of late by the learned Iesuites of Dilinga 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 Sacramentes are proued at large out of S. Augustin alone and that maie suffice in this behalfe For if ye refuse S. Augustines authoritie I know not whose authoritie ye wil allowe Of the power of Baptisme in infantes and of Concupiscence The 4. Chapter Harding What M. Iewel would saye in this matter Incertaintie of M. Iewels doctrine Pag. 215. Pag. 216. Pag. 215. 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 parentes 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 Pag. 216. A litle after he writeth God is able to worke saluation both with the Sacraments and without them And then he mingleth the Signe with the Thing and the Thing with the Signe Last of al he saith In deede Pag. 217. and in precise manner 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 Ioban 3. 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 necessitie doth serue him that hath discretiō to beleue Augustinus Epist 23. 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 condemned This much maye suffice for that point Iewel Concupiscence remaining in the faithful after baptisme is sinne forcing S. Paul to crie out Rom. 7. 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 deliuer me from this body of death Harding 1. Pet. 3. It 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 Gal. 6. Chrysost Ibidem ad Galatas neither Circumcision is ought worth nor vncircuncision but the new creature meaning by a new creature 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 quà m si denu◠esset condita is renued in the washing of baptisme none otherwise then if it had ben made a newe So that no sinne at al can be in vs now baptized if wee haue worthily receiued Baptisme Whiche notwithstanding there is euidently 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 concupiscence 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 concupiscence 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 Rom. 7. which M. Iewel alleaged partly that we may be exercised with tentation to th ende 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 knoweth 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 Rom. 8. 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 Ibidem mortal as S. Chrysostom expoundeth it and therefore S. Paul would faine be deliuered from it as fearing lest he should at any time yeeld vnto it yet if he do not yeelde vnto it Rom. 8. there is no sinne in him For the law of the spirit of life which is the grace that iustifieth vs in baptisme deliuereth him from the law of sinne and of death euerlasting Ievvel 217. Lib. 10. epist 84. S. 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 planted in the members fighteth against the lavv of the mind And for that cause the vvordes of S. Iohn the Apostle are taken 1. Ioan. 1. as spoken in in the person 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 conquered in some smal sinne or other that we neuer remaine any long time without venial sinne But that
others whiche he thought best to conceele and dissemble One thing good Reader it behoueth thee much to be warned of in case thou desire to stande an vpright vmpeere betwen M. Iewel and me Vpon what places so euer thou shalt happen to light in which he shal seeme to haue any good aduantage against me or against the Doctrine of the Catholique Churche passe not them ouer lightly weigh wel both our groundes examine both our allegations truste not to ought that is laid forth by either of vs presently but resort to the Bookes whence euery thing is taken Doing so thou shalt most certainely perceiue whether of vs both vseth more truth Doubtlesse in such places thou shalt seldō it were much so saie neuer find him to allege the wordes whereby he pretēdeth any colour of aduantage without some false sleight or other If thou desire to vnderstand this by some examples consider I praie thee what great a doo he maketh about the name of Vniuersal Bishop Vniuersal Bishop As he handleth that matter if a man wil beleeue him al thinges seeme to be plaine on his side Defence 120. The Coūcel of Carthage saith he decreed by expresse wordes that the Bishop of Rome should not be called the Vniuersal Bishop And behold Reader the confidēce that he hath in this cause which he sheweth with these wordes speaking vnto me This you saie is forged and falsified and is no part of that Conucel For indifferēt trial both of the truth ād of the falshed herein I besech you behold the very wordes of the Councel euen as they are alleged by your owne Doctour Gratian. These they are Prima Sedi◠Episcopus c. Let not the Bishoppe of any of the first Sees be called the Prince of Priestes Dist 99. Primae or the highest Priest or by any like name but onely the Bishoppe of the first See But let not the Bishoppe of Rome him selfe be called the Vniuersal Bishoppe c. Now M. Harding compare our wordes and the Councelles wordes together We saie none otherwise but as the Councel saith The Bishop of Rome him selfe ought not to be called the vniuersal Bishop Herein we doo neither adde nor minis he but reporte the wordes plainely as we finde them If you had lookte better on your booke and would haue tried this matter as you saie by your learning ye might wel haue reserued these vnciuile reproches of falshed to your selfe and haue spared your crying of shame vpō this Defender Here is muche a doo as thou feest Reader and al standeth vpon falshed as I said at the first in my Confutation We striue not for the name of Vniuersal Bishop neither hath the Pope Challenged that title Yet these menne haue neuer donne with Vniuersal Bishop The whole matter is soone answered These wordes vniuersalis autem nec etiam Romanus Pontifex appelletur Concil Carthag 3 Cap. 26. The Bishop of Rome ought not to be called the vniuersal Bishop these wordes I saie be not the wordes of the thirde Councel of Carthage nor in the Greeke nor in the Latine but the wordes of Gratian and they stande for the Summe of that parte of the distinction whiche there foloweth And thereof M. Iewel was not ignorant as it appeareth by his owne wordes in the same place Howbeit were it true that Gratian had ignorantly added them to the Councel as wordes of the Coūcel what learned man trusteth Gratian a man not greatly trusted in respect of sundrie his allegations when it is easy to see the Original For this I referre the Reader to the 39. Chapter of the third Booke of this Treatie fol. 184. b. Perusing that I haue answered to this point there thou shalt fully vnderstand how falsly M. Iewel hath dealte therein and how litle cause he had so to triumphe For neither hath the Councel any suche woordes at al nor speaketh it there so much as one worde of the Bishop of Rome nor hath Gratian put those wordes as a testimonie of the Councel but as the Summe of that parte of the 99. Distinction which immediatly foloweth As wel might M. Iewel haue said that those other wordes there placed vnde Pelagius secundus omnibus Episcopis had ben the wordes of that Councel He that knoweth Gratians manner of writing can not but either laugh at M. Iewelles ignorance or maruaile at his impudencie To proue that it is lawful for a man to marrie a wife being in holy Orders The example of Eupsychius he allegeth the example of one Eupsychius who was a Laie Gentleman of Caesaria the chiefe Citie in Cappadocia and in a time of persecution suffred Martyrdom soone after that he had benne married Now most falsly he corrupteth the reporter of the Storie and maketh this Eupsychius a Bishop that it might appeare to the ignorant that one had married a wife after he had benne made a Bishop which would haue serued our married Superintendentes purpose gaily For yet after so many yeres searche they can not bring vs forth so much as one cleare example of the ancient Churche that euer there was any Bishop or Priest married after that degree and holy Order taken With such vncleane conueiance their vncleane treacherie is defended Defence 176. Cassio li. 6. cap. 14. His wordes be these Cassiodorus writeth thus In illo tempore ferunt Martyrio vitam finisse Eupsychium Caesariensem Episcopum ducta nuper vxore dum adhuc quasi sponsus esse videretur At that time they saie Eupsychius the Bishoppe of Caesaria died in Martyrdome hauing married a wife a litle before being yet in manner a newe married man Beholde Reader the falshod of this man First contrarie to his custome elswhere he leaueth the Greeke fonteine where this Storie was First written and goeth to the riuer of the olde translation in many places not most exactly answering the Greeke And why did he so Forsooth bicause if he had alleged Sozomenus the Greeke writer his falshod had benne fowly bewraied For he nameth this Eupsychius expressely Eupsychius a laie-man by M. Iewels forgerie made a Bishop to proue the Mariages of Priestes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as much to saie Eupsychius one of the Lordes or one of the Nobilitie of the Citie of Caesaria in Cappadocia Then bicause the Tripartite Storie of Cassiodorus setting foorth hath not so expressely that he was a nobleman of Caesaria M. Iewel was so bolde as to falsifie the place and to putte in of his owne this woorde Episcopum to helpe his matter and so corrupting his authour maketh him to cal him Eupsychium Caesariensem Episcopum Eupsychius the Bishoppe of Caesaria Thus he taketh vpon him to make him a Bishoppe who was a Laie man as wel a Bishoppe as he him selfe is that it might appeare to the vnlearned that a Bisshoppe married a wife after he was Bisshoppe Fol. 302. 318. See what I haue said hereto in this Treatie where I answer his false stuffe touching
Religious personnes and others of the Clergie detected What if I saie al these and many other suche thinges were graunted of whiche we are persuaded that some are true the more parte is false muche is so written as it maie be defended no lesse then impugned What great inconuenience what preiudice to our Faith can ensue of al this Must the Catholike and ancient Doctrine of the Churche for these pointes be founde vntrue Must this now needes be made a good Argument Some of their liues were sinneful Ergo their Doctrine was false Truely these be the matters with the enlarging whereof his Defence hath risen to so huge a quantitie About whiche I haue not thought it needeful to bestow muche labour partly bicause in most of those pointes my Confutation of the Apologie yet standeth vnrefelled partly also bicause it liked me not to emploie good houres in so friuolous and vnfruitful a trauaile but chiefly bicause what so euer be said by M. Iewel touching these thinges either on the one side or on the other it importeth no disprouse of the Catholique doctrine in any Article whiche specially I haue taken in hande to mainteine Howbeit the thinges he bringeth in to deface the Churche must needes with wise menne in this case beare smal credite being considered vpon whose authorities and reportes they be auouched The Catholikes can not be greatly moued with suche thinges as are written in preiudice of the Churche either by them whose Bookes be of suspected faith and therefore condemned by the Church as Auentinus and Beno de vita Hildebrandi or haue ben corrupted of late yeres by the Lutheranes of Germanie as Vrspergensis In Indice librorum prohibitorum Antonius de Rosellis Polydorus Vergilius de Inuentoribus rerum Paschasius and others or who haue benne muche inclined to innouations in Religion and fauoured the Procedinges of Luther and his disciples as Erasmus Cornelius Agrippa Carion Lorichius Cassander and suche others or who be knowen to be manifest Heretiques and professed enemies of the Churche as Gaspar Hedio the Author of Paralipomena added to Vrspergensis Anselmus Rid Vergerius Sleidan Illyricus Fabritius Montanus Iacobus Andreae and many suche others al whiche M. Iewel allegeth against the Churche the Popes and the Clergie boldely as if they were Doctours of sufficient authoritie and sound credite against whom specially in these matters no exception might be taken As there is no cause why we shoulde greatly esteeme any thing spoken by these either against the manners of the Clergie or against the Ceremonies and customes of the Churche or against any parte of the Catholique Doctrine bicause in iudgement the bare worde of the Accuser or of him that otherwise is an il willer beareth smal credite against any man So touching the doctrine of Faith we feare not what so euer M. Iewel allegeth against vs out of the Schoolemenne Canonistes of al sortes Summistes and Glosers out of the Cardinalles and those other learned and graue menne appointed by Paulus Tertius to geue information of thinges in the state of the Churche to be refourmed and out of the Bisshoppes speaking their mindes freely in the late Councel of Trent For we are wel assured how so euer M. Iewel telleth their tales for them they helde and mainteined the doctrine which we professe in euery condition What so euer therefore he bringeth out of them bearing any sound of wordes against the Catholike Faith as very litle it is that to that effecte he can bring though with heapes of their sayinges he hath filled his great Volume the same is either by heate of Disputation or by waie of Obiection against the Truthe after the Scholastical manner for the better opening of the Truthe or by vehemencie of zele or perhappes by humaine ouersight vttered otherwise then by them is determined in their Conclusions whereof the taking of aduantage is vndue and ouer captious or by some sleight of M. Iewel falsified and corrupted or to saie the least by vntrue cōstruction wrested to a sense by the Authour neuer intended How so euer it be they shew them selues either very blinde of iudgement or very contentious wranglers or very vaine Ianglers that allege the wordes of any Writer against the Catholique doctrine whose whole course of life shewed him to be Catholique Which is tolde vs by S. Augustine as a moste certaine rule whereby to vnderstand mennes wordes in matter of Religion And therefore thus he crieth out vpon the blindenesse of such men among whom M. Iewel maie take him selfe annumbred that wil not vnderstād mens wordes by their dedes Aug. contra Epist Parme. li. 3. cap. 4. Incredibilis est coecitas hominum omnino nescio quemadmodum credi posset esse in hominibus tāta peruersitas nisi experimento verborum suorū factorūque patesceret vsqueadeo se clausos habere cordis oculos vt cōmemorent sancta Scripturae testimonia nec intueantur in factis Prophetarū quemadmodum intelligenda sint verba Prophetarū The blindnesse of men is inoredible and certainely I wote not how I might make one beleeue that there were such frowardnesse in men onlesse by the proufe of their wordes and deedes it appeared openly that the eyes of their harte were so faste shut vp that they allege the testimonies of the holy Scripture and doo not behold in the doinges of the Prophetes how the wordes of the Prophetes are to be vnderstanded Wherefore seing the farre greater parte of M. Iewels Defence consisteth of their sayinges heaped together of whom some were either them selues or their workes being vntruly set forth after their death of suspect faith some found to fauour heretikes some professed heretikes some contrariwise knowen by publike profession of their life to be perfite Catholikes making litle accompt what they of the one side saie as being of no credite specially in matter of Faith and not doubting but these of the other side meant wel and godly how so euer their wordes by M. Iewel be abused corrupted and misconstrued in consideratiō thereof good Reader I iudged a short Treatie might suffice in this case shorte I meane in comparison of that Huge Volume fraught with so much voide impertinent and superfluous stuffe Otherwise it is longer I am wel assured then he shal euer be hable aptly truly and directly to confute I saie not but he maie do eftsones as he hath twise already donne that is to saie gather together a huge number of sayinges out of al sortes of Writers and printing this Treatie withal sende vs forth an other great booke conteining much stuffe to litle purpose and not once touching the very precise pointes wherein he is charged with foule errours and falshed But to come directly to the pointes by me thoroughly refelled and with good proufes to iustifie the same keeping him selfe in from idle ranging abroad in matters not denied or otherwise impertinent this is that I affirme he shal neuer be hable to perfourme though he write againe as muche as
Esaie Esai 5â— This is my couenaunt with them my spirite whiche is in thee and my wordes that I haue put in thy mowth shal not departe from thy mowth and from the mowth of thy seede and from the mowth of thy seedes seede from this time for euer Lo here ye heare bothe the wordes of God and the Spirite of truthe by whom the wordes may be rightly vnderstanded promised to remaine with the Church for euer Thus we are wel assured that the Churche hath neuer failed nor wanted Goddes worde goddes Spirite and Goddes truthe But ye my Maisters of the new learning do say that the Churche failed and was destitute of Goddes worde and of his spirite of Truthe for the space of nyne hundred yeres and more vntil Martin Luther came and restored the lost Gospel By vertue of whiche Gospel neuer preached before ye claime the right of the Church and so would dispossesse vs wherein of necessitie ye must graunt one of these two either that Christe the Sonne of God promised more then he perfourmed whiche were heinous blasphemie or that your Churche hath continued til this day and shal continue to the worldes ende If to eschew the reproche of so wicked a blasphemie ye graunt the continuance of your Churche ye must tel vs where it was before Luther began to preache that ye cal the Gospel Name the place where was it Or was it somewhere without a place Dic quibus in terris eris mihi magnus Apollo If it were at al where were your Bishops What were their names or were they men without names Bring forth your Originals your Registers your Rolles of Bishops that folowed one after an other by lawful succession For this were a sure way for proufe of your right Tertull. In prascript Optatus August muche commended and vsed of the best learned Fathers Your Actes and Monumentes where be they Haue ye none of greater antiquitie then those late of Foxes making If ye had a continual succession how came Luther and Zuinglius first to the Gospel how was al the light quite out before how were al the fonteines of the water of life vtterly dryed vp before his time for so ye write in your Apologie This this can not stand together M. Iewel by no meanes as al the world may see So then it is we kepe our ancient Possession ye heaue and shooue to remoue vs from it We be of the howseholde ye are strangers We are the heires of the Apostles ye are forrainers We are the lawful Children of the Churche ye are Bastardes to be shorte and plaine whereas we are Catholiques what foloweth but that ye be Heretiques The case standing thus what great offence haue I committed if where I defende the common cause of the Churche being moued with dew zeale and iuste griefe of mynde to see your vngodly dealinges I forgete sometimes the flattering Titles wherewith ye woulde your proceedinges to be magnified and vse wordes more agreable to your desertes O ye saie I vse vncourteous and vnciuile speache Why sir if ye skreake like Frogges must we saie ye sing like Nightingalles If ye crowe like proude Cockes must we saie ye mourne like simple Dooues If ye byte vs like Mastiâ—â—s must we say ye licke vs like gentle Spaniâ—h If ye consume vs and deuoure vs like rauening Wolues must we say ye profite vs like good Sheepe Must we tel the worlde that your Serpentes be Fisshes your Snakes be Lamproies your Scorpions be Creauises briefly that your deadly Poison is holesom Triacle What were this but to please men and to deceiue Goddes people But let vs go from Metaphores and come to the plaine mater If your Doctrine be false as by most sufficient waies we haue proued it to be shal we be vnciuile excepte we sooth it If your deedes be vngodly as the worlde seeth and rueth shal we be vncourteous excepte we iustifie them If ye say Nay for Yea and Yea for Nay in Goddes causes shal we be blamed as men vnciuil and vncourteous except we vpholde your Yea and your Nay We can be content to lacke the praise of suche sinneful Ciuilitie of suche wicked Courtesie If any priuely pike money out of our purses steale our goodes robbe by the high waye kil men and attempte traison to their Princes person standeth it with good manner to cal them Pikepurses Theeues Robbers Murderers Traitours and whereas you and your felowes teache and stubbornly mainteine a false doctrine concerning the real presence that here I speake of no other pointes by the Churche and by Luther him selfe the first founder of your owne Gospel condemned for Heresie must it needes be an vncourteous parte to cal you Heretiques To touche some of your rawest Gaulles for making proffer to whiche ye wince and kicke so muche euery where â—nd specially where ye laye forth al my sharpe wordes with suche diligence gathered together out of my bookes into one heape before your Preface to the Reader For so muche as it is geuen forth by Luthers owne confession that by the conference and disputation which the Deuil had with him he was persuaded to defie the Masse and become enemie to the blessed Sacrifice of the Churche and your selfe M. Iewel haue geuen your verdite in fauour of Luther and Satan Sathans doctrine Sathan their Schoole Maister In the Replie art 1. Diuision 2. allowing Satans Doctrine in that point and Luthers conformitie imbracing the same also for your owne parte as you haue openly witnessed in your Replie what offence was it to say for whiche you shewe your selfe greeued that ye ioined with Satan and concerning the spite ye beare at the Masse to cal Satan your Schoolemaister That I called this new founded Churche of the Protestantes a Babylonical tower not without iuste cause It angreth you that I cal this new Church of yours for so a Gods name we must name it Your Babylonical Tower And this is for a heinous worde scored vp among the rest in your said Rolle you tel the Quene of it also in your Epistle to her Maiestie but how iustly ye be offended therewith let it be considered by that I shal here briefly declare Dissensions among the Protestantes Who knoweth not that is any thing acquainted with the affaires of oure age into how many Sectes they haue diuided them selues that forsooke the Catholique Churche sithence Luther beganne to leade vs a newe daunce in Religion what controuersies debates and strifes about the weightiest pointes of our Faith haue benne stirred vp and moste earnestly mainteined among them Who hath not heard of the brawling and skolding betwene Luther and Zuinglius and the vpholders of either side about the Doctrine of the Euchariste Neither hath the matter benne handled with any better quiet betwene the Osiandrines and the Stancarians touching the Iustification of man the one Secte attributing it vnto Christes Diuine nature the other vnto his humaine nature onely Againe what sturre hath benne made about
