A DETECTION OF SƲNDRIE FOVLE ERROVRS, LIES, SCLAVNDERS, CORRVPTIONS, AND OTHER false dealinges, touching Doctrine, and other matters, vttered and practized by M. Iewel, in a Booke lately by him set foorth entituled, A Defence of the Apologie. &c.
By Thomas Harding Doctor of Diuinitie.
Filij hominum, vsquequo graui corde? vt quid diligitis vanitatem, & quaeritis Mendacium?
O ye sonnes of menne, how long wil ye be dul harted? what meane ye thus to be in loue with Vanitie, and to seeke after Lying?
IF
LOVANII, Apud Ioannem Foulerum, Anno 1568. CVM PRIVILEGIO.
REgiae Maiestatis Priuilegio concessum est Thoma [...] Hardingo Sacra Theologia Professori, vt Librum inscriptum A Detection of sundrie foule errours, lies, sclaunders, &c. per Typographum aliquem Iuratum imprimere, ac impunè distrahere liceat.
The Preface to the Reader.
AT the first comming of this Treatie to mens handes, what, saith one, so smal a Booke for answer to so great a Volume? Shal this Detection conteining litle aboue one hundred streetes of Paper, matche the Defence, that is almost foure hundred sheetes? What meaneth D. Harding? Is he not hable to confute M. Iewel? Or is he loth to take paines? To this I answer. How hable I am to confute, what so euer M. Iewel hath written, not onely in his late pretensed Defence, but also in his Replie, or in the Apologie (whereof at leaste he is thought to haue benne the penneman) let it be iudged by the learned: this wil I boldly saie, if he haue no better meane to make his partie good, then hitherto he hath vsed, write he what him liste, it shal be no great praise to any man to haue confuted him. As it had benne smal glorie for valiant Achilles to haue beaten Thersites, whom Homere describeth ready of his tongue, and a coward of his handes: so among the skilful Diuines, he may not looke to winne great cōmendation of learning, who confuteth M. Iewelles writinges. For certainely good Reader, if thou haue but a meane insight in these Controuersies nowe so much disputed of betwixte the Protestantes and vs, and wilt bestowe some good labour about the exacte trial of the thinges he hath written: thou shalt easily espie the feeblenesse of his side. Thou shalt finde, that he perfourmeth more in shewe, then in acte: that commonly he maketh vp in Tale, where he lacketh of Weight: that with multitude of wordes, [Page] he couer [...]th th [...] p [...]nur [...] of R [...] that with huge numbers of Doctours sainges, he setteth foorth the barrennesse of substantial Prou [...], a [...] m [...]ny do their thinne Hippes with stufte Hosen, and their solender Armes with bombast Sleeues.
This being so, whereas the dewe discussion of these pointes in controuersie descendeth vnto the bottom of thinges, and swimmeth not aboue vpon the fome of wordes, euery man can soone conceiue, howe meane learning may suffice, to confute such a Writer. If therefore I make profession of sufficient habilitie in this case, there is no cause, why I should be reprehended, as one that attributeth more vnto him selfe, then male seeme to stand with modestie.
This muche being said for proufe of habilitie, some perhappes would beare, what I haue to saie for my selfe, that I am not lothe to take paines. For he that is hable to doo a good and profitable worke, and refuseth the labour to doo it, seemeth to be gilty of sl [...]wth. True it is, to refel al that M. Iewel hath written, or rather gathered together out of others (for in deed [...] he doth nothing els in manner, but laie together he [...]pes of other mennes sayinges) against the Catholique Churche, and against the Catholique Religion, it were greate paine. By iudgement bothe of Cicero, and Quintilian, the labour of writing is accompted very greate.
And the Scripture saith,Eccles. 12. Faciendi plures libros nullus est finis, frequénsque meditatio carnis afflictio est. There is no ende of making moe Bookes, and the often breaking of a mannes braines about suche studie, is a greate pounishment [Page] to the bodie. If any doubte hereof, let him set him selfe a worke earnestly about writing, in suche sorte as I speake of: and he shal saie as I doo, I doubte not. And therefore it behoueth them, that geue them selues to writing, to haue, not onely health, but also good strength of bodie.
Al this M. Iewel knewe right wel. And for that very cause, when he sawe, that smal bookes would fone be answered, as it appeared by my Answer made to his Chalenge, and by my Confutation of the Apologie: he thought it better policie (or it was so put in his head by the aduise of his brethren) to goe an other waie to worke, that is to saie, to replie vpon me, and to make his Defence, with huge Volumes, that either a long time should passe, before an answere could be returned, (hoping that in the meane while his Gospel should take too deepe a roote afterward to be pluckt vp out of the Readers ha [...]t [...]s by any what so euer booke, that should come to their handes) or that I should be wearied, and worne out with the labour of answering, and perhappes die before I came to the ende, or that the very hugenesse of the bookes, should fraie me from the enterprise of making a [...]swer.
In this case it seemed to mee best, neither by taking vpon me to answere the whole Bookes, and euery parcel of them, to geue our Aduersaries the aduantage of the time, not to shorten my life by immoderate paines emploied to no great profite, nor by my silence, and by open geuing ouer the whole, as it were by fleeing out of the fielde, to leaue them vnto their Triumphe, but by answering the pointes of greatest [Page] importance, to set forth a sufficient Defence of the truth for staying of the doubteful, to confirme them in the true doctrine, and thereby to geue out a cleere euidence, what truthe is to be looked for in the reste of his superfluous stuffe, sith he hath shewed him selfe so vntrue a dealer in the chiefe matters.
Thus haue I do [...]ne, not yeelding to slewth, but moued with good aduise, no [...] as being loth to take paines, and to susteine a long trauaile, but as one, who, the state of the present time considered, and the vncertaintie of thinges to come mistrusted, thought it better, to doo some good out of hande, though it were of losse labour, then by long differring, whiles a larger Volume were intended, to suffer to the losse of many soules, so muche false doctrine to grow in credite.
As touching the Replie, what hath benne donne, to those that reade our bookes, it is not vnknowen. What so euer he had to bring against the R [...] [...]res [...]nce, against the Sacrifice of the Bodie and bloude of Christ [...], against the Masse, whereat the Priest receiueth the Communion without other companie receiuing sacramentally with him in the same place, against the Churche S [...]ice in a learned tongue, against the anci [...] [...] of holy Images in Churches, and against the pr [...]acie of his Successour, to whom louing Christ more then the reste of the Apostles,Iohan. 21. it was specially said, feede my sheep [...], whiche are the weightiest, and chiefe among al the Articles of his Chale [...]ge, and whereof al the rest [...] in manner doo depende: Al this is fully confuted by M. D. Sande [...], by M. Do [...]man, by M. Stapleton, and by mee. As for his Sophistrie, and manifolde Arte, wherewith he enu [...]igleth the vnlearned [Page] muche like to that by which Mountebanckes gete their lyuing, and sundrie craftie, false and absurde practises, M. Rastel hath truly, diligently, and wittily detected them in three bookes written to that purpose, in whiche by the very Title of eche booke he geueth al menne warning to beware of M. Iewel. When I considered these chiefe and most special Articles of the Replie so wel and sufficiently confuted, and the rest of that Volume to conteine nothing els but needelesse heapes of diuers Writers sayinges, either true, and of vs confessed, or fowly falsified, and corrupted, and wrested to a sense quite contrarie to the authours meaning, or otherwise not perteining to the proufe of any thing by the Catholiques denied, or to the disproufe of any thing by them affirmed: I thought I might doo wel, to laie a side the Replie for a time, and to go in hande with some answer to the pretensed Defence of the Apologie.
Here what should I doo? Many, as I vnderstand, haue wisshed, that I made a ful answer to the whole, and to euery parcel of it, and for the better perfourmance thereof they would allow me a yere, or two more. This desire requireth M. Iewels great Volume to be printed againe, that is to saie, the Apologie, my Confutation, and the texte of the Defence, and further so muche of my Confutation to be added, as in printing his booke of set purpose he hath caused to be cut of from the reste, and to be suppressed, to the intent a great parte of the best proufes brought against him should not be seene in his booke, which being added would amounte to one good parte, the whole Confutation being diuided into three.
This ought to be done of necessitie, if an answer to the [Page] whole were to be made. For where [...] al my Treatie must rise vpon the wordes of the Apologie, and of my Confutation, and of the Defence: how should it be vnderstanded, how iustly I impugne the Apologie, and the Defence, and mainteine my Confutation, onlesse the places were laid forth before the Readers eies?
The booke then of the Defence being alreadie so great,The chiefe pointes of the Defēce being ansvvered, for vvhat causes a ful ansvver to the reste vvas thought not necessarie. as it is, by that time a iuste answer should be added vnto it, euery man that hath any iudgement in these thinges, maie soone conceiue, of what an huge quantitie my new printed Volume would be. In deed were euery idle point answered, and treated of at ful, it would seeme to matche, yea farre to ouermatche Foxes Huge Booke of his false Martyrs. Verely to saie, what reasonably I mai [...] saie, neither can I in three yeres doo the worke of seuen yeres, nor with a fewe Dallers defraie the charges of foure or fiue hundred poundes, nor can I finde in my Conscience to bring the weake into danger by setting out suche an heretical booke, bicause it is not possible, but that among so many heresies and erroneous pointes, some wil escape my penne vnrefelled, were I neuer so diligent. Nor thinke I it good and profitable, in that vnfruitful trauaile to spende so great a parte of my later yeres. Vnfruitful, I meane, bicause I shal be driuen for the most parte to bestow paines about light scoffes, Cauilles, wranglinges, and vaine trifles, worthy to be contemned, rather then to be answered. Briefly neither haue I liste, to set out so huge a Volume, which I beleeue, very fewe would bye.
I haue therfore thought vpon an other waie, wherein I hope to doo more good to others, sure I am, that to [Page] my selfe I shal doo lesse hinderance, in respecte of time and health, and neuerthelesse perfourme that, whiche in this case is chiefly requisite.
Whereas then M. Iewelles pretensed Defence maie be reduced vnto three principal Headdes, from whence,The Summe of the Defence. as from their springes, the streames of the whole Booke doo runne, whiche are, 1 a desire to disgrace me, 2 an ernest auouching of his new false doctrines in condemnation of the Catholique Faith, and of the whole state of Ancient Religion, 3 the reproufe of Priestes, Bishoppes, Cardinalles, and the Popes manners: in this Treatie I haue said somewhat in Defence of my selfe, as it was behooful I should: the most labour I haue emploied to defende the receiued doctrine of the Catholike Faith, which he hath laboured much to impugne. With the liues, and manners of the Clergie, I meddle litle. Menne be menne, and wherein they haue donne euil, I accoumpt them worthy of reproufe, no lesse then he. Howbeit, what so euer he bringeth, al is not the Gospel, that in this point procedeth from his penne: and malice could neuer yet learne to saie wel.
Touching bothe doctrine, and manners, if it shal please God, to geue our Countrie grace to imbrace that onely doctrine, whiche is true and Catholique, that is to saie, whiche we defende against the Nouelties, and Heresies of our time, so busily by M. Iewel, and by them of that side, with al diligence, force, and policie set forth, and commended to the people: concerning order of life and manners, their pleasant Gospel breedeth suche libertie, loosenesse and lewdnes among them that receiue it, that we doubte not, but it shal easily to al appeare, that when [Page] the Catholiques (whom they cal Papistes) liued worst, the time brought forth moe felowes of Angelles, then their time (notwithstanding the great number they crake of) bringeth forth felowes of honest menne, when so euer they liue best, if it maie be truely said, that at any time they liue wel, who haue cut them selues from that bodie of Christe, into the members whereof onely, the grace of God is deriued.The Summe and order of this Treatie.
If then thou be desirours Christian Reader to vnderstande the order and purporte of this Treatie, made for answer to the Defence for the present time, thus it is.
1 First, in defence of my selfe I haue shewed, how vntruly, and sclaunderously M. Iewel hath burdened me with certaine hateful Crimes in his Epistle to the Queenes Maiestie. The Vntruthe of these pointes, I haue thought good plainely to laie before the Readers eies by conference of the places in my Confutation, whence he tooke the occasions of his sclaunders, as he pretendeth by the quotations noted in the Margent.
2 Nexte, whereas he findeth him selfe muche agreeued with the sharpnesse of my vtterance, vsed in my Confutation, and in my first Reioinder, and to make credite thereof, hath, as it were into a Table, cowched together a large heape of sharpe wordes, pretended by his quotations to be in my said two Bookes, whiche are not there in deede altogether in that order, and meaning, as he vntruly hath alleged them: I proue his dealing herein partely to be agreable to his other false demeanour, and partely that good and iust causes there were, why I should, writing against him, vse suche order of language.
Furthermore, bicause he woulde the great and manifolde 3 Vntruthes, with whiche I charged him, to seeme no Vntruthes at al, but that al is the Gospel, what so euer commeth from his Mouthe, and whereas for proufe thereof he hath set forth a View of his Vntruthes (the least of al that he could espie by me noted against him) and pretendeth to iustifie the same his least Vntruthes in the said View: I haue made an answere to that View of Vntruthes, and there doo shewe manifestly (specially in the chiefe pointes, where errour is most perilous) that he was truely, and iustly charged with those Vntruthes, and that for ought he hath yet said in Defence of them, he remaineth stil chargeable with the same, as before. This muche I haue perfourmed in the first Booke.
After this in foure bookes folowing, I detecte his Errours, Lies, Cauilles, shiftes, Sclaunders, and sundrie vntrue matters, founde in the firste, and seconde parte of his Defence. And in respecte thereof, I cal the Treatie, A Detection of sundrie foule errours, lies, sclaunders, &c. At length hauing tried by very certaine experience, and exacte view of the whole Booke, that there was no ende of lying, what place so euer in reading my eie lighted vppon: I thought it most profitable, and most agreable with my profession, to let passe thinges of smal importance (the handeling of whiche serued him specially to scoffe, to vtter vile matter againste the Churche, and to fil vp his Booke in tended at the beginning to be made greate) and to treate of the Articles of Doctrine, in defence of the Truthe, and to confute what he hath brought to the contrarie. Among whiche [Page] Articles of doctrine, of some I haue treated briefly, as being alreadie treated of in my Confutation, and otherwheres, of some at good length, and with more diligence, as of Succession, and of the vnlawful Marriages of Priestes, and al other Votaries, wherein he is very large, and copious of Doctours sayinges of al sortes, but vtterly destitute of any one saying, that maketh cleerely for his parte.
In the ende I doo most euidently disproue and refel what he was hable to bring for Defence of two pointes, which he is not ashamed to affirme seming to me the one very false, the other very sclaunderous. The first is, as he auoucheth them, that matters of faith, and Ecclesiastical causes are to be iudged by the Ciuile Magistrate. The other is, that the Papistes haue taught, that simple Fornication is no sinne. How weake proufes he bringeth for the one, and for the other, and yet how shamelesly he goeth about to prooue them: by conference of bothe our Treaties it shal appeare. Withal, there I haue added a Comparison of Errours in mistaking names of menne, bookes, Chapters, &c. with whiche M. Iewel chargeth me, and I him.
Matters let passe, vvith treating vvhereof the Defence is grovven to a Huge Volume.Thus haue I, declared in fewe the Summe, as it were, and Order of this Treatie. As for sundrie other matters, as of forged Scriptures, of the doctrine of Deuilles (so he calleth the forbidding of Priestes, Monkes, Friers, and Nunnes to marrie) of the fruites of single life, whereof he laith out great stoare of filthy sayinges, of S. Iames Epistle, whether it be Canonical Scripture, of sundrie ancient Traditions now growen out of vse, of the Fourmes, and Accidentes, whereat he scoffeth like a Vice plaier, [Page] of the number of the Sacraments of the Churche, which we defende to be seuen, he affirmeth to be but two, or els so many, as the thinges be, vnto which the name of Sacrament is by any Writer applied, which are very many: of the Faith of Infantes: of their new found Imaginatiue Faith, or rather phantastical Imaginatiō, that eateth the bodie, and drinketh the bloud of Christ, of the Popes Dispensations, of dissensions among the Fathers, of Nominales, and Reales, of Thomistes, and Scotistes, of diuersitie of religious persons Apparel, wherein he saith they put great holinesse: of the variance betwen the Lutherās, and the Zuinglians, of the fable of Dame Iohane the woman Pope, of the Marble Image, lying in the high way at Rome, of the stoole of easement of Porphyrie stoane at Lateran, of Athenes and Rome, whether they were Vniuersities in the time, this Dame Iohane is feyned to haue liued in, of the vicious life of Petrus Aloisius Duke of Parma and Placentia, of Iohn Diazius death, of the slaughter of the Boures of Germanie, that tooke weapons against the nobilitie there, prouoked by the preaching of Luther and his scholers, of Constantines Donation, of Poison ministred in the Sacrament, as he reporteth feined fables for stories of great soothe, of the abomination of desolation, of the state of the Church of Rome, of Antichrist, of the mistaking of Cardinal Hosius, of their pretensed burning of the Scriptures, of S. Augustine the Apostle of the English Nation, that he was a wicked man, of Priestes keeping of Concubines, of Images, of Latine Praiers, and Churche Seruice, of Comparison of learning betwene the Catholiques and the Protestantes, of Rome, whether it be Babylon, of summoning of Councelles, of [Page] the Stewes in Rome, whereof gladly he vttereth muche talke, of kissing the Popes foote, of the Popes hurling of Franciscus Daldulus fast tied in chaines vnder his table, there to gnaw boanes with his Dogges, of the Popes Bridle, and Stirop to be holden by Princes, of Pope Hildebrandes surmised wicked deedes, as they fable, of the Popes treadding on the Emperours necke, of the Pope whether he be euer holy, of the Popes Exactions, of the Cheast in the Popes bosom, whether the Pope be God, of the Popes power feined to be ouer Angels, whether the Pope can commit Simonie, whether the Pope be King of Kinges, whether the Pope be aboue general Councels, whether the Pope maie erre, or no, whether the Pope be a Kinge: Of these, and of a great many moe suche matters, whereof some be lothesom, some be fabulous, vaine, and friuolous, some be false, sclaunderous and spiteful, some blasphemous, some alreadie sufficiently treated of, briefly al tending vnto the contempt of the Catholique Religion, as M. Iewel handleth them, in which matters he hath vttered the stoare of his learning, Of these I saie, I haue said nothing, much disaduantaging my selfe thereby and the common cause which I defend, for so much as in the making vp of his great Booke with heaping together these ministerly matters, he hath vttered, as he doth euery where els, good stoare of most euident and grosse Lies, of which his owne frendes, and best fauourers, in case thei were detected, would be ashamed.
These forenamed be the thinges, which I haue briefly handled, and these other, and certaine mo the like, be those, which I haue let passe, as being partely vnnecessarie, [Page] and vnprofitable, partely vnmeete good houres to be bestowed about them. By the handeling of these the weightier pointes, it wil sufficiently appeare to al menne, with what stuffe he filleth his great Bookes, what smal credite he deserueth, how litle pith there is to be found in his multitude of wordes, how litle there is that serueth aptly to the purpose among the great heapes of testimonies, that he laieth together. Surely his Defence being wel examined by any man that hath skil, and can iudge of these points, it must needes be thought, that when he saw he had not the plaine truth of his side, yet with multitude of allegations he would make a shew of learning to the ignorant, and trouble the answerer with confusion. Euen so many Barbarous Princes (as we reade in stories) when they lacked a conuenient number of good and tried Souldiers, haue gonne about to fraie their enemies with multitude of people, who haue learned by their great ouerthrowes, that oftentimes victorie is not obteined by multitude of menne.
In deede the Truth needeth not so many sayinges piked out of Schoolemenne, of Summistes, of Gloses vpon Gratian, and other partes of the Canon Lawe, and out of so many Canonistes of al sortes. For trial of a mater to be prooued true, in questions touching our beleefe, one saying of the Scripture is sufficient: if the expresse Scripture faile vs, twoo, or three Testimonies of the Ancient Fathers not being contrarie to the reste, maie suffice. But suche a confuse, and vnorderly number of sayinges, specially of suche as be not of great estimation, as this man commonly allegeth, of the same not one making cleerely for this purpose, in moste matters, [Page] what doth it els, but breede a suspicion among the wise, that the matter is not true, for proufe whereof they be alleged?
But by this meane he thought to winne credit at least with the people. For the people that can not iudge of these matters, thinketh him best learned, that hath most woordes. It is knowen, that when they beholde two reasoning together of any thing, whereof they haue no skil, commonly they commend the mainteiner of the worse cause, in case he be fuller of wordes, be they neuer so litle to the purpose, and say in his praise, that he answered the other partie to euery Quare. M. Iewel vnderstanding this, and making his most accompte of the people, and of them that be vnlearned, to whom he leaneth, and by multitude of whom he, and they of his side mind to stand (for touching the learned, they see they can winne none) bestoweth great paines, and charges to set out great bookes, that at least in the opinion of the vnlearned, and of them that haue not leisure to examine the points how substantially they are treated, he maie seeme to haue done iolily, and to haue acquited him selfe like a great Clerke. In very deede if a man haue care howe muche he maie saie, rather then how truly, and feare not to vtter vntruthes: he hath this aduantage ouer his aduersarie defending the truth with a conscience not to swarue from the censure of the Church, that he may alwaies finde abundance of matter to vtter. For (as it hath of olde ben said) Mendacium est multiplex, veritas simplex, Lying is manifolde, Truth is simple. Lying hath many plaites and foldinges, Truth is without plaite or wrinckle. Therefore it is no marueile, if the Treaties of [Page] the one be narrowe and shorte; of the other wide and long.
As for me, if I prooue M. Iewel an vntrue man in so many pointes, as I haue treated of, I haue donne that, whereby his credite must be broken. His credite being broken, what remaineth, but that in this kinde of trade he go for a Banckroute? If he be a Banckrout, worthily is he to be begiled, that trusteth him. Some wil say perhaps, it is not likely, I should with so smal a booke discredit him, that hath written so much. But it maie please this man to remember, that, to saie the truth, it is not M. Iewel, that hath written muche. He hath taken muche out of other mens bookes: of his owne he hath in māner nothing, certainely very litle. So that, peruse his Booke who wil, he shal finde, that he is but a seely Translatour of other mens wordes, a heaper together of al Writers sayings, and that most commonly to more ostentation of tale, then to the making vp of good weight. So that if thinges be brought to an exact trial, he shalbe found no disputer, no reasoner, no discourser, no Writer, but only a gatherer together of other mennes Sentences. How be it, it is not the hugenesse of a booke, that argueth the sufficiencie of proufes. Truth is content to be set foorth with few wordes. Neither yet doo I reproue him, for that he allegeth what he findeth in other Writers. For therby we bring credite to doubteful matters. But for that alleging so much, he allegeth so litle to the purpose, yea in manner nothing, and (boldly wil I auouche it) vtterly nothing, for due proufe of any his new and strange doctrines, being contrarie to that of ancient time hath benne beleeued in the Catholique Churche. This shal seeme more probable, if it be [Page] confirmed by some plaine, and true examples.
Lette vs then examine M. Iewelles common demeanour in an example or twoo. To discusse many, the breuitie of a Preface wil not permitte. O that he were in place to choose the example him selfe, out of his whole Booke to his best aduantage, that so it might euidently appeare, with what weake tooles he fighteth against the truth.
Exāples, vvhereby it is shewed, hovve vvith void and impertinēt stuffe, M. Ievvel filleth his great Booke. Defence. Pag. 163. Heb. 13. Confut. 73, b. Marke hovv M. Ievv. alvvaies keepeth him selfe from cō ming vnto the point in controuersie.Whereas in the Apologie much is said in the commē dation of Matrimonie, which no Catholique man euer discommended, as that it is Holy and honorable in al sortes, and states of personnes, in the Apostles, in the Ministers of the Church, and in Bisshops, and that it is an honest and lawful thing (as S. Chrysostom saith) for a man liuing in Matrimonie to take vpon him therewith the dignitie of a Bisshop: to this I saie in my Confutation, that albeit Matrimonie be holy and honorable in al, and an vndefiled. [...]e [...], as S. Paule saith: yet that it is not lawful for such personnes to marrie, who haue deliberately vowed Chastitie, or haue taken holy Orders. This there I prooue by good and sufficient authoritie, as it maie be seene in my said Confutation.
Now what is M. Iewels part here to proue for maintenāce of his doctrine, but that a man notwithstāding his Vow, or receiuing of holy Orders, maie lawfully marrie? This is the very point of the controuersie, and thereto onely should he haue directed his talke. If he go about any thing els, it is beside the purpose. But consider Reader, how he keepeth him selfe a luffe of from the point, with what stuffe he filleth certaine leaues of his [Page] Booke, how he starreth from Doctour, to Doctour, how he confoundeth him selfe and the Reader, and though he bring neuer so much out of other Writers, yet commeth not at al to the point directly.
First,Pag. 165. he laboureth to discredite the holy Ancient Fathers, as menne, that haue not dealte indifferently herein, but haue gonne to farre, either in the auancing of Virginitie, or in the disgracing of lawful Matrimonie. Before he entreth his Allegations, whereof that whole Treatie standeth, he putteth foorth twoo sayinges, the one of Origen, the other of S. Hierome, in reproufe of them that condemned Matrimonie. And yet euen there immediatly after he allegeth them both for condemners of Matrimonie. Then he laith foorth the stoare of his Allegations, whereby he would haue it appeare,Tertulliā alleged by M. Ievvel against the Churche, in that for vvhiche he is condēned of the Churche: that certaine Ancient Writers had an euil opinion of Matrimonie. There he allegeth two sayinges of Tertullian in exhortatione ad castitatem (whiche Booke he wrote against the Churche, as S. Hierome saith, and therefore it is condemned of the Churche, for whiche cause he should not haue alleged him) then twoo sayinges out of the Authour of the imperfite worke vppon S. Matthew vnder the name of S. Chrysostome, which also is a worke ful of heresies. Item certaine sayinges out of S. Hierome writing against Iouinian, and Heluidius. Againe sayinges out of Athenagoras, S. Hierome, Gregorie Nazianzen, and Origen, by whiche he beareth the Reader in hande, they haue condemned the seconde Marriages of Widowers, and Widowes.
After this he reckeneth vp so manie Priestes,Pag. 166. and Bishops, [Page] as he hath read of to haue benne married menne, who in deede were married before they receiued holy Orders, and not otherwise. There Palea, Palea. that is to say, the Chaffe, that is set out in Gratian, concerning Priestes and Bishops that were many Popes Fathers, a very fonde fabulous tale, is admitted to the place of a great Doctor, yet by him much falsified,Pag. 167. and altered from that he found in Gratians booke. There also beside the report of Aeneas Syluius, whiche him selfe recanted, and of Polydore Vergil, a man of our time, and in these matters of smal credite, he sticketh not to praie helpe of one Fabian, a late seely Chronicler of London, and with his woorshipful testimonie forsooth would faine prooue his mater, that is to saie, with a maine Lie, that Bishoppes and Priestes lyued a thousand yeres together with their Wiues, no lawe being to the contrarie.
Nowe were al these thinges true, according to the purporte of M. Iewelles doctrine (as for the more parte they are very false, and the Doctours by him corrupted, and very vntruly reported) what should they make for his purpose, I meane, for the point it selfe of this Controuersie, which is, that it is lawful to marrie after the Vowe of Chastitie, or after holy Orders receiued? For I trow M. Iewel wil not vse this simple kind of Logique, Certaine ancient Writers condemned Matrimonie (which is vtterly false in respecte of al others by M Iewel here named excepte Tertullian, that condemned the seconde Marriages, whom the Churche for the same reiecteth) Item, certaine learned and holy menne in the Primitiue Churche were made Priestes, and Bisshoppes, after they had benne married: Ergo, it is lawful to marrie after the [Page] Vowe of Chastitie, and after holy Orders taken. As this reason is fonde, and litle worth, so al the sayinges of Writers whiche he hath heaped together hitherto, serue him to no purpose, but to increase the bulke of his Booke.
After al this feeling him selfe pressed with the force of the Vowe, which being aduisedly made is of necessitie to be performed, as I prooued in my Confutation: to keepe him selfe stil a luffe of from the point of the Question, he taketh a newe waie, saying, that the Priestes in England were neuer Votaries. Touching this matter, whether the Priestes of England were Votaries, or no,F [...]. 290. [...] I referre the Reader vnto the first Chapter of the fifth booke of this Treatie. Howsoeuer it be, by this answer M. Iewel fleeth from the point, as farre as he fled before. For the Question is, whether Priestes in general that haue made a Vowe of Chastitie maie marrie, and he answereth that Priestes of England be not Votaries. Which answer serueth as aptly in this case, as if a question being demaūded of him, whether Heretikes are to be burned, he would answer, we the Superintendentes of England, and our Ministers be no heretiques.
From this he conueigheth him selfe to certaine common places, and bringeth in a Huge number of Doctours sayinges tending to this meaning in effect, that Chastitie is hard to keepe, that it is the gifte of God, that God geueth it not to al, that it is to be counselled, but not commaunded, that a man consider wel of what strength he is, and if he see him selfe not hable to perfourme the preceptes of Virginitie, that rather then he fal into the dungeon of deadly sinne, he take a wife, and vse the remedie ordeined against incontinencie. Al which sayinges (we [Page] graunt) be true, and are to be vnderstanded of them, whiche be free, and haue not bounde them selues by deliberate Vowe to conteine.
To be shorte, it were a very tedious thing here to reherse, how he ronneth from Doctour to Doctour, how he craueth stuffing of the Canonistes, and Schoolemen, whom God wote he litle esteemeth, how he writeth out their sentences, and therewith filleth vp his Booke. As for the ancient Doctours sayinges, that folow after al this, they are spoken, some against the perfourmance of wicked Vowes, some serue for admonition, that certaine maie be suffred to marrie, who hauing made onely a simple Vowe, either can not, or wil not conteine, and that the Marriages of suche personnes ought to stand for good, and not to be dissolued, some importe rebuke of filthy life, and exhortation to Chastitie, some be written against them, that either vtterly condemned the state of Matrimonie, or willed Priestes, and Deacons in the Primitiue Churche to be compelled to forsake the companie of their lawful Wiues, whiche they had married before they receiued holy Orders.
Thus he writeth out other mennes sayinges without order, or discretiō, skippeth from one matter to an other, and emptieth, as it were, the stoare of his Notebookes into this Defence, and when he hath shuffled in al, he proueth nothing directly, but onely bringeth the Reader to a Confusion, and commeth not at al to the discussion of the point, that we staie vpon, whiche in this matter of Priestes Marriages is, that to marrie it is not lawful after deliberate Vowe of chastitie made, nor after holy Orders receiued. What colourable argumentes, or [Page] testimonies he bringeth to proue the affirmatiue,Infrà lib. 5 Cap. 2 in this Treatie Reader thou shalt see them cleerely confuted.
Likewise (to shew thee an other example) hauing taken vpon him to proue,Defence. Pag. 157. that the Canonistes haue taught the people, that Fornication betwen single folke is no sinne, it is a worlde to see what a doo he maketh, what a number of Allegations he hudleth together, and when he hath vttered al his stoare, he is as farre from proufe of that he tooke in hand to proue, as he was before he beganne. So that in effecte nothing thereby is done, but onely malice shewed, and incke and paper spent.
First, to make a great shewe,Defence. 360. and to increase his Volume (for to what other purpose I see not) he telleth vs of certaine beastly sayinges of Aetius the olde Heretique, and of Prodicus the heathen philosopher, as though the Canonistes were to be blamed for the faultes of the Heretiques, and Infidelles of olde time. Nexte, he bringeth in Laurentius Valla the Grammarian, whose saying, though it be not needeful here to reherse for the reuerence of chaste eares, yet it maie with a conuenient interpretation be honestly defended. Then Richardus de Sancto Victore a late Schooleman, and Socrates the Historiographer are haled in to geue their verdite, and though they tel vs of the corrupte iudgement of certaine, that made litle accompte in conscience of Fornication and whooredome: yet that the Popes Canonistes taught the people, that simple Fornication is no sinne, thereof they speake not one word. Which bicause M. Iewel him selfe perceiued right wel, he preuēted that he feared would be obiected, and after [Page] that number of impertinent allegations,M. Ievvelles But. commeth in, as his manner is, with his But, saying, But ye wil saie, al this hitherto perteineth nothing vnto the Canonistes.
To whom answere maie be returned, that so it is in deed: and whereas he knew it him selfe, what meant he neuerthelesse to put it in, but to increase the heape of his Volume?
After this he pretendeth to come to the very point, and to hit the naile on the head, as they saie. And there he taketh aduantage of a Decree of the first Toletane Councel falsly reported in Gratian by the ouersight of the printer in an olde Copie, many other Copies being true, whiche aduantage neuerthelesse eftsones there he forgoeth, confessing the Copie to be false. Yet al must in, to fil vp the great booke. Then he goeth to the true Copie, and either by ignorance he mistaketh the place, or by malice falsifieth the sense, dissembling, that the worde Concubina Cōcubina. is oftentimes taken in good parte, to witte, for a woman vsed in al respectes like a Wife, and with the intent, and affection of wedlocke, before the Marriage be openly solemnized. This shal be better perceiued by reading that I haue said hereof Lib. 5. cap. 15.
From that Councel (whiche was holden long before any of the Canonistes, whom so fowly he sclaundereth, wrote letter) he goeth to peake in his Gloses, the Gloses I meane vpon Otho (whom like an vnskilful lawier, he maketh one with Otho bonus) and vpon the Decrees of Gratian. The one Gloselie falsifieth by leauing out a worde of chiefe importance, the other of purpose he misconstrueth, the rest that he allegeth out of an other Glose, and out of one Petrus Rauennas a Canoniste, is [Page] true, and perteineth nothing to the wicked doctrine, whereof he accuseth the Canonistes.
From the Gloses he starteth to S. Augustine in Enchiridio ad Laurentium. Defence 361. And out of him he taketh a sentence, vtterly to no purpose, but to fil vp the paper. From S. Augustine to the Councel of Basile, then to Erasmus in Enchiridio militis Christiani, belying them bothe. From Erasmus he crepeth to Iacobus de Valentia, Iacob. de Valentia in Psal. 118 saying of Iewes, Saracenes, and certaine il Christian menne, that to excuse their detestable life, they affirme simple Fornication to be lawful. But what is this to the Canonistes? From this Iacobus the Spaniard of Valentia, he conueieth him selfe to Alexander of Hales the English man, and from him to Antonius of Florence the Italian. But at their handes he findeth no more reliefe, then he founde at the others. By Antonius it is roported onely, that their errour is confuted, who saie, that simple Fornication is no sinne. In Alexander there is nothing founde, but onely a saying pretended to be S. Ambroses, whiche maketh nothing to the purpose, neither is it at al being vttered in suche wordes, to be found in S. Ambrose.
At length he endeth this matter with a falsified saying of S. Augustine, making that holy Father (as vntruly he reporteth his tale) to saie, that he can not tel, whether that kinde of Fornication, whiche single menne committe with single womenne, be forbidden, or no. Whiche, were it true that S. Augustine so said, as in deede he saith it not, but speaketh otherwise, as here the reader shal finde by me declared, yet by that, the sclaunder vttered against the Canonistes, is not iustified.
This muche haue I here noted for examples sake, to [Page] the intent thou maist vnderstand Reader, what order he keepeth commonly in his writing, and whereof it commeth, that his bookes rise to suche a huge quantitie.
And as he hath donne in these two matters, so hath he donne in the reste, very fewe excepted. The same would I here by sundrie other mo euident examples shewe, were it not ouer long.
Certainely this is not to answer a Booke, it is not learnedly to replie, it is not directly to confute a Booke. It is onely an ostentation of much reading, it is a copying out of common places laid vp in Notebookes, it is to render wordes for reasons, and heapes of impertinent sentences of what so euer Writers, for apte testimonies of the ancient Fathers. Briefly, it is not an orderly disproufe of the doctrine that the Church hath hitherto holden. For who so wil consider of it with right iudgement, shal finde our proufes to stande vnshaken, and my former Booke to remaine a sufficient Confutatiō, not only of the Apologie, but also of the pretensed Defence it selfe. That it maie truly be said, there was a Confutation of the Defence made, before the Defence it selfe was printed. For if the pointes of my former Booke be wel weighed and considered of, they wil to the learned seeme a sufficient answer to what so euer he bringeth.
For trial hereof I referre me to the answere, whiche here I haue made vnto his View of Vntruthes.The View of M. Ievvels Vntruthes. Among whiche Vntruthes thou shalt finde few noted out of the Apologie so by him discharged, but that in respect of my Confutation, notwithstanding his Defence, he maie seeme stil to stand chargeable no lesse then before. If he can no better discharge him selfe of suche Vntruthes, [Page] which he him selfe hath chosen out of the whole heape, as the least, and easiest for him to defende, and in iustification of which he had greatest cōfidence: it maie soone be iudged, how vnlike it is, that he shalbe hable to discharge him selfe of those others, whiche he thought best to conceele and dissemble.
One thing good Reader it behoueth thee much to be warned of, in case thou desire to stande an vpright vmpeere betwen M. Iewel and me. Vpon what places so euer thou shalt happen to light, in which he shal seeme to haue any good aduantage against me, or against the Doctrine of the Catholique Churche, passe not them ouer lightly, weigh wel both our groundes, examine both our allegations, truste not to ought, that is laid forth by either of vs presently, but resort to the Bookes, whence euery thing is taken. Doing so, thou shalt most certainely perceiue, whether of vs both vseth more truth. Doubtlesse in such places thou shalt seldō (it were much so saie neuer) find him to allege the wordes, whereby he pretēdeth any colour of aduantage, without some false sleight, or other.
If thou desire to vnderstand this by some examples, consider I praie thee, what great a doo he maketh about the name of Vniuersal Bishop. Vniuersal Bishop. As he handleth that matter, if a man wil beleeue him, al thinges seeme to be plaine on his side.Defence. 120. The Coūcel of Carthage (saith he) decreed by expresse wordes, that the Bishop of Rome should not be called the Vniuersal Bishop. And behold Reader the confidēce that he hath in this cause, which he sheweth with these wordes speaking vnto me. This you saie, is forged, and falsified, and is no part of that Conucel. For indifferēt trial both of the truth, ād of the falshed herein, I besech you, behold the very wordes [Page] of the Councel, euen as they are alleged by your owne Doctour Gratian. These they are Prima Sedi [...] Episcopus, &c. Let not the Bishoppe of any of the first Sees be called the Prince of Priestes,Dist. 99. Primae.or the highest Priest, or by any like name: but onely the Bishoppe of the first See. But let not the Bishoppe of Rome him selfe be called the Vniuersal Bishoppe. &c. Now M. Harding, compare our wordes, and the Councelles wordes together. We saie none otherwise, but as the Councel saith, The Bishop of Rome him selfe ought not to be called the vniuersal Bishop. Herein we doo neither adde, nor minis he, but reporte the wordes plainely, as we finde them. If you had lookte better on your booke, and would haue tried this matter, as you saie, by your learning, ye might wel haue reserued these vnciuile reproches of falshed to your selfe, and haue spared your crying of shame vpō this Defender.
Here is muche a doo, as thou feest Reader, and al standeth vpon falshed, as I said at the first in my Confutation. We striue not for the name of Vniuersal Bishop: neither hath the Pope Challenged that title. Yet these menne haue neuer donne with Vniuersal Bishop. The whole matter is soone answered. These wordes vniuersalis autem nec etiam Romanus Pontifex appelletur: Concil. Carthag. 3 Cap. 26. The Bishop of Rome ought not to be called the vniuersal Bishop, (these wordes I saie) be not the wordes of the thirde Councel of Carthage, nor in the Greeke, nor in the Latine, but the wordes of Gratian and they stande for the Summe of that parte of the distinction, whiche there foloweth. And thereof M. Iewel was not ignorant, as it appeareth by his owne wordes in the same place. Howbeit, were it true, that Gratian had ignorantly added them to the Councel as wordes of the Coū cel, [Page] what learned man trusteth Gratian, a man not greatly trusted in respect of sundrie his allegations, when it is easy to see the Original? For this I referre the Reader to the 39. Chapter of the third Booke of this Treatie, fol. 184. b.
Perusing that I haue answered to this point there thou shalt fully vnderstand, how falsly M. Iewel hath dealte therein, and how litle cause he had so to triumphe. For neither hath the Councel any suche woordes at al, nor speaketh it there so much as one worde of the Bishop of Rome, nor hath Gratian put those wordes, as a testimonie of the Councel, but as the Summe of that parte of the 99. Distinction, which immediatly foloweth. As wel might M. Iewel haue said, that those other wordes there placed, vnde Pelagius secundus omnibus Episcopis, had ben the wordes of that Councel. He that knoweth Gratians manner of writing, can not but either laugh at M. Iewelles ignorance, or maruaile at his impudencie.
To proue that it is lawful for a man to marrie a wife being in holy Orders,The example of Eupsychius. he allegeth the example of one Eupsychius, who was a Laie Gentleman of Caesaria the chiefe Citie in Cappadocia, and in a time of persecution suffred Martyrdom soone after that he had benne married. Now most falsly he corrupteth the reporter of the Storie, and maketh this Eupsychius a Bishop, that it might appeare to the ignorant, that one had married a wife after he had benne made a Bishop, which would haue serued our married Superintendentes purpose gaily. For yet after so many yeres searche, they can not bring vs forth so much as one cleare example of the ancient Churche, that euer there was any Bishop, or Priest married after that degree, and holy Order taken. With such vncleane [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] conueiance their vncleane treacherie is defended.
Defence 176. Cassio. li. 6. cap. 14.His wordes be these, Cassiodorus writeth thus, In illo tempore ferunt Martyrio vitam finisse Eupsychium Caesariensem (Episcopum) ducta nuper vxore: dum adhuc quasi sponsus esse videretur: At that time they saie Eupsychius the Bishoppe of Caesaria died in Martyrdome, hauing married a wife a litle before, being yet in manner a newe married man.
Beholde Reader the falshod of this man. First, contrarie to his custome elswhere, he leaueth the Greeke fonteine, where this Storie was First written, and goeth to the riuer of the olde translation in many places not most exactly answering the Greeke. And why did he so? Forsooth bicause if he had alleged Sozomenus the Greeke writer, his falshod had benne fowly bewraied. For he nameth this Eupsychius expressely,Eupsychius a laieman, by M. Iewels forgerie made a Bishop, to proue the Mariages of Priestes. [...], as much to saie, Eupsychius one of the Lordes (or one of the Nobilitie) of the Citie of Caesaria in Cappadocia. Then, bicause the Tripartite Storie of Cassiodorus setting foorth hath not so expressely, that he was a nobleman of Caesaria, M. Iewel was so bolde, as to falsifie the place, and to putte in of his owne this woorde, Episcopum, to helpe his matter, and so corrupting his authour, maketh him to cal him Eupsychium Caesariensem Episcopum, Eupsychius the Bishoppe of Caesaria. Thus he taketh vpon him to make him a Bishoppe, who was a Laie man, as wel a Bishoppe as he him selfe is, that it might appeare to the vnlearned, that a Bisshoppe married a wife after he was Bisshoppe.Fol. 302. & 318. See what I haue said hereto in this Treatie, where I answer [Page] his false stuffe touching Priestes marriages. Lib. 5. Cap. 1. Fol. 302.
Speaking against the number of the seuen Sacramentes of the Churche,Defence. 213. Apocal. 5.8.7.1. to bring the Catholique Doctrine in contempte, thus he saith. As for the reasons, that they of M. Hardinges side haue brought vs for proufe hereof, they are too childish to be remembred. For thus they saie, The Booke in the Apocalyps hath seuen seales: The seuen Angels there haue seuen Trumpettes: Christ hath in his right hande seuen starres: Christe walketh in the middes of seuen golden Candlestickes: Zacha. 3. Exod. 37. Zacharie saw seuen eies vpon a stone: There were seuen Candelstickes in the Tabernacle: Ergo, saie they, there must needes be iuste seuen Sacramentes in the Churche of God.
If this were true,In Compendio Theologiae. wee might be somewhat ashamed of our Doctours, I graunte. Neither can this Reason seeme but weake and feeble. But what if al this be false? Then are our Doctours not touched, then maie their reasons be thought substantial, and M. Iewel a vaine Iangler, that thus stuffeth his greate Booke with Lies. Peruse the place Reader,In Cōpendio Theologia lib. 6. cap. 5. that by his quotation he directeth thee vnto, and thou shalt finde him like him selfe as he is euery where, a false Minister. For Compendium Theologiae, whiche he allegeth, hath farre otherwise. It saith not, there muste needes be iuste seuen Sacramentes in the Churche, bicause seuen Seales, seuen Trumpettes, seuen Starres, seuen Candlestickes, seuen Eies be thus spoken of in the Scripture: but it saith expressely, Sacramenta figurata sunt in septem Signaculis, The Sacramentes were figured (or foresignified) in the seuen Seales, in the seuen Starres, &c. [Page] That the number of those thinges is made a reason, or cause of the number of the Sacramentes, it is M. Iewels Lie, it is not the saying of him that wrote Compendium.
Defence 361. 8, Augustine fouly, and dangerously falfied by M. Ievvel.Hauing taken vpon him to proue, that the Doctours of the Canon Lawe haue taught the people, that Fornication betwen Singlefolke is no sinne, among a huge heape of sayinges taken out of writers of sundrie sortes, (whereof not so much as one affirmeth it) he bringeth in this saying, pretending it to be S. Augustine, in Quaestion. in Exod. quaest. 20. Illa Fornicatio, quam faciunt qui vxores non habent, cum foeminis, quae viros non habent, an prohibita inueniri possit, ignoro. That kinde of Fornication, which Single menne commit with single womenne, whether it be forbidden, or no, I can not tel.
By this sentence, as it is here set forth, S. Augustine is set to schoole, and made to confesse (whiche he would neuer haue confessed whiles he liued) that he could not tel, whether Fornication that is committed betwene single folcke, were forbidden, or no: whereby he should seeme to geue great libertie to single personnes to folow the filthy lustes of their flesh. And here, which is to be noted, whereas the reste of the sentence is printed in the smal letter, in which the Doctours testimonies be cō monly set out, these wordes in Latine, Fornicatio, an prohibita inueniri possit, ignoro, and these English wordes, Fornication, whether it be forbidden, or no, I can not tel, are printed in a farre greater letter, that they should readily appeare to the eie, and be readde of al menne, as if he were desirous, as the Deuil him selfe is, that al were persuaded, that Fornication among single persons were no sinne. Which doctrine there, and in certaine other [Page] places of that Booke, by sundrie colourable sayinges of Writers he seemeth to labour to persuade.
But the true saying of S. Augustine, and the meaning of the same, is farre otherwise. For thus he saith, not in Quaest. in Exod. quaest. 20. as the place by M. Iewel is falsly quoted: but in Quaestionum super Exodum lib. 2. quaest. 71. Sed si non omnis Fornicatio etiam Moechia dici potest, vbi sit in Decalogo prohibita illa fornicatio, quam faciunt viri qui vxores non habent, cum foeminis, quae maritos non habent, vtrum inueniri possit, ignoro. As muche to saie, But if it be so, that al Fornication maie not be called also (Moechia) Aduouterie, where that Fornication, which menne commit that haue no wiues, with womenne that haue no husbandes, is forbidden in the Table of the ten Commaundementes, whether it maie be founde, or no, I can not tel.
S. Augustine saith not simply, he knew not whether simple Fornication were forbidden, or no: he knewe wel, it was forbidden: But if it were once denied, that al Fornication were signified by the woorde and name of Moechia, (whiche properly is Aduouterie, which worde is expressed in the ten Commaundementes) the contrarie whereof he prooueth in that place very learnedly: in this case, and not otherwise, he acknowlegeth him selfe not to knowe, where the Fornication, that is committed betwen single personnes, maie be found forbidden (where? not generally, but) in Decalogo, in the ten Commaundementes. And this is the only point, wherein S. Augustine confesseth his ignorance. Howbeit in the same place he sheweth, that vnder the name of Moechia, al manner Fornication is comprised, and that therefore [Page] in the tenne Commaundementes it is forbidden, no lesse then Aduout [...]ri [...], as I haue at large declared in this Treatie Lib. 5. Cap. 15. where M. Iewels falsehood is further detected.
But what meane I to laie foorth places by M. Iewel falsified, and corrupted? If I woulde make profession thereof, I ought to laie foorth his whole booke new printed. For of such stuffe the whole consisteth. One place, bicause therein he thought to touche mine honestie, I can not let passe. Thus it is.
Consider Reader hovv far suche a false forger is to be trustedHauing in my Confutation reprooued the Lady A.B. for turning these wordes out of Fulgentius, formam serui, and formam Dei (asmuch to say, the fourme of a feruaunt, and the fourme of God) into Manhed, and Godhed, wherby a false meaning is conueighed in against the true presence of Christes bodie in the most blessed Sacrament of the Aulter: least I should haue seemed ouer sharpe in rebuking a woman (whereas in deede for a Doctor of Diuinitie to confute a woman, I thought it no great Conquest) after certaine other wordes of reprouse,Confutation. Fol. 41.2 thus I say: Whether I maie without breache of courtesie charge her with so heinous a crime, or no, I doubte. Perhappes as shee passeth the bondes of womanlie state, in presuming to medle so farre in these perillouse matters, &c: so maie I seeme to forgete courtesie, thus roughly to blame so softe a creature.
Defence. fol. 89.Nowe commeth me in this Master of Defence, and for the loue of his good Ladie, laieth busily about him, driueth very fiercely at me (though his strokes light not on me) and like a kinde harted Louer, saieth very much in her praise, and not a litle to my dispraise: that shee [Page] forsooth is a Ladie of great learning, vertue, and grauitie, that al that I haue sent ouer, are but toyes, and trifles (by like bicause I printe not my Bookes in Folio, as he dooth) that shee is ful of wisedome, and I ful of follie.
There he promiseth in great sooth, that he wil not tel me how lewdly I haue demeaned my selfe towardes her. And what is that? Nay, he wil not tel it me (ye may beleue him, bicause it wil sound to my great shame. Yet out it must, the man is taken with suche a lust. And bicause he was lothe it should come to the knowlege of many, thus forthwith he telleth it me in a printed booke. I beseeche you (saith he ful courteouslie) cal your wordes againe to minde, if you can without blusshing: Handle, foisted in by M Ievvel for Blame. So roughlie to handle so softe a Creature (where he hath changed my honest worde Blame, into his owne worde Handle, of filthie imagination) This Phrase of speache your very frends haue muche misliked, and as it is in dede, so in plaine wordes they cal it Ruffianrie, &c. The whole matter thus he concludeth, with like truth as he beganne. But this fault, as I haue said, I wil dissemble.
To al this, what shal I saie good Reader? God be thanked, that M. Iewel, who is so desirous to tel that of me, whereof I should be ashamed, hath nothing to tel, but a Lie forged by his owne filthie imagination, whereof he must needes be ashamed, if he haue any sparke of honest nature in him. So roughlie to handle so softe a creature, be not my woordes.
If it be Ruffianrie so to speake (as he saieth, that in deede it is) then is this Superintendent of Sarisburie become a Ruffian. For he speaketh so, I spake it not. [Page] Thus roughly to blame so soft [...] a creature, whether it might not in that place be honestly spoken, I reporte me to al that be honest. Bicause he knew him selfe, he had made this apparent aduantage against me by his false forgerie, foisting in the worde Handle, in place of the word Blame, of purpose, that his impudent falshed might not be espied, he least out of his Booke, xxvij. lines of my Confutation, where the wordes be with which I reproue the Lady for her false Translation, if it were hers, and not an others, set forth in her name.
But my very frendes haue muche misliked this Phrase of speache, saith M. Iewel. I maruell how they could mislike it, before it was euer written. In deede bothe my frendes, and his frendes too, mislike this Phrase, as he hath forged it, very much, I doubte not. And as for his frendes, I dare saie, they are ashamed of him, and wish, he had not discredited his ministerly Diuinitie, with suche Ruffianly humanitie, or rather inhumanitie. For a ful answer hereto see in this Treatie, Lib. 3. cap. 2. Fol. 120.
As for the Lady that translated the Apologie into English, in whose quarrel this vnhonest and vncleane lewdnesse hath by this Champion ben practized, I wish her no woorse, but that shee tel M. Iewel, when shee meeteth with him nexte, that though shee were desirours bothe of Praise, and also of reuenge, yet shee had rather remaine vnpraised, and vnrevenged, then of suche a false handler to be praised, and with such open lying to be revenged.
Thus Reader by Viewe of these fewe places noted out of the whole heape, thou maist conceiue, with [Page] what manner stuffe M. Iewel hath filled vp that huge Booke. Suche as these are, after the same rate the more parte of the reste is. Wherefore al menne maie see, how good cause they haue to hier their Promotours, and Waiters, to lie in waite for our Bookes at the Portes, and Creekes, and with great extremitie to pounish al menne, who are founde to haue them. For by that meane they hope to winne a long time, before their guile and falshode be made open to al the worlde.
Seeing then among al that huge heape so litle can be founde, whereby he maie seeme to go directly to the pointes that be in Controuersie, and presently treated of, seeing where he geueth out certaine shadowes, as it were of proufes, if the same be duely examined, they be tried corrupted, and falsified by one vntrue meane or other, and seeing the confutation of al that is to be confuted, must be made by repeating and laying forth againe the testimonies truly, whiche he allegeth falsly, by shewing, where he clippeth of the Doctours wordes, where he addeth wordes of his owne, where he leaueth out the beginning, or the ende of Sentences, where he vseth false translation, where he conceeleth and dissembleth the Circumstance of the places, and foloweth the bare sounde of wordes without farther view of the Writers intent, where he maketh false exchange of wordes, as he is now taken in the manner, changing Blame, a worde of chaste meaning, into Handle a worde of vnchaste imagination: seing I saie, this is the meane and waie, whereby the Confutation of the pretensed Defence must be wrought: I leaue vnto the iudgement of those who can iudge of these thinges, what a long and tedious worke [Page] it would be, and how litle profite would redounde thereof, if I should refute his whole Booke.
This being wel considered, specially whereas also a long time is required to the finishing of suche a worke, great charges are to be emploied in printing, and menne at these daies soone waxe wearie, and feele lothsomnes in reading long Treaties: I thought I should doo more cō ueniently, if I confuted the chiefe pointes of Doctrine, then if I bestowed my labour about the confutation of the whole, whiche for the most parte consisteth of light and vaine trifles not worth the reading. And to saie the truthe, what credite is he worthy to beare in the reste, that in the chiefe pointes is proued to haue dealte so vntruly?
If I truly charge M. Iewel with thertie, fortie, fiftie, yea with a hundred great and notorious Lies, and sufficiently confute the same, shal I not seeme to haue proued him a Lier, and a false dealer in these causes, excepted I confute him in a thousand, eleuen, or twelue hundred mo? If the case be so, then is the aduantage in the multitude of Lies, and he is farthest from being confuted, who maketh most Lies, and specially he that maketh so many, as the defender of the truth shal not haue leisure to trie them Lies. It is wel knowen, how muche easier it is to write Lies, then to confute Lies. A Lie is vttered in a worde or two: the poison of an hainous Heresie is spet forth in a line or two: Nor this, nor that perhappes can wel and sufficiently be confuted, so as it be made plaine vnto the vnlearned, in foure or fiue leaues.
Least I should seeme to saie nothing in his commendation, [Page] and not to acknowlege his worthiest qualities, I graunt, he is furnished with Rhetorie, with humaine letters, with Eloquence, with a mearie wit, and that he hath a readie grace in skoffing, yea that he is hable to greeue the harte not onely of his Aduersarie, but also of any other godly man, with scorneful flowtes in thinges of greatest holinesse. But Christian Reader, we striue not for the Garland of that game: we go not about to trie maisteries of suche witte, or of humaine learning. Our strife is about the Truthe. The waie to shewe it, and proue it, (whiche he him selfe by open Chalenge hath offred his Doctrine to be tried by) is by laying forth the plaine Scriptures, the examples of the Primitiue Church, the testimonies of the General Councelles, and ancient Fathers.
Of these who hath so great stoare, saith a frende of his, as M. Iewel? Who euer sawe the margent of any Booke so beset with cotations, as his Bookes are? This were a great euidence of the Truthe on his side, if the matter were alwaies tried by what so euer multitude of writers sayinges. But what if the number of his testimonies be quite beside the purpose? Seemeth he not then very shamelesse? Is he not then farre to blame so to abuse the plaine and wel meaning Readers? It shalbe said perhappes in his excuse: He seeth the negligence of menne, he cōsidered, that fewe, or none examine our writinges. And therefore he thinketh, he shal seeme to saie muche, though in deede nothing be said, that perteineth to the pointes presently handled. And where a thing is to be done and the same for want of habilitie can not be done: there it seemeth good policie to geue the assaie, and [Page] to make shewe, as if it could be donne, or were donne. It is knowen, how flatterers make resemblance of frendship, how Hypocrites geue forthe tokens of holinesse, the intended Bankroute of good truste and credite, the craking Coward of stoute courage, Beggers oftentimes of welth, Queanes of womanly honestie, and chast demeanour. Right so M. Iewel feeling him selfe destitute of the Truthe, and impugning the Truthe, and professing to deliuer vnto the worlde a new Truthe, that is to saie, a heape of olde Vntruthes busily set forth of late yeres by Luther, Zuinglius, Caluine, Beza, and the reste, and by Wiklefe, Hus, Waldenses, and others, their predecessours in former times, laboureth with al his witte, and cunning, to iustifie it, calling it by the name of Goddes pure worde, the Gospel, and the sincere Truthe: that whereas he is not hable to perfourme his intent in deed, yet he might seeme to make it good with wordes.
Touching the life of the Clergie, wel maie I confesse, that M. Iewel hath somewhat to saie, out of certaine writers, how true, I knowe not: whereto I shal hardly be hable to make answer in ful defence of certaine personnes. But as touching the Doctrine, that the Catholike Churche holdeth at this daie, and hath alwaies holden, I auouche boldly, as by sundrie our bookes it hath now ben clearely proued, and they vnderstand so much that doo thoroughly examine the reasons, authorities, and proufes of both partes: that he is not hable to bring so muche as one sentence out of any allowed writer, that may not easily be refelled.
And bicause he knoweth, that in pointes of Doctrine the force of Truth is clearely on our side, he would faine [Page] traine me from matters of Doctrine, wherein he hath smal hope of victorie, or of acquitting him selfe with euen hande, vnto matters of life, and other bye thinges, whereof what so euer be beleeued, therein is no great danger touching our Saluation. As for example, what cracke is there made in the Doctrine of the Catholique Churche, if the Nominales, and the Reales, if the Thomistes, and Scotistes dissent about pointes Logical, or Metaphysical, or perhappes also about the paringes of some Scholastical pointes of Diuinitie? What if some light beleeuing writers haue sadly and in ernest made mention of one Ioane a woman Pope, deceiued by Martinus PolonusMartinus Polonus. a man of smal credite, who moued with olde wiues tales first committed that fable to writing? What if some later writers haue vttered their phantasies, whiche they dreamed thereof, vpon occasion of an olde Marble Stone hauing in it a woman with a ladde standing by her engraued? What if a fewe menne that helde with certaine euil Emperours, whiche could not abide to be reuoked from their vnlawful lustes by the Pope for the time being, haue written and reported il of a fewe Popes? What if Iohannes Casa wrote some vnchaste Italian Sonettes and Rymes in his yewth, though for filthinesse not comparable to suche as be extant of Bezaes making the Apostle of the Frenche Huguenotes? What if Petrus Aloisius, whom Paulus Tertius the Pope loued so tenderly, were a vicious man? What if Iohn Diazius the Spaniard were vnnaturally murdered by Alphonsus Diazius his brother that liued at Rome?
What if Luther, wrote against the furious vproares of the Boures in Germanie, when he sawe they were [Page] sure to be ouerthrowen by the Nobilitie there (whom notwithstanding he had before by Thomas Muncer his scholer stirred to take weapons against their Lordes) that he might laie some good colour vpon that he had il begonne? What if some haue written, though not without contradiction of others, that Poison was ministred in the blessed Sacrament? What if a Pope shewed him selfe cruel, and without pitie, in suffering Frances Dandulus the Venetians Ambassadour to lie vnder his table like a dogge, whiles he was at diner.
What if Popes haue suffered great Princes and Monarkes to kisse their feete, to holde their Stiroppes, to leade their horses by the Bridle? W [...]at if Gregorie the seuenth, otherwise called Hildebrande, whom many graue Writers reporte to haue benne a man of great vertue, and an excellent good gouernour of the Church, be of some Writers of that age, who flattered the Emperour then being that Popes mortal enemie, accompted an il man? What if Pope Alexander vsed Frederike the Emperour more proudly, then became a man of his calling? What if Constantines Donation can not be most sufficiently proued by record of antiquitie? What if certaine Emperours and other Princes, for great causes haue ben remoued frō their estates by the Popes authoritie? What if the Gloser vpon Gratian, and certaine other Canonistes haue immoderately magnified the Pope, and to extol his power haue vsed some termes vndiscretely, which neuerthelesse by fauorable interpretation maie be iustified?
What if the Popes at certaine times either for negligence cared not, or for the wrechednesse of mannes il inclination could not, or for great considerations would [Page] not vtterly purge the Citie of Rome of Courtesanes, and Brodel houses? What if the life of many Priestes, Bishoppes, Cardinals, yea of some Popes also hath iustly deserued to be reproued? Once to conclude, what if al sortes of olde Bookes being raked out of dusty corners, Schoolemen, Summistes, Glosers, vaine Chroniclers, Legendes, writers of Dreames and Visions, and suche Riffe raffe, and menne for the purpose being set a worke to peruse them, in the same be founde a fewe fonde pointes of Doctrine, certaine loose Conclusions, many seely Tales not worth the telling, and some lewd faultes of Religious personnes, and others of the Clergie detected?
What if I saie, al these, and many other suche thinges were graunted, of whiche we are persuaded, that some are true, the more parte is false, muche is so written, as it maie be defended, no lesse then impugned? What great inconuenience, what preiudice to our Faith can ensue of al this? Must the Catholike and ancient Doctrine of the Churche for these pointes be founde vntrue? Must this now needes be made a good Argument, Some of their liues were sinneful, Ergo, their Doctrine was false?
Truely these be the matters, with the enlarging whereof his Defence hath risen to so huge a quantitie. About whiche I haue not thought it needeful to bestow muche labour, partly bicause in most of those pointes my Confutation of the Apologie yet standeth vnrefelled, partly also bicause it liked me not to emploie good houres in so friuolous and vnfruitful a trauaile, but chiefly bicause what so euer be said by M. Iewel touching these thinges, either on the one side, or on the other, it importeth [Page] no disprouse of the Catholique doctrine in any Article, whiche specially I haue taken in hande to mainteine.
Howbeit, the thinges he bringeth in to deface the Churche, must needes with wise menne in this case beare smal credite, being considered vpon whose authorities, and reportes they be auouched.
The Catholikes can not be greatly moued with suche thinges, as are written in preiudice of the Churche, either by them, whose Bookes be of suspected faith, and therefore condemned by the Church, as Auentinus, and Beno de vita Hildebrandi, or haue ben corrupted of late yeres by the Lutheranes of Germanie, as Vrspergensis,In Indice librorum prohibitorum. Antonius de Rosellis, Polydorus Vergilius de Inuentoribus rerum, Paschasius, and others, or who haue benne muche inclined to innouations in Religion, and fauoured the Procedinges of Luther, and his disciples, as Erasmus, Cornelius Agrippa, Carion, Lorichius, Cassander and suche others, or who be knowen to be manifest Heretiques, and professed enemies of the Churche, as Gaspar Hedio the Author of Paralipomena added to Vrspergensis, Anselmus Rid, Vergerius, Sleidan, Illyricus, Fabritius Montanus, Iacobus Andreae, and many suche others, al whiche M. Iewel allegeth against the Churche, the Popes, and the Clergie boldely, as if they were Doctours of sufficient authoritie, and sound credite, against whom, specially in these matters no exception might be taken.
As there is no cause why we shoulde greatly esteeme any thing spoken by these, either against the manners of the Clergie, or against the Ceremonies, and customes of the Churche, or against any parte of the Catholique Doctrine, bicause in iudgement the bare worde of the Accuser, [Page] or of him that otherwise is an il willer, beareth smal credite against any man: So touching the doctrine of Faith, we feare not what so euer M. Iewel allegeth against vs out of the Schoolemenne, Canonistes of al sortes, Summistes, and Glosers, out of the Cardinalles, and those other learned and graue menne appointed by Paulus Tertius to geue information of thinges in the state of the Churche to be refourmed, and out of the Bisshoppes speaking their mindes freely in the late Councel of Trent. For we are wel assured, how so euer M. Iewel telleth their tales for them, they helde, and mainteined the doctrine which we professe, in euery condition.
What so euer therefore he bringeth out of them, bearing any sound of wordes against the Catholike Faith, as very litle it is, that to that effecte he can bring, though with heapes of their sayinges he hath filled his great Volume: the same is either by heate of Disputation, or by waie of Obiection against the Truthe after the Scholastical manner, for the better opening of the Truthe, or by vehemencie of zele, or perhappes by humaine ouersight vttered, otherwise then by them is determined in their Conclusions, whereof the taking of aduantage is vndue and ouer captious, or by some sleight of M. Iewel falsified and corrupted, or, to saie the least, by vntrue cō struction wrested to a sense by the Authour neuer intended.
How so euer it be, they shew them selues either very blinde of iudgement, or very contentious wranglers, or very vaine Ianglers, that allege the wordes of any Writer against the Catholique doctrine, whose whole course of life shewed him to be Catholique. Which is tolde vs [Page] by S. Augustine, as a moste certaine rule, whereby to vnderstand mennes wordes in matter of Religion. And therefore thus he crieth out vpon the blindenesse of such men, among whom M. Iewel maie take him selfe annumbred, that wil not vnderstād mens wordes by their dedes.
Aug. contra Epist. Parme. li. 3. cap. 4. Incredibilis est coecitas hominum, & omnino nescio quemadmodum credi posset esse in hominibus tāta peruersitas, nisi experimento verborum suorū factorū (que) patesceret, vsqueadeo se clausos habere cordis oculos, vt cōmemorent sancta Scripturae testimonia, nec intueantur in factis Prophetarū, quemadmodum intelligenda sint verba Prophetarū. The blindnesse of men is inoredible, and certainely I wote not how I might make one beleeue, that there were such frowardnesse in men, onlesse by the proufe of their wordes and deedes it appeared openly, that the eyes of their harte were so faste shut vp, that they allege the testimonies of the holy Scripture, and doo not behold in the doinges of the Prophetes, how the wordes of the Prophetes are to be vnderstanded.
Wherefore seing the farre greater parte of M. Iewels Defence consisteth of their sayinges heaped together, of whom some were either them selues, or their workes being vntruly set forth after their death of suspect faith, some found to fauour heretikes, some professed heretikes, some contrariwise knowen by publike profession of their life to be perfite Catholikes: making litle accompt, what they of the one side saie, as being of no credite, specially in matter of Faith, and not doubting but these of the other side, meant wel and godly, how so euer their wordes by M. Iewel be abused, corrupted, and misconstrued, in consideratiō thereof good Reader, I iudged a short Treatie [Page] might suffice in this case: shorte I meane in comparison of that Huge Volume fraught with so much voide, impertinent, and superfluous stuffe. Otherwise, it is longer, I am wel assured, then he shal euer be hable aptly, truly, and directly to confute.
I saie not, but he maie do eftsones, as he hath twise already donne, that is to saie, gather together a huge number of sayinges out of al sortes of Writers, and printing this Treatie withal, sende vs forth an other great booke, conteining much stuffe to litle purpose, and not once touching the very precise pointes, wherein he is charged with foule errours, and falshed. But to come directly to the pointes by me thoroughly refelled, and with good proufes to iustifie the same, keeping him selfe in from idle ranging abroad in matters not denied, or otherwise impertinent: this is that I affirme, he shal neuer be hable to perfourme, though he write againe as muche as Foxe hath raked together into that Donghil of his stincking Martyrs.
So then I trust good Reader, this my shorter, but more fruiteful trauaile, shal wel content thee. In which I haue defended, and iustified, the chiefe matters of the Catholique doctrine by M. Iewel impugned, and therewith ouerthrowen his weake Defence.
In sundrie other pointes also, whiche depende of Doctrine, I haue detected his great and manifolde Vntruthes. Neither haue I ioined issue with him in any point, wherein I haue not sufficiently proued him, either deceiued, or a deceiuer. Wherein as Ignorance maie stande him in some excuse for the one, so muste he beare the gilte of malice for the other. Eche pointe [Page] here is not handled with like diligence, and like exactenesse, I graunt, for the matter hath not so required.
Yet where I haue benne least disposed to take paines, and founde my selfe most weary in answering his friuolous Obiections, thou shalt finde the truthe sufficiently mainteined, and M. Iewel fully refuted. If anywhere thou espie defecte, or insufficiencie, impute the blame to me. If in any parte I shal seeme to haue donne wel, take thou the profite, geue God the praise.
A DETECTION OF ƲNTRVTHES IN M. IEWELS EPISTLE TO THE QVENE. THE FIRST BOOKE.
How vntruly and how slaunderously M. Iewel hath charged his Aduersarie with certaine hateful crimes, in his Epistle to the Quenes Maiestie set before his pretensed Defence of the Apologie. The First Chapter.
WHEREAS M. Iewel in the Epistle to the Queenes Maiestie set before his pretensed Defence of the Apologie, chargeth me with diuers pointes, whereby bothe to discredite the Catholique Doctrine, and to stirre her Maiestie to indignation against me, and other learned menne here, who haue confuted his manifold erroures, and detected sundrie his false partes, wherewith dangerously he seduceth her Maiesties Subiectes: least bothe I by my silence should seeme to acknowledge my selfe gilty of the thinges he chargeth me with, and least others might be induced to beleeue him, thinking him not to be so voide of dew reuerence and shame, as so farre to abuse her Maiesties credulitie in these matters, who hath no leisure, or listeth not to examine the same; I haue thought it conuenient and necessarie, before I come to any parte of his directe answer to my Confutation of the Apologie, to [Page] cleare my selfe of what so euer he imputeth vnto me in that Epistle, and to shewe, how al that he hath written against me in the same, is vtterly false, and sclaunderous. And bicause I cannot better and in plainer wise performe it, then by laying forth (as it were) the booke, where eche thing is said, whereof he taketh holde, and by reporting myne owne sayinges, which he hath falsified and vntruly reported: Let it not seeme strange, nor be lothesom vnto thee good Reader, that being driuen vnto it by this necessitie, I bring forth againe vnto thee, certaine places before written, and conteined in my former Treaties. How lothsom soeuer it be thee to reade, and mee to repeate againe certaine thinges before vttered: verely it is the chiefe waie, by whiche in this case the truthe maie clearely be opened. Thus then entreth M. Iewel his accusation against me.
M. Harding doubteth not to seeke quarelles against vs, euen in that vve mainteine 1 The Baptisme of Christian Infantes, 2 The proceeding, and 3 Godhed of the Holy Ghoste, 4 The Faith of the holy, and glorious Trinitie, and 5 the General, and Catholique profession of the Common Creede.
Harding.
To confute errours, and to declare the Truthe, is not to seeke Quarelles. Neither ought he to be called a Quareller, who of two waies, sheweth, whiche is the better. 1 Touching these fiue pointes: First, I finde no faulte with M. Iewel, nor with his felowes, for that they mainteine [Page 2] the Baptisme of Infantes. For therein I hold with them.The Baptisme of infantes no where reproued. To my remembrance, I speake not of it, of purpose, in my whole booke of the Confutation, nor in my Reioindre: only where I proue that certaine great, and necessarie pointes are to be beleeued, which be not expressed in the holy Scriptures,In the defence. pag. 191. Cōfutatiō fol. 84. a. bicause these Ministers in their Apologie saie, that al thinges needful for our saluation are abundantly and fully comprehended in the Scriptures: among sundrie other thinges, whiche I demaunde to be shewed vs in the Scriptures, I aske, where in al the Bible they finde, that Infantes ought to be Baptized. And wel that question might I demaunde, for proufe of that I intended in that place, neither can it be founde expressely commaunded, or spoken of, I am wel assured. Wherefore, whiles M. Iewel accuseth me to the Queenes Maiestie of seeking Quarelles against him, in this point he sheweth vs in him selfe, a perfite paterne of a Quareller.
If I should here appose him in his owne wordes, and aske him,Baptisme of Christian Infantes. what he meaneth by mainteining the Baptisme of Christian Infantes, I thinke rather, he would saie, I were a seeker of Quarelles. Yet would I faine heare, what he would answere. For what? Is he of the opinion, that suche Infantes, as be borne of Christian Parentes, be Christians, before they be baptized? If they be Christians, what neede they to be Christened? If they haue neede to be Christened, why doth he cal them before Baptisme receiued, Christian Infantes? Is any Man, Woman or Child to be called a Christian, before he be Christened? Latet anguis in herba: There lieth a Pad in the strawe. Perhappes he thinketh, it is not yet time to spette out the poison of that heresie, whiche it semeth he hath [Page] suckt out of Caluin, against the necessitie of Baptisme of Infantes, whose parentes be faithful.
This point I touched in my Confutation of the Apologie. Fol. 67. b. Neither durst M. Iewel yet to be plaine, when he commeth to that place in his Defence, where he had good cause to treate fully of it, and to deliuer the worlde from that Suspicion worthily conceiued, and to resolue vs, whether he thinke Baptisme of Christian Parentes Children to be necessarie, or no.
Verely by saying, that by Goddes Free Election they be pure, Ievvel in the Defence. Pag. 250. and holy, and by allowing al that Caluine saith thereof, he geueth out a secrete signification, his meaning to be, that in them Baptisme is not vtterly necessarie. These mennes Doctrine (if I be not deceiued) tendeth to this issue, that at length Baptisme shalbe nothing els, but a Signe, marke, badge, or recognizance of a Christian. Whereof it must folowe, that as a man maie be a Souldiour, a Seruing man, or a Reteiner to a Noble man, though he lacke his Captaines, or his Masters Badge, or Recognizance: likewise so many as be borne of Christian Parentes, be also Christians, though they neuer receiue Baptisme. By the Premisses of these mennes Doctrines, we haue iuste cause to thinke, that at length they wil teache, that the very Signes them selues also for auoiding superstition maie surceasse, and be put awaie, where the thing signified is perfourmed, and sufficiently beleeued. And so is Baptisme like to be quite abolished with other Signes, and Ceremonies. For Caluine their new Apostle of Geneua teacheth, that if we were mindeful yenough of Christes Death, al the Sacramentes were superfluous. Caluin. in [...]. Cor. 11. I praie God in this point I [Page 3] be not a true Prophete.Defence 150. M. Iewel laboureth al that he can in the Defence, to discharge Caluin of this perilous Doctrine, wherewith I burden him in my Confutation. But when he hath said al, he hath lost his labour, bicause he cō meth not to the point, and dissembleth that Caluine euer said it. And so he maie beginne that matter again. He shal do wel to make Caluin in Antidoto to agree with Caluin in his cōmentaries vpon S. Paules Epistles, where he teacheth expressely, that in case of sufficient remembrance of Christes Death, al the Sacramentes be superfluous.
Whiche I gather not out of Caluines wordes, by a fonde collection, as M. Iewel beareth the Reader in hande, but I shew it to be Caluines owne saying, and for trial I directe the Reader vnto the place.
Concerning the Godhed of the holy Ghoste, I moued 2 no Quarel at al.The Godhed of the holy Ghoste. Pag. 90. Confutat. 41. b. The proceeding of the holy Ghoste. Yet in the Defence of the Apologie he beareth menne in hande, that I denie, the holy Ghoste may be proued to be God by expresse Scripture. For these be his wordes. You saie (M. Harding) that the Godhed of the holy Ghost can not be proued by expresse wordes of the Scriptures, and thereof ye saie, ye are right sure. This is as false, as true it is, that the holy Ghoste is God. Reade my wordes who wil, he shal finde me true and M Iewel false.
Mary as touching the Article of the holy Ghoste, whereas the Authours of the Apologie saie, it procedeth 3 from both the Father, and the Sonne, whiche is most true:Some thinges are to be belieued, for which vve haue no expresse Scripture. in consideration of this pointe, of this pointe only I saie, (whiche is parte of the whole Article) and not of the Godhed, I saie in my Confutation, that they haue no expresse Scripture for it, nor any of the first foure Generall Councelles, and that therefore, we are [Page] bound of necessitie to beleeue somewhat, whiche is not expressely mencioned in the Scriptures, and that an other Councel, where that Article was confirmed, is to be receiued, beside the foure first, whiche only be allowed in England by Parlament.
Bicause he was lothe so manifest Vntruthe vttered against me should be espied, he nipte awaie my wordes, not suffering my whole tale to be tolde out, in whiche I doo plainely signifie my denial to perteine only to the Article of the holy Ghostes proceeding, and not to the Article of his Godhed. For after these wordes of the Apologie,Defence. pag. [...]0. (we beleeue that the holy Ghoste, who is the thirde person in the holy Trinitie, is very God, not made, not create, not begotten, but proceeding from both the Father, and the Sonne, by a certaine meane vnknowen vnto menne, and vnspeakeable, &c.) In my Confutation I saie thus.
‘As we acknowledge this Article to be true,Cōfutatiō fol. 41. b. and Catholique, so we demaund of these Defenders, how they can proue the same. Haue they either expresse Scripture for it, or any of the first foure general Councelles, whiche be esteemed of most auctoritie?Other Conucels to be allovved of necessitie besides the 4. First. We are sure they haue not. Therefore we doo them to vnderstand, and if they heare vs not, we aduertise the readers that feare God, and loue his truthe, that al truth necessarily to be beleeued is not expressed in the Scripture, and that other Coū celles be to be receiued besides the foure first, whiche are allowed in England by Parlament,This much betvvene the tvvo starres M. Ievv. nipt avvaie from the rest. as that wherein this pointe touching the proceeding of the holy Ghost hath bene defined, Concil. Lugdunen. & Concil. Florentin. sub Eugenio. 4. as also other definitions of the Churche, when vpon a newe doubte rising, an olde Truth is by later [Page 4] Publications declared. Likewise those Councelles in whiche the doctrine hath ben defined by the Churche, concerning the Two Willes, and Operations of Christe, whiche, who so euer beleeueth not, or at least refuseth to beleeue, is not to be takē for a Christian man. If these Councelles be denied, al these things shal come in doubt againe: and if these be receiued, then why should not al the reste that be vniuersal (Councelles) be also receiued, which the Church hath allowed?’ * Thus I saie there.
Iudge now good Reader, whether I denie in that place, that the holy Ghostes Godhed maie be proued by expresse wordes of Scripture, wherewith he chargeth me in the Defence, and whether this be a seeking of Quarelles against him, for that he mainteineth the Proceeding, and the Godhed of the holy Ghoste, as he chargeth me in his Epistle to the Queenes Maiestie.
Likewise it is an immoderate lye, where he saith, I 4 seeke Quarelles against them, in that they mainteine the Faith of the holy and Glorious Trinitie. Pitie it were I should be suffred to tread on Gods earth, if I quarelled with any man for that he mainteineth that holy Quarel. I professe my selfe bounde to mainteine that Faith with al my witte, and learning, and to be ready therein to spende my bloude to the last droppe.
Neither can I seeme to pike Quarelles against them 5 in that they mainteine the General, and Catholique professiō of the Common Creede, for so should I proue my selfe an ennemie to the Faith. As thus to doo it were a hainous crime, so to burden me therewith in a publique Write, in a printed Booke set forth for euery man to reade, in a solemne Epistle Dedicatorie to a Prince, and to suche a [Page] Prince, the slaunder is hainous, wicked, and impudent. Howbeit, As I allow, and approue the Confession of their beleefe touching the Trinitie, confessing it to conteine true and Catholique doctrine: so I seeme better to like of the olde accustomed manner of vtterance of the beleefe. And in deede emong Christian menne, when this high point of our Faith concerning the blessed Trinitie is by a publique Confession to be taught, it is not yenough to vtter some parte of our beleefe whiche is true, but also it behoueth vs to vtter the whole truthe, and to vse suche fourme of wordes, as hathe benne vsed, and allowed by the Churche from the beginning. What I meane, and how reasonably herein I haue spoken, by these my wordes, vnto the indifferent Reader it shal appeare.
Confut. 39. b.But what fault finde ye in this confession of our Faith, saith this defender. Sir, the first parte of your Confession, wherein you vtter your Beleefe touching the Trinitie, conteineth true and Catholique doctrine. Where the thing you treate of is not in controuersie betwene you and vs, and where you speake not with affection to ouercome,Strange manner of vttering the faith. we graunt some tymes ye vtter truth. But the manner of vtterance of your Faith is straunge to Christen eares, who haue bene accustomed to heare, Credo in Deum, Credo in Iesum Christum, Credo in spiritum Sanctum. I beleeue in God, I beleeue in Iesus Christe, I beleeue in the holy Ghoste. That other forme of wordes, whiche you vse, soundeth not so Christianlike: I beleeue there is a God, I beleeue that Iesus Christ is the Sonne of the Father, I beleeue that the holy Ghoste is God. Although this forme of wordes doo expresse a right Faith, yet being suche as maie be vttered by Deuilles, and [Page 5] hath bene alwaies vttered by Heretikes their ministers: the auncient and holy Fathers haue liked better the olde fourme and manner, after whiche euerie Christen man saith: I beleeue in God, I beleeue in Iesus Christe, I beleeue in the holy Ghoste. For this importeth a signification of Faith, with Hope, and Charitie: that other of Faith only, which the deuilles haue, and tremble, as S. Iames saith, wherein as in many other thinges,Iacob. 2. these Defenders resemble them.
