The third booke, declaring by examples out of auncient councels, fathers, and later writers, that it is time to beware of M. Iewel by Iohn Rastel ...

The Third Booke of BEWARE OF M. Iewel.

IT may seeme by my Two for∣mer Bookes, y^• I haue detected as great Sophistrie, Brauerie, & Insinceritie of M. Iewels, as any man lightly, that hath but worldly regarde of his Trueth and Honestie, may coulou∣rably venter to practise. But in compa∣rison of that which I haue further to ob∣iect, the forsaid behauiours, may seme to be perdonable.

For D. Harding is but one man, and the same not knowen to the whole worlde, and much lesse honoured of the whole. He is also his Aduersary, and M. Iewel taketh him selfe, to be in no point perchaunse, of lesse worthinesse: And if in some one or two, D. Har∣ding farre pass••th him, yet in many moe on the other side, he thinketh him selfe to be better. And therefore, when he doth handle him at his pleasure, & belye him,

Contemne him, Mocke him, and Tosse him, without doubting or blusshing: al∣though it be very il done, yet it is not exceeding il.

But to despise men (without al doubt) worthy & notable, To set light by them, whom the whole world hath reuerēced, To interprete Lawes and Canons after his own liking, To disanul general coū∣cels, To corrupt Auncient Fathers, To set them vp, to pul them doune againe, To bring them in, to thrust them againe out, To binde men to the Authoritie of the first six hundred yeares, To appeale to the Primitiue Church only in his own cause, and to drawe his Aduersarie vnto any State of Churche within these last fiftene hundred yeares, and for a••vantage to make the practise thereof, a Definitiue sentence: This is exceding presūptuous, and exceding Iniurious, and this is that, which I shal now laie to M. Iewels Charge.

¶Of M. Iewels exact accompting vpon the vj.C. yeres next after Christ.

YOu Appeale (M. Iewel) most instantly, to the Wit∣nesses of the next six hun∣dred yeres after Christ, by which you geaue vs to vnderstand, that either your giltie Cōscience fea∣reth, to be tried by God and the Coun∣trie: either that your simple vnderstan∣ding conceiueth, to helpe your cause by remo••ing of it. Of which two, there is nere a good, neither Conscience alrea∣dy condemning you, by the verdite of ix. C. yeres together: Neither lacke of Wit and Consideration mouing you, of xv. vniforme Witnesses ix, put aside, to Ima∣gine that the lesser number of vj. only re∣maining, could be so vsed, as that they should appeere, either contrary to the ••ine, Or of more credite and worthinesse,

then the nine. Both which thinges (ei∣ther that the Church of Christe should be contrary to it selfe, or in some one part of her Age more worthy of credite than in some other) are plainly and vt∣terly impossible, bothe by Faith and by Reason.

For, like as we are assured by right Faith,* 1.1 that there is but One God, One Ie∣sus Christ God and man,* 1.2 One Spirite diuiding vn∣to eche as he vvill,* 1.3 One Bodie, One Doue, One Louier,* 1.4 One Bevvtiful and One Catholik Church: so is it impossible by Naturall Reason, that of Unitie, A Diuision might be made, And that one Part might be found contrary to the other, or One Part wor∣thier than the other, where there is no Partes making at all, and therefore no Parts taking at al, to cause any Discord.

Is Christ (sayeth the Apostle) diuided?* 1.5 Is it yea and na••e vvith him? Yea, doth not he himself say:* 1.6 Euery kingdom diuided vvith in it se••fe shall be left vvaste and desolate?* 1.7 And doe not both Testamentes,* 1.8 new and old, plainely teache,* 1.9 that his kingdome is euerla∣sting? How then should his Church be Contrary vnto it self, and thereby cum∣ming

to Diuision, ende afterwardes in Dissolution?

Againe, The Spiritie of Truthe was pro∣mised vnto her, which should teach her all Truthe, and tary also vvith her for euer. There be also prouided for her, meete Gouer∣nours and Officers, to continue with her and serue her, to the* 1.10 perfiting of the holy, vntill all doe meete togeather, in Vnitie of Faith, and knovvledge of the Sonne of God: so that, because of the Authoritie of the Chiefe Master, whome it is Impossible to lie, And the continuall succession of Ushers vnder him,* 1.11 whome he maketh to teach as he Inspireth: the Lessons which at this day are readen in the Church, ought to be in deede of as greate Credite emong vs, as any of the Primitiue Churches lessons. Except perchaunce the Sprite be so blinde or blasphemous in any per∣son, as to deny his Almightinesse in ma∣king of such as dwel in his house, of One minde and Accorde, Of whose Promise, Prouision and Charitie towardes hys church, we haue so infallible testimonies.

Therefore, as the Scriptures per∣swade our vnderstanding to beleue, that

the Church is One, That it shall Conti∣nue for euer,* 1.12 That it shall neuer Erre in Doctrine: so Reason concludeth by this gift and light of Faith, that because it is ONE, it must either be NONE at all, or continue ONE. And because IT CONTINVETH FOR EVER, it can not therefore be NONE. Remaining then ONE, it is to be credited without al doubt, because it hath the Sprite of Truthe with her and can not erre: And as well to be credited now, as it was xv. hūdred yeres sense, because it is ONE, and the selfe same nowe, as it was then, con∣cerning Assistance of the Holy ghost, Pri∣uileges of Honour, Infalliblenesse of Truthe, Or any other like, parteining to the very Substance and nature (as I may say) of the Church of Christ.

Like as, in your self (M. Iewel,) Or in any of vs, the same Reasonable Soule and Sensitiue life, that we receyued of God and our Parents at our beginning, continueth yet stil w^t vs the Self same in substance, Notwithstanding many thou∣sand Alterations, in Affections of minde, and Disposition of body, which haue in

the meane time chaunced vnto vs,* 1.13 And chainged vs, in the chaunce: so, notwith∣standing many Alterations, which haue bene in the Church of Christ these xv.C. yeres, concerning external Gouernment thereof, and Ecclesiasticall Orders. The life yet, Soule and Sense therof, is of the same making and worthinesse, in all Times and Circumstancies.

In the Opinion and Imagination, of fainte harted and weake Christians, it appeareth (I graunt) to be of more Au∣thoritie, If Christ, in his owne person speaketh, than if S. Paule his Apostle, by his will and commaundement speake it. And, no doubt, they haue a good Zeale therein often times and Deuotion, but they haue not alwaies good knowledge and Understāding. The Maries brought tidinges vnto the Apostles, of the Re∣surrection of our Sauiour, and though they were but Women, yet they were de∣uout, Wise and blessed women, And their sayinges agreed with the woordes of Christ himselfe spoken vnto them before his Passion, so that they might well, and should haue bene credited: Neuerthe∣lesse,

their wordes seemed vnto the Apo∣stles no better than A Doting and vaine tale,* 1.14 And S. Peter ranne to the Sepul∣chre, to see perchaunce whether he coulde finde a better Argument or Testimonye of the Resurrection, than the Maries had brought, vnto him and his fellowes. Which Argument,* 1.15 when it was the selfe same daie, made after the best maner vnto them, that is, by Christes owne presence and wordes: yet S. Thomas being at that time absent, and hearing at his Re∣turne, of the sight and ioye which his fel∣lowes had:* 1.16 Except I see (quod he) the print of the nailes, and put my hand into his side, I vvill not beleue. As who should say, that he alone could see more in such a matter, than ten other, Or that if he once tried i•• and beleued it him self, then it were to be bidden by: but, if he lerned and receiued it of other mens Report and knowledge, then loe, it was not clear, and out of que∣stion. Yet the Truthe is alwaies O••e. And as faithfully it was to haue bene be∣leued, y^t, which the Maries or Apostles saw and heard, As that which S. Tho∣mas not only saw or hard, but fealt also.

Now, in these foresaid Persons and Examples, the inward and harty deuoti∣on, did somewhat extenuate the Carna∣litie of the Affection. Mary in other Ca∣ses, it is grosser and viler.* 1.17 As, when A Noble and Honorable man speaketh A wise worde, it is regarded and remem∣bred: but when a poore and Simple Soule, doth speake the like, it lacketh the same Grace and strength, with the hea∣rers. Yet, the Trueth and wisedome of the saying being on both sides all ONE in goodnesse, it might well become all men to honor it, without Respect of per∣sons.

When our Sauiour vpon a time, prea∣ched in the Synagoge of the Iewes, so singularly well, that all men wondred at his Doctrine:* 1.18 Hovv cummeth this felovve, (sayed they) by all this lerning? Is not this he, that is the Carpenter, the sonne of Mary, the brother of Iames and Ioseph? Are not his sisters also here dvvelling vvith vs? As who should say, We know his bringing vp well inough, And therefore he is not so greatly to be wondered at. Such is the Iudgment of carnall men, euen vnto

this day. They measure Truthes, by their Imaginacions, And set a great Price on thinges, that are farther out of their reach, Contemning as good or bet∣ter than those thinges are, when they are easy to be found or alwaies present.

[ 1] Which thing, If it come of the Misery of our Nature, it is to be lamented, and the Remedie is to be sought for of hym, which therefore toke our whole Nature (synne excepted) vpon him, that by par∣taking thereof, we might be purged of [ 2] our sinne and Corruption. If it come of the Foly of any deintines, it is (in some parsons) to be reproued with fauor, like as Children and Women are much to be borne withall in respect of their weake∣nesse [ 3] and frailtie. If it come of lacke of better Instruction, Or dulnesse of vnder∣standing (as in the Rude and Simple of the Countrie) they are to be warned, as well as we may, and for the rest to be [ 4] ••raied for and tolerated. If it come of some Pride, Spite or Contention, it is to be condemned and hated, what so euer the person be.

But in M. Iewel, whereof may I

thinke, that this Affection doth come, of which I speake? For you also, in defi∣ning of euerlasting Trueth, by Terme of yeares, doe seeme to haue a spice of their disease, which coutemne the good things that are nigh vnto them.

Shall I Impute this faule, vnto the generall Miserie of our nature, which was corrupted in our first Parentes?

God sende you the•• Grace to resist euill motions,* 1.19 And for this which you haue already done, Repent and be sory.

But came it of a certaine wantones or niceues in you,* 1.20 that as Childerne craue Dis peece or Dat peece of one and the self same meat or bread, Or women loue far∣fet and deere bought thinges, so you will not be serued, but with the Testimonies and Authorities of the firste six hundred yeres of our Lord? Truely, if it be so, you can not loke for the Fauor, that chil∣derne and Women haue in their Infir∣mities.

Will you haue it then, to be attributed vnto lacke of Lerning, Or plaine Dul∣nesse, that you are so blinde and blunt,* 1.21 as to set at naught the Practise and Eui∣dencies

of the Catholike Church for nine hundred yeres togeather? It seemeth no, because the Opinion vndoubtedlye, which your predecessours of late, had of their owne Iudgment, Knowledge and Wittinesse, moued them especially, to re∣fuse the Generall and Approued Faith of the world. And so I beleue they lacked no wit, but only Grace, and they were to wise to be Obedient and Faithful.

How now then? Was it any Sprite of Malice or Contention, that caused you to rest vpon the first six hundred yeres only, that the further you went out of sight, you might the more boldly shewe ••oule play,* 1.22 Maintaine the quarell, Make the victory vncertaine, And trouble the lookers on? If it be not so, we shal ea∣sely beleue you, if you shew any good Cause or Reason, wherefore you haue appealed vnto the first six hundred yeres: And so appealed vnto them, not, as the best time to finde witnesses in: but as the only time: neither as Preferring those Daies, but as Condemning ours.

But, let vs first see the Examples, by which your fact and behauioure herein

may be Euident, And then after, we shal the better consider it, whether you haue any reason or no, to make for you, And what (by likelihode) was the cause which moued you.

Leontius Bishop of Nicopolis,* 1.23 wrot the life of Ioannes Eleemosinari' an holy man of the first six hundred yeres after Christ. Why should I not beleue Leontius?

Mary,* 1.24 he wrote (say you) A great while after that.

And what of that?* 1.25 Is S. Bedes Hi∣story, of the cumming of S. Augustine the Monke into England, to be discredited, because S. Bede began to wryte, a great while after S. Augustine was departed this world? Or, because the next six hundred after Christ, were much passed when he wrote it? Are the bokes of Genesis, in any poynt, to be doubted of, because they declare the beginning of the world, and Actes Dated two thousand yeres, before Moyses the wryter of them was borne? Yet sayeth M. Iewel a∣gainst Leontius, This one Circumstance

(of his Latines) answeareth the matter wholy. And in the margine he geaueth a speciall note:* 1.26 M. Harding rangeth with∣out the cumpasse of six hundred yeres.

Vrbanus Regius,* 1.27 a Doctor of Lu∣thers Schoole confesseth in his boke De locis Communibus, that in the first Coun∣cel of Ephesus, an Order was taken for Communion vnder one kinde: which, he being a Lutherane, would neuer haue wryten, if he had not found it, in some Auncient Record and worthy of credite.

But Vrbanus Regius (say you) depar∣ted this life,* 1.28 not aboue .xx. yeres a goe, and therefore, is a very yong witnesse to testify a thing done so long time before.

In deede to testifye it as of certaine sight or knowledge,* 1.29 it were hard for so young a witnesse: but to testify it, as of good Historie and Authoritie, it is possy∣ble inough for them, which are .xx. yeres younger.

What shall we thinke of S. Bernard:* 1.30 A man, not only in his own time of most worthy Estimation and Authoritie, but, in all the Church euer sence, of singular Credite and worthinesse? If he were

now aliue emong vs, And might be seen and heard sensibly, would there be found in all the world any man of Honestie or Discretion, which considering his Holi∣nesse, Wisedome and Grauitie would thinke him A witnesse of litle weight and worthinesse? Yet, Father Iewel sayeth, as though he had bene a Reader of Diuinitie, when S. Bernard was yet but A Noui••e in the Faith:

S. Bernard,* 1.31 calleth the washing of feete a Sacrament. I graunt. But S Bernard was a Doctour but of late yeres, and there∣fore his Authoritie must herein weigh the lesser.

Was he of so late yeres,* 1.32 as Luther, Zuin∣glius, Caluine, Peter Martir, and other Greate Anceters of your new Religion? Why dothe not the latenesse of these fe∣lowes, offend you? Why think you, the xij.C. yeres after Christ, to be so farre and wide from his Trueth, that no cer∣taintie thereof maye be taken in them: And Conclude, Determine, Protest and Defend, that, to be Sure and Autentike, which riseth xv.C. and some odde yeres after Christ?

Of the like kinde of Imaginacion and Answer it is, where you say: Lyra and Te••tonicus Lyued,* 1.33 at the least, thirtene hundred yeres after Christe, wherefore their Authoritie in this Case must Needes seeme the lesse. No remedy: M. Iewel hath so appointed.

Againe.* 1.34 Bessarions Authoritie in this case can not seeme greate, bothe for other sundry causes, (which you leaue) And Al∣so, (which must needes be a good cause and not forgoten) for that he liued at the least fourtene hundred yeres after Christ.

And againe.* 1.35 Pope Nicolas, was the se∣cond Bishop in Rome after Pope Iohane the Woman. (Note here that Other men recken, from S. Peter downeward, this man compteth from Pope Iohane, An English woman, as the reporter of the tale sayth, borne at Magunce in Ger∣many.) Which was almost nine hundred yeres after Christ. Wherfore his Authori∣tie might well haue bene spared.

Thus we see then,* 1.36 by manifest Exam∣ples, the exact Accompt that you make of the first six hundred yeres after Christ, As though the whole Truthe of A mater

were lost, if it come to knowledge, any long time after the thing was done.

Let vs consider now, Whether any honest Cause and Reason may be allea∣ged for your so doing, Or whether you did it without cause, Or els were stur∣red vp with some vnlawfull Affection and Repro••eable Cause. And here now, take no skorne M. Iewel if I ap∣pose you in a few Questions. For, either you be hable to Answer them, and that shall be to your worship: either not Answering them, you shall occasyon Trueth therby to be knowen. And that shall be to Gods glorie and the Cumfort of the doubtfull. Surely, if it were to my selfe, and if so much might be obtai∣ned, that I should be Answered in some One thing thoroughly, and be bid to choose, out of all that which I haue to demaunde, that One thing which see∣meth strongest agaynst my Aduersary, and surest of the Catholikes: I would be glad of the Occasion,* 1.37 and all other maters quite and cleane put to Silence, I would speake of these fewe poyntes which folow, And either wythout more

wordes, holde my peace, If in them I were satisfied: Or requ••re, that our Ad∣uersaries neuer trouble their hearers or Readers any further with other conclu∣sions, before these f••we questions were Answered. Therefore, I pray the (In∣different Reader) to consider thys pla••e which foloweth, though thou Reade no more of all the Booke.

First,* 1.38 I aske of you (M Iewel) whe∣ther you haue any Faith at all, or no?

If you haue none, what meddle you, with any Religion: except it be for Ciuil Policie sake? For which to doe as you doe, though it would proue you lesse mad or vnreasonable, yet should you be (for lacke of Faith) as deade in soule and as Godlesse, as any Infidel in al the world. If ye haue any,* 1.39 how came you by it? for we are not borne Christians, but Rege∣nerate: neither doe we receiue faith by Nature, but by Teaching. And, faith is by hearing,* 1.40 sayeth the Apostle.

Of whome then haue you heard and lerned your Faith?* 1.41 Of them that liued and died before you were borne? Or of such as preached and taught in the world

sens your selfe were of remembrance?

If you lerned of the first, how could they teache, without A tongue? Or how could you heare without an care? For they were now deade in body, and cleane dissolued, and you were not yet made of body and soule, nor had any instruments of senses.

If you lerned of the Quicke and Li∣uing, your self also quicke and liuing,* 1.42 were those your Teachers of such Au∣thoritie with you, that you submitted your senses and vnderstanding,* 1.43 to theyr iudgment? Or examined you, by your selfe, their Doctrine and Sayinges?

If you the Scholer did iudge of the Master, you were without all doubt, a Malapert and Folishe Scholer. Mala∣pert, because you would breake order, and proudly goe before him, whome you ought meekly to haue folowed: And Folishe, because in maters of Faith, (of which we now speake) all Wit and Rea∣son of man, is altogeather vnworthy and vnable, to Iudge of that which is Pro∣poned.

If you then folowed their Authoritie,* 1.44

and submitted your vnderstanding and will vnto their Doctrine, without Mo∣uing or Mistrusting any doubt about it: VVhat were they in all the world,* 1.45 vnto whome you gaue such credite?

I aske you not this question, for the time of your Childhode, in which, though true Faith be Habitually in them that are Baptised: yet there is not that Dis∣cretion or Consideration, by which they may returne their mindes vpon theyr own•• actes, Or put a difference betwene their Grādmothers tale of Bloudy bone, Raw head, Bloudelesse and Ware woulf, and the Churches Doctrine of Hell and the Deuill. But I speake now, as to one that hath Understanding and know∣ledge of his owne state, And Experience of many thinges, And Lerning inough for the purpose, And such a one, whose part and profession it is, to be able to geaue a good Cause and Reason, for the Faith and Religion which he foloweth. Of you therefore I aske, what Authority that was, Or is, which moued you to be, and continue A Christian?

Here, you must not say vnto me, that

you considered the wrytinges of the Fa∣thers of the first six hundred yeres. And that you gaue your minde to Reading of the Scriptures. &c.* 1.46 For what so euer such tale yo•• tell me, it will alwaies re∣maine to be Answered of you, what In∣struction or Authoritie that was, which either Taught you, Or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you, to esteeme those Auncient Doctors of the Christian Religion, Or these Scriptures of which you make your self so certaine? For by your selfe, you could no more know, the difference betwene Writers and Writers, or true Scriptures and ly∣ing Fables, than A Blinde man cā iudge of Colours, Or a Stranger know the right way in A Wildernesse, or he Rede, that knoweth no letter on the booke.

You are not (I am sure) wiser thā S. Augu. Neither haue you better thought vpō these maters, than he did. He saith of himself, y^• concerning the Faith which he had in Christ.* 1.47 He savv himselfe, to haue bele∣ued none, but the established opinion of Peoples & Nations, and the very Common and renoumed Fame of him. Than which cause, if you can geue any better, it is time y^• you shew it.

As for vs, neither we finde any like, And we neede not be ashamed to be perswa∣ded by it, which moued S. Augustine him selfe, to come vnto Christ.

And I think verely, that neither you, studying neuer so much for it,* 1.48 can bring any so perswasible a Reason, why you beleued Christ, as this is: that, So ma∣ny Nations and peoples of the world doe beare witnesse to him. For this is so Great and so Stronge to induce vs into Faith, that we should not now be desirous of visible Miracles for Pro∣uing Or Confirming of it, S. Aug••stine moste wisely and Reasonably warning vs:* 1.49 Quisquis adhuc prodigia,* 1.50 vt credat, inqui∣rit: magnum est ipse prodigium, Qui MVN∣DO CREDENTE non credit. VVho so euer doth yet seeke after Straunge and vvonderfull thinges, to make him beleue: he is himselfe a straunge felovv or Greate vvonder, vvhich bele∣ueth not, vvhen the vvorld beleueth.

This Conclusion then standyng so sure, (that the Uoice of the Worlde, so Great, so Generall, so Certaine and so Famous, hath made wise men to come

vnto Christ) I will, in like sort, dispute with you (M. Iewel,) as S. Augustine did against the Manichees. And as he sayed against them vpon the foresayde Truthe:* 1.51 Cur non igitur apud eos potissimum, diligentissimè requiram, quid Christus praecepe∣rit, quorum authoritate commotus,* 1.52 Christum a∣liquid Vtile praecepisse credidi? Tune mihi melius expositurus es quid ille dixerit? Quem fuisse, aut esse, non putarem, si abs te mihi hoc commenda∣retur esse credendum▪ Hoc ergo credidi (vt dixi) famae, celebritate, consensione, Vetustate roboratae. Vos autèm & tam pauci & tam turbulenti & tam noui, nemini dubium est quin nihil dignum authoritate praeseratis. Seeing I haue be∣leued the constant Fame and Reporte of Nations in Cummyng to Christe, why should not I then, most diligent∣ly seeke what Christ commaunded, emong them most chiefly, by whose Authoritie I haue bene moued to be∣leue that Christ commaunded things profitable? Wilt thou better ex∣pound vnto me what he sayd? whome

I would not beleue to haue ben, Or to be, if from thee, this were Commen∣ded vnto me to be beleued. For I haue beleued it, (as I sayed) because of the fame established and strēght∣ned by Renoune, Consent, Aunci∣entnes: But you, both so Fewe, and so Troblesome, and so New, there is no man doubteth, but that ye can show nothing worthy of Authoritie.

Thus S. Augustine.

The Manichees would answer as he∣retikes doe now.* 1.53 What? you must make no question of it, whether Christ is to be beleued or no.

S. Augustine* 1.54 Replieth and so do we. Quae igitur ista tanta demenia est? Illis crede, Christo esse credēdum, & a nobis disce quid dixe∣rit? Cur obs••••ro te? Nam si illi. &c.

VVhat exceding madnesse then is this? Beleue them (the Catholikes) that thou must beleue Christ, and

lerne of vs what he saied. By what reason I pray the? For, if they should faile, and could not teache me any thi••g, I would much more easely per∣swade my selfe, that Christ is not to be beleued: than, that I should lerne any thing concerning him, but of them, through whome I had ••eleued him. O what a greate Boldnesse is this, or rather what a greate Fo∣lishnesse?

I wil teache you (sayeth the Heretike) what Christ commaunded,* 1.55 whom you beleue. To whome S. Augustine.

VVhat if I did not bele••e him?* 1.56 Couldest thou teache me any thing of him?

Nay there is no remedy (sayth the Ma∣nichee) you must beleue.* 1.57 Sainct Augu∣stine answereth:

W••ether by your Commending of him?* 1.58

No (sayeth he) For we leade them by Reason,* 1.59 that beleue him.

For what Reason then (sayeth S.* 1.60 Augustine) must I beleue him?

Because there is A grounded and esta∣blished Fame?* 1.61

VVas it grounded by you or by other?* 1.62

By other sayeth he.* 1.63

Ergo shal I beleue them,* 1.64 that you maye teache me? Perchaunce I should, except they had especiallye warned me hereof, that I should not at al, come vnto thee.

Thou wilt Answer,* 1.65 They Lie.

How then shall I beleue them cō∣cerning Christ,* 1.66 whome they haue not seene, and shall not beleue them concerning the, whome they will not see?

Beleue (sayeth he) the Scriptures.* 1.67

But what so euer Scripture it be,* 1.68

if it be brought furth new and vn∣heard of before, the credite is geuen, not vnto it, but vnto thē that bring if furth. VVherefore, the Scriptures themselues, if you so few and vn∣knowen do bring furth, I haue no list to beleue them.

Here againe (saieth S. Augustine to the Manichee) thou wilt cal m•• backe vn∣to the multitude and the fame.

And so doe our Protestantes nowe. What (say they) will you doubte of the Scriptures?* 1.69 Nay then fare well. There is no talke with you, we perceiue. Why there is no man that denieth them. We see how generally they are alowed and receiued of all men. Either we must beleue nothing, or beleue them: whome by so many mens Report and Consent, we finde to be agreed vpon.

To whom we answer as S. Augustin did vnto the Manichee, which would haue the Fame and Uoice of the World, to be an euident and sure Argumente, wherefore we should make no doubt of

of the Scriptures, And yet, would not be ruled by the Uoice and Consent of that Multitude in the rest of the Christian & Catholike Faith:

Cohibe tandem pertinaciam et istam nescio quam indomit am propagandi nominis libidinem,* 1.70 et mone potius vt huius multitudinis Primates, quaeram diligentissime ac laboriosissime; vt ab his potius de his literis aliquid discam. &c.

Staie now at lenght your egernesse and contention, and this, I can not tell what, Vnruly desire and Lust of getting and stretching furth a name. And Counsel me rather to seeke out the Primates and Chiefe of this mul∣titude, and to seeke them out moste diligently and ernestly, that of them rather, I may lerne sumwhat of these letters▪ (the Scriptures.) Which mē if they were not, I should not at all knowe it, that I had any thing to lerne. As for the (that arte the Heretike)

returne into THY LVRKING HOLES AND CORNERS AGAINE. &c.

Thus far S. Augustine.

By which his Discourse against the Maniches, and our folowing of it a∣gainst the Protestants, how Uncertaine, Unsensible, and Contentious must it be, to Appeale to the vj.C. yeres only after Christ, as though there were none, at this presēt, in the world, which might and ought to be fully obeyed? For, if the Scriptures themselues are now be∣leued, not because they were beleued in the vj.C. after Christ, (for what can we iudge by any sence of thinges paste and gone A thousand yeres sens?) But be∣cause they which now li••e, and whome we may iustly beleue, doe reporte so vn∣to vs, that they haue bene commended vnto the World by them that saw Christ, and heard him, and touched him: And that they haue continued, these xv.C. and odde yeres emong Christians, all∣waies of full Authoritie, (be it the six hundred or ten hundred, or xv.C. after Christe, that you will coumpt vpon.)

If, I say, the Scriptures themselues are beleued of vs, because of the present com∣mendacion of this Age which we be in, and Authoritie which is in the primates of this multitude of Christians:

Howe can we goe in any mater of the Faith, from the Iudgement of this pre∣sent Age, And refuse euery thing that is brought vnto vs, except it be out of the first six hundred yeres after Christ?

For suppose it, that no man aliue NOW, had openly held with Christ: would M. Iewel cleaue vnto y^• Creedes of the first six hundred yeres? And by his owne self, would he chuse to folow the Christian faith of those daies, if there had ben in the world, for these last yeares, no Praise or Speaking of Christ at all?

How is it credible? For being but a mā, how should he not, by all likelihoode, fo∣low the common course of men? And if he would needes be Singular, how could he discerne betwene the true and the false Opinions of the first six hundred yeres, whereas he should finde Exam∣ples and Wrytings of both? Or not a∣ble

to discerne betwene them, how could he fasten his minde and beleife vpon any one of them bothe,* 1.71 except he were A Sin∣gular one in deede? For wisemen, doe not lightly take that way, in which they see not, either the Towne plainely before them, or some Cawsey, Pathes, or Steps of feete to direct them: Neither doe they vse (when they goe in the right way, and come at lenght to some turning or duble waie) to go forward, I can not tell how, without loking backe if any folow, Or loking about if any be within sight: but either rest themselues, vntill they spie of whome to aske, Or goe so doubtefully forward in that which leeketh them, that if better Counsell and teaching come vn∣to thē, they wil be returned and ordered.

And if it be so in A corporall and visi∣ble way, ought it not to be much more so, in folowing the right way vnto truth of vnderstanding and knowledge? And, when the whole world taketh one waie, Or diuerse cumpanies in the world fo∣low diuerse waies, would any man of Discretion be so Bolde or Foolishe, as to goe peaking alone by himselfe in such an

Opinion or Imagination, as no man byside himselfe aloweth? And so direct∣ly go in it, that to liue and die, he would not be brought from it? If therefore these fortie yeres last past (or what so e∣uer it be more that M. Iewel hath li∣ued in the world) nor Christ had bene Preached, nor the Primitiue Churche commended: he could not vndoubtedly by any good Occasion or Reason, haue estemed the Christian wryters of a thou∣sand yeres sens, Or geauen any Faith vnto Christ. Except we should thinke (otherwise than y^• Apostle hath taught vs) y^• faith commeth without hearing, Or that no man sent for him, yet by some Miracle perchannce he was brought vn∣to Christ. Of which two, both are out of course: And without some Extraordi∣nary way of making them likely vnto vs, both are Unreasonable, both are In∣credible.

The present Fame then, Renoume, & Testimonie of this Age, drawing men of this Age vnto Christ, yet doth M. Iewel so litle set by it, as though it were wor∣thy of litle credite, or rather none. And he

so clea••eth vnto those vj.C. yeres, past A thousād. yeres, almost, sens: as though he could be sure of the Catholike & true Faith that was then, w^tout the Testimo∣nies of the Catholike Church now, Or as though some secrete Mistery or Secu∣ritie were in them, to further him in vn∣reueled Conclusions, And exempt him from all Iurisdiction. In so much, that although in xv.C. yeres rekening, which the Church hath continued in (as it shall to the worldes end) viij. yeres can not greatly hurt the Accompt, Yet, so true an Audite of thē, is kept by M. Iewel, that he wil not receiue the Testimonies of the viij. yeres next after the first vj.C. but noteth in his Booke their cumming to late, though they came very nigh. His wordes be these.

M. Harding knoweth wel,* 1.72 that this graūt (to be called The Head of al Churches,) was made vnto Bonifacius the third, which was Bisshope of Rome in the yere of our Lord vj.C. and viij. Euen at the same very time, that Mahomete first began to plant his Doctrine in Arabia. And therfore maketh nothing to this purpose, as bei••g without the cumpasse of six hundred yeres.

As who should thinke,* 1.73 that within those viij. yeres on this side the six hun∣dred, The Pope, and Emperour, with the whole world, were Sodainely and Straungely, conuerted from the Faith and Order which they were of viij. yeres before, And (no Historie mentioning it) were made of Pure Protestants, Grosse Papists.

Yea, not only of viij. yeres aboue the vj.C. he maketh a sad rekoning towards his Uantage, but of the vj.C. yere it self (if he can bring D. Hardings testimonie so low) he so vaunteth and braggeth, as though either himself had the Uictorie, Or els, nothing should be won or lost. For, whereas D. Harding, for profe of y^• Church Seruice in a Straung Tongue, and vnknowen to the Uulgare people, and that also within the first vj.C. yeres, alleaged the cumming of S. Augustine the Monke and our Apostle into Eng∣land, (which was by his accompt the 14. yere of Mauritius Emperor, & the 596. of our Lord.) Master Iewel in answe∣ring it sayeth.

Of the 600▪ yeres after Christ,* 1.74 whervp∣on

Iioyne wish him issue, Liberally, and of his owne accord, he geueth me backe fiue hundred, foure scoare and sixtene, And of so greate a number (as 600. are) reserueth vnto himself foure POORE YERES,* 1.75 and yet, is not very certaine of the same.

And then it foloweth. But if Marianus Scotus accompt be true, that Augustine came into this Realme not the fourtienth of the Emperour Mauritius, but four yeres after, which was iust the six hundred yere after Christ: then he reserueth not one yere to himselfe, but yeldeth me backe altogea∣ther.

Loe what a wise contention here is:* 1.76 And how sadly M. Iewel foloweth it?

Did he thinke with himselfe, that none, but Children or Idiotes, would Reade his Replie? And if he prouided to make it so, as not only Wisemen should consi∣der it, but the Aduersarie also might ••e answered by it: how could he for shame of the world, so Trifle, and Wrangle, and Set furth himselfe so much, vpon so litle occasion? For, if the vj.C. yeres shall trie the mater, he that cometh four yeres before they be ended, commeth time i∣nough to confute M. Iewel. And his

Cause therefore being lost, Or his Brag∣ging at least confounded, if, in any time before the vj.C. yeres expired, the con∣trarie, to this Assertion, may be proued: Why should he call them foure Poore yeres, or set them at naught, which ma∣king to the number of the first 600. yeres are part of the yeres vpon which he ioy∣ned Issue, and are (by his apointement) of greate Authoritie.

The crake herein is, like as if one should say, In all S. Augustines workes, you shal not finde this worde Missa, and thervpon I wil ioyne with you: (as though a great point of Diuinitie consisted here∣in.) An other answeareth, yeas Mary, I finde the worde in such, and such Sermons.* 1.77 Then Replieth the Challēger: Of so great a number of Tomes, as S. Au∣gustine hath writen, of so many bokes in euery Tome. &c. (as far as his Rheto∣rike permitteth) you geaue me backe, Li∣berally, And of your owne accord, al the sort of them almost, and reserue vnto your selfe two POORE SERMONS: and yet are you not very certaine of them, whether

they be S. Augustines or ••oe. As if he should say, I layed hard to his charge, and there was but two poore places betweene me and the victorie, which, although he hath ouer me, yet, it shal not be saied that I lost it easely, and he shal not crake or tri∣umph, that he came lightly by it.

Confer now this Example with M. Iewels forsaied wordes. The place is before thee, and being so plaine as it is, it greueth me to spend time in Repe••ing and Applying it.

But M. Iewel goeth further, he will not leaue so much as one yeres vantage to D. Harding. For,

If Marianus Scotus accompt be true.* 1.78 (Note here that you know not your selfe what to answer absolutely) then M. Har∣ding reserueth not one yere to himself, but yeldeth me backe altogeather.

Goe to (M. Iewel) be it so.* 1.79 Let D. Harding geaue ••uer all other vantage, and let it be supposed (which yet is most false) that he had brought nothing for the profe of the Publike Seruice in the Uul∣gare Tonge, biside this Historye, of S.

Augustines planting the Christian Re∣ligion in England: Thus much only then is concluded, y^• iust in the vj.C. yere after Christ (what so euer it was before) The Publike Seruice was in some place in such a tongue, as the vulgare people did not vnderstande.

And what now shall we say to it? Where is the Uictorye?* 1.80 On your side, or D. Harding? But first it would be knowen whether you, at the beginning, did take the vj.C. yeres, Exclusiue or Inclusiue?

And whether you meant, that if to the last day of the six hundred yere, any thing should be founde against you, you would subscribe: Or els, that if your Aduersa∣ries Reason were not of an higher Date than the first day of the last yere of the vj. hundred, you would vtterly refuse it.

Well, how so euer it be, it seemeth now that it is but a deade victorie, Or a Stale and that he which will checke M. Iewel, must begin againe, If Marianus Scotus accompt be true▪ &c. As, on the other side, if it be false, then is he ouercummed by four pore yeres yet, as he termeth thē.

But consider now (Indifferent Rea∣der) whether this be manly Dealing or no? To refuse the Authoritie that is at [ 1] this present in the world? To set light [ 2] by the Practise and Iudgement of the Church for ix.* 1.81 hundred yeres space. To pare euery thing so precisely by the firste [ 3] six hundred yeres, that, If it be but a [ 4] daie longer, it must be cut awaie: And if it be a few yeres shorter, it must be the lesse estemed: And if it answer iustly [ 5] with the yere it self, it weigheth in no side. What Reason hath M. Iewel, or what Example and Scripture for him?

Is the Truthe of God bound to the first six hundred yeres?* 1.82 And must it not passe that cumpasse which M. Iewel hath apointed vnto it? Is God a God of six hundred yeres only, and not of all time and all worldes? Was the Holyghost promised to tary with vs, til vj.C. yeres were come and gone, and not to the end of the world? The kingdome of Christ, which should be euerlasting, and his po∣wer which should not be takē awai: must it be interpreted now, to haue theyr full terme out, in vj.C. yeres only?

What Grace haue the first vj.C, Or what curse of God haue these last .ix.C. yeres? Now know you also, when the first vj.C. ended, Or what trust haue you in them, which number the yeres vnto you? Some Historiographers recken one way, Other recken an other way.

What certaintie then can you haue of thē? Again, those writers whome you folow, either do at this present liue, Or he com∣mended vnto you by them that now line. And how dare you trust, either those that nowe liue and write of thinges so long sens past: Or those, that a greate while sens are deade, your selfe not then borne to liue with them, and examine their do∣inges?

Consider also, how many haue wryten within the space of these last nine hūdred yeres: how perfite in life, how Excellent in knowledge, how Painfull in studies, how Worthy in their owne dayes, How Famous with the Posteritie, How mete witnesses in the cause of God, and triall of a Pure and holy Religion? Abbates, Monkes, Friers, are in these new Gos∣pelling dayes, termes of great shame

and Ignominie: yet what sayeth and ho∣nest Protestant, against S. Bernard, Ru∣pertus, Thomas Aquinas, Bonauenture, Dionysius the Carthusian, and other such? Can M. Iewel finde any fault in theyr life, by any Report of brute or Fame? Or any Irreligiousnes in their bookes and wrytinges, which are extant, for hym to consider? Let him say his worst, Let him leaue poring in Gloses of no Authoritie, to finde some mad thing or other, against the wisedome of the Church, And let him confer his leisure to Reading or Exami∣ning rather of these Witnesse (according to the State he taketh vpon him) whose sayinges, he knoweth, we esteeme as we ought to doe.

O, sayeth he, these were of late daies. I graunt▪ And not only that, but also, and you will, that they were in euyll and corrupt daies. But were they corrupted in them? Did they not write against cor∣rupt liuing? Did they suffer new Prea∣chers and Apostolikes, to goe out of the Church or come against y^e church by their euil Doctrine? Or did they communicate with Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Abbots

or any other of all the world in their li∣uing? Seing they neither f••ared hatred nor curred Fauour, why should not their Testimonie be receiued, no other excep∣tion being brought against them, but that they liued in so late daies, or such A world?

All is Ungodly, All is Unreasonable, All is Uaineglorious, to appeale to the [ 1] times so long past, As though that God, at this present, had not his Church in the [ 2] world: Or, as though ye could well fo∣low any other, but such as you heare [ 3] with our owne eares: Or, as though the good and Lerned men of these Later yeres, departed this world hundred of yeres sens, were not as nigh to the first six hundred yeres as ye are, and as ready [ 4] to folow the best waie as ye: Or, as though it were A Ioly mater and a com∣pendious waie to the Gospell, to con∣tempne all Christendome that now is, and holde with that Christendome that was almoste a thousand yeres sens, not knowing yet, what Christianitie mea∣neth, Nor Daring to trust it if ye knew it, were it not for the Authoritie which is

at this present in Christendome, the Greatnesse of which hath moued you to beleue, what so euer you beleue vpon a∣ny good ground.

Here therfore M. Iewel, defend your doinges, And shew vs the cause, where∣fore you doe, or should refuse the Testi∣monie of the last ix. hundred yeres which are against you. If it be not for Chil∣deshnesse, or Wantonesse, or Unsensi∣blenesse, that you will none of so many and so graue Witnesses: yet except you alleage some honest cause and reason, It will remayne, I beleue, that you doe it vpon a very blinde Stomake and con∣tention. My questio••s are short, and easy to be answered, if you haue any Faith or Conscience at all. As in Ex∣ample.

Was there not a Church of God,* 1.83 in the world, when you were borne?

Did not the Greatnes, Grauitie and Authoritie of Nations which were of it, moue you to beleue?

Did the Inuisible and litle Congre∣gation worke that effect in you?

If ye trusted the Catholike Church of

your time, in commending Christ vnto you, and without her Commendatyon would not haue credited him: can you, with a safe consciēce, contemne the voice of the same Church, And, to colour your defection and Fleeing from it, take holde fast of the first six hundred yeres only, As though you could with all your witte, iudge better what the Primitiue Church thought and beleued, than the present Church which is of one Spirite wth the Primitiue. &c.

But there is no Remedie, vpon the first six hundred yeres M. Iewel ioyneth with vs, And if any thing be longer than that measure, he will none of it: he hath sayed it.

¶How M. Iewel himselfe dothe vse the Testimonies of what so euer Age and wryter, though he bind other to the first sixe hundred yeres only.

TO the first six hundred yeres cum∣passe then, we must be bound, al a∣gainst Reason and Conscience, but what shall we doe, when the stan∣ding in our right against the Aduersarie,* 1.84 and the Refusing to encountre with him vpon his conditions, shallbe thought of some Iudges to be A Preiudice vnto our cause, and A greate Argument that our hartes faile vs?

Dispute (sayeth the Heretike) wyth me, vpon these questions, whether the Publike Seruice in an vnknowen tongue, Or Receiuing vnder one kinde, Or Re∣seruing of the Sacrament in A Pix wyth A Canopie ouer it▪ &c. Was euer vsed in the Primitiue Church. No Mary

(would I saie, if it were to me only), I will not Dispute with thee vpon thees•• poyntes. But, if thy Hart and Lear∣ning serue thee, make few wordes and Answer me, from whence thou c••mest? Who sent thee?* 1.85 What are their Names? Where are their Sees? What is their Succession? What is their Authoritie? In which pointes if thou satisfie me, not only then, in these few Articles which thou demaundest, but in euery point and part of the Religion, which thy Church aloweth, I will be Faithfull and Obe∣dient.

[ 2] Dispute (sayeth he againe vnto me) on Munday come seuennight. And be∣fore that Day cummeth, he chaingeth his minde foure or fiue times with me.

First he will Dispute in Latine: Then he will wryte his minde, and speake no∣thing: After that, he wil haue the ma∣ter Reasoned in Englishe, and wise men shalbe Iudges: And, after that againe, he will haue it done in the hearing of the people, not by quicke Disputation, but by Reading only the Argumentes out of a Booke.

If the Catholike Disagree in anye poynt, and stand vpon it: either stub∣burnesse, either Mistrust of his Cause, either some fault or other, shalbe layed vnto him. And so were many greate and heighnous maters Obiected against S. Ambrose,* 1.86 because he refused to haue the cause betwene himselfe and the He∣retike Auxentius,* 1.87 to be tried in the Con∣sistorie of the Emperour, before Secular Iudges. And his Exception, against the Place only and Audience, was ac∣compted an high and intolerable Trea∣son.

In like maner: You shall Dispute [ 3] with me (sayeth the Heretike,) and no∣thing shall serue you, except it be in ex∣presse Scripture. If the Catholike re∣fuse that Condition, and allege an hun∣dred Reasons and Authorities, that we must bele••e the vnwriten veritie, as wel as the writen, And, that the word and will of God is allwaies to be obei••d, whether it be deliuered vnto vs by Tra∣dition, or left vnto vs in Wryting: Yet except he yeld at length, all England shal ring of it, That the Papistes will not be

tried by the linely worde of God, That they flee the light, That they dare not commit their cause to the Scriptures.

[ 4] To be short, when M. Iewel now, more Reasonably in deede than Some of his Masters or Felowes, which will admit nothing but Scripture: Yet here∣tically and stately inough, pro••oketh vs to ioine with him, And chooseth his que∣stions, and excludeth all our Answers vnto them, except they be taken iust out of the v••.C. yeres after Christ: although it be very vniustly required of him, and A Catholike should neuer come into such bondage, Or not alwaies condescend in these lesser pointes vnto A Protestant: Yet, if he striue long with him about it, and stand in the Defence of the last nine hundred yeres, alleaging many and them good causes, wherefore the Testimonie and consent of so long time should be a∣lowed, the longer he striueth, the worse shall he be esteemed for it, and the ernest mainteining of euery Truth on his side, shall goe in Print abrode for an Argu∣ment, that in dede he hath no good right.

Be it so then, The Catholike must let goe the vantage of ix.C. yeres, he must fight within that time and cumpasse that the Heretike prescribeth: And although that naturally, al men are more fauora∣ble, to them that are called in to the law, than the suers and troblers of them, and suffer the defendant, whome worldly frindship cleane forsaketh, to haue as much right as his cause will geaue him: Yet, let all thinges be forgoten, which may commend the Catholikes, and as M. Iewel hath appointed, so, let the first six hundred yeres only be considered and alowed.

But here now let me aske one Que∣stion. As it not Reason,* 1.88 like as our ad∣uersarie prescribeth vnto vs, the num∣ber and Terme of yeres, out of which we must gather our Argumentes: that so likewise he, shuld not come against vs with any Testimony or Authority, which were out of those apointed Limites and boundes of yeres? If a Challenger shall say to the Partye whome he Prouoketh, come, let vs straite waies trie the mater

betwene our selues in the plaine Fielde, and bring thou thy Sword and Buckler as I will mine: when they are agreed, vpon the Time, Place, and kind of Wea∣pon, if the Challenger would, against the others single sworde, come with sword, dager, horse, spere, Dagge, and what so euer defence or helpe he could get ••yside, should he not be compted Awretched and Contentious, and A glorious Iacke Bragger? He that biddeth the combat, seemeth to take himself for the better mā, and to like his owne cause and quarell very wel: how Ignominious then and Shamefull must it be vnto him, not to fight vpon equall conditions with hys Aduersarie?

Reason you against me (sayeth M. Iewel) out of the first six hundred yeres only: but I for all that, will be at my li∣bertie to vse any Testimonie out of the xv.C. and odde yeres sens Christ. Which in very deede is as much to say, as knele you here vpon one knee, and Fight not out of this Circle which I make to you, As for my selfe I will goe or run at my

pleasure about you, and take my vantage where I can finde it, sometimes within, sometimes without the Circle, sometimes stāding nigh, sometimes coursing about the field.

Mary Sir, if such Priuileges might be graunted to Warriers, it were an ea∣sie mater to prolong the Battell, and to winne the praise of much manlinesse, by spurring cut hither and thither, and no mater how. For, he taketh no care hereof, how truly he alleage, the Testi∣monies of these last nine hundred yeres, Or how worthie and approued Authors they be, whom he alleageth, but without exception he taketh all that he findeth, and from the highest to the lowest, from the Text to the Glose, and emong Glo∣ses from the best to the worst of them, he Taketh, and Draweth, and Heapeth a∣gainst vs, Al that may seeme to helpe his Assertions.

Tel vs therefore (I pray you M. Ie∣wel) what Equitie or Conscience you fo∣low? Will you binde the Catholikes, to the first six hundred yeres, And wil your selfe argue out of cumpasse? May not

we vse the worthie Authoritie of Boni∣facius, because he was Bishop of Rome in the yere of our Lord 680, and will you admit the sayinges and doinges of Lu∣ther, Zwinglius and Caluine, all con∣demned Persons; through the Catholike Church, and liuing xv.C yeres after Christ?

S. Bernard (you say) was A man of late yeres. So was Dionisius the Car∣thusian, So were others, whom I haue rekened vp, in the chapiter before: And therefore, by your accompt, of lesse Au∣thoritie. And why then doe you all••age not only S. Bernard,* 1.89 but Durand, Ger∣son, Alexander,* 1.90 Lynwod, Camotensis, Hugo Cardinalis,* 1.91 Eckius, Aeneas Syl∣uius, Erasmus,* 1.92 and other? I report me to the very margine of your boke,* 1.93 by that it will appeere,* 1.94 whether you do not stuffe your boke,* 1.95 with Canons, Constitutions, Gloses,* 1.96 Histories, Interpretations of scripture, Testimonies of Fathers, Opi∣nions of Scholemen. &c. such as altoge∣ther you scrape out of these last nine C. yeres. For which your so doing, if you

can bring any Reason, or shew any Spe∣ciall Pryuilege graunted to you, against the law of Nature, that you might do a∣gainst an other, that, which you would not haue done to your selfe: either, of this vnreasonable Fauor and Licence, you must geaue some cause, or els you must suffer vs to complaine of it, that you dele not with vs Indifferently.

But it will be thought, perchaunse, of others, that you alleage not y^• later Wry∣ters, of any time these nine C. yeres, for the Estimation or Credite, which you haue them in, but only, because your Ad∣uersary maketh great Price of them.

Suppose it were so: yet you doe him greate Wronge, to put him to Answe∣ring of more Witnesses, than he should doe by right: And to fill your Replie with those mennes sayinges, whose Au∣thorit••es though he doe not contemne, yet he would not haue them to possesse, & occupie y^• place, which more Auncient and worthier Persons should haue. And although we think as it becometh vs, of s. Bernard, s., Bonauēture, S. Denyse. &c.

Yet, if you would needes haue vs in Reasoning with you, not to passe the Boundes and Terme of vj.C. yeres, you shoulde not, though we alowed the Per∣sons neuer so much, bring any of A low∣er degree and later age against vs, either to stand in the place which S. Hierome, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, or S. Chry∣sostome should occupie, either to com∣mend that place the better by their Pre∣sence, which the Auncient Fathers of the Primitiue Church, doe furnishe aboun∣dantly by themselues: and which also they only should furnishe, by your ap∣pointement. And further I say, that if you will not suffer me to take any van∣tage against you, by the testimony of any good Man or wryter of the nine hundred yeres last past, it is no equalitie, that, whther I will or no, you should make me to Answer the sayinges, which you bring against me, out of those yeres whi∣che you passe not vpon. And whereas it shall doe me no good, though I proue, that S. Bernard (for Example) in that place which you wil alleage, doth not on¦ly not hinder, but allso further my cause:

to what purpose should I spend anye¦time at all, in hearing or examining hys wordes, which, although I declare to make for me, may not be lawfully vsed of me?

And therefore, notwithstanding you iudge truly of vs herein and better of vs than of your self, that we, the Catholikes, doe not refuse the Authoritie of later Fa∣thers and Doctours, whom the Church yet neuer condemned or despised: Yet, this our credite which we haue them in, must not serue you for any cause or ex∣cuse, why ye should bring them furth a∣gainst vs, except we may doe the like a∣gainst you. For, as you haue appealed to the first vj.C. yeres, thereby to let vs of our Libertie, so we doe require you al∣so, not to passe that nūber or cumpasse of those yeres, thereby to cut away your su∣perfluitie. And in thus doing, we are not weary of the later Doctours of Chri∣stendome, nor afraid of their Iudgments but we are offended with your vainglo∣rious, and very wretched behauioure, which will not keepe the law yourselfe, that you prescribe vnto other.

Ther is, I graunt, A kind of Argumēt ad hominem, non ad rem, to the man not to the mater. As, to some of our Coun∣trie men, at this present, and them of the most Perfite and exquisite Trade, in fo∣lowing of the Gospel, if A Catholike doe saye, that Father Caluine himself, (whose Iudgment is much praised in the Con∣gregation,) was of this mind,* 1.97 and was also Zelous in it, that they did very ill, which ga••e to king Harry the viij. that he should be head of the Church: this ar∣gument so taken of his Authoritie, that was a Proude, and Folishe, And Lousie Heretike, although it be nothing worth in deede, and in that respect not to be v∣sed of A Catholike, Yet, to him that ac∣compteth of Caluine, as if he had bene one of y^e lights of the World, y^• Catholike may right wel vse it, & driue him by force of the Consequence, either to deny Cal∣uines Authority (which he wil not) Or y^• kings supremacy (which he dareth not.) So y^• against him, that is addicted to any one Opinion of his own, or of other whō he buildeth vpon, to bring an Argument grounded vpō his own Opinion & iudg∣ment,

& thereby to make him forsake his own opinion, or kepe stil in his memory the Contradiction which inwardly pin∣cheth him: It is A kind of Reasoning, good and profitable.

And, in this respect, if any Catholike were so blinde & singular, as to set more by the Glose vpon Vnā Sanctā, Extr. de Ma∣ior & Obed▪ than the Commentaries of S. Hierome, and S. Chrisostome: Or by Durand, Gerson, Lynwod. &c. than any of the most Auncient Fathers: M. Iewel then, might be suffered to argue ad homi∣nem, that is, to alleage Gloses, Schole¦men and later Doctours, to him that hath A speciall fansie vnto those, more than a∣ny of the Primitiue Church. But now, se y^• Inequality & ods. For neither D. Har••nor his Inferiors, are so ignorāt of y^• sēse & strength of this word Catholike, y^• they shuld be addicted to any one, two, or thre mens priuate sayings of what degree or time so euer they haue ben, (without th•• consent or warrant of the Church) nei∣ther shuld M. Iewel alleage vnto them, any Testimony of the last nine hundred yeres, himself referring the triall of the

the whole mater to the first vj.C. only. And hauing such Aduersaries, as are ve∣ry well content, to be ordered by the sen∣tence and Iudgment of that first age, and that Primitiue Church.

Yet go to for a while, let M. Iewel be suffered: And let it be his excuse, that he hath argued alwaies ad hominem, to the man, when he hath vsed the Testimonies of later times, thereby to impugne D. Harding. Let him say (I meane) that he hath recited in his Replye, Durand, Gerson, Biel, Denyse, Hugo Cardinall, Thomas Duns. &c. not, because himself aloweth them, but, because they are este∣med of y^• party against whō he wryteth.

But is this true? And hath not he vsed their Testimonies in respect also of hys owne opinion, & confirmed himself in it, because of their Testimonies? When he reasoneth Substantially, and Directly, and Plainly to his Purpose, and ad rem to the mater, and out of his owne Prin∣ciples (as it were) and Authorities, doth he not alleage the forsayde Doctours, al∣though they were, all the sort of them, farre vnder the first six hundred yeres,

to whiche onely he would haue the Deci∣sion of the controuersies referred? Whe∣ther this be so or no, let Examples try it.

M. Iewel is of the Opinion that no Christian Churches wer built in the Apo∣stles tyme:* 1.98 And muche lesse then Aulters (if his Logicke be good.) For may wee thinke (sayth he) that Aulters were built before the Churche? Of whiche Lye,* 1.99 we shall speake in an other place. But to my purpose. It foloweth in him:

Neyther afterward,* 1.100 when Aulters were first vsed, and so named, were they straite waye built of Stone, as Durandus and such others saie, they must needes be, and that, Quia petra erat Christus, Because Christ vvas the Stone.

Whereof then were they built,* 1.101 accor∣ding to your Opinion? And what Cause or Authoritie haue you for it? It fo∣loweth.

For Gerson saith,* 1.102 that Siluester Bisshop of Rome, first caused Stone Aultars to be made. &c.

Is Gerson then,* 1.103 of Authoritie with you? And a man of so late yeares, and little Fame and Estimation, in compa∣rison

of many Fathers and Doctours of the ix.C. yeares last past, all which you refuse, is hee nowe a witnesse for your•• Here it is plaine that you bring in this late writer, to serue directly your owne Opinion, and, that he standeth you in suche steede, that without him, you proue not that whiche you saide.

You depende not therefore vppon your Aduersaries allowing of Gerson. as who shoulde saye: if he admit the Te∣stimonie of him, then doe I confirme my Assertion, and if he doe not, yet haue I other Authorities to proue my sayinges true: but, you doe so absolutely and pro∣prely for your owne Opinion vse him, that without him, you leaue your mat∣ters vnproued. But let vs see an o∣ther Example.

It is required of M. Iewell, that forasmuche as the Catholikes coulde ne∣uer yet finde, that the Publike Seruice in the Primitiue Churche, was in any other than Greeke or Latine, and hee yet is sure of the Contrarye, that it was euery where in a tongue knowen to the

Uulgare People: he shew therefore his Profes and Authorities, suche by all likelyhode, as himselfe is perswaded withall, before he woulde haue other to allowe them. Marke then what hee sayth.

And,* 1.104 to auoyde multitude of woordes, the case beeing plaine,* 1.105 Eckius sayth, the Indians had their Seruice, in the Indian tongue, Durandus saith, The Iewes, that were Christened, had their Seruice in the Hebrew tongue.

Nycolas Lyra, and Thomas de Aquine, saye, The Common Seruice in the Primi∣tiue Churche was in the Common vulgare tongue.

And in the next leafe folowing, he alea∣geth Aeneas Syluius and an Extrauagant de Officio Iudicis Ordinarij.* 1.106 and Iohn Billet in Summa de Diuinis officijs.

But what are all these?* 1.107 Were they not writers of very late Yeares? Were they not Popisshe Doctours, or Po∣pysshe Proctours, not woorthe the

naming (by M. Iewels Accompt) and much lesse worth the Crediting? Why thē doth he alleage them? Will he saye, he condescended herein to D. Hardinges Infirmitie? And, that he vseth his owne Doctours for the better contentation of his mind? No verely he must not say so. For he was required to bring his owne groundes and witnesses, and not such, as are alowed only per accidens, that is, because it so happeneth, that an other mā liketh them. He was content allso to shew his profes, and to yeld to the fore∣said Request, both for the goodnesse and pregnancie of the cause,* 1.108 and also specially, Good Christian Reader, (sayeth he,) for the better Contentation of thy mind.

If the cause then be good and pregnāt, why vse you so ill and baren Testimo∣nies, as all theirs are (if your accompt be true) which come furth, after the first six hundred yeres? And, if you seeke af∣ter the Contentation of your Readers mind, you signifie thereby, that the Au∣thorities, which you alleage, are wor∣thy and alowable. Not, because Doctor

Harding will make no Exception, per∣chaunce, against them, but because your∣selfe like them and esteeme them.

Otherwise, what Contentation of the Readers mind, call you this, to Reason vpon their Authorities, whom yourself would haue to be contemned? Or, to establish any opinion vpō such groundes vpon which you can build nothing, ex∣cept vnto him, which holdeth them for sure and good? Of which sort of men, you make not (I trust) euery your good Christian Reader to be. Especially, ma∣ny of them, by your oft Appealing to the first six hundred yeres, being occasioned, to set litle by anye Testimonie of lower time and degree.

Thus we see againe, that M. Iewel hath vsed the late wryters Testimonie Eckius, Durand, Thomas Aquinas, and Iohn Billet, not, because of D. Hardinges opinion or regard of them (which how greate or litle it is, he dothe not know) but, because of his owne li∣king of them.

Neither doth he peeke (as it were) an

occasion to vse them, out of his Aduer∣saries estimation of them, but whether D. Harding aloweth them or no, M. Iewell flatly vseth them, nor is asha∣med of the latenes of them. A thing, at other times so materiall with hym, that on paine of forfaiting all a mans la∣bour, none must be brought in for wit∣nesses, but suche as are, within little, a thowsand yeare olde.

See one place more and with that, we shall ende this Chapiter. It is a que∣stion betweene the Catholikes and the Heretikes, Whether the woordes of Christe, in the sixt of S. Iohn, are to be vnderstanded, onely of the spirituall eating of his body, Or of the Spirituall and Sacramentall bothe. The firste is the newe Maisters, the seconde is the Olde Fathers. To proue the firste, that the wordes of our Sauiour in that Chapiter, are taken and meant of spiri∣tuall eating onely, Thus sayth Mai∣ster Iewell.

For to leaue S. Augustine,* 1.109 Origine, and others of that age: Nicolas Lyra, a man of later yeres saith, The said words of Christ,

must needes be taken Spiritually, and none otherwise.

Lykewise, one Michael Vaehe, one of late yeares, a man of M. Hardings owne syde, touching the same matter, wryteth thus (against Luther.) This saith he, is a weake reason, for, the woordes, that be spoken of Spirituall eating▪ He Appli∣eth to the Sacramentall eating. Here may M. Harding see, besydes S. Augustine, Origine, and other olde Catholike Fa∣thers, whose Woordes I haue not a∣leaged, what men he hathe called Newe Maisters. Nicolas Lyra, was an Englisshe man, and liued two hundred yeares before Luther. Michaell Vaehe, was of late yeares, and wrote namelye against Lu∣ther.

Heere I trowe,* 1.110 it is perceaued that M. Iewell vseth late writers Testimo∣nies, in defence of his syde. The que∣stion is, whether the sixt of S. Iohn, be vnderstanded of Spirituall eatinge onely or no. If it be, let vs set your Authorities (M. Iewell) and reasons.

The new masters (as D. Hard. tear∣meth them) expound it so. Thei are not all new masters (say you) that haue so takē th••

How proue you that? For Nicolas Lyra (You Aunswere) saith it▪ and one Micha∣el Vaehe one of late yeares.* 1.111 They saye it not, that it is to be vnderstanded onely of Spirituall eating, but of Spirituall eating without ONELY. Suppose yet they saide it, what were that to purge the new Maisters of the fault of Singula∣ritie, or to perswade your Reader that it must be so taken? I doe not disprayse neither Nicolas Lyra, neither Michaell Uehe, but I can not but mislike it great∣ly in you, to aleage their Names in your defense, whose Authorities are neyther Excellent, nor Yeares Auncient. Espe∣cially, whereas you would seeme to haue S. Augustine, Origine, and others of that age, to stande with you in this matter. But you leaue them and come to Nico∣las Lyra.

