To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Iewel. Pag. 634.Ye maie remember that tvvo of the principal pillers of yuor Chapter (at Trent) Petrus a Soto, and Catharinus, dissented euen there openly, and shamefully, and that in great pointes of Religion: and vvrote the one mightily against the other: the one charging the other vvith errour and heresie, and could neuer be reconciled.
Here I must tel you M. Iewel that you affirme more, then you are hable to abide by. By this also, as by other
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
infinite places, ye geue your Reader to vnderstande, what a sure carde you are to trust vnto,* 1.1 For Catharinus and Petrus a Soto, were neuer together at the Coun∣cel of Trent, as any doers there, muche lesse as princi∣pal pillers. Yea Catharinus was dead ten yeres before Petrus a Soto came to the Councel, as one to haue any doing there. For Catharinus died Anno 1552. and Pe∣trus a Soto came to the Councel Anno 1562.* 1.2 Where∣fore I maruel that you are not ashamed so precisely to affirme an open and shameful vntruth. For if they were not at the Councel together, how could they dissent there openly, and shamefully, as you terme it.
Hereunto you adde an other great Vntruth, that they wrote mightely, the one against the other. For I am wel assured, you can not proue, that euer they wrote the one against the other at al. Albeit I wil not saie, but that Petrus a Soto peraduenture doth disallowe some certaine erroneous opinion of the others in some parte of his workes. That you saie, they could neuer be reconcilied, is most false in your meaning. Howbe∣it in a contrary sense it maie be truely said. For Re∣conciliation presupposeth a falling out. But where there was neuer falling out (as betwen them there was not, as farre as it can appeare by their writinges) there could not be any Reconciliation.
To like effecte, and with as litle truthe you speake of them bothe Pagin. 350. In deede some such thing there was betwen Dominicus a Soto and Cathari∣nus. Albeit their Dissension was not so outragious, as you would haue it seeme. I merueile that you should so much, and so often after one sorte be ouerseen, espe∣cially
if you haue read their bookes, as you pretend, or elles if you haue read Illyricus de Sectis, with stuffe out of whose dragges you haue somewhat enlarged your vo∣lume, as it appeareth bothe otherwise,* 1.3 and also by your owne quotations out of that worke. Yet he allegeth al∣waies there, and in other of his suche the like rash and false scriblinges, Dominicus à Soto by his right name. But this errour, or ignorance might peraduenture be asscri∣bed to some of your gatherers of stuffe, and coadiutours, sauing that you wil needes take vppon you al the faulte your selfe, and discharge al others thereof, as you haue admonished the reader in your View of Vntruthes, where thus you saie: what soeuer errour shalbe founde in any my writinges, I wil discharge bothe my Clerke, and the Compo∣sitour, and the Printer of the same, and take the whole vpon my selfe.
Moreouer to shew your constancie in this errour,* 1.4 you doo allege, Pag. 499. Petrus à Soto de natura & gratia, whereas he neuer wrote any suche worke, but Dominus à Soto. And herein it is to be noted also, that you nei∣ther quote the number of the booke, nor of the Cha∣pter, where that saying is to be founde. But by like you went by heresaie, and reporte, and so lefte your reader to seeke at aduenture, that he should either not finde, or elles so hardly find, that he would be lothe to take the paines to looke for it.
You tel me in an other place, that my frende Catha∣rinus saith, I can not tel what, of Schole writers:* 1.5 and you referre me in the Margent to a booke of his against Petrus a Soto. But I am sure you neuer sawe any such booke against that person. Wel it might be against Do∣minicus
a Soto. A man maie thinke, that you reade these thinges with spectacles of a false sighte, that you were neuer hable to discerne Dominicus from Petrus, or elles that you wrote, yow knewe not what, in a dreame.
