A detection of sundrie foule errours, lies, sclaunders, corruptions, and other false dealinges, touching doctrine, and other matters vttered and practized by M.Iewel, in a booke lately by him set foorth entituled, a defence of the apologie. &c. By Thomas Harding doctor of diuinitie.

The Seconde Booke conteineth a Detection of certaine Lies, Cauilles, Sclaunders, and of suche other vntrue matter, vttered by M. Iewel in the first parte of the Defence.

The first Chapter.

IT is not reason gentle Reader, thou shouldest require at my handes a ful an∣swere to euery parte and parcel of the huge booke, that M. Iewel hath set out in Defence (as he pretēdeth) of th'Apo∣logie. The labour should be wearisome, the time long, the charges great: that neither I perhappes should haue habilitie to print it, nor thou liste to bye it. And when al were done, though many good thinges should be vttered, yet the more part would not be worth the reading. For whereas he heapeth together somuch (al in manner out of other writters) which is either vtter∣ly impertinent, and such, as being in it selfe true, neither reliueth his cause, nor weakeneth ours, or is wrested to a meaning quite contrarie to that the authours had whence it is taken, or al together falsified by one corruption or other: and what he bringeth of his owne (which in re∣specte of the rest is very litle) is either false in sense, or light in the scorneful manner of vtterance, or a mere wrangling, or briefly otherwise vain and friuolous: al this being so, as by this Detection it shal sufficiently appeare: if a iuste, and particular answere were made vnto it, whiche of necessitie must amounte to a farre greater quātitie, then the Defence it selfe is of: any man of iudge∣ment

can soone conceiue, how vnfruitefully good houres should be bestowed in reading it ouer. Wherefore if I so applie my labour, as the thinges of least weight being past ouer, the chiefe pointes, or the greatest parte of the chief pointes of M. Iewels Defence be refuted, and the necessarie truthe clearely confirmed, and that with con∣ueniēt spede: I trust I shal seme to haue donne that, which in this case, and in this state of time, at my handes was to be looked for. Leauing then many other vnnecessary thinges obiected by M. Iewel against the Catholique Churche, let vs heare the woorst he hath not benne a shamed to saie, and first in the first parte.

M. Iewel in the first parte of his Defence pagina. 7.

The Manicheis forbad lavvful marriage, and allovved fornication, as M. Hardinges Catholiques doo novve. So saith S. Augustine of them, Nu∣ptiarum aditus intercludunt, & promiscuè conuenire hortantur.

Harding.

You sclaunder vs M. Iewel most vniustly, and impu∣dently. The Catholiques neuer forbad lawful marriage. And it is knowen to al the worlde, that Fornication was neuer allowed in the Catholique Churche at any time, or age. For this, your weake proufes are out of Panormi∣tane, and other Canonistes. Panormitane speaking of his time, saith, that fornication in the Clergie was not pouni∣shed then, so greuously, as in olde time. This proueth not that it was then allowed. Though a Clerke be not pouni∣shed for fornication with Deposition, whiche is a perpe∣tual remouing from the ministerie of the Aulter: yet he might be pounished, and was to be pounished otherwise,

as with Suspension, or D••priuation, and with other me••¦nes at the discretion of the Ordinarie. Now the truth is Panormitane teacheth not, that a Clerke is not to be pou¦nished for Fornication at al: but that he is not to be pou∣nished with Deposition indistinctè, indistinctly, as the au∣steritie of the Primitiue Church required, when Clerkes were generally deposed for euery mortal sinne without distinction. How, and in what sorte, a Clerke is now to be pounished for fornication, Panormitane sheweth at large, where he speaketh thereof purposely, as I haue be∣fore declared, in my Answere to the View of Vntruthes, in the. 9. Vntruthe. fol. 69. a.

Againe the Manicheis by your pretensed proufe out of S. Augustine, Nuptiarum aditus intercludunt, & promi∣scuè conuenire hortabantur, excluded al men from marriage generally, and exhorted their followers to vse carnal dea∣ling together one with an other in common, without di∣stinction of al degrees of personnes. For so signifieth the Latine worde, promiscuè. But who seeth not this exce∣dingly to passe simple Fornication? And to exhorte men and weemen to suche abominable Bauderie, who seeth it not to passe without al comparison, the not most extrem•• pounishing of Bauderie? Beholde reader, how immode∣ratly M. Iewel sclaundereth vs.

Iewel. In the same page a fewe lines after.

M. Harding saith: The scriptures vvere falsified, and ful of errours.

Harding.

What so euer the Manicheis haue said, with whom you

compare vs, we might wel saie, the Scriptures haue benne corrupted by your false Translatiōs into vulgare tongues: but that the Scripture it selfe were ful of errours, neither I, not any Catholique man euer said it.

These wordes M. Iewel hath caused to be printed in that letter, in whiche my wordes of the Confutation be set out. He noteth in the margent thus, M. Harding. fol. 220. b. Looke gentle Reader in the said leafe of my Con∣futation (for thereof he meaneth) and certainely thou shalt find no suche wordes at al. If I haue either there, or elles where vttered these wordes, let me neuer haue credite in thy iudgement. In deede, whereas in that place the Au∣thor of the Apologie burdeneth the Catholiques with burning the holy Scriptures, and for the same compareth them with wicked king Aza, with Antiochus, with Ma∣ximinus, and with Herode: moued with iust zele, among other thinges, thus thereto I saie.

Why saie you of vs in general, that is to saie, of the Catholique Churche, that we despise, hate, cast away, and burne the holy scriptures? Had we not loued and kepte the scriptures, how could you and your fellowes haue come by them? Had ye not them of vs? From the Apo¦stles time to this daie we haue kepte them vnspotted and vndefiled, and ye within these fifty yeres haue by your vulgare translations corrupted them, that lamentable it is to consider. And when we burned the same corrupt tran∣slations, or any parte thereof, or any of your hereti∣cal treatises, we burned not the Scriptures, no more then one doth the Apple tree, that burneth the Ca∣terpillers. The Scriptures we honour, and kepe most reuerently, and diligently.

Therefore your comparing of vs with the wicked kinges Aza, Antiochus, Maximinus, and Herode, is false and sclaū∣derous.

Reade the reste that foloweth there good Reader, and if thou wilt iudge, as thou findest, and saie, as thou iud∣gest, and write that thou maist truly saie: M. Iewel shalbe said to be a false sclaunderer, and regestred in the booke of lying sclaunderers.

Iewel. Pag. 10.

As for Iohn VViclef, Iohn Hus, VValdo, and the rest, they vvere godly men, their greatest heresie vvas this, that they complained of the disso∣lute, and vitious liues of the Clergie, of vvorshipping of Images, of feined miracles, of the tyrannical pride of the Pope, of Monkes, Friers, Pardons, Pilgrimages, and Purgatorie, and other like deceiuing, and mocking of the People: and that they vvished a reformation of the Churche.

Harding. That Wiclef mainteined sundrie hainous Heresies.

Beside these heresies whiche you accompte for none M. Iewel, they had sundry other farre greater. As for example: Among the Articles of Wiclef condemned in the Councel of Constance, this was one: That if a Bi∣shop, or a Priest be in deadly sinne, he doth not order, conse∣crate, nor baptise. This was the plaine heresie of the Do∣natistes, as it appeareth by S. Augustine. Item, that God ought to obey the Deuil. Item, that it is against the Scri∣pture, that Ecclesiastical Ministers shoulde haue any tem∣poral possessions. If this be no greater heresie then the

reste M. Iewel, then allowe it, as you allowe the reste. But the gaine is to sweete: you can not brooke it.

Item, that no man is a temporal Lorde, no man is a Prelate, no man is a Bishop, whiles he is in mortal sinne. If ye make this no Heresie, then ye denie the Queene to be Queene of England, when so euer she falleth into Mortal sinne. And whereas by your doctrine, ye make euery sinne mortal, vtterly reiecting the distinction of venial sinnes, the Quene, as no man elles, lyuing not without sinne: What meane you by this doctrine, to allowe her in this case for no Quene of England? She is muche beholden vnto you.

Item by Wiclef the common people maie at their ar∣bitriment correcte their Lordes, when they doo amisse. If you, and your fellowes wil allowe this for a true Do∣ctrine, and preache it in your Pulpites lustily, ye shal like the people ioilily, and wel: and thereof doubtelesse wil followe suche order, and obedience, as becommeth your Gospel, and as Satan the Authour of it, shalbe pleased withal. Suche the like, and worse, were the Heresies of Huss, and Waldo. These Articles, and many other were recorded both in the general Councel of Con∣stance, and in your felowe Fox in his booke of the De∣uilles Martyrs.

But touching Iohn Hus, sith ye make him so god∣ly a man, and so voide of al Errours, and Heresies, how wil you defend him for that so commonly he said Masse, whereat ye enueigh and raile so muche? Looke in the Teutonical historie of the Councel of Constance, written by one Huldrick Reichental Citizen of Con∣stance, and ye shal finde by him reported, who liued

at that very time, and marked wel, what happened 〈◊〉〈◊〉 those daies, that Iohn Hus oftentimes said Masse in his hostes house during the time of his abode in Constance, and that the people came much vnto it. Itaque Domini∣ca Oculi quae tertia est in Quadragesima, vbi celebrasset Mis∣sam mane, &c. When he had said Masse (saith he) in the Sundaie named Oculi, whiche is the third Sundaie in Lent. And this did Hus, not onely before he had read the Bookes of Wiklef, by whiche he was carried awaie into an other Gospel, but also at the ende of his life, euen a litle before for his detestable heresies he was burnte, as it is at large reported by the said Reichental and witnessed by Ioannes Cochlaeus lib. 2. De Historia Hussitarum.

Pag. 11. In the matter of planting the faith among the Britaines, and the English, M. Iewel telleth vs againe a longe tale, which he tolde vs before in his Replie, the vn∣truthes whereof are already largely, and specially, con∣futed in the Returne of vnthruthes vpon his Replie, Art. 3. pag. 124. & sequent. Wherein he dissembleth vtterly al answer made thereunto, though it be wel knowen, that he hath seene the said Returne, and that he had one with the first presented vnto him at Oxforde, at what time the Quenes Ma^tie was there in progresse. In that page he be∣lieth extremely Theodoritus, Nicephorus, and Galfridus of Mounmouth, sclaundering immoderately vnder Golfridus name, our blessed Apostle S Augustine. See the Returne pag. 30.

In the page following he belieth Beda twise: first ap∣plying that to the English menne, which he spake of the Britaines, namely of 7. Bishoppes, and one Archebishop,

&c. For what soeuer he telleth vs of the Queene, King Ethelbertes wife, who being a Frenche woman liued in the exercise of her Religion, that she was Christened in among the Christian people of Fraunce: certaine it is, that our English Nation (of whom in my Answer to his Cha∣lenge, I spake, and not of the Britaines) were not Christiās, before S. Augustine came, sent by S. Gregorie frō Rome.

Secondly he belieth Beda, in saying as out of his eccle∣siastical storie, that the Christians of our Countrie vtterly refused to receiue this newe Apostle with his religion. For Bede speaketh only of the Britaine or welshe Bishoppes, but nothing so muche as M. Iewel fableth.

They refused to obey him as their Archebishop, they refused not his religion. They were also in many pointes Schismatikes, as Bede in the same place recordeth, whom M. Iewel here so commendeth. See Bede either in Latine, or in English lib. 2. cap. 2. The matter is of right good im∣portance, and worthy to be tried.

Pag. 12. The iudgement of Constantine the great in a cause Ecclesiastical betwen Cacilianus, and Donatus à Casis nigris he reneweth againe, vtterly dissembling the Answer made thereunto in the Returne. Art. 4. pag. 105. & sequēt.

Pag. 14. He bringeth in againe the commō obiections against the Real Presence, out of Tertullian, and S. Augu∣stine dissembling vtterly, that those obiections are answe∣red, and fully soluted by M. D. Saunder in his 7. booke of the supper of our Lord, partly also by me in my Answer. And so doth he in this pretensed Defence repete his olde stuffe, whiche he laid forth in his Replie before, as if the same had not benne already answered, and confuted.

Iewel. Pag. 16.

VVe neuer armed the people, nor taught them to rebel for Religion a∣gainst the Prince. If any thing hath at any time happened othervvise, it vvas either some vvilful rage, or some Fatal furie. It vvas not our Co••••∣sel, it vvas not, our Doctrine.

Harding. That the Professours of this new Gospel haue stirred the people to Rebellions.

This is a famous and an euident vntruthe controlled by the bloudy practises, yea and by printed writinges of your owne Brethren the Caluinistes. It is notoriously knowen and manifest, that of late in Valencenes two Ministers of your religion were at great variance in the towne about this point, at what time the gates were shutte, and king Philippes armie laie in siege before the walles. The one preached and taught, that they did wel, and lawfully, to rebel for Religion against their Prince. The other thought it could not be defended for lawful by Gods worde. And therefore these two being afterwarde taken, the towne being conquered, the one was hanged, and broken, the other but hedded. And here M. Fox might haue stuffe to encrease his Martyrologe. M. Christopher Good∣man in his booke, How to obey, or disobey, Pag. 204. com∣mendeth, as lawful, the Rebellion of Wyat, and calleth them plainely Traitours, whiche tooke no parte with Wyat.

What Iohn Knox that Fierbrande of Scotland hath written, and done, to whose eares by publique fame is it not come?

In Tournay likewise not long agoe, the Ministers did not only counsel the Citie to rebel, but also tooke the whole Gouernement, and administration of Ciuil mat∣ters into their owne handes.

That Theodore Beza counselled, and persuaded Poltrot that wretched Caitife, to murder the noble Duke of Guise, his Princes Captaine General, not only Poltrot cō∣fessed it, but Beza him selfe craketh, and reioiseth thereof, and defendeth the facte, partly in a litle booke made for that very purpose, partly in his Preface vpon Esaie.

Luther expressely in a booke De seculari potestate, whiche he made in the yere of our Lorde. 1523. and is ex∣tant in his workes, laboureth to proue by Scripture, that among Christians there ought to be no superiour power, or Magistrate. And in an other booke made a litle before his death Anno. 1545. intitled thus: Ad Electorem Saxoniae, & Lantgrauium Hessiae D. Martin. Lutherus de Captiuo Brunsuicensi, prouoketh subiectes to fight against their Prince for Religion, and saith of subiectes, they do tempt God, whiche vse not their weapons, when they may.

See the Apologie of Staphylus. Melanchton, in libello ad Bohemos & Silesios, stirred the Bohemians to rebellion. He also in the yere. 1548. wrote openly against the Emperour Charles the fifth, in the time of the rebellion of Saxonie, and Hesse, as witnesseth Illyricus in Informa∣tione sua de quibusdam Articul. parte. 3. fol. 129. 137. & sequent.

