liker in their doinges to the Primitiue Church And here now let vs ioyne with M. Iewel Sir Alow you these doinges of the Primitiue Church or do ye not If you doe why are they not extant then in your Congregation Or if yourselfe will be more Spirituall and Deiforme than to vse External Sensible meanes to conduct you vnto that which is One Single Pure and Inuisible why haue you not suffered others which haue not the lyke Eleuation and Abstraction of mind to vse these visible and holy signes of Incensing washing Crossing Anoynting Consecrating Shearing and other which I haue mentioned If you doe not how looke you like one that would follow Autentike and Graue Examples testified by Auncient and sad writers And wherefore doe you make the world beleue that you good men would haue all thinges reformed according vnto the Paterne of the Primitiue Church whose Procedinges are found to be so contrarie vnto the Ecclesiastical Orders of that time Be plaine M. Iewel in that which you intend and Quod â—acis sac citius If you esteme Antiquitie let neither Baptisme lacke Abrenuntiation c neither Confirmation Oilâ— neither the Sacrament of the Aultare singular demonstration of it Reuerence neither Priestes their due Consecration Nor the Liuing Occasions to bring them by outward Signes to Deuotion nor the dead Praiers And that Sign which hath ben vsed in all holy Functions and which of old they made in the Foreheade to testify that they were not ashamed of Christ the signe I meane of his CROSSE which is not only new A Foly to Panimes or Offence to Iewes but an Ignomynie to the Gospell and Apishnes in the Catholikes as some worse than Iewes or Painimes doe Blaspheme thys Signe of the Crosse Mayster Iewel restore againe vnto the Churches and suffer not them to be in Honours which thinke it a shame to haue a Token of our Redemption before their Eyes If you esteeme Antiquitie And if ye regarde it not why make ye vs beleeue that you woulde be ruled by yt Or why feede you the common sort with sweete hope of hauing a Sincere and Pure Religion restored vnto them according to the Exaumple and Orders of the Auncient and holy Church wheras you haue either blindely abandoned them before you knew them either desperately doe contemne them after ye be aduertised of them O say you He that wrot those bokes De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia was not S. Denyse the Ariopagite As who should say that if it were he you woulde in no wise contrary him But how shall I beleeue you Whereas you pretende that you will be content with the Aunciedt Fathers testimonies and yet cry out against that forme of Administringe the Sacraments whiche euery man seeth to haue been vsed in the Catholike auncient worlde by reporte of this writer whome your selfe confesse to be Auncieâ—t and that it may so appeere many wayes And nowe after it is euidente thâ—t whosoeuer he be he maketh against you would you Chaunge you Opinion M. Iewell and Repente your selfe of all former Lightnes If in in deede a more Learned and Graue man than Erasmus Iohn Collet or any other that you can tell of shoulde testifie that it is S. Denyse the Apariopagitas worke Uerely S. Gregorie the Greate maketh meâ—tion Dionysius Ariopagita which is vnto him Antiquus Venerabilis Pater an Auncient and venerable father whoÌ„ he saith by reporte of other to haue writen of the nyne Orders of Aungels Of whiche bookes this that wee speake of De Ecclesiastica Hierarchia is the fellow Origene also maketh an expresse mention of him alleaginge a text out of these Bookes whiche you mistrust But woulde this make you Chaunge you Opinion No you woulde haue xx questions vnto me and escape from me by xx waies rather than I should holde you so fast by this Argument out of S. Gregorie or Origine that you should not but confesse vnto vs that you are deceaued in your Iudgment concerning this Boke de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia And if to proue me to be suspiâ—ious you would in deede incline to that side that not only some Auncient Father but Ariopagita himselfe were Author of this boke Reform then yourself and stop the mouthes of the Railing and Ignorant vnto whoÌ„e Crossing Incensing Anointing Signifying of Spiritual thinges by Corporall and Externall Formes and Imagies seemeth to be altogeather Papistrie Yet it is no mater to me in this obiecting against you what the name of that Author was You coÌ„fesse him to be auncient I infer them that he is worthy of credite You wil not be ruled by his Testimonie I gather then that you Regard not the Auncient And that I proue by an other Example The Supremacie of the Bishop of Rome of how greate force and strength it is the Catholikes Heretikes bothe doe see And as we doe proue it by true Experience that nothing is more needfull to be perswaded vnto such as loue to haue a sure Staye in all maters of Controuersies so our aduersaries doe set against nothing so Ernestly and Outragiously as the Prerogatiue of that See Here vpon starteth a Chalenger vp Shew me sayeth he that the Pope was euer Called Heade of the Church The Catholike Answereth He was in deede Head of the Church as appeereth many waies though he were not called in his Ordinarie Stile of writyng Head thereof Nay sayeth the Challenger shewe me the name it selfe That is the very thing that we deny But ye can not Sir how oft must I bring furth y â— name Mary If any learned maÌ„ of our aduersaries or if all the learned men that be aliue be hable to bring any one sufficient seÌ„tence c. I am content to yelde and subscribe And again As I saied at the beginning one good sentence were proufe sufficient Uery wel Sir One you shall haue if that can perswade you to Subscribe Eugenius Bishop of Carthage answered to Obadus requiring A Councell to be kept in Aphrica wherein The Arrians might dispute with the Catholikes concerning Religion and Faith that he would write to his brethern that his felow Bishops might come Et precipue Ecclesia Romana que Caput est omnium Ecclesiarum and the Church of Rome especially vvhich is the head of all Churches Here now of this Story and Text I gather that the Bishop of Rome is HEAD of all Bishops so much ought the Aduersarye to graunt vnto me if he loued not by force of consequence to be driuen vnto the confession of Truth but of his owne accord to yeld vnto reason For when Eugenius the Bishop answered that he would write that the Church of Rome most chiefly should come to y â— CouÌ„cel what meant he thereby Dyd he meane that any message should be sent to the marble Pillars Foundations Rowâ—es walles of Stone or any such vnsensible thing perteining to the Materiall Church of Rome Truly then for hys wit who
so euer should thinke so might be President of that Councell where Postes and Pillers should meete togeather and heare the cause of our Religion debated But did he meane by the Church of Rome al the Christians of Rome Who then should keepe the Citie whiles they were from home Or how was al Carthage able to receiue them Or what hath the Laitie to do in Councels Yf then neither the walles c. of Rome neither al the Christen people of it be rightly vnderstanded by the Churche of Rome which B. Eugenius would haue to come to the CouÌ„cel at Carthage what other thing may be meant thereby You wil say perhaps the Clergie thereof Whether al or some Yf al do you thinke Eugenius to be so simple as to require that al Priestes Deacoâ—s SubdeacoÌ„s Lectours Exorcistes Sextines Clerkes belringers and Quieresters might come to the Councel Yf some what should they be Exempted from the IurisdictioÌ„ and Gouernement of the Pope Or subiect vnto him Yf Exempted who should they be in al Rome with whom the B. of Rome should haue nothing to do If subiect how could they come without his leaue and licence Or how should not he that sendeth them be much more higher and worthier then those which must aske leaue to goe What so euer you Answere If the Church of Rome be heade of al Churches because of some parte of the Clergie therof must it not much more be heade of al Churches because of the Bishop there which is head ouer that Clergie For if the lesser thing be in Estimation and Authoritie much more the greater in the same kinde must be in Authoritie As if an Angel naturally doth passe in degree of worthines euery man much more he â–ª that by the giftes of nature doth excel among Angels must consequently be farre aboue man We neede noâ— vse so many wordes in opening this Argument if we had to do with Quiet and Reasonable men but M. Iewel wil needes be Ignorant or Contentious For saith he Uictor which reporteth the forsaid Aunswere of Eugenius the Bishope Doth not cal the Bishop of Rome the Head of the vniuersal Church only he saith Rome is the Chiefe or Head Church of al other No he saith not Rome but y â— Churche of Rome And if you wil defend your self that by Rome the Church of Rome is meant in common speache I pray you Syr can you not also remember that in naming the Church of Rome the Bishop of Rome is vnderstanded to be spoken of And if in other places it might be somtimes otherwise yet in this testimonie of Uictor it can not but be meant of the Bishoppe of Rome especially For consider I pray thee Indifferent Reader the Circumstancies of the Storie Obadus the Capitaine required a CouÌ„cel to be kept in Aphrica In which it is for Bishoppes not onely to sitte when it is called but first to determine whether it shal be called or no. He required it also of the Bishope Eugenius For although Huneryke his Maister King of the Uandales was in those partes a CoÌ„queror yet there were not at that time such Flatterers or Gospellers as might tel his Grace that him selfe was Supreame head of the Church aâ—d that he needed not to care what the Popishe Bishopes would thinke in any mater Thirdly Eugenius answered that â—e would write to his Bretherne that his felowbishopes might come By which it is cleare that he wisshed not either for the material Church of beyonde the seas or al the Ministers and officers of those Churches but only for Bishopes Fynally and Chiefly he would write he answered that the Church of Rome the head Church of al Churches might come And howe can this otherwyse be vnderstanded but according to y â— nature of the Mater and Persons which he spake of before For whereas A Councel requireth Bishopes to be present And hymselfe expressly declareth it that he would haue his Felowbishopes come In saying immediatly after that aboue all other he would the Churche of Rome to come he must so take these wordes the Churche of Rome â–ª as they maie serue for A Councel and for the meeting together of Catholike