A retur[ne of vn]truthes vpon [M. Jewel]les replie Partly of such, as he hath slaunderously charg[...] Harding withal: partly of such other, as he h[...] committed about the triall thereof, in the text of the foure first articles of his Replie. VVith a reioyndre vpon the principall matters of the Replie, treated in the thirde and fourthe articles. By Thomas Stapleton student in Diuinitie.

THE FOVRTHE ARTICLE. Of the Supremacy of the B. of Rome. (Book 4)

* 1.1THe Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, that is to saye, Supreme power, and auctoritie ouer and aboue all Bishoppes, and chiefe gouuerne∣ment of Christes flocke in matters pertai∣ning to Faith and Christen Religion, was in the first six hundred yeares, acknowleadged and confessed.

[Iewell.] The .93. Vntruthe. For there was no such power confessed.* 1.2

[Stapletō.] * 1.3This power is confessed by S. Gregory a Bishop of Rome within the first six hundred yeres. I alleage him to you M. Ie∣well though he be a bishop of Rome him selfe, bicause you ha∣ue in this Article alleaged him so Plentifully and so stoutely against D. Harding, as if he had clerely condemned such Su∣preme Authorite him selfe. I will alleage and vrge the very pla∣ce that D. Harding bringeth, and answer to all that you saie against it, that the Christen Reader may see with what Passing Impudencie you alleage S. Gregory against him selfe, and yet crie out with open mouthe against D. Hardinge, as though he had done so. The wordes of S. Gregory are these. Cunctis Euan∣gelium scientibus liquet,* 1.4 quòd voce Dominica Sancto & omnium A∣postolorum Petro Principi Apostolo totius Ecclesiae cura commissa est. Ipsi quippe dicitur: Petre amas me? pasce oues meas. Ipsi dicitur. Ecce Satanas expetiuit cribrare vos sicut triticum:* 1.5 & ego pro te ro∣gaui Petre, vt non deficiat fides tua: & tu aliquando conuersus con∣firma fratres tuos. Ipsi dicitur.* 1.6 Tu es Petrus & super hanc petram aedíficabo Ecclesiam meam, & portae inferi non praeualebunt aduer∣sus eam. Et tibi dabo claues regni coelorum &c. Ecce claues regni coe∣lestis accepit, potestas ei ligandi & soluendi tribuitur. Cura ei totius Ecclesiae & principatus committitur. Et tamen vniuersalis Aposto∣lus

non vocatur. It is euident to all (saieth S. Gregory) that kno∣weth the gospell, that the cure and charge of the whole Church hath bene committed by the wordes of our lorde to the ho∣ly Apostle Peter, Prince of all the Apostles. For to him it is saied. Peter louest thou mee? Fede my shepe. To him it is saide. Beholde Sathan hath desired to sifte you as it were wheate, and I haue praied for thee Peter that thy faithe faile not. And thou being once conuerted strengthen thy brethern. To him it is sai∣de. Thou arte Peter and vpon this Rocke I will builde my Church: and the gates of hell shall nor preuaile against it. To thee I will geue the kaies of the kingdome of heauen: &c. Be∣holde he receiueth the keyes of the heauenly kingdome, the power of binding and loosing is geuen vnto him. The charge of the whole Churche and principalite is committed to him. Yet Peter is not called the Vniuersall Apostle. Thus farre Gre∣gory. In whose wordes I beseche thee gentle Reader consider thre thinges. [ 1] First that the Charge of the VVhole Church and Principalite thereof is committed vnto Peter. [ 2] Secondarely that the Commission of that charge was made by our lorde and Sa∣uiour him selfe to Peter by name, and that in three seuerall ti∣mes in the gospell. In S. Matthew at his Confession of Christ. Before Christes passion, when the Apostles were in most da∣unger to falle, and after Christes passion for full confirmation of all that went before. [ 3] Last of all that not withstanding all that preeminēce of Peter, notwithstanding the Charge that he had of the VVhole Church, not withstanding he was Prince of all the Apostles, and had the Principalite of the whole Chur∣che committed vnto him, notwithstanding I saye all this, yet by the name of an Vniuersall Apostle he was not called.

Touching the first point, note the matter and pithe of this Article to be confessed, which is the chefe gouuernement of Christes flocke in the Bishop of Rome. For as Peter was Bishop of Rome, as the Churche to him committed endureth

for euer, as that Authorite was not geuen for Peter only, so are the Bishops of Rome his successours, so doth that commission endure for euer, and so doth that Authorite take place, force, and effect for all the Church of Christ, from that time fore∣warde for euermore. Therefore Chrisostom saieth expressely, that Christ did shead his bloud, vt pecudes eas acquireret,* 1.7 quarum curam tum Petro, tum Petri successoribus committ••bat to winne those shepe, the charge of whom he did committe bothe to Pe∣ter, and to the successours of Peter. Of the which charge in an other place he saieth. Ecclesiae Primatum gubernationemque Petro per vniuersum mundum tradidit,* 1.8 that Christ deliuered to Peter the Primacy and gouernement of the Church throughout the whole worlde. In which wordes we see M. Iewell the chiefe gouuernement in Christes flocke to be confessed in Peter the Bishop of Rome, and in his Successours.

Touching the seconde point, that this chiefe gouuernemēt so cōfessed is grounded vpon the Scriptures, and Authorite of our Sauiour him selfe. For S. Gregory after he had affirmed this chiefe gouuernement in Peter, he added the reason thereof and saied. Ipsi quippe dicitur. For to him it is saied: Fede my shepe. Lo vpon this Commission of Christe geuen in holy Scripture to Peter Only, Gregory groundeth the Authorite of Peter. So doth also Chrysostom in the place aboue alleaged.

Touching the last pointe, marke I beseche thee (good Rea∣der) diligently, that though such principall Authorite ouer the whole Churche be graunted in Peter, yet he is not fo•• all that called an Vniuersall Apostle. The Power is confessed, the Na∣me or Title is denied. Right so of any Bishop of Rome euer sen¦ce Peter, that title or name of Vniuersal Bishop, was neither de∣sired nor vsurped. And yet the Authorite notwithstanding hath bene bothe confessed and practised. Neuer Pope more practised this vniuersall Authorite then Gregory him selfe. His writinges, decrees, and Epistles yet extant doe most euidently

declare it. Yet no man euer more abhorred the name then he. M. Iewell in all this Article hath not shewed One Pope that euer called or wrote him selfe Vniuersall Bishop. It is therefore a great vanitie and but a point of a cōtentious sprit in M. Iewell, to crie and call vpon the name of Vniuersall Bishop in the Pope, the power and Authorite vniuersall being confessed, the name also by the Pope him selfe neither desired, neither vsur∣ped. For as S. Augustin most truly telleth you M. Iewel. Quid est contentiosius quàm vbi de re constat, certare de nomine? VVhat is more Contentious then to striue vpon the name,* 1.9 when the thinge is cōfessed? Let vs see therefore what you answer to this place of S. Gregory alleaged by D. Harding. You saie.

[Iewell.] * 1.10* 1.11If S. Gregorie were now aliue, he would charge M. Harding with open iniurie, not only for altering his whole meaning, but also for mangling and maiming his very wordes.

[Stapletō.] Here be two great faultes in dede M. Iewell. First to alter the meaning of S. Gregory, then to mangle and maime his wordes. But how proue you these two faultes to haue ben committed? Let vs see. You folowe and saie.

[Iewell.] * 1.12M. Harding to proue that the Bishop of Rome was called the vniuersall Bishop alleageth these wordes of S. Gregorie.

[Stapletō.] Vntruthe M. Iewell. D. Harding doth not alleage them the∣refore. You belie him impudently. He saieth in the very begin∣ning of this Article. [Harding.] By what name so euer the Bishop of Ro∣me was called &c. this is cleare, his Primacy and Supreme power is confessed. VVich thinge being so, whether then he were called by ether of these names (he meaneth of the Vni∣uersall Bishop, or Head of the Church) or no, it is not of great importance. And yet for the one of them (he meaneth the na∣me of Vniuersal Bishop) somewhat, and for the other (of head of the Church) an infinit nūbre of good authorites may be alleaged. But thereof Hereafter. Harken M. Iewell. Of

these Names D. Harding saieth he will speake Herafter. What then will he proue now at this present? He telleth you. Now Concerning the chiefe point of this Article, which is the Pri∣macie of the Pope Peters successour. First it hath bene sett vp and ordained by God. This, this, M. Iewell is the thinge that D. Hardinge first will proue. For this matter he alleaged before Anacletus, and now he alleageth Gregory. For this point I saie, to proue that the Popes supremacy was ordained by God, Gre∣gory is alleaged. And we haue heard Gregory to proue it in Pe∣ter, whose successour the Pope is,* 1.13 by no lesse then three seue∣rall authorites of holy Scripture. Here therefore I beseche thee (gentle Reader) consider and marke the shamelesse impudencie of M. Iewell. VVhich not being able to answer to the Matter it selfe of the Popes supreme Authorite, telleth thee that these wor¦des were alleaged to proue the Name and title. He deceiueth thee, he mocketh thee, he abuseth thy patience gentle Reader. He turneth thy minde away form the Matter, to make thee be∣holde only the Name. For thou shallt see that vpon this Name and against this Name he driueth all his talke that foloweth, vtterly beside the Purpose, and quite out of the Matter. For now he alleageth the wordes of S. Gregorie.

[Iewell.] * 1.14Ecce Petrus claues regni coelorum accepit, & potestas ei ligandi soluendique tribuitur. Cura ei totius Ecclesiae & principatus com∣mittitur. Beholde, Peter receiueth the kayes of the kingdome of hea∣uen. To him is geuen power bothe to binde and to loose. The charge and chiefe rule of the Church is committed to him.

Here is an other notable and exceding legerdemain of M. Iewell. He hath left out in his English, the worde Totius VVhole. where he should haue saied, the charge and Chiefe rule of the VVhole Church, he turneth it, of the Churche, and leaueth out, VVhole. O M. Iewel may we not most iustly and truly turne ouer to you your owne wordes, bothe that whiche go before, and these which folowe now? If S. Gregorie were now aliue

he would charge M. Iewell with open iniurie, not only for al∣tering his whole meaning, but also for mangling and maiming his very wordes. For in taking away the worde VVhole from the Church, you haue maimed his wordes, and altered his sence. Which was, that to Peter the Charge and chiefe rule Totius Ec∣clesiae of the whole Churche was committed by Christ him selfe. But now let vs heare forthe your wordes.

[Iewell.] * 1.15Thus farre Gregory, saieth M. Harding. And why no Farther? was he stayed with the Choynecough, and forced to breake of his tale in the middest? But marke well gentle Reader, and thou shalt see S. Gregory set to Schole, and kept in awe, and not suffred to vtter one word mo∣re, then M. Harding will geue him leaue.

[Stapletō.] Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur. Chaunge the name, and all ths tale is tolde of you M. Iewell. For when you En∣glishing the wordes of S. Gregorie, saied the charge of the Church, for, the charge of the VVhole chur••h was committed to Peter, when you coulde not coughe out that worde VVhole, were you stayed with the Choynecough M. Iewell, and forced to breake of that worde in the middest? Haue we not sene S. Gregory set to Schole by M. Iewell, kepte in awe by M. Iewell, and not suf∣fred to vtter one worde more then M. Iewell would geue him leaue? S. Gregory would fayne haue saied in English the whole Churche, as he saied in Latin, Totius Ecclesiae, but M. Iewell would not geue him leaue to saie so much. Thus M. Iewell, you haue tolde a good tale for your selfe. Now let vs see how you haue tolde it for D. Harding. It foloweth in your text.

[Iewell.] The nexte wordes that immediatly folowe in the same sentence are these. Tamen Petrus vniuersalis Aposto••us non vo••atur. Yet Peter is not called the vniuersal Apostle.

[Stapletō.] It is true M. Iewell. They folowe in dede. And they are left out by D. Harding. What of that? Is not the sentence full en∣ded before? Is not the Supreme authorite of Peter fully auou∣ched before? Do these wordes any thinge derogat from that Supreme Authorite? If they do not, how is S. Gregory either maimed or māgled, when his whole sence and wordes are ful∣ly

reported, and nothinge concealed that might alter, weaken, or diminish the same? If they doe, then by like you will shew it. Let vs see how you folowe the matter.

[Iewell.] * 1.16M Harding saieth, The Bishop of Rome was called the vniuersall bisshop.

[Stapletō.] Vntruthe againe M. Iewell. D. Harding in this place saieth no suche thinge. You euer shoote at a wronge marke.

[Iewell.] But S. Gregorye euen in the selfe same sentence, that M. Harding hath here so hastely broken of, saieth. Peter him selfe being the Apostle of Christ yet was not called the vniuersall Apostle.

[Stapletō.] * 1.17This dothe not derogate from the Power before confessed in Peter, but from the Name which is not the quaestion at this present.

[Iewell.] * 1.18And woulde M. Harding haue the worlde beleue, that the Popes power is greater and more vniuersall then S. Peters?

[Stapletō.] Lo, howe you runne from the Name to the thinge, from the Calling to the power. S. Gregorye confesseth the Power, but denieth that Name. You bicause he denieth the Name, would haue him to denie the Power. S. Gregorye confesseth the one and proueth it by Scripture, but yet denieth the other. You bi∣cause he denieth one, would force him to denie bothe. Thus M. Iewell (not D. Harding) altereth and mangleth S. Grego∣ry. We will not haue the worlde to beleue that the Popes po∣wer is greater then S. Peters, but that the Pope being succes∣sour of Peter hath the same power which Christ gaue to Pe∣ter, and not only to Peter, but to his successours, as we haue heard Chrisostom expressely saie.

These wordes M. Harding thought good to nippe of in the middes. Such is his dealing in the allegation of the Auncient Fathers. If I liste to vse his owne termes, I might well call this Foysting or Cogging, or I know not what. Certainely the holye Fathers in the Councell off Constantinople saie thus. It is not meete for Catholike men thus to choppe and to pare the sayinges of the holy Fathers. It is rather the very property of heretikes.

You teache vs still M. Iewell howe to answere your owne demeanour. This worde (Whole) wherein the effect of S. Gre∣gories meaning stode, M. Iewell thought good to nippe of in the middes. Such is the dealing of M. Iewell in the allegation

of the Auncient Fathers: So he corrupted before Clemens Alexandrinus, S. Ambrose, Seuerus Sulpitius, S. Hierom and others. If I liste to vse M. Iewelles termes, I might saye he had the Choynecough &c. Certainly the holy Fathers in the Councell of Constantinople saie thus. It is not mete for Catholike men thus to choppe and to pare the sayinges of the holy Fathers. It is rather the very property of heretikes. Exore tuo te iudico serue nequam.* 1.19

As for the sentence which M. Iewell chargeth D. Harding to haue nipped of in the middes, neither was it in the middes, but a sentence folowing, neither did the omitting thereof any thinge derogat from the meaning of S. Gregory. M. Iewell the∣refore hath talked hetherto against him selfe pleasantly and largely, but to the matter he hath yet saied nothinge. Neither doth he say any thinge in many wordes after. He imagineth D. Harding to obiect that S. Gregory though he blamed the name of vniuersall B. in Iohn of Constantinople,* 1.20 yet he clai∣med the same to him selfe, as a title only belonging to the See of Rome. Hereupon he heapeth vp a Mayn number of sayin∣ges of S. Gregory against the title of Vniuersall bishop as well in him selfe, as in any other. All that is to no purpose. For it is not here defended by D. Harding. And it is not in this place at all disputed of, nor at al in any other place vpholded in that sence as S. Gregory blameth it. It is neither required nor vsed of any Pope. Therfore M. Iewell I may well call your labour therein Vanitas Vanitatum. For it is a great token of idlenes∣se to be so earnest and so copious in disprouing that thinge that no man affirmeth. And yet M. Iewell so forceth this matter, as if all the right of the cause lay vpon it. It is a lewde kinde of logicke so stoutely to disproue that no man defen∣deth, and to leaue that thinge vntouched, which only shoulde be answered. Therefore you conclude nothinge against D. Harding, when you saie.

[Iewell.] * 1.21By these it may appeare that S. Gregory being Bishop of Rome would not suffer the Name of Vniuersall Bishop to be geuen neither to any other Bishop nor to him selfe.

[Stapletō.] All this is confessed. The Name of Vniuersall Bishop, as being the only Bishop for all, No Pope hath euer required, taken or vsed. But to the Authorite of the Pope S. Peters Successour what saie you? You answer at the length, and you saie.

[Iewell.] * 1.22And whereas S Gregorie saieth: The char••e and chief••y of the whole Chur∣che is committed vnto Peter, in the sense it is spoken in, we denie it not. S. Paule likewise saieth of him selfe in like sence. Incumbit mihi quotidiana cura omnium Ecclesiarum. There lieth vpon me the Daily charge of all Churches. And further saieth. I reken my selfe to be nothinge infe••iour in t••a∣uail to the highest Apostles.

[Stapletō.] The wordes of S. Paule are not truly reported of you M. Iewell. You haue lefte the common Latin translation, and made an other of your owne. The Latin and the Greke also do reade thus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Praeter ea quae extrinsecus sunt, instātia mea quo¦tidiana, Sollicitudo omniū Ecclesiarū. Beside the forain troubles and aduersites, my daily occupatiō, the care of all cōgregations. And how? It foloweth. VVho is troubled, and I am not troubled, who is offended, and I am not offended?* 1.23 In this sence M. Iewell eue∣ry good Bishop, and Priest, yea euery good Christē man hath a care of all the Churches in the worlde. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sollicitudo not cura & principatus, a hofulnesse and care, not a charge and Principall rule, such as is confessed in Peter. Againe if Paule being a chosen vessell, beside all the other Apostles, had also such a care and charge as Peter aboue the rest had, yet he had no Successour therereof, except at Rome, where it pleased God he should take the crowne of marrtyrdō with S. Peter.* 1.24 Wherefore that Authorite ether died in him, or if it had any Successi••n after him, the See of Rome hath it. But M. Iewell that S. Gre∣gory spake of a farre other charge and chiefty ouer the whole Chur••he in Peter, then was in Paule or any other Apostle, (though other holy Fathers, as S. Hierom and S. Ciprian seme

to make all the Apostles equall) it appeareth euidently by an other Epistle of S. Gregory, which your selfe alleageth in this place.* 1.25 Thus he saieth. Certe Petrus Apostolus primū membrū sanctae & vniuersalis Ecclesiae est. Paulus, Andreas, Ioannes, quid aliud quam singularium pl••bium sunt capita? Et tamen sub vno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae. Truly the Apostle Peter is the chiefest membre (vnder Christ) of the holy and Vniuersall Church. Paule, Andrew and Iohn what other thinge are they then the heads of Particular flockes? And yet all are the mem∣bres of the Churche vnder one head, Christ. The charge there∣fore and Preeminence geuen to Peter by S. Gregories confes∣sion, is greater and more ample, then the charge of Paule, or ony other Apostle. Peter had the charge of the whole Chur∣che, Paule and the other, of particular flockes. And dothe M. Iewell thinke to persuade the worlde that. S. Peter had the charge of the whole Churche, in the like sence, as S. Paule had the carefulnesse of all Churches? Or is it likely that M. Iewell knoweth S. Gregories minde better then euer S. Gregory knewe it him selfe? This shifte therefore can not serue M. Iewell. What other hath he? We shall see by his wordes.

[Iewell.] * 1.26And will M. Harding hereof reason thus, Peter had the charge of the whole Churche. Ergo the Pope is an vniuersal Bishop?

[Stapletō.] No M. Iewell. It becometh only your scoffiing sprit to rea∣son so. D. Harding reasoneth thus. Peter is confessed by S. Gre∣gory to haue the charge of the whole Churche committed vnto him, by Christ him selfe. Ergo the Primacy of Peter by the testimony of S. Gregory hath bene sett vp and ordained by God. Ergo the Pope Peters Successour, hath his Primacy Iure domino by Goddes lawe, not only by mans lawe. Ergo the power and Authorite ouer all Christes flocke is acknowlead∣ged and confessed in the Bishop of Rome. And that not only by S. Gregory, but by Chrysostom also. Ergo then the Vntruthe which you noted, is no Vntruthe, but you M. Iewell stande

guilty thereof. Ergo whether the Name of Vniuersall Bishop were geuen or no, it is not of great importance, the Authorite and Power being confessed.

[Iewell.] * 1.27Certeinely S. Gregorie saieth▪ Peter him selfe notwithstanding he receiued the whole charge, yet is he not called the Vniuersal Apost∣le. And can the Pope be that thinge, that S. Petre him selfe coulde not be? S. Gregorie dreueth his reason thus. If this title of Vniuer••alite might belonge to any man, it shoulde ch••f••ly belonge vnto S. Peter, but it belong••th not vnto S Peter. Therefore it can belonge to no mā Hereby it is plaine that the Bishop of Rome challengeth this day a title S Peter neuer had, that no holy, nor godly man would euer take vpon him, that S. Gregory vtterly refused and detested and cal∣led blasphemy.

[Stapletō.] M. Iewell allwaies harpeth vpon a wronge stringe. By such idle talke his Replie is waxen to a great quantite. We answer M. Iewell. You talke of that no man affirmeth. You slaunder the Pope. You abuse the Reader. We call not the Pope Vniu••r∣sall Bishop. The Pope writeth not him selfe so, but Seruum ser∣norum Dei. the seruant of the seruantes of God. D. Harding goeth not aboute to proue it. Therefore you fight with your owne shadowe.

[Iewell.] And yet will he seme to maintayne his estate by the Authorite of this holy Father.

[Stapletō.] Yea forsothe the state of his Primacy is by this holy Fathers not only writinges, but much more doinges so maintained and established, that M. Iewell shall neuer auoide it, if (as he dothe here stoutely) he will stande to the Authorite of this holy Father. But the Name of Vniuersall Bishop, neither we, nor the Pope maintaineth by this, or by any other holy Father.

And nowe bicause M. Iewell hath heaped out of the Epi∣stles of S. Gregory a mayne number of allegations against the title of Vniuersal•• B••shop, quoting them with such Ambition in the Margin, that one very allegation he quoteth * 1.28 three times immediatly one after the other,k 1.29l 1.30 and in the same sentence two other allegations,m 1.31 as lib. 4. Epist. 32. and lib. 4. Epist. 38. he quoteth thrise also (eche of them) where as for these nine seuerall quo∣tations

in the margin of bothe booke and Epistle, one only quotation of the booke and three seuerall quotations of the Epistles had bene sufficient, because I saie, he hath with such extreme Ambition so heaped and multiplied his Allegations against that Title, which (as it hath bene saied) is of no Bishop of Rome vsurped, required, or mayntayned in that sence as S. Gregory reprou••th it, (that is, to be a Bishop Alone excluding all other) I will nowe (by Gods helpe) declare by the Epistles of S. Gregory him selfe, that notwithstanding he so abhor∣red that Name, calling it a puffe of arrogancie, a newe Name, a Rashe,* 1.32 a Foolish, a proude, a pompouse, a Peruerse, a Superstitious, an vngodly, and a wicked title, a Name of errour, a Name of singu∣larite, a Name of vanite, a Name of Hypocrisie, and a Name of blasphemie, notwithstanding he saieth, that Whoso euer calleth himselfe Vniuersall Bishop,* 1.33 or desireth so to be called, is in his pride the forerenner of Antichrist, last of all, notwithstanding, he vttertly refuse that Name, to be geuen either to any other Bishop or to him selfe, that yet I saie all this notwithstanding, he practised him selfe the Vniuersall Authorite ouer the whole Churche, and euery parte thereof, through out all Christen∣dom, as occasion serued. M. Iewel saieth.

[Iewell.] * 1.34The reason that S. Gregory forceth against the Bishop of Con∣stantinople, maye serue as well against the Bishop of Rome. For thus he saieth. VVhat answer wilt thou make vnto Christ, that in dede is the head of the Vniuersall Churche, at the triall of the last Iudgement, that thus goest aboute vnder the Name of Vniuersall Bishop to subdue all his membres vnto thee? This is the very definition of an Vniuersall Bis••op. Thus the Bishop of Rome at∣tempteth to subdue the whole Churche of God, and all the mem∣bres of Christ vnto him selfe. Therefore by S. Gregories iudgement he is the forerunner of Antichrist.

[Stapletō.] The reason that S. Gregory forceth against Iohn of Constā∣tinople, can not be so forced against the bishop of Rome, nei∣ther is that reason only so forced as M. Iewell imagineth. For the first, touching the Subiection of the whole Churche of God to the B. of Rome, as mēbres vnto their head, and sh••pe

vnto their Pastour, S. Gregory him selfe shall anon be witnesse sufficient, that it was so, and ought to be so. Though therefo∣re Iohn of Constantinople, who was no head of the vniuer∣sall Churche, might worthely be blamed of S. Gregory, for subduyng the whole Churche vnto him, vnder pretence of that proude and vnlawfull Title, yet the Bishop of Rome (whose Supremacy ouer all the Churche none more then S. Gregory him selfe practised) can not be blamed if he claime that vniuersall authorite. But this is not the chefe or only rea∣son that S. Gregory forceth against Iohn of Constantinople for vsurping that Name of vniuersall Bishop, that thereby he woulde make him selfe head of the vniuersall Churche, but that thereby he would make him selfe, the Only Bishop of all the Churche, and all other no bishops at all. In this sence S. Gregory reproued that Name not only in Iohn of Constan∣tinople, but also in him selfe or any other. Therefore writing to the Emperour Mauritius he vseth these wordes.* 1.35 What man is this which against the commaundements of the gospell, and decrees of the Canons, presumeth to vsurpe to him selfe a new Name? Would God, the same man might well be one Bishop, without the hindera∣unce of other, which desireth to be called the vniuersall ••ishopp. Cer∣tainely it is knowen that many bishops of Constantinople, haue fallen in to the whirlepoole of heresy, and not only bene heretik••s but also Archeher••tikes. For from thence came Nestorius, which teaching that Our Sauiour Christ was two persons, not beleuing that God coulde be made man in one person, fell euen to Iuish infidelite. From thence came Macedonius who denyed that the holy Ghoste was God con∣substantiall with the Father and the Sonne. If therefore any man in that Churche (of Constantinople) do take that Name vnto him (of vniuersall bishop) what was the iudgement of all good men? Then forsothe the Vniuersall Churche loste her state and being (which God forbidde) when he which is called Vniuersall f••ll. But God kepe this blasphemous name from the hartes of all Christ••n men.

In the which the honour of all priestes is taken awaye while it is of one man arrogantly vsurped. Verely for the honour of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles that Name of Vniuersall bishopp was offred to the bishop of Rome by the Reuerent Councell of Chalcedon. But no bishop of Rome did eu••r take that Name of Singularite vnto him, or euer consented to vse it. And why so S. Gregory woulde none of your predecessours vse this Name or title? It foloweth immediatly. Ne dum priuatum aliquid daretur vni, honore d••bi∣to sacerdotes priuarentur vniuersi. Lest that whiles any Singu∣lar thinge shoulde be geuen to one, all priestes should be de∣frauded of their dew honour. In this sence S. Gregory abhor∣red that Name, as it was a Name of Singularite, as a Singular ti∣tle defrauding other of their right, as a name in the whiche the honour of all other priestes is taken awaye. For so did this Iohn of Constantinople affecte this Name of vniuersall bishop, as it signified the Name of one only bishop for all. Therefore S. Gregory in a letter writen at the same time to Constantia the Emperesse saieth thus.* 1.36 Triste valde est, vt patienter feratur, qua∣tenus despectis omnibus praedictus frater & coepiscopus meus solus co∣netur appellari episcopus. It is a heauy hearing, that it shoulde be patiently tolerated, when the saied Iohn my brother and felo∣we bishop, coueteth to be called The only Bishop, setting all o∣ther at naught. And againe in an other epistle to this Io••n him selfe of Constantinople he saieth.* 1.37 Ad hoc quandoque per∣ductus es, vt d••spectis fratribus episcopus appetas solus vocari. Thou art brought at length to this pointe that setting thy bre∣thern at naught, thou couetest to be called the Only bishop. And in the same epistle againe. Generalis pater in mundo vocari appetis.* 1.38 Thou couetest to be called the Generall Father in the worlde, as desiring in dede to be the Father and Master of all alone. And to the Bishop of Thessalonica he writeth of Cy∣r••acusthis Iohns Successour coueting in like maner that Ti∣tle, Si vnus (vt putat) vniuersalis est, restat vt vos episcopi non sitis.

If one (as he supposeth) be an vniuersall bishop, it remay∣neth that you be no bishops at all. In this sence that Name was so greuously abhorred of S. Gregory, and for that cause (bi∣cause it emplied such a sence, as might doe iniury to all other bishops and rulers of the Churche) neuer vsed of S. Gregory, or of his predecessours, or of any Pope sithens, that M. Iewell is able to name. And therefore S. Gregory (geuing the same reason) saieth expressely in an other epistle to Eulogius the Patriarche of Alexandria, in this wise. Your holynesse knoweth,* 1.39 that by the holy Councell of Chalcedon this name of Vniuersalite was offred to me as bishop of the Apostolike See, But none of my pre∣decessours euer consented to vse this prophane title: Bicause verely if one Patriarche be called vniuersall, other are made no Patriarches at all. Which reason also in the same epistle he repeteth yet againe,* 1.40 as being in dede the chiefè and only cause why he and his predecessours other bishops of Rome, vtterly refused and abhorred that Title. Thus it appeareth that S. Gregory forced not that reason only or chiefely against the bishop of Con∣stantinople, which M. Iewell imagineth, bicause by that Title he woulde become Head of all the Churche, but the reason which S. Gregory principally forceth against the bishop of Constantinople, and for the whiche he him selfe and his predecessours refused that Title, is, that by the same Title he would be the bishop Alone, the Patriarche Alone, the priest Alone. To Conclude. S. Gregory forceth two reasons against the bishop of Constantinople, why he may not be called the Vniuersall Bishop. And he geueth one reason why he and his predecessours haue refused that Name. The two reasons a∣gainst the Bishop of Constantinople are these. First and prin∣cipally bicause appetit solus episcopus vocari, he coueteth to be called the only Bishop: bicause by that Name, Patriarcharum nomen coeteris derogatur. Other Patriarches are made no Patri∣arches at all. This was a newe, a prophane, a blasphemous, and

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

an Antichristian attempt. The second reason is by a conse∣quence. For so it woulde folowe that he woulde subdewe all the Churche to him, whose Churche is knowen to haue be∣ne oftentimes the Ringleader and founder of wicked heresies: Which were the greatest absurdite that might de deuised. For thereof it woulde folowe that the whole Churche shoulde pe∣rish, the Vniuersall Bishop perishing. The one onely reason that S. Gregory geueth, why he and his predecessours, though by the whole generall Councell of Chalcedon Vniuersales ob∣lato honore vocati sunt they were called Vniuersall Bishoppes that honour being offred them,* 1.41* 1.42 woulde yet neuer vse or enioy that title, is (not bicause he and his predecessours shoulde the∣reby become heades of the vniuersal Churche, as if that Au∣thorite wer iniurious, but) lest that (as in foure seueral epistles he repeteth) si sibi in pontificatus gradu gloriā singularitatis ar∣riperet,* 1.43 hanc omnibus fratribus denegasse videretur. if any of his predecessours shoulde take vnto him that singular preferment in the degree of bishopricke, he might seme to denie the same (preferment of bishopricke) to al his brethren, that is, the Po∣pe by that meanes might seme to become the Onely Bishop ouer all Christen people, as that Iohn of Constantinople at∣tempted to be. For this reason, for this inconuenience empli∣ed in that Name, no bishop of Rome euer vsurped, or desired that name, though of other men before Saint ••regories ti∣me they were so called, as it shal in the ••.8. Vntruthe appeare. Nowe the other reason off being Heade ouer the vniuersall Churche of Christ, Saint Gregory fo••ceth not against him selfe or his predecessours the bishops of Rome, bothe bicause the See of Rome fel neuer to heresy, but by the especial praier of Christ for Peter the first bishop therof is preserued, vt nun∣quam deficiat fides eius that their faithe maye neuer faile,* 1.44 as in the 108, Vntruthe we shall more particulary declare, (whereby the absurde consequence falling in the bishops of Constan∣tinople

hath here no place) and also bicause S. Gregory him selfe as his predecessours before him, was in dede the Head gou¦uerner of the Vniuersall Churche of Christ, and practised that Headship and Iurisdiction in all partes of Christēdome, as oc∣casion serued. Which nowe according to promise, out of the very Epistles of S. Gregory him selfe, I entend God willing to declare.

To omitte the particular Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Ro∣me in all Italy it selfe, where he is the Metropolitane, and where only at this present M. Iewell and his felowes woulde limit his Authorite, if at lest they will graunte him so muche (for by some of their iudgements he shoulde rule only his owne dyo∣cese, and by some other not them neither, for such woulde ha∣ue no Bishops at all touching Order and Iurisdiction) but to omitte the practised Authorite of S. Gregory within the bondes of Italy it selfe where in Rome standeth, let vs consider howe the same was extended, as well ouer the Alpes to vs warde Northe and West, as ouer the sea to all the worlde beyonde, bothe southe and East.

The Iurisdiction and Supreme Authorite of S. Gregory ouer the Realme of Fraunce appeareth euidently in one of his Epistles directed Vniue••sis Episcopis Galliarum,* 1.45 to all the Bishops of Fraunce. Where thus he writeth worde for worde. Bicause the place is longe,* 1.46 and the booke is common to be had, I leaue the L••••ine, and geue thee (gentle Reader) the En∣glish thereof faithefully and sincerely translated. Bicause (saieth S. Gregory) eue••y duty is then semely perfourmed,* 1.47 when there is one Ruler, to whom recourse may be had, we haue therefore thought it conu••nient to appoynte our brother Virgilius Bishop of Arles oure Legat according to the olde Custome, in those Churches which are subiect to our most Excell••nt Sonne Childebert the kinge (of Fraunce,* 1.48) to the entent that bothe the right Catholike faithe (that is, such as by the foure generall Counc••ls is d••fined) maye with

hofull deuotion by Gods helpe be preserued, and also that if perhaps any contention arise among our brethern and felowe Priestes he may appease it by vertu of his Authorite, as occupying the roome of the See Apostolike, according to his discrete moderatiō. To whom also we ha∣ue enioyned that if such questions of certaine Matters do arise, for the discussing whereof the presence of many is ned••full, let him with a competent number of our brethern and felow Bisshops gathered toge∣ther, discusse the matter with equite and according to the Canons vprightly determine it. But if any Contention or question arise tou∣ching the faith (which God forbidde) or a Matter springe vp that is of some waighty cōtrouersie, so that for the greatenes of it, the Iudge∣ment of the See Apostolike semeth necessary, the truthe of the Matter being diligētly examined, let him by his owne relation bringe it to our knowleadg, to thentent that from vs it may with an agreable and vndoubted sentence be determined. Also because it is necessary that before oure Legat, as ofte as he shall thinke it behouefull, the Bisshops at conuenient times do appere, for conference to be had, we exhorte you, that none presume to disobey his cōmandements therein, neither slacke to be present at such Common assembles, except perhaps either bodely sickenesse, or some other iust impediment do staie him from thence. In which case who so euer is so absent, let him yet directe in his place some Priest or Deacon, to thentent that such thinges as by our Legat through Gods helpe shall be determined or decreed, may by faithefull relation come vnto him that is absent, by the party so sent, to be of him firmely and surely obserued. And let not the excuse of any occasion presume to violat such thinges as he shall decree. Thus farre S. Gregory to the Bishops of Fraunce, lib. 4. Epist. 52. How saye you nowe M. Iewell? Wonder I pray you no more hereafter, that D. Harding will maintayne the Popes estate by the Authorite of this holy Father.* 1.49 1. Here S. Gregory the Pope hath his Legat in Fraunce. 2. and that according to the olde custo∣me. 3. to preserue the faithe. 4. to appease controuersies arising, either by him selfe, 5. or if they be more wayghty, by a number

of other Bishops, 6. or last of all if they touche the faithe, by referring vp the Matter to the Pope him selfe, 7. Finally all Bishops are commanded to obey his Legat. Such was the su∣preme and Vniuersall Authorite of S. Gregory being Bishop of Rome, ouer all the Bishops of Fraunce and their Churches though yet he woulde not be called, saluted, or intitled their Vniuersall Bishop. Other examples of his practised Supreme Authorite in the Realme of Fraunce,* 1.50 as of graunting Priui∣leges to Monasteries and Hospitals, of preferring Bishops, &c. are in other of his Epistles to be sene, which for breuities sake I omitte. That he had the like Authorite and Iurisdiction in Spayne, it appeareth also in his Epistles,* 1.51 as well by the Palle (a Bishoply preferrement graunted only by the Pope) sent to Le∣ander a Bishop of that Countre,* 1.52 as also by his Commissioner Iohn sent thither with Instructions touching cases and con∣trouersies to be determined amonge the clergy.* 1.53 And namely of the restoring of one Ianuarius vnto his Bishopricke, who had appealed to the Pope being wrongefully deposed by a number of other Bishops and had one Steuen placed in his roome. S. Gregory by Iohn his Commissioner sent to Spay∣ne for that Purpose, restoreth Ianuarius to his Bishoprike, in∣ioyneth a halfe yeres penaunce to those Bishops which had presumed to Consecrat Steuen in his place, and the saied Ste∣uen he commaundeth to be degraded, and so either to remaine a•• presonner to Ianuarius, or els to be sent to Rome.* 1.54 Iohn the Commissioner executeth the Sentence. And the very tenour of the execution is yet to be sene in the Epistles of S. Gregory. Such Authorite practised S. Gregory ouer the membres of Gods Churche, and yet feared not to be any forerunner of Antichrist therein.

To passe from Spayne to Afrike, the Authorite that S. Gregory practised ouer all the Bishops there,* 1.55 is euident also in the Registre of his Epistles. Where as in Numidia certaine

which had bene Donatistes being promoted to Bishoprickes woulde also be Metropolitanes, he rebuketh and expressely forbiddeth that disorder: writing to all the Bishops of Numi∣dia in this sorte. Peti••stis per Hilarium Cartularium nostrum, a Beatae memoriae decessore nostro, vt omnes vobis retro temporum con∣suetudines seruarentur, quas a beatae Petri Apostolorum principis ordinationum initijs hactenus vetustas longa seruauit.* 1.56 Et nos qui∣dem iuxta seriem relationis vestrae, consuetudinem, quae tamen contra fidem Catholicam nihil vsurpare dignoscitur, inuiolatam permane∣re concedimus, siue de primatibus constituendis, caeterissque capitulis, exceptis his qui ex Donatistis ad Epis opatum proueniunt, quos pro∣uehi ad primatus dignitatē, etiam cum Ordo eos ad locum eundem de∣ferat, modis omnibus prohibemus. You had required by Hilarius our Notary, of our Predecessour of blessed memory, that all your auncient Customes might be reserued, which from the beginning of the Constitutions of blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, longe Antiquite had continewed. And we verely ac∣cording to the tenour of your relation made vnto vs, do gra∣unte that the Custome remaine inuiolated, except it be such as maye seme to vsurpe any thinge against the Catholike fai∣the, whether it be of making of Primates and Metropolitanes, or other matters, except such as from Donatistes come to be Bishops. For such we vtterly forbidde to be made Metropolita∣nes, yea though by order they were called to that degree. Let it suffise t••em to beare the charge of their owne flocke, and not to be preferred in obtayning the Metropolitanship, before those Bishops, which the Catholike faithe hath brought vp and instructed allwaies in the Churche. Thus farre Saint Gregory. In whose wor∣des it is easy to be sene, bothe what Authorite he practi∣sed him selfe ouer Numidia, and also what Orders his Pre∣decessours, the See Apostolike from the beginning, had ap∣poynted in that Countre. By vertu of the like Authorite whe∣reas Paulinus the Bishop of Rhegium in the coastes of Afrike,

had committed symony in geuing of orders, and certain o∣ther outrages, as his clergy complained of him to the Pope, S. Gregory appointed Commissio••ers ouer that bishop, Victor and Columbus bishops of Numidia, with Hil••rius his notary, for Iustice to be done in that behalfe.* 1.57 Againe whereas the pri∣mat of that Countre admitted boyes and Children to holye Orders,* 1.58 he made this Columbus a bishop of Numidia his legat and Cōmissioner to see that disorder punished and corrected. The like also he did for the extirping of the Donatistes heresy, springing vp againe then in Afrike, willing this Columbus,* 1.59 to sende vnto him to Rome, Paulus the bishopp of Rhegium, who semed to be a promoter of that matter, to be examined and corrected according to the Canons. Also to depose one Maximianus a bishop for committing symony. And whereas Bonifacius a noble man of Afrike tooke parte with heretikes, S. Gregory willeth him to come to Rome, there to be instru∣cted, or at the lest in any wise to beware that he dye not out of the faithe of that See. His wordes be these.* 1.60 Hortor vt dum vitae spatium superest, ab eiusdem beati petri Ecclesia, cui cla∣ues R••gni caelestis commissae sunt, & ligandi ac solu••ndi potestas attributa, vestra anima non inueniatur diuisa, ne si hic benefi∣cium eius despicitur, illic vitae aditum claudat. I warne you, that while your bodely life endureth, your soule be not founde se∣parated from the Churche of S. Peter, to whom the kayes of the kingdome of heauen are committed, and the power of bi••¦ding and loosing is geuen, lest that while here in this life, you despise his benefyt, in the life to come he shutt you out of life. So necessary is it (gentle Readers) by the iudgement of lerned and holy S. Gregory, to be ioyned and vnited to the Churche of Rome. Therfore he commendeth in an other place Domi∣nicus the Metropolitane off Carthage for his diligent duty that he declared to the See Apostolike, writing thus vnto him.* 1.61 You knowing very well from whence the beginning of priestly Or∣der

hath spronge in Afrike, doe cōmendably, in that by tendering the See Apostolike, you haue recourse to the springe of your Office, by discrete remēbrance therof, and with laudable cōstancy doe pers••uere in the loue of it. For certainly, it is the encrease of your honour what soeu••r Reuerence and priestly deuotion you shewe to that See. For so you prouoke her to tēder you againe. Thus the Church of Afrike in like maner as Fraunce and Spayne was a childe of the mo∣ther Churche of Rome, was subiect to that holy See and dire∣cted by the Authorite thereof, vnder S. Gregory the Pope at that time. Neither feared S. Gregory notwitstāding such Sub∣iection and obedience on their parte, or such Authorite and gouernemēt on his parte, to be a forrunner of Antichrist ouer them, as M. Iewell woulde make S. Gregory him selfe to saie and Iudge.

Before we passe to the other side of Italye, and the East parte of the worlde, let vs consider what Authorite S. Grego∣ry practised in the Ilandes lying aboute these Continent lan∣des of Fraunce, Spayne, and Afrike. And first of our owne countre of Englande which vnder this blessed Pope and by his holy meanes was conuerted frō paganisme and infidelyte to the faithe and Christianite.

The Supreme Authorite that S. Gregory practised ouer all that parte of Brittanny which is nowe called Englande,* 1.62 ap∣peareth by that he writeth to S. Augustin our blessed Apostle the first Archebishop of Caunterbury, in these wordes. Bri∣tanniarum omnes episcopos tuae fraternitati committimus, vt indocti doceantur, infirmi persuasione roborentur, peruersi authoritate cor∣rigantur. All the Bishops of Britanny we commit to thy Bro∣therhood, to thentent the vnlerned may be instructed,* 1.63 the weake may by thy persuasion be strengthened, and the fro∣warde by Authorite be corrected. In these wordes the Ar∣chebishopp of Caunterbury is constituted and appointed by Pope Gregorye his Legat in the Churche of Englan∣de,

and to occupy in all the prouinces of the same the pla∣ce of the See Apostolike. And what childishnes were it for S. Gregory to appointe one that him liked, by whose Authorite other Bishops might be corrected, if he him selfe had no Au∣thorite in the Countre, but were a mere forrain Bishop, as his successours nowe (after the quiet possession of so many hun∣dred yeres), are called and estemed of such, as haue forsaken not only that obedience, but also that Faithe and religion, in the which we Englishmen were first made Christen men, and in the which we haue cōtinewed almost these thousand yeres?

In Corsica and Sardinia two other Ilandes lying in this west parte of the worlde, betwene Italy and Afrike,* 1.64 what Su∣preme Authorite S. Gregory practised, his epistles do witnesse. By vertu of this Authorite whereas the bishopricke of Sagon in the Ilande of Corsica had bene a longe time vacant, he chargeth Leo a bishop of that Countre to take charge of the same writing thus vnto him.* 1.65 Quoniam ecclesiam Sagonensem an∣te annos plurimos obeunte eius pontifice omnino destitutam agnoui∣mus, fraternitati tuae visitationis eius operam duximus iniungendā. Bicause we vnderstande the Church of Sagon by the decea∣se of the bishop, hath these many yeres bene vtterly desti••u∣ted, we thought good to enioyne to you the visitation therof. And in the next epistle folowing he transferreth Martinus bishop of an other dyocese in that Ilande to this bishoprike of Sagon in these wordes.* 1.66 In ecclesia Sagonensi quae iam diu ponti∣ficis auxilio destituta est, cardinalem te secundum petitionis tuae mo∣dum hac authoritate constituimus sine dubio sacerdotam. In the Churche of Sagon which hath this longe time lacked her bishop, we do appointe you by this Authorite according to your request the Chiefe priest, that is, bishop thereof. By the like Authorite in the same Ilande, whereas a certain bishop through infirmite was not able to doe his Office, he writeth to the fore saied bishop Leo, willing a newe election to be ma∣de,* 1.67

and then (saieth S. Gregory) ad nos veniat ordinandus. Let him come to vs here to be consecrated. The like he writeth to the same bishop of Corsica Leo, touching an other bishop v∣pon the like occasion in the Incumbents infirmity, to be new∣ly elected,* 1.68 of whom thus he writeth. Dum fuerit postulatus cū solemnitate decreti omnium subscriptionibus rōborati, vestrarum quoque testimonio literarum, huc sacrandus occurrat. When such a one shal be nominated by the solemne decree confirmed with the subscriptions of eche one, let him come hither to be consecrated, with the testimony also of your letters. Such Au∣thorite practised S Gregory ouer the bishops of this Ilande of Corsica.

In Sardinia to Felix a bishop thereof disobeying the Popes legat in those partes the Archebishop of Iustinianea,* 1.69 S. Grego∣ry writeth these wordes. It is come to our hearing that your bro∣therhood refuseth to obey according to the custome, Iohn oure bro∣ther,* 1.70 bishop of Iustinianea the first, and that you will not subscribe n••yther to his decree, neither to the relation which he made vnto vs according to the Custome. If this be so, we are very sory to see such manifest token of pride in you. We exhorte you therefore that lay∣ing asyde this proude stoma••he,* 1.71 you cease not to obey and shewe your selfe lowly to our foresaied brother and felowe bishop, of whom you haue bene made bishop: so that both God may reioyse in the agreement of your brotherhood, and other also maye take good example of you. For if (which we mistrust not) you continewe in this pride, knowe you that we wi••l surely punish your stubbornes, according to the straight and Canonicall order of dis••ipline. It appeareth I trowe by these wordes, that S. Gregory in this Countre also of Sar∣dinia exercised a Supreme Authorite, howesoeuer he mislyked the name and Title of vniuersall bishop. By the like Authori∣te whereas Ianuarius a bishop of this Countre had iniured Ne∣re••a a Noble woman, and she had complained thereof to the See Apostolike, S. Gregory writing to the bishop of those

complaintes and accusations made against him, hath these wordes vnto him. Hortamur vt aut pacifica (si fieri potest) ordi∣natione definias, aut certé ad deputatum a nobis iudicium personam instructam dirigere non omittas. We exhorte you either to ende the matter peasably betwene your selues, or els not to faile to direct some instucted party (in your behalfe) to the iudgement appoynted by vs.* 1.72 And for this purpose I haue directed Redemp∣tu••, our Commissioner the bearer hereof, that he maye bothe call the parties to iudgement and by the vertue of his trauaille, put in execu∣tion the Sentence. Thus farre S. Gregory, and thus without feare of any Antichristian presumption he vsed a Supreme Authorite ouer the bishopps off Sardinia, as he did ouer o∣ther af all the west parte of the worlde, as it hath particulary in sondry prouinces appeared.

To passe nowe to the other side of Italy, the next adioy∣ning lande on the East parte, is Dalmatia and all the coastes of Illyricum.* 1.73 In those partes what Supreme Authorite this lerned and holy Pope Saint Gregorye (whom Master Iewell imagineth to stande most against the Popes primacy, and wondereth that D. Harding will maintayne the same by this holy fathers authorite) vsed and practised him selfe, it shall nowe in like maner as before by his owne epistles commonly extant in his workes appeare. To all the Bishops of Dalmatia S. Gregory writeth concerning the disobedience of one Nata∣lis a Bishop there, in promoting one Honoratus an Archedea∣con to the Order of priesthood contrary to his minde and pleasure. For the which disobedience in his letters to the saied Bishops S. Gregory pronounceth this sentence against Natalis the disobedient bishopp, in these wordes.* 1.74 We therefore haue thought good by the bearer of these presents to warne ones againe the saide Natalis bishop, being with so many letters warned allready and yet persisting obstinat, that he restore againe Honoratus the Archedeacon to his former roome at the presence of the bringer here∣of.

Whom if he restore not, continuing in his contumacie, first we depriue him of the vse of the Palle (which by the graunte of this See he obtayned) for his former contumacie paste: But if after the losse of this dignite, he continewe yet in the same cō••umacie, we com∣maunde him to be remoued from the Communion of oure Lord••s Body and bloude. The whiche his sentence in effecte he writeth to Natalis him selfe threatning him farder a depriuation from his Bishoprike,* 1.75 if he obeyed not. By this one example it maie appeare what authorite S. Gregory being pope of Rome had and vsed ouer the Bishops of Dalmatia.

To all the Bishops of the coaste of Illyricū he writeth son∣dry letters in whiche his Authorite ouer them is most clere and euident. Whereas aboute those partes certaine bishops by for∣rain inuasions of the Enemye had benespoyled of their Chur∣ches and all other liuelyhoods,* 1.76 he writeth to the Bishops of Il∣lyricum, being commaunded by the Emperour, to receiue and harbour those desolat bishops, prouiding them victuals and all thinges necessarye, that yet they shoulde haue no Authoryte in their dyoceses, and saieth. Nullam eis nos in vestris ecclesijs Au∣thoritatem tribuimus,* 1.77 sed tamen eos vestris solatijs cōtineri summope∣re hortamur. We geue them no Authorite in your Churches. But yet we greatly exhorte you to relieue them. This had bene a very fonde fauour of S. Gregory, if he had had no power ouer them. But what the Authorite of S. Gregory was ouer the bis∣shops of Illyricum it may wel appeare by the cause of Maximus bishop of Salona,* 1.78 whom for his disobediēce S. Gregory suspen∣ded, and excommunicated. Aboute whose excommunication when certaine of his Citye had communicated with him, S. Gregory blaming them therefore, saieth. Debuistis filij charissimi pensare ordines:* 1.79 quem sedes Apostolica repellebat, repulsum iri cognos∣cere. You ought derely beloued children consider the orders (of the Churche.) You ought to knowe that whom the See Apo∣stolike repelleth, he shal be repelled. But for most euident prou∣fes

of his practised Authorite ouer the whole prouinces of Illy∣ricum, Slauony, Dalmatia, Pannonia, Mysia and all the rest, it is to be considered howe farre the Archebishop of Iustinia∣nea prima, the Metropolitane and primat of all those countres according to the appoyntment of Pope Vigilius in the dayes of Iustinian the Emperour, was subiect to S. Gregory. First whereas all the bishops of Illyricum had elected Iohn to be their Archebishop and Metropolitane of Iustinianea prima,* 1.80 he confirmeth their election, writing vnto them in these wor∣des. Iuxta postulationis vestrae desiderium, praedictum fratrem & coepiscopum nostrum in eo in quo est sacerdotij ordine constitutus,* 1.81 nostri assensus authoritate firmamus, ratam{que} nos eius consecratio∣nem habere, dirigentes pallium, indicamus. According to your re∣quest we do Confirme by the Authorite of our Consent oure foresaied brother and felowe bisshopp (Iohn) in the order of priesthood in whiche he is placed, and sending vnto him the palle, we declare that we do ratefie and ••llowe his Consecra∣tion. To the same Iohn also he writeth, sending him the Palle, and making him his legat in those countres as his predecessours had bene before made of other Popes.* 1.82 Pallium ex more transmi∣simus, & vices vos Apostolicae sedis agere, iterata innouatione de∣cernimus. We haue sent you the palle after the Custome. And we decree againe of newe that you shall occupie the roome of the See Apostolike. And whereas the same Iohn had vniustly deposed Adrianus a bishop of those quarters, Pope Gregory re∣stored him, as he witnesseth in his epistles, where thus he wri∣teth. Quia ab antefato Ioanne primae Iustinianeae Episcopo contra ius canonesqúe depositus honoris sui gradu carere non potuit,* 1.83 in sua eum reformari ecclesia, at{que} in propriae dignitatis ordine decreuimus reuocari. Bicause this Adrian being against right and order de∣posed of Iohn the Bishop of Iustinianaea, coulde not so lese his degree, we haue decreed that he be restored to his Church and to the degree of his former dignitie. In the same letter he willeth

that if any other matter can be layed against Adrian the Bishop accused, it be either tried by his Officers or sent ouer to him, saying. Vel per eos qui nostri sunt vel fuerint in vrbe regia responsa∣les, si mediocris est questio cognoscatur, vel huc ad Apostolicam sedem si ardua est,* 1.84 deducatur, quatenus nostrae audienciae sententia decida∣tur. Either let it be tried by our Officers that are or that shal here after be in the Cyte, if it be a meane question, or els if it be of some difficulty, let it be brought hither to the see Apostolike, by our Audience and Sentence to be decided. Thus all maner of waies, in Confirming of bishops newly elected, in restoring of bishops vniustly depriued, and in finall decision of matters of controuersie, the Authorite and Supreme Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome (whiche nowe is so muche abhorred of the disobedient children of Gods Churche), is by S. Gregory in all Countres practised. And yet will M. Iewell and his fe∣lowes by this holy Father goe aboute to ouerthrowe the Po∣pes Primacy.

* 1.85Hetherto of the West Churche, and of the Prouinces and Countres thereof, Fraunce, Spayne, Afrike, Illyricum, the Ilan∣des of Britanny, Corsica, and Sardinia, we haue out of the Epi∣stles of S. Gregory treated, and declared the Supreme Authori∣te by him practised ouer them in Matters Ecclesiasticall. Now of the East Churche and of some partes thereof for examples sake,* 1.86 I purpose to doe the like, as farre as by the Registre of his Epistles I shal for this present be informed. S. Gregory writing to all the Bishops of Corinthe, touching Adrian a Bishop ac∣cused of certain Crimes, and sodenly dismissed by an agree∣ment made with the party playntif, shewing him selfe nothin∣ge pleased with that soddain Agreement commandeth the Matter to be farder examined, and sayeth in his letters vnto them these wordes.* 1.87 Quoniam ea quae dicta sunt, indiscussa rema∣nere non patimur, Sedis nostrae Diaconum ad ea inuestiganda diri∣gimus, &c. Bicause we may not abide those thinges that are

saied, to remaine vndiscussed, we direct for the Examination thereof a Deacon of our See: And why? It foloweth. Bicause the qualite of the Crime signified vnto vs dothe vehemently moue vs not to dissemble that which we haue heard. And what neded S. Gregory to sende to Corinthe in Grece a Deacon from his See, to examin Matters a fresh, which had bene there agreed? Forsothe he sayeth. Cum accusatores & Accusatum inter se fecisse gratiam indicastis, hoc nobis necesse est subtilius perscrutari, ne for∣tasse eorum sit comparata concordia. Bicause you haue signified vnto vs that the Accused Bishop and the Accusers haue agreed betwene them selues, we must nedes serche this Matter more narrowly, lest perhaps this their Agreement be a wrought Matter. Why what if it be? What woulde you S. Gregory haue to doe there in those partes, being but a Bishop of Rome? We shall heare by his owne wordes immediatly folowyng. Quae si (quod absi••) non ex charitate, sed ex praemio facta constiterit, maiori hoc emendatione plectendum est. If this Agreement shall be founde to haue proceded not of Charyte (which God forbidde) but of bribery, this is with more rigour to be punished. Yea. But who shall punish these Greke Bishops, or what pertayneth that to you? This lerned Father nothing doubted of this Authorite, And therefore he saieth farther. Nos qui Canonice reuelante Deo, mala si quidem verasunt resecare praecedentia festinamus, com∣missam postmodum culpam sine vindicta nulla ratione dimittimus. We which labour to cutt of the former mischiefs according to the Canons, God willing, if they be true, can in no wise suffer a trespasse after and a fresh committed to escape with out pu∣nishment. Thus farre S. Gregory writing Vniuersis Episcopis Co∣rinthijs, to all the Bishops of Corinth. It appeareth hereby that the Pope at that time had a Supreme Authorite ouer those Bishops, more then M. Iewell woulde gladly he nowe had ouer him and his felowes, which beare them selues to for Bishops forsothe. With the like Authorite writing to Iohn the Bishop

of Corinthe of a Redresse to be had aboute the Simony that he and other vsed, he vttereth these wordes. Si quid tale aliquid deinceps fieri senserimus, iam non verbis, sed Canonica hoc vltione cor∣rigemus. Et de vobis (quod non oportet) aliud incipiemus habere Iu∣dicium.* 1.88 If we shall perceiue any such thinge hereafter to be do∣ne, we shall correct it no more with wordes, but with such pu∣nishment as by the Canons is prescribed, and we shall beginne to conceiue of you an other Iudgement, which behoueth not. Such Authorite practised that holy and lerned bishop S. Gre∣gory ouer the bishops of Grece, and yet feared not to be accō∣pted therefore an Antichrist ouer them. And therefore in his next epistle writing Vniuersis episcopis per Helledam prouinciam constitutis,* 1.89 to all the bishops placed in the prouince of Grece, properly so called, aboute the same matters as he wrote before particularly to Iohn the Bishopp of Corinthe, he saieth vnto them these wordes. Si aliter factum denuo senserimus, districta ac Canonica illud noueritis vltione compesci. If we shall perceiue a∣gaine that you doe otherwise (then I haue willed you to doe) knowe ye, that it shall be punished straightly and according to the Canons.

In like maner and about the very same matter of Simony and bribery committed aboute Spirituall preferments,* 1.90 writing to the bishops of Epirus an other parte or Grece, S. Gregory after his exhortatyon, concludeth in this sorte. Si (quod nō cre∣dimus) fieri tale aliquid senserimus,* 1.91 Canonica illud (vt dignum est) seueritate corrigemus. If we shall perceiue that you committe any such matter (as we trust you will not) we shall (as it is me∣te) see it punished by the rigour of the Canons. Thus in Grece it selfe as well generally as particularly S. Gregory bishopp of Rome not only intermedled by waie of exhortation but also Gouuerned, Corrected, and Punished by waie of Authorite.

What Authorite and Iurisdiction S. Gregory practised in Corcyra an Ilande adioyning to Grece and pertaining pro∣perly

to the Metropolitane of Nicopolis in Thessalia the de∣termination of a longe Controuersie betwene the bishop of Corcyra and the bishop of Isauria touching the Iurisdiction of Cassiope a towne of that parte or Grece, may serue for a suf∣ficient Example. For notwithstanding the determination of the Metropolitane,* 1.92 yet the Authorite of the bishop of Ro∣me was required to Confirme the same. Therefore S. Grego∣ry writing to Alcysonus the bishop of Corcyra, to whom the Metropolitane of Nicopolis had adiudged the Iurisdiction of Cassiope, confirmeth the Sentence of the Metropolitane in these wordes.* 1.93 Quoniam Andreas venerabilis memoriae frater noster Nicopolitanus Metropolita, innitente quoque sibi Princi∣pali iussione, in quaei causae huius fuerat iniuncta cognitio, prolata (sicut nobis patuit) noscitur statuisse sententia, antefatum Cassiope Castrum sub Iurisdictione ecclesiae tuae (quemadmodum semper fuit) debere persistere, Formam eiusdem Sententiae comprobantes, Apostolicae Sedis Authoritate eam fauente Iustitia Comproba∣mus, Confirmamus, at{que} per omnia robustam manere Decernimus. Whereas Andrewe our brother of Reuerent memory the Mè∣tropolitane of Nicopolis, by vertu of the Princes letters, where∣by he was sett in Commission ouer this matter, hat••e deter∣mined by Solemne Sentence (according as we be informed) that the foresayde towne of Cassiope ought to remayne in the Iurisdiction of your Churche, (as it hath allwayes bene) we Allowyng the Forme of that Sentence, doe in regarde of Iustice by the Authorite of the See Apostolike Approue it, Confirme it, and doe determine that it remayne in his full force and vigour thourough out. And bicause Mauritius the Emperour had intermedled in this matter, more then the Ca∣nons woulde well beare, and bothe at the beginning vpon Misse information had pronounced against the bishopp of Corcyra,* 1.94 Nec iussio eius (quia contra leges & Canones Data fue∣rat) habuisset effectum, though yet his Sentence tooke no place,

bicause it was geuen against the lawes and the Canons, and also afterwarde had put the bishop of Isauria in possession of the towne, notwithstanding the Contrary Sentence of the Metropolitane of Nicopolis (whome yet the Emperour him selfe had put in Commission bothe to examine and to ende the matter) bicause I saie th•• Emperour Mauritius had thus farre intermedled against right and Order of the Church, this lerned and holy Father S. Gregory vsing a discrete and wise moderation, to thentent he might neither exasperat his Prin∣ce, neither yet let fall the Right of the Cause, woulde neither precipitat his Sentence against the Emperours commaunde∣ment in the behalfe of the bishop of Corcyra, lest (as he sayeth of him selfe) contra iussion••m clementissimi domini Imperatoris, vel (quod absit) in despectum eius al quid facere videamur,* 1.95 He might seme to doe any thinge either contrary to the cōmaun∣dement of his most gracious Lorde the Emperour, or (whiche God forefende) in contempt of him, neither yet woulde forsa∣ke either the Right of the party, or his owne Authorite. The∣refore writing to Bonifacius a deacon of Constantinople, thus he willeth him to doe. Dil••ctio tua pietati eius cuncta di∣ligenter insinuet,* 1.96 atque constanter astruat hoc omnino illicitum, om∣nino prauum, omnino iniustum & sacris esse valde Canonibus ini∣micum. Et ideo hoc peccatum temporibus suis introduci in eccl••siae praeiudicium non permittat. Sed quid de hoc iudicio iudicatum an tefati quondam Metropolitae iudicium contineat, vel a nohis quali∣ter ea quae ab illo decreta sunt, Confirmata fuerint, suggerat, at{que} id agere studeat, vt cum eius iussione nostra illic s••ntentia transmit ta∣tur. Quatenus & serenitati ipsius (si••ut dignum est) reseruasse, & ra∣tionabiliter correxisse quae malae presumpta sunt videamur. Qua in re omninodanda opera est, vt si fieri potest, etiam iussionem suam ip∣se tribuat, in qua ea quae a nobis definita sunt, s••ruari praecipiat. Doe you diligently signifie to his highnes all thinges, and de∣clare vnto him boldly that this his doing is vtterly vnlaweful,

vtterly naught, vtterly vniust, and directly repugnant to the holy Canons. And that he suffer not therefore this offence to take place in his dayes, to the preiudice of the Churche. But put him in minde as well of the Iudgement passed by the fo∣resaied Metropolitane of Nicopolis, as also of our Cōfirming of his sayde Sentence, and doe what you can that our Senten∣ce with his commaundement maye take place. To thentent that it maye appeare, that bothe we haue reserued the matter to his highnesse (••s mete is) and also that we haue with good reason and right corrected that which hathe bene done amis∣se. Wherein you must also labour to gett out (if it be possible) a commaundement from him, by the which he commaunde to be kept, that which we haue determined. By this dealing of that lerned Bishop of Rome, we see euidently what Authorite he had in the east Churche, in Grece it selfe, bothe to Correct, and to Confirme, and also to Moderat the vnaduised and wrongefull attempts of Mauritius, an Emperour more wil∣full and busy against the Churche then many of his Predeces∣sours were.* 1.97 For the which also (as it may seme) God punished him sharply at the ende, when his wife and all his children being murdered before his face, of one of his owne subiects, he was last murdered him selfe also.

With the like Authorite he absolued Athanasius a Priest of a certain Monastery in Lycaonia (a parte of the lesser Asia) appealing to the See of Rome.* 1.98 This Athanasius was accused of heresy, and bicause a certaine hereticall booke was founde aboute him, Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople his Patriar∣che was moued against him. Athanasius speeding him selfe to Rome and cleering him selfe there before the Pope, the booke also being sent from Iohn of Constantinople to S. Gregory, and information made, howe he had dealed therein against the saied Athanasius, all thinges debated and pondered,* 1.99 the Pope absolued him in these wordes. Ab omni te Hereticae peruersitat••s

macula iuxta professionem tuam liberum esse decernimus, atque ca∣tholicum & sincerae fidei in omnibus professorem, atque sequacem (Christi Iesu Saluatoris gratia) claruisse pronunciamus. Liberam quoque tribuimus licentiam ad tuum Monasterium in tuo te loco vel ordine nihilominus remeare. We decree you (according to your professyon) to be free from all spotte of wicked heresy, and we pronounce you to be Catholike, and to professe in all pointes the right faithe, and to shewe your selfe to haue folo∣wed the same by the grace of Christ Iesus our Sauiour. Also we geue you free liberty (notwithstanding this Accusation) to returne to your Monastery in your former place or Order. Thus S. Gregory the Pope Corrected in Corinthe and Epirus, Confirmed in Corcyra, and Absolued in Lycaonia (all East partes of the Churche) as occasion serued, with iust right and Authorite, not fearing to be accompted an Antichrist therefo∣re, or to doe any iniury to the proper Iurisdiction of other Me∣tropolitanes and Patriarches there.* 1.100 In Thessalonica an other great Cytie of Grece what the Authorite of the Bishop of Ro∣me was, and howe S. Gregory practised the same, it appeareth in sondry of his Epistles. In a place charging Eusebuis the Bishop thereof with diuers other Bishops of that Countre, howe they shoulde demeane them selues in a Synod which was called at Constantinople aboute the proude Attempte of Cyriacus the Patriarche there, and declaring vnto them parti∣cularly what they shoulde doe, and howe they shoulde deale therein,* 1.101 he concludeth with them in these wordes. Vnde iterum coram Deo & sanctis ipsius admonemus, vt haec omnia summo studio, & tota mentis intentione seruetis. Nam si quis (quod non credimus) scripta praesentia aliqua ín parte neglexerit, a beati Petri Apostolo∣rum Principis pace se nouerit segregatum. Wherefore yet ones againe we doe warne you before God and his Saintes, that with all endeuour and whole Intention of minde you kepe and obserue all these thinges. For if any man (which we trust

not) do neglect these present writinges in any parte, let him knowe, he is separated and cutt of from the Peace of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles. As much to saie, he is excommunica∣ted. It had bene a greate folie, or rather an extreme impudencie for S. Gregory thus to haue threatned those Bishops of Grece, and so farre to charge them to obeye and obserue his Writinges, if his Authorite ouer them had bene no other, then M. Iewell woulde haue the worlde beleue, it was then, or ought nowe to be. In an other place charging the same Eusebius Bishop of Thessalonica to see corrected certain offenders of his clergy, he writeth thus vnto him. Hoec igitur frater charissime diligenter attende, & ita stude,* 1.102 vt filios vestros vnitos ac deuotos (sicut decet) ha∣bere possitis, & hac de causa denuo ad nos querela non redeat. The∣se thinges therefore derely beloued Brother marke diligently, and take such hede, that you may kepe your children in peace and loue (as it becometh) and that of this Matter there come no more Complainte vnto vs. It had bene a great vanite for them which feeled them selues greued in Grece, hauing there their Metropolitanes and Patriarche, to runne and Complaine to Rome and to seke succour there against their owne Bishops of the Pope, if the Pope had no Authorite ouer their Bishops, or no power to see such Matters redressed.

Here Perhaps it may be surmised of some that liketh no deale this practised Authoryte of the Bishop of Rome,* 1.103 exem∣plified in S. Gregory him selfe (who of all other Fathers se∣meth most to helpe M. Iewelles cause against the Popes Su∣premacy) in so many particular Countres and Prouinces, not only of the west Churche, but also of the East, and of Grece it selfe, that all this was but of other particular Bishops and Me∣tropolitanes, and that the Bishop of Rome as a Patriarche had Authoryte to Correct, to Absolue, to Confirme, to Excom∣municat and so forthe, but yet ouer the other Patriarches them selues, S. Gregory perhaps practised no such Authorite or Su∣preme

Gouuernement in Matters Ecclesiasticall. And there∣fore his Authorite was not Vniuersall, but they were equall to him, and he to them, and so he was not the Head of all. To this I answer, that all were it so, he practised no such Authorite ouer any Patriarche, yet his Authorite extending to other Bishops subiect to those Patriarches,* 1.104 and at this daye, no other Patriar∣che of those foure Auncient Patriarches remayning but only the Bishop of Rome and such as he appoynteth, bothe it shoul∣de yet stande that S. Gregory practised an Authorite Vniuer∣sall ouer all those Countres, and also the obiection for this pre∣sent time shoulde nothing helpe M. Iewell and his felowes, all the Supreme Power resting in the only Patriarche of Rome at this daye.

But that it maye Euidently and Clerely appeare that Saint Gregory practised an Vniuersall and Supreme Authoryte ouer all,* 1.105 None excepted, two thinges yet farder I will touche, and then returne to M. Iewell and his Replie. [ 1] First I will declare out of S. Gregories owne writinges as before, that the Patriar∣che of Constantinople, one aboue all other euermore disobe∣dient to the See of Rome, was subiect to the Bishop of Rome, and then by generall testimonies, that ouer all Churches, the See of Rome hath the Primacy, Preeminence, and principall Authorite.

[ 2] It is not vnknowen to the lerned with what pride and Am∣bition Iohn the Patriarche of Constantinople bicause of the Imperiall Courte remayning there,* 1.106 coueted to be called the Vniuersall Bishop, and that in such a sence as being the Only Bishop ouer all and for all, as we haue before out of S. Grego∣ry declared: who is to be thought neither to haue bene igno∣rant what meaning that Iohn had in that Name or Title, nei∣ther to haue bene so vnwise or vncharitable as to charge him with a wronge meaning, not intended by the Patriarche. For thereby bothe a great folie woulde haue appeared in him befo∣re

all other churches, which had that Matter in debate, and also he had but encreased the Emperour Mauritius his displeasure and indignation who bothe assisted and vpholded Iohn of Constantinople herein, and was otherwise all waies to S. Gre∣gory a heauy Lorde. In this Matter therefore, in this proude vnlawefull attempt of the Patriarche of Constantinople, what did the Bishop of Rome, or howe demeaned he him selfe therein? We shall see. First Pelagius the Pope predecessour to S. Gregory vnder whom this Iohn of Constantinople attemp∣ted this Title, and assembled a Synod for the establyshing the∣reof, Directis literis ex Authoritate Sancti Petri Apostoli,* 1.107 eiusdem Synodi Acta cassauit, Directing his letters thither made vtterly voide the Actes of that Synode by the Authoryte of S. Peter the Apostle,* 1.108 and forbadde his Deacon which remained as Le∣gat or depute of the See Apostolike at Constantinople not to kepe him company. This did Pelagius vnder whom that Ambitious Title of Iohn the Patriarche of Constantinople was first attempted. But what did Saint Gregorye his nexte Successour, a man of suche humilite and lowlynesse, that he woulde not suffer (as Master Iewell alleageth) the worde of Commaundement to be vsed to him? Did he thinke yowe (Master Iewell) not practise the like Authorite, as his prede∣cessours did? Or bicause he was a holye and lerned Father, abhorred he (thinke yowe?) suche kinde of Superiorite and primacy ouer other? As the bishops of Rome, his predeces∣sours vsed? Nay he saieth expressely, speaking of the proude disobedience of Maximus a bishop of Salona in Illyricum, who had in the open Cyte rent in pieces, the Popes letters, Ante paratus sum mori,* 1.109 quàm beati Petri Ecclesiā meis diebus dege¦nerare. I will rather suffer deathe it selfe, then that the Churche of blessed Peter shoulde degenerat in my dayes, meaning and writing expressely of the Authorite and obedience dewe to the same. Therefore in this Cause of Iohn of Constantino∣ple,

wherin the Emperour Mauritius also (a heauy Lorde all∣waies of S. Gregory) toke parte, and commaunded the Pope, Vt pro appellatione friuoli nominis inter eos scandalum generari nō debeat, that vpon the Title of a trifling Name there should ari∣se no Offence betwene them,* 1.110 Iohn the Patriarche and the Po∣pe, as first he dealed with the Patriarche by all gentle meanes, so at the length he folowed the Sentence of his predecessour Pelagius. First he wrote to Iohn him selfe the Patriarche, a longe, lerned, and louing letter, labouring with him by al mea∣nes possible, that he shoulde leaue that vaine and odious title, which so fondly and wickedly he attempted: Contra euangeli∣cam sententiam,* 1.111 contra beatum quoque Petrum Apostolum & con∣tra omnes Ecclesias, contraque Canonum statuta. Against the Sen∣tence of the ghospell (breaking humilite) against the blessed Apostle S. Peter (affecting vnlawefull Superiorite) and against all Churches (coueting to be a bishop Alone) and last of all against the decrees of the Canons. And of this his dealing thus he saieth. Ego per Responsales meos semel, & bis verbis humili∣bus hoc,* 1.112 quod in tota ecclesia peccatur, corripere studui. Nunc per me scribo. Quicquid facere humiliter debui, non omisi. I haue by my deputies ones, and by humble wordes twise, laboured to re∣dresse this matter, wherein the whole Churche is offended. Nowe I write my selfe. Whatsoeuer I ought to haue done by the waie of humilite, I haue not omitted. And bicause the Em∣perour (as I saied before) bolstered vp this Iohn the Patriarche in his Attempt, and woulde not heare the Pope to the contra∣ry, S. Gregory not making any accompte of his owne person, but hauing an eye to the place and roome that he occupied, writeth thus to Constantia the Emperesse. Haec in causa nequa∣quā me pietas vestra despiciat.* 1.113 Quia etsi peccata Gregorij tanta sunt, vt pati talia debeat, Petri Apostoli peccata nulla sunt, vt vestris tem¦poribus pati ista mereatur. Let not your godlynesse despise me in this matter. For allthough the sinnes of Gregory be so grea¦te,

that they ought to suffer these thinges, yet the sinnes of the Apostle Peter are none at all, that in your dayes he shoulde so suffer. Thus that holye and meke Father dealed bothe withe Iohn the Patriarche him selfe, and with the Emperesse, at the first. Whereof also he writeth to the Emperour himselfe Mau∣ritius these wordes.* 1.114 Ego dominorum iussionibus obedientiam prae∣bens, praedicto consacerdoti meo & dulciter scripsi & humiliter. Vt ab hac inanis gloriae appetitione sese emēdet, admonui. Si igitur me au∣dire voluerit, habet deuotū fratrē: Si vero in superbia persistit, iā quid assequatur aspicio. I obeying the Cōmaundements of my Lor∣des haue writen to my foresaied felowe priest both softely and humbly. I haue warned him to amende him selfe of this Am∣bytion and vaine glory. Therefore if he will heare, he shall ha∣ue me a louing brother. But if he continewe in his pride, I see what will become of him. Thus farre S. Gregory proceding with that Patriarke by the waie of gentlenesse and humilitie. But in fine what did he? Forsoth as his predecessour Pelagius had done before him, so he did. That is. Whereas after the dea∣the of this Iohn, Cyriacus his successour in Constantinople, had called a Synod vpon some other pretence, minding in coulour thereof, to establish this vaine Title of Vniuersall bi∣shop, as being the One Only Bishop for all, S. Gregory wri∣ting therof to Eusebius the bishop of Thessalonica and many other bishops together, and signifying vnto them howe Pela∣gius his predecessour had condemned a former Synod called aboute the matter, forbidding his Legat to kepe companye with Iohn the Patriarche at that time, he saieth.* 1.115 Cuius rectitu∣dinis zelo per omnia inhaerentes, statuta ipsius sine refragatione Deo protegente seruamus. Whose vpright zele we cleauing vnto in al poyntes, doe kepe also his determinatyons without deniall by Gods helpe. In which wordes he protesteth to doe as his pre∣decessour had done. And therefore writing to Anianus a Dea∣con of Constantinople that he shoulde in no wise kepe com∣pany

withe Iohn the Patriarche there, according to the Sen∣tence of his Predecessour, he saieth. Sicut tibi iam transactis epi∣stolis scripsi, nunquam cum eo procedere praesumas. As I haue befo∣re in other letters passed betwene vs written vnto you, see that you neuer presume to come abrode in his company.* 1.116 And bi∣cause the Emperour Mauritius at the same time by the procu∣rement of Iohn the Patriarche had written to S. Gregory to be at peace with the Patriarch, wherby this Anianus the Dea∣con for feare of the Emperours highe displeasure doubted what he might doe,* 1.117 S. Gregory writeth thus vnto him. Tua di∣lectio in nullo trepidet. Omnia quae in hoc seculo videt alta esse con∣tra veritatem, pro veritate despiciat: In omnipotentis Dei gratia at∣que B. Petri Apostoli adiutorio confidat. Vocem veritatis recolat Dicentis. Maior est qui in caelis est, quam qui in mundo. Et in hac causa quicquid agendum est,* 1.118 cum summa Authoritate agat. Feare not. All thinges that you see in this worlde to be lofty against the Truthe, for the Truthes sake despise it. Trust in the Grace of Allmighty God and of his blessed Apostle Peter. Remem∣ber what Truthe him selfe saied. He is greater which is in hea∣uen, then which is in the worlde. Last of all whatsoeuer is to be done in this Matter, Doe it with Ful Authorite. It had bene more then a Vanite for S. Gregory thus to charge that Dea∣con of Constantinople not to kepe company with his owne Patriarche, but to deale with him with full Authorite, not∣withstanding the high displeasure of the Emperour likelye thereof to ensewe, if he had not a power and Authorite ouer the Patriarche, and a good grounde to staye him selfe on, a∣gainst ••he Princes Indignation. Verely his grounde was the Supreme Authorite ouer the whole Churche graunted to S. Peter whose successour he was, and by vertu whereof this Ho∣ly and lerned Father knewe right well that the Churche off Constantinople was subiecte to the See of Rome. And so expressely this holy Father writeth in an other place, saying.

De Cōstantinopolitana Ecclesia (quod dicunt) quis eam dubitet Se∣di Apostolicae esse subiectā? Quod & dominus pijssimus Imperator, & frater noster Eusebius eiusdem Ciuitatis Episcopus assiduè pro∣fitentur. As touching that they saie of the Churche of Con∣stantinople, who doubteth but she is subiect to the See Aposto∣like?* 1.119 Which thinge bothe our most Gracious Lorde the Em∣perour, and our brother Eusebius Bishop of the same Citie doe daily professe. So farre this Matter was confessed and vndoub∣ted at that time. And to geue the, good Reader, a clere example hereof in fewe wordes, harken what S. Gregory writeth in the very next Epistle folowing. Thus he writeth to Iohn the Bishop of Syracusa, touching the Bishop of Constantinople, as the superscription and title of the Epistle lelleth vs.* 1.120 In quo∣dam Crimine Byzancenus primas fuerat accusatus, & pijssimus Imperator eum iuxta statuta Canonica per nos voluit iudicari. Sed acceptis decem auri libris tunc Theodorus Magister obstitit vt mini∣me fieret. Tamen pijssimus Imperator admonuit vt transmittere∣mus, & quicquid esset Canonicum faceremus. The Primat of By∣zance (otherwise called Constantinople) ••ad bene accused of a certaine Crime. And the most vertuous Emperour willed him to be Iudged by vs according to the decrees of the Ca∣nons. But Theodorus the Master being brybed with ten po∣w••des of golde found the meanes to staye the matter hetherto. Yet notwithstanding the most Vertuous Emperour warned me to sende ouer, and to doe whatsoeuer was agreable to the Canons. This is that which S. Gregory sayed, bothe the Empe∣rour and the Bishop of that Citie acknowleadged the Church of Constantinople to be subiect to the Bishop of Rome.

By reason of this Authoryte and Iurisdictiō the Bishop of Ro∣me had customably a Legat remayning at Constantinople, to execut such Iustice, as thereunto appertayned. So S. Gregory him selfe in the dayes of his Predecessours was Legat at Con∣stantinople, at which time he wrote his exposition vpon Iob,

as bothe he him selfe writing to Leander a holy Bishop of Spayne, and Venerable Bede in the History of our Countre recordeth. So also when Phocas came to the Empire violently and by outragious treason, and therefore not finding there a Legat from the See Apostolike, semed to be offended there∣with,* 1.121 S. Gregory writeth vnto him thereof in this wise. Quod permanere in palatio iuxta antiquam consu••tudinem Apostolicae Sedis Diaconum vestra serenitas non inuenit, non hoc meae negligen∣tiae, s••d grauissimae nec••ssitatis fuit. Whereas your highnes founde not in your Courte a Deacon of the See Apostolike according to the Auncient Custome there to remayne,* 1.122 it proceded not of any my negligence,* 1.123 but of a most vrgent Necessite. Such was the Custome, and such was the Authorite of the Bishop of Rome in the time of S. Gregory and by him selfe Confes∣sed, P••actysed, and of his Auncetours Receiued. Authorite I saie not only ouer all chiefe Prouinces of the West and Latin Churche, but of the East and Greke Churche also: yea and ouer Constantinople it selfe, such an other Checke mate to Rome in Spir••tuall Iurisdiction, as Carthage of Afrike was in Temporall Empire.

Thus farre hitherto of particular Prouinces (a fewe for ex∣ample) of the West and East Churche,* 1.124 and of the Supreme Iu∣risdiction in Matters Ecclesiasticall, practised by the holy Fa∣ther S. Gregory Bishop of Rome, ouer them. To come nowe to the last point, for a Clere and vndoubted witnesse of a Su∣preme Authorite ouer the whole Churche, let vs consider a fewe sayinges of this holy Father, as M. Iewell him selfe calleth him, and that often. First for receiuing Appe••le from any other M••tropolitane or Patriarche, in case that any su••h wan∣ted,* 1.125 he saieth. ••i dictum fu••rit quia nec Metropolitam habuit, nec Patriarcham, dicand••m est, quia a Sede Apostolica, quae omniu•• Eccl••siarum Caput est, causa audienda ac dirimenda fuerat. I•• it be saied that (the party accused) had not any Metropolitane or

Patriarche, it is to be saied, that the Cause ought to be hearde and determined of the See Apostolike, which is The Head of all Churches. Here lo by the waye M. Iewell you haue the Clere Sentence of One holy Father (by your selfe so con∣fessed and called) and that with in your first 600. yeres which in plaine termes calleth the See Apostolike, The Head of all Churches, as much truly, as Head of the Vniuersall Churche.* 1.126 Wherefore you must, if you will stande to your promise twise repeted in Pulpit and more them twise sett forthe in printe, enen here Yelde and Subscribe. Or els saye plainely, that you stande vpon Termes, and seke not the Matter. So you shal pro∣claime your selfe an earnest trifler, and an open Mocker of Gods people. In an other Epistle writen to S. Gregory by Iohn a bishop, and registred amonge his Epistles, thus we reade.* 1.127 Qui∣bus ausibus ego sanctissimae illae Sedi, quoe vniuersali Ecclesiae ••ura sua transmittit praesumpserim obuiare? With what attempt shoul∣de I presume to withstande that most holy See (of Rome) whi∣che sendeth forthe her lawes to the vniuersall Churche? As muche to saie. Of whome the Vniuersall Churche of Christ is directed, instructed, and gouuerned. But let vs heare againe S. Gregorye him selfe speake. Thus he saieth. Ea quae semel Aposto¦licae Sedis Authoritate sancita sunt, nihil egēt firmitatis.* 1.128 Such thin∣ges as are ones decreed by the Authoritye of the See Apostoli∣ke, nede no farder strength or Confirmation. In like maner in an other place, speaking of a Synod whiche the Patriarche off Constantinople woulde haue kept, with other Bishoppes, and writing thereof to certain Bishops that they shoulde in no wi∣se consent thereunto, he saieth.* 1.129 Sine Apostolicae Sedis Authoritate atque Consensu nullas quaecunque acta fuerint, vires habent. What∣so euer thinges shall be done (or passe in that Synod) they are of no value or effect without the Authoryte and Consent off the See Apostolike. And to shewe that all Bishops (none excep∣ted) were subiect to the bishop of Rome, when anye thinge was

committed against the Canons, for otherwise they were Bre∣thern and equall, this One place of S. Gregory dothe suffici∣ently and expressely declare it. Writing of the Bishop of Con∣stantinople, howe being accused of a certain crime, first by bri∣bery he founde the meanes the Matter came not to the Popes hearing, but afterward he semed to submitte him selfe to iud∣gement, and to speake faire, S. Gregory writeth thereof in this sorte. Valde dubium est vtrum puré, an certe quia à coepiscopis suis impetitur,* 1.130 nobis modo talia loquatur. Nam quod se dicit Sedi Apo∣stolicae subijci, si qua culpa in Episcopis inuenitur, n••scio quis ••i Episcopus subiectus non sit. Cum vero Culpa non exigit, omnes secun∣dum rationem humilitatis aequales sunt. I doubte very much, whether he speake nowe thus vnto vs simply and truly, or els because he is driuen thereunto by his felowe Bishops. For as for that he saieth, he is subiect to the See Apostolike, verely if any Trespasse be founde in Bishops, I knowe no Bishop, but he is subiect vnto it. But as longe as no Trespasse committed re∣quireth (such Subiection) all by the waie of humilite are equall. In these wordes S. Gregory teacheth vs three pointes all worthy to be noted in this great time of schisme and diso∣bedience.* 1.131 [ 1] First, that the Bishop of Constantinople one of the chiefest Patriarches professed him selfe to be Subiect to the See of Rome. [ 2] Secondarely that all Bishops none excepted if they be founde faulty in any pointe, are also Subiect to that Chiefe and Principall See of Rome. [ 3] Thirdly and last that this is no seruitude (as M. Iewell otherwhere calleth it) or mere subiection as subiects are vnder their Prince, or the seruaunt vnder his Master. For not offending, all are equall, and that by the waie of humilite. Which (offence being committed) must be chaunged into rigour, and Authorite.

Of this Authorite and principalite not only in Correcting that is amisse,* 1.132 but also otherwise, S. Gregory in an other place thus writeth. Quanto Apostolica Sedes Deo Authore Cunctis prae¦lata

constat Ecclesijs, tanto inter multiplices curas & illa nos valdé sollicitat, vbi ad consecrandum Antistitem nostrum expectatur ar∣bitrium. As farre as the See Apostolike is well knowen to be sett ouer all Churches by the Appointment of God him selfe, so farre amonge other manifolde cares, this also maketh vs ve∣ry ho••full, when to the Consecrating of a bishop, our Arbitre∣ment is attended. In this point therefore also of Confirming bishopps to be consecrated and ordayned, we see the Autho∣rite of the bishopp of Rome was required, and that bicause Cunctis Deo Authore praelata constat ecclesiis, it is knowen to be sett ouer all Churches (without exception) by the order and appoyntment of God him selfe. Of the which we hearde be∣fore out of the wordes also of S. Gregory that in three seuerall places of holy scripture, Christ had so appoynted it:* 1.133 making Peter head of the rest. These places of holy Scripture are of S. Gregory in an other epistle applied so againe, where thus he writeth.* 1.134 Quis nescit sanctam ecclesiam in Apostolorum Principis soliditate firmatam? Qui firmitatem mentis traxit in nomine: vt Petrus a Petra vocaretur? Cui veritatis voce dicitur. Tibi dabo cla∣ues regni caelorum. Cui rursus dicitur. Et tu aliquando conuersus confirma fratres tuos. I terumque, Simon Ioannis amas me? Pasce oues meas. Itaque cum multi sint Apostoli, pro ipso tam••n principatu sola Apostolorum principis Sedes in Authoritate conualuit. Quae in tribus locis vnius est. Ipse enim sublimauit sedem in qua eti••m quiescere, & praesentem vitam (agere) dignatus est. Ipse deco••auit se∣dem in qua euangelistam discipulum misit. Ipse firmauit s••dem, in qua septem annis quàmuis discessurus sedit. Who knoweth not that the Holy Church is strēghthened in the solidite and fast∣nesse of the Prince of the Apostles? Who the sure stedfastnesse that he had in minde, toke also in his Name, that he was called Peter of Petra, the Rocke. To whom by the Mouthe of Tru∣the it selfe it is saied. To thee I will geue the k••yes of th•• kingdo∣me of heauen. To whom againe it is saied.* 1.135 And thou b••ing someti∣me

conuerted, Confirme thy Brethern. And againe. Sin on the Son of Iohn, louest thou me? F••de my shepe. Therefore whereas there are many Apostles, yet for the Principalite it selfe and Chiefty, Only the See of the Prince of the Apostles hath praeuailed in Authorite. Which See in three places is one persons. For he exalted the See of Rome wherein he Rested. He honoured the See of Alexandria, sending his disciple the Euangelist thither. He established the See of Antioche, remayning there him selfe 7. yeres, though to departe.

To Conclude, euident it is by S. Gregory, that the See Apo∣stolike (wherof he saieth,* 1.136 Cui praesidemus in the which we doe Gouuerne) Pro ipso principatu sola in Authoritate cōualuit. On∣ly praeuayled in Authorite, to haue the Chiefty and Princi∣palite. To that See he saieth, All bishops are subiect, si qua cul∣pa in ep••scopis inuenitur: if any faulte be founde in bishops. This See he calleth Caput omniū ecclesiarū the Head of all Churches, and Cunctis praelatam ecclesiis.* 1.137 Sett ouer all Churches. What soe∣uer this See doth determine, nihil egent firmitatis they nede no other strength, and without the Authorite of this See, Nullas quoecumque acta fuerint vires hab••nt,* 1.138 whatsoeuer dothe passe in Synod, shall haue no force. Of the which also (agreing with S. Gregory) S. Augustin saieth,* 1.139 Cui primas dare nolle, vel summae prof••cto impi••tatis est, v••l praecipitis arrogantiae to the which not to geue and graunt the primacy, soothely it is a point either of most high wickednesse, or of headling arrogancie. And thus is in dede the estate of the See of Rome maintayned by the Au∣thorite of this holy Father. Brefely thus much is D. Hardinge furthered by the Authorite of S. Gregory.

And that euery English harte that any thinge regardeth the benefyt of his Faithe, that reioyseth in the profession of Chri∣stianyte, and that thinketh him selfe bounde to allmyghty God, that euer he and his forefathers were brought to the fay∣the of Iesus Christ, and to the knowleadg of a better life here∣after

after to come, that euery such I saie maie haue the better cau∣se, the more to consider, the sooner to acknoweleadg, the glad∣lyer to embrace the Primacy of the bishopp of Rome so vni∣uersally practised of this holy and lerned Father S. Gregory, I beseche euery English Reader diligently to marke and beare away the testimony and witnesse, that Venerable Bede the most of lerned light that euer shined in our Countie, geueth to this holy Father, and howe muche by his Iudgement we are bounde and beholding vnto him aboue all other men. Thus Beda writeth of him in his ecclesiasticall History, whiche for the confort of my dere Countre in this storme of schisme I haue of late sett forthe in the English tounge.* 1.140 Of this holy Pope Gregory it becometh me in this our history of the Churche of En∣glande more largely to speake. Bicause by his diligence he conuerted our nation, that is,* 1.141 the Englishmen from the powre of Satan to the faithe of Christe. VVhome we may well, and also must call oure Apostle. For as soone as he was highe Bishop ouer the whole worlde, and appointed gouuerner of the Churches lately conuerted to the fay∣the, he made our Natyon the Churche of Christe, whiche had bene euer vn••ill that tyme the bondslaue of Idols, So that we may lawful∣ly pronounce of him the saying of the Apostle.* 1.142 That although he were not an Apostle to others, yet he was vnto vs. For the signet and token of his Apostl••ship we are in our Lo••de. Thus farre Venerable Be∣da. This is that holy Pope, our Apostle, whiche Practised this Vniuersall Authorite ouer all the partes of Christendom. Let vs neuer thinke (Christian english Reader) that an Antichrist (as the Pope for his vniuersall Supremacy is called) shoulde bringe vs Englishmen to the Faithe of Christ. Neither let vs doubte, but whose godly Foundations God hathe so manye hundred yeres prospered, his doctrine, Religion, and practised Authorite, was good and godly.

[Iewell.] * 1.143If S. Gregorie were nowe aliu••, he would crie out, as he did to the Emperour Mauritius. O tempora, o Mores. O what a time i•• this?

O what manners are these?

[Stapleton] Verely if S. Gregorye were nowe aliue, he woulde crie out as he did to the Emperour Mauricius, nor against vs whiche continewe in the Catholike faith planted by holy Augustin, whom he sent to preache the faith vnto vs, whom he created the f••rst Archebishop of Caunterbury,* 1.144 whom he in his epi∣stles commendeth and extolleth, not against vs which conti∣newe in the obedience of the Apostolike See, whereof in his time he was the gouuernour through out all Christendome, as hath bene declared. Which celebrat the holy Sacrifice of the Masse, Praye for the soules departed, Call vpon the blessed Saints, Adore Christ in the blessed Sacrament, Acknowleadg the seuen Sacraments of Christes Churche, all which thinges holy S. Gregory practised him selfe, but he woulde crie out a∣gainst you M. Iewell, whiche call the workes of oure Apostle whom he sent,* 1.145 the killing of the godly, which denie the greatest benefit that euer God gaue to our nation (the con∣uerting of vs from infidelite to the faith) to make your selues the Apostles of the same, which call that holy man S. Grego∣ry him selfe an Antichrist, and all his successours downewarde for vsurping (not that name which bothe he abhorred, and no other Pope euer vsed) but the Authorite of supreme gouuern∣ment ouer the whole Churche of Christ, of S. Gregory so cle∣rely Practised, which being in the roome of a bishopp, do con∣demne all the bishops that euer sate in that roome before you, against you M. Iewell, which corrupt the sayinges of S. Gre∣gory, which call his writinges Fables, which call him an obscure and a late Doctour other where, against you he would crie out, and might most iustly crie out,* 1.146 O tempora O Mores. O what a time is this, O what manners are these?

[Iewell.] Thus muche is Master Harding furthered by the authorite of S. Gregorye.

[Stapletō.] And thus much is M. Iewell furthered by his longe staying vpon S. Gregory. Verely D. Harding is so much furthered by the Authorite of. S. Gregory, that if M. Iewell will stande to the same, euidence shall force him to confesse and acknowe∣leadg the Charge and principalite of the whole Churche to haue bene committed to Peter by Christ, and to haue bene practised by S. Gregory his Successour thourough out all Christendom. Thus much are we furthered M. Iewell by the Authorite of S. Gregory.

[Harding.] * 1.147S. Ciprian declaring the contempt of the highe Priest Christes Vicar in earthe, to be cause of schismes and Heresi∣es, writeth thus to Cornelius Pope and Martyr. Neyther haue Heresies or schismes risen of ony other occasion, then of that, the Priest of God is not obeied, and that one Priest for the time not be Churche, and one Iudge for the time, in∣steede of Christ is not thought vpon.

[Iewell.] * 1.148The .94. Vntruthe. For S. Ciprian speaketh these wordes of euery seuerall Bishop, not only of the Bishop of Rome.

[Stapletō.] If S. Ciprian speake not only of the Bishop of Rome as you confesse he doth M. Iewell, then he speaketh of the Bishop of Rome. D. Harding saieth no more in the wordes alleaged. Ergo it is no Vntruthe that he saied. Againe D. Harding meaned not, that this place of S. Ciprian should be spoken only of the Bishop of Rome, but that it is also well and truly vnderstanded of euery Seuerall Bishop in his owne Dyocesse, not only of of the Bishop of Rome. Therefore in this point D. Harding and M. Iewell do agree. And therefore it is no Vntruthe in the one, except it be in bothe.

[Harding.] To whom if the whole brotherhood (that is, the whole number of Christian people which be brethern togeather and were so called in the primitiue Churche) woulde be obedient &c.

[Iewell.] * 1.149The .95. Vntruthe. Standing in the manifest corruption and fal∣sifying of S. Ciprian.

[Stapletō.] Where probabilite and reason leadeth vs to the contrary there is no manifest corruption or falsifying of the writer. Ma∣nifest corruption importeth a wilfull and purposed guile. No such to haue bene in this place, if I talked with a Bishop of Sarrisbery, and not with M. Iewell, I durst to make him Iudge. For first if this place be meant not only of euery seuerall Bishop, but of the Bishop of Rome also, by M. Iewelles owne graunte, then being with vs Catholikes a sure and vndoubted truthe that the whole brotherhood subiect to the Bishop of Ro∣me, is the whole number of Christian people, to interpret that whole brotherhood, as D. Harding doth for the whole num∣ber of Christen people, it is so farre from any manifest cor∣ruption or falsyfying, that it is no corruption o•• falsyfying at all. If M. Iewell will saye, that this presupposed opinion of the whole brotherhood, that is of the whole number of Christian people subiect to the Bishop of Rome, is a wronge and false opinion, he shall vnderstande our opinion herein is such as we haue lerned of the holy Fathers of Christes Churche. Chry∣sostom saieth,* 1.150 Christ did shead his bloud, to redeme those shepe, the charge of whom he committed bothe to Peter, and to the successours of Peter. I trust M. Iewell will exclude no parte of Christen people from these shepe, which Christ with his bloud redemed. Then by Chrisostoms iudgement, are all Christen people the flocke not only of Peter but of Peters successours also, who are the Bishoppes of Rome. S. Ambrose speaking of the Church which S. Paule calleth the Piller and grounde of truthe, addeth, Cuius hodie Rector est Damasus.* 1.151 The ruler of which Churche at this daye is Damasus, who then was Pope of Rome. This Church which is the piller and grounde of truthe, is no parti∣cular Churche, or parte of Christes flocke, but the Vniuersall Churche and the whole number of Christen people. Venera∣ble

Bede calleth the Pope S. Gregory,* 1.152 praelatum Ecclesijs iamdu∣dum ad fidem conuersis, gouuerner of the Churches lately con∣uerted to the faithe. From those Churches none are excluded. S. Hierom saithe that Christ made Peter the Master of his house,* 1.153 that vnder one shepheard there may be one faithe. In the house of Christ and vnder one shepeard is one brotherhood, the whole number of Christen people. Thus then to interpret the whole brotherhood subiect to the Bishop of Rome for the whole number of Christen people, as D. Hardinge doth is no Vntru∣the at all, nor no falsyfying of S Ciprian at all, seing that by M. Iewelles owne graunt S. Ciprian speaketh there as wel of the Bishop of Rome, as of other Bishops.

[Harding.] * 1.154Amonge the Canons made by the 318. Bishops at the Nicene Councel, which were in number 70. (96.) and all burnt by Heretikes in the East Churche saue xx. &c.

[Iewell.] The .96. Vntruthe ioyned with folie as shall appeare.

[Stapletō.] * 1.155If this be an Vntruthe, and that ioyned with a folie, then haue you your selfe M. Iewell vttered an Vntruthe, and that with a folie. For these are your owne wordes M. Iewell, in your text folowing.

[Iewell.] * 1.156The true Athanasius, him selfe, of whom we make no doubte, saieth, that the Arrians of Alexandria, burnte the Catholike mens bookes and (276) therewithall the Canons of the Councell of Nice, in the time of the Emperour Constantius, Iulius being then Bishop of Rome.

[Stapletō.] And for this purpose you quote vnto vs in the margin: Athanasius in Epist. ad Orthodoxos. Now M. Iewell though this be a manifest Vntruthe that you reporte of that Epistle of Athanasius, (for in that whole Epistle there is no one worde of the Canons of the Councell of Nice, reade and see the Epistle who list) yet it is a farre ouersight in you to note that for an Vntruthe in D. Harding which your selfe auoucheth afterwardes for certain and true. Thus we might shortly Retur¦ne vpon you this Vntruthe by your owne assertion affirming

the same. But bicause one Vntruthe is not well defended by an other Vntruthe, though the aduersary may so be answered, we tell you therefore againe that such Canons and in the number aboue mencioned were burnt in Alexandria, by the Arrians. [ 1] We bringe for witnesse thereof the Epistle of Athansius and other Bishops writing so to Marcus the Pope of Rome, and complaining thereof in their letter to him. [ 2] We bringe you also an Epistle of Iulius the Pope liuing at the very time of the Nicene Councel, writing to the Bishops of the East, such as had them selues bene at the Councell, and reporting in that Epistle to the number of .xxiiij. Canons beside the twenty which commonly are to be read in that Councell. [ 3] Beside all this, many other Canons are alleaged as of the Nicene Coun∣cell by diuerse of the Fathers, which are not at this present to be founde in the Nicene Councell.* 1.157 Diuerse of which Canons are particularly mencioned, gathered together and sett forthe of late against M. Nowell. It shall not nede here to repete them. To that place I referre the Reader. Is not all this sufficient to proue that such Canons were loste? Is not Athanasius and Iu∣lius sufficient to clere D. Harding of this Vntruthe? No. M. Ie∣well will finde a shifte for them bothe. What is that? First as touching the Epistle of Athanasius to Marcus, he saieth it is forged. But how doth he proue that? For sothe after that he had affirmed (as you hearde in his wordes before) that the true Athanasius writeth of the burning of these Canons to Iulius the Pope, he addeth.

[Iewell.] * 1.158But M. Hardinges Athanasius, is either so forgetfull or his (277.) lies or so impudent and carelesse what he saie, that he maketh piteous complainte of the same burning vnto Marcus, that was Bishop in Ro∣me before Iulius and was dead (278.) at the left .ix. yeres before the Canons were burnte. By such Doctours M. Harding vpholdeth the state of Rome.

