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

The fifth booke conteineth a Detection of M. Iewelles errours, lies, sclaunders, &c. touching the Marriages of Priestes and Votaries, the Canoni∣cal Scriptures, the Sacramentes, and other pointes of Doctrine. (Book 5)

The wordes of the Apolagie. In the Defence 2. parte. ca. 8. Diuision. 1. Pag. 163.

VVe saie, that Matrimonie is holy, and honourable in al sortes and states of personnes: as in the Patriarkes, in the Prophetes, in the Apostles, in the holy Martyrs, in the Ministers of the Churche, and in Bishoppes: and that it is an honest and lavvful thing (as Chrysostom saith) for a man liuing in matrimonie, to take vpō him therevvith the dignitie of a Bishop.

Confutation. fol. 73. b.

Matrimonie is holy and honorable in al persons and an vndefyled bedde, as sayth S. Paule.* 1.1 Yet is it not lawful for them to marye, whiche either haue by deliberate vowe dedicated almaner their chastitie vnto God, or haue re∣ceiued holy order. For the vowed be forbidden mariage by expresse word of God. Those that haue taken holy or∣ders, by tradition of the Apostles and auncient ordi∣naunce of the Church.

Touching the first, the Scripture is plaine, bicause a vowe is to be performed,* 1.2 Vouete & reddite Domino Deo vestro. Vowe ye and paye (or render that ye vowe) to your Lorde God. Christ also sayeth in the gospel,* 1.3 there be some eunuches that haue made them selues eunuches for the king∣dome of heauens sake. He that can take, let him take.* 1.4 Againe S. Paul speaking of young widowes, which haue vow∣ed and promised chastitie, sayeth, that when they waxe wanton against Christ, they wil mary, hauing dam∣nation,

bicause they haue broken their first faith. Whether these scriptures perteine hereto, and be thus to be vnder∣standed, we referre vs to the primitiue Church, and to al the holy Fathers.* 1.5 Whosoeuer haue thus vowed chasti∣tie, or by receiuing holy orders haue bound them selues to the bond of cōtinencie to the same by auncient con∣stitution of the Church annexed, if afterward presuming to marye, excuse the satisfying of their carnal lust with the name of wedlocke, be they men, be they women: they liue in a damnable state, and be worse then Aduou∣terers. * Suche mariages, or rather slydinges, and falles frō the holier Chastitie that is vowed to God, S. Augustine doub∣teth not, but they be worse then aduowtries. S. Cyprian calleth this case plaine incest, S. Basile accompteth the mariages of vailed Virgins to be void, of no force, and fa∣crilegious.

She that hath dispoused her selfe to our Lorde (sayeth S. Basile) is not free.* 1.6 For her husband is not dead, that she may mary to whom she list. And whiles her immortal husband lyueth, she shal be called an aduoutresse, whiche for lustes of the flesh hath brought a mortal man into our Lordes cham∣ber.* 1.7 The case is like in the man.

And whereas such persons with deliberate vowe pur∣posed to consecrat them selues to our Lord only, maides by virginitie, widowes by chastitie of widowehod, priestes by single life and continencie: they may not with good conscience marye, bicause the lust of the flesh foloweth not that former purpose, but draweth the soule to her vices from that whereto it is bounde. For what so euer is the worke (sayeth S. Basile) before whiche reason, and lawe goeth not in the mynde, the same is

of the conscience noted for vnlawful. Of al such after ma∣ny wordes vttered in reproufe of their lewdnes, he con∣cludeth, that they folow not wedlocke, but aduoutrie. But for proufe that vowed persons may not marye, it were not hard to alleage so muche out of the fathers, as would fil a volume.* 1.8

Touching the second, the Apostles forbidde those that come single to the Clergie, to marye, except such as remaine in the inferiour orders, and procede not to the greater, as we find in their canons. Can. 25. Paphnutius as Socrates and Sozomenus record in their Ecclesiastical storie, said at the Nicene Councel, that it was an old tra∣dition of the Church, that such as come to the degree or order of Priesthod single, should not marye wiues. And this is that holy Bishop Paphnutius, whom these Euangelical vowe-breakers pretend to be their proctour for their vnlawful mariages.

* 1.9Neither Pope Siritius and Innocentius the first, who liued long aboue a thousand yeres past, were the first ma∣kers of the lawe that forbiddeth Priestes to marie, but declaring that the same was of olde time ordeined and vsed of the Church, they condemne the disorders against the same committed. * Reade who list the epistle of Siri∣tius ad Himerium Tarraconensem. cap. 7. the second epistle of Innocentius to Victricius Bishop of Roen. cap. 9. and his third epistle to Exuperius B. of Tolouse. cap. 1. and weighing wel these places he shal perceiue, that these holy Popes forbad the ministers of the Church the vse of wedlocke by the same reason, by which the priestes of Moses lawe were forbidden to come within their owne houses, in the time when their course came to serue in

the holy ministeries. By the same reason also by whiche S. Paule required maried folke for a time to forbeare the vse of their wiues,* 1.10 that they might attend praying.

The place of S. Chrysostome alleaged by this Defen∣der wel considered,* 1.11 disproueth no part of the Catho∣like doctrine in this hehalfe, but condemneth both the doctrine and common practise of his companions these newe fleshly Gospellers. His wordes be these vpon the saying of S. Paule,* 1.12 that a Bishop ought to be without crime, the husband of one wife. The Apostle (sayeth he) stoppeth the mouthes of Heretikes which condemne mariage, shew∣ing that it is not an vncleane thing, but so reuerent, that with the same a man may ascend to the holy throne or seate (he meant the state of a Bishop) and herewith he chasti∣seth and restraineth the vnchast persons,* 1.13 not permitting thē who haue twise maried, to atteine such a rome. For where∣as he kepeth no beneuolēce toward his wife deceased, how can he be a good gouernour? Yea what greuous accusations shal not he be subiect vnto daily? For ye al knowe right wel, that albeit by the lawes the secōd mariages be permitted, yet that matter lieth open to many accusations. And therefore he would a Bishop to geue no occasion (of euil) to those that be vnder him. * Thus Chrysostome. Where, with S. Paule, first he putteth to silence the Cerdonistes, Marcionistes, Seuerians, Tatians, Manichees, and al other Heretikes that condemned marriage, and said it was an impure thing. Secondly he alloweth matrimonie fo farre, that he acknowledgeth a maried man may ascend to a Bishops seate. Thirdly* 1.14 he putteth Bigamie, that it to witte, ma∣rying an other after the first, or a widowe, to be lawful, rather then commendable.*

Nowe as wee doo not condemne marriage, nei∣ther denie, but that married menne in the Primitiue Churche, and before the Ghospel was so generally re∣ceiued, as it was at length, were and might be called to the dignitie of Bishoprike, when scarcetie, and lacke of single menne worthy of that rome was founde: * so we see the impure Bigamie of our holy gospellers con∣demned both by S. Chrysostom, and S. Paule, of whom many being Priestes and (as they saye) Bishops, at lest presuming to occupie that holy seate, for custodie of their chastitie after their former olde yokefellowes de∣cease, solace them selues with newe strompettes. By a better name I would cal them, if I wist I should not of∣fend. For what woman soeuer coupleth her selfe in such damnable yoking, how can she appeare either to be honest, or to haue care of her soule health? As for the simple that be deceiued by the importunitie and craft of those lurdens, as they are not to be borne withal, so yet I thinke them to be pitied.

But if this Defender presse vs with Chrysostome, we answer that though Chrysostom graunte, that a married man may ascende to the holy seate, yet he sayeth not, that a man may descend from that holy seate to the Bride bedde. For we denie vtterly,* 1.15 that any man after that he hath receiued holy orders, maie marye. Neither can it be shewed, that the mariage of suche was euer accompted lawful in the catholike Church. In deed we know that in Germanie, and in Englād, and certain other prouinces, at dissolute times, when the discipline of the Church was shaken of, Priestes haue ben maried, as we reade of the time, in whiche Anselmus was Bishop of

Cantorbury.* 1.16 But that disorder was alwayes by due cor∣rection of bishops punished and redressed. So that what soeuer Bale, Poinet, or any other of that filthy railing ra∣ble bring out of Huldrike of Auspurg, Huntingdonensis, Capgraue, Chronica Chronicarum, or such other obscure and barbarous stories for witnes of priestes marriages, se∣ing the same were by good rulers of the Churche at al times controlled and resisted, as vnlauful and wicked: it is of no force nor auctoritie. How, why, and when ma∣ried men were admitted to be priestes, and wher the pro∣fession of chastitie and absteining from companie of their wiues was required of them, and many other poinctes touching the vnlawful mariages of priestes, who so euer is desirous to be amply instructed: the same I referre to a large treatise written hereof by a lerned man in our owne tonge. I thinke not good here to recite the thinges, that be so wel treated already.

Iewel. Pag. 164.

Here I graunte M. Harding is like to finde some good aduauntage, as hauing vndoubtedly a great Number of the holy Fathers of his side. &c.

That Priestes, and Votaries maie not marrie. The first Chapter.

Harding.

* 1.17THEN vndoubtedly you haue not the holy Scriptures on your side. For the ho∣ly Fathers haue neuer in great number determined, or weighed against the Scri∣ptures. For the same Christ that gaue vs the holy Scriptures, gaue vs also Pastours and Doctours (as S. Paule teacheth) to make perfite the

Saintes, that is, the Christians, by their ministerial wor∣king, and to build vp the body of Christe, whiche is his Churche. Seing then M. Iewel confesseth, that for this point we haue a great number of the Fathers on our side, let him make his Moustre of Glosers, Summistes, al the Canonistes, Schoolemen, and of his other late petie Do∣ctours, whom, when they serue vs, he calleth the Blacke Garde, neuer so great: we wil content our selues with the great number of Ancient Fathers.

And if the Fathers be on our side, what remaineth, but that the Reader make his choise, to whiche side to incline, to the olde Fathers of the Auncient Churche, of whose holinesse wee are wel assured, or to these yong Fathers of this new Churche, whose Children do geue vs better witnesse, that they be fathers, then doth their life, that they be holy.

Wel, how great number of holy Fathers so euer we haue on our side, certaine it is, that M. Iewel wil not yeelde. Let it then be considered, how he defendeth this point, and what pith there is in al that number of the Doctours sayinges, whiche he would seme to allege for his purpose.

As concerning the wordes of my confutation of the Apologie touching this point of the marriage of Priestes, and Votaries, bicause I knew, these married Apostates doo charge vs, as hauing an euil iudgement of Matrimo∣nie, directly answering the wordes of the Apologie, first, I commende Matrimonie,* 1.18 and approue the saying of S. Paule vttered in the Epistle to the Hebrewes in praise of it. Neuerthelesse I say, that to marrie it is vnlawful in two cases. The one is, if any person haue vowed con∣tinencie:

the other, if any man haue taken holy Orders. The first I proue by Scripture, and the Fathers: the se∣cond, by the Ordinance of the Churche, and also by te∣stimonie of the Fathers. Then I answer to the place al∣leged out of S. Chrysostom, who saith, that a married man may be promoted vnto the dignitie of a Bishop. In discour∣sing whereupon I shew, that the Bigamie of the married Apostates of our time, is by sentence of S. Chrysostome vtterly condemned. After this, graunting that in the olde Church married men vpon good causes were made Bishops, I denie, that Bishoppes were euer made married men, after they were Bishops.

* 1.19These then be the thinges, that here M. Iewel hath to defende. First, that is is lawful to marrie after the Vowe of Chastitie. Secondly, that it is lawful after the taking of holy Orders. Thirdly, that Bigamie, or second marriage is lawful in Priestes, Monckes, Friers, and Nonnes. Fourthly, that in olde time Bishoppes were mar∣ried after they had once ben consecrate Bishops. These foure if he doo not defende, he perfourmeth nothing touching this point, but sheweth him selfe to al menne ouercomme, though his Doctours allegations besides the purpose be neuer so many.* 1.20

Now commeth me M. Iewel in, and allegeth Do∣ctours as thicke as haile, olde, and newe, knowen, and vnknowen, allowed, and disallowed, Schoolemen, and Summistes, vea the very marginal Annotations vpon the Glose of Gratian are haled in to helpe at a pintche, and yet al helpeth not.

Of his owne in manner he saith nothing, but thus, Origen saith, Tertullian saith, suche a one saith, and suche an

other saith, and he saith, and againe he saith, &c. Then he laith downe their Latine, be it true, be it false, and putteth a translation vnto it, suche, as becommeth shifters to vse in a false matter, and thus furnisheth out a great booke, that the worlde may thinke, he is a great Clerke.

Were al that he allegeth to the purpose, then were it somewhat, yet were it no great commendation, to make bookes onely out of Notebookes already made, and ga∣thered to his handes.

First (to declare his order) keeping him selfe a luffe of,* 1.21 and comming nothing neare the point, wherein my Confutation consisteth, he bringeth the holy Fathers in∣to suspicion of not dealing vprightly and indifferently herein, bearing the Reader in hande, they haue swarued from truth, either in the auauncing of Virginitie, or els in the disgracing of lawful Matrimonie. To make proufe of this, he allegeth no smal number of sentences out of certaine Fathers, in whiche not being thoroughly exami∣ned, they seeme to speake hardly of Marriage, specially of the second Mariage. For this point his Doctours be these, Tertullian in Exhortatione ad Castitatem: the author of the vnperfite worke vpon S. Matthew, whom he calleth Chrysostom, whereas it is wel knowen not to be his, as that, whiche conteineth sundry heinous heresies: S. Hierome writing against Iouinian, Helui∣dius, and to Gerontia: Athenagoras in Apologia pro Chri∣stianis: Nazianzen in dictum Euangelij, Cùm perfecisset Ie∣sus &c. Origen in Lucam, Homilia. 17. for which his cota∣tion hath, Homil. 19.

Nexte, he reckeneth vp so many menne, as he hath read of, that being Married, were afterwardes made Bis∣shops. Of whom he saith, that they vsed Mariage them selues in their owne personnes, which is more then he is liable to proue, if by vse of Marriage, he meane the car∣nal copulation.

* 1.22These two, that is to say, the Fathers disgracing of Matrimonie and their hauing of wiues them selues, he calleth by the name of his two Principles, whiche being laid, he maketh his stoute vaunte, that he is the better hable to consider the substance of my reasons, for so he saith, and there at length he addresseth him selfe to shape an Answere to the parte of my Confutation aboue sette out.

Now to say somewhat to his Principles, before I come to his Answer, were it true, that certaine Fathers speaking of Matrimonie, vsed immoderate, and extraordi∣narie speaches, for so he termeth them: Againe, that many of them had ben married before they came to be Bishops: what perteineth that to the defence of the marriage of Votaries, and Priestes, whiche was the point presently treated of? What, wil he make this fonde and childish Argument, Certaine Fathers spake ouer vehemētly con∣cerning Matrimonie, Item, some of them were called to the dignitie of Bishops, from the state of married menne: Ergo, Priestes, Monkes, Friers, and Nonnes, who haue vowed Chastitie, may lawfully marrie wiues, and take husbandes? Truly either this is his reason, or els hitherto he hath no reason at al. And of what smal sub∣stance this reason is, the veriest Cobblers of al their Mi∣nisters, if they can reade any English besides their com∣munion

booke, may easily perceiue.

Touching the Fathers speaches in reproufe of Matri∣monie, one answer M. Iewel,* 1.23 in manner may serue to re∣fute al that you would inferre of their sayinges. Onely I excepte Tertullian, who being fallen into the fowle He∣resie of Montanus, in his booke intituled, Exhortatio ad castitatem, wrote otherwise of Marriage (specially in that he condemned second marriage) then the Ca∣tholique Church holdeth, or the trueth beareth. And S. Hierome witnesseth (as Beatus Rhenanus noteth) that booke to haue ben written against the Churche. Now we thinke not our selues bounde to defende, what so euer they say, whom the Churche condemneth for He∣retiques. As for Origen likewise, you knowe, of how litle credite he is, in regard of sundry great errours: albeit touching the case of the second, and third Mariage,* 1.24 spea∣king where of you allege him: he may better be defen∣ded, then Tertullian may.

As concerning the other Fathers by you alleged, the thing, for which they seeme sometimes to speake of Ma∣trimonie not fauorably, is the immoderate concupiscence or luste now after sinne by our first parentes committed, which is of the holy Fathers reported to be malum, as∣much to say, an euil thing, and to procede not of God, but of sinne, without which euil thing, the thing, that is good in Matrimonie, that is to say, generation, can not be perfourmed.

This, besides other Fathers S. Augustine calleth of∣tentimes, malum, an euil thing, as carnalis concupiscentiae malum, the euil of fleshly luste, and malum libidinis, the euil thing of carnal pleasure, &c. He saith that natural

shamefastnesse sheweth it so to be, by whiche it com∣meth to passe, that although married personnes glorie in Children, yet when they attend vpon the worke of begeting Children, they choose them selues secrete places, and wil al witnesses to be out of their waie, thereby confessing the shamefastnesse it selfe of Nature. And this muche our first Parentes confessed, after they had sinned,* 1.25 by that they were ashamed, and coouered their shamely partes with Figge tree leaues, as the Scrip∣ture plainely declareth.

Neither proceedeth this euil thing of Marriage, but of sinne,* 1.26 and it is the paine of sinne. In married per∣sonnes it is euil, but no sinne, malum poenae, not malum culpae, as the Scholastical Diuines cal it. And this is the meaning of that saying of the authour that wrote the vnperfite worke vppon S. Matthew,* 1.27 whome you wil needes to be S. Chrysostome. The saying is this. Haec ipsa Coniunctio Maritalis malum est ante Deum. Non di∣co, Peccatum, sed malum. This very wedlocke Con∣iunction it selfe is an euil thing before God. I saie not, it is Sinne, but I saie, it is an euil thing. In translating whiche woordes, you doo very falsly demeane your selfe, and beguyle your vnlearned Reader. For in that place the authour meaneth not by Coniunctio Matrialis the Copulation of Matrimonie, as you translate it, as though he said,* 1.28 Matrimonie it selfe were an euil thing: God forbid, any should so speake of Goddes holy ordi∣nance. But he meaneth the coniunction of the Hus∣band with his wife in the acte of generation. Neither yet vnderstandeth he the coniunction or acte it selfe, in wedlocke to be an euil thing (so it be not to the end to

saciate luste and pleasure, but to the ende to begete a childe, that being againe begotten and regenerate, may serue to fil the Citie of God, as S. Augustine speaketh) but the immoderate concupiscence and luste, without the whiche that wedlocke acte is not done. Whereof S. Augustine saith,* 1.29 Cùm ventum fuerit ad opus generan∣di, ipse ille licitus & honestus concubitus, non poterit es∣se sine ardore libidinis, vt peragi possit quod rationis est, non libidinis.

This immoderate concupiscence, this inordination, this rebellion of the fleshe, and preuenting and ouer∣bearing of reason, this filthy motion swaruing from reason whereof shame is taken, without whiche the acte of Wedlocke is not donne, is the thing, whiche the authour of that vnperfite worke vppon S. Matthew, and sundry holy Fathers, haue called Malum, asmuche to say, an euil thing.* 1.30 Whiche euil thing notwithstan∣ding, married personnes doo vse wel, bicause of the three good thinges that Matrimonie hath, by which it is excused.

Those three thinges are these, Fides, Proles, Sacra∣mentum. Faith, or Fidelitie, Issue, and the Sacrament, whereof S. Augustine teacheth learnedly in his firste booke De Nuptijs & concupiscentia ad Valerium. By these three good thinges, as S. Augustine, and the Churche teacheth, the vse of Matrimonie is excused, not as an acte that of it selfe is euil, is excused thorough igno∣rance, or infirmitie, whiche is rather an excuse of the partie that worketh: but it is excused, for that o∣therwise it should be a sinne, excepte it had these three good thinges ioyned together. Whiche when it

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

hath, the Circumstances to euery good acte behooful presupposed, it is an acte lawful, honest, good and lau∣dable.

Now this being considered, whereas you M. Iewel iudge the holy Fathers to speake otherwise of Matrimo∣nie, then the honor and holinesse of that state deserueth: you shew your selfe to be of the nūber of those deceiued men,* 1.31 of whom S. Augustin saith thus. Profectò errāt, qui, cū vituperatur libido carnalis, damnari nuptias opinantur, qua∣si morbus iste de connubio sit, non de peccato. Verely they are deceiued, which, when fleshly luste is rebuked, thinke that marriage is condemned, as though this disease were of wedlocke,* 1.32 and not of sinne.

Likewise he saith againe, Quia iam ista conditione mortalium, nunc simul aguntur concubitus & libido, eò fit, vt cùm libido reprehendatur, etiam nuptialis concubitus li∣citus & honestus reprehendi putetur ab eis, qui nolunt dis∣cernere ista, vel nesciunt. Bicause as the condition of men is now (after Sinne) the acte of generation and lust, are done both atonce, thereof it commeth to passe, that, when luste is reprooued, the lawful and honest dealing of them together that be coupled in wedlocke, is thought also to be reprooued, of them, whiche wil not discerne betwene these thinges (he meaneth the acte, and the lust) or els know not how to discerne them. To cōclude, what so euer certaine Fathers say, and how so euer they seeme to speake of Matrimonie, this perteined nothing to the purpose. Al your great number of allegations might haue ben leafte out, for asmuche as thereby your Vowbreakers marriage is nothing iustified, nor defen∣ded.

M. Iewels second, Principle for defence of Vow-breakers marriages, answered, which is, that Bisshoppes and Priestes were married in olde time.

Your second Principle (for so you cal it) wherein you put the chiefe confidence of this cause, is, that many Bishops and Priestes in olde time were married, for so you dispose your wordes. I tel you M. Iewel, you haue not so much as one example for you, that a bishop was married, I meane, that any was euer married in the olde Church, and allowed in it, after that he was Bishop. That diuers and sundry married menne were for their vertue and ho∣ly life made Bishops, I denie not, ne neuer yet denied. You allege al the examples of antiquitie that you can, yet not so much as one to the purpose.

That Tertullian was a married man,* 1.33 and afterwarde made a Priest, I graunte. You say, Spiridion the Bisshop of Cyprus, was married, and had children: I denie, that Spiri∣dion being a Bishop, was married: but I confesse, that be∣ing a married laye man before, he was chosen afterwarde to be a Bishoppe, and had one daughter, named Irene. Whether he had mo children I knowe not, of mo chil∣dren of his I haue not read.

You make S. Hilarie the bishop of Poitiers a married man. Your proufe is the Epistle to Abra his daughter. If I denie, that he was euer married, how can ye prooue it? The Epistle to Abra, is a peeuish Apocryphal, and forged write, as I tolde you in my last Reioindre, where you vtter this same very stuffe in great sooth, whereby the worlde may vnderstand, what simple ragges ye haue wherwith to coouer your brethern the Apostates filthy

lecherie. That Prosper the Bishop of Rhegium was a mar∣ried man, you say it, but you prooue it not. And were it so, yet it serueth not your turne, bicause if he were ma∣ried, it was before he was priest.

Neither haue you good authoritie for proufe, that Chae∣remon* 1.34 the Bishop of a Citie called Nilus, whom you rec∣ken among married Bishops,* 1.35 was married. Eusebius saith, that in time of persecution he fled vnto a Hil in Arabia, with her that liued with him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and was neuer founde againe. That she was his wife, it appea∣reth not. She might be some woman of his kinne, or some other old womā, that kept him, and dressed his meate, and attended him as a nourse, of whom he had neede, being a man of extreme age, as Eusebius reporteth of him, say∣ing that he was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to say, passing olde.

Polycrates,* 1.36 you say, being a Bisshop, sometimes said, that seuen of his Fathers, or Ancestours, had ben Bishoppes. What healpeth this your cause at al? Marry say you, the Greeke word is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.37 and Ruffinus translateth it, Patres. Wher∣unto sticke you? vnto the Greeke word, or vnto the La∣tine? If you sticke vnto the Latine worde, Patres, which signifieth Fathers, or Ancestours, you meane not I trow, that Polycrates had seuen Fathers, for that were to much by six, you knowe. One Father is ynough pardy for one man. If he had seuē Ancestours, what gather you therof? that he was married, bicause he had seuen Ancestours? Where is your Logique becomme M. Iewel? The truth is good Reader, here is Ruffinus belied.* 1.38 He trāslateth not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Patres, but, Parentes: whiche goeth further of in signification, then the word Patres doth, as the lear∣ned in the Ciuile Lawes doo knowe. And this Greeke

worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, properly signifieth kinnesmen, them that be neare in bloud, them that be of one familie, and of the same kinred. S. Hierom translateth it propinquos,* 1.39 and him foloweth Sophroni{us}, putting for S. Hieromes Latine word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, signifiing them that were nye in bloud. Now Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus said, in his epistle to Pope Victor, that 7. Bishops in that See before him, were of his house, his familie, his stocke, his bloud, or his kinred. Let M. Iewel make the most of this place. Thereof he can cō∣clud nothing for any of the foure pointes before mencio∣ned, which he hath taken in hand to defende.

That S. Peter was a married man,* 1.40 for which you allege S. Ignatius, and Clemens Alexandrinus, and Eusebius the reherser of his words, it was neuer denied. This haue you nowe tolde vs diuers times. But where you say thus, O∣rigen saith, that S. Paule, and his wife were called to the Faith, both at one time: you deale with Origen, as you do with the reste, whom so euer you allege, falsifying them more or lesse. Origen saith not as you reporte him, but thus, Paulus (sicut quidam tradunt) cum vxore vocatus est. S. Paule (as some say) was called with a wife, that is to say, hauing a wife before. That he had a wife, he affir∣meth it not for certaintie, but maketh it a matter of a Some say. And there it foloweth immediatly (aliis vide∣tur, sine vxore) that others were of the opinion, he was free, and called to the Faith hauing no wife at al.

But sir touching this point, whether S. Paule had a wife or no by the opinion of S. Ambrose, whome here you cal to witnesse, whether is truer man, Maister Iewel, that wrote the Replie, or Maister Iewel, that wrote this pretensed Defence? There he sayth thus,

The twelue Apostles,* 1.41 saith S. Ambrose, only S. Iohn excepted, were al married. Here he saith otherwise, S. Ambrose saith, Omnes Apostoli, excepto Iohanne, & Paulo, vxores ha∣buerunt. Al the Apostles had wiues, only Iohn, and Paule excepted. Here S. Paule hath no wife, there S. Paule hath a wife. If you were a true man there, then are you falfe here. If you be true here, then were you false there. Or he had a wife by S. Ambrose, or he had not: say which ye wil, M. Iewel is contrarie to M. Iewel. Againe by M. Iewel in his Defence pag. 184. S. Paule had a wife. But by the same M. Iewel in the same booke page. 512. the same S. Paule had no wife. Faine would I know, which of these M. Iewels were to be trusted.

* 1.42The place of S. Hierome against Iouinian, saying, that Priestes in his time had Matrimonies, that is to say, were taken from the state of maried personnes to be Priestes, helpeth you nothing. To the same I haue answered in my second Reionder, as to sundry thinges els here by you againe rehersed. Hitherto M. Iewel hath smal ad∣uantage, as thou seest Reader. Remember the foure pointes I noted to thee before, which is his parte to de∣fende, whiche not being defended, he may of any man be chalenged to yeelde, at leaste in this matter of the marriage of them, that haue vowed perpetual chasti∣tie. Before he commeth to the point, he saith litle of him selfe, but bringeth in heapes of other mennes sayinges nothing perteining to the question, as I iudge, to make a shewe of learning to the ignorant. Among which this is one, pretended to be alleged out of Damasus, for proufe that many Popes were Priestes sonnes. Thus he saith.

Iewel.

Pope Damasus shevveth vs,* 1.43 that a greate number of Bishoppes of Rome vvere Priestes sonnes: As Pope Syluerius: Pope Deus dedit: Pope Adria∣nus. 2. Pope Iohn. 15. Pope Felix. 3. Pope Hosius: Pope agapetus: Pope Gelasius: Pope Bonifacius: Pope Iohn. 10. Pope Theodorus. And conclu∣deth thus: Complures etiam alij inueniuntur, qui de Sacerdoti∣bus nati Apostolicae Sedi praefuerunt: many others beside there are founde, that being Priestes Sonnes, ruled the Apostolique See of Rome.

Harding.

What shal I say vnto this felow? Who euer saw so im∣pudent a man? Doth Pope Damasus shew you al this M. Iewel? Phy for shame man. You a minister of Gods worde? Nay, a minister of vaine Fables, a minister of open lyes. What may we cal this in you, foolish igno∣rance, or shamelesse malice? How could you be so igno∣rant, or so witlesse, as once to dreame, that Damasus that learned Pope should thus write? That you might seeme a ioily proctour for your brothers the married Apostates sacrilegious, incestuous, and abominable yoking (for Mar∣riage is too honorable a name for that filthinesse) must Damasus needes be made a Prophete, and such a Pro∣phete, as the worlde had neuer the like? A Prophete I say, for onlesse he had a strange gifte of Prophecie, how was it possible, that he should tel, who should be the Fa∣thers of menne borne so many yeres after his death?

Consider Reader I pray thee (for it booteth not to tel it M. Iewel) how this tale hangeth together. Damasus was the .39. Pope. Syluerius, whom M. Iewel putteth in the first place, was the .60. Pope. Deus dedit was the .70. Pope. Adrianus the seconde was the .109. Pope. Iohn the .15. was the .143. Felix the thirde was the .50. Agapetus

was the .59. Gelasius the .51. Bonifacius the first (whereas there were diuers of that name, whom he meaneth I know not) was the .44. Ihon the tenth was the .126. Theo∣dorus the first (if he meane any other of that name, he was farther of from Damasus) was the .75. Pope.

* 1.44As for Pope Hosius, he is a Pope of M. Iewels owne making Verely in al the Registres of Popes I find none so named. A smal mater, if M. Iewel, who maketh so many Popes Priestes sonnes, make vs one Pope, who is neither Priestes, nor laie mānes sonne, nor any mānes sonne at al. What a maruelous Prophet then was M. Iewels Damasus, that could thus prophecie of so many Popes so long to come after his death, and tel, who should be their fathers, so many yeres before their great Grādfathers were borne?

If for some excuse you say, that this much you found in Gratian, Distinct. 56. it cā not helpe you. The printed Gra∣tian hath neither this forme of wordes, nor this order of names, nor so many Popes names by three. For he ha∣meth not Iohn. 10. nor Iohn. 15. nor Adrian. 2. So that you must take it vpon you your selfe, and beare the shame of it. And what if the book of Gratian had it, as you haue alle∣ged? Doo you not know, that such thinges in Gratian be of no authoritie sometimes, which be rehersed vnder this worde, Palea?* 1.45 Palea, good Reader, is asmuche to say, as Chaffe: and where so euer this word (Palea) Chaffe, is put in Gratian, by the same it is signified, as some doo iudge, that the saying immediatly folowing is with litle iudge∣ment infarced, and that it is litle worth, as Chaffe is litle worth in cōparison of cleane wheate. Such Chaffe, and vaine fables M. Iewel is dryuen to take holde of, to main∣teine his brothers filthinesse, for lacke of better stuffe.

And were it true, that these Popes, or some of them, whose names be founde here in Gratians Chaffe, were Priestes sonnes: yet had he benne a true dealer in this cause, he should not so vniustly haue conceeled, what the Glose saith in the same place, specially seing that he is so wel acquainted with the Glose, and furnisheth his great booke specially, and aboue al other Doctours, with the stuffe of the Glose. Thus there we finde.* 1.46 Omnia ista exem∣pla intellige de ijs qui in Laicali statu, vel minoribus ordini∣bus orationibus parentum suscepti sunt: quando suis parenti∣bus licebat vti vxoribus suis. Vnderstande thou al these ex∣amples of them, that were receiued (at Goddes hande) by the prayers of their fathers being in the state of laie menne, or in the lesser Orders: when their fathers might lawfully vse their wiues.

Thus, for any thing you haue brought hitherto, is your Great Poste of Priestes Marriages, thwited to a pudding pricke. As for that, whiche after al this you pretende to allege out of AEneas Syluius,* 1.47 whom you cal Pope Pius, whereas at the time when he wrote De gestis Concilij Ba∣siliensis, he was neither Pope, nor Pius, and out of Polydo∣rus Vergilius* 1.48 the late Prebendarie of Poules in London (whom in the Chronicles you reporte falsly) and laste of al out of fabling Fabian* 1.49 the late Merchant of London, a man of smal learning, and of as litle authoritie in these pointes, though a special fauourer of your side, as it is tolde, and therefore the readier to reporte vntruth: I am sure menne of meane knowledge wil litle esteme, and I accompt it not worth the answering. Make the best you can of it, thereby perhaps, or by some part of it, ye may proue, that of Married menne some were made Bishops,

which as I haue oftentimes tolde you, we denie not: but that Bishoppes, or Priestes were euer in any wel ordered Churche permitted to marrie, you shal neuer be hable to proue.

Now that you haue laid your two Principles, as you cal them, let vs see how substancially you defende your foure pointes aboue mencioned. And first, that it is law∣ful to marry after the Vowe of Chastitie, and after holy Orders taken, shewe vs by what learning, or authoritie ye proue it.

Iewel.

First of al, his obiection of Vovves nothing toucheth the Clergie of England. For it is knovven, and confessed, that the Priestes of England vvere neuer V••taries. Yet for further ansvver vve graunte, it is rea∣son, and conuenient, that vvho so hath made a Vovve vnto God, should keepe his promise.* 1.50 Cyrillus saith, Si castitatem promiserit, & seruar•• non poterit, pronunciet peccatum suum. If he haue promised,〈…〉〈…〉 vvovved Chastitie, and can not keepe it: let him pronounce, and confesse his Sinne.

Harding.

How long wil you go about the bush, as they say, when come you to the purpose? These bye matters not touched in my Confutatiō, haue made your booke great, but the same geue euidence, that you put more truste in multitude of wordes, then in substance of matter. If ye had the cleare truthe on your side, what needed so many wordes? One plaine sentence might haue better serued you. That you wander not abroad, here once againe I cal you home, and require you to leaue your delaies, and answer to the very point, or to confesse your errour. Remember, my wordes of the Confutation be

these. It is not lawful for them to marrie,* 1.51 which either haue by deliberate vowe dedicated al manner their chastitie vn∣to God or haue receiued holy Order."

Ouer against these my wordes, you haue placed in the margent of your booke, this note with your starre.* 1.52 Vntruthes, two together, as better appeareth by the An∣sweare. By which you charge my saying with two Vn∣truthes. Of such notes your booke hath great stoare. But God be thanked, the world seeth, you are ryfer of vpbraidinges, and sclaunders, then of substantial proufes. Nowe by your note you haue bounde your selfe to shewe vs, that it is lawful to marrie after the Vowe of Chastitie, likewise also after the holy Orders taken.

Before you came to proue either of these two pointes, you tel vs, that the Priestes of England were neuer Votaries, that is to say, that they neuer made Vow of single life, and chastitie, whereby to binde them sel∣ues not to marrie. Neuer is a long daie M. Iewel. Wel, be it, as it is. If they be not Votaries, they may marrie say you. But answer directly to the point I pray you.* 1.53 May they marrie, who haue vowed chastitie? Say yea, or nay. VVee graunte, say you, it is reason, and conuenient, that who so hath made a Vowe vnto God, should keepe his promise. This is somewhat, though it be coldely spoken.

But yet you must come nearer vnto the point. You speake generally, and faintly. We speake not of a Vowe, or promise in general. If a man make a promise to an other man, it is reason, and conuenient, that he keepe it. But how saie you to the vow of chastitie, deliberatly made, of man, or woman to God? Is it in any wise ne∣cessary to perfourme it, or no? If it be necessary, why

speake ye so coldly, it is reason, and conuenient? What meane you by your reason and conuenience? Is it any more, but that if a Moncke, or a Frier feele him selfe mo∣ued with luste, he shal by and by take a woman vnder pretense of Wedlocke, and so quenche heate? that your Nonnes also, if they beginne to be wanton, shal take hus∣bandes, and so mortifie the lustes of their flesh? For ma∣king the perfourmance of the Vow but a matter of rea∣son, and conuenience, ye seeme easily to dispense with their marriages in case of hote, and vrgent temptations. For so men are wont to dispense with that which semeth reasonable and conuenient, when a greater reason see∣meth to moue them to the contrarie.

But let vs leaue your saying to your owne constru∣ction.* 1.54 By the same this much you graunte at the least, that so many of your Gospel, as haue broken their Vow of Chastitie, and haue married, haue don otherwise, then was conuenient, and agreable to reason. Thus ye make the Founder of your Religion Frier Luther, an vnreaso∣nable man. Such was Oecolampadius, such was Bucer, such was Peter Martyr, such were in manner al the reste of your fleshly Prelates, Teachers, Preachers, and Mini∣sters, who being Religious by taking Yokefelowes vnto them, haue broken their Vow and promise to God.

I canne you thanke M. Iewel for graunting this muche, althoughte it be too litle. Mary to your com∣panions, I doubte not, it seemeth too muche. And litle thanke doubtelesse shal you haue at their handes for it. For the breache of their Vowe being graunted to be against reason, and a thing inconuenient, how shal Gods people beleeue, their doctrine to be reasonable, and their

liues to be conuenient? Sure I am that neither Luther him selfe, nor Bucer, nor Peter Martyr, nor any of the reste, could euer be persuaded to acknowledge, and confesse so much. And were they now a liue, they would be offended with you for so saying. And how your good married brothers of England wil like you for it, I doubte, for asmuch at it is not for their profite, the people should vnderstand, that by your owne confessi∣on, their Preachers, and spiritual Gouernours (special∣ly such as were professed in any Religion, for certaine it is that they be Votaries) by taking wiues haue done the thing, that is inconuenient, and al together against rea∣son. What a hainous crime it is to contemne the vow of Chastitie, and to breake promise with God, it may be declared in an other place. Here onely we take that you confesse your selfe, that it is against reason, and not conuenient.

As for the saying you allege out of the third booke of Cyrillus in Leuiticum,* 1.55 it can serue you to no pur∣pose, but to witnesse your forgerie, and falshoode. For there is no such saying in that booke. If any man be mo∣ued to breake his vowe vpon warrant of those wordes, you are gilty of the crime.

If the Priestes of England be no Votaries, as you say, yet what say you to the Priestes of other countries? Is it lawful for them of Germanie, Fraunce, Italie, Spaine, and of other landes, who haue made the vow of chastitie, to marrie? That it is not lawful, I haue sufficiently pro∣ued in my Confutation. For the Scriptures be plaine, that a Vowe made to God, is to be perfourmed. Neither wil∣led I that which I said in my Confutation, to be vnder∣standed

of your felowes of England onely. How excuse you then your brethren of other Countries,* 1.56 that firste gaue the onset, and aduentured to set your Gospel a broche? What say you for Luther, for Peter Martyr your owne good frende and Maister, and for many such others, who were not onely Priestes, but also Religious menne, and feared not to yoke them selues in pretensed marriage vnto Nonnes? If they did wickedly therein, as no man lyuing can excuse them, how is not your Gospel builded vpon an euil foundation? But this is too large a fielde at this present, for vs to walke in. I looke stil, when you wil come to the point, that requireth your di∣rect Answer.

As for the Priestes of England, what moueth you to say, they be no Votaries? What priuiledge haue they aboue al other Priestes of Christendome, at least of the Latine,* 1.57 and West Churche? Who euer said it? Who euer wrote it? Where euer found you it? Or if any where it be found (which I trow ye shal neuer be hable to shew in a∣ny authentical writer) what reason hath the reporter for it? O say you, it is knowen, and confessed. But your word M. Iewel is no Gospel. Your bare affirmation is of smal credite. If ye haue no better proufe for it, and ye wil doo by my reade, in case you be a Priest, be not ouer hasty to take a Yokefelow yet, as your companions haue don. For surely not withstanding your maruelous knowledge, and bold confession, you are like to proue deceiued. Ma∣ry if you be no Priest, as I can not tel what to make of you, then go to it, and God send you better lucke, then some of your felowes haue had.

For proufe that Priestes of England are Votaries, this

is most certaine, that the Vowe of Chastitie is annexed vnto holy Orders by statute of holy Churche, and that with most conuenient reason the Church hath ordeined,* 1.58 that al from a Bishop to a Subdeacon, shal vowe Chasti∣tie. Which thing the Grecians also admitted, though not vniuersally. For although they marrie not after holy Or∣ders receiued, yet they vse matrimonie before holy Or∣ders contracted. Wherfore there is no doubte, but euery man that taketh holy Orders, be he of England, or of what countrie soeuer in the west Church, promiseth cō∣tinencie, ipso facto, that is to say, by the very taking it selfe of Orders, whether he expresse it in wordes, or holde his peace.

That the vowe of Chastitie is required at the taking of holy Orders, we haue these plaine wordes of S. Gre∣gorie,* 1.59 by whose procurement our English nation was conuerted to the Faith, and at whose handes the Church of England receiued al order and institution necessarie to Christian life: Nullum Subdiaconum facere praesumant Epi∣scopi, nisi qui se victurum castè promiserit. Let Bishops not presume to make any Subdeacon, onlesse he promise to liue in chastitie. Iustinian that Christian Emperour, who liued within fiue hundred yeres after Christe,* 1.60 gaue the like charge vnto Bishops. Neither was it S. Gregorie, that first made this Decree, or statute.* 1.61 He did but commaund the auncient Order and Tradition of the Churche to be renewed, and more exactly to be kepte, as certaine o∣thers his after commers Bishops of Rome did, when they sawe the olde discipline broken, and austeritie of life in some parte of the clergie slaked. The Fathers of the se∣cond Councel of Carthage, which was holden aboue

eleuen hundred yeres past,* 1.62 say expressely that these three Degrees, Bishops, Priestes, and Deacons, are annexed and tyed vnto chastitie. S. Leo that learned Bishop of Rome writing to Rusticus the Bishop of Narbon in Fraunce, saith. Lex continentiae eadem est Altaris ministris, quae episcopis atque presbyteris. Qui cùm essent laici, siue lectores, licitè & vxores ducere, & filios procreare potuerunt. Sed cùm ad praedictos peruenerunt gradus, coepit eis non licere, quod li∣cuit. The ministers of the Aulter (that is to say Deacons, and Subdeacons) be bounde to the same lawe of conti∣nencie, as Bishops, and Priestes be. When they were Laiemen, or Readers, it was lawful for them both to marrie wiues, and to begete children. But after they came to the foresaid degrees, what before was to them law∣ful, began now to be vnlawful.

* 1.63Whereas the Fathers of the sixth General Councel holden in Constantinople do agnise and confesse (as Gra∣tian reherseth out of Iuo Carnotensis) that it is cōmaun∣ded by the Romaine Canon, that they who tooke the holy order of Deaconship, or Priesthod, should professe and promise to cōpanie no more with their owne wiues, which they had maried before they came to take orders▪ thereof it is vndoubtedly concluded, that, if any came single to those holy orders, they were, as they might be with more right required afterward neuer to marrie.

* 1.64Neither was it the custome of the Latine Church on∣ly, that who so euer tooke holy orders, should promise chastitie: but also of the Greeke Churche, and that be∣fore the first Councel of Nice. The Fathers of the aunci∣ent Councel of Neocaesaria now called Trapezus, Tra∣pezonda in vulgare language, whereat S. Basile, and S.

Gregorie Nazianzen were present, decreed, presbyterum si vxorem duxerit, ab ordine suo deponi debere, that a priest should be deposed from his order, if he married a wife.

In the olde councel of Ancyra we finde this decreed concering Deacons. Quicunque Diaconi tacuerunt,* 1.65 & sus∣ceperunt manus impositionem, professi continentiam, si po∣stea ad nuptias venerini, à ministerio cessare debebūt. What Deacons so euer helde their peace (when they tooke orders) and receiued the laying on of the Bishops hande, so hauing made their profession of continencie, if after∣wardes they come to marrie, they ought to ceasse from the ministerie.

The Fathers of the councel of Gangra,* 1.66 in the ende of their decrees concluded with these wordes. Haec aūt scri∣psimus, non, qui in Ecclesia Dei secundū Scripturas sanctū pro∣positū Continentiae eligunt, vituperantes, sed eos qui abutun∣tur proposito in superbiam, & extolluntur aduersus simplicio∣res, abscindimus, &c. We haue written these thinges, not reprouing them, which in the Church of God according vnto the scriptures doo choose the holy Vow or purpose of continencie, but we cutte of (by excommunication) those that abuse suche purpose to pride, and becomme haulte and lofty against the simple.

The Coūcel of Laodicea speaking of Priestes, Deacōs,* 1.67 and others, that haue geuē them selues ouer to liue in the holy ministratiō, saith, nō oportere eos, qui in proposito conti∣nētia sunt, tabernas intrare, that they who haue purposed to keepe Chastitie, may not be haunters of Tauernes.

Origen,* 1.68 whom I may wel allege for a witnesse of the Church of his time, saith, that none may offer the cōtinual Sacrifice, but such only as haue vowed cōtinual Chastitie.

The auncient Fathers of the Churche, who ordeined the vowe of Chastitie to be made by them that would be admitted to holy Orders, were moued thereto partly by the holy Ghoste author of al purenesse, partly by the deuotion of them selues that came to the holy ministerie, partly also by the Tradition of the Apostles, who tou∣ching chastitie of ministers made this Decree. Exijs qui coelibes in Clerum peruenerunt, iubemus, vt lectores tantū, & cantores,* 1.69 si velint, nuptias contrahant. Of them that haue comme to the clergie single, we commaunde that the Readers, and singing men marrie, if they wil, and none elles.

Some of our married Priestes of England wil here per∣happes saie vnto me. Sir, when I was made Priest, I made no vowe,* 1.70 nor promised at al to liue the single life: For I said nothing to the bishop that laid handes vpon me, and he required no such thing of me. How am I then a Vota∣rie? And why may I not marrie? To whom I answer, you tooke this charge vpon you, before you came to be made Priest, when you tooke Subdeaconship. For that is the first among the holy Orders. Vnto which for so much as the vowe of Chastitie by common Tradition, by spe∣cial statute and ordinance of the Church, is annexed, in taking that Order, you hounde your selfe ipso facto, that is to say,* 1.71 in fact it selfe, to that condition, which thereto be∣longeth. For Vowes, Promises, Othes, Grauntes, and such other the like, may be made, and professed by facte and dede, though wordes of vowing, promising, swearing, or graunting be not expressed. Many a man that marrieth a wife, doth not tel her before, or at the time of marriage with expresse wordes, that he wil loue her, cherish her,

keepe, defend, and mainteine her, render wedlocke due∣tie vnto her, &c: Yet in that he marrieth her, al these he is bounde to performe, as being vnderstanded to be con∣teined in the condition of marriage, and hath promised no lesse by taking her to wife. And if being required of the wise to render these dueties vnto her, he refuse, and say, nay wife, thou shalt pardō me, I neuer made thee pro∣mise to do this much for thee: may not she say againe, why husbād, you haue married me, and that is promise ynough?

The partie that taketh an Othe, commonly saith no∣thing, but by laying his hande vpon a booke, and by kis∣sing the booke, or, as the custome is in some countries, by holding vp his two forefingers, geueth his consent, and protesteth to doo that is included in the condition of the othe. Some time menne geue consent to a thing, not by speaking ought at al, but by going vnto a side: which of the olde Romaines was termed, pedibus ire in sententiā.

The Souldier* 1.72 by taking his badge, and yelding his name to be booked, which is a deede, though he speake no∣thing, promiseth, and so farre forth bindeth him selfe, to obey his Captaine, and to abide the fortune of warre. The Gētiles in old time, that receiued Circuncisiō, who were called, Proselyti,* 1.73 by that very facte, made Vowe and pro∣testatiō, to perfourme what Moyses law required, though they said nothing. And many a Christian man in the time, when the faith was persecuted by heathen Tyrātes, made promise, and profession of Idolatrie,* 1.74 onely by casting a litle frankencense into the Fier, when they vttered no wordes of Idolatrie at al. Many other such exāples might here easily be rehersed, by which it is declared, that a man in some cases voweth, promiseth, and professeth a thing,

good or euil, in acte and deede, where wordes of Vowe, promise, or professiō be not spoken. And to this sense the common English prouerbe (if it may be applied to so sad a matter) leadeth vs: As good is a becke, as a Dieu garde, wherby is meant a cōsent,* 1.75 geuen by dede without worde.

But what neede I to proue this by examples? The plaine texte of the tenth Canō of the most auncient Coū∣cel of Ancyra aboue rehersed, putteth this matter out of doubte. Where it is said of Deacons, that if, when they receiued the Bishops laying on of hand vpon them, they required not licence to marrie, but helde their peace, thereby (professi continentiā be the wordes of the Coun∣cel) hauing vowed, promised, or professed to continew in Chastitie: in case afterward they married, they should geue ouer the holy ministerie. Lo there by taking the ho∣ly order only, without wordes of a Vowe expressed, the promise and Vow of Chastitie is by those learned Fathers pronounced to be made. Neither is the partie, that after holy Orders taken marrieth, excused by that he ceaseth from the ministerie. The cessation from the ministerie, is a pounishement in the courte of man: there remaineth to such a one an other pounishmēt in the courte of God, for his breache of promise. Thus it is cleere, that the Priestes of England were Votaries, as wel as other Prie∣stes of the Latine Church be, which M. Iewel only vpon warrant of his owne auctoritie denieth.

Sith then it is so Reader, that M. Iewel keepeth him selfe a luffe of, and wil not come to the point, wherein the controuersie lyeth, not being hable in deede to iusti∣fie the marriage of them that haue taken holy Orders, or otherwise haue made Vow of Chastitie: I thinke it good

here briefly to reherse the summe of his allegatiōs, wher∣with he hath blotted so much paper about this matter.* 1.76

Hauing denied the Priestes of Englād to be Votaries, he bringeth in sayinges of Fathers, reporting that Virgi∣nitie is a harde thing, and that it is not in our choise, but the mere gifte of God. Which thing as it maketh nothing to the present purpose, so I graunte to be true. We ought not to choose that state of life, but vpon good trial of our selues. But when we haue taken that yoke vpon vs, it be∣houeth vs to pray for the assistance of Gods grace, and to vse al suche good meanes, by whiche we may atteine helpe towardes the perfourmance of our promise.

Then he allegeth other sayinges counseling those, that either can not, or wil not keepe Chastitie, to take the re∣medie, that God hath ordeined, that is to say, to marrie. Which counsel is vnderstanded to be geuen vnto them, that haue made no Vow at al to the contrarie.

After this he bringeth in certaine testimonies speaking in fauour (as they seeme) of marriage after a Vow of Cha∣stitie, taken out of S. Cyprian, S. Augustine, Epiphanius, S. Hierome. In al which places those holy Fathers are to be vnderstanded to speake of them, that haue made a se∣cret or simple Vow, as they terme it, and not a Solemne Vow. Neither doo they allow such marriages simply,* 1.77 but in cōparison of a woorse iniquitie. The matrimonie of such, is not to be dissolued, yet is the breache of their pro∣mise a mortal sinne. Now so it is by determinatiō of the Church, that a Solēne Vow is made at the professiō of any approued Religiō, and at the taking of holy Orders, and by whom such Vow is made, they may not go backe to mar∣riage, neither if they marrie, doth that marriage holde, but

is taken for none. In the case of a simple Vowe, marriage standeth for good, and may not be dissolued, albeit the partie who Vowed, and promised the contrarie, by con∣tracting marriage, as I said sinneth mortally.

The reason hereof is this. In a Simple Vowe there is made but a bare Promise, and the dominion of the thing which is promised, remaineth stil with him that promi∣seth. But in a Solemne Vowe, there is not onely a pro∣mise, but also a deliuerie made of the thing that is promi∣sed, asmuche to say, of him selfe, and so there is also an ac∣ceptation, and a possession to the interest of Christ taken of the Churches part. This is the differēce betwixt both. And it is a thing natural, and apperteining to the lawe of al nations, that a bare promise be of lesse efficacie, then the exhibitiō, surrendre, and deliuerie of Possessiō of the thing that is promised. He that hath promised one a howse, or a portion of Lande, hath not yet taken away from him selfe the dominion of the thing. Wherefore if afterward he make deliuerie of it to an other, the deliue∣rie shal stand for good. Yet to the other he is bounde to make recompense, which commonly is iudged to be the valour of the thing promised. And he that hath now de∣liuered vnto an other a howse, or Lande, hath altogether depriued him selfe of the dominion thereof, neither can he now geue it to an other, as being an others thing.

The case is like in the Vowe of Chastitie, which is a certaine cōtracte betwen man and God. And reason it is, that what we acknowlege ourselues bound to perfourme vnto mā in a worldly cōtract, we be bound to perfourme no lesse vnto God in this spiritual cōtracte. The bare pro∣mise made to God differeth much from the exhibiting:

and therfore if after a simple Vow of Chastitie, which cō∣sisteth in promise only, a man deliuer his body to another, which thing is done by Matrimonie: the deliuerie stan∣deth firme and good. But if he geue vp also his owne body to keepe chastitie vnto God, and by entring into some Religion, or by taking Orders: now he can not dispose of it otherwise, as not being in his dominion, nei∣ther if he attempt it, shal it stand for good. This muche touching the diuersitie of a Simple, and Solemne Vow, I thought necessary to be said in this place.

This much being weighed, and considered, it must appeare certaine, that the places, which M. Iewel alle∣geth out of S. Augustine, affirming the mariages of such as marrie after the Vow of chastitie, to be true mariages, and to be such, as may not be dissolued: are truly vnder∣standed of mariages contracted in the case of a Simple Vowe, and not of a Solemne Vowe. Howsoeuer a man, or a woman make a Vowe to liue the single life, chaste and continent, and do not solemnize the same, either by entring into some Religion, or by taking holy Orders: if not withstanding the Vow they presume to marrie, the marriage holdeth. But if they marrie after they haue solemnized their Vowe by entring into Religion, or by taking holy Orders: the marriage is none at al,* 1.78 and therefore is to be dissolued, bicause they haue made de∣liuerie of them selues before the Church into the handes of their Superiours, and be not in state now to dispose of their personnes or bodies otherwise, as being deliue∣red vp to custodie of perpetual chastitie.

Hereof it appeareth, how litle cause you had M. Iew∣el to reproue M. Dorman, for calling the mainteiners of

marriage in this case, the Deuils ministers. In this case I say, for he speaketh expressely of Priestes. And there∣fore you may consider, how wel it became you to say that by the iudgdment of our late Louanian Clergie, S. Au∣gustine is become the minister of the Deuil, for these be the termes of your seemely eloquence. Here therefore I re∣turne vpon you M. Iewel those wordes, which without cause, you imagine S. Augustine to say vnto me. Ye speake fondly, and vnaduisedly, and vnderstand not what ye speake.

Here to returne to M. Iewels order, among other thinges,* 1.79 for answere vnto certaine places of the Fathers, calling such kinde of marriage, worse then Aduoutrie, In∣ceste, and Sacrilege: he saith, that such wordes haue proce∣ded more of zele, and heate of minde, then of profound consi∣deration, and iudgement of the cause. And so in effecte he reiecteth the holy and auncient Fathers, as men vnwor∣thy of credite. But ô Lorde, what Fathers? Verely the chiefe, and best learned, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Basil, S. Chrysostome, S. Augustine. Ah good Sir, lacked these learned and holy Fathers consideration and iudgement, and do you acknowledge it in your selfe, and your com∣panions? O menne of deepe consideration, and great iudgement, that coulde so easily prouide them selues of wemen to geue the bridle vnto luste!

