happeth bicause we yeelde and consent vnto sinne and not bicause the concupiscence of it selfe is sinne before we haue consented vnto it Ievvel 217. S. Augustine saith in most plaine vvise Contra Iulianum lib. 5. c. 3. The concupiscnce of the flesh against vvhich the good spirite lusteth is both sinne and the paine of sinne and the cause of sinne Yet the late blessed Chapter of Trident in spite of S. Augustine hath published the contrarie Harding Thus ye speake in spite of the CouÌ„cel Verely the CouÌ„cel of Trent did determine that which it fouÌ„d in S. Augustin who teacheth most manifestly that the CoÌ„cupisceÌ„ce is not properly sin but is only called so And thereby you know how S. Augustine is to be vnderstaÌ„ded in the place by you alleged His most plaine words are these Augustin coÌ„t duas epist Pelagi li. 1. ca. 13. Dicimus Baptisma dare oiÌ„m indulgentiaÌ„ peccatoruÌ„ et auferre crimina noÌ„ radere Sed de ista coÌ„cupiscentia carnis falli eos credo vel fallere cuÌ„ qua necesse est vt etiaÌ„ baptizatus hoc si diligeÌ„tissimè proficit spiritu Dei agitur pia mente confligat Sed haec etiaÌ„si vocatur PeccatuÌ„ non vtique quia peccatuÌ„ est sed quia peccato facta est sic vocatur Sicut sciptura manus cuiusque dicitur quòd manus eaÌ„ fecerit We say that Baptisme geueth remissioÌ„ of al sinnes and that it taketh crimes quit away and doth not shaue them as who would saye it leaueth not the rootes behind But I suppose that as touching this ConcupisceÌ„ce of the flesh they be either deceiued them selues or that they deceiue others For of this ConcupisceÌ„ce he also who is baptized yea though he profit neuel so wel and be guided with the spirite of God must of necessitie suffer in his Godly mind some conflicte But this Concupiscence albeit it be called sinne yet verely it is not so called bicause it is sinne but bicause it is made by sinne As for example any writing is called the hand of him that wrote it bicause the hand made it If then S. Augustine say most distinctly that the Concupiscence in them that are baptized is not a sinne how spitefully yea how falsely also haue you said that the Councel of Trent defined the contrarie in spite of S. Augustine I pray you be not so angry with the Councel of Trent If your stomake wil not holde in that spiteful humour but you must nedes vtter it yet wil truth be truth Of the Real presence of Christes Bodie in the Sacrament of the Aulter The 5. Chapter The Apologie Pag. 218. VVe saie that Eucharistia that is to saie the Supper of the Lorde is a Sacrament that is an euident representation of the Bodie and Bloude of Christ vvherein is sette as it vvere before our eies the death of Christ and his Resurrâ—ction and vvhat so euer he did vvhilest he vvas in his mortal Body to the ende vve maie geue thankes for his deathe and for our deliuerance And that by the often receiuing of this Sacrament vve may daily renevve the remembrance thereof to thintent vve being fedde vvith the Bodie and bloude of Christe may be brought into the hope of the Resurrection and of euerlasting life and maie most assuredly beleeue that as our bodies be fedde vvith bread and vvine so our soules be fedde vvith the Bodie and Bloude of Christe Confutation fol. 90. b. Among al these gay wordes we heare not so much as one syllable vttered whereby we may vnderstande that yee beleeue the very Bodie of Christe to be in deede present in the blessed Sacrament of the Aulter Ye confesse the Eucharistia whiche commonly ye cal the Supper of the Lorde to be a Sacrament and al that to be none other then an euident token of the Bodie and Bloude of Christe c. Iewel Defence Pag. 220. Here is no mention saith M. Harding of Real presence and thereupon he plaieth vs many a proper lesson Notvvithstanding here is as muche mention made of Real presence as either Christe or his Apostles euer made or in the Primitiue Catholique Church vvas euer beleeued Harding COnsidering how ofte this matter hath ben handled and how few men are ignorant what ech side saith I wil be the shorter in this place First I graunt the eating of Christes body by faith to be necessarie Againe I graunt the Sacrament to be a mystical figure of Christes death and of his visible body But I say farther that besides eating by Faith our flesh and body receiueth Christes body and that really Matt. 26. That these vvordes this is my body this is my Bloude are meant properly TertulliaÌ„ de resurr Carnis Which conclusion is proued bicause the wordes of Christ this is my body are meant properly and without any figure of speach albeit the manner of the presence be figuratiue My reason to proue that Christes wordes are meant properly is the perpetual interpretation of the auncient Fathers the sense and custome of the Churche To beginne with Tertullian he saith in this wise Caro abluitur vt anima emaculetur Caro vngitur vt anima consecretur Caro signatur vt anima muniatur Caro manus impositione adumbratur vt anima spiritu illuminetur Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima de Deo saginetur The flesh is washed that the soule may be made without spot The flesh is annointed that the soule may be consecrated The flesh is signified that the soule may be fenced The flesh is shadowed with the laying on of handes The flesh is the meane vvhereby the grace of God passeth vnto the soule that the soule also may be lightened with the holy Ghost The flesh is fed with the body and bloude of Christe that the soule also may be made fat of God In these wordes as diuers Sacramentes are ioyned together so herein they agree al that the flesh is the meane by which the grace of God passeth to the soule As therfore in Baptisme the flesh is washed that the soule may be cleansed so in the Sacrament of the Aulter the flesh is fed with the body and bloude of Christ that the soule may be nourished with the godhead which dwelleth in that fleshe It is then to be noted that the fleshe eateth not material bread and wine but the body and bloud of Christ For as the thing wherewith we are washed is water and that wherewith we are anointed is oile euen so that wherewith the flesh is fed is the body and bloud of Christ The instrument therefore of Gods grace is none other in the Supper beside that flesh wherein the fulnesse of the Godhed dwelleth It is wel knowen that our flesh hath no faith to eate Christes body withal Therefore when our flesh is said to be fed with Christes body it is clearly meant that our flesh is also really fed with Christes owne substance as it is washed with
Iohn is said to haue erred was onely touching the soules of the iuste and perfit who were fully purged before their departure hence in quibus nihil erat purgabile cuÌ„ de hoc seculo decesserunt as it is shewed in Pope Benedictus Decretale before mencioned or were purged elswhere Defence pag. 617. after the separation from their bodies So that by this Purgatorie is not taken awaie at al as your skoffing tale that liketh you so wel pretendeth it to be Neither were the Heretiques that of S. Augustine are called Arabici the first Authours of this errour as you saie but the Armenians and Grecians if we maie beleeue Guido M. Iew. Vntruly attributeth that to Pope Iohn 22. whiche was written of Iohn 23. Now touching that you haue alleged out of the Councel of Constance in Appendite as you cal it I maruel with what face ye bring it in And what a great falshed is it to put in your booke the name of Pope Iohn the. 22. for Iohn the. 23. who was not borne within a hundred yeres after Iohn the. 22. The name of this Iohn the 23. was before he tooke vpon him to be Pope Balthazar de Cossa as there ye haue it declared Neither was it certaine that he helde that detestable opinion touching the Death of the body and Soule together it was but brought into the Councel of Constance in a bille of complainte conteining many other heinous Articles against him whiche were not proued It was a matter of Diffamation it was not of probation as by the bill it selfe it is expressed For there ye finde these wordes In Appendice Concilij Constantien The said Iohn the. 23. was of these thinges diffamed greuously before the clergie and the people Therefore it is thus said there of his Acousers Denunciant dicunt ponunt si necesse erit probare intendunt c. They denounce saie and put and if it shal be necessarie they intende to proue They that accuse and intende to proue if neede be haue not yet proued And God forbid al thinges shoulde be taken as true whereof some be accused How so euer it be Iohn the. 23. is not Iohn the. 22. no more then Iohn Iewel is Iohn Capon Neither was that three and twentith Iohn a true Pope lawfully elect but an vsurper as two others were with him at the same time whiche were deposed al three at the Councel of Constance and a newe Pope chosen So by this place ye haue prooued no heresie against Pope Iohn the. 22. nor against any true Pope at al but onely haue shewed your selfe a shamelesse shifter and one that hath a more