thinke wel vpon that it maie be perceiued howe wel the Protestantes and Arrians agree together in their prowde and rebellious behauyours how wel the testimonie of blasphemous Heretikes maie serâ—e to disproue any Catholike and honest conclusion An other Example is Donatus being condemned by threescore ten Bishops in Aphrica Appealed vnto the Emperour Constantinus and was receiued But what was Donatus A singular prowd heretike For profe wherof let y â— Epistles and bookes whiche S. Augustin wrote against him and his folowers be witnesses Let that 〈◊〉 also be witnesse which S. Augustine wrote purposely of heresies In which the Donatiani or Donatistae haue their proper place For when Cecilanus A Catholike and good man was made against their wils Bishope of Carthage they obiected certaine crimes against vs which being not proued and sentence going against their Donatus being their Captain they tooke such a Stomake that they turned their Schisme into heresie and helde the opinion that al they whatsoeuer they were in the worlde bysides that agreed not with them were infected and excommunicated persons And herevpon as the nature of heresie is to goe deeper and deeper still into desperate blindnes and presumption they dyd baptise againe suche as had ben alreadie baptised in the Catholike Churche It appeereth alsâ— what an honest and Catholike man 〈◊〉 was in that M. Iewel confesseth hym to haue been condemned of three score and ten Bishopes whiche was not I beleue for any humilitie Obedience Faith or Charitie of his Donatus then beinge an Heretike what hath M. Iewel to doe with hym Lyke will to lyke perchaunce and the same Sprite y â— inflamed Donatus warmeth M. Iewel otherwyse it is not to be gathered out of the practises of Heretikes what the Order that we ought to folowe was in the Primitiue Churche But of the Catholike and alowed Examples And if M. Iewel could shewe that this Appeale of Donatus vnto the Emperour from the Bishopes that condemned hym was good and lawful in the Iudgement of any Father or Doctour of that age then might this example haue some lykelyhoode in it to serue his purpose otherwise him selfe doth minister the Catholike an Exception againste his owne witnesse the Auncient and Reâ—â—rend Heretike Donatus But Constantinus the Emperour â—eceaued his Appeale What of that Is al wel done that Emperours doe And are noâ— manie thinges permitâ—â—d vnto them for Ciuile Policie and quiet sake which by right folowing to Ecclesiasâ—ical orders should not be suffered Againe Constantinus was a Christian Catholike and good Emperour and he receiued in deed Donatus Appeale but receaâ—ed he it willingly or no And thought he hymselfe to doe therein lawfully as A Supreme head and Gouernour or els to passe the bondes of his Imperial Authoritie and to medle with a Iurisdiction belonging to more excellent Officers UVndoubtedly he would faine haue been rid of the importunitie of the Donatistes and lyked it not in his owne conscience that himselfe should be taken for the highest Iudge in maters Ecclesiastical HJow proâ—e I this now Sufficiently inough by S. Augustine And marke the place well Indifferent Reader that thou maiest see the deuotion of that so mightie an Emperour First Donatus and his felowes perceiuing that although they had condemned Cecilianus y â— Bishope of Carthage and set an other of their ownâ— making in his place Yet the rest of the Bishopes of the world dyd stil write and send to Cecilianus as the true Bishope in deede and such as they communicated withal they I saie perceauing this made sute to Coâ—stantinâ—s the Emperour that they might haue the cause of Cecilianus examined before the Bishopes of beyond the seas In which point S. Augustine findeth that they had a duble fetche and subtiltie The one that if those Bishoppes whom the Emperour had procured to heaâ—e the whole mater should condemne Cecilianus then loe they should haue their lust fulfilled The other that if those should absolâ—e him then would he with his fellowes say that the Iudges were not indifferent and so by consequence appeale from them In which case though as S. Augustin saith there remained a general Councel of the vniuerfal Church in which the cause betweene them and their Iudges shoulde haue ben handeled yet what did they Mary they went to the Emperour and accused the foresaid Bishopes before him And how was this taken thinke we of the Catholikes Uerely not wel as appeereth by S. Augustine which noteth the Donatistes of folish boldnes therein Iudices enim Ecclesiasticâ—s c. For the Ecclesiastical Iudges Bishopes of so great Authoritie by vvhose sentence and iudgement both the Innocencie of Cecilianus and their naughtinessâ— vvas declared these men of such worthines saith S. Augustine they durst accuse not before other their felâ—vvebishopes and Collegies but vnto the Emperour that they had 〈◊〉 iudged vvel But now when they had broken the order of the Ecclesiastical Law and were come to the Emperour what did he Did he commende their Obedience or Wisedome Did he preferre his owne Courte and Authoritie before the Consistoâ—ie and Iudgement of Bishoppes What he did the Actes and Registers of his owne Courte declare as S. Austine recordeth out of it For after y â— Donatistes were now coÌ„demned by y â— Pope of Rome other Bishopes assistant and refused to stand to their sentence requiring helpe at the Emperours handes Dedit ille aliud Iudicium Arelatense aliorum scilicet Episcoporum He gaue and appointed vnto them other Iudges at Arles I meane other Bisshoppes Why if the Emperour had in those daies taken the Pope for chiefe Bishope in al the worlde would he haue further committed vnto the Bishop of Arls the sitting vpon that cause which already was decided by the Bishop of Rome It seemeth altogeather vnlikely And therefore M. Iewel may be thought to bring in deede an inuincible Argument for the Emperours Supremacie against the Supremacie of the Bishop of Rome But marke the Circumstances and Considerations which moued the Emperour and then wil the contrary conclusion be manifestly proued that the Emperour tooke him selfe to be the inferiour vnto Bishops euen in that cause which was brought vnto him after Bishopes and which he caused to be examined againe after it was sufficiently iudged For thus it foloweth in S. Austin Dedit ille aliud Arelatense Iudicium non quia iam necesse erat sed eorum peruersitatibus cedens omnimodo cupiens tantam Impudentiam Cohibere That is He gaue other Iudges not because it vvas novv necessarie but because be yelded to the frovvardnes of them the Donatistes and desired by al meanes to restraine so great Impudencie of them Neque enim aâ—sus est Christianus Imperator sic eoruÌ„ tumultuâ—sas fallaces querelas suscipere vt de iudiciâ— Episcoporum qui Romae sederant ipse Iudicaret sed alios vt dixi Episcopos dedit For the Christian Emperour as who should say other Emperours
