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
ods For neither D. Harâ—nor his Inferiors are so ignoraÌ„t of y â— seÌ„se strength of this word Catholike y â— they shuld be addicted to any one two or thre mens priuate sayings of what degree or time so euer they haue ben without thâ— consent or warrant of the Church neither shuld M. Iewel alleage vnto them any Testimony of the last nine hundred yeres himself referring the triall of the the whole mater to the first vj. C. only And hauing such Aduersaries as are very well content to be ordered by the sentence and Iudgment of that first age and that Primitiue Church Yet go to for a while let M. Iewel be suffered And let it be his excuse that he hath argued alwaies ad hominem to the man when he hath vsed the Testimonies of later times thereby to impugne D. Harding Let him say I meane that he hath recited in his Replye Durand Gerson Biel Denyse Hugo Cardinall Thomas Duns c. not because himself aloweth them but because they are estemed of y â— party against whoÌ„ he wryteth But is this true And hath not he vsed their Testimonies in respect also of hys owne opinion confirmed himself in it because of their Testimonies When he reasoneth Substantially and Directly and Plainly to his Purpose and ad rem to the mater and out of his owne Principles as it were and Authorities doth he not alleage the forsayde Doctours although they were all the sort of them farre vnder the first six hundred yeres to whiche onely he would haue the Decision of the controuersies referred Whether this be so or no let Examples try it M. Iewel is of the Opinion that no Christian Churches wer built in the Apostles tyme And muche lesse then Aulters if his Logicke be good For may wee thinke sayth he that Aulters were built before the Churche Of whiche Lye we shall speake in an other place But to my purpose It foloweth in him Neyther afterward when Aulters were first vsed and so named were they straite waye built of Stone as Durandus and such others saie they must needes be and that Quia petra erat Christus Because Christ vvas the Stone Whereof then were they built according to your Opinion And what Cause or Authoritie haue you for it It foloweth For Gerson saith that Siluester Bisshop of Rome first caused Stone Aultars to be made c. Is Gerson then of Authoritie with you And a man of so late yeares and little Fame and Estimation in comparison of many Fathers and Doctours of the ix C. yeares last past all which you refuse is hee nowe a witnesse for yourâ— Here it is plaine that you bring in this late writer to serue directly your owne Opinion and that he standeth you in suche steede that without him you proue not that whiche you saide You depende not therefore vppon your Aduersaries allowing of Gerson as who shoulde saye if he admit the Testimonie of him then doe I confirme my Assertion and if he doe not yet haue I other Authorities to proue my sayinges true but you doe so absolutely and proprely for your owne Opinion vse him that without him you leaue your matters vnproued But let vs see an other Example It is required of M. Iewell that forasmuche as the Catholikes coulde neuer yet finde that the Publike Seruice in the Primitiue Churche was in any other than Greeke or Latine and hee yet is sure of the Contrarye that it was euery where in a tongue knowen to the Uulgare People he shew therefore his Profes and Authorities suche by all likelyhode as himselfe is perswaded withall before he woulde haue other to allowe them Marke then what hee sayth And to auoyde multitude of woordes the case beeing plaine Eckius sayth the Indians had their Seruice in the Indian tongue Durandus saith The Iewes that were Christened had their Seruice in the Hebrew tongue Nycolas Lyra and Thomas de Aquine saye The Common Seruice in the Primitiue Churche was in the Common vulgare tongue And in the next leafe folowing he aleageth Aeneas Syluius and an Extrauagant de Officio Iudicis Ordinarij and Iohn Billet in Summa de Diuinis officijs But what are all these Were they not writers of very late Yeares Were they not Popisshe Doctours or Popysshe Proctours not woorthe the naming by M. Iewels Accompt and much lesse worth the Crediting Why theÌ„ doth he alleage them Will he saye he condescended herein to D. Hardinges Infirmitie And that he vseth his owne Doctours for the better contentation of his mind No verely he must not say so For he was required to bring his owne groundes and witnesses and not such as are alowed only per accidens that is because it so happeneth that an other maÌ„ liketh them He was content allso to shew his profes and to yeld to the foresaid Request both for the goodnesse and pregnancie of the cause and also specially Good Christian Reader sayeth he for the better Contentation of thy mind If the cause then be good and pregnaÌ„t why vse you so ill and baren Testimonies as all theirs are if your accompt be true which come furth after the first six hundred yeres And if you seeke after the Contentation of your Readers mind you signifie thereby that the Authorities which you alleage are worthy and alowable Not because Doctor Harding will make no Exception perchaunce against them but because yourselfe like them and esteeme them Otherwise what Contentation of the Readers mind call you this to Reason vpon their Authorities whom yourself would haue to be contemned Or to establish any opinion vpoÌ„ such groundes vpon which you can build nothing except vnto him which holdeth them for sure and good Of which sort of men you make not I trust euery your good Christian Reader to be Especially many of them by your oft Appealing to the first six hundred yeres being occasioned to set litle by anye Testimonie of lower time and degree Thus we see againe that M. Iewel hath vsed the late wryters Testimonie Eckius Durand Thomas Aquinas and Iohn Billet not because of D. Hardinges opinion or regard of them which how greate or litle it is he dothe not know but because of his owne liking of them Neither doth he peeke as it were an occasion to vse them out of his Aduersaries estimation of them but whether D. Harding aloweth them or no M. Iewell flatly vseth them nor is ashamed of the latenes of them A thing at other times so materiall with hym that on paine of forfaiting all a mans labour none must be brought in for witnesses but suche as are within little a thowsand yeare olde See one place more and with that we shall ende this Chapiter It is a question betweene the Catholikes and the Heretikes Whether the woordes of Christe in the sixt of S. Iohn are to be vnderstanded onely of the spirituall eating of his body Or of the Spirituall and