stuffe in some of your Germaine gatherers or elles it was ministred to you by some of your Cōministers if not by your blind lawier whose help you haue bought with a pece of an Archdeaconrie For you beganne not I suppose to studie the Canonistes and the gloses of the Law before you occupied the place of a Bishop if then at the least you did But how soeuer that be your memory might haue ben better bestowed thē in keping in stoare such a toie The Canonistes meane that the Pope as being the highest iudge is not bound to the obseruation of any thing in the law whiche is only Ceremonial so that he may dispense with those maters when he seeth cause and may with his only worde promote a man to the authoritie of a Bishop the omission of any Ceremonie notwithstanding But they speake only of rites and Ceremonies such as I suppose you your selfe would not or should not sticke vpon when either necessitie or vniuersal profite should require a thing to be spedily donne As for any point necessary to the Sacrament of holy Orders the Pope may not omit in any wise Iewel Pag. 129. Panor de cōstitutiō translato And Abbate Panormitane moueth a doubte vvhether the Pope by the fulnesse of his povver may depriue al the Bishoppes of the vvorlde at one time But thus they say that care not greatly vvhat they say Harding When you had only said that Panormitane moued the doubte you conclude with thus they say as though he had said that in deede the Pope might depriue al the Bishoppes in the worlde at once Certainely the mouing of the doubt sheweth him not to say it For many doubtes be moued you know pardy not to the ende men should thinke that al may be donne whereof by learned men a question is moued but that they may the better carie away the answer So question is moued emong the Scholemen An Deus sit whether God be not that any man at al doubteth thereof but to see how the doubte might be resolued if any man were so mad as to moue it Once it is certaine that the Pope can not depriue al Bishoppes For although they be vnder him specially if they do amisse or nede any helpe yet they are as truly Bishops as he is and are the Successours of the Apostles who knowing the Primacie to belong vnto S. Peter did yet make Bishops by Gods ordinance where so euer they thought it expedient Aaron was the chiefe emong al the Priestes and Leuites yet he could not therfore depriue al the Leuites and Priestes And euen so your owne Panormitane whom you make to doubte concludeth with these wordes Quod si papa vellet c. Translato ex de Constitut non posset remouere omnes Episcopos cum repraesentent omnes Apostolos If the Pope would he could not remoue al Bishops for as muche as they represent al the Apostles Cal you this a doubting when he so plainely determineth against that for which you alleage his doubting Iewel Verely Nilus a greeke vvriter saith thus Nilus d◠primatu Rom. Pontificie The Bishop of Constantinople doth order the Bishop of Cesarea and Other Bishops vnder him But the Bishop of Rome doth neither Order the Bishop of Constantinople nor any other Metropolitane Harding It neither much skilleth what Nilus doth say Nilus a late vvriter and mainteiner of the Greekes Schisme whose authoritie is so litle worth being a late mainteiner of the Schisme of the Grecians and yet though his saying were true it skilleth also as litle bicause it speaketh of a matter of facte and not of power For he sayth not that the Bishop of Rome is not hable or hath not power to order some Metropolitane but only that he doth not so meaning that he vseth not so to doo And if the not doing proue any impotencie or vnablenes to doo it then it maie be said Christe is not hable to ordeine a Deacon bicause we read not that euer he did so by his owne mouth Actor 6. or handes For Deacons were ordeined by his Apostles after his Ascension But albeit the Pope vseth not to Order Metropolitanes with his owne handes yet Nilus I trow meant not but that he was of power to doo it or if he was so folish as to thinke so yet you M. Iewel should not in that behalfe beare the bable with him as who confesse that he was euer as great a Patriarke and much more auncient then the Bishop of Constantinople was so that the Bishop of Constantinople can not be able to doo that which the Pope also can not doo To be short you that can cal so many gloses to your remembrance could you not remember that as Liberatus Liberatus in breuiari◠ca. 21. recordeth Anthenius the Bishop of Constantinople being yet aliue but deposed for heresie Agapetus that good Bishop of Rome consecrated and ordered with his owne handes Mennas who professed the Catholike faith making him Bishop of Constantinople in stede of the other heretical Bishop Are you then so farre to seeke in your Logike as not to know that if the Bishop of Rome did lawfully once order the Bishop of Constantinople that stil he were of authoritie and power so to doo if nede were Iewel But hereof I haue spoken more at large in my former Replie to M. Harding Harding But thereof you are confuted more at large by M. Stapleton in his Returne of Vntruthes vpon you and yet could you dissemble the matter as though your fourth Article and namely that part whereof here you speake were not founde as ful of Vntruthes as of Allegations Iewel Pag. 129. Certainely S. Cyprian vvilleth that Sabinus being lavvfully elected Cyprian Lib. 1. Epist 4. and consecrate Bishop in Spaine should continevve Bishop stil yea although Cornelius being then Bishop of Rome vvould not confirme him Harding By this a man may know what a Dodger you are and whence your great bookes procede Verely from certaine heretical Notebookes made by some Grāmarians or Scholemasters of Germanie For alwaies your allegations and reportes come out after the same sorte If once they conteined an open lye being neuer so often repeated they shal stil conteine it and reason For they were alwayes written out of one lying fountaine In the Returne Artic. 4. Fol. 127. M. Stapleton had told you of this very matter before He shewed that your note booke is false It was not Pope Cornelius but Pope Steuen who would haue restored Basilides to his bishoprike against Sabinus who was newly elected in Spaine But the staye why Pope Steuens Decree stoode not was only for lacke of true information in Basilides appeale made to Rome Now reason and lawe sheweth that when a thing is not done only vpon a certaine cause that cause ceasing the thing should be right wel done Sabinus might continue Bishop not withstanding that Pope Steuen wrote against him onely bicause Basilides for whom the Pope wrote
of God Traditions c. The second Chapter Ievvel Pag. 193. In prooem in prouer Salomon Touching 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 The bookes of the Machabees canonical emonge the faithful S. Hierome speaketh of such Canonical Scriptures of the olde Testament as the very Iewes allowed for Canonical Such in deede the bookes of the Machabees are not But why haue you not alleged S. Augustines 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 August de De Ciuitat Dei lib. 18. ca. â—6 He saith Machabaeorum libros non Iudaei sed Ecclesia pro Canonicis habet As for the bookes of the Machabees not the Iewes but the Church accoÌ„pteth them for Canonical Hereunto I maiâ— adde but M. Iewel and his Companions accompte not the bookes of the Machabees for Canonical 〈◊〉 theâ—â—in they are of the Iewes Synagog and not of the Church of Christ Now see good Reader â–ª 〈…〉 be made when he said as thou findest noted in the mâ—rgeâ— of his booke Pag. 191. that he would denie no more then S. Austine S. Hierom and other Fathers haue â—enied If you say ye deny not the bookes of the Machabees â–ª 〈◊〉 â—eproue you praying for the dead which is so sufficiâ—â—â—y proued by those bookes Soothly if you allow the one you must allow the other Ievvel Pag. 193. S. Iames epistle Eusebius 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 li. 2. c. 23. li. 2. c. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whiche you turne is a bastard But Ruffinus more ciuilly translated it à noÌ„nullis non recipitur The epistle is not receiued of some men And Eusebius him selfe addeth Nos tameÌ„ scinius etiaÌ„ istas cuÌ„ caeteris publicè aplerisque 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 meaÌ„t by the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 opinion that it is S. Iames epistle Of some he coÌ„fesseth 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 Hiero. iâ— catalogâ— 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 Hiero. iâ— catalogâ— Ecclesi script 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 receiueth it vnworthily 1. Cor. 11. 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 â—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 consequently 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 literal sense of his Gospel 1. Timo. 3. 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 Esai 59. Ioan. 14. But she is the spouse of God and to her he hath promised 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 hearâ— not her witnesse you ought to be vnto vs as an Heathen Matt. 18. and a Publican Iewel Isai 8. Esaie saith to the lavv rather and to the testimonie If they ansvver not according to this vvorde they shal haue no Morning light Harding Iere. 31. Hebre. 8. This 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 Ioan. 15. then Christe said the Apostles should doo Therefore the lawe and testimonie whereunto Esaie calleth is as wel that which is written in faithful mennes hartes and which is witnessed 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 Reader with a point of Sophistrie I praie thee reader take the paines to peruse what the Apologie saith what I haue said in my CoÌ„futation 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 accordingly But I must alwaies warne the reader not to beleue M. Iewel when so euer he reporteth either my wordes or any other mannes M. Ievv shifteth him selfe from Scripture to Goddes vvorde but to repaire to the Original Fot seldom is he founde cleere of the crime of falsifying And here he entwiteth me of Sophistrie wheras in deede he vseth the grossest sleight of Sophistrie him selfe He conueigheth him selfe from the Canonical Scriptures to Goddes worde Now I spake of the Scriptures and he answereth of Goddes worde Defence pag 191. Whereas it is said in the Apologie that
addeth priuilegijs omnibus custodit is quae reuerend issimis Clericis sacrae praestant cōstitutiones al Priuileges kepte whiche the Emperours lawes doo graunt vnto the reuerend Clerkes And saith farther Si verò Ecclesiasticum sit delictum egens castigatione ecclesiastica mulcta Deo amabilis Episcopus hoc discernat nihil communicantibus clarissimis prouinciae Iudicibus Neque enim volumus talia negotia omnino scire ciuiles iudices quum oporteat talia ecclesiasticè examinari emendari animas delinquentium per Ecclesiasticam mulctam secundùm 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 Magistrates 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 disdaine 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 tēporal cases and that in those cases no Bishop should be brought before the Lieutenant and Ciuil Magistrate except the Prince so commaunded it Now whereas you vpon those wordes say that a Bisshop 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 cōuented before a temporal Magistrate But that is not our question But this is that which we say The very point of this Question that it is not lawful for a Prince to cal a Priest to his seate of iudgemēt in Ecclesiastical causes And in this your owne authour Iustinian condemneth you He saith as you heard before Autent 83. col 6. vt Clerici 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 examination of suche matters And againe Cod. de Episco clericis L. Clericus Si verò crimen sit Ecclesiasticum episcopalis erit examinatio castigatio If the faulte be Ecclesiastical the examination and pounishing of it shal apperteine vnto the Bisshoppe 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 willeth a Bishop in qualibet causa in any cause to be conuented before the temporal magistrate if the Prince do so commaunde If you or your lawier make this obiection we answer that it can not be shewed out of al Iustinians lawes Anthent 83. col 6. vt Clerici that he willed a Bishop or Prieste to be conuented before a temporal Magistrate in an Ecclesiastical 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 Cod. de Episco Clericis L. Statuimus Statuimus vt nullus Ecclesiasticā personam in criminali quaestione vel ciuili trahere ad iudicium seculare praesumat 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 Emperours 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 malice and your lawier with ignorance you might haue learned A Maxima amōg the lavviers that it is a Maxima and a Principle with the lawiers that Leges tales indefinitè loquentes intelligendae sunt secundùm aliam legem speciatim loquentem Such lawes speaking indefinitely must be vnderstanded by an other lawe that speaketh specially and particularly 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 Ecclesiastical causes and permitte no temporal Iudge to meddle with Ecclesiastical personnes excepte it be in Ciuil matters and that with a Limitation and a Prouiso also it had ben your parte and your blinde Lawiers also to haue vnderstanded those wordes In qualibet causa 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 conueniatur Harding For your credite touching Martianus commaundement you referre vs to the Code of Iustinian L. Si qui ex consensu de Episco Audient L. Cum Clericis de Episco Clericis As for the first you may tel your lawier that he hath fouly deceiued 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 Lieutenant but declareth that if any by mutual consent wil haue their matter debated before the Bishop as an arbiter it shal be lawful for them so to do as euery man that either considereth the law or readeth the Summe set before it may easily see M. Ievv forgeth As 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 vnderstande it But suppose it to be true that the Emperour Martianus had geuen suche a commaundement what could it aduantage your cause M. Iewel You should proue
benne halfe in a phrenesie you might haue learned L. NaÌ„ ad ad ea ff de legibus ff de regu lis iuris that ex ijs quaeraro accidâ—nt lages non fiunt of those thinges that happen seldome lawes are not made And Quae propter necessitatem recepta 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 â—â—ither vpon the doinges of the Emperours in that great and lamentable schisme of the Church neither vpon Zabarella 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 purpose 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 Zabarella M. Ievvels ovvne doctor alleged agaiÌ„st M. Ievvel 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 necessitie 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 L. Si quis Cod. de testibus and he wil tel you that reason and lawe faith That si quis vsus fuerit testibus ijdemque 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 â—â—â—â—stas 〈…〉 immediate pendat à Deo Ioan. 21. per illa verba Pasce 〈…〉 Papa habet potestatem supra omnes quic omnes sunt â—â—â—s Papae vicem Dei gerit in terris Zabarella in ClemeÌ„t de SenteÌ„t reiudicata cap. pastoralis Ibidem in Clement de magistris cap. Inter. de Sentent excommu cap. ex frequeÌ„tib 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 indifferent iudgement how true it is that you saie that a Prince or a ciuil magistrate maie lawfully cal a Priest before him to his owne seate of iudgement and that a Bishop 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 reported 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 conclude against you with S. Augustine S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome and al other Catholique Fathers that it is not conuenient Extr. de Maiorit obed cap. 2. in marg nor lawful for a king to cal priestes before him to his owne seat of Iudgement as their superiour 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 declare 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 confirmation whereof they haue made diuers lawes and geuen out large priuileges yet these lawes standing vnreapealed 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 reuoked them as he did first graunte them That the Canonistes are wrongfully charged by the Apologie with teaching the people that Simple Fornication is no sinne The 15 Chapter The wordes of the Apologie Defence Pag. 357. They be the Popes ovvne Canonistâ—â— vvhiche haue taught the people that Fornication betvven single foâ—â—â— iâ— no sinne Harding A sclaunder vttered by the Apologie against the Canonistes not recanted in the Defence touching the thing but only touching the errour of the name IN my CoÌ„futation I saie that this is a greuous offence and worthy to be pounished in processe I saie to the makeâ—s of the Apologie How proue ye it They allege for it one Iohn de Magistris How be it M. Iewel hath recanted that errour and confesseth him selfe to haue ben deceiued For he graunteth it was Martinus de Magistris 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 Martinus 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 Magistrâ—â— had so taught yet the matter is not cleare for he wâ—â— no Canoniste but a Schoole Doctor of Diuinitie Againâ— he â—â—â—â—ht not the people as our Maisters of the Apologie â—â—e but onely wrote of that matter after the Scholastical manner from vnderstanding whereof the peoples simple capacitie is farre of Wel let these three errours Lyes or ouersightes be â—inâ—â—ed at Hitherto the Canonistes are not touched but sclaundered What shal we answer for Martinus de Magistris Certainely neither that Doctour taught either the people or any other person that vngodly and false Doctrine Certaine it is that in this Treatie De Temperantia quaestione 2. he taught the contrarie where
