latin Seruice as in the english Certain it is the people of Cappadocia of whom S. Basil there speaketh had not the greke for their vulgar tounge as hath bene before proued in the 69 Vntruthe and yet were these psalmes as all the other Seruice vnder S. Basill songe and saied in the greke tounge as appeareth by the praiers yet extant in greke in the Masse or liturgie of S. Basill Then as the people of Cappadocia applied the greke seruice to them selues so may the people of England applie the latine Seruice to them selues if they will assiste deuoutely geue their assent to the priest gods Minister and lifte vpp their hartes to God with him So hath the Church these many hundred yeres vsed It is not now to lerne of you M. Iewell She hath and att all times hath had marke this well M. Iewell the holy Ghoste to prompte her to guide her and to assiste her and shall so haue in aeternuÌ„ for euer if Christ be true of his promise Thus are your authorites answeared Thus is the truthe auouched and proued M. Iewell and you founde a slaunderer not so much of D. Harding as of the Truthe which shall at lenght confounde all that be against her Harding The nations that haue euer had their Seruice in the vulgar tounge the people thereof haue continued in Scismes errours and certain Iudaicall obseruances so as they haue not bene reakoned in the number of the Catholike Churche As the Christians of Moscouia of Armenia of prester Ioan his lande in Aethiopia Iewell The 86. Vntruthe For the Seruice in the Vulgar tounge neuer was cause of Schisme or heresy D. Harding saieth not so much Their Vulgar Seruice was not the cause of their Schisme But there schisme and other heresies were the cause of their Vulgar Seruice For hauing ones diuided theÌ„ selues froÌ„ the Church in Doctrine they chose also that order of Seruice which was coÌ„trary to the Church I perceiue M. Iewell It is all one with you whether a man bidde you drincke ere you goe or goe ere you drincke Harding VVherefore to conclude seeing in sixe hundred yeres after Christ the Seruice of the Church was not in any other then in the greke and latine tounge for that any man is able to shewe by good proufe c. Iewell The .90 Vntruthe The Contrary is sufficiently proued in the 15. diuision of this Article All M. Iewelles proufes are sufficiently and particulary att large disproued in the same diuision See the answer to the 78. Vntruthe So the conclusion of D. Harding is sure and M. Iewell according to promise must subscribe The heape of Vntruthes which M. Iewel saieth in his margin are here laied together in the Conclusion haue ben all before particulary examined and iustified Harding As the bolde assertion of M. Iewel is plainely disproued so the olde order of the Latine Seruice in the latine Churche whereof Englande is a prouince is not ráshely to be condemned especially whereas 91. being first committed to the Churches by the Apostles of our countrie and the first preachers off the Faith here it hath bene authorised by the continuance off allmost a thousand yeres without controll c. Iewell The 91. Vntruthe For the first preachers off the Faith in this Iâ—elande weâ—e grekes and Hebrewes and not Latines This hath ben told vs twyse or thrise before and nowe to awnswere it fully I thinke it good bothe for Countrie sake that the State of her touching the firste cummyng of Religion vnto her maie be knowen and that Trueth also maie not be suppressed by any alleaging of an other trueth And first what M. Iewells discourse is abowt this mater we shall consider After that we will shortlye declare who were in deede the Englishemens first Apostles withe defence of their honour and worthynes Touching the first Iewell Ghildas saieth that Ioseph of Arimathea that toke donne Christe from his Crosse being sent hyther by Philipp the Apostle out of FrauÌ„ce began first to preache the Gospell in this Realme in the tyme of Tyberius the Emperour Stapleton But what successe had it How deepe roote toke it How was it spreade abrode How was it receiued For the cummyng of Ioseph hither proueth not that the whole countrie was conuerted but that the Gospell was there preached And an argument maie hereof be gathered not that they openlye professed the Christian faithe but that they had the waie shewed vnto them by which they might come to the knowledge and loue of their Saluation So that yow can not inferr The whole State of Britaine was turned from their Idolatrie to the Christ by cummyng of Ioseph of Arimathea but this you might saie that euen in the vttermost partes of the world the sownde of the Gospell was heard immediatly after Christes Ascension and that al the world might see his mercie and Saluation and that al excuse was taken awaie from Idalotours if they would not repent and beleue in the onelye and true and Almightie God Iewell Nicephorus saieth that Simon Zelotes aboute the same tyme came in to this Ileland and dyd the lyke Stapleton He came in dede as Nicephorus sayeth but he came not lyke a Lieger but lyke and Embassadour not to tarye and couert the whole but to doe a message for the whole in the hearing of a few For Simon Zelotes saieth he in preaching the Ghospell went thourough Aegypte Cirene and Aphrica and afterwarde through Mauritania and all Lybia and brought the same doctrine euen to the weast Occeane and to the Iles of Britannie So that it appeereth he went a pace like a Cursor that telleth good newes but he conuerted not I trow euerye countrie through which he went Iewell Theodoretus saieth that S. Paule Immediatly after his first delyuerie in Rome vnder themperour Nero preached the Gospell in this Ileland and in other Countries of the weast It is wonder that he should not heare that Ioseph of Arimathea and Simon Zelotes had conuerted it alreadie if as yow imagine Britanie receiued the Faith when they preached there But doth Theodoretus saie that S. Paule by name preached the Gospell there I beseech the gentle Reader to consider in this place how particularly and distinctly M. Iewell setteth furth vnto the the cummyng of S. Paule in to Britannie He nameth him singularly S. Paule he noteth the tyme after his first delyuery in Rome he setteth it furth by the name of the Emperour vnder the Emperour Nero and all this he dothe to make the beleue that Theodoretus speaketh so distinctly of S. Paules cuÌ„myng in to our countrie and preaching there in his own person that it were impossible to doubt thereof Nowe if Theodoretus saie so muche then is M. Iewell discharged if he doe not what a bold and shameles felow is he that dareth so to make witnesses speake at his pleasure and so to abuse the credulitie of the vnlerned Theodoretus wordes are these Nostri illi piscatores
maye take the office off singinge by the onely commaundement of the Priest withoute putting the bishoppe to knowleadge the Priest sayinge vnto him thus See that whiche thou singest with the mouthe thou beleue it with thy harte And that whiche thou beleuest in thy harte thou perfourme it in thy Workes Thus by Order he was admitted that songe Psalmes in the Churche and thus the Vulgar Psalmes made of Priuate men as they were for a tyme suffred in some Churches so we see by Order off Lawe they were at an other tyme forebidden the Churche This being premised let vs nowe come to those Hymnes and Psalmes whiche Master Iewell saith Ephrem made and whiche he saieth were songe in Churches in the Syrian tonge Whereof he seemeth to frame this argument Ephrem made songes in the Syrian tonge Eâ—go the Seruice was in the Syrian tonge Vnlesse he will haue this to goe for an argument he hathe proued nothing For the Psalmes and Hymnes whiche he speaketh of were no parte of the Churche Seruice but certayne songes contayning Catholyke doctryne whiche that good Deacon made for the people to singe in place of other songes containing Hereticall doctryne which one Harmonius an Heretike had made before and infected the people withall This was Ephrems songe and this to be so Theodoretus in hys Ecclesiasticall History telleth vs euen in that place whiche Master Iewell hathe alleaged These are his Wordes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whereas one Harmonius the Sonne of Bardesanes of whose Heresy Epiphanius hath written had lately made certain songes and mingling wicked doctrine with the pleasant Harmony intised the hearers and hunted after their corruptioÌ„ this EphreÌ„ folowing the note and melody of the other made a godly dittye and gaue to the hearers bothe a pleasaunt and a profitable Medicine These songes also do yet to this daye make more royall the festes of the triumphant Martyrs Here we see what Hymnes and Psalmes they are which M. Iewell speaketh off They are by a straunge Metamorphosis turned into songes and sonnets and vsed to displace songes off Heretykes They are neither Hymnes nor Psalmes pertayning to the Churche Seruice whiche were onely taken out of holy Scripture but godly songes made for the peoples instruction against Heresy and wicked doctrine Now that these Syrian songes were songe at Martyrs festes it proueth no more that the Seruice was in the Syrian toungue then Christmas carolles songe in English Frenche and Dutche do proue the Seruice at Christmas to be in English Frenche or Dutche And thus M. Iewelles Syrian songe doth nothing proue his Vulgar Seruice except he minde to reason thus English Carolles were songe at Christmasse Ergo the Seruice was in English Now where M. Iewel addeth that Sozomenus saieth plainely that suche Hymnes and Psalmes he shoulde saie songes and sonnets were songe in the Churches of Syria If the wordes be so plaine he should haue alleaged them or at the lest haue noted in the margin where they were to be founde But no maruaill if he noted not that which he coulde no where finde And yet is this Sozomenus at the least iiij times auoutched in this Article to be a witnesse of the Seruice in the Syrian toungue But remembre your selfe M. Iewell Iewell If Sozomenus beareth witnesse to your Vulgar Seruice why speaketh he not Why cometh he forth so dumbe What Hath he naught to saie in this behalfe Or is his word not worthe the hearing Or is he so olde that he can not speake Or must we nedes beleue M. Iewell without euidence And thus much of Theodoretus and Sozomenus by whome M. Iewell saieth he hathe shewed that the Seruice was in the Syrian toungue Hereunto he addeth S. Hierome To the place of S. Hierom I haue answered before in the 68. Vntruthe He did well to ioyne Theodoretus and S. Hierom together For they speake bothe of Vulgar songes not off the Psalmes songe in Churche Seruice as I haue before declared Nowe I trust M. Iewell will come to the matter directly and bringe vs some clere Example of the Churche Seruice in some Vulgar tounge beside Greke and Latin for the space of the firste .600 yeares He hathe tolde vs what he hath lefte and what he hath saied nowe I trust he will to the Matter Let vs see Iewell Olde Father Origens wordes in my iudgement be verye playne Blessed be that olde Father whiche speaketh so plainely for M. Iewell to saue his poore honesty in this greate distresse For nowe or neuer D. Hardinges Assertion shall be confounded Iewell Writing against one Celsus a wicked heathen he sayeth thus The Grekes name God in the greke toungue and the Latines in the Latine toungue And all seuerall Nations praye vnto God and prayse him in their owne naturall and mother toungue For he that is Lorde off all tounges heareth man praying in all toungues none otherwise then iff it were one voice pronounced by diuers tounges For God that ruleth the whole VVorlde is not as some one man that hathe gotten the Greke or Latin tounge and knoweth none other Stapleton As I can easely yelde in parte that by this olde Fathers Testimony all toungues and Nations do praise and praie to God so if M. Iewell can proue that this same Origen euer saied the Seruice in any tounge then the Greke or in any of all his workes once vsed the name of Seruice in a vulgar tounge I will as gladly yelde to the whole But if Origen neuer spake worde of Seruice in the vulgar tonge howe is he here brought in to proue the Seruice in a vulgar toungue Iewell Howbeit M. Iewell knoweth it is an easy matter to mocke the ignoraunt with the glorious name of olde Fathers Origen saieth that all Nations and al tonges do praie vnto God This thing neither is denied neither in any point toucheth the publike Seruice of the Church We confesse with Origen and S. Augustin to that vna rogatur vt misâ—reatur à cunctis Latinis Barbaris vnius Dei natura the one nature of God is praied vnto for mercy of al people bothe Latines and Barbarous And yet we saye with S. Augustin also Amen Hallelulya quod nec Latino nec Barbaro licet in suam linguam transferre Hebraeo cunctas gentes vocabulo decantare that Amen and Halleluya proper wordes of the Churche Seruice are songe of all Nations in Hebrewe termes which it is not laufull for neither the Latin or Barbarous to translate into theyr owne tounge I thought good to accompany S. Augustin with Origen for the better vnderstanding of his meaning Hereof M. Iewell semeth to reason thus All Nations do praie vnto God in their owne toungue Ergo al Nations haue their Church Seruice in their own tonge And then against S. Augustin thus All Nations do praie vnto God Ergo Amen Halleluya and such other partes off the Churche Seruice must be translated into the
the Supremacie the discussing whereof standeth most vpon the history and practise of the Churche either to vse or to abuse any Scripture Yet by occasion howe many M. Iewell hath abused it shall nowe in parte appeare First these wordes of S. Paule Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum the hofulnesse of all Churches howe violently you haue wrested it to proue a Chiefty and power ouer all Churches in the like sence as the same is in S. Peter confessed by S. Gregory you haue heard before towarde the ende of the first Vntruthe of this Article In the same place you alleage to the like sence these wordes of the Apostle I recken me selfe to be no thinge inferiour in trauail to the highest Apostles Nowe what is wresting of holy Scripture if this be not S. Paule trauailed as muche as any off the Apostles ergo he had Chiefty Power Iurisdiction ouer the whole Churche no lesse then S. Peter had By the like reason M. Iewell may proue that S. Paule was Heade and Chiefe ouer S. Peter him selfe contrary to al holy Fathers and lerned writers which haue euer called S. Peter the Head the Chiefe and the Prince of the Apostles which also is by M. Iewell him selfe in this Article otherwhere confessed For S. Paule saieth speaking of him selfe and of the Apostles abundantius illis omnibus laboraui I haue trauailed more then al they But as S. Paule though he trauailed more then all the Apostles yet he was not therefore the Head or chiefe ouer them all so muche lesse it will folowe that he had the Chiefty or the Charge off the whole Churche bicause he trauailed as much as the other Apostles If trauail and paynes may proue a Iurisdiction perhaps some busy Minister in Englande might claime to the bishoprike that M. Iewell occupieth With the like vaine of witt M. Iewell to disproue the epistle of Athanasius vnto Felix bicause he saied that from Rome the Churches receiued the first preaching of the ghospell alleageth the saying of the prophet Esaie From Sion the lawe shall procede and the worde of the Lorde from Hierusalem Howe vnfittely this place is wrested of M. Iewell to proue it false that many Countres receiued the faithe of Christ from Rome it hath bene before declared in the third Article vpon the 73. Vntruthe Immediatly and properly many Churches as allmost all the west parte of the worlde receiued their faithe from Rome though Rome it selfe receiued it of S. Peter who preached first off all in Hierusalem In the same page M. Iewell wresteth two other places off holy Scripture at one time thus S. Paule saieth Other foundation none can be layed but only that which is layed already which is Christ Iesus And findeth great faute with the Corinthians that saide I holde of Apollo I holde of Paule I holde of Peter but M. Hardinges Athanasius saieth Thou art Peter and vpon thy foundation the pillers of the Church which are the Bishopps are surely sette and thus he deuise than other foundatiō besides Christ and Contrary to S. Paules doctrine would haue al the bishoppes of the world to holde of Peter Thus farre M. Iewel Wilt thou see good Reader how ignorātly and grossely these places of holy Sripture are wrested and abused of M. Iewel S. Paule in the first place speaketh of the principall foundatiō which only is Christ. Peter is called of Athanasius not the principall and absolut foundation of him selfe but such a foundation as is layde by Christ. Els the worthy wisedome of M. Iewel maye comptroll S. Paule and proue him contrary to him selfe whiche in an other place saieth that the Ephesians were superaedificati super fundamentum Apostolorum prophetarum builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and the prophets Of the which also S. Iohn in his Reuelation saieth the holy Citie of God had fundamenta duodecim in ipsis nomina duodecim Apostolorum twelue foundatyons and in those foundations the names of the twelue Apostles Thus vnlesse M. Iewell will admitt the distinction of a principall foundation and of a secondary foundation not only Athanasius but S. Paule him selfe and S. Iohn also may be accused of M. Iewell to haue deuised an other foundation besides Christ. In like maner also maye be accused of M. Iewell S. Hilary S. Ambrose S. Ciprian S. Hierom S. Augustine S. Chrysostom Epiphanius Origen and Tertullian who all as you heard in the next Vn-the before do call Peter the Rocke vpon the which Christ builded his Churche Neither is S. Peter layde as any other foundation beside Christ bicause he was layed and made so off Christ him selfe as all the sayed holy Fathers haue witnessed In the second place alleaged by M. Iewell out of S. Paule he not only wresteth S. Paule to a contrary meaning but he falsifieth him also For those wordes I holde of Peter are not in S. Paule And if they were it made no more against the saying off Athanasius callinge Peter the foundatyon off the Churche then it maketh against all the other Fathers whiche did so call him or then it maketh against the Authorite and Iurisdiction either off laye princes and lordes either of spirituall pastours and Curats For as the subiect holdeth of his Prince and the Tenent of his lorde as the dyocese is subiect to his bishopp and the parish to the vicair by S. Paules Doctrine commanding vs to obey our ouerseers and to be subiect to those which haue charge of our soules and yet neither the subiect nor the dyocese so holdeth either of Prince or of bishop as S. Paule rebuked the Corinthians to holde of Apollo and of Paule so neither Athanasius nor the olde Fathers calling Peter the foundation of the Churche and confessing thereby the Authorite of Peter ouer the Churche do make as M. Iewell saieth contrary S. Paules Doctrine all the bishoppes of the worlde to holde of Peter as the Corinthians helde of Apollo and of Paule For the Corinthians made a schisme in the Churche and such as were baptised of Apollo they helde of Apollo such as were baptised of Paul they would holde and craof Paule This schisme and diuision S. Paule rebuked as bothe in the text it shall euidently appeare to him that will but reade it ouer diligently and also as S. Augustin expoundeth that text This text therefore M. Iewel you might better haue applied to your selfe and your brethern which do holde some of you of Luther some of Zuinglius some of other euen as S. Augustin applied it to the Donatistes who helde some of Donatus some of Rogatus some of Primianus some of Maximianus all Donatistes but yet diuided amonge them selues as protestants are at this day into Lutherās Sacramentaries Anabaptistes Suenckfeldians Osiandrins and so forthe Peter is the foundation and Rocke that Christe builded his Churche vpon as sett to gouerne and direct the same vnder Christ by Christ and through Christ. Al Christendō holdeth by
