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.

Iewel. Pag. 127.

Here hath M. Harding taken some paines, more then ordinarie. He thought, if he could by any coloure make the vvorld beleeue, vve haue nei∣ther Bisshoppes, nor Priestes, nor Deacons this daie in the Church of En∣gland, he might the more easily claime the vvhole right vnto himselfe.

And in deede if it vvere certaine that the religion, and truth of God passeth euermore orderly by Succession, and none othervvise: then vvere Succession vvhereof he hath tolde vs so long a tale, a verie good sub∣stantial Argument of the Truth.

Harding.

Irenaeus saith it is a certaine Rule to knowe the Truth by. For hauing reckened twelue Popes, who in order succeded after S. Peter, to wit, Linus, Anacletus, Clemens, Euaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anice••••, Soter and Eleutherius, who then was the twelfth Bishop from the Apostles,* 1.1 immediatly he saith thus: Hac ordinatione, & successione, ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ec∣clesia Traditio & veritatis praeconiatio, peruenit vs{que} ad nos. Et est ple••issima haec ••stensio, vnim & eandem viuificatri∣cem fidem esse, quae in Ecclesia ab Apostolis vsque nunc sit cō∣seruata & troditain veritate. By this order and Succes∣sion, the Tradition, and preaching of the truth, whiche is in the Churche from the Apostles time, came euen to our daies. And this is a most ful declaration, that the faith, whiche is kept in the Churche, and deliuered in truth from the Apostles time euen til this present hower, is the one selfe same faith, which is the causer of life and of saluation. He saith it is a most ful declaration of the

true and liuely faith. And you wil confesse I trow, that where that faith is, there is the true Churche of God.

Such a Succession of Bishoppes in diuers countries we haue, and can shew it from the Apostles time til this daie. As the rew and order of Popes in al Chronicles doth shew to the eie, and witnesseth to the vnderstanding.

But such a Succession M. Iewel, and his fellowes haue not: therefore by his owne confession, we haue a good substantial Argument of the Truth.

Iewel. Pag. 127.

But Christe saith, In cathedra Moysi sederunt Scribae, & Pha∣risaei: by order of succession, the scribes,* 1.2 and Pharisees sitte in Moyses chaier.

Harding.

Wel handled M. Iewel. You bring these wordes, as though Christe had spoken them in the reproche of Suc∣cession: Whereas Christ in that place made an Argumēt for Succession in this wise: Super cathedram Moysi sede∣runt Scriba & Pharisaei,* 1.3 omnia ergo quaecunque dixerint vo∣bis, seruate, & facite. Vpon the chaier of Moyses, the Scribes, and Pharisees haue sitten. Therefore kepe ye, and do ye, what so euer they saie vnto you, or commaund you to kepe.

Could you not see that Ergo M. Iewel, whiche is to saie, Therefore? Could you not perceiue that Christ made a plaine argument why, and why only the Scribes, and Pharisees should be obeied? The matter goeth as if in moe wordes it had ben thus said: The Scribes and Pharisees be naughtie men, their workes are not to be folowed, they ••ie heauy and importable burdens, laying them on mens

shoulders,* 1.4 but they themselues wil not so much as once m•••••• them with their finger: They do al their workes for a shew. (Thus Christ him selfe doth paint them forth) al whiche notwithstanding, for onely Successions sake, bicause by order of Succession they sit in Moyses chaier, which my father and I haue planted, in respecte thereof doo ye, and kepe what so euer they commaund you to doo and kepe.

* 1.5Marke that he bindeth the people to obeie the very Scribes for Successions sake, and to obeye them in kee∣ping, and obseruing the former lawes, and rites. To keepe I saye. Beware of that Bishop, who not succeding, but vsurping the Chaier of good men (as M. Iewel doth ha∣uing iustled him selfe into the Chaier of good S. Osmund, and others mo in the Churche of Sarisburie) doth yet commaund the people not to keepe thinges, but to cast them away.* 1.6 There is no Bishop of this newe Religion, that commaundeth the people to keepe their olde faith, and law: but alwaies he biddeth them to change it. But Christe bad the people to doo that, whiche the Phari∣sees commaunded them to keepe, and not to folow their deedes. The Pharisees killed Christe, but by keeping their lawes and Orders, they should neuer haue come thereto. If euer place of holy Scripture made for any truth in the Gospel, this place, which M. Iewel brin∣geth against Succession, maketh for it, and so for it, that it can neuer be auoided. What Doctor euer wrote vpon the holy Scriptures, who might not now be brought for a witnesse of this my assertion? S. Augustine saith, that Christe made the people secure concerning euil Rulers. Ne propter illos doctrinae salutaris Cathedra descreretur,* 1.7 in qua coguntur etiam mali bona dicere. Neque enim

suae sunt quae dicunt, sed Dei, qui in cathedra Vnitatis, do∣ctrinam posuit veritatis. Lest for their sakes the chaier of holesom Doctrine should be forsaken, in the whiche, yea wicked men are forced to saie that whiche is good. For the thinges whiche they saie, are not their owne, but Gods, who in the Chaier of Vnitie, hath placed the doctrine of Veritie. And immediatly S. Augustine bringeth forth this texte of Christe, whereupon we now dispute.

S. Chrysostom saith,* 1.8 whereas Christ could not make the Scribes and Pharisees worthy of faith for their man∣ners, he doth it à sede Moysi & doctrina, for that they sate in the seate of Moyses, and taught his doctrine. So that, albeit Scribes and Pharisees did sit in S. Peters chaier at Rome (as M. Iewel affirmeth one Ihon of Sarisburie to saie, who in deede saith it not of him selfe, but in fa∣miliar talke reported, vnto Adrianus quartus, the Pope, what was bruted abroad by the common people): yet for their Chaier, and Successions sake, they must be obeied. For in the Chaier of Vnitie God hath put the doctrine of Veritie: and in that Chaier euil menne haue benne constrained to saie the Truth, as I could shew at large by the example of Pope Vigilius, who a thowsand yeres past, before he came to be Pope, promised the Em∣peresse to confirme the Patriarke of Constantinople being an Heretique: but being once in the Chaier of Peter, he chose rather (through Gods grace) to suf∣fer death, then that he would so defile the See Apo∣stolike, as by open bishoply facte, to establish an heretike in a bishoply seate.

Iewel. pag. 127.

Annas and Caiphas touching Succession, vvere as vvel Bishops, as Aaron, and Eleazar.

Harding.

Not fully so wel: bicause perhaps they came to it by Simonie; and yet bicause they were Bishops, and sate in that Chaier, God honoured them, I wisse not for any vertue of theirs, but only for theire Chaiers sake. The ho∣nour which God gaue them, was the gift of Prophecie, as it appeareth by that which he gaue euidently to Caiphas, who was the Bishop of that yere.* 1.9 Which thing S. Iohn wit∣nesseth in these wordes. Vnus ex Pontificibus Caiphas no∣mine, cùm esset Pontifex anni illius, prophetauit, quia Iesus moriturus erat pro gente. One of the chief Priestes Cai∣phas by name, whereas he was Bishop of that yere, pro∣phecied, that Iesus should die for the people. Vpon which place S. Chrysostom saith:* 1.10 Vides quanta sit pontificalis pote∣statis virtus? Cum enim pontifex esset, licet indignus, prophe∣tauit, nescius tamen quid diceret, & ostantùm Gratia, non au¦tem foelestum cor attigit. Doest thou see, how great the vertue of bishopply power is? For whereas he was a Bishop, albeit vnworthy, he prophecied, yet not know∣ing, what he said. And the Grace touched his mouth only, but not his wicked hart. And afterward againe.

Quid signat▪ quum esset pontifex anni illius? What meane thes•• wordes, whereas he was Bishoppe of that yere? Among other this custom was corrupted. For now the hye priesthood was not during life, but made a yerely dignitie, and was geuen yere by yere, from the time that the chieftie was to be solde for monie. Veruntamen etiam

sic aderat spiritus. Yet that notwithstanding the holie Ghost (or gift of God) was yet present. Postquàm autem in Christum manus extenderunt, tunc eos dereliquit, & ab∣ijt ad Apostolos. But after they extended their handes vpon Christe, then the holy Ghost forsooke them, and went from them to the Apostles.

S. Augustine likewise writeth thus.* 1.11 Hîc docemur etiā homines malos prophetiae spiritu futura praedicere: quod ta∣men Euangelista diuino tribuit sacramento, quia Pontifex fuit, id est, summus sacerdos. Here we are taught, that euen euil men foretel thinges to comme by the spirite of prophecie, the which thing yet the Euangelist ascri∣beth to the diuine Sacrament, bicause he was the Bis∣shop, that is to saie, the high Priest.

If then Caiphas being one of the vilest menne that euer was, and committing the most horrible sinne that can be deuised in murdering Christ, yet for his successi∣ons sake, had the gift of prophecie: shal we now geue eare to M. Iewels itching humour, wherein he so reioy∣seth to recken vp the faultes of the Popes of Rome?

Be it some of them were proude, and some coniurers,* 1.12 or neuer se great sinners besides: yet so long as they sit in Peters chaier (which doubtlesse hath no lesse priui∣lege, thē Moyses chaier had) we saie, they haue the ho∣ly ghost to this effect, that they keeping them selues in the faith of their Predecessours, shal not be suffered to teach vs false doctrine out of the Chaier of Vnitie, whiche Chaier of Vnitie Optatus more then eleuen hundred yeres past, affirmed Peters Chaier to be,* 1.13 and reckened vp the Bishops thereof in order til his owne time. Therefore as from Moyses time til Christes Com∣ming,

God of his mercie prouided, that a Bishop, and high Prieste, with other Priestes and Leuites about him, should not faile in Moyses Chaier, whom al men vn∣der paine of death (as it is said in the booke of Deu∣teronomie* 1.14) were bounde to heare, and obeye: so muche more in the time of Grace, God hath proui∣ded, that in the Chaier of S. Peter (to whom louing Christe more then the other Apostles,* 1.15 he consequent∣ly gaue Authoritie to feede his sheepe, in suche superi∣oritie aboue the other Apostles, as he loued aboue them): muche more I saie now God hath prouided, that there shal not lacke til Christes second comming a Bishop, or high Prieste in Peters Chaier, with other Bisshops, and Priestes not onely about him in that one Citie of Rome, but also ioyned with him in the same faith and doctrine in manie Countries and Nations to∣gether, whose final sentence in matters of faith, and of good manners, who so euer heareth, and obeieth, heareth, and obeieth Christe, but who so euer despi∣seth the same, he despiseth Christe him selfe. Now I saie to you M. Iewel, what Bishop had your faith with preachers, Ministers, or Deacons about him from age to age, who mighte wittnesse in al generations the Doctrine of Christe, and the ordinarie Succession of the Churche?

Iewel. Pag. 127.

Of Succession S. Paule saith to the faithful at Ephesus: I know that after my departure hence, rauening wolues shal enter,* 1.16 and succede me. And out of your selues there shal, (by succession) spring vp men speaking peruersly.

Harding.

I thought so: you haue a succession to, but it is of rauening Wolues. They are your Predecessours, and yee are their Successours. For this saying,* 1.17 as you haue handled it, is yours, and no•• ••. Paules. He saith not, that rauening Wolues should succeede him, as your blasphemous penne hath vttered: but he saith onely that after his departure rauening Wolues shal enter in.* 1.18

But he addeth not that they shal succede him (that is your accursed addition) but he saith, non parcentes gre∣gi, which you haue left out. Those rauening Wolues shal not spare the flocke, but shal diuide the faith, and scatter the flocke, as you haue doone. For where one Faith was, you haue made two, and where cha∣ritie was, you haue set debate. Now whereas S. Paule farther saith, men speaking peruerse things shal spring out of them selues, he saith not,* 1.19 they shal spring by Succes∣sion: That is your foule corruption of the holy texte.

He addeth also other wordes immediatly, whiche you haue leaft out as vtterly betraying your foule Here∣sies. It foloweth in the selfe same clause and sentence, vt abducant discipulos post se: There shal spring out of your selues men speaking peruerse thinges,* 1.20 to leade away scholars after them. Vt abducant, to lead away. Whence shal they lead them? from the Apostles, and from their Successours, and from the flocke, wherein they liued before. Whither shal they lead them? Post se, after them selues. That is to saie, they shal not keepe the former Succession of Doctrine and order, teaching as their Fathers haue donne, but they shal

departe from that Succession, and shal leade and cari•…•… others awaie with them, and become peruerse Tea∣chers, in suche sorte, that they shal haue Disciples of their owne, who shal beare their name: as Luther hath the Lutherans, Zuinglius hath the Zuinglians, Caluine hath the Caluinistes after him, who goe away from their forefathers Doctrine, and them selues set vp a new be∣leefe, comming in Christes name, and pretending his Gospel, but yet not teaching his truth, bicause thei leaue the Succession, where only his truth was, and is taught. For it onely doth by open practise shewe, and witnesse the true meaning of his worde.

* 1.21This, this M. Iewel is the Succession that we claime by. Tu abducis, you leade awaye the flocke from their auncient Pastours, and shepeherds, we tarie stil behinde in the old Succession of Peters Chaier. Ieroboam went out from Moyses Chaier, and caried ten tribes after him, so did Arius, and so did Luther, so did Caluine, so doo you. The Prophetes taried behind with Moyses Chaier, in so muche that good Simeon, Anna, Zacharias, Eliza∣beth, and our Ladie the Blessed Virgin Marie, chose ra∣ther to dwel in Gods Church with the vnclean scribes, and Pharisees, then to goe out ofter the Samaritans, and to seeke a cleaner Congregation, either in the mount Garizim, or in Egipte in the Scismatical Temple of Oni∣as. Euen so doo we abyde stil in the olde Church, nei∣ther are we greatly moued with your mockes, and scoffes, when ye cal it the Mumpsimus Churche. Yea we abide contented with the olde translation of the Bible, with the olde Portuises, and Masse bookes, yea perhappes also emong some Scribes, and Pharisees. But

yet there by Goddes grace, we wil looke for our Lords glorious comming, who commended our forefathers to the special charge of Peter,* 1.22 and therein vs to his Succes∣sours.

We are within the Fold, ye without, we are Sheepe, ye are Goates: we keepe in al that we can, ye drawe away, and pul out al that ye can: we sprang not out of you, but ye out of vs. If S. Paule had spoken of his Suc∣cessours in that place, he would not haue said, Vt abdu∣cant, to leade away scholars. For when some be leadde away, some others tarie behind. Now the Successour, if he abide not behinde, he is no Successour,* 1.23 but a lea∣der away. In so muche that Nestorius being Bishop of Constantinople, yet when he taught otherwise of Chri∣stes Person, then his Predecessours had donne, he was then no Successour of Alexander, Paulus, and S. Chry∣sostome, because he disalowed those his Predecessours, but he was a scatterer of the flocke, and a leader away of Scholars after him selfe, and not after his Prede∣cessours.

Thinke you that any true beleeuing man taketh you M. Iewel for one of the Successours of S. Augustine our Apostle,* 1.24 who conuerted our English nation from Idolo∣trie to Christe? Are you his Successour? Why, you lead men away from him, and persuade in this your booke, that he was not our true Apostle, nor any true teacher of Gods worde, but a cruel, and blouddy man,* 1.25 and proud aboue measure. Away Woolfe, and deuoure thy Goates abroade, thou camest from vs, but thou wert not of vs, for if thou hadst benne of vs, thou hadst remained stil with vs. I exhorte al Christian menne to returne

vnto the Succession of Peter, and of al other faithful menne, who abide in the same faith with him.

Iewel.

S. Hierome saith, they be not alvvayes the children of holy men, that (by Succession) haue the places of holy men.* 1.26

Harding.

* 1.27There is a double holinesse, one of life, an other of state, or office. Concerning life, it is true, that many times euil men succede in the place of good. And so meant your Author,* 1.28 as his owne wordes (whiche in the same sentence you haue leafte out) doo witnesse. For thus he saith: Non Sanctorum filij sunt, qui tenent loca san∣ctorum, sed qui exercent opera eorum. They are not the children of the Saintes, who holde the places of the Saintes, but those who practise the workes of the Saintes. In this sentence you haue leaste out the ende, and haue caste in of your owne the worde (alwayes) and these two wordes (by Succession). And when al is done the sentence is not S. Hieromes, but Gratians owne, added to the former woordes of S. Hierome. Howbe∣it they are somewhat altered.* 1.29 For thus saith S. Hierome, Non est facile stare loco Pauli, tenere gradum Petri, iam cum Christo regnantium. It is not an easy thing to stande in the place of Paule, and to holde the Degree of Peter, now raigning with Christe. of whiche ye can take no aduantage against Succession, whereof we treat.

* 1.30But concerning holinesse of Degree, state, and of∣fice, there is the same holinesse in the Successour, which was in the Predecessour. For it is Christe that baptizeth,

and that in like ministeries worketh by the euil man, as wel as by the good, so long as the Succession is not broken of, and forsaken. For if that be once done, he that maketh the breache, is not properly a Successour in truthe, but a beginner of errour. As for example: Who wil say that Cranmer was the Successour of S. Thomas* 1.31 the blessed Martyr, or of Bishop Warrham in the Chaier of Cantorburie? I trowe he him selfe would not say it, if he were a liue, seing he succeded not in their Faith, and Doctrine.

Iewel. Pag. 127.

Not vvithstanding the Pope him selfe vvil say, as it is before alleged,* 1.32 If the Pope vvant good thinges gotten by his ovvne merites, the good thinges vvhich he hath (by Succession) of S. Peter his predecessour are sufficient.

Harding.

They are sufficient for him to doo his ministerial office towards other, and so to make him holy by of∣fice: but not sufficient to make him holy in life.* 1.33 And the place doth euidently shewe, that onely to be the Popes meaning. And I suppose your selfe M. Iewel doo not denye, but that an euil man may doo the office of a good Predecessour, as wel to the peoples saluation in ministring Sacramentes, as a man being neuer so good. Why then skoffe you at the Pope for this saying? What gredinesse of gainesaying is this, to control where no fault is?

Iewel. Pag. 127.

The Glose thereupon saith, Petrus fecit Papas haeredes bonita∣tis suae. Peter made the Popes Heieres of his goodnes by Succes∣sion.

Harding.

* 1.34It is not so, but thus: Petrus ad hoc transmisit dotem meritorum cum haereditate innocētiae ad posteros, vt essent haeredes bonitatis suae. Peter made ouer the dowrie of his merites, with the inheritance of his innocencie vnto his Aftercommers, to the ende they might be the heires of his goodnesse. There is oddes betwene these say∣inges, Peter would haue them to be heires of his good∣nesse, and, Peter made them heires of his goodnesse. The first he might doo, the second he was not hable to doo. For goodnesse commeth onely of God.

Iewel. Pag. 128.

* 1.35Againe the glose saith. Papa sanctitatem recipit à Cathedra The Pope receiueth holinesse (by succession) of his Chaier.

Harding.

He receiueth holinesse of dignitie, degree, and of∣fice, but not of life. For that is the very meaning of the lawe, which saith that al the holy Decrees of the See Apostolike are so to be taken, as if they were strengh∣thened with the diuine voice of S. Peter hem selfe.

Marke, he speaketh of Decrees, but not of good wor∣kes. And I trow M. Iewel him selfe doth not denye, but that Baptisme ministred, or the Worde of God preached by Iudas, was as good as that which was done by Pe∣ter. Why then scoffeth he (for hitherto he doth none other) but onely to playe his parte?

Iewel. Pag. 128.

* 1.36Such affiance sometyme had the Scribes, and Pharisees in their suc∣cession. Therefore they said, vve are the children of Abrahā. Vnto vs hath God made his promises: art thou greater, then our father Abraham?

Harding.

If the Iewes vsed these wordes in such sense, that how so euer they liued, they should be saued, as being the children of Abraham: it was a naughty sense. But if they had vsed the same wordes against the schismatical places of praier, either of Ieroboam, or of the mount Garizim, or of Onias temple in Egipte: they had vsed them right wel. For as Christe said, Salus ex Iudaeis est,* 1.37 Saluation is of the Iewes, and not from the Samaritans, or any other Schismatikes. And so concerning successiō of dignitie, and not of life, they might wel say, vnto vs God hath made his promises. For so in deede he had, but yet with such condition, if they dishonoured not God,* 1.38 and despised not Christe their Sauiour. For in doing so, al the promises made to them were at an ende, bicause God would seeke a newe people to him selfe,* 1.39 in case they woulde forsake him, and seeke to them selues a newe God.

But now the Scribes and Pharisees vsed not these woordes against Schismatikes, but against Christe him selfe, whom bothe the olde Prophecies, and his owne marueilous workes witnessed to be the true Messias.* 1.40 And yet Christe came euery yere to the Temple, and kepte al the Lawe, and honoured the Scribes, and Phari¦sees, for that they sate in Moyses Chaier, so that there was now no cause why they should talke of their Suc∣cession, and of Gods promises against him, who denied none of them bothe, but mainteined them bothe. For S. Paule said euen after Christes death vnto the Iewes,* 1.41 To you we ought first to preache the woorde of God, But bi∣cause

ye refuse it, and iudge your selues vnworthy of euer∣lasting life, beholde we are turned vnto the Gentiles. For so our Lorde commaunded vs. The Iewes then abused them selues against Christ in pretending Succession, and pro∣mises, where obedience and faith should haue ben vsed. Euen so if the Pope, or any other Bishop now at the se∣cond comming of Christ, would make claime to heauen by his Succession of S. Peter, or S. Iames, he should but deceiue him selfe. But in the meane time any catholike Bishop may lawfully vse the argument of Succession a∣gainst heretikes, and schismatikes, who runne out from the true Succession of Bishops,* 1.42 as Ieroboam did from the high Priestes of Moyses. It skilleth much M. Iewel how euery place of scripture be applied. For that which ser∣ueth very wel against Heretikes, wil not serue at al a∣gainst Christe.

Iewel.

* 1.43The Pharisees said, As for Christ, vvee knovv not from vvhence he came, or vvhat he can shevv for his Succession.

Harding.

Albeit the Pharisees would not see or heare, what pre∣decessours Christe was hable to shew for him selfe, yet God hath so notably commended the matter of Succes∣sion in Christes owne person according to his manhode, that I marueil you would once bringe forth any example thereof, seing it maketh so euidently against you. Christ verely to geue example to al the world, how much they ought to esteme the order, and Succession, as wel of Bishops in matters of Religion, as of Kinges and Ci∣uile Gouernoures in politike matters, prouided that his

line, and succession should be most notable euen from Adam, til his owne Mothers time, the blessed Vir∣ginne Marie, as S. Matthew,* 1.44 and S. Luke haue testi∣fied.

Neither could either the calamitie of the people of the Iewes, or the sinnes of the howse of Dauid by any meanes hinder, but that Christ would come lineally from Abraham, and from Dauid, which thing was written for our learning, and instruction,* 1.45 to shew thereby that no sinnes of the Bishoppes, nor of the faithful people, shalbe hable to stay, but that his prouidence in gouerning the Churche by his Apostles, and their Successours,* 1.46 shal continew for euer, accordingly as Dauid hath foretolde at large, saying, If his children forsake my lawe, and walke not in my pathes, if they prophane my righteousnes, and kepe not my commaundementes, I wil visite their iniquities with the rodde, and their sinnes with scourges, but my mer∣cie I wil not separate from them: that is to say, from the seede of Dauid, whiche is meant to be the faithful peo∣ple,* 1.47 whiche beare the name of Christians. And to the Apostles Christe said,* 1.48 I am with you al daies vntil the worldes ende.

If he be with them til the ende, they likewise are in the worlde, til the worldes ende. But they liued not so long in this worlde, therefore it is meant, that from age to age, and from man to man Christe will haue alwayes some to sitte in the Chaieres, and Seates of his Apostles by ordinarie Succession, vntil the worldes ende.

Of this Succession Dauid in the person of Christ spake in spirite, saying to the Church: For thy Fathers,* 1.49 Sonnes

are borne vnto thee. Thou shalt ordeine them the Chiefe Gouernours ouer al the earth. The Church answereth. I shal be mindeful o Lorde of thy name in euery Generation and Generation, therefore the peoples shal geue praise, and than∣kes to thee for euer, and from age to age.. So that the cause, why the Churche continueth, are the Gouernours by God appointed vnto it, and as the Churche continueth from age to age, so do they gouerne from age to age. For the Visible Flocke of shepe can not long lacke their Vi∣sible shepeheard at any time, but that the Wolues wil enter in, and disperse them a sunder.

Iewel.

VVhen Christ beganne to refourme their abuses, and errours, they said to him,* 1.50 by vvhat povver doest thou these thinges, and vvho gaue the this authoritie? vvhere is thy Succession? Vpon vvhiche vvordes, Beda saith: They vvould haue the people vnderstand, for that he had no so∣lenne Succession, that al that he did, vvas of the Deuil.

Harding.

* 1.51Scarse one line hath passed your handes, into the whiche you haue nor conueied of your owne head, the worde, Succession. Whereas neither S. Luke, nor S Ma∣thew, nor S. Marke, nor S. Paule, nor S. Hierome, nor the Pharisees, nor Bede, whom you allege, vsed that worde at al. But to make your tale sound against Suc∣cession,* 1.52 you driue al to that point: and thereby you fal∣sifie euery place, that you bring, as euery man shal finde, who doth conferre the matter with the Originals: and so al your Defence standeth vpon fialsified Authorities. But our cause (God be praised for it) is so strong,* 1.53 that we neede not to care, though al that were true, whiche you allege. For albeit the Pharisees would not harken

to Christes Succession, yet in deede he Succeded lineal∣ly to al the Kinges, and Patriarkes, and thereby to the Priestes also of the best Order, to wit of the Lawe of na∣ture, and not of the Law of Moyses, whiche was an in∣feriour Lawe in respecte of that of Nature.

Christ therefore had not onely a most perfite Succes∣sion, which is described in the Gospel, from Adam til Io∣seph the husbande of the Virgin Marie: but also with that his Succession he stopped al the mouthes of his Enemies. For thus he said to them. VVhat thinke you of Christe, that is, of your Messias, whom you looke for?* 1.54 VVhose Sonne is he? They say to him, the Sonne of Dauid. Christ saith to them.* 1.55 How then doth Dauid cal him Lorde in spirite, saying, The Lord hath said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, vntil I put thy enemies, as a foote stoole vnder thy feete: If then Dauid cal him Lorde, how is he his Sonne? And no man was hable to answer him a worde. Nei∣ther durst any manne after that daye aske him any moe questions.

Here it is first to be noted, that the Scribes, and Pharisees knew Christ to haue a Succession from Dauid. For his Sonne (they said) he must be. Therefore M. Ie∣wel in making the Pharisees to acknowledge no Succes∣sion of his, hath corrupted the texte of the Gospel, and vttered a great Vntruthe. The Pharisees knew, that Christe should succede in the very beste line: but they would not attende, nor consider, how that Succession was now brought to passe in the Sonne of Marie, who being of the howse of Dauid, had miraculously brought forth Christe the perfite ende of the Lawe. So like∣wise M. Iewel knoweth, that the Churche of Christe

must needes haue a perpetual Succession: but he wil not consider, how it is preserued chiefely in the Chaier of Peter,* 1.56 to whom aboue al others the sheepe of Christ were committed.

Wel, Christe then geuing the Iewes to vnderstand, that he succeeded in the line of Dauid,* 1.57 would haue had them farther to consider, that he also was the sonne of God, and so shewed, that he, who was Dauids Sonne, was also called the Lord of Dauid: his Sonne by flesh, his Lord by Godhed, which thing did put them al to silence. Euen so that weake, mortal, and some time miserable, and sinful man, whome sitting at Rome, M. Iewel despiseth, when he heareth him to be according to the gifte of God, the Vicare of Christes loue (as S. Ambrose calleth him) in fee∣ding his shepe,* 1.58 and the Successour of the chiefe Apostle: he is surely astoined at it, and would be put to silence, if he were not worse, then a Pharisee. For admitting that the Pope were not S. Peters Successour, but onely one of the lowest Bishoppes of Christes Churche: yet who would not woonder to see him keepe his Succession so notably fiften hundred yeres together, wheras al the Pa∣triarkes, and thousandes of Bishops besides, are so man∣gled, and so brought to nought?

But now if wee adde hereunto, that the same is euen by our enemies confession, and euer was the first See, how muche more ought they to woonder at the special prouidence of God in that behalfe? Therefore euen as it was miraculous, that the line of Dauid was so notably preserued in so many changes, and captiuities of the Iewes: right so may we say of the Bishoppes of Rome, in suche sorte, as smaller thinges doo imitate the grea∣ter,

and may in their manner be compared to the greater.

Iewel.

Cyrillus frameth the Pharisees vvordes in this sorte.* 1.59 Thou Being of the tribe of Iuda (and therefore hauing no right by Succession vn∣to the Priesthood) takest vpon thee, the office that is committed vn∣to vs.

Harding.

Here againe you adde these wordes (hauing no right by Succession vnto the Priesthode) of your owne head.* 1.60 Howbeit euen there Cyrillus sheweth, that Christe had right by Succession, which you should not haue concee∣led, had you dealt truly. For there it foloweth. Sed si nouisses, ô Pharisee, scripturas, recoleres quòd hic est Sacer∣dos, qui secundùm ordinem Melchisedech offert Deo in se cre∣dentes, per cultum qui legem transcendit. O thou Pharisee,* 1.61 if thou haddest knowen the Scriptures, thou wouldest remember that this is the Priest, which after the order of Melchisedech offereth vp vnto God those that beleue in him, by a seruice of godly worship, which passeth the law.

Why would you not see those wordes that folowed in Cyrillus M. Iewel? First Christ had a Predecessour in his Priesthod, euen Melchisedech the high Priest. Se∣condly, Melchisedech is here declared to haue offered vnto God, and that Christ in offering vnto God, fulfilled his figure: whereas you would haue Melchisedech to make his oblation to Abraham, and not to God. Thirdly, the thing offered by Melchisedech, was not only bread and wine, but Abraham the Father of al beleeuers was offered vnto God by Melchisedech: And so Christe in his last Supper offered vnto God, not now bread and wine only: but by his almighty power he turned the

bread into the seede of Abraham, and so he offered vnto God al the faithful, which by reason of their head Christ being truly conteined vnder the formes of bread and wine, were also signified present as members ioined with the head, and so were al offered ••nto God.

Now whereas Christ was of the tribe of Iuda, that made for him, for out of that tribe the Messias was loo∣ked for, by the Succession of the h••••se of Dauid, as the Pharisees them selues confessed. And thereby they ought to haue vnderstanded, that their Succession from Aaron should yeeld vnto the Succession of Dauid, who had said that his Lorde,* 1.62 and Sonne, should be also a Priest after the order of Melchisedech. And the Iewes knew, that they ought to haue yelded to their Messias, as to their chiefe head so long before promised.

