And how is that It foloweth Loquitur Dominus ad Peâ—rum c. Our Lord speaketh to Peter I tel thee saith he that thou art Peter and vpon this Peter or Rocâ—e I vvil builde my Church and the gates of hel shâ—lnot ouercome it Vnto the vvil I geue the keyes of the kingdome of Heauens and those thinges that thou shalt bind in earth shal be bouÌ„d in the heauens also and vvhat soeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth shal be loosed also in the Heauens And vnto the same Peter after his 〈…〉 my sheepe By these wordes then it is manifest what is Original Head and Doctrine of our heauenly Maister that is to the forsaking of which Sainct Cyprian imputeth the Proceedinges of the Diuel and of Heresies Uerely no other than that which our Sauiour by the foresaid expresse Scriptures gaue to S. Peter But now heere ariseth a greaâ—â— doubt and question that S. Peter can not wel be the Heade because euery one of the Apostles was as great in Power as he And this in deede is the Argument that M. Iewel maketh out of S. Cyprian against the Supremacie Which if Sainct Cyprian hadde not espied and Answered then should M. Iewel easily be pardoned But now what an intolerable kinde of soule dealing is this to take an Obiection out of an Olde Father and either for Hast. Or Negligence Or Craftines Or Desperatnes to let go the right answer vnto it For concerning the Obiection Sainct Cyprian thus withstandeth it saiyng And although he gaue after his resurrection lyke povver vnto al his Apostles c. yet to declare vnitie he desposed by his Authority the Original of the same vnitie begining of one By the Obiection then it scemeth that no more accompt should be made of S. Peter then of the vest of the Apostles which seuerally was as greate in power as he But by the Aunswere made with this Aduersatiue Tamen Yet it is manifest that notwithstanding the equa litie among y â— Apostles S. Peter yet was y â— First and the Head among them For Christ disposed by his Authoritie saith S. Cyprian the Original not of vnitie as you mangle it M. Iewel but of the same vnitie which vndoubtedly was in the Apostles beginning of one which is S. Peter As in the Sentence folowing more manifestly appeereth to the further opening of S. Cyprians right meaning and your false dealing For the one halfe of the Sentence is this in deede the rest also of the Apostles vvere the same that Peter vvas endevved with like fellovvship honour and povver This half M. Iewel you rest vpon and build your Conclusion that one of them had no more Priuilege than an other And why interpreted you no further Is the sentence or Sense thinke you at an ende when you haue your purpose Doth not S. Cyprian Interpret Correct Amend or Determine it with an Adnersatiue yet saying least any maÌ„ should through his former words set lesse by S. Peter or his Chaire But yet the Original commeth from vâ—itie that the Church may be shevved to be one And what other thing is this to say but that notwithstanding it to be true that the Apostles were endewed with like honour power as S. Peter was yet no manne ought to gather heereof that there was no Order among them Or that one Bishope now hath as large and absolute Authoritie as an other But this rather must folowe that because schismes and Heresies doe grow apase vvhere no Original or Head is sought for or regarded And because it should be perceiued that the Church is One in that it coÌ„sisteth of one Head vnto whome al the rest were they neuer so high or felow like must be refer red therefore Christ by his Authoritie disposed the Original of that vnitie â— endewed S. Peter with a singular Prerogatiue that he shoulde be that One in the Church from whom whosoeuer departed should not be of the Church And note wel the Cause why the beginning must rise of One vt Ecclesia vna monstretur that the Church might be shevved to be one Why Should it not be One though in euery Diocese through the world euery seueral Bishop were Chief therein No surely by S. Cyprian it should not be But in that the Head therof is but one the vnitie of her doth folow necessarily How doth it folow Mary Whosoeuer holdeth not with this Head he is not in the Church and so must none remaine within her but the Catholike obedieÌ„t Christians How caÌ„ they but agree then al in one Head if they mind to coÌ„tinue in y â— Church wheras y â— departure from hâ—m is to take