What doe you M. Iewel? Is there any man, in all the Catholike Churche, whiche will giue you leaue,* 1.112 to answere him rather by Nicolas Lyra, then S. Augustine? And dothe it become your Manheade and Corage, (whiche is so great, that you will haue Controuersies

examined by no later writers, then those of the first six hundred yeares,) thus to leaue, S. Augustine (whose Authoritye is worthelye regarded of all wise men) and cleane to Nicolas Lyra, whose testi∣mony any man (except it be of contempt) may lawfully let alone with out vsing or alowing of it? You commend hym to vs in two poyntes, He was (you saye) An English man, and liued two hundred yeres before Luther. I haue reade the contra∣rye, that he was a Iew, borne at Liere: neuerthelesse if you for Countrye sake (as borne perchaunce in the old or new Iury in Londō) or for Age sake, as liuing two hundred yeres before Luther, doe thynke that he is a worthy witnesse to Englishe men of this age, I will not reproue your kindnesse of hart towardes your Coun∣trymen, nor affection to the time later by seuen hundred yeres than the Primityue church vnto which you apeale so precise∣ly: But this, who can abyde? To consi∣der M. Iuell, so great a Contemner of later Dyuines and Scholemen, to leaue S. Augustine,* 1.113 Origen and others, and to defend hys felowes, by Nycolas Lyra and

Michaell Vaehe? And not onely that, but to crake (as it were) that S. Augustin is also with him, and yet not so muche as to name the Place where it might bee sought and founde. For consider his wordes.

Here maye M. Hardinge see besydes S. Augustine,* 1.114 Origene, and other olde Catholike Fathers, whose wordes I haue not allegaed,* 1.115 what men he hath called New Maisters.

In deede,* 1.116 hee may see that you ha••e brought furth, Nycolas Lyra, and one Michael Vaehe: but y^• he may se them, by∣sydes S. Augustine, Origene, and other Olde Catholike Fathers, Howe is it pos∣sible? For your selfe confesse, that, you haue not alleaged their wordes. And how then shoulde he see them? If D. Har∣ding doe no more, but quote onely the Places of the Doctours, in whiche his sayengs be verefied, And leaue the wri∣ting out of their whole Sentences: all this (you wil say) is but a Camissado,* 1.117 these be but visardes: They be no faces: They are brought in, like Mummers, for a shew, and say nothing. And what pretie Coū∣terfeiting

may we call this, to alleage A later writers saying fully, and not so much as quote the place of the olde Fa∣thers: And yet, to make an O••tentation with, here may M. Harding see, bysides S. Augustine, Origen, and other old Catho∣like Fathers whose wordes I haue not alle∣ged, what men he hath called new masters? Uerely, this is biside all reason, to tel me that bysides S. Augustine &c. I may See what Nycolas Lyra testifieth, wher no one Sentence or Halfe sentence of S. Augu∣stines is to be Seen, Heard, or Under∣standed, in the place on which I am bid to looke.

But,* 1.118 I haue not alleged their wordes, sayeth M. Iewel. And why did you not, I pray you, Sir? Were you in such hast to come to Nycolas Lyra and Michael Vaehe, that you could not cary with S. Augustin, Origene, and other old Catholike Fathers? Is it your maner of writing, to spare the Alleging of old Fathers? Or, was their word, not worth the hearing? Or, must we needes beleue your Assertion, with∣out further euidence? The Truthe is, neither Saint Augustine, nor Origen,

nor any other old Catholike Fathers did precisely say, that the sixth of S. Ihon, must be vnderstanded only of the Spiri∣tual eating of Christes fleshe. And you, although you could not haue their voy∣ces, yet you were so bold as to vse their Names: And pretending, as thoughe it were easie to see, that they did testifie for you, so, you leaue them quite and cleane, and bring in, Nycolas Lyra an Englishe∣man, and Michael Uaehe of late yeres, to speake somewhat for you.

Consider now (Indifferent Reader) whether M. Iewel vseth the later Wry∣ters, as Necessary Witnesses in his owne cause, or no? And whether he bringeth them in, as Men whom D. Harding is well content withall, Or as Persons, without whom, his sayinges, could haue no Probalitie at all? For, if he had alle∣ged, first S. Augustine, Origen, and other old Catholike Fathers, and afterwardes, had rehersed the Opinions and Iudg∣mentes of later writers: he might haue ben thought to haue done it for A Sur∣plussage, and to haue sought thereby, to perswade rather his Aduersarie, than to

Confirme his owne Assertion. But on the other side now, to leaue S. Augustine, Origen and other Fathers, and to stay on∣ly vpon Lyra and Uaehe, what other thing is it, than to Protest that by their Testimonies his cause is Sufficientlye proued? And, to take vantage of their sayinges, which liued out of the six hun∣dred, next after Christ? And, this is that which deserueth iust Indignation, that any man, bearing the Person and Face, of one that had discretion or Conscience, should bind an other to a certaine com∣passe of Time and Yeres, which, in no case, he should passe, in Debating of any controuersie: And yet, would in the meane Time himselfe, Argue, Reason, and Conclude, out of any Time, and re∣quire to haue it stand, for profe good and sufficient, of his owne Assertions: And to vse that kind of Libertie or Prerogatiue, not only when he speaketh ad hominem, that is, to the Meaning, Sense, Opini∣on, or Fancie of the man, with whom he hath to doe, but also, ad rem, that is, ac∣cording to his owne Meaning & Iudg∣ment, in which, he taketh the testimonies

by himselfe alleaged, to perteine, Direct∣ly, and in deede, to Confirmation of the cause, which he susteineth.

Yet (as I saied before) let M. Iewels excuse be, that he hath vsed Late w••yters Testimonies, not for any stay of his own Opinions (the contrary whereof I haue shewed) but to stop only D. Hardinges mouthe, and to set one Papist against an other, Let him so saie, and let vs so take it: yet, is this no indifferent dealing. For, if he wil bind vs to the first six hun∣dred yeres, and himselfe yet, will presse vs with Authorities of later age, either he mindeth that we shall Answer him in them, or holde our peace and be still.

If we shall answer: why apointed he the Lymites of six hundred yeres to be kept of vs? For, when he prouoketh vs, with mater collected out of the cumpasse of them, we must needes come also out of them, and ioyne with him, therevpon.

And, if he minded that we should not at all Answer him, and that himselfe yet, would Obiect suche Testimonies vnto vs: Why did he then Obiect them? Ex∣cept we shall Iudge of him, that he is so

Folishe, as to apoint it, or so Proude and Stately, as to conceiue it, that it maye be lawfull for him, in fighting against his Aduersarie, to haue certaine Places open vnto his Desperate Foynes, and that no Warding of the Daunger, and no Buck∣ler should be vsed. And therefore,

It is not to be graunted vnto you M. Iewel, to Bind vs to the first six hun∣dred yeres, And to be Loose yourselfe, concerning any witnesse or Authoritie, of the nine hundred folowinge: To set vs within a Circle, and yourselfe to Dis∣course out of Order and Cumpasse: To forbid vs, the Alleaging of S. Bernard, and yet to charge vs with the Opinion of Michael Uehe, or any such other. No Sir: to the first six hundred you haue Appealed, to the first six hundred only, you shall stand.

If you wil Replie, they be our owne Doctoures, and therefore we maye not Refuse them: We Answer shortly vnto you, that whereas in your Singulare Iudgement they be no Doctoures at all, And whereas you will not Suffer them to be O••res, Or that we maie

alleage them and recite thē as our own: we therefore in this Case and State of Reasoning with you, doe not take them for our owne. Yea, they must be so comp∣ted vpon and so set aside, as if they wer no mens witnesses at all, Because you, in Drawing the mater to the first six hun∣dred yeres only, doe Import and Con∣clude thereby, that, of al later Times and Writers, you would haue A sad Silence to be agreed vpon, and kept.

But, where will M. Iewels Glorie be then? And, if he himselfe shall vse no Testimonie vnder the first vj.C. yeres: how litle wil his Replie be? How vncer∣taine must his Answers be? How greate Blindnes and Silence must he come vn∣to? Take away from M. Iewel, and his felowes the last nine hundred yeres, and you take away from them the Flowers of their Diuinitie.* 1.119 Out of those yeres, they Rake all the euill that is spoken, of Popes, Cardinals, Priestes. &c. that by reueling other mennes Turpitude, they may commend their owne bare Hone∣sties. Out of those, come many Canons of Councels, Constitutions of Empe∣rours,

Uarieties of Historiographers, Conclusions and Distinctions of Schole men, in the number of which, it is easy to find somewhat, alwaies, that shall sound against the Catholikes. Either, because all thinges, are not to be taken as they lie, but neede an Interpretation: either because, when many write of one Fact, Or intreate of one mater, they do not al∣waies so throughly agree, in euery point of the Historie or Question, but that he, whome it Pleaseth to striue therevpon with an other, may sone find A doubt Or Argument to serue his humor of Con∣tradiction. Out of those, many Gloses are peeked, so Obscure or Trifling, that were it not, for the Diligence of Here∣tikes, which haue brought them furth in to light, They would as litle haue ben sought for of the Catholikes, As they are now litle estemed of them, when they are Found out and shewed to them by the Heretikes.

Take therefore, the wrytinges of the last nine hundred yeres, awaye from the Protestantes, and there must needes fo∣low, such lacke of mater, to make vp

their Tales, that they will sone be at an end, both in writing and in Preachinge. And, not only concerning their ill Pur∣poses: (As, to bring either the Departed into hatred, by opening their faultes, Or them that at this Present line, into In∣famie, by charging them with the faultes of their Forefathers (but, concerning al∣so good and holsome Lawes, Decrees, Definitions, Orders of Gouernement, Customes, Ceremonies, which haue ben in these last nine hundred yeres, Wisely apointed, a••d Profitablie continued, If nothing, that is testified by the Writings and Practise of them, shall stand in any steede to make a Sentence or Argumēt: what Confusion, Contention, Destructi∣on, Blindnesse, Desperatnesse, will be caused in both States, Spirituall and Temporall, It is easy to be percea••ed.

What Church shall keepe her Priui∣leges? what Clergie continue in any Or∣der of Seruing God? what King or Em∣perour, maineteine the Crowne vpon his heade? what state of Common wealth in all Christendome maye be defended?

If, the Recordes, Wrytinges, Answers,

Decrees, Actes, Dispensations, Conclu∣sions, and Lawes of the last nine hun∣dred yeres, must be, all, either vtterly re∣fused, Or beter Examined before they be receiued?

For in these later yeres, Countries haue ben conuerted: Religion hath ben Planted: Heresies, by the Authoritie of Councels, haue ben condemned: The Empire, hath ben translated: Our owne Realme of England hath ben conquered, And, in all these so greate pointes, the Iudgmente and Sentence of the Pope hath alwaies ben regarded. And that, which at this day is holden for Truth, in A thousand cases both Spirituall and Temporall, dependeth in deede vpon the Decree and Order, which the Gouernors of the Church for that time, made for it and apointed, when the case was first mo∣ued, Or exhibited.

If therefore, no Authoritie or Testi∣monie of these later nine hundred yeres, must be admitted, let M. Iewel with all his owne wit, And Policy of his frendes byside, see how he can begin the World a freshe.

And, the foundation of six hundred yeres standing on sure grounde, let him pull downe all, that hath beene builded, and shew vs some fyne pe••ce of worke of his owne, suche I trowe as shall in all Pro∣portion agree w^t the Primitiue Churche and ryse in a moste goodly Ordre of eue∣ry H••ndred yeare since, one aboue an o∣ther, vntill he come vnto this very time, in whiche he liueth, and geue men to see moste plainly and euidently, that his Churche now, is of the same makinge, without any Imperfection, Or gaping of the worke that may be espied. Let him I say make an Uniforme and Apte worke.

For if he will beginne at the ende of the six Hundred yeares, and immediate∣ly, ioyne thereto, the state of His Con∣gregation at this Present: either it will be a Miraculous worke to see foundaci∣ons with me••ely high wals, and a Roufe a great waye from them, without any Stone, Timber, Staye or Workeman∣shippe betweene: Either will it be a ve∣ry E••ilfauoured matter, to see one peece hanging so farre from the other, as Ger∣mans

of Heretikes lippes doe hange to∣geather. If therefore your building be Sure and True, Ioine yeres to yeres, and without all gappes or holes, make the whole, Perfite, Close, and One.

But ye are as wel able to doe it, and knit or ioine your Church to the Primi∣tiue, as ye are to builde vp againe, Al the Abbeies in England, Or proue vnto vs that the Stones of them, which lie now broken in high waies, or were caried out of the waie, to building of Gentelmens places, doe answer rightly in the forme which they haue at this present, to the Foundations and Pillers, remainyng, yet, vnto some Religious houses, from whence they haue ben taken. Especial∣ly this Principle of your Artificio••snes standing, that the Testimonie of these last nine hundred yeres, is not to be Al∣leaged or Alowed.

Which being so Uniust and Unreaso∣nable, as I haue declared, Either, let M. Iewel vtterly put out of his Replye, what so euer he hath gathered and scra∣ped, out of Canons, Gloses, Scholemen,

Heretikes, Historiographers, and other Wryters whatsoeuer of later yeres, And from hensefurth, fill no more Papers with such kind of stuffe: Either els, let him be ashamed, to bind vs to the first six hundred only, himselfe not able to Conteine himselfe, Or Maintaine hys cause, within that cumpasse.

But, I know, I aske his losse. For, If he may not peeke out of all times such Signes of Defence for his cause, as ma•••• seeme to serue for it, he will be quickly vndone in the best Limme he hath, And, without all doubt will be ••ongtied. As, on the other side, If he will set vs haue right, and suffer vs to proue our cause by godly and Lerned witnesses, of what so euer Age they be, so that he can make no lawfull Exception against them, then is he vtterly vndone in his owne Con∣science: knowing that the Catholike Church, doth expressely and by name, condemne his Masters Heresies. So that it is not otherwise likely, but he will haue vs to stand fast bound to the first six hundred yeres, and will reserue

vnto himselfe, that special Priuilege, to Take and Make his vantage, Where, and When so euer he may.

1 That M. Iewel refuseth to ••e tried by the Sentence or Testimony of the first six hundred yeres, to which only he appealeth.

WHat Remedie then? If M. Iewel shall prouoke manful∣ly, and wretchedly apoint vs a boūd, which we may not go beyōd in cōming against him: If he may vse xv.C. yeres and odd, and we not vi. C. and one day ouer: If he shal fetch nede lesse vagaries, and we be restrained of our lawfull libertie: what Remaineth▪

Uerelye to haue pacience, vntill it shall please Almighty God either to conuer••e his heart to repentaunce, either to moue the minds of other, to hau•• a better con∣sideration of these Matters whiche per∣taine to their Saluation, either to come him selfe in Iudgemente, and make an ende of all Proceedings. Yet this in the meane time, thou maist consider (in∣different Reader) that we are two man∣ner of wayes abused, by M. Iewell.

First, that ye wil prescribe vnto vs from whence we shall take our Argumentes against him. Secondly, that himselfe will not be content with those Condici∣ons, whiche he prescribeth vnto vs.

But is this all the wrong that Mai∣ster Iewell doth vnto Us? No, it is n••t all. For now, I shall declare vn∣to thee, how Himselfe will not admitte the Witnesses of the very first six hundred yeares, vnto whiche he straightly byn∣deth vs. And what can bee more vn∣reasonable? For in seperating the last nine Hundred from the first six, and in a∣lowing the Firste, and condemning the Latter, what dothe he but note vnto vs

the I••corruption and Puritie of Faith in those daies, and not warrant the Te∣stimonies to be good, if it be taken out of the first six hundred yeres after Christ.

Of the first he saieth,* 1.120 If ani learned mā. &c be able to bring any one Sufficient Sen∣tence. &c. that the thinges vpon which he Chalengeth vs, were vsed or alowed in the Primitiue Churche, for the space of six hundred yeres after Christ, I am con∣tent to yeld and subscribe. Of the Later yeres he saieth.* 1.121 S. Bernard is a Doctour but of late yeres, therefore his Authoritie must weigh the Lighter.

If therefore there be no Excellencie or Prerogatiue in the first six hundred, why diuided he them, so Precisely and Dili∣gently from the later nine? And, If there be so Great, as he seemeth to make, why will not he himselfe stand vnto the Iudgment of that Primitiue Churche, And that first age so chast and vndefiled? Choose one of these two (M. Iewel,) which you will: And let vs see an Exam∣ple and token, either of your wisdome and Prudencie, in Separating, for some iust cause, the Beginninges of the One,

and whole Summe of xv.C. yeres, from the latter endes of it: either of your Iu∣stice and Indifferencie, in regarding the witnesses of the First six hundred yeres, which you require to be exactly folowed of others.

For as you say,* 1.122 Lyra and Teutonicus, liued at the least, Thirtene C. yeares after Christ: Therefore their Authoritie must needes seeme the lesse: Whye saye ye not also, S. Leo, and S. Gregorie, liued fiue hundred yeares after Christe, Therefore their Authoritie must nedes seme the lesse? Or why put you A Difference, betwene the Former and the later yeres of the xv. C. in which Christ hath ruled his church? And, if your wisedome saw good causes, wherefore you should sort y^• yeres which haue passed sence Christes Incarnation after a rare maner, & cul out (as it were) the best from the worst: with what Con∣science then and Equitie, can you refuse to be ordered by the Testimonie of the better sort of them?

For, if against the later nine hundred yeres which you take from vs, this Ex∣ception

of yours is inough to discredite them,* 1.123 that they were Late: It foloweth consequently, that to the first six hundred yeres, this alone is Commendacion i∣nough, that yourselfe make no Exception against them, but permit vs to take all the vantage we can out of them. As if you should haue expressely said vnto vs: for as much as I will admit no Late Catho∣like Doctour, Father, or Councel, but Ca∣tholike, Old and Aunciēt, And, for as much as I take the last nine hundred and odde yeres sens Christ, to be but late, and out of the cumpasse, which I will alow vnto you in reasoning against me: Therefore, if you looke, that I shall make no Exception a∣gainst the Authoritie and Witnesses which you will bringe, Prouide by time, that they be taken out of the vj.C. yeres, next after Christ.

This Trueth therefore so standyng, that, In refusing the witnesses of La∣ter yeres, you must be vnderstanded to alow vnto vs the Catholyke wryters of Auncient time, and this Auncient tyme, being defined vnto vs by you, y^• it

consisteth iust in y^• vj.C. next after Christ, so that if it be founde later but by one yere, you wil not take it to be old inough: Let vs see now, in what Maner and Fa∣shion, you conforme yourself to the iudg∣ment of that very Time, which you toke yourselfe vnto, So precisely, as if it should make altogeather for you.

Firste of all, you dooe not allowe, Clemens de Consti Apost. Neither Abdi∣as: * 1.124 nor Hypolitus Martyr. And Athana∣sius Epistle is to you a Scar crow stuft vp in straw, and Iulius Epistle seemeth to ••a∣uoure of some corruption: And at one worde,* 1.125 the Decrees and Epistles decretal depraue the Scriptures, Mainetaine the kingdome of the Pope, Publisshe a multi∣tude of Vaine Ceremonies, and I can not tell what. For how worshipfull and worthy causes, you make Exceptions a∣gainst them, you shall better vnderstand that by him, whiche alleaged them.

But concerning my Obiectiō, I haue more plaine and sensible Demonstrati∣ons, to declare, how you refuse Aunci∣ent Fathers, and witnesses, that I nede not to reason at all with you, about your

Ignominious and Iniurious Extenua∣tions of the forsaid Authorities. And, if by these Examples which I shall nowe bring, it be not made Open and manifest, that in deede you litle regard Antiquitie, then will nothing euer make it playne: And, if this which I shall declare, doe proue so much to the Indifferēt Reader, Inough is as Much, as he can require.

Here then, it would be remembred or considered, that, which D. Harding brin∣geth,* 1.126 out of the Ecclesiastical Historie, for A token and argument of Communion vnder one kind: The Storie is, of A noble woman and Heretike, which, being driuen thereto, by feare of leesing her husband, promised him to Receiue with him. And, at the time of the Misteries, hauyng the Sacrament deliuered into her handes, she Receiued it not, but toke of her Maied that stode by, A peece of Breade, that she had caused to be brought for the purpose, from her owne house. Which, as she would haue biten, it har∣dened in to a Stone. Hereof D. Harding gathereth, that.

If both kindes had then ben mi∣nistred, * 1.127 she would haue practised some other shift, for the auoiding of the Cup, which, had not ben so easie. what sayeth M. Iewel herevnto?

I maie not disgrace the credite of this Storie,* 1.128 albeit, in Sozomenus and Nicepho∣rus, of bothe whome, the same is recorded, there be sundrie thinges, that may well be Filed.

You signifie then,* 1.129 that you might doe more, than you will. And, were it not for A certaine quiet Affection, that is so∣dainly come ouer your mind, we see, that, because Sozonemus and Nicephorus haue sundrie thinges, that may wel be fi∣led, Undoubtedly, this Storye should be one of them, If it were, at this present your Pleasure. But, because you feare no Inconuenience, If you should graunt it, therfore you make no Exception against it. And yet, least by this letting of the Storie to passe so quietly, you shoulde seeme to geaue Occasion to some hereaf∣ter, of taking vantage against you there∣by

by: you geaue your Reader a watche worde, that you doe not alowe the Storye absolutely, but that you doe not Disgrace it, And that this selfesame not Disgracing of it, cummeth rather of your free will and Humanitie, than of any bounden Dutie. For, In Sozome∣nus and Nicephorus bothe, Sundrye thin∣ges (you saye) may well be Filed. But perchaunce ye neede not in this Storye, to shew how finely you can file it. For it foloweth.

But I see no cause yet,* 1.130 wherfore M. Har∣ding should blow the Triumph.

As who should saie:* 1.131 If there were a∣ny losse cumming vnto you, by this Sto∣rie, then loe, you would File it. But there is no Feare of any. And why so? For,

Why might she not take the Cup,* 1.132 and faine that she dranke: and yet, Drinke nothing.

Shee might haue done so in deede by the nature of Absolute Possibilitie,* 1.133 but we speake nowe, what is likely to haue been done, by the course of the Storie.

And whereas in bowing downe, af∣ter shee had taken the Sacramente into her handes, and making resemblaunce to Praye, shee might haue so handled the matter, that shee should haue seemed to haue put somwhat in her mouth. &c. And yet did not so, but prouided betweene her selfe and her maide, to bring Breade from her owne house and to eate that in steede of the Sacrament: And yet prac∣tised no shift to auoide the Cuppe, It is very Likelye and Probable, that there was no receauing of the Cuppe, at that Present: for which, because there is (as you wil not deny) a ••leight in a womans witte, she shoulde haue rather proui∣ded, as beinge more harde to bringe to passe.

For in deede, to put the Cuppe vnto her mouth, and faine that shee dranke, It was an Easy matter: And more easy it was, when shee bowed downe her selfe, (after the taking of y^• Sacrament into her hands), like one that would praie, to put her hand only vnto her mouth, And, ei∣ther faine that she Receiued, or conueigh the mater so closely, that it should not be

Perceaued: But, the Circumstance of the Storie geaneth it, that she coulde not escape so: (For then vndoubtedly she had ben a very Naturall, to trouble her Maied and her selfe, with care, to cou∣ueigh the household breade vnto her, and care to receiue it. &c.) Ergo, neither by putting the Cuppe only to her mouth, (if any then had ben vsed) she could haue satisfied her husband Or the common ex∣pectation of the lookers on, or her owne feare.

Now, whereas no Cuppe was at that present receiued, she was deliuered of the care, to find A shift to auoide it, And the Precise and Singular prouiding to re∣ceiue householde breade, vnder colour of the Sacrament, proueth, that she was not trobled with any Feare of receiuing the Cuppe, or care of auoiding it. And this Reason or Argument, is problablye gathered out of the Storie it selfe. But let vs heare M. Iewels Deuise and I∣magination.

Touching the Trueth of this whole ma∣ter,* 1.134 if a man list only to goe by Gheasse, as M. Harding doeth, why may he not thus

[ 1] Imagine with hymselfe: If this Woman would thus dissemble in a Case so daunge∣rous, what needed her to take the Bread at her Maides handes, And specially at that [ 2] Time, in that Place, And in the sight of the [ 3] whole people? Or, how could she so o∣penly Receiue it without Suspition? Or [ 4] why might she not haue brought it in A [ 5] napkin, secreetly aboute herself? The bur∣then [ 6] then was not greate: Her faining and hipo∣crisie had ben the easier.

Thus (sayeth M. Iewel) Why maye not A man Imagine with himselfe,* 1.135 if he list. But, wil ye know why not? I will tell you. No man ought to make such A Glose, as shall marre the Texte. Nor I∣magine that, whiche goeth Directlye againste the Literall Sense of an Hi∣storye? For, the Historye, the cre∣dite whereof you maie not disgrace,* 1.136 (you sayed before) maketh expresse mention, of breade taken at her Maides handes, And of the same receyued by the Mae∣stres in the open Church, And of her faining and Hypocrisy, how it was con∣founded. And this now, is done and past aboue A thousand yeres sens, And

how it was done it remaineth in wry∣ting. But you, neuerthelesse, come in with your Listing and Imagining. Not to find out that, by probable Conic••tures which lieth hid in the Storie, but by cleane Contrarie and froward Fancye, destroying the very Literall state and Description thereof.

And to this effect, as thoughe that the Sleight of a womans wit were litle worth, you adde of your owne inuention A fur∣ther fetch. Which, perchaunse, the wo∣man would haue folowed, if she had knowen it in tyme: but now, after all is done, to aske, what neede she had to take the Breade at her maides handes. Or to wonder, how she could so openly Receiue it without Suspition. Or to teache her, that she might haue brought it in a napkin Or to perswade with her, that the bur∣then was not greate, as thoughe the gen∣telwoman had bene so tender and fine, y^• she could not haue caried y^• weight of A Singing cake more then her Ordi∣narie, Or to Conclude with her, that her Faining woulde be the Easyer:

thus, I saie when all is past remedie, to feede your owne Fancie, or fill your Rea∣ders eares, with so long and so vaine A tale, It is to simple for any womans wit.

For Imagine you, as much as ye lift, that she neded not to take the bread at her maides handes: The Storie so plainely testifying, that she toke it, what must fo∣low? No other thing surely, but that the Storie is vnlikely.* 1.137 And so of euery other of the Circumstancies, which your man that hath A list to Imagine, gathereth of that which hymselfe thinketh meete to haue ben done, what other thing folow∣eth, but that the Storie, which reporteth the Coutrary to haue ben done, is very vnlikely and Incredible.

Such a Fauorer you be of Antiquitie, and promising at the beginning of your Answer, not to disgrace the credite of this Storie, you fall afterwarde, into such A path of your accustomed Rhetorike, that by A Figure of listing and Imagining, and by certaine howes and whyes, ye destroye A plaine fact and confessed. Who maye trust you in Obscure or Long maters,

which is an Euident and Short historie, doe so boldly argue against it? No won∣der if you perswade your Felowes or fo∣lowers, to Discredite Clemens, Abdias, Hippolitus, Martialis, Athanasius, and all the whole Boke of Degrees and Decre∣tals, which haue the Grace and Feate, to let an Historie stand for true: and yet so rightly to Gheasse at it, that, If the gesse be True, the historie must be False.

The Historie saith, the Gentelwoman toke the Breade at her maides hand: M. Iewels, or his Gheasse that (by hys graunt) lifteth, is, What neede she? how could she without Suspition? Why might she not haue brought it in a napkin. &c.

Now whether D. Hardinges Gheasse, (as M. Iewel termeth it,) concerning the Receauing in this place vnder one kind only, be as vnhable to stand wyth the historie, as the Imaginations which M. Iewel hath here rekened vp for grea∣ter, than the Sleight of a womans wit did atteine vnto, let the Indifferent Reader conferre and iudge. My proper intent and purpose was, to shew by this Ex∣ample, how M. Iewel, can speake, so fa∣uorablie,

of the Auncient Histories of the first vj.C. yeres, as though he would not Discredite them: And yet how in deede, he practiseth with suche Libertie or Li∣centiousnesse rather against them, as thoughe what him listeth to Imagine, might be better alowed and liked, than the fact it selfe, which the Historye wyt∣nesseth.

But let vs trie M. Iewels fidelity, in an other Example. What say you, to the Liturgie of S. Iames? I trust you will not make exception against it, that it was found very lately in the Ile of Can die, Or, sought out, and found, and set abroade of very late yeres, Or, that it is a very little boke of smal price lateli set abrode in print about vij. yeres past: (which are so greate maters in your Iudgment, that for these causes, you will repell an Authoritye,) I trust, that you haue no such thing, to laye against S. Iames Masse. For, by the te∣stimonye of an auncient Councel, we vn∣derstand, that S. Iames wrote a Litur∣gie or forme of a Masse. What saye you then vnto it? It may be doubted of, you say. And why so? For,

S. Iames Liturgie hathe a speciall praier

for them that liue in Monasteries. And yet it was very rathe to haue Monasteries built in al S. Iames time.

You meane, I thinke, y^• there were no suche Monasteries then built, as of late haue ben pulled downe in Englād, large & fair, & Cōmodious places for holy pur∣poses, w^t Church, Cloister, Capiter house Refectory, Dormitorie, Infirmatorie, bi∣sides Reuenues & lādes for euer, left ther by Deuout, Noble, and worthy Men & women, to that end, that God might be serued of men and women accordingly, & the religious hauing all things prouided vnto their hāds, might serue him quietli.

But, what thē? The forme & accidentes of an house, do not make a Monastery, no more then y^• maner of aparel doth make a Monke. And although, in the Apostles time, no suche peace or glory was in the church, y^• by great buildings or tēporal∣ties, it was known & estemed in y^• world: yet (without all doubt) the Ordres and Rules emong some Christians of that time so rathe (as you call it) were so re∣ligious and well appointed, that S. Iames might well praye for suche as li∣ued

in a singular manner and fasshion of a Monasticall and Spirituall life.

I will not trouble you with many witnesses in a mater so plaine and eui∣dent.* 1.138 I referre you to Eusebius, and He wil direct you to Philo Iudeus, which liued in the time of the Apostles, and wrote suche things, as himselfe knewe to be p••actized of Christians, before the name of Christians was well knowen abroade.

First, he testifieth of them, that they renounced all their goods, that they went out of the Citie, and liued together, lyke with lyke, in their small grounds and gar∣dens abroade.

He declareth also, that they had cer∣taine speciall houses appointed for Prayer, which they called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

He testifieth of their Excercisies, that from Morning to Night, they were occu∣pied in the studieng vpon Scriptures.

He telleth, howe they leied Chastitie, and Continencie, as it were a Foundacion in their Heartes, and that the Women aud Virgins liued by them selues and the men by them selues.

He sheweth, that none of them did eate

or Drinke, before Sunne set, and that they neither did eate Fleshe nor drinke Wine.

He Testifieth of their Watchinges all night long, and fastinges togeather with it, at some times especially, as at Ester. And, of their order in Singing of Psalmes.

To conclude. He sheweth how the prie∣stes and Ministers did then their Duties, and how the Bishopes See was aboue All.

This doth Philo testifie, as done, at the very beginning, vnder the Apostles, in whose time himselfe also liued. And how far is this of, from a Monasticall life? Yet, saieth M. Iewel.

It was verye rathe, to haue Monasteries built in al S. Iames time.

But was it very rathe, to haue Men and women liue in A Monasticall kind of life by Sequestring themselues from resort, and haunt of Townes, by wil∣full Pouertie, Obedience, Chastitie, and Spirituall exercisies of Fasting, wat∣ching, and Praying? You here what Phi∣lo testifieth, and howe can you then for shame either denie it, or doubt of it?

If therefore there were that so lyued, they liued in some Places I trowe. In

Caues vnder the ground, or vnder trees, or vnder Rockes at the least, if you will alowe them no better rome. And yet, of their speciall place of Praier, where they met together, Philo maketh an ex∣presse mention, calling them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 monasteries. And who, but wilful & wild Aduersaries, will thinke, that they liued here and there, out of order, in the open Fieldes and Aire, without any defence or couer, against wind and weather, Or a∣ny distinction and closenesse of dwelling, which both, are so much desired, and are so necessary, for the religious in deede?

Now, if they had places to pray, to cōfer to Eat, to Slepe, & to do other things in▪ which our Infirmity requireth to be oc∣cupied or susteined by, what let is there, but y^• S. Iames might pray for them that liued in Monasteries? Or, what Repug∣nance or Impossibility is there in y^• ma∣ter, that, because such Monasticall houses were not then builded, as are now extāt, therefore the Monastical and Religious persons which then were extant to the praise of Christianitye, and Glory of our Sauiour, might not be commended vnto

God in S. Iames Praier?

But cōsider in this place, how M. Ie∣wel carieth the Readers mind away, frō the mater: And turneth it, frō the persons to the places: from the edifying of soules, to building of houses: from setting of mē in an order of perfite life together, to ioy∣ning of Stones and framing of Timber: from that which no man will deny, (As, that in the Primitiue Church, there were found, which for the loue of God conte••••∣ning the world, did liue solitarily and or∣derly & cōtemplatiuely) to that which no man will say (As, that monasteries were built in the Apostles time) vnderstāding by Monasteries, such places as cōmonly now in this Age, goe vnder that name.

But what should he win by it, so to chainge frō the persons to y^• places? mary thus much at the least: that, wheras euery man, without further Examining of the mater, wil reasonably gather, that the po∣uerty and Paucitye, of the Christians in the Primitiue Church, could not well stretch to the Building of any such rich & great houses for the seruice of god, as are now called, by the name of Monasteries:

it should therfore be suspected, that there could be no Monkes at al in those daies. For although wise and Lerned men, may easely consider it, that the thing it selfe must go before the name, and the Monke before the Monastery, and the Substance before the Accidentes, yet, through the Desperatenesse of Heretikes, which care not what they speake or faine against the Catholike Faithe, the Simple or Com∣mon sort is made to beleue, that the Pa∣pistes doe put so greate A Religion and Excellencie in externall thinges, that it must folow, there were no Monkes in the Apostles time, if it be graunted there were no Monasteries. And Monaste∣tries, they can not conceiue, what they were, or will not beleue that any were, except we should proue, that they were of like making with these which they re∣member, to haue stoode very faire once, in England, or yet to stand and remaine beyond the Seas.

It was therefore nothing els, but A very Craftinesse of M. Iewels, to argue against the Religious, for whome Saint Iames praieth, because there was no

building of Monasteries, in S. Iames time. Or, if it was not Craftines, it was plaine vnsensiblenes.

For what can he answer? S. Iames Li∣turgie (sayeth he) hath an expresse praier for them that liue in Monasteries. Be it so. But what call you them in one worde? for A name, I am sure they haue. Surely what so euer name you geaue them, your Argument must be this: there were no Monasteries built in S. Iames time, Ergo, there were no 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: that is to saie, there were no Religious men, so rathe in the world, neither liuing alone in solitarines, neither in felowship with al thinges Common emong thē. &c. As though S. Ihon the Baptist, or be∣fore him, Helizeus, and Helias, could not in their life time be Commended vnto God, in a Speciall Prayer for Monkes, Heremites, or Religious persons, be∣cause it was very rathe to haue Monaste∣ries or Religious houses built, so long before the Gospel of Christ.

Not to espie therefore, the rudenes of this Argument, it was very grosse and vnsensible, and vnlike, perchaunse, to be

found in M. Iewel: But, to remoue the Intention of the Reader, from the Per∣sons to their houses: and to draw the que¦stion vnto this Common place, not, whe∣ther Monkes or Religious Persons were extant in the Apostles time▪ But, whether Monasteries were built so rath, (In which question, taking the word Monasterie Grammatically, he should be easely con∣futed, but taking it Commonly, as it is now vsed of the people, he might proba∣bly mainteine his Assertion, and also, vnder the Ambiguitie of the worde, goe from one Sense to an other, and make A shew of a good cause and plentifull, be∣cause in some sense his wordes be true.) This in deede procedeth of M. Iewels wit. Of whom that thou maist the better Beware, Remember how he seemeth to alowe and esteeme the Testimonies of the first six hundred yeres, and Consider vpon how light and vaine Occasions, he taketh Authority away, from the Litur∣gie of S. Iames the Apostle.

Of the like Reuerence to Antiquitye, and wisedome in making of Arguments, that also cummeth, which you gather, a∣gainst

S. Chrisostomes Masse: saying.

Chrisostomes Liturgie praieth for pope Nicolas▪ &c.* 1.139 And likewise in the same Li∣turgie,* 1.140 there is A Praier for the Empire, and victorie of the Emperour Alexius. &c. Now it were very much, for M. Harding to sai, Chrisostome praied for mē by name, seuen hundred yeares before they were borne. I trow that were prophesiyng, and not Praying.

Your troweing is Reasonable:* 1.141 And if S. Chrisostome should be affirmed vnto me, to haue praied for A Pope and an Emperour, borne fiue or six hundred yeres after him, I could not but suspct the mater.* 1.142 But will you examine and consider it no better? Or will you geaue sentence against a Boke, before you haue seen the Copy of it?

Why, you will Answer me, that you read in the printed Liturgies which are now extant, and attributed to S. Chriso∣stome, the names of Nicolas & Alexius. Yea but where read you, that S. Chriso∣stome vsed those Names, when he came to his Memento in his Masse? Why say you, did not he speake euery worde,

as it is now expressed vnto vs in Print, that he did speake: No forsothe, concer∣ning the names. For, in setting out the forme of A Masse, the most of the thinges that should be folowed, he might so ap∣point, that they should neuer neede to be chainged.* 1.143 As, the maner, of cumming to the aultare, Of standing & tarying there, Of Bringing thither y^• bread that should be consecrated, Of putting wine and wa∣ter togeather, Of Praying alowde, Of Praying Secretly, Of Drawing the cur∣taines, Of shewing the Sacrament, Of receauing the Sacrament and so furth: the maner (I say) of these thinges, might so be Inuented or Deliuered at the first, that they might (if it pleased the Posteri∣tie) wel continue for euer after.

But, whereas in certaine places of his Liturgie, he would haue special mention made of the holy Sainctes in heauen, or some singular Persons on earth: could he put presentli al their names in, whom he would haue to be remembred in those places? In deede, that required A gift of Prophesying, which in this place nee∣ded not. For, in all Formes and Pa∣ternes

not only of Publike Seruice, but also of Common and temporall matters, (as, the Stiles of Princes, the Tenours of Indentures and Obligations, The maner of Inditements. &c.) the rest of the wordes are expressed, as they shall continue, only, when the place commeth, where the Persons name must be speci∣fied, to whom the cause perteineth, there is no certaine name Defined, but A great N. set, to keepe the roome, and to signi∣fy, that when you put that forme of write in Practise, you shall place the partyes Name, where that letter standeth.

So was it in S. Chrisostomes Litur∣gie. The Forme wherof being wel liked, and therefore copied out that it mighte goe abrode and continue, was not chain∣ged in any point, concerning the maner of Celebrating and Praying, which pre∣sently then might be defined. But, where as he maketh, in Distinct places of hys Masse, speciall mention of the Sainte, whose feast shall happen to be celebrated that daie, and of the Patriarche and Em∣perour, which should be aliue when hys Masse would be saied, he could not pre∣sently

put in their Names.

What remained then but that he shuld put in such a phrase (as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) by which it should be declared, y^• what so euer Sainct, Patriarch or Emperour he were, there his name shuld be rehersed where y^• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ was found to stand.

Yet, this notwithstanding who can let, but he that would, might in copying out the Liturgie, apply it to his owne time, & name the Emperour then liuing. But when y^• Emperor shal afterward depart, his name must be scraped out, to geaue place to an other, except priestes shuld al¦waies do so much w^tout boke, as to pray for the Emperor y^• liueth, though y^• name of the dead Emperor cōtinue in y^• Masse boke. Of the name therfore, of either Pa∣triarche or Emperour, which is specified in some Liturgie, no Argument can be made y^• the forme therof was not extant, before the Persons therin expressed were borne, but only, that when they liued and Ruled in those quarters, they were prai∣ed for in the Publike Masse.

But of this mater, how some Copies haue the name of Nycolas vniuersall Patri∣••••ch▪ 〈…〉〈…〉 ••lexius: And,

the Greeke Liturgies printed at Uenys and Parys, haue no expresse mention of any, though speciall Praier be made in them, both for the Patriarch and Empe∣rour: Also, by what occasion Nycolas and Alexius names, came in: Againe, how the Nycolas, whom you speake of, was not y^• Pope of Rome, which liued 200. yeres before Alexius, but the Patriarch of Con∣stantinople which liued at one time with him: And in conclusion how euidentlye it may be perceiued, that this Liturgie, which is said to be Chrysostomes, was in very deede, that blessed Doctours ma∣king, of all this, Master Pointz in his Testimonies for the Real Presence,* 1.144 hath spoken truly & aboūdantly. There may he, y^• will see, find how absurdly and Ignorantly M. Iewel hath argued. For me it is inough to declare, that he make light of the Authors within y^• first vj.C yeres. And, y^• he hath no other shift, but to deny thē. And, y^• his reasō, vpon which he groūdeth his opiniō in refusing some of thē, is so feble & vain, y^•, as it cōfirmeth his purpose nothing at al, so it declareth, y^• he hath a very light head of his owne,

and a very Presumptuous mind, which vpon small Occasion, yea rather against all Occasion, was so ready to take autho∣ritie away from that Liturgie, which, both the Greeke Church vseth, And the Latin aloweth, for Chrisostomes owne.

But tho•• seest not yet (I••different Reader) the worst of M. Iewel, As in some examples more I will make plaine vnto thee, and so end this Chapiter. Of Dionisius Ariopagita, in whom expresse and reuerend Signes or Examples of the Catholike Religion or Popishe, is to be seen, thus he saieth.

Dionisius althoughe he be an Auncient writer,* 1.145 as it maie many waies well appeare, yet, it is iudged by Erasmus, Iohn Colet, and other many graue and Learned men, that it can not be Ariopagita S. Paules Dis∣ciple that is mentioned in the Actes.

I will Answer you with your owne wise Reason,* 1.146 which you make Agaynst S. Bernard,* 1.147 Lyra, Teutonicus, and Bessarion: and in your Termes I saye vnto you: Erasmus and Iohn Colet liued at the least, xv.C. yeres after Christ, wher∣fore

their Authoritie muste needes seeme the lesse.

Here, If you like your owne Reason, you be Answered: If you mislike it, I am glad that you are wiser, than you were wont to be.

Yet, I doe not refuse Erasmus, or D. Cole••s iudgment, because, they were of late yeres, but I preferre the Grauitie, Learning, and Number of their betters, and their elders. Those I meane, which liued and florished A thousand yere toge∣ther, before Erasmus was borne, and of whome, you can find no one, which hath denied the Dionisius of whom we speake to be S. Paules scholer:* 1.148 And I can name some vnto you which haue not only be∣leued it,* 1.149 but for reuerence and worthines of him,* 1.150 haue geuen light to his bokes by their Commentaries.

But consider you (M. Iewel) in this place, whether it be not most true in you, that you seeke alwaies, how to Destroye or Diminishe all thinges, as much as ye can? For, if there be no false Doctrine in these ••okes, nor any thing contrarye to

good maners,* 1.151 what should it hurt you or your cause, to haue men beleue, that they be the workes of that Dyonisius, which was S. Paules scholar? And because you shall see my meaning in an other Exam∣ple, as also haue it noted vnto you, that Erasmus, whom, in disgracing of S. De∣nyse, you bring in, as A graue and lerned man, is better interteined of you than he deserueth, I say:

Before Erasm••s (more bold,* 1.152 surely, than wise in that poynt) before he began to play the Censor, and by once reading of A Boke ouer, to gather A priuate coū∣cel within his owne heade, and geaue A Definitiue sentence, against auncient fa∣thers workes, or els for them, before (I say) he toke so much vpon him, and exe∣quuted it not alwaies discreetly, the boke ad Quirinum,* 1.153 was embraced as S. Cypri∣ans. Erasmus yet putteth the mater in question, and after great argumēts made Pro et Con, w^tin himself, his finall answer is, that, probabilius videtur non esse Cy∣priani, it seemeth more probable that it is not S. Cyprians.

Wel M. Doctor and Censor, S. Hie∣rome

is witnesse that it is, and vseth A Chapiter thereof as an Authoritye of S. Cyprians,* 1.154 wherefore you may perceaue, that either you haue not seen al thinges, either haue not remembred them, Or els that your iudgment is not all of the best.

But let this passe, that S. Hierome is directly against you, was there any thing in the Boke ad Quirinum, hurtful either to Faith or good Maners? No verely, you find no such fault in the boke. Why Disputed you then, whether it were S. Cyprians or no? And, if for your exer∣cise sake, you would needes moue the doubt, you should better haue inuented an Answer against the Obiection which did hinder the Estimation of it, than by needlesse making of it, minister any Oc∣casion vnto your Reader to set lesse by such a worke, as by much crediting of which, he could take no harme.

For suppose it so, that being not S. Cyprians in deede, I so loue and Reade the boke, as if it were his: what daunger hereby is cumming vnto me: the Boke being Sound and good, whyche I doe Reade?

But now on the other side, the Boke be∣ing tried to be S. Cypriās, or if it should not be so tried, yet, in trueth▪ being hys: yourselfe first, doe hurt your owne Fame and Estimation, in geauing so rashe A sentence, And you cause me to haue le••sse mind vnto a good boke, and to Suspect that, which should not be distrusted. So that in letting the titles of Bokes alone, as we found them, though they shoulde (by putting the case so) bear false names, there is no Iniury done or taken, if the booke be alowable: but in Changing or Disgracing them, when it needeth not, (for any harme which is to be feared in Reading of the boke,) it lacketh not a peece of vaine Glorie, Or of angry Foly.

As in our case now (M. Iewel) of the Boke de Ecelesiastica Hierarchia, you tell vs that it is Iudged (of such men, as neyther you nor we, make greate accompt vpon) that it can not be the boke of Ariopagita, S. Paules disciple, that is mentioned in the Actes. But to what end tell you me so? Is the boke to be Credited or no, tell me that? Is there any Heresy in it? Is there any Irreligion? Is there any Folie?

Is there any thing that you can con∣temne? Or forbid to be readen? I can not so thinke of you, whereas yourselfe con∣fesse it, that the Author of the forsaid boke was,* 1.155 An Auncient writer, as it may, many waies well appeare.

To what purpose then is it that you ••each vs, that he can not be Ariopagita S. Paules disciple. For, If he be an Aunci∣ent and ••••rthy writer, though he should not be so old, as an Apostles Scholer, what is tha•• to vs, which seke after aun∣cie••tnes in writers, such as may suppres with graue countenaunce, the lusty and high lokes of youthful Scriblers, and not such, as must be so old, that there may not wel be A Superior? And if, by your owne confession, the Author be Aunc••ēt, though his name be not Dionisius Ario∣pagita, what is that to the dispro••e of the mater which we defend by him?

Did you thinke (M. Iewel) by wry∣ring your mind in this fashion, not to hinder, in any respect, the credite of the forsaide boke, but only to shew a point of your knowledge, And how that you wer not Ignorant, what Erasmus, Iohn Colet

and others (I cā not tel, who) thought in this mater?* 1.156 Uanitie (M. Iewel) vanitie: to make your own Fame the end of your doinges, w^tout any profit to your reader.

But, said you so much as you haue don, that the boke might be disgraced, & that some Scruple might be cast in the Rea∣ders way, to trouble him only, y^• he shuld not quietly assent,* 1.157 vnto y^• contents ther∣of? And how can you thē excuse yourself, of blind Foly and Contentiousnesse?

For, whereas S. Denyse the Ariopa∣gite, is not he alone, that must be credi∣ted, but euery Auncient writer (whome you doe alowe for auncient) may well stād for a witnesse: what wiseman would euer enterprise, to diminish the Estima∣tion of A Substantiall witnesse, by ca∣sting in against him (of his owne or o∣ther mennes Suspition,) that in some Corners he hath an other name, than ge∣nerally he is taken by? And, whereas it helpeth your cause nothing at all, though Dyonisius Ariopagita were not Au∣thor of the boke de Eccles. Hierarch: so y^• you deny him not to be an Auncient and cre∣dible wi••nesse, who but Unquiet and

Contentio••s, would labour to make A question about it?

Surely (M. Iewel) if you were not more desirous, of marring than making, and of contrarying your aduersary, than agreeing with Reason: you should all∣waies folowe, the more Peaceable and Harmelesse Opinion. And whereas you might know, that for One Erasmus and Iohn Colet, there haue ben in these laste thousand yeres, a thousand Lerned men, which haue taken S. Denyse the Ariopa∣gite, for the Author of the foresaid Boke, what Quiet and Good nature would in∣cline to the worse of the two, and thynk, that more probable, which tendeth to the Disgracing (so much as it is) of a Diuine & Excellent peece of worke? But (if there be no Remedy) kepe yourself in your Trade of mistrusting, Denying, & Spoi∣ling the Monumentes of the Catholike and True Religion, and let me holde my peace, and permit vnto you, that the Au∣thor (of whom we speake) was not Dio∣••ysius Ariopagita▪ What was he then?

An Auncient writer,* 1.158 as it may, many waies, wel appee••e.

We Require you then, to stand to his Testimony. For no doubt, he is within the first six hundred yeres, whome you vouchesa••e to call Auncient And what so euer his Name be,* 1.159 so that he be A writer whom you admit, al is One to vs, which seeke only, to declare A Trueth, and not to Prolong A Talke. After which sort, if you also be disposed, let vs not striue vpon it, whether he be Ariopagita, or no, but spend the time better, in considering what he telleth of the Churches Orders in his daies. And then, comparing it with the Popishe Religion, and the Pro∣testantes Reformation, let vs see, which of the two, is more like vnto it.

First you shall finde in his Ecclesiasticae Hierarchia, that, the Apostles deliuered heauen∣ly thinges vnder sensibles signes. &c. partly by by vvrite••,* 1.160 partly vnvvriten Institutions and Tra∣ditions. And this is directly against them, to whome there are no Uerities but vn∣writen. After this.

In the ministration of the Sacrament of Baptisme, you finde plaine mention made, Of Hymnes: Of Kissing the holy Table▪ Of God Father:* 1.161 Of turning the partie vvhich is

to be Baptized, tovvardes the Vveast: Of bid∣ding him to Blovve and Puffe out the Diuell thre times, And thrise to pronounce solemne vvordes, of Abrenuntiation and Defiance against him:* 1.162 Of Turning him againe tovvardes the East: Of Bles∣sing him, and pu••ting of handes vpon him: Of Stripping him:* 1.163 Of making the Signe of the Crosse vpon him three times,* 1.164 before he be Anointed ouer the vvhole Body: Of Sanctifiing the vvater, vvith thrise pouring in, of Oyle thereto, in forme of A Crosse: Of Dipping him thrise in to the vvater, vvith naming of the three Persons in Trinitie: Of putting a nevv Cote vpon him,* 1.165 Of Anoi••ting him againe:* 1.166 Of Pronouncing him ready for the Sa∣crament of the Aultare.

These Ceremonies and holy Signes, in which the Apostles couered the Se∣crete Misteries, (which were not to be told all men,) how vnreuerently you e∣steeme of, Your ••rinning, and Railing at them, and Abrogating or Abbrigging of them, doth proue abundantly. But let vs goe further.

Concerning the reuerent administra∣tion, of the Communion, you shall find expressely declared. Hovv the Bishop begin∣ning at the Aultare,* 1.167 goeth censing about the holy

Place. Hovv, after his returne thither made, he beginneth to sing psalmes:* 1.168 Then, hovv the Lesso•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be reade in order.* 1.169 Hovv the Cathecumini (which were Nouices yet in the Faith & Lerners of it) And Energumini (which were possessed and trobled with euil spi∣rites) And Poen••••entes,* 1.170 (which had not ful∣ly done their 〈◊〉〈◊〉) vvere, all, pu•• out of the Church: hovv the Ministers are diuided in their Off••cies,* 1.171 Some standing at the Dores,* 1.172 some bringing furth Breade and vvine,* 1.173 some doing o∣ther thinges: hovv they Praise God: hovv they they Sal••te one an Other: Hovv the Byshop vvasheth his handes, and standeth at the middest of the Aultare: hovv the Priestes vvashe their handes, and stand aboute hym, vvith the Select Ministers only. Hovv the Bishope, ea quae di∣uinissima sunt,* 1.174 rite persicit, doth vvorke and per∣fite dul••e,* 1.175 those thinges that are most Diuyne:* 1.176 hovv he shevveth the Giftes Diuinely vvrought: Hovv he receiueth himselfe, and inuiteth other thereto. Hovv he endeth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Thankes gea∣uing.

Now, with how Reuerent behauiour of body, with how conuenient Gestures, with how solemne wordes, Signes and

Cerimonies, with how singular Prepa∣ration, Attention, Deuotion, Adorati∣on, all those things were done, it is easy to gather, of these fewe pointes whiche are noted heere vnto vs, whiche coulde not bee so quickelye done, as theye are shortly spoken, and of whiche, as short∣ly as they be spoken, the Author maketh Diuine and high Misteries.

For Incensing,* 1.177 Singing, Shutting of dores, wasshing of handes, stan∣ding alone, perfiting of the Giftes, (which are y^• bread and wine proponed) Shewinge of the Sacrament, Recea∣uing, And Thankes geauing, These things are sone told, but if a man hadde beene Present, to see, with what Countenaunce, Gate, Action, Circum∣staunce, Order and Reuerence, euery one of them was exequuted, I doubt not but it woulde haue seemed vnto him, a more Popishe and Superstitious Ser∣uice (as the Heretikes nowe call it,) than that which is now done euery Sō∣daie, at S. Michels in Antwerpe. To

whiche Churche, I referre my selfe, be∣cause the Deacon and Subdeacon, dooe Ordinarily, there, Cōmunicate on suche Dayes with the Priest, so that M. Ie∣wels olde shift, shall not serue, in ma∣king his Reader beleue, that our Masse is such A thing as is Distincted from A Communion. And true it is in deede, Of an Englishe Communion, but not of A Catholike and Christian Communion.

But here is not all, that is to be mar∣ked, out of the forsaid Author. For, he de∣clareth also how Oyle vvas halovved▪* 1.178 Fi••st the vnvvorthy vvere put out. Then ••olovved incensing, Singing, Reading of Lessons, putting of the Oyle vpon the Aultare couered before, vvith xij. vvhin∣ges: Praying ouer it, and halovving it vvith ho∣ly Ceremonies,* 1.179 and keeping of it, to serue in all Bishoply Office.

He declareth further, hovv Bishops, hovv Priestes, hovv Ministers are Consecrated, Some kneeling on both knees,* 1.180 some vpon one, some by Imposition of handes, other vvith the Bible allso holden ouer their heade. But, all, haue the Signe of the Crosse made vpon them.

He declareth also howe Monkes are Cons••crated,* 1.181 They stand only behind the Priest,

vvhich hauing ended his mis••icall Praier for them asketh vvhether they Renounce all Secular and distracted kind of Life,* 1.182 Then, doth he make the Signe of the Crosse vpon them,* 1.183 and sheare them, in the name of the Trinitie, And putting them out of their former Apparell,* 1.184 he doth other on them,* 1.185 Saluteth them, and Ministreth the Sa∣crament vnto them.

He declareth, last of all, the maner of Burying.* 1.186 If he that is departed vvere A Priest, he is laied before the Aultare, If he be of the Laietie, or A Monke, he is laied before the holy Place vvhere the Priestes goe in. But who so euer he be: Solemne Praiers and Thankes, are made and geauen vnto God. Promises of the Resurrection are rehersed, Psalmes are Songe, Cathecumeni are put out of the Churche,* 1.187 The Good men departed are praised and blessed, The Liuing and present are exhorted to praye for a good end. And then Cummeth the Bishope to the departed: Praieth for him: Saluteth him, and after him,* 1.188 all that be present: Poureth Oyle vpon him: And Laieth his body in an honorable place, vvith others of the same Order.

Thus haue I, sumwhat largely, ga∣thered out of the forsaied Author, these

Particulars: that, by the more open sight of these maters, it might the better be considered,* 1.189 which of the two, the Church or the Congregation, the Papistes or the Protestantes, the Old men or the New, are liker in their doinges, to the Primitiue Church. And here now let vs ioyne with M. Iewel.

Sir, Alow you these doinges of the Primitiue Church, or do ye not? If you doe: why are they not extant then, in your Congregation? Or, if yourselfe will be more Spirituall and Deiforme, than to vse External & Sensible meanes, to conduct you vnto that, which is One, Single, Pure, and Inuisible: why haue you not suffered others, which haue not the lyke Eleuation and Abstraction of mind, to vse these visible and holy signes, of Incensing,* 1.190 washing, Crossing, A∣noynting, Consecrating, Shearing, and other which I haue mentioned?

If you doe not: how looke you like one, that would follow Autentike and Graue Examples, testified by Auncient and sad writers? And, wherefore doe you make the world beleue, that you,

good men, would haue all thinges re∣formed, according vnto the Paterne of the Primitiue Church, whose Proce∣dinges are found to be so contrarie, vn∣to the Ecclesiastical Orders of that time?

Be plaine (M. Iewel) in that which you intend, and Quod ••acis sac citius.

If you esteme Antiquitie, let neither Baptisme lacke Abrenuntiation. &c: nei∣ther Confirmation, Oil••: neither the Sa∣crament of the Aultare, singular demon∣stration of it, & Reuerence: neither Prie∣stes their due Consecration: Nor the Li∣uing, Occasions to bring them by out∣ward Signes to Deuotion: nor the dead, Praiers: And that Sign, which hath ben vsed in all holy Functions, and which, of old, they made in the Foreheade, to testify that they were not ashamed of Christ, the signe I meane of his CROSSE, which is not only new A Foly to Panimes, or Offence to Iewes, but an Ignomynie to the Gospell, and Apishnes in the Ca∣tholikes, as some worse than Iewes or Painimes doe Blaspheme, thys Signe of the Crosse (Mayster Iew∣el) restore againe vnto the Churches,

and suffer not them to be in Honours, which thinke it a shame to haue a Token of our Redemption, before their Eyes: If you esteeme Antiquitie.

And if ye regarde it not, why make ye vs beleeue, that you woulde be ruled by yt? Or why feede you the common sort with sweete hope of hauing a Sincere and Pure Religion restored vnto them, according to the Exaumple and Orders of the Auncient and holy Church, wher∣as you haue, either blindely abandoned them, before you knew them, either des∣perately doe contemne them, after ye be aduertised of them.

O, say you, He, that wrot those bokes De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, was not S. Denyse the Ariopagite. As who should say, that if it were he, you woulde in no wise contrary him. But how shall I beleeue you? Whereas you pretende, that you will be content with the Aunci∣edt Fathers testimonies, and yet cry out against that forme of Administringe the Sacraments, whiche euery man seeth to haue been vsed in the Catholike aunci∣ent worlde, by reporte of this writer.

whome your selfe confesse to be Auncie••t and that it may so appeere many wayes.

And nowe, after it is euidente, th••t whosoeuer he be, he maketh against you would you Chaunge you Opinion (M. Iewell) and Repente your selfe of all former Lightnes, If in in deede a more Learned and Graue man, than Eras∣mus, Iohn Collet, or any other that you can tell of, shoulde testifie, that it is S. Denyse the Apariopagitas worke? Ue∣rely S. Gregorie the Greate,* 1.191 maketh me••tion Dionysius Ariopagita, which is vnto him, Antiquus & Venerabilis, Pa∣ter an Auncient and venerable father, whō he saith, by reporte of other, to haue wri∣ten of the nyne Orders of Aungels. Of whiche bookes this that wee speake of, De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia, is the fellow: Origene also maketh an expresse menti∣on of him,* 1.192 alleaginge a text out of these Bookes whiche you mistrust.

But woulde this make you Chaunge you Opinion? No: you woulde haue xx. questions vnto me, and escape from me by xx. waies, rather than I should holde you so fast, by this Argument out

of S. Gregorie or Origine, that you should not but confesse vnto vs, that you are deceaued in your Iudgment, concer∣ning this Boke de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia. And, if to proue me to be suspi••ious, you would, in deede, incline to that side, that not only some Auncient Father, but A∣riopagita himselfe, were Author of this boke: Reform then yourself, and stop the mouthes of the Railing and Ignorant, vnto whōe, Crossing, Incensing, Anoin∣ting, & Signifying of Spiritual thinges by Corporall and Externall Formes and Imagies, seemeth to be, altogeather Pa∣pistrie.

Yet it is no mater to me, in this obiec∣ting against you, what the name of that Author was. You cōfesse him to be aun∣cient: * 1.193 I infer them, that he is worthy of credite. You wil not be ruled by his Te∣stimonie, I gather then, that you Regard not the Auncient. And that I proue by an other Example. The Supremacie of the Bishop of Rome, of how greate force and strength it is, the Catholikes & Heretikes bothe, doe see. And as we doe proue it by true Experience, that nothing

is more needfull to be perswaded vnto such as loue to haue a sure Staye in all maters of Controuersies: so, our aduer∣saries doe set against nothing so Ernest∣ly and Outragiously, as the Prerogatiue of that See. Here vpon starteth a Cha∣lenger vp: Shew me (sayeth he) that the Pope was euer Called Heade of the Church. The Catholike Answereth, He was, in deede, Head of the Church, as ap∣peereth many waies, though he were not called in his Ordinarie Stile of writyng, Head thereof.

Nay,* 1.194 sayeth the Challenger, shewe me the name it selfe, That, is the very thing that we deny. But ye can not.

Sir,* 1.195 how oft must I bring furth y^• name?

Mary,* 1.196 If any learned mā of our aduersa∣ries, or if all the learned men that be aliue, be hable to bring any one sufficient sētence &c. I am content to yelde and subscribe. And again. As I saied at the beginning, one good sentence were proufe sufficient.

Uery wel Sir:* 1.197 One you shall haue, if that can perswade you to Subscribe.

Eugenius Bishop of Carthage answered to Obadus, requiring A Councell to be kept

in Aphrica, wherein, The Arrians might dispute with the Catholikes, concerning Religion and Faith: that, he would write to his brethern, that his felow Bishops might come. Et precipue, Ecclesia Romana que Caput est omnium Ecclesiarum, and the Church of Rome especially, vvhich is the head of all Churches.