to haue that bâ—ougâ—t oâ—t of any Olde Catholique Doctour or Father â–ª or any Olde General Councel c What other thing is this but a Mountebankes Preface to commend his wares vnto the Audience As if he should say in plainer woordes 〈◊〉 to them 〈◊〉 beloued in the Lorde you mâ—y tâ—ke me perchaunce for a Benchwhistâ—er or a man of litle knowledge and practise and altogeather vnhable to reproue the General and Catholique Doctrine of the whole world and to draw you from those Maisters and Teachers which alwaies hitherto ye haue ben ruled â—y But I shal tel you deere brethren I haue seene and readen as much as any man yea as all the learned men aliue I haue trauailed vnto the very Primitiue Church it selfe I haue bene conuersant with Old Catholike Doctors and Fathers and old General Councels As for these Priests Cardinals and Popes whom you folowe they bring nothing but Conclusions of Scholemen and deuises of Later Doctours and Ceremonies of their owne making c. But I will bring you no other thing but that which is Auncient I wil bring you back to the Institution of Christ himself You shal haue al things ministred vnto you as they were in the time of the Apostles You shal heare God himself speake vnto you The Priestes shall robbe you no more of halfe the Sacrament You shall knowe what you heare readden in the Church Ye shal haue no Supremacie of Pope no Real Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament Ye shal be brought to Old Customes which y e Councel of Nice would haue to preuaile And Tertullian shal teach you how that is true that was first ordeined And as I saied before so say I now againe If any man aliue be hable to reproue me I will become his obedient Scholer But I know there is not one that is able to doâ— it and because I know it therefore I speake it So beginneth the Mountebanke But in further processe he is proued to be so vaine in Craking So crafty in Shifting So demure in CouÌ„terseiting So false in Affirming So desperate in Abusing of his Aduersarie of old Councels and Doctours yea and of new also that it is perceiued wel inough euen of them that say God saue you my Lorde vnto him that al is not so as he saith Neuerthelesse they haue a good sporte to see the prety Shiftes and Defenses and Scapes that the Mountebanke canne make And though it be euident that he liâ—â—h yet they thinke not these maters to be so great or necessary but men may suffer them wel inough to be mainteined how so euer it be as long as neyther Trade of Merchaundise nor Study of Temporal Law nor Pastime abrode nor Pleasure at home is hindered by it For like as we may vnderstand by the maâ—ket folkes how the market goeth So when it is in sight that in Countries and Cities of greatest policy priuate mens goodes are not without punishment touched but the Common Churches of the whole Countrie are openly spoyled And when Papistes are neither suffred to speak â–ª nor to go abrode but Caluinistes Lutherans and Anabaptistes are not only suffred to speake but to speake one against the other And in one Citie or Countrie to set furâ—h and maintaine contrary Doctrines it is easy to perceiue that The vvisedome of God is but folly emong men And that al is for Policie and nothing for Religion and that men haue so forsaken the old Faith that they are not sâ—ttled in any new And that Faith in deede is almost extinguished by to much folowing of Carnal Reason and that Reason in thousandes is vtterly blinded because thei haue put from them the Obedience vnto Faith Yet this Corruption notwithâ—tanding I haue taken some paines in â—erswading with thee Indifferent reader to BEVVARE of M. Iewel Fearng in deede least to many be so in Indifferent that they passe not whether he say true or false And praying to God that they may haue A desire to know the Trueth which as yet care not for it and that other may haue a constancie to confesse the Truth when they know it And that the rest condemne not the the Truth before they know it Farevvel From Louane Quaâ—doquidem liber hic tertius contra M. Ievvellum à viris Linguae Anglicanae Sacrae Theologiae eruditissimis probatus est iudico eum tutô posse distrahi euâ—lgari Ità testor Cunerus Petri Pastor S. Petri. Louanij 3. Nouemb. 1566 ¶ Faultes escaped in the Printing Folio Page Line Fault Correction 6. 2. 1. Latines Laâ—enesse 40. 2. 12. ye he 47. 1. 6. Degrees Decrees 63. 1. 13. Dionysi of Dionysius 63. 2. 19. them then 80. 2. 2. tel lyes to tel lies 118. 2. 14. CoÌ„staÌ„â—in Constantius 141. 2. 4. y â— visible that a visible 142. 2. 15. he coÌ„clu he were conclu 160. 2. 3. primitiue Primate 181. 2. 16. the coÌ„munioÌ„ praier the Lordes prayer 191. 1. 3. peple vn peple might vn 195. 1. 7. of old Fa. of the old Fa. 197. 1. 14. ValeÌ„tians Valentinians 206. 1. 18. Suprem Preeminence 216. 2. 27. y â— it were that if it were 217. 2. 4. ar bound are not bound Ibid.  24. How say How sayed 221. 2. 10. yet if yet it 225. 2. 11. can say can truly say 230. 2. 8. gather easily gather 234. 2. 