an other Church bisides that whose special marke is Vnitie in one Head This conclusion then standing that S. Peter was set by the Autoritie of Christ in the first place was that no special Priuilege trow you Or was he First to that intent oÌ„ly that in reckening vp the Apostles men should know where to begin Or that in their meetings together he should sitte first Or speake first Or subscribe first How simple things are these for the wisedome of God to think of And how litle auailable to the preseruing of the Churche in Unitie if no further Preeminence were geuen him And againe if the B. of Romes authoritie now as S. Peters was then were of no more force yet beeing of so much if other would sit before him Or speake before him in any Councel should they not be Offenders against the ordinance of God How can it be otherwise whereas he appointed by his Authoritie the Original of Vnitie to begin of One Suppose then that some one transgresseth this order who shal reproue him If none how vnreasonable is it to set a law and not to include therby an authority to punish the transgressor of the Law If any who more worthy of that Office then the Chief Bishope Ergo there was in S. Peter a proper Authoritie ioyned to that dignitie of his first place which M. Ie. grauÌ„teth vnto him by which he had power to coÌ„troll them y â— should or wold â—esist that Primacie of his in how smal thing so euer it consisted And if there were such Authority Ergo some special Pâ—â—â—lege of Binding or Losing which no other of the Apostles had Except ye wil be so mad as to thinke that in coÌ„trolling of a fault committed against any Excellent Person his Inferiour should be Iudge in the mater and bind or loose at his wil or discretion I leaue it therefore as most manifest that notwithstanding the Apostles were equal in felowshipp of honour and power â–ª with S. Peter yet the Original of 〈◊〉 was appointed by our Saluiour himselfe to begin of S. Peter only and none other And this his preeminence make you it as litle as you can requiring A Proportional Authoritie to be graunted vnto him for the defense therof against al disdaine or disobedience that might be procured or
M. Harding knoweth to be open and knowen lyes this later pointe is proued by certaine coniectures But al this hitherto is nothing to the disprouing of the foresaid Decree either that it is not Soters either that it is not to be credited if as others say it were Anacletus He busieth him selfe in general and Indefinite propositions to no purpose or coÌ„clusion but to breed Suspitions and Doubtes Much like as if in reasoning against some heretike I would not nor could not proue that he were a Diuel but yet would tel a long tale and proue it very substantially that the Diuel hath oftentimes gone abroad and ben conuersant with men and spoken very manerly of Religion so like an honest and true man as any may seme to be in al the worlde Fifthly then after all Preludes or Preambles ended he toucheth specially the decree it selfe vpon which the Argument of D. Hardings was grouÌ„ded And his reasons against it are shortly these S. Austin â— HieroÌ„ who liued 250. yeres after Soter Haue recorded that the people of Rome vsed to take the Communion togeather euerie daie ergo that practise wil hardly stand with Soters decree As who should saie that al the people might not receaue at ouâ— priestes handes if any other priest when they were departed should goe to the Aultare and haue no moe but two to answere hym Item this word Soleâ—â—â— seemeth to importe a solemne companie or resorte of people Yea but Missarum solennia doth import not by seeming but by plaine construing neither cumpanie of masses neither of people but the Apointed and Reuerend Catholike maner of exequuting the Mysteries Item It maie wel be doubted whether Dominus vobiscuÌ„ and Orate prome fratres which wordes are in the decree were any part of the Liturgie of Rome in Soters tyme. What harme I praie you is in those wordes that it might be well douted whether they were vsed so tymely in the Church In Dominus vobiscum our Lord be with you the Priest saluteth the pople Charitably and Godly And in Orate pro me praie for me he confesseth hymselfe a synner and reqâ—ireth their helpe both deâ—outly and humbly But because the selfe same wordes are now in the Masse M. Iewell can not brooke them as he can neither the