Iewel.

The Nobles and Commons there (that is in Scotland) neither drevve the svvorde, nor attempted force against the Prince.

Harding.

What is a lie, if this be none? I praie you good Syr, are you onely a straunger in these matters? When in the daies of the late King there the Queenes husband, the said Quene and her husband were for a time daily in the fielde, and in armes against some of their Nobles, was there none then in Scotland, that attempted force against her? Was al that armie assembled, and in field, to fight with the ayre, or to keepe crowes from the corne? When the Lorde Hambleton, and the L. Iames with others fled, some into England, some into Fraunce, was there none of her Nobles, or Commons, that had at∣tempted force against her? When (during the Quenes absence in Fraunce) they ouerthrewe Churches, and Monasteries, attempted not they force against the prince, whose plaine commaundement was to the con∣trarie?

When her Secretarie was by force taken from her, and outragiously murdered with in her hearing, when she with her husband by night was faine to flee vnto the Castle of Dumbar, when at an other time she was driuen to retire to Edinburg in great haste, not without daun∣ger passing through waters without any staie, where she lost Arture one of her most trusty seruantes, was there in al these matters no force attempted against the Quene, neither by her Nobles, nor by the Commons? What hath happed sithence, I neede not to speake. Time shal trie, how vntrue it is that you saie. Thinke you that such grosse and palpable lies maie euer be defended? Then tel vs, that Wyate rebelled not against Queene Marie, as your brother Christopher Goodman saith in deede: that

the Gues here in the Low Countrie, namely they of the towne of Valencenes, and they of Tournay, and others haue not rebelled against king Philip, nor the Huguenotes vnder the Prince of Conde in Fraunce, against their liege Soueraine the French King. Yea and then tel vs, the Snowe is blacke, and the Crowe is white. But I praie you M. Iewel, if they attempted not force against their Prince, what did they? You say.

Iewel.

They sought only the continuance of Gods vndoubted Truth.

Harding.

Put the case they did so: And let open Heresie stande ones for Gods truth. Was that a lawful, and commen∣dable meane to seeke it by? Beholde, though before you denied, they attempted any thing against the Prince, yet now you defende their disobedience, saying:

Iewel.

The Subiecte is bound to obey his Prince: Hovvbeit not in al thinges vvithout exception, but so farre as Gods glorie is not touched. These Nobles had learned of S. Peter, It is better to obey God, then man: And of the prophete Dauid, Better it is to truste to God, then to truste in Princes.

Harding. S. Peter by this saying teacheth vs not to rebel against the Prince for maintenance of Religion.

Had these Nobles, as you say, learned this lesson? And doth this lesson either of S. Peter, or of the Prophete

Dauid, teache the Subiecte to resiste, and take Armes a∣gainst his Prince, in case the Prince doth commaund any thing against Gods Truth? I had thought M. Iewel, that the doctrine, whiche teacheth vs to obeye God more then menne, were fulfilled rather by suffering the penal∣tie of mans lawe, or wil, being contrarie to Goddes Lawe, and wil, then by resisting man put in authoritie by God: as S. Peter, who wrote the foresaid wordes, suf∣fered scourging, contumelies, and emprisonment, rather then he would obey the Magistrate commaunding him not to preache, nor teache in the name of Iesus. If the prince commaunde Heresie, or Idolatrie, the waie to obey both God, and the Prince, is, to keepe thee from yelding to Heresie, or committing of Idolatrie, and for Goddes sake to susteine the pounishment, what soeuer the Prince putteth vpon the breakers of his commaun∣dement. For it is two thinges, and much different, to obey the Prince in an vnlawful request, and to take Armes against the Prince.

Both we (God be praised) for the Catholike faith, and your Rounde capped Ministers for their Cappes and Hattes, refuse to obey the Quenes Maiesties commaun∣dement, touching matters of conscience, bicause we knowe right wel, and they pretende to thinke al∣so, that by suche commaundement of the Prince, Goddes glorie is touched. In whiche case you saie M. Iewel, the Prince is not to be obeyed. Yet (God be praised) neither we, nor they doo take Armes, or attempte any force against our Prince, as these Nobles of Scotland haue done. We haue not so learned S. Pe∣ters lesson. We haue not so learned to obeye God

more then man. But we doo rightly iudge and protest, such demeanure to be an open disobediēce, both to God, and to man. And yet saie you M. Iewel, and that in your booke dedicated for a singular present vnto the Quenes most excellent Maiestie, that these Nobles of Scotland had learned S. Peters lesson? Tel vs in good sooth, if the Catholike Nobilitie, and Commons of England (who take your heresies to be against Gods truthe, as they are in deede) shoulde deale with the Quenes Maiestie for matters of Religion (whiche God forbid) as the Nobles of Scotland haue dealte with their liege Soueraine: would you defende their so doing, by S. Peter, and the prophete Dauid, and saie, that God is more to be obeyed, then man? I perceiue you are so selfe willed, and so ad∣dicted to your faction, that if you were a Papiste, you would doo no lesse, and be as ready to helpe suche a mat∣ter forwarde in England, as Beza your good brother in Fraunce, as the Gues here in the lowe Countries, and as Knox in Scotland haue benne.

But we openly protest before God, and the worlde, that we condemne, and defie al such attemptes. I meane, that any Subiecte, or Subiectes what so euer, of their owne priuate authoritie, should take Armes against their Prince for matters of Religion. This we doo teache to be plaine disobedience bothe to God, and to the Prince. This haue your Nobles of Scotland done more then once. And therefore you haue done vntruely, and lewdly, I wil not saie traiterously to the preiudice of the Quenes Maiesties owne safetie, in defending them, and in calling their outragious attemptes, suche obedience, as S. Peter taught, which was suche Treason, and Rebellion, as S.

Paule condemneth, saying, Let euery soule be subiecte to the higher powers. &c.

The Doctours, whom you allege, make clearely against those Nobles, whose rebellion you defende. Leo saith, To geue vnto Caesar, that whiche is Caesars, is not to re∣bel against Caesar, but to helpe Caesar. But your Nobles re∣belled against their Prince: Ergo, they gaue not that to Caesar, whiche was Caesars. Againe the Christians, of whom S. Ambrose speaketh, said to the Emperour, Ro∣gamus Auguste, non pugnamus: we beseche thee Noble Emperour, we fight not. But your Nobles fought against their Prince, they humbly besought not their Prince.

And yet (ô extreme impudencie) these places you allege to shewe the obedience of those Nobles. After this, as thoughe al the eares of Englande were stopped, and their wittes bewitched, you conclude in this wise.

Iewel. pag. 17.

To conclude, the Queene of Scotland is stil in quiet possession of her estate.

Harding.

And what wil you sticke to saie, or write M. Iewel, whiche doo saie, write, and set out in printe, suche a pal∣pable, and manifest falsehod? Suche (I saie) as euen the very Tankerdbearers of London, and al others of the basest sorte besides, can witnesse against you? What? was not the Queene of Scotland of late imprisoned in her owne realme? And had she not benne in prison, long be∣fore your booke came forth? And is a Prince cast in prison by his owne Subiectes, stil in quiet possession of his

estate?

What? wil you make vs beleeue, that the Reuerend Fathers, the old and only true Bishoppes of our countrie, are nowe stil in quiet possession of their Bishoprikes, whom al England knoweth to haue susteined emprison∣ment these eight yeres and more, for their constant pro∣fession (Gods holy name be blessed) of Gods Truthe? Goe M. Iewel, and tel this tale in the new founde Ilandes of India. For not only al England, but al Fraunce, Spaine, Germanie, Italie, yea as it maie be thought, a good parte of Turkie it selfe, can controlle you, of this most infamous lye, that the Queene of Scotland is stil in quiet possession of her estate. God keepe you, and your brethren in suche a quiet possession, if ye wil teache the truthe no better, then in this Princes daies ye haue taughte. Yet you adde farther, and saie of the Quene of Scotland.

Iewel. Ibidem.

And shee is obeied of her subiectes, as farre as is conuenient for godly people to obey their Prince.

Harding.

Lo, a Quene being the right prince of a realme, vio∣lently, and besides al order of law by her subiectes thrust out of her roial estate, is yet obeied of her subiectes, so farre as is conuenient for godly people to obey their Prince. Then by your doctrine M. Iewel, it is conuenient for godly people, violently to bereue their prince of prin∣cely estate, if they like not his Religion: and yet in so doing they obey. Let vs suppose halfe a realme to be Ca∣tholiques, whom ye cal Papistes, halfe Protestantes: Shal the Papistes depose their Protestant Prince, shal the Prote¦stant

Subiectes depose their Papist Prince? If ye teache not this, what is that ye teache?

Are not you nowe one of them, that teache Subiectes to take Armes against their Prince? Thus muche and more (whiche I omitte) haue you said of the Quene of Scotland: and yet how promised you, that you woulde saie nothing? Truely it had benne better for you, and more for your honestie, to haue said nothing in deede, and to haue dissembled the whole matter (as you haue done many other special matters, and suche as be of greatest importance in my Confutation) then thus to haue be∣wraied your traiterous iudgement and minde, touching obedience to princes: and that in a booke dedicated, and offred to be read euen of the Quenes Maiestie her selfe.

Among other thinges thus I saie in my Confutation of the Apologie. It standeth not with Goddes promises made to the Church touching his being with the Church al daies to the worldes ende, and, the holy Ghostes remaining with it, the spirite of Truthe for euer, that he should suffer his Churche to continewe in Darkenes, and lacke of Truthe these thousand yeres past, and now at the later daies to reuele the truthe of his Gospel by Apostates, Vowebreakers, Churcherobbers, and suche others most vnlike to the Apostles. Hereunto thus answereth M. Iewel.

Iewel. pag. 32.

You saie, it standeth not vvith Gods promise, to forsake his Churche a thousand yeres. It is muche for you M. Harding, openly to breake Gods cōmaundementes, to defile his holy Sanctuarie, to turne light into Darcke∣nesse, and Darckenesse into light, and yet neuerthelesse to binde him too his promise.

Harding. Goddes promise being infallible, the Churche neuer erreth.

Se•• good Reader, how absurdely and wretchedly M. Iewel answereth, to this most euident and inuincible ar∣gument taken out of holy scripture. I reason thus: God promiseth, he wil neuer, no not one daie forsake his Churche. Ergo, if he forsooke it a thousand yeres (as these menne tel vs) he broke his promise. M. Iewel answereth by a lewde kinde of Sophistrie, called Petitio principij, that is, the bringing forthe for proufe the thing it selfe, whiche he ought to proue, and whiche chiefely lieth in question, and whiche wil neuer be graunted, bicause it can neuer be proued. That thing I saie he bringeth forth for a proufe, and procedeth thereupon, as vpon a matter vndoubted, and graunted. You M. Harding (saith he) haue broken Gods commaundementes, you haue defiled his holy Sanctuarie, &c. Ergo, you ought not to binde God to his promise. This Antecedent, or former proposition is the thing, whiche he shoulde specially haue proued and then in Gods name he might thereof haue cōcluded what he coulde. Now to bring it for proufe, it selfe in respecte of true doctrine being most in question, and vtterly de∣nied by vs, it is a lewde kinde of reasoning.

Againe beholde (good Reader) how he ouerturneth the Argument taken out of Gods worde. I reason thus. God hath promised, his Churche should neuer erre. Ergo it hath not erred these thousand yeres past. he answereth. The Church by our defaulte hath erred. For we (saith he)

haue turned light into Darckenesse, &c. Ergo, God was not bounde to his promise. What meane you M. Iewel? As though God promising that his Churche should not erre, prouided not also suche meanes, whereby to preserue it from errour? As though Gods promise depended of vs, and of our wel doing? As though any power of man, or the worlde, were hable to frustrate Gods promise? As though, if any suche power should haue come (as you imagine the Popes power to haue darckened Christes Gospel) Christe could not, or would not haue foresene it? or, foreseing it, would yet notwithstanding promise, that Al daies he would be with his Churche, and againe that the spirite of Truthe should assiste it for euer?

Thinke you M. Iewel that Christe our Sauiour for∣sawe not the Ruine, or Darckenesse of his Churche, of whiche so blasphemously you affirme? Or thinke you, that foreseing such an vniuersal Darckenesse to come, and that for the space of so many hundred yeres together, he would neuerthelesse haue said, as he said, and haue so assuredly promised vnto his Apostles, and in them vnto their Successours, the perpetual assistance of the holy Ghoste, the spirite of truthe with his Churche? How could suche foreknowledge of Christe, and suche a promise stand together? Choose M. Iewel which you wil. The one of these you must of necessitie graunte: that either Christe forsawe not the great Darckenesse to come, whiche you saie, you doo see, and so you see more then Christe, God, and man euer sawe, or foresawe: or that Christe promised one thing, and in∣tended to performe an other thing. He promised Al daies, and, for euer, but intended to performe only

fiue hundred yeres at the beginning, and after the leape of a thousand yeres, to graunte certaine yeres moe, God knoweth how many. O haynous blasphemie, whereby Christe the Sonne of God, the wisdome of his Father, is proued either to haue ben ignorant of that whiche Pro∣testantes knowe, or elles to haue ben false of his promise.

But what neede many wordes? M. Iewel him selfe immediatly after his former wordes, to his owne condem∣nation saith: Al menne be liers, but God only is true, and preuaileth, when he is iudged. God knoweth his owne, Christe wil be euermore with his Churche, yea although the whole Churche of Rome conspire against him. Al this is true, and the same doth euidently condemne you, and your Religion. Al menne be liers, Protestantes for ex∣ample, whiche saie, that these thousand yeres the Church hath ben corrupted, and light hath ben turned into Dark∣nesse. God only is true. Christes worde is true, the Light of faith hath not benne turned into Darckenesse these thousand yeres, nor any one yere at al, onlesse Darcke∣nesse, and the Spirite of truth maie dwel together.

God knoweth his owne. The Churche is his, therefore he knoweth his Churche. And bicause it is built vpon a hil, it is euer sene, and is neuer vnknowen. Christe wil be euermore with his Churche. But with your Con∣gregation, or Synagog (how shal I cal it?) he hath not ben these many hundred yeres, (for you saie in your Apologie) The Pope hath blinded the whole worlde many hundred yeres, and in this your Defence you saie againe, that when Doctour Luther beganne to Publish the Gospel of Christe, there was a general quietnesse, suche as is in the night, when folke be a sleepe. &c.

Ergo your companie is not the Churche. Marke the Ar∣gument I require you, and auoide it, if you be hable.