Bishoppes But to suche A purpose it was neither possible to bring the externall Churche of Tymber and Stone neither was it conuenient profitable or customable to haue y â— who le Clergie of euery countrie to be present at Councels Ergo he meant it of the Bishoppe of Rome hymselfe Then whereas he would the Church of Rome most Chiefely to come because it is heade of all Churches he signifieth thereby that his mynde and desire was to haue other Churches to come also For els he would haue saied I beseech the Churche of Rome only to come and not Chiefely Because the word Chiefely hath A Relation to other that should come also though not so principally and agreablie to his intent and purpose Nowe in expressing this his mynde that he would haue other Churches of beyonde the Seas to come what words vseth he Doth he not cal straitewaies for his Felowbyshopes And in respecte of them doth he not require that most Chiefely the Church of Rome should come And what other sense can that haue by any reasoÌ„ but that the Bishop of Rome should come For if he had said thus I vvil vyrite to my Brethren that the Churches of beyond the Seas may come and most chiefly to the Church of Rome â–ª then had the seÌ„tence gone forwarde in like termes And in this case who but Rude and Ignorant would deny that by Churches he meaneth the Bishops them selues Or by theyr appointment some to represent or fil their place But he changed the Termes and in one parte speaking of Bishops in the other he nameth not the Bishope but the Church of Rome Yet what of this Shal this changing of Termes alter his meaning Aâ—d wishing in the former parte of his sentence that Bishoppes should come but especially the Churche of Rome what can he rightly meane by the church of Rome but the Bishoppe of Rome yf one part of the sentence hangeth with the other For this were al together out of reason that naming first Bishops and then a thing more requisite in the same kinde of purpose then Bishops he should meane by that thing which he preferreth a lesse in effect and Authoritie then they were whom he had lesse compted vpon This place then making so plainly for the Authoritie of y â— Bishop or Church of Rome for al is in effect one to them that vnderstand the common phrases of Speach what wil M. Iewel do Subscribe to antiquitie Or maintain stil his Heresie No he loueth him selfe and his owne vaine glory so much that rather then he wil seme to take a foyle and to haue spoken more then he is hable to assure he wil not lacke his Exceptions against the witnesses of the First six hundred yeares For thus he openeth him selfe more and more saying Touching
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
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
what begynning al thinges should be referred and in what vnitie they should be preserued Hath not M. Iewel then done very sincerely to allege Polidore so farre and wyde from the meaning of Polidor I would there were some man so indifferent as M. Iewel taketh Polidore to be to Iudge betwene hym and vs whether he hath not shamefully abused the Later writers Of M. Iewels Contradictions HYtherto by many Examples I haue proued it y â— M. Iewel hath not vnderstanded other men now wil I shew it by a fewe Arguments that he doth not wel vnderstand hymselfe And no maruel truly if in speaking so many words he hath not remembred euery word Or if in coâ—eting to saue his honestie for the present place he saie and vnsay againe like A man that were not sure yet what to byde by But because his Frindes and Felowes wil thinke this incredible that out of his smooth month doctrine squared by the rule of the Scriptures Fathers CouÌ„cels any thing should procede hacked slittered therefore wil I geaue an occasion to the Indifferent to Beware of the dubâ—le tongue and mynd in one and the selfe same 〈…〉 The Receiuing with Companie is no substantial pâ—rt of Christes Institution â–ª Ergo we are not bounde therein to folow the Example of Christ. First this Antecedent iâ— false and if it were no part of the substaÌ„ce of Christes Institution Yet we are neuerthelesse bound to his Example because he hath commaunded vs so to doe Here in this place M. Iewel you are of the mynd that there is a difference betwene the Institution of Christ and the Example of Christ. Otherwise your saying were very folishe As by which this only is imported that it were no part oâ— Christs InstitutioÌ„ yet are we neuerthelesse bound to his Institution Which maketh a plaine contradiction if that by Institution and Example you meane but one thing An other thing that I note here is that you say we are bound to Christes Example although the thing which is to be done were not of his Institution What say ye then to washing of feete for which you haue the expresse words of our Sauiour in the Gospel If I sayth he your Lord and Master haue vvashed your feete you also ought to vvash one the others feete For I haue geauen an Example vnto you that as I haue done so likevvyse that ye also doe What say you then M. Iewel to this example of our Sauiour shal it be folowed or no You Answer That this Obiection of washing of feete is common and hath ben often Answered And in the same page The wasshing of feete was neither Institution of Christ nor any part of the Sacrament nor Specially apointed to be done by the Apostles nor the breache thereof euer deemed Sacrilege To let passe the manifest lye which here you make that Christ apointed not washing of â—eete to be done by the Apostles I marke this only for the present y â— you labour with al your wit to proue that ye are bound to keepe y â— Example of Christ. Reconcile me then I praie you these two places And tel vs how it may stand togeather that we are bouÌ„d to Christs example in that which is not of the Substance of Christs Institution And yet that you may freely as ye do let go washing of feete in your Congregation because it was not Christes Institution In the Primitiue church this order of sending the SacrameÌ„t to them that were departing this world was thought expedient not for the Sicke For they in their health receiued daily Ergo if in health they needed or vsed that daily sustenance was it not prouided for them in their sicknes Yeas ye confesse so much And therefore you say And in their sicknesse had the Sacrament Ordinarily sent home vnto them How say ye then euen now that this order concerning the necessarie vitaile the Sacrament was not thought expedient for the sicke Except you know that a man may be in sicknesse and yet not sicke But gâ—e ye forwarde and make an end of your â—ale If the necessarie vitaile was not for y â— sicke for whoÌ„ was it then Not for the sicke c. but for persons ExcoÌ„municaâ—e c. Uery wel How long wil you tarie in this mynd Ye amend it within xx lynes folowing For thus ye remember your selfe better Howbeit I confesse sometimes it was otherwise vsed We take your confession that you know not wel where to staie For diuiding as it were al the Faithful Into Sicke and Excommunicate And subdiuiding the Sicke into them that were either in health either in Sicknes You leâ—t none but Persons Excommunicate for whom the necessarie vitaile called viaticum should serue How be it ye confesse it was Sometimes otherwise vsed and so it must necessarely folow that it was not for the Excommunicate only How these thinges agree I doe but aske you the question If there had ben in it any shew of trueth M. Harding as he is eloquent would haue laied out al the circumstancies when this strange errour first began where and how longe it continued who wrote against it And by whom and in what Councel it was condemned Verely this greate Silence declareth some want See how ernest the man is to haue al Circumstances declared But I trow he wil not tary stil in this minde For when D. Harding as reason is asked when the Latine Seruice began in England and when the English ceased for Heretikes say y â— in the primitiue Church al publike praier was in the knowen and vulgare Tongue And the Catholikes thinke that some token then or Monument should be extant of so generall A mater M. Iewel with open mouthe replieth O what folie is this Who is hable to shew any Boke writen in English a thowsand veres agoe Or if it could be shewed yet who were hable to vnderstand it Loe now it is foly to require but some litle signe of the begynning or ceasing of a publike and common mater but in an other place he thinketh it wisely spoken for he speaketh it hym selfe to demaund particularly of diuerse CircuÌ„stancies when where how who by whoÌ„ and in what Councell errours began or appeared That certeine godly persons both men and women in time of persequution or of sicknes or of other necessitie receaued the Sacrament in their houses it is not denied Ergo Receauing at home is not reprouable for which there are to be found the Examples of Godly persons both men â—nd women This maner of receauing at home was not lauful for the Laiemen For it was abolished by godly Bishops in general CouÌ„cel You belye the Councel vnto which you referre vs. For of Receauing at home it speaketh no one word but If any person â–ª saith it be proued not to haue receiued in the Church and not to
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
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