worde Masse it selfe for which in this place â—ul finely forsoth he vseth the terme of Liturgie of Rome and not of Masse of Rome And so he that can not abyde to haue S. Chrysostomes Liturgie called A Masse which is our English worde to signifie that Seruice of the Church that answereth the Liturgie of the Grecians he nowe lyke a mery Greeke speaking of that Seruice of Rome which was euer called emong the Latinistes Missa and emong y â— English Masse termeth it very â—rymly in English the Liturgie of Rome But let vs go forward After all these foresaid Inuentions to moue an Altercation and busynes about the decree of Soter he would make the Catholikes afraied as if he should say If you wil hold with Soters decree I will dryue you to an Inconuenience and therefore you were beste to let goe your holdfast But whaâ— is that Inconâ—enience Mary saieth he in that Soter requireth that the two of whom he sâ—eaketh make answer vnto the Prieste there in is included both nearnesse of place for the people to stand in and to heare and also a Common knowen tongue Which both are Contrarie to M. Hardinges Masse But he standeth nigh inough I â—rowe that standeth by the Aultare and he answereth in a Common knoweÌ„ tongue that answereth in y â— Latine tongue And both these thinges are done by the simple Parisshe Clerke or litle boie that serueth the Priest at Masse And therefore the decree of Soter hyndereth the Catholikes nothing at al. And if you haue no more to obiect against it than these foresaid trifles you maie either hold your peace or bring some other fressher Argumentes But other Argumentes you haue none Only you take it for a good sporte to note the questions whiche are moued by the Canonistes about this Decree As whether the two whose presence is required ought to be two Clerkes or two laie men or one Clerke and one laie maÌ„ or one man and one woman The Resolution whereof is that they muste be two Clerkes â–ª Yet you declare out of Summa Angelica that in Priuate Masse one is sufficient And to this you alleage Gersons Opinion that the Priest maie wel saie Dominus vobiâ—cuÌ„ our Lord be with you though but one be present because he speaketh vnto the whole Churche of the Faithful and not to that one only that 〈◊〉 by hym Or as Innocentius 〈◊〉 because it maie be thought there be Angels there to supplie the mens Rome Thus you make some sport to your selfe by rekenyng vp of the Canonistes opinions but what sad conclusion you can peâ—ke out thereof againste Soters Decree it is not perceaued Except you wil reason after this sort that because the Late Docâ—ours or Rulers of the Church haue either expounded according to Charitie the wordes of that Decree Or haue loosed according to their Authoritie the bond which was put vpon the Priestes by the Positiue Law thereof therefore Soâ—er was neuer aâ—thor of it The last quarel that M. Iewel hath to Soters Decre is that it maketh mention of Secreta the Secretes of the Masse which to haue ben in the tyme of Soter it were very hard for D. Harding to proue For theÌ„ Euery peece of the Masse was spoken alowde But how proue you thâ—â— For concernyng D. Harding he maie speake vpon some Authoritie because he alleageth the plaine wordes of Soters Decree for it But it is not my purpose exactly to refel M. Iewels Argumentes made against Soter Only this I praie thee now to consider Indifferent Reader how many fetches and deuises he hath in this place had against that Decree of his Anacletus quod he as some saie made it Then Counterfeite Bookes haue bene set abrode Furthermore Decretal Epistles haue ben doubted of And more specially to the mater The practise saâ—eth he of S. Augustine and S. Hieromes tyme can hardly stande with that is here imagined Againe Solennia seemeth to import a resorte of people Againe it maie he wel doubted whether Dominus vobiscuÌ„ were any part of the Liturgie of Rome in Soters tyme. Againe That any Secreta were in the tyme of Soter it were very hard for M. Harding to proue Then adde vnto this That question is moued by the Canonistes what those two ought to be whose preseÌ„ce is required at the Priestes Masse And first the Resolution is this Straitwaies The mater is otherwyse determined Then Gerson saieth this Yet Pope Innocentius hath an other fetche How thinke we now hath this felow lefte any corner vnsearched out of which he might scrape any Gheasse coniecture or Suspition to Diminisshe the Authoritie of this decree of Soter From Generals