* 1.6You allege vnto me about vowes, one of my grea∣test Doctours (as you cal him) Alphonsus de Castro Philippica. 19. Howe great soeuer he be with me, it maie be iustely said, that you are greatly beholding vnto him, if he make so often for you, as you allege him. For he hath holpen you with stuffe euen for your owne tooth, as you haue handled the matter. But I praie you, did you euer see his Philippicas, bi∣cause you allege the 19? I know not what spectacles you vse: but if you reade no better, and were in case, as some be, who haue not murdered so many bodies, as you haue soules, you might be put to a harde dis∣stresse in time of neede, at the Sessions, and be refu∣sed for not reading vt Clericus. For as it appeareth your reading is quite beside the booke. Shew me any suche booke of Alphonsus de Castro, and you shal be quitte by Proclamation of al your false reportes, which are more and greater then a man would weene, that is not acquainted with your writinges. I remem∣ber that one Alphonsus Viruesius Episcopus Canariensis made suche a worke against Philip Melanchton, and called the Treaties of it, Philippicas, as I haue tolde you before.
* 1.7Endeuouring to disgrace, as muche as you can, godly and perfite obedience, you doo contemptuously
speake your pleasure,* 1.8 and yet bicause you would not seeme to speake vnto vs without some authoritie, you bring in Cassander lib. 4. cap. 27. But certain it is, you misse the cuishon, and haue mistaken your marke, in not di∣scerning betwen Cassianus, and Cassander, and naming the one for the other, whiche faulte might be laide to the Printer, but that yee haue taken the mater in hande your selfe.
In purling in the Canonistes for sayinges that might be wrested against the Pope, you tel vs a tale out of Franciscus Zabarella de Sectis 115. Whether you haue seene any authour called Zarabella, by which name you alwaies allege him, I doo more then doubte. It maie be, that you meane Zabarella, for that is his right name. But yet can you not shewe vs any booke that euer he made de Sectis. I wis M. Iewel you should haue written Illyricus De Sectis, your owne greate frende. You doo also allege in three diuers places. Videlicet pag. 639. 648. 694. your the same Zabarella de Schemale & Concilio. I would aske you, what is meant there by those wordes de Schemate. Should it not be, trow you, de Schismate?
About Ioannes Camotensis you plaie and dal∣lie, euen as a fishe with the hooke, til he be caught faste by the iawe. You seeme to please your selfe muche in controlling my ghesse. But therein at length you bewraie your owne ignorance, and proue your selfe not to be so wise, and wel learned, as you would be taken, in your owne authours alleged. Bicause I said, what worshipful Doctour, you meane by Camotensis
I know not: You added in the margent, If I knew him no••, I might best blame myne ignorance. But how iustely you are to be blamed of ignorance in the selfe same matter your selfe, wherein you take your selfe to be so great a doctour, let euery vpright Reader iudge. After you haue a while skornefully tolde me, whom I might haue ghessed this authour to be, as Fulbertus Carnotens••••, or Ioannes Sarisburiensis, otherwise called by some (as you saie) Rupertus Carnotensis, you pronounce at length the definitiue sentence very saddely with these wordes: But in deed this writers name is Ioannes Carno∣tensis, alleged by Cornelius Agrippa.* 1.9 As for Agrippas al∣legation, it maketh no force: for he is not of so honest same, but that exception maie lawfully be taken against his person, and therefore he is meeter for your purpose, Albeit in this case it maie be, that the Printer was in fault, and not Agrippa him selfe. And how easily Ca∣motensis is made of Carnotensis, by change of rn̄ into m̄, who perceiueth not? And so would Agrippa saie, were he aliue, there is no doubt. But you affirme plainely without al doubt, that in deede it is Ioannes Camotensis, that was a Bishop. And there you doo ve∣ry odiously without al cause make a cōparison betwene him, and certaine others, only to serue your owne scof∣fing humour.
But Sir I praie you, for asmuch as you wil haue him in deede to be a Bishop,* 1.10 be so good as tel vs, whether he be called Camotensis of his countrie, or of his Bi∣shoprike. Your great substantial Doctor Cornelius A∣grippa seemeth to signifie (if the Printer haue not de∣ceiued him) that he had that name of his Bishoprike, cal∣ling
him Ioannes Camotensis Episcopus. But whether he beareth that name of the one, or of the other, it maketh no great matter. If it be so, it remaineth, that you can tel vs, in what parte of the worlde, whether in Asia, in Aphrica, or in Europa, or in the new founde landes, there be any place of that name. I thinke you must be faine to looke ouer al the Geographical tables, and bookes you haue, and borrowe some of your felowes too, and put on your spectales of the best sight, and yet for al that (I warrant you) not finde it, except it be in Vtopia.