If you can shew vs M. Iewel, that as Christ was pro∣phecied of to put the Priestes of Aaron out of their places, so Luther, Zuinglius, or Caluine was prophe∣cied of, to destroie the Succession of S. Peter, we yeeld vnto you. But as the high Priestes, and Pharisees were neuer bound to yeeld vnto any mā, but only vnto Christ at his first comming: so S. Peters Successours ought ne∣uer to yeeld, but only to Christ at his second comming. And so by al meanes the Succession is perpetual, and the true Religion neuer lacked it visible and cleare, as this new Religion doth, which for lacke of it can not pos∣sibly stand long, no more then that of the Arians, or of the Nestorians did.* 1.63 For Bastard slippes take not deepe rootes. And therefore though they seeme to florish for a time, yet soone they vanish away. But the Tree, which Christe hath planted, that onely shal endure for euer.

That, saie we is the Chaier of Peter, with al suche Suc∣cessions of Bishops, as keepe them in the vnitie of Peters Chaier.

Iewel.

Chrysostome imagineth the Pharisees thus to say.* 1.64 Thou art not of the house of Priestes. The Councel hath not graunted it thee, the em∣perour hath not geuen it thee.

Harding.

You know this author is not S. Chrysostome, and yet stil you name him so, not so much as addīg,* 1.65 in opere imper∣fecto, whereby we might vnderstand whom you meane, wherein of purpose you doo vntruly. Now to the mat∣ter. This writter (whether he was Maximinus Arianus, as some auouche, or who so euer he was) doth not onely shew, that the Pharisees might haue had suche thoughtes, but also he sheweth that the signes and the true priesthod agreed al, and mette vpon Christ, who had his power, not of men, but of God. And farther he addeth there in this wise: Sacerdos qui est secundùm Deum, omnem Sacerdotem timet offendere, quia omnes ex Deo fieri arbitratur; quamuis ex hominibus sit factus.

Euery Priest which is of God, feareth to offend any Priest, bicause he thinketh euery Priest to be made of God, although he be made of men. But you M. Iewel thinke no Prieste at al now to be made of God. To be made I say. For you wil graunt none other Priesthod, then that Spiritual and internal Priesthod, which is com∣mon to wemen, and children, as wel as to men. As for ex∣ternal Priesthood you thinke none at al to be made, and therfore you despise not only euery Priest made of men, but also you despise the highest Priest of al, to wit the Bis∣shop

of Rome, and al his predecessours, being aboue thirtie Martyrs, and mo Confessours, and blessed Saintes, that haue sitten in that See, and haue exercised their power ouer the whole Church, as it is wel knowen of S. Clement, Eleutherius, Victor, Stephanus, and others.

The Pharisees wordes may be truly applied to you M. Iewel. For you wil haue no spiritual power to be in the Church, but that which the temporal Counsel, or Em∣perour,* 1.66 or some like secular Prince doth geue. For these officers haue you made the supreme gouernours of Christes Church in al thinges, and causes. He that saith in al, leaueth out nothing at al, wherein the temporal Prince is not supreme Gouernour. Therefore in your Church it is a good argument, thou maist not doo the of∣fice of a Bishop, preach, absolue, or Baptize, bicause thou art not admitted thereto by the Ciuile Magistrate. I wisse they of the Clergie in the Primitiue Churche would ra∣ther haue suffered a thowsand deathes, then they would haue submitted the power, which Christe gaue to them, vnto the laie gouernours, who although Christ alloweth them and commaundeth them to be obeyed, yet were not made by him maisters of his Religion, and of his Churche. The power must come from the Apostles by lawful Succession, which shal rule Christes Church, and not from the Emperour, or from the Kinge, muche lesse from a woman, or from a childe, hauing otherwise neuer so good right to thinheretance of a Crowne.

Iewel.

Thus to maineteine them selues in credite, for that they had Succession and continuance from Aaron, and sat•• in Moyses chaire, they kept Christs quite out of possession.

Harding.

They would haue done so in deede M. Iewel, but he did put them out of possession, bicause they would haue had there priesthod to continue longer, then the prophe∣cies had foretolde, and Goddes Counsel had determined. For the lawe, and Prophetes brought al to Christe, and there was shewed, that a change should be made by him. Bring vs forthe the like Prophecies, that Luther, Zuin∣glius Caluine, or that lusty Gospeller Beza must put the Pope out of possession, and forthwith by like Miracle bring you to passe, that the whole Churche, (I meane al them that professe the Faith of the Romaine Church) be dispersed, and destroied, as Christ dispersed, and destroied the Iewes: then we wil leaue the Pope, yea Christ also, and follow you, and them, as our second Messias. But if, as from Aaron til Christes first cōming, the High Priestes ought to haue yelded their possessiō to no man that euer came, so from S. Peter til Christes second comming, the Pope S. Peters successour ought to yelde his Chaire to no creature: Then be ye assured,* 1.67 that as Ieroboam set∣ting vp a Succession against the Succession of Aaron be∣fore Christ, was a wicked Schismatike, and an Idolatour: so what soeuer King, Queene, or Priest setteth vp a Suc∣cession against S. Peters Chaire before Christes seconde comming, is a Schismatike, and shal, without he, or she re∣pent, be damned in hel fire with Idolatours for euer. For S. Peters Chaire to the new Lawe is that, which Moyses Chaire was to the olde Lawe.

Iewel.

The Pharisees said vnto Christ then, euen as M. Harding saith novv vnto vs: VVho euer taught vs these thinges before thee? VVhat ordinarie

Succession, and vacation hast thou? VVhat Bishop admitted thee? VVho confirmed thee? VVho allovved thee?

Harding.

What meaneth this man? wil he take vpon him to be Christ him selfe? I thought he would haue put Luther, Zuinglius,* 1.68 Caluine, or Beza in Christes place. But he wil now haue it himselfe. Marke his wordes good Reader, thou shalt see a very Image of Antichriste. We must be like the Pharisees, and he must be like Christe: And therefore as Christe did put the Pharisees from their former Temple, Chaire, and Lawe, so we must yelde to M. Iewel. For it was prophecied before for soothe, that as Christe was the ende of the Lawe, so M. Iewel should be the ende of the Gospel. And as al the former Successions of high Priestes, and of Leuites gaue place to Christe, and to the new Order, which he appointed: so must now al the former Successions of the Apostles, and the new lawe, yeld vnto M. Iewel, and vnto the or∣der that he shal take hereafter, in Religion. For he see∣meth as it were to say, I am Christe, and M, Harding is a Pharisey. And as the Pharisees asked Christe who euer taught vs these thinges before thee, so M. Harding the Pharisey asketh M. Iewel (who now is become Christ) what ordinarie succession or vocation hast thou? What Bishop admitted thee? who confirmed thee? who allowed thee?

Marke I praie thee good Reader, how it com∣meth to passe, whiche Christe said before, that many should come in his name, and should seduce many.

There shal arise (saith he) false Christes, and false Pro∣phetes:* 1.69 that is to say, men shal come, who, excepte

they attributed to them selues mine owne glorie, au∣thoritie, and power, should not deceiue you. Suche a one is M. Iewel. For I say vnto him in good earnest, that beside Christe him selfe, who was aboue al Succession, and might alter, and change the same, he can haue none other man possibly from Adam the first man, til this how∣er,* 1.70 but that lawful Succession of Bishops and Priestes ought to be heard, and followed against that man, what soeuer he were. Cain ought to haue obeied Adam, to haue remayned with Seth, and not to haue constitu∣ted a newe companie in suche sort, that there should be one Citie of the children of menne, and an other of the Children of God. Nemrod ought to haue kepte him selfe in the Succession of Seth continewed by Noe, and not to haue made him selfe a Prince by force, by which occasion the faith beganne to be aban∣doned. Ismaël, and Esau should haue taried in the Suc∣cession, and not haue suffered their ofspring the Aga∣renes, and Edomites, to leaue the olde Religion of Abra∣ham, Isaac, and Iacob. Core, Dathan, and Abyron should not haue forsaken the Succession of Leui and of Aaron.* 1.71 Ieroboam should not haue forsaken the Succession of Moyses Chaire: Manasses the brother of Iaddus should not haue forsaken the same Succession, and haue gon to builde a new Temple in the mount Garizim.* 1.72 Onias should not haue forsaken the knowen Succession at Ierusalem, and haue built a Temple in Egypte. The Samaritanes should not haue sacrificed but only in Ierusalem. Onely Christe, onely Christe I say, might lawfully according to the prophecies forsake the former ordinarie Succession,* 1.73 and electe a newe, as he did saying to Peter, feede my

sheepe. From which howre til the ende of the world, no man what so euer he be, may forsake the Ordinarie Succession of Peter, but must keepe him selfe in the same house of God with him, and his Successours, vntil Christ come againe.

From that Succession departed Marcion, Arius, Eunomius, Nestorius, Pelagius, Eutyches, and briefly al other Heretiques, whiche al haue benne condemned of Peters See, and of al other Bishoppes, that were ioyned and lincked in vnitie of faith and Doctrine with that See. Nowe for M. Iewel to take vppon him Christes owne peculiar office, such as no Patriarke, no Prophete, no Apostle euer had, and to require, that he maie abo∣lishe the Masse, and change the order of the Commu∣nion, diminish the number of Sacramentes, and trans∣ferre the Order of Succession from the Apostolike See, they can not tel whither, and al this, none otherwise then Christ him selfe did: is not this the proper spirite of Antichrist? Remember your selfe M. Iewel, whiles you haue time to repent. And consider, that either you thinke your selfe to be in very deede the Messias of the worlde, who was annointed only of God, and needed no vocation of man: or els be you assured, that you are bound to holde of the ordinarie Succession, of them I meane, who sit in S. Peters chaire, and are of the same faith, and communion with S. Peters successour.

Iewel. Pag. 128.

Therefore good Christian Reader, let not these M. Hardings great vvordes much abashe thee. The Scribes, and Pharisees in the like cases vsed the like language long agoe.

Harding.

Wherefore shal not the Christian Reader be abas∣shed at my wordes, demaunding of M. Iewel, where his ordinarie succession is? Wherefore I say, shal not the Christian Reader be abashed? Forsoth bicause by like M. Iewel is Christ, or rather better then Christ, who putteth away Christes former Church, and the succession of his Apostle S. Peter, as Christ did put away Moyses former Law, and the Succession of Aaron. Therefore as Christ passed Moyses, in so many degrees must M. Iewel passe Christ, if his doings shalbe iustified. Therefore good rea∣der be not abasshed, if M. Iewel be Christe. But if thou thinke not so, and yet doest thinke in religion as he doth, then be thou worthily abasshed. For surely he is either Christ, who maketh a new Succession of Priesthod, and of Bishops: or Antichrist, who goeth aboute to vndoo the olde former Succession, whiche Christe had esta∣blished.

Iewel.

Touching the Church of Rome, I vvil say no more at this present, but only that vvas spoken openly by Cornelius the Bisshop of Bitont•• in the late Councel of Trident. Vtinam non à religione ad superstitio∣nem, à fide ad infidelitatem, à Christo ad Antichristum velut prorsus vnanimes declinassent. VVould God they vvere not al gonne by consent together from religion, to superstition, from saith, to infidelitie, from Christ to Antichrist. These fevv vvordes, considering either the speaker, or the place vvhere they vvere spoken may seme sufficient.

Harding.

If you had considered either the speaker, or the place, so as you ought to haue donne, you might haue benne ashamed, to haue alleged the woordes of a Catholike Prelate for your purpose. For what soeuer

he meant by them, you may be wel assured, he meant not to say, that the Catholique Churche was gonne from faith to infidelitie, or from Christe to Antichrist. Other∣wise he him selfe would not haue stil continued in that Catholique Churche, which had seemed to him to haue lacked faith,* 1.74 and Christe. But nowe the man is knowen in al Italie, and is aliue to this daye, who stil continueth in dayly preaching, and in exhorting al men to flie from your heresies to the Catholike faith, and to keepe them in the Churche: so that his deedes do wel shewe, what he meant by his wordes.

The whiche rule S. Augustine would haue kepte in the vnderstanding of what so euer Writers,* 1.75 and speci∣ally touching religion. And who so euer doth not so vn∣derstand mennes wordes by their deedes, vpon his blind∣nesse he cryeth out in this sorte. Incredibilis est coecita hominum, & omnino nescio quemadmodum credi posset esse in hominibus tanta peruersitas, nisi experimento verborum suorum factorúmque patesceret, vsque adeo se clausos habere cordis oculos, vt commemorent sanctae Scripturae testimonia, nec intueantur in factis prophetarum, quemadmodum in∣telligenda sint verba Prophetarum. It is an incredible blindnesse of menne: and verely I knowe not howe it might be beleeued, that there is suche frowardnesse in menne, onlesse by the proufe of their wordes and deedes it appeared openly, that the eyes of their harte were so fast closed, that they allege the testimonies of holy scri∣pture, and do not consider by the doinges of the Pro∣phetes, how the wordes of the Prophetes are to be vn∣derstanded.

And straight after where S. Augustine saith those

wordes, he sheweth by example, what he meant. Hie∣remie had written,* 1.76 what hath Chaffe to doo with the Wheate? The Donatistes thereupon reasoned, that the Catholikes were Chaffe, and them selues Wheate: but, saith S. Augustine by waie of exposition there, did Hie∣remie, that said, the Iewes were Chaffe, forsake their Church and fellowship? No verely. How so euer then Hieremie the prophete meant, we ought to vnderstand his wordes according to his deedes. And seing as concer∣ning his deedes he liued in one Temple, and faith with them, whom he called Chaffe, we may be wel assured, that by the name of Chaffe, he meant not, that the Iewes had not true Faith and Religion, but only that they had not true Charitie and Obedience.

Euen so if M. Iewel would consider, that the Bishop of Bitonto goeth not from Italie to Geneua, nor to Ger∣manie, nor to England, but both abideth stil in his Bis∣shoprike, and hath so much preached against these pre∣sent Heresies of Luther, Zuinglius, and Caluin, that now three whole Volumes of his eloquent Italian Sermons are extant in print: if he would haue considered this, he might haue benne ashamed with such a great brauarie and so ofte to haue alleged a Catholike mannes woordes against Rome the mother Churche of al Catholikes.

S. Augustine calleth it an incredible blindnesse so to doo, and suche as no man would beleeue, except he saw it vsed. But by whom? Verely by Heretikes, who ha∣uing no truth for them, doo stil make vaine bragges and shewes of woordes, when the very deedes of them, whose woordes they bring, are against them. Which thing I stand the longer vppon, bicause M. Iewel hath

vsed this practise aboue a thowsand times in his pre∣tensed Defence.* 1.77 Aboue a thousand tymes I say, he hathe alleged the woordes of Schoolemen, Gloses, Summistes, and Canonistes for his purpose, whereas he wel knoweth, they beleeued al suche, as he is, to be detestable Heretiques, and for suche condemned them. Yet must they be brought in, and that so often, so seriouslie, and with suche Preambles, as though he woulde beare the worlde in hande, they were cleare of his side.

Neither did Cornelius the Bisshoppe of Bitonto speake of the Bisshoppes of Rome specially, as M. Ie∣wel would beare the Readers in hande,* 1.78 but generally of the Christians, saying, that they haue wandered like sheepe in hilles, and feeldes, and that the chiefe of them are turned from authoritie, vnto Lordlynes, from right, vnto wronge, and would God (saith he) they were not vtterly as it were with one consent, bowed from Reli∣gion, to superstition, from faith to infidelitie, from Christ to Antichrist.

Neither doth he say, they are al gonne, as M. Iewel englisheth the woordes.* 1.79 The woorde (al) is not there. Againe he saith not, they are gonne by consent altogether, but, velut prorsus vnanimes, as it were vt∣terly of one minde. The worde velut, as it were, doth temper his woordes: but M. Iewel hath leafte out ve∣lut, and hath put in this worde al, lest if the sentence of that Bishop should be thus tempered, it should not seeme greuous inough.

His meaning was to complaine, as euery good man dayly doth, vppon the vices of menne, who liue as

if they had neither Faithe, nor Religion. And that woulde haue appeared most plaine, if M. Iewel had not cutte of the later woordes of Cornelius, vncour∣teously stopping him from telling out his whole tale. For in the very same sentence it foloweth, A Christo ad Antichristum, quin à Deo ad Epicurum, vel ad Py∣thagoram, velut prorsus vnanimes declinassent. Would God they had not as it were vtterly with one consent gonne a side, from Christe, to Antichriste, yea rather from God to Epicure, or to Pythagoras. These last woordes, whiche made al plaine, were omitted by M. Iewel, as his custome is, and the authours tale is fal∣sified, and his woordes abused. For any man woulde soone iudge, that they goe not to Epicure, or Pytha∣goras, to the ende to mainteine the doctrine and opi∣nions, that those Philosophers helde.

Pardonne me good Reader, if herein I seeme to long. For at this tyme I doo but as it were geue thee a shewe, what and howe muche might be said in euery other Article of the Booke, if I thought it labour worthe to discusse them particularly. For I assure thee, in my conscience, there is not any thing in this pretensed Defence, whiche might not be wel and ea∣sily answered, were not that it seemeth to me a thing both superfluous so to answere suche heapes of lyes, and gloses, and also an vnprofitable bestowing of good time.

Iewel.

They are gonne from Faith to infidelitie, from Christe to An∣tichrists.

Harding.

Which they M. Iewel? Did he speake of the Pope•…•… of Rome?* 1.80 You say, touching the Church of Rome, &c. And yet now you bring forth that, which was generally spo∣ken, and that by waie of complaint, of al euil Christians, and not namely of the Bisshops of Rome.

Againe how are they gonne from faith to infidelitie, and from Christ to Antichrist? Verely bicause they are gonne frō God to Epicure, that is to say, bicause many of them liue, as if they had neither faith, nor Christ, nor God. Last of al, he saith not, they are gonne as you fal∣sifie his wordes: but with a moderation, would God they were not gonne: He sheweth him selfe to feare, lest they be gonne: he taketh not vpon him boldly to affirme it, as you doo.

Iewel.

And yet al other thinges failing, they must holde onely by Succession: and only bicause they sit in Moyses Chaire, they must claime the posses∣sion of the vvhole. This is the right, and vertue of their Succession.

Harding.

Is it not reason, if secular men hold their kingdomes, landes, goodes, and rightes by Succession, yea when al other rightes, forces, and vertues faile, that Gods Mini∣sters, if they had nothing els leaft, should hold stil their owne also by Succession? It is wel knowen, that the Bishops of Rome haue more then only Succession. For they make good Decrees, they geue answer to great consultations, they cal General, and Prouincial Coun∣celles, they execute the Canons of them, and send forth Preachers, as of late they haue done euen vnto the new found Indies, beside many other godly and vertuous

actes, which they exercise for the saluation of their own soules, and of the people.

But what if they had nothing, but Succession? Would you then haue men forsake their folde, and Church? Did Isaias so? did Esdras so? did Iudas Machabeus so? did Zacharias so? did S. Iohn Baptist so? Can you deuise the Popes to be worse then Caiphas, or the Pharisees?* 1.81 And yet Christ willed them to be obeied, albeit they had li∣tle els beside Succession. It is this Succession M. Iewel, which shal lie in your, and in your companions waie at the dredful day of accompte. It shal not be demaunded of euery man, why he studied not the Scriptures, which most men haue not learned to reade: But it shalbe de∣maunded, why they haue no faith, nor charitie. No faith, by forsaking the open, and knowen Succession: no cha∣ritie, by breaking vnitie. Euery man seeth Succession, ignorance can not be pretended, and euery man shalbe iudged by it concerning his Faith.

Iewel.

The vvordes of Tertullian M. Harding, vvhich you haue here alleged, vvere spoken of certaine your ancient fathers, that had raised vp a nevv religion of them selues, as you haue also done, vvithout either vvorde of God, or example of the Apostles, and holy fathers.

Harding.

It is happy that at the length,* 1.82 you beginne to answere my wordes. We shal now see, how wel you touche Ter∣tullians meaning. You say his wordes were spoken of certaine my ancient Fathers. That can not be so. For none are in this behalfe my fathers, but those, who loue wel the Succession of Bishops. But Tertullian spake of

those,* 1.83 that esteemed the Succession of Bishops, as litle as you do. And therefore they are your fathers, of whom he speaketh: that is to say, they are Heretikes, of whom he speaketh. For in dede no heretike can abide Succes∣sion, bicause they would faine iustle out the olde Succes∣sion, to schuffle in their new Intrusion.

You say the men, of whom Tertullian speaketh, raised vp a new Religion of them selues, and therein you say truth. You adde, as I also haue donne: but therein you belye me, for ye are not hable to laye any one point of doctrine to my charge, wherein I follow not that old Succession, which abhorreth al new Religion. Let al the worlde iudge, who raiseth vp a newe Religion, you, or I. You say the Heretiques, of who Tertullian spake, raised vp a new Religion without the Worde of God, example of the Apostles, or of holy Fathers. If you meane without the true meaning of Gods worde, you say truth: and then you also are without Gods worde, bicause you are without the Church, whereunto Gods worde with the true interpretation thereof was geuen: and we are not without it, bicause we conteine our selues within the Churche. But if you meane, that these heretikes did not sounde the wordes of the Scri∣ptures in their lippes, as falsely, and withal, as fast, as you doo, then you say not truly. For Tertullian in that booke doth shew, that the Heretikes also appealed to the Scri∣ptures,* 1.84 and he answered, that to striue with heretiques vpon the scriptures, was a thing of vncertaine victorie, bi∣cause one saith, it is not holy Scripture, an other saith, it is holy Scripture, one saith, it is meant thus, an other saith, it is ••••••••t otherwise. But (saith Tertullian)

the interpretation of the Scriptures belongeth to them,* 1.85 who haue the true faith, and he concludeth, that they haue the true faith, who haue the perpetual Succes¦sion of Bishoppes from the Apostles time til their owne daies.

Scripturas obtendunt, & hac sua audacia statim quosdam mouent. The Heretiques pretende to bring Scriptures for them selues, and with that their impudencie forthwith they shake some. And afterward.* 1.86 Ergo non ad scripturas prouocandum est, nec in his constituendum certamen, in qui∣bus aut nulla, aut incerta victoria est, aut parum certa.

Therefore we must not alwaies appeale vnto the Scrip∣tures, neither must we striue about them, in which either no victorie at al, or an vncertaine, or verely not very certaine victorie is obteined.

Then sheweth he that heretikes of right haue not to doo with the Scriptures, but onely the Catholiques,* 1.87 to whom the Apostles deliuered them: and not them only, but other thinges also, viua voce, by mouth, and worde, without writing. Si hac ita sunt, constat proinde omnem doctrinam, quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis, matricibus, et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandam, reliquam verò omnem doctrinam de mendacio praeiudicandam, quae sapiat contra veritatem Ecclesiarum, & Apostolorum, & Christi, & Dei. If this be so, then is it euident, that al such doctrine, as agreeth with those, that are the Apo∣stolique Churches, the mother Churches, and the original Churches of the faith, is to be taken for true, and that al other doctrine is to be adiudged to come of lying, as that which sauoureth against the truth of the Churches, of the Apostles, of Christ, and of God.

* 1.88Now concerning our Churches, it is euident, that we agree with the original, and mother Churches, which were planted by the Apostles. For we agree in faith with the Churche of Rome, which was planted by the most blessed Apostles S. Peter, and S. Paule, and alwaies kepte her Succession til this present daie: and therefore our doctrine is true. But you agree in faith with no Churche at al now extant in the worlde, which came from the Apostles: and therefore your doctrine by the rule of Ter∣tullian, is false, and lying.

Whiles he then disputed with Heretikes, as we doo now with you, he said, either these Heretikes confesse, that they beganne since the Apostles time, and they are false teachers: or if any of them dare intrude them selues into the Apostles age, Edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum, then let them bring forth the beginninges, or shew the ori∣ginal euidences of their Churches, let them vnfold the order of their Bishops, so ronning along from the beginning by Suc∣cession, that he who is the first Bishop, had for his founder and predecessour, one of the Apostles, or of the Apostolike men, who continued til the ende with the Apostles in the same faith. Hoc enim modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos defe∣runt. For by this way the Apostolike churches do shew forth along their publike registers.

At length hauing brought forth the examples of the Churche of Smyrna, and of the Churche of Rome, and of other like Churches, he concludeth thus confiden∣ly, Consingant tale aliquid Haeretic••; let the Heretiques feine some suche matter. He bad them feme, For he wel knewe in truth, they coulde shew no suche Suc∣cession.

I haue then shewed that Tertullian spake not of Here∣tikes, who lacked the pretense of Gods worde,* 1.89 but of them, who had no Succession of Bishoppes from the Apostles time til their owne age. And one such Successi∣on of Bishoppes in any one Church of al the worlde se∣ing M. Iewel can not bring forth, it remaineth that he is an Heretike, and that his Doctrine is erroneus, false, and heretical.

Iewel.

Tertullian saith not vnto vs, but vnto you, and suche as you be, let them shevv forth the Originals of their Churches.

Harding.

Is that al he saith M. Iewel? Why went you not forth to the next wordes?* 1.90 Let them vnfold the order of their Bi∣shoppes. He calleth it vnfolding, bicause the Bishoppes names were vsed to be kept, and written in order in long Rolles, the whiche Rolles must be vnfolded, when they are to be read. He meant not therefore such Originals M. Iewel as you imagine: to wit, particular examples of this, or that facte: but he meant the Original copies, or instrumentes, and euidences of founding, and planting of their Churche, who it was that preached the Faith first vnto them, and who was their first Bishop, who the second, who the third, and so forth vntil the present time.

Iewel.

Euen so vve say vnto you, shevv vs the Originals of your doctrine.

Harding.

You say not euen right so as Tertullian said. For he

called not for the Originals of Doctrine, but of Chur∣ches:* 1.91 For by the Churches the Doctrine is knowen, to be good or euil, to be allowable, or reproueable.

Iewel.

Shevv vs any one of the Apostles of Christe, or of the learned Catho∣like Doctours of the Churche, that euer said your priuate Masse. Shevv one at the lest, either Greeke or Latine.

Harding.

It was not that, which Tertullian required. He de∣maunded only for the Originals of Churches, and for the order and Succession of Bishops. But for that you durst not cal, knowing, that we could shew, how S. Augustine conuerted vs, being sent into England from S. Gregorie the Pope, whiche Pope S. Gregorie succeded S. Peter in his Chaier. Thus we can shew the Originals of our Chur∣ches, bringing them from the Catholike Bishops, whiche are yet aliue,* 1.92 vpward vntil S. Peter.

But you are fallen away from the matter of Successi∣on, which only Tertullian presseth, and are now come to demaunde of a particular facte, whether any Apostle, or olde Father euer said priuat Masse, or no. I say, al of them might haue said priuate Masse, and that I proue by Ter∣tullians reason, and rule, bicause the vse of saying priuate Masse came to vs time out of minde by Succession, without any change or innouation noted therin by any storie or Chronicle. And yet was ther neuer any strange or new thing receiued and vsed in the Churche, but that great trouble came thereof (as now there doth of your changing of Religion) the whiche trouble of Churches, and common Weales, is at no time omitted in the sto∣ries

of that age, wherein it falleth. But now seing the vse of saying priuat Masse came so peaseably to vs from hand to hand, and no first author thereof can be shewed: it is out of al controuersie, that it was euer accompted a Godly and a lawful thing.

But what neede I now to repeate that I haue already written in that argument? Answer that parte of my booke better to the purpose then yet ye haue donne, whiche treateth of that point, where many plaine eui∣dences be brought forth of Sole Receiuing* 1.93 in the Pri∣mitiue Churche,* 1.94 whiche Sole Receiuing is the onely thing, for whiche you reproue priuate Masse, as you cal it. It is cleare, that S. Chrysostom and certaine others said Masse, and yet had no man to receiue with them, as I haue other where declared. I thinke not good now to fal into that Disputation againe, and therefore here I wil cal you home to the present Argument of Succes∣sion.

Iewel. Pag. 128. 129.

S. Augustine saith of so many Bishops of Rome, there could not one be found, that had benne a Donatiste: Euen so in like sorte say vve to you, of al the same Bishops of Rome, there can not be one found, that euer agre∣ed vvith M. Harding in saying Masse. Or if there vvere any such, shevv his name, vvith other Circumstances, vvhen, and vvhere, and vvho vvere vvitnesses of the doing. Shevv vs your Originals M. Harding: Confesse the Truth: deceiue vs no longer. It is a nevv deuise: ye haue it only of your selues: and not by Succession from the Apostles.

Harding.

You pretend to reason like S. Augustine, as though he had reasoned vpon a particular facte, and not vp∣on the Doctrine. Euen so in like sorte, say you, and it is

not euen so, nor in like sorte. S. Augustine concluded, that the Donatistes were Heretikes,* 1.95 bicause no Bishop of Rome taught that doctrine which they taught. And you turne al the mater of doctrine to a manner of doing. It were surely hard to proue, that euer any one Pope, not only of those 38. whom S. Augustine nameth, but also of al the rest til this hower, did say priuate Masse. For if M. Iewel should put me to the proufe, that Paulus tertius, or Pius quartus, Federicus Fregosius that noble and learned Bishop of Salerno, or Bellaius that worthy Bishop of Paris, or any the like, who liued in our time, had said Priuate Masse, and that in such wise, as if I were not hable to shew him, when they said it, where they said it, and who were witnesses thereof, I should not be credited for want of due proufe: I were not hable to proue it, either for that I liued not at Rome, and in the places where they made their abode, or elles bicause, though I liued in those places, I was not so curious, nor careful to know, what they did therin. And so it would followe, by this fond collection of M. Iewels Logique, that euen yet to this daie, no Pope, nor other Bishop, faith priuate Masse, bicause I can not proue it, and shew the circumstance, where, when, and how it was donne.

Thinke you M. Iewel, that the Religion of Christe dependeth vpon any particular facte of menne? Is that your Diuinitie? Al the Popes, and al the Apostles agree with vs in Doctrine, bicause wee can shewe diuerse Churches, whiche haue benne planted of them, and haue kepte from time to time the Religi∣on, whiche they receiued from hande to hande of

them. This is our demonstration of the Truthe. This is that, whiche Christe allowed, when he commaun∣ded his disciples to doo, and keepe, that which the Scri∣bes and Pharisees, who sate in Moyses chaire, bad them to keepe and doo. Euen so doo we M. Iewel, we say pri∣uate Masse (so ye wil needes cal it) bicause the Popes, and other bishops, who sit in Peters, and in the other A∣postles chaire, doo tel vs, that it is lawful to say priuate Masse. And we doubte not also, but that it hath benne vsed for euer to be said, though the people, either were not present, or being present, would not receiue with the priest, as it is plaine in S. Chrysostome,* 1.96 who stode at the Altare, and did that which belonged to priestly due∣tie, that is to say, he said Masse, and looked for some com∣municantes, to come to receiue the communion, but he stode in vaine, for any that would come to him. Yet did he stil come to the altare, when so either the feaste, or his deuotion required.

Iewel. Pag. 129.

But vvherefore telleth vs M. Harding this long tale of Succession?

Harding.

Bicause it is a special marke of the true Churche, asa 1.97 Ireneus,b 1.98 Tertullian,c 1.99 Optatus, and S.d 1.100 Augustine doo teach: and your Church hath no Succession that is thirty yeres olde, nor any Bishop at al lawfully planted. But ours hath a Succession of a thowsand fiue hundred threescore and eight yeres, with a great number of Bi∣shops in al countries, and times.