Among al other thinges that he bringeth in defence of his Companions vnlawful marriage, this is the fardest from reason, and hath least colour of learning, that by his doctrine the vow of Chastitie is to be broken, and that al Monckes, Friers, Priestes, and Nonnes, may lawfully mar∣rie, bicause il promises, filthy Vowes, and wicked Othes ought not to be kept. For proufe that il Vowes are to be

broken, he allegeth Isidorus out of Gratian saying,* 1.80 In ma∣lis promissis rescinde fidem, in turpi vot•• muta decretum. Quod incautè vouisti, ne facias, impia est promissio, quae sce∣lere impletur. In an il promise breake thy faith. In a filthy Vow, change thy purpose. What thou hast vn∣warely vowed, doo it not. It is a wicked promise, that is fulfilled with mischeefe.* 1.81

Againe he saith, It is not sufficient to say, I haue vowed. Herode vowed Iohn Baptistes head. The Iewes vowed S. Paules death. Hubaldus made a vowe that he would neuer helpe his owne mother, or brethren, were there neede neuer so great. He allegeth also the 8. Councel of Toledo. Where it was declared, and decreed, that wicked vowes ought not to be made, and if they were made, that in any wise they should not be perfourmed. Where for ex∣ample the vowe of Herode is mencioned,* 1.82 and that of Iephte, who through his vow thought him selfe bounde to sacrifice his daughter.

But what reliefe bringeth al this vnto his cause, onlesse he be hable to proue, that Chastitie is an il, and a wicked thing, as the murdering of S. Iohn Baptist, and of S. Paul, and as the sacrificing of Iephtes daughter was? But how excellēt a thing chastitie is, and how acceptable it is vnto God, and of how much more merite it is then matrimo∣nie, both Christ him selfe in the Gospel, and S. Paule in his Epistle to the Corinthians doo partly teache vs,* 1.83 and the holy Fathers in māner al haue most largely declared, spe∣cially S. Basil, S. Chrysostome, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, who haue written special Treaties of Virginitie,* 1.84 and S. Hierom, and S. Augustine disputing moste learnedly against Iouinian, that helde opinion, Marriage and Virgi∣nitie

to be of equal merite, to whose Heresie our fleshly Gospellers beare special fauour, and maintenance.

As for the eight Councel of Toledo, I maruel, how he durst be so bolde,* 1.85 as to allege it, which maketh so litle for him touching the breache of a Godly Vowe, and so much against him, touching the marriage of them, that haue taken holy Orders. For the wordes of the Coun∣cel be these. Si verò ad coniugia, morésque seculi redire at∣tentauerint, omni Ecclesiastica dignitate priuentur, & Apostatae habeantur, & in monasterio donec vixerint, sub poenitentia retrudantur. In case they geue the attempte to returne vnto marriages, and vnto the manners of the worlde, let them be depriued of al Ecclesiastical digni∣tie, and reputed for Apostates: And let them be shut vp in a Monasterie to doo penaunce, so long as they liue. By this M. Iewel may see, by what menne his married Brethren were called Apostates, and by how many hun∣dred yeres, before he and I were borne. I trust he wil beare the more with me, if I happen to cal them by that their auncient name some times.

Concerning that you pretende to allege out of one Alphonsus de Castro, Philippica. 19. whom you say to be one of M. Hardinges greatest Doctours: in good sooth he is no whit a greater Doctour of mine,* 1.86 then is the man in the Moone. For in deede there is none of that name, that euer wrote Philippicas. It is one Alphon∣sus Viruesius M. Iewel, a learned man of this present age, Bishop of Canaria, who writing against Philip Melanch∣thon, called his Orations, or Treaties, Philippicas, after the imitation of Demosthenes, who so named those most eloquent Orations, that he made against King Philip of

Macedonia the great Alexanders Father. A like errour to that you reproue me of so often, and so bitterly, by ouersight naming Iosue, for the Prophete Osee. Thus you see your selfe not cleare of the faulte, you charge me so muche withal. Neither is this your only ouersight of that sorte.

Howbeit that I alleged out of Osee vnder the name of Iosue, maketh clearly with me: and this you allege out of Bishop Viruesius vnder the name of the Obseruant Frier Alphonsus de Castro, maketh quite against you,* 1.87 and your Brethren. For this is that Viruesius writeth. If a man haue vowed (saith he) and can not conteine, and hauing assaid al meanes, yet preuaileth not: in this case I would aduise him, to prouide for his safetie by Marriage, not doing it of his owne head but by the authoritie of the Pope. Thus he. In which wordes he geueth but his priuate aduise, referring the partie so standing in danger, vnto the Pope for dispensa∣tion of his Vowe. Your Brethren on the other side, not∣withstanding their solemne Vowe, as being, some, Religi∣ous personnes, some Priestes, ronne hedlong to Marriage, as they cal it, hauing assaied fewe due meanes or none at al for the obteining of Chastitie, neuer calling better menne then them selues to counsel, nor sticking for any dispensation for their Vowe to be had at al. To say the least of both: his aduise is sober, and leaneth to Obediēce: these men seeme to play the merchants venturers, their dooing is rash comtemptuous, and altogether disobediēt.

But how farreforth this aduise of Viruesius is to be al∣lowed, whether the case be to be admitted, that by Prai∣ers, fasting, by streight discipline, and chastisment of the flesh, by any asking, seking, knocking, nor by any meanes,

a man hauing deliberatly, and deuoutly made a Vowe of continencie, with intent the more expeditely and purely to serue God, can not obteine at his mercie the necessarie gifte of continencie, and whether, if through frailtie, and negligence perhappes he fal, he shal not repent, and study how to amend that he hath done amisse, and continually fight against temptatiōs, but streight waie take a woman, and marrie, and how safe it is for a man in this case to sue vnto the Pope for a dispensation of his Vowe: and whe∣ther when he hath married, he be sure to be deliuered from al temptations of incontinencie: these pointes I wil not take vpon me here to determine, but leaue them to the consideration of their consciences, that be learned in these cases,* 1.88 and haue the true feare of God.

At length M. Iewel commeth vnto that point, which he should haue answered long before. At length I say, bicause after that he hath filled fiue leaues of Paper with diuers sayinges of the Doctours gathered out of his Notebookes, and heaped together to litle other purpose, then to shewe of a great booke. Now then thou shalt here see good Reader, how substantially he proueth it to be lawful for Priestes to marrie, and that the Marriage of Priestes hath ben accompted lawful. As concerning Monckes, and Friers, and Nonnes, that haue taken the vaile of their profession, they must defend their Marria∣ges, or rather yokinges, aswel as they can them selues: for this man hath nothing to say in their defence. If he had, out it should, to help to make vp the heape, neither could he be spareful of it, fauouring the cause so much as he doth. That then being leaft as a desperate cause, let vs see, what good stuff he bringeth for the Mariages of Priestes.

Iewel.

M. Harding vnvvares falleth into the same Negatiue Diuinitie, that h••s•• often, and so muche abhorreth. For thus he saith, vve denie vtterly, that any man, after that he hath receiued holy Orders, maie marrie.

Neither can it be shevved, that the Marriage of suche vvas euer accomp∣ted lavvful in the Catholique Churche. If this tale be true, then be al the Greeke Priestes Votaries, as vvel as the Latines.* 1.89 But it is noted vpon the Decrees, Graeci continentiam non promittunt, vel tacitè, vel expressè. The Greekes make no promise of continent, or Single life, neither secretly, nor expressely.

Harding.

If you take them to be Votaries,* 1.90 that make a Vowe neuer to marrie for time to come, so are the Greeeke Priestes Votaries by law of the Greeke Churche, as wel as the Latines. but if you accompte them to be Votaries, that Vowe vtterly to absteine from the vse of a woman, whether they had wiues before they tooke holy Orders, or otherwise: in this sense the Greekes are not ne haue not ben Votaries generally, that is to say, in al places and at al times, as the Latines were, and yet be, as among whom more austeritie of life hath alwaies ben vsed.* 1.91 So that in this respecte your Argument is naught, and concludeth not. As for your marginal note, it is besides the texte, and therfore of smal authoritie. It is a signe, ye lacke good eui∣dence for this matter, fith that for proufe of it, ye are dri∣uen to serue your selfe of such weake stuffe. Albeit the same note is thus to be vnderstanded, that they of the East Church, what time they were promoted to holy Orders, made no promise to absteine from the companie of their lawful wiues, vnto whom they were married, be∣fore they tooke suche Orders. And so muche you

might haue found in the texte,* 1.92 being a Decree of the sixt synode, that you needed not to haue scraped helpe out of the bookes margent. Now shew vs your better stuffe. For this is litle worthe.

Iewel.

* 1.93In the Councel holden at Ancyra, it is concluded thus, Diaconi qui∣cunque ordinantur, si in ipsa Ordinatione protestati sunt, & di∣xerunt velle se Coniugio copulari, quia sic manere non possunt, Hi si postmodum vxores duxerint, in Ministerio maneant, pro∣pterea quòd Episcopus illis licentiam dederit. Deacons as many as be ordered, if at the time of receiuing Orders, they made protestation, and said that they vvould marrie for that they finde not them selues hable so to continue vvithout Marriage, if they aftervvard marrie, let them con∣tinue in Ministerie, for asmuch as the Bishop hath geuen them licence. M. Harding, I trovv, vvil not denie, but Deaconship is one of the holy Orders.

Harding.

* 1.94This proueth not, that Deacons did marrie: nor that any Bishop euer gaue them licence to marrie, but onely, that if they would marrie, the Bishops licence therto ob∣teined, they should not be remoued from the ministerie. Whether any with licence married or no, you are not yet hable to shewe. And whereas no deacon might mar∣rie, but such as had made protestation that he would mar∣rie, before he tooke holy Orders, and had obteined leaue of the Bishop so to doo: by this we vnderstand, that for a Deacon to marrie, simply to speake, and of it selfe, it was vnlawful. For otherwise what needed protestation, leaue and licence? What so euer is lawful, may be done with∣out protestatiō or licence, and what may not be done but with protestation and licence, the same of it selfe is vn∣lawful. And so my saying by this testimonie is confirmed, it is not confuted.

Againe it is to be considered, that by this Councel, a Deacons Marriage was not made firste allowable after that he was promoted to the Order of Deaconship, but before he receiued that holy Order. For if he made no protestation that he would marrie, and asked no licence thereto, but helde his peace: by the wordes that follow in the same Canon, it is cleare, that he bound himselfe to perpetual continencie, and might neuer marrie after∣warde, as he that had by taking that Order, professed, and promised chastitie. Those wordes are these, which you should haue rehersed, had you dealt truly and vprightly. Quicunque Diaconi tacuerunt, &c.* 1.95 What Deacons so euer helde their peace (when they tooke Orders) and receiued the laying on of the Bisshoppes hande, so hauing made their profession of continencie, if afterwarde they come to marrie, they shalbe bound to ceasse from the ministerie.* 1.96 He that made his Protestation that he would marrie, and that for necessitie, and had licence of the Bishop: when he mar∣ried in deede, was suffered to remaine in the Ministerie, as they that were admitted vnto holy Orders with wed∣locke. For he seemed already in harte and affecte, a mar∣ried man. And such that Prouincial Councel did beare withal, when for lacke of other worthy menne, the more parte yet remaining in infidelitie, the Bishops were compelled to admitte to the Ministerie of the Churche married menne. Your brethren can not claime by this example. For they neuer made any suche protestation, when they were ordered, neither demaunded they euer any such licence of their Bishops, but eche, as they felt them selues moued with the spirite of luste, vpon warrāt of your Gospel, and their owne spirite, went lustily to

their yoke felowes, and vnder pretence of Marriage con∣cluded a lusty bargaine. If ye haue no better stuffe then this, for the marriage of the Apostates your companions, wel you may receiue your fee of them, verely it is not yet sufficiently defended.

Iewel.

So saith Pope Steuin,* 1.97 Graecorum Sacerdotes, Diaconi, aut Sub∣diaconi Matrimonio copulantur: The Greeke Priestes, Deacons, or Subdeacons are coupled in Matrimonie.* 1.98 Vpon vvhich vvordes the Glose noteth thus, Multi ex hac litera dixerunt, quòd Orientales possunt contrahere in Sacris Ordinibus. Many haue said vpon occasion of this texte, that the Priestes of the East Church (contrary to that M. Harding so certainly here assureth vs) may marrie, being vvithin holy Orders.

Harding.

* 1.99Had you rehersed the whole Decree, as you found it, you had marred your cause, and plaid a simple Proctour. Your married brethren therefore do commend your po∣lice, I doubt not, who see their marriage condemned by that Decree of Pope Steuen▪ The whole is this. Aliter se Orientalium traditio haebet Ecclesiarum, aliter huius Sancta Romanae Ecclesiae. Nā earum Sacerdotes, Diacons, aut Sub∣diaceni Matrimonio copulātur. Istius autem Ecclesiae, vel Oc∣cidentalium nullus Sacerdotum à Subdiacon•• vsque ad Epis∣copum licentiam habet coniugium sortiendi. The Tradition of the East Churches, is otherwise, then is the tradition of this holy Romaine Church. For their Priestes, Deacons, or Subdeacons are coupled in matrimonie▪ but there is neuer a Priest of this Church, or of the weast partes, that from a Subdeacon to a Bishop hath licence to marrie.

By this Decree it is euidēt, that so many as from a Sub∣deacon to a Bishop do marrie in these weast partes, doo

contrary to the Tradition and order of the Church. And whereas you allege the Glose for you, you make al that be hable to reade the place, witnesses of your impudēcie. For it maketh altogether against you. First whereas the Decree hath, Matrimonio copulantur, asmuche to say, the Priestes, Deacons, or Subdeacons of the East Church are coupled in Matrimonie, the Glose expoundeth it thus, and that truly, id est, copulato viūtur, that is to say, they vse Ma∣trimonie, wherein they were coupled before they tooke orders. As for the other wordes of the Glose, Multi ex hac litera dixerūt, &c. Many vpon occasion of this text haue said, that they of the East Chucrh may marrie within holy Orders: it is not the minde of the Glose, but a some say, as I may terme it, and a fansie of certaine, whom the author of the Glose there confuteth, with these woordes immediatly folowing, which by your cōmon sleight of falsifying, you nipte away from the end of the sentēce. Sed eis obstat in∣frà Distinctio proxima, Si quis eorū. &c. But the nexte distin∣ction that foloweth, whose beginning is, Si quis eorū, is contra∣ry to their opinion.* 1.100 That nexte Distinction taken out of the sixth Councel hath thus. Si quis eorū qui ad Clerū accedūt, voluerit nuptiali iure mulieri copulari: hoc ante ordinationē Subdiaconatus faciat. If any of them that come vnto the Clergie, be willing to couple with a woman in right of Marriage: let him do it, before he be made Subdeacon. Vpon that place the Glose saith thus, whereunto it made relation in the former Distinction: Istud caput euidēter est cōtra illos qui dicūt, quòd Graci possunt cōtrahere in sacris or∣dinibus. This Chapter is euidētly against them, which say, that the Greekes may marrie, being within holy Orders. Lo M. Iewel, what haue you gained by the Glose? he that

examineth your bookes, specially that of your late pre∣tensed Defence, wil say with me, there was neuer such a false Gloser, as you are, by abusing al other writers that you allege, but specially the poore Glose vpon Gratian.

Iewel.

Of the Priestes of the vvest Churche Cardinal Caietane saith, Papa potest dispensare cum Sacerdote Occidentalis Ecclesiae,* 1.101 vt vxo∣rem ducat, nulla existēte causa publicae vtilitatis. The Pope may di∣spense vvith a Priest of the vvest Churche to marrie a vvife, although there be no manner cause of common profite.

Harding.

It goeth harde with you M. Iewel, when you haue no better testimonies for the Marriage of Priestes, then the Obiections which the Glose maketh to him selfe, and the errour of Caietaine, at least whiche Catharinus no∣teth for an errour. But to whom wil you sticke? To Ca∣tharinus? or to Caietanus? If to Catharinus, then Caie∣tane helpeth your cause nothing at al.* 1.102 For of Cathari∣nus it is condemned for an errour. If you sticke to Ca∣ietane, then you disannul Catharinus, who is your author. For els you must tel vs, where Caietane saith so, and vp∣on what groundes he saith so.

* 1.103Touching the Question, whether the Pope may in a case dispense with a Priest of the West Churche, or a re∣ligious man to marrie a wife, or no, here I dispute not. I confesse, the Single state of the Clergie, not to be Iuris Diuini expressely, but Iuris Ecclesiastici positiui. And to say, that the Pope may in no case at al dispense with a Priest of the West Churche, or with a religious person to marrie, it is against the Diuines, against the Cano∣nistes,

and against the authoritie,* 1.104 which the Churche of Rome hath in some cases vsed de facto, as they speake, as it is knowē by the example of Raymeris the king of Ara∣gon in Spaine, with whom about the yere of our Lorde, 1160. the Pope dispensed, yea he compelled him, as we reade, to geue ouer the Profession of his Religion, and to marrie (whiche is more, then to dispense with a secular Priest) for sauing of Christian bloud, and for the necessary disposition of that kingdom. The like example happened in the kingdome of Pole. Casimirus the onely that re∣mained a liue of the kinges bloud,* 1.105 being a Moonke and a Deacon, by sute of the Nobles of that realme, Dis∣pensation of the Pope obteined, was taken out of his monasterie of the Order of Cisterce, made Kinge of Pole, and married. But suche a singular case maketh no common rule. Againe where a thing is not done, but by special dispensation, the dispensation it selfe argueth the same of it selfe, that is to say, considered without dis∣pensation, to be vnlawful. Therefore my Assertion, that no man may marrie after holy Orders receiued, and that such Marriage was neuer accompted lawful in the Ca∣tholique Churche, standeth true, as before.

Iewel.

Athanasius saith,* 1.106 Multi quoque ex Episcopis matrimonia non inierunt: Monachi contrà Parentes liberorum facti sunt. Many of the Bisshoppes (he saith not al, but many) haue not mar∣ried. By vvhiche vvoordes he geueth vs to vnderstande, that some haue married) contrarievvise, Monkes haue becomme fathers of Chil∣dren.

Harding.

This testimonie is bodged with your forged Parenthe∣ses. Whereby you signifie, that of it selfe, and without ad∣dition of your owne wordes, it helpeth you litle. Al stan∣deth vpon trial of the translation. If you could haue alle∣ged S. Athanasius owne wordes, as he wrote in Greeke, a right answere might soone be made. The translatour litle thinking of their sleightes, that be Proctours for the Marriages of Votaries, had rather hauing respect to the finenesse of the Latine, so to turne it, then otherwise. If the place were thus latined, Multi ex Episcopis matrimonia non inierant, or, non habuerunt, Monachi contrà parentes li∣berorū extiterunt, whereby is signified, that many Bishops had neuer contracted Marriages, and that some Monkes had ben fathers of children, if the place had thus benne turned, as I suppose the Greeke hath: it would haue ser∣ued you to no purpose. For I graunt you, that some bishops haue had wiues, but before they were made Bishops, as Spiridion, S. Gregorie Nazianzenes father, and Gregorie of Nyssa S. Basils brother, and that some Monkes were fathers of children, whiche they begote in lawful wed∣locke, before they entred into that profession, and order of life.

Albeit, if we allowed you this translation for good and true according to the Greeke, yet of these woordes you can not conclude, that by iudgement of S. Athanasius the Marriages of bishops are accompted lawful. by the circū∣stance of the place in that Epistle to Dracontius, S. Atha∣nasius may seeme to speake those wordes in dispraise of certaine Bishops, and Monkes, and not at al in their com∣mendation, and so you ought not to allege it for an al∣lowed

example. But hereof we shal be more assured, if they of Basile wil sette foorth that Fathers workes in Greeke.

Iewel. Pag. 176.

Cassiodorus vvriteth thus.* 1.107 In illo tempore ferunt Martyrio vi∣tam finisse Eupsychium Caesariensem (Episcopum) ducta nuper vxore: dum adhuc quasi sponsus esse videretur. At that time they say, Eupsychius the Bishop of Caesaria died in Martyrdom, hauing mar∣ried a vvise a litle before, being as yet in manner a nevv married man.

Harding.

A man would thinke, if this wil not serue the turne, that nothing wil serue. A blessed man Eupsychius, bishop of Caesaria, a holy Martyr, married to a wise but a litle be∣fore his Martyrdome. The writer of the Storie Cassiodo∣rus, a noble man, and graue Senator of Rome, a man of good credite. What can a man desire more? But phy vpō such shamelesse falsifiers. O lamentable state,* 1.108 where the people of God be cōpelled to heare such false Prophetes. What wil he feare to speake in pulpite, where he is sure no man shal control him, that is not ashamed, thus to write in bookes openly published vnto the world, which he knewe should not escape the examination of his Ad∣uersaries?

The truth is good Reader, Neither Cassiodorus wrote thus, nor Eupsychius was euer Bishop of Caesaria, nor of any other place, nor so much as a Priest, Deacon, or Sub∣deacon. The writer of the Storie which we haue of this blessed Martyr Eupsychius, is Sozomenus the Greeke. Who with the Ecclesiastical Storie of Socrates, and The∣odoritus, was translated into Latine by one Epiphanius Scholasticus. out of whiche three Cassiodorus gathered

the Abridgemēt that we haue vnder the name of the Tri∣partite historie.* 1.109 The place truly reported hath these wor∣des. In illo tempore ferunt vitam finisse Martyrio Basilium Ecclesiae Ancyranae Presbyterum, & Eupsychium Caesarien∣sem Cappadociae ducta nuper vxore, cùm adhuc quasi Sponsus esse videretur. They say, that at that time Basili{us} a Priest of the Church of Ancyra ended his life in Martyrdom: Al∣so Eupsychius the Caesarian of Cappadocia, hauing mar∣ried a wife a litle before, and when as yet he seemed to be but a new married man.

Here is no mencion made, that Eupsychius was the bi∣shop of Caesaria. The storie, as we haue it in Latine of Epi∣phanius turning, calleth him only Eupsychium Caesariensem Cappadociae, that is to say, Eupsychius a mā of Caesaria, that is in Cappadocia: whiche is added to signifie of whiche Caesaria he was, for that there was an other famous Ci∣tie of that name in Palestina, an other likewise in Mau∣ritania, and others moe in other countries. Sozomenus him selfe, who is the authour of the Storie, addeth a worde more, signifying of what estate and condition he was, whereby the opinion of his being the Bishoppe of Caesaria, is quite taken awaye. For thus he reporteth of him in the Greeke,* 1.110 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. Eupsychiū Caesariensem Cappadociae Patriciū, as∣much to say, Eupsychius of Caesaria in Cappadocia, a no∣bleman, or, one of the Lordes of the Citie. Thus is Eupsy∣chius, whom M. Iewel hath made a Bishop (as much as he is him selfe) founde to be a Laie gentleman, or noble man of the Citie of Caesaria. And whereas he married a wife, but a litle before his Martyrdome, what is that to the pur∣pose for proufe that it was in olde time lawful for Priestes

to marrie? Bicause M. Iewel knew this muche rightwel, contrary to the custome he vseth at other times, he dis∣sembled the greeke Original, and thought he might better father this shameful lye vpon Cassiodorus, meaning the latine Translation of Epiphanius. And to helpe the mat∣ter,* 1.111 he stickte not to put in this word (Episcopum) Bishop of his owne, and so calleth him boldely, Eupsychius the Bishop of Caesaria. Let these menne haue leaue thus to corrupte and falsifie the Fathers, and by them they shal be hable to proue, what they liste.

M. Iewel standeth so muche in his owne conceit for the example of this Eupsychius,* 1.112 that for proufe of this very matter he bringeth it in againe in an other place, in his pretensed Defence of his Apologie. But there he alle∣geth it out of Nicephorus. His wordes be these. Nicepho∣rus saith, that Eupsychius, being a Priest at Caesaria in Cappa∣docia, married a wife a litle before that he was martyred.

Now let vs heare Nicephorus tel his owne tale.* 1.113 Thus he saith in like sorte as Sozomenus said before him. Hoc ipso tempore & Basilius Ancyranae Ecclesiae Praesbyter, marty∣rio est defunctus: atque item Caesariensis Eupsychius Cappa∣dox, veteri familia, loco{que} claro natus. At the very same time Basilius a Priest of the Church of Ancyra, died a martyr. Euen so likewise did Eupsychius the Caesarian of Cappa∣docia, borne of an aunciēt howse, and of noble parētage. Thus hath M. Iewel belied and falsified, both Sozomenus, and his translator, and also Nicephorus. Let vs see, what substantial witnesse he bringeth for legitimation of his Priestes Marriage, in the last place.* 1.114

Iewel.

Likevvise M. Harding might haue founde it noted in his ovvne Glose,

〈…〉〈…〉

M. Ie••el saith of my 〈…〉〈…〉 see∣meth▪ that than he 〈…〉〈…〉 Nicepherus sp•…•…∣king of the two Apollinar••s, Father, and Sonne, both he∣retiques,* 1.115 saith, P••ter Presbyters, filius Lect••ris ordine•••…•…∣ti••ebat, the Father obteined the Order of a Priest, the sonne of a P••••••der. Of this it seemeth not, that the father was married, after th•••• he obteined to be a Priest, but ra∣ther contrariwise, that he was married before he was Priest. For Ni••••ph••r•••• saith, the father obteined to be a Priest, whereby he seemeth to signifie (if we may say, what seemeth to vs) that he was a father before he was made Priest, and not first a Priest, and afterward married, and so made a father.

But perhaps M. Iewel g••••her••th his seeming of these wordes following in Nicephorus: Senex Alexandriae••ri••••, Beryti d••c••it & ••ucta Laodicia coni••g••; Apollinari•• fili•…•… proge••••it ••smuche to say. The olde m•••• was borne at A∣l••xandria, ••••ught a•• Berytu••, married a wife at Laodice••, and beg•••••• Apollinaris his sonne. Of this order of wordes he can conclud•• no more that the older Apollinaris was married after that he was Priest, then that he was borne at Alexandria after that he was an old man. If he could proue that he was an old man b••••ore he begote the yon∣ger Apollinaris, and that he was Priest, before he came to Laodicea, when he married, then should he seeme to proue, that an Heretique was married after he was Priest, as many be now adaies. Vntil he proue so much, which s••••l a 〈◊〉〈◊〉, this his seeming 〈◊〉〈◊〉 seeme litle worth.* 1.116

Iewel.

Chrysostome speaking of the Marri••ge of Bishops, saith thus, Quam∣uis nuptie plu••imum di••••••u••tatis in s•• hab••••••••, ita tamen assumi

possunt, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 perfectiori vitae impedimento non sint, Notwith∣••••••••••ing marriage haue in it much tr••••ble yet so it may be taken, that •…•…shalbe no hinderance to perfite life. He saith marriage may be ta∣k•••• or chosen: and he speaketh namely of the marriage of Priestes and Bishoppes.

Harding.

Why nipte you of the ende of the sentence M. Iew∣el?* 1.117 Though you, nor your good brethren the married Apostates, like not wel of them: yet for true dealinges sake, you should not so haue gelded your Doctor of the wordes, that so iointly hang to the sentence by you al∣leged. They be these.* 1.118 Verum id planè perquam rarò at∣que difficile. Marriage may be so taken, that it shal not be a lette vnto the perfiter life (so much goeth before) but cer∣tainly that is a thing very seldome, and of great difficultie. Doo ye heare syr, what your owne Doctor saith? That marriage be not an impediment vnto perfiter life, which Priestes doo professe, it is very seldome seene, and a thing of very great difficultie, saith your Chrysostome.

Here good Reader that thou be not begyled, I must tel thee this muche. Whereas M. Iewel beareth thee in hand, that S. Chrysostome saith, Marriage may be taken or chosen, and that of Priestes, and Bishops, for of their Marriage he speaketh, saith this manne: al this is false.* 1.119 For first vnderstand thou, this sentence is not in S. Chry∣sostome at al: not in the Greeke, I saie, in which tongue only he wrote. For I haue seene the Greeke, and dili∣gently conferred it my selfe. But it is added vnto his texte, either by the translation, or by falshod vsed at the printing, as in these corrupte times false printers haue corrupted many bookes of the olde Fathers. Yet this muche wil I say of this sentence, that it may right wel

stand without any euil m••••ning gathered of it, though〈…〉〈…〉 be not S. Chrysostom••••, the Greeke examples supposed to be true. For the Circumstance of the place beareth it to be spoken, not specially of the Marriage of Prie∣stes, and Bishoppes, as M. Iewel taketh it in this place, but of Marriage indefinitely, and generally, as it maie be proued (if there were nothing elles to proue it) by the same M. Iewel in an other place, namely in the page 179. before, where he saith thus, in the first line of that page, S. Chrysostome saith generally of al menne, Quamuis n••ptia plurimum difficultatis habeant, &c. Thus M. Iewel in the 514. page. is confuted by M. Iewel, in the 179. page. Of such Contradictions he hath good stoare.

That it may appeare the plainer, thus is it that we reade in S. Chrysostome.* 1.120 Si igitur qui vxorem duxit, &c. Then if it be so, that he which hath married a wife, be careful for the thinges of the worlde, and of conuenience a Bishop should not be touched with any suche care: how said the Apostle before, vnius vxoris virum, that a Bishop, should be the hus∣band of one wife? Some vnderstand such a one to be signi∣fied (by these wordes) that shal be made a Bishop after his wiues death. Albeit he, that hath a wife, may be, as one not hauing. And this much he graunted them very wel in consideration of the time,* 1.121 and nature of the thing, as the case then stoode. And a man may take that thing honestly, and lawfully, if he wil. For as richesse doo hardly bring a man in∣to the kingdom of Heauen (yet often times many riche men haue there entred in) so also doth marriage. Thus farre goeth the greke in S. Chrysostom, and no further touching this matter. For immediatly follow, not the wordes that M. Iewel buildeth his proufe vpon, but other wordes cōcer∣ning

an other thing, as euery learned man may see in the •…•…nted Greeke booke, in the 20. leafe, the seconde pag. t•••• 20. line.

You might haue sene this in the Greeke M. Iewel, or your Greeke Frende for you, aswel as you saw that o∣ther place of S. Chrysostome by me truly alleged and trāslated, where he expoundeth these wordes of S. Paul,* 1.122 The husbande of one wife. Which place you wring and wr••st very violently to serue your purpose, and yet it wil not be,* 1.123 and the learned may easily perceiue your false iuggling in it. There you wil nedes haue, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to signifie, the wife that is gonne from her husband by di∣uorce, and therefore you turne it, Vxori quae decessit (àse) whereas you should haue followed the allowed transla∣tion that is in vse, which hath Defunctae vxori, the wife deceassed, or departed this life. So I haue turned the place in my Confutation according to the Greeke, and as the common Latine translation hath.

Consider therefore how impudently you reproue me without cause. First in the margent of your booke,* 1.124 ouer against this testimonie of S. Chrysostom, truly translated by me out of the Greeke worde for worde (For whereas be ••••epeth no beneuol••nce towarde his wife deceased, how can he be a good gouernour? You haue set this odious note of reproufe, directing it by your sterre vnto the worde, deceassed * Vntruthe. For M. Harding fowly mistaketh S. Chrysostomes meaning. And there again immediatly. * Vn∣truth standing in false exposition. Not being content with this in your te••te, page 174. lin. 3. you say further? Those wordes M. Harding in his translation hath purposely falsified. I haue not purposely falsified them M. Iewel for they be

not my••••, but they be the word•••• of the common tr••••∣slation, and the same i•• according to the Greeke: For th•• verbe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.125 signifieth not to departe away by di∣uorce, as you haue violently turned it, but simply to de∣parte, or goe awaye, and sometimes, as in this very place, to departe out of this life. You might haue learned so much of the common Greeke Lexicon.

* 1.126Now that S. Chrysostome is so to be vnderstanded, S. Chrysostome him selfe clearely sheweth in wordes of the same sentence there. For whereas he speaketh of that second marriage, which he confesseth not to be for∣bidden by the lawes: what other second marriage mea∣neth he, but that, when as a man marrieth againe after the deceasse of his first wife? For I trow you wil not say, that the lawes after Christes comming, among Chri∣stian men permitted a man to marrie againe, his wife be∣ing aliue, and so to haue two wiues at once, specially in the case which your translation importeth, that is, when the wife (is not put away for Aduoutrie of her parte, but) departeth from the husband, which she may not do, but for aduoutrie of his parte.

It is not likely, S. Paule would debarre a man from comming vnto the dignitie of a Bishop, that had two wiues at once. For such a one, excepte he repented, and had put awaye from him one of them, was not admitted to be made a Christian man. What trow ye, that he re∣quired not a farr•• mo•••• p••rfection in him, that was to be made a Bishop?

Thus you see good reason, why Ambros••••s-C••••ild••le••∣sis that learned man, trāslated, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (for that is S. Chrysostoms word, and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as you haue

noted in your bookes margent) by this worde, Defun∣ctae, and why I turned it, the wife disceassed. You may now of your courtesie take backe againe your bitter re∣proches of fowle mistaking, of false exposition, of pur∣posed falsifying, to your selfe. For these special qualities be proued to be yours, they be not myne.

For two other testimonies in proufe of Priestes Mar∣riage, M. Iewel craueth helpe at Erasmus, and Cornelius Agrippa. Thus he saith.

Iewel.

Erasmus saith, The Priestes of the Greeke Church this daie, not vvith∣standing their Orders, marrie vviues. The like vvriteth Cornelius Agrip∣pa against the Iouanians.

Harding.

Erasmus, and Cornelius Agrippa* 1.127 be menne of smal credite God wote in this cause, which in their time they f••uo••red, as much as you do now. It is cōmonly reported (you know) for a vaine shifte of a theefe, to say, Aske my fellow, whether I be a theefe, or no. Herein we are mo∣ued with the authoritie of these two smatterers of your Gospel, in their daies but newly broc••ed, no more then if we heard Frier Luther, Monke H••p••r, Peter Martyr the regulare Chanon of S. Augustines order, and suche other married Apostates, to speake a good worde in fa∣uour of their vnlawful yokinges. How be it the truth is, both Erasmus, and Cornelius Agrippa, belye the Greeke Churche herein, as the Doctours of the Sor∣bo••e in Paris haue in their Censures againste Eras∣mus truely declared. For by the lawe, it was neuer, nor yet is to this day, lawful in the Greeke Churche, for Priestes to marrie wiues, after that they haue taken

the holy Order of Priesthood••.

Ie••••l.

Likevvise Cardinal Caiet••n•• saith; Nec ratione, nec authoritat•• probari potest,* 1.128 quod absolute loquendo Sacerdos peccet, cōtra∣hēdo matrimonius▪ It can not be proued, neither by reason, nor by a••th••∣ritie, speaking absolutely that a Priest offendeth God, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 marrying a vvife,

Harding.

Cardinal Caietane hath his errours, for which he hath ben reproued and confuted. We are not bound to main∣teine, what so euer he saith. How be it this saying of his seemeth to haue no great errour,* 1.129 so it be vnderstanded, as he meant. There be two thinges, that make the mar∣riage of Priestes in the most Church vnlawful, the S•…•… of the Church, and the Vow annexed. The Statute and cōstitution of the Church, bindeth clerkes receiuing ho∣ly Orders neuer to marrie. As touching the Vow like as the Order and h••b••••e of Monkes (by which ••a••e al reli∣gious be vnderstanded) hath Chastitie ••••nexed by〈…〉〈…〉 that institut••d the habite, and the ••••le for monkes to〈…〉〈…〉 in, and therfore he that receiueth it, is said therewith to make a Vow cōsequently ••••••en so holy Order among the Latines, or thereof the West Church, by the Churches cōstitution, hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 anne••••d inseperably, and ther∣fore who so euer t••k••th it, willingly bindeth him selfe therunto in fact and deede, though no word of the bo••d be spoken. So ••h••t this b••nde procedeth both of the sta∣tute of the C•••••••••• ••nd of the Vow.* 1.130 And for this consi∣d••ration the 〈…〉〈…〉 Priest•••• is vnlawful. Bu•• spea∣king ••bso••••t••ly sai••h 〈…〉〈…〉 that is to say, if there were no such stature, of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, nor Vow at ••et in this case ••f •• Prie••st ••••rried for any thing that is in reason,〈…〉〈…〉 in th•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 presse Scriptures to the cont•…•…

he ••ould not sinne. Wherby he signifieth, that, the case •…•…tanding as it doth, Priestes marriage is vnlawful. Now remaineth M. Iewels last proufe of this matter.

Iewel.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 likewise, Anselmus saith in a Dialogue betvvene the Maister •…•…d the Scholare, touching these matters.* 1.131 Desideramu•• certificari tua sol••tione super vulgari in toto orbe quaestione, quae ab omnibus penè quotidie ventilatur, & adhuc lis indiscussa celatur. Scilicet, an liceat presbyteris, post acceptum ordinem vxores ducere. VVe are d••sirous by your ansvver to be certified, about this common question, that is novv tossed through the vvorlde, and as yet lieth vndiscussed, I meane vvhether a Priest, being vvil his Orders, may marrie a vvife. Here∣by a appeareth, that in the time of A••selmus, vvhich vvas aboue a thou∣sand yeres after Christe, this matter laye in question, and vvas not yet discussed.

Harding.

Anselmus wrote three Dialogues,* 1.132 in which he maketh the Maister and the Scholare to talke together. The first, is De Veritate: the second, De Libero Arbitrio: the third, De Casu Diaboli. An other Dialogue he wrote also of an other matter, in which he appointeth for talkers toge∣ther, Anselmus, and Beso Moe Dialogues he neuer wrote, for ought that can appeare by the workes, that be extant in printe vnder his name. And in these, neither in any of these, there is no such Dialogue betwene the Maister, and the Scholare touching these matters, as you say. And whereas you haue in the Maigent of your booke, Inqui∣sitione prima, I maie inquire for suche an Inquisition a longe time, before I finde it, for there is no suche thing at al among his Dialogues. Whether Frier Bale, Illyri∣cus, or some other suche gatherer of Rifferaffe haue deceiued you, or of your selfe you were disposed

in this place to 〈…〉〈…〉 you•• owne inuention (I w••••〈…〉〈…〉 cal it pl••••••e lying) I knowe ••ot: certainly amongest〈…〉〈…〉 printed workes, there is no s••ch Dialogue to be founde.

But if there were any such, what should that releiue your sory, causes? If the Maister had in good so••••h so tolde the Scholar••, it had ••en some what. Now th••t〈…〉〈…〉 Scholare saith it is a common question, and much toss••d betwen menne, and as yet lyeth vndiscussed: what other thing doth the Author by these wordes, but prouoke the Readers attention, that the Answer be the more diligēt∣ly weighed, and considered of? You knowe M. Iewel the writers of suche Dialogues, may make the demaun∣der to talke, what they liste. Neither is any thing to be auouched for true or false the sooner, bicause the demaū∣der so reporteth. By this you may see, that the author had a desire to discusse this matter by the Scholars mouing of the question, you can not argue, that at that time, this point was so muche in question.

And whereas by the a••thors fictiō, the Scholare saith, it was then a common question, and laie vndiscussed, by that a ma•• may ghess•• that in Anselmus time, suche, as whom it bec••me to be Scholars, and not Maisters, were busy in common table talke aboute suche questions, as the like personnes now a daies occupie their heades, and wheat their tongues aboute the like, and other questions of greater weight, wh•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them selues in their bolde and sto•••••• ••ss••••erations more like maisters; the•…•… Scholars.

And againe, whereas the Scholare in the pretensed Dialogue said, that question laie as yet vndiscussed, it is to be referred to those daies, and to the comp••ss•• of that

time, sine•• ••hiche that matter in that age beganne to 〈…〉〈…〉 in question. Thereof you may not conclude, that it was neuer before discussed in Christes Church, for the sp••ce of a thousand yeres, as you thereof would seme to g••ther. For among learned men, and the gouernours of Christes Churche, it was euer from the Apostles time certaine, and without al controuersie, that Priestes being in holy Orders might not marrie. And this is al that M. Iewel was hable to bring for proufe, that Priestes, and who so euer haue Vowed Chastitie, may marrie. Let vs see further, how wel he defendeth his Apologie against my Confutation, touching this matter.

The Apologie, cap. 8. Diuision. 2.

And as Sozomenus saith of Spiridion, and as Nazianzene saith of his 〈…〉〈…〉 Father, vve saie, that a good and diligent Bishop doth serue in the ministerie neuer the vvorse, for that he is married, but rather the better, and vvith more hablenes to doo good.

The Confutation. fol. 76. a.

Were it not that the weight of these matters requi∣red an vpright and plaine dealing, for ciuilities sake I could be content sometimes to spare you, and where ye make manifest lyes, to vse a softer word, and terme them fittens.* 1.133 But now if I tel you that you vse your accu∣stomed figure pseudologia, which is lying in plaine english: I trust you wil beare with my plainenes, amend your owne fault, and cōsider the power of truth, that causeth me to be so bold with you. This I am sure of, that neither Sozomenus, nor Gregorie Nazianzene,* 1.134 nor Eusebius lib. 10. cap. 5. as you haue caused your bookes both Latine and English to be noted in the margent, where ye mi∣stake

Eusebius for Ruf••••u•• ••o•• N••••ia•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••ther i•• M•…•…¦nodia,* 1.135 as you note also in th•• margent, n••r in the fu•…•… oration that he made of his fath•••• hath any such saying as ye report of them. For how could they say that a bis•••••• serueth in his ministerie neuer the worse, but rather the better, and with more ablenes to do good for that he is maried, the Scripture being so plaine to the contrary•…•… What, wene ye they were either so ignorant, or so for∣getful, or so much inclined to promote your carnal do∣ctrine of priestes mariages, as to say so, not withstanding that S. Paule writeth to the Corinthians?* 1.136 Saith he not of them that be maried, that such shal haue tribulation of the flesh? Saieth he not, he that is without a wife, careth for the thinges of our Lord how he may please God? Of him that hath a wyfe saieth he not, that he careth for the thinges that be the worldes how he may please his wife, and is diui∣ded? finally sayth he not, I tel you this thing for your pro∣fite, not to tangle you in a snare, but for that which is honest, and comely vnto you, and that which may geue you readines to praye to God without lette? Wherfore recant for shame that fowle errour, that a bishop serueth the better in his ministerie, and is the more able to do good, for that he is maried.* 1.137 * Verily here ye seme to be of the flesh rather then of the spirite. Neither are ye to be called any lon∣ger, if ye mainteine this doctrine, spiritual men, as in times past they haue ben, whose romes ye occupie, but rather fleshly men. * Such men, such doctrine, fleshly men, flesh∣ly doctrine.* 1.138 * Neither see I, what ye can say for Defence of this doctrine, onlesse ye bristle your selues against S. Paule, and maugre his auctoritie affirme impudently, that it is no lette for a Bishop from the seruice of God,

to haue the tribulation of the flesh, that he may serue in 〈…〉〈…〉 vocation better, taking care for the thinges that be the worldes, and seeking how to please his wife, then if he studie for the thinges that be our Lordes, and seeke how to please God: that a man may do more good, being by occasion of his wife diuided and distract, then being whole and in him selfe vnited finally that a bishop shal serue the Church better being entangled and clog∣ged with worldly affaires, then hauing power and opor∣tunite to pray to God without lette. *

Now therfore see you not how great is your impu∣dencie in that you lye your selfe, and father such a fowle lye vpon Sozomenus, and that light of the world in his time Gregorie Nazianzene?* 1.139 * But for then dealing let vs heare what Sozomenus sayth concerning Spiri∣dion. For Rufine in the tenth booke added to Euse∣bius touching this matter reporteth nothing, but that he had a daughter named Irene, who died before her fa∣ther a virgin. * The wordes of Sozomenus be these.* 1.140 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to say, Spiridion was a Husbandman, hauing wife and children, and yet for al that he was neuer the worse about Gods seruice. Of this place we graunte ye may saye with Sozomenus, that Spiridion serued God neuer the woorse for that he was married. But how, and whereof gather ye, that he serued God the better, and was more able to doo good because of his marriage?* 1.141 * Now Spiridion* 1.142 was a man of passing holinesse, and in power and vertue surmounted al other menne of his time, as one that wrought greate miracles, and was taken for a prophete.

For Rufine, where 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ompareth P••pl••••utiu•• with the Apostles,* 1.143 s••m••th to pro••••tes Spiridion before him. If this one Saint of so great excellencie being made bishop of a maried man serued God neuer the worse for that he was maried; wil ye therefore make a general doctrine, that bishops and priestes shal ma••y, and that thereby they shal be no whit hindered from Gods seruice? * Spiridion ob∣teined that priuiledge through especial grace by his ex∣ceding ve••••ue, which is graunted to fewe. And the pri∣uileges of a fewe make not a lawe for al in general ye knowe, as Nazianzene saieth.

* 1.144Furthermore if the wordes of Sozomenus that ye build youre annal doctrine vpō be wel examined, ye shal finde, th•••• he maketh more against you then with you. For signifying that he had wife and children, he addeth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Yet for al that he was neuer the worse about God•• seruice. This reuocation, or exceptiō negatiue (yet for al that &c.) implieth a cōfession affirma∣tiue of the contrarie. * As though by reason the sentence should beare this meaning. He had wife and children, and therefore was lesse apt and able to serue God in bi∣shoply ministerie. If there were no repugnance betwen the state of a bishop, and mariage, but the hauing of a wife were a better abling of a man to serue in that vocation, as ye say: then Sozomen us neither would, nor should haue vsed that maner of speach, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (as much to say, yet for al that but ••••ther thus he should haue spoken, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that this sence might rise of his wordes, Spiridion was a husband∣man, hauing wife and children, and therefore he was the better disposed and readier to serue God. *

Neither maketh the place of Gregorie Nazianzene •…•…y what for you more, then this of Sozomenus doth:* 1.145 whose wordes be these after the translation of Rapha∣•…•… Volaterranus varying much from the Greeke. Hic Ba∣silij pater Basilius item appellatus, et si matrimonio se vinxit, ita tamen in eo vixit, vt nihil propterea ad perfectam virtu∣tem, ac Philosophiam consequendam impediretur. Basiles father who was named also Basile, although he put him selfe in bondes of matrimonie, yet he liued so herein, as he was letted no whit from the atteining of perfitte vertue, and holy knowledge. Were not marriage a lette and hinde∣rance to perfection requisite in a Bishop, this learned man could not rightly haue said, ita tamen in eo vixit, &c. yet for al that he liued so, &c.* 1.146 * Bicause the hauing of a wife is a hinderance to perfection, therefore of good reason in the praise of that holy Bishop, who was mar∣ried long before he tooke that degree, yet notwithstan∣ding (saieth this writer) he was not therefore letted from perfection. By which manner of speach he acknowled∣geth marriage in others to be a lette to perfection. Who vnderstādeth not for what cause of these two speaches, the one is reasonable, the other absurd: he is power, yet for al that liberal, and, he is power, yet for al that sparing? The like consideration duly conceiued, retourneth the auctoritie by this Defender alleaged against him selfe. For the like absurditie is in this saying, Basiles father was married, yet for al that he was not thereby letted from perfection: if for hauing a wife a man be the better able and readier to serue in the holy ministerie of a Bishop. *

Right so it is easy to put him from the holde he taketh

of Chrysostome, by Chrysostom him selfe. For least my man should thinke,* 1.147 whereas S. Paule sayeth, a Bishop ought to be the husband of one wife, that the same order conti∣neweth stil in the Church, thereto he saieth in his seco••d homilie de patientia Iob: non ea ratione quod id nunc in Ec∣clesia obseruetur. Oportet enim omni pr••rsus castitate S••cer∣dotem ornatum esse. S. Paule (sayeth he) required this not in consideration that the same be nowe obserued in the Church. For it behoueth a Bishop to be garnished with al manner a chastitie.

Iewel.

Here commeth M. Hardinge in a lofte vvith Io Triumphe, as ha∣uing beaten dovvne al the vvorld vnder his feete: And as being already in sure possession of the victorie, he crieth out, Impudencies, Loude his, foule Faultes, and pietie Fittens. And ful terribly chargeth vs, like a Conqueroure, to render oure selues, and to r••cante for sonne. This nevve courage is suddainly blovven vpon him, for that he th••••∣keth, vve haue intruded v••on his office, and as he saieth, ha••e cor∣rupted, and falsified the holy Fathers. But it vvere a vvorthie mat∣ter to knovve vvherein. Forsoothe vve saie, by the reporte of Soz••∣menus, and Gregorius Nazianzenus, that Spiridion, and Gregorie Fa∣ther to Nazianzen, being bothe Married Bishoppes, notvvithstanding theire Marriage, vvere neuer the vv••rs•• hable to doo theire Ecclesiastical offices, but rather the better.

* 1.148Here M. Harding of himselfe, and freely confesseth, these Ho∣ly Fathers vv••re ne••••r the vvorse hable to d•••• their offices? For so muche th•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 importe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But that they vvere the better hable to doe their•• offices, ••••cause of theire VViues, that he d••nieth vtterly, and herein he saie••h me are corrupters, and falsifiers of the Fathers. And thus the vvhole diffe∣rence, that is betvvene M. Hardinge and vs touching this matter, stan∣deth

onely in these tvvo poore vvordes, Rather the better, and ••euer the v••••rse.

Novv gentle reader,* 1.149 that thou maiest be the better hable t•• i••dge betvvene vs, I beseeche the indifferently vveigh these vv••••des.

Gregorie Nazianzene hereof, that is, of the helpe,* 1.150 that his Father, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 being the Bishop of Nazianzum had by his vvife, vvriteth thus: Illa quae data est Adamo, &c. Eua that vvvas geuen to Adam for a helper for asmuch as it vvas n•••• good for man to be alone, in steede of a helper became his enemie. It follovveth, Meo autem Patri Mater mea data illi à Deo, non tantum adiutrix facta est, id enim minus esset mirū, sed etiā dux, & princeps, verbo, facto{que} indu∣cens illū ad res optimas. Et aliis quidem rebus quamuis optimum esset subditam esse viro, propter iura coniu∣gii tamen in pietate non verebatur seipsam illi magi∣stram exhibere: My mother being geuen to my father of God, became not onely his helper, for that had ben no great vvonder, but also vvas his leader, and Captaine,* 1.151 bothe by vvord and by deede, trayning him vnto the best. And albeit in other thinges it vvere beste for her to be subiecte vnto her husbande for the right of marriage, yet in religion, and Godlinesse, she doubted not to becomme his Maistresse.

These vvordes M. Hardinge, be plaine, and cleare, and vvithout fitton, Gregorie Nazianzen sayeth, that his ovvne ••••••ther vvas vnto his father the Bishop of Nazianzum, a hel∣per and a directour, both by vvorde and deede, to leade him to the best: and that in al other thinges being his inferiour, yet in ••eligion and Godlinesse she vvas his* 1.152 Maistresse. And yet m••st al these vvordes so open, so plaine, so cleare, be drovvned vvith your simple distinction, of Rather the better, and neuer the vvorse. Maie vve not novve allovve you vvith fauour, to take al these, that ye cal sitions, lyes, corruptions, and falsi∣fienges, home againe vnto your selfe?

If you ••••••••r cr••••le th••se t••••••ges before is 〈…〉〈…〉 must remembre al truth must not be measured by your reading▪

Harding.

To beginne with these last wordes, as I require not al truth to be measured by my r••••ding M. I••w••l, so nei∣ther is it to be measured by your writing. Whether I euer readde these thinges before, or no, it skilleth not. Certaine it is, where you readde al that ye haue here al∣leged out of S. Gregorie Nazianzene, you readde also that, whereby your false, and vnreasonable assertion is confuted, teaching that his Father being Bishop of Nazi∣anzū learned the doctrine of Godlines of his wife. Ha∣uing read and seene the truth of this point in that very place, and here conceeling it, that you might not seeme confuted, yea, and so boldely auouching the contrarie: how make you not al menne, that know this, witnesses of your falshode, and impudencie?

* 1.153As for your vaine, and light tauntes of my comming in a lofte, with Io Triumphe, of my terrible charging of you like a Conquerour, of the new courage suddainly blowen vpon me, and such other prety eloquence fitter for a Mi∣nister, then for a sober man: I can easily contemne. No wise man that readeth my wordes, for which ye ruffle so with me, wil iudge you had iuste cause, with suche sporte to delight your selfe. Neither said I, if you marke my wordes wel, that you had corrupted and falsified the holy Fathers, for that you said vpon reporte of Sozome∣nus, and S. Gregorie Nazianzene, that Spiridion, and Gregorie Father to Nazianzene, were for their marriage neuer the worse hable to serue God, but rather the bet∣ter (which neuerthelesse is false): but for that you speake

it generally of a Bishop: as though Bishops should do•• that apperteineth to their charge the better, if they mar∣ried wiues. For truth whereof I referre me to the place.* 1.154

Those two holy Fathers, were menne endewed with a singular and special grace, and the example of so few, is not to be drawen to be made a rule in general, as I said in my Confutation. Yet the most that is said of them, is, that they serued God neuer the worse by reason of their Mar∣riage.

Againe,* 1.155 whereas I answered to euery parte of your Apologie in this place, you defende but one thing by me confuted. Neither to say the truth, doo you defende the same, but say, what you were hable, to shew some colour of a Defence. This argueth that the other thinges you brought, are fully confuted. For elles why did you not de∣fende them? And this muche is the Reader here to be warned of by the waie: That whereas most commonly I answere to euery thing by the Apologie obiected vnto the Catholikes, in your pretēsed Defence, you laie much of my Confutatiō together, and in your Answere, either you touch no point by me confuted, or very few pointes, but fil your booke with new matter, not perteining to the defence of that which is confuted, taken as it seemeth out of the stoare of your Notebookes, which Illyricus, Frier Bale, and certaine others of that cutte haue made to your hande.

Touching this present matter, you would, if you wist how, persuade the worlde by the example of Gregorie Nazianzenes Father, that a Bishop is not only not letted or hindred from doing that, which belongeth to his due∣tie by hauing a wife, but also muche holpen, and that for

being marrried, he is the better hable to discharge the ser∣uice of a Bishop. To proue this, you allege muche out of S. Gregorie Nazianzene in Epitaphie patris.* 1.156 And the wordes, whiche you allege, be there in deede. Which wordes reporte, that S. Gregorie Nazianzenes Mother, was to his Father a helper, a guide, a Leader, a Capitaine, by worde, and by deede training him vnto the best, yea further, that in Religion, and godlinesse she was not asha∣med to becomme his Maistresse. Al this is true M. Iewel, I confesse, and yet it proueth not your purpose at al. How so?

* 1.157Marke Reader, and consider of it wel, how M Iewel begyleth thee. Gregorie Nazianzen hereof (saith he) that is, of the helpe that his Father, being the Bishoppe of Na∣zianzum had by his wife, writeth thus. Illa &c. Here lyeth the deceite, in that he maketh S. Gregorie Na∣zianzenes Father Bishop of Nazianzum, when he had suche helpe of his mother, as though it were credible, that a Bishoppe should be taught of his wife, how to teache his flocke the doctrine of our Religion. If S. Gre∣gorie Nazianzene had meant thus, he had made his Fa∣ther but a simple Bishop. It is a weake flocke, they say of sheepe, where a Yew beareth the belle. So truely it must be an infortunate Dioces, where the Bishop is his Wiues scholare.* 1.158

Now Reader al these great crakes, that M. Iewel vt∣tereth here so liberally, in thy iudgement must come to naught, when thou vnderstandest the truth of this matter. Thus then it is. Gregorie the elder, S. Gregorie Nazian∣zenes Father, was a married man long before he was Bis∣shop: and before he was married vnto his wife, and also

long after, he was in Infidel. She, S. Gregories mother, contrariwise was a Christian woman, borne of Christian parentes, and descended of a stocke, that had ben Chri∣stian of long time. Her learned sonne speaking of her,* 1.159 in comparison of his Father, saith, that she was not taken out of the wilde Oliue, and engraffed into the good Oliue, as he was: But that she had vertue, and the true faith of Christe, as by auncient inheretance, from her godly forefa∣thers. Of him he saith, that he was a branche of a Roote, that was not to be praised, that was not disposed to godlines, that was not planted in the howse of God. Touching the re∣ligion that he was of, speaking more particularly of him, he saith, that he was one of them, who were named Hypsistarij, of whom I haue not readde, but in S. Gre∣gorie Nazianzene. These Hypsistarij, as he describeth them, were neither altogether Heathens, nor Iewes, but (as a man following S. Gregorie might terme them) mon∣grels betwen both. For (as he saith) of the Heathnish errour, they exchewed Idolles, and Sacrifices, and yet honoured the Fier and Lampes, and of Moyses lawe they had in reuerence the Saboth daie, and vsed the Iewish superstition about cer∣taine meates, but Circumcision they vtterly refused. Suche a one touching Religion, was this Gregorie.