Here now, of this Story and Text, I gather, that the Bishop of Rome, is HEAD of all Bishops, & so much ought the Aduersarye to graunt vnto me, if he loued not, by force of consequence, to be driuen vnto the confession of Truth, but, of his owne accord, to yeld vnto reason. For, when Eugenius the Bishop answe∣red, that he would write, that the Church of Rome (most chiefly,) should come to y^• Coūcel, what meant he thereby? Dyd he meane that any message should be sent, to the marble Pillars, Foundations, Row∣••es, walles of Stone, or any such vnsen∣sible thing, perteining to the Materiall Church of Rome? Truly, then, for hys wit, who so euer should thinke so, might be President of that Councell, where Postes and Pillers should meete togea∣ther,

and heare the cause of our Religion debated.

But did he meane by the Church of Rome al the Christians of Rome? Who then should keepe the Citie whiles they were from home? Or how was al Car∣thage, able to receiue them? Or what hath the Laitie to do in Councels? Yf then, neither the walles &c. of Rome, neither al the Christen people of it, be rightly vnderstanded by the Churche of Rome, which B. Eugenius would haue to come to the Coūcel at Carthage, what other thing may be meant thereby?

You wil say, perhaps, the Clergie thereof. Whether al, or some? Yf al, do you thinke Eugenius to be so simple as to require, that al Priestes, Deaco••s, Subdeacōs, Lectours, Exorcistes, Sex∣tines, Clerkes, belringers, and Quie∣resters, might come to the Councel?

Yf some: what should they be? Exem∣pted from the Iurisdictiō and Gouerne∣ment of the Pope, Or subiect vnto him? Yf Exempted: who should they be in al Rome, with whom the B. of Rome, should haue nothing to do? If subiect:

how could they come without his leaue and licence? Or how should not he that sendeth them, be much more higher and worthier, then those which must aske leaue to goe?

What so euer you Answere, If the Church of Rome be heade of al Churches, be∣cause of some parte of the Clergie therof: must it not much more be heade of al Chur∣ches because of the Bishop there, which is head ouer that Clergie?

For, if the lesser thing, be in Esti∣mation and Authoritie, much more the greater in the same kinde must be in Au∣thoritie. As, if an Angel naturally doth passe in degree of worthines, euery man, much more he▪ that by the giftes of na∣ture doth excel among Angels, must con∣sequently be farre aboue man.

We neede no•• vse so many wordes, in opening this Argument, if we had to do with Quiet and Reasonable men: but M. Iewel wil needes be Ignorant, or Contentious. For (saith he) Uictor which reporteth the forsaid Aunswere of Eugenius the Bishope,* 1.198 Doth not cal the Bishop of Rome the Head of the vniuersal

Church, only he saith, Rome is the Chiefe, or Head Church of al other.

No, he saith not Rome, but y^• Churche of Rome. And if you wil defend your self, that by Rome the Church of Rome is meant in common speache, I pray you Syr, can you not also remember, that in naming the Church of Rome, the Bishop of Rome is vn¦derstanded to be spoken of? And, if in other places it might be somtimes other∣wise, yet in this testimonie of Uictor, it can not but be meant of the Bishoppe of Rome especially.

For consider, I pray thee (Indiffe∣rent Reader) the Circumstancies of the Storie.

Obadus the Capitaine required a Coūcel to be kept in Aphrica. In which, it is for Bishoppes, not onely to sitte, when it is called, but first to determine whether it shalbe called or no.

He required it also, of the Bishope Eugenius. For although Huneryke his Maister, King of the Uandales was in those partes a Cōqueror, yet there were not at that time such Flatterers or Go∣spellers as might tel his Grace, that him

selfe was Supreame head of the Church, a••d that he needed not to care, what the Popishe Bishopes would thinke in any mater.

Thirdly Eugenius answered, that ••e would write to his Bretherne, that his felowbishopes might come. By which it is cleare, that he wisshed, not, either for the material Church of beyonde the seas, or al the Ministers and officers of those Churches, but only for Bishopes.

Fynally and Chiefly, he would write (he answered) that the Church of Rome the head Church of al Churches, might come. And howe can this otherwyse be vnder∣standed, but according to y^• nature of the Mater, and Persons which he spake of before? For, whereas A Councel re∣quireth Bishopes to be present, And hymselfe expressly declareth it, that he would haue his Felowbishopes come: In saying, immediatly after, that aboue all other he would the Churche of Rome to come, he must so take these wordes, the Churche of Rome▪ as they maie serue for A Councel, and for the meeting together of Catholike Bishoppes. But to suche A

purpose, it was neither possible, to bring the externall Churche of Tymber and Stone, neither was it conuenient, profitable, or customable, to haue y^• whole Clergie of euery countrie, to be present at Councels: Ergo he meant it of the Bishoppe of Rome, hymselfe.

Then whereas he would, the Church of Rome most Chiefely to come, because it is heade of all Churches, he signifieth thereby, that his mynde and desire was, to haue other Churches to come al∣so. For els he would haue saied, I beseech the Churche of Rome, only to come, and not Chiefely. Because the word (Chiefely) hath A Relation to other that should come also, though not so principally and agreablie to his intent and purpose.

Nowe in expressing this his mynde, that he would haue other Churches, of beyonde the Seas, to come, what words vseth he? Doth he not cal straitewaies for his Felowbyshopes? And in respecte of them, doth he not require, that most Chiefely the Church of Rome should come?

And what other sense can that haue, by any reasō, but that the Bishop of Rome should come? For, if he had said thus, I vvil vyrite to my Brethren, that the Churches of beyond the Seas may come, and most chiefly to the Church of Rome▪ then had the sētence gone forwarde in like termes. And in this case, who but Rude and Igno∣rant, would deny, that by Churches he meaneth the Bishops them selues, Or by theyr appointment some to represent or fil their place? But he changed the Termes, and in one parte speaking of Bishops, in the other he nameth not the Bishope, but the Church of Rome.

Yet what of this? Shal this chan∣ging of Termes alter his meaning?

A••d wishing in the former parte of his sentence, that Bishoppes should come, but especially the Churche of Rome, what can he rightly meane by the church of Rome but the Bishoppe of Rome, yf one part of the sentence hangeth with the other? For this were al together out of reason, that, naming first Bishops, and then a thing more requisite in the same kinde of purpose, then Bishops: he should meane

by that thing which he preferreth, a lesse in effect and Authoritie, then they were whom he had lesse compted vpon.

This place then making so plainly, for the Authoritie of y^• Bishop or Church of Rome (for al is in effect one, to them that vnderstand the common phrases of Speach) what wil M. Iewel do? Sub∣scribe to antiquitie, Or maintain stil his Heresie? No, he loueth him selfe, and his owne vaine glory so much, that ra∣ther then he wil seme to take a foyle, and to haue spoken more, then he is hable to assure, he wil not lacke his Exceptions, against the witnesses of the First six hun∣dred yeares. For thus he openeth him selfe more and more,* 1.199 saying:

Touching Victor that wrote the story of the Vandales,* 1.200 he is neither Scripture:

For Scripture he was not alleaged. And this also is against sincere and ho∣nest dealing, to promise or rather protest that you would be tried by any Doctor, Father, Councel, or Example of the Primitiue Churche: and now so despe∣rately to come in with this exceptiō, that Uictor is no Scripture. It foloweth.

Nor Councel.* 1.201

Remember your selfe M. Iewel. There are, emong your Fauorers, some discrete, Sadde, and Iust men. Whome, your Inuention in this place, wil litle please. And your much seeking to ex∣tenuate Uictors Authoritie, wil be an Argument vnto them, that you fall to Copie of wordes, and shiftes of Rheto∣rike (meete for Childerne) when Copie of Sense▪ and certaintie of good Answer, doth not serue your greate Stomacke.

You saied wel once,* 1.202 that one good sen∣tence were Proufe sufficient, and are you so much chainged, so sodainely, that you dare set light by an Auncient and graue wytnesse, because he is no Councel? You neede surely some good counsel, least by extreme folowing with al your wit, the defense of your mad Challēge, you chaūce to fall bysides your wittes, and haue no sense at al of your doinges. It foloweth.

Nor Doctour.* 1.203

Now define you then, A Doctour? For in deede, whome you wil alowe to beare that name, I can not tel. And, such Libertie you haue takē now vnto your

self, of binding vs to your meaning, that if you wil vnderstand by a Doctour none other, but either S. Ambrose, S. Hie∣rome, S. Augustine, or S. Gregorie, which are called the foure Doctours of the Church, Or some such, as hath been solemly Created and made Doctour in some Uniuersitie: we must be conten•• with your sense, and let you haue your owne minde and meaning.

But if you wil be ordered by reason, you wil not deny (I suppose) that Ui∣ctor might wel be A Doctour, which be∣ing a Bishop of no smal Citie in Aphri∣ca, had by al likelyhoode the knowledge of Scriptures, and grace of expounding them, and diligence in executing his of∣fice. Except that M. Iewel wil be so Iniurious to the first six hundred yeares after Christ, in which Uictor liued, that he wil Iudge any one to haue ben made Bishoppe in those daies, which was vn∣worthy to be a Doctour.

Againe if he were no Doctour, was he therfore no Father? And your self pro∣mising, to admit any sufficient testimonie

of any Father, how wisely make ye now, an Exception against Uictor▪ because he was no Doctor. It foloweth.

Nor writeth the Order or Practise of the Primitiue Church.* 1.204

O worthy Exception. Doth S. Augustine in his bookes of Confession, write the Order or Practise of the Primi∣tiue Church? Nothing lesse. For al∣••ogether they are compiled, of his owne Actes, Lyfe, Chaunces, Cogitations, and Interrogations. But what then? Might not one, for al this, bring a good testimonie out of those bokes, for prou••e of any mater that is in controuersie?

And when the Heretike denieth prayers for the Dead,* 1.205 should not the example of S. Augustine (whose prayer for his Mothers soule, is extant in his Confes∣sions) quite and cleane s••oppe his Pro∣cedinges, and make his very Impuden∣cie, ashamed?

What new found reason then, is this of M. Iewels, to contemne an Aunciēt writer, if he write not of those Maters, and write also, in such Order, of them, as he requireth?

When we alleage Clemens, de Consti∣tutionibus Apostolicis, S. Denyse de Coelesti & Ec∣clesiastica Hierarchia, S. Iames Liturgie, S. Chry∣sostomes Liturgie, Sozomenus, Nicephorus, Or▪ the Decrees and Decretales: straitwaies you either deny them, either suspect them, ei∣ther wil fyle them better, before you be∣leue them. Yet, there are not, in whom you may see more expressely, the printes and the formes, of the order or practise of the Primitiue Church. For where shal one better finde, what the Religion was in euery Age, than, in the Histories of those times, and in Decrees, Answeres, and forme of publike Seruice, that in e∣uery of them was vsed?

You therefore which, so litle set by those writers, by whom we may vnder∣stand most plainly, what the particulars were, of the cause and state of our Reli∣gion in the Primitiue Churche: now when Uictor is brought against you, so∣dainly you be so chaunged, as though it might be an exception against a witnes, that he writeth not the Order or Practise of the Primitiue Church.

And yet, this Exception of yours,

commeth not so luckely against Uictor. Which although he take not into his sto∣rie, the Actes of the Apostles, or the suc∣cession of Bishoppes, after them, or al the persecutions throughout Christendome, or the Martyrs of al Countries, Or the perfection and rule of those holy Monks ••hat liued in wildernesses, Or the De∣crees of al Councels, Or euery other such mater as might be spoken of, by a General Historiographer: yet, what state the Church was in, vnder the Uan∣dales, he describeth sufficiently. And by his telling this much we vnderstande of the Order and Practise, (yf not of the Primitiue Church, yet) of that Church, which was within the six hundred yeres after Christe, the which time you haue allowed vs, that in a mater concerning Faith, and in a Councel to be gathered, it was thought m••ete then, to make o∣ther Bishoppes besydes them of Aphri∣ca priuy thereof: and especially to haue the presence of the Bishoppes of Rome, because The Church of Rome is head of al chur∣ches. Which Euidence, because it is so

plaine against you, therefore hauing no∣thing to said reasonably against the sen∣tence, Yo•• h••••e s••retched your wittes to find•• ••x••eptions against the Repor∣ter o•• it. And you sai•• farther against him.

Nor is it wel knowen,* 1.206 either of what credite he was, or when he liued,

Concerning his Credite, he was Bishoppe of Uti••a, and by likelyhoode therfore, of good Estimation emong the Catholiques, and A Man worthy to be hele••ed. For in al kindes and Con∣trarieti••s of Religion, such as are high Priestes, Bishops, or Superintendents, it seemeth that they are of the better sort, of the Fami••ie, Churche, or Cougrega∣tion: out of which they are taken do doe that Office. And further, whose bookes were comp••ed then worthy the copieng out, and were so kept then, that they re∣maine yet vnto vs, And are so accepted at this present, that they be translated in∣to French: His credite needeth not to be mistrusted, or called without cause into question. He wrote also vnto Hunericus King of Uandales an accōpt of his faith

being driuen thereto by the Cōmaunde∣ment of y^• King. By which you may per∣ceiue that great accōpt was made of him.

Concerning then his age, he liued not long after the time of S. Augu∣stine: farre within the First six hundred yeares, out of which, any Testimonie is sufficient against you. For when the Uandales were in Aphrica, and were busy in furthering the Procedinges of the Arrians, then liued Uictor, as may appeere by his Answer to Hunericus, & by diuerse places of his historie, in which he speaketh of him selfe as one present at y^• doing of things. For in this very place which is alleged ou•• of him for y^• Supre∣macie of the Church of Rome, he saith, that when Hunericus had required by his Edict and Commaundement, that the Catholike Bishops, should by a day, meete at Carthage, there to haue theyr faith examined and tried:

Cognoscentibus igitur qui aderamus si∣mul, &c. Vve then that vvere togeather kno∣vving of this Decree, did tremble at the hart, especially because of those vvordes of the Edict, In Prouincijs nostris à Deo nobis concessis▪ scan∣dalum

esse nolumus, quasi id diceret, in Prouincijs nostris, Catholicos esse nolumus: Vv•• vvil, that in the Prouinces graunted by God to vs, there be no scandalum or offense, as though he should say. vve vvil not that any Catholiques be in our Prouincies. Him self therfore being then present when Hunericus Edict came to the Bishops of Aphrica, and that perse∣qu••••ion of the Uandales beginning a∣bout the yeare of our Lord. 435. no man should reasonablie doubt, of the age in which Uictor liued.

But these thinges you say, are not wel knowen. If they be knowen, it is inough: As for the wel knowing of them you are either so suspitious or malicious y^• (I feare) it wil neuer be wel knowen, y^• which commeth directly against your Procedinges. For how easy a mater is it to deny, and doubt, and obiect, and finde faulte, and make somwhat alwaies lacking?

You finde the Boke extant, and that before this age in which your Heresies haue vpstarted, and the Catholikes haue sought to suppresse them: You see it al∣leaged: You see it allowed: you bring

nothing againste it, neither that it was ••ound of late, neither that the phrases of Speach are vncongrue and barbarouse, neither that he hath any fault in his sto∣rie, neither that graue and learned men haue doubted of him, nor ani other excep∣tion which maie take Credite away from it. And what reason then, is there in it, that you should make strife and conten∣••ion, where none was before, and rather folow your owne Negatiue, without any cause or probabilitie, than the Catho∣likes Affirmatyue, which bring furth the Euidence of the booke it selfe, for them?

Maie we thinke you to haue any re∣gard to the first six hundred yeres, Or any Reuerence towardes Auncient writers, which are so loth to admit the bokes that come furth in their names, and so Ready to make all the Exceptions, that ye pos∣sibly can, Or Suspitions against them?

It is not wel knowen (say you) of what Credite he was, or when he lyued. Is it not well knowen? If he made in any point, for the Lutherans or Sacramen∣••aries opinion, you would not only haue knowen hym wel, but also praised him ex∣cedingly,

but now, becasue he confirmeth the Catholike Faith, and declareth such cruell practises of the Barbarous Uan∣dales then, against the Catholike Prie∣stes and Bishopes, as are most lyke the merciful Procedings of the Gentle Gos∣pellers of these tymes, againste the Catholikes: And because he preferreth the Church of Rome, before all other Churches, And praieth to the Sainctes, And sheweth hymselfe most Euidently to be A Papist: you knowe hym not, and you regard hym not. So that you be ruled by Affections and not by Reasons, and you passe no more vpon Antiquitie, sauing for y^• fasshion that al lerned and wise men doe make accompte of it, than you doe vpon your rochet, gowne, typet, fower cornerd Cap, and other such thin∣ges, that goe cleane againste the Con∣science, sauing that you condescend ther∣in vnto the weakelings, as yet, in your faith, least you should make them werys of you, altogether.

Yet, although you be very wyse hypocrites, out breaketh for al that some∣tymes, the Iesting and Scoffing inward

Sprite, that in open Sermo••s and prin∣ted Bokes, speaketh of the holy and old Fathers, ful Re••erently, As shal by most manifeste examples appeere.

S. Benet, how Uertuous, wyse, ho∣ly, Contempla••iue, and Diuine a Father he was, if the world that hath bene euer s••ns, would or could saie nothing, S. Gregorie alone hath saied inough. Which being now ••ope, and to good a man, to mynd vnprofitable tales, and to muche occupied, to intend it, in writing fower bookes of notable and worthie men and m••ters, the Second he bestoweth vp∣pon S. Benet alone: Declaring suche thinges in it, as he had heard of most Reuerende Fathers,* 1.207 and S. Benets owne Scholars, Constantius, Valentini∣anus, Simplicius, and Honoratus: by reading of whiche, the Faithful coulde not but be moued,* 1.208 to beleue that God is VVonderfull in his holy ones,* 1.209 and that his frin∣des are excedingly honored. In tellinge then many thinges of S. Benet, he cum∣meth at length vnto this.* 1.210

VVhen a certaine younge Monke of S. Be∣nets,* 1.211

had vppon a tyme gone out of the Monaste∣rie, vvithout his blessinge, home to his Father & Mothers house, vvhich he loued more then he shoulde haue done, the selfe same daie, as sone as he vvas come vnto them he dyed. And after he had ben novve buried, his bodie the next daie vvas founde caste vp, vvhiche they prouided to burie againe. But they founde it the nexte daie cast vp againe, and vnburied as before. Then loe they ranne vvith speede vnto ••ather Benets feete, and vvith muche vveepinge desyred hym, to be so good as to graunt hys fauour aend mer∣cie vnto hym. To vvhome, the Man of God gaue straite vvaye vvith his ovvne handes the Comm••nion of our Lordes bodie, saieng. G••e ye, and put ye this bodie of our Lord vppon his breaste, and so burie hym. VVhich as sone as it vvas done, the earth toke and kepte his bodie, and ca••st it vp no more.

Thus far S. Gregorie. But wha•• saieth M. Iewel to the mater? Forsath his sentence is this.

It was but fondly done by S. Benet,* 1.212 as Gregorie re••orteth of hym,* 1.213 to cause the Sacrament to be laied vpon a dead mans breast.

Was it but fondly donne?* 1.214 Howe

dare you so interprete the fact of an Aun∣cient and holy Father? How dare you dissent from the Opinion that S. Gre∣gorie and other elder Fathers whom he folowed, had of it? Are you he, that re∣gardeth Antiquitie? Are you he, whom one sufficient sentence of any Catholike Father or Doctor shal make to yeld?

The fact you doe not denie: Against the worke•• of it you bring no exception: S. Gregorie the Reporter of it, lyued within the first six hundred yeres, And he reporteth it to the Praise of S. Benet, And the effect whiche God gaue, decla∣reth that it was not mislyked: and how ••are you say, it was but fondly done?

But this is it that I say. Though you looke demurely vpon Reuerend and old Fathers, and speake, as though you regarded their wordes and deedes: yet sometymes your Sprite is so moued in you,* 1.215 that from the pytte of your harte, it cummeth vp to the typ of your tongue, and boldly geaueth sentence against those persons, whom the whole world, for age, Holynes, Lerning and I••dgement, doth worthely esteeme, and whom yourselfe

dare not dishonour but couertly. Where∣fore, that this fowle Sprite of Contempt of Old Fathers whiche lurketh in the breast of M. Iewel, may be the better ex∣amined and espied what it is, whiles it waggeth now his tongue: we shal not neede to haue an Exorcist for the mater, but any reasonable and Indifferēt man, shal be hable, to conuince hym, by these short questions.

For first of al, how know you (••. Iewel) that it was fondly done of S. Benet to cause the Sacrament to be laied vpon a dead mans breast?* 1.216 Dyd S. Benet hym∣selfe, thinke it to be fondly done? Then would neither he euer haue do••e it, or they whiche sought Remedie of hym a∣gainst y^t terrible chaunce, you may be as∣sured, nor they so willingly haue obeyed.

Dyd S. Gregorie find any such fault in it? He would neuer haue rehersed it then, to y^• disgracing of hym, whom he intended to honor. And bysides this, the Epiphone•••••• or sententious conclusion whiche he in∣ferreth immediatly vppon the forsayed example or fac••, doth proue that he high∣ly estemed it. For, vnto Peter his

Deacon, with whom he talketh in those Dialogues:

Perpendis Petre &c. Thou seest Peter (saieth he) Vvhat merite and vvorthines, this man vvas o••, before Iesus Christ our Lord, that the earth dyd cast furth his bodie, vvhich had not the Fauor and blessing of S. Benet.

Dyd God hymselfe mislyke with it? The euent doth proue otherwyse. For, as the castinge vp of the Childes bodye againe and againe, after it was buried, doth signifie that al was not wel about it, where such extraordnarie effect folowed: so the resting of it in the earth after the body of our Lord was put vpon it, doth declare that he was now pleased, which before was offended. If then none of al these can be perceaued to haue mis∣lyked S. Benets precept or Counsel: by what Authoritie sai••th M. Iewel, it was fondly done by him?

Againe, what thinketh M. Iewel of S. Benet? It seemeth▪ that he contem∣neth hym not vtterly, because of the (S.) which he putteth before his name. Ex∣cept he would haue it vnderstanded, that the (S.) in this place must goe not for

Sain••t Benet, but for Syr Benet. He lyued also within the first six h••••dred yeares, and was for al vertue and holy∣nes, A very miracle in the world. It see∣meth then, that his do••inges are to be Iudged of, with Reuerence. Furth then to S. Gregorie.

What opinion hath M. Iewel of him? I should thinke very good. For he was an holy and lerned Father, and lyued al∣so within the first six hundred yeares. And (which is more worth than al this) A Late writer in deede, but as he would be thought, a greate Frind and Patrone of Antiquitie, One M. Iewel hath these wordes of hym:* 1.217 Verely S. Gregories Au∣thoritie in this case were very good, if he would saie the worde. If therefore, so gr••ate Authoritie make for this fact of whiche we speake, and if the spirite of God were in those two Fathers S. Be∣net and S. Gregorie: what knowledge is that in M. Iewell, by whiche he is hable to saie, It was but fondly done by S. Benet, &c?

If y^• like case should happen vnto him, that any of his brethernes bodyes in

the Congregation of Sarum, should be cast vp againe after it were once buryed, what would his polytike wisedome doe? Commaunde it he would perchaunse, to be buryed again••. So might he in dede.

But if it were cast vp againe after the second buri••ing, and if further yet, as oft as it should be put vnder the earth ouer night, it were found vpon the ground in the mornyng: what then would his ho∣lynes or wisedome doe? Would he byd the Brothers or Systers, cast that (with al care after it) out of the waie, and suffer that to rotte aboue ground, which wyll not lie stil vnder ground, when it was wel inough buried? For his wysedome and deuotion he might do it wel inough.

But if God, which suffered the for∣saied castinges vp againe, of the deade bodie, to signifie thereby a displeasure iustly co••ceiued, if he now would by o∣ther waies declare the same, euen vpon this bodie which M. Iewel should leaue vnburied, were he hable to abyde the ••error of it? And would he not seeke for some Remedie against an extraordinarie and straunge effect of Gods indignation?

And what remedie would that be? I can not tel verely, there is so litle po∣wer or none rather at al, in any thinge that they can doe. Yet (for example sake) if it were put in his minde to make a Crosse vpon the breast of the deade bo∣dy, or to put a Relique of some holy man vpon it, Or the Gospel of S. Iohn, Or a peece of holy breade, Or (if these things would not like him) if he should venter to put vpon it a leafe of Caluines Insti∣tutions, Or of the Communion bookes, Or a peece of Latimers staffe, Or Cran∣mers gowne, or Hoopers bones, Or any other thing that he estemeth: If that af∣ter any of these thinges were put on the Body, it should be quiet & lie stil where it were cast or buried: were it a likely mater that it should be fondely done, to haue applied that to the deade Bodie, of which a merueilouse and comfortable effect should be seen to folow?

Surely, if by your Cōmunion booke, or any bone of your false Martyrs, a Mi∣racle should seme to be wrought, I wold neuer thinke, that you did fondly to vse the meanes of those things that are pre∣tious

emonge you, to the bringing of some purposes to passe: but this I would certainely Iudge, that your selues are very fond men to esteeme those thinges that you doe, and that the Diuel had po∣wer to illude you. Now if you dare saie, that S. Benet did not wel, to haue so excellent and great opinion of the Sa∣crament as he had, Or that it was the worke of the diuel of hel and not of God, that the Monkes bodie remained vnder the earth, after the Bodie of Christe was laied vpon it: then loe, I perceiue that you haue spoken very fauorablie of S. Benet in saying, that it was but fond∣ly done by him, and that in deede, you Iudge it to haue been wickedly and shamefully done of him. And you must iudge, not of him onely, so, but of Con∣stantius, Ualentinianus, Simplicius (S. Benets successours) And of S. Gregorie •• most excellēt Father, And of al other a•• y^• tyme, vnto whom, the••e mens authori∣ties were singular, of al these, you must iudge, y^• they were blind, fond, grosse, su∣perstitio••s, wicked, deceiued by illusiōs of diuels, & ••oid of y^• Grace of y^• Gospel.

Put of your vysard (M. Iewel) and shew your selfe in your owne likenesse. Put of your apparel of a sadde and dis∣crete persō, which knoweth his nurture, and can tel how to geue place vnto Re∣uerend and holy Fathers: & come furth in your owne solemne Robes, with iags & tassels inough about it, that your cote may declare what you are. For in dede were you not desperate, you would more quietly haue iudged of S. Benets fact, than you haue done, and not so quickely haue condemned it as but fondly done: a••d were you not your selfe very fonde, you would neuer haue contemned that, which was done and regestred and com∣mended within the first six hundred after Christ, your selfe so appealing vnto those yeres, as though you would be reformed by the Example and Testimonie of any Catholike Father within those yeares.

Yet if you continue stil in your Hypocrisie, the I••different Reader wil (I trust) perceiue wel inough, that you are but a Counterfai••t, and that you beare no hartie good wil and reue∣rence, towards old and blessed Fathers.

For what would not he not doe, if feare of the Magistrates 〈◊〉〈◊〉 shame of the worlde (as yet) did not let him, which is so folishe harby, as to put in one case or degree the tales of Heathen Poetes, & the Recordes of Christian Historiogra∣phers: the Fancies of Idle men, and the Dispensatiōs of almighty God: the Cō∣ceptes that moue sensualitie, and the Ex∣amples that procure deuotion? He brin∣geth it in, by occasion of S. Basils visi∣on which Amphilochius speaketh of: and so much the more vttereth his cankred Stomake, by how much he had the lesse occasion to folow it. His woordes be these.

We may now the better beleue that Iu∣piter with his Goddes went downe some∣times for his pleasure to banket in Aethio∣pia, * 1.218 Or that an Angel euermore ministred the Sacramente vnto Marcus that Holy Monke: Or. &c.

As who should say, the one is as like∣ly as the other, Or, the one as vaine as y^• other. But what man of honesty would euer say so? Yf some brutishe and vnsen∣sible Heretike should plainely, at the be∣ginning,

protest, that he would no bet∣ter esteeme what so euer Fathers Testi∣monie▪ than Christian men doe regarde Homers Poetrie, although for his blūt∣nes he might be condemned, yet for his plainesse he should not be blamed. Mary if an other man, who knoweth the price of sundry bookes though thei be not scri∣pture, and most distinctly signifieth it, that he wil admit any Catholike writer, of the first six hundred after Christe, if he sodainly wil liken any Auncient wri∣ters narration, to Homer the Father of al Poetes Imagination, he shameth vt∣terly his owne studie, doinges, promise, and honestie.

Are the comming of Iuppiter downe to a banket in Aethiopia, and the Angels comming to Marcus an holy Monke to geaue him the Sacrament, are these two so like, that M. Iewel could thinke it reasonable, to put them in one sentence, and in one kinde of case togeather? As for Iuppiters Godhead and his banket∣ting in Aethiopia, not onely al Christians doe take for a wretched and vaine fable, but the Painimes also themselues, such

as were of the more learned sorte,* 1.219 did neuer so accompt of him: as in outward wordes they seemed to doe.* 1.220 But Mar∣cus the Monkes holines, and the Ser∣uice that the Angel did vnder God, vn∣to him, none surely but Infidels wil iudge to be fained. For to a good and faithful minde, what is there in this sto∣rie that doth sound absurde••y?

To haue a Monke holy, should that seeme incredible? He doth very il him selfe when he is alone, that Iudgeth so wickedly of the Solitarie lyfe. And this Reproche or Scla••nder, doth not touch onely Marcus,* 1.221 Milarion, Anto∣nius, Moyses and other of whom Ec∣clesistical Stor••es make m••ntion, but Helias also and Helizeus, and S. Iohn the Baptist him selfe.

But is it like to be fained, when the Sacrament is saied to be geauen vn∣to some persons by the ministerie of an Angel? what shal we thinke then,* 1.222 of the Angel that caried the Prophete Aba∣cu•• by an heare of his heade, from Iu∣dea to Babylon? Or, of the Angel Ra∣phael that went like a goodly yong man,

with Tobie the yonger, and did eate drinke, talke, make mery with him, and instructed him in al thinges, in like ma∣ner as deere and hartie friendes and fe∣lowes behaue them selues towards their friendes and companions? Uerely, whereas almightie God him selfe hath so debased him selfe, that he is become man, and geaueth him selfe wholy vnto man, to be eaten of him, that man might be vnited vnto God and liue by his life: it were no wonder at al, in cōparison, if y^• Diuine foode should be alwaies mini∣stred to man, by the visible seruice of An∣gels. For neither can the Angels dis∣daine at it, to serue that Creature, the nature of whiche he seeth to be exal∣ted aboue al Principates, Potestates, Dominations, Cherubines, and S••∣raphins: And when Gods infinite ma∣iestie wil be mea••e, he can not be loth to carie the Dishe.

Wherefore then, doth M. Iewel ioyne so wickedly togeather: An An∣gel ministring the Sacramente, and Iup∣piter going to banket in Aethiopia?

Was Sozomenus that reporteth i••

A fabler onely, as Homer was, so much the more at libertie tel lyes, because he wrote in prose, and no•• in verse? He li∣ued within the first six hundred yeres, he was A Christian, he wrote an Ecclesia∣stical Historie, and not Poetical Fables, his writinges are allowed and receiued, and this, which he reporteth, of the An∣gels ministring the Sacrament to Mar∣cus an holy Monke,* 1.223 he cōfirmeth by the Testimonie of Macarins an Auncient and Famous Priest. Which not onely said it, but for the Truth and certaintie thereof assured it, that at the time of re∣ceiuing, an Angel did alwaies geue mar∣cus the Sacrament, and not he. And that he saw alwayes an hand only, as far as vnto the wreast of it, at which Mar∣cus tooke the Sacrament. In testimonie vndoubtedly of the clea••e and singular good soule that was in Marcus. For he was euen from his youth m••rueilous expert in the Scriptures, and Gentle, and Chaste, and Deuoute, and at that present, one of the most notable in al the worlde.

What findeth M. Iewel in this story,

that he maie contemne? Or why refuseth he the iudgement of Sozomenus and of Macarius? Of whom, the one reporteth it, the other confirmeth it: And the one in reporting it, signifieth it to be credible, the other in seeing it, assureth it to be no∣table.

If it were altogether fayned in deede, and if other yet should be perswaded to accept it as Trueth, what harme could come to them by it? For al, that maie be gathered thereof, is, that Marcus was a merueylous holy, and angelical man. And that God euen in this world, doth excedingly comfort his seruants by more waies than one: And th••t the Seruice and attendance of the Angels vpon men is singular: And that, if the vnclea••es of our wretched lyfe did not let it, we should find the Angels more present and comfor∣table, then they are perceiued to be. And is there any harme in this, to iudge wel, of man, Angel, and God? If M. Iewel can find no greater faultes or hinderan∣cies to good lyfe and true Faith, in the going of Iuppiter to bankette with his yonger Goddes in Aethiopia, I would

neuer sti••ke to beleue it, or at the leaste waies, to p••rmit it. But the addes is so grea••e 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••ident, that he which hath put 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in one case, may 〈…〉〈…〉.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 that 〈…〉〈…〉 haue, you that haue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••aith remayning yet vnto you: And ••ou that haue no s••ith, And mynde (〈◊〉〈◊〉 knoweth when) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for all that, 〈…〉〈…〉 it, 〈…〉〈…〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them selues wil not, in some pointes,* 1.224 speake against it. For now, not to beleue the Canonical Scrip••ures who dareth? And how greate cause hath A fainte and weake harte to assent vnto them, whiles the enemies of the Catho∣like faith, doe not openly denie them? But, when hereaft••r, Iniquitie and Im∣pudencie shall so abo••nde▪ that faith shal be measured by Reason and not by Au∣thoritie, and when by litle and litle men shalbe accustomed to conte••••e & mocke the Appari••ions made vnto holy persons by Angels, Saintes, the Mother of God, or Christ hymselfe, and lyken them to fa∣bles and Illu••ions of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Poetes and wicked Sprites that raigned ••mong

the Panymes: what credite wil be geauē shortly after to the Scriptures them∣selues?

Wil not the Commyng of the three Angels to Abraham,* 1.225 and the Feast which they toke at his handes, wil not the wra∣stling of the Angel with Iacob a whole ••••ght longe together,* 1.226 wyl not the An∣gels that appeered to Agaz, Iosue, Ba∣lam▪ Man••e, Dauid,* 1.227 Elias, wil not the fiery Chariots that Elize••s saw,* 1.228 wil not the Terrible horse w••th one in golden* 1.229 armour sitting vpon him,* 1.230 and two good∣ly and glorious yong men in bewtifull* 1.231 apparel,* 1.232 which scou••ged Heliodorus that would haue spoyled the Orphanes,* 1.233 and wydowes,* 1.234 and other, of their goodes that late in safe keepinge in the Temple of Hierusalem: wil not the Angels ap∣peering to the Maries,* 1.235 and the Apostles, al in white,* 1.236 and the Angel that byd S. Peter aryse, and put on his hose and shewes, wil not al these thinges be quik∣ly and desperately resembled to the con∣uersations which Homers Goddes and Goddesses had with such as they fauored?

Nothing is so easie as to cal thinges

into doubt, & to disgrace a true and holy Storie, by obiecting a lyke vnto it, of the telling of Idolatours, or the making of Poetes. In which kind of Confounding, Marring, and Spoyling of thinges, M. Iewel hath a Folissh Grace: and if he had any Reuerence to Old and Approued Stories, he woulde neuer haue ioyned Sozome••us, and Homer together.

He therefore that hath Faith, let hym thanke God for it, and praie for the in∣crease: he that hath none, but is negli∣gente or Indifferent, let hym thinke ad∣uysedly vpon the sauing, of both soule and bodye, and make speede to be∣leue the Scriptures themselues, whiles so litle contradiction is, against them. For other writers then afterwardes, let hym consider, whether it will stand with saluation to beleue none, or whether it be of necessitie, to admi•• al: Or whether it can agree with any reason and constan∣cie, to contemne them, whome he hath, for good cause, once alowed.

In beleuing nothing but Scripture there is present daunger. For by that Reason, Scripture it selfe can not be

••redited, because it is not writen in all Scripture.

In beleeuinge euery thing there is absurditie, because of so many Contra∣dictions and Contrarieties as are found emong Writers.

In beleuing of certaine bookes not yet as Scripture, but as the bookes of Lerned, Auncient, and Generally recei∣ued Authors, and sayinges as worthie to be credited and esteemed as our owne opinions, there is wisedome and discre∣tion.

But▪ if (as M. Iewel hath geauen most shameful Examples) any man wil contemne the selfesame, whome he would seeme to allowe, that is such a point, not only of Hypocrisie, but of Iniurie al∣so, that, as he should BEWARE OF M. IEWEL for it, so should ••e take heed to hym selfe least he fal in it.

How M. Iewel vseth the selfesame testimonies, of the first six hun∣dred yeares, against whiche he bringeth Exceptions, when his Aduersarie allegeth them.

THus far then we are come against M. Iewel, y^• I haue proued him, to ••ind y^• Catholikes vnto y^• first six hundred yeres, bysides al rea∣son and equitie, And that hymselfe allea∣geth Authorities of later yeres, with all holdnes and libertie: Thirdly, that he wil not stand, to the witnesses of the first six hundred yeres, vnto which he appea∣led so precisely.

A••d what is there now, that maie be added vnto his Chiualrie? For in deede, this maie be well called his Chi∣ualrie, to prouoke, as it were al the world, and, to make conditions such as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hym, and when the battel increa∣••eth▪ to chainge his armour, to put on a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 face, to denie that he alowed, to

alow that he denied. In which, as he hath shewed hymselfe (like as I▪ by Ex∣amples, haue declared) A 〈◊〉〈◊〉 so, what he maie or hath add••d therunto, to would be considered. And I find that his noble Courage and tried Magnanimitie is so greate, that, the selfe same Authorities, against which he fought too the and naile, in the Chappiter before, he hymselfe, in his owne proper person, aloweth in other places of his Replie, and vseth for substantial and good Argumentes.

This, to proue at large, were very easie, but in recompense of the last Chap∣piter before, which hath been longer than my opinion, I wil make this presēt one, shorter than my first determination. And shortnes also maie wel be taken whē the mater is in sight that is to be proued. I saie therefore.

Against S. Chrysostomes Masse, M. Iewel doth argue in the 10. page of his Replie, And not only reasoneth sim∣plie, that it can no•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his, but taunteth also them pre••ily, that would haue it to be S. Chrysostomes. But▪ how much he is deceaued in his A••gument, and how

litle cause he hath to dalie as though he had the victorie, it is sufficiently declared alreadie fo. 53. of this booke.

The same M. Iewel in the 89. and 90. page of the Repli•• where the place of S. Chrysostome (There is none to Com∣municate) is layed against hym, there, I saie, he vseth the testimonie of this Li∣turgie, & con••esseth it to be S. Chrysosto∣mes. For these be his wordes.

Chrysostome himselfe in his Liturgie saith thus.* 1.237 Againe. But what needeth much proufe, in a Case that is so plaine? Chryso∣stome hymselfe in his Liturgie that Com∣monly beareth his name,* 1.238 foloweth the same order. Againe, This was the order of S. Chrysostomes Masse, touching the Clergie, and that by the wytnesse of S. Chrystostom himselfe.

Note the wordes (Indifferent Rea∣der) and see what proportion is in M. Iewels doeings.* 1.239 That Liturgie, which, before, could not be S. Chrysostomes, because it praieth for Pope Nicolas: and because,* 1.240 A praier is there, for the Empire and Victorie of the Emperour Alexius: and because, I trowe it were prophesieing and no•• praieing, that Chrysostome praied for

men by name, seuen hundred yeres before they were borne: that same nowe is S. Chrysostomes, by M. Iewels owne confession. And not only S. Chrysosto∣mes, but Chrysostomes hymselfe.

For herein also is a greate strength: that y^• place, which was obie••ted against hym, beinge taken out of S. Chryso∣stome, he thought to adde a Grace vnto his Answere by continuinge in the te∣stimonies of the selfe same Doctour, and by making S. Chrysostome to agree with S. Chrysostom. And so he repea∣teth oftentyme.* 1.241 Chrysostome hymselfe, sayinge: Chrysostome HYMSELFE in his Liturgie. Chrysostom HIMSELFE in his Liturgie. Chrysostom HIMSELF in the Liturgie. The very order of Chry∣sostomes Masse, by the witnesse of Chry∣sostome HYMSELFE. As though that nothing were so much to be feared, as that some lyke hymself, would deme it to be S. Chrysostomes Liturgie, and then should he leese a good Argument. Therefore he setteth the Booke furth very wel, and nameth it the Liturgie of Chrysostome hymselfe, and maketh so muche of it, that he signifieth it, to haue in it self Authoritie inough to proue

an assertion, without any more wordes. For thus saith M. Iewel.

But what needeth much proufe,* 1.242 in a case that is so plain? Chrysostome himself. &c.

As if he should saie:* 1.243 That the Cler∣gie receiued in olde time, with the Priest that celebrated. I haue proued it, by the Cano••s of the Apostles, by Pope Ana∣cletus 〈◊〉〈◊〉, by the Councel of Nice, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Laodic••a, and of Toledo. But what needeth much proufe in a case that is so plained? I could allege more witnesses, Antiquitie is ful of Examples, The case is cleare and ••uident. But to be short, I wil bring one Testimone for al.

And what is that? Mary, Chry∣sostome him selfe▪ Where I pray you? In the Liturgie. Why did Chrysostome euer make any? Where should one find it? By what note might one know it? In the Liturgie (saith M. Iewel) that cōmonly beareth his name. Speake you that to the discōmendacion, o•• p••ai••e of it•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as though it were not S. Chrysostomes in deede, but ••are only his name, how agreeth it, that

Chrysostom him selfe, should witnesse any thing by this Liturgie? For if you should haue said no more but this, Ch••ysostome in the Liturgie that cōmonly beareth his name &c, you might haue ben thought to haue called it S. Chrysostomes Litur∣gie, because other so name it, and no cer∣taintie might be gathered 〈◊〉〈◊〉, of your owne opinion and iudgem••••••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 now in saying Chrysostom him self &c, you de∣clare by y^• addition of the Pronoune him selfe, that your opinion is, s. Chryso••tom, euen ••e that made the 61. Domel••e ad po∣pulum Antiochen. to be the very A••thor of this Liturgie. If therefore you cast not in these wordes that cōmonly beareth his name, to the dispraise or discredite of the Liturgie, then haue you not only confes∣sed, that Chrysostome him selfe should be maker of it, but farder also, you teach vs to find out that Liturgie by the title of y^• booke and name of s. Chrysostom, which it commonly beareth, either you make A good Argumēt against singular and pre∣cise Heretiques, which wil needes haue thinges otherwise to be taken, then com∣monly they are called.

Now, if you dyd put in, the forsaied words (that commonly beareth his name) neither to the praise nor dispraise of the Liturgie, but as it came to your mynde so you lette it fall out into the Paper, that which might wel inough haue ben spared: let so take it then. And what re∣maineth, but that Chrysostome himselfe muste be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vndoubted Author of this Liturgie, by your conclusion? Other∣wise you haue not proued by Chrysostom himself, that the Priestes and Deacons (whiche no man denieth) receiued with the Bishop or Chiefe Exequutor at the Aultare, if the Liturgie, by which you proue it, be not S. Chrysostomes owne.

Ergo, say I now, whereas M. Ie∣wel in the 10. page of his Replie, dis∣proueth the Liturgie of S. Chrysostome: And, in the 89. and 90. of the same Re∣plie, affirmeth S. Chrysostome hymselfe, to saie that, whiche in the Liturgie is af∣firmed: It is most plaine and euident, that the selfesame Authorities of the first six hundred yeres, which he wil destroie and denie rather, than his Aduersarie should vse them, he yet hymselfe will

occupie at his pleasure, and make a great shew and countenance, that he is a folo∣wer of Antiquitie.

In like maner in the. 66. page of his Replie, he argueth against a Decree of Soter Bishop of Rome, and in the. 76 page folowing, he applieth the selfe same Decree to his purpose. Read and con∣sider y^• places them selues, you to whom M. Iewels sayinges are pretious, I wil note only the brief some of the whole mater.

Soter Bishope of Rome (saith D. Harding) made this statute or decree,* 1.244 That no Priest should presume to celebrate the solemnitie of the Masse, except there were two present and answere him, so as he himselfe be the third. For whereas he saith, Dominus vobiscum, Our Lord be vvith you, and like∣wise in the Secretes, orate prome, Pray forme: it semeth euidently cōuenient, that answere be made to his Saluta∣tion accordingly.

Now of this Decree he gathereth, that a•• t••e 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were not present of ne∣cessitie ••t the Seruice, and much more, y^• al did not receiue with the Priest when so euer he celebrated. For it had ben vn∣reasonable so earnestly to prouide by a so∣lemne Decree, that without the presence of two mo••e besides him selfe, no Priest should be so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as to celebrate, if the general & necessarie practise of that time, had so defined it that al the parish should communicate, or that without a number of Communicantes, there shoulde be no Mas••e said at al. This Decree there∣fore, which so euidently destroyeth the position of M. Iewel, see how he labo∣reth to disgrace.

First he setteth men togeather by the cares (as it were) with Som sa••e,* 1.245 this de∣cree was made ••y Pope Anacletus. Some others saie by Soter. And so whiles some say one thing some an other, be thinketh that the quiet Reader which loueth con∣cord and peace▪ wil folow his resolution, which is to follow none of the both, but 〈…〉〈…〉 an opinion of his owne, that it is 〈…〉〈…〉 nor 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his decree.

After this he falleth into a common place, that It was euermore the common practise of Deceiuers, to blase their doings by the names of such, as thei knew to be in estimation in the world. And in this place to let passe Homer, Hesi••de, Ticero, Plautus, he allegeth S. Paul. 2. Thess. 2 And counterfeite Gospels and workes, in the name of Peter, Th••m••s, and other the Apostles, Concluding, that we ought the lesse to merueil, if the like haue happe∣ned vnto Anacletus, Euaristus, Soter, &c. So that y^• Cōclusion is brought to an If.

Thirdly,* 1.246 he speaketh I••d 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••gainst the Decretal Epistles, Alleaging 〈◊〉〈◊〉, that thei haue been doubted of among Learned men, a••d D. Smith, al∣though his au••thoritie be not greate, that thei can not possiblie be theirs, whose na∣mes thei beare.

Fourthly, he confirmeth D. Smithes sayinges by certaine reasons not of D. Smiths, but of his owne: as, These De∣cretal [ 1] Epistles, manifestlie depraue and a∣buse the Scriptures. Thei ma••ntaine no∣thing [ 2] so much as the kingdom of the Pope. Thei publish a multitude of vaine and su∣perstitious [ 3] Ceremonies. Thei proclaime. [ 4]

such thinges as M. Harding knoweth to be open and knowen lyes, & this later pointe is proued by certaine coniectures.

But al this hitherto, is nothing to the disprouing of the foresaid Decree, ei∣ther that it is not Soters, either that it is not to be credited, if as others say, it were Anacletus. He busieth him selfe in general and Indefinite propositions, to no purpose, or cōclusion, but to breed Suspitions and Doubtes. Much like as if in reasoning against some heretike, I would not, nor could not proue that he were a Diuel, but yet would tel a long tale and proue it very substantially, that the Diuel hath oftentimes gone a∣broad and ben conuersant with men, and spoken very manerly of Religion, so like an honest and true man, as any may seme to be in al the worlde.

Fifthly then, after all Preludes or Preambles ended, he toucheth specially the decree it selfe, vpon which the Argu∣ment of D. Hardings was groūded. And his reasons against it, are shortly these. S. Austin, & ••. Hierō who liued. 250. yeres after Soter, Haue recorded that the peo∣ple

of Rome vsed to take the Communion togeather euerie daie, ergo that practise wil hardly stand with Soters decree. As who should saie, that al the people might not receaue at ou•• priestes handes if any other priest, when they were departed, should goe to the Aultare, and haue no moe but two to answere hym.

Item, this word, Sole•••••• seemeth to importe a solemne companie or resorte of people. Yea but Missarum solennia doth import, not by seeming, but by plaine construing, neither cumpanie of masses, neither of people, but the Apointed and Reuerend & Catholike maner of exequu∣ting the Mysteries.

Item, It maie wel be doubted, whe∣ther Dominus vobiscū, and, Orate prome fratres (which wordes are in the decree) were any part of the Liturgie of Rome in Soters tyme. What harme I praie you is in those wordes, that it might be well douted, whether they were vsed so tyme∣ly in the Church? In Dominus vobis∣cum, our Lord be with you, the Priest sa∣luteth the pople Charitably and Godly, And in Orate pro me, praie for me, he con∣fesseth

hymselfe a synner, and req••ireth their helpe, both de••outly and humbly. But because the selfe same wordes are now in the Masse, M. Iewell can not brooke them, as he can neither the worde Masse it selfe, for which in this place (••ul finely forsoth) he vseth the terme of Li∣turgie of Rome and not of Masse of Rome.* 1.247 And so he that can not abyde to haue S. Chrysostomes Liturgie called A Masse (which is our English worde, to signi∣fie that Seruice of the Church,* 1.248 that an∣swereth the Liturgie of the Grecians) he nowe lyke a mery Greeke, speaking of that Seruice of Rome which was euer called emong the Latinistes Missa, and emong y^• English, Masse: termeth it very ••rymly in English, the Liturgie of Rome. But let vs go forward.

After all these foresaid Inuentions to moue an Altercation and busynes a∣bout the decree of Soter, he would make the Catholikes afraied, as if he should say: If you wil hold with Soters decree, I will dryue you to an Inconuenience, and therefore you were beste to let goe your holdfast. But wha•• is that Incon∣••enience?

Mary saieth he, in that So∣ter requireth, that the two (of whom he s••eaketh) make answer vnto the Prieste, there in is included both nearnesse of place, for the people to stand in, and to heare, and also a Common knowen tongue. Which both are Contrarie to M. Hardinges Masse.

But he standeth nigh inough, I ••rowe, that standeth by the Aultare, and he answereth in a Common knowē ton∣gue, that answereth in y^• Latine tongue. And both these thinges are done, by the simple Parisshe Clerke, or litle boie that serueth the Priest at Masse. And there∣fore the decree of Soter hyndereth the Catholikes, nothing at al. And if you haue no more to obiect against it, than these foresaid trifles, you maie either hold your peace, or bring some other fressher Argumentes.

But other Argumentes you haue none: Only you take it for a good sporte, to note the questions whiche are moued by the Canonistes about this Decree. As, whether the two whose presence is re∣quired, ought to be two Clerkes or two laie men,* 1.249 or one Clerke and one laie mā, or

one man and one woman. The Resolu∣tion whereof is, that they muste be two Clerkes▪ Yet you declare out of Summa Angelica, that in Priuate Masse one is suf∣ficient. And to this you alleage Gersons Opinion, that the Priest maie wel saie, Dominus vobi••cū, our Lord be with you, though but one be present, because he speaketh vnto the whole Churche of the Faithful, and not to that one only, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by hym. Or (as Innocentius 〈◊〉〈◊〉) because it maie be thought, there be Angels there, to supplie the mens Rome.

Thus you make some sport to your selfe by rekenyng vp of the Canonistes opinions, but what sad conclusion you can pe••ke out thereof, againste Soters Decree, it is not perceaued. Except you wil reason after this sort, that, because the Late Doc••ours or Rulers of the Church, haue either expounded according to Cha∣ritie the wordes of that Decree, Or haue loosed according to their Authoritie, the bond which was put vpon the Priestes by the Positiue Law thereof: therefore So••er was neuer a••thor of it.

The last quarel that M. Iewel hath

to Soters Decre, is that it maketh men∣tion of Secreta the Secretes of the Masse, which to haue ben in the tyme of Soter, it were very hard for D. Harding to proue. For thē Euery peece of the Masse was spo∣ken alowde. But, how proue you th••••? For concernyng D. Harding, he maie speake vpon some Authoritie, because he alleageth the plaine wordes of Soters Decree for it.

But it is not my purpose, exactly to refel M. Iewels Argumentes made a∣gainst Soter: Only this I praie thee now to consider (Indifferent Reader) how many fetches and deuises he hath in this place had, against that Decree of his. Anacletus (quod he) as some saie, made it: Then, Counterfeite Bookes haue bene set abrode.* 1.250 Furthermore Decretal Epi∣stles haue ben doubted of. And more spe∣cially to the mater, The practise (sa••eth he) of S. Augustine and S. Hieromes tyme can hardly stande with that is here imagi∣ned. Againe, Solennia seemeth to import, a resorte of people. Againe, it maie he wel doubted whether Dominus vobiscū were any part of the Liturgie of Rome in Soters tyme. Againe, That any Secreta were in

the tyme of Soter, it were very hard for M. Harding to proue. Then adde vnto this. That question is moued by the Canonistes what those two ought to be, whose presēce is required, at the Priestes Masse. And first, the Resolution is this, Straitwaies, The mater is otherwyse determined. Then, Gerson saieth this. Yet, Pope Innocentius hath an other fetche.

How thinke we now, hath this fe∣low lefte any corner vnsearched, out of which he might scrape any Gheasse, con∣iecture, or Suspition, to Diminisshe the Authoritie of this decree of Soter? From Generals which proued nothing, cum∣meth he not to bare coniectures againste the Specialties of the decree? When he could saie no more against y^• decree itselfe, sought be not to bring it into contempte by questions, Resolutions, & variations of the Canonistes about it? Wel, M. Ie∣wel, you shall haue your asking. Let not this be Pope Soters decree, whiche D. Harding hath brought against you. And that, which you, with so greate bending of witte and turning of Bookes, haue sought to conquer vs in, let vs (in triall of a ••urther conclusion) yelde voluntary∣ly

vnto you. And so it remaineth, that it be not vsed of any of vs, as an Auncient Decree of Soter.

Tel me then, wherefore doe you al∣lege it? This very Decree (Indifferent Reader) about Discrediting and disgra∣cing of whiche, M. Iewel bestowed a whole leafe together in his Replie, this selfesame he vseth, not six leaues after, in the selfesame Replie. But consider with what Constancie he doeth it,* 1.251 & with how greate Reuerence towardes Aunciēt de∣crees. His purpose was to disproue the Priuate Masse, whiche Ioannes El••••mo∣sina••ius an Auncient and holy Bishope is reported to haue saied. His wordes be these. M. Hardinges Leontius saieth, Iohn the Almon••r saied Masse in his Oratorie at hom••,* 1.252 being sure of no more companie but of one of his owne household seruāts alone.

Here is a dubble lie.* 1.253 For neither Leontius saieth so muche, neither D. Harding gathereth it. For by Leontius, it appeareth that be sene for A certaine noble man to come vnto hym, as though it had ••en aboute some mater of▪ the com∣mon weale: And so, was the noble man

also present, at the priuate Masse with the Bishopes seruant. And D. Harding ga∣thereth not that he was sure, of no more cumpanie, but of one of his owne house∣hold Seruantes alone, but rather, that he was sure neither of the noble man, nei∣ther of his seruant, that they could or would receiue with hym. But of their companie concerninge presence in the place, though not in participation of the Mysteries, he was so sure as one may be of that whiche he presently seeth before his eies, because both were with hym at Masse and Answered hym. But this lye of M. Iewel must be dissembled, if you wil see how earnestly he allegeth the de∣cree of Soter. Suppose it then to be so, (against both Leontius, and D. Hardin∣ges plaine saieinges) that the Bishoppe was sure of no more but one, to be pre∣sent at his Masse. What can you laie a∣gainst him for it?

Let vs consider (saie you) how safely he might so doe by the order of holy Canons.* 1.254

Why Syr,* 1.255 in breaking of them, what daunger is there? Mary,

To breake them,* 1.256 Damasus saieth, is

blasphemie against the holy Ghost.

Shew then, against what order of holy Canōs, Ioannes Eleemosinarius hath done in saying Masse, none but his ser∣uaunt (according to your sense) being present?

Pope Soter as it is before alleged by M. Harding straightly commaundeth,* 1.257 that no Priest presume to celebrate the Sacrament without the cumpanie of two togeather.

What say you M. Iewel?* 1.258 that very Decree of Pope Soter against which not fine leaues before you were so vehement, is it compted now among the holy Ca∣nons? That Decree, against which that you might haue the more vantage, you entered into a Cōmon place of bringing the whole Booke of Decrees and Decre∣cretals into discredite or contempt, (so greate was your Stomake against So∣ter) the same now do ye allege so formal∣ly, and with so greate Charge commend ye it vnto vs? For to breake the order of holy Canōs (you say out of Damasus) that it is blasphemy against the holy ghost.

And where then was your modestie (for Gods sake) when of the Decretal

Epistles, you vtter a Copie onely of tha••, which lieth in your Store against them,* 1.259 affirming that they manifestly depraue & abuse the Scriptures, Mainteine the king∣dome of the Pope, Publish a multitude of vaine and superstious Ceremonies, Pro∣claime open Lies? For if to breake the order of holy Canons, it be blasphemie against the holy Ghoste: How farre of are you from the Sinne against the holy Ghoste, which plainely doe contemne Auncient Canons (as this of Soters) & yet allege the selfesame afterward, which you cōtemned before? For, if in speaking against it, you folowed your Conscience, could the same Conscience also permitte you to hold with it? And if, on the other side, your cōscience gaue you, that it was Soters Decree (as in this place you al∣lege it for no lesse) was it not of plaine malice, and directly against your owne knowledge, that you busied your selfe so much, as I haue declared, with seeking & ••umpassing to deface it?

Consider then (indifferent Reader) and see by this which I haue declared, whether M. Iewel vse not for his owne poore va••tage, the self same Testimonies

of y^• first six hundred yeres, which he stri∣ueth most extremely to discredite, when y^• Catholikes doe allege them. Concer∣ning which poynt, if thow co••et to haue moe examples, remember what he saith against Dionysius,* 1.260 Sozomenus, The Decrees and Epistles Decretal, and then do no more but looke in the quotations onely of his Replie, whether thou fin∣dest them not alleged of him. And if thou find them not, neuer trust me hereafter: but if y^u shalt perceiue, Dionysius, Sozo∣menus & others to be brought in of him, as occasion somtimes serueth, but y^• De∣crees & Decretal Epistles to be so thickly set in his Reply, as though he were some great Canonist & Papist, & not the exact folower of fine Diuinitie, thē haue I pro¦ued my Obiection. And now what is he worthy to haue, which so abuseth y^• world in setting vp & pulling downe of Aunci∣ent & approued witnesses? For whereas by writing & reasoning we seke alwayes to come nerer and nerer to some Cōclu∣sion, by this libertie of Replieng which M. Iew. foloweth, we shal be alwaies y^• further of from y^• ending of cōtrouersies.

For if he would haue plainely sayed, you shal bring forth no witnesse, except he li∣ued within the first six hundred yeares, and of those very yeares I wil not allow al witnesses, and especially the Decrees and Decretals I refuse vtterly: then would his Replie haue ben shorter by. xx partes, & with more spede it should haue ben answered, and with more facilitie it would haue ben perceiued. But now, when he is so vncertaine, that he can not readily tel, what to allow or refuse, and is so mutable, that he alloweth in some one place the same which he disproued in an other, how should it not be both cum∣berous and iniurious? Cumberous, because of the heaping of many Authori∣ties and Testimonies, such as him selfe knoweth and maketh to be vncertaine & doubtful: Iniurious, because of taking away from an other, the free vse of those writings, which himself with al boldnes auoucheth. So y^• when D. Harding alle∣geth Pope Soters Decree, al the decrees and Decretals should heare the worse for it: And when M. Iewel allegeth the self same Decree, s••••aitwaies it is blasphemie

against the holy ghost, to breake any of the holy Canons.

Such Hypocrits and wranglers, and braggers, & Gospellers, by whose mea∣nes new Contentious and troubles are reised a••d cōtinued in y^• world, it is pitie (to speake the least) y^• euer they were ad∣mitted before thei were examined, or that now stil they shoulde be credited, a••••er that they be detected.

How M▪ Iewel allegeth, to smal pur∣poses, such Authorities of Fathers, as do plainly cōfound y^• procedings.

BUt what shal we say? We are not Masters of other mens wils? nei∣ther do we beleue that this creature (man) whom God hath made after his owne Image, should lacke that po∣wer of his soule, and gift of God, which consisteth in free wil. If therfore men wil not Beware, whē they may, what should we do? I haue already declared in speci∣al chapiters, such mater against M. Ie∣wel, that of al men that euer yet wrote,

there was neuer any of lesse Grauitie, Sinceritie, or Cōscience in his writing. To him that hath a wil to saue his soule, so much is sufficient to make him seke af∣ter better Instructiō: To him that thin∣keth onely of Ciuile Policie, or of Tem∣poral life and liuing, and wil not trouble his head with the euerlastingnes of the Soule, and a worlde to come, no Argu∣mentes against M. Iewel can be suffici∣ent. But concerning them which would in sad earnest saue one, and are not fully resolued that M. Iewel behaueth himself vnreasonablie & wickedly, may it please them to consider, how he shal be yet bet∣ter taken in his Hypocrisie.

To Antiquitie he appealeth: And (because he would be sene to deale plain¦ly) he apointeth out the first six hundred after Christ, for trial of the mater. Now when some witnesses of that time come against him, he wil not yet allow them.

And yet when he hath taken them away from his Aduersarie, him selfe for al that wil afterwards allege them. And of these points we haue spokē already: but what may be added more, to the discouering of

his beha••iour? Mary this much I can say & proue more, that such testimonies of Holy Fathers & Coū••els, as he bringeth in against the Catholiques, do in the self same sentence y^• he allegeth, geue a great wound to his Religiō. So greedy he is of tro••bling y^• Catholikes peace, that to make some of them shrinke, as if in deede a blowe were cōming, he is content him selfe to bring his owne cause into y^• dan∣ger, that he y^• wil take the aduātage may quikly so strike it, y^• it wil neuer be good after. And not only so, but so litle fauored he is of Antiquitie, y^• in veri mani places he cannot vtter the ful sentēce, but it shal straitwaies be perceiued, that y^• late pro∣cedings do impugne directly the orders, practise, and Religion that were vsed in the Primitiue Church. As in Example.