S. Augustine in sundry places putting a difference betwen these two formes of wordes, vpon S. Iohn alleging S. Paules wordes, To one that beleeueth in him who iustifieth the wicked his Faith is imputed to righteousnes, Rom. 3. In Iohan. Tract. 29. To beleue in God what is it. demaundeth, what is it to beleeue in him? It is, by his aunswer, Credendo amare, credendo diligere, credendo in eum ire, & eius membris incorporari, with beleeuing to loue him, with beleeuing to goe into him, and to be incorporate in his members, that is, to be made a member of his body. In an other place he saith, speaking of Christe,De verbis Domini Serm. 61, it. It forceth muche whether a man beleeue, that he is Christ, and whether he beleeue in Christ. For the Deuilles beleeued that he was Christ, neither for al that beleeued the Deuilles in Christ. For he beleeueth in Christe, who both trusteth in Christe, and loueth Christe. For if he haue Faith without Hope, and Loue, he beleeueth that Christe is, he beleeueth not in Christe. So he that beleeueth in Christe, with beleeuing into him shal Christe come, and by some meane he is vnited vnto him, and is made a member in his body. Whiche can not be done, excepte there come also both Hope, and Charitie. Thus S. Augustine. The same doctrine he vttereth writing vpon the 77. Psalme.
By this thou seest [...]ed, I bl [...]me not their [...] d [...]s [...] the Trinitie, not their Prof [...]s [...]ion of the Cōmon Creede, as M. Iewell calleth it but only I seeme be [...]ter to allow [...] the auncient and vsual manner of vttering the Beleefe, whiche for good reason hath euer seemed to the learned Fathers more commendable Reason, and consideration of duetie would, that a Minister of Gods worde should be a fraide to vtter so great, and so manifest vntruthes vnto his liege Soueraine. But of like (some wil saie) he wil amende that faulte in other partes of his Epistle to her Maiestie, specially sith that he allegeth nothing, but directeth the Reader vnto the place, where it is to be founde by his quotation noted in the margent, whiche hath at least some colour of vpright dealing, and being founde false, declareth an impudent falshod. I would wish, that for truthes sake, al would reade and conferre, and iudge of the oddes betwen vs bothe. First thus he writeth.
The maine grounde of his vvhole Plea is this, that the Bishop of Rome, vvha [...] so [...] it [...]al like him to determine in iudgemēt can neuer [...]rr [...] (F [...] directiō of the R [...]der he quoteth thus.) C [...]sus. fo. 334. b
Harding.
What he meaneth by his terme, Plea, I wote not, ne care not. I pleade not for right of any temporal thing.
Neither am I a lawier, as he knoweth [...] emploie my studie of Diuinitie to defend [...] the. Catholique Fa [...]th, and to detecte his falshod, that God [...] people be not by him, and his felowes dangerously seduced. The thing, whereat he scoffeth, (for these wordes, what so euer it shal like him [Page 6] to determine, be scorneful wordes) is not so vttered by me, as he reporteth? Who liste to see, what I saie, for so muche as the booke of my Confutation is not alwaies at hand [...], thus it is.
The Pope succedeth Peter in auctoritie and power.Confut. Fol. 334. b ‘For whereas the shepe of Christe continewe to the worldes ende, he is not wise, that thinketh Christe to haue made a shepeherd tēporarie for a time, ouer his perpetual flocke. Then what shepeherdly endoument our Lorde gaue to the first shepeherde, at the institution of the shepeherdly office of the Churche: that is he vnderstanded to haue geuen ordinarily to euery successour. To Peter he gaue, that he obteined by his praier made to the Father, that his Faith should not faile. Againe to him he gaue grace,Luca. 22. that to performe, the performance whereof at him he required, to wit, that he confirmed, and strengthened his brethren. Wherefore the grace of stedfastnes of faith, and of confirming the wauering,Hovv ād, vvherin the Pope erreth not, [...]e neuer erred. and doubteful in the Faith, euery Pope obteineth of the holy Ghoste, for the benefite of the Churche. And so the Pope although he maie erre by personal errour in his owne priuate iudgement, as a man, and as a particular doctour in his owne opinion: yet as he is Pope, the successour of Peter, the Vicare of Christe in earth, the shepeherd of the vniuersal Churche, in publike iudgement, in deliberation and definitiue sentence, he neuer erreth, nor neuer erred. For when so euer he ordeineth, or determineth any thing by his high bishoply auctoritie, intending to binde Christen menne to performe, or beleeue the same: he is alwaies gouerned, and holpen with the grace and fauour of the holy Ghoste.’
Answer M. Iewel to this, if ye can. Certainely hitherto ye haue not answered. As for that you bring against it in your pretensed Defence, there is no graue or learned man of your side, that is not ashamed of it. In that game of scoffing I doo gladly yelde you the garlande. Your greatest Doctours there, are Alphonsus de Castro and Erasmus, menne of our age. As for Erasmus, it were easie to Answer him, but here I thinke his tale not worthe the Answering. Mary Alphonsus saith somewhat to your purpose, if the tale whiche you make him to tel, were his owne. Certainely if he once wrote it, when he beganne first to write, afterwards with better aduise he reuoked it. For in the bookes of the later printes those woordes, whiche you reherse, are not founde. Thus you saie.
Defence. pag. [...]5. Alphōsus de haeresiae bu [...] li. 1. cap. 4. Alphonsus de Castro, one of M. Hardinges owne special Doctours saith: Non dubitamus, an Haereticum esse, & Papam esse, coire in vnum possent, &c. Non enim credo aliquem esse adeo Impudentem Papae Assentatorem, vt ei tribuere hoc velit, vt nec errare, nec in Interpretatione Sacrarum literarum h [...]llucin [...]ri possit: We doubte not, whether one man maie be a Pope, and an Heretique both together. For, I beleeue there is none so shamelesse a flatterer of the Pope, that wil saie (I saie it not: read my wordes again. as you saie M. Harding) The Pope can neuer erre, nor be deceiued in the exposition of the Scriptures.
This very saying M. Iewel bringeth in likewise against the Popes, in the Defence. pag 615. vnder the name of [Page 7] Alphonsus, with the same Cotation. And after that he hath rehersed the wordes, thus he pipeth him selfe vp the triumphe against Hosius in despite of the Popes, as if he had gotten of me a worthy, and glorious conqueste.
Here M. Harding, your owne principal Doctour Alphonsus, calleth al them that mainteine your Doctrine, and saie as you saie, the shamelesse flatterers of the Pope. But I saie on the other side: here M. Iewel, It pitieth me to see you so vaine a man: and it is some paine also with litle profite, for me stil to tel you one tale, that al standeth vpon false grownde that you builde. I had neede to be wel seene in Copia Verborum, to be furnished with diuersitie of termes, that I might by some change of speache ease the griefe of the Readers eares, who must alwaies heare this muche at my hande, that M. Iewel lyeth.
Looke Reader, and peruse my woordes aboue rehersed, and thou shalt see, I saie not, that the Pope can not erre, nor be deceiued in the exposition of the Scriptures. I saie he maie erre by personal errour, in his owne priuate iudgement, as a man, and as a particular Doctor in his owne opinion. But that he erreth, or euer erred in publique iudgement, in definitiue sentence, and determinations touching matters of Faith: that I vtterly denie.VVho be they, whō Alphōsus in this case calleth Flatterers. Alphonsus would them to be accompted flatterers, who wil needes saie, that the Pope can not erre, or be deceiued in any case: whiche neither I, nor any learned Catholique man euer said. You doo vs wrong therefore with your vncourteous language, M. Iewel, and belie Alphonsus, faining him to call vs shamelesse Flatterers, whiche he neuer [Page] meant. It had benne your part to shewe where, or when any Pope euer defined any false and erroneous doctrine to be receiued and beleeued of the Church. Excepte ye shew vs this, whiche we are sure, ye can neuer shew, ye maie spare such idle talke, whereof ye haue great stoare, whereby in many places of your bookes ye go about to proue, that sundrie Popes haue erred.
That he is alvvaies vndoubtedly possessed of Gods holy Spirit [...]. Confut. Fol. 285. a.
Harding.
Not alwaies M. Iewel. I saie it not. I know, and denie not, but it maie wel be proued, that some Popes haue in sundrie their Actes and Deedes, lacked the direction of the Spirite of God, as Mēne, but not in Publique Decrees touching the necessarie doctrine of Faith. In the place noted by your Cotation thus I saie.
Confut. 285. a. Sapient. 8.Gods wisedom (as the scripture faith) disposeth al thinges sweetly, and in one instant forseeth the ende, and meanes that be necessary to the ende. ‘If he promise any man life euerlasting withal he geueth him grace also to doo good deedes, whereby to obteine the same. Whom he hath glorified (saith S. Paule) them he hath iustified, Rom. 8. and called. Matth. 16 Luc. 22. So whereas he hath by force of his praier made to the Father promised to Peter, and for the saftie of the Church, to euery Peters Successour, that his faith shal not faile, and therefore hath willed him to confirme his brethren, that is, to remoue al doubtes, and errours frō them: we are assured, he wil geue him such witte, diligence, [Page 8] learning, and vnderstanding, as this Firmnesse, and Infallibilitie of Faith, and Confirming of Brethren requireth.’ See further Reader, what I saie in that place.
To this and to the rest said in that place,M. Iewels chiefe mā ner of answering. Defence. pag. 612. M. Iewel maketh answer in his pretensed Defence after his common manner, with these graue and learned notes. Sadly, and Sagely, and muche to the purpose. Item, Vntruthe fonde, and childish, &c. Item, O worthy graue reasons.
Neither answereth he the matter only by such marginal notes, but also otherwise at ful, where he furnisheth vs out two long leaues ful of trumperies pretended to be piked out of obscure, and late writers, Alphonsus de Castro, M. Iewels doctours, and the same for the more parte vtterly belied. Beatus Rhenanus, Legenda aurea, Fasciculus rerum sciendarum, Iohannes Stella, Hulderikes forged Epistle, Erasmus Annotations, the disallowed Councel of Basil, the Appendix or lable of the Councel of Constance, whiche he fowly falsifieth, reporting that of Iohn. 22. whiche was said of Iohn. 23. the vsurper, also out of Vesellus, the Glose vpon Gratian, one Iohn of Paris, Heruaeus, Gerson, Hostiensis the Canoniste, Aeneas Syluius in that booke, whiche he him selfe reuoked, and recanted, Petrarkes Rymes, Lyra, [...]aldas P [...]a [...]ina, Iouerius Hermannus Gigas, Iohannes Camo [...]ensis alleged by Cornelius Agrippa, Iohn of Sarisburie, Hermannus Rid an Heretique, Cornelius Agrippa litle better in his booke of vanitie, and of such litle worth late petie Doctours.
When he cōmeth to answer the pointe it selfe, which standeth in the force of Christes praier made vnto the Father for the Firmnesse of S. Peters, and his successours Faith: thus he frameth his answer, ful sadly, I warrant you, and like a godly Minister. If the Pope should erre, Defence. pag. 614. [Page] (saith he) [...]r be in heresie, M. Ievv. feareth not to vse his floutes speaking of Christ him selfe. he might [...] in an Action of Couenant, and require him to performe his promise. Suche Flowtes, and Scoffes becomme the Ennemies of Christes Churche, and thereof this felowe serueth him selfe, when learning faileth. One great aduantage he hath ouer me, he wil be sure to make moe lyes, then I shall haue liste, or thinke it labour worth, to answere. God be thanked, he can not shewe any Pope, that euer lacked the spirite of God, in setting foorth any publike Decree, touching any pointe of Faith, to be holden of Christian people.
That at the Popes only hand vve must learne to knovv the vvil of God. Confut. 324.
Harding.
I saie not, that we must learne to know the will of God at his hande onely. That were a fonde doctrine. For we may, and doo learne our faith, and what is the wil of God, at the handes of others, as of our Parentes, our Frendes, our Pastours, our Curates, our Ghostely Fathers, our Preachers, and our Bishoppes. In the place by M. Iewel reprehended, vpon occasion of the Apologie, where the Defenders require vs to follow the example of S. Irenaeus, in that he (as they saie) appealed oftentimes to the oldest Churches, whiche had benne nearest to Christes time, and whiche, it was hard to beleeue, that they had erred: thus I saie.
Confut. [...]4. a.Ye would seeme to be faine, that we folowed the aduise of S. Irenaeus. We are content with al our hartes. And [Page 9] with Irenaeus we appeale to that Tradition,Irenaeus lib 3. ca. 8. which is from the Apostles, which (as he saith) is kepte in the Churches by Priestes, that succeded them. ‘With Irenaeus leauing other Churches, whose succession of Bishopes it were a long worke to reherse, we require to haue recourse for trial of our Faith, to the tradition of doctrine of the Romaine Churche, which he termeth, greatest, oldest, Idem lib. 3. cap. 3. best knowen to al, founded, and set vp by the twoo most glorious Apostles Peter, and Paule. We appeale to the Faith of that Churche taught abrode in the worlde, and by successions of Bishoppes brought downe vnto vs. For to this Churche, saith Irenaeus, must al the Church of Christe repaire, where so euer it be, for that it is the chiefe of al, and for that the tradition of the true doctrine, whiche the Apostles lefte behind them, is there faithfully kepte. Wherfore if ye would after the counsel of Irenaeus resorte to Rome, for decision of the controuersies, that be betwixte you and vs, and would them to be tried by that sense of doctrine, whiche hath continued by Successions of Bishoppes, euen from Peter, to Pius the fourth now Pope, and would stand to the auctoritie of that See Apostolike: al strife were ended, we should be at accorde. But we haue litle hope, that ye wil folowe this godly counsel of S. Irenaeus that blessed Martyr, whose bodie your brethren the Huguenotes of Fraunce, villanously burned at Lions, Anno Domini. 1562. after it had rested there thirteen hundred yeres and more.’
In al these wordes as thou seest reader, I say not, as M. Iewel beareth her Maiestie in hande I doo, that we must learne to know the wil of God only at the Popes hande. But I declare, whether we may most safely resorte for decision of the controuersies, that be betwixte vs, and the [Page] Protestantes. Whereunto M. Iewel hath not yet answered, ne neuer shalbe hable to answere: though in the Defence he haue shuffled together a great heape of allegations nothing perteining to the present purpose, as his custome is to doo, and a great parte of my confutation there he hath cut of,M. Iewel, cutteth, and mangleth the Confutation in infinite places, leauing out wordes of greatest vveight. and therby hath fowly mangled the same, as for his aduantage he hath done in infinite places, leauing out the matters, whereunto he had not what reasonably to answere. See the place Reader, Defence pag. 701. and thou shalt finde my worde true.
That in the Popes onely holinesse standeth the vnitie, and safetie of the Churche. Confut. 204. b.
Harding.
If I had so said, in a right sense, it might wel be allowed. Howbeit thus I said.Confut. 204. b. ‘As Christe gaue vnto S. Peter, and his Successours for the benefite of his Churche, a supreme auctoritie, and power: so for the same Churches sake, for whose loue he deliuered him selfe to death, by petition made to his Father he obteined for him, and his Successours,Ioan. 14. Luc. 22. the Priuiledge of this Supreme, and most excellent Grace, that their Faith should neuer faile. In consideration of whiche singular priuiledge obteined by Christe, and graunted to the See Apostolike, and to none other, S. Gregorie rebuketh Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople so much, as one that presumptuously vsurped that new name of vniuersal Bishop, against the Statutes of the Gospel, and against the decrees of the Canons.’
‘To cōclude, if either S. Gregorie, or any other mā should [Page 10] saie, that the Churche dependeth vpon one man: he might seeme to saie truthe, meaning rightly, and that not alone, nor without good authoritie. For such a saying we finde vttered by S. Hierome.Hieron. Contra Luciferian. The saftie of the Churche (saith he) dependeth vpon the dignitie of the highest priest, who if he haue not auctoritie peerlesse, and aboue al other: there wilbe so many schismes in the Churche, as there be priestes. Which peerlesse auctoritie aboue al other, as S. Hierome in that place doth attribute vnto the Bishop of euery Dioces directly: so consequently to Peters successour, to whom it was said, Feed my shepe. Iohan. 21. For by what reason in ech Dioces it behoueth one priest to be highest ouer other Priestes, by the same, and in like proportiō, no lesse it behoueth, that in the whole Church one Bishop be highest ouer other Bishoppes. I meane for auoiding of schismes.’
This reason is not, ne can not of M. Iewel be auoided. Of other thinges impertinent, he bringeth vs great stoare out of other men in the Defence,Defence. pag. 452. but to this very reason wherein standeth the pointe, touching the maintenance, and preseruation of vnitie, he saith nothing.
That vvho so euer is diuided from the Pope, must be iudged an Heretique, and that vvithout the obedience of him, there is no hope of Saluation. Confut. 306. b.
Harding.
Who so euer is diuided not onely from the Pope, but also from any other Catholique Bishoppe in faith, ought to be iudged an Heretique. As touching obedience,Iohan. 21. whereas by Christe he is commaunded to Feede his Lambes, and his sheepe, and thereby hath commission [Page] to gouerne them: how can he be saued from the rauening woolues, who through disobedience refuseth to come into that Folde, and to be fedde, and guided of that high Pastor? I confesse, that in certaine cases besides faith, a man may disobey the Pope, and yet not be remoued from all hope of saluation. My wordes for whiche you make so muche a doo, are these, vttered vpon occasion of your Apologie.Confut. fol. 306. b. Ye put vs in minde to consider, how that your selues are those priuate hil Aulters, and darke groues. ‘For ye be they, that stoppe the people from the commō Temple of Christendom, the Catholique Church, out of which is no saluation, the head whereof sitteth in Peters Chaire at Rome.’
And yet as though it vvere not sufficient for him so vainely to sooth a man in open errours, he telleth vs also sadly, and in good earnest, that the same Bishop is not onely a Bishop, but also a kinge. Confut. fol. 80. a. & 305. b.
Harding.
Neither haue I in any place soothed the Pope in open Errours, but haue graunted, that certaine Popes had their Errours, either before they were called to that roume, or also afterwarde, holding them priuately, and as priuate Doctours:That the Pope erreth, how is it denied. But that by any publique decree geuen out to be holden, and obserued of the Churche they euer mainteined, or gaue assent, or authoritie to any heresie, or errour: I denie vtterly, neither shal M. Iewel, or any of his felowes what so euer, be hable to proue the contrarie.
That any where I haue tolde them, sadly, and in good earnest, that the bishop of Rome is a king, if he meane the expresse name of a King: I tel him here eftsones, sadly, and [Page 11] in good earnest, and without Saulue la vostre, that it is a starke lye.Confut. fol. 280. a. The pope hath kingly power, yet is he no king. In the first place of my Confutation by him coted, I say, The pope hath a kingly power ouer his owne subiectes euen in temporal thinges and now I tel you here for example, he hath it as Moyses had: yet he taketh not vpon him to be a King, nor chalengeth vnto him that title. Neither doth he in his owne person, bicause he acknowlegeth him selfe to be no King, exercise the function and office of a King, but committeth such charge vnto other Laye persons. If ye enuie the Pope his kingly power, and possessions, whiche he holdeth by right, beware, you be not at length thought vnworthy, and remoued from the landes of a Baron, and the Earledom of S. Osmunde, whiche you holde vnduely. If that happen to come to passe, where then shal we finde your good Lordship? In the other place of the Confutation, vpon occasion geuen by wordes of the Apologie, I say, that the Pope maie rule temporally, Confut. fol. 305. b. and more there say I not, touching this matter.
That vnto him belongeth the right of bothe Svvordes, as vvel Temporal, as spiritual. Confut. fol. 247. b.
Harding.
What so euer I bring in my Confutation concerning both Swordes committed vnto the Successour of S. Peter, it is S. Bernardes, it is not myne. Wheras the Apologie maker, were it M. Iewel, or who so euer it was (by the multitude of the light scoffes, it appeareth that he was the Penneman of it, mary the stuffe I heare say was gathered by the whole Brotherhead) whereas, I say, he steppeth forth very peartly, and saith thus,Confut. fo. 247. a. I haue a special fansie to [Page] common a worde or two with the Popes good Holinesse, and to say these thinges vnto his owne face, Tel vs I praie you good holy Father, &c. Which of the Fathers euer said, that bothe the Swordes were committed vnto you? To this question the answere I make in the Popes behalfe, is this.
Confut. fo. 247. b. L. Si quis. C. d. test. Of the Popes tē poral Svvorde, De Considerat. li. 4 Math. 26.Let S. Bernard writing to a Pope, answer for the Pope. He is a sufficient witnesse. Where your selfe doo allege him much against the Pope, you can not by the lawe iustly refuse him, speaking for the Pope. The spiritual sworde you denie not, I trowe. Of the temporal sworde belonging also to the Pope, thus saith S. Bernarde to Eugenius. ‘He that denieth this sworde to be thine, seemeth to me not to consider sufficiently the worde of our Lorde saying thus (to Peter thy predecessour) put vp thy sworde in the scaberd. The very same then is also thine, to be drawen forth perhappes at thy becke, though not with thy hande. Elles if the same belonged in no wise vnto thee, where as the Apostles said,Lucae. 22. The Churche hath both svvordes by S. Bernard. beholde there be two swordes here: Our Lorde would not haue answered, it is yenough, but it is to muche. So bothe be the Churches, the spiritual sworde, and the material. But this to be exercised for the Churche, and that of the Churche. That by the hande of the Priest, this of the souldier, but verely at the becke of the Priest, and commaundement of the Emperour. Thus touching the Popes bothe swordes you are fully answered by S. Bernarde. I trust you wil not be so vncourteous, as to put him beside: nor so parcial, as to allow him, when he seemeth, to make some shewe for you, and to refuse him, when he is found plaine contrarie to your false assertions.’
Vpon this place of S. Bernarde M. Iewel in the Defence, sitting forsooth,M. Iewels graue sentence pronounced against S. Bernarde. Defence. pag. 528. Ibidem, as it were vpon the Benche like a Iudge, hauing power to geue sentence, either of life, or of death, saith ful grauely, and Iudgelike, and pronounceth this sentence. S. Bernarde saith, The Pope hath bothe swordes. But S. Bernardes authoritie in this case is but simple. But why I praie you Sir Iudge? Marke the cause, and profounde reason of this Iudge. He liued (saith he) eleuen hundred yeeres after Christes Ascension, in the time of King Henry the first the King of England, in the middes of the Popes route and tyrannie.
And shal we for this cause shake of S. Bernarde? Then why maie we not as wel sitte in Iudgement vpon M. Iewel, and in like sorte, but with more reason, pronounce this sentence? M. Iewel saith, the bodie of Christe is not in the Euchariste: the bodie, and bloude of Christe are not to be adored in the Sacrament: The Churche hath no externall Sacrifice, no external Priesthod: Praier made for the dead is vaine and superstitious: There be not seuen Sacramentes, but onely two, and by the same grace is not conferred or geuen, but onely signified: The Pope is Antichriste, and al that holde the olde Faith of the Churche, who are Papistes, perteine to the Kingdome of Antichriste, &c. But M. Iewels authoritie in these cases is but simple. He liued almost sixteen hundred yeeres after Christe, and is yet aliue, in the time of Quene Elizabeth, the Quene of England, in the middes of the Caluinistes route, and tyrannie. The same sentence with a smal change of wordes, maie with like reason be pronounced vppon Luther, Zuinglius, Peter Martyr, Bucer, [Page] Caluine, Beza, Baudie Bale, Hooper, Cranmare, and the rest of that wicked route.
It were a thing worthy to be knowen, why S. Bernarde should be condemned in respecte of his age, and of the route, whiche this man telleth vs the Popes then bare, and these Apostates should be beleeued, and honoured with al mennes assent yelded to their sayinges and teachinges, their age being foure hundred yeeres later, the tyranny, crueltie, vilanie, and outrage, whiche in sundry places by them of that side is vsed, farre surmounting any what so euer seueritie of gouernement, whiche the Popes vsed in that time, their learning not equal with the learning of S. Bernarde, their witte muche inferiour to his, of eithers vertue, and good life, what shal I speake? To compare theirs with his, it were a kinde of blasphemie, so holy a Father was he, so dissolute Apostates are these.
That all kinges, and Emperours receiue their vvhole povver at his hande, and ought to svveare obedience, and Fealtie to the Pope. For these be his vvordes, euen in this b [...]rke so boldly dedicated vnto your Maiestie: It is a great eye soare, saith M. Harding, to the ministers of Antichriste, to see the Vicare of Christe aboue Lordes, and kinges of this worlde, and to see Princes, and Emperours promise, and sweare obedience vnto him. Confut. fol. 178. b
Harding.
That all Kinges, and Emperours receiue their whole power at the Popes hande, I neuer said it, ne wrote it, nor that they ought to sweare obedience, and Fealtie vnto him. These wordes are not to be founde, neither [Page 13] in the places, whiche you haue coted, nor in the whole Confutation els where. What, and how great obedience Christian Princes owe vnto the Churche, and vnto Christes Vicare the chiefe Gouernour of the same, this is no place at large to discusse.
The wordes that you allege, I acknowledge to be myne. If that, whiche there foloweth be ioyned withal, the whole circumstance of my discourse declaring what is my meaning, considered: nothing shal seeme said beside truthe, or reason. After the wordes before rehersed, immediatly thus it foloweth.
But they,Confut, 178. b. It is no absurditie the shepherd to be in auctoritie ouer the vvhole flocke. Distinct. 96. C. du [...] sunt. that are the faithful subiectes of the Church of God, thinke it no absurditie, that the shepherd be set, not only aboue the Lambes, and Ewes of the Churche, but also aboue the Wethers, and Rammes them selues. It is a very great folie for them to finde faulte with the Superioritie of the Bishop, of Rome, who can neuer proue that he is not the Vicare of Christe. If he were not his Vicare, yet being a Bishop, he is aboue any temporal Prince, concerning his priestly office. Lo M. Iewel, by these, and other my wordes in that place, you might haue seene, had you not bent your witte maliciously to stirre her Maiestie to hatred against vs, what are the thinges, and causes, in whiche I reporte the Princes, and highest estates of the world, to stoupe vnto Christes Vicare, and to promise him obedience. As for Homage and Fealtie, suche, as Vassalles rendre vnto their temporal Princes, in regard of temporal Dominion, whereof by sownd of your speache you seeme to meane, I spake not one word. Is this the charitie of your Gospel M. Iewel, by such vntrue meanes to incense the Prince against vs?
VVhereas Pope Zacharias by the consent, or the conspiracie of the Nobles of France deposed Chilpericus, the true, natural, and liege Prince of that Realme, and placed Pipinus in his roume: Lo, saith M. Harding, ye must needes Confesse, that this was a diuine power in the Pope: for otherwise he could neuer haue donne it. Thus muche he esteemeth the dishonours, and ouerthrovves of Gods anointed. Confut. Fol. 182. a.
Harding.
Nay rather Lo saith M. Harding, ye must needes confesse, that M. Iewel belieth him, and bothe vntruly reporteth his wordes, and falsifieth that Storie. For truly to speake, it was not Pope Zacharie, that deposed Childerike. Let it be weighed, what I saie touching this matter answering to the obiection, which the Apologie maketh against the Popes in general. These be my wordes.
Confut. Fol. 181. b. King Childerike of Fraunce deposed, and Pipine aduaunced to the croune.If the Pope Zacharias deposed Childerike (for so I finde him more commonly named) the king of Fraunce, only vpon his owne pleasure, or displeasure, as ye saie, and placed Pipine for him: can ye tel that storie, and not see, what a strength of auctoritie is in that See, which is hable with a worde to place, and displace the mightiest king in Europe? ‘With a worde I saie, for I am sure you can shewe vs of no armie, that he sent to execute that his wil. Is that the power of a man trowe ye, to appointe Kingdomes? Can the Deuil him selfe at his pleasure set vp, and depose Kinges? No surely. And muche lesse can any member of his doo the same. Remember ye what Christe said, when the Iewes obiected, that he did cast out Deuilles,Math. 12. in the name of the prince of Deuilles? [Page 14] Beware ye sinne not against the holy Ghoste, who confesse, that the Pope hath pulled downe, and set vp Kinges. Which thing vndoubtedly he could not doo profitably, and peaceably, but by the great power of God.’ And yet did that line of Pipine,The prosperitie of the line of Pipine and Charles surmounted al other. VVhat did Pope zacharias in the deposing of king Childerike. and Charles the great, whiche the Pope did set vp, florish aboue any other stocke, that ye can name sence the inclination of the Romaine Empire. Whiche in that transposed state of so great a Kingdome, maketh no obscure Argument of heauenly approbation, and diuine prouidence.
‘Neither did the Pope Zacharias depose Childerike, bicause he fansied him not, as ye sclaunder, but only consented to loose his subiectes from bonde of othe made to him, at the general, and most earnest request, and sute of al the Nobilitie, and communaltie of the whole realme of Fraunce,VVhat manner a mā Childerike vvas. finding him very vnprofitable, and vnmeete for the kingdome, as one who being of no witte, and therefore commonly named Stupidus, as muche to saie, a dolt, was altogeth [...] besides like a Sardanapalus, geuen wholly to belly chere, and to filthy loue of women. Therefore in your owne wordes ye confesse a diuine power in the Pope, as by whom God directeth the willes of faithful princes on the earth. The more such examples ye bring, the worse ye make your cause. I would hier you to ease me of the labour of prouing such a notable facte.’
You, that find so great fault with Pope Zacharias for cō senting after a sort to the depositiō of Childerike a beastly man, an vnprofitable, and vnworthy King of Fraunce, why do ye allow, cherish, and cōmend so much Christofer [Page] Goodman, and Iohn Knoxe, with their felowes, and helpers, that were together at Geneua, for writing, intising, and doing, what in their power did lye, to depose the noble, and lawful Quenes of England, and Scotland, and with the Blastes of their traiterous Trompettes, to remoue them from the right of their Crownes, and roial estates? Saith not Goodman, that Wiat did his duetie in taking Armes against Queene Marie, and that al such were Traitours, as deceiued him, and tooke not his parte? If al be rightly constrewed, the Quenes Maiestie of England now being (I suppose) hath no great cause,Goodmās bookes named the first, and secōd blaste against the monstrous regimēt of vvomen. Item an other, hovv to obey or disobey. VVith other the like fierbrādes of knoxe, ād Gilbie. Goodmā in the Treatie, hovv to obeie, or disobeie, pag. 204. either to commende them for such seditious Blastes, or to like wel of you, and your companions, for geuing eare, winde, and fauour to the blowing of the same. If Goodman had ben Pope of Rome, as Knoxe, they saie taketh vpon him to be Pope of Scotland, ô Lorde what Counterblastes would ye, and your good fellow Trompeters e [...] this haue blowen vp against him? Long er this t [...]e whole world should haue rong of it, and the Pulpites, whiche ye vse as your Hornes, and Trompettes, should haue stooncke of your breath. But it is wel, that he hath a Good name, and is no Pope.
VVhereas also Pope Boniface the eight, for that he could not haue the treasorie of Fraunce at his commaundement, endeuoured vvith al his both ecclesiastical, and vvorldely puissance, to remoue Philip the Frenche king from his estate, and vnder his Bulles, or letters Patentes, had conueighed the same solemnely vnto Albertus the king of Romaines: M. Harding here telleth your Maiestie, that al this vvas vvel done, to the intent thereby to fray the King, and to keepe [Page 15] him i [...] [...]vv [...], and to reclaime his minde from Dissobedience Confut. fol. 1 [...]2. b.
Harding.
Neither was this the cause of Pope Bonifacius his falling out with the Frenche king, that you assigne, nor applied he al his both Ecclesiastical, and temporal power, to depriue the King of his Crowne, nor euer said I, that al this was very wel done, as you report. With so many Vntruthes you abuse the pacience of her Highnesse. Let my wordes be weighed, as I vttered them my selfe, and then may it be iudged, whether I answere to the sclaunderous obiection of the Apologie reasonably, or you out face the matter with lying falsly. These be my wordes.Confut. fol. 182. a. The causes of the strife betvvene Philippus Pulcher, and Pope Bonifacius.
Concerning that ye say of king Philip surnamed Le Bel, if we may beleeue Paulus AEmylius the best writer of the Frenche Chronicles, the cause was such betwene Pope Bonifacius, and that King, that if he did not only excommunicate him, but also offered gifte of his Kingdome to Albert the Emperour, as Platina your Author herein writeth: he may seeme therein to haue done not altogether so euil, as ye pretende. ‘For as bothe AEmylius, and Platina do witnesse, the cause of their falling out was, that, whereas the Pope being first sued vnto by Cassanus Cassanus. a Christian Prince, and a great Conquerour in the East, to ioyne with him for the recouerie of the holy land, sent the Bishop of Apamea to the Frenche King for his necessarie aide in that so common a quarel of al Christendome: he being offended, either that the sute was not first made to him, either for that the said Bishop had done his Ambassade with shewe of more auctoritie, then [Page] the King thought it became him, or vpon some other priuate grudge: did not only vtterly refuse to sende any helpe toward the voyage, but also contemptuously, beside common order, and cruelly, committed the Popes legate to prison, and there kept him, vntil such time, as through the Popes Interdict, the King was compelled to set him at libertie. Now of geuing awaie his kingdome, this chiefe French Historiographer maketh no mention. And if the Pope so did, why may he not seeme to haue done it rather to feare him, and to reclaime his mind from disobedience? Verely Platina writing it declareth, how before the Pope proceded to that extremitie, the French King did, what in him laye, to withdrawe the people of Fraunce from the obedience of the Churche, and See Apostolike. Al these thinges with euē iudgement weighed, that Pope seemeth not so much worthy of the blame, which by your maligne reporte ye charge him with, specially the occasion being first geuen of the Kinges vnlawful demeanour. But what so euer may be iudged hereof, yea though the Pope therein be without al excuse, what is that to you? How serueth it you to any colour of excuse of your Schisme, and cutting of your selues from the rest of Christendome Christes mystical bodie?’
Thus there. And whereas M. Iewel maketh so much adoo about that, whiche in deed I said not, but whiche he vntruly beareth the Reader in hand, I say, that is, that yf the Pope gaue away the kingdome of France from the Prince, he did it to thintent to fray him, whereat he ieasteth in the Defence, saying, A prety deuise, to fraie a king, to pulle the Crowne Emperial from his head: to this I answere. I spake it not absolutely, but asked, why, if the Pope so [Page 16] did, the case being wel weighed, he might not seeme rather to haue done it to fraie him, and to reclaime his minde from disobedience, as by the euent it was shewed, that so he did.
For the Frenche King returning to obedience, and being reconciled, kepte stil the crowne, notwithstanding that gifte. And when so euer any Prince at other times reuoked his euil purpose, and confourmed him selfe to right, such giftes of titles were also eftsones by the Popes reuoked. In deede certaine Popes vsed that practise, as a meane only to withdrawe Princes from wicked attemptes, and most cōmonly the same tooke good effecte. I denie not, but some times, by such practise Princes were remoued from their estate, and other enioyed their roumes, but the same were such, as perseuered incorrigible.
Novv touching your Maiesties noble Progenitours, the kinges of this realme, vvhere as vve, as our loialtie, and allegiance bindeth vs, iustly cō plaine, that Pope Alexander. 3. by violence, and tyrannie forced king Hē rie the second to surrender his crovvne Emperial into the handes of his Legate, and aftervvard for a certaine space to contente him selfe in priuate estate, to the great indignatiō and griefe of his louing Subiectes: And that likevvise Pope Innocentius the third sturred vp the Nobles, and Commons of this realm against King Iohn, and gaue the inheritance, and possession of his dominions vnto Ludouicus the French king (as for the misusing of your Maiesties most deere Father of most noble memorie, king Hē rie the eight, for asmuch as the smarte thereof is in fresh remembrance, I vvil say nothing) to these, and al other like tyrannical iniuries, and iuste causes of griefe, M. Harding shortely, and in light manner thinketh it sufficient to ansvver thus: vvhat though King Henrie the second vvere il entreated of Pope Alexander 3.? vvhat though king Iohn vvere il entreated of that zelous, and learned Pope Innocentius Tertius? [Page] VVhat though King Henrie the eight vvere likevvise entreated of the Popes in our ti [...]es? Confut. fol. 340. a.
Harding.
Many, and sundry false partes practized by M. Ievvel at once.Here al thinges are laid forth with Rhetorical amplifications to the most aduantage, withal, many vntrue partes be practized. The Popes are falsely belyed, The wicked deedes of the Kinges are craftily conceeled, My wordes are impudently falsified, My whole purpose and meaning is misconstrued, The ende, for which I spake thereof, drawen therevnto by special occasion ministred by the Apologie, which was chiefely to be treated of, is not so much as with one word touched, My tale is cut of in the middes, and may not be suffred to be tolde out to the end. Now bicause there is no dealing with M. Iewel, but the bookes, whence euery thing is alleged, being laid open, and euery place, that is handled turned vnto (for there was neuer Iuggler that begyled mennes eyes, more with legierdemaine, then he begileth mennes mindes with his false sleightes, if his wordes be simply beleeued) let my Confutation of the Apologie be vewed, and there I shal be founde, touching these odious pointes of these princes Variance with the Popes of their time, to haue vttered these woordes, farre otherwise, then he here reporteth.
Confut. fol. 339. b.Concerning the case between these three Kinges of England, and the Bishoppes of Rome for the tyme being, I say litle. If they did wel, and the Bishoppes euil, they haue their rewarde, the other, their punishment. If otherwise, or how so euer, ech one at Gods iudgement shal haue his deserued measure. But be it graunted, al were [Page 17] true ye say, though we know the more parte to be false.Henrie the secōd. S. Thomas Arch bishop of Canturbury. King Iohn. What though king Henrie the Second were euil entreated of Pope Alexander about the murthering of S. Thomas the Archebishop of Canturburie, and King Iohn likewise of that zelous and learned Pope Innocentius the thirde, about the stirre he made against the Church for cause of Steuen Lankton Archebishop of Canturburie,Henrie the .8. This is no iust cause to forsake the Churche. King Henrie the eigth likewise of the Popes in our time, about matters yet fresh bleeding? Is this a good cause why ye (who haue nothing to doo with Princes matters now ended and buried) should forsake the Churche, change your Faith, change the whole order of Religion, and condemne al before your time for a thousand yeres?
Bicause the Bishoppes of Rome haue done euil, wil ye geue ouer the Faith of the Churche of Rome? Bicause the Popes did wronge to Princes, wil ye doo wrong to your selues? Bicause the Popes were at Variance with these three Kinges, wil ye be at Variance with God? Bicause they excommunicated them, wil ye excommunicate your selues? I haue heard of a foole, that being striken of one standing a looffe of, would eftsones strike an other, that stood next him. But I neuer heard of any so foolish, that seeing an other striken, would therefore kill him selfe. Verely your Apostasie, and departing from the Catholique Churche, is to weightie a matter, to be defended with so light a reason.
Thou maist see good Reader, that here I take not vpon me in Defence of those Popes to answere vnto these matters, nor shortely, as M. Iewel saith, nor at [Page] length, nor in light manner, nor in sad manner: which matters he calleth Tyrannical iniuries, and iuste causes of griefe. The more cleerely to shewe, how litle good matter our new Vsurping Clergie haue to bring for the excuse, and Defence of the Alteration they haue made in Religion, and of their Schisme, and departing from the Catholike Churche, bicause in their Apologie they alleged these Practises of the Popes: only I demaunde (their tale for their better aduantage being graunted to be true, whiche yet I saied expressely was knowen to be false for the more parte) what reliefe their cause could haue thereby, and how the euil doinges of the Bishoppes of Rome (if it were graunted they did euil therein) could be drawen to Defence of their owne worse doing. To whiche demaunde M. Iewel by his silence in his pretensed Defence maketh al the worlde witnesse,Defence Pag. 733. how vnhable he is to answere. Howbeit in that place he vseth his common sleight, by cutting awaie the chiefe parte of my tale, wherein lyeth the weighte, and so dischargeth him selfe of the paines of answering. Any booke may so sone be answered.
Touching these Popes, and these Kinges, when M. Iewel, or any of his felow Ministers, shal truely, and with sufficient reason proue vnto vs, that Henrie the Second did wel, when he gaue occasion that the blessed Martyr S. Thomas Archebishop of Canturburie was murdered, that al King Iohns attemptes against the Churche for cause of Steuen Lankton Archebishop and primate of the same prouince were iuste and right: and that King Henrie the eight did wel, and according [Page 18] either to the holy Scriptures, or doctrine of the auncient, and learned Fathers, when he tooke vpon him to be Supreme Head in earth of the Churche of England, immediatly vnder Christe, whiche no temporal prince euer tooke vpon him before: and likewise when for maintenance of the same title he hanged, headded, and quartered so many holy and learned men of al degrees, now blessed Sainctes, and crowned Martyrs in heauen: when I say, either he, or they, or any of them shal proue this much vnto vs, in such sorte, as I said before: then wil we say with them, ô worthy Kinges, ô naughty Popes, yea then wil we saie too, ô the crowe is white. Neuerthelesse I doo not here iustifie al the deedes of the Popes. But what so euer they did, that is no sufficient cause, why these menne should forsake their Faith, and departe from the felowship of the Churche.
But concerning the Maiestie, and right of Kinges, and Emperours, M. Harding telleth vs, they haue their first authoritie by the positiue Lavve of Nations, and can haue no more povver, then the people hath, of vvhom they take their temporal iurisdiction. Confutat. Fol. 318. b.
Harding.
If I haue herein spoken euil, geue witnesse against me of euil. Ye would faine finde a faulte, I perceiue, if ye wiste wherein. You seeme not wel to vnderstand, what you saie, nor whereof you affirme. But you allege the Scriptures, Per me Reges regnant, Prouer. 8. By me Kinges doo reigne, And, there is no power but from God: very learnedly forsooth. As though the auctoritie,Rom. 13. that [Page] Princes haue by the positiue lawe of Nations, and the power, whiche they haue of the people, were not of God, as who vseth that meane to conueie that power vnto them.
M. Harding euen in the selfe same booke, vnder certaine general threates, chargeth your Maiestie vvith disordered presumption, by the example of Ozias the vvicked King, vpon vvhom, as he vntruly saith, God sent his vengeance for the like. Confut. fol. 298. a.
Harding.
You would faine the Queenes Maiestie should conceiue hatred against me, I perceiue M. Iewel, and thereto you applie al your skil, and cunning. But Sir, who deserueth more thankes at God, and the Princes for the time being, he, that telleth them the Truthe, and in time geueth warning to beware of Goddes Vengeance, before it be to late: or he, that for his owne wordly interest, holdeth his peace, and leadeth them into a wrong way, from the whiche if they returne not backe, they are sure at length to feele, either the temporal smarte of Goddes Vengeance in this life, or the euerlasting smarte in the life to come? Ye flatter, ye flatter your Princes M. Iewel, ye deceiue them, ye blinde them, ye worke al meanes possible, that the Truthe be not brought to their vnderstanding, least, were it knowen, and of them perceiued, ye should be turned out of your welthy roumes, and driuen againe to Geneua (I had almost said, Gehenna) from whence ye came. Certainely ye shutte vp the kingdome of Heauen from Princes, and others, so many as be so farre accursed of God, as to beleeue your wicked generation, that ye neither entre in [Page 19] thither your selues, nor suffer others to entre.
The place where the wordes be, with whiche you would incense the Queenes wrath against me, hath no general threats, as you saie, but conteine such true matter, as I am not a shamed of: confute it, if you can: verely in your Defence ye haue not done it.
Ye confounde (saie I) the offices of the spiritual Gouernours, and temporal Magistrates. What Kinges,Confut. fol. 298. a. and Princes maie doo, what they be commaunded to doo, and ought of duetie to doo, in Goddes name let them doo, and wel maie they so doo. Who is he that gainesaith? If by the pretensed example of Dauid, and Salomon, ye animate them to intermedle with Bishoply offices, then beware they (saie we) that Goddes Vengeance light not vpon them for such wicked presumption, whiche lighted vpon king Ozias for the like offence.2. Par. 26.
I marueil you denie, that the Vengeance of God lighted vpon king Ozias, for the like Presumption to that, whereunto by your monstrous lawe, and Doctrine ye animate your Princes. Whiche parte denie you? That Goddes Vengeance lighted vpon him? Or that the Presumption is like? For proufe of the Vengeance, ye haue the plaine Scripture. 2. Paralip. 26. whiche saith, that,Ozias pounished for presumption. as he would haue burned incense to our Lorde at the Aulter of the sweete perfume, whiche belonged to the office of the Priestes only to doo, a Lepre rose in his forehead, whereupon the Priestes draue him out of the Temple, and he himselfe also made hast, that he were gonne out, 2. Par. 26 saith the texte, eo quòd sensisset illicò plagam Domini, for that streight waie he felte the plague of our Lorde.
Touching the Presumption, it is like. For in bothe it is [Page] an vndue geuing of aduenture to doo that thing, which belongeth to Bishoply,Priestly auctoritie ād power geuen vnto the Quene by the Parlament. and priestly office. And what is that which Bishoppes, and Priestes maie doo, whiche ye haue not by your Acte of Parlament geuen the Quene auctoritie to do? What power, or auctoritie is excepted, where al thinges, and causes be expressed, where I saie, by solemne othe taken before God and his holy Angelles, ye binde men to acknowledge her for the chiefe and supreme Head (for by your new worde, Gouernoure, ye take not awaie I trowe the meaning of your former worde Head) in al thinges and causes, as wel spiritual, as temporal? Ye know, ye know M. Iewel, this is a very large Commission for a woman to exercise in Christes Churche. Tel vs not of your newe deuised Iniunction, as for a poore shifte ye are wont to doo: so thinne a cloke wil not fence you againste so greate a storme of weather.
Although the Queene that now is, haue no great delite in the exercise of al manner suche auctoritie, as ye haue put her in, yet what if after her time, there come in her place an other Prince, King, or Queene, of an other manner courage, and fansie, whom it shal like wel sometimes for his pleasure, strange deuotion, ambitiō, or pride, to doo the office, which by lawe of your Parlament is committed vnto him,2 Par. 26. as it is written of king Ozias, that, when he became mightie, and of great power, his harte was lifted vp, and he would needes doo that, whiche belonged onely to the Priestes office? If it shal like suche a Prince, be he your Soueraine Lorde, or Soueraine Ladie, to go into your Pulpites, and there after your manner to raue, and raile at the Pope, at the Papistes, and to tel the [Page 20] people a peece of your lusty Geneuian Gospel, whereby they maie be stirred to allewdnesse, and carnal libertie: If I saie, the Prince, that shal succeede the Queene that now is, shal take vpon him so to doo: what wil ye saie in this case M. Iewel, and your good Brethren? Wil ye come vnto him, and tel him, Sir, if it like your Maiestie, you maie not so doo? Wil ye saie, that it belongeth to you, and to such Ministers of the word, as you are, and to none elles? Wil ye resiste him in that attempte, and driue him out of the Churche, if by that time ye shal haue any Church standing at al, as the Priestes of Iewrie resisted, and draue out of the Temple King Ozias? If your hartes shal serue you so to doo, and he replie against you, saying, that by graunt of your owne Parlament (which is a most assured warrant) ye haue geuen him the supreme power, auctoritie, and gouernement in al thinges and causes, as wel spiritual, as temporal, and that therefore he wil vse, and practise suche power, as he maie by your owne graunte: what haue ye then to saie? Wil ye then face him out with your pretie litle worthe Iniunctions deuised by two or three Ministers? Wil that serue the turne trow ye? It wil not, it wil not, ye maie be assured. Now let vs heare with what other matter M. Iewel chargeth me.
Thus be saith vnto your Maiestie, and vvith al his skil and cunning,Confut. fol 277. Confut. fol. 328. a Confut. fol. 172. b Reioind. 314. Conf. 87. a Cōf. 269. b Rei. 42. a. Conf. 43. a Cōf. 269. a 323. b. 334. a. 338. a. 348. b. A bundel of Vntruthes. laboureth to persuade your Maiesties Subiectes, if any one, or other happely of simplicite vvil beleeue him, that the godly Lavves, vvhiche your Maiestie hath geuen vs to liue vnder, are 1 no Lavves: that your Parlamentes are 2 no Parlamentes, that your Clergie, is 3 no Clergie, our Sacramentes, no 4 Sacramentes: our Faith, no 5 Faith: The Church of England, vvhereof your Maiestie is the most principal, and Chiefe, he [Page] calleth a 6 malignant Churche a nevve Church erected by the d [...]il, a Babylonical Tovver a Heard of Antichriste, a Temple of Lucifer, a Synagoge, and a Schole of Satan, ful of Robberie, Sacrilege, Schisme, and Heresie.
Harding.
1 First, that I say thus vnto the Quenes Maiestie, it is a grosse, and a palpable lye, and a lye in sight. For al know, that reade my Confutation, that in my booke I directed not my wordes vnto the Quene, but vnto M. Iewel, and vnto his companions, that conferred with him towardes the making of the Apologie.
2 That I saie in my Confutation, The Lawes made in the Quenes time, be no Lawes, it is an other lye.
3 That I saie, The Parlamentes, be no Parlamentes, it is likewise an other lye.
4 That I saie, The Quenes Clergie, is no Clergie, although I said it not, (and so is it the fourth lye) yet here I maie saie, it is a very womanly Clergie, if it be a Clergie at al.
5 That I saie, Their two Sacramentes, are no Sacramentes,The Faith of Heretikes, not Faith, but perfidie. it is the fifth lye. Sacramentes they maie be, though Schismatical, Heretical, corrupte, and polluted Sacramentes. The manner of the ministration of them, I vtterly condemne.
6 That I saie, Their Faith, is no Faith, it is the sixthe lye. I confesse it to be a Faith touching the pointes, wherein they agree with the catholique Churche. In the other pointes, I saie, it is no Faith, but errour and heresie. Albeit, Arius the heretique had a Faith, Eunomius had a Faith, Nestorius, Euctyhes, Sabellius, Photinus, Apollinaris, briefly al Heretiques had their Faithes, but al were [Page 21] false Faithes, as much to say, no Faithes, but (as the Latines cal it) Perfidia. M. Iewel, for some shewe of vpright dealing, hath filled his margent in this place with cotations as thicke as they maie stand one by an other, directing the reader to my bookes. If it shal please the reader diligently to peruse the places, bothe in my Confutation, and in my Reioinder, he shal trie him to be, as he is euery where, a false, and a shamelesse lyer.
As for the Quenes Lawes,The Quenes Lavves, and Parlamentes. and Parlamentes for change of Religion, and Faith, what haue I to doo with them, whether they be lawes, and Parlamentes, or no? Be they, as they be. It is not my profession to discusse that matter. If there be any that doubte thereof, let the learned men of lawe be demaunded their opinion. If they wil not, or if they be loth to speake what they thinke, let the questiō be differred, vntil the time come, that M. Iewel, and I shal be placed, where we shal no more contende about the authoritie of mannes lawes,2. Cor. 5. but shal ech of vs receiue according to that we haue done in our bodies, that is to saie, accordingly as we haue in our doctrine, and life either kept, or broken Goddes lawes. The age to come perhappes, shalbe hable to saie more therein, then this present time. It is an olde said sawe, Filia temporis Veritas: Truth is the daughter of time. Let vs not trouble our selues about this odious question M. Iewel I praie you, but referre it ouer to the time to come. Yet bicause in your pretensed Defence ye beare menne in hande, that I seeme to saie,Defence. pag. 595. that the Parlament holden in the firste yere of the Quenes Maiesties reigne, was no Parlament, for that the Bishops refused to agree vnto the statute made for change of Religion: I wil here truely laie forth my wordes, in [Page] whiche you auouche, I seeme so to saie, that it maie appeare to al menne, what a quareller you are. These be my wordes.
Confut. fol. 276 a.Where haue ye treated of your matters? ‘That matter hath benne treated (saie ye) in open Parlament, with long consultation, and before a notable Synode, and Conuocation. First in what Parlament? Meane ye the first of our Soueraine Lady Quene Elizabeth? or any of those of king Edward the sixth his daies? &c. If ye meane, (as by reason you must) the Parlamentes of these later daies, the first of al did make most for you, and yet how open was it for you? Had ye any place at al in it? Were ye admitted within the doores? Or had ye any thing to doo in that assemblie? Consider then with what Consultation your purposes were concluded. Did they tarie manie monethes about it? Had they Bishoppes? Had they Diuines, and the most learned, to reason too and fro with al libertie? Was the authoritie of the Vniuersal Churche of Christe, and the doctrine of the Auncient Fathers considered? Ye saie in Latine, Plenis Comitijs, that is, in the ful and whole assemblie, as though none at al had there resisted, but euery man had yelded to your matters. What saie ye then of the Spiritual Lordes a great parte of the Parlament, and without al doubte the parte, whiche must be chiefly, and onely regarded, when the Question is of Religion? How many of them gaue their voice to your Gospel? Yea whiche of them al did not resiste it? &c. As of the Spiritual Lordes ye had none at al, so of the Temporal ye had not al: and so had ye also in the lower house very many, and wel learned, that spake against you.These vvordes folowing M. Ievvel nipte avvaie in the Defence. And mo would, had conscience [Page 22] benne as free, as auctoritie was dredful. And yet, cal ye this, a ful Parlament, and a Parlament, whiche had al his partes wholy fauouring you? *’
Vpon these wordes M. Iewel maketh muche a doo in the Defence, as if I had denied that Parlament, to be a Parlament, for lacke of the Bishoppes consent. But whether I said so or no, let these mine owne wordes before rehersed, be the trial.
Touching the matter it selfe, he saith (how truely, I doubt) that in the Parlamentes of England for any Statute to be lawfully enacted, the consent of Archebishoppes, and Bishoppes hath not ben thought necessarie,Defence pag. 595. and that matters haue passed only by the more parte of voices, yea although (these be his very wordes) al Archebishoppes, Defence. Ibidem. and Bishops were neuer so earnestly bent against it. And yet he saith further (whereat I marueil) that Statutes so passing onely by the voices of the Lordes Temporal, though the Lordes Spiritual dissente neuer so muche, haue neuerthelesse alwaies ben confirmed, enacted, and published vnder the names of the Lordes Spiritual, and Temporal. If it be so, then I perceiue, it faieth with the lordes Spiritual, as it faieth with me. For as M. Iewel hath published, and said many thinges vnder my name, that I neuer said, nor meant, to thintent to discredite me, if any happily be so simple that wil beleeue him: So by this tale, lawes be published vnder the name of Archebishoppes, and Bishoppes, who are the Lordes Spiritual, vnto whiche they neuer gaue their assent, but contrary wise, earnestly dissented.
What this is to be called in the Statutes of the Realme, I knowe not, but in the writinges of priuate menne, suche as Maister Iewels, and myne are, this practise of [Page] fathering wordes and sayinges vpon a man, whiche he neuer said, nor wrote, is accompted vnlawful, and false, and commonly is named forgerie, falsifying, and belying, the chiefe flowers, wherewith M. Iewel alwaies decketh his garland.
He referreth me for further proufe of this matter to the Recordes of a Parlament, holden by king Edward the first at S. Edmundes Burie, the Archebishoppes, and Bishopes being (as he saith) quite shutte forthe, Anno Domini. 1296 where (he telleth me) it is written thus. Habito Rex cum suis Baronibus Parlamento, & Clero excluso, statutum est &c. The king keeping the Parlament with his Barons, the Clergie (that is to saie, the Archebishoppes, and Bishoppes) being shutte forth, it was enacted &c. Perhappes the inferiour Clergie was excluded, who as I haue heard Lawiers saie, in olde time came to the Parlamentes, and had their place in the lower house. But that the Archebishoppes, and Bishoppes were excluded, thereof I doubte.
Item (saith he) in the time of king Henrie the thirde a statute touching the legitimation of Bastardes, An. 1273. In prouisione de Martona. cap. 9. paste wholy with the Lordes Temporal, whether the Lordes spiritual would, or no: yea, and that contrary to the expresse Decrees, and Canons of the Churche of Rome. Al these thinges, saith he, the wise and learned could sone haue tolde me. And faine would I know of the wise and learned in deede, whether al these thinges be true, or other wise. Verely for my parte I haue great cause to doubte. If an other man had said them, I should rather haue beleeued them: As for M. Iewel, I haue so generally founde him false in reporting al mennes sayinges, whiche I examine by their bookes, that I see good cause to misturst him euery [Page 23] where, when so euer I lacke the bookes, from whence he bringeth his allegations. And although al that here he reporteth touching this matter, were truely reported, yet thereby it is not proued, that al was lawfully, and wel done. But hereof, as I said before, I refuse to entre dispute.
But now whereas M. Iewel committeth Religion, and al matters touching Faith, vnto the Lordes Temporal, and Commons assembled in Parlamente, and wil that al orders and Statutes by them made and enacted concerning the same, stand for good and lawful, though the Bishoppes dissent neuer so muche: By this he maketh the Faith, not a Standerd to measure our opinions, and iudgementes by, as it ought to be, but he maketh the willes and fansies of the Lordes, the Standerd, whereby to measure our Faith.Faith made chā geable according to the change of times. And so the Faith shalbe changeable according to the change of times. For whereas al menne know, in how fewe thinges the Lordes dissent from the wil and pleasure of the Prince: who seeth not, how thus it maie come to passe, that our Religion, and Faith shal change at the pleasure of euery Prince for the time being, and that so at length we shal haue no stable Religion, nor Faith at al? If M. Iewel wil saie, it behoueth al menne to know Gods worde, and not to suffer them selues to yelde vnto any thinge, that is not allowed thereby: what remedie can be prouided against al errour, when Princes, and Lordes shal finde suche Doctours, and Preachers, as M. Iewel is, who shal easily persuade the people, that to be the meaning of Goddes worde, by which the Princes, and Lordes maie acheeue their desires? But hereof I shal perhappes haue occasion to speake more hereafter.
Now whereas he complaineth so greuously of me, for that I cal their Church, I meane them that made the Apologie, and their fauourers, a malignant Churche, a new Churche erected by the Deuil, a Babilonical Tower, a heard of Antichriste, a Temple of Lucifer, a Synagoge, a Schoole of Satan, ful of Robberie, Sacrilege, Schisme, and Heresie: If he, his felowes, and their folowers wil repent them hartily, and vnfeinedly of their errours, and heresies, and returne home againe vnto the Catholique Churche: if they wil ceasse to diuide, and scatter abroad with the deuil the author of diuision, and gather together with Christe, and repaire vnitie: if they wil leaue the manifolde, and absurde confusion of opinions and doctrines, whiche their sundrie sectes doo professe, and mainteine stubbornly: if they wil leaue to prepare a waie for Antichriste, by their euil doctrine leading the worlde to al libertie of the flesh: if they wil cal to God for grace, and dispose them selues to humilitie: if they wil at length heare the Catholique Churche, if they wil acknowledge their wicked doctrine against the daily Sacrifice, to procede out of Satans Schoole, as it is confessed by Luther him selfe: if they wil not mainteine their Robberies, and Spoiles of Churches, as iuste deedes: if they wil forsake their Incestuous, and Sacrilegious Marriages: Briefly if they wil amende wherein they haue offended: I wil gladly reuoke those wordes, and how so euer in respecte of time past, they haue deserued so to be spoken of, I wil speake of them no other wise, then of the Children of the Churche, then of our dere brethren, then of Goddes frendes.
Thus I haue answered the chiefe partes of M. Iewels epistle to the Quenes Maiestie, and by repeating myne [Page 24] owne wordes (which I was forced to doo) I haue shewed euidently to the Readers eye, how shamelesly he belyeth me, and my Treaties. Whereof the Reader maie take a view, and so iudge, what credite he deserueth in the rest of his Defence. As for the rest of his epistle, consisting wholy of flatterie, I thinke not worth the answering.
Neither hath he vsed any more truthe in his Preface to the Christian Reader, and in his Epistle to me set at the ende of his Defence: where he filleth his magent with great numbers of Quotations, pretending thereby the absurde, and vntrue pointes in the Texte reproued to be founde in the Treaties, whiche so busily he quoteth. Now if I should in likewise answer to euery suche parte in the said Preface, and Epistle conteined, by these fewe it maie appeare, to what hugenesse my booke would growe, and of the whole what vnprofitable matter would rise, soothly none other, but a cōtinual and lothsome declaration of his vntrue dealing in one sorte or other. But for so much as the same is by this briefe Answer to his Epistle dedicatorie alreadie sufficiently discouered: that other labour maie seeme needelesse. As we finde him in this, so we finde him in the rest, though otherwise not very constant, yet in the rate of his writing one manner a man, that is to saie, one, that euery where maketh his onely aduantage of lyes, falsifyinges, and corruptions.
How vniustly M. Iewel obiecteth sharpe speache, and vncourteous wordes vnto his Aduersarie, and how iuste cause there was, that suche order of speache should be vsed. The .2. Chapter.
GEntle Reader, cōsider I pray thee indifferently, how the case standeth betwixt M. Iewel and me. Before he entreth into his Defence of the Apologie, betwen his Epistle to the Quenes Maiestie, and his Preface to the Reader, he hath extraordinarily inserted foure leaues. In which he laboureth al that he can, to perfourme two thinges, to discredit me, and to aduaunce his owne credit. To bring this to passe, First, he accuseth me, next, he excuseth him selfe. He accuseth me of vncourteous Wordes, he excuseth him selfe, of fowle Vntruthes, setting forth a colourable Viewe of a few of the same. How reasonably he doth the one, and how sufficiently the other: by that I shal here declare, thou maist iudge.
First, touching wordes, Where so euer godly zeale, and iuste griefe moued me to vse sharpe speache, albeit nowhere I vse so sharpe, as the indignite of the thing required: of al those places he hath caused certaine my wordes to be culled out, and to be laid together, as it were in a table before the Reader. And bicause he would not seme scorneful, euen there reprouing me for the same, he calleth them forsooth, certaine principal flowers of M. Hardinges modest speache. And least he should at any time leaue his common custome of falsifying al that he taketh in hande, euen here also he playeth that parte as kindely, as any where elles. For although some suche wordes or, [Page 25] the like be in deede founde in my writinges against him, yet they beare not suche an owgly and lothsom visard, as he putteth on them. As for example, whereas sometimes for good cause I can not finde in my harte, to cal these mennes rash Innouation of the auncient religion, their wicked abrogation of certaine Sacramentes, their vile prophanation of the reste, their horrible contempte of the body and bloude of Christe in the most blessed Sacrament of the Aulter, whereas I say, I can not finde in my harte to cal these thinges, Godly procedinges, restoring of the Gospel, the sincere Worde, the right Ministration of the Lordes Supper, as they would al men to cal them, but contrarywise Deuilish spite, wickednes, and villanie: to cause the mater to seme more odious, he reporteth my wordes thus, your Deuilish spite, your Deuilish wickednes, your Deuilish villanie, &c: as thoughe I had spoken them to him, and to his felowes specially, whereas for the more part suche wordes are spoken (not in the second, but in the third person) of the Heretikes of our time indefinitely, and in general. Whiche neuerthelesse if I had spoken vnto him, and them directly, it had ben no greeuous sinne, their desert considered.
For therein had I folowed the counsel, whiche S. Antonie that blessed man gaue vnto his Scholers a litle before he departed this life. To whom he said thus, as S. Athanasius, who wrote his life, reporteth.Athanas. in vita Antonij. Haereticorum venena vitate, meum (que) erga eos odium sectamini. Scitis quòd nullus mihi pacificus sermo cum eis fuerit. Auoide the poisons of Heretiques, and folow the hatred that I haue borne them. Ye know, that I had neuer any peaseable talke with them. How so euer it be, it had benne [Page] M. Iewels parte, to haue vsed more truth in his writing.
But why did he not set forth my whole sayinges, where suche wordes be placed? What reason is it, a man to burthen his Aduersarie with certaine wordes only, and with silence to dissemble his entiere sentences? By what laudable example hath he done thus? Whiche of the olde Fathers, euer did so? If no man euer did it before these daies, then, so farre as the Catholique Church hath not erred in Faith, and hath no neede now to receiue a new Gospel of Luther, Zuinglius, or Caluine: by this practise, he sheweth him selfe, aswel a folower of the inuentours of new malice, as a mainteiner of new Heresies.
Brentius the first author of this new deuise, of laying the Aduersaries sharpe wordes together in one heape, practized by M. Iewel.
This deuise of laying together in a heape al the sharpe wordes, with whiche one feeleth him selfe prickte, culled out of the aduersaries wri [...]nges, is very strange and new, and before this age, whiche bringeth forth many rare nouelties, was neuer vsed of any learned man. In our time it is begonne, and for ought I know, first practized by Brentius, who in the beginning of his booke against Bullinger, entituled, Recognitio propheticae & Apostolicae doctrinae, &c: written in defence of his newe doctrine of Vbiquitie, laieth together in a heape al the wordes, that Bullinger had vttered in his booke against him, whiche might seeme sharpe, rough, and vngentle: so softely must these menne now be handled, after that they haue spent al their intemperate railing vpon the Pope, [Page 26] the Papistes, the most blessed Sacrament of the Aulter, the daily Sacrifice, the other Sacramentes, and the godly Ceremonies of holy Churche. Wherefore M. Iewel is not like to haue the glorie of this new deuise: he must be content to yeelde it vnto Iohn Brentius, whose ape and folower he is in this, as in many other pointes worthy of smal praise.
Now if Bullinger the grande Captaine of the Sacramentaries, of which secte M. Iewel is a professed mainteiner, thought it not vnseemely for the grauitie of his Ministership, to be so plaine with Brentius, as to put him in minde sometimes of his deserued titles, by saying, he was, Rixator, Spiritus inflatus, Calūniator, &c. a Branler, In Respō sione Brē tij ad primam partem Bullingeri. pag. 8. &. 9. a pufte Sprite, a spiteful speaker, a skoffer, a mocker, a Hickescorner, a peruerter, a lyer, vncleane, impudēt, a babler, a brabler, a craker, a thrower of Christ out of his heauenly seate, madde, light, childish, a iangler, a reuiler, a sclaunderous person, an Eutychian, a Sophiste, a railer, woorse then Swenckefeldius him selfe: Againe, if he thought it not discommendable in him selfe being the chiefe Superintendent of Zurich, to cal Brētius booke writen in defence of that new heresie, Brentianas nebulas, figmenta. &c. The mistes and deuises of Brentius Head, vaine, and peeuish [...]oies, knauish folies, a doctrine dissoluing the hope of the faithfulles assured saluation in heauen, a madnesse, a phantasie, Sophistrie, crafty fetches, most false deuises, a feeble write, Sophismes, guiles, a booke of Riddles, a fabulous monstre, a Sophistical Egypte, stincking trifles prodigious Vbiquitie frantique wordes, &c: If Bullinger I saie, one of your noblest Worthies, thought it not vnseemely for his degree and state, to vse suche bitter eloquence, and order of speach in reprouing [Page] Brentius, and was neuer, and, it is like, should neuer haue benne reproued for it among them of your owne Sacramentarie Secte M. Iewel: why are you so heauy a Maister to me, whom you esteeme muche lesse, then Henrie Bullinger the Successour of your great Patriarke Zuinglius in the Chaier of your doctrine at Zurich, as to blame that in me, whiche you could not finde in your harte to disallow in Bullinger? Wel how so euer in please you fauorably to iudge of your owne great Maisters, and laye lode of reproches vpon me: yet this muche you maie cal to your consideration.
Wordes considered alone without composition, sounde good, or euil, according to their signification: and al manner of wordes may be vsed without blame. Of the sentences, and whole sayinges onely, where the circumstance may be considered and weighed, faire, or fowle speache is conceiued. Now if thou wilt take the paines Reader, to turne to the places of my bookes, whence M. Iewel hath piked out those wordes, for vse of whiche he reproueth me, as a man of vncourteous vtterance: thou shalt right wel perceiue (in case heresie haue not vtterly bewitched thyne vnderstanding, and bereued thee of al iudgement) the verdure of my speache to be suche, as may seme conuenient for a vessel of the holy Ghoste to taste of.
It may please M. Iewel to consider, that by degree of Schoole, and by lawful calling otherwise, I stand in the place of teachers. And therefore though at this present the Pulpite be denyed me, yet I find not my selfe wholly so discharged of the office of teaching. Now hauing no other conuenient meane to teache, but by writing: what [Page 27] ought I at this tyme to write rather, then Confutations of his, and his felowes false doctrine, and Defences of the Catholique Faith? Whereas this muche I could not do, but that it behoued me to deale with him, who aboue al others most busily impugneth Gods truth, and consequently with those of his side: I thought it not good, for ryuing of harde blockes, to vse softe wedges.
And though I had litle hope by any way to ryue a sunder the harde knotte, wherein their hartes, and Heresie are faste growen together: yet that some others by them enuegled might be brought to a better minde, who not being so desperate, be neuerthelesse hardly withdrawen frō their errours, by reason of long custom, and carnal libertie by the same mainteined: I iudged the stile and order of writīg, that I haue vsed, to be most profitable for their behalfe. For they seing the Captaines of deceiuers so with iuste sharpnes rebuked, and their Heresies with deepe strokes so deadly wounded, wil the rather be induced to abhorre their former errours, to bethinke themselues, and by their reproufe, learne to amend their owne faultes as oftentimes young Princes, and noble children be corrected, with beholding correction ministred to other children of baser condicion.
Howbeit, if al should be accompted to vse vnciuile, and vncourteous speache, out of whose writinges such wordes may be gathered, as M. Iewel reproueth in me: I knowe not, what Doctor, what Father my escape that reproche. Neither S. Cyprian wrote al thinges so Martyrlike, nor S. Basil so meekely, nor S. Ambrose so grauely, nor S. Chrysostom so sweetly, nor S. Augustine so temperately, nor S. Gregorie so humbly: but with [Page] searche, no smal multitude of suche wordes might easily be founde in their learned and godly workes, with no lesse vehemencie of spirite vttered against Heretiques, and other wicked persons. What shal I say of S. Hierom, whose vtterance against Heretiques of lesse malice, and against other men of more honestie, then these men are of, is such, that to many he seemeth to thunder, and to lighten, rather then to speake?
But what speake I of men? I reporte me to those that haue perused the bookes of the olde, and newe Testament, whether the like tokens of ernest zeale, and iuste griefe, be not oftentimes founde in the Prophetes, and the Apostles them selues, who were the Secretaries of the holy Ghoste.
Sundrie wordes founde in the holy Scripture of more Sharpenes, then they are, which M. Iewel reproueth in mee.
The wordes of the Psalmes be not vnknowen to many.
Psal. 13.They be abominable in their studies, saith the Prophet.
Psal. 13.Vnder their lippes lieth the Poison of Serpentes.
Psal. 13.Their throte is like an open Sepulchre.
Their woordes be dartes. Psal 54.
Downe to hel with them whiles they be alyue. Ibid.
Their teeth are arowes, their tong is a sharp sword. Psa. 56.
They are become like Serpentes. Psal. 57.
They haue whetted their tonges like Serpentes. Psal. 139.
The poison of the Aspis is vnder their lippes. Ibid.
Thou hast spoken like a foole, said Iob to his wife. Iob. 2.
According to his name, he is a foole, said Abigail of her Husband Nabal. 1. Reg. 25.
Thou hast plaid the foole, said Samuel to king Saul. 1. Re 13
The number of fooles is infinite. Eccle. 1.
Thou lyest in the head, said Daniel to the wicked Iudge. Daniel 13.
The Prophetes are like roaring Lions, and the Princes be Wolues catching their pray. Ezechiel. 22.
The Princes be like roaring Lions, and the Iudges be Wolues. Sophon. 3.
Thy Prophets Israel be like Foxes in the wildernes. Eze. 13
Wo be to the sinneful nation, people laden with iniquitie, the wicked brood, mischeuous children, said Esaie. Esa. 1.
O my people, Ribauldes oppresse thee. Esaie. 3.
Agayne, ô ye Princes of Sodome, ô ye people of Gomorrha, said he. Ibid.
They are become rancke Staliens, they ney, eche one at his neighbours wife, saith Ieremie. Ieremie. 5.
O thou Canaans broode, and not sprong of Iuda, ô thou old theefe, said Daniel to the vngodly Iudge. Dan. 13.
The children of the deuil came out of thee, saith Moyses. Deuter. 13.
The men of Gabaa were the children of the Deuil. Iud. 19
One of the Daughters of Belial. 1. Reg. 1.
The sonnes of the Deuil. 1. Reg. 10.
A man of the Deuil named Siba. 2. Reg. 20.
Many Dogges haue becompassed me about, saith Dauid of Christe. Psal. 21.
Saue my life from the hand of the Dogge. Ibid.
They are dumme Dogges, that can not barke. Esai. 56.
As a Dogge that returneth to his Vomite, so is a foole that doubteth his folie. Prouer. 26.
He that holdeth an il woman, taketh a Scorpion, saith the Wiseman. Eccle. 26.
Sharpe, and bitter wordes vttered in the new Testament.
But now let vs see, whether we may not finde speaches of like vehemencie and sharpenesse in the new Testament, where the grace of the holy Ghoste is shewed more abundantly. If it be muche to cal a man a beast, what is it to cal men Vipers, Wolues, Foxes, Dogges, Swine?
O ye Progenie of Vipers, said S. Iohn the Baptist to the Scribes and Saducees. Matth. 3.
O ye Serpentes and Vipers broode, said Christe him selfe to the Scribes and Pharisees. Matth. 23.
O generation of Vipers, said the blessed Baptiste to the people, as S. Luke reporteth. Luke. 3.
Inwardly they are rauening Wolues, saith Christ of false Preachers. Matth. 7.
Rauening Wolues shal entre in amongst you, saith S. Paule. Act. 20.
I send you forth as sheepe among Wolues, said Christ to the Apostles. Matth. 10.
Say vnto that Foxe, quod Christe of Herode. Luke. 13.
Geue not a holy thing to Dogges. Matth. 7.
It is not good to geue the childrens bread to Dogges, said Christe. Matth. 15.
Haue an eye to the Dogges, saith S. Paule. Philip. 3.
Like a Dogge that commeth againe to his Vomit, saith S. Peter. 2. Pet. 2.
Caste not your pearles before Swyne, saith Christe. Matth. 7.
Like a Swyne wallowing againe in the durte, sayth S. Peter. 2. Pet. 2.
Go behinde me Sathan, said Christ to Peter his Apostle. Math. 16.
Many yong wemen are turned backe, and gon after Sathan. 1. Tim. 5.
Satan dwelleth among you. Apocalyp. 2.
The Synagog of Satan. Apocalyp. 3.
The Deuil taketh away the worde out of their harte. Luke. 8.
One of you is a Deuil, said our Lord of Iudas. Ioan. 6.
Ye are of your Father the Deuil, it was saied to the Iewes. Ioan. 8.
The children of the Deuil are manifest, saith S. Iohn. 1. Iohan. 3.
The Ministers of Satan. 2. Cor. 11.
They are holden captiue of the Deuil at his wil. 2. Timoth. 2.
O ful of al deceit, ô thou sonne of the Deuil, said S. Paule to Elimas. Act. 13.
False Prophetes, lying Maisters, they denie God, they bye and sel you, they are like vnreasonable beastes, they haue their eyes ful of aduoutrie, they folow the way of Balaam of Bosor, founteines without water, clowdes tossed with the windes. &c. 2. Petr. 2.
Disobedient, vaine ianglers, deceiuers of mindes, abominable, to al good worke reprobates. Tit. 1.
Ye are like to whitted Sepulchres. Matth. 23.
Liers, euil beastes, slow bellies. Tit. 1.
God shal strike thee thou painted wal, said S. Paule to Ananias. Act. 23.
O ye foolishe Galathians. Galat. 3.
False Apostles, guileful workers. 2. Cor. 11.
The enemies of the Crosse of Christe, whose bellye is their God. Philip. 3.
O ye stifnecked, and vncircumcised in hartes and eares, ye haue euer resisted the holy Ghost, said S. Steuen vnto the Iewes. Act. 7.
As Iannes, and Iambres withstode Moyses, so these withstand the truth. 2. Tim. 3.
Hye minded, proude, blasphemous. Ibidem.
Their worde creapeth forth like a canker. 2. Tim. 2.
Their tong is ful of deadly poison. Iacob. 3.
These Dreamers defile the flesh, despise rulers, and speake euil of them that are in auctoritie. Iudae.
As beastes, whiche are without reason. Woe be vnto them. For they haue folowed the way of Cain, and are vtterly geuen to the errour of Balaam for lucres sake, and perish in the treason of Chore. Ibidem.
Why tempte ye me ye Ypocrites? said Christe. Matth. 22
Wo be vnto you Scribes and Pharisees, Ypocrites. Mat. 23
Wo be vnto you blinde guides. Ibid.
O ye fooles, and blinde. Ibid.
Ypocrite, first caste out the beame out of thine owne eye, and then, &c. Matth. 7.
It were not harde Christian Reader, here to lay forth a greater heape of wordes gathered out of the Scriptures, which M. Iewel reproueth in me, as vncourteous, and vnciuile, and proceding altogether of choler. But these few may suffice for shewe, that if we consider wordes only, and not the Circumstance of the sentence, and the iuste cause why they were with such vehemencie vttered: the holy Ghoste may seme also chargeable of vncourteous and vnciuile speache, by whose prompting [Page 30] the Scriptures of God haue ben written.
If the matter of M. Iewels greuous accusation depende of wordes considered in them selfe onely, the Scriptures haue wordes, that being put a parte, sownde more roughly, then any yet by the written, or by him noted. And so farre is that pretensed fault in both Testamentes, nolesse then in my bookes. But if al be to be weighed by the sentences, wherein suche woordes be placed, and by the deserte of them in whose reproufe they be vttered, as reason is it should: then I appeale to al men of iudgement, the dew circumstances, and causes wel considered, whether I haue at any time passed the bowndes of a zealous defender of the Catholique Religion, whereof I make profession.
That the vse of sharpe speache is conuenient according to the desert of M. Iewel, and of his felowes.
LEt the rehersal of my whole sentences with their circumstance, in whiche the wordes be founde that doo so much offend, be differred vntil anonne. And here to turne thy tale vnto you M. Iewel, and vnto your felowes, lette it be lawful for me to come vnto the causes, by whiche I was iustly moued so to write, and to the very thinges them selfe, for which ye deserue so to be written of,The oddes betwixte M. Ievvel and them of his side, and vs. and with such courtesie of wordes to be greeted.
Who be you M. Iewel? and who be they of your side? Who am I, or rather, who are we? For of my selfe I am content no accompte be made, but only as I apply myne [Page] endeuour to defende the Churche, and the Catholique Faith by you impugned. As for vs, say the worst ye can of vs, we are Catholiques. By your owne confession, your doctrine hath not benne in al Churches, at al times taught, and therefore ye haue tolde vs, we knowe not what of your Church, that it is inuisible secret, vnknowen, and lurketh in corners, no man can tel where: and therefore ye are not Catholique.
We remaine in that we haue receiued, ye are departed from that ye receiued. The doctrine for whiche ye make suche sturre, is it not openly knowen to al, from what men ye had it, and how late ye learned it? Where was this fifth Gospel, so muche as whispered in any knowen corner of the worlde, before that lewd Augustine Frier Martin Luther brake his vowe, ranne out of his Cloister, and yoked him selfe to his wanton Nonne?
Where was your Sacramentarie doctrine preached, before Frier Huskin, that new named him selfe Oecolampadius, likewise brake his solemne promise to God, forsooke his Religion, and coupled him selfe to a young yoke fellowe? Before their time, who heard the sownde of your Gospel? Where had ye any Dioces, any Bishoppe, any Church, any Priest, any Chappel, any so much as a Parrish Clerke in the whole worlde?
Tel vs not, as ye are woont, of Wiklef, Huss, Ierome of Prague, Berengarius, Bertram, and a few other, which were but byles and botches in the Churche, and be in no wise worthy the name of Churche. Forgete not what you say in your Apologie: that Luther, and Zuinglius, came first to the Gospel. Remember ye cal that time, the first appearing the spring, and the first grasse, as [Page 31] it were, of your Gospel. If it be so, how be ye Catholique? or how be ye of the Catholique Churche, which is so called in respecte of the vniuersalitie of times,Vincētius Lirinen. places and personnes? As for vs on the otherside, we are hable to shew you the continuance of our faith and Doctrine, by orderly successions of Bishops, going vpward, euen from those learned and holy Fathers, whom for none other cause, but only for the Catholique Faith of Christes Churche, most vniustly ye kepe in Prison, to S. Gregorie, who sent godly Preachers to conuert the English people of our countrie vnto the Faith of Christe, and from S. Gregorie further vpward vnto S. Peter, and S. Paule, that preached the Faith in Rome, and consequently vnto Christe him selfe.