Now that vertuous and holy woman his wife on the other side, taking great thought for her husband, ••nd, as her sonne writeth, hauing great griefe at harte, that being yoked together in wedlocke,* 1.160 they drewe not one waie together through diuersitie of faith, that she was vnited vnto God but in respecte of halfe, that the copulation of the spirite was not ioined with the bodily copulation, being most desirous to remedie

this, and y•••• not being ••••ble to bring it to passe: she f••l downe (saith h••) befo•••• God daie and night, she besought and craued of him the saluation of her husband, with muche fasting, and with many teares. Withal she was in∣stant vpon her husband to come to the Christian faith, she vsed al the waies she could deuise whereby to winne him,* 1.161 with chidinges (saith he) with admonitions, with* 1.162 kinde and louing seruices, with tokens of displeasure. To be shorte,* 1.163 it coulde no otherwise be (saith he) but that the droppe of water with continual falling should at length make a hole in the stoane, and that the thing in time should be brought to passe, that was so earnestly intended.

There then speaking particularly of the meanes, by which Gods prouidence brough him to Saluation, and to become a Christian man, among other thinges, he saith, that his Father was muche furthered with a vision in a dreame, wherewith (saith he) God oftentimes benefiteth〈…〉〈…〉 soule, which he accompteth worthy to be saued. It seemed vnto him in his dreame, that he sange that verse of Dauid the Prophete. Laetatus sum in ijs quae dicta sunt mihi, in de∣mum Domini ibimus.* 1.164 that is to saye, as he vttereth it out of the seuenty Interpreters, It reioised me to heare them, that said vnto me, Come on, let vs goe into the howse of our Lord.

This vision he tolde his wife. She, being very glad of it, as hauing assured hope, that her long praier and desire was heard, interpreting it to the best sense, and signify∣ing vnto him, how great fauour God shewed vnto him, made al the haste she could possibly, that he were Chri∣stened, fearing, as her sonne writeth, lest by differring some thing might happen in the meane while, that should be a hinderance to that blessed calling, and defeit

al, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 she had so much and so long gonne about to bring to affecte. To be shorte, within a while after she founde the meane, that he was Christened by the holy Father Leontius Bishop of that Dioces, at what time out of al coaster of the worlde the Bishoppes repaired to Nicaea, there to holde a General Councel, to the condemnation of the heresie of Arius. After this he liued a holy life, and at length by Gods prouidence, he was promoted vnto the bishoprike of Nazi••nzum.

This much is (though in a farre larger processe) decla∣red by S. Gregorie Nazianzene in the Oration, which he made at the burial of his Father. Whereby it is made cleare to al menne, how his Father was holpen by his wife, not as being a Bishop, as M. Iewel doth vntruly say, but as yet being an Infidel. That her sonne reporteth of her, that she was vnto his Father, a helper, a guide, a leader,* 1.165 a Captaine, an instructour, a teacher a maistresse in religion, and godlinesse: al this is to be vnderstanded of the time, in which he remained an vnbeleuer, not of the time, in which he was Bishop of Nazianzum.

Herein she did the parte, that many other godly and faithful wiues haue donne, who haue vsed the like dili∣gence and care, to bring their husbandes being Infidels, vnto the faith of Christe. That holy woman Monica S. Augustines mother, did the like with her husband Patri∣cius, of whom he writeth thus in his booke of Confessi∣ons, speaking vnto God, as there his manner is: Tradita vira seruiuit veluti Domino, & sategit cum lucrari tibi, &c. When she was married out vnto her husband, she serued him, as if he had ben her Maister, and tooke care how she might winne him vnto thee, ô Lorde. Againe he said there

afterwarde. Vir••m s••••m iam in extrema vita temporall eiu•• lucrata est tibi. She wanne her husband vnto thee (ô Lorde) now in the ende of his temporal life.

In consideration that God oftentimes worketh such grace by the wife to the winning of the husband vnto God, S. Paule requireth, that a Christian woman put not awaie her husband from her being an infidel, if he cōsent to dwel with her. For how knowest thou o woman (saith he) whether thou shalt saue thy husband or no?* 1.166

Either you haue read these thinges M. Iewel, in the place from whence you tooke the wordes, which here you allege, or you trusted the gatherer of your Notes. If you trusted your gatherer, you should haue tried the te∣stimonie wel, before you had spoken so peremptorily. If you haue readde and seene al this, in that you haue con∣ceeled the truth, and spoken so much to the contrary, you shew your selfe to be one, that is litle to be trusted.

Certainely al menne may nowe see, howe iust cause I haue, not to take these fittons, and corruptions againe vnto me, but to leaue them with you, and to charge you with them, as I did before in my Confutation of your Apologie.

After this M. Iewel bringeth in a great meany of Do∣ctours sayinges, with whiche they commende Marriage and seeme to blame them that despised, and condemned Marriage, and were of the opinion, that a man could not be saued if he were married. Whereunto I thinke al an∣swere needeles, for asmuch as we are not they, that con∣demne Marriage, as it hath now ben oftentimes said. we esteme it as honorable, and where marriage is lawful, and lawfully vsed, we accōpt that bed vnspotted and cleane,

as S. Paule calleth it. Mary we say,* 1.167 that who soeuer haue bound them selues to liue in continencie by solēne Vow, as Priestes and Religious persons, for them it is not law∣ful to marrie, and their Marriage is vnlawful, or rather, none at al. Against whiche doctrine M. Iewel hath nothing to say, nor to allege, and yet touching Marriage, he hath filled a great deale of paper with the doctours sayinges. So ready he is to bring muche, and so litle hable to bring ought, that maketh clearely for him.

What thinges certaine Fathers haue writen against im∣pure heretikes dispraising marriage in al men,* 1.168 the same he allegeth now, as if they were spoken against the Catho∣likes condemning the Marriage of these Apostates. He bringeth in a long saying of Origen, spoken of the Mar∣cionistes, and Cerdonistes, and such others. He allegeth Epiphanius against the filthy Origenians. Chrysostome a∣gainst wicked wemen, that keping the name of Maides, liued worse then hartlots in the Stewes. Briefely so ma∣ny mo as he founde, old, and late writers of al sortes, spea∣king bitterly against the impune life of il menne, and we∣men. Whereunto I answere briefly: As al the married A∣postates approche neare vnto the filthinesse of Deuils, so some of the Catholique Clergie, and religious per∣sonnes, be farre from the purenesse of Angelles. God geue vs al grace to amende, that is amisse, and you M. Iewel a better harte, and more charitie towardes his Church. With which grace being endewed, you wil take lesse pleasure in reporting il of her Ministers.

I neede not here after this sorte to trauaile any farther in this matter against Maister Iewel. What so∣euer is beside that, whiche I haue here answered in the

whole booke of his pretensed Defence touching th•…•… point, it is either not worth the answering, as altogether impertinent, or sufficiently refelled in my former Con∣futation. Compare the one with the other Christian Reader, and if thou be hable to iudge of these thinges, assure thy selfe, my sayd Confutation maie satisfie thee, for ought that M. Iewel bringeth. Now bicause it were infinite to stand vppon euery pointe, and to discusse so many tedious, and impertinent allegations: I thinke it more conuenient to vse an other waie, and by laying to∣gether certaine his Vntruthes, to make shorter worke.

M. Iewels Vntruthes, and flatte Lies concer∣ning the Marriage of Priestes, and Votaries.

[ 1] He steineth the authoritie of S. Hierome, S. Chryso∣stome,* 1.169 S. Gregorie Nazianzen, and diuers other learned and ancient Fathers, as disgracing lawful Matrimonie, and the Marriage of Widowes, and Widowers.

[ 2] He saith, S. Hierome in Catalogo witnessed, that Ter∣tullian was a married Priest.* 1.170 The place wil shew this vn∣truth. Albeit I denie not, but that he was married, before he was Priest: and so were diuers others, as Spiridion, S. Gregorie Nazianzenes Father, Gregorius Nyssenus, and certaine others.

[ 3] He saith, S. Hilarie Bishoppe of Poitiers was married, and that he prooueth by an Apocryphal epistle to one A∣bra his daughter. These toies are vaine, and more fabu∣lous, then Esops fables.

[ 4] So he maketh Prosper the bishop of Rhegium, a mar∣ried man, vpon a felender coniecture, how soeuer it be,

it can not be prooued, that he was married after that he was Bishop. that is ynough for vs.

He saith, that Polycrates had seuen of his Fathers [ 5] Bishops before him. The meaning of the testimonie alleged for that purpose is, that seuen of his howse, and kinred, had benne Bishoppes in his Churche before him. For so signifieth the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.171 as is before noted.

That which he allegeth vnder the name of Pope Da∣masus, [ 6] is intitled in the Decrees, Palea, as muche to say, Chaffe, by which name in the Decrees of Gratian, that is signified, which is by some other mā added vnto Gra∣tian. and wel may this be so named, bicause it is a thing forged, and litle worthe. And how could Damasus write of so many Popes, whiche liued after his death certaine hundred yeres?

He saith, alleging for his authour Fabian the late mer∣chant [ 7] of London,* 1.172 that Marriages of Priestes in England were free a thousand yeres together, and yet it is euidēt, that the English Clergie was gouerned according to the order which our Apostle S. Augustin leaft, who by S. Gregories rule, might not allow married Priestes.

He saith, the Priestes of England were neuer Vota∣ries, [ 8] for proufe, he saith boldely, it is knowen, and confessed, which stout asseueration maketh weake proufe. And were it so, then surely if any had maried, although he had sinned thereby, yet the mariage should haue continued, whiche is knowen to haue alwaies benne vsed other∣wise.

He calleth the Vow of Chastitie, an euil promisse,* 1.173 and [ 9] an vnhonest Vow, whiche worde was neuer yet spo∣ken

by any good or honest man. For our Ladie vowed her chastitie vnto God,* 1.174 as it is euident by the interpreta∣tion of many holy Fathers vpon S. Lukes Gospel.

[ 10] He denieth primam fidem, the first faith in S. Paule to be meant of the Vow of Chastitie,* 1.175 whiche is directly a∣gainst the aunciēt fathers doctrine. For although it were expounded of baptisme also, yet none but Heretikes, euer denied it to apperteine to Vowes.

[ 11] He beareth the world in hande, as though we violent∣ly forced yong Maidens to receiue Vowes.* 1.176 It cōmeth of their owne choise, and of Gods grace, and not of any constraint of ours.

[ 12] He turneth, Offerre, to Minister the oblation, or holy com∣munion,* 1.177 whereas it is to make the oblation, before that it be ministred.

[ 13] He taketh halfe the sense of S. Paule awaye, concer∣ning those, whom he exhorteth to absteine from the vse of wedlocke for a certaine time of praier, as I prooued before.

[ 14] He saith, Paphnutius alone, was proctour for the truth a∣gainst the whole Councel of Nice,* 1.178 intending thereby to bring his reader in beleefe, that one is better, then three hundred and seuenteen. For 318. Bishoppes were at that Councel. Thus he seeketh to discredite Councelles.

[ 15] He burdeneth vs, as seming to say, that the cōpanie of man and wife is filthinesse, which we say not, but teach Marriage to be a Sacramēt, but yet, as, not betwen father and daughter, so neither betwene Frier and Nonne.

[ 16] He saith, I haue falsified S. Chrysostoms woordes. But it is not so.* 1.179 For S. Chrysostom saith, that neither he, that had two wiues at once, nor he, who had ben againe

married after his first wiues death, may be made Priest by S. Paules rule, he speaketh of the seconde Marriage after the first wiues death, saying. Qui defuncta vxori beneuolentiam non seruat, he that rendreth not good wil to his wife being dead, how can he be a good gouernour ouer the Church? So that by S Chrysostomes interpreta∣tion, S. Paule literally forbiddeth him to be made Priest, who hath had mo Wiues then one, whether it were at once, or one after an other.

He corrupteth the text of S. Chrysostom, putting for [ 17] the Greeke word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this Latine,* 1.180 quae discessit (à se) her that is gone frō him, in stede of this worde defun∣ctae, which is, dead. His coniecture taken of the Greeke worde, is void, and nothing worth. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, dece∣do, doth signifie also to depart this life. And it is plainer, that S. Chrysostom expressely cōfesseth this sense, which we defend, saying, Quidam hoc ita intelligunt, vt ad episco∣patū is assumatur, qui vnius fuerit vxoris vir. Some men do vnderstand this mater, that he be taken to Bishophoode, who hath ben the husband of one wife. And that this last sense not being reproued of S. Chrysostome, is the most literal sense, it may appeare by these wordes of S. Paule. Let her be chosen a widowe, quae fuerit vnius viri vxor,* 1.181 which hath ben the wife of one husband. Wherefore as by the wife of one husband, she is meant, which hath not ben twise married: so by the husbād of one wife, he like∣wise is vnderstanded, that hath not ben twise married.

Cassiodorus (saith M. Iewel) writeth, that Eupsy∣chius, [ 18] who suffered Martyrdome being newe married,* 1.182 was a Bishoppe. What a shameful corruption is this, to adde the woorde, Bishoppe, vnto the text, whereas it is

euident by Sozomenus the authour of the Storie, and by Nicephorus, that Eupsychius was a laie gentleman of Ce∣sarea in Cappadocia, as is before declared. What vile for∣gerie is this M. Iewel, to turne a Gentleman, or a Noble man, into a Bishop, only that a Bishop might seeme to haue married? So litle can your Marriages of Bishoppes, and Priestes be mainteined without Lies.

[ 19] He leaueth out the better halfe of the Glose, reciting that parte,* 1.183 which the Glose alloweth not, leauing that, which it alloweth.

[ 20] He saith, that a good and diligent Bishop serueth ra∣ther the better, bicause of marriage. But how vntruly he saith it, it is before sufficiently declared. Certainly (I may say) were it true, then Christ, who was the best Bishoppe that euer was, and omitted nothing, whereby he might haue ben most perfite) would haue ben married.

[ 21] He saith, S. Paule gaue rules to the Clergie, that Bi∣shops,* 1.184 and Deacons should be the husbādes of one wife: the sense is not wel geuen. It is to be vnderstanded, that none other husbandes should be Bishops, or Deacōs, but such, as had ben, or were, the husbandes of one wife.

[ 22] He saith further, immediatly after the former rule of one wife, in the same tenour and course of speache S. Paule sheweth, that some shal forbid to marrie. This is false. It doth not follow immediatly. For there goeth betwen a cōmendation of the Church (which S. Paule nameth the piller of truth) and likewise of the Incarnation of Christ. After which wordes S. Paule saith.* 1.185 The spirit saith plaine∣ly, that in the last daies some shal depart from the faith. From whiche faith? Verely from that faith of the incar∣nation, and that, whereof the Churche is the piller.

Marke the worde discedent à fide,* 1.186 they shal depart from the faith. He that departeth from the faith, once had the faith. We neuer had your faith M. Iewel, neither in any other point, nor in this concerning the marriage of Priestes. But we had, and haue the faith, that the lawful Marriage of Christian persons is a Sacrament, and that faith had you once, when you were baptized, and incor∣porate in our Church. You are gon from that faith, and not we. S. Paul then teacheth, that some shal forbid Mar∣riages, as the Manichees, Encratites, and Marcionistes did, of whom the Apostle prophecied, as S. Chrysostom, and diuers other Fathers doo expounde. But (saith M. Iewel.) He that condemneth Marriage in a few,* 1.187 must likewise be called a condemner of Marriage. Why sir, doo you allow [ 23] Mariage betwen the Father and the Daughter, or be∣twen the Brother and the Sister? If not, then you con∣demne Marriage in a fewe. It is to be knowen, that Marriage is then forbidden, when it is taught, that a man hauing no impedimēt in his owne person, or when there is no impediment in the person, whom he would take, is yet forbidden to marrie: as if Marriage of it selfe were il, or, as if it were an il thing in it selfe, a man to marrie.

There is impediment, as of blould, as betwen brother and sister, so of Solemne Vow, and of Religion, as betwen a Priest and a Nonne, or any other woman. And as S. Paul doth allow the impediment of bloude, counting him a great sinner, who had his fathers wife:* 1.188 so doth he allow the impediment of a vow, when he saith, that the yong widowes (if they should be receiued into the number of those chast persons, whom the Churche vsed to feede) were like to haue damnation, bicause they would desire

to marie, and so would in harte at the least breake their former faith, or promise of perpetual Chastitie. But (saith he) let yonge widowes marrie,* 1.189 and bring forth children. As who should saie: If they were receiued into the solemne number of Widowes, then they should make promise not to marrie: and that promise perhaps they would breake, if not openly, yet in hart.

Thus it is no Deuils doctrine to teache, that a per∣son hauing once vowed, can not marrie: bicause he him selfe geueth the impediment, and not the lawe of the Churche. For that lawe was in S. Paules time, as I now haue shewed after S. Chrysostoms minde. Oecu∣menius saith, Pactae sunt quòd Christo adiungerentur, reij∣ciunt autem ipsum ad humanas reuolutae nuptias. (Item pòst) verùm quia hoc faciunt, nubant, seipsas Christo non despondeant. They couenaunted that they would be ioi∣ned vnto Christe, but they shake him of, and turne them selues to humaine Marriages. But bicause they doo so, let them marrie on Goddes name, let them not (by Vow) betroth them selues to Christe. Marke Rea∣der, S. Paule would not haue them marrie after their profession of Chastitie (that might not be in any wise) and therefore he wil haue them not to be professed, and so to marie.* 1.190 Pope Innocentius is belied. he condem∣neth [ 24] not Marriage, but Incest, and vnlauful Marriage, and preferreth in Priestes, and Deacons, holy conti∣nencie, [ 25] before the satisfying of Carnal luste. Likewise Pope Siricius is fowly belyed. If thou deale not chastly, [ 26] yet deale charily,* 1.191 what is meant thereby, and how rea∣sonably it is said,* 1.192 I shal hereafter declare in due place. Where I shal cleare the Canonistes of the sclaunder you

vtter against them of teaching the people, that Simple fornication is no sinne, whiche they neuer taught.

We saie not that men in Marriage can not please God: [ 27] but that such men can not please God, who hauing pro∣mised by taking holy Orders, that they wil liue chaste, do breake their promise. It is better to marrie in a case, then [ 28] to liue single: to some man I graunt, it is the auoyding of a greater euil, but not of it selfe better. For the Apostle saith, he that ioyneth his virgin in Marriage, doth wel,* 1.193 but he that ioyneth her not, doth better.

Whom God hath ioyned, let no man sunder. But God ne∣neuer [ 29] ioyned a Priest in Christes Church to a wife after his Priesthood, bicause the mans owne facte, and vow,* 1.194 is against his Marriage. Againe he is alreadie married to Christe, who liueth for euer, and so whiles his firste spouse liueth, he maie marrie no more. that is S. Basils reason. Although simple fornication be not now pou∣nished [ 30] with deposing the Priest, yet it is not leafte vn∣pounished.

Last of al you repeate manie abuses of the Clergie, which as in some part maie seme to arise and come of sin∣gle life, so I doubt not, but if Priestes were commonly married, the case would be muche worse. Certainely seeing Christe said, there are Eunuches,* 1.195 who gelde them selues for the kingdom of heauen, the Churche hath done right wel, to reserue the highest order for them, who do most force vnto them selues, for heauens sake. And seing S. Paule would haue al men chaste without Mar∣riage, as him selfe was: muche more it is to be thought,* 1.196 he would haue his owne Successours in the publike mi∣nisterie to be suche.

Againe if among married men, he be meetest to be cho∣sen Priest, who hath had but one wife, he yet were more meete, who had none at al. If before Priesthod one wife be the most, afterward one is to much. If perfection, and an Angels life be in most perfite chastitie, that same is most meetest for Priestes, who are the Angels of God. If married persons ought to be apart for a time, to haue the more leisour to praye, and to communicate: he that must stil attend the publike prayer, and must bothe offer, and minister the Communion, had nede stil to absteine from wedlocke: specially seing the Priestes of the lawe during the time of their ministerie, did not companie with their wiues.

Eusebius, and Epiphanius, accompt those counselles, and praises of single life, which are in holy Scripture, to apperteine to Priestes, as to the most excellent degree, and not vnto the Laie men: as who are permitted to vse a lower state of perfection. If no man that liueth in war∣fare to God, doo wrappe him selfe in secular busines, and yet S. Paul saith,* 1.197 that the maried person doth thinke vpon the thinges of the world, and is distracted thereby: how conueniently hath the West Churche ordeined, that he should only be made a Priest, who by Gods grace is con∣tent to professe and leade a single life? Or how can that Bishop, or Priest wholy attend hospitalitie and almose dedes, and the profit of his flocke, and the setting vp of common schooles, of vniuersities, of hospitals, and almose houses for the poore, and such other like dedes of mercie, and of publike profit: who hath his wife and children to prouide for? Had we now had in al England the furni∣ture of Colleges, and Scholes (whiche God be praysed

we haue, and should yet haue had more, had not the blaste of your Euangelical spirite ouerthrowen them) if the Clergie had alwaies ben married? Nay the mar∣ried Bishops, that now liue so merily, and kepe such con∣tinual dalliance and cheere vpon other mennes paines and trauailes, were nourished in the Vniuersities, special∣ly by their almose, and foundations, who were single, and chaste Bishops, and Priestes. Thus though nothing be perfite in this life, yet the single life, of the two, is more conuenient for the Cler∣gie, both by Gods Worde, and by the experience of Ci∣uil policie.

Of the Canonical Scriptures, the Worde of God, Traditions, &c. The second Chapter.

Ievvel. Pag. 193.

* 1.198Touching the booke of the Machabees vve saie nothing, but that vve finde in S. Hierome, S. Augustine, and they holy fathers. S. Hierom saith, the Church receiueth them not emong the Canonical allovved scriptures.

Harding.

* 1.199S. Hierome speaketh of such Canonical Scriptures of the olde Testament, as the very Iewes allowed for Canonical. Such in deede the bookes of the Macha∣bees are not. But why haue you not alleged S. Augu∣stines wordes, as wel as S. Hieromes? Certainely bicause they condemne you. For if yee said al that of the bookes of the Machabees, which S. Augustine saith, you would allowe them for Canonical Scriptures amonge faithful Christians.* 1.200 He saith Machabaeorum libros non Iudaei, sed Ecclesia pro Canonicis habet. As for the bookes of the Ma∣chabees, not the Iewes, but the Church accōpteth them for Canonical. Hereunto I mai•• adde: but M. Iewel, and his Companions, accompte not the bookes of the Ma∣chabees for Canonical 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the••••in they are of the Iewes Synagog, and not of the Church of Christ. Now see good Reader▪ 〈…〉〈…〉 be made, when he said as thou findest noted in the m••rge•• of his booke, Pag. 191. that he would denie no more, then S. Austine, S. Hierom and other Fathers haue ••enied. If you say, ye deny not the bookes of the Machabees▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••eproue you praying for the dead, which is so suffici••••••y proued by those bookes? Soothly if you allow the one, you must allow the other.

Ievvel. Pag. 193.

* 1.201Eusebius saith, S. Iames Epistle vvas vvritten by some other, and not by S. Iames, VVe must vnderstand (saith Eusebius) that it is a bastard epistle.

Harding.

You haue abused Eusebius. For he leaueth not there, but goeth forward, shewing, what he ment by his word,* 1.202 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whiche you turne, is a bastard. But Ruffinus more ciuilly translated it, à nōnullis non recipitur, The epi∣stle is not receiued of some men. And Eusebius him selfe addeth: Nos tamē scinius etiā istas cū caeteris publicè apleris{que} fuisse Ecclesiis receptas. Yet we know that S. Iames, and S. Iudes Epistles with the rest, haue ben publikely receiued of most Churches, wherby we learne that Eusebius meāt by the worde, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, asmuch to say, as it is accompted of some men, not to be S. Iames owne. Touching his owne iudgement, he sheweth him selfe to be of the opi∣nion, that it is S. Iames epistle. Of some, he cōfesseth by those wordes, that it was doubted of. Therfore you haue reported Eusebius vntruly, making him to pronounce negatiuely of the epistle, which directly he hath not don.

Iewel.

S. Hierome saith: It is said, that the Epistle of S. Iames, vvas set forth by some other man vnder his name.* 1.203

Harding.

I graunte. But S. Hierom had said before those wordes, which you allege, Vnam tantum scripsit Epistolam, quae de septem Catholicis est. He wrote onely one epistle, which is one of the seuen Canonical Epistles.* 1.204 Againe after the wordes by you alleged, it followeth, that the said epistle in processe of time hath obteined authoritie.

Ievvel 194.

VVe (Lutherans and Zuinglians) agree throughly together in the vvhole substance of the Religion of Christe.

Harding.

I perceiue the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud,

is no substantial point with you: and yet he that recei∣ueth it vnworthily,* 1.205 receiueth his damnation. And he can not receiue it worthily, who beleeueth amisse of it. But either the Lutherans, or the Zuinglians, or bothe, beleeue amisse thereof, bicause in that behalfe they ••eache cleane contrary doctrine. Therefore either both, as the truth is, or one of those two sectes, as them selues must confesse, receiueth alwaies vnworthily: and con∣sequently they must confesse, that one of the two sectes is vtterly damned, without any hope of saluation. And certainely the Zuinglians, as also the Caluinistes are the worse, bicause they beleeue. Goddes word lesse in some degree, then Luther taught; and go further from the li∣teral sense of his Gospel,* 1.206 and from the beleefe of the Church, which is the piller of truthe.

Iewel. 194.

The Church is not God, nor is able of her selfe to make, or alter any article of the faith.

Harding.

* 1.207But she is the spouse of God, and to her he hath pro∣mised both his wordes, and his spirite, to remaine with her for euer. And therefore she is the chiefe witnes of al the articles of the faith. Wherefore seing you hear•• not her witnesse, you ought to be vnto vs, as an Hea∣then,* 1.208 and a Publican.

Iewel.

* 1.209Esaie saith, to the lavv rather, and to the testimonie. If they ansvver not according to this vvorde, they shal haue no Morning light.

Harding.

* 1.210This lawe is written also in our hartes, as Ieremie, and S. Paul doo witnesse. And the successours of the Apostles

geue also a testimonie of Christe no lesse,* 1.211 then Christe said the Apostles should doo. Therefore the lawe and te∣stimonie, whereunto Esaie calleth, is as wel that, which is written in faithful mennes hartes, and which is witnes∣sed in the Church, as that which is written in the olde, and new Testament.

Iewel. Pag. 194.

M. Harding saith further, If quietnesse of Conscience comme of the vvorde of God onely, then had Abel no more quietnesse of conscience then vvicked restlesse Cain. &c. VVho vvould thinke, that M. Harding bearing suche a countenance of Diuinitie, vvould thus goe about to deceiue him false vvith a pointe of Sophistrie?

Harding.

Who would thinke, that M. Iewel being pressed with a point, whereunto he is not hable to make answere, would not thus go about to deceiue his vnlearned Rea∣der with a point of Sophistrie? I praie thee reader take the paines to peruse, what the Apologie saith, what I haue said in my Cōfutation, and what M. Iewel bringeth in the Defence, touching this matter. I desire no more, but that thou read it, and then iudge, as thou seest cause.

It is an easy matter for M. Iewel, when he hath made me to speake, what he listeth, to frame an answere accor∣dingly. But I must alwaies warne the reader, not to be∣leue M. Iewel, when so euer he reporteth either my wordes, or any other mannes,* 1.212 but to repaire to the Ori∣ginal. Fot seldom is he founde cleere of the crime of fal∣sifying. And here he entwiteth me of Sophistrie, wher∣as in deede he vseth the grossest sleight of Sophistrie him selfe. He conueigheth him selfe from the Cano∣nical Scriptures, to Goddes worde. Now I spake of the

Scriptures, and he answereth of Goddes worde.

* 1.213Whereas it is said in the Apologie, that onely in the Ca∣nonical Scriptures of the olde, and new Testament mannes harte can haue setled reste: Against this I bring the exam∣ple of Abel, Noe, Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, and of those holy menne, that liued before the time of Ezdras, when the Scriptures were loste: and here I demaund whether their hartes neuer founde setled reste. For if reste be founde onely in the Scriptures, how could they haue reste, when no booke, nor parte of the Scriptures was written? If it be true, as the cōtrarie can not be proued, that Moyses was the first, that euer wrote any parte of the Scriptures, shal we iudge, that al the holy Patriarches, that were before that time, had no setled reste in their hartes?* 1.214 If this be true, then (say I) had good Abel no better reste in his harte, then wicked restlesse Cain. As I said in my Confutation, so, for ought that M. Iewel is hable to bring in his Defence, I saie here againe, what foolish, and absurde Doctrine is this?

Now how dooth M. Iewel defende this Doctrine of his Apologie? What is his answere? I wish no more, but that it be read, and cōferred with my Cōfutation: here to write out al againe, it were too long. He slincketh awaie from his own wordes, and by change of wordes, maketh of it a new question. M. Harding (saith he) saith further, If quietnes of cōscience, come of the word of God only, then had Abel no more quietnes of cōscience, then wicked rest lesse Cain.

You belie M. Harding, as your custome is: he saith not so. Let the booke be trial betwen vs bothe. The question is not, whether mannes harte findeth his setled reste on∣ly in Goddes worde: (the quietnesse of the conscience

was not spoken of) but whether that reste you spake of in the Apologie, be found only in the Scriptures. In your Apologie ye said, yea, in my Confutation I saie nay. And now in your Defence, your selfe also saie Nay:* 1.215 and so ye destroie, what ye builded before, and therby proue your selfe a preuaricatour asmuch to say, a false hartlot.

For in that now ye cōueigh the matter from the Cano∣nical Scriptures of the old and new Testamēt, vnto Gods word, what is this, but a secrete recantatiō of your former false tale? If your said former tale were true, and might be mainteined, why do you so shifte your handes of it? are you a shamed to be accoumpted a Recantour, and yet re∣cante in deede? Who seeth not great diuersitie betwen Gods word, and the written Scriptures? These be more special, that is more general. By skipping from the writtē Scriptures, to Gods worde, you thought to set your selfe at h••••re libertie. And yet hauing taken your libertie, as it were by breaking loose out of your chaine, neuer so much, as you seme to geue ouer your former saying, and to recant: so you proue not your later saying. You allege S. Chrysostome saying,* 1.216 that God from the beginning spake 〈…〉〈…〉 m••n by him selfe: S. Paule, that God in olde times spake m••ny waies, and in sundrie sortes vnto the Fathers: S. Hie∣rome, that the holy Scriptures be euerlasting, though the w••••ld shal haue an ende, and that the thing, which is promi∣sed by the holy Scriptures, shal last for euer, though the paper, parchement, and leaues of bookes shalbe abolished. Againe you allege S. Chrysostome, saying,* 1.217 that S. Paule calleth Preaching not written, the Gospel. But to what purpose al this? How proueth this, either, that you auouched in your Apologie touching the setled rest of mannes harte,

to be founde only in the Canonical Scriptures of the old; and new testament, or, which now you teache, hauing reuoked your former doctrine, that it is founde onely in Goddes worde?

Verely by ought that you haue said yet, either in your Apologie, or in your Defence, you haue neither shewed, where mannes harte shal finde the reste you spake of, nor where we shal finde you: so like a hunted foxe you starte, from one thing to an other, as it were, from bushe to bushe, from hole to hole. So must they doo, who ser∣uing the Maister that you serue, take vpon them to im∣pugne the Catholique Doctrine, and to defende Vn∣truthe.

Iewel.

* 1.218God him selfe in his ovvne person and presently spake vnto Abel. &c.

Harding.

That would I confesse: But he spake not to him by paper and incke. And yet we are not now in worse case then the old fathers were. And the word of God in their hartes (whereof they could not doubte) was euer much more cleere and plaine, then that, which is in our bookes, whereof some men doubt many times. Therefore we also in Christes Church haue as wel Gods word in our hartes, as in our bookes, whence also (to wit, out of our hartes) we may resolue the doubtes, which arise vpō our bookes. But let vs see this matter ripte vp more deeply.

Iewel. Pag. 194.

VVe speake not so precisely and nicely of Gods vvord vvritten in paper, for so it is a corruptible creature, and shal perish.

Harding.

Why then bind you vs in al cases to the written word,

and wil haue nothing to be beleued, or done, that is not written?

Iewel. Pag. 195.

Chrysostom saith, Preaching not writtē Paul calleth the Gospel.* 1.219

Harding.

But we only haue preaching not written,* 1.220 for you wil haue nothing preached, which is not also written. There∣fore we only haue the whole Gospel, and you haue but one peece thereof.

Iewel. Pag. 195.

S. Antonie the Eremite vvas notably learned,* 1.221 and perfite in the scri∣ptures.

Harding.

But without knowledge of letters, as with S. Augu∣stine your selfe must confesse. This proueth that by the Scriptures the sense, and meaning is vnderstanded, and not the bare letter. Now the meaning of the Scriptures, not only tolerateth, but conuinceth the vnbloudy Sacri∣fice of Christes body, Transubstantiation, praiers to the Saintes, and praiers for the dead, as diuers learned men haue declared at large.

Iewel.

The force and substance bothe of prayer, and of meditation dependeth of reading.* 1.222

Harding.

Not only of reading. For then vnlearned persons should neither praie, nor meditate, nor haue Gods word. Marke stil, we denie not the written word: but we say besides it, there are vnwritten Verities,* 1.223 which thing you im∣pudently denie.

Iewel. Pag. 195.

S. Basil reckeneth Traditions to be equal vvith the vvorde of God, but

that he vvrote those vvordes rather of zeale, then of iudgement it〈…〉〈…〉 appeare, bicause the traditions he nameth, are forgotten euen in the Churche of Rome, as not to kneele in the Churche vpon the sonne∣daie.

Harding.

If bicause some Traditions be altered,* 1.224 or abolished, they were not Gods word, then the precepte of absteining from strangled meates,* 1.225 is not Gods word, bicause it is now abolished. But you misse M. Iewel. What soeuer God commaundeth but for a time, it is his worde: And whatsoeuer his ministers do commaunde, as profitable to the Church for the present tyme, it is Gods word, as him selfe said;* 1.226 He that heareth you heareth me. He that despiseth you despiseth me. How be it S. Basil speaketh not altoge∣ther as you reporte. He maketh not al Traditions equal with Gods worde, simply, and in al respectes: he speaketh of three thinges, of Doctrines written, and doctrines vn∣writte, and of customes, for which we haue no scripture. Of the vnwritten doctrines it is, that he speaketh, not of customes, that they haue equal force with the written doctrines, ad pietatem, to traine vs to godlinesse. As tou∣ching vnwritten customes, many thinke your example false. For we were neuer forbidden to kneele at al vpon the Sonnedaie, but at our Lordes prayer, whiles it is said at Masse time, as some interprete it. At which time al the Popes Chappel to this daie vseth to stand vp, and not to kneele.

Iewel. Pag. 195.

The reste of S. Basiles traditions stand in hallovving of vvater, and blessing of oile: &c.

Harding.

Those Traditions, which belong to Sacramentes, as that of the blessing of the oile doth, maie neuer be chan∣ged. Those that are mere ceremonial, maie be abrogated by custom, as the thrife dipping of the childe, or of any o∣ther that is to be baptized, and such others the like, which neither S. Basile, nor we euer made equal with Goddes expresse worde.

Iewel. Pag. 196.

S. Paule saying, holde the Traditions which yee haue receiued,* 1.227 either by epistle, or by worde calleth them traditions, although thei vvere conteined in his epistles and deliuered to them by vvriting.

Harding.

And also, though they were not deliuered by writing. You leaue out halfe. For he saith by writing, or per sermo∣nem, that is to saie, by speache. The writing contemed wordes: ergo, the speache, which differeth from writing, were wordes without writing.

Iewel. Pag. 196.

VVhereas S. Paule vvil haue his ovvne thinges to be kepte,* 1.228 he vvil haue no straunge thinges thereto to be added.

Harding.

We adde no strange thinges, but beleeue, that S. Paule preached, and deliuered the Sacrifice of the Masse vnto the faithful people so plainly in practise, and wordes, that the writing was not hable to shew his minde so fully in that behalfe. And by Tradition we haue as wel that, which he taught by practise, as that, which he preached, whether he wrote it, or no.

Iewel. Pag. 197.

S. Paule by the vvord, Traditions, meant not Ceremonies, or certaine

secrete vnknovven Verities,* 1.229 but the substance of the Gospel I haue deli∣uered vnto you that Christ died for our sinnes, saieth he.

Harding.

* 1.230He meant not only Ceremonies, I graunt. And as for secrete vnknowen verities, we haue no suche, excepte you are so mad, as to cal praying for the dead a secrete vnknowen veritie, which hath euen benne knowen to al menne, yea wemen, and children in the Church of God. And that custome of praying for the dead, S. Paule did teach, as wel as al other the Apostles, as Tradition telleth vs,* 1.231 witnessed also by S. Chrysostom. So that as the whole Gospel commeth vnto vs by Tradition, so doth Masse, Dirige, Holy water, Lenten fast, and others.

Iewel. Pag. 197.

* 1.232S. Augustine findeth is not appointed by Christ, or the Apostles, vvhat daies vve ought to fast.

Harding.

* 1.233You kepe your kinde, in alleging thinges out of their kinde. S. Augustine there speaketh of that, which is to be founde in the writinges of the Apostles. For thus it went before, In Apostolicis literis, in the Apostolike writinges. There he findeth not the Lenten fast. But he findeth it in the Apostolike Traditiōs, saying in the very same epistle. In his rebus de quibus nihil cert•• statuit scriptura diuina, mos populi Dei, vel instituta maiorū prolege ••edendasunt. Looke in what thinges the holy Scripture hath determined no∣thing of certaintie, the custome of the people of God, o•• the ordinaūces of the Forfathers,* 1.234 are to be kept as a lawe.

Marke that the custom of Gods, people must be ••ol∣den for a law: prolege, for a law M. Iewel. It is the epistle alleged by you, that saith, Traditiōs, and customes must be

kept for a law. And his owne wordes another where are Vt quadraginta illi dies ante Pascha obseruetur,* 1.235 Ecclesiae con∣suetudo roborauit. That the fortie daies before Easter should be kepte, the custome of the Church hath confir∣med, and strengthened it. And generally he saith: Quae non scripta, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto terra∣rum orbe obseruantur, dantur intelligi, vel ab ipsis Aposto∣lis, vel plenarijs Concilijs commendata, atque statuta retine∣ri. Looke what thinges we kepe, not being written, but deliuered by tradition, which are obserued al the worlde ouer, thereof intelligence is geuen vs, that they be kepte in vre, as thinges cōmended vnto vs, and ordeined either by the Apostles them selues, or by the General Coun∣celles.

Nowe seing the Faste of the fortie dayes was, and is generally kepte in the Churche, and yet not firste commaunded by any general Councel: it remaineth ac∣cording to S. Augustines rule, that it was instituted of the Apostles. And S. Hierome by name saith, it came from the Apostles. In fidei regula discrepamus. We differ in the rule of faith from the Montanistes. For they denie three persons confounding them into one. They accompt the second Marriages as il, as Aduoutrie, and make three Lenten fastes. Nos vnam Quadragesimam secundùm traditionem Apostolorum toto anno, tempore nobis congruo ieiunamus: We faste at a time conuenient one Lent, in the whole yere, according to the Traditions of the Apostles.

Iewel. 199.

M. Harding saith, Persona, Ingenitus, Homousion, are not founde in the scriptures, but the sense and meaning is found there.

Harding.

So is the sense, and meaning of Masse, of transubstanti∣ation, and of praying to Saintes founde there.

Iewel. Pag. 200.

Gennadius saith, the perpetual Virginitie of our Ladie is proued suf∣ficiently by scriptures.* 1.236

Harding.

* 1.237This is a lowde lie. Trie it out who wil, Gennadius saith not so but only, that S. Hieromes booke, which he wrote against Heluidius, affirming that our Ladie bare children, after she had borne Christ, was sufficiently four∣nished with* 1.238 testimonies of the Scriptures. For al∣though it be not expressely written, that she was a per∣petual Virgin, yet the faith thereof is most agreable to the Scriptures, and most certaine in Tradition. But were not the Tradition so strong, the Scriptures certainely might be doubtful ynough in that behalfe.

Iewel. Pag. 200.

Of God and his vvord they vvould euermore haue vs stand in doubt: but of the Pope, and his vvord, they say, in any vvise vve maie not doubt.

Harding.

Our doubte is not whether Gods word ought to be beleeued, no man doubteth thereof: But onely what is the meaning thereof. And then besides to vnderstand it the better, we ioine vniuersal tradition with it, and in al further doubtes we say, the Pope, or the General Coun∣cel is the highest, and laste iudge in earth to declare vnto vs the meaning of Gods worde. Otherwise we should neuer haue an end of Controuersies, as we see by expe∣rience betwen the Lutherans, and Zuinglians.

Ievvel. Pag. 200. & 201.

Hovv knovv you saith M. Harding, that the scriptures, be the scriptures?

&c. The Church of God had the spirit of vvisedom, vvhereby to discerne the true scriptures from the false. So saith S.a 1.239 Ambrose. S.b 1.240 Augustin. andc 1.241 Eusebius. Yet vvil it not folovv that the Church is aboue the scriptures.

Harding.

If the Church of God haue the spirite of wisedome, to discerne the true scriptures from the false, shal it not also haue the same wisedom of God, to expound the ho∣ly Scriptures, and also to determine any question arising thereon? Neither doo we say, that the Church is aboue the Scriptures in authoritie: but that it is to vs better knowen, and as a more liuely, so a more plaine teacher, then the Scriptures be.

For if we aske the Scriptures any question,* 1.242 be it neuer so hard, as Clemens Alexandrinus hath wel noted: They wil answer vs no more, then it is written. But if any man aske the Church neuer so manie questions, if the know∣ledge be behooful for mannes soule health, it wil euer make him to eche question an answer, and so wil dimisse him with a ful satisfaction touching al his doubtes.* 1.243 For this cause the Church is called the piller of truth: And as you confesse, that the Church hath shewed vs, which be the true Scriptures: so must you likewise graunte, that the Church hath the spirite of God, to shew vs the truth in al behooful cases, yea euen in those, which be not ex∣pressely written. For where is it written expressely, that the church of God should haue the spirit of God, for this ende to shew vs the true Scriptures, to approue the true Scriptures, and to condemne the false forgeries?* 1.244 Christe said generally of al matters, He that heareth you, heareth me: Item, he that heareth not the Church, let him be to thee, as an Heathen, and a Publican.

Of the Sacramentes of the Churche. The thirde Chapter.

Iewel. Defence. Pag. 103. & 104.

M. Harding saith, there be seuen Sacramentes, vvhich (as he saith) do not only signifie a holy thing, but also doo make holy those, to vvhom they be adhibited. But hovv can Matrimonie sanctifie a man, and make him holy? Or by vvhat institution of Christ conteineth it grace in it selfe, and povver to sanctifie?

Harding.

* 1.245S. Paule answereth you thus. Ye husbandes loue your wi∣ues, as Christ hath loued his Church. And then he pro∣ueth the wife to be the flesh of the husband, as also the Church is the body of Christe. And so both waies the Prophecie of Adam is verefied,* 1.246 that two shalbe in one flesh. Sacramentum hoc magnum est in Christe & Ec∣clesia.* 1.247 This is a great Sacrament (or a great Misterie) in Christe and the Churche. For we stand not now vpon the worde, but vpon the thing. What is that great My∣sterie? First Matrimonie is alwaies a coniunction of two in one, both by natural consent of myndes and also (if it be consummate) by corporal coniunction. Now by Christes institution, that coniunction is also made in∣separable,* 1.248 when he said, That which God hath ioined toge∣ther, let not man separate, or put a sunder.

Nowe then this coniunction is made to be insepa∣rable betwen faithful persons, it is directed by Christ, and instituted purposely to signifie his inseparable con∣iunction with the Church. And whiles it is instituted of Christe to signifie that thing, it is made a Sacrament, or Mysterie, whereunto Christe geueth grace, and holi∣nesse

for that purpose. For when any thing, or action is appointed by Christ to signifie a holy thing in Religion, that action is thereby made a Sacrament, and doth san∣ctifie the worthy receiuers of it. We see that Circumci∣sion might be made, and was vsed among some Infidels, and to them it was no Sacrament.* 1.249 But when the faithful were commaunded to circumcide them selues, to signi∣fie the Circumcision of the harte, which Christe should make in them that beleeued, by his spirit and grace: then Circumcision was made a Sacrament, and did sanctifie the worthy receiuer. Euen so it is in Matrimonie, as S. Augustine saith.* 1.250 Quoddam Sacramentum nuptiarum com∣mendatur fidelibus coniugatis. Vnde dicit Apostolus, viri diligite vxores vestras, sicut & Christus dilexit Ecclesiam. A certaine Sacrament of Marriage is commended vnto the faithful married personnes. Whereupon the Apo∣stle saith, ye men loue your wiues, euen as Christe loued his Churche. Huius proculdubio Sacramenti res est, vt mas & foemina connubio copulati, quàm diu viuunt, inseparabili∣ter perseuerent. Nec liceat excepta causa fornicationis, à con∣iuge coniugem dirimi: hoc enim custoditur in Christo, & Ec∣clesia, vt viuens cum viuente in aeternum nullo diuortio se∣paretur. The thing doubtlesse of this Sacrament is,* 1.251 that the man and woman ioyned together in Marriage, as long as they liue, continew together vndisseuered, and that it be not lauful for the one to be separated from the other, but for fornication. For this thing is kept in Christ, and the Church, that he lyuing with the liuing for euer by no diuorce be separated.

Here we learne, not only that the name, but also that the thing of a Sacrament is in the Marriage of Christians:

which thing doth sanctifie those persons, that come wor∣thily to Marriage. For as Marriage was from the begin∣ning ordeined to begete Children, so by Christ it is ordei∣ned to a higher signification, verely not to be separated, whiles the parties married together doo liue, and there∣by to signifie Christes inseparable vniō with his Church.* 1.252 And as that vnion of Christ with vs is an inseparable san∣ctification to faithful men, so is the signe thereof a special sanctification to them, who married in our Lorde. It is knowen, that as S. Augustine assigneth, there are, tria bona matrimonij,* 1.253 fides, proles, & Sacramentum: Three good thinges are in Mariage, the faith (or fidelitie of wedlocke which the man, and wife must kepe, rendring duetie the one to the other) the childe which is brought foorth, and the Sacrament, whereof Christ said, That which God hath ioyned,* 1.254 let not man separate.

Iewel. 042.

* 1.255The Fathers intreating of the Sacramentes, haue vsed vehement, and great vvordes, &c.

Harding.

Whiles you hunte for wordes, and Phrases, you consi∣der not, that the Church of God had the practise of cer∣taine thinges, whereby the Fathers wordes were perfite∣ly vnderstanded. Restore vs those thinges, whiche you can not denie to haue ben in the Primitiue Churche, as holy oile, Chrisme, Monckes, consecrated Virgins, Altars, and Sacrifice for the quicke and dead, with other suche: and then talke you of wordes, what you list. I accompt it labour lost to dispute with you about Phrases of speach, vpon which Christes faith dependeth not: but vpon his Institution, and the practise and custom of his Churche,

the best interpreter of the same.

Iewel. Pag. 206.

The Sacramentes of the old, and of the nevv lavv, in truth, and sub∣stance are al one.

Harding.

I knowe not what you meane by Truth, and Substance. I confesse the effecte of them al tendeth to one ende: That is to ioyne vs with God, and with Christe, in harte, wil, and glorie. But after Christes incarnation, grace is more copiousely distributed by corporal instrumen∣tes, to the ende we maie learne to seeke our saluation by the fleash and body of Christe,* 1.256 who was made Man to saue vs. And therefore although grace be only in our soules, yet the ordinarie meane of receiuing grace, com∣meth to vs by the Sacramentes, accordingly as it is said, He that beleueth, and is baptised, shalbe saued. Baptismus (saith S. Chrysostom) corporis mundatio non est, sed animae. Baptisme is not the cleansing of the Body, but of the Soule. Now the Soule is cleansed only by grace. There∣fore baptisme geueth grace, as an instrument appointed therto by Christ. And al we being many are one bread, and one body, which partake of the one bread, to wit, of the body of Christ, saith S. Paule. Whose sinnes ye forgeue, they are for∣geuen. And he that is annointed with oile by the Priestes of the Church praying for him, in the name of our Lord, shal haue his sinnes forgeuen him, if he be in any.

Iewel.

M. Harding vvil replie: S. Augustine saith,* 1.257 the Sacramentes of the new testament geue saluation. But his meaning is this, Our Sacra∣mentes teache vs, that Saluation is alreadie come into the vvorlde.

Harding.

So then Dare, is to teach, and Salus, is saluation come into the world. Here is gaye geare for wantons, to dally with wordes, in matter of our Saluation.

Iewel.

* 1.258S. Augustine saith in an other place: The Sacraments of the olde lavv vvere promises of thinges to be accomplished: our Sacraments of the nevv lavv are tokens that the same promises be alreadie accomplished.

Harding.

If your wordes had any pith in them, I would laye them out at large and answer them fully: But now I graunt al that you saie. What then? Wil it folow, that bicause our Sacramentes doo shewe, that Christe is al∣readie come, therefore our Sacramentes geue no grace? For that is the point whiche you denie. Nay rather they geue grace therefore, bicause they shew so much by his Institution. For Christe maketh not naked shewes, his wordes worke, and his deedes be effectual in the soule, and his Sacramentes both shew that, whiche is done, to wit, the death of Christe, and make vs partakers of the grace purchased by the same. He that eateth Christes fleash,* 1.259 sheweth his death (saith S. Paul) and he that eateth my fleash (saith Christ) hath life euerlasting. Marke, how our hauing of life goeth together with our shewing of Christes death. You diuide these matters, and make Christes Sacramentes only to be shewes.

Iewel.

M. Harding saith our doctrine is but in a corner of the vvorld, and that therfore Christ hath geuen this vvatchevvorde of vs, beleue them not. Hovvbeit so many kingdoms, Countries, Common vveales, as professe this daye the Gospel, vvould make a good large Corner of the Church of God.

Harding.

I looke not only to your present state, M. Iewel: but I looke a litle backward. For Christes Church began not with Frier Luther within these fiftie yeres, but fifteen hundred yeres past. Your Church is not yet very great, and nothing so great, as the Arians was. Howbeit fiftie yeres past it was so smal, that not only Christ, but euen Photinus, or Pelagius would haue benne ashamed of you. For your candle was vnder a bushel, and your congrega∣tion in the desert, or in the secrete partes of the house,* 1.260 which kinde of Congregations, Christ willed vs not to beleeue. For his Citie is alwaies vpon a Hil, and can not be hid.

Iewel. Pag. 208.

Christ meant of Antichrist, as it is very likely, vvhen he said,* 1.261 beleue them not. For out of the very true Churches come deceiuers, as Chry∣sostome saith.

Harding.

And you are the members of Antichrist: for you came out of the true Churche, when you went from vs.

Iewel. 208.

Verely hovvsoeuer M. Harding vvil shift this matter, the plaine vvordes seeme rather to touch him, and his companie, then either Luther, or Zuinglius, or any other. For they can point vvith their fingers, and say, here is Christe, and there is Christ: Behold in this pixe are three Christes: in that fiue: in that seuen: in that moe. Therefore it is likely that Christ geueth vs this special vvatchvvord of them, and such o∣thers, beleeue them not.

Harding.

If those wordes, here is Christ, and there is Christ,* 1.262 were

meant of his body in the Sacrament, euen at his owne Supper it might haue ben said, here is Christ, and there is Christ. For in euery Apostles hand, or mouth Christ then was.* 1.263 For as S. Ambrose witnesseth, In illo Sacramento Christus est, quia corpus Christi. Christe is in that Sacra∣ment, bicause it is the body of Christe.

S. Chrysostom of purpose answereth your foolish ob∣iection:* 1.264 Quoniam in multis locis offertur (Christus) multi Christi sunt? Nequaquam, sed vnus vbique est Christus, & hîc plenus existens, & illic plenus, vnum corpus. Bicause Christ is offered in manie places, are there manie Chri∣stes? No, not so. But one Christ is in euery of the places, being fully here, and fully there, it is one body.

* 1.265Againe this Sacrament was preserued euen in the Pri∣mitiue Church, and sent by Deacons to those, that were absent, as S.a 1.266 Iustin{us} the Martyr, and S.b 1.267 Irenaeus do wit∣nesse. Exuperius also the Bishop of Tholosa (as S.c 1.268 Hierō sheweth) carried it in a wicker basket. So that it is but the lewd Sowters Diuinitie, to expounde, here is Christ, and there is Christ, of the being of Christes bodie in the Sacra∣mēt. And what was Christes meanīg in those wordes, it is expressed in the Gospel, that diuers false prophets should arise in diuers corners of his Church, as Arius at Alexan∣dria, Nestorius at Cōstātinople, and likewise other Arch∣heretikes in other corners, of the which euery one should chalenge Christ to him: As for example, that Iohn Hus would say, Christ is wel preached with vs in in Bohe∣mia onely: Not so quod Luther, but Christ is wel prea∣ched here at Wittenberg only. Zuinglius then would say no thereunto, but that he is wel preached at Zurich on∣ly. Nay saith Caluine, he is most excellently, and most

purely preached at Geneua. Tush quod Suenkfeldius,* 1.269 he is better preached in Silesia. Ye are al deceiued quod Waldo,* 1.270 he is best of al preached in certaine dennes about Lions. I perceiue quod Bernardinus Ochinus,* 1.271 ye neuer were in Polonia: for there is the very syncere woorde of God professed, and the doctrine for a man to haue mo wiues at once, is allowed. But Osiander* 1.272 for his parte crieth out, that in Prussia the Gospel hath more libertie, bicause Duke Albert is for his owne tooth. Wel quod Brentius,* 1.273 when al is done, there is no doctrine like to the Vbiquitie frankly taught in the Duchie of Wirtemberg. Ye are al far out of the waie, say the Anabaptistes,* 1.274 for Friseland is alone, and there onely Christ is truly prea∣ched, and that should wel appeare, if our kingdom be∣gonne at Muster had gonne forward.

Now last of al crepeth me forth one Browne at Lon∣don, with his vnspotted Congregation, otherwise called Puritanes.* 1.275 As we come laste, say they, so we are purest, and cleanest of al others. For we wil haue no iote of the Popes dregges, nor any religion, what so euer hath ben to fore. awaie with al: for al was naught vntil we came, and our waie doubtlesse is without fault. These and many o∣ther contrarie Sectes (M. Iewel) chalenging eche one of them the truth to them selues, are these Corner crepers, who ceasse not to crie, here is Christ, and there is Christ,* 1.276 of whō we are al warned to beware. For in the meane time Christ is preached truly in the only Catholike Church, in the light of the world, where his Candle stādeth vpō the Cādlestick to geue light to al that are in his great Howse. And in this sense do al the Fathers expoūd these words of Christ, as I might at large shew, if I had your boastīg vaine,

and coueted to seeme to say much vpon euery thing, be-it neuer so plaine.

