before any iudge wheresoeuer, or before whom soeuer they come, but in the Romish courte, and the Papistes onely excepted. For to let go Polidore Uirgile bycause whatsoeuer he sayth he sayth of the credite of another, let vs come to Clement which is the author of this you speake. And what is he? Is there any so blind that knoweth not that this was nothing lesse than Clement, of whom S. Paule speaketh, and which some thinke was the first Bishop of Rome ordeined by Peter, and not rather a wicked helhounde into whome the Lorde had sent Satan to be a lying spirite in his mouth, to deceiue them for their vnthankful receyuing of the gospell? And he must witnesse for the Archbishop: a worthie witnesse. For as all that Popish Hierarchie came out of the bottomlesse pit of hell: so to vpholde the Archbishop the necke of it, wherevpon the Romish monster standeth, are raysed vp from hell bastards, Clemens and Anacletus, and indeede as it may appeare, the very na∣turall sonnes of Satan, and the sworne souldiours of Antichrist.
A man would haue thought that the Bishop of Salisburie, M. Iuel had so pulled of the pain∣ting of the face of this Clement, that all good men woulde haue had him in detestation: so farre of would they haue bene to haue alledged out of him to proue any thing that is in controuersie.
The Bishop alledgeth both Eusebius, and S. Hierome, to proue that none of those woorkes which go in his name are his: and although the proofes be strong which the Bishop vseth beeing the witnesse of vnsuspected witnesses: yet bicause the law, although it allow two witnesses, not∣withstanding doth like the better of three, I will set downe here also Ireneus which was a great while before them both, and followed hard after the time of the true and vncounterfeyte Clement, and therefore coulde best tell of him, and of his wrytings, and yet he maketh mention but of one Epistle, which vpō occasion amongst the Corinthians he wrote to them. Indeed in an other place of that booke he sheweth, that it is verie probable, that Clementalso eyther wrote or turned the Epistle to the Hebrues. Nowe if that Epistle to the Counthes were extant, we shoulde easily see by comparing those that are nowe in his name wyth that, what a misshapen thing this is.
And if so be that Ireneus coniecture be good, that Clement was the authour or interpreter of the Epstle to the Hebrues, then what horrible iniurie is done to the holy Ghost, while the same is supposed the wryter of thys booke to the Hebrues, which is the authour of suche beggerie as thys Clement brought into the worlde? And I pray you do you holde that it is the true Christian reli∣gion which that booke conteyneth? Could none of these considerations driue you from the testi∣monie of this Clement? It goeth verie harde with the Archbishop, when these Clements, and Anacletusses must be brought to vnderprop him.
But what if there be no such booke as this is, which you name, (when you say in his booke in∣tituled Compendiarium religionis Christianae) it is like you know not him, nor what he saith, when you cannot tell so much as his name. Onely bicause Polidore wryteth that Clement sayth this in a certaine short and summarie booke of christian religion, you haue set downe that he wryteth thus in a booke intituled Compendiarium Christianae religionis, where there is no such tytle neither in the Councels where his Epistles are, neyther yet in all other his workes.
Thought you to disguise him with this newe name of the booke, that he should not be knowne? or ment you to occupie your answerer in seeking of a booke which bicause he should neuer finde, he should neuer answere? The place which Polidore meaneth is in the first Epistle which he wry∣teth vnto Iames the brother of the Lord, which is as the rest are both ridiculous in the maner of writing, and in the matter oftner tymes wicked and blasphemous, which I speake to this ende, that the reader through the commendation that M. Doctor hath giuen to this Clement, in taking him as one of his witnesses in so great a matter be not abused.
Io. Whitgifte.
Here is much more labour spent than is necessarie. No man denyeth but that the Epistles attributed to Clement are Counterfeyte, neyther do I otherwise alledge him or Anacletus, or any such like, than both M. Caluine, M. Iewell, and many other learned men do, as it is euident in their writings. That testimonie whiche I vse is out of Polidore, and therefore haue I quoted both the booke and Chapter. Poli∣dore wryteth as other doe that intreate of such matters, and for as muche as he was learned, and of purpose gaue himselfe to the searching out of such things, his report is not lightly to be reiected. But (God be thanked) neyther the name nor the an∣thoritie of an Arfhbishop dependeth vpon these witnesses, neyther do I vse them as sure groundes, but as probable testimonies of the antiquitie of the name. You haue cited the Canons of the Apostles thrise at the least in this your booke, and Higinus likewise, and vsed them as proofes, and yet is there as great suspicion in the counterfeyting of them, as there is of this booke of Clements. I pray you therefore giue me that libertie in recyting Authours, that you take to your selfe, and that no man refuseth when they serue to his purpose. For I protest vnto you, that I haue as euil an opinion of many of them, and think as great corruption to be in them as any man doth, and that not only bicause I haue so red in other mens writings of them: but also for that I my self in reading of thē haue noted the same. But I am well assured