[Stapletō.] Let vs suppose it were true that Athanasius wrote to Iulius, after the deathe of Marcus, of the burning of those Canons

of the Councell of Nice. Is it not possible that those Canons were twise burnte in two sondry Copies at two sondry times? Might they not be burned first in the dayes of Marcus, and then (hauing of him an other Copie of the Canons, as by his letters to him Athanasius required) that other Copie be bur∣ned in the dayes of Iulius? What Contradiction, or what Im∣possibilite is there in this matter? Or howe is M. Iewell euer able to proue that suche Canons were not burnte before the time of Iulius?* 1.159 Certainely the heresy of the Arrians troubled the Churche of Alexandria where those Canons were burnte before the dayes of Pope Iulius, and Athanasius was banished in the reigne of Constantin the Greate, by the meanes of the Arrians, Eusebius, Theognis, Maris and other, hauing greuous and sondry accusatyons layed against him. It is not impossible nor incredible that those which founde the meanes to banishe the Bishop, were also able to spoyle his library, and to bur∣ne his bookes, especially those Canons, wherein their wicked heresy, was with most waighty Authorite condemned. Con∣sidered also, that in the Canons nowe extant of that Generall Councell of Nice, there is no one worde nor halfe worde a∣gainst the Arrian heresy, against the which yet that Councell was principally and chiefly assembled. Thus though it were true that the Canons were burnte in the time of Iulius, and that Athanasius wrote thereof vnto Iulius, (as M. Iewell vn∣truly saieth, he did) yet were not Athanasius the••fore a forget∣full lyar, impudent, or carelesse what he saye (as it pleaseth the graue head of M. Iewell to call him) but bothe sayinges might right well be true, and stande together, the troublous estate of the Churche of Alexandria considered as well in the dayes of Marcus, Constantin yet liuyng, as of Iulius in the reigne of Constantius his Son.

But nowe seing Athanasius writeth no suche thinge of these Canons to Iulius, at the lest in the place by M. Iewell al∣leaged,

how forgetfull of his lyes, how impudent is M. Iewell, and howe carelesse what he saie, or what he write? And who will truste M. Iewell in doubtefull matters, which thus decea∣ueth vs in plaine thinges? What is Impudency, if this be not? For as I tolde you before M. Iewell, Athanasius in his epistle, Ad Orthodoxos, written in the time of Iulius successour of Marcus,* 1.160 hath no one worde of the Canons of that Councell of Nice. You reporte him vntruly. You deceiue your Reader. Or els you were deceiued by some other, whose eyes, not your owne, it maye seme yowe vsed in this matter. For Reade the Epistle. M. Iewell. And if Athanasius write any one worde of the Canons of the Councell of Nice, in all that Epistle, let me neuer be taken for Christen man more. He saieth in that Epi∣stle. Ecclesiis & baptisteriis flammae iniectae. Fyre was caste vpon the Churches,* 1.161 and vpon the fountes. And againe. Sacros Scrip∣turarum libros quos in Ecclesiis inueniebant comburere. That the heathen and infidels burned the bookes of holye Scripture, such as they founde in the Churches. Of any other burning or of the Canons of the Nicene Councell, there is not one worde, nor halfe worde. By suche Impudent Vntruthes M. Iewell will deface and bringe out of credit the wrytinges of the olde Fathers.

Nowe whereas you saie farder that Marcus, which was bi∣shop of Rome before Iulius, was dead at the lest ix. yeres before the Canons were burnte, if it were true that in the time of Iulius those Canons were burnt, yet it will ill folowe that it was jx. yeares after the deathe of Marcus. For by the best and moste exacte accomptes of Chronographers,* 1.162 euen of Henricus Pan∣taleō of Basill, this Marcus was Pope but two yeres, and 8. mo∣neths. Which accompte is founde first in Damasus, and after in Platina, and diuers other. The Arrians therefore commit∣ting those outrages and spoyles aboue named in Alexandria, aboute the beginning of Pope Iulius in the dayes of Con∣stantius,

if they had at that time also burned the Canons of the Nicene Councell (whiche yet Athanasius sayed not) it woulde well lacke the better halfe of jx. yeres after the deathe of Marcus, that those Canons were burnte. Yet you adde be∣fore to proue that in the dayes of Iulius the Canons were burnte.

Which obseruation of time appeareth also by Socrates in his storie.

[Iewell.] * 1.163Yow quote in the margin of this place. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 14. Nowe verely what obseruation you can picke out of this pla∣ce, touching the burning of those Canons, the Reader shall see and Iudge. Bicause the Chapter is but shorte, I will alleage the whole as it lyeth. Thus lye the wordes of Socrates. Aboute this time the Arrians remoued Gregory (their Arrian bishopp) from Alexandria, as one odyous to the people bothe for the burning of a Churche, and also for that he was not earnest enough, in defence of their opinion. And in his roome they placed George, who came then from Cappadocia, one that helde the doctrine of their religion. This is the whole .14. Chapter of Socrates in that second boo∣ke. Of the Canons of Nice he speaketh no one worde. Of a Churche burned he speaketh. But what? Thinketh M. Iewell that the Canons of Nice were there burnte? In dede such lew∣de Gheasses are mete to mayntayne such a lying Religion as M. Iewell defendeth. But neither Socrates in any other place,* 1.164 neither Ruffinus, nor Theodoret nor Sozomenus all writing of this Arrian bishop Gregory and of his deposing do make any mention of such Canons burnte in his time. Only Sozo∣menus openeth a litle more this matter, and declareth more then any of all the other dothe, what Churche and what bur∣ning that was for the which this Gregory was of his owne fe∣lowes depriued. For first of the Churche whiche was burned thus he writeth. Gregorius sedem Alexandrinam inuasit.* 1.165 Quod populus molesté ferens, ecclesiam quam Dyonisij vocant, qui episcopus illic fuerat, incendunt. Gregory inuaded the See of Alexandria.

Whiche thinge the people taking greuously they sett a fire a C••urche called by the name of Denys, who had sometime bene bi••hop there. This was the Churche which was burned by the intruding of that Arrian bishop, and for the which also he was afterwarde partly depriued. For of his depriuation thus the same Sozomenus writeth in the same booke.* 1.166 Interca Ar∣riani dogma••is fautores &c. In the meane while the Arrians remo∣ued Gregory (their bishop) as being but negligent in establishyng their doctrine, and one much hated of the Cytyzens of Alexandria, by reason of the mischiefs that happened to the Cyte at his entring in, and the burning of a Churche. This is all that is writen of these ecclesiasticall writers touching any losse done by fyre in the time of the Arrian bishop Gregory. What obseruation of time can M. Iewell finde here, to proue that in the dayes of Pope Iulius the Canons were burnte, and not in the dayes of Mar∣cus, as Athanasius him selfe writing to Marcus reporteth? The wordes of Athanasius to Marcus are plaine. M. Iewell will proue the contrary by a Gheasse.

[Harding.] And yet the whole number (of the 70. Canons) was kept diligently in the Church of Rome in the original it selfe sent to Syluester the bishop there from the Councell subscribed with the saide 318. Fathers handes.

[Iewell.] * 1.167The 97. Vntruthe: For there was no suche originall kepte in the Church•• of Rome.

[Stapleton.] M. Iewell, to iustifie this matter telleth the Reader a longe lying tale to proue the Pope a Forger, and blaseth out that matter in mighty great letters, but withe a number of mayne and most impudent Vntruthes. Touching the matter it selfe, that 70. Canons were made in the Councell of Nice,* 1.168 copied out, and sent to Syluester Pope of Rome from the Councell by the handes of his legates, it is euident by the epistle of A∣thanasius vnto Marcus, where he and the other bishops of

Lybia, of Thebais, and of Aegypt do expressely confesse the same. Also the Epistle of Pope Iulius to the Bishops of the East reakoneth vp the .xviij. th. the .xix. the .xxi. the .xxiij. the xxvi. the .xxvij. the .xxviij. the .xxxiij. the .xl. the .xlv. the .xlvij. the .xlix. the .lj. the .lij. the .liij. the .liiij. the .lv. the .lvij. the .lviij. the .lix. the .lx. the .lxj. the .lxiij. and the .lxvj.* 1.169 Canons of the Councell of Nice, all at that time kept and reserued in the Ori∣ginall Copie at Rome. This Iulius was aliue at the time of the Nicene Councell. He wrote this letter to the Bishops of the East Church, to many of them which were present at that ve∣ry Councell. He rebuketh them in this letter for thrusting out of Athanasius from his Bishopricke. And by his Authorite he restored not only Athanasius, but also Paulus the Patriarche of Constantinople, Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra,* 1.170 Asclepas Bishop of Gaza, and Lucius Bishop of Adrianopolis al expelled by the Arrians, vnto their Bishoprickes and Sees againe. And can M. Iewell persuade vs that the same Pope, to whom such holy Bishops appealled, (Athanasius, Paulus, Marcellus, Lucius and Asclepas) at that time and against those stubborne Arrians would alleage false forged Canons of his owne deuising, or belye the Councel of Nice, the Matter being yet so freshe in memorye? And what saieth M. Iewell against these so expresse witnesses, Athanasius and Iulius? What he saied to the Epistle of Athanasius you haue heard allready. By a mere manifest Vn¦truthe he woulde deface it. Other Matter he bringeth none but scoffes, as mocking at the Bishops for reducing the number of .lxxx. Canons to the number of .lxx. to represent the .lxx. dis∣ciples of Christ, or els the .lxx. tounges knowen to the worlde. To the which no other answer nedeth (for any thinge that it proueth) then that M. Iewell doth not well to measure the doinges of that auncient Councell with the light estimation of mans fansie. But to this Epistle of Iulius what doth M. Ie∣well answer? Forsothe whereas D. Harding saied, that [Harding.] * 1.171these

Canons being mencioned by Iulius, writing to them which were present at the making of the Canons, might take away all suspicion of Vntruthe, M. Iewell answereth.

[Iewell.] * 1.172This remouing of suspition, I know not howe, semeth somewhat to encrease suspition. If there were not a soare, what should it thus nede to be salued?

[Stapletō.] This it but a flourishe. What saye you to the Matter? Be it a soare there was, howe like you the salue? Be it that to put the Matter out of doubte touching these Canons not com∣monly extant (bicause of Caluin and such other, they haue be∣ne before doubted of) the vndoubted Epistle of Iulius was al∣leaged? What then saie you to that Epistle?

[Iewell.] * 1.173In dede, Iulius alleageth a Canon: But M. Hardinges Canon he alleageth not.

[Stapletō.] The Canon of the Nicene Councell which D. Harding al∣leageth out of Iulius is this. Non debere praeter sententiam Ro∣mani Pontificis vllo modo Concilia celebrari, nec Episcopos damna∣ri. That without the Authorite of the Bishop of Rome, neither Councells ought to be kepte, neither Bishops be condemned. How saie you M. Iewell? Doth not Iulius alleage this Canon? Will you neuer leaue your Vntruthes?* 1.174 In the first tome of the Councelles, fol. 309. after the Collen print, you may reade that Canon if you liste.

[Iewell.] * 1.175It is also touched in the Ecclesiasticall History by Socrates. The other Canon of the Nicene Councell the .xliiij. in num∣ber,* 1.176 D. Harding alleaged not out of Iulius, but out of Francis∣cus Tirrianus, as he noted vnto you in the margin, who as he writeth sawe many thinges of the Nicene Councell which are not commonly extant,* 1.177 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Niceni Concilij, in the Ecclesiasticall Actes of the Nicene Councell. But let vs see how M. Iewell prosecuteth the Matter of the Canon of Iulius. He addeth.

And the compiler of the Councelles gaue this Note in the mar∣gin (2••2.) touching the same. This de••ree may only be reduced to the v. and si••t

chapter of the Councell of Nice. But expressely it is not founde. Such credit is to be geuen to this Iulius in his allegations.

[Stapletō.] An other Vntruthe M. Iewell. For this note in the margin that you speake of is founde in the first Epistle of Iulius, to the Bishops of the East. But the Canon which D. Harding allea∣geth out of Iulius, is in the second Epistle of Iulius. Againe the note in the margin alleaged by you is of the Accusation and condemnation of Bishops not to be done without the know∣leadg of the Bishop of Rome. But the Canon alleaged by D. Harding out of Iulius, and reported in the Ecclesiasticall histo¦ry of Socrates, is of Councelles not to be called or holden wi∣thout the consent of the Bishop of Rome.* 1.178 Such credit is to be geuen to M. Iewell in his allegations. What passing impudency is this M. Iewell, first to go aboute to discredit the writinges of the Ancient Fathers, and then to do the same by open and ma∣nifest Vntruthes? Especially you which charge not only D. Harding, but in maner all sortes of writers, with Fables, For∣geries, Dreames, Vntruthes, and so forthe, when you can not answer to the Matter it selfe.

To the whole Matter of the Popes Forgerie which M. Ie∣well here so blaseth out, and so impudently auoucheth, it is allready sufficiently answered: and proued against M. Nowell, and against the lying Centuries of the Magdeburgenses, whose steppes M. Iewell hath folowed euen at the harde heles, that Zosimus the Pope was no forger, that the Africanes laied no such thinge to his charge, that they renounced not their whole obedience vnto that See of Rome, but only stoode vpon the Matter of appellations, (wherein it semeth by the writinges of S. Cipriā, they had bene of olde time Priuileged) that many Ca∣nons are alleaged out of the Nicene Councell not only by the Popes, but by diuers others holy Fathers, as S. Ambrose, S. Hierō S. Augustin, Epiphanius and others without suspition of fay∣ning or forgery, all this I saie is allready at large proued by M.

Dorman in his answer to M. Nowell. I beseche the reader to haue recourse to that place. Notwitstanding bicause M. Iewell, as he hath bene more large, so hath dealed herein also much more impudently then M. Nowell,* 1.179 I haue thought good some∣what to examine his Lying tale and to note his Vntruthes the∣rein, for the better iustifying of this his Vntruthe scored vp he∣re vpon D. Harding. Thus M. Iewell entreth his processe.

Touching the forgerie of this Councell of Nice, the very begin∣ning of the quarell and the whole storie standeth thus.

[Iewell.] If it were forged, the beginning could not be here. For the better vndetstanding wherof,* 1.180 I will note to the Reader the na∣mes and times of the Popes that liued about this time, in which the forgerie is saied to be committed.

[Stapletō.] The Councell of Nice was holden in the yere of our lorde .328. or as some other thinke .326. vnder Siluester then Pope of Rome, whose place his two Legates Vincentius and Victor oc∣cupied there. To this Siluester succeded Marcus and was Pope ij. yeres.* 1.181 Vnto this Marcus Athanasius directed his letters aboue mentioned. To Marcus succeded Iulius, whose Epistle was be∣fore alleaged to the Bishops of the East, in defence of Athana∣sius, and other. Some write that this Iulius was at the Councell of Nice him selfe. Certain it is he was Pope in the later dayes of Constantin the great,* 1.182 in whose reigne the Councell was holden. Iulius sate in the See of Rome .xvi. yeres. To him suc∣ceded Liberius,* 1.183 who ruled partly in that Bishopricke, partly in banishment the space of .xvij. yeres, Felix in the meane time oc∣cupying the See one yere, vnder the banishment of Liberius. To Liberius succeded Damasus vnto whom S. Hierom wrote certain Epistles, and ruled the Churche .xviij. yeres. To Dama∣sus succeded Siricius, and sate .xvj. yeres. To Siricius succeded Anastasius, who sate three yeres. To Anastasius succeded Inno∣contius, and sate in the Chaire of Peter .xv. yeres. To this Pope

Chrysostom Appealed being in banishment, who thereupon excommunicated the Emperour Arcadius. To this Pope S. Augustin and the Bishops of Afrike in the condemnatiō of Ce∣lestius and Pelagius submitted their decrees.* 1.184 To this Innocentius succeded Zosimus, and ruled the Churche only one yere, who is the man that is accused here of M. Iewell for a Forger, of certain Canons of the Nicene Councell. [ 1] Now as I saied, if su∣che Canons were forged, the beginning hereof as M. Iewell saieth, coulde not be here. [ 2] Seing that bothe Athanasius writeth to Marcus for the copie of those 70. Canons, confessing that so many were made and sent to Rome to Siluester then Po∣pe, and also that Iulius the Successour of Marcus alleageth a great number of suche Canons to the number of .xxiiij. more then are commonly read in the Councell of Nice, bothe whi∣che Popes liued at the lest fourescore yeares before this Zosi∣mus.* 1.185 [ 3] Hereunto maye be added that S. Hierom and S. Ambrose who wrote in the time of Pope Damasus, that S. Augustin and Epiphanius in the time of Innocentius, do alleage certain Canons of the Nicene Councell not extant in the xx. Canons commonly readde. Therefore Zosimus who liued after all these Popes, if he were a Forger, yet was he not the first For∣ger. Now as it were to great impudencie for M. Iewell to char∣ge S. Ambrose S. Hierom, S. Augustin and Epiphanius with Forgerie, though he hath gone about to deface the testimonies of Athanasius, but that with manifest Vntruthes, as you haue sene, so truly shall he neuer be able to proue Zosimus or anye other Pope a Forger. This therefore touching the beginning of the Forgerie (if there were any suche) is the first Vntruthe. Let vs goe forthe.

[Iewell.] One Apiarius a priest of the Churche of Sicca in Aphrica as it ap∣peareth a very ill man, being iustly excommunicat bothe by his own bisshop, and also by a great number of other bisshoppes together in the Councell there, appealed frō them all vnto Zosimus then bisshop of Rome.

All this is true. Let vs heare farder.

[Iewell.] Zosimus without farther knowleadg of the cause, neuer hearing the other parte, pronounced Apiarius to be innocēt and restored him to the Communion.* 1.186

This M. Iewell saieth of his owne head. There appeareth no suche thinge in the Actes of the Councels. This only ap∣peareth, touching this Apia••ius that after his Appeale to Ro∣me, Zosimus sent his legat to the Councel of Aphrike, thē as∣sembled, that he was restored to the Communion by the Afri∣canes them selues, Zosimus in the meane while departing this worlde,* 1.187 and Bonifacius succeding him. This is euident in the epistle of the Aphrican Councell sent to Bonifacius succes∣sour to Zosimus. That which M. Iewell telleth, not appearing in the Councell, may stande for an other Vntruthe, vntill it be iustified.

[Iewell.] * 1.188And vnderstanding there was a Councell gathered in Africa tou∣ching the same.

[Stapleton.] An other vntruthe. For there appeareth no such Councell at all. The Councelles at that time gathered, in Africa were partly against the a 1.189 Pelagians, b 1.190 the Donatistes, and for the preseruation of the c 1.191 Nicene Councell. But for the matter of Apiarius no Councell was gathered.

[Iewell.] * 1.192Sent thither Faustinus the bisshop of Potentia, withe two other priestes of Rome, Philippus and Asellus, not only to see that the saied Apiarius without anye furder triall might be restored vnto his right, but also to make plea in the open Councell that it shoulde be lawfull for any priest to appeale from his owne ordinary or Metropolitane or Councell vnto the Apostolike See of Rome.

[Stapleton] All this is but a fardle of vntruthes and slaunders. M. Ie∣well auoucheth this onlye, but he neither quoteth nor noteth any Author therefore. The truthe is this. Zosimus sending his legates aboue mentioned to the Councell of Aphrica, gaue in commission amonge other thinges, that the Councell of Nice

shoulde be inuiolatly kept and obserued, in that parte of the worlde as it was other where. The Councell of Nice was read∣de in the Synod of the Aphricanes, and established by their whole consent and agrement thereunto.* 1.193 Faustinus the Popes Legat brought forth a write from Zosimus, contayning a de∣cree touching Appellatiō, made in the Councel of Nice. That decree not being founde in the copies whiche the Africanes had, the Africanes desired a time of deliberation,* 1.194 before they subscribed thereunto. A deliberation was taken the Popes Le∣gat consenting thereunto.* 1.195 They wrote to the Bishops of the East Churche, to see their copies. Thus farre haue we gone with M. Iewell, folowing the tenour of the Councell. Nowe that Apiarius shoulde be restored without farder triall, or that such plea shoulde be made as M. Iewell speaketh of, it is not mencioned in the Councell: it is a double and Pregnant Vn∣truthe of M. Iewell. Let vs go forthe.

[Iewell.] The bysshoppes of Aphrica answered there was no lawe it shoulde be so.* 1.196

[Stapleton.] They answered, the decree of appellation to Rome was not founde in the Nicene Councell. They saied not it was not so by no lawe. So they shoulde haue saied vntruly. For in the Councell of Sardica where 300. bishoppes were assembled from all partes or Christendom before that time,* 1.197 the very sa∣me decree which Faustinus the Popes legat alleaged, was and is to be founde worde for worde. Though then they answered, it was not founde in the Nicene Councell, yet they answered not, there was no lawe it should be so. This therefore is a Facinge Vntruth on M. Iewelles parte.

[Iewell.] * 1.198Faustinus laied forthe this Canon of the Councell of Nice, not ma∣de by the Authorite of the bisshops there, but onlye deuised by the bisshop of Rome.

This is a slaunderous vntruthe, to saie it was diuised at Ro∣me. It was made long before in the Councell of Sardica. The∣refore

the modesty of Iohn Caluin in this point is more, who confesseth that the Pope alleaged this decree of Sardica, as a decree of the Councell of Nice, and maketh it an errour of the Pope,* 1.199 not a diuising of his owne, as the modest sprit of M. Ie∣well hath deuised. Forthe M. Iewell. Perge Mentiri.

[Iewell.] * 1.200The bisshoppes there, amonge whom was S. Augustine that fa∣mous lerned Father, thought it was a forged Matter.

[Stapleton.] This is a malicious Vntruthe. There appeareth no suche thought or cogitation in the Actes of the Councell. And of what sprit is M. Iewell, that maketh suche good men to su∣spect a forgerie in the chiefest bishop of Christendom, geuing forthe no token of any such suspicion?

[Iewell.] * 1.201And therefore they sayde, they woulde sende vnto Alexandria, Antioche, and Constantinople for the verye Originall copies of the sayde Councell, and desired the bisshop of Rome to doe the same.

[Stapleton.] That all this they did, it is true. But that Therefore they did it, it is not true. And Therefore I can not excuse you here of an other Vntruthe.

[Iewell.] * 1.202And saide, that in the meane while they woulde doo, as they had done before. Vpon this message and returne of the answer withe the (291) Authentike copies from Cyrillus the bisshopp of Alexandria, and Atticus the bisshopp of Constantinople, it appeared plainely to the worlde that the Canons were corrupted, and that the Pope had falsified the holy Councell.

Here be two Vntruthes, and the one ioyned with a sla∣under. The first is, that the true Authentike copies were sent from Alexandria and Constantinople. True it is, they sent the truest that they had. But that those were not the very Authen∣tike copies, made and lefte by the Fathers of Nice, it is euident by many reasons.

[ 1] First, Iulius longe before that time alleaged against the bishoppes of the East, xxiiij. Canons of the Councell of Nice ouer and beside the xx. Canons of the copies sent from Ale∣xandria

and Constantinople. Therefore the other that lacked so many could not be the Authētike and perfit number of the Canons.

Secondarely betwene the tyme of the Nicene Councell and those bishoppes Cyrillus of Alexandria and Atticus of Constā¦tinople, certaine Arrians occupied those Sees,* 1.203 and therefore no maruail, if the Councell were corrupted.

In the Churche of Alexandria, after Alexander, who was present at the Councell of Nice, succeded Athanasius. This A∣thanasius being often bannished, first Gregorius, then Geor∣gius bothe Arrians ruled that See certain yeares. After A∣thanasius being restored and dying in his bishoprike, Petrus a good Catholike bishop succeded, who being expelled and fly∣ing to Rome, Lucius an Arrian was intruded, who occupyed the See many yeres vnder Valēs the Arrian Emperour. But vn∣der Theodosius and Gratian he was expelled, and Timotheus brother to that Peter succeded, after Timotheus, Theophilus, and after Theophilus, this Cyrillus was bishop of Alexandria. Thus vnder the three Arrian bishops Gregorius, Georgius, and Lucius, no maruaill if the Councelles were corrupted and de∣stroyed. Especially whereas Athanasius, complaineth thereoff him selfe, in his epistle to Marcus, the Pope, whiche M. Iewell would disproue but he can not.

In Constantinople after Alexander bishop therof in the ti∣me of the Nicene Councell,* 1.204 Paulus a good Catholike bishop succeding was twise banished, and in the ende murdered. In the meane Eusebius the Arrian, and after him Macedonius, Eudo∣xius, and Demophilus all Arrians occupyed for the space off fourty yeares and more, during the Empire of Constantius, Iulian and Valens, the See of Cōstantinople. This Demophi∣lus vnder Gratian was depriued, and Gregory Nazianzene by Theodosius made his successour, who not continuing in the See, Nectarius was chosen to whom succeded Chrysostome,

and to Chrysostome this Atticus here mentioned in the Afri∣cane Councell. Now in so longe a tyme of the Arrians Domi∣nion, who doubteth but they corrupted the Councell of Nice being specially called againste them? Namely seing that in the Councell now extant,* 1.205 there is no one Canon againste the Ar∣rian heresy, For the which yet that Councel was expressely cal∣led and assembled.

Hereunto maye be added that in Antiochia also, whither the bishops of Africa sent for the Copie of the Nicene Coūcel, cer∣taine Arrians had ruled betwene the time of the Nicene Coun∣cell and the bishops then liuing. As Eustathius the Catholike being banished,* 1.206 Eulalius, Euphronius, Phlacitus, Stephanus, Le¦ontius, Eudoxius, Euzoius, Theodorus Perinthius all Ar∣rian Bishoppes: Whereas in all that time not one Arrian sea∣te at Rome, but all Catholike and all defendinge the Nicene Councell.

* 1.207 [ 3] Thirdly the same Iulius in his vndoubted epistle recorded in the workes of Athanasius, alleaged a decree of Appeale, from one Synod to a greater, by vertu whereof he cyted those Ar∣rian bishops to Rome, concluded in the Nicene Councell, whi∣che in the Copies sent to the Africane bishops appeareth not. These are the wordes of Iulius. Episcopi in magna Synodo Niceae congregati non sine Dei Consilio permiserunt, prioris Synodi Acta in alia Synodo examinari. The bishops assembled in the greate Councell of Nice permitted not without the will of God, that the actes of a former Synod, might be examined in an other Sy∣node. Whiche Appeale from one Synod to an other that it was to Rome, appeareth well bothe by that Iulius by vertu thereoff called those Arrian bishops to appeare before him at Rome, and also by that longe after, Leo that holy and lerned Pope alleaged the very decree of the Nicene Coūcel by occasiō of an Appea∣le of Flauianus to Rom••. For whereas in that outragious in∣iurie done to Flauianus in the pretensed Synode of Ephesus

the Popes legates (as Leo writeth) fideliter reclamarunt, & eisdem libellum Appellationis Flauianus Episcopus dedit. Did faithefully resist that iniurious decree, and to the saied legates Flauianus the Bishopp made a libell of Appeale,* 1.208 Leo writeth thereof to Theodosius the Emperour, and chalengeth by vertu of the Ni∣cene Councell a greater Synod after the Appeale made, in the∣se wordes. Quàm autem post appellationem interpositam hoc necessa¦rió postuletur, Canonum Niceae habitorum decreta testantur, quae a totius mundi sunt sacerdotibus constituta, quaeque subter annexa sunt. Howe necessarely we require nowe to haue a greater Sy∣nod, after the Appeale layed in, the decrees of the Nicene Ca∣nons do witnesse. Which haue bene made of all priestes in the worlde. And which are here vnder annexed. Iulius against the Arrians, yea suche of whom some had bene present them selues at the Nicene Councell, and Leo to the Emperour Theodo∣sius alleageth a Canon of the Nicene Councell, yea and a Canon of Appeale, which those Aphricane Copies haue not, and yet shall we thinke (because M. Iewell saieth the worde) that those only were the true and Authentike Copies and that Zozimus was a Forger, bicause he alleaged a Canon, whiche they had not?

Fourthely (as I noted before) diuers holy Fathers and Aun∣cient writers haue alleaged in their lerned writinges yet extant and not doubted of, certain Canons of the Nicene Councell, which a••e not extant at all in the Copies sent from Alexan∣dria and Constantinople to the bishops of Africa. S. Ambrose saieth, it was decreed in the Nicene Councell, Ne bigamus in clerum asciscatur,* 1.209 that one twise maryed shoulde not be admit∣ted to be of the Clergy. S. Augustin writeth it for a decree of the Nicene Councell, Ne episcopus sibi Successorem sufficiat,* 1.210 that a Bishop yet lyuing shoulde not appoynte his Successour. And therefore he repenteth him that he was of Aurelius his prede∣cessour made bishop, he yet lyuing, saying that at that time he

knewe not so much. S. Hierom writeth that the booke of Iu∣dith was by the Nicene Councell decreed to be a parte of the holy Scripture. Last of all, all the Fathers of the seconde Ge∣nerall Councell of Constantinople holden aboue thirty yeres before this Zosimus was Pope,* 1.211 do mention in their letters wri∣ten to the bishops of Italy Damasus and other, Veterem sanctio∣nem & definitionem Nicaenorum patrum, an olde decree and de∣termination of the Fathers at Nice, vt in vnaquaque prouincia, illius prouinciae cultores, assumptis etiam si videatur, finitimis, confe∣rant ecclesiasticos honores ijs quos vtiliter gesturos esse confidunt, that in euery prouince the inhabitants thereof, taking vnto them (if they thought good) their neighbours also, might be∣stowe Spirituall promotions vpon suche as they thought wor∣thy thereof. Not any one of all these matters appeareth in anye of the Canons, or any parte of the Actes of the Nicene Coun∣cell. What then? Shall we saie therefore according to the wise∣dome and Charyte of M. Iewell, that S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Hierome, yea and all those Fathers of that seconde Generall Councell of Chrystendome, were all Forgers and Falsifyers of the Nicene Councell? Or shall we not rather saye that those Fathers, and that holy Councell spake truly, but those Copies sent to the Aphricanes, are not the ful and perfit Copies? Thou∣ghe verely I thinke they were the best that those good bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople, Cyrillus and Atticus had at that time.

Fiftely your owne Apologie of Englande M. Iewell allea∣geth a Canon of the Councell of Nice,* 1.212 touchinge the Sacra∣ment, that we ought not to be humiliter intenti ad panem & vi∣num, ouer basely bent to breade and wine. If this be a true Ca∣non of the Nicene Councel, shewe it in the Copies sent from Alexandria and Constantinople to the bishoppes of Africa. Ift it be not, then either confesse that you haue belied that Coun∣cell, or els that the Copies sent from the East were not the true

Authentike and originall Copies.

[ 6] Last of all certaine it is bothe by Eusebius and by Epipha∣nius, that the chiefest and most principall cause of the assem∣bling of that Councell, was partly for repressing the Arrian heresy, partly for the vniforme obseruation of Easter.* 1.213 Yet in these copies whiche M. Iewell calleth Authentique, there is not one Canon or halfe Canon either against the Arrians, or touching the obseruation of Easter. And thinketh M. Iewell against all these most euident reasons, with the onlye warrant of his mouthe to persuade the worlde that those Copies lac∣king so many Canons, and sent from suche suspicious places, are the true and Authentike copies of the Nicene Councell? I trust by these fewe euery wise and indifferent Reader is able to descrie this manifest Vntruthe of M. Iewell, and to marke withall the whole grounde of this pretensed Forgerie of the Pope to be ouerthrowen.

[Iewell.] Now to your second Vntruthe M. Iewell couched in your laste wordes alleaged, where you saie, that by those authentike copies it appeared, that the Pope had falsified the holye Councell. This as I saied, is a Manifest Vntruthe ioyned with a slaūder. Vntruthe, bicause the Authentike copies, whereby you would proue the Pope a falsifier, are now proued to be no Authenti∣ke copies, but to wante manye of the assured Canons of that Councell. For if Zosimus be a Forger or falsifier of the Nice∣ne Councell, bicause the Canon which he alleaged out of the Nicene Councell, was not founde in those copies sent from Alexandria and Constantinople, then is S. Hierō, S. Ambrose, S. Augustin, yea then is the Apologie of Englande a Forger and a falsifier of the holye Councell, whiche hathe alleaged a Canon out of the Nicene Councell not founde in the copies sent from Alexandria and Constantinople.

A slaunderous Vntruthe it is, bicause M. Iewel hath no Au∣thor thereof but his felow protestants of Magdebourg and su∣che

like, and bicause it tendeth to the discredit not onlye of Pope Zosimus a man commended and reuerenced by the Af∣ricanes them selues, but also of the whole See Apostolike from that time hetherto.* 1.214

[Iewell.] * 1.215 And to thintent to auaunce his Apostolike See of Rome, had di∣uised priuileges and prerogatiues of his owne.

[Stapleton.] * 1.216M. Iewell continueth his slaunderous reproches. But it appeareth allready by S. Gregory and Chrysostom, and it shall hereafter in this Article yet more appeare, that the prerogatiue of the See of Rome was geuen to Peter by Christ him selfe, and to his successours, as Chrisostom expressely confesseth. Truly touching this matter, neither did the Africanes here vt∣terly refuse the Authorite of the bishop of Rome, but only in this case of appellations, neither had Zosimus anye cause to faine a Councell for the prerogatiue of his See, hauing for the same beside expresse Scripture the great Councell of Sardica,* 1.217 and as Iustinian the Emperour confesseth the very Councell of Nice it selfe (beinge one of the foure firste Councelles) though not in that Canon,* 1.218 yet in some other.

[Iewell.] * 1.219The bisshoppes in the Councell of Aphrica hauing thus through∣ly examined the truthe hereof, wrote vnto Caelestinus then bisshop of Rome in this wise. Decreta Nicena &c.

If a man shoulde aske M. Iewell, why he beganne this his allegation out of the Aphricane Councell in the middes of a sentence, omitting all that went before, I thinke the best an∣swer that he coulde make would be to saie he folowed therein the precepts of his Rhetorike, to bringe as muche as made for his purpose, and to omitte the rest that made against him. Well though his Rhetorike taught him that Arte, yet his Diuinite taught him not that Deceite. I will therfore note certaine sen∣tences in the same epistle going before, and then procede with the wordes of M. Iewell alleaged. The Fathers of the Aphri∣cane Councell declaring to Celestinus the Pope that though

Apiarius by the meanes of his legat had bene restored to his or¦der of priesthood (from whence he had ben deposed) yet now againe for other notorious crimes by him confessed he was iustly excommunicated, do write thus vnto him.* 1.220 Proefato ita∣que debitae salutationis officio &c. Our due commendations being re∣membred, we desire you earnestly that from hence for the you admitt not to your hearing ouer lightly such as come from hence, neither that you r••ceiue any more to your Communion such as are by vs excom∣municated,* 1.221 bicause your Reuerentnes shall easely see that this is not d••fined by the Nicene Councell. For if it be there prouided for the in∣fe••iour clergy or the laye, howe much more woulde it prouide for the bish••ps, that being suspended from the Communion in th••ir own pro∣vin••e, they should not looke to be restored of your holynes, either ha∣stely or rashely or vniustly. Also let your holynes repell the wicked refuges of priestes and the other clergy (as it becometh you.) Bicause this priuilege is not denied to the Churche of Africa, and (Lo here beginneth the allegation of M. Iewell.) [Iewell.] The decrees of the Ni∣cene Councell haue committed bothe the inferiour clergie, and also the bisshoppes vnto their Metropolitanes.

[Stapleton] Before I procede in the allegation of the Councell (as it fo¦loweth in M. Iewell) I beseche thee (gentle Reader) to consi∣der the pithe of all those wordes so farre omitted by M. Iewel, as I haue before noted vnto thee. [ 1] First the whole maner of writing is not as to a Forger, a Foyster or a Cogger, as M. Ie∣well termeth here the Pope, but in all humilite and reuerent∣nes, as to a holy bishop and Reu••rent Father. [ 2] Secondarely that they do not vtterly repell his Authorite, but only in the case of Appellation,* 1.222 wherein it semeth bothe then and longe before in S. Ciprians time the prouince of Aphrike wa•• priui∣leged. [ 3] Last of all the appellation it selfe they do not vtterly denie, but desire the Pope that he will cutt away, Improba re∣fugia, wicked refuges, of naughty men abusing the benefit of appellation, and againe they require him not in no case to

with such as they do excōmunicat, but they desire him, vt non facilius ad aures suas admittat, not to admitt them to his hearing ouer lightly, vt non praeproperé, non indebité restituat, that he restore them not rashely or vniustly, before the cause be thouroughly examined. And so in S. Ciprian it appeareth, the excommunicated persons fled from Afrike to Rome,* 1.223 quasi (saieth S. Ciprian) veritas post eos nauigare non posset quae menda∣ces linguas rei certae probatione conuinceret, as though the truthe coulde not saile after them, which by certain triall might con∣uince their lying tounges. Wherein it is euident, that appella∣tion was made from Afrike to Rome, though the bishops them selues of Afrike, as S. Ciprian in that selfe epistle com∣plaineth, were troubled and offended therewith. But all this M. Iewell, as I saied, folowing the precepts of his arte, hathe thought good to omitte, making the Reader to beleue, that the Councell of Aphrica vtterly abandonned at that time the Po∣pe, and pronounced him guilty of manifest Forgerie. Hither∣to you see how litle they charge him withall. Let vs procede with the wordes of the Councell euen as M. Iewell hathe al∣leaged them.

[Iewell.] * 1.224For it was discretely and rightly considered that all matters are to be determined in the pla••es where they beganne.

These very wordes and reason S. Cyprian longe before the Nicene Councell was assembled, vseth, and that as a Ca∣non, Statute, or Ordonnaunce. Whereby it semeth this de∣termination of matters at home was an auncient priuilege of the Aphricane Churche, beside other countres of the west.

[Iewell.] * 1.225And that no prouince can lacke the holy ghoste, whereby the bisshoppes off Christe may be able, bothe wisely to see, and also constantly to mayntaine the right. And spe∣cially for that it is lawfull for euery man that shall mislike the discretion of his Iudges, to appeale either to a particular Councell within the same * 1.226 realme or to a generall Councell. On lesse perchaunce some man will saie, God is able to in∣spire the triall of Iustice into one man Alone (bicause he is bisshop of Rome) and will not inspire the same in to a great number of bisshop∣pes meeting togeather in Councell.

[Stapletō.] This latter sentence M. Iewell hathe printed with mighty mayne letters, as the whiche he would haue especially to be no∣ted. And no maruaile. For they are his owne wordes a greate parte thereof, not the wordes of the Councell. And therefore also I haue printed the same sentence, as the wordes of M. Ie∣well with a distincte letter from the wordes of the Councell. The true wordes off the Councell are thus. Firste in Latine. Nisi forte quisquam est qui credat vni cuilibet posse Deum nostrum examinis inspirare iustitiam,* 1.227 & innumerabilibus in Concilium sa∣cerdotibus denegare. In English truly translated they are thus much. Vnlesse there be anye man that will thinke that one God is able to inspire the triall of Iustice to any one, and that he will de∣nye it to a greate number of Bishoppes meeting together in Councell. Let vs nowe consider the manifest Forgerye of M. Iewell. His Forgerye is greate and standeth in these wordes. Into one man alone bicause he is Bis••oppe off Rome.

First for vni cuilibet, to any one, he hath put, into one man alone, and then to declare what one man, he addeth in a pa∣renthesis, Bicause he is bishop of Rome. Which wordes are not at all in the Councell. And therefore he chaunged the wordes before, that they might seme to leade to such a sence. As though the Councell had expressely and namely spoken a∣gainste the iudgement of the bishop of Rome being One man alone. Whiche sence persuaded to the Reader vnder the glorious name of the Aphricane Councell he thought would make gai∣ly against the One supreme gouuernemēt of Christes vicar on earthe. By such manifest Forgerye M. Iewell will proue the Pope a Forger. Let vs nowe procede with the wordes off the Councell.

[Iewel.] * 1.228And howe maye suche beyonde sea Iudgementes be thought good whereunto the personnes off the witnesses, which in triall off truthe are thought Necessary, either for that they be wemen, or for the Infirmitye off their age, or ffor many other incident let∣tes can not be brought?

For such like cōsiderations the triall of certaine sutes out of the realme at the Courte of Rome were embarred, vnder the reigne of kinge Edward the thirde in oure owne countre, and yet neither the Popes authorite thereby disanulled,* 1.229 neither any breache of vnite committed.

[Iewel.] * 1.230Now that any shoulde be sent abrode, as it were from youre holynes side, we finde it not decreed in any Councell.

[Stapletō.] This was expressely decreed in the Councell of Sardica in the seuenth Canon, aboute fourescore yeares before the time of this Aphricane Councell,* 1.231 as Socrates and Theodoretus bo∣the in theyr Ecclesiasticall Histories recorde. Thoughe here the Fathers of this Councell seme to haue no knowleadge the∣reof. And trulye as well they might misse the Canons of this Councell off Sardica, as they missed the Canons of the Nicene Councel, as it is already most euidently proued.

[Iewel.] * 1.232As for that you sent vs lately by our Brother Faustinus, as parte off the Nicene Councell, we must do you to witte that in the * 1.233 true Councelles, which we receiued frō oure holy felowe bisshop Cyrillus of Alexandria, and the Reuerent Father Atticus the bisshoppe off Constantinople, taken oute off the verye originalles it can not be founde. And sende you not any your Clerkes hetherto execute Iustice * 1.234 at any mans reque∣ste, lest we seme to bringe the smokie puffe off the worlde into the church off Christe. Thus farre the wordes of the Councell.

[Stapletō.] Here M. Iewell hath placed in the margin, as the enseigne of Victorie, this posy. The Pope taken in manifest For¦gerie. And by what wordes gathereth he that? Forsothe bicau∣se the Canon which the Pope alleaged, was not founde in the Originall Copies sent from Alexandria and Constantinople. Then M. Iewell. Adde to your note. S. Augustine, Saint Hiero∣me, S. Ambrose, Epiphanius, and Iustinian taken in Manifeste Forgerie, bicause (as I haue before shewed) all they do alleage certaine Canons of the Nicene Councell whiche are not to be founde in those Originalles. Then also adde to youre note, and cause it to be printed in the next edition of youre Englishe

Apologie (if euer for shame you will printe that lying libell a∣ny more). The Apologie of England taken in mani¦fest Forgerie: Bicause you alleage there a Canon of the Ni∣cene Councell, touching the blessed Sacrament, whiche is not to be founde in the Originalles sent from Alexādria and Con∣stantinople. But M. Iewell, beside these absurdityes, I haue saied I trust sufficiently before, to proue these Originalles could not be, nor were not the very true and perfecte Originalles off the Nicene Councell. Though verely I thinke they were the best that those good bishops then had. This being so, M. Iewell hath stoutely saied but nothing yet proued, that the Pope is a Forger. Let vs see what foloweth.

[Iewel.] * 1.235The Bishoppe of Rome when he sawe he was taken with the maner and founde an open falsarie, for that the Canons of his makinge disa∣greed from the very Originalles (297.) thought It good police, to saye the Originalles were burnt by the Arriās, and so no true copie remai∣ning, but his onely.

[Stapletō.] Here is a sadde Conclusion vpon a number of false premis∣ses. From manifest Vntruthes M. Iewel procedeth to lewde and malicious coniectures. But to be shorte you knowe the rule. V∣no absurdo dato sequitur quodiibet. Vpon a false grounde it is easy to builde Vntruthes apase. Howbeit yet we will see what they are. He saieth.

[Iewell.] * 1.236And therefore he (298) imagined a letter to be writen in the name of Athanasius, and other bishops of Aegypt, vnto Marcus the bisshop of Rome, wherein they besought him a Copie of the Nicene Coūcell for that all their bookes were vtterly destroied. But this shifte was to sim∣ple.

[Stapletō.] Yea truly a very simple shifte, and much more simple was al the posteryte of the lerned of Christendom, which in so many hundred yeares space, could neuer perceaue this wily drifte off the Pope, but haue euer liued vnder his Commaundement, vn∣tell now at length this Iewell of Englande had espied it. But deceiue not your selfe M. Iewell. Neither was all Christendome

so simple these many hundred yeares, neither are we at this pre∣sent (thanked be God therefore) but we can descrie the clere light of Gods truthe from the misty cloudes of hereticall deui∣ses. This Epistle of Athanasius to Marcus, was no deuised mat∣ter of the Pope M. Iewell, but the true epistle of Athanasius, for ought you can bring to the contrary. And for such it hath bene taken before you were borne, and shall be (doubt you not) after you are gone. Yet let vs heare the reason that you geue of this simple shifte. You saie.

[Iewell.] For it were harde for M. Harding, to shewe, what helpe Athanasius coulde haue founde in any of those Canons that are nowe presumed to be burnte,* 1.237 wherewith (.299.) either to relieue him selfe in that case, or els to molest or greue his aduersaries.

Then the triall hereof (M. Iewell) standeth not in any thing that you can bringe for your selfe, but in the triall of your ad∣uersaries might and abilite against you. You dispute against this Epistle of Athanasius, as if an infidell would dispute against S. Lukes Ghospel, not by any reason of his owne againste the ghospell, but by examining the Christian what reason he can bringe to proue it S. Lukes ghospell.* 1.238 Will Somer if he liued, by such meanes might dispute with the best Scholer in Englande. But M. Iewell for the authorite of that Epistle of Athanasius (it being allready receiued and allowed for his, by the consent of our elders) it is not to be tried by that which we can saie for it, who do trust herein our forefathers Iudgement, but by that which you can proue against it, if you will infringe the autho∣rity thereof. Howbeit you might of your selfe M. Iewell (we∣re you not blinded with some corrupted affection) see easely a right good reason why Athanasius shoulde require of the Pope the Copie of the Nicene Councel, seing your selfe cōfesseth in this same article, that the Councell of Nice were well worthe the shewing.

Though here M. Iewell haue ended all he can saye in effect

to proue the Pope a Forger, yet he interlaceth other thinges a great many to amplifie the matter, and to seme to the Reader to saie much. Therefore reprouing by the way Iulius and the Canon by him alleaged (to the which we haue before answe∣red) he returneth to Athanasius, and repeteth againe his Vn∣truthes, as one that toke great pleasure in lying. For hauinge done with Iulius, thus he foloweth.

[Iewell.] As for M Hardinges Athanasius his tale is so simple that it will so∣ne bewraye it selfe. For as I noted before,* 1.239 he writeth vnto Marcus the B. of Rome of the burning of the bookes, and yet Athanasius him selfe certainly knewe that Marcus was dead at the lest ix. yeres before that burning happened.

This is but a repetition of the former Vntruthes. For (as it hath before bene declared) neither in Athanasius Ad Orthodo∣xos neither in Socrates any such thinge appeareth.

[Iewell.] * 1.240Euen so the vaine Forger of the Emperour Constantines Dotatiō, imagineth him to decree that the bisshop of Constantinople shoulde be subiect vnto the See of Rome. And yet neither was the Cytie off Constantinople at that time builte, nor anye such name yet knowen in the worlde, nor any bisshopricke there erected. A man might saie. Non satis commodeé diuisa sunt temporibus tibi Daue haec.

[Stapleton.] Well exemplified, and well concluded. Who builte Con∣st••ntinople but Constantin that gaue that Dotation? And when is he reported to haue geuen it but aboute the ende of his Empire, that Cyte being allready builte and called by his name? Or at the lest when was that Storie writen but after the Cyte built, and so called? Haue you no better argument a¦gainst that Dotation then this is, and can yowe no better ex∣emplifye this matter? Certainely in the Tripartit History we reade of an epistle writen to Alexander where he is called the bishop of Constantinople, before the Nicene Counc••ll was holden, and therefore of all lykelyhood, before Constantin had yet so called the Cyte of Byzance. As for the Matter,* 1.241 S. Gregory saieth expressely of the Churche of Constantino∣ple.

Quis eam dubitet Sedi Apostolicae esse subiectam? Who doubteth but that Church is subiect to the See Apostolike?

* 1.242Againe the same Athanasius writing vnto Felix, saieth. The Arrians had falsified the Nicene Councell. But writing vnto Marcus of the same matter, as a man that had vtterly forgotten him selfe, he saieth. The Arri••ns had burnte the Councell of Nice. But if it were burnte, howe was it falsified? Yf it were falsified, howe was it burnte? These tales hange not well together.

[Stapleton] Yes forsothe M. Iewell, and you had bene a litle more min∣defull then Dauus, you might soone haue sene howe bothe those sayinges do well agree. Athanasius wrote to Marcus aboue twenty yeares before he wrote to Felix. Vnder Marcus the Arrians had burned the Canons.* 1.243 Athanasius wrote for an other Copie to Marcus, and as it appeareth by the letters off Marcus, Athanasius receiued them. Nowe Sir after him, Iulius was Pope and Liberius also. In whose times Constantius the Arrian Emperour afflicted Christendome, and the Arrians many yeres prospered, Athanasius all that time yet lyuing, and after,* 1.244 vnder Iulian the Apostata restored to his bishopricke, a∣boute what time Felix was the B. of Rome. Neither was it im∣possible that in all that meane while the Arrians so longe pro∣speringe had falsified the better Copies sent from Rome to Alexandria, neither that Athanasius shoulde certifie the Pope thereof. Therefore a man might here most iustly saie to yow Sir Comptroller. Non satis commodé diuisa sunt temporibus tibi Daue haec.

[Iewell.] But for as much as M. Harding woulde so faine haue the Pope to holde by burnte euidence, if it may please thee (gentle Reader) discre∣tely to weigh the whole circumstance of the matter, thou shalt soone finde that all this great adoo, was nothing els but a great fable.

[Stapletō.] For Gods loue and thy owne (gentle Reader) vse thy selfe here discretely and but indifferētly. Weigh the whole circum∣stances before mentioned, the Truthe of M. Iewelles proces∣se

hitherto, and the effect of that which foloweth. Thou shalt see, that when M. Iewell speaketh trulye, they are but bare Gheasses and sely Surmises. When his reason forceth, he spea∣keth beside the Truth. Thus it hath hitherto appered, and thus it shall hereafter appeare.

[Iewell.] * 1.245For first it appeareth by Theodoretus that the whole Actes and Copies of the Councell of Nice, were sent abrode vnto all bisshops that were awaye.

[Stapletō.] In the first place quoted by M. Iewell the decrees of the Nicene Councell were sent onelye to suche bishops as were subiect to the Patriarche of Alexandria, not to all bishops that were awaye. In the seconde place Theodoretus writeth of the Councell of Sardica, and not of the Councell of Nice.

And Marius Victorinus writing against Arius saieth that the same Actes were sent abrode into the whole worlde, and that many thousan∣de bishops subscribed and agreed vnto them. Whiche thinge being vn∣doubtedly true, it were verye muche for M. Hardinge to saie that all these copies, in all partes of the worlde, coulde be destroyed vpon the sodayne. And that altogether in one place, and with one fyer and at one cōmaundement. The Arrianes neither were so mighty to atchie∣ue it, nor so foolish to attempte it. Certainely the like neuer happe∣ned to any other Councell.

Where be your wittes, and where is your remembraunce M. Iewell? Who saieth that these Canons were burnt in all partes of the worlde, altogether in one place, and so forthe? We talke only nowe of Canons burnte in Alexandria, in Antio∣chia and Constantinople, the three great Cities of the East Church, where the Arrians ruled all the roste first twenty ye∣res and more vnder Constantius, then vnder Valens allmoste twenty yeres more. In all this time they were bothe able and wise enough in malice to burne those Canons which direct∣ly and expressely condemned their heresy. This Amplifiyng of the matter proueth you a Fabler. The matter auouched is proued yet no Fable.

But what nedeth wordes where the matter is plaine? The bisshop•• of Africa had the very Copies of these Canons.

In dede this is to the matter. But this is starke false. They had not the full and perfit Copie of the Canons as it hathe bene before at large proued. Namely by many Canons of that Councell alleaged of most approued Fathers, not extant in these pretensed Copies of the Aphricanes.

[Iewell.] * 1.246Alypius the bishop of T••gasta in this Conference with Faustinus saied. A••••uet••men me mouet, quoniam cum i••spi••eremus greca exemplaria huius Synodi Ni enae, ista i••i••escio qua ratione non inuenimus. But this one thinge muche moueth me, that confer••ing and examining the greke exāples of this Nicene Counce••l, these matters (off the superiorite off the See off Rome that is alleaged) I knowe not ho∣we we founde not there.

[Stapletō.] M. Iewell to doe allwaies his kinde, hathe infarced to his english translation these wordes, more then he founde in his latin, and hathe printed them with a seuerall letter as the wor∣des of the bishop of Tagasta, these wordes I saie: Of the Supe∣riorite of the See of Rome, that is alleaged. This is the vntrue dea∣ling of M. Iewell. For neither are those wordes in the latin, neither are they meaned of the Africane bishop. The Contro∣uersie then was not vtterly to refuse all obedience to the See of Rome, but to haue no Appeales out of Afrike to Rome. Whiche thinge before they had decreed in the Milleuitane Councell:* 1.247 and Pope Innocentius had confirmed that Coun∣cell.

[Iewell.] And Cyrillus the bisshop of Alexandria being desired for triall of this matter to sende the true Originall of this Councell,* 1.248 made awn∣swer in this sorte. I tho••ght it nedefull to sende vnto yowe the true examples off the ve••y A••••hentike Coun••el. Likewise Atticus the bisshopp of Constan∣tinopl•• to the same request answereth thus. I haue sente vnto yowe the Canons in t••e whole, euen as they were made and ratified by the Fat••ers in the Ci∣••ie of N••••e. Nowe if these Canons were quite burnte, as M. Harding saieth, howe were they afterwarde founde whole, as the godly Father Atticus and the l••rned bisshop Cyrillus saieth? And if they were af∣terward founde whole, howe then were they quite burnt before?

[Stapleton] All this longe Argument hath a shorte solution. Those bishops sent the best Copies that they had, and such as they to¦ke for whole and perfyt. But that they were not in dede the full, perfyt, and Authentike Copies, it hath bene allready suffi∣ciently proued. And to adde here one reason more thereunto, it is to be cōsidered that the Canons alleaged by Ruffinus, and in his Ecclesiasticall History recorded,* 1.249 do differ and vary frō the Canons alleaged by the bishops of the East bothe in number, and in order, and in the matter it selfe. As the lerned Reader maye easely see by conferring bothe together. Therefore agai∣ne, either those Copies were not perfyt, or the Ecclesiasticall History of Ruffinus must be condemned for a Forger as the Pope here is.

[Iewell.] * 1.250Or how is it, that no man, neither Africa, nor in Europa, nor in Asia, neither in the East Churche, neither in the weast was euer able to see these Canons, but onely the bishop of Rome, that so (307.) ambi∣tiously claimeth by them?

[Stapleton] This is an another figure of M. Iewelles Rhetorike, to Amplifie and exaggerat the matter. But all this proueth not those Co∣pies of the Africanes to be the full and Perfit Copies, neither yet that the Pope in alleaging a Canon which they had not, was a Forger and falsefyer.

[Iewell.] * 1.251And if he haue them in dede and that of suche Authentike recorde, vnder the handes of the three hundred and eyghtene bishops, (as it is boldly auouched) why a••e they not shewed? Why haue they bene for the space of these thirtene hūdred yeares stil kept vnuisible? Verely the Councell of Nice were well worthe the s••ewing.

[Stapleton] The force of M. Iewelles eloquence hath sett his witt quite out of order: and made him vtterly to forgett where aboute he goeth. Before he talked against Pope Zosimus, and would pro¦ue him a Forger. Now he raueth aboute the Pope now lyuing. But quyet your selfe M. Iewell. It is not auouched of any man that the Pope hath these Canons nowe, and hath kept them vnuisible these thirtene hundred yeres. But that Zosimus tru∣ly

alleaged them to the Africanes, and that he was no Forg•• him selfe therein, but had them in his Custody from his pre∣decessours Siluester and other, to whom they were sent from Nice, this is auouched, and this you haue forgotten.

[Iewell.] All these thi••ges rightly weighed, may seme sufficient to descrie a Forger.

[Stapletō.] All these thinges rightly weighed, may seme sufficient to des••rie a Slaunderer. All this maye euidently shewe, that M. Ie∣well is a hotte Rhetorician, a colde diuine, a great talker, a wea∣ke reasonner, full of wordes, voide of proufes. Remembre M. Iewell the saying of the wise man. Quid Stulti proprium? Non posse & velle Nocere.

[Iewell.] Yet (gentle Reader) the better to satisfye thy minde, marke howe earnestly and with what Conninge M. Hardinges Athanasius forceth on his fable. He thought it not sufficient to saie, The Canons all were quite burnte, Which thinge he only saieth and no man els but bicause he sawe wise men would Replie, There were no such Canons euer made, the∣refore he tooke paynes furder to shewe the consideratyons and cau∣ses, and the whole order, and circūstance of the making, whereat, he sa∣ieth, he him selfe was present.

[Stapleton.] M. Iewell forsothe is the wise man that Replieth, There were no such Canons euer made. For it is nowe more then a thousand yeres that any mā replied so, befor the holy broode of f••yer Lu¦ther amonge whom M. Iewel hath lerned this witte. And how wisely he hath Replied, it appeareth I trowe, by the Graue and True processe that he hath hitherto made. And shall yet better appeare by the Depe Consideration which foloweth.

[Iewell.] Foure score canons (saieth he) were diuised in the whole: whereof 40. we∣re layde in Latine by the Latines, and 40. other in Greke by the Grecians. Off this whole number of Canons (sayeth he) the Fathers there toke of tenne Canons and diuided them as they might, moste handsomely amonge the rest, and so made vp onely the number of 70. Canons. thereby mystically to represent the 70. Disciples, or els the number of the. 70. tounges that be knowen in the worl••e. Thus of who∣lesome and godly Rules of Faithe and Maners, M. Hardinges Athana∣sius hath leasure to fansie preaty Mysteries.

[Stapleton] Now forso the reasoned like a prety diuine, and full Bi∣shoplike. Athanasius telleth of threscore and tenne Canons

made to represent the three score and tenne disciples, or els the three score and tenne tounges that be knowen in the worlde, Ergo that was not the true Athanasius that wrote it, but some idle fansyer of preaty Mysteries. Howe truly saied S. Paule? Animalis homo non percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus dei.* 1.252 Stultitia enim est illi. The Sensuall man perceaueth not those thinges that are of the Spirit of God. For it soundeth to him as a folie. And againe, Sapientia Carnisinimica est deo.* 1.253 The wisedom of the flesh is contrary to God. For were you in dede M. Iewell affe∣ctioned as it becometh a Bishop and sheapherd of Gods flocke to be, yea had you any portion of that holy Spirit directing your thoughtes and writinges, as but a sober Christen man ought to haue, you woulde n••uer haue vttered such a lewde toye to discredit the writing of an Auncient and most lerned Father, such as Athanasius thourough out all Christendom is knowen to be. For by the like vaine of your singular witte and wisedom M. Iewell, you may discredit many a lerned worke of the best and most approued Fathers of Christes Churche. S. Ambrose in his lerned worke De fide ad Gratianum maketh a mystery of the number of the Fathers of the Nicene Coun∣cell (as Athanasius reporteth the Fathers them selues to haue made of the number of their Canons,) and compa∣reth the .318. Fathers to the .318. fighting men vnder Abraham when he conquered the foure kinges, saying. De con∣••ilijs id potissimum sequar,* 1.254 quod trecenti decem & octo sacerdotes tā∣quam Abrahae electi iudicio, consona fidei virtute victores velut tro¦phaeū toto orbe subactis perfidis extulerunt. Vt mihi videatur hoc esse diuinū, quòd eodem numero in Concilijs fidei habemus oraculū, quo in historia pietatis exemplum. Of all councels I will folowe that chiefly which the three hundred and eightene Priestes as if they had bene chosen by the minde of Abraham (who with that number conquered the iiij. kinges) by the Agrement of faithe triumphed by conquest ouer all faithelesse folcke. That

it semeth to me this matter was by Gods prouidence, that we haue an Oracle of our Faithe in Councels vnder the same Number, as we haue an example of vertu in the Storie. This obseruation and likelyhood of Number semed to S. Ambrose, Diu••num, a Matter done by God, a Mystery, a Secret worke of the highest. And yet is he not therefore accompted a fancyer of prety Mysteries (as full pretely M. Iewel bableth) neither is the∣refore that lerned worke of his reiected or doubted of. In like m••ner S. Hierom in his Apologie ad Pammachium, make•••• •• Mystery of these three numbers, thirty, three score, and a hun∣dred, which our Sauiour in the ghospel speaketh, of the encrea∣se that cometh of the sede falling vpon good earthe, and saieth of these nūbers.* 1.255 Triginta referuntur ad nuptias, Septuaginta vero ad viduas. Porro numerus centesimus exprimit vi••gin••tatis Coro∣nam. Thirty are referred to Mariage. Three score to widowes state. And the numbre of a hundred representeth the garland of Virginite. What nowe? Will M. Iewell here either therefore denie this worke to be of S. Hieroms making, or els saie that of Gods holy worde he h••d leasure to fansie preaty Mysteries? In like maner when S. Augustine maketh Mysteries not only of A∣braham, Isaac, and Iacob, and their so many wiues, but also of Lothes lying with his owne daughters, and of the fornication committed by Iudas with his daughter in Lawe Thamar,* 1.256 and such other matters against that heretike Faustus the Manichee, will M. Iewelles modesty serue him trowe we, to saie, that that lerned piece of worke is none of S. Augustines, but of some Fa∣bler that had leasure vpon holy Scripture to fansie preaty Myste∣ries? Or shall we rather saie that all this graue and depe conside∣ration of M. Iewell, which he bringeth, as he saieth, to satisfie his Readers minde, is but a lewde scoffe of his idle brayne against that holy Councell more mete truly for a Sir Iohn hicke Scorner, then for a my L. bishop. And for such I let it passe.

[Iewell.] But for better viewe hereof, I remembre Cardinall Cusanus tou∣ching

the famous donation of Constantine writeth thus. Euen in the wri¦ting of it, I haue founde manifest tokens of f••lsehood.

[Stapleton.] This is well remembred surely. But were your faithe as good, as your memory is shrewde, I trowe you would haue re∣membred some better thinge, thē thus to haue trifled and toy∣ed. Verely a litle remembrance will serue to remembre a num∣ber not tokens of falshood, but facing falshoods in dede, open Vntruthes and lewde Lyes all alonge your Replie, M. Iewell, and especially in this your wise discourse of the Popes Forge∣rie. Wherein, I trowe, you will at length conclude your selfe a Forger. How beit let vs see nowe what your good remembran∣ce hath holpen you in this matter.

[Iewell.] * 1.257The like may be saied of these M. Hardinges newe Canons. Euen in the very vtteraunce and writi••g of them we may finde plaine contrariete and there∣fore vndoubted tokens of Vntruthe.

This like is vntruly saied of M. Iewell, except he proue it. And not only Vntruly, but also Slaunderously. Let then his proofes trie.

[Iewell.] For the former twenty Canons, whereof there is no question, were made in the Councell of Nice. But the rest, whereof S. Augustin and the bishops of Africa moued doubte, and whereby the Bishop of Ro∣me woulde seme to claime, were diuised at Rome and not at Nice.

[Stapleton] This is a mere kinde of Sophistry, called Petitio Principij. For that is brought to proue a Conclusion, which ought it selfe to be proued and Concluded. M. Iewell will proue that the Canons were diuised by the Pope, bicause they were diui∣sed by the Pope. As much to saie. Why is it so? Mary bicause it is so.

[Iewell.] This newe Canon here alleaged sayeth. The bishop of Rome hath the rule and Souerainte ouer all Patriarche••.

[Stapleton] This was not alleaged of Zosimus,* 1.258 whom M. Iewell goeth aboute to proue a Forger. But it is alleaged of Franciscus Tur∣rianus and out of him by D. Harding. Thus M. Iewel confoun¦deth

and iumbleth thinges together, But let vs see what he will inferre hereof.

[Iewell.] * 1.259But the very true and vndoubted Councell of Nice saieth farre o∣therwise. Antiqua consaetudo seruetur per Aegyptum, Lybiam & Pentapolim, vt A¦lexandrinus horum omnium habeat potestatem. Quia & vrbis Romae Episcopo parilis mos est. Let the Auncient cu••tome be kept through out Agypte, Lybia, and Pentapolis: that the bishop of Alexan••ria haue the gouernement of all these. For the bishop of the Citye of Rome hath the like order. By this Canon the B. of Rome hath (310) no Soueraynte ouer other Patriarches,* 1.260 As M. Harding fantasieth, but onely a felowship, and equalyte with the rest, to walke carefully with in his owne diuision, as others were bounde to doo within theirs.

[Stapleton] This Canon dothe importe a Souuerainte of the B. of Ro∣me ouer other Patriarches. And therefore the contrary is vn∣truly auouched. Aske you howe that may appeare? Forsothe by these very wordes of the Canon alleaged. Quia & vrbis Ro∣mae episcopo parilis mos est. Bicause the bishop of Ro••e hath the like order. The Canon Commaundeth not as a newe matter but as an Olde Custome that the bishop of Alexandri∣a shall gouuerne all Aegypt, and Pentapolis. And why shall that olde Custom be kept? The Canon saieth. Quia & vr∣bis Romae Episcopo Parilis mos est. Bicause the Bishop of Ro∣me hath the like Order.* 1.261 As much to saie, bicause the bishop of Rome hath so of longe time appoynted it and ordred it. Els the reason of the Decree were voide, and fonde. For a fon∣de thinge it were to alleage for a reason of the lawe the Custo∣me, Maner and Order of an other, if his Order and Maner did not importe an Authorite, sufficient to Rule and direct the La¦we. That holy Councell therefore, alleaging expressely the Order before taken by the bishop of Rome, as a Reason why the other Patriarches shoulde be thus and thus limited, geueth vs to vnderstande, that such their limitation proceded of the Bishop of Romes former Order and appoyntment, and that the Decree of the Canon of that Councell was but a publike Testimony and Ratification of the Ancient Order before by

the Pope taken and vsed. And thus this Canon importeth a Souerainte of the B. of Rome ouer other Patriarches, as by whose Order the others Iurisdiction was limited and restray∣ned. Thus also the other Canon alleaged by Franciscus Tur∣rianus and men••ioned by D. Harding is not contrary to the true Copies or Canons of the Nicene Councell, but soundeth agreable to the same.

[Iewell.] And in this canon these two wordes Parilis mos are specially to be no¦ted: which cannot (311.) otherwise be expounded,* 1.262 but only of like ma¦ner, order, and Authorite of Iurisdiction.

So saieth M. Iewell. But then lett vs consider the reason of the Canon. The Canon saieth. The Patriarche of Alexandria shal haue Aegypt, lybia, and Pentapolis allotted to his Iurisdi∣ction. And why? Forsothe by M. Iewelles reason, Bicause the bishop of Rome hath ••he like maner, order, and authorite of Iurisdi¦ctiō. What? hath the bishop of Rome the like Iurisdiction ouer Aegypt, lybia, and Pentapolis, and shal therefore the Patriarke of Alexandria haue the same? Doe those two wordes Parilis mos necessarely inferre so much, and can they not otherwise be expounded? Then two seuerall Patriarches must haue one and the like Iurisdiction. Then which what cā be more absur∣de? What then? Shall therefore the bishop of Alexandria haue such and such Countres allotted vnto him, bicause the B. of Rome hath such and such other Countres? And what reason is this to make a Decree, I appeale to al men of reason and vn∣derstanding. This might perhaps serue for a like and simili∣tude, as that the B. of Alexandria shoulde be the Patriarche ouer such Countres, Euen as the Bishop of Rome is the Patri∣arche ouer other Countres. But nowe the wordes of the Ca∣non, are not Euen as the B. of Rome, and so forthe. But the wordes of the Canon are: Quia•• & Episcopo parilis mos est. Bi∣cause the Bishop of Rome hath the like Order. The like Or∣der takē. by the bishop of Rome is geuen as a Cause and Rea∣son

of the Decree. It is not brought as a Like or Similitude to exemplifie the decree. Therfore it can not be taken as M. Iewel fantasyeth, to signifie a like maner and Authorite of Iurisdi∣ction in the bishop of Rome. But it must of necessite signifie a Superior Authorite of the B. of Rome. Verely such as the which was a sufficient warrāt and Reason to that Holy Coun¦cell, to establish the olde Accustomed Iurisdiction of the Pa∣triarche of Alexandria, ouer Aegypt, Libia and Pentapolis. And thus farre doe the true Copies of the Nicene Councell agree with the other not commonly extant amonge the twenty, and confirme in like maner the Supreme Authorite of the bishop of Rome ouer the Patriarches them selues.

[Iewell.] * 1.263M. Hardinges Canon saieth. S. Pete•• was maister and ruler ouer all Christen Princes. And yet is not M. Hardinge able to proue that whi∣le S. Peter liued, there was any one prince Christened in the whole worlde.

What a Manifest, Notorious, and Capitain Vntruthe this is, it shall anon appeare, in the Returning of the next Vntru∣the fathered by M. Iewell vpon D. Harding. But nowe let vs consider how M. Iewell can Gheasse to the Contrary.

* 1.264And if Peter had had power ouer kinges and Princes, it is not like∣ly he woulde haue taken vp his lodging with Cornelius the poore Tanner.

Well gheassed and wisely. As though S. Peters power com∣mitted to him by Christ, and the Primacy which he had (by Chry¦sostomes Iudgement) ouer the whole worlde, was to commaun∣de him selfe a lodging and such like temporall p••eferments. Some foolish Iewe might reason as wise M. Iewell here do∣the, and saie. If Christ was the Sonne of God and kinge of al, it is not likely he would haue liued in such sorte that he might saie (as he saied) of him selfe. Foxes haue their holes, and birdes haue their nestes. But the Son of man hath not where to reste his hea∣de. By such godly Reasons M. Iewell f••••eth Gods people. But S. Paule soluteth well this whole matter,* 1.265 saying. VVhat is my

rewarde? For sothe that preaching the ghospell, I may deliuer the ghospell without coste. That I maye not abuse my Power in the Go∣spell. So dealed the Apostles at the beginning, and so they plan∣ted the ghospell, not yet leesing therefore their Spiritual Iuris∣diction.

[Iewell.] In the ende he concludeth with a Terrour. Iff any man repine against this Statute, accursed be he.

In dede to all heretikes,* 1.266 a Terrour it is to obey their Supe∣riours: and specially to be subiect to the See of Rome. So the Arrians defyed Pope Iulius, the Eutychiā Dioscorus presumed to excommunicat Pope Leo, the Donatistes would not stan∣de to the Iudgement of Pope Melciades. And so to M. Iewell the Statute of the Nicene Councel confirming the Popes Su∣premacy is a Terrour.

[Iewell.] Wherein he doth great wronge bothe to S. Augustine,* 1.267 and also to all the Bishoppes of Aphrical, Numidia, Mauritania, Pentapolis and By¦zancena. Who not only repined (.314.) openly against this Canō, but also saied, It was falsifyed, and rebuked the Pope of Pride and Ambi∣tion for the same.

[Stapleton] Of what Metle is M. Iewel made that this outfaceth Matters? For S. Augustine and all those bishops neuer sawe this Canō. This Canon I saie alleaged by D. Harding out of Turrianus against the which M. Iewell hath so longe talked, which con∣fesseth the Pope to be ouer al Patriarches, which saith, that S. Peter was Master and ruler ouer al Princes, and the which (as M. Iewel saieth) concludeth with a terrour, this Canō the Africane bishop¦pes neuer sawe. But it is one of those Canōs which Franciscus Turrianus a lerned man of our daies hath founde out. Is there any regarde of shame or honesty in M. Iewell that multiplieth Vntruthes, and droppeth lies, so faste?

To be shorte, what leadeth M. Harding thus to saie?* 1.268 The bishop off Ro∣me hath these three score and ten Canons in safe keeping. VVhy dothe he thus dissemble and mocke the worlde?

And Alas. What leadeth M. Iewel thus to belye D. Harding? why dothe he thus dissemble and mocke the world? What shal

he hope to winne or gett hereby, but if it be to haue the VVhetstone? The wordes which D. Harding saieth of those three score and tenne Canons kept in Rome, are these.

[Harding.] * 1.269Among the Canons made by the .318. bishops at the Nicene Councell, which were in number 70. and all burnt by here∣tikes in the East Church saue xx. and yet the whole number vvas kept diligently in the Churche of Rome in the Ori∣ginall it selfe, Sent to Syluester the Bishop there from the Councell subscribed with the saide .318. Fathers hādes etc? In these wordes D. Harding saied, the whole number, VVas kept. And howe? Sent to Syluester by the Councell it selfe, but that the bishop of Rome nowe hath them, as M. Iewel maketh him to saie, he saieth not at all. Who so beleueth not me herein, let him peruse the whole wordes of D. Harding in this place in the very text inserted in M. Iewelles Replie, and if he finde it otherwise, let me neuer more be credited. Now M. Iewell with more impudency then cā well be expres∣sed,* 1.270 reasoneth very sadly out of the decrees, and proueth that many a yere agoe, the Pope had but twenty Canons of that Councell: and thus he concludeth.

[Iewell.] * 1.271The Pope saieth there are but twenty Canon extant, M. Harding sa∣ieth (316.) ••here are three score and tenne Canons. I trowe, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 no rea∣son, we shoulde beleue M. Harding, and leaue the Pope.

[Stapleton] No truly. But it were more reason that you woulde ones speake more truly, and not so vily abuse the Patience of your Reader with such grosse, shamelesse, and Slaunderous Vntru∣thes.

After this holesome and frutefull Processe M. Iewell hath a flinge againe at an other Epistle of Anathasius to Felix. All out of season, and all beside the purpose. Leaning therefore his Vntrue allegatiōs of certain doctours, about that matter of (the which his vntrue dealing he shall yet heare by some other, God

willing, er it be longe) let vs consider M. Iewelles Con∣clusion and winding vp of this greate Processe of the Popes forgerie.

[Iewell.] * 1.272Nowe, gentle Reader, shortely and simply, to laie all the effect he∣reof before thine eyes: M. Hardings Canons were burnte before they were euer made.

[Stapleton.] This is one Manifest Vntruth to beguile the Reader. Now foloweth a Scoffe to abuse the Reader.

[Iewell.] They were burnte, and yet were they falsified, They were falsified and yet were they burnt to.

[Stapletō] * 1.273So the fielde was wonne, and the fielde was loste. The fielde was lost, and yet it was wonne. But twenty yeres came be∣twene.

This Athanasius informeth Marcus the Bishop of Rome of the burning of them, nine yeres before the fire was made.

[Stapleton] They were burnte in the dayes of Marcus, saieth Athanasius. A second fire M. Iewell woulde fayne proue. But to proue that Vntruthe he is driuen to make bothe Athanasius and So∣crates to saie that they neuer sayed.

[Iewell.] The Pope is found in most manifest Forgerie,* 1.274 and that by the witnes∣se of the Patriarkes of Cōstantinople, and Antioche, and off all the bishoppes, and the whole Councell of Affrica, S. Augustin him selfe being present.

[Stapleton] This is founde all to be a manifest fable full of Vntruthes, Slaunderous, lewde, and lying. Of the Aphricanes dealing we shall saye more anon.

[Iewell.] M. Harding saieth.* 1.275 The Pope hath the custody of these Inuisi∣ble Canons. The Pope him selfe saieth, he hath none of them.

D. Harding saied not so. But euen as that Pope Steuen sa∣yed, that they were all at Rome to the number of .70. and sent thither by the Councell it selfe to Pope Syluester..

These Canons be plaine Contrary not onely to the olde Catholike Fathers but also to other Canons of the same Councell.* 1.276

[Stapletō.] The Canons of the same Councell are not contrary to the∣se alleaged, as hath bene proued. As for Fathers contrary to these Canons M. Iewell hath alleaged none.

The bishoppes in the Councell of Africa openly mislike the Popes attempte in this behalfe, and call it worldly pride and vaine Ambi∣tion.

[Stapleton] Howe they misliked it, and howe well they did in it, it hath before appeared, and shall yet anon more appeare.

[Iewell] Such warrant hath M. Harding to auaunce the state of the see of Ro∣me.

[Stapleton] Such proofes hath M. Iewell against the See of Rome. And thus by a number of manifest Vntruthes, by sleightes and open Forgerie M. Iewell hath thought good to proue the Pope a Forger, and to blase in the title of these fiue pages, The Pope a Forger: The Pope a Forger. For the which I see no cause, but we may most iustly saie and publish to the worl∣de. Ievvell a Forger. Ievvell a Forger. And not only that, but Ievvel a Slaunderer. Ievvel a Slaūderer. And agai∣ne. Open Vntruthes of Ievvel: Open Vntruthes of Ievvell. For thus deserueth he with all men to be estemed, which heapeth Vntruthes vpō other mens backes most Vn∣truly, and chargeth that blessed Pope Zosimus, with Forgery and Falsifying, Blased out in great letters, but Proued with no Reason.

Nowe for a surplussage, bicause M. Iewell with all the helpe of the lying Centuries, patched vp by his brethern of Magde∣burge, with all his studie and conference with his frendes, hath not yet bene able to fasten any Forgerye vpon Pope Zo∣simus, but the more he hath talked therein, the moe Vntruthes he hath multiplied, let vs cōsider howe the Africanes them sel∣ues after the deathe of this Zosimus (who was Pope but one ye∣re) spake and reported of him, whether as of a Forger and Fal∣syfyer, as the impudent face of M. Iewell had blased it out, or otherwise. First the whole Councel of the Africane bishops in their letter to Bonifacius the next Successour of this Zosimus,

euen talking of this matter of appealing to Rome, and of the Nicene Canon alleaged by Zosimus therefore, do call him Beatae memoriae Zosimum. Zosimus of blessed memory. And a∣gaine Venerabilis memoriae Zosimum,* 1.277 Zosimus of Reuerent me∣mory. If these Africane bishops had (as M. Iewell most lewde∣ly lyeth) descried such a Forgery of the holy Councell of Nice in Zosimus, and if they had also bene of the Sprit, that this ghospelling Prelatis of, they woulde I trowe, haue blased him oute in their letter thus. Zosimus the Forger, Zosimus the Falsy∣fyer of the holy Councell. Zosimus of infamous memory. But we see in these Fathers bothe an other opinion and an other Spirit, then appereth in these wicked Chams, whose whole glory and pleasure is to Accuse their Fathers, holy and lerned bishops of Christes Churche before them.

S. Augustin one of the Africane bishops that was present when Faustinus legate to this Pope Zosimus alleaged the sa∣me Canon of the Nicene Councell, let vs consider howe after the deathe of Zosimus, he reporteth of him in his lerned wri∣tinges against the Pelagians, condēned especially by this lerned Pope Zosimus. He saieth of Celestius the Pelagian heretike, In vrbe Roma libellum dedit beatissimo Papae Zosimo.* 1.278 In the Citie of Rome he gaue vp a libel (of his faithe and belefe) to the Most holy Pope Zosimus. And bicause this lerned Pope Zosimus did not D••strictam ferre sententiam pronounce a strai∣ght Sentēce against this Pelagyan heretike, but suis interrogatio∣nibus & illius responsionibus furentem colligare, donec (si fieri posset) resipisceret, moderat the fury of the heretike by his questyons and the others answers, vntil, if it were possible, he might amē∣de, bicause I saie the Pope Zosimus thus dealed with him, S. Augustin calleth him Multū misericordē Apostolicae Sedis Anti∣stitē, A very mercifull bishop of the See Apostolike. In the next Chapter folowing he calleth him Venerabilis Papa Zosi∣mus

The Reuerent Pope Zosimus. And in the next af∣ter Beatissimus Papa Zosimus. The most Blessed Pope Zosimus.* 1.279 And againe in the same Chapter. Venerabili Pa∣pae Zosimo Synodus Africana respondit. The Africane Councell answered to the Reuerent Pope Zosimus. In fewe Chapters after, recording howe Pelagius went aboute ad fallendum etiam Apostolicae Sedis Epis••opale iudicium, to decei∣ue the bishoply Iudgement euen of the See Apostolike, he tel∣leth of letters which Pelagius sent to Innocentius, but Quo∣niam eum in corpore non inuenerunt,* 1.280 Sancto Papae Zosimo da∣tae sunt Bicause they founde not Innocentius then lyuing, they were deliuered to The Holy Pope Zosimus. These and such like Titles gaue that holy and lerned Father S. Augustin, one of the Africane bishops in whose presence that Canon of the Nicene Counce was alleaged, to Pope Zosimus. He calleth him A Holy Pope, A most Blessed pope. A Reuerēt Pope, a very mercifully Bishop, and so forthe, but by the name of For¦ger,* 1.281 Falsyfyer, or any such like termes he calleth him not. Had he bene guilty of such a haynous Crime, as M. Iewell and his felowes do laye against him, he woulde not so reuerently haue spoken of him, and that so ofte. Allmost as ofte as he nameth him.

Nowe bicause M. Iewell fantasieth a Forgerie descried in the Pope by the Africanes and by the East Churches, let vs a litle cōsider their dealing therein. First the Aphricanes sent to al the three Churches of the East,* 1.282 Alexandria, Antioche, and Cōstā∣tinople. Frō Alexādria and Cōstātinople they receiued Copi∣es. From Antioche they receyued none. Or at the lest in the A∣phricane Councel there appeareth no Copie sent from then∣ce. Howe chaunced that trowe we? Were there not to be sounde any in that Churche, but destroyed by heretikes, or

was there a Copie sent, but not published by the Aphrica∣nes? If the first, as likely were the other to haue the Copies corrupted and imperfect, as that Patriarkeship vtterly to lese them. If the seconde, then dealed not the Aphricanes so vp∣rightly as they might haue done. Verely the Aphricanes them selues in their letters to Caelestinus the Pope, certifying him of the receyte of those Copies from Alexandria and from Constantinople, do not auouche them for the absolute true and only Copies, but do call them Concilia veriora, the truer Copies of the Nicene Councel,* 1.283 geuing vs to vnder∣stande that other copies there were, whiche to them semed not so true. Els iff other Copies had not then bene ex∣tant, they shoulde not haue called them Veriora the truer: but absolutely Vera, the True Copies,* 1.284 as M. Iewell in dede befo∣re turned the same worde, declaring his good will, howe he woulde haue had them writen.

Againe the Copie sent from Cyrillus of Alexandria refer∣reth it selfe to the Ecclesiasticall history. For there it is saied. Quae et in ecclesiastica historia requirentes inuenietis. Which Ca∣nons ye shall finde also in the Ecclesiasticall history.* 1.285 Nowe no Ecclesiasticall history hath any such Canons of the Nicene Councell, but the history of Ruffinus. But those Canons by him mentioned, and the Copie of Cyrillus do varie not a lit∣le. Ruffinus, beside the order and placing of the Canons is not like, hath also xxij. Canons. The Copie sent by Cyrillus hath but xx.* 1.286 Therefore either Cyrillus was ouersene in refer∣ring the Africanes to that history, or els the very letter of Cy¦rillus is but for••ed or at the lest his Copie not perfect.

Againe Marcus the bishop of Ephesus, one that of all other forceth most this dealing of the Aphricanes against the See of Rome, affirmeth that the Aphricanes sent not to Cyrillus and Atticus, but to Cyrillus and Proclus. And that the Cōtrouer∣sie betwene the Africanes and the Pope was not aboute Appea∣les,

but whether the Pope might be called vniuersall bishopp. Thus these Greciās agree not in their tales. And thus we might saie according to the good remembraunce of M. Iewell, as Nicolaus Cusanus saied,* 1.287 Euen in the very vtterance of the matter we may finde manifest tokens of falshood.

To ende this matter of the Aphricane bishops demeanour to¦warde the See of Rome, though it was at this present done (as it may seme) without breache of Charyte, or of their whole o∣bedience to the See of Rome, standing only vpon the case of Appeale, yet that all was not wel on their parte, the Successe, which is Gods iudgement (as S. Augustin noteth) Declared. For euen immediatly after (S. Augustin yet liuing) the Wan∣dals ouerpressed the Countre,* 1.288 the Arrians vsed extreme per∣secution (as the history of Victor particulary expresseth) and the whole estate of Christianite for the space of a hundred ye∣res was in that Countre miserably afflicted, and persecuted. After which time a Generall Submission and Reconciliation was made off the Africane Bishops,* 1.289 by Eulalius the Arche∣bishop of Carthage, vnto the See of Rome Bonifacius the se∣cond then sitting in the Chayre of Peter. Againe whether the Pope was a Forger, and his so longe after continued Autho∣rite grounded thereupon (as M. Iewel of his brethern of Mag∣deburg hath lerned to saie) or the Africanes to be blamed in that Contention, to leaue other triall, we see God hath ge∣uen the Sentence. The Moores and Infidels possesse Afrike. Christians and Catholikes liue yet at Rone. And haue so done without interruption euer sithens.

[Hard.] As Peter Christes vicare at the beginning being sette in Authorite ouer religion, ouer the Churches, and ouer al thin∣ges pertaining to Christ, was Master and Ruler of Christian Princes, Prouinces, and al nations &c.

The 98. Vntruthe. For there was no Prince or prouince Christened

in S. Peters time.

[Stapletō.] * 1.290It is written in the Ecclesiasticall historie. Augarus Edesse∣norum princeps in initio, Thaddeo vno ex septuaginta veniente fi∣dem cum tota illa regione recepit. Augarus the Prince of Edessa receiued the faith with all that prouince, euen att the begin∣ning by the preaching of Thaddeus one of the 70. disciples. Lo here is One prouince Christened in S. Peters time. Thus by a manifest Vntruthe M. Iewell hath noted Vntruthe vpon o∣thers. And how saie you M. Iewell? Doth not the psalme saie of the Apostles, Constitutes eos principes super omnem terram. Thou shal make thē rulers ouer the whol earthe? And yet you knowe the whole earthe was not Christened in their time. A∣gaine Chrisostom saieth of Peter by name that Christ made him gouerner of the whole world. These are his wordes. God the Father saied vnto Hieremie the prophet. I haue sett the as a piller of yron, and as a brasen walle. But God the father did sett this pro¦phet ouer one natiō onely (of the Iewes) but Christ set Peter gouuer¦ner ouer the whole worlde. And this preeminence of Peter Chri¦sostom in that place doth prosecut, to proue, that the Au∣thorite and Power of Christe is no lesse, then of God the Fa∣ther. Now then as Peter is truly called gouuerner ouer the whole worlde, though the whole worlde were not Christened (his gouuernement yet extending to Christians only, for off those which are without, we iudge not,* 1.291 saieth S. Paule) so is Peter truly called the Master and ruler of Princes, though in his time fewe princes were Christened.

Againe as Peter was truly and by right the Gouerner of the whole world by Christs appointment, although not he in per∣son, but his successours in time haue so gouerned the whole worlde, and shall (before the ende come) gouuerne through out euery corner thereof, donec impleatur plenitudo gentium, vntil the fulnesse of gentiles be accomplished, so Peter is truly called the Master of all Christen Princes, bicause though not he in

person, yet his successours had and shal haue the spirituall gou∣uernement of all Princes in the worlde.

Last of all what letteth that the Councell of Nice might not call the number of conuerted Christians and Countres in S. Peters time (who were not I trowe all beggers or of base degree) but some Potences some Nobiles,* 1.292 some mē of power and nobilite, by the name of Princes and prouinces, as S. Peter cal∣led Herode and Pilate persecuting the Christians, by the na∣mes of Princes and Kinges, when he saied the prophecy was fulfilled in them spoken by Dauid, where it is writen: Kin∣ges of the Earthe and Princes haue risen together against the Lorde and his annoyn••ed.* 1.293 Neither Herode was Kinge, neither Pilat was Prince in respect of the Iewes, which professed and saied, VVe haue no kinge but Caesar,* 1.294 and yet they are called without Vntruthe in generall termes Kinges and princes.

[Harding.] The Christen Princes that ratified and confirmed with their proclamations and edictes, the decrees of the Canons con¦cerning the Popes primacie and gaue not him first that au∣thorite (as the aduersaries doo vntruly reporte) were Iusti∣nian and Phocas the Emperours.

* 1.295The 99. Vntruthe. Phocas gaue this Title to the bishop of Rome, but Iustinian gaue it neuer.

M. Iewell is not contented to auouche an Vntruthe vpon D. Harding, but he addeth also a manifest and Captain Vn∣truthe of his owne making beside. For first Iustinian the Em∣perour writing to Iohn the seconde Pope of that name calleth his holynes by these very wordes: Caput omnium sanctarum ecclesiarum: The head of all holy Churches. And in an other Constitution he saieth expressely. Vt legum originem anterior Roma sontita est, ita & Summi Pontificatus Apicem apud eam esse ••emo est qui dubitet. Vnde & nos necessarium duximus Patriam le∣gum, fontem Sacerdotij, speciali nostri Numinis lege illustrare.

As from Olde Rome the lawes haue spronge forth, so the very Topp of the highest bishoprike to be in that Citie there is no∣ne that doubteth. Therfore we also thought it necessary to ho¦nour the Mother of our Lawes, and the Wel ••pringe of Priest∣hood with some special lawe of our highnes. In those two pla∣ces Iustinian first calleth the Pope of Rome Head of all Holy Churches: and then confesseth him to occupie the Toppe of the highest Bishoprike, and that not as any Priuilege by him or his predecessours graunted, but as a matter that no Christen man doubted of. This therefore is one most Manifest, most Impu∣dent and Captain Vntruthe of M. Iewell to saie so perempto∣rely and so facingly Iustinian gaue this Title neuer. For here is bothe the Title, and the Authorite of the Title expressely con∣fessed. Againe the very wordes of Iustinian are plaine alleaged here by D. Harding. Which are these. Sancimus secundum Cano∣nem d••finitiones, Sanctissimum Senioris Romae Papā, primū esse om∣nium Sacerdotum. We ordaine according to the determination of the Canons, that the most holy Pope of the elder Rome, be formest and chiefe of al Priests. How saie you M. Iewel? Is not here the chiefty or Primacy of the Pope ouer al priests cōfir∣med by the Emperours edict? Is it not true that the Emperour geueth him that Title, and calleth him Primum omnium Sacer∣dotum, the chiefest of all Priestes? And that not by his owne au∣thorite or commaundement, but Secundum Canonum defini∣tiōes. Acco••ding to the determinatiōs of the Canōs. What saie you to this place? This is within the compasse of your six hundred yeres, six times farder then Phocas is out of tha•• compasse, whose testimony you reiect therefore. No no, You will neuer yelde, You must with often impudency de∣fende, that which was ones impudently spokē. Let vs see what you saie.

[Iewell.] This priuilege graunted to the bishop of Rome to be the first of a••l

priestes, was not to beare the whole sway and to ouer rule all the worl¦de.

S. Gregory and Chrysostom haue auoutched no lesse of S-Peter and his Successours (as it hat bene allready declared) Er∣go this is one Manifest Vntruthe to beginne withall.* 1.296 Now to an other.

But onely in generall meetinges and Councelles to sitte in place a∣boue all other, and for auoiding of confusion to direct and order them in their doinges.

This is an other Vntruthe. Iustinian referreth his edict to the constitution of the Canons. Therefore as the Canons do expoūde this chiefty or Primacy, so must the edict of Iustinian be interpreted. For the lerned lawyer Baldus saieth, that the la∣we must be vnderstanded, secundū rationem expr••ssam &c accor∣ding to the reason expressed in the lawe. Now as touching the Canons, vnto the which the lawe is expressely referred first by the Canons of the a 1.297 Nicene Councell not only by that which Zosimus alleaged to the Aphricane bishops, but also by the Ca¦nons alleaged by Iulius to the bishops of the East, it is euident that all causes might be referred out of all countres to the Pope of Rome for the time.b 1.298 The Councell of Sardica decreeth the same touching appellations in criminal causes. The Canons of Councelles (as the c 1.299 Ecclesiastical history witnesseth) haue or∣deined that without the Authorite of the bishop of Rome, no Councell should be called. And for that cause the Councell of Antioche (being assembled without the agreement of Iulius the Pope) was disanulled. In the Coūcel of Chalcedō the Po••es legat was president, and subscribed in these termes. Paschasinus epis••opus,* 1.300 vice domini mei beatissimi atque Apostolici vniuersae ••ccle∣siae P••pae vrbis R••mae Leonis, synodo praesidens, statui, consensi & subscripsi. I Paschasinus bishop, being President ouer the Coun∣cell in the place of my most blessed Lorde, and the Apostolike Pope of the vniuersall Churche, Leo of the Citie of Rome, ha∣ue decreed, haue agreed, and haue subscribed. In like maner and

termes, Lucentius bishop, and Bonifacius priest, bothe legates of the Pope subscribed before the Patriarche of Constantino∣ple and all the rest. This was in the great Generall Councell of Chalcedon, holden in the yere of our Lorde foure hundred and odde, in the assemblie of six hundred bishops, meeting the∣re from all partes of Christendom in the presence of Martia∣nus the Emperour. This was all before Iustinians time. The meaning therefore of Iustinians Edict hauing relation to the Canons of the former Councelles, doe geue a farre other pre∣eminence to the Pope, then M. Iewell will yelde.

[Iewell.] * 1.301Themperours wordes be plaine. Praerogati••a in Epis••oporum Concilio vel extra Cō••••••um ante altos resiaen••i. A prerogatiue in the Councel of bishops or without the Councell to sit in order aboue others. This prero∣gatiue in greke is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, the priuilege of the fi••st p••••ce.

Here M. Iewell notably betrayeth him selfe, laying forthe For a Countenaunce a fewe of themperours wordes, and that nothinge to the purpose, beginning in the middes of a Senten∣ce, leauing out the principall verbe, brefely hewing and man∣gling them as him listeth best. Soothely, good Reader, if it had lyked M. Iewell to haue geuen the leaue to reade the next ly∣nes going immediatly before, or to haue layed out before thee but the whole and full sentence of the Constitution, thou mightest easely haue sene, that all this pertaineth nothinge in the worlde to the bishop of Rome, nor to the Decree of Iusti∣nian touching the Popes Primacy before mentioned. For first this Constitution is not of Iustinians making, but was made threscore yeres before him, by Leo and Anthemius, as in the Code it is easy to be sene. Againe the wordes of the decree spea¦ke not at all of the bishop of Rome. For thus they stan••e. De∣ce••nimus vt antiquatis ac infirmatis fund••••us que contra ipsam or∣th••doxae religionis d••um quodammodo facta sunt in integrum ••••s••••••u∣antur vniuersa: & ad suum ordinem reuocentur,* 1.302 qu•• ••nte proj••ct••o∣ne nostrae mansu••tudinis de orthodoxae religionis fid•• & sanctiss m••••ū

ecclesiarum & martyriorum statu firmíter obtinebant. Hijs quae contra hoc tempore tyrannidis innouata sunt, tam contra venerabil••s ecclesias quarum sace••dotium gerit beatissimus & religiosissimus Pa∣triarcha nostrae pietat••s pater Achattus, quàm contra caeteras, quae per diuersas prouinci••s collocatae sunt, nec non & reuerendissimos ••a∣rum Antistites s••u de iure sacerdotalium creationum seu de expulsio∣ne cuiusque episcopi a quolibet illis temporibus facta seu de * Praeroga¦tiua in episcoporum con••i••o vel extra concilium ante alios residendi, vel priuilegio metropolitano vel Patriarchico, sub ijsdem temporibus penitus antiquandis. We ordaine and decree (saye those Empe∣rous Leo of the East and Anthemius of the west) that all such thinges being broken and disanulled, which haue bene com∣mited as though it were against God him selfe, all thinges be a newe restored, and brought to their former Order, which did take place before our coming as well touching the Catholike faithe, as touching the most holy Churches and Chappels. All those thinges to be vtterly repealed which against this, in the time of Tyranny were altered, as wel against the Reuerent Curches subiect to the most holy Patriarche oure Father Acha¦tius, as against other Churches placed in diuerse prouinces, and also against the most Reuerent Bishoppes of those Chur∣ches, whether it be of the right of making priestes, or of the depriuation of any bishop in that time committed, Or of * 1.303 a p••erogatiue in the Coun••••ll of bis••oppes or without the Councell, to sitt in order abo••e others, or of the priuilege of any Metropolitane, or patriarche, in those times. Thus farre the Constitution, not of Iusti∣nian (of whose lawe the matter is nowe in question) but of Leo and Anthemius, who reigned three score yeres and more before Iustinian. And in all this Constitution the bishop of Rome is not mentioned, nor any worde spoken of his Priuilege or Prerogatiue. But the Prerogatiue of sit∣ting in order aboue others (as M. Iew••ll turneth praesidendi, puting for it in his latin, residendi, and so ones againe falsifying

the very decree,) is here spoken of other bishoppes, and that by the waie, not expounding what that Prerogatiue was, or to whom it belonged. Yet M. Iewell with his accustomed modesty and shamefastnesse, telleth vs: This priuilege graunted to the bishopp of Rome, to be the first of all priestes (which are the wor∣des off themperour Iustinian) was onely in generall meetinges and Councelles to sitte in place aboue all others. And to proue that he inferreth stoutely. Themperours wordes be plaine. As though he h••d a••leaged the wordes of Iustinian themperour, and as though those wordes had bene expressely spoken of the Popes Prerogatiue, and Primacy. Thus with out all shame and re∣garde what he saieth, he alleageth either he careth not what, or els, he can not tell what.

Now whereas M. Iewell to proue this Prerogatiue of place in councelles, bringeth his greke phrases, herein truly his greciā helpeth him no more, then did before his lawyer. For this edict must nedes be refered to the Canons off former Councelles which the edict expressely nameth saying, Secundum Canonum definitiones, according to the determinations of the Canons. And this M. Iewell perceiuing him selfe very wel, woulde not staie vpon these poore shiftes of his patched piece of lawe, and his gr••ke phrases, But hath added an other tricke of his owne accustomed Diuinite, cutting quite away, those wordes of the Edict, Secundum Canonum definitiones, according to the deter∣minations of the Canons, and folowing his purpose this.

[Iewell.] And that the Emperour Iustinian meant onely thus,* 1.304 and none o∣therwise it is (329.) manifest euen by the selfe same place that M. Har∣ding hath here alleaged.

That were gaie in dede. But doe it cleanly M. Iewell, and I will saie you are your Craftes master. Lett vs beholde your plaie.

[Iewell.] His wordes stande thus. Sancimus &c.

[Stapletō.] Why &c? Cough out M. Iewell. What? Had you here the Choynecough that you were faine to breake of your tale in the

the middes? To it ones againe.

[Iewell.] * 1.305Sanctmus ••c. Senioris Romae Papā, primū esse omnium Sa••erdotum, beatiss••mū aute•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Con••tantinopoleos nowe Romae secundum habere locum. we ord••••ie that the Pope.

Where is now &c. M. Iewell? You did put it in the latin, confessing that some what lacked, and as though it were some∣what staying your false plaie in the beginning, but now be∣ing ones entred, you goe away roundely in youre english, as though all were smothe a borde. Wel forthe then. Let vs hea∣re your english.

[Iewell.] * 1.306VVe orde••••e that the Pope of the elder Rome, shall be the first of all priestes, and that the most holy Archebis••op of Constantinople which is named newe Rome, haue the se••ond pla••e. Hereby it is plaine that this priuilege standeth onely in placing the b••shop of Rome in the first seate aboue others.

Hereby it is plaine that Danus wil alwaies de Danus, and Iewell wil alwaies be Iewel. For where is * 1.307 Secundum Canonum definitiones, according to the determinations of the Canons. Where is * 1.308 Sanctissimum the most holy? Shewe al on Gods na∣me, and plaie aboue borde. Why shuf••lle you those wordes out of the text, and yett as though your plaie had bene faire and good, tell vs saddely, His wordes stande thus? Here was a fai∣re face, but your fingers be to quicke. I auise thee, good Rea∣der looke better vnto them. Who wil truste you now M. Ie∣wel in your pulpit talke, in your priuat Doctrine, yea in worl∣dly affaires and communication, if in your printed workes, in your doctrine so published to all your Countre, and that in the cause and state of soule health, in the questiō of our due obe∣dience to such as God hath sette ouer vs, whom as ofte as we despise, so ofte we despise Christ him selfe in this I saie so weighty a matter, do deale so doubly, do iuggle so falsely and deceiue your Reader so perniciously? You knewe these wor∣des (According to the determinations of the Canons) did vt∣terly ouerthrowe this childish priuilege off only places in Councelles, which you imagine, as I haue before proued vn∣to

you. You knewe those wordes imported a farre other pre∣ferment then of places, and therefore falsely, deceitefully, and wickedly you omitted them. Againe you loue the Pope so well, that though the Emperour called him Sanctissimum, Most Holy, not for the person then sitting, but for the roome that he occupied, yet M. Iewell will not call him so. Yet the Title of the archebishop of Constātinople, Beatissimum, whe∣re the Turke now raigneth, M. Iewell coulde gladly keepe. What? Were those foure wordes either so cumbrous for you to write out, or so troublous to your printer, that nedes for hast they must be left out? Or did they importe more, then you were gladde to expresse? Thus the Pope and the Emperour, S. Gregory and Iustinian be sett to Schoole, kept in awe, and not suffred to speake one worde more, thē M. Iewel will geue thē leaue. Last of al for esse primum omnium Sacerdotum, that the Pope is the chiefest of all Priestes, you turne it, shall be the first, &c, as though befor he were not so, but only by that Decree of Iustinian had bene made so. Thus by leauing out of some wor¦des and altering other, by nipping and wronge translating, by false and Vntrue dealing you thinke to bringe all the worlde a slepe, to abuse and deceiue your Reader. Let vs yet see whether you will hereafter amende it. Thus you saie.

But I beseche thee gentle Reader,* 1.309 weigh well the wordes that folow in the same lawe, and thou shalt see, bothe that M. Hardinges dealing (.332.) herein is not vpright, and also that the bishopp of Rome was then (.333.) excluded by plaine wordes from that vniuersall po∣wer, which he now ••o deepely dreameth of.

And I beseeche thee also gentle Reader to doe the same, assuring thee herin, thou shalt see bothe that D. Hardings dea∣ling herein hath not bene faulty at all, (vnlesse for a man to omit his own aduantage it be a faulte) and also that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 B••shop of Rome by this place which M. Iewell with 〈…〉〈…〉 Supreme Iurisdiction euidētly testified aboue a thou••and yeres

past, not as a matter lately dreamed of.

[Iewell.] * 1.310It foloweth immediatly. VVe ordaine that the most holy Arche••ishop of Iusti••iana the f••••st, whi••h is our count••e shall haue for euer vnder his Iurisdiction, the bishoppe•• off the p••ouinces of Da••i••, Dan••a, D••rdania, Mysia and Pannonia, and that they shall be inuested by him, and ••e onely by his owne Councell, and that he in the Prouinces subiect vnto him shall haue the place of the Apostolike See off Rome.