certaine mo the like be those which I haue let passe as being partely vnnecessarie and vnprofitable partely vnmeete good houres to be bestowed about them By the handeling of these the weightier pointes it wil sufficiently appeare to al menne with what stuffe he filleth his great Bookes what smal credite he deserueth how litle pith there is to be found in his multitude of wordes how litle there is that serueth aptly to the purpose among the great heapes of testimonies that he laieth together Surely his Defence being wel examined by any man that hath skil and can iudge of these points it must needes be thought that when he saw he had not the plaine truth of his side yet with multitude of allegations he would make a shew of learning to the ignorant and trouble the answerer with confusion Euen so many Barbarous Princes as we reade in stories when they lacked a conuenient number of good and tried Souldiers haue gonne about to fraie their enemies with multitude of people who haue learned by their great ouerthrowes that oftentimes victorie is not obteined by multitude of menne In deede the Truth needeth not so many sayinges piked out of Schoolemenne of Summistes of Gloses vpon Gratian and other partes of the Canon Lawe and out of so many Canonistes of al sortes For trial of a mater to be prooued true in questions touching our beleefe one saying of the Scripture is sufficient if the expresse Scripture faile vs twoo or three Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers not being contrarie to the reste maie suffice But suche a confuse and vnorderly number of sayinges specially of suche as be not of great estimation as this man commonly allegeth of the same not one making cleerely for this purpose in moste matters what doth it els but breede a suspicion among the wise that the matter is not true for proufe whereof they be alleged But by this meane he thought to winne credit at least with the people For the people that can not iudge of these matters thinketh him best learned that hath most woordes It is knowen that when they beholde two reasoning together of any thing whereof they haue no skil commonly they commend the mainteiner of the worse cause in case he be fuller of wordes be they neuer so litle to the purpose and say in his praise that he answered the other partie to euery Quare M. Iewel vnderstanding this and making his most accompte of the people and of them that be vnlearned to whom he leaneth and by multitude of whom he and they of his side mind to stand for touching the learned they see they can winne none bestoweth great paines and charges to set out great bookes that at least in the opinion of the vnlearned and of them that haue not leisure to examine the points how substantially they are treated he maie seeme to haue done iolily and to haue acquited him selfe like a great Clerke In very deede if a man haue care howe muche he maie saie rather then how truly and feare not to vtter vntruthes he hath this aduantage ouer his aduersarie defending the truth with a conscience not to swarue from the censure of the Church that he may alwaies finde abundance of matter to vtter For as it hath of olde ben said Mendacium est multiplex veritas simplex Lying is manifolde Truth is simple Lying hath many plaites and foldinges Truth is without plaite or wrinckle Therefore it is no marueile if the Treaties of the one be narrowe and shorte of the other wide and long As for me if I prooue M. Iewel an vntrue man in so many pointes as I haue treated of I haue donne that whereby his credite must be broken His credite being broken what remaineth but that in this kinde of trade he go for a Banckroute If he be a Banckrout worthily is he to be begiled that trusteth him Some wil say perhaps it is not likely I should with so smal a booke discredit him that hath written so much But it maie please this man to remember that to saie the truth it is not M. Iewel that hath written muche He hath taken muche out of other mens bookes of his owne he hath in maÌ„ner nothing certainely very litle So that peruse his Booke who wil he shal finde that he is but a seely Translatour of other mens wordes a heaper together of al Writers sayings and that most commonly to more ostentation of tale then to the making vp of good weight So that if thinges be brought to an exact trial he shal be found no disputer no reasoner no discourser no Writer but only a gatherer together of other mennes Sentences How be it it is not the hugenesse of a booke that argueth the sufficiencie of proufes Truth is content to be set foorth with few wordes Neither yet doo I reproue him for that he allegeth what he findeth in other Writers For therby we bring credite to doubteful matters But for that alleging so much he allegeth so litle to the purpose yea in manner nothing and boldly wil I auouche it vtterly nothing for due proufe of any his new and strange doctrines being contrarie to that of ancient time hath benne beleeued in the Catholique Churche This shal seeme more probable if it be confirmed by some plaine and true examples Lette vs then examine M. Iewelles common demeanour in an example or twoo To discusse many the breuitie of a Preface wil not permitte O that he were in place to choose the example him selfe out of his whole Booke to his best aduantage that so it might euidently appeare with what weake tooles he fighteth against the truth ExaÌ„ples vvhereby it is shewed hovve vvith void and impertineÌ„t stuffe M. Ievvel filleth his great Booke Defence Pag. 163. Heb. 13. Confut. 73 b. Marke hovv M. Ievv alvvaies keepeth him selfe from coÌ„ming vnto the point in controuersie Whereas in the Apologie much is said in the commeÌ„dation of Matrimonie which no Catholique man euer discommended as that it is Holy and honorable in al sortes and states of personnes in the Apostles in the Ministers of the Church and in Bisshops and that it is an honest and lawful thing as S. Chrysostom saith for a man liuing in Matrimonie to take vpon him therewith the dignitie of a Bisshop to this I saie in my Confutation that albeit Matrimonie be holy and honorable in al and an vndefiled â—eâ— as S. Paule saith yet that it is not lawful for such personnes to marrie who haue deliberately vowed Chastitie or haue taken holy Orders This there I prooue by good and sufficient authoritie as it maie be seene in my said Confutation Now what is M. Iewels part here to proue for maintenaÌ„ce of his doctrine but that a man notwithstaÌ„ding his Vow or receiuing of holy Orders maie lawfully marrie This is the very point of the controuersie and thereto onely should he haue directed his talke If he go about any thing els it is beside the purpose But consider
many as be so farre accursed of God as to beleeue your wicked generation that ye neither entre in thither your selues nor suffer others to entre The place where the wordes be with whiche you would incense the Queenes wrath against me hath no general threats as you saie but conteine such true matter as I am not a shamed of confute it if you can verely in your Defence ye haue not done it Ye confounde saie I the offices of the spiritual Gouernours and temporal Magistrates What Kinges Confut. fol. 298. a. and Princes maie doo what they be commaunded to doo and ought of duetie to doo in Goddes name let them doo and wel maie they so doo Who is he that gainesaith If by the pretensed example of Dauid and Salomon ye animate them to intermedle with Bishoply offices then beware they saie we that Goddes Vengeance light not vpon them for such wicked presumption whiche lighted vpon king Ozias for the like offence 2. Par. 26. I marueil you denie that the Vengeance of God lighted vpon king Ozias for the like Presumption to that whereunto by your monstrous lawe and Doctrine ye animate your Princes Whiche parte denie you That Goddes Vengeance lighted vpon him Or that the Presumption is like For proufe of the Vengeance ye haue the plaine Scripture 2. Paralip 26. whiche saith that Ozias pounished for presumption as he would haue burned incense to our Lorde at the Aulter of the sweete perfume whiche belonged to the office of the Priestes only to doo a Lepre rose in his forehead whereupon the Priestes draue him out of the Temple and he himselfe also made hast that he were gonne out 2. Par. 26 saith the texte eo quòd sensisset illicò plagam Domini for that streight waie he felte the plague of our Lorde Touching the Presumption it is like For in bothe it is an vndue geuing of aduenture to doo that thing which belongeth to Bishoply Priestly auctoritie aÌ„d power geuen vnto the Quene by the Parlament and priestly office And what is that which Bishoppes and Priestes maie doo whiche ye haue not by your Acte of Parlament geuen the Quene auctoritie to do What power or auctoritie is excepted where al thinges and causes be expressed where I saie by solemne othe taken before God and his holy Angelles ye binde men to acknowledge her for the chiefe and supreme Head for by your new worde Gouernoure ye take not awaie I trowe the meaning of your former worde Head in al thinges and causes as wel spiritual as temporal Ye know ye know M. Iewel this is a very large Commission for a woman to exercise in Christes Churche Tel vs not of your newe deuised Iniunction as for a poore shifte ye are wont to doo so thinne a cloke wil not fence you againste so greate a storme of weather Although the Queene that now is haue no great delite in the exercise of al manner suche auctoritie as ye haue put her in yet what if after her time there come in her place an other Prince King or Queene of an other manner courage and fansie whom it shal like wel sometimes for his pleasure strange deuotion ambitioÌ„ or pride to doo the office which by lawe of your Parlament is committed vnto him 2 Par. 26. as it is written of king Ozias that when he became mightie and of great power his harte was lifted vp and he would needes doo that whiche belonged onely to the Priestes office If it shal like suche a Prince be he your Soueraine Lorde or Soueraine Ladie to go into your Pulpites and there after your manner to raue and raile at the Pope at the Papistes and to tel the people a peece of your lusty Geneuian Gospel whereby they maie be stirred to allewdnesse and carnal libertie If I saie the Prince that shal succeede the Queene that now is shal take vpon him so to doo what wil ye saie in this case M. Iewel and your good Brethren Wil ye come vnto him and tel him Sir if it like your Maiestie you maie not so doo Wil ye saie that it belongeth to you and to such Ministers of the word as you are and to none elles Wil ye resiste him in that attempte and driue him out of the Churche if by that time ye shal haue any Church standing at al as the Priestes of Iewrie resisted and draue out of the Temple King Ozias If your hartes shal serue you so to doo and he replie against you saying that by graunt of your owne Parlament which is a most assured warrant ye haue geuen him the supreme power auctoritie and gouernement in al thinges and causes as wel spiritual as temporal and that therefore he wil vse and practise suche power as he maie by your owne graunte what haue ye then to saie Wil ye then face him out with your pretie litle worthe Iniunctions deuised by two or three Ministers Wil that serue the turne trow ye It wil not it wil not ye maie be assured Now let vs heare with what other matter M. Iewel chargeth me Item there Iewel Thus be saith vnto your Maiestie and vvith al his skil and cunning Confut. fol 277. Confut. fol. 328. a Confut. fol. 172. b Reioind 314. Conf. 87. a CoÌ„f. 269. b Rei 42. a. Conf. 43. a CoÌ„f. 269. a 323. b. 334. a. 338. a. 348. b. A bundel of Vntruthes laboureth to persuade your Maiesties Subiectes if any one or other happely of simplicite vvil beleeue him that the godly Lavves vvhiche your Maiestie hath geuen vs to liue vnder are 1 no Lavves that your Parlamentes are 2 no Parlamentes that your Clergie is 3 no Clergie our Sacramentes no 4 Sacramentes our Faith no 5 Faith The Church of England vvhereof your Maiestie is the most principal and Chiefe he calleth a 6 malignant Churche a nevve Church erected by the dâ—â—il a Babylonical Tovver a Heard of Antichriste a Temple of Lucifer a Synagoge and a Schole of Satan ful of Robberie Sacrilege Schisme and Heresie Harding First that I say thus vnto the Quenes Maiestie it is a grosse and a palpable lye and a lye in sight For al know that reade my Confutation that in my booke I directed not my wordes vnto the Quene but vnto M. Iewel and vnto his companions that conferred with him towardes the making of the Apologie That I saie in my Confutation The Lawes made in the Quenes time be no Lawes it is an other lye That I saie The Parlamentes be no Parlamentes it is likewise an other lye That I saie The Quenes Clergie is no Clergie although I said it not and so is it the fourth lye yet here I maie saie it is a very womanly Clergie if it be a Clergie at al. That I saie Their two Sacramentes are no Sacramentes The Faith of Heretikes not Faith but perfidie it is the fifth lye Sacramentes they maie be though Schismatical Heretical corrupte and polluted Sacramentes The manner
Ye are like to whitted Sepulchres Matth. 23. Liers euil beastes slow bellies Tit. 1. God shal strike thee thou painted wal said S. Paule to Ananias Act. 23. O ye foolishe Galathians Galat. 3. False Apostles guileful workers 2. Cor. 11. The enemies of the Crosse of Christe whose bellye is their God Philip. 3. O ye stifnecked and vncircumcised in hartes and eares ye haue euer resisted the holy Ghost said S. Steuen vnto the Iewes Act. 7. As Iannes and Iambres withstode Moyses so these withstand the truth 2. Tim. 3. Hye minded proude blasphemous Ibidem Their worde creapeth forth like a canker 2. Tim. 2. Their tong is ful of deadly poison Iacob 3. These Dreamers defile the flesh despise rulers and speake euil of them that are in auctoritie Iudae As beastes whiche are without reason Woe be vnto them For they haue folowed the way of Cain and are vtterly geuen to the errour of Balaam for lucres sake and perish in the treason of Chore. Ibidem Why tempte ye me ye Ypocrites said Christe Matth. 22 Wo be vnto you Scribes and Pharisees Ypocrites Mat. 23 Wo be vnto you blinde guides Ibid. O ye fooles and blinde Ibid. Ypocrite first caste out the beame out of thine owne eye and then c. Matth. 7. It were not harde Christian Reader here to lay forth a greater heape of wordes gathered out of the Scriptures which M. Iewel reproueth in me as vncourteous and vnciuile and proceding altogether of choler But these few may suffice for shewe that if we consider wordes only and not the Circumstance of the sentence and the iuste cause why they were with such vehemencie vttered the holy Ghoste may seme also chargeable of vncourteous and vnciuile speache by whose prompting the Scriptures of God haue ben written If the matter of M. Iewels greuous accusation depende of wordes considered in them selfe onely the Scriptures haue wordes that being put a parte sownde more roughly then any yet by the written or by him noted And so farre is that pretensed fault in both Testamentes nolesse then in my bookes But if al be to be weighed by the sentences wherein suche woordes be placed and by the deserte of them in whose reproufe they be vttered as reason is it should then I appeale to al men of iudgement the dew circumstances and causes wel considered whether I haue at any time passed the bowndes of a zealous defender of the Catholique Religion whereof I make profession That the vse of sharpe speache is conuenient according to the desert of M. Iewel and of his felowes LEt the rehersal of my whole sentences with their circumstance in whiche the wordes be founde that doo so much offend be differred vntil anonne And here to turne thy tale vnto you M. Iewel and vnto your felowes lette it be lawful for me to come vnto the causes by whiche I was iustly moued so to write and to the very thinges them selfe for which ye deserue so to be written of The oddes betwixte M. Ievvel and them of his side and vs. and with such courtesie of wordes to be greeted Who be you M. Iewel and who be they of your side Who am I or rather who are we For of my selfe I am content no accompte be made but only as I apply myne endeuour to defende the Churche and the Catholique Faith by you impugned As for vs say the worst ye can of vs we are Catholiques By your owne confession your doctrine hath not benne in al Churches at al times taught and therefore ye haue tolde vs we knowe not what of your Church that it is inuisible secret vnknowen and lurketh in corners no man can tel where and therefore ye are not Catholique We remaine in that we haue receiued ye are departed from that ye receiued The doctrine for whiche ye make suche sturre is it not openly knowen to al from what men ye had it and how late ye learned it Where was this fifth Gospel so muche as whispered in any knowen corner of the worlde before that lewd Augustine Frier Martin Luther brake his vowe ranne out of his Cloister and yoked him selfe to his wanton Nonne Where was your Sacramentarie doctrine preached before Frier Huskin that new named him selfe Oecolampadius likewise brake his solemne promise to God forsooke his Religion and coupled him selfe to a young yoke fellowe Before their time who heard the sownde of your Gospel Where had ye any Dioces any Bishoppe any Church any Priest any Chappel any so much as a Parrish Clerke in the whole worlde Tel vs not as ye are woont of Wiklef Huss Ierome of Prague Berengarius Bertram and a few other which were but byles and botches in the Churche and be in no wise worthy the name of Churche Forgete not what you say in your Apologie that Luther and Zuinglius came first to the Gospel Remember ye cal that time the first appearing the spring and the first grasse as it were of your Gospel If it be so how be ye Catholique or how be ye of the Catholique Churche which is so called in respecte of the vniuersalitie of times Vincētius Lirinen places and personnes As for vs on the otherside we are hable to shew you the continuance of our faith and Doctrine by orderly successions of Bishops going vpward euen from those learned and holy Fathers whom for none other cause but only for the Catholique Faith of Christes Churche most vniustly ye kepe in Prison to S. Gregorie who sent godly Preachers to conuert the English people of our countrie vnto the Faith of Christe and from S. Gregorie further vpward vnto S. Peter and S. Paule that preached the Faith in Rome and consequently vnto Christe him selfe If we would speake vnto you in the person of the Catholique Church whereof we are a parte we might say vnto you those wordes of Tertullian spoken to Heretiques Mea est possessio olim possideo prior possideo Tertul. li. Praescript aduersus haereticos habeo origines firmas ab ipsis authoribus quorum fuit res Ego sum haeres Apostolorum The Scripture and the right sense of the Scripture is my possession I am in possession of olde I claime possession by former right The Churche continueth to the worldes ende vvithout al intermission Matt. 28 Iohan. 14 I haue the assured originals from the first authours by whom it was set forth It is I that am the Apostles heire The Churche M. Iewel as ye ought to knowe continueth from Christes Ascension vnto the ende of the worlde without intermission and without exception of any age or yeres Wil ye haue vs proue it What can we say if ye wil not beleeue Christe nor God him selfe I wil be with you saith Christe al daies vnto the ende of the worlde Againe I wil beseche my Father and he shal geue you an other conforter to remaine with you for euer the Spirite of truthe whiche the worlde can not receiue God saith to Christe in
the despiser and prophaner of the holy Sacramentes the breaker of vnitie the enemie of God And for my warrant in so doing I haue the examples whiche here I laid forth before of the Prophetes of the Apostles specially of S. Paule S. Iude and S. Peter of S. Iohn the Baptiste of our Sauiour Christe him selfe Yea I say furthermore what is that sharpenes of wordes whiche in this case I meane when the auctoritie of the Councels and holy Fathers is so lightly contemned when Gods holy Mysteries are so turkishly prophaned when the Churche is so falsly sclaundered when vnitie is so with most certaine danger of Christian soules broken when the whole state of the Catholique Religion is so wickedly ouerthrowen briefly when God him selfe is so horribly blasphemed In this case I say what sharpenes of wordes is there which iuste griefe of a Christian harte and godly zeale causeth not to seeme not onely excusable but also laudable yea necessary yea with praise and reward to be honoured If when the Children of Israel defyled them selues in Fornication with the wemen of Moab God in anger said to Moyses take al the chiefe of the people Num. 25. and hang them vp in Gibettes against the Sunne that my wrath may be turned from Israel where there is so muche bothe bodily and spiritual fornication yea sacrilegious Incest not only coÌ„mitted but permitted but taught but couÌ„seled and exhorted and for some parte commaunded against the honour and wil of God our Moyseses and Aarons the true Gouernours withholden from executing their dewtie shal it not become vs whose hartes God toucheth at least with wordes to shewe the griefe of our mindes and with conuenient sharpenes of speache to rebuke the heinous wickednes that is committed and so for so muche as in vs lyeth to reuoke Gods people from it If Phinees being nor high Priest nor magistrate but only as yet a priuate man Ibidem was highly praised and rewarded of God for his zeale in killing one of the Israelites for whooredom committed with an harlot of Madian to stay Gods wrath shal we seme to deserue blame for vttering onely wordes in reproufe of so farre more heinous crimes if not to stay God from his iuste wrath nor the offenders from their wickednes yet the people of God from the like example What you are very nice M Iewel that finde so great faulte with me onely for certaine sharpe wordes bestowed in reprehension of your and your companions so diuers and so greeuous enormities You are not taken vp for halting as they say pardy Halting may haue some excuse of humaine infirmitie This that is reprehended in you is not only halting it is falling downe right Neither are you so muche to be rebuked for your owne wilful falling downe but muche more for that you studie and labour al that you can to pul al others downe into the pitte that your selfe are fallen into Now in this case the pitte being so dangerous is it not wel and dewtifully done to geue warning to Gods people to beware of it Al that I writte is for the peoples sake For with you and such as you are I haue litle hope to doo any good Suche ones the Apostle aduertiseth vs Tit. 1. not to deale withal Now how shal the people be dewly warned to beware whose senses be more liuely in worldly then in spiritual thinges excepte the dulnes of their minde be stirred vp with the feare of great peril And how can the greatnes of this peril be signified vnto them but with wordes of some vehemencie As for example If I should say to one that goeth forth by night sir the way you shal passe through is vneeuen by reason of litle holes and furrowes And you take not heede you may happen to stumble or perhappes to wrentche your foote Vpon this warning wil he be so careful how to go as if I say thus If you loue your life beware how you go that way for there be great pittes and dungeons that you shal hardly escape and if you fal you are sure to breake your necke The case is like in this behalfe M. Iewel The people be alwaies going foreward and for lacke of knowledge they passe forth as it were by night Now so farre as we are persuaded the way they go in at this day in England to be perilous as that whiche through Schismes and Heresies and other manifold wickednes thereof ensewing leadeth them to euerlasting damnation should we not deceiue them if we tolde them that Dungeons were but furrowes that deepe pittes were but stumbling holes and that there were no great Danger in the way For this cause therefore M. Iewel that the people of God might be the more a fraid to heare you and beleeue you and to folow your damnable waies I thought it good and expedient in writing against you and against the heresies of our time to vse shâ—rpâ—r wordes and speache of more vehemencie then otherwise I would haue done if I had written to you priuatly or so as knowing that my bookes should haue come to no mannes handes but to yours I knew you would wince and kicke at it But spare not litle care I therefore so that by my labour profite redounde to Christian People For what cause in writing my Confutation of the Apologie I vsed suche verdure of stile as might seme not ouer flatte but tempred with conuenient sharpenesse BEfore I began to set my penne to the paper I considered wel with my selfe what it was to stirre vp such Hurnettes and to prouoke such Waspes to anger Touched I them once were it neuer so gentilly I knew they would straight way flee at my face and buzze about me and that possibly I should not saue my selfe from their stinging Yet hauing a good harte and being right willing for the Truthes sake and for the Defence of Christes Churche to sustaine that Smarte what so euer it should be I tooke aduise with my selfe how to tempre my stile so as bothe Gods cause might seeme sufficiently defended and they not iustly offended Three vvaies of vvriting against an Aduersarie Whereas then there be three wayes of writing against such Aduersaries of the Churche vsed diuersly of the Fathers vpon diuers occasions of time place person and matter of which the one is colde softe meeke lowly and demure an other hote rough sterne and vehement the third tempred with a conuenient mediocritie betwen both though at the firste in my Answer to the Chalenge I inclined more vnto the softe and gentle waye afterward in my Confutation of the Apologie and in my Reioindre I chose the meane that by the one extreme I might not seeme to worke vpon choler and to seeke reuenge rather then Defence of Gods cause by the other to be too abiecte and to shew lesse confidence in our cause to thincouragement of such cockish Aduersaries Now commeth me M. Iewel and medling litle with the matter it selfe and