malicious minde to hurte the authoritie of the Pope then matter of iuste accusation against him M. Ievvel The Apologie Parte 6. cap. 6. Diuis 1. The Canonistes say the Pope can doe asmuche The. 7. Vntruth as Christe himselfe can doe To this I said it is false and sclaunderous M. Iewel replieth These wordes be most manifest and out of al question Extrà de translatione Episcopi Quanto Hostien Excepto peccato Papa potest quicquid Deus ipse potest Excepte sinne the Pope can doo asmuche as God him selfe can doo This is a most manifest and out of al question to vse this mannes owne wordes a foule corruption Certainely Hostiensis saith not so But bicause the Pope is the Vicare of Christe in earth and God ratifieth what so euer he doth in binding or loosing so it be donne duely and rightly Claue non errante as the Canonistes speake hauing reckened certaine thinges wherein the Popâ— hath authoritie as vnder God and as Christes high officer he concludeth with these wordes Breuiter exceptâ— peccatâ— Ibidem quasi omnia de iure potest vt Deus Briefly excepte sinne he hath power as a man would say in al thinges of right as God Thus saith Hostiensis and not as M. Iewel belieth him And this saying being rightly vnderstanded is a true saying What soeuer the Pope doth or God doth by the Pope that is aboue the power and authoritie of man the same is he said to doo not as man but vt Deus as God bicause he doth it as being the Vicare of Christe as bearing the steede of God And therfore it is said by the learned Canonistes wherewith also M. Iewel beside learning Cap. Romana 1. respon de Appell 6. HostieÌ„sis fovvly corrupted by M. Ievv or reason findeth fault that the Consistorie of God and the Pope is one Consistorie as a Bishops and his Chancellours CoÌ„sistorie is one and the same CoÌ„sistorie Now let vs consider the impudencie of this false Minister First he auoucheth his shamelesse lye boldly as though where truth faileth for shew of proufe the matter might be stowted out The wordes saith he be most manifest and out of al questioÌ„ Excepto peccato Papa potest quicquid Deus ipse potest That is to say the Pope can do as much as Christ him self can do But what if these wordes be not most manifest Is it not then a most manifest impudencie so to affirme of them What if they be not out of al doubte Is it not then out of al doubte that this Minister is a Minister of lyes Certainely the wordes of Hostiensis be those very precise wordes which here I haue alleged and no other See then good Reader this mannes truthe whereof he so muche craketh First Hovv many vntrue partes M. Ievvel plaieth at once he corrupteth the sentence by leauing out sundry the Doctours wordes and telleth his tale for him in such wise as he may finde occasion to carpe him For he hath nipte away first this worde Breuiter which admonisheth the redaer to haue recourse to that goeth before then this worde Quasi which being added by good discretion mitigateth and qualifieth the saying that otherwise perhaps might seeme ouer vehement then againe those other wordes of necessarie importance otÌ„a de iure and vt Next he corrupteth the sentence by putting too of his owne those wordes besides Papa for which I greatly blame him not quicquid and Ipse and that by way of emphasie that the whole might seme the more absurd Besides al this he inuerteth the whole sentence and maketh of Hostiensis true and reasonable saying a blasphemous and â—onde saying of his owne whereof that great learned man did neuer so muche as dreame And who woulde thincke that any man hauing his right witte woulde speake so vainely and so farre biyonde al sufferance of Christian eares that the Pope can doo as muche as God him selfe can doo And yet must al this be faced out and M. Iewel must haue leaue to saie it is most manifeste it is out of al question Who euer saw one litle poore sentence so nipte so hackte so hewed and mangled so turned and caste in a new molde And bicause it liked him wel that is to saie bicause it should mislike al good menne he hath made great stoare of
ye must go into the pit of Hel to fetch out Aêrius Pelagius Vigilantius Iouinian Heluidius Manichaeus and such others of condemned memorie to geue light vnto your Churche or els you can bring foorth none at al. For whereas al the Greekes Epiphan Haeres 75 as it may appeare by Epiphanius and al the Latines as it may appeare by S. Augustine condemned him for an heretike who said the prayers of the liue could not helpe the dead what catholike is it possible to bring foorth for the yere of our Lorde three hundred and fiftie or foure hundred who taught as ye now teache that it is not lawful nor profitable to praye for the dead Wel ye are not the light nor the daye Is your doctrine at the least the truth Nay that is the truth which is also the light For the true doctrine is taught in that Church which is built vpon an hil and can not be hid The truth is vniforme Math. 5. but emong you Luther and Zuinglius Caluine and Westphalus Bullinger and Brentius Illyricus and Beza and sundrie other couples and partes agree so wel that a man may easily know them to be false Prophetes For whereas they al disagree yet they are al without that Churche where vnitie is preserued in the perpetual Succession of many Bishops alwaies agreeing in one saith Therefore your doctrine is neither the light nor the daye nor the truth but darkenesse but night but errour Iewel 131. Novv for as much as ye haue thought it so good to examine the petite degree of Bishops of Sarisburie I trust you vvil not thinke it il if I a litle touch the lâ—ke in the Bishops of Rome that vve may thereby the better be hable to see some of the branches of your Succession Harding In dede they of whom you speake are but some of the branches of our Succession For you touch of two hundred and thirtye Bishops of Rome not thirteene and yet our Succession consisteth also of al the Bishops in Italie Spaine Fraunce Germanie Sicilie Polonia Hungarie Denmarke Suethen and England euen til king Henrie the eightes time But go too on Gods name touche whom you can I am wel assured you wil plaie the Spider to espie if any poison can be found any where Let vs see with what truth and honestie you blase their faultes The worst that can be said of al the Popes touching doctrine by the Protestantes is here gathered together and laid forth by M. Iewel and the same is truly answered Iewel Pag. 131. Therefore shortly to say you knovv that Pope Marcellinus committed Idolatrie Harding Of S. Marcellinus Martyr and Pope I know that after his Idolatrie whereto he yeelded for feare of death he repented and shed his bloud for Christe and dyed a glorious Martyr euen as S. Paule after that he had persecuted the Churche through grace repented and died for Christes name Who ought now to be more ashamed of S. Marcellinus you that chalenge him for an Idolatour or I that chalenge him for a Martyr The Idolatrie you speake of is gone and pardoned the Martyrdome whereof I speake is euerlastingly crowned in heauen The ende M. Iewel trieth al whereof you should haue taken your iudgement And yet this very Idolatoure bicause he was S. Peters Successour and sate in the first See was in case for the roume he occupied to be iudged of no man in the earth as tâ—e Councel of three hundred and thirtie Bishoppes assembled at Sinuessa pronounced aboue twelue hundred yeres past Tom 1. Concil Primasedes non iudicabitur à quoquaÌ„ The first seate shal not be iudged of any man What haue you wonne now by this example but that you do the world to vnderstand what malicious stomake ye beare against the Popes of Rome whose faultes ye are right glad to espie and blase abroade although they repented of them Verely it would haue becomme a sonne of the Churche to conceele suche actes of frailtie and not to see suche spottes that were with so abundant founteines of teares cleane washed awaie and with the bloude of so glorious Martyrdom quite blotted out Iewel 131. Pope Syluester the secoÌ„d vvas a Coniurer and gaue himselfe vvhole body and soule to the Deuil and by the Deuilles procurement vvas made Pope Harding That Syluester the second came to be Pope malis artibus by euil meanes it is not so cleare a matter as you make it Platina the chiefe author we haue for credite of that Storie vttereth it doubtefully by his Parenthesis vt aiunt as they saie Whereby he geueth vs to vnderstand that he was not hable to auouche it for a certaine truthe but referreth him selfe to the vulgare rumour of the people which most commonly bruteth abroad moe lies and vanities then truthes and certainties How beit Platina Platinae in vitis PontificuÌ„ Pope Syluester 2. his repentance at the ende who tolde you al this added also Poenitentia motus errorem suum coram populo fassus c. being moued with repentance and confessing his errour before the people he first exhorted them al that ambition and the deuilles deceites laide aside they should liue wel And afterward his body was