Ievvel.

Haue these men their ovvne Succession in so safe recorde? VVho vvas

then the bishop of Rome next by succession, vnto Peter? VVho vvas the second? vvho the third? vvho the fourth? Irenaeus reckeneth them to∣gether in this order: Petrus, Linus, Anacletus, Clemens: Epipha∣nius thus, Petrus, Linus, Cletus, Clemens: Optatus thus, Petrus, Linus, Clemens, Anacletus. Clemens, saith, that he him selfe vvas next vnto Peter, and then must the reckening go thus. Petrus, Clemens, Linus, Anacletus. Hereby it is cleare, that of the first foure bishops of Rome, M. Harding can not certainely tel vs, vvho in order succeded other. And thus talking so much of Succession, they are not vvel hable to blase their ovvne Succession.

Harding.

Here is a deepe consideration, I promise you. What if al writers being sure of these foure Bishops of Rome, yet be not sure who was before other? Is therefore our Succession vncertaine? We are wel assured, that Peter was the first, and after him there was a Second, a Third, and a Fourth. We are also assured, that the same were Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Anacletus. And what skilleth it vnto vs,* 1.101 who was Second, who Third, who Fourth? But now al this busines is ended, if we make a distinction. And that is this.

S. Peter being yet aliue made two Suffraganes, Linus, and Cletus, who might doo the outward busi∣nes of his office, whiles him selfe did attende to praier, and preaching. So saith Damasus in the life of S. Pe∣ter. Againe when S. Peter saw his death to be at hand, he chose Clement to be his successour, as we reade in S. Clementes epistle, and in Damasus. Yea Tertullian also confesseth, that the Church of Rome sheweth Clement to haue benne ordeined of Peter.

Thus were there three Bishops in Rome, but not three Bishops of Rome, when S. Peter died, of the whiche S. Clement had most right to succede. But he hauing seene before the good experience of Li∣nus and Cletus, did yelde the administration to them, one after the other, first to Linus, and then to Cletus, after whose death Clement him selfe gouerned the A∣postolike See. And after him came Anacletus, whom some Greeke Writers tooke to be one with Cle∣tus.

Thus are al matters reconciled.* 1.102 And that not by me onely, but by Ruffinus eleuen hundred yeres past, who also receiued it of his Forefathers. He saith, Quidam requirunt, quomodo, cùm Linus & Cletus in vrbe Roma ante Clementem hunc fuerint episcopi, ipse Clemens ad Ia∣cobam scribens, sibi dicat a Petro docendi Cathedram tra∣dit••m ••cuius rei hanc accepimus esse rationem. Quòd Linus, & Cletus fuerunt quidem ante Clementem epi∣scopi in vrbe Roma, sed superstite Petro, vt illi epi∣scopatus curam gererent, ipse vero Apostolatus imple∣ret officium. Sicut inuenitur etiam apud Caesaream fu∣isse, vbi cùm ipse esset presens, Zachaeum tamen à se ordinatum habebat Episcopum. Et hoc modo vtrumque verum videbitur, vt & illi ante Clementem numeren∣tur Episcopi, & Clemens tamen post obitum Petri docen∣di susceperit sedem. Some aske this question, howe Clement him selfe, writing to Iames, saith, that Peter leafte to him the Chaire of teaching, where∣as Linus, and Cletus were Bishops in the Citie of Rome before this Clement. Of whiche thing we

haue learned this to be the reason: That Linus, and Cle∣tus were bishops in the Citie of Rome, but in the life time of Peter, to thintent they should take vpon them the charge of the bishops duetie, and he him selfe fulfil the office of an Apostle. We finde that he did the like also at Caesarea, where, though he were present him selfe, yet he had Zachaeus, whom he ordered him selfe, to be the bishop. And thus both may seeme true, to wit, that they were taken for bishops before Clement, and yet that Clement after the death of Peter tooke the place of teaching.

Ruffinus inuented not this solution of him selfe, but he tooke it of others. For he saith accepimus, asmuche to saie, we haue receiued, we haue heard, we haue learned this: so that it was a thing knowen, and taught from the beginning, which yet M. Iewel either knew not, or wil∣lily dissembled: As though it were a great hinderance or preiudice to the Emperours Maiestie, if it were vn∣knowen now, whether Vitellius had ben Emperour be∣fore Galba, or Galba before Vitellius: with such toyes he stuffeth his booke.

Iewel. Pag. 129.

I might farther say, that Peters See Apostolike vvas ouer the Ievves, and not at Rome ouer the Heathens.* 1.103 For so S. Paule saith: The Gos∣pel of the Vncircuncision was committed vnto me, as the Gos∣pel of the Circuncision vnto Peter: God that was mightie in Peter in the Apostleship of the Circuncision, was mightie in me emong the Heathens. Therefore if the Pope this day vvil claime only by Peters title, and require no more then Peter had, then must he seeke his Primacie emongest the Ievves, vvhere Peter had his iurisdiction limited, and not at Rome emong the heathen Christians, emong vvhom, as S. Paule saith, he had not much to doe.

Harding.

The lewdnes of this licencious Minister passeth al rea∣son. He excludeth not only the Pope from the gouerne∣ment of the whole Churche, but also from his owne Chaire at Rome: neither only the Pope, but euen the blessed Apostle S. Peter. And he thinketh him selfe to haue the Scripture agreable vnto his malicious, and fonde conceite.* 1.104 S. Peter had to doo with those Christians at Rome, which before had ben Heathens, or Gentiles, for foure special causes. First, bicause he was one of the twelue Apostles, al which had to doo with any Christiā, whether he had ben Iewe, or heathen before. For Christ said to them al, Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to euery creature: that is to say, to men of al nations, were they Iewes, or Gentiles. So that who so euer de∣nieth, that S. Matthew, S. Thomas, or who soeuer els of the Apostles had to doo with the Christians being con∣uerted from their heathenish Idolatrie, he denieth plain∣ly Gods word. If then euery Apostle had right to exercise any Apostolike duetie at Rome, in case he had come thi∣ther: what ignorance is it to say, that S. Peter could not doo that in Rome, which any one of the twelue might lawfully haue donne?

Secondly, Christ him selfe hauing said before,* 1.105 that he had other sheepe beside the Iewes, whiche he would bring into his Folde, said afterward to S. Peter, Feede my lambes,* 1.106 Feede my sheepe. Seing then the Heathens, or Gentiles, that became faithful, were Christes sheepe, they were commended also vnto S. Peter. And therefore he had to doo with them aboue al other men.

Thirdly, God chose, that is to say, purposely prouided,

that the Gentiles should heare the worde of the Gospel by S. Peters mouth,* 1.107 and beleue. Therefore it was the special wil, and choise of God, that S. Peter should haue to doo with the Heathens, that should be conuerted, which is directly against your saying M. Iewel.

* 1.108Fourthly S. Peter came to Rome before S. Paule. For S. Peter came thither in the dayes of Claudius the Em∣perour, as Eusebius, and S. Hierome with diuers others doo witnesse: And there he preached the Gospel: & salu∣taris praedicationis verbo primus in vrbe Romae Euāgelij sui clauibus ianuam regni coelestis aperuit: and first opened the gate of the heauēly Kingdom in the Citie of Rome with the keies of his Gospel by the word of heathful preaching.

But S. Paule came to Rome long after, in the daies of Nero the Emperour, as Eusebius also recordeth. S. Peter therefore must nedes haue to doo with those Christians, who were conuerted at Rome, no lesse then S. Paule. And thence also S. Peter wrote his first epistle, as Papias one of the Apostles scholars doth witnesse.

* 1.109Did not you know al this M. Iewel, as wel as I? How chaunceth it then, you are so impudent, as to bring into doubte, whether S. Peters See Apostolike was ouer the Heathens at Rome, or no? You answer, for so saith S. Paule. What, doth he say, that S. Peter was not ouer the faithful Heathens at Rome? He neither saith it, nor mea∣neth any such thing. His meaning is to shew, that he was made an Apostle not by Peter, or Iohn, or Iames, or by any other man, but only by Iesus Christe. And therefore although three yeres after his conuersion he went to Ie∣rusalem,* 1.110 to see Peter, and fourteen yeres afterward he cō∣ferred with him, concerning the Faith, which he prea∣ched:

yet neither Peter, nor Ihon, nor Iames did geue him any thing, or make him either the better learned, or ende∣wed him with more power, and authoritie. But rather they ioined handes with S. Paule, and tooke him into their fellowship. Why so? In consideration that they saw, God had no lesse committed to him the preaching of the Gos∣pel vnto the Gentiles, then he had before cōmitted to Pe∣ter the preaching of the gospel vnto the Iewes. And how saw they either this, or that? Bicause the effect shewed it so. For as God had wrought mightily emong the Iewes in conuerting them by S. Peters preaching, so they saw that he wrought mightily emong the Gentiles by cōuer∣ting them at the preaching of S. Paule. So that by the very euente of the matter, they saw that S. Paule was cal∣led in deed of God to the Apostleship.

S. Paule then meant not in these wordes, that S. Peter by Christes cōmission had to doo only with the Iewes, and him selfe only with the Gentiles.* 1.111 For S. Paule had al∣so to do with the Iewes, and he preached to them in their Synagogs through diuers partes of Asia, and otherwhere: Yea at Rome it selfe, he preached to the Iewes.* 1.112 Shame it is to you M. Iewel, the shame of ignorance I meane, or, (which is more likely) the shame of impudencie if you see not, that both S. Peter had to doo with the Gentiles, and S. Paule with the Iewes, and eche of them with both.

But what saying of holy scripture, or of holy doctour did you euer allege against the truth, without some cor∣ruptiō? In S. Paules words you leaft out a smal word in ap∣pearance, but yet great of strength. The worde, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, enim,* 1.113 which in english doth signifie, for. This word (for) geueth great light to S. Paules meaning. For whē he had said, that

the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles was cōmit∣ted vnto him, euen as the preaching of the Gospel to the Iewes was cōmitted vnto S. Peter: least any man should thinke, that he meant of a special commission purposely reserued to him alone by God: he declareth, how that commission might be proued. Qui enim operatus est Pe∣tro, For he that hath wrought in Peter in the Apostleship of the Circuncision, that is to saie, of the Iewes, hath wrought in me also emong the gentiles. That same, enim, for, doth make the place plaine. They knew that God had no lesse committed the Gentiles to Paule, then the Iewes to Peter. How knew they it? For he wrought now as mightily with Paule emong the Gentiles, as he had wrought before with Peter emong the Iewes. So that S. Chrysostome wel noteth,* 1.114 non dixit, postquàm audissent, sed cognouissent, hoc est, ex ipsis didicissent factis. He said not, after they had heard, but after they had knowen: that is to say, after they had learned by the deedes them selues. Marke M. Iewel, marke the deedes them selues. It was now the commission of the deedes, whereby God declared him selfe to haue wrought in them both. But that not withstanding, S. Peter did, might and ought to preache vnto the Gentiles, and to plant, and dispose their Churches, no lesse then S. Paule: And S. Paule might like∣wise plante, dispose, and order the Iewes Churches. For their right was one, concerning the Apostolike autho∣ritie.

Iewel.

VVhere you say, that according to the ecclesiastical Canons, euer from the Apostles time, Bishops haue euermore ben consecrated by three other bishops, vvith the confirmation of the bishop of Rome,

Harding.

I said,* 1.115 with the consent of the Metropolitane (which you haue here pared awaie) and Confirmation of the Bishop of Rome. I added also, thus Vnitie hath euer benne kepte, whiche you also haue vntruly leaft out.

Iewel. Pag. 129.

As if vvithout him no man might be allovved to be a Bishop, yee should not so vnaduisely report so manifest Vntruth. For I besech you, vvhere be these Ecclesiastical Canons? VVho deuised them? VVho made them? VVho gaue the Pope that singular priuilege, that no Bishop should be admitted in al the vvorlde, but onely by him?

Harding.

Among the Canons of the Apostles, this is the first: Episcopus à duobus, aut tribus Episcopis ordinetur. Let a Bi∣shop be ordered (or made Bishop) by two, or three Bi∣shoppes. These Canons are allowed by the sixth Gene∣ral Councel. Yet can you aske, where be these Ecclesiasti∣cal Canons? who deuised them? who made them? By a Decre of Hilarius, no Bishop can be cōsecrated without the Metropolitanes consent. What Consecration could M. Iewel, and his felowes haue, who hath neither Me∣tropolitan at al, nor lawful Bishop to Consecrate them? Howbeit touching this I nede to saie litle: for in the ve∣ry nexte side of the leafe M. Iewel confuteth him selfe. Where, as one that had quite forgoten him selfe, he saith thus. Our Bishoppes are made in Fourme, and Order, as they haue benne euer, by free election of the Chapter, by the Con∣secration of the Archebishop, and other three Bishoppes. If this be the Fourme and Order of making Bishops, that hath benne euer, to be Consecrated by tharchebishop, and three other Bishops, why were you so hote against

me, in calling for th'Ecclesiastical Canōs: which you bind your selfe now to shew, or elles you must confesse, that you haue made this new order, that hath not ben euer.

* 1.116But now concerning the Popes authoritie to confirme Bishops, to omit for this present the olde Canon of Pope Anacletus, which is afterward alleged, and to shew the first author of this mater: Christe, who made Peter the chiefe Pastour of al, and who gaue commission to him louing him more, then the other Apostles did, to feede accordingly as he loued, that is, to feede more then the o••her Apostles did: Christe who inspired Peter to goe to Rome, and there to settle the Apostolike See and Chaire of his Bishoply Primacie: Christe, who inspired Peter to make S. Clement, and the other Bishoppes of Rome his Successours, gaue the Bishop of Rome Peters Successour this Priuiledge, that no Bishop ought to be a Bishop without his consent. For what reason can suffer, that any man shal gouuerne any part of those sheepe, whiche are al committed to the Bishop of Rome, without the Bishop of Romes consent, which consent is a Confirmation suf∣ficient to any Bishop for the due gouernmēt of his flocke.

Now this consent of the Bishop of Rome was many wayes knowen. For when soeuer he cōsented to the ge∣neral order of the catholik Church, to wit, that he should be a Bishop, whosoeuer were laufully chosen by the Cler∣gie,* 1.117 then his cōsent was geuen generally. And when after the election made, cōmunicatorie letters thereof came to Rome, as to be head place of the Christian Cōmunion, then was the said Bishop specially cōfirmed, and so cōfir∣med, that the Pope could not choose but cōfirme him, ex∣cept he could make any iust exceptiō against him. For as

no man ought to gouuerne in the Church without the Po∣pes confirmatiō (when it may cōmodiously be had with∣out impediment) euen so the Pope must nedes confirme those, who are lawfully chosen, except he wil vpon good ground change the gouuernmēt of the Dioces to a more profitable order, as many times it hath ben don. This ma∣ter would require a large Treatise. But it is in part hand∣led already in my first booke set forth against the Articles of your Chalēge M. Iew. wher you might haue sene what I alleged, why the Pope should confirme Bishops, so that now this thing should not haue ben so strange vnto you.

Ievvel. Pag. 129.

I remember your Canonistes haue said,* 1.118 the Pope may make a Bishop only by his vvorde, vvithout any farther Consecration.

Harding.

Do you remember it M. Iewel? It was clearkly spoken forsooth, and in such sort, as if you had ben an olde studēt of the Canō law many a winter past, and that now whiles you had ben occupied in higher maters yet some of these former meditations had come againe to your minde, and worthily. For it was a thing much to be mused vpon of him that occupieth a Bishops place, what Felinus, or Pa∣normitan said cōcerning the Pope. The truth is M. Iewel, you either had this stuffe in some of your Germaine ga∣therers, or elles it was ministred to you by some of your Cōministers, if not by your blind lawier, whose help you haue bought with a pece of an Archdeaconrie. For you beganne not I suppose to studie the Canonistes, and the gloses of the Law, before you occupied the place of a Bi∣shop, if then at the least you did. But how soeuer that be, your memory might haue ben better bestowed, thē in ke∣ping in stoare such a toie. The Canonistes meane, that the

Pope, as being the highest iudge, is not bound to the obseruation of any thing in the law, whiche is only Ce∣remonial: so that he may dispense with those maters, when he seeth cause, and may with his only worde pro∣mote a man to the authoritie of a Bishop, the omission of any Ceremonie notwithstanding. But they speake only of rites and Ceremonies, such as I suppose you your selfe would not, or should not sticke vpon, when either ne∣cessitie, or vniuersal profite should require a thing to be spedily donne. As for any point necessary to the Sa∣crament of holy Orders, the Pope may not omit in any wise.

Iewel. Pag. 129.

* 1.119And Abbate Panormitane moueth a doubte, vvhether the Pope by the fulnesse of his povver may depriue al the Bishoppes of the vvorlde at one time. But thus they say, that care not greatly vvhat they say.

Harding.

When you had only said that Panormitane moued the doubte, you conclude with, thus they say: as though he had said, that in deede the Pope might depriue al the Bishoppes in the worlde at once. Certainely the mouing of the doubt sheweth him not to say it. For many doubtes be moued, you know pardy, not to the ende men should thinke, that al may be donne, whereof by learned men, a question is moued: but that they may the better carie a∣way the answer. So question is moued emong the Schole∣men, An Deus sit, whether God be? not that any man at al doubteth thereof, but to see, how the doubte might be resolued, if any man were so mad as to moue it. Once it is certaine, that the Pope can not depriue al Bi∣shoppes. For although they be vnder him (specially if they

do amisse, or nede any helpe) yet they are as truly Bishops, as he is, and are the Successours of the Apostles, who knowing the Primacie to belong vnto S. Peter, did yet make Bishops by Gods ordinance, where so euer they thought it expedient. Aaron was the chiefe emong al the Priestes, and Leuites, yet he could not therfore depriue al the Leuites, and Priestes. And euen so your owne Panor∣mitane, whom you make to doubte, concludeth with these wordes. Quod si papa vellet,* 1.120 non posset remouere omnes Episcopos, cum repraesentent omnes Apostolos. If the Pope would, he could not remoue al Bishops, for as muche as they represent al the Apostles. Cal you this a doubting, when he so plainely determineth against that, for which you alleage his doubting?

Iewel.

Verely Nilus a greeke vvriter saith thus:* 1.121 The Bishop of Constantinople doth order the Bishop of Cesarea, and Other Bishops vnder him, But the Bishop of Rome doth neither Order the Bishop of Constantinople, nor any other Metropolitane.

Harding.

It neither much skilleth, what Nilus doth say,* 1.122 whose authoritie, is so litle worth, being a late mainteiner of the Schisme of the Grecians, and yet though his saying were true, it skilleth also as litle, bicause it speaketh of a matter of facte, and not of power. For he sayth not, that the Bishop of Rome is not hable, or hath not power, to order some Metropolitane, but only that he doth not so, meaning that he vseth not so to doo. And if the not doing proue any impotencie, or vnablenes to doo it, then it maie be said, Christe is not hable to ordeine a Deacon, bicause we read not that euer he did so, by his owne

mouth,* 1.123 or handes. For Deacons were ordeined by his Apostles after his Ascension. But albeit the Pope vseth not to Order Metropolitanes with his owne handes, yet Nilus I trow meant not, but that he was of power to doo it: or if he was so folish as to thinke so, yet you M. Iewel should not in that behalfe beare the bable with him, as who confesse, that he was euer as great a Patriarke, and much more auncient then the Bishop of Constantinople was: so that the Bishop of Constantinople can not be able to doo that, which the Pope also can not doo.

To be short, you that can cal so many gloses to your remembrance, could you not remember that, as Libe∣ratus,* 1.124 recordeth, Anthenius the Bishop of Constanti∣nople being yet aliue, but deposed for heresie, Agapetus that good Bishop of Rome consecrated, and ordered with his owne handes Mennas, who professed the Ca∣tholike faith, making him Bishop of Constantinople, in stede of the other heretical Bishop? Are you then so farre to seeke in your Logike, as not to know, that if the Bishop of Rome did lawfully once order the Bishop of Constantinople, that stil he were of authoritie and power so to doo, if nede were?

Iewel.

But hereof I haue spoken more at large in my former Replie to M. Harding.

Harding.

But thereof you are confuted more at large by M. Sta∣pleton in his Returne of Vntruthes vpon you, and yet could you dissemble the matter, as though your fourth Article, and namely that part, whereof here you speake, were not founde as ful of Vntruthes, as of Allegations.

Iewel. Pag. 129.

Certainely S. Cyprian vvilleth, that Sabinus, being lavvfully elected,* 1.125 and consecrate Bishop in Spaine, should continevve Bishop stil, yea al∣though Cornelius, being then Bishop of Rome, vvould not confirme him.

Harding.

By this a man may know, what a Dodger you are, and whence your great bookes procede. Verely from cer∣taine heretical Notebookes made by some Grāmarians, or Scholemasters of Germanie. For alwaies your allega∣tions, and reportes, come out after the same sorte. If once they conteined an open lye, being neuer so often repeated, they shal stil conteine it: and reason. For they were alwayes written out of one lying fountaine.* 1.126 M. Stapleton had told you of this very matter before. He shewed, that your note booke is false. It was not Pope Cornelius, but Pope Steuen, who would haue restored Basilides to his bishoprike against Sabinus, who was newly elected in Spaine. But the staye, why Pope Steuens Decree stoode not, was only for lacke of true information in Basilides appeale made to Rome.

Now reason, and lawe sheweth, that when a thing is not done only vpon a certaine cause, that cause ceasing, the thing should be right wel done. Sabinus might con∣tinue Bishop not withstanding that Pope Steuen wrote, against him, onely bicause Basilides, for whom the Pope wrote, had deceiued the Pope by false suggestion.

Therefore if a true suggestion had ben made to the Pope, his Decree should haue preuailed, although it extended it selfe as farre as Spaine, and that for

the restitution of a Bishop against him, that was newly elected a Bishop, by the consent of al the Bishops of Spaine. Therefore the Popes authoritie ouer other Bis∣shops, grounding it selfe vpon a right and true informa∣tion, was acknowledged in the Primitiue Church.

Iewel. Pag. 129. 130.

* 1.127In dede touching euery Metropolitanes seueral Iurisdiction, Gratianus noteth thus: Illud generaliter clarum est, quod si quis praeter sen∣tentiam Metropolitani fuerit factus Episcopus, hunc magna sy∣nodus definiuit Episcopum esse non oportere. This is generally cleare, that if any man be made Bishop vvithout the consent of his Me∣tropolitane, the great councel (of Nice) hath decreed, that such a one may not be Bishop. So likevvise saith Socrates of the Bishop of Constantinople. VVithout the consent of the Bishop of Constantinople let no man be chosen Bishop.* 1.128 Here is a right, reserued specially to the Bishop of Constantinople and to euery Metropolitane vvithin his ovvne prouince. But of the Bishop of Romes vniuersal right of Confirmation vve heare nothing.

Harding.

You reason vpon authoritie negatiuely, as though if the Councel of Nice, and Socrates, speake not of that confirmation, whiche belongeth to the Bishop of Rome, therefore there could be no suche. But it appeareth by S. Cyprian in diuers Epistles, that it was the custome in his time for a Bishop newly made, to sende letters to al the other Bishops, intimating his Election. Now as those letters came first, and specially to the Bishop of Rome,* 1.129 as fitting (by S. Cyprians owne confession) in the principal chaire, and succeding S. Peter: euen so if the Pope for iuste causes had not receiued the letters, and communion of the said newe Bishop: he then for lacke

of the Popes confirmation could not rightly haue en∣ioyed his Bishoprike, as it appeareth by many examples, which would require a discourse ouer long for this place, nor very needeful, sith the confirmation of Bishoppes is not our principal matter, but only the Succession. Yet M. Iewel who remēbreth of olde so much Canon Lawe, may cal to his remembrance, what I haue said in my An∣swer to the Articles of his Chalenge:* 1.130 where I haue shewed, that the Pope had three Legates in the Easte,a 1.131 one in Constantinople,b 1.132 the other in Alexandria,c 1.133 the third in Thessalonica. Whereunto M. Iewel hath replied nothing, as also M. Stapleton hath noted in the Re∣turne.

Now if those Bishops being not only Metropolitanes, but also two of them Patriarkes, were neuer the lesse the Popes Legates: it is easy to see, how the Popes confirma∣tion was geuen to the Bishoppes generally vnder those Primates, seing the Primates them selues were confir∣med by him, or els they were not accompted lawful Bishops, for lacke of his cōfirmation,* 1.134 as it is euident in the exāple of Pyrrhus the Bishop of Cōstantinople, who both was put into his bishoprike by the bishop of Rome, when he had persuaded him, that he was Catholike, and againe was put out by his autoritie, when it was perceiued, that he had dissembled.

Iewel. Pag. 130.

Neither doth M. Hardinges counterfeite Anacletus claime al the Bisshops thorough the vvorld, as belonging to his Admission,* 1.135 but only a parte. These be his vvordes. Omnes episcopi qui huius Apostolicae sedis ordinationi subiacent. Al the bisshops that are vnder the orde∣ring, or confirmation of this Apostolike See.

Harding.

If Anacletus be counterfeite,* 1.136 it is farre from our knowledge. For we found that Epistle in his name, re∣gistred emong the epistles of other Popes aboue a thou∣sand yeres past. And Isidorus, who gathered them, found them so intitled, as we reade them. Therefore your slaun∣derours tongue toucheth not vs.

* 1.137Concerning that you accompte Ordering, and Con∣firmation to be al one, it is a grosse errour both in Gram∣mer, and in knowledge of histories. Ordinatio is ordering, and Confirmatio is confirmation. The Ordering of bishops was done by the bishops of the same Prouince, with the consent of the Metropolitane:* 1.138 But the confirmation was made by other Bisshops also without the Prouince, and specially by the Bishop of Rome, who these many hun∣dred yeres hath confirmed them alone, bicause the vse of communicatorie letters is leaft, and that is reputed don•• by the whole body, which is done by the head thereof.

Iewel. Pag. 130.

* 1.139So likevvise vvriteth Damasus to the Bisshops of Illyricum. Par est omnes qui sunt in orbe Romano magistros consentire. It is meete, that al the teachers vvithin the Romaine iurisdiction should agree together.

Harding.

* 1.140Before you referred these matters to your Replie, as though you would haue said no more thereof, and yet al this while you do but write out your Replie againe. To what purpose you allege these wordes, I cannot tel, as the which make euidently against you, and nothing for you. The Romaine world, or iurisdiction, was both East, and

Weast, as farre as the Romaines had conquered, and they had conquered al the countries, wherein al the Patriar∣chal Sees were placed. If therefore by Damasus you wil proue, that he confirmed al the bishops in the Romaine circuite, surely you proue thereby, that he confirmed the three Patriarkes, of Alexandria, of Antioche, and of Ie∣rusalem with al the bishops vnder them. So wel your owne tale is tolde. And in dede better it can not be tolde, seing euery thing that is true, is agreable with the truth, and therefore what soeuer you falsifie not, must needes proue against you, who susteine the false cause.

Iewel. Pag. 130.

Againe, that you say, a Bisshop hath alvvaies benne consecrated by other three Bisshops, vvhether it be true, or no, it may vvel be called in question, a•• being of your parte hitherto very vveakely affirmed.

Harding.

My affirmation therein is taken out of the fact of the three Apostles, S. Peter, S. Iohn, and S. Iames,* 1.141 who as Eu∣sebius witnesseth, did consecrate our Lordes brother the first bishop of Ierusalem. And he againe reciteth it out of Clemens Alexandrinus. So auncient was this tradi∣tion whereof now M. Iewel doubteth. The same like∣wise is againe witnessed in the fourth Councel* 1.142 holden at Carthage,* 1.143 where two bishops are prescribed to holde the booke of the Gospels ouer the Bishops head,* 1.144 whiles the third blesseth him.

Iewel. Pag. 130.

Surely Petrus de Palude,* 1.145 one of your ovvne Doctours, vvould haue told you thus. In the Churche one Bisshop is sufficient to consecrate

another. And it is nothing els but for the solemnitie of the matter, that the Church hath deuised, that three Bisshops should ioyne togeather.

Harding.

Surely you tooke great paines to finde out sumwhat for your excuse, when you forsooke the example of the Apostles, and of the auncient Councelles, and went from S. Peter the Apostle to Peter de Palude for your Defence. And yet he saith nothing, that maketh against vs. For he saith not that any Catholike Bisshop was euer consecra∣ted of lesse then three: but that one sufficeth to conse∣crate a Bishop. I meant, that in al solemne consecrations it hath ben so, and Petrus de Palude denieth it not, but he saith one sufficeth, and meaneth, that in a case of extre∣mitie one bishop alone may consecrate an other: and the same I denie not. But consider for what purpose I spake it. My talke was directed to you M. Iewel, and your fel∣lowes, who after fifteen hundred yeres in a realme, that hath not lacked Christian pastours, and bishops in it for the space of these thirteen hundred yeres togeather, ought not now to pretend any necessitie, as though three Bishops either in that countrie, or in the next could not be founde, who might solemnize your Ordering, and Consecration.

Iewel. Pag. 130.

Likevvise Iohannes Maior an other of your ovvne Doctours vvould haue said vnto you, Quis ordinauit Petrum, &c. VVho ordered Peter,* 1.146 and made him a bishop? They can not shewe me three Bisshops that ordered him. Therefore I say, that a bisshop be ordered of other three Bisshops, it is an ordināce made by man. For Paule when he ordered Titus, and Timotheus, he sought not about for other two Bisshops.

Harding.

See now againe how farre this man is gonne from the Doctours of the first six hundred yeres. If you wil stand to their iudgement M. Iewel whom you allege,* 1.147 they cō∣demne you for an Heretike, and a Schismatike, bicause you haue forsaken that Doctrine of faith, and that holy fellowship, wherein they liued, and died. They offe∣red the external sacrifice of the Churche, and taught it to be offered for the liue and dead in Christe, who died for both, and least vs his owne body in a Sacrament to be made and consecrate by the priestes of the new testa∣ment, for the application of Christes merites to euery par∣ticular faithful man, and for the whole body of the Chur∣che. Seing you say, this is Idolatrie, why seeke you for helpe at their handes, who haue taught vs this doctrine, for which you tel vs, they be in hel? Againe, admit, it be an ordinance of man, that a bishop should be consecrate of three other bishops. Is it therefore in your power to breake euery ordinance of man? It was the ordinance of men, that ye should paye this, or that tribute vnto your prince. May ye therefore cease to paie it at your pleasure?

That, which man ordeined,* 1.148 may in deede be altered by an other man, but he must then be of the same power, that he was of, who ordeined it. The Apostles ordei∣ned, that a Bishop be consecrate of three. An Apostle therefore is not bound to that ordinance. But are you, and your brethren Apostles, that ye take vpon you to alter the Apostolike ordinances? If ye were but the scholars of the Apostles, ye would keepe their Succes∣sions,

and follow their steppes. But now whereas they kepte Christian men in one bonde of peace, yee skatter the flocke into so many sectes, as there are proude and vaineglorious men emong you.

Iewel. 130.