which forgette themselues to be Christians and in whose â—ares nothing standeth so much as Obey the higher povvers obey the King as the chief which is by the interpretation of blinde Gospellers and Flatterers that euery Prince is for his own Countrie Suprem vnder God in al maters both Ecclesiastical and Temporal such Emperours woulde not onely haue contemned the sentences of Priestes in comparison of their Maiesties Iudgement but also haue punished such as would signifie it by neuer so smal a token that the Emperour can not wel be Supreme Iudge in maters Ecclesiasticall But The Christian Emperoure durst nâ—t receiue their the Donatistes Seditiâ—usâ— and decâ—itful â—â—mplaintes in such sorte as that him self â—â—vâ—uld iudge of the sentence of the Bishopes that sate at Rome but he apointed as I haue said â—ther bishâ—pes And that for the causes aboue mentioned which were the frovvardnes and the Impudencie of the Donaâ—istes A quibuâ— tamen illiad ipsum rursum Imperaâ—orem prouocare maluerunt From â—vhich Bisshoppes for al that they châ—se to prouoke againe to the Emperour And what saied he vnto them Forsoothe he Iudged Câ—cilianum Innâ—centissimum illos improbissimos Caecilian to be most Innocent â–ª and them most vvicked Yea but you will Replie did not the Emperour 〈◊〉 Iudge vppon the mater when it had been twise before 〈◊〉 to Bishoppes True it is in deede that you saie But consider that they were Heretiques which appealed from Bysshoppes to the Emperour and that although he heard their Cause yet he detested their Contentiousnesse and thought also before vpon it to aske pardone of the Bisshoppes for medling in the matter after them For thus it foloweth in Sainct Augustine Qua in re illos quem admodum detâ—stetur audistis Atque Vtinam saltem ipsiâ—â— Iudicio insanissimis animositatibus suis finem posuissent Atque vt eis ipse cessit vt de illâ— causa post Episcopos iâ—dicaret à Sanctis Anâ—istâ—â—ibus postea veniam petiturus dum tamen illi quod vlterius dicerâ—nt non haberent s 〈◊〉 eius sententiae non obtemperarent ad queâ— ipsi proâ—ocauerunt sic illi aliquandâ— cederent Veritati In vvhich thing that they appealed vnto him after they had been with two seueral Iudges of the Clergie hovv he detested them you haue heard And Vvould God they had made an ende of their most â—utragious stomaking of the mater if it had ben for no more then for his sentence sake And as he the Emperour yelded vnto them to iudge of that cause after the Byshopes minâ—ing to askâ— pardâ—nâ— aftervvarde of the holy Bishoppes 〈◊〉 that they the Donatistes â—hould nâ—t han◠〈◊〉 say further if they vvould not obey his seâ—tence vnto vvhom they appealed So vvould God that they once yet vvould yeelde vnto the truth Consider now indifferently with me vpon this whole mater gentle Reader And this appealing of the Donatists vnto the Emperour and his hearing of the whole cause being not once or twise but very oft alleged by M. Iew. it is worth while to be wel remembred that which I haue already said that which by occasion hereof may be further gathered and wel be noted See then first what busie Heretikes these Donatistes were and how ful they were of Shiftes and Quarels making From the Emperour to Rome From Rome they go to the Emperour againe From him then by appointement and agreement they goe to Arls and the Bisshops there And froÌ„ Arls they returne with complaint to the Emperour yet againe At last the Emperour himself heareth y â— cause yet would they not stand to the Emperours sentence but mainteined stil their false Bishope whom to put in the See of Carthage they thruste out Cecilian and they continued stil in their heresie accompting al the Christians of y â— world accursed which were not of the syde of Donatus Such is the nature and practise of Heretikes they pretend conscience they commend holy and Auncient Fathers They appeale to the Primitiue Church They craue for General Councels for free disputations for surcease of Inquisition for Seruice in the vulgar tongue for Commâ—â—â—on in both kindes and other such thiâ—ges moe If the Princes 〈◊〉 resist them in any point straite waies they make exclamations they sturre vp angers â—hey complaine of sentence geauen vpon them before they be heard of the lack of ghostly coÌ„solation which should come to the people by vnderstanding of Scriptures and receiuing the Sacramentes of the penalties of lawes and Statutes What is it so litle thâ—t they wil not murmur against if they maie not haue their fâ—l wil â–ª In respect then of peace and publike tranquilitie â–ª if you wil not striue w t them vpoÌ„ materâ— indifferent but dispense with them in theyr requestes or demaundes yet will they not suffer the Catholikes to be in rest And if you put them out of feare of the Inquisition they wil troble yet the whole Countrie with preaching in the open field And if you prouide a General Councel to satisfie them they will not come at it if at euery masse there should be Communicantes they wil not alow the Sacrifice And when the Prince is made by them the Supreme Gouernour vnder God â–ª in any countrie yet wil they stoutly disobey y â— prince in a smal mater of wearing a 〈◊〉 gowne cap. So y â— al y â— they doe is 〈◊〉 to mainteine talke and finde alwaies somewhat in whiche they maie occupie the Catholikes vntil that at length when theyr power is so greate that they â—are meete in field with their Aduersaries they maie boldely and dâ—sperately leaue al reasoning conferring Applealing demaunding protesting and Lawleying and with open face comâ— against the Catholikes Pull downe Churches 〈◊〉 officies Take awaie Sacramentes Alter the staâ—e of common weales hang draw and quarter Priestes Set Inquisition againste Catholikes And confirme their Gospel by terrour These and suche like thinges we in our daies see by experience Constantinus the Emperour dyd not see so much Yet fearing the busie nature of Schysmatykes and hoping by faire demeanes to bring the Donatistes to a peace with al Christendome he yelded as much vnto them as he could and as ye haue heard he receiued theyr prouoking to hym not because he thought that hym selfe was the chiefest Iudge in all the world euen in maters Ecclesiastical but because he hoped in yelding vnto the Donatistes in al their requestes aboute apointynge or changing of y â— Iudges to bring them at length vnto suche a remembrance of themselues that they should cease for shame to make any further brable about that in which by euery Iudge that dyd heare the cause they were condemned Now if at those daies either the wyse and lerned aboute hym or he hymselfe had beleued the hearing of causes Ecclesiastical to belong vnto his court or consistorie what needed hym to boroweâ— point of the law to accompte vpon askyng of pardon of the Bishopes for his meddling with that
vnto the Bishope of Rome was to sitte onely aboue others cet The Emperours woordes be plaine Praerogatiuea in EpiscoporuÌ„ CoÌ„silio vel extra ConciliuÌ„ ante alios residendi A Prerogatiue in the CouÌ„cel of bishops â–ª or without the Councel to sit in order aboue other Oh Desperatenesse The Emperours woordes you say be plaine They are so in deede plaine to the eye both in your Booke which is wel printed and in the Code of Parise printe where they may be readen without spectacles except a mans sight be very yll But dare you say that this place perteineth to the Bishoppe of Rome For of the Bishoppe of Rome our question is whether his Priuilege to be First and Chiefe of al Priestes consisted onely in sitting aboue other in Generall meetinges I wil tel thee Indiffetent Reader the Sense of these foresaid woordes and the Cause of making the Decree in which thei are found that thou maist iudge whether M. Iewel be a fine and vpright Lawyer Whiles the Emperour Leo was gone towardes the Easte Odactus A Tyranne inuaded in the meane tyme the ChurchesÌ„ and set foorâ—h many Lawes and Statutes against the Liberties and the Priuilegies of them The Emperour here vpon made a Law after the Countrie was diliuered of the Tyranny that those thinges being abrogaâ—ed and taken away which had ben done against the