If we would speake vnto you in the person of the Catholique Church, whereof we are a parte, we might say vnto you those wordes of Tertullian spoken to Heretiques: Mea est possessio, olim possideo, prior possideo, Tertul. li. Praescript. aduersus haereticos. habeo origines firmas ab ipsis authoribus, quorum fuit res. Ego sum haeres Apostolorum. The Scripture, and the right sense of the Scripture is my possession, I am in possession of olde, I claime possession by former right,The Churche continueth to the worldes ende, vvithout al intermission. Matt. 28: Iohan. 14 I haue the assured originals from the first authours, by whom it was set forth. It is I, that am the Apostles heire.
The Churche M. Iewel, as ye ought to knowe, continueth from Christes Ascension vnto the ende of the worlde, without intermission, and without exception of any age or yeres. Wil ye haue vs proue it? What can we say, if ye wil not beleeue Christe, nor God him selfe? I wil be with you (saith Christe) al daies vnto the ende of the worlde. Againe: I wil beseche my Father, and he shal geue [Page] you an other conforter, to remaine with you for euer the Spirite of truthe, whiche the worlde can not receiue. God saith to Christe in Esaie,Esai. 5 [...]. This is my couenaunt with them: my spirite whiche is in thee, and my wordes, that I haue put in thy mowth, shal not departe from thy mowth, and from the mowth of thy seede, and from the mowth of thy seedes seede, from this time for euer.
Lo here ye heare, bothe the wordes of God, and the Spirite of truthe, by whom the wordes may be rightly vnderstanded, promised to remaine with the Church for euer. Thus we are wel assured, that the Churche hath neuer failed nor wanted Goddes worde, goddes Spirite, and Goddes truthe. But ye my Maisters of the new learning do say, that the Churche failed, and was destitute of Goddes worde, and of his spirite of Truthe, for the space of nyne hundred yeres and more, vntil Martin Luther came, and restored the lost Gospel. By vertue of whiche Gospel neuer preached before, ye claime the right of the Church, and so would dispossesse vs, wherein of necessitie ye must graunt one of these two: either that Christe the Sonne of God, promised more, then he perfourmed, whiche were heinous blasphemie: or that your Churche hath continued til this day, and shal continue to the worldes ende.
If to eschew the reproche of so wicked a blasphemie, ye graunt the continuance of your Churche, ye must tel vs, where it was before Luther began to preache that ye cal the Gospel. Name the place, where was it? Or was it somewhere without a place? Dic quibus in terris, & eris mihi magnus Apollo. If it were at al, where were your Bishops? What were their names, or were [Page 32] they men without names? Bring forth your Originals, your Registers, your Rolles of Bishops, that folowed one after an other by lawful succession. For this were a sure way for proufe of your right,Tertull. In prascript. Optatus. August. muche commended and vsed of the best learned Fathers. Your Actes and Monumentes, where be they? Haue ye none of greater antiquitie, then those late of Foxes making?
If ye had a continual succession, how came Luther, and Zuinglius first to the Gospel? how, was al the light quite out before? how, were al the fonteines of the water of life vtterly dryed vp before his time? for so ye write in your Apologie. This, this can not stand together M. Iewel, by no meanes, as al the world may see. So then it is, we kepe our ancient Possession, ye heaue and shooue to remoue vs from it. We be of the howseholde, ye are strangers. We are the heires of the Apostles, ye are forrainers. We are the lawful Children of the Churche, ye are Bastardes: to be shorte and plaine, whereas we are Catholiques, what foloweth, but that ye be Heretiques?
The case standing thus, what great offence haue I committed, if where I defende the common cause of the Churche, being moued with dew zeale, and iuste griefe of mynde, to see your vngodly dealinges, I forgete sometimes the flattering Titles, wherewith ye woulde your proceedinges to be magnified, and vse wordes more agreable to your desertes? O ye saie, I vse vncourteous, and vnciuile speache.
Why sir, if ye skreake like Frogges, must we saie, ye sing like Nightingalles? If ye crowe like proude Cockes, must we saie, ye mourne like simple [Page] Dooues? If ye byte vs like Masti [...]s, must we say, ye licke vs like gentle Spani [...]h? If ye consume vs, and deuoure vs like rauening Wolues, must we say, ye profite vs like good Sheepe? Must we tel the worlde, that your Serpentes be Fisshes, your Snakes be Lamproies, your Scorpions be Creauises, briefly, that your deadly Poison is holesom Triacle? What were this, but to please men, and to deceiue Goddes people?
But let vs go from Metaphores, and come to the plaine mater. If your Doctrine be false, as by most sufficient waies we haue proued it to be: shal we be vnciuile, excepte we sooth it? If your deedes be vngodly, as the worlde seeth, and rueth: shal we be vncourteous, excepte we iustifie them? If ye say Nay for Yea, and Yea for Nay in Goddes causes: shal we be blamed, as men vnciuil, and vncourteous, except we vpholde your Yea, and your Nay? We can be content to lacke the praise of suche sinneful Ciuilitie, of suche wicked Courtesie.
If any priuely pike money out of our purses, steale our goodes, robbe by the high waye, kil men, and attempte traison to their Princes person: standeth it with good manner, to cal them Pikepurses, Theeues, Robbers, Murderers, Traitours: and whereas you, and your felowes teache, and stubbornly mainteine a false doctrine concerning the real presence (that here I speake of no other pointes) by the Churche, and by Luther him selfe the first founder of your owne Gospel condemned for Heresie: must it needes be an vncourteous parte to cal you Heretiques?
To touche some of your rawest Gaulles, for making proffer to whiche ye wince and kicke so muche euery [Page 33] where, [...]nd specially where ye laye forth al my sharpe wordes with suche diligence gathered together out of my bookes into one heape before your Preface to the Reader: For so muche as it is geuen forth by Luthers owne confession, that by the conference and disputation which the Deuil had with him, he was persuaded to defie the Masse, and become enemie to the blessed Sacrifice of the Churche, and your selfe M. Iewel haue geuen your verdite in fauour of Luther, and Satan,Sathans doctrine. Sathan their Schoole Maister. In the Replie art. 1. Diuision. 2. allowing Satans Doctrine in that point, and Luthers conformitie, imbracing the same also for your owne parte, as you haue openly witnessed in your Replie: what offence was it to say (for whiche you shewe your selfe greeued) that ye ioined with Satan, and concerning the spite ye beare at the Masse, to cal Satan your Schoolemaister?
It angreth you, that I cal this new Church of yours (for so a Gods name we must name it) Your Babylonical Tower. And this is for a heinous worde scored vp among the rest in your said Rolle: you tel the Quene of it also in your Epistle to her Maiestie: but how iustly ye be offended therewith, let it be considered, by that I shal here briefly declare.
Dissensions among the Protestantes.
Who knoweth not, that is any thing acquainted with the affaires of oure age, into how many Sectes they [Page] haue diuided them selues, that forsooke the Catholique Churche, sithence Luther beganne to leade vs a newe daunce in Religion: what controuersies, debates, and strifes about the weightiest pointes of our Faith, haue benne stirred vp, and moste earnestly mainteined among them? Who hath not heard of the brawling, and skolding betwene Luther, and Zuinglius, and the vpholders of either side, about the Doctrine of the Euchariste? Neither hath the matter benne handled with any better quiet, betwene the Osiandrines, and the Stancarians, touching the Iustification of man, the one Secte attributing it vnto Christes Diuine nature, the other vnto his humaine nature onely.
Againe, what sturre hath benne made about the Doctrine touching Hel, betwene Iacobus Smidelinus, and Nicolaus Gallus on the one parte, teaching that Christe suffered also in Hel, and felt the torment of that euerlasting Fyre, and the Preachers of the Sea townes of Saxonie on the other parte, who tel their people, there is no Hel at al?
The like strife is about the Doctrine of Freewil, some holding with Luther, some with Caluine. They be diuided likewise in their determinations touching Iustification, some imputing it to Faith onely, as Matthias Flacius Illyricus, some partly to Faith, partly to Charitie, as Philip Melanchthon, and Georgius Maior. Of Penaunce, some make three partes, some make but two.
About the number of the holy Sacramentes their discord is more notorious. The Gouernours of the congregation [Page 34] of Geneua, from whence our new Churche of England hath fetched their light, admit two. So doth Illyricus, and many Preachers of Saxonie, that dawnce after his Pype. The Doctours of Lipsia wil haue three, not one more, nor one lesse. Melanchthon at Wittenberg, and they of his bande, wil needes haue foure at the least. Others some there be, that content them selues with one. Al the reste they refuse. And now of late yeres, as this Gospel is a Proceeding Gospel, and remaineth not long in one sorte of Doctrine, there be vnder the kingdome of Pole, that haue abandoned the necessitie of al the Sacramentes of the newe Testament, and require the Iewishe Circumcision to be restored. It is muttered also, that in some places, where this Ghospel is hotest, that the Paschal Lambe is called for. O merciful God, whyther wil this Gospel proceede at length?
But what neede I to speake of the strifes and debates, that were, and be in our time betwixt the chiefe Maisters of this new Religion? They were at debate, not onely side against side, men against men, Preachers of one Churche against Preachers of an other Churche: but also many of them, and that of the most famous, were at debate with them selues. Bucer with Bucer,Bucer. Melanchthon with Melanchthon, Luther with Luther, Caluine with Caluine, Peter Martyr with Peter Martyr. What a doo had Bucer to keepe him selfe in credite with any side, who, after he ranne out of his Cloister, and tooke vnto him a Yokefellowe, firste became a Lutheran, after that a Zuinglian, [Page] and againe a Lutheran, and last of al, after he came into England, as it is wel knowen, nor perfite Lutheran, nor perfite Zuinglian, but an vncertaine, and ambiguous Mongrel betwen bothe?
Melanchthon,Melanchthon. as the worlde hath seene, and as it may be proued by sundry his editions of his Common places, and other writinges, was so mutable in his Faith, that he semeth to haue made him selfe a slaue subiecte to al occasions of mutations. As he was neuer stable in his life time, so a litle before his death, he turned wholly from his olde Maister Luther, and became a Caluinian Sacramentarie, as his Epistle witnesseth written to the Palsgraue of Rhene, and so died in the woorst change of al.
To declare how LutherLuther. disagreed with him selfe, bothe in deedes and writinges, it would require a whole booke. The same hath ben at large set forth by Cochleus, and other learned men of our time. What be the contradictions, wherein CaluineCaluine. fighteth with him selfe, and other his infinite errours, and confusions, Nicolaus Villagagno that learned man, and valiant knight of S. Iohns Order, hath diligently discoouered.
Peter Martyr in Strasburg a Lutherā, in England a zuingliā.As for Peter Martyr, I reporte me to the whole Vniuersitie of Oxforde that heard his lessons, whether at his first comming thither, he were not a Lutheran touching the matter of the blessed Sacrament, and after he had ben sent for to come to London, and had ben schooled in the courte in king Edwardes time, became a Zuinglian.
Who so euer wil stand in his defence, this that I shal here say, can not be denied. At Strasburg, from whence he came into England, he professed the Faith of the Lutherans, [Page 35] for otherwise he shoulde not haue receiued stipende for his Lecture of the Magistrates there. But at Oxforde he changed his Faith of Strasburg, for the Faith of king Edwardes Courte. For which cause he was not receiued againe at Strasburg, at his returne out of England in Quene Maries reigne, and therefore he tooke such cōdicion, as he could gete at Zurich in Suitzerland. So Peter Martyr of Strasburg, agreed not with Peter Martyr of Oxford, as the world knoweth, and his bookes doo witnesse. And it may be doubted, whether Peter Martyr of Oxford, agreed with Peter Martyr of Zurich. What confusion is this?
To dwel no longer in this lothsom matter, what Babylonical confusion is in the chiefe Doctours of this new founde Gospel, if there were nothing els to be said, it might appeare by that we find, that Gaspar QuerchamerGaspar Querchamer. a learned laye man, hath gathered together six and thirty places repugnant the one to the other, vpon the one only Article of Cōmunion vnder one or both Kindes: and by that Osiander writeth of Melanchthon and his folowers, that they helde .xx. Opinions,21. Opiniōs touching the Article of Iustification. diuers and disagreing the one from the other, touching the Article of Iustification. Whereunto he addeth his owne different from th'other, and also from the truth, and so maketh vp the number of xxj. dissonant Opinions.
Al this being weighed and considered, I trust it shal not be taken for any hainous crime of my parte, that I called that Synagog, where such men be the chiefe Apostles, and Prophetes, a Babylonical Tower. Yea now, if ye list M. Iewel to aggrauate that greuous faulte of myne, I say againe, that it is woorse then the Babylonical [Page] Tower, howe muche woorse it is, confusion of Doctrines to be [...]ounde in them, that haue charge of Soules, then confusion of tonges in them, that builde vp stone walles.
Whether the chiefe Deuisers of this new Gospel might not iustly be called Loose Apostates.
You haue put in your heape of bitter wordes pretended to be gathered out of my bookes, this saying, as by me spoken to your companions. Ye are Loose Apostates. Which saying in very deede in suche forme of wordes, is not myne. For trial whereof the Reader may repaire to the place directed by your cotation. The place is in my Confutation of your Apologie. fol. 323. a. By the note of this saying you thought to discredite me, for that is the thing you seeke most chiefly, being otherwise vnhable to answere to the pointes of doctrine. What thereby you haue obteined among your dere brethren the married Moonkes, and Friers, I knowe not, ne recke not: verely for the same I am neuer a white a shamed to shew my selfe before good men.
Loose Apostates.But with which of these two bitter woordes, are you greeued M. Iewel? With Loose, or with Apostates? Amend ye the one, and I promise you to reuoke the other.VVho is an Apostata. Bicause euery man knoweth not, what is meant by this words, Apostata, it may here be said, that Apostata is he, that forsaketh either the faith, whiche in Baptisme he promised to keepe, or that Rule, and Order of Religious life, whiche by solemne vow and open protestation, at his entrie into Religion, he promised to [Page 36] leade his life in. Of the first sorte, Iulianus that wicked Emperour, and Porphyrius, are examples. So are the great Soldans Mammaluches, and many of the great Turkes Ianizaires. Of the second sorte be suche Moonkes, and Friers, and al other whatsoeuer Religious, that foresake their habite, willingly departe out of their Cloister, and returne vnto the order of secular personnes. Of whiche sorte there be mo seene abroad in the world at these daies, then euer were in our Forefathers time. If I cal these Apostates, I cal them by that common name, by whiche al the worlde hath euer called them. And therefore the offence is very smal, if it be any at al. Verely it is no greater, then to cal them Theeues, that for Theafte be hanged at Tyborn.
As touching the other terme Loose, Loose. whereas sithence the Apostles time vppon Deuotion many bereued them selues of their owne libertie, and for Gods sake bounde them selues by solemne Vow to a straight and hard order of life, and this sweete Gospel of yours setteth suche at libertie, teacheth them to breake their promise made to God, to caste of the yoke of Chastitie, and to solace them selues with their Yokefellowes (for so they cal their Strompettes) to forsake the Vowe of Voluntarie Pouertie, and to enioye al the worldlywelth they can procure, and to shake of the yoke of al Obedience, and to be vnder no rule, but the rule of this Gospel, that is to say, to keepe what rule they liste: this being so, what great sinne was it to cal them Loose? Speake we wel, when of brute beastes, breaking out of a pounde, stable, ropes, fetters, chaines, or from the bridle, we say, they [Page] are broke [...] [...]ose [...] [...]e accomp [...]d il speache, [...] we say of M [...]n [...], [...]nd [...]riers, that [...]ōne out or their Cloisters take Q [...]eanes vnder the name of holy wedlocke, breake al vowes, and al order, that they be loose? What bandes be stronger to binde man with al before God, and in conscience, then voluntarie Promises, then Othes, then solemne Vowes? Who so euer maketh no conscience to breake these bandes, if he be not a Loose man, I know not whom we may cal a loose man. And if such a one be a Loose man, why may he not be so called, specially that others may so the rather be fraid from the like contempte of God?
The founder of your Gospel Martin Luther, was an Austen Frier, neuerthelesse he married the wāton Nūne of Nymick in Saxonie. Peter Martyr your great Rabbin, was a Regular Chanon of the Order of S. Augustine. He married at Strasburg Dame Katerine a loose Nunne,Peter Martyr, and dame Katerine the Nūne his vvife. Oecolam padius. Bucer a Dominican. Pellican a Franciscā Castalio a Carthusian. Hooper. Barlovv. Dounhā. Skory. Barkley. that ranne out of her Cloister at Metz in Lorraine. Shal it be an vnciuile parte, to cal them loose Apostates? The Birgittine frier Oecolampadius, the Patriarke of your felowes the Sacramentaries, brake his vowe, fled from his Religion, married a wife (saue the honour of true wedlock) so did Bucer ablacke Frier, so did Conrade Pellican a gray Frier, so did Castalio a moonke Cartusian. And for good manners sake, shal we be afraid to cal them loose Apostates?
As for Mooncke Hooper the vsurper of Worceter, and Gloue [...]ter, Barlow of Chichester, Frier, or Chanon, or bothe, as I heare say, Sir Downham of Westchester, the Bonhome of Asheridge, Frier Skory of Hereforde, al married, and the two olde good Fathers, Frier Barkley [Page 37] of Bathe and Welles, and Frier CouerdalCouerdal. the Quondam of Exceter, which after the death of their olde wiues haue of late yoked them selues againe to two yong wemen, for their comforte in age, forbearing to speake any worse worde of them, bicause they be your very frendes, may I not be so bolde, as to cal them loose Apostates?
TOuching other bitter wordes gathered by you out of my writinges into your Rolle,Huguenotes of France. Gues of the lovv Countrie. though your Euā gelical Brethern the Huguenotes of Fraunce, and Scotland, and the Gues of the low Countrie, that haue robbed and spoiled so many Churches, so many Monasteries, Nōneries, and other places, and haue burnt so many thousandes of faire bookes with the Libraries, and cō mitted so many horrible outrages: I may not, least I seme vncourteous, cal them Theeues, Churcherobbers, the Deuils ministers, Satans broode, scholers of Satans schoole, Caluinistes, Satanistes, Deuilish Rable, Turkish Huguenotes, &c. For these be vnciuile, and vnmannerly wordes, saith M. Iewel, and it is a great offence to vse them.
Though Frier Luther were taught of the Deuil in a night conference (as heSee the Preface before my last Reioinder tovvard the ende. confesseth him selfe) to abandon the Masse, and to worke al the spite he could, against the most blessed Sacrifice of the Churche: yet for ciuilities sake, he may not be called the Nouice of the Deuil, nor his Folowers, the Ennemies of the Sacrifice, neither may that be called the Deuils Schoole, were the Deuil Luthers schoolemaster neuer so muche.
What Turkish wickednes hath proceeded out of this [Page] Doctrine, who seeth not? yet by M. Iewel, it is beside good manner, to cal it Turkish Doctrine.
The Professours of this doctrine, and specially M. Iewel him selfe, doo omitte no occasion, yea they seeke al occasions they can, to reuele and blase abroade vnto the worlde,Chams broode. the Defaultes and imperfections of the Catholiques, without whiche menne liue not, and chiefly, if perhappes some Abuses haue creapte into some particular Churches, they make muche of a litle, folowing therein the facte of Cham,Gen. 9. who reueled the nakednes of his Father Noe. This notwithstanding it is noted in M. Iewels Rolle of my sharpe woordes, for a greuous offence, that I cal such personnes, Chams broode.
Who euer wrote so filthily, and so bawdelike, as Frier BaleBale. that Irishe Prelate of Oserie? The harte can not be cleane, whose eares can abide to heare such vncleane woordes. Yet forsooth bicause he alwaies railed at the Catholike Churche, and at the Clergie therof, and wrought so mightily in the vineyard of their lorde, that is to say, in despite of the Pope, and of al auncient order, and religion: it is skored vp by M. Iewel for a bitter speache, that I called him Bawdy Bale, geuing warning by that terme to al chaste hartes, to refraine the reading of suche vnchast and filthy bookes.
That it was no great offence to cal M. Iewel him selfe a Lyer, a Falsifier, a Boaster, a Scoffer.
AS for your selfe M. Iewel, who euer was so vaine, so foolish, so insolent, so cockish, so mad, as to make such a Chalenge to al learned men a liue? And now [Page 38] how vnhable you are to defend it, what wise man seeth not? Yet bicause you thinke your selfe shamed for euer, excepte you stand to it stoutely: ye proceede without regard of truth, or modestie. And nowe seing your selfe brought to this distresse, that you must either yeelde with some shame, or prosecute your Chalenge with more shame: ye choose rather to seeme impudent in lying, and to passe al measure in craking, then any thing ouerseene in that you first tooke in hande. And albeit, bothe I, and others, haue made most euident proufe hereof, and the thing it selfe speaketh so muche, yea and your owne very frendes see it, and be right sorfor it: yet forsooth to cal M. Iewel a lyer, a sclaunderer, a craking Chalenger: by verdite of M. Iewel him selfe, it was vnmannerly and vnciuilly done.
But sir, sith you require me to be so courteous in my writinges against you, why did not you your selfe in yours against me, vse more courtesie? Is that commendable in you, whiche is reproueable in me? Or els, what, haue you a special dispensation to say what you liste, and to require al others to adore you, and say, Aue Rabbi? Shal it be lawful for you, to crie out vpon vs, tolle, tolle, crucifige: and must we sing vnto you, Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus? Whiles ye barke, and bite, must we caste a disshe of fragmentes vnto you? Whiles ye play the Beare with vs, must we throw honny vnto you? Whiles ye play the parte of Satan, must we light a candle before you?
S. Paule the chosen vessel of Christe, teaching Titus,Tit. 1. how to demeane himselfe towardes such as you are, said, Increpa illos durè, rebuke them sharpely. But what soeuer [Page] you say, or doo, must we needes sothe you, and smooth [...] you? Muste we, stroke you and cooxe you, as men doo curst boyes, after they haue done shrewd turnes? If you passe al men that euer wrote, in number of lyes, in vanitie of boasting, in the common custom of scoffing, as now it hath benne prooued against you: shal we feare, that we seeme not to lacke the ciuilitie you speake of, to cal you a lyer, a boaster, a scoffer? What is the matter, that doing so il, you require to be spoken of so wel?
By this, or no vvaie els, like it is, we should please M. Ievvel.PErhaps whereas the Rentes of the Bishoprike of Sarisburie cause men al to belorde you, your eares being of long tyme accustomed to suche honorable greetinges, you looke to be honoured at our handes, as you are of your poore hungry Craftesmen, that hauing learned to reade Englishe pretily, sue vnto you for Ministerships. And then whereas you lye impudently, folowing them we muste saie, were it not, that your good Lordship saith so, verely we should haue thought otherwise. And whereas you falsifie your testimonies, we must put the fault in your Spectacles. When you hew and mangle the Doctours so fowly, that al the worlde may see it: we must beare you in hande, that when your Lordship wrote so, the booke was not at hande. When you serue vs with a point of Scurrilitie, we muste saye: O howe it becommeth your L. to be meary? When you shoote at randon, diuerting altogether from the special point that is to be answered, vnto impertinent matter: we must say, your L. shooteth faire, though somewhat wide of the marke. When by no witte, nor cunning, you are hable to [Page 39] make good your Chalenge: yet then we must say, that your L. lacketh no woordes, and hath geuen a good Push towardes it. To be shorte, (for these be the special pointes for whiche you accuse my vtterance of vncourtesie) when you speake big, and Goliathlike vpbraid al the hoste of God, to witte, the whole Catholique Churche of these laste thousand yeres: what must we doo, but to shew token of feare,1. Reg. 17. as the Israelites vnder king Saul did, and geue backe, that you may boast, and crake alone?
Truly touching your dignitie, what accompte so euer you make of your selfe, I take you but for M. Iewel Bacheler of Diuinitie, sometime person of Sunningwel betwen Oxford and Abington. And that is the greatest degree, that euer I knewe you called vnto. If the Quenes Highnes of her special fauour towardes you, haue geuen you the rentes of the Bishoprike of Sarisburie, you are the more bounde to thanke her, and to consider, what accompte you haue to make of it. It is not money, that can set you one steppe higher in ecclesiastical degree. A Bishop you are not I am right sure, neither can al the Kinges, and Quenes of the worlde, nor al the Parlamentes of England, by any their owne onely power and auctoritie make you a lawful and a true Bishop. The same I tolde you in my Confutation of your Apologie, whiche point you haue not sufficiently answered: as it shal appeare. Yet was it very behoofful for you to haue fully answered. But I beare with you, as therein not lacking good wil, but habilitie. Study for it, so long as you wil, you shal neuer be hable to make it good, that you are yet a right Bishop.
Therefore in this respecte you ought to beare with my bolde vtterance the more, taking you for no greater man in right, then you were, when you subscribed in Oxford to the Real Presence, to the Sacrifice of the Masse, and to those other pointes, that now you impugne so busily. In very deede, this muche I confesse, that in case you were a Bishop, though an vnworthy Bishop, yea a wicked Bishop: yet for the dignitie of that Vocation, and for the Orders sake, I should, and would reuerence you accordingly.
Act. 23.Whereas it was tolde S. Paule, after he had reuiled Ananias, that he was the high Bishop, he reuoked his worde, and submitted him selfe to that was written, Thou shalt not curse the gouernour of thy people. Exod. 22. Whereby he doth vs to vnderstande, that had he knowen, he had benne no Bishop at al, he woulde not haue reuoked his worde (that in your opinion, is vnciuile and vncourteous) but haue let it stand in force. You being as il a man, as euer Ananias was, and hauing done muche more spite vnto the Churche of Christe, and more dishonour vnto God, then euer he did: beare with me for speaking truly and ernestly without flatterie.Act. 23. The example of S. Paule (saying to Ananias, Thou painted wal, not knowing him to be the high Bishop, and yet occupying a more honorable roome, then you are yet called vnto) leadeth me not greatly to repent of any of those wordes spoken of you, or of your felowes the Sacramentaries, and Protestantes of our time, whiche to impaire my credite, you haue culled out of my Bookes, and laid together in one heape. And what so euer I haue written or said, that toucheth your [Page 40] person specially, and irketh you: I take God to record, therein I respected not M. Iewel the priuate man, but M. Iewel the publique enemie of Christes Churche, the professed Impugner of the Truth, and Catholique Religion, the despiser, and prophaner of the holy Sacramentes, the breaker of vnitie, the enemie of God. And for my warrant in so doing, I haue the examples (whiche here I laid forth before) of the Prophetes, of the Apostles, specially of S. Paule, S. Iude, and S. Peter, of S. Iohn the Baptiste, of our Sauiour Christe him selfe.
Yea I say furthermore, what is that sharpenes of wordes, whiche in this case, I meane, when the auctoritie of the Councels, and holy Fathers is so lightly contemned, when Gods holy Mysteries are so turkishly prophaned, when the Churche is so falsly sclaundered, when vnitie is so with most certaine danger of Christian soules broken, when the whole state of the Catholique Religion is so wickedly ouerthrowen, briefly when God him selfe is so horribly blasphemed: In this case I say, what sharpenes of wordes is there, which iuste griefe of a Christian harte, and godly zeale, causeth not to seeme, not onely excusable, but also laudable, yea necessary, yea with praise, and reward to be honoured?
If, when the Children of Israel, defyled them selues in Fornication with the wemen of Moab, God in anger said to Moyses, take al the chiefe of the people, Num. 25. and hang them vp in Gibettes against the Sunne, that my wrath may be turned from Israel: where there is so muche bothe bodily and spiritual fornication, yea sacrilegious Incest, not only cōmitted, but permitted, but taught, but coūseled and exhorted, [Page] and for some parte commaunded against the honour and wil of God, our Moyseses, and Aarons, the true Gouernours withholden from executing their dewtie: shal it not become vs, whose hartes God toucheth, at least with wordes to shewe the griefe of our mindes, and with conuenient sharpenes of speache to rebuke the heinous wickednes that is committed, and so (for so muche as in vs lyeth) to reuoke Gods people from it?
If Phinees, being nor high Priest, nor magistrate, but only as yet a priuate man,Ibidem. was highly praised, and rewarded of God, for his zeale in killing one of the Israelites for whooredom committed with an harlot of Madian, to stay Gods wrath: shal we seme to deserue blame, for vttering onely wordes in reproufe of so farre more heinous crimes, if not to stay God from his iuste wrath, nor the offenders from their wickednes, yet the people of God from the like example?
What, you are very nice M Iewel, that finde so great faulte with me onely for certaine sharpe wordes bestowed in reprehension of your, and your companions so diuers, and so greeuous enormities. You are not taken vp for halting (as they say) pardy. Halting may haue some excuse of humaine infirmitie. This that is reprehended in you, is not only halting, it is falling downe right. Neither are you so muche to be rebuked for your owne wilful falling downe, but muche more for that you studie and labour al that you can, to pul al others downe into the pitte, that your selfe are fallen into.
Now in this case, the pitte being so dangerous, is it not wel, and dewtifully done, to geue warning to Gods people to beware of it? Al that I writte, is for the peoples [Page 41] sake. For with you, and such as you are, I haue litle hope to doo any good. Suche ones the Apostle aduertiseth vs,Tit. 1. not to deale withal. Now how shal the people be dewly warned to beware, whose senses be more liuely in worldly, then in spiritual thinges, excepte the dulnes of their minde be stirred vp with the feare of great peril? And how can the greatnes of this peril be signified vnto them, but with wordes of some vehemencie? As for example: If I should say to one that goeth forth by night, sir, the way you shal passe through, is vneeuen, by reason of litle holes and furrowes: And you take not heede, you may happen to stumble, or perhappes to wrentche your foote. Vpon this warning, wil he be so careful how to go, as if I say thus, If you loue your life, beware how you go that way, for there be great pittes, and dungeons, that you shal hardly escape, and if you fal, you are sure to breake your necke.
The case is like in this behalfe M. Iewel. The people be alwaies going foreward, and for lacke of knowledge, they passe forth, as it were by night. Now, so farre as we are persuaded, the way they go in at this day in England, to be perilous, as that whiche through Schismes, and Heresies, and other manifold wickednes thereof ensewing, leadeth them to euerlasting damnation: should we not deceiue them, if we tolde them, that Dungeons were but furrowes, that deepe pittes were but stumbling holes, and that there were no great Danger in the way?
For this cause therefore M. Iewel, that the people of God might be the more a fraid to heare you, and beleeue you, and to folow your damnable waies: I thought it good and expedient, in writing against you, and against the heresies [Page] of our time, to vse sh [...]rp [...]r wordes, and speache of more vehemencie, then otherwise I would haue done, if I had written to you priuatly, or so, as knowing that my bookes should haue come to no mannes handes, but to yours. I knew you would wince, and kicke at it. But spare not, litle care I therefore, so that by my labour profite redounde to Christian People.
For what cause in writing my Confutation of the Apologie, I vsed suche verdure of stile, as might seme not ouer flatte, but tempred with conuenient sharpenesse.
BEfore I began to set my penne to the paper, I considered wel with my selfe, what it was to stirre vp such Hurnettes, and to prouoke such Waspes to anger. Touched I them once, were it neuer so gentilly: I knew, they would straight way flee at my face, and buzze about me, and that possibly I should not saue my selfe from their stinging. Yet hauing a good harte, and being right willing, for the Truthes sake, and for the Defence of Christes Churche, to sustaine that Smarte, what so euer it should be: I tooke aduise, with my selfe, how to tempre my stile so, as bothe Gods cause might seeme sufficiently defended, and they not iustly offended.
Three vvaies of vvriting against an Aduersarie.Whereas then there be three wayes of writing against such Aduersaries of the Churche, vsed diuersly of the Fathers, vpon diuers occasions of time, place, person, and matter, of which the one is colde, softe, meeke, lowly, and demure: an other hote, rough, sterne, and vehement: the third tempred with a conuenient mediocritie betwen both: though at the firste in my Answer to the Chalenge, I inclined more vnto the softe and [Page 43] gentle waye, afterward in my Confutation of the Apologie, and in my Reioindre, I chose the meane, that by the one extreme I might not seeme to worke vpon choler, and to seeke reuenge, rather then Defence of Gods cause, by the other, to be too abiecte, and to shew lesse confidence in our cause, to thincouragement of such cockish Aduersaries.
Now commeth me M. Iewel, and medling litle with the matter it selfe, and the very chiefe pointes in controuersie (whereby he geueth out a secret confession of the weakenes of his side) he inueieth at my person, and with al his Rhetorique doth what he can, to bring me in discredite with the Reader for my sharpenes and vehemencie of speache. And faine would he al men to beleue, that I lacke Discretion, that Choler ruleth my penne, that I vse wordes of more heate and bitternes, then it becommeth either my vocation, or the cause. By this he seemeth to discharge me, of what so euer is reprehensible in that other extreme. Wherewith I am content. For I had rather his quarel should be extended to the reproufe of my person, then to the preiudice of the cause. And doubtelesse if I had enclined to the other extreme way of writing, he would not haue failed, but haue turned al to argument of weakenes of our side. In deede naturally by wordes and gesture we shew courage, when our matter is good: and of colde manner of handling, there groweth a suspition, that the matter is naught. Had I therefore alwayes written coldly and softely, I had ministred vnto M. Iewel a ioily occasion to insulte vpon me, as though our cause had ben the weaker.
And so he would haue taken that aduantage against me, [Page] which Cicero, Cicero in Brut [...]. M. Callidius. as he writeth of him selfe, once tooke against Marcus Callidius. This M. Callidius (as he witnesseth of him) was an excellent man, and was endewed with al singular graces apperteining to a perfit Orator, saue that he was not vehement, nor applied him selfe to stirre and moue the mindes of them, that heard him. Cicero and he were once matched together in a cause. Callidius accused one Quintus Gallius, laying to his charge before the Iudges, that he had prepared poison wherewith to haue destroied him. For proufe of it, he declared that he tooke him in the manner, and that he had in readines against him, handwritinges, witnesses, signes, examinations, and shewed the matter to be manifest, and disputed of the crime very exquisitely, but yet soberly and coldly.
When Cicero came to make Defence in the behalfe of Gallius, among other thinges that he treated like a cunning Orator, at length he goeth from the crime obiected, and from the matter it selfe, to the manner of Callidius action, and made the softnes of his demeanour, and coldnes of his vtterance, an argument of the others innocencie. And there he beareth Callidius in hand, that al was but a feined matter. For saith he to him, wouldst thou Callidius, Cicero in Brute. haue handled this case in such wise, except thou hadst feined? Vbi dolor? Vbi ardor animi? &c. Where shewedst thou any griefe? Where any heate of the minde? Nulla perturbatio animi, nulla corporis, frons non percussa, non femur, pedis (quod minimum est) nulla suppl [...]sio. In al thy handling of the matter, thou shewedst thy selfe to feele no trouble of minde, nor of body. Thou smotest not thy selfe on the forehed, thou gauest not thy selfe a clappe on the thighe thou didst not so much (which is the [Page 43] least of al) as once stampe with thy foote.
Thus concluded Cicero against Callidius. And thus doubtelesse would M. Iewel haue concluded against me, if I had written my answer, my Confutation, and my Reioindre, in such kinde of stile, as the contrary whereof he besturreth him selfe so much to disproue in me. Yea he would haue borne the worlde in hande (which neuerthelesse sometimes he doth in effect) gathering argument of the softe and colde manner of my writing, that I had but feined to please men, and had benne persuaded otherwise in my harte. How so euer I had written, he was determined to reprehende me.
In very deede had I thought, that he would not haue abused my softenes to shew of the more confidence in his cause, and that the same should not haue brought any preiudice to our cause: I would haue forborne al roughnes and sharpenes, and would more gladly haue folowed the temperate and quiet vaine of myne owne nature. Howbeit what he was like to finde at my hande, I gaue him warning at the first: where I said, that,In the preface to M. Ievvel before my Ansvver. if perhappes I should sometimes seeme to scarre, or lawnce a festered bunche, that deserued to be cut of, I would him to remember, how the meekest and the holiest of the auncient Fathers in reprouing heretiques, oftetimes haue shewed them selues Zelous, earnest, eager, sharpe, and bitter.
Now to ende this matter, wherein I confesse I haue dwelte longer, then I intended when I began, I pray thee gentle Reader (if feare of Excommunication staie thee not from reading heretical Bookes) for some parte of my discharge, and that M. Iewels falsehode in this thing also, as in al other that he taketh in hand, may appeare, to vew [Page] his booke of the Defence, and myne of the Confutatio [...] To make the case mo [...]e odious, on my side, and to bear [...] thee in hand [...], that I [...] vsed sharpenes in writing contrarie to myne owne promise, behold, how fowly he hath falsified my wordes. Thus falsly he layeth the matter forth.
M. Ievvel falsifieth, this place by cuttīg avvaie, and by changing vvordes.M. Harding in the Preface before his Confutation of the Apologie.
(then thus he maketh me to speake.) The manner of vvriting, vvhich I haue here vsed, in comparison of our Aduersaries, is sober, and gentle &c. And in respecte of their heate, bitternesse, and railing, as many tel me, ouer colde, svveete and milde.
Harding.
Here good Reader, with his &c, he cutteth of my wordes, that doo fully answer his obiection, and quite altereth the sense of the place, by changing, But, into And, and by leauing out my whole tale, that there folowed, whereby any reasonable man might be satisfied, Thus al his reproufes of me, and al his other obiections against the catholike doctrine wil be found false, if euery mannes sayinges be onely vewed, and so to any indifferent man they shal seeme sufficiently confuted by conference of the bookes onely. If his continual falsifyinges be not espied, and tried out, maruel it is not, if the Reader conceiue sinister opinion of me. Let al be tried by the bookes, not by his false reportes: and I doubt not of the iudgement of al that be indifferent in their iudgementes. As for those that be parcial, and wilfully addicted to their owne likinges, I make lesse accompte of them, then I haue pitie of them. My whole saying then truly reported is this.
‘The manner of writing which I haue here vsed in [Page 45] comparison of our aduersaries, is sober, softe, and gentle, yet vehementer, rougher, and sharper, then for my woont, and nature: but in respect of their heate, bitternes, and railing, as many tel me, ouer colde, swete, and milde. How so euer it shal seme to thee Reader, herein I haue done as I thought best. Wel I am assured, I haue not gone farre from the steppes of the most praised auncient Fathers, of whom who haue benne commended most for the spirite of meekenes, the same, thowgh toward other offenders haue shewed them selues like milde Moyses, yet hauing to do with Heretikes, commonly haue demeaned them selues like earnest Elias. If lyers should be entreated in like sorte as true reporters, slaunderers, and backebyters, as faithful frendes, heretikes, as catholikes, Apostates, as stedfast Christians; blasphemers, as saintes: truth should be iniured, wickednes flattered, vertue misprised. Of whom the truth was impugned or resisted with malice, them litle spared either the Prophetes, or the Apostles, or Christ him selfe.’
Thus may al this matter for which M. Iewel hath made so much adoo, seme to haue benne sufficiently answered before.
Neither with more truth hath he alleaged that other saying of myne, which standing by it selfe alone, as he hath placed it in his booke immediatly after the former falsified saying, geueth out a colourable shew, as if I condemned my selfe. Thus he layeth it forth.
There is no man of vvisedom, or honestie, that vvould vvith so immoderate vpbraidinges impaire the estimation of his modestie. fol. 300. b.
Harding.
But in that saying M. Iewel, I rebuke the impudent lyes, and slaunders of him, that wrote the Apologie, who there raileth immoderatly at the Bishops (whom the holy Ghost, Act [...]. 20. as S. Paule saith, hath ordeined to gouerne the Church of God) saying, that neither they knowe, nor wil knowe the thinges perteining to their charge, nor set a iote by any point of Religion, saue that which concernes their belly and riot. And there further vncharitably he burdeneth them, as if they were so wicked, as to commaund Christian Princes to destroy al Religion, and to crucifie againe Christe him selfe. In my answer to this, among other wordes thus I say.
Confut. 300. b. ‘Put the wordes of this railing Defenders amplification aside, and the whole sentence that riseth of al this talke, is only this. It is not reason Bishops be iudges in matters of faith, and not secular Princes. Now to geue a colour hereto, and to moue Princes to take the matter into their owne handes, they say, as becommeth them and none els. For there is no man of wisedome, or honestie that would with so impudent lyes diminish his credite, and with so immoderate vpbraidinges impaire the estimation of his modestie. Neither be these men so hote in this matter for any loue they beare to secular Princes. For if any such Prince be not a fauorer of their Gospel, then haue they a Blast of a Trompet to blow him downe, as it appeareth by their bookes made against the monstrous regiment of women, and by the good obedience their French brethren the Huguenotes kepe toward their king in France. Other examples of the like Euangelical obedience in other countries I leaue to mennes remembrance.’
The circumstance of this whole matter considered (which may better be seene in my booke) I reporte me to the discrete Reader, whether any iust cause be ministred to M. Iewel, to pike quarel to the wordes by him alleaged, specially, if they be wholly and truly alleaged.
But why did he nippe of those foure wordes, with so impudent lyes? Doth not this discouer his falsehode, and shew of whom that saying was meant? It semed good to such a lyer, to shifte away the mention of Lyes from the Readers eyes, that he might not seme charged therewith. Thus al his aduantage standeth in falsehode. But what shal a man say? To require plainenesse and truth of such a Defender of vntruthe, were to require him, either to vnsay al that he hath said, or to say nothing at al. For certaine it is, falsehode can neuer be defended by truth.
Now it remaineth, that I require the Reader, to conferre the peeces of sentences that M. Iewel hath culled out of my writinges, with the whole sentences, as they are by me written, and with the circumstance of the places, whence they be piked out. That being done, let it be weighed, whether I speake ouer bitterly, or he be answered according to his deserte. For example I thinke it good here to lay two or three before the Reader, that so he be admonished to doo the like him selfe, for trial and iudgement to be made in the reste. Here to lay forth al, were to print againe a great parte of my bookes.Special vvordes of discourtesie noted by M. I [...]wel.
In the first place then M. Iewel hath noted these wordes.
Consider Reader how, and vpon what occasion, these wordes are there vttered. There thou findest thus. ‘First he maketh his entrie with a solemne praier protestantlike, as if he were about to make a Sermon, and his fauorable hearers ready to sing a song. Then he accuseth the inflammation of my choler, because alluding to the wordes of Daniel, I glaunced at the name of the Foreronners of Antichriste, therewith rubbing him and his holy companions, as it were on their gaulle, for the Deuilish spite they shew to the blessed sacrifice of Christe mystically represented, and truly continewed in the dayly Sacrifice of the Church, now called the Masse. Here I said not, Your Deuilish spite, directing my talke to you M. Iewel, but the Deuilish spite, they shew to the blessed Sacrifice of Christe, speaking indefinitely of the Protestantes, and Sacramentaries of our time.’
And why may I not resonably cal their spite against the Sacrifice, a Deuilish spite, sithence Luther was taught it of the Deuil him selfe by a night cōference with him, as the wil of God was,See the Preface before my secōd Reioindr. Fol. 34. b. he should confesse it in open writing him selfe. Whereof I speake in my preface before my last Reioindre, there setting forth the same famous Disputation betwen the Deuil and Luther, out of Luthers own boke.
The seconde note of bitter wordes that M. Iewel layeth to my charge, is this.
But where found he these three wordes? His cotation is this, Reioinder, Preface to the Reader.
But what if I haue vttered no such peece of sentence in al that Preface? True it is Reader, I haue no such saying there in deede. If thou wouldst faine saue M. Iewels honestie, [Page 46] and trie the truth, peruse that whole Preface: if thou find it there, let it be blowen abrode, that he belieth me not in this point, though he haue so done in many other. If thou finde it not, geue vs leaue to say, as truth is, that for lacke of good matter against the Catholike Doctrine, he deuiseth of his owne head, slaunderous Lyes against his Aduersarie. Whiche is the common practise of them, whose cause is naughte.
And why hath he put this note in the second place? O it had ben a fowle crase to his worship, being suche a famous Minister of the worde, as he is, to haue begonne this new deuise with a flatte lye. And thereof was he not ignorant. And for that cause he placed the other Note before this, whereas folowing order, he should haue placed this, before that. For that whiche is taken out of the Preface that is set before the booke, by reason, and order, should be placed before that, whiche is taken out of the eighteenth leafe of the same booke. By this he hath now deserued to heare that tolde him (your Deuilish wickednesse) which was not tolde him before. For wherein can a man shewe him selfe more wicked, and more Deuilish, then in deuising false slaunders against his brother, whereof the Deuil, called in Greeke Diabolus, hath his name, and of S. Iohn is called the Accuser of our Brethren?Apoc. 12.
In the third place he chargeth me with these three wordes.
These be not my wordes, let my booke be trial. What so euer there I say, I speake it vpō right good occasion, as the Reader vewing the place, and conferring it with the wordes of the Apologie, shal iudge. Wheras M. Iewel, or who soeuer pēned the Apologie, cōpareth the Catholike [Page] Clergie with wicked Ieroboam, and the worship, wherewith the Church serueth God, with the worship of Ieroboams Idolatrous Calues, and saith that the Catholikes haue made the Lawe of God of none effecte through their owne traditions, vttering such otherstuffe sauering altogether of deuilish spite against the Churche: hereupon moued with iust zele, there thus I say.
‘Neither be these thinges ye speake so muche deuilish villanie of, our owne tradditions, but for the more parte, either of the Apostles of Christe, or of most holy and auncient Fathers.’ Iudge good Reader how truly this man chargeth me.
The fourth note is this.
I said not, your railing wordes, but, you vtter railing wordes of Satans prompting. And the same I say againe. For onlesse the Deuil had prompted you, you could not haue spoken such deuilish blasphemie against the blessed and dredful Sacrifice, as there you doo. And how agreable those wordes are to the wordes, that Satan vttered against the fame in his Disputation with Luther, it shal appeare to him, that readeth the same disputation, truly set forth in my Preface to the Reader, before my last Reioindre. Fol. 34. b. The place who list to see, hath thus.
‘That you are the ennemie of this blessed Sacrifice, euen here you confesse it for your selfe, and for your felowes: where you vtter railing wordes of Satans prompting, calling that, against which you professe your hatred, errours, abuses, and sacriledge, mainteined to the open derogation of the Sacrifice, and the Crosse of Christe.’
An other note of vncourteous wordes imputed vnto me by M. Iewel, is this.
Neither be these my wordes, thus laid together. In deede bicause Satan brought Luther in hatred of the Masse by his night disputation that he had with him, and M. Iewel alloweth Satans opinion, and doctrine touching that point, and commendeth the Frier for beleuing it: I say there by way of question, thus. ‘Who seeth not that considereth the place, howe frendly these three Doctours ioyne together in league against the Masse, Doctor Iewel, Doctor Luther, and Doctor Satan? The former wordes noted by M. Iewel I say not.’
Touching the other wordes imputed vnto me, Satan your Scholemaster, neither be they mine, vttered in suche order. Thus there I say, and here I reuoke not.
‘Here M. Iewel defendeth, bothe Luther the chiefe Huisher of the Schoole of this newe founde Gospel, and Satan him selfe the head Scholemaister.’ Now in this place, how soeuer my woordes seme to M. Iewel vnciuile, his Defence of Satan in that case semeth to me vngodly, and if I said Satanical, I trow, I should not greatly offende.
The sixt Note is this.
This is vtterly false, specially as concerning the place of the first cotation. For there the instinct of Satan, is not attributed vnto M. Iewel, nor to this newe [Page] Clergie of England, but onely vnto Frier Luther. And vpon how good and iust occasion, let it be iudged by the circumstance of the place.
‘There I saye, that within these fifty yeres this Gospel of theirs was hidden only in Luthers breaste, powred in by the instinct of Satan thennemy of mankinde, finding the Friers harte wholly inflamed with couetise, ambition, disdaine against Iohn Tetzet, and the order of the Dominicans, rancour and malice against the Pope, and Albert Archebishop of Mentz, for that he was remoued from the preferment of his Pardon preaching, whereby he found him selfe wel cherished, and was mainteined in wealth, and pleasure.’
Neither in the other place, fol. 255. a. say I, ye are moued by the instinct of Satan: I say otherwise. And the thing in deede whereof there I speake (whiche here I auouche againe) they haue done by the instinct of Satan. So wil al the godly iudge, I doubt not, who with the circumstance of the place, shal weigh my woordes there, which be these.
Confut. 255. a. ‘Lastly concerning Praier, what hath benne ordeined by our holy Forefathers of al ages, directed with the spirite of God, for the maintenance and encrease of it to Goddes honour, al that in fewe yeares by the instincte of Satan, to promote his kingdome, ye haue vtterly abolished, and by wicked violence brought the people from Deuotion to a carelesse Idlenesse, from speaking to God with hartes, and lippes, to a spiritual Dumnesse, from Praiers to Chapters, from holy thinking, to vnprofitable harkening.’
What can you reasonably answere M. Iewel? By [Page 48] what instinct haue the deuisers of your Gospel brought the people so farre from deuotion, and feruour in praying, but by the instinct of Satan? If you say, the people be as deuoute now and geuen to praier, as in olde time, before your Gospel was heard, the very stoanes wil gainesay you, and control you. And if you doubt whence this instinct cometh, sith the Scripture calleth the Holyghost, Spiritum precum, the Spirite of Praiers: Zach. 12. from whom the contrarie instincte proceedeth, you can not be ignorant.
The 7. Note of bitter woordes, wherewith he chargeth me, is this.
If I had said so, it had ben bitterly spoken, I cōfesse. But al bitter speaches are not to be discommended, as neither al bitter medicines. For then we should discommend the holy Fathers, the Prophetes, the Apostles, Iohn the Baptist, and Christ him selfe, who as it is before declared, oftentimes spake bitterly. It is to be considered, what he deserueth to heare, who is bitterly spoken vnto.
Now true it is, in the place, that M. Iewel hath here coted, I speake not of him, nor of his fellowes, that laid their heades together to the setting together of the peeces of the Apologie, but of al Heretiques in general, who haue the Deuil to their Father in deede. For if the Deuil be author of Diuision,The Deuil Father of al Heretiques. Iohan. 8. and the Father of lying, as the Scripture calleth him, al Heresies being Lyes, and al Heretiques being Lyers: how farre swarued I from the truth, when I called the Deuil, the Father of Heretiques? But who seeth not, howe here [Page] M. Iewel bewraieth him selfe, and sheweth his gilty conscience? For why should he be offended with any suche saying, onlesse he thought him selfe therein touched? So Iudas bewraied the gilte of his owne treason, saying, Nunquid ego sum Rabbi? Matth: 25 Is it I Master? But what meane you M. Iewel? May not a man speake of Heretiques, as it beseemeth them to be spoken of, but you must take peper in the nose? Can we not speake ought of Heretiques, but your parte must be therein? If you wil needes haue it so, take it so, and God amend you. If the reader list to conferre the place, thus there I say.
Confut. 2. a.But what meane al Heretikes (may we iudge) by coueting so much, to be sene that whiche they are not? ‘Forsooth they meane none other thing, then their Father the Deuil meaneth, when he goeth about to begyle man. For then what doth he? Vseth he not this policie, to change his owggly hewe, and put him selfe in goodly shape of an Angel of light?2. Cor. 11. For he is not vnwitting, that, if he shewed him selfe in his owne forme, suche as he is, euery one would flie from him, and none lightly would be deceiued by him. Heretikes doo the like. Although they hate the Church neuer so deadly, yet to haue the more opportunitie to hurt it, pretend them selues to be of the Church.’
Lo M. Iewel, speaking of Heretiques in general, and indefinitely, I said, their Father the Deuil, not your Father the Deuil. By this your vndue complaint, you bewray your selfe as the Ratte doth oftentimes by his owne noise: and euen so you seeme to acknowledge the Deuil for your Father, and to enfeaffe your selfe of the estimation, and opinion of an Heretique, with whiche [Page 49] by me you were not charged. The more you ought to beare with me, if I happe to stumble vppon your right title hereafter. With like reason good Reader, I could easily discharge my selfe of the reste of the vehement and sharpe speaches obiected by M. Iewel: but I accompte not the matter worth, whereon to bestow so much labour. This for that may suffice.
Now it may please thee to peruse that here foloweth, and to consider, whether M. Iewel be innocent him selfe in the pointes, whereof he taketh occasion so immoderatly to reprooue his Aduersarie.
M. Iewel countercharged with the like sharpenesse, and discourtesie of wordes, as he reproueth in his Aduersarie. The 3. Chapter.
BVT Sir, tel me, I pray you, what is your iudgement touching these, and the like vncourteous wordes, and speaches, as you cal them, with whiche for the more part, you vntruly burthen me? Thinke you that in no case such manner of vtterance is lawful to be vsed? If you thinke so, you are deceiued M. Iewel. The example of Christ, Iohn Baptist, the Prophetes, the Apostles, the ancient holy Fathers, shew it to be lawful: who, as it is before rehersed, in certaine cases vsed it so often. Verely I doubt not, but in this case (I meane, when a Catholike hath to conuince an Heretike) it is most lawful: yea not only lawful, but also most expedient for causes aboue touched. Neither in this case to vse such order of speache, is to be accompted Discourtesie, and Inciuilitie, as your vnnecessarie Ciuilitie interpreteth: but right zele, and iuste seueritie. That spirite of God, which aduiseth vs by the mouth of the wise man,Prou. 26. to answere a Foole according to his foolishnesse, admonisheth vs no lesse, in the treatie of Goddes causes with Heretiques, to vse suche verdure of Language, as may best represse the sawcinesse, and pride of their stomakes.
Neuerthelesse if you thought such sharpe language to be vtterly vnlawful, as a thing that may not stand with true modestie, and ciuilitie: how happed it, that so often times you forgote your selfe? It is no courteous dealing [Page 50] M. Iewel, to reproue that in others, that you so cōmonly do your selfe. Touching bitter lāguage, wherof so bitterly you complaine, it may please you at your good leisure, to cal to remembrance, whose wordes among infinite others these are, with what spirite, what charitie, what modestie they haue benne by you vttered. Whiche wordes, as for a great parte they haue the outwarde shew of no lesse heate, and vehemencie, then you note in mine: so to any man of right iudgement, they seeme to be of a farre more spite, and malice.
A few principal flowers of M. Iewelles modest, quiet, and charitable speache, vttered against the Catholikes, taken, as they came to sight, out of his pretensed Defence, founde, partely in the Apologie, partely in the texte of the said Defence, some few also in the Margent.
- FRantike Anabaptistes, and Heretiques, as ye be. Defence. 389.
- Ye Scribes, ye Pharisees, ye Hypocrites. 625.
- Of the howse of God ye haue made a Caue of Theeues. Defence. Pag. 2. & 304.
- Of the Churche you haue made a Caue of Theeues. 48.
- The Temple now a daies is a denne of Theeues. 706.
- The Churche they haue made a denne of Theeues. 739.
- You haue blended Goddes wine with puddle water. 66.
- You haue turned the beautie of Sion into the confusion of Babylon. 2.
- Ye haue turned Goddes Temple into the Synagog of Sathan. 328.
- They are without either shame of man, or feare of God.In the Preface to the Christian Reader.
- They wilfully withstand the truth.
- [Page]They be geuen ouer to mainteine lies.In the Preface to the Christian Reader.
- They are the children of vntruth.
- They are the Children that wil not heare the law of God.
- Your hote raging sprite. 2.
- Leaue this Hypocrisie. 377.
- The Iewes your ancient Fathers. 632.
- Your Fathers the Phariseis. 2.
- Your forefathers the Phariseis. 31
- Your fathers cried out, what shal we do, &c. Ioan. 12. 327.
- S. Hierome said of your fathers, non tam indigneutur, &c. In Sophon. c. 3. 328.
- Ye confesse Scribes, and Phariseis to be your fathers. 625.
- Your fathers cried out against Christe, Nos legem habemus. 484.
- Christe was called a Samaritane, by your auncient Fathers. 631.
- This is very the leauen of the Scribes and Phariseis. 66.
- For malice they depraue our sayinges. 23.
- Your Idolatrous, and blasphemous fondnesse. 290.
- They batter vs with lies. 23.
- In spite of the Popes. 33.
- The Popes blinde preiudices. 40.
- The Pope, his Cardinalles, his Bishoppes, sleape, and do nothing. In the Preface to the Reader.
- The Popes flattering Parasites. 160.
- One of the Popes soothing Pages, and Clawbackes. 329.
- The Church of Rome is the very harlot of Babylon, and rowe of Deuilles. 453.
- The Canonistes be the Popes Parasites. 722.
- The Tyrannie of the Bishoppes of Rome. 457.
- The Popes Barbarous Persianlike Pride. Ibidem.
- The Church of Rome is nothing elles but a mother of falshod, and schoole of Pride. 609.
- Idolatrie is in the Churche of Rome. 628. 629.
- The Pope vseth neither Gods worde, nor discipline. 550.
- [Page 51]The Churche of Rome hath most shamefully, and wickedly erred. 565.
- The Pope speaketh more reuerently of Peter, then of Iesus Christe. 593.
- The Popes Aduocates, Abbates, Bishoppes, open enemies to the Gospel. 618.
- Your Popes Retainers. 695.
- They make decrees expressely against Gods worde. 620.
- The Pope wil plucke from vs, the Gospel, and al the confidence we haue in Christ Iesu. 723.
- The Pope hath blinded the whole worlde this many hundred yeres, and no man maie condemne him though he carrie awaie with him a thousand soules into hell. 729.
- Frantike gouernement of the Pope. 733.
- The second Councel of Nice was vaine, peeuish, wicked, blasphemous. 502.
- Before the Scriptures they preferre their owne Dreames. 70.
- Hicke Scorners eloquence. 356.
- Hicke Scorners logique. 270.
- Hypocritical eloquence. 2 [...]0.
- They are very Churche robbers. 228.
- These shewes, sales, and markettes of Masses, carrying about, and worshipping of bread, other idolatrous and blasphemous fondnesse. 290.
- Blockish, and olde wiues tale. 296.
- Haruest of Massemongers. 302.
- Truth is with crueltie and tyrannie kepte vnder. 334.
- They agree together as the Phariseis and Saduceis, as Herode and Pilate. &c. 342.
- The very foes of the Gospel, and enemies to Christes Crosse. 354
- Your faction. 611. 615.
- Aduoutrie, ribaudrie, whoredome, murthering of kinne, inceste, brothel houses, flockes of Concubines, heardes of harlot haunters, beastly sensualitie, abominable naughtinesse. 384.
- Like Anabaptistes, and Libertines. 395.
- [Page]Naughty personnes, and hypocrites. 429.
- They abhorre and flee the worde of God, as a theefe flieth the gallowes. 464.
- Ye rent in peeces, and burne the ancient Fathers. 500.
- Ye condemne the Scriptures. 505.
- Your Droues, and heardes of Monckes. 508.
- They let concubines to ferme to their Priestes. 510.
- Their cursed paltrie Seruice. 511.
- They mumble vp their Seruice in a Barbarous tongue. 515.
- The Canonistes at this daie for their bellies sake &c. 560.
- They haue choked vp the fonteine of lyuing water with durt [...] and mire. 573.
- They haue forsaken Christe, and the Apostles. 576.
- VVith most notorious sacriledge they seuer the Sacramentes. 584.
- They leane to ignorance, and darkenes. 590.
- They haue spoiled, and disanulled the ordinances, and doctrine of the Primitiue Churche. 592.
- Your wilful ignorance. 602.
- Blinde Balams wilful purpose. 602.
- They make decrees expressely against Goddes worde. 620.
- They take parte with Annas, and Caiphas. Ibidem.
- Vnlearned Bishoppes, slow bellies. 623.
- Errour, Idolatrie, Superstition, tyrannie, Pompe. 626.
- The Councel of Trident is a Conspiracie, not a Councel. 626.
- Princes Ambassadours be vsed as mocking stockes at the Councelles. 631.
- VVith spite they leaue out Princes. 635.
- O glorious Thraso. 640.
- They set not a iote by any point of religion, saue that whiche concernes their bellie, and riotte. 642.
- This is proude, this is spiteful. Ibidem.
- Princes be despitefully scorned and abused by them. 697.
- They harden their hartes against God, and his Christe. 715.
- They are menne farre more vngraceous, and wicked then any [Page 52] diceplaiers be. 728.
- Tyrannie of the Popes kingdome. 732.
- They were fooles, and madde menne. 733.
- A very spiteful dealing. 54.
Content thy selfe good Reader with these few, taken out of the whole heape. To laie forthe al, were to printe his Huge booke againe. For of suche stuffe in manner, and of vaine Scoffes, the whole consisteth.
Nowe bicause M. Iewel hath laid together an other Heape of wordes culled out of my bookes, which of his courtesie he would needes calle Scoffes, and Scornes: here to make an euen reckening with him, I haue thought good to returne vnto him coine of the same stampe, tolde out of his owne bagges, though it be more cankred, then mine is.
Scoffes, and Scornes be vnseemely, saith M. Iewel. Defence. pag. 8.
Scoffes, and Scornes against God, his Churche, and his Sainctes.
- I trow ye would proue, that God the Father made holy water, and said Masse. 496.
- Christe an Abbate. 66.
- S. Peter said masse with a golden Cope, and a triple Crowne. 300.
- The Apostles had keies geuen them, but no house to open. 163.
- As if Christe, and the Pope were ioined purchasers. 608.
- If Christe were not Christe, then S. Patrike should be Christe. 231.
- [Page]Peter and Paule had neuer Papale Christianitie. 674.
- Sir Clement, Iacke of Andrew. 536.
- The Romaine faith was heard of through out the whole worlde, and so was the Capitole of Rome. 437.
- So long as the Churche of Rome can speake for her selfe, al is wel. 715.
- The spirite of Rome. 606.
- S. Augustines vnceasoned fantasies. 370.
Sacramentarie Scoffes.
- VVho taught M. Harding, that Christe hath change of diuers bodies? 86.
- Your shoppes, and gaineful boothes. 333. meant of Aulters.
- Came Christe to saue bread, and wine? 254.
- Came the Sonne of man from heauen to saue Accidentes? 254.
- VVhere was Christes bodie euer promised to your Mouth? 274
- The poore Spiritual Fourmes, and holy Accidentes are put to al the paines. 261.
- The man in the moone newly Christened. 37.
- How can a few droppes of cold water bring vs to the hope of resurrection? 221.
- These be their keies of the kingdome of heauen. 249.
Scoffes against the Pope, Bishoppes and Priestes.
- One Principal Archangel, Pope in heauen. 100.
- The Emperour was the Popes Summoner. 671.
- The Pope a special Maister Keie. 160.
- The Pope hath the holy Ghoste I trow, at his commaundement. 724.
- The Pope a lorde Paramounte. 161.
- The Popes owne Minions, and Champions. 468.
- Dame Ioane the Pope. 374.
- This is one of the Cardinalle vertues of Rome, to take tolle of Bawdrie. 369. in marg.
- [Page 53]Princehoode [...] [...]postolique, ioily large wordes, and carry great sounde. [...].
- VVhat if Christe [...] Vicare him selfe be Antichrist? 433. In Margine.
- Your Pope no more a Bishop, then Annas, your Priest no more a Priest, then the Priest of Dagon, or Baal. 659.
- Maie Bishoppes. 664.
- Blinde Sir Robert the Archebishop of Armache. 597.
- Blinde Sir Robert of Scotland, and M. Pates of England seely poore Bishoppes. 714.
- The blessed Bishoppes of the Second Nicen Councel. 502.
- These be the great VVorthies of the worlde. 714.
Scoffes particular, and general.
- M. Harding skippeth into Goddes chaire. 23.
- M. Hardinges mystical Catholique eares. 232.
- So coye, and careful M. Harding is for holy Fourmes, and his kingdom of Accidentes. 248.
- M. Hardinges Almanake. 22.
- How long hath M. Harding benne a wisard? 209.
- M. Hardinges face died in Scarlet. 183.
- M. Harding Proctor for the Stewes. 370.
- M. Hardinges Dimi Communion. 195.
- M. Hardinges yong vntiedy Argumentes. 650.
- Albertus Pighius the stowtest Gallant of your Campe. 24.
- M. Harding wil trouble his Godfathers, and cause them to geue him a new name. 416.
- M. Hardinges mouthe no iuste measure. 8.
- If you had not studied your Copia verborum, you could neuer haue benne so copious. 388.
- And do you know his harte by towting in his eare? 157. In Margine.
- Alas your poore Chickens would die for colde. 28.
- No Haralde could lightly haue said more in the matter. 496.
- [Page]Al the same is substantially proued by t [...] [...]o [...]e, and deliuerie of a horse. 499.
- It is not a Fearnbushe, Ergo, it is a Foxe. 255.
- It is concluded in Louaine in great solemne sadnesse, &c.
- M. Hardinges Beaupeeres of Louaine. 492.
- Your innumerable Louain Vanities. 537.
- Your Louanian diuinitie. 696.
- Your Louanian Logique. 650.
- Your poore Lauanian brethren. 623.
- One of your late English Doctours of Louaine. 183.
- Your late Couente at Trident. 28. 43.
- Your late Conuentcle of Trident. 606. 619. 627. 630.
- Monkes are waxen nice, and crancke. 624.
- VVe must suppose they sate mute in a mummerie. 627.
- I maruel, there is not some Patriarke from Sodom, and Gomorra. 713.
- A mystical folie of folies. 515.
- Your Captaine general, Albertus Pighius. 498.
- Canonistes the Popes Pages of honour. 530.
- Your listes, and gaineful territories of Purgatorie. 537.
- It pitieth me M. Harding to see you so vainely to bestow your spiritual cogitations. 512.
- Your spiritual Clergie M. Harding is nothing els, but a spiritual filthinesse. 513.
- This is a lusty kinde of Diuinitie. 599.
- Ful wisely. 610.
- Sadly, and sagely, and wel to the purpose. 612.
- O worthy and graue reasons. 613.
- A discrete, and worthy Proctour. 621.
- A sage exposition. 181. In Margine.
- One pange of your Eloquence. 552.
- As for lies, shames, and slaunders, &c. If ye be ful freight, yet ye maie diuide them among your poore Louanian brethren. It shal be a worke of Supererogation. For ywisse, they haue yenough alreadie. 623.
- [Page 54]This is no doubte the holinesse that Christe brought into the worlde. 625.
- O profounde diuinitie. 626.
- A wise piece of counsel, and meete for a Doctor of Diuinitie. 631.
- Had you not had a shrewd sharpe witte M. Harding. &c. 630.
- Alas M. Harding, although ye litle passe for your Diuinitie, yet why haue ye no more regarde vnto your Logique? 622.
- It pitieth me M. Harding to see your folies. 623.
- O glorious Thraso. 640.
- A worthy Argument, and ful wisely applied. 477.
- VVith what cement can ye make these seely loose partes to cleaue together? 637.
- Ful Discretely, 647.
- Discretely reasoned.
- Your priestly Conclusions. 653.
- Thus ye fetche your matter round, within, without, and round aboute. 659.
- Your maie Bishoppes, otherwise by you called Nullatenses. 664.
- Ye fil the howse ful with Patriarkes of Constantinople. &c. 668.
- Your Popes by their omnipotent power maie minister Sacramentes being dead. 669.
- The Emperours in Councelles helde their peace, and tolde the clocke, and said nothing. 677.
- Ye thincke no colour to deere to paint out the Popes face. 695.
- Here we haue founde a Pope with two capacitie [...]. 724.
- The Pope succeedeth Peter in his chaire, as if Peter had benne sometimes enstalled in Rome, and had sate solemnely al daie with his triple crowne in his Pontificalibus, in a chaire of goulde. 726.
- Al these matters be ful solemnely proued, and are worthie to be published by Proclamation. 414.
- Al this is Hicke Scorners Eloquence. 356.
Here, if thou be not weary of this Lothsome gheare, gentle Reader, thou maist also see, with what sober, modeste, and learned Notes M. Iewel hath painte [...] the margent of his Booke, where so euer he laith foorth some Maimed peeces of my Confutation. Maimed peeces I maie cal them, for seldom, or rather no where, hath he suffered any discourse of mine to be printed in his Booke, whole, vnmaimed, and vnmangled. In these Notes thou hast the substance of his answeres. For if thou marke, what he bringeth in his texte besides, and discusse it exactly: thou shal finde, specially where any part of Doctrine is touched, that it perteineth very litle, or nothing to the point presently treated.
M. Iewelles sober and modeste Marginal Notes vpon the Confutation.
- Vntruthe boldely presumed. 96. 238.
- Manifest and meere vntruthes. 105.
- Vntruth most vaine and manifest. 107.
- Vntruth impudent aboue measure. 109. 512.
- Vntruth vaine and Childish. 114. 202. 610. 683.
- A vaine vntruth. 126. 245.
- An odious vntruth. 127.
- Vntruth ioyned with vaine follie. 135.
- A great vntruth ioyned with a sclaunder. 146.
- Vntruth fond and childish. 191. 254. 611.
- Vntruth ioined with heathenisse blasphemies. 207.
- Vntruth proceeding of vnaduised malice. 211.
- Vntruth ioined with grosse ignorance. 215.
- Vntruth ioined with sclaunder and malice. 219.
- Vntruth sclaunderous. 219. 626.
- [Page 55]Vntruth, and one of M. Hardinges mystical Dreames. 219.
- Vntruth horrible and heathnish. Ibidem.
- Vntruth so sensible and so grosse, that a man maie feele it with his fingers. 228.
- Vntruth blasphemous and horrible. 297.
- A peeuish vntruth. 250.
- Vntruth trifling and sophistical. 255.
- Vntruth shamelesse and without sense. 258.
- Vntruth vaine and arrogant. 261.
- Vntruth grounded vpon meere folie. 262.
- Vntruth grounded vpon a dreame. 266.
- Vntruth childish and vnsauery. 267.
- Vntruth guilefully enclosed. 278. 662.
- Vntruth vile and sclaunderous. 281.
- Vntruthes, and most fond and blasphemous folies. 291.
- Vntruth fonde, and heathnish. 291.
- Vntruth proceding of vaine dotage. 311.
- Vntruth ioined with vile sclaunder. 335.
- A vile vntruth. 368.
- Vntruth malicious and sclaunderous. 393. 433.
- Nothing elles but meere vntruthes. 393.
- Vntruth fonde and peuish. 400. 513. 515.
- Vntruth too vaine for a childe. 400.
- Vntruth ioined with open folie. 402.
- A great vntruth, and a shamelesse fable. 411.
- Vntruth euident to a childe. 424.
- Vntruth grownded vpon grosse ignorance. 439.
- Vntruth manifest without witte. 449.
- Vntruth more peuish then the former. 449.
- Vntruth vtterly voide of shame. 449.
- Vntruthes impudent. 494. 661.
- Vntruth so impudent, that I marueil M. Harding can report it without blushing. 513.
- Vntruth vndiscrete and impudent. 532.
- A whole heape of vntruthes and forgeries hudled together. 537.
- [Page]Vntruth without either measure, or regarde of shame, 55 [...], 7 [...]9.
- Vntruthes ioined with open blasphemie. 551.
- Vntruth without any sauour of witte and learning. 613.
- Vntruth most impudent. 626.
- Vntruth shamelesse without measure. 68 [...].
- Vntruth ioined with impudent flatterie, and extreme folie.
M. Iewelles Outcries, bitter, and scoffinge Oos.
- O folie. 90. 124. 250. 550.
- O Dangerous Doctrine. 136.
- O merueilous horrible heresie. 207.
- O fonde folie. 245. 610.
- O exact folie. 250.
- O fonde grosnesse. 278.
- O braue Captaine. 281.
- O earthly Diuinitie. 284.
- O so careful this good man is for our cares. 303.
- O graue commentarie, and a wise matter &c. 303.
- O when wil M. Harding confesse a faulte. 311.
- O a faire bonegrace. 382.
- O vaine brauerie. 390.
- O natural folie. 396.
- O graue consideration. 424.
- O vaine excuse. 506.
- O fonde man. 546.
- O so merelie this man plaieth with his phantasie. 578.
- O worthy and great reasons. 613.
- O profound Diuinitie. 626.
- O glorious Thraso. 640.
- O vanitie of vanities. 647.
- O folie of folies. 673.
- O vaine man. 687.
- O ye principal Postes of religion, O ye Archegouernours. 469
- Alas they haue it not. 290.
I leaue mo then I take of these flowers, gentle Reader. How pleasant the shewe of these fewe is vnto thine eie, I know not. Verely had not M. Iewel driuen me vnto this practise by his example, I should not haue liked the Deuise. Now if it offende thee, blame not mine, but M, Iewelles Inuention. I thought suche debte could not be better answered, then by paiment of the same money. By this thou maiest iudge, what stuffe in that huge Booke is pacte together.
Answere to M. Iewelles View of Vntruthes, that is to sale, he pretensed Defence of suche Vntruthes, as he thought him selfe best hable to [...]ustifie, with whiche he is truly charged, and of whiche he hath not yet discharged him selfe. The 4. Chapter.
AFter his heape of sharpe wordes, partly forged by him selfe, partly called out of my writinges, and laid together, as it were in a Table (whiche seeme to him, and to his brethren, so muche irksome, how muche their conscience is gilty): he setteth forth in an other Table as it were, certaine Vntruthes, to the number of. 31. whiche he founde, among many moe, noted against him in my first Reioinder, and in my Confutation of the Apologie. This Table he calleth,M. Ievvels intent in setting forth the Vievv of his Vntruthes. A Viewe of Vntruthes. His intent and meaning is, by the View of these fewe Vntruthes, which he hath chosen out, as the leaste among the whole number, to purchase him selfe a Defence, or at least waie some excuse, for the reste. For faine would he al menne to be persuaded, that the reste noted by me and by others, who haue confuted his errours, and detected his manifold falshoode, are of no greater weight, then these are.
What, and how great the reste are, they maie see, who liste to reade our bookes, in which they be truly set forth. How vnhable he is to iustifie them, it shal appeare by that he hath said in the Viewe. For if he be not hable to discharge him selfe of these one and thirty the leaste, how shal he be hable to acquitte him self of a thousand, and moe of greater weight, scoared vp against him, by those that haue written but vpō fiue, of his six and twentie Articles?
First [...] layeth forth .15. Vntruthes, which among many moe in my R [...]ioinder I noted against him out of his Replie to the first Article. The first nyne he is driuen to acknowledge, For he hath said nothing in their defence. If he wil saie, they be but smal Vntruthes, and therefore not worthy of any thing to be said of them: it may be replied, they are too great to be vttered so neare together.M. Ievvel is rife of Vntruthes in the very beginnīg of his Replie. For the first six Vntruthes be within the compasse of. 12. lines in the beginning of his Replie. It were strange, that six great Vntruthes should be vttered within so fewe lines in the beginning of a booke. For them that can not defende a matter, but with great lyes, it is the beste policie to beginne with smaller lyes. For elles they should marre altogether.
This circumstance considered, Vntruthes must needes seeme, bothe many, and great. Briefly, the whole fifteen Vntruthes noted out of the Replie, be founde in his first Diuision, that is to saie, within lesse then thrise fifteen lines. It were very il lucke, if they should be proued al to be great and weightie Vntruthes in the first entrie of the booke, and that within so litle space. There was neuer any Writer, so vaine, or false,The. 10. Vntruth. Beno, and Vspergē sis parcially holding with the Emperour not to be beleeued against Gregorie the. 7. that sowed Vntruthes so thicke, specially in the beginning of a Treatie.
The first nyne then being confessed to be Vntruthes vndischargeable, let vs see, how substancially he dischargeth him selfe of the six other. It is reported (saith he) of Pope Hildebrand (so he calleth Gregorie the seuenth) that he wrought Necromancie and Sorcerie. This noted I for an Vntruth, saying, it is not reported by any graue and true writer: but by them that flattered the Emperour of that time. To this he maketh a Replie, This storie (saith [Page] he) is largely set out by Beno, and Vrspergensis. These be they, whose witnesse I refused before, as being the Emperours flatterers, and bearing malice to the Pope, and therfore ouer parcial to beare credite in that case.
Gregorie the seuenth.How farre this worthy man, Gregorie the seuenth was from exercising Necromancie or Sorcerie, and from other vices, it is largely declared by the best writers of stories of that age, namely by Marianus Scotus, by Lambertus Schafuaburgensis, and Leo Hostiensis, and specially by Otho Frisingensis, and of late by Platina, and Onuphrius Panuinus. Furthermore Beno can not beare great credite with vs, as he that is condemned by Ecclesiastical censure.Vrspergensis set out by Melanchthō only. The. 11. Vntruth. As for Vrspergensis, he is worthily suspected to be corrupted by your felowes of Germanie, among whom he was set out in printe by Philip Melanchthō, and not els.
Item, Henrie the Emperour was poisoned in the Communion breade, saith M. Iewel. Vntruthe, say I, He was not poisoned, but died otherwise. For proufe he replieth, and allegeth Vrspergensis. Likewise Auentinus, and besides, Baptista Ignatius, the writer of Supplementum Chronicorum, Rauisius Textor the Grāmarian, and Carion, writers of our time, and some of them of litle credite. Neither in suche a case maketh the nūber of writers any Argumēt of truthe. For the afterwriters being deceiued by the Vntruthe of the first writer, be they neuer so many in number, cānot make true,Henrie of Luxemburg, hovv he dyed. Lib. 8. that whiche was vntruly reported at the first.
Touching the Death of this Emperour, who was Henrie of Luxemburg, Paulus Aemylius a graue, and a learned man, who hath examined this mater to the vttermost, writeth that he died of a sickenes, whiche he fel into at Bonconuento in the territorie of Siena in Tuskane, being come thither from Pisa. The same writethIn scholijs in Platinam. Onophrius. [Page 58] That he should be poisoned in receiuing the Sacrament by meanes of a Dominican Frier, Cornelius Cornepolita seemeth to esteme it for a fable, or to make the best of it, for a matter of a heare saie. By that whichIn Chronographia. The .12. Vntruth. Victors Death. Nauclerus writeth therof, it appeareth to be no better then a fained tale.
Item, Pope victor was poisoned in the Chalice, saith M. Iewel. This noted I for an Vntruth, and said, he died otherwise. To this he replieth, and for his saying allegeth Martinus Polonus that vaine fabler, the first author of the fabulous Popedom of Pope Ioan the woman, he nameth certaine other of our age, some being as very enemies to the Catholike Church, as he him selfe is, namely Anselmus Rid, Anselmus Rid. a Protestāt of Berna, whom we beleue in such a mater no more then we beleue M. Iewel. For such menne be very ready to set out in bookes any thing, wherby the estimatiō of our diuine Mysteries may be impaired in the iudgement of light heads, be it neuer so vntrue. Concerning Pope Victors death, Vincētius, Vincentius Bellouacē. as good an Author as Martinus Polonus, and a man of muche greater learning, writeth, that he died of a Dysenterie, and so Platina reciteth. In these three Vntruthes M. Iewel hath some colour of a defence, bicause the writers of the Stories doo varie. And he liketh that report best, that is most fabulous and vaine, and tēdeth to the cōtempt of the Pope, and of the blessed Sacrament. Suche stuffe is precious in his sight. Thus it is cleare, that he hath not iustified these three Vntruthes. To shew a thing to be doubtful is not to clere it of al Vntruth.The .13. and .14. vntruthes. Lyra in Daniel. cap. 14.
As for the other two Vntruthes where he reporteth Lyra, to saie that many Miracles are wrought in the Church by the Priestes, and their Companions, to mocke the people: notwithstanding any thing conteined in his Replie, they [Page] remaine vndischarged, and appeare as impudent lyes, and falsifiynges, as before. How falsly he demeaneth him selfe in that pretensed saying of Lyra, it shal appeare to him that readeth my Reioinder. fol. 8. b. &c.
The .15. VnthruthThe .15. Vntruth is, that he ascribeth the briefe Commentaries vpon S. Paules Epistles printed with S. Hieromes workes, vnto S Hierome, which are wel knowen, and by Erasmus (whom he so muche esteemeth) confessed, not to be S. Hieromes.
M. Iewels Replie hereto, is this. They are printed (saith he) emong other S. Hieromes workes, and are commonly knowen by his name: but by any other Authors name they are not knowen.
Bastard vvorkes printed among the true vvorkes assundrie Authors.If that were a good Argument to proue them to be S. Hieromes, bicause they are printed emong S. Hieromes workes: then were it easy to proue a number of treaties to be S. Hieromes, S. Augustines, S. Ambroses, S. Chrysostomes, S. Cyprians, and other auncient Doctours of the Churche, whiche are wel knowen not to be theires, and M. Iewel him selfe would make no smal triumph against vs, if we should allege any testimonie out of suche, vnder the name of the Doctours, emong whose workes they be printed. For who is so simple, that cannot thus reason, (as for example, the Rule of Nonnes) it is printed emong other S. Hieromes workes,Regula Monacharum, Inter opera Hierō. To [...]. 4. ergo, it is S. Hieromes? Item, the treatie of the Inuention or finding of the Head of S. Iohn Baptiste, is printed with S. Cyprians workes, ergo, it is S. Cyprians? By this Argument you maie proue, that the foolish epistle written to Abra S. Hilaries pretensed dawghter (in the authoritie of whiche epistle you put great confidence for the defence of Priestes Marriages) [Page 59] was S. Hilaries, bicause it is p [...]inted with S. Hilaries workes. So might the vnperfite worke written by some Heretique (by Maximinus Arianus, as some thinke) vpon S. Matthew printed with S. Chrysostomes workes, [...]e auouched to be S. Chrysostomes, and so shuld we make that holy and Catholike Doctor, an Author of sundry great heresies. The like Argument might be made for proufe, and legitimation of sundrie other bastard Treatises, which to father vpon those learned Fathers, emong whose workes they are printed, and be not knowen by other Authours names, were great iniurie. I dare boldly say, M. Iewel him selfe (how so euer he thought good thus to shifte his handes of an Vntruth laid to his charge) would be loth to allow this for a good Argument in his Aduersarie. For if he would, he is not ignorans, what a comber he should haue to answer vnto thinges, that out of suche writinges might against him be alleged.