the very chiefe pointes in controuersie whereby he geueth out a secret confession of the weakenes of his side he inueieth at my person and with al his Rhetorique doth what he can to bring me in discredite with the Reader for my sharpenes and vehemencie of speache And faine would he al men to beleue that I lacke Discretion that Choler ruleth my penne that I vse wordes of more heate and bitternes then it becommeth either my vocation or the cause By this he seemeth to discharge me of what so euer is reprehensible in that other extreme Wherewith I am content For I had rather his quarel should be extended to the reproufe of my person then to the preiudice of the cause And doubtelesse if I had enclined to the other extreme way of writing he would not haue failed but haue turned al to argument of weakenes of our side In deede naturally by wordes and gesture we shew courage when our matter is good and of colde manner of handling there groweth a suspition that the matter is naught Had I therefore alwayes written coldly and softely I had ministred vnto M. Iewel a ioily occasion to insulte vpon me as though our cause had ben the weaker And so he would haue taken that aduantage against me which Cicero Cicero in Brutâ— M. Callidius as he writeth of him selfe once tooke against Marcus Callidius This M. Callidius as he witnesseth of him was an excellent man and was endewed with al singular graces apperteining to a perfit Orator saue that he was not vehement nor applied him selfe to stirre and moue the mindes of them that heard him Cicero and he were once matched together in a cause Callidius accused one Quintus Gallius laying to his charge before the Iudges that he had prepared poison wherewith to haue destroied him For proufe of it he declared that he tooke him in the manner and that he had in readines against him handwritinges witnesses signes examinations and shewed the matter to be manifest and disputed of the crime very exquisitely but yet soberly and coldly When Cicero came to make Defence in the behalfe of Gallius among other thinges that he treated like a cunning Orator at length he goeth from the crime obiected and from the matter it selfe to the manner of Callidius action and made the softnes of his demeanour and coldnes of his vtterance an argument of the others innocencie And there he beareth Callidius in hand that al was but a feined matter For saith he to him wouldst thou Callidius Cicero in Brute haue handled this case in such wise except thou hadst feined Vbi dolor Vbi ardor animi c. Where shewedst thou any griefe Where any heate of the minde Nulla perturbatio animi nulla corporis frons non percussa non femur pedis quod minimum est nulla supplâ—sio In al thy handling of the matter thou shewedst thy selfe to feele no trouble of minde nor of body Thou smotest not thy selfe on the forehed thou gauest not thy selfe a clappe on the thighe thou didst not so much which is the least of al as once stampe with thy foote Thus concluded Cicero against Callidius And thus doubtelesse would M. Iewel haue concluded against me if I had written my answer my Confutation and my Reioindre in such kinde of stile as the contrary whereof he besturreth him selfe so much to disproue in me Yea he would haue borne the worlde in hande which neuerthelesse sometimes he doth in effect gathering argument of the softe and colde manner of my writing that I had but feined to please men and had benne persuaded otherwise in my harte How so euer I had written he was determined to reprehende me In very deede had I thought that he would not haue abused my softenes to shew of the more confidence in his cause and that the same should not haue brought any preiudice to our cause I would haue forborne al roughnes and sharpenes and would more gladly haue folowed the temperate and quiet vaine of myne owne nature Howbeit what he was like to finde at my hande I gaue him warning at the first where I said that In the preface to M. Ievvel before my Ansvver if perhappes I should sometimes seeme to scarre or lawnce a festered bunche that deserued to be cut of I would him to remember how the meekest and the holiest of the auncient Fathers in reprouing heretiques oftetimes haue shewed them selues Zelous earnest eager sharpe and bitter Now to ende this matter wherein I confesse I haue dwelte longer then I intended when I began I pray thee gentle Reader if feare of Excommunication staie thee not from reading heretical Bookes for some parte of my discharge and that M. Iewels falsehode in this thing also as in al other that he taketh in hand may appeare to vew his booke of the Defence and myne of the Confutatioâ— To make the case moâ—e odious on my side and to bearâ— thee in handâ— that I 〈◊〉 vsed sharpenes in writing contrarie to myne owne promise behold how fowly he hath falsified my wordes Thus falsly he layeth the matter forth Iewel M. Ievvel falsifieth this place by cuttiÌ„g avvaie and by changing vvordes M. Harding in the Preface before his Confutation of the Apologie then thus he maketh me to speake The manner of vvriting vvhich I haue here vsed in comparison of our Aduersaries is sober and gentle c. And in respecte of their heate bitternesse and railing as many tel me ouer colde svveete and milde Harding Here good Reader with his c he cutteth of my wordes that doo fully answer his obiection and quite altereth the sense of the place by changing But into And and by leauing out my whole tale that there folowed whereby any reasonable man might be satisfied Thus al his reproufes of me and al his other obiections against the catholike doctrine wil be found false if euery mannes sayinges be onely vewed and so to any indifferent man they shal seeme sufficiently confuted by conference of the bookes onely If his continual falsifyinges be not espied and tried out maruel it is not if the Reader conceiue sinister opinion of me Let al be tried by the bookes not by his false reportes and I doubt not of the iudgement of al that be indifferent in their iudgementes As for those that be parcial and wilfully addicted to their owne likinges I make lesse accompte of them then I haue pitie of them My whole saying then truly reported is this The manner of writing which I haue here vsed in comparison of our aduersaries is sober softe and gentle yet vehementer rougher and sharper then for my woont and nature but in respect of their heate bitternes and railing as many tel me ouer colde swete and milde How so euer it shal seme to thee Reader herein I haue done as I thought best Wel I am assured I haue not gone farre from the steppes of the most praised auncient Fathers of whom who haue
benne commended most for the spirite of meekenes the same thowgh toward other offenders haue shewed them selues like milde Moyses yet hauing to do with Heretikes commonly haue demeaned them selues like earnest Elias If lyers should be entreated in like sorte as true reporters slaunderers and backebyters as faithful frendes heretikes as catholikes Apostates as stedfast Christians blasphemers as saintes truth should be iniured wickednes flattered vertue misprised Of whom the truth was impugned or resisted with malice them litle spared either the Prophetes or the Apostles or Christ him selfe Thus may al this matter for which M. Iewel hath made so much adoo seme to haue benne sufficiently answered before Neither with more truth hath he alleaged that other saying of myne which standing by it selfe alone as he hath placed it in his booke immediatly after the former falsified saying geueth out a colourable shew as if I condemned my selfe Thus he layeth it forth Ievvel Againe in the same Confutation There is no man of vvisedom or honestie that vvould vvith so immoderate vpbraidinges impaire the estimation of his modestie fol. 300. b. Harding But in that saying M. Iewel I rebuke the impudent lyes and slaunders of him that wrote the Apologie who there raileth immoderatly at the Bishops whom the holy Ghost Actâ— 20. as S. Paule saith hath ordeined to gouerne the Church of God saying that neither they knowe nor wil knowe the thinges perteining to their charge nor set a iote by any point of Religion saue that which concernes their belly and riot And there further vncharitably he burdeneth them as if they were so wicked as to commaund Christian Princes to destroy al Religion and to crucifie againe Christe him selfe In my answer to this among other wordes thus I say Confut. 300. b. Put the wordes of this railing Defenders amplification aside and the whole sentence that riseth of al this talke is only this It is not reason Bishops be iudges in matters of faith and not secular Princes Now to geue a colour hereto and to moue Princes to take the matter into their owne handes they say as becommeth them and none els For there is no man of wisedome or honestie that would with so impudent lyes diminish his credite and with so immoderate vpbraidinges impaire the estimation of his modestie Neither be these men so hote in this matter for any loue they beare to secular Princes For if any such Prince be not a fauorer of their Gospel then haue they a Blast of a Trompet to blow him downe as it appeareth by their bookes made against the monstrous regiment of women and by the good obedience their French brethren the Huguenotes kepe toward their king in France Other examples of the like Euangelical obedience in other countries I leaue to mennes remembrance The circumstance of this whole matter considered which may better be seene in my booke I reporte me to the discrete Reader whether any iust cause be ministred to M. Iewel to pike quarel to the wordes by him alleaged specially if they be wholly and truly alleaged But why did he nippe of those foure wordes with so impudent lyes Doth not this discouer his falsehode and shew of whom that saying was meant It semed good to such a lyer to shifte away the mention of Lyes from the Readers eyes that he might not seme charged therewith Thus al his aduantage standeth in falsehode But what shal a man say To require plainenesse and truth of such a Defender of vntruthe were to require him either to vnsay al that he hath said or to say nothing at al. For certaine it is falsehode can neuer be defended by truth Now it remaineth that I require the Reader to conferre the peeces of sentences that M. Iewel hath culled out of my writinges with the whole sentences as they are by me written and with the circumstance of the places whence they be piked out That being done let it be weighed whether I speake ouer bitterly or he be answered according to his deserte For example I thinke it good here to lay two or three before the Reader that so he be admonished to doo the like him selfe for trial and iudgement to be made in the reste Here to lay forth al were to print againe a great parte of my bookes Special vvordes of discourtesie noted by M. Iâ—wel In the first place then M. Iewel hath noted these wordes Your Deuilish spite Reioindre Fol. 18. b. Consider Reader how and vpon what occasion these wordes are there vttered There thou findest thus First he maketh his entrie with a solemne praier protestantlike as if he were about to make a Sermon and his fauorable hearers ready to sing a song Then he accuseth the inflammation of my choler because alluding to the wordes of Daniel I glaunced at the name of the Foreronners of Antichriste therewith rubbing him and his holy companions as it were on their gaulle for the Deuilish spite they shew to the blessed sacrifice of Christe mystically represented and truly continewed in the dayly Sacrifice of the Church now called the Masse Here I said not Your Deuilish spite directing my talke to you M. Iewel but the Deuilish spite they shew to the blessed Sacrifice of Christe speaking indefinitely of the Protestantes and Sacramentaries of our time And why may I not resonably cal their spite against the Sacrifice a Deuilish spite sithence Luther was taught it of the Deuil him selfe by a night coÌ„ference with him as the wil of God was See the Preface before my secoÌ„d Reioindr Fol. 34. b. he should confesse it in open writing him selfe Whereof I speake in my preface before my last Reioindre there setting forth the same famous Disputation betwen the Deuil and Luther out of Luthers own boke The seconde note of bitter wordes that M. Iewel layeth to my charge is this Your Deuilish vvickednes But where found he these three wordes His cotation is this Reioinder Preface to the Reader But what if I haue vttered no such peece of sentence in al that Preface True it is Reader I haue no such saying there in deede If thou wouldst faine saue M. Iewels honestie and trie the truth peruse that whole Preface if thou find it there let it be blowen abrode that he belieth me not in this point though he haue so done in many other If thou finde it not geue vs leaue to say as truth is that for lacke of good matter against the Catholike Doctrine he deuiseth of his owne head slaunderous Lyes against his Aduersarie Whiche is the common practise of them whose cause is naughte And why hath he put this note in the second place O it had ben a fowle crase to his worship being suche a famous Minister of the worde as he is to haue begonne this new deuise with a flatte lye And thereof was he not ignorant And for that cause he placed the other Note before this whereas folowing order he should haue placed this before that For
my Confutation with these wordes It was not the Pope that armed Henrie the sonne against Henrie the fourth For it had ben absurde in reason and nature to make Henrie the seconde sonne to Henrie the fourth There needed not so great a Tragedie to be made for reproufe hereof Touching the pretensed leauing out of the worde Quodammodo out of S. Augustines saying Iudge reader of M. Iewels truthe by the truth in this pointe thus he aggrauateth the matter That in alleging of Liberatus I leafte out this worde quodammodo it was onely an errour For why I should of purpose doo it there was no cause specially that worde bearing in that place * Ye as si◠in that place the vvorde beareth great vveight and could not be leafte out but vvith foule corruption no greater weight But M. Harding alleging these wordes of S. Augustine Christus quodammodo ferebatur in manibus suis not of errour but as it maie be thought of set purpose leafte out Quodammodo as knowing that in that one worde rested the meaning of the whole How iustly M. Iewel excuseth him selfe and accuseth me for leauing out this worde Quodammodo To this I aunswere M. Ievvel in the Replie pag. 287. That you for your parte haue falsified Liberatus Maister Iewell you can not choose but Confesse That ye didde it by onely errour and ouersight and not of set purpose he that knoweth you as we knowe that be now acquainted with your humour can neuer beleeue it And whereas ye saie Liberatus cap. 13. that the worde quodammodo beareth smal weight in that place of Liberatus the Circumstance of the place and the storie of the time must needes conuince you See the Returne Fol. 155. a. in sequent Which thing hath benne already tolde you largely plainely and truly by M. Stapleton in his Returne of Vntruthes whiche you dissemble as if you went inuisible and were not espied for an Author of suche fowle Vntruthes Ye shal neuer be hable to scoure suche spottes out of your cote M. Ievvel most impudently belieth bothe S. Augustine and me touching this vvorde Quodammodo Wel yet ye thought to excuse this your falsehed by obiecting the like vnto me But Sir what if whiles ye go about to excuse your selfe you shewe your selfe worthy to be accused bothe of me and of S. Augustine too If S. Augustines wordes be as I alleged them then who hath belied me who hath belied S. Augustine Go to S. Augustine good reader and thou shalt finde the wordes truly by me alleged and quodammodo not by any falshed leafte out at al for in that place from whence I tooke his testimonie the worde is not nor in any parte of that Sermon which I quoted See the first Concion vpon the. 33. August in Psal 33. Concione 1. sub finē psalme There he saith thus Et ferebatur in manibus suis Hoc verò fratres quomodo posset fieri in homine quis intelligat Quis enim portatur in manibus suis Manibus aliorum potest portari homo manibus suis nemo portatur Quomodo intelligatur in ipso Dauid secundùm literam non inuenimus in Christo autē inuenimus Ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis quando commendans ipsum corpus suum Math. 26. ait Hoc est corpus meum Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis c. And he was carried in his handes This brethern how it might be done in man who can vnderstande For who is borne in his owne handes With the handes of others a man may be borne with his owne handes no man is borne Christe at his supper vvas carried and borne in his ovvn handes How it maie be vnderstanded in Dauid him selfe according to the letter we finde it not but in Christe we finde it For Christe was carried in his owne handes at what time commending his owne body it selfe vnto his disciples he said This is my body For he bore that body in his owne handes c. This testimonie M. Iewel doth directly ouerthrow your doctrine of the Sacramentaries A cleare testimonie for the Real presence and teacheth vs Christes body to be really and in deede present in the most blessed Sacrament For if that substance which is in the Sacrament after consecration were but a signe a token or a figure of Christes body as they of your secte and you doo teache what cause is there why S. Augustine should make so great so straunge and so wonderful a thing of it For if it were but the figure of Christes body that he helde in his hande when he said this is my bodie what wonder was it Dauid of whom there he speaketh could haue done that yea what is that man that can not beare the figure of his bodie in his handes But S. Augustine saith that Christe did beare his owne body in his handes when at the Supper he commended it vnto his disciples sayng this is my bodie Which thing neither Dauid nor any man could euer doo And here consider Reader how S. Augustine speaketh as if it were of purpose to take awaie al occasion of cauil from suche heretiques as should denie the real presence whiche M. Iewel doth The bodie that Christ commended and gaue vnto his disciples was saith S. Augustin ipsum corpus suum his owne bodie it selfe with which vehemēcie of expresse speache he excludeth al such Tropes Figures Significations Remembrances and Energies as do derogate from the real presence And that bodie illud corpus saith he Christ did beare in his handes Which was miraculous and aboue the power of Dauid or any other man Thus we see clearely that where S. Augustine speaketh of the truth and real presence of Christes bodie borne of Christ in his owne handes he speaketh plainely and precisely without this worde Quodammodo But in an other Sermon where he speaketh not specially of his bodie being verily borne in his handes but how and after what manner it was borne in his handes there to signifie the secretnes of the Diuine Mysterie he vseth this word Quodammodo August in Psalm 33. Concio 2. For hauing demaunded this question Quomodo ferebatur Christus in manibus suis How was Christ borne in his owne handes touching the manner thus he answereth Quia quum commendaret ipsum corpus suum sanguinem suum accepit in manus suas quod norunt fideles ipse se portabat quodammodo cum diceret hoc est corpus meum For when he commended and gaue vnto his disciples his owne bodie it selfe and his owne bloude he tooke into his handes that which the Faithful do know and he him selfe did beare him selfe after a certaine manner when he said this is my bodie In which saying the worde quodammodo asmuche to saie after a certaine manner doth not withdrawe our minde from beleefe of the true presence of the bodie borne in Christes handes but from conceiuing a carnal cōmon