lye The Bishoppe of Rome saieth no suche thinge They are not the wordes of the Pope M. Iewell thinketh what so euer is writen in the lying libell of one of his bretherne intituled The Protestation off the Pope That it is cocke sure and vndoubtedly true But if M. Iewell had loued the truthe and tendred his readers Instruction he woulde haue looked to the originall and haue seene the wordes bothe whose they were and what they were The wordes that M. Iewell alleageth are in the decrees and in the place by him noted But they are there reported to be the wordes not of anye Bishop of Rome but of Bonifacius the Martyr And the wordes do not saye as M. Iewell reporteth them Lett no mortall man once dare to reproue him but huius culpas istic redarguere praesumit mortalium nullus No mortall men dothe presume to â—eproue his faultes here declaring thereby rather the obedience of Christen people towarde their Superiour then commaunding all Christen people to holde their peace And the reason foloweth Bicause he must Iudge all men but he is not to be iudged off any Which saying of that holy Martyr if it seme to M. Iewel ouer proude or vniuste he maye remembre that the whole Councell of 3000. bishoppes in Sinuessa in the yeare of our Lorde .300 presumed not to condemne Marcellius the pope hauing sacrificed to Idolles and being conuicted thereof by the Testimony of .72 witnesses but after he had condemned him selfe before them all they confirmed it and saied I ustè ore suo condemnatus est Nemo enim vnquam iudicauit Pontificem nec Praesul Sacerdotem suum quoniam prima sedes non iudicabitur à quoquam He is condemned iustly by his owne mouthe For no man at any time iudged the bishoppe nor the bishoppe his high priest For the chiefe See shall be iudged of no man Nowe where Bonifacius saieth that he may not be reproued onlesse he be founde to straye from the faith that dothe importe that a case may happen when the Pope may erre but not that the Pope may decree any errour or establish any thing contrary to the faithe Iewell To conclude Nicolaus Lyra is driuen to saie VVe finde that many Popes haue forsaken the faithe Stapleton This was a very simple Conclusion that hath no better Authour then Lyras a frier of late yeares Let it be true that many Popes haue forsaken the faithe yea and Christe to because of their wicked liues and hainous dedes Be it true that some of them haue had wrounge opinions Yet M. Iewell hath shewed none that euer decreed any errour or heresy This is that is auouched by Catholikes This the Reader looked for And this M. Iewell shoulde haue proued Gods name be blissed M. Iewell hath snott his poison against that holy See and in the succession of fiftene hundred yeares and vpwarde amoÌ„ge the number of two hundred and thirty Popes he hathe not founde one for all his prying and searching that euer decreed any errour or heresy or that euer deliuered to the Church any doctrine contrarye to the Faithe Thus we see Christes prayer hathe had his effecte notwithstandinge all the malyce of M. Iewell and of all other his masters and teachers against S. Peters chaire Harding That the Bishoppe of Rome had allwaies cure and rule ouer all other Bishoppes 109. specially them of the Easte for touching them of the VVest Churche it is generally confessed beside a hundred other euident Argumentes this is one verye suffieient that he had in the Easte to doo his stede three delegates or vicaires nowe commonly they be namâ—d Legates The one was the Bishoppe off Constantinople as we finde it mentioned In Epistola Simplicij ad Achatium Constantinopolitanum The seconde was the Bishoppe of Alexandria as the Epistle of Bonifacius the seconde to Eulalius recordeth The thirde was the Bishoppe off Thessalonica as it is at large declared in the 82. epistle of Leo Ad Anastasium Thessalonicensem By perusing these Epistles euerye man maye see that all the Bisshoppes off Grece Asia Syria Aegypte and to be shorte off all the Orient rendred obedience to the Bishoppe of Rome caet Iewell The .109 Vntruthe For the bishoppes of the East neuer yelded suche subiection to the Pope Stapleton What saie you then M. Iewell to three legates of the Pope placed in the Easte mencioned by D. Hardinge Did not they yelde subiection to the pope Are not the Authorityes true and good The Epistles or Simplicius to the Bishoppe of Constantinople of Bonifacius the seconde to Eulalius of Alexandria of Leo that lerned Father to Anastasius of Thessalonica are they not true Epistles Are they not incorporated to the volumes of the Councels Are they not all within the compasse of your first 600. yeares What saye you to them Why answere you not Will you euer plaie Aristoteles Asse Will you euer denie more then Aristotle can proue Good Reader looke vpon M. Iewelles text vpon this place Thou shalt see he answereth nothing to the places But like an impudeÌ„t asse of the countre standeth vpon his deniall and saieth It is not only vntrue but also vtterly without any shadow or colour of the truthe Iewell This is boldely auouched But if M. Iewel bringe any one worde to pâ—oâ—e these allegations vntrue that lett him be Aristotle and not the Asse For you shall see what foloweth These Authorites of Leo Symmachus and Bonifacius for as much as they are alleaged without wordes may likewise be past ouer without answer If they be vntrue why proue you it not If they be true why passe you them ouer without answer All that you answer is this that foloweth Iewell Howbeit this Bonifacius the seconde in defence of this quarel is forced to saye that .437 S. Augustin that godly Father and all other the bishoppes of Aphrica Numidia Pentapolis and other countres adioyning that withstoode the .438 proude attempt of the bishops off Rome and founde .439 out their open forgerie and falsifying the Nicene Councell were .440 altogether inflamed and lead by the diuell Stapleton Let vs suppose all this were true Yet is all this nothinge to the Popes legat in Alexandria the bishop thereof as in the epistle of Bonifacius it is mencioned Vnlesse M. Iewell will reason thus Bonifacius condemned the Bishops of Carthage wrongfully Ergo the Bishop of Alexandria was not his legate But now let vs see how many Vntruthes are couched in the former fewe wordes of M. Iewell First S. Augustin was none of them which wrote the last epistle of the Aphricane Councell to Celestinus vpon which M. Iewel groundeth the discouering of the Popes forgerie His name and subscription is not there Though in the other epistle to Bonifacius it be Neither should his name haue bene left out being the legat for the whole prouince of Numidia if he had bene there present Againe there was no proude attempt of the bishop of
The Mysticall Breade is made vnto vs by a certaine and knowen Consecration Such Consecration the CoÌ„munion bokes haue not And though in the Masse booke no mention thereof be made yet the order thereof being so many hundred yeres before taken such speciall mention is not nowe nedefull or required But the Communion bookes containing a new order of the Ministration if therin they had vsed any CoÌ„secration at al that being one principal parte of Christes Institution they ought to haue expressed the same Howbeit certaine it is not only by that they make no mention thereof but also by that they geue the remnant of their bread to the dogges that they vse no Consecration at all but accompte it as very coÌ„mon bread Likewise the wine that is left either the Minister drinketh it with his common meate or if very litle remaineth it is cast in the flowre as Poynet a late preteÌ„ded bishop of Winchester did in an open Communion ministred in the Cathedrall Church of Winchester By these their doinges saie and pretende what they lift in wordes all the worlde seeth and knoweth they vse no ConsecratioÌ„ at al. For good and euident proof thereof I â—eferre the studious Reader to the treatise of our lordes Supper lately sette forthe by D. Sanders In the seconde booke the xiiij Chapter it is proued that the figuratiue doctrine of M. Iewell and his felowes can not stande with a Sacrament which hath Consecration Harding The number of communicants together in one place is no parte of Christes institution Iewell The 15. Vntruthe For S. Basill thinketh the number is parte of Christes institution Exercitationis ad pâ—etatem Sermone 4. StapletoÌ„ Would God M. Iewell as to proue the Institution of Christ you alleage onely the iudgement of S. Basill so you would stande to his onely iudgement or to the iudgement of the lerned Fathers in other matters But S. Basill saieth no such thinge This he saieth in the place by you alleaged Spiritualis lex non pauciores quam duodecim esse vult mysticum pastha comedentes The spirituall lawe admitteth no lesse then twelue to eate the mysticall passeouer Now M. Iewell is this the Institution of Christ or is it not If it be why then do you in your Communion bookes take an expresse order that three may make a sufficient Communion Why breake you the Institution of Christ in the very springe of your ghospel If it be not the Institution of Christ nor S. Basill meant no such thinge why speake you so Vntruly why saie you S. Basill thinketh the number is parte of Christes Institution For other wordes tending to any such purpose in al that Sermon he hath none But S. Basill his meaning is this He willeth that such as take vpon them the contemplatiue life should liue in some number together and not vnder ten or twelue in a company that their life and behauiour might be voide of all sinister suspicion For that purpose he bringeth the exaÌ„ple of the twelue at Christes maunde where that most holy mysteries were wrought But as touching the matter it selfe whether a number of communicants be parte of Christes Institution Brefely thus I saie Christ gaue it to a number Christ gaue it after meate Christ gaue it at night time You with vs do confesse the two later pointes to be no Partes of Christes Institution You geue it neither after meate neither at night time but in the fore noone and before all other meates Why so Forsothe bicause bothe you and we beleue as S. Augustin did quòd si hoc monuisset Christus eum morem nemo variasset that if Christ had commaunded that no man would haue chaunged that maner Wherein S. Augustin and we bothe haue left the fact of Christ and folowed the tradition of the Church beleuing vpon the custome of the Church that the same fact of Christ was no CoÌ„mauÌ„dment Right so M. Iewel bicause the Church of Christ so many hundred yeares hath celebrated this holy Sacrament without a number of communicaÌ„ts we beleue verely that Christ neuer commaunded a number in this celebration and we beleue that if he had so commaunded eum morem nemo variasset no man would haue chaunged that maner or order This is our belefe M. Iewell grounded vpon the Doctrine of the Church which we are assured by holy Scriptures as I haue otherwheres at large proued can not erre in the faith but must for euer not only v. or vj. C. yeares as it shal please you to appoint continew in sounde and vpright doctrine Your opinion to the coÌ„trary procedeth by schismaticall departing from the Church Harding The maner number and other rites of receiuing is not fixed nor determined by the InstitutioÌ„ of Christ but ordred by the Churches disposition Iewell The 16. Vntruthe Christ appointed a number although no certain fixed numbre StapletoÌ„ If it be truly saied Christ appointed no certain fixed numbre why note you it for an Vntruthe The number is not fixed by the Institution of Christ What difference is there in those two sayinges Or is the one true bicause M. Iewell saieth it and the other Vntrue bicause D. Harding saieth it But how proue you M. Iewel that Christ appointed a number and yet no certain number Bicause Christ saied Take ye eate ye drinke ye all diuide ye amonge your selues doe ye this in my remembraunce All this was saied to a certain numbre as to twelue By these textes therefore if these textes be a Commaundement you must haue no lesse then twelue at a Communion Now three by the Communion booke are sufficient But as ye vrge al these textes so we may vrge you with vespere facto Caenantibus eis discumbebat cum duodecim At euening time as they supped he sate downe with the twelue and so forth we may vrge you I saye with these and saye You breake Christes institution You do it not at euening time You do it not after supper You sitt not but knele at it You haue sometime lesse sometime more then twelue to communicat and those not all waies priests as the Apostles were What answer you to this Is not all this the Scripture Is not all this writen of the Euangelistes Is not all this reported in the ghospell euen in the very same place where the rest of Christes InstitutioÌ„ touching this blessed Sacrament is writen Why then are not these partes also of Christes InstitutioÌ„ or why omitt you them as no partes thereof Why is not the fact of Christ as well a Commaundement as his wordes Diuide ye c What can you saye here but that the Practise of Christes Church hath declared that al these of time and place be no substantiall Partes of Christes Institution but Circumstances accidentall and casull Cerimonies Euen so we answer you that the Church also hath declared vs by the Practise of many hundred yeares the number to be no part of Christes Institution We
thinges which be necessarely required to this Sacrament by Christes Institution either declared by written Scriptures or taught by the holy ghost as bread and wine mingled with water for the matter c. Iewell The .23 Vntruthe The mingling of wine and water together is neither Catholike nor necessary Scotus StapletoÌ„ Yes forsothe this is Catholike and therefore it is necessary That it is Catholike I proue by the coÌ„sent of the Catholike Fathers of all couÌ„tres in the primitiue church In Afrike S. CipriaÌ„ B. of Carthage affirmeth it in these words Copulatio coniunctio aquae vini sic miscètur in calice domini vt commixtio illa non possit abinuiceÌ„ separari The coupling and ioyning togeather of Wine and Water is so mingled in the Cuppe of our Lorde that the same mingling maye not be separated the one part from the other And againe Sic in sanctificando calice domini offerri aqua sola non potest quomodo nec vinum solum potest Nam si vinum tantum quis offerat sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis Si vero aqua sola plebs incipit esse sine Christo. QuaÌ„do autem vtruÌ„que miscetur adunatione confusa sibi inuicem copulatur tunc sacramentum spirituale caeleste perficitur In sanctifying the cuppe of our Lorde so water alone can not be offred as neither wine alone can be offered For if any offer wine alone then the bloud of Christ beginneth to be without vs. But if Water be alone the people beginneth to be without Christ. But wheÌ„ bothe is mingled and ioyned together then the spirituall and heauenly Sacrament is perfyted Thus much S. Cyprian and much more in that place disputing against those which vsed only water in consecrating the holy mysteries teaching the InstitutioÌ„ of Christ to be that both Wine and Water be mingled to the perfyting of that heauenly Sacrament S. Augustin an Africane about two hundred yeares after S. Cyprian witnesseth this practise of Christes church in his time also The seare his words In Eucharistia noÌ„ debet pura aqua offerri vt qui daÌ„ sobrietatis falluÌ„tur imagine sed vinuÌ„ cum aqua mixtuÌ„ In the Euchariste Only water ought not to be offred as some vnder the coulour of sobriete are deceiued but Wine mingled with Water In an other place he reckoneth these in the rolle of heretikes which offred Only water without Wine in the holy Sacrifice of Christes church And against such heretikes the 3. CouÌ„cell of Carthage vnto the which S. Augustin subscribed made an expresse decree not yet forbidding vtterly Water but commaÌ„ding wine and water Both to be mingled together These are the words of the decree Vt in sacrameÌ„tis Corporis SaÌ„guinis domini nihil amplius offeratur quà m ipse dominus tradidit hoc est panis Vinum aquae mixtuÌ„ That in the Sacraments of the Body and Bloud of our Lorde nothing elles be offred then oure Lorde him selfe deliuered that is bread and wine mingled with Water This the Councell decreed not as then a new Institution but as a Tradition coming from Christ him selfe Thus we see in Afrike in S. Cyprians and S. Augustins time the mingling of Water and Wine in the blessed SacrameÌ„t was accompted Catholike and necessary In Fraunce how the Sacrament was there celebrated let Ireneus a very auncient writer and nigh vnto the Apostles wtnesse Writing of this blessed Sacrament and by the verite of Christes body and bloud here in prouing the verite of his true flesh and bloud walking here on earth he hath these wordes Quando mixtus Calix factus panis percipit verbum dei fit Eucharistia corporis sanguinis Christi ex quibus augetur consistit carnis nostrae substantia that is WheÌ„ the mingled Cuppe and the made bread receaueth the worde of God it is made the Euchariste of the Body and Bloud of Christ of the which the substaÌ„ce of our flesh is augmented and coÌ„sisteth The Mingled Cuppe that Ireneus speaketh of caÌ„not be meaÌ„t of any other theÌ„ of wine mingled with water Of such a coÌ„mixtion in the blessed Sacrament a Councell holden in Fraunce aboue vnleuen hundred yeares past mencioneth In Italy what the practise of the primitiue church was by two witnesses it shall appere Alexander the fift Pope of Rome after S. Peter writeth thus not as a new decree of his owne but as he saieth vt a patribus accepimus as we haue receaued it froÌ„ the Fathers Repulsis opinionum superstitionibus panis tantum vinum aqua permixtum in sacrificio offerantur Laying aside all other superstitious opinions let only bread and wine Mingled with water be offred in the Sacrifice S. Ambrose no Pope but a lerned and blessed B. of Millain writeth thus Diximus quòd in altari constituitur Calix panis In Calicem inquit mittitur vinum Et quid aliud Aqua Sed tu mihi dicis Quomodo ergo Melchisedech panem vinum obtulit Quid sibi vult admixtio aquae Rationem accipe Primo omnium figura c. that is We saied before that vpon the aultar is put a Cuppe and bread In to the Cuppe saieth he wine is putt And what elles Water But thou saiest vnto me How then did Melchisedech offer bread and wine VVhat meaneth this Mingling of water Harken to the Reason First of all the figure and so forthe where S. Ambrose at large geueth ij causes of mingling VVater with wine in the blessed Sacrament The one to answer to the figure of the Water running out of the rocke stricken by Moyses which was Christ that is betokened Christ. An other that as water and bloud ranne out of the side of Christ on the Crosse bothe to redeme and to cleanse mankinde so in this blessed Sacrifice being an expresse resemblance of Christes passion Wine and Water be offred vp to perfit the Sacrament of Christes bloud Thus now we haue Catholike witnesses of the primitiue Church in Italy Fraunce and Afrike touching the Mingling of Water with wine in these holy mysteries In Spaine also wiâ—hin the compasse of M. Iewelles 600. yeares we reade the same confirmed in a Councel holden at Braccara and the very wordes of S. Ciprian aboue alleaged brought in Iewell But saieth M. Iewell Scotus and Innocentius witnesse that the Greke Church in their time vsed it not Is it come to that M. Iewell Must we trie our Catholike faith doctrine and euen the meanest cerimonies by the consent of the first 600. yeares and will you proue a doctrine not Catholike by the practise of certain countres litle more then 300. yeares past For about that time liued Innocentius and Scotus At that time the grekes as they had many other errours so no maruail if they had this also And you do but your kinde to disproue the Catholike seruice by the exaÌ„ple of heretikes For the greke Church