Hitherto he hath not discharged him selfe of those fifteen the least Vntruthes, that be in my Reioinder noted against him out of his very first Diuision of his Replie to the first Article. What a doo he should haue to iustifie the rest, with which he standeth charged by me, and by other menne, who haue dubbed him Lorde, and Author of a thousand moe Vntruthes: by his feeble Answer vnto these fewe of least appearance, it is soone conceiued. Now lette vs see, how he iustifieth the Vntruthes of the Apologie.
M. Iewels pretensed Iustification of certaine Vntruthes of the Apologie, with the Confutation of the same.
M. Ievvel the apologie. Pa [...] [...]. cap. 4. Diuis. 2.
The Councel of Carthage (saith he) prouided, that no [...]isshop should be called either the highest Bisshop, or the chief Priest. Vntruthes noted out of the Apologie. The first Vntruth.
To this he forgeth an Answer in my name, and addeth vnto it suche woordes, as whereby he thought to set forth vnto his reader, a shewe of some lightnes of my parte, whereas I answer him in deede otherwise, as it may be sene in my Confutation. part. 2. cap. 4. fol. 53. &c.
For answer; this may be here, and is in effecte said there. Whereas the Apologie hath thus, Also the Councel of Carthage did expressely prouide, that no Bishop should be called either the highest Bishop, or chiefe Priest: To this I saie, that it is false, and that the Councel of Carthage hath not so, but otherwise. It speaketh of Primates only, and not generally of al Bishops, and as it appeareth; of the Primates only of Afrike. And therefore the Bishop of Rome by that Councel is not depriued of his auncient Title of Summus Sacerdos. This is more largely declared in my Confutation, in the place aboue coted.
To this M. Iewel maketh his Replie in this wise.
The wordes of the Councel, alleged by Gratian, are these. Primasedis Episcopus, M. Ievvel allegeth Gratians vvordes for the vvordes of the Councel of Charthage. non apelletur Princeps Sacerdotum, vel Summus Sacerdos, vel aliquid huiusmodi: sed tantùm primae Sedis Episcopus. Vniuersalis autem nec etiam Romanus Pontifex appelletur.
Why doo you allege Gratian M. Iewel, whereas you might allege the Councel it selfe, from whence Gratian tooke these wordes? And so you founde the place thus [Page 60] coted in the end of the Chapter before.Distin. 99 Prouincia Item ex Concilio African [...]. 3. ca. 26. By this your shamelesse falshood appeareth. For if ye had gonne vnto that Councel it selfe, ye should not haue found these wordes at al, neither in the Greeke (for it is extant in Greeke) nor in the Latine: these wordes I say, Vniuersalis autem nec etiam Romanus Pontifex appelletur: Which are no more a parte of that .26. Canon of the third Africane Councel, then those other wordes are, there likewise folowing immediatly, Vnde Pelagius secundus omnibus Episcopis. They are put in by Gratian him selfe, whereby, as his manner is, he fortelleth the reader, what foloweth in the next chapter. So this Vntruth is doubled with an other Vntruth, and remaineth to M. Iewel, as that to whiche he shal neuer be hable to answere. Of this I shal haue occasion to treate more at large hereafter. I wish the Reader for a further discouer of M. Iewels falshoode, to peruse what there I shal saie.
M. Ievvel. Apologie. part. 2. cap. 12.
Item, Calixtus (saith he) decreed, The .2. Vntruth. that Consecration being finished, al the people should communicate. &c.
To this I answer, that it was the Decree, not of Calixtus, but of Anacletus, and that the request of receiuing the cōmunion the Cōsecration being done, perteined to the Priestes, Deacons, Subdeacons, and other Clerkes attending vpon the Bishop celebrating the Sacrifice vpon a Solemne Feast, and not vnto al the people. Howbeit that the people did then commonly receiue euery daie (whiche M. Iewel in his Defence goeth about to proue with many testimonies, to no purpose) I denie not,Pag. 227. [Page] ne neuer denied, but this spec [...] Dec [...] of Anacletus i [...] be [...] of th [...] Clergie onely,Anacletus in prima Epistola Decretali. that attend [...] vpon the Bishop as the Circumstance of the place in th [...] Epistle of Anacletus showeth. This is to be sene in my Confutation, fol. 9 [...]. a.
To this M. Iewel replieth and saith.
Here M. Harding is soone reproued euen by his owne Dectours, Darandus, Hugo, Cochlaus, Clichth [...]ueus. For thus they saie, Omnes olim, tum Sacerdotes, tum Laici cum sacrificante communicabant, &c. Hi [...] vnum de hae re Canonem recit [...]bo, qui Calixto [...]scribitur. Hereto I answer.
If I saie otherwise touching this point, then these (whom M. Iewel calleth myne owne Doctours) haue said, therein I am gainesaid it wil not folow, that I am reproued. D [...]randus, and Hugo say nothing that is contrary to my vnderstanding of Anacletus Decree. As for Coclaeus, and Clichthoueus menne of our tyme, what if they tooke it otherwise, then I doo? That is their Priuate sense. It foloweth not thereof, that I am deceiued.
That Anaclet [...] Decree touching the necessitie of Communion to be receiued perteineth on [...]y to the Clergie.
Nicol. Cusanus epi. 7. ad Clerum & literatos Bohemia. DegradenturI haue good cause rather to beleeue Cardinal Cusanus, who semeth to haue examined this Decree farther, and more exactly, th [...]n these two late writers haue done. For thus he reciteth the Later parte of the Decree, as it is in the Original, out of Burchardus: Sic enim Apostoli statuerunt, & sancta Romanae tenet Ecclesia, & si hoc neglexerint, deg [...]adentur. Let al communicate, that were [Page 61] present at the Consecration (saith the Decree) for so the Apostles haue ordeined, and so the holy Romaine Curche holdeth, and if they omitte it by contempte, lette them be degraded (or deposed) from their Degree. Cusanus willeth the worde, Degradentur Degradentur to be weighed, and thereof gathereth, that the Decree speaketh only of them of the Clergie, that were present at the Consecration, and were admitted into Sancta Sanctorum, the holy place, where none came, but such as were in Ecclesiastical Orders, [...], that is to say, of the Clergie, as they are called in the. 9. Canon among the Canons of the Apostles, whereunto the Decree maketh relation. Hereof I haue spoken sufficiently (beside the place of my Confutation aboue mencioned) in my first Reionder. fol. 220. a. and againe, fol. 308. a. Thus you remaine stil charged with this Vntruthe. For it is not inough to say what is written, but to discerne what is best written.
M. Ievvel. The Apologie. Parte. 2. cap. 8. Diuis. 2.
Gregorius Nazianzenus saith speaking of his owne Father, The .3. Vntruth. that a good and a diligent Bishop doth serue in the Ministerie neuer the woorse, for that he is married, but rather the better.
Here I tolde M. Iewel, that he vsed his accustomed Figure Pseudologia, whiche is as muche to say, as lying in plaine Englishe. For in deede he neuer saied it. And so muche doo I tel him here once againe. But lette vs consider of his Replie, wherein he seemeth to plaie the parte of a woorse Lyer then before. Thus he saith.
An vntruth proceding of grosse ignorāce, or of great impudencie. This errour of M. Hardinges grewe of ignorance. For Nazianzenes wordes be very plaine: Meo Patri Mater mea &c. My Mother being geuen to my Father of God, became not onely his helper, for that had benne no great woonder, but also was his leader, and Captaine, both by worde, and by deede trayning him vnto the beste. In Religion and godlines she doubted not to becomme his Maistresse. Nazianzenus in Epitaphio patris.
The faithful vvoman trauailed vvith her vnfaithful husband, to bring him vnto the Faith, she did not so after that he vvas made Bisshop. August. Confess. li. 9. cap. 9.Al this, and muche more vttered by the learned sonne of his godly Mother, is to be vnderstanded of the time, when his father was an Infidel. She being a Christian woman, and comme of a Christian stocke, being married vnto her husband remaining yet without beleefe in Christe, vsed al the good meanes of a helper, guide, leader, schoolemaistresse, and teacher, to induce him vnto the Faith. Whiche thing by Goddes grace at length she perfourmed, as the holy wooman Monica S. Augustines mother, did likewise, in winning Patricius her husband, vnto the Faith of Christe, not long before he died, as S. Augustine witnesseth. But that euer she tooke vpon her so to teache him, after that he was chosen Bisshoppe of Nazianzum, for that M. Iewel is not hable to shewe vs so muche as one woorde, or halfe woorde, and yet that doth he constantly affirme in his pretensed Defence.In the Defence. page. 178. This being so, what maketh it to the iustification of his Vntruthe? It may please thee good Reader to peruse that I say of this hereafter, where I treate of it at large, and confute this impudent Vntruthe of M. Iewels thoroughly.Confutation. fol. 76. & in sequent. Howbeit I confuted the same also sufficiently in my Confutation of the Apologie.
M. Ievvel. The Apologie. Parte. 6. cap. 5. Diuis. 2.
Pope Liberius (saith he) was a fauourer of the Arian Heretiques. The 4. Vntruth.
That he was a fauourer of the Arians, it is vtterly vntrue, saie I. And it were not harde (if I were desirous to furnish foorth a greate Booke with heapes of Doctours sayinges, as M. Iewel is) to allege very muche to the contrarie, and in his Defence, that he was a man of great constancie, and neuer bare sauour towarde the mainteiners of that horrible heresie. The contrarie appeareth by that Theodoritus writeth of him Libro Ecclesiasticae Historiae. 2. cap. 17. Athanasius in Apologia saith, he was bannished, for that he would not subscribe vnto the Arian Heresie. Tripart. Lib. 5. cap. 16.
The Authour hereof is S. Hierome, de Ecclesiasticis Scriptoribus, in Fortunatiano. And one of M. Hardinges owne principal Doctours saith, De Liberio Papa constat fuisse Arianum.
That Pope Liberius was no fauourer of the Arians.
Here haue we twoo newe Vntruthes added vnto the old. Marke Reader, what is that M. Iewel affirmeth, and that I denie. It is this, that Pope Liberius was a fauourer of the Arian Heretiques. S. Hierome in the place by [Page] M. Iewel alleged, saieth not, that Liberius was a fauourer of the Arians, but that by the importunitie of Fortunatianus Bisshop of Aquileia,Hieron. in Catalogo Scriptorū Eccl. 107. he was compelled to subscribe vnto Heresie, as he was going into bannishment for the Faith. Pro Fide ad exilium pergentem, primus solicitauit, ac fregit, & ad subscriptionem haereseos compulit, saieth S. Hierome, if these were his his owne woordes, and not woordes added vnto him by Heretiques, as some haue iudged. Nowe if a man be compelled to doo a thing, wil M. Iewel saie of him, that he is a fauourer of the thing? Fauour presupposeth loue, lyking, and good wil. What we like not, but abhorre, and hate, that can we not fauour. If Pope Liberius bare fauour toward the Arian Heretiques, then was it not compulsion, that he subscribed vnto that Heresie. If he were compelled to subscribe, as certainely he was, if he subscribed at al: thereof he ought not to be called a fauourer of the Heresie. It was for feare of pounishement, and of Constantius the Emperours displeasure, it was not of fauour. For if he had fauoured it, he should not haue benne thrust out of his Bishoprike, and turned out into bannishment, but haue benne great with the Emperour, as other bishops were, that to please him, and for wordly preferment, stickte not to subscribe.
Hieron. in Chronicis.S. Hierome writeth hereof otherwise in Chronicis, saying, that he subscribed, victus exilij taedi [...], ouercomme with the lothsomnesse of his bannishement. Howe so euer it was, and by what extremitie so euer he was driuen to subscribe, certaine it is, that he was not a fauourer of the Arian Heretiques. [Page 63] Let M. Iewel consider of this mater in the like case.Did M. Ievvel fauer the Papistes, vvhen he was faine to subscribe to their Doctrine? He once subscribed in a solemne assemblie of learned men at Oxford vnto the Popes supremacie, the real Presence, the Sacrifice of the Masse, and to other partes of the Catholique Doctrine, whiche now he so ernestly impugneth: I trowe he wil not haue this muche said of him, that then he was a fauourer of Papistrie. And doubtelesse he that would saie so of him, should belie him. So were it true, that Liberius through feare subscribed to the Arians, yet it is not true, that he was a fauourer of them. And so M. Iewel hath not yet discharged him selfe of this Vntruth.
But who is that one of M. Hardinges owne principal Doctours, that saith these wordes, De Liberio Papa constat fuisse Arianum, As concerning Pope Liberius, it is certainely knowen, that he was an Arian? What is the cause that here M. Iewel nameth him not? Why doth not he so muche as by a cotation in the margent signifie, what Doctor this is? Is he now growen more shamefast, then heretofore, that he woulde be loth to be found a notorious lyer in that place, where he laboureth to discharge him selfe of Vntruthes? Wel though he were a shamed to be taken with a lie, yet was he not a shamed to make a lye. This Principal Doctour of myne (for so it pleaseth M. Iewel to be mery) is Alphonsus de Castro. How maie this be knowen? Forsooth euen by M. Iewel him selfe, who in his pretensed Defence writeth thus, worde for worde, where without al errour (ye maie be sure) he bringeth muche mater to shewe, that the Pope maie erre.Defence. page. 617. lin. 2. Alphōsus impudētly belyed. Certainely (saith he to me) Alphonsus your owne Doctour saith, De Liberio Papa, constat fuisse Arianum. Touching Pope Liberius, [Page] it is wel knowen, he was an Arian. And where saith Alphonsus thus? Mary saith M. Iewel in his marginal cotation, Alphōsus cōtrà haeres. lib. 1. cap. 4. But read that Chapter who wil, verely in the bookes of sundrie printes that I haue sene, he saith it not. If it were once so printed, and afterward by th'Author reuoked, it ought not to be alleged. Thus M. Iewel going about to iustifie his Vntruthes, doubleth his vntruthes. So shal they do, that take vpon them to defend Vntruthes. To the obiection made against Pope Liberius, my answer was sufficient before in my Confutatiō,Confutation. fol. 285. b. and so it remaineth, for ought that M. Iewel bringeth in his Defence to the cōtrarie, if al be iudged by learning.
M. Ievvel. The Apologie. parte. 6. Cap. 5. Diuis. 2.
Pope Zosimus corrupted the Councel of Nice.
The 5. Vntruth. Confutat. fol. 286. a.To this I saie in my Confutation, Zosimus is belied, he corrupted not the Councel of Nice. M. Iewel replieth.
This mater most plainely appeareth by the recordes of the Councel of Aphrica.
Of this matter M. Iewel ye haue treated bothe in your Replie in the fourth Article, and in your pretensed Defence, very vntruly. What so euer you haue to saie for proufe of that blessed Popes forging of the Nicene Coū cel,Copus Dialog. 1. Cap. 6. & 7. Stapletō. Artic. 4. fo. 30. & in sequēt. Dorman Fol. 94. &c. it is clerely cōfuted by M. Stapletō, and by M. Cope, in whose Dialoges you would seme to be much cōuersant, whiche either of pride you disdaine to acknowledge, or of falshod you dissemble to know. Bicause the matter requireth a long discourse, and the same is already wel handled bothe by M. Stapleton in the Returne of Vntruthes, and also by M. Dorman in his Disproufe of M. Nowels Reproufe: I remit the reader vnto them, promising him, that by reading them, he shalbe satisfied at large, and iudge [Page 64] M. Iewel conuicte and cast in a great Vntruthe.
M. Ievvel. Apologie. parte. 6. Cap. 5. Diuis. 2.
Pope Iohn (the .22.) helde a detestable opinion touching the Immortalitie of the soule. The. 6. Vntruth.
See my Confutation reader. There haue I fully answered to that is laid to this Popes charge,Confutation. Fol. 285. b. touching the state of the Soule after this life. The Apologie burtheneth him with a wicked, and detestable opiniō of the life to come, and of the Immortalitie of the Soule, for so it speaketh. Most certaine it is, that M. Iew. there said Vntruth, if the Apologie be his, and that here againe he doubleth his Vntruth. And what I said in my Confutation, true it is, and he shal neuer be hable to refel it. Let vs now consider, what truth there is in his Replie.
Gerson (saith he) in Sermone Pashali (writeth) Pope Iohn 22. decreed, Gerson is impudētly belyed by M. Ievvel. that the Soules of the wicked should not be pounished, before the daie of the last Iudgemēt. Which errour the Vniuersitie of Parise condēned for heresie, and caused the Pope to recāt. Hereto he addeth these wordes most impudētly.
Concil. Constantien. in Appendice. In primis. Quin imò Iohannes Papa. 22. dixit, et pertinaciter credit, Animā hominis cū corpore humano mori: & extingui, This is impudētly ascribed to Iohn. 21. being spokē of Iohn. 23. ad instar animaliū brutorū. Dixit (que) mortuū semel, etiā in nouissimo die, minimè esse resurrecturū. Thus farre M. Iew. in his View of Vntruthes.
What shal I saie, but that al is false? First touching this saying here in English, pretended to be alleged, as out of Gerson in Sermone Paschali: whereas among al Gersons workes, there are but two Sermons bearing this title, In Festo Paschae: In quarta parte operum Gersonis. Linea. 28. in neither of bothe is this saying to be founde. Yet M. Iewel maketh him selfe so sure of it, that he is not ashamed to allege it againe worde for worde, in the pretensed Defence, pag. 617. where he [Page] beginneth the sentence thus in Latine, Iohannes Papa. 22. decreuit. &c. and thus coteth the place, Gerson in sermone Paschali.
It is a fowle thing M. Iewel, and a wicked impudencie thus to belye the Doctours. Certaine it is, Gerson neuer said it, nor in sermone Paschali, as you reporte, nor any where elles, that this Pope Iohn made any suche Decree. Neither was his errour, as you vntruly burthen him, that the Soules of the wicked should not be pounished, before the daie of the laste Iudgement. That ye write touching this Pope, either proceedeth of malice, or of ignorance. If ye be malicious, God amende you: if ye be ignorant, thus ye maie vnderstand the truth.
What was the propre errour of Pope Iohn. 22. touching the Soules departed.
The errour of Pope Iohn the. 22. was not, that the Soules of the wicked be not pounished before the daie of the laste Iudgement: but that the soules of the good, see not the face of God, before the laste daie. His Position, or opinion was conceiued with these termes, as the Scholastical Doctours then vsed to speake, or the like, as we finde in Adrianus that learned Pope,Adrianus in 4. Sententiarū. quaest de Sacramē to Confirmationis. and in the Extrauagante of Pope Benedictus vndecimus, who succeded him nexte. Animae purgatae ante finale Iudicium non habent stolam, quae est clara & facialis Visio Dei. That is to saie, The purified (or cleansed) Soules haue not their Stole, whiche is the cleare vision of God and sighte face to face, before the final Iudgement.
This mater was muche disputed of among the learned Diuines of that time. The Question was thus propounded, [Page 65] as it appeareth by Benedictus Extrauagante. [...]enedictus. 11. in Extrauagante. An anima iustorum hominum, in quibus nihil erat purgabile, cùm de hoc seculo decesserunt, vel si quid erat, iam purgatum fuerat ex toto, post mortem suam videant Diuinam essentiam, ante corporum suorum resumptionem, & iudicium generale. As muche to saie in English: whether the Soules of iuste menne, in whiche there was nothing to be purged, when they departed out of this worlde, or if there were any thing, the same had ben now wholly purged, after their death, see the Diuine essence before the receiuing againe of their bodies, and before the general Iudgement.
Of this Question some Doctours then helde the affirmatiue, some the negatiue. Amongst them that helde the Negatiue, this Pope Iohn. 22. was one before he was Pope, and perhaps also afterward. But he helde it only as his priuate opinion. As touching Decree, or definition in that behalfe either against, or with the truth, doubtelesse it can not be proued by any storie of estimation, that he made any. Who of al menne is more to be beleeued herein, then Benedictus the eleuenth that was Cardinal in his time, and succeded him? This Benedictus saith, that Pope Iohn prepared him selfe to make a Decision and a perfite determination of that question. And to thintent the truth might be exactly tried out, he gaue cōmaundement in his publique Consistorie (whereat the said Benedictus was then present, as he saith him selfe) vnto the Cardinals, Prelates, and Doctors of diuinitie, who were there in great number, to prouide for the due examination of that questiō, that when they should be required, euery man should saie deliberately, what he thought of it. Yet (saith Benedictus) being preuented by death, as it pleased our Lorde, [Page] he could not performe that he intēded. The same was perfourmed by Benedictus streight after Pope Iohns death.
Now this was an errour in Pope Iohn, I denie not. Yet for the same is not he to be accompted an heretique, as neither S. Irenaeus, Theophylactus, and S. Bernarde are, who seme to haue bene of the same opinion, as it is by some learned menne gathered and iudged of certaine sayinges founde in their workes. Certainely it was no heresie, for so muche as the matter was not at that time expressely defined by the Churche, but afterward by Benedictus the eleuenth, and at length by the Councel of Florence vnder Eugenius the fourth.
This is the vntrue doctrine of Pope Iohn. 22. of which Gerson speaketh, farre otherwise then M. Iewel reporteth him, in a Sermon, that he made before the Frenche king then being, in festo Paschali.
In that Sermon hauing vttered a fewe sentences touching Peace, taking occasion of his Theme, whiche was, that Christ said to his disciples, Pax vobis, after his praiers made, and the Theme repeated againe, euen after the mā ner that Preachers in England vsed in the catholik times: thus he beginneth.Gerson. Serm. 1. in Festo Pa [...] schali. Saluator noster, & verus miles, &c. Iesus Christe our Sauiour and true knighte, streight after his blessed Passion in the first instant of his death (whiche was on the frydaie at the nynth hower) went downe vnto Hel, to geue the true peace, the peace of glorie and blisse, vnto his frendes the Patriarkes, Prophetes, and the other iuste, that were in Limbo Patrum, that is to saie, in the resting place of the Fathers. And it is verely to be beleeued, that he gaue this glorious peace to al them that were in Purgatorie, and that he deliuered them, as a king doth at his first ioyous comming [Page 66] vnto a place. And of purpose this did he vnto the Theefe, who of likelyhoode had not yet fulfilled his penaunce for al his sinnes: who was in that very houre made blessed, and saw God face to face, as the Saintes doo in Paradise. This daie (saith Christe) shalt thou be with me in Paradise. Luke 23.
Immediatly vpon this folow the wordes, by whiche it appeareth, that by verdite of Gerson, Pope Iohns errour was, as is afore said. For there he saith. Propter quod apparet falsitas doctrinae Papae Iohannis. 22. quae damnata fuit cum sono buccinarum vel tubarum coram rege Philippo auunculo tuo per Theologos Parisienses, &c. For the which thing the falshed of the doctrine of Pope Iohn the. 22. appeareth, whiche was condemned at the sounde of Trumpets before king Philip thy vncle by the Diuines of Paris.
Remember good Reader, this errour of Iohn. 22. was not condemned by the Diuines of Paris, when he was Pope, but before, when he was a priuate Doctor, and liued in the realme of Fraunce. Whom notwithstanding Gerson calleth Pope, for that, he was Pope afterward, and died Pope. And thus wrote Gerson of him long after his death.
Laie al this, and that I said before in my Confutation together M. Iewel, and this matter of Pope Iohn the. 22. is fully answered, and you remaine stil charged with Vntruthe, and al the scorneful talke that you vtter of Purgatorie in your pretensed defence page. 617. is founde, vaine, light, and vnlearned, and vtterly beside the purpose. For the question, wherein Pope 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, cū de hoc seculo decesserunt, as it is shewed in Pope Benedictus Decretale before [Page] 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 [Page 67] 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: [Page] hauing reckened certaine thinges, wherein the Pop [...] hath authoritie as vnder God, and as Christes high officer, he concludeth with these wordes. Breuiter, except [...] peccat [...], 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. Hostiēsis 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 Cōsistorie, is one and the same Cōsistorie.
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 questiō. 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, ot̄a, 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 [...]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 it, and hath placed it in sundry corners of his bookes, verely in his laste most vaine Defence of the Apologie, in very many places.
With suche starres he geueth light to the congregations of his sect. If this be not impudencie, what is impudencie?
M. Ievvel. The Apologie. Parte. 6. cap. 6. Diuis. 1.
The. [...]. Vntruth. Some of them haue said, The Pope is the lighte, that is come into the worlde. And who so is an il dooer, fleeth that lighte.
M. Iewel falsifieth the Answere that I make vnto this obiection, by cutting awaye those wordes, wherein the answer consisteth:Confutatio. 287. a. as it may be sene in my Confutation. Thus there I say, and the same here I say againe: we answer you on the behalfe of Cornelius the Bisshop of Bitont [...] in Italie, Ioan. 1. that he neuer said, (The Pope is the lighte, whiche should come into the worlde) in that sense, as it is spoken of Christe. Neither is the Replie ye make, directed vnto this answere. For against the same ye haue in deede nothing to replie. If that Bisshop in an Oration made at th [...] C [...]uncel of Trent spake vndiscreetely, where it was lawful for al to speake freely, what they thought good, as it is, or at least ought to be in our Parlamentes in England, what is that to vs? Neither are we bound to iustifie euery mannes priuate tale: nor if any speake perhaps at a time vnaduisedly, can that stand you in any steede for defence of wicked Schismes, and Heresies, with whiche ye are charged. Howbeit Cornelius the Bishop of Bitonto there spake not altogether, as you english his wordes: and his saying being fauourably expounded, in a conuenient sense (as doubtelesse he meant it) may be tolerated.
M. Ievvel. The Apologie. Parte. 4. Cap. 1. Diuis. 1.
The. 9. Vntruth. They haue decreed, that a Priest, for Fornication ought not to be remoued from his Cure.
You haue fouly falsified my Answer hereunto M. Iewel: And in your pretensed Defence ye haue cut of from my Confutation, muche, that maketh directly against you, as ye haue done through your whole Booke.Confut. fol. 158. a. See my Confutation who wil, and he shal finde you proued a foule lier. And who be they I praie you, that haue thus decreed?
In your said Defence you are faine to flee to your commō frende the Glose vpon the Decrees, out of which ye serue your selfe of muche gay stuffe. And what saith the Glose? It saith thus: Dicunt neminem &c. Why M. Iewel, dependeth your whole proufe vpon the Glosers dicunt, that is, vpon a They saie? Ye tel vs, they haue decreed: and being required to shew it, you send vs to the Glose, and yet there ye haue no certaine Decree, but an vncertaine dicunt. Ye haue litle knowledge in your Canon lawe, I perceiue, as great a lawier as ye make your selfe, and as great a lawier as he is, to whom ye gaue the Archedeaconrie of Northwiltshire, to thintent he among others mo shoulde helpe you in patching together the Aphorismes, and peeces of your lying Bookes. After this ye goo for proufe hereof from the Glose, to the margent of the Glose. It is pitie this manne hath not authoritie to make Gloses of his owne authētical, to proue his toies by, and that the marginal notes maie not stand him in steede of substantial authoritie.
But at length there, as also in your Replie in the view of your Vntruthes, Panormitane is brought in, and he a Gods name is my greatest Canoniste, saie you: whereas ye knowe wel ynough M. Iewel,Extra. De consangui, & affini. Nō debet. the Canon lawe is not my profession. But what saith he? Hodie ex simplici fornicatione Clericus non deponitur: for simple fornication now a daies [Page] a Clerke is not deposed. Why M. Iewel, this speaketh but of the practise that thē was, and your promise was to shew vs, where it was decreed, you forgete your selfe pardie.
Fornication pounished in the Clergie.
But sir vnderstand you, what in the Canon Lawe is meant by depositiō? Deposition what it is. If ye think, it is nothing els, but a Priest to be remoued from his cure, for, so you take it: you are deceiued. For it is a farre more greuous pounishment. Deposition by the definition of the Canonistes, is a remouing of a Clerke from the ministerie of the Aulter for euer. Panormitane by you alleged saith, that now a daies a Clerke is not deposed for simple fornication, as in olde time indistinctly he was deposed. As you finde in cap. A multis. Extra de aetate & qualita ordinand. Yea (saith he) in olde time euery mortal sinne was thought worthy of Depositiō. Distinct. 4 ca. erit aūt lex. By Panormitane, a Priest cōmitting simple fornication, is pounished otherwise, then by Deposition, diuersly in diuers respectes. For the whiche you are referred to the chapter, At si Clerici. Extra. De iudic. Where he treateth more fully of this mater, and as it were of purpose. There shal ye finde, how he is to be pounished.
Canone Apost. 25. C. Maximinianus. 81. dist. & alijs capitibus eo tit. Deposition of tvvo sortes.And here to saie somewhat therof for the better instruction of the Reader, In the Canons of the Apostles it is plaine, and also in diuers other olde Canons, that, as for theafte, periurie, and other crimes, so for fornication, a Clerk, of what order so euer he were, should be deposed.
Deposition is of two sortes: the one, which is solemne, and with terrour, when not only by sentence, a Clerke is depriued of his holy Orders (though the character yet remaine, but vnprofitable to the executiō of holy Orders) but also in deede and actually his head is shauen, his sacred [Page 70] ornamentes takē away, and then him selfe turned into laie apparel, as Cranmar, and Ridley were in Oxford. This kind of Deposition, is properly called Degradatio, Degradatio. which is not vsed, but when the offenders faulte is so great, that he is to be deliuered to the secular power, to be pounished,C. Nouimus ext. de verb. signif. &c. 1. de haereticis. libro. 6. Depositio properly. executed, or to be walled vp for euer. The other kinde of Deposition is, which is done only by sentence without actual Degradation: and that is called properly Depositio, the whiche is here meant.
They that were thus by only sentēce, though not actually, deposed frō the Clergie for their notorious and outragious offences, were greuously pounished. First, it was a great losse to lose their Orders, and dignitie of the Clergie. Then also they lost al their spiritual liuinges, and offices, and al priuileges of Clerkes. Besides this, they were without al hope to be restored againe to the ministerie.C. 1. cum 11. capit. seq. dist. 5 [...]. And withal, they were condemned to some streight Cloister, there al their liues long to lamente, and bewaile their offence, and so to doo penance:C. Sacerdos cum. c. seq. 81. dis. But they might receiue the blessed Sacramēt of the body of Christe, except they were stubborne, and would not obey the sentence.
But sometimes in the Canons, to be deposed, signifieth,Dicto Can. Apost. 25. to be depriued of Ecclesiastical liuinges, or to be suspended from execution of holy orders for a time. Howbeit, it is not oft so takē, but in the two significations aforesaid, for depositiō frō holy Orders by sentēce, or, for Degradatiō.
And no marueile though the old Canōs of the Apostles and decrees of auncient Fathers did so greuously pounish the Clergie for fornicatiō, theaft, periurie, and other mortal sins. For in the primitiue Church, whē the Sūne of Iustice was vp at mid day, and deuotiō hote, sin was so much [Page] abhorred, and pounished, that to the very laie people that were Christians, seuen yeres penance was wonte to be enioined and decreed by the lawe for euery mortal sinne.C. hoc ipsū 33. q. 2. &c. praedicā dum in Glosa. 22. q. 1. Distin. 34. C. fraternitatis. Ita decretum est in Concilio Laodicēsi. Item in Carthaginensi. 3. & in 8. synodo, vt in Gratiano .c. his qui cum 4. ca. ibi sequēt. 26. q. 7. &c. mensurā de poenitē. dist. 1. C. prasbyter. 82. dis. But in processe of time, as the Deuotion and heate of Christian zeale decreased, and the multitude of sinnes, and sinners increased: so these streight pounishementes, and penances were mitigated. For as Pope Pelagius saith, Quamuis multa sint quae obseruari Canonicae iubet sublimitatis authoritas, tamen defectus nostri temporis, quo non solùm merita, sed corpora ipsa hominum defecerunt, districtionis illius non patitur manere censuram. Although there be many thinges, whiche the high authoritie of the Canons commaundeth to be obserued, yet the defecte of our time is suche, in whiche not onely the merites, but also the very bodies of men be decaied, that it wil not beare the censure of that olde streightnes to continue in force. Therefore al penance in secrete Confession was at length referred to the arbitriment, and iudgement of the glostly Father, who should consider the contrite harte of the sinner, and his weaknes, and other circunstances, and so enioine him suche penance, as he thought sufficient.
And also withal, this open pounishement of deposition for the open sinne of fornication in a Clerke, was in Concilio Grangrensi changed into ten yeres penance to be performed after a very streight, and austere māner and forme, as that Councel prescribeth. Which is so streight, that if it were obserued now adaies M. Iewel should haue no cause to cōplaine, that the Canons did fauourably, or to gently pounish fornication in the Clergie. But though euery man ought to doo the best he can to doo satisfaction, and to repente of his sinnes before God: yet in the open gouernement, [Page 71] and publike rule and policie of the world, the lawe must be such, and appoint such thinges, as may be obteined, and obserued of men, and as the people, and time beareth: els it wil be quite contēned, and trodden doune, and be neuer a whit obserued.
The Ciuil lawe doth pounish adulterie with death,L. Gracchus C. de adult. but we see the cōtrarie now euery where. Yea it can not be established now in many Countries, such is the state of the time, and people.Toto tit. de cohab. cler. et mulier. extra. Therfore if the later Canons doo not so seuerely pounish fornication in the Clergie, as the old Canons did: we must rather beare it, and lament it, then be offended with it, and reprehend it. For such is the state of the time and the worlde, that you maie rather wishe, then establish to any good effect, the rigour of the olde lawes, and statutes both in ciuil, and ecclesiastical rule. But you shal neuer proue, that the Churche winked at fornication in the clergie, or that it did not the best it could at al times, and now doth, to extirpate this vice in euery sorte and degree of menne, and especially in the Clergie, as farre, as possiblie it maie be, and no farther. For suche gouernement, as can not take place in common weales, we wil leaue to M. Iewel, and his companions, who go about with double brasen Canons, and not by ecclesiastical Canōs to reforme the world, as now in Fraunce it appeareth.
Looke and consider,Concil. Tridēt. Sessio 25. c. 14. in decret. reformat. what the Councel of Trent lately decreed against vicious and lewde Priestes, that defile them selues with wemen, and keepe concubines: and you shal wel perceiue, the Church doth al that maie be, as the time now serueth, to pounish and extirpate that foule faulte out of the Clergie, which your Bishoppes, and ministers in England maintaine openly, keping in the face [Page] of the worlde their strompettes vnder the name of wiues, contrarie to their othes, vowes, and solemne professions made to God, and to the world: and yet are they not ashamed, to laie the mainteinance of this vice to the Catholiques charge. Yea some of them be openly knowen, that wil not sticke to come from vnlawful beddes, yea from other mennes wiues, and like sad prophetes steppe into the pulpites, and there raile at the vnchaste life of Priestes, and Votaries, as they cal them.
M. Ievvel. The Apologie parte. 6. cap. 14. Diuis. 1.
The 10. vntruthe.In the Councel of Chalcedon the Ciuile Magistrate condē ned by sentence of his owne mouth, three Bishoppes, Dioscerus, Iuuenalis, and Thalassius, for heretiques, and gaue iudgement, that they should be deposed.
That al these three (saie I) were condemned in that Councel, we finde not. Much lesse, that they were condemned by any Ciuile Magistrate for Heresie, doo we finde. Confut. 315. b. Reade what foloweth in my Confutation. To this M. Iewel maketh his Replie, saying.
Concilij Chalcedō. Actione. 1. pag. 831.These be the wordes pronounced openly in the Councel. Videtur nobis iustum esse, eidem poenae Dioscorum Reuerendū Episcopum Alexandriae, & Iuuenalem reuerendum episcopum Hierosolymorum, & Thalassium reuerendum episcopum Caesariae Cappadociae subiacere, & a sancto Concilio, secundùm regulas,See the Defence. pag. 683. ab episcopali dignitate fieri alienos.
That Dioscorus onely vvas condemned in the Councel of Chalcedon, and that not by the Ciuile Magistrate, but by the Bisshoppes.
This testimonie M. Iewel helpeth you nothing at al. [Page 72] Nay let it be truly englished, and duely considered with the circumstance, and it shal appeare to be quite against you, and al together with vs. And therefore craftily in this place ye forbare to put it in English. It semeth you sawe not the place in the Original, but that you trusted your note booke. For they were not only these three Bishops, of whom it was thought iuste, that they should be condē ned, but also three others, for sixe there be spoken of by name.
For breuities sake,Concil. Chalcedō. Actio. 1. pag. 831. colum. 2. certaine wordes of lesse weight without altering of the true sense leaft out, thus I reporte you truly the wordes of the Councel of Chalcedon. The honorable Iudges, and Senatours said, For asmuche as Flauianus of holy memorie, and the reuerend Bishop Eusebius, are found vniustly deposed: it seemeth vnto vs good right, that Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, Iuuenalis Bishop of Ierusalem, Thalassius B. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Eusebius B. of Ancyra, Eustathius B. of Berytus, and Basilius B. of Seleucia in Isauria, (who were the Captaines and rulers of that Councel at Ephesus, where Flauianus and Eusebius were vniustly deposed) should suffer the same pounishment, & à sancto Cancilio secū dùm regulas ab Episcopali dignitate fieri alienos, asmuche to saie, and that they should be put out of their bishoply dignitie, by the holy Councel according vnto the Canons.
This is no sentence in iudgement pronounced against Dioscorus, and the reste, as M. Iewel taketh it. Those noble laie men said, what to them seemed iuste and right, but by these wordes they gaue not sentence of condemnation, or deposition. They leaue that vnto the Councel by expresse wordes.
A sentence definitiue in iudgement standeth not in [Page] these, or the like wordes, it semeth to me, or, I think it good, &c: But in these, or the like, I pronounce, I condemne, I [...]bsolue, &c. The sentence of Dioscorus condemnation (for he only was cōdemned, al the other bishops were pardoned) was solemnely pronounced in the Councel by Pope Leos Legates, in the name and stede of the Pope. Which thing I haue sufficiently set forth in my Confutatiō,Confutat. pag. 316. where thou shalt finde Reader the sentence of condemnation expressed in English, worde for worde, as it was pronounced in the Councel. And that very sentence is in the Councel. Tomo. 1. Concil. Chalcedon. Actione. 3. pag. 8. Columna. 2.
Againe with what face could M. Iewel allege these wordes, [...]. Euagrius. lib. 2. ca. 4 [...]. Idem lib. 2. cap. 17. to proue, that the Bishoppes were condemned by the Ciuile magistrate, whereas those noble menne them selues said the contrarie, that they iudged it right, they should be depriued of their bishoply dignitie (not by them, or by their sentence, but) à sancto Concilio, of, or by the holy Councel, and that according vnto the auncient Canons of the Churche? Which wordes he might also haue founde fully reported in Euagrius, in two sundrie places: that there was no cause why he should so cōfidētly tel me of the one of those places, as he doth in the Defence pa. 683.
Dioscorus deposed, not by the Ciuil Magistrate, but by the Councel of Chalcedon. Act. 3. pag. 862.After that Dioscorus was condemned, by sentence of Pope Leos Legates, and consequently by al the bishoppes assembled in the Councel, there was a solemne Instrumēt of his condemnatiō made, and sent vnto him. Where these wordes are, by which it is cleare that the Councel condemned him, and not the Ciuile Magistrate by sentence of his owne mouthe, as M. Iewel vntruly reporteth. Cognosce te ipsum, propterea quòd diuinos Canones despexisti, & inobediens extitisti huic sancto & vniuersali Concilio, &c. [Page 73] Octobris mensis praesentis terti [...] decimo die, à sancto & vniuersali Concilio esse ab episcopatu depositum, & ab omni Ecclesiastica fanctione submotum. Bicause thou hast despised the holy Canons, and hast benne disobedient vnto this holy and vniuersal Councel, &c. know thou, that in the thirteenth daie of this present moneth of October, thou art by the holy and vniuersal Councel deposed from thy Bishoprike, and remoued from al Ecclesiastical function. Lo M. Iewel, al this was done, not by the Ciuile Magistrate, but by the Councel.
As for the Ciuile Magistrate, to whom your Gospel committeth al, by report of that Councel, is so farre from condemning Bishoppes by sentence of his owne mouth, that he may not so much as be present at the examinations in such a case. Aske ye of me how I proue it? Looke in that Councel, and ye shal finde these very woordes: Quando quaedam regularia examinantur, ne (que) Iudices, Act. 3. pag. 838. colum. 2. neque alios aliquos Laicos interesse oportet. When certaine regulare matters (that is to say, touching the Canons or rules of life) are in examination, neither Iudges, nor other laie menne must be present.
And as concerning the condemnation of Dioscorus, when it was done, or rather when it was a doing, neither Martianus the Emperour, nor his officers knew of it. For said the Iudges and senatours vnto the Bishops in that Councel,Actio. 4. Pag. 872. colum. 1. Dioscorus à vobis damnatus est ignorante Diuo Vertice, & nobis. Dioscorus hath benne condemned of you, without the knowledge of the Emperours Maiestie, and of vs. Now if he had benne condemned by the ciuile officers, I trow M. Iewel wil not say, that they knew it not. For if they condemned him, they knew it. But they [Page] knew it not,The fiue other Bishops not cōdēned. when he was condemned, ergo, they did not condemne him.
Now touching the other fiue Bishoppes, who with Dioscorus bare al the swaie in that wicked Councel of Ephesus, of whom Iuuenalis was one, and Thalassius an other: It appeareth by the Councel of Chalcedon, that they repented, and reuoked their errour, and so vpon sute made by the Bishoppes for them, were admitted into the Councel, and suffred to continue in their former roumes. After the condemnation of Dioscorus, and signification openly and solemnely made, that al the Bishops agreed together in beleefe, and after they had al subscribed to Dioscorus condemnation, among other ioiful acclamations, that were made according to the auncient manner, this was one,Iunenalis and Thalassius vvere not condēned In the Coūcel of Chalcedō. Actione 4 pag. 872. colum. 2. vttered by the Bishoppes: Ipsi quinque Episcopi fidei subscripserunt. Sicut Leo, sic sapiunt. The fiue Bishoppes them selues haue subscribed to the faith. As Leo (the pope) thinketh and holdeth, so they thinke and hold.
Hereupon the noble Iudges, and Senatours said: Piissimus noster Imperator, &c. Our most godly Emperour vnderstanding your petitions, hath permitted vnto your arbitrement to deliberate of Iuuenalis, Thalassius, Eusebius, Basilius, and Eustachius the reuerend Bishoppes, and to determine what soeuer it shal please you. Your reuerence therfore knowing, that ye haue to make accompt vnto God of these thinges, thinke with your selues, what is to be done with them. Then Anatholius the reuerend B. of Constantinople said: Petimus eos intrare. Our request is, that they may entre into the Councel. Then al the Bishoppes cried, rogamus eos intrare, &c. we praie that they maie come in, who beleeue like as the synode beleeueth, and holde as the synode holdeth. Assint qui subscripserunt epistolae Leonis ad Synodum. Let them be here, [Page 74] that haue subscribed vnto the Epistle that Leo sent vnto the Synode. The Iudges, and Senatours said: Intrēt. Let thē come in. So were they restored, and held their former roumes. And thereupon were made diuers cries in signification of ioy. Thus it is euidēt that Iuuenalis, and Thalassius were not condemned by the Ciuile Magistrate, as M. Iewel saith.
But M. Iewel allegeth Pope Leos Epistle to Anatholius the B. of Constantinople speaking of these Bishoppes, to proue, I cannot tel what.Defence pag. 683. For thereof it can not be gathered, that they were condemned by the ciuile Magistrate. These be the wordes of Leo. De nominibus Dioscori, &c. Touching the names of Dioscorus, Iuuenalis, and Eustathius, Leo epist. 40. ad Anatholiū. not to be rehearsed at the holy Aulter, it becōmeth you to kepe this muche. By these wordes, and the other that folow immediatly, Leo required Anatholi to see, that the names of those Bishops, that had cōsented to Dioscorus, vnto the vniust condēnation of blessed B. Flauianus, should not (as the manner then was) be rehersed at th'Aulter in the time of the Masse among other Catholik Bishops, wherby they were praied for, specially in that Church of Cōstātinople wher Flauianus had ben bishop,Ibidem. that so iniurie should not be donne (saith he) vnto the blessed memorie of Flauianus, and that by so doing, he should not turne awaie the mindes of the Christian people from his owne grace and fauour. For how could the people gladly heare their names rehearsed, in that Churche,Iuuenali [...] not condēned in the Councel of Chalcedō by Vvitnes of Leo Leo ad Iuuenalē epist. 72. by whom the most worthy Bishop of the same Church, was most vniustly condēned, and deposed?
As for Iuuenalis the Bishop of Ierusalē, Leo him selfe in his Epistle vnto him, is a manifest witnes, that he was not cōdēned, but restored againe vnto his Bishoprik. For thus he writeth vnto him among other thinges. Gauisus quidē [Page] sum, quòd tibi ad Episcopatus tui sedem redire licuisset. I reioised that it was made lawful for thee, to returne home againe vnto thy Bishoprike. Againe he saith vnto him eftsones there. In tempore indulgentia resipiscentiam magis, quàm pertinaciā de legisti. In the time when pardon might be obteined, thou hast chosen amendement, rather then stubbornesse.
Thus I haue sufficiently proued, that the six Bishops (M. Iewel not hauing sene the Original, but trusting to an others note, as it seemeth, nameth but only three) were not condemned of the ciuile Magistrate, by sentence of his owne mouth, but that Dioscorus, and not one els was condemned and deposed, not by lay Magistrates, who gaue place to the Bishops in that case, as I haue before declared: but by sentence of the Popes Legates, and by the Councel it selfe.
Now bicause M. Iewel taketh me vp very roundely in his pretensed Defence, as if he had gotten a great cōquest against me, whereas after a huge number of shamelesse Vntruthes, he chargeth me with many Vntruthes: I wil here by waie of a briefe dialogue answere him, reporting his wordes none otherwise, then he him selfe hath vttered them speaking vnto me in his booke.
Novve, shortly to consider the vvhole substance of your tale first, ye say, these three Bishops, Dioscorus, Iuuenalis, and Thalassius, vvere neuer condemned in the Councel of Chalcedon:M. Iewels obiection of Vntruthes ansvvered. This ye see is one vntruth.
Harding.
In deede I see it, and graunt it to be an Vntruth: But of your parte M. Iewel, not of mine. For as now ye see it [Page 75] by me sufficiently prooued, onely Dioscorus the B. of Alexandria was condemned, and that by the Councel, not by the Ciuile Magistrate, as you vntruly affirme. Iuuenalis, Thalassius, and the other three, in consideration of their submission, and agreeing in beleefe vnto the Councel, were pardoned, admitted into the Councel, and restored vnto their former roumes, and dignities.
Secondly, ye saie the Ciuile Magistrate, neuer condemned them. This is an other vntruthe.
Harding.
True it is, it is an other Vntruthe. But it is yours, not myne. For in deede (as I haue before proued) the Ciuile Magistrate did not condemne them, but the Councel of Bishoppes condemned Dioscorus onely. This being true, it followeth that your contrarie saying is an Vntruthe.
Thirdly, ye saie, Iunenalis, and Thalassius vvere rebuked for fitting as iudges in Councel, vvithout the Popes authoritie. These are tvvo other vntruthes.
Harding.
Ye are rise of your Vntruthes. Of two, I returne one backe vnto you againe. For the reporte you make of my wordes, is vntrue. Looke better in my Confutation, There ye shal finde me to speake otherwise, not determinatly, as you report, but coniecturally thus.Confutat. fol. 316. a They might wel haue rebuke for misusing them selues in the seconde Councel at Ephesus, where they sate like Iudges without authoritie of the See of Rome. Al this considered, with that [Page] I haue declared before touching this whole matter, l [...] the indifferent reader iudge, yea one of your owne secte being learned, if he wil take the paines to vewe, and conferre al that I haue here written with the place in your pretensed Defence, whether I had not iust cause to saie, as I said in my Confutation, what is Impudencie, what is licenceous lying, what is false dealing, if this be not? If I seeme ouer long Reader in this point, the blame ought to be M. Iewels, whose manifold Vntruthes, and shamelesse shiftes vsed in his Defence to coloure this matter, haue driuen me to vse more prolixitie, then otherwise I woulde haue donne.
After this folow in M. Iewels View of his Vntruthes, six mo Vntruthes, whiche although he hath aduisedly chosen, bothe out of my Reioindre, and out of my Confutation, as the easiest for him to make his answer vnto, and to defende: yet by ought he is hable to saie, he hath not so iustified the leaste, but that he maie yet stande charged. The three vntruthes of the Apologie next folowing be of no great weight I confesse. And therefore I wil not spend time about them. Yet great malice maie lye hidde vnder smal trifles. For the trial of them, I referre the Reader to bothe our bookes.The. 11. The. 12. The. 13. Vntruth. Reioind. fol. 251. b. The Apologie. part. 2 c. 13. d. 1. Apology part. 2. c 1 Diuis. 1. What I said of these wordes, post finem orationum, true it is, and vntrue it is that M. Iewel saith.
Likewise Origen hath, Ille Cibus, that meate, not ille Panis, as M. Iewel vntruly alleged. As for the place of S. Augustine, whiche M. Iewel noteth in his. 13. Vntruthe, whether the worde be Oportet, or Potest, it is doubteful. Bookes of diuers editions haue diuersly. The point which by that place he woulde proue, conteineth heresie. So [Page 76] that though it were not an Vntruth in worde, yet is it a great Vntruthe in sense and meaning.
The olde Councel of Carthage commaunded nothing to be readde in the Congregation, but the Canonical Scriptures. The. 14. Vntruth.
This olde Councel is newly falsified, saie I, by nipping of wordes from the sentēce, that be of great importance, and quite contrarie to that M. Iewel intendeth. For the whole Decree hath these wordes:Concil. Cartag. 3. Cap. 47. Placuit vt praeter Scripturas Canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur, sub nomine diuinarum scripturarum. It hath benne thought good, that nothing be readde in the Churche vnder the name of the holy Scriptures, beside the Canonical Scriptures. It foloweth in the same Decree, Let it be lawful also for the Martyrdomes of Martyrs to be read, when their yerely Feastes are kepte. This Vntruthe M. Iewel by no shifte is hable to excuse. What he bringeth in his Replie out of the Abbridgement of the Councel of Hippo made in the third Councel of Carthage, is to no purpose. For though the Abbridgement saie, that (praeter Scripturas alia non legantur) other thinges be not readde in the Churche beside the Scriptures, yet how that is to be vnderstanded, it is supplied by the Decree of the third Coūcel of Carthage, by those wordes, sub nomine diuinarum scripturarum. So that M. Iewel maie looke to finde no better reliefe in the Councel of Hippo Abbridged, then he founde in that Councel of Carthage. See my Confutation of the Apologie. Fol. 243. a.
The. 15. VntruthThe 15. Vntruth. of the Apologie, which M. Iewel goeth about to make good, standeth altogether vpon a point of the Canon lawe, in what case the Pope committeth [Page] Simonie. I alleged summa Angelica. He in his Repli [...] saith, I vnderstande not my Summa. Bicause the discussion hereof nequireth a large processe, and is not very necessarie in it selfe, nor perteineth specially to our profession: I leaue it to M. Iewelles great lawier to treate of it to the most aduantage, if he haue so muche leisure as to thinke hereof, being him selfe muche encombred poore man with matters of the law about his two wiues, not being yet determined, whiche of them he maie kepe stil, whiche he maie turne awaie. Ye should do wel to amend that disorder M. Iewel.
Touching the. 16. Vntruth,The. 16. Vntruth. I neede to saie litle. It pleased M Iewel of his owne humilitie to acknowledge an errour, whiche I laid not vnto his charge. Certainely whiles he goeth about to trie him selfe a true man, he ladeth him selfe with a more huge burden of Vntruthes, and maketh al menne, that wil lose their time in reading his bookes, witnesses, how, when falsehed is attempted to be defended, lying and falsehed is farther multiplied.
By experience of M. Iewels writinges this muche I finde,VVhat it is to confute. M. Ievvels vvritinges. that to confute him, is no more but to saie, where he saith ought of his owne, that either al is false, or light scoffing stuffe, or otherwise vaine: where he bringeth the sayinges of other menne, wherewith in manner only his bookes be farced, that either muche is true, but impertinent, nor by the Catholiques denied: the reste false, as alleged out of Heretiques, or at lest in some parte aduersaries vnto the vnitie of the Churche, as Bale, Illyricus, Iacobus Andreae, Sleidan, Cassander, Lorichius, and suche others: or by M. Iewels common sleightes falsified, and corrupted, and wrested to an vndue sense, or otherwise [Page 77] not very material, vnprofitable, and not worth the answering. This shal he finde to be most true, who soeuer wil examine the thinges he setteth forth, as I haue. If he mingled some true discourses, with his other vntrue extrauagantes, as other Heretikes cōmonly haue done: our labour of answering should be lesse. Now his vntruthes and impudent Lies be so many, that to confute al, it were labour bothe infinite to the writer, and vnprofitable to the reader.
Towardes the ende of the View of his Vntruthes, at last in a great brauerie he concludeth with the wordes of S. Paule, tanquàm seductores, & ecce veraces. 2. Cor. 6. We are (saith he) called Deceiuers, and yet we saie the truth. But how truly this boaste is made, the Defence of these fewe his Vntruthes by me now answered, doth sufficiently witnesse.
How be it here at length the man remembring him selfe better,In the Defence. B. iij. a. b. beginneth to take some conscience of the matter, and protesteth, that he wil not so warrant euery parcel of any his writing, as though there were nothing therein conteined, that might safely be iustified in al respectes.
What is that then, wherein he acknowlegeth him selfe to haue done vntruly? Let vs see, how muche, and how great it is, for by that we shal take a View of his sinceritie, and of his humilitie. O, saith he,The errours that M. Ievvel maie be induced to acknovvledge in him selfe. If I haue at any time (marke this, if I haue, Reader, for neither this muche wil he confesse simply) mistaken Authour for Authour, or name for name, or Chapter for Chapter, or booke for booke, or any one Father, or Doctour for an other: suche erroures were neuer hitherto accompted damnable. Yea the best learned haue oftentimes fallen into them. Doest thou not see reader [Page] what great errours, and ouersightes this man, with his (If) confesseth to be in his writing? As though we found that onely faulte in him (whiche maie happen to any writer by ouersight, be he neuer so diligent) and not other great Vntruthes, corruptions, falsifyinges, lyes, and sclaunders, that by no colour can be excused? What many of them be, hereafter thou shalt see in this processe.
August. in Psal. 33. Cōcione. 1. The great faultes. that M. Ievvel findeth in my bookes.Now to requitte me, he laieth certaine great crimes to my charge: As that in alleging this saying of S. Augustine, Christus ferebatur in manibus suis, I leafte out (as he saith) this worde, quodammodo. That in an allegation I name Iosue for Osee. that there is founde in the margent of my booke, where Socrates is alleged, lib. 8. (whiche faulte was the printers) whereas Socrates neuer wrote but 7. bookes. Item that in the margent the printer hath put Luc. 2. for Luc. 22. and in the texte, [...]: with whiche ouersightes I maie reasonably, and truly charge the Printers Compositours, and discharge my selfe, for at al times I attende not vpon the printe my selfe: and though I had, yet suche smal faultes might wel haue escaped me, though I had as many eyes, as the poetes feine of Argus. So of myne owne accorde I confesse (whereat M. Iewel maketh no litle adoo, as thoughe it were a hainous offence) that, where I speake of Henrie the fourth Emperour, and his sonne Henrie the fifth, the compositour by ouersight and negligence hath sette for Henrie the sonne against Henrie the fourth, Henrie the seconde against Henrie the fourth. [Page 78] For in that place,See the Defence pag. 418. See the Confutat. fol. 187. b. M. Ievvel in the Vievv of Vntruthes. B. 3. b whereas M. Iewel demaundeth this question, Who put in armes the Sonne against the Emperour his Father Henrie the fourh? I answer in my Confutation with these wordes, It was not the Pope, that armed Henrie the sonne, against Henrie the fourth. For it had ben absurde in reason, and nature, to make Henrie the seconde sonne to Henrie the fourth. There needed not so great a Tragedie to be made for reproufe hereof.
Touching the pretensed leauing out of the worde Quodammodo, out of S. Augustines saying,Iudge reader of M. Iewels truthe by the truth in this pointe. thus he aggrauateth the matter.
That in alleging of Liberatus I leafte out this worde quodammodo, it was onely an errour. For why I should of purpose doo it, there was no cause: specially that worde bearing in that place Ye as si [...] in that place the vvorde beareth great vveight, and could not be leafte out, but vvith foule corruption. no greater weight. But M. Harding alleging these wordes of S. Augustine, Christus quodammodo ferebatur in manibus suis, not of errour, but, as it maie be thought, of set purpose, leafte out, Quodammodo, as knowing, that in that one worde rested the meaning of the whole.
How iustly M. Iewel excuseth him selfe, and accuseth me, for leauing out this worde, Quodammodo.
To this I aunswere.M. Ievvel in the Replie. pag. 287. That you for your parte haue falsified Liberatus Maister Iewell, you can not choose but Confesse. That ye didde it by onely [Page] errour, and ouersight, and not of set purpose, he that knoweth you as we knowe, that be now acquainted with your humour, can neuer beleeue it. And whereas ye saie,Liberatus cap. 13. that the worde, quodammodo beareth smal weight in that place of Liberatus, the Circumstance of the place, and the storie of the time must needes conuince you.See the Returne. Fol. 155. a. & in sequent. Which thing hath benne already tolde you largely, plainely, and truly, by M. Stapleton in his Returne of Vntruthes, whiche you dissemble, as if you went inuisible, and were not espied for an Author of suche fowle Vntruthes. Ye shal neuer be hable to scoure suche spottes out of your cote.
M. Ievvel most impudently belieth bothe S. Augustine, and me touching this vvorde, Quodammodo.Wel, yet ye thought to excuse this your falsehed, by obiecting the like vnto me. But Sir, what if whiles ye go about to excuse your selfe, you shewe your selfe worthy to be accused, bothe of me, and of S. Augustine too? If S. Augustines wordes be as I alleged them, then who hath belied me? who hath belied S. Augustine? Go to S. Augustine good reader, and thou shalt finde the wordes truly by me alleged, and quodammodo not by any falshed leafte out at al, for in that place from whence I tooke his testimonie, the worde is not: nor in any parte of that Sermon, which I quoted. See the first Concion vpon the. 33.August. in Psal. 33. Concione. 1. sub finē. psalme. There he saith thus. Et ferebatur in manibus suis. Hoc verò fratres quomodo posset fieri in homine, quis intelligat? Quis enim portatur in manibus suis? Manibus aliorum potest portari homo, manibus suis nemo portatur. Quomodo intelligatur in ipso Dauid secundùm literam non inuenimus, in Christo autē inuenimus. Ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis, quando commendans ipsum corpus suum, Math. 26. ait, Hoc est corpus meum. Ferebat enim illud [Page 79] corpus in manibus suis, &c. And he was carried in his handes? This brethern how it might be done in man, who can vnderstande? For who is borne in his owne handes? With the handes of others a man may be borne, with his owne handes no man is borne.Christe at his supper vvas carried and borne in his ovvn handes. How it maie be vnderstanded in Dauid him selfe according to the letter we finde it not, but in Christe we finde it. For Christe was carried in his owne handes, at what time commending his owne body it selfe (vnto his disciples) he said, This is my body. For he bore that body in his owne handes, &c.
This testimonie M. Iewel doth directly ouerthrow your doctrine of the Sacramentaries,A cleare testimonie for the Real presence. and teacheth vs Christes body to be really, and in deede present in the most blessed Sacrament. For if that substance, which is in the Sacrament after consecration, were but a signe, a token, or a figure of Christes body, as they of your secte, and you doo teache: what cause is there, why S. Augustine should make so great, so straunge, and so wonderful a thing of it? For if it were but the figure of Christes body that he helde in his hande, when he said, this is my bodie: what wonder was it? Dauid of whom there he speaketh, could haue done that, yea what is that man, that can not beare the figure of his bodie in his handes? But S. Augustine saith, that Christe did beare his owne body in his handes, when at the Supper he commended it vnto his disciples, sayng, this is my bodie. Which thing neither Dauid, nor any man could euer doo. And here consider Reader, how S. Augustine speaketh, as if it were of purpose, to take awaie al occasion of cauil from suche heretiques, as should denie the real presence, whiche M. Iewel doth. [Page] The bodie, that Christ commended and gaue vnto his disciples, was (saith S. Augustin) ipsum corpus suum, his owne bodie it selfe: with which vehemēcie of expresse speache he excludeth al such Tropes, Figures, Significations, Remembrances, and Energies, as do derogate from the real presence. And that bodie (illud corpus, saith he) Christ did beare in his handes. Which was miraculous, and aboue the power of Dauid, or any other man.
Thus we see clearely, that, where S. Augustine speaketh of the truth, and real presence of Christes bodie, borne of Christ in his owne handes, he speaketh plainely, and precisely without this worde, Quodammodo. But in an other Sermon, where he speaketh not specially of his bodie being verily borne in his handes, but how, and after what manner it was borne in his handes: there to signifie the secretnes of the Diuine Mysterie, he vseth this word, Quodammodo. August. in Psalm. 33. Concio. 2. For hauing demaunded this question, Quomodo ferebatur (Christus) in manibus suis, How was Christ borne in his owne handes? touching the manner, thus he answereth: Quia quum commendaret ipsum corpus suum, & sanguinem suum, accepit in manus suas, quod norunt fideles, & ipse se portabat quodammodo cum diceret, hoc est corpus meum. For when he commended (and gaue vnto his disciples) his owne bodie it selfe, and his owne bloude, he tooke into his handes, that, which the Faithful do know, and he him selfe did beare him selfe after a certaine manner, when he said, this is my bodie. In which saying the worde, quodammodo, asmuche to saie, after a certaine manner, doth not withdrawe our minde from beleefe of the true presence of the bodie borne in Christes handes, but from conceiuing a carnal, cōmon, and grosse manner [Page 80] of bearing, suche as we see, when we beholde nourses bearing their children. Now, as it is euident by the order of the wordes in my Answer Ansvver to your Chalenge,fol. 108. b. I alleged not this place of S. Augustine, out of the second Sermon, but that other former place, out of the first Sermon vpon the .33. Psalme.
Thus are you clearely confuted, and eftesones charged with a double Vntruth, for leauing out the worde Quodammodo, out of Liberatus, wherein the chiefe weight of the matter there spoken of lyeth, and for charging me with your owne peculiar faulte of corrupting S. Augustines saying by taking away the worde, quodammodo, where that holy Doctour hath it not.
So then by this View of your Vntruthes, we haue a perfite View, that Vntruthes can not be defended, but with a multiplying of newe Vntruthes. Wherefore the fewer suche Defences ye write, with the fewer Vntruthes shal ye peister the worlde.
The Seconde Booke conteineth a Detection of certaine Lies, Cauilles, Sclaunders, and of suche other vntrue matter, vttered by M. Iewel in the first parte of the Defence.
The first Chapter.
IT is not reason gentle Reader, thou shouldest require at my handes a ful answere to euery parte and parcel of the huge booke, that M. Iewel hath set out in Defence (as he pretēdeth) of th'Apologie. The labour should be wearisome, the time long, the charges great: that neither I perhappes should haue habilitie to print it, nor thou liste to bye it. And when al were done, though many good thinges should be vttered, yet the more part would not be worth the reading. For whereas he heapeth together somuch (al in manner out of other writters) which is either vtterly impertinent, and such, as being in it selfe true, neither reliueth his cause, nor weakeneth ours, or is wrested to a meaning quite contrarie to that the authours had whence it is taken, or al together falsified by one corruption or other: and what he bringeth of his owne (which in respecte of the rest is very litle) is either false in sense, or light in the scorneful manner of vtterance, or a mere wrangling, or briefly otherwise vain and friuolous: al this being so, as by this Detection it shal sufficiently appeare: if a iuste, and particular answere were made vnto it, whiche of necessitie must amounte to a farre greater quātitie, then the Defence it selfe is of: any man of iudgement [Page 81] can soone conceiue, how vnfruitefully good houres should be bestowed in reading it ouer. Wherefore if I so applie my labour, as the thinges of least weight being past ouer, the chiefe pointes, or the greatest parte of the chief pointes of M. Iewels Defence be refuted, and the necessarie truthe clearely confirmed, and that with conueniēt spede: I trust I shal seme to haue donne that, which in this case, and in this state of time, at my handes was to be looked for. Leauing then many other vnnecessary thinges obiected by M. Iewel against the Catholique Churche, let vs heare the woorst he hath not benne a shamed to saie, and first in the first parte.
The Manicheis forbad lavvful marriage, and allovved fornication,In quaest. in No. Tes. q. 72. as M. Hardinges Catholiques doo novve. So saith S. Augustine of them, Nuptiarum aditus intercludunt, & promiscuè conuenire hortantur.
Harding.
You sclaunder vs M. Iewel most vniustly, and impudently. The Catholiques neuer forbad lawful marriage.Fornication in a Clerke neuer allovved, but alvvaies punished, though diuersly, accordīg to diuersitie of times. And it is knowen to al the worlde, that Fornication was neuer allowed in the Catholique Churche at any time, or age. For this, your weake proufes are out of Panormitane, and other Canonistes. Panormitane speaking of his time, saith, that fornication in the Clergie was not pounished then, so greuously, as in olde time. This proueth not that it was then allowed. Though a Clerke be not pounished for fornication with Deposition, whiche is a perpetual remouing from the ministerie of the Aulter: yet he might be pounished, and was to be pounished otherwise, [Page] as with Suspension, or D [...]priuation, and with other me [...] nes at the discretion of the Ordinarie. Now the truth is Panormitane teacheth not, that a Clerke is not to be pounished for Fornication at al: but that he is not to be pounished with Deposition indistinctè, indistinctly, as the austeritie of the Primitiue Church required, when Clerkes were generally deposed for euery mortal sinne without distinction. How, and in what sorte, a Clerke is now to be pounished for fornication,In Cap. At si clerici. Extrà de Iudic. Panormitane sheweth at large, where he speaketh thereof purposely, as I haue before declared, in my Answere to the View of Vntruthes, in the. 9. Vntruthe. fol. 69. a.
August. in Quaest. in Nouum Testam. quast. 72.Againe the Manicheis by your pretensed proufe out of S. Augustine, Nuptiarum aditus intercludunt, & promiscuè conuenire hortabantur, excluded al men from marriage generally, and exhorted their followers to vse carnal dealing together one with an other in common, without distinction of al degrees of personnes. For so signifieth the Latine worde, promiscuè. But who seeth not this excedingly to passe simple Fornication? And to exhorte men and weemen to suche abominable Bauderie, who seeth it not to passe without al comparison, the not most extrem [...] pounishing of Bauderie? Beholde reader, how immoderatly M. Iewel sclaundereth vs.
M. Harding saith: The scriptures vvere falsified, and ful of errours.
Harding.
The 2. Chapt.What so euer the Manicheis haue said, with whom you [Page 82] compare vs, we might wel saie, the Scriptures haue benne corrupted by your false Translatiōs into vulgare tongues: but that the Scripture it selfe were ful of errours, neither I, not any Catholique man euer said it.
These wordes M. Iewel hath caused to be printed in that letter,False and sclaunderous reporte. in whiche my wordes of the Confutation be set out. He noteth in the margent thus, M. Harding. fol. 220. b. Looke gentle Reader in the said leafe of my Confutation (for thereof he meaneth) and certainely thou shalt find no suche wordes at al. If I haue either there, or elles where vttered these wordes, let me neuer haue credite in thy iudgement. In deede, whereas in that place the Author of the Apologie burdeneth the Catholiques with burning the holy Scriptures, and for the same compareth them with wicked king Aza, with Antiochus, with Maximinus, and with Herode: moued with iust zele, among other thinges, thus thereto I saie.
‘Why saie you of vs in general, that is to saie, of the Catholique Churche, that we despise, hate, cast away, and burne the holy scriptures? Had we not loued and kepte the scriptures, how could you and your fellowes haue come by them? Had ye not them of vs? From the Apostles time to this daie we haue kepte them vnspotted and vndefiled, and ye within these fifty yeres haue by your vulgare translations corrupted them, that lamentable it is to consider. And when we burned the same corrupt translations, or any parte thereof, or any of your heretical treatises, we burned not the Scriptures, no more then one doth the Apple tree, that burneth the Caterpillers. The Scriptures we honour, and kepe most reuerently, and diligently.’
Therefore your comparing of vs with the wicked kinges Aza, Antiochus, Maximinus, and Herode, is false and sclaū derous.
Reade the reste that foloweth there good Reader, and if thou wilt iudge, as thou findest, and saie, as thou iudgest, and write that thou maist truly saie: M. Iewel shalbe said to be a false sclaunderer, and regestred in the booke of lying sclaunderers.
As for Iohn VViclef, Iohn Hus, VValdo, and the rest, they vvere godly men, their greatest heresie vvas this, that they complained of the dissolute, and vitious liues of the Clergie, of vvorshipping of Images, of feined miracles, of the tyrannical pride of the Pope, of Monkes, Friers, Pardons, Pilgrimages, and Purgatorie, and other like deceiuing, and mocking of the People: and that they vvished a reformation of the Churche.
Harding. That Wiclef mainteined sundrie hainous Heresies.
The. 3. Chapt.Beside these heresies whiche you accompte for none M. Iewel, they had sundry other farre greater. As for example: Among the Articles of Wiclef condemned in the Councel of Constance,Art. 4. this was one: That if a Bishop, or a Priest be in deadly sinne, he doth not order, consecrate, Lib. 1. cō tra Petilianū. ca. 1. Art. 6. Art. 10. nor baptise. This was the plaine heresie of the Donatistes, as it appeareth by S. Augustine. Item, that God ought to obey the Deuil. Item, that it is against the Scripture, that Ecclesiastical Ministers shoulde haue any temporal possessions. If this be no greater heresie then the [Page 83] reste M. Iewel, then allowe it, as you allowe the reste. But the gaine is to sweete: you can not brooke it.
Item, that no man is a temporal Lorde, Art. 15. no man is a Prelate, no man is a Bishop, whiles he is in mortal sinne. If ye make this no Heresie, then ye denie the Queene to be Queene of England, when so euer she falleth into Mortal sinne. And whereas by your doctrine, ye make euery sinne mortal, vtterly reiecting the distinction of venial sinnes, the Quene, as no man elles, lyuing not without sinne: What meane you by this doctrine, to allowe her in this case for no Quene of England? She is muche beholden vnto you.
Item by Wiclef the common people maie at their arbitriment correcte their Lordes, when they doo amisse. Art. 17. If you, and your fellowes wil allowe this for a true Doctrine, and preache it in your Pulpites lustily, ye shal like the people ioilily, and wel: and thereof doubtelesse wil followe suche order, and obedience, as becommeth your Gospel, and as Satan the Authour of it, shalbe pleased withal. Suche the like, and worse, were the Heresies of Huss, and Waldo. These Articles, and many other were recorded both in the general Councel of Constance,Cōcil. Cō stant. Sess. 8. pag. 96. and in your felowe Fox in his booke of the Deuilles Martyrs.
But touching Iohn Hus, sith ye make him so godly a man, and so voide of al Errours, and Heresies, how wil you defend him for that so commonly he said Masse, whereat ye enueigh and raile so muche?Masse said by Hus. Looke in the Teutonical historie of the Councel of Constance, written by one Huldrick Reichental Citizen of Constance, and ye shal finde by him reported, who liued [Page] at that very time, and marked wel, what happened [...] those daies, that Iohn Hus oftentimes said Masse in his hostes house during the time of his abode in Constance, and that the people came much vnto it. Itaque Dominica Oculi quae tertia est in Quadragesima, In histor. Teutonica de Concil. Costātien. vbi celebrasset Missam mane, &c. When he had said Masse (saith he) in the Sundaie named Oculi, whiche is the third Sundaie in Lent. And this did Hus, not onely before he had read the Bookes of Wiklef, by whiche he was carried awaie into an other Gospel, but also at the ende of his life, euen a litle before for his detestable heresies he was burnte, as it is at large reported by the said Reichental and witnessed by Ioannes Cochlaeus lib. 2. De Historia Hussitarum.
The 4. chapt.Pag. 11. In the matter of planting the faith among the Britaines, and the English, M. Iewel telleth vs againe a longe tale, which he tolde vs before in his Replie, the vntruthes whereof are already largely, and specially, confuted in the Returne of vnthruthes vpon his Replie,M Ievvel dissēbleth al ansvvere made to his vntruthes. Art. 3. pag. 124. & sequent. Wherein he dissembleth vtterly al answer made thereunto, though it be wel knowen, that he hath seene the said Returne, and that he had one with the first presented vnto him at Oxforde, at what time the Quenes Matie was there in progresse. In that page he belieth extremely Theodoritus, S. Augustine the Apostle of the English nation sclaū dered by M. Ievvel vnder the name of Golfridus Monemuthensis. Nicephorus, and Galfridus of Mounmouth, sclaundering immoderately vnder Golfridus name, our blessed Apostle S Augustine. See the Returne pag. 30.
In the page following he belieth Beda twise: first applying that to the English menne, which he spake of the Britaines, namely of 7. Bishoppes, and one Archebishop, [Page 84] &c. For what soeuer he telleth vs of the Queene, King Ethelbertes wife, who being a Frenche woman liued in the exercise of her Religion, that she was Christened in among the Christian people of Fraunce: certaine it is, that our English Nation (of whom in my Answer to his Chalenge, I spake, and not of the Britaines) were not Christiās, before S. Augustine came, sent by S. Gregorie frō Rome.
Secondly he belieth Beda, in saying as out of his ecclesiastical storie, that the Christians of our Countrie vtterly refused to receiue this newe Apostle with his religion. For Bede speaketh only of the Britaine or welshe Bishoppes, but nothing so muche as M. Iewel fableth.
They refused to obey him as their Archebishop, they refused not his religion. They were also in many pointes Schismatikes, as Bede in the same place recordeth, whom M. Iewel here so commendeth. See Bede either in Latine, or in English lib. 2. cap. 2. The matter is of right good importance, and worthy to be tried.
Pag. 12.The 5. Chapt. The iudgement of Constantine the great in a cause Ecclesiastical betwen Cacilianus, and Donatus à Casis nigris he reneweth againe,M. Ievvel in the Defence repeteth againe the old stuffe of his Replie in many pointes, as if the same were not ansvvered. vtterly dissembling the Answer made thereunto in the Returne. Art. 4. pag. 105. & sequēt.
Pag. 14. He bringeth in againe the commō obiections against the Real Presence, out of Tertullian, and S. Augustine dissembling vtterly, that those obiections are answered, and fully soluted by M. D. Saunder in his 7. booke of the supper of our Lord, partly also by me in my Answer. And so doth he in this pretensed Defence repete his olde stuffe, whiche he laid forth in his Replie before, as if the same had not benne already answered, and confuted.
VVe neuer armed the people, nor taught them to rebel for Religion against the Prince. If any thing hath at any time happened othervvise, it vvas either some vvilful rage, or some Fatal furie. It vvas not our Co [...] sel, it vvas not, our Doctrine.
Harding. That the Professours of this new Gospel haue stirred the people to Rebellions.
A notorious Vntruthe in sight of al menne.This is a famous and an euident vntruthe controlled by the bloudy practises, yea and by printed writinges of your owne Brethren the Caluinistes. It is notoriously knowen and manifest, that of late in Valencenes two Ministers of your religion were at great variance in the towne about this point,Variance of opiniō betvven tvvo Ministers of Valencenes, vvhiles it vvas besieged. at what time the gates were shutte, and king Philippes armie laie in siege before the walles. The one preached and taught, that they did wel, and lawfully, to rebel for Religion against their Prince. The other thought it could not be defended for lawful by Gods worde. And therefore these two being afterwarde taken, the towne being conquered, the one was hanged, and broken, the other but hedded. And here M. Fox might haue stuffe to encrease his Martyrologe.Christopher Goodmā. M. Christopher Goodman in his booke, How to obey, or disobey, Pag. 204. commendeth, as lawful, the Rebellion of Wyat, and calleth them plainely Traitours, whiche tooke no parte with Wyat.
Iohn knox of Scotland.What Iohn Knox that Fierbrande of Scotland hath written, and done, to whose eares by publique fame is it not come?
In Tournay likewise not long agoe,The Ministers of Tournay. Poltrot persuaded by Beza to kil the Duke of Guise. See the Cōfession of Poltrote. Itē Claudius de Saincts in Responsione ad Apologiam Beza. Luther. Tomo. 6. Germanico. fo. 602 the Ministers did not only counsel the Citie to rebel, but also tooke the whole Gouernement, and administration of Ciuil matters into their owne handes.
That Theodore Beza counselled, and persuaded Poltrot that wretched Caitife, to murder the noble Duke of Guise, his Princes Captaine General, not only Poltrot cō fessed it, but Beza him selfe craketh, and reioiseth thereof, and defendeth the facte, partly in a litle booke made for that very purpose, partly in his Preface vpon Esaie.
Luther expressely in a booke De seculari potestate, whiche he made in the yere of our Lorde. 1523. and is extant in his workes, laboureth to proue by Scripture, that among Christians there ought to be no superiour power, or Magistrate. And in an other booke made a litle before his death Anno. 1545. intitled thus: Ad Electorem Saxoniae, & Lantgrauium Hessiae D. Martin. Lutherus de Captiuo Brunsuicensi, prouoketh subiectes to fight against their Prince for Religion, and saith of subiectes, they do tempt God, whiche vse not their weapons, when they may.
See the Apologie of Staphylus. Melanchton, in libello ad Bohemos & Silesios, stirred the Bohemians to rebellion.Melāchthon. He also in the yere. 1548. wrote openly against the Emperour Charles the fifth, in the time of the rebellion of Saxonie, and Hesse, as witnesseth Illyricus in Informatione sua de quibusdam Articul. parte. 3. fol. 129. 137. & sequent.
The Nobles and Commons there (that is in Scotland) neither drevve the svvorde, nor attempted force against the Prince.
Harding.
What is a lie, if this be none? I praie you good Syr, are you onely a straunger in these matters? When in the daies of the late King there the Queenes husband, the said Quene and her husband were for a time daily in the fielde, and in armes against some of their Nobles, was there none then in Scotland, that attempted force against her? Was al that armie assembled, and in field, to fight with the ayre, or to keepe crowes from the corne? When the Lorde Hambleton,Hambleton, and Lorde Iames of Scotland. and the L. Iames with others fled, some into England, some into Fraunce, was there none of her Nobles, or Commons, that had attempted force against her? When (during the Quenes absence in Fraunce) they ouerthrewe Churches, and Monasteries, attempted not they force against the prince, whose plaine commaundement was to the contrarie?
The Quenes Secretarie slaine vvithout force by M. Ievv.When her Secretarie was by force taken from her, and outragiously murdered with in her hearing, when she with her husband by night was faine to flee vnto the Castle of Dumbar, when at an other time she was driuen to retire to Edinburg in great haste, not without daunger passing through waters without any staie, where she lost Arture one of her most trusty seruantes,Arture drowned was there in al these matters no force attempted against the Quene, neither by her Nobles, nor by the Commons? What hath happed sithence, I neede not to speake. Time shal trie, how vntrue it is that you saie. Thinke you that such grosse and palpable lies maie euer be defended? Then tel vs,VViate. that Wyate rebelled not against Queene Marie, as your brother Christopher Goodman saith in deede: that [Page 86] the Gues here in the Low Countrie,The Gue [...] of the Lovv Countrie no Rebelles by M Ievvel neither the Huguenotes of Frāce. namely they of the towne of Valencenes, and they of Tournay, and others haue not rebelled against king Philip, nor the Huguenotes vnder the Prince of Conde in Fraunce, against their liege Soueraine the French King. Yea and then tel vs, the Snowe is blacke, and the Crowe is white. But I praie you M. Iewel, if they attempted not force against their Prince, what did they? You say.
They sought only the continuance of Gods vndoubted Truth.
Harding.
Put the case they did so: And let open Heresie stande ones for Gods truth. Was that a lawful, and commendable meane to seeke it by? Beholde, though before you denied, they attempted any thing against the Prince, yet now you defende their disobedience, saying:
The Subiecte is bound to obey his Prince:Rebelliō against Princes defended by M. Ievvel. Act. 5. Psal. 118. Hovvbeit not in al thinges vvithout exception, but so farre as Gods glorie is not touched. These Nobles had learned of S. Peter, It is better to obey God, then man: And of the prophete Dauid, Better it is to truste to God, then to truste in Princes.
Harding. S. Peter by this saying teacheth vs not to rebel against the Prince for maintenance of Religion.