Priestes after the Order of Melchisedech But if that be so how is the order of Melchisedech more perfitte than the Order of Aaron Or how was there such a Religion and Reuerence aboute the order of Aaron that none but of a certaine tribe should be made Priestes neither they also without vocation and consecration if to the order of Melchisedech at y t coming of which that of Aaron is perfited and accomplished euery woman be within the Order by offering of bread and wine to the Aultar You M. Iewel that haue such knowledge in the vnderstanding of the Popes decrees are you Ignorant in the law of Moyses Remember you not that emong other thinges that the people Offered Bread and wine were in y â— number But what speak I of the peoples Acte The priests themselues y â— â—oke sâ—ch bread at their bâ—ndes and lifted it vp before their Lord offered likewise of the wine by powring out of it in the sight of the Lord were they of the order of Melchisedech or no No surely not of Melchisedechs order but of the order of Aaron only If therefore a solemne offering of bread wine euen in persons consecrated doth not include the oâ—der of Melchisedech you are much to â—eking of your purpose which note that y â— men and women that offered in S. Fabians â—â—ne â–ª bread and wine to the Aultar were 〈◊〉 after the order of Melchisedech So absâ—rde it is y â— a Pope of Rome should haue any such meaning in his deâ—â—â—e as you do gather thereof y â— I beleue the most folishe heretike in al the world wold not but w t much study haue peeked it out 〈◊〉 vs coÌ„sider an other exaÌ„mple Certainly saieth M. Iewel it seemeth 〈◊〉 S. Gregorie in his time thought singing 〈◊〉 the Church to be a fitter thing for the multitudâ— of the people theÌ„ for y e priest For he expressely forbiddeth the Priest to sing in the Church But I do not remember that euer he forbadde the People The more you warrant it with your Certainly that S. Gregorie should be of the mind which you imagine y â— more ernestly I besech thee indiâ—â—erÌ„t reader to mark how substaÌ„tially M. Iew. buâ—ldeth w tout any fouÌ„dation For this first is manifest ther haue ben froÌ„ y â— beginning distiÌ„ct orders officers in y ◠〈◊〉 of christ as Bishops priests deaâ—ons subdeacoÌ„s acoliâ—es exorcists readeâ—â— sextiâ—s Singers And if these 〈◊〉 were euer kepte in the Church without question they were obserued most orderly in S. Gregories time whome for his greate diligence in setting furth of the seruice of god the heretikes themselues doe cal sauing their charity MagistruÌ„ ceremoniauÌ„ the Master of ceremonies He therefore seing this faulte in the Church of Rome that men apointed to higher offices wer also chosen to serue in lower functions as in example y â— Deacons to become singingmen prouideth by a special decree to haue it reformed The Decree is this In sancta Romana Ecclesia dudum consuetudo est valde reprehensibilis exorta caeâ— There is risen of late a very il custome in the holy Church of Rome that certaine vvhich are apointed to serue at the holy aultare are chosen to be Singynâ— men And that they vvhich are placed in the degree of Deaconship should be occupied about the svveete tuning and deliuering of their voices vvhom it vvere more meete to intend their office of preaching and to be diligent in distributing of Almes â—hereof â—or the more parte it cummeth â—o passe that vvhiles a svveete voice is sought for a tunable agreable life is neglected and the Miâ—ister or Dâ—acon vvhich is A Singing man doth pricke and greeue God vvith his manners vvhiles hâ— deligâ—teth the people vvith his voice Vvherfore by this present decree I apointe it that in this See the Ministers at the holy Aultare shal not singe â—â—derstand beneth in the quier as Singing men doâ— aâ—d that they shal only doe their Office in Reading the Gospel at the Celebration of Masse As for â—â—â—â—mes â–ª and â—o furth lessons I decree that they shal be done by the Subdeacons or if necessitie require by the lesser Orders This is the whole decree But where is it here that a Priest should not Singe â–ª The cause of making this decree was the 〈◊〉 of the Deacons And the Singging â–ª which was forbidden them was of that kinde as y â— Singing meÌ„ vsed and no such Singing as is vsed in Reading of a Gospel To speake also of the Priest thinketh M. Iewel that the Masse which he celebrated solemlie in S. Grigories time was of his part celebrated without note And that in beginning of Gloria in excelsis Or in saying of Dominus vobiscum Or Sursum corda and so furth in the Preface he sang 〈◊〉 not out in a certaine quiet and easy tunâ— The contrary is so cleare that the note which is vsed in the Church in prefaces of y â— Masse and in halowing of the Font which are done by a Priest only or Bishop is called Cantus Gregorianus But goe to M. Iewel proceede in your Abusing of Decrees If singing be not fit for a Priest for whom is it fitte You answer that Certeinly it seemeth that S. Gregorie in his time thought singing in the Church to be a thing fitter for the multitude of the People then for the Priest Now for shame of your selfe dare yâ— put it in print y t Certainly it semeth so And dare ye note vnto vs the Decree In Sancta Romana for proufe thereof Ther is no one word in the whole Decree that soundeth to y â— purpose There is no mention of the multitude Yea the multitude of people is excluded as it is certâ—inly to be gathered of the decree For it appointeth the Psalmes to be song of the Subdeacons by name â—ut if necessity should require â–ª y â— then thâ—i of the inferior orders of the Church might excecute y â— office If therfore it was not Ordinariâ— no not for euery one of the Clergiâ— to sing y â— Psalmes if when y â— case of necessitie came that only caâ—e made it lauful for y â— inferiour Orders to sing reade in y â— Church how Absurdlie or impudentlie gather ye out of this Decree y t to sing in the church was thought fitter for the multitude of the people then for the Priest It is to be noted further y â— M. Iewel speaketh not of people Indefinitely but of the multitude of people CoÌ„fusely For pâ—ople to bâ— suffered to sing may haue a tolerable sense when certain meet for the purpose should be taken thervnto And yet in S. Gregories time this would not 〈…〉 suffered in Rome as appeareth by the forsaid Decree but y â— multitude of people to be compted fit for singing in the church it is altogether so oâ—t of tune and Order that they lacke both eares and reason coa◠〈◊〉 it
And wheras in S. Gregories time none as it appereth but of y â— Clergie did serue in the church And in our more loose daies al persons yet without 〈◊〉 are not permitted to execute the ofâ—ice of Singing or Reading in the Church M. Iew. in speaking for the 〈◊〉 â—hat by likelyhood as a copie 〈…〉 be seene at their Sermons so in y e churches Men women boyâ—â— weÌ„ches souldiars mariâ—ers merchaÌ„ts beggâ—rs tag rag al should be fit 〈◊〉 to beare a part as he is therein more open loose than we of these disoolâ—â—e daies so with S. Gregorie his time he agreeth nothing at al. Conferre and Iudge An other Example Omnes Episcopi qui huius apostolice â—edes ordinationi subiaceÌ„t c Al Bishops saith M. Iew. out of an episile of Anacâ—etâ—s y â— be bouÌ„d to haue their orders coÌ„firmed bi this apostolik see c. wherby it may be gathered y â— other bishops wer not subiect to y â— ordinaÌ„ce of y â— see This Decree is two waies abused first in englishing iâ— then in resoâ—ing 〈◊〉 it Concerning the Interprâ—tation it is two thinges to say Al Bishopes that are bound to haue their orders of the Apostolike See And Al Bishopes that are bouÌ„d to haue their Orders confirmed by the Apostolike See Because y â— second is twenty times larger then the first Of the first Anacletus speaketh meaning that al they which are immediately subiect to the Bishop of Rome and take Orders immediatlie at his hands shal as it foloweth in the Decree com or send yerely about the Ides of May to S. Peter Paules Church in Rome Of the Second M. Iewel speaketh which are out of the peculier Prouince of the Bishope of Rome And which yet when they are by their Clergâ— named elected at home must be afterwards confirmed by the B. of Rome and arâ— so ordeined and consecrated in their 〈◊〉 Prouince So that the Bishopes of Italie are ordeined and confirmed both by the B. of Rome but the Bishoppes of Fraunce or England when it was good are not made by him but confirmed that is to say as the woorde iâ— selâ—e geueâ—h he ratifieth that which other haue or shal doe The Interpretation therfore of M. Iewels is false so is also his collection and Argument For although al the Bishopes that are vnder the Bishope of Rome and bouÌ„d to receiue their orders at his handes immediatelie although al these I say be within Italie onely or nigh thereabout as farre as his special Prouince goeth yet doth it not follow therevpon that the Bishope of Arls or Caunterburie are not at al subiect vnto him Like as in an Armie where y â— King him selfe is present when he shal diuidâ— the battel and appoint the gouernâ—menâ— of diuerse bandes to diuerse Capitaines reseruing to him selfe one emong al of which he by him self wil haue y â— charge Although these now that he hath chosen out be al that he hath to sette in aray and order by him self yet must you 〈◊〉 infer that he hath no Authoritie ouer the other partes of the Armie because he doth not as immediately gouerne the whole as his special parte For Immediaâ—elie but one part is vnder his charge but by meanes of his Capitaines whom he onlie hath appointed whom he againe by his authority mai vterly displace or other wife 〈…〉 he is King ouer the whole So is 〈…〉 B. of Rome His authoritie is as 〈◊〉 â—s the name of Christians doth 〈◊〉 abroad And Christe which commitâ—ed vnto S. Peter his Lambes Sheepe charged thereby al that would be of hiâ— flocke to obey his Uicepastor Now because the faithful are so multiplied that one man by himselfe can not Personally â—ome to euery place therfore euen from y â— beginning there was made distincâ—ion of Prouinces and Iurisdictions in the Church of Christ in so much that the Pope himself had and hath stil a detâ—rmined portion Not that any Archebishope in the world should take him self for as good as his Patriarche Or y â— the Primates themselues shuld presume to â—e as Supreme as the Pope but that y â— charge being diuided emong many y â— who le might â—e with more spede lesse â—rouble 〈◊〉 He ruleth therfore his owne â—art as if he were but a Bishope Archbishope or Paâ—riarche he ruleth y â— whols as the Uicare of Christ head of his Church vnder him He ruleth his own part Proportionablie because he is a man which can not do al by himself he ruleth the whole by special prerogatiue of Christes grace power because he is the chief Steward ouer y â— house of Christ which he hath purchasen by his mo â–ª 〈◊〉 death the whole world Concerning his own part other Bishops be his fellowes as laboring to the perfection of that whole in which euery of them hath also a part Concerning the whole some are Archebishops Primates some Patriarches euery one of a larger Iurisdiction then other and one alone is â—oâ—e This distinctioÌ„ then being most plain manifest that Rule and Gouernement is put in practise both Immediatlie by y â— Rulers owne Act And Mediatlie or by meanes of other to take away the secoÌ„d by affirming y â— first wheras first second do in sundry respecâ—es wel stÌ„ad together it is without reason or consequence As if one would say The King chargeth al his Lords Officers about him to mete where he hath appointed ergo it may be gathered that no other withâ—â— England beside them of y â— Coâ—rt are bound to appeere where he shal appoiâ—te them And so doth M. Iewel reason Al Bisshopes that are bound to take their Orders or as he falsiâ—ieth the text to haue their Orders confirmed by the Apostolique See must as it foloweth in the Law come or send yearely to Rome Ergo other Bishopes that are not Immediatly but Mediatly vnder him are not subiect to the ordinaunce of that See Note also that whereas the Decree of Anaâ—letus is concerning the yearely comming of Bishopes to Rome â–ª and not of any other point of Obedience and dutie M. Iewel might wel argue thus The Bishopes onely of Italie that are subiect to the Apostolique See are bouÌ„d â—erâ—ly to come to Rome c. Ergo the Bishoppes of other Countries that are further of are not bound to come yerely â—hither But from this one particular for which onely the Decree was made to reason genâ—rally of the Obedience and Subiection due to the ordinaunce of that See it is Sophistically and Unreasonably done By this I moue then sufficiently y â— he hath abused the Canon Law How M. Iewel abuseth the very Gloses of the Canon law BUt doth his boldnesse stretch no further than to the Text or doth he not corrupt also the Gloses verely he leaueth neither them vntouched â—hat is to say vncorrupted For if M. Iewel once touche a place it is very â—ard but it wil be the