Iewel. 208.

M. Hardings fellovves are not yet vvel agreed vvhat to make of their ovvne Consecration.

Harding.

Your long needelesse processe is answered with one worde. Their question is concerning a point not neces∣sarie, to wit, how Christ did consecrate. But they are al agreed, that he made and consecrated his owne body and bloud, by what meanes so euer he did it.

Iewel. 209.

VVe vse the vvordes, that Christ vsed. If Christ and his Apvstles cō∣secrated, then do vve vndoubtedly likevvise consecrate: And our inten∣tion is to doo that, Christ hath taught vs to do.

Harding.

Christ was a Priest, and consecrated as a Priest, asa 1.277 S. Cyprian, andb 1.278 S. Hierom doo witnesse, that as Mel∣chisedech in foreshewing the figure of Christ had done, panem, & vinum offerens, offering breade and wine: ip∣se quoque veritatem sui corporis & sanguinis repraesentaret, Christ him selfe also should make present the truth of his body and bloud. And when Christ had thus consecra∣ted his body and bloud, then he made his Apostles also Ministerial Priestes,* 1.279 saying, doo ye this (wherein is con∣teined, make this) in my remembrance. And so they con∣secrated alwaies as Priestes, and taught vs the oblation of the new testament,* 1.280 as S. Irenaeus witnesseth. But as for you M. Iewel, beleeuing, there is no external priest∣hoode,

and refusing to take the Sacrament of O••ders, which the Church hath alwaies had: how can you haue either the intention to consecrate, and offer vp Christes body, or to do that thing, whiche you falsly beleeue may not be donne?

Iewel. Pag. 209.

There is the body of our Lord (saith M. Harding) be the receiuers be∣leeuing, or not beleeuing. But S. Augustine saith:* 1.281 This is the eating of that meate, and the drinking of that drinke, that a man dvvel in Christ, and haue Christ dvvelling in him.

Harding.

That is in deede the worthy eating, and drinking, wher∣of S. Augustine speaketh. But S. Paule sheweth, that he,* 1.282 who eateth vnworthily that meate, is giltie of the body of our Lord, which should not be so by his eating, except it were the body of our Lord, which he doth eate.

Iewel. Pag. 109.

Origen saith, Est verus cibus quem, nemo malus potest edere.* 1.283 Etenim si malus posset edere corpus Domini, nō scriberetur, qui edit hunc panem, viuet in aete••num. The body of Christ is the true foode, vvhiche no euil man can eate. For if the euil man could eate the body of our Lord, it should not be vvritten, he that eateth this bread, shal liue for euer.

Harding.

You haue fowly corrupted this place M. Iewel. Ori∣gen speaketh not of the Sacrament in those wordes, nor of the Sacramental eating. Yea expressely hauing spokē before of the Sacramēt,* 1.284 he endeth his talke thereof in this sort. Et haec quidem de typicosymbolico{que} corpore. And these thinges I haue said of the typical and figuratiue bo∣dy. Where it is to be noted,* 1.285 that the Sacrament is called a figuratiue body, bicause it is made present for a figura∣tiue

purpose, that is, to thend the death of the same body (whiche death is: nowe past and absent) may be re∣membred most effectually by the presence of the selfe same body, that died. Nowe goeth Origen forward, saying: Multa porrò & de ipso verbo dici possent, quod factum est caro, verúsque cibus, quem qui comederit, om∣nino viuet in aeternum, quem nullus malus potest edere. Et enim si fieri posset, vt qui malus adhuc perseueret, edat verbum factum carnem, cùm sit, verbum & panis vinus: nequaquam scriptum fuisset, quisquis ederit panem hunc, vi∣uet in aeternum. Moreouer muche might be said of the word it selfe, how that it was made fleash, and the true foode, the whiche, he that eateth, shal be sure to liue for ouer, the whiche no euil man can eate. For if it could so be, that he, who continueth euil stil, should eate the worde made fleash, whereas it is the woorde, and liuing bread, it should not haue ben written, whosoeuer eateth this bread, shal liue for euer.

* 1.286These are the true wordes of Origen. But M. Iewel hath so mangled them, that the sense is cleane altered. For in steede of verbū caro factum, the worde made flesh, he hath placed the body of Christ, referring it to the Sa∣crament. And whereas in Origen it is (edere) verbum fa∣ctum carnem (to eate) the word made flesh: he hath made exchange thereof into edere corpus Domini, to eate the body of our Lorde. And so whereas Origen meant, that euil men can not eate spiritually, and effectually the Di∣uinitie of Christ, so as it dwelleth corporally in his flesh: M. Iewel hath taught him to say, that an euil man can not in the Sacrament eate Christes bodie.

Iewel. Pag. 210.

VVe say vvith S. Augustine the Sacrament is not our Lorde,* 1.287 but the bread of our Lord.

Harding.

S. Augustin denieth not the Sacramēt to be our Lord, he hath no such wordes. Howbeit we our selues would denie it, in some sense. For some tyme the Sacrament is taken for the forme of bread and wine, and that in deede is not our Lord.

Iewel. 212.

M. Harding might accompt not only seuen, but also seuenteen sundry Sacramentes.

Harding.

I accompt onely seuen in such sense, as the Churche properly taketh a Sacrament. And how that is, I shewed before.

Iewel. pag. 213.

Thus vve say it can not be proued, that this number is so specially ap∣pointed. As for the reasons of seuen seales, seuen trumpettes, seuen starres, seuen golden Candelstikes, and seuen eyes, they are childish.

Harding.

We ground not our seuen Sacramentes vppon those similitudes.* 1.288 Albeit if any man applie some of those mat∣ters to the seuen Sacramentes, it is not childishely done: seing S. Augustine confesseth, that the Mysteries of num∣bers be great in the holy scriptures.

Iewel. 213.

Vnto euery Sacrament tvvo thinges are necessarie: a sensible outvvard Element, as in Baptisme VVater, in our Lordes Supper Bread and VVine, and the vvord of Institution.

Harding.

Thus farre we are agreed with you.

Iewel.

Matrimonie, Order, and penaunce haue the vvoorde of God, but they haue no outvvard creature or Element. Extrems Vnction, and Confirma∣tion, haue neither vvoorde, nor Element.

Harding.

To answere you herein M. Iewel I can not doo bet∣ter,* 1.289 then to send you to the Councel of Florence, and to the bookes, wherein the order of our Sacramentes are conteined. Where you shal finde, that there lacketh neither the woorde of Institution, nor conuenient Ele∣ment. It is yenough to vs, that both by the woorde of God, and by the perpetual doctrine of the Churche we are taught,* 1.290 that these seuen are Sacramentes. Confir∣mation is proued in the Actes of the Apostles: Extreme Vnction in the Epistle of S. Iames: Order in S. Luke, and in S. Iohn. Now baptisme, and our Lordes supper, your selfe graunt: of penaunce, and Matrimonie I haue said sufficiently already. To be short, we are in possession of seuen Sacramentes: neither can you, nor any man now aliue, or that euer liued sith the Apostles, shewe, that e∣uer the Church was without so many Sacramentes. Im∣pugne them when you list, I doubt not but you shalbe answered. For that ye haue said hitherto is litle worthe, and most thinges are lyes.

Iewel. pag. 213. & 214.

* 1.291The auncient Fathers hauing occasion to intreate of purpose, and spe∣cially hereof, speake only of tvvo Sacramentes, and so Bessarion namely saith.

Harding.

None of them al hath written purposely of al the Sa∣cramentes of the Church, but as occasion serued,* 1.292 they now speake of two, now of moe. Of two they speake the more specially, bicause the custome was to geue them both together, to those, that were of discretion.

Howbeit Dionysius Areopagita the most auncient of al, intreateth of many moe, as his booke de Ecclesiastica Hie∣rarchia doth witnesse. Tertullian besides Baptisme, and the body of Christ nameth together with them Anoin∣ting, and Signing, and Imposition of handes. And the Do∣ctours which you bring, affirme two, but they denie not moe. Yea S. Cyprian, whom you cite in the first place, can not be proued there to meane by both Sacramentes, Baptisme, and the supper of our Lorde.

Bessarion saith, two were deliuered plainely in the Scriptures, but he confesseth moe whiche are deliuered also in the Scriptures: though not so plainely as the other two. And he expressely nameth Chrismatis Sacramentum, the Sacrament of Confirmation, or of Bishopping. Of the other Sacramentes in general he speaketh twise in the beginning of that Treatie. Wherefore there is an impud••nt he included in your wordes, where you saie, that I haue in expresse wordes, The onely two Sacraments of the Churche. So that nowe we maie couple you with Beza, ••••o teacheth the same doctrine in his Confession, and iu••••ly cal you bothe false teachers.

Iewel. 214.

Al these thinges not vvithstanding the Tridentine Councel concludeth seuen Sacramentes.

Harding.

So it ought, and maie easily doo M. Iewel, any thing that you haue yet brought, notwithstanding. You proue in dede that there are two Sacramentes, but that there are no moe, you haue not brought so much as one appa∣rent authoritie, Sauing that of Bessarion, who neuerthe∣lesse is vtterly against you. For he beleued, and taught, that there were seuen Sacramentes,* 1.293 as by that Treatie it maye wel appeare. But what should I do good reader, should I now proue that there are seuen Sacramentes? Cer∣tainely it were easy for me so to doo, and to set out a booke of that Argument farre greater, then M. Iewels is. And that may wel appeare true by that Ruardus Tapper, Cardinal Hosius, and Petrus a Soto with diuers other learned menne haue done in this behalfe. I am sure M. Iewel wil not denie, but I were hable to english at the lest that, which I should find in their Latin bookes. And yet therein standeth his whole shewe. For in deede he doth litle els, but english that which the Germaines and Geneuians bookes haue.* 1.294 The vntruthes, and scoffes, that he addeth of his owne, though they be many in number, yet doo they not greatly increase the bulke of his vo∣lume. Besides al other Catholique bookes there hath one benne set forth of late by the learned Iesuites of Di∣linga in Germanie, intituled Augstuiniana Cōfessiō, where in manner no worde is founde besides that, whiche is in S. Augustins owne workes. And there al seuen Sacra∣mentes are proued at large, out of S. Augustin alone, and that maie suffice in this behalfe. For if ye refuse S. Augu∣stines authoritie, I know not whose authoritie ye wil al∣lowe.

Of the power of Baptisme in infantes, and of Concu∣piscence. The 4. Chapter.

Harding.

What M. Iewel would saye in this matter,* 1.295 I can not certainly tel: he is so inconstant, and like a man, that is halfe ashamed of his doctrine. For one while he saith, the Sacrament dependeth of no man. At another time, The iust man shal liue not by the faith of his pa∣rentes, but by his owne faith. And yet he saith, S. Augustine, Iustinus Martyr, S. Cyprian, S. Hierom, and others write plainely, that the faith of the Parentes doth helpe. But how truly that is written, he wil not saye.

Againe, he saith, that Infantes are not void of faith:* 1.296 A litle after he writeth, God is able to worke saluation both with the Sacraments, and without them. And then he min∣gleth the Signe with the Thing, and the Thing with the Signe. Last of al he saith, In deede,* 1.297 and in precise man∣ner of speache, Saluation must be sought in Christe alone, and not in any outward signes. In effecte he sticketh, and maketh muche a doo (and faine he woulde if he durst) bring forth this proposition plainely, condemned of the Churche in olde tyme, That infantes maie be saued without Baptisme. But it is the heresie of Pelagius, and the same is against the word of God, saying,* 1.298 Except a man be borne againe of water, and of the holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of heauen. For whereas saith with the vow and desire of baptisme in a time of ne∣cessitie, doth serue him, that hath discretiō to beleue,* 1.299 seing the said faith is not in the child, excepte baptisme, which is the Sacrament of faith, be receiued of him: it doth

folow, that Children dying without Baptisme, are con∣demned. This much maye suffice for that point.

Iewel.

Concupiscence remaining in the faithful after baptisme, is sinne for∣cing S. Paul to crie out,* 1.300 I see an other law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and leading me prisoner to the law of sinne. And againe. O wretched man that I am, who shal deli∣uer me from this body of death?

Harding.

* 1.301It is to be vnderstanded, that whereas Baptisme saueth vs, as S. Peter saith: al sinne is washed away therein. And we are made a new creature, according to that S. Paul saith In Christ Iesus,* 1.302 neither Circumcision is ought worth, nor vn∣circuncision, but the new creature, meaning by a new crea∣ture, as S. Chrysostom, and other holy Fathers expound it, that our nature, which was waxen old in sinne, Repētè baptismi lauacro renouata est, non aliter quàm si denu•• esset condita, is renued in the washing of baptisme, none other∣wise, then if it had ben made a newe. So that no sinne at al can be in vs now baptized, if wee haue worthily re∣ceiued Baptisme. Whiche notwithstanding, there is e∣uidently perceiued in our fleashe a certaine resistance, and rebellion against Reason: in suche wise that, as our minde, and soule being indued with grace desireth to do al goodnes: so do our senses, and sensual appetites intise and prouoke vs to muche naughtinesse.

Now bicause the sensual appetite deliteth vs, and so ouercommeth vs commonly, more or lesse: therefore it is called the law of the fleash, or the law, which the fleash would gladly follow, and obey: which law, or concupi∣scence, leadeth vs prisoners to sinne, so much as lieth in

it, and so ofte as we obey it.

Whether concupiscence be sinne, though we consent not vnto it.

But the point of the question is, whether it be truly and in deed a sinne in vs, although we consent not vnto it. We saie, it is not properly sinne. M. Iewel defendeth the contrarie: but S. Paules wordes proue not the con∣cupiscence which remaineth, to be a sinne, except we obey it. Otherwise if of it selfe it were sinne, we had not benne made a newe creature in Baptisme. For the creature wherein sinne is, remaineth stil an old creature. But albeit al sinnes be taken awaye in Baptisme, yet God suffereth the concupiscence to remaine in our fleash, partly that we maie by the Rebellion thereof, perceiue from what an enimie our soule is deliuered, and so geue thankes to God, as the Apostle doth in this place,* 1.303 which M. Iewel alleaged: partly that we may be exercised with tentati∣on, to thende we may be crowned for our victorie. I therefore (saith S. Paule) in minde (or soule) obey the lawe of God, but in fleash I obey the law of sinne. And who know∣eth not, it is the consent of the mind, and not the desire of the fleash, which maketh a man to be a sinner?

Concupiscence is in my fleash onely, and not in my minde, except I consent vnto it, and so take it into my minde, and then in truth it is a sinne. And this is the very discourse of S. Paule. For when he had said, in mind (or in the highest part of my soule) I obey the lawe of God, he concludeth thereupon,* 1.304 Nihil ergo damnationis est his qui sunt in Christo Iesu, qui non secundùm carnem ambulant. Therefore no part of damnation is to them,

who are in Christ Iesus, who walke not according to the flesh. For if a man walke according to the flesh, then in deede his Concupiscence, which before was no sinne, is becom a sinne. Thus albeit our flesh be the flesh of death, that is to say,* 1.305 mortal, as S. Chrysostom expoundeth it, and therefore S. Paul would faine be deliuered from it, as fea∣ring lest he should at any time yeeld vnto it: yet if he do not yeelde vnto it,* 1.306 there is no sinne in him. For the law of the spirit of life (which is the grace that iustifieth vs in ba∣ptisme) deliuereth him from the law of sinne, and of death euerlasting.

Ievvel 217.

* 1.307S. Ambrose saith. There is not found in any man such concord (betvven the flesh and the spirit) but that the lavv (of concupiscence) vvhich is plan∣ted in the members, fighteth against the lavv of the mind. And for that cause the vvordes of S. Iohn the Apostle are taken,* 1.308 as spoken in in the per∣son of al Saintes. If vve say, vve haue no sinne, vve deceiue our selues and there is no truth in vs.

Harding.

I graunt that in this cōtinual fight we are daily so con∣quered in some smal sinne, or other, that we neuer re∣maine any long time without venial sinne. But that hap∣peth, bicause we yeelde, and consent vnto sinne, and not bicause the concupiscence of it selfe is sinne, before we haue consented vnto it.

Ievvel. 217.

S. Augustine saith in most plaine vvise:* 1.309 The concupiscnce of the flesh, against vvhich the good spirite lusteth, is both sinne, and the paine of sinne, and the cause of sinne. Yet the late blessed Chapter of Trident in spite of S. Augustine, hath published the contrarie.

Harding.

Thus ye speake in spite of the Coūcel. Verely the Coū∣cel

of Trent did determine that, which it foūd in S. Augu∣stin, who teacheth most manifestly, that the Cōcupiscēce is not properly sin, but is only called so. And thereby you know how S. Augustine is to be vnderstāded in the place by you alleged. His most plaine words are these.* 1.310 Dicimus Baptisma dare oīm indulgentiā peccatorū, et auferre crimina, nō radere: Sed de ista cōcupiscentia carnis, falli eos credo; vel fallere, cū qua necesse est, vt etiā baptizatus, & hoc, si diligē∣tissimè proficit, & spiritu Dei agitur, pia mente confligat. Sed haec etiāsi vocatur Peccatū, non vti{que} quia peccatū est, sed quia peccato facta est, sic vocatur, Sicut sciptura, manus cuius{que} di∣citur, quòd manus eā fecerit. We say that Baptisme geueth remissiō of al sinnes, and that it taketh crimes quit away, and doth not shaue them (as who would saye, it leaueth not the rootes behind). But I suppose that (as touching this Concupiscēce of the flesh (they be either deceiued them selues, or that they deceiue others. For of this Con∣cupiscēce he also, who is baptized, yea though he profit neuel so wel, and be guided with the spirite of God, must of necessitie suffer in his Godly mind some conflicte. But this Concupiscence, albeit it be called sinne, yet verely it is not so called, bicause it is sinne, but bicause it is made by sinne. As for example, any writing is called the hand of him, that wrote it, bicause the hand made it.

If then S. Augustine say most distinctly, that the Con∣cupiscence in them, that are baptized, is not a sinne, how spitefully, yea how falsely also haue you said, that the Councel of Trent defined the contrarie in spite of S. Au∣gustine? I pray you be not so angry with the Councel of Trent. If your stomake wil not holde in that spiteful hu∣mour, but you must nedes vtter it: yet wil truth be truth.

Of the Real presence of Christes Bodie in the Sacra∣ment of the Aulter. The 5. Chapter.

The Apologie. Pag. 218.

VVe saie that Eucharistia, that is to saie, the Supper of the Lorde, is a Sacrament that is, an euident representation of the Bodie and Bloude of Christ: vvherein is sette, as it vvere before our eies, the death of Christ, and his Resurr••ction, and vvhat so euer he did, vvhilest he vvas in his mortal Body: to the ende vve maie geue thankes for his deathe, and for our deliuerance. And that by the often receiuing of this Sacrament, vve may daily renevve the remembrance thereof, to thintent vve being fedde vvith the Bodie and bloude of Christe, may be brought into the hope of the Resurrection, and of euerlasting life: and maie most assuredly beleeue, that as our bodies be fedde vvith bread and vvine, so our soules be fedde vvith the Bodie and Bloude of Christe.

Confutation. fol. 90. b.

Among al these gay wordes, we heare not so much as one syllable vttered, whereby we may vnderstande, that yee beleeue the very Bodie of Christe to be in deede present in the blessed Sacrament of the Aulter. Ye confesse the Eucharistia, whiche commonly ye cal the Supper of the Lorde, to be a Sacrament, and al that to be none other, then an euident token of the Bodie and Bloude of Christe, &c.

Iewel. Defence. Pag. 220.

Here is no mention, saith M. Harding of Real presence, and thereupon he plaieth vs many a proper lesson. Notvvithstanding here is as muche mention made of Real presence, as either Christe, or his Apostles euer made, or in the Primitiue Catholique Church vvas euer beleeued.

Harding.

COnsidering how ofte this matter hath ben handled, and how few men are ignorant, what ech side saith: I wilbe the shorter in this place. First, I graunt the [ 1] eating of Christes body by faith to be necessarie. Againe, [ 2] I graunt the Sacrament to be a mystical figure of Christes death, and of his visible body. But I say farther, that be∣sides [ 3] eating by Faith, our flesh and body, receiueth Christes body, and that really.* 1.311 Which conclusion is pro∣ued, bicause the wordes of Christ, this is my body, are meant properly, and without any figure of speach, albeit the manner of the presence be figuratiue.

My reason to proue, that Christes wordes are meant properly, is the perpetual interpretation of the auncient Fathers, the sense and custome of the Churche. To be∣ginne with Tertullian, he saith in this wise: Caro ablui∣tur, vt anima emaculetur. Caro vngitur, vt anima consecre∣tur. Caro signatur, vt & anima muniatur. Caro manus im∣positione adumbratur, vt & anima spiritu illuminetur. Caro corpore, & sanguine Christi vescitur, vt & anima de Deo sa∣ginetur. The flesh is washed, that the soule may be made without spot. The flesh is annointed, that the soule may be consecrated. The flesh is signified, that the soule may be fenced. The flesh is shadowed with the laying on of handes,* 1.312 that the soule also may be lightened with the holy Ghost. The flesh is fed with the body and bloude of Christe, that the soule also may be made fat of God.

In these wordes, as diuers Sacramentes are ioyned to∣gether, so herein they agree al, that the flesh is the meane, by which the grace of God passeth to the soule. As ther∣fore in Baptisme the flesh is washed, that the soule may

be cleansed: so in the Sacrament of the Aulter, the flesh is fed with the body and bloude of Christ, that the soule may be nourished with the godhead, which dwelleth in that fleshe. It is then to be noted, that the fleshe eateth not material bread and wine, but the body and bloud of Christ. For as the thing, wherewith we are washed, is water, and that wherewith we are anointed is oile: euen so that, wherewith the flesh is fed, is the body and bloud of Christ. The instrument therefore of Gods grace is none other in the Supper, beside that flesh, wherein the fulnesse of the Godhed dwelleth.

It is wel knowen, that our flesh hath no faith to eate Christes body withal. Therefore when our flesh is said to be fed with Christes body, it is clearly meant, that our flesh is also really fed, with Christes owne substance, as it is washed with water. And as by water touching our flesh, cleannes cometh to our soule, euen so by the body of Christ touching our flesh, the fatnes of God (so Ter∣tulliā speaketh) that is to saie, the plentiful grace of God, commeth to our soule.* 1.313 For in that flesh God the sonne dwelleth corporally. And by that only flesh grace is most abundantly ministred vnto vs, for which cause that flesh is made the instrument of grace to vs.

* 1.314Hereunto agreeth S. Ambrose: Idem Dominus noster Iesus Christus consors est & diuinitatis, & corporis: & tu qui accipis eius carnē, diuinae eius substantiae in illo participa∣ris alimento. The same our Lord Iesus Christ is partaker both of Godhead, and of body. And thou which receiuest his flesh, art made partaker in that foode of his Diuine substance. There S. Ambrose spake of receiuing the Sacrament, and expounded, how Christe is the liuing

bread, that came downe from heauen.* 1.315 His flesh (saith he) came not from heauen: but whiles thou receiuest that flesh, in that foode thou art made partaker of the god∣head. But if it were bread, which we receiue at Christes supper, in that foode of bread we should not be made partakers of the diuine substance. For the diuine sub∣stance is in none other foode (as to be receiued of vs) but only in the flesh and bloude of Christ. And there it is for our sakes: and for that diuine substances sake, the flesh of Christ is geuen really to vs: that thereby the Godhead may the more mightily poure grace, and the seede of immortalitie into our soules.

By faith we might feede of the Godhead, but by that meanes onely we should not be made partakers of the godhead as by the best meane. For the flesh of Christ with our faith, is a better meane to deriue the godhead vnto vs, then faith alone. Faith suffised the olde Fathers, bicause there was yet no better meane. But when Christ had once taken flesh, then his flesh together with saith,* 1.316 was an other manner of meane to make vs partakers of more abundant grace.* 1.317 For now we touch really the flesh of Christ by the formes of bread and wine, euen as in the daies, when he liued in earth, diuers personnes touched him by touching his garment, which was about his flesh. And by that meanes as they were most spedily healed, so are we.

Chrysostom crieth out:* 1.318 Quomodo comparebis ante tri∣bunal Christi, qui manibus, ac labijs immundis ipsius audes contingere corpus? Et regem quidem nolles ore tuo foetido adosculari, regem verò coeli anima graueolenti oscularis? Oro te, an voles manibus illot is ad oblationem accedere? Atqui

manibus quidem ad tempus contin••tur, in ill••m ver••〈…〉〈…〉 resoluitur, seu diuersatur. Cur non vasa vides ita vndique lota, ita splendida? Illa non sunt capacia illius quem in se habent, non sentiunt illum, nos verò planè. How shalt thou appeare before the throne of Christ, who art so bold, as with vncleane handes, and lippes to touch his body? Thou wouldest not aduenture to kisse the king with thy stincking mouth, and wilt thou kisse the king of heauen with a foule stincking soule? I praye thee, wilt thou not washe thy handes, before thou comest to the oblation? And yet in thy handes he is holden but for a time, but into the soule he is wholy resolued, or (there) maketh his a∣bode. Wherefore beholdest thou not the vessels, how they be cleane washed, and shine ful brightly? And yet they be not partakers of him, nor feele him, whom they conteine, but we doo truly.

* 1.319In this discourse it is euident, that we touch Christ in the Sacrament. In so much that he saith, the vessels hold him, our handes holde him, and our soule holdeth him. Marke wel that the selfe same thing is in the vessels, (to wit, in the patin, and in the chalice), and in the hand al∣so, which is in the soule. Bread and wine are not in our soule but only Christes fleash. Wherefore it is Christ al∣so which is in the vessels, and in our hand▪ But he is hol∣den in our hand, saith S. Chrysostom, ad tempus, a while. But he dwelleth in our soule none other wise, then if one thing were made of bothe, and one were resolued into the other. Againe the vessels hold him, but they partake him not, bicause they lacke faith. But it is the same Christ in the vessels and in our handes, which is in our soule. For from the vessels he commeth to our

handes, and from our handes into our bodies, and so into our soules. What extreme impudencie then is it to say, that in these wordes S. Chrysostom meant not the bloud of Christ to be really in the Chalice, and his body to be really vnder the forme of bread?

Leo the great saith,* 1.320 ye ought so to communicate of the holy table, that ye doubt nothing at al of Christes body, and bloud. Hoc enim ore sumitur, quod fide creditur, for that thing is taken in by mouth, which is beleeued in faith. But the thing beleeued in faith concerning Christes supper, is the manhod, and godhead of Christ. Therefore the selfe na∣ture of God, and man, is receiued in mouth. What can be prentended here to the contrarie?

Cyrillus saith, The mystical blessing,* 1.321 when it is becomme to be in vs, doth it not cause Christ to dwel corporally also in vs, by the cōmunicating of his flesh? Marke that the meane of Christes dwelling corporally in vs, is the receiuing of the Sacrament. And with Cyrillus it is wel knowen,* 1.322 how thorowly S. Hilarie agreeth.

Last of al S. Gregorie saith: Quid sit sanguis Agni, non iam audiendo, sed bibendo didicistis. Qui sangus super v∣trumque postem ponitur, quando non solùm ore corporis, sed etiam ore cordis sumitur. In vtroque etenim poste sanguis Agni est positus, quando sacramentum passionis illius cum ore ad redemptionem sumitur, ad imitationem quoque in∣tenta mente cogitatur. Nam qui sic redemptoris sui sangui∣nem accepit, vt imitari passionem illius nec dum velit, in v∣no poste sanguinem posuit. What the bloud of the Lambe is, ye haue now learned, not by hearing, but by drinc∣king. This bloud is put vpon both the postes, when it is receiued not onely by the mouth of the body, but also

by the mouth of the soule. For the bloud of the Lambe is put vpon both postes, when the Sacrament of his pas∣sion is both receiued by mouth for our redemption, and is also ernestly thought vpon in the minde, for imitation. For he that so receiueth the bloud of his Sauiour with this minde, that he is not yet willing to folow his Passi∣on: hath put the bloud but vpon one poste.

The very same bloud which is receiued with the mouth of the hart, is also expressely taught, to be receiued with the mouth of the body. It is not therefore bread, that entreth into the mouth of the body, and it is the flesh of Christ, that entreth into the hart. But the selfe same thing, which the hart feedeth on, entreth in at the mouth. These are such testimonies, that can neuer be a∣uoided by any Answere, and at this present they may suf∣fice for this controuersie of the Real Presence. For what soeuer M. Iewel bringeth, wel may it perhaps proue a fi∣gure, which I graunt, but that figure is also the truth: as it may appeare by these witnesses now alleged. For the Fathers be not contrarie one to the other, but agree al in one faith, and doctrine, specially in this matter, which was euer so con∣tinually beleeued and practi∣sed in the whole Churche.

That in olde time many faithful at the celebration of the holy Mysteries stoode by, who receiued not the Communion. The 6. Chapter.

Ievvel. Pag. 225.

Good menne, saith M. Harding, vvithdravve them selues, and are contented to be present only, and to stand by, but receiue not the sacramēt.* 1.323 But Chrysostom saith, thou maist no more stande here, then an Heathen, that neuer vvas christened.

Harding.

YOu euer make your aduantage of vntrue reporte. I did not cal men good, for withdrawing themselues: but whereas in cōsideration of their vnworthinesse they would humbly withdraw them selues: I said, this de∣sire to be present, and deuoutely to stand by,* 1.324 was cōmen∣dable. As for S. Chrysostom, you abuse him very much, by interpreting, whom he calleth a Catechumen, who is a lear¦ner of the faith, a Heathē as though they were Heathens, that professe the faith, which is taught in the schoole of Christ. It was truly an heathnish interpretation of yours.

But that very place of S. Chrysostome proueth, it was become to be a custome in those dayes, the Christians to be present at the holy Mysteries, and to stande by, al∣though they did not receiue. And S. Chrysostome also suffered his owne people and diocesans, so to do. How be it reprouing them for negligence in not receiuing, he vehemently exhorted and stirred them to ofte receiuing. Qua ratione Praecodicit, Abite, qui preces fundere nō potestis?* 1.325 Tu vero impudēter perstas. Verum nō es istorū, sed de illis qui communicare possunt. Et tamē rem hāc nihil curas, nihil aesti∣mas? (Item). Aduenisti, hymnum cecinisti, cum cībus reliquis ex eorum te numero esse qui digni sunt, hoc ipso confessus es,

quòd non cum indignis abscessisti. Quomodo cùm manseris, de mensa ista non participas? For what consideration saith the Crier of the Church, depart ye, that can not praye? Yet thou standest stil impudently. But (thou wilt saie) thou art none of those, but of them, who may communi∣cate, and yet carest thou nothing for it, regardest it no∣thing? Item afterward. Thou art come hither, thou hast songe an hymne, in this thy facte, that thou didst not de∣parte with the vnworthie, thou hast confessed thy selfe with al the rest, to be one of them, that are worthie. Wherefore then doest thou not participate of this table, seing thou remaynedst behinde?

Thus we see, it was the custome for the faithful peo∣ple, to be present at the mysteries, and to stand by, though they receiued not the communion. And albeit S. Chry∣sostom reproueth them fot not communicating, yet he doth not excommunicate them, as breaking the order of the Church in tarying. And yet if there had ben such an order, he would haue caused the Deacō no lesse to haue driuen them out, then the Catechumens, the possessed of Spirites, or the penitentes. But this oddes there was, that they only were of necessitie driuen out of the Church, who though they would, might not communicate: But the reste that might communicate, did, and might tarie, albeit they would not communicate.

Now a wise man (as M. Iewel taketh him selfe to be) would vnderstand, that how earnestly soeuer S. Cryso∣stom speaketh, to prouoke those that were present, to communicate: yet his meaning was not to burden them with any mortal sinne for standing by without receiuing the cōmunion. His wordes therfore import a counsel ra∣ther

then a precept. And verely of the two, it were lesse euil to stand by, and not to cōmunicate, then neither to communicate, nor to stand by. Neither is the standing by that, which chiefly S. Chrysostome reproued, but the ab∣steining from the Communion. And there is no doubt, but if (whereas none at al by his owne wordes did some∣time communicate) S. Chrysostom had seene euery one go out of the Churche, and him selfe leafte alone: he would then as fast haue called them in againe, bidding them at the lest, to honour the Sacrifice with their pre∣sence, if they would not sacramentally communicate.

S. Augustine crieth out vpon those Heretikes,* 1.326 that bring the wordes of the Prophetes, whiche they spake against the high Priestes, and yet wil not looke to the deedes of the Prophetes, who alwayes remained in the same Churche with those high Priestes, whom they so muche reproued. But now the Lutherans, and Zuin∣glians, reprouing vs for certaine thinges, departe from our companie, faith, doctrine, and Church: wherein they haue no exam∣ple, neither of the Prophetes, nor of the Fa∣thers,

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Of Communion in one, or both kindes. The 7. Chapter.

Iewel. Pag. 229.

M. Harding saith, neither Christe commaunded, nor the Apostles or∣deined, that the Sacrament should be deliuered to the people in both kindes. Certainely these vvords of Christe, Drinke yee al of this, doo this in my remembrance, are very plaine vvordes of commaundement, and institution.* 1.327 Therefore Chrysostome saith, that Christe said, bothe in the bread, and also in the cup, Doo this in the remembrance of me. And Theophylacte, The reuerend cup is in equal manner deliuered to al. And vvhereas Christ saith, drinke yee al of this, Paschasius putteth thereto these vvordes, tam ministri, quàm reliqui credentes, as vvel the ministers, as the reste of the faithful.

Harding.

* 1.328THe literal sense of those wordes, Drinke ye al of this: was none other, then that the Cup should be diui∣ded betwen al the twelue in such sort, that two, or three of them should not drinke it vp, as thinking to haue it filled againe for the reste: but that Peter should so drinke, as to leaue some for Ihon, and Ihon so, as to leaue some for Androw, and so eche mā to leaue some deale, til the very last man had drunke of that cup, once filled, and once cōsecrated: for to that end, this word (al) doth serue. And that may wel appeare by S. Luke,* 1.329 who geueth vs Christes wordes in this wise: Accipite, & diuidite inter vos. Take yee, and diuide it betwen you. Which wordes S. Augustine saith were spoken of the Cup of the newe Testament.* 1.330 Diuide this Cup betwen you, and drinke yee

al of this, doth make al one sense: and that may more plainely appeare by the word, enim, (for) which doth fol¦low in Christes saying.—Drinke ye al of this, for this is my Bloud. As if he said, were not this my bloud, eche of you might drinke vp the whole cup, if occasion of thirst so required. But now it is geuen, not to quench bodily thirst, but to nourish the Soule. Therefore drinke ye so, that al may drinke of this one Cup. Et biberunt ex illo omnes. And al they dranke of it.

Thus we see by the Circumstance of the place, that the worde (al) doth nothing elles, but warne them of the Mysterie present in the Cup: whereof we may not in∣ferre that al, which at any time doo communicate in one Churche, must needes drinke of one Chalice, as the Apostles did: as neither that there muste be stil twelue to drinke of euery Cup. For that was a Cir∣cumstance so vsed in Christes Supper, as we can make no lawe thereof. The true lawe to directe vs in that behalfe, was committed to the Apostles, who taught the Churche, that alwayes at the Consecration it was needeful for bothe kindes to be offered, and receiued: as wel that the being of Christes Soule aparte from his Body at his death might be signified, as also, that the publike Minister might wholy represent by his out∣warde action, that here is al foode necessary for mannes comforte, whether it be meate, or drinke that he nee∣deth. As for the reste, it shoulde be al one, whe∣ther they that communicated, receiued one, or bothe kindes: bicause the whole Body, Bloude, Soule, and Godheade of Christe is fully present in either kinde.

Concerning that S. Chrysostome, and Theophylact•• haue said, as wel of the cup, as of the bread, Doo this in my remembrance: it meaneth, that as wel when we con∣secrate the Body, as when we consecrate the Bloud, or when we receiue either of them bothe, the end of our doing must be the memorie of Christes death.

Whereas Paschasius addeth expressely, that the Mi∣nisters must as wel drinke of the Cup, as the reste of the faithfull, you name vs not the place, where we maye find it: And therein you haue done more politikely, then vprightly, or plainely. For in deede it maketh not for you.* 1.331 Paschasius in that place disputeth of spiritual eating or drinking, and saith, that as wel the faithful people, as the ministers, muste drinke spiritually of this Cup. His wordes immediatly before are these: Solus Christus est qui frangit hunc panem, & per manus ministrorum distri∣buit credentibus, dicens, accipite, & bibite ex hoc omnes, tam ministri, quàm & reliqui credentes. It is Christ alone that breaketh this bread, and diuideth it by the handes of his ministers vnto the beleuers, saying, take ye, and drinke ye al of this, as wel ministers, as also the other beleeuers, this is the Cup of my Bloud. Lo as wel the ministers, as al others are bid to drinke of the bread or Cup indiffe∣rētly, to wit of Christ, so that he speaketh no more of the Cup, then of the bread, but al in like wise of Christ alone. For Paschasius saith,* 1.332 that Christe brake the bread, saing, take yee, and drink yee al of this, this is the Cup of my bloud. He then so mingleth the breaking of the bread with the drinking of the Cup, that a man may wel perceiue, that he rather spake of the thing it selfe conteined vnder those formes, then of either kinde, or forme by it selfe.

Iewel. Pag. 230.

M. Harding him selfe is forced to confesse by the reporte of Leo,* 1.333 that the first knovven deuisers, and authors of his Communion in one kinde, vvere the olde heretikes called the Manichees.

Harding.

Where haue you any such word in al my booke M. Iewel? I must beare with you for customes sake.* 1.334 For this is your accustomed manner, to make me speake, that, which I neuer thought. It is to be vnderstanded, that be∣fore the time of Leo, and in his time also, the manner and custom was, that the faithful people receiued either one, or bothe kindes, as their deuotion serued them. By occa∣sion of which custom,* 1.335 the Manichees also couered their pestilent heresie, as they who beleued, that Christ had no true flesh, and consequently no true bloude, but onely a phantastical, or apparent body without real truth of flesh and bloud. They then perceiuing, that at the mysteries some Christians vsed to receiue one kind alone, mingled them selues alwaies with them, and wholy absteined from the Chalice. Which thing when Pope Leo percei∣ued, he gaue a watch worde thereof vnto the people, say∣ing,* 1.336 Cùm ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audeant in∣teresse mysterijs, ita in Sacramentorum communione se tem∣perant, vt interdum tutius lateant: Ore indigno Christi cor∣pus accipiunt, sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant. Whereas they, to hide, and cloke their infidelitie, be so bolde, as to be present at our Mysteries, they behaue them selues so in the receiuing of the Sacra∣mentes, that now and then they may lurke the more fafe∣ly. They receiue with vnworthy mouthe the body of Christe, but as for the bloud of our redemption, they

vtterly refuse to receiue it.

Now if these men came thus to the mysteries among the Christians to hide their heresie, and infidelitie: it is not to be thought, that they alone receiued one kinde. For then they had forthwith ben betraied. But whereas other men receiued either the body, or the bloud, as oc∣casion, or deuotion required: the Manichees euer recei∣ued only the body of Christ, and neuer the bloud, and that with this false and heretical opinion, that Christe had no true bloud. Gelasius then being Pope not long after Leo, willed al the Christians, who before were at libertie, to receiue bothe kindes, that thereby al oportunitie, and oc∣casiō might be taken from the Manichees any more so to lurke, and to cloke their impietie. Now to declare this muche, is not to confesse, that the Manichees were the first deuisers of Communion vnder one kinde. Wherfore you maie haue good leaue M. Iewel to take that spiteful Vntruthe to your selfe home againe.

Ievvel. 230.

You saye, yee exhort the people to receiue their maker. VVhat Scrip∣ture, vvhat father, vvhat doctour euer taught you thus to saye? It is the bread of our lord,* 1.337 as S. Augustine saith, it is not our Lord. It is a creatu∣re corruptible, it is not the maker of heauen, and earth.

Harding.

* 1.338Good wordes M. Iewel, I praie you. Christ saith: he, that eateth me, shal also liue for me. Was he, that spake these wordes, the maker of heauen, and earth, or no? If he were, accursed be he, that demeth him so to be. If he be our ma∣ker, and God, when we exhort men to receiue him in the blessed Sacrament, why maie we not exhort them to re∣ceiue their maker? And the body of Christ hath no other person to rest in, or to be susteined of, beside him only,

who being the Son of God, is maker of heauē and earth.

You know, that our forefathers were taught to cal it their maker, euen as S. Augustine confesseth, that his people called the Sacramente of the Aulter, vitam, life.* 1.339 You make as though S. Augustine denied the Sacrament to be our Lord, which he neuer doth, but rather saith, Illi manducabāt panem dominum, they did eate the bread their Lord: but Iudas did eate Panem Domini, the bread of our Lord, against our Lord Illi vitam, ille poenam, They did eate life, he did eate paine. For he that eateth vnworthily (saith the Apostle) eateth damnation to himselfe. If the Apostles at the supper of Christ did eate only the Sacrament (for the scripture speaketh of none other thing eaten) and yet they did eate the bread, which is our Lorde (as S. Augu∣stine saith): Certainely the heauenly bread of the Sacra∣mēt is our Lord. But Iudas is said to haue eaten the bread of our Lord against our Lord, bicause he did eate the Sa∣crament vnworthily, and so he did not eate our Lord, as he is bread, that is to say, as he feedeth, but as he is a iudge, and as he condemneth the vnworthy eater to euerlasting paine. For otherwise S. Augustine saith,* 1.340 that Iudas did eate his maker. Sinit accipere venditorem suum, quod norunt fideles, pretium nostrum. He suffereth him that sold him, to receiue our price, which the faithful knowe. Our maker was our price through his humaine nature.

In illo Sacramento Christus est (saith S. Ambrose) quia corpus est Christi Christ is in that Sacrament,* 1.341 bicause it is the body of Christ Wherfore you see, how litle cause ye haue to be so muche offended with me, for saying, when we exhort the people to receiue the blessed Sacrament, that then we exhorte them to receiue their maker.

Of Transubstantiation, and M. Iewels falsehod in that matter. The 8. Chapter.

THe Real Presence is the grounde of this doctrine. For seing Christ said,* 1.342 take, eate, this is my body, these being propre, and not figuratiue wordes, as it hath benne shewed before: it followeth thereof that the body of Christe, whiche is not made of nothing, is at the lest wise made really present by vertue of the Consecration, the substance of bread and wine conuerted and changed into it.* 1.343 For which cause S. Ambrose saith: Vbi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. When consecration is come thereunto, from of bread is made the body of Christe. Likewise S. Chrysostom saith: Num vides panem &c.

Seest thou bread? Seest thou wine? God forbid. Thinke not so. Like as if waxe be putte into the fire, it is made like vnto it, neither remaineth ought of the substance of waxe: euen so here thinke the Mysteries to be consumed away with the presence of that body.a. 1.344 Eusebius Emisse∣nus,b. 1.345 Gregorius Nyssenus,c. 1.346 Hesychius,d 1.347 Theophylante,e. 1.348 Damascen, and al the other Fathers, teache the same do∣ctrine, as it hath benne ofte tolde in other places.

Iewel. 239.

VVhat one vvorde speaketh Theophylact either of your Transubstātia∣tiation, or of your Real Presence, or of your corporal, and fleshly eating?

Harding.

Can there be any greater impudencie in the earth, then to save, that Theophylact speaketh not one word, of these pointes? Beside al that I haue alredy brought out of Theo¦phylact in my Confutation, how plaine is he, where he writeth thus vpon S. Matthew? Ineffabili operatione trāsi¦formatur, etiam si nobis videatur panis, quoniā infirmi sumus,

et abhorremus crudas carnes comedere, maximè hominis car∣nem. Et ideo panis quidem apparet, sed re vera caro est. It is transfourmed by an vnspeakeable operation, although it seeme bread to vs, bicause we are weaklinges, and do ab∣horre to eate rawe fleshe, specially the flesh of man: And therfore it appeareth to be bread, but in deede it is flesh. Can these woordes be eluded, or shifted by your phrases, and figuratiue speaches? It seemeth bread, but in deede it is flesh, saith he, what is then become of the bread? It is transfourmed, or made ouer into another thing. Into what other thing, but into the flesh of Christ? And why remaineth the fourme of Breade, whereas in deede it is made fleshe? Bicause (saith he) we abhorre to eate rawe flesh, and specially mannes flesh. And yet speaketh not Theophylact one word of Transubstantiation, or of the Real Presence of Christes flesh? Many other places in him are as plaine as this, but he that hath such a face, as to denie this one, wil not be moued, if we bring forth neuer so many. Hauing thus abused Theophylact, perhappes he wil seme for antiquities sake to beare more reuerence to∣wards S. Ambrose, whom here he now taketh in hand.

Iewel. Pag. 246.

S. Ambrose saith of the bread and vvine, Sunt quae erant, & in aliud mutantur. They remaine the same, that they vvere, and are chaunged into an other thing.* 1.349 The natural creatures of the bread and wine in the supper of our Lord (saith S. Ambrose) remaine stil in sub∣stāce, as they were before: yet are they changed into an other thing, that is to say, they are made the Sacrament of the bodie and bloude of Christ, vvhich before they vvere not.

Harding.

Many other places M. Iewel make me doubte, left

you haue your conscience marked with the signe of An∣tichrist, that is to say, lest, although you see, and knowe your self to lie, and to falsify the holy Fathers, yet you wil not yeld vnto the truth in any point. Much a doo we had to perswade you, that Sabellicus wrote Decades: and I think you would neuer haue graūted it, except other men might haue found the booke in Powles Churchyard, and so haue sene your f••lsehood. But of al other impudencies, this which you stād in cōcerning this saying of S. Ambrose is not the lest of al.* 1.350 For you defend it, and repeat it againe and again, notwithstāding it was fully by me cōfuted: and yet it is so childish an errour, that I can not thinke you to be deceiued therin, but rather to be set desperatly in de∣fence thereof, for which ye haue nor learning, nor rea∣son, and onely bicause you would not seeme ouercome. Who would thinke, that a man of your studie, and lear∣ning, and of that place, would say and maintein it, that S. Ambrose meaneth bread and wine after Consecration, to remaine stil in substāce that, which they were before?

* 1.351To beginne first here with the terme of bread and wine is no part of S. Ambroses wordes: it is your forgerie, it is your corruption, it is one of your owne falsifiyinges: His words are these: Panis iste, panis est ante verba Sacra∣mentorum, vbi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. Hoc igitur astruamus. Quomodo potest, qui panis est, corpus esse Christi? Consecratione. Consecratio igitur quibus verbis est, & cuius sermonibus? Domini Iesu. Nam reliqua oīa qua dicūtur, laus Deo defertur, oratio praemittitur propopulo, pro regibus, pro caeteris: vbi venitur vt cōficiatur venerabile Sa∣cramentū, iam nōsuis sermonibus sacerdos, sed vtitur sermo∣nibus Christi. Ergo sermo Christi hoc cōficit Sacramētū. Quis

sermo Christi? Nempe is, quo facta sunt oīa. Iussit Dominus, et factū est coelū. Iussit dominus, et facta est terra. Iussit Domi¦nus, et facta sunt maria. Iussit Dominus, et omnis creaturage nerata est. Vides ergo quā operatorius sit sermo Christi. Si er∣go tāta vis est in sermone Domini Iesu, vt inciperēt esse, quae nō erāt: quantò magis operatorius est, vt sint quae erāt, & in aliud commutentur? Coelum non erat, mare non erat, terra non erat. Sed audi dicentem: Ipse dixit, & facta sunt: ipse mandauit, & creata sunt. Ergo tibi vt respondeam, non erat corpus Christi ante Consecrationem, sed post Consecra∣tionem dico tibi, quòd iam corpus est Christi. Ipse dixit, & factum est: ipse mandauit, & creatum est.

This bread is bread, before the wordes of the Sacra∣mentes: when Consecration commeth to it, of breade is made the flesh of Christ. Let vs confirme this. How can that, which is bread, be the bodie of Christ? By Conse∣cration. With what wordes then is Consecration made, and with whose wordes? With the wordes of our Lord Iesus. For as for al the rest, that is there said, praise is ge∣uen to God praier for the people is sent before, for kings, and for al other. When the Priest commeth to make this honourable Sacrament, he vseth not now his owne wordes, but the wordes of our Lord. The worde there∣fore of Christ maketh this Sacrament. What worde of Christ? Verely that wherwith al things were made. Our Lord cōmaunded, and heauen was made. Our Lord com¦maūded, and the earth was made. Our Lord cōmaunded, and the seas were made. Our Lord cōmaunded, and euery creature was brought forth. Thou seest therefore howe workeful the word of Christ is. If then so great force, and strēgth be in the word of our Lord Iesus, that those things

should beginne to be, whiche were not: of how muche more strength is it to worke, that the things which were, be, that is to say, haue a beeing, and be changed into an∣other thing? The Heauen was not, the Sea was not, the Earth was not. But harken to him who saith: He saied, and they were made, he cōmaunded, and they were crea∣ted. Therefore that I maie make thee an answere to this question, it was not the body of Christ before Consecra∣tion: but after Consecration I tel thee, that now it is the body of Christe. He said, and it was made, he com∣maunded, and it was created.

Who seeth not here this drifte of S. Ambrose, to proue, that as the Worde, or speach of our Lorde, made al thinges of nothing, euen so it is much more hable, to change one thing into another thing? And bicause I re∣quired M. Iewel to cōstrue S. Ambroses wordes, which yet he would not do, though he promised to do it: I wil construe them for him, and wil shewe his ex∣treme blindnesse, or rather his wilfulnesse in the vnder∣standing of that sentence. Ergo, then, si tanta vis est, if so great strength be, in sermone Domini Iesu, in the speach of our Lord Iesus, vt, that, quae non erant, the thin∣ges which were not, inciperent esse, beganne to be, that is to saie, to haue a being: quantò magis operatorius est, how much more is our Lordes speach workful, vt, that, quae erant, the thinges which were, sint, be, that is to saie, haue a being, & in aliud commutentur, and be changed, into an other thing? By these wordes it is cleere, that S. Ambrose here speaketh generally of al thinges, whiche God worketh by his word, and not particularly of bread, and wine.

Now wil I construe the same woordes, as M. Iewel would haue them to be takē. First, he vnderstandeth, and supplieth, bread and wine, to be the nominatiue case to the verbe, sint, be, or rather to the verbe, Sūt, as for his ad∣uantage he altereth that holy Doctours wordes. Wher∣as it is euident, that in the same whole sentence, breade, and wine are not particularly once named.

Secondly, he beginneth the construction with the verbe (sint) whereas (quae erant) should go before it, as it may wel appeare by setting the one part of the compa∣rison against the other. For the one part is thus to be set, Quae non erant incipiunt esse, the thinges which were not, beginne to be. Therefore the other must be thus set ac∣cordingly: quae erant, sunt, & in aliud commutantur. The thinges whiche were, be, and be changed into an other thing.

Thirdly, betwen quae, and erant, M. Iewel conueieth in a pronowne demonstratiue, which hath no place there, saying, which (they) were, as if bread, and wine were re∣spected. Againe, you translate, Sunt, quae erant, they re∣maine the same, that they were. And those wordes you put forth in great texte letters. Is Sunt, to be englished, They remaine the same? Sunt, is no more, but They be. If S. Ambrose would haue said, as you vntruly translate him, his wordes had benne these, manent eadem: for that is the Latine of this your English, they remaine the same.

But S. Ambrose meaneth thus. Those thinges that were not, by Gods word beginne to be: And those that were, by Gods word be also, but they be another thing. How so? Bicause they are changed into an other thing. But M. Iewel beginning the construction amisse, tea∣cheth

vs, that Gods worde causeth things to be, that they were, whiche is not S. Ambroses minde. For then Gods worde should cause bread to be bread stil, and that were onely the conseruing of creatures, and not a changing of creatures. But now al S. Ambroses reason procedeth to proue, that Gods worde is of force to change creatures, and he meaneth of change in substance. For al his com∣parison consisteth about the wordes, non esse, & esse, and, esse, & aliud esse. Things that were not, be, and those that be already, become to be an other thing. If they be∣come to be onely an other thing in qualitie, then they are onely already a thing in qualitie, whiche is false. For the being that they haue, is a certaine substance or substanciall being. Therefore the other being, or change, which they haue, is an other substance.

And I praye you, who would not woonder to see S. Ambrose labour so vehemently to prooue, that Gods worde is able to chaunge a creature in qualitie, as though a man were not hable to change a thing in qualitie? Can not the Cutler make rustie iron bright? Can not a Pargeter make a browne wal white? Can not a Cooke make colde liquour hote? And can not you M. Iewel shew your selfe sometimes sweet, and quiet, sometimes eager, and waspish, sometimes a true man, more often∣times a lyer? Wherin standeth this great force and wor∣king of Gods woorde, whereof S Ambrose speaketh? Soothly in the change of the substance of thinges. For as he beganne his disputation, before the wordes of Con∣secration, quod he, the bread, is bread: but when Con∣secration is come vnto it, de pane, from of bread it is made Christes flesh. Marke, whence is the change made, from

bread. And into what is it made? Into flesh. This then is that S. Ambrose must proue, That Gods word hath po∣wer to change bread into flesh.

To make short, this very sentence, whereof we nowe dispute, is in an other place thus vttered by S. Ambrose. Sermo Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat,* 1.352 non potest ea quae sunt, in id mutare quod nō erant? The worde of Christ, which could make that, which was not, of no∣thing, can it not change those things which be, into that which they were not? He geueth an euident reason of his owne wordes, saying: Non enim minus est nouas re∣bus, dare, quàm mutare naturas. For it is not lesse, to geue new natures vnto things, then to change natures. As who should say, he that can geue new natures, can much more change natures. Now sir, I pray you, when God geueth new natures, doth he not geue new substances? When therefore he is said at the same time to worke in changing natures, it is meant that he changeth substan∣ces, to wit, bread into the bodie of Christ, and wine in∣to his bloud. You haue a giltie conscience M. Iewel, if al this considered, yet you wil hold your owne, and say stil, that S. Ambrose meant not a change in substāce, but only in qualitie. For either you haue lost your wit, or els you doo see, to what purpose S. Ambroses discourse goeth.

Besides al this, consider good Reader, howe S. Am∣brose concludeth, and endeth this discourse: Ergo didici∣sti, quòd ex pane corpus fiat Christi. Nowe then thou hast learned, that of bread the body of Christ is made. His pur∣pose then was to shewe, not that a newe qualitie, but that a newe substance was made by change of the olde substance: Of breade (I saye) the Bodie of Christe

was made, and of wine was made his bloud. And yet it appeareth not bloud,* 1.353 vt nullus horror cruoris sit, that there might be no abhorring of bloude. But as in deede our sinnes are vtterly taken away in Baptisme, where the olde Adam dieth, and a newe creature is made in righ∣teousnes: euen so although it appeare not bloud, yet in deede the olde substance of the wine is changed into the new substance of the bloud of our Sauiour. Thus the bread, and wine are changed in substance, and yet kepe stil their olde outward formes.

Iewel. pag. 248. & 249.

VVhat moueth you M. Harding to make this piteous out crie? VVe chāge not S. Ambroses vvordes, but report them simply, as vve finde them. These they are. Panis & vinum, sunt quae erunt, & in aliud mutantur. The bread and vvine are the same that they vvere, and are changed into another thing.

Harding.