miraculously drawen by horses to the chiefe Church of Rome and there was buried If you beleue the one you must beleue the other sithence it is but one Storie whereof you told the first parte and I the last Whereupon I attribute so much to that holy Succession that I doubte not as euil a man as he once was but God delte the more mercifully with him for his good predecessours sakes who I doubte not prayed for him that he might die penitently and be a saued soule Iewel 131. Pope Zosimus for ambition and claime of gouernment corrupted the holy Councel of Nice Harding You say it Pope Zosimus sclaundered by M. Ievv but neuer did any honest man say it from the beginning of the worlde til this time neither was the same yet euer proued For albeit he alleged such wordes of a certaine Canon as the other copies had not yet did no man lay to his charge that he had corrupted the CouÌ„cel For he alleged that which he found in his own copies I say to you M. Iewel there is nothing shewed by this your tale but that you are a man of il dispositioÌ„ who gladly reporte euil and besides that you finde reported of others inuent your selfe that which vtterly is false to diminish the estimation of a holy man that died eleueÌ„ hundred yeres past Marke the point I say if it be said of any man that euer wrote in the olde time that Pope Zosimus corrupted the Councel of Nice then you or your fellowes did not feine it but if no man said it but bawdy Bale or Illyricus and suche others the like then your part is with liers and sclaunderers and thereafter shal your iudgement be without you repente whiche God graunt you M. Stapleton in the
that there is no succession in doctrine Now I saie ronne ouer al the Bisshops of Rome and you can saie of neuer a one this man coÌ„ming into his Predecessours See did oppugne his doctrine or preached with the Churche of Romes contentation against that which was in vse before So that in Rome al thinges are euen at this day concerning faith as S. Peter leafte them For euery man hath agreed in outward Decree senteÌ„ce and profession with al the predecessours and successours Iewel Pag. 132. S. Bernard saith Quid prodest si canonicè eligantur In concil Remen non canonicè viuant VVhat auaileth it if they be chosen in order and liue out of order Harding It auaileth nothing to the euil liuer but yet it auaileth muche to him that obeieth the good and true doctrine of the euil teacher Iewel So saith S. Augustine Ipsum characterem multi lupi Cont. Donatist lib. 6. 1. q. 3. vocantur caâ—es Character vvhat it signifieth in the Sacraments lupis imprimunt The outvvarde marke or right of a bisshop many geue to vvolues and be vvolues them selues Harding By Character is not meant an outward marke but rather an inwarde marke and print which through the receiuing of certaine Sacramentes is imprinted in the soules of them who receiue them of whiche sorte are Baptisme Confirmation and holy Orders And those sacramentes being once receiued caÌ„ not be repeated or be againe receiued of the same person For the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud although it be an outward signe yet it leaueth not any Character or suche inward print in the soule as may be no more repeated But letting that errour passe of the true interpretation of this worde Character I graunt that Heretikes may baptize heretikes euen without the Churche and the Baptisme shal stand although it be vnlawfully ministred What maketh that against the Suceession of Bishops It rather proueth that seing the Sacramentes may be ministred if not to saluation of them that are of discretion yet truly and really without the true Churche there must be an other rule taken to know the true Church by besides the administration of Sacramentes And that true and certaine rule is the perpetual Succession of the See Apostolike Iewel Pag. 132. Therefore the auncient father Irenaus geueth vs this good counsel Eis qui sunt in Ecclesia presbyteris obedire oportet Iren. lib. 4. ca. 43. qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundùm beneplacitum patris acceperunt It becommeth vs to obey those Priestes in the Churche vvhich haue their succession from the Apostles and together vvith the Succession of their bishoprikes according to the good vvil of God the Father haue receiued the vndoubted gifte of the truthe Harding Al this maketh against you M. Iewel For seing you can shew no such Priestes hauing their Succession from the Apostles and hauing receiued the vndoubted gifte of the truth whom ye doo obeye it is certaine that ye haue not the gifte of the truthe among you On the other side seing we haue Priestes that is to say Bishoppes of Rome who are also Priestes which haue their SuccessioÌ„ from the chiefe and most glorious Apostles Peter and Paule and seing such Priestes and Bishops keeping stil the same faith and doctrine from man to man haue receiued the vndoubted gifte of the truth according to the good wil of God the Father doubtelesse the vndoubted marke of the truth is with vs only and not with you at al who haue no Succession at al of any Priestes and much lesse of any suche Priestes that succede lineally from the Apostles them selues Iewel 132. S. Cyprian being likevvise charged for dissenting from his predecessours Lib. 2. epist 3. ansvvereth thus Si quis de antecessoribus meis c. If any of my predecessours haue not obserued and kepte the same that our Lorde hath taught vs both by his example and also by his coÌ„maundement his simplicitie may be pardoned but we if we doo the like can hope for no pardon being nowe admonished and instructed of our Lorde Harding Cough vp man it wil choke you Phy. vvhat a fowle corruption is this Lib. 2. epist 3. if you let it tarry within your throte Here is but halfe the bone there is yet in S. Cyprian no ful point it foloweth in the same sentence Vt calicem Dominicum vino mixtum secundùm quod Dominus obtulit offeramus We can hope for no pardon who are now admonished and instructed of our Lorde that we should offer our Lordes chalice mixed with wine accordingly as our Lorde offered the same Either M. Iewel tooke this saying of S. Cyprian vpon the Germaine credite as he found it noted in their bookes and then his false brethren deceiued him or els he wrote it out of S. Cyprian himselfe and then his studie and wil was to deceiue vs. He would ful gladly haue geuen vs an authoritie that we might forsake the example of our Predecessours but he was loth we should see the thing wherewith the authoritie was exemplified For if at any time he say al he is sure to speake against him selfe and no wonder because he speaketh against the truth and euerie good saying euermore agreeth with the trtuh First he corrupteth S. Cyprian in putting in meis for nostra my predecessours in stede of our predecessours For S. Cyprian speaketh not of his owne Succession but of what soeuer Priest or Bishoppe that liued before his time Againe S. Cyprian spake not of any such custome as had ben generally vsed of al Bishops for then it had ben of ful authoritie but of that which some one man vsed priuatly and without keeping the lawe of Succession And therefore S. Cyprian said Si quis if any man Thirdly the thing he spake of was that some were said to offer water alone in our Lordes supper and not wine withal Now saith he if any before our time haue vsed to offer water and not wine mingled with water wel he may be pardoned by our Lordes mercie but we that are admonished and instructed to offer our Lordes chalice mingled with wine that is to say consisting not of water alone but of water and wine mingled together we caÌ„ not be pardoned except we mingle water with wine and so do offer our Lordes Chalice as he him selfe did offer it Nowe applie this geare Christian Reader to our new brethrens deedes Do they offer our Lordes Chalice at al Or do they graunt that our Lord in his Supper offered it Do they mingle water with wine at the time of consecrating the mysteries If they do neither of both what folie yea what madnesse was it for M. Iewel to bring foorth these wordes of S. Cyprian thereby to accuse him selfe and his owne Communion as not obseruing that whiche our Lorde commaunded to be obâ—â—rued It is a worlde to see how these men applye the witnesses of