Wel M. Iewel, that you maie vnderstande, that the more occasion you geue me to seeke, the more I finde matter of Vntruthe and ignorance to charge you withal, I tel you in deede, that you haue named Io∣annes Camotensis in steede of Ioannes Carnotensis, if you haue respecte to his Bishoprike.* 1.11 But if you wil haue his Countrie signified, then must you cal him Io∣annes Salesberiensis (or Sarisburiensis, choose whe∣ther) as you haue done Pag. 132. I might saie that this Ioannes Sarisburiensis was a Bishop in al respectes farre better (to vse your owne wordes, not, then Le∣ontius, Hippolytus, or Clemens, as it liketh you to skoffe at those learned and blessed Bishoppes, but) then Iohn Ie∣wel of Sarisburie, if you, naming your selfe Iohn of Sarisburie, could iustly be accompted any Bishop at al. But betwen a Bishop, and no Bishop in this behalfe, there can be no comparison.
This is not the first time, that you haue alleged your witnesses by a blinde gheasse, hearesaie, or reporte, not hauing seene their bookes, nor knowing what the
Authours were. You can saie much by rote, and prou•• litle by skil, as in many other places, but here moste euidently it appeareth. For if you had knowen, that your Ioannes Camotensis, is the selfe same Ioannes Sarisburiensis (otherwise named Carnotensis) for that he was in his time Bishop of Chartres in Fraunce,* 1.12 named Carnotum in Latine, whiche you haue alleged before out of his woorke entitled Polycraticon, but neuer de∣claring out of what booke thereof, being eight bookes in the whole, or what Chapter (bicause yee neuer readde the place in the Authour him selfe, but receiued it by the waie of almes of frier Bale, Flacius Illyricus, or some suche other): if, I saie, you had knowen so muche, as you might, if you had taken the paine to per∣use the Polycration your selfe, you would neuer haue made so muche a doo about so smal a matter.
Now for your better instruction, and fuller satisfa∣ction, maie it please you to vnderstand, that he whiche is misnamed in Epitome Bibliothecae Gesneri, Ioannes Camotensis, is in Partitionibus eiusdem Gesneri tituli. 5. fol. 95. rightly called Ioannes Carnotensis. And that your Ioannes Camotensis is by you blindly mistaken for Io∣annes Carnotensis, it euidently appeareth by the sen∣tences alleged by your owne Necromantical Doctor Cornelius Agrippa, and by an other of the Spritish sort of your gospel Paulus Scalichius in his railing Libel De Choraea Monachorum,* 1.13 and by lying Illyricus in Catalogo te∣stium veritatis, which are adscribed by Baudy Bale 2. Centur. Scriptorum Britanniae, pag. 212. too Ioannes Car∣notensis out of his Polycraticon. And in deed they
are there to be founde, albeit not to that purpose, that al the packe of your holy brethren haue vntruely al∣leged them for. And therefore neuer a one of you al hath quoted either number of the booke, or Chapter, where any of those sentences are to be founde, lest your falsehed might haue benne espied, and that by rea∣ding the whole discourse of the places, your euil pur∣pose should haue benne nothing furthered, but much hindred. But if it wil please either you, or the Reader to peruse the 16. chapter of the 5. booke, and the 24. of the 6. booke of the sayd Polycraticon: you for your parte shal haue occasion to vnderstand your errour and folie, and the Reader for his parte, not to be deceiued with your blinde reporte.* 1.14
You beare your Reader in hand pag. 51. that Nico∣laus Cusanus wrote a booke, entituled, de Auctoritate Ecclesiae & Concilij, supra, & contra Scripturam: Of the Authoritie of the Churche and Councel, aboue and against the Scripture. And as though you had seene the booke, and wel perused it, you referre your Reader thereunto in 14. mo places of this your pretensed De∣fence, as it shal appeare to him,* 1.15 that wil take the paines to turne to these pages here truely quoted. 53. 55. 78. 157. 331. 438. 439. 474. 558. 593. 665. 674. 704. 724.