These be the wordes of Iustinian. What wil M. Iewel gather hereof? He saieth.

Here we see, The bishop of Iustiniana set in (.335.) as high Authori∣te, and power within his owne Iurisdiction, as the Bishop of Rome within his.

* 1.311Yea M. Iewell. But how came he by that Authorite? Whose place occupied he in that Authorite? Doth not the Decree say, He shall haue the place of the Apostolike See of Rome? And yet far∣der? Secundum ea quae sanctus Papa Vigilius Constituit? Accor∣ding as the holy Pope Vigilius hath appoynted? These wordes M. Iewell your stomache coulde not beare. And therefore, you vsed a sleight of your faculty, to nippe them from the whole decree, being yet the cause and reason of the whole decree. For those wordes M. Iewel do teach vs that not the Emperour, but the Pope gaue that Iurisdiction to the Bishop of Iustiniana, ouer the Prouinces aboue mētioned. And againe that this De∣cree of the Emperour was but to confirme the Popes appoint∣ment,* 1.312 euē as his former Decree, Sancimus &c, was to confirme the Canōs. But M. Iewel bothe in that decree and in this (such is his dealing) hath nipped of the principal words of the decree to make all the matter to appeare a Laye constitution, not a lawe of the Churche. And yet will this man seme to holde of the Churche. Now touching the matter. Vnderstande you not what all this meaneth M. Iewell? Euery Archebishop of Caū∣terbury duly called to that roome hath the same Authorite in

Englande as the bishop of Iustinianea had in the prouinces aboue named. Euery Archebishop of Caunterbury is and hath bene allmost these thousand yeres Legatus Natus (as they call it) the Popes Legat by the right of his dignite. S. Gregory the bishop of Rome, by whose fatherly zele the Christen faith was first brought to vs Englishmen, gaue the same Authorite to S. Augustin our Apostle, the first Archebishop of Caunterbury. So Venerable Bede recordeth in the History of our Countre. These are the wordes of the Pope vnto him. Britanniarum om∣nes episcopos tuae frat••rnitati committimus, vt indocti doceantur, in∣firmi persuasione roborentur, peruersi authoritate corrigantur.* 1.313 All the bishoppes of Britanny we committe to your brotherhood, that the vnlerned by wholesome doctrine may be instructed, the weake by good persuasions may be strenghthened, the fro∣ward by iust authorite may be corrected. After this sorte in the late reign of Quene Marie the Reuerend father of blessed me∣morie Cardinall Poole had in our countre the place of the A∣postolike See of Rome. And thinke you M. Iewell that either that authorite of the Bishop of Iustiniana, in the prouinces aboue mencioned, or the Authorite of the Bishop of Caun∣terbury in our countre, bothe occupying the place of the See Apostolike and bothe hauing that Authorite by the Popes ap∣poyntment, doth any thinge empaire the Supreme and vniuer∣sall authorite of the Pope? And what dothe more confirme or establish the same? Verely I feare me M. Iewell, some of your brethern will take you here for a doubl•• ••aced Proctour, as a man pleading for the cause which you seme to impugne. For beholde M. Iewel hath brought vs the witnesse or Iustiniā the Emperour raigning aboue a thousand yeres past for the autho¦rite of the Popes legat in the prouinces of Mysia, Dacia, Dar∣dania, and Pannonia. Euery legat in all prouinces from the Po¦pes, haue the place of the Apostolike See of Rome. And what coulde that place auaile them if the See Apostolike had no

place there? The effect of M. Iewelles argument is this.

Th•• bishop of Iustiniana occupied the place of the See Apostolike in such and such prouin••es.* 1.314

Ergo the S••e Apostolike had no authorite in th••se places.

The Iewdenesse of this argument will easely appeare by the li∣ke.

The Quenes Maiesties Lieutenant in Ireland occupieth the pla∣ce of h••r Highnes in that countre.

Ergo the Qu••nes Maiestie hath no authorite there. This is a rebel∣les argumēt against his Liege Souuerain. And the other is the heretikes argument against his lawful Pastour. By such Argu∣mentes M. Iewell maintaineth his Schisme and Disobedience.

In like sorte the Emperour Iustinian saieth. The Churche off the Cyte of Constantinop••e enioyeth Nowe the praerogatiue of Rome the el∣der.

[Stapleton.] Hereof M. Iewel formeth an argument as good as the other.

Constantinople enioyeth the priuilege of Rome.

Ergo Constantinople is as of good Authorite as Rome.

By such Argumētes euery Peculiar would be as good as his Bi∣shop,* 1.315 euery priuileged Colledge, as the Founder by whom the priuilege came, euery Liberty as good as the Prince which gra∣unted it. By such argumentes also, the free Denyson in Englan∣de, hauing the priuilege of a Naturall borne Englishman, will be in all poyntes as free as he, yea though the lawe binde him to paie a double subsidy to the Prince, when the naturall subiect payeth but halfe as much. By such lewde reasons an euill cau∣se must be mayntayned.

[Iewell.] * 1.316Now if the bishop of Iustiniana and the bishop of Rome, in their se∣uerall diuisions haue their like authoritie, and if the Churche of Con∣stantinople in (.336.) all prerogatiues, and priuileges be made equall with the Citie of Rome, then is not the bishop of Romes pow••r vniuer¦sall, neither can he iustly be called the head of the vnuersall Chur∣che.

Yea M. Iewel, if the Skie fal, we may happe to catche Larkes.

But now M. Iewell, if the bishop of Iustiniana and the bishop of Rome, in their Seuerall diuisions haue not their like Autho∣rite, but the one hath it of the other, the one occupieth the pla∣ce of the other, and that by the appoyntement of the other, that is of the B. of Rome (as the decree expressely saieth) and if agai∣ne the Church of Constantinople, be not made equall with the Citie of Rome in All prerog••tiues ••nd priuileges (as M Ie∣well saieth) but do enioye only a priuilege of Rome, as the de∣cree saieth, then neither is the bishop of Romes Vniuersall Po∣wer empaired, but so farre the more defended, neither then any thinge letteth why he may not be called the Head of the Vni∣uersal Churche. Last of all then M. Iewel hath loste a couple of good arguments.

Verely Iustiniā him selfe writing vnto Epiphanius the bishop of Con¦stantinople, calleth him the Vniuersall Patriarche,* 1.317 which thinge he would not haue done, (337) if he had thought that Title of right had be∣long••d to the bishop of Rome.

Neither dothe the bishop of Rome challenge that Title, nei¦ther was it commended in any bishop, though it was vsed not only to the Pope, but to diuerse other, some time of custome, sometime for honour and reuerence to the party. It seemeth the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was taken for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, vniuersall, for Ca∣tholike: As you your selfe expounde that worde afterwarde,* 1.318 and as all true bishoppes are called.

[Stapleton.] * 1.319The argument that M. Harding gathereth of Iustinians wordes is this. The bis••op of Rome had the first place in generall Councels, Ergo he was an vni∣uersall bishop. VVhich argument what weight it beareth, I leaue to M. Har¦ding to consider.

Vntruthe M. Iewel. For D. Harding gathereth no such argu∣ment: But the argument of Hardinge is this. Iustinian by that decree or edict ratified that chiefty or primacy in the bishop of Rome, which the Canons had determined.* 1.320 Ergo th•• Em∣perour confirmed the Popes Primacy. To this purpose he alle∣aged

the Decree of Iustinian and the Ordonnaunce of Phocas. This argument beareth such weight, that all which M. Iewell hath wrote and persuaded to the contrary, is not able to beare it downe. For it containeth a double proufe of the Popes Pri∣macy: The determinations of the Canons, and the Confirma∣tion of the Emperour. Al within the compasse of M. Iewelles .600. yeares.

[Harding.] Hilarius speaking much to the extolling of Peter and his Successours in that See, saieth: Supereminentem fidei suae confefsione locum promeruit: that for the Con∣session of his blessed faith, he deserued a place of preeminence aboue all other.

[Iewell.] * 1.321The .100. Vntruthe. For Hilarie speaketh not one worde of Peters successour.

Though S. Hilarie speake not of Peters successour, nor of the See of Rome, yet that which is spokē to the extolling of Peter, may truly be saied to be spoken also to the extolling of his Suc∣cessour. So Chrysostom saieth, that Christ committed his she∣pe Tum Petro, tum Petri successoribus. Bothe to Peter, and to the Successours of Peter,* 1.322 when he saied to Peter, only, Fede my she∣pe. So S. Hierom calleth Damasus the Pope, the chaire of Pe∣ter, vpon the which he confesseth the Church to be builded. And so Hilarie extolling Peter and confessing a preeminen∣ce aboue other in him, is not Vntruly saied to confesse the same in his Successours. Especially seing that Christ builded a Church not to remaine in Peter only, but for euer. Nowe whereas M. Iewell saieth Hilarie only commendeth the faith of Peter, he committeth a great Vntruthe against S. Hilarie. For in the same booke he confesseth that vpon Peter him selfe Christ builded his Churche,* 1.323 where he saieth. Post sacramenti confessionem, Beatus Simon aedificationi ecclesiae subiacens. Blessed Simon after the cōfession of the mysterie, lying vnder the buil∣ding

of the Churche. For what meaneth Hilarie, to make Pe∣ter lye vnder the building of the Church, but that he is the roc∣ke and foūdatiō vpō which it pleased God to buylde and erect his Church? And so of S Ciprian. S. Hierom, S. Augustin, and other fathers, Peter is called Fundamentum Ecclesiae, the foundacion of the Churche, not to exclude the only princi∣pall foundacion which is Christ, but to confesse and signifie a strength and power neuer to faile, in him and his successours. It is not therfore only the Faith of Peter, but, also the Person of him which Hilary extolleth, which also is no lesse sure then his faith, bicause Christ hath praied and no doubt obtained,* 1.324 Vt fides eius non deficiat, that his faithe may not faile.

[Hard.] Locum supereminentem.Hard. A place of preeminence aboue all other.

[Iewell.] * 1.325The .101. Vntruthe standing in false translation. For M. Harding ad∣deth of his owne: aboue all other.

[Stapl.] Aboue whom then M. Iewell is that place of preeminence which Peter had? Aboue some, or aboue none, or aboue al? If aboue some only, you must shewe which some those are, and the reason why aboue those only. If aboue none, it is no pre∣eminence at all. Truly the worde Supereminentia importeth a Preeminence not meane nor common, butt aboue all other. And herein I dare to make any grammarian Iudge. How be it what so euer the grammarian saie herein, the Diuinite tea∣cheth vs plainely so. Chrisostom saieth. God the Father sett Hieremie ouer one nation.* 1.326 But Christ made Peter gouernour ouer the whole worlde. Which proposition he taketh to be so true, that here of he maketh an argument, to proue the Equalite of the Godhead of Christ, with God the Father. And Gregorie saieth. Cura ei totius Ecclesiae & principatus committitur. The charge and chiefty of the whole Churche is committed vnto him. And all writers bothe grekes and latin do call Peter,* 1.327 the Prince, Head, and chiefe of the Apostles. If he were ouer the A¦postles,

no doubt but he was ouer all the rest of the Churche beside. And so the Diuinite is true, and the translation not Vn¦true, which geueth a true sence to the latine worde, no more then the worde, it selfe beareth.

[Hard.] The same S. Augustine speaking to Bonifacius bishop of Rome, This care (saieth he) is common to vs all that haue the office of a bishoppe: albeit therein thou thy selfe hast the preminence ouer all being on the toppe of the pasto∣rall watchetoure.

[Iewell.] * 1.328The 102. Vntruthe. standing in the false translation, and corruption, of S. Augustines wordes.

I perceiue M. Iewel, we must go to cōstruing, we must lea∣ue our diuinite, and go to our grammer a while. Goe to then. Let vs first put our latine, and then see what construction may be made of it. And let vs take the wordes, as M. Iewell alleageth them. He saieth thus.

[Iewell.] S. Augustines wordes be these. Communis est nobis omnibus, qui fungi∣mur epis••opatus offi••io, quamuis ipse in eo praeemineas celsiore fastigio, specula pasto∣ralis.

[Stapletō.] Our bookes of Paris print reade not so M. Iewell. Yow shoulde haue tolde vs what copie you folowed herein. Truly your wordes which folowe, doe containe a slaunderous vntru∣the, where you saie.

[Iewell.] * 1.329VVhich wordes M. H••rding by wilfull deprauation hath altered thus, Ce••siore f••s••••••io speculae pasto••alis.

This is a wilful and cancred vntruthe M. Iewel. You knowe your selfe right well that all the editions of Paris print, do rea∣de those Very wordes in that very sorte, letter for letter, and sillable for sillable, as you haue in this place put them, and as you saie D. Harding hath altered them. And what shamelesse, Ruffianlike impudency is this in you, to saie that M. Harding h••th altered them, and that by wilfu••l d••prauat••on? O M. Ie∣well why do you so deceiue, abuse, and mocke the vnlerned

Reader? Is it not possible to maintaine your hainous heresyes without such manifest and cancred Vntruthes?You procede in your Vntruthes, and saie.

[Iewell.] * 1.330 And so hath lefte the Adiectiue Communis, without a substantiue, and the principall verbe without a nominatiue case. And to serue his turne hath caused S. Augustin to speake false latine.

In these three sentences, you haue made three Vntruthes. For all were it true touching the wordes of S. Augustin, that there lacked a nowne substantiue, and a nominatiue case, and that S. Austen is made to speake false latin, yet not D. Harding, but the printes of Paris haue done all this. Thus you haue trif∣led and multiplied vntruthes vpon your selfe, no vntruthe yet appearing in D. Harding, who hath done no more then fo∣lowed his booke. Let vs nowe come to the matter, and see how you will english this place, and whether in your owne transla∣tion, the matter which we seke for may not be founde: that so it may appeare what a wrangler you are to fall a scanning off your tenses, to rippe vp sillables, to hunte after letters, to trifle vpon termes, the matter it selfe remayning sounde.

[Iewell.] * 1.331This place of S. Augustine may thus be englished, The pastorall wat∣che towre is common to vs all, that beare the office of bishops, albeit thy preeminence is greater, as sitting in the higher roome.

Nay M. Iewell though I am contented to take your owne construction, and to reade Specula pastoralis. for speculae pa∣storalis, as our bookes of paris print do reade, yet I may not suf∣fer you by your false translation to leaue out the pithe of the sentence. For you leaue out (in eo sc. epis••opatus officio) in the s••me bishoply office. And thus S. Augustin saieth, to folowe your owne construction. The pastorall watche towre is com∣mon to vs all, that beare the office of bishops, quamuis ipse in eo praeemineas Celsiore fastigio, albeit in that Office thy praeemi∣nence is greater, as sitting in the higher ••oome. In which wor∣des S. Augustin acknowledgeth the Pope to haue a praeeminē∣ce

aboue other in the office of a bishop, and to sitt in a higher roome. What is this but to haue a Primacy or superiorite ouer other bishops? Thus the matter which was here sought for (the Popes primacy) is by S. Augustin witnessed and con∣fessed. Nowe if M. Iewell will allwaies wrangle and saye.

[Iewell.] * 1.332These wordes (ouer all) are not founde in S. Augustine, but one∣ly diuised at pleasure by M. Harding.

[Stapleton.] I must answer, that praeeminere Celsiore fastigio may truly sig∣nify to haue a preeminence ouer all. If there be no more herin thē his Nay, and my Yea, then let a Queste of grāmarians be called to decide the construction. Howbeit for the matter it self the∣re nedeth no queste of diuines. S. Augustin being a Doctour within the first 600. yeres is a sufficiēt Iudge in this plea, by the yelding of M. Iewell him selfe. And if this place be not clere e∣nough, let vs take the other, which here M. Iewell hath vtter∣ly drowned in silence, and not answered one worde or halfe worde thereunto. The place is this. VVhat shall we doubte (sa∣ieth S. Augustin) to repose our selues in the lappe off that Churche,* 1.333 which (though heretikes barke at it in vaine rounde about, condem∣ned partly by the iudgement of the people them selues, partly by the grauite of Councelles, and partly by the Maiesty of miracles euen to the confession of mankinde) which (Church I say) from the See Apostolike by succession of bishops, hath obteined the Toppe or highest degree of authorite? Vnto the which Churche (con∣tinuing by Succession of bishops in the Apostolike See) if we will not geue and graunte the Primacy, soothely it is a point either of most high wickednes (note M. Iewell) or of hedlonge arrogancie. He∣re is a Primacy, here is Culmen authoritatis, the toppe of autho∣rite, here is expounded Celsiore fastigio, the higher Roome (which in Pope Boniface he confessed) and that in. eo sc. episco∣patus officio, in that Office of a bishop, the toppe of Bishoplicke

Authorite is here cōfessed. Here is Primas dare. Your Iudge M. Iewel, a Lerned Father of the first 600. yeres, hath pronounced Sentence against you. To this place you haue not saied one worde or halfe worde. And why, but conscientia imbecillitatis, bicause you knewe nothinge coulde be saied? No shift of con∣struction, no comparison of Phrases, no sleight of your Rhe∣torike, no glose of schoolemen coulde here be had. Trifle now no more vpon wordes and sillables. Answer to the matter if you can. Truly bicause you can not, therefore you do not. Thus the worlde may see the weakenesse of your side. It may see your most high wickednesse and hedlong arrogancie (as S. Augustin telleth you, not we M. Iewell) which will not yelde to the See Apostolike and to that succession off bishops, the Primacy, the Preeminēce in bishoply office, and the Very Top∣pe or highest degree of Authorite. Thus they may See and Be∣ware hereafter of you, which tender more their soule healthe, then their new conceiued opinions. I wish al my dere countre∣men (none excepted) they may do so.

[Harding] The safetie of the Churche hangeth of the worship of the high Priest (he meaneth the Pope Peters successour) to whom if there be not geuen a power peerelesse, and surmoū∣ting all others, in the Churches we shall haue so many schis∣mes as there be Priestes.

[Iewell.] The 103. Vntruthe. S. Hierom meaneth not the Pope but any o∣ther seuerall bishop.

[Stapleton] If D. Harding saie here that. S. Hierom in this sentence mea∣neth directly and expressely the Pope, I leaue it for an Vntru∣the. And this is the first, (hauing passed now more then a hun∣dred) which by some ouersight may stāde for an Vntruth. But if D. Harding speake this by the way of consequence, conside∣ring the reason which folowed, he spake no Vntruth. The rea∣son why there ought to be one high priest in the Church, who

should haue peerelesse authorite ouer others, is the auoiding of schismes. If this reason do force that euery seuerall Dyocesse must haue one head bishop, it forceth a great deale more that the whole Churche, being the greater in numbre, and the mo∣re in danger of Diuision, haue also one Head bishop. Which in no man els appearing but in the bishop of Rome, to whom the Scriptures, the Councelles, the Emperours, and the Fathers ha∣ue graunted the Primacy, it maketh (as I saide) by a right good consequence, for the supreme Authorite of the Pope. Thus S. Hierom, by the force of his reason maye meane the Pope, though in his wordes he speake not of the Pope.

[Harding.] To ordeine and appoint the vicaire of Christ, it pertaineth to none other then to Christ.

[Iewell.] * 1.334The 104. Vntruthe. For Christ neuer appointed any such vicaire.

First this, For, foloweth not. The consequence I saie is Vn∣true. Christ appointed no vicaire. Ergo it perteineth not vn∣to him to do so. As by the like it shall appeare. The kinge of Englād neuer appointed any high Constable, or general Lieu¦tenant ouer the whole Realme of England. Ergo it perteineth not vnto him to do so. This hangeth very loosely: He neuer did it, ergo he can not or ought not to do it. Espe∣cially when we talke of God who can do all that him plea∣seth.

Againe the proposition of M. Iewell is an other most mani∣fest and wicked Vntruthe. Which for Truthes sake I wil nowe by Gods helpe,* 1.335 euidently proue. That Christ him selfe was the Head of all the Churche appointed by God the Father, the A∣postle saieth plainely. God gaue him (to be) the Head ouer all the Churche, which is his Body. That Christ gaue the same authorite or Headship ouer all the Churche vnto Peter, I proue. Christ saied to Peter. Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke I will builde

my Churche: and hell gates shall not preuaile against it. Vpon this place thus I reason.

To be the Foundation of the whole Vniuersall Churche, vnder Christ is to haue the pow•••• and strength of Christ ouer it, is to be in Curistes place, is to be his Vniuersall Vicair. But Peter is the Foundation of the whole Vniuersall Church, Ergo Peter was made Christes Vniuersall Vicaire. The Maior or first proposition thus I proue. Christ is Head of the whole Churche bicause he is the foundatiō thereof, bicause he fedeth the whole flocke, bicause he vpholdeth the whole house: Ergo to whom Christ geueth all this, that is, whom he maketh the foundation of the whole Churche,* 1.336 whom he setteth to be the feder of al his Churche, whō he strengtheneth to Cōfirme the Apostles and Bishops them selues, he hath Christes place and power, he is his Vicaire. The minor or secōd propositiō I proue by the wordes of the ghospell alleaged, which wordes to haue ben properly spoken to Peter I proue by the expositions of the Fathers vpon that place.

That the Person of Peter was made the foundatiō and Roc∣ke of the whole Churche, by those wordes of Christ, Chryso∣stom expressely teacheth vs. His wordes are these vpon that place. Quae deus concedere solus potest &c.* 1.337 Those thinges which God only can graunte, as the power to forgeue sinnes, and that the Churche might remaine immoueable, notwithstanding so many and so great whaues beating against it, and that a poore fisher man might be made stronger thē any Rocke, though al the worlde striued against him, the∣se thinges I saye which only God cā geue, Christ promis••th in this pla∣ce that he will geue.* 1.338 Euen so God the Father saied to Hieremy the prophet, I haue set thee as an yron piller, and as a brasen walle. But God the Father sett him ouer one natiō only, but Christ sett Peter ouer the whole worlde. Thus farre Chrysostom expounding that pla∣ce of S. Matthew. In whose wordes we see Peter to be sett ouer the whole worlde: and the poore fisher man to be made stron∣ger

and more durable against all storme of the worlde then any Rocke against the whaues.* 1.339 Againe in an other place he saieth of Peter, Ecclesiae primatum gubernationemque sibi per vniuersum mundum tradidit. Christ gaue vnto him the primacy and gou∣uernement of the Church throught out the whole worlde. What is to be Christes vniuersall vicaire if this be not? Hilarie expounding also this place of S. Mathewe, Thou art Peter: &c. where Christ first gaue him that name (for before he was cal∣led only Simon Bar Iona) vseth this exclamation, to Peter. O in nuncupatione Noui Nominis faelix Ecclesiae fundamentum &c.* 1.340 O happy foundation of the Churche in the Title of that newe name, O worthy Rocke of that building, which dissolued the lawes of hel, the ga∣tes of the Diuel, and al the bōdes of death. O Blessed porter of heauē ga¦tes, to whose arbitrement the kayes of the euerlasting entry are cōmit∣ted, whose iudgement on earthe is a preiudicated Authorite in heauē? Thus S. Hilarie acknowledgeth the person of Peter to be that foundation and Rocke vpon the which Christ builded his Church.* 1.341 And therefore this lerned writer, as he calleth Christ, the Rocke of the Church, and Validum excelsi aedificij fundamē∣tum,* 1.342 the stronge fundation of that highe buildyng, so in an o∣ther place he calleth Peter also, Aedificationi ecclesiae subiacens, one that laye vnder the building of the Churche, that is, as one vpon whom the Churche is builded.* 1.343 Which also S. Basill con∣fesseth of Peter euen in the very same wordes in effect as S. Hylarie dothe. Al which is no more to saie then that Peter was in the Churche in Christes place and roome, to holde vp the Churche, to builde it, and to staye it. In like maner S. Am∣brose by this place of S. Matthew declareth Peter to be the Roc¦ke of the Church, thoughe differently from Christ, when he writeth thus of Peter.* 1.344 Pro soliditate deuotionis ecclesiarum Petra dicitur &c. He is called the Rocke of Churches bicause of his stron∣ge deuotion, as our Lorde Saieth. Thou art Peter and vpon this Rocke I will builde my Churche. For a Rocke he is called bi∣cause

he firste layed the foundation off the faithe amonge the gentils, and bicause he holdeth together the whole frame and buyldinge off Christen religion, like vnto a Rocke that can not be shaken. So Peter for the fortitude off deuotion is called a Rocke: and our Lorde for his Power and might is called a Rocke. Thus farre S. Ambrose. Thus bothe Christ and Peter are called the Rocke of the Church by S. Ambrose his iudgemēt, but Peter through Christ, and for Christ. For (as it foloweth in S. Ambrose) Recte consortium meretur nomínis, qui consortium meretur & ope∣ris. He is well ioyned in felowship of the name, which is also ioyned in the felowship of the worke. S. Hierom vpon this place of S. Matthew expoundeth Peter to be the Rocke vpon the which Christ builded his Churche, saying. Sicut ipse lumen Apostolis donauit &c. As Christ gaue all the Apostles light,* 1.345 that they might be called the light of the worlde, and had their other na∣mes of Christ: so vnto Simon, which beleued in Christ the Rocke, he gaue the name of Peter. And by the metaphore of a Rocke, it is well saied of Christ vnto him. I will builde my Churche vpon thee. And how many Fathers may be here alleaged, which all with one mouthe do confesse that vpon Peter, not only vpon the faithe or Confession of him, the Churche is builded? Tertulliam sa∣ieth. Latuitne aliquid Petrum aedificandae ecclesiae petram dictum? Was there any thinge kept hidde from Peter which was called the rocke of the Church to be builded?* 1.346 S. Cipriā almost as of∣te as he speaketh of Peter, so ofte he calleth him the foundatiō of the Churche. Petrus, saieth he, super quem aedificata ab eodem domino fuerat Ecclesia &c.* 1.347 Peter vpon whom our lorde builded his Churche. And againe. Loquitur illic Petrus, super quem aedificanda fuerat Ecclesia. Peter speaketh there, vpon whom the Churche should be buylded. ••xpounding also the Authorite which Christ gaue to Peter in this place of S. Mat∣thewe, he sayeth: that although the Apostles had aequal power, yet, vt vnitatē manifestaret,* 1.348 vnitatis eiusdem origin••m ab vno inci∣pientem

sua authoritate disposuit, to expresse an Vnite in the Churche, Christ by his Authorite disposed that the fountai∣ne and springe of that Vnite shoulde procede of One, which was Peter. Therefore also in the disceptation of Peter with Paule touching circuncision, S. Ciprian Commending the humilite of S. Peter towarde S. Paule, saieth. Nec Petrus quem primum Dominus elegit,* 1.349 & super quem aedificauit Ecclesiam suam se vindicauit &c. Neither did Peter whom God chose to be the chefest,* 1.350 and vpon whom he builded his Church, reuenge him selfe etc. Olde Fater Origens wordes in this matter seme very plaine. Thus he saieth. Petro cum summa rerum de pascendis oui∣bus traderetur, & super ipsum velut super terram Fundaretur Ecclesia, nullius confessio Virtutis alterius ab eo, nisi Charitatis exi∣gitur. When the chiefe gouernement of feeding Christes floc¦ke was committed to Peter, and the Church was builded vpon him, like as vpon earthe, the profession of no other Vertu is re∣quired of him, but Charite. For after Christ had three times as¦ked him, Peter louest thou me, yea and ones, Diligis me plus his?* 1.351 Doest thou loue me more then these other doe? and to e∣uery question Peter had answered Yea, Christ concluded with him and saied, Pasce oues meas. Fede my shepe. In these demaundes only loue was required of him. And at this time saieth Origen, Summa rerum de pascendis Ouibus traditur: The chiefe and principall gouernement of feding Christes she∣pe, was deliuered vp vnto him, and Super ipsum velut super ter∣ram fundata est Ecclesia. The Church was builded or founded vpō him, vpon Peter him selfe, euen as vpō earthe. That earthe truly which our Sauiour called a Rocke, and made it by his spe¦cial praier for him, that his Faith should not faile, strōger and sted∣faster then any Rocke or Quarre of what euer stone it be. The¦refore Cyrillus an other greke Father saied expressely. Nulli alij quàm Petro Christus quod suum est plenum,* 1.352 sed ipsi soli dedit. Christ gaue his whole ful power to none other then to Peter.

But to him only he gaue it. And what is to be Vicair of Christ if this be not? If he haue Summam rerum traditam, the Chiefe gouuernement and Authorite left vnto him, as Origen saieth, if Christ gaue to him ful power, and to none other, as Cyrillus sayth, if vpō him the Church was builded, as so many Fathers doe witnesse not only S. Hilary, S. Cipriā, S. Ambrose, S. Hie∣rō, and Tertullian of the West Church, but also S. Chrysost,* 1.353 S. Basill, Origen, and Epiphanius of the East Churche, how can it be doubted but that Peter succeded to Christ (by his owne most blessed appointment) in full power and Authori∣te, and was therefore his true Vicaire?

It will here be saied. Many other Fathers, yea and some of these alleaged do expound this place of Matthewe in such sor∣te, that not vpon the person of Peter,* 1.354 but vpon the faith of Pe∣ter, the Church is builded. To this I answer, that bothe is true. And that I declare by two causes. First by most euidēt reason, next by Authorite. The reason is this. The Churche is builded vpō the faith of Peter,* 1.355 and yet vpō the person of Peter bicause the person of Peter, touching his faithe is no fraile mortal crea¦ture, but is a strōg vnshakeable Rocke, as the faith it self is. And why so? Forsothe bicause to the person of Peter it is promised, that his faith shal not faile. Christ sayd. I haue praied for thee Pe¦ter, that thy faith may not faile. We beleue this praier is obtained.* 1.356 And therefore vpon this warrant of Christes praier the person of Peter and his faithe shall neuer be seuered. Thus the fathers calling sometimes the faith of Peter, sometimes Peter him self the Rocke of the Churche, do meane one selfe thinge. By Au∣thorite thus it is proued. No writer doth more often and more earnestly interpret that place of the faith of Peter or of Christ him selfe, and call that faith and cōfession of his and sometime Christ him self the Rocke vpon the which Christ builded his Church then doth S. Augustin.* 1.357 Yeat the same lerned Father in his Retractations, remembring that he had also expounded the

same of Peter him selfe, quod in eo tanquam in petra fundata sit Ecclesia that the Churche was builded in Peter as vpon the Rocke,* 1.358 which sence also he saieth was songe by many in the hymnes of S. Ambrose, where it is saide of the cocke, hoc ipsa pe∣tra ecclesiae canente culpam diluit, At the crowing of the cocke, the Rocke of the Churche (Peter) lamented his faulte, he con∣cludeth the whole matter of those two expositions, either off Peter to be the Rocke, either of Christ, with these wordes. Ha¦rum duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior eligat lector. Of these ij. sentences which is the more probable. I leaue it to the Readers choyse. Wherein as he condēneth none, so he alloweth bothe. And thus much out of the lerned Fathers for confirma∣tion of the Minor or second proportion of my former Argu∣ment that the wordes of Christ in S. Matthew, were properly spoken to Peter, and that he was made by Christ the founda∣tion and Rocke of the whole vniuersall Churche. Which with the Maior or proposition being thus proued, the Conclusion I trust will well folowe, that Christ hath lefte and appointed in his Churche a Vicair vniuersal, and that S. Peter. And so far∣re is the rashe assertion of M. Iewell ouerthrowen and proued vtterly Vntrue, where he sayd that Christ had neuer appointed any such Vicaire. Last of al thus farre a Truth is proued suffi∣ciēt to destroie the principall assertiō of M. Iewell in this Arti∣cle, fighting against the vniuersal and Supreme authorite of the bishop of Rome S. Peters successour. For Christ leauing Peter his Vicaire,* 1.359 committed not only to him, but to his Successours also (as Chrysostom expressely saieth) the shepe which he had redemed with his bloud, the Vniuersall Churche through out the worlde, as you haue heard also Chrysostom to affir∣me.

[Harding.] But because our aduersaries do wrethe and wrest the Scriptures, (be they neuer so plaine) by their priuat and stran∣ge

constructions, to an vnderstanding quite contrary to the sense of the Catholike Churche, &c.

* 1.360The 105. Vntruthe ioyned with a slaunder.

[Stapleton.] By such slaunders, robbers are called theues, and prote∣stants are called heretikes. For how large a scope M. Iewell might I here take to proue you wresters and wrethers of Gods holy worde, as it is here most truly noted of you? I will note a fewe in stede of many sufficient to iustifie this Vntruthe and to clere the slaunder. What is more plaine in holy Scripture,* 1.361 then the wordes of Christ in his last Supper, Take and eate. This is my Body: And againe: Drinke ye all of this. This is my my bloud of the newe testament? And yet how is it wrested and wrethed off you? The Lutheran saieth, This Bread is my Body and maketh Hoc, (this) the neuter gender to agree with Panis (bread) the Masculin gender, confessing yet a reall presence. The Sacramentary, of Zurich will haue est is to stande for significat, Dothe signifiee. Bicause he will haue a sig∣ne only off the Body in Sacrament, The Sacramenta∣tary off Geneua will haue the verbe est is, to stand for, is in value, not, is in substance, and so (est) must not be a verbe sub¦stantiue, but a verbe valuatiue, inuenting a newe grammer to maintaine their newe diuinite. Likewise in the wordes of Christ. This is my bloud, they make false greke, ioyning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: false latin ioyning hic, with vinum, to make at the len¦gth false english, and to driue Christ to saie. This wine is my Bloud,* 1.362 which were a repugnaunce in nature as M. Iewell him selfe confesseth. Againe to speake of M. Iewelles dealing herein, first he saieth we construe datu•• for dabitur, is geuen for shall be geuen,* 1.363 and yet afterwarde, quite contrary to him selfe, crieth out at D. Har¦ding for pressing the worde datur, is geuen, (calling it scan∣ning of tenses, ripping vp of syllables, and hunting after letters) and goeth aboute to proue that it shoulde be dabitur, not datur, the

future, tense, not the present tense. Thus he choppeth and chan∣geth his minde to wreste and wrethe Scriptures at his pleasure. But to procede to other examples, what is more plaine for the Sacrament of extreme Vnction, then the wordes of S. Iames. Is any sicke amonge You? Let him cause the priestes of the Churche to come in to him,* 1.364 annoynting him with oyle, in the name of our Lor∣de? What is more plaine for absolution of the priest in the Sa∣crament of penaōce, then the wordes of Christ in the ghospel, whose sinnes ye forgeue,* 1.365 they are forgeuen to them, whose ye retayne, th••y are reteyned? What can be writen more plainely against the Iustification which you teache by faithe only, then the saying of S. Iames, Man is iustified by workes, not by faith only? What can more plainely ouerthrowe the certainty of grace and salua∣tion which you teache euery Christen man to haue,* 1.366 then that which S. Paule saieth,* 1.367 With feare and trembling worke your salua∣tion? What doth more manifestly proue that by the Sacrament of baptim sinnes are taken away (which Caluin and his scho∣lers expressely denie) then the wordes of S. Peter in holy Scri∣pture,* 1.368 Let euery one of you be baptised in the name of Iesus Christ, to remission of sinnes? What can be more expressely spoken for the authorite of vnwriten traditions,* 1.369 then the cōmaundement of S. Paule, kepe ye the traditions which ye haue receiued either by mouthe or by lettre? What can more plainely proue the Sa∣crament of holy Order, that is, that in geuing holy Or∣ders, to the signe of imposition of handes grace is annexed, which thinges (the signe and the grace) make a Sacrament,* 1.370 then the wordes of S. Paule, Neglect not the grace which is in thee, which was geuē thee through prophecy, with the laying on of hādes of priest∣hood?* 1.371 What other thinge meaneth the Apostle, when he saieth, Charite couereth the multitude of sinnes, thē to teache vs that good workes done by Charite do redeme sinne, and are meritorious? And yet M. Iewel haue not you and your felowes abolished Ex∣treme Vnction? Do you not vtterly denie the Absolution by the

priest? Teache you not Only faithe to iustifie? Preache you not that a mā may be assured without al doubte of his saluatiō? Cō∣mende you not the blasphemous doctrine of Caluin touching Baptim, setting forthe his Institutions in the english tounge by publike authorite,* 1.372 wherein this pestilent doctrine against the necessite of baptim is maintayned and sett forthe? Refuse you not vnwriten traditions, cleauing onely as you protest, to the writen text of Gods worde? Doe you not vtterly denie the Sa∣crament of holy Orders, publishing in your last Conuocation only two Sacramentes, Baptisme, and the Supper of our Lor∣de? Last of al doe you not impudently declaime against the doctrine of Merit calling it a Pelagian heresy? And howe doe you all these thinges so expressely and directly against holy Scripture, but by manifest wrething and wresting of holy Scri∣pture to your owne priuat Interpretation, from the Catholi∣ke sence and meaning? If I woulde procede after this maner in the rest of your manifolde absurde and wicked heresies, what a large scope might I here take to discourse vpō the whole rable of your ragged and wretched wrestinges of Gods holy worde?

But good Sir, you that so facingly vpholde the matter, no∣ting it so solemnely for an Vntruthe that you shoulde be called the wresters of holy Scripture, you that startle and wince so at it, was your kybed hele touched, or are your selfe cleane and not guilty of any such matter? I assure thee good Reader it woulde make a iust treatise it selfe alone, the only discouering of such infamous wrestinges of holy Scripture, as this honest man, innocent forsothe, and true in all pointes, hath vsed. And that I maye not seme to saie this only of affection or otherwi∣se then truthe, beholde gentle Reader for a taste of his whole lewde Replie,* 1.373 what a number of textes of holy Scripture in this one Article which we nowe haue in hande, M. Iewel hath wre∣sted and wrethed by his priuat and strange Construction, to an vnderstanding quite contrary to the Catholike Churche.

There is no greate occasion in this question of the Suprema∣cie (the discussing whereof standeth most vpon the history and practise of the Churche) either to vse or to abuse any Scripture. Yet by occasion howe many M. Iewell hath abu∣sed, it shall nowe in parte appeare.

* 1.374First, these wordes of S. Paule, Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum, the hofulnesse of all Churches, howe violently you haue wre∣sted it, to proue a Chiefty and power ouer all Churches in the like sence,* 1.375 as the same is in S. Peter confessed by S. Gregory, you haue heard before towarde the ende of the first Vntruthe of this Article.* 1.376 In the same place you alleage to the like sence these wordes of the Apostle. I recken me selfe to be no thinge in∣feriour in trauail to the highest Apostles.* 1.377 Nowe what is wresting of holy Scripture if this be not? S. Paule trauailed as muche as any off the Apostles, ergo he had Chiefty, Power, Iurisdi∣ction ouer the whole Churche, no lesse then S. Peter had. By the like reason M. Iewell may proue that S. Paule was Heade and Chiefe ouer S. Peter him selfe, contrary to al holy Fathers and lerned writers which haue euer called S. Peter the Head, the Chiefe, and the Prince of the Apostles, which also is by M. Iewell him selfe in this Article otherwhere confessed. For S. Paule saieth speaking of him selfe and of the Apostles,* 1.378 abun∣dantius illis omnibus laboraui. I haue trauailed more then al they. But as S. Paule though he trauailed more then all the Apost∣les, yet he was not therefore the Head or chiefe ouer them all, so muche lesse it will folowe, that he had the Chiefty or the Charge off the whole Churche bicause he trauailed as much as the other Apostles.* 1.379 If trauail and paynes may proue a Iuris∣diction, perhaps some busy Minister in Englande might clai∣me to the bishoprike that M. Iewell occupieth.

With the like vaine of witt M. Iewell to disproue the epi∣stle of Athanasius vnto Felix, bicause he saied, that from Rome the Churches receiued the first preaching of the ghospell, alleageth

the saying of the prophet Esaie. From Sion the lawe shall pro∣cede, and the worde of the Lorde from Hierusalem. Howe vn∣fittely this place is wrested of M. Iewell to proue it false, that many Countres receiued the faithe of Christ from Rome,* 1.380 it hath bene before declared in the third Article, vpon the 73.* 1.381 Vn∣truthe. Immediatly and properly many Churches (as allmost all the west parte of the worlde) receiued their faithe from Ro∣me, though Rome it selfe receiued it of S. Peter who preached first off all in Hierusalem.

In the same page M. Iewell wresteth two other places off holy Scripture at one time, thus S. Paule saieth,* 1.382 Other foundation none can be layed but only that which is layed already which is Christ Iesus. And findeth great faute with the Corinthians that saide, I holde of Apollo, I holde of Paule, I holde of Peter. but M. Hardinges Athanasius saieth, Thou art Peter, and vpon thy foundation the pillers of the Church, which are the Bishopps, are surely sette, and thus he deuise than other foundatiō besi∣des Christ, and Contrary to S. Paules doctrine would haue al the bis∣hoppes of the world to holde of Peter. Thus farre M. Iewel. Wilt thou see good Reader, how ignorātly and grossely these places of holy Sripture are wrested and abused of M. Iewel? S. Paule in the first place speaketh of the principall foundatiō, which only is Christ. Peter is called of Athanasius not the principall and absolut foundation of him selfe, but such a foundation as is layde by Christ. Els the worthy wisedome of M. Iewel maye comptroll S. Paule and proue him contrary to him selfe, whiche in an other place saieth, that the Ephesians were superaedificati super fundamentum Apostolorum & prophetarum, builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and the pro∣phets. Of the which also S. Iohn in his Reuelation saieth, the holy Citie of God had fundamenta duodecim,* 1.383 & in ipsis nomina duodecim Apostolorum, twelue foundatyons, and in those foun∣dations the names of the twelue Apostles. Thus vnlesse M. Iewell will admitt the distinction of a principall foundation, and of a secondary foundation, not only Athanasius but S. Paule him selfe, and S. Iohn also may be accused of M. Iewell

to haue deuised an other foundation besides Christ. In like ma∣ner also maye be accused of M. Iewell, S. Hilary, S. Ambrose, S. Ciprian, S. Hierom, S. Augustine, S. Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Origen and Tertullian, who all (as you heard in the next Vn∣the before) do call Peter the Rocke vpon the which Christ builded his Churche. Neither is S. Peter layde as any other fo∣undation beside Christ, bicause he was layed and made so off Christ him selfe, as all the sayed holy Fathers haue wit∣nessed.

In the second place alleaged by M. Iewell out of S. Paule he not only wresteth S. Paule to a contrary meaning,* 1.384 but he falsifieth him also. For those wordes I holde of Peter, are not in S. Paule. And if they were, it made no more against the saying off Athanasius callinge Peter the foundatyon off the Chur∣che, then it maketh against all the other Fathers whiche did so call him, or then it maketh against the Authorite and Iurisdiction either off laye princes and lordes, either of spirituall pastours and Curats. For as the subiect holdeth of his Prince, and the Tenent of his lorde, as the dyocese is su∣biect to his bishopp, and the parish to the vicair by S. Paules Doctrine,* 1.385 commanding vs to obey our ouerseers, and to be su∣biect to those which haue charge of our soules, and yet neither the subiect, nor the dyocese so holdeth either of Prince or of bishop, as S. Paule rebuked the Corinthians to holde of Apol∣lo, and of Paule, so neither Athanasius nor the olde Fathers calling Peter the foundation of the Churche, and confessing thereby the Authorite of Peter ouer the Churche, do make (as M. Iewell saieth) contrary S. Paules Doctrine all the bishoppes of the worlde to holde of Peter, as the Corinthians helde of Apollo and of Paule. For the Corinthians made a schisme in the Churche, and such as were baptised of Apollo, they helde of A∣pollo, such as were baptised of Paul, they would holde and cra∣of Paule. This schisme and diuision S. Paule rebuked, as bothe

in the text it shall euidently appeare, to him that will but reade it ouer diligently, and also as S. Augustin expoundeth that text. This text therefore M. Iewel you might better ha∣ue applied to your selfe and your brethern,* 1.386 which do holde so∣me of you of Luther, some of Zuinglius, some of other, euen as S. Augustin applied it to the Donatistes, who helde some of Donatus, some of Rogatus, some of Primianus, some of Maximianus, all Donatistes, but yet diuided amonge them selues as protestants are at this day, into Lutherās, Sacramenta∣ries, Anabaptistes, Suenckfeldians, Osiandrins and so forthe. Peter is the foundation and Rocke that Christe builded his Churche vpon, as sett to gouerne and direct the same vnder Christ, by Christ, and through Christ. Al Christendō holdeth by him, not as a sect by his patrone, but as the flock by their Pa∣stour, vt sit vnus Pastor & vnum ouile, that there may be one Pa¦stour, and one flocke, and as S. Hierom saieth,* 1.387 vt schismatis tolla∣tur occasio, that schisme might be auoided.

In like maner, where it was alleaged out of Irenaeus, that to the Church of Rome all the Churche, that is to saye,* 1.388 all that be faithefull any where, oughte to repaire Propter potentio∣rem Principalitatem; For the mightier principalite of the sa∣me, M. Iewell here saieth.

[Iewell.] * 1.389Of these wordes groweth their errour. They dreame of a king∣dome and Principalite. But Christ saieth to his disciples. The kinges of Nations rule ouer them. Vos autem non sic. But you may not s••.

Beholde howe shamefully Christes holy worde is abu∣sed. In that place of the gospel the Apostles not yet replenished with the holy Ghoste, thought that Christ should haue a tem∣porall reygne, and therefore when they heard that Iohn and Ia¦mes the sonnes of Zebedee sued to sit the one of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 right hād the other on the leafte, Indignati sunt it de duobus 〈◊〉〈◊〉. They toke an Indignatiō against those two brethern.* 1.390 The Christ cal¦ling

them vnto him saied the wordes alleaged, signifying vnto them that they shoulde not looke for any temporal honour, ru∣le or preferment, such as Kinges of the Nations exercised, but who so woulde be greatest amonge them should be their seruaunt. Nowe Ireneus speaketh of a Principalite in the Churche off Rome (not temporall or Ciuill as full grossely M. Iewell ima∣gineth, folowing therein that rude ghospeller Andreas Smide∣linus) but a Spirituall Iurisdiction,* 1.391 such as all the Churche (not all the worlde) and all faithefull (not all pagans and infidels then subiect to the Romaine Empire) ought to repaire vnto. The humilite that Christ commaunded his Apostles in that place, taketh not away the Spirituall Authorite and Iurisdi∣ction of Prelats in Christes Churche. The Bishop off Rome ruleth the Churche of God,* 1.392 as S. Paule saied of such as he had appointed Regere ecclesiam Dei, to rule the Churche of God as a 1.393 S. Ambrose saied that Damasus was the Ruler of Gods hou∣se, as b 1.394 Chrisostom saieth that to Peter Christ gaue Primatum guber nationeque per vniuersum mundum. The primacy and gou∣uernement thourough out the whole worlde: as, c 1.395 S. Gregory saieth that to Peter, The charge and Principalite of the whole Church was cōmitted. All this is not to rule as Kinges of Nations rule ouer them,* 1.396 but as such to whom we must obedire & subiacere tanquam rationem reddituris pro animabus nostris obeye and be subiect,* 1.397 as vnto such which shal geue accōpt for our soules, but they them selues must be Sicut ministri as seruauntes, not in sub¦iection, but in humilite. And thus bothe Scriptures must stan∣de together. M. Iewell must not ouerthrowe one Truthe by an other, neither wrest that to Spiritual Iurisdictiō, which was expressely spoken of the temporall and ciuill.

* 1.398 With the like vprightnes and sincerite, whereas D. Har∣ding alleaged the saying of S. Ambrose, that Rome was more ad∣uaunced Per Apostolici Sacerdotij Principatum: By the Chiefty of the Apostolike Priesthood in the Tower of Reli∣gion

then in the Throne of temporall power, M. Iewell for an∣swer hereunto wresteth a place off holy Scripture, and sa∣ieth.

[Iewell.] * 1.399Peters whole power in Rome was Spiritual, and stode onely in the preaching of the Ghospell, with which armour God is able to pull downe kinges and Princes to the obedience of his Christ. Thus saieth God vnto Hieremie. I haue sett thee ouer Nations and kyngdomes.* 1.400 And S. Peter speaking generally to all Christen people saieth. Vos estis Regale Sa∣cerdotum. You are the Kingely priesthoode. This principalite and Towre of Religion was not onely in Rome, but also in euery place where the Name of Christ was receiued.

[Stapleton.] * 1.401In this later place, out of S. Peter M. Iewell hath falsely translated the text. For where the Latin hath, Vos estis regale sa∣cerdotium. and the greke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a kingely priesthood without the Article, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that or illud, M. Iewell to make it ser∣ue his turne, hath translated the wordes thus. You are that Kingely Priestood. And so hath put in the word That more then he founde in the Text. And vpon the vehemēcy of the word That he inferreth, This principalite and Tower of Religiō was not on¦ly in Rome, but also in euery place, where the Name of Christ was re∣ceiued. But false translation maketh no proufe. S. Peter in that place after the minde of S. a 1.402 Basill and b 1.403 S. Augustine (who are to be thought to haue vnderstanded the text as well as M. Ie∣well) calleth all Christen men Regale Sacerdotium, A kingely Priesthood, bicause as of the mysticall vnction we be all called Christians, so as the membres of Christ, the true and euerla∣sting priest, we be all Priestes. S. c 1.404 Hierom calleth this generall and Common priesthood of all Christen men, Baptim: expo∣unding shortly that which the other Fathers spake by circum∣stances. Againe as S. Peter calleth here Christen men Regale S••cerdotium, a kingely priesthood, so S. Iohn in his Reuelation saieth. Fecisti nos deo nostro Regnum & Sacerdotes,* 1.405 & regnabimus super terram. Thou hast made vs a kingdome, and Priestes to our God, and we shall reigne ouer the earthe.* 1.406 And in the olde

lawe the like was saied to the Iewes. You shall be to me priestly kingdome, and a holy Nation. But as it will not folowe therefo∣re that euery Christen man is a kinge, and all Christē men rule and raigne alike, nor that euery Iewe was as rightly a priest, as was the Tribe of Leui, no more it wil folow that euery Christē man is a priest in one kind and maner of priestood, or that the Principalite of Priesthood is in euery man alike. Thirdly albeit al Christen men in respect of the internall Sacrifice of a Con∣trite harte, be priestes, yet in respect of the Apostolike priest∣hood, and of the externall Sacrifice of Christes Church, none are priestes but such as are Ordred thereunto. And of such A∣postolike Priestes, the B. of Rome by S. Ambroses Iudgement had the Principalite. And by that Principalite Rome was more glorious then euer it was by the Imperiall Throne. Last of al because at Rome by S. Ambrose his Iudgement was the princi∣palite of Apostolike priesthood, and Rome for that was more glo∣rious then for the Imperiall Throne, it foloweth that as the Empire of the Romaines was through out the worlde, but the Chiefe Rule and Authorite thereof came from Rome, so the faithe of the Romaines was preached through out the worlde (as S. Paule saieth) but the Principalite of Apostolike priesthood,* 1.407 the rule and Authorite came from thence. This is the compa∣rison of S. Ambrose in that place, and this he noteth as a Spe∣ciall and principall prerogatiue of that Churche. Wherefore M. Iewell doth bothe great wronge to that holy Father so to debace his saying, and much more villany to this holy Scriptu∣re so to racke it and wreste it.

[Iewell.] * 1.408For an other example of your lewde wresting of holy Scri∣ptures (M. Iewell) let vs consider what Scripture you bringe to proue that Christ lefte no Vniuersall Vicaire ouer his Chur∣che. Thus you saie.

Other Vniuersall Vicaire of Christ, there is none in the Scriptures, onlesse it be he, of whom S. Paule forewarne••h v••. Homo ille s••eleratus, fi∣lius

perditus, &c. That wicked man, that Childe of perdition that setteth him selfe vp against God, and that so farre forthe, that he will sitte in the Temple of God, and she∣we him selfe as if he were God. But this Vicaire Christ shal destroie with the spirite of his mouthe.

[Stapleton] It had ben enoughe, M. Iewell, for the younge Iannizzers of your Secte thus to talke. You that beare your selfe for a Bas∣sa amonge them, shoulde nowe leaue suche grosse shiftes, to o∣ther that haue yet lerned no farder. This place of S. Paule hath in dede semed a gaye place to a number of your faction to pro∣ue the Pope an Antichrist. Yea and a lerned man forsothe of the brotherhod of Zurich hath made a booke only of that Ar∣gument, whereof this place is bothe the beginning and chiefe foundation. Which booke also hath bene set forthe in english,* 1.409 and is, I trowe, not a litle estemed of a greate many. But Gods name be blissed. Though your gaie glistering Inuentyons da∣feled the eyes of a greate many at the first (you stealing vpon vs in our deade slepe, and ouermuche reste) yet nowe we be∣ing waked with your heresies, and stirred vp to a nerer consi∣deration of matters by you called in doubte, we haue (thanked be God) easely discouered, the vanite of them.

For, as touching this place of S. Paule, the very text laied forthe and considered, openeth your lewde and wrested inter∣pretation thereof, and sheweth to the eye, that it procedeth vt∣terly either of grosse ignorance or els of wilfull Malice. S. Pau∣le saieth thus.* 1.410 VVe beseche you brethern by the coming of our Lorde Iesus Christ, and of our meeting with him, that you be not lightly ca∣ried awaye from your vnderstanding, nor conceiue any feare, either by reuelation of Spirit, or by worde of mouthe, or by any letter as sent from vs, that the daye of the Lorde should be at hande. Let noman de∣ceiue you in any wise. For vnlesse the defection come first, and that wicked man be reueled, that Childe of perdition, that setteth him sel∣fe vp against God, and is exalted aboue all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that be s••••••eth in the temple of God, shewing him selfe

as God. Remembre you not, that when I was yet with you, I tolde you of these matters? And nowe what doth staye it, you knowe, that it may be reueled in dewe time. For the mystery of iniquite wor∣keth euen nowe, only that he which holdeth nowe maye holde, vntill it be out of the waye. And then that wicked man shall be reueled, whom our Lorde Iesus shal kil with the Spirit of his m••uthe, and de∣stroye him in the brightnes of his coming. Him I saie whose coming is in all power, in Signes and false miracles by the working of the diuel. Thus farre the Apostle. All this to be spoken of Antichrist most men do agree. S. Ambrose is expressely of that minde. And so woulde you also and your felowes M. Iewell haue it to be meante.* 1.411 Herein therefore we vary not. But who is nowe this Antichrist that shall come, that shall worke such false miracles, that shall proclaime him selfe God, and that shall at length be destroyed at the glorious coming of our Sauiour? It is the Pope saye you. It is he that beareth him selfe for the Vniuersall Vicaire of Christ. Answer then M. Ie∣well to these fewe reasons, which I bringe to the Contrary.

[ 1] First this Antichrist is but one Person, he hath no Succes∣sion,* 1.412 on Cōtinuance. Therefore the Apostle speaketh of One wicked man, and of One Childe of perdition. The Pope in this Vniuersall Supremacy hath had a Continuance and Suc∣cession of many hundred yeres, euen from the time of S. Gre∣gory at the lest, who practised such Authorite of Vniuersal vi∣caire through out all Christendom, as hath bene before parti∣culary declared. Therefore the Pope can not be the Antichrist that S. Paule speaketh of.

[ 2] Againe before this Antichrist come, there must (as S. Paule saieth) a defection come first. This defection S. Ambrose ex∣poundeth to be of the Romaine Empire. That is when the Romaine Empire is vtterly lost and gone, then or shortly after (at the lest not before) the Antichrist shall be reueled. The Romaine Empire standeth yet, and without an Emperour

descending from the first Romain Emperour the Churche hath not yet bene at any time. Therefore this Antichrist is not yet come. And so it can not be the Pope that came so many a daye a goe.

[ 3] Thirdly that wicked man must be reueled, saieth the Apostle. Shewe then M. Iewell when that was. That is. When this An∣christ the Pope beganne to plaie the Antichrist. What Pope it was. When he liued, and howe he was reueled. This can not be shewen, therefore the Pope can not be he.

[ 4] Fourthly he shal shewe him selfe as God, and shall be exalted aboue al that is called God, or worshipped for God. Such honour was ne∣uer practised by any Pope, geuē to any Pope, or so much as at∣tempted or coueted of any Pope. Therefore he can not be that Antichrist, that the Apostle speaketh of.

[ 5] Fiftely this Antichrist shal worke signes and miracles by the di∣uell. The first Pope that practised this vniuersall vicaireship, whom so euer you name M. Iewel, whither it be Zosimus, S. Gregory, Leo, or Bonifacius the 8. you can shewe no such false miracles wrought. Therefore the Pope is nott this Anti∣christ.

[ 6] Sixtely this Antichrist shall be destroyed at Christes co∣ming. The first Antichrist of the Popes (if any such were) haue not bene so destroyed. Therefore no Pope hath bene that Antichrist. Or thus. Therefore that Antichrist is not yet co∣me, whom Christ shall so destroye.

[ 7] Last of all this Antichrist, if the Pope be he, hath Gouer∣ned and Ruled the vniuersall Churche of Christ these thou∣sand yeres and vpwarde. The whole Church hath folowed his Doctrine, hath obserued his Decrees, hath obeyed his Autho∣rite. But that the vniuersall Church of Christ shoulde be gui∣ded by an Antichrist, in such a Cōtinuance of time, yea at any time at al, it is expresse contrary to Gods promises in the Pro∣phets, in the Psalmes, and in the ghospell: as I haue otherwhere

at large proued. Therefore it is by no meanes possible, that the Pope shoulde be Antichrist. Yea it is a most hainous and hor∣rible blasphemy so to thinke, teache, or write. So well and tru∣ly, so godly and clerckly hath M. Iewell applied this place of holy Scripture. Nowe to an other.

[Iewell.] M. Hardinge saieth. The See of Rome can neuer faile in Faithe. For Christ saied vnto Peter.* 1.413 I haue praied for thee that thy faith not maye saile. The like confidence and trust in them selues the Priestes had in the olde ti∣mes, as it may appeare by these wordes of the prophet Micheas: The priestes taught for hiere. and the Prophets prophesied for mony, and yet they re∣sted them selues vpon the Lorde, and saied. Is not the Lorde in the middest emongest vs?

It foloweth immediatly in the Prophet. Non venient super nos mala &c. There shall no harme befalle vnto vs. Therefore for your sake Sion shall be plowed like the filde and Ierusalem shal be turned into a heape of stones: and the hill of the temple, into a highe wodde. These wordes if M. Iewel had added, and not broken of so vpon the sodain, it would haue appeared in what sence the Priestes craked of the Lorde amonge them, and what their confidence and trust was. Their confidence and trust was, that, did they neuer so ill, yet God woulde not punishe them. The trust whiche we haue vpon the See off Rome is, that it shall not faile in the faithe, grounded vpon the wordes off oure Sauiour, spoken particularly to Pe∣ter in the presence of all the rest. It is of the Faithe to conti∣newe. It is not of any temporall confidence of escape harme∣lesse in iniquite. Therefore you saied vntruly, The like confi∣dence and truste &c. and therefore also you haue to a wronge, and contrary sence wrested the saying of the Prophet.

[Iewell.] * 1.414With like confidence the priestes saied, as it is writen in the pro∣phet Hieremie. The Lawe shall not decaye in the Priest, nor Counsell in the Elder.

With like confidence or rather impudency M. Iewell hath bothe wrested to a contrary meaning, and also pared the very wordes of the Prophet Hieremy, as he nipped before the wor∣des

of Micheas. For thus stande the wordes of Hieremy. Et dixerunt, Venite & cogitemus contra Hieremiam cogitationes (nō enim peribit lex a Sacerdote, neque Consilium a Sapiente, nec sermo a propheta) venite & percutiamus eum lingua & non attendamus ad vniuersos sermones eius. And the Iewes sayed. Come. Let vs deuise deuises against Hieremy (for the lawe shal not decaye in the Priest, nor the Counsell in the wise, no the worde in the Prophet) Come and let vs strike him with our tonge, and let vs geue no eare to all his sayinges. These are the whole wor∣des of Hieremy in that place, wherof M. Iewell hath picked out a piece only, and that which stode in a parenthe∣sis, to persuade a sence which the whole place being opened, confuteth it selfe. For those wordes are not spoken as of the Priestes only, but as of all the Iewes. As the whole drifte of the Chapter declareth. Againe the Prophet in this place rebuketh not their belefe or doctrine, but expresseth their wicked con∣spiracy to destroye him, which had rebuked their euill life and had foretold them of Gods vengeaunce to come vpon them. He speaketh not of any Councell touching the obseruation of Moyses lawe. Last of all bicause the Priestes vpō a confidē∣ce of Gods promise made vnto them, that all ambiguites and questions betwene bloud and bloud, Cause and Cause,* 1.415 Lepre and not Lepre shoulde be determined by them, thought therefore that in all other thinges their Iudgement and Councell should stande in like maner, bicause I saye they abused this Au∣thorite of deciding questions of the Lawe, to liue and doe in maners what them listed, therefore the prophet Ie∣remy vsed those wordes against them. If in like maner any Pope for the defence of his Lewde life woulde alleage the pro∣mise made to S. Peter that his Faith should not faile, then were the Confidence and trust of such a Pope in such a case like to the Confidence and trust, that those Iuish Priestes had. But nowe seing the life and behauiour of Popes is not desended to

be innocēt, but their faithe is defended to be Sure and not able to faile in determining matters touching Faithe, therefore we trust truly to the promise of Christ, that Peters faithe shall not faile, therefore the confidence of vs is not like to that vaine cō∣fidence of the Priestes that Hieremy speaketh of, and therfore you M. Iewel haue lewdely and wickedly wrested this place of holy Scripture, as you haue done the others.

But God answereth them farre otherwise. Ye shall ••aue darke night in stede of Vision,* 1.416 and ye shall haue dark••esse in steede off Prophecye.

In this prophecy the Prophet foretolde the Iewes of the fall of their Synagoge, and of the blindnesse that they should be in at the coming of the Messias. The Church of Christ is contrary wise promised to haue the holy Ghoste for ••uer to re∣maine with it,* 1.417 and Christ hath saied. I will be with you all day••s euen to the ende of the worlde. Therefore this i•• wrongefully applied to the Rulers of Christ••s Churche, whose faithe shall no more faile, then the Churche it selfe. And therefore ones a∣gaine you haue wrested the holy Scripture.

In like maner M. Iewell hauing alleaged a number of gloses out of the Canō law that the Pope can not erre, for a b••iefe solutiō to them al he abuseth a place or two of holy Sc••ipture, and so concludeth that matter thus.

[Iewell.] * 1.418Thus ••hey feast and chere them selues, and smoth the world with vaine talke. But S. Ihon saieth. No••ite a•• e••e, Pat••em habemus Abraham. Neuer saye (Peter or) Abraham was our Father.

See we not here what a smothe Solution M. Iewel hath ma∣de,* 1.419 and howe feately he hath glosed S. Iohns Text? S. Iohn sayd to the Iewes. Crake not of your Father Abraham. Therefore we must thinke that the Popes faithe may fayle. For that is the matter which M. Iewell laboureth to proue in that place, and which the gloses immediatly befor recited, do witnesse. Againe M. Iewel to fournish the matter shufleth betwene S. Iohns wor¦des (Peter or) as though S. Iohn had spoken or meaned there of

Peter also. By such glosing as M. Iewel teacheth vs, we may sa∣ie, S. Iohn saieth. Neuer saye (this man, or that man, or) Abraham was our Father. And so by this glose of M. Iewel, the Child shal be taught to denie his Father. Certainely S. Paule who is to be thought to haue vnderstanded S. Iohns meaning no lesse then M. Iewel, not withstanding those wordes, saieth to the Corin∣thians. Though ye haue tenne thousand of Masters in Christ, yet ye haue not many Fathers.* 1.420 For in Ch••ist Iesus I begotte you by the ghosp••ll. In which wordes he feareth not to be taken for their Father, though the Iewes by S. Ihon were forebidden to crake of their Father Abrahā. So properly and sincerely M. Iewel al∣leageth the Scriptures. It foloweth in the same place of his text immediatly.

[Iewell.] * 1.421S. Paule speaking of his successours, saieth thus. I knewe that after my departure from you, there shall rauening wolues come amongest you that shall not spare the flo••ke.

This was spokē to the clergy of Ephesus. This maketh nothin∣ge to the Succession of Peter in the See of Rome. Againe they were not properly his successours. For at Ephesus though S. Paule taught and preached, yet he remained not there, he had not his proper See and abode there.* 1.422 S. Iohn the Euangelist is reakoned of the Auncient writers to be the First Bishop there. Therefore this place is bothe Vntruly wrested against the Suc¦cession of S. Peter and Vntruly reported touching S. Paules successours. If S. Paul had any Successiō, it was at Rome whe∣re he preached the ghospell also: and beside, suffred there the Crowne of Martyrdom.

These fewe maye suffice to Iustifie the Vntruthe noted by you (M. Iewel) vpon D. Harding, to proue you in dede a wrea∣ste•• of Gods holy word, as your felowes are, and to satisfie also your expectation, where you saie.

[Iewell.] * 1.423Where as it liketh M. Harding to saie, that we wreathe and wreaste he Scriptures, if it woulde haue pleased him also particularly to shewe

howe and wherein, he might haue had the more credit, But it is com∣mōly sayed. Dolosus versatur in generalibus. He that walketh in generalites, meaneth not plainely.

You haue some nowe particularly shewed, not only by your doctrine generally committed, but also by you in this your Fourth Article, vnaduisedly auouched. If you thinke the∣se to fewe, take one more. You graunte that Peter was head of the Apostles. Then you aske what is in the Pope that was in Peter, whereby he shoulde be the head of others. And seing well what might be answered, you saie of D. Harding.

[Iewell.] * 1.424He will saie Succession, and sitting in Peters chaire, which is in Ro∣me. A man maye answer. The Scribes and Pharisees sate in Moyses Cha••re.

A man may Replie. Quae dicunt facite, que autē faciūt nolite fa∣cere. Doe what they saie vnto you, but doe not as you see them doe. And then what doth this Answer helpe you? Nay, dothe not this Answer make quite againste you? Dothe it not cleane ouerthrowe you? For if the Scribes and Pharisees, so naughty men sate yet in Moyses Chaire, and their sayinges and precepts were to be obserued, kept, and obeyed, though their doinges and life was not to be folowed, is not trowe you the Succes∣sour of S. Peter, sitting in his Chayre, that is, occupying his Of∣fice, place, and dignitie, to be obeyed, though he lacke the Qua∣lites of S. Peter? So properly you alleage the Scripture euen a∣gainst your owne selfe. For you bring a piece of a Sentence, for the Answer, wherof the other piece, maketh a perfyt Re∣plie or Solution. What is to wreaste Scriptures, if this be not?

Nowe that you labour by certaine gloses, and by the sayinges of two certaine men in their declayming Oratiōs to shewe so∣me Scriptures otherwise applied then their literal meaning ge∣ueth, to that I answer. First they conclude nothing against the faithe, or against Truthe: and so they are not wrested. Secōda∣rely they are not so vsed in the waie of doctrine, but by allusion so applied as not properly, so neither wickedly. Last of all you

knowe M. Iewell the lawe saieth. Retorsione Criminum non pro∣batur Innocentia. To proue an other guilty, proueth not your selfe Innocent.

[Harding.] * 1.425The bishops of euery Nation haue made their Appea∣les in their weighty affaires to the Pope, and alwaies haue sued to the See Apostolike, as well for succour and helpe against violence, iniuries, and oppressions, as for redresse of all other disordres.

[Iewell.] * 1.426The .106. Vntruthe, As it shall afterwarde appeare.

Here you geue me occasion M. Iewell, to open a Number of your most manifest and impudent Vntruthes, touching the matter of Appeales, which in the next Diuision you handle at large, and to the which you referre the proufe of this .106. Vn∣truthe. Goe to then. Let vs see the proufes that you bringe. You saie.

[Iewell.] First I must shewe,* 1.427 that there lay no such ordinarie Appeale from al countres of the worlde, to the bishop of Rome, and that therefore the same is by M. Harding vntruly auouched. That done, I trust, it shall not be harde to answer these places of Chrysostom, Athanasius and Theodoretus here alleaged.

[Stapleton] Truly it shal be very easye, if you can perfourme that you promise. But if when you haue all saied, you haue proued no∣thinge, then the Reader may vnderstande, that neither you ha∣ue, neither you are able to answer to those places alleaged of Chrysostom, Athanasius, and Theodoretus, and of eche their Appeales to Rome.

[Iewell.] And that there laye not any such Appeale to Rome,* 1.428 it is plaine by the consent of Generall Councelles, by the Authorite of holy Fathers and by the lawes and Ordonaunces of Emperours and Princes. By which groundes it is easie, to to vnderstande the Practise, and order of the Churche in those daies.

Three proufes against Appeales to Rome, M. Iewell in the∣se wordes hath auoutched. [Stapleton] [ 1] First, The Consent of Generall Councelles. [ 2] Seconde. The Authorite of Holy Fa••hers. [ 3] Thirde.

The lawes and Ordonaunces of Emperours and Princes. But M. Iewell hath not brought any one of all these three proufes truly and sincerely, as it shall afterwarde appeare. Therefore he hath auouched here three manifest Vntruthes.

[Iewell.] * 1.429In the Councell of Nice it is decreed thus. Ab alijs excommunicati ab a∣lijs ad Comniunionem ne reciptantur. Let not them that stande excommuni∣cat by one bishop, be receiued againe to communion by an other. M. Hardinges Appeales and these wordes (363.) can not stande well toge∣ther.

Yes forsothe M. Iewell, if you vnderstande them well. For first he that Appealeth, the Appellation yet hanging, doth not stande excōmunicat. Therefore this decree being made of such as stāde excommunicat, doth not speake of such as do Appea∣le. And thus D. Hardinges Appeales (as you call them) and the wordes of this decree may stande well together. Therefore you adde more force to the argument and saie.

[Iewell.] But he will saie: The bishop either of ignoraunce, either of malice may excommunicat the partie wrongfully.

[Stapleton] Yea Mary. Here is now the case of Appellation. What saie you to that?

[Iewell.] * 1.430In this case the same Councell hath prouided remedie of Appeale, not vnto the bishop of Rome, but vnto a prouinciall Synod within the Countre. These be the wordes. Therefo••e that these thinges may be well examined, it is wel prouided, that euery yere in euery prouince at ••wo seueral times there be holden a Councell of bis••ops, that they meeting togeather out of all partes of the prouince, maye * 1.431 Heare and determine such complaintes.

You adde in the ende one worde more then the Decree hath. That is the worde, Determine. The Decree speaketh not of Determination but of Examination and enquiry vpō such complaintes. Howbeit let vs graunte that the prouinciall Sy∣nod might determine the complaintes of their clergy? Is it not so at this day in all Catholike countres, where no Appellation is made? Your parte is to shewe M. Iewell that by the Coun∣cell of Nice no Appellation shoulde be made from the bishopp or from the prouinciall Synod to Rome. Thinke you the ar∣gument

good? They speake of Appeales only to a Synod. Er∣go they forbidde Appeales to Rome? This is a Gheasse. This is no proufe.

Againe this Decree referringe the Appeale to the Synod, doth referre it also to the bishop of Rome. And why? Bicause no Synod cā be holdē without the Authorite of the Bishop of Rome. Iulius the B. of Rome,* 1.432 who liued at the time of the Nice¦ne Concel, writing to the Bishops of the East, who also were present at the Nicene Councel, reprouing thē for condemning of Athanasius and other Catholike bishops, in a Synod holden at Antioche in Syria, without the sentence and agreement of Iulius the Pope, chargeth them withe the breache of this very Canon and decree, with these wordes. Praeuidentes Sancti patres insidias et altercationes vnanimiter in Nicena Synodo statuerunt,* 1.433 vt nullus Episcopus n••si in legitima Synodo, & suo tempore Apostolica authoritate conuocata, super qu••busdam criminationibus pulsatus audiatur, id est, iudicetur vel damnetur. The holy Fathers fore∣seing the deceites and altercations, did decree with one assent in the Nicene Councell, that no bishop being accused of cer∣tain crimes should be heard, that is shoulde be iudged or con∣demned, but in a lawfull Synode called together in due time by the Apostolike Authorite. It is noted in the margin of this epistle, that this decree though it be not expressely in the Nice∣ne Councel, yet it may be reduced to the fifte Canon thereof, which is the Canon by M. Iewell alleaged.

Againe in the seconde epistle of the same Iulius it is writen thus,* 1.434 Canonibus in Nicena Synodo iubentibus non debere praeter s••ntentiam Romani Pontificis, Concilia celebrari, nec episcopos dam∣nari. Whereas the Canons of the Nicene Councell do com∣maunde that without the Authorite of the Bishopp of Rome neither Councells ought to be holden, neither bishops be con∣demned. Where againe it is noted that this decree may be re∣duced to that 5. Canon aboue alleaged. Nowe if M. Iewel wil

except and saie, this Canon, and the whole epistle of Iulius is a forged matter, let him remembre that the ecclesiasticall hi∣story of Socrates, describing this schysmaticall Synode off the Arrians in Antioche of Syria where Athanasius was excom∣municated, maketh mencion of this Canon or decree, that no Synod may be kepte without the Authorite of the bishop of Rome. These are the wordes. Sed neque Iulius affuit maximae Romae praeful,* 1.435 neque in locum suum aliquem destinauit, cum vtique ecclesiastica regula iubeat non oportere praeter sententiam Romani Pontificis concilia celebrari. Neither was Iulius the bishop off Rome present at that Synode, neither was any sent thither in his place, whereas yett the ecclesiasticall decree dothe com∣maunde, that no Synodes ought to be holden, without the cō∣sent of the Bishop of Rome. The Appeales then in the Nice∣ne Councell being referred to the Synodes of the Prouince, and no Synode in any prouince being good and lawfull wit∣hout the authorite of the bishop of Rome, are they hereby re∣moued from the iudgement of the bishop of Rome? Nay are they not expressely submitted and put vnder the same? And thus M. Iewell hath brought a decree of the Nicene Coun∣cell by a good consequence against him selfe, and by no cou∣lour or reason making for him selfe. He hath brought that a∣gainst Appeales to Rome, which dothe necessarely inferre Ap∣peales to Rome.

For farder proufe out of the Nicene Councell that Appea∣les laye to Rome, I might here alleage certaine Canons of the same Councell, auouched by Iulius the Pope in his epistle to the Arrian bishops of the East, who were them selues present at the Councell of Nice, and who (if the Pope had beelyed the Councell) would not haue lett to haue tolde him of it, expres∣sely decreing Appeales from all other bishops to the bishop of Rome. But M. Iewell denieth this to be the Epistle of Iulius. This is the extreme and last refuge, when all others shiftes do

faile. But by what reason doth he denie it Forsothe bicause it is not the same which Athanasius in his workes talketh of. [Iewell.] * 1.436For (saieth he) They ought to be all one without difference. And why so M. Iewell? May not Iulius write two or three sundry epistles, and that to the bishops of East, and those of different matters, except your good mastership allowe it? As well might you quarel, and say: The epistle to the Hebrewes is not S. Pauls, bicause it cōtaineth no like matter, nor beareth not the like stile to his epistle to the Romains. Such reasōs vphold your religiō.

In that Epistle then of Iulius, among other Canōs of the Ni∣cene Coūcel there reackoned vp, this is one. Vt omnes Episco••i qui in quibusdā grauioribus pulsantur vel criminātur causis, quoties necesse fuerit,* 1.437 liberè Apostolicam appell••nt sedem atque ad eam qua∣si ad matrem confugiant, vt ab ea (sicut semper fuit) piè fulciantur, d••f••ndantur & liberentur. That al bishops, which are conuented and accused, of certain greuouser crimes, may freely Appeale to the Apostolike See, and flye to hi••, as to their Mother, that they may by it be succoured, defended, and deliuered, as it hath all∣waies bene: Lo an expresse decree of Appeale to Rome in the Nicene Councell, which though it be not amonge the twenty Canons commonly extant in that Councell, yet it ought not therefore to be thought a fained or forged decree, no more thē a number of other Canons and decrees of this Nicene Coun∣cell alleaged by S. Hierom, S. Ambro••e, S. Augustin, Epiphanius and other, are to be estemed for forged and fained decrees, bi∣cause those also are not to be founde among the twenty now commonly extant.

Beside that, bothe this Iulius in his vndoubted Epistle recorded in the wo••kes of Athanasius,* 1.438 mencioneth a decree of Appeale from one Synod to a greater, made in the Nicene Co∣uncell, by vertu whereof he cited the Bishoppes of the East to Rome, and also Leo by vertu of a decree made in the Ni∣cene Councell, requireth expressely vpon the Appeale of Fla∣uianus,

a newe Synod to be assembled, as hath before bene de¦clared.

But touching this matter of Appeale from al bishoppes to Rome, we haue a most expresse Decree in the great Coun∣cell of Sardica holden within fewe yeres after the Nicene Coū∣cell, holden for the renewing and confirming of the Nicene Coūcel, which at that time was by the Arrians impugned, hol∣den by the assemblie of three hundred bishops from all partes of Christēdom except the Arrians of the East, who also ca∣me at first to that Councell to the number of 76. bishops, but seing them selues so fewe in number, they departed, pretending the presence of Athanasius and Paulus two Catholike bi∣shops,* 1.439 whom they had excommunicated, and would therefore haue had them and all theirs thrust out of the Councel. Other of the East which came not pretended, some infirmite, some lacke of leasure to come to the Councell, and blaming therefore the Pope Iulius for not summoning them in time, though yet (as the ecclesiastical History witnesseth) they had a yere and a halfe warning thereof. Thus beside those Arrians, and the other which drewe backe, there were at that Councel assembled .300. bishops out of these partes of the worlde, (as the epistle of that Councell yet extant in the ecclesiasticall Histo∣ry of Theodoretus doth witnesse) out of Rome,* 1.440 of Spayne, off Fraunce, of Italy, of Campania, Calabria, Aphrica, Sardinia, Pannonia, Mysia, Dacia, the other Dacia, Macedonia, Thessalia, Achaia, Epiros, Thracia, Asia, Caria, Bythynia, Hel∣lespontus, Phrygia, Pisidia, Cappadocia, Ponto, Cilicia, the o∣ther Phygia, Pamphylia, Lydia, off the Ilandes Cyclades, off Aegypt, Thebais, Lybia, Galatia, Palestina, and Arabia. In this great Councel so assembled from all partes, except of the Arrians, we reade this Decree. Placuit vt si episcopus accusatus fu••rit,* 1.441 & iudicauerint congregati episcopi regionis ipsius & de gradu suo eum deiecerint, si appellauerit qui deiectus est & cōfugerit ad epi∣scopum

Romanae Ecclesiae & voluerit se audiri, & iustum putauerit, vt renouetur iudi••ium vel discussionis examen, scribere his Ep••sco∣p••s dignetur, qui in finitima prouincia sunt, vt ipsi diligenter omnia inquirant & iuxta fidem veritatis definiant. Quod fi is qui rogat causam suam iterum audiri, deprecatione sua mouerit epis••opum Ro∣manum vt e latere suo praesbyteros m••ttat, erit in potestate ipsius epi∣scopi quid velit & quid estimet. Et si decreuerit mittendos esse, qui praes••ntes cum episcopis iudicent, habentes eius authoritatem a quo de∣stinati sunt, erit in suo arbitrio: Si vero crediderit episcopos compro∣uinciales sufficere, vt negotio terminum imponant, faciet quod sapien∣tissi••o consil o suo iudicauerit. It hath semed vs good to Decree that if a Bishop be accused, if the bishops of the prouince being gathered together haue iudged the matter, and haue depriued him, if the party dep••iued or deposed do Appeale, and flie to the Bishop of Rome, if the Bishop will haue his cause to be heard, and thinke it good to renewe the Iudgement, or the trial of the matter againe, let him vouchesafe to write to the bishops of the nexte prouince, that they may enquire more diligently off the matter and determine it. But iff the party accused desiring his cause to be hearde ones againe, do intreate the Bishop off Rome to send legates from his side, it shall be in the power off the Bishopp to doe as he shall thinke good. And if the Pope determine to sende such as may iudge the matter with other bishops, hauing his Authorite from whom they are sente, that also shall be at his arbitrement. Last of all if he shall iudge that the bishops of the same prouince with the party accused, may suffice to ende the matter, he shall do, what∣soeuer by his most wise Councell he shall thinke good. Thus farre the decree of the great Councel of Sardica made anon af∣ter the Nicene Councell, for the establishing and confirming of the same, by the consent of 300. Catholike bishops of well here all partes of Christendom. In this decre, we see the other Canon mentioned by you M. Iewel out of those imperfect co∣pies

which are extant, to be expoūded and extēded to that sen∣ce of Appeale, which we gathered before by the decree menti∣oned by Iulius, and the ecclesiasticall history, where it is saied that no Synod may be holdē without the Authorite of the bi∣shop of Rome. In this Decre we see a plaine and large Appeale to the See of Rome, to determine the matter either by his ow∣ne Legates, either by such other iudgement as he shal appointe. This decree of so great a Councell, holden so shortly after the Nicene Councell ought to be of more weight and authorite to expounde vnto vs the meaning of the Nicene Councell, then the bare negatiue argument of M. Iewell, when he gathe∣reth thus.

* 1.442That decree mencioneth of an Appeale to the Synod.

Ergo it excludeth all Appeales to Rome.

For nowe we see bothe that the Synod it selfe can not be good without the Authorite of the bishop of Rome, and the∣refore the Appeale to the Synod emplieth an Appeale to the bishop of Rome, and also that from the Synod the party plain∣tif may appeale to the bishop of Rome expressely and particu∣larly, that also by the iudgement of the saide Bishop the matter shal be determined. And thus much of that Decree. Let vs now see the rest of the Generall Councells, which M. Iewel promi∣sed he woulde alleage.

[Iewell.] * 1.443The bishoppes in the Councell holden at Tela in Spayne ordeined thus, Presbyteri & clericine appellēt nisi ad Africana Concilia. Let it not be law¦full for priestes and clerkes to Appeale (to Rome) but only to the Co∣uncelles holden in Africa.

The first of M. Iewelles three Vntruthes which I noted be∣fore doth now appeare. For whereas he promised to alleage a∣gainst Appeales to Rome, the decrees of Generall Coūcels, he made an Vntruthe in the number to amase the Reader withal, and alleageth only One, and that also to no purpose as you ha∣ue sene. Now for lacke of Generall Councelles he telleth vs of

particular Synods in particular prouinces. And yet all that he bringeth is only out of the Coūtre of Afrike. This that he alle∣ageth of Tela in Spayne, is a great and manifest Vntruthe. In that Councel there is no such decree, but only a Rescript to an epistle of Siricus, speaking not one worde of appeales of or on. Againe he hath added in his english more then is in the latin,* 1.444 and so committed an other Vntruthe in false translation. For the wordes (to Rome) are not mencioned or signified in the wordes alleaged. As touching the Decree it selfe, when you tel vs M. Iewell where it is to be founde, and lie not, then we shall shape you an answer accordingly.

[Iewell.] So in the Mileuitane Councell, Si ab Episcopis &c. So likewise in the Councell, of Aphrica, S•• fuerit prouocatum, &c. And againe in the same Councell, Non p••ouocent, &c. But what can be so plaine as the Epistle of the 217. bishoppes in the Councell of Africa &c.

[Stapleton] All these foure dishes make but one Seruice. It is but a dishe of tounges brought for lacke of other store to fournishe the table. It is of onely Afrike, and but one decree often repeted aboute one very time, and of the selfe fame men. To the whole matter as it hath bene before alleaged of M. Iewell, so haue we answered it before at large in the 97. Vntruthe.* 1.445 Though M. Ie∣well to enlarge his Replie hath thought good to repete it, yet I thinke it not good to abuse the Reader with the often and idle repeting of one thinge. Yet this one thinge more then hitherto hath bene saied I wil note to the Reader by the waye. This Co∣uncell of Milleuitum,* 1.446 and the Councell of Carthage in Afrike were bothe allowed and Confirmed by Pope Innocentius, as it appeareth in S. Augustin. And all the Aphricane Counce∣les were confirmed of the See Apostolike, as Celestinus the B. of Rome at that very time witnesseth. Which matter shall at large appeare hereafter, when I come to the .112. Vntruthe, touching the Confirmation of Councelles by the Pope. The∣se Coūcelles therefore being Confirmed by the Pope, though

they Restraine Appeales from that One Prouince to Ro∣me, yet neither it is against Appeales out of other Countres to Rome, neither dothe it mayntaine their owne Restrainte with out the Authorite of the See of Rome, but rather confirmeth the Popes Authorite aboute Appeales to Rome. And here lo endeth all that M. Iewell alleageth out of Councelles against Appeales to Rome. This is all the stuffe that with so much conference of his brethern, of so many Councelles holden in all places of the worlde, and of so solemne a protestation ma∣de before, hath issued. Mountaines haue crackt, and a Mouse hath crept forthe.

[Iewell.] The bishops of the East parte of the worlde being Arrians, wri∣ting vnto Iulius the bishopp off Rome, tooke it greuousely that he woulde presume to ouer rule them, and shewed him, It was not law∣full for him by any sleight or coulour of appeale, to vndoe that thin∣ge that they had done.

[Stapleton] Yea Marry M. Iewell thus it behoueth you to reason. It behoueth an heretike to alleage heretikes, to bringe the exam∣ples of heretikes, to defende their doinges by heretikes. These be your auncient Fathers (M. Iewell) which next after Coun∣celles,* 1.447 you promised to alleage. Out vpon this impudent Forehead off the Harlot Heresy your dame and maistresse M. Iewel. Haue you no shame, no respect, no conscience? You cō∣fesse these are Arrians (for you saie of them, being Arrians,) and yet you shame not, you blushe not, you feare not to bringe their schismaticall disobedience for a president of your schis∣maticall disobedience. Haue you no better proufes then Ar∣rians, then cursed and detestable heretikes? Be these youre Fa∣thers, your Doctours, your Masters? Be it then proclaimed and knowen to all the worlde, that M. Iewell is a childe of the Ar∣rians, a folower of the Arrians, a scholer of the Arrians. The Fathers and Bishoppes of the Councell of Sardica assembled out of al the west Church and of a great part of Grece, do cō∣demne

these very Arrian bishoppes for disobeying Iulius the bishop of Rome. M. Iewell a protestant prelat commendeth them therefore, and alleageth their doing as a Sadde testimony against Appeales to the bishop of Rome. The wordes of those Fathers and bishops of the Councell of Sardica, writen in their General epistle to all other bishops and priestes not present at that Councell, and declaring the Actes off that Councell a∣gainst those Arrian bishops of the East are these,* 1.448 as Theodo∣ret in his ecclesiasticall history recordeth them. Quum vtique euocati a charissimo & consacerdote Iulio & non occurrentes (sicut scriptis eiusdem episcopi Iulij comprobatur) aperte videantur ca∣lumniatores existere.* 1.449 Whereas being cited off our most dere and felowe priest Iulius, and not appearing (as by the letters of the saied bishop Iulius it is euident) they shewe them selues manifestly to be Slaunderers.

The Councell proueth them Slaunderers off Athanasius, Paulus, and other good Catholike bishops whom they had ex∣communicated bicause being cited by the Pope they woulde not appeare. M. Iewell alleageth for a Sadde and Substantiall proufe their disobedience, not only refusing to appeare, but checking also the Pope for receiuing againe to Communion those good Fathers Athanasius, Paulus, Marcellus, and other, which being by the Arrians excōmunicated and expelled, had Appealed to Rome. Thus M. Iewel taketh parte with the Arri∣ans, that he may haue a weapō against the Pope, and letteth goe al the Catholike bishops for taking parte with the Pope. Thus did heretikes then, and thus do heretiks now. The Arrians thē, M. Iewell nowe. Such Mates M. Iewel hath picked out to dis∣proue his Appeales to Rome.* 1.450 These be his Fathers and Do∣ctours that he promised to bringe forthe.

S. Cipirian finding faulte with such running to Rome, and defea∣ting of Iustice, writeth vnto Cornelius the bishop there in this sorte. Seeing it is mete and right that euery mans cause be heard there, where the faulte was

committed, and seeing that euery bishopp hath a portion of the flo••ke alloted vnto him, which he must rule and gouuerne, and yelde accompte vnto the Lorde for the same, therefore it is not meete that they whom we are appointed to ouersee doo thus run••e a∣boute (with their appeales) and so with their suttle and deceitefull rashewe•• brea∣k•• that concorde and consent off bishoppes,* 1.451 but there they ought to pleade their cause, where they may haue bothe accusers and witnesses of the faul••e. Or lesse perhap•• a fe∣we desperate and lewde felowes thinke the authorite off the bishoppes ••f affrica, w••i••h haue all ready iudged and condemned them to be lesse, then is the Authori••e of other bishoppes. Hereby it is cleare, that the godly Fathers and B••shops in olde time misliked much this shifting of matters to Rome, for that they sawe it was the hinderaunce of right,* 1.452 the increase of ambition, and the open breache of the holy Canons.

Before I open the Vntruthes off M. Iewell in these fewe wordes alleaged, Let vs first consider (gentle Reader) the matter a parte by it felfe. M. Iewell must proue, there laye no Appeale to Rome. For this purpose he alleageth S. Ciprian complayning of the rashe and ofte running to Rome about Ap¦peales. And what other thing doth al this proue, thē that at the same time appeales laye to Rome, but S. Cyprian was offended therewith? Thus M. Iewell telleth vs that Appeales laye to Rome, and yet saieth he will proue that none laie to Rome. A∣gaine S. Ciprian was offended, not with the Appeales it selfe simply and absolutely, But (as his wordes do expressely saie) with their sutle and deceitfull rashenes aboute Appeales. And ••o was S. Bernarde in his time (as we shall anone heare) offended with Appeales, and yet no man more expressely witnesseth the Authorite of Appeales to Rome then he. So at this daye the late Generall councell of Trident hath cutt of a number off Appeales frō Rome,* 1.453 and committed to the bishoppes the de••er∣mination of most matters, not yet for all that abolishing all Appeales to that See. Thus also S. Cyprian who liued longe before the Nicene councell in a tyme of persecution, when les∣se cause of contention was offred, was worthely offended with the rashe and vnruly behauiour off cer••••ine which ranne to Rome, and abused the good Pope Cornelius with false and deceitefull tales, as in this epistle S. Ciprian mentioneth. Agai∣ne

this semed to be a decree amonge the Africanes euen in S. Ciprians time, that no suche Appeale should be made out off their countre. For so dothe S. Ciprian beginne this sentence, Cum statutum sit omnibut nobis, aequumque ac iustum sit &c. Seing it is decreed amonge vs all,* 1.454 and is also meete and right that the cause shoulde there be hearde where the faulte is committed. etc. [ 1] Now M. Iewell hath omitted those first wordes of the sen∣tence, and committed a wilfull Vntruthe, to make the Reader beleue that S. Ciprian spake and reasoned generally against all Appeales, not of any Statute or decree touching the coūtre of Aphrica. [ 2] Againe whereas he concludeth of godly Fathers and Bishoppes in olde time, he hath made an Vntrutbe. For he hath brought but one godly Father and Bishop, S. Ciprian by na∣me. The other were Arrian heretikes, no godly Fathers. [ 3] Third∣ly where he saieth that therefore the Appeales to Rome were misliked, bicause it was the increase of ambitiō, and the open breache of the holy Canons, it is the thirde and that a double Vntruthe. For S. Ciprian which is the only Father here alleaged, spea∣keth neither off ambition, neither off the breache of any ho∣ly Canon.

[Iewell.] * 1.455And therefore the Emperour Iustinian foreseing the disorders, that herof might grow, to bridle this ambitious outrages, thought it neces∣sary for his subiectes to prouide a straight lawe in this wise to the con∣trary· If any of the most holy ••ishoppe, being of one Synode haue any matter off doubte or question amonge them selues, whether it be for ecclesiasticall right,* 1.456 or any other matters, first let their Me••ropo••itane wi••h other bishoppes of the same Synod examine and Iudge the cause. But if bothe the parties stande not to this and their iudgements, then let the most holy Patriarche of the same prouince heare and de∣termine their matter accordinge to the Ecclesiasticall lawes and Canons. And neither of the parties may withst••nde his determination.* 1.457 And immediatly after. Let the Patriarche accor••i••g to the lawes and Canons, make an ende. By these wordes (.371.) al Aappeales be quite cutte of from the See off Rome.

[Stapleton] By these wordes M. Iewell hath made an Vntrue Con∣clusion. [ 1] For first the Pope is one of the foure Patriarches,

and that the chiefest, as your selfe M. Iewell hath allready con∣fessed out of Iustinian. The Pope also is Patriarche to all the west, and at this day is the only Patriarche in respect of the other three Patriarches of Constantinople, Antioche and Ale∣andria, which now are vnder the Dominon of the Turkes, Therfore by these wordes (M. Iewel) al Appeales are brought to the See of Rome. And thus your Conclusion is quite cutt of.

[ 2] Againe the decree of the Emperour, referreth the finall iud∣gement of the Patriarche to the Ecclesiasticall lawes and Ca∣nons, as the expresse wordes of the Decree do saie. Now the ec∣clesiasticall lawes and Canons not only of the Nicene Coun∣cell but also of the great Councell of Sardica, bothe holden longe before the time off Iustiniā the Emperour, do allowe an Appellatiō frō al bishops and Patriarches to the See of Rome, as it hath bene before declared. And therefore by the wordes of this Decree, (referring it selfe to the ecclesiasticall lawes and Canons) Appeales are not quite cutt from the See of Rome, but are expressely emplied to the See of Rome.

[ 3] But for euident proufe, that this Nouell Constitution off Iustinian maketh nothinge at all against Appeales to Rome, let S. Gregory one of the foure Doctours ••f Christes Church, and a Father by you M. Iewell against the Title of Vniuersal Bishop, plētifully alleaged, be an Vmper betwene vs. It is to be thought that he vnderstod this Cōstitutiō as wel as M. Iewel. And it is not to be feared that he will vsurpe a more Vniuersal Authorite then was dewe to the See of Rome, who did so much inueigh and was so earnestly bente against the Name or Title of Vniuersal bishop. S. Gregory therefore alleaging this very Nouell Constitution of Iustinian, that Patriarcha secun∣dum Canones & leges Causae proebeat finem, the Patriarche accor∣ding to the lawes and Canons make an ende of the matter,* 1.458 he addeth and saieth. Contra haec si dictum fuerit, quia nec Metro∣politam

habuit nec Patriarcham, dicendum est quia a Sede Aposto∣lica, quae Caput est omnium Ecclesiarum, causa audienda ac diri∣menda fuerat, sicut & praedictus episcopus peri••sse dignoscitur, qui episcopos alieni Concilij habuit omnino suspectos. If it be here obie∣cted, that the bishop had neither Metropolitane nor Patriarche it is to be saied that the Cause ought to haue bene heard and de¦termined of the See Apostolike, which is the Head of al Chur∣ches, euen as also the foresaied Bishop is knowen to haue required, suspecting the iudgment of other Bishops which had no iurisdiction ouer him. Thus farre S. Gregory. By whose iudgement it is euident that though the lawe of Iustinian do saye, that the Patriarche shall ende the mat∣ter, yett in the case that the Churche lacketh a Patriar∣che, as either the Patriarche being dead, or the Churche it selfe exempted and being some peculiar, in that case I saye, the Appeale is to be made to the bishop of Rome, yea from the territory or countre off any other Patriarche. It is to be thought that S. Gregory vnderstode this Nouel Con∣stitution of Iustinian as well as M. Iewell dothe. And verely though S. Gregory had not expressed that case, wherein the de∣cision of the matter ought to be ended before the bishop of Rome, notwithstanding the lawe of Iustinian commaunded that the Patriarche shoulde ende it, yet other lawes teache vs that such a case being omitted, the commō lawe leseth not the∣refore her force. Therefore the lawe saieth.* 1.459 Casus omissus relin∣quitur in dispositione Iuris communis. The Case that is omitted is lefte to be disposed by the Common lawe. Nowe the Com∣mon lawe of the Churche being such (as by the Canons of the Coūcel of Nice, and of Sardica it hath before bene proued) that Appeales from all countres might be made to Rome, though Iustinian after made a lawe that the Patriache shoulde ende the matter, yet in case that there is at that time no Patri∣arche (which case S. Gregory putteth) or that the party will yet

farder Appeale to the See of Rome (as also in the case of S. Gre¦gory, praedictus episcopus petijsse dignoscitur the foresaied bishop is knowē to haue required) in these cases I saie, that particular la∣we of Iustiniā taketh not awaye the Cōmon lawe of the who∣le Churche enacted in Generall Councelles. As for example. Frō al Courtes of the Realme in ciuil matters, Appeales maye be made to the Common Place. And in that Courte such mat¦ters shall be ended. Yet see we not that from thence such mat∣ters are remoued to the Kinges Benche? Yea and frō the kin∣ges Benche to a Parliament? But nowe. Shal the particular la∣we of the one, take away the Common lawe of the other? Or shall it not therefore be lawefull to Appeale from the Com∣mon Place to the Kinges Benche? Or bicause you maye Ap∣p••ale to the Kinges Benche, be therefore all Appeales quite cutte of from the Parliament?

To conclude therefore, though the lawe of Iustinian saied, Let the Patriarche according to the lawes and Canons make an ende, yet S. Gregory alleaging that very lawe and wordes of Iustini∣an, affirmeth that in a Case, a Sede Apostolica causa audienda ac dirimenda fuerat: the cause ought to haue bene hearde and de∣termined of the See Apostolike. And thus much is M. Iewell furdered by this lawe. M. Iewell saieth that Iustinian by this de∣cree prouided a straight lawe against Appeales to Rome. S. Gregory saieth, notwithstanding this lawe, the matt••r ought to be hearde and determined of the See Apostolike. M. Iewell saieth by these wor∣des all Appeales be quite cutt of from the see of Rome.* 1.460 S. Gregory sa∣ieth of that See, notwitstanding these wordes: Which is Head of all Churches. So properly M. Iewell alleageth his lawes, and so well he vnderstandeth them.

Likewise the Emperours Honorius and Theodosius haue taken Appeales awaye from the bishoppes of Rome, and haue commaunded the same to be entred before the bishop and Synode of Cōstātinople. The lawe is written thus. All innouation set a parte, we commaunde that the olde

order and auncient ecclesiasticall Canons which hitherto haue holden be kepte still throu¦gh all the prouinces of Illiricum, ••hat if any matter of doubte happen to arise, it be putt ouer to be determ••ned by the holy iudgement, and assemblie of bishoppes, not without the discretion of ••he most Reuerende the bishop of the Citie of Constantinople, which Ci¦tie * Nowe enioyeth the prerogatiue of Olde Rome.* 1.461

If you will be tried by the lawe M. Iewell, vnderstande the lawe, as the lawyers doe, and then this lawe shall make nothin∣ge against Appeales to Rome but rather confirme the same. The lawe saieth, All this is spoken of ciuil matters and not of Chur∣che matters. For whereas in the next title before,* 1.462 Rome is called by the Emperour Caput omnium ecclesiarum, the Head of all Churches, the glose maketh argument here, how then Con∣stantinople hath the prerogatiue of Rome. His answer is. Ibi in eccl••sia quòd subsit: Hic in ciuitate quòd non subsit. There the lawe saieth in matters of the Churche it is subiect to Rome, he∣re the lawe saieth, in matters of the Citie it is n••t subiect. And to this purpose he alleageth diuers lawes, which I leaue to the lawyers to examine. Truly Chrysostom who was bishop of Constantinople in the time of this Honorius, appealed to the bishop of Rome, as it shall anon appeare.

Here M. Harding may not forgeate,* 1.463 that the Churche of Constan∣tinople had as great prerogatiue in al respectes of praeeminence, Supe∣riorite, and vniuersalitie of charge, as euer had the Churche of Rome. Wherefore if the bishopp of Rome were Head of the vniuersall Chur∣che, it must needes folowe, that the bishop of Constantinople was li∣kewise Head of the Vniuersall Churche.

Here M. Iewell may not forgeate, that as before (pag. 242) so nowe againe he deceaueth his reader with a generall conclu∣sion vpon a particular proufe. The lawe speaketh of A preroga¦tiue, and that as the glosse expoundeth in ciuill matters only. M. Iewell concludeth All respectes off praeeminence, Superiorite and vniuer∣salite off Charge. The lawe speaketh in the singular numbre, M. Ie∣well concludeth a pluralite. The lawe speaketh of * 1.464 speciall priuilege. M. Iewell concludeth an absolute and equall authori∣te.

By such false weightes falshood woulde beare downe Tru∣the.

Againe M. Iewel may not here forgeate that in this sentence of the prerogatiue of Constantinople, he hath shifted in the worde Nowe, more then is in the lawe to make the Reader be∣leue, that such prerogatiue was then geuen presently by that decree of the Emperours, whereas contrarely the whole La∣we tendeth only, ad vetustatem & canones pristinos ecclesia∣sticos seruandos, that the olde priuileges (for so the glose expoun∣deth Vetustatem,) and auncient Canons of the Church might be kept. Thus M. Iewel by multiplying Vntruthes deceiueth his Reader, and maintaineth his heresies.

[Iewell.] * 1.465And againe the Emperour Leo in plaine wordes. All that be or hereaf∣ter shall be Priestes or clerkes of the Catholike Faieth of what degree so euer they be, Monkes also, let them not in any * 1.466 Ciuile Actions be drawen forthe to forren Iudge∣mente by the summon or commaundement of any Iudge more or lesse: neither let them be d••iuen to come forthe of either the prouince, or the Countre w••ere they dwell.

[Stapleton.] What thought M. Iewell when he wrote this? Thought he that none but fooles or his frendes woulde reade it, none but either such as coulde not perceiue the matter, or such as seing it well enough would yet winke at it? Thought he that his sayinges and allegations, should neuer be examined? For what dothe this lawe make against Appeales to Rome? Reade ouer the lawe gentle Reader. Thou shalt see, it speaketh only of im∣munites and liberties of the clergy in ciuill matters. And will M. Iewell reason thus?

The Emperour enacted liberties for the clergy in ciuill matters: Ergo he forebadde vtterly all appeales to Rome in ecclesiasticall mat∣ters? If he woulde reason thus, he neded not to haue sought so farre as to the Empire of this Leo for a lawe, he might haue foūde lawes enough at home in our owne countre for such im¦munites and liberties of the clergy, and yet no embarring of Appeales to Rome. Wherefore when he concludeth vpon this

lawe so saddely and stoutely, saying:

Thus, whether the Action were ecclesiasticall or Ciuil, the partie was to be hearde within his owne prouince,* 1.467 and coulde not be forced to a ••eare abrode,

He telleth vs the waye to London by his potte ful of plom∣mes that hange at his saddle bowe. For the lawe telleth him of Ciuill matters: and he telleth vs of Ecclesiasticall matters. Yet M. Iewell with his halting arguments limpeth on, and sa∣ieth.