To repete it once againe, thus we saie. Christe promi∣seth euermore to be with his Churche: but Christe hath not ben euer more with you, and your fellowes: Ergo, you, and your fellowes are not the Churche. The ma∣ior is true, not only bicause it is Christes promise, but also by your owne Confession. The minor you confesse also in your Apologie: it resteth ye discharge your selfe of the Conclusion. Touching the minor, the Pope, you saie, blinded the whole worlde many hundred yeres. Then in those so many hundred yeres no man saw the light. where then were they of your secte, of whom you saie, they see suche a light, as vnder the Pope, the worlde sawe not? Of this it foloweth, that the time then was, in whiche Christe was not with you. And so euery waie, if Christes worde be true, yours must be false.

But marke wel gentle Reader that whiche I wil now declare vnto thee. M. Iewels obiectiō against the Church, is the very olde obiection of the Donatistes. For as M. Iewel saith here, that it were to muche for vs hauing bro∣ken Gods commaundement, &c. yet neuerthelesse to binde Christe to his promise, whiche was, that his Church should continewe for euer, and haue the Spirite of Truthe al∣waies remaining in it: So the Donatistes said, ideo ex par∣tibus terrarum, in quibus iam impletum erat, perijsse Abraha semen, quod est Christus, & euacuatas promissiones Dei, quia ipsi non sunt admissi ad eorum communionem, apud quos hoc iam retinebat orbis impletum. That therefore the seede of Abrahā, that is Christ, had perished frō out of other partes of the world, where it had ben already fulfilled, and ther∣fore

the promises of God (touching the continuance of Christ with his Church to the worldes ende) were made voide, bicause they (the Donatistes) were not admit∣ted to the Communion of those Christians (in Fraunce, Italie, Spaine, and other Christian Countries) among whom the worlde kepte this promise of Christe alrea∣dy fulfilled. They said, the promise of Christes conti∣nuance was broken, bicause al the other partes of the worlde besides, and out of Africa, communicated with Cecilianus, and his successours, (whom they accused for Deliuerers vp of the Scriptures in time of persecution, and therefore accompted them for no parte of Christes Churche) and refused to communicate with them, euen as M. Iewel saith here, that for our euil doinges Christe was not bound to his promise.

This obiection of the Donatistes seemed to a learned man of their owne secte, Ticonius by name, vnreaso∣nable, and insufficient. And therefore he wrote a booke of that matter: to wit, that the promises of God in the Scriptures, for the continuance of his Churche vniuer∣sally spred through the worlde, could not possibly be broken, through any wickednes of man, or menne what soeuer. This to be so, S. Augustine witnesseth, saying, Ticonius (homo quidem & acri ingenio praeditus, & vberi eloquio, sed tamen Donatista) omnibus sanctarum pagina∣rum vocibus circumtusus euigilauit, & vidit Ecclesiam Dei toto orbe diffusam, sicut de illo tanto antè per corda & ora sanctorum praeuisum, at{que} praedictum est. Quo percepto susce∣pit aduersus ipsos suos demonstrare & asserere, nullius homi¦nis quamuis sceleratum & immane peccatum praescribere promissis Dei, nec id agere quorumlibet intra Ecclesiam cō∣stitutorū

quamlibet impietatem, vt fides Dei de Ecclesias••¦tura, & diffundenda vs{que} ad terminos orbis terra, quae in pro¦missis patrū retenta, & nunc exhibita est, euacuaretur. Tico∣nius (a man endewed with a sharpe wit, and with tongue at wil, but yet a Donatist) knockt vp on euery side with al the sayinges of the Bible, waked out of slepe, and saw the Church of God spred ouer al the worlde, as thereof so lōg time before by the hartes, and by the mouthes of Saintes it was foresene, and foretolde. Which thing ha∣uing perceiued, he toke in hand against them of his own fide euidētly to shew, and affirme, that no mannes sinne, being neuer so wicked and passing great, doth prescribe against the promises of God, and that no manner impie∣tie of any what soeuer that be placed in the Church, doth bring this to passe, that the promise of God shuld be made void touching the Churche to come, and to be spred a∣brode vnto the borders of the round world, which pro∣mise was cōtinued in the promises made to the Fathers (of the old testamēt) and is now come to perfourmance. Thus then wrote Ticonius the Donatiste, being forced thereto by the very cleare euidence of holy Scripture.

Parmenianus an other Donatist, foreseing (as S. Augu∣stin writeth) that if the persuasion of Ticonius toke place, then he, and his felowes, which did not cōmunicate with the whole corps of Christendom, should be no part of al the Catholik Church, so vniuersally dispersed, and so be∣ing out of the Church should stand for Heretiques: wrote first an epistle against this Ticonius, and when that would not suffise, procured him to be openly condēned in a Coū∣cel of their owne sect: Euen as at this day the Lutherans write against the Sacramentaries, as Westphalus against Caluine, Brentius against Bullinger, Illyricus against Beza,

Peter Martyr against Brētius, Heshusius, against Boquine, condemning one the other, al being protestants, or rather (as they wilbe named) Gospellers. Against the foresaid Epistle of Parmenianus, written (as I said) against Ticonius, S. Augustin wrote three bookes, learnedly defending the Scriptures alleged by Ticonius, to proue, that no impietie of men what soeuer, and how great soeuer it were, can possibly be hable to driue Christ to breache of his pro∣mise, concerning the perpetuitie of his Churche in ma∣ny Nations, and the assistence of the holy Ghost therein.

You therefore M. Iewel, that thinke it much for vs, to claime by the promise of Christe, bicause by our wret∣chednes, he should no more be bound to his promise, do plainely renewe the wicked and detestable opinion of the Donatist Parmenian, whom S. Augustine, so largely confuteth. I remitte the learned to the said worke of S. Augustine, specially to the second booke. The vnlearned I remitte to a late writtē Treatise intituled, The Fortresse, annexed to the historie of Venerable Bede translated into Englishe, where he shal finde suche scriptures, as proue an vniuersal, and knowen continuance of Christes Chur∣che, largely laied forth and prosecuted out of the Psalmes, the Prophetes, and the new testament.

To be short therefore: I frame you once againe this ar∣gumēt. The true Church of Christ, is such a multitude, as hath had euermore in al ages and times Christe present, and the Spirit of truth remaining with it. Your Congrega∣tion is such, as was not extant in the earth many hundred yeres together before Luther was borne, and therefore can not be said to haue had that presence of Christ: Ergo, your Congregation is not the true Church of Christ.

The Maior is euident by Christes owne promise, and by your owne Confession. The Minor you confesse also both in your Apologie, and in this pretensed De∣fence, as I said before. The Conclusion therefore re∣maineth vndoubted. To this one argument M. Iewel you shal neuer be hable to answere truely and directly.

You adde yet farther. Christe wil be euermore with his Churche, yea though the whole Churche of Rome con∣spire against him. It is true M. Iewel. And therefore this being a matter impossible, that the whole Churche of Rome should be hable to deface Christes Gospel, or to defeate Christ of his promise: it must needes folow, that, where you say, the Pope hath blinded the whole worlde, you haue said most vntruly, and haue auouched that thing, which by your owne confession in this place, was not possible to be done.

Againe seing that, though the whole Churche of Rome conspired against Christe, yet Christe wil be euer∣more with his Churche, and these many hundred yeres Christ hath had no other Churche then the Churche of Rome (for the Pope you say hath blinded the whole worlde, and D. Luther began to publish the Gospel, a general darke∣nesse going before): it must needes folowe, that the same Church of Rome was the true Church of Christ, that the said Church neuer cōspired against Christ, that the Pope neuer blinded, nor was euer hable to blinde the whole worlde: briefely, that the same whiche you cal blind∣nesse, was good sight, and that which you cal darkenesse, was cleare light.

Verely either so must it be, or Christes promise must faile. Of the which promise of Christ, and of a number of

other sayinges in the Psalmes, in the Prophetes, and in the Gospel affirming, and confirming the same, it hath ben largely and sufficiently treated in the foresaid Trea∣tise intituled, The Fortresse of our first Faith, annexed to the Historie of venerable Bede, of late translated into Englishe. If you M. Iewel, or any of your fellowes wil auoide this argument, that proueth a knowen con∣tinuance of Christes Church, answer to the first parte of that booke. If you can not auoide that one Argument, your newe doctrine is plainely proued to be false, and heretical, and the Faith of our Forefathers is plainely proued, to be the Faith of the true, and onely Catholike Churche of Christe in earth.

You pretende as if ye had aduantage, for that I spake but of a thousand yeres. For thus you inferre.

Iewel ibidem. Pag. 32.

But vvhy do you so much abate your reckening? VVhy make you not vp your ful accompte of fifteene hundred, three skore and sixe yeres, as ye vvere vvont to doo? Ye haue here liberally, and of your selfe quite stri∣ken of fiue hundred three skore and sixe yeres.

Harding. That we haue not striken of the first fiue hundred yeres, as M. Iewel cauilleth.

You say vntruly M. Iewel. I haue not striken of the first fiue hundred yeres, &c. But I, and others doo (God be praised) defende and mainteine the Ca∣tholique Faithe no lesse by the Doctours, and witnesses of the first fiue hundred yeres, then by the Doctours, and Witnesses of these last thousand yeres. Yea Sir, it is

wel knowen to them that haue perused bothe our la∣bours, that you allege moe writers of these later ages by ten to one, then either we doo of the same, or your selfe doo of the first fiue hundred yeres. It is wel knowen, our writinges are confirmed with the authoritie of the Fathers of the firste fiue hundred yeres. We allege very seldome the writers of these later ages, condescending herein to your infirmities, whiche through weakenes of Faith, doo reiecte these later Fathers, as too yonge, and require to be persua∣ded onely by the Doctours, and Councelles of the first sixe hundred yeres. And herein we doo willing∣ly omitte the greate aduantage, whiche we might haue, if we should presse you with the Writers of these later ages. This is wel knowen M. Iewel to al that knowe any thing in matters of these common contro∣uersies. We haue (Gods holy name be blessed) large∣ly, and aboundantly prooued the Reall Presence, the Sacrifice of the Masse, the Popes Primacie, the vse of Images, the Confession of sinnes to the Prieste, the In∣uocation of Saintes, the Praying for the dead, the Chur∣che seruice in the two learned tongues, Greeke and La∣tine, and such other matters by you nowe brought into Controuersie: we haue sufficiently prooued them (I saye) by the Doctours, and Councels of the first sixe hundred yeres, wittingly and willingly (a very fewe places excepted) absteining from the Writers of these last thousand yeres, not bicause we refuse them, or con∣temne them, but bicause ye refuse them, that we might seeme to vse the better meanes to persuade you, whose couersion we seeke and labour for. You say therefore

vntruly that I haue liberally, of my selfe quite striken of fiue hundred yeres, &c.

The cause why I named but these last thousand yeres, your selfe I am sure are not ignorant of. But so it liked you to dallye, and to answer a most earnest, and impor∣tant question with trifling toyes, cauilles, and wrang∣linges. It was your exception M. Iewel, and prescription of the first sixe hundred yeres: It was your lewde con∣tempte of these later ages: It was your blasphemous as∣sertion condemning the Churche of Christe so many hundred yeres of Idolatrie, superstition, and palpable darckenes, which made me to chalenge you with Chri∣stes promise for the Continuance of his Churche these last thousand yeres. If you denie this to be your opinion of the last thousand yeres, beside your prescription insi∣nuating no lesse of the nine hundred, beside your former wordes of Luthers first publishing of the Gospel, (for so you terme your wicked Heresies) your owne wordes in this place doo signifie no lesse. For thus you saie euen in this page.

Iewel.

Verely in the iudgement of the Godly, fiue hundred of those first yeres are more vvorthe, then the vvhole thousand yeres that folovved after∣vvarde.

Harding.

This comparison is odious, and litle becommeth a Christiā mā. If you speake of learning, and vertue, though the comparison be odious, yet is it more tolerable. For learning, and vertue may seeme to haue excelled more in those former ages, then in these later. specially ver∣tue

and holines of life, when as the bloude, that Chri•••• shed for redemption of the worlde, seemed to menn•••• hartes yet fresh and warme, as in a place S. Augustine writeth. And therefore those tymes brought foorth moe Martyrs. As touching learning, it muste also be confessed, that moe Doctours in both tongues then excelled.

This without preiudice to the learned Bishoppes, and Godly people of Christendom in so longe a time after∣warde, might perhappes to the commendation of An∣tiquitie be graunted. Howbeit, it is not vnknowen to the learned, that in these later thousand yeres, the Northe partes of the worlde (being many, large, and sauage Countries) haue benne brought to the faith of Christe, many Bishoppes, and Monkes of excellent lear∣ning, and of great perfection of life haue flourished, ma∣ny Martyrs also haue suffred: as al histories, and Chrono∣graphies doo witnesse.

But in respect of faith, and the necessarie doctrine of our saluation, it is a manifest blasphemie, to saie, that the first fiue hundred yeres are more worthe, then the thousand that folowed. For this assertion importeth, that Christe assisted his Churche the first fiue hundred yeres absolutely, and perfitely, so that then the Pa∣stours and Doctours of the Churches erred not in faith and doctrine, but in the later thousand yeres the Chur∣che was not so assisted of Christe, and of the holy Ghost the Spirite of Truth, but rather in suche wise ne∣glected and forsaken, as Idolatrie, superstition, yea pal∣pable darkenes ouercame, and preuailed. And thus you M. Iewel, who saie before, Christ wilbe with his Church

euermore, saie nowe otherwise, that these thousand yeres are litle worth which is as much to saie, as that Christes special prouidence hath failed his Churche after the first fiue hundred yeres. And so shal his promise of his euer∣lasting assistance, so oftentimes auouched in the holy Scriptures, be founde to faile. But, Al menne be liers, and God is true. The promise of Christe the sonne of God is infallible. The Churche therefore in no age or time wanted the assistance of Christe, nor of the holy Ghost the Spirite of Truthe.

The Churche of Rome (of whiche you speake so vil∣lanously) neither hath preuailed, neither could possibly preuaile against Christe. It hath preuailed against al He∣resies. and therefore no other Churche in the worlde ap∣pearing al these thousand yeres, then the Churche of Rome (by which worde I cōprehende al nations agreing with the faith of that Churche) that only was the true Churche of Christe, and is to this daie, and according vnto Christes promise, shal endure to the ende of the worlde. For as we shal not haue any other Christ, so nei∣ther shal we haue any other Faith, nor any other Church.

Iewel. pag. 36.

That the Princes, and Free Cities of Germanie euer persecuted vs, it is vtterly vntrue, and like the rest of your tales. None of them al, no not one vvould euer suffer the same Doctrine of ours to be condemned.

Harding. That the Sacramentaries haue ben persecuted by the Princes of Germanie, and by their Do∣ctours, and by the free Cities,

This is so grosse, and so palpable a lye, that no man b•••• you M. Iewel would euer, I thinke, haue had the harte to affirme it so constantly, and that in printe. First Caro∣lostadius the first professour in Saxonie of your Sacramen∣tarie heresie, was bannished out of al Saxonie by the pro∣curement of Luther in the yere. 1525. as witnesseth your owne frende Iohn Sleidan.