vnto the Apostles and others that succeded them in the Churches 〈…〉 And the Correction due and ready for them whiche without license obteined meddle in an other mans Office doe plainely proue the contrarie And therefore vndoubtedly if you wil haue this place vnderstanded particularly of euery Bishope and saie that God hath geauen eche of them ful power the practise not only of al Christendome but of your owne congregation wil confute you In which there is difference betwen the Superintendent of Sarum and of Canterburie But if you wil refer the gift of ful power vnto some singular successours of the Apostles then is this text nothing preiudicial to the Supremacie of the Bishope of Rome in whom alone when ful power resteth the saying of S. Cyril may be verified For what they haue it is true to say that the Apostles successours haue it And this alone were inough to answer But now I say further That S. Cyril hath not as you report For in repeting shortly the Spiritual sense which was to be gathered out of those two actes of Christ the one when he passed ouer the See of Tyberias signifying therby the forsaking of the Iewes and wente vp againe into an hil with his disciples The other when he cast vp his eyes and beholding a number of people comming toward him fedde them to the ful with fiue loaues and two fishes of this miraculous fact of our Sauiour he saith Quare vetera noua scripturae mandata fidelibus per Apostolos apposita intelligebamus cuius myslerij plenaÌ„ Apostoli eorum in Ecclesijs successores gratiam possidebunt By which thing that is by Christes feeding of fiue thousand with fiue loaâ—es and two fisshes vve vnderstand the Olde and Nevy Commaundementes of the Scripture to be sette by the Apostles before the faithful The full grace of vvhich ministerie both the Apostles and their successours in the Churches shal possesse Conferre now Indifferent Reader these thinges togeather M. Iewel telleth thee as out of S. Cyril of a ful power S. Cyril speaketh of no more than a ful grace M. Iewel by this ful power would haue thee thinke that in the authoritie of binding and loosing no Bishop is higher then an other S. Cyril by his ful grace comprehendeth the grace of preaching only instructing of other The ful grace which S. Cyril nameth is so coÌ„fessed to be in y â— Apostles their successours y â— yet he signifieth not whether al should haue it equally or som be therin before their fellowes or whether the heades of the Church should apoint the Preachers which is nothing coÌ„trary to a Supremacie or euery man vse his gift before he be licenced which were altogether one of order M. Iew. concludeth of that ful povver which he maketh S. Cyril to speake of not only y â— such a povver was in the Apostles is in their Successors but also that it is ful in euery one of their successours that the B. of Rome hath not y â— Supremacie for which his handeling of y â— auÌ„cient Fathers if he may yet escape y â— note of a Falsifier then go not the procedings forward by indifferencie but with hatred of the contrary side with euident iniurie And now foloweth immediatly the abusing of an other Doctor S. Basil abused And S. Basil saith Christ appointed Peter to be Pastour of his Church after him And consequently gaue the same power vnto al Pastours and Doctours A tokeÌ„ wherof is this that al Pastours do equally binde and loose as wel as he First let vs see vpon what occasion to what end these words are spoken S â–ª Basiles purpose in y â— who le Chapiter out of which those words are takeÌ„ was to exhort vnto obedieÌ„ce such as liued in solitarines excercise of perfectiâ— HervpoÌ„ he bringeth furth y â— authoritie of Scripture saying Let euery man be subiect vnto the higher povvers Which Text by his collection proueth more strongly that Religious men should obey their Priors than Teâ—poral men the Princes of the world Agaiâ—e he alleageth Obey your Prepositours and be ye subiect vnto them After this he commeth to the Examples of Abraham in the Olde Testament and the Apostles in the New and 〈…〉 hanging vpon Crosses and diuerse other thinges But how For their owne sakes onely No but Vt per eos formaÌ„ relinqueret â—andâ— sequuturae posteritati that by them he might leaue the same Example and Paterne to the Posteritie that