their CoÌ„municating together Yea trulâ— Or els did Ireneus reason weakely and persuade wrongefully and vtterly beside the purpose with Victor the pope But an easier matter it is to let M. Iewell be ouersene in this Vntruthe aâ— he hath ben hetherto in all the rest then to marre the reason of Irenaeus so lerned and famous a writer writing in so earnest a cause and to such a person as the Pope was By this it appeareth though Ireneus saie not expressely they did communicat together to whom the Sacrament was so sent yet vndoubtedly he meaned so and reasoned so Thus not only this Vntruthe is proued true but also which went next before where M. Iewell very boldly sâ—ied that there appeared no such CoÌ„municating together in sundry places in any ancient Father For now we haue one at the lest in whom such a Communion appeareth Let vs now considre an other Harding Iustinus Martyr saieth thus VVhen the priest hath made an ende of thankes and praìers and all the people thereto haue saied Amen they vvhich vve call deacons geue to euery one then present bread and vvater and vvìne Consecrated to take parte of it for their housell and for those that be not present they beare it home to theÌ„ Thus in that time they that serued God together in the common place of praier and some others that were absent letted from coming to their compaine by sickenesse busynes or otherwise communicated together though not in one place Iewell The .26 Vntruthe Iustinus speaketh not one worde of communicating together StapletoÌ„ What then M. Iewell Ergo they did not Communicat together How foloweth this reason How holdeth your argument proceding negatiuely But Iustinus saieth The Sacrament was sent vnto them that were at home Ergo they which were at home did coÌ„municat with them which receiued in the Church or place of common praier How saye you Did they or did they not If they did then is D. Hardinges saying true If they did not then either they receiued the Sacrament at home without any CoÌ„munion at all or els they had a seuerall Communion by them selues at home If they had a seuerall Communion by them selues at home then were there two Communions one day in one parishe one in the Church of such as receiued there an other at home of such as receiued in their houses Let now M. Iewell chose whether he will graunt that they which receiued at home communicated with the other and made but one Communion with the rest which Communicated in the Church as M.D. Harding saieth and as truthe is they did or els that they in the Church made one Communion by them selues and they at home an other seuerall Communion also For so shall we haue by M. Iewells confession two CoÌ„munions in one parish vpon one day which is as much as ij Masses in one parish in one day The thinge which he stoutely denieth in an other Article If they which receiued their housel at home receiued it without a Communion at all then the priuat housell of sicke persons at home though none Communicat with them is proued by this example of the primitiue Church A Thinge coÌ„trary to the doctrine of M. Iewell and his felowe protestants in the Communion booke Harding Tertullian saieth thus Non sciet maritus quid secre to ante omnem cibum cibum gustes Et si scierit panem non illum credet este qui dicitur VVill not thy husband knowe what thou eatest secretly before al other meate And if he do knowe he will beleue it to be bread and not him who it is called Iewell The .27 Vntruthe The translation wilfully corrupted It violently turned into him Stapleton No Vntruthe at all no wilfull corruption no violent translation M. Iewel in al these wordes But rather a more distinct and euident translation the better to expresse the Authors minde For the worde illum though it be referred as you would haue it to Panem Bread yet it signifieth not materiall bread such as the baker maketh but it signifieth that bread which came downe from heauen it signifieth that Bread which geueth life to him that eateth of it This Bread is Christ him selfe It may therefore well and truly be translated not only it that is that Bread that I saye which came downe from heauen which geueth life to the receiuer thereof but also him that is Christ. For bothe come to one Whether you translate illum it that Heauenly and lifegiuing Bread or him that is Crist which is heaueÌ„ly and lifegiuing bread Thus there was no cause to note an Vntruthe but if it were to make vp a numbre or to crie vpon Wilfull corruption or Violent translating of one worde for an other Seing bothe wordes meane one thinge being truly and sincerely taken Harding He who it is saide to be of Christen people or who it is called that is our Maker and Redemer or which is the same oure Lordes bodie Iewell The 28. Vntruthe The Sacrament was neuer called our maker or Redemer by any of the olde Fathers StapletoÌ„ What then if no olde Father euer wrote so How is this an Vntruth on D. Hardinges part Doth he saie the olde Fathers called it so No Sir he saieth no such thinge But that the ChristeÌ„ people called it so And not precisely in such termes but which is the same our Lordes Body Now M. Iewell thinke you it an Vntruthe to saie that in Tertullians time Christen folcke or the olde Fathers called that bread the Bâ—dy of Christ and so consequently our Maker and Redemer Tertullian him selfe saieth of that bread Panâ—m illum Corpus suum fecit He made that Bread his Body If Christ made it so as Tertullian saieth thinke you M. Iewel it was not called so of the Christen people as D. Harding saieth But what saieth our Sauiour himselfe in the gospell Doth not he saie of that Bread which he toke in his handes which he brake and blessed This is my Body Doth he not in these wordes call it his body Thinke you M. Iewell Christen people did not so call it also If Christ so called it him selfe and Tertullian after him in expresse wordes witnessed it how is it an Vntruthe so to expounde Tertullians wordes as bothe him selfe otherwere expressely speaketh and as Christ him selfe in the ghospell pronounceth But you stande vpon these wordes Maker and Redemer Why M. Iewell What difference is there betwene Christes Body and our Maker and Redemer Is Christes Body any other then Christ him selfe Doth not Christ saie of his owne flesh to be eaten of the Christians Qui manducat me viuit propter me He that eateth me liueth thourough me If then Christen people receiuing the Body of Christ do receiue Christ him selfe if Christ him selfe be our Maker and Redemer how is this Vntrue that this most Blessed Sacrament is called of the Christen people their Maker and Redemer How the auncieÌ„â—
by the greate whore of Babylon Rome shoulde be meaned Yea yea proue this Master Iewell by the Fathers of the firste 600. yeares by the Scriptures or any generall Councell of that tyme and then we will beleue yelde and Subscribe to yow in that pointe Harding And from whence he meaneth Rome all the Churches of the VVest haue taken their light As the Bishoppes off Gallia that nowe is called Fraunce doo acknowleadge in an Epistle sent to Leo the Pope in these wordes Vnde Religionis nostrae propitio Christo Fons Origo manauit From the Apostolike See by the Mercye off Christe the Fountaine and Spring of oure Religion hathe come Iewell The 32. Vntruthe The Faithe of the West Church came not first from Rome D. Harding saieth not so muche But that the West Churche toke their Light from Rome Whereby he meaned that all the West Churches haue had from Rome thoughe not their verye Apostles and first Preachers yet whiche you your selfe Confesse in the Texte M. Iewel the Cōfirmation of Doctrine and also other great conference and comfort For all this M. Iewell is it not a light and helpe to Religion This D. Harding saiyeth the West Churches had from Rome This you confesse they had and that you saye at the beginning Why then note you D. Harding for Vntruthe in the Margin which youre selfe saieth and confesseth for Truthe in the Text But the Faithe off the VVest Church saye you adding it in the margin for a reason of the Vntruthe came not first from Rome First they toke their light though not their first faith And therfore youre Vntruthe is no Vntruthe on D. Hardinges parte But on your part how Vntrue it is you shall see First for Fraunce one of the greatest pillers of the West Churche you haue in D. Harding his wordes a Confession of the Frenche bishoppes them selues aboue xj C. yeares past that the Fountaine and Springe of their Religion came from the See Apostolike recorded in the vndoubted and Authentike workes of Leo. Therefore that you bringe to the contrarye in the text off Nathanael off Lazarus whom Christe raised and of Saturninus that they should first preache the faith in Fraunce and yet as you saye no Commission from Rome appearing whereby they shoulde be sent thither it is a Vaine Gheasse against the expresse Testimonye and Confession of the Frenche bishoppes them selues aboue vnleuen hundred yeares paste that whether by Commission from Rome by the Mouthe of those that yow name or whether by Romanes them selues or other sent from Rome and not these whiche withoute any Author or Writer M. Iewel bringeth in here vpō his Owne Credit whiche waie so euer it came I saye that from Rome it came Nowe not only Fraunce receiued their very first faithe from Rome as by the testimonye of the Frenche bishoppes them selues appeareth but many other principall countres of the Weste Churche also Our owne countre being first called Britanny and possessed of the Britons whose posterite now only remaineth in Wales receiued the faith from Eleutherius Pope of Rome about the yeare of our Lorde 156. as Venerable Bede in the history of our Church of Englande recordeth In the yeare of our Lorde 411. The Scottishmen receiued their first bishop Palladius from Celestinus then Pope of Rome as witnesseth Bede also Shortly after this time the Britains being forsaken of the Romains oppressed with the Peightes and Scottes their euill neighbours and last of all so ouerronne with the Saxons and English people sent for in to ayde them that with in lesse then ij hundred yeares all that is now called England was brought vnder the dominion of the Saxons and English people the olde Brittons beinge driuē to the straightes which they yet kepe being all heathen and infidels then to our countre of England and to vs Englishmen liuing in paganisme and idolatry that holy and blessed bishop of Rome S. Gregory directed the holy and vertuous Monke S. Augustin our Apostle who in his time conuerted Kent and Essex to the faith whose felowes and Scholers conuerted in short space all the realme of England that is all the English people to the faith of Christ. So that as the olde Brittons from Eleutherius the Schottishmen from Celestinus bothe holy Popes of Rome so we Englishmen from S. Gregory a blessed and lerned Pope also receiued not only the Light of our religion but also our very first Faith and belefe in Christ Iesus All which may furder appeare to him that will peruse the History of Venerable Bede lately sett forthe in English Not only England Fraunce and Scotland but the most part of Germany receiued euen from Rome their very first faith and knowleadg off Christ. For as Saxony had their first faith of Sergius the Pope about the yeare of our Lorde 690. so shortly after an 716. all the inwarde partes of Germany receiued the faith from Gregory the second a vertuous Pope also by the preaching of Bonifacius a Schottishman borne directed thither frō Rome Friselande in like maner conuerted to the faith by Willebrorde an English monke had him their first byshop confirmed from Rome So Norwaie by the preaching of Adrian the fourth Pope of Rome Bulgaria by Nicolaus the first Dalmatia and Sclauony all much about a time from the Church of Rome also receiued the faith Socrates writeth that the Burgunyons came to the faith of Christ perceauing by them selues 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the God of the Romains did mightely helpe such as feared him How thinke you now M. Iewell Had not D. Harding good cause to saie and truly to saye that the west Church toke their light from the Church of Rome yea and to saye that the faith of it came first from Rome which is more then D. Harding saied and yet no Vntruthe neither as the lerned do knowe Harding As touching that the Oblation of the Body and bloud of Christ done in the Masse is the Sacrifice of the Church and proper to the newe Testament 33 Commaunded by Christ to be frequented according to his Institution c. Iewell The .33 Vntruthe Christ neuer commaunded or named any such sacrifice Stapleton This Vntruthe doth but serue to make vp a number It is the same in effect with the fifte Vntruthe There it is answered There it is proued that Christ Commaunded a Sacrifice though he named none And D. Harding saieth it was Commaūded by Christ not named I referre the Reader to the next Vntruthe folowing Though M. Iewell may repete Vntruthes to make vp a number yet it is not our ease nor the profit of the Reader to repete idely one thinge being ones thouroughly proued Harding The opinion of the Fathers is that the daily and continuall Sacrifice ought 34 Daily to be Sacrificed that the death of our Lorde and the worke of our redemption might alwaies be celebrated and had in memory Iewell The .34 Vntruthe
The Fathers say not so but plainely the contrary This Vntruthe emplieth two Notorious and manifest Vntruthes on M. Iewelles part First by denying the saying of D. Harding Secondarely by auouching the contrary to be plaine in the Fathers This second point M. Iewell should not only haue auoutched but haue proued it also in his text by the testimony at the lest of some one Father Now as it is a manifest lie and can neuer be proued so no maruail if he brought nothinge for proufe thereof As touching the first point because he saieth The Fathers say not so I will now bringe him the Fathers which say so M. Iewell in denying the Fathers to saye that the Daily Sacrifice ought to be celebrated denyeth it in the externall Sacrifice done on our part For saieth he Iewell the strength and vertu of Christes Sacrifice resteth in it self and not in any diligēce or doing of oures And for proufe hereof he allegeth S. Paul to the Hebrewes That Christ Iewell hath offred vpō the crosse one sacrifice for al. Ful and perfit Therfor we nede none other One and euerlasting Therefore it nedeth no renewing By priuilege geuen to him selfe only Therefore it can not be wrought by any other These are M. Iewelles gloses vpon S. Paule These are his reasons that the Sacrifice of Christes Crosse is called the daily Sacrifice Not for that it must be renewed euery daie but for that being once done it standeth good for all daies and for euer For these are his owne very wordes It shall be now proued against him out of the fathers that not withstāding the wordes of S. Paul the Church yet offreth a Daily Sacrifice not as vpō the Crosse but the selfe same thing which was offred on the crosse nor to the derogatiō of that but for the remēbraunce of that which is the thing that D. Harding saied that the Church teacheth that Christ him self in his last Supper commaunded The Doctours expounding these wordes of S. Paule to the Hebrewes of one euerlasting Sacrifice ones done for all full and perfyt c. do make thereupon them selues a doubte of the daily Sacrifice of Christes Church How that may stande with the one Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse ones offred for all This doubt if no such Sacrifice had ben they woulde neuer haue moued If there had ben only a remembraunce of that Sacrifice by the holy Ministration as M. Iewell saieth there had ben no cause of doubte how that remembrance might stande with the one Oblatiō of Christ. For one thinge may be a thousand times remembred and yet the thinge remaine One still If none other had Offred as M. Iewell saieth but Christ Ones for all then had not the doctours neded to moue this question how Christ alone Offred Once for all and yet how the Priestes in the Church do offer daily Now the doctours do moue all these doubtes and questions which M. Iewell bringeth as a plaine and clere doctrine and do also resolue the same writing their lerned commentaries vpon S. Paule to the Hebrewes I will now bringe their owne wordes truly translated in to English First Chrysostom after he had declared according to the minde of S. Paule that the Sacrifices of the olde lawe were ofte repeted as being weake and vnsufficient to purge sinne but the Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse was a Full and Perfitte oblation for all Mankinde and therefore but Ones offred for all mouing this doubt of the Daily Sacrifice of the Church which M. Iewel denieth he sayth Quid ergo nos Nōne per singulos dies offerimus What thē do we Do we not Offer euery daie Lo M. Iewell Notwithstanding the One oblation of Christ yet we we bishops and Priestes as Chrisostom was do offer daily For it foloweth Offerimus quidē sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius We offer in dede But making that oblation for the remembraunce of his Death Lo againe M. Iewell not only a remembrāce but an oblation is made for that remembraūce But how then is it One oblation How One Sacrifice Chrisostom goeth forthe and telleth you Et vna est haec hostia non multae And this is One Hoste One Sacrifice not many Yea One Sacrifice done by vs Daily and yet One vpon the Crosse done Ones for all How can that be Chrisostom will teache vs this also For he saieth yet farder Quomodo vna est non multae Quia semel oblata est insancta sanctorum Hoc autem sacrificium exemplar est illius Id ipsum semper offerimus Nec nunc quidem alium agnum crastina alium sed semper eundem ipsum Proinde vnum est hoc Sacrificium haec ratione How is it One Hoste One Sacrifice and not many Bicause it was ones offered in to the holy of holyes But this Sacrifice which we daily offer is a paterne of that And why or how we Offer allwaies the selfe same thinge Not now One Lambe to morowe an other but euery daie the selfe same Therefore it is One Sacrifice by this reason Vnderstande you this reason M. Iewell how and why it is One Sacrifice Chrisostom saieth it is one Sacrifice bicause the Hoste that is the thinge Sacrificed the thinge Offred now is but One with that which was Offred on the crosse It is one and the self Lābe which was thē offred and which is euery daie offred What is the lābe M. Iewell that Chrisostom speaketh of but the Body and bloud of Christ This sayeth Chrisostom is One and the selfe same eundem ipsum But how doth Chrisostom proue it is One Lambe which we do offer now to morowe and euery daye He saieth in the wordes immediatly folowing Alioquin quoniam in multis locis offertur multi Christi sunt Nequaquam Sed vnus vbique est Christus hic plenus existens illic plenus Vnum corpus Sicut enim qui vbique offertur vnum Corpus est non multa Corpora ita etiam vnū sacrificium Or els bicause it is offred in many places are there many Christes Not so But there is one Christ euery where being Full and perfitt here and full and perfitt there One Body For as he which is Offred euery where is One Body and not Many Bodies so also this is One Sacrifice Lo vpon the reall presence of Christes body which is but One Chrisostom defendeth the daily Sacrifice of Christes Church to be but One and the One Sacrifice vppon the Crosse not to exclude the Daily Sacrifice of the Church which in the Hoste that is in the thing offred is One Selfe Same Sacrifice With the other but in the maner of doing bicause it is Vnbloudy it is in recordationem eius in the remēbrance of that But you M. Iewel do denie the real presence bicause you can abide no externall Sacrifice offred by vs. And you denie the externall Sacrifice bicause you will haue no reall presence Here