Againe the yonger Princes of Saxonie, and the Coun∣teis of Mansfeld in the yere 1559. published eche of them a Write, wherein they recken vp, and condemne, the one nine, the other eleuen Sectes, of the whiche your Secte of the Sacramentaries by name is one. This is yet extant to be seene in print, and can not be denied. Lauatherus a Sacramentarie him selfe reporteth it.

Thirdly in the yere. 1561. though in the meeting at Numburg, by the intreatie of certaine Princes the Zuin∣glians were not condemned generally in al Germanie, as the Princes of the Confession of Ausburg would openly and solemnely haue done: yet in the same yere afterward in a Diet holden at Luneburg, Albert of Hardenburg a great Zuinglian was openly condemned for an heretike. Last of al in the same yere. 1561. the Frenche Caluinistes were cōmaunded, and forced by the Magistrates of Frāk∣ford, either to practise no more their manner and order of religion there, or to departe the Citie. Yet you saie you were neuer persecuted either of the Prīces, or of the free Cities in Germanie. What shal I here speake of your bre∣thren at Andwerpe, whom the Martinistes (for so they cal the Lutherans) ioining with the Catholiques, and putting them selues in armes, draue awaie, and compel∣led to flee the Citie? If ye beleeue not me, beleeue

their flight, beleeue your felow minister Hermannus the Predicant (that of late was in Norwiche, and now as I heare saie, is driuen from thence I know not whither) what fauour he and his felowes founde at the handes of the Martinistes.

Iewel. Pag. 37.

In deede certaine tovvnes (of Germanie) subiecte to Bishoppes, in out∣vvarde vsages of their Churches remaine stil, as they vvere before. Yet ne∣uerthelesse vvhere the Churches are popish, the people of al sortes are Protestantes.

Harding.

This is a sensible lie, and a mere sclaunder. The people of al sortes in Germanie, where the Churches remaine Catholique, do in suche numbers resorte vnto the ser∣uice, haunt the Sermons, and frequent the Sacra∣mentes (as al that haue benne at Wormes, at Spires, at Augusta, at Ingolstadt, at Vratislauia, and suche other Cities, can beare witnesse) that a man to saie, as you saie, must nedes proue him selfe gilty, either of purposed lying, as speaking against a knowen truthe: or of a mali∣cious iudgement, as to iudge of mennes hartes contrary to their whole outwarde life, and behauiour. For by this you condemne of detestable Hypocrisie, and dissimu∣lation, not only the people of al sortes in the forenamed Cities, and diuers suche others, where Catholiques liue mingled with Protestantes: but also you con∣demne the whole Countries of Austria, of Bauaria, the great Dioces of Saltzburg, of Passaw, Mentz, Treueres, Coulen, and other Territories, where the whole face and shewe of Religion, is onely Cathho∣like. It is a smal token of grace, yea of ciuill

honestie, for the setting forth of your conceiued opinio•• so farre and so notoriously to sclaunder whole Natio•• and Countries.

Iewel. Pag. 37. Linea vlt.

As for the VVest Spanish Indies, the people there liued not only vvith∣out al manner knovvledge of God, but also vvilde, and naked, vvithout any Ciuile gouernment. Being in this miserable state, and naturally by the very sense, and iudgement of Common reason abhorring, and lothing their ovvne blindnesse, vvhat merueil is it, if they vvere easy to be lead into any religion?

Harding. M. Iewel attributeth the glorious conuersion of the Indians not to the power of the Gospel, but to the leading of natural reason.

What M. Iewel, doo you enuie at the glorie of God? Doth it greue you, to see great Countries conuerted to the faith of Christe by them that be not of your Faith? And wil ye needes, to deface the power of the Gospel, attribute the miraculous conuersion of that rude people vnto natural reason? Had your heathnish harte herein rather acknowledge a leading of nature, then the power of our Sauiour? What could Porphyrie, Iulian, or Cel∣sus saie more? S. Thomas the Apostle conuerted a great parte of the Indies, as both auncient Stories doo re∣porte, and certaine euident monumentes founde in those Countries by the Iesuites, and other religious menne, doo witnesse. Now might not an other Iewish Iewel abase and bring in contempte, al the Apostolique trauailes of that blessed Apostle in conuerting those

rude, and barbarous Nations, as wel, and as rightly, as this our Iewel abuseth and b••ingeth in contempte the A∣postolike trauailes of these blessed Iesuites?

It is noted of Nicephorus for a singular effecte, and commendation of the Gospel of Christe, that where it was first planted, it brought the sauage, rude, and cruel people, to a ciuilitie, humanitie, and sobrietie of life. And the ruder, and farther from al humanitie the people was, the more was Christe glorified in their Conuersion.

In like manner Theodorite noteth, that whereas at He∣liopolis in Egypte, at Laodicea in Syria, at Carthage in A∣frike, and in Greece it selfe, the Gentiles offred vp menne in sacrifice to Idolles, and liued otherwise most abhomi∣nably, and barbarously: yet through the Gospel (saith he) these horrible vices were vtterly abandoned: and addeth, Sacrae verò Euangeliorum leges nationes melius, ciuitatésque moderantur: The holy lawes of the Gospel are they, wher∣by nations, and Cities are best ruled. Al which he telleth, and reporteth for the commendation, and honour of the Christian faith, as being suche a heauenly Religion, that hath brought most barbarous, and sauage Nations to a more ciuile order of life, to modestie, moderation, and hu∣manitie. Contrariwise M. Iewel, to withdrawe the due praise from those holy religious personnes, by whose tra∣uaile God hath so wonderfully wrought, draweth also the glorie from Christe, and geueth that to natural reason, which other Christian writers doo attribute most rightly to the power of the Gospel. What is malice, if this be not? So the blasphemous Pharisies maligning the miraculous operations of our Sauiour here on earth, said, in the power of Beelzebub he casteth out Deuilles. So the Infidelles cal∣led

S. Peter Maleficum, a sorcerer, and an enchaunter, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 one that by Witchecrafte had brought men to Christs. So commonly they ascribed Miracles done by Martyrs, to Witchecrafte, and Sorcerie.

Iewel. Pag. 41.

If Pope Pius vvere so good a man, and so fitte and vvorthy a pa∣stor for the Churche of God, vvhy then did his Cardinalles of late lab•••••• so earnestly by treason, and Conspiracie to depose him, being, as you saie, so good a man? Or if it vvere not so, vvhy then did he him selfe complaine thereof so bitterly in an Oration pronounced openly in Rome in the Con∣sistorie?

Harding. M. Iewel proppeth vp his weake cause with a forged write.

Nay why doo you M. Iewel, to sclaunder the blessed memorie of so vertuous a man, geue credite to suche a pelting Pamphlet, as you alleage vs in the margent, for authorizing this infamous and most false reproche?

Where was that Oration printed, and who wrote it? by whom was it set forth? It beareth a date of the yere, but neither of place where, nor of Authour by whom it was set forth. If you sought for the truthe sincerely and vprightly, as you wil seeme to the vnlearned to doo, and not rather to deface the Churche of Rome by what meanes soeuer: you would neuer vtter a matter so hai∣nous, vpon the reporte onely of such an vnlawful, and sclaunderous write, published by suche Makebates, and seditious Protestantes, whiche for want of true and iust matter, being greued at the very harte, that any Pope should be vertuous, do forge in corners, and inuent such

infamous libelles. This is the practise of your good bre∣thren, signifying thereby, of what sprite they are. If any truth had ben in the matter, at the lest the printer should not haue ben a fearde to put vnto it his name, and dwel∣ling place. But so it is, he that loueth to doo euil, fleeth light. And contrariwise, Truthe seeketh not corners: but as Tertullian saith, Nihil veretur, nisi abscondi. It feareth no∣thing, but lest shee be hid.

Iewel. Pag. 41.

Your Fathers in the Councel of Basil, and your frendes in the last Councel of Trident, I vvil not saie had disputations, but certainely yel∣ded, and gaue place vnto the Bohemians, and vnto suche others, as you cal heretiques.

Harding. The Councel of Basile, and that of Trent neuer yeelded to He∣retiques.

This lie is so cleare and euident, that our Confuta∣tion is nedelesse. Your owne very wordes doo conuince you herein, where you saie hereafter, that the Councel of Trident hath yeelded in no manner thing in the worlde.

Againe in the nexte leafe, Pag. 43. you would faine proue vnto vs out of Iohn Sleidan, Mathias Flacius Illy∣ricus, one Iohn Fabritius Montanus (a forged name) and Petrus Paulus Vergerius, al professed Protestantes, as your selfe are (and therefore likely I trowe to reporte vp∣rightly, and without al partialitie) that in the Coun∣cel of Tridente no Audience coulde be geuen at al

to any of your Secte, exc••p••e it were to recante their he∣resies. If this were true (as it is most false, and so pla••••ely proued by the Safeconductes of that Councel published in printe) then how likely I praie you is it, that they should yeelde vnto them, to whom they woulde not geue so much as the hearing?

Last of al, the very vtterance of this matter, breatheth out an vntruth. For neither is it tolde, wherein those Coū∣cels should yeelde, neither where that yeelding should be found. No Action, no Session, no Canō is noted, when, where, and how this great matter should come to passe. Verely a matter so great, that in case it were true, al these great controuersies should soone be at a pointe, specially you now being worthily taken for a man of smal credite, would haue ben clearely and euidently set forth. For if either two such Councels should yeeld to your Doctrine (which we are sure hath not, ne could not be done) or you should yeeld to them: we would neuer chaunge worde with you more aboute your Doctrine, neither would we euer be so madde, as to cal those menne Heretiques (as it pleaseth you to saie we doo) to whom those two Coun∣cels, yea or any one general Councel should thinke good to yeelde. We submitte our selues to General Councels humbly, as it becometh vs. You, bicause through hereti∣cal pride you wil not yeelde to the General Councelles, thinke good to make menne beleue, that the General Councels haue yeelded to you. Pride, and humilitie ma∣keth a cleare difference betwen the citie of God, and the citie of the Deuil.

Iewel. Pag. 43.

VVhere you saie, that Bishoppes onely haue Sentence definitiue in the

Councel, ye seeme vvillingly and vvithout cause to reporte vntruthe. For Pius Secundus * being him selfe a Pope, vvould haue tolde you the con∣trarie. These be his vvordes. Apparet alios quam Episcopos, in Concilijs ha∣buisse vocem decidentem. * It is plaine, that certaine others beside Bi∣shoppes had voice definitiue in the Councelles, Likevvise Iohn Gerson. Etiam ad laicos hoc potest extendi, & plus aliquando, quàm ad multos Clericorum. This (priuiledge of geuing sentence in Councel) maie be extended euen vnto the laie sorte, yea and that oftentimes better then vnto many priestes.

Harding. That in Councelles Bishoppes onely haue sentence definitiue, the obiections of Pius 2. and Gerson answered.

Neither willingly, nor without cause, nor vntruth. Not willingly: For I came to speake of this point, by occasion of your Apologie complaning that you had no audience in the General Councel at Trente. Not without cause: For that being true (as I shal anone proue it to be true) that on••ly Bishoppes haue Sentence definitiue in the Councel, ye being no Bishoppes at al, for geuing Sentēce definitiue, there is no place for you: which greueth you ful sore. For faine would ye once sitte in General Coūcel, as the Masters, and Superintendentes of al Christendome. Not Vntruthe: For it is euident by the auncient practise of the primitiue Churche, that in al Councelles, only Bi∣shoppes haue subscribed definitiuely. The tenour of al General Councelles yet extant, is a cleare witnesse hereof to al that can, or wil peruse them. And though a Nega∣tiue be harde to proue, yet this Negatiue, that none but Bishoppes should subscribe in Councelles, is plainely pro∣ued

in the Auncient great General Councel of Ch••••••¦don. Where it is openly ••••ouch••d, first of the Bishop•••• them selues, thus •• Synodus Episcoporum est, non Cleri•••••• A Synode, or Councel is of Bishoppes, not of the (in••••¦riour) Clergie; or of Priestes, as alwaies you turne the worde. Then of one Martinus Presbyter, a Priest, thus, Non est meum subscribere, Episcoporū tantùm est. It is not my part to subscribe, It belongeth only to Bishoppes.

But M. Iewel wil proue the contrarie, and that others beside Bishoppes had sentence definitiue. But by whom? Forsoth by Aeneas Syluius, and Iohn Gerson, both very late writers, and not yet of two hundred yeres auncientie. Such newe litle worth stuffe, he, that requireth vs to proue al thinges by the writers of the first. 600. yeres, bringeth against the Auncient practise of the primitiue Churche. And yet he belieth his Authours most sham••∣lesly. For first, he saith, that Pius Secundus being him selfe a Pope, telleth vs the contrarie: whiche is vtterly false, For when he wrote that booke, he was Aeneas Syluius Piccolomineus, not Pius Secundus. He was then •• priuate man, not a Pope. And being Pope, he recanted that h•• had done in the pretensed Councel of Basile, and that he had written thereof, and certaine other errours, which before he had published, and written to the dero∣gation of the See Apostolike, and of the Clergie. Neither was this tolde by Aeneas Syluius, as a thing of his owne iudgement, and of his owne vtterance, but as a thing in that Synode said by Cardinalis Arelatensis, whose priuat•• opinion that was, and the same vttered he with that li∣bertie, which is graunted to al menne admitted to Coun∣cels, in whiche they are permitted freely to speake what

they thinke. And therefore in debating of d••ubteful mat∣ters, they speake thinges contrarie one against an other. And this saying of the Cardinal of Arles was in that Coū∣cel controlled and gainesaid by other menne of great ler∣ning and iudgement, as by Panormitanus, Ludouicus, and others there mentioned. So that it is no better auctoritie, then a thing that is spoken in heate of disputation against the truth for the better discussion of the truth.

In alleging then your Doctor, you haue committed fiue vntruthes. First, he neuer wrote any suche booke, as you name, to witte, De Gestis Concilij Constātiensis: but de Gestis Concilij Basiliensis. Secondly, when he wrote it, he was not Pius Secundus Pope, as you saie he was, but Aene∣as Syluius Piccolomineus, a priuate man. Thirdly, it is not the saying of Aeneas him selfe, but of the Cardinal of Arles. Fourthly, you haue added of your owne to his sentence these wordes, in Concilijs, which are not in your Author. Neither spake he that of other Councelles, then of the Apostles Councel mēcioned in the Actes. Fifthly, you cor∣rupte your Doctor by false translation. For Apparet doth not alwaies signifie, it is plaine, as you haue translated it, but it seemeth, or appeareth. And many thinges appeare, that be not plaine, nor true, as this it selfe is one. Of a thing that is plaine, to saie, it appeareth, were preiudicial to the truth. Whether these vntrue partes haue proceded of Rhe¦torical policie, called otherwise lying for aduantage, to make the most of your Author you could, or of mere igno∣rance, for that you neuer saw the place your selfe, but tru∣sted other mennes vntrue eies therein, or els of a certaine dispositiō proper to your humour that nothing can passe your fingers without some false sleight or other: I leaue it to be considered of others.