16. Trick or two Tricke or Toy In the Margent 172. 1. for is for there is 228. 1. Iew. 21. Ioan. 21. IbideÌ„  taken out of taken of The Third Booke of BEWARE OF M. Iewel IT may seeme by my Two former Bookes y â— I haue detected as great Sophistrie Brauerie Insinceritie of M. Iewels as any man lightly that hath but worldly regarde of his Trueth and Honestie may coulourably venter to practise But in comparison of that which I haue further to obiect the forsaid behauiours may seme to be perdonable For D. Harding is but one man and the same not knowen to the whole worlde and much lesse honoured of the whole He is also his Aduersary and M. Iewel taketh him selfe to be in no point perchaunse of lesse worthinesse And if in some one or two D. Harding farre passâ—th him yet in many moe on the other side he thinketh him selfe to be better And therefore when he doth handle him at his pleasure belye him Contemne him Mocke him and Tosse him without doubting or blusshing although it be very il done yet it is not exceeding il But to despise men without al doubt worthy notable To set light by them whom the whole world hath reuereÌ„ced To interprete Lawes and Canons after his own liking To disanul general couÌ„cels To corrupt Auncient Fathers To set them vp to pul them doune againe To bring them in to thrust them againe out To binde men to the Authoritie of the first six hundred yeares To appeale to the Primitiue Church only in his own cause and to drawe his Aduersarie vnto any State of Churche
Sacramentall bothe The firste is the newe Maisters the seconde is the Olde Fathers To proue the firste that the wordes of our Sauiour in that Chapiter are taken and meant of spirituall eating onely Thus sayth Maister Iewell For to leaue S. Augustine Origine and others of that age Nicolas Lyra a man of later yeres saith The said words of Christ must needes be taken Spiritually and none otherwise Lykewise one Michael Vaehe one of late yeares a man of M. Hardings owne syde touching the same matter wryteth thus against Luther This saith he is a weake reason for the woordes that be spoken of Spirituall eating â–ª He Applieth to the Sacramentall eating Here may M. Harding see besydes S. Augustine Origine and other olde Catholike Fathers whose Woordes I haue not aleaged what men he hathe called Newe Maisters Nicolas Lyra was an Englisshe man and liued two hundred yeares before Luther Michaell Vaehe was of late yeares and wrote namelye against Luther Heere I trowe it is perceaued that M. Iewell vseth late writers Testimonies in defence of his syde The question is whether the sixt of S. Iohn be vnderstanded of Spirituall eatinge onely or no. If it be let vs set your Authorities M. Iewell and reasons The new masters as D. Hard. tearmeth them expound it so Thei are not all new masters say you that haue so takeÌ„ thâ— How proue you that For Nicolas Lyra You Aunswere saith it â–ª and one Michael Vaehe one of late yeares They saye it not that it is to be vnderstanded onely of Spirituall eating but of Spirituall eating without ONELY Suppose yet they saide it what were that to purge the new Maisters of the fault of Singularitie or to perswade your Reader that it must be so taken I doe not disprayse neither Nicolas Lyra neither Michaell Uehe but I can not but mislike it greatly in you to aleage their Names in your defense whose Authorities are neyther Excellent nor Yeares Auncient Especially whereas you would seeme to haue S. Augustine Origine and others of that age to stande with you in this matter But you leaue them and come to Nicolas Lyra. What doe you M. Iewel Is there any man in all the Catholike Churche whiche will giue you leaue to answere him rather by Nicolas Lyra then S. Augustine And dothe it become your Manheade and Corage whiche is so great that you will haue Controuersies examined by no later writers then those of the first six hundred yeares thus to leaue S. Augustine whose Authoritye is worthelye regarded of all wise men and cleane to Nicolas Lyra whose testimony any man except it be of contempt may lawfully let alone with out vsing or alowing of it You commend hym to vs in two poyntes He was you saye An English man and liued two hundred yeres before Luther I haue reade the contrarye that he was a Iew borne at Liere neuerthelesse if you for Countrye sake as borne perchaunce in the old or new Iury in LondoÌ„ or for Age sake as liuing two hundred yeres before Luther doe thynke that he is a worthy witnesse to Englishe men of this age I will not reproue your kindnesse of hart towardes your Countrymen nor affection to the time later by seuen hundred yeres than the Primityue church vnto which you apeale so precisely But this who can abyde To consider M. Iuell so great a Contemner of later Dyuines and Scholemen to leaue S. Augustine Origen and others and to defend hys felowes by Nycolas Lyra and Michaell Vaehe And not onely that but to crake as it were that S. Augustin is also with him and yet not so muche as to name the Place where it might bee sought and founde For consider his wordes Here maye M. Hardinge see besydes S. Augustine Origene and other olde Catholike Fathers whose wordes I haue not allegaed what men he hath called New Maisters In deede hee may see that you haâ—e brought furth Nycolas Lyra and one Michael Vaehe but y â— he may se them bysydes S. Augustine Origene and other Olde Catholike Fathers Howe is it possible For your selfe confesse that you haue not alleaged their wordes And how then shoulde he see them If D. Harding doe no more but quote onely the Places of the Doctours in whiche his sayengs be verefied And leaue the writing out of their whole Sentences all this you wil say is but a Camissado these be but visardes They be no faces They are brought in like Mummers for a shew and say nothing And what pretie CouÌ„terfeiting may we call