true Religion of God al other concerning Churches and Martyrs Chappels should stand in the same state which they were in before his time And further he Decreed that it should be vtterly abrogated what so euer had bene newly brought vp against the Churches and the Bishopes of them Seu de iure Sacerdot alium â—reationum seu de expulsione cuiusquam Episcopi à quolibet his temporibus facta seu deprarogatiua in Episcoporum Concilio â—el extra Concilium ante alios residendi Either concerning the right of making of Priestes either the expulsioÌ„ of any bishop made by any maÌ„ at this time or the prerogatiue of sitting before other either in the Councel of Bishopes or vvithout it Consider now Indifferent Reader whether the Preâ—ogatiue of which the Law here speaketh was meant only of the Bishope of Rome Or whether y â— Emperours vvoo dâ—s here be plaine to proue that the Bishope of Rome should â—it â—irst 〈◊〉 General meetings whereas there is no mention at al in this place of the B. of Rome but only of Acatius by name Patriarche of Constantinople and of other Bishoppes in general which had taken wronge vnder Odoactus the Tyranne And whether the B. of Rome were one of that number it appeereth not by any word of the Decree so that it is altogether boldely and nothing discreetly said that the Prerogatiue spoken of in this place is plaine for the Popes sitting aboue other or that the Popes Prerogatiue is no more but to sit aboue al others It foloweth This Prerogatiue in Greeke is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the Priuilege of the first place So is the faining of a Person and making of that to speake which hath no sense or tongue called in Greke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but we require not here of you to tel your Countriemen what is Greeke for this or y â— thing but what is y e answer to the Argument that is made against you For let it be so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greeke signifieth the Priuilege of the first place you do not yet shew vnto vs that the Priuilege spoken of in this Edict of the Emperours is so called or that it is meant of the Bishope of Rome to proue that his Prerogatiue is to more but A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A priuilege of the first place But you procede out of the pupose and saie That these phrases in that tongue be knowen and CoÌ„mon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Like as also theâ—e in he latine tongue obtinere primas secuÌ„das Tertias that is to haue the Preominence of the first Second and Third place This woulde serue well if either we doubted Or were ignorant of these phrases or if the declaring of them perteined any point to the quesion and yet I saie vnto you that Obtinere primas or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not only to haue the first place but also to wynne the best game Or to haue the Chiefeste parte in any Fâ—are or Acte Or to beare the highest Office and so furthe So that to your matter of the Place they doe not serue necessariâ—y And if by Obtinere Primas this only thinge were meant to sitte in the First Place yet should not this proue that the Edicte of the Emperour in whiche you shewe not that the selfe same Phrase is vsed doeth plainely make for it That the Popes Prerogatiue is no greater than to sitte first at Generall meetinges For this is the question And not what Obtinere Primas or Secundas signifieth in good Latine And to this we looke for your Answer But you saie as though you had proued so much in further confirmation thereof And that the Emperour Iustinian meant ONLY thus and none OTHERWISE it is manifeste euen by the selfe same place that M. Harding hath here alleged Mary Syr that is worth the hearing but marke thou Indifferent Reader M. Iewels wordes ONLY and NONE OTHERWYSE For except I be fowly deceaued he wil not proue so much as he pretendeth But let vs heare the Emperour and M. Iewels Comment vpon him Sancimus c. We ordeine Your c. Here first of all hath no Place For it putteth these wordes out which are much to the mater And they â—re these Sancimus secundum Canonum defiâ—tiones vâ—â— ordaine according to the determinations of the Canons that c. By which it appeereth that Iustinian dyd no more but exquute the former Dâ—crees â–ª and was not hymselfe the Authour or Geauer of the singular Priuilege which is due to the See of Rome And now lette M. Iewel goe forewarde We ordeine caet that the Pope Reade Sanctissimum moste holy of the Elder Rome shal be Reade is the first of al the Priestes and that the moste holy Archebishope of Constantinople which is named Newe Rome haue the seconde place It foloweth in the Decree After the holy Apostolike See of the Elder Rome But what concludeth M. Iewel hereof It foloweth Hereby it is plaine that this Priuilege standeth ONLY in placing the B. of â—ome in the first Seate aboue others It is so plaine that no man seeth it Be thou Iudge Indifferent Reader Yea lette any Protestant in al the worlde tell Trueth lâ—e and not Doth he find in the foresaied woâ—â—s of 〈◊〉 Decrec this worde ONLY Doth he find that the 〈◊〉 of the B. of Rome is declared by the Emperour to stand in none other thinge but in sitting first A warthie mater in deede for An Emperour to set furth Seates for Bisshoppes
cause which they alreadie had ended Can we haue any thing more plaine and manifest that this Christian and worâ—hie Emperour dyd in conscience thinke himself to base to sit and Iudge after Bishopes whereas enforced thereunto by the importunitie of the Donatistes and trusting by that his yelding to pacifie the commotion y â— was reysed in the catholike Church yet was not sure of his doeinges herein but determined to aske forgeauenes of the holy Bishopes As if he should saie The Donatistes here trouble the Church They appeale vnto me as though I were chiefe If I wil not heare their cause there is no man shal Rule them And if I take open me to heare it the Bishops which alreahaue decided it wil be offended Wel I wil venter yet And if the Donatistes wil stand to my iudgement and be quiet for euer after that is so greate a benefite that to cumpasse it I maie stretche my conscience And if for al that pretense my fact shal be misliked I wil aske pardon of the holy Bishopes which haue alreadie iudged of the mater This is the very trueth of the Emperours receiuing of the Donatistes Appeale He dyd it vpon occasion and if it were not wel done he was readie to take a pardon for it In all thinges he sought the beste waie to helpe the Church and shewed his moste due and humble and Obedient affection towardes Bishopes Yet doth M. Iewel bring in this Story to proue that It is vvel knovven that Appeales euen in the Ecclesiastical causes vvere made to the Emperours and Ciuil Princes Seconly that the Bishope of Rome determined such cases of Appeale by vvarrant and commission from the Emperour Thirdly that maters being heard and determined by the Bishope of Rome haue ben by Appeale from him remoued further vnto others Which Conclusion wil seeme well inough to folowe vpon the Appeale of the Donatistes vnto y â— Emperour and y â— Emperours sending of them first vnto the Bishope of Rome and then to the Bishope of Arles but consider the mater truely and M. Iewels Arguments muâ—t be these Schismatikes Appealed in an Eeclesiastical cause â–ª vnto the Emperour Constantinus Ergo Catholikes maieâ— like causes appeale to Ciuilâ— Princes Againe Constantinus the Emperour receiued for 〈◊〉 sake the Schismatikes