M. Iewel, thinking to destroy ther∣by, the Sole Receiuing of the Priest, proueth it, that in the Primitiue Church, they which would not Communicate, were bidde to auoide.* 1.261 For, It is Decreed (saith he) by the Canons of the Apostles, that al faithful that enter into the Churche, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are the Scriptures, and do not continue out the

prayers,* 1.262 nor receiue the Cōmunion, should be ex∣cōmunicate, as men vvoorking the trouble a••d disorder of the Church.* 1.263 Againe: If thou be not vvorthy to receiue the Commmunion,* 1.264 then arte thou not vvorthy to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pres•••••• at the prayers.* 1.265

Therfore M. Harding should driue his vn∣worthy people from the Churche, and not suffer them to heare his Masse.

Let me aske you then one question M. Iewel.* 1.266 Why do you constraine,* 1.267 by feare of high displeasure▪* 1.268 Losse of goodes and imprisonment, such as neuer were yet of your Religion, to come into your Cōgregations, & to receiue also w^t you? You woulde haue D. Harding to driue them out which are vnworthy by the au∣thoritie of this saying of S. Chrysostom:* 1.269 Should not you by the same reason, cease to drawe them into your Congregation, which are no brothers of your Religion? D. Hard. gathering it of your Sermon, that you should be of the mind, to haue al the people to Receiue, Or them y^• would not, to be driuen out of the Church, you cry out and say:* 1.270 O M. Harding, how long wil you thus wilfully pe••uert the waies of the Lord? You know, this is neither the

doctrine neither the practise of the Church. Howebeit the Auncient Doctours haue both taught so, and also practised the same. Anacletus de Cons. dist. 1. Episcopus Ca∣lixtus de cons. dist. 2. Peracta.

But O M. Iewel why say you so? Doe you confesse that auncient Fathers haue vsed it, and yet dare you Proteste, that your Church hath no such practise? Where is your Reuerence now, to the first six hundred after Christ? Where is your bringing al thinges, to the first Pa∣terne? I perceaue by this, what your an∣swere wilbe to my question out of S. Chrysostome. You wil plainely say, that your Church foloweth him not. And wherefore then doe you make out of him, Rules to the present Churche, whome your selfe wil not folowe, in the selfsame sentence, which you lay against vs? O M. Iewell, how long wil you Impe∣rially alow and refuse the Authoritie of auncient Doctors,* 1.271 al at wil and pleasure?

Lykewise to proue that which no ma•• denieth, that in the primitiue Church the people dyd communicate with the priest, M. Iewell declareth the maner of their

assemblies,* 1.272 saying out of Iustinus Mar∣tyr: * 1.273 Before the end of our praiers, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 kisse eche of vs one an other. Then is ther brought vnto him, that is the chief of the bretherne, bread and a cup of Vvine and vvater mingled together: Vvhich, ha∣uing receiued, he praiseth God and geaueth than∣kes a good space. And that done, the vvhole peo∣ple confirmeth this praier saieing, Amen. After that, they that among ••s be called Deacons▪ geue vnto euery of thē that be present, part of the bread and likevvyse of the vvine and vvater that are consecrate, vvith thankes geuing, and ary he same home vnto them, that happen to be absent.

Againe speakinge of the effect of the Sacrament, by which we are made al one in Christ, and all one emong our selues, he allegeth S. Chrysostome.* 1.274 Propterea in mysterijs &c.* 1.275 For that cause in the tyme of the mysteries vve embrace one an other, that being many vve may become one.

Againe, speaking of the people re∣ceiuing of the Sacrament in their owne handes,* 1.276 which is also a mater indifferent in it selfe, he saieth to proue it: I speake of him,* 1.277 whose co••••e of peace ye receiued at the ministration, and at whose handes ye layed the Sacrament.

The Testimonies are of your owne bringing,* 1.278 and therefore, I would thinke of your owne alowing. Where then is your mingling of wine and water together▪* 1.279 in your Mysteries? Where is the embra∣cing of one an other, and the Cosse, so∣much vsed in the primitiue Church? The Church sence that tyme,* 1.280 hath chaunged the maner of kissing, and kepte the signi∣fication whiche was in it, by geauing of the pax or peace.

But this peace (say you) was not a litle table of syluer or somwhat els,* 1.281 as hath bene vsed (yea and is still vsed) in the Churche of Rome: but a very cosse in deede in token of perfit peace and vnitie in faith and reli∣gion. So Iustinus Martyr saieth speaking of the tyme of the holy Mysteries: we salute one an other with a cosse, So likewyse Chrysostome and others.

True it is M. Iewel,* 1.282 and knowing so much of the practise in the Primitiue Church, why doe ye not vse this so Aun∣cient and holy a Ceremonie? If you will not haue the Pax of syluer, either for spa∣ringe of charges, Or feare of Commis∣sioners vpon Church goodes, Or in des∣pite of the Church of Rome: vse then in

your mysteries a very cosse in deede, ac∣cording to the Paterne of the Primitiue Church. And i•• neither old nor newe Ce∣remonies can please you, why crake you, in contemning the Later, that yet you re∣garde stil, the Auncient and Approued Orders? Or with what face doe you al∣lege these approued Fathers testimonies, by whose sayings you wil not be ruled?

M. Iewel is alwaies ••••sie i•• pro∣••ing,* 1.283 that the people in the Primitiue Churche dyd Communicate with the Priest. As though the concluding of that were a cleane ouerthrowe to the Catho∣like Religion: yet no Catholike did euer de••se it, and a•• this tyme also when Cha∣ritie is 〈…〉〈…〉,* 1.284 yet doe the people often in the yere 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with the Priest. Now by occas••on of pro••ing this, which (I must againe saie) no man denieth, he saieth in diuerse places of his Replie.* 1.285 The Deacons receiue the Communion, aftervvard the Mysteries be caried vnto a place,* 1.286 vvhere the people must Communicate.

It is lawful only for the Priestes of the Church,* 1.287 to enter into the place,* 1.288 vvhere the Aultare stan∣deth, and there to Communicate.

Let the Priestes and Deacons Communicate before the aultare,* 1.289 the Clerkes in the quiere, and the peo••le vvithout the quiere.

Howe like you these dstinctions of Places and Pers••ns,* 1.290 M. Iewel? Yea ra∣ther why lyke you them not? Haue not yo•• ••ulled downe Chauncell, Taken a∣way partitions, made the pauement tho∣roughout leuell,* 1.291 Set the Communion table in the myddle, Set formes for the Laitie to sit about it? And haue not your selfe geauen strange orders, as it were to al the people, noting it by your owne wit (as app••ereth) out of Fabian the Pope: that men and women made the sacrifice of the aultare, and of bread and wine, and therefore after the order of Melchisedech? But, if the people could not so much as come nigh the Aultare where the Priest stode, or recey••e, at the most, in the quier: how far of were they, at those daies, from y^• irreuerēcie y^• now is vsed? And how far wide are you, frō y^• toward••es is reforme al things, by the paterne of the primitiue Church? Yet are you not afraied nor Ashamed, to allege those Councels and Authorities, which condemne your ••ro∣cedinges

vtterly.* 1.292

S. Basile (saieth M. Iewel, thin∣king still all thinges to helpe hym that proue a cōmunitating of moe together) reporteth an ecclesiastical decree or Canō,* 1.293 that at the receiuing of the holy Commu∣nion which he calleth Mysticum pasca,* 1.294 ther ought to be twelue persons at the least, and neuer vnder.

And you,* 1.295 to proue your selues fo∣lowers of Antiquitie, and Restorers of ecclesiastical Canons, haue decreed, that three shall make vp a Communion, and for A neede,* 1.296 the Prieste and the sicke per∣son alone.

Si haec vasa &c. If the mater be so daun∣gerous, * 1.297 to put these sanctified vessels vnto Priuate vses, wherein is conteined, not the very body of Christ, but the mysterie or Sacrament of Christes body, &c.

You iudge,* 1.298 I perceiue, the Author of that booke to be S. Chrysostome, and this place to be true and godly. There∣fore▪that you maie consider it the better, and, by your commendacion, other Pro∣testantes: I wil englishe the whole sen∣tence vnto them. The Author of that booke, whosoeuer he were, persuading

with the people, to vse wel their tongue, least vncleane spirites doe enter thereby into their bodies: If it be synne and daunger (saieth he) to put haloued vessels, vnto priuate vses: as Balthasar teacheth vs, vvhich, because he dranke in halovved cuppes, vvas put byside his kingdome and his life: If then it be so daunge∣rous a mater to put these sanctified vessels vnto priuate vses, in vvhich the true bodie of Christ is not, but the mysterie of his bodie is conteined: hovv much more behoueth it vs concerning the vessels of our bodie, vhich God hath prepared for himselfe to dvvel in, not to geaue the deuil place to doe in them vvhat he vvil?

A stronge argument surely and per∣suasible. For,* 1.299 if deade metal, which by it selfe is not apte to receiue holinesse, be had yet in Reuerence, because of the spe∣ciall vse which it serueth for, in the tem∣ple of God: how should not our bodies, the lyuely vessels of our reasonable Sou∣les be kepte still pure and Inuiol••••ed? If, for the vessels which Balthasar ••••∣phaned, which serued in the Figur•••• of the old law, which had not y^• very body of Christ in them▪ but A signe and Mysterie only thereof: If for these, God plagueth

and striketh, how shal they escape, which receiue into their bodies, the very true Body of Christ, and haue God corporal∣ly dwelling in them, through the Myste∣rie of his Incarnation and vertue of his Consecration: And yet dare turne them∣selues, vnto prophane & vncleane vses? This is the true sense of that place.

But when begyn you (M. Iewel) to tell openly the daunger which they in∣curre before god (though y^• world alow it) which, Either after vow made of Cha∣stitie, haue turned them selues, first out of their Monasteries, and shortly after, haue ouerturned themselues into Inces∣tuous Car••alitie: Either spoiling the Churches of God,* 1.300 of the halowed and consecrated vessels, haue conuerted them into prophane vses, and drinke in Cha∣lices at their Tables? No doubt, by the example of Balthasar, but that they are in sore daunger, which serue themselues an•• their priuate Affections, with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and proper vessels appointed for God. And if it be so in corruptible and base maters, are not the polluted weddinges of Non••es, Monkes, har∣lottes,

and Renegates, much more ac∣cursed and execrable? But when wil you protest this much M. Iewel? And if you like not this consequence, why refuse yo•• your owne witnesse?

This place also that foloweth, is made to serue for prou••e,* 1.301 that there were that Communicated with the Priest.

They that haue fallen into Heresie and do penance for the same, vvhen the Nouices that be not yet Christened be commaunded to depart out of the Church, let them depart also▪ Ergo they that remained, did Communicate togeather.

Wel to let go y^• Argumēt,* 1.302 the graū∣ting of which proueth nothing against vs: What place is that in al your Com∣munion, where Nouices or Penitentes must go out? Or how agreeth this with the compelling of men into your Cōgre∣gation against their willes?* 1.303

The people rise before day and hie them to the house of prayer.

You bring in this vpon occasion of Praying in a knowen tongue,* 1.304 which the Greeke and Latine both are.* 1.305 Of which I haue spoken of, in the third Article of my first booke. But how like you this rising before day?

Non sum,* 1.306 inquis, Monachus. &c. Tho•• vvilt say,* 1.307 I am no Monke, I haue vvife and children and charge of household. This is it, that as it vvere vvith a Pestilence,* 1.308 infecteth altoge∣ther, that ye thinke the reading of the holy Scri∣ptures belongeth only vnto Monkes.

This is spoken of M. Iewel,* 1.309 to ex∣hort the people to y^• getting of knowlege which may be wel spoken to them, and sone goten of them, if Curiositie doth not let it. But what were these Monkes, so distincted by the studie of Scriptures, from the rest of the people? And what like Profession or Example haue you,* 1.310 in al your Reformations?

Decernimus ••um extran••um esse.* 1.311 &c. Vve decree that he shal be remoued from his of∣fice of Priesthoode, and from our Communion, and from the Primacie of his Abbie.* 1.312

This is alleaged of M. Iewel,* 1.313 to proue a confessed Truth, that Prima∣tus is taken for any preferrement before others. But let him consider it: were Abbies then within the .600. yeres after Christ▪ And in such reputaciō, that a ge∣neral Councel counted it, emong other thinges, for a great Ignominie and Pu∣nishment,

a Monke to be deposed from y^• Primacie in them? M. Iew. hoping to conclude therby y^• the B. of Rome should not be Supreme ouer al, sheweth what large Priuilegies Emperours haue ge∣uen to the Clergie, which for Ciuil Acti∣ons he may do wel inough, as being in them Suprem himself:* 1.314 Omnes qui vbic••que sunt, &c. Al that be or hereafter shal be Priestes or Clerkes of the Catholike faith,* 1.315 of vvhat De∣gree so euer they be, Monkes also, let them not in any Ciuile A••tions be dravven ••oorth to any fo∣ren Iudgement by the summon or commaunde∣ment of any Iudge more or lesse:* 1.316 neither let them bee driuen to come foorth of either the Pro∣uince, or the place, or the countrie vvhere they dvvel.

Yf you see then how greately the Clergie was honored in times past,* 1.317 and allow the Authors of their Priuilegies: Why labour you, as much as ye can, to to bring al the Spiritual power into sub∣iection? * 1.318 Or why defende you not the right of the Clergie, like Reformers of the Church?

Priestes and Clerkes are before your 〈◊〉〈◊〉, drawen before tēporal Iudges into

their Courtes. Monkes, not only not saued from the paines, to go for any ma∣ter out of the Countrie, but not suffred to haue any place in your Countrie. Such charitie hath ben taught by your Gospel, and with such pure folowing of antiqui∣tie you haue proceeded.

The place appointed vnto the priest for the hol•• Ministerie as it may be gathered by S. Chrysostome,* 1.319 at certaine times of th•• Seruice, was drawen with Curtaines.

This proueth not,* 1.320 that the Aultare was placed in the middest of the Church, as M. Iewel would haue it, but by this we may wel gather, that great reuerence was vsed then aboute the Mysteries, which you, forsooth, haue so mainteined, that as though the Celebration of the Mysteries was not open inough before, you haue, in some places pulled downe the Partition, between the body of the Church and the Quier, And haue caused generally, the Communion Table to be ••••ought downe neerer the people, least 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Curtaines, which you occupy, should let their sight.

Ergo vt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 p••ssint.* 1.321 &c. Therefore that

these thinges may ••e vvel examined,* 1.322 it is vvel prouided, that euery yeare in euery Prouince, at tvvo seueral times, there be holden a Councel of Bishoppes:* 1.323 that they meeting together out of al partes of the Prouince may heare and determine such 〈◊〉〈◊〉.* 1.324

When beginne you to put this Ca∣non in execution?* 1.325

Truely Liberatus saith,* 1.326 The manner was in Alexandria, that who so euer was chosen Bishop there,* 1.327 should come to ••e beare, and laie his Predecessours hand vp∣on his head,* 1.328 and put on S. Markes Cloke, and then was he sufficiently confirmed Bi∣shoppe, without any mention made of Rome.

You are a special frinde to the Bi∣shoppe of Rome,* 1.329 whiche rather then he should haue to do with Consecrating of Bishoppes, you can wel fansie a deade mans blessing, and the solemne vsing of a Relique: which how hartely ye fa∣uour, I am in doubt.

I proue it therefore vnto thee by these Examples (Indifferent Reader) not onely that M. Iewel is a dec••itful

Man, but I geue the also occasions how to trie him, whether he be in dede an hy∣pocrit••, or no. For if he thinke the for∣said testimonies out of the holy Fathers or Councels to be of such force and gene∣ralitie, that we may in no case receiue a diuerse order from theirs: Why are not Monasteries standing with them? Why are not olde Ceremonies obserued? Why is not water and wine mingled together in their Chalice, as plain Examples of y^• Primitiue Churche, declare vnto vs, to haue been then vsed? And, if he An∣swer, that the Canons, Orders, and Fas∣shions, or practises of old time, are not so to be vnderstanded of vs, as though the Ages folowing might not by lawful Au∣thoritie & f••l consent, put an other Canō in place of the olde: Why laieth he it to y^• Catholiks charge, that the Priestes now say Masse, though but one alone be pre∣sent, which was otherwise by Pope So∣ters decree? Or why telleth he vs (out of S. Basil) of an old Canon y^• appointed twelue at the least to receiue together?

Here (I should thinke) he must nedes be takē, (for who knoweth the vttermost

of his Art in shifting?) but I thinke ve∣rely he coulde not escape in this place, a iust note either of high malice, in obiec∣ting that, against his Aduersarie, which him self knoweth to be litle worth: either of deepe Hypocrisie, in pretending a Re∣uerence towardes Antiquitie, which in very deede he c••ntemneth.

How M. Iewel allegeth for himself, the woordes and deedes of Olde condemned Heretiques.

BEVVARE therefore of M. Iewel, you that seeme to haue, as it were, A Conscience, and make a Religiō of Religion. For many there are that liue emong Christians, them selues also being Christians, which so hartely folow y^• world & their own cōcupiscēces, y^• neither Catholike bookes wil do them good, they are so carelesse, neither hereti∣cal do them harme, they are so desperate. But you, which are not past al feare of God, and care of Saluation: whom ex∣amples of sinne, which were to be seene

emong the Papistes, or were gathered out of al Stories and Countries against them, did make to a••horre euen the Re∣ligion it selfe, which corrupte persons professed: Whome faire Promises of Gospellers, that they would shewe you a ready and shorte way vnto Heauen, in which you should haue no cariage of Ce∣remonie, Tradition, Lentes, Fast, Pe∣naunce, Feare of Purgatorie, &c. And that you should haue al things ministred vnto you, in like order and manner, as they were vsed emong the faithful in the Primitiue Churche: you I say, whom these faire promis••••, haue made to for∣sake the Olde and Catholique Religion, vpon hope to finde a more Auncient and Receiued Religiō which y^• new Masters & holy Doctors & councels would teach you: BEWARE you of M. Iewel.

For wheras you would not haue for∣saken y^• r••ligion in which you were bap∣tized, & which al Christians then in al the world professed opēly, ex••••pt you had be∣leued y^•, as it was told you, so you should ••e reduced to the perfite state of A true Religion, euen as it was to be found

in the Primitiue Church: how mis••rably are ye nowe deceaued, where your M••∣sters doe not in deede regarde the Ex∣ample and practise of the same Churche, for loue and des••er of which you folowed them, leading you quite awaie, from the Obedience of the present Church? How wel maie euerie one of you, whome M. Iewel hath peruerted, ••aie vnto hym?

Syr, haue you put me in this hope, that in folowing of you, I should goe in the safe waie of the primitiue Church, of holy Fathers, of Auncient Councels? And my mynde geauing me, that al was not wel in this present Church in which you and I both were baptised, and that the neerer one might come to the begin∣ninges of the Christian Faith, he should find it the more surer and purer, ha••e you serued my humour therein? and pro∣mising to reforme al thinges according to the paterne of the Auncient Catholike Church, are you proued in the e••d to neg¦lect those selfe same orders, which were obserued in the most best and most Aun∣cient tymes? Spake you faire vnto me, vntil I was come vnto you, from the

Cumpanie where I lyned, and doe ye not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 those thinges vnto me, for hop•• of whiche I brake from my 〈…〉〈…〉 cosse, I know, or a curtaine, Or A 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Church, are not essen∣tial, an•• without them we maie be saued: But yet, if in the pure and Primitiue Churche such thinges were alowed, you haue not done wel, to make me contemne the Pax, or vestmentes, or distinction of places, such as were vsed in the Church, from which I departed.

And yet: If these thinges be bu•• light, and Ragges, as some wil saie, of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Religion, was the building of Monasteries a light mater in the pri∣mitiue Church? And that Rule of lyfe, which Monkes then folowed, was it of smal importance, by the Iudgement of that worlde so nigh to Christ? You haue made me beleue, that to lyue in such Or∣der, should be a derogation to the meri∣tes of Christe, A trusting to our owne workes, A ••ondage of conscience, a pro∣mise of thinges impossible, A Supersti∣tio••s and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fashion, and at one worde, that Monkerie should be Trum∣perie:

And yet doth it appeare, by our owne allegations, that Monkes and Ab∣bates were in the Primitiue Church, and that they were also in greate rep••••ation.

What shal I saie of the most highe and dreadful Mysterie, the Sacrament of the bodie and Bloud of Christ, whereas the witnesses that yo•• bring in for other purposes, doe testifie vnto me, that the Cuppe of the Lord was mingled with wine and water: can I take in good part and with a quiet Conscience, that you put no water at al in the Cup of the Lord?

If you had not chalenged, if you had not prouoked, if you had not geauen most infallible tokens (as me thought) that al Antiquitie had gone smothe with you: or, if you had refused at y^• beginning al other Authoritie bysides the Expresse Scriptures, I might haue deliberated whether I would haue folowed you, or no: But now, making so large & goodly promises, that you would not take my Religion awaie from me, but that you would only reforme it, & that you would not denie the Faith, whiche the whole world professeth, bu•• require it to be re∣duced

vnto the order of the Primitiu•• Church, I yelded quickly therein vnto you, and thought, that these surely be the men of God, whiche shall purge the Church of al Superfluites, and leaue it in as good health & constitution, as euer it was in her florisshing tyme. And are you not ashamed, that the very printes, and steppes of papistry, are found, euen with∣in that age, which you warranted vnto me to be altogether for the Gospel? And that, in those selfsame testimonies, which your selfe vpon occasion, doe bring out against the Papistes? what were not they themselues lykely to shew, if they might be suffered to vtter, what diuersi∣tie there is betwixt this Late welfauo∣red Gospel, and the Catholike old Reli∣gion: seeing that you can not so order the mater, in reciting of Auncient Fathers & Councels, but it must be straite wayes perceaued, that your procedings are not conformable vnto the Primitiue Church.

O wretched and vile Glorie, to fill the margine of a Booke, with the Coun∣cels of Nice, Carthage, Chalcedon, Con∣stantinople, Ephesus, &c. and with the

testimonies of Anacletus, Felix, Soter, Calixtus, Chrysostom, Basile, Ambrose, Augustine, &c. as though that it were not M. Iewel that made any thing of his owne, but as though in al that he con∣cluded, he folowed most exactly, the holy Councels and Fathers▪ and, before all be knowen, to be conuin•••••• most cleerly and euidently, that his doeinges are not lyke the holy Fathers Religion, what a confusion is it vnto that Glorie, and what a Detriment to right meaning and wel willing consciencies?

In this sort might an honeste and graue man complaine, and say lesse than M. Iewel deserueth. For now I will shew vnto thee (Indifferēt Reader) that he allegeth, and that very sadly and so∣lemly, the testimonies of Heretikes as though it were no mater at al, how wel it would be admitted emong the lerned, so that the common Reader be perswaded that M. Iewel speaketh not without his Authorities. For proufe thereof let this be one Example.

The Bishopes of the East part of the vvorlde being Arians,* 1.330 vvriting vnto Iulius the Bishope of

Rome, tooke it gree••ously, that he vvould presume to ouer rule them.* 1.331 And shevved him, that it vvas not lavvful for him, by any sleight or colour of ap∣peale, to vndoe that thing, that they had done.

This is one of M. Iewels testimo∣nies, to proue against the Bishoppe of Romes Supremacie. In alleaging of which, although he lacked a point of dis∣cretion, in bringing of their sentencies furth,* 1.332 whom al the worlde hath condem∣ned for starcke Heretikes: yet he hath not forgoten al conscience and charity, in that he confesseth to his Reader, that these Bishoppes of the East, whose doinges he thinketh worthie to be consydered, were Arians. Which I praie thee (Indif∣ferent Reader) to thinke wel vpon, that it maie be perceiued, howe wel the Pro∣testantes and Arrians agree together, in their prowde and rebellious behauy∣ours: & how wel the testimonie of blas∣phemous Heretikes maie ser••e, to dis∣proue any Catholike and honest conclu∣sion. An other Example is.

Donatus being condemned,* 1.333 by three∣score & ten Bishops in Aphrica, Appealed vnto the Emperour Constantinus, and was

receiued.

But what was Donatus?* 1.334 A singular prowd heretike. For profe wherof, let y^• Epistles and bookes, whiche S. Augus∣tin wrote against him and his folowers, be witnesses. Let that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 also be wit∣nesse, which S. Augustine wrote pur∣posely of heresies: In which the Donatia∣ni or Donatistae haue their proper place. For when Cecilanus,* 1.335 A Catholike and good man, was made against their wils, Bishope of Carthage, they obiected cer∣taine crimes against vs, which being not proued, and sentence going against their, Donatus being their Captain they tooke such a Stomake, that they turned their Schisme into heresie, and helde the opi∣nion, that al they, whatsoeuer they were in the worlde bysides, that agreed not with them, were infected, and excommu∣nicated persons. And herevpon (as the nature of heresie is to goe, deeper and deeper still, into desperate blindnes and presumption) they dyd baptise againe, suche as had ben alreadie baptised in the Catholike Churche. It appeereth als••, what an honest and Catholike man 〈◊〉〈◊〉

was, in that M. Iewel confesseth hym to haue been condemned of three score and ten Bishopes, whiche was not, I beleue, for any humilitie, Obedience, Faith, or Charitie of his.

Donatus then beinge an Heretike,* 1.336 what hath M. Iewel to doe with hym? Lyke will to lyke perchaunce, and the same Sprite y^• inflamed Donatus, war∣meth M. Iewel: otherwyse, it is not to be gathered out of the practises of Here∣tikes, what the Order that we ought to folowe, was in the Primitiue Churche: But of the Catholike and alowed Ex∣amples. And if M. Iewel, could shewe, that this Appeale of Donatus vnto the Emperour from the Bishopes that con∣demned hym, was good and lawful, in the Iudgement of any Father or Doc∣tour of that age, then might this example haue some lykelyhoode in it, to serue his purpose: otherwise him selfe doth mini∣ster the Catholike an Exception againste his owne witnesse, the Auncient and Re∣••••rend Heretike Donatus.

But Constantinus the Emperour ••eceaued his Appeale. What of that? Is

al wel done, that Emperours doe? And are no•• manie thinges permit••••d vnto them for Ciuile Policie, and quiet sake, which, by right folowing to Ecclesias••i∣cal orders, should not be suffered? A∣gaine, Constantinus, was a Christian, Catholike and good Emperour: and he receiued in deed Donatus Appeale. but recea••ed he it willingly, or no? And thought he hymselfe to doe therein law∣fully, as A Supreme head and Gouer∣nour, or els to passe the bondes of his Imperial Authoritie, and to medle with a Iurisdiction belonging to more excel∣lent Officers? UVndoubtedly, he would faine haue been rid, of the importunitie of the Donatistes, and lyked it not in his owne conscience, that himselfe should be taken for the highest Iudge in maters Ecclesiastical. HJow pro••e I this now? Sufficiently inough: by S. Augustine. And marke the place well (Indifferent Reader) that thou maiest see the deuoti∣on of that so mightie an Emperour.

First, Donatus and his felowes,* 1.337 perceiuing that, although they had con∣demned Cecilianus y^• Bishope of Car∣thage,

and set an other, of their own•• making in his place: Yet the rest of the Bishopes of the world, dyd stil write and send to Cecilianus, as the true Bishope in deede, and such as they communica∣ted withal: they (I saie) perceauing this, made sute to Co••stantin••s the Empe∣rour, that they might haue the cause of Cecilianus examined, before the Bisho∣pes of beyond the seas. In which point, S. Augustine findeth, that they had a duble fetche and subtiltie.

The one, that if those Bishoppes, whom the Emperour had procured to hea••e the whole mater, should condemne Cecilianus, then loe, they should haue their lust fulfilled: The other, that if those should absol••e him, then would he with his fellowes say, that the Iudges were not indifferent, and so, by consequence, appeale from them. In which case, though (as S. Augustin saith) there re∣mained a general Councel of the vniuer∣fal Church, in which the cause betweene them and their Iudges, shoulde haue ben handeled, yet what did they? Mary, they went to the Emperour, and accused

the foresaid Bishopes before him. And how was this taken (thinke we) of the Catholikes? Uerely not wel, as appee∣reth by S. Augustine, which noteth the Donatistes of folish boldnes therein.

Iudices enim Ecclesiastic••s &c.* 1.338 For the Ecclesiastical Iudges, Bishopes of so great Autho∣ritie, by vvhose sentence and iudgement both the Innocencie of Cecilianus, and their naughtiness•• vvas declared (these men of such worthi∣nes saith S. Augustine) they durst accuse, not before other their fel••vvebishopes and Col∣legies, but vnto the Emperour, that they had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 iudged vvel.

But now, when they had broken the order of the Ecclesiastical Law, and were come to the Emperour, what did he? Did he commende their Obedience, or Wisedome? Did he preferre his owne Courte and Authoritie, before the Con∣sisto••ie and Iudgement of Bishoppes? What he did, the Actes and Registers of his owne Courte declare, as S. Au∣stine recordeth out of it. For after y^• Do∣natistes were now cōdemned by y^• Pope of Rome & other Bishopes assistant, and

refused to stand to their sentence, requi∣ring helpe at the Emperours handes: Dedit ille aliud Iudicium Arelatense, aliorum scilicet Episcoporum: He gaue and appointed vn∣to them other Iudges at Arles, I meane other Bis∣shoppes

Why: if the Emperour had in those daies taken the Pope for chiefe Bishope in al the worlde, would he haue further committed, vnto the Bishop of Arls, the sitting vpon that cause, which already was decided by the Bishop of Rome?

It seemeth altogeather vnlikely: And therefore M. Iewel may be thought to bring in deede an inuincible Argument for the Emperours Supremacie, against the Supremacie of the Bishop of Rome.

But marke the Circumstances and Considerations which moued the Em∣perour, and then wil the contrary con∣clusion be manifestly proued, that the Emperour tooke him selfe to be the infe∣riour vnto Bishops, euen in that cause, which was brought vnto him after Bi∣shopes, and which he caused to be exami∣ned againe, after it was sufficiently iud∣ged. For thus it foloweth in S. Austin.

Dedit ille aliud Arelatense Iudicium, non quia iam necesse erat, sed eorum peruersitatibus cedens & omnimodo cupiens tantam Impudenti∣am Cohibere. That is, He gaue other Iudges, not because it vvas novv necessarie, but because be yelded to the frovvardnes of them (the Do∣natistes) and desired by al meanes, to restraine so great Impudencie of them. Neque enim a••∣sus est Christianus Imperator, sic eorū tumultu••∣sas & fallaces querelas suscipere, vt de iudici•• Episcoporum, qui Romae sederant, ipse Iudi∣caret, sed alios, vt dixi, Episcopos dedit. For the Christian Emperour (as who should say, other Emperours, which forgette them¦selues to be Christians, and in whose ••ares nothing standeth so much, as Obey the higher povvers, &, obey the King as the chief, which is by the interpretation of blinde Gospellers and Flatterers, that euery Prince is for his own Countrie Suprem vnder God in al maters both Ecclesia∣stical and Temporal, such Emperours: woulde not onely haue contemned the sentences of Priestes in comparison of their Maiesties Iudgement, but also haue punished such as would signifie it, by neuer so smal a token, that the Em∣perour

can not wel be Supreme Iudge in maters Ecclesiasticall, But) The Christian Emperoure durst n••t receiue their (the Donatistes) Sediti••us•• and dec••itful ••••mplaintes, in such sorte, as that him self•• ••v••uld iudge of the sentence of the Bishopes that sate at Rome but he apointed (as I haue said) ••ther bish••pes. And that, for the causes aboue mentioned: which were, the fro∣vvardnes and the Impudencie of the Dona∣••istes.

A quibu•• tamen illiad ipsum rursum Impera••orem prouocare maluerunt. From ••vhich Bisshoppes for al that they ch••se to pro∣uoke againe to the Emperour. And what saied he vnto them? Forsoothe, he Iudged C••cilianum Inn••centissimum, illos improbissimos, Caecilian to be most Innocent▪ and them most vvicked.

Yea but, you will Replie, did not the Emperour 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Iudge vppon the mater, when it had been, twise before 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to Bishoppes? True it is in deede, that you saie: But consider, that they were Heretiques, which ap∣pealed from Bysshoppes to the Empe∣rour,

and that although he heard their Cause, yet he detested their Contenti∣ousnesse; and thought also before vpon it, to aske pardone of the Bisshoppes, for medling in the matter after them. For thus it foloweth in Sainct Augu∣stine.

Qua in re illos quem admodum det••∣stetur, audistis. Atque Vtinam saltem ipsi•••• Iudicio insanissimis animositatibus suis finem posuissent. Atque vt eis ipse cessit, vt de ill•• causa post Episcopos i••dicaret, à Sanctis An∣••ist••••ibus postea veniam petiturus, dum tamen illi, quod vlterius dicer••nt non haberent, s〈◊〉〈◊〉eius sententiae non obtemperarent, ad que•• ipsi pro••ocauerunt, sic & illi aliquand•• cede∣rent Veritati. In vvhich thing (that they appealed vnto him, after they had been with two seueral Iudges of the Clergie) hovv he detested them, you haue heard. And Vvould God they had made an ende of their most ••utragious stomaking of the mater, if it had ben for no more then for his sentence sake. And as he (the Emperour) yelded vnto them, to iudge of that cause after the Byshopes, min••ing to ask•• pard••n•• aftervvarde of the holy Bishoppes, 〈◊〉〈◊〉

that they (the Donatistes) ••hould n••t han•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 say further, if they vvould not obey his se••∣tence, vnto vvhom they appealed: So vvould God, that they once yet vvould yeelde vnto the truth.

Consider now indifferently with me, vpon this whole mater (gentle Reader) And this appealing of the Donatists vn∣to the Emperour, and his hearing of the whole cause, being not once or twise, but very oft alleged by M. Iew. it is worth while to be wel remembred, that which I haue already said, & that which by oc∣casion hereof may be further gathered, and wel be noted.

See then first, what busie Heretikes these Donatistes were, and how ful they were of Shiftes and Quarels making: From the Emperour to Rome: From Rome they go to the Emperour againe: From him then by appointement and a∣greement, they goe to Arls and the Bis∣shops there: And frō Arls, they returne, with complaint, to the Emperour yet againe. At last, the Emperour himself heareth y^• cause, yet would they not stand to the Emperours sentence, but main∣teined

stil their false Bishope, whom to put in the See of Carthage, they thruste out Cecilian, and they continued stil in their heresie, accompting al the Christi∣ans of y^• world accursed, which were not of the syde of Donatus.

Such is the nature and practise of Heretikes, they pretend conscience, they commend holy and Auncient Fathers, They appeale to the Primitiue Church: They craue for General Councels, for free disputations, for surcease of Inqui∣sition, for Seruice in the vulgar tongue, for Comm••••••on in both kindes, and other such thi••ges moe. If the Princes & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 resist them in any point, straite waies they make exclamations, they sturre vp angers, ••hey complaine of sentence geauen vpon them before they be heard, of the lack of ghostly cōsolation, which should come to the people by vn∣derstanding of Scriptures and receiuing the Sacramentes, of the penalties of lawes and Statutes. What is it so litle, th••t they wil not murmur against, if they maie not haue their f••l wil▪ In respect then of peace and publike tranquilitie▪

if you wil not striue w^t them vpō mater•• indifferent, but dispense with them in theyr requestes or demaundes, yet will they not suffer the Catholikes to be in rest: And if you put them out of feare of the Inquisition, they wil troble yet the whole Countrie with preaching in the open field: And if you prouide a General Councel to satisfie them, they will not come at it: if at euery masse there should be Communicantes, they wil not alow the Sacrifice. And when the Prince is made by them the Supreme Gouernour vnder God▪ in any countrie, yet wil they stoutly disobey y^• prince in a smal mater of wearing a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 gowne & cap. So y^• al y^• they doe, is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to mainteine talke, and finde alwaies somewhat, in whiche they maie occupie the Catholikes, vntil that at length, when theyr power is so greate, that they ••are meete in field with their Aduersaries, they maie boldely and d••sperately, leaue al reasoning, confer∣ring, Applealing, demaunding, prote∣sting, and Lawleying, and with open face com•• against the Catholikes: Pull downe Churches, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 officies: Take awaie Sacramentes, Alter the sta••e of

common weales, hang, draw and quarter Priestes: Set Inquisition againste Ca∣tholikes: And confirme their Gospel by terrour.

These and suche like thinges we in our daies see by experience. Constanti∣nus the Emperour dyd not see so much: Yet fearing the busie nature of Schys∣matykes, and hoping by faire demeanes to bring the Donatistes to a peace with al Christendome, he yelded as much vnto them as he could, and (as ye haue heard) he receiued theyr prouoking to hym, not because he thought that hym selfe was the chiefest Iudge in all the world, euen in maters Ecclesiastical, but because he hoped, in yelding vnto the Donatistes in al their requestes aboute apointynge or changing of y^• Iudges, to bring them at length vnto suche a remembrance of themselues, that they should cease, for shame, to make any further brable about that, in which by euery Iudge that dyd heare the cause, they were condemned.

Now, if at those daies, either the wyse and lerned aboute hym, or he hymselfe, had beleued the hearing of causes Eccle∣siastical

to belong vnto his court or con∣sistorie, what needed hym to borowe•• point of the law, & to accompte vpon as∣kyng of pardon of the Bishopes, for his meddling with that cause, which they al∣readie had ended? Can we haue any thing more plaine and manifest, that this Christian and wor••hie Emperour, dyd in conscience thinke himself to base to sit and Iudge after Bishopes, whereas enforced thereunto by the importunitie of the Donatistes, and trusting, by that his yelding, to pacifie the commotion y^• was reysed in the catholike Church, yet was not sure of his doeinges herein, but determined to aske forgeauenes of the holy Bishopes?

As if he should saie: The Donatistes here, trouble the Church, They appeale vnto me, as though I were chiefe. If I wil not heare their cause, there is no man shal Rule them: And if I take open me to heare it, the Bishops, which alrea∣haue decided it, wil be offended. Wel, I wil venter yet, And if the Donatistes wil stand to my iudgement, and be quiet for euer after, that is so greate a benefite,

that to cumpasse it, I maie stretche my conscience. And if, for al that pretense, my fact shal be misliked, I wil aske pardon of the holy Bishopes, which haue alrea∣die iudged of the mater, This is the very trueth of the Emperours receiuing of the Donatistes Appeale. He dyd it vpon occasion, and if it were not wel done, he was readie to take a pardon for it. In all thinges he sought the beste waie to helpe the Church, and shewed his moste due, and humble, and Obedient affection towardes Bishopes.

Yet doth M. Iewel bring in this Story,* 1.339 to proue that It is vvel knovven, that Appeales euen in the Ecclesiastical causes, vvere made to the Emperours and Ciuil Princes. Secon∣ly, that the Bishope of Rome determined such ca∣ses of Appeale, by vvarrant and commission from the Emperour. Thirdly, that maters being heard and determined by the Bishope of Rome, haue ben, by Appeale from him, remoued further vnto others. Which Conclusion wil seeme well inough to folowe vpon the Appeale of the Donatistes vnto y^• Emperour, and y^• Emperours sending of them first vnto the Bishope of Rome, and then to the

Bishope of Arles, but consider the ma∣ter truely, and M. Iewels Arguments mu••t be these.

Schismatikes Appealed in an Eeclesiastical cause▪ vnto the Emperour Constantinus: Ergo Ca∣tholikes, maie•• like causes, appeale to Ciuil•• Princes.

Againe, Constantinus the Emperour, receiued for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sake the Schismatikes appeale, and 〈…〉〈…〉 Rome there to be tried, and durste not him selfe iudge of that cause, vvhen the Bishope of Rome had determined it. Ergo the Bishope of Rome had a vvarrant and commissi∣on sent vnto hym, to heare and determine that mater.

Againe, Constantinus the Emperour yel∣dinge vnto the importanitie of Schismatikes, vvhen they vvould not obeie the Sentence of the Bishope of Rome, sent th••m to the Bishope of Arls, and vvhē they vvould not be ruled neither by that Sentence, he heard the cause hymselfe, and myn∣ded to aske pardon of the holy Bishopes, for his sitting vpon that mater, vvhich alreadie by them vvas determined: Ergo Appeales maie be lavv∣fully made from the Bishope of Rome to other Bishopes, and the Emperour is Supreme hea•• vnder God in earth: So that al causes must in the

end be referred vnto hym. These be the only premisses which the Storie geaueth, vn∣to which if he can ioine his conclusion, then shal he make contraries agree: but whereas he can not, whi maketh he con∣clusions without premisses? Or why maketh he Argumentes out of y^•, which either Schismatikes vsed, or that which Catholikes yelded vnto, in con••••derati∣on of Schismatikes? Wyl M. Iewel ne∣uer leaue his impuden••ie: But let vs go further.* 1.340

The Councel of Antioche deposed Pope Iulius:* 1.341 Yet was not Iulius therfore deposed.

This you bring in (M. Iewel) to declare,* 1.342 that the sentence geuen in Coun∣cels was not alwaies put in execution. To which I answer, that if the Councel be lawfull and Catholike, the decrees ought to be put in 〈◊〉〈◊〉: if thei be not, it foloweth not, that the Sentence of the Councel maie be 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or neglec∣ted, but that they which being of Autho∣ritie do not see the Councels 〈…〉〈…〉, are to be 〈…〉〈…〉 Councels, neither their 〈…〉〈…〉 their examples are to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

You reason muche like, as if one should saie against the Obedience due vnto the priuye Councel of a Realme: The Sonnes of King Dauid, the Capi∣tanes of the hostes, Abiathar also the high Priest, consented and agreed, saieing: Viuat Rex Adonias, God saue Adonias the King, and yet Adonias was not king, ergo the Proclamations or Determina∣tions of lawful Authoritie maie be litle estemed. For this Councel of Antioche, was a Schismatical assemble, and wher∣as they deposed hym, ouer whom they had no Authoritie, there is no absurditie at al, nor fault to be laied vnto any mans charge, that wil not obey, or lyke their procedings & doings therein. But when y^• lawful & head Bishope of the worlde, doth define and subscribe in a Generall Councel, though there folow no execu∣tion in acte, yet there is one to be done by right. And it can be no sufficient excuse before God, when the conscience shal be examined, to allege, that because Schis∣matikes decrees haue not ben executed, therfore the Obedience which is due to the Sentence of Catholikes, maie be

diminished. But see yet an other Exāple.

M. Iewel wil proue that Bishops of other Countries, neuer yeelded to the Popes Supremacie. For faith he:

The Bishopes of the East,* 1.343 writing vn∣to Iulius, allege that the faith that then was in Rome,* 1.344 came first from them, and that their Churches, as Sozomenus writeth, ought not to be accompted inferiour to th•• Church of Rome: And as Socrates further reporteth, that they ought not to be orde∣red by the Romaine Bishope.

You haue much to do M. Iewel with the Bishopes of the Easte,* 1.345 and no man, I thinke, that readeth your Booke wil iudge otherwise, but that they were learned and good men, such as whose o∣pinions both your selfe allow, and com∣mend vnto others to be regarded. And truely, if they were such men, I wil say nothing, but that he that is disposed, may esteeme their sayinges: but, if it shal be proued most manifestly, y^• thei were rank and obstinate Arrians, then truely, the more ignominiously and cōtemptuously they spak against the Bishops of Rome, the better they do declare, of what kind

and succession they are at this present, which set their whole studies against the See Apostolyke, and will not be ruled by the highest Bishop in Christendom.

For proufe of your assertion, you refer vs to Sozomenus, and Socrates, Auncient and lawful Historiographers, whome we also do admit. And, as though any man would striue with you herevpon, that the Bishopes of the East, did not so litle set by y^• Bishop of Romes Authoritie, as you seme to gather, you put in the margen the greeke text it self, that he which knoweth no greeke at all may yet say to him selfe: Bir Lady M. Iewel alleageth y^• expresse Text for him∣selfe, and it apeareth by y^• English ther∣of, that the Bishopes of the East made no such accompt of the Pope, as at these Daies is allowed.

But what shall we say? It can not be denied,* 1.346 but the Bishoppes of the Easte, those of whome Sozomenus and Socrates speake, did take themselues to be as good as the Bishop of Rome, and disdayned to y••lde obedience vnto him.

But, were they Catholiks, or Heretiks? Undoutedly Heretikes, and that of the worste ••••king. For they were Ar••ians. Howe proue I this? Mary by Sozo∣menus and Socrates both, which agree in telling the Storie. And that is this.

At what tyme,* 1.347 S. Athanasius fled to Rome, being persequ••ted of the Arrians, ••or defending of the Consub∣stantialitie of God the Sonne with the Father,* 1.348 it so ••ame to ••asse, that, at the same time, Paulus Bisshoppe of Con∣stantinople, and Marcellus Bisshoppe of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and Asclepas Bisshoppe of 〈…〉〈…〉 Bisshop of Hadria∣no••le, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 also to Rome, being al Ca∣tholike Bisshoppes, and al dryuen out of their Churches and Sees, through the Accusations and I••uasions of the Ar∣rians.

Herevpon Iulius the Bisshoppe of Rome, vnderstanding what faultes were layed to their charges, And per∣ceiuynge, that all were of one mynde concernynge the Decrees of the Ni∣cene Cou••cell, he thoughte it meete to

communicate with them, as with men of the same faith and opinion with him.

And as Sozomenus writeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 because of the vvorthines and dig∣niti of his See, or as Socrates saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , foras∣much as the church of Rome had the Prerogatiues & priuilegies▪ he restored euery one of them to his See,* 1.349 And wrote freely and sharp∣ly to the Bishops of the East which had expelled them, declaring that they had troubled the Churche, and that they had not iudged aright, of the forsaid Bishops Requiring furthermore, y^• some of them should appere at an appointed day before him, a••d that he would not suffer it, if they ceased not to be newfangled.

The Arrian Bishoppes, vppon the receipt of this letter, and for indignation that the Bishop of Rome had restored to their lauful Sees, the catholike Bishops ••••hanasius, Paulus, Marcellus, As••le∣••••••, Lucius, whom they had vnplaced, they called a Councel at Antioche,* 1.350 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 againe a faire letter to Pope Iu∣lius, ful of prety scoffes and tauntes, and not without sharpe threatenings also.

And, emong other points, these that M. Iewel reckeneth are some, that, forsoth, they ought not to be accompted inferiour to the Church of Rome, And that they ought not to be ordered by the Romaine Bishope. Hitherto is the storie as I gather it out of Socrates and Sozomenus.

Consider now of it indifferent Reader.

Was Athanasius an holy Bishope, or no? Was he a most worthy and tried defendour of the Catholike faith, or no? Did almighty God miraculously defend him against al his enemies, or no? Euse∣bius, Sozomenus, Socrates, Theodo∣rit••s, al y^• euer wrote the storie of y^• time, speak so much good of him, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 declare such a prouidence of God to haue ben about him, that he must be a very blinde and wretched Arrian, which seeth not his worthines, Or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at his Glory.

And whom then follow you M. Ie∣wel? Those Bishops of the East, whom your wisdome and Religion bringeth in for substantial witnesses? They con∣demned Athanasius. And for what other cause so principally, as for his defending of the Catholike faith, against the blas∣phemies

of y^• Arrians? Alow yow then his condemna••o••? Utter now your sto∣make and speake plainly, whether you beleue y^• Christ is of one & the selfe same Substan••ce with his Father. Shew yourselfe, as you are, in your Opinions, and put of the name and person of an ho∣nest Superintendent, which you would seeme to beare, and with al boldenesse, vtter your secrete Diuinitie.

For h••re nowe I chalenge you, & here I charge you.* 1.351 Alow you the Condemna∣tion of ••tha••asius, which your Bishops of the East concluded vpon? If you doe, Auaunt Arria••••▪ If you doe not, how can you but thinke euil of such arrogant and wicked Arrians, which not ōly put him our of his See, but also, when he was resto••ed againe vnto it, by the Iudge∣ment of the Bisshop of Rome, contem∣ned that his Sentēce, with greater spite and Insolencie, than they had expelled Ath••nesius and others, at the first.

I say further: If Athanasius, Pau∣lus. Marcellus, Asclepas, and Lucius, so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Fathers▪ ••eing ••r••elled by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Easte, thought them¦selues

safe inough against all their Ene∣mies, hauing the letters of the Bishop of Rome for their lawful Returne vnto their Sees, should not this alone, be Argument inough to any Indifferent Protestant in all y^• world, that he should not Contemne, Abandone and Accurse the Authoritie of the See of Rome? For, whereas the Examples of Learned and Holy men are to be followed: And, whereas M. Iewel the Challenger w^t others of his vaine,* 1.352 doe pretend greate Reuerence towardes Antiquitie, prouo∣king their Aduersaries, to bring Testi∣monies out of the Primitiue Church, And exhorting their Hearers and Rea∣ders, to consider the practise of the Aun∣cient tymes and Fathers: how should he not haue the Bishop of Rome in greate Admiration, whom he seeth to haue ben so highly estemed, of the greate Bishops or Patriarches, rather of y^• Easte Church Athanasius, Paulus, Marcellus &c. y^• his letters were of more force w^t them, to re∣store them to their Sees, than their own Power & Habilitie was, to kepe thēsel∣ues in their own places, when they had them?

Note also, that whereas they were expelled by violence, And wer se••t home again, not with an Armie, but with Let∣ters onely, Yet those letters preuailed so much with the People also of their Ci∣ties and Countries, that straite wayes they were gladly receiued. And had it not ben for the Conuenticle and Conspi∣racie of the forsaid Arrian Bishops of the East, in which they not onely set al their owne Power, against the Catholike Bi∣shops Athanasi••s, Paulus, &c. restored by the Pope of Rome, but accused them to the Emperour Cōstantinus, making him to vse Uiolence against them: the Catholike people of Constantinople, A∣lexandria, and other places, would haue honored and Obeyed them stil, as their owne true and lauful Bishopes.

Of which it is easy to gather,* 1.353 that, First the Blessed and Reuerend Bishops themselues Athanasius, Paulus, &c. did se•• very much by y^• Bishop of Romes letters and sentence: And then, that the Catholik and deuout people also of those quarters, did regard and obey the same: Thirdly, that such as resisted then the

Authoritie of y^• Bishope of Rome, were plaine Arrians. And last of al, that it was not done by law or any order, that those holy Bishopes, Athanasius, Paulus &c. enioyed not the right of their own See••, but by false Accusations of the Arrian Superintendente••, and Indignation, Stomake, Edi••••, Uiolence, & Persecu∣tion, of the Emperour Constantius.

How litle then doth this Example of the Arrian Bishoppes make for M. Iewels purpose? Yea rather, how much doth it make cleane against hym? For when wicked and nawghtie mens factes are put furth in writing, they are for this end put furth, to be abhorred, and not to be folowed: As Cains murdering of his brother, or Iudas betrayinge of his Master.

Yet, when the persons are notori∣ous, as Cain and I••das, Or the factes them selues are euidently naught, as to kyll or berray. Inno••entes; he should not doe much harme, which would desperat∣ly goe about to perswade any to folowe such Examples. But here is the mischief, when Historiographers are brought in,

as alowing tha•• whiche they condemne in deede, Or wh•••• heretikes are made to go for catholike Bishops: And when y^• is put furth as an Example to be folowed, which serued rather to dehort men from resisting Trueth and Authoritie: And when by natural reason the mater is not so euident, but examples of former times in the one si••e or other, maie wel moue the vnlea••ne•• to folowe them.

And in this arte M. Iewel is a doc∣tor. For if he would haue expressely said, The Arrians and Heretikes of the Easte Church whē they had wrongfully expelled the catholikes and good Bispopes, Paulus, Athanasius, &c. out of their sees, they con∣temned the Bishope of Romes letters by which they were required to receiue them againe, and to set aside al Iniurie and new∣••anglenes: Ergo the Bishope of Rome is supreame head of the Church: If M. Ie∣wel would after this open and plain•• manner haue vsed hymselfe, there is not, I suppose, so vnsensible A Protestant, which would not haue iudged hym, to haue reasoned very folishly.

But now whiles he geueth them no worse name than the Bishops of the East,

and kepeth frome the knowlege of his Readers, that they were Heretikes and Arrians, he maketh them to thinke, that al is wel, And that these Bishopes were men of much credite and worthines, and that not only late Gospellers, but old Catholique Fathers also, haue denied Obedience to the Bishoppe of Rome. Whiche thinges being altogether other∣wise, the Readers are driuen into per∣dition: And M. Iewel either seeth not that an Argument brought from the Au∣thoritie of blasphemous heretikes is no∣thing worth (which is incredible in him that hath so greate insigh••e in the true Logyk•• and Diuinitie) either seinge it, he maketh no conscience of it, to bring his purposes to an end, by what meanes soeuer he maie, & this is so credible, that it agreeth very wel both with the despe∣ratnes of his cause and of his stomake.

BEVVARE therefore (Indifferent Rea∣der) of M. Iewel, and knowe this for most certeine, that as I haue declared by a few Examples in this Chapiter that he allegeth the condemned sayinges and doings of Heretikes vnder the colour 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Catholike and approued witnesses, so in many moe places of his Replie, he doth in like maner, abuse them most shamful∣ly. But of them thou shalt reade in other Bookes.

And what now is there more (M. Iewel) that ye wil require or vse against vs? To the first six hundred yeres only you haue appealed, your selfe yet do vse the testimonies of al ages. To the first six hundred only you haue appealed, and yet against the approued writers of that selfe tyme, you haue excepted. Besydes this as though ther were not to be found Catholike witnesses inough in the cause of the catholike Faith, you couertly bring in against vs, the accursed sayinges and do••inges of Heretikes. Which one point excepted (that you shal not in question of the Catholyke Faith and Tradition▪ make any old Heretikes Iudges in the cause, Or witnesses) for the reste I dare graunt vnto you, to take your vantage, where you can finde it.

But hauing so large cumpasse graun∣ted vnto you, against the expresse reason & Equitie which should be in your Cha∣lenge,

shal it not become you, to vse this priuilege discreetly and truly? And so to allege your witnesses, as in deede they meane in their owne sense, without false applying thereof: And as they speake in their owne tongue, without adding vn∣to their say inges, or taking awaie from them, any thing that is of the substance of their verdicte? Thus, whether you doe obserue or no, let it be tried.

And that it maie be tried the better, I wil briefely and plainely proue against you (M. Iewel) before any indifferent Reader: First, y^• you haue abused Coun∣cels, then Lawes, Canon and Ciuil: Thirdly, Fathers and Doctours, Aun∣cient and Late: And that ye haue spared no kind of writer that came in your way.

How M. Iewel hath abused Councels.

COuncels, in one sense, are abused, when that which is found in them to be condemned, is brought furth by any Protestant as though it were ap∣proued.

As in example wheras D. Har∣ding concluded, vpon the profite which cometh of celebrating the memorie of our Lords Passion, that the Sacrifice of the Aultar, which is made in remembrance therof, shuld not be intermitted, although the people would not communicate: M. Iewel,

To adde a lytle more weighte to this seely reason, saieth further in D. Hardings behalfe.

If this Sacrifice be so necessarie,* 1.354 as it is supposed, then is the Priest bound to Sacri∣fice euery daie, yea although he him selfe Receaue not.

But howe proueth he this?* 1.355 it folo∣weth.

For the Sacrifice and the receauing are sundrie thinges.* 1.356

And what of that?* 1.357 For although Communion bread and wine be sundrie thinges, yet you wil not permit the Re∣ceiuing of the Lords supper in one kinde o••ly. And so although Sacrifice and Receiuing be distinct: yet doth it not fo∣low, that a Priest maie offer and not re∣ceaue. But you wil proue it, by better Authoritie then your owne, for thus

you saie.

As it is also noted in a late Councel holden at ••oledo in Spaine.* 1.358 Quidam Sacerdotes & caet. Certaine Priestes there be, that euery day offer many Sacrifices, and yet in euery Sacrifice withhold them∣selfe from the Communion.

What is your Ergo then vpon this place?* 1.359 Your Conclusion should be, Ergo A Priest maie Sacrifice, although he him¦selfe doe not Receaue. But can you ga∣ther this out of the Councel? Doth it not rather make expressely to the contrarie? Doth it not reproue the Priestes, which Sacrifice, & Receue not? Let the place be considered, & then conferred with M. Ie∣wels collection. The whole place is this.

Relatum est, & caet.* 1.360 It is tolde vs, that certaine emonge the Priestes, doe not so manie tymes Receaue the grace of the holy Communi∣on, as they seeme to offer Sacrificies in one daie, but if they Offer moe Sacrificies in one daie, they vvithhold themselues in euerie offering from the Communion, and they take the grace of the holie Communion, only i•• the las••e offering of the Sacrifice: A•• though that they should not, so ofte participate the true & singular Sacrifice, as oft as

the offering of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Iesus Christ shal be sure to haue ben made. For behold, the Apostle saieth, doe not they eate the Sacrificies, vvhich are partakers of the Aultar? Certaine it is, that they vvhich doe Sacrifice and doe not eate, are giltie of the Sacrament of our ••ord. From henceforth therefore, vvhatsoeuer Priest shal come to the Diuine Aultar to offer vp Sacrifice, and vvithhold himselfe from the Com∣munion, let him knovv, that for one yeres space he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 repelled frō the grace of the C••̄muniō, of vvhich he hath vnsemely depriued him selfe. For, vvhat maner of sacrifice shal that be, of vvhich no not he that doth Sacrifice, is knovven to be partaker? Therefore, by all meanes it must be obserued, that as oft as the Sacrificer doth offer and Sacrifice vpon the Aultar the bodie and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ, so ofte he geue himselfe to be parta∣ker of the bodie & bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ. Hitherto the Councel of Toledo.

How thinke we then? Hath not M. Iewel properly alleged it for his pur∣pose? could he haue brought a place, more plaine against himselfe? M. Iewel saieth that Sacrifice and Receiuing are sundrie thinges: And meaneth thereby,* 1.361 that the priest may do y^• one & leaue the other, that

is, Offer and not Receiue: the Councel defineth, that what so euer Priest do Of∣fer and not Receiue, he shalbe kept away from the Communion a tweluemonth togeather. And what other thing is this to say, then that Sacrifice and Com∣munion are so sundrie, that the Priest for al that, can not put them a sunder, Or do one without the other? Thus hath M. Iewel, to put more weight to his seely reason, confirmed it by a fact condemned by the same Councel, in which it is foūd reported. And this is one way of Abu∣sing of Councels.

In an other kinde, it is an abu∣sing of Councels, when that is Attribu∣ted vnto them which at al is not in them. As in Example.

The Intention (saith M.* 1.362 Iewel) of the Churche of Rome, is, to woorke the Transubstantiation of bread and wine,* 1.363 The Grek church had neuer that Intentiō, as it is plaine by the Coūcel of Florence.

Thus you say M. Iewel,* 1.364 and in the Margin you referre vs to the last ses∣sion of the Councel of Florence, but in that Session there is no mention at al of

Trāsubstantiation, Or, Intention. The greatest and the only mater, therein Dis∣cussed and defined, was, concerning the Pr••ceding of God the Holyghost from the Father and the Sonne, in which point the Grecians then were at one w^t the Latines. It folowed then, after a few dayes that the vnion was made, that the Bishop of Rome sent for the Grecians, and asked of them certaine questions, concerning their Priestes and Bishopes, and Anoynting of their dead, & Praiers in the•••• Liturgie, and choosing of their Patriarches.

But it was neither Demaunded of them what Intention they had in Con∣secrating, Neither Aunswered they any thing to any such effect, Neither did the Bishop open vnto them, his Faith and beliefe therein. So that altogether it is a very flat lye, that M. Iewel here ma∣keth vpon that Councel. Except he meane the Doctrine that there foloweth geauen to the Armenians, in which Trā∣substantiation and Intention both is cō∣prehended, wh••revnto the Sacred Coū∣cel whe••••of the Grecians were a parte,

gaue their consent.

A third maner of Abusing Councels, is, to allege them truely in dede as they say, but yet to allege them to no purpose. As in example. The fourth Councel of Carthage decreed, that in certaine cases, the Sacrament should be powred into the sicke mans mouth. of which worde (powred) being proper only to thinges that are fluent and liquide, D. Harding gathereth, that the Sacrament whiche they receaued, was in the forme of win••, and not of bread. Herevpon M. Iew∣el commeth against him, and he calleth it a Gheasse, that the bread can not be powred into a sicke mans mouth. But howe proueth he it to be but a Gheasse? Or what sayeth he to the contrarie? It foloweth.

And yet he maie learne,* 1.365 by the thirde Councel of Carthage, and by the abridge∣ment of the Councel of Hippo,* 1.366 that the Sacrament was then put into dead mens mouthes.

Your Argument then is this:* 1.367 One (y^• is so foolish or superstitious) may put the Sacrament into a dead mans mouth,

Ergo D. Harding doth not gheasse wel,* 1.368 that bread can not be powred into a sicke mans mouth. But al thinges are here vnlike, both Persons, and Actes, and Termes.

First of al, dead men are distincted from Sicke men, and the dead you may order violentlie, but the sicke wil be vsed Reasonablie, except none but Enemies be about them.

Then, in the one side, the Act is vn∣lauful (to put the Sacrament in a dead mans mouth) On the other, it is lauful (to power it into a sicke mans mouth).

Beside this, Putting is one thing, and Pouring is an other, and whether it be bread or wine, you may be suffered to say, that they are put into the mouth, but how bread should be poured into ones mouth, except in al haste you minded to choke him or fil him, I can not tel.