this to alleage A later writers saying fully and not so much as quote the place of the olde Fathers And yet to make an Oâ—tentation with here may M. Harding see bysides S. Augustine Origen and other old Catholike Fathers whose wordes I haue not alleged what men he hath called new masters Uerely this is biside all reason to tel me that bysides S. Augustine c. I may See what Nycolas Lyra testifieth wher no one Sentence or Halfe sentence of S. Augustines is to be Seen Heard or Understanded in the place on which I am bid to looke But I haue not alleged their wordes sayeth M. Iewel And why did you not I pray you Sir Were you in such hast to come to Nycolas Lyra and Michael Vaehe that you could not cary with S. Augustin Origene and other old Catholike Fathers Is it your maner of writing to spare the Alleging of old Fathers Or was their word not worth the hearing Or must we needes beleue your Assertion without further euidence The Truthe is neither Saint Augustine nor Origen nor any other old Catholike Fathers did precisely say that the sixth of S. Ihon must be vnderstanded only of the Spiritual eating of Christes fleshe And you although you could not haue their voyces yet you were so bold as to vse their Names And pretending as thoughe it were easie to see that they did testifie for you so you leaue them quite and cleane and bring in Nycolas Lyra an Englisheman and Michael Uaehe of late yeres to speake somewhat for you Consider now Indifferent Reader whether M. Iewel vseth the later Wryters as Necessary Witnesses in his owne cause or no And whether he bringeth them in as Men whom D. Harding is well content withall Or as Persons without whom his sayinges could haue no Probalitie at all For if he had alleged first S. Augustine Origen and other old Catholike Fathers and afterwardes had rehersed the Opinions and Iudgmentes of later writers he might haue ben thought to haue done it for A Surplussage and to haue sought thereby to perswade rather his Aduersarie than to Confirme his owne Assertion But on the other side now to leaue S. Augustine Origen and other Fathers and to stay only vpon Lyra and Uaehe what other thing is it than to Protest that by their Testimonies his cause is Sufficientlye proued And to take vantage of their sayinges which liued
Victor that wrote the story of the Vandales he is neither Scripture For Scripture he was not alleaged And this also is against sincere and honest dealing to promise or rather protest that you would be tried by any Doctor Father Councel or Example of the Primitiue Churche and now so desperately to come in with this exceptioÌ„ that Uictor is no Scripture It foloweth Nor Councel Remember your selfe M. Iewel There are emong your Fauorers some discrete Sadde and Iust men Whome your Inuention in this place wil litle please And your much seeking to extenuate Uictors Authoritie wil be an Argument vnto them that you fall to Copie of wordes and shiftes of Rhetorike meete for Childerne when Copie of Sense â–ª and certaintie of good Answer doth not serue your greate Stomacke You saied wel once that one good sentence were Proufe sufficient and are you so much chainged so sodainely that you dare set light by an Auncient and graue wytnesse because he is no Councel You neede surely some good counsel least by extreme folowing with al your wit the defense of your mad ChalleÌ„ge you chauÌ„ce to fall bysides your wittes and haue no sense at al of your doinges It foloweth Nor Doctour Now define you then A Doctour For in deede whome you wil alowe to beare that name I can not tel And such Libertie you haue takeÌ„ now vnto your self of binding vs to your meaning that if you wil vnderstand by a Doctour none other but either S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Augustine or S. Gregorie which are called the foure Doctours of the Church Or some such as hath been solemly Created and made Doctour in some Uniuersitie we must be contenâ— with your sense and let you haue your owne minde and meaning But if you wil be ordered by reason you wil not deny I suppose that Uictor might wel be A Doctour which being a Bishop of no smal Citie in Aphrica had by al likelyhoode the knowledge of Scriptures and grace of expounding them and diligence in executing his office Except that M. Iewel wil be so Iniurious to the first six hundred yeares after Christ in which Uictor liued that he wil Iudge any one to haue ben made Bishoppe in those daies which was vnworthy to be a Doctour Againe if he were no Doctour was he therfore no Father And your self promising to admit any sufficient testimonie of any Father how wisely make ye now an Exception against Uictor â–ª because he was no Doctor It foloweth Nor writeth the Order or Practise of the Primitiue Church O worthy Exception Doth S. Augustine in his bookes of Confession write the Order or Practise of the Primitiue Church Nothing lesse For alâ—ogether they are compiled of his owne Actes Lyfe Chaunces Cogitations and Interrogations But what then Might not one for al this bring a good testimonie out of those bokes for prouâ—e of any mater that is in controuersie And when the Heretike denieth prayers for the Dead should not the example of S. Augustine whose prayer for his Mothers soule is extant in his Confessions quite and cleane sâ—oppe his Procedinges and make his very Impudencie ashamed What new found reason then is this of M. Iewels to contemne an AuncieÌ„t writer if he write not of those Maters and write also in such Order of them as he requireth When we alleage Clemens de Constitutionibus Apostolicis S. Denyse de Coelesti Ecclesiastica Hierarchia S. Iames Liturgie S. Chrysostomes Liturgie Sozomenus Nicephorus Or â–ª the Decrees and Decretales straitwaies you either deny them either suspect them either wil fyle them better before you beleue them Yet there