[Iewell.] Certainely what good liking S. Bernarde had herein, it appeareth by his wordes. For thus he writeth to Eugenius the bishop of Rome.* 1.468 VVhen wil•• thy consideration aw••ke to beholde this so greate confusion of appeales? Ambition and pride striueth ••hrough thee to reigne in the Churche. These Appea∣les be made beside all ••awe and Right, beside all maner and good order. It was a••uised for a remedie. It is founde turned to deathe. That was triakle, is chaunged in to poy∣son. I speake off the murmuring and common complaint••s off the Churches. They cō∣plaine they be maimed and dismembred. There be either no Churches or very fewe, but either smarte at this plage or stande in feare off it.

[Stapleton] This argument halteth downe right in dede. S. Bernarde complaineth of the abuse of Appeales to Rome. Ergo there lay no Appeales to Rome. What? Hath M. Iewel forgot where aboute he went? Or thinketh he by Appeales to Rome, to conclude no Appeales to Rome? Or if it do not this conclude, what maketh it here? Vnlesse he be so beside him selfe in this passion of contradiction, that Appeales and no Appeales, a thinge and no thinge is all one. Certainely what good liking Saint. Bernard had in the Authorite of the See of Rome and off Appeales to be made thither, it shall appeare by his wor∣des, which are these, writen to Pope Innocentius. * 1.469 Oportet ad v••st••um referri Apostolatum pericula quaeque & scandal a eme••gen∣tia in regno dei, ea praesertim quae de fide cōtingunt. Dignum nam∣que arbitror ibi potissimum res••r••iri Damna fidei, vbi non possit fi∣des sentire defectū. Haec quippe huius praerogatiua Sedis. Al dangers

and offenses rising in the kingdome of God must be referred to your Apostleship, those especially which concerne the Fai∣the. For there doe I thinke it meete, that the decaie of faithe be amended, where the faithe it selfe can not faile. For that is the prerogatiue of this See. Nowe if matters of faithe must all be brought to the Iudgement of the Pope by S. Bernardes min∣de, thinke you that Appeales to that See, be thought by him vnlawfull? Againe the wordes whiche M. Iewell alleageth. Repertum ad remedium reperitur ad mortem. That whiche was found for a remedie, is founde turned to deathe, doe they not declare the right of Appeales, but blame the Abuse thereof? No we vpon this Abuse M. Iewel concludeth thus.

[Iewell.] * 1.470This is that worthy grounde whereupon M. Harding hath layed the first foundation of his Supremacie.

Vntruthe. For his first foundation was vpon holy Scriptu∣re, interpreted by the holy Fathers, namely S. Gregory, to who∣se place you haue not answered M. Iewell, as I haue before pro∣ued. Now forthe with your Vntrue Conclusion.

[Iewell.] * 1.471A confusion, a deathe, a poyson, a terrour, a dismembring of the Churches, p••actis••d against Lawe against right, against manner, and a∣gainst good order: misliked by the holy Fathers, disallowed by godly Councelles: and vtterly abrogated by sundrie worthy and noble prin¦ces. This is M. Hardinges principal foundation of his Primacie.

Here is a heape of Great, Mighty, Maine, Huge wordes to Amase the Reader: But in dede a Fardle of Open, Clere, and Manifest Vntruthes to Deceiue the Reader. For the Confu∣sion, the Death, the Poyson, the Terrour, the Dismembring of the Churches (that S. Bernarde speaketh of) is all of the Abu∣ses in Appeales, not off the Lawfull and dewe Appeales. Agai∣ne Appeales were not practised Against lawe, Against right, Against manner, and against good order, as M. Iewell saieth, but Beside Lawe and right, Beside all manner and good order, as S. Bernarde

saieth. Nowe as M. Iewelles Philosophie can teach him that many thinges are done Beside Nature which yet are not Against Nature, as the Course off the Planetes from the East to the West, the Bringing forthe of Mon∣sters, and such like thinges, so Daily Experience teacheth vs that many thinges are done Beside the lawe, which yet are not Ag••inst the lawes: as when good lawes are ill abused. Last of all it hath bene proued that Appeales absolutely and gene∣rally haue not bene misliked by holy Fathers (vnlesse Arrians be holy Fathers) neither dissallowed by general Councelles, but rather approued and commaunded by the same, and lest of all abrogated and abolished by any Princes that M. Iewel hath yet named. Thus vpon a number of Vntrue Premisses, no maruall if he inferre a number of Vntrue Conclusions. Now where he saieth last of al. This is M. Hardinges principall foū∣dation of his Primacie, I must tell him againe. This is a principal Vntruthe twise repeted in one conclusion, as hath bene befo∣re shewed. Thus farre hath M. Iewel ranged aboute Appeales, and we for Iustifying of the general Vntruth noted hereupō, haue folowed the Course, and founde oute the Foxe. Verely a deceiteful and wily Foxe, ful of lies and Vntruthes. Now he co∣meth to the Allegations off D. Hardinge for Appeales. And here lettinge slippe the Appeales of Theodoretus to Leo the Pope, and of Athanasius to Pope Iulius, no∣ting thereupon none Vntruthe, where no Colour of Vn∣truthe could be pretended, he teaseth the Appeale of Chry∣sostom to Innocentius, bicause he founde a hole in the euid••n¦ce, as he thought. But first let vs see the wordes of D. Harding.

[Harding.] In the cause and defence of Iohn Chrysostome, these bi∣shops came from Constantinople to Innocentius the Pope, Pansophus bishop of Pisidia, Pappus of Syria, Demetrius of the seconde Galatia, and Eugonius of Phrygia. These

were suters of Chrysostome. He him selfe treated his mat∣ter with Innocentius by writing. In his Epistle amonge other thinges he writeth thus. Least this outragious con∣fusion runne ouerall, and beare rule euery vvhe∣re, vvrite (I pray you) and determine by your Au∣thorite, suche vvicked actes done in our absence, and vvhen vve vvithdrevve not oure selues from iudgement, to be of no force, as by their ovvne nature truly they be voide, and vtterly none. Fur∣thermore, vvho haue committed these euills (107) put you them vnder the censure of the Churche. And as for vs, sithe that vve are innocent, neither conuicte, neither founde in any defaulte, nor proued guilty of any crime, geue commaunde∣mēt that vve be restored to our Churches againe, that vve may enioie the accustomed charite, and peace vvith our brethern. Innocentius after that he vn∣derstode the whole matter, pronounced and decreed the iudg∣ment of Theophilus, that was against Chrysostome, to be voide and of no force. This whole tragedie is at large sett forthe by Palladius bishop of Helenopolis, In vita Io∣annis Chrysostomi, who liued at that time.

[Iewell.] The .107. Vntruthe. S. Chrysostomes wordes Vntruly repor∣ted.

[Stapleton] The lewdenesse of M. Iewell is such (gentle Reader) in this Vntruthe, that no wordes can sufficiently expresse it. This to be so, thy selfe shalt Iudge, if thou but marke the text of D. Harding aboue alleaged, and the demeanour of M. Iewell, in

his text touching this Vntruthe, which (after his generall di∣scourse against Appeales before answered and discussed) folo∣weth in this wise.

[Iewell.] * 1.472But it is most certaine and out of all question, that Chrysostome Appealed to Innocentius. For M. Harding hath here alleaged (380.) his owne wordes.

Marke gentle Reader how M. Iewel euen at the beginning deceiueth thee. For vnderstande, that D. Harding alleageth not Chrysostomes owne wordes, out of Chrysostomes owne workes, but out off Palladius bishop of Helenopolis in vita Ioannis Chrisostomi, writing the life of Chrysostom, and repor∣ting in his life the wordes which D. Harding alleaged. And thinke not that this is a shift to auoide an incōuenience, or that M. Iewel knewe not so much. For D. Harding hauing alleaged the wordes of Chrysostome and the whole maner of his Ap∣peale to Rome, he nameth expressely his Author from when∣ce he toke it, in these wordes. This whole tragedie is at lar∣ge sett forthe by Palladius bishop of Helenopolis, In vita Ioannis Chrysostomi, who liued at that time. In the∣se wordes (as I saied) D. Harding expressed his Author to be Palladius in the life of Chrysostom, not the Epistle of Chry∣sostom him selfe, commonly extant in his workes. This being so expressed of D. Harding, what cause had M. Iewell to note an Vntruthe in the Margin, and to declaime so a∣gainst him in his text, noting it also there again in the Margin, M. Harding falsifieth, and vntruly translateth S. Chrysostom, what cause, I sa¦ie, had he to doe so,* 1.473 but that either very malice pricked him so depely to dissemble, or at the lest, very grosse and rashe igno∣raunce made him so fondely to talke? For beholde howe ear∣nestly and saddely he prosecuteth the matter.

I graunte M. Harding hath here alleaged Chrysostome,* 1.474 but in su∣che faithefull and trusty sorte, as Pope Zosimus sometimes alleaged

the Councell of Nice.

This is well exemplified M. Iewell. For euen as you haue villainously slaundred that holy Pope Zosimus (for so S. Au∣gustin him selfe called him oftentimes after he was dead, being one of those Africane bishops, which you imagine to haue ta∣ken him in open forgerie,* 1.475 and the Africane bishops in their let∣ters to Bonifacius next successour to this Zosimus do call him Beatae memoriae Zosimum Zosimus of blessed memory, and Ve∣nerabilis memoriae Zosimum Zosimus of Reuerent memorie) euen as I saie you haue villainously slaundred this holy Pope Zosimus of blessed and Reuerent memory, folowing therein your blinde guides of Magdeburge (as hath before bene decla∣red) so you haue in this place manifestly and wilfully slaunde∣red D. Harding.* 1.476 For he in this place alleaged not any wordes out of Crysostomes workes, but he alleaged the facte and wor∣des of Chrysostom out of Palladius (as he tolde you expresse∣ly M. Iewell) which wrote his life. Out of your owne wordes therefore M. Iewel this is a clere Cōclusion to proue you and all your felowes notorious slaūderous of that holy Pope Zosi∣mus in that infamous matter of the Popes Forgerie. D. Har∣ding hath here faithefully and truly alleaged Chrysostome, e••go Zosimus faithefully and truly alleaged the Councell of Nice.

[Iewell.] Good Christiā Reader, if thou haue Chrysostome, peruse this place and weigh well his wordes. If thou h••ue him not, yet be not ouerha∣stie of belefe.

[Stapleton] Good Christian Reader if thou haue D. Hardinges boo∣ke or M. Iewelles either, weigh well his wordes, If thou haue them not, yet consider the wordes of D. Harding, as I haue be∣fore wholy and thouroughly alleaged them, and be not ouer hastie of belefe. For thou shallt finde that D. Harding alleaged no wordes out of Chrysostōs workes. But he alleaged the let∣ters of Chrysostom as it is recorded by Palladius in vita Ioan∣nis Chrysostomi, in the life of Chrysostom.

M. Hardinges dealing with thee herein is not plaine.

M. Iewelles dealing with thee herein is a very plaine moc∣kerie.* 1.477

The very wordes of Chrysostome in latine stande Thus. Ne confu∣sio haec omnem quae sub caelo est nationem inuadat, obsecro vt scribas quòd hec tam ini¦que facta & absentibus nobis, & non declinantibus iudicium, non habeant ro••ur. Si ut neque natura sua hab••nt. Illi ••utem qui iniqué egeru••, paenae ecclesiasticorum le∣gum ••u••••aceant, No••is vero qui nec con••••••••, nec redarguti nec hab•••• vt rei sumus, li∣te••i•• vestr••s & charitate vestra, a••••orumque omnium quarum ante societate f••ueba∣mur, 〈◊〉〈◊〉. which wordes into english maye truly be translated thus, Lest this Confusion ouerrunne all nations vnder heauen, I praye thee write (* 1.478 or signifie) vnto them, that these thinges so vniustely done, I being absent, and yet not f••••eing Iudgement, b•• of no force, as in dede of their owne nature they be of none. an•• (write) that they that haue done these thinges so wrongefully, be punished by the lawes of the Churche. And graunt you, that we that are neither conuicted, nor reproued, nor founde guilty, may enioy your letters and your loue, and likewise the let¦ters an•• loue of al others, whose feloweship we enioyed before. In these fewe wor∣des M. Harding hath notably falsyfyed three places, quite altering the wordes that he founde, and shuffling in and interlacing other wordes of his owne. For these wordes in M. Hardinges translation, that seme to signifie Authorite in the bishop of Rome, and to importe the appe∣ale,* 1.479

VVrite and determine by your Authoritie: Put you them vnder the Censure off the Churche. Geue Commaundement that we be restored to our Churches,

M. Hardinge falsyfieth and vntruly trans¦lateth Sainte Chrysostome.

These wordes I saye, are (385.) not founde in Chry∣sostom, neither in the Greke, nor in the Latine, but on∣ly are pretely conueyed in by M. Hardinge the better to fournish and fashion vp his Appeale. He (386) seeth wel, this matter wil not stād vpright, without the mani¦feste Corruption and falsyfying of the doctours. This therfore is M. Hardings Appeale, and not Chrysostōs.

Loe: you haue good Readers the whole and longe pro∣cesse of M. Iewelles Accusation against D. Harding, with his Note in the Margin, whereby he geueth the Sentence, and pro¦noūceth the party Guilty. You haue the whole texte of Chry∣sostom as M. Iewell auoucheth D. Hardinge to alleage him. You haue sene the three places noted in the whiche he saieth, D. Harding Hathe quite al••ered the wordes that he founde, and hathe shuffled

and interlaced other wordes off his owne. Beholde then now gentle Rea∣ders the words of Chrysostom in Latine as they do lye in Pal∣ladius writing the life of Chrysostom, whom Doctor Harding Namely and Expressely alleaged for his Authour in this mat∣ter, as we haue often saied. The wordes alleaged by M. Iewell in Latin, are translated of Erasmus or some such late Writer of our daies. The wordes whiche nowe we will alleage, are trans∣lated out of Chrysostomes Greke Epistle to Pope Innocen∣tius, by Palladius sometimes the scholer off Chrysostome him selfe, and a lerned Bishoppe off Helenopolis. Whereby it is easy to be iudged, whiche translation is worthy of more cre∣dit. Palladius therefore writing the whole life of Chrysostom his master, and cōprising in that the story of his great trouble, and banishmēt, in the which he Appealed to Pope Innocētius, recordeth the very letter that Chrysostō sent to Innocentius,* 1.480 and saieth. Erat autem epistolae Ioannis eiusmodi series. The tenour of the epistle that Chrysostom wrote was thus. Thē foloweth the whole epistle, euen as it is in his workes cōmonly set forth, though in a translation somewhat diuerse. The wordes that pertaine to this matter alleaged by D. Harding in english, doe stande thus in the Latin. Ne igitur immanis ista Confusio cuncta percurrat, & vbique dominetur, scribite precor, & authoritate ve∣stra decernite, huiusmodi iniqué gesta nobis absentibus & iudicium nō declinantibus, nullius esse roboris, sicut per suam naturam sunt profecto & irrita & nulla. Porro qui talia gessere, eos ecclesiasticae cen¦surae subijcite. Nos autem insontes neque conuictos, neque deprehensos, neque vllius criminis reos comprobatos, Ecclesijs nostris iubete re∣stitui, vt charitate frui, ac pace cum fratribus nostis consuetae pos∣simus. The whole and perfit english of this latin is in the text of D. Harding aboue alleaged, placed in the beginning of this Vntruthe. Nowe in this text of Palladius, the wordes which by M. Iewelles owne iudgement do se••e to importe the Appeale, the wordes which he saieth D. Harding hath quite altered, and shuffled, and

interlaced other wordes off his owne, these wordes I saie,. VVrite and determine by your Authorite. 2. Put you them vnder the Censure of the Churche, Geue commaundement that we be restored to our Chur∣ches, are euidently and manifestly to be founde. For the first. Scribite & authoritate vestra decernite: is in plaine english: VVrite and determine by your Authorite. For the seconde,* 1.481 Eos ecclesiasti∣cae Censurae subijcite, is likewise in plaine grāmarian english. Put you thē vnder the Cēsure of the Church. For the third and laste, Ec¦clesijs nostris iubete restitui, is in right good english. Geue com∣maundement that we be restored to our Churches. Therefore where M. Iewell saieth, In these fewe wordes M. Harding hath notably falsified three places, it is nowe euident, he hath not falsified one, but M. Ie∣wel hath made a slaunderous and triple Lie. [ 1] Where he saieth of D. Harding quite altering the wordes that he founde, it appeareth no∣we, he hath altered not one, but englished them al truly and faithefully as he founde them, euen as truly as Zosimus allea∣ged the Councll of Nice. [ 2] Where he saieth of D. Harding: shuf∣fling in and interlacing other wordes of his owne, euery man seeth nowe he hath neither shuffled nor interlaced any one worde more then is in the epistle of Chrysostom, as Palladius his named and ex¦pressed Author reporteth it. [ 3] Where he saieth, that these wordes are not to be founde in Chrisostom, we see nowe they are founde there by one of his owne scholers, Palladius bishopd of Helenopolis. [ 4] Where he saieth, But onely are pretely conueyed in by M. Hardinge, the Reader seeth nowe, they are truly alleaged out of Palladius, not by him conueyed att all. [ 5] Last of all where as M. Iewell hath blased in his margin, this note. M. Harding falsifieth, and vntruly translateth S. Chrysostom, the cōtrary doth nowe appeare, and M. Ie∣wel is founde falsely, and vntruly to charge D. Harding and to haue auouched therein [ 6] six Manifest, Notorious, and Slaunde∣rous Vntruthes.

But nowe that D. Harding is thus clerely discharged, let vs cō¦sider M. Iewelles owne translation of Chrysostomes wordes,

whether he haue not played a lewde parte him selfe therein, the better to disprouue the Appeale of Chrysostom. Whereas the latin of Chrysostom hath, Obsecro vt sc••ibas, M. Iewell translaieth it thus. I praye thee write (or signifie) v••to them. In whiche translation he putteth his glose to Chrysostomes text and ex∣poundeth the Writing that Chrisostom requireth, to be a Sig∣nification, whiche Palladius Chrysostomes owne scholer translateth, Scribite & authoritate vestra decernite: write and de∣termine by your Authorite, expounding that Writing to be a determination by the Popes Authorite. And thus M. Iewell by his wronge translation hath ••ltered the meaninge of Chryso∣stom m••king that to be a Signification to the offenders, whiche the Author would haue to be A determination and decision by waie of Authorite ouer and against the offenders. And that this was the very meaning of Chrysostom, and that he Appea∣led in dede to Innocentius the Pope, not only by the wordes of his epistle (as Palladius reciteth them) it is euidēt, but much more by the whole Processe, and issue of the matter, as it shall nowe appeare.

It is euidēt by the Ecclesiastical History and by other wordes of this Epistle,* 1.482 that Chrysostom being bishopp of Constanti∣nople and wrongfully depriued by Theophilus of Alexandria, and other bishops of Aegypt, appealed in this Case to Inno∣centius the Pope of Rome, and desired his letters not for Sig∣nification of the euill facte, as M. Iewell woulde haue it to se∣me, but for a Determination and Sentence Iudicial against the offenders, as D. Harding hath alleaged it. First that he Appea∣led to Innocentius being nowe the second time banished and depriued, it appeareth by his owne wordes in this epistle. Quia non satis est plangere,* 1.483 sed opus etiam vt cura geratu et spectetur qua ratione, & quo consilio grauissima illa tempes••as sedetur, proinde ne∣cessarium esse duximus vt persuadeatur Demetrio, Pāsophio, Pappo, & Eugonio, Dominis meis maximé venerabilibus, pijsque episcopis,

relictis negocijs proprijs, pelagose committere, susceptaque longinqua peregrinatione, ad vestrā properare charitatē de omnibus vos mani∣festé docētes, quo quātocyus rebus succurratur. Bicause it is not in∣ough to lamēt, but it is nedeful also to labour and cōsider how and by what meanes, this most greauous storm may be alayed, therfore we haue thought it Necessary to intreate Demetrius, Pansophius, Pappus and Eugonius my most Reuerent Lords and godly bishops, that leauing their own affaires they wil ta∣ke the seas and this longe trauail to come spedely to your goodnesse, certifying you at large of the whole matter, to thē∣tent these matters may the sooner be redressed. Here we see Chrysostom being wrongfully depriued of his bishoprike (for these letters he wrote in banishment,* 1.484 as appeareth well by Ni∣cephorus) sendeth foure of his bishops to the Pope to instruct him off the whole matter concerning his depriuation, and to haue his speedy helpe and succour, for the Redresse of the sa∣me. And therefore he repeteth his request againe and saieth. Sicut prius dixi, ea quae perperam fiunt, non solum deploranda, sed & corrigenda sunt, & ideo charitatem vestrā obsecro, vt prouocetur ad condolendum faciendumque omnia quo mala haec sistantur. As I saied before, faultes committed are not only to be lamēted but to be Corrected. And therefore I beseche your goodnesse, to be moued hereat, bothe to lamente with vs, and also to doe all such thinges, whereby these trobles may be appaised. Lo Chri∣sostom writeth not to the Pope only to haue him lament the matter, and to Signify only to the offenders, that they had very euil done but also to Cor••ect and amende the matter, and so to alaie the trouble of the Church. He wrote not to the Pope de∣siring his letters of Cōplaint only, as that he should write to Theophilus and the other Bishops of Aegypt which iniuriou∣sly had expelled Chrysostō, after this sorte. I vnderstande you haue done this and this, I am very sory for it. I pray you amend

it: this is not wel done. This doth not become you: your doin∣ges be wrongeful, I tell you so and put you to knowledge the∣reof. This was not all M. Iewel, as you would make it. [ 1] 1. The sending of those foure bishops to Rome. [ 2] 2. Their longe and dā∣gerous trauail. [ 3] 3. The letters of Chrysostom. [ 4] 4. The suite also of the whole clergy of Cōstātinople by their priuat letters, and of. [ 5] 5. Fourty other bishops by their letters (as Nicephorus re∣porteth) writen and sent to this Innocentius Pope of Rome, was not all for such a bare significatiō as M. Iewel imagineth, but (as Chrysostom him selfe saieth) vt quantocyus rebus succur∣r••tur, that the matters might haue a sp••edy redresse: and againe Vt corrigantur ea quae perperam fiunt: that the faultes and trespas∣ses might be Corrected, that the breache of the Canons, which Chrysostom * 1.485 twise in that epistle repeteth, might be pu¦nished. This Chrysostom wrote and desired by these let∣ters, as it shall yet better appeare by that which ensued here∣off.

The Pope Innocentius at the sight of those letters of Chry∣sostom and of the other bishops and clergy of Constantino∣ple,* 1.486 first wrote backe to Chrysostom and to his clergy letters of comforte and exhortation off patience in that trouble. Forthewith he called a Synod, and hauing made a determina∣tion of the matter, sent the same to Constantinople, by the handes of Aemylius bishop of Beneuentum, of Cathegius, and Gaudentius, Valentius and Bonifacius priestes, the Popes le∣gates in that behalfe to the Emperour Arcadius, by whose meanes Chrysostome was expelled.* 1.487 Sozomene mencioneth fiue bishops and two Priests to haue gone in this legacy to the Emperour. These men going on their iourney were stayed in Grece by a Tribune there by the commaundement of Eudo∣xia the wicked Emperesse who had bene al the cause of Chry∣sostomes trouble,* 1.488 and not suffred to passe by Thessalonica, to deliuer the Popes letters to Anysius the bishop of that place the

Popes Ordinary legat in that part of the East Church. After this sorte being shifted by that Officier in to two shippes, they were brought to Cōstantinople, and in one of the suburbes of that cytye cast in preson: where after they were racked and greuously tormented, to force them to geue vp their letters brought from the Pope. Which when they vtterly refused to doe, saying they would not deliuer the letters but to the Em∣perours owne handes, to whome they were sent, at the last one of the Emperours Courte, Valerius by name, to gratifie (as he thought) the Prince, wronge out of the good bishops han∣des by fine force the letters, breaking also the thomme of him which helde them, taking away withall certaine plate of siluer, and other their necessary prouisions: hoping to force them by extreme necessite to yelde to the Emperesse. This being done, and they yet refusing to yelde, the next day after certain other came to these poore emprisonned bishops, sent partly from the Emperesse Eudoxia, partly from Atticus who occupied the roome of Chrysostom, ostering them three thousand pieces of mony for a bribe, vpon the condition they would communi∣cate with Atticus and forsake Chrysostom. All which they yet refusing to doe, and seing no other remedy, intreating they might be dismissed and suffred to returne to Rome, the fore∣saied Courtyar Valerius, shifting them out of preson in to an olde filthy and broken vessell, sett them so on the seas, to re∣turne to Rome or to perish by the waye. After foure mo∣neths trauaill and sayling, they returned nothwithstanding, safe to Rome, and declared to the Pope the whole trage∣die of their trouble, the whole maner and order thereof.* 1.489 Thus Farre out of Nicephorus in his Ecclesiasticall History allmost worde for worde.

Let vs now consider I beseche you M. Iewel what maner of letters these were, that, [ 1] 1. Chrysostō. [ 2] 2. his clergy, and . [ 3] 3. other fourty bishops first sente to the Pope [ 4] .4. that caused those foure

bishops sent with the letters to trauail frō Cōstātinople to Ro¦me [ 5] 5. that made a Synod to be called in Rome, [ 6] 6. and the decree of that Synod to be sēt by solēne legats to Cōstātinople, [ 7] 7. such waite laied in the waie to stop the Popes answer, [ 8] 8. suche violē¦ce vsed against his legates to force thē, [ 9] 9. suche greate bribery to tempt thē, whether al these matters I saie concurred, either to obtaine a letter of Signification from the Pope or to stoppe a letter of Signification sent by the Pope, as you M. Iewel woul∣de haue it only to seme. If al these Circumstaunces and the ve∣ry wordes of Chrysostōs epistle aboue alleaged be not sufficiēt to proue an Appeale, let vs consider yet farder what folowed after all this turmoyle and tossing. What thinke we did Chryso¦stom him selfe remayning all this time in banishment, after he vnderstode of this outrage committed? What did the Pope In∣nocentius him selfe? You shall heare M. Iewel, and by that you shall iudge your selfe (if any truthe or indifferency be in you) whether this were but a matter of Signification only, and not a Iust and right Appeal. [ 10] 10. Chrysostom vnderstanding of these matters wrote a seconde letter to the Pope Innocentius: In the which he hath these wordes. Quantum in vestra pietate fitum fuit &c.* 1.490 As much as laie in your goodnesse, all thinges had no∣we ben appaised and amended, and all offences had bene taken away, and the Churches had bene in quyet, all thinges had prospered, lawes had not ben despised, nor the decrees of the Fathers violated. But th••y yet procede in their wicked dedes, and as thoughe they had hithe•• to offended nothing, so they labour to passe their former faultes with newe mischiefes. But I will not particularly re••ken vp such thinges as they haue in this meane while committed. For so I should passe not only the bōdes of a letter, but also the measure of an history. Howbeit I beseche your diligence, that although they haue dealed troublesom∣ly, and haue procured to them selues incurable deseases, scant able to be cured by p••naunce, that yet notwithstanding, if they will receiue medicine, they be not fard••r vexed, * 1.491 nor excommunicated, conside∣ring

the greatnesse and amplenesse of the worke. For this matter tou∣cheth all most the whole worlde. Thus farre Chrysostom com∣mending first his Fatherly diligence (as you haue hearde) and yet beseching him not to vse the extremitie, with the offen∣ders, being in dede so many in numbre, and great of Autho∣rite. For not only Theophilus the Patriarche of Alexandria, and a great number of bishops of Aegypt and otherwhere, but also the Emperour and Empresse with a great parte of the whole Courte and Citie of Constātinople were intangled in this crime of dissension and outrage.

And truly Innocentius the Pope as longe as Chrysostom liued in banishment (which was for the space of three yer••s and more) vsed no such extremite, but folowed the aduise of Chrysostom, seeking by faire meanes to quyet the matter.* 1.492 But after that Chrysostom by the anguish and misery of his bani∣shement departed this life, and all the good people of Con∣stātinople that fauoured Chrysostom, by sharpe edictes of the Emperour and other meanes continewed in great trouble and vexation, Innocentius the Pope vsed the [ 11] .11. Finall Sentence of the Appeale, and excommunicated bothe the Emperour and his wife, and also Theophilus of Alexandria with certaine o∣ther bishops. The tenour of the Popes letter cōtayning the ex∣communication beginneth thus.* 1.493 Vox sanguinis fratris mei Ioan∣nis clamat ad deum contra te, o Imperator, sicut quondam A bell iu∣s••i contra parricidam Cain: & is modis omnibus vindicabitur. The Noyse of the bloude of my brother Iohn Chrysostom crieth vnto God against thee, ò Emperour, as of olde time the bloud of the Iuste Abel cried against Cain the murderer: And this Bloud shall by all meanes be reuenged. After this the Pope de∣claring him more particularly the outrage and iniury cōmitted against that blessed and lerned Father Chrysostom, he cometh to the wordes of excommunication, and saieth. Itaque ego mi∣nimus & peccator, cui thronus Magni Apostoli Petri cr••ditus ••st,* 1.494

segrego & reijcio te & illam &c. Therefore I the lest of all men and a sinner, hauing yet the Seate of ••he great Apostle Peter committed vnto me, doe separat and remoue thee and her (he meaneth the Empe¦resse) from the receiuing of the imaculat Mysteries of Christ our God. Also euery bishop or any other of the clergy, which shal pr••sume to minister or geue vnto you thos•• holy Mysteries after the time that you haue read the letters of my Bonde, I pronounce him or them voi∣de of his dignite or office. If now••, as persons of power you force any man vnto it, and do violat the Canōs ••n•• decrees d••liu••red vnto you from Christ our Sauiour, by his holy Apostles, knowe ye, it shal be no small trespasse in that dread••ful day of Iudg••m••nt, when the Ho∣nour or Dignite of this life shal helpe no mā, but the secrets of al har∣tes shal be opened and sett before the eyes of eue••y on••. A••s••cius which you placed in the bishoply throne in the roome of Ch••ysostom, thou∣ghe he be dead, * 1.495 we depose, and commaunde that his name be not wri∣ten in the rolle of bishops. In like maner we depose all o••her bishops which * 1.496 of purpos••d aduise haue com••unicated wth him. To the de∣posing of Theopilus (bishop of Alexandria) we adde excommuni∣cation, anathematisation, and a depriuation of all felowship or socie∣te of Christi••nite. Thus farre the wordes of Innocencius the Po∣pe in his letter to Arcadius the Emperour, as Nicephorus in his ecclesiastical history recordeth. And was al this M. Iewel a Sig∣nification only from the Pope, was it not a Determinatiō, and finall Sentence of the Pope?

[ 1] The holy and lerned Father Chrysostom, Patriarche off Constantinople sent his legates being foure bishopps to the Pope with his letters. [ 2] 2. In that letters he desireth the Pope that the matters may be redressed, Item that the faultes be cor••ect••d, Last of all that he will write that such thinges as had pass••d betwene him and Theophilus might be of no force. [ 3] 3. His whole clergy beside writeth. [ 4] 4. Fourty other bishops do also writer. [ 5] 5. A Synod is called vpon the matter. [ 6] 6. The Pope sendeth his legates bac∣ke to Constantinople with an answer. [ 7] 7. The legates are by all

meanes foule, and faire, by force and flattery, by violence and brybery moued to yelde. [ 8] 8. Chrisostom intreateth the Pope not to vse the rigour of Excommunication vpon them. [ 9] 9. Last off all the Pope after longe bearing and sufferaunce, excom∣municateth the Emperour, and cōdemneth the malefactours. And what can proue an Appeale, if all this doe not? What can more vnuincibly proue the Supreme Authorite of the bishop of Rome? The Patriarche of Constantinople appealeth to Rome. The Patriarche of Alexandria is condemned by vertue of that Appeale. The Emperour of the East (an other Empe∣rour Honorius by name then ruling in the west) is excom∣municated of the Pope. By all this it may euidently appeare that the translation of M. Iewell: Write or signifie vnto them, is a mere Vntrue translation, as the which diminisheth and weake∣neth the true meaning of the Author. And thus muche of M. Iewelles wronge translation, and of the Matter it selfe concer¦ning the Appeale. Let vs nowe see what M. Iewell saieth to proue al this to be no Appeale. He saieth.

[Iewell.] For the true vnderstanding hereof it shal be necessary to consi∣der the state that these godly Fathers then stoode in,* 1.497 and the miserable confusion of the East parte of the worlde in those daies. Chrysostom there of writeth thus. It is the contention of the whole worl••e. The Churche is brought v••on her knees: the people is s••atte••ed, the ministerie is oppressed. The bishops are banished: the Constitutions of our Fathers ar•• broken.* 1.498

[Stapleton] Gentle Reader M. Iewell in this discourse, dothe shame∣fully and impudently abuse thy patience, if thou be l••rned, a∣buse thy ignorance iff thou be vnlerned. These wordes off Chrysostom are writen in his seconde epistle to Innocentius the Pope. They do folowe immediatly the wordes which we alleaged euen nowe last out of Chrysostom, where he desireth the Pope not to vse the extremite against tkose bishops which had deposed him and vexed his whole prouince. They are spoken of the great troubles raised not in the whole East par∣te of the woulde, but in Aegypt and Thracia, betwene the fa∣ction

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

of Theophilus of Alexandria, and the faithefull people cleauing to Chrysostom in Cōstantinople. Of those particu∣lar men it is spoken, and not off the whole East parte off the worlde. Now let vs see howe M. Iewell procedeth and what he will conclude hereof. It foloweth in his text immediatly.

[Iewell.] * 1.499The Emperours captain with a bande of souldiars beset the Chur∣che, where Athanasius was praying. Of the people that was with him, some were spoiled and banished, some trodden vnder the soul∣diours feete, some slaine where they went, Paulus the bishop of Con∣stantinople was hanged, Marcellus the Bishopp of Ancyra was depri∣ued. Lucius the bishop of Adrianopolis died in preson, Theodulus and Olimpius two bishops of thracia, were commaunded to be mur∣thered. The Emperour had commaunded Athanasius to be brought ynto him either dead or aliue.

[Iewell.] Here is a great bulke, but no Corne. If emptie wordes might make proufe, then had we here proufe sufficient. But what? (will M. Iewell saie) cal you these wordes empty which which are full of histories, and variety? Yea truly M. Iewell in this place they are but empty wordes. For though they con∣taine matter enough, yet to your purpose they containe no matter at all.* 1.500 And greate vessels (you knowe M. Iewell) the emptyer they be, the more they sounde. The wise Reader wil be weighed mith reason and not with talke. Let vs see there∣fore to what issue you driue all these allegations. If in the en∣de they proue nothing,* 1.501 then haue you but dased your Reader with greate lookes, and faced him out with a carde often. You procede and saye.

These godly Fathers being thus (387.) in extreme miserie, and seeing their whole Churche in the East parte so desolate were forced to seeke for comforte, where so euer they had hope to finde any: and specially they sought to the Churche of Rome, which then bothe for multitu∣de of people, and for puritie of Religion, and Constancie in the same, and also for healping of the afflicted, and intreating for them, was most famous aboue all others.

Now your Iuggling and deceauing of the Reader shal appeare

M. Iewell. For where you saie, these holy Fathers being thus in extreme miserie &c. You meane and speake of Chrysostom, Athana∣sius and Theodoret. As touching Chrysostom and Theodo∣ret they liued at the lest the one a hundred and more, the other al most two hundred yeres after those troubles and miseries happened in the East Church. Those troubles aboue mentio∣ned happened al in the reigne of Constantius the Arrian Em∣perour, and towarde the ende of his Empire. Chrysostom li∣ued vnder Arcadius and Honorius, Theodoretus vnder Theo∣dosius the second, sonne to Arcadius. Nowe betwene Constā∣tius the Arriā and Arcadius were Emperours Iulian, Iouinian, Valens, and Theodosius the first, the time almost of a hundred and fifty yeres. Vnder Arcadius those troubles of the East Churche mentioned by M. Iewel vtterly ceased. Now to allea∣ge those troubles so longe before passed and appaised, to be the cause of Chrysostoms, and of Thedorets Appeales to Rome which so longe after folowed, who seeth not that it was imper∣tinently and impudētly alleaged? Touching the troubles in the East in Chrysostomes time, we haue saied somwhat before, but shal saie more anō, when we come to M. Iewelles cōclusi∣on vpon this place. It remaineth therefore that al this must ser∣ue to beare out the Appeale of Athanasius, who liued in the ti∣me of those troubles, or els M. Iewell (as I saied before) shall be founde to haue proued nothing, but vtterly to haue dased the Reader with empty wordes.

Touching the Appeale of Athanasius,* 1.502 though it be not our principall matter, hauing now in hande chefely the Appeale of Chrysostom, yet bicause M. Iewell hath so confounded all these three diuers Appeales and of diuers ages all together, tru∣sting by one general answer to defeate them al, for Truthes sa¦ke which nowe I defende, I will shewe also that al this pro∣ueth nothinge against the Appeale of Athanasius to the Pope brought in by D. Harding for a clere example of the Popes

Primacy then at that time and of so lerned a man acknowled∣ged and confessed.

It is to be knowen therefore that all those troubles of the East Churche mentioned before by M. Iewel, happened after the Appeale of Athanasius to Rome, and therefore coulde not be the cause of that which before was passed. This to be so I will euidently proue (God willing) by the orderly course and drifte of the ecclesiasticall History.

The Ecclesiasticall History reporteth that at the begin∣ning of the reigne of Constantius the Emperour (vnder who∣se reigne,* 1.503 and towarde the ende of whose raigne the aboue mē∣tioned troubles happened, as it shall anon appeare) many bi∣shops of the East (which in the life of Constantinus father to this Constantius, a good Catholike Emperour had dissem∣bled, and appeared for Catholikes) begāne then openly to pro∣fesse the Arrian heresy,* 1.504 and to condēne the great general Coū∣cell of Nice holden not longe before. At that time Athanasius (being banished before by Constātinus through the deceite of Arrius and his felowes) returned to his bishoprike by the mea∣nes of Constantinus brother to Constantius Emperour of the west.* 1.505The Arrian bishoppes, Eusebius, Theogonius, Theo∣dorus Perinthius and other, intending then as I saied, to publish the Arrian heresy (hauing all ready corrupted the Prince as the history declareth) seing this Athanasius the Patriarche off Alexandria, to be a great blocke in their waye, as being a right lerned Father and a most stoute defender of the Nicene Coū∣cel, laboured by al meanes to remoue him frō that place, and to depriue him of his bishoprike. For this purpose they accused him to the Emperour,* 1.506 as one that had by vniust meanes retur∣ned to his bishopricke. Athanasius hauing intelligence of the∣ir doing, and of the Princes minde bent against him fledd in to the west partes of Christendom. But Eusebius and his felo∣wes the Arrian bishopps nott contented herewith thinking to

worke sure in the matter, wrote also to Iulius the Bishopp off Rome, accused him to the Pope, and hoped by that meanes to haue him vtterly depriued. The Pope (as the history saieth) ec∣clesiasticam sequens legem, etiam ipsos Romam venire praecepit, & ve∣nerabilem Athanasium ad iudicium regulariter euocauit, folowing the lawe of the Churche, commaunded them also to come to Rome, and called forthe the Reuerent Athanasius to Iudge∣ment after the order of the Canons.

Here woulde I by the waie lerne of M. Iewell what lawe of the Churche it was, that the Pope folowed, when he com∣maūded the bishops of the East to appeare at Rome, and cited also Athanasius the Patriarche of Alexādria to iudgemēt at Ro∣me, and that Regulariter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by order of the Canōs.* 1.507 What lawe, what Canōs cā he name, but the lawes and Canōs of the Nicene Coūcel, the only Councel General holden before that time, and confirmed afterwarde by the great Councel of Sar∣dica holden somewhat after that time? Well: Forthe with the History.

Athanasius obeying the Summoning came. But his Accu∣sers came not, scientes facile suum capi posse mendacium, knowing that their lying tale should sone be discouered. What did they then? Forsothe (the history saieth) seing the shepeheard away from his flocke, they thruste in a wolfe in his place: Gregorius by name an Arriā bishop. Vnder this Arrian Gregorius began the trou∣bles which M. Iewell before mentioned.* 1.508 As the besetting of the Churche of Alexandria with souldyars, the murder and spoyle of the people. For whereas Athanasius after he had ap∣peared at Rome,* 1.509 by the meanes of the Emperours letters of the west, Constans brother to Constantius, had recouered a∣gaine his bishoprike, the Arrians persuaded the other Empe∣rour Constantius the Arrian to intrude this Arrian Gregori∣rius by force and violence.* 1.510 Vpon which Athanasius fled the se∣cond time to Rome,* 1.511 and Eusebius the Archearrian sent after

him a legacy to the Pope, to accuse Athanasius. At this second coming to Rome, Athanasius founde there Paulus the bishop of Constantinople, Marcellus bishop of Ancyra, Asclepas bi∣shop of Gaza,* 1.512 Lucianus bishop of Adrianopolis, all complai∣ning in like maner to the Pope for iniuries done vnto them by the Arrians. Nowe first let vs consider that the first flight of Athanasius to Rome was before the troubles mentioned by M. Iewel: and that therein (as I saied) he hath deceiued his Rea∣der, making that to be the cause of Athanasius flight which happened after his flight. Secondarely that he bringeth of Paulus the bishop of Constantinople that he was hanged, you perceiue I trust already, that therein also he hath brought that for a cause which happened after the effect. Vnlesse M. Ie∣wel wil saie that Paulus was hāged of the Arriās, before he ca∣me to Rome to cōplaine of the Arrians. Likewise that he tel∣leth vs of Lucius otherwise Lucianus bishop of Adrianopolis that he died in preson, it must nedes be after the first coming of Athanasius to Rome, seing that in his secōd coming he foū∣de the same Lucius or Lucianus at Rome. Marcellus also of Ancyra whō he founde at Rome at the same second coming could not be the cause of Athanasius first coming to Rome. Now that which foloweth in M. Iewelles allegations of The∣odulus and Olympius commaunded to be murthered, and of the Emperours fury against Athanasius commaunding him to be brought aliue or dead,* 1.513 all this happened after the third flight of Athanasius, and a great many yeres after his first flight to Rome, of the which only D. Harding here mentio∣ned, and against the which M. Iewell would driue all these troubles of the East hetherto alleaged, all befalling (as you see) longe after the same. Thus you see how that all these alllega∣tions proue nothing against the matter alleaged, and therefor were brought in by M. Iewel only to Dase and Amase his Rea¦der for the time, that after he might worke his feate at pleasu∣re.

For now, where it foloweth in M. Iewel, as we haue before tolde you his wordes, These godly Fathers being thus in extreme miserie, &c. sought to the Churche of Rome, you see neither Chrysostom nor Theodoret (who liued so many yeres after all these troubles appeased) neither Athanasius whose flying to Rome talked of in this place, happened before all these troubles, can be any of these godly Fathers that M. Iewell concludeth of. But only these godly Fathers Chrysostom, Theodoret and Athanasius are alleaged here to haue sought to Rome. Ergo all this hath bene brought vtterly beside the purpose, only to deceiue and abuse the well meaning Reader. This is the sincerite of M. Ie∣well, when he semeth to talke most lernedly.

To shewe farder that Athanasius in his second flight to Ro¦me, that Paulus of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra,* 1.514 A∣sclepas of Gaza, Lucius of Adrianople all lerned and Catholi∣ke bishops of the East Churche (who mett there at that time all together) fled not thither (as M. Iewell imagineth) bicause they knewe not whether els to flie, but to be restored againe to their bishopprickes by the Popes authorite, that therefore I saie, they fled and for no other cause, let vs consider shortly what the ecclesiasticall history reporteth herein. The history writeth thus. Cognoscens ergo Romanus Episcopus &c. The bishop of Rome therefor hearing the accusations and complaintes of eche one,* 1.515 and finding them al to agree to the Nicene Councel, receiued them in to Communion, as hauing charge of them al, through the dignite and praerogatiue of his owne See, and restored to euery one their Chur∣ches: He wrote also to the bishops of the east, that they had not wel v∣sed innocent mē driuing them from their Churches, that also they kept not the constitutions of the Nicene Councell. Some of them also he commaūded to appeare before him at a certaine daie, that they might knowe he had pronounced a iust determination of them. He tolde them also he woulde not from hence forthe suffer them, onlesse they leaued such disorder and innouations in the Church. Thus wro∣te

the Pope. And Athanasius and Paulus sending the Popes letters to the bishopps of the East, recouered eche one againe their bishoppric∣kes. Thus farre the Tripartite Hstory out of Sozomenus. Whether all this declare not a Supreme Authorite in the See of Rome ouer the East Churche no lesse then ouer the west, I leaue it to the discretion off euery wise Reader to considre. Let vs now returne to the discourse of M. Iewell and see how he procedeth herein.

[Iewell.] * 1.516In like sorte sometimes they fledde for helpe vnto the Emperour. So Athanasius being condemned in the Councell at Tyrus, fledde to Constantinus the Emperour. Flauianus vnto the Emperours The∣odosius and Valentinianus. Donatus a casis nigris, vnto Constantinus. And the Emp••rours sometimes called the parties, and heard the mat∣ter them selues. Sometimes they wrote fauourable letters in their be∣halfe.

Muche of this, is true: but nothing truly applied. Atha∣nasius in dede (as Socrates writeth) in refellendis calumnijs contra Macharium productis, legalibus vsus est paragraphis. in refelling the slaunders layed to the charge of Macharius his priest,* 1.517 pleaded with his aduersaries by the lawe. Therefore he refused, according to the lawe, their iudgements who were knowen to be his enemyes. Neither woulde suffer that Theog∣uis, Maris, and such other Arrians should haue the examina∣tion of his priestes matter Macharius, Ischyras his aduersarye being sett att liberty and keping company with the Iudges, while Macharius his Priest was layed fast in Chaynes. Last of all protesting to the whole Synod, and Dyonisius the Empe∣rours officer there, that he had iniury, and hauing no remedy thereof,* 1.518 clanculum discessit, he departed awaye priuely saieth Socrates. And a litle after. Secessione facta ad Imperatorem fu∣git. After his departure he fled to the Emperour. All this was ex legalibus paragraphis folowing the order of the lawe. Afterwarde he was accused to the Emperour of a Ciuill mat∣ter, as that he had stopped the passage of Corne which was

wonte ordinarely to be sent from Alexandria to Constantino∣ple. Here was no question of Faithe or Religion decided by the Emperour.

Flauianus was by the heretike Dioscorus deposed.* 1.519 He Ap∣pealed to Pope Leo, not to the Emperou•• as M. Iewell saieth. For proufe hereof, we haue the letters of Valentinian the Em∣perour him selfe. These are his wordes, to Theodosius the second them Emperour in the East.* 1.520 Fidem a nostris Maiori∣bus traditam debemus cum omni competenti deuotione defendere, & dignitatem propriae venerationis Beato Apostolo Petro intemeratam & in nostris temporibus conseruare: quatenus beatissimus Romanae Ciuitatis Episcopus, cui principatum sacerdotij super omnes Anti∣quitas cōtulit locū habeat ac facultatē de fide & Sacerdotibus iudica∣re. Hac enim gratia secundū solemnitatem Cōciliorū & Constātino∣politanus Episcopus eum per libellos appellauit, propter contentionem quae orta est de fide. The faith deliuered vnto vs from our forefa∣thers (most honorable Father and Reuerent Emperour) we ought with al cōpetent deuotion defende, and preserue also in our time vnuiolated to the blessed Apostle Peter the dignite of his dewe Reuerence: so as the most holy bishop of Rome, To vvhō Antiquite hath geuē the Principalite of Priesthood aboue all, maye conueniently iudge off the faithe, and of Priestes. For, hereupon the bishop of Con∣stantinople (Flauianus) after the accustomed maner of Coun∣celles hath appealed to him by libels, vpon a certaine question moued touching the Faithe. In like maner also Galla Placidia Mother to Theodosius wrote at that time, saying of Flauia∣nus, that Libellum ad Apostolicam Sedem mis••rit,* 1.521 he sent a libel off Appeale to the See Apostolike. Thus as Athanasius appea∣led to Iulius in matters ecclesiasticall, so did also Flauianus to Leo. And as Athanasius fled for succour against heretikes to the Emperour, so might also Flauianus seeke succour of the Emperour Theodosius. But neither of them fled in like sor∣te

to the Emperours, as they Appealed to the Pope. Donatus a Casis nigris was an heretike. Of him we shall speake more anon. Touching matters mere ecclesiasticall, the Catholike Emperours neuer iudged and determined such matters, they neuer restored byshops by their owne absolut Authorite, as we haue heard euen nowe the Pope restored Athanasius and Paulus.* 1.522 This to be so without farder particular triall, Let the testimony of S. Ambrose be a sufficient witnesse in this mat∣ter who liued after and in the time of all the cases alleaged by M. Iewell, and who was (no doubte) muche more skilfull in these matters then is M. Iewell or any man that liueth nowe. At what time Valentinian the younge Emperour would haue called Saint Ambrose in iudgement before him, as M. Iewell would here persuade the reader that Emperours of olde time did, he saieth vnto the Emperour. Quando audisti clementissime Imperator in causa fidei laicos de episcopis iudicasse?* 1.523 When diddest thou euer here most gracious Emperour, that laye men haue iudged ouer bishops, in any cause pertaining to the faithe? This was after the time of Constantius, of Theodosius, and of Va∣lentinianus the elder alleaged before by M. Iewell to haue had ecclesiastical matters before them, in like sorte as the Pope had, which is to haue iudged and determined other them. Then if M. Iewell had bene by S. Ambrose when he wrote those wor∣des to the Emperour, and had bene of the minde that he is nowe of, he would perhaps haue corrected S. Ambrose, and sa∣ied. No Sir? Neuer hearde you that Athanasius fledd to Con∣stantinus, that Flauianus to this mans Father Valentinian the first, that Donatus also to Constantinus, neuer heard you that the Emperours called sometime the parties, and heard the matters themselues, and that in like sorte, as the Pope determined the causes of Athanasius and Paulus? Hearde you neuer of al this? If you did, how then saie you to the Emperour. VVh••n heard you &c? If you did not, then yet lerne of me that you haue

misse informed the Emperour. This M. Iewell might haue as well instructed S. Ambrose then, as auouched it so stoutely nowe. But. What trowe we would S. Ambrose haue answered here to this painted prelat, ouerthwarting so such a lerned Bi∣shop? Truly S. Ambrose notwithstanding all those examples alleaged by M. Iewell, notwithstanding the wordes of Con∣stantinus Coram me, euen before me, which M. Iewell maketh so much of, which he blaseth so forthe with great letters bothe in the text and in the Margin, notwithstanding I saie all, that ei∣ther Constantinus or Theodosius or Valentinian did or had done before that time, he woulde haue saied to M. Ie∣well farder as he wrote then to the Emperour, these wordes. Certè si vel scripturarum seriem diuinarum, vel vetera tempora re∣tract••mus, quis est qui abnua•• in causa fidei, in causa inquam fidei episcopos solere d•• Imp••ratoribus Christianis, non Imperatores de episcopis iudicare. In good sothe (M. Iewell) if we call to minde the whole course of holy Scripture, or the practise of auncient time passed, none I trowe will denie but that in matters tou∣ching faithe, in matters I saie (M. Iewell) touching faith, bi∣shops are wōte to Iudge ouer Christē Emperours, Emperours are not wonte to Iudge o••••r bishops. Thus S. Ambrose hath answered you M. Iewel. And this his answer that you may the better like and contente your selfe withall, I wishe you to re∣membre what your olde Master Iohn Caluin hath writen of this very answer of S. Ambrose to the Emperour. He saieth these wordes.* 1.524 Worthely do al men prais his c••nstancy in this b••hal∣fe. Then you M. Iewell I truste, will not dispraise it. Then you will yelde to the lerning of S. Ambrose, who telleth you in go∣od earnest, that neither by holy Scripture, neither by any pra∣ctise of the Churche Emperours haue iudged ouer bishops in matters of the faithe.

[Iewell.] The Emperour Constans wrote vnto his brother Const••ntius to call before him the bishoppes of the East parte to yelde a re••ckening

of their doinges against Athanasius.

[Stapleton] Of this Matter we shall speake more when we come to the 113. Vntruthe. Yet presently this maye suffise to note, that Con∣stans wrote to his brother he shoulde in any wise restore A∣thanasius and Paulus,* 1.525 partly bicause of Pope Iulius his letters writen in that behalfe, partly bicause by the whole Councell of Sardica they were Iudged Innocent. The Emperour herein did but execut the Popes request, and the Determination of the Councell.

[Iewell.] * 1.526The Emperour Honorius gaue his endeuour, that Athanasiu•• might be restored.

M. Iewell, talketh he can not tell what him selfe. Athanasius was dead and buried at the lest twenty yeres before Honorius was Emperour. His endeuour at that time coulde stande A∣thanasius in small stede.

[Iewell.] Constantinus the Emperour vpon Athanasius complainte, com∣maunded the bishoppes of the Councell of Tyrus to appeare before him.

[Stapleton.] * 1.527He did so, animo commodandi ecclesiae nolens illā discerpi, as So∣crates writeth, vpon the desire he had to helpe the Churche, and to bringe it to Vnite. So he restored Arrius him selfe to A∣lexandria. So he threatned Athanasius to depose him, if he re∣ceiued not Arrius. So he called those bishops before him. And so in fine he banished that good Catholike Father Athanasius. But in the ende he repented him, and commaunded in his last will that Athanasius shoulde be restored. These thinges don•• of Zele beside right, cā be no preiudice to that, which is right. Let vs nowe see what M. Iewell will conclude hereof.* 1.528

Thus holie men being in distresse, sought healpe, wheresoeuer they had hope to finde it. This seeking of remedy by waie of complainte, a•• it declareth their miserie, so is it not sufficient to proue an ordinarie Appeale.

If your former talke had bene true and to the purpose, this conclusion might haue had some likelyhood. Nowe it is eui∣dent

by that which hath bene brought, that all this seeking to Rome, was not by waie of complainte only, but by waie of Appeale, especially in Chrisostō, and Athanasius as we haue de¦clared. And touching Chrysostō, vpō whose wordes we haue bene occasioned to entre so farre with M. Iewell, this shifte of seeking to Rome by waie of complainte, is most ignorantly, or els very deceitefully alleaged of M. Iewel. For what a poore shif¦te were this, to seeke for succour in distresse at his hande, who was him selfe in more distresse then the party that sought for succour? And so was it with Innocentius when Chrysostom being banished wrote and sent his legates vnto him. For at that very time the Gothes wasted and spoiled Italy in most misera∣ble sorte, first vnder Rhadagaisus, and next vnder Alaricus,* 1.529 who Innocentius yet liuing, sacked Rome it selfe, and afflicted al that coste most cruelly. At that time the Wādales and Hun∣nes inuaded the west Empire, the Frenche men entred in to Gallia, now called of them Fraunce, and the miserable Empe∣rour Honorius lurked at Rauenna, so carelesse and negligent of all these matters,* 1.530 that when worde was brought vnto him that Rome was vndone, what, saied he, is Rome my Cocke slaine which fought while here so lustely? thinking it had bene spoken of a cocke that he had so called, and hauing more min∣de of his cockefight game, then of the great Citie of Rome. And in all these miseries of the west parte, of all Italy, of Ro∣me it selfe, will M. Iewel persuade vs that Chrisostom sent thi∣ther for succour only and redresse of his owne priuat mysery?* 1.531 A man may here saye to M. Iewel, as M. Iewel saieth in this ar∣ticle to an other: Non satis commodé diuisa sunt temporibus ti∣bi Daue haec. These matters hange not well together M. Iewel. And this you knewe your selfe wel enoughe.* 1.532 And therefo∣re you adde more matter hereunto and saie.

That Chrysostome made no such Appeale to the bishop of Rome it may sufficiently (391) appeare, both by Chrysostomes owne Epistles and by the bishop of Romes dealing herein, and by the ende, and con∣clusion

of the cause.

It behoueth thee here (gentle ••eader) to call to minde, what we haue saied before of this matter. We haue before declared by the two epistles of Chrysostom to Innocentius, by the dealing of the bishop of Rome therein (calling a Synod, and sending his legates to Constantinople aboute the matter) Last of al by the ende and conclusion of the cause, to wit, by the fi∣nall excommunicatiō of the Emperour, and the other bishops guilty of those troubles, by Innocentius the Pope, that Chry∣sostom made a iuste Appeale. Nowe M. Iewell saieth he will proue the contrary by those very three diuers meanes againe. That were gaye. Let vs see.

[Iewell.] Touching Chrysostom him selfe he maketh no mention off any Ap∣peale.

[Stapletō.] Why M. Iewell? Can not a man eate his meate, but he must talke of eating, and tell his felowes? Lo I eate meate. Can not Chrysostom make an Appeale, but he must saie: Reuerent Father I appeale to you? We haue shewed before by his letters and many other circunstances that an Appeale was made. And shall the lacke of naming the matter marre all?

[Iewell.] Nor desireth the Parties to be cited to Rome.

[Stapletō.] No. But he desireth the parties may be punished. He desi∣reth the Pope to write and determine the matter by his Autho¦rite. He desireth to be restored to his Churche againe. All this I haue shewed before out of Chrysostomes first epistle. Againe the Pope sent his legates to the parties, and therefore neded not to cite the parties.

[Iewell.] Nor taketh Innocentius for the bishop of the whole Churche or for the vniuersall Iudge of al the worlde.

[Stapletō.] Yet more negatiue argumentes M. Iewell? Wil you neuer leaue this lewde logicke? But I pray you how proue you your

negatiue?

[Iewell.] But onely saluteth him thus. Iohn to Innocentius bishop of Rome sendeth greeting.

[Stapleton] This is a slender Erasmian argument, M Iewell, taken of the title and superscription of a letter. How many men wri∣te to M. Iewell with this superscription, To the Right Reue∣rent Father in God &c? And yet M. Iewell knoweth him selfe, he is no bishop at all, and therefore no Reuerente Fathet, for the which respect he is so called. The Pope neither intitleth him selfe, nor euer did, the bishop of the whole worlde or the vni∣uersall Iudge of all the worlde but he intitleth him selfe, The ser∣uant of the seruants of God. Yet if titles might make proufe,* 1.533 we could bringe the Authorite not of one only bishop (as Chry∣sostom was) but of sixe hundred bishops assembled in a gene∣rall Councell from all partes of Christendom which called Leo then Pope of Rome, an Vniuersall Bishop. But of this we shall haue occasion to speake more hereafter, in the 118. Vntru∣the. Let vs nowe procede with M. Iewelles allegations out of Chrysostomes epistles, as he saieth. Hitherto he hathe argu∣mented of the title and superscription. Now off like he will bringe some weighty matter out of the epis••le it selfe.

[Iewell.] And againe in the same Epistle he vtterly auoideth all such forrain iudgementes,* 1.534 according to the determinations of the Councelles off Carthage, Milleuet and Afrike.

[Staplet.] Vntruthe. For those Councelles were made only for Afri∣ke and touched nothinge Constantinople or Thracia, where Chrysostom liued.

[Iewell.] These be his wordes. It is not meete that they that be in Aegypt should be Iud∣ges ouer them, that be in Thracia.

[Stapletō.] This is M. Iewelles Argument. Chrysostom a bishopp in Thracia refuseth the iudgement of the bishops of Aegypt. Er∣go he refuseth the Iudgement of the bishopp of Rome. The

lewdenesse off this argument will appeare by the like. Th•• bishop of London refuseth to be iudged of the bishopps of Fraunce. Ergo he will not be iudged by his metropolitane the Archebishopp off Caunterbury. For as rightfully maye the Pope be Iudge ouer all Metropolitanes; as euery Metropolitane ouer the bishopps of his prouince. Which Superiorite of the Metropolitane o∣uer his bishoppes, though your religion in very dede (as it se∣meth) no more acknowledgeth then the Supremacy of the Po¦pe ouer all, yet you M. Iewel through out this article, do ear∣nestly defende the Superiorite off Patriarches, Primates and Metropolitanes eche in their prouinces, to ouerthrowe there∣by the Supreme Authorite of the Pope ouer all. And this is all M. Iewell which you haue brought of Chrysostomes epistles to proue (as you saied) that he made no such Appeale to Ro∣me. Which now being layed abrode, is so bare and naked a proufe, that your selfe I thinke, if any shame be in you, dothe blushe thereat for very shame. But goe to. Though the epistles of Chrysostom can not helpe you, yet perhaps the bishop of Ro∣nes dealing therein, and the ende of the cause will helpe you. For by these two waies more, you promised to proue that Chrysostom made no Appeale. Let vs then see, what the bishop of Romes dealing herein was.

[Iewell.] * 1.535Neither doo the Bishop of Rome his owne wordes, importe any Appeale, but rather the (393) Contrary.

This is stoutely saied. I trust you will proue it as well.

For (394) he vseth not his familiar wordes off bidding or cōmaun∣ding, but onely in gentle and frendly maner exhorteth them to ap∣peare, and that not before him selfe, but onely before the Councell of sundry bisshoppes summoned specially for that purpose.* 1.536

Let this proufe stande for good. The Pope gaue them faire wordes, and desired them to Appeare before a Synod. Ergo his wordes do importe no Appeale but rather the con∣trary.

Yow knowe M. Iewell by the like argument: A Prin∣ce writing gently at a time to stubborne rebelles, and willing them to appere before his Councell not before him, might be proued no Prince or Souuerain, bicause in that case he doth not exercise his Authorite. But as I saied let the prou∣fe stande for good, being in it selfe ouer weake and feble. Forthe to the matter.

For thus Iulius writeth vnto the bisshoppes of the East.

[Iewell.] * 1.537Why, where be you M. Iewell? Haue you forgott your selfe? You promised to tell vs of Chrysostomes Appeale, and of the wordes of Innocentius to whome he appealed. And do yowe tell vs nowe of Iulius and the bishopps of the East? Yow knowe Iulius and these bishops were dead and buried more then a hundred yeares before this Appeale or complainte (call it as you list) of Chrysostome to Innocen∣tius. And will yowe proue that Chrysostome did not Ap∣peale to Innocentius, bicause Iulius spake faire to the rebel∣lious Arrians of the East? But thus it is gentle Reader. M. Iewell maketh large offers, promiseth muche, speaketh great, but he yeldeth nothinge, he perfourmeth as much, and pro∣ueth as litle. As for Innocentius his wordes (who was the Pope to whome Chrysostom Appealled) and by whose wor∣des he promised to proue that Chrysostom made no Appea∣le, he hathe not brought so much as one syllable or letter the∣reof. And as touching the ende and Conclusion of the cause, which was an other meanes by the which he promised to proue that Chrisostom made no Appeale he hath brought touching Chrysostom nor worde nor halfe worde. Onely hauing talked somewhat of Iulius the Pope that he wrote faire to the Arrians, and that he tried the matter by a Synode, whiche two thinges M. Iewell taketh for a great derogation of the Popes authorite, whereas all wise men beside will, I

thinke, rather muche commende the moderation and dis∣cretion of the Pope therefore, as neither vsing roughe wor∣des, neither doing all of him selfe, but with the aduise and con¦sent of other, as the Popes at this daye doe, and allwaies haue done, M. Iewell I saie hauing somewhat enlarged those mat∣ters, at the length speaketh onely these wordes touching the Appealle of Chrysostome to Innocentius, which folowe.

[Iewel.] * 1.538So likewise Innocentius the bisshop of Rome, being very d••si∣rous to restore Chrysostome, and to recouer the vnitie of the Ch••r∣che, not of him selfe or by his owne Authorite, but by the dec••ee and consent of a Councell holden in Italie sent messingers in to the East. And sitting withe others in the Councell, he tooke not vpon him that ••niuersall power that nowe is imagined, but had ••is voice (396) equall withe his brethern.

If yow had loued the truthe, and had bene a faithefull in∣structer of your R••ader, M. Iewell, yow would not thus haue tolde a piece, and concealed the reste, wherby the Authorite of the Pope might c••erely haue appeared aboue the Synode. Of this Synode, and of the decree thereof sent from Rome to Constantinople not by messengers M. Iewell (as yo•• ter∣me them) but by bishoppes and priestes, by legates of th•• S••e Apostolike, by the Pope not by the whole Synode, we haue signified and talked before. But this was not all M. Iewell. This was not the ende and Conclusion of the cause, by the whiche yowe promised (guilefully and vntruly) to proue. Chrysostome made no Appeale. The ende and Conclu∣sion was (as we haue before shewed) that the Legates of In∣nocentius being euill treated, robbed, emprisonned, and ig∣nominiously sent backe, rather to perish by the waye then to returne home, those legates also neither by force of threates, neither by waye of bribery made to yelde or communicat with the Emperesse, the ende an•• Conclusion I saie was, that Innocentius the Pope of Rome he him selfe by his own Ab∣solut Authorite as he p••otesteth, did excommunicat not on∣lye

Theophilus and the other malefactours the bishopps off Aegypt, but also the Emperour him selfe, and the Empe••esse. Thi•• was the ende, this was the Conclusion M. Iewell.

[Iewell.] * 1.539Yet (saieth M. Iewell) the Pope had but his voice equall with his bretherne. And that he proueth thus.

As it appeareth by Meltiades bisshop of Rome, that sate with three bis••hoppes of Gallia, and xiiij. other bisshoppes of Italy to determi∣ne the controuersie betwene Cecilianus and Donatus.

M. Iewell endeth this matter withe a manifeste Vntruthe. Innocentius (saieth he) had but his equall voice withe his bre∣therne in the Synode. And why? Bicause Miltiades the Pope had the like in the Iudgement of Donatus. Nowe that Milti∣ades had but his equall voice, it is a manifest Vntruthe. Opta∣tus saieth. Miltiadis sententia Iudicium clausum est.* 1.540 By the sen∣tence or verdit of Meltiades the Iudgement was ended. Ergo his sentence was more then the sentence off hys felowe bi∣shoppes. Ergo M. Iewell hath made an Vntruthe to saye, that his sentence was equall withe the rest. Ergo he hathe made an vntrue collection that the sentence also Innocentius was but equall with his bretherne. Ergo againe he hathe brought nothing to disproue the Appeale of Chrysostome to Inno∣centius the Pope. Ergo an Appeale is proued and that of a Patriarche of Constantinople, a most holy and lerned Father, S. Chrysostome by name. M. Iewell though he haue ended here withe Chrysostome, yet he hathe not ended withe the matter of Appeales. Let vs consider for Truthes sake the rem∣nant of his longe processe aboute this matter.

[Iewell.] Now to come to the prosecution of the matter,* 1.541 M. Harding knoweth that the Bisshoppes of the East vnderstode not this singular Authori∣te, or prer••gatiue off the bishop off Rome, and t••erefore being cal∣led, obeied not the Summon, as it is many wai••s easy to be sene.

What Authorite and prerogatiue the bishoppes of the E••st Vnderstode to be in the Churche off Rome, and how well D.

Harding knoweth it to be so, it hath well appered by the Appeales of Chrysostome and Athanasius two the Chiefeste Pat••iarches in the East, the one of C••nstantinople, the other of Alexandria to the Bishops of Rome, and shall yet better ap∣peare, in the 109. Vntruthe noted by you M. Iewell, where this matter is at large and of purpose treated. Nowe l••t vs consi∣der, by howe many wayes (for so you speak••) you will proue the contrary.

[Iewell.] * 1.542Therefore they returned vnto Iulius this answer. Iff you will agree to ou•• o••••er••, we will haue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Commu••i••n wi••h you, ••ut if you will otherwise doe, a••d rather ••••ree vnto our a••uer••a••ies, then vnto vs, the•• we 〈…〉〈…〉 the con••rary. And hence ••orthe ••eith•••• wi••l we 〈…〉〈…〉 Coun••e••l with you, no•• obey yowe, nei••her beare good will ••i••her to you or to any of youres.

[Stapleton] These were good charitabl•• children in dede. These were Arrian heretikes. Their aduersaries, whose parte Pope Iulius tooke, were the most lerned and Catholike Fathers, Athan••∣sius, Paulus, Marcellus, Lucius, and other holy bishops, all de∣fending the Nicene Councell, and for so doing all persecut••d of these Arrians. Suche examples M. Iewell hathe to folowe. He is driue•• to forsake Athanasius, Paulus, S. Chrysostome, Theodoret,* 1.543 Flauianus (whome the generall Councell off Chalcedon called Martyr) and diuers other Catholique bis∣shops who all appealed to the Popes of Rome, and to ioyne elbowe with the wicked Arrians, deadly enemies to the Nice∣ne Councell, and detestable denyers of the Godhead of oure Sauiour Iesus Christ. Thus M Iewell so he stande against the Pope, h•• will choose to st••n••e against moste Catholike and lerned Fath••rs,* 1.544 ag••inst the N••c••ne Councell, and ag••inst the blessed Trinite it selfe.

This Imperfectiō and weakenesse of their owne doinges, the bishop∣pes of Rome thē selues vnderstoode, ••nd cōfessed. (400) For thus In∣nocētius writeth vnto S. Augustine, Alypius, and others in Africa tou¦ching Pelagius. If he con••inewe still i•• one mi••••e, k••owing th••t I wil pron••••••••e against him, as what request of letters, or when will he ••ommute him selfe to our Iud∣gement?

Is it be good, he were called to make answer, it were better some other called him, that are neare at hande: &c.

The Africane bishops S. Augustine, Alypius and others wro∣te to Innocentius the Pope that, whereas the heresy of Pela∣gius multiplied secretly in many places, either he shoulde sende for him out of the East where then he liued,* 1.545 and was saied to haue purged him selfe, or els to write vnto him to knowe the truthe thereof. Innocentius answered. Si confidit, nouitque non nostra a dignum esse damnation•• quod dicat, aut iam hoc totum s••••••fu∣t••sse quòd dix••rat, non a nobis acce••siri, s••d ipse debet potius f••stina∣r••, v••••••ssit absolui. Nam si adhuc taliter sentit, quan••o se nostro Iudicio, quibusue acceptis l••teris, quum sciat se damnandum esse, com¦mitt••t? If Pelagius do trust, and knoweth his saying deserueth not to haue Sentence pronounced against him, or that he hath recanted that which he saied before, he nedeth not to be sent for of vs, but he him selfe ought to ••pede hither to be absolued. But if he continewe still in his former opinion, when will he committe him selfe to our Iudgement, or with what letters will he come, being sure that he shall haue Sentence pronoun∣ced against him? Thus farre innocentius. There appeareth he∣re no weakenesse in the Pope, but a stubbornesse in the here∣tike. If Pelagius had recanted, and had bene 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Catholike man ought to be, the Pope doubted not, but he would gl••dly come, and that with spede, to be absolued for his former naughty do∣ct••ine. But if he continewed in his opinion, in his heresy, and wicked doctrine, being sure that he shoulde be at Rome condemned therefore, no maruail if th•• Pope doubted of his not appearing to any Summō of lett••rs or otherwise. This de∣clareth the ordinary and vsual obedience of Catholikes in tho∣se dayes. And this representeth to vs the present stubbornesse of heretikes nowe a dayes. If the Pope should presently cite M. I••well to Rome, woulde he appeare trowe we? But what th••n? Is not the Pope therefore in his full Authorite, bicause

M. Iewell will not obeye? Or was Innocentius of lesse power, bicause Pelagius was stubborne? Or bicause many of the Ie∣wes beleued not, was therefore Gods promise weakened? Nun quid illorum incredulitas fidem dei euacuauit?* 1.546 Absit. God forbid∣de, saieth the Apostle. This declareth a great Imperfection and weakenesse in your doctrine M. Iewell, not in the Popes Iuris∣diction, which can bringe no better Argumentes against the same. For thus you force your reason.

* 1.547Pelagius continewing in his heresy and being sure to be cast woul∣de not appeare b••fore the Pope.

Ergo the Popes Iurisdiction was weake and imperfect.

If some Catholike man of the Church had so resisted, your argument had bene the better. Els let this goe for good also.

Thousandes of Iewes beleued not in the Messias.

Ergo Gods promise made to Abraham and his sede was weake and Imperfect.

This is not only a weake argument but a wicked also. Let vs procede.

[Iewell.] * 1.548And therefore Iulius the bishop of Rome, finding (401) his owne in¦firmitie herein, wrote vnto the Emperour Constans, and opened vn∣to him the whole matter, and ••esought him to write vnto his brother Constantin••, that it might please him to sende the bis••oppes of the East to make answer to that, they had done against Athanasius.

This was euen nowe before alleaged. It hath before bene answered vnto. Yet againe I saie the stubbornesse of the Ar∣rian bishop and the Arrian Emperour Constantius caused the Pope thus to doe. In like maner Paulus Samosatenus being condemned by a great Councell of bishops at sundry times and yet not obeying thereunto, but continuing still in his bi∣shopricke, the matter was referred by the bishops them selues to Aurelianus then Emperour being a heathen and infidell. The extreme stubbornesse of that heretike forced those bishops so

to doe. Yet it is not therefore to be concluded that either bis∣shops ought not to Iudge vpon heretikes, or that the Prince especially being vtterly an heathen and infidell, ought to ta∣ke that Iudgement vpon him. Againe if the Pope at this daye vse the secular Arme to the repressing of heresies, it is an argu∣ment of the misery and wickednesse of our time, it is no ar∣gument against the Popes Supreme Authorite or Iurisdi∣ction.

[Iewell.] * 1.549Euen so the clergy of the Citie of Antioche in the like case of trouble and spoile, wrote vnto Iohn the Patriarke of Constātinople, to intre∣ate the Emperour in their behalfe. It appeareth hereby that this In∣finite Authorite, and Prerogatiue power ouer all the worlde, in those due (402) was not knowen.

This example is like the other, and cōcludeth as wel. Seue∣rus the Eutychian heretike and bishop of Antioche, who de∣fyed the Councell of Chalcedon, and had therefore afterwar∣de his tounge cutt out of his heade by the Emperour Iustines commaundement, who had spoyled the Churches of Antio∣che, banished the bishops and vsed much Villany against the whole clergy, was for these excessiue outrages accused to a Sy∣nod assembled, and ayde required against him with the Em∣perours assistance and helpe, therefore the Pope had not then the Supreme Iurisdiction. If such argumentes maye goe for good, then bicause the frenche bishoppes at the late Tridenti∣me Councell complained of their troubles and spoyles com∣mitted by heretikes against their Churches, an•• required the Councell to intreate their Prince, that some redresse might be had, the Pope at this present lost his Iurisdiction &c. B••t the Ordinary suite in a quiet state, and the extreme refuges of ne∣c••••site are diuerse. Againe the redresse of temporall lostes, and spoile, and the decision of matters of Faithe are two thinges. In the one the temporall power and succour hath ben•• sought. In the other the Spirituall Iurisdiction hath euer concluded.

[Iewell.] * 1.550I thinke it hereby plainely, and sufficiently proued, first that the Bishopp of Rome had no Authorite to receiue Appeales from al par∣tes of the worlde, and that by the Councelles of Nice, of ••ele, ••nd of Afrika: by S. Cyprian, and by the Emperours Martian and Iusti∣nian.

It hath appeared plainely and sufficiently, first that the B. of Rome had Authorite to receaue Appeales from al partes of the worlde, and that from the greatest Patriarches them selues, as from Athanasius of Alexandria, of S. Chrysostom an•• Fla∣uianus of Constantinople, and that by the Councelles of Ni∣ce and of Sardica, by S. Cyprian, S. Gregory and S. Be••narde, by the Emperours Iustinian, Leo, and Theodo••ius, and that none but heretikes, as Arrians, Donatistes, and Pelagians repi∣ned at the same.

[Iewell.] * 1.551Nexte that M Hardinge the better to fournish his matter, hath no∣toriously falsefied Chrysostoms w••rdes three times in one p••ace.

It appeareth that M. Iewell hath notoriously slaundered D. Harding therein, and that more then three times in one place.

[Iewell.] * 1.552Thirdely that Chrysostomes letter vnto Innocentius contained matter of complainte but no Appeale which thinge is also proued by the very wordes and tenour of the letter, by the bishopp off Romes owne Confession, and by the imperfection and weakenesse off their doinges.

It hathe bene proued by the very wordes and tenour off Chrysostomes letter, b•• the legacy sent from him to Rome, by the letters off his whole clergy, and of fourty bishops besi∣de to the Pope, by the Synod holden of the Pope, aboute that matter,* 1.553 by his legates sent to Constantinople, by the greate meanes foule and faire shewed vnto them, to winne their con∣sent, by the second letters of Chrysostom to the Pope, and last of all by the finall Sentence of Ex••••mmunication from the Pope, not only to the bishops that had offended therein, but

also to the Emperour him selfe for bearinge them out, that Chrysostome made a Iust and full Appeale to the Pope, and that neither the bishop of Romes owne Confession, neither h••s doinges doo importe any Imperfection or weakenesse on his side, but rather the contrary. And thus is appeareth M. Iewell hath yet concluded nothinge against Appeales. The∣refore he seketh yet other shiftes, and saieth yet farder.

[Iewell.] * 1.554In d••de by waie of compromisse, and agreement of the parties, mat¦ters were sometimes brought to be hearde, and ended by the bishopp of Rome, as also by other bishoppes, but not by any ordinary pro∣cesse or courte of lawe. And so it appeareth this matter betwene Atha∣nasius and the Arrians was first brought vnto Iulius, for that the Ar∣rians willing••ly desired him, for triall thereof to cal a Councell. For thus Iulius him selfe writeth vnto the bishoppes of the East, as it is before al••eaged. If I had geuen aduise vnto (your messengers) Macarius and H••••ych••••es, that t••ey that had u••••en vnto me, might be called to a Councell, and th••t inco••si••er••tion of our brethe••n, which complai••ed, they suffie•• wrong, although ne••t••er of t••em had desired the same, yet had mine a••uise ••en voyde of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. But nowe seeing the same men, w••om you toke to be graue, and worthy of cre••it, haue ma∣de 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vnto me, that I shoulde call you, verely, you shoulde not take it in ill parte. Hereby it is plaine that Iulius toke vpon him to call those parties,* 1.555 not by any such vniuersall Iurisdiction as M. Harding fansyeth, but only by the consent and request of bothe parties.

If it had pleased M. Iewell to haue vprightly and indiffe∣rently considered the rest of this Epistle of Iulius recorded in the workes of Athanasius, of the which he hath here picked out a morsell for his owne tothe, he shoulde easely haue sene, but if partialite and faction haue vtterly blinded him, that this Citation and Summon of the bishopps of the East to Rome, the Appearing of Athanasius there, and the whole dealing of Iulius the Pope therein, was not by consent of bothe parties or by the waie of Compromisse, as M. Iewel fan••yeth, but euen according to the lawe and by waie of Authorite. It is euident (as we ••aue before declared out of the tripartit history) that th•• bishopps of the East first accused Athanasius vnto Pope

Iulius, desyring his Consent to his depriuation and expulsion. The Pope thereupon Magnum Athanasium euocauit * regula∣riter,* 1.556 called forthe, cited or summoned Athanasius the Great according to the Canons. And commaunded also the bishop∣pes his aduer••aries to appeare at their answer. Eusebius the ringleader and chiefe of them sent his legates to the Pope to haue the matter decided there though against his will, as Ni∣cephorus recordeth. But he sone departing this life, the other Arrian bishoppes woulde not appeare. Iulius the Pope in the meane restored Athanasius and Paulus with the other banis∣hed bishopps,* 1.557 tanquam omnium curam gerens propter prop••iae sedis dignitat••m, as one that had care of them all for the prerog••∣tiue of his owne See, saieth the Ecclesiasticall history: He sent with al letters to the Arrian bishops reprouing them for their iniuries committed against the Catholike bishoppes Atha∣nasius and other, as also that they had assembled a Councel at Antioche beside his aduise. The bishops of the East exaspered herewithe, and perceauing the Pope wholy bent to take their aduersaries parte,* 1.558 wrote againe, sharpe letters to the Pope, off the which M. Iewell hath alleaged certaine pieces, as Sadde Authorites against the Popes Iurisdiction. To this their sharpe answer Iulius the Pope maketh replie in these letters, out off the which the last wordes of M. Iewel are alleaged. In the be∣ginning he writeth with greate humilite and submission, she∣wing them indede that they them selues had first moued him therein, wherefore they had lesse cause to grudge, if he were earnest in the matter. But after all those so gentle and faire wordes, which M. Iewell maketh so much of, he writeth that al that was spoken only in respect of their quarelling and vn∣iust complaintes. For thus he saieth. Let these be spoken to sa∣tisfie the quarelling and vniust complain••es of your men against vs.* 1.559 After this prosecuting the whol•• matter off Athanasius and the other Catholike bishops by them expelled, he declareth

that bothe they and Athanasius, had bene cited of him by his letters, by vertu of the which Athanasius appeared, but the o∣ther woulde not. The Catholike and lerned bishops did, the heretikes and Arrian bishops did not.* 1.560 All which the ecclesia∣sticall history in like maner recordeth. At the ende of the e∣pistle, the Pope expresselye telleth them their duty, and what they ought to haue done, if Athanasius and the other bishop∣pes had bene culpable and faulty in dede. For thus he saieth. If, as you saie, they had bene faulty, you ought to haue done accor∣ding to the Canon, and not after this facyon. Yowe ought to haue writen to all vs, that so the right might haue bene tried of vs all. Was there no subiection nowe trowe you M. Iewell dewe off the East bishoppes to the See of Rome? Was there not a Ca∣non or decree that had so appoynted, that matters shoulde be remoued out of the East to Rome it selfe? Let vs yet go far∣der in this same Epistle. The Pope saieth farder to the bishops of the East. Why woulde yowe not write vnto vs specially of the Citie of Alexandria? Are you ignorant, that this is the custome,* 1.561 that first of all you should write vnto vs, that from hence the right might be determined. Therefore if you had had there any quarell against a∣ny bisshop, you ought to haue referred it hither to our Church. Now these men not putting vs to knowleadge, when they haue done what them pleased, require vs to approue their damnation which we haue not bene made preuy vnto, These are not the decrees of Saint Paule. The Fathers haue not so taught vs. But this is a puffing pride and a nouelty. I beseche you harken to me gladly. I write you these thin∣ges for the Common quyet. I signifie vnto you suche thinges as we haue receiued from the blessed Apostle Peter, neither woulde haue writen to you these thinges, whiche you knowe allready, but that your doinges had troubled vs. I beseche you leaue these matters. Thus farre Pope Iulius in those letters to the bishoppes of the East. In these wordes it appeareth that he cited them, that by order of lawe and Custome they ought to referre their mat∣ters

to him and his Churche, that there also a definition or de∣termination ought to be sought for. After all this these Arri∣ans not obeying the greate Councell of Sardica was assem∣bled, in the which by three hundred bishops out of al partes of Christendom well nere, it was pronounced against them, that bicause being Cited and called by the letters of Iulius they had not appeared, they declared them selues to be mere slaunde∣rers, and iniurious oppressers of those Catholike bishops Atha¦nasius and other. These thinges considered, let vs viewe, what token or shewe of Compromisse may appeare in this matter, as M. Iewell fansyeth, there was no other thinge in all this do∣ing.

* 1.562First Athanasius was cited to Rome, not hauing put vp his matter thither, but being accused by his aduersaries, whe∣reupon he appeared. In a compromisse or arbitrement betwe∣ne dayesmen, no party can be cited, but they must appeare voluntarely.

* 1.563Againe Iulius forced the bishoppes of the East to recea∣ue againe Athanasius, and restore him to his bishopricke, with other, as appeareth in the tripartit history. This was a Iudge∣ment by waye of Athoritie not by waie of comprimisse, and forcing the aduersary against his will, which in a Compro∣misse can not be, as the lawe declareeh.

* 1.564Thirdly bicause they appeared not to Iulius cited, the Co∣uncell pronounced against them. But in a Compromisse the Arbiter can not punish, nor any other in the Arbiters behalfe. Therefore being condemned of the Councell for not appea∣ring to Iulius, declareth that Iulius was their Iudge, not an Arbiter.

Last of all the Arbiter or Compromissary hath no Iurisdi∣ction. But the Iudge hath. And such Iulius chalenged ouer them by vertu of a Canō and Custome of the Churche. The¦efore Iulius the Pope was their Iudge not an Arbiter, and de∣aled

with them by waie of Authorite and Iudgement, not by waie of Compromisse.

[Iewell.] * 1.565And therefore Iulius saieth. He caused Athanasius to be cited Regu∣lariter that is, according to order: for the order of iudgement is, that a man be first called, and then accused, and last of all condemned.

Lo M. Iewell confesseth Athanasius was cited by order of Iudgement, but in a Compromisse no party can be cited, as hath before bene proued, and as the lawe expressely teacheth, therefore by M. Iewelles owde Confession this was no Com∣promisse, or agreement of the parties. For such do meete to∣gether voluntarely, not cited.

[Iewell.] * 1.566But he meaneth nor thereby the order of Canons, as M. Harding expoundeth it.

Iulius him selfe alleaged a Canon therefore, as his wordes last alleaged declare. Therefore he meaneth by the order of Canons. This also hath before bene proued. It is nedelesse here to repete it.

[Iewell.] * 1.567For touching Appeales to Rome there was no Canon yet proui∣ded.

Vntruthe. For in the Nicene Councell such a Canon was prouided, as it hath before bene declared bothe out of the epi∣stles of Iulius, and of Leo, and also by the testimony of Zosi∣mus, who is nowe proued no Forger.

[Iewell.] The Couterfeite epistle of Athanasius to Felix is answered before.

[Stapletō.] * 1.568There is more to be answered then that Epistle M. Iewell, if you will defende this vntruthe, as hath abundantly before appeared.

Theodoretus was deposed, and banished, and cruelly intreated, as it appeareth by his letters vnto Renatus, and therefore the wordes that he vseth, are rather tokens of his miseries, and wante of helpe, then certain testimonies of his iudgement. For euery man is naturally inclined to extolle him, and to auaunce his power, at whose hande he seketh helpe.

This is the thirde example of Appeale alleaged by D. Har∣ding.* 1.569 The two other of Athanasius, and of Chrysostom, are nowe proued to haue bene iust and right appeales. To proue the like in Theodoretus that lerned Father of Christes Chur∣che it is easy notwithstanding M. Iewelles gheasse to the Con¦trary. His wordes in his owne letters to Pope Leo be plaine. And the whole generall Councell of Chalcedon doth witnes this Restitution made vpon his Appeale. Thus he writeteth to Pope Leo, hauing first declared the iniuries done vnto him &c. Beholde after all this sweate and trauail, I am condemned being not so much as accused.* 1.570 But I looke for the Sentence of your Aposto¦like See. And I beseche and require your holynesse to ayde me in this case, Iustum vestrum & rectum Appellanti Iudicium. Appealing to your right and iust Iudgement, and commaunde me to come before you, and to shewe that my doctrine and belefe foloweth your Apostolike steppes. In these wordes being condēned by Di∣oscorus the Patriarche of Alexandria, and of the Patriarche al∣so of Antioche Maximus, his owne Ordinary, yet he Appea∣leth expressely to Pope leo. And he saieth farder. Before all thin¦ges I beseche you I maye knowe from you whether I ought to stan∣de to this wrongefull Iugement, or no. For I looke for your Sen∣tence. Si iudicatis me stare iusseritis, stabo. And if you shall commaunde me te Abide the iudgement, I will abide it, and neuer trouble man here aboute any more: but abide the iust Iudgement of my God and Sauiour Christ Iesus. These wordes I trowe decla∣re sufficiently, plainely and expressely that Theodoretus appe∣aled to the Pope, and rested vpon his Finall Sentence, as the Supreme Iudge in earthe. By this Pope Leo he was restored to his bishopricke, and sett amonge other bishoppes in the Councell of Chalcedon,* 1.571 as in the Actes thereof it is euident. These are certaine testimonies of his Iudgement, M. Iewell, and vndoubted Arguments of his Appeale. What haue you

yet more to saie against Appeales? This practised Authorite troubled much M. Iewel, And therefore he laboured longe and many waies howe to auoide it. His escapes yet hitherto are founde to be weake, insufficient and Vntrue. Let vs now con∣sider the remnant.* 1.572

But if it were graunted, it was laufull then for the bishop of Rome to receiue all maner Appeales, in such order, as it is pretended, yet can not M. Hardinge thereof necessarely conclude, that the Bishop of Ro∣me was Head of the Vniuersall Churche. For Ostiensis saieth. Appeales may be made not only from the lower Iudge vnto the higher, but also from equall to equal. And in this order, as it shall afterwarde be shewed more at large, Donatus a Casis nigris, was by the Emperour lawfully remoued frō the Bishop of Rome, to the bishop of Arle in Fraunce. Ostiensis wordes be these. Non nocebit error, si appelletur ad Maiorem quàm debuerit, vel ad parem. The errour shall not hurte, if the Appeale be made either to a higher Iudge then was mete, or to an equall. Where also it is thus noted in the margin. Appellari potest ad parem si de hoc sit consuetudo. Appeale may be made vnto the equall, if the∣re be a custome of it. Hereby it is plaine that the right of Appeale by fine force of lawe, concludeth not any necessary Superiorite, much lesse this infinite power ouer the whole vniuersall Churche.

Well pleaded, and lyke a lawyer. But Lyke diuinite, lyke lawe. For shame vnderstande your lawes, better before you al∣leage them, Or els folowe the Paynters Councell Ne sutor vltra crepidam The wordes of the lawe vpon which Ostiensis groundeth, are these. Si quis ergo vel parē, vel maiorem Iudicem apellauerit, alium tamen pro alio, in ea causa est vt error ei non no∣ceat sed si minorem, nocebit. If any man therefore do Appeale to an equall Iudge, or to a higher then he shoulde, as yet mista∣king one for the other, the errour shall not hurte, but if he Ap∣peale to an inferiour Iudge, it shall hurte. As in a Case. Iohn being cast by the Archedeacon, Appealed to the Archebishop, where as he should first haue appealed to the bishopp, as to a nerer Superiour. But this errour doth not hurte, bicause he appealed to a higher Iudge. The same Iohn from the Ar∣chedeacō

appealed to the Officiall of Caūterbury, where as he shoulde haue Appealed to the Iudge of the Prerogatiue Cour∣te. This errour hurteth not neither, bicause he Appealed to a Iudge equall and off like Authorite to that Iudge to whom he ought to haue Appealed. Therefore his Appeale shal procede before the Iudge to whom he should haue Appealed, notwith∣standing the errour committed in meaning an other Iudge, being his equall. In the thierde Case Iohn Appealed from his bishop to an other bishop, where as he should haue Appea∣led to the Archebishopp. In this case he looseth the benefyt of Appeale. Bicause he hath appealed to a Iudge, neither higher, neither equall to that Iudge to whom he ought to haue Ap∣pealed, that is to the Archebishop, butt to an inferiour Iudge. For the bishop to whom he Appealed, though he be equall to the Iudge who before had geuen the Sentence, yet he is infe∣riour to the Iudge to whom the Appeale ought to be made. In this case therefore the Appeale is voide. The wordes the∣refore of Ostiensis and of the glose saying that the errour hur∣teth not when the Appeale is made to an equal Iudge, doe not meane,* 1.573 a Iudge equall to the party Appealing, or equall to the Iudge from whom the Appeale is made, but they meane a Iud¦ge equall to him to whom of right the Appeale shoulde haue bene made. It is therefore a manifest Vntruthe, contrary to al lawe and reason that M. Iewell saieth. Appeales maye be made not only from the lower Iudge to the higher but from equal to equal And to saie that Ostiensis or the lawe so saieth, it is a double Vntruthe.* 1.574 The lawe is plaine to the Contrary both Ciuil and Canon. which is easy to be proued. Appeales were admitted (saieth the lawe) to correct and amende the iniquite, rigour or errour of a former Iudgement. But no Inferiour or equal can correct the Iudgement of his superiour or equall, bicause he hath no rule ouer such. Therefore no Inferiour or equall can take an Appeale from his Superiour or equall. Againe the

lerned lawyers define an Appeale thus. Appellatio est ius quo in∣terim primasententia extinguitur, & iterum causae cognitio ad Iu∣dicem superiorem deuoluitur. Appeale is a lawe by the which the former Sentence is for the time made voide, and the triall off the matter is remoued to a Superiour Iudge. So that the Supe∣riorite of Iudgement is off the very nature of an Appeale. And therefore that euery Appeale ought to be to a Superieur, it is proued saieth Bartolus by infinit lawes: And one lawe expres∣sely saieth,* 1.575 Minor magistratus contra sententiam maioris non resti∣tuet. The inferiour Iudge or Magistrat shall not acquitte a∣gainst the Sentence of an higher Iudge. Nor shall not sit vpon any Appeale so made. And against al Appeales to equall Iud∣ges the Authentikes speake expressely. The wordes are these. Cum non oportet ad compares Iudices appellationes referri,* 1.576 sed a minore iudicio in maius tribunal ascendere.

Whereas Appeales maye not be remoued to equall Iudges, but they ought allwaies from an inferiour Iudgement, remoue to a higher benche. Finally as certaine a principle it is in the la∣we, that euery Appeale is to a Superiour, as it is in diuinite, that al that do swere, do sweare by their letter, as the Apostle saieth.* 1.577 Therefore the Canon lawe admitteth Appeales but only to a Superiour, where it saieth.* 1.578 Placuit vt si a quibuscunque ecclesia∣sticis iudicibus ad alios Iudices ecclesiasticos, vbi est maior Authori∣tas, prouocatum fuerit, audientia non negetur. It hath semed good, that if Appeale be made from any ecclesiasticall Iudge to other ecclesiastical Iudges which be of a higher Authorite, that Au∣dience be geuen. This shifte therefore neither of Ostiensis and the glose, Neither of any other lawe Ciuil or Canon helping any whit against the Authorite of Appeales: what other con∣uayaunce hith M. Iewell to dasel the Readers eyes withall, or to blancke his euident and most assured Argument of the bi∣shop of Romes Supremacy ouer all bishops, as being one to whom all other, the chiefest Patriarches them selues haue ap∣pealed?

You see howe many waies he had laboured against it, and what paines and trauail he hath bestowed thereon, and yet hath brought no Argument, but such as if it were true, it was of no force, if it was of force, it was not true. Lest al his labour therefore shoulde be lost, he dilateth yet the matter one waye more and beginneth as if it were a freshe, thus.

[Iewell.] * 1.579But M. Harding might soo haue foreseene, that this his first princi∣ple of Appeale would easely be turned against him ••••••fe. First for that it is well knowen, that Appeales then euen in the Ecclesiasticall cause•• were made vnto the Emperours and ciuile Princes. Secondely for that the bishop of Rome determined such cases of Appeale, by war∣rant, and Commission from the Emperour. Thirdly for that mat∣ters being once hearde, and determined by the bishop of Rome, haue bene by Appeale from him remoued furder vnto others.

[Stapletō.] Here be three? but if. M. Iewell thryue with any one, let him take all.

[Iewell.] * 1.580As touching the first, that Appeales in Ecclesiasticall causes were la¦wefully made to the Prince, it is clere by Eusebius, by Socrates, by Nicephorus, and by S. Augustine in sundrie places.

Al these foure Authours, are brought aboute one selfe mat∣ter. And that is this.

Donatus being condemned by three score and tenne bishops in A∣frica, appealed vnto the Emperour Constantinus and was receiued.

[Stapletō.] That heretike Donatus appealed in dede, and was re∣ceiued. but knowe you, howe he was receiued M. Iewell? Optatus an Africane bishop and liuing in the heate off that tragedy him selfe, writeth thus. Lectis literis, Constantinus ple∣no liuore respondit. In qua responsione et eorum preces prodidit, dum ait. Petitis a me in s••culo iudicium, cum ego ipse Christi Iudi∣cium expectem. Et tamen dati sunt Iudices &c. The Supplicati∣ons of the Donatistes appealing from their owne bishopps to the Emperour being read, the Emperour answered in a great

chafe, (in the which awnswer also he betraied their request) saying. You aske Iudgement of me here in this worlde, whiche doe looke for the Iudgement of Christe my selfe. Yet he ap∣poynted them Iudges. It appeareth by this, Donatus with his felowes were receiued, as M. Iewell saieth, but with what con∣tentation of the Emperour they were receiued, and howe wel he liked their dealing therein, it appeareth by his Answer.

[Iewell.] S. Augustin saieth.* 1.581 Parmenianus willingly suffred his felowes to goe vnto the Emperour Constantinus. Againe he saieth. Here I bringe in the wordes off Constantine, out of his own letters, wherein he confesseth, that he hearde the parties, and founde Coecilianus to be innocent.

This was done of Constantin as S. Augustine immediatly after declareth, quum ad iudicium eius post episcopalia iudicia partes perductae fuerant,* 1.582* 1.583 when the partes were brought to his Iudgement after the bishopps Iudgement had passed vpon them. But howe well he toke that, and howe he repented him after thereof, it shall anon appeare.

[Iewell.] Likewise he saieth, VVhat,* 1.584 is it not lawfull for the Emperour or such as shall be sent by the Emperour, to pronounce Sentence of Religion? VVherefore then came your Embassadours to the Emperour? And so Likewise againe, Iff Emperours haue nothinge to commaunde in these cases, or if * 1.585 this matter nothinge touche a Christian Emperours charge, who then forced your predecessours to remoue Caecilianus matter vnto the Emperour?

[Stapleton.] All this S. Augustin spake against those stubborne Donati∣stes of whom Parmenianus was one, which complained,* 1.586 quod eos Constantinus ad campum, id est, ad supplicium duei iussit, that Constantin called them forth to the cāpe, that is to punishmēt. He reasoned I saie against the Donatist, by his owne doinge. Not as allowing the Donatiste in appealing to the Empe∣rour, but as prouing him vnreasonable, which for their vaun∣tage woulde appeale to him, and then when he pronounced against them, and badde them be punished, woulde striue and repine at his commaundement, and say he dyd them wronge, and ought not being a temporall prince to punishe bishoops.

For in like maner when a Donatiste obiected to S. Augustin, of one Felix a Catholike bishop, saying. Non debuit Episcopus proconsulari iudicio purgari.* 1.587 A bishop ought not to make his purgation before a temporall Magistrat, S. Augustine in like maner answered, as he did here to Parmenianus. Si culpandus est quem Iudex ter••enus absoluit, cum ipse sibi hoc non poscisset, quanto magis culpandi sunt, qui terrenū regem, suae causae Iudicem esse voluerunt? If that bishop Felix be to be blamed, bicause he was absolued of a temporall Iudge, whereas he him selfe sought not so to be absolued or examined, howe muche more are they to be blamed, whiche desired them selues the tempo∣rall Prince to be Iudge in their Cause? In bothe these places S. Augustin confuteth the Donatistes by their own doinges, which is a kinde of answer quoad hominem sufficient.* 1.588 But howe in dede bothe the Emperour liked that Appealing of the Do∣natistes to him, and what S. Augustine him selfe hathe iudged thereof, it shall nowe shortly appere. That the Donatistes Appealed M. Iewell hathe proued. And it is not denied. But how well they did in it, he saieth nothinge. Beholde therefore gentle Reader howe well it was liked, and Iudge thereby what a grounded example M. Iewell hathe brought to builde this Principle vpon, that Appeales in ecclesiasticall causes were made to Emperours and Ciuil Princes. Optatus writeth the∣reof thus.* 1.589 Donatus appellandum esse ab Episcopis credidit, & re∣liqua. Ad quam Appellationem Constantinus Imperator sic re∣spondit. O rabida furoris audacia. Sicut in causis gentilium fieri solet appellationem interposuerunt. Donatus thought good to Appeale from the bishops and so forthe. Vnto the which Ap∣peale the Emperour answered thus. O desperat rage and fury. As in the suites of heathen and Pagans, so these men put vpp their Appeale. So well the Emperour liked their doing the∣rein howe well S. Augustin liked it, and howe well the Em∣perour receiued the Appeale of those vnruly and furious Do∣natistes,

it shall nowe appeare by his owne wordes, whiche I beseche thee, gentle Reader, diligently to consider and beare a∣waye. These are his wordes. Dedit ille aliud Arelatense iudi∣cium aliorum scilicet episcoporum, non quia iam necesse erat,* 1.590 sed eo∣rum peru••rsitatibus cedens, & omnimodo cupiens tantam impuden∣tiam cohibere. Neque enim ausus est Christianus Imperator sic eorum tumultuosas & fallaces querelas suscipere, vt de iudicio Epis∣coporum qui Romae sed••rant ipse iudicaret, sed alios, vt dixi, Episco∣posdedit a quibus tamen illi ad ipsum ru••sum Imperatorem prouo∣care maluerunt. Qua in re illos quemadmodum detestetur audistis: Atque vtinam saltem ipsius iudicio insanissimis animositatibus suis finem posuissent, atque vt eis ipse cessit, (vt de illa causa post episco∣pos iudicaret, a sanctis Antistibus postea veniam petiturus, tamen illi quod vlterius dicerent non haberent, si eius sententiae non obtem∣perarent ad quem ipsi prouocauerunt) sic & illi aliquando cederent veritati. Constantin the Emperour (saieth S. Augustine) gaue to the Donatistes (after they had bene ones cast by Meltiades the Pope with other bishops) an other Iudgement at Arles in Fraunce, of other bishops: Not bicause it was nowe nedefull, but bicause he yelded to their stubbornesse, and desired by all meanes possible to ouercome their outragyousnesse. For that Christian Emperour durst not so to admitte their seditious and fayned complaintes, that he woulde him selfe sit Iudge v∣pon the Sentence of those bishops whiche had decided and de∣termined the matter at Rome, but he appointed them as I sa∣ied, other bishops: From whome yet ones againe these felowes Appealed to the Emperour him selfe. Wherein howe he de∣tested them, you haue * 1.591 hearde. And woulde God that vpon Iudgement and determination, they had ones ended their most outragious stubbornesse, and as he yelded vnto them (so farre that he toke vpon him to Iudge of that Matter after the Bishops, minding yet to aske pardon thereof of the holy bi∣shops, so that at length yet they might haue no more to saie, if

they would not yelde to his Sentence, to whō they had thēsel¦ues Appealed) as he I saie yelded to them, so they woulde ones to the Truthe. Thus farre that holy and lerned Father S. Au∣gustin. In whose wordes I answer to you and to your whole Argument M. Iewell thus. Woulde God M. Iewell (and from the bottom of my harte I wish it) that as that good and vertu∣ous Emperour Constantin the greate, yelded so farre to tho∣se outragyous vnruly, and furious Donatistes, that being con∣demned in their owne Countre by three score ad tenne bi∣shops he gaue them yet (appealing to him beside all lawe and order of the Churche) two other Iudgements of bishops one in Italy an other in Fraunce) which last was more then nede as S. Augustin expressely saieth) only to stoppe, if it were pos∣sible, their outragions clamours and seditious complaintes, as he at the lenght was content to heare their matter him selfe, af∣ter the Iudgement of so many bishops, whereof he woulde afterwarde aske them pardon, as hauing in dede passed therein the boundes of his Iurisdiction, as this good Emperour I saie did all this, not as by lawfull Authoryte, but as yelding to the Donatistes vnruly appetit, so that you also M. Iewell woulde ones yelde to the Truthe, that you woulde no more bringe this and such like examples (deceiued herein vndoubtedly by the writers of Germany especially those of Magdeburge) for the Authorite of Ciuill Princes in Causes ecclesiastical, whe∣reas by the clere verdit of S. Ambrose neither by practise of the Churche,* 1.592 neither by the doctrine of holy Scriptures, Emperours did euer Iudge ouer bishops in matters of the Faithe. And thus I leaue your example of Donatus, whose example beside cā make no lawe, he being an heretike, and for mayntenaunce of his here∣sy seeking all helpe and succour, by right and by wronge, by order and beside order, by meanes good and badde. Nowe to that which foloweth.