Last of al, the terme Sacrament, which is forbidden to be put in the dead mans mouth, may signifie any of the two kin∣des: That is, either of Bread or wine▪ but in naming the Bread, you are bound to that one kinde only of the Sacrament,

and must not meane thereby, wine. So that there is neither Rime nor Reason in it, to tel vs ful solemlie, that the Sacra∣ment was put in dead mens mouthes, the Propositiō, which you therby would disproue, being onely this, that Bread can not be poured into sicke mens mou∣thes. And therefore to speake the least, and best of it, this is a very vain and idle Abusing of the Authorities of Councels.

But of al other it passeth, when M. Iewel taketh,* 1.369 as much as pleaseth him, of any Canon of Councel, and maketh a ful point before he come to the end of the Sentence: Mainteining his Heresie, by that Peece which he pulleth away, And dissembling that which remaineth, by which his Obiection should be strait∣waies refelled. For otherwise, to re∣herse no more of a Canon, than serueth our purpose, it is cōmon and tolerable. But when that point which an Heretike leaueth out, pertaineth to the qualifying of that other Peece, which he would haue to be vnderstand absolutely, that is such a point of an Heretike, as may wel cause any reasonable mā to BEVVARE of him.

But is it possible, that M. Iewel maie be taken in this fault? If he be not, then wil I graunt, that he hath not, in as Ample and Shamfull maner abused Councels, as any of the most Desperate, of all that euer wrote. And if he be, I aske nomore, but that he may goe for such as he is. The Example shal make this plaine.

In the Councel of Laodicea it is decreed like as also in the Councell of Carthage,* 1.370 that nothing be readde in the Church vn∣to the people, sauing only the Canonical Scriptures.

I wonder then, what your Home∣lies doe in the Church,* 1.371 except you thinke that they be Canonical Scriptures,* 1.372 Or els, that you so precise folowers of An∣tiquitie, are not bound to the Canons of Auncient Councels. But as I doe graūt vnto you, that the Councel of La••dicea hath, that such only bookes as are of the old & new Testamēt should be readen in the Church, so, that y^• like also is declared (as you boldly say) in the Councel of Car¦thage, it is so manifestly vntrue, y^• it may not be suffered. For these are the verie

wordes of the Councel.* 1.373

Item placuit,* 1.374 vt praeter Scripturas Canoni∣cas ••ihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine Diuina∣rum Scripturarum.* 1.375 that is, Vve like it also, that nothing besides the Canonical Scriptures be readen in the Church, in the name of the Diuine Scriptures.

The Councel therefore forbiddeth not other things bysides the Canonical scri∣ptures to be readen in the Church, but it prouideth, that nothing be readen there, as in the name of Scripture which is not true Scripture in dede. And this appeereth most euidently by other wordes, which folowe in the selfe same Canon where it is sayed.

Liceat etiam legi Passiones Martyrum, Cum Anniuersarij eorū celebrantur. Be it lauful also to haue the Passions of Martyrs readen, vvhen their yerely Daies are celebrated and kept holy.

By this,* 1.376 it is most euident, that other thinges bysydes the Canonicall Scrip∣tures, as the Passions of Martyrs (such vndoutedly as we haue, for a great part, in the Legends of the Church) were per∣mitted to be readen in the publike Ser∣uice: And that M. Iewels comparison

(that the Lessons then read in y^• Church were taken out of y^• holy Bible (ONLY as he meneth) as it is now vsed in the church of England,) hath no agreablenes and Proportion. For wh••t one Martyr is there in al the whole booke of the Com∣mon praier of England (S. S••euen on∣ly excepted) which hath any Festiual day appointed out for him, or any storie of his Passion declared?

But like perfite Diuines, you wil no other thing, but Scripture onely rea∣den in your Churches: in which pointe, you would be seene to follow the Coun∣cel of Carthage. You deceaue the peo∣ple, by your glorious lying.* 1.377 The Coun∣••••l of Carthage (as you perceiue by the wordes which I haue alleged) alloweth not onely Ca••onical Scriptures, but Martyrs Passions also to be Readen in the Church. Why say you then so im∣pudentlie, that it it was there Decreed, that nothing should be read y^• Church vnto the People, sauing onely the Cano∣nical Scriptures?

I aske of you also, where the Pas∣sions ••f those Martyrs are, which at the

beginninge had their Holidaies in the Churche: And should to this daie haue them if (as you doe chalenge it) you were of the holie and Catholike Church? S. Clement, Cornelius, Cyprian, ••istus, Lawrence, Uincent, Sebastiane, and other, whom the whole world honoreth: what solemme Feastes haue you of them, or what Lessons and Homilies are Rea∣den in your Churches, of their Passions? Were there no Martyrs in the world, af∣ter the Apostles were once departed this lyfe? Or know you any more excellent, than these whome I haue named? Or haue you no mynde or affection to any of them? Or haue you spied a Canon in the Councel of Carthage, that nothing but Canonical Scriptures shal be readen in the Church? And could you no•• see the plaine Exception, which is straite waies in the same Canon made against it, that, notwithstanding the former wordes, the passions of martyrs should be readē in the Church, when their yerelie daies are celebrated?

But of the beggarlines of this new Religion▪ and how it is altogether d••sti∣tuted of Martyrs, Confessors▪ Uirgi••s,

of all kinde of Sainctes, it is to be spo∣ken at more leasure: in the meane tyme, this I lea•••• most euidentlie proued, th•••• M. Iewel hath abused Councels.

How M. Iewel hath abused the Decrees of the Canon Lawe.

THere is smal hope, that he whiche dareth wrest, Beli••, and Peruerte Councels, wil spare to vse al Lose∣nesse and Libertie in squaring o•• Decrees and Decretals to his purpose. And manie will thinke on the other side, that M. Iewel is so honest and good, of nature, that he would not, no no•• of the diuell himselfe (if he might) winne ••ny thing by lying, and muchlesse in the cause of God & his true Religion, reporte any thing, of any man that euer yet wrote, otherwyse ther▪ the Trueth is, and the wordes of the Author. Examples then muste confirme my obiection, emonge which this is one.

Fabianus (s••••••th M. Iewel) Bishop of Rome hath plainely decreed,* 1.378 that the

people should rec••aue the Communion euery sondaie. His wordes be plaine. De∣c••rnimus &c. We decree that euery son∣da•• the Oblation of the Aultare, be made of al men and women, both of bread and wine.

True it is, that Fabianus willed such Oblations of bread and wine to be made,* 1.379 and them to this end, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 à peccatorū suorum ••ascibus liberentur, that the people might be deliuered of the burden of their sinnes. But offering euerie Sonday, and Receiuing euerie Sondaie are two thin∣ges. To prouide, that the people should Offer Bread and Wine euerie Sondaie, it was necessary, because, that is the pro∣per mater of which the Sacrament of the Aultare is made, and because the Clergie also liued then, of the offerings of the people. But to decree, that al men and women should Receiue eu••rie Sonday, it is altogether vnreasonable, that it should haue ben Fabianus mynde.

For, in the verie same place, there is an other Decree of his, that men should Communicate thrise, at the least (if no oftener) in a yere, that is At Easier,* 1.380 ••itteso••∣••ide, and Chrisimasse, except perchaunce some

man be letted by anie kind of the grevous crime••.

If then ••e required no more, but that the people should Receaue thrise a yere, how is it possible, that, by this decree, of which M. Iewel speaketh, and in which there is no m••ntion of the peoples recea∣uing, ••ut of their Offering only of Bread and Wine,* 1.381 any charge should be laied vp∣pon al men and womens consciencies, to Receaue euery Sondaie? Ye might as wel conclude, that in euery parish of En∣gland, th••re was some one or other of the laie people, that Receaued alwaies on Sondaie, in one kinde, at the leaste, with the Priest, because an holy loafe (as we cal it) was Offered euery Sondaie.

But consider yet further (Indiffe∣rent Reader) how finely and properly, M. Iewel gathereth Argumentes out of Auncient Popes decrees. He noteth, out of the foresaied wordes, not only that men and women Receaued euery Son∣daie, but also that they Offered bread and Wine euery Sondaie, according to the Order of Melchisedech. By which ac∣compte, so manie Priestes and Sacrifi∣cers were in the Church, as were men

and women that offered bread and wine.

Yea, not only men, and women that are of perfitte discreation, but all the bo••es and wenches of the Parishe, may, with litle charges, be quickly within or∣ders. For, as M. Iewel compteth, there is no more in it, but to Offer bread and wine to the Aultare, and straitewaies al that doe so, are Priestes, after the Order of Melchisedech.

But if that be so, how is the order of Melchisedech more perfitte, than the Order of Aaron? Or how was there such a Religion and Reuerence aboute the order of Aaron, that none but of a cer∣taine tribe should be made Priestes, nei∣ther they also, without vocation and con∣secration: if to the order of Melchisedech (at y^t coming of which, that of Aaron is perfited and accomplished) euery woman be within the Order, by offering of bread and wine to the Aultar? You M. Iewel that haue such knowledge in the vnder∣standing of the Popes decrees, are you Ignorant in the law of Moyses? Re∣member you not,* 1.382 that emong other thin∣ges that the people Offered, Bread and

wine were in y^• number? But what speak I of the peoples Acte? The priests them∣selues, y^• ••oke s••ch bread at their b••ndes, and lifted it vp before their Lord, & offe∣red likewise of the wine, by powring out of it in the sight of the Lord: were they of the order of Melchisedech or no? No sure∣ly not of Melchisedechs order, but of the order of Aaron only.* 1.383 If therefore a so∣lemne offering of bread & wine, euen in persons consecrated, doth not include the o••der of Melchisedech, you are much to ••e∣king of your purpose, which note, that y^• men and women that offered in S. Fabi∣ans ••••ne▪ bread and wine to the Aultar, were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 after the order of Melchise∣dech. So abs••rde it is, y^• a Pope of Rome should haue any such meaning in his de∣••••••e, as you do gather thereof, y^• I beleue the most folishe heretike in al the world, wold not, but w^t much study haue peeked it out. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vs cōsider an other exāmple.

Certainly (saieth M. Iewel) it seemeth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 S. Gregorie in his time,* 1.384 thought sin∣ging 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Church to be a fitter thing for the multitud•• of the people,* 1.385 thē for y^e priest. For he expressely forbiddeth the Priest to sing in the Church. But I do not remember that euer he forbadde the People.

The more you warrant it with your Certainly,* 1.386 that S. Gregorie should be of the mind which you imagine, y^• more er∣nestly I besech thee (indi••••er̄t reader) to mark how substātially M. Iew. bu••ldeth w^tout any foūdation. For this first is ma∣nifest, ther haue ben, frō y^• beginning, di∣stīct orders & officers in y^• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of christ as Bishops,* 1.387 priests, dea••ons, subdeacōs, acoli••es, exorcists, reade••••, sexti••s, Sin∣gers. And if these 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were euer kepte in the Church, without question, they were obserued most orderly, in S. Gregories time, whome, for his greate diligence in setting furth of the seruice of god, the heretikes themselues doe cal, sa∣uing their charity, Magistrū ceremoniaū, the Master of ceremonies. He therefore seing this faulte in the Church of Rome, that men apointed to higher offices, wer also chosen to serue in lower functions, as in example, y^• Deacons to become sin∣gingmen, prouideth by a special decree, to haue it reformed. The Decree is this.

In sancta Romana Ecclesia, dudum consue∣tudo est valde reprehensibilis exorta,* 1.388 & cae•• There is risen of late, a very il custome, in the holy Church of Rome, that certaine, vvhich are apoin∣ted

to serue at the holy aultare, are chosen to be Singyn•• men And that they, vvhich are placed in the degree of Deaconship, should be occupied about the svveete tuning and deliuering of their voices: vvhom it vvere more meete, to intend their office of preaching, and to be diligent in distributing of Almes. ••hereof, ••or the more parte, it cummeth ••o passe, that vvhiles a svveete voice is sought for, a tunable & agreable life is neglected: and the Mi∣••ister or D••acon vvhich is A Singing man doth pricke and greeue God vvith his manners, vvhiles h•• delig••teth the people vvith his voice. Vvherfore by this present decree, I apointe it, that, in this See, the Ministers at the holy Aultare, shal not singe, (••••derstand beneth in the quier as Singing men do••) a••d that they shal only doe their Office in Reading the Gospel at the Celebration of Masse. As for ••••••••mes▪ and ••o furth lessons, I decree that they shalbe done by the Subdeacons, or (if necessitie require) by the lesser Orders.

This is the whole decree. But where is it here, that a Priest should not Singe▪ The cause of making this decree, was the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Deacons. And, the Sing∣ging▪ which was forbidden them, was of that kinde as y^• Singing mē vsed, and no such Singing, as is vsed in Reading of a Gospel.

To speake also of the Priest, thin∣keth M. Iewel, that the Masse which he celebrated solemlie in S. Grigories time was of his part celebrated without note? And that in beginning of, Gloria in excelsis, Or in saying of, Dominus vobiscum, Or, Sursum corda, and so furth in the Preface, he sang 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not out, in a certaine quiet and easy tun••? The con∣trary is so cleare, that the note which is vsed in the Church in prefaces of y^• Masse and in halowing of the Font, which are done by a Priest only or Bishop, is called Cantus Gregorianus.

But goe to M. Iewel, proceede in your Abusing of Decrees: If singing be not fit for a Priest, for whom is it fitte? You answer that:

Certeinly,* 1.389 it seemeth that S. Gregorie in his time thought singing in the Church,* 1.390 to be a thing fitter for the multitude of the People, then for the Priest.

Now for shame of your selfe,* 1.391 dare y•• put it in print, y^t Certainly it semeth so? And dare ye note vnto vs the Decree In Sancta Romana, for proufe thereof? Ther:

is no one word in the whole Decree, that soundeth to y^• purpose. There is no men∣tion of the multitude. Yea the multitude of people is excluded, as it is cert••inly to be gathered, of the decree. For it appoin∣teth the Psalmes to be song of the Sub∣deacons, by name ••ut if necessity should require▪ y^• then, th••i of the inferior orders of the Church, might excecute y^• office. If therfore, it was not Ordinari••, no not for euery one of the Clergi••, to sing y^• Psal∣mes, & if when y^• case of necessitie came, that only ca••e made it lauful, for y^• inferi∣our Orders to sing & reade in y^• Church: how Absurdlie or impudentlie gather ye out of this Decree, y^t to sing in the church was thought fitter for the multitude of the people, then for the Priest?

It is to be noted further, y^• M. Iewel speaketh not of people Indefinitely, but of the multitude of people, Cōfusely. For p••ople to b•• suffered to sing, may haue a tolerable sense, when certain meet for the purpose, should be taken thervnto (And yet in S. Gregories time, this would not 〈…〉〈…〉 suffered in Rome, as ap∣peareth by the forsaid Decree) but y^• mul∣titude of people to be compted fit for sin∣ging

in the church, it is altogether so o••t of tune and Order, that they lacke both eares and reason coa•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it.

And wheras in S. Gregories time, none (as it appereth) but of y^• Clergie did serue in the church, And in our more loose daies, al persons yet, without 〈◊〉〈◊〉, are not permitted to execute the of••ice of Singing or Reading in the Church: M. Iew. in speaking for the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••hat (by likelyhood) as a copie 〈…〉〈…〉 be seene, at their Sermons, so in y^e chur∣ches, Men, women, boy••••, wēches, soul∣diars, mari••ers, merchāts, begg••rs, tag & rag, al should be fit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to beare a part: as he is therein more open & loose than we of these disool••••e daies, so, with S. Gregorie & his time, he agreeth no∣thing at al. Conferre, and Iudge.

An other Example.* 1.392 Omnes Episcopi, qui huius apostolice ••edes ordinationi sub∣iacēt.* 1.393 &c Al Bishops saith M. Iew. out of an episile of Anac••et••s) y^• be boūd to haue their orders cōfirmed bi this apostolik see, &c. wherby it may be gathered, y^• other bi∣shops wer not subiect to y^• ordināce of y^• see

This Decree is two waies abused: first in englishing i••,* 1.394 then in reso••ing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it.

Concerning the Interpr••tation: it is two thinges, to say, Al Bishopes that are bound to haue their orders of the Aposto∣like See. And, Al Bishopes that are boūd to haue their Orders confirmed by the A∣postolike See: Because y^• second is twen∣ty times larger then the first. Of the first Anacletus speaketh, meaning that al they, which are immediately subiect to the Bishop of Rome, and take Orders immediatlie at his hands, shal (as it fo∣loweth in the Decree) com or send yerely about the Ides of May, to S. Peter & Paules Church in Rome. Of the Se∣cond M. Iewel speaketh, which are out of the peculier Prouince of the Bishope of Rome, And which yet, when they are by their Clerg•• named & elected at home must be afterwards confirmed by the B. of Rome, and ar•• so ordeined and conse∣crated in their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Prouince: So that the Bishopes of Italie, are ordeined and confirmed both, by the B. of Rome: but the Bishoppes of Fraunce or England (when it was good) are not made by him, but confirmed, that is to say (as the woorde i•• sel••e geue••h) he ratifieth that

which other haue or shal doe.

The Interpretation therfore of M. Iewels is false: so is also his collection and Argument. For, although al the Bishopes that are vnder the Bishope of Rome, and boūd to receiue their orders at his handes immediatelie, although al these (I say) be within Italie onely, or nigh thereabout, as farre as his special Prouince goeth, yet doth it not follow therevpon, that the Bishope of Arls, or Caunterburie are not at al subiect vnto him. Like as in an Armie, where y^• King him selfe is present, when he shal diuid•• the battel, and appoint the gouern••men•• of diuerse bandes to diuerse Capitaines, reseruing to him selfe one emong al of which he, by him self, wil haue y^• charge: Although these now that he hath chosen out, be al that he hath to sette in aray and order by him self, yet must you 〈◊〉〈◊〉 infer, that he hath no Authoritie ouer the other partes of the Armie, because he doth not as immediately gouerne the whole, as his special parte? For, Immedia••elie, but one part is vnder his charge, but by meanes of his Capitaines, whom he on∣lie

hath appointed, & whom he againe by his authority mai vterly displace, or other wife 〈…〉〈…〉 he is King ouer the whole. So is 〈…〉〈…〉 B. of Rome. His authoritie is as 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ••s the name of Christians doth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 abroad, And Christe which commit••ed vnto S. Peter his Lambes & Sheepe, charged thereby, al that would be of hi•• flocke, to obey his Uicepastor.

Now, because the faithful are so multi∣plied, that one man by himselfe, can not Personally ••ome to euery place, therfore, euen from y^• beginning, there was made distinc••ion of Prouinces, and Iurisdicti∣ons in the Church of Christ: in so much, that the Pope himself had and hath stil, a det••rmined portion. Not that any Ar∣chebishope in the world, should take him self for as good as his Patriarche, Or y^• the Primates themselues shuld presume to ••e as Supreme as the Pope: but that y^• charge being diuided emong many, y^• whole might ••e with more spede & lesse ••rouble, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. He ruleth therfore his owne ••art. as if he were but a Bishope. Archbishope, or Pa••riarche, he ruleth y^• whols, as the Uicare of Christ, & head of his Church vnder him. He ruleth his

own part, Proportionablie, because he is a man which can not do al by himself: he ruleth the whole by special prerogatiue of Christes grace & power, because he is the chief Steward ouer y^• house of Christ, which he hath purchasen by his mo▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 death, the whole world. Concer∣ning his own part, other Bishops be his fellowes, as laboring to the perfection of that whole, in which euery of them hath also a part. Concerning the whole, some are Archebishops, & Primates, some Pa∣triarches, euery one of a larger Iurisdi∣ction then other, and one alone, is ••o••e.

This distinctiō then being most plain & manifest, that Rule and Gouernement, is put in practise, both Immediatlie by y^• Rulers owne Act, And Mediatlie, or by meanes of other: to take away the secōd by affirming y^• first, wheras first & second do in sundry respec••es wel st̄ad together, it is without reason or consequence. As, if one would say, The King chargeth al his Lords & Officers about him, to mete where he hath appointed, ergo it may be gathered, that no other with•••• England beside them of y^• Co••rt, are bound to ap∣peere where he shal appoi••te them.

And so doth M. Iewel reason, Al Bis∣shopes that are bound to take their Or∣ders, (or as he falsi••ieth the text, to haue their Orders confirmed) by the Aposto∣lique See, must (as it foloweth in the Law) come or send yearely to Rome: Ergo other Bishopes that are not Im∣mediatly, but Mediatly vnder him, are not subiect to the ordinaunce of that See.

Note also, that whereas the Decree of Ana••letus, is concerning the yearely comming of Bishopes to Rome▪ and not of any other point of Obedience and du∣tie: M. Iewel might wel argue thus.

The Bishopes onely of Italie, that are subiect to the Apostolique See, are boūd ••er••ly to come to Rome, &c. Ergo the Bishoppes of other Countries, that are further of, are not bound to come yerely ••hither. But, from this one particular for which onely the Decree was made, to reason gen••rally, of the Obedience and Subiection due to the ordinaunce of that See, it is Sophistically and Unreasona∣bly done.

By this I moue then sufficiently, y^• he hath abused the Canon Law.

How M. Iewel abuseth the very Gloses of the Canon law.

BUt doth his boldnesse stretch no further, than to the Text? or doth he not corrupt also the Gloses? verely he leaueth neither them vntouched, ••hat is to say, vncorrupted. For if M. Iewel once touche a place, it is very ••ard but it wil be the worse for his hand∣ling. And cause truly he hath none, why he should allege any Glose of the Canon law, at al. For whereas himselfe regar∣deth not, no not the Text it selfe, and the Catholiks also wil not be bound to make ••ood the priuate say••ing of any Gloser, it is a greate vanitie, to bring in such ••it∣nesses, as him selfe may well knowe are not sufficient. Yet, though I say so, ••e shall not require of me, to mocke straite∣wayes at any Gloses, Or to bring furth vnto y^• knowlege of the si••e wittes of y^• worlde, some simple deuises and dis••our∣ses

that they haue made, to the••tent thei may be laughed at. For there are De∣grees in euery thing, and he that wil not be so good as to praise euery Inuention of the Glose, needeth not to be so il, as to seeke how to finde fault with it, but may wel inough be suffered to hold his peace.

Now concerning M. Iewels beha∣uiour, if he hath such an itche, y^t he thin∣keth to rubbe vs on the gal, by alleaging such witnesses as we may and do lauful∣ly refuse, Why doth he not allege them truely? Why doth he tel their tale after them in such sort, as he findeth not in their owne words? Why doth he (vpon this preiudice emong the greater num∣ber that Glosers are but Ignorante and trifling men) bring forth blind and vain sentences out of them, which in dede are not theirs, (though it wil be easily sus∣spected) but M. Iewels: whome many compte so honest, that he wil not in any case make a Lie, or missuse his own wit∣nesses in any point?

This Obiection of mine, to Exem∣plifie or Prosequ••te at large, I doo•• not intend, but, in one or two examples, I

wil beginne the Chapiter, that he which herafter wil adde more vnto it, may haue a plaine & peculiar place where to put it.

In the Answere to D. Hardinges Preface, it pleaseth M. Iew. to open his mouth awide, and to auouch that the Pope speaketh after this maner.

I can do what so euer Christ him self can do:* 1.395 I am al, and aboue al: Al power is geuen to me, as wel in Heauen as in Earth.

You are not so honest as to be tru∣sted vpon your bare worde,* 1.396 and therfore name vnto vs your witnesses which may depose for you, that the Popes haue euer vttered wordes with such Arrogancie.

And you referre vs to the Glose De Ma∣ioritate & Obedientia, vnam Sanctam. But what saith that Glose? Doth it tel of any one Pope by name, Or doth it report so much of the order and succession of them, that euery one of them, hath in his course and for his time,* 1.397 ••ounded it out into al the world, that, I can do, what so euer Christ him selfe can do, &c?

You wil Answer (because there is no other shift) that the Gloser speaketh such words of the Pope, not that y^• Pope

himself, doth speak them, in his own per∣son of him selfe. Why then, I Iudge you by your own words, that you haue made an open lye, in attributing that, vnto the Popes owne Act, which is not his▪ but y^• Glosers collection vpō the Canon law.

Then, further I say, that many thinges are verfied in sundry Persons, concerning their Uocation, or Office, which i•• cannot become the persons thē∣selues, to appropriat to them selues. For the Apostles of Christ vvere light•• of the vvorlde.* 1.398 Yet if S. Peter had begon his E∣pistl••s with this stile and Title, Peter the Apostle of Iesus Christ, and one of the lightes o•• the world, he could not haue be•• thought to haue folowed the humility which was in Iesus Christ. Lykewise, euery man that is in the state of Grace, is vndoubtedly the Sonne of God, and Felow of Angels, and Con∣querour of Diuels,* 1.399 vutyl he doc forsake that Grace: ••et if you (M. Iewell) should ••••ent yourselfe of al your brag∣ging, 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ lying▪ &c. and Re••urne to y^• Catholike Church, & be receiued in∣to the Communion of Sain••es, it would

not be liked in you, to write yourselfe Ihon Iewel A Conqueror of y^e wicked Sprites, A terrour to heretikes, A Cōfort to Catholikes, A welbeloued of al Virgins, Confessours, Martyrs, Apostles and Patriarchs, A felow w^t the Angels, A Cusson of our Ladies, A sonne of Almighty God.

And so the Conclusion being true, that there is no Autoritie in the world comp••¦rable to that which Christ gaue to S. Pe∣ter & his Successors▪ yet doth it not agree that the Pope should in the first person crake or sound out of himselfe, I can doe whatsoeuer Christ himselfe can doe. For whereas high dignitie & Autoritie is geuen vnto men, for others sake which are to be gouerned, & not for their owne which beare the Office, and whereas such Gifts & Graces fo gouernemēt make not the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of them acceptable (as saith, hope & charitie doe) there is no occasiō to ••rake of that which perteineth not to any man in respect of his Person, but only of his Office.

On the other side, wheras to cōfe••••e the worthin••sse of an Office, may wel be∣come a wise and worshipful man, so that he attribute nothing therof vnto himself as he is one singular person: if the Pope Concerning his Office do confesse it that the chiefe Bishoppe in the Church, must rule al Christians and be subiect to none of them al: M. Iewel must not therefore slaunder him, that he openeth his mouth a wide, and vttereth blaspemies and soun∣deth out these wordes into al the world: I may iudge al mē, but al the world may not Iudge me. But by such forme of speach the simple Reader, and common Prote∣stant, cōceiueth of the Pope, that he stan∣deth a tipp toe: And ouerlooketh al the world: And is in great loue and conceipt of him selfe: And respecteth alwayes his priuate Estimation: And forgetteth that there is a God and right Iudge, and that him selfe is a Man and a Sinner as other folkes are: and that he attributeth an Omnipotencie to his owne proper person, &c. Wherevpon, he taketh an Indignation, and accompteth him to be a very Beast or Diuel and no man, that

so preferreth him selfe before other men, And is ready to accurse, and detest, and reuile, and speake, and iudge the worst y^• he can of the Pope.

And this is one of the vile and wic∣ked kindes of Rhetorique, that is vsed n••w in the worlde. For, when it is plainely and simply said,* 1.400 Christ breathed vpon the Apostles, and saied, take ye the holy ghost, whose sinnes ye forgeue, they be forgeuen, whose sinnes ye retaine, they be retained, he that wil finde any faulte, must not be angry w^t the Apostles which take the Grace, but with the Author and geauer of it, Iesus Christe: But no Christian I (thinke) and faithful man, doth abhorre to heare these woordes spo∣ken. Now then

The Diuel which seeth Christe his owne person to be in much honour, and that when wordes are considered as spo∣ken of him, the Christians harts are sub∣dued by them: What doth he? He tur∣neth his forme of speach, and vnderstan∣ding wel inough the Pride and Malice of our corrupte nature, he maketh his Oratours and Interpretours, to bring

the selfsame wordes (which in dede haue s••rength of Christ only) out of y^• mouthes of spiritual Persōs. Bishops or Priests: And deuiseth, that they shal vtter them in their owne persons: as in exāple, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ma∣keth the Pope to say: Whose synnes I for∣g••••e they be forgeuē, Whose synnes I re∣t••ine thei be reteined. Which because it is Proudly & Arrogantly spoken, it is easy to make him contemned which taketh s•• c••eeding much vpō him, and to bring the Office & Authority it self into disecredite, b••cause it agreeth not with the nature & i••firmitie of the persons, to speak so big∣ly and to performe it accordingly.

Concerning then now y^• Glose of which M. Iewel speaketh, if in dede it be there found, that Al Power is geuen to the Pope, as wel in heauen as in Earth, yet to make the Pope speake it in his own person, Al power is geuen to me as wel in Heauē as in Earth, it is spirefully & wickedly turned.

But let vs see the Glose it s••lfe, whe∣ther it hath that Sence, which M. Iewel gathereth thereof. For touching y^• forme of word••, it is manifest that they are not to be found there, as spoken in the firste person.

The question, whiche the Glose moueth,* 1.401 is this. Whether the Spirituall povver ought to Rule the Tem••orall. And it seemeth (saieth the Glose) that no: where∣vpon he bringeth in certaine Arg••••en∣tes, for the Temporall, against the Spi∣ritual Iur••s••iction, but afterwardes be dissolueth euery doubt & obiection laieng this one Argument for a ioundation.

Christ com••••tted his ••••arshipe, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the big••est Bishope:

But all povver vvas geauen to Christe in Heauen and in Earth, Mat. 28.

Ergo the highest Bishop vvhich is his 〈…〉〈…〉 this ••ovver.

And what is the thing nowe, that M. Iewel in this place doth mis••yke: Or what Sense, gathereth his vnder∣standing hereof? M••ry syr of this place he concludeth the Po••e to saie, Al power is geauen to me, as well in Heauen as in Earth. But the Glsse (M. Iewel) con∣cludeth not so. For ac••••••ding to the ma∣ter whiche is vroponed, the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of th•• Conclusion must be ordered. Of the Spiritual and Temporal 〈◊〉〈◊〉 here in earth, the Glos•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉:

It speaketh also, of the gouernement, as it parteineth to one that supplieth the place of Christ on Earth, and not as it is enlarged to heauen. That visible man shou••d be left, after the depart••re and as∣tension of God and man, to gouerne that visible Church which consi••teth of men: It is so Comfortable and Reasonable, that Faith, Order, and Peace, without it, could not wel haue ben kept.* 1.402 But to make any man, liuing yet on earth, A Doer and Officer, concerning the Tri∣••••phant Church in heauē, where Christ himself is in his person so present, that he vseth not a Uicare, that is absurde and vnlikely, and with this, M. Iewel, char∣geth the Pope, that he should Open his mowthe awyde and saie, al power is gea∣uen to me, as well in Heauen as in Earth. Which Conclusion is not vttered nor in∣tended in the Glose.

No saie you,* 1.403 doth not the Glose, vp∣••on this text of the Scripture spoken of Christ,* 1.404 al power is geauen to me in Heauen and in Earth, Doth it not infer, that the ••igh Priest, his Uicare on earth, hath the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it speaketh not of the same,* 1.405 but of

〈◊〉〈◊〉 power. And this power is meant not generally of all power that Christ hath, but of that whiche is proponed in the question, that is, the Spiritual & Tem∣poral power here in Earth. As if he should more plainely haue concluded: Al povver both in Heauen and Earth, is geauen to Christ: Ergo that in Earth. Againe, the high∣heste Bishope hath Christes place and Rome in Earth, Ergo he hath al povver in Earth: Ergo the Spirituall povver ought to Rule the Tem••oral.

The weake brother in Faith and witte maie replie.* 1.406 If the Pope haue as much power on Earth as Christ, It wil fo∣low that Christs power in Earth being in∣finite, the Pope also maie doe what he wil, as in example, Remoue hils, go dryshod ouer great riuers, turn water into wine, strike fiue thousand men downe with a word, as our Sauiour did in the Garden.

No my frind, the Generalitie of a propo••ision,* 1.407 is to be measured by the ma∣ter which is in question. And because the question, moued in this place by y^• Glose, is not of working miracles, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it be, ouer which y^• almightines of o••r Sauiour hath absolute power in Earth, but of the Authority, 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪

and i••risdi••tion, which the Spiritual ru∣lers should haue aboue the Temporall, with••n the Church of Christ, that is yet militant; therfore the supplieing of Chri∣st•••• place in earth, and the Receiuing of the same power which he had, must be ex∣tended no further, than to the ruling and Gouerning of men here, beneth in the world or though out of the world, yet in their waie vnto heauen.

And therefore M. Iewel hath shame∣fully abused this glose, as though it made the Pope a God. and that without a••••e Limitation or 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or interpicta∣tion, be concluded to haue al power, as wel in heauen as in Earth, euen as Christ him 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hath.

An other glose M. Iewel hath peeked ent.* 1.408 from the decree 24. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••aieing 〈…〉〈…〉.

But▪ do not you M. Iewel,* 1.409 most sham∣f••lly erre in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 y^• glose? Let vs see for what 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it was alleged of you, & 〈…〉〈…〉 better consider, whether it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that, for which you alleged it. 〈…〉〈…〉 greably to the catho∣like

saith, y^• Although the See of Rome hath failed sometimes in charity, yet it neuer failed in Faith. Against this conclusion M. Iewel commeth in with these wordes.

Certainely the very glose vpon the De∣eretals putteth this mater vtterly out of doubt:* 1.410 these be the words,* 1.411 Certū est quod Papa errare potest: It is certaine that the Pop•• maie erre.

As if he should say:* 1.412 to pro••e by y^• text it self of y^• decretale. y^• the church of Rome, may erre in Faith, it is so easie a mater, I••••de not worke y^• way. But the very glose vpō the decr••tals, which alwaies is fauorable to y^• see of Rome, & which by al meanes possible, mainteineth y^• Popes kingdom, & which is, not of y^• making of any auncient or lerned doctor, but of some old mūsimns papist & ba••barous master,* 1.413 yet this very glose is against y^• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of y^• see if Rome, y^• it can not e••e in faith. But is this tru: Yes certēly quod M. Ie∣•••• putteth this mater out of dout, & y^• vtterli.

Certainely, if the glose hath so taken the mater, it is a great argumēr, y^• much more y^• text is against vs. or if the text be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the

Catholikes, It is a simple argument of M. Iewels, to bring a Glose against the Text, and so to speake of the Glose, as though the text were much more for his purpose? For the very Glose (saieth he) putteth the mater vtterly out of dout. Let vs see then, first of al, what is the Text.

Lucius the Pope, writing to cer∣taine Bishops which were trobled with heretikes, And shewing them, where vp∣pon to staie themselues, that they might no: wauer hither and thither: willeth them to solow the Church of Rome, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 praise of which,* 1.414 thus he saieth. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sancts & ••pos••olica, mater omnium Ecclesiarum Chri∣st, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, qua per Des Omnipotent is graia••••. a tramite Apostolica traditiones nunquam errass: probatur. This holy and Apostolike Church: is the mother of all churches of christ:* 1.415 ••hichs (through the Grace of almightie God) hath ne∣uer ben proued to haue erred frō the right trade end pathe of the Tradition of the Apostles. Thus saieth Pope Lucius, and he maketh ex∣pressely for D. Harding, as far downe∣ward, as Lucius owne Popedome was, ••nno Do 258.

This conclusion then being certaine,

by the expresse text of the law,* 1.416 what saith the Glose therevpon? Doth it folow the text or no? If it do not: Remember then (I praie you M. Iewel) your charitable and affectuous wordes to D. Harding: O M. Harding, It is an old saying: Maledicta Glosa quae corrumpit textum. Accursed be that Glosing construction, or Glose that corruppteth the text. Remēber wel this old saying, & forget not yourselfe, which bring furth with so great a confidence, a Glose that impugneth the text.

But doth the Glose folow the text? If it do, be ashamed man then of yourself. which doe so Certainely warrant it, that the very Glose putteth this mater out of doubt (that the See of Rome maie erre in Faith) the text it selfe making to the contrarie.

But of this, perchaunce, you haue litle rega••de, how the Glose agreeth or disagreeth with the Text. And where you find your vantage,* 1.417 there you are de∣termined to take it, hauing a simple and plaine eye, neither loking to that which goeth before, nor that which foloweth, neither that which is of any side of you.

And so▪ the Glose saiting. that Certaine it is the Pope maie erre, that is inough for y••u, and that, putteth the mater vtterly out of doubt, that the Churche of Rome may err••.

You are deceaued, M. Iewel, through your Simplicitie: For if you, or your ••rindes about you, had ben circumspect, you woulde neuer haue broughte this Glose surth, with such confidence, as you haue done. It is two thinges, to saie, The Pope maie erre, and, the Churche of Rome maie erre. The first is graunted: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it maie possibly be, that the Pope, concerning his owne priuate mynd and opinion, maie crre in vnderstanding, as Ioānes 22. dyd, or whom soeuer els you can name vnto vs. The second is vtterly denied, that the Church of Rome can erre. For that presupposeth, y^• the Pope should ••e geauen ouer, to decret, Sette ••••rth or determine by his Iudicial Sen∣tence, some thing, contrarie to the Apo∣stolike Faith, & that it should be receiued & beleued in the Church. Which absur∣ditie (that any error should be suffered in haue credit in that Church, which is y^• Mother of al Churches: & that vnder the

gouernement of the holy ghost which cō∣tinueth with it, & is the spirit of Trueth) becasue it is impossible, therfore it is also impossible y^• the Church of Rome should erre, in any point of y^• Faith. And in such extremities, where y^• Pope, for his owne person, is perswaded in a contrary cōclu∣sion vnto our Faith, almighty God, that his care ouer the church may be manifest, prouideth alwaies, to take such persons out of the way, when they might (if they had liued) done harme, as he did, Ioan∣nes. 22. and▪ Anastasius.

Now that the Glose faith no more, but, the Pope may erre,* 1.418 which we wil not denie,* 1.419 and not that the Churche of Rome may erre,* 1.420 which was D. Hardings affir∣mation: by whom shal I better proue it,* 1.421 thā by y^• glose it self, which is a litle before in this very cause. 24, q. 1. out of which M Iew. peeked his Certainti y^• out of doubt the See of Rome mai erre. In y^• chapiter Quodcunque ligaueris, the Glose vpō a cer∣taine word there gathereth an Argumēt, that the sentence of the whole Churche, is to be preferred before the church of Rome, if thei gain∣say it, in any point. And he cōfirmeth it by y^• 93. Distinction, Legimus. But doth the Glose

rest there? & as M. Iew. Certainly auou∣cheth it doth it put the mater vtterly out of doubt th•••• the church of Rome may erre▪ Iudge of the mind of the Glosator, by y^• words of y^• Glose. For thus it foloweth.

Sed 〈…〉〈…〉 And for cōfirmatiō of his belief he refer∣reth vs to y^• Chap. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which foloweth in y^• cause & questions Nis (faith he) erraret Romana Ecclesia,* 1.422 quod no credo pos••e fieri, quia Deus nō mitteret. Arg. infra ead. c. 4 Rect a &c. Pudē••a Except the church of Rome should erre. vvhich I beleue cānot be, because God vvould not suffer it As it is proued in the Chapiters folowing, which begin, A Recta & Padenda.

Consider now (Indifferent Reader) & iudge betwene vs both. M. Iew. saith The Glose putteth the mater vtterly out of doubt, that y^•; Church of Rome may erre, because it saith, the Pope may err. I answer, y^• the Glose vpon y^• chapiter a Recta, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it, that the Pope may Erre: but, in the third Chapit•••• before. Quod••••qu•• ligaueris. it beleueth, that it can not be, that the church of Rome should erre because God vvould not per∣mit it. Wherof I gatder. that the Pope to erre, & the Church of Rome to erre, are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pointes, & that if it be graunted

vnto him, y^• the Pope in his owne prina•• sense may hold an heretical opiniō, yet y^• church of Rome for al y^•, cannot erre, be∣cause God wil not suffer it, y^• any thing should be decreed by y^• Pope, y^• is cōtrary to faith. And this is manifest, euen by y^• very Glose which M. Iewel trusteth so much, y^• he toke y^• mater to be vtterli out of dout, when the Glose had once spoken it,

What is abusing of testimonies if this be not? what cōscience is there, either in [ 1] preferring of Gloses before y^• text: either [ 2] in expoūding of Gloses against y^• Text: either in set••ing of one and the selfe same [ 3] glose against it self (wheras being right∣ly interpreted, it agreeth wel inough w^t it self) either in obiecting y^• part of y^• glose [ 4] against y^• Aduersarie, which being graū∣ted hurteth nothing, & dissembling or not seing an other part of y^• same glose, which clearly cōfirmeth y^• purpose of the Aduer∣sarie, except the Glose could speake more plainly for D. Harding, then it hath don, when it saith: Credo non posse fieri,* 1.423 quia Deus non permitteret. I beleue that it can not be (that the Church of Rome should erre) because God vvould not suffer it. Now

For more Examples I am not care∣ful, And more might be foūd, if I would take the paines to seeke. But I would wish the learned in the Law, to examine and consider right wel, M. Iewels te∣stimonies out of the Lawe. They shal speake with more Grace, as speaking of thinges in which they are practised, and with more facilitie, they shal discouer M. Iewels vnskilfulnes, as knowing at the first sight, wherein and when the Lawes of Gloses are abused. And if nothing els were, the common Ennemie to al Trueth, should be conuicted by the ex∣pert in euery Facultie.

How M. Iewel abuseth the Consti∣tutions of the Ciuile Law.

YF the Canon law be, at these daies, of so litle price emong Heretiques, that, for spite they haue to y^• Pope, and the Clergie, they care not how they misreporte it and disorder it: of the Cō∣stitutions yet of Temporal Princes, they should haue some more reguard, least

whiles they be manifeslly proued to vse their accustomed libertie, of alleaging or interpreting the textes also of the Ciuile law, thei care not with how litle truth or honesty, they should be rightly cōuinced to haue neither Spiritual nor Temporal law for them selues. Now, whether M. Iewel he as bolde with Constituti∣ons of Princes, as Decrees of Popes, I wil bring in his owne woordes as they lie, and conferre them with the Consti∣tution, vpon which he groundeth them. Thus he saith.

If onely the negligence of the People haue enforced Priuate Masse,* 1.424 How then came it into Colleges, Monasteries, Cathe∣dral churches, yea (marke now indiffe∣rent Reader, how cōstantly he speaketh) euen into the very holy church of Rome, whereas be such numbers of Clerkes, Vi∣cars, Monkes, Priestes, and Prebendaries, that the Emperour Iustinian was faine to stay the encrease of them, al Idle, al in stu∣die and cōtemplation, al void from world∣ly cares, al confessed, al in cleane life, al prepared?

I trust,* 1.425 after so great a vomit, your Stomak be somwhat better at case. And

first cōcerning y^• question it selfe, D. Har. hath it not, y^• only y^e neligēce of y^e peo∣ple, hath enforced priuat Masse, but y^t oft times y^e Priest at Masse hath no cōpartners to receiue w^t him, it proce deth of lak of deuotiō of y^e peples part. And so hath it somtimes come of lacke of deuotiō, y^• religious mē haue not receued so oft as they might. And if this doth cō∣fort your hart, y^• I graūt vnto you, faults to haue ben foūd emōg religious persōs, I cannot let you of your own wil, but I wōder at your fausie, to feed vpō carren.

Somtimes therfore, y^• Priest receiueth alone, because none is ready to be his cō∣parteuer, & sois his Sole receiuing or as M. Iew. would say, his priuat Masse, not enforced but occasioned therby. For y^t lak of deuoriō or diligence in y^• people is not an Essential,* 1.426 but an Accident 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a cause that goeth before, but y^t foloweth af∣••••••, & it doth not make y^• Sole receiuing, but is made rather therof. For, to speake proprety 〈◊〉〈◊〉 orderly, if I were asked what 〈◊〉〈◊〉 y^• cause, why the Priest receiueth alone I would answer: The Caufe is, y^• he is

not boūd to haue company, and y^t he hath a godly desire to celebrate & receiue, and y^t the celebrating of y^e Mysteries & enioy∣ing of them, depēdeth not vpō the muta∣bilitie of y^e peoples minde but vpon cō∣mission, power authoritie, grace, & effects, y^t Christe hath indued his Priestes & his Sacramēts w^tal. And this much concer∣ning M. Iewels Obiection, least any should be troubled with it.* 1.427 Now to y^e cōstitution of Iustinian. First M. Iew. would haue it conceiued y^t Themperour should find fault w^t the numbers of Cler∣kes, &c. in his time, because of some dis∣order or misbehauiour emong them, & to to this purpose, he thrusteth into his sen∣tence, by a certain figure of lying & moc∣king, Al Idle, al in studie & cōtemplacion, al void from worldly cares &c.

Then would he haue it to be cōceiued y^t either there were that wēt about to re∣dresse this geare & could not preuail, or y^• in dede neither Pope, nor Cardinal, nor Bishop cared for it, so y^t the Emperor Iu∣stinian was fain to stai the encrease of them. Thirdly, he so speaketh as though Vicars Monkes and Prebendaries were noted in the Coustitution.

Last of al, which is chiefly to be mar∣ked, he is so bold as to say it, that Iusti∣nian should be fain to staie the encrease of Clerkes, &c. ye euen in the holy Church▪ of Rome, where, &c As though the Em∣perour had ben so loftie, as to take vpon himselfe the office of the Pope, and in the Churches, which are specially vnder the gouernement of the B. of Rome.

Concerning therefore the first & se∣cond of these pointes, it is manifest in y^e Constitution, y^t the cause of staying the number of Clerkes in Constantinople, & therabout, was not for ani such misliking as heretikes haue now with the number of Priestes which are not al of y^e best, but only because the Reuenewes of y^e church in Constantinople were not able wel to find them. And therfore (how much the Spiritual Rulers did thinke of y^e mater, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 can tel, but) the Emperour, for the ho∣nour of the Clergie, and not for cōtempe of the Degree, wrote vnto Epiphanius, the Archebishop of Cōstantinople about this mater, & no doubt but with his ad∣uise and cōsent, appointed y^t order which should be taken. Which was this, that as

many as already, had alowāce or liuing in y^e great Church or other of Constanti∣nople, should haue it still, but that from thencefurth, no more should be found of the Church, than answered the iust num∣ber of the persons, which by the founda∣tion of the Churches had portions and stipendes to mainteine them.

To the third point then I answer, y^t Iustinian speaketh not of Vicars, Mon∣kes and Prebendaries, and that herein M. Iewel shewed a point of an heretical 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pite, to geaue such names to the per∣sons whom the Emperour should seeme to bring vnder his lawe, as are at these daies most odious, and to moue suspici∣on to his Reader, that the number of Monkes were euen in Iustinians tyme abhorred. Which is so false, as it is true, that in al tha•• Constitution, there is no mention of Monke or Religious person but only of such as serued in the Cathe∣drall Church, and other of Constanti∣nople, or the quarters there about.

And by this, it doth wel appeere, that it is to to impudently said (touching the fourth point) Iustinians Constitution

for staieing the increase of the number of Clerkes &c should be made, yea, euen for the very holy Church of Rome. For it is directed only to Epiphanius. Arch∣bishope of Constantinople, and all the constitution, through, he maketh men∣tiō only, Huius Regia Civitatis; of this prince∣ly Citie. meaning Constantinople, and especially, of the greate Churche there. Of which, he hath suche care, and for which, he taketh such a Special order, that he apointeth, how many Priestes, Deacons, and Subdeacons &c. it should haue, and not aboue. As three skore a hundred Deacons,* 1.428 and Women fortie (which were not, you may be sure their Wyues, excepte two men and an halfe should haue gone to one) Subdeacons nyne∣tie, Readers a hundred and ten, Singers fiue and twentie: so that al the number of the most Re∣uerende Clerkes of the most holy Great Church shal consist in foure hundred twenty and fiue, besides and aboue a hundred of them which are called O••••arij that is, Porters.

So many then, Iustinian aloweth to the number of one Church in Con∣stantinople,

for all his staie made, that Clerkes should not encrease. And that▪ because that one Church was wel hable to find so manie, without borowing of others or laying to pleage of their owne.* 1.429 But with the Church of Rome or with Monks, he doth not once meddle, I fai•• it againe M. Iewel, he doth not meddle, so much as once.

With what Face then and Con∣science referre you this Constitution to the Church of Rome? And in so greait a mater, as the Supremacie is, where∣fore abuse you the Authoritie of the Em∣perour, in making your Reader con∣ceaue, that Iustinian for all that the Pa∣pistes call the Churche of Rome, Holy, feared not yet to made a Lawe, that it should not haue aboue a certaine num∣ber of Uicars, Monkes, and Prebenda∣ries, of which it would folowe by like∣lyhood, that the Emperour tooke him selfe for a worthier Head of the Church, than the Pope.

A plainer Exāple thā this to shew M. Iewels falsehod, I can not lightly haue: but that he shal not say that this is al I

can obiect against him, for mistaking or mi••nsing of the Clin••e Lawe, behold an other.

The Law saith,* 1.430 Generaliter dictum, Generaliter est accip••endum. The thing that is spoken Generally, most be taken Generally.

The Law saith it not▪* 1.431 But wheras a Legacie is to be paid parētibus & liberis, to parents and children, no mention being made in the Testament, how farre these names should stretch, (For in the name of Parents, Father, Mother, Grandsire, and Grandmother, And in the name of Children, not only the Natural, but the Adoptiue sonnes and daughters, &c. are vnderstanded) The Pretor in this case, answereth that they may be referred vn∣to al that may be comprehended within the forsaid Names. Hereof the Lawiers gather a Rule, that The thing that is spoken Generally, must be taken Generally. But the Law it selfe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it not.

Now these Rules of the Lawiers witte and co••lection are not General but indefinite, neither they in al places true, but in certaine. They are, as some call

them, but Burchardica, that is, of the making of Burchardus the B. of wor∣mes, or (as other say) Brocardica, that is to say, meete Rules for such fine felo∣wes emonge Lawiers, as brokers are emong the Merchants. They geue a shew of cunning & learning, as though he that vseth them, bo••h knewe and spake law: but in deede none but triflers and pelters vse them, except they prose∣cute them in their right sense.

For, how sone maie it be Obiected, by any man, that, if this Rule were true, no man should be so hardie, as to kill a lowse: because the law of God saieth, thou shalt not kil,* 1.432 and M. Iewels lawe saieth, that, the thing that is spokē generally, must be takē generally, vpō which obiection, if M. Iewel would byd me staie a while, and to vnderstand the lawe of God,* 1.433 ac∣cording to the Rule of reason and equity, and that the killing only of man is for∣bydden, such as proce••eth without law∣ful Authoritie, or tendeth to the breache of Charitie &c: I would Replie (not so wisely in dede as it should become a rea∣sonable man, but after as wise manner

and fasshion, as M. Iewel vseth) and saie,* 1.434 It is commonly said, vbilex non di∣stinguit, stiguit, nos distinguere non debemus. ••here the law maketh no distinction, the•••• ought we to make no distinction. And therefore awaie with this Sophisticall distinction, of lawful and vnlawful kil∣ling, and goe to the Text it selfe, whiche saith expressely: Theu shalt not kil. And so by this meane which M. Iewel folo∣weth, an Heretike might be lousie by Authoritie, nor only of the Law of God, but the Rule of man: except he would be so merciful as not to kil the vermyne, but, by some other waie put them awaie from hym.

Now, if M. Iewel know not so much, as that these Rules, which he allegeth, are not to be vnderstanded Generally, although they sounde Generally: why would he meddle with that, which he dyd not knowe? On the other side, if he kn••we wel inough, that there are manie limitations vpon these rules, why would he put that furth to be taken of his Rea∣der, absolutely and Generally, which is not true but in certaine cases only?

••ertainely▪ y^• lea••ned in law, whē they.

speake of these very rules they rest••ict thē many waies, which I nede not rehearse vnto you, being acquainted very well with the ciuile Lawiers, or law. Other∣wyse if you were not, you should do wel to reade Alciat de verboru singnifi. & Nico••aus Euer ardus in his booke intitled Loct argu∣mentorum legales And because one example against you to opē your naughty dealing in this point,* 1.435 is inough, as also, because the example is better ••ercei••ed of the cō∣mon people then the rule,* 1.436 I wil reherse y^• one most sensible case, which the law••ers thē selues do put to proue, that y^• foresaid rules which you haue put furth for gene∣ral, must he limited.

Suppose, y^• there is an act or law made by the prince, y^• whosoeuer stryketh A man within his court, and maketh him bleede, shal leese his head, or his hand for it. Here, the law is general, in saying whosoeuer, without exception of persons,* 1.437 & therfore (as M. Iewel would haue it some) it must be taken Generally. It chaunceth then after this, y^• some of y^• priuy Chāber lieth sick of a pleurisy. And

the Phisitiō being at hand, he counseleth y^• party to be let bloud. And this being y^• most presēt remedy: the Bargar cūmeth, stretcheth the vaine, maketh the Gentle∣man bleed, and loketh for a good reward: I aske thē whether the Barbar shal leese his head or his hand for his labor? And who seeth not, that no? Yet the law was general that whosoeuer strecheth &c. yea but the Rule is not general, that, the thing that is generally spoken, must be ta∣kē generally. For where y^• cōmon wealth should take hurte by it, if the lawe were vnderstanded generally (as in the case of the Barbar, it is not for the cōmon weal∣thes profite, that he an Innocent should leese either life or lymme) there must be vsed necessarily one Restriction (at the least) of the lawes Generalitie.

Wherefore then doth M. Iewel, so lyke dodger,* 1.438 come in with such Rules, as deceaue the simple Reader, and fil his papers to no purpose? Wherefore ma∣keth he Obiections which he knoweth to haue casie answer? Or why hath he no care by what meanes he bringeth his maters, to passe, so that for the present,

he say somewhat to his Aduersarie.

Upon confidence of these general Rules, which at the first feeme reasonable, he ca∣rieth the Readers away with him, into blinde knowledge, maineteyning his owne heresies and their errours, by the superficial wordes of the Ciuile Law, ei∣ther not atteiuing to the sense thereof, Or quite leauing it. And this wil I proue by a manifest example, so much the more willingly, because I shal haue in the end a further Occasion, to shew an other li∣mitation vnto this rule which M. Iewel would haue to be taken Generally.

D. Harding alleaged out of an Edice of Iustinians this euident place, for the Supremacie of the B. of Rome. Sancimus, &c. Vve ordeine, according to the determinati∣ons of the Canons, that the most holy Pope of the Elder Rome, be ••ormost and chief of al Bishopes. But it is worth the marking, to heare how Iustinian bringeth in these words.

Vve Decree (saith he) that the holy Ec∣clesiastical Rules,* 1.439 vvhich haue ben set forth and established of the foure Councels (of Nice, Coustantinople, Ephesus, and Chalce∣done) shal stand in stede of Lavves. For vve

receiue the Decrees of the foure Synodes, as the ••oly Sc••••••res, and the Rules of them vvc••h serue as Lavves. And therfore vve ordeine, ac∣cording the determinatoions of them, that the most holy Pope of the Elder Rome, shal be for∣most and Chiefe of al Pries••es Now vnto this so ••laine an Argumēt for y^• Supremacie, what Answereth M. Iewel? Forsothe

The Emperour lustinian had a special inclinatiō to the Citie of Cōstantinople,* 1.440 for that it was now gro wē in welth & puissāce, &c And for that it was as he sa••th, Mater pi∣ctatis nostrae, the Mother of his Maiestie.

Wel▪ here is some cause why he should fauour the Citie of Constantinople,* 1.441 but what is this to Rome? It foloweth.

For like Consideration the Emperour gaue out this special Priuilege (vpō which D,* 1.442 Harding groundeth his Argument) in fauour of the See of Rome.

Let this also be gra••nted,* 1.443 that he fa∣uoured Rome as wel as Cōstantinople. But what reason can ye shew, wherefore h•• should prefer it vefore Cōstantinople, and s••t Rome in the first degree & place, and Constantinople in the next? For by al likelyhod. Constantinople being the place where he kept his court & to which

most resorte was made, concerning ma∣ters of the Empire, if the geuing of Pri∣nilegies vnto See and Bishops had de∣pēded of his fauour only, he would haue honored first of al, the Patriarche of his Chief and Imperial Citie.

But is it not a manifest lie,* 1.444 that the Emperour gaue the Chiefdom to the B. of Rome vpon a special inclinatiō which he had to y^• Citie? Consider the wordes of his Edice. What are they? Vve Ordein•• (saith the Emperour) according ••o the de∣termination of the Canōs, that the Pope of Rome be Chief of al Priesetes. He folowed then, the Law of the first foure general Councels, & not his own Inclinatiō. And he hono∣red y^• See of Rome with his Edict, not because he fauored Rome in his special a•• ••ectiō, aboue al other Sees, but because y^• former Coūcels which he regarded as y^• Scriptures themselues, & as inuiolable lawes, had so decreed & determined, y^• the B. of Rome, should be Primus, First or Chief of al Priestes. How impudētly then doth M. Iew. abuse y^• Emperors edict, by ma∣king y^• to be y^• chief cause therof, which in dede was not the cause? But let him go forward.

And by the way least any errour hap∣pen to grow of this woorde Papa,* 1.445 it beho∣ueth thee. Good Reader, to vnderstand, that Papa in olde times, in the Grek tong, signified a Father &c. And further in S. Augustines time & before, the same name was geuen generally to al Bishopes, &c.

You say truely,* 1.446 and you proue it ex∣cedingly, and if ye would be rather called Pope Iewel, then Bishope Iewel, be it at your owne choyse, and your friendes most wise. But returnem, I pray you, againe into the way, and Aunswere the Edict of Iustinian.

But to returne to the mater.* 1.447 M. Har∣ding may not of euery thing that he rea∣deth, conclude what he listeth.

If he doe. you can with fewer Cir∣cumstancies tel him of it.* 1.448 But Primus ••mnium Sacerdotum▪ is in English the First and Chiefe of al Priestes. And he which hath so much geuen vnto him, by Gene∣ral Councels of the Primitue church, he is higher (I trow) then any of his Fe∣lowes. And therefore it is much loo∣ked for, that you should Answere directly to the Priuilege.

This Priuilege graunted vnto the* 1.449 Bis∣shop

of Rome, to be the First of al Priestes was not to beare the whole sway, and to o∣uer rule al the world.

Ye speake like a man that were of∣fended with tyranny,* 1.450 and ye speake of o∣uer ruling. But we thinke not, that, as the chief emong the Brothers, when he hath gotten, Hugono••es, Guses, Loite∣rers, Lutherans, Caluinistes, Anabap∣tistes, and other diuine felowes inough, aboute him, then he beginnneth to ouer rule and ouer run the Countrie, by spoi∣ling of Churches, killing of Religious persons, rauishing of holy Uirgins, and doing of other feates of your Gospel: so the Pope may set and let, pul in, plucke out, kil and saue, and do what him listeth vpon a Furie or Brauerie: but that po∣wer onely we require to be geauen him, which they acknowleged, that determi∣ned him to be First or Chiefe of al Priestes.

And we aske you, of his Power that he hath to rule ouer al the world, and not of ouer rule al the world. For although y^• places, to which his I••risdiction exten∣deth it selfe, are not limited, yet his po∣wer to rule them is limited: and he that

ouer ruleth any one Countrie, be it neuer so much his owne, doth more then he ought to do, by that which is ouer mea∣sure and Rule. Leauing therfore to presse vs w^t your odious & slaūdcrous termes, as though any Catholike were of y^• opi∣nion, y^• the Pope might or should play y^• part of a Tyran, & care for no law nor re∣son, but ouer rule al the world, and beare the whole sway in the world, Answer to y^• Authoritie of Iustiniaus Edict, & shew wherin was the Priuilege graunted vn¦to the Bishope of Rome. It was not (you say) to ouer rule al the world.

But onely in General meetinges,* 1.451, and Councels to sitte in place aboue al others, and for auoiding of Confusion, to directe and order them in their doinges.

How proue you this? And re∣member,* 1.452 that you must proue, that the Priuilege graunted vnto the Bishope of Rome was to sitte onely aboue others. & cet.

The Emperours woordes be plaine,* 1.453 Praerogatiuea in Episcoporū Cōsilio, vel ex∣tra Conciliū ante alios residendi. A Prero∣gatiue in the Coūcel of bishops▪ or without

the Councel, to sit in order aboue other.

Oh Desperatenesse. The Em∣perours woordes (you say) be plaine.

They are so in deede plaine to the eye, both in your Booke which is wel prin∣ted, and in the Code of Parise printe, where they may be readen without spec∣tacles, except a mans sight be very yll. But dare you say, that this place pertei∣neth to the Bishoppe of Rome? For of the Bishoppe of Rome our question is, whether his Priuilege to be First and Chiefe of al Priestes, consisted onely in sitting aboue other, in Generall meetinges. I wil tel thee (Indiffe∣tent Reader) the Sense of these foresaid woordes, and the Cause of making the Decree in which thei are found, that thou maist iudge whether M. Iewel be a fine and vpright Lawyer.

Whiles the Emperour Leo was gone towardes the Easte, Odactus A Tyranne, inuaded in the meane tyme the Churches̄, and set foor••h many La∣wes and Statutes, against the Liber∣ties and the Priuilegies of them.

The Emperour here vpon made a Law, after the Countrie was diliuered of the Tyranny, that, those thinges being ab∣roga••ed and taken away, which had ben done against the true Religion of God, al other concerning Churches and Mar∣tyrs Chappels should stand in the same state which they were in before his time. And further, he Decreed that it should be vtterly abrogated, what so euer had bene newly brought vp, against the Churches and the Bishopes of them,* 1.454 Seu de iure Sa∣cerdot alium ••reationum, seu de expulsione cu∣iusquam Episcopi à quolibet his temporibus fa∣cta, seu deprarogatiua in Episcoporum Concilio, ••el extra Concilium ante alios residendi, Either concerning the right of making of Priestes, either the expulsiō of any bishop made by any mā at this time, or the prerogatiue of sitting before other, either in the Councel of Bishopes, or vvithout it.