Now M. Iewel notwithstanding al these quotati∣ons of yours, if you be hable to shewe vs any booke of Cusanus so entituled, either in print, or in autenticke written hande, I wil saie, that you wil proue your selfe a truer man, then euer I tooke you to be.
But bicause this maie litle moue you, I wil more adde
on the contrary side, if you be not hable to shewe the same after so many allegations out thereof, it wil consequently folowe, that you are a shamelesse man, I might saie, a false harlot. If a man were disposed to dally with you in a matter most certaine, as you vse to doo with others, when you thinke you haue gotten any smal shadowe of some counterfeit aduantage (for an vn∣doubted example whereof I referre the readers to the page 414.) he might perchaunce dash you quite out of countenance, and deface you for euer, yea euen before your frendes, and the flattering vpholders of your doo∣inges, which would greeue you at the harte. Now might one chalenge you, and saie: M. Iewel, if you be hable to shew any booke, or halfe booke, oration, or epistle, or any litle pamphlet, whereunto Cusanus hath geuen this title, then wil the Catholiques graunt you more then euer you were hable to gete yet at their handes. If you haue al the bookes in your studie, either of your owne, or of other menne, that you allege, then bring the booke with this title forth, and you shal discharge your selfe of a most impudent lie, and sclaunder. And if you be ha∣ble so to doo, then I praie you let it be proclaimed by you with your booke in your hand at Powles crosse, (as you haue done at other times, to your worship for∣sooth) that al the worlde maie beare witnesse thereof. Verely M. Iewel it appeareth, that you haue readde more, then you vnderstand, or at least then you haue liste to vnderstand: and yet you allege more, then euer you readde in the bookes whereunto you referre vs, as it maie wel be proued by this present example, and many other the like. You maie beshrewe him, to whom
you gaue so light credite herein. Couet not praise by making great bookes. Write fewer wordes, more truth. Truste not euery pelting booke, that seemeth toothsom vnto you, yea write nothing but truth, and ye shal ease vs of much paynes. Now a mannes life wil not serue him to discouer the multitude of your Lies, to such im∣pudencie ye are growen. What man is there, hauing any sparke of shamefastnesse, that would referre vs so of∣ten, and so confidently to a booke by a title, which it ne∣uer had, ne neuer was any such written? And there∣fore vntil you bring forth your authour hereof, you must be content to beare al the blame of a sclaunderous and impudent Lier.
It had ben an easie matter for you to haue vowed Tritemius de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, Conradus Ges∣nerus Bibliotheca, or his Epitome, or elles Cusanus workes printed at Basile anno 1565. which was out al∣most two yeres before your Defence was published, where you should haue founde, that he neuer wrote booke of any suche title. What is to be thought hereof, but that, either you haue maliciously inuented this Lie of your selfe, to deface the authour withal, or elles that you haue vnwisely receiued it of some other, who is not hable to abide by it? If of your selfe, then, maius peccatum habes, if of any other, then bring him forth a Goddes name, to discharge your selfe of malice, albeit not of folie.
I do ghesse, that you wil peraduenture bring forth a greate Stoareman of yours, who furnisheth you with suche gaie stuffe, and maketh you a greate Truant, a fe∣lowe meete for the purpose, that wil neuer faile suche a
false merchant at a neede. I take him to be that sures bee of yours, Matthias Flacius Illyricus. For you declare your selfe, that you, beside other bookes of his, haue benne busie with his Norma Concilij Tridentini. And there I finde written:* 1.16 Nicolai Cusani, post quam factus est Cardinalis, sententia, de auctoritate Ecclesiae, & Conci∣lij supra, & contra Scriptutam. But yet this wil not dis∣charge you of malice. For he saith not, that he enti∣tuled his booke so, as you doo affirme, but doth pre∣tende to recite Cusanes minde of that matter, as this worde, Sententia, declareth. Now one maie gather an other mannes minde concerning any matter out of his writinges, though he neuer made any worke of that title.
Neither doth Illyricus specifie in that place the worke out of the which he hath drawen that, whiche he there allegeth, and whiche you receiued of him againe at the seconde hande. So that I can not per∣ceiue, but that the blame bothe of folie, and of ma∣lice must reste stil vpon your owne persone. For I sup∣pose you wil not haue your selfe taken for so ignorant, as to thinke Sententia is latine for a booke: or if you wil, then why doo you so bragge, as it were, and boast of your great reading and learning?