worse for his handling And cause truly he hath none why he should allege any Glose of the Canon law at al. For whereas himselfe regardeth not no not the Text it selfe and the Catholiks also wil not be bound to make â—ood the priuate sayâ—ing of any Gloser it is a greate vanitie to bring in such â—itnesses as him selfe may well knowe are not sufficient Yet though I say so â—e shall not require of me to mocke straitewayes at any Gloses Or to bring furth vnto y â— knowlege of the siâ—e wittes of y â— worlde some simple deuises and disâ—ourses that they haue made to theâ—tent thei may be laughed at For there are Degrees in euery thing and he that wil not be so good as to praise euery Inuention of the Glose needeth not to be so il as to seeke how to finde fault with it but may wel inough be suffered to hold his peace Now concerning M. Iewels behauiour if he hath such an itche y t he thinketh to rubbe vs on the gal by alleaging such witnesses as we may and do laufully refuse Why doth he not allege them truely Why doth he tel their tale after them in such sort as he findeth not in their owne words Why doth he vpon this preiudice emong the greater number that Glosers are but Ignorante and trifling men bring forth blind and vain sentences out of them which in dede are not theirs though it wil be easily susspected but M. Iewels whome many compte so honest that he wil not in any case make a Lie or missuse his own witnesses in any point This Obiection of mine to Exemplifie or Prosequâ—te at large I dooâ— not intend but in one or two examples I wil beginne the Chapiter that he which herafter wil adde more vnto it may haue a plaine peculiar place where to put it In the Answere to D. Hardinges Preface it pleaseth M. Iew. to open his mouth awide and to auouch that the Pope speaketh after this maner I can do what so euer Christ him self can do I am al and aboue al Al power is geuen to me as wel in Heauen as in Earth You are not so honest as to be trusted vpon your bare worde and therfore name vnto vs your witnesses which may depose for you that the Popes haue euer vttered wordes with such Arrogancie And you referre vs to the Glose De Maioritate Obedientia vnam Sanctam But what saith that Glose Doth it tel of any one Pope by name Or doth it report so much of the order and succession of them that euery one of them hath in his course and for his time â—ounded it out into al the world that I can do what so euer Christ him selfe can do c You wil Answer because there is no other shift that the Gloser speaketh such words of the Pope not that y â— Pope himself doth speak them in his own person of him selfe Why then I Iudge you by your own words that you haue made an open lye in attributing that vnto the Popes owne Act which is not his â–ª but y â— Glosers collection vpoÌ„ the Canon law Then further I say that many thinges are verfied in sundry Persons concerning their Uocation or Office which iâ— cannot become the persons theÌ„selues to appropriat to them selues For the Apostles of Christ vvere lightâ— of the vvorlde Yet if S. Peter had begon his Epistlâ—s with this stile and Title Peter the Apostle of Iesus Christ and one of the lightes oâ— the world he could not haue beâ— thought to haue folowed the humility which was in Iesus Christ. Lykewise euery man that is in the state of Grace is vndoubtedly the Sonne of God and Felow of Angels and Conquerour of Diuels vutyl he doc forsake that Grace â—et if you M. Iewell should â—â—ent yourselfe of al your bragging 〈◊〉 â–ª lying â–ª c. and Reâ—urne to y â— Catholike Church be receiued into the Communion of Sainâ—es it would not be liked in you to write yourselfe Ihon Iewel A Conqueror of y e wicked Sprites A terrour to heretikes A CoÌ„fort to Catholikes A welbeloued of al Virgins Confessours Martyrs Apostles and Patriarchs A felow w t the Angels A Cusson of our Ladies A sonne of Almighty God And so the Conclusion being true that there is no Autoritie in the world compâ—rable to that which Christ gaue to S. Peter his Successors â–ª yet doth it not agree that the Pope should in the first person crake or sound out of himselfe I can doe whatsoeuer Christ himselfe can doe For whereas high dignitie Autoritie is geuen vnto men for others sake which are to be gouerned not for their owne which beare the Office and whereas such Gifts Graces fo gouernemeÌ„t make not the 〈◊〉 of them acceptable as saith hope charitie doe there is no occasioÌ„ to â—rake of that which perteineth not to any man in respect of his Person but only of his Office On the other side wheras to coÌ„feâ—â—e the worthinâ—sse of an Office may wel become a wise and worshipful man so that he attribute nothing therof vnto himself as he is one singular person if the Pope Concerning his Office do confesse it that the chiefe Bishoppe in the Church must rule al Christians and be subiect to none of them al M. Iewel must not therefore slaunder him that he openeth his mouth a wide and vttereth blaspemies and soundeth out these wordes into al the world I may iudge al meÌ„ but al the world may not Iudge me But by such forme of speach the simple Reader and common Protestant coÌ„ceiueth of the Pope that he standeth a tipp toe And ouerlooketh al the world And is in great loue and conceipt of him selfe And respecteth alwayes his priuate Estimation And forgetteth that there is a God and right Iudge and that him selfe is a Man and a Sinner as other folkes are and that he attributeth an Omnipotencie to his owne proper person c. Wherevpon he taketh an Indignation and accompteth him to be a very Beast or Diuel and no man that so preferreth him selfe before other men And is ready to accurse and detest and reuile and speake and iudge the worst y â— he can of the Pope And this is one of the vile and wicked kindes of Rhetorique that is vsed nâ—w in the worlde For when it is plainely and simply said Christ breathed vpon the Apostles and saied take ye the holy ghost whose sinnes ye forgeue they be forgeuen whose sinnes ye retaine they be retained he that wil finde any faulte must not be angry w t the Apostles which take the Grace but with the Author and geauer of it Iesus Christe But no Christian I thinke and faithful man doth abhorre to heare these woordes spoken Now then The Diuel which seeth Christe his owne person to be in much honour and that when wordes are considered as spoken of him the Christians harts are subdued by them What doth
of the Glose as though the text were much more for his purpose For the very Glose saieth he putteth the mater vtterly out of dout Let vs see then first of al what is the Text. Lucius the Pope writing to certaine Bishops which were trobled with heretikes And shewing them where vppon to staie themselues that they might no wauer hither and thither willeth them to solow the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 praise of which thus he saieth 〈◊〉 sancts â—posâ—olica mater omnium Ecclesiarum Christ 〈◊〉 qua per Des Omnipotent is graiaâ—â— a tramite Apostolica traditiones nunquam errass probatur This holy and Apostolike Church is the mother of all churches of christ â—hichs through the Grace of almightie God hath neuer ben proued to haue erred froÌ„ the right trade end pathe of the Tradition of the Apostles Thus saieth Pope Lucius and he maketh expressely for D. Harding as far downeward as Lucius owne Popedome was â—nno Do 258. This conclusion then being certaine by the expresse text of the law what saith the Glose therevpon Doth it folow the text or no If it do not Remember then I praie you M. Iewel your charitable and affectuous wordes to D. Harding O M. Harding It is an old saying Maledicta Glosa quae corrumpit textum Accursed be that Glosing construction or Glose that corruppteth the text RemeÌ„ber wel this old saying forget not yourselfe which bring furth with so great a confidence a Glose that impugneth the text But doth the Glose folow the text If it do be ashamed man then of yourself which doe so Certainely warrant it that the very Glose putteth this mater out of doubt that the See of Rome maie erre in Faith the text it selfe making to the contrarie But of this perchaunce you haue litle regaâ—de how the Glose agreeth or disagreeth with the Text. And where you find your vantage there you are determined to take it hauing a simple and plaine eye neither loking to that which goeth before nor that which foloweth neither that which is of any side of you And so â–ª the Glose saiting that Certaine it is the Pope maie erre that is inough for yâ—u and that putteth the mater vtterly out of doubt that the Churche of Rome may errâ— You are deceaued M. Iewel through your Simplicitie For if you or your â—rindes about you had ben circumspect you woulde neuer haue broughte this Glose surth with such confidence as you haue done It is two thinges to saie The Pope maie erre and the Churche of Rome maie erre The first is graunted 〈◊〉 it maie possibly be that the Pope concerning his owne priuate mynd and opinion maie crre in vnderstanding as IoaÌ„nes 22. dyd or whom soeuer els you can name vnto vs. The second is vtterly denied that the Church of Rome can erre For that presupposeth y â— the Pope should â—e geauen ouer to decret Sette â—â—rth or determine by his Iudicial Sentence some thing contrarie to the Apostolike Faith that it should be receiued beleued in the Church Which absurditie that any error should be suffered in haue credit in that Church which is y â— Mother of al Churches that vnder the gouernement of the holy ghost which coÌ„tinueth with it is the spirit of Trueth becasue it is impossible therfore it is also impossible y â— the Church of Rome should erre in any point of y â— Faith And in such extremities where y â— Pope for his owne person is perswaded in a contrary coÌ„clusion vnto our Faith almighty God that his care ouer the church may be manifest prouideth alwaies to take such persons out of the way when they might if they had liued done harme as he did Ioannes 22. and â–ª Anastasius Now that the Glose faith no more but the Pope may erre which we wil not denie and not that the Churche of Rome may erre which was D. Hardings affirmation by whom shal I better proue it thaÌ„ by y â— glose it self which is a litle before in this very cause 24 q. 1. out of which M Iew. peeked his Certainti y â— out of doubt the See of Rome mai erre In y â— chapiter Quodcunque ligaueris the Glose vpoÌ„ a certaine word there gathereth an ArgumeÌ„t that the sentence of the whole Churche is to be preferred before the church of Rome if thei gainsay it in any point And he coÌ„firmeth it by y â— 93. Distinction Legimus But doth the Glose rest there as M. Iew. Certainly auoucheth it doth it put the mater vtterly out of doubt thâ—â— the church of Rome may erre â–ª Iudge of the mind of the Glosator by y â— words of y â— Glose For thus it foloweth Sed 〈…〉 And for coÌ„firmatioÌ„ of his belief he referreth vs to y â— Chap. 