euerlasting which God graunt vs al. Of many other questions I haue said somewhat But herein is most profite bicause in few it conteineth al the rest For where the Churche is there al the necessarie treasure of Gods wisedome Isai 59. there is the holy Ghoste there is the worde of truth and the incorporation with Christe the spouse and husband thereof Whosoeuer loueth his soule health If thou vvilt be â—uâ—d depart not out of the Churche let him vnderstand wel which is the true Church and keepe him selfe therein For it is ordeined of God as a mother and a nourse to conteine and keepe al menne safe within it who doo not wilfully depart out of it The continuance of it is by Succession Sheepe succede after Sheepe and Bishops who be the Sheepeheardes after Bishops those to be fedde these to seede If those can not faile at any time neither can these lacke or faile We shew both M. Iewel sheweth neither any SuccessioÌ„ of Shepe nor of Bishops Therfore he that resteth with M. Iewel is out of the Folde And he that wil be the saued Sheepe of Christe must abide in or if he be out returne to the Folde of Peter to whome alone as louing more then others it was said Ioan. 21. feede my lambes feede my sheepe Of Auricular or Sacramental Confession Iewel Pag. 133. VVe saie that priuate Confession to be made vnto the Minister is neither commaunded by Christe Chrysost â—d Hebr. homil 30. nor necessary to saluation and therefore Chrysostom saith I wil thee not betraye thy selfe openly not to accuse thy selfe before others But I counsel thee to obeyâ— the Prophete saying open thy waye vnto the Lorde Harding Confâ—ssioÌ„ necessary priuate or publique Iohan. 20. NEither doo we say precisely that Priuate Confession is necessarie but that either Priuate or Publike is necessarily to be made to a Priest bicause he onely hath power of Christe to forgeue and to reteinâ— sinnes And he can not iudge who are to be forgeuen or who are to be reteined excepte the sinners do particularly open their hart and thought where the founteine of sinnes is Matt. 15. accordingly as Christ said Euil thoughts come forth from the hart S. Chrysostom in this place speaketh not in deede of Sacramental Confession but of that which is daily to be made vnto God alone Of the coÌ„fessioÌ„ that S. Chrystom speaketh of Ad Heb. hom 31. He had said before Poenitentem non oportet peccatum suum obliuioni tradere peccatum Confessione minuitur nullum inuenitur delictorum tale remedium sicut eorum continuata memoria The penitent must not forgete his sinne The sinne is diminished by Confession No such remedie of sinnes is found as the continual remembrance of them Nec tantum nos peccatores esse dicamus sed etiam ipsa peccata specialiter singula computemus Neither let vs only saye we are sinners in general but let vs recken vp euery sinne in special Vpon which wordes immediatly it foloweth I saie not to thee that thou shalt bewray thy selfe openly but open thy way vnto our Lorde Now put the whole tale of S. Chrysostome together whereas he willed men to haue continual remembrance of their sinnes to confesse them and that in special and particularly and stil to do it a man might worthily haue said vnto him why syr shal I go euery daye to the Priest and neuer leaue confessing the selfe same sinne To this obiection he maketh answer saying Ibid thee not bewraie thy selfe openly nor to accuse thy selfe before others Reuele thy wayes to God Here then we haue Particular and ofte remembrance of sinnes that it is good to cal the selfe same sinnes oftetimes particularly to remeÌ„brance and to coÌ„fesse them ofte vnto God But that they neede not at al to be confessed to the priest that S. Chrysostome saith not For in other places he hath taught vs that the priest is in better case to purge sinnes now then the priest in the lawe was to shewe that the leprouse were purged His wordes are Corporis lepram haud purgare quidem Chrysost Lib. 3. de Sacerdotio Priestes haue povver to purge the Lepre of the soule sed purgatos probare Iudaeorum sacerdotibus solis licebat At vero nostris sacerdotibus non corporis lepram verùm animae sordes non dico purgatas probare sed purgare prorsus concessum est The priestes onely of the Iewes had power not to purge the Lepre of the body but to trie them that were purged But truly vnto our Priestes it is geuen vtterly to cleanse not the Lepre of the body but the filth of the soule Marke reader these wordes To cleanse and not to trie who are cleane If our Priestes do so farre passe the Priestes of the Lawe and yet no Leprous man might be admitted into the Temple and Communion of the Iewes vntil the only Priestes of Moyses law had declared him to be cleane much lesse can any mortal sinner who in his soule is leprous be ordinarily purged but onely by the Priestes of Christ who now as S. Chrysostom saith doo not only shew that men are purged but haue power throwghly to purge the lepre that is to saie the mortal sinne of the soule But how can they discretely purge that which is not shewed vnto them Math. 8. When Christ sent away the leprouse man bidding him to shewe him selfe vnto the prieste then he declared as in a figure of the law that in the time of the new testament a great sinner should not be purged before that he had shewed him selfe that is to saie had reueled the soares of his hart and conscience vnto the priest So haue we that it is good and necessarie to confesse al our sinnes vnto God and our Lepres or mortal sinnes also vnto the Priest Of these two truthes neither impugneth other That is a continual practise of Heretikes to reproue the one kind of Confession bicause they find somtimes the other alone coÌ„meÌ„ded or spokeÌ„ of A wise and a good maÌ„ wil coÌ„ferre and ioine al truthes together and not go about to destroie one truth by another As for Gratian and al your hotchepotte of gloses I wil leaue for a more conuenient place where perhappes if it shal be thought worth the labour they shal be answered al at ones Against your heretical Proposition I wil set S. Basils catholike iudgement It was demaunded of S. Basil Qui vult confiteri peccata sua Basil In Quaest CoÌ„peud 288. num omnibus confiteri debet quibuscunque quibus He that wil confesse his sinnes whether he ought to confesse them to al men and to what soeuer personnes or els to whom Hereunto he maketh this answer Necessarium est confiteri peccata ijs quibus administratio mysterioruÌ„ Dei concredita est Sic enim qui olim poenitentiaÌ„ egerunt coram sanctis fecisse comperiuntur ScriptuÌ„ est enim in EuaÌ„gelio quideÌ„ quòd
one to the other the childe which is brought foorth and the Sacrament whereof Christ said That which God hath ioyned Math. 19. let not man separate Iewel 042. In this place M. Iewel setteth vs forth a great many of Phrases The Fathers intreating of the Sacramentes haue vsed vehement and great vvordes c. Harding Whiles you hunte for wordes and Phrases you consider not that the Church of God had the practise of certaine thinges whereby the Fathers wordes were perfitely vnderstanded Restore vs those thinges whiche you can not denie to haue ben in the Primitiue Churche as holy oile Chrisme Monckes consecrated Virgins Altars and Sacrifice for the quicke and dead with other suche and then talke you of wordes what you list I accompt it labour lost to dispute with you about Phrases of speach vpon which Christes faith dependeth not but vpon his Institution and the practise and custom of his Churche the best interpreter of the same Iewel Pag. 206. The Sacramentes of the old and of the nevv lavv in truth and substance are al one Harding I knowe not what you meane by Truth and Substance I confesse the effecte of them al tendeth to one ende That is to ioyne vs with God and with Christe in harte wil and glorie But after Christes incarnation grace is more copiousely distributed by corporal instrumentes to the ende we maie learne to seeke our saluation by the fleash and body of Christe SacrameÌ„tes are the ordinarie meanes vvherby to receiue grace in our Soules Marci 16. Chrysostomus ad Hebrae Homil. 14 1. Cor. 10. Iohan. 20. Iacob 5. who was made Man to saue vs. And therefore although grace be only in our soules yet the ordinarie meane of receiuing grace commeth to vs by the Sacramentes accordingly as it is said He that beleueth and is baptised shal be saued Baptismus saith S. Chrysostom corporis mundatio non est sed animae Baptisme is not the cleansing of the Body but of the Soule Now the Soule is cleansed only by grace Therefore baptisme geueth grace as an instrument appointed therto by Christ And al we being many are one bread and one body which partake of the one bread to wit of the body of Christ saith S. Paule Whose sinnes ye forgeue they are forgeuen And he that is annointed with oile by the Priestes of the Church praying for him in the name of our Lord shal haue his sinnes forgeuen him if he be in any Iewel M. Harding vvil replie S. Augustine saith In Psal 73. the Sacramentes of the new testament geue saluation But his meaning is this Our Sacramentes teache vs that Saluation is alreadie come into the vvorlde Harding So then Dare is to teach and Salus is saluation come into the world Here is gaye geare for wantons to dally with wordes in matter of our Saluation Iewel Contrà Faust Manich. lib. 19. cap. 14. S. Augustine saith in an other place The Sacraments of the olde lavv vvere promises of thinges to be accomplished our Sacraments of the nevv lavv are tokens that the same promises be alreadie accomplished Harding If your wordes had any pith in them I would laye them out at large and answer them fully But now I graunt al that you saie What then Wil it folow that bicause our Sacramentes doo