are not in whom you may see more expressely the printes and the formes of the order or practise of the Primitiue Church For where shal one better finde what the Religion was in euery Age than in the Histories of those times and in Decrees Answeres and forme of publike Seruice that in euery of them was vsed You therefore which so litle set by those writers by whom we may vnderstand most plainly what the particulars were of the cause and state of our Religion in the Primitiue Churche now when Uictor is brought against you sodainly you be so chaunged as though it might be an exception against a witnes that he writeth not the Order or Practise of the Primitiue Church And yet this Exception of yours commeth not so luckely against Uictor Which although he take not into his storie the Actes of the Apostles or the succession of Bishoppes after them or al the persecutions throughout Christendome or the Martyrs of al Countries Or the perfection and rule of those holy Monks â—hat liued in wildernesses Or the Decrees of al Councels Or euery other such mater as might be spoken of by a General Historiographer yet what state the Church was in vnder the Uandales he describeth sufficiently And by his telling this much we vnderstande of the Order and Practise yf not of the Primitiue Church yet of that Church which was within the six hundred yeres after Christe the which time you haue allowed vs that in a mater concerning Faith and in a Councel to be gathered it was thought mâ—ete then to make other Bishoppes besydes them of Aphrica priuy thereof and especially to haue the presence of the Bishoppes of Rome because The Church of Rome is head of al churches Which Euidence because it is so plaine against you therefore hauing nothing to said reasonably against the sentence Yoâ— hâ—â—e sâ—retched your wittes to findâ—â—xâ—eptions against the Reporter oâ— it And you saiâ— farther against him Nor is it wel knowen either of what credite he was or when he liued Concerning his Credite he was Bishoppe of Utiâ—a and by likelyhoode therfore of good Estimation emong the Catholiques and A Man worthy to be heleâ—ed For in al kindes and Contrarietiâ—s of Religion such as are high Priestes Bishops or Superintendents it seemeth that they are of the better sort of the Famiâ—ie Churche or Cougregation out of which they are taken do doe that Office And further whose bookes were compâ—ed then worthy the copieng out and were so kept then that they remaine yet vnto vs And are so accepted at this present that they be translated into French His credite needeth not to be mistrusted or called without cause into question He wrote also vnto Hunericus King of Uandales an accoÌ„pt of his faith being driuen thereto by the CoÌ„maundement of y â— King By which you may perceiue that great accoÌ„pt was made of him Concerning then his age he liued not long after the time of S. Augustine farre within the First six hundred yeares out of which any Testimonie is sufficient against you For when the Uandales were in Aphrica and were busy in furthering the Procedinges of the Arrians then liued Uictor as may appeere by his Answer to Hunericus by diuerse places of his historie in which he speaketh of him selfe as one present at y â— doing
Decree sâ—â—aitwaies it is blasphemie against the holy ghost to breake any of the holy Canons Such Hypocrits and wranglers and braggers Gospellers by whose meanes new Contentious and troubles are reised aâ—d coÌ„tinued in y â— world it is pitie to speake the least y â— euer they were admitted before thei were examined or that now stil they shoulde be credited aâ—â—er that they be detected How M â–ª Iewel allegeth to smal purposes such Authorities of Fathers as do plainly coÌ„found y â— procedings BUt what shal we say We are not Masters of other mens wils neither do we beleue that this creature man whom God hath made after his owne Image should lacke that power of his soule and gift of God which consisteth in free wil. If therfore men wil not Beware wheÌ„ they may what should we do I haue already declared in special chapiters such mater against M. Iewel that of al men that euer yet wrote there was neuer any of lesse Grauitie Sinceritie or CoÌ„science in his writing To him that hath a wil to saue his soule so much is sufficient to make him seke after better InstructioÌ„ To him that thinketh onely of Ciuile Policie or of Temporal life and liuing and wil not trouble his head with the euerlastingnes of the Soule and a worlde to come no Argumentes against M. Iewel can be sufficient But concerning them which would in sad earnest saue one and are not fully resolued that M. Iewel behaueth himself vnreasonablie wickedly may it please them to consider how he shal be yet better taken in his Hypocrisie To Antiquitie he appealeth And because he would be sene to deale plainly he apointeth out the first six hundred after Christ for trial of the mater Now when some witnesses of that time come against him he wil not yet allow them And yet when he hath taken them away from his Aduersarie him selfe for al that wil afterwards allege them And of these points we haue spokeÌ„ already but what may be added more to the discouering of his behaâ—iour Mary this much I can say proue more that such testimonies of Holy Fathers CouÌ„â—els as he bringeth in against the Catholiques do in the self same sentence y â— he allegeth geue a great wound to his ReligioÌ„ So greedy he is of troâ—bling y â— Catholikes peace that to make some of them shrinke as if in deede a blowe were coÌ„ming he is content him selfe to bring his owne cause into y â— danger that he y â— wil take the aduaÌ„tage may quikly so strike it y â— it wil neuer be good after And not only so but so litle fauored he is of Antiquitie y â— in veri mani places he cannot vtter the ful senteÌ„ce but it shal straitwaies