Consider now (Indifferent Rea∣der) whether the Pre••ogatiue, of which the Law here speaketh, was meant only of the Bishope of Rome: Or whether y^• Emperours vvoo. d••s here be plaine, to proue that the Bishope of Rome should ••it ••irst 〈◊〉〈◊〉 General meetings, whereas there is

no mention at al in this place of the B. of Rome, but only of Acatius, by name, Patriarche of Constantinople, and of other Bishoppes in general, which had taken wronge vnder Odoactus the Ty∣ranne. And whether the B. of Rome were one of that number, it appeereth not by any word of the Decree: so that it is altogether boldely and nothing dis∣creetly said, that the Prerogatiue spoken of in this place, is plaine for the Popes sitting aboue other, or that the Popes Prerogatiue is no more but to sit aboue al others.* 1.455 It foloweth.

This Prerogatiue in Greeke is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, the Priuilege of the first place.* 1.456

So is the faining of a Person,* 1.457 and making of that to speake, which hath no sense or tongue, called in Greke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : but we require not here of you, to tel your Countriemen what is Greeke for this or y^• thing, but what is y^e answer to the Argument that is made, against you. For let it be so, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in greeke signifieth the Priuilege of the first place: you do not yet shew vnto vs, that

the Priuilege, spoken of in this Edict of the Emperours, is so called: or that it is meant of the Bishope of Rome, to proue that his Prerogatiue is to more but A 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 A priuilege of the first place. But you procede out of the pupose and saie,

That these phrases in that tongue be knowen,* 1.458 and Cōmon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Like as also the••e in he latine tongue,* 1.459 obtinere primas, secūdas, Tertias, that is, to haue the Preominence of the first, Second, and Third place.

This woulde serue well,* 1.460 if either we doubted, Or were ignorant of these phrases, or if the declaring of them per∣teined any point to the quesion. and yet I saie vnto you, that, Obtinere pri∣mas, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is, not only to haue the first place, but also, to wynne the best game, Or to haue the Chiefeste parte in any F••are or Acte, Or to beare the highest Office, and so furthe. So that, to your matter of the Place, they doe not serue necessari••y. And if by Obtinere Primas, this only thinge were meant, to sitte in the First Place, yet should not this proue, that the Edicte

of the Emperour, in whiche you shewe not that the selfe same Phrase is vsed, doeth plainely make for it: That the Popes Prerogatiue is no greater, than to sitte first at Generall meetinges. For this is the question, And not what, Ob∣tinere Primas, or Secundas, signifieth in good Latine. And to this we looke for your Answer.

But you saie (as though you had proued so much) in further confirmation thereof,

And that the Emperour Iustinian meant ONLY thus,* 1.461 and none OTHERWISE, it is manifeste euen by the selfe same place, that M. Harding hath here alleged.

Mary Syr that is worth the hea∣ring:* 1.462 but marke thou (Indifferent Rea∣der) M. Iewels wordes ONLY, and NONE OTHERWYSE. For except I be fowly deceaued, he wil not proue so much as he pretendeth. But let vs heare the Emperour, and M. Iewels Comment vpon him.

Sancimus &c.* 1.463 We ordeine.

Your &c. Here, first of all, hath no Place:* 1.464 For it putteth these wordes

out,* 1.465 which are much to the mater. And they ••re these: Sancimus secundum Cano∣num defi••tiones, v•••• ordaine according to the determinations of the Canons, that, &c.

By which it appeereth, that Iustinian dyd no more but exquute the former D••∣crees▪ and was not hymselfe the Au∣thour or Geauer, of the singular Pri∣uilege which is due to the See of Rome. And now lette M. Iewel goe fore∣warde.

We ordeine,* 1.466 & caet that the Pope (Reade Sanctissimum, moste holy) of the Elder Rome shalbe (Reade, is) the first of al the Priestes, and that the moste holy Archebishope of Constantinople, which is named Newe Rome, haue the seconde place: It foloweth in the Decree. After the holy Apostolike See of the Elder Rome.

But what concludeth M. Iewel hereof? It foloweth.* 1.467

Hereby it is plaine,* 1.468 that this Priui∣lege standeth ONLY in placing the B. of ••ome in the first Seate aboue others.* 1.469

It is so plaine,* 1.470 that no man seeth it. Be thou Iudge, Indifferent Rea∣der: Yea lette any Protestant in al the

worlde tell Trueth l••e and not. Doth he find in the foresaied wo••••s of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Decrec, this worde ONLY? Doth he find, that the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the B. of Rome, is declared by the Emperour, to stand in none other thinge, but in sit∣ting first?

A warthie mater in deede, for An Emperour to set furth Seates for Bis∣shoppes, if he haue no further respecte, than vnto the Seate. But First, he de∣clareth the Bishope of Rome to be Pri∣mum omunm Sacerdotu•• that is, to be Chief of Priests, and not I trow to sit only in the best Chaire. Then, he apointeth the Bishope of Constantinople to haue the Second place. But wherein•• Ouer Scates, Or ouer Priestes? Uerely he spake not of Seates but of Priestes, in respect of which, he saith, let the B••shope of Con∣stantinople haue 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that is, as M. Iewel limiteth it, The seconde place, but as the Tr••eth 〈◊〉〈◊〉, ye 〈◊〉〈◊〉 en∣glishe it, the Second Dig 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Or w••r∣shipe. For the worde 〈◊〉〈◊〉 signfceeh, A rome, A: Oder, An Office, A Dig∣nitit, A degree, and A p••••ce, not only to

sitte first in, but to Goe, to Stande, to Fight to Speake, to Determine, or to doe what so euer it be, worth the spea∣king.

And therefore (M. Iewel) hath in this place,* 1.471 twyse togeather abused the decrce of Iustinianisirst, restricting that, vnto sitting in A place, which was spo∣ken of Prerogatiue ouer Pricstes. And then in saying, that the priuilege cōsisted only in sitting in the first Seate, wheras this term only, or any other word to like effecte is not at al in the Decree.

But I beseech thee,* 1.472 Gentle Reader, weigh wel the wordes that folowe in the same Decree.

And I beseech thee also,* 1.473 Gendtle Rea∣der, to weigh them wel.

It foloweth Immediatly.* 1.474 We ordeine that the most holy Archebishope of Iusti∣niana the first whiche is in our Countrie, shal haue for euer vnder his iurisdictiō the Bishops of the prouinces of Dacia, Dania, &c. and that he, in the prouinces subiect vnto hym, shal haue the place of the Apo∣stolkie See of Rome.

But what of this▪* 1.475

Here we see,* 1.476 the Bishoppe of Iusti∣niana sette in as high Authoritie, and po∣wer within his own lurisdiction, as the B. of Rome within his.

But by whome was he sette in so high Authoritie? By the Emperour? And who gaue the Emperour such po∣wer? Or was he so priuileged by the Pope? Yea surely by the Pope, if any Authoritie were lawfully taken and ex∣ercised. But so much doth not appeere by the Decree. Yes verely doth it. But M. Iewel taketh his vantage, and man∣gleth Decree•• at his pleasure. For thus it foloweth in the lawe▪ that the Bishope of Iustiniana shal haue in the P••ouincies subiect vnto him,* 1.477 y^• place of the Apostolik Sec. 〈…〉〈…〉

Set then, if the Bishope of Iusti∣niana, for al that the Emperor honoured that Con••trie so much, if he receaued so greate Authoritie from the Pope: how ••uch was the Pope aboue him, y^• gaue him y^• authoritie▪ Could y^• Pope, subiect vnto a newe Bishope the Proiunces of

Dacia, Dania, Dardania, Misia, and Panno∣nia? Or exempt him from the Iurisdiction of his Metropolitan, or primitiue, except in dede his authoritie had ben vniuersal? Yet such priuileges gaue the Pope vnto the B. of Iustiniana, and the Emperour was not the doer in it, but y^• Executour only of the Popes determination.

Note also and see (M. Iewel) that it is not in this decree, that the B. of Iu∣stiniana, shal haue within his owne Iu∣risdiction,* 1.478 as high authoritie as the Bishop of Rome within his, there is no such com∣parison made, but only that he shal haue within his Iurisdiction, the place of the Apostolike See of Rome. And so haue ma∣ny of the Popes Legates, in the prouin∣cies vnto which they be directed, but none was euer yet so folish, as to gather hereof, y^• the Pope therefore cā do no more than his Legate. For as y^• is true, in such cases as the Pope permitteth vnto y^• Le∣gates ordinance: so absolutely it is most false, because the Pope may when he wil depose his Legate, or abbridge his Au∣tority, or send an other to gouern with him, but no such thing may be exequu∣•••••• against the Pope.

If therefore the B. of Iustiniana do neuer so muche enioye the Priuilegies graunted vnto him by the B. of Rome, let him take them as Priuileges, not as Canons: Let him acknowledge himself to supplie the Place of the Bisshoppe of Rome within his owne Prouincies, and not to sit, as it were, in his owne proper and ordinarie Place: Let him geue place to the B. of Rome, if he should perso∣nally come within his Iurisdiction, and let him not crake of it, that he hath as high Authoritie within his Iurisdiction, as the B. of Rome within his. For if he doe, Uigilius the Pope that gaue him such prerogatiue, may pull it away agayne from him, And M. Iewels argument shalbe vtterly dasshed, that thinketh, the Priuilege of the Apostolike See, graun∣ted to any particular Bisshoppe ouer his country, to derogate from the Authority of the Apostolike See which is in Rome, And whiche hath Iurisdiction ouer all Bisshoppes in Christendome.

Nowe one place more, and so we shall end this Chapiter. M. Iewel go∣eth further and sayeth.

In lyke sorte, the Emperour Iustinian saieth:* 1.479 Ecclesia vrbis Constantinopolita∣nae Romae veteris praerogatiua laetatur. The Church of the Citie of Constantinople, en∣ioyeth now the prerogatiue of Rome the Elder.

Let me be answered then in one que∣stion. You said,* 1.480 not twenty lines before, that the prerogatiue of the Bishoppe of Rome censisted only in sitting in the first place,* 1.481 at general meetings. If there∣fore the B. of Constantinople haue the same Preuogatiue that the B. of Rome, who shal sit first I praie you? Or shal they sit one in an others lap? Or, shal one of them stand whiles the othersitteth? Or shal the prerogatiue of the B. of Rome be interpreted, to signifie some other thing byside the sitting only in the first place?

For, if the prerogatiue, of the Pope be to sit only first, and if the B. of Constan∣tinople haue the like prerogatiue as the B. of Rome, he must likewise sit first: Er∣go, Iustinians Constitution, that the B. of Constantinople, should sit in the secōd place, is void. Ergo M. Iewel by one law (through his blind interpretation) d••th destroy an other. Surely this alone

doth proue sufficiētly, that you huddle vp Constitutions one vppon an other, to make a shew only of great learning, and not because either you vnderstand the law, Or speake after it, or seeke to make the trueth plaine and euident.

But let vs consider the place it selfe. The Church (you saie) of Constantinople enioyeth the priuilege of the Elder Rome. But what priuilege is that? To Rule the whole world? To cal general Councels? To Confirme them? To disproue them? To increase the Iurisdiction of Bishops or Patriarches, and to diminish it againe as it shal be profitable for the Church of Christ?

The B. of Rome, is hable to geaue vnto any B. in al the world, as great pre∣cogatiue ouer his diocese, as himself hath ouer Italie, like as Uigilius the Pope gaue to the B. of Iustiniana: but is any Archebishope in al y^• world hable to geue an other, either the Prerogatiue of the Church of Rome, either the Prerogatiue which himselfe ••ath from the Church of Rome, without asking of leaue of y^• B. of Rome? No surely, the Effect can not

worke vpward towardes the cause, or worke so excellently douneward, as the cause: neither the Bisshops of Constan∣tinople or Iustiniana, taking their Pre∣rogatiues from Rome, can endue others with like Priuileges, without consent of the Bishop of Rome.

Therefore, although the Bisshop of Constantinople hath the Prerogatiue of the Litie of Rome, it foloweth not, that the Bisshop of Rome is nothing superi∣our to the Bishop of Constantinople. And if y^• Lord President in Wales should haue geauen vnto him all the Preroga∣tines of the Kings Court in England, it foloweth not, that the King and he are Hayle felowes wel mette for euer after. And Christ our Sauiour although he said vnto his Apostles As my father sent me so I send yow, geauing thereby vnto them as greate Prerogatiue as himselfe had, yet he meant not, that y^• Apostles should think themselues as good as their head, euen in those thinges which they should doe as wel as Christ.

M. Iewel therefore doth very un∣teasonably conceiue of the Law, that the

Popes Supremacie was not acknow∣ledged, because, the Communicating of his Prerogatiue with some other Bis∣shops, is found expressed in the Law.

But it wil be replied, that Genera∣liter dictum generaliter est accipiendum, The thing that is spoken generally must be taken Generally. I answer: this Rule fayleth, when by other expressed texte of the Law, that which seemeth to be spo∣kē Generally in one place, is restricted & limited in an other. For in the next title before this of which we speak, the Empe∣rour sayth to y^• B. of Rome. Omnes Sacer∣dotes, vniuersi Orientalis tractus,* 1.482 & subijcere & vnire Sedi vestrae Sanctitatis proper auimus. Vve haue made speede, both to subiecte and to vnite vnto the See of your Holmes, all the Priestes of the Vvest partes. Againe in the same law, a litle after. Vve vvil not suffer (sayeth Iu∣stinian) that anything, vvhich perteineth to the state of Churches, although that vvhich is in controuersie be vndoubted and manifest, shall not also come to the knovvledge of your Holines, Quae Caput est omnium Sanctarum Ecclesiarum, Vvhich is the Head of al boly Churches.

Let the Bishope then of Constanti∣nople enioy the Prerogatiue of the Citie of Rome, in as large and General sense as M. Iewel wil, yet this must be pro∣uided for, first of al, that the Prerogatiue which the B. of Constantinople shal en∣ioye, doe not contrary the former law, which Subiecteth al Priestes of the vvest vnto his holynes, And which confesseth him to be head ouer al Churches.

Thus haue I sufficiently and ma∣nifestly proued, that M. Iewel hath ab∣nsed the Canon Law. The Lawiers themselues haue more to say vnto him for his impudencie, if he be so impudent as euer to shew his face before them.

And nowe to the Olde Fathers, and Doctoures.

How M. Iewel hath abused the Auncient Fathers.

IT is incredible, how M. Iewel hath abused the Doctours. Incredible (I meane) not, in respect of Protestantes which thinke so wel of him, that they be∣leue

no oue euident vntruth to be with∣in all his Replye: but of Catholikes, which knowing the cause that he defen∣deth, to be vtterly false, may iustly sus∣pect euery Witnesse, that he bringeth in for his Doctrine, And which hauing al∣ready taken him in manifest corrupting of Witnesses, cannot but know him for one that loketh suspitiously, whē so euer he is about Auncient Fathers. Yet (I as∣sure thee▪ Indifferent Reader) the Ca∣tholikes themselues did not thinke, that any man would so haue corrupted true Sentences, as he hath done: Or so ofre haue folowed such vnlawful craftes, as are not once to be vsed of honest men.

But these, you will say, are but wordes: let us therefore come, to the thinges themselues. And first, concer∣ning such Illations of M. Iewels, as he vseth in geuing of the cause or proufe of his sayinges, He applieth thereto, the Testimonies of Auncient Fathers, so loosely and so disagreeably, as if a man would saie: The Waters of Bath are exceding good against the Ache in the Ioyntes. And 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Prophete saieth:

Omnessitientes venite ad aquas, Alye that be a thirst, come to the waters. Yea M. Iewels Applications doe worse agree with the premi••••es. For his position, lightly, is heretical or erron••ous, and his Authoritie for it, is no more proper vnto it, than the foresayed sentence of E∣saie serueth to the commendation of the Ba••hes in England. For proufe hereof I wil choose but our place, in which, for establishing of his Assertion, he bringeth one vppon an other very thicke, foure Auncient Doctours togeather, Of all which there is not one that serueth his purpose.

M. Hardinges Athanasius saieth, Pow∣er to bind and loose is geauen to the holy See of Rome,* 1.483 And yet the old Catholike Fathers could neuer vnderstand any such special Priuilege.

Marke now,* 1.484 Indifferent Reader, wh••ther the places whiche M. Iewell wil allege, do proue any such thing at al.

S. Cyprian abused.

S. Cyprian saieth: Quàmuis Dominus Apostolis omnibus &c.* 1.485 The Lord (read, And although our Lorde) after his Resur∣rection

gaue like power vnto his Apostles (Reade, all his Apostles) yet to declare vnitie, he disposed by his Authoritie, the Original of vnitie (Reade, of the same vni∣tie) beginning of one: The rest of the Apo∣stles were euen the same that Peter was, endewed with like felowship, both of ho∣nour and of power (here doth M. Iewel make a full pointe, yet it foloweth in the same very sentence) But the Original co∣meth of vnitie, to declare that the Church is one.

In this testimonie of S. Cyprian,* 1.486 those wordes (And although) which M. Iewel left out in the beginning of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are first to be considered, as depending of the sentences, which immediatly went before, And opening the question which now we haue in hand. For after S. Cypriane had declared, that the Deuil, seeing the Idols and Temples which he occupied before, to be forsaken and lefte void, through y^• increase of the Faithfull, conuerted his craft to deuising of Schis∣mes and Heresies, by whi••h he might ouerturne the Faith, corrupte the trueth, and cut or diuide vnitie. After this he ••••∣ferreth:

••oc eò fit, fratres dilectiss. dum ••d verita∣tis orig••em non reditur,* 1.487 nec caput quaeritur, nec magistri coelestis doctrina Seruatur: This moste deere brethren, (vnderstand, that Heresies are set abroad) doth therefore come to passe, for that vve return not vnto the original of truth And for that an Head is not sought for, nor the Doctrine of our heauenly Master is obserued.

Now because euery man perceiueth not the force of this saying, and diuerse would haue it better opened and expres∣sed vnto them, He addeth: Probatio est ad fidem facilis compendio veritatis, that is, The proufe hereof, to make thee beleue it, is easy, be∣cause of the compendiousnes of the truth. And how is that? It foloweth, Loquitur Do∣minus ad Pe••rum, &c. Our Lord speaketh to Pe∣ter, I tel thee (saith he) that thou art Peter, and vpon this Peter (or Roc••e) I vvil builde my Church, and the gates of hel sh••lnot ouer∣come it. Vnto the vvil I geue the keyes of the kingdome of Heauens, and those thinges that thou shalt bind in earth, shal be boūd in the hea∣uens also, and vvhat soeuer thou shalt loose vp∣on earth, shal be loosed also in the Heauens.

And vnto the same (Peter) after his 〈…〉〈…〉 my sheepe.

By these wordes then it is mani∣fest, what is, Original, Head, and Doctrine of our heauenly Maister, that is, to the for∣saking of which, Sainct Cyprian im∣puteth the Proceedinges of the Diuel, and of Heresies. Uerely no other, than that, which our Sauiour by the foresaid expresse Scriptures, gaue to S. Peter.

But now, heere ariseth a grea•••• doubt and question, that S. Peter can not wel be the Heade, because euery one of the Apostles, was as great in Power as he. And this in deede is the Argu∣ment, that M. Iewel maketh, out of S. Cyprian, against the Supremacie.

Which if Sainct Cyprian hadde not es∣pied and Answered,* 1.488 then should M. Ie∣wel easily be pardoned: But now, what an intolerable kinde of soule dealing is this, to take an Obiection out of an Olde Father, and either for Hast. Or Negligence, Or Craftines, Or Despe∣ratnes, to let go the right answer vnto it?

For, concerning the Obiection, Sainct Cyprian thus withstandeth it, saiyng: And although he gaue after his re∣surrection, lyke povver vnto al his Apostles, &c.

yet to declare vnitie, he desposed by his Authority, the Original of the same vnitie, begining of one. By the Obiection then it scemeth, that no more accompt should be made of S. Peter, then of the vest of the Apostles, which seuerally was as greate in power as he: But by the Aunswere, made with this Aduersatiue Tamen, Yet, it is manifest, that, notwithstanding the equa litie among y^• Apostles, S. Peter yet was y^• First and the Head among them. For Christ disposed by his Authoritie (saith S. Cyprian) the Original not of vnitie (as you mangle it M. Iewel) but,* 1.489 of the same vnitie (which vndoubtedly was in the Apostles) beginning of one, which is S. Peter.

As in the Sentence folowing, more manifestly appeereth, to the further ope∣ning of S. Cyprians right meaning, and your false dealing. For the one halfe of the Sentence is this: in deede the rest also of the Apostles vvere the same that Peter vvas: endevved with like fellovvship, honour, and povver: This half M. Iewel you rest vpon, and build your Conclusion, that one of them had no more Priuilege than

an other.* 1.490 And why interpreted you no further; Is the sentence or Sense, (thinke you) at an ende, when you haue your purpose? Doth not S. Cyprian In∣terpret, Correct, Amend, or Determine it with an Adnersatiue yet, saying (least a∣ny mā should through his former words set lesse by S. Peter or his Chaire) But yet the Original commeth from v••itie, that the Church may be shevved to be one? And what other thing is this to say, but that, not∣withstanding it to be true, that the Apo∣stles were endewed with like honour & power as S. Peter was, yet no manne ought to gather heereof, that there was no Order among them, Or that one Bi∣shope now hath as large and absolute Authoritie as an other. But this ra∣ther must folowe, that because schismes and Heresies doe grow apase, vvhere no Original or Head is sought for or regarded, And because it should be perceiued, that the Church is One, in that it cōsisteth of one Head, vnto whome al the rest, were they neuer so high or felow like, must be refer red: therefore Christ, by his Authoritie, dis∣posed the Original of that vnitie, •• endew∣ed

S. Peter with a singular Preroga∣tiue, that he shoulde be that One in the Church, from whom whosoeuer depar∣ted, should not be of the Church.

And note wel the Cause, why the beginning must rise of One, vt Ecclesia vna monstretur, that the Church might be shevved to be one.* 1.491 Why; Should it not be One, though in euery Diocese, through the world, euery seueral Bishop were Chief therein; No surely, by S. Cyprian, it should not be. But, in that the Head ther∣of is but one, the vnitie of her doth folow necessarily. How doth it folow; Mary, Whosoeuer holdeth not with this Head, he is not in the Church, and so must none remaine within her, but the Catholike & obediēt Christians. How cā they but a∣gree then al in one Head, if they mind to cōtinue in y^• Church, wheras y^• departure from h••m, is to take an other Church, bi∣sides that, whose special marke is Vnitie in one Head. This conclusion then stan∣ding, that S. Peter was set, by the Auto∣ritie of Christ,* 1.492 in the first place, was that no special Priuilege, trow you? Or was he First, to that intent ōly, that in recke∣ning vp the Apostles, men should know

where to begin? Or, that in their mee∣tings together, he should sitte first? Or speake first? Or subscribe first? How simple things are these for the wisedome of God to think of? And how litle auai∣lable to the preseruing of the Churche in Unitie, if no further Preeminence were geuen him?

And againe, if the B. of Romes au∣thoritie now, as S. Peters was then, were of no more force, yet beeing of so much, if other would sit before him, Or speake before him in any Councel, should they not be Offenders against the ordi∣nance of God? How can it be otherwise, whereas he appointed by his Authoritie the Original of Vnitie to begin of One? Suppose then, that some one transgresseth this or∣der, who shal reproue him? If none, how vnreasonable is it, to set a law, and not to include therby an authority to pu∣nish the transgressor of the Law? If any: who more worthy of that Office then the Chief Bishope? Ergo there was in S. Peter,* 1.493 a proper Authoritie ioyned to that dignitie of his first place (which M. Ie. graūteth vnto him) by which he had power to cōtroll them, y^• should or wold

••esist that Primacie of his in how smal thing so euer it consisted. And if there were such Authority, Ergo, some special P••••••lege of Binding or Losing, which no other of the Apostles had. Except ye wil be so mad as to thinke, that in cō∣trolling of a fault committed against any Excellent Person, his Inferiour should be Iudge in the mater, and bind or loose at his wil or discretion.

I leaue it therefore as most mani∣fest, that notwithstanding the Apostles were equal in felowshipp of honour and power▪ with S. Peter, yet the Original of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was appointed by our Saluiour himselfe, to begin of S. Peter only, and none other. And this his preeminence (make you it as litle as you can) requi∣ring A Proportional Authoritie to be graunted vnto him, for the defense ther∣of against al disdaine or disobedience that might be procured or vsed against it: he had, without al doubt, some Preroga∣tiue of Iurisdiction aboue any other, and by Consequence some more power, then the rest of the Apostles bad.

And this I speak with the least, be∣cause

our Aduersaries be contentious, knowing in dede, y^• if I would presse thē further with this Testimonie of S. Cy∣prian, they could not honestly denie, but such a wisdome of God, and prerogatiue of S. Peter was expressed, in erecting one Head and beginning, as should keepe the Church in vnitie, And be a sure and certaine way for al them to take, whiche liue in danger of heresies. Which can not be so meane a thing, as to sit first only in a place, or speake only before other, with∣out further superioritie aboue other: but enough is alreadie said, both to de clare y^• trueth of S. Cyprians words, & the false∣hoode of M. Iewel in abusing them.

Origene abused.

Origene saieth:* 1.494 An ver•• soli Petro &c. What, hath Christ geauen the keies of the kingedome of heauen,* 1.495 vnto Peter only? and shall no holy man els receaue them? This saieng, To thee vvil I geue the keies of the kingdome of heauen, is cōmon also to the rest.

To whom the rest? Uerely to euery good man,* 1.496 which shal haue it reueled vn∣to him, that Christ is the sonne of the ly∣uing God. How thinke you then M.

Iewel,* 1.497 hath euery good and Faithfull Christian in the world, as great & as spe∣cial authoritie as S. Peter? If it be so: how doth S. Paule say, that, God hath a∣pointed in his Church first Apostles, then Euan∣gelistes, Thirly doctours &c.* 1.498 How saith he in an other place, that, Christ hath geauen to his Church some to be Apostles, some Prophetes, other Euangelistes, and other to be Pasteurs and Do∣ctours. Or how is not the Subdeacon as* 1.499 great in authoritie as the Priest, and the Priest as the Archebishope? Yea the com∣mon laie men or women stedfastly con∣fessing Christ, how haue not they, y^• Reies of y^• kingdome of heauen in their hands, euen as the Apostles or S. Peter himself had? For Origene pronounceth without exception, that, to haue the keies of the kingdome of heauen, is promised to al that haue it reueled vnto them, that Christ i•• the Sonne of the Liuing God.

If therefore this sense can not stand, we must▪ of necessitie seke an other. And con∣sider in what sort Origen saith, the keies of the kingedome of heauen to be geuen, not only to S. Peter, but to the rest also of good & godly men. But nothing more easy to be found. For Origen y^• place

(as his maner is) gathereth a mystical or moral sense of the literal and plaint histo∣rie: Not by denying the Historie, but by applying it to edificati••. Like as••. Paul, writing vnto the Galathians, & declaring vnto thē, y^• the two sonnes of Abraham, the one borne of Agar y^• seruant,* 1.500 the other of Sara the free womā, signified the two Testamentes: meant not to make vs be∣leue, that there was not such a man, as Abraham is described to haue ben, or that such real and corporal promises were not made vnto him, as the Scriptures doe testifie, but out of the Literal historie, he gathereth a mystical sense, knowing that vnto the Fathers of the old law, al things chaunced in figures,* 1.501 the Trueth of which is reueled by Christ vnto his Church.

Now, that Origen doth so as I do say, it is plaine by his owne words. For after he had shortly go••e ouer y^• text, of Christs questiō to his Apostles (vvhō do men ••ar the sonne of mā to be) & the Apostles answering thervnto: then entring, as it were, into a new mater, & leuing y^• historie y^• he might come to y^• moralitie,* 1.502 he saith: Fert assis autē quod Simō Petrus respōdēs 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christus fi∣lius

dei 〈…〉〈…〉 Thou art Christe the Sonne of the lyuing God, If vve shal likevvyse saie as Peter did, being reueled vnto vs not of fleshe and blud, but of the light vvhich lighteth our hart frō the Father vvhich is in heauē, vve also are that vvhich Peter vvas &c.

And afterward he saieth, that if we confesse as Peter dyd, it shall be saied vnto vs, Thou arte Peter, and so furth as it foloweth in the Gospel. So that the Church is builded, vpon euery such good man, and the keies of the Kingdome of Heauen, are geauen vnto him, and the gates of hel shal not preuaile against him.

And againe, if any man say to Christ: Thou art Christ the sonne of the h••ing God:* 1.503 Non ex carnis a••t sanguinis reuelatione, sed patris qui in coelis est, consequetur ea quae dicta sunt, vt euangelij quidem scriptum habet, ad illum Pe∣trum, vt ver•• docet illius spiritus ad quemuis quit alis factus ••uerit, qualis erat ille Petrus. That is, If any say to Christ, thou art the sonne of the lyuing God, not by reuelation of flesh and bloud,

but of the father vvhich is in heatē, he shal attain vnto those things vvhich (as the vvriting of the Gospel hath it) vvere spoken of to that Peter, but as the sprite of him, or thereof, teacheth vnto vvhomsoeuer you vvil, vvhich shal be made such a one as Peter vvas. It is plaine then by these wordes of Origene, that he setteth a dif∣ference betwene the Literal sense, and the Spiritual, And, that according to the text of the Scripture, Thou art Peter, was spoken vnto that singular Apostle S. Peter. But according to a Mystical or Spiritual sense, it is and may be spoken, vnto any good and Faithful Christian. Yet euery one of them shal not be an A∣postle, Or haue power to forgeaue sinnes or exercise Iurisdiction.

This is therefore much to be noted,* 1.504 and to be abhorted in M. Iewel. He taketh the wordes of A Doctour, which in the Doctours owne sense are true and godly, and draweth them to his owne Interpretation, in which they are moste false & vnreasonable. So haue rebels don hertofore, as y^• rebels of Iermanie, saing out of the Scriptures, Bretherne ye be ••alled 〈◊〉〈◊〉 libertie, and gathering thervpon that

〈…〉〈…〉

The greater is M. Iewels fault,* 1.505 which knowing (except he haue vtterly lost his wi••re) that it is to the present daunger of the common Reader, to haue the words of any Doctour alleaged vnto him, without the plaine declaration how

they are taken: doth, for al this, suffer, yea teach him to beleue, that Literally, which is true only mystically or morally. As, that S. Peter had no greater Priuilege than any other, because, after a spiritual vnderstanding, it is said vnto euery one that confesseth Christ accordingly, Thou art Peter. After which rate, our Ladie on∣ly, should not be the singural and natural Mother of Christ, because whosoeuer doth y^• wil of his Father, is his Mother.

S. Cyril abused.* 1.506

S. Cyril saieth: Apostolis & eorum in Ecclesijs Successoribus plenam concessit potestatem, Christ gaue ••ul power vnto the Apostles, and others that succeded them in the Churches.

〈…〉〈…〉

And the Correction, due and ready for them whiche without license obteined, meddle in an other mans Office, doe plainely proue the contrarie.

And therefore vndoubtedly, if you wil haue this place vnderstanded particular∣ly of euery Bishope, and saie, that God hath geauen eche of them, ful power: the practise not only of al Christendome, but of your owne congregation, wil confute you, In which there is difference betwen the Superintendent of Sarum and of Canterburie. But, if you wil refer the gift of ful power, vnto some singular suc∣cessours of the Apostles, then is this text nothing preiudicial, to the Supremacie of the Bishope of Rome, in whom alone, when ful power resteth, the saying of S. Cyril may be verified. For what they haue, it is true to say, that the Apostles successours haue it.

And this alone were inough to an∣swer: But now I say further, That S. Cyril hath not as you report. For in re∣peting shortly the Spiritual sense, which was to be gathered out of those two actes of Christ, the one, when he passed ouer

the See of Tyberias (signifying therby, the forsaking of the Iewes) and wente vp againe into an hil with his disciples: The other, when he cast vp his eyes, and beholding a number of people comming toward him, fedde them to the ful, with fiue loaues and two fishes, of this mira∣culous fact of our Sauiour he saith: Qua¦re, vetera & noua scripturae mandata, fidelibus per Apostolos apposita intelligebamus, cuius my∣slerij plenā & Apostoli & eorum in Ecclesijs suc∣cessores gratiam possidebunt: By which thing (that is by Christes feeding of fiue thou∣sand with fiue loa••es and two fisshes) vve vnderstand the Olde and Nevy Commaun∣dementes of the Scripture, to be sette by the A∣postles before the faithful.* 1.507 The full grace of vvhich ministerie, both the Apostles and their successours in the Churches shal possesse.

Conferre now (Indifferent Rea∣der) these thinges togeather.* 1.508 M. Ie∣wel telleth thee (as out of S. Cyril) of a ful power: S. Cyril speaketh of no more than a ful grace. M. Iewel by this ful power, would haue thee thinke, that in the authoritie of binding and loosing, no Bishop is higher then an other: S. Cyril

by his ful grace comprehendeth the grace of preaching only, & instructing of other. The ful grace which S. Cyril nameth, is so cōfessed to be in y^• Apostles & their suc∣cessours, y^• yet he signifieth not,* 1.509 whether al should haue it equally, or som be ther∣in before their fellowes, or whether the heades of the Church, should apoint the Preachers (which is nothing cōtrary to a Supremacie) or euery man vse his gift before he be licenced, which were altoge∣ther one of order: M. Iew. concludeth of that ful povver (which he maketh S. Cyril to speake of) not only y^• such a povver was in the Apostles, & is in their Successors, but also that it is ful in euery one of their successours, & that the B. of Rome hath not y^• Supremacie for which his hande∣ling of y^• aūcient Fathers, if he may yet es∣cape y^• note of a Falsifier, then go not the procedings forward by indifferencie, but with hatred of the contrary side, & with euident iniurie. And now foloweth im∣mediatly the abusing of an other Doctor.

S. Basil abused.

And S. Basil saith:* 1.510 Christ appointed Pe∣ter to be Pastour of his Church after him:

And consequently gaue the same power vn¦to al Pastours and Doctours.* 1.511 A tokē wher∣of is this, that al Pastours do equally binde and loose as wel as he.

First let vs see vpon what occasion,* 1.512 & to what end, these words are spoken. S▪ Basiles purpose in y^• whole Chapiter out of which those words are takē was, to ex∣hort vnto obediēce, such as liued in solita¦rines & excercise of perfecti••. Hervpō he bringeth furth y^• authoritie of Scripture, saying,* 1.513 Let euery man be subiect vnto the hig∣her povvers. Which Text, by his collec∣tion, proueth more strongly that Religi∣ous men should obey their Priors, than Te••poral men the Princes of the world. Agai••e,* 1.514 he alleageth Obey your Prepositours and be ye subiect vnto them.

After this, he commeth to the Ex∣amples of Abraham, in the Olde Testa∣ment, and the Apostles in the New: and 〈…〉〈…〉

hanging vpon Crosses, and diuerse other thinges. But how? For their owne sakes onely? No, but Vt per eos formā relin∣queret ••and•• sequuturae posteritati, that by them he might leaue the same Example and Paterne, to the Posteritie that should folovv.* 1.515 What Paterne? Mary the Paterne of Obedi∣ence, that as the Apostles folowed Christ through al Contradictions of the world, and Aduersities, and Deathes: so should Religious men obey their Fathers and Superiours in al things. Then doth it folow.

Atque hoc à Christo ipso docemur,* 1.516 dum Pe∣trum Ecclesiae suae pastorem post se constituit.* 1.517

And this vve be taught of Christ him selfe,* 1.518 vvhen he appointed Peter to be the Pastor of his Church after him. What This, be we taught?

Whether that one Apostle is as good as an other, or one Bishope as high as an other, or the Curate of as great Authori∣tie as the Person, or the Person of as large a Iurisdiction as the Bishope?

No. But that we should be obedient vnto our Pastours. For thus it folo∣weth in S. Basile.

Quem admodum igitur. &c. Therefore

lyke as Sheepe obey the Sheepeherd, and go vvhat soeuer vvay he vvil, so they that excercise them selues in godlines, must obey their Rulers, and nothing at al serch their commaundementes cu∣riously vvhen they haue no sinne in them, but cō∣traryvvise to accomplish them vvith most readi∣nesse of minde and diligence. As if he should shortly haue said:

Christ appointed Peter and other after him in order to be Sheepherds,

Ergo Christe appointed such as were vnder their Charge to be as Sheepe.

But Sheepe obey their Shepherd without making any inquisition vp∣on his leading and guiding of them:

Ergo we be taught obedience by Christ him selfe, in this also, that he made Peter y^• Pastour of the Church after him.

To this ende, by these meanes, S. Basile bringeth his discourse in the fore∣said Chapiter, which I haue the more at

large opened vnto thee, that thou maist see (Indifferent Reader) how litle he intended to speake against the Popes su∣premacie, or for the equalitie of Priestes of Bishopes, that one of them should be as high as an other.

What moued then M. Iewel, to vse S. Basil in this place? Or what words are they here, by which he cō••irmeth his As∣sertiō? His Assertion is y^•,* 1.519 the old Catholik Fathers could neuer vnderstande any such special Priuilege of binding and loosing, as M. Hardinges Athanasius attributeth to the See of Rome? But how proueth he this?* 1.520 Christ (saith he out of S. Basil) appointed Peter to be Pastor of his church after him. Note then, that Christ is First and S. Peter Next. And this maketh directly for the Supremacie. But it fo∣loweth.

And so consequently gaue the same po∣vver vnto al Pastours and Doctours.

Be it so. But what is consequent∣ly? How M. Iewel taketh it, I can not tel, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in greke, which phrase S. Basile vseth, signifieth the Pa∣stours that folow in order and row after

S. Peter. Now Order requireth, that al∣though al be Pastoures, yet they may not take vpon them, and rule cōfusely al in a clampe togeather, but euery man in his place & degree, according vnto y^• propor∣tion of his Flocke and Charge. And ther∣fore this, hitherto proueth rather that y^• Pope of Rome, is the Chief after Christ, and that al other what so euer they be, go not cheeke by cheeke by him, & as worthy or Supreme as he, but euery man in his order and degree after him. But this that foloweth, is perchaunce altogeather for M. Iewel. what is that? Marie

A token vvhereof is this, that al Pa∣stours dooe equally both binde and loose as vvel as he.

True it is M. Iewel,* 1.521 the most sim∣ple in al the world doth binde and loose, like as the Pope him selfe. But this is true, in such thinges, as are permitted vnto his Iurisdiction. For in some kind of Faultes, the partie must be referred vnto the Iudgement of the Bishoppe▪ And in cases of Heresie, Breaking of Uowes, and Robbing of Churches, the

Bishop hath not in his hands to absolue the offender, but the whole must be re∣serued vnto the Pope. And therefore, although in such faultes as euery Prior or Priest may forgeue or retaine, the Iu∣risdiction, which he excerciseth, be as ef∣fectual, as if S. Peter himself had absol∣ued or bound the Parties: yet this is no∣thing against the special Priuilegies a∣boue al others which are graunted vnto the See of Rome. As in example of fiue hundred Capitaines in a Field, Or fiue hundred Lordes in a Countrie, eue∣ry one commaundeth the Souldier of his band, or Tenant of his land, and yet this is not preindicial vnto the worthines & excellencie of the General Capitaines and chiefe Lordes.* 1.522 The Angels doe al of them waite and attende vpon God, and at the later Day, al the Electe shal haue euery one his penie and reward: yet the Cherubins are of higher Authoritie than the inferiour Angels, and the Apostles shal be in greater Glorie, than Confes∣sours. What shal we say of Christ him selfe?* 1.523 As my Father (saith he) sent me, so (end I you, And vvhen he had said this, he brea∣thed

vpon them, and saith vnto them: Take ye the holy Ghost. VVhose sinnes you shal forgeaue them, they are forgeuen them, and vvhose sinnes, ye do reteine, they be reteined. Here loe, you may see that he hath made the Apostles equal with hym. How then? wil you conclude that Christ is not supreme in his Church, and that he hath not the authoritie of bin∣ding and loosing in a more high degree than any of his Apostles? Such yet is your diuinitie (M. Iewel) that because al Pastours do equally bind & loose, there∣fore the Pope hath no special Priuilege aboue other. But you lacked the vnder∣standing, that al do equally bind & loose in such cases and Persons, as are subie∣cted vnto them, And that, because euery Bishop can not exercise the power of his Orders when and where it pleaseth him, therefore it is euident, that all are not equal, but that the Superiours may re∣straine the Iurisdiction of the Inferi∣ours, which is inough to proue a Supre∣macie.

Thus hath M. Iewel brought foure seueral Auncient Fathers, al in a cum∣panie togeather, to proue that, the B. of

Rome hath no speciall Priuilege aboue others of binding and loosing. and there is not one of them al, which proueth that Cōclusion. For S. Cyprian, is plaine for one head, notwithstanding the equalitie of the Apostles in honour and power. Origen, and S. Cyril, speake not literally but mystically, And S. Basile last of all telleth such a Trueth as euery Catholike wil confesse, and is nothing contrarie to the doctrine of the Supremacie, excepte there be so vnsensible an heretike, that wil think the lowest Minister in the con∣gregation, to be as high in Authoritie as the greatest Superintendent or general, because he preacheth and baptiseth, and ministreth the Lordes Supper, and bur∣neth (if neede be) in his opinion, in lyke sorte as the Chiefest Superintendentes themselues doe.

And this vanitie and falsehood of M. Iewels, when he allegeth Auncient Fa∣thers wordes without their Sense, is so common, that I wil be bounde to make a whole boke of his So saith S. Cyprian, and Therefore S. Hierome saieth, and other such Idle Illations: if either it were not

inough, to note only what he is, Or if my wil and leisure serued me so much, as to be occupied in so tediouse A mater. But now let vs goe forwarde with the Doc∣tours, and shew how shamefully he hath abused them.

Our Sauiour (saith D. Harding out of S. Augustine) gaue not commaūdement, in vvhat Order the Sacramēt should be receiued, meaning to reserue that mater vnto the Apostles, by vvhom he vvould direct and dispose his Church.

Ergo, the obseruation, of number of Communicāts, of Place, of Tyme, of Order, Maner, and Circumstance in Receiuing, dependeth of the Chur∣ches ordinaunce, and not of Christes Institution.

S. Augstine abused.

S. Augustine speaketh not one worde of any number.* 1.524

He speaketh of a power left with the Apostles,* 1.525 to apoint in what order the Sacrament should be Receaued, but the Order and Manner of doing a thing, ex∣tendeth it self to al Circumstances: ergo

to number also. And therefore it is no wrong dealing, to inferre A particular vpon the graunt of the proper vniuersal thereof.

Againe, whereas the blessed Apostle, after certaine talke had about the Sacra∣ment,* 1.526 concluded saying: Caetera cum vene∣ro ordinabo, As for the rest vvhen I come my selfe I vvil set in Order, S. Augustine inferreth, Vnde datur intelligi••quia multū er at, vt in episto∣la* 1.527 totū illum agendi ordinē insinuaret, quem vni∣uersa per orb•• seruat ecclesia, ab ipso ordinatum esse quod nulla morū diuersitate variatur. Wher∣of it is geauen vs to vnderstand, that it vvas or∣deined of the Apostle, that vvhich is not varied by any diuersity of maner & fashion, because it vvas, much for him to shevv in an epistle, al that order of Celebrating and Ministring the Communion, vvhich the vvhole Church through out all the vvorld doth obserue.

As who should say: If it had not ben, that the Apostle had not place inough, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, to declare his mind at ful: In what order, and with what Ceremonies and Circumstancies, he would haue the celebrating of y^• myste∣ries to procede, he would haue left it in

plaine writing, how al thinges should be don: but because that was to much for an epistle, to receaue, And because the or∣der which he would haue obserued, was not so quickly appointed, as to Reade A▪ Chapiter or two of the Bible, and to tell the storie of Christs entring into his pas∣sion, and that done, to receiue bread and wine in remembrance thereof, and to be thankeful: therefore he promised to come hymselfe, and set thinges in order: and therefore such orders and maners, as the whole Church hath and doth throughly vse, about the celebration of the Myste∣ries, are to be thought to haue come from the Apostles.

Of these words then also (As for the rest vvhen I come my selfe, I vvil dispose) it maie, with good reason, be gathered, that the Apostle did prescribe orders and rules to be obserued concerning Persons, Time, and Place, with other Circumstances, And that the Institution of Christ, stret∣ched no further than to Consecration, Oblation and Participation of his pre∣tious bodie: And that one alone or manie togeather to receaue, was not, by Christ,

apointed, but left to his Apostles to be ordered. But it foloweth in M. Ie∣wel: that,

S. Augustine in this place,* 1.528 speaketh not one word of any number. But, only of the time of Receauing, whether it might seme conuenient to minister the Communion after Supper.

You be verie bold,* 1.529 either with S. Augustine, or with your Reader. Doe ye cal y^• speaking only of the time,* 1.530 where the question of tyme is not at al spoken of? Reade the place who wil, and if there be any such question intreated, as M. Iewel reporteth, although I haue many Argu∣ments to the contrarie, yet wil I say he is an honest and true man.

In the fifthe chapiter of that epistle, these questions are mentioned, whether vpon good friday, Oblation and Sacri∣fice should be done twise, in the morning first, and then after supper, Item, whe∣ther the people should, first keepe their faste, then eate that daies meale, and last of all haue the Oblation and Sacrifice made. Or, first keepe their faste, and then haue the Sacrifice made, and last of al go

to their meales meat. To which questiōs his answer is, that euery man should, in these points, do, as y^e vse of the church is, vnto which he cummeth. Because ther is nothing in them, against either Faith or good maners.

In the next chapiter folowing, out of which D. Harding toke his testimony, the question & doubt is, not, whether one might Offer or Receaue in the morning, or at euening (which perteineth to tyme) but, whether he that had eaten the same daie before, might afterwardes either Offer, or Receaue the bodie of Christe, whiche is A Question concerninge the state of the Persons only, And not the qualitie of Tyme.* 1.531 Unto which, his an∣swer is, that it hath pleased y^• holy Ghost, that for the honour of so great a Sacra∣ment, the bodie of our Lord should first enter into the mouth of a Christian, be∣fore external and carnal meates.

Now because the heretike might say (as some in these daies vphold) where is it in al the Scripture, that a man should come fasting to the communion? And whi might not one (if he would) receiue after

Supper, as the Apostles dyd, or in the Supper tyme, as the Corinthians dyd: S. Augustine meeteth with this obiecti∣on, alleging that sentence which M. Har∣ding to like effect vsed, and saying: That in vvhat order the Sacrament should be receiued, Christ gaue no precept thereof, but left that office to his Apostles.

Let M. Iewel now, defend hym∣selfe, if he can, and proue, that he hath not falsly reported of S. Augustine, in the place of the Epistle ad ••anuarium, saying of hym, that he speaketh not one word of the number (of Cōmunicantes) but only of the tyme of Receauing.

That he speaketh only of the time of Receauing, it is false. For these be his wordes: Saluator non praecepit quo deinceps or∣dine sumeretur, vt Apostolis, per quos dispositurus erat, ecclesiam, seruaret hunc locum. Our Sauiour gaue no commaundemēt, in vvhat order it should be Receaued, to the intent he might leaue that mater to his Apostles, by vvhom he vvould dispose his Church.

Hereof I gather this Argument. The apointing of Order, how thinges should be don, doth extend itself to more,

than apointing only of the time, in which it is to be done:* 1.532 But, of the Authoritie left with the Apostles, to set an Order in Receauing of the Sacrament, S. Augu∣stine doth speake, in his epistle 〈…〉〈…〉 spea∣keth only of the tyme of receauing.

S. Gregorie abused.

In the communion,* 1.533 As the people saied the Lordes praier altogether (as it is noted by S. Gregorie) so they Receaued al to∣geather.* 1.534

Are ye not ashamed so to say,* 1.535 that it is noted so by S. Gregorie? we haue (I thinke) his epistles in the same pri••t as you haue them, and y^• effect of that epistle, out of which, you haue gathered this note vpon S. Gregorie, is, that he answereth certaine persons,* 1.536 which thought it was vnmeete, that he should go•• aboute to keepe vnder the Church of Constanti∣nople, but his

owne Church. And of the Pater noster he saith: Dominica oratio apud Graecos ab omni po∣pulo dicitur, apud nos autem a solo Sacerdote. Our Lordes praier is said among the Grecians, of al the people, but with vs, it is saied by the Priest alone.

Here then I appose you againe (M. Iewel) was the Masse of S. Gregories tyme, a Communion or Priuate Masse▪ (for you make an oppositiō betwen these two thinges). If it were a priuate masse, then must you yeld and subscribe, because it is then found by your own confession, within the first six hundred yeres.* 1.537 If it were a Communion, how say you, that the people said the cōmunion praier al to∣gether, as it is noted by S. Gregorie, wher∣as you see him, so plainely, to testifie, that in Rome, the Priest alone dyd saie our Lordes Praier?

Yea (say you perchaunce) but it was otherwise emonge the Greekes, and in their Communion the people saied the Lords praier al together.* 1.538 Yea, but S. Gregorie noteth not only such point, and he speaketh not, of their communion, or not Cōmunion. So that you be exceding

much to blame for abusing the names of holy Doctours so vainely, and making them to be compted to thinke that, which they doe not speake.

S. Cyprian abused.

The Cathol••ke Faith is, that the Churche is not bound by the vertue of Christes Institution, to deliuer the Sa∣crament, vnder forme of wine, vnto the people. The here••ikes repi••e against it, and saie, that by Christes Institution the people should Receiue the Cup also. But how wil this be proued? By many old Fathers. But,

In steede of many,* 1.539 for shortnes sake, to allege but one, S. Cyprians wordes in this mater be verie plaine.

Remember then,* 1.540 what the mater is. You must proue out of S. Cyprian, that the people should Receaue not in the one kinde alone of Bread,* 1.541 but of wine. also And if you (M. Iewel) wil not remem∣ber it, yet I praie thee (gentle Reader) to marke diligently whether he proue any such thing out of S. Cyprian.

Some ther be,* 1.542 that in sanctifiyng the cup, and deliuering it to the people, do not that

thing that Iesus Christ our Lord and God,* 1.543 the Author and Teacher of this Sacrifice, both did and tawght.

Surely, whosoeuer he be that doth so,* 1.544 is much to blame. For Christes Insti∣tution is to be obserued. But the questi∣on is, whether to deliuer the Chalice to the laie people, be of y^• necessitie of Chri∣stes Institution. But go ye further in S. Cyprian.

He addeth further.* 1.545 If any man be in this errour,* 1.546 seing the light of the Trueth let him returne againe vnto the Roote, and vnto the Original of the Lordes Tradition.

This also is wel done, so charitably to warne the deceaued,* 1.547 to returne vnto the trueth. But I thinke it is not wisely done, to speake so generally of errour and truth, our question being specially about one Article. But you haue more to say out of S. Cyprian.

And after in the same Epistle,* 1.548 we keep•• not the thing that is commaunded vs,* 1.549 vn∣lesse we do the same that the Lord did.

Here is much a do to proue,* 1.550 that we must keepe the Iustitution of Christe, which we do not denie: but where is it ••ere, y^• giue the Cup vnto the people

is Christes Institution, so absolute, that they may not be serued in one kinde? Proue this, which we aske, out of S. Cy∣prian, and let that passe, which we no∣thing doubt of. It foloweth.

In these few wordes,* 1.551 S. Cyprian saith, the Lord both did it & taught it to be don.* 1.552 He calleth it the Lordes commaundemēt.

What is this (it) of which you speake?* 1.553 Why name ye not the thing it selfe, that we may know where about ye go? Say, if ye dare, that by this terme (it) you vn∣derstand the deliuery of the Cup vnto the people. If ye dare, how can you veri∣fie it, That the Lord did it? For Christ,* 1.554 I am sure, gaue not the Cup in his last supper to the peple. If ye dare not, what honestie is this, to bring in so craftely in∣to your conclusion, that, which was not proued by the premisses?

Is this the S. Cyprian, whom in steed of many you promised to allege? Is this y^• shortnes for which sake you would allege but one Father? Cal ye these words of S. Cyprians, verie plain, for proufe here∣of, y^• Christes Institution chargeth vs to deliuer the Cup also, vnto the people,

whereas he speaketh of no such contro∣uersie at al.

M. Harding (you say) can not here steale* 1.555 awaie in the myste and saie, S. Cyprian meant al this of the cup that the Priest cōse∣crateth for himself. For his words be plaine to the contrarie, In calice dominico sancti∣ficando & ministrando, that is, insactifieng the Lordes cup, and ministring it vnto the People.

Steale you awaie,* 1.556 no more than D. Harding doth, and it wil sone be percea∣ued who is the theefe. For in deede, you plaie that good felows part, which being himselfe in daunger of ••aking, woulde point to another y^• is giltlesse,* 1.557 and did the standers by to looke that he scape not awaie from them. As if he should say, my masters and frendes, of al thinges I hate stealing and iuggling. And see therefore I praie you, diligently to that fellowe that goeth yonder, y^• he cast not a myste before your eyes, and so steale awaie.

For that which you speake, as it were to take D. Harding, as though he would flee from that, which you imagine against him, that is nothing so. D. Har∣ding wil not, I warrant you, say, that

S. Cyprian meant al y^• you haue recited out of him, of the cup that y^• Priest conse∣crateth for himselfe. But as the Catho∣like Church leadeth hym, he confesseth, that in y^• primitiue Church the people re∣ceaued in both kindes. And therefore S. Cyprian speaking of the Cup sanctified and distributed vnto the people, can not moue hym (which confesseth it, to be a∣greable with that tyme) to steale awaie for the matter.

But here is the question, whether this distributing of the Cup to the people, be That tradition, for keeping of which, S. Cypriane maketh, so iustly, so manie words? Do you marke this M. Iewel? Steale not you, I praie you, awaie here in this place. We confesse that the cup was deliuered vnto y^• people, in S. Cy∣prians tyme, but we aske now, whether S. Cyprian in this foresaid epistle,* 1.558 saith, that it is the Institution of Christ that it should be so. The fact we graunt, but of the necessitie of it, whether vpon paine of Gods Indignation, the people muste haue the Cup deliuered vnto them, that we demaund, And to that you answer,

that they must, And to that you applie these foresaied testimonies, making your Reader, to beleue that the Lordes Tra∣dition and y^• Lords commaundement of which S. Cyprian speaketh so ernestly, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 meant of the deliuerie of the Cup vn∣to the people.

But, if there were no other argument to the contrarie, what yet could be spo∣ken more absurdly and idlely? For if the Tradition of our Lord, which S. Cy∣prian mentioneth, is to be vnderstanded of y^• deliuerie of the cup to the people, of which point only, our question is, then Ioe, when he saieth: Some there be, that in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Cup. and deliuering it vnto the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, doe not that thing, that Iesus Chrifst both 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and taught. he should meane thus, that Some there be that in sanctifieng the Cup and deliuering it to the people, doe not deliuer it vnto the people, as our Lord both did and taught.* 1.559

And how then doth this geare hang togeather, that, in deliuering it vnto the people, they should not deliuer it vnto the people? Or, that S. Cyprian should

reproue any man for not keeping of our lords traditiō in deliuering of y^• Cup to y^• people, wheras he plainly saith that it is sanctified & deliuered, and yet, that our Lords tradition is not obserued? By which it is most euident, that the Tradi∣tion, which S. Cyprian in this place, so grieuou••lie taketh to be omitted, can not possibly be referred to the deliuery of the Cup to the people, which he confesseth to be obserued.

And this much might be said with good reason, if S. Cyprians meaning were not to be found expressed in open words, within ten lines of these, which M. Iew. hath rehersed. But it is so euidēt, y^• euen at the very begining of y^• Epistle, he de∣clareth▪ what the cause of his writing is, and what the fault is, which he woulde haue amended. For the first Sentence thereof hath this sense.

Albeit I knovv (most deere brother) that ma∣ny Bishops do keepe the Order and Rules of our Lordes Tradition, yet because some in sanctifieng the Cup and deliuering it vnto the people, do not that thing, which our Lord both did and taught, I thought it good and necessary to vvrite letters

therof vnto you, that if any man be deceiued, he may returne, vnto the Original of our Lordes Tradition.

This is the first sentence, in which there is Generally signified a thing to be amisse, but what that is, it is not yet spe∣cially declared. And out of this one sen∣tence, M. Iew. peeketh an absolute Te∣stimonie, y^• it is Christes Institutiō, that the people should haue the Cup deliuered vnto them, because he loueth not y^• truth should be stolen away in a mist. The sēse of the next sentence is,

And thinke not (most deere Brother) that I vvrite this vpon myne ovvne minde and vvil, but when any thing is cōmaunded by the Inspi∣ration of God, the faithful seruaunt must obey.

So that this hitherto is nothing but a preface or entrance to the mater. Then foloweth the third sentence.

Admonitos autem nos scias. &c. But ye shal vnderstand, that vve are vvarned (by special reuelacion from God) that in offering of the Chalice the Traditiō of our Lord be kept, & that no other thing be don of vs, than that which out ••ord did for vs, first▪ that the Chalice vvhich is of∣fered in rememb••aunce of him, should be mixt vvith 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

Lo this is the state of y^• whole Epistle, and the Tradition & Commaundement of God, which so oft & so earnestly he speaketh of, is referred to this end only, y^• wine & wa∣ter should be offered vp togeather in the Mysteries. And y^• fault which he findeth with the celebrating y^• some vsed, was, y^• they toke water only into y^• Chalice,* 1.560 like as on the cōtrary side y^• Heretikes now take only wine. Both which extremes the Traditiō & Cōmaundement of God (which S. Cyprian doth proue, by y^• olde and new Testament most abundantly) doth so fully & perfitely confound, that as the Aquarij then were disproued, so the Vi∣narij now should be ashamed.

But as concerning the diliuering of the Sacrament, in one or both kindes, he intended it not, nor determineth it. And this M. Iewel perceiued wel inough, y^• S. Cyprian in that Epistle was wholy bent against Aquarij (were they schisma∣tikes only or heretiks) and, that the fault which he laboreth to amēd in them, was, not for not geuing the cup vnto the peo∣ple, but for geuing water only in it, and not wine mixt with water.

Where then was M. Iewels wit to let go many fathers,* 1.561 which he wold haue it thought, to be for him, and, for shortnes sake to allege only S. Cyprian, and, that S. Cyprian should speake nothing at al, of that questiō which properly is demaū∣ded of vs, and to which we looked for an absolute and perfite answer from him?

It is not credible but he saw wel inough, what we could Replie, and ther∣fore he prouided this safegard for his esti∣mation. For thus he saith:

If S. Cyprian might wel write thus a∣gainst* 1.562 the Heretikes called Aquarij,* 1.563 which in the holy ministratiō, would not vse wine but in stede thereof did Consecrate water, and Ministred it vnto the People, much more may we say the same against our Ad∣uersaries, which Consecrate and Minister vnto the people, no Cup at al.

What you may saie, it is an other question, but we seke now, what S. Cy∣prian did say. If that Learned and blessed Father, whom you haue alleaged in stede of many, if he spake nothing di∣rectly of our question, it is no mater to vs, what you wil Applie him vnto, nei∣ther was it cunningly inough donne of

you, to bring him alone (whereas you had, except you belie your selfe, copie) which maketh nothing at al for you, but by a consequence of your owne deuising.

And yet this very Consequence of yours,* 1.564 doth nothing folow. for to con∣secrate in water onely, and to minister it so vnto the people (which clause of mini∣string it vnto the people, is in deede out of the mater which S. Cyprian discussed. But let it occupie a place, if you thinke it wil ease you) To Consecrate (I say againe) in water only, and to minister it so vnto the people, is against the Tradition, Institution, and Cōmaundement of our Sauiour. And this is proued at large throughout y^• whole epistle of ••. Cypri••••.

But, to cōsecrate the wine & water to∣gether, & not to minister it vnto y^• people who is against it? what Scripture, coūcel, or father? You say it is against Chri∣stes Institutiō. We deny it. You made, as though you would proue it ou•• of S. Cyprian. But S. Cypriā speaketh not of this questiō: yet, you say, y^• as ••. Cypriā spake against y^• Aquarios for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in water only, and ministring it so vnto the

people: so may you much more speake a∣gainst the Church, for ministring no Cup at al vnto the peple. I haue shewed how vnlike this comparison is.

But wil you haue a good Argument, and like to y^• of s. Cyprians? This it is.

S. Cyprian iustlie founde faulte with the Aquarios for consecrating in water onely,* 1.565 and ministring it so vnto the peple: Ergo, he would haue found fault with your Procedings, which put wine only in the Cup, and minister it so vnto the people.

For the Reason on both sides is one, that the Tradition of our Lord, is to be obserued, and that to Consecrate wine and water togeather, was his Traditiō.

Answere this Argument with al your cūning (Learned M. Iewel) and answer your deere friendes expectation, which wil thinke, that you haue not abused S. Cyprian. The iudgement wherof, I permit, vnto any reasonable Aduersarie.

S. Augustine abused.

S. Augustine, willing the Priestes to ap∣plie

their studies,* 1.566 to correct their errours of their Latin speach, addeth thervnto this Reason, Vt populus ad id quod planè intellig••t, dicat Amen. That the people vnto the thing, that they plainly vnderstand, may say Amen. This of S. A••gustine seemeth to be spoken Ge∣nerally of al tongues.

How can it seeme so,* 1.567 wheras he so ex∣presly speketh of the Latin tongue only?

