the reader to the same storie, vvhere he shal see a good and large treatise, aboundantly prouīg the same of S. Gregorie, vvhich novv hath bene shevved of S. Leo. he shal find there confessed by those Protestants who hated the Sea of Rome as deepe∣lie, as did ether M.W. or M. Iewel, but were not so extremelie hardned in face and forhead as M. Iewel was, and as M.W. must be, if he take vpon him the others quarel, he shal finde (I say) con∣fessed by them and proued in lyke ma∣ner, that this S. Gregorie taught, that Apostolica sedes est omnium Ecclesiarum ca∣put. the Apostolike Sea (of Rome) is head of al churches. lib. 11. epist. 54. Indict. 6. that bothe the Emperour and Eusebius his felovv-bishop, professed that the church of Constan∣tinople vvas subiect vnto that Sea. li. 7. epis. 63. indict. 2. that he cited Maximus bishop of Salona in Dalmatia to come to Rome, there to render accompt hovv he came by that bi∣shoprike. lib. 5. indict. 14. epist. 25. he a∣pointed the bishop of Siracusa to be iudge ouer the bishop of Constantinople. lib. 7. indict. 2. epis. 64. he sent into Spaine, one vvho should restore Ianuarius deposed from his bishoprike vniustly. lib. 11. indict. 6. epist. 50. & 54. he apointeth the bishops of Fraunce, hovv they
should cal a synode for the rooting out of si∣monie and auarice. lib. 9. indict. 4. epist. 49. & sequentibus. and those thinges vvhich in the synode they should agree on, he vvilleth should be sent to him, & streightly chargeth them, that at the least once in the yere they keepe a synode, according to the canonical de∣crees. lib. 7. epist. 110. numer. 2. And Virgi∣lius bishop of Arelatum or Arles, vvhom in the French church he made his Vicar and Legate, and preferred before al other bishops, he vvilleth to send to him, al harder contro∣uersies. li. 4. ind. 14. epi. 52. The like priuilege he graunteth to Maximianus bishop of Sira∣cusa in Sicilia, to be supreme ouerseer of those churches, and to end lesser controuersies and send the greater to him. vvhich priui∣lege for al that, he geueth to the person, not to the place. lib. 2. epist. 4. indict. 10. Isychius bishop of Ierusalē, he biddeth to exterminate from his churches the Simoniacal heresie. lib. 9. indict. 4. epist. 40. To Columbus bishop of Numidia and the primate of that prouince he enioyneth, that he vvith other examine the cause of Donadeus deposed by Victor his bi∣shop. and if he be guiltie, to binde him to pe∣nance, if he be guiltles, that they rebuke Vic∣tor, that he may knovv hovv vniustly he hath dealt. lib. 10. indict. 5. epist. 8. vvhen the bishop of Constantinople had condemned a
priest of Chalcedon, Gregorie retracteth that sentence, and commaundeth him being inno∣cent to be absolued. lib 5. indict. 14. epist. 15.16.17. Finally he affirmeth againe and proueth by scripture, that the Ro∣mane churche is head of al churches, caput omnium Ecclesiarum. Greg. in 4. Psal. peni∣tentialem, & lib. 12. indict. 7. epist. 32. and so forth, for what should I stand vpon particulars, which are in maner innu∣merable there rehearsed. and by these writers it seemeth (and true it is) that his 12. bookes of epistles conteyne in effect nothing els, but the exercise of suche vniuersal iurisdiction, practysed by Gregorie the first in al Christian churches, from East to West, frō North to South, in far more ample maner, & with more shew of authoritie, then ap∣peareth now in Gregorie the thirtenth his successor. These things I say and very many other of this quality, did S. Gregorie the first, a man for humilitie commended of Caluin singularly, of Luther (who seeldome spake good of any Pope) acknowledged for a good & holy bishop. And Bale sometime an Irish prelate (though afterward a com∣mon minister) who rayleth fowly at the most glorious martyrs and confessors
Popes of that Sea before S. Gregorie, yet speaking of him, attributeth this vnto him, that he was the best for life and learning, that euer sat in that place. Gregorius omnium Romanorum pontificum doctrina & vita prestantissimus.