Had these Nobles, as you say, learned this lesson?The .6. Chapt. And doth this lesson either of S. Peter, or of the Prophete [Page] Dauid, teache the Subiecte to resiste, and take Armes against his Prince, in case the Prince doth commaund any thing against Gods Truth? I had thought M. Iewel, that the doctrine, whiche teacheth vs to obeye God more then menne, were fulfilled rather by suffering the penaltie of mans lawe, or wil, being contrarie to Goddes Lawe, and wil, then by resisting man put in authoritie by God: as S. Peter, who wrote the foresaid wordes, suffered scourging,Act. 5. contumelies, and emprisonment, rather then he would obey the Magistrate commaunding him not to preache, nor teache in the name of Iesus. If the prince commaunde Heresie, or Idolatrie, the waie to obey both God, and the Prince, is, to keepe thee from yelding to Heresie, or committing of Idolatrie, and for Goddes sake to susteine the pounishment, what soeuer the Prince putteth vpon the breakers of his commaundement. For it is two thinges, and much different, to obey the Prince in an vnlawful request, and to take Armes against the Prince.
Round capped MinistersBoth we (God be praised) for the Catholike faith, and your Rounde capped Ministers for their Cappes and Hattes, refuse to obey the Quenes Maiesties commaundement,The Prīce not to be obeied by M. Iewels Diuinitie, vvhen Gods cause is touched. touching matters of conscience, bicause we knowe right wel, and they pretende to thinke also, that by suche commaundement of the Prince, Goddes glorie is touched. In whiche case you saie M. Iewel, the Prince is not to be obeyed. Yet (God be praised) neither we, nor they doo take Armes, or attempte any force against our Prince, as these Nobles of Scotland haue done. We haue not so learned S. Peters lesson. We haue not so learned to obeye God [Page 87] more then man. But we doo rightly iudge and protest, such demeanure to be an open disobediēce, both to God, and to man. And yet saie you M. Iewel, and that in your booke dedicated for a singular present vnto the Quenes most excellent Maiestie, that these Nobles of Scotland had learned S. Peters lesson? Tel vs in good sooth, if the Catholike Nobilitie, and Commons of England (who take your heresies to be against Gods truthe, as they are in deede) shoulde deale with the Quenes Maiestie for matters of Religion (whiche God forbid) as the Nobles of Scotland haue dealte with their liege Soueraine: would you defende their so doing, by S. Peter, and the prophete Dauid, and saie, that God is more to be obeyed, then man? I perceiue you are so selfe willed, and so addicted to your faction, that if you were a Papiste, you would doo no lesse, and be as ready to helpe suche a matter forwarde in England, as Beza your good brother in Fraunce, as the Gues here in the lowe Countries, and as Knox in Scotland haue benne.
But we openly protest before God, and the worlde, that we condemne, and defie al such attemptes. I meane, that any Subiecte, or Subiectes what so euer, of their owne priuate authoritie, should take Armes against their Prince for matters of Religion. This we doo teache to be plaine disobedience bothe to God, and to the Prince. This haue your Nobles of Scotland done more then once. And therefore you haue done vntruely, and lewdly, I wil not saie traiterously to the preiudice of the Quenes Maiesties owne safetie, in defending them, and in calling their outragious attemptes, suche obedience, as S. Peter taught, which was suche Treason, and Rebellion, as S. [Page] Paule condemneth,Rom. 13. saying, Let euery soule be subiecte to the higher powers. &c.
The Doctours, whom you allege, make clearely against those Nobles,Leo de passione Domini. Serm. 10. whose rebellion you defende. Leo saith, To geue vnto Caesar, that whiche is Caesars, is not to rebel against Caesar, but to helpe Caesar. But your Nobles rebelled against their Prince: Ergo, they gaue not that to Caesar, whiche was Caesars. Againe the Christians, of whom S. Ambrose speaketh,Ambrosius. lib. 5. Epist. 33. said to the Emperour, Rogamus Auguste, non pugnamus: we beseche thee Noble Emperour, we fight not. But your Nobles fought against their Prince, they humbly besought not their Prince.
And yet (ô extreme impudencie) these places you allege to shewe the obedience of those Nobles. After this, as thoughe al the eares of Englande were stopped, and their wittes bewitched, you conclude in this wise.
To conclude, the Queene of Scotland is stil in quiet possession of her estate.
Harding.
And what wil you sticke to saie, or write M. Iewel, whiche doo saie, write, and set out in printe, suche a palpable, and manifest falsehod? Suche (I saie) as euen the very Tankerdbearers of London, and al others of the basest sorte besides, can witnesse against you? What? was not the Queene of Scotland of late imprisoned in her owne realme? And had she not benne in prison, long before your booke came forth? And is a Prince cast in prison by his owne Subiectes, stil in quiet possession of his [Page 88] estate?
What? wil you make vs beleeue, that the Reuerend Fathers, the old and only true Bishoppes of our countrie, are nowe stil in quiet possession of their Bishoprikes, whom al England knoweth to haue susteined emprisonment these eight yeres and more, for their constant profession (Gods holy name be blessed) of Gods Truthe? Goe M. Iewel, and tel this tale in the new founde Ilandes of India. For not only al England, but al Fraunce, Spaine, Germanie, Italie, yea as it maie be thought, a good parte of Turkie it selfe, can controlle you, of this most infamous lye, that the Queene of Scotland is stil in quiet possession of her estate. God keepe you, and your brethren in suche a quiet possession, if ye wil teache the truthe no better, then in this Princes daies ye haue taughte. Yet you adde farther, and saie of the Quene of Scotland.
And shee is obeied of her subiectes, as farre as is conuenient for godly people to obey their Prince.
Harding.
Lo, a Quene being the right prince of a realme, violently, and besides al order of law by her subiectes thrust out of her roial estate, is yet obeied of her subiectes, so farre as is conuenient for godly people to obey their Prince. Then by your doctrine M. Iewel, it is conuenient for godly people, violently to bereue their prince of princely estate, if they like not his Religion: and yet in so doing they obey. Let vs suppose halfe a realme to be Catholiques, whom ye cal Papistes, halfe Protestantes: Shal the Papistes depose their Protestant Prince, shal the Protestant [Page] Subiectes depose their Papist Prince? If ye teache not this, what is that ye teache?
Are not you nowe one of them, that teache Subiectes to take Armes against their Prince? Thus muche and more (whiche I omitte) haue you said of the Quene of Scotland: and yet how promised you, that you woulde saie nothing? Truely it had benne better for you, and more for your honestie, to haue said nothing in deede, and to haue dissembled the whole matter (as you haue done many other special matters, and suche as be of greatest importance in my Confutation) then thus to haue bewraied your traiterous iudgement and minde, touching obedience to princes: and that in a booke dedicated, and offred to be read euen of the Quenes Maiestie her selfe.
Confut. 15. a.Among other thinges thus I saie in my Confutation of the Apologie. It standeth not with Goddes promises made to the Church touching his being with the Church al daies to the worldes ende, and, the holy Ghostes remaining with it, Math. 28. Iohan. 14. the spirite of Truthe for euer, that he should suffer his Churche to continewe in Darkenes, and lacke of Truthe these thousand yeres past, and now at the later daies to reuele the truthe of his Gospel by Apostates, Vowebreakers, Churcherobbers, and suche others most vnlike to the Apostles. Hereunto thus answereth M. Iewel.
You saie, it standeth not vvith Gods promise, to forsake his Churche a thousand yeres. It is muche for you M. Harding, openly to breake Gods cōmaundementes, to defile his holy Sanctuarie, to turne light into Darckenesse, and Darckenesse into light, and yet neuerthelesse to binde him too his promise.
Harding. Goddes promise being infallible, the Churche neuer erreth.
Se [...] good Reader,The. 7. Chapt. how absurdely and wretchedly M. Iewel answereth, to this most euident and inuincible argument taken out of holy scripture. I reason thus: God promiseth, he wil neuer,Math. 28. no not one daie forsake his Churche. Ergo, if he forsooke it a thousand yeres (as these menne tel vs) he broke his promise. M. Iewel answereth by a lewde kinde of Sophistrie, called Petitio principij, Petitio Principij. that is, the bringing forthe for proufe the thing it selfe, whiche he ought to proue, and whiche chiefely lieth in question, and whiche wil neuer be graunted, bicause it can neuer be proued. That thing I saie he bringeth forth for a proufe, and procedeth thereupon, as vpon a matter vndoubted, and graunted. You M. Harding (saith he) haue broken Gods commaundementes, you haue defiled his holy Sanctuarie, &c. Ergo, you ought not to binde God to his promise. This Antecedent, or former proposition is the thing, whiche he shoulde specially haue proued and then in Gods name he might thereof haue cōcluded what he coulde. Now to bring it for proufe, it selfe in respecte of true doctrine being most in question, and vtterly denied by vs, it is a lewde kinde of reasoning.
Againe beholde (good Reader) how he ouerturneth the Argument taken out of Gods worde. I reason thus. God hath promised, his Churche should neuer erre. Ergo it hath not erred these thousand yeres past. he answereth. The Church by our defaulte hath erred. For we (saith he) [Page] haue turned light into Darckenesse, &c. Ergo, God was not bounde to his promise. What meane you M. Iewel? As though God promising that his Churche should not erre, prouided not also suche meanes, whereby to preserue it from errour? As though Gods promise depended of vs, and of our wel doing? As though any power of man, or the worlde, were hable to frustrate Gods promise? As though, if any suche power should haue come (as you imagine the Popes power to haue darckened Christes Gospel) Christe could not, or would not haue foresene it? or, foreseing it, would yet notwithstanding promise, that Al daies he would be with his Churche,Math. 28. Esaie. 59. Iohn. 14. and againe that the spirite of Truthe should assiste it for euer?
Thinke you M. Iewel that Christe our Sauiour forsawe not the Ruine, or Darckenesse of his Churche, of whiche so blasphemously you affirme? Or thinke you, that foreseing such an vniuersal Darckenesse to come, and that for the space of so many hundred yeres together, he would neuerthelesse haue said,The Churches errour of a thousand yeres, and the foreknovvledge of Christ can not stand together, onlesse vve make Christe false of his promise. as he said, and haue so assuredly promised vnto his Apostles, and in them vnto their Successours, the perpetual assistance of the holy Ghoste, the spirite of truthe with his Churche? How could suche foreknowledge of Christe, and suche a promise stand together? Choose M. Iewel which you wil. The one of these you must of necessitie graunte: that either Christe forsawe not the great Darckenesse to come, whiche you saie, you doo see, and so you see more then Christe, God, and man euer sawe, or foresawe: or that Christe promised one thing, and intended to performe an other thing. He promised Al daies, and, for euer, but intended to performe only [Page 90] fiue hundred yeres at the beginning, and after the leape of a thousand yeres, to graunte certaine yeres moe, God knoweth how many. O haynous blasphemie, whereby Christe the Sonne of God, the wisdome of his Father, is proued either to haue ben ignorant of that whiche Protestantes knowe, or elles to haue ben false of his promise.
But what neede many wordes? M. Iewel him selfe immediatly after his former wordes, to his owne condemnation saith: Al menne be liers, but God only is true, Psal. 50. 2. Tim. 2. and preuaileth, when he is iudged. God knoweth his owne, Christe wil be euermore with his Churche, That the light of truth hath not ben put out in the Churche. yea although the whole Churche of Rome conspire against him. Al this is true, and the same doth euidently condemne you, and your Religion. Al menne be liers, Protestantes for example, whiche saie, that these thousand yeres the Church hath ben corrupted, and light hath ben turned into Darknesse. God only is true. Christes worde is true, the Light of faith hath not benne turned into Darckenesse these thousand yeres, nor any one yere at al, onlesse Darckenesse, and the Spirite of truth maie dwel together.
God knoweth his owne. The Churche is his, therefore he knoweth his Churche. And bicause it is built vpon a hil, it is euer sene, and is neuer vnknowen.Math. 5. Math. vlt. Christe wil be euermore with his Churche. But with your Congregation, or Synagog (how shal I cal it?) he hath not ben these many hundred yeres, (for you saie in your Apologie) The Pope hath blinded the whole worlde many hundred yeres, and in this your Defence you saie againe, that when Doctour Luther beganne to Publish the Gospel of Christe, there was a general quietnesse, suche as is in the night, when folke be a sleepe. &c.
Ergo your companie is not the Churche.Let vs see vvhat you can ansvver to this argumēt, M. Ievv. Marke the Argument I require you, and auoide it, if you be hable.
To repete it once againe, thus we saie. Christe promiseth euermore to be with his Churche: but Christe hath not ben euer more with you, and your fellowes: Ergo, you, and your fellowes are not the Churche. The maior is true, not only bicause it is Christes promise, but also by your owne Confession. The minor you confesse also in your Apologie: it resteth ye discharge your selfe of the Conclusion. Touching the minor, the Pope, you saie, blinded the whole worlde many hundred yeres. Then in those so many hundred yeres no man saw the light. where then were they of your secte, of whom you saie, they see suche a light, as vnder the Pope, the worlde sawe not? Of this it foloweth, that the time then was, in whiche Christe was not with you. And so euery waie, if Christes worde be true, yours must be false.
M. Ievvel obiecteth agaīst the Churche, as the old heretikes the Donatistes did.But marke wel gentle Reader that whiche I wil now declare vnto thee. M. Iewels obiectiō against the Church, is the very olde obiection of the Donatistes. For as M. Iewel saith here, that it were to muche for vs hauing broken Gods commaundement, &c. yet neuerthelesse to binde Christe to his promise, whiche was, that his Church should continewe for euer, and haue the Spirite of Truthe alwaies remaining in it: So the Donatistes said, ideo ex partibus terrarum, August. lib. 1. ca. 2 contra Epistol. Parmen. in quibus iam impletum erat, perijsse Abraha semen, quod est Christus, & euacuatas promissiones Dei, quia ipsi non sunt admissi ad eorum communionem, apud quos hoc iam retinebat orbis impletum. That therefore the seede of Abrahā, that is Christ, had perished frō out of other partes of the world, where it had ben already fulfilled, and therfore [Page 91] the promises of God (touching the continuance of Christ with his Church to the worldes ende) were made voide, bicause they (the Donatistes) were not admitted to the Communion of those Christians (in Fraunce, Italie, Spaine, and other Christian Countries) among whom the worlde kepte this promise of Christe already fulfilled. They said, the promise of Christes continuance was broken, bicause al the other partes of the worlde besides, and out of Africa, communicated with Cecilianus, and his successours, (whom they accused forTraditores. Deliuerers vp of the Scriptures in time of persecution, and therefore accompted them for no parte of Christes Churche) and refused to communicate with them, euen as M. Iewel saith here, that for our euil doinges Christe was not bound to his promise.
This obiection of the Donatistes seemed to a learned man of their owne secte, Ticonius Ticonius. by name, vnreasonable, and insufficient. And therefore he wrote a booke of that matter: to wit, that the promises of God in the Scriptures, for the continuance of his Churche vniuersally spred through the worlde, could not possibly be broken, through any wickednes of man, or menne what soeuer. This to be so, S. Augustine witnesseth, saying,August. li. 1. contra epist. parmen. ca. 1. Ticonius (homo quidem & acri ingenio praeditus, & vberi eloquio, sed tamen Donatista) omnibus sanctarum paginarum vocibus circumtusus euigilauit, & vidit Ecclesiam Dei toto orbe diffusam, sicut de illo tanto antè per corda & ora sanctorum praeuisum, at (que) praedictum est. Quo percepto suscepit aduersus ipsos suos demonstrare & asserere, nullius hominis quamuis sceleratum & immane peccatum praescribere promissis Dei, nec id agere quorumlibet intra Ecclesiam cō stitutorū [Page] quamlibet impietatem, vt fides Dei de Ecclesias [...] tura, & diffundenda vs (que) ad terminos orbis terra, quae in promissis patrū retenta, & nunc exhibita est, euacuaretur. Ticonius (a man endewed with a sharpe wit, and with tongue at wil, but yet a Donatist) knockt vp on euery side with al the sayinges of the Bible, waked out of slepe, and saw the Church of God spred ouer al the worlde, as thereof so lōg time before by the hartes, and by the mouthes of Saintes it was foresene, and foretolde. Which thing hauing perceiued, he toke in hand against them of his own fide euidētly to shew, and affirme, that no mannes sinne, being neuer so wicked and passing great, doth prescribe against the promises of God, and that no manner impietie of any what soeuer that be placed in the Church, doth bring this to passe, that the promise of God shuld be made void touching the Churche to come, and to be spred abrode vnto the borders of the round world, which promise was cōtinued in the promises made to the Fathers (of the old testamēt) and is now come to perfourmance. Thus then wrote Ticonius the Donatiste, being forced thereto by the very cleare euidence of holy Scripture.
Parmenianus an other Donatist, foreseing (as S. Augustin writeth) that if the persuasion of Ticonius toke place, then he, and his felowes, which did not cōmunicate with the whole corps of Christendom, should be no part of al the Catholik Church,Dioscorde betvven the Gospellers, as in olde time among the Donatistes. so vniuersally dispersed, and so being out of the Church should stand for Heretiques: wrote first an epistle against this Ticonius, and when that would not suffise, procured him to be openly condēned in a Coū cel of their owne sect: Euen as at this day the Lutherans write against the Sacramentaries, as Westphalus against Caluine, Brentius against Bullinger, Illyricus against Beza, [Page 92] Peter Martyr against Brētius, Heshusius, against Boquine, condemning one the other, al being protestants, or rather (as they wilbe named) Gospellers. Against the foresaid Epistle of Parmenianus, written (as I said) against Ticonius, S. Augustin wrote three bookes, learnedly defending the Scriptures alleged by Ticonius, to proue, that no impietie of men what soeuer, and how great soeuer it were, can possibly be hable to driue Christ to breache of his promise, concerning the perpetuitie of his Churche in many Nations, and the assistence of the holy Ghost therein.
You therefore M. Iewel, that thinke it much for vs, to claime by the promise of Christe, bicause by our wretchednes, he should no more be bound to his promise,The Donatistes Heresie renevved by M. Ievvel. do plainely renewe the wicked and detestable opinion of the Donatist Parmenian, whom S. Augustine, so largely confuteth. I remitte the learned to the said worke of S. Augustine, specially to the second booke. The vnlearned I remitte to a late writtē Treatise intituled, The Fortresse, The Fortresse. annexed to the historie of Venerable Bede translated into Englishe, where he shal finde suche scriptures, as proue an vniuersal, and knowen continuance of Christes Churche, largely laied forth and prosecuted out of the Psalmes, the Prophetes, and the new testament.
To be short therefore:An Argument prouing this nevv Congregation not to be the true Churche of Christ. I frame you once againe this argumēt. The true Church of Christ, is such a multitude, as hath had euermore in al ages and times Christe present, and the Spirit of truth remaining with it. Your Congregation is such, as was not extant in the earth many hundred yeres together before Luther was borne, and therefore can not be said to haue had that presence of Christ: Ergo, your Congregation is not the true Church of Christ.
The Maior is euident by Christes owne promise, and by your owne Confession. The Minor you confesse also both in your Apologie, and in this pretensed Defence, as I said before. The Conclusion therefore remaineth vndoubted. To this one argument M. Iewel you shal neuer be hable to answere truely and directly.
You adde yet farther. Christe wil be euermore with his Churche, yea though the whole Churche of Rome conspire against him. It is true M. Iewel. And therefore this being a matter impossible, that the whole Churche of Rome should be hable to deface Christes Gospel, or to defeate Christ of his promise: it must needes folow, that, where you say, the Pope hath blinded the whole worlde, you haue said most vntruly, and haue auouched that thing, which by your owne confession in this place, was not possible to be done.
Againe seing that, though the whole Churche of Rome conspired against Christe, yet Christe wil be euermore with his Churche, and these many hundred yeres Christ hath had no other Churche then the Churche of Rome (for the Pope you say hath blinded the whole worlde, and D. Luther began to publish the Gospel, a general darkenesse going before): it must needes folowe, that the same Church of Rome was the true Church of Christ, that the said Church neuer cōspired against Christ, that the Pope neuer blinded, nor was euer hable to blinde the whole worlde: briefely, that the same whiche you cal blindnesse, was good sight, and that which you cal darkenesse, was cleare light.
Verely either so must it be, or Christes promise must faile. Of the which promise of Christ, and of a number of [Page 93] other sayinges in the Psalmes, in the Prophetes, and in the Gospel affirming, and confirming the same, it hath ben largely and sufficiently treated in the foresaid Treatise intituled, The Fortresse of our first Faith, annexed to the Historie of venerable Bede, of late translated into Englishe. If you M. Iewel, or any of your fellowes wil auoide this argument, that proueth a knowen continuance of Christes Church, answer to the first parte of that booke. If you can not auoide that one Argument, your newe doctrine is plainely proued to be false, and heretical, and the Faith of our Forefathers is plainely proued, to be the Faith of the true, and onely Catholike Churche of Christe in earth.
You pretende as if ye had aduantage, for that I spake but of a thousand yeres. For thus you inferre.
But vvhy do you so much abate your reckening? VVhy make you not vp your ful accompte of fifteene hundred, three skore and sixe yeres, as ye vvere vvont to doo? Ye haue here liberally, and of your selfe quite striken of fiue hundred three skore and sixe yeres.
Harding. That we haue not striken of the first fiue hundred yeres, as M. Iewel cauilleth.
You say vntruly M. Iewel.The. 8. Chapt. I haue not striken of the first fiue hundred yeres, &c. But I, and others doo (God be praised) defende and mainteine the Catholique Faithe no lesse by the Doctours, and witnesses of the first fiue hundred yeres, then by the Doctours, and Witnesses of these last thousand yeres. Yea Sir, it is [Page] wel knowen to them that haue perused bothe our labours, that you allege moe writers of these later ages by ten to one, then either we doo of the same, or your selfe doo of the first fiue hundred yeres. It is wel knowen, our writinges are confirmed with the authoritie of the Fathers of the firste fiue hundred yeres. We allege very seldome the writers of these later ages, condescending herein to your infirmities, whiche through weakenes of Faith, doo reiecte these later Fathers, as too yonge, and require to be persuaded onely by the Doctours, and Councelles of the first sixe hundred yeres. And herein we doo willingly omitte the greate aduantage, whiche we might haue, if we should presse you with the Writers of these later ages. This is wel knowen M. Iewel to al that knowe any thing in matters of these common controuersies. We haue (Gods holy name be blessed) largely, and aboundantly prooued the Reall Presence, the Sacrifice of the Masse, the Popes Primacie, the vse of Images, the Confession of sinnes to the Prieste, the Inuocation of Saintes, the Praying for the dead, the Churche seruice in the two learned tongues, Greeke and Latine, and such other matters by you nowe brought into Controuersie: we haue sufficiently prooued them (I saye) by the Doctours, and Councels of the first sixe hundred yeres, wittingly and willingly (a very fewe places excepted) absteining from the Writers of these last thousand yeres, not bicause we refuse them, or contemne them, but bicause ye refuse them, that we might seeme to vse the better meanes to persuade you, whose couersion we seeke and labour for. You say therefore [Page 94] vntruly that I haue liberally, of my selfe quite striken of fiue hundred yeres, &c.
The cause why I named but these last thousand yeres, your selfe I am sure are not ignorant of. But so it liked you to dallye, and to answer a most earnest, and important question with trifling toyes, cauilles, and wranglinges. It was your exception M. Iewel, and prescription of the first sixe hundred yeres: It was your lewde contempte of these later ages: It was your blasphemous assertion condemning the Churche of Christe so many hundred yeres of Idolatrie, superstition, and palpable darckenes, which made me to chalenge you with Christes promise for the Continuance of his Churche these last thousand yeres. If you denie this to be your opinion of the last thousand yeres, beside your prescription insinuating no lesse of the nine hundred, beside your former wordes of Luthers first publishing of the Gospel, (for so you terme your wicked Heresies) your owne wordes in this place doo signifie no lesse. For thus you saie euen in this page.
Verely in the iudgement of the Godly, fiue hundred of those first yeres are more vvorthe, then the vvhole thousand yeres that folovved aftervvarde.
Harding.
This comparison is odious,The commendatiō of the first fiue hundred yeres in comparison of the later ages and litle becommeth a Christiā mā. If you speake of learning, and vertue, though the comparison be odious, yet is it more tolerable. For learning, and vertue may seeme to haue excelled more in those former ages, then in these later. specially vertue [Page] and holines of life, when as the bloude, that Chri [...] shed for redemption of the worlde, seemed to menn [...] hartes yet fresh and warme, as in a place S. Augustine writeth. And therefore those tymes brought foorth moe Martyrs. As touching learning, it muste also be confessed, that moe Doctours in both tongues then excelled.
The north partes of the world cōuerted in these later ages.This without preiudice to the learned Bishoppes, and Godly people of Christendom in so longe a time afterwarde, might perhappes to the commendation of Antiquitie be graunted. Howbeit, it is not vnknowen to the learned, that in these later thousand yeres, the Northe partes of the worlde (being many, large, and sauage Countries) haue benne brought to the faith of Christe, many Bishoppes, and Monkes of excellent learning, and of great perfection of life haue flourished, many Martyrs also haue suffred: as al histories, and Chronographies doo witnesse.
Touching faith and doctrine of beleefe the first fiue hundred yeres no more vvorth, then the thousand yeres that folovvedBut in respect of faith, and the necessarie doctrine of our saluation, it is a manifest blasphemie, to saie, that the first fiue hundred yeres are more worthe, then the thousand that folowed. For this assertion importeth, that Christe assisted his Churche the first fiue hundred yeres absolutely, and perfitely, so that then the Pastours and Doctours of the Churches erred not in faith and doctrine, but in the later thousand yeres the Churche was not so assisted of Christe, and of the holy Ghost the Spirite of Truth, but rather in suche wise neglected and forsaken, as Idolatrie, superstition, yea palpable darkenes ouercame, and preuailed. And thus you M. Iewel, who saie before, Christ wilbe with his Church [Page 95] euermore, saie nowe otherwise, that these thousand yeres are litle worth which is as much to saie, as that Christes special prouidence hath failed his Churche after the first fiue hundred yeres. And so shal his promise of his euerlasting assistance, so oftentimes auouched in the holy Scriptures, be founde to faile. But, Al menne be liers, and God is true. The promise of Christe the sonne of God is infallible. The Churche therefore in no age or time wanted the assistance of Christe, nor of the holy Ghost the Spirite of Truthe.
The Churche of Rome (of whiche you speake so villanously) neither hath preuailed,The Churche of Rome the onely and true Church of Christe. neither could possibly preuaile against Christe. It hath preuailed against al Heresies. and therefore no other Churche in the worlde appearing al these thousand yeres, then the Churche of Rome (by which worde I cōprehende al nations agreing with the faith of that Churche) that only was the true Churche of Christe, and is to this daie, and according vnto Christes promise, shal endure to the ende of the worlde. For as we shal not haue any other Christ, so neither shal we haue any other Faith, nor any other Church.
That the Princes, and Free Cities of Germanie euer persecuted vs, it is vtterly vntrue, and like the rest of your tales. None of them al, no not one vvould euer suffer the same Doctrine of ours to be condemned.
Harding. That the Sacramentaries haue ben persecuted by the Princes of Germanie, and by their Doctours, and by the free Cities,
The. 9. Chapt.This is so grosse, and so palpable a lye, that no man b [...] you M. Iewel would euer, I thinke, haue had the harte to affirme it so constantly, and that in printe. First Carolostadius Carolostadius. the first professour in Saxonie of your Sacramentarie heresie, was bannished out of al Saxonie by the procurement of Luther in the yere. 1525. as witnesseth your owne frende Iohn Sleidan. Sleidan. Lib. 5. Histor.
Againe the yonger Princes of Saxonie, and the Counteis of Mansfeld in the yere 1559. published eche of them a Write, wherein they recken vp, and condemne, the one nine,Lib. contra 9. Sectas. Lib. cōtra 11. Sectas. Lauatherus in histor. cōtra Sacrament. the other eleuen Sectes, of the whiche your Secte of the Sacramentaries by name is one. This is yet extant to be seene in print, and can not be denied. Lauatherus a Sacramentarie him selfe reporteth it.
Thirdly in the yere. 1561. though in the meeting at Numburg, by the intreatie of certaine Princes the Zuinglians were not condemned generally in al Germanie, as the Princes of the Confession of Ausburg would openly and solemnely haue done: yet in the same yere afterward in a Diet holden at Luneburg,Lauatherus ibidē & Surius. Frāciscus Philippus in histor. Albert of Hardenburg a great Zuinglian was openly condemned for an heretike. Last of al in the same yere. 1561. the Frenche Caluinistes were cōmaunded, and forced by the Magistrates of Frākford, either to practise no more their manner and order of religion there, or to departe the Citie. Yet you saie you were neuer persecuted either of the Prīces, or of the free Cities in Germanie. What shal I here speake of your brethren at Andwerpe, whom the Martinistes (for so they cal the Lutherans) ioining with the Catholiques, and putting them selues in armes, draue awaie, and compelled to flee the Citie? If ye beleeue not me, beleeue [Page 96] their flight, beleeue your felow minister Hermannus the Predicant (that of late was in Norwiche, and now as I heare saie, is driuen from thence I know not whither) what fauour he and his felowes founde at the handes of the Martinistes.
In deede certaine tovvnes (of Germanie) subiecte to Bishoppes, in outvvarde vsages of their Churches remaine stil, as they vvere before. Yet neuerthelesse vvhere the Churches are popish, the people of al sortes are Protestantes.
Harding.
This is a sensible lie, and a mere sclaunder.Great partes of Germanie yet remaining vvhole, and Catholique. The people of al sortes in Germanie, where the Churches remaine Catholique, do in suche numbers resorte vnto the seruice, haunt the Sermons, and frequent the Sacramentes (as al that haue benne at Wormes, at Spires, at Augusta, at Ingolstadt, at Vratislauia, and suche other Cities, can beare witnesse) that a man to saie, as you saie, must nedes proue him selfe gilty, either of purposed lying, as speaking against a knowen truthe: or of a malicious iudgement, as to iudge of mennes hartes contrary to their whole outwarde life, and behauiour. For by this you condemne of detestable Hypocrisie, and dissimulation, not only the people of al sortes in the forenamed Cities, and diuers suche others, where Catholiques liue mingled with Protestantes: but also you condemne the whole Countries of Austria, of Bauaria, the great Dioces of Saltzburg, of Passaw, Mentz, Treueres, Coulen, and other Territories, where the whole face and shewe of Religion, is onely Cathholike. It is a smal token of grace, yea of ciuill [Page] honestie, for the setting forth of your conceiued opinio [...] so farre and so notoriously to sclaunder whole Natio [...] and Countries.
As for the VVest Spanish Indies, the people there liued not only vvithout al manner knovvledge of God, but also vvilde, and naked, vvithout any Ciuile gouernment. Being in this miserable state, and naturally by the very sense, and iudgement of Common reason abhorring, and lothing their ovvne blindnesse, vvhat merueil is it, if they vvere easy to be lead into any religion?
Harding. M. Iewel attributeth the glorious conuersion of the Indians not to the power of the Gospel, but to the leading of natural reason.
The 10. Chapt.What M. Iewel, doo you enuie at the glorie of God? Doth it greue you, to see great Countries conuerted to the faith of Christe by them that be not of your Faith? And wil ye needes, to deface the power of the Gospel, attribute the miraculous conuersion of that rude people vnto natural reason? Had your heathnish harte herein rather acknowledge a leading of nature, then the power of our Sauiour? What could Porphyrie, Iulian, or Celsus saie more?S. Thomas preached in India. S. Thomas the Apostle conuerted a great parte of the Indies, as both auncient Stories doo reporte, and certaine euident monumentes founde in those Countries by the Iesuites, and other religious menne, doo witnesse. Now might not an other Iewish Iewel abase and bring in contempte, al the Apostolique trauailes of that blessed Apostle in conuerting those [Page 97] rude, and barbarous Nations, as wel, and as rightly, as this our Iewel abuseth and b [...]ingeth in contempte the Apostolike trauailes of these blessed Iesuites?Nicephor. lib. 11. cap. 48. The Christian faith bringeth sauage ād barbarus people to humanitie, and ciuilitie. Theodoritus de Curatione Graecarū affectionū lib. 7. sub finem.
It is noted of Nicephorus for a singular effecte, and commendation of the Gospel of Christe, that where it was first planted, it brought the sauage, rude, and cruel people, to a ciuilitie, humanitie, and sobrietie of life. And the ruder, and farther from al humanitie the people was, the more was Christe glorified in their Conuersion.
In like manner Theodorite noteth, that whereas at Heliopolis in Egypte, at Laodicea in Syria, at Carthage in Afrike, and in Greece it selfe, the Gentiles offred vp menne in sacrifice to Idolles, and liued otherwise most abhominably, and barbarously: yet through the Gospel (saith he) these horrible vices were vtterly abandoned: and addeth, Sacrae verò Euangeliorum leges nationes melius, ciuitatésque moderantur: The holy lawes of the Gospel are they, wherby nations, and Cities are best ruled. Al which he telleth, and reporteth for the commendation, and honour of the Christian faith, as being suche a heauenly Religion, that hath brought most barbarous, and sauage Nations to a more ciuile order of life, to modestie, moderation, and humanitie. Contrariwise M. Iewel, to withdrawe the due praise from those holy religious personnes, by whose trauaile God hath so wonderfully wrought, draweth also the glorie from Christe, and geueth that to natural reason, which other Christian writers doo attribute most rightly to the power of the Gospel. What is malice, if this be not?M. Ievv. foloweth the Pharisees. So the blasphemous Pharisies maligning the miraculous operations of our Sauiour here on earth, said, in the power of Beelzebub he casteth out Deuilles. Matt. 12. So the Infidelles called [Page] S. Peter Maleficum, a sorcerer, and an enchaunter, [...] one that by Witchecrafte had brought men to Christs.August. de Ciuit. Dei lib. 18. ca. 53. & ca. 54. So commonly they ascribed Miracles done by Martyrs, to Witchecrafte, and Sorcerie.
If Pope Pius vvere so good a man, and so fitte and vvorthy a pastor for the Churche of God, vvhy then did his Cardinalles of late lab [...] so earnestly by treason, and Conspiracie to depose him, being, as you saie, so good a man? Or if it vvere not so, vvhy then did he him selfe complaine thereof so bitterly in an Oration pronounced openly in Rome in the Consistorie?Oratio Pij Papa.
Harding. M. Iewel proppeth vp his weake cause with a forged write.
The. 11. Chapt.Nay why doo you M. Iewel, to sclaunder the blessed memorie of so vertuous a man, geue credite to suche a pelting Pamphlet, as you alleage vs in the margent, for authorizing this infamous and most false reproche?
Where was that Oration printed,A forged Oration set out in printe, as being made and pronoū ced by Pius the fourth the late vertuous Pope. and who wrote it? by whom was it set forth? It beareth a date of the yere, but neither of place where, nor of Authour by whom it was set forth. If you sought for the truthe sincerely and vprightly, as you wil seeme to the vnlearned to doo, and not rather to deface the Churche of Rome by what meanes soeuer: you would neuer vtter a matter so hainous, vpon the reporte onely of such an vnlawful, and sclaunderous write, published by suche Makebates, and seditious Protestantes, whiche for want of true and iust matter, being greued at the very harte, that any Pope should be vertuous, do forge in corners, and inuent such [Page 98] infamous libelles. This is the practise of your good brethren, signifying thereby, of what sprite they are. If any truth had ben in the matter, at the lest the printer should not haue ben a fearde to put vnto it his name, and dwelling place. But so it is, he that loueth to doo euil, fleeth light. And contrariwise, Truthe seeketh not corners:Tertulliā. In Apologetico. but as Tertullian saith, Nihil veretur, nisi abscondi. It feareth nothing, but lest shee be hid.
Your Fathers in the Councel of Basil,Cōcil. Basil. Concil. Trident. and your frendes in the last Councel of Trident, I vvil not saie had disputations, but certainely yelded, and gaue place vnto the Bohemians, and vnto suche others, as you cal heretiques.
Harding. The Councel of Basile, and that of Trent neuer yeelded to Heretiques.
This lie is so cleare and euident,The 12. Chapt. Contradictions. that our Confutation is nedelesse. Your owne very wordes doo conuince you herein, where you saie hereafter, that the Councel of Trident hath yeelded in no manner thing in the worlde.
Againe in the nexte leafe, Pag. 43. you would faine proue vnto vs out of Iohn Sleidan, Mathias Flacius Illyricus, one Iohn Fabritius Montanus (a forged name) and Petrus Paulus Vergerius, al professed Protestantes, as your selfe are (and therefore likely I trowe to reporte vprightly, and without al partialitie) that in the Councel of Tridente no Audience coulde be geuen at al [Page] to any of your Secte, exc [...]p [...]e it were to recante their heresies. If this were true (as it is most false, and so pla [...]ely proued by the Safeconductes of that Councel published in printe) then how likely I praie you is it,Absurditie. that they should yeelde vnto them, to whom they woulde not geue so much as the hearing?
Proue this M. Ievvel, or ī your next booke saie, pène thou madest a lye.Last of al, the very vtterance of this matter, breatheth out an vntruth. For neither is it tolde, wherein those Coū cels should yeelde, neither where that yeelding should be found. No Action, no Session, no Canō is noted, when, where, and how this great matter should come to passe. Verely a matter so great, that in case it were true, al these great controuersies should soone be at a pointe, specially you now being worthily taken for a man of smal credite, would haue ben clearely and euidently set forth. For if either two such Councels should yeeld to your Doctrine (which we are sure hath not, ne could not be done) or you should yeeld to them: we would neuer chaunge worde with you more aboute your Doctrine, neither would we euer be so madde, as to cal those menne Heretiques (as it pleaseth you to saie we doo) to whom those two Councels, yea or any one general Councel should thinke good to yeelde. We submitte our selues to General Councels humbly, as it becometh vs. You, bicause through heretical pride you wil not yeelde to the General Councelles, thinke good to make menne beleue, that the General Councels haue yeelded to you. Pride, and humilitie maketh a cleare difference betwen the citie of God, and the citie of the Deuil.
VVhere you saie, that Bishoppes onely haue Sentence definitiue in the [Page 99] Councel, ye seeme vvillingly and vvithout cause to reporte vntruthe.VVhē he vvrote that, he vvas neither Pius secundus, nor Pope but a priuate mā. Aeneas Syluius de gestis Cō cilij Constāt. lib. 1. False trā slatiō. Apparet, in this place signifieth not, it is plaine, but, it appeareth. Iohā. Gerson. Quae veritates credendae Corol. 4. The 13. Chapt. For Pius Secundus * being him selfe a Pope, vvould haue tolde you the contrarie. These be his vvordes. Apparet alios quam Episcopos, in Concilijs habuisse vocem decidentem. * It is plaine, that certaine others beside Bishoppes had voice definitiue in the Councelles, Likevvise Iohn Gerson. Etiam ad laicos hoc potest extendi, & plus aliquando, quàm ad multos Clericorum. This (priuiledge of geuing sentence in Councel) maie be extended euen vnto the laie sorte, yea and that oftentimes better then vnto many priestes.
Harding. That in Councelles Bishoppes onely haue sentence definitiue, the obiections of Pius 2. and Gerson answered.
Neither willingly, nor without cause, nor vntruth. Not willingly: For I came to speake of this point, by occasion of your Apologie complaning that you had no audience in the General Councel at Trente. Not without cause: For that being true (as I shal anone proue it to be true) that on [...]ly Bishoppes haue Sentence definitiue in the Councel, ye being no Bishoppes at al, for geuing Sentēce definitiue, there is no place for you: which greueth you ful sore. For faine would ye once sitte in General Coūcel, as the Masters, and Superintendentes of al Christendome. Not Vntruthe: For it is euident by the auncient practise of the primitiue Churche, that in al Councelles,Only Bishops at Councels subscribe definitiuely. only Bishoppes haue subscribed definitiuely. The tenour of al General Councelles yet extant, is a cleare witnesse hereof to al that can, or wil peruse them. And though a Negatiue be harde to proue, yet this Negatiue, that none but Bishoppes should subscribe in Councelles, is plainely proued [Page] in the Auncient great General Councel of Ch [...] don. Where it is openly [...]ouch [...]d, first of the Bishop [...] them selues,Act. 1. Pag. 745. thus [...] Synodus Episcoporum est, non Cleri [...] A Synode, or Councel is of Bishoppes, not of the (in [...] riour) Clergie; or of Priestes, as alwaies you turne the worde. Then of one Martinus Presbyter, a Priest, thus, Non est meum subscribere, bid. Pag. 775. Episcoporū tantùm est. It is not my part to subscribe, It belongeth only to Bishoppes.
But M. Iewel wil proue the contrarie, and that others beside Bishoppes had sentence definitiue. But by whom? Forsoth by Aeneas Syluius, and Iohn Gerson, both very late writers, and not yet of two hundred yeres auncientie. Such newe litle worth stuffe, he, that requireth vs to proue al thinges by the writers of the first. 600. yeres, bringeth against the Auncient practise of the primitiue Churche. And yet he belieth his Authours most sham [...] lesly.See Reader, hovv many vntrue partes M [...]l. plaieth in one pore litle sentence. For first, he saith, that Pius Secundus being him selfe a Pope, telleth vs the contrarie: whiche is vtterly false, For when he wrote that booke, he was Aeneas Syluius Piccolomineus, not Pius Secundus. He was then [...] priuate man, not a Pope. And being Pope, he recanted that h [...] had done in the pretensed Councel of Basile, and that he had written thereof, and certaine other errours, which before he had published,Bulla recantationis Pij Papa 2. Tom. 4. Concil. pag. 503. and written to the derogation of the See Apostolike, and of the Clergie. Neither was this tolde by Aeneas Syluius, as a thing of his owne iudgement, and of his owne vtterance, but as a thing in that Synode said by Cardinalis Arelatensis, whose priuat [...] opinion that was, and the same vttered he with that libertie, which is graunted to al menne admitted to Councels, in whiche they are permitted freely to speake what [Page 100] they thinke. And therefore in debating of d [...]ubteful matters, they speake thinges contrarie one against an other. And this saying of the Cardinal of Arles was in that Coū cel controlled and gainesaid by other menne of great lerning and iudgement, as by Panormitanus, Ludouicus, and others there mentioned. So that it is no better auctoritie, then a thing that is spoken in heate of disputation against the truth for the better discussion of the truth.
In alleging then your Doctor, you haue committed fiue vntruthes. First, he neuer wrote any suche booke, as you name, to witte, De Gestis Concilij Constātiensis: but de Gestis Concilij Basiliensis. Secondly, when he wrote it,Vide Aene. Syl. de Gestis Cō cil. Basil. li. 1. pa. 27 he was not Pius Secundus Pope, as you saie he was, but Aeneas Syluius Piccolomineus, a priuate man. Thirdly, it is not the saying of Aeneas him selfe, but of the Cardinal of Arles. Fourthly, you haue added of your owne to his sentence these wordes, in Concilijs, which are not in your Author. Neither spake he that of other Councelles, then of the Apostles Councel mēcioned in the Actes. Fifthly, you corrupte your Doctor by false translation. For Apparet doth not alwaies signifie, it is plaine, as you haue translated it, but it seemeth, or appeareth. And many thinges appeare, that be not plaine, nor true, as this it selfe is one. Of a thing that is plaine, to saie, it appeareth, were preiudicial to the truth. Whether these vntrue partes haue proceded of Rhetorical policie, called otherwise lying for aduantage, to make the most of your Author you could, or of mere ignorance, for that you neuer saw the place your selfe, but trusted other mennes vntrue eies therein, or els of a certaine dispositiō proper to your humour that nothing can passe your fingers without some false sleight or other: I leaue it to be considered of others.
Ge [...]son impudently be lyed, and falsified by M. Iewel.
As for Iohn Gerson, you deale as falsly with him, as with Aeneas Syluius, and to speake plainely, though as you would haue it s [...]me, vncourteously, you vtterly belie him. In the place by you allege, Gerson speaking of verities, that are so of necessitie to be beleeued,Gerson Quae veritates credendae. Cor [...]llario. 4 that otherwise a man can not be saued, sheweth, that one man is bounde vnder paine of heresie to holde some pointes with certaine and expresse faith, and thereof in no wise to doubt, whereof an other man for a time without blame maie be in doubte. This doth he there declare by a threefolde example. As, a diuine (saith he) or a professour of diuinitie exercised in the holy scriptures, is bound expressely to holde, and not to doubte at al of many thinges, of which a simple, and an vnlearned man being required might with reason stand in doubt, so it be without pertinacie: as that (for these be his examples) Thobie had a dog, or, that Aaron had a bearde: or that the Arke of the Testament had a couering of Goates heare. Further there he procedeth, and sheweth the same by the example of a Canoniste exercised in the determinations of holy Churche, and an other man hauing thereof no skil nor knowledge, likewise of a man skilled in Logique, Philosophie, and other humaine science, and an other man vtterly ignorant and vnlearned.
The vvhole and true sentence of Gerson vvhiche M. Ievv. falsifieth.To come vnto the wordes, which you haue fowly falsified, thus he concludeth. Denique sequitur ex his omnibus, quòd iudicium, & conclusiones fidei, licet auctoritatinè spect [...]nt ad Praelatos, & Doctores: spectare tamen potest [Page 101] ad alios quàm Theologos deliberatio, sicut & cognitio super ijs quae fidem respiciunt, ita etiam vt ad laicos hoc posset extendi, & plus aliquando, quàm ad multos clericorum. Finally of al these foresaid thinges it foloweth, that although the Iudgement, and Conclusions of faithe belong vnto the Prelates, and Doctours by waie of auctoritie, yet deliberation (or consultation) maie belong vnto others beside the Diuines, as also examination and trial of those thinges that concerne the faith, yea and that so, as this thing might be extended vnto laie menne, and more vnto them sometimes, then to many of the Clerkes.
Now Reader if thou marke wel, and consider,Gerson speaketh not at al of geuing sentence definitiue in Councel. thou maist see, how M. Iewel deceiueth thee. Gerson in this place speaketh not at al of the auctoritie of geuing sentence Definitiue in general Councels, whereof our controuersie is. Beholde therefore with what conscience this man handleth these matters. First he falsifieth Gerson, making him to speake expressely of Sentence Definitiue to be geuen in a Councel. This priuilege of geuing Sentence in Councel, saith he, &c. Then he vttereth Gersons wordes otherwise then Gerson doth.
Againe Gerson there speaketh of three thinges: Of Iudgement to be geuen, and Conclusions to be made of the Faith by waie of Auctoritie in general: Of Deliberation and Cognition, touching matters perteining to the Faith. The first, he saith, belongeth vnto the Prelates, and Doctours, or Professours of Diuinitie only: the seconde, and the thirde, not onely vnto the Diuines, but also vnto others, and (saith he) sometime, that is, in some cases, it may be extended vnto laie personnes. And this we holde wel withal. For euen at this present we wish, that the discrete [Page] and wise men of the Laitie would better deliberate of pointes of the Catholique faith, then hitherto some haue done, and that they would examine, and trie your allegations, and ours together by conference of the Bookes, whence they be taken out, that they maie be hable to iudge, whether parte vseth more truth, and vpright dealing. If they would thus doo (as perhappes some few of a great number doo) they should soone see iust cause to condemne you, and vtterly to geue you ouer.
The. 14. Chapt.Verely M. Harding, vve neuer said Luther and Zuinglius vvere the first publisshers of the Gospel.
Harding. Proued by their owne wordes, that Luther was the first publissher of the Gospel.
A great Vntruthe.M Ievv. denieth here, t [...]at he saith othervvheres. In this your Defence, touching Luther you saie no lesse Pag. 17. thus: Doctor Luther beganne to publishe the Gospel of Christe. If he that beginneth to publish, be the first publisher, then you said that Luther was the first publisher. If there be any difference betwen these two termes, then haue you wel defended your selfe. If there be none (as al that vnderstand English, maie easily see there is none) then you haue proued your selfe giltie of a great vntruthe.
In the Apologie pretē ded to be trāslated by the Lady A. BBut I must rather put you in remembrance of your owne wordes vttered in the Apologie. Who called the first sedicious, and heretical preaching of Martin Luther, and Hulderike Zuinglius, Herbam Euangelij, the first spring of the Gospel, or the very first appearing of the Gospel, as your [Page 102] Ladie Interpreter termeth it? Againe, who saith, that forty yeres agone, and vpwarde (that is at the first setting forth of Luther and Zuinglius) the truth was vnknowē, and vnhard of, and that they first came to the knowledge, and preaching of the Gospel? Be not these the wordes of your owne Apologie? Be they not set forth in diuers bokes of diuers printes? And wil ye now tel the worlde, and beare vs also in hand, who be wel acquainted with your false dealinges, that ye neuer said so? What can any man vnderstande by the first spring, or first appearing of the Gospel, but the beginning of the Gospel? If the Gospel beganne with Luther and Zuinglius, how was it before? If before their time the Gospel was vnknowen, and vnhearde of (for so the Apologie saith) then where was there any truth at al? If it were not knowen, nor hearde of at al, where was it in al the earth? Or imagine ye that it maie lie hid in some secrete place, without, and beside the harte, minde, and spirite of man? And if (as you saie) Luther and Zuinglius came first to the preaching of the Gospel, how were they not the first preachers of the Gospel? If they were the first preachers, how were they not also the first publishers of the Gospel? Thus you saie, and vnsaie. Yea, and Nay is one with you. And a Gods name al must be defended, be it yea, be it nay, be it true, be it false. But thus it is cleare, that your worde is not the Gospel. And God be praised, that we haue driuen you to eate your owne worde.
Of Abailard, and Almarike, and certaine other your strange names (he meaneth Apostoliques, Peterbrusians, VValdenses, Albigenses, and Imagebreakers) vve haue no skil. They are none of ours.
Harding. That these Heretiques be of M. Iewelles side.
The 15. Chapt.I am glad M. Iewel, to heare you so absolutely to renoūce these wicked heretiques, at lest in wordes. Would God ye would as freely forsake their Heresies in your doinges.Alphonsus de Castro lib 9. Bernard. Lutzeburg. Almarik the heretique. First as touching Petrus Abailardus, he denied the free wil of man. Doo not your great Maisters Wiclef, Luther, Zuinglius, Peter Martyr, and Caluine the same? If these be yours, how is not Abailard also yours.
Almarik the Frenchman taught of Images, of Aulters, of Inuocation of Saintes, and of Transubstantiation, as you doo, condemning the Church of Idololatrie in al these pointes, as you doo. Of this Almarik then haue you no skil? Is he not thus farre yours? What, are you become an other man,Bernardus Serm. 66. super Cantica. VValdēses. AEneas Slyuius Bohem. Histor. cap. 35. then menne take you to be? The Apostolikes denied Purgatorie, as you doo. The Waldenses in many pointes agree iumpe with you, or rather you with them. They renounced the Popes Primacie, they condemned Purgatorie, they called Images, by the name of Idolles, they contemned holy Water, and such other good and holesome ceremonies, they reproued the Religion of the Begging friers, with such like, al as ye doo: I marueile therefore why they are none of yours.
Verely Aeneas Syluius saith, that Iohn Huss Iohn Hu [...] (whom in the nexte line you allowe for yours) imbraced the wicked secte of the Waldenses. And why then are not the one yours, as wel as the other? As for Imagebreakers, Imagebreakers. if they be not yours, whose are they? They were no Papistes (your selfe wil confesse I trowe) that haue ouerthrowen Images in England, and in Scotland, in [Page 103] Fraunce, and now of late here in sundry places of the low Countrie. They be yours, they be yours M. Iewel, and such others a great many moe: with whom in a rueful procession ye are like to ioine, singing Vae with them, if ye repent not, and sing an other song.
Of Iohn Huss, Hierome of Prage, and Berengarius, and other like vertuous learned menne, vve haue no cause to be ashamed.
Harding.
The more verely is your shame, if any sparke of shame be leafte in you. Albeit no great wonder. For it must needes be true, that the wise man saith:Prouer. 18. Impius cū in profundum venerit, contemnit. When the wicked man is come vnto the bottom (of wickednes) then he passeth of nothing. Neither the Whoare at length taketh shame of any her filthinesse what soeuer. And therefore it is said of such pastshame wretches,Ierem. 3. Frons mulieris meretricis facta est tibi. Thou hast gotten thee a whoares forehead.
Though I haue smal hope of any good to be done with you, yet for the sake of others, thus I maie saie vnto you. You denied a litle before the Waldenses to be yours. But the Hussites followed altogether the Waldenses, as witnesseth Aeneas Syluius: Therefore the Hussites also ought to be none of yours. Yet you are not (you saie) ashamed of Iohn Hus. I marueile now the lesse, yf you be not ashamed of your so many, so notorious, and shamelesse Vntruthes, vttered before in your Replie, and confuted by diuers, but now repeted [Page] and renewed againe, the Confutation thereof vtterly dissembled.The most shameful heresies of Hus, of vvhō M. Ievvel professeth him selfe not to be ashamed Alphōsus de Castro aduersus haereses lib. 6. Concil. Constant. post 45. Sess.
But if you meane good faith, and that you are not in deede ashamed of Iohn Hus, neither of Hierome of Prage, then tel vs I praie you, how like you these heresies of theirs? First, of Iohn Hus, who with the olde Donatistes affirmed, that in the Churche are onely good men? Are you not ashamed of that heresie so clearely, and so fully confuted by S Augustine? Againe, of that other, to pounish one that is excommunicate with the secular sworde, is a pharisaical tyrannie.
Allowe you also that dissolute Heresie? And if you be not ashamed to professe this Doctrine, why are ye not then ashamed to doo that, whiche is repugnant to the Doctrine ye professe? For how saie you? Doo ye not excommunicate such as wil not condescende vnto your pestiferous opinions, and refuse to come to your heretical Seruice? And then further, if they stand constantly in the mainetenance of the truth, as it becommeth menne that haue the feare of God before their eyes, not yeelding to your great, but vaine threates: doo ye not cause their persons to be apprehended by the secular officer, and to be cast in prison, and then in your wicked, and bloudy preachinges crye ye not out vnto the prince to drawe her sworde? Are ye not (I saie) ashamed thus to fight with your selues, teaching one thing, and doing the cleane contrarie?
Alphonsus lib. 12. Cōcil. Cō stantien.Thirdely, haue ye no shame of that other heresie, that who soeuer is in deadly sinne, is neither kinge, nor ciuile Magistrate, nor Bishop? How like you of this brutish heresie? Haue you no cause to be ashamed of Iohn Hus? I [Page 104] let passe other his infamous heresies.Ioan. Cochlaeus. Hus said Masse a litle before he vvas burnt. Suprà. ca. 3. fol. 83. Hierom of Prage.
But if you be not ashamed of any of his heresies, how saie you to that he said Masse, as it is proued before, and that but a fewe daies before he was burnt? Be ye neither ashamed of that? What is that ye wilbe ashamed of in an heretique then, being neither ashamed of his heresies, nor of that he iudgeth wel of the Masse?
But now touching Hierome of Prage, haue you no cause M. Iewel to be ashamed of him? Verely it appeareth by the Councel of Constance,Concil. Constant. Sessio 21. Sessi. 19. he helde and professed al and singular the heresies of Wiclef, and Iohn Hus. He recanted once openly, and abiured them al, as Cranmar did in Oxforde, but after reuolting againe to his former vomite, he was burned for an Heretique,Hierom of Prage, recanted, and returned to his vomite. as Cranmar was. If you thinke it no shame to be an heretique as Hierome was, yet I trowe ye thinke it a shame to recante, as he did. How be it I maie doubte thereof, for your selfe haue trodden that trace, and perhappes maie once more be brought to tread it againe, and like it is, that you wil not be ashamed of it, and to reuolte, once backe againe: so litle shame is in you. Go your waie then M. Iewel, It booteth not vs to goe aboute to make you blush. For I perceiue, there is nothing, whereof lightly you wilbe ashamed: such a shamelesse grace you haue.
As for Berengarius, Berengarius. of whome likewise you saie, you haue no cause to be ashamed; I marueile the lesse, considering the natural propertie of heretikes, which is to increase their errours daily, and to procede from il to worse. Luther the first brocher of your religion was ashamed of Berengarius, and would neuer condescende to [Page] Carolostadius, though fiue yeres continually he trauailed with him to bring him to be of Berengarius opinion. Flacius Illyricus with his felowes of Magdeburg, al the Protestantes of Wittenberg, of Lipsia, of the vpper Saxonies, Nicolaus Gallus, George Maior, Westphalus, Brentius, and diuers others, whom your selfe accompte for Gospellers, for the true, godly, and right beleeuers, are al to this daie ashamed of Berengarius, and be at defiance with you, and them of his opinion, and doo in their writinges, and preachinges plainely condemne your Sacramentarie Heresie, of whiche Berengarius was the first publisher.
Tom. 2. fo. 260.Luther condemneth the heresie of Berengarius reuiued by Zuinglius in these wordes. I must needes eschew, and auoide them, as men condemned by their owne iudgement. Neither maie I ioine with them in any meanes, by letters, In parua Confess. de Caena Domini. In publica Confes. pura doctrina. Lib. cōtra 11. sectas. & lib. cōt. 9. sectas. In the booke in tituled Recta fides de Caena Domin. nor by writinges, nor by worde, nor by deede, as the Lord hath commaunded, whether he be Zuenckfeldius, or Zuinglius, or what soeuer he be called. And in an other place he condemneth by name Zuinglius, Carolostadius, and Oecolampadius, with al their diuers, and dissonant sacramentarie heresies.
Nicolaus Amsdorffius a famous Superindent in Germanie saith thus plainely. Thirdely we condemne the Sacramentaries, Zuinglius, and his felowes.
The publike write of the princes of Mansfeld, and of the yonger princes of Saxonie, doth recken vp in the rolle of condemned Heretiques, the Sacramentaries by name.
Ioachimus Westphalus saith: No false doctrine is so farre spred, none with such labour, and hypocrisie is defended, [Page 105] [...]o [...]e hath more beguiled the worlde, then this false doctrine of the blessed Sacrament meaning Caluines owne doctrine learned first of Berengarius, of whom you haue no cause, you saie, to be ashamed.
If Heretiques of your own schoole can not make you ashamed of Berengarius, and his doctrine, what say you to the great General Councel holden at S. Iohn Laterane in Rome vnder Innocentius the third,Coūcel of Laterane. thereof called Concilium Lateranense? That Councel was an vniuersal assemblie out of al partes of Christendom,Platina in Innocētio tertio. The great Assemblie of Laterane Councel. as wel out of the Greeke Church, as out of the Latine. The Patriarkes of Constantinople, and Hierusalem, were there present.
Archebishoppes were there threescore and ten, Bishoppes foure hundred and twelue, Abbates, and Priores more then eight hundred. There were at that Councel the Ambassadours of both Emperours, both of the West Churche, and of the East, also of the kinges of Hierusalem, of Fraunce, of Spaine, of England, and of Cyprus. In this Councel, so general and vniuersal, the Heresie of Berengarius was condemned,Concil. Lateran. Cap. 1. and the doctrine of Transubstantiation by occasion of his heresie exactly and fully discussed, was by general consent of al plainely and clearely confirmed. If the Sentence, Consent, and Accorde of the whole vniuersal Church can moue you M. Iewel, then haue you good cause to be ashamed of Berengarius, whose heresie, was in so ful, ample and General a Councel condemned, as none in this worlde was euer greater.
If al this moue you not, yet let Berengarius him selfe,De Consecrat. Dist. 2. Ego Berēgarius. whom you esteme so muche, moue you to be ashamed of his doctrine, of the whiche he him selfe was so muche [Page] ashamed at length, and not onely in iudgement openl [...] recanted, but also [...] the houre of his Death ful bitterl [...] and hartily repented him selfe thereof, as by sides other [...] Guilelmus Malmesburiensis recordeth, saying thus.
Guilelmus Malmesburiensis de gastis Anglorum. lib. 3. Ipse Berengarius die Epiphaniorum moriens, g [...]i [...] producto, recordatus quot miseros quondam adolescen [...], primo err [...]ris [...]al [...]t [...] secta infecerit: bodie (inquit) in die Apparitionis suae apparabit mihi Dominus meus Iesus Christus, vel propter poenitentiam, vt spero ad gloriam, vel propter alios, vt time [...], ad poenam. Nos sanè credimus; post benedictionem Ecclesiasticam, illa Mysteria esse verum corpus, & sanguinem saluatoris, adducti & veteris Ecclesiae authoritate, & maltis no [...]iter ostensis miraculis.
Bereng [...]rius himselfe, as he laie dying, vpon the Epiphanie daie (whiche we cal Twelfth daie) and with heauy be wailing called vnto remembrance, how many miserable personnes he had infected with his heresie in youth at the firste heat [...] of the Sacramentarie Errour, spake these wordes:He alluded to the vvord Epiphanie vvhiche signifieth appearing, or reuealīg. This daie my Lorde Iesus Christe, being the daie of his appearance, shal appeare vnto me, either to glorie, as I truste, bicause it repenteth me of my heresie, or to pounishment, as I feare me, for the sake of others (whom I haue seduced). What so euer it shal please God to doe with me, Truely I beleeue, that after Consecration vsed in the Churche, those Mysteries are the true Bodie, and Bloude of our Sauiour, being persuaded both by the authoritie of the auncient Churche, and by many Miracles shewed of late yeres. Thus ye maie see, how so euer ye be not ashamed of Berengarius, that yet Berengarius is ashamed of you.
But as for your doctrine, bicause it is only of your selues, therefore it falleth daily, and is novv forsaken the vvorlde through.
Harding. Our doctrine is the doctrine of the Fathers; not of our selues, neither is the same forsaken.
The Catholique doctrine,The .16. Chapt. The Fathers of the first. 600. yeres reiected. In institut. Cap. 18. de coena Domi. Iacobus Acontius. Stratagē. Sathan. lib. 6. whiche you cal oures, hath ben by your owne Confession welneare a thowsand yeres olde. I cal your Confession, your solemne prescription of the first .600. yeres. For prescribing the one, ye renounce the other. It can not therefore seeme to be of vs, that liue now, whiche by your owne Confession hath ben so auncient. Howbeit it is euident, the first 600. yeres stande as fully for vs, as doo the later. Therefore Iohn Caluine accuseth the first. 600. yeres of Iudaisme, and of Iewish superstition, namely in the matter of the blessed Sacrifice. Therefore Iacobus Acontius one of your owne side, in his booke dedicated to the Quenes Maiestie plainely misliketh, and reproueth such, as offer to be tried by the auncient Fathers, calling it perniciosissimam, omnino (que) fugiendam consuetudinem, a most pernicious custome, and altogether to be auoided.
Therefore M. Nowel (as this Acontius) calleth it aValde amplum spatium. Novvel in the preface of his first booke. large scope, to trie matters by the Fathers. And he that hath vttered so muche blasphemie against the Crosse of Christe, for his parte also protesteth plainely,In the booke against the Cross. that he wil not be tried by the Fathers. And why al this [Page] M. Iewel? Mary th [...]y know [...]ight wel, that by the Fathers you are condemned, and that our doctrine by them is clearely established. W [...] therefore haue learned of our Auncestours al that we teache. We haue inuented nothing of our selues. Your beginning is knowen, and is yet in mannes memorie. When Papistrie (as you cal it) beganne, you can neuer [...] for your life,The Gospelle [...] I shal neuer be hāble to shevv, vvhen Papistrie beganne. otherwise then with the beginning of Christes gospel. Shewe once M. Iewel, when, in what age, in what place, Countrie, Citie, or Churche, of whom, vnder what Pope, Emperour, or Prince, Papistrie beganne: and then saie hardely it is our Doctrine, and only of our selues.
Except you shewe this, your lie wil seme palpable. If ye haue ought to shew, for the worship of your cause, bring it forth, be it but one sentence, or one halfe sentence.
The Catholique doctrine vntruly reported by M. Ievvel to be forsaken al the vvorld through.In like manner, a sensible, and a palpable lie it is, that you adde, that our doctrine is forsaken the worlde through. No M. Iewel, not so. Gods holy name be blessed, it is not yet forsaken al England through. We knowe it right wel, we praise God for it, and reioise therein. You know it also, and it greeueth you at the harteful deepely, and specially that diuers haue returned from your lying Religion to the truthe of the Catholique Faithe, euen in these last yeres, when ye semed to haue most prospered in the sight of the worlde. Suche is the nature of truth, the more it is pressed downe, the more it riseth vp,A lie impudently auouched by M. Ievvel. and sheweth it selfe.
Had our doctrine ben forsaken the world through, your Gues I trowe in these lowe Countries, and your Huguenotes in Fraunce had prospered better.
But what wil not you sticke to auouch, which so boldely, yea so impudently doo auouche such a knowen Vntruthe? Vntruthe? Nay so sensible, and so palpable a Lie. The Catholique doctrine, not only contineweth in Italie, Fraūce, Spaine, Portugal, and Germanie, in whole Countries, and Territories, but euen where your breth [...]n are thickest, there lacke not Catholiques right many, and perfitte among them. Yea the Catholique doctrine is preached, and published among heathens, and Infidelles to the great glorie of God, and to the great despite of the deuill, and his ministers, as it wel appeareth by your selfe M. Iewel, and by your wordes whiche before I haue touched.
If our doctrine be forsaken the worlde through, where are we M. Iewel, against whom you write so busily? Are we out of the worlde? Where was the late general Councel, with so many Bishoppes, learned Doctours, and Princes Ambassadours there present, al condemning your hainous heresies? Were they al out of the world, or haue they al now changed their minde, and yelded vnto you? Maximilian the noble Emperour, King Philip of Spaine with al his so sundry, and so large Dominions, besides the kingdome of Naples, and Sicilia, the Dukedomes of Millan, Burgundie, Brabant, Holland, Zeland, Friseland, Gelderland, the Counties of Tyrol, Flaunders, Henault, and Artois, Charles king of Fraunce, the kinges of Portugal, and of Polonia, The states and Princes of Italie, with also many Dukedomes, Free Citties, States of Christendome besides, al yet remaining Catholique, are they al out of the worlde? I can not tel, whether I may cal this lye, more impudent, or more foolish.
Neither there any sufficient cause to the contrarie, but that Ber [...] garius, Iohn VViclef, Iohn Hus, D. Luther, Zuinglius, O [...] colampadius, and others, either for learning, or for truth, or for i [...] ment in the Scriptures or for Antiquitie, may vvel and safely b [...] co [...]pared vvith Lanfrancus, Guimundus, Abbas Cluniacensis, Tho [...] VValdensis, Iohn Fisher, and others.
Harding. What difference there is betwen these holy Fathers and those pestilent Heretiques.
The. 17. Chapt.No, no Sir, the oddes is exceding great. Berengarius, Wiclef, Hus, Luther, Zuinglius, and Oecolampadius, non comunicabant oībus gentibus, & illis Ecclesiis Apostolico labore fundatis, Aug. cont. Lit. Petil. lib. 2. cap. 16. did not cōmunicate with al nations, and those Churches, which were founded by the Apostles labour. Nay by the ful and intier cōsent of al nations Christened, assembled in general Councelles, they were al condemned. Berengarius in the great general Councel of Lateran. Anno. 1205. Wiclef, and Hus in the general Councel of Constance, Anno. 1413. Luther, and the rest, among whom you may take your selfe for one, in the late General Councel of Trent. Contrariewise the other Fathers communicated with the whole corps of Christendome then liuing. They were Bisshoppes, and Doctours of that age, lineally succeding in the Catholique doctrine, euen from the Apostles, and the Apostolike menne.
Againe these said Fathers are accompted and placed in honorable roumes, as Lumina Ecclesiae, lightes of the [Page 108] Churche in al Chronographies, yea made and written by the Protestantes them selues, namely by Henricus Pantaleon of Basil, and others of your secte. Berengarius, on the other side with al the rest, are noted in the Chronographies drawen out by Protestātes them selues in the rewe and line of condemned heretiques.
Thirdly what comparison is there betwen lewde lecherous Luther, and that holy Bisshop,B. Fisher. and blessed Martyr of God Doctour Fisher late Bisshop of Rochester? The very writinges of bothe extant, doo declare the diuersitie of their spirites. Luther taketh his pleasure in Ribaudrie, belketh out filthinesse, breatheth rancour, raileth, and reuelleth against the honorable states of the worlde beyonde al measure, euen against th [...]t Prince him selfe that afterwarde prepared the waie for your heresies to procede lustily, King He [...]ie the eight. The writinges of D. Fisher are wel knowen to be modest, piththy, and learned, and at this present highly esteemed in al Christendome. So are the writinges of Lanfrancus, Guimundus, and Cluniacensis. Of the others we haue but names only leaft, except Luther with the two others, whose writinges yet no doubte if euer Goddes truth preuaile, wil also at length come to nought, and haue the like fortune, as the bookes of al other heretikes haue had.
The Councelles ye meane, are very nevve, and therefore beare the lesse Authoritie, for that they be so many vvaies contrarie to the olde. Certainely there is none of your errours so grosse, and palpable, but by some of your late Councelles it hath benne confirmed.
Harding. The causes examined, for which M. Iewel alloweth not the Councelles of these last. 500. yeres.
The. 18. Chapt. Guli. Malmesburiē. lib. 3. de gestis Anglorum. Guimundus & Al. gerus lib. 1 de Sacramentis. Platina in Innocentio. 3. Tyrius lib. 21. cap. 26 Guido Carmelita de haeresibus. Platina. Palmerius Nauclerus.Three causes then there are (if I vnderstand you wel) why you and your felowes so saucily doo condemne the General Councelles holden in Christendome within these last fiue hundred yeres, as the Councelles holden at Toures in Fraunce, at S. Iohn Lateran in Rome, that vnder Nicolaus 2. to the number of. 114. Bishoppes, this vnder Innocentius 3. whereunto Patriarkes, Archebisshoppes, Bishoppes, and Abbates out of al partes of Christendome resorted, to the number of a thousand two hundred fourescore and fiue Fathers, in al which the doctrine of Berengarius was condemned.
Also the other General Councel holden at S. Iohn Lateran at an other time to the number of 300. Bishoppes, both of the East, and the West Churche, where the Waldenses your brethren were condemned, the Councel of Constance where the doctrine of Wiclef, and Hus was condemned, to the number of. 270. Bishoppes, last of al the General Councel of Trent, to the number of 198. Bishoppes, where sundry of your present heresies were after mature discussion with ful consent accursed, and condemned: Al these and diuers other Councelles for three causes you contemne, and despise. First, for that they are very newe: Secondly, for that they are contrary to the olde: Thirdly, bicause al our errours haue benne confirmed in them.
Your first cause implieth a great folie, I wil not saie [Page 109] also a blasphemie. A great folie it is for you, and your felowes to contemne the General Councelles of late yeres, for that they be newe, as you say, your selues and your doctrine being yet so newe, and of so litle age. Verely no age, or time of Christes Churche to any Christen man ought to seeme newe in respecte of doctrine and faith. If he beleeue the holy Scriptures describing the Church vnto vs, he can not without folie in that respecte cal it newe. The time may be newe, or late, bicause it commeth, and passeth. The Faithe, and Doctrine remaineth one, and the same not changed with the course of times. Nowe as the Worde of God, and our Faithe dureth for euer, so Christes Churche being one and the same, as it hath in al ages continewed, so shal it continewe to the worldes ende. This before hath benne prooued, and by your selfe confessed. The Councelles therefore, I meane the doctrine of Faith, opened, discussed, and agreed vppon in Councelles by the Bisshoppes, whom the holy Ghost hath ordeined to rule the Churche,Act. 20. Ephes. 4. and by the Pastours and Doctours, whome God placeth to the edefying of the Churche, that we be not carried awaie by euerie winde of doctrine, is not newe. The discussion, and plaine opening of it may be newe. The doctrine is olde, as truth it selfe is olde.Ansvver to the obiection of the later Coū celles being contrarie to the olde.
Your second cause, why these later Councelles doo beare with you the lesse Authoritie, is, for that, as you say, they be so many waies contrarie to the olde. It had benne good reason, that, if these later Councelles be so many waies contrarie to the olde, you had shewed presently at the lest one of those so many waies. Shal [Page] it be sufficient for you, to geue out such a Reproche i [...] a matter of so greate Importance without any prous [...] at al? It had benne plaine dealing, at the lest, to haue named some one Councel, and to haue touched some one pointe, wherein that Councel should be founde contrarie to the olde. This therefore I lette passe for a Notorious, and a Reprocheful Vntruthe, boldely auouched, but no waie proued.
Onely I aduertise the Reader, that it is not possible any general Councel shoulde be contrarie to an other, in matter of faith,One Churche, one faith. and necessarie doctrine. As the Churche in Faith is but one, so the Faith discussed, determined, and agreed vpon in Councelles (truely representing the whole body of the Churche) is but one. As the Churche can not be contrarie to it selfe in Faith, so general Councelles assembled in the holy Ghoste can not be contrarie to them selues. Marke wel good Sir what I saie,One general Councel can not in a matter of faith be contrary to an other Coū cel. Math. 18. In doctrine and matter of Faith, no lawful General Councel, truely and rightly, that is, in vnitie and Charitie, assembled, hath, or can at any time determine contrarie to an other likequalified. For so the one should erre in Faith, whereby Christes promise should seeme to faile, who said: wheresoeuer two or three are assembled together in my name, there am I in the middest of them. In my name, faith S. Cyprian, that is, in vnitie, and in the body.
That later Councelles haue determined some matters, not before in other Councelles determined, it is euident, and not denied. Heresies haue caused many matters to be more opened, then they were before, as S. Augustine noteth. But new articles of the faith be not decreed in Coū celles. [Page 110] That also in matter of manners, and of external order or gouernement, some Councelles haue done cōtratrarie to other according to the state of times, and diuersitie of circumstances, it is not denied. Yea that it be so done, sometime the state, and present case of the Church of necessitie requireth it.Aug. epist. 5. ad Marcellinum. For which S. Augustin saith notably. Non ita (que) verum est quod dicitur, semel rectè factum nullatenus esse mutandū. Mutata quippe tēporis causa, quod rectè antè factū suerat, ita mutari vera ratio plerū (que) flagitat, vt cū ipsi dicant rectè nō fieri si mutetur, contrà veritas clamet, rectè non fieri, nisi mutetur: quia vtrū (que) tunc erit rectū, si erit pro tēporū varietate diuersum. It is not therefore true which mē say, looke what thing is once wel done, it ought in no case to be changed. For the state of the time being altered, that thing, which was wel done before, good reason oftentimes requireth so to be changed, that whereas they say, it is not wel done, if it be changed, the truth on the other side crieth out, It is not weldone, if it be not changed: bicause both shal then be right and wel, if it shalbe diuers, according to the varietie of the time. But that in matter of faith or doctrine,Ansvver to that M I [...]vvel obiecteth against the later Coūcels, for that by the same al our doctrines, vvhiche they impugne, [...] con [...]irmed. as is a fore said any General Councel lawfully assembled was euer contrarie to the other, it is a mere vntruthe, and a false sclaunder, that can neuer be proued.
Where you say for a third cause, or reason, why these later Coūcels are of lesse autoritie, for that there is none of our errours so grosse, and palpable, but by some of them it hath ben cōfirmed, to that we answer: Quod das accip [...]mꝰ. we admit gladly, that in these late Coūcels al such matters as we defend (which it pleaseth yau to terme grosse and palpable errours) haue ben confirmed. We are then discharged, and the whole Church of late yeres is charged. [Page] But Sir being confirmed by General Councelles, why cal you them Errours grosse, and Palpable? Saie you not also herein, that the whole Churche erred at that time grossely and palpably? Let vs take one Councel, and one Age for example, to auoide confusion of general discoursing, and to bring this matter to some cleare issue.
The Lateran Councel vnder Innocentius. 3.In the yere of our Lorde. 1215. aboue three hundred yeres past, in the General Councel holden at S. Iohn Laterane in Rome, with ful consent of a thousand, two hundred, fourescore and fiue Fathers assembled there, out of al partes of Christendome, as wel out of the East Church, as out of the West, the Ambassadours, and Oratours, as wel of both Emperours being present, as also of diuers other Kinges, Princes, and States, it was by mature discussion found,Transubstātiatiō. and agreed vpon, and decreed so to be beleeued, that in the blessed Sacrament of the Aulter, due consecration being made, the substance of breade is changed into the substance of the body of Christ, and the substance of wine into the substāce of his bloode, the worde Transubstantiation (whereby much that belongeth to that mysterie is by a cōmodious breuitie expressed) was allowed, the opinion of Berengarius was condēned. This declaration, and determination you take to be a grosse and a palpable errour. For you are not ashamed you saie of Berengarius doctrine.
But Sir if this were a grosse, and a palpable Errour, how say you then, did al those Patriarkes, Archebisshoppes, Bishoppes, Abbates, Doctours, and learned Priestes grossely and palpably erre? Did the Emperours both of the Grecians, and of the Latines, the Kinges [Page 111] of Fraunce, Spaine, England, Hierusalem, Cyprus, whose Ambassadours and Oratours were there, representing the personnes of their Princes, and people to them subiecte, did al these also erre, with al their people, and subiectes grossely, and palpably? This question then I demaund of you M. Iewel. At these daies and in that age, where was the Churche of Christe? By you al erred, grossely, and palpably. Berengarius him selfe, whose doctrine was there condemned, had both recanted his Heresie, that you holde now, and was longe before that time dead and buried. There was not a man liuing at that daie, who was knowen in the vnitie of the Churche to maineteine that doctrine, whiche that Councel condemned, and whiche you now doo mainteine.
Only Almaricus Almaricus. is noted of the Chronographers to haue liued about the time of that Councel, and to haue holden the heresie of Berengarius. Pantaleō. Bernard. Lutzenburg. Gaguinus. Lib. 6. Pag. 48. But M. Iewel hath plainely renounced this Almaricus. He said before, of Abailard, and Almarike, and certaine other, we haue no skil. They are none of ours. Then as I said, there was not so muche as one man knowen at that time, in the vnitie of the Churche, and allowed by your iudgement, to haue holden the opinion by that General Councel condemned. This being so, either that Councel helde the vnitie of Christes Churche, or elles at that time Christe had no Churche at al. But Christes Churche endureth for euer,Pag. 32. you haue your felfe before confessed it: therefore we must beleue, that the said Councel helde the vnitie of Christes Church, and the doctrine by the Fathers of the same approued, is the true and Catholique doctrine of the Churche, and your Sacramentarie opinion to the [Page] contrarye at this daie, is a condemned heresie.
In like sorte by Induction we might discourse of the other General Councelles. But this one for example maie suffice, to proue, that the same pointes of doctrine, which you cal grosse and palpable Errours, M. Ievvel acknovvlegeth al the partes of doctrine vvher in he varieth from vs, to be approued by the Churche in General Councelles fully discussed, and confirmed in Councelles, are no Errours at al, but Catholike verities and truthes, tried, and confirmed by the highest, and most infallible Authoritie, that is in earth. And we haue al good cause to reioise M. Iewel, that by the force of truthe ye are driuen so freely, and so plainely to graunt vnto vs the confirmation, and Approbation of Councelles, for al such pointes of doctrine, as we defende against you, termed by you, modestly, I trowe, and without heate, or choler, Grosse and palpable Errours. He must needes be a great fauourer of your secte, that vpon the warrant of your mouth only, wil holde the general determinations of Councelles for grosse and palpable Errours. And very grosse must he be, that seeth not the proude Luciferly sprite breathing forth of you, in such a malapert and sawcy controllement of them, whom God ordeined in their time to gouerne his Church. No, no M. Iewel your mouth is no iuste measure, your penne is no right square, your verdite is very insufficient for a dew resolutiō thereof to be taken in matters of such importance.
Yet haue you forsooth an example for your so doing, and that of no lesse man, then S. Augustine him selfe. For thus you inferre to iustifie your former asseuerations.
August. Contra Maximin lib. 3. c. 14. Therefore vve maie iustly saie to you, as S. Augustine sometime said to Maximinus the Arian heretike. Neither maie I laie to thee the Councel of Nice, nor maiest thou laie to me the Councel of Ariminum, [Page 112] either of vs thinking thereby to finde preiudice against the other. But let vs laie matter to matter, cause to cause, and reason to reason, by the Authoritie of the Scriptures.
Harding. How litle this place of S. Augustine serueth M. Iewels purpose, and how falsly by him it is alleged.
How your therefore foloweth M. Iewel, I see not,The .19. Chapt. excepte you wil reason thus: The later Councelles haue confirmed grosse and palpable errours: Therefore you wil not, that we should laye them against you, no more then S. Augustine would laye the Nicene Coūcel against Maximinus the Arian. See you not howe vntowardly, this your therefore foloweth? For admit that we graunted you that the late Councelles were erroneous (which we wil not, ne may not in any wise graunt you) yet you wil not I trowe saie, that the Nicene Councel also was erroneous. If the Nicene Coūcel were not erroneous, but a most Autentike, and Catholique Councel, what deduction can you make from the one to the other? If S. Augustine had refused the Nicene Councel, as you refuse the late Councelles, that is, if he had condemned the Nicene Councel of grosse and palpable errours, as you doo condemne the later Councelles: then had the example of S. Augustine serued your turne, this being presupposed, that these later Councelles were suche, as you sclaunder them to be. Now S. Augustine doth not so put of the Nicene Councel, either as an erroneous Councel, or as an Authoritie insufficient, whereby to controlle the Heretike: but partely, bicause the Heretike quarelled about the name of an other Councel at Ariminum, which [Page] was no lawful Councel in deede, but a schismatical, and heretical conuenticle (and yet were there at it 800. Bishoppes, but for wante of Damasus the Popes confirmation,Sozom. lib. 6. cap. 23. Theodor. lib. 2. cap. 21. as Sozomenus, and Theodoritus doo write, it was accompted for none) partely also bicause he sawe him selfe sufficiently instructed otherwise with holy scriptures to confute the Arian. For these two causes to cut of occasion of longer brabling, and to drawe the sooner to an issue (for it was in an open disputation before a multitude, not in priuate writinges carried to and fro) S Augustine was content to laie aside the aduantage that he had of the Nicene Councel, vpon condition the Arian would brable no more of the Councel of Ariminum. This did S. Augustine of Christian policie, and by occasion then ministred, and not as geuing example to others to shake of al Authoritie of Councelles, as you doo M. Iewel of a great many.