Ge••son impudently be lyed, and falsified by M. Iewel.

As for Iohn Gerson, you deale as falsly with him, as with Aeneas Syluius, and to speake plainely, though as you would haue it s••me, vncourteously, you vtterly belie him. In the place by you allege, Gerson speaking of verities, that are so of necessitie to be beleeued, that otherwise a man can not be saued, sheweth, that one man is bounde vnder paine of heresie to holde some pointes with cer∣taine and expresse faith, and thereof in no wise to doubt, whereof an other man for a time without blame maie be in doubte. This doth he there declare by a threefolde example. As, a diuine (saith he) or a professour of diuinitie exercised in the holy scriptures, is bound expressely to holde, and not to doubte at al of many thinges, of which a simple, and an vnlearned man being required might with reason stand in doubt, so it be without pertinacie: as that (for these be his examples) Thobie had a dog, or, that Aaron had a bearde: or that the Arke of the Testa∣ment had a couering of Goates heare. Further there he procedeth, and sheweth the same by the example of a Ca∣noniste exercised in the determinations of holy Churche, and an other man hauing thereof no skil nor knowledge, likewise of a man skilled in Logique, Philosophie, and other humaine science, and an other man vtterly igno∣rant and vnlearned.

To come vnto the wordes, which you haue fowly fal∣sified, thus he concludeth. Denique sequitur ex his omni∣bus, quòd iudicium, & conclusiones fidei, licet auctoritatinè spect••nt ad Praelatos, & Doctores: spectare tamen potest

ad alios quàm Theologos deliberatio, sicut & cognitio super ijs quae fidem respiciunt, ita etiam vt ad laicos hoc posset exten∣di, & plus aliquando, quàm ad multos clericorum. Finally of al these foresaid thinges it foloweth, that although the Iudgement, and Conclusions of faithe belong vnto the Prelates, and Doctours by waie of auctoritie, yet delibe∣ration (or consultation) maie belong vnto others beside the Diuines, as also examination and trial of those thinges that concerne the faith, yea and that so, as this thing might be extended vnto laie menne, and more vnto them sometimes, then to many of the Clerkes.

Now Reader if thou marke wel, and consider, thou maist see, how M. Iewel deceiueth thee. Gerson in this place speaketh not at al of the auctoritie of geuing sen∣tence Definitiue in general Councels, whereof our con∣trouersie is. Beholde therefore with what conscience this man handleth these matters. First he falsifieth Ger∣son, making him to speake expressely of Sentence Defi∣nitiue to be geuen in a Councel. This priuilege of geuing Sentence in Councel, saith he, &c. Then he vttereth Ger∣sons wordes otherwise then Gerson doth.

Againe Gerson there speaketh of three thinges: Of Iudgement to be geuen, and Conclusions to be made of the Faith by waie of Auctoritie in general: Of Delibera∣tion and Cognition, touching matters perteining to the Faith. The first, he saith, belongeth vnto the Prelates, and Doctours, or Professours of Diuinitie only: the seconde, and the thirde, not onely vnto the Diuines, but also vnto others, and (saith he) sometime, that is, in some cases, it may be extended vnto laie personnes. And this we holde wel withal. For euen at this present we wish, that the discrete

and wise men of the Laitie would better deliberate of pointes of the Catholique faith, then hitherto some haue done, and that they would examine, and trie your allega∣tions, and ours together by conference of the Bookes, whence they be taken out, that they maie be hable to iudge, whether parte vseth more truth, and vpright dea∣ling. If they would thus doo (as perhappes some few of a great number doo) they should soone see iust cause to condemne you, and vtterly to geue you ouer.

Iewel. Pag. 48.

Verely M. Harding, vve neuer said Luther and Zuinglius vvere the first publisshers of the Gospel.

Harding. Proued by their owne wordes, that Luther was the first publissher of the Gospel.

A great Vntruthe. In this your Defence, touching Lu∣ther you saie no lesse Pag. 17. thus: Doctor Luther beganne to publishe the Gospel of Christe. If he that beginneth to pu∣blish, be the first publisher, then you said that Luther was the first publisher. If there be any difference betwen these two termes, then haue you wel defended your selfe. If there be none (as al that vnderstand English, maie easily see there is none) then you haue proued your selfe giltie of a great vntruthe.

But I must rather put you in remembrance of your owne wordes vttered in the Apologie. Who called the first sedicious, and heretical preaching of Martin Luther, and Hulderike Zuinglius, Herbam Euangelij, the first spring of the Gospel, or the very first appearing of the Gospel, as your

Ladie Interpreter termeth it? Againe, who saith, that forty yeres agone, and vpwarde (that is at the first setting forth of Luther and Zuinglius) the truth was vnknowē, and vnhard of, and that they first came to the knowledge, and preaching of the Gospel? Be not these the wordes of your owne Apologie? Be they not set forth in diuers bokes of diuers printes? And wil ye now tel the worlde, and beare vs also in hand, who be wel acquainted with your false dea∣linges, that ye neuer said so? What can any man vnder∣stande by the first spring, or first appearing of the Gospel, but the beginning of the Gospel? If the Gospel beganne with Luther and Zuinglius, how was it before? If before their time the Gospel was vnknowen, and vnhearde of (for so the Apologie saith) then where was there any truth at al? If it were not knowen, nor hearde of at al, where was it in al the earth? Or imagine ye that it maie lie hid in some secrete place, without, and beside the harte, minde, and spirite of man? And if (as you saie) Luther and Zuinglius came first to the preaching of the Gospel, how were they not the first preachers of the Gospel? If they were the first preachers, how were they not also the first publishers of the Gospel? Thus you saie, and vnsaie. Yea, and Nay is one with you. And a Gods name al must be defended, be it yea, be it nay, be it true, be it false. But thus it is cleare, that your worde is not the Gospel. And God be praised, that we haue driuen you to eate your owne worde.

Iewel. Pag. 48.

Of Abailard, and Almarike, and certaine other your strange names (he meaneth Apostoliques, Peterbrusians, VValdenses, Albigenses, and I∣magebreakers) vve haue no skil. They are none of ours.

Harding. That these Heretiques be of M. Iewelles side.

I am glad M. Iewel, to heare you so absolutely to re∣noūce these wicked heretiques, at lest in wordes. Would God ye would as freely forsake their Heresies in your doinges. First as touching Petrus Abailardus, he denied the free wil of man. Doo not your great Maisters Wiclef, Luther, Zuinglius, Peter Martyr, and Caluine the same? If these be yours, how is not Abailard also yours.

Almarik the Frenchman taught of Images, of Aul∣ters, of Inuocation of Saintes, and of Transubstantiation, as you doo, condemning the Church of Idololatrie in al these pointes, as you doo. Of this Almarik then haue you no skil? Is he not thus farre yours? What, are you be∣come an other man, then menne take you to be? The A∣postolikes denied Purgatorie, as you doo. The Waldenses in many pointes agree iumpe with you, or rather you with them. They renounced the Popes Primacie, they condemned Purgatorie, they called Images, by the name of Idolles, they contemned holy Water, and such other good and holesome ceremonies, they reproued the Re∣ligion of the Begging friers, with such like, al as ye doo: I marueile therefore why they are none of yours.

Verely Aeneas Syluius saith, that Iohn Huss (whom in the nexte line you allowe for yours) imbraced the wicked secte of the Waldenses. And why then are not the one yours, as wel as the other? As for Imagebreakers, if they be not yours, whose are they? They were no Papistes (your selfe wil confesse I trowe) that haue ouerthrowen Images in England, and in Scotland, in

Fraunce, and now of late here in sundry places of the low Countrie. They be yours, they be yours M. Iewel, and such others a great many moe: with whom in a rueful procession ye are like to ioine, singing Vae with them, if ye repent not, and sing an other song.

Iewel. Pag. 48.

Of Iohn Huss, Hierome of Prage, and Berengarius, and other like ver∣tuous learned menne, vve haue no cause to be ashamed.

Harding.

The more verely is your shame, if any sparke of shame be leafte in you. Albeit no great wonder. For it must needes be true, that the wise man saith: Impius cū in pro∣fundum venerit, contemnit. When the wicked man is come vnto the bottom (of wickednes) then he passeth of nothing. Neither the Whoare at length taketh shame of any her filthinesse what soeuer. And therefore it is said of such pastshame wretches, Frons mulieris meretricis facta est ti∣bi. Thou hast gotten thee a whoares forehead.

Though I haue smal hope of any good to be done with you, yet for the sake of others, thus I maie saie vn∣to you. You denied a litle before the Waldenses to be yours. But the Hussites followed altogether the Wal∣denses, as witnesseth Aeneas Syluius: Therefore the Hussites also ought to be none of yours. Yet you are not (you saie) ashamed of Iohn Hus. I marueile now the lesse, yf you be not ashamed of your so many, so notorious, and shamelesse Vntruthes, vttered before in your Replie, and confuted by diuers, but now re∣peted

and renewed againe, the Confutation thereof vt∣terly dissembled.

But if you meane good faith, and that you are not in deede ashamed of Iohn Hus, neither of Hierome of Prage, then tel vs I praie you, how like you these heresies of theirs? First, of Iohn Hus, who with the olde Donatistes affirmed, that in the Churche are onely good men? Are you not ashamed of that heresie so clearely, and so fully confuted by S Augustine? Againe, of that other, to pou∣nish one that is excommunicate with the secular sworde, is a pharisaical tyrannie.

Allowe you also that dissolute Heresie? And if you be not ashamed to professe this Doctrine, why are ye not then ashamed to doo that, whiche is repugnant to the Doctrine ye professe? For how saie you? Doo ye not excommunicate such as wil not condescende vnto your pestiferous opinions, and refuse to come to your he∣retical Seruice? And then further, if they stand constant∣ly in the mainetenance of the truth, as it becommeth menne that haue the feare of God before their eyes, not yeelding to your great, but vaine threates: doo ye not cause their persons to be apprehended by the secular of∣ficer, and to be cast in prison, and then in your wicked, and bloudy preachinges crye ye not out vnto the prince to drawe her sworde? Are ye not (I saie) ashamed thus to fight with your selues, teaching one thing, and doing the cleane contrarie?

Thirdely, haue ye no shame of that other heresie, that who soeuer is in deadly sinne, is neither kinge, nor ciuile Ma∣gistrate, nor Bishop? How like you of this brutish here∣sie? Haue you no cause to be ashamed of Iohn Hus? I

let passe other his infamous heresies.

But if you be not ashamed of any of his heresies, how saie you to that he said Masse, as it is proued before, and that but a fewe daies before he was burnt? Be ye neither ashamed of that? What is that ye wilbe ashamed of in an heretique then, being neither ashamed of his heresies, nor of that he iudgeth wel of the Masse?

But now touching Hierome of Prage, haue you no cause M. Iewel to be ashamed of him? Verely it appea∣reth by the Councel of Constance, he helde and profes∣sed al and singular the heresies of Wiclef, and Iohn Hus. He recanted once openly, and abiured them al, as Cran∣mar did in Oxforde, but after reuolting againe to his for∣mer vomite, he was burned for an Heretique, as Cranmar was. If you thinke it no shame to be an heretique as Hie∣rome was, yet I trowe ye thinke it a shame to recante, as he did. How be it I maie doubte thereof, for your selfe haue trodden that trace, and perhappes maie once more be brought to tread it againe, and like it is, that you wil not be ashamed of it, and to reuolte, once backe againe: so litle shame is in you. Go your waie then M. Iewel, It booteth not vs to goe aboute to make you blush. For I perceiue, there is nothing, whereof lightly you wilbe ashamed: such a shamelesse grace you haue.

As for Berengarius, of whome likewise you saie, you haue no cause to be ashamed; I marueile the lesse, considering the natural propertie of heretikes, which is to increase their errours daily, and to procede from il to worse. Luther the first brocher of your religion was asha∣med of Berengarius, and would neuer condescende to

Carolostadius, though fiue yeres continually he trauailed with him to bring him to be of Berengarius opinion. Fla∣cius Illyricus with his felowes of Magdeburg, al the Pro∣testantes of Wittenberg, of Lipsia, of the vpper Saxo∣nies, Nicolaus Gallus, George Maior, Westphalus, Brentius, and diuers others, whom your selfe accompte for Gos∣pellers, for the true, godly, and right beleeuers, are al to this daie ashamed of Berengarius, and be at defiance with you, and them of his opinion, and doo in their wri∣tinges, and preachinges plainely condemne your Sacra∣mentarie Heresie, of whiche Berengarius was the first publisher.

Luther condemneth the heresie of Berengarius re∣uiued by Zuinglius in these wordes. I must needes eschew, and auoide them, as men condemned by their owne iudge∣ment. Neither maie I ioine with them in any meanes, by letters, nor by writinges, nor by worde, nor by deede, as the Lord hath commaunded, whether he be Zuenckfeldius, or Zuinglius, or what soeuer he be called. And in an other place he condemneth by name Zuinglius, Carolostadius, and Oecolampadius, with al their diuers, and dissonant sa∣cramentarie heresies.

Nicolaus Amsdorffius a famous Superindent in Ger∣manie saith thus plainely. Thirdely we condemne the Sacramentaries, Zuinglius, and his felowes.

The publike write of the princes of Mansfeld, and of the yonger princes of Saxonie, doth recken vp in the rolle of condemned Heretiques, the Sacramentaries by name.

Ioachimus Westphalus saith: No false doctrine is so farre spred, none with such labour, and hypocrisie is defen∣ded,

••o••e hath more beguiled the worlde, then this false doctrine of the blessed Sacrament meaning Caluines owne doctrine learned first of Berengarius, of whom you haue no cause, you saie, to be ashamed.

If Heretiques of your own schoole can not make you ashamed of Berengarius, and his doctrine, what say you to the great General Councel holden at S. Iohn Laterane in Rome vnder Innocentius the third, thereof called Conci∣lium Lateranense? That Councel was an vniuersal assem∣blie out of al partes of Christendom, as wel out of the Greeke Church, as out of the Latine. The Patriarkes of Constantinople, and Hierusalem, were there present.