wordes and to the whole doctrine of the Schoolemen Alexander de Hales and Durandus whom he alleageth very sadly in this place But to be shorte I proue Transubstantiation by Scripture and by authorite of the Fathers If they teache vs grosse errours for such let it be taken The Scripture saieth Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body Which this M. Iewell Can you saie This bread is my Body You knowe Hoc this is the neuter gendre Panis Bread is the masculin Then what this This forsothe which Christ had blessed and made saying This is my Body For the saying of God is making God maketh with his worde The worde saied Let light be made and light was made The word saied This is my Body And we beleue in so saying bicause it was not so before he made it so euen then For Sine paenitentia sunt donae Dei vocatio God repeÌ„teth him not of his giftes and calling If then that which God hath saied can not be reuoked and Christ true God saied holding in his hand which before he spake was but bread that it was his Body vndoubtedly as he was true God so by saying he made it his Body Now bicause if Christes true Body were ioyned with the nature of Bread as his true Godhead was with the Nature of Fleshe then the nature of Bread should be assumpted and ioyned in one person with the body of Christ as his flesh and Humanite was ioyned in one person with his Godhead which to saie is a most wicked and blasphemous heresy therefore it must of necessite folow that the nature of Bread be vtterly changed in to the Body of Christ and not to remaine with it This if it be so then is it a clere and vndoubted TraÌ„substantiation of the whole nature of Bread in to the whole and perfit Body of Christ. Neither is it any grosse errour but a clere doctrine euidently gathered out of holy Scripture By authorite of the Fathers thus I proue Transubstantiation S. Ambrose saieth speaking of the Sacrament Forte dices Aliud video Quomodo tu mihi asseris quod Christi corpus accipiam Et hoc nobis adhuc superest vt probemus Quantis igitur vtimur exemplis vt probemus non hoc esse quod natura formauit sed quod benedictio consecrauit maioremque vim esse benedictionis quà m naturae quia benedictione etiam ipsa natura mutatur Thou saiest perhaps vnto me I see an other maner of thinge How then do you tell me that I receiue Christes body Then this yet remaineth for vs to proue And how many examples may we vse to proue that it is not that which Nature fashioned but that which the Blessing CoÌ„secrated and that the Power of Blessing ouercometh Nature bicause by Blessing euen very Nature is chaunged Thus farre S Ambrose In the Sacrament that which Nature made is bread This Nature saieth S. Ambrose is chaunged And how By Blessing Into what is it chauÌ„ged In to that which Blessing Consecrated Nowe what dothe Blessing Consecrate what is the ende of the Consecration made by Blessing What els but the Body of Christ Therefore by S. Ambrose his iudgement the nature of bread is chaunged in to the body of Christ. This is a Clere Transubstantiation by the verdit of S. Ambrose Eusebius Emissenus an other auncient and lerned Father speaketh of this chaunging of Breade in to Christes body more euidently His wordes are Inuisibilis Sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis sanguinis sui verbo suo secreta potestate conuertit ita dicens Accipite edite hoc est enim Corpus meum The inuisible Prieste Christe turneth by his worde with a secrete power the visible creatures in to the substance of his Body and Bloude saying Take and eate For this is my bodye What are here the visible Creatures turned into the Body and Bloude of Christ but the Breade and Wine whiche he toke in his handes at the last Supper What is Transubstantiation iff this be not Go nowe M. Iewell and against the holy Scripture and such lerned Fathers call it a grosse errour if ye list Truly none but grosse Capharnaites can call this Doctrine grosse which in dede is the kaye of all our Coniunction with Christ the assured warrant of oure Resurrection the continuall Miracle of the Sonne of God the most heauenly and dreadfull Mystery that Christ left to his Churche Of this moste assured Doctrine bicause Christe is no more any deade body for death shall no more preuaile ouer him it foloweth euidently that his body is not withoute Bloude M. Iewell requireth some auncient Doctour to saye so Yea truly he is full of his demaundes But when all is saied and a number of Doctours brought it nothing moueth him Touching this pointe iff either Doctours or Scripture can persuade him that Christes whole Humanite is really in the SacrameÌ„t whereof he saieth Iewell Bolde Vauntes haue ben made but was neuer yet proued Let him reade the booke lately sett foorth of our Lordes Supper and the CoÌ„futation of the Fifte Article of his Replie therein he shal finde Doctours and Scriptures abundaÌ„tly to auouche the same Wherein being ones persuaded he wil neuer aske what Doctour in expresse wordes saied that whole Christ is vnder one kinde Or iff he be so Franticke and wilful as alwayes to striue vpon Termes when the Thinge is euident yet all wel meaning folcke wil soone be persuaded that receiuing Christ really present vnder the forme of Breade they receiue not onely his blessed Flesh but Bloude also without the which the Flesh of Christ is not Wherein they shall see there is no iniury done vnto them as M. Iewel declaimeth hauing it vnder one kynde Nay rather which I beseche al good Readers to Marke M. Iewell and his felowes doth most open and cruell iniurye to al good Christen people of Englande geuing them but Bread and Wine in the Remembraunce of Christes deathe whereas the Catholike Churche beside the true Body of Christe really present vnder fourme of Breade geueth also to the people a cuppe of Wine and so geuâ—th the other kinde as muche as they do geuing no more but mere wine at their Communion table Thus if we esteme the outward formes Catholikes geue as muche If we esteme the thinge it selfe Catholikes geue the very true Body of Christ really present which Protestants geue not and Wine also no lesse then the protestants Harding Nowe concerning the outewarde formes of Breade and VVine 47 their vse is imployed in signification onely And be not off Necessite so as Grace may not be obtayned by worthy receiuing of the Sacrament vnlesse bothe kindes be Ministred Iewell The .47 Vntruthe For the Breade and Wine signifie the Body and Bloud of Christ. The whitenes the roundnesse and other outward formes signifie nothing Stapleton D. Harding saieth the outwarde formes of bread and wine
Lewde ArgumeÌ„tes such as you knowe D. Harding did neuer make then by reason persuaded him the Truthe of the Cause so haue you in this point plaied the right Hicke Scorner But please not your selfe herein to much M. Iewell Porphyrius Lucian Iulian the Apostata and Celsus haue farre passed you in this Arte though they were neuer takeÌ„ for bishops of Christes Church But to omitte all your scoffing toyes alleaged out of Innocentius Thomas Aquinas Gerson and other which they writing onely to the Lerned Deuoute Reader thought it no such childishnes as you make it to Deuise of a good and Godly vsage Causes not euill nor vngodly though not so proper and waighty to omitt those I say I wil rest vpon that Cause which Hugo Cardinalis by you alleaged reciteth Whiche is this that whereas the daily Sacrifice of Christes Churche is a Memoriall and Remembraunce of Christes death on the Crosse as it hath before out of no childishe fathers ben proued vppon good Fridaye being the daye it selfe in which our Sauiour suffred the Churche M. Iewel which you ought not to scoffe at were you a Childe of that Mother thought good that day for the better expressing of the thinge it selfe to omitt the Accustomed remembraunce thereof Whiche omitting being Rare and Singular did more liuely strike the Affection of Christen folcke then the Accustomed Solemnities woulde haue done For this cause also that daye we see the Churche withoute all pompe or Solemnitie as though it were in heauinesse and lamentation to expresse the greate sorowe and desolation off our Lady and the blessed Apostles which then at that time being the onely Churche of Christ suffred by the death of their dere Master whom they loued so tenderly and of whose Resurrection they were not then persuaded thouroughly This is M. Iewell in fewe wordes a parte of the singular mysterie whiche the Church of God vseth in omitting the daily Sacrifice on good Friday If this do not satisfie you I maruail not Animalis homo non percipit ea quae Dei sunt The Sensuall man perceiueth not those thinges which are of God Only this maye suffise to proue that this custome which D. Harding speaketh of is not as you Vntruly charge him voide off all Colour or Shewe of Truthe Harding Christ gaue no necessary Commaundement either for the one or for bothe kindes beside and without the Celebration of the Sacrifice but lefte that to the Determination of the Church Iewell The .62 Vntruthe Christes Institution perteineth as well to the people as to the priest This Vntruthe hath before at large ben answered in this very article being before noted by M. Iewell and now againe repeted to make vp a number It was before the 49. Vntruthe Harding VVe beleue stedfastly with harte and confesse openly with mouthe that vnder eache kinde the very flesh and Bloud off Christ and whole Christ him self is present in the Sacrament 63 euen as Gelasius beleued Iewell The .63 Vntruthe Gelasius neuer beleued so Stapleton How are you sure of that M. Iewell You are very bolde and peremptory in all your assertions But you proue as litle as he that saieth nothing For notwithstanding his wordes which here you alleage he beleued as al other bishoppes of Rome beleued he beleued the reall presence of Christe in the Sacrament as it is at large proued againste yow M. Iewell in the Confutation of your Apologye fol. 98. To that place I referre you for better vnderstandinge off Gelasius his belefe herein Harding VVhereas before 64. off some the Sacrament was receiued vnder one Kinde and off some vnder bothe Kindes Iewell The .64 Vntruthe No Catholike congregation euer receiued the Sacrament in one kinde D. Harding saieth not so much but that some haue so receiued it which he saied truly and proued it before in the Article abundantly Whereby your challenge is also in this pointe answered The tenour whereof was that within the compasse of .600 yeares the Communion was neuer Ministred to the people vnder One kinde Now that you adde before Openly in the Church and then againe The whole people and nowe a Catholike Congregation this ofte Altering of the Question M. Iewel is but a mere wrangling and a plaine proclaiming of your selfe Guilty For had you ben able to haue auouched your first assertion you would neuer haue added so many newe Conditions vnto it And had not D. Harding vtterly ouerthrowen the same you woulde not haue sought such shamelesse shiftes as to make a newe Question of the whole matter and to require a proofe of that which you had not yet denied and whiche D. Harding vnlesse he had had the Sprit of prophecye to foresee these your alterations and extensions of the question was in no wise bounde to proue But M. Iewell to knitt vp this mattter to let passe your slaunderous charging of D. Harding with so many Vntruthes and not one yet found to be such finally to speake one worde shortly of this whole matter thus you shall vnderstande It hath sufficieÌ„tly appeared both by the treatise of D. Hardinge and by the Iustifiyng of these Vntruthes that the InstitutioÌ„ of Christ in the last Supper bindeth not all laye personnes or other to communicat vnder both kindes Also that within the space of the first 600. yeares thâ— Church of God of that tyme ministred vnto diuerse of Gods people the blessed Sacrament vnder one kind This being so proued this de Iure and also De facto both by Right and by Practise appearing euidently now for you M. Iewel to quarel De facto alterius generis of a practise more general for you to require proofes in Churches in OpeÌ„ Assemblies in an Open Order and Vsage off the Church it is the part of a quareller and wraÌ„gler It is not the part of one that seketh vnite It is no Bishoplike demeanour no charitable dealing no ChristiaÌ„ or Catholiâ—e vsage This is a SacrameÌ„t of vnite The Church of God hath vsed it bothe waies and hath by that double vsage interpreted vs the meaning of Christes institutioÌ„ touching the people to be indiffereÌ„t For we beleue M. Iewell and let this be the ende of al that the knowen Church of Christ not only of the first 600. yeares but also of these later 900. yeares is and hath ben alwaies so guided and preserued of almighty God according to the Clere Promises of God in the psalmes the prophets and the ghospel that neither in Doctrine of faith neither in Practise of seruing him it caÌ„ or hath at any time swarued much lesse broken his owne InstitutioÌ„ and ordonaÌ„ce in so weighty and daily a matter as the Ministration of his holy SacrameÌ„tes is This is our faith grounded vpoÌ„ holy Scripture and the worde of God By thiâ— faith we beleue and doo as the church beleueth and doth though we had no one testimonie of the ancieÌ„t primitiue Church to coÌ„firme and witnesse the
as S. August in saieth and in S. Augustins owne wordes These three Vntruthes M. Iewell hath made againe vpon the wordes of D. Hardinge Iewell Now let vs resolue bothe S. Augustines and Iustinians wordes into their causes which is an infallible waye of vnderstanding StapletoÌ„ This way is very well to be liked if it be done truly and clerckly Let vs see Iewell The ende of them bothe is according to the doctrine of S. Paul that people may saie Amen Stapleton S. Augustin speaketh of no such matter in all his wordes that haue bene hitherto alleaged This is therefore one Vntruthe Yet be it the ende of Iustinians Constitution was suche Procede M. Iewell Iewell Then further the people must answer Amen vnto the prayer You shoulde haue added or els one that supplied the Roome of of the people For so runne the wordes of S. Paule If you will grounde vpon scripture diminish not the worde of the Lord M. Iewell Then must they vnderstande the praier Here your ResolutioÌ„ faileth you And that for .ij. Causes For it is sufficieÌ„t that one do answer for the whole people and theÌ„ he only hath nede to vnderstande it and not the people Againe the people may answer though they vnderstande not without the breache of S. Paules doctrine And to proue the possibilite hereof we haue the Confessed Practise of the vniuersall Churche these 900. yeres We haue also the practise of the first 600. yeres At what time the Seruice was only in Greke and Latin as it shall in the next Vntruthe appeare and yet sundry Nations vnderstode not at that time the very Greke and Latin This therefore is a very weake and false proceding of M. Iewell in auouching that thinge the contrary whereof is by such an vniuersall practise of Christes Churche proued and iustified For euery good Resolution M. Iewell proceding from the causes to the effectes as this your Resolution would seme to doe ought to procede A Causis per se proximis from proper causes and those the nearest not of bastarde surmised causes and those farre sought As you do heare M. Iewell For when you inferre The people must answer Amen Ergo they must vnderstande the praier making the vnderstanding of the people to folowe necessarely of the answering Amen you make a Fallax of Non causa pro causa For as I sayd the people may and haue these many huÌ„dred yeres answered Amen to the priest though they vnderstaÌ„de not the priest But the cause why the people must answer Amen is as S. Augustin and S. Cyprian hath tolde you M. Iewell partly to geue their consent to Gods Minister partly thereby to lifte vp their hartes to God and to praie with him Thus therefore as one linke of a chayne being broken all that foloweth falleth of and will hange no more together so your resolution fayling here in the middest that which you drawe after must nedes dragge behinde and come shorte of the whole purpose Howbeit M. Iewell limpeth on as well as he maye and saieth Iewell Yet further The people must vnderstande the praier then must the priest vtter the same bothe with a loude voice and also in the vulgar tounge Stapleton This Conclusion falleth downe right It was broken of before quite in the middest Therefore it hangeth very loosely Euery Childe maye see thourough it Iewell Let vs againe resolue it forewarde Stapleton You see hitherto M. Iewel hath wrought backewarde and therefore no maruaill if all his worke came to nought Nowe he saieth he will worke the matter forewarde Iewell The priest by M. Hardinges Iudgement maye praie openly in a straunge tounge then nedeth he not to speake alowde Yes forsothe the priest must speake alowde significandae mentis suae causa to signifie his owne minde as S. Augustine saieâ—h Which is as S. Augustin expoundeth that men may heare him and by the sounde of his voice be put in remeÌ„braunce bothe to geue their coÌ„sent and also to lifte vp their hartes to God and to praie with him All which maye be done though the priest do praie in a straunge tounge I saye straunge that is not Vulgar For the Latin tounge in that respect as it is no Vulgar tonge is to the Vulgar people a straunge tounge Yet to the Latin Churche in an other respect it is no straunge tounge But that is straunge to the latin Churche which in the latin Churche was neuer vsed As is in dede all Seruice in the vulgar tounge beside greke in the greke Churche and latin in the Latin Church For this is so strauÌ„ge a thinge that these xv C. yeres in the Church of Christ it was neuer vsed but vpon special priuilege and that in this later age As it shal in the next Vntruthe appeare Thus the priest must speake aloude and his so speaking shal not be frutelesse though he praie in a straunge that is in an vnknowen tounge to the Vulgar people And thus M. Iewelles Resolution faltreth and shaketh euen at the beginninge Iewell He speaketh not alowde then caÌ„ not the people vnderstaÌ„de him The people vnderstandeth not the priest then can they not saâ—e Amen Thus M. Hardinge must nedes conclude his glose with the open breache of S. Paules doctrine The people may answer Amen as farre as S. Paule requireth them though they vnderstande not the Priest S. Paule requireth not the whole people so to answer but qui supplet locuÌ„ idioâ—ae Him that supplieth the roome of the ignoraÌ„t Againe to answer Amen requireth not an Vnderstanding of the wordes which the Priest speaketh but it requireth a CoÌ„sent to the wordes spoken a lifting vp of the harte at the wordes spoken and a praying with the priest so speaking It is not to be doubted but the whole vniuersall Churche of Christ these many hundred yeres vnderstoode the wordes of S. Paule as well M. Iewell dothe And it is not D. Hardinges glose but the continuall practise of the vniuersall Churche which concludeth with the open breache of S. Paules doctrine if to haue the Seruice in a tounge vnknowen to the common people be a breache of S. Paules doctrine And thus M. Iewelles Resolution bothe backewarde and forwarde faltring and fayling in the very beginning falleth downe right in the ende and proueth his purpose nothinge Beside that in the whole drifte thereof he rangeth cleane wide from the wordes of S. Augustin and Iustinian whose wordes he saied he woulde resolue into their causes For neither S. Augustin nor Iustinian speaketh any one worde that the people ought to vnderstande the Seruice But bothe do saie that the priest ought to speake alowde The cause why out of S. Augustin yon haue hearde allready Iustinian also geueth the same whose wordes are these as M. Iewell him selfe alleageth them VVe commaunde all bishoppes and priestes to Minister the holy Oblation and the praier at the Holy baptisme not vnder silence but with such voice as may be