reason stand in doubt so it be without pertinacie as that for these be his examples Thobie had a dog or that Aaron had a bearde or that the Arke of the Testament had a couering of Goates heare Further there he procedeth and sheweth the same by the example of a Canoniste exercised in the determinations of holy Churche and an other man hauing thereof no skil nor knowledge likewise of a man skilled in Logique Philosophie and other humaine science and an other man vtterly ignorant and vnlearned The vvhole and true sentence of Gerson vvhiche M. Ievv falsifieth To come vnto the wordes which you haue fowly falsified thus he concludeth Denique sequitur ex his omnibus quòd iudicium conclusiones fidei licet auctoritatinè spectâ—nt ad Praelatos Doctores spectare tamen potest ad alios quà m Theologos deliberatio sicut cognitio super ijs quae fidem respiciunt ita etiam vt ad laicos hoc posset extendi plus aliquando quà m ad multos clericorum Finally of al these foresaid thinges it foloweth that although the Iudgement and Conclusions of faithe belong vnto the Prelates and Doctours by waie of auctoritie yet deliberation or consultation maie belong vnto others beside the Diuines as also examination and trial of those thinges that concerne the faith yea and that so as this thing might be extended vnto laie menne and more vnto them sometimes then to many of the Clerkes Now Reader if thou marke wel and consider Gerson speaketh not at al of geuing sentence definitiue in Councel thou maist see how M. Iewel deceiueth thee Gerson in this place speaketh not at al of the auctoritie of geuing sentence Definitiue in general Councels whereof our controuersie is Beholde therefore with what conscience this man handleth these matters First he falsifieth Gerson making him to speake expressely of Sentence Definitiue to be geuen in a Councel This priuilege of geuing Sentence in Councel saith he c. Then he vttereth Gersons wordes otherwise then Gerson doth Againe Gerson there speaketh of three thinges Of Iudgement to be geuen and Conclusions to be made of the Faith by waie of Auctoritie in general Of Deliberation and Cognition touching matters perteining to the Faith The first he saith belongeth vnto the Prelates and Doctours or Professours of Diuinitie only the seconde and the thirde not onely vnto the Diuines but also vnto others and saith he sometime that is in some cases it may be extended vnto laie personnes And this we holde wel withal For euen at this present we wish that the discrete and wise men of the Laitie would better deliberate of pointes of the Catholique faith then hitherto some haue done and that they would examine and trie your allegations and ours together by conference of the Bookes whence they be taken out that they maie be hable to iudge whether parte vseth more truth and vpright dealing If they would thus doo as perhappes some few of a great number doo they should soone see iust cause to condemne you and vtterly to geue you ouer Iewel Pag. 48. The. 14. Chapt. Verely M. Harding vve neuer said Luther and Zuinglius vvere the first publisshers of the Gospel Harding Proued by their owne wordes that Luther was the first publissher of the Gospel A great Vntruthe M Ievv denieth here tâ—at he saith othervvheres In this your Defence touching Luther you saie no lesse Pag. 17. thus Doctor Luther beganne to publishe the Gospel of Christe If he that beginneth to publish be the first publisher then you said that Luther was the first publisher If there be any difference betwen these two termes then haue you wel defended your selfe If there be none as al that vnderstand English maie easily see there is none then you haue proued your selfe giltie of a great vntruthe In the Apologie preteÌ„ded to be traÌ„slated by the Lady A. B But I must rather put you in remembrance of your owne wordes vttered in the Apologie Who called the first sedicious and heretical preaching of Martin Luther and Hulderike Zuinglius Herbam Euangelij the first spring of the Gospel or the very first appearing of the Gospel as your Ladie Interpreter termeth it Againe who saith that forty yeres agone and vpwarde that is at the first setting forth of Luther and Zuinglius the truth was vnknoweÌ„ and vnhard of and that they first came to the knowledge and preaching of the Gospel Be not these the wordes of your owne Apologie Be they not set forth in diuers bokes of diuers printes And wil ye now tel the worlde and beare vs also in hand who be wel acquainted with your false dealinges that ye neuer said so What can any man vnderstande by the first spring or first appearing of the Gospel but the beginning of the Gospel If the Gospel beganne with Luther and Zuinglius how was it before If before their time the Gospel was vnknowen and vnhearde of for so the Apologie saith then where was there any truth at al If it were not knowen nor hearde of at al where was it in al the earth Or imagine ye that it maie lie hid in some secrete place without and beside the harte minde and spirite of man And if as you saie Luther and Zuinglius came first to the preaching of the Gospel how were they not the first preachers of the Gospel If they were the first preachers how were they not also the first publishers of the Gospel Thus you saie and vnsaie Yea and Nay is one with you And a Gods name al must be defended be it yea be it nay be it true be it false But thus it is cleare that your worde is not the Gospel And God be praised that we haue driuen you to eate your owne worde Iewel Pag. 48. Of Abailard and Almarike and certaine other your strange names he meaneth Apostoliques Peterbrusians VValdenses Albigenses and Imagebreakers vve haue no skil They are none of ours Harding That these Heretiques be of M. Iewelles side The 15. Chapt. I am glad M. Iewel to heare you so absolutely to renouÌ„ce these wicked heretiques at lest in wordes Would God ye would as freely forsake their Heresies in your doinges Alphonsus de Castro lib 9. Bernard Lutzeburg Almarik the heretique First as touching Petrus Abailardus he denied the free wil of man Doo not your great Maisters Wiclef Luther Zuinglius Peter Martyr and Caluine the same If these be yours how is not Abailard also yours Almarik the Frenchman taught of Images of Aulters of Inuocation of Saintes and of Transubstantiation as you doo condemning the Church of Idololatrie in al these pointes as you doo Of this Almarik then haue you no skil Is he not thus farre yours What are you become an other man Bernardus Serm. 66. super Cantica VValdeÌ„ses AEneas Slyuius Bohem. Histor cap. 35. then menne take you to be The Apostolikes denied Purgatorie as you doo The Waldenses in many pointes agree iumpe
we maie not beleeue the Pope if he be of a contrarie iudgement to Scripture Why did not you first proue that the Pope hath determined against the Canonical Scriptures wherin the whole weight of the mater lieth But your lucke is alway to leaue that vnproued which you should chiefly prooue and to encomber the Reader most with matters impertinent and quite besides the issue S. Augustines place would haue serued better to conclude that menne ought not to beleeue Heretiques whiche are certainely deceiued if they maie not beleeue Catholiques when they be deceiued But then where were your credite become who are proued to be suche Wolues and Traitours as S. Bernard spake of in Goncilio Remensi whiche Councel you allege so often times Pag. 104. Iewel Pag. 107. S. Hierome saithe Dices super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia Hieron Aduersus Iouinian lib. 1. Licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claues regni coelorum accipiant ex aequo super omnes Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur Ye vvel saie The Churche is founded vpon Peter Notvvithstanding in an other place the same thing is donne vpon al the Apostles and al receiue the keies of the kingdome of heauen and the strengthe of the Churche is founded equally vpon them al. Harding M. Iewel allegeth this and other places to his owne confusion The. 22. Chapt. What il fortune hath M. Iewel euer to allege the Fathers to his owne shame That so he doth it appeareth by many other and by this very place of S. Hierome against Iouinian whiche he allegeth maimedly cutting of the halfe sentence For the other halfe sentence is this tamen propterea inter duodecim vnus eligitur vt Capite constituto Schismatis tollatur occasio Yet emong the twelue there is one chosen out to thintent he being ordeined Head the occasion of Schisme be taken awaie Thus S. Hierome there If I had nipte of such a notable peece of a sentence M. Iewel would haue benne at me with the Chinecough c. It had serued S. Hieromes turne better reasoning against Iouinian the Heretique who affirmed the state of Virgins to be of no greater perfection then the state of married personnes as M. Iewel doth also at this daie which heresie S. Hierome confuted neuer to haue graunted that S. Peter who had ben a married man was ordeined to be the Head of the Churche if it had benne as M. Iewel would persuade But bicause the truth was that S. Peter was appointed Head emong the Apostles S. Hierome doth not denie it but sheweth the cause why he was preferred before S. Ihon the Euangelist This is M. Iewels plaine dealing What is falsehod if this be not falsehod Iewel Pag. 107. S. Chrysostome of Peter saith thus Crysost in Matth. hâ—mil 83. Duplex crimen erat tum quia repugnauit tum quia caeteris seipsum praeposuit Peter vvas in double faulte bothe for that â—e vvithstoode Christe and also fâ—r that he set him selfe before the reste Harding The common saying is the blinde eateth many a flie Euen so doth M. Iewel for lacke of dewe consideration deuoure many a soule errour S. Chrysostome hath not one iote in this place that maketh for M. Iewel He speaketh of that stoute confidence that Peter had of him selfe when he said Mat. 26. Tvvo faultes coÌ„mitted by S. Peter Zacha. 13 Although they al meaning the reste of the Apostles shal be offended by thee I wil not be offended by thee Neuerthelesse he offended twise saith S. Chrysostome First in that he withstoode Christe and considered not what was alleged out of Zacharie the Prophet before who said I wil smite the shepeheard and the sheepe shal be scattered Yet S. Peter were it for the great loue and the affection that he bare to his Maister or were he touched with some ambition and trusted to wade through of him selfe without farther helpe of special grace warranted the mater that he would neuer fal from Christe There is one of his faultes The other faulte is Quoniam praeposuit se illis bicause he prefered him selfe before the other Apostles What meaneth that M. Iewel saie you What so euer you would menne should thinke of it it maketh no mater The right meaning of the place is that Peter offended the second time bicause he thought him selfe more sure as touching standing to his Maister then al the reste of the Apostles What is this to the meaning that you would faine wring out of this place that Peter was not Head of the Apostles In the selfe same Homilie before S. Chrysostome calleth him verticem Apostolorum the very Head and chiefest of al the Apostles EtiaÌ„ ipsum ApostoloruÌ„ verticem negare permisit Christ suffered saith he the toppe or head him selfe of the Apostles to denie him Againe S. Chrysostome faithe in an other Homilie as is afore tolde that Peter had committed vnto him the charge Chrysost hom 55. in Matt. and gouernment of the whole worlde Thus you may see how al thinges go against the heare as they say with you M. Iewel thus alwaies to allege suche sayinges out of the Fathers as further not your cause but rather hinder it So shal al they doo that fight against the Truth Ievvel Pag 107. Augustin epist 86. S. Augustine maketh Peter Felovve and Equal vvith the other Apostles Inter seconcorditer vixerunt Petrus Condiscipuli eius Peter and his felovves liued agreably together Harding Peter felow Disciple with the rest and yet Head of al by S. Augustine The 23. Chapt. Peter and they that were Christes Disciples with him liued concorditer for that is S. Augustines worde in good concorde together I graunt what conclude you thereof So did Christe and the Apostles liue in concorde and agreably together and yet there was a difference betwen them pardy If you harpe vpon the terme Condiscipuli Ioan. 15. Matt. 28. whiche you interprete felowes Christe calleth his Apostles in one place his frendes and in an other place his brothers And yet euery wise man confesseth a difference and that Christe was their Head and that they were his Disciples and subiectes Euen so maie we iudge of this Felowship that was betwen Peter and the reste of the Apostles How be it in the selfe same Epistle of S. Augustine S. Peter is called Caput Apostolorum Coeli ianitor Ecclesiae fundamentum Augustin epist 86. The Head of the Apostles the porter of Heauen and the foundation of the Churche Which saying not being S. Augustines owne but an other mans yet his sileÌ„ce in not speaking against it in that place proueth that he doth wel allow it And that to be euen so the same S. Augustine in a Sermone whiche he made to the people vnto whom he spake alwaies without al obscuritie the plaine truth calleth S. Peter Head of the Churche saying Augustin de tempo Ser. 124. Head of the churche Totius corporis
morbum in ipso capite componit Ecclesiae in ipso vertice componit membrorum omnium sanitatem in Petroscilicet illo qui dixerat etiam si oportuerit me mori tecum non te negabo He cureth the sickenes of the whole body in Peter the very head it selfe of the Churche and in the very crowne of the head it selfe he setteth in order the health of al the members I meane in the selfe same Peter that had said Although I were driuen to die with thee Mat. 26. I wil neuer denie thee Iewel And the very Ordinarie Glose geueth these vvordes to S. Paule Non didici ab aliis tanquam à maioribus sed contuli cum illis Gloss Galat 2. tanquam cum amicis paribus I learned not of Peter and others as of my betters but I had conference with them as with my Equalles and frendes Harding Difference betwen learning and conferring together Had M. Iewel learnedly considered the difference The 24. Chapt. that is bewixt learning and conferring he would neuer for very shame haue alleged thâ—s place of the Ordinarie Glose In learning the teacher is of greater dignitie In conferring what soeuer the personnes otherwise are either of one dignitie or of diuers as touching the act of conference they make them selues equal as doth the King with his Counsel when they laie their heades together to boult out one mater Yet no man maie thereof reason that there is no difference of state betwixte the King and them of his Counsel or that euery of the Counsel is of equal state one with an other What neede S. Paule had of S. Peter to haue matters decided by his authoritie Actâ— 15. it appeareth in the Actes of the Apostles when he with Barnabas and others were sent from Antioche to Hierusalem to know whether the Gentiles were bounde to be circumcised But M. Iewels happe is alwaies to fal vpon places that bringe him smal worship or aduantage of his cause The Apologie Part. 2. Cap 3. Diui. 4. pag. 107. It vvas said indifferently to them al feede ye c. Confutation Wee denie that it was said indifferently to them al Feede ye Iohan. 21. yea or that it was said at al Feede ye To Peter and none elles was it said Feede my lambes Feede my sheepe .. Which worde of Feeding so singularly spoken to Peter in the presence of the other Apostles proueth that it was not indifferently said to al Feede ye Iewel Pag. 107. It forceth not greatly vvhat M. Hardinge denie or graunte hauing neither reason nor autoritie but onely his ovvne But if povver vvere not geuen indifferently to al the Apostles tel vs then vvherein is the â—ddes VVhat had Peter more VVhat had the others lesse Or vvhat olde Doctour or learned Father euer savv this difference Harding M. Iewel is tolde where he maie finde his demaundes answered and are also here answered in parte Though we tel you this The 25. Chapt. and proue it neuer so plainely yet stil wil you wrangle The Fathers haue infinite places for Peters preeminence aboue the rest as I haue partely here but more largely in my Answer Ansvver to your Chalenge shewed Article 4. Yea the selfe same places of the Fathers that you allege to proue the contrarie apparently within few lines after doo vtterly and in plaine wordes so refute you as your selfe knowe that for very shame you durst not to allege any whole place of certaine the olde Fathers but Iewishly lefte them circumcised as I haue shewed before in sundry allegations of S. Hierome of S. Chrysostome of S. Augustine and of others wherby the Reader hath a viewe and maie conceiue what you haue done in the reste And yet suche is your impudencie as though you walked inuisible and none were hable to detecte your false dealing you cal importunately vpon vs to shewe the oddes and to tel you what authoritie Peter had more then the reste And to declare what olde Father euer sawe any suche difference If it maie please you to reade the fourth Article of my Answere to your Chalenge M.D. Saunders booke entitled the Rocke of the Churche and M. Stapletons Returne of your Vntruthes vpon you in iustificatioÌ„ of Vntruthes which you impute vnto mee there maie you haue moe olde Fathers then ye haue yet or euer shal be hable to make reasonable answer vnto A most plain and euident testimonie of the Popes Primacie ouer al the vvorlde Chrysost homil 1. de poeniteÌ„tia In the meane time tel vs what S. Chrysostome meant when he said thus in his first homilie de poenitentia Ecclesiae primatum gubernationemque Petro per vniuersum mundum Christus tradidit Christ hath deliuered vnto Peter the primacie and gouernment of the Churche through the whole worlde When ye can shewe vs suche a plaine testimonie out of any Father that S. Peter had not the primacie and supreme gouernment deliuered vnto him by Christ you shal seeme to saie somewhat Iewel Pag. 107. 108. Christe saide equally vnto them al. Receiue the holy Ghoste whose sinnes ye forgeue they are forgeuen Goe into the whole worlde Preache the Gospel to euery creature These vvordes perceiue equally vnto al. Peter had no more the holy Ghoste no more povver to forgeeue sinnes no more commission to go into the vvhole vvorlde no more authoritie to preache the Gospel then others had Harding Why are you so copious in bye maters wherein I neuer striued with you and so barrein in the principal mater that lieth in controuersie betwixte vs Equal power was graunted to the Apostles to gather the Church this was neuer denied you But their power was not equal to rule the Church after that it was gathered from euery coaste of the worlde The which point you disproue not Iewel Pag. 108. M. Harding saithe To the Reste of the Apostles it vvas not said at al Iohan. 21. Feede ye To Peter and to none els vvas it said Feede my Lambes Feede my sheepe Yet Christe him selfe saithe Quod vni dico omnibus dico Marc. 13. That I saie to one I saie to al. Harding M. Iewel fouly falsifieth the worde of Christ him selfe What M. Iewel wil ye neuer leaue your falsifying The 26. Chapt. And are ye not a fraide to corrupte the holy Worde of the Sonne of God him selfe Is our cause so good and substantial that ye can make no shewe of truthe a-against it but by foule corruption of the Scripture Where is this written Be ye not a fraide for your aduantage to deceiue the worlde with Scripture of your owne making And were it true that S. Marke had so written how can you wreste it to your purpose Thus it is good Reader Our Sauiour gaue a general warning not onely to the Apostles but to al menne beleeuing in him to be watcheful against our Lordes comming which shal be suddeinely at suche time as they know not and therefore said Vigilate
debet esse iudex in causa propria The Pope maie not be iudge in his ovvne cause Harding The Pope maie be iudge in the cause of the Churche Though Leos Authoritie be not greate in his ovvne cause The .29 Chapt. yet in the cause of the Churche being so auncient so holy so learned a Father by your owne graunt it must be very great The wordes you bring are of your owne forging Wherefore as ye haue hitherto benne a forger of Doctours Scriptures the Canon lawe and Gloses so now you are become a forger of the Ciuile lawe With what wordes the lawe is written here anonne you shal see But be it true that Vlpian said for so you should haue said The Emperour alleged for Vlpian and not the Emperour as your skil in the lawe vnskilfully telleth vs no man maie minister lawe vnto himselfe Yet neither he not the Emperour euer forbad but that a man maie truely reporte of his owne matters Now Pope Leo that holy man and great learned Clerke in the place by me alleged doth not minister lawe vnto him selfe in his owne cause but for the better gouernement of the Churche and that peace and good order maie the better be kepte in the Churche reporteth a difference or diuersitie of power to be emong Bishoppes with likenesse of Order and honour as S. Hierome in his epistle to Euagrius coÌ„fesseth them to be of one merite and of one Priestehood In declaring whereof he speaketh of the right that the Bishoppes of the See Apostolique S. Peters successours ought to haue in the gouernment of the vniuersal Church through out the whole worlde This M. Iewel was not his owne priuate cause but the cause of the whole Churche in whiche he might geue iudgement But M. Iewel guilfully seemeth to put the case as though there had ben many Catholiques that called Pope Leo to lawe for vsurping the authoritie not dewe vnto him and as thoughe he had ben defendant against them al yea as thoughe he had stepte vp into his iudgement seate and there sitting as a Iudge in his owne mater had pronunced sentence for him selfe Whiche thing he did not nor euer was there any catholique man that laid any suche kinde of vsurpation to his charge he neuer stoode as defendant nor sate as Iudge in his owne cause but discretely and truely as occasion serued signified vnto the worlde his lawful authoritie and his â—uccessours as Kinges vse to doo in their titles of honour and stiles If M. Iewel wil calle his double wiued lawier vnto him and with him peruse the lawe that beginneth Qui Iurisdictioni praeest neque sibi ius dicere debet â— Qui iu risdiccioni ff de iurisdict omn. iudic neque vxori vel liberis suis c. whiche is the true lawe that he should haue alleged and wil consider that Princes Kinges and Emperours vse to doo in their owne causes by very order of lawe and if he wil therewith searche out the right meaning of the lawe L. in priuatis ff de inoffic testamen In priuatis iudicus pater filium vel filius patrem iudicem habere potest he shal finde both that he hath fondely vainely and rashly alleged a lawe that he vnderstoode not nor made any thing to his purpose but onely to fil vp paper with wordes and also that it is one thing to saie Nemo debet sibi ius dicere as he falsely allegeth the Lawe and that it is a farre other thing to saie Qui iurisdictioni praeest neque sibi ius dicere debet neque vxori vel liberis suis neque libertis vel caeteris quos secum habet For so is the lawe vttered by Vlpianus As for your marginal note out of the Decrees you shew how barrein and poore your mater is that for defence of it you are faine to runne for helpe to notes put in the margent of the Glose a very poore shifte God wote To your marginal note I answere The Pope as there the Glosse saith if there be a mater in lawe betwen him and an other man about a temporal thing ought not him selfe to be iudge in that case and to take the thing into his owne possession before it be tried whose it is but to choose Vmpeeres to sitte vpon it Now marke what followeth good Reader 16. q. 6. Consuetudo tamen si vult esse Iudex in causa Ecclesiae potest esse yet if he list to be a iudge in a mater concerning the Churche he maie be Certainely no one thing more concerneth the wealth tranquillitie and good order of the Churche then that whiche Leo intreateth of in the epistle 84. to Anastasius the Bishop of Thessalonica whiche in my Confutation to good purpose I alleged Iewel Pag. 111. Concil Aphricanum cap. 105. Superbum seculi typhuÌ„ It is vvel knovven that the Pope hath sought for and claimed this vniuersal authoritie these many hundred yeres Pope Innocentius vvas therefore reproued of pride and vvorldely lordelinesse by the vvhole Councel of Aphrica Harding The Aphrican Councel vntruly reported by M. Iewel The 30. Chapt. The Pope hath not sought for that whiche our Lorde gaue vnto S. Peter no more then S. Peter sought for it at Christes graunt The fame he maie iustely claime for so muche as it perteineth to the feeding and gouernement of Christes flocke and to the strengthning of the faithful as being the Successour of S. Peter That you saie of Innocentius is vtterly false He was not so reproued of pride and worldely Lordelinesse as more like a proud worldely Lordeling then an humble plaine handler of Goddes Truthe you saie Neither be those wordes superbum seculi typhum which you laie forth in your Margent to be founde in any Epistle of the Aphrican Councel to Innocentius nor be they spoken or written at al against Innocentius as you beare vs in hande Neither was Innocentius then a liue when the Aphrican Councel was holden but departed this life long before I graunt there is extant an epistle of the Aphrican Councel to the learned Pope Coelestinus in whiche Epistle Innocentius that blessed man is not once touched Neither was the charitie of that whole Councel so smal as to speake so il of a holy Bishop so long before departed The manner of those Fathers was to praie for suche specially for the Bishoppes of Rome deceassed rehearsing their names in their Masses and in no wise to reporte so il of them How be it in that whole epistle Pope Innocentius is not so muche as once named nor spoken of There we finde these three wordes fumosum typhum seculi that is to saie the smoky pride of the worlde or the vaine stoutenesse of the temporaltie but in a farre other sense and to an other purpose then M. Iewel pretendeth Whether he rightly vnderstode the place or no I haue good cause to doubte It seemeth that the Bishop of Rome in the cause of Appiarius whom