But against al these examples, con∣sisting not onlie in plaine wordes, but much more in manifest deedes, factes, iudgments, corrections, iurisdictions, appellations, excomunications, al eui∣dent practises of souerayne principali∣tie, M. Iewel hath a number of wordes, and they al depending of one only worde, that is, the name vniuersal, which S. Gregorie doth so condemne, as he accompteth him for Antichrist, that would be called vniuersal bishop. and here what a sturre he keepeth, Paules crosse, his replie against D. Cole and D. Harding, the English Apologie and the defence of the Apologie witnesse abundantly. For this is a common storebox, when so euer the Pope com∣meth in the way, so far forth, that in one side of a leafe he quoteth S. Gregorie against this name, no lesse then 19. tymes. and M. W. with his felowes, at this day singeth that song as freshly, as though it neuer had bene heard before.
But if ether he or they regarded the searching out of the truth, and sought not continual wrangling about words, they would neuer so blindlie haue snatched at one worde, against so many facts and examples of continual cus∣tome, so many wayes testified and ex∣pressed by worde and deede. But the answer is easy, and often tymes geuen by S. Gregorie, often times repeted & proposed by the late catholike wri∣ters. but because M. W. hath nor per∣haps seene the one, and not greatly considered the other, I wil geue him the same, and the true sense of such words, out of one of his owne felowes.
Andreas Fricius of Polonia, a man though bearing deadly hatred to the Pope of Rome, yet one that could be content wel inough to haue the like office amōg his Euangelical churches to keepe them in vnitie, which he thin∣keth otherwise wil neuer be, handling that matter and laing against him self this old auncient obiection of the Pro∣testants, thus answereth it, & that truly. Some there be (sayth this writer) that a∣gainst this office (of vniuersal superin∣tendent) obiect the authoritie of Gregorie, vvho saith, that such a title apperteyneth to
the precursor of Antichrist. But the reason of Gregorie is to be knovven. & it may be ga∣thered of his vvordes, vvhich he repeteth in many epistles, that the title of vniuersal bishop is contrarie, & doth gainsay the grace vvhich is cōmonly poured vpon al bishops. He therefore that should cal him self vniuersal bishop, calleth him self the only bishop, and taketh bishoply povver from the rest. VVherefore this title he vvould haue to be re∣iected, vvhich is vsurped vvith the iniurie of other bishops. Such sentences to this purpose are oftentimes repeted by S. Gregorie in ma∣ny epistles &c. this title he doth abhorre both in him selfe, and in al other. so far of is he frō graunting the same to the bishop of Constan∣tinople. and vvhy so? because bishoply grace is generally bestovved (from god) vpon al bi∣shops. and it is no reason that any one should take to him selfe, that vvhich by equal right agreeth to al. This being the true meaning of such places, and this being verie often times geuen by S. Gregorie him selfe, saepe et in multis epis∣tolis, you see how iustly we accuse both M. Iewel & you, of wilfulnes and blind∣nes. how iustly we obiect vnto you a verbal and talkatiue diuinitie, who could not, or would not see that is which so commonly repeted againe and
againe in so many epistles.
But maketh S. Gregorie ether in this word, or in al his words or workes, ought against the primacie of that church? This writer proceedeth on thus. Verumtamen ex aliis constat &c. not∣vvithstanding by other places it is euident, that Gregorie thought, that the charge and principalitie of the vvhole church, vvas committed to Peter by the voice of our Lord. And thus much he vvrote plainely, & almost vvord for vvord lib. 4. epistola. 32. to the emperour Maurice, and confirmed it by testi∣monie of scripture. It is manifest (saith Gre∣gorie) to al men that knovv the gospel, that by the voice of our Lord, the care of the vvhole church vvas cōmitted to holy S. Peter Prince of al the Apostles. For to him it is said, feede my sheepe. Iohn. 21. To him it is said, I haue prayed for the, that thy faith fayle not. Luc. 22. To him it is said: thou art Peter and vpon this rock I vvil build my church &c. Mat. 16. Behold he receaueth the keys of the kingdom of heauen, povver to bind and loose is geuen to him, to him is committed the charge & principalite of the vvhole church. And yet for this cause Gregorie thought not that Peter vvas the forerunner of Antichrist. Thus he, prouing both by scripture & by reason, that S. Gregorie, though he
disliked and condemned that proude name of vniuersal bishop, both in him selfe and others (as doth also Pope Gre∣gorie the 13. at this day) yet he nether disliked, nor condemned the supreme charge and gouernment of the church for Antichristian, which him selfe ex∣ercised. nether could he so do, except he first cōdemned for Antichristian, S. Peter the Apostle who receaued it, and Christ our Sauiour who gaue it. So tha•• M. Iew. hath hetherto shewed smal wit, learning, faith, or honestie, in making these mē, S. Gregorie, Leo, Xistus, Anacletus his maisters in that heresie against the supremacie, who haue not only no one word or sillable against it, but contrari∣wise haue whole and long epistles, chapters, discourses, examples, and factes, arguments, reasons & scriptures to proue it. And here the reader may gesse, how like I were to cloy him with abundance and store, if I would in like sort go thorough with the other articles, which I might do as wel, and with as great aduantage. But I wil not cast more water into the sea, and there∣fore nether wil prosequute in this or∣der the other two questions, but only touch them in a word, and so proceede
to other matter.