be perceiued that y â— late procedings do impugne directly the orders practise and Religion that were vsed in the Primitiue Church As in Example M. Iewel thinking to destroy therby the Sole Receiuing of the Priest proueth it that in the Primitiue Church they which would not Communicate were bidde to auoide For It is Decreed saith he by the Canons of the Apostles that al faithful that enter into the Churche and 〈◊〉 are the Scriptures and do not continue out the prayers nor receiue the CoÌ„munion should be excoÌ„municate as men vvoorking the trouble aâ—d disorder of the Church Againe If thou be not vvorthy to receiue the Commmunion then arte thou not vvorthy to 〈◊〉 presâ—â—â— at the prayers Therfore M. Harding should driue his vnworthy people from the Churche and not suffer them to heare his Masse Let me aske you then one question M. Iewel Why do you constraine by feare of high displeasure â–ª Losse of goodes and imprisonment such as neuer were yet of your Religion to come into your CoÌ„gregations to receiue also w t you You woulde haue D. Harding to driue them out which are vnworthy by the authoritie of this saying of S. Chrysostom Should not you by the same reason cease to drawe them into your Congregation which are no brothers of your Religion D. Hard. gathering it of your Sermon that you should be of the mind to haue al the people to Receiue Or them y â— would not to be driuen out of the Church you cry out and say O M. Harding how long wil you thus wilfully peâ—uert the waies of the Lord You know this is neither the doctrine neither the practise of the Church Howebeit the Auncient Doctours haue both taught so and also practised the same Anacletus de Cons. dist 1. Episcopus Calixtus de cons. dist 2. Peracta But O M. Iewel why say you so Doe you confesse that auncient Fathers haue vsed it and yet dare you Proteste that your Church hath no such practise Where is your Reuerence now to the first six hundred after Christ Where is your bringing al thinges to the first Paterne I perceaue by this what your answere wil be to my question out of S. Chrysostome You wil plainely say that your Church foloweth him not And wherefore then doe you make out of him Rules to the present Churche whome your selfe wil not folowe in the selfsame sentence which you lay against vs O M. Iewell how long wil you Imperially alow and refuse the Authoritie of auncient Doctors al at wil and pleasure Lykewise to proue that which no maâ— denieth that in the primitiue Church the people dyd communicate with the priest M. Iewell declareth the maner of their assemblies saying out of Iustinus Martyr Before the end of our praiers 〈◊〉 kisse eche of vs one an other Then is ther brought vnto him that is the chief of the bretherne bread and a cup of Vvine and vvater mingled together Vvhich hauing receiued he praiseth God and geaueth thankes a good space And that done the vvhole people confirmeth this praier saieing Amen After that they that among â—s be called Deacons â–ª geue vnto euery of theÌ„ that be present part of the bread and likevvyse of the vvine and vvater that are consecrate vvith thankes geuing and ary he same home vnto them that happen to be absent Againe speakinge of the effect of the Sacrament by which we are made al one in Christ and all one emong our selues he allegeth S. Chrysostome Propterea in mysterijs c. For that cause in the tyme of the mysteries vve embrace one an other that being many vve may become one Againe speaking of the people receiuing of the Sacrament in their owne handes which is also a mater indifferent in it selfe he saieth to proue it I speake of him whose coâ—â—e of peace ye receiued at the ministration and at whose handes ye layed the Sacrament The Testimonies are of your owne bringing and therefore I would thinke of your owne alowing Where then is your mingling of wine and water together â–ª in your Mysteries Where is the embracing of one an other and the Cosse
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
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
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
factes are put furth in writing they are for this end put furth to be abhorred and not to be folowed As Cains murdering of his brother or Iudas betrayinge of his Master Yet when the persons are notorious as Cain and Iâ—das Or the factes them selues are euidently naught as to kyll or berray Innoâ—entes he should not doe much harme which would desperatly goe about to perswade any to folowe such Examples But here is the mischief when Historiographers are brought in as alowing thaâ— whiche they condemne in deede Or whâ—â— heretikes are made to go for catholike Bishops And when y â— is put furth as an Example to be folowed which serued rather to dehort men from resisting Trueth and Authoritie And when by natural reason the mater is not so euident but examples of former times in the one siâ—e or other maie wel moue the vnleaâ—neâ— to folowe them And in this arte M. Iewel is a doctor For if he would haue expressely said The Arrians and Heretikes of the Easte Church wheÌ„ they had wrongfully expelled the catholikes and good Bispopes Paulus Athanasius c. out of their sees they contemned the Bishope of Romes letters by which they were required to receiue them againe and to set aside al Iniurie and newâ—anglenes Ergo the Bishope of Rome is supreame head of the Church If M. Iewel would after this open and plainâ— manner haue vsed hymselfe there is not I suppose so vnsensible A Protestant which would not haue iudged hym to haue reasoned very folishly But now whiles he geueth them no worse name than the Bishops of the East and kepeth frome the knowlege of his Readers that they were Heretikes and Arrians he maketh them to thinke that al is wel And that these Bishopes were men of much credite and worthines and