adding the wordes of Vniuersal Bishop to it whiche are not in the Canon expressed Nay saith he your owne Doctour Gratian doth allege it so This saie I M. Iev falsifieth Gratians meaning is a worse falsehed then the former Gratian vseth to kepe a certaine order and methode in othet places of his booke as he doth in this special place Distin 99. whereof M. Iewel now would faine take aduantage In that Distinction he treateth of Patriarkes saying in the first parte that Archebishoppes must obey Patriarkes In the second that Archebishoppes must not be called ordinarily Primates In the third that the Pope him selfe is not to be called Vniuersal And so doth the Glose diuide this Distinction Glosa in distin 99. beginning thus Haec Distinctio diuiditur in tres partes in quarum prima dicitur quòd vbi erant Primates Gentium olim ibi sunt modò Primates id est Patriarchae qui idem habent officium licet nomina sint diuersa Secunda ibi nulli Archiepiscopi Tertia ibi Vniuersalis This Distinction is diuided into three partes in the firste of whiche it is said that where the Primates of the Heathens were in olde time there are nowe the Primates that is to saie Patriarches who haue the same office that Primates haue although the names be diuers The second parte of this Distinction beginneth at the wordes Nulli Archiepiscopi The third parte beginneth at the worde Vniuersalis This being so it wil folow that Gratian meant to place the Canon of the Councel of Carthage in the second part of his 99. Distinction And so the mater of the vniuersal Bishop is not referred by Gratian to the Councel of Carthage He neuer meant any such thing Neither was there any cause in deede why he should so haue meant The true discussiō of Gratians vvordes in the 99. distinction But it is referred to the third parte of the distinction which foloweth afterward For it is Gratians custom for the connexion of his maters one after an other to put in his own wordes many times wherby to signifie vnto his reader what foloweth These wordes then vniuersalis autem nec etiam Romanus Pontifex appelletur Vnde Pelagius secundus omnibus Episcopis These wordes I saie be Gratians owne wordes whiche are this muche in English Not so much as the Bishop of Rome him selfe maie be called Vniuersal Bishop wherevpon Pelagius the Second writeh to al Bishops If now M. Iewel be so blinde a Lawier as to saie that the wordes Vniuersalis Episcopus c. do apperteine to the former Decree of the Carthage Coūcel and be a peece thereof he maie saie also that these wordes Vnde Pelagius Episcopus c. be wordes of the Carthage Councel For they are no lesse in the same Chapter as it maie seeme But verely a meane wise man might haue seene the difference of these maters And yet M. Iewel is so lustie in his game that he doubteth not to saie Iewel Pag. 121. distin 99. And in the Glose thereupon it is noted thus In hac distinctione dicitur quòd Papa non debet dici Vniuersalis In this distinction it is said that the Pope ought not to be called the Vniuersal Bishop Harding O impudent Gloser Are you not ashamed to shew your peeuish falshed after this sorte Why leafte you out the beginning of the sentēce Why haue you placed and counterfeited the wordes otherwise then thei are in the glose There they are thus written Vniuersalis M. Ievv fovvly falsifieth the Glose vpon Gratian. haec est tertia pars Distinctionis in qua dicitur quòd Papa non debet vocari Vniuersalis This word Vniuersal is the first worde whereat the third parte of the distinction beginneth in whiche third parte it is said that the Pope ought not to be called Vniuersal It is the third parte saith the glose whiche is to saie it is not the second part wherein the Decree of the Councel of Carthage was rehersed it is the third part For as the first part spake of Primates the second of Archebishoppes so the third speaketh of the Pope The Decree of Carthage belongeth to the mater of Archebishoppes and therefore it standeth in the second part Where are now these vaine bragges so ofte doubled by M. Iewel that these wordes Let not the Pope be called the Vniuersal Bishop are the woordes of the Councel of Carthage as Gratian allegeth Pag. 118. They are not the wordes of that Councel neither doth Gratian so allege them nor doth the Glose so take them and consequetly you are like your selfe I neede not tel what Some man perhaps wil saie at the lest they are Gratians wordes and then he holdeth that the Pope ought not to be called the Vniuersal Bishop Concerning that obiection I answer that Gratian doth no more but ioine together diuers decrees and his wordes depende vpon those that folow For he referreth him selfe to the Decrees whiche he there immediatly after reciteth These Decrees are the one of Pope Pelagius the second the other of Pope Gregorie the first whiche both refused the name of Vniuersal Bisshop as also al their successours haue donne But neither of them both refused that sense and meaning of the name wherein the fourh Councel offered that name vnto Pope Leo In vvhat sense the fourthe Coūcel of fred vnto Pope Leo the title of vniuersal Bishop vvhiche the catholiques defende Greg. li. 7 Epis 64. and that sense we only defend To witte that the See of Rome is Head of al Churches and maie correcte or supplie the want of any Church whatsoeuer by sending a Bisshop to it where none is or by deposing him that is vnwotthy of that roume For hereof the same S. Gregorie who refused to be called Vniuersal writeth thus Quod se dicit Primas Bizancenus sedi Apostolicae subijci si quae culpa in Episcopis inuenitur nescio quis ei Episcopus subiectus non sit Cùm verò culpa non exigit omnes secundùm rationem humilitatis aequales sunt Whereas the primate of Constantinople saith he is vnder the Apostolike See A saying of S. Gregorie to be noted touching this whole controuersie if any faulte be founde in the Bishops I know not what Bishop is not subiect hereunto But when no faulte requireth so al are equal according as humilitie would it should be Concerning the Supremacie of the Bishoppe of Rome I thinke it not conuenient to stande here any longer about it seing al the Articles therof are sufficiently by me handled already both in my Answer to the Chalenge and also in the Confutatiō of th'Apologie M. Dorman also hath answered to the Obiection out of the sixth Coūcel of Carthage and M. Stapleton hath wel handled the mater of Appeales of the cōfirmation of Councels of the Popes iurisdiction ouer the East and of their not erring in the faith D. Saunder hath shewed Peter to be the Rocke
and the Popes to be his successours He hath shewed also how the other Apostles were equal with Peter and how in other respectes they had lesse power for ordinarie continuance in their successours then Peter had But if I were of M. Iewels boasting humour I should now dissemble al this and write it in here a fresh as though nothing had benne said thereof before But I trowe wise men espie that smoky pride in him wel ynough I wisse lesse bookes might haue serued him for any good stuffe that is to be founde in them The fourth Booke conteineth a ful refutation of al that M. Iewel hath laid together in his pretensed Defence touching the Succession of Bishops in the Churche from the Apostles time vnto this present age Item a proufe of the necessitie of Confession WRITING the Confutation of the Apologie I had occasion to speake of the Succession of Bishoppes Thereto M. Iewel in his pretensed Defence hath replied at great length Wherein bicause he may perhaps to the vnlearned seme to haue some colour of aduantage against vs the matter being of good weight I iudge it not vnprofitable to bestow some labour and here to coÌ„fute his whole Defence touching that point whereby I doubte not it shal appeare how litle credite he deserueth if his sayinges be throughly examined where he blazeth forth most shew of learning That it maie appeare how directly he answereth the pointes of this Controuersie and of what pith his owne sayinges and how muche to the purpose his testimonies be and how truly alleged and that al be made the more plaine and cleere I wil reherse first the place of the Apologie that gaue me occasion to treat of Succession then the wordes of my Confutation against whiche M. Iewel bendeth the force of his Defence After this I wil laie forth his whole Defence sentence by sentence worde by worde as I finde it in his booke and so briefly as I can refel the same I am driuen to reherse that discourse of my Confutation againe bicause a great parte of the Defence depending thereof and being directed against the same onlesse it were againe by rehersal commended to the readers view and memorie our whole disputation would be obscure and vncertaine And this haue I donne also the rather to thintent the reader might haue that parte of my Confutation intier and whole whiche M. Iewel hath caused to be set forth in his booke pared hewed dismembred and altogether disgraced The Apologie parte 2. Cap. 5. Diuis 1. in the Defence Pag. 125. Furthermore vve saie that the miâ—ister ought laufully duely and orderly to be preferred to that office of the Church of God and that no man hath povver to vvrest him selfe into the holy Ministerie at his ovvne pleasure VVherefore these persons do vs the greater vvrong vvhiche haue nothing so common in their mouthes as that vve do nothing orderly and comely but al thinges troublesomly and vvithout order and that vve allovv euery man to be a priest to be a teacher and to be an interpretour of the scriptures Confutation fol. 56. a. Al from starre to starre leafte out by M. Ievvel Saing and doing are two thinges Ye saye wel in outward appearance Would God your doing were accordingly Albeit the manner of your saying had ben more coÌ„mendable if in so weighty a point you had spokeÌ„ more particularly and distinctly not so generally and confusely * Ye saye that the minister ought laufully to be called for so hath your Latine and duely and orderly to be preferred to that office of the Churche of God Why do ye not so why is not this obserued among you Gospellers What so euer ye meane by your Minister and by that office this are we assured of that in this your new Church Bishops Priestes Deacons Subdeacons or any other inferiour Orders ye haue none No holy orders among the gospellers Leâ—â— out by M. Ievvel In saying thus we speake not of our Apostates that be fledde from vs vnto your congregations Who as they remaine in the order which they receiued in the catholike Church so being diuided and cut of from the Church and excommunicate laufully they may not minister the sacramentes * For where as after the doctrine of your newe Gospel like the foreronners of Antichrist ye haue abandoned thexternal Sacrifice and priesthod of the newe Testament and haue not in your secte consecrated Bishops and therefore being without Priestes made with lawfull laying on of handes as Scripture requireth al holy Orders being geuen by Bishops only how can ye saie that any among you can laufully minister or that ye haue any lauful Ministers at al This then being so let me haue leaue to oppose one of these Defenders consciences And that for the better vnderstanding I may directe my wordes to a certaine person let him be the author of this Apologie or bicause his name to me is vnknowen let him be M. Iewel for with him gladly would I reason in this point the rather for acquaintaince and for that he beareth the name of a Bishop in that Churche where my selfe had a rome How saye you Syr minister Bishop ought the Minister to be laufully called ought he duely and orderly to be preferred to that office or as the Latine here hath promoted or put in authoritie ouer the Church in the Apologie this Defender saith yea Leaft out by M. Ievvel Then answer me directely How proue you your selfe laufully called to the roume you take vpon you to occupie First touching the ordinary Succession of Bishops from which as you knowe S. Iraeneus Tertullian Optatus and S. Augustine bring argument and testimonie of right and true religion do you allow the same with those fathers or no If not then dissent you from the learned and most vncorrupte antiquitie which is not reasonable neither then are you to be heard If yea then how can you recken vs vp your succession by which you may referre your imposition of handes and consecration to some of the Apostles or of their scholers as the foresaid fathers did to repel the nouelties of heresies and defende their continual possession of the Churche Which if ye go about how can ye but to the great hinderance of your cause bewraye your weake holde For whereas succession of doctrine must be ioyned with the succession of persons as Caluine in his institutions affirmeth and Beza auouched at the assemblie of Poyssi in Fraunce and we also graunt Succession of doctrine ioyned vvith succession of persons how many Bishoppes can you recken whom in the Churche of Sarisburie you haue succeded as wel in doctrine as in outward sitting in that chayre How many can you tel vs of that being your Predecessours in order before you were of your opinion and taught the faithful people of that Dioces the doctrine that you teache Dyd Bishop Capon teach your doctrine did Shaxton did Campegius did Bishop Audley Briefly did euer any Bishop of that See
Pope him selfe vvil say as it is before alleged Dist 40. Non nos If the Pope vvant good thinges gotten by his ovvne merites the good thinges vvhich he hath by Succession of S. Peter his predecessour are sufficient Harding They are sufficient for him to doo his ministerial office towards other and so to make him holy by office but not sufficient to make him holy in life The ministerie of an euil man is auaileable to the effecte of sacramētes And the place doth euidently shewe that onely to be the Popes meaning And I suppose your selfe M. Iewel doo not denye but that an euil man may doo the office of a good Predecessour as wel to the peoples saluation in ministring Sacramentes as a man being neuer so good Why then skoffe you at the Pope for this saying What gredinesse of gainesaying is this to control where no fault is Iewel Pag. 127. The Glose thereupon saith Petrus fecit Papas haeredes bonitatis suae Peter made the Popes Heieres of his goodnes by Succession Harding M Ievvel falsifieth the Glose In Glosa Distīct 40. Non nos It is not so but thus Petrus ad hoc transmisit dotem meritorum cum haereditate innocētiae ad posteros vt essent haeredes bonitatis suae Peter made ouer the dowrie of his merites with the inheritance of his innocencie vnto his Aftercommers to the ende they might be the heires of his goodnesse There is oddes betwene these sayinges Peter would haue them to be heires of his goodnesse and Peter made them heires of his goodnesse The first he might doo the second he was not hable to doo For goodnesse commeth onely of God Iewel Pag. 128. Distinct 19 Sic omnes in Glosa Againe the glose saith Papa sanctitatem recipit à Cathedra The Pope receiueth holinesse by succession of his Chaier Harding He receiueth holinesse of dignitie degree and office but not of life For that is the very meaning of the lawe which saith that al the holy Decrees of the See Apostolike are so to be taken as if they were strenghthened with the diuine voice of S. Peter hem selfe Marke he speaketh of Decrees but not of good workes And I trow M. Iewel him selfe doth not denye but that Baptisme ministred or the Worde of God preached by Iudas was as good as that which was done by Peter Why then scoffeth he for hitherto he doth none other but onely to playe his parte Iewel Pag. 128. Iohan. 8. Iohan. 9. Such affiance sometyme had the Scribes and Pharisees in their succession Therefore they said vve are the children of Abrahā Vnto vs hath God made his promises art thou greater then our father Abraham Harding If the Iewes vsed these wordes in such sense that how so euer they liued they should be saued as being the children of Abraham it was a naughty sense But if they had vsed the same wordes against the schismatical places of praier either of Ieroboam or of the mount Garizim or of Onias temple in Egipte they had vsed them right wel For as Christe said Salus ex Iudaeis est Iohan. 4. Saluation is of the Iewes and not from the Samaritans or any other Schismatikes And so concerning successiō of dignitie and not of life they might wel say vnto vs God hath made his promises For so in deede he had but yet with such condition if they dishonoured not God 1. Reg. 1.2 and despised not Christe their Sauiour For in doing so al the promises made to them were at an ende bicause God would seeke a newe people to him selfe Deuter. 32 in case they woulde forsake him and seeke to them selues a newe God But now the Scribes and Pharisees vsed not these woordes against Schismatikes but against Christe him selfe whom bothe the olde Prophecies and his owne marueilous workes witnessed to be the true Messias Iohan. 5. And yet Christe came euery yere to the Temple and kepte al the Lawe and honoured the Scribes and Pharisees for that they sate in Moyses Chaier so that there was now no cause why they should talke of their Succession and of Gods promises against him who denied none of them bothe but mainteined them bothe For S. Paule said euen after Christes death vnto the Iewes Actor 13. To you we ought first to preache the woorde of God But bicause ye refuse it and iudge your selues vnworthy of euerlasting life beholde we are turned vnto the Gentiles For so our Lorde commaunded vs. The Iewes then abused them selues against Christ in pretending Succession and promises where obedience and faith should haue ben vsed Euen so if the Pope or any other Bishop now at the second comming of Christ would make claime to heauen by his Succession of S. Peter or S. Iames he should but deceiue him selfe But in the meane time any catholike Bishop may lawfully vse the argument of Succession against heretikes and schismatikes who runne out from the true Succession of Bishops 3. Reg. 12. as Ieroboam did from the high Priestes of Moyses It skilleth much M. Iewel how euery place of scripture be applied For that which serueth very wel against Heretikes wil not serue at al against Christe Iewel Ioan. ◠The Pharisees said As for Christ vvee knovv not from vvhence he came or vvhat he can shevv for his Succession Harding Albeit the Pharisees would not see or heare what predecessours Christe was hable to shew for him selfe yet God hath so notably commended the matter of Succession in Christes owne person according to his manhode that I marueil you would once bringe forth any example thereof seing it maketh so euidently against you Christ verely to geue example to al the world how much they ought to esteme the order and Succession as wel of Bishops in matters of Religion as of Kinges and Ciuile Gouernoures in politike matters prouided that his line and succession should be most notable euen from Adam til his owne Mothers time the blessed Virginne Marie as S. Matthew Matt. 1. Luk. 3. and S. Luke haue testified Neither could either the calamitie of the people of the Iewes or the sinnes of the howse of Dauid by any meanes hinder but that Christ would come lineally from Abraham and from Dauid which thing was written for our learning and instruction Rom. 15. to shew thereby that no sinnes of the Bishoppes nor of the faithful people shal be hable to stay but that his prouidence in gouerning the Churche by his Apostles and their Successours Continuance of Succession Psal 88. shal continew for euer accordingly as Dauid hath foretolde at large saying If his children forsake my lawe and walke not in my pathes if they prophane my righteousnes and kepe not my commaundementes I wil visite their iniquities with the rodde and their sinnes with scourges but my mercie I wil not separate from them that is to say from the seede of Dauid whiche is meant to be the faithful people Gal. 3.