[Iewell.] Therefore the Emperour Constantius summoned the Bishops of

the East that had bene in the Coūcel of Tyrus, to appeare before him, and to rendre accompte of their doinges. His wordes be these. I will you to make your appearaunce, and to shewe in dede howe sincerely and iustly ye ha∣ue delte, and that euen before me.

[Stapletō.] Howe this was done and vpon what occasion, and in what a cause, and what ensewed thereof, I haue declared. To that place I remit the Reader, Let vs nowe consider your Conclu∣sion.

[Iewell.] * 1.593By these fewe examples it may well appeare that Appeales in eccle∣siasticall causes in these daies were made vnto the Prince, and that it was thought lawefull then for the Prince to haue the hearing of the same. Yet was not the Prince therefore the head of the Vniuersall Churche.

Your examples haue bene but two. And bothe of one Em∣perour and Prince Constantin by name. And with what con¦science he toke vpon him to Iudge of matters decided before by bishops, you haue heard S. Augustin tell you M. Iewell. He did the first to pacifie those outregious Donatistes, and ••he asked pardon thereof afterwarde of the bishoppes. He did the latter to pacifie likewise the Arrians, and in a matter not mere ecclesiasticall, as hath before bene declared. Of the Issue whe∣reof he repented him at lenght also. These be your examples M. Iewel that in the time of so many Christen Emperours and Princes you haue chosen out as most worthy and especiall. One more you recite euen after your Conclusiō made, which is this.

[Iewell.] Certainely S. Gregorie thought it not amisse to committe a Spiri∣tual matter, touching the purgation of a bishop to Brunichi••da th•• Fren¦che Quene, Notwithstanding it be noted thus in the glose. Fuit tamen 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nim••••m papaliter disp••nsatum.

[Stapleton.] S. Gregory committed a Spiritual Matter to the Quene of Fraunce. Ergo Appeales may be made to the laye Prince. Thus M. Iewelles reason procedeth. But doth not the Cōtrary dire∣ctly Conclude? The Pope committed a Spiritual matter to the

laye Prince. Ergo the laye Prince was but the Popes Commis∣sioner. Verely the Commissioner is euer Inferiour to him that geueth forthe the Commission. And thus M. Iewelles reason ronneth roundely against him. As touching this Commission S. Gregory had a reason for his so doing. But what his minde was for any Appeale to be made to Ciuill Princes in Ecclesi∣asticall matters, or for their intermedling there withall, it may appere well bothe by the vniuersall Supremacy that he pra∣ctised ouer all Christendome, as hath before bene declared, and also by these wordes of his to Mauritius the Emperour. Sacerdotibus autem non extrema potestate dominus noster citius in∣dignetur,* 1.594 sed excellenti consideratione propter eum cuius serui sunt eis ita dominetur, vt etiam debitam reuerentian impendat. Let not my Soueraine for his worldly power conceiue quicke Indig∣nation against the priestes, but by a worthy and Princely con∣sideration, for his sake, whose seruaūtes they are, let him se rule ouer them, that yet he yelde them also dewe and Bounden Re¦uerence. Of this matter, howe in Spirituall causes the Chri∣stian Princes are subiecte to their spirituall Pastours and bis∣shoppes, I haue otherwhere out of S. Augustin, S. Ambrose and Gregory Nazianzen, ye out of Caluin him selfe and the right or Zelous Lutherās of Germany, Illyricus and his felowes de∣clared. But bicause M. Iewell putteth it here for a principale that Princes receaued Appeales in Causes ecclesiasticall, and all his examples haue failed him, let vs consider what may be farder yet brought to the Contrary. Athanasius that lerned Fa¦ther saieth of the Arrians.* 1.595 Qua fronte comentum Synodi appel∣lare audent, Cui Comes praecedit. Howe dare they call that an assembly of a Synode, where the Princes Officier was presi∣dent?* 1.596 And in an other place he saieth. Quando a condito aeuo auditū est quód iudi••ium Ecclesiae authoritatem suam ab Impera∣tore accepit, aut quando hoc pro iudicio agnitum est? When was it euer heard that an Ecclesiasticall Iudgement toke his Au∣thorite

of the Emperour? Or when was that taken for any Iudgement. Beholde M. Iewell howe contrary this is to your Appeales to Ciuil Princes in Causes ecclesiasticall. Yet behol∣de an other. The Fathers of the Millenitane Councel in Afri∣ca whose Authorite so ofte and so gredely you haue alleaged, decreed in this sorte.* 1.597 Placuit vt quicunque ab Imperrtore cog∣nitionem Iudiciorum publicorum petierit, honore proprio priuetur. Si autem Episcopale iudicium ab Imperatore postulauerit, nihil ei obsit. It hath semed good vnto vs, that if any sue to the Empe∣rour to haue him heare and determine publike Iudgementes, that he be depriued therefore of his dignite. But if he require of the Emperour a Iudgement of bishopps, it shalll not hurte him. Semblably to these holy Fathers, the bishops in the Coū∣cell of Aquileia dealed. For whereas Palsadius the heretike re∣quired the laye men of worship to come in to the Councell, and to heare the matters debated, saying. Sunt hic honorati mul∣ti. Here be many men of worship,* 1.598 S. Ambrose one of the ler∣ned bishops of that Councell saied. Sacerdotes de laicis iudi∣care debent, non laici de sacerdotibus. Priestes ought to Iudge of the laye, not the laye of the Priestes. And bicause that hereti∣ke Palladius persisted yet in his request, that the laye men off worship shoulde enter and be a parte of the Councell, S. Am∣brose without any farder busynes, pronounced out of hande the Sentence against him (whiche the whole Councell folo∣wed) in these wordes. Though Palladius hath bene taken in ma∣ny faultes, y••t this m••k••th vs ashamed that he which goeth for a Priest, shoulde seme to be condemned of the laye? And ther••fore bi∣cause euen for this pointe he is to be condemn••d, that looketh for the Iudgement or S••ntence of the Laye men, whereas rather Priestes ought to Iudge ouer the Laye, according to those thinges as we haue hearde this daye Palladius to speake, and for other thinges whiche he woulde not reuoke, I pronounce him vnworthy of priesthood, and to be deposed, and that some Catholike man be Ordred in his place. Thus

the lerned and godly Fathers in those dayes dealed with such which woulde from bishops appeale to the Ciuill magistrat. In like maner Dioscorus the Eutychian required in the Chal∣cedon Councell, to haue the temporall magistrat to be a par∣te of the Councell at their Examinations. but Cecropius a Ca∣tholike bishop answered him for the Councell in these wor∣des: Quando quaedam regularia examinatur, neque Iudices neque alios aliquos laicos interesse oportet, nisi tantummodo tuam sanctita∣tem que in propria persona accusatur. When any thinges tou∣ching the Canons are examined, neither Iudges neither any other of the laye ought to be present, but only your holynesse, whose proper person is here accused. Thus in matter mere ec∣clesiasticall the Godly Fathers and Catholike bishops of tho∣se dayes admitted not att any time the laye Prince or Magi∣strat to the hearing and determining thereof. Only heretikes, the donatistes, the Arrians, the Eutichians and such like haue so done. Beware M. Iewell left in defending this your ab∣surde Principle so iust concurring with the humour off olde heretikes, and so directly repugnant to the Catholike and ler∣ned Fathers, S. Augustin, S. Ambrose, Athanasius, S. Grego∣ry, and the Fathers of the Councelles of Millenitum, of Aqui∣leia, and of Chalcedon, you proue your selfe to be of a cousy∣nage to the one, and no true childe off the other. Thus much of your first principle. Nowe to your seconde.

[Iewell.] * 1.599As touching the Bishopp of Romes power herein, it is certain, he hearde such matters of Appeale by warrant of the Emperours Com∣mission, and not as hauing Authorite of him selfe.

This is certainely a lewde and a lowde lie. Athanasius, Pau∣lus Asclepas, Marcellus, Lucius and diuers other godly bishops Appealed to Iulius the bishop of Rome, and yet had al of them the Emperour Constantius expressely against them, Chry∣sostom appealed to Innocentius the Pope, and yet had Arca∣dius then Emperour directly against him, so that the Pope

was driuen att the length to excommunicat that Emperour. Flauianus an other Patriarche of Constantinople appealed to Pope Leo, though Theodosius toke the parte of Dioscorus his aduersary. Theodoretus in like maner to the same Pope appe∣aled, though the Emperour of the East vpholded the faction of Dioscorus and Maximus of Antioche by whom that lerned Father was iniured.* 1.600 Iohn Talaida the Patriarke of Alexandria being remoued from his bishopricke by Zeno the Emperour, and Petrus Moggus intruded in his place Romanum Pontificem Simplicium appellauit, sicut & beatus fecit Athanasius, ppealed vnto Simplicius bishop of Rome, as his predecessour blessed Athanasius had done before him saieth Liberatus. These ma∣ny therefore of the greatest Patriarches and of right lerned Fa∣thers Athanasius, S. Chrysostom, and Theodoretus appealing all to the bishop of Rome not only beside the Emperours warrant, but euen directly against the Emperours wil and plea∣sure: how can M. Iewelles principle possibly be true, that bi∣shops of Rome hearde such matters of Appeale by warrant of the Emperours Commission? Yet let vs beholde his prou∣fes.

[Iewell.] S. Augustine opening the Contention betwene Caecilianus and Do∣natus a Casis nigris, vttereth this matter it large in wise. But should not the bishop of Rome Meltiades &c.

[Stapleton] This is al in the worlde that M. Iewel hath to proue his Ge∣neral Principle true, this one only example I saie of that rude and outragious heretike Donatus. How is so doing was liked of S. Augustin and of Optatus, and with what confidence that good Emperour dealed therein, it hath euen nowe bene declared. Were M, Iewelles cause good he would bringe better examples and more copie of them. But as Vna hirundo non fa∣cit ver, so one example maketh no lawe. Againe al that being done only to satisfie and quyet, if it were possible, the most ou∣tragious and harebrayne stomaches of the Donatistes, only

Bono Pacis, for the loue and Zeale of Vnite of that godly and zelous Emperour Constantin, it must not be drawen to make a generall rule and Principle, but with such as wil take presidēt of heretikes doinges. If you do soe M. Iewell, I can but wishe you a better minde. Verely the examples of Catholike bishops aboue named, so many, so lerned, of such great Authorite in the Churche of Christ, which practised the Contrary, which ap∣pealed to the bishops of Rome not only beside the warrant, but euen against the Emperours will and pleasure: may and ought with much more reason serue to builde a con∣trary rule and Principle vpon. Yet you vpon this Only beg∣garly example of that Outragious heretike so much misliked of the Emperour him selfe, of the lerned Fathers Optatus and S. Augustin, and of all the Posterite sence, as the like thereof hath not bene Practised but by heretikes and schismatikes, cō∣clude solemnely and saie.

[Iewell.] * 1.601Here is euident to be sene that bishopp of Rome was the Em∣perours delegate, and in Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction had his Authorite, not from S. Peter, but from the Emperour.

With what face speake you this M. Iewell, or speake you it with any Face at all? Howe woulde you Conclude and Triū∣phe if you had copie of examples, and that of Catholike bi∣shops, yea and the most lerned Fathers of Christes Churche (such as I haue brought you to the contrary) which do so mightely conclude and so royally triumphe, of One wretched example, done by One desperat Heretike, myslyked by the Em¦perour him selfe, and by other godly Fathers beside, Optatus and S. Augustin by name? But bolde affeueration maketh no proufe. And you knowe M. Iewell, greate vessels be not alwa∣ies full: but the emptyer they be, the more they soūde. The wi∣se and discrete Reader will be weighed with Reason, and not with talke. And it must sone be concluded, that can but light∣ly be proued. Your Reporte of Pope Clemens, bicause you

speake it without booke, only vpō Reporte, I let passe. Eadem facilitate negatur, qua asseritur.

[Iewell.] Neither was the Bishoppe of Romes determination of such force,* 1.602 but that it was lawfull then for the party greued, to refuse his Iudge∣ment, and to Appeale further.

[Stapletō.] This is M. Iewelles thirde Principle. Beholde how substan∣tially he proueth it.

[Iewell.] * 1.603And therefore Donatus being condemned before Meltiades appea∣led from him, and vpon his complainte vnto the Emperour, w••s put ouer vnto the bishop off Arle in Fraunce, and to certain others. And in Conclusion, vnderstanding, that iudgement there would pas∣se against him, last of all he appealed to the Emperours owne person. And the Emperour him selfe confesseth by his letters that he sate in Iudgement and hearde bothe parties.

[Stapletō.] Phy on heresy, phy vpon wilfull blindnesse. One desperat Acte of One furious heretike Donatus by name must serue M. Iewell to builde Three Greate Conclusions and Principles vpon. Donatus did all this. But the Emperour called it Rabi∣damfurioris Audaciam. A desperat Rage and Fury. M. Iewell calleth it a Lawfull Appeale.* 1.604 After the bishop of Romes Iud∣gement, the Emperour graunted to Donatus yet an other, S. Angustin saieth. Non quia iam nec••sse erat,* 1.605 sed eorum peruersita∣tibus cedens & omnimodo cupiens tantam impudentiam cohibere. Not bicause that was nedefull, but bicause that the good Em∣perour yelded to their extreme frowardnesse, and desired by al meanes to ouercome their passing outragyousnesse. M. Iewell buildeth vpon this fact a Principle that all men might lawfully Appeale from the Pope to the Emperour. Constantin satt in Iudgement, and heard bothe parties him self. S. Augustin saieth A Sāctis Antistibus postea veniam petiturus, Minding to aske par¦dō therfor afterward of the holy bishops. M. Iewel saith it was well and Lawfully done, and so it should be. And this is he for∣soth, which wil yelde to any One Sentēce of any One Father or Doctour, in a nūber of Articles, O M. Iewel. If you meane

plainly, if you will in dede yelde to the Fathers, why make you a grounde of Doctrine vpon such a facte as by their Iudge∣ment is so detested and abhorred? You offred your Reader a Feast of three faire dishes. But all is moued to a Calues toun∣ge, diuersly dreste. All is the desperat fact of one outragyous he∣retike. Your Arte is good. But Alas you w••nte Matter, For be∣holde, Of so weake proufe, what a stronge Conclusion you make.

[Iewell.] * 1.606Nowe if receiuing Appeales necessarely importe this Vniuersall Power, then was the Emperours powre Vniuersall. For he receiued All appeales, out of all Countres vvithout exce∣ption, and that euen in Causes ecclesiasticall.

Loe. Of one desperat facte, Of One Rabida furoris Auda∣cia, One presumptuous fury, M. Iewell concludeth All Ap∣peales out of all Countres vvithout exception. I can saye no more. But a whetston, a whetston for you.

[Iewell.] * 1.607Againe, then was the bishop of Romes power not Vniuersall, for it was lawfull then to refuse him, and to Appeale to some other.

Lese nothinge I pray you, Conclude apase and as mighte∣ly as you can. What M, Iewell? Thinke you to outface vs with ioyly bragges and greate vauntes, as if ye were playing at po∣ste, and shoulde winne all by vyeing? No M. Iewell. You maye not so dor vs. * 1.608Your single solde facte of One desperat hereti∣ke, maye not conclude a Threefolde Principle and an Vniuer∣sall Proufe for all Catholikes to folowe. If you like such presi∣dents, folowe them. we like them not, we defye them. They are the enemies of Gods peace, the Cancre of Christen common welthes, the poyson of our soules. We haue better presidents, lerned Fathers, Catholike bishops and holy Councels to folo∣we bothe in making Appeales to Rome, and in refusing of all Appeales to the Ciuill magistrat, as it hath in this Conflict at large bene proued, Nowe you make an ende.

[Iewell.] * 1.609And this M. Hardinges reasons renne roundely against him.

Thus M. Iewelles proufes haue all failed him. His threefol∣de Assaulte in Conclusion hath proued but single solde.

Hitherto of Appeales from the chiefest Patriarkes of the worlde to the See of Rome, whereby the Superiorite and Pri∣macy of that See ouer all Churches is vnuincibly proued. All that M. Iewell coulde possibly deuise to saie against it, is an∣swered, I trust, sufficiently. God graunte my small labour may edifye, and helpe to bringe vs to the dewe Obedience of Chri¦stes vicair here on earthe, without the which we shall neuer see ende of heresyes, schismes, and dissension.

[Harding.] The speciall grace and singular priuilege (of the Chur∣che of Rome neuer to faile in the faithe) is to be imputed vn∣to the praier of Christ, by which he obteined of God for Pe∣ter and his successours (108) that their faith shoulde not faile.

[Iewell.] * 1.610The .108. Vntruthe. For many Popes haue erred faithe as shal ap∣peare.

Then it behoueth vs to answer to the reasons, and argu∣mentes, by which you will persuade that it will so appeare. First you alleage three places out of the prophets, wickedly and notoriously wrested and wrethed, as it hath before bene declared in the 105. Vntruthe, where you drawe vs to this com∣mon place of holy scriptures by you wrested and wrethed from their due and right meaning. And truly to this purpose they make nothinge: Vnlesse M. Iewell will frame his reasons after this sorte. Micheas saied that the priestes and Prophetes being wicked rested them selues vpon the Lorde. Hieremy sa∣ieth of the priestes and of the elders that they had a confiden∣ce in their Councell and lawe as though it shoulde neuer fai∣le. Item Micheas againe saieth, that the priestes of the Ie∣wes should haue night and darkenesse in stede of their visi∣ons and prophecies. Ergo many Popes haue erred in the fai∣the.

Who euer made any such argumentes in any schole? what, will M. Iewell make folcke beleue that Micheas and Hieremy the prophets haue writen in their prophecies that many Popes haue erred in the saithe? [Iewell.] * 1.611 Or doth M. Iewell thinke that these reasons must be taken bicause he speaketh the worde? But he will saie. Micheas an hieremy do tell vs that the priestes did a∣misse, and yet craked that they coulde not be deceiued. We de∣nie it not. But did they speake any thinge of the Popes of Ro∣me, did they testifie so longe before that they should erre in the faithe? why maie we not thinke rather that Micheas rebu∣ked the proude priestes, and foretolde of the fall of their Syna∣goge, and of their blindnesse they should be in at the coming of the Messias. And that Hieremy rebuked their vices, not the∣ir belefe,* 1.612 their conspiracy to destroye him (as he did in dede) not any Councell of theirs touching the obseruation of Moy∣ses lawes? Thus M. Iewell wresteth and wretheth holy Scriptu¦re at his preasure.

[Iewell.] Certainely the very glose vpon the decretalles putteth this Matter vtterly out of doubte. These be the wordes: It is certaine that the pope may erre. And Alphonsus saieth. Euery man may erre in the faith, yea although it be the Pope.

[Stapletō.] You knowe well, M. Iewell, it is not auouched by D. Har∣dinge, neither defended by the Catholikes, that the Pope in his owne person, and as a priuat man, can not possibly erre. For so we saie with the decretalles and with Alphonsus to,* 1.613 that the Pope may erre and hath erred bothe in faithe and in maners, touching his owne priuat person. But the thinge which is here auouched by D. Harding and which is by vs defended, is that the Pope as the Head of the Churche can neuer erre, that is, he can neuer decree any thinge erroneous or contrary to the faythe, he can neuer deliuer any false doctrine to the Churche contrary to the faithe. You knowe M. Iewell by the debating of this controuersie amonge the lerned of this

age, as well on your side, as amonge the Catholikes, this to be the State of the question. For so the faithe of Peter was prayed for not only for the person of Peter (in whom it was very weake, when he denied Christ, euen after that praier made) but for the whole Churche committed to Peter. This is the State of the question. Now to your Proufes.

Alphonsus de Castro saieth. It is certain that Liberius was an Arrian.* 1.614

By Theodoretus and Athanasius better Authors then is Al∣phonsus, it is certain he was banished two yeres for nott yel∣ding to the Arrians and resisted also the Emperour Constan∣tius face to face in defence of the Catholike faithe, against the Arrian heresy. Of h••s yelding afterwarde though Athanasius do mention, yet he excuseth him expressely for no Arrrian. And certain it is he neuer decreed for the Arrian heresy.

[Iewell.] Pope Honorius was an heretike,* 1.615 off the secte of them which were called Monothelite, condemned for the same in the sixt Councel hol∣den at Constantinople.

[Stapleton.] That Councell in dede as it is nowe sette forthe, Dothe recken Honorius the Pope of Rome amonge other bishopps condemned for that heresy. But Bloudus, Aeneas Syluius, Sabellicus Platina do reporte that this Pope Honorius was the first that condemned the same heresy. That also by the meanes of this Pope, Heraclius the Emperour being fallen in to that heresy was reduced to the Catholike faithe, and persuaded to bannish one Pyrrhus by whom he had ben seduced into Afri∣ca. Therefore as this very sixte Councell of Constantinople confesseth that the Actes of the fifte general councel had bene corrupted by heretikes, yea and epistles forged in the name of Vigilius the Pope vnto Menna the bishop of Constantinople and againe of Menna to Vigilius, in defence of that same he∣resy of the Monothelites: so it may seme this sixt Councell hath bene by the grecians corrupted ••nd the name of Hono∣rius the Pope thrust in among other bishops. And this to haue

ben the maner of the grecians to faine writinges of Popes off Rome, or to corrupt thē with heresies, it appeareth wel by the complainte off Pope Nicolas the first in his a 1.616 epistle to Mi∣chael the Emperour, of b 1.617 Athanasius in the 8. Synod. of c 1.618 leo the first in his letters to the bishopp of Palestina, and in d 1.619 S. Gregory. in his letters to Narses. But an vnuincible argument that Honorius the Pope was no heretike nor condemned in that Councell, are the wordes of Agatho the Pope, whose le∣gates were president att that Councell, the wordes I saie off his epistle sent to the Councel, and read in the Councel, whe∣re he hath these wordes.* 1.620 Hec est verae fidei regula, quam & in prosperis & aduersis viuaciter tenuit Apostolica Christi ecclesia, que per Dei gratiam a tramite Apostolicae traditionis nunquam errasse probabitur nec hereticis nouitatibus deprauata succubuit, quia di∣ctum est Petro.* 1.621 Ego pro te rogaui vt non deficiat fides tua: & tu a∣liquando conuersus confirma fratres tuos. Hic dominus fidem Petri non defuturam promisit, & confirmare eum fratres suos admonuit, quod Apostolicos pontifices meae exiguitatis predecessores confiden∣ter fecisse semper cunctis est cognitum.

This is the rule of the right faithe, whiche the Apostolike Churche of Christ hath earnestly defended bothe in prospe∣rite and in aduersite, which also by the grace of God shall ne∣uer be found to straie from the pathe of Apostolike tradition, neither hath yet yelded to hereticall nouelties. Bicause it was saied to Peter.* 1.622 I haue praied for thee Peter, that thy faithe shall not faile. And thou being sometime conuerted Confir∣me they bretherne. Here our lorde hath promised that the faithe of Peter shoulde not faile, and our Lorde here comma∣unded him to confirme his bretherne. Which the Apostolike bishops my predecessours to haue allwaies earnestly done, it is knowen to all men. Thus Farre Agatho the Pope in that epistle sent to the Sixt generall Councell, read in that Coun∣cell,

and allowed by their commom consent all crying, in ea per Agathonem Petrum loqui, that Peter speake in that letter by the mouthe of Agatho. Nowe howe is it possible that Hono∣rius the Pope who liued not three score yeares before that ty∣me,* 1.623 shoulde there presently haue bene condemned for an here∣tike, and yet the epistle of Agatho then Pope, auouching con∣stantly that none of his predecessours euer were heretikes, be allowed for Catholike. Therefore vndoubtedly either that Councell is nowe corrupted, as the fifte general Councell was by heretikes, or els Honorius was condemned not as Pope, nor as decreeing and defending that heresy by publike autho∣rite, but as holding that hereticall opinion by him selfe, and as vttering the same in his letters to Sergius of Constantinople. And then Honorius was in dede condemned there for an he∣retike, but not the Pope: Els Pope Agatho had most impudēt∣ly abused the Councell, and the Councel no lesse wickedly dis∣sembled his falshood, when bothe he auouched that none of his predecessours had bene heretikes, and that his auouching the Councel allowed. Hereunto may be added that Photius the bi∣shop of Constantinople, writing of the seuen generall Coun∣celles, and reakoning vp al that were in those Councelles con∣demned, maketh no mencion at all of this Honorius Pope off Rome.* 1.624 And thus farre it appeareth that the example of Hono∣rius dothe nothinge weaken the praier off Christ, praying for Peters faithe neuer to faile, either in him or his successours.

[Iewell.] Pope Marcellinus openly made Sacrifice vnto an Idole.

[Stapletō.] So S. Peter denied Christ, euen after Christ had praied for him that his faithe should not faile. But as Peter notwithstan∣ding suffred after Martyrdome for Christes name, so did this Marcellinus also suffer Martyrdome euen by that Emperour Diocletian, by whom he had bene before constrayned for fea∣re of deathe to commit Idolatry. And againe S. Peter is not

saied to haue erred in the faithe, or to haue loste his degree of Apostleship bicause for feare of deathe he denyed Christ, and by penaunce recouered againe, so neither can Marcellius be sa∣ied to haue erred in the faithe or to haue corrupted the succes∣sion of Christes Vicaires, seing he repented of his wickednesse and suffred afterwarde Martyrdome in that cause. But suche is the good will of M. Iewell to the See of Rome, from which we englishmen receiued our first faithe and baptisme, that he omitteth no one Pope that did amisse, that so he may disgrace that successyon. And truly if such exceptions may be heard, M. Iewell may proue that S. Peter also lost his Apostleship, and er∣red in the faithe.

[Iewell.] * 1.625Pope Iohn the .22. helde a wicked heresie against the immortalite of the soule.

[Stapleton] This is a wicked blasphemy of Iohn Iewell against Pope Iohn, of a protestant against Christes Vicaire, of an heretike superintendent, against a Catholike bishop. He helde no opi∣nion against the immortalite of the soule. It is a slaunderous lie. He helde opinion (and that before he was Pope) that the soules of the iust see not God vntill the daye of Iudgement.* 1.626 This opinion was holden of diuers lerned men, as of Ireneus, Chrysostom and S. Bernarde before the matter was defined to the contrary, and yet were not accompted therefore here∣tikes. Neither did Pope Iohn euer decree that matter, but before he coulde bringe it to passe, was preuented by deathe. But if that opinion M. Iewel be a wicked heresy tou∣ching the immortalite of the soule, how many your brethern do preache at this day a wicked heresy in our countre, while they preache openly that the soule slepeth vntill the daye off general Iudgement. That is a wicked heresy in dede M. Iewel, not of Pope Iohn, but of Protestant preachers.

* 1.627Pope Syluester the .2. was a sorcerer, and had familiar conference with the Diuell, and by his procurement was made Pope.

[Stapleton] Then was he a naughty man. But what is this to the faithe of the Churche? Luther had familiar conference with the Di∣uell, and by his procurement was made an enemy to the Mas∣se, and so became the Pope off protestants. This is no fable M. Iewell. Luthers owne booke yet extant entituled De Missa an∣gulari & vnctione sacerdotali reporteth it. And wil you prono∣unce Luther an heretike? Truly iff you will saie with your Sa∣ramentary brethern off Zurich, you must not only pronoun∣ce him an heretike, but also an Archeheretike, yea and saie also that the Diuell spake in Luther. For so they saie and write to.* 1.628 Touching Syluester as he was a naughty man, so he repented at the ende. It is writen off him that in his laste will he com∣maunded his body to be layed in a Coche and to be buryed there, where so euer the horses should carye it: beseching God thereby to shewe some signe thereby off his state after this life. It was so done as he willed. The horses of their owne accorde caryed his body in to the great Churche off S. Iohn Lateran, where it lyeth buried at this Day, as his toumbe there yet to be sene witnesseth. And the Author hereof Pla∣tina, is of a good credit as Holcot the schooleman whom M. Iewell alleageth.

[Iewell.] Pope Athanasius communicated with Photinus the heretike,* 1.629 and therefore was foresaken of his clergy.

[Stapleton] This is a fable of Gratian, grounded vpon no good autho∣rite or truthe. He saieth also in the same place that he would haue restored to the Churche Acacius the heretike before con¦demned. But all this to be false, his epistle to Anastasius the Emperour conuincethe, in the which he willeth expressely that Acacius be not so much as named of Christen people. He that condemned Acacius the bishop, woulde he trowe we cōmunicate with Photinus the deacon being of the same here∣sy that Acacius was, and communicating with Acacius? M. Ie∣well to proue suche weighty matters, shoulde bringe more

weighty proufes, and not so hunte like a wanton Spanyel, and range at ryot, and beate vp butterflies.

[Iewell.] * 1.630Pope H••ldebrande that first of all others in these countries fore∣badde the lawfull mariages of priestes &c.

I thinke it be natural for M. Iewel allwaies to reporte thin∣ges v••truly. As for mariage of priestes, being priesstes and after holy orders taken, it was neuer laufull neither before Hilde∣brandes time neither sithons in the Churche of Christ. You shoulde haue made that one of your Articles M. Iewell, and so haue tried what coulde haue bene saied therein. Nowe for you to droppe lies by the waie, and to saie so only, it shall be enou∣ghe to answer you with saying the contrary, and by the waie to note you a lyer. Howbeit what may be saied herein I haue so¦mewhat touched otherwhere. But what was this Pope Hilde∣brande? M. Iewell saieth.

* 1.631Bothe for his life and also for his Religion he is set out at large in a (431.) Councell holden at Brixia, where he is called and published to the worlde, to be a vitious man, a burner of houses, a Robber of Chur¦ches, a maintainer of murders and periuries, an (432.) heretike against the Apostolike doctrine, the olde disciple of Berengarius.

Then M. Iewell is an heretike against the Apostolike do∣ctrine for he is a disciple of Berengarius, and defendeth stou∣tely the opinion of Berengarius in this his Replie, the fifte Ar∣ticle.

* 1.632A Sorcerer, a Necromancer, a man possest with the diuel, and there∣fore out of the Catholike faith.

This Councell of Brixia that M. Iewell alleageth, is not to be founde in the tomes of the Councelles. It was a conuēticle of some such as he is him selfe, conspyring against the Pope to flatter the Emperour.* 1.633 Truly this Hildebrande is described of Platina to be a man of great vertue and wisedome. He was chosen Pope by the consent of all good men. He resisted stou∣tely the wicked attemptes of Harry the fourthe Emperour.

He drewe the clergy of Germany especially of Ments frō the∣ir concubines and Harlots. For these causes he was much ha∣ted and much euill spoken of by such as were naught them sel¦ues, and flattered the euill Emperour. Who yet notwithstan∣ding at the lenght repenting his former wickednesse humbled him selfe to this Pope, and was by him absolued. As for heresy or any such cancred matter as M. Iewell hath here heaped vp, no approued Author chargeth him withall.

[Iewell.] The Fathers in the Councell of Basile saye. We reade that many bi∣shoppes of Rome haue fallen in to errours and heresyes.

[Stapleton] Yet those Fathers saye not that euer any Pope decreed any heresy. Their office not their person, their publicke decrees not their priuat opinions are defended. But it is well that M. Ie∣well now calleth them Fathers, when they make for him, then they shall be his Fathers and he will be their childe. But when they make against him, then they are ignorant men and lead a way with the blindnesse of that age, and then he will ra∣ther be a bastard of Luthers broode, then a childe of the Ca∣tholike Fathers. So Bernarde shall be holy S. Bernarde when he declaimeth against the vices of Rome: but when he calleth the Pope for powre Peter,* 1.634 for his annoynting Christ the pa∣stour of all pastours, and one to whom alone the whole floc∣ke••s is committed, then he is Bernard the Abbat. Likewise S. Gre∣gory, when he rebuketh the proude title of Vniuersall bishop in Iohn of Constantinople, then he is holy S. Gregory. But when he writeth of Saintes liues, and of purgatory, then he is Father Gregory the dreamer. So Origen must be Olde Father Origen when he speaketh for M. Iew. but when he speaketh for the Catholike faithe,* 1.635 then Origen hath many errours and heresyes. And thus M. Iewell maketh Fathers and Saintes, when and whom it pleaseth him.

And the Bishop of Rome him selfe saieth. Notwithstanding the Pope 〈◊〉〈◊〉

innumerable comp••ines of people by heapes with him in to hell, yet let no mortall m••n once dare to rep••oue him, onlesse it be founde that he straye fr••m the faithe.

This is a flatte lye. The Bishoppe of Rome saieth no suche thinge. They are not the wordes of the Pope. M. Iewell thin∣keth what so euer is writen in the lying libell of one of his bre∣therne intituled. The Protestation off the Pope. That it is cocke sure, and vndoubtedly true. But if M. Iewell had loued the truthe, and tendred his readers Instruction, he woulde ha∣ue looked to the originall and haue seene the wordes bothe whose they were, and what they were. The wordes that M. Iewell alleageth are in the decrees, and in the place by him no∣ted. But they are there reported to be the wordes not of anye Bishop of Rome, but of Bonifacius the Martyr. And the wor∣des do not saye (as M. Iewell reporteth them) Lett no mortall man once dare to reproue him,* 1.636 but: huius culpas istic redarguere prae∣sumit mortalium nullus. No mortall men dothe presume to ••e∣proue his faultes here. declaring thereby rather the obedience of Christen people towarde their Superiour, then commaun∣ding all Christen people to holde their peace. And the reason foloweth. Bicause he must Iudge all men, but he is not to be iudged off any. Which saying of that holy Martyr, if it seme to M. Ie∣wel ouer proude or vniuste, he maye remembre that the who∣le Councell of 3000. bishoppes in Sinuessa in the yeare of our Lorde .300. presumed not to condemne Marcellius the pope hauing sacrificed to Idolles, and being conuicted thereof by the Testimony of .72. witnesses, but after he had condemned him selfe before them all,* 1.637 they confirmed it and saied. I ustè ore suo condemnatus est. Nemo enim vnquam iudicauit Pontificem nec Praesul Sacerdotem suum: quoniam prima sedes non iudicabitur à quoquam. He is condemned iustly by his owne mouthe. For no man at any time iudged the bishoppe, nor the bishoppe his (high) priest. For the chiefe See shall be iudged of no man. No∣we where Bonifacius saieth that he may not be reproued on∣lesse

he be founde to straye from the faith, that dothe importe that a case may happen, when the Pope may erre, but not that the Pope may decree any errour or establish any thing contra∣ry to the faithe.

[Iewell.] To conclude. Nicolaus Lyra is driuen to saie. VVe finde that many Po∣pes haue forsaken the faithe.

[Stapleton] This was a very simple Conclusion that hath no better Authour, then Lyras a frier of late yeares. Let it be true that many Popes haue forsaken the faithe, yea and Christe to, be∣cause of their wicked liues, and hainous dedes. Be it true, that some of them haue had wrounge opinions. Yet M. Iewell hath shewed none that euer decreed any errour or heresy. This is that is auouched by Catholikes. This the Reader looked for. And this M. Iewell shoulde haue proued. Gods name be blis∣sed. M. Iewell hath snott his poison against that holy See, and in the succession of fiftene hundred yeares and vpwarde, amō∣ge the number of two hundred and thirty Popes he hathe not founde one for all his prying and searching that euer decreed any errour or heresy, or that euer deliuered to the Church any doctrine, contrarye to the Faithe. Thus we see: Christes prayer hathe had his effecte, notwithstandinge all the malyce of M. Iewell, and of all other his masters and teachers, against S. Peters chaire.

[Harding.] That the Bishoppe of Rome had allwaies cure and rule ouer all other Bishoppes (109.) specially them of the Easte (for touching them of the VVest Churche it is generally con∣fessed) beside a hundred other euident Argumentes, this is one verye suffieient, that he had in the Easte to doo his stede three delegates or vicaires, nowe commonly they be nam••d Legates. The one was the Bishoppe off Constantinople as

we finde it mentioned In Epistola Simplicij ad Acha∣tium Constantinopolitanum. The seconde was the Bishoppe of Alexandria, as the Epistle of Bonifacius the se∣conde to Eulalius recordeth. The thirde was the Bishoppe off Thessalonica as it is at large declared in the 82. epistle of Leo, Ad Anastasium Thessalonicensem. By peru∣sing these Epistles euerye man maye see that all the Bis∣shoppes off Grece, Asia, Syria, Aegypte, and to be shorte off all the Orient, rendred obedience to the Bishoppe of Rome, & caet.

[Iewell.] * 1.638The .109. Vntruthe. For the bishoppes of the East neuer yelded su∣che subiection to the Pope.

[Stapleton.] What saie you then M. Iewell to three legates of the Pope placed in the Easte. mencioned by D. Hardinge? Did not they yelde subiection to the pope? Are not the Authorityes true and good. The Epistles or Simplicius to the Bishoppe of Con¦stantinople, of Bonifacius the seconde to Eulalius of Alexan∣dria, of Leo that lerned Father to Anastasius of Thessalonica, are they not true Epistles? Are they not incorporated to the volumes of the Councels? Are they not all within the compas¦se of your first 600. yeares? What saye you to them? Why an∣swere you not? Will you euer plaie Aristoteles Asse: Will you euer denie more then Aristotle can proue? Good Reader looke vpon M. Iewelles text vpon this place. Thou shalt see, he answereth nothing to the places. But like an impudēt asse of the countre standeth vpon his deniall, and saieth.

It is not only vntrue, but also vtterly without any shadow or colour of the truthe.

[Iewell.] * 1.639This is boldely auouched. But if M. Iewel bringe any one worde to p••o••e these allegations vntrue, that lett him

be Aristotle, and not the Asse. For you shall see what folo∣weth.

These Authorites of Leo, Symmachus and Bonifacius,* 1.640 for as much as they are alleaged without wordes, may likewise be past ouer with∣out answer.

If they be vntrue, why proue you it not? If they be true, why passe you them ouer without answer? All that you answer is this that foloweth.

[Iewell.] * 1.641Howbeit this Bonifacius the seconde in defence of this quarel is for∣ced to saye, that (.437.) S. Augustin that godly Father, and all other the bishoppes of Aphrica, Numidia, Pentapolis, and other countres ad∣ioyning, that withstoode the (.438.) proude attempt of the bishops off Rome, and founde (.439.) out their open forgerie and falsifying the Nicene Councell, were (.440.) altogether inflamed and lead by the di∣uell.

[Stapleton.] Let vs suppose all this were true. Yet is all this nothinge to the Popes legat in Alexandria, the bishop thereof, as in the epi∣stle of Bonifacius it is mencioned. Vnlesse M. Iewell will rea∣son thus.

Bonifacius condemned the Bishops of Carthage wrongfully,* 1.642

Ergo the Bishop of Alexandria was not his legate.

But now let vs see how many Vntruthes are couched in the former fewe wordes of M. Iewell. [ 1] First S. Augustin was none of them which wrote the last epistle of the Aphricane Coun∣cell to Celestinus, vpon which M. Iewel groundeth the disco∣uering of the Popes forgerie. His name and subscription is not there. Though in the other epistle to Bonifacius it be. Nei∣ther should his name haue bene left out, being the legat for the whole prouince of Numidia, if he had bene there present. [ 2] A∣gaine there was no proude attempt of the bishop of Rome, but chalenging of that right which bothe the Councell of Nice, and the Councel of Sardica had decreed before. [ 3] Thirdly he committed no forgerie, nor falsified the Nicene Councell, as hath bene before proued. [ 4] Last off all Bonifacius saieth not off

the Aphricane bishops, that they were alltogether inflamed and lead by the diuell, these be the cancred wordes of M. Ie∣wells tendre harte. Only he saieth instigante diabolo. The Diuell pricking them and mouing them thereto. Thus with a messe of Vntruthes and a heape of cancred malitiouslies M. Iewel thin∣keth to answer the places alleaged and to proue them Vntrue, yea and as he saieth, Vtterly without any shadowe or colour off truthe. Which to be a most impudent, shamelesse and desperat outfacing lie, let the wordes them selues proue. Pope Leo wri∣teth thus to Athanasius the bishop of Thessalonica. As my predecessours to your predecessours,* 1.643 so I vnto you (folowing their examples) delegated my roome and Authorite, to thentent that you after the example of our discretion might helpe that which we owe vnto all Churches principally by Gods institution, and that you might supplie the presence of our visitation in the prouinces farre di∣stant from vs. Bicause you being there at hande may readely knowe, what thinges may by your selfes be ended, and what things to our iud¦gement may be reserued. These be the wordes of that lerned and most holy Father Leo so much commended and reueren∣ced in the fourthe Councell of Chalcedon. By these it appea∣reth that not only by Leo but by his predecessours before the Bishop of Thessalonica was the Popes delegat in that par∣te of the East Churche, and in the prouinces adioyning. And therefore the great Councell of Sardica longe before the time off Leo, for the greate resorte off Priestes and Deacons to Thessalonica aboute such suites to the Popes legat,* 1.644 made a decree that suche Priestes and Deacons shoulde make no longe abode in that Citie. In like maner Simplicius writeth to Achatius of Constantinople, wonde∣ring that he had not yet certified him of the state of the Chur∣che of Alexandria,* 1.645 being bothe required Vt participata sollicitu∣dine literas apud principem prosequeretur, & instituti veteris memor in orthodoxorum defensionem semper incumberet, that taking parte

of his care and charge he would promote his letters to the Prin¦ce, and also remembring his olde office, should emplie him self allwaies to the defence of the Catholikes. Bonifacius the se∣cond certifying Eulalius bishop of Alexandria of the reconci∣liation of the Aphricanes saieth. Vota nostra charitatem tuam la∣tere nolumus, ne qui particeps fuit sollicitudinis, gaudiorum fructus reddatur extorris. We will not conceale from you our good ty∣dinges, lest that he which taketh part of our charge, may seme to lacke parte off our ioye and coumfort. Thus as Leo calleth Anastasius his legat in Thessalonica, a helper off his vniuer∣sall charge, so Simplicius and Bonifacius do call the bishoppes off Alexandria and Constantinople Sollicitudinis particepes the partakners off their Vniuersall charge, as being their legates in that parte of the worlde.

And thus farre it is proued that the bishoppes of the East were subiect vnto the Bishoppe of Rome. Whiche also by that which before hath bene saied, touching the Appeales of Atha∣nasius bishop of Alexandria, of S. Chrysostom bishop of Con∣stantinople, and of Theodoret bishop of Cyrus. Also of Fla∣uianus an other patriarche of Constantinople, of Iohn Talai∣da a Patriarche of Alexandria, of Paulus, Marcellus, Asclepas, Lucianus and diuers others, al bishops in the East Church, do∣the appeare clerely and sufficiently proued. Yet M. Iewell e∣uer better able to appose and make obiections against a truthe, then to answere to the proufes brought for the truthe, that is, as one that is full off doubtes, but resolued in nothinge, euer lerning (as S. Paule saieth) but neuer attaining to knowleadge,* 1.646 and more expert in reprouing the Catholikes, then in confir∣ming his owne positiue opinion, (as S. Augustin noteth of the Manichees) though he coulde not answere to the place allea∣ged,* 1.647 yet he can saie somewhat against the position. Thus he saieth.

[Iewell.] What dutye the Bishoppes off the Easte parte owed to the bishopp

off Rome, whosoeuer hathe reade and considered the storye and the practise off the tymes, maye soone perceiue. First the Coun∣cell of Nice, appointed euerye off the three Patriarches his seuerall charge, none of them to interrupte or trouble the other. And wil∣led the Bishoppe off Rome as Ruffinus reporteth the storye, to ouer∣see Ecclesias suburbanas, whiche were the Churches within his pro∣uince.

[Stapleton.] * 1.648Howe this is to be vnderstanded, I haue before spoken in parte, but more largely you may reade in the Confutation off your Apologie. Such common obiections must haue a cōmon solution.

[Iewell.] And therefore Athanasius calleth Rome the chiefe or mother Chur¦che of Romain Iurisdiction.

[Stapleton.] * 1.649This therefore foloweth not. Athanasius in that place tal∣king of the persecution of pope Liberius by the Arrians, ex∣aggerating their wickednesse saieth. Th••y spared not so muche as Liberius the Bishoppe of Rome, hauing no reuerence of him, n••ith••r as it was the Apostolicall See, nor b••cause Rome was the chiefe Citie off the Romain Iurisdiction. By this disiunctiue proposition, ma∣king a distinction betwene the Apostolicall See, and the Citie of Rome, it semeth Athanasius tooke not there the worde Me¦tropolis, for Mother Churche as M. Iewell hath translated, but for the chiefe or head Citie. Otherwise if M. Iewel wil in good earnest haue Rome to be the chiefe and Mother Churche off the Romain Iurisdiction by the verdit of Athanasius, then not only the Romain Dyocese or prouince, but all Aegypte, and Grece, all the East Church, being at that tyme of the Romain Iurisdiction, as all subiect to the Emperour of Rome Constan¦tius, shall be subiect to the See of Rome as being the Chiefe and Mother Churche of them all by Athanasius his witnesse and by the Confession of M. Iewell.* 1.650 And truly that Athana∣sius bishoppe of Alexandria in Aegypt was subiect to the bis∣shoppe of Rome, it appeareth well bothe by that Athanasius being cited thither by Iulius the Pope appeared there and ple∣aded

his cause, and was restored by the Popes letters vnto hys bishopricke, and also by his Appeale to Rome the second time, through the often persecutions of the Arrians.

[Iewell.] * 1.651And for that cause the Bisshoppes of the Easte in their Epistle vnto Iulius call hym theyr felowe Seru••unte, And Cyrillus the Bis∣shop of Alexandria, writing vnto Celestinus, calleth him his brother. Felowes and Brothers be titles (.441.) off equalite, and not of sub∣iection.

[Stapleton.] Well reasoned and like a diuine. Christe our Sauiour in the gospell calleth the Apostles his brethern, euen after his Resur∣rection and Glorification. But what then M. Iewell? Was not Christ therefore their head? See what blasphemies your maner of reasoning inferreth. Agayine you are driuen in the ende off this Article to confesse, that Peter was head of the Apostles. Yet Christ saied to him: Thou being conuerted confirme thy bre∣therne. By this example of Christ our Sauiour, the pope bothe then and now writing vnto all bishops, calleth them, Fratres, Collegas, Consacerdotes, brethern, felowe bishops, felowe pristes. The Metropolitane writing to a bishop of his prouince, the bishop writing to a priest, vseth the same title. And all this ac∣cording to the commaundement of Christ. He that is greatest amonge you, shall be as the lest. The meanest priest and the Pope him selfe in office of Priesthood are equall. In Iurisdiction the one is subiect to the other. Therefor of the Office they are cal∣led brethern, felowe priestes, felowe bishops and so forth. Saint Augustine, writing to S. Hierom a priest, calleth him brother. What then? Be Bishoppes and Priestes equall in Iurisdiction and authoritye? Celestinus writing to Cyrillus calleth hym brother, and yet was Cyrillus his legat in the Ephesine Coun∣cell. A thousand suche examples might be brought. Lo••ke in all Councelles, in al the Epistles of Bishoppes to their Me∣tropolitanes, or to their priestes of theyr Dyoceses, you sh••ll finde them all called brethern. And yet one is vnder the o∣ther

and an order is to be kepte accordinge to the Canons. You Master Iewell when you write to any prieste off Salis∣bery Dyocese, where you beare youre selfe for a Bishoppe, cal you not them brethern? If you do not, then write you mo∣re stately then true bishops doe or euer haue done: if you do, is not therefore the priest vnder his bishop? I am ashamed to stande so longe vpon such balde peuish argumentes of M. Ie∣wels. But it is easy to be sene what store of good proufes he hath which vseth so ofte such a begarly shifte.

[Iewell.] * 1.652Certaine it is that (442) sundrie the bishops of Rome beganne very rathe to seke this preeminence, euen with manifest forgerie, and cor∣ruption of councels, as is already proued, but the bishops of other co∣untries neuer yelded to them, nor vnderstode these vaine titles.

Certaine it is that M. Iewell hath slaundred the bishops of Rome, farre within his first .600. yeres, euen of the primi∣tiue Churche, most impudently, as it hath ben already proued. Certaine it is that all other countries hath yelded to the See of Rome not vpon titles or termes, but of true obedience as to Christes Vicaire in causes of weighty importaunce.

[Iewell.] * 1.653The bishops of the East writing vnto Iulius, allege that the faithe that then was in Rome came first from them.

They were Arrians, they lyed in so saying. And M. Iewell hath encreased there lie, by saying (the faiethe that then was) for no such wordes are in their epistle.

[Iewell.] * 1.654And that the••r Churches (as Sozomenus writeth) ought not to be ac∣compted in••e••iour to t••e Churche of Rome: and as Socrates further reporteth, that thy ought not to be o••d••ed by the Roma•••• bishop.

[Stapleton.] You doe the deuill good seruice M. Iewell. You take part with the Arrian heretikes, cursed and detestable blasphemers of the godhead of our Sauiour Iesus Christ. You forsake that lerned and holy Father Athanasius of Alexandria, Paulus of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra, Asclepas of Gaza, Lu∣cius

of Adrianopolis, that famous father Osius of Corduba, and an infinit number of other Catholike bishops of Thracia, Celosyria, Phenicia, Palestina, which all fled to Rome, were subiecte to the Pope, acknowledged his supreme authorite, (quoniam (as Sozomenus writeth) propter Sedis dignitatē, omnium ad ipsum cura pertinebat. Bicause for the prerogatiue of his See,* 1.655 the Charge of them all appertayned to him) and they all were persecuted by the Arrians, were thrust out of their bishoppric∣kes: all these you forsake vtterly, and ioyne to those wicked and detestable Arrians, who beside their blasphemous heresies expelled all good Catholike bishops, and defyed the Pope for taking part and vpholding the Catholike bishops. You haue an eye to the wicked doinges of heretikes, you builde vpon the disobedience of the Donatistes, who appealed from the Pope to the Emperour, and make thereof an argument (o passing impudency) that the Emperour was aboue the Pope:* 1.656 whe∣reas yet the Emperour extremely offended with that barba∣rous fury of those Donatistes, when they appealed to him cri∣ed out in a great rage. O rabida furoris audacia,* 1.657 sicut in causis gen∣tilium fierit solet appellationem interposuerunt. O desperat and fu∣rious rage. They appeale to me, like as Pagans and infidelles do. To these barbarous Donatistes, to these heathenish Appea∣les, to these blasphemous Arrians M. Iewel casteth his eye, the∣ir doinges he beholdeth, them he liketh, them he embraceth. Their furious disobedience he taketh for a paterne of right. But what did Iulius the Pope answer to that impudent and hereticall disobedience of theirs? I wishe thee gentle Reader if thou be lerned to peruse the answer of Pope Iulius as it is re∣ported of Athanasius him selfe in his seconde Apologie. He answereth with faire wordes, with great hūblenesse, lernedly, mekely, and with such and so farre yelding, that M. Iewell hath gone about with certain of his sentences picked out of that e∣pistle, to proue by the Popes owne wordes that he had no au∣thorite

ouer the bishops of ••he East. The wordes thou hast se∣ne before alleaged by M. Iewell, and by other wordes of that Epistle in that place answered. Thither I referre thee gentle Reader for better consideration of his whole demeanour of the Arrian Bishops of the East with Pope Iulius. Verely there thou shalt see, that notwithstanding the proude disobedien∣ce of the Arrians, whose part M. Iewell taketh, that yet the See of Rome bothe by custome and by Canon or decree chalen∣ged them of their duty, which the Catholike bishops of the E∣ast, Athanasius and his felowes, gladly yelded to and acknow∣leadged. I can saie no more herein M. Iewel, but if you wil ne∣des claime by heretikes, that you be taken for such.

[Iewell.] * 1.658Gennadius the bishop of Constantinople together with the Coun∣cel there, thus writeth vnto the bishop of Rome. Cu••et sanctitas tua Vni∣uersas custo••ias tuas, ••ibique su••iectos Epis••opos. Let thy holynesse see vnto thine ow∣ne charge, and vnto the bishops appointed vnto the.

Gennadius speaketh not as M. Iewel maketh him to speake. He is by M. Iewell vntruly translated. Thus stande his wordes Let your holynesse see vnto all your charges, and the bishops which a∣re subiect vnto you. The worde vniuersas, all, M. Iewell omitted, and for subiectos (subiect) he readeth appointed, to enduce a cer∣tain limitation of the bishop of Romes Iurisdiction. Thus much we see of M. Iewelles iuggling by his false translation only, but if it had pleased him to haue quoted the place, and to haue tolde vs what Councell it was, or when this Gennadius liued, I doubt not but the very circunstance of the place would haue answered it selfe, and the weakenesse of M. Iewelles prou¦fes woulde the more haue appeared. As for Gennadius, for the space of the first 600. yeres, there was but one of that name bis∣shop of Cōstantinople, soone after the time of the Chalcedon Coūcell,* 1.659 successour to Anatolius, and predecessour to Acacius a man of great vertu, lerning, and holynesse, as it appeareth in Nicephorus and Trithemius. Of him there appeareth no such

writing, neither any Councel to be holden by him or in his ti∣me. If this Gennad••••s therefore be a later writer, he beareth no Authorite in this matter, bicause as all the lerned do knowe, the Churche of Constātinople hath remained in schisme these cer∣tain hundred yeres not only for disobedience to the See of Ro¦me but for diuers other particular heresies,* 1.660 as for denying the proceding of the holy Ghoste from the Sonne, and such other. Beside the Churche of Constantinople as it hath bene twelue times reconciled to the Churche of Rome, so hath it longe and many yeres continewed in schisme vnreconciled. It was there∣fore necessary and conuenient that M. Iewell alleaging the te∣stimony of so suspicious a place, shoulde haue tolde vs when and in what age that Councel was holdē, and where it might be founde. Certainly Chrysostom a lerned and holy Bishopp of Constantinople farre within the first 600. yeres, confesseth that to Peter and to the successours of Peter Christ commit∣ted those shepe which he had redemed with his bloud, al∣so that Peter had the primacy ouer the whole worlde. And for proufe of Supreme Authorite, he appealed him selfe (being one of the greatest Patriarches) to Innocen∣tius the Pope of Rome, as hath before bene declared. So did Flauianus a holy Martyr and Patriarche of Constantino∣ple Appeale to Leo the first.

[Iewell.] * 1.661The Councell of Alexandria committed the visitation and re∣forming of all Churches in the East vnto Asterius. And of all the Churches in the west vnto Eusebius the bishop of Vercellae. By Au∣thorite of which Commission Eusebius togeather with Hilarius visi∣ted and corrected all the Churches of Illyricum, Fraunce and Italy. A man might saie where was then the Vniuersall power of the bishop of Rome.

Nay a man might saie more, if your tale were true M. Ie∣well, where was then the bishop of Rome him selfe? Whe∣re was his priuat iurisdiction, where was his dyocese? Euen now you confessed that bothe by the Nicene Councell and by the testimony of Athanasius, Rome was the fourthe Patriar∣che

of the worlde, and the Chiefe Church of all the Romain I••risdiction. Now what was vnder the bishopp of Romes Iurisdiction, if Italy it selfe were not in the which Rome stan∣deth. * 1.662 Illi••ycum you confesse afterwarde M. Iewell and proue by the Authorite of Damasus that it was a parte of the bishop of Romes iurisdiction. Fraunce if it were not vnde•• the Patri∣arche of Rome, shewe vnder what Patriarche it was. This then if neither Illyricum nor Fraunce, nor Italy it selfe be founde to be s••biect to the See of Rome, if this tale of youres be true M. Iewel, then not only a man might saie where was the vniuersal power of the bishop of Rome then, but also a man might saie where was the power at all? And so M. Iewell to dispro∣ue the Vniuersall Authorite of the bishop of Rome, hath nowe founde a knacke to proue him no bishop at all, no not of Ro∣me it selfe. And verely as well he may conclude the one as the other. But it is not possible for M. Iewell to leaue his lying. For [ 1] first the••e was no commission geuen in that Councell to Cor∣rect the Churches: that is the f••irst Vntruthe. [ 2] Againe that which Hilarius dyd, was not by vertue of that Councell, but of his owne zele and authorite. [ 3] Thirdly all this matter was no re∣formation by waie of commaundement, but a voluntary zele to call home to the Churche, such as by the storme of the Ar∣rians persecution had yelded. These many lies M. Iewell hath committed in so fewe wordes, as it shall now appeare by Ruffi∣nus whom M. Iewell alleageth. At what time Constantius the Arrian Emperour being dead,* 1.663 Iulianus succeding in the Em¦pire not of zele to the faithe, but for ouerthwarting the decrees of Constantius, had called home the bishops from banishment, a number of the good bishops meeting together forthewith (be¦fore they returned to their owne Churches) at Alexandria, too∣ke counsell and aduise together, what order were best to be ta∣ken touching such as in their absence had yelded and subscribed to the Arrians. Some thought good that none of the clergy

should be receiued again to their offices which had subscribed. Other thought better to remoue only the chiefe authors and promoters of the heresy, and to receiue againe all other which would abiure the Arrian heresy and submitt them selues to the decrees of the Fathers. This sentence preuailed, straight waye,* 1.664 ex concilij decreto Asterio caeterisque qui cum eo erant Orientis in∣iungitur p••ocuratio, Occid••ntis verò Eus••bio decernitur. by the de∣cree of the Councell, Asterius and his felowes were commaun∣ded to see vnto the East, and Eusebius to see vnto the west. Now what this commission was, whether it were to Correct by waie of Authorite or no, you shall heare by the wordes of the History in the next chapter folowing.* 1.665 Eusebius circuiens O••i••n∣tem atque Italiam, medici pariter & sacerdotis fungebatur officio. Singulas quasque ecclesias abiurata infidelitate ad sanitate recte fid••i reuocabat. maximè quòd Hilariū regr••ssum iā & in Italia positum hec eadem erga instaurandas ecclesias sedemque patrum repa∣randam reperit molientem. Eusebius (saieth Ruffinus) going aboute all the East and Italy, did the office bothe of a Physitian and of a priest. He called backe euery Churche to the holsome right Faithe, all infidelite being vtterly abiured. Especialy finding Hilarius who was now returned from ban∣nishement and was in Italy labouring in that same matter to the restoring againe of the Churches and of the Catholik fai∣the. This is all that Ruffinus telleth of them. They laboured to reduce men to the Catholike Faithe. They founde Hilarius so doing of his owne heade without any commission. Here was no correcting or visiting by waie of authoritye, but only a zelous labour towarde a reformation, such as Hilarius tooke vpon him without any commission or commaundement, and such as manye a good man woulde perhaps take in our owne countre, if a tyme of reformation were graunted, without any breache or diminishing of euery bishops Authorite in his ow∣ne Dyocese, or of the Popes primacy ouer all. Thus M. Ie∣well

by falsifying and wronge applying of histories will esta∣blish his schismaticall disobedience towarde the See off Ro∣me.

[Iewell.] * 1.666S. Basill saieth. The state and safetye of the Churche of Antioche dependeth off Athanasius the Bishoppe off Alexandria, and not (as M. Hardinge here sayeth) of the Bishoppe off Rome. And therefore he desireth Athanatius to see vn∣to it.

[Stapleton.] Not one Sentence of any weight or Authority can be al∣leaged of M. Iewell without some manifest and notorius Vn∣truthe. The later wordes of his sentence alleaged out of S. Ba∣sill and printed with a diuers letter, and the wordes of S. Basill, these wordes I saie, and not off the Bishoppe off Rome. are not in that place of S. Basill, neither in the Latin nor in the Greke, but are conueyed in pretely by M. Iewell, to fournish and fashion vp his Vntruthe, that the Bishops of the East yel∣ded no subiection to the Bishop of Rome. The wordes of S. Basill are these.* 1.667 Ad reliquas equidem Orientis res componendas fortassis ampliore auxilio tibi opus est, & necesse est expectare Occi∣dentales. Antiochensis vero Ecclesiae O••dinatio palam ex pietate tua dependet, vt alios gubernes, alios quietos reddas, Ecclesiae vero robur per concordiam reddas. For the quieting of other troubles of the East, it shall be perhaps nedeful for you to looke for some gre∣ater helpe, and it is necessary to tarye for the bishoppes of the Weste, but the ordering or state of the Churche of Antiochia dependeth manifestly of you, that you may rule some, pacifie other, and finally restore to the Churche her strenght by vni∣te and concorde. The meaning of S. Basill is to desyre Atha∣nasius being then a man of greate authorite, for his longe and manifold troubles suffred for the Churche, and for his olde a∣ge, to take the charge for the tyme of other Churches beinge then by the persecution off Valens pitefully mangled by the Arrians. He desired him before to sende some men of his ow∣ne Churche lerned and discrete to the bishops of the West, to

vnto thē their troubles and aduersities. But bicause An∣tioche was (as S. Basil there saith) the head and principall parte of the East, he desireth in the meane while Athanasius to loo∣ke vnto that Church especially. This is al that S. Basil there re∣quireth of Athanasius,* 1.668 not as though he had any iurisdiction ouer Antioche, but bicause as a man in that time of more Autorite and yeres then any other, he might do much good (as he writeth in an other epistle to Athanasius) alloquendo, ad∣monendo▪ scribendo, mittendo semper aliquos qui optima suggerat. by talking withe them, by admonishing them of their duty, by writing, by sending allwaies some to instructe them. Now bi∣cause M. Iewell will gather hereof a negatiue argument, yea and to make it beare the more authorite, wil make S. Basil him∣selfe to saie that of Athanasius, and not of the bishop of Rome the state of Antioche dependeth, let vs see what S. Basill saieth about the quieting of these selfe same troubles of the East, and writing thereof to this very same Athanasius, thus he writeth to Athanasius. not longe after the fourmer epistle writen as it may seme by the placing of his epistles in his workes, and also by the matter it selfe. Visum est nobis &c.* 1.669 We haue tought good to write to the bishop of Rome, that he wil consider the matters in these partes, and pointe vs a Councell, to the entent that bicause it is hard to haue some sent from thence by a common decree of any Synod, that he will geue authorite to the matter choosing some sufficient men able to beare the paynes of trauail, and able by gentle demeanour and vp∣right behauiour to correct the frowarde among vs, who also may skilfully gouerne and instruct vs, and bringe with them all that was done at Ariminum for the dissoluing and vndoing thereof? Thus farre S. Basil a bishop of the East Church acknowleadging as it well appereth the authorite of the bishop of Rome ouer the East partes, more then M. Iewell would gladly he had done. So farre is it that S. Basil by desiring Athanasius to looke to the Church of Antioche, would therefore exclude the bishop

of Romes Authorite, as M. Iewell not only would gather the∣reof, but also hath vntruly made S. Basil to saie, shifting in tho∣se wordes (and not of the bishop of Rome) into the text of S. Ba∣sill, which S. Basil neuer spake.

[Iewell.] * 1.670The Emperours Honorius and Theo••osus appointed ouer all mat¦ters of doubte arising within the countre of Illyricum to be heard ••nd ended before the bishop of Constantinople, and not before the bis∣shop of Rome. The Emperours wordes be these. The Church of Con¦stantinople enioyeth nowe the prerogatiue of the olde Rome.

This notorious and manifest Vntruthe hath before ben a∣uouched and answered. Now it is brought againe to make vp matter, and to bolster vp an other Vntruthe which is this.

[Iewell.] * 1.671And the very Glose vpon the decrees expounding that same lawe of Honorius, and Theodosius hath these wordes. The Emperour s••••eth, the patriche of Constan••inople hath the same authorite ouer the people of his prouin∣ce, that the Pope hath ouer his.

I knowe not whether M. Iewell when he wrote his Replie intended to Winne the whetstome for euer, and to passe al the worlde in lying, but truly he so plyeth that game, that it maye seme he was not a litle bent that waye. The glose in that place expoūdeth not this lawe of Honorius and Theodosius, but expoundeth the decrees of Popes and Councelles, which are no Emperours lawes pardye. And in that, note though the glose applie a lawe of the Emperour to the decree, yet he mea∣neth not there this lawe, or these Emperours. But he meaneth an other lawe of an other Emperour. He mean••th the Authentikes not the Cod••, •• lawe of Iustinian not of Ho¦norius and Theodosus. For so he quoteth his note: vt in authen. d•• eccl. tit. §. 1. ••c••lat. 9. And thus muche touching the vntrue ap∣plying of M. Iewel••es glose to the lawe Honorius and Theo¦dosius. Nowe what the glose mea••eth ••et the text trie. The text saieth out of the Sixt Synod.* 1.672 Renouantes Sancti Constantinopo∣litani d••cr••tae Concil••j poti••us vt Constantinopolitana sed••s sim••lia

priuil••gia que inferior Roma habet ac••ipiat: n••n tamen in ••cclesiasti∣cis r••bus magnificetur vt illa, s••d hec s••cunda ••ost illam ••xistens ••rius quam Al••xandria numeretur. Renewing the decrees of the holy Councell of Constantinople, we desire that the See of Con∣stantinople haue the like priuileges, which the lower Rome hath. Not yet that in ecclesiasticall matters she be prefered as Rome, but that being the second after Rome, she may be pla∣ced before the See of Alexandria. This is the text M. Iewell.* 1.673 Vpon this text the glose declareth that Constantinople simile habet priuilegium in quibusdam. hath in certaine thinges the like priuilege that Rome hath. As that bishops may immediatly ap∣peale thither, that it may depose bishops, and last of all that v∣pon her owne subiects she hath the same power and Authori∣te as Rome hath in her subiects. Notwithstanding all this Ro∣me is preferred and Iustinian him selfe (who made the same lawe which the gloser alleageth) call it Caput omnium sancta∣rum ecclesia••um, The head of all holy Churches.* 1.674 And thus M. Iewelles lawes, decrees, and gloses, renne roundely against him.

[Iewell.] * 1.675And therefore for more profe hereof, whensoeuer any Patriarche, in any of these foure principall Sees, was newly chosen, he wrote let∣ters of Conference and frendship vnto the other Patriaches, wherein ••uery of them declared vnto other their Religion and consent of fai∣the. Thus did the bishop of Rome vnto others, and thus did others vnto him. This is an (451.) Vnfallible token that their authori••e was e∣quall, and none of them had power and gouernement ouer his folo∣wes,

If this be an infallible token, it is bicause M. Iewell saieth so. For truly if any other man had made such reasons, all had ben but a Gheasse, a Surmise, a likelyhood, a Coniecture. Such are all D. Hardinges proofes to M. Iewell, be they neuer so clere and manifest. But nowe euery gheasse that he bringeth must be an vnfallible token. For how saie you M. Iewell? Be these let∣ters of Conference an vnfallyble token of equalite? And whe¦re

finde you that letters of Conference, and betwene whom? You finde them in S. Gregory: For him only you note in the Margin. And you finde suche letters of him to the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antiochia. How then if S. Gregory him selfe which wrote such letters of Conference to the bishop of Constantinople, dothe yet expressely saie the Churche of Constantinople to be subiect to the churche of Rome: Shal not then M. Iewelles vnfallible tokē proue an vn∣fallible Vntruthe? Vnlesse to iustifie M. Iewelles wordes, we must make S. Gregory cōtrary to him selfe and to saue his Vn∣truthe, make S. Gregory a lyar. Let vs then heare what S. Gre∣gory saieth.* 1.676

These are his wordes. Nam de Constantinopolitana Ecclesia quod dicunt, quis eam dubitet sedi Apostolicae esse subiectam? For as touching tha•• they tel vs of the Churche of Constantinople, who doubteh but that she is subiect to the See Apostolike. Which also our most godly Emperour and our Brother Euse∣bius bishop of that Cite do continually professe. Yet if she or any other Churche haue any good thinge to be folowed, I am ready to folowe my inferiours in good thinges, whom I for¦bidde from vnlawfull thinges. For he is vnwise which thinketh him selfe therefore to be chiefe, that he may neglect to lerne the good that he seeth. Thus farre holy S. Gregory. In whom we see notwithstanding he wrote letters of conference to the bishop of Constantinople, and calleth him here his brother, yet he calleth him his inferiour, and dissembleth not that his Churche is subiect vnto him. And in the next epistle he wri∣teth of the bishopp of Constantinople, that being accused of a certaine crime, the Iudgement was referred vnto him of the Emperour iuxta statutae Canonica According to the statutes of the Canons, not by the mere will or commission of the Em∣perour. Now if M. Iewell do maruaill how such letters of con∣ference, such titles of brethern should passe betwene S. Grego∣ry

and the other Patriaches, and yet they notwithstanding be subiect vnto him, S. Gregory wil tel him soone the cause here∣of, in these wordes. Cum culpa non exit, omnes secundū rationē hu¦militattis aequales sunt. Where no faulte is committed,* 1.677 all by the reason of humilite are aequall. And in that sence S. Paule sa∣ieth. VVilt thou not feare the higher power? Do well.* 1.678 And he will praise thee. For he is the minister of God to doe the good. But if thou do euil, then feare him. Thus S. Gregory was brother to al other bishops, wrote familiarly and frendly vnto them vntell they offended. Then he woulde vse and shewe his power ouer them, euen ouer the bishop of Constantinople him sefe, the chiefest of all the Patriarches after the Pope. So he excommu∣nicated Iohn of Constantinople: so he iudge ouer Eusebius bishop of the same See: and so he expressely professeth and putteth it out of doubte that the Church of Constantinople is subiect to the bishop of Rome. And thus M. Iewelles vnfal∣lible token is not founde to be so much as a bare gheasse. But voide of al truthe and weight. By such false sleightes and seely surmises M. Iewell maintaineth his schismaticall disobedience against Christes Vicaire, and draweth other to the snare of his schisme.

[Iewell.] * 1.679 And (.452.) therefore when Eulogius bishop off Alexandria, had written thus vnto Gregory being then bishop of Rome, S••utius∣fistis as ye commaunded, Gregorie vtterly shunned and refused that kinde of writing, for thus he answereth him. I pray you, haue aw••y this worde of Commaunding from my hearing. For I knowe bothe what I am and also what you are. Touching your place, you are my brethern, tou••hing mane••s, are my Fathers. Therefore I commaunded you not, but only shewed I what ••hought good.

[Stapleton.] * 1.680Tis declareth the great humilite of holy S. Gregory. This proueth true that which he saied before: Cum culpa no•• ••x••git, omnes secundum rationē humilitatis aequales sunt. Where ••o faul∣te is committed, all by the reason of humilite be equal. And thus the saying of the Apostle is verefied. Iusto ••on est lex

posita. The lawe is not made for the righteous. All this is true that all bishops and Priestes are brethern, the one comma¦undeth not the other when nothinge is amisse. If I offende not the lawe, the magistrat hath nought to doe with me. He can not commaunde me. But the Master may commaunde his seruaunt, do he well or euill. The Pope is not so primat ouer other bishops that he hath them at commaundement as seruauntes. But if they breake the Canons he commaundeth them and forceth thē to their duity, or els remoueth thē from their Authoryte. So S. Gregory him selfe which shunned the worde of commaunding, yet he putteh it out of doubte that the See of Constantinople who was not inferiour to the See of Alexandria was subiect to the See of Rome. So Athanasius bishop of Alexandria being cited to the Churche of Rome, appeared there as to his superiour, So Cyrillus bishop also of Alexandria, was legat to Pope Celestinus in the thirde Gene∣rall Councell of Ephesus. Yet as S. Gregory would not com∣maunde Eulogius: so neither Iulius commaundeth Athana∣sius, nor Celestinus in the thirde General Councell of Ephe∣s••s commaundeth Cyrillus. Thus M. Iewell for lacke of matter and weight, hunteth after termes and phrases, to buil∣de vp his schismaticall disobedience to our mother Churche the holy See of Rome.

[Iewell.] * 1.681Fi••ally (453.) for that Michael Palaeologus The Emperour of the East partes, in the Councell holden at Lyons, aboute the yere of our Lord•• .1442. after great intreatie made vnto him by the bishop of Ro¦me, hid acknowleadged the bishops of the East to be subiect vnto him, after he returned home againe in to his Empire and was dead, his Cle••gie vvoulde not suffer him to be buried. Yet, saieth M. Har∣ding, Al the bishops of Grecia, Asia, Syria, Aegypte, and to be short. all the Orient, read and exhibited their humble obedience to the See off Rom••.

M. Iewell is miserably forced for the maitenaunce off his schisne not only to falsefie coūcels, to take parte with the

Arrians and withe Donatistes olde condemned heretikes of the primitiue Churche, to gather gheasses and coniectures vpon titles and phrases, to falsifye S. Basill, to misalleage the decrees, but nowe at the laste (to suche miserable shiftes he is driuen) the poore creature is forced to claime by the late schis∣matikes and blasphemous heretikes of grece against the Pro∣ceding of the Holy Ghoste.* 1.682 For in that Councell holden at Lyons M. Iewell in the presence of Michael Paleologus the Emperour, about the yeare of our Lorde .1280. (you came shorte in your rekening of allmoste two hundred yeares) the grekes wholy reconciled to the latines not only touching the bishop of Romes supremacy, but also touching the proceding of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne.* 1.683 For this re∣conciliatiō (as Blondus reporteth) not only for acknowlead∣ging the Popes primacy, the Emperour after his deathe was so vsed of the schismaticall clergy. Nowe M. Iewell if you will nedes holde by schismatikes, as you claime by their example in the one, so may you in the other, so maye you multiply your heresies and schismes, so maye you forsake the latines and be∣come Grecians, so maye yowe at lenght come to Mahomets lawe, and be Turkes as many of grecians are become at this day. Our Lorde sende our countre a better minde, and geue thē all grace to beware in time of such perilous teachers, wh•• can not defende their doctrine but by heretikes and schism••∣tikes, by lies and Vntruthes, by manifest and open corruptio.

[Harding.] For the Popes Authorite concerning Confirmation of ••e Ordinations and elections off all bishoppes, many exam••les might easely be alleaged, as the request made to Iulius by ••he 90. Arrian bishoppes assembled in Councell at Anti••che against Athanasius that he woulde vouchesaue to cons••me those that they had chosen in place off Athanasius, Pa••lus,

Marcellus and others whome they had condemned and de∣priued.

[Iewell.] * 1.684The 110. Vntruthe. For the Bishop of Rome confirmed the bi∣shoppes of his owne prouince: but not all bishoppes thourough out the worlde.

[Stapleton.] Then M. Iewell can name vs some bishopp, that the Pope confirmed not, and stode yet for a true and Catholike bishop. Peruse his text who list, he shall finde that M. Iewell nameth not one. And yet muste his negatiue stande for good, bicause he saieth it? D. Harding hath alleaged the examples of the Ar∣rian bishops, who though they were heretikes, coueted yet to haue the Popes confirmation for the bishops by them placed in the Romes of Athanasius, Paulus, Marcellus and others. He hath alleaged the Confirmation of Leo for the bishop of Alexandria,* 1.685 and of S. Gregory for the bishop of Salona in Il∣lyricum. And yet shall it be sufficient for M. Iewell to plaie still Aristotles Asse and to denie all? Is it not mete he geue an Instaunce or Exception in some particular, if he wil destroye the vniuersall? The order of scoles and reason require so. But M. Iewell for lacke of good arguments, hunteth after his gheasses, and hauing nothinge to bringe, woulde disproufe ••hat is brought. You shall heare what he saieth.

[Iewell.] That the bishop of Rome ordered and admitted all the bishoppes t••roughe out the worlde it hath no possibilite, and may easely be re∣p••oued.

[Stapleton] Why M. Iewell? Is the winde at that doore? We talke off co••firmation of such as are ordered, and you tell vs of orde∣ri•••• and admitting, as though D. Harding had saied that the Po••e did consecrat all bishoppes of the wourld with his owne ha••••es. For so you bringe vs in sadly and solemnely the ex∣am••••e of Agapetus the Pope, who aboute the yeare of oure lord•• 40. ordered with his own handes Memna Archebishop of C••nstantinople, auouching withall that from the time off

Peter the Apostle, the East Church neuer receaued any other bishop consecrated by the handes of the Pope, whereas yet Leo almost a hundred yeares before this Agapetus had con∣firmed the bishop of Alexandria Proterius, and the bishop of Constantinople Anatoleus. You knowe this is not to the purpose, and therefore you adde to excuse the matter.

[Iewell.] * 1.686Let not M. Harding finde faulte that I place the ordering of bis∣shops in stede of their Confirmation, for he him selfe (.455.) seemeth to make Confirmation and Ordering bothe one thinge. or at least to ioyne them bothe together. These be his wordes. Leo woulde not in any wise Order and Confirme Anatolius.

[Stapletō.] What a trifler is this? M. Iewell placeth Ordering in stede of Confirmation. Why? Bicause M. Harding seemeth to make them one. If he do but Seme to doe it, why doe you it in good earnest, and so solemnely? Yet M. Iewell sawe that was not true, and therefore he correcteth him selfe and saieth: At the least to ioyne them together. Loe bicause they are ioyned toge∣ther in one sentence, M. Iewell wil disproufe one by the other. Then if I put chalke and chese together in a sentence, M. Ie∣well will proue I can eate no chese bicause I can eate no chal∣ke. Againe though D. Harding talke of ordering, yet he spea∣keth not of ordering with the Popes owne handes: suche as the example by M. Iewell alleaged is. Thus he toyeth and tri∣fleth, that he may seme to saie somewhat.

Here foloweth an other toye of S. Markes Cloke, out of Liberatus, as muche to the matter, as if one woulde proue that the Mayer of London hath no authorite from the kinge bi∣cause he is chosen in the gilde hall, not in the Courte.

[Iewell.] * 1.687And S. Ciprian writeth vnto the bishoppes of Spayne, that Sabi∣nus, whom they had lawfully chosen bishop, should so continue still, yea not withstāding Cornelius being then bishop of Rome, misliked him and would not Confirme him.

This is vtterly vntrue, false, and forged. Cornelius was dead

when Sainte Cyprian wrote this epistle. It was Steuen the Pope (who was Pope after Cornelius) whiche had confirmed Basilides in stede of Sabinus, moued thereto by wronge in∣formation. This is the case. Basilides being bishop of Euerite in Spaine was deposed for committing idolatry in the time of persecution. Sabinus was orderly and lawfully chosen in his place. Basilides after this sued to Rome to be restored, and by wronge information gotte the Popes letters for the reco∣uery of his bishoprike. The clergy complained to the bishop∣pes of Afrike, vnto whome at that time appeales were made, as M. Iewell before confesseth ex Consilio Telenci. This vn∣true dealing of Basilides Sainte Cyprian an Africane bishopp misliked,* 1.688 and therefore he saieth. It can not dissolue the law∣full ordering of Sabinus, that Basilides after the detecting of his fa••l∣tes euen by his owne confession, going to Rome, hathe deceiued our folowe bishop Steuen dwelling farre of, and being ignorant off theca∣se and truthe, coueting so to be vnlawfully restored to his bishopricke, from the whiche he was lawfully deposed. These do proue that the faultes off Basilides are not so much wiped away as encreased, ad∣ding to his former offences, the crime off deceit and wronge informa∣tion. For he is not so much to be blamed, whiche was stolen vpon by negligence, as he is to be abhorred that guilefully did steale vpon him. Thus farre S. Cyprian. Whose wordes M. Iewell, do euidently confirme the Popes authorite in Confirmation of bishops. For seing the sentence of Pope Steuen in the behalfe of Basi∣lides, was vniust for no other cause, but bicause the suggestion was vntrue: it foloweth that if it had bene true, the sentence had bene good, and he lawfully restored. Otherwise if the Pope had no authorite to restore Basilides, it might haue ser∣ued for a quicke exception, to saie as no doubte M. Iewell (had he ben here in S. Cyprians place) would haue saied: Pope Ste∣uen hath no authorite in this matter. He hath naught to doe here to restore or confirme any bishops. But nowe the faulte

is layed not vpon the Popes restoring, but vpon Basilides his wronge information. And this Sabinus continued bishop not contrary to the confirmation of Pope Cornelius, but con∣trary to the restitution of Pope Steuen. And yet not bicause Pope Steuen restored Basilides, but bicause Basilides had mis∣se informed Pope Steuen. Thus M. Iewell altereth and falsi∣fyeth stories, choppeth and mangleth S. Cyprian, and yet can name no one bishop whom the Pope confirmed not. Nowe foloweth a decree of Anacletus touching the ordering of bi∣shops, and the question is of confirming bishoppes either all∣ready ordered or to be ordered. And here endeth all M. Iewel∣les proufes for this matter. But he wil disproue the allegations of D. Harding, and so establish his negatiue proposition, off not all bishoppes confirmed by the Pope. First he answereth to the place of S. Gregory complayning to Constantia the Emperesse, that the bishop off Solom was ordered, neither he,* 1.689 nor his deputie being made priuie vnto it, and saying farder, Herein that thinge hathe bene done whiche neuer happened in the time of anye Princes before our daies, and saieth.

[Iewell.] * 1.690That Gregorie meant this not of all bishoppes but only of the bis∣shoppes within his owne charge, it is euident by his wordes. For thus he writeth. My bishops, being Bishops within my cure.

S. Gregory saieth well M. Iewel, he calleth his bishops and the bishops of his Cure, not only the bishops of his owne pro∣uince as he was bishop of Rome, but also of his Patriarkship as Illyricum and all the West, whereof he was Patriarche, and so are we of England (specially brought to the faithe by him) subiect thereunto. What haue ye now gotte M. Iewell? Will you that England be subiect to Rome, as Illyricum was? Or will you breake the order of the first 600. yeres?

[Iewell.] * 1.691VVhere as it is alleaged that the bishop of Rome was required to ra¦tifie the election of Flauianus, Anatholius, and of the Arrian bishops, that was meant of a generall allowance, such as was common to al bi¦shoppes,

specially to the foure principall patriarches, and not only to the bishop of Rome.

[Stapleton] Yes only to the bishop of Rome of necessite, for ought that you M. Iewel haue shewed to the contrary. And for you to saie thinges without proufes, being now taken in so many Vntruthes, when you seme to proue most, it is no time M. Iewell, Your credit is not such. Certainely the Confir∣mation of the Arrian bishoppes denied by Pope Iulius, re∣stored againe Athanasius, Paulus and his felowes to their bis∣shopprickes, and declared thereby the necessite of his Autho∣rite. This before hath bene declared in the matter of Appea∣les. The Confirmation also of Anatholius and of Proterius was so necessary, that the Emperours Theodosius, and Mar∣tianus wrote therefore. And to Theodosius, requiring of Leo the Pope the Confirmation of Anatholius in the Patriarke∣ship of Constantinople, Leo writeth this answer. De ordina∣tione eius qui Constantinopolitanae caepit ecclesiae praesidere,* 1.692 ••i••il interim in alterutram partem temere rescribendum putaui, non di∣lectionem negans, sed manifestationem Catholicae veritatis expectant As touching the Ordering of him, which hath begonne to gouuerne the Churche of Constantinople, I haue thought it good as yet to make no certaine answer thereunto, not de∣nying vnto him my good will, but looking for a declaration of the Catholike Truthe. And the reason hereof he specifieth in an other letter where he saieth.* 1.693 Et ipse Constantinopolitanus Episcopus, & qui eundem consecr••••ant, preter id quod ad ordina∣tionem noui Antistitis pertiuebat, nihil nobis de compressis vel abdi∣catis erroribus indicarunt. Bothe the bishop him selfe of Con∣stantinople (Anatholius,) and those which had consecrated him, beside that which appertained to the Ordering of the ne¦we bishop, haue signified nothinge vnto vs of the wrōge opi∣nions in doctrine layed aside or cōdemned. This was the Cau¦se why the Pope would not out of hande Cōfirme him, befo∣re

he knewe he was a man of a Catholike and right beleue. And therefore in his letters to the Emperour Theodosius, he willeth this Athanasius to reade ouer and peruse certaine wri∣tinges of Cyrilius against the heresy of Nestorius, and his ow∣ne epistle writen to Flauianus against the heresy of Eutyches. Ita sinceram Cummunis fidei Confession••m, absolutissima Subscri∣ptione coram omni Clero & vniu••rsae plebe declaret Apostolicae Sedi,* 1.694 & vniuersis domini Saecerdotibus & Ecclesi••s publicandam So that he pronounce before all the Clergy and the people, the right Cōfessiō of Cōmon belefe, with a most exacte Subscri∣ption, which after might be published to the See Apostolike, and to the Priestes and Churches of God. Moreouer in the same epistle, he desireth the Emperour thus. Agat clemētiae ve∣strae d••uotissimae fides & c••. Let the most holy faith of your Clemēcy bringe to passe, that the letters of the B. of Constantinople, as it b••co∣meth a Catholike and approued bishop to write, be sent vnto vs,* 1.695 opē∣ly and playnely protesting, that if any man doe beleue or tache any other thinge tou••hing the Incarnation of Christe, our God,* 1.696 th••n al Catholikes and I doe professe, I•• doe exclude him vtterly frō his Cō¦munion, that so we may rightfully bestow vpon him our brotherly Charite in Christe. Vpō such cōditiōs and no otherwise woul∣de that lerned and holy Pope Leo Confirme this Anatholius, though the Emperour, the bishop him selfe, and the other which had consecrated him, had written to the Pope the••fore. So necessary and of such importaunce semed at that time the Confirmation of the Pope, euen for the Patriarche him selfe of Constantinople, as light a matter as M. Iewell would haue the worlde to thinke it. Therefore also this Anatholius ha∣uing at lenght vnder Ma••tianus that Catholike and Zelous Emperour (of whose vertue and Zele Theodosius the second his predecessour lacked much) subscribed to the Catholike faithe according to the ple••••ure of the See Apostolike, Leo the Pope confirmeth his doinges in an other letter writen to

the same Anatholius, where he saieth these wordes. Societa∣tem tuae dilectionis amplectimur, & gestorum quae sampsimu•• se¦riē, necessarijs (sicut oportuit) munitā Subscriptionibus approbamus. We embrace the felowship of your, and the whole processe of your doinges,* 1.697 which we haue receiued, witnessed with the Subscriptions requisit thereunto, as it behoued, we doe ap∣proue and allowe. And that this Approbation off the Pope was in dede the Confirmation off this Anatholius in this bi∣shopricke, it appeareth otherwhere. For at what time the Generall Councell of Chalcedon being ended, this Anatho∣lius Patriarche of Constantinople by the persuasion of cer∣taine had taken vpon him the next preeminence after the bi∣shop of Rome ouer other Metropolitanes, contrary to the-Order taken in the first Councell of Nice, and contrary to the Popes legates consent in the Councell of Chalcedon; this ler∣ned and holy Pope Leo writing to the Emperour Martianus thereof,* 1.698 bothe dissalloweth that vnlawefull attempt, and put∣teth him in minde of the former benefit, saying. Nos v••∣strae fidei & interuentionis habentes intuitum,* 1.699 cum secundum su•• Consecrationis Authores eius initia our baren••, benigniores circa ip∣sum quam instiores esse voluimus. We at the contemplation of your promise and intercession (saieth Leo the Pope to the Emperour Martianus) though the beginning of his bi∣shoprike was out of order, touching those which did con∣secrat him, vsed yet more fauour and Clemency, then rigour or iustice towarde him. And a litle after in the same letter he saieth. Sati•• sit, quòd praedicto vestrae pietatis auxilio & mei fauoris assensu, Episcopatum tantae vrbis obtinuit. Let it suffice that by the helpe of your goodnesse, and the Consent of my good will he hath attayned to the bishopricke of so great a Cyte. And at the same time in an other letter to Pul∣cheria the Emperesse thus he writeth.* 1.700 My brother and felowe bishopp Anatholius hath litle considered, with what a greate bene∣fy••

off your Clemancy, and * 1.701 Consente of my good will ••e hath obtay∣ned the Bishopricke of Constantinople. Thus loe these Emperours Theodosius and Martianus his successour had intreated Pope Leo for Confirming of this Anatholius, (bicause as Leo in an other place writeth. Ordinationis eius non inculpa••a erant Inicia, the beginning of his Consecrating bishop had bene somewhat aginst Order) the Pope prescribed him bothe to professe openly the Catholike faithe, and to sende his Subscription thereunto to Rome, Anatholius did as the Pope had pre∣scribed him. The Pope thereupon confirmed him. And after∣warde (when he behaued him selfe ambitiously) did put him in minde off the former fauour shewed vnto him, and what is a Confirmation by way of Authorite, if this be not? Or when shall the practise off so many hundred yeres paste be sufficiently proued, if this be not? Againe this principall Patriarche of the East Churche, being so Confirmed by the Pope of Rome, who doubteth but muche more al other infe∣riour Bishoppes, (especially if they had not bene ordered accor¦ding to the Canons) were also necessarely to be confirmed of the Pope? Yet saieth M. Iewell.

[Iewell.] * 1.702Neither was the bishop of Romes admission thought so necessary, a•• if ••e only had a voyce negatiue, to make in and to put out whom he lifted, but only of Congruite and Consent, that it might appeare, there was no bishop in the Church, but was liked and allowed of his bretherne.

[Stapletō.] How chaunced it then M. Iewell that you and your felo∣wes bearing your selfes for bishops, haue not so much as this Congruite and consent, I will not saie of the Pope, but of any Christē bishop at al through out all Christendom, neither are liked and allowed of any one of them al, but haue taken vpon you that office, without any Imposition of handes, without all ecclesiasticall Authorite, without all order of Canons and righ••? I aske not who gaue you bishoprikes, but who made you bishops. Howbeit it appeareth wel M. Iewel that this An∣swer

of Cons••nt and Congruite was but a shifte for the present: But your Doctrine of Luthers teaching, it is a plaine discorde and disordre, that any bishopp or priest ••houlde be admitted or approued off others. And therefore you plaie the bishopps your selues, without any regarde or respect to the allowance of any other Christen bishopps in the whole worlde. Verely it appeareth by this example of Anatholius his Cōfirmation, that it was more then of Consent and Congruite, and that it was bothe necessary, and obtained by longe and speciall sute.

Yet you will proue it was but of consent and congruite, and of no necessite you saie.

[Iewell.] * 1.703For otherwise the bishoppes of the East wrote thus vnto Iulius. If you will ••llo••e the bishoppes that we haue ordred, we will be at peace and ••om••u∣ni••at with you? Iff not we will pr••••laime the contra••y.

[Stapletō.] These Arrian bishoppes haue done you much good stede in this Article. It is mere that protestants make muche of he∣retikes. And it is well that for lacke of Catholike examples, you claime by heretikes. Suche plea becometh you very well. To the matter we haue answered before at large,* 1.704 and present∣ly do saie thus much. At the first they accused Athanasius, Pau¦lus, Marcellus and other Catholike bishops to Pope Iulius, de∣siring him to confirme such Arrians as they had placed in their roomes,* 1.705 declaring thereby how gladd they woulde haue ben to haue had his Confirmation. After, when they sawe they coulde not spede, they defied the Pope and the Nicene Coun∣cell bothe, and maintained openly the Arrian heresy. The li∣ke example may be sene in Luther. First he wrote to Pope Leo the x and submitted himselfe vnto him,* 1.706 hoping the•• that for the matter off pardous, whiche only yet he hath called in controuersy, that he should be hearde and haue fauour. But a yere after seing by Caietane the Popes legat that the Pope was ••••holy bent against him, and minded to procede with him according to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, then ••o he defied the Pope, as all th••

worlde knoweth. This did the Arrians, and thus did Luther. M. Iewell taketh parte with bothe.

[Iewell.] * 1.707And the Emperour Gratian made Nectarius bishop of Constanti∣nople contrarie to the mindes of the most parte of the bishoppes.

M. Iewel ouerreacheth his author Sozomenus. For he saieth not so much as M. Iewell reporteth him to saie, these are his wordes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Emperour vnderstanding that the same Nect••rius (whom before he had pricked, being first named of certain the bi∣shops) was not yet baptised, yet he continued in his minde, ma¦ny of the bishops again saying it. But after when al the bishops agreed and accorded to the Emperours mind, he was baptised, and hauing yet his baptisme cote vpon him, by the common voice and consent of the Synode, he was created bishop of Cō¦stantinople. In these wordes we see first, that Nectarius was not bishop at all contrary to the mindes of the most parte off the bishops, as M. Iewell fableth, but by the Common consent and agreement of them all. Then also, that at the first not the most parte, as M. Iewell maketh Sozomenus to saie, but many of the bishops resisted it which yet all afterward agreed, and then by them so agreing and all their voices, he was made bi∣shop. And this to be so, the bishops them selues in that Coun∣cell doe expressely witnesse in their letters to Damasus then Pope of Rome. where thus they say. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.708 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉The most reuerent and most godly Nectarius we haue Consecrated bishopp, in the generall Councell withe Common agreement. This was not then against their mindes as M. Iewell fableth and faineth. Neither was all this done in the presence of Gratian as M. Iewel ignorantly bableth, but as tho••e bi••hops do reporte to Damasus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉* 1.709

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. in the presence of the most godly Emperour Theodosius. But what is all this against the Pope off whose only Authorite the question is here, not off other bishoppes? Verely this whole Councell of Constantinople certified Da∣masus the Pope of this their doing,* 1.710 and of other bishops whom they had at that time also consecrated and desired his consent thereunto, Euen as those which cōsecrated Anatholius certi∣fied Pope Leo of the same, and required his Confirmation. And Gratian him selfe (whom M. Iewel alleageth) acknowle∣adgeth so muche the Authoritye of the Pope, that for a shorte ending of all controuersies, he enacted by a publike decree, that all the worlde shoulde folowe that faith and Religion, which had continewed from S. Peter the Apostle in the See of Rome, and which Damasus then Pope held and professed. And thus farre is M. Iewel aided by Gratian.

[Harding.] The ecclesiasticall rule (as we reade in the tripatit sto∣rie) commaundeth that no Councell be celebrated and kepte, without the aduise and the Authorite of the Pope.

[Iewell.] * 1.711The .iii. Vntruthe. Standing in wilfull falsyfying of the text.

[Stapleton.] Had M. Iewell Loued the Truthe, tendred the instruction of his Reader, and bene of that Ciuilite and gentle demeanour as his outwarde behauiour pretendeth, truly he woulde neuer thus haue dealed. Thou shalt see, gentle Reader, M. Iewelles proufes in the text, by the which he is moued to charge D. Harding not only with falsefying, but also with willfull falsyfy∣ing. He saieth,

[Iewell.] * 1.712Here H. Harding hath auouched two great Vntruthes. The one in his translation in the english: the other in the allegation of the storie. Touching the first Cassiodorus in his latin translation writeth thus. Canonesiubent, extra Romannū nhil decerni pontificē, Socrates in the greke, out of which the latine was taken, writeth thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The englishe hereof i••

this. It is pro••ided by the Canons, that rules to binde the Churche be not made with∣••ut the consent of the bishop of Rome.

Let your traslation stande for good M. Iewell a while. Let nihil decerni, be truly englished, that no rules be made to binde the Churche, without the consent of the Pope. Haue you not saied as muche for the Popes authorite, as the translation of D. Harding saieth? What difference is there in effect betwene the celebrating of a Councell, and betwene making of Ca∣nons that binde the Churche: whereas such Canons are made only in Councel. Vnlesse you be such a Papiste, that the Pope alone without a Councell, may make Canons, to binde the Churche. If we had so largely translated the worde decerni, off like you would haue crowed mightely. But let vs now see the faultes which you finde in the translatiō vsed by D. Harding, supposing he had translated, these wordes which you alleage. For the contrary shall anon appeare.

[Iewell.] * 1.713VVherein M. Harding hath purposely corrupted and falsified altoge¦ther both the greke and the latine, not reporting one worde that h•• found in the Original. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or decernere, he englisheth to kepe, or as he termeth it, to celebrat a Councell.

Yet that is better transsated then did your frend Wolfgrā∣gus Musculus, who turned the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ec∣clesias consecrare, to consecrat Churches. Howbeit touching D. Hardinges translation, if we take the whole sentence of the pla¦ce, we shall see his translation may stande for true and good. The whole place is this. Iulius rescripsit eis qui fuerant in Antio¦chia congregati, culpās eos primum de iniurijs literarum,* 1.714 deinde cur se ad Synodum suam non vocassent, canonibus nimirum iubentibus pieter Romanum nihil decerni Pontificem. Iulius (the Pope) wro∣te backe to the bishops of the East assembled together in An∣tioche, blaming them first of their iniurious letters, thē bicau∣se they called him not to their Councell. Whereas the Canons

do commaunde, that nothinge be determined beside the bis∣shop of Romes sentence.

The story mentioneth, that the Pope blamed the bishop∣pes of the East whiche called a Councell,* 1.715 not making him preuy thereunto. And what was the reason why the Pope so blamed them? The story saieth. Canonibus nimirum iubenti∣bus &c. Bicause the Canons do commaunde that nothinge be deter∣mined (howe, but in Concell?) without the aduise of the Pope. And is not this as much in effect, as to saie. Without the aduise of the Pope no Councell can be summoned? But we shall see anon that the very translatour of the Greke Epiphanius hathe translated in an other place this very Greke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Concilia celebrare, to kepe and celebrat Councells, euen as D. Hardinge hathe englished it. But nowe lett vs procede withe M. Iewells corrections.

[Iewell.] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whiche is praeter sententiam, or as Cassiodorus turnet•• it, extra, he englisheth: without the Aduise and Autho••ite..

[Stapleton.] Not Cassiodorus M. Iewell, but Epiphanius turned that Greke, It appeareth you trust not allwaies your owne eyes in these matters. But to the purpose. First for praeter and ext••a, you turne it your selfe M. Iewell, in your owne translation without. And why I beseche you, may not D. Harding so tur∣ne it? Is there such partialite in the kinde hart of M. Iewell, that he maye translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 without, and D. Harding may not translate it so? Then for the worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: sententia, whiche D. Harding turneth Aduise and Authorite, M. Iewell turneth consent, for that I remitt it to the Grammarians. I am right ••ure that the dictionaries bothe greke and latine do confesse that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greke, and sententia in Latine, dothe rather, more of∣te••,* 1.716 and more properly betoken Adu••se and Authorite, then Consent. Let vs procede.

No, he woulde not suffer, no not him in whose quarell he thus figh∣teth, to passe without a venwe. ••or where he sawe ••im named 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••e

Greke, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and in the Latine Romanum Pontificem, the Ro∣main bishop, he thought it beste to l••aue bothe the Creke and the La∣tine, and to call him the Pope.

[Stapleton] See what heresy and malice is. Did euer any man, I will not saie lerned as a diuine, but conuersant in common grammer, so wrangle, so trifle, so quarel aboute nothinge. I remembre at the last Marte of Franckforde, the brethern of Wittenberge and Lipse had pointed Flaccus Illyricus ryding vpō a gote and the Diuell drawing him in to hell, with this posy aboute him in verses, Certans de lana caprina. Beholde a man that fighteth for gotes wolle. This picture and posy may from Flaccus Illyricus be most rightly deriued to M. Iewell. For I beseche you M. Ie∣well what difference is there betwene the Romain bishop, and the bishop of Rome? And then againe betwene the bishop of Rome and the Pope. Is there any other bishop of Rome, then the Pope? Or is there any other Pope, then the bishop of Rome? Other bishops haue sometime ben called Popes. But the bishop of Rome allwaies hath ben so called. And these cer∣tain hundred yeares none but the bishop of Rome. And is this a willfull falsifying of the text, to call the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. O what a precise felow M. Iewell is? These be the hypo∣criticall Pharisees, which strayning a gnatte, do deuoure vp ca∣mels. fighting and quarelling vpon termes, do lett slippe the matter. And yet he concludeth as though he had fought a great battaill, and killed God haue mercy on his soule.

[Iewell.] * 1.717And thus to increase the Popes Authorite, he had altered the whole place, and not translated one worde as he founde it.