that not only late Gospellers but old Catholique Fathers also haue denied Obedience to the Bishoppe of Rome Whiche thinges being altogether otherwise the Readers are driuen into perdition And M. Iewel either seeth not that an Argument brought from the Authoritie of blasphemous heretikes is nothing worth which is incredible in him that hath so greate insighâ—e in the true Logykâ— and Diuinitie either seinge it he maketh no conscience of it to bring his purposes to an end by what meanes soeuer he maie this is so credible that it agreeth very wel both with the desperatnes of his cause and of his stomake BEVVARE therefore Indifferent Reader of M. Iewel and knowe this for most certeine that as I haue declared by a few Examples in this Chapiter that he allegeth the condemned sayinges and doings of Heretikes vnder the colour 〈◊〉 Catholike and approued witnesses so in many moe places of his Replie he doth in like maner abuse them most shamfully But of them thou shalt reade in other Bookes And what now is there more M. Iewel that ye wil require or vse against vs To the first six hundred yeres only you haue appealed your selfe yet do vse the testimonies of al ages To the first six hundred only you haue appealed and yet against the approued writers of that selfe tyme you haue excepted Besydes this as though ther were not to be found Catholike witnesses inough in the cause of the catholike Faith you couertly bring in against vs the accursed sayinges and doâ—inges of Heretikes Which one point excepted that you shal not in question of the Catholyke Faith and Tradition â–ª make any old Heretikes Iudges in the cause Or witnesses for the reste I dare graunt vnto you to take your vantage where you can finde it But hauing so large cumpasse graunted vnto you against the expresse reason Equitie which should be in your Chalenge shal it not become you to vse this priuilege discreetly and truly And so to allege your witnesses as in deede they meane in their owne sense without false applying thereof And as they speake in their owne tongue without adding vnto their say inges or taking awaie from them any thing that is of the substance of their verdicte Thus whether you doe obserue or no let it be tried And that it maie be tried the better I wil briefely and plainely proue against you M. Iewel before any indifferent Reader First y â— you haue abused Councels then Lawes Canon and Ciuil Thirdly Fathers and Doctours Auncient and Late And that ye haue spared no kind of writer that came in your way How M. Iewel hath abused Councels COuncels in one sense are abused when that which is found in them to be condemned is brought furth by any Protestant as though it were approued As in example wheras D. Harding concluded vpon the profite which cometh of celebrating the memorie of our Lords Passion that the Sacrifice of the Aultar which is made in remembrance therof shuld not be intermitted although the people would not communicate M. Iewel To adde a lytle more weighte to this seely reason saieth further in D. Hardings behalfe If this Sacrifice be so necessarie as it is supposed then is the Priest bound to Sacrifice euery daie yea although he him selfe Receaue not But howe proueth he this it foloweth For the Sacrifice and the receauing are sundrie thinges And what of that For although Communion bread and wine be sundrie thinges yet you wil not permit the Receiuing of the Lords supper in one kinde oâ—ly And so although Sacrifice and Receiuing be distinct yet doth it not folow that a Priest maie offer and not receaue But you wil proue it by better Authoritie then your owne for thus you saie As it is also noted in a late Councel holden at â—oledo in Spaine Quidam Sacerdotes caet Certaine Priestes there be that euery day offer many Sacrifices and yet in euery Sacrifice withhold themselfe from the Communion What is your Ergo then vpon this place Your Conclusion should be Ergo A Priest maie Sacrifice although he himselfe doe not Receaue But can you gather this out of the Councel Doth it not rather make expressely to the contrarie Doth it not reproue the Priestes which Sacrifice Receue not Let the place be considered then conferred with M. Iewels collection The whole place is this Relatum est caet It is tolde vs that certaine emonge the Priestes doe not so manie tymes Receaue the grace of the holy Communion as they seeme to offer Sacrificies in one daie but if they Offer moe Sacrificies in one daie they vvithhold themselues in euerie offering from the Communion and they take the grace of the holie Communion only iâ— the lasâ—e offering of the Sacrifice Aâ— though that they should not so ofte participate the true singular Sacrifice as oft as the offering of the body and bloud of our Sauiour Iesus Christ shal be sure to haue ben made For behold the Apostle saieth doe not they eate the Sacrificies vvhich are partakers of the Aultar Certaine it is that they vvhich doe Sacrifice and doe not eate are giltie of the