VVhereas it farther pleaseth you to cal for my letters of Orders, and to demaunde of me, as by some authoritie, vvhether I be a Priest, or no: vvhat handes vvere laid ouer me, and by vvhat order I vvas made: I ansvver you, I am a Priest, made long sithens, by the same Order and ordinance, and I thinke also by the same man, and the same handes, that you M. Harding vvere made Priest by, in the late time of that most vertuous prince King Edvvard the sixth. Therefore you can not vvel doubt of my Priesthoode, vvithout like doubting of your ovvne.

Harding.

Neither by the same Ordinance M. Iewel, nor by the same man, nor by the same handes, nor in the time of the same late King. How be it, you tel not halfe my tale. I laid for my foundation out of S. Hierome these wordes:* 1.149 Ecclesia non est, quando non habet Sacerdotem. Church is there none, which hath not a Priest or Bishop, and such a Priest he there describeth, as may consecrate the Sacrament of the Aulter, that is to say, that may offer External Sacrifice, and such a Bishop he describeth, who may order priestes. For Sacerdos, as you know, doth signi∣fie bothe a Priest, and Bishoppe.* 1.150 Nowe S. Hierome there disputed against Hilarius a Deacon, whom being alone in his newe secte, and not hable to offer Sacrifice, nor to make Priestes, it behoued needes to leaue that his congregation without a Priest.

I aske you then as wel of your bishopply vocation, and of your Sending, as of your Priesthoode. Geue me leaue I praie you, here to put you in minde of my wor∣des once againe. Thus I said,* 1.151 and yet you haue not an∣swered me. Therefore to goe from your Succession, which ye can not proue, and to come to your Vocation, how say you Sir? You beare your selfe as though you were a Bishop of Sarisburie.

But how can you prooue your Vocation? By what authoritie vsurpe you the ad∣ministration of Doctrine, and Sacramentes? What can you allege for the right and proufe of your Mini¦sterie? Who hath called you? Who hath laid handes on you? By what example hath he donne it? How, and by whom are you consecrated? Who hath sent you? Who hath committed to you the office you take vppon you? Be you a Prieste, or be you not? If you be not, howe dare you vsurpe the name and office of a Bisshoppe? If you be, tel vs who gaue you Or∣ders? The institution of a Prieste, was neuer yet but in the power of a Bisshoppe. Bisshoppes haue alwaies after the Apostles tyme according to the Ecclesiasti∣cal Canons benne consecrated by three other Bisshops with the consent of the Metropolitane,* 1.152 and Confir∣mation of the B. of Rome. * Thus vnitie hath hither∣to benne kepte, thus schismes haue benne staied. And this S. Cyprian calleth, Legitimam Ordinationem,* 1.153 Law∣ful Ordering. For lacke of whiche he denied Noua∣tus to be a Bishop, or to haue any auctoritie or power in the Churche.

Hereto neither you, nor your fellowes, who haue vn∣lawfully inuaded the administration of the Sacramentes,

can make any iust and right answer I am sure. *

These being my questions M. Iewel, you answer, nei∣ther by what example handes were laid on you, nor who sent you, but only you say, he made you priest, that made me in king Edwardes daies. Verely I neuer had any name, or title of Priesthod geuen to me during the raigne of King Edward. I onely tooke the Order of Deacon∣shippe, as it was then ministred: farther I went not. So that if you haue none other Priesthoode, then I had in King Edwardes time, you are yet but a Deacon, and that also not after the Catholique manner, but in a Schismatical sorte. Truly after that I had wel considered with my selfe those questions, which in my Confutation I moued vnto you, I tooke my selfe neither for a Priest, nor yet for a lawful Deacon in al respectes, by those or∣ders,* 1.154 which were taken in king Edwardes daies. For I cō∣sidered, that, whereas al power commeth from God, most specially the power, whereby the Church is gouerned, commeth from him by Christe. And seing al men know and see, how the power, whereby temporal kingdomes are gouerned, is, and ought to be wel witnessed by li∣neal descent of bloud, or els by election, and such other vocations, as are among men: and seing that external witnesse, whereby their titles are proued, is both good and necessary: I thought, that it was much more conue∣nient to graunt, that the power, whereby Christes Chur∣che is gouerned, ougtht to be wel witnessed euen out∣wardly,* 1.155 sithens S. Paule requireth also, that a Bisshoppe, or Priest, should be of a good name emong the Infidels, if he liue with them. And seing Christ came into the worlde to be seene, and to minister, and to institute vi∣sible

Sacramentes, and to sende visible Preachers:* 1.156 I con∣sidered, what an absurditie it was, after his Ascension for man to chalenge an Inuisible Churche, or Succes∣sion to him selfe.

Furthermore when I vewed the state of the Primi∣tiue Churche, and saw that Bishoppes euermore succe∣ded lineally one after an other, euen from the Apostles time: and had read that same order of Succession to be vrged, and pressed vpon by S. Irenaeus, S. Cyprian, Optatus, and S. Augustine (as is afore noted): And perceiued, that who soeuer forsooke the open and knowen Successiō of Bishops, he was condemned for an Heretike, as wel in the Latine, as in the Greeke Churche: al these thinges being set before myne eyes through Gods grace, who shewed me them: I esteemed not the title of any Mini∣sterie, which I might seeme to haue receiued in King Ed∣wardes time, so muche as I should haue done, if I had re∣ceiued it of a Catholique Bishop, and after the order of the Catholique Churche, being wel assured that those, who tooke vpon them to geue Orders, were altogether out of Order them selues, and ministred them not accor∣ding to the rite and manner of the Catholique Churche, as who had forsaken the whole Succession of Bishops in al Christendome, and had erected a new Congregation of their owne planting, the forme whereof was imagi∣ned only in their owne braines, and had not benne seene, nor practised in the world before. Now the same reasons, which with many other moued me, I proponed to M. Iewel, not being wholly without hope, but that through Gods grace they might haue moued him also. And yet he not vnwitting, that I had returned to the vniuersal

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

and onely true Churche, and that I had taken a better ground of Priesthod, then his Secte hath, among whom al external Priesthod is vtterly denied: he dissembling al this, wil seeme to be a Priest by my knowledge, and con∣fession, as if he, and I had benne made priestes by the same man.

No, no M. Iewel. We were in parte together, but I thanke God of it, wee were not wholly toge∣ther. For I was with you with feare of God, and with misliking of many your deedes, and opinions, and with desire to serue God in that Truthe, Reli∣gion, and Churche, wherein I might safely reste, and quiet my selfe. In your fellowship I soughte that safe quietnes, but I neuer founde it, bicause my feete were not staied vpon the Rocke, nor vpon anie sure grounde, sith I sawe, what ye misliked, but I sawe not, what ye woulde haue: I sawe, what ye pulled downe, but I sawe not, what ye set vp: I sawe, from what auncient Churche ye were departed, but I sawe you not to goe to any elder societie of faithful men, then your selues were. And yet I knewe, and at the length considered, that Christes Churche must be aboue fifteen hundred yeres olde, whereas your Churche (place it at Wittenberge, at Zuriche, or in what other corner so euer ye wil) is not yet ful fiftye yeres olde, and your firste Preacher can shewe no commission, either ordinarie, or miraculous for him selfe.

These reasons with diuers other moued me: the same also ought to haue moued you. And bicause you can not

answer them, you dissemble them, and therefore of your lawful Commission, Vocation, and Sending you speake neuer a worde.

Iewel. 130.

Father, as if you vvere my Metropolitane, ye demaunde of me, vvhether I be a Bishop, or no. I ansvver you, I am a Bishop, and that by the free, and accustomed Canonical Election of the vvhole Chapter of Sarisburie, assembled solemnely together for that pur∣pose.

Harding.

It was no free Election M. Iewel,* 1.157 when the Chapter, whiche chose you, saw, that excepte it chose you, it selfe shoulde be in danger of the lawe, and of the Princes displeasure. It was no Canonical Electi∣on, when he was chosen, whom the olde Canons haue iudged vnable for that Vocation.

For howe can he be chosen Bishoppe, that is to saye, highe Prieste, who teacheth, that there is not at al any external Priesthod in the Churche? Howe can he be chosen Bishoppe, that is to saye, highe prieste, who teacheth with the olde condemned Heretique Aerius,* 1.158 that by Gods lawe there is no difference betwen a Bis∣shoppe, and a priest? How can he be lawfully chosen Bishoppe in Sarisburie, according to the olde Ca∣nons, who teacheth al the olde Canons to be super∣stitiouse, wherein from the Apostles time Praiers for the dead were commaunded and prescribed? What Canon can allowe his Election, who breaketh the Vnitie of the Churche, and diuideth him selfe, and his flocke, 〈…〉〈…〉

Quenes Chappel, let M. Richard Chaundler prebendarie there, and Archedeacon of Sarisburie, let your owne frende and faithfelowe M. Parry Chauncellour of that Churche be demaunded, whether I was present at your Election, and gaue free, and open consent vnto it, or no. I maruel that you, who can remember so many sayinges of Glosers, and Canonistes, could not remember to cal for the Registers booke, or for the witnesse of those of that Church there with you daily present, to vnderstand the truth hereof before you wrote this much. You knew it, you knew it right wel M. Iewel, that both I, and M. Richard Dominike, that Reuerend and vertuous Priest, Prebendary also there (whom in your visitation for the Quenes highnes, ye appointed to be a prisoner, as also my selfe in myne owne house at Sarisburie) vtterly, and with expresse wordes refused to geue our voices, and consent to your pretésed Election. Truly we accōpted it no lesse crime to haue chosen you Bishop of Sarisburie, then to haue chosen Arius, Eunomius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Ae∣rius, Pelagius, or any other the like Heretike. Wherefore reuoke so manie Vntruthes, you haue here vttered with one breath. Your Election was neither free, nor Canoni∣cal, the whole Chapter was not present, I was not one of that cōpanie, I gaue not my consent. Now that you haue so impudētly affirmed al this notwithstanding, take heed, (that I may vse your owne wordes) your owne breath blowe not against you, al good and true men blowe not against you, your owne conscience (which is more to be feared) blowe not against you, and before God the true and iust Iudge, blowe not you vpside downe.

Ievvel. Pag. 130.

As touching the impertinent tales of Ischyras, and Zacchaeus, they touch vs nothing, they vvere none of ours, vve knovv them not. Our Bi∣shops

are made in fourme, and order, as they haue ben euer, by free Electiō of the Chapter, by Consecration of the Archbishop, and other three Bishops.

Harding.

These true Histories, not tales, M. Iewel, touch you in this behalfe, bicause Priestes are not so consecrated with you, that they may stand to offer the Sacrifice at the Aul∣ter, as it was reported of Ischyras, that he had done. As for breaking of a Chalice,* 1.159 whiche was laid to Macarius charge Athanasius Priest, who pulled Ischyras from the Aulter, for that he tooke vpon him to celebrate the my∣steries, being made no Priest by laying on of handes of a Bishop, with you this is a smal faulte. For your felowes haue broken certaine hundredes of holy chalices in these low coūtries, without making any cōscience therof at al.

Moreouer Epiphanius writeth of Zacchaeus,* 1.160 ludenter sancta Mysteria contrectabat, & sacrificia cùm laicus esset, impudenter tractabat. He boldly handled the holy Myste∣ries, and whereas he was a Laye man, he impudently handled the Sacrifices. What Sacrifices (I praie you) hath your Religion, which a Laye man may not handle, as wel as a Priest? But bicause you haue abandoned al external Sacrifice, and Priesthood, therefore you iudge the exam∣ple of Zacchaeus belongeth nothing vnto you. Certaine∣ly by those examples it is proued, that ye are no Bishops, and so farre they be not impertinent.

Your Bishoppes are made (you saie) in fourme and order. What fourme and order meane you?* 1.161 Meane you the olde, whiche was vsed in the firste fiue hundred yeres, or the newe? In the olde fourme after the Ele∣ction notise was geuen to the Bishop of Rome, and to al the Bishops of the Church, that such a man was lawfully chosen Bishop within the Church, and not schismatically.

And so al the other Bishops knew by the Communicato∣rie letters,* 1.162 to whom they should sende, or of whom they should receiue such letters. But so ye were not made Bishoppes: If ye were, shew vs to what Bishoppes out of England ye wrote any such letters. After that the custome of those letters became to be out of vse, the on∣ly Bishop of Romes Confirmation was in steede of the said notise, and by him surely you were not confirmed. And yet seing he is a Bishop, if ye wil not graunt him the Confirmation, ye ought at the lest, to put him to know∣ledge of your Election, that he may know you to be men, with whom he may Communicate. But for as much as you wrote not to him in that matter, ye shewe, that ye be no Catholike Bishops. Fot neuer was there any Catholike Bishop in the Church, which did not one waye, or other, shew him selfe to communicate with S. Peters Successour, from the beginning til this daye.

* 1.163But ye were made (you saie) by the Consecration of the Archebishop, and other three Bishoppes. And how I praie you was your Archebishop him selfe Consecrated? What three Bishops in the Realme were there to laye handes vpon him? You haue now vttered a worse case for your selues, then was by me before named. For your Metropolitane, who should geue authoritie to al your Consecrations, him selfe had no lawful Consecration. If you had ben Consecrated after the forme and order, which hath euer ben vsed, ye might haue had Bishops out of Fraunce to haue consecrated you, in case there had lacked in England. But now there were auncient Bi∣shops inough in Englād, who either were not required, or refused to consecrate you, which is an euident signe, that

ye sought not such a Consecratiō as had ben euer vsed, but such a one wherof al the former Bishops were ashamed.

Iewel. Pag. 130.

Our Bishops are made by the admission of the prince: And in this sorte not long sithens the Pope him selfe vvas admitted,* 1.164 and as Platina saith, vvithout the Emperours letters patentes vvas no Pope, as hereafter it shalbe shevved more at large. Therefore vve neither haue Bishops vvithout Church, nor Churche vvithout Bishops.

Harding.

The admission of the Prince is not reproued of vs,* 1.165 when it is done in his place. For it is conuenient, that as in the old time, beside the Clergie, whiche of right did chose the bishop, the people were called to see, who was chosen, and to shew, whether they liked, or misliked him: so much more the Prince, who beareth the peoples per∣son, should haue his place of assent, and consent in na∣ming the Bishop, and in commending him, to the ende he may gouerne his shepe with the more loue, and quiet, when no man withstandeth his Election. And in that sorte it was in deede the custome, that euery Bishop of Rome should expect the Emperours consent, vntil the Emperours them selues partly being content to remitte that custome, did commit al to the Clergie, and partly leafte it by prescription.

Neither was it of late, that this custome ceased, but wel neare seuen hundred yeres ago,* 1.166 as it may be seene in Platina. But seing your Bishops were neither conse∣crated by those, who lineally succeded the Apostles, nor haue by your owne confession more power by Gods law then a Priest: you both haue false Bishops without the true Church, and a false Churche without true Bishops.

For the true Church hath Bishops,* 1.167 which by Gods lawe ought to be aboue Priestes, bicause S. Paule writing to Timothee a Bishop,* 1.168 biddeth him not to admit an accusatiō against Priestes without two witnesses, licencing him to admit such accusations, when there are two witnesses. It is his part only to admit accusations against Priestes, who is the iudge of Priestes: and euery Iudge is aboue him, ouer whom he sitteth in iudgement. Therefore a Bishop by Gods lawe is aboue a priest, whose iudge he is allowed to be.* 1.169 Which argument Epiphanius bringeth against Ae∣rius the heretike, who said (as now M. Iewel saith) that Priestes and Bishops were equal.

* 1.170Againe S. Hierome, who defended that the names of Bishops, and of Priestes were confounded in the begin∣ning, and that the order of priesthod in them was one (both which thinges are true): yet he made an euident difference betwen the power of them, graunting that a Priest could doo al that a Bishop can,* 1.171 excepta ordinatione, the ordering, or geuing of holy orders excepted. In that point then he beleued a Bishop to be aboue a Priest. Now say I, such a Bishop, as by Gods lawe is aboue a Priest, as who may only make Priestes, and geue them power to consecrate, and in Christes person to make, and offer vn∣to God his body and bloud: such a Bishop, or such a Priest you haue not in al your Church, vnlesse they be Aposta∣tes, and Renegates, who being once made priestes with vs, haue now denied the faith wherein they were Chri∣stened, and are runne out of the Church vnto your false Congregations, and scattered troupes.

Iewel.

Neiter doth the Church of England this daye depende of them,

vvhom you so often cal Apostates, as if our Church vvere no Churche vvithout them.

Harding.

S. Hierome said, no Priest, no Church:* 1.172 and by a priest he meant him, that maketh Christes body with h•••• holy mouth, and offereth the same. For these are his own wor∣des: but such a priest is made only of a Bishop, who is by Gods law aboue him. And such Priestes haue you none besides Apostates. Therfore your Church either is none, or dependeth of Apostates, and Renegates.

Iewel. Pag. 131.

They are no Apostates M. Harding, that is rather your ovvne name, and of good right belongeth vnto you.

Harding.

He is an Apostata, who forsaketh the good profession,* 1.173 which he once had. But the profession either of Monkes, or of the Catholikes (whom you cal Papistes) is good and godly. For concerning Monkes, they are the men, who after the counsel of our Sauiour,* 1.174 professe to geue a∣waie their goodes to the pore, or forsake the hope of goodes whiche may be had in the world, and follow Christe, gelding them selues, or making them selues Eu∣nuches, for the kingdom of heauen This must needes be a good profession. And as for the Catholikes, they are the onely true members of Christes Church, and none other can be Catholiques beside those, whom you cal Papistes: Bicause none others haue benne alwaies in al places, and al times sith Christes Ascension. And we haue ben so, as our predeces∣sours,

and pastours in the See of Rome, with al other pa∣stours agreeing therewith, doo euidently shew euen to the eye. Therfore who so haue forsaken their profession and rule, as Renegate monkes, and Friers haue, or our Chur••h, as those priestes haue, who being rightly orde∣red in the catholique Churche, communicate now with you they are Apostates, and Renegates.

And wheras you say, that to be my name, and of good right to belong vnto me: there can be no iuste cause to cal me an Apostata, except it be for departing from you. But ye are al Apostates your selues. For it can be named but of what Catholike felowship ye are departed, whom ye leafte behind you (al Italie, Fraunce, and Spaine &c.) who went out with you (a peece of Germanie, Suit∣zerland, England, and Scotland) and after whom ye went, some after Luther, some after Zuinglius, some after Caluin: Therefore ye are al Apostates. Now when I de∣parted from you, with whom notwithstanding I neuer remained wholly, I departed from Apostates, and came to that fellowship, which neuer forsooke their former faith, nor went out, nor leaft any behind them, who might complaine of their departure, nor had any peculiar Ca∣ptaines, but onely the Apostles, and their Successours, that folowed them lineally from age to age. Therefore the name of Apostata belongeth not to me, but to you, and to your felowes.

If the Reader say, that we doo but sclaunder one the other, let him consider the reason, and not the wordes. An Apostata is one,* 1.175 who faileth and depareth from some certaine lawful head. We departe from none, but kepe God, Christ, and his Ministerial headdes, Bishops, Priestes,

Kinges, and Magistrates. But the Protestantes haue de∣nied al the Bishops aliue in the whole earth, who liued before, and in Luthers time. They haue, and doo, rebel, in al countries for the pretence of Religion. And so they forsake both the obedience of spiritual, and temporal go∣uernours: therefore they are by al meanes Apostates.

Iewel. Pag. 131.

They are for a great part learned, and graue, and godly men: and are much ashamed to see your solies.

Harding.

There is no learning against faith. What learning cal you it, when a man learneth to denie this to be Christes body, which he said to be his body? Or to holde,* 1.176 that the Church is sometimes hid,* 1.177 which Christ said to be a Citie built vpon a hil, that can not be hid? What graui∣tie is this, to be moued and caried out of the Church, and to be tossed, hither and thither, with euery puffe of new doctrine? Nowe to be a Hussite, then a Lutheran, now a Brentian, afterward a Zuinglian, and last of al a Caluinist? Yea what grauitie is it, to defende, that al these sectes may be saued, seing they te•••••• contradictorie do∣ctrine, and wil come to no agreement? Concerning our folies, which you say they see, they are folies to world∣lynges, and to men wise in their owne eyes: as a man to shut vp him selfe in a Cloister, to watch, to fast, to praye, to liue chaste, to bewaile his sinnes, to geue awaye al his goods for Gods sake, to honour Gods frendes with a due reuerence and worship, to beleue Christ rather then our eyes, and to trust the wit of our Predecessours, rather then our owne: These are in deede our folies, in〈…〉〈…〉, we glorie, through Gods grace leauing the pride o•• ••o•…•…

new trāslations of the Scriptures, your Sectes, and word∣ly wisedom, the breaking of vowes, the liuing in incest, and open filthinesse, with impudent maintenance therof, to your great learning, grauitie, holinesse, and wisedom.

Iewel. Pag. 131.

Notvvithstāding if there vvere not one, neither of them, nor of vs leaft aliue, yet vvould not therfore the vvhole Church of Englād flee to Louain.

Harding.

Who euer said, that the whole Church of England must flee, or was fled to Louaine? You kepe some parte of it fast inough from fleeing to Louaine, or any whither els, if the Tower, the Fleete, the Marshalsea, the Coun∣ters, the Kinges Beanch, and other prisons in London be hable to kepe men fast. But if you speake of your owne Church, surely you had Apostates, and renegate priestes in it,* 1.178 or you had no Church at al, as out of S. Hierome I shewed before, who saith, no Priest, no Church. And vere∣ly no trew Church euer was there without an External and publike Sacrifice, which it might offer to God to ac∣knowlege, that he is the beginning and ende of al grace and goodnes. But where no external Priesthod is (as you now beleue ther is none) there is no external Sacrifice, and cōsequētly no true Church. And seing renegate prie∣stes can not make a true Church, nor their Sacrifice can be acceptable vnto God, yea rather seing they are of the mind and belefe, that it is not lawful to honour God with the external Sacrifice of Christes owne body and bloud leaft to vs for that intent: it doth stil follow, that al∣though ye haue true Priestes which runne from vs, yet haue ye neither true Sacrifice by them, nor true Church.

Ievvel. Pag. 131.

T••rtullian saith, Nonne & laici sacerdotes sumus? scriptum est

&c. And vve being laye men, are vve not priestes? it is written,* 1.179 Christ hath made vs both a kingdome, and priestes vnto God his fa∣ther. The authoritie of the Church, and the honour by the as∣semblie, or Councel of Order sanctified of God hath made a dif∣ference betwen the laye, and the clergie, whereas there is no as∣semblie of ecclesiastical Order, the priest being there alone (vvith∣out the companie of other priestes) doth both minister the oblatiō, and also baptize. Yea, and be there but three together, and, though they be laye men, yet is there a Church. For euery man liueth of his owne faith.

Harding.

Wonder not M. Iewel (as you confesse that once you did) at your misfortune, and euil lucke, in that by vs a thowsand faultes are sooner fownd in your bookes, then you could wel without blushing (if any shame were in you) note two hundred in myne. For who so euer wri∣teth against the truth, can not possibly bring one word, which for maintenance of an vntruth may be altogether truly applied after the writers minde, out of whome the same is alleged, onlesse that writer were him selfe an He∣retike, or in that behalfe by better iudgement noted of some errour. Therefore it is easier to find many thow∣sand Lyes in your bookes, then any fewe in myne. And as that hath ben shewed in many other examples hereto∣fore, so shal it now appeare most euidently in this, which you bring out of Tertullian.* 1.180

First, the booke and worke, that you allege, is one of those which Tertullian wrote against the Churche, af∣ter that he became an Heretike, and was one of the disciples of Montanus. For as Montanus did con∣demne the second Mariages, so did his scholar Ter∣tullian: Who hauing corruptly interpreted many places of S. Paule, commeth at the length to proue his heresie

by conferring the olde Testament with the new. Ecce in veteri lege, &c. Beholde (saith he) in the olde lawe, I finde the licence of mariyng ofte to be inhibited. It is enacted in the booke of Leuiticus, Sacerdotes mei non plus nubent, my Priestes shal not marrye any more. But the fulnes of the law, as in other pointes, so in this, was reserued to Christe alone. VVhereupon it was more fully and more streightly prescribed, that those ought bo be of one matrimonie, who are chosen in the Priestly ord••r. In so much that I my selfe remember cer∣taine menne for hauing had two wiues, to haue ben remoued from their place (of Priesthod).* 1.181 But thou wilt say: Then is it lawful for other menne (to marrie twise) for so much as exception is made against them (to wit against Priestes) to whom it is not lauful (to haue ben twise maried). Hitherto Tertullian hath gon about by the example of the Priestes of the olde and new Testament to shew, that Laye men also may not marrye but once. For in the newe Testa∣ment S. Paule would haue them only chosen to Priest∣hod,* 1.182 who are, or haue benne the husbandes of one wife, that is to saye, haue neither had two wiues at once, nor haue married a widowe, nor haue had two wiues one af∣ter an other. For al this doth the Apostle meane, and the auncient Fathers do so witnesse.

Now Tertullian saw euidently, that there was a diffe∣rence betwen Priestes, and laye menne, whereupon he made the former obiection to him selfe, that the second mariages, which only do staye a man from being Priest, are absolutely lawful for him, who wil be no Priest, but wil remaine stil in the degree and state of laye men. To the which obiection being to strong for Tertullian, it be∣houed him so to answere, as yet his heresie against the se∣cond

mariages might be mainteined. So that nowe M. Iewel bringeth forth his heretical answer made vnto a Catholikes argument. Thus then Tertullian goeth for∣warde. Vani erimus si putauerimus, quòd Sacerdotibus nō li∣ceat, laicis licere, nonne & laici Sacerdotes sumus? We shal be deceiued (or we shalbe vaine men) if we shal thinke that to be lawful for Laye menne, whiche is not lawful for Priestes. We that are Laye men, are we not Priestes also? And so he goeth forward with that which M. Ie∣wel did allege for his purpose.* 1.183 For wheras there is a dou∣ble Priesthod, one publike and external, which is onely cōmon to those, that receiue power to consecrate Chri∣stes Body and Bloud at the Altare, the other priuate, and internal, which is indifferently common to the Priestes, and to laye men, whereby they al receiue power in Ba∣ptisme to offer spiritual Sacrifices vnto God,* 1.184 as S. Peter sa∣ith: Tertullian would haue the argument to be good, that as none are made publike and external Priestes, whiche haue had two wiues, so none who are internal priestes, might haue two wiues. But Tertullian is deceiued in his heretical argument, as wel as M. Iewel is in alleging an heretical authoritie.

Whereupon S. Hierome saith. Montanus,* 1.185 & qui Nouati schisma sectātur, putant secunda matrimonia ab Ec∣clesiae communione prohibenda, cùm Apostolus de Episcopis & Praesbyteris hoc praecipiens, vtique in caeteris relaxârit, non quòd hortetur ad secunda matrimonia, sed quòd necessi∣tati carnis indulgeat. Montanus, and those who followe the schisme of Nouatus, thinke that the second Mariages ought to be forbidden from the Communion of the Church, whereas the Apostle geuing that commaunde∣ment

vnto Bishoppes, and priestes, hath doubteles relea∣sed it in other men. Not that he exhorteth them to secōd mariages, but bicuase he yeeldeth to the necessitie of the flesh. So that S. Hierome reproueth that very argument of Tertullian, which now M. Iewel setteth forth. And in that very place, S. Hierome nameth Tertullian, as an en∣emie of second mariages.

But verely the case is not like in Bishops, and Priestes. For euerie man of necessitie is borne a laye man, there∣fore it were not reason to force him, who could not chose but be a laye man, to marye but once, whereas none are made Priestes, but those that know before hand, that the Apostle willed such only to be chosen Priestes, as are the husbandes of one wife, that is to say, as haue not had two wiues, but either none, or but one. This law being fore∣seene, causeth it to be no iniurie, to forbid the second ma∣riage, if any man wilbe an external and publike Priest. For he needeth not to be such a Priest, except he him selfe be willing thereunto.

Againe the internal Priest needeth no more, but an in∣ternal sanctitie, whiche may be kept in the second ma∣riage, and whereby God is specially pleased, and that bi∣cause he is only his owne Priest. But the external Priest, must also professe an external sanctitie, bicause he bea∣reth the person of the whole Churche, and by his order witnesseth,* 1.186 that the Church (as S. Paul saith) is despoused, or maried to one husband alone, verely to Christ: so that in the internal Priesthod it is inough to haue inward ho∣linesse without any outward signe peculiarly belonging therunto, bicause it is a Priesthod, which is geuen in Ba∣ptisme, where the soule is inwardly washed, ād prepared to receiue other sacramentes. But in the external Priest∣hod

there must be also an external signe of holines, bi∣cause that external priesthod is of it selfe a Sacramēt, that is a visible signe of a holy thing wrought inwardly.* 1.187

Thirdly the internal Priest hath only to offer his owne spiritual Sacrifices vpon the Aultare of his harte: but the external Priest hath to offer giftes, and external Sacrifices vpō the outward Altare also, for the sinnes of the whole people, as S. Paule saith. Therefore both Tertulliā in this point the Mōtanist, and M. Iewel the Caluinist are in like sort deceiued. The Montanist in making it no more law∣ful for a laye man to be twise maried, then for him to be made a Priest, who had ben twise maried: The Caluinist in making the internal, and external Priest to be al one. For whereas I reasoned out of S. Hierome, no Priest (or Bishop) and no Church (and S. Hierome meant of suche a Priest, as is aboue a Deacon) M. Iewel would proue out of Tertulliā, that where three Christiā laye men are, there is a Church. I cōfesse where but one Catholike layeman is, there is one of the Church, in which Church there are many external Priestes: but if ther be a thousand layemen belonging to such a congregation, as doth not acknow∣ledge any external Sacrifice, and Priesthod (as the prote∣stantes doo not): there those thowsand neither are the Church, nor of the Church, bicause no Church is with∣out an external Priest, or Bishop, who may offer publike Sacrifice, and also consecrate an external priest.

Tertullian was not of this mind, that there was no ex∣ternal Priesthod: but his errour was,* 1.188 in that he wold haue the internal, and external Priestes to be in like case con∣cerning the second mariages. But otherwise his wor∣des confesse, that not only the authoritie of the Church,

but also the honour sanctified of God by the assemblie of prie∣stes,* 1.189 hath made a difference betwen the Order (of priestes) and the laie people. His wordes are, differentiam inter or∣dinem, & plebem constituit Ecclesiae authoritas, & honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus à Deo. The authoritie of the Church, and the honour sanctified of God by the assem∣blie of the Order (to wit, of priestes) hath made a dif∣ference betwen Order (that is priesthood) and the Laitie.

Two thinges haue made this difference betwen prie∣stes, and laymen, the one is the authoritie of the Church: the other is Christ him selfe: Who beside the authoritie of the Church, by the Sacrament of holy Orders hath in∣stituted this difference of priestes, and of layemen. The sacrament of holy order is geuen,* 1.190 whiles God sanctifieth the honour, that is the preferment of him, vpon whom the bishop in an assemblie with many priestes about him laieth his hande.