S. Augustine (you say) willing the Prie∣stes,* 1.568 &c.* 1.569 This first of al is falsely repor∣ted. For S. Augustin in this place,* 1.570 went not about to exhorte the Priestes to the studie of y^• Latine tongue, as who should thinke that it were not to be suffered, A Priest or Bishop to be ignorant therein: but he shewed, how such, as come fresh & fine from the Scholes of Grammarians, and Rhetoricians, with knowledge and Eloquence inough of wordes, should, in their first entrance into y^• church, there to be instructed of y^• Catholike Faith, learne to be humble & wise in iudgement, & not to contemne y^• Scriptures, because they be not writēin so loftie & exquisit a Style as prophane bokes, nor to set more by flo¦rish of words, than substance of Sense.

And further he saith:

Nouerint 〈◊〉〈◊〉 n•• esse vocem ad aures dei, sed animi affectū.it a enim no ••••••deb••t, si aliquos An∣tistites & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ecclesiae forte animaduer∣terint, vel 〈◊〉〈◊〉 barbarismis & solaecismis Den̄ m∣uocare, vel ead•• verba quae pronūciant nō intelli∣gere, ••turbate ••ue disi••••guere. that is, Let them vnderstand al••s, that it is not the voice, that soū∣deth in the eares of God, but the ••artines and de∣notiō of mind. For so they shal not laugh the Bi∣shops and ministers of the church to scorn, if per∣chaunce, they shel perceiue them to cal vpō God, either vvith barbarouse and incongrae Latine: or els not to vnderstand the vvords that they speak, either to point them out of order.

To such therfore, S. Austine directeth his talke in y^• place, & maketh no exhorta∣tiō at al to Priestes, to learne their latine tongue better. And why should M. Iew. dissemble y^• true persons, of whom s. Au∣gustine there speaketh? I wil tel you:* 1.571 There is not a place more plainer than this, if it be considered, to proue y^• it was not thought in S. Augustines time, so necessary a m••t••r, that al thinges in the Churche should be donne in a knowen Tongue, as now it is auouched to be.

For if the Publike Seruice was euerie where executed, at that tyme, in the vulgar Tongue, or in a knowē one to the common people, although it were not their vulgar, how is it possible, that the Bishopes themselues, should be to see∣king in the right pronouncing, & poin∣ting, and vnderstanding of that, whiche they openly said in the Church?

The Syr Iohn Lacklatines (of which there is much speaking among the bro∣thers) they haue ben such an occasion of ruine and perdition to the worldly wise, as none hath ben greater. For the euil life of Priestes, although it be A greate Argument vnto them, that the Religion is not effectual, which hath such holy ons in it: yet whiles they see in euerie kinde of Protestation or Confession,* 1.572 many such to be found, of whō they may wel inough be ashamed, they temper their Iudge∣ment, and wil not vtterly condemne a Religion for this cause only, that some Professours thereof be wicked.

But when they see Publike Seruice to be saied of them which vnderstand it not, and for them which are also as igno∣rant,

this seemeth to be so absurde, that they can not conceaue, howe the Spirite of God should directe their doeinges, which see, and suffer, yea and defend, that Publike Seruice maie be done, in a tong which the vulgar people doe not vnder∣stand. And in this point, they are so much the more vehement, because they see, how all the new Gospellers folow a contrary waie, and vse no lerned Tounge at all in their Ordinary Seruice, but the vulgar and knowen Tounge of the Countrie, where they pitch. So that, the Protestan∣tes are compted herein, to worke so sin∣cerely, to speake so reasonably, and to chalenge so inuincibly, that thousandes of the worldly wise, whiles they stand in their owne iudgement, fal in deede into euerlasting per••ition, by the iudgement of the blessed and lerned Fathers.

For, if al thinges must be don in the Church, so, as the people do vnderstand what is praied, how should that case euer be heard of in the Primitiue Churche, where some Bishoppes, vnderstode not what they praied in the open Church?

Maie we think, that any of them,

vnderstoode not the vulgare speache of his coūtrie? That is verie incredible, be∣cause, vnto the high office, of Ruling and teaching the whole People,* 1.573 he should not be chosen, which could not wel be vnderstanded of the people.

But maie we rather thinke, that the publike Seruice, was in a lerned toung, sometymes not perfitly knowen of the Bishope himselfe, like as vnto the vul∣gar people it was not knowen? Of this, there is no doubt: Because in praieng to God, deuotion and not eloquntion is re∣quired, and because he might haue a good grace, of preaching in his natural tongue vnto the people, which yet had very sim∣ple vnderstanding, of any Greeke or la∣tine writinges: And because, it is plaine by S. Augustine, that some such were in his tyme.

How then (you wil saie) is Igno∣rance in a Bishope to be suffered? I say not so, neither on the other side, I thinke that al is marred, except euery man, wo∣man and childe maie haue the Bible in the vulgar Tounge. Or, that no Tounge is to be suffered in the Church of God,

but that, which is the common and kno∣wen tounge, of the Countrie. But as there is a difference betwene wincking and staring, so is there a discreation and iudgement to be vsed in this mater of Tounges of which we speake. And S. Augustine aloweth it not, that a Bishope should not vnderstand the Latin tounge in which he praieth, neither yet doth he crie out against that lacke of theirs, re∣quiring that al Publike Seruice should straitwaies be in the vulgare Tounge. For after he had told it, how some Bi∣shopes praie in false and barbarouse La∣tine, and vnderstād not what they praie, he addeth further least, you should think hym to alowe Ignorance, and saieth:

Non quia ista m••••me corrigenda sint,* 1.574 vt populus ad id quod plane intelligit, dicat, Amen: I would, that the freshe and trym Scho∣lers, comming lately from their Eloquēt Lessons, should not laugh y^• Bishops to skorne, which speake in their praiers false Latin: not because these thinges vvere not to be amended in the Bishopes, to the entent the people might ansvver, Amen, to that vvhich they clerelie vnderstand. (as who should say, I

alow not their lacke of knowledge: And it were wel, that they dyd so speake, as the people vnderstand them) Sed tamen pie toleranda sunt ab eis qui didicerunt vt sono in so∣ro, sic voto in ecclesia benedici. but yet these lac∣kes, are charitably to be borne vvithal, of them, vvhich haue lerned, that as thinges are vvel said in court before Iudges, by sounde (of voice) so are they vvel saied in the Church, by vovve of minde.

Of which wordes I gather, that as he would wishe it better, y^• the Bishops & Priestes of the Church should so speak, as the people might vnderstand: yet, he would not haue the Seruice of the church vtterly chaunged from the Latine tonge not vnderstanded, to the vulgar tounge which nor Priest nor peole could be ig∣norant of. But, euen those wātes of some Bishopes and Priestes,* 1.575 in the true Rea∣ding, Pointing, and Understanding of their Publike Praiers, he would to be charitably borne and suffered, vpon this consideration, that although in the eares of men, their wordes sound not plaine and good, yet in y^• sight of God, the good affection of their harte is alowed.

Now if S. Augustine had ben of the Protestantes mind, he would not haue takē the mater so quietly, but with great Stomake would haue said, awaie with this murmuring of praiers not vnder∣standed: awaie with this Latine and Strange tounge, which,* 1.576 the Priest hym∣selfe knoweth not, what it meaneth: A∣waie with this lip labour: Let vs haue the Bible turned into the vulgar tounge, let euery man come to the Church and singe Psalmes to the Lord: let the people vnderstand what is said: let vs do as the Apostle commaundeth vs, let vs speake with tounges: and so furth, with a great tale, out of the xiiij. Chapiter of the first to the Corinthians, altogeather out of purpose.

But, as it appeereth by this place, which I haue opened, S. Augustine was of an other mind, & would haue geuē such Protestantes an other lesson, that they should not mocke at poore Syr Iohns, which praie in latine and yet vnderstand not latine, like as his counsel is, to elo∣quent and smoeth tounged Gentlemen, that come from secular Scholes, to the

Church of Christ, there to be instructed.

And because the opening of so much, would haue ben a great disauantage to M. Iewel and his felowes, therefore he speaketh only of Priestes whom S. Au∣gustine willed to correct the errours of their latine tounge, and dissimbleth the answer, which S. Augustine geueth to those ioly felowes, which would be ready to mocke at Priests, because of their bar∣barouse and false praieng, in the Publike Seruice. By which we vnderstand, that the publike Seruice was then in Latine, and that it was so strainge also vnto the vulgar people, that some of the Priestes and Bishopes did not vnderstand it.

Of this also it foloweth, that the con∣clusion which M. Iewel peeketh out of this testimonie of S. Austine, is so grosse and vnsensible, that I wonder where his wittes were when he wrote it. Thus he saieth.

This of S. Augustin seemeth to be spo∣ken generally of al tounges.* 1.577* 1.578

Seemeth it so in deede?* 1.579 And do not your self so vnderstād the place in y^• very begynning of your alleging thereof, that

you saie, S. Augustine willeth the Priestes to correct the errours of their latine tonge? If then it be the latine tongue by name, for which he reasoneth, how doth it s••me vnto you that he speaketh generally of al Tounges?

Againe, if he spake generally of al toun∣ges, ergo of the Punike tounge. I aske you then, which of the two, it is like that the Aphricanes vnderstoode better, the Aphricane and Punike tounge, Or the Latine?

If the Aphricane (as being their na∣tural and vulgar tounge) was more fa∣miliar with them, why doth S. Augu∣stine wil the Priests to studie the Latine tounge, that the people might vnderstād them the better, wheras (by your accōpt) they should haue spoken in their owne vulgar tongue, and so with lesse labour, the people should haue ben more edified?

If the Latin was more familiar, how could any Priest or Bishope in Aphrica, be so ignorant thereof,* 1.580 that he should not pronounce his Latine praiers, and vn∣derstand them? Or, how doth S. Augustin seeme to speake generally of al tongues,

which extendeth out his Reason and ar∣gument, no not vnto the Punik tongue? Here againe I praie thee (Indifferent Reader) to consider, whether M. Iewel hath not clerckly alleged the Doctours.

S. Irenens abused.

S. Ireneus, hath a manifest tasti∣monie for the Supremacie of the Church of Rome. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Church (saieth he) must re∣sort* 1.581 to this Church of Rome, because of the migh∣tier Principalitie of the same. And this place trobleth M. Iewel very much, as it ap∣peereth by y^• extra••••gants, and idle dis∣courses, which he maketh about it. But out of his A••swers is this, that,

The Principalitie that Ireneus meant,* 1.582 was the Ciuile Dominion and Temporall Sta••e of the Citie of Rome,* 1.583 in which God had then planted the Empire of the world, and made al nations subiect vnto it.

See the impudencie or blindenes of the man.* 1.584 Are ye not very carnal in your Iudgement, and make ye not the like ar∣gumentes, as the worldlings do? What societie, betwene light and darknes? and what participation, betwene Christ and Belial? what hath the euerlasting king∣dom,

to depend vpon the transitorie and temporal kingdom▪ And why should the wealth or dominiō of any Citie diminish or increase the E••••imation of any one Church?

Consider I pray thee, Indifferēt Rea∣der, what a wise interpretour M. Iewel is? He maketh y^• lerned Father ••. Irene∣us to haue this dul & grosse sense in him.* 1.585 All the Churches of the world must resort vnto the Church of Rome, be∣cause the ciuile dominion and state thereof, is the greatest in the world, Or thus, Al the faithful in the world, must resort to S. Peters Successours, because the Romain Emperours, are the migthtiest Princes in the world.

By what consequence? The cause vndoubtedly, whiche should moue the Faithful to come to Rome, must haue ben spiritual and not temporal. They should haue resorted thither, to be instructed in their faith, against the heresies that tro∣bled their vnderstanding, and not to aske any Counsel, or seek any wordly bene∣fite,

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

Againe, in this one sentence, S. Ireneus dath twise name Ecclesiam Church. If therefore in the first place,* 1.586 M. Iewel wil haue the Ciuil dominion of Rome to be vnderstand by, hanc Ecclesiā, this Church: th••n is it reason that he meane by omnem ecclesiā euerie Church (which words fo∣•••••• in the sentence) the Ciuil dominion in euerie parte of the world. But S. Ire∣neus by euerie Church, vnderstandeth as him selfe expoundeth it, eos qui vndique sunt fideles, y^• faithful that are euerie where about: Ergo by Ecclesiam the Church, in the former part of his sentēce, he meaneth the companie of the Faithful that are in Rome, of which the Bishop there is the principal head.

I adde further, If the Principality of the Ciuil dominion in Rome, did seme a worthie cause vnto the lerned and aun∣cient Father Ireneus, why al Faithfull should resort chiefly thither, than which Conclusion, he thought nothing lesse, yet if M. Iewel will needes haue that con∣sequence, how chaunced it, that, when Constantine the great, gaue place to S. Peter, and went with his Principalitie

of Ciuil dominion vnto Const••ntinople, that al the Churches of the world did not for all that so resorte vnto the Church of Constantinople, but that the Church of Rome continued stil in her Supremacie?

As for that which you say,* 1.587 that prin∣cipalis Ecclesia is sometime vsed of old Fa∣thers, to signifie the ciuil dominiō and prin∣cipalitie of the Citie, where the Church is: (although in the Examples whiche you bring, in the first of them. 7. qu••s••. 1. pla∣cuit principalis cathedra,* 1.588 doth properly sig¦nify a spiritual office & not a worldly do∣minion, And in the second, inter epi••tolas Augustini 35. epi. although the word prin∣cipalis, be referred to Alipius as Bishope) yet let me graunt so much, and consider your di••ine Logike. After the alleging as the foresaid testimonies, which in dede make quite against you, you conclude saying.

Thus the principality that Iren, meaneth,* 1.589 stoode not in the preaching of the Gospel, but in the ciuile estate and worldly domi∣nion, not in the Bishoppe that professed Christ, but in the Emperour that was an heathen, not in the Church, but in the per∣sequutours and enemies of the Church.

〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉

If you would haue said▪ Ireneus ta∣keth Principalitas in this sense, Ergo, Paulinus in vsing the word Principalis, may be interpreted to haue the like sense: Although this also were no good Argu∣ment, when the word hath more then one or two Relations: yet in the descending from the superiour to the inferiour, there might appe••re a shew of likelyhod. But this Logike passeth in deede (for it is M. Iewels) that Paulinus whiche was borne three hundred yeres after Ire∣neus, vseth the worde principalis in

this sense, Ergo Principalitas of which Ireneus speaketh stoode not in the Bishope that professed Christe, but in the Emperour that was an heathen.

Thus thou maise see (Indifferent Reader) what fowle shifts, and deuises, and lyes, M. Iewel had made to turne awaie the Authoritie of Ireneus, that it should not be taken for the Principalitie of the Church of Rome. But his conclu∣sion is notable.* 1.590

To be shorte (saieth he) If the Church* 1.591 of Rome would nowe faithfully keepe the Traditions, and Doctrine of the Apostles, we would frākely yeld her all that honour, that Ireneus geueth her: but she hath sha∣ken of the yoke of Christ.

O good men. It was then, by likelihod,* 1.592 for pure loue of God and godlines, that you are departed from the See of Rome. There were so fewe Sacramentes, and those of so litle effecte, there was so litle Fasting, Watching, Praying, so litle cha∣stitie, Discipline, and Order, that you could not abyde to lyue so loosely, but

would needes take an yoke vpon you, to keepe your bodies low (by carying your yoke••elowes about the Countries with you be••ides other burdens) And to keepe your spirits humble (by obeying, neither spiritual nor temporal Iuris••iction). For the Saxons in Germanie, the Hugonots in France, the Guses in Flaunders and Brabant, which of late, because the yoke was not heauie inough vpō their shoul∣ders, haue (I can not tel for what penāce sake) made themselues great fardels and packes of Church goodes, and sweate againe with the carriage of them awaie, were not they, and are not these, Cusson germans vnto you?

But you wil do more for Christs sake than this. You wil be content, I per∣ceaue, to go euen to Rome it selfe, vpon certaine conditions. And what are they? Forsoth, if y^• church of Rome would keepe the Traditions & doctrine of the Apostles, then ••o, you wold frankly honour it. And, is this possible? Traditions you knowe, are verities and orders not written in the Scriptures, but deliuered without writing. And is there any thing which

you wil f••ankely beare, except it be wri∣ten in expresse Scriptures? Surely, I can 〈◊〉〈◊〉 beleue it, yet if ye would, vpon conditions geue y^• honour to the Church of Rome, which S. Ireneus absolutely gaue, without any such cautels, you are not so vnlike to be a Papist as I thought you were.

For let vs suppose it, that as you would with, so al the Traditions and Doctrine of the Apostles, were faithful∣ly kept in Rome, would ye frankly yeld her, al honour that Ireneus geueth her? ••elme then, if 〈…〉〈…〉 or any other Heretikes, would deuise 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of their owne, & trouble the Church of England with them, wold ye go to Rome for the mater, and aske of the Ciuile Estate there▪ Or the Emperor if he were a heathen, Or of the persequu∣tours* 1.593 or Ennemies of the Church (yf such felowes had dominion there) wold ye aske of them, what should be thought of the Olde Heretiques newly vpstar∣ted?

Yf ye would go to them that haue no Religion, to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 counsel of them a∣bout

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

For, concerning plaine be••••sies, we are now so accustomed to read them & heare them, that thei are not straunge v••to vs, but, when hypocrisie is ioyned with he∣resie, Or whē veritie is dissēbled through ••eare or 〈◊〉〈◊〉, there we are desirous to haue the partie examined, And con••••re••∣ned, either ••la••••ly to confesse his here∣••••e, Or faithfully to stand with y^• veritie.

Shortly therfore to you M. Iewel.

Yf you would honour the Church of Rome in like sorte as S. Iraeneus chargeth al the faithful to doe, how 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ye geue to the ••••nges of England, and that by the ••••••esse ••criptures (as you interprete them) such Supremacie in maters eccle∣••••••••ical, as can not stand possibly with the going to Rome,* 1.594 in any question of Faith? For by Aet of Parlement, and your owne oth••••, and the practise of the Realme, there is no 〈◊〉〈◊〉 power that hath to do with the Church of England. And therefore, were Rome neuer so per∣••••••••, no great••r Principalitie could be at∣tributed to the Church of Rome, than the ••ing of England hath, whom you by∣hold to be 〈…〉〈…〉.

On the other side, if ye wil defend stil that, which hitherto ye haue set ••••rth, by Lawes, Othes, Sermons, 〈…〉〈…〉 &c. What an Hypocrite are you, so to speake as though ye would, as frankelie yeld to the Church of Rome principal honour, as ••∣ren••us both ear••estly require it, that for the 〈…〉〈…〉 al Churches 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for trial of true doctrine, resorte vnto it.

〈…〉〈…〉

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

you of these daies haue them in cōtempt & dishonour, therfore you speak of no more then y^• Tēples built in their remembrāce. And yet this very building of Temples, in the honour of Martyrs, it seemeth not that you like very wel, wheras vnto any one of your so stinking a cūpany of Mar∣tyrs,* 1.595 we hear•• of no gro••nd y^• you haue meat•••• out as ye••, to lai•• therein y^• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of any Pulpit. House, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉, of your Champions.

Now to the sense of S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wordes. Vvhy do they not goe to the Mar∣••••••? Vvhy 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they not to the Church? That is▪ as you (M. Iewel) vnderstand him, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Receiue they at home, and not at Church? But this is not S. Hieroms meaning. For he reproueth not their Receiuing at home, but their Receiuing at home the next day that folowed their nightes pleasure taking of their Wiues.* 1.596 Marke that Circumstance, and you shal quickly perceiue, that you are deceiued, or haue deceiued.

For take the whole Sentence with you.* 1.597 I knovv (saith S. Hierome) ••hat this Custome is in Rome, that the faithful do re∣ceiue

daily the Body of Christ. And what say you than to that Custome?* 1.598 He An∣swereth. Q••••d nec reprehend••, 〈…〉〈…〉. which thinge I neither reproue nor alowe, for euery man abundeth in his owne sense.

What shal we say then to this case? If a man be sufficiently prepared, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Sacramēt in his owne house at home, and neuer goe to the 〈…〉〈…〉 for it perteyned not to the question of 〈…〉〈…〉, of which he there con∣s••••eth. Yet, M. Iewel thinketh, that S. Hierome Answereth this foresaied question, and that he maketh a ful deter∣mination thereof, with an ernest reprouf of the parties offending against it. As if S. Hierom should say to the Romai∣••ts:* 1.599 what meane you to doubt in this plaine mater? Or why should ye thinke that Receauing at home were lawfull? Do ye not know that the Lordes supper is •• Communion, and must not be taken of one alone? Why dare ye not goe to the Temples of the Martyrs▪ Are ye afraied of 〈◊〉〈◊〉? Why goe ye not to the Church?

Is not that, the proper place, to Receaue the Communion in?

Such a Comment would M. Iewel make vpon S. Hierome, And to this ef∣fect, he draweth his ernest and sharpe Interrogations. But y^• case vnto which S. Hieromes words do rightly answer, is only this. Whether he, that hath had carnal knowledge of his Wife the night before, do not wel to absteine the next day from going to y^• Memories of Martyrs, and the Churches abroade, Or whether he may not Receaue the Sacrament at home? To which his Answer shortly is this, that he may as wel receiue at church as at home, and that he should doe wel not to receaue at al, the day folowing the night of his carnal pleasure, w^t his wife.

For after he had said, that he would neither reproue nor cōmend the Custome of daily receiuing of the faithful of Rome: he cōmeth in with an aduersatiue But, in this sort: Sed ipsorum conscientiam conuenio, qui eodem die post coitum cōmunicant &c. Qua∣re ad Matyres ire non audent? Quare non ingre∣diuntur ecclesiaes? But yet I appose their cōscience, vvhich cōmunicate the same day after they haue

carnally knovven their Vviues. VVhy dare they not goe to the Martyrs Memories? VVhy goe they not to Church? Is Christ one abroade, an other at home? That, vvhich is not lavvful at Church, is not lauful at home. To God nothing is hidden, ye•• darkenes••e also shineth before him. Let euery one examine himself, & so come to the body of Christ.

To this end therefore S. Hierome bringeth his whole Argument, not, that it were simplie to be reproued to rece••ue at home, but, that such as had companied with their wi••es the night before, should not the day after Receaue at home, consi∣dering that they are worthily abashed to come before the Martyrs Reliques after such nightes, and that Christ is to be ho∣noured, aboue al, and in al places, both at home and abroade. Of which conclusion it would folow, that Matrimonie is not so good as Uirginitie, which was one of the heresies of the Protestant Ioninian, whereas by the Acte of Matrimonie, the partie is made for a tyme vnmeete to Receaue the blessed Sacrament.

Iudge thou now (Indifferent Rea∣der) whether S. Hierome doth ernestly reproue the custom of Receiuing at home,

without any addition of such Circum∣stance as varieth the whole question.

S. Angustine abused.

••ho is he (saieth D. Harding out of S. Augustine) that knovveth not, that the Principalitie of Apostleship, is to be preferred be∣fore any Bishoprike that is? Which words S. Augustine speaketh, because of a compa∣rison which he made, betwene S. Peter and S. Cyprian. For whereas the Dona∣tistes, dyd much obiect against the Ca∣tholikes, that S. Cyprian, with many other his Felowbishopes, concluded and determined in a Coū••el had emong them¦selues, that such as were baptized of he∣retikes should be rebaptized againe, whē they came to the Catholike Church, by which Authoritie of S. Cyprians name & other Bishops many, thei thought to bear downe y^• papists before them: S. Austine, like an holy & reuerend father, contēneth not the Authority of S. Cyprian, but pre∣ferreth y^• authoritie of S. Peter, before it.

Now, these foresaid words making expressly for the Principalitie of the Apost∣leshipe which was in S. Peter, what saicth M. Iewel vnto them? Mary his

first Answer is that Principatus Princi∣pality, doth not signifie an vniuersal power,* 1.600 Of which Answer we haue already spo∣ken, but shortly, this may be repeted, that although Principatus, put alone by it self, doth not signifie alwaies an vniuer∣sal power (for in euery degree of act and art the best hath the Principalitie, and yet he shall not be Pope or Emperour) yet Principatus Apostolatus, the Prin∣cipalitie of Apostleshipe, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 declare, that in that Order itselfe of Apostles, he that hath the Principalititie is the Chiefe. And surely then, the Chiefe emong the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which were heads of the world, must needes be Supreame Gouernour ouer al Christendom. And thus muche shortly concerning M. Iewels first An∣swer. The second Answer, or not answer properly, but Ca••••laud and quarel, is,* 1.601

That M. Harding dissimbleth the words, that S. Augustine in the very same place allegeth out of S. Cyprian, very wel seruing to this purpose.* 1.602

To what purpose? To proue that there is no Supremacie in the Church?

〈…〉〈…〉

The wordes be these, Nec Petrus ven∣dicauit &c Neither did Peter challēge any thing,* 1.603 or proudly presume of himselfe, to saie, that he had the primacie, and that ther∣fore others, as Nou••••es and Vnderlinges should be Obedient vnto hym. All these thinges M. Harding dissimbleth.

Is this it, that very well serueth to the purpose? Doth the omitting of this sen∣••ence,* 1.604 make D. Harding A Dissimbler? In these wordes, as you allege them, I see the humiliti•• of S. Peter much com∣mended, but I see not the Principality of his Apostleshipe disproued. Wherefore then should D. Harding haue alleged them, or why laie you dissimulation to his charge, for omitting that, which if it had ben vttered, had nothing hindered the Principalitie of Apostleship, which he sought to declare?

But I praie thee (Indifferent Rea∣der) to consider M. Iewels sinceritie in this place. In this place I saie, where he 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it againe an•• againe, and tri∣umpheth vpon it,* 1.605 that M. Harding dis∣simbleth, and that to fournisshe out his ma∣ter, and to smoothe his Reader, he leaueth out, what he listeth.

O the Trueth that is in M. Iewel. It semeth by him, that if he might winne whole kingdomes, be would not leaue out any iote of Chapiter, that should ve∣ry wel serue to the purpose.* 1.606 But is he not deceiued in his owne opinion of himself? Is not he himselfe properly a dissimbler?

Behold what be hath done. In this very sentence, for leauing out of which, he noteth D. Harding, hymselfe leaueth quite and cleane out those wordes, which if he had interpreted, as he did the rest of the sentence, it should easily haue ben perceaued, that D. Harding had no cause to dissimble. What m••a••e I here by? Ma∣ry this I mean, that this sentence, which M. Iewel would haue to be taken, as qualifieing and diminishing, the Prin∣cipalitie of Apostleshipe, by whiche D.

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

our Lord chose him to be first, and that vp∣p••n him he builded his Church. 〈…〉〈…〉.

But wil A man see a dissimbler? You M. Iewel are he. And that in this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 place where you are busy in finding fault with other for dissimbling.* 1.607 These wordes, M. Iewel, touching S. Peter, Whom our Lord chose to be first or Chiefe, and vpon whom he builded his Church, Dyd ye not see these words M. Iewel? How could ye but see them, wheras they stand in that sentence which you so much tied, that for not speaking of it, you ••ind fault with D. Harding? The begynning and end of which, whereas you interpreted vnto the Reader, how could ye but see the myddle? And there∣fore seeing the wordes, and yet skipping them, who now is the dissimbler, if we may come before equal I••dges? The

words which you leue out, are not light, they are not impertinent to the question of y^• Supremacie, they are plaine and eui∣dent, that Our Lord chose Peter to be first or Chiefe, and that vppon hym, he builded his Church. And yet you (good man) haue dealt plainely, in leauing them out alto∣geather.

And now, because such dissimulation is very wicked, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 your honestie (M. Iewel) may the better be noted, I wil bring one place more out of the Doc∣tours, in which I wil shew, y^• you haue abused them in this special point of dis∣simbling, and Smoothing your Reader, and leauing out what listeth you.

S. Ambrose abused.

To proue, that S. Peters Suprema∣cie was no greater than his felowes, you allege S. Ambrose after this sort.* 1.608 Euen so saith S. Ambrose too, and that, in the ve∣ry same place that M Harding hath alleged. Inter Petrum & Paulum quis cui praeponatur, incertum est. Of Peter and Paule vvhether ought to be preferred before other, it is not knovven.

Doth S. Ambrose speake these words,* 1.609 as doubting which were higher in dig∣nity

〈…〉〈…〉

〈1 paragraph〉〈1 paragraph〉

How say you then, doth not this plainely declere, that the doubt in which S. Ambrose was,* 1.610 whether of the two ought to be preferred before the other, came not of ignorāce of that point, which concerned the Supremacie of the See and Church of Rome, but of this which perteineth to their personal deserts and merites. In which, he thinketh that the one was equal with the other?

And wherefore then haue you left out those wordes that folowed so immediat∣ly, by which the true and right vnder∣standing of the place might be perceiued? Is not this crafty dissimbling? Wil you say that you dyd not see so much, where∣as so much foloweth immediatly in S. Am••rose? Or can you say y^• you thought it litle to serue to the purpose, whereas the true Answer to you•• Obiection, is thereby vttered and expressed? But let vs come neerer.

Not six lyues before this place of which you would haue your Reader to geather, that S. Peter had no greater Supremacie than S. Paule, thus saieth S. Ambrose after a short discourse made vpon S. Peter and Paule. Ambo igitur cla∣u••s à Domino perceperunt, Scientiae iste. ille po∣tentie. So then both of them haue receaued 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of our Lord, S. Paule of science, S. Peter of povver.

Consider now of this place, Indif∣ferent Reader, was S. Ambrose in any doubt, which of the two, S. Peter or S. Paul was to be preferred? He was,* 1.611 and he was not. Concerning their godlines and Merit••s, he knew not whom to pre∣ferre

before the other, but thinketh them to be equal therein. Concerning Autho∣ritie and Office,* 1.612 he knew how to geaue eche of thē his owne, preferring S. Paule for his knowledge, and S. Peter for his power. It is not therefore simply true, as M. Iewel reherseth the wordes of S. Ambrose, that, whether of them ought to be preferred before the other it is not kno∣wē. For if he would haue looked to that, which went but a litle before, he should haue readen the keies of Science geauen to S. Paule, and the keies of power to S. Peter.

What say we then to this blindnes or Craft? Is M. Iewel that felow, that doth not dissimble? Doth not he take what hym lyketh, and refuse what hym listeth? He beginneth Sentencies where hym pleaseth. He endeth senses when he is disposed. The myddle of Sentencies, he leaueth quite and cleane out, That which went before or commeth after, he looketh nothing vnto, such is his Sim∣plicitie. To make hymselfe the lesse sus∣pected, he findeth (without iust occasion) fault with other for leauing out I can

not tel what. To be short, there was ne∣uer, I thinke, an Heretike so ful of wor∣des, so vntrue in wordes, so faire spoken, so fowly intending, so muche alleging Auncient Fathers, so litle regarding any Authoritie, So precise in appealing to phrases, termes, and ti••les, And so loose in abusing the sense and the meaning of his Witnesses. And thus much concer∣ning the Auncient Fathers.

How M. Iewel hath abused the Later Writers.

TO speake of y^• Later writers, whō M. Iewel hath al used, I haue no greate mynd, because if I proue, neuer so plainely, any article of the Catholike Faith by them: that anaileth nothing vnto them, which vtterly refuse al Late writers, at their pleasure. Yet that M. Iewel may hereafter, vse more Trueth and Sinceri•••••• in his writings, he shall perceaue that they are like to be marked, how tedious 〈…〉〈…〉 them through his he••ps of 〈◊〉〈◊〉:

I wil beginne the Chapiter vnto which, such his abusing of Late Writers is to be r••ferred, as shal be ••ound ••as••ly in his writinges.

And first, concerning holy and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Fath••rs though not so old as others, I wil b••ing in S. Bernard as M. I••w••l saieth, but as the Trueth is 〈◊〉〈◊〉: I•• the second Place 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de Hale•••• for Scholemen: In the third Polid••••e Uergile, ••or huma∣nitians, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 few k••••de of Writers M. Iewel spar••••h, it may easily be per∣c••iued in E••am••ples. As thus▪

〈◊〉〈◊〉 abused.

Men and Womē made the Sacrifice of the Aultar,* 1.613 and that of Bread & wine. And there••ore a••ter the order of Melchi••edech. Therefore S. B••rnard saieth, Non solus Sacerdos sacrifi•• at, sed totus Conuentus Fidelium, not o••ly the Priest Sacrificeth, but also the who••▪ Cūpanie of the Faithful.

Is it possible that S. Bernard might s••y so?* 1.614 An Abbo••••, A Saier of Masse, A notable Papist? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is it posible that M. Iewel, ••ath in al his art, any shift to de∣fend 〈…〉〈…〉 place from lying?

First it is most euident, that S. Ber∣nard hath no such wordes.* 1.615 The Ser∣mon which M. Iewel referreth vs vn∣to, is the holy Fathers Guerricus Ab∣bat of Igniacum.

Then, neither he saith as M. Iewel concludeth. For why? there is not in al his Sermon, any mention of Bread and Wine offered at the Aulter, Or, to the Aulter, by men and women, Neither of the Order of Melchisedech.

Of the offering vp of Turtles and Doues, he speaketh, but he meaneth not of the birdes themselues, but of the ver∣tues represented by them: as Chastitie of body and soule, Compunction of hart, Simplicitie, Patience, Charitie, & such like. Wherevpon he inferreth, concer∣ning Priestes, saying:

Such manner of men it becommeth vs to be,* 1.616 vvhen vve Consecrate the Body of Christ &c. And concerning the Laietie: Such maner of men also it behoueth you to be, vvhich receiue of our handes, the holy Sacramen••, &c.

Now because it might be obiected, that it is for Priestes to haue the foresaid vertues, Or that it is their charge onely,

to prepare them selues, least they receiue the Sacrament vnworthily (as though the standers by, had litle to do with him in those maters) he answereth, We must not beleue that the forsaid vertues are ne∣cessary for the Priest only, as though he a∣lone should Consecrate or offer the Body of Christ. He doth not sacrifice alone, he alone doth not consecrate,* 1.617 but al the cum∣panie of the faithful (and here M. Iewel maketh a ful and a fowle point) that stan∣deth by doth consecrate with him, doth sa∣crifice with him.

But how? After the order of Melchise∣dech, Or, by their own Act & Priesthood, as M. Iewel gathereth? Surely, except Guerricus him selfe had made it plaine, in what sense the Priest and the People do offer, no doubt, but M. Iewel in this place, would outface vs, that this Abbat meant, that men and women were Priestes after the order of Melchisedech. Not∣withstanding that it is not saied, the cū∣pani of the faithful do cōsecrate, as though they might do it by themselues, but they consecrate with him (the Priest) signifi∣eng the Office to be singular. And it foloweth in the Sermon.

Neither the Carpenter alone doth make a house, but one bringeth roddes, an other raf∣ters, an other postes or beames and other things. By which Similitude, it is manifest, that the people consecrate, in this sense, that they bring sumwhat to that end. And what is that? By this that foloweth it wil be vnderstanded. For thus he con∣cludeth.

Therefore the standers by, ought to haue of their owne, euen as the Priest ought? What? A Cope trow you M. Iewel, vpon their backes, or a Surplesse like Ministers, or power and Authoritie of Priesthod? No. but, a sure faith, a pure prayer, a godly deuoti••n. Where then is the Breade and Wine,* 1.618 or the Order of Melchisedech, which you would proue to per••eine to the common people with, Therfore S. Bernard saith, or Otherwise called Guerricus.

Here is a Conclusion without Pre∣misses, And a comparison without any likelyhoode. And A falsification without truth or honestie.

Alexander of Hales abused.* 1.619

The people taking but one kind only receiueth iniurie, as M. Harding may see

by Alexander de Hales, and Durandus, & other of his owne Doctours. Alexanders wordes be these. Licèt illa Sumptio, &c. Although that Order of Receiuing the Sa∣cr••ment▪ which is vnder one kinde, be suf∣ficient, yet the other which is vnder both kindes, is of greater merite.

Al this,* 1.620 M. Iewel, is true: but this proueth not, that the people haue any iniury done vnto them. For to Receiue ••nder one kinde, it is sufficient by Alexan∣ders expresse wordes: but vndoubtedly,* 1.621 if any thing lacked of that which were d••e▪ there wer not sufficiēcy: Ergo, how proue you by Alexander, that the people are I••iuried, in receiuing vnder one kinde?

You wil Replie out of him, that it is of greater merite to receiue in both kinds, than one. And what of ••hat? It is a greater merite to Celebrate thrise a day (as at Christmasse) then once,* 1.622 as Ordi∣narily Priestes do vse. Do ye thinke then, that any Priestes haue Iniury don vnto them, because the Order is other∣wise, that they say but one Masse in one daie, except one daie onely in the yeare?

Againe I say, that Alexander noteth

a greater merite to be in Receiuing vn∣der both than one kind, not in respect of the Sacramente, which is as perfite in one as both, and in the least part of one, as the whole: but in respect of the Recei∣uers, because their deuotion is encrea∣sed, and their Faith dilated by longer cō∣tinuing in th•• Act of Receiuing, and their Receiuing is more Complete as being ministred in both kindes. And as the causes on the behalfe of the Receiuer, do make it, to a person so disposed, more ef∣fectual, to Receiue in both than one: So other causes there be, which doe make y^• Receiuing vnder one kinde, to be to the party so affected, more fruietful and me∣ritorious, than if he tooke both. For,* 1.623 he that would say vnto him self, I wil con∣tent my selfe with the common Order of the Church, I wil not make any Sturre about both kindes, knowing y^• as much is vnder one as both: vndoubtedly such a man should both for his Humilitie, and for his Faith, deserue more a great deale, then if he should Receiue in both kindes, and find a certaine sense and tast of De∣notion.

The strength therefore and efficatie which Alexander speaketh of, depending vpon the Act of the Receiuer, and not vpon the Uertue of y^• Sacrament, which is al one in effect, whether it be ministred in one or both kindes: M. Iewel doth very iniuriously, to put a fault herein, y^• they Receiue not vnder both, & to make Alexander of this opinion, that to mini∣ster in one kinde, were an Iniurie vnto the people.

For this I would aske further of him, whether the simple and deuout peo∣ple, are not more stirred vp to remember the Death and Blo••d of Christe,* 1.624 if they should Receiue in Claret or Red Wine, than in White? No doubt, but the ima∣ginatiō would be more affected and mo∣ued, by seeing a like colour vnto y^• which it would conceiue, than a contrary or di∣uerse colour. How then? Would M. Iewel thinke it an Iniury to minister in white wine vnto the people, though thei would be desirous of Red? He should not thinke it, if he be wise. And why so? Mary, because they haue as much in the White as the Red, and to receiue in Red,

hangeth vpon their priuate deuotion, & not vpon any precept of the Churche, or doctrine of the Apostles, or Institution of Christe, to which onely, the Priest is bound, and which, if he obserue, he doth his duety,

Be it so then, that many good ••olke for diuerse causes, should be exceedingly moued and edified, by drinking of the Chalice, and contemplating of more then is Ordinarie in their minde: should they haue any Iniurie done vnto them, if they receiued afterwardes, when the Priest should iudge it expedient, vnder y^• forme of bread only? Neyther doth Alexan∣der de Hales so say, neither any reason doth make for it. But let vs see an o∣ther place of Alexander, which M. Iew∣el hath abused.

The same Alexander againe saith,* 1.625 To∣tus Christus, &c. Whole Christ is not con∣teined vnder ech kind by way of Sacramēt but the fleash onely, vnder the fourme of bread, and the bloud vnder the fourme of wine.

The woordes can not be denied to be Alexanders,* 1.626 but what se••se gathereth M. Iewel of them?

Here M. Hardinges owne Doctours confesse,* 1.627 that the people Receiuing vnder one kinde, receiueth not the ful Sacramēt, nor the bloud of Christe by way of Sacra∣ment.

You vnderstand not Alexander,* 1.628 or you wil not. For, whereas he saith: Christ is not conteined vnder ech kinde Sacra∣mentally, he meaneth not, that the people Receiue not the Ful Sacrament and their owne Maker, Godde and Manne, vn∣der eche kinde: but by this woorde Sa∣cramentally, he meaneth, that concerning the forme of wordes, by which consecra∣tion is perfited in eche kinde, and by ex∣ternal forme of the Signes vnder which Christ is exhibited, the flesh only is conteined vnder the forme of Breade, and the bloud vnder the forme of Vvine As, when Christ said: This is my bloud: the woordes which we heare, doe signify no more than Bloude to be there present, And y^• external Signe and liquor of wine, doth represent a pre∣sence of bloud onely. And this is that ••hich Alexander meaneth, by the worde Sacramentally, when he saith, Vvhole Christ is not conteined vnder ech kind Sacramentally.

For he speaketh of the representation on∣ly which is made to our senses, by exter∣••al words & Signes, and not of y^• thing it selfe and substance of the Sacrament, which is apprehended by Faith.

Now that Alexander was not of this mind, which M. Iew. would make him to be of, that whole Christ should not be receaued vnder ech kind, though whole Christ were not signified by the sound of the wordes of Consecration in ech kind, it is manifest by the next article in him,* 1.629 where he concludeth, that, Christus integer Deus & homo est sub specie Panis, Vvhole Christ God and Man is vnder the forme of Bread. And, both sayinges are true, that vvhole Christ is not vnder ech kind▪ if ye consider on∣ly the Signe of the wordes that are spo∣ken,* 1.630 or the thinges that are shewed (for in saying, this is my bodie, no mention is made of bloud). And againe, that, vvhole Christ God and man is vnder the forme of Bread, if ye consider the mater Really.

Alexander therfore, speaketh no other∣wise in this point, then it becummeth A faithful and Catholike man to do. And M. Iewel doth no otherwise, than he is

wont to do, but otherwise surely than be∣cumneth an honest and lerned man, spe∣cially hauinge no neede to alleage any Scholemen, and lesse neede to corrupt them, when he allegeth them.

Polidorus Uergilius abused.

S. Cyprian calleth the Church of Rome,* 1.631 Ecclesiam principalem, vnde vnit as Sa∣cerdet alis exorta est, the principal Church, from vvhence the Vnitie of Priestes hath spronge. Out of which testimonie M. Iewel gathereth A force, as it were, of two Argumentes that might be made, the one in that it is called, Ecclesia principalis, the principal or chief Churche: the other because it foloweth, vnde vnitas Sacordotalis exorta est (whiche words D. Harding doth interpret thus) from vvhence the vnitie of Priestes is spronge. M. Iewel thus, frō whence the vnitie of the Priesthood first began. In which his Interpretation there is a plaine falsehod and craftines.

For in repeting the wordes, and in writing of them, so as if they were D. Hardings, it becummed hym to deliuer them furth in the same forme, as he ••ound

them in D. Harding. Then, whereas it is not al one to say, the vnitie of Priest∣hood sprange from Rome, and the vnitie of Priesthod began first at Rome (for there may be springs two or three in one place, and although the water issue not out, first at the lowest, yet the lowest of the three maie be the chiefe head vnto al the riuers beneth) M. Iewels intent was not sim∣ple, to cast in this word (first) into the sen∣tence, as though the question were, not whether the Chife Prieste in all the world were at Rome, but, whether the first Priest in al the world began at Rome.* 1.632 Betwene which two propositions, there is a great difference.

But what sayth M. Iewel to these wordes, Vnde vnitas Sacerdotalis exorta est, from whence the vnitie of Priesthoode first begā, as he englisheth it for a vātage?

For that these words seme for to weigh much,* 1.633 I thinke it good herein to heare the Iudgement of some other man, that may seeme Indifferent.

Why should Polidore Uergile be Indifferent?* 1.634 He lyued not fiftie yeres sens he was a Collectour to y^• Bishop of Rome, and therefore to you not Indiffe∣rent.

And to vs on the other side, not Indifferent, because this very booke de Inuen••or••••••s rerum, is condemned by the General Councel at Trent. But you ha••e foūd somewhat in him by likelihod, which maketh for you, that you esteeme of hym so wel. And what is that, I praie you? We aske you for the Answer to S. Cyprians words, you bring in Poli∣dore to expound them. but what wil ye conclude of Polidore? That,* 1.635 This com∣mendation (of which S. Cypriā speaketh) was geauen by S. Cyprian to the Church of Rome in respect of Italie, and not in res∣pect of the whole world.

Whether this be so or no,* 1.636 Polidors owne wordes shal trie it. In his fourth booke the s••xth Chapiter,* 1.637 his purpose was to shew, of whom first the Order of Priesthood was Instituted. And he pro∣ueth, that Christ hym selfe was the first maker of Priestes. Then both it folowe in hym.

A•• pos•• Chris••um Petrus in Sacerdotio praer••∣gatiua•• habuis••e dicitur, quòd primus in Apo∣stolorum ordine, & eius Sacrosancti Collegij Caput fuisset▪ Quapropter D. Cyprianus epist. 3. a••

Corneliū Cathedram Petri Principalē vocat. But after Christ Peter is said to haue had the prero∣g••••iue in priesthood, because he vvas the first in the revv of the Apostles, and head of that holy College. ••herefore S. Cyprian in his third epistle to Cornelius, calleth the Chaire or Sec of S. Peter the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or principal.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 then this, touching any wo••ds of S. C••prian,* 1.638 if any man can there find i•• Polidore, I wil le••se my right hand for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and neuer write hereafter against any hereti••e. but the Booke is common, the place is intelligible, and my eyes and vnderstanding serueth me so wel, that, I am sure, Polidore in that place expoun∣deth not these wordes of S. Cyprian, ••nde ••nitas Sacerdot alis exorta est.

What Impudencie then is it in M. Iewel, for that these words seme to weigh much, to bring furth the Iudgement of Polidore, a man that may seme to be In∣different,* 1.639 whereas they are not at all in Polidore? Polidorus Virgilius (saieth he) expoūdeth the same words of S. Cyprian. Dare ye say he expoundeth them, where∣as he hath not them? He bringeth in S. Cyprian, to proue that the See of S.

Peter was principal, but, of Vnitas Sa∣cerdotalis, the vnitie of Priesthood, Upon which wordes, you made hast to shewe his exposition, he maketh no mention. He saieth in his owne wordes, not in S. Cyprians, that the order of Priesthood can not be sated to haue grovven first from the Bishope of Rome, onlesse vve vnderstand it only by Italie, for Priesthood was rightly instituted at Hieru∣salem but that the Commendation geauen by S. Cyprian to the Church of Rome was geauen in respect only of Italy, and not in respect of the whole world, he saied it not, nor intended it.

The Order also of Priesthood, and vnitie of Priesthood are two thinges. In the Order, is considered, the Author and effect of that Sacrament: In the Unitie is considered, the preseruation and Go∣uernement of that Order. Of the Or∣der it selfe, and where Priesthod first be∣gan, Polidore doth speake. Of the vnity, and of the Relation which all Priestes should haue to their chiefe head and Go∣uernour, S. Cyprian doth speake, and Polidore saieth nothing. The Order began at Dierusalem and not at Rome.

The vnity, I wil not say begā at Rome, but after y^• s. Peter had by his martyrdō there takē ful possession of that See, then was it seen, where the Principal Church in al the world was, and to what begyn∣ning al thinges should be referred, and in what vnitie they should be preserued.

Hath not M. Iewel, then, done ve∣ry sincerely, to allege Polidore, so farre and wyde from the meaning of Polidor? I would there were some man so indif∣ferent, as M. Iewel taketh Polidore to be, to Iudge betwene hym and vs, whe∣ther he hath not shamefully abused the Later writers.

Of M. Iewels Contra∣dictions.

HYtherto, by many Examples I haue proued it, y^• M. Iewel hath not vnderstanded other men: now wil I shew it, by a fewe Argu∣ments, that he doth not wel vnderstand hymselfe. And no maruel truly, if in speaking so many words, he hath not re∣membred

euery word, Or, if in co••eting to saue his honestie for the present place, he saie and vnsay againe, like A man that were not sure yet what to byde by. But because his Frindes and Felowes wil thinke this incredible, that out of his smooth month, & doctrine squared by the rule of the Scriptures, Fathers, & Coū∣cels, any thing should procede hacked & slittered, therefore wil I geaue an occa∣sion to the Indifferent, to Beware of the dub••le tongue and mynd, in one and the selfe same 〈…〉〈…〉.

The Receiuing with Companie,* 1.640 is no substantial p••rt of Christes Institution▪ Er∣go, we are not bounde therein, to folow the Example of Christ.* 1.641 First this Antecedent i•• false, and if it were no part, of the substāce of Christes Institution, Yet we are neuer∣thelesse bound to his Example, because he hath commaunded vs so to doe.

Here in this place (M. Iewel) you are of the mynd that there is a difference,* 1.642 betwene the Institution of Christ, and the Example of Christ. Otherwise your saying were very folishe, As by which this only is imported, that, it were no part o•• Christs Institutiō, yet are we neuer¦thelesse

bound to his Institution. Which maketh a plaine contradiction, if that by Institution and Example, you meane but one thing. An other thing that I note here, is, that you say, we are bound to Christes Example, although the thing which is to be done, were not of his In∣stitution.

What say ye then, to washing of feete, for which you haue the expresse words of our Sauiour in the Gospel?* 1.643 If I (sayth he) your Lord and Master haue vvashed your feete, you also ought to vvash one the others feete. For I haue geauen an Example vnto you, that as I haue done, so likevvyse that ye also doe. What say you then (M. Iewel) to this example of our Sauiour? shal it be folowed, or no? You Answer,

That this Obiection of washing of feete is common,* 1.644 and hath ben often An∣swered. And in the same page. The was∣shing of feete, was neither Institution of Christ,* 1.645 nor any part of the Sacrament, nor Specially apointed to be done by the Apo∣stles, nor the breache thereof euer deemed Sacrilege.

To let passe the manifest lye,* 1.646 which here you make, that Christ apointed not

washing of ••eete to be done by the Apostles, I marke this only for the present, y^• you labour with al your wit, to proue, that ye are bound to keepe y^• Example of Christ. Reconcile me then (I praie you) these two places, And tel vs how it may stand togeather, that we are boūd to Christs ex∣ample, in that which is not of the Sub∣stance of Christs Institution, And yet that you may freely (as ye do) let go washing of feete in your Congregation, because it was not Christes Institution?

In the Primitiue church,* 1.647 this order (of sending the Sacramēt to them that were departing this world) was thought expe∣dient not for the Sicke:* 1.648 For they in their health receiued daily.

Ergo, if in health, they needed,* 1.649 or vsed that daily sustenance, was it not pro∣uided for them in their sicknes? Yeas, ye confesse so much, And therefore you say:

And in their sicknesse,* 1.650 had the Sacra∣ment Ordinarily sent home vnto them.

How say ye then euen now,* 1.651 that this order (concerning the necessarie vitaile, the Sacrament) was not thought expe∣dient for the sicke? Except you know that a man may be in sicknesse, and yet not

sicke. But g••e ye forwarde, and make an end of your ••ale. If the necessarie vitaile, was not for y^• sicke, for whō was it then?

Not for the sicke &c.* 1.652 but for persons Excōmunica••e, &c.

Uery wel. How long wil you tarie in this mynd? Ye amend it,* 1.653 within xx. lynes folowing. For thus ye remember your selfe better.

Howbeit I confesse,* 1.654 sometimes it was otherwise vsed.

We take your confession,* 1.655 that you know not wel where to staie. For diui∣ding (as it were) al the Faithful, Into Sicke,* 1.656 and Excommunicate, And sub∣diuiding the Sicke, into them that were either in health, either in Sicknes: You le••t none but Persons Excommunicate, for whom the necessarie vitaile, called via∣ticum, should serue. How be it, ye confesse it was Sometimes otherwise vsed, and so it must necessarely folow, that it was not for the Excommunicate only. How these thinges agree, I doe but aske you the question.

If there had ben in it any shew of trueth,* 1.657 M. Harding as he is eloquent, would haue laied out al the circumstancies, when this

strange errour first began, where, and how longe it continued,* 1.658 who wrote against it, And by whom, and in what Councel it was condemned. Verely this greate Silence de∣clareth some want.

See how ernest the man is,* 1.659 to haue al Circumstances declared. But, I trow, he wil not tary stil in this minde. For when D. Harding (as reason is) asked, when the Latine Seruice began in En∣gland, and when the English ceased (for Heretikes say, y^• in the primitiue Church, al publike praier was in the knowen and vulgare Tongue, And the Catholikes thinke, that some token then or Monu∣ment should be extant, of so generall A mater) M. Iewel with open mouthe replieth:

O what folie is this?* 1.660 Who is hable to shew any Boke writen in English a thow∣sand veres agoe? Or if it could be shewed, yet who were hable to vnderstand it?

Loe,* 1.661 now it is foly to require, but some litle signe of the begynning or cea∣sing of a publike and common mater, but in an other place he thinketh it wisely spoken (for he speaketh it hym selfe) to demaund particularly of diuerse Circū∣stancies,

when, where, how, who, by whō, and in what Councell, errours began or appeared.

That certeine godly persons both men and women in time of persequution,* 1.662 or of sicknes, or of other necessitie receaued the Sacrament in their houses, it is not denied.

Ergo Receauing at home is not re∣prouable,* 1.663 for which there are to be found the Examples of Godly persons both men ••nd women.

This maner of receauing at home was not lauful for the Laiemen.* 1.664 For it was abo∣lished by godly Bishops in general Coūcel.

You belye the Councel, vnto which you referre vs.* 1.665 For of Receauing at home it speaketh no one word, but, If any person▪ saith it,* 1.666 be proued not to haue receiued in the Church, and not to haue made an end, of the Grace of the Eucharist, let him be accursed for euer. Now this forbyddeth not, but that the Priest may carie the Sacramēt home to the houses of Christians, as it is, at this present, vsed in the catholike church, And that they may with good Conscience receaue it. But let this be referred to the Chapiter, How M. Iewel hath abused Councels. In this place, I presse hym

only with his contradi••tion: that some∣tym••s he doth not denie, but that Godly Persons did receaue, Priuately at home, and, at an other tyme, he is altogeather chaunged, and wil nedes haue receiuing at home to be an Abuse condemned by Councels and Fathers.

The Single Cōmuniō was neuer taken for lawful,* 1.667 but only in consideration of circum∣stancies, and cases of necessitie.

How then is the Mystical distribution a part of the substance of Christes Supper, if,* 1.668 for any respecte it maie be altered or omitted?

Thinketh M. Harding,* 1.669 that the Sacri∣fice, whereof neither Christ nor his Disci∣ples euer spake one word, is the substance of his Supper, And that the Mystical Di∣stribution in remembraunce of his Death, whereof he gaue vs such a straight Com∣maundement, in so manifest and so plaine wordes, is no part of the Substance?

And thinke you, that if Distribution be necessary,* 1.670 any mā may receiue by him selfe alone, in any kind of Case or Cir∣cumstance? For as no necessity can make it lawful, to Consecrate in Cheese or Milke, because Bread and Wine perteine

to the mater and Substance of the Sa∣crament: So, if the Single Communi∣on be lawful, that is, if one by him selfe alone may Receiue the Sacrament, it must needes folow, that to Receiue with Cum••any, is not of the Substaunce of Christes Institut••on.

The simple people hearing Masse in a strange Language, is dea••e,* 1.671 and heareth not at al.

You must expound your meaning,* 1.672 or els hearing, and not hearing, wil not be wel perceiued. For, if ye referre hea∣ring of Masse, to the hearing of y^• words, the ••ownd doth s••••ike the eare, though y^e meaning come not to the mind. And if ye referre hearing of Masse, to y^• vnderstan∣ding of y^• which is there done, then doth euery faithful, y^• beleueth y^• body of Christ there to be off••red vp vnblondily, for him, &c. heare the Masse as excellently, as if he could conster and p••rse euery word of the Canon. And therefore you can not without plain iniury, make y^• people not to heare y^•, which thei do heare with their eares: or not to apprch••••d y^• in their hart, which they be assured of by Faith.

Melanchthon and Bucer ac∣compted the receiuing in one or both kindes a thing indifferent. M. Iewel answereth:* 1.673

Thus farre furth their desire was, it might be iudged free, not that thei thought Christ had not ordeined the Sacrament to be mi∣nistred vnto the people in both kindes,* 1.674 or that in itselfe it is Indifferent,* 1.675 but that the Faithful of God might indifferently and freely vse it without controlment.

These wordes neede A Reconci∣liation,* 1.676 to bring them at one togeather. For if the receiuing in both kinds be not in it selfe Indifferent, how may the faith∣ful of God indifferently vse it? And if they may Indifferently vse it, how it is not In∣different?

Note also the Crafte or blindnes of M. Iewel. He Interpreteth Melanch∣thon and Bucer, in suche sorte, as if the question had ben, Whether the people might not choose, whether they would re∣ceaue in both kindes,* 1.677 or not receaue at all. And he maketh them to answer, that they wishe it to be free and Indifferent, to Re∣ceaue in both if they wil. But the que∣stion

in deede, is of Receauing in both kinds, or in one: And they Answer, that it is a thing Indifferent. And what is y^• to say? Whether that it should be free for the people to Receaue in both? Yea truly this is one part of the sense. But another is, that it should be as free, for them that would, to receaue in one also.

For the two pointes, betwene which the Indifferencie goeth, are, to receaue in one kind, Or to receaue in both, without controlment. Which being graunted to the Protestamts, they should not inueigh and crie o••t against th•• Papistes, for re∣ceauing in one, but they might thinke themselues chari••ably dispensed withal, for their free Receauing vnder both. So that Melanchthon and Bucer were not of the mynde to condemne the maner of other Christians, as M. Iewel in this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 falsely interpreteth them, but lyke 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••r••tikes, they prouided for their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, wishing that it might be law•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their brothers, to Receaue in both kindes, without c••trolment, and y^• it sho••ld 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be made a mater of cons••ience and ••••••••gion, whether the people were

serued in both or one kind, the thing in it selfe being Indifferent.

To minister vnto the vulgare people in both kindes was not Chri∣stes Institution,* 1.678 saith D. Harding. M. Iewel replieth: Thus he saith, and saith it often, and only saith it. Other Autho∣ri••••e than his owne he bringeth none.

Surely we must loke for no reason or cause of his so saying. Yet is foloweth Immediately:* 1.679

The Reason that moueth him,* 1.680 I we••ne is this. ••or that there was no Laie peo∣ple at that banket with Christ, but the A∣postles only.

I weene then, he doth more than onely say it,* 1.681 when he geaueth A Reason for it.

It doth not folow, We may breake A Ceremonie:* 1.682 Ergo we maie breake the Substance of Christes Institution.

It fol••weth not in dede. And here∣by you may see, that the Termes of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Substance, in Christes Institution, are not Unnecessarie and vaine.

This difference in Termes of* 1.683 Sub∣stance

and Accidentes in Christes Institu∣tion, * 1.684 is newly found out, and hath no war∣rant, neither of the Scriptures, neither of the Olde Fathers.

You be to fine and precise, M. Iew∣el, for simple Catholikes,* 1.685 And it seemeth* 1.686 that yourselfe would not speake but out of Scripture or Old Father, like as some in the world more curious than ••digent, will haue no one worde in all their wri∣tinges, which they can not bring out of Cicero.

But, I pray you, is not the Di∣stinction of things about Christes Insti∣tution, into Substance and Accidents, as reasonable and as necessary, as into Sub∣stance and Ceremonies? For by Ceremo∣nies you must needes meane a diuerse thing from Substance▪ and such as may be let alone or taken away, without cor∣r••ption, of Subiect or Principal 〈◊〉〈◊〉 And what other thing is that but a plain Accident?

Yf y•• find then any 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Scrip∣tures or of the old Fathers, to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 your Termes of Substa••ce and Ceremonies about Chri••••es I••stitution: you may be

bolde without further warrant, to admit the Termes of Accidentes and Substance, about the same Institution. And if that you (notwithwstāding you find not that former distinctiō in Scriptures or old Do∣ctors) dare boldly sai, y^• it doth not folow, we may breake a Ceremonie, Ergo, we may breake the substance of Christs Institution: it foloweth then, that the Distinction is good, and, y^• we may affirme, wel inough, A reasonable Conclusiō: And vse proper Termes and wordes to expresse it by, al∣though we haue no warrant of the Scrip∣tures neither of the old Fathers.

The Councel of Basile aboue one hun∣dred and thirtie yeeres past,* 1.687 made no con∣science to graunt the vse of both kinds vn∣to the kingdom of Bohemia,* 1.688 and this Coū∣cel now presently holden at Trident, vpon certaine cōditions hath graunted the same, to other kingdomes and Countries.

Of whome then speake you these words,* 1.689 in an other place of your Replie?

These men take quite awaie from the people both the Element and kind of wine,* 1.690 and also the wordes of Consecration.

Cal you this, takinge of the kind of wine quite awaie,* 1.691 the vse whereof was

permitted to Bohemie, and at this day is ready to be permitted vnto other, if that would deliuer them from their he∣resies? If needes you wil lye, you should doe it alwaies so warely (as ye can, wel inough, when you be disposed) that you might not yet be cōuinced therof, through any of your owne words, spokē at other times. But now it is past remedy, except you wil Repent, because I point you to the places, wher ye confesse, both that the Papistes haue graunted the vse of wine to other kingdomes and Countries, bysides Bohemie, and also obiect, that they haue quite taken awaie the kinde of wine from the people.

Al the East speaketh the Greeke Tongue saieth S. Hierome.* 1.692 To this I Answer, (saith D. Harding) y^• some of al Coun∣tries of the East spake Greeke. M. Iewel Replieth:

M. Hardings distinction of al in Gene∣ral, * 1.693 and al in Particular, that he hath here deuised to shift of S. Hierome, seemeth ve∣rie homel•• and home made. For how can it be a general, onlesse it include euery Parti∣cular?

By M. Hardinges construction we must take AL, for SOME, or AL, not for the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 part of AL, And by this Rhe∣to••••••e, lesse then halfe, is as much as AL, and so AL is not AL.

I would say vnto you, sauing that you be a fore fellow when you come to quiddities,* 1.694 and also that you would aske for a warrant of the Scriptures or olde Fa∣thers, ••o iustify my woordes by it, els I would say, that AL that you haue now spoken, is Nothing and that should seeme more 〈◊〉〈◊〉, than that AL is not AL. But I wil not geau•• you this vantage, I wil put your owne wordes vnto you.