This common tounge he that vnderstode not was called Idiota the ignorant saieth Sedulius Vpon this distinction of straunge tounges it is euident that though the Apostle by the waye off an example blameth the blessing at Common prayer made in a straunge tounge that yet he meaneth not by that straunge tounge that whiche is the Common lerned tounge of the Churche and whiche he that supplieth the roome of the ignorant is acquaynted with all though it be a tounge of the ignorant him selfe not vnderstanded but that he meaneth therby such a straunge tounge as was vsed by the miraculous gifte of speaking withe tounges and whiche was so straunge that neither the ignorant nor he that supplied the roome of the ignorant vnderstode yea and the whiche the Minister or priest him selfe vnderstode not Therefore Chrysostome saieth If thou geue thankes in a straunge tounge which nâ—ither thou doest vnderstande thy selfe nor doest interpret vnto other suche was not the Common lerned tounge whiche euerye Minister in the Apostles time vnderstode right well subijcere Amen plebis non potest He that is of the people can not awnswere Amen and when thou saiest secula seculorum which is the end of the praier he that heareth thee will not saye Amen For why Thou talkest in a tounge vtterly straunge whiche thy selfe vnderstandest not This was not the Common lerned tounge which bothe then and now euery priest vnderstandeth but it was a straunge tonge vsed by the miraculous gifte of the holy Ghoste To awnswer therfore shortly to the obiection made I saie The Chiefe disputation of the Apostle in that Chapter is not of straunge tounges vsed at the Oblation and praier but at the Sermons and preaching Therfore his disputation in that place toucheth nothing the Seruice of Christes Churche now vsed in the Common lerned tounge Secondarely the Apostle though he speaketh by the waye of an example of the Common praier vsed in a straunge tounge yet he meaneth that straunge tounge whiche was vsed by the waye of miracâ—â—ous gifte he meaneth not the Common lerned tounge which to him that supplieth the roome of the ignorant whose duty it is to awnswer Amen is not straunge though to the ignorant him selfe it be perhappes straunge that is not vtterly vnknowen but not distinctly vnderstanded The thirde awnswere maye be that the same blessing in Spirit in a straunge tounge whiche the Apostle by the waye of example bringeth in though it was done in the CoÌ„mon praier yet that blessing was no parte of the Common praier sett in bookes and ordinarely vsed as we haue it nowe and as in Chrysostomes time they had it but it was a blessing or thankes geuing that some one of the Congregation vsed vpon the soden being moued and stirred thereunto by the Spirit as we haue before out of Chrysostome proued at large By all this it maye appeare that this fourtenth Chapter of the firste to the Corinthians as of M. Iewell and all his felowes not onely vnfittely but very grossely and ignorantly applied to proue their Vulgar Seruice What will they saie if it maye nowe be proued out of Saint Paule that in the publicque praiers of the Church as no strange tounge is to be vsed which he that praieth or he that in stede of the ignorant dothe answer can not vnderstande so also no mere Vulgar tounge must be vsed Let vs consider the rest of Saint Paules comparisons and examples in this place of the whiche Bâ—nedicere Spiritu to blesse or praie openlye in Spirit that is in a straunge miraculous tounge is one The musicall instrument must haue a certain and proper time But for whose sake Forsothe only for his whiche hath skill in that arte to whom euery light discorde is a great anoying The Trumpet geueth out a certaine propre and distincte sounde But to whom To the souldyar which is acquaynted therwith and who hathe lerned to guide him selfe thereafter To other men the sounde of it signifieth nothing Againe if I speake or talke priuatly with one I must speake to an English man in English to a Frenche man in Frenche and so forthe If my talke be to a Frenche man though all that stande about be English and vnderstande onely Englishe yet I will speake Frenche only bicause my talke is to none but to him Fourthly if I praie priuatly to my selfe and will praie mente in the minde my wordes muste be suche that I my selfe maye vnderstande And then if I vnderstande Greke Frenche or Latine I maye praye in Greke Frenche or Latine though an other perhaps shoulde not vnderstande that praier For why I praie in this case by my selfe alone Laste of all to come to the last comparison which the Apostle vseth of publike praier if I blesse or geue thankes in the publike Seruice I must be vnderstanded But of whom Of all the people That is not necessary But of him or them whiche ought to make answer and to whome I speake in that publike office Who is that by the worde of the Apostle Not idiota but qui supplet locum idiotae Not the ignorant suche as promiscuâ— plâ—bs common people saieth Sedulius is but it is he that supplieth the roome of the ignorant which is lerned whiche hath skill of the Common lerned tounge He muste make awnswer to him I speake in the publike praier He therfore must vnderstande me Nowe that he maye answer me and that he maye vnderstand me I nede no more to vse the Vulgar tounge then the Musicion the Trumpetter the talker or the priuat praier nede to applie his musike to blowe his trumpet to vtter his talke and to praie after suche a sorte as all other maye vnderstande and take profit by But only it suffiseth that he which supplieth the roome of the ignorant doe vnderstande me it suffiseth that I speake in the Common lerned tounge which he is acquaynted withall euen as the Musicion plaieth to please the skilfull the Trumpetter bloweth to geue warning to the souldiar and so forthe Mary to preache as I then direct my talke to the whole people so it is nccessarye that I speake in such a language as all the people maye vnderstande me And so the Churche of Christe doth and allwaies hathe done as well in the one as in the other Thus the disputation of Sainte Paule in this place not onelye helpeth nothing your Vulgar Seruice M. Iewell but I may saye to you it geueth a greate cracke thereunto Let nowe euerye indifferent Reader Iudge whether the Latine Seruice be vsed in the Latine Churche withe the breache of S. Paules Doctrine as you moste wickedly and fondle doe bable at Paules Crosse and as yowe M. Iewell in this your facing Replie doo impudently bragge and crake Iewell And yet must we vpon M. Hardinges warrant nedes beleue that all this maketh nothinge for the Englishe Seruice in the Church of England Not vpon D. Hardinges warrant but vpon the warrant off the
not of the church Seruice and noteth therefore bothe in the text and in the Margin very solemnely that D. Harding wresteth Origen hauing caste such a blott vpon him he saieth it only and proueth it nothinge But that Origen spake of the Scriptures read in the Seruice it appereth probably firste for that the Scriptures were at that time in Alexandria first read in the Seruice as lessons and after expounded by the waie of homilies and also that Origen him selfe was at that time the Common and ordinary maker of suche homilies and laste of all that these verye wordes of Origen are a parte of such an Homilie ordinarely made after the Seruice Let nowe the truthe speake whether D. Harding hathe wrested Origen or M. Iewell slaundered D. Harding Harding If all praiers made in an vnknowen tounge be a mocking of God as Beza saieth then were the praiers vttered by miracle in the primitiue Churche with tounges which the vtterers them selues vnderstode not after the minde of Chrisostome a mocking of God For I see nothinge whereby they are excluded from his 87 generall saying and vniuersall proposition Iewel The 87. Vntruthe This generall saying of Chrysostome is Vntruly reported Here M. Iewell for lacke of better game hunteth after letters and rippeth vpp syllables Vpon the terme His he woulde founde an Vntruthe him selfe construing vntruly the saying of D. Harding For D. Harding by these wordes his generall saying meant not any generall saying of Chrysostome but the generall saying of Beza whiche went but fewe lines before and is this VVhat Praiers so euer be made off any man in a tonge that he vnderstandeth not they be to be taken for a mockery of God From this generall saying off Beza M. Iewell they are not excluded saieth D. Harding which in the primitiue Church vttered the praiers with tounges which the vtterers them selues after the minde of Chrysostome vnderstoode not For euen these also by the generall saying of Beza were mockers of God This is no bishoplike demeanour M. Iewell but a childish behauiour no sadde writinge but a rascall wrangling no shewe of honesty but a mere scurrilite to fight vpon termes and quarell aboute sillables either contrary to your owne knowleadg and iudgegement or els without all iudgement with much ouersight lightnes and rashenes Harding As the Vulgar Seruice pulleth their mindes frō priuat deuotion to heare and not to praie to litle benefit of knowleadge for the obscurite of it so the Latine geuing them no such motion they occupie them selues whiles the priest praieth for all and in the person of all in their priuat prayers all for all and euery one for him selfe Iewell The 88. Vntruthe For the vulgar Seruice encreaseth deuotion as by sundrie Authorities it shall appeare Stapleton Whether vulgar Seruice encrease deuotion or plucke from deuotion it is not the Authorite of lerned men but the experience of the people that trieth it Verely in our countre the people it selfe confesseth they are much distracted from their deuotion by attending to the Minister reading the Seruice and not vnderstanding it Yea do not your owne doinges M. Iewell confesse it You haue taken order in certaine places of the realme as we certainely vnderstande that betwene your matins and the Communion there be a staye made of halfe an howre or so to thentent the people in that meane while may attende to their priuat praier and priuat deuotion Why is this order taken but bicause at Seruice time the people is distracted from priuat praier and priuat deuotion And truly herein whether the priuat deuotion of the people be not much more now distracted by harkening to there english Seruice which yet they vnderstande not alltogether then it was att the latin Seruice when they vnderstode nothing I dare to make the people itt selfe iudge thereof The reason M. Iewell why you esteme the english Seruice to encrease deuotion more then the latine is bicause you imagin for certain that the people vnderstandeth it As I will easely graunt they do sometimes vnderstande some part thereof so that they do allwaies vnderstande the whole though you would graunt yet no wise man wil graunte it and the people it selfe I dere wel say wil denie it Verely I haue hearde of a Gentleman which reading the Booke of the Statutes in english confessed he oftentimes vnderstoode not what the Statutes meaned And doubtlesse Holy Scripture iff it were not much harder then the english Statutes are so many lerned commentaries shoulde not haue ben made thereupon so many heresies had not ben grounded vpon the doubtefull interpretation thereof Brefely itt had not bene so many hundred yeares read only in the lerned tounges greke and latin The Scripture therefore being not allwaies vnderstanded though in the mother tounge no maruaill if the people be some times distracted For when the Minister readeth on still and the people Harkening thereunto knoweth not what it meaneth what shall they do Shall they harken It is to no profitt Shall they let the Seruice goe and fal to priuat praier Your order is against it whereby if any harken not to the Seruice he shall be taken for a papist Thus by your vulgar Seruice the people oftētimes either is forced to be idle or if he will be well occupied incurrech displeasure What is distraction from priuat deuotion if this be not Thoching your Authorites the saying of Chrisostom that praying together in the Church with our brethern auaileth more then when we praie alone c. maketh directly against your first protestanticall doctrine off praying vnder headges and in chambers when you should come to Churche but for common praier in a vulgar tounge itt maketh not so much as for the priuat praier of eche one praying in the Churche eche by him selue and all with the priest Lyra saying that the people answereth Amen to the priest withe more deuotion when he vnderstandeth the praier saieth truly touching the duty of answering But that according to the Doctrine of S. Paul stādeth not in the whole people but in him qui supplet locū idiotae that supplieth the roome of the ignorant which wordes M. Iewell in alleaging the whole place of S. Paul pag. 194. guilefully and fraudulently left out to make the reader beleue that the whole people was bound to answer Amen Iustinian speaketh of the lowde speaking of the prist not of the Seruice to be vnderstāded as we haue before at large declared The saying of S. Augustin how can he singe duly whiche knoweth not what he singeth pertaine euidently ad Psalmistas to such as were appointed by order of the priest to singe as we haue before declared out of the 4. Coūcel of Carthage not to al the people whose duty it was to praie in the Churche not to singe psalmes The particular application of the psalmes which are songe to our owne selues whereof S. Basill speaketh maye as well be done of deuoute people in the