Archebishoppes were there threescore and ten, Bishop∣pes foure hundred and twelue, Abbates, and Priores more then eight hundred. There were at that Councel the Ambassadours of both Emperours, both of the West Churche, and of the East, also of the kinges of Hieru∣salem, of Fraunce, of Spaine, of England, and of Cy∣prus. In this Councel, so general and vniuersal, the He∣resie of Berengarius was condemned, and the doctrine of Transubstantiation by occasion of his heresie exactly and fully discussed, was by general consent of al plainely and clearely confirmed. If the Sentence, Consent, and Accorde of the whole vniuersal Church can moue you M. Iewel, then haue you good cause to be ashamed of Be¦rengarius, whose heresie, was in so ful, ample and Ge∣neral a Councel condemned, as none in this worlde was euer greater.

If al this moue you not, yet let Berengarius him selfe, whom you esteme so muche, moue you to be ashamed of his doctrine, of the whiche he him selfe was so muche

ashamed at length, and not onely in iudgement openl•• recanted, but also 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the houre of his Death ful bitterl•• and hartily repented him selfe thereof, as by sides other•• Guilelmus Malmesburiensis recordeth, saying thus.

Ipse Berengarius die Epiphaniorum moriens, g••••i•••••• producto, recordatus quot miseros quondam adolescen••, primo err••ris ••al••t•• secta infecerit: bodie (inquit) in die Ap∣paritionis suae apparabit mihi Dominus meus Iesus Christus, vel propter poenitentiam, vt spero ad gloriam, vel propter alios, vt time••, ad poenam. Nos sanè credimus; post benedi∣ctionem Ecclesiasticam, illa Mysteria esse verum corpus, & sanguinem saluatoris, adducti & veteris Ecclesiae authoritate, & maltis no••iter ostensis miraculis.

Bereng••rius himselfe, as he laie dying, vpon the Epi∣phanie daie (whiche we cal Twelfth daie) and with hea∣uy be wailing called vnto remembrance, how many mise∣rable personnes he had infected with his heresie in youth at the firste heat•• of the Sacramentarie Errour, spake these wordes: This daie my Lorde Iesus Christe, being the daie of his appearance, shal appeare vnto me, either to glorie, as I truste, bicause it repenteth me of my he∣resie, or to pounishment, as I feare me, for the sake of others (whom I haue seduced). What so euer it shal please God to doe with me, Truely I beleeue, that after Consecration vsed in the Churche, those Mysteries are the true Bodie, and Bloude of our Sauiour, being persua∣ded both by the authoritie of the auncient Churche, and by many Miracles shewed of late yeres. Thus ye maie see, how so euer ye be not ashamed of Berengarius, that yet Berengarius is ashamed of you.

Iewel. Pag. 48.

But as for your doctrine, bicause it is only of your selues, therefore it falleth daily, and is novv forsaken the vvorlde through.

Harding. Our doctrine is the doctrine of the Fathers; not of our selues, neither is the same forsaken.

The Catholique doctrine, whiche you cal oures, hath ben by your owne Confession welneare a thowsand ye∣res olde. I cal your Confession, your solemne prescri∣ption of the first .600. yeres. For prescribing the one, ye renounce the other. It can not therefore seeme to be of vs, that liue now, whiche by your owne Confession hath ben so auncient. Howbeit it is euident, the first 600. yeres stande as fully for vs, as doo the later. There∣fore Iohn Caluine accuseth the first. 600. yeres of Iu∣daisme, and of Iewish superstition, namely in the matter of the blessed Sacrifice. Therefore Iacobus Acontius one of your owne side, in his booke dedicated to the Quenes Maiestie plainely misliketh, and reproueth such, as offer to be tried by the auncient Fathers, calling it perniciosissi∣mam, omnino{que} fugiendam consuetudinem, a most pernicious custome, and altogether to be auoided.

Therefore M. Nowel (as this Acontius) calleth it a large scope, to trie matters by the Fathers. And he that hath vttered so muche blasphemie against the Crosse of Christe, for his parte also protesteth plainely, that he wil not be tried by the Fathers. And why al this

M. Iewel? Mary th••y know ••ight wel, that by the Fa∣thers you are condemned, and that our doctrine by them is clearely established. W•• therefore haue learned of our Auncestours al that we teache. We haue inuented no∣thing of our selues. Your beginning is knowen, and is yet in mannes memorie. When Papistrie (as you cal it) beganne, you can neuer 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for your life, otherwise then with the beginning of Christes gospel. Shewe once M. Iewel, when, in what age, in what place, Coun∣trie, Citie, or Churche, of whom, vnder what Pope, Emperour, or Prince, Papistrie beganne: and then saie hardely it is our Doctrine, and only of our selues.

Except you shewe this, your lie wil seme palpable. If ye haue ought to shew, for the worship of your cause, bring it forth, be it but one sentence, or one halfe sen∣tence.

In like manner, a sensible, and a palpable lie it is, that you adde, that our doctrine is forsaken the worlde through. No M. Iewel, not so. Gods holy name be blessed, it is not yet forsaken al England through. We knowe it right wel, we praise God for it, and reioise therein. You know it also, and it greeueth you at the harteful deepe∣ly, and specially that diuers haue returned from your lying Religion to the truthe of the Catholique Faithe, euen in these last yeres, when ye semed to haue most prospered in the sight of the worlde. Suche is the nature of truth, the more it is pressed downe, the more it riseth vp, and sheweth it selfe.

Had our doctrine ben forsaken the world through, your Gues I trowe in these lowe Countries, and your Huguenotes in Fraunce had prospered better.

But what wil not you sticke to auouch, which so bolde∣ly, yea so impudently doo auouche such a knowen Vn∣truthe? Vntruthe? Nay so sensible, and so palpable a Lie. The Catholique doctrine, not only contineweth in Italie, Fraūce, Spaine, Portugal, and Germanie, in whole Countries, and Territories, but euen where your bre∣th••••n are thickest, there lacke not Catholiques right ma∣ny, and perfitte among them. Yea the Catholique do∣ctrine is preached, and published among heathens, and Infidelles to the great glorie of God, and to the great de∣spite of the deuill, and his ministers, as it wel appeareth by your selfe M. Iewel, and by your wordes whiche be∣fore I haue touched.

If our doctrine be forsaken the worlde through, where are we M. Iewel, against whom you write so busily? Are we out of the worlde? Where was the late general Councel, with so many Bishoppes, learned Doctours, and Princes Ambassadours there present, al condemning your hainous heresies? Were they al out of the world, or haue they al now changed their minde, and yelded vnto you? Maximilian the noble Emperour, King Philip of Spaine with al his so sundry, and so large Dominions, besides the kingdome of Naples, and Sicilia, the Duke∣domes of Millan, Burgundie, Brabant, Holland, Zeland, Friseland, Gelderland, the Counties of Tyrol, Flaunders, Henault, and Artois, Charles king of Fraunce, the kinges of Portugal, and of Polonia, The states and Princes of Italie, with also many Dukedomes, Free Citties, States of Christendome besides, al yet remaining Catholique, are they al out of the worlde? I can not tel, whether I may cal this lye, more impudent, or more foolish.

Iewel. Pag. 50.

Neither there any sufficient cause to the contrarie, but that Ber••••¦garius, Iohn VViclef, Iohn Hus, D. Luther, Zuinglius, O••¦colampadius, and others, either for learning, or for truth, or for i••••••••∣ment in the Scriptures or for Antiquitie, may vvel and safely b•• co••pa¦red vvith Lanfrancus, Guimundus, Abbas Cluniacensis, Tho•••••• VValdensis, Iohn Fisher, and others.

Harding. What difference there is betwen these holy Fathers and those pestilent Heretiques.

No, no Sir, the oddes is exceding great. Berengarius, Wiclef, Hus, Luther, Zuinglius, and Oecolampadius, non co∣municabant oībus gentibus, & illis Ecclesiis Apostolico labore fundatis, did not cōmunicate with al nations, and those Churches, which were founded by the Apostles labour. Nay by the ful and intier cōsent of al nations Christened, assembled in general Councelles, they were al condem∣ned. Berengarius in the great general Councel of Late∣ran. Anno. 1205. Wiclef, and Hus in the general Councel of Constance, Anno. 1413. Luther, and the rest, among whom you may take your selfe for one, in the late Gene∣ral Councel of Trent. Contrariewise the other Fathers communicated with the whole corps of Christendome then liuing. They were Bisshoppes, and Doctours of that age, lineally succeding in the Catholique doctrine, euen from the Apostles, and the Apostolike menne.

Againe these said Fathers are accompted and placed in honorable roumes, as Lumina Ecclesiae, lightes of the

Churche in al Chronographies, yea made and written by the Protestantes them selues, namely by Henricus Pan∣taleon of Basil, and others of your secte. Berengarius, on the other side with al the rest, are noted in the Chronographies drawen out by Protestātes them selues in the rewe and line of condemned heretiques.

Thirdly what comparison is there betwen lewde lecherous Luther, and that holy Bisshop, and blessed Martyr of God Doctour Fisher late Bisshop of Roche∣ster? The very writinges of bothe extant, doo de∣clare the diuersitie of their spirites. Luther taketh his pleasure in Ribaudrie, belketh out filthinesse, brea∣theth rancour, raileth, and reuelleth against the hono∣rable states of the worlde beyonde al measure, euen against th••t Prince him selfe that afterwarde prepared the waie for your heresies to procede lustily, King He••••ie the eight. The writinges of D. Fisher are wel knowen to be modest, piththy, and learned, and at this present highly esteemed in al Christendome. So are the writinges of Lanfrancus, Guimundus, and Cluniacensis. Of the others we haue but names only leaft, except Luther with the two others, whose writinges yet no doubte if euer Goddes truth preuaile, wil also at length come to nought, and haue the like fortune, as the bookes of al other heretikes haue had.

Iewel. Pag. 50.

The Councelles ye meane, are very nevve, and therefore beare the lesse Authoritie, for that they be so many vvaies contrarie to the olde. Certainely there is none of your errours so grosse, and palpable, but by some of your late Councelles it hath benne confirmed.

Harding. The causes examined, for which M. Iewel allow∣eth not the Councelles of these last. 500. yeres.

Three causes then there are (if I vnderstand you wel) why you and your felowes so saucily doo condemne the General Councelles holden in Christendome within these last fiue hundred yeres, as the Councelles holden at Toures in Fraunce, at S. Iohn Lateran in Rome, that vnder Nicolaus 2. to the number of. 114. Bishoppes, this vnder Innocentius 3. whereunto Patriarkes, Archebis∣shoppes, Bishoppes, and Abbates out of al partes of Christendome resorted, to the number of a thousand two hundred fourescore and fiue Fathers, in al which the doctrine of Berengarius was condemned.

Also the other General Councel holden at S. Iohn La∣teran at an other time to the number of 300. Bishoppes, both of the East, and the West Churche, where the Waldenses your brethren were condemned, the Councel of Constance where the doctrine of Wiclef, and Hus was condemned, to the number of. 270. Bishoppes, last of al the General Councel of Trent, to the number of 198. Bishoppes, where sundry of your present heresies were after mature discussion with ful consent accursed, and condemned: Al these and diuers other Councelles for three causes you contemne, and despise. First, for that they are very newe: Secondly, for that they are contrary to the olde: Thirdly, bicause al our errours haue benne confirmed in them.

Your first cause implieth a great folie, I wil not saie

also a blasphemie. A great folie it is for you, and your felowes to contemne the General Councelles of late yeres, for that they be newe, as you say, your selues and your doctrine being yet so newe, and of so litle age. Verely no age, or time of Christes Churche to any Christen man ought to seeme newe in respecte of doctrine and faith. If he beleeue the holy Scrip∣tures describing the Church vnto vs, he can not with∣out folie in that respecte cal it newe. The time may be newe, or late, bicause it commeth, and passeth. The Faithe, and Doctrine remaineth one, and the same not changed with the course of times. Nowe as the Worde of God, and our Faithe dureth for euer, so Christes Churche being one and the same, as it hath in al ages continewed, so shal it continewe to the worldes ende. This before hath benne prooued, and by your selfe confessed. The Councelles therefore, I meane the doctrine of Faith, opened, discussed, and agreed vppon in Councelles by the Bisshoppes, whom the holy Ghost hath ordeined to rule the Churche, and by the Pastours and Doctours, whome God placeth to the edefying of the Churche, that we be not carried awaie by euerie winde of doctrine, is not newe. The dis∣cussion, and plaine opening of it may be newe. The do∣ctrine is olde, as truth it selfe is olde.

Your second cause, why these later Councelles doo beare with you the lesse Authoritie, is, for that, as you say, they be so many waies contrarie to the olde. It had benne good reason, that, if these later Councelles be so many waies contrarie to the olde, you had shewed presently at the lest one of those so many waies. Shal

it be sufficient for you, to geue out such a Reproche i•• a matter of so greate Importance without any prous•• at al? It had benne plaine dealing, at the lest, to haue named some one Councel, and to haue touched some one pointe, wherein that Councel should be founde contrarie to the olde. This therefore I lette passe for a Notorious, and a Reprocheful Vntruthe, boldely auou∣ched, but no waie proued.

Onely I aduertise the Reader, that it is not possible any general Councel shoulde be contrarie to an other, in matter of faith, and necessarie doctrine. As the Churche in Faith is but one, so the Faith discussed, de∣termined, and agreed vpon in Councelles (truely re∣presenting the whole body of the Churche) is but one. As the Churche can not be contrarie to it selfe in Faith, so general Councelles assembled in the holy Ghoste can not be contrarie to them selues. Marke wel good Sir what I saie, In doctrine and matter of Faith, no lawful General Councel, truely and rightly, that is, in vnitie and Charitie, assembled, hath, or can at any time deter∣mine contrarie to an other likequalified. For so the one should erre in Faith, whereby Christes promise should seeme to faile, who said: wheresoeuer two or three are as∣sembled together in my name, there am I in the middest of them. In my name, faith S. Cyprian, that is, in vnitie, and in the body.

That later Councelles haue determined some matters, not before in other Councelles determined, it is euident, and not denied. Heresies haue caused many matters to be more opened, then they were before, as S. Augustine no∣teth. But new articles of the faith be not decreed in Coū∣celles.

That also in matter of manners, and of external or∣der or gouernement, some Councelles haue done cōtra∣trarie to other according to the state of times, and diuer∣sitie of circumstances, it is not denied. Yea that it be so done, sometime the state, and present case of the Church of necessitie requireth it. For which S. Augustin saith no∣tably. Non ita{que} verum est quod dicitur, semel rectè factum nullatenus esse mutandū. Mutata quippe tēporis causa, quod re∣ctè antè factū suerat, ita mutari vera ratio plerū{que} flagitat, vt cū ipsi dicant rectè nō fieri si mutetur, contrà veritas clamet, rectè non fieri, nisi mutetur: quia vtrū{que} tunc erit rectū, si erit pro tēporū varietate diuersum. It is not therefore true which mē say, looke what thing is once wel done, it ought in no case to be changed. For the state of the time being altered, that thing, which was wel done before, good reason oftentimes re∣quireth so to be changed, that whereas they say, it is not wel done, if it be changed, the truth on the other side crieth out, It is not weldone, if it be not changed: bicause both shal then be right and wel, if it shalbe diuers, according to the varie∣tie of the time. But that in matter of faith or doctrine, as is a fore said any General Councel lawfully assembled was euer contrarie to the other, it is a mere vntruthe, and a false sclaunder, that can neuer be proued.