Thus saieth M. Iewell. But thou seest nowe gentle Rea∣der, that euen taking the wordes bothe of the Latin and of the greke as he hath alleaged them, and withall the whole senten∣ce of the place, which M. Iewell thought good vtterly to dis∣semble, there is no falshood nor Vntruthe committed, but euen that sence and English deliuered there which latin and greke bothe do beare. But nowe what if M. Iewell all this while hath

harped vpon a wrong stringe? What if the latin which he al∣leageth is not the text of that place that D. Harding meaneth? What if the same very greke be so translated of the very same writer in the very same booke as D. Harding hath englished it? Hath he not then all this while sponne vs a faire threede? Truly so is it gentle Reader. But yet I will not therefore char∣ge M. Iewell with any Vntruthe or falshood. Only as I saied in the beginning of this place so I saie now, if he had loued in dede the truthe, tendred sincerely and vprightly his readers in∣struction, and bene of that Ciuilite and gentle demeanour, as he semeth to men to be, he woulde not thus haue dealed, he woulde not in such sorte haue stormed and quarelled for a lit∣le errour in the quotation: but, as his lerning serued him, would soone haue espied what text and place of that history it was which D. Harding alleaged. For thus it is gentle Reader. The quotation of that place in D. Hardinges Answer is thus. lib. 4. Cap. 19. It should haue bene lib. 4. cap. 9. It was the same very booke of the tripartit History, and the 19. Chapter in stede of the 9. It was only the errour of one iota. Neither coulde M. Iewell Vndoubtedly hauing read and sene so much, be ig∣norant hereof. But in dede either bicause he would not be a knowen of the place to the which he coulde not answer, or els bicause he owed but litle good will to D. Harding, more care∣full howe to deface his aduersary, then howe to trie the tru∣the, he tooke the aduauntage as he found it, and seing the wea∣pon out of his place, layed loode on, spared no parte, but vsed his force to euery worde and sillable of it. And that so farre, that Romanus Pontifex must not be translated the Pope. This kinde of plaie as in worldly combats it is but the parte of a co∣ward, and dastardly wretch, so in Diuine matters, to deale after such sorte, and that for a man of ripe yeares, a man of lerning and knowleadg, a man that beareth him selfe for a bishop, I knowe not who would do so, but M. Iewell. The place it selfe

which D. Hard. there meaned, in the greke of Socrates is thus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. word for worde as the Greke by M. Ie∣well alleaged.* 1.718 The latin of Epiphanius the tranlatour not of Cassiodorus (as M. Iewell ignorantly calleth it) is thus. Cum vtique regula ecclesiastica iubeat nō oportere praeter sententiā Roma∣ni Pontificis Concilia celebrari. In english thus much, euen as D. Harding hath most truly translated it. The ecclesiasticall rule com¦undeth that no Councell be celebrated or kept without the aduise and authorite of the Pope. The greke of Socrates in this pla∣ce, and his greke in the other place alleaged by M. Iewell is all one (as I saied) Word for word. The translatour Epiphanius in this place of the .9. Chapter, hath translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Concilia celebrari, which is in english Councels to be kept or celebrated. The same translatour in the 19. Chapter quo∣ted by D. Harding hath translated those very wordes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Nihil decerni, nothinge determined in Councel, for of a Coūcel there he speaketh holdē in the East beside the bishop of Romes knowleadg. And how is it nowe true that D. Harding hath forsaken both the Greke and the latin, which hath englished the greke, euen with the same words in english, as the translatour Epiphanius hath done in latin, as well in the Chapter quoted according to the sence, as in the other chap¦ter meaned according to the very letter.

Thus farre the lewde trifling or M. Iewell, hath forced vs to trifle touching the translation: wherein though he said before that D. Harding had VVilfully falsifyed the texte, it appeareth nowe euidently that Master Iewell hathe VVilfully mocked and abused hys Reader. Now to the story it selfe.

[Harding.] The Councells holden at Ariminum, at Sileucia, at Sir∣mium, att Antiochia, and the seconde tyme at Ephesus,

for that they were not summoned nor approued by the Bis∣shop off Rome, haue not ben accompted for lauful Councells, but as well for that reiected, as for their hereticall determi∣nations.

[Iewell.] * 1.719The .112. Vntruthe. For in those daies the Bishop of Rome had no Authorite to summon Councells.

[Stapleton.] What saie you then to the examples alleaged M. Iewell? What ••aye you then to the testimony of the Ecclesiasticall sto¦ry twise repeted by Socrates, and before alleaged? Let vs repe∣te the whole wordes more at large. The ecclesiasticall storye writeth thus.* 1.720 Egit Eusebius vt in Antiochia Syriae Synodus fie∣ret, sub occasione quidem dedicationis Ecclesiae quam pater Au∣gustorum fabricare coeperat, & post eius obitum Constantius decimo anno eam à fundationis tempore expleuerat, in veritate autem ad subuersionem atque destructionem Niceni Concilij: Ad quam Sy∣nodum conuenerunt ex ciuitatibus diuersis episcopi nonaginta. Ma∣ximus tamen Hierosolymitanus Macarij Successor non affuit, co∣gitans quòd ipsi posset subripi, vt in damnationem subscriberet A∣thanasij. Sed neque Iulius interfuit maximae Romae praesul, ne∣que in locum suum aliquem destinauit. Cum vtique regula Ecclesiastica iubeat, non oportere praeter sen∣tentiam Romani Pontificis Concilia celebrari. In English thus. Eusebius (the Arrian intruded bishop of Con¦stantinople) caused a Synod to be helde in Antiochia of Syria, vnder the pretēce of dedicating of a Church which Cōstantin the Great had begonne to builde,* 1.721 and Constantius his sonne in the tenth yeare after the first foundation layed had finished, but in dede for the ouerthrowing and vndoing of the Nicene Councell. To this Synod there were assembled out of diuerse Cities the number of fourscore and ten bishoppes. Yet Maxi∣mus bishoppe of Hierusalem and successour to Macarius, was not present thereat, fearing that he might be forced by some

guile, to subscribe to the condemnation of Athanasius. No neither Iulius the Bishoppe of the greatest Rome, was pre∣sent, neither h••d sent anye legate in his place. VVhereas yet the Ecclesiasticall Rule dothe commaunde, that besyde the Authoritye off the Bishoppe of•• Rome, no Councelles ought to be celebrated. Lo M. Iewell. A Councell holden of fourescore and ten bis∣shops, a Concell holden in Syria in the East Church, wel nere twise furder from Rome then England, holden in the yeare of our Lorde .346. more then twelue hundred yeares sence, and in that same Councell holden of so many bishops, so farre from Rome, so many hundred yeres sence, the Authorite of the bis∣shop of Rome, by commaundement of an Ecclesiasticall rule or Canon, required. If his Authority was required thereunto and that by the vertu of an ecclesiasticall Rule or Canon, shall it be yet vntrue that the Pope had then Authorite to summon and approue Councels? Is not this argument good M. Iewell?

No parliament can be holdem, without the authorite of the Que∣nes Maiesty.

Ergo the Quenes Maiesty hath Authority to call a parliament.

And then is not this as good.

No Councel ought to be celebrated without the Authorite of ••he bishop of Rome.

Ergo the bishoppe off Rome hathe Authoritye to call a Coun∣cell.

Vnlesse M. Iewell will saie that though he haue Authoryte to celebrat, yet he hath no authoryte to Summon it: the sum∣mo••ing being lesse then the celebrating, and the authorite off celebrating without the authorite of summoning being none at all. Els what a mockery were this? The Prince hath authori∣ty to holde a parliament: but he may not call a parliament ex∣cept it please the subiects. Such rebelles argumentes may helpe

M. Iewell. Other helpe or shifte here he hathe none. Againe to put more force to this matter, the history sayeth, that the Ecclesiasticall rule or Canon dothe commaunde that no Councelles be holden withoute the Authoritye of the Pope.* 1.722 I aske M. Iewell. Where was this ecclesiasticall rule or Canon decreed? There was no general Councell before that time but the first Nicene Councell. The great Councell of Sardica was helde certaine yeares after, though in the time of this Iulius, as it appeareth euidently by the auncient stories, and by the new Chronographies. It coulde be no Canon of any prouinciall Councell, that should make such a generall decree, to binde Sy¦ria it selfe and al the East to the Authorite of the bishop of Ro¦me. I aske M. Iewell then by the waie, where was that Canon decreed? Let him scoure out his note bookes, let him examine the Centuries of the Magdeburgenses, let him looke to the common approued tomes of the Councell, he shall finde it no where decreed before that tyme, but in the Nicene Councell, and in the Nicene Councell he shall finde it decreed, not in the imperfect copies commonly extant, nor in the corrupted authentikes alleaged of the Africanes against pope Zosimus: But he shall finde it in the epistle of Iulius this same Pope he∣re mentioned, to these same Arrian Bishoppes of the Easte. For in that epistle complayning of their schismaticall Synod, and blaming them therefore, that neither he nor any in his place was present thereat, he geueth the reason saying, Canoni∣bus quippe in Nicena Synodo iubentibus, &c. Seing the Canons in the Nicene Councell do commaunde, that without the Au∣thorite of the bishopp of Rome, Councells in any wise ought not to be celebrated, nor bishops be condemned. Nowe to this testimony of the ecclesiastical storie and to the Canon or de∣cree off the Nicene Councell (as it nowe appeareth to be) al∣leaged, what answereth M. Iewel? He putteth it for an Vntru∣the, that the Pope had no such Authorite. But what doth he

answer then to the examples alleaged by D. Harding, and na∣mely to this testimony of the Ecclesiasticall story? Vndoub∣tedly this testimony went euen to the hart of M. Iewell. And being not able otherwise to answer it, he stormed and tooke on about the translation off it as you haue hearde,* 1.723 but to the story it selfe what saieth he nowe?

[Iewell.] Touching the storie, he saieth. The Arrians Councels were not al∣lowed, for that they were not Summoned by the Pope.

[Stapleton] Yea M. Iewel, D. Harding saieth so in dede: but that is not all that he saieth. He saieth, Not summoned, nor approued. Not forcing so much the formall summoning, but the materiall ap¦prouing. Well. Howe proue you the contrary? Howe proue you that the Arrians Councels were not disanulled for lacke of the Popes authorite? Howe proue you the Vntruthe which you haue noted. Thus you proue it.

[Iewell.] * 1.724Yet, he knoweth right wel, it was no part of the Popes office in tho∣se daies, to Sumon Councelles.

Must D. Hardinges knowleadge be M. Iewelles proufe? Answer to the point M. Iewell. Answer to the testimony off the ecclesiastical story. Proue the examples alleaged to be fal∣se. You tolde the readers before that D. Harding hath com∣mitted two Vntruthes. The one in his translation in the en∣glish, the other in the allegation of the Storie. The Reader see now that you haue mocked him before in the one. And will you mocke him so nowe in the other? Verely you deale here∣in as weake reasoners, and simple logicioners do in scoles. Whē they are not able to answer to the argument, they will make argumentes of their owne to the contrary and tell a longe tale for the part they defende, and so seme to answer. But the great philosopher Aristotle in his rules off reasoning hath taught you M. Iewell, that contra opponere, non est respondere. To make argument of the contrary, is not to answer. Yet let vs see what

you can bringe to the contrary. And the lawe saieth. Retorsio∣ne criminum non probatur innocentia. By recharging the Aduer∣sary, a mans owne innocency is not proued.

[Iewell.] * 1.725 ••o•• it is euident by the police and practise of that time, that Con∣stantinus t••e Emperour summoned the Councel of Nice.

Not he alone, nor by his only Authorite, but as Ruffinus wri∣teth, ex sententia sacerdotum, by the aduise and Authorite off the bishoppes.

[Iewell.] * 1.726Theodosius the first, the Councell of Constantinople.

The bishops of that Councell auouche the contrary. For thus they write to Damasus the Pope. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We assembled our selues to Constantinople by the late letters off your honour sent vnto the most godly Emperour Theodosius. In these wordes they cōfesse they were Summoned by the letters off Damasus the Pope to the Councell. M. Iewell saiethe the Emperour did Summon them, not the Pope. Let the Reader consider, who is more to be credited.

[Iewell.] Theodosius the second, the Councell of Ephesus.

[Stapleton.] Euagrius writeth, that whereas Nestorius the heretike woulde not obey neither Cyrillus the lerned bishop of Alexādria nor Celestinus then Pope of Rome,* 1.727 merito oportuit Theodosij Iu∣nioris nutu tunc sceptra tenentis Orientalis Imperij, primam in E∣pheso Synodum congregari &c. It behoued very much that the first Synod of Ephesus should be assembled at the commaun∣dement off Theodosius the Seconde, then Emperour off the East. And it foloweth that he directed his letters to the bi∣shops, and appoynted them a daye to mete together. The like writeth Socrates. But what of that? The Emperour then was of best abilite to bestowe suche charges, as in summoning bi∣shops from all partes of the worlde are requisit. But the que∣stion of the Popes Authorite standeth not so much in summo¦ning,* 1.728 as in ruling, directing, and confirming a Councel. In this first Councell of Ephesus, Celestinus the Pope was president

as the Epistle of the whole Ephesine Councel professeth, Cy¦rillus the bishop of Alexandria being his legat there, and Ne∣storius the hereticall bishop of Constantinople was deposed by the Councell,* 1.729 iuxta dilationem literis praefinitam sanctissimi & reuerendissimi consacerdotis nostri Romanae praesulis Ecclesiae Caele∣stini, according to the delaye and time appointed him by the letters of our most holy (saieth the Councell) and most reuerēt felowe priest Caelestinus bishop of the Churche of Rome. Of the which terme appointed by the Pope, Cyrillus also maketh mencion, in the letter of excommunication which he sent to Nestorius. And the Pope him selfe Caelestinus in his letters to Cyrillus writeth thus. Adiuncta tibi sedis nostrae authorite,* 1.730 & vicis nostra successione & potestate vsus, istam exacta cum seueritate exequeris sententiam, vt nisi intra decem dies ab huius admonitionis die numeratos prauas suas predicationes scripta confessione anathe∣matisauerit, & han•• se de Christi & dei nostri generatione fidem reti∣nere affirmauerit, quā & Romana & tuae sanctitatis & vniuersalis regio predicat, conf••ssini sanctitas tua Ecclesiae illius prouideat, vt sciat se quou••s modo a nostro esse corpore remouendum. Taking vnto you the Authorite of our See, and occupying our place and power, you shall execut (vpon Nestorius the hereticall Pa∣triarche of Constantinople) this sentence exactly and straight∣ly, that Vnlesse within tenne dayes, reakoning from the daye that he shall be warned, he doe anathematise and accurse by Confession in writing his wicked preaching and doctrine, cō∣fessing him selfe to haue the same faithe touching the Incar∣nation of Christ and our God, which the Religion of Rome, of your holynes, and of the Vniuersall Churche dothe teache, let your holynesse out of hande prouide for his Churche (off Constantinople) and let him knowe that he is vtterly to be cut of from our bodye. Thus the Pope executed the finall sentence in the Councell ouer the Patriarche of Constanti∣nople, the whole Councell folowed the determination of the

and Cyrillus the Patriarche of Alexandria was the Popes le¦gat in that behalfe. And that lerned Father Cyrillus thought the Authorite of the Pope herein so necessary, that notwith∣standing by his lerning he knewe Nestorius to holde an here∣ticall doctrine, and was as he protesteth in letters to the Pope, Paratus synodicis id literis manifestum reddere ready to proue it by letters of Conference (as the maner then was amonge bi∣shops) yet he durst not to refraine from communicating with Nestorius or to condemne him,* 1.731 therefore he wrote thus vnto Celestinus the Pope in the same letter. Veruntamen nos ipsi ab illius communione cum fiducia non eximimus, donec ista pietati tuae communicemus. Quapropter quid videatur exprimere dignare, an aliquando debeamus illi cōmunicare, aut in posterū confidenter edicere quod talia & sentiēti & docēti nemo nostrū Cōmunicet. Neuertheles we haue not bene so bolde as to withdrawe ourselues from his Communion, vntell we did certifie your holynesse of these thinges. Wherefore vouchesafe to signifie what is your plea∣sure, whether we may at any time communicat with him, or els boldely pronounce that from hence forthe none of vs doe communicat with him hauing such opinion and teaching such thinges. Thus farre Cyrillus. Againe whereas the bi∣shops of the East and specially of Macedonia did seme to con∣sent to the wicked heresy of Nestorius, Cyrillus writeth also to the Pope, that his pleasure also might be knowen to them, how they ought to deale with Nestorius. For thus he wri∣teth immediatly after the wordes which went before. Scopum vero integritatis tuae perspicuū oportebit fieri per liter as etiā religiogis simis qui per Macedoniam sunt episcopis,* 1.732 & simul omnibus per Oriē∣tem. The intent also of your meaning must be knowen in like maner by your letters to the most holy bishops of Mace∣donia, and through ought the whole East. Such was the Au∣thorite of the Pope in that Ephesine Councel••, and to Cyril∣lus the Head and President of that Councell vnder the Pope,

nothwithstanding the summoning made by the Emperour. Neither did the Emperour Theodosius in that Councell take vpon him the approuing or determining any matter in the Councell, but referreth the whole to the Canons and to the Councell. For thus it appeareth in the Imperiall letters off Theodosius writen vnto Cyrillus, where the Emperour saieth thus. Sunt exemplaria a nostra Maiestate de praedicta sanctissi∣ma Synodo deo dilectis per vniuersas Metropoles Episcopis scripta,* 1.733 vt hoc facto & perturbatio quae ex controuersijs istis accidit, secun∣dum ecclesiasticos Canones dissoluatur, & quae indecēter committūtur corrigantur, sitque & pietati erga deū, & publicis rebus cōmoda firmi tudo, nec aliquid quacūque in re ante sanctissimā Synodū & futurā illius communē sententiā, a quoquā separatim innouetur. The copies of our letters writē to the godly bishops from our Maiesty tho∣rough out al prouinces are extāt touching this holy Synod (hol¦dē at Ephesus) that hereby both the trouble which by these Cō¦trouersies hath risen may be ended and determined according to the ecclesiasticall Canons, and such things as are done amis∣se, may be corrected: that so bothe God may duly be serued, and the Cōmon welth furdered, nor any thing of any mā priuatly be altered or chaūged before the most holy coūcel and the vni∣form sentēce and determinatiō that shal be made by the same. By these it is euident, that the Emperour intermedled not defi∣ning and determyning anye matter in the Councell, or in ap∣prouing the decrees of the same. And therefore the same ho∣ly Councell, at what time one of the Emperours Nobilitie,* 1.734 Iohn by name, went aboute to bringe Iohn the Patriarche off Antioche with his adherents in to the Councell, from whence for taking parte with Nestorius the heretike they were exclu∣ded: the Councell woulde none of it, not suffring the laye ma∣gistrat to intermedle therewith, but tolde the same Iohn the Emperours highe Officer these wordes. Non opus est Regi vt fidem discat, cum hanc sciat, inque illa baptisatus sit.* 1.735 The Empe∣rour

nedeth not to lerne his Faithe, knowing it well enoughe already, as in the whiche he hath bene baptised. By whiche it appeareth that this Theodosius the seconde thoughe he summoned the bishoppes and appointed the place where they might conueniently be assembled, yet he approued not, nor confirmed the decrees off the Councell in lyke Authoritye as Cael••stinus the Bishoppe of Rome then did whose legate in that Councell Cyrillus that lerned Patriarche of Alexandria was, and who in the same Councell was the whole President and chiefe doer, as hath before bene proued, and as the Grekes them selues Marcus of Ephesus and Bessarion of Nice in the eight generall Councell confessed.* 1.736 And as Caelestinus by his Legat and Vicegerent Cirillus directed that Councell, ap∣pointed the ten daies of delaye to Nestorius the Bishoppe off Constantinople, and confirmed the decrees of the same: so Si∣xtus successour to this Caelestinus in the See Apostolike, con∣firmed and approued that Councell also, of whome Cyrillus thus writeth.* 1.737 Scripsit Consona Sanctae Synodo, & omnia illius ge∣sta confirmauit, ac nobiscum consentit. He wrote agreably to the holy Synod, and confirmed all the doinges thereof, and con∣senteth with vs. Of such Confirming and approuing Coun∣cels the question nowe is, not of only summoning bishops to a Councell.

[Iewell.] * 1.738And Marcianus the Councell off Chalcedon.

[Stapletō.] Martianus summoned not that Councell by his owne Au∣thorite only, but by the authorite of Leo also Pope at that ty∣me, as it shall anon appeare.

[Iewell.] * 1.739And Socrates in his Storie saieth thus. Therefore I haue comprised the Emperours within my Storie, for that sythence they beganne to be Christened, the sta¦te of the Church dependeth of them and the greatest Councelles haue ben kepte and be still kept by their Aduise.

[Stapletō.] Who doubteth but that the state of the Church depended

much then and doth also now of good Emperours? And that generall Councelles are kept by their Aduise? But what is this to the purpose? The Emperours helpe then dothe no more ex∣clude the Popes Authorite at that time, then the late helpe and Aduise of all Christened Catholike Princes. namely of the most Catholike Emperours, Charles the fifte, and Ferdinan∣dus his brother, in and aboute the late generall Councell of Trent, dothe exclude the Popes Authorite at this tyme. But touching the state of the Churche dependinge of the Empe∣rours as Socrates writeth, Iohn Caluin him selfe will tell you M. Iewell that the same taketh not awaye the ecclesiasticall Iurisdict••on of the Churche. For he speaking of the Ecclesia∣sticall Authorite to binde and to lose sinners saieth thus. Whe¦reas many thinke that those thinges endured but for a tyme when the Magistrats were yet straungers from the profession of our Religion:* 1.740 they are deceiued in this that they considre not, how great difference and what maner of vnlikenesse there is of the Ecclesiasticall and Ci∣uill power. And a litle after in the next paragraphe he saieth. When Emperours and Magistrats began to professe Christ, the spiri∣tuall Iurisdiction was not by and by abolished, but only so ordered, that it should diminish nothing of the Ciuill Iurisdiction, or be con∣founded with it. It semeth here by Caluins iudgement that the state of the Church depended not so of Emperours after they were Christened, that the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction was the∣reby either abolished or confounded.

[Iewell.] And the bishops in the Councell of Constantinople witnesse that they were summoned to the Romaine Councell by Damasus the B. of Rome: But they adde withall. By warrant of the Emperours letters:* 1.741 Not by any his owne Authorite.

[Stapleton.] These last wordes, not by any his owne Authorite, are auou∣ched of M. Iewell only of his owne Authorite, beside the min¦de and true reporte of his Author which he hath quoted in the Margin. The whole wordes of Theodoret or rather of the bis∣shops

in the Concel of Cōstātinople mēcioned in Theodoret, whereof M. Iewell hath snatched a piece, and in that piece hath saied more to, thē was in his author, are these. Whereas you (saie those bishops to Damasus the Pope) declaring your brotherly lo∣ue toward vs,* 1.742 assembling a councel in Rome by the pleasure of God. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, haue also summoned vs as your proper membres, by the letters of the most godly Emperour, to the entent that whereas befo∣re we only haue abiden the smarte (of the persecution vnder Va∣lens the Arrian) nowe in the godly Consent of th Emperours, (The∣dosius the first and Gratian) you might not raingne or reioyst without vs, but according to the saying of the apostle we might raig∣ne and reioyse with you,* 1.743 we desired verely, if it had bene possible, all of vs at ones to haue lefte our Churches, and to gratifie this profita∣ble requeste.* 1.744 For who will geue vs winges like pigeons (as the Pro∣phet speaketh) that we might flie and rest with you? But seing by these meanes our Churches should be lefte naked, matters being but newely sett in order, and bicause the thinge semed to many impossible, for we had assembled our selues but lately at Cōstantinople by the la∣te letters of your honour sent after the Councell holden in Aquileia to the most godly Emperour Theodosius &c. For these and many o∣ther causes which staied our coming, we haue done yet that was next to be done, bothe for the effect of this purpose, and for declaration off your loue toward vs. That is, we haue sent our most Reuerent and holy brethers and felowe priestes, Cyriacus, Eusebius and Priscanus bishops, by whom you maye knowe our mind and accorde in al thin∣ges.

After this they make a profession of their faith in those let∣ters, they declare what was decreed and determined in the Councell holden at Constantinople, they signifie of Nectari∣us ordered bishop off Constantinople, off Flauianus made bi∣shop of Antioche in Syria, off Cyrillus made bishop in Hieru∣alem, and such like matters. After all which they desire the as∣sent

of Damasus thereto. Nowe touching this present matter, the bishops here do witnesse, that to that Councell off Rome the Pope called them, by the letters of the Emperour, not as a warrant (they haue no such worde) but rather as a meanes,* 1.745 For they witnesse he called them as his proper membres, in like maner truly as the bishops of the great General Councell in Chalce∣don in their letters to Leo the Pope do agnise, that he was ouer them as the Head ouer the Membres, by his legates. whereby it ap∣peareth he called them by his own Authorite as he being their Head, and they his membres. Therefore also they excused so diligently the cause of their not coming to the Councell, the∣refore they sent him a profession of their faithe, and certified him of all other particular thinges done in that Councell, vn∣to the whiche by his owne letters, they confesse also they had bene lately before summoned. The sending forthe of the Em¦perours letters to summon them proueth no more M. Iewel∣les negatiue illation, and not by his owne authorite, then the late edict off Charles the Frenche kinge made in Paris in the yere of our lorde 1562. in the moneth of Ianuary, whereby he commaunded the bishops off Fraunce to repaire to Trent to the Generall Councell there, may inferre also, that the same Councell was summoned Not by the Popes owne autho∣rite, but by the warrant of the French kinges letters. For as Da¦masus the Pope summoned the bishops of the East then to the Romain Councell, by the meanes of the Emperours letters: so Pius the fourthe summoned the bishops of Fraunce to the la∣te Councell of Trent by the meanes off Charles the Frenche kinge at this present. And as the Frenche kinges letters nowe make no argument against the Authorite of Pius the fourthe ouer the late Councell off Trent: no more did the Empe∣rours letters then make any argument against the Popes au∣thorite att that time ouer the Romaine Councell. Especially

for that, not the Emperour him selfe, but the Pope by his let∣ters summoned those bishops to the Councell.

[Iewell.] And likewise in th••ir epistle to the Emperour Theodosius, they write thus.* 1.746 Your Maiestie hath honoured the Churche by the letters, wherewith ye summoned vs together.

For this place M. Iewell hath quoted vnto vs the Actes of the fifte Councell of Constantinople. But in that Councell not Theodosius or any of that name was Emperour but Iu∣stinian, well nere a hundred yeres after bothe the Theodosiu∣ses. Theodosius the first was Emperour in dede in the first Councel of Constantinople, but in al the Actes of that Coūcell, there appeareth not in the volume off the Councelles a∣ny suche letters of the bishopps to the Emperour, or any suche wordes as are here alleaged any other where. Vnder Theodo∣sius the seconde no Councel was holden att Constantinople, but only att Ephesus, beside a prouinciall Councell, whiche Flauianus helde there against Eutyches, off the whiche no A∣ctes are extant. And thus M. Iewell must correct his booke, or els it will be thought he hath forged the matter him selfe, ex∣cept he haue some preuy store off Councelles in his poore li∣brary, which al the worlde beside knoweth not of.

Touching the place it selfe where euer it be foūde, the wor∣des importe no more then that the Emperour Theodosius summoned the Councel, which, as I saied before, doth no mo∣re disproue the Authorite off the Pope in Approuing and Confirming General Councelles (especially in suche sorte as the Ecclesiasticall Canon mentioned by Socrates dothe repor¦te, saying that without the Authorite off the bishopp off Rome no Councell ought to be holden) then dothe the late summoning of the Frenche bishopps by Charles their kinge to the Generall Councell off Trent, Disproue or destroye the Souerain Au∣thorite of the Bishop off Rome that then was ouer the Gene∣rall

Councell then holden and celebrated. For not∣withstanding they were summoned by their kinge, yet were they before summoned and also principally by the Authorite and will of the Pope that then was Pius the fourthe of blessed memorye.

The particular proufes of M. Iewell nowe fayling he gathe∣reth generall coniectures vpon the Popes weakenesse in those daies of the primitiue Churche. And for proufe hereof he alleageth S. Gregory. Accompting him nowe in this place for a bishop of Rome of the primitiue Churche, though he were well nere 600. yeres after Christ,* 1.747 and though he call him in an other place of this Replie, a late and obscure Doctour.

[Iewell.] Gregorius being bishop of Rome, coulde not cause the bishop of Salona being but one man to come before him.* 1.748 Thus he writeth by waye of complainte vnto the Emperesse Constantia. He despised me, and sett me at naught, and would not come vnto me, according to my lordes the Empe¦rours commaundement.

Gentle Reader if it had liked M. Iewell to haue geuen the leaue to reade the whole place of S. Gregory and not to haue nipped of the middle of the sentēce, concealing also the whole circumstance both before and after, thou shouldest haue sene a very weake proofe in this place of the Popes weakenesse, and a great argument of his Authorite. His whole complainte to the Emperesse Cōstantia is this. Salonitanae ciuitatis episcopus &c.* 1.749 The Bishop of Salona hath bene Ordered without my knowledge or my deputies. And that thinge is done, which neuer happened in the time of any my predecessours. I hauing vnderstanding hereof sent forthewith to the offender, which without order had bene so or∣dred, that he shoulde not in any wise presume to saye Masse, vnlesse I had first vnderstoode by my Lordes the Emperours, that they had so commaunded him. And this I commaunded vpon paine of ex∣communication. But he despysing me and setting me at naught* 1.750 being vpholded by certain secular men, which are saied to haue great fly∣ses

out of his Churche, presumeth yet to saie Masse, and woulde not come vnto me according to my Lordes the Emperours commaunde∣ment. Notwithstanding I obeying to their commaundement, haue so released that Maximus, so vnlaufully made bishop, without my know¦leadg or my deputies, the faulte of his vnlauefull ordinatione, so since∣rely as if he had bene by my Authorite ordained. But his other of∣fenses and bodely mish••fes, which I haue vnderstode, of him, as that he was by symonie choson, and that he presumed to saie Masse being ex∣cōmunicated, I can not for Gods quarel leaue vntried. But I do wish and pray our Lorde, that none of th••se thinges be founde true in him of the which he is accused, and that without the perill of my soule, his cause may be ended. Now wheras my gracious Soueraines haue sent cōmaundement, that before the trial of these matters, I should receiue him honourably coming hither, truly it is a heauy case that a man so infamous, and accused of such great crimes, should be honoured before his triall and purgation. And if the questions of the bishops cō∣mitted to my charge be in the disposition of my good lordes the Empe¦roures by the sute of other men, I vnhappy man what make I here in this Churche? Verely that my owne bishops do thus despise me, and do finde refuges againste me at the handes of secular Iudges, I thanke allmighty God, my sinnes are the cause thereof. Howbeit to be short, this muche I signifie to your highnes. I will tary for him fo•• a time, if he make long d••laies to come at me,* 1.751 I will not faile to excute vpō him ••xtremite of law. This is the whole cōplainte of holy S. Gre¦gory to the Emperesse Cōstātia, and thus it endeth. Such was the Popes weakenesse, that notwithstanding he complaineth that he was despised of his owne bishop, a bishop of Salone in Illyricum, and vpholden by certain secular men which obtai∣ned the Emperours letters for him to the Pope, notwithstan∣ding the commaundement of the Emperour, his weakenesse was such, that he auouched stoutely, that he will not faile to execute the lawe vpon him. Thus by peeced and patched sent••nces out of the olde Fathers, M. Iewell would p••o•••• the

thinge which the whole place considered vtterly ouerthro∣weth. Thus he deludeth his Reader and maketh him bele∣ue he hath store of Authorites and doctours, bicause he can alleage apase, and lye apase, and corrupt cleanly. For beholde here foloweth immediatly an other.

[Iewell.] * 1.752Therefore Leo finding this weakenesse in him selfe, wrote vn∣to the cle••gie and people of Cōstantinople, and willed th••m to craue a gene••ll Councell at the Emperours hande Ex pos••ite vt petitio••i n••strae ••ua plena••i 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Syno••••m ••ostula••us, ••lemen••is••imus Imperator dignetur an∣••••ere. M••ke your request, that the Emperours Maiesty would vou∣chesafe, to graunte my humble petition, wherein I besought him to Summon a Generall Councell. Liberatus saieth that Leo the Bi∣s••op of Rome, with other moe bishops of Italie f••ll vpon there knees, and d••sired the Emperour Val••ntinian, and the Emp••resse Eudoxia to appointe a Councell, and yet coulde not obtaine it.

In this alleagation out of Liberatus two Vntruthes are committed by M. Iewel. For neither Leo the Pope s••ll on his knees to the Emperour Valentinian, neither did they desire him to appointe a Councell, but to write to Theodosius the Emperour of the East, aboute it. The wo••des of Liberatus are these:* 1.753 Fortissimus Leo audiens l••gatorum suorū suggestionem & Theodoreti querelas suscipiens, literis Theodosium Impe••atorem & Pulcheriam Augustam rogat, vt fieret intra Italiam g••n••rale Con¦••lium, vt aboleretur error fidei per violentiam Dioscori factus. Va∣lëtinianum autem imperatorem & Eudoxiam vxor••m cius, ad me∣moriam beati Petri, cum multis episcoporum genibus prouolutis, Romanus Pontifex deprecatus est Imperatorē vt Theodosiū hortare¦tur, aliā fieri Synodū, ad retractandū illa quae a Dioscoro male acta at{que} perpetrata fuerāt in dānationē Flauiani Episcopi, & orthodox∣rū depositiōe. Leo the stout hearing the repotte of his legats, and receauinge the complaintes of Theodoretus (the lerned B. of Cyrus) desireth by his letters Theodosius the Emperour and Pulcheria the Empresse, that a generall Councell might be helde within Italy, to vndoe the heresye which Dioscorus by violence had wrought: Also the Bishoppe of Rome beseched

Valentiniam the Emperour and Eudoxia his wife, at Sainte Peters Churche, with many of the bishoppes kneeling on their knees, to require the Emperoure Theodosius, that an other Synod might be called to reuoke those things which Diosco∣rus (the heretike bishoppe of Alexandria) had concluded in the condemnation of Flauianus the Catholike bishoppe of Constantinople, and in the deposing of the Catholikes. Thus farre the wordes of Liberatus. Where he sayeth not that Leo the Pope fell on his knees to the Emperour as Master Iewell fableth, but that Leo intreated him with many of the bishopps falling on their knees. Againe they intreate not Valentinian to appointe a Councell, but to exhorte and persuade the Em∣perour Theodosius thereunto. Thus Master Iewell foloweth his naturall humour euer to reporte thinges vntrulye, and to make worse of the matter, then his Author will suffer hym. Touching the matter it selfe, we shall anon speake at large. Let vs first consider the remnant of M. Iewelles gheasses againste the authorite of the Pope, in approuing summoning and au∣thorising Councelles most clerely witnessed by the ecclesiasti¦call Story.

[Iewell.] Afterwarde he desyred the Emperoure Theodosius that he woul∣de call a Councell to some place in Italy. And the Emperoure con∣trarye to the Bisshoppe of Romes petition,* 1.754 appointed it to be holden at Ephesus.

[Stapleton.] * 1.755So did the same Emperoure Theodosius maintayne the heretike Dioscorus in that conspiracy (not Councell) at E∣phesus (as Leo calleth it) and vpholded (as Liberatus writeth) the condemnation of Flauianus: Theodo••etus and other Ca∣tholike bishoppes not suffring (as the Pope required) an other Councell to be called for the dissolution thereof. Thus M. Ie∣well is driuen againe to take parte with heretikes, and suche as vpholde them.

[Iewell.] * 1.756After that he made the same requeste to the Emperoure Martia∣nus. And the Emperoure lykewise contrary to the Bisshoppes hum∣ble requeste commaunded the Councell to be kepte att Chalcedon. And whereas Leo had besought bothe these Emperours that it might please them to take a longer daie for the Councell, for that the tyme of the Summon semed very shorte, and the waies were laied with e∣myes, and therefore daungerouse for the Bishoppes to trauaill, yet woulde neuer of them alter one daye, but charged eche man to appea∣re as they were summoned. And Leo the B. of Rome withall his vni∣uersal power, was faine to yelde.

[Stapleton.] No no M. Iewell: The vniuersall power of the bishoppe of Rome stoode vprighte notwihstandinge all that you haue brought to the contrary. And for triall hereof, youre owne au∣thorityes M. Iewell, the Epistles of Leo shall euidently speake. For as they report in dede that by the aduise of the Emperour contrary to the Popes request the generall Councell was hel∣de at Chalcedon and not in Italy, so they also expressely re∣porte that all was done, without preiudice of the Popes au∣thorite therein. The wordes of Leo the bishop of Rome writ∣ten to the whole Synod of Chalcedon are these.* 1.757 I had wished in dede most derelie beloued that all the Priestes of God did agree in one profession off the Catholike faithe, and that none woulde so be cor¦rupted either by fauour and by feare of the secular power, that he should thereby swarue from the truthe: But bicause many thinges are oftē done of the which we after repent, and the Mercy of God passeth the offences of men, who forbeareth to reuenge that we maye haue le∣asure to amende, the religious Aduise of our moste gracious Empe∣rour is to be embraced, mouing your holy brotherhood to meate and assemble your selues together for the ouerthrowing of Sathans sl••igh∣tes, and reforming of vnite in the Churche, * 1.758 the honour and right off the See of S. Peter the most blessed Apostle pres••rued, inuiting also vs by his letters to assiste in person at this reuerent Councell, which yet neither the Necessite of this time, neither any custome coulde permit∣te. Howbeit in oure brethern Paschasius and Lucentius Bishoppes,

Bon••facius and Basilius Priestes, youre brotherhood hath me Pr••si∣dent in your Synode: Neither may you thinke me absent, which in my legat••s am Present, and in the setting forthe of the Catholike fai∣the, * 1.759 haue not this longe time ben absent. Thus farre Leo. Whose whole wordes as they lye in his Epistle I haue alleaged, to the entent you may see M. Iewell that notwihstanding Martianus had appointed the Councell to be kept at Chalcedon, yet it was done Apostolicae sedis iure atque honore seruato, withoute a∣nye preiudice to the right and honour of the Apostolike See. Which right the ecclesiasticall history confesseth to be,* 1.760 that without it no Councell coulde be helden or celebrated, and that longe before this Leo in the time of Iulius. And therefo∣re Leo geueth his expresse consent to the Emperours calling and hastening vnto the Councell (which he would gladly for a time haue differed) writing vnto him in these wordes. I re∣quired in dede of your most glorious clemency,* 1.761 that the Synod which you thought necessary to be assembled, as we also required, for resto∣ryng of vnite in the East Church, might be for a time differed, that the mindes of men being more settled, those bishops whiche for feare off enemies are staied at home, might also meete. But bicause you do ze∣lously preferre gods cause, before the affaires off men, and are wisely and godly persuaded that it shall furder the welth of your empire to haue the priestes off God in vnite, and the ghospell preached without dissension, Ego etiam vestris dispositionibus non renitor. I also do not witstande your order herein, wis••ing that the Catholi∣ke faithe, whiche can possibly be but one, may be strenghthened in the hartes of all men. Thus farre Pope Leo to the Emperour Mar∣tianus, wherein we see he was not forced of the Emperour a∣gainst his wil, but b•• good considerations was moued to con∣sent and agree to that, which the Emperour of zeloe and pie∣ty thought best to be done. But bicause M. Iewell imagineth here a generall shipwrake of the Popes vniuersall power, for so he calleth the authoritie off Christes chiefe vicaire ouer all

Christen men, I will geue to the Reader a note or two out of the epistles of Leo that may sufficiently declare the supreme Authorite of the Pope ouer that generall Councell of Chalce∣don. First that his legates were president thereat, it is euident by the wordes of Leo before alleaged out of his letters to the whole Councell,* 1.762 and also by the tenour of his legates subscri∣ption to the Councel, as we haue before alleaged. Secondarely bicause in that Councel, many bishops of the East, which had yelded before to Dioscorus the heretike, were partly to be re¦conciled, partl••e punished, the ordering hereoff was all in the handes of the Popes legates, as Leo in his letters bothe to the Emperour Martinus and to Anatholius bishop of Constanti∣nople dothe expresse. His wordes to the Emperour are these. To the entent that they which wil amende, may neither be ouermuch delaied, neither ouer easely and without discretion remitted:* 1.763 it is en∣ioyned to the legates of the See Apostolike, taking also with them the aduise of the bishop off Constantinople, to see that neither the contagi∣ous parties be admitted, nor the whole and sounde repelled. In his let∣ters to Anatholius bishop of Constantinople appointing him his legat with Lucentius and Basilius whom he sent at that ti∣me to the councel, he writeth thus.* 1.764 As touching those which ha∣ue offended more greuously in this matter (he meaneth in the schis∣maticall conuenticle of Ephesus) and therefore chal••ng••d to them selues a superiour place in that vnhappy Synode, oppressing by their ambitious pride the humilite of th••ir simple b••ethern: if perhappes th••y do rep••nt and do confesse their owne wickednesse, if th••ir satis∣faction do s••me according, let it be res••rued to s••me riper Councell••s of th•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Apostolike, to thentent that all thinges b••ing ••••i••d and exa∣mined, iu••g••ment may be geu••n what ought to b•• d••t••rmined vpon their confessions. And a litle after. If it b••n d••••u••l in some c••s•• to haue a fa••d••r deliberation, l••t me besped••ly in••o••••••d th••••••of, t••at the con••i••ion and cas•• b••ing ••xamin••d, we may d••••••rmine, what is to be d••ne. T••us fa••re Leo. In all which wordes we s••e M. I••we••l a

supreme Authorite of the Pope and his legates ouer the who∣le Coūcel, in pardoning and punishing such bishops as had be∣fore offended, notwitstanding the place and time of the Coū∣cell was after the Emperours minde and pleasure. Thirdly whereas Martianus being Emperour of the East, required the Councell to be helden in the East partes, not in Italy, that all that was done by the authorite and consent off the Pope, not by any such rigorous force and absolut commaundement of the Emperour as M. Iewell vntruly reporteth, it shal appea∣re by these letters of the Emperour him selfe vnto Leo. Mar∣tianus at the beginning of his Empire writeth to Pope leo in this sorte. Being called by the prouidence of allmighty God to the empire,* 1.765 &c. We for the reuerent and Catholike religion of the Christen faithe, by the helpe and maintenaunce whereof, we do trust the power of our Empire to be strēghthened, haue thought good in the beginning hereof, to speake by our letters to your holynes, whiche occupieth the principalite in the bishoprike charge of godes faithe,* 1.766 prouoking and re∣quiring your holynes to remembre the good estate off our Empire in your praiers, and that also for the extirping of all wicked errour, we maye fully purpose and determine, to restore vnite and concorde a∣monge all Catholike bishops, By celebrating a Councell, by your Au∣thorite. Thus much the Emperour Martianus to Leo the Po∣pe for the calling and summoning of a Councell. Wherein you see, howe farre he is from any forceable meane, and howe litle he vseth therein his owne Authorite, but referreth the matter expressely to the Pope, whom also he confesseth to beare the principalite and chiefty in the bishoply office, that is, among al bishops. Nowe touching the place where the Councel might be holden, in an other letter to the Pope, thus the Emperour Martianus writeth.* 1.767 It remaineth, that if it shall please your ho∣lynesse to come in to these partes, and to celebrat the Councell: you wil vachesafe so te doe. Truly herein your holines shall satisfie our desire, and shall determine profitably for the furderance of godly religion.

But if this be burdenous for you to come hether, let your holynesse signifie the same vnto vs by your letters, to the entent we may dire∣cte our commaundement to all the East, in to Thracia and to Illy∣ricum to summon all the most holy bishops into some determinat pla∣ce, where it shall please vs,* 1.768 that they maye so by their disposition sett suche thinges as concerne the furderance of Christen Religion and the Catholike faithe, euen as your holynesse shall determine accor∣ding to Ecclesiasticall Canons. In like maner the Emperesse Pulcheria writeth to Leo the Pope aboute the calling and summoning off this Councell off Chalcedon: Prop∣terea tua reuerentia quocunque modo prospexit,* 1.769 significare di∣gnetur. Therefore lett your Reuerentnes voutchesafe to signifie vnto vs, after what maner so euer it shall thinke good, that we maye summon the bishopps to a Councell, vt de episcopis qui ante hoc segregati sunt, sicut fides & Christiana pietas exigit, te authore deceruant, to determine by your Authorite of such bishops as haue before this time bene separated, euen as the faithe and Christen piety requireth. Thus muche wrote the Emperours to Leo, and thus wrote Leo to them. Here was no decaie or shipwracke of the Po∣pes vniuersall power, but here was a most clere and euident demonstration of his supreme Authorite in approuing, and ordering a generall Councell, practised by his legates, confes∣sed by the Emperours, and not dissembled by lerned Leo him selfe. More yet of the Popes authorite in this generall Councell of Chalcedon, we shall haue occasion hereafter to speake in the 118. Vntruthe.* 1.770 Now let vs see what M. Iewell will conclude of all the allegations out of Liberatus and the epistles of Leo. He saieth.

Hereby we may soone coniecture, howe true it is, either that Po∣pe Gelasius writeth, That onely the Apostolike See of Rome decreed by her Authorite, that the Councell shoulde be summoned, or els that M. Har∣dinge woulde haue vs beleue, That all Councelles were summoned by the Pope.

Hereby we may soone coniecture how truly and faith∣fully M. Iewell meaned when he offred to yelde and subscribe to any olde father or Councell of the first 600. yeres, whiche nowe so litle estemeth the Authorite of Gelasius a lerned Fa∣ther of lesse then 500. yeres after Christe, that he taketh vpon him to comptrolle him and to proue him a lyar. So that nowe the question is no more betwene vs whether the lerned Fathers do write so, teache so, or witnesse so: but whe∣ther their writinges, their doctrine, their witnesses be true, or no. And whom shal we beleue, if we beleue not such aun∣cient writers, so many hundred yeres before vs, so longe taken for lerned Fathers, bishoppes of Christes Churche in their life time? Shall we leaue Gelasius, and beleue Iewell? This impudent arrogancy must nedes procede of Lucifer the first creature that sinned in pride. If this be admitted, what doe we professe a Christen faithe any longer? What do we talke of Fathers and Councelles, if when Fathers and Councelles are brought, we must yet proue farder that the Fathers speake truly, and that the Councelles saye well. This is not to be tried by the Fathers: but it is to trie and examine the Fathers them selues. And then they are not our Fathers, but our scholers. This is the righ∣te waye to paganisme and infydelite, and to the vtter aboli∣shment off all Christianite. To suche issue these newe altercations haue brought matters. Iff we be Christen men, lett vs abhorre these enormites: If we be no Christen men, what talke we of Christ and the ghospell? To this di∣gression the impudency off M. Iewell hath forced me. Touching the saying of Gelasius, which M. Iewell malapert∣ly comptrolleth, first Gelasius talketh not of summoning but of holding and making the Councell. His wordes are. Authoritate,* 1.771 vt Synodus Ghalcedonensis fieret, sola decernit. Onely the See Apostolike by her Authority decreed, that the

Councell of Chalcedon shoulde be holden. And this to be true, it appeareth euidently by the letters of the Emperoure Martianus and the Emperesse Pulcheria to Leo the Pope, and by the letters of Leo to the Councell it selfe, as we haue before declared. Againe this Gelasius wrote those wordes litle more then fifty yeres after the Councel of Chalcedon was finished. It is credible he knewe as well what was done there, as M. Ie∣well doth. Thirdly what doth all this conclude against the al∣legations of D. Hardinge? What maketh it against the expres∣se and most manifest testimony of the Ecclesiasticall Storye witnessing expressely, that without the Authorite of the bishopp of Rome no Councels coulde be helde, and that by the vertue of the Ec∣clesiasticall Canon. What is all this to the Councelles of the Ar∣rians, disproued and disanulled for lacke of the bishoppe of Ro¦mes Authorite? Forsothe M. Iewell concludeth that Hereby it may appeare that all Councells were summoned by the Pope. D. Har¦dinge saied not so muche. But that all Councelles must be ap∣proued by the Pope, euen as the ecclesiasticall history witnes∣seth. And that certaine namely those of the Arrians were not accompted for lawfull Councelles, bicause they were not summoned nor approued by the Pope. Against this Master Iewell hathe nothing concluded, vnlesse he will reason thus.

The Pope Leo approued and summoned the Councell of Chal∣cedon, and graunted to the Emperours pleasure touchinge the place.

Ergo, the Pope hath no Authorite to summon or approue Con¦cell••s.

Or thus.

Gelasius saied truly that only by the Authorite of the Pop•• th•• councell of Chalcedon was helde.

Ergo the Pope hath not Authority to approue the Councelles.

These are weake reasons, God wotteth. And yet so he must reason, if of the premisses he will conclude to the pur∣pose.

And if it be not to the purpose what maketh it he∣re?

M. Iewell goeth forthe and multiplieth Vntruthes. He sa∣yeth.

[Iewell.] * 1.772Neither was the Bishop of Rome, nor his legate in his absence euer more the President or Chiefe of the Councell.

[Stapleton.] The contrarye before hath expressely bene shewed out off the Epistles of Leo, and the Actes of the Councell of Chalce∣don touching the Councell there kept. And oute of the E∣pistles of Cyrillus touching the Councell of Ephesus.

[Iewell.] * 1.773For it is knowen that in the Counell of Nice Eustathius the Pa∣triarke of Antioche was the President, and the Bishoppe off Ro∣mes legates Vitus and Vincentius sate in the fourthe Roome benea∣the.

[Stapletō.] This is knowen to be a manifeste Vntruthe. Osius, Vi∣tus and Vincentius were the firste of all that subscribed, ac∣cording to the Order mencioned in the volumes of the Coun¦celles.* 1.774

[Iewell.] * 1.775In the Councell of Constantinople Menna was the chiefe.

This Menna was not the president of the Councell alone. Sabinus, Epiphanius, Asterius, Leo, Rusticus bishoppes, Theo∣phanes and Pelagius Deacons, sent from the Apostolike See of Rome, considebant illi coadiutores, did sitt in the like and ae∣quall Authorite with him, as the Actes of the Councel do ex∣pressely declare.

[Iewell.] * 1.776In the Councell of Sardica, Osius and Corduba in Spaine.

This Osius of Corduba, with Vincentius of Capua, Ianua∣rius of Beneuentum, and Calepodius of Naples bishoppes, we∣re the legates of the See Apostolike, and were all presidents in that Councell.

[Iewell.] In the Councell of Aquileia, S. Ambrose of Millaine,

In the Councell of Carthage, Aurelius the B. there.

[Stapletō.] These were prouinciall Councelles, not generall. And yet bothe the Africanes sent the Actes of their Councells

to Innocentius to be confirmed as appeareth in S. Augustin, and Celestinus witnesseth that they were confirmed by the See Apostolike. As for the Councell of Aquileia we haue it not perfectly sett forthe, as by the ende of it is easy to be seme.* 1.777

In the Councell of Chalcedon Leo the bishop off Romes Legate had chiefe roome, but by waie of intreaty only, and by the Empe∣rours speciall graunte, and not of dew right, or vniuersall Autho∣rite.

Beholde the lying impudencie of M. Iewell. before he sa∣ied. Neither was the Bishop of Rome, nor his legate in his absence, ••uermore the president or Chiefe of the Councell. Nowe he confes∣seth that in the Councel of Chalcedon Leo the bishop of Romes lega∣te had the chiefe Roome. Wherein he proueth him selfe in the for∣mer to haue made a manifest lie. But nowe he spiceth the matter withe an other Notorious and lewde lie only auou∣ched, but no waye proued, that the Popes Legat had there th•• Chiefe Rome by waie of intreaty only &c. It shoulde haue beho∣ued M. Iewell to haue proued this. verely he hath bene so often taken in lying, that for any credit to be geuen him in suche matters, he may nowe stande for banckeroute. Certai∣nely Leo notwithstanding Martianus summoned the Coun∣cell of Chalcedon, yet he saieth that was done Apostolicae Se∣dis iure atque honore seruato,* 1.778 the Right and the honour off the Apostolike See reserued. And in the same Councell it is o∣penly auouched without any Cōtradiction, notwithstanding M. Iewelles Nay here,* 1.779 that Missi Apostolici semper in Synodis prius loqui & confirmare soliti sunt, the legates of the See Apo∣stolike were wonte in Councels allwaies to speake first, and to cōfirme first. This loe was the right of the See Apostolike, this was not by waie of Intreaty. And therefor the Emperour him selfe Martianus writinge to Pope Leo about the assem∣bling of this councell affirmeth eius sanctitatem principatum in episcopatu diuinae fidei possidere that his holynesse occupieth the* 1.780

Chiefty or principal roome in the bishoply charge of Gods faithe, and inuiteth him therfore ad celebrandam Synodū eo Au∣thore, that a coūcel may be celebrated by his Authorite. In like maner writeth Pulcheria the Emperesse vnto Leo the Pope of Rome aboute the same time as it hathe before bene decla∣red. Here is an Authorite confessed not only of Leo the Po∣pe, and the Coūcel, but of the Emperour him selfe in gouuer¦ning and directing the Councel. Here is no intreaty or special graunt made or required, M. Iewel would faine it were so, but withe al his shiftes he shall neuer be all to proue it so.

But, saieth M. Harding, the bishop of Rome allowed all Coun∣cels. This is not denied.

If it be not denied, why haue you so longe striued against it?

So did others, not only patriarches or bishoppes but also Ciuill princes.

Gentle Reader. Eye M. Iewel wel. Vnlesse thou take good hede, he will steale from thee. He saieth not only the bishopp of Rome allowed all Counc••lles, but also (saieth M. I••well) So did others. Then he must proue that other allowed all Councels, and that with suche and like authorite, as the Pope did. Nowe the Authorite of the Pope was such, that without it (as the eccle∣siasticall story reporteth) No councelles might be held. Then M. Iewell must proue that nott only Patriarches and other bi∣shops, but also Ciuil Princes, had such authorite in approuing Councelles, that without their Authorite they mignt not be helde. Such authorite M. Iewell must proue. Els, his so did o∣thers, will not folowe. Nowe let vs see howe he proueth it.

In the Councell of Calcedon it is writen thus. Theodosius the Em∣perour of godly memorie hath confirmed all thinges by a general law••, that were de∣termined in the vniuersall Councell. So likewise the Emperour Martianus. by the holy edicte of our Maiest•• we confirme that Reuerend Councel. So Eusebi∣us witnesseth that the Emperperour Constantius confirmed the de∣terminations of the Councel of Nice. So the bishoppes in the Coun∣cell of Constātinople wrote to the Emperour Theodosius. wee desire by your fauour by your highnes letters to ratifie and confirme the

decree of the Councell.

You might haue added here M. Iewell, so in the late gene∣rall Councell of Trent, the Oratours of the Emperour and e∣uery Catholike prince there present, confirmed the decrees of the Councell. And yet neither the other examples nor this late example is any thinge like to the confirming of the bishop of Rome, The bishop of Romes confirmation is so necessary that without it, (as the Canons do commaunde) no Councell can be kept. No bishop nor prince hath such a confirmation. As for example, Theodosius which you alleaged first, confirmed the Councell of Ephesus. And yet that Councell was after and e∣uer sence accompted for no lawfull Councel bicause the lega∣tes of Pope Leo were not admitted, but by violence of the he∣retike dioscorus iniured.* 1.781 Therefore as all your other examples do proue a godly zele in these good Catholike Emperours, and do shewe howe necessary it is that the secular power do aide the spirituall, yet no Emperour or laie prince euer confir∣med any Councell, as the Iudge and president hereof. To be shorte. The bishop of Rome hath in all Councelles a negatiue voice, as without whose, none can be approued: for so doth the Canon, mencioned in the Ecclesiasticall history, ex∣pressely witnesse. Such a negatiue voice, such an absolute and supreme Authorite in approuing Councelles no Prince nor Patriarche hathe, but only the bishop of Rome successour to Peter chiefe of the Apostles.

For why? The Emperour or laye Prince, as he hath no abso∣lute authorite to iudge in matter of ••he faithe, so hath he none to approue Councelles, when matters of the faithe only are handled. Therefore Gregory Nazianzen being a bishop, calleth the Emperour, Ouem sui gregis, a shepe of his flocke.* 1.782 So S. Am∣brose saieth. What is more honorable for the Emperour, then to be called the sonne of the Churche, for a good Emperour is within the Churche, not aboue the Churche. So Iohn Caluin in his Institions

directly against M. Iewell, and according to the minde of S. Ambrose saieth. The Magistrat if he be godly, will not exempt him selfe from the common subiection of the Children of God. Where∣fore it is not the least parte to submitte himselfe to the Churche iud∣ging by the worde of God. And therefore Constantin the great in the first Coūcel of Nice, as Sozomenus recordeth, entred in to the Concell house after all the bissops,* 1.783 had his seate and place benethe thē all, neither woulde sitt Downe before the bishops had commaunded him. And in that Councell, he protested plainely that it was not his parte to iudge ouer the bishops. Whose example the vertu∣ous Emperour Martianus expressely folowing in the Councel of Chalcedon, in his oration made to the whole Synod spea∣keth thus. Nos ad confirmandam fidem, non ad ostendendam virtu∣tem exemplo Cōstantini Imperatoris adesse Synodo cogitauimus.* 1.784 We after the example of Constantine haue thought good to be pre¦sent at this Councell, not to shewe our power therein, but to confirme the faithe.* 1.785 And a litle after he saieth, Our endeuour must be to applie the people to the one and right Churche, being first persuaded the true and holy doctrine. And therefore let your Re••∣uerentnesse expound and declare the true and Catholike faithe accor∣ding to the doctrine of the Fathers, in al vnite and cōcorde. Thus this vertuous Martianus folowing the steppes of Constantinus, though he confirmed the faithe of the Concell, yet he iudged not in the Councell, he commited the triall and iudgement of doctrine to the bishops, he made his people to obey it. Thus did Emperours and Ciuill princes behaue them selues in Coun∣celles, such as were Catholikes, and defenders of the Catholike faithe. This helpeth not hindereth, this strengtheneth not ouer∣throweth the spirituall Iurisdiction.* 1.786 And thus much of the Ci∣uill princes, and namely of Martianus and Constantinus allea∣ged by M. Iewell. As for Theodosius the seconde, whom he al∣leageth also, in the first Councel of Ephesus holden vnder him, he behaued him selfe as other Catholike Emperours did before

him, submitting all matters to the determination of the Coun∣cell, as in Cyrillus aboue alleaged it appeareth. But afterwar∣de as he toke vpon him more then becomed his estate: so he maintayned the blasphemous heresy of Eutyches,* 1.787 so he defen∣ded the schismaticall synode of Dioscorus the heretike, so he consented to the deathe of the blessed bishop of Constantino∣ple Flauianus called therefore a Martyr in the Chalcedō Coū∣cell, so most iniuriously in that conuenticle of Ephesus, he would not suffer Flauianus, Eusebius, and other Catholike bi∣shops which had deposed the heretike Eutyches, to sit in Iud∣gement, but to stande as partyes accused, to answer to the wic∣ked heretike Eutyches.* 1.788 But as that cōuēticle of Ephesus which that Emperour so much maintained, was and is to this daye condemned for heretical, as Martianus sucessour to this Theo∣dosius the second brought to Cōstantinople the relikes of the Martyr Flauianus, as the heresy of Eutyches by that Emperour defended was by the generall Councell of Chalcedon, and by the consent of Christendom hetherto, condemned and dete∣sted: so the doinges of that Emperour are not preiudiciall to the Catholike faithe, either in not admitting the Popes legates at the conuenticle of Ephesus, either in not suffring a Coun∣cell to be called for redresse of the Eutychian heresy at the Po∣pes most earnest sute and request. Finally as M. Iewell fin∣deth most helpe for his cause, in heretikes and maintayners off heretikes, in Arrians, Donatistes and Eutychians: so the cause which the Catholikes defende, is euidently furdered by the be∣hauyour and doinges of Catholike bishops, Athanasius, Chri∣sostom, Theodoretus and other, and by Catholike Princes Constantinus and Martianus.

[Iewell.] Now seing it is lawfull for Princes and Ciuile gouuernours to con∣firme the decrees and determinatiōs of Councels, how can we doub∣te, but it was lawfull for bishops also to doe the same? Therefore Theodoretus saieth. The Conclusions of the Councell of Nice were sent abro∣de to the other bishoppes that were away.

So were the Conclusions of the Councelles of Trent sent to all Catholike Churches in Europe. This is but mere delu∣ding and mocking of the Reader.

[Iewell.] * 1.789And Victorius saieth. That many thousandes of bishoppes allo∣wed that same Councell and agreed vnto it.

[Stapleton] And we saie that infinit Millions of bishoppes haue allo∣wed not only the Councell of Nice, but all generall Councel∣les beside, yea we say farder that whosoeuer alloweth them not, is an heretike. What will this trifler conclude of all this?

[Iewell.] Aboue all others, the Subscription and Confirmation of the foure principall Patriarches was specially required, for that both their char∣ge and also their Countenaunce and Credit was greater then others. Emonge wh••ch foure, the bishop of Rome was euer the first, and the∣refore his consent semed to beare greatest weight.

[Stapleton] In these wordes M. Iewell hath fully concluded against him selfe. For he saieth. The bishop of Rome was euer the first of the foure Patriarches. Of the which graunte of M. Iewell thus I reason. The Patriarches had in their iurisdiction al the Chur∣che of Christ, and all bishops of the Churche. But the bishop of Rome was euer the first of all the Prtriarches.

Ergo, the bishop of Rome was euer the first of all other bi∣shops. The first proposition is euident by the distribution of prouinces made in the Nicene Councell, and by the confes∣sion of M. Iewell out of the letter of Damasus to the bishops of Illyricum,* 1.790 who were as M. Iewell proueth a parte of the bi∣shop of Romes prouince, being in orbe Romano. in the Romane Iurisdiction as M. Iewell turneth it.* 1.791 And so was all the west parte of the worlde: Fraunce, Spaine, Afrike, Britanny and Ita∣ly, as well as Illyricum. The second proposition is here by M. Iewell in expresse wordes confessed and auouched. Then the Conclusion foloweth directly. Then if the Pope hath euer bene first of al bishops, he hath euer had the primacy ouer all bishops. If euer, then now at this day also. If ouer all bishops, then ouer all the rest of the Churche also. For as the Prince be∣ing

head of the Nobles is head ouer all the communaultye: so the bishop of Rome being first of all Patriarches, is first of all bishops, and first of all Christen people vndernethe bishoppes. Being first, he hath the Primacy, he is Head and chiefe of all.* 1.792 This is so true that M. Iewell not only auouchet it, but also proueth it. For this it foloweth in his text.

[Iewell.] * 1.793 And for that cause the Emperour Martianus required Leo the Bis¦shoppe of Rome to writte vnto the Councell of Chalcedon, and to declare that he gaue ••is Consent to the Rule off Faithe that there was determi∣ned.

[Stapletō.] * 1.794For that cause, saieth M. Iewell, that is, bicause he was euer the first of the foure Patriarches, the Bishoppe of Rome is re∣quired of the Emperoure, to geue his consent saieth Master Ie∣wel. to confirme, saie the wordes of Leo his Epistle to the Con∣cell of Chalcedon. Lo the Pope is so truly the first of all other, that in respect of that primacy, he is required to confirme the determinations of all other. The other Patriarches had before subscribed to the decrees of the Councell. Maximus of Antio∣che, Iuuenalis of Hierusalem, and Anatolius of Constantino∣ple. Yet the bishop of Rome must sende his letters to confirme their doinges. Gods name be blissed. The force of Trut••e is su∣che, that euen at the mouthe of the enemy thereof it breaketh out. This I trow, helpeth M. Iewell but a litle. Let vs see howe he procedeth.

[Iewell.] * 1.795And in like sorte the Emperoure Theodosius required all Bis∣shoppes to subscribe and to geue theyr assente to the Councell off Nice.

[Stapletō.] Not in like sorte M: Iewell. The Councell of Nice was en∣ded and fully confirmed more then a hundred yeares before this Theodosius. And he required them to assent to the Coun¦cell of Nice, not so much for a confirmation thereof, as for the better establishing of the Eutychian heresye, whiche bicause it was not expressely condemned or moued in that Councell of

Nice, this Emperoure and Dioscorus the chiefe doer in this matter, cried for a confirmation of the Councell of Nice, and commaunded other matters not there discussed, to be at the iudgement of that conuenticle of Ephesus guided and ruled all by the force and violence of Dioscorus the heretike. All whiche he did to disanulle thereby the Synode of Flauianus helde a litle before in Constantinople against the heresye off Eutyches. For this cause the Emperoure Theodosius so longe after the Nicene Councell caused the bishoppes a freshe to sub¦scribe to the same. This was not like to the Confirmation off the Chalcedon Councell required by the Emperour Martia∣nus of Leo the bishop of Rome. For his Confirmation was of suche force and Authoritye that for wante of that, the Con∣uenticle of Ephesus vnder Dioscorus the heretike, was vtterly disanulled and condemned. Therefore in the Councell off Chalcedon, Lucentius one of the Popes legates chargeth ex∣pressely Dioscorus,* 1.796 quòd Synodum ausus est facere fine Authori∣tate sedis Apostolicae, quod nunquam rite factum est nec fieri licuit. That he presumed to holde a Councell (at Ephesus) withoute the Authorite of the See Apostolike, which at no tyme was e∣uer done, or laufull to doe. Therefore also when the Actes off this Ephesine conuenticle were read in the Councel of Chal∣cedon, being mencioned in the reading thereof that Iulianus Leo the Popes legat was present thereat, (for so the heretike Dioscorus fained then for the better cloking of his wicked at∣temptes in restoring the heretike Eutyches) the bishops of the East cried out: Eiectus est, Nullus suscepit nomen Leonis. The po∣pes legat was thrust out. The name of Leo was not admitted. And a litle after, when it was read oute of the Actes of the E∣phesine conuenticle, that the letters of Pope Leo directed thi∣ther were reade in the Synod, the bishops of the East cried out againe. Non est nobis lecta epistola, si enim lecta fuisset per omnia, & contineretur per omnia. The Popes letters were not readde vnto

vs For if they had ben readen thouroughly, they had ben tho∣roughly kept. And hereupon Dioscorus the Patriarche of Ale∣andria, Iuuenalis the Patriarche of Hierusalem, and Thalassius the Archebishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia, were particularly examined in the Councell of Chalcedon, why and vpon what occasion they had not reade, the Popes letters sent vnto them. And euery one excused them selues thereof as well as they coulde. Of suche force and of suche Authoritye was the bis∣shop of Rome aboue other bishoppes and Patriarches in those dayes.

[Iewell.] For it is a rule agreable vnto lawe a reason. The thinge that toucheth all, ought to be allowed by all.

[Stapleton] It ought to be allowed of all, by waie of obedience, not by way of Authorite. Els by this Rule of M. Iewelles, no supe∣riour can make a lawe to binde the inferiour, witheout the Authorite of his Inferiour. The Prince shall not rule his sub∣iect, nor the bishop his clergy, vnlesse the subiect confirme the law of the Prince, and the clergy allowe the decree of the bishop. By such Rules rebelles and heretikes do claime against the Magistrat and Pastor.

[Iewell.] * 1.797And therefore Iulius being bishop of Rome pronounced that all the Actes of the Councel of Antioche were voide and of no force, for that he being one of the foure patriarches was not called thither as well as others.

Lo nowe at lenght M. Iewel hauing hetherto shot at rouers and ranged at ryot, aymeth now at the Marke it selfe, and dra∣weth to the matter. This example of ths Councell of Antio∣che was alleaged of D. Hardinge for the Popes authorite, as being voide and of no force, bicause neither the Pope was att it, neither his legate. This story M. Iewell saied before that D. Harding had vntruly alleaged. And taking vpon him to proue it, sodenly he turned away from the matter proposed, and hath talked at Randon as you haue heard. [ 1] First how Em∣perours

haue summoned Councelles. [ 2] Then the Popes weake∣nesse in that behalfe. [ 3] After, that no legat off the Pope was euer president in any Councell. [ 4] Fourth by that all princes and bi∣shops allowed Councels as wel as the Pope. [ 5] And nowe last of al that patriarches had most to doe in this matter. [ 6] And that bi¦cause off Regula iuris, a rule off the lawe whiche he alleaged. And this hauing longe sought where and howe to pitche, ha∣uing dased his Reader, with a longe variable tale from the pur∣pose, sodenly he concludeth: And therefore Iulius: &c. But what? Is therefore the story vntruly alleaged of D. Harding? Is it therefore proued that the Pope had no authorite to Sum¦mon Councelles? Is this M. Iewelles Reason? The Confir∣matiō of the Patriarches is specially required to allowe Coū∣cels, The Pope is the first off the foure-Patriarches, Ergo the Pope hath no authorite to summon Councelles? Or. Ergo D. Harding hath falsified the story off the Councell off Antio∣che? For this is the Conclusion whiche M. Iewell tooke v∣pon him to proue. This is the vntruthe, which he noted. And yet nowe, M. Iewel after longe roning and wandering vtterly forgetting what he shoulde doe and where aboute he went, telleth vs that the story is true, and al is wel alleaged: but an o∣ther faulte there is. And that is this. In dede the Councell off Antioche was voide and of no force for lack of the Popes Au¦thorite, M. Iewel confesseth. But that was, not as he was Pope, but as he was one of the Patriarches. This is a prety cōuayance in dede. But M. Iewel should proue it to be so. Verely he hath such a custome to lie, that his bare worde hath but smal credit. Then let vs consider his proufes. He saieth.

[Iewell.] For it appeareth by Eusebius, Theodoretus, and others, that to al ge∣nerall Councelles all primates and Metropolitanes were specially summoned.

[Stapletō.] This is true that all were summoned. But is it true, that iff any one were absent, the whole Councell shoulde be voide as

it is proued of the bishopp of Rome? This is not true, and this M. Iewell is neuer able to proue. Againe this Councell off Antioche was no generall Councell, but a Councell off the East Churche only. Thirdely this difference and prae∣rogatiue off the bishopp off Rome in approuing Coun∣celles aboue other patriaches appeareth most euidently in this very example off the Councell off Antioche. For not only Iulius the bishopp off Rome, but Maximus the bishopp off Hierusalem, another off the Patriarches, was ab∣sent from that Councell of Antioche. And yet the ecclesiasti∣call history making mention thereof, geueth no token of disa∣nulling the Councell by reason of his absence, as vndoubtedly it woulde, had his presence bene of such necessite. But the sa∣me history making mentiō of the bishop of Romes absence, ge¦ueth out forthewith a reason, why the Coūcel should be voide saying. VVhereas yet the Ecclesiastical rule dothe Cōmaunde, that without the bishop of Romes Authorite no Councells ought to be held. Such an Ecclesiasticall rule disallowing Co∣uncelles for wante of the Authorite of any other Patriache or metropolitane can not be shewed. And therefore the second Councell at Ephesus was disanulled, bicause the Popes legat was repelled, though all the patriarches beside were present. Di¦oscorus of Alexandria, Iuuenalis of Hierusalem, Flauianus of Constantinople, And thus though all the Patriarches were summoned, yet the absence of no one Patriarche, but of the bi∣shop of Rome only, did disanull any Councell. This is the thinge that proueth a superiorite in the bishop of Rome aboue all other bishops. This M. Iewel should haue disproued. But with all that he had saied, he is not able. Wherefore his Conclu∣sion folowing must nedes hange very loosely, where he saieth.

[Iewell.] * 1.798And this seemeth to be the Canon that Iulius alleaged, that it was not lawfull to make rules and orders for the whole Churche, without the Consent of the bishop of Rome. being one of the fourte chiefe Patri∣arches

and hauing in his prouince one great portion of the Churche.

All this longe talke is driuen but to a gheasse. This semeth to be the Canon, saieth M. Iewell. But how litle it semeth, or can seme to be so, it hath already sufficiētly bene declared. And therefore M. Iewell perceauing very wel that all which hether to hath bene saied, proueth nothinge, spetting in his handes and taking better holdefast, goeth to the matter yet o∣nes againe, and laboureth it more. So depely did this auncient Canon mentioned by the ecclesiasticall history lye at his harte That no Councelles ought to be helde without the Authorite of the bishop of Rome. Therefore he cometh in with a rere∣warde and reneweth the battaille, with these wordes.

[Iewell.] * 1.799And therefore Leo Bishop of Rome testifieth his consent to the Co¦uncell of Chalcedon with these wordes. Your brotherhood knoweth that I haue embraced with my whole harte the determinatiō of that holy coūcel. And like∣wise vnto the Emperour Martianus he writeth thus. Constitutionious Sy∣nodalibus libens adieci sententiam meam vnto these constitutions of the Co∣uncell, I haue gladly geuen my assent.

[Stapleton.] It was more then an assent M. Iewell. You haue not truly translated the wordes, Thus Leo saieth. Vnto the constitutions of the Councell, which haue pleased me bothe for the confirmation of the Catholike faithe, and for the condemnation of the heretikes, I haue added my verdit, And this verdit or sentence was not a bare consent but a Confirmation of the Councell. For so he writeth expressely in his letters sent at the same time and aboute the same matter to Pulcheria the Emperesse, saying. Whereas the most godly Emperour hath willed me to direct my letters to the bishops present at the Councell of Chalcedon, quibus qu••e illic de fidei sunt regula definita firmarem,* 1.800 by the which I should confirme such thinges as haue bene there defined touching the Rule of faithe, I haue gladly fulfilled his request. And he addeth the reason immediatly: Ne fallax cuiusquam simulatio sententiam meam haberi vellet incertam. To thintent that no man

by any deceitfull dissembling may take my sentence or verdit herein vncertaine. Thus though the whole Councell had befo¦re most certainely confirmed the Catholike doctrine, against the heretike Eutiches, yet the cofirmation of the bishop of Ro∣me in expresse letters was required, and that to thende no man might any more dissemble or wrangle, as though the See Apo∣stolike had not plainly vttered her minde therein. Yet saieth M. Iewell.

[Iewell.] * 1.801The ende hereof was not to shewe his Soueraine powers aboue all others, but that the decrees so ratified by him and others, might be had in more estimation

[Stapleton.] Why saie you M. Iewell, by him and others? No mans rati∣fication or Confirmation was required but the Popes. And that was expressely required, though his legates were present at the Councell, and hath subscribed, Iudged and determined in his name. Why adde you then and others? The place which you alleage for this purpose speaketh only of the Bishopp of Rome and not of Others. For thus you folowe the mat∣ter.

[Iewell.] So Leo him selfe writeth.* 1.802 Your highnes thinketh this euill wi••l the rather be suppressed, iff it be declared throughout all Churches, the deci••es of the h••ly Coun∣cell be well liked of the Apostolike See.

[Stapleton] Here is a ratification of the Apostolike See, but not off Others. And therfore this in dede doth shew a Souerain power of the See Apostolike aboue all other. Els the whole Councel hauing nowe determined the matter, the sixe hundred and thirty bishops hauing subscribed, the Popes leg••tes also present in that Councell, hauing defined and Iudged with the rest, what neded there now a Solemne Ratification by the Popes owne letters to Confirme the Councel, but in dede a Soue∣raine power of the See Apostolike aboue all other particular Bishoppes, Therefore the Emperour was persuaded, that the heresy would the rather be suppressed, if all the Churches

of Christendom might vnderstande that the determination of the Councel had bene allowed, ratified and Confirmed, by the expresse letters of the See Apostolike. Therefore Rome especially is called bothe of the Grecians and of the Latines, Sedes Apostolica.* 1.803 The Apostolike See. As where especially the Apostolike prerogatiue hath succeded. Therefore also the Africane bishops hauing discussed the heresy of Pelagius and Caelestinus, sent their definition therein to the See Apostolike, to be confirmed. So was the Nicene Councel confirmed of Siluester, and the Councel of Constantinople of Damasus, the Councel of Ephesus of Caelestinus, as it is in the text off D. Harding noted. To the which Authorites M. Iewel ne∣uer cometh nere by a great way, but rangeth about other mat∣ters not replying to D. Harding (as the title of his booke pro∣testeth) but apposing of his own obiections, such as h••m li∣keth. And therefore he falleth againe to opposinge and saieth.

[Iewell.] * 1.804But that the whole ratification of Councell•• depended not on∣ly of the bishop of Rome, but also of others no lesse the•• of him, it is easy to be proued.

Being a matter so easy, I trust you will proue it substan∣tially. Let vs see.

[Iewell.] * 1.805The bis••op in the Romaine Coun••ell in the time of Dama∣sus condemned the Councell of the Arians h••lden at Ariminum for that, neitheir the Bishop of Rome, whose minde should h••ue bene knowen before all others, nor Vincentius, nor any of the rest had agreed vnto it.

[Stapletō.] There is no place passeth M. Iewelles handes without a ve∣newe, when he alleageth Authorites against the Bishopp off Rome. For as before he turned Consent, for Confirmation or Authorite, and shifted in Others with the Bishop of Rome, more then his allegation tolde him: so here the greatest and ••hiefe parte of the sentence he hath quite altered, where∣in th•• bishop of Romes Authorite did most euidētly appeare.

For these wordes, whose minde shoulde haue bene knowen before all others (whereby Master Iewell, woulde linke the consent of o∣thers with the popes minde, as though bothe were of lyke and aequall authoritye) those wordes I saie are falsified and wrested from the true originall bothe of the Greke and of the Latine. The greke bothe of Sozomenus (whom M. Iewell alleageth) and of Theodoretus is thus.* 1.806 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The latine translation of that place readeth thus. Cuius ante omnia decebat eos expectare decretum. Whose decree they ought to haue taryed for, before all thinges. These be the wor∣des of the letters recorded bothe by Sozomenus, and by Theo∣doretus.. These wordes declare that the Councell of A••imi∣num was condemned not so muche bicause Vincentius, and the other were absent, as bicause they had not looked for the Bishoppe of Romes decree, and that before all thinges, before they had concluded any thinge. This was the cause why the Councell of Ariminum was condemned. This lacke of the Po¦pes decree to confirme their doinges, though they were in that Councell foure hundred bishops (as Nicephorus recordeth) vt∣terly disanulled that Councell,* 1.807 made it voide and of no force. And thus farre is M. Iewel furdered by his own allegation. Let vs consider the remnant.

[Iewell.] Lykewise the Councell of Carthage and of Aphrica,* 1.808 are allowed for good, notwithstanding the Bishoppe of Rome woulde not allo∣we them.

[Stapleton.] * 1.809Yet Saint. Augustine saieth of Innocentius the Pope that De vtroque Concilio & de Carthaginensi scilicet & Milenitano scripta susceperat, he receiued letters from bothe these Coun∣celles, to witte, bothe from the Councell of Carthage, and from the Councell of Milenit in Aphrica. And Caelestinus the firste saieth.* 1.810 Aphricanorum Conciliorum Sententias suas fece∣runt Apostolici Antistites cum probarent. The Bishoppes of the

See Apostolike by approuing the determinations of the A∣phricane Councelles, made them their owne. And amonge the Epistle•• of Sainte Augustine, the epistles of bothe those Councelles to the Pope, for Confirmation of those Councel∣les, and the Answers of the Pope Innocentius, to bothe those Councelles,* 1.811 are yet extant and to be reade of all that are lerned to no small euidence of the Popes authoritye ouer the hishop∣pes of Afrike at that time, what so euer Master Iewell hath ga∣thered and surmised to the contrary. Yea the very Canon that Master Iewell and his felowes doe make so muche of, of not appealing out of Aphrike to Rome,* 1.812 is in this very Councell of Millenitum. Whereby we may vnderstande, that Appeales were not restrained without the Consent of the Bishoppe off Rome, and also that (this notwithstandinge) they did not att that tyme vtterly abandonne the bishoppe of Romes Autho∣rite (as Master Iewell imagineth) but in all other thinges, that onely excepted, acknoledged and confessed the same. For so they referred the Actes of their Councell to Pope Innocen∣tius.* 1.813 So they wrote againe to the same Pope, mouing hym to cite Pelagius the heretike out of the East to Rome. So Sainte Augustine confesseth that Innocentius the Pope had by hys Apostolicall authoritye confirmed their decrees.* 1.814* 1.815 So after that Councel and that decree made, Rome was called by Saint Au∣gustine Caput Orbis, the head of the Worlde. So to Bonifacius the Pope after that decree and Councell of Millenitum, Saint Augustin writing,* 1.816 confesseth him in Epis••opatus fastigio celfiore fastìgio specula pastoralis praeeminere. To haue a praeeminence in the bishoply office, as sitting in a higher roome of the pastoral watche towre.* 1.817 Last of all so both by Innocentius and by hys successour Holy Pope Zosimus, as S. Augustin calleth him, Cae¦lestinus and Pelagius were cōdemned at the request and suite of the Africane bishops. And thus farre is M. Iewell holpen by the Aphricane Councels.

[Iewell.] * 1.818The Councel of Chalcedon decreed that the bishop of Constanti∣nople shoulde be in Dignite nexte vnto the bishopp of Rome, and shoulde Consecrat the Metropolitanes of Asia, Pontus, and Thracia. This decree Leo the Bishop of Rome very much misliked and woul∣de neuer assent vnto it, yet that notwitstanding it is in force and con∣tinueth still.

If it continue still (as you saie M. Iewell) then of likely∣hood the Turke who beareth now all the Rule at Constanti∣nople, and hath done these many yeres, kepeth that primacy ouer Asia, Pontus and Thrasia, which Leo would not graun∣te. Thus you care not how absurdely you speake, so you maye exaggerat the matter, to deface the Popes primacye. But ho∣we will you proue either that Leo neuer assented vnto itt,* 1.819 as we graunte he did not att the beginning, nor his legat woul∣de for him, as it appeareth at large in the Chalcedon Coun∣cell, or that it continued so afterwarde notwitstanding the Popes contradiction. You woulde proue it out off Liberatus: whom immediatly you alleage, saying.

[Iewell.] Liberatus thereof writeth thus. Cum Anatholius Consenti••nte Concilio primatum obtinuisset, legati vero Romani piscopi cōtradicerent,* 1.820 a Iudicibus & epi∣scopis omnibus illa contradictio suscepta non est, Et licet sedes Apostolica nunc vs••ue contradicat, quod a Synodo firmatum est, Imperatoris patrocini•• permanet. When Anatholius by the Consent off the Councell had obtained the Pri∣macy, and the bishop of Romes legates stoode against it, their gayne∣saying of the Iudges and bishops there was not receiued. And al∣beit the Apostolike See of Rome euen hetherto stande ag••inst it, yet the decree of the Councell by the maintenaunce off the Emperour standeth still in force.

This is yet the homlyest shifte of all. O.M. Iewell. will you euer be like your selfe? Wil you neuer deale truly? Is the Popes Authorite so well estableshed by the consent off all writers of the first 600. yeres, that you cā alleage nothing against it, but either you must alter the wordes of the Author with false trā∣slation, or adde more in your english then you finde in the Au¦thor, or last of all (as you doe nowe) cutte cleane awaye some worde of the Author? For in this sentence of Liberatus why

leaue you out the yery last worde of all both in your latin and in your english? Where is the worde Quodāmodo, after a certai∣ne sorte? Why dyd you cleane cut away that worde? It impor∣ted somewhat of like, and tēpered the whol matter so farre, that M. Iewel thought good vtterly to leaue it out. For Liberatus saieth that the same preferremēt of the bishop of Cōstātinople before the other Patriarches, as to be seconde in Authorite af∣ter the bishop of Rome, though the see Apostolike did vntell that daye resist it, did yet continue still to his time, Imperato∣ris patrocinio quodammodo, by the maintenaunce of the Em∣perour after a sorte.* 1.821 As muche to saie. Not by iust right and competent authorite, in quiet and lawfull possession, but as a matter boren out by the Emperour it contimued so after a sorte. And no maruail, iff the Emperours shortly after the Councell of Chalcedon remayning only in the East, and the Empire of the West decaying, through the inuasions of the Gothes, Hunnes and Wandalles, euen from the time off this Pope Leo vntell the Empire off Iustinian vnder whom this Liberatus liued, no maruaill I saie if all that time the superiorite of Constantinople, where the Emperour of the East for the most parte continued, was by the Emperour maintained and boren out after a sorte, contrary to the plea∣sure of the See Apostolike. Which herein defended only the Councel of Nice (as the Popes legates in Chalcedon o∣penly protested) where the next prerogatiue to the Pope of Rome was graunted to the patriarche of Alexandria, and chalenged nothinge to the prerogatiue of his owne See, which notwithstanding the seconde place geuen to Con∣stantinople, remained allwaies the Chiefe and head See. For it was pronoūced in the Councel of Chalcedon, when the prerogatiue of Constantinople, was graunted: Omnem quidem primatum, & honorem precipuum, scundum Canones, antiquae Romae deo Amantissimo Archiepiscopo conseruari. That all primacy and

the Chiefe honour was reserued to the welbeloued of God the Archebishop of Olde Rome, according to the Canons. This therefore was a matter boren out by the Emperour, not al∣lowed by ecclesiasticall authorite. This was not only con∣trary to the pleasure of the See Apostolike, but also to the decrees of the Nicene Councell, which the See Apostolike herein defended not only then by Leo, but afterwarde by Ge∣lasius, and other bishoppes of Rome. Againe to this prero∣gatiue of the bishop of Constantinople,* 1.822 not only the legates of the bishop of Rome resisted, but also more then fou∣re hundred bishops then present. For whereas there were at that Councell (as it appeareth in the Actes thereof) six hundred and thirty bishops, which subscribed to the other decrees of the Councell, yet to this decree of the prerogatiue of Constantinople, there subscribed but two hundred and twelue, scant the thirde parte of the Councell.* 1.823 Therefore nei∣ther it is put at this present amonge the decrees of the Coun∣cel, neither was it allowed longe after for any Ecclesiasticall de∣cree, but only (as Liberatus saieth) borē out and maintained by the Emperour after a sorte. And therefore in the sixt generall Councel helde many yeres after in Cōstantinople, petitiō was made,* 1.824 that the See of Constantinople might be the seconde in priuileges after Rome, and before the See of Alexandria. This petition made in that generall Councell more then two hun∣dred yeares after the Councell of Chalcedon had not neded,* 1.825 if in all that time that priuilege of Constantinople had bene in quiet and lauful possession. But bicause it was but maintayned after a sorte by the Emperours, as Liberatus sayeth, who conti¦nuing al that time in Constantinople, woulde magnifie their owne Citie, bicause also it was not by the iuste Authorite of the bishop of Rome graūted, therefore it was then againe requi¦red, and requested to be in that Coūcel enacted an confirmed. Hereunto might be added the sentence and verdit of lerned

Leo against Anatholius for so vsurping that prerogatiue to the iniury of the bishops of Alexandria and of Antioche, the schis∣ma••ical presumptiō of Acacius, and Anthemius, bothe Entychi¦an•• shortly after that time,* 1.826 and last of all the Antichristian pre∣sumption of Iohn of Constantinople in S. Gregoríes time, co∣ueting to be the vniuersall bishop of all the Churche. But the∣se fewe may suffise to declare how litle this allegat on of Libe∣ratus helpeth M. Iewell. Especially if it had plaesed him to ha∣ue geuē thee leaue (gentle Reader) to peruse his whole wordes, and had not so pared quite of the laste worde of the place. Quo∣dammodo, after a sorte, which in dede being added did vtterly marre all M. Iewelles matter: and therefore was by him feately in dede and rhetorically dissembled, but guilefully and wicked¦ly depraued. By such euill dealing an euill cause must be main∣tayned, what saie you farder M. Iewell.

[Iewell.] * 1.827Which thinge seemeth agreable to that S Hierom writeth. The Autho∣rite of the worlde is greater then the Authorite of one Citie. Meaning thereby the Citie of ••ome.

This saying of S. Hierom agreeth very litle with a decree maintayned by the Emperour against the See Apostolyke. S. Hierom in that place talketh not of Authorite in doctrine and in matters of faithe, common to al the Church, but of cer¦taine particular customes proper to any particular Churche. Wherein the custome of one Citie no not of Rome it selfe can prescribe against the general custome of the worlde. And therefore S. Gregory informing S. Augustin our Apostle tou∣ching certaine his demaundes, and namely of the variable cu∣stomes of diuers Churches vnder one faithe, dothe not pre∣scribe vnto him precisely the custome of the Citie of Rome to be folowed in all thinges, but It pleaseth (saieth he) that if you haue founde any thinge (be it either in the Churche off Rome,* 1.828 off Fraunce, or of any other) which may more please God, that ye choose the same. And plante it in the Englishe Churche Yet in mat∣ters

concerning faith bothe the same Gregory acknowledged, and practised a Supremacy of the Church of Rome ouer al o∣ther Churches, as hath before bene declared, and S. Hierō him self, writting to Damasus a bishop of Rome for his sentēce in a matter of doctrine, saieth expressely vnto him. Qui tecum non colligit, spargit. He that gathered not with thee, he scattereth. And againe. Extra hanc domum quicunque agnum comederit,* 1.829 prophanus est: Whosoeuer eateth the lambe without this house (he meaneth the Churche of Rome) he is an alienat. And thus S. Hierom agreeth well with Liberatus, not for M. Iewell, but directly against M. Iewell. Such profes M. Ie∣well hath picked out to weaken the Authorite of the See A∣postolike the Churche of Rome. Nowe he Concludeth.

[Iewell.] * 1.830It may appeare by that I haue thus shortly touched, that the Bi∣shop of Rome had Authorite neither to Summon Councelles, or to be president and chiefe in Councelles, nor to ratifie and confirme the decre••s of Councelles, more then any of the foure Patriarches. And last of all that Councelles may stande in force although the Pope mi∣slike them and allowe them not.

[Stapleton] It may appeare by that I haue answered and farder saied to the Contrary, that the bishop of Rome had Authorite within the first 600. yeres, partly to Summon Councelles, allwaies to be president and chiefe in all generall Councells, and especial∣ly to ratifie and Confirme the decrees of Councelles. Last of all that no Councell coulde stande in force, if the Pope mi∣sliked it and allowed it not.

It may appeare also by that I haue saied, that the Canon re∣ported in the ecclesiasticall History, is truely and faithefully reported of Socrates, truly and faithfully alleaged of D. Harding, vntruly and shamefully impugned of M. Iewell. The Canon I saie which commaundeth that no Councell be helde with∣out the Authorite of the bishop of Rome.

It may appeare again howe many notorious, impudent and outragious Vntruthes M. Iewell hath committed in this para∣graphe

of the Confirmation of Councelles, as beinge not able to alleage one true Authorite against it.

[Iewell.] * 1.831I thinke it will be harde hereof to geather M. Hardings Conclu∣sion. That the bishopp of Rome was Head of the Vniuersall Churche.

I doubte not but it will be easy to gather his Conclusion. The Pope was president in al generall Councells, confirmed and ratified all generall Councelles, and by his Authorite hath disproued Councelles. But in generall Councelles the Vni∣uersall Churche is represented, as in a parliament the whole Realme, Ergo the Bishop of Rome was at that time the Head of the Vniuersall Churche. And thus M. Iewell must sub∣scribe. Except he will allwaies quarell and wrangle aboute ter∣mes, the thinge being clere and euident.

[Harding.] Athanasius of Alexandria, and Paulus of Constantino∣ple depriued and thrust out of their bishoprikes by the Violen¦ce of the Arrians, assisted with the Emperour Constantius, appealed to Rome to Iulius the Pope and bishop there, and by his authorite were restored to their roomes againe. So Leo assoiled Flauianus the Bishop of Constantinople excommuni∣cated by Dioscorus.

[Iewell.] * 1.832The 113. Vntruthe. For the Emperour restored Athanasius and not the Pope.

[Stapletō.] This Vntruthe may soone be iustified, not only by the ex∣presse wordes of the Ecclesiasticall story, but euen by the very confession of M. Iewell him selfe in his text. For hauing, in many and idle wordes farre from the purpose, vsed a longe florish before the fight, and as a streame blowen vp with win∣de and weather, carieth with it muche frothe and filthe by the very rage and drift of the water:* 1.833 so M. Iewel in this place, fulo∣wing and wandering ouer the bankes with Copia Verborum, by the Violence and force of his talke, carying a great deale off

errour and Vntruthe alonge before him, at the lenght cometh in with a But. And saieth.

[Iewell.] * 1.834But Master Hardinge will saye. The wordes be playne that Iu∣lius restored Athanasius. It is true, and not denyed.

[Stapletō.] Loe what a good will is. It is true, saieth M. Iewell and not denyed. If it be true, that Iulius restored Athanasius, the same Iulius being the Pope of Rome, why haue you put it for an Vntruthe, saying: The Emperour restored Athanasius and not th•• Pope. If it be not denied, why do you denie it youre selfe? Can it be true, and yet not true? Do you denye it, and yet is it not denyed? Then with you, true and not true, denying and not de¦nying, yea and nay is all one.

[Iewell.] * 1.835But the meaning of these wordes is, that Iulius pronounced him clere in that he was accused off, and therefore worthy to be resto∣red.

Loe ones againe howe M. Iewell striueth and winceth against the Truthe. He saied euen nowe. That it was true that Iulius the Pope restored Athanasius. Nowe he sayeth that he pronounced him clere, and therefore worthy to be restored. The lyke impudent shifte these men doe vse in the expresse wordes off holy Scripture: For where Christe saieth to his Ministers here in earthe. VVhatsoeuer you forgeue in earthe. it shall be forge∣uen in heauen. These men saye, that Gods Minister the Prieste dothe not forgeue sinnes, but declareth them to be forgeuen, and pronounceth the party penitent to be clere, and worthye to be forgeuen. By whiche meaning Christe shoulde haue sa∣yed. VVhatsoeuer you forgeue in earthe, it is allready forgeuen in heauen. And not. It shall be forgeauen in heauen. But nowe. The Sentence of Peter goeth before the Sentence of heauen saieth S. Ambrose. And that whiche the Prieste assoileth in earthe,* 1.836 shall be assoyled in heauen. If the Priest did but declare him to be assoiled, then should he be before allready assoiled. In lyke

maner M. Iewell here in this place. Whereas the Ecclesiasticall Historye saieth expressely that Iulius the Pope restored Atha∣nasius: M. Iewell saieth, he pronounced him worthy to be re∣stored. But how will M. Iewell proue that Iulius the Pope pronounced Athanasius worthy to b•• restored. Howe will he proue that to be the meaning of the Ecclesiastical history? He saieth.

[Iewell.] * 1.837For it is certaine, and M. Harding well knoweth that Athanasius vpon Pope Iulius letters was not restored.

Be bolde and blushe not Master Iewell. You that are so impudent againste the expresse wordes of the Ecclesiasticall history, you may be bolde vpon D. Hardinge, and vpon his knowleadge. But it is certaine and M. Iewell him selfe well knoweth that Athanasius vpon Pope Iulius letters was resto∣red. The wordes of the Ecclesiasticall History are these. The Bishoppe of Rome (Iulius) hearing the Accusations and complaintes of Athanasius and Paulus,* 1.838 and finding thē all to agree to the Nice∣ne Councell, receiued them into Communion, as hauing charge of them all, through the dignite and prerogatiue of his owne See, and restored to euery one their Churches.* 1.839 And a litle after. Athanasius and Pau∣lus sending the Popes letters to the Bishops of the East, recouered eche one againe their Bishoprikes. Lo the ecclesiasticall history saieth, that the Pope restored to Athanasius and Paulus their Churches, and that, as hauing charge of them all through the dignite and pre∣rogatiue of his owne See. And againe the history saieth. That A∣thanasius and Paulus recouered their bishoprikes by sending to their aduersaries the bishops of the East, the Popes letters. Thus it is cer∣taine, and thus M. Iewell him selfe knoweth that Athanasius was restored vpon Pope Iulius letters. In like maner Theodo∣doretus being depriued in the Ephesine Councell, repentinge and appealing afterwarde,* 1.840 was by Leo the Pope of Rome re∣stored, and in the Conc••ll of Chalcedon was admitted by ver∣tue of that restitution to sitt among the other bishops. For the

Iudges there saied. Let the Reuerend B. Theodoret entre and be a part of the Synod, bicause Leo the most holy B. of Rome, hath restored vnto him his bishoprike, and the Emperour hath decreed that he shal be present. And so he was placed amōg the other bishops, and allowed for a Catholike bishop, by the acclamatiō of the East bishoppes and consent off the Councell, notwitstandinge the cries and acclamations of the Aegyption bishopps, cleauing to Dioscorus the Eutichian their Patriarche to the contrary. Thus was Theodoretus, thus was Athanasius and Paulus two Patriarches of the East, the one of Constantinople, the other of Alexandria restored by the letters of the Pope to their bi∣shoprickes, not only pronounced worthy to be restored. Yet M. Iewell will proue it by a like. He saieth.

[Iewell.] * 1.841The like is also writen of others. Cassiodorus saieth. Maximus al∣so restored vnto Athanasius, bothe his Communion, and also his dignitie. That is to sa••e, pronounced him worthy to be restored. For Maximus was not the bi∣shop of Rome.

[Stapleton.] * 1.842First you haue printed these wordes, That is to saie &c. in a distinct letter, as if they were the wordes off Cassiodorus. Now they are your glose, beside the text of Cassiodorus. And so you haue ones deceiued your Reader. Againe Cassiodorus dothe not vse the worde Restituit restore, but praebebat did ge∣ue. Such an impossible thinge it is for M. Iewell to kepe tru∣ly the wordes of his Author. Againe this restoring of dignite and Communion of Maximus to Athanasius, was not like to the Restoring of Pope Iulius. The Pope by his letters and by the prerogatiue of his owne See (saiethe the History) Re∣stored Athanasius. Athanasius being after expelled againe and by the Councel of Sardica restored: before he came to his ow∣ne bishoprike of Alexandria, passed by Hierusalem, where this Maximus was bishop, who also before had consented to his de¦position. This Maximus geuing his Consent to the determi∣nation of the Councell communicated with Athanasius and

by that Communicating declared to all the prouince vnder him, that Athanasius was restored. This therefore was no like matter to the Restitution made by Pope Iulius. Againe a si∣militude, or likenesse proueth not, but serueth only to de∣clare, to exemplifie, to make more clere and open a matter off it selfe obscure and darke. And thus the meaninge off M. Iewell contrary to the expresse wordes off the History remaineth vnproued. Thus also the Vntruthe is clere∣ly Iustified. Which is: That Pope Iulius Restored Athanasius and Paulus to their bishoprickes.

Nowe to touche somewhat that which M. Iewell discour∣seth to the contrary, to proue that the Emperour restored A∣thanasius and not the Pope,* 1.843 it shall appeare he deceiueth and abuseth the vnlerned Reader shamefully in the whole matter. For Athanasius as he was diuers times driuen from his bishop¦ricke, so was he by diuerse meanes restored. First he was ba∣nished by Constantin the great beinge falsely accused off the Arrians: and was by the decree of the same Constantin in his deathe bedde, restored to his bishopricke againe.

[ 1] The seconde cause off his banishement was thus. The Arrian bishopps off the East accused Athanasius to Iulius the Pope of Rome.* 1.844 Iulius cited Athanasius. And he vpon the Ci∣tation appeared. The Arrians in the meane while placed an Arrian bishop in his roome.* 1.845 And calling a Conuenticle at An∣tioche, depriued Athanasius and diuers other Catholike Bi∣shops:* 1.846 After which depriuation they sent to Pope Iulius to ha∣ue him Confirme their doinges. Iulius the Pope examining the matter and finding Athanasius, Paulus, and the other bi∣shops innocent, restored them all to their bishoprickes againe by his letters.* 1.847 Being thus restored, first Paulus of Constan∣tinople was banished againe by the Arrian Emperour Con∣stantius.* 1.848 Soone after also, the Arrians peeking a newe qua∣rell to Athanasius, and accusinge him to Constantius the Ar∣rian

Emperour, about the Distribution of certain corne in in Alexandria, Athanasius fearing the Emperours displeasu∣re flede of his owne accorde: And with Paulus the bishop of constantinople, came to Constans the Catholike Emperour of the Weste, and brother to Constantius the Arrian Empe∣rour in the East.* 1.849 By whose letters to his brother they were at that time restored, and brought in fauour againe withe the Emperour Constantius, by whose displeasure they had bene be¦fore banished. And thus Athanasius was restored three soun∣dry times vpon three soundre occasyons.

First of the Emperour him felfe, which had vpon misse infor∣mation banished him. Secondarely, being accused to the Pope and by pretense of a Synod deposed, was of the Pope, by a su∣periour order, restored. Thirdly fleing vpon displeasure of the prince, was by getting againe his princes fauour restored.

Thus, if it had liked M. Iewell to deale vprightly, if it had pleased him rather to instruct his Reader then to deceiue him, if he had loued the truth,* 1.850 and not sought escapes against the truthe, he would haue opened the matter, as it lyeth in the sto∣ry, and not blase out one truthe to conceale an other truthe. For nowe you see (gentle Readers) that as Athanasius being banished twise by displeasure of the Emperours, was by the Emperours restored: so being also depriued of bishops, he was by the chifest bishop of Christes Churche, the Bishop of Ro∣me, in like maner, restored. And thus bothe are true, in diuers cases. One truthe must not ouerthrowe an other.

Nowe that it maye more particularly appeare what a dea∣le of errour and Vntruthe M. Iewel carieth a longe before him by the violence and force of his talke in this matter, let vs con∣sider his owne wordes. After he had with many idle wordes proued that the Emperour restored Athanasius (which you see, being true, dothe nothinge empaire the other truthe that the Pope also restored him) he alleageth Theodoretus for to

amplifie the matter more, and saieth.

[Iewell.] * 1.851And Theodoretus touching the same writeth thus. Procerum Senato∣rumque coniuges &c. The lordes and Counsellers wiues besought their husbandes to intreat the Emperours Maiesty that he woulde restore Athanasius to his s••o••ke: and saied further, onlesse they woulde so doe, they woulde forsake them and goe to him.

It is a worlde to see the Impudencye of M. Iewell. It semeth, he neuer cared, what lerned men iudged of his doinges, but that he hath laboured only to heape vp Authorites, without discretion. This place of Theodoretus is not of Athanasius, but of Liberius the bishop of Rome, whom the Arrian Empe∣rour Constantius had banished for mayntayning the Catho∣like religion. And those Lordes and Councellers wiues were the Matrones of Rome, requesting their husbandes to saie to the Emperour for the returne of their bishop Liberius the Po∣pe of Rome, not of Athanasius the bishop of Alexandria. The lerned do knowe this well. And M. Iewell him selfe can not be ignorant thereof. The story may be reade bothe in Theodore∣tus (as M. Iewell hath noted it) and in the tripartite history of Cassidorus.* 1.852 Now M. Iewel, not only applieth this to Athana∣sius, which yet neither can by any meanes truly be done; but also putteth in the text of Theodoretus, the very name of A∣thanasius in stede of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the pastour Liberius. Thus he al∣leageth he careth not what nor howe, to make a shewe of ler∣ning. If foloweth in him.

[Iewell.] So likewise the bishops, that the Arrians had deposed, with Flaui∣anus,* 1.853 were restored againe by the Emperour and not by the Pope.

Here is an other grosse errour of M. Iewell. They were no Arriās but Eutichians which deposed Flauianus, and of whom Leo writeth. Trust not your note bookes to much M. Iewell. Take some paynes to looke to the Originalles. Touching the matter, howe proue you they were restored by the Emperour and not by the Pope? You saie.

[Iewell.] * 1.854For Pope Leo him selfe writeth thus vnto the Emperesse Pulche∣ria. Your Maiestie haue restored h••me againe the C••tholike bishops which by wron¦••efull sentence were thrust from their Churches.