〈◊〉 which foloweth in y â— cause questions Nis faith he erraret Romana Ecclesia quod no credo posâ—e fieri quia Deus noÌ„ mitteret Arg. infra ead c. 4 Rect a c. PudeÌ„â—a Except the church of Rome should erre vvhich I beleue caÌ„not be because God vvould not suffer it As it is proued in the Chapiters folowing which begin A Recta Padenda Consider now Indifferent Reader iudge betwene vs both M. Iew. saith The Glose putteth the mater vtterly out of doubt that y â— Church of Rome may erre because it saith the Pope may err I answer y â— the Glose vpon y â— chapiter a Recta 〈◊〉 it that the Pope may Erre but in the third Chapitâ—â— before Quodâ—â—quâ— ligaueris it beleueth that it can not be that the church of Rome should erre because God vvould not permit it Wherof I gatder that the Pope to erre the Church of Rome to erre are 〈◊〉 pointes that if it be graunted vnto him y â— the Pope in his owne prinaâ— sense may hold an heretical opinioÌ„ yet y â— church of Rome for al y â— cannot erre because God wil not suffer it y â— any thing should be decreed by y â— Pope y â— is coÌ„trary to faith And this is manifest euen by y â— very Glose which M. Iewel trusteth so much y â— he toke y â— mater to be vtterli out of dout when the Glose had once spoken it What is abusing of testimonies if this be not what coÌ„science is there either in preferring of Gloses before y â— text either in expouÌ„ding of Gloses against y â— Text either in setâ—ing of one and the selfe same glose against it self wheras being rightly interpreted it agreeth wel inough w t it self either in obiecting y â— part of y â— glose against y â— Aduersarie which being grauÌ„ted hurteth nothing dissembling or not seing an other part of y â— same glose which clearly coÌ„firmeth y â— purpose of the Aduersarie except the Glose could speake more plainly for D. Harding then it hath don when it saith Credo non posse fieri quia Deus non
if he haue no further respecte than vnto the Seate But First he declareth the Bishope of Rome to be Primum omunm Sacerdotuâ— that is to be Chief of Priests and not I trow to sit only in the best Chaire Then he apointeth the Bishope of Constantinople to haue the Second place But whereinâ— Ouer Scates Or ouer Priestes Uerely he spake not of Seates but of Priestes in respect of which he saith let the Bâ—shope of Constantinople haue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is as M. Iewel limiteth it The seconde place but as the Trâ—eth 〈◊〉 ye 〈◊〉 englishe it the Second Dig 〈◊〉 Or wâ—rshipe For the worde 〈◊〉 signfceeh A rome A Oder An Office A Dignitit A degree and A pâ—â—ce not only to sitte first in but to Goe to Stande to Fight to Speake to Determine or to doe what so euer it be worth the speaking And therefore M. Iewel hath in this place twyse togeather abused the decrce of Iustinianisirst restricting that vnto sitting in A place which was spoken of Prerogatiue ouer Pricstes And then in saying that the priuilege coÌ„sisted only in sitting in the first Seate wheras this term only or any other word to like effecte is not at al in the Decree But I beseech thee Gentle Reader weigh wel the wordes that folowe in the same Decree And I beseech thee also Gendtle Reader to weigh them wel It foloweth Immediatly We ordeine that the most holy Archebishope of Iustiniana the first whiche is in our Countrie shal haue for euer vnder his iurisdictioÌ„ the Bishops of the prouinces of Dacia Dania c. and that he in the prouinces subiect vnto hym shal haue the place of the Apostolkie See of Rome But what of this â–ª Here we see the Bishoppe of Iustiniana sette in as high Authoritie and power within his own lurisdiction as the B. of Rome within his But by whome was he sette in so high Authoritie By the Emperour And who gaue the Emperour such power Or was he so priuileged by the Pope Yea surely by the Pope if any Authoritie were lawfully taken and exercised But so much doth not appeere by the Decree Yes verely doth it But M. Iewel taketh his vantage and mangleth Decreeâ— at his pleasure For thus it foloweth in the lawe â–ª that the Bishope of Iustiniana shal haue in the Pâ—ouincies subiect vnto him y â— place of the Apostolik Sec. 〈…〉 Set then if the Bishope of Iustiniana for al that the Emperor honoured that Conâ—trie so much if he receaued so greate Authoritie from the Pope how â—uch was the Pope aboue him y â— gaue him y â— authoritie â–ª Could y â— Pope subiect vnto a newe Bishope the Proiunces of Dacia Dania Dardania Misia and Pannonia Or exempt him from the Iurisdiction of his Metropolitan or primitiue except in dede his authoritie had ben vniuersal Yet such priuileges gaue the Pope vnto the B. of Iustiniana and the Emperour was not the doer in it but y â— Executour only of the Popes determination Note also and see M. Iewel that it is not in this decree that the B. of Iustiniana shal haue within his owne Iurisdiction as high authoritie as the Bishop of Rome within his there is no such comparison made but only that he shal haue within his Iurisdiction the place of the Apostolike See of Rome And so haue many of the Popes Legates in the prouincies vnto which they be directed but none was euer yet so folish as to gather hereof y â— the Pope therefore caÌ„ do no more than his Legate For as y â— is true in such cases as the Pope permitteth vnto y â— Legates ordinance so absolutely it is most false because the Pope may when he wil depose his Legate or abbridge his Autority or send an other to gouern with him but no such thing may be exequuâ—â—â— against the Pope If therefore the B. of Iustiniana do neuer so muche enioye the Priuilegies graunted vnto him by the B. of Rome let him take them as Priuileges not as Canons Let him acknowledge himself to supplie the Place of the Bisshoppe of Rome within his owne Prouincies and not to sit as it were in his owne proper and ordinarie Place Let him geue place to the B. of Rome if he should personally come within his Iurisdiction and let him not crake of it that he hath as high Authoritie within his Iurisdiction as the B. of Rome within his For if he doe Uigilius the Pope that gaue him such prerogatiue may pull it away agayne from him And M. Iewels argument shal be vtterly dasshed that thinketh the Priuilege of the Apostolike See graunted to any particular Bisshoppe ouer his country to derogate from the Authority of the Apostolike See which is in Rome And whiche hath Iurisdiction ouer all Bisshoppes in Christendome Nowe one place more and so we shall end this Chapiter M. Iewel goeth further and sayeth In lyke sorte the Emperour Iustinian saieth Ecclesia vrbis Constantinopolitanae Romae veteris praerogatiua laetatur The Church of the Citie of Constantinople enioyeth now the prerogatiue of Rome the Elder Let me be answered then in one question You said not twenty lines before that the prerogatiue of the Bishoppe of Rome censisted only in sitting in the first place at general meetings If therefore the B. of Constantinople haue the same Preuogatiue that the B. of Rome who shal sit first I praie you Or shal they sit one in an others lap Or shal one of them stand whiles the othersitteth Or shal the prerogatiue of the B. of Rome be interpreted to signifie some other thing byside the sitting only in the first place For if the prerogatiue of the Pope be to sit only first and if the B. of Constantinople haue the like prerogatiue as the B. of Rome he must likewise sit first Ergo Iustinians Constitution that the B. of Constantinople should sit in the secoÌ„d place is void Ergo M. Iewel by one law through his blind interpretation dâ—th destroy an other Surely this alone doth proue sufficieÌ„tly that you huddle vp Constitutions one vppon an other to make a shew only of great learning and not because either you vnderstand the law Or speake after it or seeke to make the trueth plaine and euident But let vs consider the place it selfe The Church you saie of Constantinople enioyeth the priuilege of the Elder Rome But what priuilege is that To Rule the whole world To cal general Councels To Confirme them To disproue them To increase the Iurisdiction of Bishops or Patriarches and to diminish it againe as it shal be profitable for the Church of Christ The B. of Rome is hable to geaue vnto any B. in al the world as great precogatiue ouer his diocese as himself hath ouer Italie like as Uigilius the Pope gaue to the B. of Iustiniana but is any Archebishope in al y â— world hable to geue an other either the Prerogatiue of