Againe, you require vs to presse you no more with the late general Councelles of Laterane, of Constāce, of Florence, of Trent, and such other, as the Arian required, not to be pressed with the Nicene: but you haue not so much as the name of one Councel of your parte, for the whiche we might by waie of composition yelde our Councelles, that you also might yelde yours, as the Arians had the names of that of Ariminum, and certaine other Councelles holden by the Arians. Your heresies (God be praised) haue not yet prospered so much, that ye might haue hundreds of Bishoppes to assemble, and determine on your side, as the Arians had. Therefore againe your case is very vnlike, and your example of S. Augustine and the Arian, very vneuen. When you haue Councelles on [Page 113] your fitl [...], that shal make for the proufe of your Doctrine and for condemnation of our Doctrine, then maye this place of S. Augustine seeme to serue your purpose.
Last of al your accustomed legierdemaine in citing this place, openeth your falshood. For in the sentence immediatly going before the wordes by you alleged, S. Augustine professeth plainely the authoritie of the Nicene Councel to haue ben sufficient for conuincing of the Arian heretike. Thus he saith. Hoc est illud Homusion, Lib. 3. ca. 14. contra Maximinū Arianū quod in Concilio Niceno aduersus haereticos Arianos à Catholicis patribus veritatis authoritate, & authoritatis veritate firmatum est. This is that Doctrine concerning Homusion, whiche in the Councel of Nice was confirmed against the Arian heretiques with the Authoritie of Truthe, and with the Truthe of Authoritie.S. Augugustine falsly alleged by M. Ievv. vvordes of chiefe importāce quite lefte out. Sed nunc. Streight after it foloweth, Sed nunc nec ega &c. But now at this present, neither wil I laye against thee, &c. as before you alleged it.
These wordes, Sed nunc. But nowe, whiche importe the doing of S. Augustine to haue ben but for that present time, and occasion, and doo shewe, that he meant not generally to renounce the Nicene Councel, those wordes I saie M. Iewel, you quite leafte out, alleging S. Augustines wordes in such sorte, as if he had peremptorily, and precisely protested, that the Arian had ben no more bounde to the Authoritie of the Nicene Councel, then he him selfe was bounde to the Councel of Ariminum. Whereas both before he plainely protested, that the Catholike Fathers of the Nicene Councel had determined against the Arian heretiques, veritatis authoritate, & authoritatis veritate, By authoritie of Truth, and by [Page] truthe of Authoritie, and also in this later saying restrained him selfe only to the time present, for cause befor [...] mencioned.
O how would that blessed Father be agreeued, if now he were a liue, and sawe his sayinges so peruersly wrested to a sense by him neuer meant, nor intended, and that drawen to mainetenance of heresie, wherein he relented, for better meanes to be had towardes the Confutation of heresie?
In what credite, and estimation S. Augustine had General Councelles.
The 20. Chapt.Howbeit this blessed Father touching the credite and authoritie of lawful Councelles, not only in this present place (as it now appeareth) but also in others of his workes hath written so circumspectly, and warely: that excepte heretiques were of very purpose, and mere wilfulnesse sette to peruerte the truthe, they coulde neuer haue piked out of his sayinges, so muche as any colour of aduantage to the preiudice of Councelles. Contrarywise to the aduauncement of their credite, and estimation, he writeth in sundry places. Verely to the Donatistes being confuted, and conuinced by a great Assemblie of the Aphrican Bishoppes,August. epist. 152. Ad populū factionis Donatia [...]a. he saith, Nulla excusatio iam remansit. Nimium dura, nimium diabolica sunt hominum corda, quae adhuc tantae manifestationi veritatis obsistunt. There remaineth now no excuse. The hartes of menne are too too harde, and too too deuilish, whiche doo yet withstande the truth so clearely opened vnto them. How much better may we saie this vnto you, and your companions M. Iewel, whose [Page 114] heresies haue ben detected, and learnedly confuted in the late General Councel of Trent, vnto the whiche out of al Catholique Countries of Christendome, Bishopes, and the best learned menne were assembled?
Againe disputing against the errour of S. Cyprian touching the rebaptizing of such as heretiques had baptized, in the ende he concludeth with the Authoritie of a General Councel, and protesteth, that he him selfe would not haue ben so bolde, as in such sorte to confute that holy Fathers opinion, excepte he had had the General Councel on his side. These are his wordes.August. de Baptismo cōtra Donatist. li. 2. cap. 4. Nec nos ipsi tale aliquid auderemus asserere, nisi vniuersae Ecclesiae concordissima authoritate firmati: cui & ipse sine dubio cederet, si iam illo tempore quaestionis huius veritas eliquata, & declarata per plenarium Conciliū solidaretur. Neither should we be so bolde, as to affirme so much, but that we are assuredly vpholden with the authoritie of the most vniforme consent of the vniuersal Church. To the which (S. Cyprian) him selfe would vndoubtedly haue yeelded, if at that time, the truth of this question being boulted out and made cleare, had benne by a ful (general) Councel established.
In like manner he vrgeth the Pelagians, saying.August. Cōtra Iulianum .li. 3. cap. 1. Vestra verò apud competens Iudicium communiū episcoporum causa modò finita est. Nec amplius vobiscū agendū est, quantū ad ius examinis pertinet, nisi vt prolatā de hac re sententiā cū pace sequamini. Quòd si nolueritis, a turbulenta, vel seditiosa inquietudine cohibeamini. Your matter is now ended, by sufficient iudgemēt of Bishops from al partes. Neither ought we now to haue further dealing with you, as touching right of examination to be made, but now it behoueth [Page] that y [...] folowe peacebly the verdite, whiche hath [...] pronounced of this matter. And if ye wil not, yet that ye be restrained from al troblesome, and seditious disorder.
August. Epist. 118. ad Ianuarium.Last of al speaking of General Councelles, he saith, Quorum est in Ecclesia saluberrima authoritas, their Authoritie in the Churche is most holsome.
And bicause M. Iewel findeth him selfe agreeued wit [...] the later Councelles, and is offended with the newnesse of them, and claimeth by former Councels, and pretēdeth to folow the Apostles owne Traditions: let vs see, what S. Augustine (of whom he would so faine borow helpe, if it would be) wil saie for him. Whereas the Donatistes for their rebaptizing of such as the Catholiques had baptized, alleged th' Apostles Tradition, and neglected a late General Coūcel assembled against their opinion, holding vpon a more auncient Tradition, euen such as came from the Apostles: to them in this case S. Augustine saith thus. Nec quisquam dicat, August. li. 4. cap. 7. de Baptis. cōtra Donatistas. quod accepimus ab Apostolis, hoc sequimur. Quatò robustiuo nūc dicimus, Quod ecclesiae cōsuetudo semper tenuit, quod haec disputatio dissuadere nō potuit, et quod plenariū Concilium cōfirmauit, hoc sequimur? Neither let any man saie (as the Donatistes said, and as Protestantes now saie) we folowe that, which we haue receiued of the Apostles. Howe muche more stronger is that we saie now, we folowe that which the Custome of the Church hath euermore holden, whiche al this reasoning to and fro, hath not ben able to plucke out of mens hartes, and last of al, which a ful General Councel hath confirmed? So highly esteemed S. Augustine those things,August. li. 2. de Baptisme. cap. 9. which M. Iewel of al other maketh lest accompt of.
And againe he saieth, Concilia posteriora prioribus apud [Page 115] poster [...]s praep [...]nuntur. Later Coū cels preferred before the former, for what cause. The posteritie preferreth the Later Councelles before the Former. Not as though the later should be contrarie to the former, but bicause in the later Coūcels the Church is alwaies better instructed, through the contradictions of heretikes, by occasion whereof matters are more exactely searched, discussed, and more clearely opened. Like as the flint stoanes being knokte harde together fier flieth out, and corne the more ye fifte it, the purer it is tried: so truthe by our aduersaries Contradictions is beaten out, and doubteful pointes by long discussion, and search are made plaine and cleare.
Therefore againe he saith,Ibidem .li. 2. cap. 3. Ipsa plenaria Concilia saepe priora posterioribus emendantur, cúm aliquo experimento rerum aperitur, quod clausum erat, & cognoscitur quod latebat.
The very former general Councells are oftentimes corrected by the later Councells, when as by some trial of ma [...]er that thing is opened, whiche before was close shut vp and that is knowen, whiche before laie hid.
Ye [...] and this is the chiefe and best fruite,The benefit and fruite of heresies. August. in Psal. 54. super versum, Diuisi sunt prae ira, &c. that heresies bring vnto the Churche, as the same S. Augustine otherwhere declareth, where he saith: The matter of the blessed Trinitie was neuer wel discussed, vntil the Arian [...] barked against it. The Sacrament of Penaunce was neuer throughly handled, vntil the Nouatians beganne to withstande it. Neither the cause of Baptisme was wel discussed, vntil the rebaptizing Donatistes arose, and troubled the Churche. Thus M. Iewel, if you geue eare vnto S. Augustine, whose example you seeme to claime by, you shal learne of him not to refuse, and renounce the authoritie of General Councels, but to obey them, and to yeeld dew reuerence vnto them, yea though they be later, and as you cal them, new.
Truth draue M. Iewel to iustifie al our Doctrine, wherein he dissenteth from vs.
The 21. Chap.This oddes therefore remaineth betwen you and vs, that our doctrine, yea euery pointe thereof in cotrouersie now, is (by your owne confession) approued by the later General Councelles: and so we defende no doctrine of our owne, nor mainteine any prophane Nouelties of our owne deuise, but we folowe Saluberrimam authoritatem, the most holesome and sounde authoritie (as S. Augustine termeth it) of General Councels: that is to saie, we folowe the voice of the whole bodie of Christes Churche (most truely represented in Councelles) the voice of Christes spouse, yea the voice of Christe him selfe, speaking to vs by his Churche, and so speaking, that he willeth him, whiche heareth not the Churche, to be accompted for a Heathen,Matt. 18. and a Publicane. Contrariewise your Doctrine M. Iewel, is not only not authorized in General Councelles, but also is clearely condemned by the same, as for example (that one maie serue in steede of many) the General Councel of Laterane condemneth your Sacramentarie heresie.
Yet we thanke not you, but the truthe, that you haue this muche confessed for vs. And as S. Augustine said of the Donatistes, so we saie most truely of you: Vt illa omnia vel loquendo, vel legendo, pro causa nostra promerent, atque propalarent, Aug. contra Donatist. post collat. ca. 34. veritas eos torsit, non charitas inuitauit. That the Donatistes shoulde vtter and bring forthe either by talke, or by allegation out of a booke, al those thinges for behoofe of our matter, the truth forced them, it was not any charitie that inuited them. The truthe, I saie [Page 116] M. Iewel, not any loue you beare to our cause, forced you to confesse, that there is none of our errours (so you terme sundry weightie pointes of the Catholike Faith) that by some of the late Councelles, hath not benne confirmed. We take that you geue vs right gladly, in asmuch, as it declareth you to be conuinced by witnesse of your owne mouthe, For if the pointes of Faith and Religion, wherein ye dissent from vs, be approued and confirmed by authoritie of the Churche in General Councelles, who seeth not, what a good staffe we haue to leane vnto? And who is that Christian man, whiche wil not humbly beleue the same?
The Thirde Booke conteineth a Detection of certaine Lies, Cauilles, Sclaunders, &c. vttered by M. Iewel in the second parte of his pretensed Defence.
VVhere ye fantasie that the Bodie of Christe in the Sacramente hath in it, selfe neither. Fourme, nor Proportion, nor Limitation of place, nor Distinction of partes, S. Augustine telleth you, Spatia locorum tolle, &c. Take awaie from Bodies Limitation of place, and the Bodies wil be no where: Augu. ad Dardanū epist. 57. And bicause they be nowhere, they wil be nothing. Take awaie from Bodies the qualities of Bodies, there wil be no place for them to be in: and therefore the same Bodies muste needes be no Bodies at al. Hereof vve maie conclude, that the Bodie of Christe, vvhich you haue imagined to be contiened grosly, and carnally in the Sacrament, for as much as by your ovvne confession, it hath neither Qualitie, nor Quantitie, nor Fourme, nor place, nor proporti [...] of Bodie, therefore by S. Augustines doctrine, it is no Bodie.
Harding. Answer to the Obiection made out of S. Augustine to Dardanus against the real presence of Christes Bodie in the Blessed Sacrament.
The. 1. Chapt. THE great confidence you haue in S. Augustines two sayinges in his 57. Epistle to Dardanus, may much better serue your turne to skirmish with Brentius a Master of youres,Brentius the autor of the heresie of the Vbi. quetaries. and a graund Captaine emong the Lutherans, who spareth not by publique write to teache the world, that Christes Humanitie is euerie where as his Diuinitie is, then against the Catholique [Page 117] doctrine of Christes Bodily presence in the Blessed Sacrament, wherein no suche errour is allowed, that Christes humanitie should be euery where with his Godhead, but it is auouched, that Christe by his omnipotent power, doth make his Bodie present in as many places, as the Blessed Sacrament is duely,Natural qualities suspēded from Bodies by Goddes special povver. Exod. 3. Daniel. 3. Exod. 14. and rightly consecrated.
You are not ignorant M. Iewel, but that you know, that God by his special power hath suspended from diuers sortes of Bodies, sundrie natural Qualities, as he did suspende the action of burning from the Fire, as wel in the Bushe that Moyses sawe, as in the firie Fournaice, where the three Children were saued: the fluxilitie of water bothe in the Redde Sea being diuided, and geuing passage to the Children of Israel safely to goo throughe, and in the Riuer of Iordane:Iosue. 3. Matth. 4. Exod. 34. 3. Reg. 19. the verie force of natural heate bothe in his owne Bodie, and in Moyses, and in Helias Bodies, when they fasted fortie daies, and fortie nightes: the peise, and the weight of his owne bodie, when he walked vpon the water:Matt. 14. the grossenesse of his owne Bodie in his Transfiguration.Matt. 17.
If suche qualities, whiche doo naturally followe the state of al Bodies, maie for a time be suspended, or taken awaie by Goddes Omnipotent power:The very point of the Ansvvere. why maye not Extension of place, and Limitation, whiche are mere Accidental to al Bodies, be as wel suspended? Bodies doubtelesse leafte to their owne Common nature, haue alwaies the state, that S. Augustine speaketh of in his Epistle to Dardanus. But the precious Bodie of our Sauiour made present in the Sacrament, not by common [Page] natural action apperteining to Bodies, but by the special working of God Omnipotent, farre passing al natural power, is not bounde to that state, or condition.
Defence pag 88.And whereas M. Iewel thinketh, I must take a daie to answere a peeuishe question that he moueth, why Christes Bodie in Fourme, maie not as wel be in many places, as the same in Substance: to this question I answere without suche great delaie as he appointeth, that there is no Contradiction implied, including any impossibilitie to God, if I should graunte, that one Bodie, as wel in Fourme, as in Substance, might be in diuers places at once by Goddes incomprehensible power.
The true meaning of S. Augustines place to Dardanus.But the Controuersie at this time lieth not betwixte vs for the right vnderstanding of S. Augustines place to Dardanus, what maie be by Goddes omnipotent power: But in what state, and Condition the Bodie of Christe is now, being vnited with the Godhed, whether it be onely by the force of that Coniunction euery where, as the Godhed is. To this Question S. Augustine answereth, that it is not. For notwithstanding it be vnited with the Godhed, yet thereupon it foloweth not, it should matche the Godhed in being euerywhere with the Godhed, which errour your graund Captaine Brentius is not afraid to defende. Against whom for the refutation of that pointe,Peter Martyr at variance vvith Brē tius. Peter Martyr of condemned memorie, though a great God emong you, hath written a Pamphlet. So hath Bullinger: and Brentius againe, against Bullinger. Whereby the worlde maie see, how your Captaines, and your great Goddes doo disagree emong them selues.
The voice that is one in the origine,Example of the Voice. pronounced by one man, if you wil beleeue Priscian that auncient learned Grammarian, is a verie Bodie: and yet the selfe same one voice, is driuen into the eares of a thousand personnes at once, as experience teacheth you by the common course of Nature. And yet you wil needes appointe the Omnipotent power of God suche limites, as please you. Whether the Voice be a Bodie, or a Qualitie, to our purpose it maketh no matter. If common Nature be hable to driue one and the selfe same Qualitie into diuers places at one time, I truste menne wil haue grace to see, that Goddes working, who is the Author of Nature, maie as wel vse Bodies in the like case, and specially his owne glorified Bodie, being vnited with the Godhed.
Aristotle, who trauailed al together in the searche of Nature, in his disputation against them, that would needes establish Vacuum, Vacuum. Successiue motion. sawe no other causes of Successiue Motion, but onely the Fourme of the Bodie moued, the resistence of the Bodie, through the whiche the Motion was made, and the strength, or power of the Mouer, whiche being limited, might at length be wearied. These groundes being laied, he concludeth against the defenders of Vacuum, that if their opinion were true, it would followe, that one Bodie might be in diuers places at once, for lacke of resistence in the Bodie, through the whiche Motion is made.
If Aristotle by natural reason sawe none other causes of Successiue Motion, but suche as I haue tolde, and for the lacke of one of them, sawe, that one [Page] Bodie might be in diuers places at once: what would that great Philosopher haue laid of the state of Glorious Bodies, if he had benne endewed with the knowledge of them, in whose motion he should haue founde the lacke of al his causes, no hinderance nor lette in the Fourme and Figure of the bodie glorified, to moue as it wil, no hinderance nor let in the Bodie through whiche the Motiō must passe, as it appeareth in the quicke passage of our Sauiours Bodie through the doores remaining shutte,Iohn. 20. without let or hinderance, no wearinesse in the power of the glorified Bodie to moue as long as it wil? If al glorified Bodies by the lacke of the impedimentes that make Successiue Motions, can not be staied by al witte that Aristotle had, but that they maie be in diuers places at once: what shal men thinke of the glorified Bodie of our Sauiour, whiche is now knitte in vnitie of person with the Godhed?
Thus I muste sende M. Iewel being destitute of faith to Aristotle, to learne witte of him. Besides this, sith bothe the auncient Fathers that wrote within the first six hundred yeres, and al Catholique Writers, that wrote sith that time, doo plainely testifie, that the Bodie of our Sauiour is verely, and really present in the Sacrament of the Aulter, as it is wel proued by M. D. Saunder, and others, to whom I marueile M. Iewel answereth not: euery simple witted man must needes conceiue, that al suche Writers must also agnise the very real presence of our Sauiours pretious Bodie in as many places, as the Sacrament is rightly consecrated. So that now I had more neede to take a daie to awake M. Iewel out of his deepe dreames [Page 119] of grosse ignorance, and infidelitie, then to consider better how to answer so Childishe a question, wherein no Christian man seeth any difficultie. The Prophete telleth you the waie to vnderstand, what I saie, and also that the waie, that you take, shal neuer bring you to vnderstande, what our Religion meaneth, where he saith: Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis: Onlesse ye beleeue, Esai. 7. in 70. ye shal not vnderstande. Let faith be in the foundation M. Iewel, and thereupon maie you builde al that is good. You place in your foundation, your owne blinde reason, and make that the Controller of Faith, thereby deceiuing your selfe, and al that beleeue you.
What a Busines maketh M. Iewel to proue,Fourme. Pag. 89. that the terme, Fourme, doth signifie Substance? As though a terme, that hath many significations, as the terme, Fourme hath, ought alwaies to be taken for that signification, whiche he wil appointe, and not for that whiche aggreeth best with the right meaning of the Authours minde. No doubte Fulgentius neuer meant to take the terme, Fourme, in suche a signification, that shoulde exclude Christes bodily Presence from the blessed Sacrament: in the doing whereof he should haue benne contrarie both to him selfe,Termes that haue diuers significations, are not to be taken at pleasure, but according to the Tradition. and to the Faith of the Catholique Churche, at that time vniuersally confessed.
Looke in the Scriptures, there shal you finde diuers Termes, that haue many significations. If Heretiques might haue the libertie that M. Iewel claimeth, to appointe in euery place, where any suche Terme is vsed, what signification the same must haue: they might easily ouerthrowe al the groundes of our [Page] Faithe. The Article of the Resurrection of our fles [...] were quite abolished,1. Cor. 15. bicause it is written, Car [...] & sangui [...] regnum Dei non possidebunt, Fleshe and bloude shal not possesse the kingdome of God.Rom. 8. Againe, Qui in carne sunt, Deo placere non possunt: they who are in fleshe, can not please God. In these places, and suche others, if fleshe and bloude should be taken for the substance, and not for the vicious motions, and filthie actes, that rise out of the fleshe, no man should be saued, no fleshe should be partaker of eternal life, contrarie to holy Iobs Confession and beleefe,Iob. 19. who said, Et in carne mea, videbo Deum. And in myne owne Fleshe I shal see God: Where Fleshe is taken for the Substance, and not for the corruption of the Fleshe.Psal. 83. Cor meum, & caro mea exultauerunt in Deum viuum, My harte, and my fleshe reioised in the liuing God: Verbum Caro factum est, Ioan. 1. the worde was made fleshe: Where Fleshe is taken for the Substance. If then any Heretique would be so frowarde, as arrogantly to stand in Defence, that, as Fleshe is taken in these later places for the substance, euen so it must be taken in the former, as M. Iewel plaieth for the signification of this terme, Fourme: Where were the Resurrection of our fleshe to life eternal? Yea where were our Saluation? Where were our Faithe?1. Cor. 15. Inanis esset fides vestra, inanis praedicatio nostra: Your faith were voide, our preaching also were voide, saith S. Paule.
Infinite suche places might be brought of Termes, that haue many significations, whose signification for euery place, if M. Iewel had ful authoritie to appointe at his pleasure, to serue best his owne turne: [Page 120] our Faith woulde soone be quite ouerthrowen. For very shame lette M. Iewel from henceforthe leaue dallying in matters of Faith by Equiuocation of Termes. The Counterfeit personage he beareth, should put him in minde of more sadnesse, honestie, and plainer dealing.
Be it, that the Ladie Interpreter,The Ladie Interpreter. Pag. 89. whome you doo praise so muche be of suche learning, vertue, and grauitie, yea hable to ouermatche your selfe also, if you putte not on your saddest countenance: yet shal you alwaie finde her giltie of vnwomanly Presumption, either in translating that, whiche she vnderstoode not, or, if she vnderstoode it, in that she stepte a wrye for the nonce, vsing one signification of the worde, when the author meaneth the other. In which case I might with more reason, and right reprehend her, not onely of Presumption, but also of Malice, in that she woulde deceiue the ignorant Reader, then you might reprehende the lacke of manly Modestie in me, in warning the Reader to take heede.An impudent, and filthy corruption, and falsifying of the wordes of the Confutation. VVil ye see, hovv this man dissembleth a faulte?
I vvil not here tel you M. Harding, hovv lovvdely you haue demeaned your selfe tovvardes her, vvhom it liketh you so often, and so scornefully to cal the Lady Interpreter. &c. I beseeche you, cal your vvordes againe to minde, if you can vvithout blushing: So roughly to handle so softe a creature. This Phrase of speeche your very frendes haue mutche misliked, and, as it is in deede, so in Plaine vvordes they cal it Ruffianrie, a vertue, although matche agreable vnto your profession, yet vnmeete for a man either of learning, or of sober vvisedome. But this faulte, emong many others, as I haue said, I vvil dissemble.
Harding. M. Iewelles impudencie, and Ruffianly corruption detected.
The .2. Chapt.You wil not here tel me you saie, how lewdely I haue demeaned my selfe towardes my Lady A. B. what shal I cal her? For the name of my Lady Interpreter, liketh you not. Yea God knoweth, suche Charitie is suddeinly blowen vpon this man, that, if he knew any lewde faulte in me, he woulde conceele it, and spare my honestie. I beseeche God so to keepe me by his grace from sinne, and shame, as I were sure by him, bothe in bookes, and pulpites to be proclaimed lewde, and vnhonest, if he knewe any lewde, or vnhonest acte done by me. And whereas you pretende, you wil not tel me: ye tel al, and more then al. But tel on in Goddes name M. Iewel, and saue your belly from bursting, saie the worst ye can, if you can saie any thing without a lye.
Marke Reader hovv this Ruffiārie is proued.As for this Ruffianrie, wherewith you charge me, il be he thought of, that il thinketh. In good sooth before you wrote these impure wordes, I did not so muche as once thinke of the Filth, which your filthy penne, ruled by commaundement of your filthy harte, hath here most filthily vttered. God be thanked, that your Searchers, and Promotours, haue not mette with al the Bookes of my Confutation of your Apologie.
There the Reader shal finde these very wordes, whereby your malice,Confutat. fol. 41, a. and impudencie maie appeare to al the worlde. Confutation. ‘Whether I maie [Page 121] charge her with so hainous a crime (of a falsifyed translation) or no, I doubte. Perhaps as she passeth the boundes of womanly state, in presuming to medle so farre in these perilous matters, allowed now by a fewe of the newe Englishe Churche, and disallowed alwaies by the whole auncient Churche of Christendome (if the translation be hers, and not an others set forth in her name): so maie I seeme to forgete courtesie, thus roughly to blame so softe a creature.’
What Ruffianrie M. Iewel can you finde in these wordes of mine? Why shoulde any frende of myne mislike this Phrase of speache? Why maie not I cal them to minde, without any blushing at al? In deede as you haue falsly reported them, altering one worde for an other, whereas I wrote, I maie seeme to forgete courtesie, thus roughly to blame so softe a creature, your false reporte being, so roughly to handle so softe a creature, in phantasiastical headdes, and vncleane imaginations, it might breede an opinion of some vnchaste meaning. But if your Euangelical sinceritie could haue suffred my wordes to stande, as they were by me written, if you had not changed the honest worde, blame, whiche I vsed,The honeste vvorde, blame, by M. Ievvel charged into the filthy vvorde, handle. into the worde of vnhonest meaning, handle, whiche you would haue men beleeue, that I vsed: how should there haue risen of my wordes any opinion of il meaning? Verely M. Iewel, in your alteration of my wordes, and placing in the steede of the worde (blame) the worde (handle) that seemed to you to serue better for your filthy purpose to disgrace myne honestie if you coulde, there appeareth an euident argument, both of false, and also of malicious dealing.
Your very frendes must needes mislike with you, if they [Page] haue any honestie, for this your vnhonest handling. You are neuer hable to auoide it, cast vpon it what colours you can. What woulde you sticke to speake of me, were I dead, that are not ashamed thus to belie me, being a liue, and occupied in shewing to the worlde, with what impudent lyes ye blotte your papers? Yet of al your foule shiftes, this is one of the fowlest, and such as in common persons, is called, you know what, I am a shamed to speake it, you are not a shamed to plaie the parte.
The Apologie parte. 2. Cap. 1. Diuision. 2. Pag. 90.
VVe beleeue that the holy Ghost, vvho is the thirde person in the holy Trinitie, is very God: not made, not created, not begotten, but proceding from both the Father, and the Sonne, by a certaine meane vnknowen vnto man, and vnspeakeable. &c.
Confutation.
Cōfut. fol. 41. b ‘As we acknowledge this article to be true and Catholike, so we demaunde of these Defenders, how they can proue the same? Haue they either expresse Scripture for it, or any of the first foure general Councelles, whiche be esteemed of most authoritie? We are sure they haue not. Therfore we doo them to vnderstand, that if they heare vs not, we aduertise the Readers that feare God, and loue his truthe, that al truthe necessarily to be beleeued is not expressed in the Scripture, and that other Councelles be to be receiued besides the foure firste, whiche are allowed in England by Parlament,Left out by M. Ievvel. as that wherein this point touching the Proceding of the holy Ghoste hath benne defined. Concil. Lugdunen. & Concil. Florentin. sub [Page 122] Eugenio. 4. as also other definitions of the Church, when vpon a new doubte rising, an olde Truthe is by later publications declared. &c. *’
Consider M. Harding, notvvithstanding ye euermore tel vs of Fathers, Fathers, yet hovv contrary oftentimes, ye are in iudgement to the same Fathers. You saie, that the Godhed of the holy Ghoste, can not be proued by expresse vvordes of the Scriptures, and thereof ye say, ye are right sure.
Harding. That M. Iewel is not able to proue by Scripture certaine truthes, whiche with the Catholiques he teacheth touching the holy Ghoste.
What folie is in frowardnesse,The. 3. Chapt. it appeareth by M. Iewels trauaile to proue the Godhed of the holy Ghoste by Scriptures, which I neuer denied, nor euer gaue him such issue to proue. But where he confesseth a Trinitie, and that the holy Ghost is the thirde person in the holy Trinitie, whiche holy Ghost also he confesseth to proceede from the Father, and the Sonne, though al these partes be true and Catholique: yet I saie he is neuer hable to proue any of these pointes by any expresse wordes of the Scriptures.Thinges beleeued, and yet not expressely writen in Scripture
Where can he finde this worde, Trinitie, in this signification, in al Scripture? Where hath he this worde, Person, in this signification in any place of the Scripture? Where hath he in any expresse wordes of the Scripture, [Page] that the holy Ghoste proceedeth from the Father, and the Sonne? Or where hath he in al the Scripture, that the holy Ghost is rather the thirde Person in Trinitie, then the seconde?
These are the pointes that M. Iewel is charged to proue by expresse wordes of Scripture, and not that the Holy Ghoste is God.The word Transubstantiatiō abhorred, bicause it is not foūd in scripture, expressely. The worde, Transubstantiation, they abhorre, bicause it is no where founde expressely in Scripture, and yet they acknowledge the worde, Trinitie, and the worde, Person, both First, Seconde, and Thirde, though these wordes be no where founde expressely in these significations in the whole bodie of the Scriptures. So can these craftie Iuglers, and false peruerters of Goddes truthe doo, when they be disposed, changing them selues into al manner colours like the beast Chameleon, excepte the colour of good meaning, and plaine dealing, into whiche for any long time, they can not change them selues.
I trust, Gentle Reader, thou vvilt not looke I should ansvver al M. Hardinges ordinarie idle talke. So should I loose good time vvithout cause, and be ouer troublesome to thine eares. O, saith he, what a world is it to see these Defenders? They whiche haue not kepte the Vnitie of spirite, in the bande of Charitie, whiche S. Paule requireth, but haue seuered them selues from the body of the Churche, tel vs now forsooth, they beleeue, that there is one Churche of God. O M. Harding, if vve haue herein saide il, then beare vvitnesse of the il: If vvee haue saide vvel, vvherefore make you this bitter outcries? &c.
Harding. The Protestantes claime by the great visible Churche, and by the litle inuisible Churche, as it serueth best their turne.
O M. Iewel, if your saying, and doctrine were one,The. 4. Chapt. I would neuer reprehend you: but when you say one thing openly, an other thing priuily, and haue diuers pointes of secrete Doctrine contrarie the one to the other, when ye are driuen to the straightes, as now claiming by an inuisible Churche no where appearing many hundred yeres together (whiche, to say the truthe, is no Churche at al) and now by your great visible Churche, spred abrode in al kingdomes, when ye haue made your packe: what is this in effecte, but in woordes for the time to sette foorth your beleefe of one Churche gloriously, and when time wil not beare out this gaie glorious Confession of yours, then, as your manner is, to runne to Corners, to seeke some comforte of an vnknowen Inuisible Churche, where both the Ministers, the preachers, the Sacramentes, the people, and their whole life are al together inuisible? In the saying wherof, what doo ye elles, but vtterly denie that one Churche, which ye ought to Confesse?
VVe say,See Reader hovv vvel this ghear is proued. M. Harding. fol. 25. a. that our Doctrine, and the Order of our Churches, is elder then yours by fiue hundred vvhole yeres, and more. If ye vvil not beleeue vs, yet beleeue M. Harding: he vvil tel you euen the same. Marke vvel his vvordes: These they be: It standeth not with Christes promises made to the Churche, that he should suffer his Churche [Page] to continew in darkenesse these thousand yeres past. And thus by secrete confession, he leaueth vs fiue hundred, three score and sixe vvhole yeres at the least: that is to say, the vvhole time of Christe, of his Apostles, and al the Godly learned Doctours, and Fathers of the primitiue Churche, &c.
Harding. That by no such secrete Confession I haue graunted them the first fiue hundred yeres, &c.
The. 5. Chapt.To bring M. Iewel once to feele his palpable grosnesse in mistaking one thing for an other, thus I made my reason. Christes promise is as wel warranted to the Church [...] for the later thousand yeres, as for the firste fiue hundred: But it saued the Churche from errour the firste fiue hundred yeres, by your owne Confession M. Iewel: Ergo, it hath saued the Churche from errour the later thousand yeres. Where is the secret confession, that I gaue you the firste fiue hundred yeres of light, and lefte to my selfe the later thousand of Darkenesse? It lieth you vpon to driue out that my secrete Confession by some woordes of myne, (whiche you shal neuer be hable to doo) or elles to reuoke and agnise your wilful malice, or your grosse ignorance.
If ye had any place of Scripture, that said Christes promises were no longer warranted to the Churche, then for the space of the first fiue hundred yeres, you had some colour to triumphe. But suche places of Scripture haue ye none, nay ye haue the contrarie, both for [Page 124] the presence of Christes special assistance,Math. vlt. Iohan. 14. Esai. 59. and of the holy Ghostes, vnto the ende of the worlde. What Scripture haue ye then to warrant the first fiue hundred yeres, more then the later thousand? Here I cal earnestly vpon you to answere. Tel vs, haue ye any Scripture to warrant the one, more then the other? No doubtelesse, I am wel assured thereof. And doth M. Iewel now, that was woont to cal so busily for Scripture, Scripture, make warrant of the one, more then of the other, without al Scripture?
Yet once againe I cal vpon you, to tel vs, in what parte of that sentence is my secrete Confession conteined, that al the first fiue hundred yeres are yours. Tel it to my shame, if you can, spare me not. If you can by hooke, or crooke, by wresting, wringing, racking, or by any good drifte of reason boult out any suche secrete Confession of myne,A free and liberal offer made to M. Ievv. marke wel what I saie M. Iewel, when you haue done it in deede, as I am wel assured you shal neuer be hable: I doo promise faithfully to yelde vnto you in al the rest of your Articles, vppon Condition, that if you do it not, you shal in like manner, yeelde to al the Articles of the Catholike Doctrine, wherein I haue trauailed against you. Lo here is a faire offer, who can denie it? Take it if you dare. If you refuse it, take the shame to your selfe.
Touchinge Lirinensis (of whom in this place you speake besides all reason) who geueth three Notes, to knowe what Doctrine is Catholique: you make suche a prety Limitation of his saying,Pag. 94. that his three Notes so limited, shall neuer stande vs in any steede. Lirinensis purpose was, to shewe [Page] vs certaine assured notes, or markes, how to know, what doctrine is Catholique, and what is heretical, and erroneous, thereby to instructe vs how to beware of false doctrine.VVhat is Catholik by Lirinensis. That is Catholique (saith he) that euery where, euer more, and of al personnes hath benne beleeued, that is, whereas the Churches were not corrupted, saith your fond [...] limitation, and special Restraint. But the Churches (saith Lirinensis) that teache doctrine agreable with these three notes of Vniuersalitie, can not be corrupted in doctrine. For these are the very true notes whereby to knowe sownde Catholique doctrine from corrupte, as he auoucheth: neither he only, but S. Augustine also. Wherevpon it foloweth, that M. Iewels newe founde Limitatiō, and special Restraint, is a very vaine toie of his owne deuise. Yea the Limitation, as it is vttered, vtterly destroieth Lirinensis general rule of his three Notes to know Catholique, and vncorrupte doctrine.
If that, which hath ben beleeued euery where, euermore, of al personnes, may be corrupte doctrine, then are both Lirinensis, and S. Augustine vtterly deceiued in geuing vs such deceitful Notes,Aug. li. de Genes. ad literā imperfect. cap. 1. and M. Iewels Limitation, and special Restrainte must take place. On the other side, if that doctrine, whiche hath ben beleeued euery where, euermore, and of al personnes, can not be but true, Catholique, and vncorrupte doctrine: then may M. Iewel put vp his Limitation, and special Restrainte in his purse, which he expressed by these wordes, whereas the Churches were not corrupted. Verely the same is vtterly vnsauery, and hath no grounde of learning, nor of witte, nor of common reason.
To liue euery where, euermore, emong al sortes of [Page 125] menne honestly, to hurte no man, to geue al other menne their owne, are three special Notes taught by Iustinian, for menne to know, who doo liue Ciuilly vnder the lawe. But M. Iewel, if he plaie with Iustinian, as he hath with Lirinensis, and S. Augustine, wil not leaue the matter so rawly: he wil rush in with a Limitation, and a special Restrainte, saying, it is to be vnderstanded, whereas he that so liueth, committeth, or offendeth nothing against the lawe. If it would please him to take a daie to consider the matter better, he might see that he, who keepeth him selfe within these Notes, or preceptes appointed by Iustinian, dothe no more offende against the Lawe of man in dooing, then the Churches, that teache doctrine agreable with Lirinensis, and S. Augustines Notes, offende against the Lawe of God in beleeuing: which doctrine of necessitie must be vncorrupte, and the Churches likewise that so teache, must of necessitie be in doctrine vncorrupte, if S. Augustine, and Lirinensis say true. But iuggle on M. Iewel, your false plaie shal doo no great harme, as long as it commeth to light in this sorte, alwaies to your owne shame.
The Catholique Churche of God standeth not in multitude of personnes, but in vveight of Truth.
Harding. That the Catholique Churche standeth in a multitude of personnes, which M. Iewel denieth.
If not in multitude of personnes,The. 6. Chapt. why then allege [Page] you this place of S. Augustine,Aug. li. de Genes. ad literā. imperfect. cap. 1. to choke your selfe with al? Saith he not, the Churche is called Catholica, Catholique, quia vniuersaliter perfecta est, & in nullo claudicat, & per totum orbem diffusa est, Bicause she is vniuersally perfite, and halteth in nothing, and is (not nowe shutte vp in one onely Countrie, as the Churche of the Iewes, but) powred throughout the whole worlde? If the Churche be powred throughout the whole worlde, then must it needes stand in multitude of personnes, onlesse your wisedome can conceiue a Churche spred throughout the whole worlde, without a multitude of personnes, that so it be imagined to be planted in stockes, stones, trees, grasse, rootes, fire, water, earth, aier, and brute beastes. If not in multitude of personnes, why is it said, & dominabitur à mari, ad mare, Psal. 71. à flumine vs (que) ad terminos orbis terrarum: he shal beare rule from sea to sea, and from the riuer to the vttermost coastes of the world? If not in multitude of persons, what meant God the Father to say, vnto Christ his Sonne,Psal. 2. as Dauid prophecied, Aske of me, and I wil geue vnto thee, the Nations, for thine inheritance, and the endes of the earth for thy possession? If not in multitude of personnes,Apologie. why triumphe ye so in your Apologie, bicause al the worlde doth nowe beginne, as you saie, to beholde the light of your Gospel mightily spred abroade? If not in multitude of personnes, why is it said to Abraham,Gen. 22. in semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes, in thy seede al nations shal be blessed? Why is it said to the Apostles,Math. vlt. euntes, docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine patris & filij, & Spiritus sancti? Goo ye, and teache ye al nations, baptizing them in the name of the [Page 126] Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy Ghoste. Why sayd Christe to his Apostles,Act. 1. Eritis mihi testes in Hierusalem, & in omni Iudaea, & Samaria, & vsque ad vltimum terrae? Ye shal beare witnesse of me in Hierusalem, and in al Iewrie, and in Samaria, and vnto the vttermost partes of the worlde.
Knowe you not M. Iewel,This opinion of M. Ievvel tendeth to the heresie of the Donatistes. that S. Augustine allegeth al these, and many mo such places against the Donatistes? And what meane you? After al these Heresies of our wretched time, shal we haue also a Donatiste of you? Menne marueile much, why you are so contrarie to your selfe, and that you lacke the discretion, to discerne, what maketh with you, and what maketh against you. What discretion was that, to bring in S. Augustines authoritie, that saith, the Churche is called Catholique, bicause it is spred throughout the whole worlde, to prooue that the Catholique Churche standeth not in multitude of personnes? Can the Churche be spred abrode into euery parte of the worlde, without multitude of personnes?Pag. 94. Or wil ye the two personnes you talke of out of Fortalitium Fidei, M. Ievvel saieth, the Catholique Churche standeth in the vveight of Truth, and as for personnes, it may stand in tvvo. should bodily replenish euery quarter of the worlde, and contrarie to your selfe graunt, that one body may be in diuerse places at one time? Or wil you the Weight of Truthe, wherein the Catholique Churche standeth, as you saie, to wander rounde aboute the worlde, tanquam accidens sine subiecto? Or meane you by your two personnes out of Fortalitium alleged, to appointe the Churche to be onely (not as the Donatistes did, in Aprica alone, excluding al the quarters of the worlde besides, whiche is more tolerable) but in some two personnes, as for example, your [Page] selfe perhappes, and M. Grindal, or Frier Whitehed, or Frier Couerdal, or some one or other of the Puritanes, and that al the rest of the Realme, are no members of your Catholique Churche? Or meane you in the excluding of the multitude of personnes, to leaue your selfe some refuge (if it happen your number to decay) to the inuisible Churche, as ye were wont to doo, being driuen into any narrowe streightes by drifte of reason, where menne shal haue as muche comforte of preaching, of the Sacramentes, and of good examples, as the hungrie man hath comforte in his great hunger, if it be his fortune to finde a stone?
Consider wel of your folie M. Iewel in the allegation of S. Augustine, and weigh with your iudgement, how contrary he is to your doctrine.Aug. li. de Genes. ad literā. imperfect. cap. 1. He saith, that the Catholique Churche is vniuersally perfited, and halteth in nothing. Meaning thereby, that the Churche can not erre, ne can not be deceiued. This speaketh he expressely of the Churche that is spred throughout the whole worlde, that is to say, of the visible Churche. Your doctrine is, that the visible Churche doth erre, hath erred, and may erre, as wel in Doctrine, as in manners. Thus you see, your lucke is very il in the allegation of Fathers, in that you beare vs in hande, they make with you, when they make fully against you.
Ibidem. The truthe, say you, be it in many, or in fewe, is euer Catholique. And what if it were in none at al? Were it not also Catholique? If no, then the substance of truthe, as it is truthe, muste needes depende vppon some person: and to haue the same called Catholique, Lirinensis, and S. Augustine telleth you, that it must be [Page 127] euery where, euermore, and of al sortes of menne be beleeued. If yea, then haue ye once found out a Catholike truthe, and a Catholique Churche planted not onely in a fewe personnes, but in no personnes at al.
The case that Fortalitium Fidei setteth out by waie of supposition, which you allege (though vntruly, as your custom is, for his wordes are not, duo homines, but, duo veri fideles) hath taken place in Adam, and Eue: Also in Noe and his smal familie. But take the worlde, as it is now, ful of people, I aske you, whether it be agreable with Scripture, to saie, that the Catholique Church consisteth onely, and alone in any two personnes, as for exemple, in M. Iewel (if you wil) and Sir Iames Proctor your worthy Chauncellour, or in any two others? But how saie you? wil not the Prophete Dauid be founde altogether contrarie, and put you in minde of the verse, Postula à me, Psal. 2. & dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam, & possessionem tuam terminos terrae: Aske of me (saith the Prophete in the person of God the Father, speaking of the dilatation of Ch [...]istes Churche) and I wil geue thee the Gentiles for thine inheritance, and thy possession, the vttermost Coastes of the worlde. Can you M. Iewel make that narrow, and smal (to serue your turne) which the whole Scripture openly auoucheth to be great, and large?
Whereas you defende Luthers dogge eloquence by the great zeale he had of Goddes glorie, and of his holy Temple, Luthers eloquēce defended by M. Ievvel. eadem Pag. 94. Matthaeus Iudex. after that you haue once read ouer Matthaeus Iudex a Lutheran, and seene how Luther raileth at Oecolampadius, and Zuinglius your graund Captaines, yea the patriarkes of your progenie and considered, by what names he calleth them, saying, they are as euil, as the Deuil him selfe: [Page] it is likely you wil repente, that you euer became his aduocate, who so roughly handleth them, that are the founders of your owne Synagog.
In the very nexte line before you allege my worde [...], with the vehemencie of whiche you doo greatly dislike, your selfe in the reprehension of my vehement speache, doo fal into the selfe same Vehemencie. Whose wordes are these M. Iewel?M. Ievv. blameth my vehemencie of speache, him selfe being also no lesse vehement. Pag. 94. Beholde your owne wordes so many, so vaine, so bitter, so firie, so furious, al together in one place? Are not these your owne wordes? Are not these as vehemēt, as you could deuise? Wil you finde faulte with me, for that you vse your selfe? If vehement speache be to be vsed, when the matter requireth, why blame you me? If not, why doo you so often vse it? Whether you and Luther doo vse it iustly for the zeale of Goddes glorie, aske that of them, that wrote the Confession of the Churche of Zurich. Your owne frendes, the Ministers of that congregation, doo set forth Luther for his outragious, and filthy railing against them, in his colours, and speake of him, as of a very vile felow, and paie him home againe with as good, as he brought. Reade the booke, and ye shal finde it to be true. Howbeit I could sende you to many other bookes of your brethren fraught with muche more vile stuffe of railing, then that litle booke conteineth, with al whiche you are better acquainted, then I am.
The Confutation of the Apologie. The seconde parte, the 2. Chapter.
Confut fo. 44. b ‘Againe the name of Head is attributed to Christe a [...] other waie, bicause Christe is head of the Churche by his owne power and authoritie. Menne be called heades, in [Page 128] as muche as they be in steede of Christ, and vnder Christ, after whiche meaning S. Paule saith to the Corinthians, for if I forgaue any thing, to whom I forgaue it, 2. Cor. 2. for your sakes forgaue I it, in persona Christi, in the person of Christe. And in an other place.2. Cor. 5. We are Ambassadours in the steede of Christe, euen as though God did exhorte you through vs. To conclude in few, [...] vvhat sense Christe is named the Head of the Churche, and in vvhat sense the Pope is so named. according to inwarde influence of grace into euery faithful member, Christe onely is the head of the Churche: according to outward gouerning, the Pope vnder Christ, and in steede of Christ, is head of the same.’
To the matter, ye saie, that, touching the influence of grace, Christe onely is the head of the Churche: but touching direction and gouernemēt, the Pope only as the head. Al this is but your ovvne tale, M. Harding: ye speake it onely of your selfe: other authoritie of Scripture, or Doctour you bringe vs none.
Harding. Dogge eloquence, proued no vnwoonted terme, and how the Pope is Head of the Churche.
To the mater, ye saie. And truly wel said of you.The .7. Chapt For hitherto you haue not directed your talke to the mater, but to the person of your Aduersarie: with whom you shew your selfe greuously offended, for calling the Currish, and snarling vtterance of Luther, Dogge eloquence. And whereas you would faine draw the same to the preiudice of my modestie, I trust, you, that are so great a Rhetorician, and so wel seene in poetes Fables, wil iudge so muche the better of me, for so muche as Quintilian that modeste, and graue Oratour, and Ouide also no [Page] Poete Satyrical, thought suche phrase of speache not vnmeete for the countenance of modestie, and humanitie, that they bare in the worlde. For if you remember, Canina Eloquentia, Quintiliā lib. 12. c. 9 Ouid. in Ibin. is Quintilians worde, calle it dogge eloquence, dogged eloquēce, or dogges eloquence, or how soeuer otherwise it please you to terme it. And Ouid saith, Latr [...] [...] in toro verba canina foro. If for the vse of this auncient terme I seeme to passe the boundes of modestie, specially attributing it vnto Luther, whose heretical, and Deuilish vtterance is cōmonly in deede farre worse, then the barking of any Dogge, or the hissing of any Serpent: what wil you saie of the Scolding of your hote brother M. Calfhil?
But now that after muche idle, and impertinent talke, you are come to the mater, what saie you, that is worth the hearing?M. Iewels foule falsifying of my vvordes. Thus you saie. Ye saie, that touching the influence of Grace, Christe onely is the Head of the Churche: (I graunt, I say so in deede. Go ye forth, and make no lye) but touching direction, and gouernement, the Pope only is the Head. Yea sir? Where saie I so? You should haue caused your printer to haue falsified that sentēce of mine, that at your owne pleasure, the simplest of your owne poore Fauourers, who take al for the Gospel that you saie, or write, might not in your owne booke espie your shamelesse lying. For euen there, notwithstanding your cōmon falsifyinges other wheres, and also there, they maie finde my saying otherwise reported.
It is an euident argument, that myne owne wordes were to true for you to confute, sith that you thought it necessarie, least you should seme ouercome, to alter and change them for other wordes of your own, which being [Page 129] false, to the vnlearned reader I might seeme to speake fondly, and besides al truth. For how is it likely I should saie, that touching Direction, and gouernement, the Pope only is the Head? Your fetche was, to bring your vnlearned fauourers, by whom you are magnified, to beleeue, that from the Direction, and gouernement of the Church I excluded Christe, and the holy Ghoste, the spirite of truth. Which God forbid I should doo.
Now the true wordes of my Confutation in this place are these,Defence Pag. 92. whiche the Reader maie see also in the booke of your Defence, although very much mangled, and falsified of set purpose, to thintent the force of truth by me opened should not be seene, as by view of my booke it maie clearely appeare. Where thus I saie.
For Head, and Spouse alone he is (of his kingdom) in one respecte, not alone in an other respect.Confut. fol. 44. a. left out by M. Ie. For a cleare declaration whereof it is to be vnderstanded, that, being of a Head maie be considered after two waies,The being of a Head considered tvvo vvaies. either according to the inward influence, so as the vertue and power of mouing, and of sense, is deriued from the head vnto the other members: or according to outward gouernment, right so as a man is directed in his outward actes according to the sight, and other senses,Accordīg to it ward influence of grace Christe onely is Head of the Churche. In respect of outvvard gouernement the name of Head is attributed to others beside Christe. which haue their roote in the head. Now the inwarde influence of grace is not of any other, but of Christe only. Bicause Christes manhood onely hath power to iustifie, for that the same only is ioyned personally to the Godhead. * According to this inward influence of Grace, Christ properly and only is Head of his mystical body the Church. But as touching the outward gouernment, the being of a Head is common to Christe with others. For in this respecte [Page] certaine others maie be called Headdes of the Church, as in Amos the prophete the great states be called the Heades of the people. So the Scripture speaketh of King Saul, When thou were a litle one in thine owne eyes, thou wast made Head emong the tribes of Israel. So Dauid saith of him selfe, he hath made me Head of Nations.
Amos. 6. 1. Reg. 15. Psal. 17. Headship in respect of gouernement diuers in Christ and in menne. Left out by M. Ievvel.In this sense the name of Head is attributed to princes and gouernours. And yet not altogether so as to Christ. First forasmuche as Christe is Head of al those that perteine to the Churche, according to euery place, euery time, and euery state. But menne are called Heades in regard of certaine special places, as Bishoppes be called heades of their Churches. Or in respect of a determinat time, as the Pope is Head of the whole Church during the time of that calling. And according to a determinate state, euen so as menne be in the state of this mortal life, for further stretcheth not this humanie Headship.
Againe the name of Head is attributed to Christe an other waie, bicause Christe is Head of the Churche by his owne power and authoritie. * Menne be called Headdes, in asmuch as they be in steed of Christe, and vnder Christe, after whiche meaning S. Paule saith to the Corinthians,2. Cor. 2. For if I forgaue any thing, to whom I forgaue it, for your sakes forgaue I it, in persona Christi, in the person of Christe: and in an other place, we are Ambassadours in the steede of Christe, 2. Cor. 5. euen as though God did exhorte you through vs. To conclude in fewe, according to inward influence of grace into euery faithful member, Christe onely is Head of the Churche, according [Page 130] to outward gouerning, the Pope vnder Christe, and in steede of Christe, is Head of the same.
These be my wordes there M. Iewel. To whiche bicause you had nothing to saie, you answer by your accustomed arte of mangling, hewing awaie what liked you not, by falsifying them, and by putting in your owne selfe wordes in place of myne that teache the truthe.
And at length you fal to skoffing at my Logique, making fonde and peeuish Argumentes of your owne forging, bearing the simple reader in hande they are mine, whiche God knoweth, I neuer made, nor no wise man elles. For they are suche, as of al that peruse your writinges, you maie be knowen by them, as a Begger is by his patched cloke, or rather as a Vise is knowen by his Babul.
The greatest thing you saie, is, that al is myne owne tale, that I tel, and that I bring in no Scripture, nor Doctour. To this I answere. Were it true that you saie, as my Booke it selfe prooueth it false, yet in this case my Yea hytherto is as good as your Nay, and better too, bicause it standeth with the vniforme Doctrine of the Churche. Be it, I allege no Authoritie of Scripture, or Doctour, to prooue the Pope Head, bicause I am not yet comme to the place, where I minde to prooue it. Yet my case standeth as good as youres, that bring neither Scripture, nor Doctour to the contrarie.
If it had pleased you, ye might haue founde bothe Doctours, and Scriptures, more,The Rock of the Churche. then you would gladly heare of, in M. D. Sanders booke entitled the Rocke of the Church, written for that behalfe, and in M. Sapletons [Page] Returne written against your so many grosse Vntruthes and errours.The Returne of Vntruths.
You crake muche of your great skil in Logique, in comparison of other mennes ignorance: searche out I praie you, emong your rules of Logique, whether Distinctio multiplicis in quaestione positi, the Distinction of a worde, that hath diuers significations, placed in a controuersie, ought not to goe before the disputation of the controuersie. If it ought, then haue I done rightly and orderly, in that I made a Distinction of the terme Head, before I entred to proue the Pope to be Head, and you ignorantly, and disorderly, in calling vppon me to doo two thinges together, against al good order of nature, reason and learning, or to doo the later, before I had ended the former.
Testimonies auouching the Pope to be head of the Churche.
Peter the chiefe mē ber of the Churche. Gregor. li. 4. epis. 38.Now bicause you be so hasty to haue some Doctour to proue that the Pope is Head, somewhat to satisfie your hasty humour, the Authoritie of S. Gregorie afterwarde alleged by your selfe, maie suffice any wise man, who calleth S. Peter the chiefe member of the Church, which (the Pope succeding in that right of Peter) is al one with that we saie, the Pope is Head in gouernment vnder Christe. What difference I praie you can your wisedome put betwixte the chiefe member, and a Head vnder an other, or in the steede of an other?
Chrysost. in Matth. homil. 55.It is your happe alwaie to allege Doctours to your owne Confusion.
S. Chrysostome also witnesseth, that Peter was such [Page 131] a Head, saying of him: Ecclesia Pastor & Caput Piscator homo, The fisherman (by whom he meaneth Peter) is the shepehearde, and head of the Churche. Againe he saith in an other place, Quod si quis percontaretur, Chrysost. in Ioan. Hom. 87. quo modo Iacobus Sedem Hierosolymis acceperit, responderem, hunc totius orbis magistrum praeposuisse. In case any man would demaunde of me this question, how Iames came to haue the See at Ierusalem: I would answere him, that this (Peter) the Maister of the whole worlde made him Bishop there. Lo,Peter Maister of the vvhole vvorlde. he calleth Peter the Maister of the whole worlde, by whiche worde, what elles signifieth he, but that he was the Head touching spiritual gouernment of the whole worlde?
He saith furthermore, and that most plainely in an other place. Ieremiam Genti vni pater, Chrysost. Hom. 55. in Matth. hunc autem vniuerso terrarum orbi praeposuit. God the Father made Ieremie the Head and Gouernour ouer one nation onely, (that was the nation of the Iewes) but as for this man,Peter made hed of the vvhole vvorlde by Christ. to wit, Peter, Christe made him Head and Gouernour ouer the whole worlde. Are you contented now? Verely I haue folowed your minde willingly. And if ye require mo the like testimonies of me, I remitte you to the Answer Ansvver. I made vnto your Chalenge,Art, 4. fol. 9. b. &c. where you shal finde that maie satisfie any learned man touching this pointe. Neither are you hable to auoide the plaine force of those testimonies, for al the great a doo you haue made in your huge Replie.
Ye saie, S. Paule saith, If I forgaue any thing, for your sakes,2. Cor. 2. I forgaue it in the personne of Christe: VVe are Embassadours in the steede of Christe,2. Cor. 5. euen as though God did exhorte you [Page] through vs: Hereof ye conclude, Ergo, the Pope vnder Ch [...]st [...] and in steede of Christe, is the head of the Churche. If ye conclude not thus, ye vvander idlely, and speake in vaine, and conclude nothing.
Harding. To what sense these wordes of S. Paule were alleged, and that S. Bernarde maketh for vs.
The 8. Chapt.That place of S. Paule was not alleged to proue, that the Pope is Head, but to proue, that menne, whiche doo beare the person of Christe in ruling the Churche, maie in one signification be called Headdes, bicause they are gouernours vnder Christe, and so muche it proueth sufficiently. Leaue Cauillations M. Iewel, and keepe you to the matter for verie shame. If you marke no better, what your Aduersarie taketh in hande to proue against you, then you haue done in this: you wil be founde as weake in Logique for al your glorious shewes and crakes, as you are in Diuinitie.
You can see nothing, you saie, wherein the Pope resembleth S. Paule. And what then? Admitte we this to be true (though in deede it be false) that he preacheth not, he exhorteth not, &c: wil you remoue rulers from their authoritie, if they satisfie not your minde in al pointes of duetie? Kinges shal not then long keepe their roomes, as men maie see, what holesome broiles your good brethren haue now stirred vp in sundry realmes. Your Gospel and Pistles (I might saie your Pistolets) are to ful of gunne powder M. Iewel. Christes Ghospel breatheth not forth suche outragious and blouddy blastes. Looke wel vpon al the places and phrases, that you haue hunted after, touching the Terme Head, and if they be wel [Page 132] examined, they shal be founde to make rather with vs, then ought at al against vs.
S. Bernarde, vvithout glose saith plinely: Bernard. in Concil. Remensi. Non sunt omnes amici Sponsi, qui hodie sunt Sponsi Ecclesiae. They be not al the Bridegromes frendes, that are this daie the Spouses of the Churche.
Harding.
Denieth S. Bernarde in that place, trowe ye, that Bishoppes are the Spouses of the Churche? Or doth he not rather graunt it, in that he saith, Qui sunt hodie Sponsi Ecclesiae, They, that are nowe a daies the Spouses of the Churche? Haue not you the reason to marke what he graunteth, and what he denieth? He denieth, that al they were the Bridegromes frendes, that were at that time Spouses of the Churche, Ergo, there were some, that were bothe the Bridegromes frendes, and also Spouses of the Churche.
What il lucke haue you, alwaies to allege the Fathers to your owne ouerthrowe? As strange as you make, that any man should be called, the Light, the Life, the Sauiour, and the God, yet certaine of these haue ben attributed in Scripture (as lothe as you be to heare of it) to menne, that were Headdes vnder Christe.Matth. 5. The Apostles pardy are called the light of the worlde. Moyses is called by God, the God of Pharao.Exod. 7. Psal. 135.81. Gen. 41. Rulers are called Goddes. Confitemini Deo Deorum. Ego dixi Dij estis. Ioseph is called a Sauiour of the worlde.
The Apologie part. 2. cap. 3. Diui. 1. pag. 96.
Furthermore (vve beleeue) that there be diuers degrees of Ministers in the Churche: vvhereof some be Deacons, some Priestes, some Bishoppes, to vvhom is committed the office to instructe the people, and the w [...]le charge, and setting forth of religion.
Confutation.
‘Here it had ben your parte to haue declared your saithe touching the holy Sacrament of Order, aggreable to the faithe of the Catholique Churche: that there be seuen Orders in the Churche, foure lesser, and three greater: for so by good reason they are called, &c.’
Gentle Reader, if I should leaue these, and other like M. Hardinges vvord [...]s vnansvvred, thou mightest happely thinke he had said somevvhat, &c.
Harding.
More then euer you shalbe hable truely and learnedly to answere. As for sundrie of lesser Orders I referred you to places in the olde Fathers, where they are specially named.
Anacletus epist. 3. His ovvne Anacletus saithe, Amplius, quàm isti duo Ordines Sacerdotum, (Episcopi & praesbyteri) nec nobis à Deo collati sunt, nec Apostoli docuerunt. More then these two Orders of Priestes (Bishoppes and Elders) neither hath God appointed vs, not haue the Apostles taught vs.
Harding.
why is Anacletus I praie you, rather myne, then yours? Why allege ye suche Doctours, whose auhoritie ye esteeme not? If Anacletus, that was a holy Father and [Page 133] Martyr with in the first hundred yeres after Christe, be not to be credited, why doo you allege him? Wil your courrage serue you, as wel to defie the Fathers, that liued so nigh [...] to Christe, as it doth to contemne al them, that wrote in the later nine hundred yeres? If he be worthy of any credite, why is he called myne owne, more then your owne? What insolencie is this, to make accompte of no Father, of what antiquitie so euer he be?
If it had pleased you to haue taken time sufficient, to consider the matter better, you might haue founde out, that the Apostles taught vs the order of Deacons, as it is manifest in the Actes of the Apostles,Acto. 6. 1. Tim. 4. 2. Tim. 1. and in S. Paules Epistles to Timothee: whereby ye might haue easily cōceiued, that the Auncient Father Anacletus in his third Epistle, comprehended not onely vnder the terme Sacerdos Priestes, but also Deacons, and Subdeacons, as Bartholomaeus de Caranza now Bishop of Toledo in Spaine plainly testifieth by his notes vpon the same Epistle. Perhappes you take Anacletus to be myne rather then yours, bicause in the same thirde Epistle he saith, that the Churche of Rome had the preeminence ouer al the Churches in the worlde, geuen, not by the Apostles, but by our Sauiour Christ him selfe. This is it that disliked you in so auncient a Father, and constant Martyr of Iesus Christe, and for this you accompte him myne, and not yours. He is in deede myne, and not yours, as al the other olde Fathers are, when they come to trial. In the meane time remember, that I haue alleged euident places of S. Chrysostome, of S. Gregorie, and of Anacletus, for the Primacie of the Pope, and by Goddes grace I intende to allege more hereafter.
And yet of the same tvvo seueral Orders, S. Hierome seemeth to make only one Order. For thus he vvriteth: Audio quendam in tantam erupisse vecordiam, vt Diaconos Praesbyteris, id est, Episcopi [...] anteferret: I heare saie, there is a man broken out vnto suche wilful furie, that he placeth Deacons before Priestes, that is to saie, before Bishoppes. &c.
Harding. That there is difference betwixt Bishops, and Priestes, that termes of diuers significations maie not be vsed at pleasure. Item of holy Orders. &c.
The .9. Chapt.But what saie you M. Iewel? Is there no difference betwixte a Bishop, and a Prieste? If there be, why bring you S. Hierome to proue them both one? If there be not, S. Augustine shal laie to your charge, that you are an Aerian,Aerians. which secte of Heretiques being otherwise Arians, had their first name of one Aerius, that was an Arian Priest,The heresies of Aerius. who bicause he could not be ordered Bishop, beganne to teache certaine new heresies: The first, that there was no difference betwixte a Bishop, and a Priest: the nexte, that no praier, or Sacrifice ought to be made for the Dead: the third, that menne ought not to keepe the solemne, and the accustomed Fastes of the Churche, lest they should be vnder the lawe. It shal be good for you, and for your better purgation, that you are not an Heretique of Aerius schoole, to consider of S. Hieromes places better, and se [...]ke why S. Hierome spake those wordes, who in other places folowing hath leaft a plaine difference, betwixte a Bishop, and a Prieste.
What discretion you haue in the vnderstanding of olde Authours, as by you it appeareth where so euer you cal for healpe at their handes:Hieron. in Esai. cap. 19. euen so it is seene most euidently in this place, where you allege S. Hierome, to proue, that there be but fiue Orders in the whole Churche: two of whiche neither S. Hierome, nor any other olde writer euer tooke to be Orders, as we speake properly of Order Ecclesiastical, as it is a Sacrament hauing his necessary ministers to do dewties in the Church, in the time of publique Seruice.
So you deceiue your selfe alwaies, bicause you are so ignorant,VVhat inconuenience maie folovv, if in any question, it shalbe lauful for one to vse the diuers significations of termes at his pleasure Presbyter Diaconus. Diabolus. (For I would be loth to saie it were malice) that you see not how a terme, that hath many significations, is vsed: whether it be vsed in his largest nature, or in some proper, and singular signification restrained. You maie, if you liste so to abuse termes, saie, that al Elders are Priestes, as some times you doo, bicause this worde, Presbyter, importeth the signification both of Priestes, and of Elders: that euery Magistrate secular is a Bishop, bicause he is an ouerseer, whom Episcopus signifieth: that euery seruant is a Deacon, bicause Diaconus signifieth a Minister: that euery il man that is a quareller, is the very Deuil him selfe, bicause Diabolus signifieth a quareller. If you wil not see, and take a daie better to consider, when Authours doo vse termes in some large significations, and when they vse them properly in significations restrained from the Generalitie: your folie wil be suche, er it be longe, that euerie man shal see it.
In the allegation of S. Clement, I thinke verely you groped, and sensibly fealt your owne folie, where he [Page] saith,Clemens. Epist. 2. De Con. Distinct. 3. Tribus gradibus. that the Sacramentes of the Diuine secretes are committed vnto three Orders, vnto the Priest, vnto the Deacon, and vnto the Minister. You sawe plainely, that S. Clement named expressely three Orders distincte, and yet you saie, that Deacons, and Ministers, as touching the name, are al one. This place of S. Clement ioyned with your owne Confession, that Deacons, and Ministers,Minister. touching the name are al one, wil inforce you to confesse, that termes are diuersly restrained from their generalitie, without apposition, or addition at al: as the terme Minister, whiche is general, must needes signifie some distincte Order, diuers from the Deacon. Emong al the Authorities that you haue brought, if you had alleged any, that by naming of any number of Orders, had therewith excluded al other, that had not ben conteined within the same: you had brought somewhat to helpe your cause.
Pag. 97.S. Hierome, S. Clement, S. Dionyse, as their matter and occasion serued, spake of certaine holy Orders, that haue preeminence in the Churche, as the Bishop, the Prieste, the Deacon, the Minister, or Subdeacon: but they neuer so spake of these principal holy Orders, that either they expressely excluded, or meant any exclusion of the lower Orders. Wherefore al your talke, and stoare of Testimonies are to no purpose, as beinge vtterly wyde of the matter you shoulde proue.
Pag. 97.It pleaseth here your ministerly grauitie, and great wisedom, first, to scoffe out al the lower, or inferiour Orders, whose offices our Sauiour Christe him selfe executed in his owne person, and therfore to kepe Order [Page 135] within the Churche, whiles the sacrifice of the Masse was celebrated, or any other Sacrament ministred, the three lower Orders were decently placed, the doore keepers,Inferiour Orders. the Exorcistes (not Coniurers M. Iewel by your licence) whiche terme now in English conteineth an infaime, as the lawes made against them do witnesse) the Acolutes, the Readers.
As touching the pleasure you take in scoffing,Pag. 97. 98. solacing your selfe therewith in this place, we can not muche woonder, that you mocke, and ieast at Petrus Lombardus, a man farre passing you in vertue, and learning, seing your scorneful head could not refraine from scoffing at S. Clement, the holy Martyr of Christe, that liued in the Apostles time, and was appointed by S. Peter to be his successour in the See Apostolique, and spare not to scoffe out the Order of Deacons, who tooke place in the very Apostles time. You would gladly to delite your folowers for a time, make them beleeue, that the Deacons office was for no other purpose, but to holde a fanne in their handes to keepe of flies from the Communion Cup, and yet that scoffing head of yours doth knowe, that the Deacons had an office more proper vnto their Order then that, and yet that office, as base as your mery head would it should appeare, considering to whom that seruice was donne, to wit, that nothing should chaunce vndecently about the precious bloud of Christe vpon the Aulter cōsecrated, was in dignitie farre passing the highest office, that is donne in the presence of the honourablest wordely Prince that is.
And wil ye see the great witte of the man? After that he hath made mery with his good felowes, his Disciples, [Page] and scoffed at the office of the Deacons, at Patrus Lombardus, that holy and learned Bishop, at S. Clement, that blessed Martyr, at the origine and foundatio of al the lower Orders: as one that had quite forgotten what fonde partes he had plaied, at length he commeth in confessing plainely, that sundry of the Offices of the lower and inferiour Orders, in the Primitiue Churche were appointed to very good and sober purposes. And yet the man would haue them al suppressed in the ende, bicause Ostiarius now keepeth not the excommunicates out, the Acolute waiteth not on the Bisshop, the Exorcistes caste not out Deuilles, the Reader openly pronounceth not the Scriptures, the Deacons prouide not for the poore, yea bicause the Bishop preacheth not the Gospel: And yet this man, had he ben in Italie, and seene what is there continually donne, howe the Exorcistes doo in deede cast forth Deuilles in manner weekely, as diuers of our owne Contriemenne that haue ben present, can reporte: he would for very shame (if any were in him) haue kepte in that negatiue. Verely I feare me, he wil one daie procede further, and vtterly denie the Order of Bisshops to be necessarie, bicause he can franckely say, that the Bishops preache not his lustly Caluinian Gospel. Yet I trowe he wil be good maister to the Superintendentes of England, that be of his owne profession, of whom some preache not, and some haue not the learning to preache, nor yet to tel a wise tale.
The Apologie. Cap. 3. Diuis. 2. Pag. 98.
Yet notvvithstanding, vvee say, that there neither is, nor can be any one man, vvhiche may haue the vvhole superioritie in this Vniuersal [Page 136] state: for that Christe is euer presente to assiste his Churche, and needeth not any man, to supplie his roome, as his onely heire to al his Substance: and that there can be no one mortal creature, vvhiche is hable to comprehende, or conceiue in his minde the vniuersal Churche, that is to vvit, al the partes of the vvorlde: muche lesse hable rightly, and duely to put them in Order, and to Gouerne them.
M. Hardinges ansvvere hereto is too long, and tedious.
Harding.
I dare wel saie, it is too tedious to you, and glad would you be to be rid of it, if you wist whiche waie. Acknowlege the truthe M. Iewel, returne from your errour, leaue of scoffing, suppresse singularitie, deli [...]e not in the vaine praises, that your ignorant fauourers geue you, feare God, thinke, you can not continue in in this Brauerie alwaies: then shal you finde liking in my answere, and thinke it nothing to tedious. Certaine it is, the mater is not so sclenderly to be answered.
VVhere vve saie, no one mortal man is hable to vvealde the burthen of the vvhole Churche of God, M. Harding ansvvereth, vvhere any thing is in deed, there vvhether it maie be, or not, to discusse it is needelesse. Therefore vvhether any one man can be superiour, and Chiefe ouer the vvhole Church, vve leaue to speake: that so it is, thus vve prooue. Euery parishe hath his seueral vicare or person, and euerie Dioces [...] his ovvne Bissh [...]ppe, Ergo, vvhat reason is it, there be one Chiefe Gouernour of the vvhole Christen people? &c. His firste reason concludeth very vveakely: Euerie Parishe is Gouerned by one Vicare or Personne: and euerie Diocese is gouerned by one seueral Bishop: Ergo, there is one vniuersal Gouernour ouer the vvhole Churche of Christe. Here is neither order in reason, nor sequele in nature. [Page] Therefore of any man vvould denie the argument, M. Harding vvere [...] uer hable to make it good.
Harding. The iustification of this Argument.
The .10. Chapt.Yeas forsooth, the Argument may be proued very wel by this axioma, or dignitie in nature, vpon the which the Argument is grounded. That the whole ought to be gouerned by one general Head, whose seueral partes can not be gouerned, without seueral Heades. If your leisure serue you, you may nowe traine the Argument, that I was neuer hable to make good, as you say, for lacke of order in reason, and sequele in nature (if ye altogether haue not forgotten your Logique, whereof you set vs forth so often crakes) into the very forme of a good, and perfite Syllogisme. If your courage then serue you to denie the Argument, you shal but disgrace your selfe in denying the groundes of that arte, wherein you haue placed a great parte of your glorie: and put your selfe to paine, to make vs some newe Logique of your owne, that menne may trust too. Searche diligently the cause without scoffing, and wrangling, why the seueral partes of the vniuersal Churche, Parishes, Dioceses, prouinces, are not hable to be kepte in any good order without seueral heades: the selfe cause shal infourme you, that the vniuersal Churche may muche lesse be kepte in order without one general Head. Render what causes you can M. Iewel, you shal neuer be hable to auoide it before any learned companie, but that the one shal folowe of the selfe same causes, as wel as the other.
Whereas you runne to disprooue myne argument, by making the like of euerie kingdome ruled by one Prince, inferring, Ergo, there ought to be one vniuersal Prince, to rule ouer the whole worlde: I see no such absurditie in the conclusion of this Argument (the seueral rightes of Princes reserued vntouched) but that if you should talke with Aristotle that great Philosopher, you should see good cause to graunt it. If there were but one good Monarke in the whole worlde, would there not be fewer broilles, and warres in the worlde, then nowe we feele? Perhappes, when the matter is wel weighed, it may seeme, the worlde was neuer in better state, then when it was gouerned by one good Emperour. Let a iuste Viewe be taken of Constantines time the Great. Yet it must be confessed, there is great difference betwixt the Ciuile gouernemēt of Princes (who maie be permitted to rule their seueral Dominions without one general Head, bicause they haue to do but with thinges of the worlde, as with earthly goodes, landes, and such other thinges, which may receiue diuers kindes of rule, without danger of Soules) and the Ecclesiastical gouernment, whose chiefe respect is to keepe vnitie of Faith in the bonde of peace, which may not receiue any alteration, without great danger to our Saluation. Therefore there is greater cause to haue one general Head, or Supreme gouernour (without whom this vnitie can not be kepte any long time,Hiero. aduersus Iouinianum lib. 1. as S. Hierome witnesseth) to rule the whole Churche in matters of Saluation, then to haue one Head to rule ouer the whole worlde in wordely matters.
To your other scorneful Argument of one general [Page] Shepehearde to be hadde ouer al the flockes of [...] throughout the whole world, I wil frame answere, when you can prooue, that God hath as great care to bring al the shepe in the worlde to the selfe same glorie of life euerlasting, as he hath to bring menne: or that he hath appointed them any one general ende, the whiche they can not atteine without the hauing of one general shepeherd to gouerne the whole kinde. But S. Paule putteth al suche fonde reasons to silence by this question, where he asketh,1. Cor. 9. Nunquid de bobus cura est Deo? Hath God any such special care of kine and Oxen, as he hath of menne? Put vp such shepeherdes pipes for shame M. Iewel, and leaue to piper vs vp such trifles. If you minde thus to continue, euery ignorant Reader at length shal espie, what litle good stuffe ye vtter.
I made not these reasons, for that menne should take them for very precise Demonstrations, or for that euery one of them alone had ful force to conclude, as though the whole weight of the matter laie in any one of them: But for that natural reason should partely declare to the ignorant, who are not hable to conceiue deeper Argumentes, that the Order, whiche our Sauiour leafte in his Churche, the same to be ruled by one general Head, doth so sensibly sticke in euery mannes conceite, that vnderstandeth the force of any good natural reason, that you, or any of your felowes with any heapes of impertinent sentences of al sortes of Writers (with whiche you fournish vs out bookes of great bulke) shal neuer be hable to prooue the contrarie. Disorder not [...] reasons M. Iewel, take them as my selfe haue sette [...] marke what force they are of, when they be [Page 138] linked in one. Then ouerthrowe them if you can. I am assured you can not.
The other three reasons, to the which you say, ye answered in your Replie, are so by M. Stapleton returned vpon you againe, and your whole answere reprooued, that the worlde now seeth, what smal worship ye haue wonne thereby. I would aduise you to beginne againe, and labour for a more sufficient answere, elles you may be sure, that menne wel geue you ouer for one that promiseth much, and perfourmeth nothing.
I graunt, Dissension, and quarelles be the sooner ended, vvhen al thinges be put ouer to one man, so that the same man maie liue for euer, and stil continue in one minde, and neuer alter.
Harding. M. Iewel alloweth no one man to be ruler, except he may liue for euer, and continue in one minde, which is fonde.
Liue for euer? what a blinde answere is this?The .11. Chapt. I praie you Sir, did Moyses, when he had the gouernement of the people of Israel, make an ende of no Dissensions, and quarelles emong them? I weene you wil say, yeas. And yet he liued not emonge them for euer pardy. Did not Iosue so? Did not Samuel? Did not Dauid? Did not Salomon, and others? Yet I trowe, you wil not say, they liued for euer. Doth not euery Prince dailie within his owne Realme so? Euery Bisshop within his owne Diocese? the Archebishop within his owne Prouince? And yet ye knowe, they liue not for euer. [Page] Heard euer any man a fonder answere made then this? The first foure General Councelles ended diuers matters of contention, and yet they that were there, liued not for euer. For very shame cal backe this vnsauery answere againe, or at least put it out of your booke at your nexte Impression, if the first finde good vtterance, and lye not vpon you handes.
And stil continevv in one minde, and neuer alter.
Harding.
That is the very cause perhappes, why Archeheretiques can make an ende of no Dissension, bicause their mindes doo daily,2. Tim. 3. and hourely alter, as S. Paule saieth of certaine curious wemenne, that were alwaies learning, alwaies talking and babling of Scripture, and neuer drawing to any good ende, neuer atteining to the knowledge of truthe.Princes bounde by M. Ievvel to continue stil in one minde. You haue bounde Kinges and Princes very hard, to continew stil in one minde, and neuer to alter: so that if one haue cause to warre against the other, after warre once entred, they may neuer intreate of peace. They muste continew stil in one minde, and neuer alter. They muste keepe so precise, and so holesome a diet, that they maie liue for euer. If they make any statute that is good and necessarie to be kepte for some one time, perhappes for the space of v. or vj. yeres afterwarde, when the Continuance of suche statutes shal be founde to breede greate disorder, and inconuenience to the Realme: [Page 139] it shal not be lawful for them to repeale them, bicause M. Iewel hath bounde them to continew in the minde they were, and neuer to alter. For if they once alter, how so euer, and wherein so euer it be, dissensions and quarelles (saith he) can not by them be appeased and ended, and therefore good gouernment shal faile.
But oftentimes one Pope is founde contrarie to an other.
Harding. Answere to the contrarities in certaine Popes reprehended by M. Iewel, and to the violating of Pope Formosus dead Carkasse. &c.
Not so ofte as one king is founde contrarie to an other.The .12. Chapt. Read the Stories, you shal find it true. But Lorde what a doo ye make here about the Contrarieties of certaine Popes! and yet you shal neuer finde one Pope contrarie to an other in any article of our Faith, as heauy a Maister as you are vnto them. But why doo you not cal to minde, what varietie of opinions ye haue had emong your selues, fith ye brought your Gospel first into the Realme? Remember within so shorte a time, how many sortes of Communions haue benne seene, how many sectes haue risen emong your selues? How farre the Puritanes (who haue wel nigh tried out the Quintessence of your Gospel,Puritanes and perhappes at their nexte proceding wil vtterly denie God) how farre, I saie, they are alienated, and diuided from you, and that not only for Square cappes, and side gownes, but also for other matters, that in [Page] their time shalbe reueled. I wil saie nothing here of the Arians, Anabaptistes, Libertines, and Atheistes, who since the first planting of your Gospel, haue crepte into the realme, and now swarme in diuers places there vncontrolled: who if they had the ful libertie ye preached, when ye first laboured to supplante the Catholiques, were wel like shortely to set you also beside the stoole.
But they (for that their time is not yet come) must doo as they maie, and be passed ouer as not seene, that al the charitable blowes of your fyrie Gospel might light vpon the Catholiques headdes.
Your manner alwaies is in the allegation of histories, as also of other thinges, to adde somwhat of your owne, as you doo in telling vs how Pope Steuen vnburied his predecessour Pope Formosus: [...]abellicus falsified by M. Ievvel. Sabellicus Ennead. 9. lib. 1. where you reporte that he defaced, and mangled his naked carkasse. The historie maketh mention of no suche mangling, and defacing of his Carkasse: onely it sheweth, that the forefingers of his right hande, whiche had benne annointed, and consecrated, were cut of, and that the Pontifical garmentes, wherein Popes were wonte of an olde custome to be buried, were taken of from his corps. A man that had heard of defacing, and mangling a naked carkasse, would haue thought, that the carkasse had benne hewed in peeces, or otherwise spitefully mangled. Leaue, leaue that il propertie for shame M. Iewel. Adde not, diminishe not, tel stories as you finde them, and so shal you geue your Aduersarie lesse aduantage against you.