Iulius and was dead 278. at the left .ix. yeres before the Canons were burnte By such Doctours M. Harding vpholdeth the state of Rome StapletoÌ„ Let vs suppose it were true that Athanasius wrote to Iulius after the deathe of Marcus of the burning of those Canons of the Councell of Nice Is it not possible that those Canons were twise burnte in two sondry Copies at two sondry times Might they not be burned first in the dayes of Marcus and then hauing of him an other Copie of the Canons as by his letters to him Athanasius required that other Copie be burned in the dayes of Iulius What Contradiction or what Impossibilite is there in this matter Or howe is M. Iewell euer able to proue that suche Canons were not burnte before the time of Iulius Certainely the heresy of the Arrians troubled the Churche of Alexandria where those Canons were burnte before the dayes of Pope Iulius and Athanasius was banished in the reigne of Constantin the Greate by the meanes of the Arrians Eusebius Theognis Maris and other hauing greuous and sondry accusatyons layed against him It is not impossible nor incredible that those which founde the meanes to banishe the Bishop were also able to spoyle his library and to burne his bookes especially those Canons wherein their wicked heresy was with most waighty Authorite condemned Considered also that in the Canons nowe extant of that Generall Councell of Nice there is no one worde nor halfe worde against the Arrian heresy against the which yet that Councell was principally and chiefly assembled Thus though it were true that the Canons were burnte in the time of Iulius and that Athanasius wrote thereof vnto Iulius as M. Iewell vntruly saieth he did yet were not Athanasius theâ—fore a forgetfull lyar impudent or carelesse what he saye as it pleaseth the graue head of M. Iewell to call him but bothe sayinges might right well be true and stande together the troublous estate of the Churche of Alexandria considered as well in the dayes of Marcus Constantin yet liuyng as of Iulius in the reigne of Constantius his Son But nowe seing Athanasius writeth no suche thinge of these Canons to Iulius at the lest in the place by M. Iewell alleaged how forgetfull of his lyes how impudent is M. Iewell and howe carelesse what he saie or what he write And who will truste M. Iewell in doubtefull matters which thus deceaueth vs in plaine thinges What is Impudency if this be not For as I tolde you before M. Iewell Athanasius in his epistle Ad Orthodoxos written in the time of Iulius successour of Marcus hath no one worde of the Canons of that Councell of Nice You reporte him vntruly You deceiue your Reader Or els you were deceiued by some other whose eyes not your owne it maye seme yowe vsed in this matter For Reade the Epistle M. Iewell And if Athanasius write any one worde of the Canons of the Councell of Nice in all that Epistle let me neuer be taken for Christen man more He saieth in that Epistle Ecclesiis baptisteriis flammae iniectae Fyre was caste vpon the Churches and vpon the fountes And againe Sacros Scripturarum libros quos in Ecclesiis inueniebant comburere That the heathen and infidels burned the bookes of holye Scripture such as they founde in the Churches Of any other burning or of the Canons of the Nicene Councell there is not one worde nor halfe worde By suche Impudent Vntruthes M. Iewell will deface and bringe out of credit the wrytinges of the olde Fathers Nowe whereas you saie farder that Marcus which was bishop of Rome before Iulius was dead at the lest ix yeres before the Canons were burnte if it were true that in the time of Iulius those Canons were burnt yet it will ill folowe that it was jx yeares after the deathe of Marcus For by the best and moste exacte accomptes of Chronographers euen of Henricus PantaleoÌ„ of Basill this Marcus was Pope but two yeres and 8. moneths Which accompte is founde first in Damasus and after in Platina and diuers other The Arrians therefore committing those outrages and spoyles aboue named in Alexandria aboute the beginning of Pope Iulius in the dayes of Constantius if they had at that time also burned the Canons of the Nicene Councell whiche yet Athanasius sayed not it woulde well lacke the better halfe of jx yeres after the deathe of Marcus that those Canons were burnte Yet you adde before to proue that in the dayes of Iulius the Canons were burnte Which obseruation of time appeareth also by Socrates in his storie Iewell Yow quote in the margin of this place Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 14. Nowe verely what obseruation you can picke out of this place touching the burning of those Canons the Reader shall see and Iudge Bicause the Chapter is but shorte I will alleage the whole as it lyeth Thus lye the wordes of Socrates Aboute this time the Arrians remoued Gregory their Arrian bishopp from Alexandria as one odyous to the people bothe for the burning of a Churche and also for that he was not earnest enough in defence of their opinion And in his roome they placed George who came then from Cappadocia one that helde the doctrine of their religion This is the whole .14 Chapter of Socrates in that second booke Of the Canons of Nice he speaketh no one worde Of a Churche burned he speaketh But what Thinketh M. Iewell that the Canons of Nice were there burnte In dede such lewde Gheasses are mete to mayntayne such a lying Religion as M. Iewell defendeth But neither Socrates in any other place neither Ruffinus nor Theodoret nor Sozomenus all writing of this Arrian bishop Gregory and of his deposing do make any mention of such Canons burnte in his time Only Sozomenus openeth a litle more this matter and declareth more then any of all the other dothe what Churche and what burning that was for the which this Gregory was of his owne felowes depriued For first of the Churche whiche was burned thus he writeth Gregorius sedem Alexandrinam inuasit Quod populus molesté ferens ecclesiam quam Dyonisij vocant qui episcopus illic fuerat incendunt Gregory inuaded the See of Alexandria Whiche thinge the people taking greuously they sett a fire a Câ—urche called by the name of Denys who had sometime bene biâ—hop there This was the Churche which was burned by the intruding of that Arrian bishop and for the which also he was afterwarde partly depriued For of his depriuation thus the same Sozomenus writeth in the same booke Interca Arriani dogmaâ—is fautores c. In the meane while the Arrians remoued Gregory their bishop as being but negligent in establishyng their doctrine and one much hated of the Cytyzens of Alexandria by reason of the mischiefs that happened to the Cyte at his entring in and the burning of a Churche This is all that is writen of these ecclesiasticall writers
Father so to debace his saying and much more villany to this holy Scripture so to racke it and wreste it Iewell For an other example of your lewde wresting of holy Scriptures M. Iewell let vs consider what Scripture you bringe to proue that Christ lefte no Vniuersall Vicaire ouer his Churche Thus you saie Other Vniuersall Vicaire of Christ there is none in the Scriptures onlesse it be he of whom S. Paule forewarneâ—h vâ— Homo ille sâ—eleratus filius perditus c. That wicked man that Childe of perdition that setteth him selfe vp against God and that so farre forthe that he will sitte in the Temple of God and shewe him selfe as if he were God But this Vicaire Christ shal destroie with the spirite of his mouthe Stapleton It had ben enoughe M. Iewell for the younge Iannizzers of your Secte thus to talke You that beare your selfe for a Bassa amonge them shoulde nowe leaue suche grosse shiftes to other that haue yet lerned no farder This place of S. Paule hath in dede semed a gaye place to a number of your faction to proue the Pope an Antichrist Yea and a lerned man forsothe of the brotherhod of Zurich hath made a booke only of that Argument whereof this place is bothe the beginning and chiefe foundation Which booke also hath bene set forthe in english and is I trowe not a litle estemed of a greate many But Gods name be blissed Though your gaie glistering Inuentyons dafeled the eyes of a greate many at the first you stealing vpon vs in our deade slepe and ouermuche reste yet nowe we being waked with your heresies and stirred vp to a nerer consideration of matters by you called in doubte we haue thanked be God easely discouered the vanite of them For as touching this place of S. Paule the very text laied forthe and considered openeth your lewde and wrested interpretation thereof and sheweth to the eye that it procedeth vtterly either of grosse ignorance or els of wilfull Malice S. Paule saieth thus VVe beseche you brethern by the coming of our Lorde Iesus Christ and of our meeting with him that you be not lightly caried awaye from your vnderstanding nor conceiue any feare either by reuelation of Spirit or by worde of mouthe or by any letter as sent from vs that the daye of the Lorde should be at hande Let noman deceiue you in any wise For vnlesse the defection come first and that wicked man be reueled that Childe of perdition that setteth him selfe vp against God and is exalted aboue all that is called God or that is worshipped so that be sâ—â—â—eth in the temple of God shewing him selfe as God Remembre you not that when I was yet with you I tolde you of these matters And nowe what doth staye it you knowe that it may be reueled in dewe time For the mystery of iniquite worketh euen nowe only that he which holdeth nowe maye holde vntill it be out of the waye And then that wicked man shall be reueled whom our Lorde Iesus shal kil with the Spirit of his mâ—uthe and destroye him in the brightnes of his coming Him I saie whose coming is in all power in Signes and false miracles by the working of the diuel Thus farre the Apostle All this to be spoken of Antichrist most men do agree S. Ambrose is expressely of that minde And so woulde you also and your felowes M. Iewell haue it to be meante Herein therefore we vary not But who is nowe this Antichrist that shall come that shall worke such false miracles that shall proclaime him selfe God and that shall at length be destroyed at the glorious coming of our Sauiour It is the Pope saye you It is he that beareth him selfe for the Vniuersall Vicaire of Christ. Answer then M. Iewell to these fewe reasons which I bringe to the Contrary First this Antichrist is but one Person he hath no Succession on CoÌ„tinuance Therefore the Apostle speaketh of One wicked man and of One Childe of perdition The Pope in this Vniuersall Supremacy hath had a Continuance and Succession of many hundred yeres euen from the time of S. Gregory at the lest who practised such Authorite of Vniuersal vicaire through out all Christendom as hath bene before particulary declared Therefore the Pope can not be the Antichrist that S. Paule speaketh of Againe before this Antichrist come there must as S. Paule saieth a defection come first This defection S. Ambrose expoundeth to be of the Romaine Empire That is when the Romaine Empire is vtterly lost and gone then or shortly after at the lest not before the Antichrist shall be reueled The Romaine Empire standeth yet and without an Emperour descending from the first Romain Emperour the Churche hath not yet bene at any time Therefore this Antichrist is not yet come And so it can not be the Pope that came so many a daye a goe Thirdly that wicked man must be reueled saieth the Apostle Shewe then M. Iewell when that was That is When this Anchrist the Pope beganne to plaie the Antichrist What Pope it was When he liued and howe he was reueled This can not be shewen therefore the Pope can not be he Fourthly he shal shewe him selfe as God and shall be exalted aboue al that is called God or worshipped for God Such honour was neuer practised by any Pope geueÌ„ to any Pope or so much as attempted or coueted of any Pope Therefore he can not be that Antichrist that the Apostle speaketh of Fiftely this Antichrist shal worke signes and miracles by the diuell The first Pope that practised this vniuersall vicaireship whom so euer you name M. Iewel whither it be Zosimus S. Gregory Leo or Bonifacius the 8. you can shewe no such false miracles wrought Therefore the Pope is nott this Antichrist Sixtely this Antichrist shall be destroyed at Christes coming The first Antichrist of the Popes if any such were haue not bene so destroyed Therefore no Pope hath bene that Antichrist Or thus Therefore that Antichrist is not yet come whom Christ shall so destroye Last of all this Antichrist if the Pope be he hath Gouerned and Ruled the vniuersall Churche of Christ these thousand yeres and vpwarde The whole Church hath folowed his Doctrine hath obserued his Decrees hath obeyed his Authorite But that the vniuersall Church of Christ shoulde be guided by an Antichrist in such a CoÌ„tinuance of time yea at any time at al it is expresse contrary to Gods promises in the Prophets in the Psalmes and in the ghospell as I haue otherwhere at large proued Therefore it is by no meanes possible that the Pope shoulde be Antichrist Yea it is a most hainous and horrible blasphemy so to thinke teache or write So well and truly so godly and clerckly hath M. Iewell applied this place of holy Scripture Nowe to an other Iewell M. Hardinge saieth The See of Rome can neuer faile in Faithe For Christ saied vnto Peter I haue praied
of bishops one in Italy an other in Fraunce which last was more then nede as S. Augustin expressely saieth only to stoppe if it were possible their outragions clamours and seditious complaintes as he at the lenght was content to heare their matter him selfe after the Iudgement of so many bishops whereof he woulde afterwarde aske them pardon as hauing in dede passed therein the boundes of his Iurisdiction as this good Emperour I saie did all this not as by lawfull Authoryte but as yelding to the Donatistes vnruly appetit so that you also M. Iewell woulde ones yelde to the Truthe that you woulde no more bringe this and such like examples deceiued herein vndoubtedly by the writers of Germany especially those of Magdeburge for the Authorite of Ciuill Princes in Causes ecclesiastical whereas by the clere verdit of S. Ambrose neither by practise of the Churche neither by the doctrine of holy Scriptures Emperours did euer Iudge ouer bishops in matters of the Faithe And thus I leaue your example of Donatus whose example beside caÌ„ make no lawe he being an heretike and for mayntenaunce of his heresy seeking all helpe and succour by right and by wronge by order and beside order by meanes good and badde Nowe to that which foloweth Iewell Therefore the Emperour Constantius summoned the Bishops of the East that had bene in the CouÌ„cel of Tyrus to appeare before him and to rendre accompte of their doinges His wordes be these I will you to make your appearaunce and to shewe in dede howe sincerely and iustly ye haue delte and that euen before me StapletoÌ„ Howe this was done and vpon what occasion and in what a cause and what ensewed thereof I haue declared To that place I remit the Reader Let vs nowe consider your Conclusion Iewell By these fewe examples it may well appeare that Appeales in ecclesiasticall causes in these daies were made vnto the Prince and that it was thought lawefull then for the Prince to haue the hearing of the same Yet was not the Prince therefore the head of the Vniuersall Churche Your examples haue bene but two And bothe of one Emperour and Prince Constantin by name And with what conscience he toke vpon him to Iudge of matters decided before by bishops you haue heard S. Augustin tell you M. Iewell He did the first to pacifie those outregious Donatistes and â—he asked pardon thereof afterwarde of the bishoppes He did the latter to pacifie likewise the Arrians and in a matter not mere ecclesiasticall as hath before bene declared Of the Issue whereof he repented him at lenght also These be your examples M. Iewel that in the time of so many Christen Emperours and Princes you haue chosen out as most worthy and especiall One more you recite euen after your ConclusioÌ„ made which is this Iewell Certainely S. Gregorie thought it not amisse to committe a Spiritual matter touching the purgation of a bishop to Brunichiâ—da thâ— Frenche Quene Notwithstanding it be noted thus in the glose Fuit tamen 〈◊〉 nimâ—â—m papaliter dispâ—nsatum Stapleton S. Gregory committed a Spiritual Matter to the Quene of Fraunce Ergo Appeales may be made to the laye Prince Thus M. Iewelles reason procedeth But doth not the CoÌ„trary directly Conclude The Pope committed a Spiritual matter to the laye Prince Ergo the laye Prince was but the Popes Commissioner Verely the Commissioner is euer Inferiour to him that geueth forthe the Commission And thus M. Iewelles reason ronneth roundely against him As touching this Commission S. Gregory had a reason for his so doing But what his minde was for any Appeale to be made to Ciuill Princes in Ecclesiasticall matters or for their intermedling there withall it may appere well bothe by the vniuersall Supremacy that he practised ouer all Christendome as hath before bene declared and also by these wordes of his to Mauritius the Emperour Sacerdotibus autem non extrema potestate dominus noster citius indignetur sed excellenti consideratione propter eum cuius serui sunt eis ita dominetur vt etiam debitam reuerentian impendat Let not my Soueraine for his worldly power conceiue quicke Indignation against the priestes but by a worthy and Princely consideration for his sake whose seruauÌ„tes they are let him se rule ouer them that yet he yelde them also dewe and Bounden Reuerence Of this matter howe in Spirituall causes the Christian Princes are subiecte to their spirituall Pastours and bisshoppes I haue otherwhere out of S. Augustin S. Ambrose and Gregory Nazianzen ye out of Caluin him selfe and the right or Zelous LutheraÌ„s of Germany Illyricus and his felowes declared But bicause M. Iewell putteth it here for a principale that Princes receaued Appeales in Causes ecclesiasticall and all his examples haue failed him let vs consider what may be farder yet brought to the Contrary Athanasius that lerned Father saieth of the Arrians Qua fronte comentum Synodi appellare audent Cui Comes praecedit Howe dare they call that an assembly of a Synode where the Princes Officier was president And in an other place he saieth Quando a condito aeuo audituÌ„ est quód iudiâ—ium Ecclesiae authoritatem suam ab Imperatore accepit aut quando hoc pro iudicio agnitum est When was it euer heard that an Ecclesiasticall Iudgement toke his Authorite of the Emperour Or when was that taken for any Iudgement Beholde M. Iewell howe contrary this is to your Appeales to Ciuil Princes in Causes ecclesiasticall Yet beholde an other The Fathers of the Millenitane Councel in Africa whose Authorite so ofte and so gredely you haue alleaged decreed in this sorte Placuit vt quicunque ab Imperrtore cognitionem Iudiciorum publicorum petierit honore proprio priuetur Si autem Episcopale iudicium ab Imperatore postulauerit nihil ei obsit It hath semed good vnto vs that if any sue to the Emperour to haue him heare and determine publike Iudgementes that he be depriued therefore of his dignite But if he require of the Emperour a Iudgement of bishopps it shalll not hurte him Semblably to these holy Fathers the bishops in the CouÌ„cell of Aquileia dealed For whereas Palsadius the heretike required the laye men of worship to come in to the Councell and to heare the matters debated saying Sunt hic honorati multi Here be many men of worship S. Ambrose one of the lerned bishops of that Councell saied Sacerdotes de laicis iudicare debent non laici de sacerdotibus Priestes ought to Iudge of the laye not the laye of the Priestes And bicause that heretike Palladius persisted yet in his request that the laye men off worship shoulde enter and be a parte of the Councell S. Ambrose without any farder busynes pronounced out of hande the Sentence against him whiche the whole Councell folowed in these wordes Though Palladius hath bene taken in many faultes yâ—t this mâ—kâ—th vs ashamed that he which goeth for a Priest shoulde seme to