Al the Iewes Generally gloried of the Law,* 1.695 euen so, al the Greekes Generally, gloried in their wisedome. And S. Paule sayeth Generally of them both:* 1.696 The Iewes call for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Miracles▪ and the Iewes 〈…〉〈…〉. And therefore one of the Philosophers sayed, In old times there were Seuen Wise men emong the Greks, but nowe there are not so manie Fooles, for that they all Gloried in their Wise∣dome,

What thinke you then of the Apo∣stles,* 1.697 Or of our ••lessed Lady herself, and

other good and holy Iewes, did they cal for Signes? Yf they did,* 1.698 then were they reproueable, because the strength of a Christian, resteth vpon Faith, which commeth by hearing of Goddes woord, and requireth not the shewing of Mer∣ueilouse Signes. If they did not, How did al the Iewes cal for Signes, ex∣cept you also wil take AL for SOME, or AL, for not AL?

The Philosopher also, which saied very wittily, in reproche of the Greci∣ans vaine Opinion of themselues, that there were not so manye Fooles emonge them, as of Olde time were Wise men, for that they all Gloried in theyr Wise∣dome: He meant, I trow, y^• there were almost seuen fooles in Greece, nigh to the number of the Seuen wise, that were i•••• Olde times there. And he tooke him selfe perchaunce to be one of the Seuen: So that his General Proposition inclu∣ded not euery Particular. But I haue yet a better Example to declare my purpose.

What say you (M. Iewel) to S. Chry∣sostomes wordes?* 1.699 No body doth Com∣municate▪ You Answer: His purpose was

to rebuke the negligence of the people, for that in so populous a Citie, thei came to the holy Communion in so smal companies, which companies, he, in a vehemencie of speach, by an exaggeration,* 1.700 in respect of the whole, calleth NO BODY. The like maner of Speach, is vsed also sometimes in the Scriptures. S. Iohn saith of Christe, Testimoniūeius nemo accipit, not for that no body at al receiued his witnesse (for his Disciples and many other receiued it) but for that of a great multitude, very few re∣ceiued it. In like Phrase Chrysostom him selfe saith other where, Nemo diuina sapit, No Body sauoreth Godly thinges.

These be your owne wordes, M. Iewel,* 1.701 & whose were those other, where you said: How can it be a General, onlesse it include euery Particular?* 1.702 Be not these also yours? How make you then, both to agree togeather? For NO BODY importeth an vniuersal and general Ne∣gatiue, and then by your very homly and home made Logique, it includeth euery Particular.* 1.703 How make ye then in this place, of NO BODY, SOME BODY, and of NO BODY not NO BODI, but Disciples of Christe, and many other?

Thus you see, that by your owne wordes in one place, you be driuen from your owne Sense in an other, And by reason of your Contradictions, none more Ennemie to M. Iewell, than M. Iewel.

* 1.704 Notwithstanding S. Augustine (whome S. Gregorie sent into England) with∣drew the English Nation from their grosse Idolatrie, wherein he had no great trauaile (for perchaunce it is an easie mater to cō∣uert Countries) Yet it is certaine he plan∣ted not Religion in this Realme.

What did he then vnto them whom* 1.705 he withdrew from their Idolatrie? Did he leaue them without a Religion? Did he pul their olde Cote from them, and geue them no newe? He Baptised at one Christmasse,* 1.706 more than ten thousand English men, as S. Gregorie witnesseth. And be∣fore he baptised them, did he not plante Religion in theyr hartes? Otherwyse how is it credible, that euer they would haue come to Baptisme? Yet I note this place, not for the open lie, which is in it, but for the Contradiction, for that it seemeth impossible, y^• a Nation should

be cōuerted from Idolatrie, and yet not turned to Religion, whereas, the very Conuersion it selfe, doth import a forsa∣king of one mind and taking of an other. And no Heretikes haue power to turne Nations, and the Catholiques to whom God geaueth that Grace, do for that end tourne them from Idolatrie, that after∣wardes they may become Christians. Which End if they be not brought vnto, Who can say that they are conuerted?

S. Gregorie iudgeth Generally of the Name of Vniuersal Bishop,* 1.707 that it is vaine and hurtful, the Corruption, the Poison, and vtter and Vniuersal destruction of the Church, &c.

Verely Iustinian him selfe writing vn∣to Epiphanius the Bishop of Constantino∣ple, calleth him the Vniuersal Patriarke.

Whom then da you folow, the Pope or the Emperour▪ S. Bregorie, or Iu∣stinian? ye folow both, and ye are con∣trary vnto your selfe, at one time defying the Title, at an other, alleaging it.

Certainly Balaam,* 1.708 notwithstanding he were a False Prophete, yet he opened his mouth and Blessed the people of God: Cayphas, although he were a wicked Bis∣shop,

yet he pphesied and spake the truth:* 1.709 A Seale although it: be cast in Leade, yet it geaueth a perfite Printe. The Scribes and Phari••eis, although they were Hypocrites and liued not wel, yet they instructed the Congregation and saied wel.

By these Examples then it appea∣reth,* 1.710 that A Doctrine is not to be forsa∣ken, because of the euil lyfe of the Prea∣cher. What faulte then is Doctour Harding in, for saying, that

Be the Bishoppe of Romes lyfe neuer so wicked, yet may we not se∣uer our selues from the Churche of Rome?

For if other causes be alleaged, wherefore we should do it, they are to be Aunswered: but this Obiection of the euil lyfe of the Bishoppes of Rome, is sufficiently confuted by these Examples which M. Iewel, here hath clearely al∣lowed. Yet (see the nature of the man) when D. Hardinge had saied so much, he could not abide it, but straitewaies commeth against it with this Autho∣ritie.

How be it, S. Cyprian saith otherwise,* 1.711 Plebs obsequens, &c. The people obeying Gods Commaundemēts, must seuer them selues from the Wicked that ruleth ouer them.

S. Cyprian speaketh of Basilides and Martialis,* 1.712 Bishops that had defiled them selues with Libels,* 1.713 in which they gaue their names to Idolatrie. For which cause, they were excommunicated of other Bishopes, and the people were forbid to come to their Sacrifice. But it is no mater to M. Iewel, how the case standeth with anie Testimonie, that he bringeth. So desyrous he is to gaynsaie D. Harding, that he falleth into Contra∣dictions with himselfe also▪ speaking at one time for credite to be geuen to Prie∣stes, notwithstanding theyr euil life, And at an other time making it lawful, to for∣sake the Doctrine of the Preacher or Ru∣ler, for because of his euil life.

When Christ had deliuered both kinds vnto his Disciples,* 1.714 he sayd vnto them, this doe ye, the same that you see I haue done. But where did Christ euer say, Minister vn to yourselues one way, and an other wai vn to the people? The like Argument he

maketh. pa. 119. Where did Christ. & caet. As who should saie, Christ hath not ex∣pressed it, Ergo it is not to be obserued.

Here loe we see, that M. Iewell aloweth the Argument called in Scholes Ab Autoritate Negatiue. except you wil say that him selfe vseth that, which him selfe alloweth not. But heare now what he saith in other places of his Replie.

M. Harding Gheasseth thus It appe∣reth not by Beda,* 1.715 the Seruice was in Eng∣lish, Ergo the Seruice was in Latine.

What kinde of Logique haue we here? Or how may this Reason hold? It conclu∣deth Ab Autoritate negatiu••••. I beleue M. Harding him selfe wil not allow it.

The Argument in deede he wil not allow, as you haue made it.* 1.716 But for as much as Bede purposely speaketh of such thinges, as concerned Religion, It is not to be thought, that he would haue passed it ouer in Silence, if the Masse had been translated into the English tongue.

But how agree you M. Iewel, with your selfe, that can both refuse and vse,

one and the selfe same kind of Argumēt? You haue, I trow, some defense for you selfe in this mater. For you say in an other place:

The weight of M. Hardinges Argu∣ment,* 1.717 is taken, as they name it in Scholes, Ab Autoritate negatiuè, and vnlesse it be in consideration of some other circumstāce it is so simple, that a very Child may sone Answere it.

What Circumstance then is that,* 1.718 which being obserued maketh the Argu∣ment ab Authoritate negatiuè, good? Sure∣ly that Circumstance were wel worth the learning, that we might perceaue, both, how to make such Arguments ourselues, without doubt of your reprehension, and also howe to warne you thereof, when yourselfe goe without the Cumpasse of your owne Circumstance. Perchaunce you meane hereby not more, but that which you haue alreadie expressed in the first Article, where H. Harding obiec∣teth vnto you, the Common vse of this kind of Reasoning, which is ab Authori••a∣te negatiu••••. For thus you say, and it is (I beleue) the moste you can say,* 1.719 that,

The Argument ab Authoritate negatiu••••* 1.720

is thought to be good,* 1.721 when so euer prouf is taken of Gods word, and is vsed not on∣ly by vs, but also by S. Paule, and by many of the Catholike Fathers. S. Paule sayeth: God sayed not vnto Abraham, In thy SEEDES al nations shal be blessed, but in thy SEEDE, which is Christ. And thereof he thought he made a good Argument.* 1.722

Suffer me than to make a like* 1.723 Ar∣gument out of Good woord, and let me haue your Answer vsed it. Christ saith to S. Peter,* 1.724 Feede my sheep, he said not these or them: Ergo vvithout Exception he com••••itted his sheep vnto S. Peter But you like not this Argument. For you say, it is against the Rules of Logique, and that it was

An Errour in Bonifacius,* 1.725 to reason thus, Dominus dixit Generaliter, &c.

The Lord said Generally vnto Peter feede my Sheepe, he said not specially feed these or them: therefore we must vnderstande, that he committed them vnto Peter alto∣geather.

Yet this Argument, is like to that of S. Paules of SEEDES and SEEDE, which in deede is not* 1.726 〈…〉〈…〉 nega∣tiuè, but Affirmatiuè. For he presseth the woorde of the Scripture SEEDE, in the

Singular nūber, which to make the bet∣ter obserued, he biddeth it to be noted, y^• it was not said, SEEDES. But how so euer that be, M. Iewels Art may be wel inough espied, which al at pleasure affirmeth and denieth, saieth, and vnsay∣eth, maketh Rules and Obserueth them not, and is Contradictorie vnto him self in very many places.

This very name,* 1.727 the HEADE of the vniuersal Church, is the very thing that we deny.

Then are you a very vnwise man,* 1.728 to sett the State and Substance of your question vpon a Name: And to contend vpon words, affirming them to be the ve¦ry thinges. And there appeereth here vnto me to be a manifest Contradiction, that the name should be the thing. For if it were so, that al this writing on both sides, were no more but an Alteration of Brammarians or Rhetoricians, then in deede it might be a questiō, whether this woorde HEADE were euer Readen in such a Case, or such an Author, or euer applied to such and such a person, & then ••roprely the Name should be the thing.

But now wheras al our cōflict, is about the Truth of thinges that are to be bele∣ued, and we seeke not after Termes and Phrases of Speache, but sense and mea∣ning of Truthes, And whereas the vn∣derstanding (which both partes thinke to instructe) is not bettered by any NAMES, but by the very thinges them selues: It is al togeather vnreasona∣ble, to say or thinke, that the very name should be the very thing, emong the Di∣uines.

Yet who so considereth diligently, M. Iewels maner & behauiour of wri∣ting, shal sone perceiue, that he so han∣deleth the mater, as though he were a Grammarian onely, or a Rhethorician, and not a Diuine, and as though in dede he passed not vpon the very Thinges, so that he might haue the very wordes that could serue his turne. For which cause he hath furnished himself with Testimo∣nies and Phrases inough, For y^• church, Against the Churche, For Custome, A∣gainst Custome, For Fathers, Against Fathers, For Councels, Against Coun∣cels, For Receiuing at home, Against re∣ceiuing

at home, For Receiuing in One kinde, Against Receiuing in O••e, For Receiuing alone, Against Receiuing a∣lone, For S. Peters Pricipalitie, A∣gainst S. Peters principalitie, For equa∣litie of Bishops, Against equalitie of Bi∣shops, For Distinctions, against Distin∣ctions, For Arguments taken of Autho∣ritie, Against Arguments taken of Au∣thoritie, And so truth in many thinges moe, which I haue shewed partly in the Second Booke, partly in this Chapiter of Contradictions, And were more to be shewed, if time or occasion required. But now to an other mater.

A Note Concerning M. Ie∣wels Lies.

ANd what other mater might that be? For I haue already discoue∣red his vnreasonablenes and fals∣hed, by so many waies, that it may seeme, both that I am at an End, of fin∣ding any more Obiectiōs, and he of mi∣nistring any more Occasions. For as

concerning his Lies, of which I eyther intended or promised to make a special Chapiter, there can be no worse nor plai∣ner, than I haue already declared, and therfore let me be excused, if I satis••ie not 〈…〉〈…〉 that, by nowe and 〈…〉〈…〉 which is so abun∣dantly 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

D. Harding doth charge him, with 225. Un••ruthes.

M. Staple••on (••••••••pting the Un∣truths of the first Article,* 1.729 in which he can not but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with D. Harding) doth charge him with. 474.

I recken not the .218. which D. Sander obiectech against him.

And of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which my self 〈◊〉〈◊〉 found in him, in talking with him about the State of the Question in the first 〈…〉〈…〉, and about his sham∣ful ordering of D. Harding, And about his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈…〉〈…〉 Glo∣••es, 〈…〉〈…〉 And Later wri∣ters: the truth is, I haue kept no recke∣ning.

But this I am sure of, that al∣though 699. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are founde in

his foure first Articles only, yet many of them that I obiect vnto him, are none of the number of those. 699. And yet I passe not the cūpasse of the same Articles.

More specialties than these, if any man wil require, I am not my self at lei∣sure, but if he thinke it expedient, he may by him selfe gather the Particulars into one Chapiter, by telling onely the bart Untrueth, without further discoursing vpon it. And he should do wel, not to recken euery one (for that would occu∣pie a great roome) but such notable and singular Lies, as might not only be vn∣derstanded, but fel••••s it were and seene. As if this Lie should be the First in the Rewe.

The Bishop of Rome and his Cardi∣nals,* 1.730 scarsely haue leisure to Sacrifice once in the whole yeare. And Againe:

They do scarsely Cōmunicate once in the yeare.* 1.731

For this is so notorious a Lie, and so palpable, that he that would report it, to another that neuer yet was at Rome, might be thought neuer to haue come to Church, whiles be taried there: And he

that shal haue occasion to iorney thither, shal sensibly perceiue and see, that it is a most shamful Lie.

And so furth in other of the like ma∣king, the number of which, although it would be lesse, yet it should appeere most manifestly, that the plaine meaning con∣sciencies, had neede to BEVVARE of M. IEVVEL.

How M. Iewel hath left some places altogeather vnanswered.

THus then the Chapiter of Lies, being referred to the diligence of other that would haue them sette in their Rankes, and which haue leisure to bring it to passe by themselues, Is there any more to be obiected against M. Iewel? Yea mary is there, and that to his reproch and ignominie. For pre∣tending to Answere euery woorde of D. Hardings, and shewing a countenance of such Learning, that he could, and such diligence, that he would leaue nothing vndiscussed, and vnperfited: a great and

iust shame it is, for him, that many and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Argumentes and Testimonies against him, he so passeth by, as though he had neuer scene them. As in example:

Do ye reproue the Masse,* 1.732 (saith D. Harding) Or doe ye reproue the Pri∣uate Masse? And M. Iewel Aun∣swereth with other questious vnto him againe, concerning Sole Receiuing, and Single Cōmunion, Priuate Masse and Sole Receiuing. Sacrifice of the new Testament and A li••••le Booke of his owne, but to the question it selfe, he Answereth not.

Concerning the publike Seruice of our 〈◊〉〈◊〉, if it had ben in English at y^• beginning,* 1.733 Doubtlesse (saith D. Har. some mētion would haue ben made of y^e time and causes of the leauing such kind of Seruice, & of y^e beginning of the New Latine Seruice. As certain of S. Gregories workes turned into English by Bede himselfe haue been kept so as they remaine to this day: But M. Iewel wil not, or cānot answer.

Si Benedixeris Spiritu,* 1.734 &c. If thou make thy prayer in the Cōgregation, with thy Spirit or noise of Strange wordes, how shal the vnlerned man, thervnto say Amē? Thus doth M. Iewel interpret y^• place: But y^• translation (saith D. Harding) authorised by King Edward and his Councel, is truer, which hath thus:

Vvhen thou blessest vvith the Spirit, hovv shal he that occupieth the roome of the vnlearned, say Amen, at thy geauing of thankes, seeing he vn∣derstandeth not vvhat thou saiest? And M. Iewel aunswereth not one worde in his owne defese, for saying, The vnlearned, in steede of, He that occupieth the roome of the vnlearned.

Of the Seruice in y^e vulgare tongue the people (saith D, Har.) wil frame lewd & peruerse meanings, of their own lewd senses. Of y^• Latin they cānot do so: Ergo Latine is more meet for pu∣••lik seruice.* 1.735 M. Iew. āswereth nothing.

S. Peter (saith Hilarins) deserued for the confession of his blessed faith, Su∣pereminentem Locum, A Preeminence

aboue other.* 1.736 To Supereminence, or Preeminence aboue other, which is im∣ported by Super, aboue, M. Iewel answe∣reth nothing.

How shal the Contumacie and* 1.737 Pertinacitie of mischieuous persons be repressed, specially if the Bishops be at dissension within themselues, if there be not a Supreme Power, who, towards some, may vse the rod, towardes other some, the spirite of Lenitie?

M. Iewel answereth nothing.

Cum tantum &c. Vvhereas vve see (sayeth S. Augustine) so greate helpe of God,* 1.738 so greate profite and fruite, shal vve stand in doubt, vvhe∣ther vve may hyde ourselues in the Lappe of the Churche, vvhich (though Heretikes barke at it, round about, condemned partly by the Iudgemēt of the people themselues, partly by the Sadnesse of Councels, and partly by the Maiestie of Miracles, euen to the Confession of Mankind) from the A∣postolike See, by Successions of Bishopes, hath ob∣teined the toppe or highest degree of Autoritie?

To vvhich Church, if vve vvil not geue and gra••t the Primacie, soothly it is a pointe either of most high vvickednes••e, or of headlong arrogance.

To this place M. Iewel answereth nothing, I beleue, because he had no∣thing. For, his diligence and Order in Answering three other places of S. Au∣gustine, which went Immediatly before this, in his 14. Diuision of the fourth Ar∣ticle, do•• proue, that he lacked not Occa∣sion to Answere this also, which was so largely alleged by D. Harding, and fo∣lowed so Immediatly, in the 14. Diuisi∣on, but that, he knew not wel what to say vnto it.

After this maner, it were easie to finde moe places, and them of no small weight, which should declare M. Iewel, for al his fayre shewe of an Absolute Re∣plie, not to haue touched yet many prin∣cipall Reasons and Testimonies of D. Hardings. But I haue already proued my purpose sufficiently.

Of a new deuised and childish Obie∣ction, solemly vsed of late, against the Catholikes, by which M. Iewel also is touched.

ANd nowe to make an ende, what may any Indifferent Reader aske for more, to perswade him in this one point and Conclusion, that he ought to BEVVARE OF M. ••EVVEL?

There cannot be a greater Bragger, than he that prouoketh al the men aliue: Nor a greater Shifter, than he that wil 〈◊〉〈◊〉 no question to ••and in the state, in which he did first put it: Nor a greater Wrang∣ler, than he that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the meaning of his 〈◊〉〈◊〉, almost in euery Argu∣mēt: Nor a greater Corruptour of Wit∣nesses, than he that wil suffer nor Texte, nor Glose, nor Canon nor Ciuil Lawe, nor Old nor Late Writer, to continue in his right forme of Verdie••: Nor a Writer more perilous, than M. Iewel.

But in one thing, I tr••we, he is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 And what is that? Mary he

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

In Scholes, it is a vaine glory and pride 〈◊〉〈◊〉 y^• boyes, to contemne that, which is common, to affect singular and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 things, to refuse that which an other 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and to fal out with their felowes, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 out of their Notebokes, any of their treasures. Which Affection all∣though they be not beaten for, because of the first beginnings which are nourished with hope of praise: yet the ••umour is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and co••rupt, which breedeth such an ytch of Folie, or canker of Enuie in them.

In Courtes also, it is a sadde Pride and glory, to haue such a Cutte of Appa∣taile, or such a Tricke or two aboute it, as none ••ls vseth. which after it begyn to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of other, the Authors are straite 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wery of it, and turne them 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to other fash••ons. Concerning whiche maters, there be greate Rules and Ohseruations, As that a man must not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 one Coate aboue a certayen 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Also that he weare his owne & not an other mans Coate, And generally, that in all his manners, he may seeme to stand by bu••selfe alone, and to depend of

no other. In so much, that it is a greate griefe vnto some, to heare it s••yed vnto them, I knowe where you had this, or wher you bought that, As 〈…〉〈…〉 were lost, beacause they can not be singular.

Now, if this Contention and Folie shall be alowed also in matters of 〈…〉〈…〉

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

Let him vnderstand brieflie, howe M. Iewel also may be pressed with it.

S. Cyprian. Lib.2 Epist.3. For the Insti∣tution of Christe. Alleged, in the Defense of the Trueth. Fol. 11. Used by M. Iewel. Pag. 106.

Tertulliams place, aduersus ••raxeam. That is true, that was first ordeined. Alleged, in the Defense of the Trueth. Fol.11. Yn the Apolo∣gie of Eng∣land. Used by M. Iewel Pa.258. 313.

The Sorie of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Declared by Fox. Pag. 9 Used by M. Iew. Pag.236.

The GLose, Domine cur ità facis? Syr why do ye so? Alleaged by M. Nowel. Fol.26. Used by M. Iewel. Pag. 258. & 313.

That the Booke called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is not S. Basiles. Labored by the Magdebur∣genses. Cent. 4. Cap.10. Col.946. Used by M. Iewel. Pag.86.

That S. Au∣gustine, whome S. Gregorie sent into Eng∣land, was of no Apostolike Spirite, &c. Set furth by Bale. Lib.2 de actis. Ro. Pomisicum Pag. 51. 52. 53. Alleged, by the Magde∣burgenses. Cent.6.ca.10.col.748. Used by M. Iew. pag.185.

The discourse vpon the first bringers in of the Faith into England. Made by the Magdeburnenses, Cent 1,lib.2cap.3.col.23.Cent.2.cap.2.col.6 & 8.cent.3.cap.2.col.4. Used by M. Iewel. Pag. 190.

The ar∣gumētes against the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Epistles.

• ab Auto∣ritate ne∣gatiuè of
  • S. Hierom.
  • Bennadius
  • Damusus.
  Made of the Magdeb Cet.2. ca.7 col.151.
• And of the sayings of
  • Clemens.Cent.2.ca.7.col.185
  • Antherus.Cent.3.ca.7.col.189
  • Marcellin.Cēt.4.ca.7.col.576
  • Marcellus.Cent.ibidē.col.578
  • Zepherin.Cēt.3.ca.7.col.179
  • Meltiades.Cēt.4.ca.7.co 577

Argu∣mentes against Anacle∣tus E∣pistles ga¦thered.

• 1 Of the Story of Tymes. 1 Alleged by the Magdebur. Cent.1 li.2.c.10.co.637.
• 2 Of the building of S. Peters Church. 2 Centur.2. cap.7. col. 140.
• 3 Of the alleging of old Fathers Decrees.3 Centur.2. cap 7. col. 144.
• 4 Of y^e Phrases of the Epistles.4 Cent.2 c.7 col.143.
• 5 Of the Inter∣lacing of the Scriptures.Centur.2. cap.7. col.143.
• 6 Of the neede∣lesse alleging of them.6 Cent.2 c.7 co.140. 141. 142. 148.

Used by M. Iew∣el, not one ar¦gumēt left out. Pag. 67. 223. & 224.

This for an Example is inough. For if a man were so disposed, to spend long time in examining of this one Point, Whether M Iesels great & ful stuf∣fed Reply, cam īmediatli frō his own singular Inuētion & diligēce, or no:

there is no dout, but he hath either none at al, or very few Argumentes & Autho∣rities, which are not to be sonnde also in other that haue writen before him. Espe∣cially if it shal be rightly considered, how much Peter Martyr, Caluine, and the Magdeburgenses onely (to lette other s••rapers passe) haue writen against y^• Ca∣tholik Church, euen vpō these very ••••e∣stions which M. Iewel hath proponed.

Yet I thinke not, that al that he hath gathered, hath com out of them, although it may be founde in them also (for why may not an Englishe Protestaut, be as sone taken vp, to serue the Diuel in set∣ting surth of Heresies, and to Receiue secrete Intelligence from him, what he shal study vppon, and marke especially, as any Heretique of beyond the Seas?) And if it were gathered out of them, I would not Obiect it vnto him, as one of the Deadly sinnes for which men should BEVVARE of him. For emong friends al thinges are common, and no man that wise is and honest, writeth to make him selfe a name in the world, but to help the common cause, for which him selfe, with other, standeth.

But this much onely I note,* 1.739 that such as seke very egrely and impotently, to hurt the Catholikes estimation by it, in telling them that they are Borowers, may vnderstand, that the same Obiection (if it be any thing worth) may be easily returned backe vpon them againe.

In making of which, I thinke in dede,* 1.740 that the Author thereof was no bo∣rower, although there hath bene already so much inuented and imagined agaynst Catholikes, as more, by any occasion, could not be vttered. Let him therefore alone haue the praise of it, for deuising & mainteining so vnsensible an Obiection, as neither hath bene vsed of former He∣retikes, though they sought all meanes how to deface vs, neither can be reproch∣ful vnto the Catholikes, which knowe that nothing is newe vnder the Sonne, And, that al Scriptures, and Docto••rs, and Writers are oures, which make for the Defense or Sense of the true Faith.

Unto your charge therefore, M. Iewel, I doe not laye it, whether you haue taken out of the M••gdeburgenses, or any Notebookes of other men, that

which you vtter,* 1.741 but, with your Appea∣ling vnto the first six hundred yeares, and your Refusing of the Authorities within the same yeares, And with your Excoursing into al Ages for witnesses. And for your Abusing of the witnesses of al Ages, with these so principal maters, I burthen you. Wh••ch if it seeme light vnto you, I do not care (for I make no accompt vpon it, that your selfe should haue leisure or respect to my smal wri∣tinges) but that other might thinke bet∣ter of it, I haue prouided by special no∣ting of such mater, in which M. Iewel might be taken for no great Iewel when al is knowen.

In gathering and setting furth of which, if I se••me to haue d••ne otherwise than wel, I am ready either to defende it, either to confesse it. Assured for al that, that there is no one P••ot••rtant in al England, that shal be able to disproue my Obiections, and trusting, that in the Iudgement of the Catholiq••••s, I shal not much neede to craue any pardon.

And now, as from y^• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 through the Booke, I haue alwaies appealed to

th•• Indifferent Reader: so now to con∣clude, I say vnto him, and desire of him, that he neither fauour Iewel, because of the Procedinges: nor hate Rastel, be∣cause of his Religion, but Iudge accor∣ding vnto that which is alleged & pro∣ued, whether M. Iewel be not that Felow, of whom the whole co••̄trie ought to BEVVARE.

Notes

• * 1.1

  •• Tim. 2.
• * 1.2

  1. Cor. 12.
• * 1.3

  Eph. 4.
• * 1.4

  Cant 6.
• * 1.5

  1. Cor. 1.
• * 1.6

  Luc. 11.
• * 1.7

  Da. 7.
• * 1.8

  Luc. 1.
• * 1.9

  The chur∣che is one by Faith.
• * 1.10

  Ephe. 4.
• * 1.11

  The chur¦che cā not erre or faile.
• * 1.12

  The chur∣che is all∣waies one and true, by reason.
• * 1.13

  In what things the Church is not all∣wais one.
• * 1.14

  Luc. 24.
• * 1.15

  Let vs not be vn∣beleuing, but faith∣full.
• * 1.16

  Ioan▪ 20.
• * 1.17

  Carnall iudgment.
• * 1.18

  Marci. 6.
• * 1.19

  Rep••n••
• * 1.20

  Or play no more t••e wan∣ton
• * 1.21

  Or lerne more wit.
• * 1.22

  Or An∣••••er the Obiection
• * 1.23

  The fir•••• D. Har, Example.
• * 1.24

  Ie. pa. 75
• * 1.25

  Ra.
• * 1.26

  Ie. fo. 75.
• * 1.27

  The ij. D Hard. Fol. 36.
• * 1.28

  Iew. 112.
• * 1.29

  Ra.
• * 1.30

  The iij.
• * 1.31

  Iew. 116.
• * 1.32

  Ra.
• * 1.33

  The iiij. Iew. 140
• * 1.34

  The v. Iew. 217.
• * 1.35

  The v••. Iew. ••89
• * 1.36

  Ra.
• * 1.37

  One place for all: let M. Iew. or any o∣ther An∣swer it.
• * 1.38

  The firste question. Faith, or ••o Faith?
• * 1.39

  Faithe.
• * 1.40

  Rom. 10.
• * 1.41

  The ij. question. Lerned you it, of y^• quicke or the deade?
• * 1.42

  Of the Quicke. The iij. Question.
• * 1.43

  Folowed you their Authority or no?
• * 1.44

  The iiij. Question.
• * 1.45

  What are they?
• * 1.46

  Here let al the here¦tikes in y^• world ioin wyth the Papists if they can.
• * 1.47

  August. ad Honoratū cap. 14. de vtilit ate credendi.
• * 1.48

  An euidēt Demon∣stration to perswade vs to be∣leue.
• * 1.49

  De ciuit.
• * 1.50

  Dei lib. 22. Cap. 8.
• * 1.51

  De Vtilit. cred.
• * 1.52

  Cap. 14.
• * 1.53

  ••anich.
• * 1.54

  August.
• * 1.55

  Manich.
• * 1.56

  August.
• * 1.57

  Manich.
• * 1.58

  August.
• * 1.59

  Manich.
• * 1.60

  August.
• * 1.61

  Manich.
• * 1.62

  August.
• * 1.63

  Manich.
• * 1.64

  August.
• * 1.65

  Manich.
• * 1.66

  August.
• * 1.67

  Manich.
• * 1.68

  August.
• * 1.69

  Cōfer and consider whether y^• vpstart he retikes be not like the old.
• * 1.70

  August.
• * 1.71

  Who hath com••ēded Christ vn¦to M. Iew. but the report of this age in which himselfe hath liued.
• * 1.72

  Iew. 242 Sticking vpon viij. yeres.
• * 1.73

  Did he, think you, perswade wyth the Emperor, to geaue y^• Title, Or with the Pope to receiue it? Or how bring you Arabia & Rome here to∣geather?
• * 1.74

  Iew. 192.
• * 1.75

  Wretched craking.
• * 1.76

  Ra.
• * 1.77

  Ser. 137. de temp:
• * 1.78

  Iew. 192.
• * 1.79

  Ra.
• * 1.80

  Nothing wonne or lost.
• * 1.81

  Absurdi∣ties.
• * 1.82

  M. Iew. putteth Truthe within a Circle of yeres.
• * 1.83

  Here l••t any Pro∣testant geaue a Reason of his faith?
• * 1.84

  How the heretikes do apointe 1. questiōs 2. Order of dispu∣ting 3. Ma¦ner of Au∣thorities, 4. Age of the wit∣nesses: all at pleasure but no∣thing, af∣ter right and reson.
• * 1.85

  Reasona∣ble De∣maundes.
• * 1.86

  Ambr. lib. 5.
• * 1.87

  Ep. 33.
• * 1.88

  A most reasonable condition.
• * 1.89

  Iewel.
• * 1.90

  260
• * 1.91

  195.
• * 1.92

  150.
• * 1.93

  199
• * 1.94

  175.
• * 1.95

  177
• * 1.96

  10.
• * 1.97

  Com: ••, Amos
• * 1.98

  Iew. 19••.
• * 1.99

  In the Chapiter of Lyes.
• * 1.100

  Iew.
• * 1.101

  Ra.
• * 1.102

  Iew.
• * 1.103

  Ra
• * 1.104

  Iew. 175.
• * 1.105

  Eckius in locis Com. Durand. lib. 4. ca. 1. Nicolaus Lyra. Tho∣mas in. 1. ad Cor. 14.
• * 1.106

  177.
• * 1.107

  Ra.
• * 1.108

  Iew. 175.
• * 1.109

  Iew. 104
• * 1.110

  Ra.
• * 1.111

  M. Iew. belieth his witnesses.
• * 1.112

  M. Iew. leaueth S Augustine &c. •• folo∣weth Ni∣colas Ly∣ra:
• * 1.113

  Absurde.
• * 1.114

  104
• * 1.115

  M. Iew. belieth himselfe.
• * 1.116

  Ra.
• * 1.117

  I••w. 6.
• * 1.118

  This is worse than mūmery.
• * 1.119

  The flow¦ers of the new Gos∣pell.
• * 1.120

  Iew. ••. ••▪
• * 1.121

  116.
• * 1.122

  Iew. 140.
• * 1.123

  M. Iew. special Ex∣ception a∣gainst the last ix.C. yeres, pro¦ueth that he would be ordered by the vi.C. y^• went before.
• * 1.124

  Iew. 7. 8. 9. 12. 233. 264. 66. and. 223.
• * 1.125

  Auncient Authori∣ties denied by M. Iewel.
• * 1.126

  Hist. Eccl. li. 8. ca. 5.
• * 1.127

  Harding. Fol. 45
• * 1.128

  Iew. 136. Flatering∣ly.
• * 1.129

  Ra.
• * 1.130

  Iew.
• * 1.131

  Ra.
• * 1.132

  Iew.
• * 1.133

  Ra.
• * 1.134

  Iew. 13••.
• * 1.135

  Ra.
• * 1.136

  Consider M. Iew. listing and imagining against y^• Storie. whiche he promised not to dis∣grace.
• * 1.137

  Such is M. Iew. w••en him listeth.
• * 1.138

  ••useb. Ecc. ••isi. lib. 2. ca. 17. et 17
• * 1.139

  Iew. 10.
• * 1.140

  S. Chri∣sostomes Liturgie denīed.
• * 1.141

  Ra.
• * 1.142

  M. Iew. hasty in his iudge∣ment.
• * 1.143

  All these things are found in S. Chri∣sostomes Liturg••e: Whether are they al¦so in y^• ne•• Cōmuniō ••okes, in which the forme of al Antiquity (they say) is expres∣sed?
• * 1.144

  M. Pointz ca, 7.
• * 1.145

  Iew. 10.
• * 1.146

  Ra.
• * 1.147

  M. Iew. answered, by M. Iewel▪
• * 1.148

  Dionysius Alexandr.
• * 1.149

  Maximus.
• * 1.150

  Pachyme∣res, Dionysius Car••hus.
• * 1.151

  The sprite of the new Gospell is a spoiler.
• * 1.152

  Erasmus iustly re∣prehēded.
• * 1.153

  In Cēsura de libris ad Quiri∣num.
• * 1.154

  Hier. lib. 1. aduers Pelag.
• * 1.155

  Iew▪ 10
• * 1.156

  Uanitie.
• * 1.157

  Conten∣tion.
• * 1.158

  Iew. 10.
• * 1.159

  M. Iew. requited to stād vn∣to Aunciēt witnesses.
• * 1.160

  Unwritē Uerities:
• * 1.161

  Godfather
• * 1.162

  Abrenun∣tiation.
• * 1.163

  Signe of the Crosse.
• * 1.164

  Oile▪ halovving of the vva∣ter.
• * 1.165

  Chrisome.
• * 1.166

  Confirma∣tion.
• * 1.167

  Incensing.
• * 1.168

  Singing of Psalmes.
• * 1.169

  Reading of Lessons.
• * 1.170

  Putting out of the vnvvorthy
• * 1.171

  Orders of Officies.
• * 1.172

  Hym••es.
• * 1.173

  VVashing of handes.
• * 1.174

  Consecra∣tion.
• * 1.175

  Shevving of the Sa∣crament.
• * 1.176

  Cōmunion
• * 1.177

  Are these signes and tokens of a Cōmuni¦on, after y^e last maner of the Eng¦lish church Or of A Popishe Masse.
• * 1.178

  halovving of Oyle.
• * 1.179

  Reserua∣tion.
• * 1.180

  Geuing of Orders.
• * 1.181

  Monkes.
• * 1.182

  Professio
• * 1.183

  Signe of the Crosse.
• * 1.184

  Shearing.
• * 1.185

  Inuesting.
• * 1.186

  Distinctiō of places in burying Solemni∣ties in Fu∣nerals.
• * 1.187

  Praying for the Soules de∣parted.
• * 1.188

  Pouring of Oyle.
• * 1.189

  I••dge now, who so••uer wil
• * 1.190

  The ioy∣••ing of the iss••e with M. Iew.
• * 1.191

  greg. ho. 34
• * 1.192

  Orig. Ho. 1 in Ioan
• * 1.193

  Short and clear.
• * 1.194

  Iew. 306.
• * 1.195

  Ra.
• * 1.196

  Iew. 1.
• * 1.197

  Ra.
• * 1.198

  Iew. 310.
• * 1.199

  Iew. 310.
• * 1.200

  Consider by this that folo∣weth how willing M. Ie••. i•• to ad∣mitte An∣tiquitie, & how pro∣foundly h•• reasonet••.
• * 1.201

  Iewel.
• * 1.202

  151.
• * 1.203

  Iewel.
• * 1.204

  Iewel.
• * 1.205

  Confes••. lib. 9.
• * 1.206

  Iewel.
• * 1.207

  ••ial. lib. ••in praef.
• * 1.208

  Ps. 67.
• * 1.209

  Psal. 138.
• * 1.210

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 lib.
• * 1.211

  ••dial. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.212

  Iew. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.213

  Impu∣dently.
• * 1.214

  Ra▪
• * 1.215

  A Lur∣kīg sprite and wat∣ching for more opor∣tunitie to breake o∣penly out.
• * 1.216

  S. benet defended.
• * 1.217

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.218

  Iew. 83. Shame 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thee.
• * 1.219

  Aug. de ci∣ui. Dei. lib.
• * 1.220

  4▪ cap. 27. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.221

  The storie of the holy Monke Marcus, defended.
• * 1.222

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.223

  Sozome∣••us lib. 6. cap. 29.
• * 1.224

  〈…〉〈…〉 tym•• is▪ y^• world is n••t y••t at the worst.
• * 1.225

  Ge••e. 1••.
• * 1.226

  32.
• * 1.227

  Gen. 21.
• * 1.228

  Iosu. 5.
• * 1.229

  N••m. 22.
• * 1.230

  Iud. 13.
• * 1.231

  ••. Paral. 21
• * 1.232

  3. Re. 1••.
• * 1.233

  4 Re. 6.
• * 1.234

  Mach. 2.
• * 1.235

  Mar. 16.
• * 1.236

  Acto. 1. & 12.
• * 1.237

  Iew. 89.
• * 1.238

  90.
• * 1.239

  R••.
• * 1.240

  Iew. ••. 10
• * 1.241

  Chryso∣stoms Li∣turgie con¦fessed by M. Iew.
• * 1.242

  Iew.
• * 1.243

  〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.244

  Hard. De Cons∣dist. 1. ca•• Hoc quo∣que.
• * 1.245

  Iew. 66. Note the processe of M. Iew.
• * 1.246

  Soters Decree refused by M. Iew. Dist. 19.
• * 1.247

  Fine M. Iewel.
• * 1.248

  Iew. 12.
• * 1.249

  Iew. ••8.
• * 1.250

  A b••ndle of shiftes.
• * 1.251

  Soters decree alo••wed by M. Iew.
• * 1.252

  Iew. 76.
• * 1.253

  Ra.
• * 1.254

  Iew. 76.
• * 1.255

  Ra.
• * 1.256

  Iew
• * 1.257

  Iew.
• * 1.258

  Ra.
• * 1.259

  Iew. 67.
• * 1.260

  Iew. ••▪ 136. 66. 223.
• * 1.261

  The firs•• Exampl••▪
• * 1.262

  Can. Apost Can. 9.
• * 1.263

  Ievvel.
• * 1.264

  pag. 39.
• * 1.265

  Chrysost ad popul. Antiochē. Hom. 61.
• * 1.266

  Ievvel.
• * 1.267

  pag. 23.
• * 1.268

  Ra.
• * 1.269

  Compel∣ling of catholikes to come to the Con∣gregation.
• * 1.270

  Fol. 79.
• * 1.271

  The secōd Example.
• * 1.272

  Iew. 11.
• * 1.273

  Iustinus Martyr. in 2. Apol.
• * 1.274

  Iewel fol▪ 27.
• * 1.275

  Chrysost. 〈…〉〈…〉 Hom▪ 61.
• * 1.276

  Iew. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 48.
• * 1.277

  August. ••on••ra. lit. 〈…〉〈…〉 23.
• * 1.278

  Ra.
• * 1.279

  Water and wine migled to∣geather.
• * 1.280

  Geauing of a cosse.
• * 1.281

  Iew. 153.
• * 1.282

  Ra.
• * 1.283

  The third Example.
• * 1.284

  Iew. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.285

  Chrysost. in Litur.
• * 1.286

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.287

  〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.288

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.289

  Con. Tol••••. 4. cap. 17.
• * 1.290

  Ra.
• * 1.291

  Distinc∣tion of places.
• * 1.292

  The fourth Example.
• * 1.293

  Basil. exe. ad piet. serm. 4.
• * 1.294

  Iew. pa•• 3.
• * 1.295

  Ra.
• * 1.296

  The fifth Example.
• * 1.297

  Chrysost. in opere imper. Hom. 11.
• * 1.298

  Ra.
• * 1.299

  Ra.
• * 1.300

  Church goo••••s.
• * 1.301

  The. ••. Example. Iew. 74.
• * 1.302

  R••.
• * 1.303

  The▪ 7. Example. Iew. 174▪
• * 1.304

  Ra.
• * 1.305

  Basil. in epist. ad Clericos Neoc••s.
• * 1.306

  The. 8. Example.
• * 1.307

  Chry••ost. in Mat. Hom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.308

  Iew. ••08
• * 1.309

  Ra.
• * 1.310

  The. 9. Example.
• * 1.311

  Concil. Chalced. actione prima.
• * 1.312

  Iew 245
• * 1.313

  Ra.
• * 1.314

  The▪ 10. Example.
• * 1.315

  Cod. de E∣pisc. & Cleric•••• Omnes.
• * 1.316

  Iew. 267
• * 1.317

  Ra.
• * 1.318

  Priuile∣gies grā∣to priestes & mo••kes
• * 1.319

  The. 11. Example. Iew. 196
• * 1.320

  Ra.
• * 1.321

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.322

  Cōc. Ni••. primum.
• * 1.323

  Ca••. 5.
• * 1.324

  Iew▪ 26••
• * 1.325

  Ra.
• * 1.326

  The. 13. Example.
• * 1.327

  Libera••us Cap. ••0.
• * 1.328

  Iew. 283
• * 1.329

  Ra.
• * 1.330

  Iew. ••6••
• * 1.331

  Sozome. lib. 3. ••a. 3.
• * 1.332

  Arrians witnesse for M. Iewel.
• * 1.333

  Iew. 272
• * 1.334

  Ra.
• * 1.335

  Aug. de ••••••resibus ad Quod••ul•• deum.
• * 1.336

  Donatus the Here∣tike •• pre∣sent wit∣nesse for M. Iew.
• * 1.337

  The true storie of y^• Dona∣••••s••es ap∣peale to y^• ••mperor
• * 1.338

  August. Epist. 16••.
• * 1.339

  Iew. 272
• * 1.340

  The third Example.
• * 1.341

  Iew. 289
• * 1.342

  R••.
• * 1.343

  The. 4. Example.
• * 1.344

  Iew. 278
• * 1.345

  R••.
• * 1.346

  Arrians alleaged by M. Iewel ful ••adly:
• * 1.347

  Sozome∣nus lib. 3. Cap. 8.
• * 1.348

  Socrates lib. 2. ca. 15.
• * 1.349

  See with what Au∣thoritie Pope Lu∣cius wri∣teth to the Bishopes of y^• East.
• * 1.350

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.351

  The Cha¦lenger cha¦lenged.
• * 1.352

  I•• Fa∣thers shal be folow∣ed, here they are.
• * 1.353

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.354

  Iews. 15.
• * 1.355

  Ra.
• * 1.356

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.357

  Ra.
• * 1.358

  Iew.
• * 1.359

  Ra.
• * 1.360

  Con. Tole••. 1••. cap. 5.
• * 1.361

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.362

  Iewel.
• * 1.363

  Flat lye.
• * 1.364

  Ra.
• * 1.365

  Iew. 140. Concil.
• * 1.366

  Carth. ••▪ Ca. 6.
• * 1.367

  Ra.
• * 1.368

  A worthy cōsequēce of M. Ie∣wels.
• * 1.369

  Marke this trick.
• * 1.370

  Iew. 153.
• * 1.371

  Ra.
• * 1.372

  What an∣swerye?
• * 1.373

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.374

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.375

  Can. 47.
• * 1.376

  Passions of Mar∣tyrs readē in y^• Chur∣ch, & their yeerely daies kept
• * 1.377

  An Im∣pudent lie of M. Iewel.
• * 1.378

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.379

  R••▪
• * 1.380

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.381

  〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.382

  Leu.•• &, 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.383

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.384

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 154▪
• * 1.385

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.386

  Ra.
• * 1.387

  Co•• C••••. 40.
• * 1.388

  Dist. 9••. In Sanct•• Rom••na▪
• * 1.389

  Iew.
• * 1.390

  How ••••••••tainly h•• 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.391

  ••a.
• * 1.392

  Iew, 18••▪
• * 1.393

  Neither true inter pre••ation, nor Collection.
• * 1.394

  R••.
• * 1.395

  Iewel i•• y^• Answer to D. Hardings Preface.
• * 1.396

  Ra.
• * 1.397

  Iewel.
• * 1.398

  Mat. 5.
• * 1.399

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.400

  Diuelish Rhetorik▪ Iew. ••0.
• * 1.401

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.402

  The glose 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.403

  〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.404

  Math. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.405

  〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.406

  Obiection
• * 1.407

  〈◊〉〈◊〉▪
• * 1.408

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.409

  Ra.
• * 1.410

  Iew. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.411

  This is not the mater.
• * 1.412

  Ra.
• * 1.413

  How 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dely?
• * 1.414

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.415

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.416

  Let M. Iew an∣swer, or geue ouer
• * 1.417

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.418

  the Pope to err and y^• Church of Rome to err▪ are two sun∣try things euen by y^• very glo••e which M Iew. al∣leageth.
• * 1.419

  Causa. 24
• * 1.420

  qu••st ••.
• * 1.421

  In Glos••.
• * 1.422

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 M. Iew. the Glose, if ye like not the Text.
• * 1.423

  24. qua••s•• I•• Glos••
• * 1.424

  Iew. 17. Auth. Collat. ••. vt. deter∣minatus sit numt∣rus Cleri∣corum.
• * 1.425

  Ra.
• * 1.426

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.427

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.428

  What should al 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.429

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.430

  Iew. 172 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lye at the first.
• * 1.431

  Ra.
• * 1.432

  Ex••d. 10.
• * 1.433

  M. Iew. apposed in his owne Rules.
• * 1.434

  Iew. 172.
• * 1.435

  Aliciatus de vet. sig. lib. 1
• * 1.436

  Euerard in loco à rati••us l•• gisstrict••.
• * 1.437

  What thus heth M. Iew▪ in this case?
• * 1.438

  dodger
• * 1.439

  In Auther De Ecclesi∣••is.
• * 1.440

  Iew. 241 The 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.441

  Ra.
• * 1.442

  Iew.
• * 1.443

  Ra.
• * 1.444

  Note the Lie.
• * 1.445

  Iew. To what purpose?
• * 1.446

  Ra.
• * 1.447

  Iewel, Feare, where no cause is shewed.
• * 1.448

  Ra.
• * 1.449

  Iew.
• * 1.450

  Ra.
• * 1.451

  Iewe••
• * 1.452

  Ra.
• * 1.453

  Iew. This was not spokē for ther••. of Rome.
• * 1.454

  C••d. de Sacrosact. Eccle. De∣cernimus.
• * 1.455

  Iew. 142
• * 1.456

  Greeks for the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ri¦uilege of y^• first place.
• * 1.457

  Ra.
• * 1.458

  Iew. 242
• * 1.459

  Who wil learn phrases of y^• Greek: or latine tonue.
• * 1.460

  Ra.
• * 1.461

  Iew .142 You doe not proue it.
• * 1.462

  Ra.
• * 1.463

  Iew.
• * 1.464

  Ra.
• * 1.465

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.466

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.467

  Ra▪
• * 1.468

  〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.469

  〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.470

  Ra.
• * 1.471

  ••ho saith M. Iew. deth not lye?
• * 1.472

  Iew. ••41
• * 1.473

  Ra.
• * 1.474

  Iew.
• * 1.475

  Ra.
• * 1.476

  Iew.
• * 1.477

  More 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of senteaces. that is, more of M. Iew∣e••s 〈…〉〈…〉,
• * 1.478

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.479

  Iew. 242
• * 1.480

  Ra.
• * 1.481

  How can it be An∣swered?
• * 1.482

  De Sū•••• Trinit. & ••id. Cath. l. Nos red∣dentes.
• * 1.483

  Iew, 23•• you proue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not by any of the testimonis 〈◊〉〈◊〉 folow.
• * 1.484

  Ra.
• * 1.485

  Iew. Faultes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.486

  Ra.
• * 1.487

  Cypr. de Simplici∣tatep••••∣lat.
• * 1.488

  Note vn∣••easarable foule dea∣ling
• * 1.489

  Ys not this man∣gling of sentēces:
• * 1.490

  Clipping of Sen∣tences.
• * 1.491

  The vni∣tie of the Church, i•• proued by the one Head ther of.
• * 1.492

  Simple cōclusions
• * 1.493

  The Pri∣uilege of S. Peter must be more then to sitte or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 first.
• * 1.494

  Iew 239.
• * 1.495

  In a misti¦cal sense this is true, not in the literal.
• * 1.496

  Ra.
• * 1.497

  Absurdi∣ties folo∣wing vpō M Tew∣els sense.
• * 1.498

  1.Cor.12.
• * 1.499

  Eph. 4.
• * 1.500

  Gala. 4.
• * 1.501

  1. Cor.10
• * 1.502

  Orig. tr••••1. in Ma••.
• * 1.503

  ••rigen himselfe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I Difference betwene the Literal and Mysti∣cal sense of the fore∣said place.
• * 1.504

  Note wherein consisteth 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.505

  Do ••o no 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.506

  Iew. 139 He falsi∣••ieth the place, for is no men¦tion of po∣wer.
• * 1.507

  Cyril. in Ioan. l. 3. cap. 20.
• * 1.508

  Is not this wic∣kedly don of M. Ie∣wel?
• * 1.509

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.510

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.511

  vita Soli∣taria .c. 23 quemad•• modā ille.
• * 1.512

  Ra.
• * 1.513

  Rom.13.
• * 1.514

  Heb. 13.
• * 1.515

  How li∣keth M. Iewel this Obe∣dience?
• * 1.516

  Basil. c. 23.
• * 1.517

  Cons••it.
• * 1.518

  Monast.
• * 1.519

  Iew. 239
• * 1.520

  S. Basile for the su∣premacie.
• * 1.521

  Ra▪
• * 1.522

  Al that do one thing equally, are not of like Au∣thoritie.
• * 1.523

  Ioan. 20.
• * 1.524

  Iew. 20.
• * 1.525

  Ra.
• * 1.526

  1. Cor.11.
• * 1.527

  Todispose and sette 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.528

  Iew. 20.
• * 1.529

  Ra.
• * 1.530

  ••. Iew∣•• bold∣••••s
• * 1.531

  The reue∣rence geuē to the Sa∣crament.
• * 1.532

  S. 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.533

  I••w. 76.
• * 1.534

  impudēcie
• * 1.535

  Ra.
• * 1.536

  it agreeth not here. it to like▪ was a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 masse so longe agoe?
• * 1.537

  I wonder what cā be answered.
• * 1.538

  Ergo M. Iew hath belied him
• * 1.539

  Iew. 106
• * 1.540

  Ra.
• * 1.541

  Marke what is to be proued.
• * 1.542

  Iew.
• * 1.543

  Cypri. li 2 Epist. 3.
• * 1.544

  Ra.
• * 1.545

  Iew.
• * 1.546

  Truely saied, but to no pur∣pose.
• * 1.547

  Ra.
• * 1.548

  Iew.
• * 1.549

  〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.550

  Ra.
• * 1.551

  Iew.
• * 1.552

  Craftely
• * 1.553

  Ra.
• * 1.554

  M. Iew. apprehen∣ded.
• * 1.555

  Iew.
• * 1.556

  Ra.
• * 1.557

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.558

  Answer directly
• * 1.559

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.560

  Wine and water to be ming∣led togea∣ther in the Chalice is y^• Tra∣dition and Cōmaun∣dement of Christ.
• * 1.561

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.562

  Iewel.
• * 1.563

  See the fetch, least 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.564

  M. Iew∣els fetch, dissapoin∣ted
• * 1.565

  In In∣uincible Argumēt except M Iew, wil denie S. Cyprians authoritie which on∣ly he hath vsed in steede of many Fa∣thers.
• * 1.566

  Iew. 156
• * 1.567

  Ra.
• * 1.568

  Iew.
• * 1.569

  Ra.
• * 1.570

  False.
• * 1.571

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.572

  Lacke of knowledg doth more hurti this 〈…〉〈…〉 lacke of good li••e.
• * 1.573

  That the Seruice was in S. Augusti∣nes tyme in y^• latin Tongue which was vn∣knowē to y^• vulgare•• people.
• * 1.574

  Aug. de Catethi. rud. ca. 9.
• * 1.575

  The Ig∣norance of the latine tongue in the Latine praiers is to be tole∣rated in A Priest or Bishop, & not moke••••
• * 1.576

  S. Augu. would ne¦ner haue saied so.
• * 1.577

  Iew.
• * 1.578

  False and absurde.
• * 1.579

  Ra.
• * 1.580

  Here is no escape or shift for M. Iew.
• * 1.581

  Lib. 3 Cap. 3.
• * 1.582

  Iew. 244▪
• * 1.583

  Impuden¦••y or blind¦nes.
• * 1.584

  Ra.
• * 1.585

  M. Iew. a grosse in terpretour
• * 1.586

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.587

  Iew. 244▪
• * 1.588

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.589

  Iew.
• * 1.590

  Iew.
• * 1.591

  The cause of the Su¦premacie is not des¦perat. M. Iewel wil alow it on condition.
• * 1.592

  Ra.
• * 1.593

  M. Iew. would not do as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 saith.
• * 1.594

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.595

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.596

  S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 reprou••th not Recc••••∣uing at home.
• * 1.597

  〈…〉〈…〉 Apologia
• * 1.598

  aduersus Iouinianū
• * 1.599

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.600

  Iew. 249 Spoken gramma∣tically.
• * 1.601

  Iew. 250
• * 1.602

  Ra.
• * 1.603

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.604

  Ra.
• * 1.605

  Marke this place again and againe.
• * 1.606

  This that foloweth wil trie it.
• * 1.607

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.608

  Iew. 246 Most shā¦ful dissimulacion and craft.
• * 1.609

  Ra.
• * 1.610

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.611

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.612

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.613

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.614

  Ra.
• * 1.615

  In any of these two poīts M. Iew. may be apprehen∣ded.
• * 1.616

  Guerricus in Ser. de purifica∣tione.
• * 1.617

  A point of M. Iew∣els art.
• * 1.618

  Answer to this point.
• * 1.619

  Iew. 98.
• * 1.620

  Ra.
• * 1.621

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.622

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.623

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.624

  A Case to M. Iew.
• * 1.625

  Iew. 99. Shamful¦ly abused.
• * 1.626

  Ra.
• * 1.627

  Few. Open Lie
• * 1.628

  Ra.
• * 1.629

  q. 4••. Mem. 3. art. 3.
• * 1.630

  Let M. Iew. dis∣tinct thin∣ges right¦ly and he shal per∣ceiue quic¦kly his owne ig∣norance.
• * 1.631

  Cyp. lib. 1. Epist. 3.
• * 1.632

  Craft in chainging and inter∣preting.
• * 1.633

  I••w. 305
• * 1.634

  Ra.
• * 1.635

  Iew. Fals••hode in colle∣cting of ar¦guments.
• * 1.636

  Ra.
• * 1.637

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. li. 4. ca▪ b. de Inuē. rer.
• * 1.638

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.639

  impudēcie
• * 1.640

  Iew. 25.
• * 1.641

  We are ••ound to y^• e••am••le of Christ.
• * 1.642

  Ra.
• * 1.643

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 13.
• * 1.644

  Iew. 116.
• * 1.645

  We are not bound to the exā∣ple of Christ.
• * 1.646

  Ra.
• * 1.647

  Iew. 31.
• * 1.648

  Not for the sicke.
• * 1.649

  Ra.
• * 1.650

  Iew. For the sicke.
• * 1.651

  Ra.
• * 1.652

  Iew. For per∣sons excō¦municate.
• * 1.653

  Ra.
• * 1.654

  Iew. For other than excō∣municate.
• * 1.655

  Ra.
• * 1.656

  A prety Diuision.
• * 1.657

  Iew. 111
• * 1.658

  Declarīg of Circū∣ces requi∣red.
• * 1.659

  Ra.
• * 1.660

  Iew. 187 Declarīg of Circū∣stancies refused.
• * 1.661

  Ra.
• * 1.662

  Iew. 42. Receuing at home alowed.
• * 1.663

  Ra.
• * 1.664

  Iew. 42. Rec••uing at home disalowed
• * 1.665

  Ra.
• * 1.666

  Concil. Caesarau∣gustanū. Cap. 3.
• * 1.667

  Iew. 59. Singl•• Cōmu••iō in som ca∣ses lauful.
• * 1.668

  Ra.
• * 1.669

  Iew. 61. Distribu∣tion is of y^• Substāc•• of Christs Supper. And so is Single Commu∣nion abso∣lutely vn∣lawful.
• * 1.670

  Ra.
• * 1.671

  Iew. 70. Hearing and not Hearing.
• * 1.672

  Ra.
• * 1.673

  Iew. 110.
• * 1.674

  Not indif¦ferent.
• * 1.675

  Indifferēt
• * 1.676

  Ra.
• * 1.677

  M. Iew∣els priuat comment vpon Me¦lancthon & Bucer.
• * 1.678

  Iew. 119 ••e onely saith it.
• * 1.679

  Ra.
• * 1.680

  Iew. His reasō is this.
• * 1.681

  Ra.
• * 1.682

  Iew. 117 The 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.683

  Iew. ••0.
• * 1.684

  The Termes of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.685

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.686

  Ra〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.687

  Iew. 9••.
• * 1.688

  The Pa∣pistes ••raunt y^• vse of both kindes.
• * 1.689

  Ra.
• * 1.690

  Iew. 115. The Pa∣pists take 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.691

  Ra.
• * 1.692

  Iew. 16••
• * 1.693

  It cannot be general ōlesse it in¦clude eue∣ry particu¦lar.
• * 1.694

  Ra.
• * 1.695

  Iew. 164
• * 1.696

  ••. C••r. 10.
• * 1.697

  Ra.
• * 1.698

  M. Iew. cōst••••ned to take AL, for not AL.
• * 1.699

  Iew. 88.
• * 1.700

  It may be general although it include not euery particular
• * 1.701

  Ra.
• * 1.702

  Iew. 162
• * 1.703

  M. Iew. beaten •• his owne 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.704

  Iew. 185 Conuer∣ted from 〈◊〉〈◊〉. not turned to Religiō.
• * 1.705

  Ra.
• * 1.706

  Greg. lib. 7 ep. 30.
• * 1.707

  Iew. 226 The title of Vni∣uersal Bishop, cōdemned Iew. 242 The title of Vni∣uersal Bishop, alleaged. Ra.
• * 1.708

  Iew. 274 For the cuil life sake of the preachers
• * 1.709

  we must not con∣demne the Lawful doctrine.
• * 1.710

  Ra▪
• * 1.711

  Iew. 276 For Y^• euel life sake Y^• peple must seuer them selues frō their Ru∣lers.
• * 1.712

  Ra.
• * 1.713

  Lib. 1. ••p. 4
• * 1.714

  Iew. 103 The Ar∣gument Ab Autho∣ritate ne∣gatiue, 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.715

  Iew. 187 The Ar∣gument Ab Autho∣ritate ne∣gatiue, disproued.
• * 1.716

  Ra.
• * 1.717

  Iew. 126
• * 1.718

  Ra.
• * 1.719

  Iew. 68
• * 1.720

  Few, 68
• * 1.721

  The Ar∣gument Ab Autho¦ritate ne∣••atiuè, taken out of Gods worde is good.
• * 1.722

  Galat. 3.
• * 1.723

  Ra.
• * 1.724

  Iew. 21.
• * 1.725

  Iew. 305 The Ar∣gument Ab Autho¦ritate ne∣gatiuè taken out of Gods worde••s naught.
• * 1.726

  Ra.
• * 1.727

  Iew. 306
• * 1.728

  Ra.
• * 1.729

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.730

  ••ew. 1••.
• * 1.731

  15.
• * 1.732

  Iew. 57.
• * 1.733

  Iew.117
• * 1.734

  Iew.197 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.735

  Iew. 215
• * 1.736

  Iew 146
• * 1.737

  Iew. 258
• * 1.738

  Iew. 148 Aug. de 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cre∣dend. c. 17.
• * 1.739

  Plucke out the beame out of your owne eye.
• * 1.740

  M. No∣wel no bo∣rower, for none so 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.741

  M. Iew∣les charge