[Stapleton.] * 1.855This proueth in dede, that the Emperou•••• restored them. But this proueth not that the Pope restored them not. Will you neuer leaue M. Iewell, to disproue one truthe by an other truthe? Vnder Theodosius the second, the Eutychians, bearing rule, had expelled many Catholike bishops. Martianus a good Catholike Emperour succeding to this Theodosius, remoued the heretikes, and restored the Catholikes. For this he is praised of Leo the Pope. Dothe this dyminish the Popes Authori∣te? No more truly M. Iewell then the late doinges of Quene Marye in restoring the Catholike emprisoined bishops to their roomes and bishoprickes, did make against the Suprema∣cie of the Pope. But that Pope Leo bare a stroke in this mat∣ter, more then the Emperour, it appeareth well in the very sa∣me epistle of Leo which your selfe alleage, M. Iewell. Thus Leo writeth in the same Epistle. Quosdam saene Episcopos, &c. VVe vnderstande by the relation of our legates, and of our bro∣ther and felowebishop Anatholius, of whom you haue vouchesafed to make a good reporte, that certain of those bishops which haue geuen their consent to the wiched dedes (of the Eytychians) do require a Reconciliation, and do desire the communion of Catholikes. VVhose desires, we minde so farre to accomplishe, that such as are amended, and by their owne subscriptions, do condemne their wicked attemp∣••••, be admitted in to fauour, the charge thereof beinge committed to our legates and to the foresaid bishop Anatholius. Thus we see as the Emperour restored the Catholikes, so the Pope recon∣ciled the schismatikes. And as the Emperour by his secular powre restored the bishops to their liuelyhood: so the Pope by his spirituall iurisdiction restored the penitent offenders to the vnite of the Churche. These are bothe confessed truthes. The one destroyeth not the other.

To procede, M. Iewell excepting against Pope N••colas be∣cause he was out of the cōpasse of his first ••00. yeres, he auou∣cheth certain general Vntruthes without any reason or proufe in the worlde, and saieth.

[Iewell.] * 1.856It is well knowen that as the Popes power increased, so the Empi∣re abated.

This is a manifest Vntruthe ioyned with a slaunder. The Empire most decayed vnder Honorius, as all Histories do testi¦fie. For vnder him, the West part of the Empire was vtterly cut of vntill the time of Charlemain. This was about the yere of our Lorde 400. wel nere two hundred yeres before the ende of the first 600. yeres after Christ, at what time M. Iewell imagi∣neth the Popes power to haue begonne. The Hunnes, the Wandales, the Alani, the Gothes, the Longabardes all before that time had inuaded, spoyled, and possessed al the West parte of the Empire, Italy, Fraunce, Spaine, and Afrike. The empire after remained only in the East. The Empire therefore wa•• longe abated, before the Popes power encreased, if at the lest (according to M. Iewelles mind) the Popes power beganne o••¦ly after the first 600. yeres. But will you see howe substan∣tially M. Iewell proueth that as the Popes power encreased, ••o the Empire abated? He saieth.

[Iewell.] * 1.857Therefore was Platine forced to saye. Nowe the Emperours h••ue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their Ciuile pow••r, and there Popes haue lost the holynes.

[Stapleton.] Platim wrote this, scante a hundred yeres past. And he wro∣te it in the life of Adrian the second a lerned and vertuous Po∣pe as platin•• deseribeth him. The Emperour also at that tim•• Loys the seconde was a Prince of great vertue and power. So that Platina must of necessite speake of his owne time. Th•••• M. Iewelles argument is this.

Platina a hundred yeres past complaineth of the weakenesse of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Empire, of the want of holynes in the Pope.

Ergo a thousand yeres a goe, as the Popes power encreased, so 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Empire abated. By suche argumentes and reasons M. Iewell hath bene persuaded to forsake the faithe he was baptised and brought vp in.

[Iewell.] In olde times the Emperour confirmed the Pope.* 1.858 Now the Pope confirmeth the Emperour.

This is an other Vntruthe boldly auouched, but no whit proued. M. Iewell is neuer able to shewe that any Catholike Emperour euer confirmed the Pope in such sorte as without that confirmation, he might not be Pope. That the Pope at this daie confirmeth the Emperour, it hath so continewed al∣most these 80••. yeres euer sence the time of Charlemain the firste Emperour of the West Church, after the decaye therof,* 1.859 vnder Honorius, who also was made and crowned Emperour by the Pope Leo the thirde, as his successours euer sence haue bene.

[Iewell.] In olde times the Emperour called the Pope to the Councell.* 1.860 ••ow contrary wise the Pope calleth the Emperour.

How true this is, it hath before bene declared No Catholi∣ke Emperour euer ••ummoned Councell without the Autho∣rise and consent of the B. of Rome. Nor was euer any generall Councell allowable and of force without the same Autho∣rite, as before hath bene proued.

[Iewell.] As tou••hing the re••toring of Athanasius;* 1.861 Pope Iuliu•• intreated the Emperour in his behalfe.

This is a flatte Vntruthe. He restored him by his own let∣••ers not to the Emperour, but to the Arrian bishops, who had ••niuriously deposed him in their conuenticle at Antioche.

[Iewell.] VVhich as it appeareth was his greatest request.

[Stapleton] What the requeste of Athanasius was to Pope Iulius, it ••ppeareth by that whiche Pope Iulius did for him. That was ••o restore him to his bishoprike by his owne letters, not to write to the Emperour for him. But will you see how clerkly M. Iewell proueth this? He saieth.

[Iewell.] For thus he writeth vnto Liberius.

[Stapleton.] * 1.862Loe, M. Iewel wil proue the request of Athanasius to Pope Iulius, by that whiche he wrote to Liberius, which was Pope after Iulius. Yet let vs heare the wordes of Athanasius to Li∣berius. The wordes are.

VVe beseche you, that through your good exhortations, bothe by your selfe, and what your Age••tes, we maye be holpen.

What worde is there here of intreating the Emperoure, in the behalfe of Athanasius? Athanasius desireth to be holpen by the Pope, and by his agentes or deputes. He speaketh no one worde of the Emperour. And to what purpose, I aske your wisedome (M. Iewell) shoulde Athanasius require Libe∣rius to intreate the Emperoure, who was then an Arrian him selfe (Constantius by name) and who was no lesse enemy to Liberius then to Athanasius, whom also the same Emperour banished, as he did Athanasius? Liberius was banished him self, and the Noble Matrones off Rome intreated the Emperour for Liberius: And was Liberius required to intreate for Athana¦sius? What thinketh M. Iewell to wine the game by facing? A man might saie. Non satis commodè diuisa sunt temporibus tibi Daue h••c. But, by such impudent Vntruthes an euil cause must be defended.

[Iewell.] * 1.863Moreouer, for that he was a Patriarke, he summoned a Particular Councel, and laboured the Bishops.

What of that Master Iewell? You knowe by youre lawe. Abundans Cau••ela in Iure non nocet. And the common saying, a man can not be to sure of his right.

[Iewell.] For the Arrians saied. There was an Ecclesiasticall Canon that no man being once depose••, should be restored againe onlesse he had first cl••ered him self ••••fore a Councell.* 1.864

[Stapleton.] What the Arrians saied, M. Iewell, we reken not. We hold•• not by the Arrians. We hold by the Catholike Fathers. Thou∣ghe you may claime by hererikes, yet it is our part to disclaim••

against you in that point. We haue not so lerned Christe, M. Iewell.

The Aegyptian bishoppes in the Councell of Chalcedon vpholders of the Eutichiā heresy. being required and comma∣unded by the Councell to subscribe to the decretall Epistle off Pope Leo sent to the Concell, refused to do it, and alleaged for their defence, that in the Nicene Councell it was decreed. that the bishops of Aegypt be subiect only to the Patriarke of A∣lexandria.* 1.865 But the Catholike bishops answered plainely Men∣tiuntur. They lie. And againe. Ostendant quod dicunt. Let them shewe and proue their saying. So we answer to your Arrians M. Iewell,* 1.866 saying that a bishop being deposed can not be restored but by a Councell, They lie. And againe. Let them shewe that decree. We knowe heretikes haue euer claimed against the Authori∣te of the See Apostolike. So the Donatistes appealed from Pope Melchiades to the Emperour. So these Arrians and Eutychians alleaged Canons against their obedience to the bishopp of Rome. If you list to be an heretike M. Iewell, cla∣ime by them. we Catholikes can not doe so.

[Iewell.] And therefore Crysostom was muche blamed of his aduersaries, for that he beinge once deposed had recouered his roome without a Councell of other Bishops.

[Stapleton] M. Iewell is forced euer to take parte with the worst sort of men. So must an euill cause be bolstered. Chrysostom was a holy and lerned Father, and wrongefully deposed of the Ae∣gyptians. What they in their wicked and iniurious attempt al∣leaged for them selues, it is no president to them which mea∣ne to deale vprightly, or which will defende the truthe. M. Ie∣well bicause he defendeth a schisme against Christes vicaire, no maruail if he be forced to vse such proufes. The plea of the∣se Aegyptians against S. Chrysostome was so good, that they were for their labour excommunicated off Innocentius the∣bishopp of Rome. As it hath before bene declared in examy∣ning

the Appeale of Chrisostom

[Iewell.] * 1.867And therefore Flauianus, being wrongefully put from his bishop∣ricke offred vp his bille of Appeale, not vnto the bishop of Rome alo∣ne, but vnto him other bishoppes.

Loe here is an expresse Appeale confessed by M. Iewell of the Patriarche of Constantinople to the Bishop of Rome. Yet he saieth it was not to the bishop of Rome alone, but to him with other bishops. Let vs see howe he will proue it.

[Iewel.] * 1.868

[Stapleton.] * 1.869The truthe hereof may wel appeare by these wordes of Leo bishop of Rome vnto the Emperour Theodosius. Omnes par••••um nostrarum E••cle¦siae, omnes mansueti••ini vestrae ••um. G••mutibus & lach••imes supplicant Sacerdotes vt quia eisdem L••bellum appellationis. Fl••uianus Epis••opus dedit, generalem Sy••••∣dum i••beatis intra Italiam celebrari. Al the Churches of these our countres, and all the priestes withe sighes and teares beseeche your highne••••. that, for as much•• as Flauianus hath offred vp his bille of Appeale vn∣to them, it may please you to commaunde, a Generall Concell to be kept in Italy.

What shall I saie to M. Iewell? I am forced to saie he is one of them of whom the Prophet speaketh, Posuimai•• mendacium spem nostram, & mendacio protecti sumus. We haue put out hope in lyeing, and by lyeing we haue ben defended. For had M. Iewell geuen vs here the whole wordes of Leo, had he not in the very middest nipped of one whole sentence, then the truthe should haue appeared, and the contrary to his assertion euidently bene proued. He hath put the wordes in Latin, He hathe englished them truly. He hath in the Margin quoted the place rightly. And would a man suppose any Vn∣truthe herein to be committed? Truly but that I had herein to doe with M. Iewell,* 1.870 whose nature I am nowe some what ac∣quaynted withall, I should haue trusted his allegation with∣out serching the originall. The whole wordes of Leo are these. Omnes partium nostrarum ecclesiae, omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemitibus & lachrymis supplicant sacerdotes, vt quia * 1.871 Et nostri fideliter reclamarunt & eis••••m libellum appella••••∣nis

Flauianu•• Episcopus dedit generalem: Synodum iub••••ris intra Italiam celebrari. All the Churches of these our Countres, and al the priestes with sighes and teares beseche your highnes, that forasmuche as * 1.872 Bo••he our men (he meaneth his legates in the Ephesine conuēticle) haue faithefully resisted (to the condemna∣tion of Flauianus) and to them Flauianus the bishop hath bishop of∣fred vp his bille of Appeale, it m••y please you to cōmaūde a ge¦neral Councel to be kept in Italy. These are the whole wordes of Leo in the same epistle. By these wordes it appeareth euidēt¦ly, that the bille of Appeale was offred vp not to al the Chur∣che an priestes in Italy, but to the Popes legates present at the Ephesine Synod, in the which, and where, Flauianus was depo∣sed and did appeale, as the wordes, which M. Iewel for that pur∣pose nipped quite of, doe geue vs to vnderstād. As also in a let∣ter of Valētiniā the Emperour to Theodosius it appeareth. whe¦re it is writē, that the Bishop of Constātinople sent his libels of Appeale to Leo the Pope.* 1.873 But be it nowe that the Pope with his lerned Councell do restore bishoppes, and not alone. What can M. Iewell gather therof? He saieth.

[Iewell.] In suche Councelles the Bishop of Rome being sometimes the chie∣fe, prononced the party worthy either to be restored,* 1.874 or to be depo∣sed.

The Pope was allwaies chiefe in such Councelles. And not only pronounced the party worthy, but did by his owne Authorite restore bishops. Tanquam curam omnium gerens pro∣pter propriae Sedis dignitatem,* 1.875 As hauing charge of th••m all through the prerogatiue of his owne See, as the Ecclesiasticall history spea∣keth.

But (saieth M. Iewell) that Sentence was not allwaies putt in exe∣cution.* 1.876

[Stapleton] Shewe M. Iewell when the Popes sentence was not put in execution, You saie for proufe hereof.

[Iewell.] The Councell of Antioche deposed Pope Iulius, yet was not Iuli¦us therefore deposed.

[Stapl.] * 1.877Th••s was not a Sentence geuen by the Pope. But a senten∣ce geuen against the Pope. And those which gaue such a sen∣tence, were Arians. No maruaile therefore if it preuailed not. What meaneth M. Iewell thus to reason? The Arrians could not depose the Pope, Ergo the Pope can not depose Arrians and such other sc••usmatikes. Was he wel in his wittes, when he thus reasoned?

[Iewell.] The Councell of Basill deposed Pope Eugenius. Yet Eugenius con¦tinued Pope still.

[Stapleton] This proueth well, that the Pope is aboue a Councell. And that no Sentence can be geeuen against the Pope. But that the Popes Sentence is not allwaies put in execution, no man that hath his fiue wittes can gather thereof. This kinde of reaso∣ning passeth not only all truthe and honesty, but euen all wit and common sence.

[Iewell.] The decree of bishoppes in such cases, without the Emperours Au¦thorite was then of small force.

[Stapleton] In dede for any bishops to depose a Pope by any decree it was euer of small force. The Emperour by violence haue done much, But by right no Emperour can either make a bishop or depose a bishop. And therefore the Fathers in the Millenitaine Councel decreed,* 1.878 vt quicunque ab imperatore &c. That whoso∣euer sued to themperour, to haue him heare and determine pu¦blike Iudgementes, that he be depriued therefore of his digni∣te.

[Iewell.] And therefore Athanasius him selfe reporteth that the Emperour gaue his consent to the Determination of the Councel of Sardica, and so commaunded him to be sent for home.

[Stapleton] God forbidde but that Emperours bothe maye and ought to geue their Consent to Councells, and also to commaunde the executiō of Councels. And when heretikes can not other∣wise be brought to obedience as it was in that time of the Co∣uncel of Sardica:* 1.879 it is necessary that the secular sworde do hel∣pe the spirituall Iurisdiction, Thus farre hath M. Iewell ranged

and roued, labouring to bringe somewhat against the Autho∣rite of the Bishop of Rome. But he hath only multiplied his Vntruthes, declared his owne weakenesse, and fortified more the Truthe touching the Popes Supreme Authorite. For being so muche impugned and so litle empaired, so of assaulted and nothinge battered, it remaineth as a Rocke vnuincible, against the which hell gates shall neuer preuaile.

[Harding.] Concerninge the Reconciliation of the Prelates of the Churche, bothe bishoppes, and Patriarkes, to the bishopp off Rome (114) whereby his Primacy is acknowledge and con∣fesse, I neede not saye muche, the matter beinge so euident.

The 114. Vntruthe. For Reconciliation is no necessary token, neither of Primacie, nor of subiection.* 1.880

Albeit it were true, that Reconciliation of it selfe were no necessary token of Primacy, yet this Reconciliation, being off the Chiefest prelats and Patriarches in Christes Churche, to the See of Rome, this Reconciliation also being ioyned with the other argumentes of Primacy in the Apostolike See off Rome, (as Appeales, Confirming of Bishoppes, Excommuni∣cations in all partes of Christendom, Restitutions of bishops and Confirmations of Councelles) it is a necessary and suffi∣cient argument for the Primacy and Souueraintie of that See aboue all others. For as many Circunstances may make a good and sufficient euidence, where one Circunstance alone coulde proue nothinge, so the argument of Reconciliation being ioyned with the other, is sufficient for the acknowlead∣ging and confessing of a Primacy.

Againe if Reconciliation be no argument of Primacy, M. Iewel should haue done well either to haue shewed that the bishop of Rome was reconciled to other bishopps as well as other bishoppes were to him, or els to haue geuen a reason howe it came to passe that the bishop of Rome was neuer in

such sorte reconciled. Verely beside the examples alleaged he∣re by D. Harding of the Africane bishops reconciled to Boni∣facius the seconde, and of Alexander the Patriarche of An∣tioche reconciled to Innocentius, bothe bishops of Rome: we reade also, that the Bishops of the East, who were no parte off the bishop of Romes peculiar prouince or Patriarkeship, ha∣uing vniustly deposed Flauianus of Constantinople, and wic∣kedly consented to Dioscorus the Eutychian, were not only reconciled by Leo the B. of Rome, but did also require that Reconciliation, and in the reconciliation did abide the Order prescribed by the Pope.

For beside the wordes of Leo aboue alleaged, wherin he signi¦fied that those Bishops Reconciliationem reposcebant,* 1.881 dyd requi∣re a Reconciliation, in his nexte epistle folowing and bearing the same date with the former, writen to Anatholius the Pa∣triarche off Constantinople aboute the same matter he writeth thus.* 1.882 As touching our breh••rn, which we vnderstande bothe by your letters, and by the information of our legates, to be desirours of our Communion, repenting them that they were not stable and sted∣fast against violence and terrour, but consented to the mischief of ano∣ther, and for feare yelded bothe to the condemnation off that Catho∣like and innocent bishop Flauianus, and to the approuing off the wic∣ked heresie off Eutyches, we allowe the order that our deputes haue allready taken, that they be in the meane while contented with the Communion of their owne Churches.* 1.883 Howbeit let order be taken by our legates, and you together, that such as with full satisfaction do condemne their wicked doinges, and chose rather to accuse them selues, then to defende them selues, may enioye also oure Communion, and peace. So that yet before, they condemne and accurse all such thinges, as haue bene allowed off them againste the Catholike faithe. And a litle after lest he might seme herein to be ouer gentle, as admitting so easely such notorious offenders, he addeth. Nei∣ther can our gentlenesse in any point be reprehended,* 1.884 when we recea∣ue

againe with satisfaction suche as we were sorye to see before decei∣ued. Therefore the fauour of our Communion is neither to be denied, neither yet rashely to be graunted. For as it is a dede of mercy to comforte the afflicted, so it is a pointe off Iustice to punishe the Of∣fenders.

In an other Epistle, writen within two moneths after to the Empresse Pulcheria also, when he had nowe sent his legates to Constantinople aboute the redresse of these matters, he wri∣teth thus.* 1.885 I haue now sent (as I declared in my other letters I would doe) the Bishop of Luca, and Basilius Prieste, who ioyintly with my Brother Anatholius, shall execute the Order whiche I haue taken according to the rules prescribed vnto them. For, as I am informed by the letters of the foresaied bishop Anatholius, and by th•• sugge∣stion of his clergy, there are many thinges fauourably to be amended, and many thinges rigorously to be punished: to the entent that in such a trouble and disorder, neither the discipline be to sharpe, n••ither the pardon to easy: For the obstinates, and the repentaunts, are not in lyke sorte to be dealed withall. Thus farrre Pope Leo touchinge the Reconciliation of the bishops of the East, who had in the Conuenticle at Ephesus both wickedly admitted the heresy of Eutyches, and wrongfully consented to the deposing of Fla∣uianus.

We see by the first wordes alleaged that they were reconci∣led not only to the Communion of their owne Churches, but also to the Communion of the See Apostolike, and that they desired such a Reconciliation. If this had bene but a Common Reconciliation as betwene frendes and equalles, whiche haue bene at variaunce, it had bene enough for them that they were restored by the Popes legates to the Comunion of their owne Churches. It had not neded to haue had beside a Reconcilia∣tion and a restoring to the Communion of the Churche off Rome.

Againe we seee in the wordes in the second place alleaged,

that a kinde of discretion was vsed in graunting the Recōcilia∣tion which importeth a Soueraintie in the graunter, and a kin∣de of subiection in the party reconciled.

* 1.886In the third and last allegation we see some admitted vpon satisfaction, some repelled for obstinacy: And all by the legates of the See Apostolike. This Reconciliation admitting some and repelling other by Authoritye, is a clere and manifeste to∣ken of a Primacy and Soueraintye in the See Apostolike ouer the bishops of the East. For albeit in the waye of Charitye one aequall may be reconciled to an other, yet in the way of Iusti∣ce one aequall hath no power to punish the other, that will not be reconciled. This Reconciliation therefore to the Pope off bishops not properly subiect to his Diocese or prouince, whe∣rein as some are reconciled, so other are repelled, is a necessarye token of Primacy in the Pope ouer more bishoppes then of his own prouince, which Primacy in no other B. or Patriarche can be shewed. Against such a Reconliation he speaketh not one worde. Onely he reasoneth that euery Reconciliation im∣porteth not a Primacy. Whiche thinge is not auouched by D. Harding. But only that by such a Reconciliation as was made vnto the B. of Rome, of them as were not of his own prouince or Diocese, a Primacy of the Pope was acknowledged and cō¦fessed. But of this we shall haue more occasion to speake in the nexte Vntruthe. Let vs consider what M. Iewell hathe sayed therein.

[Harding.] Amonge them that, to satisfye the malitious minde off Eudoxia the Empresse, practised their wicked conspiracie a∣gainst Chrysostome, through whiche he was deposed, and ca∣ried away into bannishement, Alexander Bishop of Antio∣che and primat of the Orient, was one. (115.) VVho at length stroken with repentaunce, for that he had bene bothe a con∣senter,

and a promoter of that wicked Acte, submitted him selfe humbly to Innocentius the Pope, and by all meanes sought to be assoiled and reconciled. And therefore sent his legates to Rome to exhibite to Innocentius a solemne Instru∣ment of his Repentaunce and lowly submission, and to acce∣pte what should be enioyned. By whiche his humblenesse In∣nocentius moued, graunted to his petitions, receiued him into the lappe of the Catholike Church againe, and thus was he re¦conciled.

[Iewell.] The 115. Vntruthe. This storie is here interlaced with many Vn∣truthes.

[Stapleton.] What are those Vntruthes M. Iewell? You tell vs in your text.

[Iewell.] * 1.887For in all that is writen thereof by Innocentius, there is no maner mention, neither of Solemne Instrument of repentaunce, nor of acce∣pting of Penance, nor of Subiection or humble submission.

Innocentius writinge to one Maximianus a bishopp, who had moued Innocentius about the Reconciliation of Atticus the bishop of Constantinople (who also had bene a consenter to the deposing of Chrysostom) and declaring to that bishop, why he had not reconciled Atticus of Constantinople in like maner as he had reconciled Alexāder the bishop of Antioche, by the waie, toucheth somewhat off the Reconciliation made by the same Alexander, in these wordes. Communio suspensa restituitur demonstranti causas &c. A man suspended from the Cō∣munion, is restored when he sheweth the causes why he was suspen∣ded, to be taken awaye, and professeth the Conditions off reconcilia∣tion to be fulfilled. Whiche, Atticus neither hathe signified, neither proued to be fulfilled by any messenger either to you or to vs. As our brother and folowe bishop off Antioche Alexander, by a iuste embasye hath prosequuted and proued. Whereat also you being present do knowe, that I haue particularly examined all

our writinges touching the cause of the holy bishop Chrisostom, whe∣rein they haue euidently shewed that at Antioche all thinges haue bene perfourmed as they ought to be. Whose reconciliation we em∣bracing, truly we haue made a waye for all that wil aske it, to obtai∣ne the like: iff at the lest they will att any time proue, that they haue done and perfourmed for their parte, suche thinges as haue bene in o∣thers examined and perfourmed,* 1.888 and also if they desire to be reconci∣led, by sending solemnely their legates as these of Antioche haue done. Thus farre Innocentius.

In whose wordes we see, that this Alexander bishop of An∣tioche sent his legates solemnely to Rome, that by those lega∣tes he desired to be reconciled, that he had perfourmed the condicions of Reconciliation, and that thereby he was recon∣ciled. Now this solemne sending of legates desiring to be Re∣conciled, what was it but a Solemne Instrument off Repen∣taunce? For suche was the maner of Reconciliation in those daies. So vrsatius and Valens did offer vp to Iulius the Pope, Libellum penitentiae. An Instrument of repentance, when they were reconciled from their Arrian heresy to the Catholoke v∣nite. The perfourming of the Conditions of Reconciliation, was the accepting of that which was enioyned. The worde Penaunce, as it is not in Innocētius, so neither is it in the wor∣des of D. Harding. And who doubteth but all this was done with an humble submission, seing that no repentaunce can be without humble submission, nor no reconciliation without repentaunce?* 1.889 seing also that Conditiones pacis complere, to per∣fourme the Conditions off Reconciliation, requireth expres∣sely an humble submission, for lacke of whiche Atticus was not att that time yet reconciled, but continued suspended, and through the which afterwarde, as it appeareth in an other epi∣stle off Innocentius,* 1.890 he was also reconciled. Touchinge this Reconciliation of Alexander of Antioche to Innocentius, it shal the better appeare, if the diligent Reader remembre in this

place, the solemne Excommunication of Theophilus and o∣ther bishops his adherents, in deposinge Chrysostom (off the which this Alexāder was one) made by this Pope innocētius. Of the which I haue at larg spokē before about the matter of Appeales. For by reason of the Excōmunicatiō, this Alexan∣der Patriarche of Antioch, was necessarely recōciled. Therefo¦re Innocētius hauing receiued his submissiō, answereth him in these wordes. Quā grata mihi, quā pia,* 1.891 quā necessaria legatio a tua sanctitate frater Charissime ad nos directa fuerit, gestorū ipsorum re¦plicatione cognosces. How acceptable, how godly, how necessary (derely beloued brother) your sending of your legates to vs hath bene, you shall knowe by the tenour of our dealing with you. As for the worde Subiectiō, which M. Iewel saieth is not in Innocētius, no more it is in the text of D. Harding. The Spiritu¦all Iurisdiction M. Iewell. requireth no Subiection, as Ciuill Princes doe of their subiectes. But as S. Gregory saieth:* 1.892 vbi Cul∣pa non exigit, omnes ratione humilitatis ••quales sumus. Where no faulte is committed, by the waie of humilite, we be all equall. Therefore Innocentius, after this Alexander was reconciled, he calleth him, Fratrem Charissimum, derely beloued brother,* 1.893 and as you alleage for a mighty argument against the Popes pri∣macy, Condiscipulum sedis Apostlice,* 1.894 Scholefelowe of the See A∣postolike. And sending his letters at that time calleth them pri∣mitias pacis nostre: the first frutes (not of frendship as you vntru∣ly in this place translated it) but of the reconciliation made by vs. And so Crist is called in holy scripture Pax nostra Our recō¦ciliation to God. So this Alexander, Conditiones pacis completas esse, digna legatione prosequutus est & probauit, by his worthie le∣gates he went thouroughe with it and proued it to the Pope that he had perfourmed the conditions of Reconciliation. Had all bene but a matter of frendship and equalite, neither had he bene before, by the Pope excommunicated, neither had that so¦lemne sending of legates to Rome bene necessary, neither ne∣ded

any such Conditions to be perfourmed, nor the perfour∣mance thereof so expressely to be prosecuted and proued. Thus therefore was the Patriarche of Antioche reconciled neither as a Subiect vnto his Prince, nor as one equal frende to an o∣ther, but as a party before excommunicated to his Spirituall head, that ioyning with his head Christes vicaire, he might be a part of Christes mysticall body.

Touching the examples alleaged by Iewell, the writing of the Africanes to Pope Innocentius aboute a Reconciliation betwene the Churche of Alexandria and the Churche of Ro∣me,* 1.895 was aboute this very matter of Crysostoms deposing, and maketh very well to proue a necessite of the same Reconcilia∣tion. But saieth M. Iewell.

[Iewell.] It was not that the Churche of Alexandria shoulde submitte her selfe, as vnto her Head, and liue in Subiection, but that they might be reconciled and liue in peace together.

[Stapleton] The Churche neuer liued in Subiection to the bishop of Ro¦me. This is but an odious terme of disobedient heretikes. The Churche hath liued in obedience of the See. Apostolike for the redresse of faultes committed, either in faithe or in maners, not otherwise. The Churche of Rome had no quarell to the Churche of Alexandria. But the Churche of Alexandria by Theophilus the bishop thereof hauing wrongefully deposed Chrysostom bishop of Constantinople, and being therefore iustly excommunicated of the See Apostolike, the good bis∣shoppes of Aphrica thought good to write, not to the Chur∣che of Alexādria,* 1.896 which was iustly excommunicated, but ad san¦ctum Papam Innocentium, to the holy Pope Innocentius, who had excommunicated them, that they might be Reconciled. This expresseth clerely, howe necessary it was for the Church of Alexandria to be reconciled to the See Apostolike. And thus farre M. Iewelles owne alleagation hath helped our mat∣ter.

[Iewell.] So Liberatus saieth. Petrus Moggus was reconciled vnto Asatius,* 1.897 not as vnto his superiour, but as vnto his brother.

This Petrus Moggus was an heretike,* 1.898 excommunicated of the See Apostolike, and of Acacius also (whome M. Iewell calleth Asatius) but after was reconciled vnto him. Wherevpō they were bothe of Felix the bishop of Rome excommunica∣ted. The conspyring of heretikes can be no president a∣gainst the Reconciliations of Catholikes. Who listeth to see the whole tragedy of this Petrus Moggus (whiche accursed the Chalcedon Councell) and of this Acacius consenting vn∣to him by an edicte of Pacification made by Zenon the Em∣perour, against the See Apostolike, and the ende thereof,* 1.899 let him peruse Liberatus sett forthe in the seconde tome of the Councelles. The primacy of the bishop of Rome ouer the o∣ther patriarches appeareth therein most euidently: As by Ap∣peales, by Reconciliations, by Excōmunications, and such li∣ke Practise.

In this sense writeth Hormisda bisshop of Rome vnto Epipha∣nius the bisshop of Constantinople.* 1.900 Seing we haue one frendsship in Cō∣munion and in faithe, let vs therfore take like study and like care.

Yea. But what foloweth M. Iewell? It foloweth imme∣diatly. To thentent that as we do now both equally reioyse in our Lorde, that the Churche of Constantinople is vnited to the Aposto∣like See, so also we may (as you doe charitably moue me) prouide for the Reconciliation of other Churches also. For vnder Iohn the predecessour of this Epiphanius, the Churche of Constan∣tinople was reconciled from the schisme that Acacius before had made, to the See Apostolike. Being thus reconciled, they wrote as felowes and equalles. For vnlesse bishopps had of∣fended either against the Canons or against the Catholike faithe, the Bishop of Rome, vsed no Superiorite ouer them. Thus M. Iewell by titles and phrases woulde disproue that,

whiche the clere and open practise of the Churche euidently proueth.

That whiche M. Iewell alleageth oute of Socrates for an example of Reconciliation,* 1.901 was (519) no Reconciliation at all. They were, or, at lest, pretended to be Catholikes which went to Pope Liberius. They went for a redresse and ease of their great aduersites and miseries which they sustained by the Ar∣rians. They sued also at that time to the Empe••our of the West, Valentinianus the first. All this was not for a Reconci∣liation, but for the establyshing of the Catholike faith against the Arrians, and to haue some redresse of the disorders in their Churches.

[Iewell.] * 1.902An other like example of Reconcili••tion we haue made by one Arsenius the bisshop of H••psilitae to Athanasius the B. of Alexandria. This Submission or Reconciliation was made vnto Athanasius, yet was not Athanasius the bisshop of Rome.

This Reconciliation that Arsenius the bishopp of Hipsilitae made to Athanasius, was not as to his equall, but as to his own primate and Metropolitane. For so in the very sentence allea∣ged by M. Iewell, it foloweth. Neque citra tuam Metropoli∣tani Episcopi sententiam vllum de episcopis aut alio dogmate cō∣mu••i & ecclesiastico decretum aedituros. We promise also, that without your Authorite, being the Metropolitane bishop, we will make no decree either concerning bishops, or any other pointe of common and ecclesiasticall doctrine. This Submis∣sion therefore or Reconciliation made to Athanasius, though it were not made to th•• bishopp of Rome, yet it was made to the Metropolitane and superiour, not to a felowe or equall. And thus the maner of Reconciliation of Churches was do∣ne not betwene frendes and felowes as M. Iewell fansieth, but with humble submission, and knowleadge of a Supremacie ouer the party reconciled. Finally thus Reconciliations being made to the Bishop of Rome of Patriarches and Metropoli∣tanes

them selues as of Alexander the Patriarche of Antioche and of Atticus the Patriarche of Constantinople bothe to Innocentius the B. of Rome, also of the bishoppes of the East to Leo the B. of Rome, as before hath bene declared, is a suffi∣cient token of primacy and Supremacy in the Churche of Rome ouer all other Churches, Patriarches and Metropolita∣nes.

[Harding.] Thus hauing declared the Supreme Authorite and pri∣macy of the Pope, by the Common practise of the Churche, I neede not to shewe further howe in all questions, doubtes and controuersies touching Faithe and Religion, the See of Rome hathe allwaies bene consulted.

[Iewell.] * 1.903The 116. Vntruthe. For many greate questiōs were neuer remoued to Rome.

What were those great questions that were neuer remoued to Rome? M. Iewell nameth in his text not one question, greate or small. And shall it be true bicause M. Iewell saieth it onely? He hath bene taken in Vntruthes to often, to requi∣re now such credit. It had bene an easy matter amonge many to name one. Nowe no instance or exception beinge made, the vniuersall remaineth true. For to proue an vniuersall, it is impossible. But if it like M. Iewell to stande by this Vntru∣the, he maye take his penne and turne to the 91. and the 93. epi∣stles in S. Augustins workes, and score it there also vpon In∣nocentius the first: who in his epistle, answering to the Fa∣thers of the Councell of Carthage (who had required him, vt statutis eorum mediocritatis,* 1.904 etiam Apostolicae sedis adhibeatur Authoritas, that to their decrees and Canons the Authorite of the Apostolike See might be added, saieth no lesse then D. Harding in his text saied. For these are his wordes.* 1.905 Patrum instituta sacerdotali custodientes officio non censetis esse calcanda, quod illi non humana sed diuina decreu••re sententia, vt quicquid de

disiunctis remotisque pr••uincijs ageretur, non prius ducerent finien∣dum, nisi ad huius Sedis notitiam peruenire••, vbi tota huius Au∣thoritate iusta quae fuerit pronunciatio firmaretur. You obser∣uing the decrees of the Fathers, according to the duty of prie∣sthoode, do shewe that they are not to be trode vnder foote, whereas they, not by the sentēce of mā but of God him selfe, haue thought good that what soeuer should be in debate con∣cerning suche prouinces as are farre distant, it shoulde not be determined, before the matter were brought to the know∣leadge of this See, where, by the whole Authorire of the same, the right and iuste Sentence might be confirmed. In these wordes Innocentius affirmeth, that whatsoeuer was in debate or controuersy in farre distant prouinces, shoulde be referred to the See of Rome, and there shoulde take his finall senten∣ce. Also that the Fathers had so decreed. And last of all that the same decree of the Fathers proceded not of the Sentence of man but of God him selfe.

Againe the same Innocentius answering to the Fathers of the Milleuitane Councell in Afrike also, requiring in like ma∣ner a Confi••mation of their doinges in that Councell, hathe these wordes.* 1.906 Quid etiam Acti••ne firmastis, nisi scientes quòd per omnes prou••ncias de Apostoli••o sente petentibus, responsa semper eman••nt? Praesertim quoties fidei ratio ventilatur, arbitror omnes fratres & co••pis••opos n••stros non nisi ad Petrum, id est, sui n••minis & honoris Authorem ref••rre debere, velut nunc retulit vestra di∣lectio, quod per totum mundum possit omnibus eccl••sijs in commun•• prod••sse. An•• what haue you declared in this your doinge, but that yowe knowe that thourough oute all prouinces, answers and Solutions doe continually flowe to all that seke for it, at the Apostolicall fountaine? Especially, as of∣ten as anye matter of the faithe is called in doubte, I thin∣ke all oure brethern and felowe bishopps ought to referre it to none, but to Peter the Author of their name and ho∣nour,

you haue nowe referred, that which might be behoful to all Churches in common through out the whole worlde. Here Innocentius, auoucheth no lesse to the Fathers of the A∣phricane Councels, then D. Harding did to his Reader: If the impudency therefore of M. Iewell wil serue him to abyde by this Vntruthe, let him score it vp also (as I saied) vpon Inno∣centius.

Nowe if M. Iewel or any other man for him, will take this saying of Innocentius being a Pope him selfe, to be an vntrue saying and spoken only of Ambition to exalte his owne See and Authorite, it might suffise to call only to remembraunce that, this is the same Innocentius, to whom that excellently lerned and most holy Father Chrysostome Patriarche of Cō∣stantinople, Appealed,* 1.907 being wrongfully depriued of his Bis∣shoprike by the Synod of more then thirty bisshoppes: who thereupon, excommunicated Theophilus the Patriarche of Alexandria, which had done that iniury: To whom, Alexan∣der that holy and wise Patriarche of Antioche was Reconci∣led from the bonde of excommunication which he incurred by the wrongeful deposition of Chrysostom: To whom also, Atticus the second successour after Chrysostom in the Patriar∣keship of Constantinople, was in like maner Reconciled: To whom, the Bishoppes of Afrike thought good to write aboute the Reconciliation of the Church of Alexandria to the See of Rome. Last of all, to whom, the lerned Fathers of the Coūcel∣les of Carthage and of Milleuitum, amonge whom S. Augu∣stin was one, referred the Actes of their Councels to be Con∣firmed, this I saie might suffise to any indifferent Reader, to remembre, and so to consider, that the Authorite of this Inno∣centius so euidently practised ouer the Chiefe patriarches of the East, and so expressely confessed of the Aph••icane Fathers, proceded of no vaine ambition, but of right and Order, such as was dewe to the Apostolike See of Rome.

But yet iff all this suffise not to Iustifie this saying of In∣nocentius, which M. Iewel hath noted for an Vntruthe, let S. Augustin be an Vmper betwene vs, and let him pronounce, howe he liked those letters of Innocentius the Pope, wherein he vttered suche wordes, so preiudiciall, for the Authorite of the See of Rome. S. Augustin writing to Paulinus of the Pe∣lagian heresy, whiche in those two Councelles off Carthage and of Milleuitum was condemned,* 1.908 speaketh of the letters of those two Councelles sent to the See Apostolike thus. Missae sunt de hac re ex duobus Cōcilijs, Carthaginēsi & Milleuitan••, rela∣tiones ad Apostolicā Sedē. Relatiōs of this matter were sent, from the two Councelles of Carthage and of Milleuitum, to the See Apostolike. Those are the letters vnto the whiche Inno∣centius made answer, and in the whiche Answer the wordes aboue alleaged of Innocentius, are writen. Of those answers S. Augustin a litle after saieth thus. Ad omnia nobis ille rescripsit, eodem modo, quo faserat at{que} oportebat, Apostolicae Sedis Antistitem. To all those matters, he (Innocentius) wrote backe vnto vs, euen as it was right, and as it behoued the Bishop of the Apo∣stolike See.

This loe is the Iudgement of S. Augustin, touching the Answer that Innocētius made to the two Councelles of Car∣thage and Milleuitum. In whiche answers seing the wordes aboue alleaged, are comprised, that all doubtes ought to be re∣ferred to the See of Peter, and all Solutions be sought from that Apostolike fountaine, we haue the clere iudgement of S. Augustin, that Innocentius in so saying, spake no otherwise then it was right, and then it becomed the Bishop of the Apo∣stolike See. Other bishops so to haue spoken, it had ben in dede neither right nor conuenient. This therefore being so clerely affirmed of Innocentius a Pope of such Authorite well nere twelue hundred yeres paste, in two sundry epistles, and by the Iudgement of lerned S. Augustin approued and commended,

M. Iewell cometh nowe to late to comptroll it, and to sco••e it vp for an Vntruth. For conferre the wordes of Innocentius and of D. Harding together, Gentle Reader, and thou shalt see, they are all one bothe in effect and in very termes. But that the one wrote in Latin, the other in English. Such be the Vn∣truthes, that the plaine and vpright dealing of M. Iewell hath scored vpon D. Harding. The sayinges and decrees of the An∣cient Fathers. Yea such a decree, quod non humana sed diuina de∣creuere sententia, as the Fathers haue decred, not by the sentence of man but of God, saieth Innocentius.

If M. Iewell had read thus muche in S. Augustins epistles, then was he ouerperte and proude to note the doctrine of such Authorite for Vntruth. He specially who offreth to yelde and Subscribe to any One sentence of any One doctour. If he had not before read so much, but tooke this saying of D. Harding to be (as he thought) a papysticall saying, and voide of all good Authorite, then let him lerne by this, that he knoweth not all thinges, and as he was grossely ouersene in this, so let him not be ashamed to confesse his ignorance in the rest. Our Lorde of his mercy sende him humilite. By true humilite he will soone forsake his heresy.

Nowe somewhat to touche, that which M. Iewell prose∣cuteth here in his text, the examples of Marcellinus, Dulcitius, Bonifacius, Euodius and others, which sent their questions to S. Augustine and desired his Counsell, were questions Moued, not Remoued: that is: they were for instruction and Counsell, not for finall decision and determination. Such Remouing of questions to be decided, is here spoken off, not all kinde of doubtes and questions. Neither is this vniuersall so precisely a∣uouched, as that you should require of vs to declare it in euery particular, but being true for the most parte or the most princi∣pal maters, it declareth a Primacy in the See of Rome. But, sa∣ieth M. Iewell.

[Iewell.] S. Ambrose saieth that many that had bene with the B. ••f Rome, would afterward fo•• their better satisfaction sende to him.

[Stapleton] Who doubteth, but the iudgement of the lerned, was euer worthe the hearinge, though matters were allreadye decided? This doth not weaken the Authorite of the decree, or of him that maketh a decree. But sheweth a desire cōmon to the chil∣dren of Adā, to knowe more then nedeth, or then sometimes is requisite. That whiche is alleaged out of Leo, is not to be foūde in the epistle that is quoted. I would M. Iewel would be tried by the Epistles of Leo, what and howe great in his time, wel nere twelue hūdred yere•• past, the Authorite of the See of Rome was. He should be driuen to graunte the Supreme Au∣thorite of that See ouer all the Church of Christ, as it shal wel appeare in the 123. Vntruth. This saying therefore of D. Har∣ding being no better impugned remaineth true, and proueth well the purpose.

[Harding.] And to be shorte, howe all the worlde, hath euer fetched light from thence.

[Iewell.] * 1.909The 117. Vntruthe. For Rome her selfe had her light from Grece.

So saied the Arrians in dede in their rescript to Iulius the Pope. But no Catholike writer I wene euer saied so. Of this matter we haue before talked at large in the 32. and 37. Vntru∣thes. For this is nowe the third time that it hath bene noted for an Vntruthe. So muche the Truthe thereof misliketh him, or els so desirous he was to heape vp a number of Vntruthes. A toye, to my knowleadge, neuer vsed of any graue or lerned writer before.

[Harding.] Leo that worthy Bishop of Rome, was called the vniuer∣sall bishop and vniuersall Patriarche of sixe hundred and thirty Fathers assembled together frō al partes of the world

in Generall Councell at Chalcedon. VVhich is bothe expres∣sed in that Councell, and also clerely affirmed by S. Gregorye in three sundrie epistles, to Mauritius the Emperour, to Eu∣logius Patriarke of Alexandria, and to Anastasius Patri∣arche of Antioche.

[Iewell.] * 1.910The 118. Vntruthe. There is no mention made hereof in any Ca∣non in that Councell.

What then M. Iewell? Can it not be expressed in that Councell, but if it be in some Canon expressed? What a childish reason is this? The Actes of the Councell of Chal∣cedon do containe a hundred and fiue leaues in print. The Canons of that Councell being sett forthe withe a double e∣dition containe but three leaues thereof. And is there not roome enough (M. Iewell) in all that Councell to finde our matter in, except it be in some of the Canons? Yow mocke and delude your vnlerned Reader M. Iewell, making him to beleue that a Councell consisteth onely of the Canons made therein. And howe many thinges haue yowe alleaged M. Iewell in this Fourthe Article out of the Councell of Chal∣cedon, and yet out of no one Canon thereof? Were it honest and true dealing, to score vp Vntruthes in all these Allegati∣ons vpon Master Iewell, bicause no mention is made in a∣ny Canon in that Councell? You are but a pelting wrangler, thus to cauill and trifle. You seke not the edifying of your Reader. You seke only to snarle at him, who hathe disclosed your immoderat pride and cōfuted your vaine malapert Cha¦lenge. But let vs consider your lerned Replie in this behalfe. For this point touched you to the quicke. To be confuted in the very termes, of your owne challenge, that is deathe to you. Let vs therefore considre howe you acquitte your sel∣fe.

[Iewell.] * 1.911Nowe for a briefe answer, M. Harding hathe founde 630. bisshops that (524) gaue this title to Leo the bisshop of Rome in the Coun∣cell of Chalcodon, and called him the vniuersall bisshop, which thin∣ge (as he saieth) is recorded in S. Gregory in three soundry places.

M. Iewell for a briefe Replie, dothe firste vntruly reporte the wordes of D. Harding, to thentent he maye after daily thereat at pleasure. Gentle Reader, looke backe to the wor∣des of D. Hardinge last aboue recited. Thou shalt finde, he saieth not as M. Iewell reporteth him. He saieth not that the 630. bishops in the Councell of Chalcedon gaue to Leo the name of Vniuersall Bishop. He speaketh of no such gifte. But he saieth, those Fathers called Leo by that name. This semeth perhappes to be a small difference. Verely if we had not to doe herein with a pelting wrangler, the difference we∣re small in dede. But you shall see what a stirre he kepeth a∣boute it.

[Iewell.] * 1.912Here good Christian Reader, by the way, this one thinge I trust, thou wilt consider of thy selfe. If the name of Vniuersall Bisshop was geuen to the bisshop of Rome in the Councell of Chalcedon whiche was holden in the yere of oure Lorde .488. then by M. Har∣dinges owne graunte; and by the witnesse of this Councell, the Bis∣shop of Rome before that time, had not the name of vniuersall Bis∣shop. Otherwise, howe coulde either they geue, that they had not to bestowe, or he receiue that he had allready? In dede suche bestowing of giftes had bene very childish.

Loe. Do you not see wha•• a highe point of lerning M. Ie∣well hathe picked out of the worde Geue? Thinke you it was no vauntage for him to alter the text of D. Harding? No I warrant you. M. Iewell though he make manye Vntruthes, yet he will make fewe without some vantage. As touching the matter, what if the Councell did not geue that name, and what if D. Harding did not graunte so muche? Then hathe M. Iewell lost a good Argument. And more then that. For you shall see.

Thus of the whole number of six hundred yeres, M. Harding free∣ly, euen at the sight, hathe yelded vs backe (.526.) foure hundred, foure score and eight yeres towardes the Reckening.

You make your Reckening without your Oste M. Iewell. There is no such graunte made yet vnto you. Therefore you may wipe your bille and goe to rouste.

This weighty consideration you haue made by the waye,* 1.913 as you saie. What Replie make you to the matter it selfe?

Before we passe farther, let vs see what credit the Pope him selfe ge∣ueth to this Councell of 630. Fathers holden at Chalcedon.

[Iewell.] It appeareth M. Iewell hathe small hope to Replie anye thinge to the matter it selfe, that maketh suche preambles as these are. O M. Iewell. Is your desperat impudency so grea∣te, that you can finde in your harte to picke quarels againste the Fourthe Generall Councell of Christendom, holden a∣boue a thousand yeres paste, with such concours of bishops, as neuer was sene in any Auncient Councell beside? And do you thinke to discredit this moste famous, moste lerned, and moste holye Councell by the wordes of the Pope him selfe? Pope Leo confirmed that Councel bothe by his Legates pre∣sent at the Councell, and by his letters after the Councell. Po∣pe Gelasius acknowleadged,* 1.914 that by the Authorite of the See Apostolike it was holden. Pope Simplicius excōmunicated Pe¦trus of Alexandria: Pope felix, Acacius of Cōstantinople: and Pope Gelasius, Anastasius the Emperour for reprouing the Coūcell of Chalcedon. Pope Gregory cōmaunded the foure generall Councelles to be obserued and reuerenced like as the foure Euangelistes. And thinketh nowe M. Iewell to bringe vs Popes that doe disallowe it? Yea euen of these very Po∣pes alleaged, Leo and Gelasius? Truly though nothinge be to harde to one that muste defende Vntruthe, yet this I trowe will be very harde for M. Iewell, so muche as coulourably to proue. Howbeit let vs beholde howe impudently he faceth

and auoucheth out the matter. He saieth.

[Iewell.] Pope Gelasius saieth. The Apostolike See of Rome in parte allowed it not. For that thinges were there borne out by inordinat presumption.* 1.915

For these wordes of Gelasius you haue noted in the Margin the Actes of the Councell of Tarraconense. Nowe that Coun∣cell was holdē before Gelasius was Pope vnder Felix the thir∣de. And in the whole Actes of that Councell there is no wor∣de or halfe worde of the Chalcedon Councell. All this the∣refore is but a pregnant Vntruthe. The wordes of Gelasius that you do meane are amonge the decrees of Gelasius. Your Notary deceiued you, that tolde you it was in Conc. Tarra∣con.* 1.916 Such care you haue what you write, and what you tea∣che the people that readeth your bookes. Had you sene M. Iewell the whole place of Gelasius, you woulde haue bene a∣shamed to haue alleaged them as you haue done, and to haue taken parte againe withe the Eutychian herelikes. For this was the case. In the Councell of Chalcedon the Eutychian heretikes were condemned.* 1.917 At the ende of that Councell also not by the consent of the whole bishops, nor of the thir∣de parte of the bishops (as it hath bene before declared) and against the expresse contradiction of the Popes legates, the bishopp of Constantinople by certaine of the Councell, was made in dignitie next to the bishop of Rome, and preferred before the Patriarches of Alexandria, and of Antioche, con∣trary to the expresse decrees of the Nicene Councell, whiche the Pope by his legats defended.* 1.918 This priuilege of the bishop of Constantinople, the Councell in their letters to Pope Leo desired most humbly the Pope to confirme,* 1.919 as it maye be se∣ne in the letters of the Councell, regestred amonge the Actes off the Councell of Chalcedon. Yet Leo the Pope in his rescript to the Councelles letters, confirming all other matters touching the Catholike faithe, would in no wise cō∣firme or allowe the priuilege of Constantinople: This priui∣lege

notwitstanding being (as Liberatus writeth) by the Empe∣rours fauour bore•• out after a sorte, the Churche of Constanti∣nople fell shortly after to the Eutychian heresye, vnder Aca∣cius their bishop: who therefore with Petrus Moggus Bisshop of Alexandria were of Pope Felix predecessor to this Gela∣sius excommunicated. The vpholders of this Acacius,* 1.920 founde faulte with Gelasius the successour off Felix, for the excom∣municating of Acacius, and alleaged that Acacius being an Eutychian ought not to be condemned for that opinion by vertu of the Councell of Calcedon, seing that the same Coū∣cell was not in all pointes allowed of the See Apostolike it selfe. This obiection of those vpholders of Acacius the Euty∣chian, M. Iewell hath picked out of Gelasius, to proue (as yow see) that this Pope allowed not that Generall Councell off Chalcedon. But Gelasius him selfe as he was an eloquent and lerned Pope, so he answered these vpholders of Acacius the Eutychian at that time, lernedly and eloquently. And the sa∣me answer may serue M. Iewell taking also their parte. The beginning of the place is some what abrupte and imperfect. Yet the wordes do euidentlye geue to vnderstande that all thinges touching the Catholike faithe done and concluded in that Councel, à tota ecclesia indubitanter admitti, were admit∣ted of the whole Churche without all doubte or controuer∣sye. But other thinges which in that Councell per incompeten∣tem praesumptionem prolata sunt vel potius ventilata,* 1.921 by inordinat presumption were propounded or rather tossed: not, as M. Ie∣well translateth it, boren oute, which the See Apostolike denied, being presently by the Legates thereof gainesaied, those thin∣ges the See Apostolike allowed not. And the reason in Gela∣sius foloweth. Quia qu••e priuilegijs vniuersalis Ecclesiae contraria probantur, nulla ratione sustine••. Bicause suche thinges as are contrary to the priuileges of the vniuersall Churche, the See Apostolike by no meanes alloweth. For by the decrees of the

generall Councell of Nice it was decreed that the Bisshop off Alexandria and of Antioche shoulde be the next Patriarches in dignyte after the bisshop of Rome.* 1.922 The bishop of Constan∣tinople at that time was no patriarke at all. This was the thin∣ge that the See Apostolike allowed not. And therefore Ler∣ned Leo in his letters to the whole Councell of Chalcedon,* 1.923 to Anatholius then bishop of Constantinople, to Martianus the Emperour, to Pulcheria the Emperesse, and last of all to Maximus the Patriarche of Antioche vtterly disproueth and disalloweth that vnlawfull prerogatiue of the bishop of Con∣stantinople, only bicause it was expressely against the Canōs of the Councell of Nice. And in his letters to Maximus of An∣tioche, thus he saieth. Quicquid praeter speciale•• causas synodali••m Conciliorum ad examen episcopale defertur,* 1.924 potest aliquam di••udi∣candi hahere rationem, si nihil de eo est à sanctis patribus apud Ni∣caeam definitum. Nam quod ab illorum regulis constitutioneque dis∣cordat, Apostolicae Sedis nunquam obtinebit consensum. Whatsoe∣uer in Councelles is called to the iudgement of bishops, beside the speciall causes of the Councelles, it maye after a sorte be determined, if the matter be not allready defined of the holy Fathers at Nice. For whatsoeuer varyeth from their rules and constitutions, the Apostolike See will neuer consent vnto it. And the reason hereof is most stronge and necessary, which Leo also in that epistle alleageth, saying. Vniuersae pacis trāquil∣litas non aliter poterit custodiri, nisi sua Canonibus reuerentia inte∣••nerata seruetur. The quietnes of vniuersall vnite can not o∣therwise possiby be mayntayned, except the Canons be reue∣rently and inuiolably obserued. Thus Gelasius and Leo bothe, allowed and confirmed the Generall Councel of Chalcedon, in all matters touching faithe and doctrine, for the which that Councell was especially called, albeit, the prerogatiue of the bishop of Constantinople iniurious to the bishops of Alexan∣dria and of Antioche, and contrary to the Canons of the Ni∣cene

Councell, was worthely and rightfully gainesaied, resi∣sted, and denied. Yet saieth M. Iewell.

Pope Leo accuseth the whole Councell of Ambition and willfull rashnesse.

[Iewell.] * 1.925M. Iewell shoulde haue done well, to haue geuen a note in the margin where Leo so saied, his workes being so great and diuerse. How be it the matter being vtterly false and vntrue, no maruail if he lefte the place without quotation. Pope Leo ac∣cuseth not the whole Councell, of Ambition, but only certain of the Councell, as Anatholius the bisshopp of Constantinople and certaine other. Therefore writing of this matter so graun∣ted and presumed by certaine of the Councell, he calleth it, quorundam consensum, the consent of certain,* 1.926 and againe quorū∣dam episcoporum consensum the Agreement of certaine bishops, and in an other epistle, quorundam surreptionem, the guile and fraude of certaine. And as we haue before declared, to this priuilege of the bishopp of Constantinople,* 1.927 there subscribed only .212. bishops, as the Actes declare, whereas the whole Coū∣cell consisted of .630. bishops. So in the Ephesine Councell, Inuenalis bishop of Hierusalem attempted to gett by consent of certaine bishops the Iurisdiction ouer Palestine,* 1.928 from the patriarche of Antioche, as Cyrillus the bishop of Alexandria in his letters to Pope Leo complained, but it was by the See Apostolike resisted and ouerthrowen. As that attempt of Iu∣uenalis dothe not disproue that lerned Councell of Ephesus the first, no more dothe this attempt of Anatholius, any thing empaire the Authorite of the Councel of Chalcedon.

[Iewell.] * 1.929And S. Hierom in the case of Matrimonie, Inter raptorem & raptam is receiued against all those .630. bishoppes, and against the determina∣tion of the whole Councell.

I wote not verely, whether this false dealing of M. Iewell procede of wilfull malice, or of mere ignorance. The question moued of Gratian is this. An raptori rapta nubere possit patre

assensum praebente. Whether a mayde taken awaye by violence maye be maried to the party that vseth suche violence, by the consent of the Father. First he proueth by the Councell off Chalcedon and diuers other authorites that two suche parties oughte not to be coupled together in matrimonye. But then he saieth. Raptor & rapta nomina sunt vitiorum non personarum. Vitia autem cum per poenitentiam purgata fuerint, nomina eorum abolentur. A vser of vilence, and a party so vsed, are the names of the faultes not of the persons. But faultes being purged by pe∣naunce, do lese their names. For so the aduouterer that repen∣teth, is no more an aduonterer. Vpon this distinction he allea∣geth Authorites, that such parties after satisfaction maye ma∣rie, and amonge the rest, S. Hierom. Who speaking of three kindes of lawfull mariages,* 1.930 putteth for the seconde, this. Virgo in ciuitate &c. Amayde in some cyte taken of a man and cou∣pled to him by violence, if the Father of the mayde will, the man shall geue her a dowry as muche as the Father shall thinke good, and shal geue the price of her virginite. By this satisfactiō of the dowry to be made by the man that hath done the violē∣ce in recompence of that iniury (whiche dowry otherwise the Father shoulde haue geuen with the daughter) the faulte is ta∣ken awaye by S. Hieroms iudgement, and so they may marye. Not as Raptor & rapta, co••trary to the Councell of Chalce∣don, but as man and wife, the other trespasse of violence vsed, being by satisfaction of a dowry payed, abolished. And this ••s S. Hierom defended and the Councell of Chalcedon bothe. Vnderstande your lawes better M. Iewell, before yow alleage them. Abuse not your Reader whiche desireth to lerne, and looketh not to be mocked at your handes, M. Iewell, with the quotations in your margin out of Popes decrees, making no∣thinge for your purpose. Vse no more false marginall no∣tes, like a Cal for birdes: tolling therewith your Readers con∣sent to falsehood and Vntruthe. The more you deceiue, the

greater is your damnation.

In such regarde they haue the Councelles, when they liste.

Like as a Shrewe hauing well bett her husband cryeth out to her neighbours, as if her husband had bett her, so here M. Ie∣well hauing spett all his poyson against the holy Councell of Chalcedon, hauing missereported Gelasius,* 1.931 flatly belied Leo, and ignorantly alleaged the decrees, nowe he crieth oute a∣gainst the Catholikes, and saieth that they haue no regarde of Councels but when they list. This therefore to be but a mere Slaunderous Vntruthe, it appeareth by that which hath before bene saied. Let vs procede.

[Iewell.] But the lawe saieth. It is against reason that one man shoulde in parte al∣lowe the will of the dead (so farre forthe as it maketh for him) and in parte ouerthrowe it (where it semeth to make against him).

[Stapleton] M. Iewell did very well to put his glose to the lawe. For hereby it is euident, that the lawe maketh nothing for hym. That parte of the Councell of Chalcedon touching the vn∣lawfull prerogatiue of the bishop of Constantinople before the bishops of Alexandria and Antioche, which Leo and Ge∣lasius after him disproued, made nothinge for the bishop off Romes Primacy, or against his Primacy, but only it made a∣gainst the Nicene Councell which the bishops of Rome most godly and rightfully defended. For notwithstandinge that Priuilege of the bishop of Constantinople graunted by the Emperours Commissioners, through the consent of certaine bishops, yet the same Commissioners pronouncing that Sen∣tence, saied expressely these wordes.* 1.932 Ex his quae gesta sunt vel ab vnoquoque deposita perpendimus omnē quidem Primatum & ho∣norem praecipuum secundum Canones, antiquae Romae deo amantis∣simo Archiepiscopo confirmari. By these Actes and depositions of eche one we vnderstande, that all the Primacy and chiefe honour is reserued, according to the Canons, to the welbe∣loued

of God, the Archebishop of Olde Rome. After which wordes foloweth the priuilege of Constantinople ouer Asia, Pontus, and Thracia. In all these wordes therefore Master Iewell hath declared his good will that he beareth to the ge∣nerall Councells of Christendom. But gods name be bles∣sed, though he hathe spett his poyson, the Truthe remaineth sounde. Remembre the saying of the wise man M. Iewell. Quid stulti proprium? Non posse & velle nocere. Remembre that of late yeres in the very time of your schisme, the foure first generall Councelles, of the whiche this Councell off Chalcedon is one, were allowed by open Parliament. Ve∣rely in the very first beginning of the Christen faithe among vs englishmē, our Countre being in a maner all and through∣out conuerted to the faithe, our godly auncetours thought it necessary by a full Synod and Councell of our owne countre to establishe the Authorite of the v. generall Councelles off Christes Churche holden before their dayes,* 1.933 of the which this Councell of Chalcedon is the fourthe. And Seuerus a schis∣maticall bishop of Antioche had his tounge cut oute by the commaundement of the Catholike Emperour Iustinus for the blasphemies that he vttered against this holy Councell of Chalcedon.* 1.934 Such examples you folowe, and suche you for∣sake in defending your moste impudent Chalenge. Let vs heare you procede.

[Iewell.] * 1.935But M. Harding will saye. Of what credit so euer this Councell ought to be, it gaue Leo the name of vniuersall bishop.

No. No. M. Iewell. D. Harding will put no such doubtes of the credit of the Councell of Chalcedon. He neither hathe saied neither will saie any such thinge. And yet you haue prin∣ted those wordes in a distinct letter, as if not only D. Harding woulde so saye, but also had already so saied. So impudent and false you are not only in misalleaging the wordes of the

doctours, whiche the vnlerned Reader seeth not, but euen in falsifying the wordes of D. Harding, whose whole text lyeth open in your booke to be readen. But you thinke perhap∣pes to be of such credit, with your Reader, that he will truste your allegation, without looking to the text beinge so nighe and easy to espie. And verely so did I trust you M. Iewell in the beginning also. But nowe I haue perceiued that you al∣ter sometimes the wordes of D. Harding in your owne text, though they are truly sett forth in his text, which maketh me not allwaies to trust you. But alas, when come you to the matter M. Iewell?

[Iewell.] And what if all this be vtterly vntrue?* 1.936 What if there were no such title either offred or geuen in the Councell?

[Stapleton.] * 1.937Truly then you shall proue S. Gregory a lyar. Who saied expressely, it was Offred. As for the geuing, that worde is not auouched by D. Harding as it hath before bene shewed. But let vs heare your proofes.

[Iewell.] * 1.938Certainly the whole Councell of Chalcedon is extant abrode, bothe writen and printed and maye soone be seen.

If the whole Councell be extant, and yet no suche thinge can be founde in the Councell, then S. Gregory made a lie in dede, which auouched the Councell did so. But I recken it a matter of more credit, that S. Gregorye saied, then that M. Iewell auoucheth. Let M. Iewell proue that the whole Coun∣cell is extant and that nothinge thereof lacketh, and so proue S. Gregory a lyar.* 1.939 Els it will be thought M. Iewell hath ma∣de a 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and not S. Gregory: Certainely S. Gregory him sel∣fe saieth. Sancta Chalcedonensis Synodus in vno loco ab ecclesia Cō∣stantinopolitana falsata est. The holy Councell of Chalcedon was in one place corrupted by the Churche of Constantino∣ple.

[Iewell.] Why dothe not M. Harding alleage either the place, or the Canon or the wordes? At the least why geueth he no note in the Margin, where this Authorite may be founde?

[Stapleton] Forsothe, and if it please you M. Iewell, he alleaged S. Gre∣gory for his Author, and that in three sundry epistles. He thought his Authorite shoulde satisfie you. He knewe not before forsothe, you woulde haue taken the matter so hotte, or haue called him to accompte so straightely, hauing so good an Author as Sainte Gregory is, to beare him witnesse. He thought, such euidence might haue serued his plea. What saye you therefore to the euidence? What saye yowe to S. Gre∣gory? We must suffer you to dalie yet a while, and to baite your Reader withe vaine talke: Goe to then. Let vs heare you.

[Iewell.] * 1.940Perhappes he will saye. This Canon was burnte by some hereti∣kes: as he (534) saied before of the Councell of Nice.

Not he M. Iewell, but Athanasius him selfe (as you haue be∣fore confessed) saieth the Canons of the Nicene Councell were burnte by the Arrians. And of this Councell of Chalce∣don S. Gregorye saieth, as yowe heard before. It hathe bene falsified in one place thereof by the Churche of Constanti∣nople.

[Iewell.] Howbeit it were much for him to saie, that of the whole Councell onely six lines should be burnte, and that in all the examples through out the worlde, and yet all the rest remaine safe.

[Stapleton] M. Iewell fighteth with his owne shadowe. There is no suche losse imagined. This matter shall be founde in the Councell. You shall heare anon M. Iewell will confesse it him¦selfe.

[Iewell.] * 1.941Or els the wordes whereby the Pope (535) claimeth his title should so negligently be loste, and that in Rome it selfe, in the Popes owne Library, and yet the wordes that the Pope reproueth and condem∣neth shoulde stande whole.

This is a slaunderous Vntruthe. The Pope claimeth

not his Title by the wordes of Vniuersall bishop. Master Ie∣well in all this Article withe all his studie and conference withe his frendes can name no one Pope that euer so called him selfe, or required to be so called. And yet he putteth this Title neither desired nor vsed of any Pope, as the grounde and foundation off the Popes Supremacye. Will yowe knowe M. Iewel, whereupon the Popes primacy is grounded? S. Gregory hath tolde yow in the beginning of this Article.* 1.942 It is grounded vpō the wordes of our Sauiour in the Ghospel to S. Peter, whose successour the Pope is. It hath bene established by the Generall Councells namely of Nice and Sardica. It hath bene confessed by the continuall practise of the Church, by Appeales to that See, by Reconciliations, by Confirmatiōs of Councels, by Confirmyng of Bishops and so forth, not on∣ly of these 900. Yeares and vpwarde by your owne confessiō M. Iewell, but euen of the first 600. Yeres also, as it hath bene in this Article against your most lying Replie, clerely and e∣uidently proued. It hath bene confessed of the lerned Fathers, and Confirmed by the decrees of Emperours. Vpon suche good groundes is the supremacy of the See Apostolike buil∣ded. These groundes yowe shall neuer remoue M. Iewell, nor any of your secte, without most manifest, most impudent, and most outragious Vntruthes. Suche as you haue in this Article abundantly committed.

[Iewell.] M. Harding hathe no other Councell within six hundred yeares after Christ to holde by, but onely this.* 1.943 And yet the same can not be founde.

This is an other pregnant vntruthe. For bothe the Coun∣cell of Nice and of Sardica, bothe within lesse then 400. Yeres after Christ haue confessed a primacy in the Bishop of Rome by the whiche D. Harding holdeth, and the very name of Vni∣uersall bisshop M. Iewell anon will finde him selfe in the Coū∣cell of Chalcedon. Yet we must geue him leaue in the meane

while to Bragge and Crowe at pleasure.

[Iewell.] But S. Gregorie is witnesse sufficient.

[Stapleton] Thanked be God M. Iewell hath not so forgotten him sel∣fe, but that at lenght he cometh to the matter. Nowe Sir. What saieth S. Gregory?

[Iewell.] He saieth, that 630. bis••oppes in the Councell of Chalcedon, named the bishopp of Rome the vniuersall bisshop. ••his is an Vntruthe to beguile the Reader.

[Stapleton] Then by Gods grace, yow will proue it to be so. Let vs hea∣re your Reason.

[Iewell.] * 1.944For Gregorie saieth not, the bishoppes in that Councell Saluted, Intitled, Proclaimed, or (537) Called the bisshopp of Rome by that name.

As for Saluting, Intitling, Pro••layming, they are no parte neither of your Challenge, neither of D. Hardinges Answere. But that the Pope was Called the Vniuersall bishop, you denie, and D. Harding out of S. Gregory will proue. To that what doe you Replie?

Onely (538.) he saieth. The name of vniuersall bisshop was offred by the Coun∣cell of Chalcedon to the bishop of Rome.

Will you graunte so much M. Iewell? Then where is beco∣me your what if, whiche yow made before, when yow saied: what iff there were no suche title either geuen or off••ed in the Councell? Yow confesse youre selfe nowe, it was offred in that Coun∣cell, and so you proue your selfe that yowe vttered before a manifest vntruthe. But nowe to the matter. Yow haue confes∣sed the wordes of S. Gregory. What saie yow now vnto them? Thus you saie.

[Iewell.] * 1.945He saied they offred to cal him so, but that they called him so in de∣de (539) he saieth not. Therefor M. Harding herein (540) ouerreacheth and missetelleth his Authors tale.

S. Gregorye writeth of this matter in mo places then one. Therefore though in the wordes by ••ou noted he saieth not expressely, The bishops of Rome were called Vniuersall bisshops by

the Councell of Chalcedon, yet in an other place he saieth so. In a letter to Iohn of Constantinople he writeth so expressely and plainely, in these wordes. Nunquid non, sicut vestra sanctitas nouit, per venerandum Chalcedonense Concilium huius Apostolicae Sedis Antistites, cui deo disponente deseruio,* 1.946 Vniuersales oblato ho∣nore vocati sunt? Were not (as your holynes knoweth) the bis∣shops of this Apostolike See, (whiche by the Prouidence off God I serue) by the Reuerent Councell off Chalcedon Calle•• Vniuersall Bishoppes, that honour being Offred them? Beholde M. Iewell, and remembre youre promise at Paules Crosse. You saied there. If it can be shewed out of any Olde Generall Councell that the bishop of Rome was within the first 600 Yeres Called an Vniuersall Bishop, yow will yelde and Subscribe. S. Gregory (whome your selfe before calleth, (a witn•••• su••fi••ent) whom Venerable Bede calleth Our Apostle,* 1.947 bicause he sent vs our first preachers of Christen faithe, whom the Churche hath estemed as one of the Foure doctours off the same, this holy and Lerned Father telleth yowe, that By the Reuerent Councell of Chalcedon his predecessours (bishoppes of Rome) were Called Vniuersall Bishoppes. Will yow nowe come to the booke and Subscribe? Will you yelde according to Promise? What you will doo, it is easy to Iudge. But that you maye so doe, for your owne sake I wish. In the mean the Reader seeth, both that you haue (not ouerreached or missetolde) but flatly belyed your Author S. Gregory, and also howe D. Harding hath neither ouerreached nor missetolde his Author, but hath auouched that, which his Author expressely wrote.

But let vs take S. Gregories wordes, euen as your selfe M. Iewell, hath alleaged them. Thus they stande. The name off Vniuersall bishop was offred by the Councel of Chalcedon to the bis∣shop

of Rome. His wordes are not. The Councell offred to call him so. Therefore M. Iewell hathe ouerreached and missetolde his Authors tale.

Nowe when the Councell offred that name to the bishop of Rome, I would gladly lerne of M. Iewel, how and by what meanes they offred it. Either they offred it by mouthe, or by writinge. If by writinge, then they intitled him so, and called him so in writing. If they offred that name vnto Leo by mou∣the, then they spake it out to his legates (for he him selfe was not present at the Councell) they spake it I saie and vttered it by mouthe. I trust M. Iewell will not saie. The whole Coun∣cell stode vp, and gaped vpon the legates, and profered to speake, but the legates before they spake or vttered any worde at all, desired them to holde their peace, and not to vtter their mindes. Vnlesse they did this, or some like thinge, it can not be true that M. Iewell saieth, They offred to call him so, but it must be true that D. Harding saieth, they called him so in dede, and that either by mouthe or by writing. For howe a name or title can be offred, without it be spoken or writen I knowe not.

[Iewell.] But S. Gregorie saieth further, that neither Leo, nor any other of his pre∣decessours bishops of Rome, woulde euer re••eiue that Arrogant and vngodly name, or suffer him selfe to be so called, notwithstāding it were offred by the Councel. The bis∣shops of Rome neuer vsed that name, notwithstanding it were offred to them. Therefore they ought to loose it by non vsure.

[Stapleton] This is a very good Conclusion M. Iewell. You saie very well: The bishops of Rome neuer vsed it in dede. Therefor (saie you) they ought to loose it by non vsure. On Gods name. We do not desende that Name M. Iewell. The Pope requireth it not, but hath euer shunned it and refused it. Only bicause of your rashe Challenge, it hathe bene shewed, that the Pope hathe bene so called off others. Whiche also your selfe confesseth, saying.

All this nothwithstanding, true it is, that M. Harding saieth, Leo in that Councell of Chalcedon was thus called. The places be knowen and may not be denied.

Loe gentle Reader: M. Iewell nowe, nothwithstandinge the Vnt••uthe noted in his margin, notwithstanding his what ifs,* 1.948 notwithstandinge his great questioning of Canons loste and six lines burnte, notwithstanding I saie all this great stor∣ming and striuing that he made before, nowe he confesseth the Truthe, and saieth All this notwithstanding t••ue it is, that M. Harding saieth, &c. Yea he will shewe vs the very places off the Councell of Chalcedon, beside the witnesse of Sainte Gregory, in the whiche the Pope is called Vniuersall bishopp and not only called, but saluted: For thus he saieth.

[Iewell.] He is so saluted in three sundry Epistles.* 1.949 The one sent by one A∣thanasius a priest, the other by one Ischyrion a deacon. The thirde by one Theodorus likewise a deacon.

Lo you haue hearde M. Iewelles Confession. That the Pope is saluted Vniuersall bishop in three sundry Epistles in the Actes of the Chalcedon Councell. But what thinke we nowe? Will M. Iewell trowe we, yelde and Subscribe? He confesseth him selfe, the Pope was Called and saluted Vniuer¦sall bishop in three sundry letters registred in the Councell of Chalcedon, whiche Councell was holden as M. Iewell also confesseth in the yere of our Lorde 488. This was more then one whole hundred of yeares within his 600. What then? Will M. Iewell Subscribe and yelde? No No. He neuer meaned no such matter. You shall see what shift he hathe to escape his promise. He saieth.

[Iewell.] But of that whole number of six hundred and thirty bisshoppes there assembled, I trowe M. Harding is not well able to shew that any one euer saluted or called him so.

[Stapleton] What then M. Iewell? Was your challenge made at Pau∣les Crosse of those six hundred and thirty bishoppes assem∣bled

together in the Councell of Chalcedon. Was that the te∣nour of your Challenge at Paules Crosse? Is that Condition annexed to the wordes of your Challenge? Nay you speake very largely and freely,* 1.950 If it can be shewed owt of any olde Ca∣tholike doctour, or Father, or out of any olde generall Councel, or out of the holy Scriptures of God, or any one example of the primitiue Churche, whereby it may clerely and plainely be proued, that the Bi∣shop of Rome was with in the first six hundred yeres called an Vni∣uersall Bishopp, or Heade of the vniuersall Churche, you will yelde and subscribe. Nowe Sir, here you haue not only a Generall Councell by the witnesse of S. Gregorye, but also an Example of a Priest and two Deacons of the Primitiue Churche, that Called, Saluted and Intitled Leo the Pope of Rome, an Vni∣uersall bishop. That it is clerely and plainely proued, you con∣fesse your selfe,* 1.951 saying. The places be knowen, it cā not be denied. Will you nowe except and drawe backe bicause they were no bishops which so saluted and Intitled the Pope?

Doe not all men here see, that you mocked your whole Audience when you made your Challenge, and that you ne∣uer intended to perfourme, whiche so stoutely you promised twise in the Pulpit? Or was it (M. Iewell) the Acte then pas∣sed in Parliament, which made you so bolde? Thinking that thereby all mens mouthes should be mouseled, and you might Crowe alone?

For why M. Iewell? The Priest and Deacōs of that time, are they no Christen mē? Or is their testimony the worse bicause they were of the clergy? Then beholde an other testimony read and Regestred also in that holy Councell of one neither priest nor deacon, and yet a Christen man, who in his suppli∣cation offred vp to the Pope and to the Councell of Chalce∣don, vseth the very same Title and stile as the other two dea∣cons and Athanasius the priest did.* 1.952 The title of the supplica∣tion is this. Sanctissimo & beatissimo Vniuersali

Archiepiscopo & Patriarchae magnae vrbis Romae Leoni, & sanctissimo Concilio secundum vo∣luntatem Dei & Diuina mandata in Chalcedo∣nēsi Ciuitate cōgregato, a Sophronio Christiano. That is. To the moste holye and moste blessed Vniuersall archebishopp and Patriarche of the great Citie of Rome Leo, and to the moste holy Councell assembled together in the Citie of Chalcedon according to the will and commaun∣dements of God, by Sophronius a Christian man. Will this Example please you M. Iewell? This is an Example of the pri∣mitiue Churche. This was neither poore deacon, nor straun∣ge priest, as you terme them scornefully, more like a Hicke scorner, then like a Bishop, but this was a Christen laye man and as it appeareth a man of worship. For in his Supplica∣tion to the Pope and to the Councell, wherein he accused Di∣oscorus the tyrannicall Patriarke of Alexandria, he added, that many other coulde saye as muche as he saied against the same Dioscorus, but that siue pro paupertate, siue pro timore eius tyran∣nidis non sunt ausi, partly for pouerty, partly for feare of his ty∣ranny they durst not. Wherby it appeareth, this Sophronius was neither poore, neither of such a state as he neded to feare the Patriarke.

Nowe bicause M. Iewell vrgeth this matter and woulde make it of no force, bicause no bishop did so call the Pope in the Councell, I would wishe M. Iewell, if he can, to satisfie and solute these questions.

[ 1] First when S. Gregorye witnessed (whiche M. Iewell also confesseth) that the Councell of Chalcedon offred the name of Vniuersall Bishopp to Leo then Pope of Rome,* 1.953 yea and that his predecessours were by that holy Councell so Called, whether he meaned not that the bishoppes off the same Coū∣cell

did offer that name and Call them so, or no. If not the bishoppes, then either the Emperour and his Councell, or the notaries and inferiour clergy of those bishoppes did offer that name and Call his predecessours by that name. And then it was not the Councell at all that did it. For a Councell con∣sisteth of bishops, not of the laye magistrat, or of the inferiour clergy. And therefore it was cried in this very Councell of Chalcedon.* 1.954 Synodus episcoporum est, non clericorum. A Coun∣cell is of bishops not of clerkes. If then of the bishoppes of that Councell that name was offred, and ofter it they could not without expressing the name, either by mouthe or by writinge, if by those bishopps, they beinge the Body of the Councel, the Bishops of Rome were so Called, then it is clere that the bishops of that Councell either by mouthe Called the Pope Vniuersall bishopp, or by writinge Intitled him so. And thus by the witnesse of S. Gregory it is clere, the bishopps of the Councell of Chalcedon no lesse in number then six hundred and thirty, either called by mouthe, or intitled by writinge the Bishopp off Rome an Vniuersall Bishopp. And so M. Iewell must Subscribe.

[ 2] Agayne whereas the supplications of Athanasius priest, of Theodorus and Ischyrion deacons, and of So∣phronius the laye Christen man, offred vpp to that Coun∣cell, were by the commaundement off the Byshoppes, na∣mely of Paschasinus one of the Popes legates there, of Petrus bishopp of Corinthe,* 1.955 Marinianus bishopp of Synnada, of Pergamius bishop of Antioche in Pisidia, of Patricius bishopp of Tyana, and by the consent of all the rest, regestred amonge the Actes and monuments of the Councell, were they not al∣so, I aske you M. Iewell, allowed and approued of the bishop∣pes? Shoulde they otherwise not only haue bene readen in the Councell, but also be regestred in the Actes thereof? The sup∣plications then being thus regestred and allowed, was not

thinke yow the Title and stile thereof also allowed? If it had bene then acompted a blasphemous, straunge, or iniurious tit∣le, that the Pope shoulde be intitled Vniuersall Bishop, woulde that holy and learned Councell, not only haue geuen the hea∣ring thereof, but also commaunded the same to be regestred and reserued with the other Actes of the Councell? Woulde they not rather haue blamed those deacons, that priest, and that other laye man for vsing that Terme, and for intitling the bishop of Rome withe the name of Vniuersall bishop, if they had in dede disallowed it, or bene of that minde as M. Iewel is of? Therefore seing it was not of the bishops reproued, but by their expresse Cōmaundement Regestred amōge the Actes of the Councell and thereby Allowed, it foloweth the bishops al∣lowed that Title, and so the Exāple is of good Authorite, and can not be auoyded. Verely of no lesse authorite then if the bishops them selues had so saluted or intitled the Pope. It fo∣loweth also by force of this Clere Exāple of the primitiue Church, M. Iewell according to the tenour of his Challenge must yelde and Subscribe.

[ 3] Thirdly I woulde gladly lerne of M. Iewell, howe it hap∣pened that Athanasius this priest, Ischyrion and Theodorus the deacons, and Sophronius the laye Christen man, being all of Alexandria in Aegypt, and subiect to that dyocese and pa∣triarkeship (as it appereth euidentlye in their supplications a∣gainst Dioscorus their Patriarche) made their supplication not only to the whole Councell, but to Leo the Pope by na∣me, who yet was not otherwise present there, then by his lega∣tes? Why do these of Alexandria in Aegypt, put vp their supplication to the Pope by name, hauing the whole Councel present, and call him the Vniuersal Bishop, omitting the other Patriarches of Antioche and of Constantinople, but that they acknoweledged him as Head and Chiefe of the Councel, and as the Primat and Superiour to al other bishoppes and Patriar∣ches?

[ 4] Fourthely I woulde the wisedome of M. Iewell would in∣structe vs howe these suppliants and plaintifs of Alexandria would haue presumed to Salute and intitle the Pope of Ro∣me, a Vniuersall bishoppe and that in the presence of a whole Councell, vnlesse that name and Title of righte appertayned to the bishopp of Rome? Or what vantage coulde it be vnto them to make a lie, and to vtter such a Title in honour of the Pope, whiche did dishonour and debace all the rest of the bis∣shops (in that sence as M. Iewell taketh Vniuersall bishop) and shoulde therefore in so doing haue prouoked al the Coū∣tell to indignation and displeasure for so iniuring them euē to their faces? Must we for M. Iewelles pleasure, imagine suche a peuish absurdite or blinde bettle ignorance in those foure plaintifs of Alexandria?

[ 5] Last of all what thinketh M. Iewell in this matter? Thin∣keth he that those foure plaintifs of Alexandria did then first and vpon their owne heads call the bishop of Rome Vniuer∣sall Bishop? Shall we not rather thinke that in such a solenne Instrument of their humble suite and petition to the Pope and to the Councell, they woulde with all diligence and tru∣the, exactly obserue the right, dewe, and approued Title of the Bishop of Rome and of the whole Councell? When are Titles of Magistrates exactely and truly penned, but in the suites and complaintes made to Magistrates? And what can more eui∣dently proue the dewe title of a Magistrat, then the approued tenour of supplications made vnto the Magistrat? Or are such Titles in al priuat suites exactely kepte, and in the most hono∣rable assemblie of a whole Generall Councell not kepte? Nay it is most euident by this Example of the Primitiue Churche, the Pope was either by the Consent of that Councell then first, or els before vsually and of right called Vniuersall bis∣shoppe, of others, though the Popes them selues to auoide the

inconuenience of a wrong sence that might be gathered the∣reof, haue neuer so intitled them selues. And therefore M. Iewell to this Example of the primitiue Churche must Subscribe.

[Iewell.] Therefore, whereas Master Hardinge, the better to put his Reader in remēbraunce, hath sett this note in the Margine, The Bishop of Rome was called the vniuers••ll bishop, and head of the Churche aboue a thousand yeares sithence, he might with more truthe and muche better haue noted his booke thus. S. Gregories wordes misalleaged, the Councell falsified, this onely Ca∣non lost, all the rest whole and safe, A straunge priest, and two porre deacons, in their priuate suites for their goodes, and legacies, named Leo the vniuersall bishop. But of the six hundred and thirty bishops, that had voices in the Councell, not one euer na∣med him so. Thus muche M. Hardinge might truly haue noted in the margine.

[Stapleton] If Facing and Bragging, if Blasing of letters, and impu∣dent Lookes may persuade, then M. Iewell hathe wonne the Price. We reade of two noble men of Athens, Pericles and Thucydides, the one eloquent of tounge,* 1.956 the other stronge and valiant of body, that making a Combat and wrasteling the one with the other in the sight of all the people, Pericles being euer caste by Thucy dides, he had yet suche a sleighte that sodainly recouering him selfe, he would by his eloquen∣ce persuade the people, that he had geuen his felowe the fall, though all they sawe with their eies that he had taken the foy∣le and the fall both. It semeth M. Iewell hath conceiued some like vaine hope of Dame Eloquence and Impudencye her cousen, that being expressely forced vpon his fonde and rashe Challenge to yeld and Subscribe by clere and expresse euiden∣ce, he maye shifte yet the whole matter awaye, from him sel∣fe, and to geue his aduersary the foile. For this purpose he hath ouerreached the wordes of S. Gregory, and hath forced the whole Councell of Chalcedon to stande gaping vpon the Popes legates, and not be so hardy as to speake out their mindes, when they offred Leo the name of Vniuersal bishop, lest if they had spoken out, M. Iewell had bene confounded. Therefore he maketh S. Gregorye to saie, The Coun••ell offred to call the Pope so, but calleth him not so in dede. Againe he telleth

the Reader of Canons lost, and six lines burnte, and only this poore name of Vniuersall bishop not able to be founde in the whole Councell. Thirdly confessing of fine force the Truthe which before he denied, and shewing how in the very Coūcel the Pope was so Called, Saluted, and Intitled, then he thinketh to debace the matter, for that they were two poore deacons, not Riche Bishops and a straunge priest, not an Englishman borne (for els I maruail why M. Iewell shoulde call any priest of all Christendom a straunge priest) and againe that none of the 630. bishops called the Pope by that name. Whereas yet nei∣ther his Challenge was made of those .630. bishoppes, or of any bishops at all, more then priestes or deacons, and also the sup∣plications of those parties and the stile thereof was bothe al∣lowed of the bishops, and by their Commaundement Rege∣stred amonge the Actes and monuments of the Councell. Last of all that all this was done in their priuate suites for their goodes, as though suiters and suppliants might be suff••ed to vse a false flatte••ing stile more then the Iudges would allowe, and as though that should helpe their cause, and not rather greatly hinder it, hauing a whole Councell of so many lerned and holy bishops assembled from all partes of the worlde to be their Iudges. Which (as it may well be gathered) neither for their holynesse woulde dissemble and winke at suche a false flattering Title, neither for their lerning coulde be ignorant what Title of right appertained to the Pope. Whiche if it had bene otherwise then meete and right, the plaintifs in that case had bene more likely to haue sped the worse, then to haue fa∣red the better therefore. Vnlesse M. Iewel will also saye, that all the whole Councell was either lead by flattery, or blinded with ignorance, and that he onely walketh vpright, and seeth all. Therefore the marginall note of D. Harding is true, that aboue a thousand yeares past, The Pope was Called, Intitled and Saluted, the Vniuersall Bishop: Wherefore M. Iewell muste

Subscribe: There is no remedy.

[Harding.] Sundrie holy Martyrs bishops of Rome vsed to call them selues bishops of the vniuersall Churche: whiche in effect is the same as the Fathers of Chalcedon vnderstoode.

[Iewell.] The 119. Vntruthe. For these names importe not one thinge,* 1.957 as shall appeare.

The name of Vniuersall bishop, and of, bishop of the Vni∣uersall Church, as the Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon vnderstode vniuersall bishopp, are in effect all one. Howe shewe you the contrary?

[Iewell.] If an vniuersall bisshop and a bisshop of the Vniuersall Church be (541) all one thinge, how then is it true, that S. Gregory saieth,* 1.958 none of my predecessours woulde euer consent to this name? Or how can he finde such fault with the name of vniuersall bisshop, and beare so easely with the name of Bisshop of the vniuersall Churche, which he knewe, his pre∣decessours had vsed, if he tooke them bothe for one thinge without difference? To be shorte, if these names, as M. Harding assureth hym selfe, be bothe one thinge, howe is the one godly, the other vngodlye, the one Arrogant, the other not Arrogant, the one blasphemous, the the other not blasphemous?

All these wordes make one argument. But all these wordes do not answer D. Harding. S. Gregory blameth the name of Vniuersall bishop: But he blameth not the name of Bishop of the Vniuersall Churche. Therefore to S. Gregory, and in S. Gregories meaning they are not all one. I graunte. But as the Fathers of the Councell of Chalcedon vnderstoode them, they are all one. S. Gregorye vnderstode the name of vniuersall bishop, as excluding all other bishopps.* 1.959 Therefore he saieth of Iohn of Constantinople whiche vsurped that na∣me: Despectis omnibus solus conatur appellari episcopus. Dispy∣sing all other bishops, he woulde onely be called a bishop. In this sence it was a proude, arrogant, vngodly, blasphemous, and the very name of Antichrist. But in this sence the Coun∣cell

of Chalcedon offred not that name to Leo. For who can euer thinke that suche a number of lerned and holy Bi∣shops would either be so wicked, as to committe such a sacri∣lege, or so foolish, as to depriue them selues, and to make them selues no bishoppes at all, onely to extolle and make one one∣ly man a Vniuersall and onely bishop of all the worlde. They had therefore vndoubtedly an other sence and meaning in those wordes then that proude patriarche Iohn of Constan∣tinople vsurped, or then holy S. Gregorye and Pelagius his predecessour, so earnestly blamed, reproued, and condemned. They called the B. of Rome Vniuersall bishopp, as they called him the bishop of the Vniuersall Churche. By the which ti∣tle in that Councell he is oftentimes called,* 1.960 namely in the subscriptions of his legates. That is, either a Catholike bis∣shop, and a bishop of the Catholike Churche, (as M. Iewell thinketh the worde Vniuersall to signifie) or a supreme and chiefe bishopp ouer the whole Churche, as the Councell off Chalcedon tooke and confes••••d Leo the bishop of Rome, to be. Whiche maye easely be proued, not onely by the whole Actes of the Councel in the condemnation of Dioscorus and of Eutyches, but by the wordes also of their letters sent and directed to Leo the Pope for a confirmation of their whole doinges in the Councell.* 1.961 The wordes of the Councelles whole letters to Pope Leo are these. Si vbi sunt duo aut tr•••• congregati in nomine eius, ibi se in medio eorum fore perhibuit Chri∣stus,* 1.962 quantam circa sacerdotes peculiaritatem potuit demonstrare, qui & patria & liberis, suae confessionis notitiam praetulerunt? Quibus tu quidem sicut membris Caput praeras, in his qui tuum te∣nebant ordinem, beneuol••ntiam praeferens. If when two or three be gathered in the name of Christe, he promised to be in the mid∣dest of them, what a speciall care hath Christ at this time had of his priestes, whiche haue left their countre and their chil∣dren to sett forthe the confession of him? Ouer the whiche

multitude thou hast bene president as the Heade ouer other partes of the body, declaring to them thy great good will in thy Legates. In these wordes the whole Councell of six hundred and thirty bishops assembled in Chalcedon, do call and confesse Leo the Pope Head to them all. In this sence therefore as he was their Head, it is to be thought they offred the name of Vniuersall bishopp, that is, as the Heade bishopp ouer the Vniuersall Church of Christ, not in the other prou∣de and arrogant sence whiche longe after this Councell Iohn of Constantinople vsurped, and Pelagius and Gregory ver∣tuous and holy Popes reproued and condemned. This sence also as the Councell of Chalcedon vnderstoode, semeth here∣by to be all one in effect, withe the title of bishopp of the Vni∣uersall Churche: not the sence in whiche S. Gregory tooke those wordes. And thus M. Iewell hathe proued that by the meaning of S. Gregory they are diuerse, whiche no man de∣nied, but he hathe not proued that by the meaning of the Councell of Chalcedon they were diuers, whiche D. Harding denied. So he hathe (as in all his Replie ouer in a maner,) Re∣plied, but not to the matter.

Nowe that M. Iewell for a surplussage hathe founde that diuers other Patriarches were called Vniuersall bishops, what hathe he done thereby but declared his former ignorance and the fonde rashenes of his vaine challenge? For if other Patri∣arches be so called, and yet of all other Patriarches the bishop of Rome by M. Iewelles owne confession hath euer bene the first,* 1.963 howe coulde he doubte but that the bishop of Rome al∣so was so called? If he knewe so before, what a vanitie was it to make such a challenge of that title whiche other had as well as the bishop of Rome? And which no bishop of Rome euer vsed or desired? If he knewe it not before, but hath lerned it sence by farder serche and diligence, then as he was deceiued in the one, so let him not be ashamed to acknowleadge his ig∣norance

in the other. As it hathe bene founde I saie that Iohn, Epiphanius, and Therasius of Constantinople were called Vniuersall bishops, by his owne confession, so let him confesse and acknowleadge that the bishopp of Rome, Leo by name, was intitled and saluted an Vniuersall bishopp in foure sundry letters of no Romanes, nor of the Romain prouince, but of the Patriarkeship and prouince of Alexandria, in the presence of the whole Councell of Chalcedon, in their humble suite and plea, where it is most likely, they woulde vtter nothinge but truthe, specially in a matter whiche coulde nothinge fur∣der them, but rather directly hinder thē and make all those bi∣shops their heauy Lordes, if at lest they intitled the Pope Vni∣uersall bishop in that sence as M. Iewell imagineth, they did. Let him, I saye, confesse this, acknowledge his former igno∣rance, and Subscribe.

[Harding.] The same title (of bishop of the vniuersall Churche) was vsed likewise after the Nicene Councell by Felix, by Leo, and diuers others before the six hundred yeres after Christe were expired.

[Iewell.] * 1.964The 120. Vntruthe. For immediately before M. Hardinge confes∣seth that Leo neuer wrote him selfe by that name.

[Stapleton.] This a manifest and impudent Vntruthe, of M. Iewell. D. Harding saied before, In very dede neither Leo him selfe nor any his successour, euer called or wrote him selfe by that name, as S. Gre∣gory saieth, meaning the name of Vniuersall bishop as the course of his text decla••eth euidently. But in these later wordes he speaketh not of the name of Vniuersall bishop but of the na∣me of the bishop of the vniuersall Churche. We nede not spende wordes and paper to declare this. The texte of D. Hardinge maye be sene bothe in M. Iewelles Replie, and in the other two editions of that booke. Who so euer readeth the text,

shall see to the eye, that M. Iewell herein was either blindely ouerfene, or maliciousely affected.

VVho so euer trauaileth in the reading of the Auncient Fathers, findeth that name (he meaneth Head of the Chur∣che) allmost euery where attributed to Peter the first bis∣shop of Rome, and consequently to the successour of Peter, that name (I saye) either in termes aequiualent or expres∣sely.

[Iewell.] * 1.965The 121. Vntruthe. For Peter only is so called, yet was not Peter then Bishop of Rome.

[Stapleton.] * 1.966What? Will. M. Iewell defende nowe, that Peter was not bis∣shop of Rome, and renewe the olde doting opinion of his Fa∣ther Luther, holding, that Peter was neuer at Rome? M. Ie∣well saieth: Peter was not then bishop of Rome. What meaneth he trowe we by this? Doth he meane Then, that is when those fathers wrote and called him so, he was not Bishopp of Rome? Who is so very a dolte as to saie that? If he meane, by Then, the time that he liued here in earthe, by howe many Au∣thorites might he be confounded? S. Hierom saieth plainelye:* 1.967 Petrus Romae vigintiquinque annis Cathedram sacerdotalem tenuit. Peter occupied the priestly Chaire at Rome xxv. yeres,a 1.968 Ire∣neus, b 1.969 Optatus, and c 1.970 Augustin reakoning vp the Bishops of Rome, vntell their time, do reaken Peter for the first bishopp of Rome. d 1.971 Egesippus e 1.972 Eusebius and Epiphanius do testifie that S. Peter suffred at Rome. And will M. Iewell forsake and gainesaie all these lerned Fathers of Christes Churche, the lo∣west of them wel nere twelue hundred yeres olde? Iose∣phus a right approued historiographer saieth, Illud veritatis certè signum esse, si de eisdem rebus eadem omnes conscribāt.f 1.973 That is an vndoubted token of truthe, when all euen of one matter do pronounce after one sorte. Let therefore M. Iewell bringe

any one writer before the age of that fonde frier Martin Lu∣ther, that euer wrote the contrary. It is maruail that M. Iewell auouching this matter so stoutely, and building his Vntruthe thereuppon, would yet in all his text, bringe no proofe, no reason, no argument at al to confirme it. I wisse he could haue tolde vs muche out of the story of his brethern of Meydebur∣ge,* 1.974 had he thought their lies worthe the telling. Therefore he thought better to auouche it by his owne Soueraine Autho∣rite stoutely, then to proue his most Impudent Vntruth fon∣dely. Nowe bicause M. Iewell auoucheth that only Peter was called Head of the Churche, and yet his assertion nothinge weakened there by, let vs shortly See a reason or two that may be Framed thereof.

S. Peter by M. Iewelles confession, was called Head of the, Churche of the Fathers.

S. Peter was Bishopp off Rome within the first .600. yeres. Ergo the Bisshopp off Rome was Called Head of the Churche within the first .600. yeres. Nowe bi∣cause M. Iewell saieth that only S. Peter was so called, let vs proue the like of Damasus an other bishop of Rome .400. yeres after Christe, by the argument that D. Harding made, and the which M. Iewell in his Replie reproueth, bicause it was not solennelye made in mode and figure,* 1.975 as thoughe for lacke of that, it coulde not be made otherwise. The wor∣des first of S. Ambrose are these. Where as the whole worlde is Gods, yet the Churche is called his House the Ruler whereof at these daies is Damasus. Of these wordes I frame this argument, in good mode and figure.

* 1.976Whosoeuer ruleth the howse of God which S. Paule spea∣keth of to Timothe, ruleth the Vniuersall Churche. But Damasus the Pope by the verdit of S. Ambrose ruled the how∣se of God mencioned in S. Paule. Ergo Damasus the Po∣pe by the Verdit of S. Ambrose ruled the Vniuersall Churche.

The Minor or second proposition is euident by the wor∣des of S. Ambrose alleaged. The Maior or first proposition is euident by S. Paules very wordes, whiche are these. These thin∣ges I write vnto thee (o Timothee) hoping to come shortlye vnto thee. But if I slacke to come,* 1.977 (I haue thus writen) to thentent thow mayest knowe howe to behaue thy selfe in the house of God, whiche is the Churche of the liuing God, the Piller and grounde of truthe. Loe this howse of God which S. Paule here speaketh of, is that Church which is the Piller and Grounde of truthe. Suche is no particular Churche, but only the Vniuersall Churche. For Particular Churches may and haue erred many, but the Vni∣uersall Churche can not possibly erre, and hathe neuer erred. She is the Piller, She is the Grounde of Truthe. Against her Hell gates shall not preuaile. Thus the former Proposi∣tions being bothe euident and true, the one out of S. Paule, the other out of Holye and Lerned Saincte Ambrose com∣menting vpon S. Paule, the Conclusion must nedes folowe, which is, that Damasus the Pope Ruled the Vniuersall Chur∣che, not only his owne dyocese, or patriarkeshipp of Rome. Nowe if the Ruler be not the Heade, I would M. Iewel should instructe vs what the Head of a companye or common wel∣the signifieth, other, then the Ruler of that company or com∣mon welthe. Thus M. Iewell hath in termes equiualent the Head of the Vniuersall Churche. And a bisshopp of Rome so called farre within his first 600. yeres. If therefore M. Iewell made his Challenge at Paules Crosse for the honour of God, for boulting out of the Truthe, and for the matter it selfe whi∣che is in controuersy, he must according to his promise yelde and Subscribe to this Olde holy Father S. Ambrose. If he did but dally and to ye about certaine termes and phrases, then the worlde may knowe and See, what trifling Sermons prelats and Preachers of this newe clergy not only doe make and pro∣nounce, before their honourable and worshipfull audience,

but also do print and set forthe to be Readen and preserued of their posterite.

* 1.978Leo in the letters of the whole Generall Councel of Chal∣cedor was called their Head as hath before bene alleaged. But a generall Councell representeth the Vniuersall Chur∣che and is the Chiefe Bodye of the same. Ergo by a good Consequent Leo was Called off no lesse then of a whole Councell the Head of the Vniuersall Churche. Ergo not only S. Peter, but Damasus and Leo two other Popes haue be∣ne so Called. Ergo M. Iewell must Subscribe.

[Harding.] * 1.979Theodoretus in an Epistle to Leo, calleth the same in consideration of the bishop of that See his primacie, Orbi terrarum praesidentem, praesident or bearing rule ouer the whole worlde.

[Iewell.] * 1.980 The 122. Vntruthe. Standing in vntrue translation.

I turne to your rext, and finde you to proue this Vntruthe in these wordes.

[Iewell.] * 1.981Yet Replie will be made, that Theodoretus calleth the Churche of Rome 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. VVhich wordes M. Harding (547) vn∣truly translateth, President, or bearing rule ouer the worlde. For he knoweth, that the greke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifieth, Sitting in the first place, and forceth not of necessite any rule or gouernement ouer o∣thers.

[Stapleton.] * 1.982You proue your selfe but a vaine trifler and a mere gram∣marian M. Iewell, when you Replie after this sorte. We know, bothe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in greke and Praesideo in Latin, dothe someti∣me signifie, to sitt in the first place. But doe not yow kno∣we also that it signifieth to Beare rule, and to gouerne? Is not our englishe worde President, taken out of the Latin Praesidere a worde of Authorite and gouernement more then of sitting in the first place? Wil you measure and limit the Office of the Lord President in Wales, with the prerogatiue of only sitting before other, and hauing the first place? But that Theodoret

calling the Churche of Rome 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉., Orbi terr••rum praesidentem the Churche that is president and bea∣reth rule ouer the worlde, meaneth a farre greater prerogati∣ue, then of sitting in the first place, and that therefore this trās∣lation is true and yow but a fonde wrangler to finde faulte therewith, the whole place of Theodoret him selfe shal testifie and beare witnesse.