haue made an end of the Grace of the Eucharist let him be accursed for euer Now this forbyddeth not but that the Priest may carie the SacrameÌ„t home to the houses of Christians as it is at this present vsed in the catholike church And that they may with good Conscience receaue it But let this be referred to the Chapiter How M. Iewel hath abused Councels In this place I presse hym only with his contradiâ—tion that sometymâ—s he doth not denie but that Godly Persons did receaue Priuately at home and at an other tyme he is altogeather chaunged and wil nedes haue receiuing at home to be an Abuse condemned by Councels and Fathers The Single CoÌ„munioÌ„ was neuer taken for lawful but only in consideration of circumstancies and cases of necessitie How then is the Mystical distribution a part of the substance of Christes Supper if for any respecte it maie be altered or omitted Thinketh M. Harding that the Sacrifice whereof neither Christ nor his Disciples euer spake one word is the substance of his Supper And that the Mystical Distribution in remembraunce of his Death whereof he gaue vs such a straight Commaundement in so manifest and so plaine wordes is no part of the Substance And thinke you that if Distribution be necessary any maÌ„ may receiue by him selfe alone in any kind of Case or Circumstance For as no necessity can make it lawful to Consecrate in Cheese or Milke because Bread and Wine perteine to the mater and Substance of the Sacrament So if the Single Communion be lawful that is if one by him selfe alone may Receiue the Sacrament it must needes folow that to Receiue with Cumâ—any is not of the Substaunce of Christes Institutâ—on The simple people hearing Masse in a strange Language is deaâ—e and heareth not at al. You must expound your meaning or els hearing and not hearing wil not be wel perceiued For if ye referre hearing of Masse to the hearing of y â— words the â—ownd doth sâ—â—ike the eare though y e meaning come not to the mind And if ye referre hearing of Masse to y â— vnderstanding of y â— which is there done then doth euery faithful y â— beleueth y â— body of Christ there to be offâ—red vp vnblondily for him c. heare the Masse as excellently as if he could conster and pâ—rse euery word of the Canon And therefore you can not without plain iniury make y â— people not to heare y â— which thei do heare with their eares or not to apprchâ—â—d y â— in their hart which they be assured of by Faith Melanchthon and Bucer accompted the receiuing in one or both kindes a thing indifferent M. Iewel answereth Thus farre furth their desire was it might be iudged free not that thei thought Christ had not ordeined the Sacrament to be ministred vnto the people in both kindes or that in itselfe it is Indifferent but that the Faithful of God might indifferently and freely vse it without controlment These wordes neede A Reconciliation to bring them at one togeather For if the receiuing in both kinds be not in it selfe Indifferent how may the faithful of God indifferently vse it And if they may Indifferently vse it how it is not Indifferent Note also the Crafte or blindnes of M. Iewel He Interpreteth Melanchthon and Bucer in suche sorte as if the question had ben Whether the people might not choose whether they would receaue in both kindes or not receaue at all And he maketh them to answer that they wishe it to be free and Indifferent to Receaue in both if they wil. But the question in deede is of Receauing in both kinds or in one And they Answer that it is a thing Indifferent And what is y â— to say Whether that it should be free for the people to Receaue in both Yea truly this is one part of the sense But another is that it should be as free for them that would to receaue in one also For the two pointes betwene which the Indifferencie goeth are to receaue in one kind Or to receaue in both without controlment Which being graunted to the Protestamts they should not inueigh and crie oâ—t against thâ— Papistes for receauing in one but they might thinke themselues chariâ—ably dispensed withal for their free Receauing vnder both So that Melanchthon and Bucer were not of the mynde to condemne the maner of other Christians as M. Iewel in this 〈◊〉 falsely interpreteth them but lyke 〈◊〉 â—â—râ—tikes they prouided for their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wishing that it might be lawâ—â—◠〈◊〉 their brothers to Receaue in both kindes without câ—trolment and y â— it shoâ—ld 〈◊〉 be made a mater of consâ—ience and â—â—â—â—gion whether the people were serued in both or one kind the thing in it selfe being Indifferent To minister vnto the vulgare people in both kindes was not Christes Institution saith D. Harding M. Iewel replieth Thus he saith and saith it often and only saith it Other Authoriâ—â—e than his owne he bringeth none Surely we must loke for no reason or cause of his so saying Yet is foloweth Immediately The Reason that moueth him I weâ—ne is this â—or that there was no Laie people at that banket with Christ but the Apostles only I weene then he doth more than onely say it when he geaueth A Reason for it It doth not folow We may breake A Ceremonie Ergo we maie breake the Substance of Christes Institution It folâ—weth not in dede And hereby you may see that the Termes of 〈◊〉 and Substance in Christes Institution are not Unnecessarie and vaine This difference in Termes of Substance and Accidentes in Christes Institution is newly found out and hath no warrant neither of the Scriptures neither of the Olde Fathers You be to fine and precise M. Iewel for simple Catholikes And it seemeth that yourselfe would not speake but out of Scripture or Old Father like as some in the world more curious than â—digent will haue no one worde in all their writinges which they can not bring out of Cicero But I pray you is not the Distinction of things about Christes Institution into Substance and Accidents as reasonable and as necessary as into Substance and Ceremonies For by Ceremonies you must needes meane a diuerse thing from Substance â–ª and such as may be let alone or taken away without corrâ—ption of Subiect or Principal 〈◊〉 And what other thing is that but a plain Accident Yf yâ— find then any 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures or of the old Fathers to 〈◊〉 your Termes of Substaâ—ce and Ceremonies about Chriâ—â—es Iâ—stitution you may be bolde without further warrant to admit the Termes of Accidentes and Substance about the same Institution And if that you notwithwstaÌ„ding you find not that former distinctioÌ„ in Scriptures or old Doctors dare boldly sai y â— it doth not folow we may breake a Ceremonie Ergo we may breake the substance of