Where you say for a third cause, or reason, why these la∣ter Coūcels are of lesse autoritie, for that there is none of our errours so grosse, and palpable, but by some of them it hath ben cōfirmed, to that we answer: Quod das accip••m{us}. we admit gladly, that in these late Coūcels al such matters as we defend (which it pleaseth yau to terme grosse and palpable errours) haue ben confirmed. We are then dis∣charged, and the whole Church of late yeres is charged.

But Sir being confirmed by General Councelles, why cal you them Errours grosse, and Palpable? Saie you not also herein, that the whole Churche erred at that time grossely and palpably? Let vs take one Councel, and one Age for example, to auoide confusion of general discoursing, and to bring this matter to some cleare issue.

In the yere of our Lorde. 1215. aboue three hundred yeres past, in the General Councel holden at S. Iohn Laterane in Rome, with ful consent of a thousand, two hundred, fourescore and fiue Fathers assembled there, out of al partes of Christendome, as wel out of the East Church, as out of the West, the Ambassadours, and Ora∣tours, as wel of both Emperours being present, as also of diuers other Kinges, Princes, and States, it was by mature discussion found, and agreed vpon, and decreed so to be beleeued, that in the blessed Sacrament of the Aulter, due consecration being made, the substance of breade is chan∣ged into the substance of the body of Christ, and the sub∣stance of wine into the substāce of his bloode, the worde Transubstantiation (whereby much that belongeth to that mysterie is by a cōmodious breuitie expressed) was allowed, the opinion of Berengarius was condēned. This declaration, and determination you take to be a grosse and a palpable errour. For you are not ashamed you saie of Berengarius doctrine.

But Sir if this were a grosse, and a palpable Errour, how say you then, did al those Patriarkes, Archebis∣shoppes, Bishoppes, Abbates, Doctours, and learned Prie∣stes grossely and palpably erre? Did the Emperours both of the Grecians, and of the Latines, the Kinges

of Fraunce, Spaine, England, Hierusalem, Cyprus, whose Ambassadours and Oratours were there, representing the personnes of their Princes, and people to them subiecte, did al these also erre, with al their people, and subiectes grossely, and palpably? This question then I demaund of you M. Iewel. At these daies and in that age, where was the Churche of Christe? By you al erred, grossely, and palpably. Berengarius him selfe, whose doctrine was there condemned, had both recanted his Heresie, that you holde now, and was longe before that time dead and bu∣ried. There was not a man liuing at that daie, who was knowen in the vnitie of the Churche to maineteine that doctrine, whiche that Councel condemned, and whiche you now doo mainteine.

Only Almaricus is noted of the Chronographers to haue liued about the time of that Councel, and to haue holden the heresie of Berengarius. But M. Iewel hath plainely renounced this Almaricus. He said before, of Abailard, and Almarike, and certaine other, we haue no skil. They are none of ours. Then as I said, there was not so muche as one man knowen at that time, in the vnitie of the Churche, and allowed by your iudgement, to haue holden the opinion by that General Councel condem∣ned. This being so, either that Councel helde the vnitie of Christes Churche, or elles at that time Christe had no Churche at al. But Christes Churche endureth for euer, you haue your felfe before confessed it: therefore we must beleue, that the said Councel helde the vnitie of Christes Church, and the doctrine by the Fathers of the same approued, is the true and Catholique doctrine of the Churche, and your Sacramentarie opinion to the

contrarye at this daie, is a condemned heresie.

In like sorte by Induction we might discourse of the other General Councelles. But this one for example maie suffice, to proue, that the same pointes of doctrine, which you cal grosse and palpable Errours, fully discussed, and con¦firmed in Councelles, are no Errours at al, but Catholike verities and truthes, tried, and confirmed by the high∣est, and most infallible Authoritie, that is in earth. And we haue al good cause to reioise M. Iewel, that by the force of truthe ye are driuen so freely, and so plainely to graunt vnto vs the confirmation, and Approbation of Councelles, for al such pointes of doctrine, as we de∣fende against you, termed by you, modestly, I trowe, and without heate, or choler, Grosse and palpable Errours. He must needes be a great fauourer of your secte, that vpon the warrant of your mouth only, wil holde the general determinations of Councelles for grosse and palpable Errours. And very grosse must he be, that seeth not the proude Luciferly sprite breathing forth of you, in such a malapert and sawcy controllement of them, whom God ordeined in their time to gouerne his Church. No, no M. Iewel your mouth is no iuste measure, your penne is no right square, your verdite is very insufficient for a dew re∣solutiō thereof to be taken in matters of such importance.

Yet haue you forsooth an example for your so doing, and that of no lesse man, then S. Augustine him selfe. For thus you inferre to iustifie your former asseuerations.

Iewel. Ibidem.

Therefore vve maie iustly saie to you, as S. Augustine sometime said to Maximinus the Arian heretike. Neither maie I laie to thee the Councel of Nice, nor maiest thou laie to me the Councel of Ari∣minum,

either of vs thinking thereby to finde preiudice against the other. But let vs laie matter to matter, cause to cause, and reason to reason, by the Authoritie of the Scriptures.

Harding. How litle this place of S. Augustine serueth M. Iewels purpose, and how falsly by him it is alleged.

How your therefore foloweth M. Iewel, I see not, ex∣cepte you wil reason thus: The later Councelles haue confirmed grosse and palpable errours: Therefore you wil not, that we should laye them against you, no more then S. Augustine would laye the Nicene Coūcel against Maximinus the Arian. See you not howe vntowardly, this your therefore foloweth? For admit that we graun∣ted you that the late Councelles were erroneous (which we wil not, ne may not in any wise graunt you) yet you wil not I trowe saie, that the Nicene Councel also was erroneous. If the Nicene Coūcel were not erroneous, but a most Autentike, and Catholique Councel, what dedu∣ction can you make from the one to the other? If S. Au∣gustine had refused the Nicene Councel, as you refuse the late Councelles, that is, if he had condemned the Nicene Councel of grosse and palpable errours, as you doo condemne the later Councelles: then had the ex∣ample of S. Augustine serued your turne, this being pre∣supposed, that these later Councelles were suche, as you sclaunder them to be. Now S. Augustine doth not so put of the Nicene Councel, either as an erroneous Coun¦cel, or as an Authoritie insufficient, whereby to controlle the Heretike: but partely, bicause the Heretike quarelled about the name of an other Councel at Ariminum, which

was no lawful Councel in deede, but a schismatical, and heretical conuenticle (and yet were there at it 800. Bi∣shoppes, but for wante of Damasus the Popes confirma∣tion, as Sozomenus, and Theodoritus doo write, it was accompted for none) partely also bicause he sawe him selfe sufficiently instructed otherwise with holy scriptu∣res to confute the Arian. For these two causes to cut of occasion of longer brabling, and to drawe the sooner to an issue (for it was in an open disputation before a mul∣titude, not in priuate writinges carried to and fro) S Au∣gustine was content to laie aside the aduantage that he had of the Nicene Councel, vpon condition the Arian would brable no more of the Councel of Ariminum. This did S. Augustine of Christian policie, and by occasion then ministred, and not as geuing example to others to shake of al Authoritie of Councelles, as you doo M. Iew∣el of a great many.

Againe, you require vs to presse you no more with the late general Councelles of Laterane, of Constāce, of Florence, of Trent, and such other, as the Arian required, not to be pressed with the Nicene: but you haue not so much as the name of one Councel of your parte, for the whiche we might by waie of composition yelde our Councelles, that you also might yelde yours, as the Arians had the names of that of Ariminum, and certaine other Councelles holden by the Arians. Your heresies (God be praised) haue not yet prospered so much, that ye might haue hundreds of Bishoppes to assemble, and determine on your side, as the Arians had. Therefore againe your case is very vnlike, and your example of S. Augustine and the Arian, very vneuen. When you haue Councelles on

your fitl••, that shal make for the proufe of your Doctrine and for condemnation of our Doctrine, then maye this place of S. Augustine seeme to serue your purpose.

Last of al your accustomed legierdemaine in citing this place, openeth your falshood. For in the sentence im∣mediatly going before the wordes by you alleged, S. Au∣gustine professeth plainely the authoritie of the Nicene Councel to haue ben sufficient for conuincing of the A∣rian heretike. Thus he saith. Hoc est illud Homusion, quod in Concilio Niceno aduersus haereticos Arianos à Catholicis patribus veritatis authoritate, & authoritatis veritate fir∣matum est. This is that Doctrine concerning Homusion, whiche in the Councel of Nice was confirmed against the Arian heretiques with the Authoritie of Truthe, and with the Truthe of Authoritie. Streight after it folow∣eth, Sed nunc nec ega &c. But now at this present, nei∣ther wil I laye against thee, &c. as before you alle∣ged it.

These wordes, Sed nunc. But nowe, whiche importe the doing of S. Augustine to haue ben but for that pre∣sent time, and occasion, and doo shewe, that he meant not generally to renounce the Nicene Councel, those wordes I saie M. Iewel, you quite leafte out, alleging S. Augustines wordes in such sorte, as if he had perempto∣rily, and precisely protested, that the Arian had ben no more bounde to the Authoritie of the Nicene Councel, then he him selfe was bounde to the Councel of Arimi∣num. Whereas both before he plainely protested, that the Catholike Fathers of the Nicene Councel had de∣termined against the Arian heretiques, veritatis authori∣tate, & authoritatis veritate, By authoritie of Truth, and by

truthe of Authoritie, and also in this later saying restrai¦ned him selfe only to the time present, for cause befor•• mencioned.

O how would that blessed Father be agreeued, if now he were a liue, and sawe his sayinges so peruersly wre∣sted to a sense by him neuer meant, nor intended, and that drawen to mainetenance of heresie, wherein he re∣lented, for better meanes to be had towardes the Con∣futation of heresie?

In what credite, and estimation S. Augustine had General Councelles.

Howbeit this blessed Father touching the credite and authoritie of lawful Councelles, not only in this present place (as it now appeareth) but also in others of his workes hath written so circumspectly, and warely: that excepte heretiques were of very purpose, and mere wil∣fulnesse sette to peruerte the truthe, they coulde neuer haue piked out of his sayinges, so muche as any colour of aduantage to the preiudice of Councelles. Contrary∣wise to the aduauncement of their credite, and estima∣tion, he writeth in sundry places. Verely to the Donatistes being confuted, and conuinced by a great Assemblie of the Aphrican Bishoppes, he saith, Nulla excusatio iam remansit. Nimium dura, nimium diabolica sunt hominum corda, quae adhuc tantae manifestationi ve∣ritatis obsistunt. There remaineth now no excuse. The hartes of menne are too too harde, and too too deui∣lish, whiche doo yet withstande the truth so clearely opened vnto them. How much better may we saie this vnto you, and your companions M. Iewel, whose

heresies haue ben detected, and learnedly confuted in the late General Councel of Trent, vnto the whiche out of al Catholique Countries of Christendome, Bishopes, and the best learned menne were assembled?

Againe disputing against the errour of S. Cyprian touching the rebaptizing of such as heretiques had ba∣ptized, in the ende he concludeth with the Authoritie of a General Councel, and protesteth, that he him selfe would not haue ben so bolde, as in such sorte to confute that holy Fathers opinion, excepte he had had the Gene∣ral Councel on his side. These are his wordes. Nec nos ipsi tale aliquid auderemus asserere, nisi vniuersae Ecclesiae concordissima authoritate firmati: cui & ipse sine dubio cede∣ret, si iam illo tempore quaestionis huius veritas eliquata, & declarata per plenarium Conciliū solidaretur. Neither should we be so bolde, as to affirme so much, but that we are as∣suredly vpholden with the authoritie of the most vni∣forme consent of the vniuersal Church. To the which (S. Cyprian) him selfe would vndoubtedly haue yeelded, if at that time, the truth of this question being boulted out and made cleare, had benne by a ful (general) Councel established.

In like manner he vrgeth the Pelagians, saying. Vestra verò apud competens Iudicium communiū episcoporum causa modò finita est. Nec amplius vobiscū agendū est, quantū ad ius examinis pertinet, nisi vt prolatā de hac re sententiā cū pace sequamini. Quòd si nolueritis, a turbulenta, vel seditiosa in∣quietudine cohibeamini. Your matter is now ended, by suf∣ficient iudgemēt of Bishops from al partes. Neither ought we now to haue further dealing with you, as touching right of examination to be made, but now it behoueth

that y•• folowe peacebly the verdite, whiche hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pronounced of this matter. And if ye wil not, yet that ye be restrained from al troblesome, and seditious disorder.

Last of al speaking of General Councelles, he saith, Quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas, their Au∣thoritie in the Churche is most holsome.

And bicause M. Iewel findeth him selfe agreeued wit•• the later Councelles, and is offended with the newnesse of them, and claimeth by former Councels, and pretēdeth to folow the Apostles owne Traditions: let vs see, what S. Augustine (of whom he would so faine borow helpe, if it would be) wil saie for him. Whereas the Donatistes for their rebaptizing of such as the Catholiques had ba∣ptized, alleged th' Apostles Tradition, and neglected a late General Coūcel assembled against their opinion, holding vpon a more auncient Tradition, euen such as came from the Apostles: to them in this case S. Augustine saith thus. Nec quisquam dicat, quod accepimus ab Apostolis, hoc sequi∣mur. Quatò robustiuo nūc dicimus, Quod ecclesiae cōsuetudo semper tenuit, quod haec disputatio dissuadere nō potuit, et quod plenariū Concilium cōfirmauit, hoc sequimur? Neither let any man saie (as the Donatistes said, and as Protestantes now saie) we folowe that, which we haue receiued of the A∣postles. Howe muche more stronger is that we saie now, we folowe that which the Custome of the Church hath euermore holden, whiche al this reasoning to and fro, hath not ben able to plucke out of mens hartes, and last of al, which a ful General Councel hath confirmed? So highly estee∣med S. Augustine those things, which M. Iewel of al o∣ther maketh lest accompt of.

And againe he saieth, Concilia posteriora prioribus apud

poster••s praep••nuntur. The posteritie preferreth the Later Councelles before the Former. Not as though the later should be contrarie to the former, but bicause in the later Coūcels the Church is alwaies better instructed, through the contradictions of heretikes, by occasion whereof matters are more exactely searched, discussed, and more clearely opened. Like as the flint stoanes being knokte harde together fier flieth out, and corne the more ye fifte it, the purer it is tried: so truthe by our aduersaries Con∣tradictions is beaten out, and doubteful pointes by long discussion, and search are made plaine and cleare.