appeale and 〈…〉 Rome there to be tried and durste not him selfe iudge of that cause vvhen the Bishope of Rome had determined it Ergo the Bishope of Rome had a vvarrant and commission sent vnto hym to heare and determine that mater Againe Constantinus the Emperour yeldinge vnto the importanitie of Schismatikes vvhen they vvould not obeie the Sentence of the Bishope of Rome sent thâ—m to the Bishope of Arls and vvheÌ„ they vvould not be ruled neither by that Sentence he heard the cause hymselfe and mynded to aske pardon of the holy Bishopes for his sitting vpon that mater vvhich alreadie by them vvas determined Ergo Appeales maie be lavvfully made from the Bishope of Rome to other Bishopes and the Emperour is Supreme heaâ— vnder God in earth So that al causes must in the end be referred vnto hym These be the only premisses which the Storie geaueth vnto which if he can ioine his conclusion then shal he make contraries agree but whereas he can not whi maketh he conclusions without premisses Or why maketh he Argumentes out of y â— which either Schismatikes vsed or that which Catholikes yelded vnto in conâ—â—deration of Schismatikes Wyl M. Iewel neuer leaue his impudenâ—ie But let vs go further The Councel of Antioche deposed Pope Iulius Yet was not Iulius therfore deposed This you bring in M. Iewel to declare that the sentence geuen in Councels was not alwaies put in execution To which I answer that if the Councel be lawfull and Catholike the decrees ought to be put in 〈◊〉 if thei be not it foloweth not that the Sentence of the Councel maie be 〈◊〉 or neglected but that they which being of Authoritie do not see the Councels 〈…〉 are to be 〈…〉 Councels neither their 〈…〉 their examples are to be 〈◊〉 You reason muche like as if one should saie against the Obedience due vnto the priuye Councel of a Realme The Sonnes of King Dauid the Capitanes of the hostes Abiathar also the high Priest consented and agreed saieing Viuat Rex Adonias God saue Adonias the King and yet Adonias was not king ergo the Proclamations or Determinations of lawful Authoritie maie be litle estemed For this Councel of Antioche was a Schismatical assemble and wheras they deposed hym ouer whom they had no Authoritie there is no absurditie at al nor fault to be laied vnto any mans charge that wil not obey or lyke their procedings doings therein But when y â— lawful head Bishope of the worlde doth define and subscribe in a Generall Councel though there folow no execution in acte yet there is one to be done by right And it can be no sufficient excuse before God when the conscience shal be examined to allege that because Schismatikes decrees haue not ben executed therfore the Obedience which is due to the Sentence of Catholikes maie be diminished But see yet an other ExaÌ„ple M. Iewel wil proue that Bishops of other Countries neuer yeelded to the Popes Supremacie For faith he The Bishopes of the East writing vnto Iulius allege that the faith that then was in Rome came first from them and that their Churches as Sozomenus writeth ought not to be accompted inferiour to thâ— Church of Rome And as Socrates further reporteth that they ought not to be ordered by the Romaine Bishope You haue much to do M. Iewel with the Bishopes of the Easte and no man I thinke that readeth your Booke wil iudge otherwise but that they were learned and good men such as whose opinions both your selfe allow and commend vnto others to be regarded And truely if they were such men I wil say nothing but that he that is disposed may esteeme their sayinges but if it shal be proued most manifestly y â— thei were rank and obstinate Arrians then truely the more ignominiously and coÌ„temptuously they spak against the Bishops of Rome the better they do declare of what kind and succession they are at this present which set their whole studies against the See Apostolyke and will not be ruled by the highest Bishop in Christendom For proufe of your assertion you refer vs to Sozomenus and Socrates Auncient and lawful Historiographers whome we also do admit And as though any man would striue with you herevpon that the Bishopes of the East did not so litle set by y â— Bishop of Romes Authoritie as you seme to gather you put in the margen the greeke text it self that he which knoweth no greeke at all may yet say to him selfe Bi r Lady M. Iewel alleageth y â— expresse Text for himselfe and it apeareth by y â— English therof that the Bishopes of the East made no such accompt
where I can finde it sometimes within sometimes without the Circle sometimes staÌ„ding nigh sometimes coursing about the field Mary Sir if such Priuileges might be graunted to Warriers it were an easie mater to prolong the Battell and to winne the praise of much manlinesse by spurring cut hither and thither and no mater how For he taketh no care hereof how truly he alleage the Testimonies of these last nine hundred yeres Or how worthie and approued Authors they be whom he alleageth but without exception he taketh all that he findeth and from the highest to the lowest from the Text to the Glose and emong Gloses from the best to the worst of them he Taketh and Draweth and Heapeth against vs Al that may seeme to helpe his Assertions Tel vs therefore I pray you M. Iewel what Equitie or Conscience you folow Will you binde the Catholikes to the first six hundred yeres And wil your selfe argue out of cumpasse May not we vse the worthie Authoritie of Bonifacius because he was Bishop of Rome in the yere of our Lord 680 and will you admit the sayinges and doinges of Luther Zwinglius and Caluine all condemned Persons through the Catholike Church and liuing xv C yeres after Christ S. Bernard you say was A man of late yeres So was Dionisius the Carthusian So were others whom I haue rekened vp in the chapiter before And therefore by your accompt of lesse Authoritie And why then doe you allâ—age not only S. Bernard but Durand Gerson Alexander Lynwod Camotensis Hugo Cardinalis Eckius Aeneas Syluius Erasmus and other I report me to the very margine of your boke by that it will appeere whether you do not stuffe your boke with Canons Constitutions Gloses Histories Interpretations of scripture Testimonies of Fathers Opinions of Scholemen c. such as altogether you scrape out of these last nine C. yeres For which your so doing if you can bring any Reason or shew any Speciall Pryuilege graunted to you against the law of Nature that you might do against an other that which you would not haue done to your selfe either of this vnreasonable Fauor and Licence you must geaue some cause or els you must suffer vs to complaine of it that you dele not with vs Indifferently But it will be thought perchaunse of others that you alleage not y â— later Wryters of any time these nine C. yeres for the Estimation or Credite which you haue them in but only because your Aduersary maketh great Price of them Suppose it were so yet you doe him greate Wronge to put him to Answering of more Witnesses than he should doe by right And to fill your Replie with those mennes sayinges whose Authoritâ—es though he doe not contemne yet he would not haue them to possesse occupie y â— place which more Auncient and worthier Persons should haue And although we think as it becometh vs of s. Bernard s. BonaueÌ„ture S. Denyse c. Yet if you would needes haue vs in Reasoning with you not to passe the Boundes and Terme of vj. C. yeres you shoulde not though we alowed the Persons neuer so much bring any of A lower degree and later age against vs either to