bothe parties StapletoÌ„ Phy on heresy phy vpon wilfull blindnesse One desperat Acte of One furious heretike Donatus by name must serue M. Iewell to builde Three Greate Conclusions and Principles vpon Donatus did all this But the Emperour called it Rabidamfurioris Audaciam A desperat Rage and Fury M. Iewell calleth it a Lawfull Appeale After the bishop of Romes Iudgement the Emperour graunted to Donatus yet an other S. Angustin saieth Non quia iam necâ—sse erat sed eorum peruersitatibus cedens omnimodo cupiens tantam impudentiam cohibere Not bicause that was nedefull but bicause that the good Emperour yelded to their extreme frowardnesse and desired by al meanes to ouercome their passing outragyousnesse M. Iewell buildeth vpon this fact a Principle that all men might lawfully Appeale from the Pope to the Emperour Constantin satt in Iudgement and heard bothe parties him self S. Augustin saieth A SaÌ„ctis Antistibus postea veniam petiturus Minding to aske pardoÌ„ therfor afterward of the holy bishops M. Iewel saith it was well and Lawfully done and so it should be And this is he forsoth which wil yelde to any One SenteÌ„ce of any One Father or Doctour in a nuÌ„ber of Articles O M. Iewel If you meane plainly if you will in dede yelde to the Fathers why make you a grounde of Doctrine vpon such a facte as by their Iudgement is so detested and abhorred You offred your Reader a Feast of three faire dishes But all is moued to a Calues tounge diuersly dreste All is the desperat fact of one outragyous heretike Your Arte is good But Alas you wâ—nte Matter For beholde Of so weake proufe what a stronge Conclusion you make Iewell Nowe if receiuing Appeales necessarely importe this Vniuersall Power then was the Emperours powre Vniuersall For he receiued All appeales out of all Countres vvithout exception and that euen in Causes ecclesiasticall Loe. Of one desperat facte Of One Rabida furoris Audacia One presumptuous fury M. Iewell concludeth All Appeales out of all Countres vvithout exception I can saye no more But a whetston a whetston for you Iewell Againe then was the bishop of Romes power not Vniuersall for it was lawfull then to refuse him and to Appeale to some other Lese nothinge I pray you Conclude apase and as mightely as you can What M Iewell Thinke you to outface vs with ioyly bragges and greate vauntes as if ye were playing at poste and shoulde winne all by vyeing No M. Iewell You maye not so dor vs. Your single solde facte of One desperat heretike maye not conclude a Threefolde Principle and an Vniuersall Proufe for all Catholikes to folowe If you like such presidents folowe them we like them not we defye them They are the enemies of Gods peace the Cancre of Christen common welthes the poyson of our soules We haue better presidents lerned Fathers Catholike bishops and holy Councels to folowe bothe in making Appeales to Rome and in refusing of all Appeales to the Ciuill magistrat as it hath in this Conflict at large bene proued Nowe you make an ende Iewell And this M. Hardinges reasons renne roundely against him Thus M. Iewelles proufes haue all failed him His threefolde Assaulte in Conclusion hath proued but single solde Hitherto of Appeales from the chiefest Patriarkes of the worlde to the See of Rome whereby the Superiorite and Primacy of that See ouer all Churches is vnuincibly proued All that M. Iewell coulde possibly deuise to saie against it is answered I trust sufficiently God graunte my small labour may edifye and helpe to bringe vs to the dewe Obedience of Christes vicair here on earthe without the which we shall neuer see ende of heresyes schismes and dissension Harding The speciall grace and singular priuilege of the Churche of Rome neuer to faile in the faithe is to be imputed vnto the praier of Christ by which he obteined of God for Peter and his successours 108 that their faith shoulde not faile Iewell The .108 Vntruthe For many Popes haue erred faithe as shal appeare Then it behoueth vs to answer to the reasons and argumentes by which you will persuade that it will so appeare First you alleage three places out of the prophets wickedly and notoriously wrested and wrethed as it hath before bene declared in the 105. Vntruthe where you drawe vs to this common place of holy scriptures by you wrested and wrethed from their due and right meaning And truly to this purpose they make nothinge Vnlesse M. Iewell will frame his reasons after this sorte Micheas saied that the priestes and Prophetes being wicked rested them selues vpon the Lorde Hieremy saieth of the priestes and of the elders that they had a confidence in their Councell and lawe as though it shoulde neuer faile Item Micheas againe saieth that the priestes of the Iewes should haue night and darkenesse in stede of their visions and prophecies Ergo many Popes haue erred in the faithe Who euer made any such argumentes in any schole what will M. Iewell make folcke beleue that Micheas and Hieremy the prophets haue writen in their prophecies that many Popes haue erred in the saithe Iewell Or doth M. Iewell thinke that these reasons must be taken bicause he speaketh the worde But he will saie Micheas an hieremy do tell vs that the priestes did amisse and yet craked that they coulde not be deceiued We denie it not But did they speake any thinge of the Popes of Rome did they testifie so longe before that they should erre in the faithe why maie we not thinke rather that Micheas rebuked the proude priestes and foretolde of the fall of their Synagoge and of their blindnesse they should be in at the coming of the Messias And that Hieremy rebuked their vices not their belefe their conspiracy to destroye him as he did in dede not any Councell of theirs touching the obseruation of Moyses lawes Thus M. Iewell wresteth and wretheth holy Scripture at his preasure Iewell Certainely the very glose vpon the decretalles putteth this Matter vtterly out of doubte These be the wordes It is certaine that the pope may erre And Alphonsus saieth Euery man may erre in the faith yea although it be the Pope StapletoÌ„ You knowe well M. Iewell it is not auouched by D. Hardinge neither defended by the Catholikes that the Pope in his owne person and as a priuat man can not possibly erre For so we saie with the decretalles and with Alphonsus to that the Pope may erre and hath erred bothe in faithe and in maners touching his owne priuat person But the thinge which is here auouched by D. Harding and which is by vs defended is that the Pope as the Head of the Churche can neuer erre that is he can neuer decree any thinge erroneous or contrary to the faythe he can neuer deliuer any false doctrine to the Churche contrary to the faithe You knowe M. Iewell by the debating of this controuersie amonge the
slaunderous lie He helde opinion and that before he was Pope that the soules of the iust see not God vntill the daye of Iudgement This opinion was holden of diuers lerned men as of Ireneus Chrysostom and S. Bernarde before the matter was defined to the contrary and yet were not accompted therefore heretikes Neither did Pope Iohn euer decree that matter but before he coulde bringe it to passe was preuented by deathe But if that opinion M. Iewel be a wicked heresy touching the immortalite of the soule how many your brethern do preache at this day a wicked heresy in our countre while they preache openly that the soule slepeth vntill the daye off general Iudgement That is a wicked heresy in dede M. Iewel not of Pope Iohn but of Protestant preachers Pope Syluester the .2 was a sorcerer and had familiar conference with the Diuell and by his procurement was made Pope Stapleton Then was he a naughty man But what is this to the faithe of the Churche Luther had familiar conference with the Diuell and by his procurement was made an enemy to the Masse and so became the Pope off protestants This is no fable M. Iewell Luthers owne booke yet extant entituled De Missa angulari vnctione sacerdotali reporteth it And wil you pronounce Luther an heretike Truly iff you will saie with your Saramentary brethern off Zurich you must not only pronounce him an heretike but also an Archeheretike yea and saie also that the Diuell spake in Luther For so they saie and write to Touching Syluester as he was a naughty man so he repented at the ende It is writen off him that in his laste will he commaunded his body to be layed in a Coche and to be buryed there where so euer the horses should carye it beseching God thereby to shewe some signe thereby off his state after this life It was so done as he willed The horses of their owne accorde caryed his body in to the great Churche off S. Iohn Lateran where it lyeth buried at this Day as his toumbe there yet to be sene witnesseth And the Author hereof Platina is of a good credit as Holcot the schooleman whom M. Iewell alleageth Iewell Pope Athanasius communicated with Photinus the heretike and therefore was foresaken of his clergy Stapleton This is a fable of Gratian grounded vpon no good authorite or truthe He saieth also in the same place that he would haue restored to the Churche Acacius the heretike before condemned But all this to be false his epistle to Anastasius the Emperour conuincethe in the which he willeth expressely that Acacius be not so much as named of Christen people He that condemned Acacius the bishop woulde he trowe we coÌ„municate with Photinus the deacon being of the same heresy that Acacius was and communicating with Acacius M. Iewell to proue suche weighty matters shoulde bringe more weighty proufes and not so hunte like a wanton Spanyel and range at ryot and beate vp butterflies Iewell Pope Hâ—ldebrande that first of all others in these countries forebadde the lawfull mariages of priestes c. I thinke it be natural for M. Iewel allwaies to reporte thinges vâ—truly As for mariage of priestes being priesstes and after holy orders taken it was neuer laufull neither before Hildebrandes time neither sithons in the Churche of Christ. You shoulde haue made that one of your Articles M. Iewell and so haue tried what coulde haue bene saied therein Nowe for you to droppe lies by the waie and to saie so only it shall be enoughe to answer you with saying the contrary and by the waie to note you a lyer Howbeit what may be saied herein I haue somewhat touched otherwhere But what was this Pope Hildebrande M. Iewell saieth Bothe for his life and also for his Religion he is set out at large in a 431. Councell holden at Brixia where he is called and published to the worlde to be a vitious man a burner of houses a Robber of Churches a maintainer of murders and periuries an 432. heretike against the Apostolike doctrine the olde disciple of Berengarius Then M. Iewell is an heretike against the Apostolike doctrine for he is a disciple of Berengarius and defendeth stoutely the opinion of Berengarius in this his Replie the fifte Article A Sorcerer a Necromancer a man possest with the diuel and therefore out of the Catholike faith This Councell of Brixia that M. Iewell alleageth is not to be founde in the tomes of the Councelles It was a conueÌ„ticle of some such as he is him selfe conspyring against the Pope to flatter the Emperour Truly this Hildebrande is described of Platina to be a man of great vertue and wisedome He was chosen Pope by the consent of all good men He resisted stoutely the wicked attemptes of Harry the fourthe Emperour He drewe the clergy of Germany especially of Ments froÌ„ their concubines and Harlots For these causes he was much hated and much euill spoken of by such as were naught them selues and flattered the euill Emperour Who yet notwithstanding at the lenght repenting his former wickednesse humbled him selfe to this Pope and was by him absolued As for heresy or any such cancred matter as M. Iewell hath here heaped vp no approued Author chargeth him withall Iewell The Fathers in the Councell of Basile saye We reade that many bishoppes of Rome haue fallen in to errours and heresyes Stapleton Yet those Fathers saye not that euer any Pope decreed any heresy Their office not their person their publicke decrees not their priuat opinions are defended But it is well that M. Iewell now calleth them Fathers when they make for him then they shall be his Fathers and he will be their childe But when they make against him then they are ignorant men and lead a way with the blindnesse of that age and then he will rather be a bastard of Luthers broode then a childe of the Catholike Fathers So Bernarde shall be holy S. Bernarde when he declaimeth against the vices of Rome but when he calleth the Pope for powre Peter for his annoynting Christ the pastour of all pastours and one to whom alone the whole flockeâ—s is committed then he is Bernard the Abbat Likewise S. Gregory when he rebuketh the proude title of Vniuersall bishop in Iohn of Constantinople then he is holy S. Gregory But when he writeth of Saintes liues and of purgatory then he is Father Gregory the dreamer So Origen must be Olde Father Origen when he speaketh for M. Iew. but when he speaketh for the Catholike faithe then Origen hath many errours and heresyes And thus M. Iewell maketh Fathers and Saintes when and whom it pleaseth him And the Bishop of Rome him selfe saieth Notwithstanding the Pope 〈◊〉 innumerable compâ—ines of people by heapes with him in to hell yet let no mortall mâ—n once dare to repâ—oue him onlesse it be founde that he straye frâ—m the faithe This is a flatte
for any credit to be geuen him in suche matters he may nowe stande for banckeroute Certainely Leo notwithstanding Martianus summoned the Councell of Chalcedon yet he saieth that was done Apostolicae Sedis iure atque honore seruato the Right and the honour off the Apostolike See reserued And in the same Councell it is openly auouched without any CoÌ„tradiction notwithstanding M. Iewelles Nay here that Missi Apostolici semper in Synodis prius loqui confirmare soliti sunt the legates of the See Apostolike were wonte in Councels allwaies to speake first and to coÌ„firme first This loe was the right of the See Apostolike this was not by waie of Intreaty And therefor the Emperour him selfe Martianus writinge to Pope Leo about the assembling of this councell affirmeth eius sanctitatem principatum in episcopatu diuinae fidei possidere that his holynesse occupieth the Chiefty or principal roome in the bishoply charge of Gods faithe and inuiteth him therfore ad celebrandam SynoduÌ„ eo Authore that a couÌ„cel may be celebrated by his Authorite In like maner writeth Pulcheria the Emperesse vnto Leo the Pope of Rome aboute the same time as it hathe before bene declared Here is an Authorite confessed not only of Leo the Pope and the CouÌ„cel but of the Emperour him selfe in gouuerning and directing the Councel Here is no intreaty or special graunt made or required M. Iewel would faine it were so but withe al his shiftes he shall neuer be all to proue it so But saieth M. Harding the bishop of Rome allowed all Councels This is not denied If it be not denied why haue you so longe striued against it So did others not only patriarches or bishoppes but also Ciuill princes Gentle Reader Eye M. Iewel wel Vnlesse thou take good hede he will steale from thee He saieth not only the bishopp of Rome allowed all Councâ—lles but also saieth M. Iâ—well So did others Then he must proue that other allowed all Councels and that with suche and like authorite as the Pope did Nowe the Authorite of the Pope was such that without it as the ecclesiasticall story reporteth No councelles might be held Then M. Iewell must proue that nott only Patriarches and other bishops but also Ciuil Princes had such authorite in approuing Councelles that without their Authorite they mignt not be helde Such authorite M. Iewell must proue Els his so did others will not folowe Nowe let vs see howe he proueth it In the Councell of Calcedon it is writen thus Theodosius the Emperour of godly memorie hath confirmed all thinges by a general lawâ— that were determined in the vniuersall Councell So likewise the Emperour Martianus by the holy edicte of our Maiestâ— we confirme that Reuerend Councel So Eusebius witnesseth that the Emperperour Constantius confirmed the determinations of the Councel of Nice So the bishoppes in the Councell of ConstaÌ„tinople wrote to the Emperour Theodosius wee desire by your fauour by your highnes letters to ratifie and confirme the decree of the Councell You might haue added here M. Iewell so in the late generall Councell of Trent the Oratours of the Emperour and euery Catholike prince there present confirmed the decrees of the Councell And yet neither the other examples nor this late example is any thinge like to the confirming of the bishop of Rome The bishop of Romes confirmation is so necessary that without it as the Canons do commaunde no Councell can be kept No bishop nor prince hath such a confirmation As for example Theodosius which you alleaged first confirmed the Councell of Ephesus And yet that Councell was after and euer sence accompted for no lawfull Councel bicause the legates of Pope Leo were not admitted but by violence of the heretike dioscorus iniured Therefore as all your other examples do proue a godly zele in these good Catholike Emperours and do shewe howe necessary it is that the secular power do aide the spirituall yet no Emperour or laie prince euer confirmed any Councell as the Iudge and president hereof To be shorte The bishop of Rome hath in all Councelles a negatiue voice as without whose none can be approued for so doth the Canon mencioned in the Ecclesiasticall history expressely witnesse Such a negatiue voice such an absolute and supreme Authorite in approuing Councelles no Prince nor Patriarche hathe but only the bishop of Rome successour to Peter chiefe of the Apostles For why The Emperour or laye Prince as he hath no absolute authorite to iudge in matter of â—he faithe so hath he none to approue Councelles when matters of the faithe only are handled Therefore Gregory Nazianzen being a bishop calleth the Emperour Ouem sui gregis a shepe of his flocke So S. Ambrose saieth What is more honorable for the Emperour then to be called the sonne of the Churche for a good Emperour is within the Churche not aboue the Churche So Iohn Caluin in his Institions directly against M. Iewell and according to the minde of S. Ambrose saieth The Magistrat if he be godly will not exempt him selfe from the common subiection of the Children of God Wherefore it is not the least parte to submitte himselfe to the Churche iudging by the worde of God And therefore Constantin the great in the first CouÌ„cel of Nice as Sozomenus recordeth entred in to the Concell house after all the bissops had his seate and place benethe theÌ„ all neither woulde sitt Downe before the bishops had commaunded him And in that Councell he protested plainely that it was not his parte to iudge ouer the bishops Whose example the vertuous Emperour Martianus expressely folowing in the Councel of Chalcedon in his oration made to the whole Synod speaketh thus Nos ad confirmandam fidem non ad ostendendam virtutem exemplo CoÌ„stantini Imperatoris adesse Synodo cogitauimus We after the example of Constantine haue thought good to be present at this Councell not to shewe our power therein but to confirme the faithe And a litle after he saieth Our endeuour must be to applie the people to the one and right Churche being first persuaded the true and holy doctrine And therefore let your Reâ—uerentnesse expound and declare the true and Catholike faithe according to the doctrine of the Fathers in al vnite and coÌ„corde Thus this vertuous Martianus folowing the steppes of Constantinus though he confirmed the faithe of the Concell yet he iudged not in the Councell he commited the triall and iudgement of doctrine to the bishops he made his people to obey it Thus did Emperours and Ciuill princes behaue them selues in Councelles such as were Catholikes and defenders of the Catholike faithe This helpeth not hindereth this strengtheneth not ouerthroweth the spirituall Iurisdiction And thus much of the Ciuill princes and namely of Martianus and Constantinus alleaged by M. Iewell As for Theodosius the seconde whom he alleageth also in the first Councel of Ephesus holden vnder him he behaued him selfe as