As here against the Pope, so against the real presence, for the zuinglian imagination, M. Iewel likewise chalen∣geth al the fathers vnto him, namely those aboue rehearsed, S. Gregorie S. Leo &c. and besides, S. Austin, S. Hie∣rom, and S. Chrisostome, then which I thinke he could not haue picked out amongst al the fathers, more heauy and deadly enemies to him, touching any parte of his false faith, and those two partes of the real presence and sacrifice es∣pecially. For was there euer besides this wicked man, any Luther, or Bucer, or who so euer was worse then other, so desperate in lying, that would say S. Gregorie was a minister, and ministred the holy communion as now is the fashion in England? when his bookes in so many places, shew him to haue bene a prieste, and a prieste to celebrate masse, and not to minister communion? vnto whom other protestants com¦monly attribute the framing of the masse, because of two or three rites which he ordeined therein? Whom for this cause, Theodorus Bibliāder scorn∣fully nameth patriarcham caeremoniarum, the Patriarch of ceremonies: Melanchthō,
that he horribly prophaned the Communiō, allovving by publike authoritie the sacri∣fice of Christes body and bloud, not only for the liuing but also for the dead: Flacius Illy¦ricus, that by miracle he cōuerted a faithles vvoman vvho beleeued not that the body of Christ vvas substancially in tbe Sacrament. ex Paulo Diacono. lib. 2. cap. 41.42. and that euery vvhere be doth inculcate sacri∣fices and masse, and by diuers miracles con∣firmeth the same: against whom Petrus Paulus Vergerius, for authoritie, place and estimation, as great a Protestant as any in our dayes, hath written a whole booke, entituled de nugis & fabulis Papae Gregorii primi: and finally (to passe by many others) when your owne English writers protest him to haue bene a per∣fite and absolute Papist, & that there∣fore your first Apostles and Euange∣listes in bringing in this your Gospel, did directly oppose them selues vnto him, and rooted out that which he and his Legate our Apostle S. Austin had planted? Gregorie the first (saith your Chronicler Iohn Bale) the yere of our lord 596. sent Austine the monke to plante in our churches his Romane religion. But Lati∣mer is much more vvorthie to be called our Apostle then Austine. For Austine brought
nothing but mans traditions, masse, Crosses, litanies &c. vvhereas Latimer vvith the hooke of truth cut of those superstitions vvhich he had planted, and cast them out of the Lords vineyard. And doth not M. Horne the late called bishop of Winche¦ster, in playne termes reuile this glori∣ous Apostle, and name him most eth∣nically a blinde bussard, because he was ignorant of your Alcoran, and knew nothing els, and therefore induced our forefathers to no other Gospel, then to the auncient Gospel of Christ and reli∣gion Catholike?