stand in the place which S. Hierome S. Ambrose S. Augustine or S. Chrysostome should occupie either to commend that place the better by their Presence which the Auncient Fathers of the Primitiue Church doe furnishe aboundantly by themselues and which also they only should furnishe by your appointement And further I say that if you will not suffer me to take any vantage against you by the testimony of any good Man or wryter of the nine hundred yeres last past it is no equalitie that whther I will or no you should make me to Answer the sayinges which you bring against me out of those yeres whiche you passe not vpon And whereas it shall doe me no good though I proue that S. Bernard for Example in that place which you wil alleage doth not only not hinder but allso further my cause to what purpose should I spend anyetime at all in hearing or examining hys wordes which although I declare to make for me may not be lawfully vsed of me And therefore notwithstanding you iudge truly of vs herein and better of vs than of your self that we the Catholikes doe not refuse the Authoritie of later Fathers and Doctours whom the Church yet neuer condemned or despised Yet this our credite which we haue them in must not serue you for any cause or excuse why ye should bring them furth against vs except we may doe the like against you For as you haue appealed to the first vj. C. yeres thereby to let vs of our Libertie so we doe require you also not to passe that nuÌ„ber or cumpasse of those yeres thereby to cut away your superfluitie And in thus doing we are not weary of the later Doctours of Christendome nor afraid of their Iudgments but we are offended with your vainglorious and very wretched behauioure which will not keepe the law yourselfe that you prescribe vnto other Ther is I graunt A kind of ArgumeÌ„t ad hominem non ad rem to the man not to the mater As to some of our Countrie men at this present and them of the most Perfite and exquisite Trade in folowing of the Gospel if A Catholike doe saye that Father Caluine himself whose Iudgment is much praised in the Congregation was of this mind and was also Zelous in it that they did very ill which gaâ—e to king Harry the viij that he should be head of the Church this argument so taken of his Authoritie that was a Proude and Folishe And Lousie Heretike although it be nothing worth in deede and in that respect not to be vsed of A Catholike Yet to him that accompteth of Caluine as if he had bene one of y e lights of the World y â— Catholike may right wel vse it driue him by force of the Consequence either to deny Caluines Authority which he wil not Or y â— kings supremacy which he dareth not So y â— against him that is addicted to any one Opinion of his own or of other whoÌ„ he buildeth vpon to bring an Argument grounded vpoÌ„ his own Opinion iudgment thereby to make him forsake his own opinion or kepe stil in his memory the Contradiction which inwardly pincheth him It is A kind of Reasoning good and profitable And in this respect if any Catholike were so blinde singular as to set more by the Glose vpon VnaÌ„ SanctaÌ„ Extr. de Maior Obed â–ª than the Commentaries of S. Hierome and S. Chrisostome Or by Durand Gerson Lynwod c. than any of the most Auncient Fathers M. Iewel then might be suffered to argue ad hominem that is to alleage Gloses Scholemen and later Doctours to him that hath A speciall fansie vnto those more than any of the Primitiue Church But now se y â— Inequality
of the Pope as at these Daies is allowed But what shall we say It can not be denied but the Bishoppes of the Easte those of whome Sozomenus and Socrates speake did take themselues to be as good as the Bishop of Rome and disdayned to yâ—lde obedience vnto him But were they Catholiks or Heretiks Undoutedly Heretikes and that of the worste â—â—king For they were Arâ—ians Howe proue I this Mary by Sozomenus and Socrates both which agree in telling the Storie And that is this At what tyme S. Athanasius fled to Rome being persequâ—ted of the Arrians â—or defending of the Consubstantialitie of God the Sonne with the Father it so â—ame to â—asse that at the same time Paulus Bisshoppe of Constantinople and Marcellus Bisshoppe of 〈◊〉 and Asclepas Bisshoppe of 〈…〉 Bisshop of Hadrianoâ—le 〈◊〉 also to Rome being al Catholike Bisshoppes and al dryuen out of their Churches and Sees through the Accusations and Iâ—uasions of the Arrians Herevpon Iulius the Bisshoppe of Rome vnderstanding what faultes were layed to their charges And perceiuynge that all were of one mynde concernynge the Decrees of the Nicene Couâ—cell he thoughte it meete to communicate with them as with men of the same faith and opinion with him And as Sozomenus writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the vvorthines and digniti of his See or as Socrates saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forasmuch as the church of Rome had the Prerogatiues priuilegies â–ª he restored euery one of them to his See And wrote freely and sharply to the Bishops of the East which had expelled them declaring that they had troubled the Churche and that they had not iudged aright of the forsaid Bishops Requiring furthermore y â— some of them should appere at an appointed day before him aâ—d that he would not suffer it if they ceased not to be newfangled The Arrian Bishoppes vppon the receipt of this letter and for indignation that the Bishop of Rome had restored to their lauful Sees the catholike Bishops â—â—hanasius Paulus Marcellus Asâ—leâ—â—â— Lucius whom they had vnplaced they called a Councel at Antioche and 〈◊〉 againe a faire letter to Pope Iulius ful of prety scoffes and tauntes and not without sharpe threatenings also And emong other points these that M. Iewel reckeneth are some that forsoth they ought not to be accompted inferiour to the Church of Rome And that they ought not to be ordered by the Romaine Bishope Hitherto is the storie as I gather it out of Socrates and Sozomenus Consider now of it indifferent Reader Was Athanasius an holy Bishope or no Was he a most worthy and tried defendour of the Catholike faith or no Did almighty God miraculously defend him against al his enemies or no Eusebius Sozomenus Socrates Theodoritâ—s al y â— euer wrote the storie of y â— time speak so much good of him 〈◊〉 declare such a prouidence of God to haue ben about him that he must be a very blinde and wretched Arrian which seeth not his worthines Or 〈◊〉 at his Glory And whom then follow you M. Iewel Those Bishops of the East whom your wisdome and Religion bringeth in for substantial witnesses They condemned Athanasius And for what other cause so principally as for his defending of the Catholike faith against the blasphemies of y â— Arrians Alow yow then his condemnaâ—oâ— Utter now your stomake and speake plainly whether you beleue y â— Christ is of one the selfe same Substanâ—ce with his Father Shew yourselfe as you are in your Opinions and put of the name and person of an honest Superintendent which you would seeme to beare and with al boldenesse vtter your secrete Diuinitie For hâ—re nowe I chalenge you here I charge you Alow you the Condemnation of â—thaâ—asius which your Bishops of the East concluded vpon If you doe Auaunt Arriaâ—â— â–ª If you doe not how can you but thinke euil of such arrogant and wicked Arrians which not oÌ„ly put him our of his See but also when he was restoâ—ed againe vnto it by the Iudgement of the Bisshop of Rome contemned that his SenteÌ„ce with greater spite and Insolencie than they had