You haue learned this falshed of that false man Beren∣garius. Panis, and vinum are not there, and for that cause Lanfrancus denied those wordes so alleged by Berenga∣rius to be in S. Ambrose.* 1.354 Againe in the Latine al these wordes lacke, whiche you put in English, to witte (the same that they) there is no Latine I say for those wordes. The nominatiue case to, sint, is not bread and wine, but thinges imported by these woordes, quae erant, thinges whiche were. The sense is, the thinges whiche were, be, and be changed into an other thing. Bread and wine were, but they are not any more breade and wine: and yet they are somewhat, to wit, they are that, into whiche they are changed, that is, the body and bloud of Christe. This onely can be the meaning of

S. Ambrose by the very literal construction of the place, as euery man may see, that is hable, and willing to con∣strue, and parse it. As for M. Iewel, he hath no waie to shifte his handes hereof, auoiding al lying and falsifying. I should be a shamed thus to descende to these Grammare pointes, were I not driuen vnto it by M. Iewelles vntrue dealing.

Iewel. Ibidem.

By this Logike,* 1.355 vvhere S. Hierome saith pride is changed into humi∣litie, M. Harding may saie, it is changed, therefore pride is, or remai∣neth stil.

Harding.

How so euer it like you to esteme my Logique, my Argument remaineth vnanswered. If your skil in Lo∣gique were answerable to your boasting, you should see the difference betwen change of accidentes, and change of Substances, whereof you seeme ignorant. Howbeit, I said not the bread is changed, Ergo, bread remaineth stil: it is you, that saie so. I said the bread is changed into another thing. Ergo, it is. But I saie not, that it is bread, but that it is that, into which it is changed. And therfore it hath a being, though it haue not the same being in sub∣stance, which it had before consecration. For it is not made nothing (as you are woonte to cauil of it) but is it made an other thing: and so it is stil: but it is not that it was.

Your example of pride, is more proudely, then wisely alleged. For pride is no substance, nor creature at al. Man only in his vnderstanding considereth it as some∣what, whereas it is only a defecte, and failing from humi∣litie. For God neuer made vice. Pride is a vice, and there∣fore

〈…〉〈…〉

But what shal a man saie to this fellow? When the name of Substance seemeth to make for him, then it stan∣deth properly, as the Philosophers vse the worde, which is in Greeke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: but when it seemeth to make against him, then it standeth for grace, faith, wordes, and Sacra∣mentes: which in some writers are named Substance, as the diuines somtimes vse the terme, whereto the Greeke terme Hypostasis answereth, as S. Paule vseth it, Heb. 11.

* 1.356The truth is, that seing wordes for the more parte, are doubteful, ambiguous, and subiect to cauilles, Christ hath not planted his Church in such sorte vpon wordes, that his faithful members should thereby be diuided into many sectes. For as he considering our infirmitie, lefte vnto vs his holy wil conceiued in such wordes, as menne vse in their common speache, he lefte also with those wordes a high Pastor,* 1.357 by whom we should be fed, for whose faith he prayed, and his prayer is heard. To which chiefe Pa∣stor he gaue power, and commaundement to strengthen, and cōfirme his brethren. So that it is in dede litle worth to hange of syllables, and letters, but it behoueth vs al∣waies to seeke for the meaning of the worde. And bi∣cause we should neuer agree among our selues vpon wordes:* 1.358 he bound vs to heare the Church, the chiefe and ordinarie mouth whereof S. Peter was, whiles he liued, and after him the Bishops of Rome his Successours, haue euer had the same place.

He then that wil be sure to know, how euery worde that belongeth to matter of the faith, must be taken in this, or in that place of holy Scripture, or of holy wri∣ters, must be ruled by the mouth of his chiefe Pastor.

* 1.359Now that Pastor calling to him out of al the worlde the

chiefe and best learned Bishoppes, ordeined by the holy Ghoste Gouernours of particular flockes, hauing seene, and heard al that might be said too and fro in the middest of foure hundred threescore and ten Bishoppes, and of moe then a thousand learned Diuines besides, the assi∣stance of the holy Ghoste called for, mature deliberati∣on had, and diligent examination of the Scriptures, and holy Fathers made, founde, and by al their consente de∣termined,* 1.360 that the substance of bread and wine (in the Sa∣crament of the Aulter) is by the power of Gods worde changed into the substance of Christes Body and Bloud. Af∣ter whiche determination we know, how Gelasius, and how Theodoritus must of necessitie be vnderstanded, if at the lest we wil heare the Churche, as vnder paine of damnation we are bound to doo. This answer may suf∣fice al the cauilles, that are moued, and tossed by M. Iewel touching nature, substance, subsistence, or any like worde. Al wordes are ambiguous, as S. Augustine con∣fesseth.* 1.361 The highest iudge in the highest courte of Chri¦stendome hath geuen sentence. He that obeieth, hath humilitie, and seeth his grounde. He that being loth to seeme deceiued wrangleth, as M. Iewel doth, is proude, vaine, contentious, and disobedient: which custome Heretikes haue, and euer haue had, but as S. Paule saith,* 1.362 the Church of God hath it not.

Iewel. Pag. 262. 263.

To leaue these vnfruitful gheasses, vve saie that the cuppe of blessing, vvhich Christ calleth the Cuppe of the nevv Testament notvvithstanding it vvere made in a Mysterie the Sacrament of Christes Bloude yet in nature and substance vvas very vvine stil and as Christe him selfe calleth it, the very fruite, and generation of the grape, as it vvas before. The

vvordes of the Euangelist S. Mathevv are very plaine.

Harding.

Would God, I could so clearely shew to the Reader, as the weight of this matter requireth, how lewdly you playe as wel with the Gospel, as with me. It is not I M. Iewel, that am incōstant in saying, now these wordes were spoken before consecration, and now after, and perhaps at both times, whereat you ieast, and scoffe: it is not I, that changed my minde. But whereas one of the Euangelistes telleth the matter one waye, and the other an other waye, and whereas sometimes they tel thinges out of order, as your selfe can not but graunt: my an∣swer must needes be such, as by al meanes to saue the truthe of the Gospel: that howsoeuer these wordes were spoken, which be obscure, yet the plaine truth should not be hindred by them. You sticke to the plaine wordes of S. Matthew, as you saie. And why sir I praye you, may not I as wel claime, that S. Lukes wordes are as plaine?* 1.363 I then haue myne eye to bothe, and so make a distinction, shewing how bothe together may be de∣fended. You litle esteming S. Luke, talke to vs onely of S. Matthew: whereby you declare, that you beleue none other Euangeliste, ne none other word of God, beside your owne fansie.

Likewise you dissemble, how diuersly the Fathers haue expounded the fruite of the Vine, and vtter many wordes about a most knowen truth,* 1.364 which no man de∣nieth, wherein as you deserue smal praise of learning, so you lose amonge the wise the commendation of discre∣tion. For answer to al which I saie, that it is a certaine case, and cleere out of question, that there was wine in

Christes chalice, whereof the Sacramēt should be made, and yet forsoothe you would nedes proue it in many Pa∣ges together. Againe I say, that, as there was wine in the chalice whereof the Sacrament should be made, so af∣ter it was made, there was no more the substance of wine. And that I wil proue so plainely,* 1.365 that you shal ne∣uer be hable to answer to it.

Christe him selfe said (if at the leste you admitte S. Lukes Gospel) This Cuppe is the newe Testament in my Bloude, whiche (cuppe) is shedde (or, shalbe shedde) for you. The Cuppe shalbe shedde for vs, saith Christe, that is to saye, the liquour conteined in the Cuppe, shalbe shedde for vs. But natural, or artificial wine was not shed for vs, but onely Christes owne Bloude was shed for vs: Ergo, onely Christes owne Bloude is in that Cuppe, and the substance of wine is not there at al.

The wordes are plaine, that, which is in the Cup, or chalice, shalbe shed for vs: that was onely Chri∣stes Bloude: Therefore onely Christes Bloude is in the Cuppe or Chalice. But Christes Bloude is no wine, excepte wee cal it wine in suche respecte, as Christe him selfe is called the Vine, and the grape: Therefore no material wine of the common grape is in the Cuppe of Christes Supper.* 1.366

With these plaine wordes agreeth the Doctrine of the olde Fathers. S Chrysostome saith: Quod est in Calice, id est, quod è latere fluxit, & illius nos su∣mus participes. That whiche is in the Chalice, is that,* 1.367 whiche flowed from his side, and thereof wee are par∣takers. And againe Vasa non participant, nec senti∣unt Sanguinem, quem in se habent, nos verò planè.

The vesselles partake not, ne feele not the bloude, which they conteine in them, but we do partake it. And as there Chrysostome saith, the vessels haue the same bloud of Christe for the time, which commeth to our hartes, and soules.

* 1.368S. Augustine also saith, dicit cessisse panipecus, tan∣quam nesciens & tunc in Domini mensa panes propositionis ponisolere, & nunc se de agni immaculati corpore partem su∣mere. Dicit cessisse poculo sanguinem, non cogitans etiam nunc se accipere in poculo sanguinem. Vrbicus saith, that the Lambe (of the newe Testament) hath geuen place to the bread (of the new Testament) being ignorant, that both then the shew bread was wont to be put vpon the table of our Lord, and that now also he taketh his parte of the Body of the vnspotted Lambe. He saith, that bloude (of the olde Testament) hath geuen place to the cuppe, not considering, that he nowe also receiueth bloude in the Cuppe.

Marke Reader this comparison of S. Augustine, that, as the olde Fathers did eate of the Lambe, so do we of the true Lambe Christe: and as the Priestes of the Law had bloud in their basens, euen so haue we in our cuppe, whence we receiue it. The oddes onely is, that their bloude was onely the bloude of Calues, not hable to cleanse man, but our bloude is the bloude of Christe, which cleanseth al sinnes. Our Sacramentes therefore are the spiritual noueltie of the new Testament, not lac∣king either Aulter, or Fire, or Breade, or Lambe, or Bloude, but hauing them al in Christes Body, and Bloud, into which the breade, and wine are so conuerted, that the verey true and real bloude of Christe is receiued in

the cuppe.

Oecumenius also saith:* 1.369 Pro sanguine irrationalium Do¦minus proprium dat sanguinem, et bene in poculo, vt ostendat vetus testamentum ante à hoc delineasse. Our Lord in stede of the bloud of vnreasonable beastes, doth geue his owne bloude, and it is wel that he geueth it in a cuppe, to shew that the olde Testament did foreshadow this thing. Eu∣thymius agreeth with the same Fathers. If then it be cleere by Christes owne wordes, and by the interpretation of the Fahers, that the same bloude, which was shed for vs, and which ranne out of Christes side, was in the cuppe, and that thence it is partaken, seing that wine was not shed for our redemption: it is cleere, that after Conse∣cration wine was not in Christes cuppe, except (as I said before) we take wine by a metaphore, as Christ is the vine, and his bloud is the wine of that vine which Christ is.

Notwithstanding that I haue great aduantage in the rest of M. Iewels wordes, yet seing this much doth suffice for the Catholike reader, I wil not spende moe wordes therein, but wil passe away to some other mater.

Concerning the adoration of the Sacrament,* 1.370 there is much more said of it in myne owne, and in other mennes bookes, then as yet M. Iewel, or al his fellowes haue answered. And that thing wholy dependeth of the real pre∣sence.

Of applying the merites of Christes Death to others in the Masse. The 9. Chapter.

Harding.

WEe neuer taught, that by our Masses, wee ap∣plied and distributed al the merites of Christes death to men, how soeuer they were disposed.

Iewel. Pag. 297.

The most catholike pillers of your catholike Church (as namely Caie∣tanus) haue said, that faith is not necessarie for him, that receiueth the Sacrament of thankesgeuing: notvvithstanding he acknovvlegeth this vvas an errour.

Harding.

What vanitie is this, to laie that to Cardinal Caietane, which your selfe cōfesse, he defendeth not, but acknow∣legeth to be an errour? The wordes by you alleged out of a booke made by one,* 1.371 that was as false a brother, as your selfe, do meane no more, but that a man may receiue Christes body, albeit he haue no faith, as Iudas did. What is this to the purpose, that we speake of? Moreouer, if Caietane once had thought (which he neuer did) that by the Masse we applie Christes merites to menne not wel disposed: yet seing you say, he tooke it for an errour af∣terward, by this meane I might prooue, that M. Iewel were a Papist, bicause once he professed the beleefe of the Catholike Church, when verely that Church was only meant by Godfathers, Godmothers, and the Ministers, which had the Sacrifice of the Masse, and praiers to the Saintes, and Praiers for the Dead.

But you can not M. Iewel allege vs any one man, that

saith, that by the Masse we applie the merites of Christ to menne, howsoeuer they be disposed. Neither doth Gabriel Biel, nor Iacobus de Valentia,* 1.372 nor S. Thomas teache so, whose wordes you corrupt with false transla∣tion, englishing, Pro quotidianis delictis, for the debte of daily sinnes, where debte is not in the Latine. And in deede the debte of al sinnes, as wel actual, as original, was taken awaie by the Sacrifice of the Crosse. But we see euidently, that the acte, or actual doing of al sinnes was not then taken awaie. For euen now faithful menne do sinne daily. Therefore wee neede stil a dayly Sa∣crifice of none other substance, then that of the Crosse was, but euen of the very same substance, which sub∣stance hath in it al his merite of the Crosse. And thus we offer Christes body, and bloude, not now in truth by bloudshedding (as once only vpon the Crosse it was of∣fered) but in mysterie, by changing the breade, and wine into his body, and bloude. We offer it thus I saie, to ap∣plie vnto deuoute persons by faith, and sacramentes, the merite of the Crosse, praying vnto God, that the death of Christ, which is euer auaileable in it selfe, may (through his bloude, which we offer in the chalice, and drincke with our mouth, and partake in our soules by faith and charitie) be made auaileabe vnto vs.

Iewel.

Catharinus one of the VVorthies of your late chapter of Trident, saith,* 1.373 Apparet &c.

Harding.

Whatsoeuer he said, he is none of our Worthies, nor yet is he allowed of the Councel of Trente, when

soeuer in any matter of Doctrine he speaketh otherwise, then that Councel doth, I doubte much M. Iewel, how in the iudgemēt of wisemen these boish flowtes become a man of your professiō, in that so vainly you praise vnto vs, now Peter Lombard, now Gratian, now the Gloser vpon him, now Lorichius, now Cusan, now Catharinus, now Caietane, now Alphonsus, now Pighius, now Bi∣tontino, and I can not tel how many moe. As though we leaned to them, more then to the Scriptures, or to the an∣cient Fathers. If you wil know, what we beleue, and wil not be deceiued therein, reade the Councel of Trent, the doctrine I meane of the Canons in the same decreed, and so shal you not lose your labour. We tel you, though ye be not ignorant thereof, that sundrie thinges haue ben said, and written by Glosers, which we defende not, no more then you defende, either al baudie Bales lyes, al Lu∣thers diuelish doctrines,* 1.374 or al Bezas filthy verses, wicked writinges in defence of hainous actes, and blasphemies against S. Lukes Gospel. And yet Catharinus saith not that, which you should proue, when al is done. He saith in dede fondly, but he vttereth not that fondnesse, which you lay to vs, as his wordes, and yours, doo shew to him, that listeth to reade bothe.

Iewel.

We receiue the merites of Christes death only by faith.

Harding.

That we receiue the merites of Christes death by faith,* 1.375 we graunt, but that by only faith we receiue them, it is a false doctrine, and repugnant to many expresse say∣inges of the holy Scriptures. God according to his mercie hath saued vs (saith S. Paule) by the washing of the second

birth, and of the renuing of the holy Ghost.* 1.376 By receiuing sal∣uation, we receiue the merites of Christes death: but we receiue saluation by Baptisme, Ergo, we receiue the me∣rites of Christes death by Baptisme. And sith that Ba∣ptisme is not faith, but a different grace from faith, vere∣ly we receiue not the merites of Christes death by faith onely.

Againe the merites of Christes death are receiued of him, whose sinnes are forgeuen.* 1.377 But Marie Maudelenes sinnes being many, and great, were yet forgeuen her, bi∣cause she loued much, as Christ him selfe said: and yet loue is not faith, for S. Paule saith, faith, hope, and charitie are three thinges: Wherefore the merites of Christes death are not receiued of vs by faith only. The like Argumētes might I make out of Gods word, for the feare of God, for hope, and for many other vertues, and specially for the grace of God,* 1.378 whereby wee suffer vniustly for righ∣teousnes sake. For as Christ specially was exalted accor∣ding to his manhod in glorie, for that in humilitie, and meekenesse he suffered most vniustly:* 1.379 euen so he graun∣teth to them the greatest merites of his death, who by his grace suffer together with him vniustly for the de∣fence of his iustice, as the holy Apostles, and Martyrs haue donne. That,* 1.380 which M. Iewel here saith out of S. Augustine, that the water of Baptisme worketh, bicause it is beleued, proueth Faith to be nec••ssarie, which thing we graunt: but it proueth it not to be sufficient alone, which was the point we sp••ke of.

Iewel. Pag. 29••.

Hesychius saith, the grace of Go•• is receiued by onely faith.* 1.381

Harding.

* 1.382You l••aue out halfe, as your custome is. For Hesychius saith, The grace of God is receiued by faith alone, non ex e∣peribus, vt Paulus dicit, not of workes, as S. Paule saith. Nam gratia iam non erit gratia. For if the grace of God were deserued by workes, now grace were not grace. Thus Hesychius saith, that Gods grace is receiued by faith alone, onely to exclude their vaine opinion, who thought workes, which were without faith, to deserue faith, or iustice, which is not so. For we are iustified free∣ly without workes, that may deserue the grace that God geueth. Yet it is not denied, but that, when faith is ge∣uen vs, then hope in God, and the loue of him is also ge∣uen vs. By which hope, and loue spread in our hartes, we receiue the merites of Christe, and not by faith onely.

For Purgatorie matters wee referre you to M. Allens Booke, and to that I said thereof in my Con∣futation, whiche is more railed, and scoffed at, then an∣swered.

Of the Intercession made to Saintes to praie for vs. The 10. Chapter.

Iewel. Pag. 311.

If Christ only be the mediatour of Saluation, vvherefore do you thus cal vpon the blessed virgin Christes mother, Salua omnes, qui te glo∣rificant? Saue thou al them that glorifie thee. Here ye intrude vpon Christes office.

Harding.

A Wrangler wil neuer lacke wordes.* 1.383 Whereas you know by our doctrine, and profession, that we be∣leue, not the blessed Virgin, but only Christ to be our mediatour, what fishe you for wordes to trappe vs in them? When we saie to the Virgin, saue vs, we meane thus: praye for vs to God, that we may be faued. And herein we speake, as S. Paule did speake, who saith to Ti∣mothee: doing thus (that is to saie, preaching, and geuing good example of life) & teipsum saluum facies,* 1.384 & eos qui te andiunt. Thou shalt saue bothe thy selfe, and those that heare thee. What? Doth S. Paule make Timothee a me∣diatour and Sauiour in these wordes? They are thus wel meant: Thou shalt be a meane to saue thy selfe, and o∣thers, that is to saie, whereby the sooner saluation may freely for Christes sake be geuen of God to thee, and to others. Euen so, saue vs virgin, is to saie, O virgin praie to God, and to thy sonne Iesus, that through his death salua∣tion may be geuen vnto vs. I might bring many such spea∣ches out of the holy Scriptures, if I thought this might

not suffice. He is a contentious wrangler, who knowing our meaning, doth pike quarels of dissensiō vpon wordes only, taken in euil sense, the good sense dissembled.

Iewel.

* 1.385VVherefore saie yee thus of Thomas Becket: O Christ make vs to ascende vnto heauen, vvhither Thomas is ascended, euen by the bloud of Thomas, that he shead for thy sake. Here you seeke saluation in the bloud of Thomas.

Harding.

This is an obiection for a Cobler, as the other was, and not for a Diuine,* 1.386 whose duetie it were to depend of thinges, and not of wordes. Albeit you make it otherwise to your aduantage, then the Latin wordes reporte, yet thus we saie: It is lawful to aske mercie of God onely for his owne sake: it is lawful also at the time of asking mercie, to present to him the remembrance of any gifte, or grace of his.

God him selfe saith by his Prophete Isaias: Protegem ciuitatem istam vt saluem eam propter me, & propter Da∣uid seruum meum. I wil defende this citie to saue it for mine owne sake, and for Dauides sake my seruant. Now bicause we know, it was a most gracious gifte of God, that he gaue S. Thomas grace to dye for his honour: when we desire to be holpen by his bloud, representing the memorie of S. Thomas vnto Christe our Sauiour, and as it were putting him in minde of his death suffered for his sake, we desire to haue Gods grace the soner geuen vnto vs through that mercie, which he shewed to the said S. Thomas.* 1.387 Scio quia hoc mihi prouen••et ad salutem, per vestram orationem, & subministrationem spiritus Iesu Christi. I know (saith S. Paule) that this thing shal

helpe forwarde my saluation, by your prayer, and by the helpe of the spirite of Iesus Christe.* 1.388 Here are ioy∣ned together two thinges: the praier of good menne, and the helpe of the spirite of Christe. They are both vttered by this syllable, per, by or through.

But what? Is S. Paule become blasphemous, bicause he ioyneth mennes prayers with Gods spirite? No, no. He meant, that the prayer of menne might helpe him, not of them selues, but by Gods gift. But the spirite of Christe was hable to help him of it selfe, as being the spirite of God. And yet those two helpes so far vnlike, are put together in one sentence, and expressed by one kinde of speache. But it is not a phrase of speache, whiche maketh the difference, it is the harte of the faithful, which distinguisheth al. Your wordes be faire M. Iewel, but your harte vnwares to your selfe doth honour the Idol Caluine, more then Christe Iesus. For you are ashamed of Christes olde Churche, and de∣formed spouse, as you thinke: But the trimme strompet of Caluins setting out, pleaseth you right wel. It is that fowle, and blind harte of yours, that shal condemne you, and not letters, or syllables, whiche in al your bookes you hunt after. Whatsoeuer our wordes be, you maie assure your selfe, our faith, and harte putteth dif∣ference inough betwen S. Thomas Becket a good man, and Christ Iesus God, and man. If it shal please you to conferre this praier touching S. Thomas with a prai∣er that I shal anonne allege out of S. Ephem, I truste, you wil reuoke your rash iudgement, wherein you con∣demne the Catholique Churche for this, and the like praiers.

Iewel. Pag. 312.

You in your imagination of the Saintes of God haue made Idolles.

Harding.

It is you that haue made Idolles of the enemies of God, to wit, of Luther, of Caluin, of Peter Martyr your maister, and of others the like. As for our honour ge∣uen to the Saintes, it is no greater, then the primitiue Church gaue to them, that is, that they heare vs in Christ, and praie in great charitie for vs. And so did al the olde Fathers beleeue, as being so taught of the Apostles. S. Ire∣naeus so nigh vnto the Apostles,* 1.389 doubted not to say, that the Virgin Marie obeied God, Vti virginis Euae Maria vir∣go fieret aduocata. That the Virgin Marie should be made the aduocate of the virgin Eue. And yet doth he not make her equal thereby with Christe. For our Ladie is in an other sense, and sorte our aduocate, then Christ is. Christ by right may pleade for vs, the Virgin Marie by grace may intreate for vs.

S. Gregorie Nazianzene, who praied him selfe to S. Basil being departed this life,* 1.390 reporteth thus of S. Cy∣prian, Virginem Mariam rogauit, vt periclitanti virgini opem ferret. He desired the Virgin Marie to helpe the Virgin which was in daunger.

S. Hilarie saith, we haue no smal garrison in the Apo∣stles, and in other Saintes.

S. Basil speaking of the fortie Martyrs, saith, He that is pressed with any calamitie, ad hos confugiat, vt à malis libe∣retu••. Let him flee to these, that he may be deliuered from euil thinges, hos oret, let him praie vnto these, &c.

S. Hieromes minde is wel knowen writing against Vigilantius.* 1.391

S. Chrysostome saith, that the Emperour (the pride of his purple laid a syde) stat Sanctis supplicaturus, stan∣deth to make his supplication to the Saintes, that they make intercession for him to God.

S. Augustine sheweth it to be a commoditie,* 1.392 that Christian menne should be buried nigh to the Saintes, that the frendes of the dead, eisdē Sanctis tāquam patronis susceptos apud Dominum adinuandos, orando commendent: that the frendes of the dead may by making their pray∣er, commende the dead, as clientes to the same Saintes, as to their patrones, by them to finde helpe with God.* 1.393

Theodoritus at large treateth of this mater, saying, that they whiche go on Pilgrimage, praie vnto the Mar∣tyrs to be their companions on the waie, not (saith he) that they make them Goddes, but they praye vnto the Mar∣tyrs, as being the menne of God. He sheweth moreouer, that after their returne, some dedicated Images, or fi∣gures of Eyes, some of Handes, some of feete made in siluer, or golde. S. Paulinus, S. Leo, S. Gregorie, S. Bede, and al the other holy and learned Fathers, agree herein.

Iewel. Pag. 313.

VVhereas yee teache the people thus to praie vnto the blessed Virgine, Monstra te esse Matrem, commaund thy sonne, vse thy motherly au∣thoritie ouer him, let him knovv thee to be his mother, this you saie, is no blasphemie, but a spiritual dallying. Novve verely this must needes be a blessed kinde of Diuinitie, that can turne prayer into dallyance.

Harding.

You scoffe wel, but what say you to my reason, that the spouse in the Canticles dallieth in such sorte with

Christe her spouse? Why is the worde ieasted at, and the reason let passe? But syr I pray you, who taught you to english, Monstra te esse matrem, Commaūd thy Sonne. where haue ye these wordes, let him knowe thee to be his mother? Monstrare, is to shew, you knowe. The English of monstra te esse matrem,* 1.394 is, shew thy selfe to be a mother, and it may wel be vnderstanded, by re∣lation made as wel towardes vs, as towardes Christe: Towardes him by nature, towardes vs by affection.

But doo not the wordes next following sufficiently declare the mater? Sumat per te preces, qui pro nobis natus tulit esse tuus. Shew thy selfe to be a mother, let him take praiers by thee, that is, offer praiers vnto him who for our sakes was content to be thy sonne. So that al this notwithstanding, we may demaunde of you, where it is written, that we bid our Ladie to commaunde her sonne. For whiche demaunde you scoffe at M. Cope, without witte,* 1.395 or reason calling him, One of my Beauperes of Louaine. Why you should so cal him, I know not, nor your selfe, I beleeue. For Beaupere in frenche, is a Father in lawe. And neither I haue married his daugh∣ter, nor he my mother. You say likewise of him ful wisely, that, he as a man carrieing his face in his hande, saith boldely, &c. I doubte howe this boyerie maye seeme to becomme so olde a Minister. But let suche toyes go.

Neither did I graunte you, that it was so written, but I said in case it were so written, or said, yet it might be wel taken, if it came to an honest mans interpretation. For to the vncleane, nothing is cleane, bicause their owne conscience is vncleane.

Bembus for calling our Ladie Deam,* 1.396 (for whiche you storme so muche) is not commended of vs, how beit it came rather of a poetical, or a Ciceronian spirit, coueting ouermuch to vse the old Latin prophane termes, then of any vnbeleefe, or heresie.

I thinke no man called our ladie Gods fellow, which you impute vnto vs. The Latin wordes, whiche you bring, may be wel taken by relation to Christe, to witte, that whereas al others forsooke Christ at his passion, yet our ladie his mother stode by him, as a most faithful keper of her sonnes companie.

If you finde faulte with the Councel of Oxforde* 1.397 for leauing out Christes name, we take it not lefte out, where his father is named, with whom he is one sub∣stance.* 1.398 Otherwise you may finde great faulte with S. Paule, who sometimes nameth God the father, without mention of the Sonne, and them both without the holy Ghoste. But where no contempte is, these omissions are not imputed.

Iewel. 314.

You saie, the blessed virgin hath more grace geuen her,* 1.399 then any crea∣ture: excepte yee can name a greater grace (saie you) then to be the mother of God. Verely M. Harding, to be the childe of God, it is a great deale grea∣ter grace, then to be the mother of God, as S. Augustine saith.

Harding.

If our Ladie were the mother of God, and not the child of God also, it were somewhat that you bring out of S. Augustine. But sith that she is both, and bicause I being sure of it, thought you had beleeued it too: there∣vpon I said, that our Ladie being as shee is, was aboue

al creatures in grace. For shee is the childe of God with many others, but shee is the natural mother of God aboue al others. Now when we tel the excellencie of any per∣son, I had thought, we should specially haue told that, wherein the same passed al others, and not that, which is common with many others. But a man may wel per∣ceiue, that M. Iewel goeth about to bring the blessed Virgin into contempte, by whiche way so euer he maie bring it about: as though the way to honour the Sonne, were to dishonour the Mother.

Iewel. Pag. 315.

But touching the mater it selfe,

Harding.

I crie you mercie M. Iewel, haue you benne a wande∣ring al this while, and now at the very ende come you firste to touch the matter? In dede you leaue it ful ofte vntouched, euery where in manner, taking an occasion of some bye word to fal into your peeuish gloses, and into your common Phrases, letting passe the chiefe point of the question. But now touching the mater, what saie you?

Iewel. 315.

* 1.400S. Ambrose saith, Therefore we are brought to the presence of kinges by Lordes, and officers, bicause the king is a man, and knoweth not to whom he may commit his realme. But to ob∣teine Gods fauour, to whom nothing is secrete, and knowyng vvhat euery man is meete to haue, we neede no spokesman, but a deuoute minde. For vvhere so euer such a one speaketh to God, God vvil ansvver him.

Harding.

Remember you what you promised?* 1.401 Said you not,

you would touch the matter of praying to Saintes? Ve∣rely. S. Ambrose speaketh these wordes of the vnbelee∣uing Gentiles, who despised God, and putting the hope of their Saluation in Goddes creatures, made to them Goddes, and Idolles of them, and adored them, and praied to them, as if there had benne many Goddes. And they praied to them so, as though the highest God, (whom they acknowledge by discourse of reason after a sorte) had neede of their helpe, as not being hable to know al, and to gouerne al thinges alone. So that they despising God, adored the Sunne, the Moone, the Starres and o∣ther Creatures, as S. Paule in that Chapter saith, and S. Ambrose expoundeth.

But now what say you touching the mater M. Iewel?* 1.402 Would you not know S. Ambroses mind therein gladly? I dare saie, you woulde not. And if a man might looke into your harte, I thinke he should espie, that you know for certaintie, that S. Ambrose thought not of praying to Saintes, as you doo: Or els verely you are not so wel seene in S. Ambrose, as I tooke you to be.

Howsoeuer it be, I wil here geue the reader a taste of S. Ambroses minde, touching the very mater of praying to the Saintes whiche liue with Christe.* 1.403 Rogauerunt pro vidua Petrus, & Andreas. Vtinam existat aliquis, qui tam citò possit rogare pro nobis, vel certè iste, qui pro socru rogat Petrus, & Andreas frater eius. Tunc enim pro affinitate poterant, nunc iam possunt pro nobis, & pro omni∣bus impetrare. Videtis enim, quòd magno peccato obno∣xia minus idonea sit, quae pro se precetur, certè quae prose impetret. Adhibeat igitur ad medicum alios preca∣tores. Aegri enim, nisi ad eos aliorum precibus medicus fuerit

inuitatus, pro se rogare non possunt. Infirma est car••, mens agra est, & peccatorum vinculis impedita, ad medici illius sedem debile non potest explicare vestigium. Obsecrandi sunt Angeli pro nobis, qui nobis ad praesidium dati sunt: Marty∣res obsecrandi, quorum videmur nobis quoddam corporis pi∣gnore patrocinium vendicare. Possunt pro peccatis rogare no∣stris, qui proprio sanguine, etiam si qua habuerunt peccata, lauerunt. Isti enim sunt Dei Martyres, nostri praesules, specu∣latores vitae actuum{que} nostrorum. Non erubescamus eos in∣tercessores nostrae infirmitatis adhibere, qui & ipsi infirmi∣tatem corporis etiam cùm vincerent cognouerunt.

Peter and Andrew praied for the Widowe. Would God there were some body, who would so speedily pray for vs, yea that it were this Peter, who praieth for his mo∣ther in law, and Andrew his brother: for then they might for their kinsfolke obteine, but now they may obteine for vs, and for al others. For ye see, that a woman being thral to a great sinne, is not so fit to praie for her selfe, at leste to obteine for her selfe. Let her therefore vse some other mans helpe, and prayer to the Physician (for her). For they that are sicke, onlesse the Physician be brought to them by the meanes and prayers of others, can not (come and) desire him them selues. The fleshe is feeble, the minde is sicke, and so entangled in the bandes of sinne, that it can not set forth her faint and fe∣ble foote towardes the seate of that Physician. The An∣gels are to be called vpon for vs, who are geuen vnto vs to be our Garde. The Martyrs are to be praied vnto, of whom it seemeth we maie (as it were) chalenge a cer∣taine assistance, for that we haue their bodies in pledge. They may wel pray for our sinnes, who with their owne

bloud haue washed away their owne sinnes, if they had any. For these are the Martyrs of God, our chiefe Pre∣lates, and the ouerlookers of our life, and doinges. Let vs not be ashamed to vse them as intercessours for our infir∣mitie, whereas they them selues euen then when they wanne the victorie, knew wel the infirmitie, and weake∣nesse of the bodie.

This place M. Iewel, sheweth, that S. Ambrose, who wil not haue any man to flee to Idolles, woulde haue al faithful menne to praie to the Saintes for them. And yet you for lacke of better stuffe, were faine to make your Reader beleeue, that the wordes written against the ac∣cursed Idolles, might be applied by you against the bles∣sed Apostles, and Martyrs. Whereby you shewe, what good opinion you haue of that blessed companie of the house of God, who reigning with him in heauen, see in the face of the Lambe our hartes, so farre as belongeth to their ioye, and our comfort.

This one place of S. Ambrose might haue suffised,* 1.404 but it shalbe good, that we ioyne therewith the practise both of the Church in those daies, and also of the Heretikes, that as wel the Catholikes may see, how the Saintes were esteemed in olde time, as M. Iewel may perceiue, that he is not the first heretike, whom it grieued to see Gods Martyrs so to be honoured, as they are among the Ca∣tholikes. Let vs then heare what S. Paulinus writeth in the life of S. Ambrose, who liued in his time.* 1.405 Per idē tēpus sancti Martyres Protasius, & Geruasius se sacerdoti reuelaue∣rūt. Erāt enim in Basilica positi, in qua sunt hodie corpora Na¦boris, et Felicis Martyrum. Sed sancti Martyres Nabor & Fe∣lix celeberrimè frequentabantur: Protasij verò & Geruasij

Martyrum, vt nomina, ita etiam sepulchra incognita erant: in tantum, vt suprà ipsorum sepulchra ambularent omnes, qui vellent ad cancellos peruenire, quibus sancto∣rum Naboris, & Felicis Martyrum ab iniuria sepulchra defendebantur. Sed vbi sanctorum Martyrum sunt cor∣pora leuata, & in lecticis posita, multorum ibi Satanae aegri∣tudines perdocentur. Coecus etiam Seuerus nomine, qui nunc vsque in eadem basilica quae dicitur Ambrosiana, in quam Martyrum corpora sunt translata, religiosè seruit, vbi vestem Martyrum attigit, statim lumen recepit. Ob∣sessa etiam corpora à spiritibus immundis curata, summa cum gratia domum repetebant. Sed his beneficiis Mar∣tyrum in quantum crescebat fides Ecclesiae Catholica, in∣tantum Arianorum perfidia minuebatur. Denique ex hoc tempore sed••ri coepit persecutio quae Iustinae furori accende∣batur, vt Sacerdos de Ecclesia pelleretur. Tamen intra pala∣tium multitudo Arianorum cum Iustina constitut•• deri∣debat tantam Dei gratiam, quam Ecclesiae suae Catholica Do∣minus Iesus meritis Nartyrum suorum conferre dignatus est, venerabilémque virum Ambrosium narrabat pecunia com∣parasse homines, qui se vexari ab immundis spiritibus menti∣rentur, atque ita ab illo, sicut & à martyribus, se torque∣ri dicerent. Sed hoc Iudaico ore loquebantur Ariani, sup∣pares scilicet eorum. Illi enim de Domino dicebant, Quo∣niam in Beelzebub principe Daemoniorum eijcit Daemo∣nia. Isti de Martyribus, vel de Domini Sacerdote loque∣bantur, quòd non Dei gratia quae per ipsos operabatur, im∣mundi spiritus pellerentur, sed accepta pecunia se tor∣queri mentirentur. Clamabant enim daemones, Scimus vos Martyres: Et Ariani dicebant, Nescimus esse Mar∣tyres.

About this time the holy Martyrs Protasius, and Ger∣nasius reueled them selues to S. Ambrose. For they were buried in the Church, where at this daie are the bodies of the Martyrs, Nabor and Felix. But menne haunted very muche vnto the holy Martyrs, Nabor, and Felix, and as for the Martyrs Protasius, and Ger∣nasius, as theire names were vnknowen, so were also their Graues, where they laie, in so muche that men, that were desirous to come to the Grates, wherewith the toumbes of the blessed Martyrs, Nabor, and Fe∣lix, were fenced from iniurie, walked vppon their graues.

But after that the bodies of the blessed Martyrs were taken vppe, and laid in their cofines, that many were there cured of their Diseases, it is wel knowen.* 1.406 A blinde man named Seuerus, who at this daie ful de∣uoutely serueth in the same Churche, nowe called S. Ambroses Churche, whither the bodies of the Mar∣tyrs were translated: after that he had once touched the garmente of the Martyrs, foorthwith receiued his fight. Many bodies also possessed of wicked Spirites were cured, and returned home with great grace. But howe muche the faith of the Catholique Churche by these benefites of the Martyrs grewe more and more, so muche did the perfidious falshood of the Arians wexe lesse and lesse. Finally after this the persecution, which was enkendled by the rage of Iustina the Empe∣resse, which sought to driue Saint Ambrose out of his Churche, beganne to slake. Neuerthelesse the rable of the Arians, who were in the Courte with Iustina,

scoffed at this great grace of God, whiche it pleased our Lord Iesus to bestow vpō his Catholike Church through the merites of his Martyrs. And they bruted abroad that the reuerēd Bishop Ambrose had hiered mē with money, that should feine them selues to be vexed with vncleane Sprites, and saie, that they were as wel tormented by S. Ambrose, as by the Martyrs. But this the Arians like verie Iewes vttered, as being (in malice) their owne com¦panions. For the Iewes said of our Lorde: He casteth out Deuilles in Beelzebub the Prince of Deuilles. But the Arians said of the Martyrs, and of S. Ambrose the Priest of our Lord, that the vncleane Sprites were not cast out by the grace of God, which wrought by them, but that menne hiered with money, feined them selues to be tor∣mented. For the Deuilles cried out: We know you to be Martyrs, But the Arians said, we know not them to be Martyrs. Thus farre S. Paulinus.

Doo you know your Father M. Iewel, if ye saw him? I meane not your natural Father, would God you were so good a man, and of so good a faith, as he was. But I meane your other father, that begote Arius, whose yon∣ger brother you are. At that time the Arians mockte at the miracles wroughte by the Saintes, and that at their Toumbes, euen as you doo nowe. But at that time the Catholikes honoured the Saintes, as we doo now. If the Arians were heretikes, you know your brethren.

* 1.407Before I conclude this matter touching praying vnto Saintes, I would the Reader to vnderstand, what good menne thought thereof twelue hundred yeares agoe. It may be cōceiued by that we find in S. Ephrem that bles∣sed man, whom S. Basil esteemed so much. Thus he saith

speaking vnto God. Grex tuus electus,* 1.408 Monachorum quo∣que conuentus, & omnium Sanctorum, qui placuerunt ante te, qui nunc in Paradiso exultant, iam deprecantur pro me, & obsecrant te solum amatorem hominum. Exaudies quo{que} eos, & saluabis me obsecrationibus eorum. Ego verò per eos ti∣bi gloriam & laudem offeram, qui exaudisti orationem eo∣rum, & misertus es mihi, & non despexisti petitiones eorum, quae pro salute animae meae profusae sunt.

Thy chosen Flocke, and cōpanie of Monkes, and of al the Saintes, that haue ben acceptable before thee, who now reioise in Paradise, at this present do praie for me, and be suters vnto thee the only louer of men. Thou shalt heare them, and shalt saue me for their praiers. And I shal offer glorie, and praise vp vnto thee, who hast heard their praiers, and hast mercie of me, and hast not despised their requestes, which haue benne made for the health of my soule.

Some wil say perhappes, This place witnesseth, that the Saintes praie for vs, but not that we maie praie to the Saintes. Who so euer is desirours to see this point wit∣nessed by holy Ephrem, let him read a praier, that he made in praise of our Ladie the virgin Marie. Where she is ho∣noured with these high titles, without preiudice of Chri∣stes glorie, Regina omniū, spes desperantiū, spes Patrū,* 1.409 gloria Prophetarū, omniū Princeps, omniū Dux. The Quene of al, the hope of them that be without hope, the hope of the Fathers, the glorie of the Prophetes, Princesse of al, the captaine of al. Yea further praying vnto her he saith, which M. Iewel wil euil abide, Per te reconciliati sumus Christo Deo meo filio tuo. Tu peccantium, & auxilio destitu∣torum adiutrix. Tu portus procella vexatorum, solatium mū∣di,

carcere clausorum liberatrix celeberrim••••. Tu Orphano∣rum susceptio, tu captiuorum redemptio, tu agrotantium ex∣ultatio, & omnium salus. By thee we haue ben reconci∣led vnto Christ my God thy Sonne. Thou art the helper of them that sinne, and be forsaken of helpe. Thou art the heauen of them that are tossed with tēpest, thou art the comforte of the worlde, the famous deliuerer of them that are shut vp in the Prison. Thou arte the receite of Orphans, thou art the redemption of them that be taken Prisoners, thou arte the reioising of them that be sicke, and the health of al.

* 1.410Item he saith there: Sub alis tuis custodi me, & protege. Miserere mei, quisum luto inquinatus, qui sceleribus quàm plurimis Creatorē Deū meum, et iudicē offendi. Non mihi alia fiducia ô virgo sincera. Imple os meū gratia dulcedinis tua. Illumina mentem ô gratia plena. Keepe me, and defende me vnder thy Wings. Haue mercie of me, that am defi∣led with durte, that haue with very many wicked deedes offended the Creator my God, and Iudge. I haue none other trust, ô pure Virgin. Fil my mouth with the grace of thy swetnes. Lighten my minde ô ful of grace.

Item there he saith further. Dignare virgo te tuum ser∣uum laudare, & dicere: Aue Dei splendidissimum, & lucu∣lentissimum vas. Aue Pax, Gaudium, & Salus mundi: Aue vallum fidelium, & mundi Salus. Aue progenitoris illius Adā Resurrectio, aue refugium peccatorum, & hospitium, aue pro∣pitiatorium laborantium. Aue spes omnium proborum aduer∣sis casibus afflictorum. Aue mundi Mediatrix gloriosissima, aue vniuersi terrarum orbis conciliatrix. Aue porta coelorum, ascensus omnium, aue reseramentum portarum Paradisi, Aue clauis Coelorum, & regni Christi. Aue portus optime huius

vita Nautarum, aue animae meae spes bona & fida, aue Chri∣stianorum omnium firma salus.

Vouchesafe Virgin, that I thy seruant praise thee, and saie: Haile the brightest, and cleerest Vessel of God. Haile Peace, Ioie, and health of the worlde. Haile Bul∣warke of the faithful, and health of the worlde. Haile Resurrection of Adam that first Father of ours. Haile re∣fuge, and herborough of sinners, haile propitiatorie of them that laboure. Haile hope of al good folke oppressed with aduersities: Haile most glorious Mediatresse of the worlde, haile reconciler of al the rounde worlde. Haile gate of heauen, the ascending vp of al, haile the vnloc∣king of Paradise gates. Haile keie of heauen, and of the kingdom of Christe. Haile the best hauen of the Mar∣riners of this life. Haile good, and trusty hope of my Soule. Haile the stronge health of al Christians.

Consider Reader, whether, Tu per Thomae sanguinem, Whereat M. Iewel maketh so much adoo, may not wel seeme iustified by the prayer of the Aunciente Father Ephrem. I denie not, but that if there be such excessiue speaches, as seeme to attribute to our Ladie, or to any Sainte, that, which is propre, and belonging to Christe only: they ought by a conuenient interpretation, and vnderstanding be drawen vnto such a sense, and meaning, as is agreable vnto the Scriptures of God, and faith of the Catholike Church.

Of the possibilitie of keeping the commaunde∣mentes of God. The 11. Chapter.

Harding.

[ 1] WIthout the grace of God no one commaunde∣ment can be done or kepte, as it ought. For Christ said,* 1.411 sine me nihil potestis facere: without me yee can do nothing. And the whole Churche praieth continually,* 1.412 forgeue vs our debtes (or trespasses). With the grace of God, the commaundementes may be so kepte, that the keepers of them may atteine life euerlasting. For Christ said of the commaundementes, Si vu ad vitam in∣gredi, serua mandata. If thou wilt entre vnto life, kepe the commaundementes. And againe, Hoc fac, & viues, [ 2] do this, and thou shalt liue. Non enim auditores legis iusti sunt apud Deum,* 1.413 for the heares of the law be not accom∣pted iust before God, but the doers of the lawe shalbe iustified.

[ 3] I graunt we can not so fulfil the lawe, that we shalbe without venial sinne, and many imperfections of life. None but Christ so fulfilled the law.* 1.414 If we say, we haue no sinne, the truth is not in vs, saith S. Iohn. But the fulfilling of the law is not so required of vs, that we neuer swarue any whit from the line of perfection, but so as we neuer turne backeward from God (after grace once receiued) by wilful consent to mortal sinne.* 1.415 Non impediunt (saith S. Augustine) à vita aeterna iustum, quaedam peccata venia∣lia, sine quibus haec vita non ducitur. Certaine venial sinnes, without whiche this life is not passed ouer, doo not let the iuste man, from the atteining of life euer∣lasting. He then is iuste, who though he haue venial

sinnes, is cleere and voide of al mortal sinnes.* 1.416 Otherwise how should the Scripture saie, that Zacharias, and Eliza∣beth were both iuste before God, walking in al the com∣maundementes, and righteousnesses of our Lorde without complaint?

Iewel. Pag. 316.

Yee seeme in some parte to renevve the Pelagian olde condemned errour.

Harding.

Ye doo vs wrong to raise that euil surmise vpon vs.* 1.417 We are as far from that heresie, as yee are from the Ca∣tholique faith in many other great and weighty pointes. S. Hierome sheweth that the Pelagian heresie was, posse hominem sine peccato esse, si velit, that a man may be with∣out sinne, if he wil. And S. Augustine saith, Credunt sine gratia Dei posse hominem facere omnia diuina mandata: They beleue, that a man without the Grace of God, can do al the commaundementes of God.

We defie these two opinions. But they had an other erroneous opinion, from the gilte whereof you M. Iewel being a scholer of Caluines schoole, shal hardly cleere your selfe. They taught, as S. Augustine doth witnesse, that infantes might haue, not in deede the kingdom of God, but yet life euerlasting without Baptisme. And you teache, that they may haue both life euerlasting, and the kingdome of heauen without Baptisme. Therefore I leaue it to be considered, how farre ye differ from the Pelagians.

Iewel.

God saith, thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with al thy hart, with al thy soule, with al thy power. Yee shal not turne, nei∣ther

to the right hande, nor to the lefte.

Harding.

This precepte of louing God with al our hart, &c. was geuē to vs, not as a thing to be fully done whiles we liue, but as a thing to be in this life by faith begonne, and to be hoped for presently by the helpe of Gods grace, but real∣ly, perfitely, and in deede, to be accomplished in the life to come.* 1.418

So saith S. Augustine: Ideo nobis hoc etiam nunc praece∣ptum est, vt admoneremur quid fide exposcere, quò spem prae∣mittere, & obliniscendo quae retrò sunt, in quae anteriora nos extendere debeamus. Ac per hoc quantum mihi videtur in ea qua penficienda est iustitia, multum in hac vita ille profe∣cit, qui quàm longè fit à perfectione iustitiae, proficiendo co∣gnouit. Sed dici potest quaedam iustitia minor huic vitae cōpe∣tens, qua intus ex fide viuit, quamuis peregrinus à Domino: & ideo per fidē ambulens, non dū per speciē, nō absurdè dicitur etiā ad istā pertinerè ne peccet:* 1.419 neque enim fi esse nō dum po∣test tanta dilectio Dei, quanta illi cognitioni plenae perfectae{que} debetur, iam culpae deputandum est. Aliudest enim totam non∣dum assequi charitatem, aliud nullam se qui cupiditatem.

Therefore this also now is geuen vs in commaunde∣ment (that we loue God with al our harte, &c.) to put vs in minde what we ought to aske (of God) by faith, whither to sende before our hope, and to what thinges that are before vs, we ought to stretche forth our selues, forgeting the thinges that are behinde. And by this, for so muche as seemeth to mee, in that righteousnesse, whiche is to be perfourmed, he hath profited muche in this life, who in profiting knoweth, how farre he is from the perfection of righteousnes. But there maie be named an other lesser Righteousnes competent for this life, in

which the righteous man liueth of faith, although he be as yet a forreiner (or Pilgrime) from our Lord:* 1.420 and there∣fore whiles he walketh by faith and not as yet by sight, it is not absurde to saie of him, that he belongeth to this (lesser righteousnes) that he sinne not. For if there can not yet in this life be so great a loue of God, as is dewe vnto that ful, and perfite knowledge, it is not to be imputed vnto vs for a fault. For it is one thing, not to attaine as yet the whole Charitie, and an other thing, to follow no lust.* 1.421

By these wordes we learne, first, that the precepte of louing God with al our power, is after one sort fulfilled in this life, if doing what we can, we beleue, and hope, as we ought, that wee shal loue God with al our power in the other life. For it is here so set before our eyes, as a marke whereunto we should presently directe our selues as nigh as were are hable, with certaine beleefe, and trust, that if we do here by the helpe of Gods grace that which wee are hable to doo according to the measure that God geueth vnto vs: wee shal in deede attaine the righteousnes of perfit Charitie.

Againe the lacke of that perfit righteousnes is not now to be accompted in vs a sinne,* 1.422 but if we do our best en∣deuour it is a degree of righteousnes inferiour, and baser, then that, whiche is to come. So that the righteousnes of the way, or of this life, albeit it be not the greatest, that euer shalbe, yet it is a certaine humaine perfection,* 1.423 and fulnes, and as S. Augustine calleth it, quaedam iustitia minor, a certaine lesser rightheousnesse, S. Hierome cal∣leth it, perfectionē secundū humunae fragilitatis modulū, Per∣fectiō according to the smal measure of humaine frailtie: the highest degree whereof is a man to bestow his life

for his frendes, whiche thing by Gods grace many Mar∣tyrs haue done: who loued God with al their power, as farre as in this life of man he could be loued.

* 1.424Of this lesser righteousnes S. Hierome saith, Iusti ap∣pellantur, non quòd omni vitio careant, sed quòd maiori parte virtutum commendentur. Men are called righteous, not for that they be without al vice, but for that they are fur∣nished with the more parte of vertue.

* 1.425Againe in an other place: Perspicuum est duas in scri∣pturis sanctis esse perfectiones, duas{que} iustitias, & duos timo∣res. Primam perfectiomem, & incomparabilem veritatem, perfectam{que} iustitiam, Dei virtutibus coaptandam. Secundam autem, quae competit nostrae fragilitati: iuxtà illud quod in psalmis dicitur: non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis vi∣uens, ad eam iustitiam, quae non comparatione, sed Dei scien∣tia dicitur esse perfecta. It is manifest, that in the holy Scri∣ptures there are two perfectiōs, and two righteousnesses, and two feares: And that there is a first perfection, and an incomparable truthe, and a perfite righteousnesse, which is to be set with the vertues of God. And that there is a second perfection, whiche standeth with our frailtie:* 1.426 according to that whiche is said in the Psalmes: Euerie one that liueth shal not be accompted righteous in thy sight (asmuch to saie) in comparison of that righte∣ousnes, which not in comparison, but in the knowledge of God is said to be perfite. By this double perfection al is answered, what so euer M. Iewel bringeth against vs, either out of the Scriptures, or out of the Fathers. It is possible to doo the law in this life, after that perfection, which belongeth to Pilgrimes, but not after that, which belongeth to Heauen. But the Pelagians held, that a man

might if he would, perfourme the perfection, and that by the benefites of nature, and by free wil without grace.

If a man consider the doctrine whiche we haue taught hitherto concerning Perfection, it shal appeare, that many thinges, which M. Iewel hath alleged in the Defence, are of vs confessed. Whereof then riseth the difference? verely of the wordes of the Apologie,* 1.427 which are these. Wee are hable by no meanes to fulfil the lawe of God in this life. This proposition M. Iewel I haue confuted. This haue you taken in hande to defende. But in al your Defence I finde nothing to that purpose. I haue now shewed,* 1.428 that by some meanes we may ful∣fil the lawe, to wit, by present faith, and hope, and by going daily forward in Charitie, vntil we come to per∣fection in Heauen.

Furthermore we maie die also for Goddes sake,* 1.429 and for the defence of his truth. This is one meane, where∣by the lawe is fulfilled. Therefore your Proposition remaineth stil giltie of erroneus doctrine. Besides this, it is not impossible for a man actually to fulfil the lawe in this life: bicause God may geue a man so muche grace as to doo it, if it please him, as S. Augustine hath decla∣red twise in his booke De spiritu & litera. Therefore by some meanes we may be able to fulfil the lawe, and that perfitely, although I confesse, we doo not fulfil it. But remember, you said not onely we do not fulfil the law, but that wee are not hable to fulfil it by no meanes. Whereby you abbridge the power of God. For Gods singular grace, is a meane to perfourme it. S. Hierome also graunted to Pelagius, possibilia mandata dedit Deus,* 1.430

& quis hoc negat? The commaundementes whiche God gaue vs, are possible to be don, and who saith nay there∣to? Forsooth M Iewel in his Apologie.

Of Faith without Workes, and of the Merite of good workes. The 12. Chapter.

I Had said, there is a true Faith, whiche is not liuely, but idle. M. Iewel after his florish made at diuers Schole∣men, of whom I intende not muche to speake, saith thus.

Iewel. Pag. 320.

* 1.431He that hath no regarde to his owne, specially such as be of his howsehold, hath denied the faith, and is worse then an infi∣del: And againe, they, saie they know God, but by their workes they denie God.

Harding.

This is brought to proue, that in euery great Sinne, at the lest we lose our Faith. Adde hereunto that whiche Martin Luther said:* 1.432 Nemo est certus se non semper pecca∣re mortaliter, propter occultissimum superbiae vitium. No∣man is sure that he sinneth not alwayes mortally, for the most priuie vice of pride. If then at euery mortal sinne the faith be lost, and noman be sure, but that he is alwayes a mortal sinner, doubtelesse no man is sure, that he hath any Faith. And so Only faith is brought to no faith at al.* 1.433 So wel these men profit in their Doctrine. But how saith S. Paule, that he who hath not care of his houshold, hath denied the faith? Surely M. Iewel an∣swereth him selfe out of S. Paule, who saith, They professe them selues to knowe God, but by their deedes

they denie him. For so S. Chrisostome also doth ex∣pound the former of these places by the later.