This Consecration of the bishop, with other bishops, or priestes, Tertullian calleth Consessum ordinis, the assem∣blie of Order: and the Sanctification of God, is that which is geuen by the Sacrament of Priesthod. For eue∣ry Sacrament doth sanctifie the worthy receiuer, as S. Paule namely saith of the Sacramēt of external priesthod vnto his disciple Timothee.* 1.191 Despise not the grace which is in thee,* 1.192 which hath ben geuen thee by prophecie, with the laying on of the handes of priesthod. Now a priest thus made might baptize, and offer Sacrifice, albeit he were alone. But the worde offerre, to offer, M. Iewel turneth, to minister the oblation. But what peruerting of wordes is this? What corruption of the sense? What licencious

translation? Speaketh not Tertullian of the action of a Priest? You meane by your ministring of your oblation, that the Priest ministreth to the people that thing, which the people offered to the priest. and so you make the people to offer bread vnto the priest, but the priest to offer nothing vnto God. But Tertullian saith the priest doth baptize, and doth offer, meaning that he offereth to God. But if your sense be true, the people doth offer to the Priest, and not the priest vnto God, and conse∣quently the priest doth not offer at al.

Iewel. Pag. 131.

Againe ye demaund of me, vvhat Bishop of Sarisburie euer sithence Augustines time mainteined this doctrine. I might likevvise, and by as good authoritie demaund of you, vvhat Bishop of Rome before the same English Augustines time maintained your doctrine? Or, as I said before, vvhat Bishop of Rome euer before that time, either saide, or knevv your priuate Masse?

Harding.

The questions are not like M. Iewel, there is a thow∣sand yeres distance betwen them. I demaund of your Predecessours from this day vpward til S. Augustines tyme, who first brought the faith vnto the English na∣tion. But you demaund not from our time to S. Augusti∣nes, and so vpwarde: but only from S. Augustines time vpward. Many thinges haue ben, or might haue ben law∣fully concluded betwen this and S. Augustines time, which is the space of a thowsand yeres, albeit the same had not ben vsed before, or, not throughly knowen,* 1.193 and decided. As for example, the vse hath ben these later thowsand yeres, to minister baptisme vnto children ra∣ther without geuing them the Sacrament of the Altare,

then otherwise, and that euen in those Churches, in some of which within the first fiue hundred yeres, the Sacra∣ment of the Aultare was geuen to children at their bap∣tisme. And yet M. Iewel can not saie, that this later cu∣stome is worse then the first was, but rather that it is bet∣ter, as the councel of Trent hath declared.

I demaunde then of any M. Iewels Predecessours in Sarisburie, euen til our Apostle S. Augustines time: but he skippeth ouer these last thowsand yeres, and asketh me of that which was before. Whiche inequalitie not withstanding, I answer to his question, and saie, that al the Bishops of Rome, as wel before S. Augustines time, as sithence, mainteined our Religion. And that I proue, bicause the B. of Rome that now is, Pius the fifth, doth allow our Religion. For we communicate with him, and he with vs. And this present Bishop agreed with his pre∣decessour Pius the fourth, and he againe with Paulus the fourth. And so if we go vpward from man to man, from Pope, to Pope, euen vnto S. Gregories time: we shal find, that concerning any question which is betwen the Pro∣testātes, and vs, there was neuer Pope yet, which disagre∣ed with his predecessours, or aftercommers. For euery one of them doth prayse, and follow. S. Gregorie. Now S Gregorie sent S. Augustine into England, who turned our English nation to the faith: and S. Gregorie him selfe agreed in saith with his predecessours, euen til we come to S. Peter. Neither can it be shewed, whiche Pope did euer breake, or change the vniuersal faith, which was in Rome, or any where els before, concerning either priuate Masse, as you terme it, or any other Article.

If then Pius the fifth, or any Pope els do allow priuate

Masse, as it is euident he doth, and the General Councel of Trent with him: certainely euery Pope before him did allow the same. For this Pope agreeth with his predeces∣sours. Or els if vntil S. Gregories time priuate Masse (in such sense as we now dispute of it) had not ben heard of, being so hainous an offence against God, as that whereby the Institution of Christes supper is broken, which Pope so euer had begonne it, he should haue ben noted for his new Inuention, as they haue ben, who haue begonne any change, as in certaine ceremonies some haue done.* 1.194 For pope Sergius is noted to haue ben the first, that changed his former name: Leo the third was the first, that placed the empire in Fraunce and Germanie: and Hadrianus the third was the first, that chalenged to be pope without the Emperours authoritie, and so forth in many like matters.

But seing M. Iewel can name no man who beganne to saie, or allow priuate Masse, and yet seing it is said and al∣lowed thoroughout al Christendom, it is S. Augustines owne rule, that the said vse of priuate Masse came from the Apostles them selues. For thus he writeth.* 1.195 Quod vniuersa tenet Ecclesia, nee Concilijs institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur. What thing the whole Churche keepeth, and hath not ben instituted in Councels, but hath ben alwayes reteined: the same is most rightly be∣leued to haue ben deliuered none otherwise, then by A∣postolike authoritie. Neither M. Iewel, nor any man els can shew vs, which Coūcel instituted first Priuate masse: and the Church from age to age is found to haue had pri∣uate masse, neither can any one man be named, that first said it: therfore priuat Masse, and also the other necessary

pointes of our religion, are most rightly beleued to haue proceded onely from the Apostolique authoritie. Thus I haue answered M. Iewels question. Now let him an∣swer myne.

Iewel.

Touching the Bishops of Sarisburie, you your selfe haue named tvvo, Bishop Shaxton, and Bishop Capon, both learned, and graue fathers, and both preachers, and professours of the gospel.

Harding.

* 1.196Emong the wise, a man is accompted to be suche, as that is, be it good, or euil, wherein he maketh abode, and what thing is done by a man but once, or seldom, and wherein he maketh no continuance, thereof he hath not his name. For example: he is not accoumpted vertuous and iuste, who once or very seldom doth vertuously, or iustly,* 1.197 but he that doth often so, and stil desireth so to do. This much M. Iewel you shoulde haue learned of Ari∣stotle, who teacheth you, that it is not one Swalow, that maketh the Springtide. After this sense Christe him selfe said, they are blessed, that continue vntil the ende. But Bis∣shop Shaxton, although he sometime preached certaine partes of your doctrine, as a man being deceiued by Lu∣thers, and the Lutheranes bookes, before he had wel ex∣amined them:* 1.198 yet he continued not in your congrega∣tion, but repented him earnestly of it, and reuoked his for∣mer vnaduised doinges. If then his iudgement with you be of some accoumpte, his last iudgement must stand. It is said (you know) by the wise, and reason so geueth, that the second thoughtes are better aduised, and of more wisedome. To saie few, it is wel knowen in al therealme, that he died a Catholique, and coulde by no meanes be

brought to reuolte to you againe in al King Edwardes time. And so you haue no helpe by B. Shaxton.

Touching bishop Capon, he was neuer in his life who∣ly of your beleefe,* 1.199 none otherwise but as euery man most loueth him selfe, and the thinges of the worlde, so he is the more enclined to your side, and hath the more liking of your lewde, fleshly, and licencious Doctrine. And who, that is more carried awaie with the lustes of the fleshe, then is ruled by the aduises of the Spirite, would not be glad to hearken vnto such a fleshly Gospel, and as it were vpon a softe coishon, to leane the elbowes of his loose conscience? Whereby I meane not to accuse that Bishop of any vnknowen crime, but only to shewe, that whiles he was loth to displease the Prince, and glad to please him selfe, and for feare confourmed him selfe to the worlde: he seemed to fauoure sundrie pointes of your proceedinges, and in some parte rather did like vn∣to you, then beleeued as you do: as it is wel knowen by the order of his life, and specially by his ende, whiche trieth a man best, at what time he shewed him selfe thoroughly Catholique, and hartily repented, that he had euer gonne so farre with you. And bicause he was knowen not to haue ben of your side in harte, he was suffered to keepe his state, and bishoprike in Quene Ma∣ries time, when al the Protestantes were remoued from suche roumes.

Thus haue you neither Shaxton, nor Capon for your predecessour, and consequently you are (as S. Cyprian said of Nouatian) Nemini succedens, à teipso ordinatus,* 1.200 a Bishop succeding no man, but ordeined of your selfe. Which thing would yet haue benne more plaine, if you

M. Iewel had not practized your olde false sleight in cut∣ting of my wordes. For when I had asked whether D. Capon, Shaxton, Campegius, or Audley, or any other bi∣shops of Sarisburie taught your doctrine, I answered thereunto, it is most certaine they did not. How be it I staied not there, but went forward to remoue that your obiection of Capon, and Shaxton, whiche I for∣sawe you would make: And thereunto I said thus. How so euer those two first named (Capon,* 1.201 and Shaxton) one∣ly in some parte of their life taught amisse, how afterward they repented, abhorred your heresies, and died Catholikes, it is wel knowen. Now beside these, whome els can you name?

Al these wordes of myne, you leafte out M. Iewel, as if I had neuer printed them. You leafte them out, not onely by not answering them, but also you did not suf∣fer them to be printed in your booke emong myne owne wordes, leaste you should haue benne answered, before you had replied, as most times you are, as it should ap∣peare, if it would please the Reader, but to vew and per∣use my woordes ouer againe, and diligently to conferre them with yours. Which I wish him to doo not only for trial of this point, but also al others, whereof so euer both we haue treated. And he shal say, you were answered be∣fore you made the Replie, confuted before you made your pretensed Defence.

But what conscience haue you, that liue, at least main∣teine the life of your estimation among them of your Secte, by lying, by dissembling, by cutting of, by adding vnto, by mangling your Doctours, briefly by deceiuing the reader one waie, or other? You were ashamed to haue no predecessour at al in the See of Sarisburie, and to be

like Nouatian, or Donatus, and such other the like Here∣tikes. And therefore you name two Predecessours, both which protested at their death, that you, and al your fe∣lowes are Heretikes, and repented, that euer they com∣municated with you so farre as they did. Thus you come of your selfe, as the Deuil doth, and shal come in his chief member Antichrist. And you come not holding by lineal Succession, nor by lawful Sending, as Christ came, being sent of his father, and being borne of the seede of Dauid, and of Abraham: But you are without Predecessours, and I am sure, if God for our great sinnes forsake not our Coū∣trie, you shal not long haue Successours.

Iewel.

For the rest of the bishops that vvere before them, vvhat faith they held, and vvhat they either liked, or misliked, by their vvritinges, or sermons, it doth not greatly appeare.

Harding.

What neede wordes, when dedes speake? It is euident, they kepte that, which they receiued of S. Augustine our Apostle, and that, which was before, and afterward be∣leeued in al Christendome. Thei said Masse, they adoured Christes body in the blessed Sacrament, who doubteth of it? They asked their cōfirmation of the bishop of Rome, and acknowledged him to be the Apostle S. Peters Suc∣cessour. Therefore they were not your Predecessours, in faith and doctrine, you may be assured M. Iewel.

Iewel.

I trust they held the foundatiō, and liued, and died in the faith of Christ.

Harding.

Now, now M. Iewel you haue bewraid,* 1.202 what you teach in corners, now that lurking heresie is cropen out,

whereof I spake in my Preface to you before my laste Reiondre touching the Sacrifice of the Masse. There I shewed, that the Catholike Church must be beleeued in al pointes of Religion, and that they were Heretiques, who persuaded them selues, that it was inough to be∣leeue certaine Articles of the faith, and to let the rest alone, not regarding whether this, or that be true. But what cal you the Foundation of the true faith? You knowe, that al your Predecessours acknowleged the Popes Supremacie, said Masse, and beleeued the doctrine of the seuen Sacramentes, and taught so. Otherwise they had ben noted for Heretikes of others, who liued toge∣ther with them, as you are of them, who liue with you. Seing then you know they did so, what can you meane by the foundation, but onely the beleefe of the Trinitie, and of Christes birth, death, and Ascension? As though it were inough to beleue those thinges, what so euer become of the reste.

* 1.203But Christ saith, he that is not with me, is against me. He that heareth not the Church, let him be to thee as a hea∣thē, and a publicane. He that heareth you, heareth me, he that despiseth you, despiseth me, and him that hath sent me. And S. Paule saith,* 1.204 The Church is the piller, and sure stay of truth. And S. Iames, he that faileth in one, is made giltie of all, that is, as S. Augustine expoundeth it, he that faileth or sinneth against Charitie, is giltie of al other faultes. Nowe charitie is broken, if vnitie be broken: and vnitie is bro∣ken, if the bishops beleeue not euery Article of the faith expressely, which the Churche teacheth to be expres∣ly beleeued. Therefore either your predecessours were with you, or against you. There is no midle, or meane.

With you they were not, bicause they taught seuen Sa∣cramentes, and the Popes supremacie, and the Sacrifice of the Masse, &c. Therefore they were against you. And then ye are the first of that faith and doctrine, whiche now ye teache. You therefore came of your selfe, and are without Predecessours.

Iewel. 131.

If they had liued in these dayes, and seene that you see, they vvould not haue ben partakers of yours vvilfulnesse.

Harding.

These are the wordes of an Antichrist, who seeking to make him selfe equal with Christ, doth vse such Phrases by his wicked members, as Christe did vse concerning his owne person. In deede Christ and only Christ might say such wordes, bicause he only shewed such miraculous workes, that were hable to haue turned Sidō, and Tyrus,* 1.205 or any other hard harted people.

But what haue we seene in these dayes M. Iewel, which would haue ben hable to haue made al your Pre∣decessours to haue yelded vnto your new faith? Haue ye spoken with al tonges, as the Apostles did? Nay ye haue cōfoūded, and dispersed them, as it was done at the building vp of the toure of Babylō. For whereas in holy matters, and specially in the Church Seruice, we seemed to be deliuered from the curse of the Diuisiō of tongues, bicause many nations of diuers lāguages were vnited and knit together in one Latine, or Greeke Church Seruice, you go about to set the worlde againe as farre a part by diuers vulgare tongues, as euer it was before Christes cō∣ming. Haue ye built vs new Churches, or schooles, or

hospitalles, or colleges? Nay ye haue pulled downe the olde, and defaced them to the vttermost of your power. Haue ye made peace in the earth, and reconciled al dissensions? Ye haue rather diuided the subiecte from his Prince, the child from his father, and the wife from her husband. What is it then, wherein your Predecessours, if they had now liued, and had seene it, would not haue benne so wilful, as we are? They should haue seene in you Diuisions, sectes, factions, pride, wantonesse, flesh∣ly libertie, crueltie, murders, treasons, rebellions, Chur∣che robbinges and to be short al impietie, and contempte of God. Pride accompained with malice, couetise, and lecherie, was the foundation. A foule mouthed Frier, as euer liued on the earth, and a Nūne incestuously coupled together, was the building that rose vp of your doctrine, which to this daie goeth forward, with like increase. And yet if your Predecessours had seene that which we see, they would forsooth haue ben astonned to see the hea∣uenly fruites, which these men bring foorth.

Iewel.

To be short, vve succede the bisshops that haue ben before our dayes, vve are elected, consecrated, confirmed and admitted as they vvere.

Harding.

Here is no lye at al. That I may speake of no other dif∣ference, the Bishops, whom you succeede, were al con∣firmed by the bishop of Rome, and so is none of you.

Iewel..

If they vvere deceiued in any thing, vve succede them in the place, but not in errour.

Harding.

By their place is meant specially their doctrine and

beleefe, which seing you haue not, you are not their suc∣cessour, no more then Paulus Samosatenus the heretique, was the Successour in S. Peters chaire in Antioche, no more then Gregorius the Arian was S. Markes successour in Alexandria, no more then al the Bisshops of Christen∣dome are to be accompted the successours of the Heath∣nish Priestes, which in the same Cities before worshipped Idols. It is the Doctrine, and place together which ma∣keth the Succession, and not the walles of the towne, Churche, or house alone.

Iewel.

They vvere our Predecessours, but not the rules, and standardes of our faith.

Harding.

As long as they remained in that vnitie of Doctrine, which they receiued of the Apostles, or of the Aposto∣like Churches, as Tertullian doth wel shew, so long they are presidentes, and their continual Succession is a good rule, and standard of our faith. For they are pillers of the Church, the Successours of the Apostles,* 1.206 whom he that heareth, heareth Christ. Now when those that breake the Vnitie, which was in the Church before, come to sit in any bishops Chaire, they in deede are no presidentes, no rules, nor standardes of our Faith, bicause the Apostle biddeth vs obserue, and beware of them,* 1.207 that walke inordi¦natly, and make dissensions. For the Church of God hath no suche custome to striue,* 1.208 and to resiste at once al the Bi∣shops of the whole Church, as Martin Luther did.

Iewel. 131.

Or rather, to set apart al comparison of persons, the doctrine of Christ this day, M. Harding, succedeth your doctrine, as the daye succedeth the

night: as the light succedeth darknesse, and as the truth succedeth errour.

Harding.

* 1.209That is to say, your doinges, and proceedinges are the daye, the light, and the truth: but the Catholique faith whiche we teache, and al our predecessours in al the worlde haue euer taught, is the night, the darkenesse, and errour. But sir, if your doctrine be daye, or light, and ours night, or darkenesse: how chaunceth it, that our do∣ctrine was euer openly seene in the whole worlde from the Apostles time vnto these daies, in so many Bishoppes throughout al nations, teaching al one thing, and yours was not sene by your owne confession for nine hundred yeres together? This was a long night pardy M. Iewel. Is it the nature of the light not to be seene? Who sawe not our Altars, our external Priestes, and our Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ in the whole world from East to Weast,* 1.210 as Malachias prophecied, and the euent shewed?

But your no Aulters, your no external Priestes, and your no sacrificing of Christes body, briefly, the Imagi∣natiue face of your Negatiue Religion, or rather of your no Religion, who could see, before that now of late ye pulled downe our Aulters, to shewe howe ye had no Aulters, and before violently ye bannished our Priestes, and draue them out of their Churches, to shewe howe ye had no Priestes, and denied Christes Real Presence, to shew how ye had no Sacrifice? Our Munkes, and Friers from S. Ihon Baptistes dayes, and from the tyme of those, that liued a very holy life in Egypte, frō the time of S. Marke the Euangeliste vnto the time of

S. Basil in the East, of S. Augustine, S. Benedicte, S. Frauncis and S. Dominike in the Weast, had replenished Christendom with Cloisters, and Monasteries: to those our Monkes, I say, al the worlde beareth witnesse. But your no monkes, Renegates, and Apostates, liued in Turkie, or in Hel: for in the landes of Christendom no such doctrine shined, none suche was heard of, whiche should auouche, that it is not lawful by Gods grace to make a vowe, that a man wil renounce the riches, and pleasures of the worlde, and liue continently, vnder the obedience of a spiritual Father.

If your doctrine be the light, and the daye, howe commeth it to passe, that not so muche as one Churche, or chappel in the whole earth can be named, where before these fiftie yeres it was vnlawful to occupie holy Chrisme in bishopping of childerne, or to saye Masse, or to teache the seuen Sacramentes, to praie for the dead, to celebrate the Churche Seruice in the Latine tongue, to desire the Apostles, Martyrs, and the other Saintes to praie for vs, al which thinges now you accompt for vnlawful? Can the light be so darkened, that it should be vnknowen vnto you, whether ye had any auncestours at al, or no? We can, if neede were, set forth a rolle of our Pastours and Bishops, from this daye vpward vnto S. Peters time in such sort, as you shal name no one time, of whiche we are not hable to saye vnto you, these many prelates, and Pastours were knowen to preache Christes gospel, at once in diuers nations.

Marcke M. Iewel, what I saye to you, and consider of it wel: For herein your vtter Confusion appeareth, that ye are not hable to bring the continuance of your do∣ctrine

vp vnto S. Peters time without interruption, albeit you should be bounde to name for euery fiftie yeres in Order, but one man in the whole worlde at once. Thinke of it with al your witte, and geue me an instance. There are since Christes time fifteen hūdred yeres passed. Geue me for euery hundred yeres two Catholike men, one li∣uing after the other, whom you may iustifie to haue ben of your faith, holding that doctrine whiche you holde, and so geue me in al but thirtye menne, liuing, and know∣en to haue lyued, eche of them about fiftie yeres one after the other, and for my part I wil release you of your bond of subscription.

Such a lightsome Churche ye haue, that ye must go into the pit of Hel to fetch out Aêrius, Pelagius, Vigilan∣tius, Iouinian, Heluidius, Manichaeus, and such others of condemned memorie, to geue light vnto your Churche, or els you can bring foorth none at al. For whereas al the Greekes,* 1.211 as it may appeare by Epiphanius, and al the La∣tines, as it may appeare by S. Augustine, condemned him for an heretike, who said the prayers of the liue could not helpe the dead, what catholike is it possible to bring foorth, for the yere of our Lorde three hundred and fiftie, or foure hundred, who taught as ye now teache, that it is not lawful, nor profitable to praye for the dead?

Wel, ye are not the light, nor the daye. Is your do∣ctrine at the least the truth? Nay, that is the truth, which is also the light. For the true doctrine is taught in that Church which is built vpon an hil, and can not be hid.

The truth is vniforme,* 1.212 but emong you Luther and Zuin∣glius, Caluine and Westphalus, Bullinger and Brentius,

Illyricus and Beza, and sundrie other couples and partes agree so wel, that a man may easily know them to be false Prophetes. For whereas they al disagree, yet they are al without that Churche, where vnitie is preserued in the perpetual Succession of many Bishops alwaies agreeing in one saith. Therefore your doctrine is neither the light, nor the daye, nor the truth: but darkenesse, but night, but errour.

Iewel. 131.

Novv, for as much as ye haue thought it so good, to examine the petite degree of Bishops of Sarisburie, I trust you vvil not thinke it il, if I a litle touch the l••ke in the Bishops of Rome, that vve may thereby the better be hable to see some of the branches of your Succession.

Harding.

In dede they of whom you speake, are but some of the branches of our Succession. For you touch of two hun∣dred and thirtye Bishops of Rome not thirteene, and yet our Succession consisteth also of al the Bishops in Italie, Spaine, Fraunce, Germanie, Sicilie, Polonia, Hungarie, Denmarke, Suethen, and England euen til king Henrie the eightes time. But go too on Gods name: touche whom you can. I am wel assured, you wil plaie the Spi∣der, to espie if any poison can be found any where. Let vs see, with what truth and honestie you blase their faultes.

The worst that can be said of al the Popes touching do∣ctrine by the Protestantes, is here gathered together, and laid forth by M. Iewel, and the same is truly answered.

Iewel. Pag. 131.

Therefore shortly to say: you knovv that Pope Marcellinus committed Idolatrie.

Harding.

* 1.213I know that after his Idolatrie, whereto he yeelded for feare of death, he repented, and shed his bloud for Christe, and dyed a glorious Martyr, euen as S. Paule, after that he had persecuted the Churche, through grace repented, and died for Christes name. Who ought now to be more ashamed of S. Marcellinus, you, that chalenge him for an Idolatour, or I, that chalenge him for a Martyr? The Idolatrie, you speake of, is gone and pardoned: the Martyrdome, whereof I speake, is euerlastingly crowned in heauen. The ende M. Iewel trieth al, whereof you should haue taken your iudgement. And yet this very Idolatoure, bicause he was S. Peters Successour, and sate in the first See, was in case for the roume he occupied, to be iudged of no man in the earth, as t••e Councel of three hundred and thirtie Bishoppes assembled at Sinuessa pro∣nounced aboue twelue hundred yeres past.* 1.214 Primasedes non iudicabitur à quoquā. The first seate shal not be iudged of any man. What haue you wonne now by this example, but that you do the world to vnderstand, what malicious stomake ye beare against the Popes of Rome, whose faultes ye are right glad to espie, and blase abroade, al∣though they repented of them. Verely it would haue be∣comme a sonne of the Churche, to conceele suche actes of frailtie, and not to see suche spottes that were with so abundant founteines of teares cleane washed awaie, and with the bloude of so glorious Martyrdom quite blotted out.

Iewel. 131.

Pope Syluester the secōd vvas a Coniurer, and gaue himselfe vvhole, body and soule to the Deuil, and by the Deuilles procurement vvas made Pope.

Harding.

That Syluester the second came to be Pope, malis ar∣tibus, by euil meanes, it is not so cleare a matter, as you make it. Platina the chiefe author we haue for credite of that Storie, vttereth it doubtefully by his Parenthesis (vt aiunt) as they saie. Whereby he geueth vs to vnderstand, that he was not hable to auouche it for a certaine truthe, but referreth him selfe to the vulgare rumour of the peo∣ple, which most commonly bruteth abroad moe lies, and vanities, then truthes and certainties. How beit Platina,* 1.215 who tolde you al this, added also, Poenitentia motus, & errorem suum coram populo fassus, &c. being moued with repentance, and confessing his errour before the people, he first exhorted them al, that ambition and the deuilles deceites laide aside, they should liue wel. And afterward his body was miraculously drawen by horses to the chiefe Church of Rome, and there was buried. If you beleue the one, you must beleue the other, sithence it is but one Storie, whereof you told the first parte, and I the last. Whereupon I attribute so much to that holy Succession, that I doubte not, as euil a man as he once was, but God delte the more mercifully with him for his good prede∣cessours sakes, who I doubte not, prayed for him, that he might die penitently, and be a saued soule.

Iewel. 131.

Pope Zosimus for ambition, and claime of gouernment, corrupted the holy Councel of Nice.

Harding.

You say it,* 1.216 but neuer did any honest man say it from the beginning of the worlde, til this time, neither was the same yet euer proued. For albeit he alleged such wordes

of a certaine Canon, as the other copies had not, yet did no man lay to his charge, that he had corrupted the Coū∣cel. For he alleged that which he found in his own copies. I say to you M. Iewel, there is nothing shewed by this your tale, but that you are a man of il dispositiō, who glad∣ly reporte euil, and besides that you finde reported of o∣thers, inuent your selfe that, which vtterly is false, to di∣minish the estimation of a holy man, that died eleuē hun∣dred yeres past. Marke the point, I say, if it be said of any man that euer wrote in the olde time, that Pope Zosimus corrupted the Councel of Nice, then you, or your fel∣lowes did not feine it: but if no man said it but bawdy Bale, or Illyricus, and suche others the like: then your part is with liers, and sclaunderers, and thereafter shal your iudgement be without you repente, whiche God graunt you.* 1.217 I think it not good, to stād about it here, bicause the matter is wel handled already by M. Dorman, M. Cope, and M. Stapletō. But you dissembling what they say, go on to mainteine the Successiō of lies in your own generatiō.

Iewel.

Pope Liberius vvas an Arian Heretike.

Harding.

Or els you are an errant sclaūderous lier. The truth wit∣nessed by al sortes of writers, is, that he suffered bannish∣ment by Constantius the Arian Emperour, for the true Ca∣tholik faith,* 1.218 and (as S. Hierome reporteth, being ouercome with the tediousnesse of his bannishmēt, subscribed to the Heresie after a sort, to wit, by setting his hand to the ban∣nishment of Athanasius. For the Popes power was then knowen to be so great, that the Emperour knew the Pa∣triarke Athanasius could not seeme iustly to be deposed,

onlesse both other Bishoppes, and specially the Bishop of Rome had agreed vnto it. But when Liberius would not agree to the Emperours vniust request, he was bannished,* 1.219 and as Theodoritus witnesseth, he returned home to his See at the request of the vertuous Matrones of Rome, who knew him to be farre frō the Arians heresie, and iud∣ged so wel of him for it, that they would not cōmunicate with Felix, whom the Emperour had placed in Liberius roume. For somuch as no man knew the cause, and state of Liberius better then Athanasius, of al otherlie is chiefly to be heard. His wordes are these.* 1.220 Liberius deinde post ex∣actum in exilio biennium inflexus est, minis{que} mortis ad sub∣scriptionem inductus est. Verùm illud ipsum quoque, & eorum violentiam, & Liberij in haeresim odium, & suum pro Atha∣nasio suffragium, cùm liberos affectus habebat, satis coarguit. Afterward, Liberius hauing passed ouer two yeres in bā∣nishement, stooped, and by threates of death was brought to subscribe. But that very selfe same facte of his is a suffi∣cient argument, both of their Violence, and of the hatred, that Liberius bore to the heresie (of the Arians) and what his consent, and opinion was concerning Athanasius, at what time he had his desires free, that is, when he might both speake, and do freely, what semed to him most mete and expediēt in that cause. How plaine are these wordes against you M. Iewel? Athanasius, who liued together with Liberius, and knew his whole state, sawe right wel, that the Subscription, which he made, proued him not an Arian Heretik, but rather a Catholike, bicause he subscri∣bed not voluntarily, but violently cōstrained, and that not with a vaine feare only, but also with the present bannish∣ment of two yeres, and farther with the threatninges

of death. Therefore although Liberius sinned greuously in yelding for feare, yet he neither was an Arian, nor preached he their heresie in his Churche at Rome after his returne: but rather repented his deede of subscrip∣tion, and amended it by preaching, and doing al that he was hable against the Arians, and therfore after his death, Epiphanius calleth him beatum,* 1.221 blessed: and Theodori∣tus calleth him sanctissimum, most holy.

In an other place Athanasius writeth of him thus. Exi∣miarum vrbium Episcopi, & capita tantarum Ecclesiarum, et verbis mihi patrocinati sunt, & exilia sustinuerunt, in quo∣rum numero est & Liberius Romanus praesul, qui, quanquam non vsque ad finem exilij maela perpessus est, biennium tamen in ea transmigratione perdurauit, non ignarus sycophantia∣rum quas patiebamur. The Bishops of famous cities, and the heades of great Churches fauoured me bothe in wordes, and (for my sake also) susteined bannishement. Emong whom was Liberius the Bishop of Rome: who although he suffered not the miseries of bannishement vntil the ende, yet he continued in that place whiche he was carried vnto, two yeres, not vnwitting what were the sclaunders that we suffered.

This Liberius then, although perhaps he subscribed at the length, yet was there neuer good, or honest man, that euer would cal him an Arian, who in dede neuer loued the Arians, but abhorred their opinion. But perhaps (per∣haps I say) he was wearye of his long bannishement, and after terrible threates of death being otherwise weake subscribed. Wel maie such a forced subscriptiō argue the lacke of fortitude, certainely it proueth not heresie. For an Heretike doth stubbornely defende his opinion. But

Liberius was so farre from defending the Arian heresie, that he could hardly with terrour of death after two yeres banishmēt be forced, to put his hand vnto the booke against Athanasius, which was in deede a derogation to the faith by a cōsequēt, but directly it was not Arianisme.

How seemeth not this wicked generation to spring of the Deuil, sithence it maketh the worst of euery thing, speaking euil of that, which may wel, and ought chari∣tably to be defended? And yet if he had benne an Arian with al his harte, so long as he neuer decreed any thing according to the Arian heresie, nor did set it foorth by publike authoritie of the See of Rome: that should not hurt our matter of Succession.

Iewel. Pag. 131.

Pope Leo, as appeareth by the Legende, vvas likevvise an Arian.

Harding.