shewe that Christe is alreadie come therefore our Sacramentes geue no grace For that is the point whiche you denie Nay rather they geue grace therefore bicause they shew so much by his Institution For Christe maketh not naked shewes his wordes worke and his deedes be effectual in the soule and his Sacramentes both shew that whiche is done to wit the death of Christe and make vs partakers of the grace purchased by the same He that eateth Christes fleash 1. Cor. 11. Ioan. 6. sheweth his death saith S. Paul and he that eateth my fleash saith Christ hath life euerlasting Marke how our hauing of life goeth together with our shewing of Christes death You diuide these matters and make Christes Sacramentes only to be shewes Iewel M. Harding saith our doctrine is but in a corner of the vvorld and that therfore Christ hath geuen this vvatchevvorde of vs beleue them not Hovvbeit so many kingdoms Countries Common vveales as professe this daye the Gospel vvould make a good large Corner of the Church of God Harding I looke not only to your present state M. Iewel but I looke a litle backward For Christes Church began not with Frier Luther within these fiftie yeres but fifteen hundred yeres past Your Church is not yet very great and nothing so great as the Arians was Howbeit fiftie yeres past it was so smal that not only Christ but euen Photinus or Pelagius would haue benne ashamed of you For your candle was vnder a bushel and your congregation in the desert or in the secrete partes of the house Math. 5. Math. 24. which kinde of Congregations Christ willed vs not to beleeue For his Citie is alwaies vpon a Hil and can not be hid Iewel Pag. 208. Christ meant of Antichrist as it is very likely vvhen he said In Math. Homil. 49 beleue them not For out of the very true Churches come deceiuers as Chrysostome saith Harding And you are the members of Antichrist for you came out of the true Churche when you went from vs. Iewel 208. Verely hovvsoeuer M. Harding vvil shift this matter the plaine vvordes seeme rather to touch him and his companie then either Luther or Zuinglius or any other For they can point vvith their fingers and say here is Christe and there is Christ Behold in this pixe are three Christes in that fiue in that seuen in that moe Therefore it is likely that Christ geueth vs this special vvatchvvord of them and such others beleeue them not Harding If those wordes here is Christ and there is Christ Math. 24 Marc. 13. were meant of his body in the Sacrament euen at his owne Supper it might haue ben said here is Christ and there is Christ For in euery Apostles hand or mouth Christ then was Ambro. de iis qui initiantur myster c. 9. For as S. Ambrose witnesseth In illo Sacramento Christus est quia corpus Christi Christe is in that Sacrament bicause it is the body of Christe S. Chrysostom of purpose answereth your foolish obiection Chryso ad Heb. Homil 17. Quoniam in multis locis offertur Christus multi Christi sunt Nequaquam sed vnus vbique est Christus hîc plenus existens illic plenus vnum corpus Bicause Christ is offered in manie places are there manie Christes No not so But one Christ is in euery of the places being fully here and fully there it is one body Reseruation of the Sacrament of the Alter Againe this Sacrament was preserued euen in the Primitiue Church and sent by Deacons to those that were absent as S. a In Apologia 2. Iustinê° the Martyr and S. b
water And as by water touching our flesh cleannes cometh to our soule euen so by the body of Christ touching our flesh the fatnes of God so TertulliaÌ„ speaketh that is to saie the plentiful grace of God commeth to our soule Coloss 2. For in that flesh God the sonne dwelleth corporally And by that only flesh grace is most abundantly ministred vnto vs for which cause that flesh is made the instrument of grace to vs. Ambros de Sacrament li. 6. cap. 1. Hereunto agreeth S. Ambrose Idem Dominus noster Iesus Christus consors est diuinitatis corporis tu qui accipis eius carneÌ„ diuinae eius substantiae in illo participaris alimento The same our Lord Iesus Christ is partaker both of Godhead and of body And thou which receiuest his flesh art made partaker in that foode of his Diuine substance There S. Ambrose spake of receiuing the Sacrament and expounded how Christe is the liuing bread that came downe from heauen Ioan. 6. His flesh saith he came not from heauen but whiles thou receiuest that flesh in that foode thou art made partaker of the godhead But if it were bread which we receiue at Christes supper in that foode of bread we should not be made partakers of the diuine substance For the diuine substance is in none other foode as to be receiued of vs but only in the flesh and bloude of Christ And there it is for our sakes and for that diuine substances sake the flesh of Christ is geuen really to vs that thereby the Godhead may the more mightily poure grace and the seede of immortalitie into our soules By faith we might feede of the Godhead but by that meanes onely we should not be made partakers of the godhead as by the best meane For the flesh of Christ with our faith is a better meane to deriue the godhead vnto vs then faith alone Faith suffised the olde Fathers bicause there was yet no better meane But when Christ had once taken flesh then his flesh together with saith Ioan. 1. was an other manner of meane to make vs partakers of more abundant grace Christe is touched novv of vs. Luc. 6. For now we touch really the flesh of Christ by the formes of bread and wine euen as in the daies when he liued in earth diuers personnes touched him by touching his garment which was about his flesh And by that meanes as they were most spedily healed so are we Chrysostom crieth out Chrysost in epistol ad ephes homil 3. Quomodo comparebis ante tribunal Christi qui manibus ac labijs immundis ipsius audes contingere corpus Et regem quidem nolles ore tuo foetido adosculari regem verò coeli anima graueolenti oscularis Oro te an voles manibus illot is ad oblationem accedere Atqui manibus quidem ad tempus continâ—tur in illâ—m ver◠〈…〉 resoluitur seu diuersatur Cur non vasa vides ita vndique lota ita splendida Illa non sunt capacia illius quem in se habent non sentiunt illum nos verò planè How shalt thou appeare before the throne of Christ who art so bold as with vncleane handes and lippes to touch his body Thou wouldest not aduenture to kisse the king with thy stincking mouth and wilt thou kisse the king of heauen with a foule stincking soule I praye thee wilt thou not washe thy handes before thou comest to the oblation And yet in thy handes he is holden but for a time but into the soule he is wholy resolued or there maketh his abode Wherefore beholdest thou not the vessels how they be cleane washed and shine ful brightly And yet they be not partakers of him nor feele him whom they conteine but we doo truly Christe holdeÌ„ in our hand In this discourse it is euident that we touch Christ in the Sacrament In so much that he saith the vessels hold him our handes holde him and our soule holdeth him Marke wel that the selfe same thing is in the vessels to wit in the patin and in the chalice and in the hand also which is in the soule Bread and wine are not in our soule but only Christes fleash Wherefore it is Christ also which is in the vessels and in our hand â–ª But he is holden in our hand saith S. Chrysostom ad tempus a while But he dwelleth in our soule none other wise then if one thing were made of bothe and one were resolued into the other Againe the vessels hold him but they partake him not bicause they lacke faith But it is the same Christ in the vessels and in our handes which is in our soule For from the vessels he commeth to our handes and from our handes into our bodies and so into our soules What extreme impudencie then is it to say that in these wordes S. Chrysostom meant not the bloud of Christ to be really in the Chalice and his body to be really vnder the forme of bread Leo the great saith Leo sermone 6. de ieiunio 7. mensis Christes bodie is receiued vvith mouthe ye ought so to communicate of the holy table that ye doubt nothing at al of Christes body and bloud Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur for that thing is taken in by mouth which is beleeued in faith But the thing beleeued in faith concerning Christes supper is the manhod and godhead of Christ Therefore the selfe nature of God and man is receiued in mouth What can be prentended here to the contrarie Cyrillus saith The mystical blessing Cyrillus lib. 10. in Ioan. c. 13. when it is becomme to be in vs doth it not cause Christ to dwel corporally also in vs by the coÌ„municating of his flesh Marke that the meane of Christes dwelling corporally in vs is the receiuing of the Sacrament And with Cyrillus it is wel knowen Hilarius de trinit lib. 8. Gregorius in Euangelia homil 22. how thorowly S. Hilarie agreeth Last of al S. Gregorie saith Quid sit sanguis Agni non iam audiendo sed bibendo didicistis Qui sangus super vtrumque postem ponitur quando non solùm ore corporis sed etiam ore cordis sumitur In vtroque etenim poste sanguis Agni est positus quando sacramentum passionis illius cum ore ad redemptionem sumitur ad imitationem quoque intenta mente cogitatur Nam qui sic redemptoris sui sanguinem accepit vt imitari passionem illius nec dum velit in vno poste sanguinem posuit What the bloud of the Lambe is ye haue now learned not by hearing but by drincking This bloud is put vpon both the postes when it is receiued not onely by the mouth of the body but also by the mouth of the soule For the bloud of the Lambe is put vpon both postes when the Sacrament of his passion is both receiued by mouth for our redemption and is also ernestly thought