expelled Athâ—nesius and others at the first I say further If Athanasius Paulus Marcellus Asclepas and Lucius so 〈◊〉 Fathers â–ª â—eing â—râ—elled by the 〈◊〉 of the Easte thought themselues safe inough against all their Enemies hauing the letters of the Bishop of Rome for their lawful Returne vnto their Sees should not this alone be Argument inough to any Indifferent Protestant in all y â— world that he should not Contemne Abandone and Accurse the Authoritie of the See of Rome For whereas the Examples of Learned and Holy men are to be followed And whereas M. Iewel the Challenger w t others of his vaine doe pretend greate Reuerence towardes Antiquitie prouoking their Aduersaries to bring Testimonies out of the Primitiue Church And exhorting their Hearers and Readers to consider the practise of the Auncient tymes and Fathers how should he not haue the Bishop of Rome in greate Admiration whom he seeth to haue ben so highly estemed of the greate Bishops or Patriarches rather of y â— Easte Church Athanasius Paulus Marcellus c. y â— his letters were of more force w t them to restore them to their Sees than their own Power Habilitie was to kepe theÌ„selues in their own places when they had them Note also that whereas they were expelled by violence And wer seâ—t home again not with an Armie but with Letters onely Yet those letters preuailed so much with the People also of their Cities and Countries that straite wayes they were gladly receiued And had it not ben for the Conuenticle and Conspiracie of the forsaid Arrian Bishops of the East in which they not onely set al their owne Power against the Catholike Bishops Athanasiâ—s Paulus c. restored by the Pope of Rome but accused them to the Emperour CoÌ„stantinus making him to vse Uiolence against them the Catholike people of Constantinople Alexandria and other places would haue honored and Obeyed them stil as their owne true and lauful Bishopes Of which it is easy to gather that First the Blessed and Reuerend Bishops themselues Athanasius Paulus c. did seâ— very much by y â— Bishop of Romes letters and sentence And then that the Catholik and deuout people also of those quarters did regard and obey the same Thirdly that such as resisted then the Authoritie of y â— Bishope of Rome were plaine Arrians And last of al that it was not done by law or any order that those holy Bishopes Athanasius Paulus c. enioyed not the right of their own Seeâ— but by false Accusations of the Arrian Superintendenteâ— and Indignation Stomake Ediâ—â— Uiolence Persecution of the Emperour Constantius How litle then doth this Example of the Arrian Bishoppes make for M. Iewels purpose Yea rather how much doth it make cleane against hym For when wicked and nawghtie mens
of the xiiij Chapiter of the first to the Corinthians altogeather out of purpose But as it appeereth by this place which I haue opened S. Augustine was of an other mind would haue geueÌ„ such Protestantes an other lesson that they should not mocke at poore Syr Iohns which praie in latine and yet vnderstand not latine like as his counsel is to eloquent and smoeth tounged Gentlemen that come from secular Scholes to the Church of Christ there to be instructed And because the opening of so much would haue ben a great disauantage to M. Iewel and his felowes therefore he speaketh only of Priestes whom S. Augustine willed to correct the errours of their latine tounge and dissimbleth the answer which S. Augustine geueth to those ioly felowes which would be ready to mocke at Priests because of their barbarouse and false praieng in the Publike Seruice By which we vnderstand that the publike Seruice was then in Latine and that it was so strainge also vnto the vulgar people that some of the Priestes and Bishopes did not vnderstand it Of this also it foloweth that the conclusion which M. Iewel peeketh out of this testimonie of S. Austine is so grosse and vnsensible that I wonder where his wittes were when he wrote it Thus he saieth This of S. Augustin seemeth to be spoken generally of al tounges Seemeth it so in deede And do not your self so vnderstaÌ„d the place in y â— very begynning of your alleging thereof that you saie S. Augustine willeth the Priestes to correct the errours of their latine tonge If then it be the latine tongue by name for which he reasoneth how doth it sâ—me vnto you that he speaketh generally of al Tounges Againe if he spake generally of al tounges ergo of the Punike tounge I aske you then which of the two it is like that the Aphricanes vnderstoode better the Aphricane and Punike tounge Or the Latine If the Aphricane as being their natural and vulgar tounge was more familiar with them why doth S. Augustine wil the Priests to studie the Latine tounge that the people might vnderstaÌ„d them the better wheras by your accoÌ„pt they should haue spoken in their owne vulgar tongue and so with lesse labour the people should haue ben more edified If the Latin was more familiar how could any Priest or Bishope in Aphrica be so ignorant thereof that he should not pronounce his Latine praiers and vnderstand them Or how doth S. Augustin seeme to speake generally of al tongues which extendeth out his Reason and argument no not vnto the Punik tongue Here againe I praie thee Indifferent Reader to consider whether M. Iewel hath not clerckly alleged the Doctours S. Irenens abused S. Ireneus hath a manifest tastimonie for the Supremacie of the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 Church saieth he must resort to this Church of Rome because of the mightier Principalitie of the same And this place trobleth M. Iewel very much as it appeereth by y â— extraâ—â—gants and idle discourses which he maketh about it But out of his Aâ—swers is this that The Principalitie that Ireneus meant was the Ciuile Dominion and Temporall Staâ—e of the Citie of Rome in which God had then planted the Empire of the world and made al nations subiect vnto it See the impudencie or blindenes of the man Are ye not very carnal in your Iudgement and make ye not the like argumentes as the worldlings do What societie betwene light and darknes and what participation betwene Christ and Belial what hath the euerlasting kingdom to depend vpon the transitorie and temporal kingdom â–ª And why should the wealth or dominioÌ„ of any Citie diminish or increase the Eâ—â—imation of any one Church Consider I pray thee IndiffereÌ„t Reader what a wise interpretour M. Iewel is He maketh y â— lerned Father â— Ireneus to haue this dul grosse sense in him All the Churches of the world must resort vnto the Church of Rome because the ciuile dominion and state thereof is the greatest in the world Or thus Al the faithful in the world must resort to S. Peters Successours because the Romain Emperours are the migthtiest Princes in the world By what consequence The cause vndoubtedly whiche should moue the Faithful to come to Rome must haue ben spiritual and not temporal They should haue resorted thither to be instructed in their faith against the heresies that trobled their vnderstanding and not to aske any Counsel or seek any wordly benefite Againe in this one sentence S. Ireneus dath twise name Ecclesiam Church If therefore in the first place M. Iewel wil haue the Ciuil dominion of Rome to be vnderstand by hanc EcclesiaÌ„ this Church thâ—n is it reason that he meane by omnem ecclesiaÌ„ euerie Church which words foâ—â—â— in the sentence the Ciuil dominion in euerie parte of the world But S. Ireneus by euerie Church vnderstandeth as him selfe