So that there is a double knowledge, one in the vn∣derstanding onely, which those haue that beleeue in God, and breake his commaundementes by killing, or stealing, or any other mortal sinne. There is another knowing of God in wil, and obedience of hart, when a man preuented with grace, is desirous to doo, and kepe Gods commaundementes, which are not heauy, nor greuous to him, that hath grace. The first kinde of knowledge, is bare, and naked Faith. The second, is Faith furnished, and clothed with Charitie. This later Faith he hath denied, who doth not take care of his howsehold, and of them of his kinne, &c. But that not∣withstanding the former Faith remaineth, bicause he may yet beleeue al the Articles of the Faith, which ve∣rely seing it is a grace of God, and a great furtherance to euerlasting life, and yet hath none other name at al euer inuented for it, beside the name of Faith: it must needes be a true Faith, though it be not a profitable Faith, as al Theeues and Periured persons are true men in nature, though they be not honest menne in maners, nor true menne of their deedes. Al which wordes vtte∣red in manner with the same order in my Confutation, M. Iewel hath quite striken out of his booke of De∣fence, bicause they opened the point of the controuer∣sie. There I said, Faith, Hoape, and Charitie were three:* 1.434 And that as there is a Faith working by Chari∣tie of great profit, so is there a Faith, whiche may be without Charitie, nothing worthe to euerlasting life.

Iewel. Pag. 320.

* 1.435S. Iames saith: Faith without workes is dead, but a dead faith is no more a true perfite faith, then a dead man, is a true perfite man.

Harding.

Did not you knowe the answere M. Iewel? Nothing is more common. You belie the Scripture, that is the answer to you. And your forefathers euen vp to Luther haue alwaies belyed it: and being told of it, wil not yet amende no more, then the Deuil, whom they followe. A thing may be dead in two sortes,* 1.436 either bicause it had life in it of his owne, or els bicause it had it of another thing. If a man be deade, he is deade in respecte of the life, which belonged to him selfe. For a man doth con∣sist of body and soule, and not of the one alone. So that when the soule is aparte from the body, then is he no more a perfitte man, during the time of that separation. But the Body being one parte of a man, hath life in it, whiles the soule abideth in it. But that life is not the Bo∣dies owne, but it is the life of the soule, geuing mouing vnto the Body. which life when it is taken away, the Bo∣dy remaineth stil a perfite Body in his owne nature, al∣though it be vnperfite in respect of the soule, which did commende it, and set it forth.

Now it is to be considered, whether Faith haue life in it selfe, and of his owne nature, as a man hath (for then a dead faith is no faith): or els whether faith hath life of another thing, to wit, of Charitie, and then a dead Faith is a true Faith in his owne nature, albeit it be disgraced for lacke of the life, which it was wont to haue through Charitie.

The very expresse worde of God hath ended this que∣stion.

For S. Iames geueth vs to vnderstand, that Faith hath life of an other thing, like as the body hath of the soule, for he saith: Sicut enim corpus sine spiritu mortuum est, ita & fides sine operibus mortua est.* 1.437 As the body with∣out the sowle is dead, so is faith dead without workes. Not as the man is dead without the sowle, but as the body is dead without the soule, so is faith dead without workes: But the body being without the sowle, is stil a true natural body: Therefore faith being without good workes, is stil a true real faith. But it is idle, and no more profitable, vntil good workes be againe graffed into it. This mater is so plaine, that the confirmation of witnesses is needelesse, and so M. Iewel is tried a lier in that he said, an idle faith is in dede no faith at al.

Iewel. Pag. 321.

We graunt good vvorkes haue their revvard, but the same revvards standeth in mercie, and fauour, and not in duetie. Iob saith, If a man wil dispute with God, he is not able to ansvver him one for a thovvsand. I vvas a fraid of al my vvorkes. Although I vvere perfit, yet my soule shal not knovv it. &c.

Harding.

These witnesses do proue wel against your assurednes of saluation, which you warrant to your selues. But con∣cerning our question, it shalbe good here to laye cer∣taine truthes confessed of al sides, that the doctrine may be the plainer. First, there is no merite of workes at al before faith, or without faith:* 1.438 For els grace were not grace, and thereunto perteine S. Augustines wordes by you alleged to an other purpose. After faith no particu∣lar man is able to warrant his owne workes to be meri∣torious,

And that is proued by al the testimonies of Scriptures, and Fathers, which you haue brought. For euery man is vncertaine of his owne state,* 1.439 as not knowing, whether he be worthy of hatred, or of fa∣uour. But when wee dispute generally, whether those men, who being in grace, in dede are confessed to haue wrought wel, do merite life euerlasting there∣by, or no, that being our question: thus I saie. No workes of man, were they neuer so good, could of them selues without Gods ordinance haue merited heauen of God, or haue made him debter of such a reward, or wages dew to them. For they are al done in time, and can not deserue an infinite reward, such as is rendred in heauen.* 1.440 For I iudge (saith the Apostle) that the affli∣ctions of this time are not worthy of the glorie that shalbe reueled in vs.

* 1.441But seing it hath pleased God, not onely to geue vs abundance of grace, whereby our workes may be acceptable to him, but also to promise euerlasting life to the doers of them, and to make him selfe a deb∣ter to vs of suche a rewarde: this promise of God being put, it were iniurious to God, if nowe wee should not saie, that our good workes deserued life euerlasting. For seinge God geueth them freely to thende we shoulde thereby deserue heauen, who is so voide of reason, as to denie, that those workes deserue Glorie, of whiche God hath said, the dooer•• of them shal haue glorie rendred vnto them, as their wages?* 1.442 Merces vestra (saith he) copiosa est in coelis, your wages is plentiful in Heauen. Vnusquisque pro∣priam mercedem accipiet secundùm suum laborem.* 1.443 Euery

man shal receiue his proper wages according to his owne labour.* 1.444 Thou shalt render to euery man (saith the Prophete) according to his workes. If then no mannes workes in no sense deserue glorie, it muste follow, that God shal render glorie to no man: and yet S. Paule sayth,* 1.445 that God wil render life euerla∣sting to them, who seeke glorie, and honour, and in∣corruption according to the patience (or continuance) of working wel. The same worde reddere,* 1.446 to render, or paye, doth import a title and right, that good workers haue to demaunde life euerlasting. For as if I promise one ten pound to bring me a cuppe of fresh water, although before I had promised that wages, the water were not worth one halfpennie, yet if once vp∣on my promise a man do bring me the water, I am bound by my promise and couenant, to paie him his wa∣ges:* 1.447 euen so God hath bounde him selfe to geue vs life euerlasting for our good workes, saying, Hoc fac, & viues, doo this thing, and thou shalt liue. Againe, he that continueth til the ende, shalbe saued. And there∣fore now he, that hath wrought wel euen til the ende, may require God to keepe his promise, who surely is faithful, and wil not faile to kepe it.

And this thing is meant by the Parable of him, that hie∣red men to labour in his wineyard (that is, in his Church) couenāting with them for a pennie, that is to saie,* 1.448 for life e∣uerlasting. To whom, when he paied their wages: he said, Nónne ex denario conuenisti mecum? Tolle quod tuum est. Diddest thou not bargaine with me for a pennie? Take that whiche is thine. And S. Paule testifieth of him selfe.* 1.449 I haue fought a good fight, I haue ended the rase, I haue

kepte the faith, as for the reste the Crowne of righteousnesse is laid vp for me, which our Lord the iust Iudge wil render to me in that daye. And not only to me, but also to them, who loue his comming. Here are first rehersed S. Paules workes, to fight, to ronne, to kepe the faith: Then is their reward rehersed, which is a Crowne, not onely of mer∣cie, but of iustice, of righteousnes, which God wil not only geue him, but he wil render it to him, and not onely to him, but to al that follow his Faith, Hope, and Chari∣tie. And yet shal wee saye, that God rewardeth not workes of such duetie as him selfe apointed? That which God promiseth for working, is due to him that hath wrought. And this is the doctrine of S. Augustine, and of al the other Fathers, and Councels, which might be at large brought forth, but that the scriptures are therein so plaine, that they onely suffice. For he that beleueth not them, wil hardly beleeue the Fathers, or Councels.

* 1.450Therefore to ende this question, if wee looke to the cause of al our good workes, seing it is not Nature (which was corrupted) but Grace, which hath repaired Nature through Christe: in that respecte life euerlasting is free∣ly geuen, and not deserued. And so the Apostle saith, Life euerlasting is the grace (or free gifte) of God. But if wee speake of them, who haue already grace by Gods gifte, and doo now worke wel: to them life euerlasting is by promise due for their good workes. Hereof no man speaketh more circumspectly, or profoundly, then S. Au∣gustine,* 1.451 who saith thus. Quae merita iactaturus est libera∣tus, cui si digna suis meritis redderentur, non esset nisi dam∣natus? Nulláne igitur sunt merita iustorum? Sunt planè, quia iusti sunt. Sed vt iusti fierent, merita non fuerunt.

What merites (or desertes) shal he that is deliuered boast of, who if he were rewarded according to his deseruing, could not be but damned? Are there then no merites of the iust? Yes verely there are, bicause they are iust. But they merited not to be made iust.

And againe.* 1.452 Quod est ergo meritum hominis ante gra∣tiam, cùm omne bonum meritum nostrum non in nobis faciat nisi gratia, & cùm Deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronet, quàm munera sua? & pòst. Vnde & ipsa vita aeterna quae vtique in fine sine fine habebitur (& ideo meritis praece∣dentibus redditur) tamen quia eadem merita, quibus reddi∣tur, non à nobis parata sunt per nostram sufficientiam, sed in nobis facta per gratiam, etiam ipsa, gratia nuncupatur, non ob aliud nisi quia gratis datur. Nec ideo quia meritis non da∣tur, sed quia data sunt & ipsa merita, quibus datur. Et pòst. Vnde etiam & Merces appellatur plurimis scriptura∣rum locis. What then is the Merite of man before grace, whereas nothing worketh our good merite in vs but grace, and when God crowneth our Merites, he crowneth nothing els, but his owne giftes? And after∣ward. Whereupon life euerlasting it selfe, which doubt∣lesse at the ende we shal haue without ende (and there∣fore it is geuen to the Merites going before) yet bi∣cause those Merites vnto whiche it is geuen, be not gotten of vs by our owne sufficiencie, but are wrought in vs through Grace, that Life also is called Grace, for none other thing, but for that it is geuen freely. Nor therefore bicause it is not geuen to Merites, but bi∣cause the Merites them selues, to whiche it is geuen, are geuen. And afterward. It is called also in many pla∣ces of the Scripture, Wages.

Thus in effect then the Scriptures, and after them S. Augustine, and with him al Catholikes do say: Life euerlasting is rendred or paid, as wages, or as a due rewarde to good workes. But bicause the very same workes are not good, but by Grace, therefore the life euerlasting is also called Grace. Both these partes we graunte, the Here∣tikes denie the one, to witte, that good workes me∣rite euerlasting life.

Of the Resurrection of the flesh attributed to the worthy receiuing of the blessed Sacrament. The 13. Chapter.

I Said, the Resurrection of the flesh is attributed in the Scriptures not only to the spirite of Christ, that dwel∣leth in vs, but also to the real eating of Christes fleshe in the Euchariste, bicause in S. Iohn Christe saith,* 1.453 he that eateth my flesh, and drincketh my bloude, hath life euerla∣sting, and I wil raise him againe in the last daye.

Iewel. Pag. 324.

VVhere is your real, and substantial eating?

Harding.

The eating of Christes supper was a real eating, and thereto the wordes of S. Iohn doo apperteine, as the ve∣ry circumstance, and also as al the olde Fathers declare, namely S. Chrysostom, and Cyrillus vpon that chapter.

Iewel. Ibidem.

S. Augustine expounding the same vvordes, saith, beleue,* 1.454 and thou hast eaten.

Harding.

S. Augustine saith it, though not vpon those wordes. But he meant of the spiritual eating by Faith only. You stil confounde eating by faith, with eating really at the Sacrament.

Iewel. Ibidem.

Nicolas Lyra,* 1.455 one of your ovvne Doctours, saith, these vvordes of S. Iohn perteine nothing to the Sacrament. Thus he saith, Hoc verbum dire∣ctè nihil pertinet ad Sacramentalem, vel corporalem manduca∣tionem. This saying (of the sixth of Iohn) perteineth nothing directly to the Sacramētal, or corporal eating. It vvas some ouersight of your parte M. Harding, to seeke to proue the eating, of the Sacramēt by those vvordes that by your ovvne doctors iudgemēt perteineth nothing to the Sacramēt.

Harding.

But it was a more ouersight of you M. Iewel to-blemish your credite by belying my doctor,* 1.456 if Lyra be my Doctor. For Lyra neuer said the wordes, that you allege. Your cotation directeth the Reader to the Psalme: 111. Read thexposition that Lyra maketh vpon that Psalme, who liste, he shal find him to saie no such thing. In deede he expoundeth that Psalme of the Euchariste, and saith quite cōtrarie to your doctrine,* 1.457 In praecedenti Psalmo actū est de Sacerdotio Christi & eius sacrificio, quod est Euchari∣stia: in isto agitur de Eucharistiae efficacia. In the former Psalme the Priesthod of Christ was treated of, and his Sa∣crifice, which is the Euchariste: in this Psalme the effica∣cie of the Euchariste is treated of. There ye haue a plaine testimonie bothe of Christes Priesthod, and of his Sacri∣fice, whiche he perfourmed otherwheres then vpon the Crosse, which you denie. For which cause specially, I sup∣pose, ye cal him one of mine owne doctours. In conside∣ration whereof al the Doctours of Christes Church be my Doctours, they be not yours. For that Doctrine is generally taught by them al.

* 1.458Tha•• Lyra vnderstode the wordes of Christe spoken in the sixth Chapter of S. Iohn, of the Euchariste, it is cleere, bothe by thexposition of that Psalme, and also of that chapter. In the exposition of the Psalme, to declare the benefite of the Sacrament worthily receiued, h•…•… allegeth those wordes of Christe, Si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane, viuet in aeternum. If any man eate of this Breade, he shal liue for euer. Touching the 6. chapter of S. Iohn, vpon these wordes, Operamini non cibum qui pe∣rit,

&c. Thus he writeth: Haec autem esca est Christi cor∣pus in Eucharistia, &c. This meate (whereof S. Iohn spea∣keth) is the Bodie of Christe in the Euchariste, as it ap∣peareth by the letter following, in whiche he speaketh very diffusely of the Sacrament of the Euchariste, shewing what is conteined in it really. Whereof it is said in this very Cha∣pter hereafter, my Fleash is very meate, and my Bloude is ve∣ry drinke. Whereby the errour of Berengarius is taken awaye, who said the Body of Christe to be conteined in this Sacrament, as in a Signe. For the whiche he recanted his saying, as erroneus. Thus Lyra. By these, and by many other wordes there, Lyra sheweth at large, that he was of the opinion, that sundrie sayinges of Christe, in the 6. Chapter of S. Iohn perteine to the Sacrament. Where∣by it appeareth, how falsely you haue belyed him.

The wordes which you allege M. Iewel to entwite me of ouersighte, are not the wordes of Nicolas Lyra mine owne Doctor, as you saie, but of one Matthias Doring,* 1.459 who wrote Replies against the Additions of Pau∣lus Burgensis printed with Lyras expositions. Wherein as you haue deceiued your Reader with false forgerie, fathering that vpon Lyra, that Lyra neuer said, nor drea∣med of: so you haue fowly corrupted also this poore Doctor Doring, with cutting of his wordes, pretending him to speake of these wordes of S. Iohn, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloude, hath life euerlasting, and I wil raise him againe in the last daie, which I alleged: whereas in deede he spake neither of these wordes spe∣cially, nor of Christes whole discourse in that chapter of S. Iohn in general, but onely of these special wordes of S. Iohn, Nisi manducaueritis carnem filij hominis, & bi∣beritis

eius sanguinem, non babebitis vitam in vobis. Except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his Bloude, ye shal not haue life in you.

That the truth be knowen, and your falsehed detected, thus it is. Burgensis had written these wordes: Licet Io∣hannis sexto legatur,* 1.460 Nisi manducaueritis carnem filij homi∣nis, non habebitis vitam in vobis, per hoc tamen secundùm Doctores non imponitur praeceptum necessitatis ad sumptio∣nem huius Sacramenti, prout Augustinus declarat. Vnde sumptio huius Sacramenti corporaliter quantum ad populum, vel Laicos, cadit sub consilio potius, quàm praecepto. Al∣though we reade in the sixth Chapter of S. Iohn, except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, ye shal not haue life in you, yet hereby after the Doctors minde we are not charged with a precept of necessitie to receiue this Sacra∣mēt, but only the thing of the Sacrament. (By the thing of the Sacrament is meant the Vnitie of the Church) as S. Au∣gustin declareth. Wherefore the receiuing of this Sacra∣mēt bodily, as touching the laie people, is such a thing, as is rather counseled, then cōmaunded. Hitherto Burgensis.

Now cōmeth me in Doctor Doring, whom M. Iew∣el would haue menne beleue to be Nicolas Lyra, and fin∣deth fault with Burgensis for alleging the said wordes of S. Iohn, excepte ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, &c. to this sense,* 1.461 that the corporal Communion, as touching the laie people, is a matter of counsel. Per hoc non satis∣fit Haereticis modernis. The Heretiques of our age wil not be satisfied with this, saith he. And why? It followeth there: Quia litera non habet illud dictū fundamentum. Bi∣cause that saying (that the bodily receiuing of the Sacramēt in laye folke is a matter of counsel) hath not his foundation

out of the texte. And therefore concerning the Sacramental Communion, it hath not the force of a precept, neither for the Clergie, nor for the laitie, as touching al, according to the true vnderstāding of that text. Howbeit in the same place it is de∣clared, of what eating, and drinking it ought to be vnderstā∣ded, to witte, of the spiritual. For it foloweth, he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Which S. Augustin expoundeth saying, Hoc est manducare illam escam, & bibere illum potum, in Christo manere, & Christum manentem in se habere. This is to eate that meate, and to drinke that drinke, a man to dwel in Christ, and to haue Christ dwel in him, which is no thing els, but to be in Charitie.. Then followe these wordes, whereof M. Iewel would take aduantage. Hoc aūt omnibus indifferēter est praeceptū implicitè, sed nihil directè pertinet ad Sacramē∣talem, vel corporalem manducationem. Hoc verbum nisi mā∣ducaueritis, &c. This is geuē in cōmaundement to al men indifferently by waie of implying: But this saying, Ex∣cept ye eate the flesh of the Sōne of man &c. This word, or this saying, perteineth nothing at al to the Sacramētal, or corporol eating. Thus farre Matthias Doring.

Thus you maie vnderstand M. Iewel, the wordes you allege be not Lyras, but one Doringes, and the same haue relation not to the place of S. Ihon that I brought, but onely to these wordes, Excepte ye eate the fleshe of the Sonne of man, ye shal not haue life in you. Whiche wordes after that Doctours mynde importe not a precepte of necessitie of the Sacramental, or corporal eating, and so thinke I to. And though he iudged, they were not aptly alleged of Burgensis to proue that the bodi∣ly receiuing of the Sacrament is a mater of counsel,

and not of precepte, bicause they perteine not to the Sacramental Communion at al: yet the other saying, he that eateth my fleshe, and drinketh my bloude, hath life auerlasting, and I wil raise him againe in the last daie, maie wel be alleged for benefite of the Resurrection of the fleshe to redounde to the faithful beleeuer, of the wor∣thy receiuing of Christes Bodie in the Euchariste, for whiche purpose it was by me alleged. You should haue sene these thinges better, before ye had entwited me of ouersight.

Iewel.

Hovv liued then the Patriarkes, and Martyrs, and hovv shal children haue life, vvho neuer receiue the Sacrament?

Harding.

* 1.462I make not the real eating of Christes flesh the onely meane of Resurrection to life. And therefore your long talke is to no purpose, which you vtter in this place. They shal liue by the spirite of Christe, who gaue them Faith, and Charitie. But doth not therefore S. Iohn speake al∣so of real eating? as though one effecte may not be wrought by diuers meanes concurring thereunto? Ego (saith Cyrillus) id est,* 1.463 corpus meū quod comedetur, resuscita∣bo eū. I wil raise him, that is to say, my body, which shalbe eaten, shal raise him. Thus you see plainely, that touching this point, no lesse Clerke then Cyrillus teacheth the same, that I said, which you haue vniustly, and rashly controlled, as you haue done the reste of the Catholike Do¦ctrine.

That matters of faithe, and ecclesiastical causes are not to be iudged by the Ciuile Magistrate. The. 14. Chapter.

Iewel. Pag. 637.

That a Prince, or magistrate maie not lavvfully calae Prieste before him to his ovvne seate of Iudgement, or that many Catholique, and godly Princes haue not so done, and done it lavvfully, it is most vntrue.

Harding.

I haue tolde you M. Iewel,* 1.464 that the duetie of Ciuil Princes consisteth in Ciuil maters, and euer said, that Bishoppes ought to be obedient to Princes in suche cases, whither so euer they cal them. And if they make any temporal Decree, the Bishoppe, who hath temporal goodes vnder the Prince, must obey without grudge,* 1.465 or gaine saying, so farre as the Decree standeth with the ho∣nour of God. But that in Ecclesiastical causes, and maters of Faith, mere temporal Princes haue any authoritie of them selues to cal Bishoppes and Priestes to their Seates of Iudgement, or euer did it lawfully: we vtterly denie.* 1.466 S. Ambrose said to the Emperour Valentinian: Nec quis∣quàm contumacem iudicare me debet, quum hoc asseram, quod augustae memoriae patertuus non solùm sermone respon∣dit, sed etiam legibus suis sanxit, in causa fidei, vel ecclesia∣stici alicuius ordinis, eum iudicare debere, qui nec mu∣nere impar sit, nec iure dissimilis: Haec enim verba Rescripti sunt. Hoc est, Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus voluit iudicare.

Quinetiam si aliâs quoque arguerelar Episcopus, & morum

esset examinanda causa, etiam hanc voluit ad Episcopule iudi∣cium pertinere. Neither any man ought to iudge me as stubborne, seing I affirme that, whiche your father of most renoumed memorie not onely answered in worde, but also established by his lawes: that in a case of faith, or any ecclesiastical order, he ought to be iudge, that is nei∣ther vnequal in office, nor vnlike in right, or authoritie: For these are the wordes of the Rescripte. That is, he would Priestes to be iudges of Priestes. And also, if o∣therwise a Bishop were reproued, and a cause concer∣ning behauiour and manners were to be examined, he would this cause (of manners) also to apperteine to the Bishoppes iudgement.

Vpon these wordes of Theodosius, alleged, and allo∣wed by S. Ambrose,* 1.467 thus I reason with you M. Iewel. He can not be iudge of Bishoppes and Priestes, nor cal them to his seate of Iudgement in Ecclesiastical causes, and maters of Faithe that is vnequal in office, or vnlike in right and authoritie. But the Prince is vnequal to the Bishop in office, and vnlike vnto him in right and autho∣ritie: (For he hath no right nor authoritie to sacrifice, to preache, to binde, to loose, to excommunicate, and mini∣ster Sacramentes) Therefore the Prince can not be iudge of Bishoppes, and Priestes, nor cal them to his seate of Iudgement in any ecclesiastical cause, or mater of Faith.

Againe, no man hath authoritie ouer his superiour: But the Bishop, in maters of Faithe, and Ecclesiastical causes, is superiour to euery Prince: Therefore in those causes the Prince hath no authoritie ouer the Bishop. And if he haue no authoritie ouer him, he can not cal him to his seate of iudgement.

Furthermore, were it true, that the Prince were equal with the Bishop in Ecclesiastical causes, and matters of faith, yet could he not cal him to his seate of iudgement,* 1.468 quia par in parem non habet potestatem, bicause the equal hath no authoritie, or power ouer his equal. But to see M. Iewels arte in facing out this mater, let vs consider the authorities, that he bringeth to proue his purpose. And bicause he blaseth this saying in the toppe of his margent with great letters.* 1.469 A Bishop conuented before the Magi∣strate, let vs first define, what it is to be conuented before a Magistrate.

The lawiers saie, Conuenire, est aliquem in ius vocare, To conuent a man, is to cal him into the lawe: and so Conueniri coram magistratu, est in ius vocari à magistratu, to be conuented before a magistrate, is to be called into the lawe by the magistrate. To cal a man into the lawe, is a iudicial acte, proceding of superiour authoritie in him that is iudge, both of the partie so called, and also of the cause, wherefore he is called. As if the Maior of London would conuent any of the Citizens, he must both haue iurisdiction ouer that Citizen, and also authoritie to iudge in that cause, for whiche the Citizen shal be conuented. But no ciuil magistrate hath authoritie by vertue of his temporal office, to be iudge our Bishoppes in ecclesiasti∣cal causes, as it is before proued, and shal hereafter ap∣peare: Therefore no temporal magistrate can conuent any Bishoppe, or Priest before him, in any Ecclesiastical cause. But let vs heare M. Iewel.* 1.470

Iewel. Pag. 637.

Iustinian the Emperour him selfe, vvho of al others most enlarged the Churches priuileges, saith thus: Nullus Episcopus inuitus ad ciui∣lem

vel militarem iudicem in qualibet causa producatum, vel exhibeatur, nisi princeps iubeat. Let no Bishop be brought, or pre∣sented against his vvil before the captaine, or Ciuil Iudge, vvhat so euer the cause be, onlesse the Prince shal so commaunde it.

Harding.

Seing Iustinian (as you saie) of al others did most en∣large the Churches Priuileges, is it likely, that he would most of al others breake them? And whereas he made a lawe,* 1.471 that, Clerici apud proprios Episcopos conueniantur pri∣mùm, Clerkes shoulde be conuented first before their owne Bishoppes, in causa pecuniaria, in a money mater, and afterwarde before the Ciuil Magistrate, if either for the nature of the cause, or for some other difficultie the Bishop could not ende it: yet he addeth priuilegijs omni∣bus custodit is, quae reuerend issimis Clericis sacrae praestant cō∣stitutiones, al Priuileges kepte, whiche the Emperours lawes doo graunt vnto the reuerend Clerkes, And saith farther, Si verò Ecclesiasticum sit delictum, egens castigatio∣ne ecclesiastica, & mulcta, Deo amabilis Episcopus hoc discer∣nat, nihil communicantibus clarissimis prouinciae Iudicibus. Neque enim volumus talia negotia omnino scire ciuiles iu∣dices, quum oporteat talia ecclesiasticè examinari, & emen∣dari animas delinquentium per Ecclesiasticam mulctam, se∣cundùm sacras & diuinas regulas, quas etiam sequi nostra non dedignantur leges: If the faulte be ecclesiastical, and neede ecclesiastical pounishment, and discipline, let the wel beloued Bishop of God iudge and discerne it, and let not the honorable Iudges of the Prouince intermedle with it at al. For it is not our pleasure, that Ciuil Magi∣strates haue at al the examination of suche matters, seing suche matters must be examined ecclesiastically

after the order of the Canons, and the offenders must be punished by Ecclesiastical discipline, according to the holy and diuine Canons, whiche our lawes doo not dis∣daine to folow: Seing Iustinian hath so ordeined, no wise man that hath read his Lawes, wil saie, that either he in fringed those Priuileges, or, as one contrarie to him selfe, made a lawe against the Liberties of the Churche, without any mention of the former, that he him selfe had made. Wherefore Iustinian in the Law, that you reherse M. Iewel, is to be vnderstanded, to speake of ciuil, and tē∣poral cases: and that in those cases no Bishop should be brought before the Lieutenant, and Ciuil Magistrate, ex∣cept the Prince so commaunded it.

Now, whereas you vpon those wordes say, that a Bis∣shop maie be conuented before a Ciuil Magistrate, we graunt, and euer so said, that in Ciuil causes, and temporal maters, of which Iustinian speaketh, Bishops may be cō∣uented before a temporal Magistrate. But that is not our question. But this is that which we say,* 1.472 that it is not law∣ful for a Prince, to cal a Priest to his seate of iudgemēt in Ecclesiastical causes. And in this your owne authour Iu∣stinian condemneth you. He saith, as you heard before:* 1.473 Si ecclesiasticū sit delictū, &c. If the faulte be ecclesiastical, let the welbeloued Bisshop of God iudge and discerne it. Let the honorable Iudges of the Prouince intermedle nothing at al with it. For we wil not, that Ciuil Magistrates haue the ex∣amination of suche matters. And againe.* 1.474 Si verò cri∣men sit Ecclesiasticum, episcopalis erit examinatio, & ca∣stigatio. If the faulte be Ecclesiastical, the examina∣tion, and pounishing of it shal apperteine vnto the Bis∣shoppe.

But peraduenture you wil replie to this, and saie, that Iustinian in the lawe by you rehersed, speaketh not onely of Ciuil, but also of ecclesiastical causes, and wil∣leth a Bishop, in qualibet causa, in any cause, to be con∣uented before the temporal magistrate, if the Prince do so commaunde. If you, or your lawier make this obie∣ction, we answer, that it can not be shewed out of al Iu∣stinians lawes,* 1.475 that he willed a Bishop, or Prieste to be conuented before a temporal Magistrate in an Ecclesia∣stical cause, or to be pounished for any hainous offence, before he were degraded of his Bishop. And hereof, if you had but a meane smattering in the Ciuil Lawe, you could not be ignorant.

Besides that already alleged, you find in the Code this Lawe:* 1.476 Statuimus vt nullus Ecclesiasticā personam in crimi∣nali quaestione vel ciuili trahere ad iudicium seculare praesu∣mat contrae cōstitutiones imperiales, & canonicas sanctiones. We ordeine and decree, that no man presume to bring any Ecclesiastical person to the seate of iudgement of any seculare Magistrate in a criminal, or ciuil cause, contrarie to the Imperial Constitutions, and canonical Decrees. By this you see, that it is against both the Em∣perours constitutions, and Canons of the Churche, that a Bishop should be conuented before a Magistrate in an Ecclesiastical cause. As for the vantage which you seeke in those wordes, In qualibet causa, in any cause, it is none at al. Had not you benne blinded with ma∣lice, and your lawier with ignorance, you might haue learned,* 1.477 that it is a Maxima, and a Principle with the lawiers, that, Leges tales indefinitè loquentes, in∣telligendae sunt secundùm aliam legem speciatim loquentem.

Such lawes speaking indefinitely, must be vnderstanded by an other lawe, that speaketh specially and particular∣ly. Wherefore seing the lawe, Clericus, in the Code, and the Antentike, vt Clerici in the new Constitutions, make special mention, that Bishops, and Priestes should not be conuented before Ciuil Magistrates in Ecclesia∣stical causes, and permitte no temporal Iudge to med∣dle with Ecclesiastical personnes, excepte it be in Ci∣uil matters, and that with a Limitation, and a Prouiso also: it had ben your parte, and your blinde Lawiers al∣so, to haue vnderstanded those wordes, In qualibet cau∣sa, in any cause, spoken there indefinitely, by the other Lawes, that speake more specially. But then had you lost a peeuish sophistical Argument, and menne had not knowen your worthy skil in the Lawe: which no doubte wil appeare great by your practise.

Iewel. pag. 637. & 638.

The Emperour Martianus cōmaundeth, if the cause be criminal, that the Bisshop be conuented before the Lieutenant, vt coram Praeside con∣ueniatur.

Harding.

For your credite touching Martianus commaunde∣ment, you referre vs to the Code of Iustinian.* 1.478 As for the first, you may tel your lawier that he hath fouly decei∣ued you, and therefore is not worthy to haue his fee. That lawe, Si qui ex consensu, Cod. de Episcop. Audient. was neuer made by Martianus the Emperour, but by Arcadius, and Honorius, and requireth neither Bishop, nor Prieste, nor Clerke to be conuented before the Lieu∣tenant, but declareth, that if any by mutual consent, wil haue their matter debated before the Bishop as an arbi∣ter,

it shal be lawful for them so to do, as euery man that either considereth the law, or readeth the Summe set be∣fore it, may easily see.

* 1.479As for the other lawe, Cum Clericis, although it be Martianus decree, yet hath it not those wordes, vt coram Praeside conueniatur, that the Bishop be conuented before the Lieutenant, nor any clause or sentence sounding to that pupose. For trial whereof I referre me to the booke, and to any indifferent man, that can reade, and vnder∣stande it.

But suppose it to be true, that the Emperour Martia∣nus had geuen suche a commaundement, what could it aduantage your cause M. Iewel? You should proue, that a Christian Prince may lawfully cal a Bishop to his Con∣sistorie for matters of Faith, and Ecclesiastical causes And not hable to do that, you tel vs like a Trifler, that, if the cause be criminal a Bishop may be conuented be∣fore the Lieutenant. And in so doing, you prooue that, which no man denieth. As Cranmare Archebishop of Cantorburie was called to the Princes Consistorie,* 1.480 and imprisoned in the Tower for treason against the Quenes Maiestie, and afterwarde degraded, and burned at Ox∣ford for heresie: So any Bishop for like treason, or like hainous and criminal offence, may not only be summo∣ned to the Princes seate of Iudgement, but also be cast into prison, and after degradation according to the Ca∣nons be depriued of his life. This we do not denie. But that whiche we denie, and you should prooue (for I must tel you one thing often bicause you are alwaies for∣getful of the very point that is in controuersie) is, that in matter of Faith, and in Ecclesiastical causes, a Prince

may cal Bishops to his consistorie, as their superiour and gouernour in Ecclesiastical causes. This is the matter in controuersie betwen you and the Catholiques M. Iewel. Let vs heare, how substanrially you proue that.

Iewel. Pag. 638.

Pope Innocentius 3. him selfe confesseth,* 1.481 that the Pope may make a laie man his Delegate, to heare and determine in Priestes causes. The like hereof ye maie finde in your ovvne Glose, Papa laico delegat causam spiritualem. The Pope committeth the hearing of a spiritual mater vnto a laie man.

Harding.

If any reason may be forced vpon the Authoritie of Innocentius, and the Glose to your purpose, it is this: The Pope may make a Laie man his Delegate, to heare and determine Priests causes: Ergo, Bishops and Priestes may be conuented before the Ciuil Magistrate in Ecclesiasti∣cal causes. But to vnrippe the rudenes of this Argument, imagine M. Iewel, that you were infamous for Simonie, and accursed for extorsion and vniuste exactions amon∣gest the clergie of Sarisburie Dioces vnder the name of a beneuolence towardes the setting vp of your howse: And that the Metropolitane hearing of it, fearing least great dishonour should rise to your Person, and infamie to the Gospel, as ye cal it, would haue the mater exami∣ned, and to that ende, sendeth a commission to the Ma∣ior, and Bailiffes of Sarisburie, and maketh them his De∣legates to examine, and enquire of your doinges, and that the Maior, and Bailiffes vppon vertue of that Commis∣sion from the Metropolitane conuent you before them: Al this then imagined to be true, shal it be said, that M.

Iewel was conuented in a cause of Simonie, and extor∣sion before the Maior, and Bailiffes of Sarisburie, as Ma∣ior and Bailiffes of Sarisburie, or as commissioners, and delegates from the Metropolitane? If you confesse that you were conuented before them, as the Metropolitanes Delegates, then must you confesse, that you were not conuented before them, as Maior, and Bailiffes of Sa∣risburie, and mere laie Magistrates. In like manner, when the Pope maketh a Laie man his delegate to heare and determine Priestes causes, the Priestes cause, whiche is hearde, and determined by that Laie man so delegated by the Pope, can not be said to be heard and determined by a Laie man, as a Laie man, but by the Popes Delegate. And seing,* 1.482 Delegatus gerit vices delegantis, a degate su∣steineth the steede of him, that geueth him commission, the Bishop, or Priest, who is conuented before the Popes delegate, shalbe said to be conuented before the Pope him selfe, and not before the Laie Magistrate, as a mere Ciuile and temporal Magistrate.

* 1.483But what meane you M. Iewel thus to begyle your Readers with false allegations? Innocentius hath no such wordes, as you reporte, de Maior. & obedient. cap. 2. In∣nocent. Neither is the Decree that is there registred, the Decree of Innocentius, but of Gregorius, and nothing at al God wote to the purpose, for which ye allege it. More ouer the Glose brought out of the 11. cause, and first que∣stion, saith not, Papa Laico delegat causam spiritualem, the Pope committeth the hearing of a spiritual mater vnto a Laie man, but, Si Papa, if the Pope doo committe a spiri∣tual mater to a Laie man. And what then M. Iewel? For∣sooth in that case a Clerke maie be conuented before a tem∣poral

Iudge. But that temporal Iudge is the Popes delegate, and deriueth his authoritie from him, as the Commis∣sioners in London haue their authoritie from the Queene. So that the exceptions there alleged by the glose, proue, ius commune esse in contrarium, that the common lawe is to the contrarie, that is, that no Bishop, or Prieste ought to be conuented before a Ciuile Ma∣gistrate.

Iewel. Pag. 638.

Yea, further ye shal finde euen in the Popes ovvne Decrees, that the Pope hath committed a spiritual mater in a cause of Simonie, to be heard,* 1.484 and ended by a vvoman: and that Brunichildis, being a vvoman, by Vertue of the Popes commission, summoned a Bisshop to appeare, and solemnely to make his purgation before her.

Harding.

If the Pope did euer committe any spiritual cause to a woman,* 1.485 as you tel vs he did to Brunichildis Queene of Fraunce: then was the Queene of Fraunce by your Confession, the Popes commissioner in that cause, and Delegate, to heare, and ende that mater of Simonie. But what if we can not finde in the Popes Decrees, to whiche you referre vs, that the Pope euer committed a spiritual mater in a cause of Simonie, to be heard, and ended by a woman, and that Brunichildis had neither commission from the Pope to summon a Bishoppe, nei∣ther euer summoned a Bishop to appeare and solemnely to make his purgation before her? What then shal we say, but that M. Iewel is a shamelesse falsifier, a decei∣uer of al that beleeue him?

The wordes of that Decree, being the woordes of S.

Gregorie,* 1.486 stand thus. Mennam verò reuerendissimum fratrem & coëpiscopum nostrum, post quàm ea, quae de e•…•… dicta sunt requirentes, in nullo inuenimus esse culpabilem: qui insuper ad Sacratissimum corpus beati Petri Apostoli, sub iureiurando satisfaciens, ab ijs quae obiecta fuerant eius opinioni, se demonstrauit alienum: reuerti illum purgatum absolutúmque permisimus: quia sicut dignum erat, vt si in aliquo reus existeret, culpam in eo canonicè puniremus: Ita dignum non fuit, vt eum adiuuante innocentia, diutius re∣tinere, vel affligere in aliquo deberemus. Purgationem tamen antè duobus sibi sacerdotibus iunctis, vbi accusator cessauerit, eundem ex se praebere tuo commisimus arbitrio. We licensed our most reuerende brother, and felowe Bishoppe Menna to returne home, after he had made his Purgation, and was assoiled of the crime laid to his charge, specially, sith that after long enquirie made con∣cerning those thinges, whiche were reported of him, we founde him culpable and blame worthy in none: And he him selfe besides making satisfaction vppon his othe at the moste holy body of the blessed Apostle S. Peter, hath declared him selfe to be free, and cleere from al those thinges, that were obiected to impaire his good name. For as it was conuenient, that we should seuerely haue pounished him according to the Canons, if he had benne giltie in any thing: So it was not meete, that we should staie him, or trouble him any longer, see∣ing his owne innocencie did so helpe him. Notwith∣standing we haue geuen charge, that he him selfe, ta∣king before two Priestes vnto him, make his purgation, when the accuser hath geuen ouer his action, before you at your arbitrement. Thus farre S. Gregorie.

But this proueth not your intente, and purpose M. Iewel. For I beseeke you Sir,* 1.487 where is it said in al this Decree, that the Pope committed a spiritual mater in a cause of Simonie to be heard, and ended by a woman? Where is it said, that Brunichildis being a woman, by vertue of the Popes commission, summoned a Bishop to appeare, and solemnely to make his purgation before her? In the texte it is not, nor in the glose, that you so solemnely allege. Or if it were, had your lawier for∣gotte to tel you, or were you so simple, that you could not conceiue, that (whiche is commonly said) Maledicta est Glosa quae corrumpit textum, it is a cursed glose, that corrupteth the texte? But seeing you builde so muche vpon the Glose, let vs see, what the Glose saith.

Iewel. 638.

In your Glose vpon the same place, it is noted thus. Fuit tamen hoc nimium papaliter dispensatum. The Pope vvas to Popelike in this dispensation.

Harding.

To let passe your scoffing and ministerlike interpre∣tation, let vs come to the matter.* 1.488 What dispensation is it, that the Glose speaketh of? Why suffred you not the authour of the Glose to tel forth his whole tale? Ye alwaies make your aduantage among the vnlear∣ned of falsifying and corrupting your testimonies.

It followeth there, Quòd Episcopus expurgatus co∣ram Papa, cogitur adhuc coram muliercula se purgare: that a Bishoppe hauing made his purgation before the Pope, is forced to purge him selfe before a woman. And this is the dispensation, that the Glose misliketh,

as to popelike, according to your interpretation. But if either the Gloser had considered the reason that moued the Pope, or you, that followe the Glose, would haue marked the litle cause, that standeth by the Glose in the margent in the last printe of Paris, where it is said, hoc totum ideo fuit, vt fama eius clarior appareret: al this was done (by the wisedom of S. Gregorie) to the ende his good name might appeare more cleare: neither he would so rashly haue controlled S. Gregories order in that be∣halfe, nor you so fondly alleged it. And of a worde spo∣ken in ieast, as the Canonistes sometimes speake, you take a weake holde, as of a matter spoken in great soothe.

Notwithstanding you wil saie, the wordes of the Decree are plaine, tuo cōmisimus arbitrio. We haue geuen a commission to your arbitriment, that he purge him selfe before you. If you make this obiection, we answer, that if the wordes were exactely sifted by the true and grammatical construction, you would hardly maineteine this interpretation. But I wil not contende about wordes. Let it be, as you would haue it. Let Brunichildis haue a commission from the Pope to see, that Bishop Menna made his purgation before her. Your purpose and saying is nothing proued by it. For first you saie, The Pope com∣mitted a spiritual mater in a cause of Simonie to be heard, and ended by a woman. And this is a vaine tale, and vn∣true fansie of yours, not hable to be gathered by any worde of that decree. For the cause of Simonie where∣of Menna was accused, was heard, and ended by the Pope, and he not founde faultie in it, was absolued, and sent home. And a cause once heard, and determined by the Pope, is not wonte to be committed afterward to

the hearing, and determination of a woman.

After this, as though this lie had not ben lowde ynough, you tel vs, that Brunichildis being a woman, by vertue of the Popes commission, summoned a Bishop to appeare, and solemnely to make his purgation before her: and for your credite you referre vs in the margent to Gratian. 2. q. 5. Mennam.* 1.489 But that Brunichildis did either summon a Bis∣shop, to witte, Menna, to appeare, or required him to make his purgation before her, it is not to be found there, nor any where elles, that M. Iewel hath alleged, or can allege, as I doubte not. For Brunichildis Queene of Fraunce being so holy, so vertuous, so religious a Lady, as S. Gregorie reporteth she was: it is to be presupposed, that she would not disquiet a good and an innocent man, nor put him to farther trouble, who, when his cause was heard, and ended by the Pope, was founde in nullo culpa∣bilis, blame worthy in nothing that was laid to his charge, by the euident testimonie of S. Gregorie declared in his epistle sent of purpose to Queene Brunichildis. Where∣fore M. Iewel these fantasies of yours are but wanton and vaine, emploied to none other ende, but to deceiue the vnlearned.

Iewel. Pag. 638.

The Emperour Constantinus vvrote thus vnto the Bishoppes, that had ben at the Councel of Tyrus. Cuncti,* 1.490 quotquot Synodum Tyri compleuistis &c. Al ye that haue ben at the Councel of Tyrus, come vvithout delaie to our campe, and shevve me plainely, and vvithout colour, hovv vpprightly ye haue delte in iudgemement, and that euen before my selfe, vvhom ye can not denie to be the true seruant of God.

Harding.

These letters were written by the Emperour Constan∣tinus

to Arian Bishoppes, that had made a false conuen∣ticle or conspiracie, (and not a lawful Councel M. Iewel) at Tyrus: and they were written vnto them vppon the complainte of S. Athanasius that worthy Patriarke of Alexandria, made both against the iniuries, and violences, that Flauianus Dionysius the Emperours Lieutenant at∣tempted against him, and also against the sclaunders, that his enemies the Arians had wrongfully laied to his charge. And these sclaunders were not of Faithe maters, but that Athanasius had murdered one Arsenius,* 1.491 and had committed a foule rape with a woman, and that with an Arme cut of from Arsenius bodie, he practized Witche crafte: for the whiche crimes these Arians sought Athanasius death. Wherefore no marueile, if that good Emperour being Gods minister to see iustice ministred, and the Violences, and iniuries of his Lieutenantes and Officers pounished, and these ciuil causes of Felonie, Murder, and Rape to be truely and thoroughly exami∣ned, ad vindictam malorum, to the reuenge of malefa∣ctours, wrote his letters to al them, that had ben at the foresaid conuenticle at Tyrus, and required them to ap∣peare before him, as before the syncere minister of God, and to render accompte of their dealing against Athanasius in those Ciuil cases.* 1.492 For he might wel doo it, and nothing further M. Iewel in proufe of his de∣sperate cause, that a Bishoppe was conuented in ma∣ters of Faith, and ecclesiastical causes, before the Ciuil Magistrate, as his lawful, and ordinarie Iudge.

Iewel. Pag. 638.

Iustinian the Emperour in the lavve, that he maketh touching the

publique praiers of the Churche, saith thus, we commaunde al Bi∣shoppes and Priestes to minister the holy oblation,* 1.493 and the prayer at the holy Baptisme, not vnder silence, but with suche voice, as maie be heard of the faithful people, to thintente the hartes of the hearers, maie be stirred to more Deuotion, &c. Aftervvarde he addeth further. And let the holy Priestes vnder∣stand, that if they neglecte any of these thinges, they shal make answere therefore at the dreadful iudgement of the great God, and our Sauiour Iesus Christe, And yet neuerthelesse we our selues vnderstanding the same, wil not passe it ouer, nor leaue it vnpounished. Hereby vve see, that Godly princes maie sum∣mone Bishoppes to appeare before them, euen in causes Ecclesiastical, to re∣ceiue such pounischement, as they haue deserued.

Harding.

For answere to this, or any thinge that you can bring out of Iustinian, for breuities sake, I referre you to Iusti∣nian him selfe. By whose constitutions, and Godly lawes, it maie easily appeare, how farre he was from claiming superioritie ouer Bishoppes, or gouernment, as supreme iudge in causes Ecclesiastical, as he who decreed ac∣cording to the definitions of the 4. general Councelles, that in Spiritual causes the Pope of the elder Rome should be taken for the chiefe of al Priestes, and ad∣uertised Pope Iohn, that there should be nothing mo∣ued perteining to the state of the Churche, but that he would signifie it to his Holinesse, being Heade of al Churches, and declared, that in all his Lawes, and dooinges for matters Ecclesiastical, he gaue place to the holy Canons made by the Fathers, and willed, that when any Ecclesiastical matter were moued, his Laie

officers should not intermelde, but suffer the Bishoppes to ende it according to the Canons.

In this very Constitution whiche you haue alleged, with these special wordes he committeth the Iudge∣ment, and pounishment of al sortes of offences commit∣ted by them of the Clergie, to such as the Canons haue put in authoritie.* 1.494 Thus he decreeth. Quotiescunque ali∣quis vel Sacerdotum, vel Clericorum, vel Praesulum, vel Mo∣nachorum, vel de fide, vel de turpi vita, vel quòd contra sa∣cros aliquid Canones peregerit, accusatus fuerit, si quidem is, qui accusatus, Episcopus fuerit, huius Metropolitanus, ea, quae proferentur examinato: Si verò Metropolitanus, bea∣tissimus Archiepiscopus, sub quo censetur: si Presbyter, aut Diaconus, aut alius Clericus, aut Praesul Monasterij, aut Mo∣nachus, Religiosissimus Episcopus, sub quo hi censentur de∣lata in accusationem examinato, & veritate cōprobata, vnus∣quis{que} pro modo delicti Canonicis censuris subijcitor iudicio eius, qui causae examinationem accommodat. As often as any either of the Priestes, or of the Clerkes, or of the Prelates, or of the Monkes is accused, either of faith, or of filthy life, or that he hath done ought against the holy Canons, in case, he that is accused, be a Bishop, let his Metropolitane examine the thinges, that shal be laid to his charge: if he be a Metropolitan, let the Archebi∣shop, vnder whom he is, haue the examination: If he be a Priest, or a Deacon, or some other Clerke, or a Prelate of a Monasterie, or some Monke, let the Bi∣shop, vnder whose iurisdiction they are, examine the thinges that be laid in accusation. And when the truth is tried out, let euery one abide the Censures of the Ca∣nons for the rate of the faulte by the iudgement of him,

that sitteth vpon the examination of the matter.

Againe how farre he was from the minde and wil that Bishops, or any other whatsouer Ecclesiastical per∣sonnes should be summoned to appeare before him, or his temporal officers in iudgement for any Ecclesiastical cause, this expresse Decree, which there also ye might haue founde, sufficiently witnesseth. Si Ecclesiasticum ne∣gotium sit, nullam Communionem habento Ciuiles Magistra∣tus cum ea disceptatione, sed Religiosissimi Episcopi secun∣dùm sacros Canones negotio finem imponunto. If the mat∣ter be Ecclesiastical (that is to be iudged) let the Ciuile Magistrates haue nothing to doo with it: But let the most Religious Bishoppes make an ende of it according to the holy Canons.

By these, as also by the purporte of sundrie other Iu∣stinians constitutions, ordinances, and decrees, al menne maie see, that he neither chalenged any supreme domini∣on ouer Bishops, and Priestes in Ecclesiastical causes, nor enacted this, nor any other lawe, as chiefe Gouernour of the Churche, but followed the holy Councels, and willed the Canons to take place, and confirmed that, which was decreed by them.

For special answer then to this special obiection made out of the 123, constitution, I saie that Iustinian threat∣ned to pounishe them with the seueritie of temporal lawes, who would not be conteined in their duetie by Ecclesiastical discipline, and order of the Canons, that feare might force, where loue and conscience could not binde. Which policie we doo not mislike, seing (Duo vincula fortius ligant) two bondes binde faster then one.

To be shorte, Iustinian leaueth the correction of

Clerkes offending in any thing against the Canons, to the cēsures of the Canons. And if any refuse to abide the order appointed by the Canons, and vtterly shake of the yoke of the Canons: then, that is to say, in the case of ex∣treme stubbornesse, and contempte of the Canons, like a Godly prince, he threateneth reuenge, and pounish∣ment. In which case the Church doth now cal, and al∣waies hath called for the aide of the Seculare Arme a∣gainst those, that vtterly refuse to be corrected by the censures of the Church, and seeme incorrigible.

So neither by the lawes of Iustinian, neither by the example of Brunichildis, neither by the Gloses, that you so solemnely allege, it can not be seene, that Godly Princes might euer summone Bishops to appeare before them, to receiue any pounishment at their handes, as their superiours and supreme gouernours in ecclesiasti∣cal causes. Peraduenture if we put on eyes of better sighte, we maie see it hereafter, if wee diligently at∣tende, what you saie. Foorth therefore M. Iewel.

Iewel. Pag. 638.

The Emperour Constantinus in his letters to the people of Nicomo∣dia,* 1.495 speaking of the vvilful errours and heresies of Priestes, and Bi∣shoppes, saith thus: Illorum temeraria praesumptio, mea, hoc est, ministri Christi, manu coercebitur. Their rashe attemptes shalbe repressed by my hande, that is to saie, by the hande of Christes ser∣uant.* 1.496 So likevvise S. Augustine saith to the Donatistes: An fortè de religione fas non est vt dicat Imperator, vel quos miserit Im∣perator? Cur ergo ad Imperatorem legati vestri venerant? Is it not lavvful, that the Emperour, or the Emperours deputie shoulde pronounce in a case of Religion? VVherefore then vvent your ovvne Am∣bassadours to the Emperour?

Harding.

If you had said M. Iewel that Constantinus in his epi∣stle to the Nicomedians, had threatned to pounishe Bi∣shoppes, and Priestes, that were Arians, that is, cursed, and abominable heretiques, you had in some parte said the truthe. But where you saie, that he spake of the wilful errours, and heresies of Priestes and Bishoppes, and adde not Arian Priestes, and Arian Bishoppes, you conceele parte of the true Storie, and declare your malicious hart against Priestes, and Bishoppes. But to leaue that can∣kred spite of yours to the iudgement of God, why doo ye not report the Emperours wordes, as they are in your authour Theodoritus?* 1.497 Wil you neuer leaue this your accustomed vile corruption? Theodoritus saith not as you reporte, but thus:* 1.498 Quòd si quis audacter inconsultéque ad memoriam & laudē pestium illarū exarserit, illius statim au∣dacia, ministri Dei, hoc est mea executione coercebitur. If any man be inflamed boldely and incircumspectly at the remembrance and cōmendation of those wicked and pe∣stilent heretiques, his boldenes shal be repressed straight∣waie by execution done by me, that am the minister of God. And these threatning wordes of the Emperour are to be referred to the people of Nicodemia, for to them the epistle was directed. And hauing tēporal iurisdiction, as power of life, and death ouer them, he put that terrour into their hartes, that they should be neither in loue, nor in admiration of those accursed Bishoppes, whom he had bannished for the Arian heresie. Or if M. Iewel wil haue those wordes of the Emperour to be referred, as wel to the Bishoppes, and Priestes, as to the laie people: Let him vnderstand, that, as it is lawful for any Prince to pounish heretiques that are excommunicate by the

Churche, and deliuered to the secular power, be they Bishoppes or priestes: So it was lawful for Constantine to pounishe these wicked Arian Bishoppes excommuni∣cated, and accused by the. 318. Bishoppes in the Councel of Nice. And as the prince that now as an executour of Iustice pounisheth heretikes by death, is not for that cō∣sideration, neither iudge in causes of heresie, nor supreme gouernour of the Churche: So Constantine at that time had no iurisdiction ouer Bishoppes in ecclesiastical cau∣ses, albeit he bannished them, and threatned them other pounishmēt, if they fel in loue of those cursed Arians. For the princes threatning of pounishment for heresie, is no argument to build a superioritie in ecclesiastical causes.

As for the place whiche you bring out of S. Augu∣stine, you brought it before in your Replie, to proue, that Emperours might receiue Appeales in ecclesiastical cau∣ses.* 1.499 And a sufficient answere was made vnto it in the Returne of Vntruthes vpon you. Why conceele you that? If you had ben studious of the truthe for Goddes sake, you should haue yelded vnto it, or if you had iud∣ged it false, haue confuted it, and not let it passe in si∣lence, and now trouble the Reader with the same stuffe againe.

But peraduenture you wil saie, that you neuer sawe that booke, and therefore that you dissemble not the an∣swer. If it were credible, that you would not see a booke written directely against you, and one that tou∣cheth you so neare, this excuse were tolerable. But seing it hath no colour of truthe, there can be litle pre∣tended to saue you from the gilte of dissimulation and hypocrisie in this case. I answere you therefore, as

he did S. Augustine spake in that place against the stub∣borne Donatistes, of whom Parmenianus was one, whiche complained that the Emperour Constantine, (eos ad campum, id est, ad supplicium duci iussit) commaun∣ded them to be brought foorth into the fielde, that is, to pounishement. And in reasoning against him, he tooke aduantage of his owne doinges, not as allowing the Ap∣peale to the Emperour, but as prouing him vnreasona∣ble, who for aduantage would appeale to the Empe∣rour, and when the Emperour had pronounced sen∣tence against him, would striue and repine at the sen∣tence, and saie, that he being a temporal prince, ought not to pounishe Bishoppes. Like as if you M. Iewel (hauing made the Queene supreme gouernour of your Churche) should saie, in case you were condemned of heresie, or of Simonie by the Prince, Her grace ought not to condemne me in these cases: a Catholique that flattereth her not with that title, would reason a∣gainst you, and saie: No sir? Is it not laweful for the Queene to condemne you in a case of heresie, and Simo∣nie? Why then made you the Queene supreme gouer∣nour of your Churche? Euen so did S. Augustine rea∣son against the Donatistes. And bicause by their ap∣peale to his Maiestie they had chosen him iudge in their cause, and after said, he could not condemne them: S. Augustine vsed their owne weapon against them, to cō∣uince their folie, and said as you saie. Is it not lawful, that the Emperour, or the Emperours deputie should pro∣nounce in a case of Religion? Wherefore then went your owne Ambassadours to the Emperour? &c. But as the Catholique reasoning in suche wise against you, can not

be said by that to allowe the Queenes supremacie: So S. Augustine in this talke against the Donatistes, can not be said to allowe the Emperours authoritie in condemning of Bishoppes, and other ecclesiastical causes. For he an∣swering an other Donatiste that said,* 1.500 Non debuit episco∣pus proconsulari iudicio purgari, a Bishop ought not to make his purgation before a temporal magistrate, said, If he be worthy to be blamed, whom the temporal iudge hath absolued, whereas he him selfe did not require it, how much more are they to be blamed, whiche would haue a temporal prince to be iudge in their cause? By this it appeareth that he thought, that Princes could not be iudges ouer Bishoppes.