Theodoret that lerned father and bishopp of Cyrus begin∣neth his Epistle vnto Pope Leo in this sorte. Si Paulus praeco veritatis &c. If Paule the Preacher of Truthe, * 1.983 the trū∣pet of the Holy Ghoste, ranne vp to the great Apostle Peter, to bring from him a determination touching the question which those of An∣tioche moued about the obseruations of the lawe of Moyses, much mo∣re we whiche are abiecte and off small regarde, doe runne to youre Apostolike See, that we maye receaue from you some holesome medi∣cine to cure the woundes and sores of the Churches. * 1.984 For to you it belongeth to beare the chiefty in all thinges. For your See is decked with many praerogatiues, whereby you are Superiour to other. For other cities are commended for greatnesse, for beauty, and for multi∣tude of inhabitants. And many are noble for certain spirituall gif∣tes peculiar to them: But God the geuer of all good thinges hathe ge∣uen to your Citie a plentifull and abundant copie of al goodnesse. For that Citie is the greatest and noblest of al Cities, and it is shee* 1.985 that go¦u••rneth the whole worlde, and is full of inhabitants. Furthermore this Citie gotte that Empire whiche nowe gouerneth the worlde, and of her owne name hathe called her subiects. But chiefely and prin∣cipally the Faithe commendeth her, * 1.986 and the worthy witnesse S. Pau∣le, who crieth out and saieth. Your faithe is preached through oute the whole worlde. Thus farre Theodoret in commendation of the Citie of Rome, and not so muche of the Citie it selfe, as of the Churche and See of that Citie. For these wordes to haue bene spoken of the Churche not of the Citie M. Iewe••l

him selfe confesseth, chaunging the wordes. Quae praeest orbi terrarum, into Ecclesiam orbis terrarum primariam. The most Notable and chiefe Churche of the worlde. For the chiefe Citie of the worlde at that time Rome was not, but rather Constantinople, whiche also was therefore called Noua Ro∣ma, Newe Rome. Againe it s••all the better appeare by the suite and request of Theodoretus in this epistle to Pope Leo, whether he called the Churche of Rome, the president of the worlde, for preeminence of place only, or no. Theodoret in that epistle to Pope Leo being wrongefully depriued and de∣posed from his bishopricque by Dioscorus the Patriarche of Alexandria in the Conuenticle of Ephesus, of which we haue often mentioned before, declaring firste the iniurious iudge∣ment of Dioscorus, the longe continuaunce in his bishopric∣ke, hauing serued therein xxvj. yeares, the largenesse of his charge, hauing in his prouince (for he was a Metropolitane Archebishop) * 1.987 eight hundred Churches, his great paynes and trauail in preseruing all that people from heresy, namely from the heresy of Marcion, from the which (as he writeth) he had deliuered aboue a thousand soules, conuerting them to the Catholike faithe, declaring I saye all these thinges to the Po∣pe particularly, he cometh to his suite and saieth, Et post tot sudores & labores &c. And beholde after all this sweate and tra∣uail, I am condemned, being not so muche at accused. But * 1.988 I loo∣ke for the Sentence of your Apostolike See. And I beseche and re∣quire your holynes, to aide me in this case * 1.989 Appealing to your right and iuste iudgement, and to commaunde me to come before you, and to shewe that my doctrine and belefe foloweth your Apostolike step∣pes. And a litle after, hauing reakoned vpp what workes he had writen, partly against heretikes, partly vpon holy Scriptu∣re, of the whiche to this daye a great parte is extant, he repe∣teth his suite, and saieth. But I beseche yowe caste not of my humble request, nor despise not my hore head, which after suche pay∣nefull

trauailes is thus iniured. Before all thinges I beseche yow, I maye knowe from you, whether I ought to stande to this wron∣gefull iudgement, or no. For I looke for your sentence, * 1.990 and if you shall commaunde me to abide the iudgement, I will abide it, and ne∣uer trouble man here aboute any more, but abide the iust iudgement of my God and Saviour. Christ Iesus. God is my witnesse I haue no regarde of my honour and promotion, but of the great offence that maye rise hereof in the mindes of many simple folke and speci∣ally of suche whom we haue before conuerted from heresy: VVho ha∣uing an eye to the See of Alexandria and other bishops whiche haue condemned vs, will perhappes iudge, that we are not able to discerne the true and right doctrine. Thus Farre Theodoret in his sup∣plication and Appeale to Leo the Bishopp of Rome, he hym¦selfe beinge a bishop of Cyrus in the East,* 1.991 and subiecte pro∣perly to the prouince and Patriarkeship of Antioche not of Rome. By this his Appeale, and by the Restitution also to his bishopricke whiche ensued hereupon by Leo the Pope, as I haue before declared out of the Chalcedon Councell, and by the whole wordes of Theodoret it is euident, that calling the Churche of Rome, Orbi terrarum praesidentem, or quae pre∣est orbi terrarum, the President and gouuerner of the worlde, he meaned not a preferment only of sitting in place before o∣ther bishoppes, but a Superiour Authorite and Primacy ouer other bishoppes, and such, as to whome from a Patriarche and Councell of Bishops, he might yet Appeale. Yet saieth M. Iewell.

[Iewell.] * 1.992He might (548.) better haue turned it: Ecclesiam orbis primariam. The most notable or ch••••s•• Churche of the wo••lde. And so woulde his translation haue well agreed with the Constitutions of the Emperour Iustinian, wherein the preeminence of sitting in the first place in all Councelles and assemblies, is by special Priuilege graunted to the bisshop of Ro∣me.

To the Constitutions of Iustinian touching the bishopp

of Romes prerogatiue I haue answered before, in the 99. Vn∣truthe.* 1.993 And declared there the greate vntruthe of M. Iewel•• falsifying and corrupting the Constitutions of Iustinian. And nowe touching the translation of this place I leaue it to euery indifferent Reader, perusinge the whole wordes of Theodorets epistle, considering the cause and ende of his wri∣ting, to iudge whether the translation of Doctor Hardinge be, (as Master Iewell hathe noted it) Vntrue, or that whiche he bringeth, Of sitting before other bishops in all assemblies vtter∣ly False, beinge builded vpon a former Vntruthe of Iustini∣ans Constitutions, and contrarye to the whole Meaninge, Intent, and Purpose of the Author him selfe, Theodoret in that epistle to Leo.

[Harding.] VVhat other is it to call the Churche of Rome the Princi∣pall Churche, respect had to the bishop there and not other∣wise (wherein a figure of speache is vsed) as Ireneus and Cyprian doe, and President, or (123) sette in authoritie ouer the whole worlde, as Leo dothe, then to call the Bishop of Rome Head of the Vniuersall Churche?

[Iewell.] * 1.994The 123. Vntruthe. Leo hath not one such worde.

This Vntruthe is soone Iustified, and Master Iewell the∣reby expressely conuicted, and forced to Subscribe according to Promise.* 1.995 For Leo calleth expressely the See of Peter, Head of the Vniuersal Church. His wordes are. Ad vnā Petri se∣dem Vniuersalis Ecclesiae cura confluit, vt nihil vsquam à suo Capi∣te dissideat. The charge of the Vniuersall Church hath recour∣se to the onely Seate of Peter, to thentent that nothinge may at any time Varie from their Head. Let nowe M. Iewell or any man els picke out any other sence of these wordes, then that the Seate of Peter is Head of the Vniuersall Church. The

cause why the Vniuersall Churche hathe recourse to the only Seate of Peter, is bicause nothing might varie from the Head. And is not then the See of Peter the Head thereof? If this place be not plaine enoughe, take an other. Leo writing to Theodoret after the Chalcedon Councell ended and finished, hath these wordes. Quae nostro prius ministerio definierat, vniuer∣sae fraternitatis irretractabili firmauit assensur, vt vere à se prodisse ostenderet, quod prius a Primae omnium Sede firmatum,* 1.996 totius Chri∣stiani orbis iudicium recepisset, vt in hoc quoque Capiti membra cō∣cordent. That which God had first decreed by vs, the irrefra∣gable consent of the Vniuersal brotherhood, hath confirmed, to shewe that it proceded in dede from him, as the whiche being first confirmed of the most Principall See, had receaued also the determination of all Christendome, to thentent that herein also the Partes might agree withe the Head. In these wordes againe Leo calleth his See (the See of Rome) the Head of all Christendom, and of the vniuersall brotherhood assem∣bled in the Generall Councell of Chalcedon. And least that this testimonye of the Pope him selfe may seme to be off lesse Credit, cal to minde in this place (gentle Reader) the wor∣des of this whole Generall of Councell of Chalcedon cal∣ling this Leo in their letters vnto him, their Head, whiche I haue before alleaged vnto thee in the 119. Vntruthe.* 1.997 Yet bi∣cause M. Iewell so stoutely auoucheth of this Vniuersall au∣thorite ouer all Christendom in the See of Rome, that Leo hath not one suche worde, Beholde yet a thirde place out of this Leo auouching most euidently the same. Speaking to the Ci∣tie of Rome, in a Sermon which he made vpon S. Peters and Paules daye, he hath these wordes.* 1.998 Isti sunt qui te ad hanc gloriā prouexerūt, vt sis gens sancta, populus electus, Ciuitas sacerdotalis & R••gia, per sacram Beati Petri sedem Caput orbis effecta, latius prae∣sideres religione diuina quam dominatione terrena. Quamuis enim multis aucta victorijs ius imperij tui terra marique protuleris, mi∣nus

tamen est, quod tibi bellicus labor subdidit, quam quod pax Christiana subiecit. These are they (he meaneth Peter and Paule which haue promoted thee (o Rome) to this glory, that thow shouldest be a holy natiō, a chosen people, a priestly and prin∣cely Citie, and being made the Head of the worlde by the ho∣ly Seate of blessed Peter, shouldest beare a farre larger gouer∣nement by Godly Religion, then by worldly Empire. For al∣though thou hast enlarged thy Empire by sea and by Lande, with manifolde victories, yet it is lesse that warlye power to the hathe atchieued, then that Christen peace to thee hath subdued. Thus farre lerned Leo, whom M. Iewel auou∣cheth to affirme not one suche worde, as may proue the Chur∣che of Rome sett in Authorite ouer the whole worlde. You haue Hearde Leo saie in this place that Rome throughe the Seate of Peter hath bene made the Head of the worlde, and beareth a larger gouuernement by Religion, then euer she did by Empire. And therefore Prosper loinge before the ti∣me of Leo affirmeth Romam per Apostolici sacerdotij principatū ampliorem factam esse arce Religionis quam solio potestatis.* 1.999 That Rome by the Primacy of Apostolike priesthood was of a lar∣ger Authorite in the preeminence of Religion, then in the Throne of Empire. Thus Leo and Prosper withe Ireneus, S. Cyprian, and S. Chrysostome, whom D. Harding alleaged doe vniformely call the See of Rome, the Principal Churche, of more Principall power, the Head of all Christendom, the Mast•••• of the worlde: But Leo most expresselye aboue other, the Head of the Vniuersall Churche, as yow haue hearde and sene 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his owne wordes at large.

M. I••••••ll to answer all these places, bringeth the like to ha∣ue bene 〈…〉〈…〉 Paule who suffred at Rome withe S. Peter: Whose Authorite had no other successour but the Bishop the∣re. Who was a Chosen Vessell, beside all the other Apostles, * 1.1000 whom Leo calleth consor••em gloriae Petri the felowe in ho∣nour

to S. Peter, and whose Priuileges therefore and preroga∣tiues doe fortifie much the Authorite of the See of Rome, but debaceth it not in any pointe.

And in an other place S. Augustin saieth.* 1.1001 Saluator quādo pro se & Petro exolui iubet, pro omnibus exoluisse videtur. Quia Sicut in Saluatore erant omnes causa magisterij, ita post Saluatorem in Petro omnes continentur. Ipsum enim constituit Caput omnium. Our Sauiour (saieth S. Augustin) when as he commaundeth payement (for the Emperour) to be ma∣de for him selfe, and for Peter, he seemeth to haue paied for all. Bicause, as all were in our Sauiour for cause of teaching, so after our Sauiour all are conteyned in Peter: for he ordei∣ned him Head of all.

[Iewell.] * 1.1002The 124. Vntruthe, standing in the willful falsyfying of S. Augu∣stine. S. Augustine saieth Caput eorum, not: Caput omnium.

This is the most apparent Vntruthe of all (except on••) that hath hetherto bene brought. And yet M. Iewell calling this a wilful falsyfying of S. Augustin Dealeth not only vncharitably, but also hath auoutched an other most manifest Vntruth him selfe. For what wilfull falsyfying can here appeare, where no aduauntage his hadde by the exchaunge? Considre the whole sentence gentle Reader, and thou shallt See that S. Augustine affirmeth Peter to be Head of all. He saieth in the same senten∣ce. As al were in Christe. so al are in Peter. And for proofe the∣reof he saiethe. For Christ made Peter their Head. Whose head M. Iewell, by S. Augustins meaning, but the Head of all? For of all he speaketh, not of some. And to proue that all were contained in Peter, he calleth Peter the Head of them (howe but of?) all. Thus the matter being true, the wordes by errour

altered, can make no willfull Vntruthe, if they make any Vn∣truthe at all. For I take an Errour or Escape to differ from an Vntruthe.

VVith all, I haue proued, that whiche M. Iewell denieth that the Bishop of Rome within six hundred yeares after Chris••, hathe bene called the Vniuersall Bishopp of no small nu••••re of men of great credit, and very oftentimes Head of the Vniuersall Churche, bothe in termes equiualent, and also expressely.

[Iewell.] * 1.1003The ••••5. Vntruthe. For (Peter only excepted) either of these Titles resteth yet vnp••oued.

[Stapleton.] [ 1] But Peter was bishop of Rome (as hath bene proued) Ergo these Titles haue bene proued according to M. Iewelles Chāl¦lenge. Ergo M. Iewell must Subscribe.

[ 2] Againe the Title of Vniuersall bishop hath bene proued in Leo a Bishop of Rome beside S. Peter bothe by the testimony of S. Gregory and by the Councell of Chalcedon it selfe. Ergo againe M. Iewell must Subscribe.

[ 3] Thirdly by the very last testimony alleaged of D. Harding out of Victor, the Churche of Rome is called Caput omnium Ecclesiarum. The Head of all Churches. If there be any diffe∣rence betwene all Churches, and the Vniuersall Churche, or if the Churche of Rome, be Head in any other respect, then in respect of the Bishop there••f••er M. Iewel with all his cōning shewe it. If there be 〈…〉〈…〉 none in the worlde can be deuised) then againe 〈…〉〈…〉 is brought of the primitiue Church (for the 〈…〉〈…〉 is of thinges don aboue the yere 〈…〉〈…〉 shortlye after the Deathe of S. Augustin) in 〈…〉〈…〉 is called Head of the Vniuersall Churche, and so this other Title hath bene proued in a Bishop of Rome beside S. Peter. Ergo M. Iewell must Sub∣scribe.

Fourthely Damasus (as hathe bene proued) was called of S. Ambrose Ruler of the House of God, which S. Paule spea∣keth of, which is as muche as Head of the Vniuersall Church, ergo ones againe M. Iewell either must protest to the worlde he sought not for truthe but trifled vpon Termes, when he made his Challenge, or els according to promise he must Sub∣scribe.

Fiftely Leo the Bishop of Rome was Called of the whole Chalcedon Councell, Head of the Vniuersall Churche,* 1.1004 when they confessed him their Head, they then bearing the persons of the whole Vniuersall Churche. They saied in their letters vnto him of them selues. Quibus tu, quasi Caput membris praec∣ras. Ouer whome thou haste bene the Chiefe or president as the Head is Chiefe ouer other partes of the Body. And in the same Councell he is Called diuerse times Pope and Bi∣shop of the Vniuersall Churche.* 1.1005 Therefore to the Chalce∣don Councell, calling the Pope their Head, you muste Sub∣scribe M. Iewell.

Sixtely Iustinian calleth Iohn the seconde, the Bishopp off Rome in his time, Caput omnium Sanctarum Ecclesiarum, the Head of all Holy Churches. Here is an other bishopp of Rome beside Sainte Peter so called: Therefore you muste Subscribe.

Seuenthly lerned Leo confesseth,* 1.1006 Vniuersalis Ecclesiae cu∣ram ad Petri sedem confluere, vt nihil vsquā a Capite suo dissid••at. That the Charge of the Vniuersall Churche hathe recourse to the See of Peter, that nothinge maye at any time vary from their Head.

S. Gregory in like maner calleth the 〈…〉〈…〉 off Rome, Caput omni•••• Ecclesiarum.* 1.1007 The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of all Chur∣ches.

Farder as it is alleaged in the second editiō of D. Hardinges

Answer to M. Iewelles Challenge,* 1.1008 Prosper calleth the See of Peter, Pastoralis honoris Caput, The Head off Pastorall Dignities, as much to say, of all Pastours and Shepeheardes in Christes Churche.

Athanasius also in his epistle to Marcus the Pope (whiche Epistle M. Iewell hath in vaine impugned) calleth the See of Rome,* 1.1009 Mater & Caput omnium Ecclesiarum. The Mother and Head of all Churches. If Head of all Churches and Head off the Vniuersall Churche be diuerse, then, it is bi∣cause the one worde, is mere english, the other is a Latin made English. Other difference in good sence I trowe, will not be founde. To these therefore so Clere and so Many, all within the Compasse of your 600. yeares, if you thinke your Chal∣lenge good and wise, Yelde and Subscribe.

These later allegations of D. Hardinges second edition, M. Iewell in his Replie hathe vtterly dissembled. To the place of Victor thus he Replieth.

[Iewell.] * 1.1010Touching Victor, that wrote the Storie of the Vandales, he is nei∣ther Scripture, nor Councell, nor doctour, nor writeth the Order, or Practise of the Primitiue Churche.

This later sentence is a Manifest and Iewde Vntruthe, a∣uoutched for a shifte to auoide an Inconuenience. An Incon∣uenience I saye of Subscribing. For if the Storie of Victor were of matters passed in the Primitiue Churche, then the Example alleaged out of him, Calling the Church of Rome, Head of all Churches, shoulde be an Example of the primi∣tiue Churche, and then M. Iewell should be forced to Subscri∣be. To auoide this Inconuenience, M. Iewell thought good flatly to denie his Storie, as not writing the Practise of the Primitiue Churche. But you maye not so Abuse vs M. Ie∣well. You requiring in your Challenge Any one example of the primitiue Churche, do after expounde and limit the Time of the primitiue Churche by the terme of .600. yeres after Christ, admitting all Examples within that time. Now Victor

writeth a Storie contayninge the practise of that Time. He writeth the persecution of the Vandales, Arrian heretikes in Afrike, which befell immediatly after the Deathe of S. Augu∣stin, as in his life written by Possidonius it is easye to See.* 1.1011 For he yet liuinge and lyinge in his death bedde the Wandales be∣seiged his Citie Hippo. But S. Augustin dyed not longe after the yere of our Lorde 400. Therefore Victor wrote a Storie of matters passed more then a hundred yeres within M. Iewelles 600. whiche he limiteth for the Primitiue Churche. Therefo∣re this Example is of that Time. M. Iewell vnrrulye denieth it, bicause he will not truly and honestly Subscribe vnto it.

[Iewell.] Nor is it well knowen, either of what credit he was, or when he liued.

[Stapleton] He is alleaged of all lerned writers, occasion seruing. Only M. Iewell doubteth of his Credit. And why? Bicause he ma∣keth against him. As for that the time he liued, is not well knowen: no more is the time of many other Lerned writers, who yet be of right good Authoryte.

[Iewell.] Nor doth he call the bisshop of Rome the Head of the Vniuersall Churche.* 1.1012Onely he saieth (.••54.) Rome is the Chiefe or Head Churche of all othe••s, which thinge of our parte is not denied.

M. Iewell to extenuat the sayieng of that godly Archebishop of Carthage Eugenius, reported by Victor the Ecclesiasticall writer, hath altered and falsified the wordes. For Eugenius that Catholike Prelat conuēted before Obadus a Captaine of Humerichus the Arrian kinge of the Vandales, called the Churche of Rome, meaning thereby the Bishop of Rome, Caput omnium Eccl••siarum. The Head of all Churches, He saieth not: The Head Churthe of all others. But, The Head off al other Churches. Betwene these two sayinges is greate dif∣ference. As for example. The Churche of Caunterbury is the Head Churche of all others, respect had to England. For no Churche in Englande hathe so Ample and Large a Iuris∣diction

as that hathe. Yet is not the Churche of Caunterbu∣ry the Head of all Churches in Englande. For beside di∣uers Peculiars exempted from the Iurisdiction of Caunterbu∣ry, euen within the Prouince of that Archebishoprike, the Archebishop of Yorke and all of his Prouince are not subiect to any Iurisdiction of the Churche of Caunterbury. Thus Master Iewell for a Iuste Replie to Sufficient Authorites, weakoneth the Authors Credit, Altereth his wordes, Misse∣reporteth the time of his Writinges, and so by Multyplying Vntruthes thinketh to ouerthrowe the Truthe, to abuse his Reader desirous to lerne, and to deceiue Gods People gladde to be instructed. God graunte you M. Iewell the loue of Truthe, and grace to reforme these your Vn••••uthes.

Notes

• * 1.1

  D. Hard. Diuis. 1.
• * 1.2

  Pag. 220
• * 1.3

  The .260. Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.4

  Gregori∣us lib. 4. epist. 2.
• * 1.5

  Ioan. 21 Luce. 22
• * 1.6

  Matth. 16
• * 1.7

  Lib. 2. de sacerdo∣tio.
• * 1.8

  Homil. 1. de p••eni∣tentia. Tom. 5.
• * 1.9

  Epist. 174.
• * 1.10

  Pag. 225.
• * 1.11

  The .261 Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.12

  The .262 Vntruthe as appe∣reth.
• * 1.13

  The Sha∣melesse Impuden∣cy of M. Iewell.
• * 1.14

  The .263 Vntruthe Capitain and No∣torious, in falsy∣f••ing. S. Gregory. Stapletō.
• * 1.15

  The .264. Vn¦truthe Sla¦unde∣rous and Scorne∣full.
• * 1.16

  The .265. Vn¦truthe as appea∣reth.
• * 1.17

  The .266. Vn∣truthe for D. Hard. hath not broken of any part of the Sen∣tence al∣leaged.
• * 1.18

  The .267. Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous. The¦se wordes do folo∣we: they were not in the middes. Concil Constan∣tinopol. 8. ••••••io∣ne. 8.
• * 1.19

  Luc. 19.
• * 1.20

  A fayned obiection of M. Ie∣well.
• * 1.21

  Pag. 227
• * 1.22

  The .268 Vntruthe For S. Paule spa¦ke not in like Sen∣ce. 2. Cor. 11 The .269 Vntruthe in misse∣repor∣ting the Text of S. Paule.
• * 1.23

  2. Cor. 11
• * 1.24

  Gregor. li. 1. Epist. 24. Petrus Authore Deo ••anctae Ecclesiae principatū ••e••••ens.
• * 1.25

  Lib. 4 Epist. 38
• * 1.26

  The .270 Vntruthe in for∣ging a false Ar∣gument vpon D. Harding.
• * 1.27

  The .271 Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous. For the Pope at this daye chalen∣geth no such title.
• * 1.28

  Iewell. Pagina. 226, thus
• k 1.29

  lib. 4. Epist. 39
• l 1.30

  lib. 4. Epist. 39
• m 1.31

  lib. 4 Epist. 39
• * 1.32

  Grego. li 6 Epist. 2. & .24. Item li. 4 Epist. 32.38. & .39
• * 1.33

  Lib. 4. Epist. 38
• * 1.34

  Pag. 226 Grego. lib. 4. Epist. 38. The .••72 Vntruthe For the reason that S. Gregory forceth, serueth not a∣gainst the Bishop of Rome.
• * 1.35

  Gregorious lib. 4. epis. 32.

  This Ne∣storius and Ma∣cedonius were both Bishops of Con∣stantino∣ple.
• * 1.36

  Lib. 4. Epis. 34.
• * 1.37

  Lib. eodem epis. 38.
• * 1.38

  Lib. 7. epis. 69.
• * 1.39

  Lib. 4. Epis. 36.
• * 1.40

  Patriarcha¦rum nomen coeteris de∣rogatur.

  Honor pa∣triarcharū omnium negatur.
• * 1.41

  Lib. 4. epist. 38.
• * 1.42

  VVhy the Pope is not cal∣led vni∣uersall.
• * 1.43

  Lib. 4. epist. 32.36. &. 38 & lib. 7. epist. 30. Meus ho∣nor est fra∣trum meo∣rū solidas vigor.
• * 1.44

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.45

  Gregorius lib. 4. Epist 52
• * 1.46

  Fraun¦ce.
• * 1.47

  1. S. Gr••∣go••y the Pope hath his Legat in Fraun∣ce.
• * 1.48

  2. Accor∣ding to the olde Custo∣me.
• * 1.49

  Iewell. Pag. 227
• * 1.50

  Lib. 11. Epist. 8. &. 10. li. 7. Epist. 112. & 115.
• * 1.51

  Spay∣ne.
• * 1.52

  Lib. 7 Epist. 125
• * 1.53

  Lib. 11. Epist. 54. & 50.
• * 1.54

  Lib. 11. Epist. 53.
• * 1.55

  Afri∣ke.
• * 1.56

  Lib. 1. Epist. 75
• * 1.57

  Grego. lib. 10. epist. 33. & 34.
• * 1.58

  Lib. 2. epi· 47. Indic. 11.
• * 1.59

  Lib. 3. epi. 35. lib. 2. epist. 33. Indict. 10.
• * 1.60

  Lib. eodem epist. 41. Matth. 16.
• * 1.61

  Lib. ••. epist. ••2. Indict. 1.
• * 1.62

  In Interro¦gationi••••s B. Augu∣stini Cap. 9. & Be••a lib. 1. ca. 27
• * 1.63

  Englā¦de.
• * 1.64

  Cor∣sica.
• * 1.65

  Lib. 1. Epist. 76.
• * 1.66

  Lib. eodem Epist. 77.
• * 1.67

  Lib. 7. Epist. 50.
• * 1.68

  Lib. eodem Epist. 51.
• * 1.69

  Lib. 4. Epist. 7.
• * 1.70

  Sardi¦nia.
• * 1.71

  Distri••tam canonicā{que} disciplinae correctionē contuma∣ciae tuae nos s••••to vlci∣sce••ter i••a∣ponere.
• * 1.72

  Lib. 7. Epist. 55.
• * 1.73

  Dal∣matia.
• * 1.74

  Lib. 2. Epist. 15. Indict. 10.
• * 1.75

  Lib. eodem Epist. 14.
• * 1.76

  Illyri∣cum.
• * 1.77

  Lib. 1. Epist. 43
• * 1.78

  Lib. 4. Epist. 34 Lib. 5. Epist. 25.
• * 1.79

  Epist. 26.
• * 1.80

  Authen. de Eccles. tit. Coll. 9. Ideo{que} Sancimus.
• * 1.81

  Lib. 4. Epist. 9
• * 1.82

  Lib. eodem Epist. 15
• * 1.83

  Lib. 2. Epist. 7. Indict. 11.
• * 1.84

  Ibidem.
• * 1.85

  Iurisdi∣ction practised in the East. Churche.
• * 1.86

  Co∣rin∣the.
• * 1.87

  Gregor. li. 2. Indict. 11. Epist. 38.
• * 1.88

  Gregorius lib. 4. Epist. 55.
• * 1.89

  Lib. eodem Epist. 56.
• * 1.90

  Epi∣rus.
• * 1.91

  Gregori. li. 5. epist. 7.
• * 1.92

  Cor∣cyra.
• * 1.93

  Grego••ius lib. 12. Indict. 7. epist. 2.
• * 1.94

  Lib. e••dem epist. 3.
• * 1.95

  Epist 3. lib. 12.
• * 1.96

  Lib. & Epist. prae∣not.
• * 1.97

  Abbas V••sper∣gensis in Mauritio.
• * 1.98

  Lyca∣onia.
• * 1.99

  Gregor. li. ••. Epist. 64.
• * 1.100

  Thes∣salo∣nica.
• * 1.101

  Gregor. li. 7. Indict. 2. Epist. 60.
• * 1.102

  Gregor. li. 9. Indict. 4. Epist. 69.
• * 1.103

  An Obie∣ction.
• * 1.104

  The Answ••r.
• * 1.105

  Two thinges yet to be to••ched.
• * 1.106

  Con∣stan∣tino∣ple.
• * 1.107

  Gregor. lib. 4. Epist. 36.
• * 1.108

  Res∣pon∣salis.
• * 1.109

  Gregori. li. 7. Indict. 1. epist. 1.
• * 1.110

  Grego••ius lib. 6. epist. 30.
• * 1.111

  Lib. 4. epist. 38. Lib. eodem Epist. 34.
• * 1.112

  Lib. eodem Epist. 38.
• * 1.113

  Gregorius lib. eodem. Epist. 34.
• * 1.114

  Lib. 4 Epist. 32.
• * 1.115

  Gregor. lib. ••. Epist. 69 Indict. 2.
• * 1.116

  Lib. 4. Epist. 39.
• * 1.117

  Ibidem.
• * 1.118

  Ioan. 14.
• * 1.119

  Gregor. li. 7. Epist. 63.
• * 1.120

  Gregor. li. eodem. Epist. 64
• * 1.121

  In Epist. ad L••a i∣drum pre∣fixa expos. in Iob.
• * 1.122

  Beda lib. 2. Cap. 1
• * 1.123

  Gregor. li. 11. Epist. 43.
• * 1.124

  Supreme I••••••••di∣ctiō ouer the w••o∣le Chu••∣che.
• * 1.125

  Gregor. li. 11. Epist. 54.
• * 1.126

  Head of all Chur¦ches.
• * 1.127

  Lib. 10 Epist. 56
• * 1.128

  Gregor. li. 7. Epist. 115.
• * 1.129

  Gregor. li. 7. Epist. 69.
• * 1.130

  Lib. eodē. Epist. 64
• * 1.131

  Trhee thinges to be not••d.
• * 1.132

  Grego••ius lib. 2. epist. 30.
• * 1.133

  Before. fol. 1. b.
• * 1.134

  Gregorius. Lib. 6. Epist. 37.
• * 1.135

  M••th. 16. Lu••. 22.
• * 1.136

  Li••. 5. Epist. 64. Li••. 6. Epist. 37. Lib. 7. Epist. 64 Lib 11 Epist. 54.
• * 1.137

  Li. 2. epist. 30. lib. 7. Epist. 115.
• * 1.138

  Li 7. epist. 69.
• * 1.139

  A•• Hono∣ra••u••d•• v••••lu. Cred. Cap. 17.
• * 1.140

  B••l••••li. 2. Cap. 1.
• * 1.141

  S. ••rego∣r•• our A∣postle.
• * 1.142

  1. Cor. 9.
• * 1.143

  pag. 227.
• * 1.144

  Gregor. li. 5. e••ist. 54 59. l••b. 7. epist. 5.30.1••3. li. 9. epist. 52.58. lib. 12. epist. 31.
• * 1.145

  Iewell. pag. 187.
• * 1.146

  Iewell. pag. 420.
• * 1.147

  Diuis. 5
• * 1.148

  Pag. 227 T••e .273 Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.149

  The .204 Vntruthe mere Sla∣unde∣rous.
• * 1.150

  Chrysost. lib. 2. de sacerdotio.
• * 1.151

  Ambro. In Com∣mentar. in 1. Timo. 3
• * 1.152

  Beda lib. 2. cap. 1. Histor.
• * 1.153

  Hierony∣mus in cap. Mar. 14
• * 1.154

  Diuis. 6
• * 1.155

  The .275 Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.156

  Pag. 234 The .276 Vntruthe For that Athana∣sius in that place saieth no such thin¦ge.
• * 1.157

  In the disproufe M. No∣welles Re¦proufe. Pag. 95. b
• * 1.158

  The .277 Vntruthe in Slaun∣dering Athana∣sius. The .278 Vntruthe For Mar∣cus was Pope on∣ly. 2. ye∣res. Plati∣na.
• * 1.159

  Socrates l••. 1 ca. 35.30. et seq.
• * 1.160

  Athana∣sius moste Impudēt∣ly belyed of ••aster Iewell.
• * 1.161

  Athana∣sius in epis. ad Ortho∣doxos.
• * 1.162

  Damasus & Platina in Marco.
• * 1.163

  pag. 234. T••e 279. Vntruthe There ap¦peareth no suche thinge in Socrates.
• * 1.164

  Ruff. lib. 1 cap. 19. Theodor. li. 2. cap. 4.
• * 1.165

  Sozomenus lib. 4. ca. 6
• * 1.166

  Lib. eodem Cap. 7.
• * 1.167

  The 280 Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.168

  Athana∣sius ad Ma••cum.
• * 1.169

  Tom. 1. Con. E∣pist. ad Orient.
• * 1.170

  Histor. tripart. li. 4. cap. 15 Socrates lib. 2. cap. 15.
• * 1.171

  Diuis. 6
• * 1.172

  Pag. 237
• * 1.173

  The .281 Vntruthe Captay∣ne and Notori∣ous.
• * 1.174

  An. 1551
• * 1.175

  Lib. 4. cap. 9. Hist. trip.
• * 1.176

  Lib. 3. de Dogmat. Character.
• * 1.177

  The .282 Vntruthe for that Note tou¦ched not this Ca∣non.
• * 1.178

  The Im∣pudency of M. Ie∣well.
• * 1.179

  In the disprou∣fe of M. Nowel∣les Re∣proufe the .16. chap. fol. 92.
• * 1.180

  Pag. 235 The .283 Vntruthe Capitain and No∣torious.
• * 1.181

  Hist. tri∣part. lib. 1. cap. 8 Niceph. lib. 8. cap. 14.
• * 1.182

  Platina.
• * 1.183

  Hieroni∣mus in Catal.
• * 1.184

  Palladius in vitae Chryso. Ni∣cephor. lib. 13. cap. 34. Aug. epist. 90.
• * 1.185

  See those Canons in the dis∣proufe of. M. No∣welles Re¦proufe. fol. 95. b.
• * 1.186

  The 284. Vntruthe Boldly auouc••ed but no waie pro∣ued.
• * 1.187

  Cōcil. Car. 6. cap. 101
• * 1.188

  The 285. Vntruthe as appea∣reth. Stapleton
• a 1.189

  Cap. 76.
• b 1.190

  Cap. 75.
• c 1.191

  Cap. 1.
• * 1.192

  The 286. A burthē of Vntru∣thes.
• * 1.193

  Cocil. Car. 6. cap. 1. & 2.
• * 1.194

  Cap. 3.
• * 1.195

  Cap. 4.
• * 1.196

  The 287. Vntr••the For they made no s••che An∣swer.
• * 1.197

  Concil. Sard. Cap. 7.
• * 1.198

  The 288. Vntruthe ioyned with a slaunder.
• * 1.199

  Instit. lib. 4. cap. 7. Sect. 9.
• * 1.200

  The 289. Vntruthe sauouring of Malice.
• * 1.201

  The 290. Vntruthe For not Therfore they sent &c.
• * 1.202

  The 291. Vntruthe For they were not the true Authen∣tike copi∣es. The 292. Vntruthe ioyned with a sla∣un••er.
• * 1.203

  That the Copies of the Nice∣ne Coun∣cel sent from A∣lexandria and Con∣stātinople were not the true Authenti¦ke Co∣pies.

  Socrates. lib. 2. Sozom. lib. 4. Theodoret. lib. 2. Nicephor•••• lib. 9. & 10.
• * 1.204

  Socrat. So∣zom enus, Theodoret. & Niceph. vbi supra.
• * 1.205

  Note this Reason.
• * 1.206

  Histor. Ec∣clesiast. Ni¦cephor. & tripart. per totum.
• * 1.207

  Athanasius Apolog. 2.
• * 1.208

  Leo epist. 25. ad The odosium Augustū.
• * 1.209

  Ambrosius Epist. 82.
• * 1.210

  Augustin. Epist. 110.
• * 1.211

  In prefat. Iudith. Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 9. Histor. Ecclesiasti.
• * 1.212

  5. The Apo∣logie off England.
• * 1.213

  Euseb. lib. 3. de vita Constantini Epiphanius lib. 3. ••om. 2. heres. 70
• * 1.214

  Prosper, contra Col∣latorem cap. 10. & 41.
• * 1.215

  The 293. Vntruthe mere sla∣underous
• * 1.216

  Lib. 2. de Sacerdotio
• * 1.217

  Cap. 7.
• * 1.218

  Constitut. 131.
• * 1.219

  The 294 Vntruthe In Nyp∣ping a∣way a gre¦at pa••te of the Sē¦t••nce.
• * 1.220

  In epist. Co••cil. Aphricani ad Caelest. Papam.
• * 1.221

  Nicen. Con. cap. 5.
• * 1.222

  Ciprianus lib. 1. epist. ••.
• * 1.223

  Ciprianus lib. 1. epist. 3.
• * 1.224

  Epist. 3. li. 1. Cū statu¦tū sit omni¦bus nobis &c.
• * 1.225

  Out of the Aphri¦cane Coū¦cell
• * 1.226

  Prouin¦ce. The 295. Capitain and No.
• * 1.227

  M. Iewell taken in manifest Forgerie.
• * 1.228

  out of the A∣phricane Counc••l.
• * 1.229

  Ed. 3 an. 27.
• * 1.230

  out of the A∣phric. Co¦uncell.
• * 1.231

  Hist. tripa. lib. 4. cap. 23. & Theodoret. li. 2. cap. 7.
• * 1.232

  out of the A∣phr. Coū.
• * 1.233

  Veriorib. truer.

  The .296 vntruthe. False trans¦lation.
• * 1.234

  Quibus{que} potentibus.
• * 1.235

  The .297. Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous, fon∣de, and Maliciou¦se.
• * 1.236

  The .298 Vntrut••e Slaunde∣rous, fon∣de and Malici∣ous.
• * 1.237

  The .299 Vntruthe ••or M. Iew▪ him self saieth The Coū¦cel of Ni∣ce were worthe the she∣wing.
• * 1.238

  M. Iewell reasoneth like an In¦fidell.
• * 1.239

  pag. 237. In epist ad Orthod. Socr. li. 2. cap. 14. The 300 Vntruth•• as before.
• * 1.240

  The 301 Vntruthe ioyned with a sla¦under and a fo∣lie.
• * 1.241

  Lib. 1. Cap. 14.
• * 1.242

  Lib. 7. epist. 63. The 302 Vntruthe For both sayinges do agree.
• * 1.243

  In epist. Marci. ad Athana∣si••m.
• * 1.244

  Vide Chro¦nologiam Henr Pan¦taleonis.
• * 1.245

  Theod. li. 1 ca. 9. et lib 2. cap. 8. The 303 Vntruthe For in Theodo∣retus the∣re appea∣reth no such thin¦ge. Lib· 2. The 304 Vntruthe For the Arasrine burned in dede the Canons, as is auou¦ched.
• * 1.246

  Cōcil. Car. 6. cap. 4. The 306 Vntruthe in false tr••nsla∣ting.
• * 1.247

  Can. 22. August. epist. 90. &. 91.
• * 1.248

  pag. 238. C••ncil. Car••••ag. 6 can. 102. & 103.
• * 1.249

  Ruffinus li. 1. ca. 6. Histor. eccles.
• * 1.250

  The 307. Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.251

  The 308 Vntruth. For that is not a∣uouched.
• * 1.252

  1. Cor. 2.
• * 1.253

  Rom. ••.
• * 1.254

  Gen. 14. Ambros. de fide ad Gratianū li. 1. in Pr••̄¦logo.
• * 1.255

  I•• Apolo∣gia a•• Pam¦machium pro libris aduersus Iouinia.
• * 1.256

  Lib. 22. contra Fau¦s••um Man••¦chaeum. cap. 82. & ••••.
• * 1.257

  The .309. Vntruthe Slaund. as shall appeare.
• * 1.258

  Lib. 3 de cha••a••t do∣gma••.
• * 1.259

  Concil. Ni¦cen. can. 6.
• * 1.260

  The 310. Vntruthe as shall ••ppeare.
• * 1.261

  The Po∣pes Pri∣macy in the Nice∣ne Coun¦cell.
• * 1.262

  pag. 239. The 311. Vntruthe For these wordes. ought o∣therwise to be ex∣poun∣ded.
• * 1.263

  The .312. Vntruthe as it shall anon ap∣peare.
• * 1.264

  The 313. Vntruthe ioyned with a so lie.

  Homil. 1. de paeni••. Tom. 5. Primatum illi guber∣nationē{que} per vni∣uersum mūdum tra¦didit.

  Matth. 8.
• * 1.265

  1. Cor. 9.
• * 1.266

  Sorom. li. 3. cap. 8. Cōc. Chal. Act. 3. Op∣tatus. li. 1.
• * 1.267

  The .314 Vntruthe For the Africanes neuer sawe this Ca∣non.
• * 1.268

  The 315. Vntruth Slaund. For D. Harding saied not so.
• * 1.269

  diuis. 6. pag. 232. in M. Ie∣welles Re¦plie.
• * 1.270

  Dist. 16. viginti.
• * 1.271

  The 316. Vntruthe As before
• * 1.272

  The .317. Vntruth. peuish.
• * 1.273

  The .318. Vntruthe peuish.
• * 1.274

  The .319. Vntruthe•• Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.275

  The .320 Vntruthe Slaund. as before.
• * 1.276

  The .321. Vntruthe as appea∣reth.
• * 1.277

  Con il. A∣ph••ic in epist. ad Bonifaciū.
• * 1.278

  De Gratia Christili. 2. cap. 2. Cap. 6.
• * 1.279

  Cap. 7. Cap. 8.
• * 1.280

  Cap. 17.
• * 1.281

  Contra duas episto¦••as Pelagi∣anorum lib. 1.

  Cap. 4. & Contra Iu∣lianum sae∣pe.
• * 1.282

  In epist. ad Bonifaciū Cap. 101.
• * 1.283

  Concil. A∣phricanum Cap. 104.
• * 1.284

  Before in the leafe. 37. B.
• * 1.285

  Consil A∣phr. Cap. 102.
• * 1.286

  Ruffinus. lib. 1. Cap. 6.

  Tom. 1. Cō¦cil. fol. 498.
• * 1.287

  Vide Conc. Florent. Sess. 20.
• * 1.288

  Victor. lib. 1. de perse∣cut. Vanda¦lorum.
• * 1.289

  Tom 1. Cō∣cil in Boni¦facio 2.
• * 1.290

  The 322. Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous. The .323. Vntruthe For there was One prince and pro∣uince Christe∣ned in S. Peters time, at the lest. Nice∣poh. li. 2. Cap. 7. Homi. 55. in Matth. Hierem.
• * 1.291

  1. Cor. 5.
• * 1.292

  1. Cor. 1.
• * 1.293

  Act. 4. Psal. 2.
• * 1.294

  Ioan. 19.
• * 1.295

  The .324 Vntruthe Slaund.

  The 325. Vntrut••e Captain and ••m∣pudent.

  Cod. de Summ•• Tria. & fid. Cath. Tit. 1. No Red••en••es. Au••hē vt Eccles. R••¦c••nt 〈◊〉〈◊〉. ga••. pri••i.
• * 1.296

  The .326 Vntru••he For tou∣ching Sp••¦ritu••ll go••uer∣ne••ent his priui∣leg•• w••s s••••h.

  Lib. 4. ep. 3•• lib. 2. d. s••cerd. 〈…〉〈…〉 55 in M••••th.

  T••e .327. 〈…〉〈…〉. Si quis seruo, Col. de fur¦tis.
• a 1.297

  Can. 21. & 3 in ep. Iulij.
• b 1.298

  Can. 7.
• c 1.299

  Lib. 4. cap. 9. Hist. tri∣par.
• * 1.300

  Concil. Chalced. Act. 3.
• * 1.301

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sa¦crosa••••lis Eccl••••••. d••c••rnimus The 328. Vn••••••t••e For those wor¦d••s of thempe∣rour are ••ot spo∣k••n ••f the Pop••.
• * 1.302

  Cod ••e Sa∣cr•• a•• is 〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.303

  Here beginne the wor∣d••s that ••. Iewell ••ath pic∣ked out.
• * 1.304

  The .329 Vntruthe For the contrary is mani∣fest.
• * 1.305

  The 330. Vntruthe in nip∣ping twi∣se the word••s of ••••stini¦an.
• * 1.306

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 the first. The ••31. Vntruthe standing in fal•••• tr••nslati∣on.
• * 1.307

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 the first. The ••31. Vntruthe standing in fal•••• tr••nslati∣on.
• * 1.308

  The wordes omitted by M. Ie∣well in the place alleaged.
• * 1.309

  The 332. Vntruthe Slaund.

  The .333. Vntruthe For the contrary appear••th ••y that which fo¦low••th 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.310

  The .334 Vntruth. For it ••o∣loweth immedi∣atly. Ac∣cording as the Ho¦ly Pope Vi¦gilius h••th appoint••d.
• * 1.311

  The .335. Vntruth. For the B. of Iu••••i¦niana had his Au∣thorite from the B. of Rome.
• * 1.312

  M. Iewell hath twi¦se nipped Iustinia.
• * 1.313

  Lib. 1. Cap. 27.
• * 1.314

  M. Iew••l∣les Arg••∣me••t.
• * 1.315

  M. Iewel∣les Argu∣ments.
• * 1.316

  The .336. Vntruthe For the la¦we sp••a∣keth not of ••ll pre¦rogati∣ues.
• * 1.317

  The .337. Vntruth. For t••at Title in a s••nce might be∣longe to bothe.
• * 1.318

  pag. 299.
• * 1.319

  Th•• .338. V••••r••t••e m••re Slaund. a••d ••e∣ui••h.
• * 1.320

  D. Har∣ding••s ar¦gu••ent.
• * 1.321

  The 339. Vntruthe Slaund.
• * 1.322

  Lib. 2. de sacerdo. io. In epist. ad Dam.
• * 1.323

  De Trinita te lib. 6.
• * 1.324

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.325

  The .340. Vntr••the Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.326

  Homi 55. in Matth.
• * 1.327

  Lib. 4. e∣pist. 32.
• * 1.328

  The .341 Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.329

  T•••• .342 Vntruthe m••re Sla∣unde∣rou••.
• * 1.330

  The .343. A Burthē of Vntru¦thes al slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.331

  The 344 Vntruthe standing in false translati∣on.
• * 1.332

  The 345. Vntruth. Slaund.
• * 1.333

  Lib. de vt litate cre-i dendi. Cap. 17.
• * 1.334

  The 346 Vntruthe Slaund. The 347. Vntruthe For Chri¦ste ap∣pointed such a vi∣caire.
• * 1.335

  That Christ ap¦pointed a Vicaire Generall. Ephes. 1.
• * 1.336

  Mat. 16. Ioan. 21. Luc. 22.
• * 1.337

  Homilia 55. in Mattheum.
• * 1.338

  Hierem. 1.
• * 1.339

  Homil. 1. de peniten∣tia.
• * 1.340

  Hilarius in Matth. Can. 16.
• * 1.341

  In Matth. can. 6.
• * 1.342

  De Trinita¦te lib. 6.
• * 1.343

  Lib. 2. de Spir. San∣cto.
• * 1.344

  Serm 67. Tom. 3.
• * 1.345

  Comme••∣tar. in Matth. 16.
• * 1.346

  In prae∣script.
• * 1.347

  lib. 1. epist. 3. lib. 4. epist. 9.
• * 1.348

  De simpli∣prela••.
• * 1.349

  In epist. ad Quintinū.
• * 1.350

  Orig. li. 5. Cap. 6. In epist ad Rom.
• * 1.351

  Ioan. 21.
• * 1.352

  Lib. 12. in Iohan. Cap. 64.
• * 1.353

  Epiphā. in anchora••o. et 2.1.56 & 2. ••8.
• * 1.354

  An Obi••¦ction.
• * 1.355

  The An∣swer.
• * 1.356

  Luc. 22. How the Churche is builded vpon Pe∣ters per∣son, and yet vpon the faith of Peter.
• * 1.357

  Lib. 1. re∣tract at. •• 21.
• * 1.358

  Cōtra epi∣stolam Donati.
• * 1.359

  Lib. 2. de sacerdotio. Homil. 1. de paeni∣tentia.
• * 1.360

  The .348 Vntruthe Slaund. and Fa∣cinge.
• * 1.361

  Scriptures vvrested by Prote∣stants. Luc. 22.
• * 1.362

  pag. ••26.
• * 1.363

  Ibidem M. Iewell Contra∣ry to him selfe pag. 561.
• * 1.364

  Iacob. 5.
• * 1.365

  Ioa••. 20.
• * 1.366

  Iac. 2.
• * 1.367

  Philipp. 2.
• * 1.368

  Act. 2.
• * 1.369

  2. Thess. 2.
• * 1.370

  2. Tim. 4.
• * 1.371

  1. Petr. 4.
• * 1.372

  Cap. 17. in fine.
• * 1.373

  Scriptu∣res wre∣sted by M. Iewell in this 4. Article.
• * 1.374

  2. Cor. 11.
• * 1.375

  Iewell pag. 227.
• * 1.376

  sol. 5. A.
• * 1.377

  The 349 Vntruthe in wre¦sting of Holy Scripture ••. Corinth. 11.
• * 1.378

  Iewell. pag. 302. 1. Corint. 15.
• * 1.379

  Iewell. pag. 233. The .350 Vntruthe in w••∣sting. of Holy Scripture Esa. 2.
• * 1.380

  Esa. 2.
• * 1.381

  fol. 67. B.
• * 1.382

  The .351. Vntruthe and .352. in wre∣sting at ones two places of holy Scripture Iew••ll. pag. 233. 1. Corinth. 3.
• * 1.383

  Ephes. 2. Apoc. 2••.
• * 1.384

  M. Iewel. falsifieth S. Paule.
• * 1.385

  Hebr. 13.
• * 1.386

  In exposi∣tione in Math. ser. 13. & in Psa. 54.
• * 1.387

  Ioan. 10. Li. 1. Cō••. Ionini••.
• * 1.388

  Lib. 3.1.3.
• * 1.389

  pag. 244 The .353. Vntruthe in wre∣sting. holy Scri¦pt••re. Math. 20.
• * 1.390

  ••••th. 20
• * 1.391

  Contra Hosium in d••fens. prologum Bre••tij.
• * 1.392

  Act. 20.
• a 1.393

  In 1. Timoth. 3.
• b 1.394

  Hom. 1. de paenit.
• c 1.395

  Li. 4. epist. 34.
• * 1.396

  Hebr. 13.
• * 1.397

  Math. 20.
• * 1.398

  De vocat· Gent. lib. 2 Ca. 6.
• * 1.399

  ••ap. 248
• * 1.400

  The .354 Vntruthe in false trāslating S Peter, and false aplication also.
• * 1.401

  1. Pet. 2.
• a 1.402

  Serm. 2. de bapt. ca. 8.
• b 1.403

  lib. 20. de ci∣uit. dei. Ca. 10.
• c 1.404

  Con∣tra. Lucife∣rianos.
• * 1.405

  Apocal. ••.
• * 1.406

  Exod. 19.
• * 1.407

  Rom. 1.
• * 1.408

  pag. 25••. 2. Thess. ••. The 355. Vntruthe bothe fonde and wic∣ked.
• * 1.409

  The An∣tichrist.
• * 1.410

  2. Thes. 2.
• * 1.411

  Ambros. in Commē¦tar. ibidē.
• * 1.412

  That the Pope is not Anti∣Christ.
• * 1.413

  pag. 275. Luc. 22. The 356 Vntruthe in wre∣sting the Prophets wordes. Mich 3.
• * 1.414

  The .357. Vntruthe as before.
• * 1.415

  Deute. 17.
• * 1.416

  The .358 Vntruthe as before.
• * 1.417

  Ioan· 14. Math. vlt.
• * 1.418

  pag. 276. The .359 Vntruthe as b••fore.
• * 1.419

  Math. 3.
• * 1.420

  1. Cor. 4.
• * 1.421

  Acto. 20. The .360 Vntruthe as shall appeare.
• * 1.422

  Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 31.
• * 1.423

  pag. 292.
• * 1.424

  pag. 304 Matth. 23. Stapleton Matth. 23.
• * 1.425

  diuis. 20.
• * 1.426

  pag. 261. The .361. Vntruthe Slaund.
• * 1.427

  pag. 265.
• * 1.428

  The 362. Vntruthe threefol∣de, as shal appeare.
• * 1.429

  Cap. 5. The 363. Vntruthe For they stande bo¦the wel together.
• * 1.430

  Concil. Nic. c••n. 5. The .364 Vntruthe False Translati¦on.
• * 1.431

  huiusmo di que••tio∣nes exami∣nent.
• * 1.432

  Appeales to Rome decreed in the Ni¦cene Coū¦cell.
• * 1.433

  Epist. 1. ad Orienta∣les.
• * 1.434

  In rescrip∣to ad Orien¦tales.
• * 1.435

  Histor. trip. lib. 4. cap. 9.
• * 1.436

  pag. 264.
• * 1.437

  In rescripto ad Oriēta∣les

  Tō. 1· Cōc.
• * 1.438

  See befo∣re.

  Fol. 33. B. and 34. A.
• * 1.439

  Historia tripart. lib. 4. cap. 23.
• * 1.440

  Theodoret. li. 2. ca. 8. Hist.
• * 1.441

  Concil. Sard. Cap. 7.
• * 1.442

  M. Iewel¦les baren Argumēt
• * 1.443

  The 365. Vntruthe For in that Co∣uncell ap¦peareth no suche decree. The 366. Vntruthe False tran¦slation.
• * 1.444

  Vide to∣mom. 1. Concil. pag. 420.
• * 1.445

  Fol. 36. & s••q.
• * 1.446

  Aug. epist. 90.91.92.93.95.96. Celest. ep. 1 ad gal. episc. Cap. 3.
• * 1.447

  The pas∣sing Im∣pudency of M. Ie∣well.
• * 1.448

  Theodor.
• * 1.449

  lib. 2. cap. 5.
• * 1.450

  The 367. Vntruthe In Nip∣ping a∣waye the first wor¦des of S. Cyprian.
• * 1.451

  Ciprianus lib. 1. epist. 5.
• * 1.452

  The 358. and 359. Vntruthe with the vauntage as shall. appeare.
• * 1.453

  Sess. 22. Cap 8. &. 10.
• * 1.454

  M. Iewel∣les true dealing.
• * 1.455

  The .370. Vntruthe Slaund.
• * 1.456

  Authē. de Sanctiss. episc. Coll. 9. Si quis vero.
• * 1.457

  The .371. Vntruth. For the Contrary shal now appeare.
• * 1.458

  Lib. 11. Epist. 54.
• * 1.459

  L. si extra∣neus ff. d. condict. caus. dat. & l. com. modissin••è ff. d. lib. & posth••mis.
• * 1.460

  The .372. Vntruthe For this lawe spe∣aketh not of Eccle∣siasticall matters. C••d. de Sa¦tr••sanctis Ecclesijs omni.
• * 1.461

  The .373. Vntruthe In falsy∣fying the text of the lawe.
• * 1.462

  Glosa in verbo: Prae rogat. Cod. d•• sum¦ma T••init. e•• fid Cath. N••s redden¦tes.
• * 1.463

  The 374. Vntruthe For the Churche of Cōstā∣tinople is not in Al Respectes of preemi¦nence &c.
• * 1.464

  Vid, glo∣sam in ver¦bo, vetu∣••tatem, v∣••bi supra.
• * 1.465

  Cod. de epis¦copis & cler. Omnes.
• * 1.466

  Ciuile Actions.
• * 1.467

  The .375. Vntruthe For the la¦we spea∣k••th only of Ciuill actions.
• * 1.468

  Bernard ad Euge∣nium de Considerat. lib. 3.
• * 1.469

  Bernard••s Epist. 190
• * 1.470

  The 376. Vntruthe as shall ap¦peare.
• * 1.471

  The .377.378. and diuers o∣ther Vn∣truthes as shall appe¦are.
• * 1.472

  The .380 Vntruth. For not out of Chryso∣stomes own wor∣kes, as M. Iewell suppo∣seth.
• * 1.473

  The .381. Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.474

  A Truth of M, Ie∣well.
• * 1.475

  August. de G••a••••a Ch••isti. lib. 2. cap. 2.6 7.8. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 17. In epist. ad Bonifaciū.
• * 1.476

  In the .97 Vntruthe
• * 1.477

  The .382. Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous. Epist. Chry¦sost. ad In∣nocentium Tom. 5.
• * 1.478

  The .383. Vn∣truthe in false trans¦lating, as it shalanō appeare.
• * 1.479

  The .384 Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous three wayes.

  The 385. Vntruthe For these wordes a∣re oll to be founde in Chry∣sostom.

  The .386 Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.480

  Palladius in vita Io∣an. Chryso∣stom. Et ex¦tat in Aloy¦sio Lipoma no. Tom. 2. lib. 3. par. 2.
• * 1.481

  M. Iewel∣les Vntru¦thes parti∣culary la∣yed for∣the.
• * 1.482

  That S. Chriso∣stome Pa¦triar••he of Con∣stantino∣ple Appe¦aled to Pope In∣nocen∣tius.
• * 1.483

  Chrysosto¦mus in e∣pist. 1. a•• Innocenti••̄ ••om. 5.
• * 1.484

  Nicephorus li. 13. ca. 19
• * 1.485

  C••nt•••• omnes Ca∣n••••es & l••ge••. And ••on∣t••a to•• ac 〈◊〉〈◊〉 can••nes.
• * 1.486

  Nicephos∣rus lib. 13· cap. 32. cap 33.
• * 1.487

  Li. 8. cap vlt.
• * 1.488

  Leo epist. ••••.
• * 1.489

  Li: ••3. cap. 32. & 33.
• * 1.490

  In epist. 2. ad Inno∣centium 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 5.
• * 1.491

  Neque cae••uabij∣••iantur.
• * 1.492

  Nicepho∣rus li. 13. Cap. 30.
• * 1.493

  Idem li. 13. Cap. 34.
• * 1.494

  Ibidem
• * 1.495

  Ex••utho¦ramus
• * 1.496

  Consultò
• * 1.497

  pag. 268. Epist. 2. ad Innocen¦tium.
• * 1.498

  Clerus
• * 1.499

  Socr••tes li. 2. c••p. 11. Sozom lib. 3. cap. 6. Athanasius in epist. ad solitariam vitama∣gentes. Theodore∣tus lib. 2. cap. 14.
• * 1.500

  pag. 151.
• * 1.501

  The .387. Vntruthe For these Fathers, Athanasius Chirsostom and Theo∣ret. were in no par¦te of the∣se miseri¦es menti∣oned, w••en they Ap∣pealed to Rome.
• * 1.502

  The Ap∣peale of Athana∣sius
• * 1.503

  Histor trip. lib. 4. Cap. 1
• * 1.504

  Cap. 2.
• * 1.505

  Cap. 5.
• * 1.506

  Cap. 6.
• * 1.507

  In Rescrip to Iulij ad Orientales. Concil. Sard. ca. 7.
• * 1.508

  Cap. 11.
• * 1.509

  Cap. 7.
• * 1.510

  Cap. 11.
• * 1.511

  Cap. 12.
• * 1.512

  Cap. 15.
• * 1.513

  Cap. 38.
• * 1.514

  Paulus of Constan∣nople and diuers o∣the Bi∣shops of the East Appealed to Rome.
• * 1.515

  Hist. trip. lib. 4. cap. 15.
• * 1.516

  The .388 Vntruthe For Flaui¦anus Ap∣pealed to Pope Leo, not to the Empe∣rour.
• * 1.517

  Socrates. lib. 1. cap. 31.
• * 1.518

  Cap. 32.
• * 1.519

  Flauianus Appealed to Pope Leo.
• * 1.520

  Epist va∣lent. ad Theodos. tom. 1. Con. pag. 731.
• * 1.521

  Ibidem.
• * 1.522

  Empe∣rours ne∣uer iud∣ged ouer bishops in mat∣ters of Faithe.
• * 1.523

  Lib. 5. epist. 32.
• * 1.524

  Institut. li. ••. cap. 11. fere in ••••ne.
• * 1.525

  Socrates. li. 2 c. 22. Theodor. lib. 2. ca. 8
• * 1.526

  The .389 Vntruthe ioyned with a folie.
• * 1.527

  Socrates. lib. 1· cap. 26.27.28. Ibidem ca. 34.35. Theodoret. lib. 1. cap. 31.
• * 1.528

  The .390 Vntruthe The Con¦clusion foloweth not. Na∣mely in Chryso∣••••om.
• * 1.529

  Orosius ••••. 7. cap. 37. & 39.
• * 1.530

  Baptist•• Egnatius lib. 1. Rom. Prin.
• * 1.531

  Iewell. pag. 237.
• * 1.532

  The .391. Vntruthe For this wil neuer appeare.
• * 1.533

  Gregor. li. 4. epist. 38

  Vniuersa∣les obla••o honore v•• ca••i sunt.
• * 1.534

  The .392 Vntruthe as appea∣reth.
• * 1.535

  The 393. Vntruthe boldly auou∣ched but no waye proued.
• * 1.536

  The 394 Vntruthe This For, forceth not. It was not so in the cause of Chryso∣stome.
• * 1.537

  The .395. Vntruthe as last be∣fore.
• * 1.538

  pag. 270. The .396 Vntruthe Innocen∣tius pro∣sec••ted the Appe¦ale by his own Au¦thorite, as hathe b••fore bene pro¦ued.

  The 397. Vntruthe For he pro••oun¦ced hi•• selfe the Finall Sē∣tence of Excom. against the offen¦ders.
• * 1.539

  The 398 Vntruthe touching ••eltia∣des.
• * 1.540

  Optatu•• lib. 1.
• * 1.541

  The 399 Vntruthe ••. Har∣ding kno¦weth wel the con∣trary, as it s••all i••
• * 1.542

  C••ncil. T••m. 1.
• * 1.543

  Concil. Chalced. Act. 11.
• * 1.544

  The .400 Vntruthe For in this do∣ing, there was no weakenes¦se on the Popes parte.
• * 1.545

  August. e••ist. 95. Innocent. epist. 27.
• * 1.546

  Rom. 3.
• * 1.547

  M. Iewel∣les Argu∣ments.
• * 1.548

  Sozom. lib. 3. cap. 10. The .401 Vntruthe For not the Popes infirmite, b••t the st••bbor∣nesse of the here∣tikes was the Cau∣se h••reof. E••seb. lib. 7. c••p. 30. Niceph li. 6. cap. 39.
• * 1.549

  Conc. Con∣stant. 5. Act. 1.

  The 402. Vntruthe For the Popes Suprema¦cy was knowen notwith∣stan••ing these Cō¦plaintes. Niceph. lib. 17. cap. 2.
• * 1.550

  The 403 Vntruthe This hath not yet be••ee pro¦ued.

  The .404. Vn¦truthe. Nothing hat•• be•• brought of them∣perour Martian.
• * 1.551

  〈◊〉〈◊〉, o•• V••••ruthe mer•• Sla∣••••derous
• * 1.552

  The 405. Vn¦truthe: For Chry¦sostom m••de a ••uit Ap∣peale.
• * 1.553

  B••fore in th•• lea∣••es. 85.8••▪ 87. and ••8.
• * 1.554

  The 407 Vntruthe This wa∣ye of Cō¦promisse is but a Fable. In Ap••lo. 2. Atha∣nas.
• * 1.555

  The 408. For ••uli∣us cited t••ose par¦ties, and Athana∣sius bothe.

  That Po¦pe Iulius I••dg••d not in the Cause off ••thanasi¦us by wa¦y•• of ••o••pro¦mi••e but by Au¦thorite. Hist. tri∣pa••t. lib. 4 Cap. 6.
• * 1.556

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Nic••ph••li. 9. Cap. 6.
• * 1.557

  Sozom. li. 3. Cap. 8.
• * 1.558

  Socrat. li. 2. Cap. 15.
• * 1.559

  In epist. I••¦li••. In Apo¦log. 2. A∣••haa••si••.
• * 1.560

  Vos per li∣••eras Cita∣uimus. Lib. 4. Cap. 6. hist. tripa. In epist. I•• lij, vbi supra.
• * 1.561

  Vt pri•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nobis scri∣batur, vt hinc quod iustum est, definiti pos¦set.
• * 1.562

  L. statutis. d. sentent. & breui∣cul. recit.
• * 1.563

  L. inter sti¦pul § si. sli¦chin. ff. d. verb. oblig.
• * 1.564

  L. non di∣••ing. §. nō cegitur. ff. de recept. arb. & l. diē profer∣re. §. fi. ibi∣dem. L. 1. ff. d. Arbitr.
• * 1.565

  The 409. Vntruthe For not therefore that is not vpon a Com∣promisse made, but being ac∣cused, he cited him
• * 1.566

  The .410 Vntruthe For he meaned so.
• * 1.567

  The .411. Vntruthe as appea∣reth.
• * 1.568

  The .412. Vntruthe For his wordes to leo are cer¦tain testi∣monies of his Iud¦gement.
• * 1.569

  Theodo∣retus Ap∣pealed to Pope leo.
• * 1.570

  In epist. prefixa ō∣mentar. in Paulum.
• * 1.571

  Act. 1. & Act. 8.
• * 1.572

  The .413. Vntruthe For Osti∣ensis sa∣ieth not so, as M. Iewel fan¦cyeth Extrad. Appell in. Sexto. ••o∣m. Eccles. in Glosa.

  The .414 Vntruthe For by all lawe an Appeale impor∣teth a Su¦periorite. Stapletō. That Ap¦peales doe im∣porte a Superio∣rite. L. q. §. si. quis. ff. d. Appellat.
• * 1.573

  The true meaning of Osti∣ensis his wordes.
• * 1.574

  L. in p. ff. d. Appel∣lat.

  L. ille quo §. tempe∣stinum. ff. ad Trebel. & L. nam magistrat. ff. de arb. hart. L. 1. n. p ff. d. appellat L. §. sic••••is d. appelat.
• * 1.575

  L. minor. magistr. ff. de. minori. gl. ibidem.
• * 1.576

  In antent d. apell. et intr. que temp § illo col. 4.
• * 1.577

  Hebr. 6.
• * 1.578

  29. q. 6. c. Omnis op∣p••essus &c. placuit.
• * 1.579

  The .415 416. and 417. Vn∣truthes, as shall particu∣lary ap∣peare.
• * 1.580

  The .418 Vntruthe For the contrary appea∣reth in S. Augustin Iewell.
• * 1.581

  Contra epist parm. lib. 1. cap. 5. Contra Crost. lib. 3. ca. 71.
• * 1.582

  Stapleton
• * 1.583

  August. ibidem
• * 1.584

  Contra epi. Parm. lib. 1. ca. 7.
• * 1.585

  He spea¦keth the∣re of pu∣nishing heretikes
• * 1.586

  Aug. vbi supra.
• * 1.587

  Augustin. epis. 162.
• * 1.588

  The Ap∣p•••••••• of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is to the Em¦perour mislyked.
• * 1.589

  Optatus lib. 1. contr. Parmenia∣num.
• * 1.590

  August. epist. 162.
• * 1.591

  In the wordes ••f Epita∣tus last al¦leaged.
• * 1.592

  Ambros. lib. 5. Epist. 32.
• * 1.593

  The 419. Vntruthe For by these ex∣amples such Iuris¦diction in the Prin∣ce appea∣reth not.
• * 1.594

  Lib. 4. epist. 21. In the For∣tresse fol. 145. Ang. epist. 166. Greg orat. ad subl••tim. Ambros. lib. 5. epist. 32.
• * 1.595

  Apolog. 2.
• * 1.596

  Epist. ad so litariam vitam agen¦tes.
• * 1.597

  Concil. Mill••nit. Cap. 19.
• * 1.598

  Ingesiis Conc. Aqui¦l••iensis. tom. 1. Concil. fol. 402.
• * 1.599

  The 420 Vnttruthe Capitain, Infamous and No∣torious. Hi••t. trip. lib. 4. Niceph. li. cap.
• * 1.600

  Leo epist. 24. et va∣lentin. in epist. ad Theodos. In epist. ad Leonem. Liberatus Cap. 18.
• * 1.601

  The .421 Vntruthe past all shame and ho∣nesty. Stapletō.
• * 1.602

  The .422 Vntruth. For that was neuer laweful••.
• * 1.603

  The .423 Vntruth. For not therefore j. not bi∣cause it was law∣full, dona¦tus his Appeale was ad∣mitted.
• * 1.604

  Optatus lib. 1.
• * 1.605

  August. epist. ••6••.
• * 1.606

  The 424 Vntruthe Facing. and extre¦me Impu¦dent.
• * 1.607

  The .425 Vntruthe As befo∣re.
• * 1.608

  Iewell. pag. 302.
• * 1.609

  The 426 Vntruthe Slaund.
• * 1.610

  The .427 Vntruthe Slaund.
• * 1.611

  pag. 6.
• * 1.612

  Hierem. 18.
• * 1.613

  In what sence it is auou∣ched, that the Pope can not erre.
• * 1.614

  Iew••ll. C••n••r. haer. li. 1. cap. 4. Stapleton. Lib. 2. cap. 17.

  In epist. ad solitariam vitam agē∣tes.
• * 1.615

  Concil. Cō∣stant. 6. Act. 13.
• a 1.616

  Tom. 1. Conc. fol. 748.
• b 1.617

  In prae∣fat.
• c 1.618

  Epist. 82.
• d 1.619

  Lib. 5. Epist. 14.
• * 1.620

  Actione. 4
• * 1.621

  L••cae. 22.
• * 1.622

  Lucae. 22.
• * 1.623

  Actor. 4.
• * 1.624

  In epist. ad Michae∣lem Bul∣gariae prin∣cipem.
• * 1.625

  middot; The .428 Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.626

  Melchior Canus lib. 6. de locis cō. cap. 8. Benedictus 11. in sua extrauag.
• * 1.627

  ••ewell.
• * 1.628

  Platina in Siluestro. 2
• * 1.629

  The 439. Vntruthe Slaund.
• * 1.630

  The 430 Vntruthe For prie∣stes maria¦ges haue allwaies bene fore¦bidden in Christes Churche.
• * 1.631

  The .431. Vntruthe There was n•• such Co∣uncel hol¦den.

  The 432. Vntruthe Cancred and Sla∣underous
• * 1.632

  The .433 Vntruthe Slaund.
• * 1.633

  Platina in Greg. 7.
• * 1.634

  fol. 420. he calleth S. Grego¦ry an ob∣scure and late do∣ctour.
• * 1.635

  The 434 Vntruthe For the bishop of Rome sa∣ieth not those wor¦des.
• * 1.636

  Dist. 40. Si Papa.
• * 1.637

  Tom. 1. Cō¦cil. in con∣demnat Marcellini.
• * 1.638

  The 435 Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.639

  The 436 Vntruthe ••acinge.
• * 1.640

  The 437. Vntruthe For Boni¦facius cō∣demned not S. Au¦gustin.
• * 1.641

  The 438.439. and 440. Vn∣truthes, as it shall particular∣ly appea∣re.
• * 1.642

  M. Iewel∣les Argu∣ment.
• * 1.643

  Epist. 82. Vices mei mo••erami¦nis delega∣ui.
• * 1.644

  Act 6. Concil. Sard. Can. 20.
• * 1.645

  Tom 1. Conciliorū.
• * 1.646

  1 Timo. 3.
• * 1.647

  Lib. de vti litate credē¦di. cap. 1.
• * 1.648

  Fol. 51.
• * 1.649

  In e••ist. ad soli••artā vi¦tā agentes.
• * 1.650

  Hist. trip. lib. 4. ca. 6 Cap. 15.
• * 1.651

  The 441. Vntruthe ioyned with a Folye, as shall appe¦are. Ioa••. 20.
• * 1.652

  The 442 Vntruthe Slaund. F••cing, and impu¦dent.
• * 1.653

  The 443 Vntr••the For th••y saied not so muc••e.
• * 1.654

  Lib. 5. cap. 8. lib. 2. Cap. 15.
• * 1.655

  Hist. trip. lib. 4. cap. 7.8. & 9.
• * 1.656

  Lib. 3. cap. 8.
• * 1.657

  Optatus lib. 1.
• * 1.658

  The 444 Vntruthe False Trā¦slation.
• * 1.659

  Nicephorus lib. 15. cap. 13. Trithem. in scriptor.
• * 1.660

  Actor. 4.
• * 1.661

  Ruffinus lib. 1. cap. 29.30. •••• 31. The 445 446. and 447. Vntru∣thes, as it shall parti¦cularly appeare.
• * 1.662

  pag. 283.
• * 1.663

  Ruffinus li. 1. ca. 27.
• * 1.664

  Cap. 28.
• * 1.665

  Cap. 30.
• * 1.666

  Epist. 48. The 448 Vntruthe in falsifi∣ing S. Ba∣siles text
• * 1.667

  Basil. epist. 48.
• * 1.668

  Dimit••e a∣liquos ex∣sacta Ec••le¦sia tua v••∣ros ad oc∣cidentis ep••¦scopos. Basil. epist. 53.
• * 1.669

  Basil. ad A¦thanas. epi. 52.
• * 1.670

  T••e 449 Vntruthe As befo∣r••. Cod. de S••∣cro San••tis eccles. lege 6.
• * 1.671

  The 450 Vntrut••e ••or the Glose the¦re expo∣und••th not that s••••e l••we D••st. 22. Re••ou••••∣tes: in glo∣sa.
• * 1.672

  Di••t. 2••. Ren••uā••••s.
• * 1.673

  Ibid••m 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• * 1.674

  Cod. de summa T••in. & fi. Cath Nos Reddentes.
• * 1.675

  Gregor. li. 1. epi. 24 & ••5. & lib. 6. epist 5. The 451. Vntrut••e Manifest and vnfal¦lible, as shall ap∣peare.
• * 1.676

  Gregor. epist. 63. lib. 7.
• * 1.677

  Epist. 64. lib. 7.
• * 1.678

  Rom. 13.
• * 1.679

  The .452. Vntruthe. For not therefore S. Grego∣ry wrote so hūbly. Lib. 7. epist 30.
• * 1.680

  Lib 7. epist. 54.
• * 1.681

  The .453. Vntruthe. For not that only or princi∣pally. Paulus Aemilius in Histor. gallorum lib. 8.
• * 1.682

  Paulus Aemil. li. 7
• * 1.683

  Blondu•• Decad. 2. lib. 8.
• * 1.684

  The 454. Vntruthe. Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.685

  Hi••••. trip. li. 4 ca. 6.
• * 1.686

  The .455. Vntruthe. For D. Hardinge semeth not so to doe.
• * 1.687

  The .456. Vntruthe. A mani∣fest Cor∣ruptiō off the whole history.
• * 1.688

  Lib. 1. epist. 4.
• * 1.689

  Gregor. Li. 4. epis. 34.
• * 1.690

  The 457. Vntruthe. He meant of more then his ovvne charge, as M. Ievvell taketh the Popes Charge to be.
• * 1.691

  The .458. Vntruthe For it vvas more then a ge∣nerall al∣lovvance, as shall appeare.
• * 1.692

  Hist. trip li. 4. ca 6. Leo ad Theodosiū Epist. 33.
• * 1.693

  Leo epist. 34. ad diuersos
• * 1.694

  Leo. epi. 3••
• * 1.695

  A pert•• a••que dil••••∣c••de pr••te∣stantia.
• * 1.696

  Quàm Ca¦tholicurum omnium et mea ••••∣fessi•• p••o∣t••statur.
• * 1.697

  Eco. epist. 40. ad A∣natholiū.
• * 1.698

  Can. 5.
• * 1.699

  Leo epist. 54. ad Martianū.
• * 1.700

  Leo epist. 55. ad pulcheriā.
• * 1.701

  Et 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fauori•• assensu.
• * 1.702

  The 459. Vntruthe as before.
• * 1.703

  S••z•••• li. 3. Ca. 8.
• * 1.704

  Hist. trip. li. 4. Ca. 6
• * 1.705

  Sozun. li. 3. 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.706

  Pontanu•• gal li. 1. pag 10 〈◊〉〈◊〉 exposit. Art. ad Leo non. An̄ 15. •• ••ib. eodem pa 15.
• * 1.707

  The 460 and .461. Vntruthe as shall appeares. Sozom. li. 7. ca. 8.
• * 1.708

  Theodore••. li. 5. ca. 9.
• * 1.709

  Ibidem.
• * 1.710

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Leo epi. 34
• * 1.711

  The 462. Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.712

  The .463. Vntruthe pregnant For D. Hard. ha¦the auou∣ched no such Vn∣truthe. The 464 Vntruthe For Cassi¦odorus made no such translatiō but Epipha∣nius.
• * 1.713

  The 465. Vntruthe facing and impu¦dent as it shal ap∣peare. Stapleton
• * 1.714

  Hist. trip. lib. 4· cap. 19.
• * 1.715

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.716

  The .436. Vntruthe. ioyned with me∣re folye.
• * 1.717

  The .467 Vntruth: For t••ere hath no such falsifing b••ne cō∣mitted.
• * 1.718

  Lib. 1. Cap. 8. Trix. Hist. lib. 4. ca. 9
• * 1.719

  The .468 Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.720

  Hist. tripa. lib. 4. ca. 9
• * 1.721

  Dedica∣tion of Chir••hes in the ye¦re of oure Lorde.
• * 1.722

  Li. 4. Ca. 9. His••or. tripa••ttiae.
• * 1.723

  Tom. 1. Conciliorū epist. 1.
• * 1.724

  The 469 Vntruth•• it was principal¦ly his part so t•• doe.
• * 1.725

  The 470 Vntruthe for not he allone did so.
• * 1.726

  Ru••fi••us li. 2 Cap. 1. Th•• 47•• Vntruthe as s••all appeare. Theodor. li 5 Cap. ••
• * 1.727

  lib. 1. ca.. 2 hist. sco∣last.
• * 1.728

  In epist. Ephes. Cō. ad Nesio∣r••••••••.
• * 1.729

  In epist. E∣phes. Con. ad Nesio∣rium.

  Conc. Chel. Act. 1. Cy∣rillus epist. 11. & 12. Euagrius li. 1. cap. 2.
• * 1.730

  Cyrillus Epist. 10. & 11. Caelest inter epist. Cirilli. epist. 12.
• * 1.731

  Cyrillus Epi. 18.
• * 1.732

  Cryillus Ep. 5. inter Epist. Sy∣n••dal.
• * 1.733

  Inter epist. Crylli, tomo 4. epist. 17.
• * 1.734

  Ioannes C••ntes.
• * 1.735

  Cyril. epist. 22. tom. 4
• * 1.736

  Co••e. Flor. Sess. 5. Marcus E∣phesius. Sess. 8. Bes¦sar. Nicen. Episc.
• * 1.737

  Cyrillus Epi. 29. Tom. 4.
• * 1.738

  The 472 Vntruth.
• * 1.739

  Socra. li. 5 in proaemio
• * 1.740

  Iohn Cal¦uin in his I••stituti∣ons, lib. 4 ca. 11. par. 3
• * 1.741

  The .473 Vntrut••e as shall appeare. Theodoret. lib. 5. ca. 9
• * 1.742

  T••eodoret. lib. 5. ca. 9
• * 1.743

  2. Cor. 1. 2. Tim. 2.
• * 1.744

  Psal. 54.
• * 1.745

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Concil. chalced. Actione. 3.
• * 1.746

  The 474 Vntruthe for no Theo••o∣sius w••s the Empe¦rour. Intera••t•• Conc. Cōst .5.
• * 1.747

  pag. 420.
• * 1.748

  li. 4. ep. 34 The .475 Vntruth. For here∣in is decla¦red his Authorite no weak••¦nesse.
• * 1.749

  Gregorius i. 4. ep. 34
• * 1.750

  In audaci•••• quorund•• seculari•••• hominum.
• * 1.751

  In eo E••erce redi••t i∣cti••nem Canonicā null•• mo∣do Cessa∣bo.
• * 1.752

  Leo epi. 23 Liberat. Cap. 12. T••e 476 and 477. vntruthe cōmitted in allega∣tion of Liberatus Stapleton
• * 1.753

  Liberat. Cap. 12.
• * 1.754

  Leo epis. 11
• * 1.755

  Leo. epi. 51 43. et 46 Non iudi∣dicio sed la trocinio. Liberatus ••••p. 12.
• * 1.756

  Leo epist. 13.50.44.58. The 478 Vntruthe For there was no su¦che deca∣ye of the popes vni¦uersall po¦wer.
• * 1.757

  Leo epist. 47.
• * 1.758

  Beatissi∣mi Petri Apostoli se¦dis iure at∣que honor•• se••uat••.
• * 1.759

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 i•• v••st••a ••••••∣te••nitis ex istinet p••ae¦sidere.
• * 1.760

  Li 4. Ca. 9. Hist••r triparti••ae.
• * 1.761

  Leo ad Mar••i••••••̄ Augusti∣epi••t. 43.
• * 1.762

  Leo. epist. 47.
• * 1.763

  Leo epist. 44. ad Martianū. Augustum
• * 1.764

  Leo epist. 46. ad A∣natholium.
• * 1.765

  Tom. 1. Conc. in pro¦leg. Chalce∣don. Syn.
• * 1.766

  Tuam san∣ctitatem principatū in episcopa¦tu diuinae fidei possi∣dentem. per celebrā¦dam syno∣dum te au∣thore.
• * 1.767

  Alia epsi: Martiani Ibidem.
• * 1.768

  Sicut sancti¦tas tua se∣cundum ec∣clesiasticas regulas dis••¦niuerit.
• * 1.769

  Epist. Pal∣cherie ad Leonē ibid.
• * 1.770

  In Epist. ad Episcopos Dardaniae. The 474 Vntruthe slaunde∣rous a∣gainste Pope Gelasius.
• * 1.771

  In epist. ad ••pisc. Dar∣••••. T••m. 1. Cō.
• * 1.772

  The 480 Vntruthe extreme facing.
• * 1.773

  The 481. manifeste Vntruth.
• * 1.774

  Tom. 1. pa∣gin. 257.
• * 1.775

  The .482 Vntruthe For not he alone. Actor. 1.
• * 1.776

  Dist. 26. Sexta sy∣••odus. The .483 Vntruthe For this osius was the popes legate. .
• * 1.777

  August e∣pist. 90. Caelest. pp. in epist gal. cap. 3. Tom. 1. Concil.

  The 404 Vntruthe for only by waye of autho∣rite.
• * 1.778

  Leo epist. 47.
• * 1.779

  Concil. Chalcedon Actio. 11.
• * 1.780

  Tom. 1. Con. in pro¦legō. Chal∣ced, Conc.
• * 1.781

  Vide act. 1. Concil. Chal.
• * 1.782

  In orat. ad subditos. Epist. ••2. ad 〈…〉〈…〉. lib 4. cap. 11. para. 4
• * 1.783

  lib. ••. cap. 5. hist. tripar.
• * 1.784

  Chalcedon Conc. Act. 1.
• * 1.785

  Ibidem.
• * 1.786

  Vide inter epist. Ciril li tom. 4. epist. 17.
• * 1.787

  Vide Chal∣ced. Concil. Act. 1.
• * 1.788

  Act. 11. Leo epist. 24. & 26 & 26. Leo. epist. 44.
• * 1.789

  Lib. 2.
• * 1.790

  Can. 5.
• * 1.791

  pag. 283.
• * 1.792

  Craft in placing of witnesses.
• * 1.793

  The 487. Vnthruthe For it was a full cō∣firmation Leo. epist. 60.
• * 1.794

  Quibus, quae illic fidei sunt regula definita, fir¦marem.
• * 1.795

  The 488. Vntruthe. For not in like sorte.
• * 1.796

  Concil. Chal¦cedon. Act. 1. non longe a principio.
• * 1.797

  The 489 Vnthruthe for this, There∣fore, foloweth not as it appeareth in the true inter¦pretation of M. Ie∣wels Re∣gula Iu∣ris.
• * 1.798

  The 490 Vntruthe for this is not t••e Canon.
• * 1.799

  Iewell. Leo. epist. 61. Leo. epist. 59. The 491. Vntruthe false tran∣slation.
• * 1.800

  Leo. epist. 69.
• * 1.801

  The 492 Vntruthe for not ra¦tified by him and others.
• * 1.802

  Le•• epist. 59.
• * 1.803

  Athanasius ad solit. vi∣tā agentes. Aug. cōtra. 2. ep. Pela. ca. 2. & 3. lib. 2.
• * 1.804

  The 493 Vntruth. For that wil neu••r be pro∣ued
• * 1.805

  The 494 Vntruthe false trā∣slation. S••zom. lib. 6. cap. 23·
• * 1.806

  Theodoret. lib. 2. cap. 22.
• * 1.807

  Niceph. lib. 9. Cap. 9.
• * 1.808

  The .495 Vntruthe facing and impud••nt
• * 1.809

  Lib••o. 2. ad Boni••a••••ū. Cap. 4.
• * 1.810

  Epist 1 ad Episc. Gal. Cap. 3.
• * 1.811

  Int••r epist. A••gust. E∣pist. 90.91.92.93 95.96.
• * 1.812

  It is t••e xvij. Ca∣non.
• * 1.813

  August. e∣pist. 92. Epist. 95.
• * 1.814

  Epist. 106
• * 1.815

  Epist. 105.
• * 1.816

  Contra E∣pist. Pelagij lib. 1. cap. 1
• * 1.817

  Cap. 3. & 4.

  Sanctus Pa¦pa Zosimus
• * 1.818

  Leo epist. 13. The 496. facing Vntruthe as shall ap¦peare.
• * 1.819

  Concil. C••al. Act. 16.
• * 1.820

  Liberatus cap. 13. T••e 497 Vntruthe not••ble, by n••p∣ping q••i∣te aw••ye the la••t worde of Liberatus Q••••••a••∣m••do.
• * 1.821

  Cap. 13.
• * 1.822

  Conc. tòm. 1. In tomo de vinculo Anathema tis.
• * 1.823

  Vide Act. Con. Chal. 3. & 16.
• * 1.824

  Dist. 22. Renouātes
• * 1.825

  Cōc. Chal. An. 450. Con 6. An. 681.
• * 1.826

  Leo ep 53.54. & 55.

  Liberatus ca. 17. & 21.

  Lib. 7. cap. 194. Iewell.
• * 1.827

  The 498 Vntruth. For S. Hierom. sa••eing was of no matters of faith. Ad Eua∣grium.
• * 1.828

  Beda lib. 1. cap. 27.
• * 1.829

  Greg. li. 4 epist. 2. In epist. ad Damas. Tom. 2·
• * 1.830

  The 499 Vntruth. cōteining a number of vntru∣thes.
• * 1.831

  The 500· Vntruth. For it wil well fo∣lowe as it shall now appeare.
• * 1.832

  The .501. Vntruthe slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.833

  Iewell. pag. 6.
• * 1.834

  The .502. vntruthe. contrary to him sel¦fe.
• * 1.835

  The .503. Vntruthe For this is not the o∣nely mea∣ning.
• * 1.836

  Contr. No∣uatia. li. 1.
• * 1.837

  The 504. Vntruthe For D. Hardinge well kno∣w••th the contrary.
• * 1.838

  Hist. ••ripa. li. 4. ca. 15
• * 1.839

  Curam om∣nium ge∣rens prop∣ter propiae Sedis dig∣nitatem.
• * 1.840

  Conci. Chal¦••edō. Act. 1.
• * 1.841

  The 405 Vntruthe in falsifi∣ing the text of Cassio∣dorus. Lib. 4. cap. 34.
• * 1.842

  Histo. trip. lib. 4. cap. 34.
• * 1.843

  Athanasi∣us ••hrise re¦store••. Hist. trip. li. 3. cap. 8. Cap. 12.
• * 1.844

  Lib. 4. cap. 6.
• * 1.845

  Cap. 9.
• * 1.846

  Cap. 12.
• * 1.847

  Cap. 15.
• * 1.848

  Cap. 18. Cap. 19.
• * 1.849

  cap. 20.
• * 1.850

  M. Iewels Craft in destroy∣ing a Trueth by telling a Trueth.
• * 1.851

  The 506 Vntrueth in false applieing of Theo∣doretus. Theodor. lib. 2. cap. 17.
• * 1.852

  Lib. 2. cap. 17. lib. 5. cap. 18.
• * 1.853

  The .507 Vntrueth in put∣ting Arri¦ans for Euty∣chians
• * 1.854

  Leo epist. 39.
• * 1.855

  M. Iewel•• Craft in destroye∣ing one trueth by an other.
• * 1.856

  The 508 Vntruthe for the••∣••••re aba∣ted before t••e vj.C. yeres af∣ter.

  Ch••ist. Eutropius Lib. 13.
• * 1.857

  Plat••us in Ad••iano. 2.
• * 1.858

  The 509. Vntruthe. For the Empe∣rour ne∣uer con∣firmeth the Pope.
• * 1.859

  ••laudu•• de∣c••d. 2. lib. 1
• * 1.860

  The 51••. Vntruthe. Answered befo••e.
• * 1.861

  The. ••1••. Vntruthe. For be w••ite 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Em∣perour.
• * 1.862

  A pot full of plum∣mes Iewel out of Athana¦sius in Epist. ad Liberi••m.
• * 1.863

  Sozom. lib. 4. cap. 8. Stapleton Regula in ri••.
• * 1.864

  O••ea••••l. in Epist. ad Iulium.
• * 1.865

  Cōcil. chal. Act. 4.
• * 1.866

  M. Ievvell. seeketh to heretykes for helpe.
• * 1.867

  The 512. Vntruthe for the Appeale vvas offe∣red to the Popes Le¦gates on∣ly.
• * 1.868

  The .513. Vntruthe in nip∣ping off wordes out of the middest of S. Leo his whole sentence. Leo epist. 24.
• * 1.869

  Esa. 28.
• * 1.870

  Leo epist. 24.
• * 1.871

  The wordes which M. Iewell ••ipped quite of.
• * 1.872

  The wordes which M. Iewell nipped quite of.
• * 1.873

  In preamb. Con. Chal.
• * 1.874

  The .514. Vntrueth For the Pope was alwaies Chiefe.
• * 1.875

  Hist. trip. lib. 4.
• * 1.876

  Ievvell.
• * 1.877

  M. Ievvell not vvel in his vvit••es.
• * 1.878

  Cap. 19.
• * 1.879

  Hist. trip. lib. 4. cap. 34.
• * 1.880

  The .151. Vntruthe ioyned with a sla¦under. for Reconci∣liation is acknow∣ledging of Prima¦cie, And D. Hard. speaketh of one sp••¦cial kinde thereof which is to the po¦pe.
• * 1.881

  Leo epi. 39
• * 1.882

  Epist. 40 Cap. 1.
• * 1.883

  Suarum interim Ecclesia∣rum essent Cōmunione contenti. Pacis & cōmunionis nostrae v∣nitate lae∣tentur.
• * 1.884

  Ibidem.
• * 1.885

  Leo Epist. 55.
• * 1.886

  The Po∣pes Supe∣riorite proued by Reconci∣liation, de¦sired off him, or ge¦uen oute by him.
• * 1.887

  The 516. Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous. For the sen∣ding of le¦gates and perfour∣••yng of the condi¦••ions of the Re∣concilia∣tion im∣porteth ••epentaū¦ce, penan¦ce, Sub∣mission. Innoc••tius epist. 16. Tom. 1. Profitenti Condi••io∣nes pacis. impletas.
• * 1.888

  communio nemque vt isti, legatio ne solemni¦ter destina¦ta, sibi roga uerint red∣biberi.
• * 1.889

  Cassiod. li. 4. cap. 12.
• * 1.890

  Epist. 17.
• * 1.891

  Innocē••i •• epist. 15.
• * 1.892

  Lib. 7. ep. 64.
• * 1.893

  Epist. 15.
• * 1.894

  Epist. 17. Epist. 15. The .517. Vntrueth in false trāslating Ephes. 2. Epist. 16. Necessaria legatio So∣lemnite•• de de••••ina••a Cōdit••ones pacis ••••m¦ple••••s d••g∣na lega••••o∣ne 〈◊〉〈◊〉 u∣t••s est & probauit.
• * 1.895

  Concil A∣phric. cap. 68.
• * 1.896

  Concil. A∣phric. cap. 68.
• * 1.897

  Cap. 18.
• * 1.898

  Liberatus cap. 17. & 18.

  Felix in Epist. ad Acacium.
• * 1.899

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. edictum. Cap. 16.17 &. 18.
• * 1.900

  Iewell. The 518. Vntruthe For he wrote so not as ab∣solutely his equal, but as to whome the other was then reconci∣led.

  Con. Const. Act. 2. Vide libel. Ioan. ad Ho••ni∣sdam Tom. 2.
• * 1.901

  Cassio. lib. ••. cap. 23. & 25. The 519. Vntruthe in all••a∣ging one thinge for an other.
• * 1.902

  The 520 Vntruthe For Arse∣nius was Reconci∣led to A∣thanasius as to his Superi∣our. Atha••as. Apolog. 2.
• * 1.903

  The 521. Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous. Stapleton
• * 1.904

  Augustin. Epist. 90.
• * 1.905

  Innocētius epist 91. inter epist. Aug••stin.
• * 1.906

  Innocētius epist. 95. inter ••pi••t Augustin
• * 1.907

  Palladius in vita ••oā. Chrysoste∣mi, & Chrysost. epist. 1. ad Inno∣centium. Nicepho∣rus lib. 13. cap. 34. Innocētius epist. 16. Tom. 1. Conc. I••em epist. 17. Concil. Aphric. Can. 68. Aug. epi. 90. & 91
• * 1.908

  Augusti∣nus Epist. 106.
• * 1.909

  The 522. vntruthe Slaunde∣rous, and agreing with the Arrians. Hist. tri∣par. lib. 4. cap. 16.
• * 1.910

  The 523. Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous, and peuish.
• * 1.911

  The 524. Vntruthe For D. Harding saieth not that Ti∣tle was then geuē
• * 1.912

  The 525. Vntruthe. For it was holden in the yere The 453. Pantaleō in sua Chronogr. ex Sigeber to & alijs. Stapleton
• * 1.913

  The 526. Vntruthe For yowe come shorte of your rea∣koning thirty ye∣res and more.
• * 1.914

  Leo epist. 47. Greg. lib. 1. epist. 24. & li. 7. epist. 5. Gelas. in Tom. de Anath. vin. Tom. 1. Con.
• * 1.915

  Inter Acta Con. Tarrac. The 527. Vntruthe. Gelasius falsely al∣leaged touching the quota¦tion.
• * 1.916

  In tom•• de Anathem•• tis vinculo
• * 1.917

  Concil. Chal. Act. 16.
• * 1.918

  Can 6. Con. Nic.
• * 1.919

  Concil. Chal Act. 3.
• * 1.920

  Leo epist. 59. Liberatus. Cap. 18.
• * 1.921

  The .528. Vntruthe. Gelasius falsely translated
• * 1.922

  Cōc. Nicen. Can. 6.
• * 1.923

  Leo. Epist. 61. Epist. 53.54, 55. & 62.
• * 1.924

  Epist. 62.
• * 1.925

  The .529. Vntruthe Leo ne∣uer accu∣sed the whole Councell so.
• * 1.926

  Leo Epist. 55. Leo. Epist. 62.
• * 1.927

  Concil. Chalcedon. Act. 16.
• * 1.928

  Leo ep. 62
• * 1.929

  32. quaest. 2. Tria le∣git. The .530. Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous, and ioyned vvith a folye. Exca. 27. Con. Chal. 26. quaest. 2. Nullus.
• * 1.930

  Ibidē. Tria legitima
• * 1.931

  The 531. Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.932

  Concil. C••alced. Act. 16.
• * 1.933

  Beda lib. 4 cap. 17.
• * 1.934

  Nicephor. lib. 17. c. 2
• * 1.935

  The 532. Vntruthe. For D. Hardinge will not put anye doubte of that Coū¦celles cre∣dit. The lew∣denesse of M. Iewell
• * 1.936

  M. Iewell toieth and dalyeth.
• * 1.937

  Lib. 4. epist. 32. & 36.
• * 1.938

  The 533. Vntruthe. For S. Gre¦gory sa∣ieth, it was corrupted many a ye¦re agoe.
• * 1.939

  Lib. 5. epist. 14.
• * 1.940

  The 534. Vntruthe. For not he, but A∣thanasius so sayed. Pag. 234. Lib. 5. epist. 14.
• * 1.941

  The 535. Vntruthe. The Pope claimeth not his Title by any suche wordes.
• * 1.942

  VVhere∣upon the Popes Pri¦macy is groūded. Matth. 16. Ioan. 21. Luc. 22.
• * 1.943

  The .536. Vntruthe. For he ha¦the the Councell of Nice and of Sar¦dica, besi∣de, to hol∣de by in this mat∣ter.
• * 1.944

  The .53••. Vntruthe. For S. Gregorye saieth, the bis∣shops in that Coū∣cell so cal¦led the B. of Rome, as it shall anon ap∣peare.

  Greg. li. 4. Epist. 32. &. 36.

  The .538. Vntruth. For he sa∣ieth not so onely as it shall straight appeare.
• * 1.945

  The .539. Vntruthe. For S. Gregory saieth it. The .540. Vntruthe, Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.946

  Grego. lib. 4. epist. 38
• * 1.947

  Li. 2. ca. 1. Hist. gētis Anglorū.
• * 1.948

  M. Iewell confesseth for Tru∣the, which he noted before in D. Hard. For Vntru¦the.
• * 1.949

  M. Iewell con••esseth that, whi∣che in ••is Challen∣ge, he valū¦ted, no mā coulde proue.
• * 1.950

  The Te∣nour of M. Iewel∣les Chal∣lenge.
• * 1.951

  Iewell. Pag. 298.
• * 1.952

  Concil. Chalced. Act. 3.
• * 1.953

  That the Bisshop of the Chalcedō Councell Called Leo, Vni∣uersall Bisshop.
• * 1.954

  Actione. 1
• * 1.955

  Concil. Chal. Act. 3.
• * 1.956

  Plutarchus in Pericle.
• * 1.957

  The 541. Vntruthe. Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.958

  Lib. 4. ep. 32. & 36 The 542. Vntruthe in altering D. Hard. meaning. For he sa∣ied not,, they were all one thinge ab∣solutely, or in Saint Gregories sence, but as the Fa∣thers off Chalcedō vndersto∣de them.
• * 1.959

  Lib. 4. epist. 34. Of this matter Reade mo¦re in the begin∣ning off this Arti∣cle. fol. 7.
• * 1.960

  A••t. 13. & 8.
• * 1.961

  Concil. Chal. Act. 3.
• * 1.962

  The Bi∣shop off Rome Called Heade off the Councell by the Generall letters off the Coun¦cell it selfe.
• * 1.963

  Pag. 286. The vani∣te of M. Iewelles Challēge.
• * 1.964

  The 543. Vntruthe. Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.965

  The .54••. Vntruthe. Slaun••e∣rous.
• * 1.966

  The .545. Vnruthe. For Peter was B. of Rome, when he was Head of the Churche.
• * 1.967

  In Catalo∣go vir. il∣lust. Tō. 1.
• a 1.968

  lib. 3. cap. 3.
• b 1.969

  ep. 165.
• c 1.970

  Lib. 2.
• d 1.971

  Lib. 3.3. De excid. Haer.
• e 1.972

  Lib. 2. cap. 14 & 15. & 15.
• f 1.973

  Hier. 27. Lib. 1. on∣t••a ••pp••o∣nem.
• * 1.974

  Centur. 2.
• * 1.975

  Ambros. in 1. Timoth. Cap. 3.
• * 1.976

  Damasus Head of the Vniuer¦sall Chur∣che.
• * 1.977

  1. Timo. 3.
• * 1.978

  Concil. Chal. Act. 3.
• * 1.979

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.980

  The .546. Vntruthe Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.981

  The .547 Vntruth. For the Transla∣tion is good and True.
• * 1.982

  Ignatius in Epist. ad Rom. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.983

  Est epist••. praefixa cō∣mentar. in Pualum.
• * 1.984

  Vobis enim per omnia pri∣mos esse conuenit.
• * 1.985

  Et quae praeest orbi terrarum.
• * 1.986

  Rom. 1.
• * 1.987

  Octingin¦tas paraeci∣as.
• * 1.988

  Aposto∣licae vestrae Sedis ex∣pecto sen∣tentism.
• * 1.989

  Iustum vestrume et rectum Ap¦pellanti iudicium.
• * 1.990

  Si iudica¦tis mesta∣re iusseritis staebo.
• * 1.991

  Concil. Chal. Act. 1.
• * 1.992

  The 548. Vntruthe. For that Transla∣tion agre∣eth not withe the Greke of Theodo∣ret

  The 549. Vntruthe. For by Iu∣stinian no such pree∣minence of sitting is in any Constitu¦tion allea∣ged graun¦ted, as it hath be∣fore well appeared.
• * 1.993

  Art. 4. Fol. 51.
• * 1.994

  The 550. Vntruthe. Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.995

  Epi. 84. ad Anasta∣sium Thes¦salonicen∣sen.
• * 1.996

  Epist. 63.
• * 1.997

  fo. 185. B.
• * 1.998

  Leo Serm. 1. in Nat. Petri & Pauli.
• * 1.999

  De voca∣tione gentiū li. 2. cap. 16
• * 1.1000

  Ser••••. 1. In Nat. Pe. & Pau.
• * 1.1001

  Lib. quaest. vet. & no∣testam. q. 75.
• * 1.1002

  The 551. Vntruthe. For there is no wil∣full falsi∣fying: and in the Sē∣ce no falsy¦fying at al of S. Aug.
• * 1.1003

  The 553. Slaunde∣rous.
• * 1.1004

  Concil. Chal. A •• 3. Idē quoq•••• Leo. epist. 63. ad Theodo••••••
• * 1.1005

  Act. 4.6. & 8. Cod· de Sum. Tri••. et 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Cath. Tit. 1 No•• Reddentos.
• * 1.1006

  Leo vbi supra.
• * 1.1007

  〈…〉〈…〉
• * 1.1008

  In libel. de Ingra••is.
• * 1.1009

  Athanas. in epist. ad Mari••um.
• * 1.1010

  The 553. Vntruthe. For Vi∣ctor wri∣teth a Sto¦rie of thin¦ges passed longe within the first•• .600. yeres
• * 1.1011

  Reade the Storie of Victor ioyned to the Tri∣partite. Tu••. 1. o∣per. Au∣gust.
• * 1.1012

  The 554. Vntruthe. In misse∣reperting the wor∣des of Vi∣ctor.