Moreouer you haue not onely geuen vs a false title of your owne imagination to Cusanus writinge, but also of an Epistle you haue made a Booke. That your good intente and plaine dealing herein maye be more euident, I wil recite the title of thal Epistle, as it is to be founde amonge his workes printed at Basile An∣no
1565. Pagin. 851. 852. Epistola 7. Nicolai de Cusa Car∣dinalis ad Clerum, & Literatos Bohemiae, and thereun∣to in the toppe of the leafe is added, De amplecten∣da vnitate Ecclesiae. Let bothe these Titles be confer∣red, and your malicious intent in so wilfully depra∣uing the authours wordes, to bring him out of credite, must most manifestly appeare.
Wel, perchaunce you wil saye, though the title be altered, yet his wordes out of that same Epistle be truely recited, wherein consisteth the chiefe effecte, and principal purpose. If you so saye, you wil be pro∣ued no lesse a Lier, and false reporter herein, then you haue benne in the reste. And for example hereof I wil bringe euen the very firste place that you haue al∣leged out of him. You tel vs page. 55. that, thus he saith. Sequuntur Scripturae Ecclesiam, & non è conuerso:* 1.17 The Scriptures of God followe the Churche: but con∣trariwise the Churche followeth not the Scriptures.
You haue here clipped the Authours sentence, and quite altered the sense. His wordes are these. Eccle∣sia igitur, sicut recipit Scripturam, ita & interpretatur.* 1.18 Sequuntur Scriptura Ecclesiam, quae prior est, & propter quam Scripturae, & non è conuerso: The Churche, as it receiueth the Scripture, so doth it expounde the same. The Scriptures therefore do follow the Churche, which is the former, and for the which the Scripture is ordei∣ined, and not contrariwise.
What oddes is betwixt this sentence of Cusanus, and that whiche you haue fathered vpon him, any meane witted man maie ealsily perceiue. For Cusanus wordes
in their right forme doo bothe stande wel, and haue a good meaning. But your false changing of them cau∣seth them to importe an intollerable Derogation to the Scriptures without any colour of truth. For as it is most true, that the Church was before the Scriptures (that is to saie, the written worde of God) and that the Scri∣ptures were ordeined and appointed for the Churche, but not contrariwise the Churche for the Scriptures: so is it very false, that the Scriptures doo followe the Church, and the Church not the Scriptures. For why hath the Church receiued the Scriptures, but to follow them, and put them in execution both in our inward be∣leefe and in our outward actions? Doo you not blush M. Iewel thus wilfully to peruerte that with your false iug∣gling, and conueying awaie of those wordes quae prior est, & propter quam Scripturae, whiche before had a right good sense? You thought by like, you should neuer heare thereof againe, nor be called to any reckening: or elles you would haue had more regarde ro your good name and honestie. You can pretende no tollerable excuse, as that you had not Cusanus workes at hande. For euen Illyricus, vpon whose credite you haue taken vp al that you haue out of this epistle, doth not other∣wise reporte the same,* 1.19 then they are to be founde in the authour. But you thought you would passe him an ase in falsehood, although he be his craftes master therein.
How fowly you haue ouershote your selfe in falsify∣ing sentences, and misreporting authour for authour, and booke for booke, that which hath hitherto ben decla∣red, maie be sufficient instruction to any man, that is wil∣ling and desirous to vnderstande the truthe, and not
content to be lead into wilful blindnes and errour. How¦beit to make the matter a litle more sensible and plainer and also to geue you occasion the better to know your folie, and not to exalte your selfe ouermuch with pride, vaine glorie, and presumption, of I can not tel what ex∣traordinarie knowledge, as you seeme to doo: I wil set before your eyes such a glasse of your grosse ouersight, ignorance, and blindnes to looke in, as you may, and per∣aduenture wil be ashamed thereof, if you be not altoge∣ther past shame already. Many times either to hide your ignorance, or to weary the searcher, or to couer your falsehood, you bring vs in such general quotations with∣out number of Booke, or Chapter, as a man shal be litle the nearer. For examples whereof, Pag. 15. 158. 265. Au∣gust. Pag. 51 August. de Ciuitate Dei. Pag. 50. 267. Cyprianus Pag. 37. Eusebius. Pag. 29. Theodorit. in Histor. Ecclesiast. Pa. 11. Theodorit. de curand. Graec. affect. Pag. 482. 532. Baldus. pa. 486. Eckius. Pag. 564. Hieronymus. 629. Fortalitium fidei. Itē 401. 313. Antoninus. 498. Liriensis Episcopus. 447. Eusebius Emissenus. Pag. 13. You referre vs to a Councel of Car∣thage as you remember, you can not tel whiche.