And how is that It foloweth Loquitur Dominus ad Peâ—rum c. Our Lord speaketh to Peter I tel thee saith he that thou art Peter and vpon this Peter or Rocâ—e I vvil builde my Church and the gates of hel shâ—lnot ouercome it Vnto the vvil I geue the keyes of the kingdome of Heauens and those thinges that thou shalt bind in earth shal be bouÌ„d in the heauens also and vvhat soeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth shal be loosed also in the Heauens And vnto the same Peter after his 〈…〉 my sheepe By these wordes then it is manifest what is Original Head and Doctrine of our heauenly Maister that is to the forsaking of which Sainct Cyprian imputeth the Proceedinges of the Diuel and of Heresies Uerely no other than that which our Sauiour by the foresaid expresse Scriptures gaue to S. Peter But now heere ariseth a greaâ—â— doubt and question that S. Peter can not wel be the Heade because euery one of the Apostles was as great in Power as he And this in deede is the Argument that M. Iewel maketh out of S. Cyprian against the Supremacie Which if Sainct Cyprian hadde not espied and Answered then should M. Iewel easily be pardoned But now what an intolerable kinde of soule dealing is this to take an Obiection out of an Olde Father and either for Hast. Or Negligence Or Craftines Or Desperatnes to let go the right answer vnto it For concerning the Obiection Sainct Cyprian thus withstandeth it saiyng And although he gaue after his resurrection lyke povver vnto al his Apostles c. yet to declare vnitie he desposed by his Authority the Original of the same vnitie begining of one By the Obiection then it scemeth that no more accompt should be made of S. Peter then of the vest of the Apostles which seuerally was as greate in power as he But by the Aunswere made with this Aduersatiue Tamen Yet it is manifest that notwithstanding the equa litie among y â— Apostles S. Peter yet was y â— First and the Head among them For Christ disposed by his Authoritie saith S. Cyprian the Original not of vnitie as you mangle it M. Iewel but of the same vnitie which vndoubtedly was in the Apostles beginning of one which is S. Peter As in the Sentence folowing more manifestly appeereth to the further opening of S. Cyprians right meaning and your false dealing For the one halfe of the Sentence is this in deede the rest also of the Apostles vvere the same that Peter vvas endevved with like fellovvship honour and povver This half M. Iewel you rest vpon and build your Conclusion that one of them had no more Priuilege than an other And why interpreted you no further Is the sentence or Sense thinke you at an ende when you haue your purpose Doth not S. Cyprian Interpret Correct Amend or Determine it with an Adnersatiue yet saying least any maÌ„ should through his former words set lesse by S. Peter or his Chaire But yet the Original commeth from vâ—itie that the Church may be shevved to be one And what other thing is this to say but that notwithstanding it to be true that the Apostles were endewed with like honour power as S. Peter was yet no manne ought to gather heereof that there was no Order among them Or that one Bishope now hath as large and absolute Authoritie as an other But this rather must folowe that because schismes and Heresies doe grow apase vvhere no Original or Head is sought for or regarded And because it should be perceiued that the Church is One in that it coÌ„sisteth of one Head vnto whome al the rest were they neuer so high or felow like must be refer red therefore Christ by his Authoritie disposed the Original of that vnitie â— endewed S. Peter with a singular Prerogatiue that he shoulde be that One in the Church from whom whosoeuer departed should not be of the Church And note wel the Cause why the beginning must rise of One vt Ecclesia vna monstretur that the Church might be shevved to be one Why Should it not be One though in euery Diocese through the world euery seueral Bishop were Chief therein No surely by S. Cyprian it should not be But in that the Head therof is but one the vnitie of her doth folow necessarily How doth it folow Mary Whosoeuer holdeth not with this Head he is not in the Church and so must none remaine within her but the Catholike obedieÌ„t Christians How caÌ„ they but agree then al in one Head if they mind to coÌ„tinue in y â— Church wheras y â— departure from hâ—m is to take an other Church bisides that whose special marke is Vnitie in one Head This conclusion then standing that S. Peter was set by the Autoritie of Christ in the first place was that no special Priuilege trow you Or was he First to that intent oÌ„ly that in reckening vp the Apostles men should know where to begin Or that in their meetings together he should sitte first Or speake first Or subscribe first How simple things are these for the wisedome of God to think of And how litle auailable to the preseruing of the Churche in Unitie if no further Preeminence were geuen him And againe if the B. of Romes authoritie now as S. Peters was then were of no more force yet beeing of so much if other would sit before him Or speake before him in any Councel should they not be Offenders against the ordinance of God How can it be otherwise whereas he appointed by his Authoritie the Original of Vnitie to begin of One Suppose then that some one transgresseth this order who shal reproue him If none how vnreasonable is it to set a law and not to include therby an authority to punish the transgressor of the Law If any who more worthy of that Office then the Chief Bishope Ergo there was in S. Peter a proper Authoritie ioyned to that dignitie of his first place which M. Ie. grauÌ„teth vnto him by which he had power to coÌ„troll them y â— should or wold â—esist that Primacie of his in how smal thing so euer it consisted And if there were such Authority Ergo some special Pâ—â—â—lege of Binding or Losing which no other of the Apostles had Except ye wil be so mad as to thinke that in coÌ„trolling of a fault committed against any Excellent Person his Inferiour should be Iudge in the mater and bind or loose at his wil or discretion I leaue it therefore as most manifest that notwithstanding the Apostles were equal in felowshipp of honour and power â–ª with S. Peter yet the Original of 〈◊〉 was appointed by our Saluiour himselfe to begin of S. Peter only and none other And this his preeminence make you it as litle as you can requiring A Proportional Authoritie to be graunted vnto him for the defense therof against al disdaine or disobedience that might be procured or
for the Supremacie But it foloweth And so consequently gaue the same povver vnto al Pastours and Doctours Be it so But what is consequently How M. Iewel taketh it I can not tel but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greke which phrase S. Basile vseth signifieth the Pastours that folow in order and row after S. Peter Now Order requireth that although al be Pastoures yet they may not take vpon them and rule coÌ„fusely al in a clampe togeather but euery man in his place degree according vnto y â— proportion of his Flocke and Charge And therfore this hitherto proueth rather that y â— Pope of Rome is the Chief after Christ and that al other what so euer they be go not cheeke by cheeke by him as worthy or Supreme as he but euery man in his order and degree after him But this that foloweth is perchaunce altogeather for M. Iewel what is that Marie A token vvhereof is this that al Pastours dooe equally both binde and loose as vvel as he True it is M. Iewel the most simple in al the world doth binde and loose like as the Pope him selfe But this is true in such thinges as are permitted vnto his Iurisdiction For in some kind of Faultes the partie must be referred vnto the Iudgement of the Bishoppe â–ª And in cases of Heresie Breaking of Uowes and Robbing of Churches the Bishop hath not in his hands to absolue the offender but the whole must be reserued vnto the Pope And therefore although in such faultes as euery Prior or Priest may forgeue or retaine the Iurisdiction which he excerciseth be as effectual as if S. Peter himself had absolued or bound the Parties yet this is nothing against the special Priuilegies aboue al others which are graunted vnto the See of Rome As in example of fiue hundred Capitaines in a Field Or fiue hundred Lordes in a Countrie euery one commaundeth the Souldier of his band or Tenant of his land and yet this is not preindicial vnto the worthines excellencie of the General Capitaines and chiefe Lordes The Angels doe al of them waite and attende vpon God and at the later Day al the Electe shal haue euery one his penie and reward yet the Cherubins are of higher Authoritie than the inferiour Angels and the Apostles shal be in greater Glorie than Confessours What shal we say of Christ him selfe As my Father saith he sent me so end I you And vvhen he had said this he breathed vpon them and saith vnto them Take ye the holy Ghost VVhose sinnes you shal forgeaue them they are forgeuen them and vvhose sinnes ye do reteine they be reteined Here loe you may see that he hath made the Apostles equal with hym How then wil you conclude that Christ is not supreme in his Church and that he hath not the authoritie of binding and loosing in a more high degree than any of his Apostles Such yet is your diuinitie M. Iewel that because al Pastours do equally bind loose therefore the Pope hath no special Priuilege aboue other But you lacked the vnderstanding that al do equally bind loose in such cases and Persons as are subiected vnto them And that because euery Bishop can not exercise the power of his Orders when and where it pleaseth him therefore it is euident that all are not equal but that the Superiours may restraine the Iurisdiction of the Inferiours which is inough to proue a Supremacie Thus hath M. Iewel brought foure seueral Auncient Fathers al in a cumpanie togeather to proue that the B. of Rome hath no speciall Priuilege aboue others of binding and loosing and there is not one of them al which proueth that CoÌ„clusion For S. Cyprian is plaine for one head notwithstanding the equalitie of the Apostles in honour and power Origen and S. Cyril speake not literally but mystically And S. Basile last of all telleth such a Trueth as euery Catholike wil confesse and is nothing contrarie to the doctrine of the Supremacie excepte there be so vnsensible an heretike that wil think the lowest Minister in the congregation to be as high in Authoritie as the greatest Superintendent or general because he preacheth and baptiseth and ministreth the Lordes Supper and burneth if neede be in his opinion in lyke sorte as the Chiefest Superintendentes themselues doe And this vanitie and falsehood of M. Iewels when he allegeth Auncient Fathers wordes without their Sense is so common that I wil be bounde to make a whole boke of his So saith S. Cyprian and Therefore S. Hierome saieth and other such Idle Illations if either it were not inough to note only what he is Or if my wil and leisure serued me so much as to be occupied in so tediouse A mater But now let vs goe forwarde with the Doctours and shew how shamefully he hath abused them Our Sauiour saith D. Harding out of S. Augustine gaue not commauÌ„dement in vvhat Order the SacrameÌ„t should be receiued meaning to reserue that mater vnto the Apostles by vvhom he vvould direct and dispose his Church Ergo the obseruation of number of CommunicaÌ„ts of Place of Tyme of Order Maner and Circumstance in Receiuing dependeth of the Churches ordinaunce