And doth the other S. Austin make more for you in this point of your vn∣beleefe, then doth this later S. Austin, or S. Gregorie? I know you alleage him much more, but with what hones∣tie, I had rather you should heare of your owne father Luther, then of me. In my iudgement (saith Luther) after the A∣postles, the church hath not had a better doctor then vvas S. Austin. And that holie man hovv filthilie & hovv spitefullie is he man∣gled and disfigured by the Sacramentaries, that he may become a defender & patrone of their venemous, blasphemous and erroneous heresie? Verely as much as in me lieth, so long as I haue breath in my body, I vvil
vvithstand them, and protest that they do him iniury. vvhich thing any man may do vvith an assured and confident mynde, because the Sacramentaries only pul & teare his vvords into their ovvne sense, prouing their appli∣catiō by no reason, but only by vayne boasting of their most certaine truth. And concer∣ning the rest of the fathers, whereas M. Iewel affirmeth, that they all taught as he did, against the real presence, Lu∣ther contrarywise affirmeth, that no one euer so taught, but euerie one taught the contrarie. Thus he writeth in the same booke. This truly is maruelous, that no one of the fathers, vvhereof the number is infi∣nite, euer spake of the Sacrament, as do the Sacramentaries. For none of them vseth such vvordes, there is only bread and vvine: or, the body & bloud of Christ is not there. Surely it is not credible, nay it is not possible, vvhere as they talke againe and againe of these things, but at some time, at the lest once, these vvordes vvould haue slipt out of their pen: it is only bread, or the body of Christ is not there corporally, or such like. But they al speake so precisely, as though none doub∣ted, but that there vvere present the body & bloud of Christ. They al agreably and con∣stantly vvith one mouth auouch the affirma∣tiue, that it is there. But our Sacramentaries
can do nothing els but proclayme the negati∣ue, that it is not there. So Luther, prince and father of this Gospel. and so that Luther, whose iudgmēt M.VV. preferreth before a thousand Austines, a thousand Ci∣prians, and as many churches. and so at the leste, more to be estemed then one M. Iewel, though M.W. stand by him to helpe out the matter.
But this field is so large, that the far∣ther I go, the farther I may. & therefore to breake of, omitting S. Chrisostome, who made 6. bookes of priesthode, (and neuer a one of ministerhode,) and there∣fore is not lyke to be an enemy to the sacrifice, which in one part of that work he setteth forth so excellētly, referring M. W. for the sacrifice to that which hath bene sayde before: for the real presence, to that which may by occasion be touched hereafter, I wil end this matter, wi∣shinge the reader to carie in memorie M. Iewels challēge as an eternal exam∣ple of his inexplicable impudency and rashnes. thereby that he learne, not to be moued with the bold coūtenāces of his aftercommers, whose fashion is ve∣rie commonly to looke biglie, when in deede (settinge a syde the Tower racke & Tiburne) they can do nothing:
and then to crake vnmeasurably, when besydes words and crakes (and lyes) they haue nothing to say. which to haue bene the fashion of heretikes in his time, S. Austin of old noted, and we in our time finde true by experience. And in this present quarel it can not be auoyded, but ether Caluin, Luther, Be∣za, Peter Martir, Zuinglius, Illyricus, & Bale, principal Euāgelists & gospel∣lers be egregious lyers, who tel vs that the fathers thus taught, and thus belee∣ued of the Popes primacy, of the sacri∣fice and real presence: or els M. Iewel must take that to him selfe, vnto whom in deede, that qualitie was in a verie high degree an inseparable accidēt. For in that propertie, I beleeue verely he passed any one heretike that euer wrote since Christs tyme.
pa. 9.
in nostris ec¦clesiis.
S. Peters be∣ing at Rome denyed by M. W. moste absurdly, & against all antiquitie.
Sander. Mo∣narch. lib. 6. ca. 10. these are in that chapter besides ma∣ny more in other places
What proo∣fes will con¦tent our ad∣uersaries, if these will not?
See Bullin∣ger in serie temporum et rerum as. Luca in Act. tradit. ca. 17
Whit. cont. Sad. pa. 203.
Horace.
niuem esse atramentū. Lactantius lib. 5. ca. 3.
Of M Iew∣els challēg.
M. Iewel in his sermon at Paules crosse, the yere 1560. when firste he put forth his challēg.
••iui. ••eca. 4. lib. 5.
The true pa∣terne and image of M. Iewels chal¦lenge.
Supra cap 2.
Of this see after chapi∣ter 10.
M Iewell in his sermon as before.
Printed by Iohn Day.
Cont, Sand pa. 21.
Yet M. Car∣terwrighte holdeth the contra∣rie and hath proued it in many books
Patres eti∣am simul vniuersi.