Here are al thinges stoutely spoken, and nothing pro∣ued. There haue benne ten Popes, euery of whiche was called Leo, but none of them al (for ought that can be prooued) was an Arian. But it appeareth by the Legende, say you. What an obscure proufe is this? yet how cleare is the sclaunder? What Legende meane you, M. Iewel? Is it so notable, that it was ynough to say, the Legende, whiche manner of speache we vse, when we speake of knowen thinges? Or were you a shamed to name the authour? Verely onlesse you meane Leo the first, I dare boldly say, you can shewe vs no Legende written of any other Pope of that name. And doth it appeare by his Legende, that he was an Arian? Certainely the con∣trarie appeareth. That holy and learned Pope bothe

by his owne learned workes,* 1.222 wherein he speaketh much against the Arians, and by the witnesse of the fourth Ge∣neral Councel, and of al the worlde besides, is so purged from the suspiciō of that infamous name, that your sclaun∣der in such a case must needes be most damnable vnto your selfe. Truly me thinketh I lacke wordes to set foorth in due colours the lewd licentious tongue of this Sclaun∣derer, and yet he alleageth nothing at al for al those hai∣nous crimes, which he imputeth vnto so many innocent and worthy menne.

* 1.223But wilt thou know learned Reader, what a worthy peece of worke it is, that M. Iewel here calleth the Le∣gende, whereby he would proue, that Pope Leo was an Arian? Forsooth there is an old motheatē booke, where∣in Saintes liues are said to be conteined. Sometimes it is called Legenda Aurea, sometimes Speculū Sanctorū, some∣times Legenda Lombardica, or Historia Lombardica. Gesne∣rus of Zurich saith, one Iacobus de Voragine a Black Frier was the author of it. It shal not greatly skil, who was the author of it: Certaine it is, that among some true Stories, there be many vaine Fables written. Among which this is one, that M. Iewel here allegeth in great sadnesse. Nei∣ther is this reported of Pope Leo that he was an Arian, in a special Legende written of Leo, but in a Legende of S. Hilarie of Poitiers in Fraunce, whose holy reliques the Huguenotes in their late vproares in Fraunce villanous∣ly abused, burned to Ashes, and threw awaie, as likewise the boanes, and Reliques of S. Martine Bishop of Toures, and of that auncient and glorious Martyr S. Ireneus Bis∣shop of Lions.

That it may the better be knowen, what a worthy

Doctor the writer of this Legende was,* 1.224 let the begin∣ning of the same Legende be taken as it were for a taste, where ful Clerckely discussing the Etymologie, and first original of S. Hilaries name, thus he saith. Dicitur Hi∣larius, quasi Alarius, ab Altus, & Ares, virtus: quia fuit alius in scientia, & virtuosus in vita. Vel Hilarius dicitur ab ile, quod est quasi primordialis materia, quae obscura fuit. Et ipse in dictis suis magnam habet obscuritatem, & profunditatem. Of such geare the Reader may finde great stoare there, when so euer he is disposed to lawgh.

Now let vs heare the Legende, or rather the Fable, by which it appeareth to M. Iewel, that Pope Leo was an Arian. Thus it is tolde word by word. Eo tempore Leo Pa∣pa haereticorum perfidia deprauatus, &c. At that time Pope Leo corrupted with the false beleefe of Heretikes, assem∣bled a Councel of al the bishops. They being called toge∣ther, Hilarius came in amōgest them not sent for. Which thing when the Pope (Leo) hearde of, he commaunded, that no mā should rise vp vnto him, nor geue him place. When he was come in, the Pope said vnto him. Arte thou Hilarius the Frenche man? I am not a Frenche man, quod he, but one of Fraunce. that is to say, I am not borne in Fraunce, I am a Bishop of Fraunce. Then said the Pope, If thou be Hilarie of Fraunce, I am the Bishop of the Romaine See, and Iudge. Then said Hilarius: Al∣though thou be Leo (that is to say, Lion) yet thou arte not the Lion of the tribe of Iuda. And though thou sitte as iudge, yet thou sittest not in the Seate of Maie∣stie. At that the Pope (Leo) arose with disdaine, saying, Abide a while, til I come againe, and paie thee that thou deseruest. To whom Hilarius answered. If thou come

not againe, who shal make answer vnto me in thy steede? I wil come againe by and by, quod he, and wil bring downe thy pride.

When the Pope was gonne to do the secrete busines of nature, he died of a dysenterie, and auoiding foorth at the Pryuey al his entrailes, he ended his life miserably. In the meane ceason Hilarie seeing, that none woulde rise vp vnto him, tooke pacience, and setting him selfe downe on the grownde, saied: Domini est terra. Our Lordes is the earth. And therewith the earth by the wil of God, whereon he sate, lifted it selfe vp, and stoode vp equal with the seates of the other Bishops. Hereupon when tidinges came that the Pope was dead miserably, Hilarie arose, and confirmed al the Bishoppes in the Ca∣tholique Faith, and so sent them home. This is the wise Legende, by which it appeareth to M. Iewel, that Pope Leo was an Arian Heretique.

To let passe the other folies of this Fable, what a va∣nitie is it to make Leo the Pope, and S. Hilarie the Bis∣shop of Poitiers, thus to braule together at an assemblie of Bishoppes, whereas it is most certaine, that S. Hilarie died at least one hundred yeres, before Leo was borne? M. Iewel should not so falsly haue conceeled, what fol∣loweth immediatly in the same Legende, whereby this tale is discredited. For thus saith the authour him selfe. Hoc autem miraculum de morte Leonis Papae dubitationem habet, tum quia historia Ecclesiastica, vel Tripartita nihil de hoc loquitur: tum quia aliquem Papam talis nominis tunc fuisse, Chronica non testatur: tum quia Hieronymus dicit, quòd Sancta Romana Ecclesia semper immaculata permansit, & in futuro manebit sine Haereticorum in sultatione. But of

this miracle of Leos death it is doubted, partly bicause neither the Ecclesiastical, nor the Tripartite storie spea∣keth of it: partly bicause the Chronicle witnesseth not, that there was any Pope then of that name:* 1.225 also bicause S. Hierome saith, that the holy Romaine Churche hath euer continued vnspotted, and so shal continue for tyme to come, that Heretiques shal haue no cause to insult at here. Marke M. Iewel, if your Legende be ought worth, with how cleare testimonie of S. Hie∣rome, your imputing of Heresie vnto the See of Rome is confuted.

After this by waie of gheasse, the Authour saith, to make a bad defence of the fables vanitie, wherein he sheweth also his owne folie, and vanitie, that it might be sayd (that is to witte, if a man would lye) that at that time there was some Pope so called, not canonically chosen, but set in by tyrannical intrusion. Whereas he feared this would not serue, he addeth an other gheasse, Vel fortè Liberius &c. Or els perhappes (saith he) Pope Li∣berius, who fauoured Constantius the Heretique Empe∣rour, was after an other name called Leo. Whiche al are very poore, and peeuish shiftes to sooth the vaine fable of this Legende.

Suche Donghilles, and broken haies M. Iewel is faine to rake, and skrape, to finde some Ragges, wherewith to couer the fowle nakednes of his wretched cause. Yet the Storie set out in the name of Amphilochius, tou∣ching S. Basiles miracles, is muche more probable, and maie beare the name of the text, where this Legende shal not be thought worthy the name of the Glose.

Iewel. 131.

Pope Coelestinus vvas a Nestorian heretike.

Harding.

* 1.226Who euer heard such an impudent man? It was Coe∣lestinus, who condemned Nestorius, and al his heresies. It was Coelestinus, in whose place Cyrillus the Archebis∣shop of Alexandria sate president in the third General Councel at Ephesus, where Nestorius was accursed, and condemned. Of this Coelestinus the learned Bishop Pros∣per, who then liued, writeth: Nestorianae impietati prae∣cipua Alexandrini Episcopi industria, & Papae Coelestini re∣pugnat authoritas. The special diligence of the Bisshop of Alexandria, and the authoritie of Pope Coelestinus, resi∣steth the impietie of Nestorius. And yet is Pope Coele∣stinus a Nestorian? No truly, but M. Iewel prooueth him selfe a most impudent Lyer, and a wicked sclaun∣derer.

Iewel.

Pope Honorius vvas a Monothelite heretique.

Harding.

* 1.227Now at length M. Iewel you say that, which hath some face of truth. For Honorius in deede fel into the heresie of the Monothelites. But he fel into it, when as yet it was not euidently condemned by the Churche in any general Councel. He fel into it, but he defended it not: and yet the crime of heresie is not properly incurred, without a stubborne defence of falsehod.

Againe, he did not only not make any heretical De∣cree, touching the defence of that heresie, by the au∣thoritie

of the See Apostolike, but rather as a publike person, he did resist that heresie.* 1.228 For he induced Hera∣clius the Emperour to bannishe Pyrrhus the Patriarke of Constantinople, and Cyrus the Patriarke of Alexandria, who were giltie of the Monothelite heresie. How then standeth it together, that Honorius did bothe fauour, and hate the selfe same heresie?

Some men considering what he did, say, that he was falsly accused of the heresie, but others thinke rather, that in his harte he fauoured the heresie, yet bicause the Romaine Churche, to witte, the Bisshoppes of Ostia, of Porto, of Preneste, of Velitro, of Sabini, and suche o∣thers, that hauing their bishoprikes neare there about, are moste commonly resident in Rome, or are moste easily assembled thither to euery Consistorie with a great number of Priestes, of Deacons, and of other lear∣ned men, who are the Councel,* 1.229 and Senate of the Pope: bicause I say, they are and euer haue benne euen from the beginning, men of great experience (as it may appeare in S. Cyprians workes) and of constancie in the faith, as who liued with diuerse Popes one after the other: bicause then this reuerend companie were know∣en to resiste, as wel the Monothelite heresie, as al other heresies: it standeth wel together, that, Pope Honorius, albeit in his owne person he fauoured that heresie,* 1.230 yet durst not to publishe it in the cōmon assemblie, but con∣trarywise did there, as they gaue him Councel. Where∣by it came to passe, that he both deposed Monothe∣lites openly, and yet fauoured their opinion priuily. And this is the only Pope, who may iustly be burdened with heresie.

But now consider good Reader the worke of God, when he should come to confirme his brethrene, that is to say, to doo any open thing, whereby the other Bis∣shoppes might be established in their faith: then was he constrained to doo that, whiche might edifie, and not hinder the true faith, that God might be iustified in his woordes,* 1.231 who sayd to S. Peter, vppon this rocke I wil builde my Churche, and Hel gates shal not preuaile against it,* 1.232 and thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethrene: feede my sheepe,* 1.233 feede my lambes.

For when Honorius came to this pointe, whether in publike Consistorie the Monothelite heresie (whiche taught, that there was but one wil in Christe) should be allowed or no! then, as Platina recordeth, the Pope infourmed the Emperour, as wel by letters, as by mes∣sangers, that Christe had two willes: and that was done by the common assemblie, and the letters went, as the deede of the See, and Churche of Rome: whereas in the meane time Honorius was of an other minde with∣in him selfe. And they that are about great personages knowe right wel, that they doo many times sende ma∣ny messages, and letters, through the aduise of their Councel, whiche the greate personages them selues would not haue to take place. Thus we see a double person in him that gouerneth: one, which he hath in re∣specte of his owne priuate minde, and iudgement, the o∣ther, which he hath, or rather taketh as put vpon him, by the publike office, which he beareth.

Now concerning the matter of Succession, the pub∣like person is only to be regarded, which in Pope Honorius was Catholike. For that is the personage, whiche may

hurte, or hinder the Church. Of that publike personage Pope Agatho, who followed not long after Honorius, doubted not to write, as it is recited in the sixth general Councel Act. 4.* 1.234 concerning this very heresie of the Mo∣nothelites. Apostolicae memoriae meae paruitatis praedecessores dominicis doctrinis instructi, ex quo nouitatem haereticam in Christi immaculatam Ecclesiam Constantinopolitanae Ec∣clesia praesules introducere conabantur, nunquam neglexe∣runt eos hortari, atque obsecrando commonere, vt a praui dogmatis haeretico errore, saltem tacendo desisterent, ne ex hoc exordium dissidij in vnitate Ecclesiae facerent, vnam vo∣luntatem, vnámque operationem duarum naturarum asse∣rentes in vno Domino nostro Iesu Christo. The predeces∣sours that were before me, seelie man that I am, men of Apostolike memorie, and instructed in the Doctrine of our Lorde, since that the Bishops of Constantinople en∣deuoured to bring an heretical noueltie into the vnspot∣ted Church of Christe, neuer ceased to exhorte them, and with earnest meane to admonish them, that they would, at the least wise by forebearing talke, surcease from the heretical errour of their wicked opinion, least affirming, that there was in our Lord Iesus Christe but one wil, and one operation of two natures, hereby they should cause strife to beginne in the vnitie of the Church. Thus the predecessours of Agatho, emong whom Ho∣norius was one, did, as he reporteth, alwaies openly defende the Catholique faith against the Monothe∣lites.

It is to men knowen perhaps sometimes, that the Pope, or prince leadeth an euil life, as for example, in fornica∣tion, or in Aduouterie. Yet so long as their lawes forbid

them bothe, the menne are of euil example, but the law∣es are good and holesom, and the common Weale is wel prouided for. But if once Aduouterie, or Fornicati∣on should be made lawful by Lawe (as some menne say that vserie somewhere is) then is the common Weale domaged.* 1.235 But sithens the time that S. Peter sate first at Rome, God hath wrought this miraculous, yea thrise mi∣raculous worke, that there was neuer yet any open As∣semblie or Synode kepte, wherein any Heresie, by any one of so many as haue ben S. Peters Successours, was euer decreed. The publique sentence, and iudgement of the See Apostolike, in matters of faith, was neuer to this daie defiled, or defaced with false doctrine. That is the Succession which we holde of, and whereof S. Augu∣stine said so long time past:* 1.236 Numerate &c. Recken vp by tale the priestes euen from the very seate of Peter, and in that rew of Fathers, see who succeded other: that is the Rocke, which the proude gates of Hel doo not ouercome.

Iewel.

Pope Ihon 22. vvas reproued by Gerson, and by the schoole of Paris for an Heretike.

Harding.

* 1.237He was reproued for an opinion M. Iewel, which he helde before he was Pope many yeres, what the opinion was, I haue declared before at large, to whiche place I referre the reader for a ful answer. But when being Pope he would haue confirmed that his wrong opinion (that the soules of the iuste lacked the sight of God face to face vntil the daye of Iudgement) God tooke him out of this life, that al the world might know, come who shal to sit in Peters chaier, he shal neuer decree any Heresie, to

be mainteined as the Faith. How be it it was not to be ac∣coumpted heresie at that time, as yet not being determi∣ned by the Church, and semed to haue ben holden of cer∣taine olde doctours of the Church, as is before said. The miracle of God, in staying that man from confirming that errour by authentike decree in open Synode, ought more to moue you (if you were a man whom Gods workes could moue) then his priuate erroneous opinion, which hurteth no man but him selfe.

Iewel. 132.

Petrarcha saith, Rome is a sanctuarie of al heresies.

Harding.

I neither beleue you, nor him. I am sure that men of greater authoritie, then euer that ryming Poet was of, hath said the contrarie. But it may be right wel, that your sclaunderous penne belieth Petrarcha.* 1.238 Once you name not where he saith it. But what so euer Petracha saie, S. Ambrose, whom we more regarde, said, that the Church of Rome kepeth alwaies the Apostolike beleefe whole and vn∣diminished. And S. Cyprian saith, that infidelitie can not haue accesse vnto the Romaines.

Iewel.

Lyra saith, that many Popes haue fallen into heresies.

Harding.

He saith, many, as wel princes, as chiefe priestes haue fallē from the faith, but not that many haue decreed heresies, as to be followed, and embraced of others. But how truly he saith, that many haue fallen from the faith, let him answer to it: For I find not those many, nor yet M. Iew. him selfe, as diligēt as he is about it. Wherin Lyra maie helpe vs for opening the text of holy Scriptures, we gladly vse him: as for his auctoritie, specially touching antiquitie, being so

late a writer, you know how litle weight his worde bea∣reth in the iudgement of the learned. And how is it come to passe, that Nicolaus de Lyra is now so good an author with you M. Iewel, who being a professed Frier in his life time followed the faith of the Romaine Church, and beleued the Bishoppe of Rome to be the chiefe Bishop of Christendom, and the Romaine Churche to be the head of al Churches?

Iewel. 132.

You knovv, that Pope Hildebrand, as he vvas charged by the Councel of Brixta, vvas an aduouterer, a Chu••che robber, a periu••ed man, a mankiller, a Sorcerer and a renegate of the faith.

Harding.

I know that you lye, I may saie it, sauing my charitie, rather then your worship. For Pope Gregorie the seuēth, otherwise (before he was Pope) called Hildebrandus, was a very holy man, as Marianus Scotus doth witnesse, who liued in the same time,* 1.239 and knew, that Henrie the Emperour being enemie to Pope Hildebrand (bicause the good Pope warned him of his faultes) did procure a false conuenticle at Brixia, and caused false accusations there to be laid in against him: as he did the like also in Rome it selfe, whence the Pope was constrained to flee. Videns autem (saith Marianus Scotus) Henricus pa∣pam aufugisse, congregatis 30. Episcopis, fautoribuss suis, in ipsa Romanae vrbis obsidione iussit haberisynodū, in qua Gre∣gorius papafalsis & inauditis criminationibus à fautoribus Henrici fictè compositis absens accusatur. Denique dicebant cum prophanum, scelestum, amatorem discordiae, virum san∣guinū, sedem Apostolicam vsurpare per necromantiam. Con∣spirantes ergo qui cōuenerunt in vnum aduersus Dominū, &

aduersus Vicarium eius Papam Gregorium, dānauerunt eum. But Henrie seing that the Pope was fled, assembling to∣gether 30. Bishops, who fauoured his part, commaunded a synode to be kept, euen as he was at the fiege of the ci∣tie of Rome: in which Synode Gregorie the Pope being absent, is accused of false crimes, and such as were neuer heard of, the which Henries fautours had purposely for∣ged. To be shorte, they said he was a prophane man, a wicked man, a louer of discorde, a bloudy man, and that he had vsurped the See Apostolike by Necromancie. They therefore who had thus assembled them selues to∣gether, conspiring against our Lorde, and against his Vi∣care Pope Gregorie, condemned him.

If you were but a ciuil honest man M. Iewel, you would not take that for a Truth, which one enemie saith of an other.* 1.240 It maie please you to read those Historio∣graphers which wrote without partialitie, as Marianus Scotus, Platina, Lambertus Schafnaburgēsis, and Nauclerus, with such like. By perusing them you shal finde yourselfe a Lyer, and Pope Hildebrand a vertuouse man, and one that was zelously bent to correcte such faultes, as were in the clergie, at that time, specially Simonie. But though he had ben otherwise, it hindereth not oure cause, as long as he kepte the same Faith, whiche he receiued of his forefathers.

Iewel. Pag. 132.

Platina calleth the Popes sometimes in scorne, Pontificulos,* 1.241 litle pe∣tite Popes, sometimes monstra, & portenta, monsters, and vnnatural, and ilshapen creatures.

Harding.

If Platina speake so of some Popes, it is the more signe,

that he either hated the Popes, or els that he spake as he thought, and that he wrote not for flatterie, as sometimes you saye of him. I praye you what cause had Platina to flatter with them (as with Hildebrand) who were so long dead before he was borne? And as for those with whom he liued, he flattered them neuer a whit, as maye appeare by the life of Pope Paulus the second.* 1.242 Wel, were then some Popes monsters? Verely I thinke so with Platina concerning some few of their liues. But euen those, that were worste, made no breache in the rule of the faith. God so prouided alwaies, that although Hel gates, to wit, al vices, and al the power of the Deuil were bent against the Popes, and the Churche of Rome, yet al should not preuaile against the Rocke, and true Confession of the Faith, which euer hath ben, and shalbe in the Succession of Peters Chaire. Whereupon, S. Hierome doubted not to saye,* 1.243 Cathedrae Petri Communione consocior, super illam petram aedificatam Ecclesiamscio. I am ioyned in commu∣nion to the Chaire of Peter, vpon that Rocke I knowe the Churche is builte.

Iewel.

Pope Adrian the fourth vvas vvoont to saye, vve succede not Peter in feeding, but Romulus in killing.

Harding.

Were it true, you would haue named your authour. Now your saying semeth to procede out of your owne Forge. But what if it were true, that Pope Adrian said so by waye of complaint? This proueth, that as some of his predecessours were euil men, so alwaies God gaue his grace to some other Popes to disallowe their faultes, and yet to continewe their Faith, Doctrine, and Succession.

Iewel. Pag. 132.

And to leane Dame Ioan the vvoman Pope, vvith many others mee of like vertue, and holinesse, as hauing no pleasure in this rehersal.

Harding.

There was no such woman Pope: and yet God know∣eth, you take stil great pleasure in the rehersal of a vaine dreame (as you doo of many other false tales) dreamed first by Martinus Polonus.

Iewel.

For as much as M. Harding began this matter vvith Sarisburie, to ende it vvith the same, Ioannes Sarisburiensis saith,* 1.244 in Romana Ec∣clesia sedent Scribae & Pharisaei, In the Church of Rome (by Succes∣sion) sitte the Scribes, and Pharisees.

Harding.

The matter that I began here to treate of, was not of Sarisburie, but of your Successiō in Sarisburie, for which notwithstanding the huge stuffe you bring, you shewe your selfe to haue nothing to saie. Touching Ioannes Sa∣risburiensis, if it were so that Scribes, and Pharisees sate in the Churche of Rome, yet you should be damned for departing from them,* 1.245 euen as Ieroboam was for depar∣ting from the Chaire of Moyses. You are bound to com∣municate in Doctrine with the chiefe Chaier, what soe∣uer they be, that sit in it. For Christe bad vs kepe that,* 1.246 which they commaunde. Now as the Scribes, and Phari∣sees sitting in the Chaire of Moyses, did exactly kepe his Succession, and witnessed the continuance of that Tem∣ple, whereunto al the Iewes were bound: So the Popes of Rome sitting in S. Peters Chaire, do exactly main∣teine his Succession, and witnesse that to be the true Rocke, and Churche, whereunto al we are bound to be obedient, as sheepe to the chiefe Pastour.

But sith you are desirous to end this matter, begonne, as you saye, of Sarisburie, with Sarisburie, whereby you meane the auctoritie of Ioannes Saresburiensis: there∣with I am right wel contente. For your parte, that is to say, against the Churche of Rome (whose faith we pro∣fesse, whatsoeuer be the manners of some great persons in that Churche) you allege Iohn of Sarisburie, saying, that Scribes, and Pharisees sitte in the Churche of Rome. True it is, these wordes be in Iohn of Sarisburie in deede. As for the Addition (by Succession) it is your owne, it is not his. But you must vnderstand, they be not his owne wordes, as spoken by him selfe, but reported by him, as wordes of the common people. For being required of Pope Adrian the fourth, who was an Englishman, in fa∣miliar talke, whereto for his learning and wisdome he was admitted, to declare freely, what was commōly said abroade of the Pope, and of the Churche of Rome: a∣mong other thinges bruted abroade by waye of com∣plaint, specially against the Briberie, and coueteousnes of great personages of that Churche, he rehersed those wordes out of the Gospel.* 1.247 At the ende of his tale thus he concluded,* 1.248 signifiing whose tale he tolde. Haec inquam Pater loquitur populus, quandoquidem vis, vt illius tibi sen∣tentias proferam. These thinges, Father the people spea∣keth, for asmuch as you wil haue me to vtter vnto you, what they saie. Thus M. Iewel by testimonie of your Ihon of Sarisburie, you proue nothing against our Do∣ctrine of Succession, but onely put vs in mynd, what the common people in those dayes said of the gouernours of the Church.

If you would with as good sinceritie haue alleged

on the other side, what good he in the same booke, and Chapter reporteth of them, as with malice you reherse the euil: you should haue laid forth a very good tale for them. For immediatly after the wordes before rehersed, thus it foloweth there. Et tu, inquit, quid sentis? And what is your opinion, quod the Pope. Thereto answereth Iohn of Sarisburie. Angustiae (inquam) sunt vndique. Vereor enim ne mendacij, vel adulationis cortraham notam, si solus populo contradixero. Sin autem, reatum vereor Maiestatis, ne tanquam qui os in coelum posuerim, crucem videar meruis∣se. I am driuen (quod he) to straightes on euery side. For I feare me, I shalbe noted for a Lyer, or a flatterer, if I alone be in my tale contrarie to the people. Elles (if I should saie as they saie) I feare the gilte of treason, least I seme to haue deserued the pounishment of death, being as it were one that haue set my mouth vp against hea∣uen. This Preface semeth to conteine the wordes of one, that intendeth to vtter the truth plainly, and discretely.

And although there in deede he touche the Popes, and the Romaine Clergies faultes freely, yet on the other side he confesseth him selfe moued in cōscience to speake muche also in the praise of many. These be his wordes. Vnum tamen audacter conscientia teste profiteor,* 1.249 quia nus∣quàm honestiores Clericos vidi, quàm in Ecclesia Romana, aut qui magis auaritiam detestentur. Albeit some be faul∣ty, yet one thing, my conscience bearing me witnesse, I dare be bolde to saie: that no where I haue sene Clerkes of more honestie, then in the Churche of Rome, or that doo more deteste coueteousnes. Of such good and ver∣tuous Clerkes, there he reckeneth vp some by name. At length speaking of the number of the good in general, he

saith, Plurium tanta modestia, tanta grauitas est, vt Fabrici•• non inueniantur inferiores, quem agnita salutis via modis omnibus antecedunt. The modestie, and grauitie of the more parte of them, is so great, that they are founde no∣thing inferior to Fabricius (the noble Romaine of famous memorie for his vertue) whom in respecte of that they acknowlege the waie of Saluation (which he knew not being an Infidel) by al meanes they passe and excelle.

Then folow these wordes immediatly, which are most to our purpose, and most worthy of consideration. Quia verò instas, vrges, praecipis, cùm certum sit, quòd Spiritui san∣cto mentiri non licet: fateor quia quod praecipis faciendum est, & si non sitis omnes operibus imitandi. Nam qui a do∣ctrina vestra dissentit, aut haereticus, aut schismaticus est. For asmuche as you are instant vpon me, and wil haue no nay, and commaunde (me to saie what I thinke) sith it is certaine, that I maie not lye vnto the holy Ghoste: I graunte, that what you commaunde vs to doo, we must doo, although ye be not al to be folowed in your deedes. For he that dissenteth from you Doctrine, is either an He∣retique, or a Schismatique. These wordes being wel and duely considered of, I reporte me to thine indifferent iudgement discrete Reader, what M. Iewel can seme to any wise man to haue wonne by Iohannes Sarisburien∣sis. He accuseth the vices of the Romaine Clergie, and of some Popes them selues. We also accuse the same. Their euil deedes be not to be folowed, saith he. We saie the same, and praie God to amende them. Scribes, and Pharisees sate in the Church of Rome, said the peo∣ple in his time. Were it true, yet were they to be obeied touching doctrine, and to be beleeued, bicause

they sate in the Chaire of Peter, as Christ cōmaunded the Scribes, and Pharisees of the Iewes to be obeied, and thinges to be done and kepte, whiche they said, bi∣cause they succeeded Moyses, and sate in Moyses Chaire.

Howbeit what the people of Rome, of Italie, and of Germanie said of the Pope at that time, it ought the lesse to be regarded, bicause they spake vpon grudge concei∣ued against him: the Romaines,* 1.250 for that (as Platina wit∣nesseth) he denied them their ernest request, which was, that they might liue freely vnder the gouernement of the Consulles, and be exempted from their subiection to the Church: the Italians, and Germains, for that they were muche vexed with warres by William the King of Sicilia, and Frederike the firste, Emperour, from whiche vexation and troubles they saw they should haue benne deliuered, if the Pope woulde haue benne content to suffer the Landes of the Churche to be in∣uaded, and taken awaie by those Princes. Euen so in these daies the Popes be the worse spoken of, and finde the lesse good wil at many mennes handes in some partes of Christendome, bicause they can not be indu∣ced to allow and confirme the possession of certaine ec∣clesiastical Landes, which haue ben taken frō the Church by vnlawful meanes, in such wise, as they them selues would haue it allowed, and confirmed.

To be short, agree with vs M. Iewel vnto the doctrine, which the Church of Rome teacheth, where the Succes∣sion is certaine, wherunto your owne doctor Ioannes Sa∣risburiensis leadeth you: and we wil agree with you in reprouing the vices and faultes of that See, the proufe of

which for a great part of them, for ought ye can shewe, is vncertaine. Would God, ye would once consider, how sclender and weake the Argumentes, ye make against the catholique Faith are, which alwaies ye deduce, à moribus ad doctrinam, that is, from reproufe of manners, to the re∣proufe of doctrine.

Iewel. Pag. 132.

This is M. Hardings holy succession: though faith faile, yet Succes∣sion must holde.

Harding.

Nay syr, Succession doth holde, that faith maye not faile. For you haue not proued by any one example, that faith did euer faile in the Churche of Rome. In the Church, I saye, which consisteth of the Pope, and of a college, and an assemblie of graue Bishops and priestes professing them selues the faith, and teaching it others. In that open assemblie neuer was there false religiō decred, or taught, whereas so many heresies haue ben (not fewer then a hundred) and so many Archeheretikes, of whom some haue ben in the other Patriarchal Sees, but in Rome neuer was there an Archeheretike, or any Pope, who in Councel, or Consistorie decreed, or confirmed any he∣resie to be admitted.

To him that knoweth the ecclesiastical histories, and conferreth the See of Rome with al other Churches, it is such a miracle, as therby God hath witnessed that Suc∣cession to be the Rocke of the faith. In so much that the Bishops of the prouince of Tarracon in Spaine wrote thus vnto Pope Hilarius.* 1.251 Ad fidem recurrimus Aposto∣lico orè laudatam, inde responsa quaerentes, vnde nihil errore, nihil praesumptione, sed pontificali totum deliberatione praeci∣pitur.

We resort vnto the faith praysed by the mouth of the Apostle, seeking answers from thence, whence no∣thing is commaunded by errour, nothing by presumption, but al by bishoply deliberation.

Iewel.

For vnto the succession, God hath bound the holy Ghost.

Harding.

No, but vnto the holy Ghost,* 1.252 God hath bound the Succession. For he causeth the Succession to abide faith∣ful, bicause he causeth it to follow the inspiration of the holy Ghost: that it may so be knowen for euer certain∣ly true in the chiefe Apostles Chaire, and in the fellow∣ship abiding with him. Christ saith, he that heareth you,* 1.253 heareth me. I am with you al dayes vntil the worldes ende.* 1.254 I haue prayed for thee, that thy faith faile not,* 1.255 and thou be∣ing once conuerted, confirme thy brethern, feede my sheepe,* 1.256 feede my lambes. I wil beseeche my father,* 1.257 and he shal geue you an other conforter, that he remaine with you for euer,* 1.258 the spirite of truth, he shal teach you al thinges, and al truth. The Romaine faith is preached in the whole worlde.* 1.259

Iewel.