In al these and such like places, a man hath occasion iustly to suspect your couert dealing: that either the place maketh nothing for your purpose, if it were consi∣dered, or that there be no such wordes there at al, or at the least, that you doo not speake of certain knowledge, but by some ghesse, or vpon an other mannes reporte. But where you are so bold, as to quote vnto vs the Cha∣pters, there it were to be supposed that you shoulde speake ex speciali scientia, of your precise knowledge, and so muche the more, as you ofte inculcate one place.
And yet for al that it is to be proued, that euen in suche places you doo but set a great looke on the matter, to outface your readers, and gainesaiers withal. Example most notable hereof is to be taken of your quotations of one Heruaeus de Potestate Papae, a greate and familiar Doctour with you. About 37. times, and euery where (sauing in two places, that is to wit Pag. 331. 608.) you haue quoted vnto vs precisely the Chapter, and yet he hath not diuided his booke into any Chapters at al. There∣fore by like you had a good sight, that could so often see so many, and distincte Chapters, where there be none. Yea whiche is more, that you could recite so many sen∣tences out of him, and some of them not without loth∣somnesse oftentimes repeated, and yet neuer a one of them to be founde in such forme of wordes in al the booke. This maie seme a very strange matter vnto them, who tooke you to be the chiefe Doctour, and the most precious Iewel of al our Ministers of this English Con∣gregation. And therefore they wil surmise, that I speake this in a dreame of you. But that they maie knowe I speake not of reporte, but by trial and experience, I wil here set out before the Readers eyes the Pages, where Heruaeus is quoted in the margent of your booke, that if he can come by the booke, whiche is in deede of an olde printe, he maie by conference proue, whether I haue said herein otherwise then truthe.
Cathari∣nus, and Petrus a Soto be lied by M. Ievvel.
Sixtus Se∣nensis in Bibliothe∣ca sancta. lib. 4.
Illyricus Luthers great de∣fender, a special Doctor of M. Ievv∣elles.
B. iij. b.
Pag. 571.
Pag. 169. Alphōsus de Castro mistaken by M. Ie∣vvel for Alphōsus Viruesius Bishop of the Cana∣ries.
Pag. 345.
Cassianus lib. 4. cap. 27. de In∣stitutis coe∣nobiorum. Pag. 51. Zarabella de Sectis, alleged by M. Ievv. vvhereas he neuer vvrote a∣ny suche booke. M. Ievvel allegeth Illyricus the here∣tike, vn∣der the name of zabarella, vvhom he mea∣neth by zarabella. Defence. Pag. 618. Ioannes Camoten∣sis, a Do∣ctor of M. Ievvelles, neuer knovvē. Confu. so. 286. Defence. pag. 613.
Cornel. Agrippa.
Cornel. Agrippa de vani∣tate Sciē∣tiarum. cap. ••1.
Ioannes Camoten∣sis, must be Ioānes Sarisbu∣riensis, vvho vvas Bi∣shop of Chartres in France, and there∣of in La∣tine called Carno∣tensis. Defence. pag. 613.
Pag. 132.
Paul. Sca∣lichius.
Pag. 51. Cusanus sovvly, and ig∣norant∣ly belied of M. Iew.
A false forged booke o∣diously attribu∣ted by M. Ievv. to Cardinal Cusanus in xv. Sundri•• places.
In altera parte cla∣uis Scri∣pturae. pa. 541.
Cusanus fovvly falsified by M. Ievvel.
Pag. 858,
Pag. 544. in 2. par∣te Clauis Script.