* 1.501Moreouer he reporteth, that Constantine, who ap∣pointed iudges to heare their cause, did it, à sanctis Anti∣stitibus veniam petiturus, as minding to aske pardon of the holy Bishoppes for his facte. And the same Empe∣rour seing their importunitie in repairing to him as iudge, said,* 1.502 O rabida furoris audacia. Sicut in causis Gentilium fieri solet, appellationem interposuerunt. Oh see the de∣sperate boldenesse of rage and furie. As if it were in the suites of Heathens, and Paganes, so these menne haue put vp their Appeale.

Nowe sir, if he had ben of the minde that you ima∣gine, or had thought it lawful for Constantine to heare, and determine ecclesiastical causes, or a right apper∣teining to his Emperial estate: he woulde not haue tolde vs, that he thought it a faulte to intermedle in suche matters, and therefore asked pardone of the holy Bishoppes. Neither would so wise an Empe∣rour,

seing those Bishoppes appealing in that cause, haue d••t••sted their doinges, and cried, O rabida furoris audacia, oh the desperate boldnesse of rage and furie. Wherefore M. Iewel, neither this facte of Constantine, nor that au∣thoritie of S. Augustine, can furder your pretended con∣uention of Bishoppes before Ciuil Magistrates. Let vs see what foloweth.

Iewel. Pag. 638.

But vvhat speake vve of other Priestes, and inferiour Bishoppes? The Popes them selues, notvvithstanding al their vniuersal povver, haue sub∣mitted them selues, and made their purgations before kinges and Empe∣rours.* 1.503 Pope Liberius made his humble appearance before the Emperour Constantius. Pope Sixtus before Valentinian. Leo the thirde before Caro∣lus Magnus, Leo 4. before Levves the Emperour. Iohn 22. vvas accu∣sed of heresie, and forced to recant the same vnto Philippe the French king.

Harding.

The higher euery good man is, the more humbly he behaueth him selfe. If then the Popes hauing an vniuer∣sal power ouer Christes Churche, did submitte them selues to Princes, and Emperours, they shewed muche humilitie in their hartes, and confidence in their causes: and proue against you M. Iewel, that if this submission had not ben made voluntarily by them, nor King, nor Caesar coulde haue had authoritie, or power to haue benne iudges ouer them: as you maie see by the exam∣ple of that good Emperour Constantine, refusing to be iudge ouer Bishoppes, and saying,* 1.504 Deus vos consti∣tuit sacerdotes, & potestatem vobis dedit de nobis iudican∣di, & ideo à vobis rectè iudicamur, vos autem non potestis ab hominibus iudicari, God hath appointed you Priestes,

and geuen you power to iudge of vs, and therefore we are rightly iudged of you, but ye can not be iud∣ged of menne, that is, of laie menne, and menne (as S. Ambrose reported of Theodosius, whiche I declared be∣fore) that are vnequal in office,* 1.505 and vnlike in autho∣ritie, and right. Of suche, Bishoppes maie not be iudged.

The Pope Liberius, you saie, made his humble appea∣rance before Constantius. It is true. But appearance is not purgation M. Iewel. You promised to tel vs of Po∣pes, that submitted them selues, and made their pur∣gations before kinges and Emperours, and beginning with that good Pope, you forgette your selfe, and for making of a purgation, you tel vs of making ap∣pearance. Whereby we gather, that either you passe not what you saie, or remember not what ye pro∣mise. Liberius dealing with Constantius the Arian Emperour at that appearance, was suche, as became a Bishoppe of the Apostolike See. For in that cause he would neither be ouerborne by the authoritie of the Emperour, nor yelde vnto his wickednesse against Atha∣nasius for a longe time, muche lesse acknowledge him for his superiour, or iudge.

As for Pope Sixtus, it is certaine, that he made his purgation before the Emperour Valentinian. But he did it M. Iewel in Concilio, in a Councel of Bis∣shoppes, and not in a courte of the Prince. And he did it of humilitie to auoide the suspicion, and malice of his aduersaries, and not to geue any President to others to doo the like, nor to preiudicate the autho∣ritie

of the Apostolique See. These are his wordes in the place, that your selfe allege. Vnderstande ye,* 1.506 that I am falsely accused of one Bassus, and vniustly persecuted. Whiche the Emperour Valentinian hearing, commaunded a Synode by vertue of our authoritie to be assembled. When the Synode was assembled, I satisfying al with great exami∣nation, albeit I might otherwise haue escaped, yet auoiding suspicion, I made my purgation before them al, discharging thereby my selfe from suspicion, and from emulation and enuie, Sed non alijs, qui hoc noluerint, aut non sponte ele∣gerint, faciendi formam dans, But not geuing a presi∣dent to others to doo the like, that either shal not be willing, or wil not voluntarily choose this kinde of pur∣gation.

Lo M. Iewel, your owne authour condemneth you. Pope Sixtus made his purgation, not onely before Va∣lentinian, but, coram omnibus, before al Bishoppes, and others assembled in the Synode. And he did it not by compulsion of any superiour Authoritie, but of humi∣litie, to declare his innocencie, and not to geue any other a president to doo the like. And by this ye maie perceiue, that the Emperour had of him selfe nor autho∣ritie to cal that Councel, nor power to summone the Pope to his Iudgement Seate, nor any iurisdiction to force him to make his Purgation before his Maiestie. For al was done by the submission of the Pope. He consented to the Emperours calling of that Councel: he gaue him licence to heare his purgation, and to be iudge in that cause. And he that geueth an other authoritie and commission, is by natural reason higher: and

of greater power in that case, then he that receiueth the authoritie, and commission. Wherefore Pope Sixtus ma∣king his purgation before the Emperour Valentinian, can not be said to haue benne conuented before a laie Ma∣gistrate, as his superiour, and lawful iudge.

* 1.507Concerning Leo the thirde, and Leo the fourth, their case is like. When they made their Purgation, the one said euen in the place, that you allege: hoc faciens, non legem prascribo caeteris,* 1.508 doing this, I doo not prescribe a lawe to force other menne to doo the like. The other gaue the Emperour licence to appointe Commissioners, to heare his cause, and submitted him selfe to their iudge∣ment, and therefore we saie the Emperour was not their iudge, nor superiour by any princely authoritie, but by these Popes permission, and appointement.

As for Pope Iohn the 22. (of whose errour you make muche a doo in so many places of your bookes) I haue said sufficiently before, in the Answer to your View of your Vntruthes. Fol. 64. & sequent. Where I haue decla∣red, how falsly you belie him, and wherein he erred touching the state of the Soules of the iust after this life. And here I saie againe, that it is most false, that euer he recanted any heresie before Philippe the Frenche king. In deede the errour whiche he helde, as his priuate opi∣nion, was condemned at the sounde of trompettes in presence of that king, as Gerson writeth: but that was done, before he was Pope.

Iewel. 639.

Your ovvne Glose saith,* 1.509 Papa potest dare potestatem Impe∣ratori vt deponat ipsum, & sese illi in omnibus subijcere.

The Pope maie geue the Emperour povver to depose him selfe, and maie in al thinges submitte him selfe vnto him.

Harding.

Be it that our Glose saith so M. Iewel, your Glose I might rather saie. For the Gloser seemeth to be your chiefe Doctour. There was neuer Diuine, that serued him selfe with the stuffe of the Glose, so muche as you doo. What inferre you vpon it? If you can like a good Logician frame this argument vppon that Glose: The Pope maie geue the Emperour authoritie to depose him selfe, Ergo, the Pope maie be conuented before the Magistrate, as one that through vertue of his temporal office, is his superiour in Ecclesiastical causes: let vs haue it in writing, and we wil returne you the like with as good consequence, and saie: The Queene may geue anie of her Lordes, and subiectes power to depose her from her roial estat, and to transferre it to an other: Ergo, shee maie be conuented before that Lord and subiect of hers, as one that hath authoritie to depose her of him selfe, without commission and authoritie from her grace. And if you finde fault with the sequele of this, find fault with the sequele of you own. For they are both like.* 1.510 The Law saith: Ex alterius persona, quis consequitur, quod non habet ex sua. A man getteth of an other-mannes person, that, which he hath not of his owne. Wherefore the Em∣perour hauing authoritie of the Pope to depose him,* 1.511 hath not that authoritie of him selfe, or any his Imperial po∣wer, but of the Pope. And seing Iudex delegatus à Papa gerit vices Papae, a Iudge delegated of the Pope, occupieth the roome of the Pope, the Emperour in this case shal

not depose him as Emperour, but as the Popes Vicege∣rent, and Delegate.

Iewel. Pag. 639.

Franciscus Zarabella saith,* 1.512 Papa accusari potest coram Impera∣tore de quolib••t crimine notorio: & Imperator requirere potest à Papa rationem fidei: The Pope maie be accused before the Emperour of any notorious crime, and the Emperour maie require the Pope to yelde an accompte of his faith.

Harding.

Neither Franciscus Zarabella, nor Franciscus Zaba∣rella (for so is his true name) saith as you reporte, that, Papa potest accusari coram Imperatore de quolibet crimi∣ne notorio,* 1.513 The Pope maie be accused before the Em∣perour of any notorious crime. Those wordes (coram Imperatore) before the Emperour, are of your owne interlacing, and be not in the Authour. You ought to be ashamed so fouly to corrupte your authours, and deceiue the people.

Againe Zabarella sayth not, Imperator requirere po∣test à Papa rationem fidei, the Emperour may require the Pope to yeelde an accompte of his faieth, They are your woordes Maister Iewel. That, whiche Za∣barella saith is thus.* 1.514 Si Papa est de haeresi suspectus, po∣test (Imperator) ab eo exigere, vt indiret quid sentiat de fide. that is, if the Pope be suspected of heresie (the Em∣perour) may require of him, that he declare, what he thinketh of the Faith. Nowe sir, to require a man to yeelde an accompte of his Faith, and to require him

to declare what he thinketh, are twoo diuerse thinges. For the one can not be donne, but by Superiour autho∣ritie: the other by waie of friendship and common cha∣ritie.

But as for Superiour authoritie,* 1.515 Zabarella alloweth the Emperour none ouer the Pope, nor graunteth, that he maie intermedle in Ecclesiastical causes, but in an extreme necessitie, to witte, if there were two Popes at one time (as there were when he wrote this Trea∣tie whence you fetche your falsified sentences) and nei∣ther would yeelde vnto the other, nor the Cardinalles take order for the quiet gouernemente of the Churche in procuring a General Councel, and if he saw the An∣tipape to geue ouer his vsurped Authoritie: then the Emperour, whose duetie is to defende the Catholique Faithe, maie intermedle in Ecclesiastical causes, saith Zabarella. His wordes are these.

Cùmergo deficit Papa, vel Cardinales,* 1.516 qui subrogantur Papae in Congregatione Concilij, vt dictum est in praece∣denti quaestione, ad ipsum Imperatorem, qui pars post prae∣dictos est praecipua, Concilij spectat Congregatio. Nec quenquam moueat, quòd Imperator est Laicus, vt ex hoc putet esse inconueniens, quòd se intromittat de clericis. Non enim semper prohibetur iudicare de clericis: sed tunc pro∣hibetur, quando non subest ratio specialis. Nam propter specialem rationem permittitur, vt ratione feudi. Hoc autem casu subest ratio specialis, imo specialissima, ne fides Catholica ruat, quod nimium periclitatur, diu permittendo pluralitatem in summo Pontificatu. In quo maximè est Im∣peratoris, & praecipuam habet potestatem. Nam permit∣tere plures in Papatu, est offendere illum fidei articulum,

vnam sanctam Catholicam, &c. Therefore when the Pope faileth, or the Cardinalles, who are nexte in roome vnto the Pope substituted to the Pope in assembling of a Coū∣cel, as it was said in the nexte question before, the assem∣bling of a Councel apperteineth vnto the Emperour, who after the Pope, and the Cardinalles, is the chiefe parte. Neither it ought to moue any man to thinke it inconuenient, that the Emperour, in that he is a laie man, should intermedle with maters belonging to clerkes. For he is not alwaies inhibited to iudge of Clerkes. But then he is forbidden, when there is no spe∣cial cause. For it is permitted for some special reason, as in consideration of fealtie. And in this cause there is a special, yea a most special reason, that the Catholique Faith come not to ruine, bicause it is in great danger by long suffering of pluralitie in the Popedome, that is to say, of moe Popes then one. In which the Emperour is the chiefe doer, and he hath the chief power. For to per∣mitte many Popes in the Popedome, is to offende that ar∣ticle of the Faith, I beleeue one holy Catholique, and Apo∣stolike Churche.

By this and the whole discourse, that Zabarella your authour maketh there, it appeareth M. Iewel, that the Emperour hath not the authoritie you pretende, but in that case of extreme necessitie. And by your aduocate in the Lawe, if he had not benne halfe in a phrenesie, you might haue learned,* 1.517 that, ex ijs quaeraro accid••nt, la∣ges non fiunt, of those thinges, that happen seldome, lawes are not made. And, Quae propter necessitatem rece∣pta sunt, non debent in argumentum trahi, those thinges, that are receiued for necessitie, ought not to be drawen

to an argument, or president to be followed. Wherefore ••••ither vpon the doinges of the Emperours in that great and lamentable schisme of the Church, neither vpon Za∣barella you can builde, that Bishoppes may ordinarily be conuented before a ciuil Magistrate in ecclesiastical causes.

But sir, seing you thought it conuenient for your pur∣pose to vse the authoritie of Zabarella (although you haue fowly falsified, and misreported his wordes) tel vs by what reason, you maie refuse his authoritie, if we can allege it against you. He saith in the same treatie that you allege, Papa est vniuersalis Episcopus,* 1.518 Papa non habet superiorem. Papa habet iurisdictionem, & potestatem super omnes de iure. Sedes Apostolica errare non potest. The Pope is the vniuersal Bishop: The Pope hath no superiour: The Pope hath iurisdiction, and power ouer al by lawe. The Apostolique See can not erre. Why admitte you not this? Is it reason that you should admitte an authours saying, the whiche he spake, and allowed in a case of ne∣cessitie, for auoiding of a greater danger, and not admitte the same authours saying in the same treatie, whiche he speaketh according to receiued, and approued doctrine of the Catholique Church? Aske your aduocate,* 1.519 and he wil tel you, that reason, and lawe faith, That si quis vsus fuerit testibus, ijdem{que} testes producantur aduersus eum in alia lite, non licebit personas eorum excipere. If one vse witnesses (in a cause) and the same witnesses be brought against him in an other controuersie, it is not lawful for him to make exception against their personnes. And if either reason, or lawe could preuaile where heresie hath entred, you should not onely admitte this, but also

that, whiche he saith in an other place ••••••••stas〈…〉〈…〉 immediate pendat à Deo,* 1.520 per illa verba, Pasce〈…〉〈…〉 Papa habet potestatem supra omnes quic omnes sunt ••••••s. Papae vicem Dei gerit in terris,* 1.521 The power of the Pope dependeth immediatly of God, by those wordes; feede my sheepe. The Pope hath power ouer al, bicause al be sheepe. The Pope beareth the person of God in earth. For he spake this with as good aduise, as he spake the other. And this is generally allowed, and that but in a case. Wherefore if his authoritie be good in the one, ought it not to be good in the other?

Now therefore M. Iewel I reporte me to your in∣different iudgement, how true it is that you saie, that a Prince or a ciuil magistrate maie lawfully cal a Priest be∣fore him, to his owne seate of iudgement, and that a Bi∣shop maie be conuented before the Magistrate, as his lawful and superiour iudge in ecclesiastical causes. No one example, or sentence that ye haue yet alleged, doth proue that vaine assertion of yours: Neither could ye haue had any aduantage by them, if ye had truely repor∣ted their wordes, and declared the circumstances why, and wherefore they were spoken. But that liked you not. Wherefore referring your corruption, and false dealing in these matters of weight to the judgement of God, and examination of the indifferent and wise, I con∣clude against you, with S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, and al other Catholique Fathers, that it is not conuenient,* 1.522 nor lawful for a king to cal priestes before him to his owne seat of Iudgement, as their su∣periour in ecclesiastical causes. As for the note glosed in the Decretalles, which ye bring to proue that priestes

are exempted from the Emperours iurisdiction by the Popes policie, and the princes consent, and not by the worde of God: we tel you, that suche glosed notes de∣clare you to be a very Gloser, and argue that your stoare is farre spent, when you rest vpon such marginal glosed notes. Were it graunted (which in no case we graunt) that Bisshoppes, and priestes were exempted from the Emperours iurisdiction in ecclesiastical causes, onely by the Popes policie, and consent of princes, for confirma∣tion whereof they haue made diuers lawes, and geuen out large priuileges: yet these lawes standing vnrea∣pealed, and priuileges vnauthorized, they can not be conuented lawfully before the ciuil magistrate. For it standeth not with the Maiestie of a prince to doo against his owne lawes, and breake the priuileges by him selfe graunted to others, before he hath with as mature aduise, and consideration re∣uoked them, as he did first graunte them.

That the Canonistes are wrongfully charged by the Apo∣logie, with teaching the people, that Simple For∣nication is no sinne. The 15 Chapter.

The wordes of the Apologie. Defence. Pag. 357.

They be the Popes ovvne Canonist•••• vvhiche haue taught the people, that Fornication betvven single fo•••••• i•• no sinne.

Harding.

* 1.523IN my Cōfutation I saie, that this is a greuous offence, and worthy to be pounished, in processe I saie to the make••s of the Apologie, How proue ye it? They allege for it, one Iohn de Magistris. How be it M. Iewel hath re∣canted that errour, and confesseth him selfe to haue ben deceiued. For he graunteth, it was Martinus de Magi∣stris, whom he meant, or should haue meant. He should doo wel to recant diuers other the like his errours. For he hath not only ben deceiued by his note bookes, or his Notegatherers, in naming Iohn de Magistris, for Marti∣nus de Magistris, but also in the names of sundrie other menne, as it shal be declared in the nexte Chapter.

But touching the sclaunder of the Canonistes, if Martinus de Magistr•••• had so taught, yet the matter is not cleare, for he w•••• no Canoniste, but a Schoole Do∣ctor of Diuinitie. Again••, he ••••••••ht not the people, as our Maisters of the Apologie ••••e, but onely wrote of that matter after the Scholastical manner, from vn∣derstanding whereof the peoples simple capacitie is farre of.

Wel, let these three errours, Lyes, or ouersightes, be ••in••••ed at. Hitherto the Canonistes are not touched, but sclaundered. What shal we answer for Martinus de Magistris? Certainely neither that Doctour taught ei∣ther the people, or any other person, that vngodly, and false Doctrine. Certaine it is, that in this Treatie, De Tem∣perantia, quaestione 2. he taught the contrarie, where he proueth very sufficiently, and copiously, that simple Fornication is mortal sinne.* 1.524 But Alphonsus chargeth him with saying, that to beleeue the Contrarie, is not a point of Heresie. And thereof M. Iewel in the Defence taketh holde, geuing ouer al his other false holdes. Let it be as Alphonsus saith. Yet wil it not thereof follow, that the Popes Canonistes, or Diuines taught the people, it is no sinne.

By Alphonsus, whom M. Iewel allegeth, this Do∣ctor Martinus de Magistris saith two thinges. That For∣nication is deadly sinne, and yet that to beleeue the con∣trarie, Non sit haereticum, is not heretical, or a case of heresie. The first he proueth substantially: The se∣cond he proueth not sufficiently, as it appeareth to Alphonsus. The reason, whereby he would proue it, is this, Quia testimonia scripturae sacrae non sunt expressa,* 1.525 bi∣cause the testimonies of the holy Scriptures are not ex¦presse, that is to saie, bicause simple Fornication is not expressely so called. And though it were so, yet maie it otherwise be plainely, as it is most plainely signified. Now this question riseth betwen Martinus, and Al∣phonsus, whether to beleeue, that Fornication is not mortal sinne, be a case of Heresie, or no. Alphonsus saith it is, Martinus saith it is not. And what if he say

it be not a case of heresie so to beleeue, yet it ma•• be a wicked opinion so to beleue, and a more wicked thing to committe the crime, which Martinus doth not on∣ly not denie, but affirmeth, and proueth very earnestly, and that perteineth to the present purpose. Euery false beleefe maketh not a case of heresie, but whosoeuer stubbornely holdeth, and mainteineth a false beleefe contrarie not onely to the bare letter, but also to the sense of the Scripture, specially if it be determined, and published by the Churche, is to be accompted an heretique. How soeuer it be, and whether Alphonsus impute that saying to Martinus de Magistris, as erro∣neous, or no: Hitherto M. Iewel proueth not, that the Popes Canonistes haue taught the people, that Sim∣ple Fornication is no sinne. Let vs see with what other testimonies he can proue it.

Iewel. Pag. 360.

* 1.526Thus it is noted in the Decrees, Qui non habet vxorem, loco illius Concubinam debet habere. He that hath not a vvife, in steede of her must haue a Concubine.

Harding.

Is it likely, that any Christian euer wrote so? It was neuer so written, and that M. Iewel him selfe knew wel ynough.* 1.527 For he confesseth the printed booke, that so reporteth, to be a false copie. Wherefore then would he allege it? Like wil to like. False manners seeke to be defended by false hed. For of true dea∣ling they can procure them selfe no reliefe. But se•• Reader what pleasure he hath in Vntruthe.

Iewel Pag. 360.

Ye vvil saie, there is errour in the prints. Be it so, yet t••••••〈…〉〈…〉

extant i•• many Copies. And it is vvel agreable to your common pr••••tise. For the best that you can make of the same place, is this: Is qui non habet Vxorem, et pro Vxore Concubinam habet, à Communione non repellatur. He that hath no vvife, and in steede of a vvise hath a Concubine, let him not be remoued from the Commu∣nion.

Harding.

What shame is it to allege the errour of a false booke, that hath either crepte in by the negligence, or put in by the malice of the printers Compositour? The most, and truest Copies haue otherwise, and that could you not be ignorant of directing the Reader by your cotations vn∣to Gratian, and vnto the first Toletan Councel, from whence the testimonie is taken out.

And what saie you sir, doth not this place proue, that the popes Canonistes teache Simple Fornication to be no sinne? For this is the thing, whiche you haue taken vpon you to proue. If you faile in proufe thereof, you maie not blame vs, if we accompte you for a Lyer, and a sclaunderer. O saie you, lo, here a man is allowed to haue a Concubine. For in as much as he is not to be repelled from the Communion, that hath a concubine,* 1.528 how is not a man allowed to keepe a Concubine? And shal we not saie, that they which teache this doctrine, teache Simple Fornication to be no sinne? If al this were graunted you, yet how truly haue you burdened the Canonistes with this Doctrine? For these wordes you know, be not the wordes of the Canonistes, but the wordes of the first Coūcel of Toledo, that was aboue a thousand yeres ago.

Here is good geare M. Iewel for you to iuggle with∣al. And how can it be, but that your selfe doo knowe, that you doo impudently? You peruerte the texte, you

misconster it, you leaue out that goeth before, and〈…〉〈…〉 followeth immediatly after. Bicause you know this place might serue your purpose to deceiue the vnlear∣ned, who can not espie your falsehed, you thought ye might be bolde, as you are in many other places. And so without blusshing you sclaunder Christes Churche, burdening it with the allowance, and maintenance of Concubines. You plaie like a shrewde boye of the Grammar schoole, who hauing a Theme appointed him by his Maister to dilate, and write vpon, purleth, and gathereth out of euery booke, as manie sentences, as he findeth to haue one worde of his Theme, or sounding towarde his Theme. So haue you here, or your Coad∣iutor, done, to finde somewhat in the writinges of the Catholikes, that might seme to allowe simple Fornicati∣on and the keping of Concubines. And here ye bring vs forth a peece of a Canon concluded in the first Coun∣cel of Toledo. But in good sooth it maketh asmuche for your purpose, as that sentence, Diuinum auxilium maneat semper nobiscum, made for his purpose, that be∣ing among others demaunded a prety sentence concer∣ning Wine, after al had said their sentences, alleged this for his parte, bicause in the worde, Diuinum, the first syllable taken awaye,* 1.529 there is Vinum, which sig∣nifieth Wine. In much like sorte you haue done here, dissembling the Circumstance of the place, and omit∣ting the Chapter, that in Gratian goeth immediatly be∣fore, In which Chapter he declareth, what in that place, and certaine other there by him alleged is meant by a Concubine, saying, Concubina autem hîc intelligi∣tur, quae cessantibus legalibus instrumentis vnita est, &

coniugali affectu ascistitur. Hanc coniugem facit affectus,* 1.530 Concubinam verò lex nominat. By a Concubine here (to witte, in certaine Canons alleged in the former Distincti∣on 33.) is vnderstanded such a woman, as is coupled vn∣to a man without any formal writinges according to the Ciuil Lawes, and is taken with intent and affection of marriage. This woman the intent and affection maketh a wife, but the lawe, (that is to saie, the Ciuil lawe) na∣meth her a Concubine. Yea the Canons also doo name such a Woman a Concubine sometimes, and not a wife, vntil the Marriage be solemnized, not that shee is a whoore, but that with the reprocheful name of a Con∣cubine, as it were with a secrete rebuke, suche per∣sonnes be driuen to solemnize, and publish their mar∣riage in the face of the Church. Nowe let it be iud∣ged by the Learned, what you are worthy to haue for dissembling this much.

Gratian had alleged certaine Canons,* 1.531 where∣in mention was made, that they might continue in ho∣ly Orders, and minister, who before they were made Priestes, had had Concubines. In this sentence therefore that now I translated, he expoundeth, how the worde Concubine is to be taken in those Canons, asmuche to faie, for a wife taken priuately without publique Solem∣nization. For saith he, the Ciuil law taketh not for a wife, but nameth a Concubine (whiche is a baser and a more reprocheful name) her, which a man taketh, and vseth for his wife without any solemne and publike instrument made concerning the dowrie, and other matters accu∣stomed to be agreed vpon betwen the man and wife. And this with diuers other solemnities, to take away occasion

of strife,* 1.532 and sinne was politikely ordeined by the Ciuil Lawe, and Canon also. But assoone as that writing was made, and publique Solemnite perfourmed, the chil∣dren borne before, were accompted lawfully borne, and the Concubine to haue ben a wife from the beginning. And this woman the lawe nameth in the meane time a Concubine,* 1.533 and not a whoore.

And Gratian to proue this exposition to be true, and good, alleged the Councel of Toledo, saying, De hac di∣citur in Concilio Toletano, Is qui non habet, &c. Of this Woman it is said in the Councel of Toledo, he that hath not a wife, but hath a Concubine for a wife, let him not be put backe from the Communion. Whiche wordes, you bring to proue, that the Churche doth allowe Concubines. Wherein it is plaine, that the worde, Concubine, is ta∣ken for a wife taken priuately, and not openly married with due solemnitie in the face of the Churche, yet kepte in bed, and at burde, as a wife, with intent of wedlocke, which was in olde time very common in Spaine, and yet is in some places. And the Councel there holden doth not repelle from the Communion those that haue suche wemen in that sorte. Whereas if the worde Concubine signified a whoore in that Ca∣non of the Councel of Toledo, as it doth most com∣monly in other places, the Councel would not haue wincked at that sinne, nor suffered suche personnes to comme vnto the Communion, but would haue repelled them,* 1.534 as by many other Decrees the Church doth, and also repelleth their children, and bastard broode, from the holy order of Priesthoode, whereunto ye admitt•• the rascalles, and the outcastes of al the people to

further your carnal Doctrine, as Ieroboam admitted the like, to bring the people of Israel to Apostasie, and Idolatrie.* 1.535

That the Church alloweth not Concubines taken in the worse sense, euen in the same place, it is witnessed by S. Augustine alleged in the Decrees, in whom thus we finde. Concubinas habere non licet vobis: & si non habetis vxores, tamen non licet vobis habere Concubinas, quas po∣stea dimittatis, vt ducatis vxores, tantò magis damnatio erit vobis, si volueritis habere vxores, & Concubinas. It is not lawful for you to haue Concubines: Albeit ye haue no wiues, yet it is not lawful for you to haue such Concu∣cubines, as which afterward ye maie put away to the ende to take wiues: so muche the greater shalbe your dā∣nation, if ye wil haue both wiues, and Concubines.

And this signification of Concubina, is not strange, that when a man mindeth to marrie a woman, she be called a Concubine, whiche in deede is a true wife before God, though she be not knowen so to be in the publique fame of the people, til the marriage be solemni∣zed.* 1.536 It maie please you to looke on your brother Mat∣thias Flacius Illyricus in his booke entitled Clauis Scriptu∣rae, in the word Concubina. And you shal find the word ta∣kē in this sense, and the same proued by diuers authorities.

Ioannes de Turre Cremata a man right wel learned vpon the Chapter Omnibus before alleged, saith thus. Abraham praeter Saram habuit Agar ancillam vxorem, sic enim dicitur Genes. 16. Dedit Sara ancillam viro in vxo∣rem Suam, post mortem verò Sarae, accepit Abraham Ce∣turam vxorem, vt legitur Gen. 25. Et quia istae non fuerunt acceptae cum illa solennitate, quamuis essent vxores affectu,

& in veritate, dictae tamen sunt Concubinae, vt Genesis. 25. vbi dicitur, dedit Abraham cuncta quae possidebat, Isaac, fi∣lijs verò Concubinarum, munera. In libro etiam Iudicum idem habetur, videlicet quòd vxor vocetur Concubina, vt patet Iudic. 19. &c. Abraham beside Sara, had Agar to wife, that was his wiues maide seruaunt, for so it is said in the 16. Chapter of Genesis, Sara gaue her maide vnto her husband to be his wife. And after the death of Sara Abraham tooke Cetura to be his wife, as we reade in Genesis the 25. chapter. And bicause these wemen were not taken with that solemnitie, as the wiues were, al∣though they were wiues in affection, and in truth, yet were they called Concubines, as in Genesis 25. Chapter, where it is said, Abraham gaue al the thinges, which he possessed, to Isaac, but to the sonnes of his Concubines, he gaue giftes. The same is also to be founde in the booke of the Iudges, that a wife is called a Concubine, as it appeareth Iudges 19. chapter. &c. This therefore proueth not your sclaunder M. Iewel, wherewith you burthen the Ca∣nonistes, as defending Simple Fornication to be no sinne. Let vs see, whether your other stuffe be any bet∣ter to that purpose.* 1.537

Iewel. Pag. 360.

Likevvise it is noted in the Glose vpon the constitutions of Otho Bonus: Videtur quòd crimē meretricij Ecclesia sub dissimulatione tra∣sire debeat. It semeth, that the Church ought to passe ouer the crime of vvhooredom vnder dissimulatiō (and not to see it). In vvhich Glose ye shal finde these vvordes, Si non castè, tamen cautè: If ye doo it not chastely, yet doo it charily.

Harding.

You mistake your marke M. Iewel naming Otho Bo∣nus, for Otho. They were diuers menne, as you might

haue sene in the Constitutions, that you allege: where∣in your skil in the Canon lawe appeareth. If you had laid forth the place wholly, as true and vpright dealing re∣quireth, it should soone haue appeared, vpon how smal a matter you pike so great a quarrel. Thus it is. Iohan∣nes de Athon, who wrote the Glose vpon the Constitu∣tions Legatine of Otho, hauing declared how a Clerke (by which worde is not meant onely a Priest, as you al∣waies interprete, but any that is within Orders, be they the lesser, or the greater) is to be pounished for hauing a Concubine, at length after his manner demaundeth this question. Sed quid dices de punitione ipsarum Concubina∣rum, si ad suam excusationem coram Iudice ecclesiastico se as∣serant publicas Meretrices quaestu corporis viuentes? But what wilt thou saie of the pounishment of the Concu∣bines them selues, if for their excuse they saie before the ecclesiastical Iudge, that they are common whoores ly∣uing by the gaine of that filthy seruice of their body?

Now immediatly there foloweth the answer, which M. Iewel bringeth against the Canonistes, not with∣out a litle point of falsifying by nipping awaie this word, Hoc, an ordinarie marke of his workemanship.* 1.538 Videtur quòd Hoc crimen Meretricij sub dissimulatione transire de∣beat Ecclesia. It seemeth, that the Churche ought to passe ouer this Crime of whooredome vnder dissimu∣lation, that is to saie, to dissemble it. The cause why the Churche ought to dissemble this crime in suche wemen as professe publique whooredom, whiche the author of that Glose saith not precisely, but speaketh it as an opinion, and as a thing that seemed to some menne reasonable, I had rather M. Iewel heard it of an other

man, then of me. Certainely he maie iudge, it is not altogether without cause, that al Christendome ouer, whereas al other wemen be pounished for the sinne of the flesh, onely the common and publique whoores be let alone vnder dissimulation. Yet it argueth not, that simple fornication is made no sinne. If M. Iewel would haue read further in that Glose, he should haue founde these expresse wordes, by whiche the Canonistes are cleered, and he further charged with a false sclaunder. Dic tamen quòd hoc peccatum prosequi debet Ecclesia vt mortale.* 1.539 Yet saie thou (by whiche wordes he signifieth his owne opinion) that the Church ought to pursue this sinne,* 1.540 as deadly sinne. Whereof it foloweth, that con∣tinuing in suche life, they might not be admitted to the Sacramentes of holy Church.

As for those other wordes, whiche we finde in the Glose, Si non castè, tamen cautè, they are there rehersed, as a common saying, not as a rule, or a precepte of the Canon Lawe, neither perteine they to clerkes, more then to the laie sorte. The circumstance of the place considered and weighed, al thinges maie seme there to be wel, and discretely said. Of two that committe For∣nication, he doth lesse euil, that dooth it secretely, then the other, that doth it openly. For the open fornicatour increaseth the offence by his il example, by the offence the people take of it, and by the contempte of his owne fame and good name. Of suche a one it is said there out of the Lawe, quòd famae suae prodigus, etiam quoad homines suspensus est, licet occulta fornicatio quoad Deum, turbet bo∣nam conscientiam, that being a recheles loser of his owne fame, he is suspended also as concerning the estimation

of menne, although the pryuie Fornication doo trouble a good conscience, as touching God.

So then if it be an il thing a man to be suspended a∣mong menne, and to lose the fame of his honestie,* 1.541 if he be accompted cruel, and desperate, that careth not for his good name, if it be dangerous to the soule also, to pro∣uoke others to offend by il example, al these euilles fo∣lowing the publique, and open fornicatour, though se∣crete fornication ought also hartily to greeue and vexe the conscience before God: how shal not that vulgare saying seeme to geue good counsel, Si non castè, tamen cautè, whereby a man is not animated at al to doo il, but (if he hap to do his vncleane lust,* 1.542 or wil not be staid from it) is admonished to doo it charily, though not chastly. And if there were any il meaning in this vulgare saying, as there is not, though it maie be abused to cast some sha∣dow vpon euil lyuers, the iudgement of the Canonistes were not to be reproued thereof, but the custome of the worlde, from whence it proceeded.

Iewel. Pag. 360.

Likevvise saith Petrus Rauennas, one of your notable Canonistes,* 1.543 vpon the Decretalles: Quamuis tactus & oscula sint praeludia inconti∣nentiae in Laicis, secus tamen est in Clericis. Nam Clericus prae∣sumitur ista facere pro charitate, & bono Zelo. Notvvithstanding handeling, and kissing in laie Personnes be the occasions, or beginninges of incontinent behauiour, yet in Priestes it is, far othervvise. For a Priest is presumed to do•• these thinges of Charitie, and of good zele.

Harding.

Yet Petrus Rauennas saith not, that Simple Fornica∣tion is no sinne, That is the thing, you haue taken in hande

to proue against the Canonistes. When touche you the point? In Italie, where this lawier liued, to kisse a woman is taken for a certaine earnest of a wanton bar∣gaine promised, and therefore openly men kisse not wo∣men at first, and last salutations, as the vse is in England. But bicause that thing maie be in it selfe diuers, accor∣ding to the diuers manners of Countries, and therefore maie be deemed good, nolesse then euil, menne be∣ing bounde to iudge the best of that whiche maie be wel done, or is at least indifferent: the Lawier conside∣ring the vertue, and degree of a Clerke, saith, that an euil presumption is not lightly to be taken thereof, but willeth it to be taken for courtesie, and charitable saluta∣tion, as it is taken in England, and in sundry other coun∣tries.* 1.544 For the qualitie and state of the person doth of∣tentimes purge the suspicion, that otherwise is woont to rise of any acte. Let vs heare what other Gloses this Gloser bringeth for his purpose.

Iewel Pag. 360.

* 1.545Likevvise it is noted in your Glose, Si Clericus amplectitur mu∣lierem (Laicus) interpretabitur, quod causa benedicendi eam hoc faciat. If a Priest imbrace a vvoman, a laieman must iudge of it thus, that he dooth it to the intent to blesse her. VVhere also ye shal finde this special note set out in the margine for the purpose, Clericus am∣plectens mulierem praesumitur benè agere. A Priest imbracing a vvoman is presumed to doo vvel.

Harding.

It can not be proued by al these Gloses, that the Ca∣nonistes teache the people, that simple fornication is no sinne. And therfore they stande you in no stede

otherwise th••n to seoffe. How be it if the meaning of this Glose were wel considered, it could not seme very fitly to furnish you with any good matter of scoffing. Gratian alleged a saying out of S. Hierome vnder the name of Pope Antherùs.* 1.546 Absit vt quicquam sinistrum de his arbitremur, qui Apostolico gradui succedentes, Christi corpus Sacro ore conficiunt, per quos nos Christiani sumus, qui claues regni coelorum habentes, ante iudicij diem iudicāt. God forbid that we should thinke any sinistre thing of them, who succeding the Apostles in degree, with their sacred mouth doo consecrate the body of Christe, by whom we are Christians, who hauing the keies of the kingdom of heauen, iudge before the daie of Iudge∣ment.

This sad and graue saying you could not wel brooke. It liked you better therfore to purle in the Glose. Now laye al that the Glose saith, together, and let it be iudged, how much it maketh for your scoffing humour. God for∣bid, saith S. Hierome, we should thinke any il, or sinistre thing of them, that with their holy mouthe consecrate Chri∣stes bodie. Tpon this worde, Sinistrum, the Glose saith. Hoc est verum in ijs quae possunt trahi ad bonum, & ad malū, vbi semper in meliorem partem est interpretandum. Si ergo Clericus amplectitur mulierem, interpretabitur (Canon) quòd causa benedicendi eam hoc faciat. This is true in those thinges that maie be drawen to good, and to euil, where alwaies we must interprete (that whiche is done) in the better parte. Therfore if a Clerke imbrace a woman (or laie his armes ouer her) this Canon wil interprete it, that he doth it to blesse her. These wordes, a laie man must iudge of it thus, be your owne wordes, the Gloses

worde, interpretabitur, doth not so signifie. Neither is it to be vnderstanded of the secrete iudgement, whiche a man conceiueth in his owne harte to him selfe, of suche a deede beholden with his eies, but of the interpretation made of it to others, for so doth interpretari signifie. This then is the sense of that Glose. If a clerke or a Priest em∣brace a woman, for so muche as it maie be drawen to good, that is to saie, it maie in a case be done to good purpose, as to blesse her, to praie ouer her, or to doo the courtesie of salutation according to the manner in some countries: the Canon wil interpret it, that is to saie, if we folow the minde and deuotion of S. Hierome, whose wordes that Canon conteineth, we shal (he saith not iudge) but interprete it, as done to thintent to blesse her. Why I make Canon nominatiue case to the verbe in∣terpretabitur, it is not to be marueled at, for so the Glose it selfe teacheth me, where immediatly it foloweth, tamen quandoque Canon solam confabulationem interpreta∣tur in deteriorem partem. Yet sometime the Canon doth interprete the onely talking (with a woman) in the worse parte.

To be shorte, if a Priest maie embrace any woman with honest, and good intent, if it be not of it selfe vt∣terly vnhonest, and vnlawful: when he is sene so to doo, by the godly Counsel of this Canon, which is the faying of S. Hierome, and by the exposition of the Glose, the facte is to be taken and interpreted, not in the worse, but in the better part, for so the order of charitie requireth, and so specially the honour of the Apostolike Degree, whereunto Priestes be admitted in making or consecra∣ting the pretious body of Christe, requireth. Now as

the sinne of a Priest is more hainous then the same sinne in a laie man, so when he doth a thing that maie be both wel, and euil done, for the reuerence, and honour of that high and holy order, it is to be reported with the better interpretation. And thus that Glose maketh nothing for defence of Fornicatiō betwen single folke, for proufe whereof, to the reproufe of the Canonistes it is by you alleged. Now let it be indifferently iudged, how iuste cause you had, thus to triumphe.

Iewel. Pag. 361.

These be your Canonistes: these be your Schoolemaisters: these be your Doctours, M. Harding: thus they vvrite, not onely in the singu∣lare, but also in the Dual, and plural number. They vvould neuer so light∣ly haue iudged hereof, if they had thought, your Simple Fornication had benne Sinne.

Harding.

Blow your trompet, and make your Triumphe, when ye haue wonne the victorie, and obteined a true conqueste.

Iewel. Pag. 361.

Somevvhat it must needes be,* 1.547 that in your Late Councel of Basile, enforced the Bishoppes there to decree, that Fornication should be Sinne. Erasmus saith, a great many of them, vvhom the common sorte taketh for good and godly menne, not a vvhitte abhorre simple Fornication, and a sober vse of pleasure, reckening it to be but a litle petite faulte.

Harding.

The Bishoppes of the Councel of Basile made no such Decree, that Fornication should be Sinne. That was be∣fore decreed by God. And so muche the Councel it selfe in that very place, vnto whiche you directe vs by your cotation, signifieth most plainely. For thus it saith:* 1.548 Cùm omne fornicationis crimen lege diuina prohi∣bitum sit, sub peccati mortalis poena necessariò euitandum,

(Concilium) monet omnes Laitos tam vxoratos, quam solutes, vt similiter à concubinatu abstineam. Nimis enim reprehensibilis est, qui vxorem babet, & ad alienam mulie∣rem accedit.* 1.549 Qui verò solutus est, si continere nolit, iuxta Apostoli consilium vxorē ducat. Whereas the whole crime of Fornication is forbidden by Goddes lawe, of necessi∣tie to be auoided vnder the paine of mortal sinne: the Councel admonisheth al laie menne, as wel married, as single, that in like sorte they absteine from keeping Con∣cubines. For he is very much worthy to be rebuked, who hath a wife, and yet haunteth the companie of an other womā. As touching him that is single, if he be not dispo∣sed to cōteine, according to the Apostles counsel, let him take a wife. By these wordes they decreed not that For∣nication should be sinne, but they admonished menne as wel married, as vnmarried to forebeare the companie of cōcubines, bicause it was mortal sinne by the law of God.

* 1.550As for that you allege out of Erasmus, whom you cal a man of singulare learning, and Iudgement, which the Diuines finde not in him, it helpeth you nothing. Only he as his cōmon manner is, accuseth the loose life of some whom the people nameth good, and godly menne. You haue fasly turned his wordes, for he saith not, as you make him to speake, that they recken Fornication to be but a litle petite faulte: He saith, vt leue commissum, neutiquam re∣fugiunt, they flee it not, as if it were but a light offence.

Iacobus de Valentia,* 1.551 whom also you allege, maketh quite against you. For naming Iewes, and Sarace∣nes, and il Christian menne expressely, he semeth not to meane the Popes Canonistes, whom here you bur∣then with mainetenance of Fornication, whiche sort•…•…

of menne he would not haue letted to name, had the matter ben so cleare, as you sclaunder them.

Touching that you tel vs out of Antoninus, and Ale∣xander de Hales, It is not worth the answering. Mary a•• for that you bring vs S. Augustine, bicause worthily he is of great auctoritie, it is wel to be weighed, what he saith. Thus you make him to tel his tale, or rather your owne tale. For his it is not, as you set it forthe.

Iewel. Pag. 361.

And likevvise S. Augustine, Illa Fornicatio, quam faciunt,* 1.552 qui vxores non habent, cum foeminis, quae viros non habent, an prohibita inueniri possit, ignoro. That kinde of fornication, vvhiche Single menne committe vvith Single vvomenne, vvhetber it be forbidden, or no, I can not tel. Thus you haue M. Harding, not onely vvhat your Canonistes, but also vvhat your Schoole Doctors haue taught, and thought of Simple Fornication.

Harding.

What M. Iewel,* 1.553 are you so farre become the Deuils slaue, that now he maie vse your seruice, not onely to persuade menne to beleeue false Doctrine, but also to leade a wicked life? And the rather to perfourme this, make you S. Augustine to say, that he can not tel, whe∣ther Simple Fornication be forbidden, or no? Who is to be beleeued, if S. Augustine be not? And if he being so great a learned man, as euer Christes Churche had, could not tel, whether Simple Fornication be forbidden, or no, who is he that can tel? And if there be no man that can tel vs, it is forbidden, the same once persuaded, the inclination to the fulfilling of fleshly luste being in mankinde so general: what a window, yea what a wide gate shalbe opened to menne to rush in, and without al

conscience•• to follow filthy pleasure?

But where hath S. Augustine this saying? Your cota∣tion hath thus. August. in quaest. in Exod. quaest. 20. Cer∣tainely in that shorte Chapter he saith no such thing. What, maie we thinke, that of purpose you haue l••ad your Reader awaie from the place, leaste your falshed should be espied, and least you should be taken, as they saie, with the manner: Truly it is not vnlike. O M. Iew∣el though we beare with you in your common custome of falsifying the places ye allege, yet thinke not, that we maie wincke at you, when by the vse of that sleight you open a way vnto so great wickednes, and edifie vnto hel.

The place from whence you tooke these wordes, is in S. Augustine, Quaestoinum super Exodum, lib. 2. quaest. 71. To open, and set forth the circumstance of the pointes, whereof he disputeth there, it were very long. The lear∣ned maie reade him. Hauing said, that the woman com∣mitteth Aduouterie, which hath carnal companie with a man, that is not her husband, though he haue no wife, and that the man likewise committeth Aduouterie by sinning with her, that is not his wife, though she haue no husband:* 1.554 He addeth further, Sed vtrum si faciat, &c, But if one doo this, who hath no wife, with a woman, that hath no husband, whether (in this case) bothe be holden for trans∣gressours of the precepte (he meaneth this precepte, Thou shalt not committe Aduouterie) The Question is for good cause moued. For if they be not giltye of transgressi∣on,* 1.555 then is not Fornication forbidden in the Decalogus, that is to saie, in the ten Commaundementes, but onely Moe∣chia, that is Aduouterie, howbeit al Aduouterie is vnder∣stāded to be Fornicatiō, as the Scriptures speake. For our Lord

saith in the Gospel, whosoeuer putteth away his wife,* 1.556 the cause of Fornication excepte, causeth her (Moechari) to commit Aduouterie. This he calleth Fornication, if she sinne with an other man, that hath a husbande, whiche thing is Moechia, that is (Adulterium) Aduouterie. And so al (Moechia) Ad∣uouterie in the Scriptures is called also Fornication.

But (on the other side) whether al Fornication maie be called (Moechia) Aduouterie,* 1.557 in the same Scri∣ptures I can not yet cal to my minde the example of suche a speache. (Now folow the wordes, that M Iewel would seeme to allege, and hath alleged falsely) Sed si non omnis Fornicatio etiam Moechia dici potest, vbi sit in Decalogo pro∣hibita illa Fornicatio, quam faciunt viri, qui vxores non ha∣bent, cum foeminis, quae maritos non habent, vtrum inueniri possit, ignoro: but if it be so, that al Fornication can not be called also (Moechia) aduouterie, where that Fornication, which men commit, that haue no wiues, with women, that haue no husbandes, is forbidden in the table of the ten commaundementes, whether it can be found, or no, I can not tel.

This is that (M. Iewel) S. Augustine cōfessed he could not tel, whether Simple Fornication were forbidden,* 1.558 or no, as you tel vs, for he knew right wel it was forbidden: but whether, if al fornicatiō be not cōteined in the name of Moechia, aduouterie, which word is expressed in the tē cōmaundementes, that kinde of Fornication which men hauing no wiues cōmit with womenne hauing no hus∣bandes, can be found forbidden (he saith, not al, but) in de∣calago, in the table of the ten commaundementes. This is that, and none other thing, whereof S. Augustine in that place confesseth him selfe to be ignorant.

* 1.559Now that such kinde of Fornication is to be thought to be forbidden vnder the name of (Moechia) aduouteri••, with these wordes he declareth there immediatly his determinate sentence, and iudgement. Sed si furti nomis ne benè intelligitur omnis illicita vsurpatio rei aliena: non enim rapinam permisit, qui furtum prohibuit, sed vtique à parte totum intelligi voluit, quicquid illicitè rerum proximi aufertur, profectò & nomine Moechiae, omnis illicitus concu∣bitus, atque illorum membrorum non legitimus vsus prohibi∣tus debet intelligi. But if al vnlawful vsurpation of a thing, that is an other mannes, be meant by the name of Theafte: for he that forbad Theafte, hath not permitted Robberie, but would the whole to be vnderstanded by the parte, what so euer thinge of the neighbours is vn∣lawfully taken awaye: verely likewise we ought to vn∣derstand, that vnder the name of (Moechia) Aduouterie, euery vnlawful carnal acte, and vse of those partes not allowed by Goddes lawe, is forbidden.

The effecte of this whole discourse is this. S. Au∣gustine confesseth the name of that which we cal Simple Fornication, not to be founde expressely in the Table of the ten Commaundementes. Neuerthelesse he saith, that it is to be vnderstanded in the name of Aduouterie, which is there expressed, and that so it is forbidden vnder that name, as also euery vnlawful acte, and vse of those partes, that serue to the Generation. And al this proce∣deth of like reason, as we ought to iudge, that (Rapina) Robberie is forbidden, though in that Table it be not expressely named, as also euery vnlawful taking awaye, and deteining of an other mannes thinges, as being vn∣derstanded in the name of Theafte in that Commaunde∣ment

only expressed, as oftentimes by reason the whole must be vnderstāded in the name of a parte.* 1.560 For elles we should thinke it lawful to robbe, and commit rauine, whereas Theafte onely is by expresse terme forbidden: wherein we are controlled by reason it selfe, without fur∣ther aduise of Goddes written word. Mow iudge good Reader what rewarde M. Iewel is worthy to haue in a wel ordered common welth, for suche abusing of S. Au∣gustines name, and auctoritie, to the Defence, and main∣teinance of Simple Fornication. Certainely the li∣bertie, that through this pleasant Gospel the world is now growen vnto considered, it was litle neede to teache such Doctrine in open Bookes at these daies.

A Comparison of Errours, with whiche M. Iewel chargeth me, and I on the other side, charge him. The 16. Chapter.

BIcause Reader M. Iewel to excuse a few errours, with which I charged the Authour of the Apolo∣gie, chargeth me likewise with errours, and ouer∣sightes, committed in my Confutation, and in my first Reioinder, that it maie appeare euidently vnto thee, who standeth more charged, he, or I, bothe in respecte of the number, and also of the weight of the matter reported in the errours: I wil here truly and plainely reherse those hainous errours, whiche he laieth to my charge, and then also I wil laie forth certaine of his er∣rours, as they came to hande. Certaine I saie, for to laie forth so many as by searche I might easily finde, it would require the charges of an other booke. These then be the great and weighty matters, wherein I seeme to M. Iewel worthy of great blame.

Iewel. in the Viewe of his Vntruthes. B iij. b.

M. Harding maie remember,* 1.561 that he him selfe in steede of the Pro∣phete Osee, hath alleged vs the noble Iosue: and that by an other like ouersight, he hath alleged the 8. booke of Socrates Scholasticus vvhere••s Socrates neuer vvrote but seuen. M. Harding him selfe in hi•• Confutation of the Apologie, in steede of the 22. of Luke, hath prin∣ted the 2. of Luke. Likevvise in his Reioindre, in steede of these vvordes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, be hath printed, and sente vs quite the contrarie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. To be shorte, M. Harding in this selfe same booke, in steede of these vvordes, lulled a sleepe, by errour hath printed, lulled a sheepe.

Harding.

Of al these great and dangerous errours, I acknow∣ledge but one to be mine, which is, that by ouersighte I named Iosue, in steede of Osee. And ô that there were no greater sinne in me, for which I ought to crie God Mercie. And yet that it is an errour, and a faulte too, I confesse: would God, you M. Iewel woulde as readily confesse yours. As for the reste, you muste quarrel with the Printers seruauntes, with whom I am offended: not onely for these faultes, but also for many mo, no lesse then you. Were they diligent and true workemenne, I perceiue touching this case, you should haue litle to say. Now let the indifferent Reader com∣pare these my errours, or rather this my one errour, whiche in so many places you haue obiected vnto me, and whiche onely after so long searche you haue founde, with a fewe of yours noted out of your late booke, intituled The Defence of the Apologie. Sure I am for your excuse, you can not laie the faulte vpon your Printer, nor by any other meanes iustifie them. Thus among other infinite Vntruthes, you say.

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.

Harding.

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,* 1.562 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.* 1.563 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,* 1.564 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,* 1.565 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:* 1.566 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.

* 1.567You 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.

* 1.568Endeuouring to disgrace, as muche as you can, godly and perfite obedience, you doo contemptuously

speake your pleasure,* 1.569 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.* 1.570 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,* 1.571 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.* 1.572 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,* 1.573 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,* 1.574 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.* 1.575

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,* 1.576 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:* 1.577 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:* 1.578 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.* 1.579 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,* 1.580 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.

Al these here following, are not in Heruaeus, but in one Iohannes de Parisijs.

Pagina.	119.	Cap.	13.
162.	12.
399.	13.
400.	12.
13.
401.	19.
405.	13.
13.
528.	16.
532.	16.
533.	20.
536.	11.
12.
13. it should be 14.
Pagina.	537.	Cap.	19.
538.	19.
544.	12. it should be 13.
607.	14.
615.	18.
651.	18.
652.	8.
653.	18.
660.	18.
692.	17.
694.	13.
696.	18.
15.

Now is neuer a one of al these places in Heruaeus, but in Ioannes de Parisiis. Whom M. Iewel maketh a distinct Authour from the other: and yet doth he recite out of the selfe same booke of his diuers sentences, and refer∣reth them vnto him, as it maie appeare.

Pagina.	53.	Cap.	3.
102.	3.
467.	3.
535.	5.
649.	5.
652.	5.

A Note of certaine places of the texte of my Confutation, leafte out by M. Iewel in his Defence.