should folovv What Paterne Mary the Paterne of Obedience that as the Apostles folowed Christ through al Contradictions of the world and Aduersities and Deathes so should Religious men obey their Fathers and Superiours in al things Then doth it folow Atque hoc à Christo ipso docemur dum Petrum Ecclesiae suae pastorem post se constituit And this vve be taught of Christ him selfe vvhen he appointed Peter to be the Pastor of his Church after him What This be we taught Whether that one Apostle is as good as an other or one Bishope as high as an other or the Curate of as great Authoritie as the Person or the Person of as large a Iurisdiction as the Bishope No. But that we should be obedient vnto our Pastours For thus it foloweth in S. Basile Quem admodum igitur c. Therefore lyke as Sheepe obey the Sheepeherd and go vvhat soeuer vvay he vvil so they that excercise them selues in godlines must obey their Rulers and nothing at al serch their commaundementes curiously vvhen they haue no sinne in them but coÌ„traryvvise to accomplish them vvith most readinesse of minde and diligence As if he should shortly haue said Christ appointed Peter and other after him in order to be Sheepherds Ergo Christe appointed such as were vnder their Charge to be as Sheepe But Sheepe obey their Shepherd without making any inquisition vpon his leading and guiding of them Ergo we be taught obedience by Christ him selfe in this also that he made Peter y â— Pastour of the Church after him To this ende by these meanes S. Basile bringeth his discourse in the foresaid Chapiter which I haue the more at large opened vnto thee that thou maist see Indifferent Reader how litle he intended to speake against the Popes supremacie or for the equalitie of Priestes of Bishopes that one of them should be as high as an other What moued then M. Iewel to vse S. Basil in this place Or what words are they here by which he coÌ„â—irmeth his AssertioÌ„ His Assertion is y â— the old Catholik Fathers could neuer vnderstande any such special Priuilege of binding and loosing as M. Hardinges Athanasius attributeth to the See of Rome But how proueth he this Christ saith he out of S. Basil appointed Peter to be Pastor of his church after him Note then that Christ is First and S. Peter Next And this maketh directly
what begynning al thinges should be referred and in what vnitie they should be preserued Hath not M. Iewel then done very sincerely to allege Polidore so farre and wyde from the meaning of Polidor I would there were some man so indifferent as M. Iewel taketh Polidore to be to Iudge betwene hym and vs whether he hath not shamefully abused the Later writers Of M. Iewels Contradictions HYtherto by many Examples I haue proued it y â— M. Iewel hath not vnderstanded other men now wil I shew it by a fewe Arguments that he doth not wel vnderstand hymselfe And no maruel truly if in speaking so many words he hath not remembred euery word Or if in coâ—eting to saue his honestie for the present place he saie and vnsay againe like A man that were not sure yet what to byde by But because his Frindes and Felowes wil thinke this incredible that out of his smooth month doctrine squared by the rule of the Scriptures Fathers CouÌ„cels any thing should procede hacked slittered therefore wil I geaue an occasion to the Indifferent to Beware of the dubâ—le tongue and mynd in one and the selfe same 〈…〉 The Receiuing with Companie is no substantial pâ—rt of Christes Institution â–ª Ergo we are not bounde therein to folow the Example of Christ. First this Antecedent iâ— false and if it were no part of the substaÌ„ce of Christes Institution Yet we are neuerthelesse bound to his Example because he hath commaunded vs so to doe Here in this place M. Iewel you are of the mynd that there is a difference betwene the Institution of Christ and the Example of Christ. Otherwise your saying were very folishe As by which this only is imported that it were no part oâ— Christs InstitutioÌ„ yet are we neuerthelesse bound to his Institution Which maketh a plaine contradiction if that by Institution and Example you meane but one thing An other thing that I note here is that you say we are bound to Christes Example although the thing which is to be done were not of his Institution What say ye then to washing of feete for which you haue the expresse words of our Sauiour in the Gospel If I