the very last man had drunke of that cup once filled and once coÌ„secrated for to that end this word al doth serue And that may wel appeare by S. Luke Luc. 22. who geueth vs Christes wordes in this wise Accipite diuidite inter vos Take yee and diuide it betwen you Which wordes S. Augustine saith were spoken of the Cup of the newe Testament Augustin de consensu EuangelistaruÌ„ lib. 3. c. 1. Enim Matt. 26. Drinke ye al of this in vvhat sâ—â—se vvas it spokeÌ„ Marc. 14. Diuide this Cup betwen you and drinke yee al of this doth make al one sense and that may more plainely appeare by the word enim for which doth follow in Christes saying Drinke ye al of this for this is my Bloud As if he said were not this my bloud eche of you might drinke vp the whole cup if occasion of thirst so required But now it is geuen not to quench bodily thirst but to nourish the Soule Therefore drinke ye so that al may drinke of this one Cup. Et biberunt ex illo omnes And al they dranke of it Thus we see by the Circumstance of the place that the worde al doth nothing elles but warne them of the Mysterie present in the Cup whereof we may not inferre that al which at any time doo communicate in one Churche must needes drinke of one Chalice as the Apostles did as neither that there muste be stil twelue to drinke of euery Cup. For that was a Circumstance so vsed in Christes Supper as we can make no lawe thereof The true lawe to directe vs in that behalfe was committed to the Apostles who taught the Churche that alwayes at the Consecration it was needeful for bothe kindes to be offered and receiued as wel that the being of Christes Soule aparte from his Body at his death might be signified as also that the publike Minister might wholy represent by his outwarde action that here is al foode necessary for mannes comforte whether it be meate or drinke that he needeth As for the reste it shoulde be al one whether they that communicated receiued one or bothe kindes bicause the whole Body Bloude Soule and Godheade of Christe is fully present in either kinde Concerning that S. Chrysostome and Theophylactâ— haue said as wel of the cup as of the bread Doo this in my remembrance it meaneth that as wel when we consecrate the Body as when we consecrate the Bloud or when we receiue either of them bothe the end of our doing must be the memorie of Christes death Whereas Paschasius addeth expressely that the Ministers must as wel drinke of the Cup as the reste of the faithfull you name vs not the place where we maye find it And therein you haue done more politikely then vprightly or plainely For in deede it maketh not for you Paschasius speaketh of the spiritual eatiÌ„g or drinking Paschasius ca. 15. Paschasius in that place disputeth of spiritual eating or drinking and saith that as wel the faithful people as the ministers muste drinke spiritually of this Cup. His wordes immediatly before are these Solus Christus est qui frangit hunc panem per manus ministrorum distribuit credentibus dicens accipite bibite ex hoc omnes tam ministri quà m reliqui credentes It is Christ alone that breaketh this bread and diuideth it by the handes of his ministers vnto the beleuers saying take ye and drinke ye al of this as wel ministers as also the other beleeuers this is the Cup of my Bloud Lo as wel the ministers as al others are bid to drinke of the bread or Cup indiffereÌ„tly to wit of Christ so that he speaketh no more of the Cup then of the bread but al in like wise of Christ alone For Paschasius saith ca. 15. that Christe brake the bread saing take yee and drink yee al of this this is the Cup of my bloud He then so mingleth the breaking of the bread with the drinking of the Cup that a man may wel perceiue that he rather spake of the thing it selfe conteined vnder those formes then of either kinde or forme by it selfe Iewel Pag. 230. M. Harding him selfe is forced to confesse by the reporte of Leo Sermone 4. De qua drages that the first knovven deuisers and authors of his Communion in one kinde vvere the olde heretikes called the Manichees Harding Where haue you any such word in al my booke M. Iewel I must beare with you for customes sake M. Ievvel forgeth vvordes vpon his Aduersarie For this is your accustomed manner to make me speake that which I neuer thought It is to be vnderstanded that before the time of Leo and in his time also the manner and custom was that the faithful people receiued either one or bothe kindes as their deuotion serued them By occasion of which custom The Manichees heresie denying Christes true flesh the Manichees also couered their pestilent heresie as they who beleued that Christ had no true flesh and consequently no true bloude but onely a phantastical or apparent body without real truth of flesh and bloud They then perceiuing that at the mysteries some Christians vsed to receiue one kind alone mingled them selues alwaies with them and wholy absteined from the Chalice Which thing when Pope Leo perceiued he gaue a watch worde thereof vnto the people saying Sermone 4. De qua dragesim Cùm ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse mysterijs ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant vt interdum tutius lateant Ore indigno Christi corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant Whereas they to hide and cloke their infidelitie be so bolde as to be present at our Mysteries they behaue them selues so in the receiuing of the Sacramentes that now and then they may lurke the more fafely They receiue with vnworthy mouthe the body of Christe but as for the bloud of our redemption they vtterly refuse to receiue it Now if these men came thus to the mysteries among the Christians to hide their heresie and infidelitie it is not to be thought that they alone receiued one kinde For then they had forthwith ben betraied But whereas other men receiued either the body or the bloud as occasion or deuotion required the Manichees euer receiued only the body of Christ and neuer the bloud and that with this false and heretical opinion that Christe had no true bloud Gelasius then being Pope not long after Leo willed al the Christians who before were at libertie to receiue bothe kindes that thereby al oportunitie and occasioÌ„ might be taken from the Manichees any more so to lurke and to cloke their impietie Now to declare this muche is not to confesse that the Manichees were the first deuisers of Communion vnder one kinde Wherfore you maie haue good leaue M. Iewel to take that spiteful Vntruthe to your selfe home againe
knowe the answere M. Iewel Nothing is more common You belie the Scripture that is the answer to you And your forefathers euen vp to Luther haue alwaies belyed it and being told of it wil not yet amende no more then the Deuil whom they followe A thing may be dead in two sortes Idle faith i◠a faith either bicause it had life in it of his owne or els bicause it had it of another thing If a man be deade he is deade in respecte of the life which belonged to him selfe For a man doth consist of body and soule and not of the one alone So that when the soule is aparte from the body then is he no more a perfitte man during the time of that separation But the Body being one parte of a man hath life in it whiles the soule abideth in it But that life is not the Bodies owne but it is the life of the soule geuing mouing vnto the Body which life when it is taken away the Body remaineth stil a perfite Body in his owne nature although it be vnperfite in respect of the soule which did commende it and set it forth Now it is to be considered whether Faith haue life in it selfe and of his owne nature as a man hath for then a dead faith is no faith or els whether faith hath life of another thing to wit of Charitie and then a dead Faith is a true Faith in his owne nature albeit it be disgraced for lacke of the life which it was wont to haue through Charitie The very expresse worde of God hath ended this question For S. Iames geueth vs to vnderstand that Faith hath life of an other thing like as the body hath of the soule for he saith Sicut enim corpus sine spiritu mortuum est ita fides sine operibus mortua est Iacob 2. As the body without the sowle is dead so is faith dead without workes Not as the man is