whiche beare the name of Christians And to the Apostles Christe said Matt. 28. I am with you al daies vntil the worldes ende If he be with them til the ende they likewise are in the worlde til the worldes ende But they liued not so long in this worlde therefore it is meant that from age to age and from man to man Christe will haue alwayes some to sitte in the Chaieres and Seates of his Apostles by ordinarie Succession vntil the worldes ende Of this Succession Dauid in the person of Christ spake in spirite saying to the Church For thy Fathers Psal 44. Sonnes are borne vnto thee Thou shalt ordeine them the Chiefe Gouernours ouer al the earth The Church answereth I shal be mindeful o Lorde of thy name in euery Generation and Generation therefore the peoples shal geue praise and thankes to thee for euer and from age to age .. So that the cause why the Churche continueth are the Gouernours by God appointed vnto it and as the Churche continueth from age to age so do they gouerne from age to age For the Visible Flocke of shepe can not long lacke their Visible shepeheard at any time but that the Wolues wil enter in and disperse them a sunder Iewel VVhen Christ beganne to refourme their abuses and errours they said to him Luc. 20. Mark 11. Beda in Lucam li. 5. cap. 80. by vvhat povver doest thou these thinges and vvho gaue the this authoritie vvhere is thy Succession Vpon vvhiche vvordes Beda saith They vvould haue the people vnderstand for that he had no solenne Succession that al that he did vvas of the Deuil Harding See vvhat cōueiāce M. Ievv vseth to helpe his cause Scarse one line hath passed your handes into the whiche you haue nor conueied of your owne head the worde Succession Whereas neither S. Luke nor S Mathew nor S. Marke nor S. Paule nor S. Hierome nor the Pharisees nor Bede whom you allege vsed that worde at al. But to make your tale sound against Succession M. Ievv falsifieth al his testimonies you driue al to that point and thereby you falsifie euery place that you bring as euery man shal finde who doth conferre the matter with the Originals and so al your Defence standeth vpon fialsified Authorities But our cause God be praised for it is so strong Christes true Succession that we neede not to care though al that were true whiche you allege For albeit the Pharisees would not harken to Christes Succession yet in deede he Succeded lineally to al the Kinges and Patriarkes and thereby to the Priestes also of the best Order to wit of the Lawe of nature and not of the Law of Moyses whiche was an inferiour Lawe in respecte of that of Nature Christ therefore had not onely a most perfite Succession which is described in the Gospel from Adam til Ioseph the husbande of the Virgin Marie but also with that his Succession he stopped al the mouthes of his Enemies For thus he said to them VVhat thinke you of Christe that is of your Messias whom you looke for Matt. 22. VVhose Sonne is he They say to him the Sonne of Dauid Christ saith to them Psal 109. How then doth Dauid cal him Lorde in spirite saying The Lord hath said to my Lord sit at my right hand vntil I put thy enemies as a foote stoole vnder thy feete If then Dauid cal him Lorde how is he his Sonne And no man was hable to answer him a worde Neither durst any manne after that daye aske him any moe questions Here it is first to be noted that the Scribes and Pharisees knew Christ to haue a Succession from Dauid For his Sonne they said he must be Therefore M. Iewel in making the Pharisees to acknowledge no Succession of his hath corrupted the texte of the Gospel and vttered a great Vntruthe The Pharisees knew that Christe should succede in the very beste line but they would not attende nor consider how that Succession was now brought to passe in the Sonne of Marie who being of the howse of Dauid had miraculously brought forth Christe the perfite ende of the Lawe So likewise M. Iewel knoweth that the Churche of Christe must needes haue a perpetual Succession but he wil not consider how it is preserued chiefely in the Chaier of Peter Ioan. 21. to whom aboue al others the sheepe of Christ were committed Wel Christe then geuing the Iewes to vnderstand that he succeeded in the line of Dauid Christ not only the Sonne of Dauid but also the Sône of God would haue had them farther to consider that he also was the sonne of God and so shewed that he who was Dauids Sonne was also called the Lord of Dauid his Sonne by flesh his Lord by Godhed which thing did put them al to silence Euen so that weake mortal and some time miserable and sinful man whome sitting at Rome M. Iewel despiseth when he heareth him to be according to the gifte of God the Vicare of Christes loue as S. Ambrose calleth him in feeding his shepe Ambr. in cōmment in Luc. c. 24. and the Successour of the chiefe Apostle he is surely astoined at it and would be put to silence if he were not worse then a Pharisee For admitting that the Pope were not S. Peters Successour but onely one of the lowest Bishoppes of Christes Churche yet who would not woonder to see him keepe his Succession so notably fiften hundred yeres together wheras al the Patriarkes and thousandes of Bishops besides are so mangled and so brought to nought But now if wee adde hereunto that the same is euen by our enemies confession and euer was the first See how muche more ought they to woonder at the special prouidence of God in that behalfe Therefore euen as it was miraculous that the line of Dauid was so notably preserued in so many changes and captiuities of the Iewes right so may we say of the Bishoppes of Rome in suche sorte as smaller thinges doo imitate the greater and may in their manner be compared to the greater Iewel Cyrillus frameth the Pharisees vvordes in this sorte Cyrillus in Cathen in Luc. 20. Thou Being of the tribe of Iuda and therefore hauing no right by Succession vnto the Priesthood takest vpon thee the office that is committed vnto vs. Harding Here againe you adde these wordes hauing no right by Succession vnto the Priesthode of your owne head M. Ievv falsifieth Cyrillus by adding vvordes of his ovvne Howbeit euen there Cyrillus sheweth that Christe had right by Succession which you should not haue conceeled had you dealt truly For there it foloweth Sed si nouisses ô Pharisee scripturas recoleres quòd hic est Sacerdos qui secundùm ordinem Melchisedech offert Deo in se credentes per cultum qui legem transcendit O thou Pharisee Christe had right also by successiō if thou haddest knowen the Scriptures thou wouldest remember that this
Returne Article 4. fol. 30. sequētib I think it not good to stād about it here bicause the matter is wel handled already by M. Dorman M. Cope and M. Stapletō But you dissembling what they say go on to mainteine the Successiō of lies in your own generatiō Iewel Pope Liberius vvas an Arian Heretike Harding Or els you are an errant sclaūderous lier The truth witnessed by al sortes of writers is that he suffered bannishment by Constantius the Arian Emperour for the true Catholik faith Hieron in Chronicis in Catalogo and as S. Hierome reporteth being ouercome with the tediousnesse of his bannishmēt subscribed to the Heresie after a sort to wit by setting his hand to the bannishment of Athanasius For the Popes power was then knowen to be so great that the Emperour knew the Patriarke Athanasius could not seeme iustly to be deposed onlesse both other Bishoppes and specially the Bishop of Rome had agreed vnto it But when Liberius would not agree to the Emperours vniust request he was bannished Theodorit lib. 5 hist Tripart cap. 18. and as Theodoritus witnesseth he returned home to his See at the request of the vertuous Matrones of Rome who knew him to be farre frō the Arians heresie and iudged so wel of him for it that they would not cōmunicate with Felix whom the Emperour had placed in Liberius roume For somuch as no man knew the cause and state of Liberius better then Athanasius of al otherlie is chiefly to be heard His wordes are these Athanasius in Epist ad Solitariā vitam agentes VVhat Athanasius iudged of Liberius Liberius deinde post exactum in exilio biennium inflexus est minisque mortis ad subscriptionem inductus est Verùm illud ipsum quoque eorum violentiam Liberij in haeresim odium suum pro Athanasio suffragium cùm liberos affectus habebat satis coarguit Afterward Liberius hauing passed ouer two yeres in bānishement stooped and by threates of death was brought to subscribe But that very selfe same facte of his is a sufficient argument both of their Violence and of the hatred that Liberius bore to the heresie of the Arians and what his consent and opinion was concerning Athanasius at what time he had his desires free that is when he might both speake and do freely what semed to him most mete and expediēt in that cause How plaine are these wordes against you M. Iewel Athanasius who liued together with Liberius and knew his whole state sawe right wel that the Subscription which he made proued him not an Arian Heretik but rather a Catholike bicause he subscribed not voluntarily but violently cōstrained and that not with a vaine feare only but also with the present bannishment of two yeres and farther with the threatninges of death Therefore although Liberius sinned greuously in yelding for feare yet he neither was an Arian nor preached he their heresie in his Churche at Rome after his returne but rather repented his deede of subscription and amended it by preaching and doing al that he was hable against the Arians and therfore after his death Epiphanius calleth him beatum Epiphan Haeres 75 Tripart lib. 7. c. 23 In Apolog 2. blessed and Theodoritus calleth him sanctissimum most holy In an other place Athanasius writeth of him thus Eximiarum vrbium Episcopi capita tantarum Ecclesiarum et verbis mihi patrocinati sunt exilia sustinuerunt in quorum numero est Liberius Romanus praesul qui quanquam non vsque ad finem exilij maela perpessus est biennium tamen in ea transmigratione perdurauit non ignarus sycophantiarum quas patiebamur The Bishops of famous cities and the heades of great Churches fauoured me bothe in wordes and for my sake also susteined bannishement Emong whom was Liberius the Bishop of Rome who although he suffered not the miseries of bannishement vntil the ende yet he continued in that place whiche he was carried vnto two yeres not vnwitting what were the sclaunders that we suffered This Liberius then although perhaps he subscribed at the length yet was there neuer good or honest man that euer would cal him an Arian who in dede neuer loued the Arians but abhorred their opinion But perhaps perhaps I say he was wearye of his long bannishement and after terrible threates of death being otherwise weake subscribed Wel maie such a forced subscriptiō argue the lacke of fortitude certainely it proueth not heresie For an Heretike doth stubbornely defende his opinion But Liberius was so farre from defending the Arian heresie that he could hardly with terrour of death after two yeres banishmēt be forced to put his hand vnto the booke against Athanasius which was in deede a derogation to the faith by a cōsequēt but directly it was not Arianisme How seemeth not this wicked generation to spring of the Deuil sithence it maketh the worst of euery thing speaking euil of that which may wel and ought charitably to be defended And yet if he had benne an Arian with al his harte so long as he neuer decreed any thing according to the Arian heresie nor did set it foorth by publike authoritie of the See of Rome that should not hurt our matter of Succession Iewel Pag. 131. Pope Leo as appeareth by the Legende vvas likevvise an Arian Harding Here are al thinges stoutely spoken and nothing proued There haue benne ten Popes euery of whiche was called Leo but none of them al for ought that can be prooued was an Arian But it appeareth by the Legende say you What an obscure proufe is this yet how cleare is the sclaunder What Legende meane you M. Iewel Is it so notable that it was ynough to say the Legende whiche manner of speache we vse when we speake of knowen thinges Or were you a shamed to name the authour Verely onlesse you meane Leo the first I dare boldly say you can shewe vs no Legende written of any other Pope of that name And doth it appeare by his Legende that he was an Arian Certainely the contrarie appeareth That holy and learned Pope bothe by his owne learned workes Leo the first farre from al suspicion of Arianisme wherein he speaketh much against the Arians and by the witnesse of the fourth General Councel and of al the worlde besides is so purged from the suspiciō of that infamous name that your sclaunder in such a case must needes be most damnable vnto your selfe Truly me thinketh I lacke wordes to set foorth in due colours the lewd licentious tongue of this Sclaunderer and yet he alleageth nothing at al for al those hainous crimes which he imputeth vnto so many innocent and worthy menne The vvorthy Legende by vvhich it appeareth to M. Ievvel that pope Leo vvas an Arian Iacobus de Voragine But wilt thou know learned Reader what a worthy peece of worke it is that M. Iewel here calleth the Legende whereby he would proue that Pope
the Scriptures or of the auncient Fathers M. Iewel meant to shewe that by Gods worde we might forsake our Predecessours examples But S. Cyprian rather sheweth that if our predecessours be taken as they ought to be taken that is to say for those that keepe the tradition and doctrine of the Apostles that then their Tradition is Gods worde Goddes VVord not written For he putteth it to be Gods owne worde that Christe offered his Chalice mingled of water and wine Yet of water there is no mention in the storie of the Supper In what worde then is it written that Christe had water in his Chalice Verely in the worde of Apostolike Tradition TraditioÌ„ in the vnwritten word in the worde of General Succession For in al Churches he sawe water mingled with wine and being assured that the Apostles who saw Christe to do it taught it so doubted not to say that our Lorde taught vs by his example and worde to mingle water with wine and so to offer the Chalice Verely you were farre ouerseene M. Iewel when you alleged this example as being suche whereby your selfe and al them of your side are vtterly condemned And what should ye do Except ye would repeÌ„t which God graunt if it be his wil ye must needes adde lye vnto lye without ende or measure or geue ouer the enterprise wherof you made your boasting ChaleÌ„ge Iewel CoÌ„pare the vse of our Churches M. Harding vvith the Primitiue Church of God and ye shal easily see the right of our Succession Harding Diuersitie betvven the primitiue Churche and the Churches of this nevve Gospel Rom. 10. Ioan. 20. Tit. 1. Damasus in pontifi VVho sendeth you M. Ievvel who sent your felovves Ioan. 10. If I should compare your Churches with the Primitiue Churche of God so narrowely as I might from the beginning to the ending we should finde scant any shadowe in your Churches of the Primitiue Church There no man preached but he that was lawfully sent as S. Paule saith And sent he was either of Christ visibly and sensibly speaking vnto him as when he said to the Apostles as my Father sent me I send you or els by the Apostles as when S. Paule sent Titus and Timotheus and S. Peter sent S. ClemeÌ„t and so S. ClemeÌ„t afterward sent others and so froÌ„ man to man Now tel vs who sendeth you to preach Not the Bishops which are the Successours of the Apostles whom ye despise Who then Forsooth one is sent of the common Weale which neuer had power to send him an other of the Ciuil Magistrate who also had no such power An other runneth before he be sent and therefore commeth of him selfe and is an Antichriste Moreouer the Apostles and their scholars preached that Irenaus lib. 4. c. 3. which they had heard preached whether it were written or no as S. Irenaeus witnesseth But you wil haue nothing preached except it be written and neuerthelesse yee preache that which is neither written nor deliuered you by Apostolike Tradition but as euery vaine Iustin in Apolog. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 32. light and idle braine imagineth of it selfe They mingled water with wine so doo not you They taught the Supper of our Lorde to be the new oblation of the new TestameÌ„t as saith S. Irenaeus You saie there is no external Oblation of the new Testament beside Christes death In the Primitiue Churche he that had ben twise maried Tit. 1. could not be Priest according to S. Paules doctrine You teache it to be lawful to make him Priest that hath ben ten times married and onlesse euery Priest 1. Timo. 5. and Minister among you be married ye iudge not wel of him S. Paule speaketh of olde Widowes who might marrie no more you haue none such But what ende shall there be of wordes If I would go thorough an hundred articles together it should appeare that ye haue nothing like the Apostles or like the Primitiue Churche There were Exorcismes Insufflations holy Oile holy Chrisme Incense Altares De Eccles Hierarchia as we read in S. Dionysius of al whiche ye haue not one and condemne the hauing of them They fasted a certaine number of daies as they who keeping the example of Christe fasted the forty daies Ignatius Epist ad PhilippeÌ„s Actor 2. 4. et 5 Math. 19. whiche we cal the Lenten Faste They prayed watched gaue away al their goodes and vowed so to doo they vowed chastitie and most exactly perfourmed the same they commended the Dead to God with praiers almose and Sacrifices whiche thinges ye for the most parte despise and accompt superstitious Iewel 133. S. Cyprian saith Si canalis aquae c. If the pipes of the conduit Ad Pompeium contra Epist Stephani which before ranne with abundance happen to faile do we not vse to search to the head The priestes of God keeping Gods commaundementes must doo the same that if the truth hath fainted or failed in any point we returne to the very original of our Lorde and to the Tradition of the Gospel and of the Apostles that there hence we may take the discretion of our dooinges from whence the order it selfe and original first beganne Harding S. CypriaÌ„ alleged by M. Ievvel in an il cause The errour of S. Cyprian It is to be knowen M. Iewel that S. Cyprian vsed this saying in an euil cause as your selfe can not denie And therefore he defending a falshood was driuen to the very same shiftes whereunto al Heretikes are driuen He in deede was no Heretike For although he falsely beleued an vntruth and earnestly taught that those who had ben baptized of Heretiques if they came to the vnitie of the Catholike Churche should be baptized as hauing before no true sacrament of Baptisme yet he protested many times that he iudged no man that thought or taught the contrarie Cyprianus In epist ad IubatanuÌ„ contra Epist Stephani For he would not denie vnitie neither for that nor for any thing elles but liued a true Catholique and died a blessed Martyr Notwithstanding whiles he defended his errour he was deceiued in that Principle which now you allowe For whereas Pope Stephanus knowing that by SuccessioÌ„ the vse of the only laying of handes vpon them that had ben baptized of heretikes without baptizing them a new was deriued from the Apostles and receiued generally euen in Afrike it selfe vntil Agrippinus a Bishop of Carthage before S. Cyprian brake it whereas Pope Stephanus I say knowing this decreed that nothing should be changed or be taken vp a new S. Cyprian not being able to denie the tradition whereof Pope Steuen spake and which S. Cyprians predecessour Agrippinus first beganne to change fled to this common place that the worde of God was against the custome and therefore the custome ought to be broken The Pope defended with diuers other Bishops thâ—t the custome and Tradition was not against Gods worde Then said S. Cyprian
Fathers accompted euil in vvedlok vvorke Matrimonie it selfe were an euil thing God forbid any should so speake of Goddes holy ordinance But he meaneth the coniunction of the Husband 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 August de Nuptijs et concupiscent lib. 1. cap. 24. Cùm ventum fuerit ad opus generandi ipse ille licitus honestus concubitus non poterit esse sine ardore libidinis vt peragi possit quod rationis est non libidinis This immoderate concupiscence this inordination this rebellion of the fleshe and preuenting and ouerbearing 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 The euil thing of wedlock vvorke of married persons vvel vsed The three good thinges of marriage à cap. 10. vsque ad cap. 16. Whiche euil thing notwithstanding 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 Sacramentum 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 ignorance or infirmitie whiche is rather an excuse of the partie that worketh but it is excused for that otherwise it should be a sinne excepte it had these three good thinges ioyned together Whiche when it hath the Circumstances to euery good acte behooful presupposed it is an acte lawful honest good and laudable Now this being considered whereas you M. Iewel iudge the holy Fathers to speake otherwise of Matrimonie then the honor and holinesse of that state deserueth you shew your selfe to be of the nūber of those deceiued men August de Nuptus et Concupis lib. 1. ca. 5. of whom S. Augustin saith thus Profectò errāt qui cū vituperatur libido carnalis damnari nuptias opinantur quasi 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 August de peccato originali contra Pelag. Coelestiū lib. 2. c. 37 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 licitus honestus reprehendi putetur ab eis qui nolunt discernere 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 defended 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 holy 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 Tettulliā of a married man made Priest Spiridion made Bisshop frō being a married laie man S. Hilarie married by M. Ievvel In the Reioinder against the Sacrifice of the Masse fol. 172. b. and afterwarde made a Priest I graunte You say Spiridion the Bisshop of Cyprus was married and had children I denie that Spiridion being a Bishop was married but I confesse that being 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 children 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 married man you say it but you prooue it not And were it so yet it serueth not your turne bicause if he were maried it was before he was priest Neither haue you good authoritie for proufe that Chaeremon Chaeremō the Bishop of a Citie called Nilus whom you recken among married Bishops Euseb Hist Eccles lib. 6. cap 42. was married Eusebius saith that in time of persecution he fled vnto a Hil in Arabia with her that liued with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and was neuer founde againe That she was his wife it appeareth 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 saying that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is to say passing olde Polycrates Polycrates 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Ruffinus translateth it Patres Wherunto sticke you vnto the Greeke word