It is maruaile it came not into your head, by diligent searche to finde out a dissension emong the Popes, bicause some of them loued rather to eate fishe then [Page 140] fleshe, some vsed to rise sooner in the morning, some later: some were of stature higher, some lower. And least your storie should be vnrequitted, it were wel done of you to take some litle paines, to searche out, who of you was the first author of that famous lie against the Catholique Bishoppes,The false bruite of king Hē ries body taken avvaie. that to bringe them in displeasure with the Quenes Maiestie whiche now is, reported, that they had taken awaie kinge Henrie the eightes body, whiche matter, after great bruite spred aboute the Realme, after that it came to be searched, was tried false, and forged, and the body was founde safe, where it had benne laied. But the body of king Henrie the sixth that holy man,King Hē rie the sixth his body taken vp, and consumed. was not founde in his place, but said to haue benne burnt, by certaine (I wil spare their worshippes) of Catholique religion I warrant you. There is a wiued Superintendent in England, that if he be asked, can tel tidinges, how these thinges were conueied. But al thinges ye doo, are wel donne, and worthie of praise. Yet what an impudent lye was that deuised against the Catholique Bishoppes? And what an hainous deede was it, to violate the Graue, to take vp a good Kinges Body, and to burne it, or otherwise to consume it? Yet bicause they that are of your fecte did it, it must be praised, though it be donne against al good Order, Religion, and humanitie.
To be shorte, as you are not hable to defende al thinges, as wel donne, that ye and your felowes haue donne: euen so we haue not taken in hande to defende the innocencie of euery Pope in al actes of his life, nor yet to take the Popes wil, and pleasure to be our staie in al doubteful cases, as you impute vnto vs.
But the Popes aduised, and mature determination folowing the aduise of his learned Doctours, assembled together for discussion of weightie matters in general Councelles (whiche is an other thing then the Popes wil and pleasure, whiche your scoffing head would haue to be our staie) we take to be a sufficient resolution of al doubtful cases, that are necessarie for vs to knowe.
Hovv be it, this, I trovve, is not the readiest vvaie to procure peace, and to mainteine vnitie in the Churche.
Harding. Vnitie is best mainteined by the gouerment of one general Head.
The .13. Chapt.If the hauing of one king, or Prince be the readiest waie to procure peace, and mainteine vnitie in worldly matters of a Realme, why should not the hauing of one general Head, be the readiest waie to procure peace, and vnitie in the Churche? If that be not the waie, you leaue vs none at al. If euery man take that Religion, that liketh best his owne phantasie, as many doo in diuers partes of the worlde already: who shal cal them backe to the true Catholique Religion?
And therefore Gregorie saith of Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople, that claimed to him selfe this vniuersal povver, &c.
Harding.
What neede we bestowe moe wordes about this [Page 141] matter of Iohn of Constantinople?Iohn the ambitious Bishop of Constantinople claimed the title of vniuersal Bishop. M. Stapleton hath answered fully vnto it. This Iohn claimed to him selfe the title of vniuersal Bishop, meaning thereby, that there was no Bishop in the worlde, but he: whiche title in deede S. Gregorie in that sense coulde not brooke, but tooke it to be arrogant, and proude. And we saie, as we haue alwaies said, that no Pope euer claimed the title of vniuersal Bishop, in that sense, that there ought none others to be Bishoppes but he. And yet S. Gregorie claimed the right title of the Primacie apperteining to his See, in his answere made to Mauricius the Emperour, as Platina recordeth. And S. Chrysostome,Chrysos. in Matth. homil. 55. & in illa verba Ioh. 21. Sequere me. homil. 87. Aug. de vera religione cap. 45. as we said before) doth not spare to tel al Christian menne, that to Peter was committed the Charge and Cure of the whole worlde.
For although al the vvorlde either vvould, or could geue eare, and credite to one man, y [...]t vvere not that therefore alvvaies Christian vnitie. S. Augustine saith, Pride it selfe hath a certaine desire of vnitie, and of vni [...]ersal povver.
Harding.
What should moue you to allege S. Augustine, De vera religione, against the vnitie of the whole Churche, obeying their vniuersal head? Did S. Augustine speake any thing of the Pope in that place? What so'euer affection there be of Pride, or Singularitie in the ruler, it toucheth not others, but disgraceth his personal actes onely, I meane in respect of his owne person, not of others, who doo but their duetie in obeying what he teacheth, or biddeth, being their general gouernour, or head. And in that duetie doing, what soeuer the rulers [Page] affection is in gouerning, they keepe Christian vnitie i [...] Faithe,Matth. 23. and Doctrine. Vpon the chaire of Moyses, the Scribes and Pharisees haue sitte, al thinges what so euer they tel you, doo ye, saith Christe. If Christe bad vs to obey the Scribes, and the Pharisees; as long as they sate in Moyses chaire, although their life agreed not with their doctrines what can the Popes il affection of pride hurte the vnitie of Christian menne, who doo their duetie in obeying his lawful power?
An other of M. Hardinges reasons is this: The Churche labouring here in earth, must resemble the Churche of the Saintes triumphing in heauen. But in heauen God onely is the gouernoure ouer the vvhole: Therfore, in the Churche beneathe, the Pope likevvise must needes be gouernour ouer the vvhole. Thus God must be rated to gouerne aboue, and the Pope beneath: and so as one some time saide, Diuisum imperium, cum Ioue Caesar habet.
Harding.
You falsifie my wordes, and reason, my terme is not Must, but, Meete. Shewe it not to be meete: Leaue you skoffing, and come to the matter. Euery good thing is the worse, that cometh into your handes.
This is a valiant kinde of argument. It holdeth from heauen to earth, from angelles to menne, from God to the Pope.
Harding.
Wel skoffed M. Iewel. It was not for naught, that the Prophete Dauid in the description of a blessed man, saith emong other thinges,Psal. 1. that he sitteth not in the chaire of [Page 142] Mockers, by whiche worde Heretiques are signified, which in deede are very skoffers, and mockers of al good thinges. And weene you good Sir▪ that an argument maie not holde from heauen to earth? Thy wil be donne in earth as it is in heauen. Vpon these wordes, if you list,Matth. 6. maie ye not frame an argument, that shal holde from heauen to earth? Now from Angelles to menne: Videte ne contemnatis vnum ex his pusillis: dico enim vobis, Matth. 18. quia Angeli eorum in coelis semper vident faciem patris mei, qui in coelu est. See ye despise not one of these litle ones: For I saie vnto you, that their Angelles in heauen doo alwaies see the face of my Father, whiche is in heauen. Out of this Scripture, if your good wil, and cunning would serue you, ye maie see an argument plainely made, from Angelles to menne. Likewise from God to the Pope. Petre amas me? Pasce oues meas. Peter louest thou me?Iohan. 21. Feede (or rule) my sheepe. If your cunning can not compasse suche Argumentes M. Iewel, that are vsed in Scriptures, from heauen to earth, from Angelles to menne, from God to the Pope: yet it were good for you to leaue skoffing at suche argumentes, as are vsed in the very Scriptures.
But hovv knovveth M. Harding vvhat Orders of Angelles, and Archangelles there be in heauen? VVhat they doo? Hovv they deale: &c.
Harding. Of Angelles, to what purpose Osee was alleged, of the Head inuisible, and visible.
Forsooth I maie easily know that,The 14. Chapt. whiche is euidently [Page] reueled in the Scripture: yea so euidently, that yo [...] ignorance must seeme to grosse, to aske any suche question.Of the Angelles. That there be orders of Angelles, it appeareth bo [...] in diuers other places, and specially by the fourth Chapter of S. Matthew, where we finde that the Angell [...]s waite on Christe.Matth 4. Beholde (saith the Euangeliste) the Angelles came, and ministred vnto him. You might haue founde mention of many thousandes of Angelles, in the 12.Hebre. 12. Chapter to the Hebrewes. There is mention also made of diuers Orders of Angelles in the epistle to the Colossians.Coloss. 1. Siue throni, sine Dominationes, siue Principatus, siue Potestates, omnia per ipsum, & in ipso creata sunt. Ephes. 3. & 4. Archangelles. 1. Thess. 4. The like is to be seene in the epistle to the Ephesians. Of Archangelles we reade in the epistle to the Thessalonians, that our Lord shal come downe in the voice, and in the commaundement (or shoute) of the Archangel, and in the trompe of God. In S. Luke we reade, that there is more ioie in heauen before the Angelles for one sinner doing penaunce, Luc. 15. then there is for. 99. iust menne, that neede no penaunce. In the epistle to the Hebrewes we read, that al the Angelles doo honour Christe,Hebre. 1. and that al Angelles are spirites to doo seruice, sent into seruice for them, that doo receiue the inheritance of saluation.
Dionysius de Coelesti Hierarch. cap. 6. Tobia. 3.S. Dionyse the Areopagite speaketh of nine Orders of Angelles. The Scripture in sundry places telleth vs, that the Angelles doo offer vp the praiers of the faithful before God. This we knowe of Angelles in heauen, that they obey one God: that they are spirites so confirmed in grace, that now they can not sinne: that they are ready to doo Goddes commaundement at al times: that there are Orders emong them, as there [Page 143] shalbe emong them, whiche shalbe saued emong vs, some placed in greater glorie, then some others, as S. Paule declareth by the diuersitie of Starres,1. Cor. 15. that are not al of one brightnesse. We knowe, that they being Spirites confirmed in grace, hauing no motions at al to doo any thing contrarie to Gods wil, neede no Pope to correct, to pounish, to excommunicate, to depriue, to depose them, and to assoile them. This muche we knowe concerning the Angelles, and this might you M. Iewel also haue knowen. And this confession, if occasion so required, would better haue becomme you, then your skoffes, fitter for a common Table Ieaster, then for a man, who professeth to teache others the duetie of life, and truthe of beleefe.
To S. Dionysius,M. Ievvel commōly argueth negatiuely from autorities that wrote purposely of the gouernment of the Churche, and made no mention of one Pope, whiche you obiecte: we saie, that we holde him for vnskilful in his Logique, who deduceth Argumentes negatiuely from any Fathers authoritie: as for example: That Father, or this Father spake not of the proceding of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Sonne: Ergo there is no suche thing. Yet it had benne more for your commendation, to haue argued from Heauen to earth, from Angelles to menne, from God to the Pope, then so sottelike to reason against al good order of learning, from Authorities negatiuely. Howbeit in dede the manner of your reasoning is, not from God to the Pope, from Angelles to menne, from Heauen to earth▪ but from truth to errour, from Religion to Hugonotrie, from Christianitie to Paganisme, from good to naught, from Christe to Antichriste from God to Satan. whiche manner [Page] of argumentes is not very holesome.
The Obiection of the name of Iosue mistaken for Osee.You make muche a doo, for that I mistake the na [...] of Iosue, for Osee. To mistake one mannes name for an other, as long as there is no preiudice thereby made to the necessary doctrine of our Faith, and the place truely alleged: althoughe the name were mistaken, it is but humaine errour. In that I named Iosue for Osee, I acknowledge myne errour, and wishe you would do [...] the like when you erre, and then ye should cal in againe al that you haue written hitherto, wherein you should doo wel in wise mennes Iudgement, and most safely for the wealth of your owne soule. But to traine the people from truth to heresie, and stubbornly therein to continew, as you doo M. Iewel, and where no other shifte wil serue you, there to assaie, whether you can skoffe out the truthe: this is not humaine errour, but a Deuilish practise.
Osee to vvhat purpose alleged.The place of Osee was alleged for no other purpose, but to shew, that God doth vs to vnderstand, that his Churche militant is then in most perfite state, and in best order, when al true beleeuers, bothe conuerted Iewes, and Gentiles, doo obey one Head. Now then, if in the Gouernment of one Head consiste the best Order, and state, that can be planted in the Church, though it be true,Christe one and only head Inuisible. that our Sauiour Christ be that one Inuisible Head, as I neuer denied, but that he is: yet that the Visible Churche atteine vnto that perfite Order and state, whiche the Prophete Osee commendeth for the best,Head Visible it behoueth, that it haue one Visible general Head, that shal keepe and mainteine visible, and external Order emong al the faithful. This is the force of my drifte. [Page 144] Neither for al that did I denie,Iohan. 10. but that Christe is that one Head, that Christe is that one Shepeheard that S. Iohn spake of, whiche I doo openly confesse in my Confutation of the Apologie, in the selfe same place, where I allege the saying of the Prophete Osee, and the saying of Christe out of S. Ihon. So that you needed not to allege al that out of S. Hierome, Nicolaus Lyra, and S. Augustine, to proue that which I confessed before.M. Ievvels cōmō māner in al his vvritīges But this is your manner alwaies M. Iewel, to shewe your copie in matters vndoubted, and impertinent, and when ye come to ioyne with your aduersarie in the very pointe, that lieth in controuersie, then are you possessed with a dumme spirite, and for ought that is to the purpose, you can saie nothing.
The argument, whiche you allege out of Opus Tripartitum annexed to the Councel of Constance, I marueile that you had the face to bring it forth.M. Ievv. allegeth obiectiōs made by Doctours against the truth, as if they vvere the Doctours ovvne meaning. What meane you M. Iewel? Is it not there set for an obiection against the truthe? And euen there in the nexte Chapter answered, and soiled? What learned man euer brought in his Defence the Obiections set forth by a Doctour, to thintent by the solution of them the truthe maie more clearely appeare? By this you shewe your selfe to be very shamelesse, and that you care not in what trippes learned menne take you, so that for the time it be not espied, and you to the vnlearned people seeme a ioily felowe. I referre you for the Answere to that Obiection to the chapter there following, where you shal finde it fully answered.
Operis Tri part. li. 2. cap. 6. Cō cil. Tom 2Like as the Emperour Caligula somitemes tooke of the hea [...] of [...] great God Iuppit [...]r, and set on an other head of his ovvne: euen so by these interpretations, and Gloses, M. Harding smiteth of Christe (his great God, M. Iewel should haue said to make it answer to Iuppiter Caligulas great God) the only Head of the Church,Suetonius Tranquil. in Caligula. and setteth on the Pope.
Harding. Answer to the former Comparison.
The 15. Chapt.What Sir, doo you compare me with Caligula the Emperour, and Christe our Sauiour God and Man, with Iuppiter the Idol? This comparison is not very handsome. But marke gentle Reader, how M. Iewel speaketh more honestly of me,Christ by M. Iew cō pared to Iuppiter. then he was aware. Here are Caligula the Emperour, and I, compared together: Iuppiter, the Emperour Caligulaes great God, and Christe my great God. In which comparison, as M. Iewel hath ouershot him selfe too foule, in comparing Christe with Iuppiter: euen so haue I some cause to yelde him a fewe thinne and sclender thankes, for that he acknowlegeth Christe to be my great God, as he is in deede, though this confession seemeth to haue leapt out of his penne vnaduisedly.
The difference that he would not see, standeth in this point, that Iuppiters owne head, and the head that Caligula tooke to set in place of it, could not agree together, without monstrous deformitie, and inequalitie to Iuppiters bodie. Christe the supreme Head of the whole Churche,Christ the head inuisible by ī fluence of and the Pope, who is but Christes Vicare, his ministerial head, or vnderhead, doo maruelously agree together: So that the one is the Inuisible Head continually [Page] by influence of grace, the Pope the Visible Head, eche Pope for his time, to keepe Visible rule, and Order emong the people, by visible meane, whereof as being menne they haue neede.
An other difference he might haue seene also, if it had pleased him: that Iupiter the Idol had no people vnder him to be exercised in the absence of his owne head, in the vse and right faith of the holy Sacramentes: Christe our Sauiour is visibly absent for the exercise of Christian peoples faith in him, and in the holy Sacramentes. Whose visible absence, if it were not supplied by a visible general Head, vnder whom the people might be ruled, there would folowe infinite disorder, and Babylonical Confusion.
Thus vve are taught, that Christe is neither the head of his ovvne body the Churche, nor the shepeherd of his ovvne flocke, but only the Pope.
Harding.
Emong many other lies, whiche you haue deuised against vs, to sporte your selfe withal, this is not onely a flat lie, but also a skoffing, and a sclaunderous lie. We neuer taught so, we neuer wrote so. If ye proue it not, let the shame be yours.
And yet Chrysostome saith, Qui non vtitur Sacra Scriptura, sed ascendit aliunde, id est, non concessa via, hic non Pastor est, Chrysost. in Iohan. Homil. 58 sed fur. VVhosoeuer vseth not the holy Scripture, but cōmeth in an other vvaie, that is not lavvful (vvhiche is by false Gloses, and corruptions) he is not the Shephearde of the flocke, he is the theefe.
Harding. M. Iewel in reasoning suppresseth that, wherein the proufe resteth: so his argumentes must be weake and vaine.
The .16. Chapt.You laie forth many solemne Maiors diuers times, as this out of S. Chrysostome, and thereupon without either laying forth of the Minor, or proufe thereof (notwithstanding the whole matter on your behalfe to be proued standeth in the Minor) you vse to inferre your seely Conclusions. As here you reason after this wise. Who so euer vseth not the holy Scripture, but commeth in from an other where, that is to saie, by a waie not lawful (for so S. Chrysostome speaketh, and not as you haue falsified him) he is not the shephearde of the flocke: Ergo, the Pope is not the shephearde of the flocke. How proueth M. Iewel this argument with al the Logique he hath? Had it not ben reason,Chrysost. in Math: hom. 55. & in illa verba. Iohan. 21. sequere me. Hom. 87. August. Contra Donatist. Lib. 6.1. Q. 3. vocantur Canes. he had first proued, that the Pope vseth not the holy Scripture, neither commeth in according to the Scripture, but that he commeth in by some other vnlawful waie, whiche ought to haue ben his Minor? This bicause he sawe he was not hable to proue, he thought it good policie to suppresse it with silence.
But let the question be asked of S. Chrysostome, who vseth holy Scripture better, he that saith, that the charge of the whole worlde was committed to Peter (and consequently to his successours) as the same Chrysostom saith: or he, that denieth flatly, that any suche thing maie be concluded out of the Scripture.
It is to true, that you bring in of S. Augustine, that the note, or marke of a Bisshop many geue vnto Wolues, and [Page 146] be Wolues them selues. You had neuer the true Character of a Bishop, being neuer lawfully consecrated by three lawful Bishoppes, as the holy Canons require: and yet you beare your selfe for a Bishop, and vsurpe Bishoply office: therefore you are one of the Wolues, that S. Augustine spake of. Leaue rauening, and deceiuing of Goddes people, and become penitent, that you maie be saued with the meeke shepe of Christes flocke, and not be damned euerlastingly with the rauening Wolues.
M. Harding saithe farther: For asmuche as Christe is ascended into Heauen, and is novv no more conuersant emongest vs in visible Fourme, as he vvas before, it behoued some one man to be put in commission for bearing the charge, and taking care for the vvhole Churche. Therefore he said vnto Peter, Feede my flocke: Confirme thy Brethren. First vvhat auncient learned Father euer thus scanned the vvordes of the popes commission? Or vvhy doth M. Harding auouche so great a matter of him selfe onely, vvithout farther Authoritite? &c.
Harding. Feede my Sheepe, are wordes of Peters commission to gouerne the Churche, and the same is proued by the Fathers.
You tel my tale in suche wise,The .17. Chapt. as you maie best make the matter seeme weake, and sclender. First I thinke good here to set before the reader (who is now made iudge of this controuersie) myne owne wordes, as I vttered them my selfe. Then I shal the better frame my Answer to that you obiecte. Thus I saie.
Where these Defenders, [...]onf [...]t. fol. 46. a. as others the Aduersaries of this vnitie saie, that Christe is this one shepheard, this one [Page] Head who is so,Christe is the principal Head, and of him selfe: the Pope is the Ministerial Head, and vnder Christ, ād for Christ Math. 28. 1. Pet. 2. A man is necessarie to doo Christes steede of outward gouernment in in the Churche. The necessitie and institution of the Head of the Churche. Genes. 32. Num. 12. we denie not, Shepeheard of his flock [...], Head of his body, Bridegrome of his spouse, Prince of hi [...] kingdome, as it is before declared: yet saie they therein nothing to the disproufe of the catholique doctrine touching vnitie of the Head, which is in steed, and ministerie of Christ. For whereas the Father hath geuen to Christ al power in heauē and earth, so as he only is the King, Head, ruler, Iudge of al, the Pastour and Bishop of our soules: and therefore they whiche we acknowledge to be Kinges, Headdes, Rulers, iudges, Pastours, and Bishoppes in earth, be his Vicares, Lieuetenantes, Vicegerentes, and Ministers: al this power, by what name so euer it be called, being suche as is exercised and administred by his worde: neede it is, that for asmuche as Christe now dwelleth not with vs in visible presence, his Churche haue one man to doo his steede of outwarde ruling in earth, by his worde to administer al that is behooful, and to performe the duetie of the head in respecte of the bodie.
‘Now that Christe is not conuersant with vs visibly, as he was with his Disciples before his passion, and preacheth no more vnto vs with his owne mouth sensibly: to atteine the vnderstanding of his wil, we maie not looke to haue God appeare vnto vs, as he did vnto the Fathers of the olde Testament, to speake to vs, as he did to Moyses face to face, mouth to mouth, as the Scripture saith, to sende vs his Angel, as he did to the Virgine Marie, to instruct vs with visions from Heauen,Luc. 1. Act [...]. 10. 2. Cor. 12. as he instructed Peter, to take vs vp into the thirde heauen, as he tooke Paule, there to heare the secretes of his wil: but it behoueth vs to be content for [Page 147] the working of that whiche remaineth to be done touching our Saluation, with suche order, as hath pleased him. For it is manifest, that Christe perfiteth al the Sacramentes of the Churche. He it is, that baptizeth, he it is, that forgeueth sinnes, he is the true priest, that hath offered him selfe on the Crosse, and by whose power his body is daily consecrated, and offered on the Aulter. Yet bicause he would not remaine in visible presence with al beleeuers, he chose menne to be his Ministers, by whom the forsaid thinges should be done, and ministred to them. By like reason, forasmuch as he would take frō the Churche his corporal and visible presence, it behoued some one man to be put in Commissiō for bearing the charge, and taking care of the Churche in lieu, and steede of him selfe. For this purpose before his Ascensiō he said to Peter, whose loue he had tried, and found to be most feruent aboue al others, feede my shepe, and before his Passion, Thou being againe cōuerted, strengthen thy brethren, Iohan. 2 [...]. Luc. 22. Math. 16. And to him specially he said by promise, To thee wil I geue the keies of the kingdome of heauen, thereby to shewe, that the power of the keies should be deriued to others by him for the better keping of the vnitie of the Churche.’
Now let it be iudged, with what substantial learning you haue cōfuted this doctrine. If it had not ben sounde, and such as clearely openeth, what we meane,The former vvordes of my Confutation lefte out of M. Ievvelle [...] Defence. when we cal the Pope the chiefe Pastour, and supreme Gouernour of Christes Flocke: doubtelesse you would not haue leafte it out of your booke. For you (making a shewe, as though you had printed my whole booke againe, and so confuted it) take onely that pleaseth you, and leaue out what seemeth to hard for you to answere, mangling, disordering, [Page] and confounding my whole treatie, to thin [...] it may beare the lesse face of learning, and of good prouf [...] of the thinges I intreate of, which is a foule practise n [...] uer vsed by any lerned man hitherto. And yet you would men to beleeue, you deale truly, and plainely in laying foorth my Confutation. Yet here hauing nothing to saie elles, least you should seeme to geue ouer, you demaund of me, what auncient Father euer thus skanned the woordes of the Popes Commission, or why I haue auouched so great a matter of my selfe, without farther authoritie.
Thus when I bring Fathers, you cal for Scripture, when I allege Scripture,M. Iewels vvaie to continue vvrangling. Iohan. 21 you aske what auncient Father euer vnderstode it so, or why I dare so handle the Scripture: so ye wil be sure not to lacke mater of wrangling, what so euer I saie. Yet thus I answer. It is no hard peece of worke to proue by sufficient authoritie, that these wordes, Pasce oues meas, feede my sheepe, spoken to Peter, and in him to his successours,In Math. Homil. 55 & in Iohan. Homil. 87. Grego. lib. 4. epi. 32. Pascere, gaue Peter and his successours, Authoritie g [...]neral to gouerne the whole Churche. S. Chysostome treating vpon these wordes, saith, as it is before alleged, that the charge to rule the whole worlde was geuen to Peter, and cōsequently to his successours. S. Gregorie saith the same, as is before rehersed. Pascere, is not a word that signifieth to feede only, as you know, but also to rule and gouerne, and therefore Homere calleth King Agamemnon, [...], the Pastor, that is to say, the ruler of the people.
And that it may appeare, that I auouche not this matter, and applie the place of S. Iohns Gospel to it of my selfe onely without farder Authoritie, as you say: [Page 148] it may please you to heare S. Ambrose teaching the same, and in manner with the same woordes, that I vsed, writing vpon the .24. Chapter of S. Luke, thus he saieth.Ambro in cap. 24. Lucae. Iohan. 21.
Dominus interrogabat, non vt disceret, sed vt doceret, quem eleuandus in coelum amoris sui nobis velut Vicarium relinquebat. Sic enim habes: Simon Ioannis diligis me? vtique tu scis Domine, quia amo te. Dicit ei Iesus, pasce agnos meos. Bene conscius sui, non ad tempus assumptum, sed iam dudum Deo cognitum Petrus testificatur affectum. Quis est enim alius, qui de se hoc facilè profiteri possit? Et ideo quia solus profitetur ex omnibus, omnibus antefertur. Our Lorde asked (that question of Peter, whether he loued him) not to learne, but to teache him, whom being to be lifted vp into heauen he leaft vnto vs,The Pope is leaft to vs, as the Vicare of Christes loue tovvard vs. as the Vicare of his loue (that is to saie in plainer termes, such a one, as should be in steede of Christe in those thinges, that for his tender loue towardes vs he would vs to haue.) For euen so thou hast (in the Ghospel) Simon the sonne of Iohn louest me? Yea verely thou knowest Lorde, that I loue thee. Iesus saieth vnto him: Feede my lambes. Peter here knowing right wel the secretes of his owne conscience, professeth that his good affection (whiche he bare to Christe) was not nowe entred into him for the present time, but that God knew it long before. For who is the man elles, that may soone professe this much of him selfe? And therefore in asmuch as he onely of al professeth it, he is preferred before al.
Lo M. Iewel, by this you maie see, I spake not of this matter altogether of myne owne head, and without farther autoritie. S. Ambrose saith in effect so much as I said, [Page] That Christ, for so much as he should ascende into heauen, and withdrawe his visible presence from vs, lea [...] behinde, him for our behoofe S. Peter, as Vicare of his loue. Nowe of this I may conclude, for so muche as Christe, who died for our loue, and redemed vs with his bloude, ceasseth not to loue vs: that he leafte not onely Peter, to be the Vicare of his loue for his owne life only, but also Peters Successours for euer, that is to saie, the Popes, for other Peters Successours we knowe not.
Arnobius likewise vnderstādeth this supreme charge, and auctoritie to be geuen vnto Peter, and therefore consequently vnto Peters Successours, applying the same texte of Scripture to that purpose. These be his wordes.Arnobius in Psalm. 138. Iohan. 10. Iohan. 21. Nullus Apostolorum nomen Pastoris accepit. Solus enim Dominus Iesus Christus dicebat, ego sum Pastor b [...] nus: & iterum, me, inquit, sequunturoues meae. Hoc ergo nomen sanctum, & ipsius nominis potestatem post resurrectionem suam Petropoenitenti concessit, & ter negatus, negatori suo hanc, quam solus habuit, tribuit potestatem. None of the Apostles hath receiued the name of Pastor (or shepeheard.) For our Lorde Iesus Christe alone said, I am a good Shepeheard. And againe, my shepe (saith he) folow me. So then this holy name, and the power of the name, our Lorde after his resurrection gaue to Peter being repentant, and being thrise denied, he gaue the auctoritie, whiche he had alone, vnto his denier.
Peter by the three fold cō maundement of feeding, muste feede al sortes of the Flock the lābes, the yoūg litle Sheepe, and the great Sheepe.S. Ambrose according to the worde of cōmission spokē to Peter thrise repeted, feede, feede, feede, noteth three degrees of authoritie to be exercised in feeding. Iam non agnos, vt primò, quodam lacte vescendos, nec oniculas, vt secundò, sed oues pascere iubetur, perfectiores vt perfectior gubernaret. [Page 149] Now (that is to say, when Christe said at the thirde time, Feede) Peter is not commaunded to feede lambes, that are to be fed with a certaine milke, as at the first time: nor is he commaunded to feede the litle sheepe, as at the second time: but the Sheepe he is commaunded to feede, that the perfiter should gouerne them, that are of the perfiter sorte.
That learned Father S. Leo saith,Leo epist. ad Episcopos per prouinciā Viennen. constitut. Cùm Petro prae caeteris soluendi & ligandisit tradita potestas, pascendarum tamen ouium cura specialius mandata est. Whereas the power to loose, and binde was deliuered vnto Peter aboue the reste, yet the charge of feeding the Shepe, is committed to him more specially. The same S. Leo saith of Peter in an other place, Non solùm Romanae sedis, sed & omnium Episcoporum nouerunt esse primatem. As for Peter, they knowe him not onely to be chiefe ruler of the See of Rome, but also the Primate of al Bishops.Peter primate of al Bisshoppes. Serm. 2. in Aniuers. Assumpt.
What shal I allege S. Gregorie, whose woordes be most manifest? He acknowlegeth S. Peter, and therefore euery Bishop of Rome his Successour, to haue the charge of the whole Churche by cōmission of Christ, alleging to that purpose the wordes, for alleging of whiche you blame me, as though I did it of mine owne selfe without farther authoritie. Thus he saith.Epist. 32. Cunctis Euangelium scientibus liquet, &c. It is euident to al that knowe the Gospel, that the cure and charge of the whole Church, hath ben committed by the word of our Lorde, to the holy Apostle Peter prince of al the Apostles: For to him it is said. Peter, Ioan. 22. Luc. 22. louest thou me? feede my shepe: to him it is said, Beholde Sathan hath desired to sifte you, as it were wheate, and I haue praied for thee Peter, that thy faith faile not. Math. 16. And thou being once [Page] conuerted, strengthen thy brethren. To him it is said. Thou [...] Peter, and vpon this rocke I wil builde my Churche, and the gates of Hel shal not preuaile against it. And vnto thee I wil geue the keies of the kingdome of Heauen: And whatsoeuer thou bindest vpon earth, shalbe bound also in heauen, and what so euer thou lowsest on earthe, shalbe lowsed also in heauen. Beholde he receiueth the keies of the heauenly kingdome: the power of binding and lowsing is geuen to him: the charge of the whole Churche, and principallitie is committed to him. And here I wil adde that foloweth in S. Gregorie, & tamen vniuersalis Apostolus non vocatur, and yet he is not called the vniuersal Apostle, least M. Iewel finde great faulte with me,Replie 225. as he doth in his Replie, for leauing it out, and least once againe he feine, that I haue the Chinecoughe, and that I set S. Gregorie to schoole,Gregor. lib. 6. epistol. 37. and keepe him in awe, and suffer him not to tel more then I wil geue him leaue, and many suche gaie good morowes, that needed not at al. The same S. Gregorie writeth in much like sorte to Eulogius Bisshop of Alexandria.
Leauing al other Fathers, that might here to this purpose be alleged,Bernardus lib. 2. de Consideratione. for breuities sake I wil ende with S. Bernarde, who writeth thus to Eugenius. Other pastours haue their flockes assigned vnto them, eche man one. Al are committed to thee, the one whole flocke to one. Neither art thou onely the Pastour of al the sheepe, but also the onely Pastour of al the Pastours. Demaundest thou of me, howe I prooue it? Forsooth out of the woorde of God. Ioan. 21. For I praie you to whom (I wil not saie of the Bisshoppes) but also of the Apostles, were al the sheepe so absolutely, and indeterminately committed? If thou loue [Page 150] me Peter, feede my sheepe: whiche sheepe? The people of this, or of that citie, of this, or of that countrie, or kingdome? My sheepe, quod he. Who now doth not euidently see that Christe did not appointe him certaine, but assigned him al? Where no distinction is made, there nothing is excepted. Thus you see, how litle cause you had to saie, why doth M. Harding auouche so great a matter of him selfe onely without farther authoritie.
And if this so large Commission be to Feede, and feede so many, vvhy then doth the Pope feede so litle?
Harding. The Pope feedeth, and why Christe appointed him to be his Vicare.
The stubbornesse of Heretiques is a lette,The .18. Chapt. that his diligent feeding can not take place in many. Howe manie Articles of the Christian Doctrine had the peruersitie of Heretiques wrapped vp in a Confusion, and brought in doubte, that fewe menne knewe, howe to vnfolde them? The Popes diligent feeding hath so by General Councelles through his authoritie and care assembled, vnfolded, and disclosed all the false craftes, and sleightes of Heretiques: that nowe euery man that wil, maie haue in a readinesse by perusing the Canons of the Councelles, what Doctrine is true, and holesome, what is false, and heretical. Of late yeares he emploied his diligence in calling allThe Pope feedeth, but some refuse his good foode, and feede of Poison. [Page] the Protestantes vnto the Councel of Trent, he gaue them safe Conductes to come, and departe without danger of their personnes, and there, during the time of their abode, to propone, argue, and dispute of the pointes in cō trouersie with al freedome.VVhy the Ministers of England vvēt not to the General Councel at Trent, most liberal and free Safe cōductes being graunted them. But ye of England knowing your owne weaknesse, and that ye were not so wel hable to prooue your doctrine in learned Assemblies, as ye were with boasting Chalenges, and bolde talkes to prate it out of pulpites emong the ignorant at home, least with shame ye should there haue ben put to silence, and prooued vnlearned: wylily absented your selues. Notwithstanding libertie was geuen you, to come, and saie for your Gospel, what ye could, and as it appeareth in the Actes of the same, to frame your safe Conducte, if ye desliked the fourme set foorth in the Councel, in as ample manner for your owne safegarde, and benefite, as ye could deuise.
Againe, vvhere learned M. Harding to reason thus: Christe is ascended into heauen, Ergo, the Pope is head of the vvhole vvorlde?
Harding.
Nay, where learned M. Iewel to fashon suche peeuish argumentes, of his owne deuise, and fathering them vpon his Aduersarie, to scoffe at them, as if they were of his Aduersaries making? If this Argument be naught, let him amend it, that framed it. If it be ridiculous, the Reader may see, what a ridiculous head he hath, that brought it forth. My reason dependeth in this sorte. If it had pleased Christ to haue remained here visibly emong [Page 151] vs alwaies, and to haue taken continual order him selfe for the external gouernment of the Churche: we should not haue needed any other general head, but Christe him selfe, who had ben sufficient. But for asmuch as Christes bodily, and visible presence through his Ascension was for good purposes taken awaie from vs, that we might haue better occasion to exercise faith, and the holy Sacramentes: it was needeful, that in his steede he should leaue some one General Vicegerent,In. 24. caput Luca. and Vicare of his loue, as S. Ambrose termeth him, that should haue ful authoritie to rule the whole Churche. The partes of this reason are wel linked together, both by diuinitie, and also by logique. As M. Iewel hath framed it, it serueth for nothing, but to make sporte emong Prentises. I allege not Christes Ascension for the ful and sufficient cause of hauing one general Head, as M. Iewel would beare menne in hande, if any be so simple to beleeue him:The cause vvhy Christe hath placed his Vicare here in his stede. Ambros. in. 24. cap. Lucae. but as the occasion, why he should place an other in the absence of his Visible person, in his steede. The necessitie of the Churche, that disorder and confusion be auoided, and that vnitie be kepte, considered together with the great loue, that Christe hath to the Churche, is the ful cause why Christe placed in his steede a general Vicegerent, Vicarium amoris sui, the vicare of his loue, as S. Ambrose calleth him.
But ye saie, God speaketh not novv vnto vs mouth to mouth. &c.
Harding. What rule is like to be, if the Scripture be made ruler and gouernour.
Your drifte is in this place,The. 19. Chapt. to put the whole gouernment [Page] of the Church quite from the Pope, whom Chrysostome, as I haue tolde you before, taketh to be the vniuersal Head, bicause he is S. Peters Successour, and to driue vs to deliuer the whole rule vnto the Scripture, and that being remoued quite from any one certaine sense, and leafte to mennes Phantasies to descant vpon it. What vnitie, and good Order wil folowe thereof, they of Germanie, ye of England, the Lutherans, the Zuinglians, the Caluinistes, the Osiandrines, the Zuencfeldians, the Anabaptistes, the new Puritanes that now spring vp so freshly, and other sectes wherewith the worlde swarmeth, haue tolde vs already, the whiche could neuer yet come to any good vnitie, and common agreement.
Ye leaue vs also an other sorte of gouernours, Apostles,Ephes. 4. Prophetes, Euangelistes, Pastours, and Doctours, of whom S. Paule speaketh. If these be the Gouernours appointed by holy Scripture, how falleth it out, that ye, contrary to Scripture, haue geuen the supreme gouernment of your Church of England to laye Princes, some being vnder their nources gouernance, some being women?The cas [...] thus standing, if the Ministers agree not in doctrine, hovv shal vnitie be made, and the people kepte vnpoisoned? If these forenamed the Apostles, &c. be the right gouernours, how happeth it, that they can doo nothing concerning Order to be taken for the Churche, but by authoritie deriued from a mere laie power? If these, that is to saie, the successours of the Apostles, Prophetes, &c. be the right gouernours, what if any of these iarre, and fal at square emong them selues (as it hath oftentimes ben seene) either within the compasse of one Realme, or in diuers Realmes, and doo poison the people with sundry Heresies, to whom shal we resorte to haue them called home, and reduced vnto order? whom haue you least vs [Page 252] in this case, as Iudge, and supreme Gouernour to ende al Dissensions, and to condemne perilous Heresies? They of Germanie take them selues to be as good menne, and to knowe the Truth, as wel (if no better) as either D. Parker of Canturburie, or M. Grindal of London, or Bacheler Yonge of Yorke, or any of the other wiued Priestes, Monkes, and Friers, yea as M Iew. of Sarisburie him selfe.
Ye of England wil not yelde to them of Saxonie, they of Lifeland, Swethen, Denmarke, Pole, Scotland, Zuitzerland, and Geneua, wil not yelde them selues subiectes to either of you both. And yet euery one of these sundry congregations wil preach stil the doctrine of their owne secte, one cōtrarie to an other. How now M. Iewel? Let vs heare what wise tale you cā tel vs, by whose authoritie we maie come from these great Dissensions, and manifold Schismes, to Vnitie. Intreatie can not doo it. Colloquies, meetinges, and Conferences of the learned of eche secte, can not bring it to passe. The more it hath ben attempted, the worse ende hath euer benne concluded. Haue not you leaft vs then a beautiful Church? a blessed cōpanie of Ministers, that wil not come to Order? Yea leauing vs without any lawful authoritie of one Head to reduce vs to vnitie, do you not leaue vs in endlesse strifes, and indeterminable broilles? Be we not much bound vnto you? Were not the worlde wise, and wel aduised, to forsake al old orders, and to put cōfidence in this your new deuise?
The same selfe S. Chrysostome, whom you allege to haue al ruled by the Scriptures, sawe a litle farther, then you see M. Iewel, when he said, that the charge of the whole worlde was committed to Peter.Chrysost. in Matth. Homil. 55. Ambros. in cap. 24. Luca. Theodoritus in Epist. ad Renatum. Cyprianus. lib. 3. Epist. 13. So did S. Ambrose, when he named Peter, and by a consequent Peters [Page] Successour, the Vicare of Christes loue. So did Theodorit [...], when he said, the See of Rome holdeth the sterne, and hath the gouernment of the Churches of the whole worlde.
You allege S. Cyprian, though farre otherwise then he writeth, and that out of that epistle, in whiche he willeth Stephanus the Pope to depose Martianus the Bishop of Arles in Fraunce for Heresie, and put an other in his roome, whiche argueth a supreme authoritie of gouernment in the Pope: you allege him I saie, as if he said, that therefore there are many Bishoppes in the Churche, that if one fal into heresie, the rest maie helpe. But what if there be as many Heretique Bishoppes, as there be Catholique, as it hath commonly benne seene in the East Churche? What if the Heretiques, being more learned, wil not yeelde?
Cyprian. ad Cornelium. lib. 1. Epist. 3.S. Cyprian in an other place spareth not to tel you, that Schismes, ād heresies rise of no other cause, then for that the whole brotherhed, that is to saie, the companie of Christian people, Obeye not one high Prieste, that is in Christes steede. Whiche saying by what reason it taketh place in euery seueral Dioces, by the same it is to be vnderstanded in respecte of the whole worlde. For as Heresies rise of disobedience of the people to their Bishop: so they rise no lesse, yea rather muche more, as experience teacheth, of the disobedience of the Bishoppes them selues, if they wil not be vnder one Head. And as the people are not kepte in vnitie, but by being vnder one Bishop, so neither the Bishoppes, excepte they be likewise vnder one chiefe Head, and ruler, who is the Successour of Peter, to whom, as louing Christe more then the reste, whiche the Scripture [Page 153] sheweth, the charge, not onely of the lambes, and weaker sheepe, but also of the great and stronger sheepe, was committed, as S. Ambrose before alleged, hath wel noted.
Whether S. Peter were faulte worthy, when S. Paule reproued him, as you tel vs without proufe,Defence pag. 103. it remaineth in question betwixte S. Augustine, and S. Hierome. But if there were any thing worthy of reprehension in S. Peter that S. Paule sawe, there was great humilitie in S. Peter to agnise the faulte by the warning of his inferiour. Likewise there was in S. Victor the Pope, in that he would geue eare vnto S. Ireneus. Of that S. Peters humilitie thus speaketh S. Cyprian in his epistle to Quintus, whiche is also rehearsed of S Augustine.August. li. 2. de Baptis. cont. Donatist. cap. 1. Nam nec Petrus, quem primum Dominus elegit, & super quem aedificauit Ecclesiam suam, cùm secum Paulus de Circumcisione disceptaret, postmodum vendicauit sibi aliquid insolenter, aut arroganter assumpsit, vt diceret se primatum tenere, & obtemperari à nouellis & posteris sibi potius debere. Example of humilitie to S. Peter. For neither Peter whom our Lorde chose to be first, and vppon whom he builded his Churche, at what time Paule reasoned with him about Circumcision, by and by chalenged any thing proudly vnto him selfe, or stately tooke ought vpon him, as to saie, that he helde the Primacie (or the chiefe rule ouer al) and that suche as came newly to the Faith, and were his aftercommers, ought rather to obeie him. But this kinde of humilitie is not found emong Heretiques. The more courteously they be warned of their Heresie, the more stubborne they growe, and staie not so, but doo the vttermost they can, to make their parties as good, as the Catholiques, as by [Page] sundry olde heretiques, to them that haue reade the Tr [...] gedies by them plaied in the Churche, is most euident. How now M. Iewel? What remedie? Shal we resorte in this case to any Head, that hath General authoritie, or stand stil iarring, and snarling the one at the other, without alremedie? For ought I see, you are like to leaue vs stil in the briers.
Touching your gloses of the Canon Lawe, they maie perhappes one daie, if it shal be thought worth the labour, be altogether answered in some one seueral treatise, where doubtelesse it shal appeare, to your smal estimation, with what beggerly ragges, and clowtes, you haue patched together your clowted cloke.
For the rest, M. Harding saith, One King is hable to rule one Kingdome: Ergo, one Pope is hable to rule the vvhole Churche.
Harding.
My talke runneth not so bare, as you rehearse it: your grace is alwaie to reporte worse, then you finde. I said, that a King (or Queene) in gouerning a Realme, ruleth not al in his owne person, but doth many thinges by his Deputees and Officers. Euen so, why maie not the Pope in al Christendome take order, by other fitte menne hauing from him commission, notwithstanding his person be not present? For very shame M. Iewel, make not your Aduersaries tale worse then you finde it: For by that you must muche discredite your cause.
Of the gouernment of Princes vve haue daielie practise: But of Popes, that euer vsed this vniuersal Dominion ouer the vvhole Church of God, M. Harding is not hable to shevve vs one.
Harding. The gouernment of the whole Churche exercised by the Popes actually.
If the Popes manner had benne to bring menne in subiection by the Sworde, and force of Armes,The 20. Chapt. as it is not, whiche thing Kinges haue vsed to doo: then had ye as wel knowen the Popes Vniuersal Gouernment (whiche you had rather cal Dominion) by practise, as you doo nowe knowe the Kinges. Or were it so that ye fealte so sensibily the paine of Excommunication, as ye doo the tormentes, that Kinges vse against Rebelles, when they once drawe their sworde of correction: you would muche more feare to offende the Pope, then ye doo now the force of Princes. But your manner is alwaies to feare him, that hath the sensible rodde in his hande, ready at a worde to geue the stroke: the Pope bicause he vseth long patience, before he striketh, and when he striketh, his stroke bringeth no bodily paine, but causeth a spiritual separation of mannes soule for his contumacie, from the vnitie of the Church, and from God, whiche is not sensibly fealte: therefore ye feare to offende Princes, and vtterly set nought by the Popes autoritie.
But what if none of the Popes hitherto euer exercised their vniuersal gouernment ouer the whole [Page] Churche of God (whiche in deede is not true) is the [...] right therefore any thing the lesse? Not at al. The Duke of Sauoie (you know) hath in right the Dominion and rule of Geneua, yet they of the towne (suche is the spirite that your holy Gospel breatheth into the people) like errant Rebelles haue kept him out of his right many yeres. And what if this be not true, that you saie? What if diuers Popes maie be named, that haue ruled the whole Churche, both the East, and the Weast, as farre as any Christian Emperour extended his Dominion? Maie you not then reuoke your stoute assertion? You haue read, I suppose, of the great councel of Chalcedon vnder Pope Leo, and of the great Councel of Lateran vnder Innocentius tertius, and the Councelles of Florence, and of Lions. How saie you, I praie you, finde ye not there, that the Greeke Churche, as wel as the Latine Churche, agnised the Popes Supremacie? I denie not, but that a fewe Heretiques, or Schismatiques perhappes might disobeie him at certaine time, and in certaine places. But what then? So doo rebelles oftetimes disobeye their Princes. His authoritie notwithstanding tooke place through the whole Churche emong obedient Christians.
But God be thanked, it appeareth already to al them that haue eyes to see, that vve haue not departed from the seruile obedience of that See, But vpon iust cause, and good a [...]ise.
Harding.
The 21. Chapt.Yea God wote, vpon as iuste causes, as they of Germanie rebelled against Charles the fift, that noble Prince, [Page 155] theire lawful Emperour, or, if ye list, vpon as iust causes, as they of Geneua departed from the Duke of Sauoie their lawful Prince, or, if ye wil wade farther, vpon as iust causes, as the Huguenotes of Fraunce haue, to remoue their lawful king from the godly and accustomed gouernment of his realme, by open rebellion, now the second time.
What you accompte seruile obedience,Seruile obedience. I know not, but of this I am wel assured: that such gouernment as ye, and they of your spirite vse in some places, when the worlde serueth your turne for the establishing of your Gospel to worke your policies, maie wel be called a yoke made of harde yron, whereas the Popes yoke (if it must needes be called a yoke,Yoke of iron, yoke o [...] wood. bicause ye speake of seruile obedience) is but of softe wood, that is to saie, light, and easie. As al theeues would gladly departe from the obedience of their lawful Iudge, and cal it Seruile, if that might be allowed: euen so al suche aduersaries of the Catholique Churche, can thinke euery smal cause, yea being no iust cause at al, sufficient to departe from the obedience of the Pope the chiefe Pastour, whose office is to condemne al their Heresies, as al your Heresies at this daie are condemned in the Councel of Trent by the Popes authoritie.
Touching the argument you make à contrario sensu, Pag. 104. out of the wordes of Calixtus Epistle in Gratian: if you had foreseene the folie of it, I dare saie,Distinct. 12. Non decet. M Iewel [...] Argumē [...]. you would neuer haue printed it for very shame. The argument is this. What so euer is done without discretion of Iustice, against the order of the Churche of Rome, it [Page] maie not by any meanes be allowed: Ergo, what soeuer is done by discretion of Iustice, notwithstanding it be again [...] the Order of the Churche of Rome: yet ought it to be wel allowed. First, your duetie had benne, to haue laied the causes of your departure from the Churche of Rome before some lawful Iudge, and haue proued the causes so alleged, both true and iuste, and not to make your selues iudges, both of the sufficiencie of the causes, and of your departure. Nexte, your duetie had benne, to haue weighed wel this Argument, whether it receiueth any deceitful sophistication,The folie of M. Ievvelles argument shevved by the like. either in it selfe, or in his like. Is this argument (trowe ye) good, M. Iewel? What so euer thing is donne without discretion of Iustice, against the order of Goddes lawe, it maie not by any meanes be allowed: Ergo, what so euer is donne by discretion of Iustice, notwithstanding it be against the Order of Goddes lawe, yet ought it to be wel allowed. And yet is this argument in al pointes like yours. Suche Diuinitie, suche Logique. Wel maie this Logique be allowed in your new schoole at Geneua, in any learned Vniuersitie of Christendome certainely it wil not be allowed. Looke what faulte ye can finde in the later Argument, the same maie ye finde in your owne. This later maie be a glasse vnto you, to beholde your folio in the first.
The Glose expressely founde contrarie to M. Iew.Verely where you founde these wordes in Gratian, euen there in your owne Glose vpon Gratiā, you found your Argument disproued with these very wordes. Hic vacat argumentum à contrario sensu: Here the argument deduced of the contrarie sense is voide, and holdeth not. This you saw, or your gatherer for you. Yet you would it should out, be it taken wel, or otherwise. Thus you delight [Page 156] to be striking, though we can soone heale your woundes. For so you thinke to persuade the simple, that ye haue muche matter against vs.
The places of S. Augustine, and of Pius, that you allege,Pag. 104. make nothing against the Pope, therefore I marueile why you allege them, seruing you to so litle purpose. Perhaps this may be your manner of reasoning: S. Augustine would not haue vs to geue ouer to any Bishops, be they neuer so Catholique, if they happely be deceiued, and be of a contrarie iudgement to Scripture: Ergo, we maie not beleeue the Pope, if he be of a contrarie iudgement to Scripture. Why did not you first proue, that the Pope hath determined against the Canonical Scriptures, wherin the whole weight of the mater lieth? But your lucke is alway to leaue that vnproued, which you should chiefly prooue, and to encomber the Reader most with matters impertinent, and quite besides the issue. S. Augustines place would haue serued better to conclude, that menne ought not to beleeue Heretiques, whiche are certainely deceiued, if they maie not beleeue Catholiques, when they be deceiued. But then, where were your credite become, who are proued to be suche Wolues, and Traitours, as S. Bernard spake of in Goncilio Remensi, whiche Councel you allege so often times?Pag. 104.
S. Hierome saithe: Dices, super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia: Hieron. Aduersus Iouinian. lib. 1. Licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat, & cuncti claues regni coelorum accipiant, & ex aequo super omnes Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur: Ye vvel saie, The Churche is founded vpon Peter: Notvvithstanding in an other place the same thing is donne vpon al the Apostles: and al receiue the keies of the kingdome of heauen: and the strengthe of the Churche is founded equally vpon them al.
Harding. M. Iewel allegeth this and other places to his owne confusion.
The. 22. Chapt.What il fortune hath M. Iewel euer to allege the Fathers to his owne shame? That so he doth, it appeareth by many other, and by this very place of S. Hierome against Iouinian, whiche he allegeth maimedly, cutting of the halfe sentence. For the other halfe sentence is this: tamen propterea inter duodecim vnus eligitur, vt Capite constituto, Schismatis tollatur occasio. Yet emong the twelue there is one chosen out, to thintent he being ordeined Head, the occasion of Schisme be taken awaie. Thus S. Hierome there. If I had nipte of such a notable peece of a sentence, M. Iewel would haue benne at me with the Chinecough. &c. It had serued S. Hieromes turne better, reasoning against Iouinian the Heretique (who affirmed the state of Virgins to be of no greater perfection, then the state of married personnes, as M. Iewel doth also at this daie, which heresie S. Hierome confuted) neuer to haue graunted, that S. Peter, who had ben a married man, was ordeined to be the Head of the Churche, if it had benne, as M. Iewel would persuade. But bicause the truth was, that S. Peter was appointed Head emong the Apostles, S. Hierome doth not denie it, but sheweth the cause why he was preferred before S. Ihon the Euangelist. This is M. Iewels plaine dealing. What is falsehod, if this be not falsehod?
S. Chrysostome of Peter saith thus:Crysost. in Matth. h [...] mil. 83. Duplex crimen erat, tum quia repugnauit, tum quia caeteris seipsum praeposuit: Peter vvas in [Page 157] double faulte, bothe for that [...]e vvithstoode Christe, and also f [...]r that he set him selfe before the reste.
Harding.
The common saying is, the blinde eateth many a flie. Euen so doth M. Iewel, for lacke of dewe consideration deuoure many a soule errour. S. Chrysostome hath not one iote in this place that maketh for M. Iewel. He speaketh of that stoute confidence, that Peter had of him selfe, when he said:Mat. 26. Tvvo faultes cō mitted by S. Peter, Zacha. 13 Although they al (meaning the reste of the Apostles) shal be offended by thee, I wil not be offended by thee. Neuerthelesse he offended twise, saith S. Chrysostome: First, in that he withstoode Christe, and considered not what was alleged out of Zacharie the Prophet before, who said, I wil smite the shepeheard, and the sheepe shal be scattered: Yet S. Peter (were it for the great loue, and the affection, that he bare to his Maister, or were he touched with some ambition, and trusted to wade through of him selfe without farther helpe of special grace) warranted the mater, that he would neuer fal from Christe. There is one of his faultes.
The other faulte is, Quoniam praeposuit se illis, bicause he prefered him selfe before the other Apostles. What meaneth that, M. Iewel, saie you? What so euer you would menne should thinke of it, it maketh no mater. The right meaning of the place is, that Peter offended the second time, bicause he thought him selfe more sure, as touching standing to his Maister, then al the reste of the Apostles. What is this to the meaning, that you would faine wring out of this place: that Peter was not Head of the Apostles? In the selfe same Homilie before S. Chrysostome calleth him, verticem Apostolorum, the [Page] very Head, and chiefest of al the Apostles. Etiā ipsum Apostolorū verticem negare permisit: Christ suffered (saith he) the toppe, or head him selfe of the Apostles, to denie him.
Againe, S. Chrysostome faithe in an other Homilie, as is afore tolde, that Peter had committed vnto him the charge,Chrysost. hom. 55. in Matt. and gouernment of the whole worlde. Thus you may see, how al thinges go against the heare (as they say) with you M. Iewel, thus alwaies to allege suche sayinges out of the Fathers, as further not your cause but rather hinder it. So shal al they doo, that fight against the Truth.
Augustin. epist. 86.S. Augustine maketh Peter Felovve, and Equal vvith the other Apostles: Inter seconcorditer vixerunt Petrus, & Condiscipuli eius: Peter and his felovves liued agreably together.
Harding. Peter felow Disciple with the rest, and yet Head of al, by S. Augustine.
The 23. Chapt.Peter, and they that were Christes Disciples with him, liued concorditer (for that is S. Augustines worde) in good concorde together, I graunt: what conclude you thereof? So did Christe, and the Apostles liue in concorde and agreably together, and yet there was a difference betwen them pardy. If you harpe vpon the terme Condiscipuli, Ioan. 15. Matt. 28. whiche you interprete felowes, Christe calleth his Apostles in one place his frendes, and in an other place, his brothers. And yet euery wise man confesseth a difference, and that Christe was their Head, and that they were his Disciples, and subiectes. Euen so maie we iudge of this Felowship, that was betwen Peter, and the reste of the Apostles. How be it, in the selfe same Epistle of S. Augustine, S. Peter is called Caput Apostolorum, [Page 158] Coeli ianitor, & Ecclesiae fundamentum: Augustin. epist. 86. The Head of the Apostles, the porter of Heauen, and the foundation of the Churche. Which saying not being S. Augustines owne, but an other mans, yet his silēce in not speaking against it in that place, proueth, that he doth wel allow it.
And that to be euen so, the same S. Augustine in a Sermone, whiche he made to the people, vnto whom he spake alwaies without al obscuritie the plaine truth, calleth S. Peter Head of the Churche saying.Augustin. de tempo. Ser. 124. Head of the churche. Totius corporis morbum in ipso capite componit Ecclesiae: & in ipso vertice componit membrorum omnium sanitatem: in Petroscilicet illo, qui dixerat, etiam si oportuerit me mori tecum, non te negabo. He cureth the sickenes of the whole body in (Peter) the very head it selfe of the Churche, and in the very crowne of the head it selfe, he setteth in order the health of al the members: I meane in the selfe same Peter, that had said: Although I were driuen to die with thee,Mat. 26. I wil neuer denie thee.
And the very Ordinarie Glose geueth these vvordes to S. Paule: Non didici ab aliis, tanquam à maioribus: sed contuli cum illis,Gloss. Galat. 2. tanquam cum amicis, & paribus: I learned not of (Peter, and) others as of my betters, but I had conference with them, as with my Equalles, and frendes.
Harding. Difference betwen learning, and conferring together.
Had M. Iewel learnedly considered the difference,The 24. Chapt. that is bewixt learning, and conferring, he would neuer for very shame haue alleged th [...]s place of the Ordinarie Glose. In learning, the teacher is of greater dignitie, In conferring, what soeuer the personnes otherwise [Page] are, either of one dignitie, or of diuers: as touching the act of conference, they make them selues equal, as doth the King with his Counsel, when they laie their heades together to boult out one mater. Yet no man maie thereof reason, that there is no difference of state betwixte the King, and them of his Counsel: or that euery of the Counsel is of equal state one with an other. What neede S. Paule had of S. Peter to haue matters decided by his authoritie,Act [...]. 15. it appeareth in the Actes of the Apostles, when he with Barnabas, and others, were sent from Antioche to Hierusalem, to know whether the Gentiles were bounde to be circumcised. But M. Iewels happe is alwaies to fal vpon places, that bringe him smal worship, or aduantage of his cause.
The Apologie. Part. 2. Cap, 3. Diui. 4. pag. 107.
It vvas said indifferently to them al, feede ye, &c.
Confutation,
‘Wee denie that it was said indifferently to them al, Feede ye,Iohan. 21. yea or that it was said at al, Feede ye. To Peter, and none elles was it said, Feede my lambes, Feede my sheepe.. Which worde of Feeding so singularly spoken to Peter in the presence of the other Apostles, proueth, that it was not indifferently said to al, Feede ye.’
It forceth not greatly vvhat M. Hardinge denie, or graunte, hauing neither reason nor autoritie, but onely his ovvne. But if povver vvere not geuen indifferently to al the Apostles, tel vs then, vvherein is the [...]ddes? VVhat had Peter more? VVhat had the others lesse? Or vvhat olde Doctour, or learned Father euer savv this difference?
Harding. M. Iewel is tolde where he maie finde his demaundes answered, and are also here answered in parte.
Though we tel you this,The 25. Chapt. and proue it neuer so plainely, yet stil wil you wrangle. The Fathers haue infinite places for Peters preeminence aboue the rest, as I haue partely here, but more largely in my Answer Ansvver to your Chalenge, shewed.Article. 4. Yea, the selfe same places of the Fathers, that you allege to proue the contrarie apparently, within few lines after doo vtterly, and in plaine wordes so refute you, as your selfe knowe, that for very shame you durst not to allege any whole place of certaine the olde Fathers, but Iewishly lefte them circumcised, as I haue shewed before in sundry allegations of S. Hierome, of S. Chrysostome, of S. Augustine, and of others, wherby the Reader hath a viewe, and maie conceiue, what you haue done in the reste. And yet suche is your impudencie, as though you walked inuisible, and none were hable to detecte your false dealing: you cal importunately vpon vs, to shewe the oddes, and to tel you what authoritie Peter had, more then the reste: And to declare what olde Father euer sawe any suche difference. If it maie please you to reade the fourth Article of my Answere to your Chalenge, M.D. Saunders booke entitled, the Rocke of the Churche, and M. Stapletons Returne of your Vntruthes vpon you in iustificatiō of Vntruthes, which you impute vnto mee: there maie you haue moe olde Fathers, then ye haue yet, or euer shalbe hable to make reasonable answer vnto.
A most plain and euident testimonie of the Popes Primacie ouer al the vvorlde. Chrysost. homil. 1. de poenitētia.In the meane time, tel vs what S. Chrysostome meant, when he said thus in his first homilie de poenitentia. Ecclesiae primatum, gubernationem (que) Petro per vniuersum mundum Christus tradidit. Christ hath deliuered vnto Peter the primacie, and gouernment of the Churche through the whole worlde. When ye can shewe vs suche a plaine testimonie out of any Father, that S. Peter had not the primacie, and supreme gouernment deliuered vnto him by Christ: you shal seeme to saie somewhat.
Christe saide equally vnto them al. Receiue the holy Ghoste: whose sinnes ye forgeue, they are forgeuen: Goe into the whole worlde: Preache the Gospel to euery creature. These vvordes perceiue equally vnto al. Peter had no more the holy Ghoste, no more povver to forgeeue sinnes, no more commission to go into the vvhole vvorlde, no more authoritie to preache the Gospel, then others had.
Harding.
Why are you so copious in bye maters, wherein I neuer striued with you, and so barrein in the principal mater, that lieth in controuersie betwixte vs? Equal power was graunted to the Apostles to gather the Church: this was neuer denied you. But their power was not equal to rule the Church, after that it was gathered from euery coaste of the worlde: The which point you disproue not.
M. Harding saithe: To the Reste of the Apostles it vvas not said at al,Iohan. 21. Feede ye. To Peter, and to none els vvas it said, Feede my Lambes, Feede my sheepe. Yet Christe him selfe saithe. Quod vni dico, omnibus dico: Marc. 13. That I saie to one, I saie to al.
Harding. M. Iewel fouly falsifieth the worde of Christ him selfe.
What M. Iewel, wil ye neuer leaue your falsifying?The 26. Chapt. And are ye not a fraide, to corrupte the holy Worde of the Sonne of God him selfe? Is our cause so good and substantial, that ye can make no shewe of truthe aagainst it, but by foule corruption of the Scripture?
Where is this written? Be ye not a fraide for your aduantage, to deceiue the worlde with Scripture of your owne making? And were it true that S. Marke had so written, how can you wreste it to your purpose? Thus it is good Reader. Our Sauiour gaue a general warning, not onely to the Apostles, but to al menne beleeuing in him, to be watcheful against our Lordes comming, which shal be suddeinely, at suche time as they know not, and therefore said, Vigilate, watche ye &c. That it shoulde not be thought he meant only of the Apostles, to whom he spake: he added in the ende (not as M. Iewel falsely reporteth, quod vni dico, omnibus dico, that I saie to one, I saie to al) but, quod autem vobis dico, omnibus dico, vigilate. Marc. 13. What I saie to you (my Apostles) that I saie to al (Christians who so euer they be) watche ye. Now commeth me M. Iewel in, and by this place would proue, that the wordes, whiche our Sauiour spake to Peter in S. Iohn, concerning the commission he gaue him to Feede his Lambes, and his Sheepe, were spoken, not to Peter alone, but to al the Apostles. And why? Forsooth bicause in this place of S. Marke, Christe geuing a general warning to watche against our Lordes [Page] comming, said, What I saie to you, I saie to al. To al, M. Iewel? But what? said Christe to al, Pascite? No forsooth good Sir: that he said to al, was, Vigilate, Watche ye. Certainely the vnlearned, that reade your bookes, had neede to watche your fingers.
This is M. Iewels worthy Argument, this is the libertie he geueth vnto him selfe, this is his new profounde Logique. He might by this Scripture as easily haue concluded, that al Christians, as wel of the laie and secular sorte, were as wel commaunded to Feede Christes Lambes, and sheepe, as Peter him selfe, or the other Apostles. For if he wil grate vpon the wordes (not as he falsly allegeth them, quod vni dico, omnibus dico, what I saie to one, I saie to al) whiche are not in the Scripture, but, quod autem vobis dico, omnibus dico, what I saie to you (myne Apostles) I saie to al (Christians) Why maie not euery Tinker, and Sowter take vpon him to Feede Christes Lambes, and Sheepe, saying, if he be rebuked for his presumption, He that said to Peter, Feede my Sheepe, said he not to al in general, What I saie to one, I saie to al? And if he said to al, wherefore shoulde I not feede Christes flocke, as wel as Peter?
Yea, if either S. Markes Scripture, What I saie to you (myne Apostles) I saie to al, or M. Iewels scripture, what I saie to one, I saie to al, maie take place, and be vnderstanded in general: what neede shal there be of Bishoppes, Priestes, Ministers, or of any Order at al, sith that by M. Iewels interpretation, what was spoken to one, or moe Apostles, was spoken to al menne, and wemen indifferently? Suche good order wil ensue of M. Iewels disorderly handling of the Scripture. Yea whereas [Page 161] Christe said to Iudas, quod facis, fac citius, By M. Ievvels diuinitie, it may be proued, that euery man is bid to make speede in betraying Christe. Ioan. 13. 1. Cor. 3. doo quickely that thou arte about to doo, euery man shal betraie Christe againe. For after M. Iewels diuinitie, Christe said, what I saie to one, I saie to al. O worthy clerke: Nay ô miserable people, where suche corrupters of Scripture, haue charge of soules.
S. Paule saithe: VVhat is Peter, vvhat is Paule, but the Ministers of Christe, through vvhom ye haue beleeued? Paule hath planted, Apollo hath vvatered. &c.
Harding. This place of the Scripture, and two other of S. Chrysostom answered, by whiche M. Iewel would proue, that Peter had no preminence in gouernment aboue the other Apostles.
What conclude you thereupon?The .27. Chapt. That there is no difference of preeminence betwixte the Apostles? Or, that al the ministers of the Church are equal? Bishoppes, Priestes, and Deacons? I marueile, why ye allege it. S. Paules meaning is in that place, that the Sacramentes take not force to worke grace by any minister, be he of high, or lowe degree, be he good, or be he otherwise. The vertue of the Sacramentes is geuen by Christe, who is the principal geuer of grace by his Sacramentes, as by instrumentes. Ergo, saith M. Iewel, Peter hath no more preeminence to rule the whole Churche, then the reste of the Apostles. How doo the iointes of this argumente hang together? By some newe kinde of Logique I suppose. Certaine it is, the worlde hitherto neuer knewe any suche.
In Epist. ad Galat. Cap. 1.Chrysostome saith, Angeli, quamlibet magni, tamen serui sunt ac ministri. The Angelles of God, be they neuer so great, yet are they but Seruantes, and Ministers.
Harding.
As wel maie you beate downe the preeminence, that Emperours, and kinges haue vpon their laie subiectes by that place of S. Paule (for kinges and Emperours are but Ministers) as to ouerbeare thereby the preeminence of Peter in gouernment aboue the reste of the Apostles.
Yea you maie as wel conclude thereby a plaine equalitie (suche as the Anabaptistes woulde haue) emong al Christen men, as equalitie of Authoritie emong the Apostles. What meane you M. Iewel? Wil you by suche a texte conueie to al subiectes, equal power, and authoritie with Kinges? to al Deacons with Priestes? to al Priestes, with Bishoppes? to al wiues, with their husbandes? to al Children, with their parentes? to al scholers with their Maisters? Meane you to bring the worlde to suche a Confusion? It were good you had the counsel of some learned Physician, to purge you of suche wilde disordered humours: or at least, to keepe you close in some darke place, til you come to your selfe againe. For these phantastical dreames signifie, your braine is not in good tempre.
Chrysost. homil. 2. in Epist. ad Timoth. 2.Therefore to conclude, he saith: Ne Paulo quidē obedire oportet, si quid proprium dixerit, si quid humanum: sed Apostlo Christum in se loquentem circumferenti: VVee maie not beleeue Paule himselfe, if he speake any thing of his ovvne, or of vvorldely reason: [Page 162] but vve must beleeue the Apostle bearing aboute Christe speaking vvithin him.
Harding.
Thus you reason: wee maie not beleeue Paule, if he speake any thing of his owne: Ergo, Peter had no preeminence aboue the reste of the Apostles. Logique must needes be good cheape, where this wise argument commeth to market for good chaffer. Where findeth M. Iewel this newe proper Logique? As wel might he conclude: Ergo, Christe hath no preeminence aboue the Apostles. If we searche, and examine S. Chrysostom wel, wee shal finde, that he spake those wordes, against them, that take vpon them to iudge, and to condemne the life of Priestes, and thereupon breake from the vnitie of Religion. Of whiche sorte M. Iewel is one, who hath now a good while sitten in his throne of Iudgement, as it were, and hath condemned the Pope, and the whole clergie, and forsaken the Catholique faith, and the vnitie of the Churche, for none other cause, for ought that he can allege, but onely for the Popes il life, and for the negligence of some of the clergie.
Looke wel vpon that Homilie of S. Chrysostome M. Iewel, and you shal perceiue, that his discourse is as muche directed against your owne arrogant manner in condemning al the Christian worlde, specially for condemning of the Pope, bicause his supreme Authoritie can not beare with sundry your errours, and Heresies, as against any man in the worlde besides. The force of your argument is this: Wee maie not beleeue Paule him selfe, if he speake any thing of [Page] his owne Head, thereby to condemne Priestes for their liuing: Ergo, Peter hath no more authoritie, ne no more power to rule then the other Apostles. O M. Iewel, cal in these argumentes for shame of the worlde, why suffered you them to escape your penne?
That S. Paule said somevvhat of his ovvn 1. Cor. 7.But how saie you Sir? Shal you not finde, where S. Paule spake of his owne some thing? Haue you forgotten, who said, Nā caeteris ego dico, non Dominus, For to the reste I saie, not our Lorde? and yet you must beleeue him, if you denie not the Scripture. Againe, saith he not some thing of worldly reason, as you haue translated, humanum, Rom. 6. where he writeth to the Romaines, Humanum dico propter infirmitatem carnis vestrae, I speake as one that foloweth the trade of mannes reason, for the infirmities sake of your fleshe: I trust you wil be intreated to beleeue him. Thus how discretely you bring in the Fathers to speake for you, I neede not to declare. Your owne bad stuffe sheweth it at large.
The Apologie. Cap. 3. Diuis. 5. pag. 108.
And as Hierome saithe, Al Bishoppes vvhere so euer they be, be they at Rome,Ad Euagrium. De Simplicitate praelator. be they at Eugubium, be they at Constantinople, be they at Rhegium, be al of like preeminence, and of like priesthood. And as S. Cyprian saithe, There is but one Bishoprike, and a peece thereof is perfitely, and vvholy holden of euery particular Bishop.
Confutation.
‘My lady the Interpreter not without the wil and aduise of this Defender, hath altered the sense of the latine, as the author of the Latine hathe altered the wordes of S. Hierome. For neither speaketh S. Hierome [Page 163] of Bishoppes in the plural number, neither saith the Latine Apologie, that the Bishoppes be al of like preeminence, whiche this translation hath, but, of the same merite, and of the same Priesthood, &c.’
Here to dissemble these childish Cauillations of the altering of Numbers, the Singulare into the Plural: and of the changing of this vvorde Merite, into this vvorde Preeminence: vvhiche great faulte, if it vvere any, by M. Harlinges ovvne Confession, proceeded only from the Interpreter, and not from the Authour: &c.
Harding.
Dissemble hardely M. Iewel what ye liste, so that with al ye confesse the truth, that you are not hable honestly to discharge your selfe of that, whiche you passe ouer by dissimulation. Suche dissembling shiftes serue your turne not seldome, as the which you cā sooner vse, then against the truth shape a reasonable answere. But leauing aside your dissimulation, Tel me I praie you, where finde you, that euer I confessed, that the faulte of chaunging this worde, Merite, into this worde,This vvorde Merite, changed by M Ievvel into this vvorde, Preeminence. Preeminence, proceded only from your good lady the Interpreter, and not from the Authour? Haue not I in plaine wordes tolde you the contrarie? Haue I not laid the fault as much vpon the Authour that allowed the Interpretation (as your good Maistresse M. C. saith in her epistle) as vpon the Lady Interpreter? How then can you deliuer the Authour from al blame by myne owne Confession? Looke better M. Iewel vpon the booke againe: where, if you shal finde no suche Confession of myne, but the plaine contrarie, remember, who is not ashamed openly to auouche Vntruthe. But it wil not be otherwise, [Page] you haue by long practise gotten a ful perfite habite thereof.
VVhat S. Hierome meant hereby, Erasmus, a man of great learning, and iudgement, expoundeth thus. Hieronymus aequare videtur omnes Episcopos inter se. &c.
Harding. Erasmus answered. Difference founde betwen Deacon and Priest in Order, and betwen Bisshop and Bisshop in power of gouernment.
And is Erasmus in deede a man of suche learning and iudgement,The .28. Chapt. as you say? If he be, howe happeth it, that you condemne those articles of religion, which he confesseth true? He agnised the real presence of Christes body and bloud in the blessed Sacrament of the Aulter, whiche you denie.Erasmus against the false Gospellers. Aduersus Pseudeuā gelicos, & fratres inferioris Germaniae. Howe happeth it, if he be a man of great learning, that he wrote so earnest an epistle against the false Gospellers (so he calleth them of your side) of which number you are? How happeth it, that he wrote that vehemēt, and long Epistle to the Brothers of the Inferiour Germanie, cōmonly called the Lowe countrie, to beware of al such heresies, whiche you, and your felowes do now professe? If Erasmus be not such a one, as you say, why do you allege his autoritie, whose iudgemēt in sundry articles ye contemne? But what hath Erasmus to helpe you in this matter? Truely when al is searched, nothing at al.
Yet by the waie it is to be marked, that you would binde vs with Erasmus authoritie, a man of our time, whom your selfe in diuers Articles, as in the approbation [Page 164] of the Masse, of the real presence, free wil, and of such other, do greatly dislike: yet you wil not sticke to denie vtterly, not only the autorities of the Fathers within these last nine hundred yeres, but also of them sometimes, that wrote within the first six hundred yeres. For so do you deale afterward with that holy, and great learned Father S. Leo, whom you labour to discredit, being pressed with the witnesse he geueth of the prerogatiue of the See Apostolike of Rome, as though his desire were,Pag. 111. as your false surmise is, to enioie as great honour as he could, for his owne time. Haue you no better meane to auoide that Fathers authoritie M. Iewel, but by charging him with ambition?
Where Erasmus saith,Erasmus in Antidoto post Scholia in epist. Hieronym ad Euagriū. that S. Hierome seemeth to put in equal matche al Bishoppes together, as if they were al equally the Apostles Successours: that parte of his saying, you could wel remember: but where he saith within fiue lines folowing, that the Metropolitane hath a certaine dignitie, and Iurisdiction aboue other Bishops, whiche taketh awaie the equalitie, that you dreamed of: your eyes, without being called on, that parte of the sentence were very loth to see. Take the one with the other M. Iewel, then is the equalitie of Bishoppes in regiment quite gonne, though they remaine equal in the order of Priesthood, and in that, that the highest Archebisshop in the worlde, yea the Pope him selfe, is no more a Prieste, nor Bishop, then is the poore Bishop of Eugubium, or who so euer is the lowest Bishop in the worlde, though his authoritie to rule and to gouerne, be more ample, and large, then any others. Reade the olde Fathers in suche sorte, that you may vnderstande them without [Page] mistaking their right, and purposed meaning: then maie you cite them both to your owne honestie, and to the commoditie of others.
The errour of one Falcidius.One Falcidius a foolishe man, vtterly deceiued, went aboute to preferre, as S. Hierome of him to Euagrius seemeth to reporte, or to matche in one equalitie, as S. Augustine saith, the order of Deacons, with the order of Priesthood. For suppression of whiche errour, the rather to abbase the Deacons vanitie,August. in Quaest. veter. & no. Testam. Quest. 101 S. Hierome disputeth, that in diuers places of the Scripture, in certaine respectes, Priestes are taken for Bishoppes, and Bishoppes for Priestes: so that if the Deacons be aboute the Priestes, sith the Scripture doth cal Priestes, by the name of Bishoppes: it wil folowe, that Deacons should also be aboue Bishoppes. Which absurditie is so euident, as no man maie graunt it. Therefore, for the auoiding of this absurditie, whiche would followe vpon Falcidius false assertion, it behoued him, and suche as helde with him, vtterly to reuoke that errour, that Deacons are, either aboue Priestes,That a Priest is aboue a Deacon. or equal with them. A Priest maie doo al that a Bishop doth, saue that he can not geue Orders: A Deacon can not doo al thinges that a Bishop doth, saue onely the geuing of Orders: for he can not consecrate the body and bloude of Christ in the blessed Sacrament: Ergo, the Priest that hath more power then the Deacon, must be aboue the Deacon.
This is S. Hieromes very drifte in that Epistle to Euagrius, with the whiche meaning of S. Hieromes, your authour Erasmus doth wel agree,Erasmus in Antidoto. post Scholiam in epist. ad Euagriū. where he writeth thus vpon the same Epistle. Itaque quòd hic aequat humilium vrbium Episcopos cum alijs, ad Diaconos est referendum, qui [Page 165] nonnullis locis praeferebantur presbyteris, quos propemodum aquat Episcopis. Where as he doth here equally matche the Bisshoppes of the meaner Cities, with other (that are Bisshopps of great Cities) it is spoken for the Deacons sake: who in certaine places were preferred before the priestes, whom almost he maketh Bisshoppes felowes. And againe, In hoc igitur aequales sunt Episcopi, & presbyteri, quòd vbicunquesunt, Diaconis sunt praeferendi. Touching this pointe Bishoppes and Priestes are equal, for that they are to be preferred before Deacons, where so euer they be.
But that there is greate difference in authoritie of gouernement betwixte Bishoppes', Priestes, and Deacons, S. Hierome is plaine in the laste sentence of that Epistle, where he writeth thus. Et vt sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento, quod Aaron & filij eius, atque Leuitae in Templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi, & Presbyteri, & Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia. And that we maie knowe, the Apostles Traditions were taken out of the olde Testament, what Aaron, and his Sonnes, and the Leuites were in the Temple, Bisshoppes, Priestes, and Deacons, maie chalenge to them selfe, the same in the Churche. But Aaron being the high Priest, and Bisshop, was in auctoritie farre aboue al the rest: Ergo, if Priestes be named in Scripture Bisshoppes, as S. Hierome reasoneth against their folie, that preferred Deacons aboue Priestes: There is one Bisshoppe founde out, that ought to haue special rule ouer al the reste, and that by a consequent of the very Scripture.
Whereas S. Hierome condemned the lewde disorder of the Citie of Rome, not of the Churche of [Page] Rome (as M. Iewel vntruly interpreteth) which he saith is one with the Churche of the whole worlde, keeping one rule of truth with the rest, for hauing Deacons in more honour then Priestes, and putteth the mater to be tried by authoritie, saying, that the authoritie of the vniuersal Church of the whole worlde, with the which the Church of Rome is one, is rather to be folowed, then the corrupte manner and custome of that one Citie: there is no reason, why he should seeme in that place to haue vsed the word Merite, Merite for Preeminence, after M. Ievvelles iudgement. for this worde Preeminence, as M. Iewel ful vainely iangleth, and can not prooue. His seely argumentes stande thus: The authoritie of the worlde, that is to saie, of the vniuersal Churche of the whole worlde, and therefore of the Churche of Rome also being One Churche with the reste, is greater then the authoritie of the Citie of Rome: Ergo, the worde Merite in the nexte sentence folowing must signifie Preeminence. Againe, the power of riches, and the basenesse of pouertie, maketh not a Bishop either higher, or lower: Ergo, the worde Merite, in the sentence before muste signifie Preeminence. This is strange Logique, by vse whereof euery foole maie seeme to reason wisely, if it were once allowed in open schooles.The vvorld is more thē the Citie, expounded.
Whereas S. Hierome to Euagrius speaking against the euil custome of Rome, where a Deacon was preferred before a Prieste, saieth, Si authoritas quaeritur, Orbis maior est vrbe. If wee seeke for Authoritie, the worlde is more then the Citie: he meaneth not, as the circumstance of that Epistle geueth, that authoritie there should signifie, authoritie in gouernement, as M. Iewel hath interpreted, making S. Hierome to saie, that [Page 166] in Authoritie of gouernement, the whole worlde is greater then the Citie of Roome, whereby he thinketh to displace the Pope, and to depriue him of his authoritie in gouernement, and to bestowe it confusely abroade in al the worlde, whereof in deede, the Confusion whiche they may beste holde, and stande by, might be procured: The truthe is, S. Hierome there is not to be vnderstanded to speake of the Churches authoritie in gouernement, but of common, and publique authoritie to be folowed for auoiding of that errour, that made a Deacon better then a Prieste, or at least equal with a Priest. In Controuersies we folowe authoritie. Now saith S. Hierome. If we seeke for authoritie, the worlde is greater then the Citie. As who should saie, let no man defende the errour by the authoritie of the Citie of Rome, bicause there a Deacon is preferred before a Prieste: for what shal we esteme the custome of one Citie, the whole world holding the contrarie? And the authoritie of no one Citie, can be cōparable to the authoritie of the whole worlde. Therefore pretending one to obiecte vnto him, that the manner was at Rome for a Priest to be ordered at the testimonie of a Deacon, he saieth, Quid mihi profers vnius vrbis consuetudinem: what bringest me foorth the custom of one Citie? As who should say,Neither at Rome vvas more honour geuen to Deacons, then to Priestes. it were not to be regarded in cōparison of the custom of the whole world.