dead without the sowle but as the body is dead without the soule so is faith dead without workes But the body being without the sowle is stil a true natural body Therefore faith being without good workes is stil a true real faith But it is idle and no more profitable vntil good workes be againe graffed into it This mater is so plaine that the confirmation of witnesses is needelesse and so M. Iewel is tried a lier in that he said an idle faith is in dede no faith at al. Iewel Pag. 321. We graunt good vvorkes haue their revvard but the same revvards standeth in mercie and fauour and not in duetie Iob saith If a man wil dispute with God he is not able to ansvver him one for a thovvsand I vvas a fraid of al my vvorkes Although I vvere perfit yet my soule shal not knovv it c. Harding These witnesses do proue wel against your assurednes of saluation which you warrant to your selues But concerning our question it shal be good here to laye certaine truthes confessed of al sides that the doctrine may be the plainer First there is no merite of workes at al before faith or without faith August epist 52. Defence 321. For els grace were not grace and thereunto perteine S. Augustines wordes by you alleged to an other purpose After faith no particular man is able to warrant his owne workes to be meritorious And that is proued by al the testimonies of Scriptures and Fathers which you haue brought For euery man is vncertaine of his owne state Ecclesiastes 9. Our vvorkes considered in themselfe can not deserue life euerlasting as not knowing whether he be worthy of hatred or of fauour But when wee dispute generally whether those men who being in grace in dede are confessed to haue wrought wel do merite life euerlasting thereby or no that being our question thus I saie No workes of man were they neuer so good could of them selues without Gods ordinance haue merited heauen of God or haue made him debter of such a reward or wages dew to them For they are al done in time and can not deserue an infinite reward such as is rendred in heauen Rom. 8. For I iudge saith the Apostle that the afflictions of this time are not worthy of the glorie that shal be reueled in vs. In vvhat consideratiō are our good vvorkes meritorious of infinite revvarde But seing it hath pleased God not onely to geue vs abundance of grace whereby our workes may be acceptable to him but also to promise euerlasting life to the doers of them and to make him selfe a debter to vs of suche a rewarde this promise of God being put it were iniurious to God if nowe wee should not saie that our good workes deserued life euerlasting For seinge God geueth them freely to th ende we shoulde thereby deserue heauen who is so voide of reason as to denie that those workes deserue Glorie of whiche God hath said the dooer◠of them shal haue glorie rendred vnto them as their wages Matth. 5. Merces vestra saith he copiosa est in coelis your wages is plentiful in Heauen Vnusquisque propriam mercedem accipiet secundùm suum laborem 1. Cor. 3. Euery man shal receiue his proper wages according to his owne labour Psal 61. Thou shalt render to euery man saith the Prophete according to his workes If then no mannes workes in no sense deserue glorie it muste follow that God shal render glorie to no man and yet S. Paule sayth Rom. 2. that God wil render life euerlasting to them who seeke glorie and honour and incorruption according to the patience or continuance of working wel The same worde reddere Reddere to render or paye doth import a title and right that good workers haue to demaunde life euerlasting For as if I promise one ten pound to bring me a cuppe of fresh water although before I had promised that wages the water were not worth one halfpennie yet if once vpon my promise a man do bring me the water I am bound by my promise and couenant to paie him his wages Mat. 10. euen so God hath bounde him selfe to geue vs life euerlasting for our good workes saying Hoc fac viues doo this thing and thou shalt liue Againe he that continueth til the ende shal be saued And therefore now he that hath wrought wel euen til the ende may require God to keepe his promise who surely is faithful and wil not faile to kepe it And this thing is meant by the Parable of him that hiered men to labour in his wineyard that is in his Church couenāting with them for a pennie that is to saie Mat. 20. for life euerlasting To whom when he paied their wages he said Nónne ex denario conuenisti mecum Tolle quod tuum est Diddest thou not bargaine with me for a pennie Take that whiche is thine And S. Paule testifieth of him selfe 2. Tim. 4. I
volume as it appeareth bothe otherwise Illyricus Luthers great defender a special Doctor of M. Ievvelles and also by your owne quotations out of that worke Yet he allegeth alwaies there and in other of his suche the like rash and false scriblinges Dominicus à Soto by his right name But this errour or ignorance might peraduenture be asscribed to some of your gatherers of stuffe and coadiutours sauing that you wil needes take vppon you al the faulte your selfe and discharge al others thereof as you haue admonished the reader in your View of Vntruthes where thus you saie what soeuer errour shal be founde in any my writinges I wil discharge bothe my Clerke and the Compositour and the Printer of the same and take the whole vpon my selfe Moreouer to shew your constancie in this errour B. iij. b. you doo allege Pag. 499. Petrus à Soto de natura gratia whereas he neuer wrote any suche worke but Dominus à Soto And herein it is to be noted also that you neither quote the number of the booke nor of the Chapter where that saying is to be founde But by like you went by heresaie and reporte and so lefte your reader to seeke at aduenture that he should either not finde or elles so hardly find that he would be lothe to take the paines to looke for it You tel me in an other place that my frende Catharinus saith I can not tel what of Schole writers Pag. 571. and you referre me in the Margent to a booke of his against Petrus a Soto But I am sure you neuer sawe any such booke against that person Wel it might be against Dominicus a Soto A man maie thinke that you reade these thinges with spectacles of a false sighte that you were neuer hable to discerne Dominicus from Petrus or elles that you wrote yow knewe not what in a dreame Pag. 169. AlphoÌ„sus de Castro mistaken by M. Ievvel for AlphoÌ„sus Viruesius Bishop of the Canaries You allege vnto me about vowes one of my greatest Doctours as you cal him Alphonsus de Castro Philippica 19. Howe great soeuer he be with me it maie be iustely said that you are greatly beholding vnto him if he make so often for you as you allege him For he hath holpen you with stuffe euen for your owne tooth as you haue handled the matter But I praie you did you euer see his Philippicas bicause you allege the 19 I know not what spectacles you vse but if you reade no better and were in case as some be who haue not murdered so many bodies as you haue soules you might be put to a harde disstresse in time of neede at the Sessions and be refused for not reading vt Clericus For as it appeareth your reading is quite beside the booke Shew me any suche booke of Alphonsus de Castro and you shal be quitte by Proclamation of al your false reportes which are more and greater then a man would weene that is not acquainted with your writinges I remember that one Alphonsus Viruesius Episcopus Canariensis made suche a worke against Philip Melanchton and called the Treaties of it Philippicas as I haue tolde you before Pag. 345. Endeuouring to disgrace as muche as you can godly and perfite obedience you doo contemptuously speake your pleasure Cassianus lib. 4. cap. 27. de Institutis coenobiorum Pag. 51. Zarabella de Sectis alleged by M. Ievv vvhereas he neuer vvrote any suche booke M. Ievvel allegeth Illyricus the heretike vnder the name of zabarella vvhom he meaneth by zarabella Defence Pag. 618. Ioannes Camotensis a Doctor of M. Ievvelles neuer knovveÌ„ Confu so 286. Defence pag. 613. and yet bicause you would not seeme to speake vnto vs without some authoritie you bring in Cassander lib. 4. cap. 27. But certain it is you misse the cuishon and haue mistaken your marke in not discerning betwen Cassianus and Cassander and naming the one for the other whiche faulte might be laide to the Printer but that yee haue taken the mater in hande your selfe In purling in the Canonistes for sayinges that might be wrested against the Pope you tel vs a tale out of Franciscus Zabarella de Sectis 115. Whether you haue seene any authour called Zarabella by which name you alwaies allege him I doo more then doubte It maie be that you meane Zabarella for that is his right name But yet can you not shewe vs any booke that euer he made de Sectis I wis M. Iewel you should haue written Illyricus De Sectis your owne greate frende You doo also allege in three diuers places Videlicet pag. 639. 648. 