For lacke of this Succession, for that in our Sees in the Churches of England, vve find not so many Idolatours, Necromancers, Heretikes, Ad∣uouterers, Churcherobbers, Periured persones, Mankillers, Renegates, Monsters, Scribes, and Pharisees, as vve may easily finde in the Church of Rome, therefore I trovve M. Harding saith, vve haue no Succession: vve are no Bishops: vve haue no Church at al.

Harding.

Your Church of England hath yet scant continued so many weekes, as the Churche of Rome hath continued

yeres. But if it had passed ouer such times of persecution, as Rome hath, if it had ben so assaulted by al sortes of en∣emies, as wel within, as without, as wel with prosperi∣tie, as aduersitie: I trow your Church would haue had before this, as many Idolatours, Necromancers, Here∣tiques, Aduouterers, and such others by you named, as the Church of Rome hath had Bishops. And certainely already it hath had mo sortes of Heretikes, and that with∣in these xx. yeres, then Rome hath had euen by your owne accompte euil men, within these fiften hundred yeres.* 1.260 For your beginning, progresse, and the whole pro∣fession of your life is nothing but heresie, whereunto I∣dolatrie is euermore annexed. For an heretike doth al∣waies worship his owne conceit, and phantasie for truth, and whereas God is truth, he worshippeth his phantasie for God, which is Idolatrie.

If the pope committed any faulte by frailtie, he defen∣ded it not, as you mainteine in open pulpites the breache of laudable, and godly vowes, and the marriages of con∣secrated persons, who haue absteined from marriage euer since the Apostles tyme, whose marriages saith S. Hie∣rome be not so much Aduouteries,* 1.261 as Inceste. But in the number of mo then two hundred Popes, within fiften hundred yeres, you haue falsely numbred sixe, or seuen, as Heretikes: whereas you can not denie, but there haue ben in the same Succession aboue thirtie martyrs, who died for Christes sake, and as many confessours, or moe, whom al the good men in the Church haue accompted for holy and blessed men. There was neuer general Coū∣cel holden by catholique Bishops, which did not cōmu∣nicate with that See, and reioysed to be honoured, and cōfirmed by it, From S. Peters time to our age you cannot

name any one daie, or howre (marcke wel M. Iewel, you can not name one daie, or howre, I say) in which any knowen Catholike Bishop in al the world, did, or might euer say with the approbation of good men: I defie, or I despise, or I do not communicate with the Church of Rome, how soeuer some one Pope might seeme not cō∣mendable, yet the Church, the faith, the Doctrine, the Succession was euer commended of al Catholike men.

To that See appealed, and resorted, as to the chiefe Light of the Church,a 1.262 Irenaeus,b 1.263 Tertullian,c 1.264 Optatus,d 1.265 S. Ambrose,e 1.266 S. Hierome,f 1.267 S. Augustine,g 1.268 Prosper, with al the fathers besides. That See promoted the Gospel into the endes of the world, into England, Scotlād, Ireland, Den∣marcke, the low Countrie, Germanie, Polonia, Lituania, Prussia, Liuonia, Hungaria, Bohemia, Bulgaria, and pre∣sently into the new founde Landes.

That See conquered al heresies, cōfounded them, and al their authours, and mainteiners, from Simon Magus to Martine Luther, and Ihon Caluin, who now beginneth to be brought very lowe, and by Gods wil shalbe brought lower shortely, the follie, and rebellious sprite, which his Doctrine breedeth in his adherentes, breaking out, and shewing it selfe daily to the world more and more. See M. Iewel, you, and your fellowes are as sore a fraid, as euer was the gilty theefe of his iudge, or the naughty boye of his maister. But do I say (trow you) that ye therfore haue no Succession, or that yee are no Bishops, and haue no Church, bicause in your Churches of England there are not to be founde so many Idolatours, so many Necromācers, so many Heretiques, Aduouteres, Churcherobbers, Per∣iured persons, Mankillers, Renegates, Monsters, Scribes,

and Pharisees, as many easily be founde in the Church of Rome? Nay I trow M. Iewel you take your marke amisse. For if I thought so, as it pleaseth you to thinke of me, I would not haue denied you, neither Succession, such as it is, nor Bishops, nor Churches, or rather Congregations, nor Mi∣nisters, nor Minstrels neither, for the better furnishing of them withal, if these so many worthy qualities, could worke so great an effecte. For, that I speake not here of Heretikes,* 1.269 and so cōsequently of Idolatours, which faulte is common to you al: what aduouterers, whoremasters, Incestuous persons, Churche robbers, Church breakers, Periured persons, Mankillers, Renegates, Abiured men, Friers, Apostates, Lecherous Munkes, Tapsters, Hostlers, Pedlers, Tinckers, Coblers, Summoners, Viceplayers, De∣uil Players, Fellons, Horse stealers, Newgate menne, briefly what vile, and rascal rable want ye to fournish vp your Succession, your bishoprikes, your Synagogues, and Ministring roumes withal? Verely if this geare could make a Succession, it shal soone be made good, that ye haue also a Succession such, as it is. And ye neede not to mistrust any whit at al, hauing so many of euery sorte, as shalbe more then inough for you. Marie put these away out of your congregations (I would cal them Churches, were not that name to good for you) I feare me you would leaue but a poore seely clergie behinde.* 1.270

But how easy is it (trow you M. Iewel) to find so ma∣ny Idolatours in the Churche of Rome, as you beare vs in hande there may be founde? Doth one poore facte of S. Marcellinus alone, for the whiche he repented foorthwith, and dyed a glorious Martyr of God, make vp with you so many Idolatours? I am wel assu∣red,

that if you could haue found but one Pope more that had done the like, you would not haue spared him (your modestie is such) but he should haue ben scored vp also, to make vp your number of so many Idolatours.

Be it that Syluester was a Necromancer,* 1.271 and Hilde∣brand too, who was of that crime (as of many other) vn∣truly sclaundered by his enemies, that could not abide to heare of any correction for their enormous faultes, and therefore spited that good Pope, as you doo al the Popes: wil yet those two make such a number of Necro∣mancers in that See, that it were a very easy matter to finde so many, as you would gladly make your Readers beleeue there were?

Be it that Liberius, Leo, Coelestinus, Honorius,* 1.272 and Ihon the 22. holding priuate opinions without open mainte∣nance of them had ben Heretikes, as you most sclaun∣derously reporte them out of baudye Bale, and braine-sicke Illyricus: yet these fiue make not so great a number pardy, that it should be an easy thing for you to finde so many Heretikes in the See of Rome, as ful rhetorically you set the matter forth. Now with what face pretende you vnto the worlde, that it is an easy matter, to finde so many Heretiques emong the Bishops of Rome, where∣as with long prying, and pooring in al your brethrens bookes, you could finde but fiue, to whom you durst to impute that crime, of whiche yet three are vniustly sclaundered, and the other two, only misliked for their priuate assertions, and neuer denounced Heretikes for stubborne maintenance, or making any open Decree touching that, whereof once they erroneously iudged.

But yet you wil saie, that among the Bishops of Rome

there were many Aduouterers,* 1.273 many Church Robbers, many Periured persons, many Mankillers, many Rene∣gates. It is happy M. Iewel, that your worde is no sclaun∣der. But I pray you good sir, how many can you truly name of al these? For of so great a number as you speak of, it is wel likely, you can name some: and your malice is such against the Popes, that you wil spare none, howe smal a surmise soeuer you haue inducing you to thinke so euil of any Pope. Go to then M. Iewel, of your so ma∣ny, name vs some one infamous in eche of these great crimes, which indifferently you laye to the charge of the Bishops of Rome, leauing an euil suspicion in your Readers head, that for the most parte, al the Bishoppes of Rome were giltie of the one, or the other. How many Aduoutrers then can you name to vs? Pope Hildebrand (saye you) was an Aduouterer, that is a starke sclaunde∣rous lie. But were it true, how many mo can you name? let vs heare them. Is there no mo but Pope Hildebrand? Is one now become many with you, and many but one?

* 1.274Perchaunce yet of your Churche Robbers you haue greater stoare. And who were they I praye you emong the Popes, that committed that heynous facte? Hilde∣brand you tel vs againe was a Church Robber. Doubte∣lesse this poore Pope hath offended you very muche, whiche argueth he was a good Pope. And were there no mo Churche Robbers amonge the Popes, but Hilde∣brand? Cough vp M. Iewel, voide the malicious humour of your stomake. Of so many Churche robbers as are in that rewe of Bishops, name vs but one more. For vpon so great a vaunt, your Reader may happely thinke, that you could name some other besides Hildebrand. But suppose

that this Hildebrand had ben no Churche Robber (as in deede he was none, and you could not iustly haue char∣ged him therwith, had you not put your felicitie in sclaū∣dering good and vertuous men) where then might a man so easly haue found, I say not so many Churchrobbers, as you tel vs of, but only one emōg al the Bishops of Rome?

Wel yet of Periured persons, we shal find great num∣bers, that you might not be found a sclaunderer in that point,* 1.275 how wel soeuer you haue acquited your selfe of the former. Go to then, tel vs how many Periured per∣sons occupied that roume, and who they were. You tel vs once againe, that Hildebrand was a Periured person. Verely you are much beholden to Hildebrād, but special∣ly to that wicked cōuenticle of naughtie Bishops assem∣bled by the Emperour at Brixia, who most vniustly sclaū∣derd that godly Pope. For had they not ben, you had lost a faire rhetorical lie, I should haue said a foule cōclusion.

But yet perhaps there were emong the Popes many Mankillers, and many Renegates,* 1.276 whom if you can name to your Reader, you may peraduenture seeme to him at the lest in this, a true reporter, and not a malicious sclaū∣derer. Who then were these so many Mankillers? so ma∣ny Renegates? Of likelyhod you know many such, or els you would not so stoutly auouch it. Tel on, Perge menti∣ri, name vs them. Yet once againe you tel vs, that Hilde∣brand was a Mankiller, Hildebrand was a Renegate. But what, was there none but Hildebrand M. Iewel? Among two hundred Popes, and vpward can you finde none that was an Aduouterer, a Churchrobber, a Periured per∣son, a Mankiller, a Renegate, but only Pope Hildebrand? And yet you tel vs, that of men of these qualities there

haue ben such a number in that rewe of Bishoppes, that of euery sorte it were (or elles you lye, sauing other mennes honestie) an easy matter to finde many. Are they now so suddainly vanished out of sight, that, to saue your poore honestie, you can bring vs forth none, but onely Hildebrand? And howe can Pope Hildebrand, whom most vniustly, and vpon the manifest sclaunder of his en∣emies, you haue here accused, make vp the number of your so many Aduouterers, so many Church robbers, so many Periured persons, so many Mankillers, so many Re∣negates? Are you not ashamed thus notoriously, and withal most sclaunderously to belye that blessed Succes∣sion of Bishops, which hath through the miraculous wor∣king of God continewed without interruption from S. Peters time vntil these our dayes?

Leaue, leaue M. Iewel these vaine, Rhetorical, lying, and sclaunderous conclusions. Goe simply, and plaine∣ly to the matter, tel no more then you are wel hable to proue. Learne rather to speake wel of your forefathers, then with such impudencie to diffame, and speake il of them, who are departed this world in the vnitie of the Churche, and peace of Christe.

And whereas you charge me with saying that ye haue no Succession, no Bishoppes, no Churche, bicause ye haue no Idolatours, Necromancers, Heretikes, and such like, and then would seeme to salue the matter againe with an (I trow): I trow it be no good manner, and lesse honestie, to saie that of your aduersarie, which by no co∣lour possibly, you can pike out of his wordes. How be it I forgeue it you, for that euery man may easily per∣ceiue it, to be but a pretie sleight of your arte (whiche

as I trow) most menne cal the arte of lying.

Iewel.

But S. Paule saith,* 1.277 faith commeth (not by succession, but) by hea∣ring, and hearing commeth (not of legacie, or enheritance from Bis∣shop to Bishop, but) of the vvorde of God.

Harding.

If faith come of hearing, and hearing come of Gods worde, I aske you, whether the hearing shal endure for euer, or no? I saie it shal, bicause it is written,* 1.278 I am with you al daies to the worldes end, and al generations shal cal me blessed, and Christ the sonne of Dauid shal reigne in the house of Iacob for euer. This can not be but where that hearing is. Now if hearing endure for euer, seing hearing was at the first by the preaching of Bishops: I saie, that the Suc∣cession of Bishops endureth for euer.* 1.279 For God hath geuen pastours, and doctours vnto his Church (saith S. Paule) vntil we shal al meete in vnitie of faith, which shalbe at the se∣conde comming of Christe. Therefore it is not only not true, that the hearing of the faith preached doth any thing withstand the perpetual Succession of Bishops, but rather the Succession is proued thereby. For as Christe instituted first the preaching of the faith by the Apostles, who were also Bishops, and as after the Apostles, they were Bishoppes, who chiefely continued the preaching of the same faith: euen so vnto the worldes ende, there must lacke no Bishoppes, by whom the same maie stil be preached. For Isaie saith,* 1.280 Vpon thy walles ô Ierusalem I haue sette watchemen, no daye, nor night shal they holde their peace. Suche watchemen haue ben alwaies in the Churche of Rome: suche M. Iewel can not recken to haue ben alwaies in his Churche. Therefore the prea∣ching

of the faith hath ben in the Romaine Church, and not in his.

Iewel.

They are not alvvaies godly, that succede the godly.

Harding.

Much lesse are they godly, who forsake the godly. But our question is not of godlinesse, but of true faith, which may be where godlinesse is not. For they that preached the true faith for enuie against S. Paule,* 1.281 had the true faith, yet were they not godly.

Iewel.

Manasses succeded Ezechias.

Harding.

And therefore Christe was as wel borne of Manasses line, as of Ezechias. For albeit the godlinesse were not like in the men, yet Christe wrought then the mysterie of his Birth, and now he worketh the preseruation of his faith, as wel by the euil, as by the good.

Iewel.

Hieroboam succeded Dauid.

Harding.

* 1.282There you were deceiued M. Iewel. Roboam succe∣ded Dauid. Hieroboam diuided the kingdome, and the inheritance of the Succession of Dauid. But God saith often times, that he kepte some of Dauids line in his throne,* 1.283 that a candel might remaine to his seruant Dauid for euer. God surely accompted the line of Hieroboam no succession of Dauids, but rather the vndoing of it, as much as laye in Hieroboam. For Hieroboam was of an other tribe then Dauid was.

Iewel.

By Succession the Turke this daye possesseth, and holdeth the foure Pa∣triarchal

Sees, of the Church of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioche, and Ierusalem.

Harding.

No M. Iewel, it is by violence, by force,* 1.284 by power of armes, by tyrannie, and not by Succession, as you hold the Churche of Sarisburie by force of the Princes sworde, and by none other right. Succession, is when a man com∣meth in the same place, whiche his predecessour had, by the same order, and lawe, by which his lawful prede∣cessour came to it. The sonne succedeth his Father in his landes, but the theefe, and robber, or he that by force in∣uadeth, and keepeth them, is no Successour. The olde Patriarkes of whom you speake, came to their place by Election, and Confirmation: the Turke by neither of both, but only by tyrannie and violence. Your Predeces∣sours, I meane the true Bishops, came to the Churche of Sarisburie orderly, by professing them selues to commu∣nicate, and by taking Confirmatiō of the Bishop of Rome. So came not you in: therefore you came in by the win∣dowe, and not by the doore.

But now how blinde are you,* 1.285 as not hable to consi∣der, why God permitteth the Turke to possesse Con∣stantinople, Antioche, Alexandria, and Ierusalem, whereas he keepeth him yet from possessing Rome? When the Turke had gotten Constantinople, and had so farre entred into Croatia, and Hungarie, as it is wel knowen: Rome was both nearer to him, then Alexan∣dria, and easier to come by, as it might wel haue ap∣peared. For the Soldan Lord of Aegypt, and Syria, and the Sophy ioyned with him, were thought farre stronger to resiste him, then the power of Italie. But the truth

is, it was the scourge of God, to reuenge al Rebelles that would not obey the Church of Rome, where the chiefe pastour was placed by Christe, whose voice al the shepe ought to heare.* 1.286 But when the Grecians of pride and dis∣daine beganne to make a schisme, and to diuide them selues from the See of Rome, and being ofte warned, and terribly threatned, yet would not reconcile them selues, but, though at certaine meetinges they were con∣founded, as at Lions, and Florence, yet would stil returne to their wilfulnesse, and disobey the chiefe Bishop: God at the length, who made them, that would not obey Sa∣muel his Prophete, to obey Saule, and to feele his heauy hande: suffered them vtterly to be ouerthrowen and vanquished, and to lye vnder the yoke of most miserable bondage and slauerie, which the cruel Turke laieth vpon them. The particular declaration of which storie would require a longe Treatie. But sure it is, that for the with∣drawing of their obedience from the Succession of Peter, the Grecians are compelled to obey the Succession of Mahomet.

Iewel.

* 1.287By Succession, Christe saith, desolation shal sitte in the holy place, and Antichriste shal presse into the roume of Christe.

Harding.

* 1.288Doth Christe saie, it shalbe so by Succession? You fal∣sifie the wordes of God, and man, and that verely by Succession: For so haue al Heretiques, your forefather•• done before you. And I pray you, beholde, how wel your wordes hange together. Desolation shal fitte in the holy place by Succession, and yet Antichriste shal presse in. That which is by Successiō, is without pressing: and that which

commeth in by pressing, commeth not in by Succession. Nay contrarywise, Succession is the chiefe way for any Christian man to auoide Antichrist. For he that remaineth in that faith, whiche came lineally, and by Bishop after Bishop from the Apostles, he is sure of his enheritance, and needeth not to feare, lest he obey Antichrist. For An∣tichrist (as S. Paule saith) cōmeth not,* 1.289 except defection (and Apostasie) goe before. He that forsaketh succession, may right wel fal vpon Antichriste. But he that keepeth him selfe in the chiefe Succession, shalbe sure not to fal from faith. And good reason why. For Antichrist commeth in to breake order: yea rather the Deuil breaketh the order of Christes Church, to prepare a waie for Antichrist. For if al menne keepe them selues in one faith, and Doctrine, when soeuer Antichrist should preache against that, he should be detected, and knowen vnto al menne. But now when there are so many beleefes in the world, why may not Antichriste gete a companie to follow him, as wel as other Archeheretiques doo? He therefore that once changeth his faith, except he returne from whence he went, can not tel in what Church he is, and whether it be Antichristes Churche, or no. But he that keepeth that, whiche was from the beginning, he is sure to holde that faith, against which Antichriste must striue, and fighte.

Wherfore S. Iohn speaking of Antichrist, saith thus: Vos quod audistis ab initio, in vobis permaneat.* 1.290 Let that abide in you, which ye haue hearde from the beginning. Not that which ye began to heare of late, but that whiche yee heard from the beginning, let that abide in you, let it abide, and not be changed. Hac scripsi vobis de ijs qui se∣ducunt

vos,* 1.291 I haue written these thinges to you, concer∣ning them, who leade you out of the waye. Marke the wordes, who leade you out of the waye, which from the beginning you were set in. Did not Luther leade vs from the waye, wherein we were? Did not Caluine lead both vs, and some Lutherans too out of the former way? There S. Iohn also saith of heretikes, Exierunt ex no∣bis, they are gonne out of vs. Nunc Antichristi multi fa∣cti sunt, Nowe many Antichristes are made. It is the going out that maketh an Antichrist, and not the abiding within the tentes of the Churche. And therefore when Christe forewarned his Disciples of the desolation to come,* 1.292 he said among other thinges, Nolite exire, go not out, leaue not your olde enheritance, and your Succes∣sion, for a vaine promise of a new lande.

Iewel.

It is not sufficient to claime succession of place: it behouet vs ra∣ther to haue regarde to succession of Doctrine.

Harding.

Therefore you are no Successour in the Bishoprike of Sarisburie by your owne confession. For you keepe not the Succession of Doctrine. And we ioyne both to∣gether. For we know who succedeth in the same Do∣ctrine, by his quiet Succession in the place. If there be no change in the Churche, no tumulte no dissension, or contradiction: then is it certaine, that it is a perfit Suc∣cession as wel in place, as in Doctrine. But if a dissension arise, and one saie, this is true, and the other saie, this is not true, or if the new Bishop accuse his Catholike Pre∣decessours Doctrine: then is it sure, that there is no suc∣cession

in doctrine. Now I saie, ronne ouer al the Bis∣shops of Rome, and you can saie of neuer a one, this man cōming into his Predecessours See, did oppugne his do∣ctrine, or preached with the Churche of Romes conten∣tation against that, which was in vse before. So that in Rome al thinges are euen at this day concerning faith as S. Peter leafte them. For euery man hath agreed in out∣ward Decree, sentēce, and profession, with al the prede∣cessours, and successours.

Iewel. Pag. 132.

S. Bernard saith, Quid prodest si canonicè eligantur,* 1.293 & non ca∣nonicè viuant? VVhat auaileth it if they be chosen in order, and liue out of order?

Harding.

It auaileth nothing to the euil liuer: but yet it auaileth muche to him, that obeieth the good, and true doctrine of the euil teacher.

Iewel.

So saith S. Augustine, Ipsum characterem multi & lupi,* 1.294 & lupis imprimunt. The outvvarde marke, or right of a bisshop, many geue to vvolues, and be vvolues them selues.

Harding.

By Character is not meant an outward marke, but ra∣ther an inwarde marke and print, which through the re∣ceiuing of certaine Sacramentes is imprinted in the soules of them, who receiue them, of whiche sorte are Baptisme, Confirmation, and holy Orders. And those sa∣cramentes being once receiued, cā not be repeated, or be againe receiued of the same person. For the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud, although it be an outward signe yet it leaueth not any Character, or suche inward print

in the soule, as may be no more repeated.

But letting that errour passe of the true interpretation of this worde Character, I graunt that Heretikes may baptize heretikes euen without the Churche: and the Baptisme shal stand, although it be vnlawfully ministred. What maketh that against the Suceession of Bishops? It rather proueth, that seing the Sacramentes may be mi∣nistred, if not to saluation of them that are of discretion, yet truly, and really without the true Churche: there must be an other rule taken to know the true Church by, besides the administration of Sacramentes. And that true and certaine rule is, the perpetual Succession of the See Apostolike.

Iewel. Pag. 132.

Therefore the auncient father Irenaus geueth vs this good counsel, Eis qui sunt in Ecclesia presbyteris obedire oportet,* 1.295 qui suc∣cessionem habent ab Apostolis, qui cum episcopatus successio∣ne charisma veritatis certum secundùm beneplacitum patris ac∣ceperunt. It becommeth vs to obey those Priestes in the Churche, vvhich haue their succession from the Apostles, and together vvith the Succession of their bishoprikes according to the good vvil of God the Fa∣ther, haue receiued the vndoubted gifte of the truthe.

Harding.

Al this maketh against you M. Iewel. For seing you can shew no such Priestes, hauing their Succession from the Apostles, and hauing receiued the vndoubted gifte of the truth, whom ye doo obeye it is certaine, that ye haue not the gifte of the truthe among you. On the other side, seing we haue Priestes, that is to say, Bishoppes of Rome, who are also Priestes, which haue their Successiō from the chiefe and most glorious Apostles Peter, and

Paule, and seing such Priestes, and Bishops, keeping stil the same faith and doctrine, from man to man, haue recei∣ued the vndoubted gifte of the truth according to the good wil of God the Father: doubtelesse the vndoubted marke of the truth is with vs only, and not with you at al, who haue no Succession at al of any Priestes, and much lesse of any suche Priestes, that succede lineally from the Apostles them selues.

Iewel. 132.

S. Cyprian being likevvise charged for dissenting from his predecessours,* 1.296 ansvvereth thus: Si quis de antecessoribus meis, &c. If any of my predecessours haue not obserued, and kepte the same, that our Lorde hath taught vs both by his example, and also by his cō∣maundement, his simplicitie may be pardoned, but we (if we doo the like) can hope for no pardon, being nowe admonished, and instructed of our Lorde.

Harding.

Cough vp man it wil choke you,* 1.297 if you let it tarry with∣in your throte. Here is but halfe the bone, there is yet in S. Cyprian no ful point, it foloweth in the same sentence, Vt calicem Dominicum vino mixtum secundùm quod Domi∣nus obtulit, offeramus. We can hope for no pardon, who are now admonished, and instructed of our Lorde, that we should offer our Lordes chalice mixed with wine, accordingly as our Lorde offered the same. Either M. Ie∣wel tooke this saying of S. Cyprian vpon the Germaine credite, as he found it noted in their bookes, and then his false brethren deceiued him: or els he wrote it out of S. Cyprian himselfe, and then his studie and wil was to de∣ceiue vs. He would ful gladly haue geuen vs an authori∣tie, that we might forsake the example of our Predeces∣sours,

but he was loth we should see the thing, where∣with the authoritie was exemplified. For if at any time he say al, he is sure to speake against him selfe, and no won∣der, because he speaketh against the truth: and euerie good saying euermore agreeth with the trtuh.

First, he corrupteth S. Cyprian, in putting in, meis, for nostra, my predecessours, in stede of our predecessours. For S. Cyprian speaketh not of his owne Succession, but of what soeuer Priest, or Bishoppe, that liued before his time. Againe, S. Cyprian spake not of any such custome, as had ben generally vsed of al Bishops, for then it had ben of ful authoritie: but of that, which some one man vsed priuatly, and without keeping the lawe of Succession. And therefore S. Cyprian said, Si quis, if any man. Third∣ly, the thing he spake of, was, that some were said to offer water alone in our Lordes supper, and not wine withal. Now saith he, if any before our time haue vsed to offer water, and not wine mingled with water, wel he may be pardoned by our Lordes mercie: but we that are admonished, and instructed to offer our Lordes chalice mingled with wine, that is to say, consisting not of wa∣ter alone, but of water and wine mingled together: we cā not be pardoned, except we mingle water with wine, and so do offer our Lordes Chalice, as he him selfe did offer it.

Nowe applie this geare Christian Reader to our new brethrens deedes. Do they offer our Lordes Chalice at al? Or do they graunt, that our Lord in his Supper offe∣red it? Do they mingle water with wine at the time of consecrating the mysteries? If they do neither of both, what folie, yea what madnesse was it for M. Iewel, to

bring foorth these wordes of S. Cyprian, thereby to ac∣cuse him selfe, and his owne Communion, as not ob∣seruing that, whiche our Lorde commaunded to be ob∣••••rued?

It is a worlde to see, how these men applye the wit∣nesses of the Scriptures, or of the auncient Fathers. M. Iewel meant to shewe, that by Gods worde we might forsake our Predecessours examples. But S. Cyprian ra∣ther sheweth, that if our predecessours be taken, as they ought to be taken, that is to say, for those that keepe the tradition, and doctrine of the Apostles: that then their Tradition is Gods worde.* 1.298 For he putteth it to be Gods owne worde, that Christe offered his Chalice mingled of water and wine. Yet of water there is no mention in the storie of the Supper. In what worde then is it writ∣ten, that Christe had water in his Chalice? Verely in the worde of Apostolike Tradition,* 1.299 in the vnwritten word, in the worde of General Succession. For in al Churches he sawe water mingled with wine: and being assured that the Apostles, who saw Christe to do it, taught it so: doubted not to say, that our Lorde taught vs by his ex∣ample, and worde, to mingle water with wine, and so to offer the Chalice. Verely you were farre ouerseene M. Iewel, when you alleged this example, as being suche, whereby your selfe, and al them of your side are vtterly condemned. And what should ye do? Except ye would repēt (which God graunt, if it be his wil) ye must needes adde lye vnto lye, without ende or measure, or geue ouer the enterprise, wherof you made your boasting Chalēge.

Iewel.

Cōpare the vse of our Churches M. Harding, vvith the Primitiue Church

of God, and ye shal easily see the right of our Succession.

Harding.

* 1.300If I should compare your Churches with the Primi∣tiue Churche of God so narrowely, as I might, from the beginning to the ending, we should finde scant any sha∣dowe in your Churches of the Primitiue Church. There no man preached, but he that was lawfully sent, as S. Paule saith. And sent he was, either of Christ visibly, and sensi∣bly speaking vnto him, as when he said to the Apostles, as my Father sent me, I send you: or els by the Apostles, as when S. Paule sent Titus, and Timotheus, and S. Peter sent S. Clemēt, and so S. Clemēt afterward sent others, and so frō man to man. Now tel vs, who sendeth you to preach? Not the Bishops, which are the Successours of the Apo∣stles, whom ye despise. Who then? Forsooth one is sent of the common Weale, which neuer had power to send him: an other of the Ciuil Magistrate, who also had no such power: An other runneth before he be sent, and therefore commeth of him selfe, and is an Antichriste.

Moreouer the Apostles, and their scholars preached that,* 1.301 which they had heard preached, whether it were written, or no, as S. Irenaeus witnesseth. But you wil haue nothing preached, except it be written: and ne∣uerthelesse yee preache that, which is neither written, nor deliuered you by Apostolike Tradition, but as euery vaine,* 1.302 light, and idle braine imagineth of it selfe. They mingled water with wine, so doo not you. They taught the Supper of our Lorde to be the new oblation of the new Testamēt, as saith S. Irenaeus. You saie, there is no external Oblation of the new Testament, beside Christes death.

In the Primitiue Churche, he that had ben twise maried,* 1.303 could not be Priest, according to S. Paules doctrine. You teache it to be lawful to make him Priest, that hath ben ten times married: and onlesse euery Priest,* 1.304 and Minister among you be married, ye iudge not wel of him. S. Paule speaketh of olde Widowes, who might marrie no more: you haue none such.

But what ende shall there be of wordes? If I would go thorough an hundred articles together, it should ap∣peare, that ye haue nothing like the Apostles, or like the Primitiue Churche. There, were Exorcismes, Insuffla∣tions, holy Oile, holy Chrisme, Incense, Altares,* 1.305 as we read in S. Dionysius: of al whiche ye haue not one, and condemne the hauing of them. They fasted a certaine number of daies, as they who keeping the example of Christe, fasted the forty daies,* 1.306 whiche we cal the Lenten Faste. They prayed, watched, gaue away al their goodes, and vowed so to doo: they vowed chastitie, and most exactly perfourmed the same, they commended the Dead to God with praiers, almose, and Sacrifices: whiche thinges ye for the most parte despise, and accompt super∣stitious.

Iewel. 133.

S. Cyprian saith, Si canalis aquae &c. If the pipes of the conduit,* 1.307 which before ranne with abundance, happen to faile, do we not vse to search to the head? The priestes of God keeping Gods commaundementes, must doo the same, that if the truth hath fainted, or failed in any point, we returne to the very original of our Lorde, and to the Tradition of the Gospel, and of the Apo∣stles, that there hence we may take the discretion of our doo∣inges, from whence the order it selfe, and original first beganne.

Harding.

* 1.308It is to be knowen M. Iewel, that S. Cyprian vsed this saying in an euil cause, as your selfe can not denie. And therefore he defending a falshood, was driuen to the very same shiftes, whereunto al Heretikes are driuen. He in deede was no Heretike. For although he falsely beleued an vntruth, and earnestly taught, that those, who had ben baptized of Heretiques, if they came to the vnitie of the Catholike Churche, should be baptized, as hauing before no true sacrament of Baptisme, yet he protested many times, that he iudged no man, that thought, or taught the contrarie.* 1.309 For he would not denie vnitie, neither for that, nor for any thing elles, but liued a true Catholique, and died a blessed Martyr.