sayth he your Lord and Master haue vvashed your feete you also ought to vvash one the others feete For I haue geauen an Example vnto you that as I haue done so likevvyse that ye also doe What say you then M. Iewel to this example of our Sauiour shal it be folowed or no You Answer That this Obiection of washing of feete is common and hath ben often Answered And in the same page The wasshing of feete was neither Institution of Christ nor any part of the Sacrament nor Specially apointed to be done by the Apostles nor the breache thereof euer deemed Sacrilege To let passe the manifest lye which here you make that Christ apointed not washing of â—eete to be done by the Apostles I marke this only for the present y â— you labour with al your wit to proue that ye are bound to keepe y â— Example of Christ. Reconcile me then I praie you these two places And tel vs how it may stand togeather that we are bouÌ„d to Christs example in that which is not of the Substance of Christs Institution And yet that you may freely as ye do let go washing of feete in your Congregation because it was not Christes Institution In the Primitiue church this order of sending the SacrameÌ„t to them that were departing this world was thought expedient not for the Sicke For they in their health receiued daily Ergo if in health they needed or vsed that daily sustenance was it not prouided for them in their sicknes Yeas ye confesse so much And therefore you say And in their sicknesse had the Sacrament Ordinarily sent home vnto them How say ye then euen now that this order concerning the necessarie vitaile the Sacrament was not thought expedient for the sicke Except you know that a man may be in sicknesse and yet not sicke But gâ—e ye forwarde and make an end of your â—ale If the necessarie vitaile was not for y â— sicke for whoÌ„ was it then Not for the sicke c. but for persons ExcoÌ„municaâ—e c. Uery wel How long wil you tarie in this mynd Ye amend it within xx lynes folowing For thus ye remember your selfe better Howbeit I confesse sometimes it was otherwise vsed We take your confession that you know not wel where to staie For diuiding as it were al the Faithful Into Sicke and Excommunicate And subdiuiding the Sicke into them that were either in health either in Sicknes You leâ—t none but Persons Excommunicate for whom the necessarie vitaile called viaticum should serue How be it ye confesse it was Sometimes otherwise vsed and so it must necessarely folow that it was not for the Excommunicate only How these thinges agree I doe but aske you the question If there had ben in it any shew of trueth M. Harding as he is eloquent would haue laied out al the circumstancies when this strange errour first began where and how longe it continued who wrote against it And by whom and in what Councel it was condemned Verely this greate Silence declareth some want See how ernest the man is to haue al Circumstances declared But I trow he wil not tary stil in this minde For when D. Harding as reason is asked when the Latine Seruice began in England and when the English ceased for Heretikes say y â— in the primitiue Church al publike praier was in the knowen and vulgare Tongue And the Catholikes thinke that some token then or Monument should be extant of so generall A mater M. Iewel with open mouthe replieth O what folie is this Who is hable to shew any Boke writen in English a thowsand veres agoe Or if it could be shewed yet who were hable to vnderstand it Loe now it is foly to require but some litle signe of the begynning or ceasing of a publike and common mater but in an other place he thinketh it wisely spoken for he speaketh it hym selfe to demaund particularly of diuerse CircuÌ„stancies when where how who by whoÌ„ and in what Councell errours began or appeared That certeine godly persons both men and women in time of persequution or of sicknes or of other necessitie receaued the Sacrament in their houses it is not denied Ergo Receauing at home is not reprouable for which there are to be found the Examples of Godly persons both men â—nd women This maner of receauing at home was not lauful for the Laiemen For it was abolished by godly Bishops in general CouÌ„cel You belye the Councel vnto which you referre vs. For of Receauing at home it speaketh no one word but If any person â–ª saith it be proued not to haue receiued in the Church and not to