was not only contrary to the pleasure of the See Apostolike but also to the decrees of the Nicene Councell which the See Apostolike herein defended not only then by Leo but afterwarde by Gelasius and other bishoppes of Rome Againe to this prerogatiue of the bishop of Constantinople not only the legates of the bishop of Rome resisted but also more then foure hundred bishops then present For whereas there were at that Councell as it appeareth in the Actes thereof six hundred and thirty bishops which subscribed to the other decrees of the Councell yet to this decree of the prerogatiue of Constantinople there subscribed but two hundred and twelue scant the thirde parte of the Councell Therefore neither it is put at this present amonge the decrees of the Councel neither was it allowed longe after for any Ecclesiasticall decree but only as Liberatus saieth boreÌ„ out and maintained by the Emperour after a sorte And therefore in the sixt generall Councel helde many yeres after in CoÌ„stantinople petitioÌ„ was made that the See of Constantinople might be the seconde in priuileges after Rome and before the See of Alexandria This petition made in that generall Councell more then two hundred yeares after the Councell of Chalcedon had not neded if in all that time that priuilege of Constantinople had bene in quiet and lauful possession But bicause it was but maintayned after a sorte by the Emperours as Liberatus sayeth who continuing al that time in Constantinople woulde magnifie their owne Citie bicause also it was not by the iuste Authorite of the bishop of Rome grauÌ„ted therefore it was then againe required and requested to be in that CouÌ„cel enacted an confirmed Hereunto might be added the sentence and verdit of lerned Leo against Anatholius for so vsurping that prerogatiue to the iniury of the bishops of Alexandria and of Antioche the schismaâ—ical presumptioÌ„ of Acacius and Anthemius bothe Entychianâ— shortly after that time and last of all the Antichristian presumption of Iohn of Constantinople in S. GregorÃes time coueting to be the vniuersall bishop of all the Churche But these fewe may suffise to declare how litle this allegat on of Liberatus helpeth M. Iewell Especially if it had plaesed him to haue geueÌ„ thee leaue gentle Reader to peruse his whole wordes and had not so pared quite of the laste worde of the place Quodammodo after a sorte which in dede being added did vtterly marre all M. Iewelles matter and therefore was by him feately in dede and rhetorically dissembled but guilefully and wickedly depraued By such euill dealing an euill cause must be maintayned what saie you farder M. Iewell Iewell Which thinge seemeth agreable to that S Hierom writeth The Authorite of the worlde is greater then the Authorite of one Citie Meaning thereby the Citie of â—ome This saying of S. Hierom agreeth very litle with a decree maintayned by the Emperour against the See Apostolyke S. Hierom in that place talketh not of Authorite in doctrine and in matters of faithe common to al the Church but of certaine particular customes proper to any particular Churche Wherein the custome of one Citie no not of Rome it selfe can prescribe against the general custome of the worlde And therefore S. Gregory informing S. Augustin our Apostle touching certaine his demaundes and namely of the variable customes of diuers Churches vnder one faithe dothe not prescribe vnto him precisely the custome of the Citie of Rome to be folowed in all thinges but It pleaseth saieth he that if you haue founde any thinge be it either in the Churche off Rome off Fraunce or of any other which may more please God that ye choose the same And plante it in the Englishe Churche Yet in matters concerning faith bothe the same Gregory acknowledged and practised a Supremacy of the Church of Rome ouer al other Churches as hath before bene declared and S. HieroÌ„ him self writting to Damasus a bishop of Rome for his senteÌ„ce in a matter of doctrine saieth expressely vnto him Qui tecum non colligit spargit He that gathered not with thee he scattereth And againe Extra hanc domum quicunque agnum comederit prophanus est Whosoeuer eateth the lambe without this house he meaneth the Churche of Rome he is an alienat And thus S. Hierom agreeth well with Liberatus not for M. Iewell but directly against M. Iewell Such profes M. Iewell hath picked out to weaken the Authorite of the See Apostolike the Churche of Rome Nowe he Concludeth Iewell It may appeare by that I haue thus shortly touched that the Bishop of Rome had Authorite neither to Summon Councelles or to be president and chiefe in Councelles nor to ratifie and confirme the decreâ—s of Councelles more then any of the foure Patriarches And last of all that Councelles may stande in force although the Pope mislike them and allowe them not Stapleton It may appeare by that I haue answered and farder saied to the Contrary that the bishop of Rome had Authorite within the first 600. yeres partly to Summon Councelles allwaies to be president and chiefe in all generall Councells and especially to ratifie and Confirme the decrees of Councelles Last of all that no Councell coulde stande in force if the Pope misliked it and allowed it not It may appeare also by that I haue saied that the Canon reported in the ecclesiasticall History is truely and faithefully reported of Socrates truly and faithfully alleaged of D. Harding vntruly and shamefully impugned of M. Iewell The Canon I saie which commaundeth that no Councell be helde without the Authorite of the bishop of Rome It may appeare again howe many notorious impudent and outragious Vntruthes M. Iewell hath committed in this paragraphe of the Confirmation of Councelles as beinge not able to alleage one true Authorite against it Iewell I thinke it will be harde hereof to geather M. Hardings Conclusion That the bishopp of Rome was Head of the Vniuersall Churche I doubte not but it will be easy to gather his Conclusion The Pope was president in al generall Councells confirmed and ratified all generall Councelles and by his Authorite hath disproued Councelles But in generall Councelles the Vniuersall Churche is represented as in a parliament the whole Realme Ergo the Bishop of Rome was at that time the Head of the Vniuersall Churche And thus M. Iewell must subscribe Except he will allwaies quarell and wrangle aboute termes the thinge being clere and euident Harding Athanasius of Alexandria and Paulus of Constantinople depriued and thrust out of their bishoprikes by the Violence of the Arrians assisted with the Emperour Constantius appealed to Rome to Iulius the Pope and bishop there and by his authorite were restored to their roomes againe So Leo assoiled Flauianus the Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated by Dioscorus Iewell The 113. Vntruthe For the Emperour restored Athanasius and not the Pope StapletoÌ„ This Vntruthe may soone be iustified not only by the
Vntruthe Slaund The .136 Vntruthe Lib. 14. Geograph The 137. Vntruthe in false traÌ„slatioÌ„ Barbariloquus is not barbarous but a man of barbarous speache The .138 Vntruthe For Strabo saieth not so Barbari and Barbariloqui Strabo Lib. 14. In 1. Cor. 14. Hom. 35. Lib. 14. Strabo Ibidem Strabo Libr. 8. Libro 14. Act. 14. Cap. 2. Hierom. in proâ—m 2. ad Gal. Plinius li. 7. c. 24. Hist. Naâ— pag. 164. pag 16â— 162. middot The .139 Vntruthe Slaunderous middot Diuis 7. Diuis 8. pag 161. Tâ—e .140 Vntruthe the people of Lycaonia and of Cappadocia vnderstoode not the Greke tounge as hath befoâ— bene proued The .141 Vntruthe Slaunderous ioyned with a grosse ignorance See in the leafe 19. and 20. De Sacrificio Missa lib. 2. Cap. 25. tit 6. primae partis HistoriaruÌ„ The .142 Vntruthe For Saturninus preached in Fraunce .200 yeares aftâ—r the first preachers Petrus de Natalib lib. â— ca. 5. li 1. cap. 9. lib. 10. cap. 41. Tâ—â—tul coÌ„tra Marci lib 2. Esa. 2. Acto 1. August Epist. 178. August Epst. 70. Greg. Lib. 7. ep 32. Indict 1. The 143. Vntruthe Slaunderous The .144 Slaund The 145. Vntruthe For D· Harding knoweth the contrary Chrysost. Homil. de Eucaenijs et Euchaecharistia Ciprianus in expos orat DoÌ„ August in epist. 57. serm 44. de tempore Epist. 1. Cap. 14. Diuis 14. pag. 171. Tâ—e 146. and the 147. Vntruthes bothe Slaund The .148 Vntruth â—or this Conclusâ—on is good and right The 1â—9 Vntruth S. Augâ—stin demaundeth no such question The .150 Vntruthe in falsifying S. â—ugustin Lib de Magistro Cap. 1. In exposit orat Dominicae The 151. Vntruthe in Nipping of quite in the middest the wordes of S. Ciprian The 152. Vntruthe as appeareth Chrysost. in Liturgia The .153 Vnâ—râ—the For D. Harding sâ—iâ—d no such thinge Staplâ—ton Vhe .154 Vntruthe tâ—ere is â—o cause of sucâ— shaâ—e geuen The 155. Vntruthe in falsifying the text of D. Hard. The 1â—6 Vntrâ—the ioyâ—ed with a Slaund The .157 Vntruthe For those wordes of S. Augustin are not spoken of the prâ—â—st August de Magistro The .158 Vntruthe For the people vnderstaÌ„deth what is tokened according to S. August meaning The .159 Vntruthe For D. Harding saied no such thinge The .160 Vntruthe The .161 Vntruth For by the doctrine of S. Paule the people is not bounde to answer Amen The .162 Vntruthe standing in an Vnture Collection The 163. Vntruthe standing in false Collection The Straunge tounge The 164. Vntruthe For thâ—re is no breache of S. Paulâ—s doctrine committed M. Iewell coâ—demneth the vniueâ—sâ—ll Churche with the open breache of S. Paules doctrine Authen Constit. 123. 1. Cor. 14. Vulgar Seruice Distracteth froÌ„ DeuotioÌ„ The 165. Vntruthe as shall appeare StapletoÌ„ The 166. Vntruthe Iustinian writeth not him selfe Emperour of Rome In prefat in lib. Novel Procopius lib. 3. Blondus dec 1. li. 8. Ioan. Fab. â—oa de Pâ—a Bloud li. 7. Les Annales de Fraunce Gagn. li. 2. Gagn. li. 1. The .167 Vntruthe For not Iâ—stinian â—eposed them but the wicked Empresse by her Captaine Belâ—sâ—rius violâ—ntly banished them Tom 2. Conciliorum in vita Siâ—ueâ—ij Ibidem in vita Vigilij Liberatus Cap. 22 Tom. 2. Concil in vita Vigilij The .168 Vntruthe for these lawes do not touche this Constitution of Iustinian Baldus L. Si. quis seruo Cod. de fuâ—tis L. i §. Generaliter ff D. leg praestand L. plenuÌ„ §. equitj ff d. vsu et habit L. ex militari ff D. testa milit L. cum pater §. dulcis simis ff D. leg 2. L. filius familias ff D. act et obligat iuncta L. j. ff ad Sena â—us Maced L. iuris gentiuÌ„ §. si paciscar ff d. pact iuncta L. tran sigere ibi glo de transact L. sanctio deguÌ„ ff de poenis L. doli clausula ff de stipulat L. j. § quod ait ff ne quid in loc sacr C. propterea ex de verb. signi pag. 262. L. si vno ff locati L. Empto §. Lucius et ibi Bart. ff de pact In AutheÌ„ Const. 137 Cod de Episc cle L Generaliter L. Item apud §. hâ—c edictum ff d. iniurijs The .169 Vntâ—uthe For D. Hard. saied not that Oâ—â—ly this lawe tooke no place c. xi q. i. C. 35. Itemin Decretal tit de test cap. 1. lib. 11. epist. 54. Contius in prefat in lib. Nouell pag. 173. In praefat in lib. Nouell The 170. Vntruthe For many 〈◊〉 them wâ—re 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ocales proper to certaine places Tâ—e .171 Vntruthe For in the same â—itle wâ—ich is Dediuer â—s Ecclesiasâ—i capit the wordes alleaged are not â—ouÌ„d In AutheÌ„ Col. 1 vt def â—it numerus â—â—eri Contius iâ— marg D. auth vt def c. In AutheÌ„ Const. 137 Authent Col. 1. vt def sunt numer cler Eo §. in alijs M. Iewelles Argument Cod. de Epis eâ— cler Generalâ—ter L. Item apud §. hâ—c â—dictum ff De Ieiuâ— 7. meâ—s· Serm. 6. De Sacra lib. 4. ca. 5 The .172 Vntruthe For it appeareth not by any of these Fathers that the Churche of Rome was subiecte to this lawe Vide Henr. Pantaleonâ— in Chronograph Ecclesia Leo de Ieiâ—â—io 7. mens serm 6. fere in fine Ambros. de sacram lib. 4. cap. 5. M. Iewelles Argument In psal 45 The .173 Vntruthe For S. Augustin saied not those wordes of the Churche of Rome Psalm 54 August in Psal. 54. The 174. Vntruthe in falsifiing the wordes of S. Hierom as shal appeare Tom. 2. 7. contra Iulian. li. 2. The singular folie of M. Iewell In proaemio li. 2. Comment in epist. ad Gal. The .175 Vntruthe For it is not denied that the Latine Churche spake aloude at thâ— Common praiers The .176 Vntruthe For it is not supposed by D. Hard. that S. August in Afrike prayed in sileÌ„ce but that in Rome the CoÌ„secration was in silence M. Iewelles Argument The .177 and .178 Vntruthes as shall appeare The .179 and 180· Vntruthes as shall appearel The .181 Vntruthe ioyned with an extreme folie StapletoÌ„ M. Iewell is caste in his owne turne Psal. 104 Haeres 39 in Tusc. q. The .182 Vntruthe Slaunderous * Page â—55 157.159 and .169 Fol. 61. b. Fol. 61. b. fol. 66. a. The .183 Vntruthe For D. Harding altereth not the case but foloweth it Stapleton The .184 Vntruthe for by order of all Scholes â—ou are forced to geue an Instance denying the vniuersall The 185. â—â—truthe in mangling the worâ—es of â—ckius M. Iewels ArgumeÌ„t The .186 Vntruthe For Durandus speaketh not one worde of Iewes De diuinis officijs lib. 4. cap. 1. The 187. Vntruthe for Thomas of Aquine saieth it with a Peraduenture which worde M. Iewell hath left oute In 1. Cor. 14. M. Iewelles Arguâ—ent In 1. ad Cor. 14. M. Iewelles Argument The .188 Vntruthe For D. Haâ—ding added for the space of 600. yeares whiche M. Iuell left oute Iewell StapletoÌ„ The .189 Vntruthe ioyned
tounges of all Nations This maketh well For M. Iewell but this vtterly ouerthroweth the doctrine of S. Augustin Litle thought that olde Father that euer his wordes shoulde be thus vsed or so violently forced to such Conclusions Iewell S. Ambrose speaking of the Iewes that were conuerted to Christ saieth thus These were Iewes whiche in their Sermons and oblations vsed sometime the Syrian tounge and sometime the Hebrewe M. Iewell findeth small force in olde Father Origen to proue that he seeketh for And therefore he runneth to S. Ambrose for helpe Howbeit for him I muste nedes saie he hathe taken wronge and is ill vsed at M. Iewelles hande as being by violence and perforce made bothe to suppresse that he woulde saye and also to saye that he woulde not saye and yet in the ende saieth not one worde for the Vulgar Seruice S. Ambrose expounding the wordes of S. Paule In the Churche or Congregation I will rather speake fiue wordes withe iudgement to instruct other then ten thousand wordes in the tounge saieth that the Apostles meaning is that it is farre more profitable to speake a fewe wordes in preaching that all maye vnderstande then to vse a longe talke in an vnknowen language And then he addeth who they were that vsed suche longe talke in strange tounges when the Christians were assembled to praye and saieth These were Iewes whiche at Sermons and Oblations vsed sometime the Syrian tounge sometime the hebrew ad CoÌ„mendationeÌ„ for a vaine glorie and commendation For they gloried to be called Hâ—brewes bicause of the merit of Abraham These wordes of S. Ambrose as they proue nothinge that the Iewes had their Seruice in the Hebrew or Syrian tounge so it blameth openly the Iewes for vsing these tounges at the Seruice and oblation time If M. Iewell had geuen thee good Reader the whole wordes and sentence of S. Ambrose thou shouldest easely haue sene howe litle they made for the Vulgar Seruice vnlesse M. Iewell will reason thus S. Paule blameth the Iewes for vsing the Hebrewe or Syrian tounge in the Seruice Ergo the Seruice was in the Hebrewe or Syrian tounge For of this premisse it will rather folowe The Iewes are blamed for vsing the Hebrew and Syrian tounge in the Seruice Ergo the Iewes had not their Seruice in the Hebrewe and Syrian tounge And thus M. Iewell hath brought S. Ambrose against him selfe and hath not yet founde his Vulgar Seruice Iewell S. Basill writing vnto the lerned men of Neocaesarea and shewing in what order the people vsed to resorte to the house of praier in the night season and to singe psalmes in sides and to praie together towardes the ende thereof hathe these wordes As it were fâ—om one mouthe and from one harte they offer vpp vnto the Lorde the psalme of confesâ—ion and the wordes of repentaunce euery of them applieth partiâ—ularlye vnto him selfe Hereby it is plaine that the people in S. Basiles time songe the psalmes together and vnderstode what they songe Here M. Iewell remembreth him selfe better and whereas he saied before he woulde leaue S. Augustine S. Basill S. Hierome and other suche copie he pretended then to haue nowe he alleageth notwithstanding S. Basill and S. Hierome bothe declaring in this point bothe his former brauery and his present wante These wordes of S. Basill as they make nothing for the Seruice in the Vulguar tounge other then the greke so do they verye well declare the auncient custome of the primitiue Churche of the clergie rising at midnight and singing psalmes together withe the people But what will M. Iewell gather hereof Will he reason thus The people songe the psalmes together in the Greke tounge Ergo the sâ—ruice was in neither Greke nor Latine Vnlesse he conclude thus he concludeth nothinge against D. Harding M. Iewell confesseth before that S. Basill preached in Greke and the Vulgar people vnderstode him And thinketh he by the Greke Seruice whiche the people as he confesseth vnderstode the Greke Seruice and the Greke sermons of S. Basill beinge both in like Greke as his Liturgie and homilies yet extant do testifie to conclude that the Seruice was not in Greke Thus by M. Iewelles reason Greke and not Greke Vulgar and not Vulguar somethinge and nothing shall be all one But he felt him selfe the weakenes of this argument And therefore he laboureth to adde some more force vnto it and saieth Iewell And least M. Hardinge should slippe awaye as his wonte is and say All this was done in the Greke tounge and not in anye tongue barbarous S. Basill hath allready preuented him StapletoÌ„ It is well that M. Iewell foresawe the Checke I trust he will auoide the Matto Iewell For immediatly he addeth further as it foloweth Iff ye fliâ— vs for thus singing and praying together then muste ye flie the Aegyptians and bothe the countres of Lybia and the Thebanes and the Palestines and the Arabians and the Pheniâ—ians and the Syâ—ians and the borderers of Euphrates and generally ye muste flie all them that haue watchinges and praiers and common psalmodie in estimâ—tion I trowe M. Harding will not saie All these nations spake Greke or Latine StapletoÌ„ No more trowe I neither Yeat if he shoulde so saie M. Iewell withe all his learning is not able to proue the contrarye But what if he saie that all those nations had their Seruice in Greke allthough they spake not all Greke What if all those countres be but a parte of the East Churche whiche all had the Greke Seruice Coulde they not singe and praie together onlesse they praied in their Vulguar knowen tounge Or can not the deuoute applie particularly to him selfe the wordes of repeÌ„taunce except he vnderstand the psalme that he singeth This is but a Gheasse M. Iewell that bicause the common psalmodie was practised in Aegypt and other countres therefore all those countres vnderstode the psalmodie Let vs consider the forme of your argument In Aegypt Lybya Syria and other countres common psalmodie was had in estimation Ergo the Seruice in all those countres was in the Vulgar tounge Withe the like reason you might conclude against the Seruice whiche withe our owne eares we heare to be in Latin that yet it were not in Latin As thus In Dutcheland Fraunce and Italy the common psalmodie iâ— bothe practised and highly estemed specially in monasteries Ergo in Dutchelande Fraunce and Italye the Seruice is in the Vulgar tonge We see and knowe the contrary of the conclusion We see and knowe the premisse to be true also Therefore we see and knowe the argument to be naught And why Forsothe bicause you conclude the whole by a parte and the parte by a Surmise As the whole Seruice yowe conclude of the psalmodie And the psalmodie yowe Gheasse was vnderstanded Which yet if it were graunted there remaineth for yowe yet to proue that they vnderstode nor Greke nor Latin and then that the Seruice was