with any suche care how said the Apostle before vnius vxoris virum that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife Some vnderstand such a one to be signified 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. Cor. 7. 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 into 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 coÌ„cerning an other thing as euery learned man may see in the â—…nted Greeke booke in the 20. leafe the seconde pag. tâ—â— 20. line You might haue sene this in the Greeke M. Iewel or your Greeke Frende for you aswel as you saw that other place of S. Chrysostome by me truly alleged and traÌ„slated where he expoundeth these wordes of S. Paul Tit. 1. ho. 2 The husbande of one wife Which place you wring and wrâ—st very violently to serue your purpose and yet it wil not be M. Ievv in his defence pa. 175. vseth false traÌ„slation and the learned may easily perceiue your false iuggling in it There you wil nedes haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie the wife that is gonne from her husband by diuorce and therefore you turne it Vxori quae decessit à se whereas you should haue followed the allowed translation 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 164. ouer against this testimonie of S. Chrysostom truly translated by me out of the Greeke worde for worde For whereas be â—â—epeth no beneuolâ—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 * Vntruth standing in false exposition Not being content with this in your teâ—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 myâ—â— but they be the wordâ—â— of the common trâ—â—slation and the same iâ— according to the Greeke For thâ— verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth not to departe away by diuorce as you haue violently turned it but simply to departe 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 VVhat secoÌ„d marriage not forbiddeÌ„ by the lavves Now 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 forbidden by the lawes what other second marriage meaneth 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 Christian men permitted a man to marrie againe his wife being 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 required not a farrâ— moâ—â— pâ—rfection in him that was to be made a Bishop Thus you see good reason why Ambrosâ—â—s-Câ—â—ildâ—leâ—sis that learned man traÌ„slated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that is S. Chrysostoms word and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you haue noted in your bookes margent by this worde Defunctae and why I turned it the wife disceassed You may now of your courtesie take backe againe your bitter reproches of fowle mistaking of false exposition of purposed 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 Marriage M. Iewel craueth helpe at Erasmus and Cornelius Agrippa Thus he saith Iewel Erasmus saith The Priestes of the Greeke Church this daie not vvithstanding their Orders marrie vviues The like vvriteth Cornelius Agrippa against the Iouanians Harding Erasmus and Cornelius Agrippa Erasmus and Cornel Agrippa be menne of smal credite God wote in this cause which in their time they fâ—uoâ—red as much as you do now It is coÌ„monly 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 moued with the authoritie of these two smatterers of your Gospel in their daies but newly brocâ—ed no more then if we heard Frier Luther Monke Hâ—pâ—r Peter Martyr the regulare Chanon of S. Augustines order and suche other married Apostates to speake a good worde in fauour 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 Sorboâ—e in Paris haue in their Censures againste Erasmus 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 Priesthoodâ— Ieâ—â—l Likevvise Cardinal Caietâ—nâ— saith Nec ratione nec authoritatâ— probari potest Caietan in Quod libet quod absolute loquendo Sacerdos peccet coÌ„traheÌ„do matrimonius â–ª It can not be proued neither by reason nor by aâ—thâ—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 mainteine what so euer he saith How be it this saying of his seemeth to haue no great errour VVhere of is it that the Marriage of Priestes in the vvest Church is vnlavvful Statute of the Churche and Vovvannexed so it be vnderstanded as he meant There be two thinges that make the marriage of Priestes in the most Church vnlawful the Sâ—… of the Church and the Vow annexed The Statute and coÌ„stitution of the Church bindeth clerkes receiuing holy Orders neuer to marrie As touching
the Vow like as the Order and hâ—bâ—â—e of Monkes by which â—aâ—e al religious be vnderstanded hath Chastitie â—â—nexed by 〈…〉 that institutâ—d the habite and the â—â—le for monkes to 〈…〉 in and therfore he that receiueth it is said therewith to make a Vow coÌ„sequently â—â—â—en so holy Order among the Latines or thereof the West Church by the Churches coÌ„stitution hath 〈◊〉 anneâ—â—d inseperably and therfore who so euer tâ—kâ—th it willingly bindeth him selfe therunto in fact and deede though no word of the boâ—d be spoken So â—hâ—t this bâ—nde procedeth both of the statute of the Câ—â—â—â—â—â—nd of the Vow VVhat meaneth Caietane by this vvorde Absolutely And for this considâ—ration the 〈…〉 Priestâ—â— is vnlawful Buâ— speaking â—bsoâ—â—tâ—ly saiâ—h 〈…〉 that is to say if there were no such stature of the 〈◊〉 nor Vow at â—et in this case â—f â— Prieâ—st â—â—rried for any thing that is in reason 〈…〉 in th◠〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 presse Scriptures to the contâ—… he â—ould not sinne Wherby he signifieth that the case â—…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 â—…d the Scholare touching these matters Anselmus in Dialog Inquisitione prima Desideramuâ— certificari tua solâ—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 dâ—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 Hereby a appeareth that in the time of Aâ—selmus vvhich vvas aboue a thousand yeres after Christe this matter laye in question and vvas not yet discussed Harding Anselmus wrote three Dialogues Anselmus vvrongfully made a spokesman for the Apostates marriage 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 together 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 Inquisitione 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 Illyricus or some other suche gatherer of Rifferaffe haue deceiued you or of your selfe you were disposed in this place to 〈…〉 youâ— owne inuention I wâ—◠〈…〉 cal it plâ—â—â—e lying I knowe â—ot certainly amongest 〈…〉 printed workes there is no sâ—ch Dialogue to be founde But if there were any such what should that releiue your sory causes If the Maister had in good soâ—â—h so tolde the Scholarâ— it had â—en some what Now thâ—t 〈…〉 Scholare saith it is a common question and much tossâ—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 diligeÌ„tly weighed and considered of You knowe M. Iewel the writers of suche Dialogues may make the demaunder to talke what they liste Neither is any thing to be auouched for true or false the sooner bicause the demauÌ„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 aâ—thors fictioÌ„ the Scholare saith it was then a common question and laie vndiscussed by that a maâ— may ghessâ— that in Anselmus time suche as whom it becâ—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 stoâ—â—â—â—ssâ—â—erations more like maisters theâ—… 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 compâ—ssâ— of that time sineâ—â—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 spâ—ce of a thousand yeres as you thereof would seme to gâ—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 required 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 Lying much vsed of this defender But now if I tel you that you vse your accustomed figure pseudologia which is lying in plaine english I trust you wil beare with my plainenes amend your owne fault and coÌ„sider the power of truth that causeth me to be so bold with you This I am sure of that neither Sozomenus nor Gregorie Nazianzene Sozomenas Gregorie Nazianzene nor Eusebius lib. 10. cap. 5. as you haue caused your bookes both Latine and English to be noted in the margent where ye mistake Eusebius for Rufâ—â—uâ—â—oâ— Nâ—â—iaâ—◠〈◊〉 â—â—ther iâ— Mâ—…nodia Eusebius belyed by the aucthour of the Apologie as you note also in thâ— margent nâ—r in the fuâ—… oration that he made of his fathâ—â— hath any such saying as ye report of them For how could they say that a bisâ—â—â— 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 contraryâ—… What wene ye they were either so ignorant or so forgetful or so much inclined to promote your carnal doctrine of priestes mariages as to say so not withstanding that S. Paule writeth to the Corinthians A bishop is not able to do his ministerie the
husband of one wife that the same order contineweth stil in the Church thereto he saieth in his secoâ—d homilie de patientia Iob non ea ratione quod id nunc in Ecclesia obseruetur Oportet enim omni prâ—rsus castitate Sâ—cerdotem 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 hauing 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 râ—cante for sonne This nevve courage is suddainly blovven vpon him for that he thâ—â—keth vve haue intruded vâ—on his office and as he saieth haâ—e corrupted and falsified the holy Fathers But it vvere a vvorthie matter to knovve vvherein Forsoothe vve saie by the reporte of Sozâ—menus and Gregorius Nazianzenus that Spiridion and Gregorie Father to Nazianzen being bothe Married Bishoppes notvvithstanding theire Marriage vvere neuer the vvâ—rsâ— hable to doo theire Ecclesiastical offices but rather the better * The vvordes importe it not Here M. Harding of himselfe and freely confesseth these Holy Fathers vvâ—re neâ—â—r the vvorse hable to dâ—â— their offices For so muche th◠〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 importe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But that they vvere the better hable to doe theirâ— offices â—â—â—â—cause of theire VViues that he dâ—nieth vtterly and herein he saieâ—h me are corrupters and falsifiers of the Fathers And thus the vvhole difference that is betvvene M. Hardinge and vs touching this matter standeth onely in these tvvo poore vvordes Rather the better and â—euer the vâ—â—rse Novv gentle reader I beseche thee also Reader to vveigh my Ansvver that thou maiest be the better hable tâ— iâ—dge betvvene vs I beseeche the indifferently vveigh these vvâ—â—des Gregorie Nazianzene hereof that is of the helpe Vntruth for then he vvas not Bishop but an infidel Nazian in Epitaphiâ— patris 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 nâ—â— 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 miruÌ„ sed etiaÌ„ dux princeps verbo factoque inducens illuÌ„ ad res optimas Et aliis quidem rebus quamuis optimum esset subditam esse viro propter iura coniugii tamen in pietate non verebatur seipsam illi magistram 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 She vvas his Maistresse before he knevv vvhat the faith of Christ vvas yet they serue you to no purpose False He vvas not then Bishop of Nazianzum nor yet a Christian 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 â—â—â—ther vvas vnto his father the Bishop of Nazianzum a helper 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 â—eligion and Godlinesse she vvas his * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Maistresse And yet mâ—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 falsifienges home againe vnto your selfe If you â—â—â—â—r crâ—â—le thâ—se tâ—â—â—ges before is 〈…〉 must remembre al truth must not be measured by your reading â–ª Harding To beginne with these last wordes as I require not al truth to be measured by my râ—â—ding M. Iâ—wâ—l so neither 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 alleged out of S. Gregorie Nazianzene you readde also that whereby your false and vnreasonable assertion is confuted teaching that his Father being Bishop of NazianzuÌ„ learned the doctrine of Godlines of his wife Hauing 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 M. Ievvels gay eloquence minister-like As 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 Minister 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 Sozomenus 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 better which neuerthelesse is false but for that you speake it generally of a Bishop as though Bishops should doâ— that apperteineth to their charge the better if they married wiues For truth whereof I referre me to the place SpiridioÌ„ and Gregorie Nazianzenes father 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 Marriage Againe M. Ievvel defeÌ„deth after his manner but fevv partes of the Apologie 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 defende them And this muche is the Reader here to be warned of by the waie That whereas most
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 teacheth 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 comparison 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 become 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 oftentimes a lyer Wherin standeth this great force and working 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 Consecration quod he the bread is bread but when Consecration 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 power 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 De ijs qui initiantur mysterijs cap. 9. non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod nō erant The worde of Christ which could make that which was not of nothing 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 rebus dare quà m 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 substances to wit bread into the bodie of Christ and wine into 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. Ambrose concludeth and endeth this discourse Ergo didicisti quòd ex pane corpus fiat Christi Nowe then thou hast learned that of bread the body of Christ is made His purpose 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 Ibidem 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 righteousnes 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 Berengarius Panis and vinum are not there and for that cause Lanfrancus denied those wordes so alleged by Berengarius to be in S. Ambrose Lanfrancus in lib. de sacramento Eucharist 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 construe 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 In Math. cap. 18. vvhere S. Hierome saith pride is changed into humilitie M. Harding may saie it is changed therefore pride is or remaineth stil Harding How so euer it like you to esteme my Logique my Argument remaineth vnanswered If your skil in Logique 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 substance 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
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 also of real eating as though one effecte may not be wrought by diuers meanes concurring thereunto Ego saith Cyrillus id est Cyrill in Iohā li. 4. cap. 15. corpus meū quod comedetur resuscitabo eū I wil raise him that is to say my body which shal be 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 Doctrine 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 Confut. Fol. 299. ae 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 Confut. Fol. 302. ae or gaine saying so farre as the Decree standeth with the honour 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 Ambrosius lib. 5. Epist 32. Priestes only ought to be iudges ouer Priestes by Theosius S. Ambrose said to the Emperour Valentinian Nec quisquà m contumacem iudicare me debet quum hoc asseram quod augustae memoriae patertuus non solùm sermone respondit sed etiam legibus suis sanxit in causa fidei vel ecclesiastici alicuius ordinis eum iudicare debere qui nec munere 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 iudicium 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 neither 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 otherwise a Bishop were reproued and a cause concerning 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 allowed by S. Ambrose An argument prouing that a Ciuile Magistrat maie not be iudge oner Priestes in causes ecclesiastical and matters of Faith 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 authoritie For he hath no right nor authoritie to sacrifice to preache to binde to loose to excommunicate and minister 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 ff ad S. Trebel L. ille § Tēpestiuum 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 VVhat it is to be conuēted before a Magistrate Spiegelius in verbo conuenire A Bishop conuented before the Magistrate 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 ecclesiastical causes as it is before proued and shal hereafter appeare Therefore no temporal magistrate can conuent any Bishoppe or Priest before him in any Ecclesiastical cause But let vs heare M. Iewel Cod. de Episcopis et clericis L. Nullus Iewel Pag. 637. Iustinian the Emperour him selfe vvho of al others most enlarged the Churches priuileges saith thus Nullus Episcopus inuitus ad ciuilem vel militarem iudicem in qualibet causa producatum vel exhibeatur nisi princeps iubeat Let no Bishop be brought or presented 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 enlarge the Churches Priuileges is it likely that he would most of al others breake them And whereas he made a lawe Authent 83. Coll. 6. vt Clerici apud proprios Episcopos that Clerici apud proprios Episcopos conueniantur primùm 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
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 concerning 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 seeing his owne innocencie did so helpe him Notwithstanding we haue geuen charge that he him selfe taking 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 M. Iewels forgeries 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 forgotte 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 interpretation let vs come to the matter M. Ievvel corrupteth his Glose by nipping avvay the ende of the sentence alleged 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 vnlearned of falsifying and corrupting your testimonies It followeth there Quòd Episcopus expurgatus coram 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 behalfe nor you so fondly alleged it And of a worde spoken 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 committed a spiritual mater in a cause of Simonie to be heard and ended by a woman And this is a vaine tale and vntrue fansie of yours not hable to be gathered by any worde of that decree For the cause of Simonie whereof 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 It is 2. q. 4. But that Brunichildis did either summon a Bisshop 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 culpabilis 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 Wherefore 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 Socrates lib. 1. c. 34 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 Constantinus to Arian Bishoppes that had made a false conuenticle 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 attempted 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 Ruffin in Histor Eccles li. 10. cap. 17. Socrates Li. 1. c. 29. 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
errour whiche he helde as his priuate opinion 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 Dist 63. In Synod in Glos Papa potest dare potestatem Imperatori 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 Dist 93. cap. vltim in Glossa 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 Emperour hauing authoritie of the Pope to depose him Extr. de off iudicis Deleg c. Sanè hath not that authoritie of him selfe or any his Imperial power 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 Vicegerent and Delegate Iewel Pag. 639. Franciscus Zarabella saith De schemate Concilio It is de Schismate pontificuÌ„ Papa accusari potest coram Imperatore de quolibâ—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 Zabarella for so is his true name saith as you reporte that Papa potest accusari coram Imperatore de quolibet crimine notorio M. Ievvel falsifieth his Doctor by addition of his ovvne to helpe his mater The Pope maie be accused before the Emperour 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 potest 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 Zabarella saith is thus Zabarella made to saie What pleaseth M. Ievvel Si Papa est de haeresi suspectus potest Imperator ab eo exigere vt indiret quid sentiat de fide that is if the Pope be suspected of heresie the Emperour 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 authoritie the other by waie of friendship and common charitie But as for Superiour authoritie In vvhat case of necessitie the Emperour may entermedle vvith matters of Faith and religion after the minde of Zabarella 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 Treatie whence you fetche your falsified sentences and neither 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 Antipape 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 Francis Zabarella de Schismate pontificuÌ„ qui subrogantur Papae in Congregatione Concilij vt dictum est in praecedenti quaestione ad ipsum Imperatorem qui pars post praedictos 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 prohibetur 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 Imperatoris praecipuam habet potestatem Nam permittere 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 CouÌ„cel as it was said in the nexte question before the assembling 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 special 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 permitte many Popes in the Popedome is to offende that article of the Faith I beleeue one holy Catholique and Apostolike 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