694. your the same Zabarella de Schemale Concilio I would aske you what is meant there by those wordes de Schemate Should it not be trow you de Schismate About Ioannes Camotensis you plaie and dallie euen as a fishe with the hooke til he be caught faste by the iawe You seeme to please your selfe muche in controlling my ghesse But therein at length you bewraie your owne ignorance and proue your selfe not to be so wise and wel learned as you would be taken in your owne authours alleged Bicause I said what worshipful Doctour you meane by Camotensis I know not You added in the margent If I knew him noâ— I might best blame myne ignorance But how iustely you are to be blamed of ignorance in the selfe same matter your selfe wherein you take your selfe to be so great a doctour let euery vpright Reader iudge After you haue a while skornefully tolde me whom I might haue ghessed this authour to be as Fulbertus Carnotensâ—â— or Ioannes Sarisburiensis otherwise called by some as you saie Rupertus Carnotensis you pronounce at length the definitiue sentence very saddely with these wordes But in deed this writers name is Ioannes Carnotensis alleged by Cornelius Agrippa Cornel. Agrippa As for Agrippas allegation it maketh no force for he is not of so honest same but that exception maie lawfully be taken against his person and therefore he is meeter for your purpose Albeit in this case it maie be that the Printer was in fault and not Agrippa him selfe And how easily Camotensis is made of Carnotensis by change of rnÌ„ into mÌ„ who perceiueth not And so would Agrippa saie were he aliue there is no doubt But you affirme plainely without al doubt that in deede it is Ioannes Camotensis that was a Bishop And there you doo very odiously without al cause make a coÌ„parison betwene him and certaine others only to serue your owne scoffing humour But Sir I praie you for asmuch as you wil haue him in deede to be a Bishop Cornel. Agrippa de vanitate ScieÌ„tiarum cap. â—1 be so good as tel vs whether he be called Camotensis of his countrie or of his Bishoprike Your great substantial Doctor Cornelius Agrippa seemeth to signifie if the Printer haue not deceiued him that he had that name of his Bishoprike calling him Ioannes Camotensis
of Infantes necessarie fol. 336. a. Bastard vvorkes printed with good authours fol. 58. b. Baudie Bale vvorthily so called fol. 37. Beno parcial holding vvith the Emperour against the Pope fol. 57. a. S. Bernard reiected by M. Ievv fol. 12. a. BereÌ„garius vvordes as he laie dying 105. b. his heresie coÌ„demned fol. 105. a Beza persuaded Poltrot to kil the Duke of Guise fol. 85. a. Bigamie lavvful rather then commendable fol. 279. b. Bishoppes only in Councelle haue sentence definitiue fol. 99. a. Bishoppes not doing their dueties are yet Bishoppes fol. 181. 182. Bishoppes and Priestes different fol. 133. b. Bishoppes be Bishoppes though they be negligent fol. 181. a. A Bishop aboue a Priest fol. 235. b. The Bishop of Rome is the Successour of Peter fol. 273. a. A Bishop is not hable to doo his duetie the better for that he is married fol. 309. b. Blame a worde of honest meaning changed by M. Iew. in to Handle a word of filthy meaning fol. 121. a. Brentius the first deuiser of laying together the Aduersaries sharpe vvordes fol. 25. b. Brentius chargeth Bullinger vvith sharpe speache fol. 26. a. Brentius the authour of the heresie of the Vbiquitaries fol. 116. b. Browne the head Minister of the Puritanes fol. 336. a. Brunichildis Quene of FraÌ„ce fol. 382. a C. CAnonical Election of M. Iewel to the See of Sarisburie fol. 232. a. Capon Bishop no Protestant fol. 243. a. The Catholique Church fol. 272. 273. 274. Catholike vvhat by LirineÌ„sis fol. 124. b. Catholique Church staÌ„ding in two personnes by M. Ievvel fol. 126. a. Cathecumenus interpreted by M. Ievvel an heathen fol. 342. a. Celestinus Pope sclaundered fol. 253. b. Chams broode fol. 37. a. Character vvhat it signifieth in the Sacramentes fol. 268. a. Christopher Goodmans Traitours fol. 84. b. The Church standeth in multitude of personnes fol. 125. b. 126. Christ is the Rocke and Peter is the Rocke and hovv eche fol. 174. b. Church a plainer teacher then the Scriptures fol. 328. Christ a consecrated prieste fol. 3 2. b. Christ touched of vs in the Euchariste fol. 340. a. Christes bodie receiued of vs vvith mouth fol. 341. a. Churche hovve it is resolued in doubteful cases fol. 352. The clergie of this nevv Congregation vvhat vvorthy menne it hath fol. 262. b. Clerkes bounde to Continencie fol. 279. a. Communion in one or bothe kindes fol. 343. b. in sequent b. Communicatorie letters fol. 223. b. Concupiscence vvithout consent is not properly sinne fol. 337. a. CoÌ„tinuance of the Church vvithout intermission fol. 31. a. 89. 90. 91. 92. Councel of Laterane a great assemblie fol. 105. a. Councelles of later time in authoritie fol. 108. 109. a. b. Councelles not contrarie one to the other fol. 109. b. Councelles later preferred before the former fol. 114. b. 115. a. Concupiscence in married menne vvithout vvhiche generation is not perfourmed is an il thing fol. 283. a. Consecration of a Bishop fol. 240. b. Confession of sinnes necessary fol. 274 b. 275. 276. 277. Contradictions of M. Ievvel fol. 98. a. 101. b. Cranmar no Successour of S. Thomas fol. â—04 a. Cranmar hovv dealt vvithal for heresie and treason fol. 380. b. Cyrillus falsified by M. Ievv fol. 280. a. Cyprian nipped fouly by M. Iewel fol. 269. a. Cyprian alleaged by M. Iew. in an il cause fol. 271. b. D. DAmasus made by M. Iewel to write of thinges done after his death fol. 287. a. Degradatio fol. 7. a. Deposition of the Clergie what it is and how fol. 69. b. 70. 71. Dioscorus coÌ„deÌ„ned by Bishops not by the Ciuil magistrate fol. 72. 73. Dissensions among the ProtestaÌ„tes fol. 33. 34. 35. 151. 152. Donatistes errour renevved by M. Ievvel fol. 92. a. Dorman defended fol. 295. a. Double holinesse fol. 203. b. Drinke ye al of this in vvhat sense it vvas spoken fol. 343. b. E. ERasmus against the Protestantes fol. 163. b. Erasmus and Agrippa belie the Greke Church touching priestes marriage fol. 307. a. Ephrem praied for the healpe of Saintes and to Saintes fol. 364. b. Errour of S. Cyprian fol. 271. b. Errour of Pope Iohn 22. vvhat was it fol. 64. b. Errours that M. Ievvel maie be induced to acknovvledge fol. 77. a. Errours the greatest that M. Ievvel could find in my bookes fol. 77. b. Euchariste ministred to Children at Baptisme fol. 241. a. F. FAithe in England made changeable fol. 23. a. Faith without workes fol. 369. b. Faithe of the later thousand yeres as good as that of the first fiue hundred yeres fol. 94 b. Faithful wiues haue ben cause of the couersion of their vnfaithful husbandes fol. 315. a. Fathers charged by M. Iew. with ouersight for zele and heat fol. 295. b. Figuratiue bodie and figuratiue eating fol. 333. a. Fisher Bishop of Rochester and Luther compared fol. 108. Fleshe is a meane whereby grace passeth into the Soule fol. 339. a. Formosus Pope fol. 139. b. Fornication how it is punished in the Clergie fol. 69. 70. 71. Fornication euer pounished by the Churche fol. 81. Fruite of the Vine fol. 353. b. G. GErmanie for many partes remaining Catholike fol. 96. a. Gerson impudently belied by M. Iewel fol. 64. a. 100. b. 101. a. b. GoodmaÌ„s traiterous writing fol. 14. b. Gospel commeth vnto vs by Tradition fol. 326. b. Gratians wordes alleged by M. Iev for the CouÌ„cel of Carthage fol. 59. b. Grace necessary to the kepiÌ„g of the commaundementes fol. 366. b. Gregorie Nazanzenes saying touching a married Bishop expounded fol. 61. b. 313. b. H. HEad of the Churche one fol. 136. b. 137. seq Henrie of Luxenburg how he died fol. 57. b. Henrie the eightes bodie bruted to be taken awaie fol. 140. a. Henrie the sixt his body taken vp fol. 140. a. Heretiques it booteth not to striue with them fol. 215. b. Heretiques haue not to doo with Scriptures fol. 216. a. Heresie hath idolatrie annexed fol. 261. b Hildebrand Pope 57. b. acquited by graue writers fol. 256. b. 257. a. Hierome of Prage heretique recanted fol. 104. a. Hieromes place ad Euagrium expounded fol. 165. b. 166. 167. Hilarie a wicked man saincted by M. Iewels Canonization fol. 173. a. S. Hilaries verdite of S. Peters preeminence fol. 173. a. S. Hilarie married by M. Iew. fol. 28â— a. Holinesse of degree and of offite fol. 203. b. Honorius Pope no publike teacher of heresie fol. 253. b. 254. seq Hostiensis fowly corrupted by M. Iewel fol. 67. b. Husse said Masse a litle before he vvas burnt fol. 104. a. Hussites heretiques fol. 83. a. b. 103. a. b. Huguenotes of Fraunce Gues of the lovv Countrie fol. 37. a. Hypsistarij vvhat meÌ„ne they vvere fol. 314. a. I. M. Ievvels dignitie and degree no Bishop fol. 39. a. M. Ievvels especial Doctours fol. 8. a. 213. b. 228. b. 229. a. 251. b. M. Ievvels scoffe against Christ him selfe fol. 8. b. M. Ievvel mangleth his aduersaries text in infinite places fol. 9. b. 17. b. M. Ievvels graue sentence pronouÌ„ced against S.