Iudas. v. 18.
Tit. 3.10.
Mat. 18.17.
The prima∣cie of the Rom. church confirmed manifestly by those fa∣thers whom M. Iew. cal∣leth his mai¦sters to the contrarie.
Magdebur. Centur. 2. c. 7. col. 139.
This order was appro∣ued in the Councel of Nice cap ••.
So say the rathers in Conc. Sin••∣essano.
Ibid. see the same in the Coun¦cel of Cart. & Mileu. in S. Aug. epis. 90.91.92.93
Cent. ••. vbi supra.
An obiectiō answered.
The prima∣cy of the Ro¦mane Sea o∣uer all chur¦ches of Chis¦tendō with∣in the firste 500 yeres, confessed & proued by the more fa∣mous and learned pro¦testants. Cent. 5. ca. 7 col. 774
Ibi. col. 776
Leos autho∣ritie ouer the bishop of Constan∣tinople.
Ibi. col. 778.
Ibi. co. 779.
Harde ques∣tions rising in far distāt prouinces, referred to the Sea of Rome.
Supremacie of the Rom. Sea in gene¦ral Coūcels, as before confessed & proued.
Iewel in his defence of the Apolo. par. 2. cap. 4. & 1.
Luth. Tom. 7. lib. con∣tta Papatum pag. 455.
The facyng of a lye.
Anno Domi¦ni 605.
Vbi sup. col 781.782.
No lawful Coūcel with out appro∣bation of the Romane Sea.
Summitas tua filiis. Vbi sup. ca. 10. col, 1262
Confes. Ge∣neu. cap. 7. ¶. 12.
Leo so mag∣nified by M. Iewel, is a verie Anti∣christ to Be∣za and the church of Geneua.
Centuria 6.6.7. col. 425.
The church of Constan∣tinople sub∣iect to the Sea of Rome before Pho∣cas or Boni∣facius 3.
Vide ibi ca. 7. pag. 425.426.427.428.429.430 &c. vntil the pag. 439.
Caluin. In∣stitut. lib. 4. ca. 7. ¶. 12.13
Luth. Tom. 7. aduersus Papatum fol. 455.
Balaeus de script. Britā. cent. 1. p. 45.
VNIVER∣SALIS.
Replie a∣gainst D. Harding pa. 226.
M. Iewels & other pro∣testants cō∣mon obiecti¦on takē out of S. Grego∣rie against the suprema¦cie, answe∣red truly by one of their owne sect.
Andreas Fri¦cius de ec∣clesia. lib. 2. cap. 10. pag. 570.
Vniuersall bishop, how & in what sense deny∣ed by S. Gre∣gorie.
Saepe eius∣modi sentē∣tiae iterātur a Gregorio.
Though S. Greg. dislik¦ed the name Vniuersall, yet he appro¦ued the Su∣premacie as agreable to the expresse worde of god.
If charge of the vniuer∣sal church make the Pope Anti∣christ, then our Sauiour made S. Pe∣ter Anti∣christ.
S. Gregorie a prieste, vvithout all reason made a minister by M. Iewel.
Bibliand. in praefat. epis∣tolarū Zuin¦glii & Oeco∣lampadii. Melanct. li. 4 Chronic. in Henric. 4. fol. 186.187.
Centu. 6. ca. 10. col. 678.679.682. ibi. ca. 13. col. 817.819.
P. Paulus Vergeri. cō∣tra Grego. 1.
Bale. cent. 1. pag. 66.72. & centur. 8. pa. 678.
Marke this confession. Our first A∣postles we∣re Papistes.
M. Horne againste M. Feknam. pa. 58.
Luth. Tom. 7. defensio verborum coenae fol. 405.
S. Austine intolera∣bly abused and corrup∣ted by the Sacramenta∣ries.
Ibid. fo. 391. Nullus Nemo.
No one fa∣ther was of M. Iewels o∣pinion tou∣ching the Sacrament.
Concordes & constātes vno ore.
supra cap. 3.
S. Chrisosto∣mes 6. boo∣kes de sa∣cerdotio.
lib. 3.
chap. 4.
chap. 8 & 9.
Tower dis∣putation.
Aug. de vti∣litate credē∣di cap. 1.