and not of Christes Institution S. Augstine abused S. Augustine speaketh not one worde of any number He speaketh of a power left with the Apostles to apoint in what order the Sacrament should be Receaued but the Order and Manner of doing a thing extendeth it self to al Circumstances ergo to number also And therefore it is no wrong dealing to inferre A particular vpon the graunt of the proper vniuersal thereof Againe whereas the blessed Apostle after certaine talke had about the Sacrament concluded saying Caetera cum venero ordinabo As for the rest vvhen I come my selfe I vvil set in Order S. Augustine inferreth Vnde datur intelligiâ—quia multuÌ„ er at vt in epistola totuÌ„ illum agendi ordineÌ„ insinuaret quem vniuersa per orbâ— seruat ecclesia ab ipso ordinatum esse quod nulla moruÌ„ diuersitate variatur Wherof it is geauen vs to vnderstand that it vvas ordeined of the Apostle that vvhich is not varied by any diuersity of maner fashion because it vvas much for him to shevv in an epistle al that order of Celebrating and Ministring the Communion vvhich the vvhole Church through out all the vvorld doth obserue As who should say If it had not ben that the Apostle had not place inough in his Epistle to the Corinthians to declare his mind at ful In what order and with what Ceremonies and Circumstancies he would haue the celebrating of y â— mysteries to procede he would haue left it in plaine writing how al thinges should be don but because that was to much for an epistle to receaue And because the order which he would haue obserued was not so quickly appointed as to Reade A â–ª Chapiter or two of the Bible and to tell the storie
a thing to be amisse but what that is it is not yet specially declared And out of this one sentence M. Iew. peeketh an absolute Testimonie y â— it is Christes InstitutioÌ„ that the people should haue the Cup deliuered vnto them because he loueth not y â— truth should be stolen away in a mist. The seÌ„se of the next sentence is And thinke not most deere Brother that I vvrite this vpon myne ovvne minde and vvil but when any thing is coÌ„maunded by the Inspiration of God the faithful seruaunt must obey So that this hitherto is nothing but a preface or entrance to the mater Then foloweth the third sentence Admonitos autem nos scias c. But ye shal vnderstand that vve are vvarned by special reuelacion from God that in offering of the Chalice the TraditioÌ„ of our Lord be kept that no other thing be don of vs than that which out â—ord did for vs first â–ª that the Chalice vvhich is offered in remembâ—aunce of him should be mixt vvith 〈◊〉 Lo this is the state of y â— who le Epistle and the Tradition Commaundement of God which so oft so earnestly he speaketh of is referred to this end only y â— wine water should be offered vp togeather in the Mysteries And y â— fault which he findeth with the celebrating y â— some vsed was y â— they toke water only into y â— Chalice like as on the coÌ„trary side y â— Heretikes now take only wine Both which extremes the TraditioÌ„ CoÌ„maundement of God which S. Cyprian doth proue by y â— olde and new Testament most abundantly doth so fully perfitely confound that as the Aquarij then were disproued so the Vinarij now should be ashamed But as concerning the diliuering of the Sacrament in one or both kindes he intended it not nor determineth it And this M. Iewel perceiued wel inough y â— S. Cyprian in that Epistle was wholy bent against Aquarij were they schismatikes only or heretiks and that the fault which he laboreth to ameÌ„d in them was not for not geuing the cup vnto the people but for geuing water only in it and not wine mixt with water Where then was M. Iewels wit to let go many fathers which he wold haue it thought to be for him and for shortnes sake to allege only S. Cyprian and that S. Cyprian should speake nothing at al of that questioÌ„ which properly is demauÌ„ded of vs and to which we looked for an absolute and perfite answer from him It is not credible but he saw wel inough what we could Replie and therfore he prouided this safegard for his estimation For thus he saith If S. Cyprian might wel write thus against the Heretikes called Aquarij which in the holy ministratioÌ„ would not vse wine but in stede thereof did Consecrate water and Ministred it vnto the People much more may we say the same against our Aduersaries which Consecrate and Minister vnto the people no Cup at al. What you may saie it is an other question but we seke now what S. Cyprian did say If that Learned and blessed Father whom you haue alleaged in stede of many if he spake nothing directly of our question it is no mater to vs what you wil Applie him vnto neither was it cunningly inough donne of you to bring him alone whereas you had except you belie your selfe copie which maketh nothing at al for you but by a consequence of your owne deuising And yet this very Consequence of yours doth nothing folow for to consecrate in water onely and to minister it so vnto the people which clause of ministring it vnto the people is in deede out of the mater which S. Cyprian discussed But let it occupie a place if you thinke it wil ease you To Consecrate I say againe in water only and to minister it so vnto the people is against the Tradition Institution and CoÌ„maundement of our Sauiour And this is proued at large throughout y â— who le epistle of â— Cypriâ—â— But to coÌ„secrate the wine water together not to minister it vnto y â— people who is against it what Scripture couÌ„cel or father You say it is against Christes InstitutioÌ„ We deny it You made as though you would proue it ouâ— of S. Cyprian But S. CypriaÌ„ speaketh not of this questioÌ„ yet you say y â— as â— CypriaÌ„ spake against y â— Aquarios for 〈◊〉 in water only and ministring it so vnto the people so may you much more speake against the Church for ministring no Cup at al vnto the peple I haue shewed how vnlike this comparison is But wil you haue a good Argument and like to y â— of s. Cyprians This it is S. Cyprian iustlie founde faulte with the Aquarios for consecrating in water onely and ministring it so vnto the peple Ergo he would haue found fault with your Procedings which put wine only in the Cup and minister it so vnto the people For the Reason on both sides is one that the Tradition of our Lord is to be obserued and that to Consecrate wine and water togeather was his TraditioÌ„ Answere this Argument with al your cuÌ„ning Learned M. Iewel and answer your deere friendes expectation which wil thinke that you haue not abused S. Cyprian The iudgement wherof I permit vnto any reasonable Aduersarie S. Augustine abused S. Augustine willing the Priestes to applie their studies to correct their errours of their Latin speach addeth thervnto this Reason Vt populus ad id quod planè intelligâ—t dicat Amen That the people vnto the thing that they plainly vnderstand may say Amen This of S. Aâ—gustine seemeth to be spoken Generally of al tongues How can it seeme so wheras he so expresly speketh of the Latin tongue only S. Augustine you say willing the Priestes c. This first of al is falsely reported For S. Augustin in this place went not about to exhorte the Priestes to the studie of y â— Latine tongue as who should thinke that it were not to be suffered A Priest or Bishop to be ignorant therein but he shewed how such as come fresh fine from the Scholes of Grammarians and Rhetoricians with knowledge and Eloquence inough of wordes should in their first entrance into y â— church there to be instructed of y â— Catholike Faith learne to be humble wise in iudgement not to contemne y â— Scriptures because they be not writeÌ„in so loftie exquisit a Style as prophane bokes nor to set more by florish of words than substance of Sense And further he saith Nouerint 〈◊〉 nâ— esse vocem ad aures dei sed animi affectuÌ„ it a enim no â—â—â—debâ—t si aliquos Antistites 〈◊〉 Ecclesiae forte animaduerterint vel 〈◊〉 barbarismis solaecismis DenÌ„ muocare vel eadâ— verba quae pronuÌ„ciant noÌ„ intelligere â—turbate â—ue disiâ—â—guere that is Let them vnderstand alâ—s that it
is not the voice that souÌ„deth in the eares of God but the â—artines and denotioÌ„ of mind For so they shal not laugh the Bishops and ministers of the church to scorn if perchaunce they shel perceiue them to cal vpoÌ„ God either vvith barbarouse and incongrae Latine or els not to vnderstand the vvords that they speak either to point them out of order To such therfore S. Austine directeth his talke in y â— place maketh no exhortatioÌ„ at al to Priestes to learne their latine tongue better And why should M. Iew. dissemble y â— true persons of whom s. Augustine there speaketh I wil tel you There is not a place more plainer than this if it be considered to proue y â— it was not thought in S. Augustines time so necessary a mâ—tâ—r that al thinges in the Churche should be donne in a knowen Tongue as now it is auouched to be For if the Publike Seruice was euerie where executed at that tyme in the vulgar Tongue or in a knoweÌ„ one to the common people although it were not their vulgar how is it possible that the Bishopes themselues should be to seeking in the right pronouncing pointing and vnderstanding of that whiche they openly said in the Church The Syr Iohn Lacklatines of which there is much speaking among the brothers they haue ben such an occasion of ruine and perdition to the worldly wise as none hath ben greater For the euil life of Priestes although it be A greate Argument vnto them that the Religion is not effectual which hath such holy ons in it yet whiles they see in euerie kinde of Protestation or Confession many such to be found of whoÌ„ they may wel inough be ashamed they temper their Iudgement and wil not vtterly condemne a Religion for this cause only that some Professours thereof be wicked But when they see Publike Seruice to be saied of them which vnderstand it not and for them which are also as ignorant this seemeth to be so absurde that they can not conceaue howe the Spirite of God should directe their doeinges which see and suffer yea and defend that Publike Seruice maie be done in a tong which the vulgar people doe not vnderstand And in this point they are so much the more vehement because they see how all the new Gospellers folow a contrary waie and vse no lerned Tounge at all in their Ordinary Seruice but the vulgar and knowen Tounge of the Countrie where they pitch So that the Protestantes are compted herein to worke so sincerely to speake so reasonably and to chalenge so inuincibly that thousandes of the worldly wise whiles they stand in their owne iudgement fal in deede into euerlasting perâ—ition