GOod Reader, I haue here set before thee a briefe Note, or Table of certaine places, of purpose, and guilefully leafte out by M. Iewel in his recital of the texte of my Confutation, printed in the booke of his Defence, whiche places in making this Detection I had occasion to expresse. By the same thou maist see, and as in a fewe haue a taste (for to note al it woulde amounte to a iuste volume) how he deceiueth thee in the reste, bearing the countenance of one, that hath an∣swered the substance of the whole Confutation. For so much he telleth thee him selfe with these wordes.

To ansvver M. Hardinge to euery parcel of his Booke, being so long, it vvould be tedious.* 1.581 VVherefore leauing many his impertinent speaches, and vnnecessarie and vvaste vvordes, I vvil touche onely so muche thereof, as shal beare some shevve of substance, and maie any vvaie seeme vvorthy to be ansvvered.

How wel and truely M. Iewel hath kepte this pro∣mise, and how at the first greeting, and entrie of his Booke he begileth thee, by these fewe places here no∣ted, and in this Detection at large set forth, thou shalt see and perceiue. For trial therefore of his truthe, haue recourse vnto the leaues of this Booke here quo∣ted, and looke what places of the Texte of my Con∣futation there recited, be comprehended within two starres (as I doo also there in the Margent warne thee) assure thy selfe, that al those, and an infinite number of

suche other places, are by M. Iewel in this his Defence quite leafte out, as if no such thing had ben written. And then whether such places by him so leafte out, be but im∣pertinent speaches, and vnnecessarie and waste wordes, or right worthy to be answered, I leaue it to thine owne indifferent iudgement to discerne. Verely if it maie be lawful thus to deale in the handling of Controuersies, it shal not seeme harde to confute the workes of any wri∣te••, be they neuer so learned and substancial.

But nowe to the Note, wherein I direct thee, to the Leaues and Pages of this my Detection, in such order, as by occasion such his false sleightes haue bene by me de∣tected.

• The first place. fol. 3. b. line. 27. vntil. fol. 4. a. line. 9.
• The ij. fol. 21. b. line. 31. vntil. fol. 22. a. line. 3.
• The iij. fol. 43. b. line. 7.
• The iiij. fol. 45. a line. 6.
• The v. fol. 121. b. line. 28.
• The vj. fol. 129. a. line. 16.
• The vij. fol. 129. b. line. 8.
• The viij. fol. 193. a. line. 22.
• The ix. fol. 193. b. line. 4.
• The x. Ibidem. line last.
• The xj. fol. 194. a. line. 29.
• The xij. fol. eodem. b. line. 10.
• The xiij. and xiiij. fol. 195. a line. 7. and line 28.
• The xv. fol. eodem. b. line. 17.
• The xvj. fol. 196. a. line. 11.
• The xvij. fol. eodem. b. line. 13.
• The xviij. fol. 197. a. line. 15.
• The xix. fol. eodem. b. line. 2.

• The xx. fol. 198. a. line. 2.
• The xxj. fol. 230. a. line. 24.
• The xxij. fol. 278. b. line. 4.
• The xxiij. fol. eodē. line. 24.
• The xxiiij. fol. 279. a. line. 18.
• The xxv. fol. 279. b. line. 23.
• The xxvj. fol. 280. a. line. 6.

M. Iewelles most shamelesse and most notorious Lies, (other common vntruthes of false alleaging and false translating, omitted) noted in such or∣der, as they lie in this Detection confuted.

• The first lie. fol. 1. b. line. 27.
• The ij. fol. 3. a. line. 15.
• The iij. fol. 4. a. line. 17.
• The iiij. fol. 6. a. line. 5.
• The v. fol. 6. b. line. 25. and 7. a. l. 17.
• The vj. fol. 7. b. line. 12.
• The vij. fol. 8. b. line. 15.
• The viij. fol. 9. b. line. 12.
• The ix. fol. 10. b. line. 19.
• The x. ibidem. line. 28.
• The xj. fol. 12. b. line. 25.
• The xij. fol. 13. b. line. 9.
• The xiij. xiiij. and xv. fol. 15. a. line. 3.
• The xvj. xvij. and xviij. fol. 16. b. line. 5.
• The xix. and xx. fol. 19. a. line. 2. and 17.
• The xxj. xxij. xxiij. xxiiij. xxv. and xxvj. fol. 20. b. l. 6.
• The xxvij. fol. 45. b. line 30.
• The xxviij. fol. 46. a. line. 28.
• The xxix. and xxx. fol. 47. a. line. 4. and 26.

• The xxxj. fol. 48. a. line. 20.
• The xxxij. fol. 62. a. line. 22.
• The xxxiij. fol. 63. a. line. 13.
• The xxxiiij. fol. 64. a. line. 25.
• The xxxv. fol. 66. b. line. 10.
• The xxxvj. fol. 67. a. line. 24.
• The xxxvij. fol. 74. b. line. 28.
• The xxxviij. and xxxix. fol. 75. a. line. 10. and 18.
• The xl. fol. 78. b line. 14.
• The xlj. fol. 81. a. line. 17.
• The xlij. fol. 81. b. line. 26.
• The xliij. fol. 82. b. line. 9.
• The xliiij. xlv. and xlvj. fol. 83. b. line. 23. 28.
• The xlvij. fol. 84. b. line. 8.
• The xlviij. fol. 85. b. line. 1.
• The xlix. fol. 87. b. line. 20.
• The l. fol. 88. a. line. 17.
• The lj. fol. 93. a. line. 22.
• The lij. fol. 95. a. line. 23.
• The liij. fol. 96. a. line. 11.
• The liiij. fol. 98. a. line. 10.
• The lv. conteniing more then v. petit Vntruthes in it fol. 99. a. 100. a. line. 9.
• The lvj. fol. 100. b. line. 3.
• The lvij. fol. 101. b. line. 13.
• The lviij. fol. 102. a. line. last.
• The lix. fol. 103. a. line. 7.
• The lx. and lxj. fol. 106. a. line. 2. 3.
• The lxij. fol. 108. a. line. 27.
• The lxiij. most vile and filthy. fol. 120. a. line. 24. 121. lines 16. & sequent.

• The lxiiij. fol. 128. b. line. 17.
• The lxv. 145. a. line. 17.
• The lxvj. and lxvij. fol. 169. b. lines 14. and 15.
• The lxviij. lxix. lxx. and lxxj. fol. 171. a. lines. 24. 25. 26. and 27. Item fol. 171. b. and 172. a.
• The lxxij. fol. 172. b. line. 3.
• The lxxiij. fol. 186. b. line. 21.
• The lxxiiij. fol. 187. b. line. 16.
• The lxxv. fol. 189. a. line. 21.
• The lxxvj. fol. 207. a. line. 22.
• The lxxvij. fol. 209. b. line last.
• The lxxviij. fol. 215. a. line. 21.
• The lxxix. fol. 229. b. line. 8.
• The lxxx. fol. 232. a. line. 6.
• The lxxxj. most Impudent. fol. 232. b. line. 20.
• The lxxxij. fol. 234. a. line. 2. b. 18.
• The lxxxiij. fol. 245. b. line. 20.
• The lxxxiiij. fol. 249. a. line. 24.
• The lxxxv. fol. 249. b. line. 20.
• The lxxxvj. fol. 251. a. line. 14.
• The lxxxvij. fol. 253. b. line. first.
• The lxxxviij. fol. 255. b. line. 19.
• The lxxxix. fol. 256. b. line. 12.
• The xc. fol. 262. b. line. 28.
• The xcj. and xcij. fol. 263. a. lines. 5. and 15.
• The xciij. and xciiij. fol. 263. b. lines. 17. and 21.
• The xcv. and xcvj. fol. 264. a. lines. 7. and 18.
• The xcvij. fol. 265. b. line. 15.
• The xcviij. fol. 266 a. line. 3.
• The xcix. fol. 266. b. line. 25.
• The c. fol. 268. b. line. 2.

• The cj. fol. 269. a. line. 18.
• The cij. fol. 271. b. line. 1.
• The .ciij. fol. 282. b. line. 3.
• The ciiij. fol. 283. b. line. 23.
• The cv. fol. 285. a. line. 18.
• The cvj. fol. 285. a. line. 24.
• The cvij. fol. 285. b. line. 28.
• The cviij. fol. 286. a. line. 17.
• The cix. fol. 287. a. line. 3.
• The cx. fol. 287. b. line. 6.
• The cxj. fol. 288. a. line. 19.
• The cxij. fol. 288. a. line. 21.
• The cxiij. fol. 290. a. line. 17.
• The cxiiij. fol. 296. b. line. 25.
• The cxv. fol. 299. b. line. 15.
• The cxvj. fol. 302. a. line. 17.
• The cxvij. fol. 303. a. line. 15.
• The cxviij. fol. 305. a. line. 7.
• The cxix. fol. 305. a. line. 22.
• The cxx. fol. 306. a. line. 10.
• The cxxj. fol. 308. a. line. 16.
• The cxxij. fol. 309. a. line. 25.
• The cxxiij. fol. 321. b. line. 22.
• The cxxiiij. fol. 322. a. line. 14.
• The cxxv. fol. 323. b. line. 28.
• The cxxvj. fol. 327. b. line. 7.
• The cxxvij. fol. 333. b. line. 20.
• The cxxviij. fol. 335. a. line. 1.
• The cxxix. fol. 342. a. line. 14.
• The cxxx. fol. 345. a. line. 6.
• The cxxxj. fol. 347. a. line. 26.

• The cxxxij. fol. 352. a. line. 14.
• The cxxxiij. fol. 356. a. line. 4.
• The cxxxiiij. fol. 357. b. line. 2.
• The cxxxv. fol. 358. b. line. 13.
• The cxxxvj. fol. 360. b line. 3.
• The cxxxvii. fol. 370. b. line. 6.
• The cxxxviij. fol. 373. b. line. 2.
• The cxxxix. fol. 380. b. line. 4.
• The cxl. fol. 381. b. line. 20.
• The cxlj. fol. 382. a. line. 16.
• The cxlij. fol. 383. a. line. 19.
• The cxliij. fol. 387. a. line. 13.
• The cxliiij. fol. 391. b. line. 15.
• The cxlv. fol. 392. b. line. 19.
• The cxlvj. fol. 399. a. line. 21.
• The cxlvij. fol. 401. a. line. 31.
• The cxlviij. fol. 402 b. line. 23.
• The cxlix. fol. 404. a. line. 12.
• The cl. fol. 406. b. line. 2.
• The clj. fol. 410. a. line. 15.
• The clij. fol. 412. a. line. 18.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Hebre. 13.
• * 1.2

  Psal. 75.
• * 1.3

  Matt. 19.
• * 1.4

  Vovve-breakers in vvhat danger they stād. 1. Tim. 5.
• * 1.5

  Frō starre to starre leafte out of M Iev∣els booke VVhat the Fa∣thers haue iud¦ged of ma¦riages af∣ter vovv of chasti∣tie. De bono viduitatis
• * 1.6

  lib. de vir∣ginitate
• * 1.7

  Leaft out by M. Iev.
• * 1.8

  Clerkes boūde to cōtinēcie Li. 1. c. 11 Paphuti∣us. Li. 1. c. 23.
• * 1.9

  Leaft out by M. Iev. Siritius and Inno¦centius vver not the first ordeiners of clerkes cōtinēcie.
• * 1.10

  1. Cor. 7.
• * 1.11

  Ansvver to Chry∣sostoms place.
• * 1.12

  In 1. cap. ad Tit. ho∣mil. 2.
• * 1.13

  Tvvise married may not be Bi∣shops, ād vvhy? Secōd ma¦riages lau¦ful, yet o∣pen to ac∣cusations Leaft out by M. Iev,
• * 1.14

  Leaft out by M. Iev. Big••mie lauful ra∣ther then cōmenda∣ble. leafte out by M. Iev. The Biga¦mie of the gospel∣lers con∣dēned by Chryso∣stom and Paule-Strōpets,
• * 1.15

  After ho¦ly orders receiued mariage neuer cō∣pted lau∣ful amōg catholi∣kes.
• * 1.16

  Priestes maryed in Englād in the ti∣me of An∣selmus.
• * 1.17

  The Fa∣thers be on our side by M. Iewels ovvne confessiō.
• * 1.18

  Heb. 13. To marrie vnlauful in tvvo cases.
• * 1.19

  The foure thinges that in this mat∣ter M. Ievvel hath to defende.
• * 1.20

  VVhat is that M. Ievvel. perfour¦meth in this ma∣ter of Priestes and Vo∣taries marria∣ges.
• * 1.21

  M Iewels order in his trea∣tie of this pointe, and his tvvo princi∣ples.
• * 1.22

  M. Iewels tvvo Princi∣ples.
• * 1.23

  Ansvver to M. Ie∣vvels do∣ctours.
• * 1.24

  The Fa∣thers cal immode∣rate luste, an euil thing, for vvhiche they be thought of some vnlear∣ned, to reproue marriage De pecca∣to origina¦li contra Pelag. & Coelestiū. lib. 2. c. 37 Lib 1. de Nuptiu et Concupis∣cent. c. 22
• * 1.25

  Gen. 3.
• * 1.26

  August. in Psal. 70.
• * 1.27

  Opere im∣perfecto in Matth. Hom. 1. sub finem.
• * 1.28

  VVhat is that vvhich is of the Fa∣thers ac∣compted euil in vvedlok vvorke.
• * 1.29

  August. de Nuptijs et concupis∣cent. lib. 1. cap. 24.
• * 1.30

  The euil thing of wedlock vvorke of mar∣ried per∣sons vvel vsed. The three good thinges of mar∣riage. à cap. 10. vsque ad cap. 16.
• * 1.31

  August. de Nuptus et Concupis. lib. 1. ca. 5.
• * 1.32

  August. de peccato originali contra Pelag. & Coelestiū lib. 2. c. 37
• * 1.33

  Tettulliā of a mar∣ried man made Priest. Spiridion made Bis∣shop frō being a married laie man. S. Hilarie married by M. Ievvel. In the Re∣ioinder against the Sa∣crifice of the Masse fol. 172. b.
• * 1.34

  Chaeremō
• * 1.35

  Euseb. Hist. Ec∣cles. lib. 6. cap 42.
• * 1.36

  Polycra∣tes.
• * 1.37

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.38

  Ruffinus belied.
• * 1.39

  Hiero. in Catalo∣go. in Po∣lycrate.
• * 1.40

  Ignat. ad Philadelp. Origen falsified by M. Ievvel. Origen. in Commēt. in epist. ad Rom. c. 1. VVhe∣ther S. Paule had a vvife ot no by the opi∣nion of S. Am∣brose. M. Ievv∣els foule contradi∣ctions. Replie. Article. 17. Diui∣sion. 11.
• * 1.41

  Ambros. in 2. Cor. 11.
• * 1.42

  Hieron. contra Io∣uinian. Lib. 1. In the 2. Keioin∣der. fol. ••75. b.
• * 1.43

  Distin. 56 Osius. A vaine and a fonde thing as∣cribed to Damasus, as though he vvrote of thīges done lōg after his death.
• * 1.44

  Pope Ho∣sius, a Pope of M. Iewels making.
• * 1.45

  Palea.
• * 1.46

  Distinct. 56. in Glossa.
• * 1.47

  AEneas Syluius.
• * 1.48

  Polydorus Vergil.
• * 1.49

  Fabian.
• * 1.50

  Cyril in Leuitic. Lib. 3.
• * 1.51

  Confutat. fol. 73. b.
• * 1.52

  Defence. pag. 163.
• * 1.53

  M. Ievvel ful coldly maketh that but reasona∣ble, and cōueniēt, that is ne¦cessary.
• * 1.54

  The Foū∣ders, and chiefe maisters of this nevv Go∣spel are iudged vnreaso∣nable mē by M. I. him selfe.
• * 1.55

  Forgerie.
• * 1.56

  VVhat hath M. Ievvel to say in de∣fence of the vota∣ries mari¦ages in o¦ther lādes besides England?
• * 1.57

  That prie¦stes of En¦gland be Votaties.
• * 1.58

  The vovv of chasti∣tie anne∣xed vnto holy Or∣ders.
• * 1.59

  The vovve of Chastitie required at the ta∣king of Subdea∣conship.
• * 1.60

  Grego. li. 1. epi. 42.
• * 1.61

  Nouell. 123.
• * 1.62

  Concil. Carthag. 2. Ca. 2. Leo epist. 92. ca. 3.
• * 1.63

  Distin. 31. Quoniam.
• * 1.64

  Chastitie promised at the ra∣king of holy Or∣ders also in the aū∣cient Gre∣ke Church Concil. Neocaesar. Cap. 1.
• * 1.65

  Concil. Ancyran. cap. 10.
• * 1.66

  Concil. Gangren. in fine.
• * 1.67

  Concil. Laodicēs. cap. 24.
• * 1.68

  Origen. in Numer. homil. 23.
• * 1.69

  Canonum. Apost. can. 25.
• * 1.70

  Vovv of Chastitie made in facte, though no vvor∣des be spoken.
• * 1.71

  Promises other, ād Grauntes, made in deede vvithout vvorde.
• * 1.72

  Souldier.
• * 1.73

  Proselyti.
• * 1.74

  Thurifica∣ti.
• * 1.75

  Vovv of Chastitie made in silence. Concil. Ancyran. cap. 10.
• * 1.76

  The sum∣me of M. Ievvels al∣legations for proufe of priestes marriages
• * 1.77

  Bonifac. 8. in c. vnico. de voto. in 6. The deter¦mination of the Churche, in vvhat case of a Vovve made mar¦riage hol∣deth, in vvhat case it holdeth not. For vvhat reason marriage holdeth in the case of a Sim∣ple Vovv, other∣vvise in the case of a So∣lemne Vovve.
• * 1.78

  M. Dor∣man de∣fended a∣gainst M. Ievvel. Defence pag. 169. Dorman in his first booke, fo 16. b.
• * 1.79

  M. Ievvel chargeth the holy Fathers vvith o∣uersight for zele and heat.
• * 1.80

  22. quaest. 4. In ma∣lis.
• * 1.81

  Marc. 6. Act. 23. 22. quaest. 4. Inter caetera.
• * 1.82

  Iudic. 11.
• * 1.83

  Mat. 19. 1. Cor. 7.
• * 1.84

  Iouinians heresie.
• * 1.85

  Concil. To letan. 8. Cap. 7. in Epitom. Married Priestes of olde times cal∣led Apo∣states.
• * 1.86

  Alphonsus de Castro alleged by M. Ievvel in stede of Alphonsus Viruesius Episcopus Canariē.
• * 1.87

  Viruesius Philippica 19.
• * 1.88

  Novv M. Ievv. cō∣meth to the point at length.
• * 1.89

  Distinct. 31. Quo∣niam. in Margine.
• * 1.90

  In vvhat sense are the Greke Priestes Votaries.
• * 1.91

  M. Iewels chiefe au∣toritie is a margi∣nal note vpon the Glose.
• * 1.92

  Distinct. 31. Quo∣niam.
• * 1.93

  Concil. Ancyran. cap. 9.
• * 1.94

  Ansvver vnto the Canon of the Coū¦cel of An∣cyra.
• * 1.95

  Concil. Ancyran. cap. 10.
• * 1.96

  The case of our Apostates is not like vnto this case.
• * 1.97

  Dist. 31. Aliter.
• * 1.98

  Glos. dist. 31. Aliter.
• * 1.99

  Diuersitie betvven the East, and vvest Churche touching libertie of Clerks mariages
• * 1.100

  Distin. 32. Si quis eorum.
• * 1.101

  Cathari∣nus con∣tra erro∣res Caie∣tani, er∣rore. 103.
• * 1.102

  Caietan. in Opusc. lib. 5. tra∣ctatu. 27.
• * 1.103

  vvhether the Pope may dis¦pense vvith a Priest, or religious person to marrie in a case.
• * 1.104

  Raymeri•• made kīg of Aragō of a Mōke and mar∣ried by dispensa∣tion. See the historie of Fran∣ciscus Ta∣rapha.
• * 1.105

  Munster. Cosmo∣graphiae, lib. 3. in Schlesia. & lib. 4. in Polonia Mart. Cro¦merus.
• * 1.106

  Athanas. ad Dra∣contium.
• * 1.107

  Cassio. li. 6. cap. 14
• * 1.108

  A falshod in excu∣sable, and in tolle∣rable of M. Ievv.
• * 1.109

  Histor. Tripartit. lib. 6. c. 14
• * 1.110

  Sozomen. lib. 5. c. 11
• * 1.111

  An impu∣dent fal∣sifying.
• * 1.112

  Nicepho∣rus be∣lyed by M. Ievv. Defence. pag. 514.
• * 1.113

  Nicepho∣rus. lib. 1•• cap. 20.
• * 1.114

  Dist. 84. Cum in praeterit•• in Glossa.
• * 1.115

  Apolli∣naris the elder not married, after he was made Priest.
• * 1.116

  Chrysost. in Epist. 1 ad Timo. Homil. 1••
• * 1.117

  M. Ievvel nippeth of vvor∣des of his doctor.
• * 1.118

  It is a hard thīg that mar∣riage should not be a lette vn∣to the per¦fites life by iudge∣mēt of S. Chryso∣stom.
• * 1.119

  M. Ievvel buildeth his prouf vpō a for¦ged sen∣tence ad∣ded vnto S. Chry∣sostome.
• * 1.120

  I•• prim. cap Titi. hom. 2.
• * 1.121

  1. Cor. 7.
• * 1.122

  Tit. 1. ho. 2
• * 1.123

  M. Ievv. in his de∣fence pa. 175. vseth false trā∣slation.
• * 1.124

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Pag. 164.
• * 1.125

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.126

  VVhat secōd mar¦riage not forbiddē by the lavves.
• * 1.127

  Erasmus, and Cor∣nel. Agrip∣pa.
• * 1.128

  Caietan. in Quod libet.
• * 1.129

  VVhere of is it, that the Marriage of Prie∣stes in the vvest Church is vnlavv∣ful. Statute of the Chur∣che and Vovvan∣nexed.
• * 1.130

  VVhat meaneth Caietane by this vvorde, Absolu¦tely.
• * 1.131

  Anselmus in Dialog. Inquisitio∣ne prima.
• * 1.132

  Anselmus vvrong∣fully ma∣de a spo∣kesman for the A∣postates marriage.
• * 1.133

  Lying much v∣sed of this defender.
• * 1.134

  Sozome∣nas, Gre∣gorie Na∣zianzene
• * 1.135

  Eusebius belyed by the auc∣thour of the Apo∣logie.
• * 1.136

  A bishop is not a∣ble to do his mini∣sterie the better for that he is maried to a vvife.
• * 1.137

  Leaft out by M. I.
• * 1.138

  Left out by M. Iev
• * 1.139

  Left out by M. Ie. The place of Sozo∣menus examined
• * 1.140

  Cap. 5. lib. 1. cap. 11.
• * 1.141

  Left out by M. Ie.
• * 1.142

  Spiridion
• * 1.143

  Ecclesiast. Histo. lib. 10. cap. 4. & 5.
• * 1.144

  The place of Sozo∣menus al∣leaged by the defen∣der ma∣keth vt∣terly a∣gainst them. Leaft out by Mil.
• * 1.145

  Nazian∣zenes vvordes returned vpon the defender.
• * 1.146

  Leaft out by M.I.
• * 1.147

  Tit. 1.
• * 1.148

  The vvordes importe it not.
• * 1.149

  I beseche thee also Reader to vveigh my Ansvver.
• * 1.150

  Vntruth for then he vvas not Bi∣shop, but an infidel Nazian. in Epita∣phi•• patris.
• * 1.151

  She vvas his Mai∣stresse before he knevv, vvhat the faith of Christ vvas yet they serue you to no purpose. False. He vvas not then Bishop of Na∣zianzum, nor yet a Christian.
• * 1.152

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 VVhat a do vvould this fellovv make, if he had me at a Vantage in deede, that thus fareth vvithout cause, as by the ansvver it shal better appeare.
• * 1.153

  M. Ievv∣els gay e∣loquence minister-like.
• * 1.154

  Spiridiō, and Gre∣gorie Na∣zianze∣nes fa∣ther.
• * 1.155

  M. Ievvel defēdeth after his manner but fevv partes of the Apo∣logie.
• * 1.156

  In vvhat respecte saith Na∣zianzen of his Mother, that she vvas to his Fa∣ther, a lea∣der. &c.
• * 1.157

  M. Iewels falshed discoue∣red.
• * 1.158

  Gregorie Naziāzē expoun∣ded.
• * 1.159

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. fol. 124. a. Aldi. Hypsista∣rij vvhat menne they were
• * 1.160

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.161

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Gregorie the Fa∣thers Vi∣sion.
• * 1.162

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Gregorie the Fa∣thers Vi∣sion.
• * 1.163

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Gregorie the Fa∣thers Vi∣sion.
• * 1.164

  Psal. 121.
• * 1.165

  Faithful vviues haue ben cause of their hus∣bandes conuer∣sion to the faith. Monica S. Augu∣stines Mo¦ther la∣boured to cōuert Patricius her hus∣band. Confessio∣num. li. 9. cap. 9.
• * 1.166

  1. Cor. 7.
• * 1.167

  Heb. 13.
• * 1.168

  VVith vvhat stuffe M. Ievv. fur∣nisheth out this pointe at large. Defence Pag. 187. 188. 189.
• * 1.169

  Pag. 165.
• * 1.170

  Pag. 166.
• * 1.171

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.172

  Pag. 167.
• * 1.173

  Pag. 168. 169.
• * 1.174

  Luc. 1.
• * 1.175

  Pag. 170. 1. Tim. 5.
• * 1.176

  Pag. 171.
• * 1.177

  Pag. 172.
• * 1.178

  Pag. 173.
• * 1.179

  Pag. 174
• * 1.180

  Pag. 175. Chrysost. in epist. ad Titum Hom. 2.
• * 1.181

  1. Tim. 5.
• * 1.182

  Pag. 176.
• * 1.183

  Pag. 175.
• * 1.184

  Pag. 182.
• * 1.185

  ••. Tim. 4.
• * 1.186

  Discedent à fide.
• * 1.187

  Pag. 182.
• * 1.188

  1. Cor. 5.
• * 1.189

  1. Tim. 5.
• * 1.190

  Pag. 182.
• * 1.191

  Pag. 183.
• * 1.192

  Infra. li. 5. cap. 15.
• * 1.193

  1. Cor. 7.
• * 1.194

  Pag. 185.
• * 1.195

  Math. 19.
• * 1.196

  1. Cor. 7.
• * 1.197

  1. Cor. 7.
• * 1.198

  In prooem. in prouer. Salomon.
• * 1.199

  The bookes of the Ma∣chabees canonical emonge the faith∣ful.
• * 1.200

  August. de De Ciui∣tat. Dei, lib. 18. ca. ••6.
• * 1.201

  S. Iames epistle.
• * 1.202

  li. 2. c. 23. li. 2. c. 23.
• * 1.203

  Hiero. i•• catalog••.
• * 1.204

  Hiero. i•• catalog•• Ecclesi. script.
• * 1.205

  1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.206

  1. Timo. 3.
• * 1.207

  Esai. 59. Ioan. 14.
• * 1.208

  Matt. 18.
• * 1.209

  Isai. 8.
• * 1.210

  Iere. 31. Hebre. 8.
• * 1.211

  Ioan. 15.
• * 1.212

  M. Ievv. shifteth him selfe from Scri¦pture, to Goddes vvorde.
• * 1.213

  Defence. pag 191.
• * 1.214

  Cōfut fol. 82. b.
• * 1.215

  Galat. 2.
• * 1.216

  In Gen. Ho. 2. Heb. 1. in Iob. 27.
• * 1.217

  2. Cor. hom. 18.
• * 1.218

  Ibidem.
• * 1.219

  Homil. 18. in 2. Cor.
• * 1.220

  Preaching not vvrit∣ten.
• * 1.221

  Aug. de Doctrinae Christ. li. 1. in prolo∣go.
• * 1.222

  Aug. de scalis pa∣radisi .c. 11
• * 1.223

  Basil. de Spiritu Sancto. cap. 27.
• * 1.224

  Traditiōs.
• * 1.225

  Actor. 15.
• * 1.226

  Luke. 10.
• * 1.227

  2. Thess. 2.
• * 1.228

  Hieron. in 2. Thes. 2.
• * 1.229

  ••. Cor. 15.
• * 1.230

  M. Ievvels Secret vn¦knovven verities.
• * 1.231

  Homil. 69. Ad populū Antiochē.
• * 1.232

  Epist. ••6.
• * 1.233

  Lenten fast is not founde in the Apo∣stles vvri¦tinges, but in the Aposto∣like Tra∣ditions. Aug. in e∣pist. 86.
• * 1.234

  Custom is a lavve.
• * 1.235

  Augustin. epist. 118.
• * 1.236

  In catalo∣go.
• * 1.237

  Gennadi∣in catal. in Heluid.
• * 1.238

  Docu∣mentes
• a 1.239

  In pro∣oemi. in Luc.
• b 1.240

  cōt. Fau lib. 22.
• c 1.241

  80. li. 6. ca. 2.
• * 1.242

  Clemēs Alexand. li. strō. 1
• * 1.243

  1. Tim. 3.
• * 1.244

  Luc. 10. Mat. 18.
• * 1.245

  Ephes. 5.
• * 1.246

  Gen. 2.
• * 1.247

  Sacramēt Mysterie.
• * 1.248

  Matt. 19.
• * 1.249

  Gen. 17.
• * 1.250

  August. lib. 1. de Nupt. & Concupis. cap. 10. Ephes. 5.
• * 1.251

  The thing of the Sa∣crament of Matri∣monie.
• * 1.252

  The chief significa∣tion of Matrimo∣nie.
• * 1.253

  August li. de Nuptijs & Concu∣pisc.
• * 1.254

  Math. 19.
• * 1.255

  In this place M. Iewel set∣teth vs forth a great many of Phrases.
• * 1.256

  Sacramē∣tes are the ordi∣narie meanes vvherby to receiue grace in our Soules. Marci 16. Chryso∣stomus ad Hebrae. Homil. 14 1. Cor. 10. Iohan. 20. Iacob. 5.
• * 1.257

  In Psal. 73.
• * 1.258

  Contrà Faust. Manich. lib. 19. cap. 14.
• * 1.259

  1. Cor. 11. Ioan. 6.
• * 1.260

  Math. 5. Math. 24.
• * 1.261

  In Math. Homil. 49
• * 1.262

  Math. 24 Marc. 13.
• * 1.263

  Ambro. de iis qui ini∣tiantur myster. c. 9.
• * 1.264

  Chryso. ad Heb. Ho∣mil. 17.
• * 1.265

  Reserua∣tion of the Sacra¦ment of the Alter
• a 1.266

  In Apo∣logia. 2.
• b 1.267

  Apud Euseb. lib. 5. c. 24.
• c 1.268

  In epist. ad Rustic. Monachū. Math. 24. Arius. Nestorius Hus. Luther. Zuinglius
• * 1.269

  Suenck∣feldius.
• * 1.270

  VValdo.
• * 1.271

  Bernardi. Ochinus.
• * 1.272

  Osiander.
• * 1.273

  Brentius.
• * 1.274

  Anabap∣tistes.
• * 1.275

  Puritanes
• * 1.276

  Math. 5.
• a 1.277

  Lib. 2. epist. 3.
• b 1.278

  Ad He∣liodor, & ad Eua∣grium.
• * 1.279

  Luc. 24.
• * 1.280

  Lib. 4. cap. 32.
• * 1.281

  In Iohan. Tract. 26
• * 1.282

  1 Cor. 11.
• * 1.283

  In Math. cap. 15.
• * 1.284

  Origen. in Mat. c. 15.
• * 1.285

  Figura∣tiue bo∣die.
• * 1.286

  Origen fovvly corrup∣ted by M. Ievv.
• * 1.287

  In Iohan. Tract. 5••
• * 1.288

  Seuen Sa∣crametes. August. de Ciuit. Dei li. 11. c. 30. & de do∣ctrina Christia∣na lib. 2. cap. 16.
• * 1.289

  Conci. Flo¦rentin. in vnione Armenio∣rum.
• * 1.290

  Act. 8. Iacob. 5. Luc. 22. Ioan. 20.
• * 1.291

  De Sacra∣mēt•• Eu∣charistia.
• * 1.292

  M. Ievvel belyeth the an∣cient Fa∣thers tou∣ching the number of the Sa∣cramētes. Dionysius De Ec∣clesiast. Hierarch. Tertulliā. lib. de re∣sur. carnis. Cyprian. lib. 2. Epist. 1. ad Stephanū. Bessarion de Sacra∣mēto Eu∣charistiae. Bessarion belyed by M. Ievvel.
• * 1.293

  Bessarion De Sacra¦mento Eu∣charistiae.
• * 1.294

  The 7. Sa∣cramētes proued out of S. Augu∣stine. Augusti∣niana Cō∣fessio.
• * 1.295

  Incer∣taintie of M. Iewels doctrine. Pag. 215. Pag. 216. Pag. 215.
• * 1.296

  Pag. 216.
• * 1.297

  Pag. 217.
• * 1.298

  Ioban. 3.
• * 1.299

  Augusti∣nus Epist. 23.
• * 1.300

  Rom. 7.
• * 1.301

  1. Pet. 3.
• * 1.302

  Gal. 6. Chrysost. Ibidem ad Galatas.
• * 1.303

  Rom. 7.
• * 1.304

  Rom. 8.
• * 1.305

  Ibidem.
• * 1.306

  Rom. 8.
• * 1.307

  Lib. 10. epist. 84.
• * 1.308

  1. Ioan. 1.
• * 1.309

  Contra Iulianum lib. 5. c. 3.
• * 1.310

  Augustin. cōt. duas epist. Pela¦gi. li. 1. ca. 13.
• * 1.311

  Matt. 26. That these vvordes, this is my body, this is my Bloude, are meant properly. Tertulliā. de resurr. Carnis.
• * 1.312

  The flesh is the meane, vvhereby the grace of God passeth vnto the soule.
• * 1.313

  Coloss. 2.
• * 1.314

  Ambros. de Sacra∣ment. li. 6. cap. 1.
• * 1.315

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.316

  Ioan. 1.
• * 1.317

  Christe is touched novv of vs. Luc. 6.
• * 1.318

  Chrysost. in epistol. ad ephes. homil. 3.
• * 1.319

  Christe holdē in our hand.
• * 1.320

  Leo ser∣mone. 6. de ieiunio. 7. mensis. Christes bodie is receiued vvith mouthe.
• * 1.321

  Cyrillus lib. 10. in Ioan. c. 13.
• * 1.322

  Hilarius de trinit. lib. 8. Gregorius in Euan∣gelia ho∣mil. 22.
• * 1.323

  Ad ephes. homil. 3.
• * 1.324

  VVhom S. Chryso∣stom cal∣leth a Ca∣techumē, M. Ievvel interpre∣teth a Heathen.
• * 1.325

  Chrysost. ad ephes. homil. 3.
• * 1.326

  Augustin. cōt. episto. Parmeni∣ani. lib. 3. cap. 4.
• * 1.327

  In 1. Cor. homi. 27. 1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.328

  Matt. 26. The lite∣ral mea∣ning of drink ye al of this.
• * 1.329

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.330

  Augustin. de consen∣su Euan∣gelistarū. lib. 3. c. 1. Enim. Matt. 26. Drinke ye al of this, in vvhat s••••se vvas it spokē. Marc. 14.
• * 1.331

  Paschasi∣us spea∣keth of the spiri∣tual eatīg or drin∣king. Paschasi∣us ca. 15.
• * 1.332

  ca. 15.
• * 1.333

  Sermone 4. De qua drages.
• * 1.334

  M. Ievvel forgeth vvordes vpon his Aduersa∣rie.
• * 1.335

  The Ma∣nichees heresie denying Christes true flesh.
• * 1.336

  Sermone 4. De qua dragesim.
• * 1.337

  In Iohan. Tract. 59.
• * 1.338

  Iohan. 6. That vve receiue our ma∣ker in the B. Sa∣crament.
• * 1.339

  The bles∣sed Sacra∣ment our Lord, and maker by verdit of S. Augu∣stine. Augustin. in Iohan. Tract. 59. 1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.340

  Augustin. Epist. 162. Iudas did care his maker.
• * 1.341

  Ambros. de ijs qui initiant. cap. 9.
• * 1.342

  Math. 26.
• * 1.343

  Ambros. De Sacra∣ment. li. 4. cap. 4. Chrysost. De Eucha∣ristia in Encenijs.
• a. 1.344

  Sermo∣ne 5. de Pascha.
• b. 1.345

  in cate∣chetica Oratione.
• c. 1.346

  in Leuit cap. 22.
• d 1.347

  in Io∣han. 6.
• e. 1.348

  de or∣thodoxa fide. li. 4. cap. 14. Theophy∣lact in ca. Math. ••6.
• * 1.349

  S, Am∣brose saith not so. Phie, vvhat fal¦sifiyng is this?
• * 1.350

  Confutat. fol. 97.
• * 1.351

  M. Ievvel defendeth his parte by falsifi∣yng S. Ambrose Ambros. de Sacra. lib. 4. cap. 4.
• * 1.352

  De ijs qui initiantur mysterijs. cap. 9.
• * 1.353

  Ibidem.
• * 1.354

  Lanfran∣cus in lib. de sacra∣mento Eu¦charist.
• * 1.355

  In Math. cap. 18.
• * 1.356

  How the Church is resolued in doubt∣ful cases.
• * 1.357

  Iohan. 21. Luc. 22.
• * 1.358

  Math. 18.
• * 1.359

  Act. 20.
• * 1.360

  Concil. La¦teranen. ca. 1.
• * 1.361

  In lib. de Dialecti.
• * 1.362

  1. Cor. 11.
• * 1.363

  Luc. 22.
• * 1.364

  The fruit of the vine.
• * 1.365

  That after cōsecrati∣on there vvas no more the substance of vvine in Chri∣stes cup. Luc. 22.
• * 1.366

  Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 10.
• * 1.367

  Chrysost. in Ephe hom. 3.
• * 1.368

  Augustin. epist. 86.
• * 1.369

  Oecume∣nius in cap. 11. 1. Cor.
• * 1.370

  Adoratiō.
• * 1.371

  Paralip. Vrsper. an∣no. 1518.
• * 1.372

  De vene∣rab. Sacra¦mento al∣taris. c. 1.
• * 1.373

  Deincruē∣to Sacrifi∣cio.
• * 1.374

  Beza in c. Luc. 22.
• * 1.375

  The me¦rites of Christes death be not rec••i∣ued by Faith on∣ly.
• * 1.376

  Tit. 3.
• * 1.377

  Christes Merites receiued by Loue, or chari∣tie. Luc. 7. 1. Cor. 13.
• * 1.378

  Matth. 5.
• * 1.379

  Philipp. 2.
• * 1.380

  in Ioan. tractatu. ••0.
• * 1.381

  in Leuit. lib. 4. ca. 14.
• * 1.382

  Lib. 4. cap. 14.
• * 1.383

  Saue vs o blessed virgin, in vvhat sense is i•• taken.
• * 1.384

  1. Tim. 4.
• * 1.385

  Ibidem.
• * 1.386

  Hovv it is lavvful to saie in praier. su¦per Tho∣mae San¦guinem, and the like. Esai. 37.
• * 1.387

  Philip. 1.
• * 1.388

  Prayer of good mē and Gods spirit ioy¦ned to∣gether in healping vs.
• * 1.389

  S. Marie the virgī is the ad∣uocate of Eue. Irenaeus li. 5.
• * 1.390

  Gregorius in mono∣dia. Idem. in laudem Cypriani. Hilarius in psalm. 124. Homil de 40 marty∣ribus.
• * 1.391

  Hom. 66. ad populū Antioch.
• * 1.392

  De cura pro mort. gerenda. cap. 4.
• * 1.393

  Theodo∣rit. De curatio. graecarum affect. li. 8,
• * 1.394

  Monstra te esse ma¦trem.
• * 1.395

  Pag. 313.
• * 1.396

  Pag. 314. Our lady called Dea by Pet. Bembus.
• * 1.397

  The Coū∣cel of Oxford.
• * 1.398

  Heb. 1.
• * 1.399

  De sanctae virgini∣tate. ca. 3.
• * 1.400

  Ad Rom. c. 1.
• * 1.401

  Ansvver to S. Am∣brose,
• * 1.402

  Rom. 1.
• * 1.403

  Ambros. in lib. de viduis. S. Ambro¦ses minde touching praying to the Saintes.
• * 1.404

  The pra∣ctise of the Chur∣che tou∣ching the prayer to Saints, ād honour to them exhibited
• * 1.405

  Paulinus in vita Ambros••.
• * 1.406

  Seuerus a blinde man by touche of martyrs garment, receiued fighte.
• * 1.407

  Hovv S. Ephrem praied for the helpe of Saints, ā•• to the Saintes.
• * 1.408

  Ephraem De Com∣punctione cordis. li. 1 cap. 13.
• * 1.409

  Ephraem. in orati. de Sanctiss. Dei Matris laudibus.
• * 1.410

  These pe¦titions stand not in this or¦der toge∣ther. But they are truely re∣ported.
• * 1.411

  Ioan. 15.
• * 1.412

  Grace ne∣cessarie to the kee¦ping of Gods cō∣maunde∣mentes. Math. 6.
• * 1.413

  Math. 19. Rom. 2.
• * 1.414

  1. Iohan. 1.
• * 1.415

  Augu. de Spirit. & lit. ca. 27.
• * 1.416

  VVho is luste in this life? Luc. 1.
• * 1.417

  Hierony∣mus ad Ctesiphon∣tem. The Pela∣gians he∣resie vvhat vvas it. August. ad Quoduult Deum. Heres. 88. Ibidem. Heres. 88. A point of heresie common betvven the Pela∣gians, and the Calui∣nistes. Deuteron. 6. Math. 22. Deut, 17.
• * 1.418

  De spiritu & litera cap. 36. Philippē 3
• * 1.419

  Abacuch. 2. Rom. 1. 2. Cor. 5.
• * 1.420

  A lesser righte∣ousnes competēt for this present life.
• * 1.421

  Hovv the pre∣cept of louing God vvith al our po¦vver, is fulfilled in this life.
• * 1.422

  Humaine perfectiō.
• * 1.423

  The lesser righte∣ousnesse. Hierom. lib. 1. ad∣uersus Pe∣lagianos.
• * 1.424

  Hierony∣mus ad Cresiphōt.
• * 1.425

  Hieron. Lib. 1. ad∣uersus Pe∣lagianos. Double Perfectiō.
• * 1.426

  A distin∣ction vvherby al M. Ievvels obeictiōs maie sone be ansvve¦red tou∣ching this point. The Pe∣lagians heresie.
• * 1.427

  In the A∣pologie. Defence, pag. 315.
• * 1.428

  By vvhat meanes vve fulfil the lavv.
• * 1.429

  The glad sufferāce of death for Chri∣stes sake, is one meane to fulfil Godslaw. Cap. 1. & vlt.
• * 1.430

  Ad Ctesi∣phont.
• * 1.431

  1. Tim. 5. Tit. 1.
• * 1.432

  In Artic. 35.
• * 1.433

  Onely Faith be∣come no faith at al. 1. Tim. 5. Faith de∣nied by euil vvor¦kes. Tit. 1. Double knovve∣ledge of God. Of Vnderstā¦ding, and of vvil, and obe∣dience. Naked Faith. Faith clo∣thed vvith Charitie.
• * 1.434

  1. Cor. 13.
• * 1.435

  Iacob. 2.
• * 1.436

  Idle faith, i•• a faith.
• * 1.437

  Iacob. 2.
• * 1.438

  August. epist. 52. Defence. 321.
• * 1.439

  Ecclesia∣stes. 9. Our vvor¦kes con∣sidered in themselfe can not deserue life euer∣lasting.
• * 1.440

  Rom. 8.
• * 1.441

  In vvhat conside∣ratiō are our good vvorkes meritori∣ous of in∣finite re∣vvarde.
• * 1.442

  Matth. 5.
• * 1.443

  1. Cor. 3.
• * 1.444

  Psal. 61.
• * 1.445

  Rom. 2.
• * 1.446

  Reddere
• * 1.447

  Mat. 10.
• * 1.448

  Mat. 20.
• * 1.449

  2. Tim. 4.
• * 1.450

  In vvhat respecte is life euer∣lasting freely ge∣uen, and in vvhat respecte it is due for good vvorkes. Rom. 6.
• * 1.451

  Augustin. epist. 105. VVhether vve haue merites.
• * 1.452

  Ibidem.
• * 1.453

  Ioan. 6.
• * 1.454

  In Ioan. tract. 25.
• * 1.455

  Nicol. Ly∣ra in Psal. 111.
• * 1.456

  Lyra fovvly belied by M. Ievv.
• * 1.457

  Lyra in Psal. 110.
• * 1.458

  Lyra vn∣derstode Christ in the 6. of Iohn to speake of the Eu∣chariste. Ioan. 6.
• * 1.459

  Matthias Doring.
• * 1.460

  Purgen. Additione 1. in Psal. 112.
• * 1.461

  Matthias Doring in replica in Psal. 110.
• * 1.462

  Pag. 324.
• * 1.463

  Cyrill. in Iohā. li. 4. cap. 15.
• * 1.464

  Confut. Fol. 299. ae.
• * 1.465

  Confut. Fol. 302. ae
• * 1.466

  Ambro∣sius. lib. 5. Epist. 32. Priestes only ought to be iudges ouer Priestes by Theo∣sius.
• * 1.467

  An argu¦ment, pro¦uing that a Ciuile Magistrat maie not be iudge oner Priestes in causes ecclesia∣stical, and matters of Faith.
• * 1.468

  ff. ad S. Trebel. L. ille. § Tē∣pestiuum.
• * 1.469

  VVhat it is to be conuēted before a Magi∣strate. Spiegelius in verbo conuenire.
• * 1.470

  Cod. de Episcopis et clericis. L. Nullus.
• * 1.471

  Authent. 83. Coll. 6. vt Clerici apud pro∣prios Epis∣copos.
• * 1.472

  The very point of this Que∣stion.
• * 1.473

  Autent. 83. col. 6. vt Clerici.
• * 1.474

  Cod. de Episco. & clericis. L. Clericus.
• * 1.475

  Anthent. 83. col. 6. vt Clerici.
• * 1.476

  Cod. de Episco. & Clericis. L. Statui∣mus.
• * 1.477

  A Maxi∣ma amōg the lavv∣iers.
• * 1.478

  L. Si qui ex consen∣su, de E∣pisco. Au∣dient. L. Cum Clericis, de Episco. & Cleri∣cis.
• * 1.479

  M. Ievv. forgeth.
• * 1.480

  Cran∣mare.
• * 1.481

  De maior, & obedi∣ent. ca. 2. Innocent. 11. q. 1. Cle¦ric. nullus
• * 1.482

  Extr. de offic. De∣leg. c. Sa∣nè.
• * 1.483

  M. Ievvel begileth his Rea∣der vvith false alle∣gations.
• * 1.484

  2. q. 5. Mennam.
• * 1.485

  VVhat vvas that Bruni∣childis had to do in the cause of Menna by cōmissiō of S. Gre∣gorie.
• * 1.486

  Grego. lib. 11. epist. 8. 2. q. 4. Mennam.
• * 1.487

  M. Iewels forgeries.
• * 1.488

  M. Ievvel corrup∣teth his Glose by nipping avvay the ende of the sen∣tence al∣leged.
• * 1.489

  It is. 2. q. 4.
• * 1.490

  Socrates. lib. 1. c. 34
• * 1.491

  Ruffin. in Histor. Ec∣cles. li. 10. cap. 17. Socrates. Li. 1. c. 29.
• * 1.492

  Of this mater See the Re∣turne. Art. 4. Item the Countre∣blast. lib. 2 Cap. 2. &. 3
• * 1.493

  Authenti∣ca constit. 123.
• * 1.494

  Authenti∣ca constit. 123.
• * 1.495

  Theodorit. li. 1. c. 19.
• * 1.496

  August. cō∣tra epist. Parme. li. 1. cap. 7.
• * 1.497

  M. Ievvels corruptiō
• * 1.498

  Theodorit. lib. 1. cap. 19.
• * 1.499

  Art. 4. fol. 104. 105, 106.
• * 1.500

  Augusti∣nus epist. 162.
• * 1.501

  Ibidem.
• * 1.502

  Optatus li. 1. cōtra Parmen.
• * 1.503

  2. q. 7. Nos si. Gerson in Serm. Pa∣schali.
• * 1.504

  Sozo. lib. 1 cap. 17.
• * 1.505

  M. Ievvel failing of his pur∣pose, fal∣leth from the Popes purgatiō before Empe∣rours, to their ap∣pearance before Empe∣rours, vvhiche no man denied. Liberius appearing before Constan∣tius. T••••odorit. Eccles. Hist. lib. 2 cap. 16. Pope Si∣xtus after vvhat forte he made his purgatiō and for vvhat cause.
• * 1.506

  2. q. 4. Mādastis. Nostra authori∣tate.
• * 1.507

  Leo 3. and Leo 4.
• * 1.508

  2. q. 4. Audite. 2. q. 7. Nossi.
• * 1.509

  Dist. 63. In Synod. in Glos.
• * 1.510

  Dist. 93. cap. vltim. in Glossa.
• * 1.511

  Extr. de off. iudicis Deleg. c. Sanè.
• * 1.512

  De sche∣mate, & Concilio. It is, de Schismate pontificū.
• * 1.513

  M. Ievvel falsifieth his Do∣ctor by addition of his ovvne to helpe his mater.
• * 1.514

  Zabarella made to saie, What pleaseth M. Ievvel
• * 1.515

  In vvhat case of necessitie the Em∣perour may en∣termedle vvith matters of Faith and reli∣gion, af∣ter the minde of Zabarella
• * 1.516

  Francis. Zabarel∣la de Schismate pontificū.
• * 1.517

  L. Nā ad ad ea. ff. de legibus. ff. de regu lis iuris.
• * 1.518

  Zabarella M. Ievvels ovvne do¦ctor alle∣ged agaīst M. Ievvel.
• * 1.519

  L. Si quis. Cod. de te∣stibus.
• * 1.520

  Ioan. 21.
• * 1.521

  Zabarella in Clemēt. de Sentēt. & reiudi∣cata cap. pastoralis. Ibidem in Clement. de magi∣stris cap. Inter. de Sentent. excommu. cap. ex frequētib.
• * 1.522

  Extr. de Maiorit. & obed. cap. 2. in marg.
• * 1.523

  A sclaun∣der vtte∣red by the Apo∣logie a∣gainst the Canoni∣stes, not recanted in the Defence. touching the thing, but only touching the errour of the name.
• * 1.524

  Alphonsus contra hae¦res. li. 5. Co¦itus Defence. pag. 362.
• * 1.525

  The varie¦tie of mea¦ning be∣tuixt Mar¦tinus de magistris ād Alphō¦sus de Ca∣stro, tou∣ching sim¦ple Forni¦cation.
• * 1.526

  Dist. 34. Is qui.
• * 1.527

  Concil. To∣let an. 1. cap. 17.
• * 1.528

  The ke∣per of a cōcubine not repel¦led from the cōmu¦nion, and yet simple fornicati∣on not al∣lovved, by the Coūcel of Toledo.
• * 1.529

  vvhat is meant by a cōcubin in the coū¦cel of To∣ledo, in the Ciuile and Canō lavv, and other vvhere.
• * 1.530

  Dist. 34. Omnibus. Cōcubin.
• * 1.531

  Dist 33. c. Laici. &c. Fin.
• * 1.532

  30. q. 5. c. ••. 3. & 4.
• * 1.533

  § Nec non Iustin. de nuptijs. Concil. Toletan. 1. cap. 17.
• * 1.534

  Dist. 56. Toto titu∣lo & ext. le filijs presbyt. 3. Reg. 12
• * 1.535

  Dist. 34. Audite. Aug. li. 50 homiliarū homi. 49.
• * 1.536

  A concū∣bine is a vvife se∣cretly ta∣kē vvith out solē∣nitie of marriage
• * 1.537

  Constit. Othonis Boni decō cubinis cle¦rico remo¦nendis, li∣cet ad pro sugandū. in glossa. In eadem glossa.
• * 1.538

  Hoc nip••e avvaie by M. Ievv. a vvorde of impor∣tant si••ui∣fication.
• * 1.539

  Ibidem.
• * 1.540

  Vnde illud vulgare, Si non ca∣stè, tamen cautè.
• * 1.541

  Crudelis est, qui fa∣mam con∣temnit.
• * 1.542

  If not chastely, yet chari∣ly.
• * 1.543

  Extra de immuni∣tate Eccle¦siarū. Pet. Rauēnas.
• * 1.544

  Extra de Prebend. c. nisi in principio.
• * 1.545

  11. quaest. 3. Absit, in Glossa.
• * 1.546

  Hieron. ad Heliodorū 11. quaest. 3. Absit.
• * 1.547

  Concil. Basilien. Sess. 20. Erasmus in Enchi∣ridio mi∣litis Chris. cap. 14. Vt leue cō∣missum, neutiquā refugiunt.
• * 1.548

  Sess. 20.
• * 1.549

  1. Cor. 7.
• * 1.550

  Erasmus.
• * 1.551

  Iacobus de Valentia.
• * 1.552

  August. in quaest. in Exod. quae¦stion. 20.
• * 1.553

  M. Ievv. maketh S. Augu∣stin to be ignorant, vvhether Simple Fornicati¦on be for¦bidden, or no.
• * 1.554

  Hovv for¦nicatiō is forbiddē in the Decalo∣gus.
• * 1.555

  Moechia, Aduoute¦rie called Fornicati¦on in the Scriptu∣res.
• * 1.556

  Scriptu∣res.
• * 1.557

  vvhether fornicati∣on be cal¦led aduou¦terie in the Scri∣tures.
• * 1.558

  vvhat is that pro∣perly that S. Augu∣stine here cōfesseth, he knevv not.
• * 1.559

  Ibidem. Fornicati∣on forbid¦dē vnder the name of aduou∣terie. Robberie forbiddē vnder the name of Theafte.
• * 1.560

  Saepe intel ligitur à parte to∣tum.
• * 1.561

  Confut. 4. 6. a. Confut. 312. b. Confut. 47. a. Reioin∣der. fol. 287. a. Confut. 332. a.
• * 1.562

  Cathari∣nus, and Petrus a Soto be lied by M. Ievvel.
• * 1.563

  Sixtus Se∣nensis in Bibliothe∣ca sancta. lib. 4.
• * 1.564

  Illyricus Luthers great de∣fender, a special Doctor of M. Ievv∣elles.
• * 1.565

  B. iij. b.
• * 1.566

  Pag. 571.
• * 1.567

  Pag. 169. Alphōsus de Castro mistaken by M. Ie∣vvel for Alphōsus Viruesius Bishop of the Cana∣ries.
• * 1.568

  Pag. 345.
• * 1.569

  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.
• * 1.570

  Cornel. Agrippa.
• * 1.571

  Cornel. Agrippa de vani∣tate Sciē∣tiarum. cap. ••1.
• * 1.572

  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.
• * 1.573

  Pag. 132.
• * 1.574

  Paul. Sca∣lichius.
• * 1.575

  Pag. 51. Cusanus sovvly, and ig∣norant∣ly belied of M. Iew.
• * 1.576

  A false forged booke o∣diously attribu∣ted by M. Ievv. to Cardinal Cusanus in xv. Sundri•• places.
• * 1.577

  In altera parte cla∣uis Scri∣pturae. pa. 541.
• * 1.578

  Cusanus fovvly falsified by M. Ievvel.
• * 1.579

  Pag. 858,
• * 1.580

  Pag. 544. in 2. par∣te Clauis Script.
• * 1.581

  M. Ievvel in the be∣ginning of his De, fence. Pag. 2.