expoundeth it eos qui vndique sunt fideles y â— faithful that are euerie where about Ergo by Ecclesiam the Church in the former part of his senteÌ„ce he meaneth the companie of the Faithful that are in Rome of which the Bishop there is the principal head I adde further If the Principality of the Ciuil dominion in Rome did seme a worthie cause vnto the lerned and auncient Father Ireneus why al Faithfull should resort chiefly thither than which Conclusion he thought nothing lesse yet if M. Iewel will needes haue that consequence how chaunced it that when Constantine the great gaue place to S. Peter and went with his Principalitie of Ciuil dominion vnto Constâ—ntinople that al the Churches of the world did not for all that so resorte vnto the Church of Constantinople but that the Church of Rome continued stil in her Supremacie As for that which you say that principalis Ecclesia is sometime vsed of old Fathers to signifie the ciuil dominioÌ„ and principalitie of the Citie where the Church is although in the Examples whiche you bring in the first of them 7. quâ—sâ— 1. placuit principalis cathedra doth properly signify a spiritual office not a worldly dominion And in the second inter epiâ—tolas Augustini 35. epi. although the word principalis be referred to Alipius as Bishope yet let me graunt so much and consider your diâ—ine Logike After the alleging as the foresaid testimonies which in dede make quite against you you conclude saying Thus the principality that Iren meaneth stoode not in the preaching of the Gospel but in the ciuile estate and worldly dominion not in the Bishoppe that professed Christ but in the Emperour that was an heathen not in the Church but in the persequutours and enemies of the Church If you would haue said â–ª Ireneus taketh Principalitas in this sense Ergo Paulinus in vsing the word Principalis may be interpreted to haue the like sense Although this also were no good Argument when the word hath more
sacrifice with him But how After the order of Melchisedech Or by their own Act Priesthood as M. Iewel gathereth Surely except Guerricus him selfe had made it plaine in what sense the Priest and the People do offer no doubt but M. Iewel in this place would outface vs that this Abbat meant that men and women were Priestes after the order of Melchisedech Notwithstanding that it is not saied the cuÌ„pani of the faithful do coÌ„secrate as though they might do it by themselues but they consecrate with him the Priest signifieng the Office to be singular And it foloweth in the Sermon Neither the Carpenter alone doth make a house but one bringeth roddes an other rafters an other postes or beames and other things By which Similitude it is manifest that the people consecrate in this sense that they bring sumwhat to that end And what is that By this that foloweth it wil be vnderstanded For thus he concludeth Therefore the standers by ought to haue of their owne euen as the Priest ought What A Cope trow you M. Iewel vpon their backes or a Surplesse like Ministers or power and Authoritie of Priesthod No. but a sure faith a pure prayer a godly deuotiâ—n Where then is the Breade and Wine or the Order of Melchisedech which you would proue to perâ—eine to the common people with Therfore S. Bernard saith or Otherwise called Guerricus Here is a Conclusion without Premisses And a comparison without any likelyhoode And A falsification without truth or honestie Alexander of Hales abused The people taking but one kind only receiueth iniurie as M. Harding may see by Alexander de Hales and Durandus other of his owne Doctours Alexanders wordes be these Licèt illa Sumptio c. Although that Order of Receiuing the Sacrâ—ment â–ª which is vnder one kinde be sufficient yet the other which is vnder both kindes is of greater merite Al this M. Iewel is true but this proueth not that the people haue any iniury done vnto them For to Receiue â—nder one kinde it is sufficient by Alexanders expresse wordes but vndoubtedly if any thing lacked of that which were dâ—e â–ª there wer not sufficieÌ„cy Ergo how proue you by Alexander that the people are Iâ—iuried in receiuing vnder one kinde You wil Replie out of him that it is of greater merite to receiue in both kinds than one And what of â—hat It is a greater merite to Celebrate thrise a day as at Christmasse then once as Ordinarily Priestes do vse Do ye thinke then that any Priestes haue Iniury don vnto them because the Order is otherwise that they say but one Masse in one daie except one daie onely in the yeare Againe I say that Alexander noteth a greater merite to be in Receiuing vnder both than one kind not in respect of the Sacramente which is as perfite in one as both and in the least part of one as the whole but in respect of the Receiuers because their deuotion is encreased and their Faith dilated by longer coÌ„tinuing in thâ— Act of Receiuing and their Receiuing is more Complete as being ministred in both kindes And as the causes on the behalfe of the Receiuer do make it to a person so disposed more effectual to Receiue in both than one So other causes there be which doe make y â— Receiuing vnder one kinde to be to the party so affected more fruietful and meritorious than if he tooke both For he that would say vnto him self I wil content my selfe with the common Order of the Church I wil not make any Sturre about both kindes knowing y â— as much is vnder one as both vndoubtedly such a man should both for his Humilitie and for his Faith deserue more a great deale then if he should Receiue in both kindes and find a certaine sense and tast of Denotion The strength therefore and efficatie which Alexander speaketh of depending vpon the Act of the Receiuer and not vpon the Uertue of y â— Sacrament which is al one in effect whether it be ministred in one or both kindes M. Iewel doth very iniuriously to put a fault herein y â— they Receiue not vnder both to make Alexander of this opinion that to minister in one kinde were an Iniurie vnto the people For this I would aske further of him whether the simple and deuout people are not more stirred vp to remember the Death and Bloâ—d of Christe if they should Receiue in Claret or Red Wine than in White No doubt but the imaginatioÌ„ would be more affected and moued by seeing a like colour vnto y â— which it would conceiue than a contrary or diuerse colour How then Would M. Iewel thinke it an Iniury to minister in white wine vnto the people though thei would be desirous of Red He should not thinke it if he be wise And why so Mary because they haue as much in the White as the Red and to receiue in Red hangeth vpon their priuate deuotion not vpon any precept of the Churche or doctrine of the Apostles or Institution of Christe to which onely the Priest is bound and which if he obserue he doth his duety Be it so then that many good â—olke for diuerse causes should be exceedingly moued and edified by drinking of the Chalice and contemplating of more then is Ordinarie in their minde should they haue any Iniurie done vnto them if they receiued afterwardes when the Priest should iudge it expedient vnder y â— forme of bread only Neyther doth Alexander de Hales so say neither any reason doth make for it But let vs see an other place of Alexander which M. Iewel hath abused The same Alexander againe saith Totus Christus c. Whole Christ is not conteined vnder ech kind by way of SacrameÌ„t but the fleash onely vnder the fourme of bread and the bloud vnder the fourme of wine The woordes can not be denied to be Alexanders but what seâ—se gathereth M. Iewel of them Here M. Hardinges owne Doctours confesse that the people Receiuing vnder one kinde receiueth not the ful SacrameÌ„t nor the bloud of Christe by way of Sacrament You vnderstand not Alexander or you wil not For whereas he saith Christ is not conteined vnder ech kinde Sacramentally he meaneth not that the people Receiue not the Ful Sacrament and their owne Maker Godde and Manne vnder eche kinde but by this woorde Sacramentally he meaneth that concerning the forme of wordes by which consecration is perfited in eche kinde and by external forme of the Signes vnder which Christ is exhibited the flesh only is conteined vnder the forme of Breade and the bloud vnder the forme of Vvine As when Christ said This is my bloud the woordes which we heare doe signify no more than Bloude to be there present And y â— external Signe and liquor of wine doth represent a presence of bloud onely And this is that â—hich Alexander meaneth by the worde Sacramentally when he