Therefore againe he saith, Ipsa plenaria Concilia saepe prio∣ra posterioribus emendantur, cúm aliquo experimento rerum aperitur, quod clausum erat, & cognoscitur quod latebat.

The very former general Councells are oftentimes cor∣rected by the later Councells, when as by some trial of ma••••er that thing is opened, whiche before was close shut vp and that is knowen, whiche before laie hid.

Ye•• and this is the chiefe and best fruite, that heresies bring vnto the Churche, as the same S. Augustine other∣where declareth, where he saith: The matter of the blessed Trinitie was neuer wel discussed, vntil the Arian•• barked against it. The Sacrament of Penaunce was neuer throughly handled, vntil the Nouatians beganne to withstande it. Nei∣ther the cause of Baptisme was wel discussed, vntil the reba∣ptizing Donatistes arose, and troubled the Churche. Thus M. Iewel, if you geue eare vnto S. Augustine, whose ex∣ample you seeme to claime by, you shal learne of him not to refuse, and renounce the authoritie of General Coun∣cels, but to obey them, and to yeeld dew reuerence vnto them, yea though they be later, and as you cal them, new.

Truth draue M. Iewel to iustifie al our Doctrine, wherein he dissenteth from vs.

This oddes therefore remaineth betwen you and vs, that our doctrine, yea euery pointe thereof in cotrouersie now, is (by your owne confession) approued by the later General Councelles: and so we defende no doctrine of our owne, nor mainteine any prophane Nouelties of our owne deuise, but we folowe Saluberrimam authoritatem, the most holesome and sounde authoritie (as S. Augu∣stine termeth it) of General Councels: that is to saie, we folowe the voice of the whole bodie of Christes Churche (most truely represented in Councelles) the voice of Christes spouse, yea the voice of Christe him selfe, spea∣king to vs by his Churche, and so speaking, that he wil∣leth him, whiche heareth not the Churche, to be ac∣compted for a Heathen, and a Publicane. Contrariewise your Doctrine M. Iewel, is not only not authorized in General Councelles, but also is clearely condemned by the same, as for example (that one maie serue in steede of many) the General Councel of Laterane condemneth your Sacramentarie heresie.

Yet we thanke not you, but the truthe, that you haue this muche confessed for vs. And as S. Augustine said of the Donatistes, so we saie most truely of you: Vt illa om∣nia vel loquendo, vel legendo, pro causa nostra promerent, atque propalarent, veritas eos torsit, non charitas inuitauit. That the Donatistes shoulde vtter and bring forthe either by talke, or by allegation out of a booke, al those thinges for behoofe of our matter, the truth forced them, it was not any charitie that inuited them. The truthe, I saie

M. Iewel, not any loue you beare to our cause, forced you to confesse, that there is none of our errours (so you terme sundry weightie pointes of the Catholike Faith) that by some of the late Councelles, hath not benne confirmed. We take that you geue vs right gladly, in asmuch, as it declareth you to be conuinced by witnesse of your owne mouthe, For if the pointes of Faith and Religion, wherein ye dissent from vs, be approued and confirmed by authoritie of the Churche in General Councelles, who seeth not, what a good staffe we haue to leane vnto? And who is that Christian man, whiche wil not humbly beleue the same?

Notes

• In quaest. in No. Tes. q. 72.
• Fornica∣tion in a Clerke ne¦uer allo∣vved, but alvvaies punished, though diuersly, accordīg to diuer∣sitie of times.
• In Cap. At si clerici. Extrà de Iudic.
• August. in Quaest. in Nouum Testam. quast. 72.
• The 2. Chapt.
• False and sclaunde∣rous re∣porte.
• The. 3. Chapt.
• Art. 4.
• Lib. 1. cō∣tra Peti∣lianū. ca. 1. Art. 6. Art. 10.
• Art. 15.
• Art. 17.
• Cōcil. Cō∣stant. Sess. 8. pag. 96.
• Masse said by Hus.
• In histor. Teutonica de Concil. Costātien.
• The 4. chapt.
• M Ievvel dissēbleth al an∣svvere made to his vn∣truthes.
• S. Augu∣stine the Apostle of the En¦glish na∣tion sclaū¦dered by M. Ievvel vnder the name of Golfridus Monemu¦thensis.
• The 5. Chapt.
• M. Ievvel in the De∣fence re∣peteth a∣gaine the old stuffe of his Replie in many pointes, as if the same were not an∣svvered.
• A noto∣rious Vn∣truthe in sight of al menne.
• Variance of opiniō betvven tvvo Mi∣nisters of Valence∣nes, vvhi∣les it vvas besieged.
• Christo∣pher Goodmā.
• Iohn knox of Scotland.
• The Mi∣nisters of Tournay. Poltrot persua∣ded by Beza to kil the Duke of Guise. See the Cōfession of Pol∣trote. Itē Clau∣dius de Saincts in Responsio∣ne ad Apo¦logiam Beza. Luther. Tomo. 6. Germani∣co. fo. 602
• Melāch∣thon.
• Hamble∣ton, and Lorde Iames of Scotland.
• The Quenes Secreta∣rie slaine vvithout force by M. Ievv.
• Arture drowned
• VViate.
• The Gue•• of the Lovv Countrie no Re∣belles by M Ievvel neither the Hu∣guenotes of Frāce.
• Rebelliō against Princes defended by M. Ievvel. Act. 5. Psal. 118.
• The .6. Chapt.
• Act. 5.
• Round capped Ministers
• The Prīce not to be obeied by M. Iewels Diuinitie, vvhen Gods cause is touched.
• Rom. 13.
• Leo de passione Domini. Serm. 10.
• Ambro∣sius. lib. 5. Epist. 33.
• Confut. 15. a.
• Math. 28. Iohan. 14.
• The. 7. Chapt.
• Math. 28.
• Petitio Principij.
• Math. 28. Esaie. 59. Iohn. 14.
• The Chur∣ches er∣rour of a thou∣sand ye∣res, and the fore∣knovv∣ledge of Christ can not stand together, onlesse vve make Christe false of his pro∣mise.
• Psal. 50. 2. Tim. 2.
• That the light of truth hath not ben put out in the Churche.
• Math. 5. Math. vlt.
• Let vs see vvhat you can ansvver to this argumēt, M. Ievv.
• M. Ievvel obiecteth agaīst the Churche, as the old heretikes the Dona∣tistes did.
• August. lib. 1. ca. 2 contra Epistol. Parmen.
• Tradi∣tores.
• Ticonius.
• August. li. 1. contra epist. par∣men. ca. 1.
• Dioscorde betvven the Gos∣pellers, as in olde time a∣mong the Do∣natistes.
• The Do∣natistes Heresie renevved by M. Ievvel.
• The For∣tresse.
• An Ar∣gument prouing this nevv Congre∣gation not to be the true Churche of Christ.
• The. 8. Chapt.
• The com∣mendatiō of the first fiue hundred yeres in compari∣son of the later ages
• The north partes of the world cōuerted in these later ages.
• Touching faith and doctrine of beleefe the first fiue hun∣dred ye∣res no more vvorth, then the thousand yeres that folovved
• The Churche of Rome the onely and true Church of Christe.
• The. 9. Chapt.
• Carolo∣stadius.
• Sleidan. Lib. 5. Histor.
• Lib. con∣tra 9. Sectas. Lib. cōtra 11. Sectas. Lauathe∣rus in hi∣stor. cōtra Sacra∣ment.
• Lauathe∣rus ibidē & Surius. Frāciscus Philippus in histor.
• Great partes of Germanie yet re∣maining vvhole, and Ca∣tholique.
• The 10. Chapt.
• S. Tho∣mas prea∣ched in India.
• Nicephor. lib. 11. cap. 48. The Chri¦stian faith bringeth sauage ād barbarus people to humani∣tie, and ci¦uilitie. Theodo∣ritus de Curatione Graecarū affectionū lib. 7. sub finem.
• M. Ievv. foloweth the Pha∣risees.
• Matt. 12.
• August. de Ciuit. Dei lib. 18. ca. 53. & ca. 54.
• Oratio Pij Papa.
• The. 11. Chapt.
• A forged Oration set out in printe, as being made and pronoū∣ced by Pius the fourth the late vertuous Pope.
• Tertulliā. In Apolo∣getico.
• Cōcil. Ba∣sil. Concil. Trident.
• The 12. Chapt. Contra∣dictions.
• Absurdi∣tie.
• Proue this M. Ievvel, or ī your next booke saie, pène thou ma∣dest a lye.
• VVhē he vvrote that, he vvas nei∣ther Pius secundus, nor Pope but a pri∣uate mā. Aeneas Syluius de gestis Cō∣cilij Con∣stāt. lib. 1. False trā∣slatiō. Ap∣paret, in this place signifieth not, it is plaine, but, it ap∣peareth. Iohā. Ger∣son. Quae veritates credendae Corol. 4. The 13. Chapt.
• Only Bi∣shops at Councels subscribe definitiue¦ly.
• Act. 1. Pag. 745.
• bid. Pag. 775.
• See Rea∣der, hovv many vn¦true par∣tes M••l. plaieth in one pore litle sen∣tence.
• Bulla re∣cantati∣onis Pij Papa 2. Tom. 4. Concil. pag. 503.
• Vide Ae∣ne. Syl. de Gestis Cō∣cil. Basil. li. 1. pa. 27
• Gerson Quae ve∣ritates cre¦dendae. Co¦r••llario. 4
• The vvhole and true sentence of Gerson vvhiche M. Ievv. falsifieth.
• Gerson speaketh not at al of geuing sentence definitiue in Coun∣cel.
• The. 14. Chapt.
• M Ievv. denieth here, t••at he saith other∣vvheres.
• In the Apolo∣gie pretē¦ded to be trāslated by the Lady A. B
• The 15. Chapt.
• Alphonsus de Castro lib 9. Bernard. Lutze∣burg. Almarik the here∣tique.
• Bernar∣dus Serm. 66. super Cantica. VValdēses. AEneas Slyuius Bohem. Histor. cap. 35.
• Iohn Hu••
• Image∣breakers.
• Prouer. 18.
• Ierem. 3.
• The most shameful heresies of Hus, of vvhō M. Ievvel profes∣seth him selfe not to be a¦shamed Alphōsus de Castro aduersus haereses lib. 6. Concil. Constant. post 45. Sess.
• Alphonsus lib. 12. Cōcil. Cō∣stantien.
• Ioan. Co∣chlaeus. Hus said Masse a litle be∣fore he vvas burnt. Suprà. ca. 3. fol. 83. Hierom of Prage.
• Concil. Constant. Sessio 21. Sessi. 19.
• Hierom of Prage, recanted, and re∣turned to his vo∣mite.
• Berenga∣rius.
• Tom. 2. fo. 260.
• In parua Confess. de Caena Do∣mini. In publica Confes. pu¦ra doctri∣na. Lib. cōtra 11. sectas. & lib. cōt. 9. sectas. In the booke in tituled Recta fi∣des de Cae∣na Domin.
• Coūcel of Laterane.
• Platina in Innocētio tertio. The great Assemblie of Late∣rane Councel.
• Concil. Lateran. Cap. 1.
• De Conse∣crat. Dist. 2. Ego Be∣rēgarius.
• Guilelmus Malmes∣buriensis de gastis Anglo∣rum. lib. 3.
• He allu∣ded to the vvord E∣piphanie vvhiche signifieth appea∣ring, or reuealīg.
• The .16. Chapt.
• The Fa∣thers of the first. 600. ye∣res reie∣cted. In insti∣tut. Cap. 18. de coe∣na Domi. Iacobus Acontius. Stratagē. Sathan. lib. 6.
• Valde amplum spatium. Novvel in the pre¦face of his first booke.
• In the booke against the Cross.
• The Gos∣pelle•• I shal neuer be hāble to shevv, vvhen Papistrie beganne.
• The Ca∣tholique doctrine vntruly reported by M. Ievvel to be forsa∣ken al the vvorld through.
• A lie im∣pudently auouched by M. Ievvel.
• The. 17. Chapt.
• Aug. cont. Lit. Petil. lib. 2. cap. 16.
• B. Fisher.
• The. 18. Chapt. Guli. Mal¦mesburiē. lib. 3. de gestis An∣glorum. Guimun∣dus & Al. gerus lib. 1 de Sacra∣mentis. Platina in Innocen∣tio. 3. Tyrius lib. 21. cap. 26 Guido Car¦melita de haeresibus. Platina. Palmerius Naucle∣rus.
• Act. 20. Ephes. 4.
• Ansvver to the obiection of the later Coū∣celles be∣ing con∣trarie to the olde.
• One Churche, one faith.
• One gene¦ral Coun∣cel can not in a matter of faith be contrary to an o∣ther Coū∣cel. Math. 18.
• Aug. epist. 5. ad Mar¦cellinum.
• Ansvver to that M I••vvel obiecteth against the later Coūcels, for that by the same al our do∣ctrines, vvhiche they im∣pugne, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 con∣••irmed.
• The La∣teran Councel vnder In∣nocen∣tius. 3.
• Transub∣stātiatiō.
• Almari∣cus.
• Pantaleō. Bernard. Lutzen∣burg. Ga∣guinus. Lib. 6. Pag. 48.
• Pag. 32.
• M. Ievvel acknovv¦legeth al the partes of doctri¦ne vvher in he varieth from vs, to be ap∣proued by the Churche in Gene∣ral Coun∣celles
• August. Contra Maximin lib. 3. c. 14.
• The .19. Chapt.
• Sozom. lib. 6. cap. 23. Theodor. lib. 2. cap. 21.
• Lib. 3. ca. 14. contra Maximi∣nū Arianū
• S. Augu∣gustine falsly al∣leged by M. Ievv. vvordes of chiefe impor∣tāce quite lefte out. Sed nunc.
• The 20. Chapt.
• August. epist. 152. Ad populū factionis Donatia∣••a.
• August. de Baptismo cōtra Do∣natist. li. 2. cap. 4.
• August. Cōtra Iu∣lianum .li. 3. cap. 1.
• August. Epist. 118. ad Ianua∣rium.
• August. li. 4. cap. 7. de Baptis. cōtra Do∣natistas.
• August. li. 2. de Ba∣ptisme. cap. 9.
• Later Coū¦cels pre∣ferred be∣fore the former, for what cause.
• Ibidem .li. 2. cap. 3.
• The be∣nefit and fruite of heresies. August. in Psal. 54. super ver∣sum, Diui∣si sunt prae ira, &c.
• The 21. Chap.
• Matt. 18.
• Aug. con∣tra Dona∣tist. post collat. ca. 34.