Notwithstanding, whiles he defended his errour, he was deceiued in that Principle, which now you allowe. For whereas Pope Stephanus, knowing, that by Successiō the vse of the only laying of handes vpon them that had ben baptized of heretikes, without baptizing them a new, was deriued from the Apostles, and receiued generally euen in Afrike it selfe, vntil Agrippinus a Bishop of Car∣thage before S. Cyprian brake it: whereas Pope Stepha∣nus, I say, knowing this, decreed, that nothing should be changed, or be taken vp a new: S. Cyprian not being able to denie the tradition, whereof Pope Steuen spake, and which S. Cyprians predecessour Agrippinus first beganne to change, fled to this common place, that the worde of God was against the custome, and therefore the custome ought to be broken.

The Pope defended with diuers other Bishops, th••t the custome, and Tradition was not against Gods worde.

Then said S. Cyprian, seing we are at variance, let vs re∣sorte to the very beginning, and to the Original, which is our Lordes worde, and the Apostolike Tradition. This was wel said. But the Apostolike Tradition was so, as Pope Steuen defended, and not so as S. Cyprian woulde haue had it. And this M. Iewel neither doo you, nor can you denie. For your selfe I trow, wil not allow, that they should be baptized againe in your owne Churche, that haue ben before baptized in an other Churche, which ye accompte for false, heretical, or schismatical. What meant you then to consecrate S. Cyprians errour, and to allege his authoritie therein, where it ought not to be ad∣mitted and allowed? But with you the ouersightes of the Fathers, the errours of the Greekes, the sayinges of heretiques, the examples of Schismatiques, the obiections of Schoolemen, and Canonistes, and the pelfe of Gloses is alwaies good stuffe.

Iewel.

S. Cyprian saith, If the Pipes of the conduite, vvhich before ranne vvith abundance, happen to faile, do vve not vse to searche to the head?

Harding.

Yeas, if they could faile. But in Christes Churche the Pipes can not faile,* 1.310 bicause Christe promised to be with his Apostles (and thereby with their Succes∣sours) al daies vntil the worldes ende. If the Pipes of Christes grace, and of his Churche faile to runne any one daie, then is not Christe that daie with his Pa∣stours and teachers, and consequently he is not al daies, or euery daie with them. But if his worde can not be false, then the Pipes neuer failed, ne shall not faile: and that was wel seene in S. Cyprians question. For although

they in Afrike had cut of the Pipes by force, in changing the former custome, and Tradition: yet in Rome the Pipes ranne stil, and therefore Christe was stil with the Bishops of Rome, and with the other Bishops, who re∣mained in his Communion.

* 1.311Yea Christe was also with S. Cyprian, bicause S. Cy∣prian departed not from Pope Steuens Communion. But he was with S. Cyprian, not in that question, wherein he dissented from the Pope, but in that he consented and agreed with the Pope. For he both dissented concerning the particulare case, and consented concerning the ge∣neral bond of vnitie: wishing to haue his owne sentence followed, but if it were not followed (as it was not) con∣tent to yelde to his brethren, rather then to breake of, and to make a Schisme. For thus he endeth that epistle which he wrote in that argument to Iubaianus.* 1.312 Si quis pu∣tatur contentiosus esse, nos talem consuetudinem nō habemus, neque Ecclesia Dei. Seruatur à nobis patienter & firmiter charitas animi, collegij honor, vinculum fidei, et concordia Sa∣cerdotij. If any man be thought to be geuen to strife and debate, we haue no such custome, nor the Churche of God. The Charitie of minde, the honour of the societie, the bonde of faith, and the concorde of Priesthoode is both patiently and firmely keepte of vs.

If M. Iewel, if before him Luther, and Caluine, if al the rest of these Gospellers had none otherwise dissented from the Pope, and the whole college of Bishops, then S. Cyprian did: they might haue ben saued, as he vndoubted∣ly is, a glorious Martyr in heauen. But they imagined the Pipes, whereby grace, faith, and al other giftes are deriued from Christ vnto vs, to haue ben broken of for the space

of these nine hūdred yeres past, deuised with them selues, how they might repaire to the head, and so might fetche the watter of life vnto vs by new Conduites, and Pipes. But they were deceiued. For after Christe did once set the Pipes a ronning, they neuer ceassed, nor shal ceasse to ronne, til the day of iudgement. For the holy Ghost is promised to abide with the Apostles,* 1.313 and their Succes∣sours, in aeternum, for euer. And their Successours are the Bishops. And as the Chiefe of the Apostles was S. Peter, so S. Cyprian saith of Fabianus, who was Bishop of Rome two hundred yeres after S. Peter: Cùm Fabiani locus, id est, cùm locus Petri, & gradus Cathedrae sacerdotalis vaca∣ret, when the place of Fabian, that is to say, when the place of Peter, and the steppe or degree of the Priestly Chaire was voide. So that as Peters faith was most spe¦cially prayed for, and that not only for his owne sake, but to the ende he should strengthen, and confirme his bre∣thren: euen so was euery Bishop of Romes Faith pray∣ed for, to the ende euery one might strengthen, and confirme his brethren, whiche are al Bishoppes, in the truthe of the Faith, and in the Gouernement of the flocke.

That Succession of the Bishop of Rome,* 1.314 and of the See of Peter is the Rocke, which as S. Augustine saith, the proude gates of Hel do not ouercome. So he said eleuen hundred yeres past, so vntil this howre the thing it selfe proueth, so doo we beleeue, that it shal be perfourmed by him that promised it, vntil the worldes ende: bicause it is the Rocke whiche shal euer confesse the true Faith, and feede the sheepe of Christ, and staye vp the howse of God, and confirme al the faithful that leane vnto it.

Thus haue I confuted (M. Iewel) your treatise of Suc∣cession,* 1.315 which I tooke in hande specially to treate of, bi∣cause it sheweth most euidently, that ye haue no true Churche, bicause ye can shew no Pipe, or Conduicte, which from Christ vntil your Sectes hath stil continued ronning, or hath stil deriued his doctrine, and grace vnto them of your side. It is the Catholike Church (whiche you cal the Papistical Church) which hath that Pipe: and can euidently shew, where the streame hath gonne, and how it hath ben mainteined from age to age, from gene∣ration to generation, yea from man to man, without any interruption.* 1.316

Such should the state of the Churche be, according to Gods worde, where watche men should neuer holde their peace, where the citie built vpon the hil can not be hid: where the children of light shine like sterres in the middest of the infidelles: where Christe is al dayes vnto the worldes ende: where the holy Ghoste is for euer teaching al truthe: where the piller, and sure staye of truthe is visibly seene, as with whiche menne be conuersant in this worlde, as S. Paule saith: where to be shorte,* 1.317 Christes sheepe are fed of Peter, al abiding with∣in the vnitie of his one Folde in this worlde, thence, and thence only, to be transferred vnto the glorious Pa∣sture of life euerlasting, which God graunt vs al.

Of many other questions, I haue said somewhat: But herein is most profite, bicause in few it conteineth al the rest. For where the Churche is, there al the necessarie treasure of Gods wisedome,* 1.318 there is the holy Ghoste, there is the worde of truth, and the incorporation with Christe, the spouse and husband thereof. Whosoeuer

loueth his soule health,* 1.319 let him vnderstand wel which is the true Church, and keepe him selfe therein. For it is or∣deined of God, as a mother, and a nourse, to conteine, and keepe al menne safe within it, who doo not wilfully depart out of it. The continuance of it is by Succession, Sheepe succede after Sheepe, and Bishops who be the Sheepeheardes, after Bishops, those to be fedde, these to seede. If those can not faile at any time, neither can these lacke, or faile. We shew both. M. Iewel sheweth neither any Successiō of Shepe, nor of Bishops. Therfore he that resteth with M. Iewel, is out of the Folde. And he that wilbe the saued Sheepe of Christe, must abide in, or if he be out, returne to the Folde of Peter, to whome alone, as louing more then others, it was said,* 1.320 feede my lambes, feede my sheepe.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Irenaeus lib. 3. ca. 3.
• * 1.2

  Math. 22.
• * 1.3

  Math. 23.
• * 1.4

  Math. 23.
• * 1.5

  Mark the vvord of keeping.
• * 1.6

  These nevv Bis∣shoppes vvil not the peo∣ple to kepe their faith, but to chāge their faith.
• * 1.7

  August. Epist. 166.
• * 1.8

  Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 74. Benefite graunted vnto Suc∣cession. Iohannes Sarisbu∣riensis in Poly∣cratico, de Curialiū nugis. li. 6 cap. 24. Platina in Vitis Pon∣tificum.
• * 1.9

  August. tract. in Iohan. 11.
• * 1.10

  Chrysost. In Iohan. homil. 64
• * 1.11

  August. in Iohannē. tract. 49.
• * 1.12

  The Po∣pes teach truth not vvithstā∣ding their euil life.
• * 1.13

  Optat. lib. 2. contra Parmen.
• * 1.14

  Deut. 17.
• * 1.15

  Iohan. 21.
• * 1.16

  Act. 20.
• * 1.17

  M. Ievvel falsifieth the Scri∣pture.
• * 1.18

  Scriptu∣res falsifi¦ed by M. Ievvel.
• * 1.19

  Act. 20.
• * 1.20

  Act. 20.
• * 1.21

  vvho be the lea∣ders a∣vvay of the Flock 3. Reg. 12.
• * 1.22

  Ioan. 21.
• * 1.23

  Nestori∣us a skat∣terer of the flock.
• * 1.24

  M. Ievv. no Succes¦sour of our Apo¦stle S. Au∣gustine,
• * 1.25

  1. Ioan. 2.
• * 1.26

  Dist. 40. Non est.
• * 1.27

  Double holines.
• * 1.28

  M. Ievv. falsifieth S. Hie∣rome. Dist. 40. Nō est fa∣cile.
• * 1.29

  Hierom. epist. ad Heliodorū
• * 1.30

  Holinesse of degree and office Ioan, 1.
• * 1.31

  Cranmer no Suces∣sour of S. Thomas.
• * 1.32

  Dist. 40. Non nos.
• * 1.33

  The mini¦sterie of an euil man is a∣uaileable to the ef∣fecte of sa¦cramētes,
• * 1.34

  M Ievvel falsifieth the Glose. In Glosa. Distīct. 40. Non nos.
• * 1.35

  Distinct. 19 Sic omnes. in Glosa.
• * 1.36

  Iohan. 8. Iohan. 9.
• * 1.37

  Iohan. 4.
• * 1.38

  1. Reg. 1.2
• * 1.39

  Deuter. 32
• * 1.40

  Iohan. 5.
• * 1.41

  Actor. 13.
• * 1.42

  3. Reg. 12.
• * 1.43

  Ioan. ••.
• * 1.44

  Matt. 1. Luk. 3.
• * 1.45

  Rom. 15.
• * 1.46

  Continu∣ance of Succes∣sion. Psal. 88.
• * 1.47

  Gal. 3.
• * 1.48

  Matt. 28.
• * 1.49

  Psal. 44.
• * 1.50

  Luc. 20. Mark. 11. Beda in Lucam li. 5. cap. 80.
• * 1.51

  See vvhat cōueiāce M. Ievv. vseth to helpe his cause.
• * 1.52

  M. Ievv. falsifieth al his testi¦monies.
• * 1.53

  Christes true Suc∣cession.
• * 1.54

  Matt. 22.
• * 1.55

  Psal. 109.
• * 1.56

  Ioan. 21.
• * 1.57

  Christ not only the Sonne of Dauid, but also the Sône of God.
• * 1.58

  Ambr. in cōmment. in Luc. c. 24.
• * 1.59

  Cyrillus in Cathen. in Luc. 20.
• * 1.60

  M. Ievv. falsifieth Cyrillus by adding vvordes of his ovvne.
• * 1.61

  Christe had right also by successiō.
• * 1.62

  Psal. 109.
• * 1.63

  Sap. 4.
• * 1.64

  Chrysost. in Math. Hom. 39.
• * 1.65

  M. Ievvel very ofte allegeth the writer of opus imperfe••¦ctum in Mattheum for Chry∣sostome, knowing him not so to be. Hom. 39.
• * 1.66

  Laie Prin¦ces made gouer¦nours of Christes Churche in al thinges ād causes
• * 1.67

  3. Reg. 12.
• * 1.68

  M. Ievvel shevveth vs in him selfe an Image of Anti∣christ.
• * 1.69

  Math. 24
• * 1.70

  No man euer was, or shalbe of aucto∣ritie, to take a∣vvay, or change the lavv∣ful Suc∣cession of Bishops.
• * 1.71

  Ioseph lib. 11. Anti∣quit. ca. 8.
• * 1.72

  Iosephus de bello Iudaic. lib. 7. ca. 30.
• * 1.73

  Ioan. 21.
• * 1.74

  Cornelius episcopus Bitōtinus
• * 1.75

  A lesson hovv to vnder∣stande mennes vvordes in matter of Reli∣gion Contra epist. Par∣men. li. 3. cap. 4.
• * 1.76

  Hier. 2.
• * 1.77

  M. Ievvel euery vvhere allegeth their vvordes for him, vvhom by their deedes he vvel knoweth to be against him.
• * 1.78

  Bitōtinus in oratio∣ne habita in Concil. Tridentino
• * 1.79

  Hovv M. Ievvel falsifieth his alle∣gation.
• * 1.80

  M. Ievvel odiously layeth that to the Bis∣hops of Rome, vvhiche vvas spo¦ken gene¦rally by vvaie of cōplaint of al euil Christiās.
• * 1.81

  Math. 23.
• * 1.82

  Here at length M. Ievvel be¦ginneth to an∣svver my vvordes: but how, consider.
• * 1.83

  De Pra∣scription. aduersus Haret.
• * 1.84

  Tertullian in Pra∣script ad∣uersus haeret.
• * 1.85

  It boo∣teth not to striue vvith he∣retiques about the Scriptu∣res.
• * 1.86

  Ibidem.
• * 1.87

  Hereti∣ques of right haue not to doo with the Scriptu∣res. Tertulliā. Ibidem.
• * 1.88

  Our do∣ctrine proued to be true by the Successiō of the Aposto∣lique Churche.
• * 1.89

  M. Ievv∣els Do∣ctrine is proued by Tertulliā erroneus for lacke of Succes¦sion pro∣ued.
• * 1.90

  The Scrol¦les or rol¦les of Bi∣shops names.
• * 1.91

  Originals of Chur∣ches.
• * 1.92

  M. Ievv∣slyly di∣uerteth from the present matter, to an other mater im¦pertinent touching priuate Masse.
• * 1.93

  Sole Re∣ceiuing.
• * 1.94

  In my an¦svvere, Art. 1. and likevvise in my first Re∣ioindre. Aug. Epi. 165.
• * 1.95

  S. Augu∣stines ex∣ample cā¦not be fit¦ly applied to M. Iev¦els pur∣pose. S. Augu. speaketh of do∣ctrine, M. Ievv. of a particu∣lar facte.
• * 1.96

  Chrysost. homil. 61. ad Pop. Antiochē.
• a 1.97

  Lib. 3. cap. 3.
• b 1.98

  De Prae∣script.
• c 1.99

  Lib. 2. contra Parmen.
• d 1.100

  Ep. 165.
• * 1.101

  The true order of the first Popes succeding one an¦other. Damasus in pontifi∣calt. Clemens epist. 1. Tertulliā. De praescr.
• * 1.102

  Discussiō of al doubte touching thorder of the first Popes in Rome. Ruffin. in Praefat. ad lib. Reco∣gnit.
• * 1.103

  Gal. 2.
• * 1.104

  VVhy S. Peter had to doo at Rome vvith the Gentile Christiās. Mar. 16.
• * 1.105

  Ioan. 10.
• * 1.106

  Ioan. 21.
• * 1.107

  Actor. 10. & 15.
• * 1.108

  VVhen S. Peter came vn∣to Rome. Euseb. Hi∣stor. eccles. lib 2. c. 14. Hierom. in Catalo. VVhen came S. Paule vn∣to Rome. Euseb. Ec∣clesiast. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 22.
• * 1.109

  Euseb. Hi∣stor. lib. 2. cap. 15.
• * 1.110

  Gal. 1. Gal. 2.
• * 1.111

  Act. ca. 13.
• * 1.112

  Act. 28.
• * 1.113

  M. Ievv. corru∣pteth S. Paule.
• * 1.114

  Chrysost. in 2. ca. ad Galat.
• * 1.115

  M. Ievv. falsifieth my say∣ing.
• * 1.116

  Anacletus In epist. Decret. The Po¦pes auto∣ritie of cō¦fiming Bishops is of Christ. Ioan. 21.
• * 1.117

  Optat••us lib. 2. Commu∣nicatorie letters.
• * 1.118

  Felin. D. constitut. ca. Cano∣num statu¦ta. col. 6. ver. fallit. M. Ievvel speaketh as if he had ben a Canonist many ye∣res agoe.
• * 1.119

  Panor. de cōstitutiō. translato.
• * 1.120

  c. Tran∣slato ex. de Constitut.
• * 1.121

  Nilus d•• primatu Rom. Pon∣tificie.
• * 1.122

  Nilus a late vvri∣ter, and maintei∣ner of the Greekes Schisme.
• * 1.123

  Actor. 6.
• * 1.124

  Liberatus in breuia∣ri••. ca. 21.
• * 1.125

  Cyprian. Lib. 1. Epist. 4.
• * 1.126

  In the Returne Artic. 4. Fol. 127.
• * 1.127

  Dist. 64. cap. fin.
• * 1.128

  Socrates Lib. 7. cap. 28.
• * 1.129

  Cyprian. Lib. 1. Epist. 3.
• * 1.130

  In my Ansvver Artic. 4.
• a 1.131

  In epist. Simplicij ad Acatiū.
• b 1.132

  In epist. Bonifacij ad Eula∣lium.
• c 1.133

  Leo epi∣stol. 82.
• * 1.134

  Zonaras in vita Constātis nepot. He∣raclij.
• * 1.135

  Epistol. 3. dist. 93. iuxta Sanctorū.
• * 1.136

  Anacletus not coun∣terfeite.
• * 1.137

  Ordina∣tion, and Confir∣mation, are diuers
• * 1.138

  Nicen. Concil. ca. 6.
• * 1.139

  Sozom. li. 6. cap. 23.
• * 1.140

  The olde stuffe of M Iewels Replie here re∣peated.
• * 1.141

  Euseb. hi∣stor. Eccl. lib. 2. ca. 2
• * 1.142

  Concil.
• * 1.143

  Cartha. 4
• * 1.144

  Can. 2.
• * 1.145

  De pote∣state A∣postolic.
• * 1.146

  In 4. sen∣tent. dist. 24. q. 3.
• * 1.147

  M. Ievvel allegeth the Schoole∣menne, vvho are vvel knovven to be al∣together contrarie to him.
• * 1.148

  By what man may the ordi∣nance of man be changed.
• * 1.149

  Dialog. contra Lu¦ciferianos.
• * 1.150

  Sacerdos, Bishop, or Priest.
• * 1.151

  Confut. fol. 57. b. Hard que∣stions pro¦poned to M. Ievvel
• * 1.152

  Cut of by M. Ievvel.
• * 1.153

  Cyprian. lib. 1. epi∣stol. 6.
• * 1.154

  Rom. 13.
• * 1.155

  ••. Timo. 3.
• * 1.156

  Iohan. 02
• * 1.157

  M. Iewels canonical election to the See of Saris∣burie.
• * 1.158

  Epiphan. Haeres. 75.
• * 1.159

  Athanas. in Apolo. 2.
• * 1.160

  Contra haeret. to. 2. lib. 3.
• * 1.161

  The fourme and order of these nevv Bi∣shoppes.
• * 1.162

  Cyprian. li. 3. ep. 13.
• * 1.163

  Hovve vvas M. Ievv. cō∣secrate by an Arch∣bishop, and how the Arch∣bishop him selfe.
• * 1.164

  Platina in Seuerino Papa.
• * 1.165

  The ad∣mission of a man by the Prince to a Bishop∣rike.
• * 1.166

  In Ha∣driano. 3.
• * 1.167

  That a Bishop is aboue a Priest.
• * 1.168

  1. Timo. 5.
• * 1.169

  Epiphani∣us har. 75.
• * 1.170

  Hieron. ad Euagriū.
• * 1.171

  Hierony∣mus ad∣uersus Lu∣ciferianos.
• * 1.172

  Aduersus. Lucifer Epistola ad Helio∣dorum.
• * 1.173

  VVho are Aposta∣tes.
• * 1.174

  Matt. 19.
• * 1.175

  The Pro∣testantes be Apo∣states.
• * 1.176

  Matt. 26.
• * 1.177

  Matt. 5.
• * 1.178

  Aduersus Luciferiā.
• * 1.179

  In exhor∣tatione ad Castitatē.
• * 1.180

  Tertulliā. in exhort. ad casti∣tatem. Mōtanus, and Ter∣tullian cō∣demned the secōd Mariages.
• * 1.181

  An obie∣ction of Tertulliā against him selfe.
• * 1.182

  Tit. 1. The hus∣band of one vvife
• * 1.183

  Double priesthod
• * 1.184

  1. Pet. 2.
• * 1.185

  Tertulliā enemie ••o s••cōd ma¦riages.
• * 1.186

  2. Cor. 11.
• * 1.187

  Internal priest, ād external do differ. ad Heb. 5.
• * 1.188

  Tertulliās errour.
• * 1.189

  Tertulliā. Ibidem.
• * 1.190

  Consecra∣tion of a Bishop.
• * 1.191

  1. Tim. 4.
• * 1.192

  False trā∣slation, to minister the obla∣tion, for to offer vp Sacri¦fice.
• * 1.193

  The Eu∣charist ministred to childrē at their Baptism.
• * 1.194

  Platina in vitis Pontifi.
• * 1.195

  August. ad Ianua∣rium. Epist. 118.
• * 1.196

  Bishop Shaxton not to be accōpted of M. Iew els syde.
• * 1.197

  Aristotel. in Ethicis. Vna Hi∣rundo nō facit ver. Math. 10.
• * 1.198

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.199

  Bishop Capon ••o Pro∣testant.
• * 1.200

  Cypria. li. 1. epist. 6.
• * 1.201

  M. Ievvel left out al these wor¦des, bi∣cause thei ansvve∣red him fully.
• * 1.202

  M. Ievvel be wraith him selfe.
• * 1.203

  Math. 12. Math. 18. Luc. 10.
• * 1.204

  1. Tim. 3. Iacob. 2. Agust. epi∣stol. 29. ad Hieron.
• * 1.205

  Ioan. 2. & 10.
• * 1.206

  Luc. 10.
• * 1.207

  2. Thess. 3.
• * 1.208

  1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.209

  VVhat is the daie, vvhat is the night in M. Ievvelles iudge∣ment.
• * 1.210

  Malac. 1.
• * 1.211

  Epiphan. Haeres. 75
• * 1.212

  Math. 5.
• * 1.213

  Of S. Mar¦cellinus Martyr and Pope.
• * 1.214

  Tom 1. Concil.
• * 1.215

  Platinae in vitis Pontificū. Pope Syluester 2. his re∣pentance at the ende.
• * 1.216

  Pope Zo∣simus sclaunde∣red by M. Ievv.
• * 1.217

  M. Sta∣pleton in the Re∣turne Ar∣ticle. 4. fol. 30. & sequētib.
• * 1.218

  Hieron. in Chronicis & in Ca∣talogo.
• * 1.219

  Theodorit. lib. 5 hist. Tripart. cap. 18.
• * 1.220

  Athana∣sius in Epist. ad Solitariā vitam agentes. VVhat Athana∣sius iud∣ged of Li¦berius.
• * 1.221

  Epiphan. Haeres. 75 Tripart. lib. 7. c. 23 In Apo∣log. 2.
• * 1.222

  Leo the first farre from al suspicion of Aria∣nisme.
• * 1.223

  The vvor¦thy Le∣gende, by vvhich it appea∣reth to M. Ievvel that pope Leo vvas an Arian. Iacobus de Voragine.
• * 1.224

  Historia Lombar∣dica De sancto Hi∣lario. Le∣gendae. 17. Hilarius dicitur ab Altus, & ares.
• * 1.225

  S. Hiero∣mes testi∣monie for the Churche of Rome out of his ovvne Doctor.
• * 1.226

  coelesti∣nus Pope falsly charged vvith the heresie of Nestorius Photius in epist. ad Michaelē Bulgariae principē. Prosper in Chronic.
• * 1.227

  Of Pope Hono∣rius.
• * 1.228

  Platina in Honorio.
• * 1.229

  Cypria. in epist. ad Clerum vib. Rom.
• * 1.230

  Pope Ho∣norius only bur∣dened vvith the crime of heresie among the Popes
• * 1.231

  Math. 16.
• * 1.232

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.233

  Ioan. 21.
• * 1.234

  Concil. 6. General. Act. 4.
• * 1.235

  No he∣resie euer decreed openly by any of the Popes
• * 1.236

  August. in Psalmo contra partem Donati.
• * 1.237

  Of Pope Iohn. 22. his er∣rour, see my An∣svvere to M. Iewels Vievv of his vn∣truthes, before fol. 64.
• * 1.238

  Ambro∣sius in Epist. ad papam Si∣ricium. Cyprian. Lib. 1. Epist. 3. In Math. cap. 16.
• * 1.239

  Marianus Srotus in Chronicis. Pope Hil∣debrādus persecu∣ted, and accused by Hērie the Em∣perour. Marianus Scotus of Pohe Hil¦debrand.
• * 1.240

  Hilde∣brand ac∣quitted by true and indifferēt historio∣graphers.
• * 1.241

  Platina in Romano. 2
• * 1.242

  Platina cā¦not seme to haue flattered the Popes in vvritīg their liues
• * 1.243

  Hieron. epist. ad Damasū.
• * 1.244

  In Polya cratico.
• * 1.245

  3. Reg. 12.
• * 1.246

  Matt. 23.
• * 1.247

  Matt. 23.
• * 1.248

  Iohannes Sarisburi∣ensis in Po¦lycratico de curiali¦um nugis. lib. 6. cap. ••4.
• * 1.249

  Ibidem.
• * 1.250

  Platina, in vita Ha∣driani. ••.
• * 1.251

  In Tom. 1. Concil. epist. 2.
• * 1.252

  The holy Ghost cau¦seth the Successiō to abide faithful.
• * 1.253

  Luc. 10.
• * 1.254

  Math. 28.
• * 1.255

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.256

  Ioan. 21.
• * 1.257

  Ioan. 14.
• * 1.258

  & 16.
• * 1.259

  Roma. 1.
• * 1.260

  Idolatrie annexed vnto He∣resie.
• * 1.261

  Aduersus Iouin. li. 1.
• a 1.262

  Li. 3. c. 3.
• b 1.263

  De Praes.
• c 1.264

  Lib. 2.
• d 1.265

  Ad Si∣riciū. ep. 81
• e 1.266

  Ad. Da∣masum.
• f 1.267

  Epi. 165.
• g 1.268

  De vo∣cat. gent. li. 2. c. 16.
• * 1.269

  The cler¦gie of these nevv cō∣gregatiōs vvherby Successiō is clai∣med.
• * 1.270

  See hovv M. Ievvel vvil pro∣ue his so many Ido¦latours &c. In the Church of Rome.
• * 1.271

  So many Necromā¦cers.
• * 1.272

  So many heretikes.
• * 1.273

  So many aduoute∣rers, &c
• * 1.274

  So many Churche robbers.
• * 1.275

  So many Periured persons.
• * 1.276

  So many mākillers and Rene¦gates.
• * 1.277

  Rom. 10.
• * 1.278

  Math. 28. Luc. 1.
• * 1.279

  Ephes. 4.
• * 1.280

  Isai. 62.
• * 1.281

  Philip. cap. 1.
• * 1.282

  3. Reg. 12.
• * 1.283

  3. Reg. 11. et 15. et 4. Reg. 8.
• * 1.284

  The Turk commeth not as a Succes∣sour, but as an in∣uader.
• * 1.285

  The Turk by Gods special prouidē∣ce kepte frō Rome
• * 1.286

  In Epist. Nicolas. 1 ad Mi∣chaelem Imper. Bessarion in Epist. ad Graecos
• * 1.287

  Math. 24
• * 1.288

  M. Ievvel falsifieth the Scrip∣ture.
• * 1.289

  2. Thess. 2.
• * 1.290

  1. Iohan. 2
• * 1.291

  VVho are lea∣ders out of the vvaie.
• * 1.292

  Math. 24
• * 1.293

  In concil. Remen.
• * 1.294

  Cont. Do∣natist. lib. 6. 1. q. 3. vocantur ca••es. Character vvhat it signifieth in the Sa∣craments
• * 1.295

  Iren. lib. 4. ca. 43.
• * 1.296

  Lib. 2. epist. 3.
• * 1.297

  Phy. vvhat a fowle cor¦ruption is this? Lib. 2. epist. 3.
• * 1.298

  Goddes VVord not writ∣ten.
• * 1.299

  Traditiō.
• * 1.300

  Diuersi∣tie be∣tvven the primitiue Churche, and the Churches of this nevve Gospel. Rom. 10. Ioan. 20. Tit. 1. Damasus in pontifi. VVho sendeth you M. Ievvel, who sent your fe∣lovves? Ioan. 10.
• * 1.301

  Irenaus lib. 4. c. 3.
• * 1.302

  Iustin. in Apolog. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 32.
• * 1.303

  Tit. 1.
• * 1.304

  1. Timo. 5.
• * 1.305

  De Eccles. Hierar∣chia.
• * 1.306

  Ignatius. Epist. ad Philippēs. Actor. 2. &, 4. et. 5 Math. 19.
• * 1.307

  Ad Pom∣peium contra Epist. Stephani.
• * 1.308

  S. Cypriā alleged by M. Ievvel in an il cause. The er∣rour of S. Cyprian
• * 1.309

  Cyprianus In epist. ad Iubatanū. & contra Epist. Ste∣phani.
• * 1.310

  The Pipes of the Cō¦duite of Christes Church can neuer faile. Math. 28.
• * 1.311

  Example of agree∣ing in cō¦munion, vvhere is disagree∣ing in o∣pinion.
• * 1.312

  Cyprianus Ad Iubai∣anū de Haereticis baptizād.
• * 1.313

  Ioan. 14. Esai. 59. The B. of Rome is the succes¦sour of Peter. Cyprian. lib. 4. epi. 2 ad ant••¦nianum. Luc. 22.
• * 1.314

  Augu. in in psalmū cōt. partē Donati.
• * 1.315

  The Pipe of Chri∣stes do∣ctrin hath cōtinued in the ca∣tholike Churche onely.
• * 1.316

  Isai. 62. Matth. 5. Philipp. 2. Matt. 28. Ioan. 14. & 16. Esai. 59. 1. Timo. 3.
• * 1.317

  Ioan. 21.
• * 1.318

  Isai. 59.
• * 1.319

  If thou vvilt be ••u••d de∣part not out of the Churche,
• * 1.320

  Ioan. 21.