by the iudgement of the blessed and lerned Fathers For if al thinges must be don in the Church so as the people do vnderstand what is praied how should that case euer be heard of in the Primitiue Churche where some Bishoppes vnderstode not what they praied in the open Church Maie we think that any of them vnderstoode not the vulgare speache of his couÌ„trie That is verie incredible because vnto the high office of Ruling and teaching the whole People he should not be chosen which could not wel be vnderstanded of the people But maie we rather thinke that the publike Seruice was in a lerned toung sometymes not perfitly knowen of the Bishope himselfe like as vnto the vulgar people it was not knowen Of this there is no doubt Because in praieng to God deuotion and not eloquntion is required and because he might haue a good grace of preaching in his natural tongue vnto the people which yet had very simple vnderstanding of any Greeke or latine writinges And because it is plaine by S. Augustine that some such were in his tyme. How then you wil saie is Ignorance in a Bishope to be suffered I say not so neither on the other side I thinke that al is marred except euery man woman and childe maie haue the Bible in the vulgar Tounge Or that no Tounge is to be suffered in the Church of God but that which is the common and knowen tounge of the Countrie But as there is a difference betwene wincking and staring so is there a discreation and iudgement to be vsed in this mater of Tounges of which we speake And S. Augustine aloweth it not that a Bishope should not vnderstand the Latin tounge in which he praieth neither yet doth he crie out against that lacke of theirs requiring that al Publike Seruice should straitwaies be in the vulgare Tounge For after he had told it how some Bishopes praie in false and barbarouse Latine and vnderstaÌ„d not what they praie he addeth further least you should think hym to alowe Ignorance and saieth Non quia ista mâ—â—me corrigenda sint vt populus ad id quod plane intelligit dicat Amen I would that the freshe and trym Scholers comming lately from their EloqueÌ„t Lessons should not laugh y â— Bishops to skorne which speake in their praiers false Latin not because these thinges vvere not to be amended in the Bishopes to the entent the people might ansvver Amen to that vvhich they clerelie vnderstand as who should say I alow not their lacke of knowledge And it were wel that they dyd so speake as the people vnderstand them Sed tamen pie toleranda sunt ab eis qui didicerunt vt sono in soro sic voto in ecclesia benedici but yet these lackes are charitably to be borne vvithal of them vvhich haue lerned that as thinges are vvel said in court before Iudges by sounde of voice so are they vvel saied in the Church by vovve of minde Of which wordes I gather that as he would wishe it better y â— the Bishops Priestes of the Church should so speak as the people might vnderstand yet he would not haue the Seruice of the church vtterly chaunged from the Latine tonge not vnderstanded to the vulgar tounge which nor Priest nor peole could be ignorant of But euen those waÌ„tes of some Bishopes and Priestes in the true Reading Pointing and Understanding of their Publike Praiers he would to be charitably borne and suffered vpon this consideration that although in the eares of men their wordes sound not plaine and good yet in y â— sight of God the good affection of their harte is alowed Now if S. Augustine had ben of the Protestantes mind he would not haue takeÌ„ the mater so quietly but with great Stomake would haue said awaie with this murmuring of praiers not vnderstanded awaie with this Latine and Strange tounge which the Priest hymselfe knoweth not what it meaneth Awaie with this lip labour Let vs haue the Bible turned into the vulgar tounge let euery man come to the Church and singe Psalmes to the Lord let the people vnderstand what is said let vs do as the Apostle commaundeth vs let vs speake with tounges and so furth with a great tale out
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
Christs Institution it foloweth then that the Distinction is good and y â— we may affirme wel inough A reasonable ConclusioÌ„ And vse proper Termes and wordes to expresse it by although we haue no warrant of the Scriptures neither of the old Fathers The Councel of Basile aboue one hundred and thirtie yeeres past made no conscience to graunt the vse of both kinds vnto the kingdom of Bohemia and this CouÌ„cel now presently holden at Trident vpon certaine coÌ„ditions hath graunted the same to other kingdomes and Countries Of whome then speake you these words in an other place of your Replie These men take quite awaie from the people both the Element and kind of wine and also the wordes of Consecration Cal you this takinge of the kind of wine quite awaie the vse whereof was permitted to Bohemie and at this day is ready to be permitted vnto other if that would deliuer them from their heresies If needes you wil lye you should doe it alwaies so warely as ye can wel inough when you be disposed that you might not yet be coÌ„uinced therof through any of your owne words spokeÌ„ at other times But now it is past remedy except you wil Repent because I point you to the places wher ye confesse both that the Papistes haue graunted the vse of wine to other kingdomes and Countries bysides Bohemie and also obiect that they haue quite taken awaie the kinde of wine from the people Al the East speaketh the Greeke Tongue saieth S. Hierome To this I Answer saith D. Harding y â— some of al Countries of the East spake Greeke M. Iewel Replieth M. Hardings distinction of al in General and al in Particular that he hath here deuised to shift of S. Hierome seemeth verie homelâ— and home made For how can it be a general onlesse it include euery Particular By M. Hardinges construction we must take AL for SOME or AL not for the 〈◊〉 part of AL And by this Rhetoâ—â—â—e lesse then halfe is as much as AL and so AL is not AL. I would say vnto you sauing that you be a fore fellow when you come to quiddities and also that you would aske for a warrant of the Scriptures or olde Fathers â—o iustify my woordes by it els I would say that AL that you haue now spoken is Nothing and that should seeme more 〈◊〉 than that AL is not AL. But I wil not geauâ— you this vantage I wil put your owne wordes vnto you Al the Iewes Generally gloried of the Law euen so al the Greekes Generally gloried in their wisedome And S. Paule sayeth Generally of them both The Iewes call for 〈◊〉 and Miracles â–ª and the Iewes 〈…〉 And therefore one of the Philosophers sayed In old times there were Seuen Wise men emong the Greks but nowe there are not so manie Fooles for that they all Gloried in their Wisedome What thinke you then of the Apostles Or of our â—lessed Lady herself and other good and holy Iewes did they cal for Signes Yf they did then were they reproueable because the strength of a Christian resteth vpon Faith which commeth by hearing of Goddes woord and requireth not the shewing of Merueilouse Signes If they did not How did al the Iewes cal for Signes except you also wil take AL for SOME or AL for not AL The Philosopher also which saied very wittily in reproche of the Grecians vaine Opinion of themselues that there were not so manye Fooles emonge them as of Olde time were Wise men for that they all Gloried in theyr Wisedome He meant I trow y â— there were almost seuen fooles in Greece nigh to the number of the Seuen wise that were iâ—â— Olde times there And he tooke him selfe perchaunce to be one of the Seuen So that his General Proposition included not euery Particular But I haue yet a better Example to declare my purpose What say you M. Iewel to S. Chrysostomes wordes No body doth Communicate â–ª You Answer His purpose was to rebuke the negligence of the people for that in so populous a Citie thei came to the holy Communion in so smal companies which companies he in a vehemencie of speach by an exaggeration in respect of the whole calleth NO BODY The like maner of Speach is vsed also sometimes in the Scriptures S. Iohn saith of Christe TestimoniuÌ„eius nemo accipit not for that no body at al receiued his witnesse for his Disciples and many other receiued it but for that of a great multitude very few receiued it In like Phrase Chrysostom him selfe saith other where Nemo diuina sapit No Body sauoreth Godly thinges These be your owne wordes M. Iewel whose were those other where you said How can it be a General onlesse it include euery Particular Be not these also yours How make you then both to agree togeather For NO BODY importeth an vniuersal and general Negatiue and then by your very homly and home made Logique it includeth euery Particular How make ye then in this place of NO BODY SOME BODY and of NO BODY not NO BODI but Disciples of Christe and many other Thus you see that by your owne wordes in one place you be driuen from your owne Sense in an other And by reason of your Contradictions none more Ennemie to M. Iewell than M. Iewel Notwithstanding S. Augustine whome S. Gregorie sent into England withdrew the English Nation from their grosse Idolatrie wherein he had no great trauaile for perchaunce it is an easie mater to coÌ„uert Countries Yet it is certaine he planted not Religion in this Realme What did he then vnto them whom he withdrew from their Idolatrie Did he leaue them without a Religion Did he pul their olde Cote from them and geue them no newe He Baptised at one Christmasse more than ten thousand English men as S. Gregorie witnesseth And before he baptised them did he not plante Religion in theyr hartes Otherwyse how is it credible that euer they would haue come to Baptisme Yet I note this place not for the open lie which is in it but for the Contradiction for that it seemeth impossible y â— a Nation should be coÌ„uerted from Idolatrie and yet not turned to Religion whereas the very Conuersion it selfe doth import a forsaking of one mind and taking of an other And no Heretikes haue power to turne Nations and the Catholiques to whom God geaueth that Grace do for that end tourne them from Idolatrie that afterwardes they may become Christians Which End if they be not brought vnto Who can say that they are conuerted S. Gregorie iudgeth Generally of the Name of Vniuersal Bishop that it is vaine and hurtful the Corruption the Poison and vtter and Vniuersal destruction of the Church c. Verely Iustinian him selfe writing vnto Epiphanius the Bishop of Constantinople calleth him the Vniuersal Patriarke Whom then da you folow the Pope or the Emperour â–ª
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