S. Bregorie or Iustinian ye folow both and ye are contrary vnto your selfe at one time defying the Title at an other alleaging it Certainly Balaam notwithstanding he were a False Prophete yet he opened his mouth and Blessed the people of God Cayphas although he were a wicked Bisshop yet he pphesied and spake the truth A Seale although it be cast in Leade yet it geaueth a perfite Printe The Scribes and Phariâ—eis although they were Hypocrites and liued not wel yet they instructed the Congregation and saied wel By these Examples then it appeareth that A Doctrine is not to be forsaken because of the euil lyfe of the Preacher What faulte then is Doctour Harding in for saying that Be the Bishoppe of Romes lyfe neuer so wicked yet may we not seuer our selues from the Churche of Rome For if other causes be alleaged wherefore we should do it they are to be Aunswered but this Obiection of the euil lyfe of the Bishoppes of Rome is sufficiently confuted by these Examples which M. Iewel here hath clearely allowed Yet see the nature of the man when D. Hardinge had saied so much he could not abide it but straitewaies commeth against it with this Authoritie How be it S. Cyprian saith otherwise Plebs obsequens c. The people obeying Gods CommaundemeÌ„ts must seuer them selues from the Wicked that ruleth ouer them S. Cyprian speaketh of Basilides and Martialis Bishops that had defiled them selues with Libels in which they gaue their names to Idolatrie For which cause they were excommunicated of other Bishopes and the people were forbid to come to their Sacrifice But it is no mater to M. Iewel how the case standeth with anie Testimonie that he bringeth So desyrous he is to gaynsaie D. Harding that he falleth into Contradictions with himselfe also â–ª speaking at one time for credite to be geuen to Priestes notwithstanding theyr euil life And at an other time making it lawful to forsake the Doctrine of the Preacher or Ruler for because of his euil life When Christ had deliuered both kinds vnto his Disciples he sayd vnto them this doe ye the same that you see I haue done But where did Christ euer say Minister vn to yourselues one way and an other wai vn to the people The like Argument he maketh pa. 119. Where did Christ. caet As who should saie Christ hath not expressed it Ergo it is not to be obserued Here loe we see that M. Iewell aloweth the Argument called in Scholes Ab Autoritate Negatiue except you wil say that him selfe vseth that which him selfe alloweth not But heare now what he saith in other places of his Replie M. Harding Gheasseth thus It appereth not by Beda the Seruice was in English Ergo the Seruice was in Latine What kinde of Logique haue we here Or how may this Reason hold It concludeth Ab Autoritate negatiuâ—â— I beleue M. Harding him selfe wil not allow it The Argument in deede he wil not allow as you haue made it But for as much as Bede purposely speaketh of such thinges as concerned Religion It is not to be thought that he would haue passed it ouer in Silence if the Masse had been translated into the English tongue But how agree you M. Iewel with your selfe that can both refuse and vse one and the selfe same kind of ArgumeÌ„t You haue I trow some defense for you selfe in this mater For you say in an other place The weight of M. Hardinges Argument is taken as they name it in Scholes Ab Autoritate negatiuè and vnlesse it be in consideration of some other circumstaÌ„ce it is so simple that a very Child may sone Answere it What Circumstance then is that which being obserued maketh the Argument ab Authoritate negatiuè good Surely that Circumstance were wel worth the learning that we might perceaue both how to make such Arguments ourselues without doubt of your reprehension and also howe to warne you thereof when yourselfe goe without the Cumpasse of your owne Circumstance Perchaunce you meane hereby not more but that which you haue alreadie expressed in the first Article where H. Harding obiecteth vnto you the Common vse of this kind of Reasoning which is ab Authoriâ—ate negatiuâ—â— For thus you say and it is I beleue the moste you can say that The Argument ab Authoritate negatiuâ—â— is thought to be good when so euer prouf is taken of Gods word and is vsed not only by vs but also by S. Paule and by many of the Catholike Fathers S. Paule sayeth God sayed not vnto Abraham In thy SEEDES al nations shal be blessed but in thy SEEDE which is Christ. And thereof he thought he made a good Argument Suffer me than to make a like Argument out of Good woord and let me haue your Answer vsed it Christ saith to S. Peter Feede my sheep he said not these or them Ergo vvithout Exception he comâ—â—itted his sheep vnto S. Peter But you like not this Argument For you say it is against the Rules of Logique and that it was An Errour in Bonifacius to reason thus Dominus dixit Generaliter c. The Lord said Generally vnto Peter feede my Sheepe he said not specially feed these or them therefore we must vnderstande that he committed them vnto Peter altogeather Yet this Argument is like to that of S. Paules of SEEDES and SEEDE which in deede is not 〈…〉 negatiuè but Affirmatiuè For he presseth the woorde of the Scripture SEEDE in the Singular nuÌ„ber which to make the better obserued he biddeth it to be noted y â— it was not said SEEDES But how so euer that be M. Iewels Art may be wel inough espied which al at pleasure affirmeth and denieth saieth and vnsayeth maketh Rules and Obserueth them not and is Contradictorie vnto him self in very many places This very name the HEADE of the vniuersal Church is the very thing that we deny Then are you a very vnwise man to sett the State and Substance of your question vpon a Name And to contend vpon words affirming them to be the very thinges And there appeereth here vnto me to be a manifest Contradiction that the name should be the thing For if it were so that al this writing on both sides were no more but an Alteration of Brammarians or Rhetoricians then in deede it might be a questioÌ„ whether this woorde HEADE were euer Readen in such a Case or such an Author or euer applied to such and such a person then â—roprely the Name should be the thing But now wheras al our coÌ„flict is about the Truth of thinges that are to be beleued and we seeke not after Termes and Phrases of Speache but sense and meaning of Truthes And whereas the vnderstanding which both partes thinke to instructe is not bettered by any NAMES but by the very thinges them selues It is al togeather vnreasonable to