Nowe that the Churche of Rome gaue not greater honour to Deacons, then to Priestes, by S. Hierome him selfe it seemeth to be euident, for so muche as Priestes there sate in the Church, where Deacons vsed to stande, and the Deacons neuer durste to sitte emonge the [Page] Priestes,Hiero. in eadē epistol. ad ēuagriū. whiles the Bisshop was present. Although he confesseth, that once in the Bishoppes absence, he sawe a Deacon, when disorder tooke place, sitting emong the Priestes, and at priuate Feastes in priuate houses geuing the benediction to Priestes. Whereby it is manifest, that the preferring of Deacons aboue Priestes, rose not of any ordinarie custome of the Churche of Rome, where al states best keept due order in the Bisshoppes presence, but of the priuate pride of some Deacons, and of the simplicitie of the people of that Citie. Therefore S. Hierome saith not, Quid mihi profers Romanae Ecclesiae consuetudinem, why bringest me forth the custome of the Romaine Churche: but, Quid mihi profers vnius vrbis consuetudinem? Why bringest me the custome of one Citie? The ignorant people made more of the Deacons,Euseb. lib. 6. Eccles. histor. ca. 33. bicause they were but fewe in number, to wit, but only seuen at one time, as Eusebius maketh mention, whereas at that time there were six and fortie Priestes in that Churche, whom the people, as S. Hierome saith, for the number had in contempte.
Vbicun (que) fuerit Episcopus, siue Romae, siue Eugubij, siue Cō stantinopoli, siue Rhegij, siue Alexandriae, siue Tanis, eiusdem meriti, eiusdem est & sacerdotij. Beholde Reader how M. Iewel hath translated this sentence. Where so euer there be a Bisshop, be it at Eugubium, be it at Rome, be it at Constantinople, be it at Rhegium, be it at Alexandria, be it at Tanis, they are al of one worthinesse, they are al of one Bisshoprike. Where the nominatiue case Episcopus, Bishop, being of the singulare number, so placed by S. Hierome with the verbe Est, also of the singular number, bicause it serued not M. Iewels turne, guilfully in [Page 197] translation a change is made into the plural, and thereby the meaning of the sentence cleane altered, to thintent the sentence might so the rather sounde to his purpose, whiche is to make al Bishoppes equal in authoritie of rule, and gouernment. Now S. Hieromes wordes doo signifie, that a Bishop is of the same Merite, and of the same Priesthood, whether he be Bishop of a great Citie, or of a litle. And here is to be noted, that M. Iewel can not yet brooke this worde, Merite: and whereas before he vsed the worde, Preeminence, being by me admonished of it, now he translateth, eiusdem est meriti, they are al of one worthinesse. Likewise he termeth, eiusdem sacerdotij, of one Bishoprike, for, of one Priesthood.
How so euer you bring in S. Hierome for the equalitie of Priestes with Bishoppes, it forceth not. It is wel knowen, S. Hierome neuer dreamed of suche an equalitie, as you would haue, when he wrote this sentence, Ecclesiae salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet, Hieron. aduersus Luciferainos. cui si non exors quaedam, & ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot in Eccesia efficientur schismata, quot sacerdotes. The sauegarde of the Churche dependeth vpon the dignitie of the highest Bishop, vnto whom, if a peerelesse, and supreme power be not yelded, there shal arise so many Schismes in the Churche, as there be Priestes. If God haue a special regarde to the safetie of the Churche, and if the Churche can not be safe, without there be a peerelesse, and a supreme power yeelded vnto the highest Priest, whiche is a Bishop, as S. Hierome saith, what so euer M. Iewel saie to the contrarie: God must needes allowe the hauing of suche Bishoppes, as shal haue power peerelesse to rule their flockes, not onely their lambes, [Page] but also their sheepe, to witte, the Clergie, the Priestes, and the Deacons vnder them.Hieron. Lib. 1. aduersus Iouinianū. He saith also, Propterea inter duodecim vnus eligitur, vt capite constituto, schismatis tollatur occasio: Therefore is there one chosen emong the twelue (saith S. Hierome) who should be made Head, that the occasion of Schisme might be taken away. And that we should be put out of doubte, who chose that one to be Head aboue al the reste, and why Peter was rather chosen then Iohn, that was so deerely beloued, S. Hierome saith, delatum est aetati, partly in consideration of his age, and partly bicause he would deliuer Iohn from the enuie, that he should haue incurred, if he had benne placed in that roome being so yong a man. M. Iewel had neede to looke better vpon his booke, and to learne by these places better to tempre the other sayinges of S. Hierome. S. Hierome saith vnitie can not be kepte, the Churche can not be in sauegarde, Schismes can not be suppressed by equalitie of Priestes with Bishoppes: Ergo, there must be Bishoppes, that shal haue power to rule the Priestes, and the reste. Thus M. Iewels equalitie wil not stande with the doctrine of S. Hierome.
Although (saith S. Augustine) after the names of honours now vsed in the Church the state of a Bishop be greater, August. Epist. 19. then the state of a Prieste, yet in many thinges Augustine is lesse then Hierome. Notwithstanding we ought not to refuse, and disdaine to be corrected of any man, though he be our inferiour. Vpon these wordes of S. Augustine M. Iewel reasoneth, that the difference of power and authoritie betwixte Bishoppes and Priestes, had no allowance from Scripture, but by the custome of the Churche. As though one thing could not be allowed [Page 168] both in Scripture, and also by the common custome of the Churche. The common custome of the Churche teacheth vs to feare God daily: doth not the Scripture allowe the same? To honour our Father, and mother: And doth not the Scripture commaunde the same? But M. Iewel would faine make debate betwixt the custome of the Churche, and the holy Scripture, and therefore ful prouidently he hath interlaced a Parenthesis of his owne politike deuise in this manner: The office of a Bisshop, is aboue the office of a Prieste (not by authoritie of the Scriptures, but) after the names of honour, whiche the custome of the Churche hath now obteined. I haue here before declared, that there was a secte of Heretiques calles Aerians, as S. Augustine reporteth, who denied, that there was any difference at al betwen the state of a Bisshop and the state of a Prieste:August, de Haresib. ad Quoduult deū. Haeres. 53. whiche opinion being accompted for heresie by S. Augustine, ought to stop any reasonable mans mouth, and to persuade him, that S. Augustines opinion is quite contrarie to that, which M. Iewel holdeth.
As for Pope Leo, his ovvne authoritie in his ovvne cause can not be great. The Emperour saithe, Nemo debet sibi ius dicere:ff. Li. 2. de Iurisdict. omniū Iudicum. 16. q. 6. Consuetudo: in margine. No man maie minister lavve vnto him selfe. And it is noted thus in the Decrees, Papa non debet esse iudex in causa propria. The Pope maie not be iudge in his ovvne cause.
Harding. The Pope maie be iudge in the cause of the Churche.
Though Leos Authoritie be not greate in his ovvne cause,The .29. Chapt. yet in the cause of the Churche being so auncient, [Page] so holy, so learned a Father, by your owne graunt it must be very great. The wordes you bring, are of your owne forging. Wherefore as ye haue hitherto benne a forger of Doctours, Scriptures, the Canon lawe, and Gloses, so now you are become a forger of the Ciuile lawe. With what wordes the lawe is written, here anonne you shal see. But be it true, that Vlpian said, (for so you should haue said,The Emperour alleged for Vlpian. and not the Emperour, as your skil in the lawe vnskilfully telleth vs) no man maie minister lawe vnto himselfe. Yet neither he, not the Emperour euer forbad, but that a man maie truely reporte of his owne matters. Now Pope Leo that holy man, and great learned Clerke in the place by me alleged, doth not minister lawe vnto him selfe in his owne cause, but for the better gouernement of the Churche, and that peace, and good order maie the better be kepte in the Churche, reporteth a difference, or diuersitie of power to be emong Bishoppes, with likenesse of Order, and honour, as S. Hierome in his epistle to Euagrius cōfesseth them to be of one merite, and of one Priestehood. In declaring whereof, he speaketh of the right, that the Bishoppes of the See Apostolique, S. Peters successours ought to haue in the gouernment of the vniuersal Church through out the whole worlde. This M. Iewel was not his owne priuate cause, but the cause of the whole Churche, in whiche he might geue iudgement.
But M. Iewel guilfully seemeth to put the case, as though there had ben many Catholiques, that called Pope Leo to lawe for vsurping the authoritie not dewe vnto him, and as thoughe he had ben defendant against them al, yea as thoughe he had stepte vp into his [Page 169] iudgement seate, and there sitting as a Iudge in his owne mater, had pronunced sentence for him selfe. Whiche thing he did not, nor euer was there any catholique man, that laid any suche kinde of vsurpation to his charge: he neuer stoode as defendant, nor sate as Iudge in his owne cause: but discretely, and truely as occasion serued, signified vnto the worlde his lawful authoritie, and his [...]uccessours, as Kinges vse to doo in their titles of honour, and stiles. If M. Iewel wil calle his double wiued lawier vnto him, and with him peruse the lawe, that beginneth, Qui Iurisdictioni praeest, neque sibi ius dicere debet, [...] Qui iu risdiccioni ff. de iurisdict. omn. iudic. neque vxori, vel liberis suis &c. (whiche is the true lawe, that he should haue alleged) and wil consider, that Princes, Kinges, and Emperours vse to doo in their owne causes by very order of lawe: and if he wil therewith searche out the right meaning of the lawe,L. in priuatis. ff. de inoffic. testamen In priuatis iudicus pater filium, vel filius patrem iudicem habere potest: he shal finde, both that he hath fondely, vainely, and rashly alleged a lawe, that he vnderstoode not, nor made any thing to his purpose, but onely to fil vp paper with wordes, and also that it is one thing, to saie, Nemo debet sibi ius dicere (as he falsely allegeth the Lawe) and that it is a farre other thing, to saie, Qui iurisdictioni praeest, neque sibi ius dicere debet, neque vxori, vel liberis suis, neque libertis, vel caeteris quos secum habet: For so is the lawe vttered by Vlpianus.
As for your marginal note out of the Decrees, you shew how barrein and poore your mater is, that for defence of it, you are faine to runne for helpe to notes put in the margent of the Glose: a very poore shifte God wote. To your marginal note I answere. The Pope (as [Page] there the Glosse saith) if there be a mater in lawe betwen him, and an other man about a temporal thing, ought not him selfe to be iudge in that case, and to take the thing into his owne possession, before it be tried whose it is, but to choose Vmpeeres to sitte vpon it. Now marke what followeth good Reader:16. q. 6. Consuetudo. tamen si vult esse Iudex in causa Ecclesiae, potest esse: yet if he list to be a iudge in a mater concerning the Churche, he maie be. Certainely no one thing more concerneth the wealth, tranquillitie, and good order of the Churche, then that whiche Leo intreateth of in the epistle. 84. to Anastasius the Bishop of Thessalonica, whiche in my Confutation to good purpose I alleged.
Concil. Aphricanum cap. 105. Superbum seculi typhū.It is vvel knovven, that the Pope hath sought for, and claimed this vniuersal authoritie these many hundred yeres. Pope Innocentius vvas therefore reproued of pride, and vvorldely lordelinesse, by the vvhole Councel of Aphrica.
Harding. The Aphrican Councel vntruly reported by M. Iewel.
The 30. Chapt.The Pope hath not sought for that, whiche our Lorde gaue vnto S. Peter, no more then S. Peter sought for it at Christes graunt. The fame he maie iustely claime, for so muche as it perteineth to the feeding and gouernement of Christes flocke, and to the strengthning of the faithful, as being the Successour of S. Peter.
That you saie of Innocentius, is vtterly false. He was not so reproued of pride, and worldely Lordelinesse, as more like a proud worldely Lordeling, then [Page 170] an humble plaine handler of Goddes Truthe, you saie. Neither be those wordes, superbum seculi typhum, which you laie forth in your Margent, to be founde in any Epistle of the Aphrican Councel to Innocentius, nor be they spoken, or written at al against Innocentius, as you beare vs in hande. Neither was Innocentius then a liue, when the Aphrican Councel was holden, but departed this life long before. I graunt there is extant an epistle of the Aphrican Councel to the learned Pope Coelestinus, in whiche Epistle Innocentius that blessed man is not once touched. Neither was the charitie of that whole Councel so smal, as to speake so il of a holy Bishop so long before departed. The manner of those Fathers was to praie for suche, specially for the Bishoppes of Rome deceassed rehearsing their names in their Masses, and in no wise to reporte so il of them. How be it, in that whole epistle Pope Innocentius is not so muche as once named, nor spoken of. There we finde these three wordes fumosum typhum seculi, that is to saie, the smoky pride of the worlde (or the vaine stoutenesse of the temporaltie) but in a farre other sense, and to an other purpose, then M. Iewel pretendeth.
Whether he rightly vnderstode the place, or no, I haue good cause to doubte. It seemeth that the Bishop of Rome in the cause of Appiarius (whom the Aphrican Bishoppes had deposed, and remoued from his Bishprike, for crimes not sufficiently proued) sent his Clerkes, that were his Agentes in Aphrica, vnto certaine noble menne of the Countrie bearing offices vnder the Emperour, to require their assistence, if neede should so require: whiche is as muche to saie, as now we vse to [Page] speake, as, implorare brachium seculare, to cal vpon the temporal power for helpe, that iustice maie be executed. With this the Aphrican Bishoppes did muche mislike, and therefore besought Pope Coelestine, that it should no more be donne, but that maters might be ended by them, being Bishoppes of that prouince, without al intermedling of the laie power. The wordes of the epistle are these.Concil. Aph [...]ican. cap. 105. Executores etiam clericos vestros quibusque potentibus nolite mittere, nolite concedere [...]ne fumosum typhum seculi in Ecclesiam Christi, quae lucem simplicitatis & humilitatis diem, Deum videre cupientibus praefert, videamur inducere. Furthermore we beseche you, that you sende no more your Clerkes, that be your Agentes, vnto any of the great menne, and that you graunt to no suche thing hereafter, leste we should seeme to bringe the smoky (or vaine) stoutenesse of the worlde into the Churche of Christe, whiche to them that couete to see God, sheweth forth the light of simplicitie, and humilitie. This is the Vntruthe you make vpon the Aphrican Councel in reprouing Pope Innocentius of pride, and worldely Lordelinesse, fully answered.
Now as vow haue brought an vntruth against the Pope, out of the Aphrican Councel, as you pretend, so maie it please you to consider of the contrarie reported in the behofe of the Popes supreme authoritie in gouernment, out of a Councel of Aphrica, where we finde the same autoritie with these wordes auouched and acknowleged. Maximè tustè debent (Episcoporum iudicia, & negotia ecclesiastica) ab ipso praesulum examinari vertice Apostolico, Epist. Stephani & trium Cō ciliorum Aphrica ad Damasum Papā Con. 10. 1. cuius vetusta solicitudo est, tam mala damnare, quàm releuare laudanda. Antiquis enim regulis censitum est, vt quicquid [Page 171] horum quamuis in remotis, vel in longinquo positis ageretur prouincijs, non prius tractandum, vel accipiendum sit, nisi ad notitiam almae sedis vestrae fuisset deductum, vt eius authoritate, iuxta quod fuisset pronunciatum, firmaretur. The iudgementes of Bishops, and ecclesiastical maters, ought most iustely to be examined of him, that is the Apostolike toppe (or the crowne of the head) of the Prelates, whose care it is of olde, as wel to condemne il thinges, as to releeue good thinges. For it hath ben decreed by the olde Canons, that what so euer matter of the Bishoppes were in sute, though it were in prouinces that be farre of (from Rome) it should not be ended before it were brought to the notice of that your See, that it might be assured by the authoritie of the same, right so as the sentence in iudgement should be pronounced. By these wordes, and by the whole Epistle of the Fathers of that Aphrican Councel assembled together vnder the Archebishop Stephanus, it appeareth euidently, how reuerently they submitted them selues, and the determination of their causes and controuersies vnto the Pope, and how farre of they were from the outragious sprite, as to charge Innocentius, or any other Pope with pride, and wordely lordelinesse, as M. Iewel hath fained.
Pope Bonifacius. 2. condemned S. Augustine, and al the said Councel of Aphrica, and called them al heretiques, and Schismatiques,Inter decreta Bonifacij. 2. Instigante diabolo. for the same, and said they vvere al * leade by the Deuil. Pope Zosimus to maintaine this claime, corrupted the holy Councel of Nice.
Harding. Bonifacius 2. Fowly be lyed.
The .31. Chapt.It is pitie this man hath not a good mater. For where he maketh so muche of nothing, what would he doo, had he somewhat? But it is easie to saie muche in a naughty cause, for one that is not a shamed to lie. It can not be founde among the Decrees of Pope Boniface the .2. (vnto whiche M. Iewel referreth vs) nor any where els, that he euer condemned that blessed, and learned Father S. Augustine by name, nor the Councel of Aphrica by any solemne sentence, pronounced against them. Verely that he called them al Heretiques, and Schismatiques, for the same, that is to saie, for the Popes vniuersal authoritie, or for any thing, and that they were lead by the Deuil, it is an impudent lie. The most greuous wordes he vttereth against them, are these in an Epistle, that he writeth to Eulalius the Patriarch of Alexandria, exhorting him to reioise, and to geue warning to other Bishoppes neare vnto him, to reioise also, and to geue God thankes, for that the Churche of Aphrica was reconciled, and returned to the obedience of the Churche of Rome, from whence they had seuered them selues for the space of a hundred yeres, vpon some stomake, as it appeareth, for that they would not admitte any Appellations of the Bishoppes of Aphrica to be made vnto the Pope, whiche authoritie the Pope claimed by a Canon of the Nicene Councel,Cōcil. Sardicen. ca. 7 Bonifac. 2. Epist. ad Eulabiū. Cōcil. to 1. pag. 1057. and likewise by a Canon of the Councel of Sardica. Aurelius Carthaginensis Ecclesiae olim Episcopus, cum collegis suis (instigante Diabolo) superbire temporibus praedecessorum nostrorū Bonifacij atque Coelestini contra Romanam [Page 172] Ecclesiam coepit. Aurelius some time Bishop of the Churche of Carthage beganne with his felowe Bishops (the Deuil intising them) to be proude against the Churche of Rome in the daies of Boniface, and Coelestine my predecessours. &c. Of Heretiques, and Schismatiques, here is not a worde. And though he said, the Deuil intised them, yet wil it not folowe, that al they were leadde by the Deuil. The Deuil intiseth many: yea whom doth he not intise to euil? Yet al be not leadde by the Deuil. To be intised of the Deuil, is one thing, to be leadde, is an other.
Touching Pope Zosimus, saie what ye can, folowing your Maister Caluine, and when ye haue said al that ye can saie, it is wel knowen, ye shal neuer clearely proue,Caluine Institut. Cap. 1. that he corrupted the Councel of Nice. For this I referre the Reader to M. Stapleton in his Returne of Vntruthes vpon M. Iewel, Articulo. 4. fol. 30. & sequentib. Peruse the place Reader, and thou shalt finde thy selfe wel satisfied touching this pointe. That, whiche there is said in defence of Zosimus against their sclaunderous reportes, M. Iewel should first haue disproued, if he had minded in that mater to trie out the truthe, and then haue laied it againe in our waie. But he ful craftily dissembleth al, and maketh as though he had not seene any such thing, therby bothe to encomber vs with ofte repeating of one thing, and the reader with hearing that, whiche hath ben said before.
S. Hilarie, and other learned Bishoppes of Fraunce, for vsurping suche vnlavvful auctoritie, charged this same Pope Leo, of vvhom vve speake, vvith Pride, and ambition.
Harding. What a man this Hilarie was and how vnworthy to be called S. Hilarie.
The 32. Chapt. An [...] pudent, and cra [...] ty lye.This is bothe an impudent, and also a crafty lye. Impudent, as being suche, wherein M. Iewel him selfe knewe, he lyed. For al is vtterly false. For neither this Bishop Hilarie, as euil a man as he was, nor any other Bishoppes of Fraunce, for ought that M. Iewel hath to shewe, charged Leo with pride and ambition for vsurping vnlawful autoritie.Leo epist. 89 ad Episcopos prouincia Viennen. In deede he is reported of Leo to haue spoken arrogant wordes against the reuerence of S. Peter. But what the wordes were, or, that he laid pride and ambition to Pope Leos charge, M. Iewel hath nothing to allege. Muche lesse can he proue it, of the other learned Bishoppes of Fraunce.
Leo contrariwise hauing hearde the complaintes of the great disorder, and outrage of this Bishop Hilarie, charged him with a strange pride, and immoderate ambition for vsurping vndew autoritie. For as it is cleare by that epistle of Leo, wherein this mater is laid forth, this Hilarie tooke vpon him to exercise the Iurisdiction of the Metropolitanes, chalenging vnto him selfe the ordinations and making of Bishoppes of al the Churches in Fraunce. He vniustly depriued Celidonius of his Bishoprike. He besides al right and reason deposed Protectus lying sicke in his bed, and set an other bishop in his roome, whereby he seemed, besides the breache of the Canons, to haue don very cruelly, and to haue sought the shortening of his life. He rode vp and downe in the Countrie of Fraunce, as the people complained of him, [Page 173] like a light person, much vnlike a Bishop, and ranne from place to place with a companie of armed Souldiers, to be the better hable to put his vnlawful attemptes in execution, if any resistance should haue benne made.
Al this notwithstanding M. Iewel calleth him S. Hilarie, wherein he vseth crafte,S. Hilarie, a vvicked man saincted by M. Ievvel bicause he despised the Pope. for which this maie be wel called a crafty lie. For who is there, specially of the vnlearned, that hearing the name of S. Hilarie, would not thinke, that famous Father, and learned Doctour, S. Hilarie the Bishop of Poitiers to be meant? For none beareth that famous name of S. Hilarie, but he. Thus can M. Iewel to helpe forth his Gospel, abuse the name of Gods Saints, and make a Rebel, a proude, an arrogant, and ambitious vsurper of other mennes right, a Saint. Of suche Saintes they haue Canonizate vs good stoare. Thus he would gete credite to his doctrine that impugneth vnitie, vnder the false colour of the name of a blessed Saint.
Wherefore good reader let not M. Iewel beguile thee with the name of S. Hilarie, who as he died long before this Hilarie was borne, so he was alwaies obedient to the see of Rome, as who graunteth, that S. Peter for the confession of the true faith deserued to haue,Hilar. do. Trinit. li. 6 Vltra humanae infirmitatis modum supereminentem locū, a place of authoritie passing al other beyonde the measure of humaine infirmitie: whereas this Hilarie, that M. Iewel speaketh of, was a violent vsurper of others right, a seditious troubler of the vnitie of the Church, and otherwise an il man, and suche a one as against whose vniust, and violent doinges, the godly and discrete Citizens of certaine Cities in Fraunce, directed their commō lettres vnto Pope Leo, to haue refourmation. And thus is the forged matter of [Page] this Hilarie newe sainted by M. Iewel, truly answered.
But, gentle Reader, that thou maist the better vnderstand, vvhat credite thou oughtest to geue to this Pope Leo, specially setting forth his ovvne authoritie, I beseche thee, consider, vvith vvhat maiestie of vvordes, and hovv farre aboue measure, he auanceth the authoritie of S. Peter. These be his vvordes. Christus Petrum in confortium Indiuiduae vnitatis assumpsit. Leo Epist. 89. Leo Epist. 52. Christ receiued Peter into the companie of the indiuisible vnitie: Authoritate Domini mei Petri Apostoli: by the Authoritie ( [...]ot of Christ, but) of my Lorde Peter the Apostle: Deo inspirante, & beatissimo Petro Apostolo: By the inspiration of God, and of S. Peter the Apostle. &c.Leo. 89.
Harding. These Phrases of Leo defended, and iustified.
It is happy that once you haue mette with an olde Father within the first six hundred yeres,The 33. Chapt. whose wordes are so plaine for the preeminence, and supremacie of the See of Rome, that you could not possibly finde any probable Glose to auoide them. Being therefore destitute of a directe answer, you goe about to finde faulte with the manner of vtterance that Leo vseth. And here you are sore offended with the maiestie of wordes, with which he extolleth the authoritie of S. Peter. Whiche certainly be no other, then maie be founde in diuers other auncient learned Fathers.
Touching the first sentence, you should haue laid it forth truly, as it is in the Doctour, then would it appeare to conteine no such immoderate, nor ambitious dignitie, as you finde faulte withal. The wordes of Leo are these. Petrum in consortium indiuiduae vnitatis assumptum, Leo epist. 89. Matt. 16. id quod ipse erat, voluit nominari, dicendo: Tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram adificabo ecclesiam meam, &c. Christe [Page 174] willed Peter, taken into the companie of his indiuisible vnitie, to be named that thing, which he was him selfe, saying? Thou arte Peter (or Rocke) and vpon this Rocke I wil builde my Church. What is that, wherewith a Christiā man should here be offended? O say you, Leo maketh Peter receiued into the cōpanie of the indiuisible vnitie. I graunt M. Iewel. But what indiuisible vnitie meaneth he?
First, al vnitie is indiuisible. For where there is a Diuision of a thing into two, three, or moe,Peter receiued into in diuisible vnitie vvith Christ. there is not vnitie, but multiplicitie. Now there is vnitie of Substance, and vnitie of qualitie. S. Peter is not reported of Leo, to be assumpted into the felowship of vnitie of Substance, or of nature with Christe the Sonne of God, for so he should haue made him equal with God, as Christ is, for nothing is of one Substance, or cōsubstantial with God, but that, which is God. Which God, though he be three in Persons, yet is one in Substance. Into this indiuisible vnitie of Substance Peter is not receiued, which ful deuilishly you would the Reader to conceiue and imagine to be the meaning of S. Leo in those wordes.
Into the cōpanie of the indiuisible vnitie of a qualitie, or grace, or name with Christ, S. Peter was assumpted, that is to saie: Christ gaue him a qualitie, a grace, a name, that is proper to him selfe. What is that? Leo expoundeth him selfe: That which he was him selfe, he willed Peter to be named, saying. Thou arte Peter, asmuch to saie, thou art a Rocke, and vpon this Rocke I wil builde my Church (and least we should thinke, that Christ gaue him that name onely, and not the thing signified by that name: Leo addeth further) Vt aeterni aedificatio tēpli, mirabili munere gratiae Dei in Petri soliditate cōsisteret, that the building of his [Page] euerlasting Temple, should by the marueilous gifte of Goddes grace, stande in the foundenesse of Peter. Christ is the Rocke,Christ is the Rock and Peter is the Rocke, and hovv either? Leo sermo. 2. in Natiuitate Ap. Petri, & Pauli. Matt. 16. and Peter is the Rocke. How Christ? How Peter? Christ, by his owne power, Peter by participatiō.
But let vs heare Leo expounding him self more plainly. Thus he saith: Euangelica siquidem referente historia, &c. As the storie of the Gospel telleth, our Lorde asketh of al the Apostles, what menne thought of him. And so long as they be in declaring the doubtefulnesse of mannes vnderstanding, the talke of them that answer, is common among them al. But when it is required, of what sense the Disciples are, there he is first in confessing our Lorde, which is firste in the Apostolike dignitie. Who, when he had said: Thou arte the Sonne of the liuing God: Iesus answered him: Blessed arte thou Simon the sonne of Iona, bicause fleshe and bloude hath not reueled (this) vnto thee, but my Father, that is in heauē. Therefore blessed arte thou, bicause my Father hath taught thee, neither hath earthly opinion deceiued thee, but heauenly inspiration hath instructed thee, and it is not fleshe and bloude, that hath shewed me vnto thee, but it is he, whose onely begotten Sonne I am. And I, quod he, tel thee, that is, as my Father hath manifested my diuinitie vnto thee, so I make knowen to thee, thine excellencie. Quia tu es Petrus, id est, cùm ego sim inuiolabilis Petra, ego lapis angularis, qui facio vtraque vnum, tamen tu quoque Petra es, quia mea virtute solidaris, vt quae mihi potestate sunt propria, sint tibi mecum participatione communia. Peter is asmuche to saie, as Rocke. Bicause thou art Peter, that is, whereas I am the inuiolable Rocke, I the Cornerstoane, whiche make both one, yet thou also arte the Rocke, bicause by my vertue thou arte made sounde and sure, that the thinges which are proper vnto me by [Page 175] power, maie be common to thee with me by participation. Thus farre Leo.
By these laste wordes he declareth vnto vs, how Christe receiued Peter into the companie of his indiuisible vnitie, to witte, by admitting him to enter commons (as I might saie) with him, and by making him partaker throughe free gifte, of that name, and not of that name onely, but also of that excellencie, whiche is Christes owne by power. Deceiue not the vnlearned Reader M. Iewel, by suche peeces of Doctours sayinges, whiche laid forth barely, and alone without circumstance of the place whence they be pickte out, maie perhappes seeme obscure, and doubteful, and being vewed in their Authours, or otherwise set out in their owne colours, appeare most true, plaine, and agreable to the Scriptures.
Furthermore where Leo saith: The Councel of Chalcedon abhorred the prodigious deuises of the Deuilish heresie of Eutyches, Leo epist. 52. consenting vnto my writinges strengthened with the authoritie and merite of my Lorde the most blessed Apostle Peter: My Lord S. Peter. M. Iewel findeth a great fault with him for calling S. Peter, my Lorde the most blessed Apostle Peter. For the vse of whiche humble terme, he might as wel finde faulte with S. Gregorie, who calleth Mauricius the Emperour likewise by the name of Lorde,the term, my Lord vsed of the antiquitie. Concil. Chalcedō. Act. 3. pa. 834. co. 2 and with the learned menne of the time that Leo liued in, for so the Bishoppes at the Councel of Chalcedon spake of Leo him selfe, Domini nostri, & sanctissimi patris, & Archiepiscopi Leonis lecta est epistola. The Epistle of our lorde, and most holy ffather, and Archiebishop Leo hath benne readde, with the whole nation of the Frenche menne, [Page] who speaking of S. Peter, of S. Iames, and of suche others the frendes of God are wont to,My Lord R. Peter, My Lord S. Iames saie, Monsieur sainct Pierre, Monsieur sainct Iaques, my Lorde saint Peter, my Lorde saint Iames: with the Italians also, who vse to speake likewise. That this manner of speache was not strange in the Churche, it appeareth by sundrie Monumentes of the Grecians of later time. Matthaeus Hieromonachus,Matthaus Hieremonachus in Collectan. maketh Constantine the Great so to speake: [...]. We doo this in the worship of my Lorde S. Peter.
As for that other phrase, Deo inspirante, & beatissimo Petro Apostolo, by the inspiration of God, and of S. Peter the Apostle (so here it is tran [...]ted, but falsely) for whiche M. Iewel condemneth Leo, as vsing immoderate, and ambitious speache in the praise of S. Peter, to the behoofe of his owne preeminence: it seemeth strange in deede, yea so strange, that at the first reading, my minde gaue me, that M. Iewel, to deceiue the Reader, hath fowly abused the place. As I thought, so it was. For now I finde, that these wordes are in Leo in deede. But they are to be construed farre otherwise, then this translation reporteth. Here I must bring M. Iewel to his smal Rules of Grammare, and aske him, how he construeth these wordes,Leo epist. 89 in fine. Obtestamur vt ea, quae à nobis Deo inspirante, & beatissimo Petro Apostolo decreta sunt, seruetis. Verely were he at a Grammare schoole, and would tel his Schoolemaister, that here beatissimo Petro Apostolo, were put in the ablatiue case absolutely, as Deo is, and so would make S. Peter to geue inspiration to Leo, as wel as God: he were worthy to haue six [Page 176] stripes on the bare, three for his negligent, and grosse ignorance, three for the blasphemie, attributing that to S. Peter, whiche is onely to be attributed vnto God.
There is no incōuenience in this sentence good Reader. Thou maist tel M. Iewel, that beatissimo Petro is here the ablatiue for the preposition à, whiche requireth the nowne folowing it to be put in the ablatiue case. And thus is the whole to be construed, as if the preposition (à) were repeated againe before beatissimo, we beseeche you that ye keepe the thinges, whiche by the inspiration of God, haue ben decreed of vs, and of the most blessed Peter the Apostle.
Let no man thinke it strange,S. Peter ioyned vvith Leo. that S. Peter is here ioined with Pope Leo. The Fathers speaking of any Godly Decree, ordinance, sentence, or writing published by any Bishop of Rome for the benefite of the Churche, haue commonly so spoken of it, as both it proceded from the Pope for the time being, and also from S. Peter, bicause doubtlesse the priuileges which Christe graunted to S. Peter for the health of the Church, remaine stil to euery Bishop of Rome, his lawful Successour. And what so euer is decreed by the Successours of Peter, sitting in Peters Chaire, it ought to be vnto vs none other, then a Decree of S. Peter him sefe. For to vs he is Peter. Therefore the learned Fathers of the Councel of Chalcedon, hauing heard the famous Epistle, that Pope Leo wrote to Flauianus against the Heresie of Eutyches,Concil. Chalcedō. Act. 3. allowing wel of it in their solenne Acclamations, whiche the Grecians alwaies vsed in their Councelles, cried out, Petrus per Leonemita locutus est, Peter hath so spoken by Leo.
Leo him selfe seemeth to declare, in what sense S. Peter is thus ioined with him in gouernement of the Churche, where he saith thus. Post resurrectionem suam Dominus beato Petro Apostolo post regni claues, Sermo. in [...]atiuitate Petri et Pauli. ad trinam aeterni amoris professionem, mystica insinuatione ter dixit, Pasceoues meas, quod & nunc proculdubio facit, & mandatum Dominipius pastor exequitur, confirmans nos exhortationibus suis, & pro nobis orare non cessans, vt nulla tentatione superemur. Si autem hanc pietatis suae curam omni populo Dei, sicut credendum est, vbique protendit, quantò magis alumnis suis opem suam dignatur impendere, apud quos in sacro dormitionis thoro, eadem qua praecedit carne, requiescit? Our Lorde after his resurrection, said thrise (signifiyng a mysterie) vnto S. Peter the Apostle,Iohan. 21. after the keies of his kingdome had ben geuen to him, at what time he made three times profession that he loued him: Feede my sheepe, whiche without doubte he doth also now, and as a godly sheepeheard fulfilleth our Lordes commaundement, confirming vs with his exhortations, and not ceassing to praie for vs, that we be ouercome by no tentation. And if he streatche abroad in euery place this his Godly care to al the people of God, as it it to be beleeued, how muche more doth he vouchesaue to bestow his helpe vpon his owne deere ones, among whom he resteth in the sacred bed of his dormition (that is to saie, in his Sepulchre) in the same fleshe, in whiche he goeth before vs.
In what sense then S. Peter is said to feede Christes sheepe to this daie, in the same sense it might wel be said of Leos decrees, that they were Decreta à Leone, & beatissimo Apostolo Petro, thinges decreed by Leo, and by [Page 177] S. Peter the Apostle, God geuing the good inspiration. Certaine other suche phrases of Leo M. Iewel condemneth as conteining immoderate and ambitious praise of S. Peter, and for the same would discredite that auncient learned Father, about the discussion of whiche, I thinke it not worth my labour to stand. They maie wel be admitted with a conuenient vnderstanding, and suche as euery good man would at the first reading of them, conceiue. Marie I confesse a curious carper, wil finde faulte not onely with that this holy Father, but with what so euer any learned Father hath written, if he be disposed to wrangle vpon that whiche seemeth to be contrarie to the doctrine he hath taken vpon him to mainteine.
Some others haue thought, that as vvel these Epistles of Leo, as also others moe, and other the auncient Bishoppes of Rome haue benne interlaced, and falsified by the ambitious Popes, that folovved aftervvard &c.
Harding.
Of the number of these some others, your selfe are one M. Iewel, and your felowes are the reste: who neiter being hable to auoide the truthe by Leo most clearely vttered, nor willing to yelde vnto it, would faine, wiste ye how, raise vp against the credite of his Epistles a surmise of Corruption, and falsifying, a common practise of yours. But what you, and suche others as you are, thinke of Leo, it skilleth litle. He hath benne esteemed hitherto for a worthy Clerke, and a holy Father. Berengarius your first founder hath alwaies benne accompted an heretique, and so shal al the Zuinglians, and Caluinistes, that folow him, vpon whose credite ye haue gaged the euerlasting [Page] state of your soules, be accompted of the Church for euer. Of al your weake shiftes, this is the weakest, and hath leaste coloure of learning, to saie of that in an auncient Father ye are not hable to answere, that it is interlaced, and falsified by the Popes. If ye could once purchase you this authoritie, to condemne of corruption, and falsifying what is found to make cleare against you, bring we neuer so muche for proufe of the Catholiqu [...] religion, your Answer maie soone be ready. What you saie of Pope Zosimus falsifying of the Councel of Nice, it hath benne throughly answered by vs, as I tolde you before, and as you know M. Iewel right wel, and yet you dissemble it, as if nothing were by vs said at al, and let not so oftentimes to sing one song. Whiche argueth a contentious witte, and a desire to fil vp great bookes, be the matter neuer so much, and sufficiently before answered.
Touching that M. Harding calleth the Pope, the prince of Pastours, be might haue remembred,1. Pet. 5. that the right of this name belongeth only vnto Christe. S. Peter saith, That vvhen Christe the prince of Pastours shal appeare, ye maie receiue the vncorruptible crovvn. Novv, to inseaffe the Pope vvith Christes peculiar titles, a mā might think it vvere great blasphemy.
Harding. The Pope lawfully called the Prince of Pastours.
The 34. Chapt.Great blasphemie saie you? Wo be then to S. Augustine, that spake such great blasphemie, when in a Sermon made before the people,August. de Sanctis Serm. 28. he called S. Peter, principem Apostolorum, the prince of the Apostles: But the Apostles were Pastours, yea the chiefe Pastours of Christes flocke: [Page 178] Ergo, S. Augustine sawe, that it was no great blasphemie, to cal S. Peter principem Pastorum: the prince of Pastours.August. de verbis domini in Euang. secundum Math. Sermon. 13. Euseb. Eccles. hist. lib. 2. c. 14. In Registro epist. 32. In Iohan. Homil. 87 He hath the like wordes in an other place. Idem Petrus a petra cognominatus beatus, Ecclesiae figuram portans, Apostolatus principatum tenens. The same blessed Peter hauing his name of a Rocke, bearing the figure of the Churche, holdeth the princehood of the Apostleship. Eusebius also calleth S. Peter [...], prince of al the reste of the Apostles. To S. Peter prince of al the Apostles, the charge of the whole Churche was committed, saith S. Gregorie. S. Chrysostome nameth him, Totius orbis magistrum, the maister of the whole worlde, no whit lesse in effecte, then Prince of Pastours. S. Bernard saith to the pope, Tu Princeps Episcoporum, Thou arte Prince of Bishoppes. But Bishoppes are Pastours, Ergo, the Pope is Prince of Pastours. To leaue many others, and to conclude with S. Augustine, thus he saith speaking of S. Peter: Quis nescit illum Apostolatus principatum, August. de Baptis. cō tra Donatist. lib. 2. cap. 1. cuilibet Episcopatui praeferendum? Who knoweth not, that that Princehood of the Apostleship, is to be preferred before euery Bishops state?
Where is this great blasphemie becomme, that M. Iewel so horribly layth to our charge? What wil he accuse al these holy and learned Fathers of Blasphemie? I hope, though he spare not vs, yet he wil be good Maister vnto S. Bernard, S. Gregorie, S. Augustine S. Chrysostome, and to Eusebius. As for S. Leo, who is plainest of al, I dare not here to name, least I should seeme to reuerse M. Iewels high iudgemēt, whom he hath so late here before by his solēne sentence cōdemned. Yet it maie please him to be aduertised by vs, that Titles which appertaine to [Page] God him selfe, when they are in their dewe order, and degree geuen vnto menne,Exod. 7. Psal. 81. conteine no blasphemie. Moyses is called in Scripture the God of Pharao. And rulers in the Psalmes, are called also by the name of Goddes.
As for the other authoritie of S. Cyprian, M. Harding saith, vvee vnderstood it not: and therefore he vvilleth vs to looke better vpon our bookes. The Councel is good. &c.
Harding. The origen of vnitie beginneth of one, who is Peter, by S. Cyprian. The popes preeminence proued by S. Basil.
The .35. Chapt.The fruiteles paine you tooke in laying forth so many places of S. Cyprian together, and al to the ende menne should conceiue, you vnderstode your booke, doth geue vs sufficient witnesse, that either of malice you wil not, or of ignorance you can not declare, to what ende al those places doo perteine. If you had ioined to these places of S. Cyprian, whiche you allege, but one place of the same S. Cyprian, which you durst not talke of, least al your confuse heape should stande you in no steede: the case had ben so plaine, that the shame would haue benne yours. S. Cyprians whole purpose is to shew Christian menne (not by long talke of argumentes, but by the marking of two thinges, that is to saie, the Churches receiued Doctrine, and the Head of the Churche) how to staie them selues in the right faith, and vnitie, when so euer Schismes, and Heresies shal happen to rise. For this purpose he speaketh of the Churche, and of the vnitie of the Church: whiche vnitie among diuers other thinges, [Page 179] doth principally stand in the hauing of one Bishop to be Head ouer al.
Although (saith S. Cyprian) Christe geue equal power after his resurrection to al the Apostles, and saie, Cyprianus, de Simplic. Praelatorum. as my Father hath sent me, euen so doo I sende you, receiue ye the holy Ghost, if ye shal remitte any mannes sinnes, they shalbe remitted vnto him: if ye shal retaine any mannes sinnes, they shalbe reteined: yet to the ende he would make Vnitie manifest, he ordeined by his authoritie the beginning (or origine) of the same vnitie to beginne from one (to witte, from Peter) The reste of the Apostles were the same that Peter was, endewed with like felowship, both of honour, and of power: but the beginning riseth forth from vnitie (to witte frō Peter). that the Churche may be shewed (to be) one. Hitherto S. Cyprian. This place of S. Cyprian doth sufficiently proue, not only, that Christe beganne his Church from Peter, but also, why he would there should be only one, from whom he might beginne his Churche (and not those many, of whom M. Iewel dreameth) bicause (saith he) he would haue his Churche shewed one. The plaine meaning whereof can be none other, but that the Vnitie of the Churche can by no other waie so conueniently stand, as by the hauing of one visible Bishop head ouer al.
As the multitude of Priestes,Hieron. ad Euagrium. of whom S. Hierome speaketh in his Epistle to Euagrius, was driuen to choose one to be Bishop emong them in Alexandria that was S. Markes see, to auoide Schismes, that would haue rent and torne the Churche asundre, and to keepe Vnitie: euen so S. Cyprian sawe, that emong the multitude of Bishoppes, the case being like, to auoide Schismes, and to [Page] keepe vnitie,Hiero. aduersus louinianum lib. 1. it was necessarie one Bishop to be placed head ouer al. The which thing S. Hierome saith, Christ did, when he ordeined Peter Head of the Apostles, to take awaie occasion of Schisme.
As touching the place of S. Basil alleged for the gouernement by a multitude of Pastours, if M. Iewel, meane,Basil. ad Neocaesarienses. that S. Basil thought the multitude of Pastours should rule without hauing of one Head, he is farre deceiued: and yet that must he meane, otherwise that place maketh nothing for him. But that vntrue meaning of his needeth no other wise to be controlled, then by S. Basil him selfe writing thus to S. Athanasius.Basiliusin epistol. ad Athanasium pag. 549. In Graeco codic. Frobe [...]. Visum est vtile scribere ad Episcopum Romanum, vt consideret res nostras, & iudicij sui decretum interponat, vt quoniam de communi & Conciliari Decreto aliquos inde huc emandari difficile est, ipse sua authoritate negotium componat, &c. It hath seemed good vnto vs, to write vnto the Bishop of Rome, that he wil consider of our cases (or [...]. visite vs, for so the Greke maie be translated) and to determine the matter by his sentēce, that, for as much as it is hard for any to be sent hither from thence by authoritie of a common and Synodical Decree, [...]. he take the matter into his owne hande, and by his authoritie strike the stroke.
Why should S. Basil, being a Greeke of the East Churche, thinke it conuenient to write to the Bishop of Rome being in the Weast, to consider of, (or to visite them of the East, for so to the Greeke [...] signifieth) their state, and to sende foorth a Decree of his iudgement, and to geue sentence, onlesse he agnised the prerogatiue of the Bishop of Rome, whiche your felowes [Page 180] denie? Verely by this place it appeareth euidently, of what iudgemēt S. Basil was touching the Bishop of Rome his Supreme Authoritie in rule. The more ye stirre this matter, the more it turneth stil to your owne shame.
The vvhole body of Christendome vvas diuided into foure Patriarkeshippes: vvhereof the first vvas Rome.
Harding.
Search out M. Iewel,The .36. Chapt. by whome was the whole Body of Christendome diuided into foure Patriarkshippes, whereof the first and chiefe was Rome, and why Rome was the first, and not rather the second, or third, thereby shal you perceiue, how your selfe vnwares are taken in your owne snare.In Praefat. Nicen. Concil. In the Preface of the Nicene Councel we read, that the Churche of Rome was preferred before al other, not by decrees of any Synode, but by the voice of our Sauiour Christe in his Gospel, when he said to Peter, Tu es Petrus, thou art Peter &c.Math. 16.
And eche of them vvas limited, and bounded vvithin it selfe: Alexandria to haue the ouersight ouer Egipt, and Pentapolis: Antioche ouer Syria: Hierusalem, ouer Ievvrie, Rome ouer Italie, and other Churches of the vveast.
Harding.
If none els had Iurisdiction ouer Italie, and other Churches of the Weast, then is the Bishop of Rome your lawful Patriarke, that dwel in England: otherwise it wil fal out, that England shal be no parte of the whole Body of Christendome, if it be vnder the rule of no Patriarke. If he be your Patriarke, as he is by your owne confession, why do not ye obey him?
Copus. dia. 1. 166.And herein vve haue the exposition of Theodorus Balsamon, that liued fiue hundred yeres agoe, and vvas Patriarke of Antioche, and, as some of M. Hardinges frendes haue thought, a man of great learning. Yet for as much as M. Harding here vtterly refuseth him, not onely as a Schisma [...] tique, but also as a man voide of learning, and reason: &c.
Harding.
That he swarued from learning, and reason in the exposition of the .6. Canon of the Nicene Councel, is my saying, not that he was voide of learning, and reason absolutely, as you vntruely reporte, to make some apparent contradiction betwixte me, and M. Cope. A man maie for the loue he beareth to his owne false opinion, or schisme, expounde a Canon contrarie to his owne learning, as M. Iewel doth many times, and yet in other respectes be a right wel learned man.
The Apologie. Cap. 3. Diuis. 7.
The Bisshop of Rome, except he do his duetie as he ought &c. vve saie, that he ought not of right once to be called a Bishop, or so much as an Elder. For a Bisshop as saith S. Augustine, is a name of labour, and not of honour.
Harding. The Pope, or any other Bisshop is Bisshop, though he be negligent in doing his duetie.
The .37. Chapt.I said ynough to this in my Confutation, whereof the chiefe pith M. Iewel in the Defence hath slyly least out, that it might not in his owne booke appeare to the Reader, howe fully the Apologie is in that place confuted. Now I adde thereto this much more. Can any man iustly [Page 181] blame the Pope that now is, for the doing of his duetie? Hath not he, and other his Predecessours in our time assembled a general Councel, and therein disclosed al your heresies, with mature disputations examined, confuted, and condemned them? Hath not he in so doing donne more good, then M. Iewel (if he should recant, and become a true Catholique) doo al the daies of his life, though he were suffered to preache as many Sermons, and doo otherwise, as true Penance woulde require?
Yea suppose he had leaft at this vndonne, neither had answered to his vocation in most duetiful wise, were he therefore no Bishop at al? As S. Augustine saith, a Bisshop is a name of labour, and not of honour: So S. Hierom saith,Hieron. in epist. ad Euagriū. that a Bishop is a name of honour, and of dignitie. Let M. Iewel make both these to agree together, and graunt, that a Bishop is both the name of labour, and of honour: Of labour, bicause his chiefe office, and merite standeth in the diligent and paineful doing of his duetie: of honour, bicause qui bene praesunt presbyteri, duplici honore digni sunt, 1. Tim. 5. maximè qui laborant in verbo & doctrina, Priestes that gouerne wel, are worthy of double honour, specially such as take paines in the worde, and teaching.
But put the case the Pope doth not his duetie: hath he lost by and by the order of Priestehood, or Bishoply order? M. Iewel saith yea, but S. Chrysostome saith no:Chrysost. Homil. 2. in cap. 1. epist. 2. ad Timoth. in whom we finde these wordes. Sacra ipsa Oblatio sine illam Petrus, siue illam Paulus, siue cuiusuis meriti Sacerdos eam offerat, eadem est quam dedit Christus ipse Discipulis, quámque Sacerdotes modo conficiunt. Nihil habet ista, quám illa minus. The holy Oblation it selfe, be it Peter, or be it Paule, or of what so euer merite the [Page] Prieste be, that offereth it: it is the selfe same, that Christe did geue to his Disciples, the selfe same, that Priestes at these daies also do consecrate. Thus S. Chrysostome. If a Prieste of what so euer merite, or deserte he be, good, or euil, doo offer vp the selfe same oblation, that Christ gaue to his Disciples, as S. Chrysostom saith, seing he hath ful power, be he good, be he naught, to consecrate, and to offer vp the selfe same oblation, that Christ gaue to his Disciples: how shal M. Iewel not graunt, but that he remaineth a Priest stil, be he neuer so negligent, or otherwise vnworthy of that dignitie? Likewise a Bishop, be he neuer so vnmindeful, and carelesse touching his duetie: it is not his negligence, or euil life, that bereueth him of his bishoply Order, and Degree.
For proufe hereof, if there were no other testimonie to be alleged, this of S. Chrysostome might suffice. But S. Augustine disputing with the Donatistes,August. de Baptis. cō tra Donatist. lib. 1. cap. 1. whose heresie was of neare cousinage vnto that M. Iewel here holdeth, hath so plaine a place, that neither he, nor al his felowes shal euer be hable to auoide. And this it is. Sacramentum Baptismi est, quod habet, qui baptizat. Et Sacramentum dandi Baptismi est, quod habet, qui ordinatur. Sicut autem baptizatus, si ab vnitate recesserit, Sacramentum Baptismi non amittit: sic etiam Ordinatus, si ab vnitate recesserit, Sacramentum dandi Baptismum non amittit. Nulli enim Sacramento iniuria facienda est: si discedit à malis, vtrum (que) discedit: Si permanet in malis, vtrum (que) permanet. Et paulò post. Redeuntes, qui priusquàm reciderēt ordinati sunt, non vtique rursus ordinantur, sed aut administrant quod administrabant, si hoc Ecclesiae vtilitas postulat, aut si non admistrant, Sacramentum Ordinationis sua [Page 182] tamen gerunt, & ideo eis manus inter Laicos non imponitur. It is the Sacrament of Baptisme, that he hath, whiche is baptized. And it is the Sacrament of ministring Baptisme, whiche he hath that is in Orders. But as the baptized personne, if he should departe from the Vnitie (of the Churche) doth not lose the Sacrament of Baptisme: euen so he that is in (holy) Orders, if he departe from the vnitie (of the Churche) doth not lose the Sacrament of geuing Baptisme. For to no Sacrament may we doo wrong. If (the Sacramentes) doo departe from such as are il, both the Sacramentes (of Baptisme, and holy Orders) doo departe. If it abyde in such, as are il, both (the Sacrament of Baptisme and of holy Orders) doo abyde. Againe there a litle after. They that returne (from Schisme and Heresie) if they were in holy Orders, before they became schismatikes, they do not receiue holy Orders againe, but either they do minister that which they did minister, if the profite of the Churche do so require, or, if they minister not, yet do they beare the Sacramēt of their holy Orders stil, and therefore the handes are not laid vpon them among the laie sorte. Hitherto S. Augustine.
What hath M. Iewel to saie vnto this? If S. Augustine saie, that an Heretique, or a Schismatique doth not lose the Priestehoode, that he had lawfully before he fel into Schisme, or Heresie, shal M. Iewel control him with his newe Diuinitie, and saie vnto him, no sir, it is not so, For if a Bishop be negligent, and doo not his duetie, I saie, he loseth his Order, or Bisshophoode, and is no more a Bishoppe? M. Iewels il lucke is, that whereas he readeth many Fathers, or some others [Page] for him, and heapeth a number of their sayinges together to fil vp a great booke: neuer a one can be found, that when any mater commeth to trial, maketh clearely for his side. No marueil. For truth can neuer be made to serue against truth.
As for VVicklefe, he expoundeth plainely his ovvne meaning, &c.
Harding. Hus mistaken for Wicklefe: a Canon of the Councel of Valentia truly expounded.
The 38. Chapt. Article. 22.The expositorie Article, that you allege, is one of Iohn Hus his Articles and not Wicklefes, condemned in the fifteenth session of the Councel of Cōstance. Therefore it is false, that Wicklefe euer expounded his meaning in that Article, and much more is it false, that he did it according to mine owne construction,Hus mistakē by M. Ievvel for VViklefe. as you say. Thus you reherse and translate, Papa, vel praelatus malus, et praescitus, est equiuocè pastor, & verè fur, & Latro. The Pope, or any other wicked prelate in doubteful speache is a Pastour, but in very deede he is a theese, and (Latro) a robber.
Here with M. Iewel (Latro) is a murtherer. This is Iohn Hus his article, not Iohn Wicklefes. This needed not to haue ben marked, but that M. Iewel is so precise, and so watcheful, to prie for the leaste escapes that any of vs maketh.
How be it both were Heretiques, both Hus, and Wicklefe, and therefore we maie beare the better with M. Iewel, if he mistake the one for the other, Hus, for Wicklefe, and thinke, that Wiclefe had more zeale of the house of God, more learning, more knowledge, [Page 183] then al the Bishops of that age (for so he iudgeth): yet if he spake, or meant more then truth maie beare, M. Iewel (who dareth not plainely, and flatly either to allowe, or to condemne the man, but with Iffes, and Andes) mindeth not to defende him. Yet he doth the best he can to defende him by a Canon of the Councel of Valentia in Fraunce not truely vnderstanded, but altogether misconstrued. Whiche Canon, if it were truely translated, that is to saie, otherwise then M. Iewel hath translated it, it should appeare, he were fully answered, and confuted.A canon of the Councel of Valentia in Frā ce truly expounded, that vvas corrupted by M I [...]w [...]ls false translation. Concil. Valentin. Cap. 4. Conciliorū. Tom. 1. pag. 414.
The canon truely translated is thus. Who so euer (sub ordinatione) at the time that order is geuen either of deaconship, or of Priesthod, or of Bishophod, shal saie they are defiled with mortal sinne, they are to be remoued from the foresaid (not orders, as M. Iewel falsely translateth, but) ordinations, that is, orderinges, or geuing of Orders, for so the worde signifieth, the very acte of ordering, not the Orders them selfe: whereby is meant, that they ought to be remoued and bid to departe without Orders: if one I saie would thus translate the Canon, as the praeposition, sub, importeth, M. Iewel were put quite besides his purpose, and Wiklef shoulde remaine vndefended, and giltie of heresie, as he was before M. Iewel tooke in hande to defende him.
Remember M. Iewel, Ordination is the acte of geuing Order, Order it selfe is the effecte of Ordination, or ordering. By this Councel of Valentia they, that confessed them selues defiled with mortal sinne, were remoued, not ab ordinibus, from Orders, for they had not yet receiued them, but ab ordinationibus, from the geuing of Orders, vnto whiche they came for Orders. Vse truthe [Page] M. Iewel, deceiue not your vnlearned Reader with false translations.
Wicklefe is charged with this Article in the Councel of Cōstance,A king is not a king, and a Queene is not a Queene by VVicklef, if they be in deadly sinne. A king being in deadly sinne, is a king by vviklef. Huss. and M. Ie [...]vel (aequ [...]uoce) in doubteful speache only, and by a vvorde of doubt, meaning, as a painted man, is a man Nullus est Dominus ciuilis, nullus est praelatus, nullus est Episcopus, dum est in peccato mortali: None is a temporal Lord, none is a prelate, none is a Bishop, so long as he is in deadly sinne. Beholde Reader, how M. Iewel in Wicklefes defence, bringeth in Wicklefe expounding his owne meaning, or rather Hus for Wicklefe. The Pope (saith Hus whom M. Iewel taketh for Wicklefe) or any other wicked prelate, in doubteful speache is a Pastour, but in very deede he is a theefe, and a murtherer. What then saith Maister Wicklefe of a king, or a queene, that is in deadly sinne by the plaine expositiō of his owne meaning? What answereth M. Iewel in this case for his frende Wicklefe? Mary whereas Wicklefe saith, If a king, or a Queene be in deadly sinne, then neither is he a king, nor shee a Queene, M Iewel cōmeth in with Hus, and thus expoundeth the meaning of Wicklefe, he is a King, and she is a Queene, but how? In doubteful speache onely, he meaneth in name onely. In very deede both he and she, are, either of them a theefe and a murtherer. For so he must saie of the Princes, as he saith of the Prieste, and Bishop, that he is a King, or she a Queene, by a worde of double meaning, as for example, vnsauery salte is called salte, or as the Prophetes of Baal, are called Prophetes, or as a painted manne, is called a man, or, as S. Gregorie saith of the Priest by M. Iewels reporte, let him or her be called a King, or a Queene, though in deed he be no Kinge, and she no Queene, but a theefe. &c.
If a King, or a Queene being in deadly sinne, be no [Page 184] King, nor Queene in deede, as M. Iewel with Hus must saie, and Wicklefe doth saie: what honestie hath he donne Wicklefe, in so making him to expound plainely his meaning, to deliuer him from the obloquie of his Heresie, and from the hatred of Princes, when the exposition is as lewde, and of as great force, as the Heresie is it selfe, that I laid bothe to Wicklefes charge, and his at the firste? Thoughe with your Rhetorique you maie doo muche, and beguile the simple, yet thinke not, but the wise doo see, whyther the maintenaunce of this doctrine tendeth. It is il haulting before kreples, they saie. Truly I iudge this haulting wil appeare muche worse before princes. They had neede take heede, sith that ye are so bolde with them, that they fal not into deadly sinne, least soone after by this Doctrine they be driuen out of their kingdomes.
The authorities in this place by you alleged out of S. Chrysostome, S. Ambrose, S. Gregorie, S. Cyprian,Pag. 117. do not meane, that such as are il liuers, doo lose the Sacrament of Orders once had, whiche to saie, were a very great, and an olde condemned heresie of the Donatistes: but that al suche doo not liue, as the dignitie of Priestes, and Bisshoppes doth require, and that they be not suche, as haue al the good vertues and qualities, that Priestes and Bisshoppes ought to haue. Many thinges are for certaine respectes denied, whiche absolutely are not denied.Al that in a respecte is denied, is not absoluely denied. Psal. 21. Ephes. 6. Ego sum vermis, & non homo, I am a worme, saith the Prophete speaking of Christe, and not a man. Wil you hereof by like Logique conclude, that Christes humanitie is denied? Non est nobis colluctatio aduersus carnem, & sanguinem, we haue no wrastling against flesh, and bloude, saith the Apostle in some respecte, bicause our principal [Page] conflicte is not against flesh, and bloud, and yet we haue a conflicte, and a great conflicte against fleshe, and bloude, and are commaunded therefore to crucifie the fleshe with his lustes.Galat. 6. But bicause the Apostle saith so, shal we denie, that we haue to wrastle, and fight against fleshe, and bloude at al? I trow you, nor your felowes, are not yet so spiritual, but that ye wil confesse, ye haue to fight against the fleshe. Verely the world seeth, your workes be not yet al of the spirite, but some of the fleshe.
If the name of Vniuersal Bishop be a provvde name in others, vvhy maie it not also be a provvde name in the Bishop of Rome?
Harding. The name of Vniuersal Bishop is not a proude name in the Pope, bicause he hath it of right.
The .39. Chapt.Bicause the worde taken in the right sense, is the very right, that our Sauiour Christe gaue to S. Peter, and to his Successours, whiche right of vniuersal regiment he gaue not to others. You maie as wisely reason thus: If the name of a Queene be a prowde name applied to Margerie Horne M. Hornes dame of Winchester, why maie it not also be a prowde name in Elizabeth the lawful Queene? With suche geare you fil vp your paper, and like a great Clerke, set vs out great bookes ful fraughte with stuffe of smal substance, and lesse honestie.
May Pride be humilitie, and humilitie Pride, onely in respecte of diuers personnes?
Harding.
Pride is Pride, and humilitie is humilitie in what so euer personne. Neither can euer the one be the other. But that thing, whiche is prowdly, or with pride donne of one man, maie of an other man be donne humbly, and without al breache of humilitie. You might haue demaunded many wiser questions then this. Know you not, that the title of honour, whiche is due to any person, maie be acknowledged of the same, without any pride at al? S. Paule offended not in pride, when he said, he was an Apostle (sent) not of menne, nor by man.Gal. 1.
Likevvise Chrysostome saith, Dist. 40. Multi. Quicunque desiderauerit primatum in terra, inueniet in coelo confusionem: nec inter seruos Christi computabitur, qui de primatu tractauerit: VVho so euer desireth primacie in earth, in Heauen he shal finde confusion: neither shal he be accompted emong the seruantes of Christe, that vvil once intreate of primacie.
Harding.
If that be the saying of S. Chrysostome,A forged saying at tributed to S Chrysostome. why did you not quote the place? And why make ye so muche a do for the Primacie of the Queenes highnesse in Ecclesiastical maters within the Realme? Intende you to bring your selfe, and her highnesse into Confusion, and to shut your selfe out of Heauen? S. Chrysostome hath no suche saying. That which goeth before in Gratian, is taken out of Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, Homil. 43. in cap Matth. 23.Maximinus Arrianus. whiche is wel knowen not to be S. Chrysostomes, and witht great probabilitie though to be the worke of an Arrian Heretique named Maximinus.
But this saying whiche here you allege out of Gratian, is neither there, nor in S. Chrysostome. It is a forgerie, and that you knewe wel ynough. Yet you are not ashamed to vse it to deceiue the ignorant Reader. Leaue, leaue M. Iewel to abuse the simplicitie of the vnlearned with suche forged peeces, and patches. What you allege out of S. Chrysostome truly, or out of any other Doctor, we shal soone answer it by Goddes grace. For we are sure, that truthe alwaies agreeth with truthe. As for suche forgeries, we returne them backe to you againe.
But bicause bothe you M. Iewel, and others the chiefe Pillers of your side, haue said so muche touching the name of Vniuersal Bisshop, and haue so vehemently inueighed against the Pope for the same, bearing the vnlearned in hande, ye haue a great aduantage against vs therein: I thinke it good and necessarie, here to treate more fully thereof, and to shewe, how litle ye are to be trusted, as wel in this, as in many other pointes of Doctrine, and howe farre ye abuse the vnlearned Reader by misreporting the thirde Councel of Carthage, being deceiued, (if it be errour, and not wilful malice) by a place of Gratian very ignorantly, and grossely mistakē.
M. Iewels Forgerie concerning the name of Vniuersal Bisshop.
The 40. Chapt. Vniuersal. vvhi [...] therby is signified.This woorde, Vniuersal, doth importe asmuche as one in al, and al in one. For the name of Vniuersalitie leaueth nothing vncomprised: so that if any man be properly the vniuersal Patriarke, or Bishop, there is no Patriarke, or [...]ishop, which is not in him, and which he [Page 186] is not. Therefore when Ihon of Constantinople named, and wrote him selfe, Vniuersal Patriarke, or Bishop, albeit perhaps he meant not thereby to derogate from al other Patriarkes, and Bishops, but only to make him selfe equal with the best, (whiche now also M. Iewel liketh wel of, and defendeth it for lawful): yet S. Gregorie, and before him Pope Pelagius, consydering the sclaunder, that might rise by occasion of that proude Title, did worthily resiste the said name, and stile, as proude, and wicked, bothe in it selfe, and specially in the Bishop of Constantinople. For if any man lyuing should take any such name vnto him, it should be the first, and chiefe of al Bishops, which is, the Bishop of Rome. But he doth not so, ne neuer didde so, as the truthe is: therefore much lesse any other Bishop should chalenge that name vnto him.
These thinges are at large proued, and set forth, bothe by me in my Answer Ansvver to your Chalenge,Artic. 4. fol. 90. b. Returne. Artic. 4. and by M. Stapleton in his Returne of Vntruthes against you M. Iewel: where you shal finde, that S. Gregorie did exercise his iurisdiction ouer al the Bishops in the worlde (in case they failed in any thing) and tooke him selfe to haue cure and charge of them al, not as a King, and Tyrant, but as a brother, yea rather a seruant to al.Gregor. Lib. 7. Epist. 64. For he confesseth euery Bishop to be his equal, so long as he sinneth not, or as longe as his Church suffereth not some defecte. And in that case, he supplieth al negligences, and al defectes, and prouideth for al Churches in Asia, in Europa, and in Aphrica, as his Epistles doo fully declare. The whiche if I were disposed here ambitiously to blase, as M. Iewelles custome is, [Page] I might write out the effecte of twelue great bookes of S. Gregories epistles, whiche doo fully proue these my sayinges. But for so muche as that is already donne sufficiently, let this one sentence serue for al. S. Gregorie saith of his owne Church of Rome:The Apostolike See Head of al churches. Gregor. li. 11. epist. 54. Apostolica Sedes omnium Ecclesiarum Caput est. The Apostolike See is the Head of al Churches.
This being so, let vs now consider, that M. Iewel doth not only mislike with the name of Vniuersal Bishop, as not becōming the Bishop of Constantinople, because he was of lower degree, then the Bishop of Rome, nor only as vnseemely also for the Bishop of Rome, bicause it conteineth a proude and ambitious brag, and a meaning, that may be taken in euil sense (for which cause no Bishop of Rome euer vsed that name):Defence pag. 118. but also he misliketh with me for saying, that the name of Vniuersal Bishop in a right sense, is no proude name, in respect of him, to whom it belongeth. By a right sense I meane that sense, which S. Gregorie allowed, and that, whiche the fourth general Councel allowed.
Yea farther M. Iewel saith, that some Popes would haue had, Ibidem. and ambitiously laboured for the title of Vniuersal Bisshop: and againe, that the Councel of Carthage forbad the Pope of Rome to be called the Vniuersal Bisshop. Al these thinges are false and fond, as now it shalbe proued.
Gregor. li. 4. epist. 32 ad Mauricium. Itē eodē lib. epist. 36. ad Eulogium & Anastasium. Item codem lib. epist. 38. ad Iohannem Cō stantinop. Gregor. li. 4. epist. 36 T [...]e name of Vniuersal Bishop offered to Pop [...] Leo by the Councel of Chalcedon. The name of Vniuersal 8. in vvhat sense agreable to the [...]ope.Firste, S. Gregorie witnesseth, that the fourthe Councel offered the name of Vniuersal Bishop to Pope Leo▪ Therefore (saie I) there is a good meaning in that name, whiche the See of Rome maie laufully vse. For it is not to be thought, that the fourth Vniuersal Councel assembled out of the whole worlde (wherein were six [Page 187] hundred thirty and six Bishops) would haue offered that name vnto the Pope, whiche by no meanes could be verified of him. S. Gregories wordes are these, written to Eulogius, and Anastasius, the two patriarches of Alexandria, and of Antioche. Sicut veneranda vestra sanctitas nouit, vni per sanctam Chalcedonensem synodum Pontifici sedis Apostolicae (cui Deo disponente deseruio) hoc Vniuersitatis nomen oblatum est. As your Reuerend holines knoweth, this name (of Vniuersalitie, or of Vniuersal Bishop) was offered by the holy Councel of Chalcedon to the only Bishop of the Apostolike See, wherein I serue by the disposition of God.
If then that name of Vniuersalitie was offered to the Pope, and onely to him: how can it be iustified, that the said name may in no sense be agreeable vnto the Pope of Rome? If it may be agreeable vnto the Pope in any sense, it is in this, bicause he is the chiefe of al Bishops, who by office hath care of the whole Churche. For the name of Vniuersal must needes haue respecte to the Whole Churche. And in that only sense did the Fathers of that Councel of Chalcedon offer that name to the Pope, bicause they knew that thing, dignitie, and office to be in the Pope, for that he is S. Peters Successour: whiche cause also is expressed in S. Gregorie.Gregor. lib 4. epist. 32. Certè (nomen Vniuersalis Episcopi) pro beati Petri Apostolorum Principis honore, per venerandam Chalcedonensem Synodū Romano Pontifici oblatum est. Soothly (the name of Vniuersal Bishop) was offered by the reuerend Councel of Chalcedon to the Bishop of Rome, for the honour of S. Peter the Prince of the Apostles. Marke M. Iewel, he saith not that it was offered, bicause Rome was the Emperial [Page] Citie: That had ben a heathnish respecte: but it was offered for the honour of S. Peter. If it may then be vsed in a good sense only of that Bishop, who is the Successour of S. Peter, M. Iewel hath vniustly reproued me.
That no Pope vsed the title of Vniuersal Bishop Gregor. li. 4. epis. 32Now to the second point, that no Pope vsed the same title. So saith S. Gregorie in the same place. Nullus corum vnquam hoc singularitatis vocabulum assumpsit, nec vti consensit, ne dum priuatum aliquid daretur vni, honore debito Sacerdotes priuarentur vniuersi. None of the Bishops of Rome hath taken this name of Singularitie vpon him, nor did consent to vse it: lest, whiles some peculiar thing should be geuen to one, al Priestes (or Bishops) together should be depriued of their due honour. This modestie was then in Popes for six hundred yeres together. But this man here saith:
VVherfore then did their Successours that folovved aftervvard, so ambitiously labour to geate the same?
Harding.
They laboured not for it, nor vsed it any time afterward, as their style in al ages til this day, doth witnesse. For the Bishoppes of Rome doth not write them selues Vniuersal Bishops, The Popes stile, Seruus seruorū Dei. but eche one, Seruum Seruorum Dei, the Seruant of Goddes Seruantes. And that style was of purpose taken and reteined of them, to checke thereby the pride of the Bishop of Constantinople, who neuer leaft his proude name of Vniuersal, til the Turcke was sent ouer him, to chasten bothe him for his Shisme, and al that defended, or obeied him in despite of the Bishop of Rome.
And that you bring out of Platina, proueth not, that [Page 188] any Pope euer called him selfe Vniuersal Bishop: but when the Bishops of Rome sawe, that the Bishops of Constantinople would needes by force keepe, and vse that arrogant name:Bonifacius. 3. then Bonifacius the third intending to stay, that together with that name, the right of the See Apostolike should not be lost, and passe away to the See of Constantinople: then I saie Bonifacius obteined, verely not that the See of Rome should be made Vniuersal, or be made Head of al Churches, for so it was euer: but that it might be so taken, and called of al men: lest the Grecians should thinke, that the chiefe Pastour of Gods sheepe sate in Constantinople. Whereof it would folow, that if the chiefe Postour once taught Heresie (as now the Bishop of Constantinople doth concerning the proceding of the holy Ghost) then the whole Church should perish, sith al the flocke dependeth vpon the chiefe shepeheard. Now M. Iewel, as he is woont to doo, hath most guilefully endeuoured to persuade the Reader, that the Popes cal them them selues Vniuersal Bishoppes, and bringeth Platina forth in suche sorte, that he wil not let him speake his whole minde. His wordes are these.Platina in vita Bonifacij. 3.
Bonifacius tertius à Phoca Imperatore obtinuit, magna tamen contentione, vt sedes beati Petri Apostoli, quae caput est omnium Ecclesiarum, ita & diceretur, & haberetur ab omnibus: quem quidem locum Ecclesia Constantinopolitana sibi vendicare conabatur, fauentibus interdum malis Principibus, affirmantibúsque eò loci primam sedem esse debere, vbi Imperij Caput esset. Affirmabant Romani Pontifices, vrbem Romam, vnde Constantinpolis Colonia deducta est, Caput Imperij meritò habendam esse, [Page] cùm etiam Graeci ipsi literis suis principem suum, [...], id est, Romanorum Imperatorem vocent, ipsi (que) Constantinopolitani etiam aetate nostra [...], non Graeci vocentur. Omitto quòd Petrus Apostolorum Princep [...] Successoribus suis Pontificibus Romanis, regni coelorum claues dederit, potestatémque à Deo sibi concessam reliquerit, non Constantinopoli, sed Romae. Illud tamen dico, multos Principes, maximè verò Constantinum comparandae Synodi ac dissoluendae, confutandi vel confirmandi ea quae in Synodis decreta erant, Romanae sedi tantummodo concessisse. Meritò igitur sedes Romana caeteris antefertur, cuius integritate, & constantia cunctae haereses confutatae sunt & explosae.
Boniface the third obteined of Phocas the Emperour (although not without great difficultie) that the See of the blessed Apostle Peter, whiche is the Head of al Churches, should both so be called, and also taken of al men, the which place (or preferment) the Churche of Constantinople went about to chalenge, wicked princes sometimes helping foreward the matter, affirming, that the chiefe See ought to be in that place, where the Head of the Empire was. The bishops of Rome auouched, that the citie of Rome was for good cause to be taken for the Head of the Empire, as from whence the citie of Constantinople had benne translated: Whereas also the Grecians them selues cal their Prince, the Emperour of the Romains, and they of Constantinople euen in our daies are called Romaines, and not Grecians. I let passe, how Peter the prince of the Apostles gaue vnto his Successours the Bishops of Rome, the Keies of the Kingdom of Heauen, and leafte the power, that was geuen him of God, not to Constantinople, but to Rome. Onely this I saie, [Page 189] that many Princes, but specially Constātine, graunted to the See of Rome only, power and authoritie to gather, and dissolue Councels, to reiecte, and allow those things, that were decreed in Synodes. Therefore the See of Rome is worthily preferred before the rest, as by whose integritie, and constancie, al Heresies haue ben confuted and quite put awaie.
This was the Platina M. Iewel, whom you alleged, and durst not let him to tel out his tale. But he saith not, that the Popes laboured to be called Vniuersal Bishops, but onely to staie the Grecians from a false, and erroneous opinion, and to kepe them in the vnitie of the Romaine Churche, from whence that vsurped name did by litle and litle withdraw them.
Thus haue we seene two errours of yours, the one,Three errours of M. Ievv. touching this point of vniuersal Bishop whereas you reproue me for saying, that the name of Vniuersal taken in a right sense, is no prowd name in respect of the Bishop of Rome: the other bicause you impute to the Bishops of Rome, that they laboured for that ambitious name.
The third errour foloweth,Pag. 118. which is worse then the other two. For you saie, these be the wordes of the Coūcel of Carthage, as Gratian allegeth them,Dist. 99. Prima. Vniuersalis Episcopus nec ipse Romanus Pontifex appelletur. The Bishop of Rome him selfe may not be called the vniuersal Bishop. And this thing you prosecute,Pag. 121. 122. and repeate againe and againe. But you belie the Councel, and Gratian, and the Glose too, al at once. And yet you are so highly auaunced in your owne conceite, that ye seeme to make a glorious triumphe for it. Thus you saie.
Novv M. Harding, compare our vvordes, and the Councelles vvordes together. VVe saie none othervvise, but as the Councel saith. The Bishop of Rome himselfe ought not to be called the Vniuersal Bishop. Herein vve do neither adde, nor minish, but reporte the vvordes plainely, as vve finde them. If you had lookte better on your booke, and vvould haue tried this mater, as you saie, by your learning, ye might vvel haue reserued these vnciuil reproches of falshed to your selfe, and haue spared your crying of shame vpon this defender.
Harding.
I neuer cried so ofte shame vpon the Defender, as he deserued, and that he is a shamelesse man, it shal now be here as cleerly tried, as euer it was before. I laie three maine Lies to your charge in this mater.Three main lyes laid to M. Ievvels charge. Pag. 118. Pag. 121. Let the worlde vnderstande, how wel ye are hable to discharge them. One, for that you say the Coūcel of Carthage forbiddeth the Pope to be called Vniuersal Bishop: An other, for that you saie, that Gratian saith so. The third, for that you saie, that so muche is noted in the Glose. First the Councel of Carthage is extant bothe in Greke, and in Latin: but those wordes be founde in neither of bothe Copies. In Greeke, the Decree is thus vttered.
[...].
In whiche wordes there is no mention made of the Vniuersal Bishop. Now the Latin wordes are these in the first booke of the Councels.Carthag. Conc. 3. c. 26. Vt primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps Sacerdotum, aut summus Sacerdos, aut aliquid huiusmodi, sed tantùm primae sedis Episcopus. It is by vs decreed, that the Bishop of a first See be not called [Page 190] the Prince of Priestes, or the highest Priest,M. Iev. falsifieth the Coūcel of Carthage. In Nomocanon. or any the like, but onely the Bishop of a first See. Where also no mention is made of the Vniuersal Bishop. Balsamon also making a Comment vpon the same Canon, yet speaketh no worde of the Vniuersal Bishop. We see then plainely, that M. Iewel hath falsified the said Canon, by adding the wordes of Vniuersal Bishop to it, whiche are not in the Canon expressed.
Nay (saith he) your owne Doctour Gratian doth allege it so. This saie I,M. Iev. falsifieth Gratians meaning. is a worse falsehed then the former. Gratian vseth to kepe a certaine order, and methode in othet places of his booke, as he doth in this special place,Distin. 99. whereof M. Iewel now would faine take aduantage. In that Distinction he treateth of Patriarkes, saying in the first parte, that Archebishoppes must obey Patriarkes. In the second, that Archebishoppes must not be called ordinarily Primates: In the third, that the Pope him selfe is not to be called Vniuersal.
And so doth the Glose diuide this Distinction,Glosa in distin. 99. beginning thus. Haec Distinctio diuiditur in tres partes, in quarum prima dicitur, quòd vbi erant Primates Gentium olim, ibi sunt modò Primates, id est, Patriarchae, qui idem habent officium, licet nomina sint diuersa. Secunda ibi: nulli Archiepiscopi. Tertia ibi, Vniuersalis.
This Distinction is diuided into three partes: in the firste of whiche it is said, that where the Primates of the Heathens were in olde time, there are nowe the Primates, that is to saie, Patriarches: who haue the same office (that Primates haue) although the names be diuers. The second parte of this Distinction beginneth at the wordes, Nulli Archiepiscopi: The third parte beginneth [Page] at the worde, Vniuersalis. This being so, it wil folow, that Gratian meant to place the Canon of the Councel of Carthage, in the second part of his 99. Distinction. And so the mater of the vniuersal Bishop is not referred by Gratian to the Councel of Carthage. He neuer meant any such thing. Neither was there any cause in deede why he should so haue meant.The true discussiō of Gratians vvordes in the 99. distinction. But it is referred to the third parte of the distinction, which foloweth afterward. For it is Gratians custom for the connexion of his maters, one after an other, to put in his own wordes many times, wherby to signifie vnto his reader, what foloweth. These wordes then (vniuersalis autem nec etiam Romanus Pontifex appelletur: Vnde Pelagius secundus omnibus Episcopis). These wordes I saie, be Gratians owne wordes, whiche are this muche in English. Not so much as the Bishop of Rome him selfe, maie be called Vniuersal Bishop, wherevpon Pelagius the Second writeh to al Bishops.
If now M. Iewel be so blinde a Lawier, as to saie, that the wordes Vniuersalis Episcopus, &c. do apperteine to the former Decree of the Carthage Coūcel, and be a peece thereof: he maie saie also that these wordes, Vnde Pelagius Episcopus, &c. be wordes of the Carthage Councel. For they are no lesse in the same Chapter, as it maie seeme. But verely a meane wise man might haue seene the difference of these maters. And yet M. Iewel is so lustie in his game, that he doubteth not to saie:
Pag. 121. distin. 99.And in the Glose thereupon it is noted thus. In hac distinctione dicitur, quòd Papa non debet dici Vniuersalis. In this distinction it is said, that the Pope ought not to be called the Vniuersal Bishop.
Harding.
O impudent Gloser. Are you not ashamed to shew your peeuish falshed after this sorte? Why leafte you out the beginning of the sentēce? Why haue you placed, and counterfeited the wordes, otherwise then thei are in the glose? There they are thus written, Vniuersalis, M. Ievv. fovvly falsifieth the Glose vpon Gratian. haec est tertia pars Distinctionis, in qua dicitur, quòd Papa non debet vocari Vniuersalis. This word, Vniuersal is the first worde, whereat the third parte of the distinction beginneth, in whiche third parte it is said, that the Pope ought not to be called Vniuersal. It is the third parte, saith the glose, whiche is to saie, it is not the second part, (wherein the Decree of the Councel of Carthage was rehersed) it is the third part. For as the first part spake of Primates, the second of Archebishoppes so the third speaketh of the Pope. The Decree of Carthage belongeth to the mater of Archebishoppes, and therefore it standeth in the second part. Where are now these vaine bragges so ofte doubled by M. Iewel, that these wordes (Let not the Pope be called the Vniuersal Bishop) are the woordes of the Councel of Carthage, as Gratian allegeth:Pag. 118. They are not the wordes of that Councel, neither doth Gratian so allege them, nor doth the Glose so take them, and consequetly you are like your selfe, I neede not tel what.
Some man perhaps wil saie, at the lest they are Gratians wordes, and then he holdeth, that the Pope ought not to be called the Vniuersal Bishop. Concerning that obiection I answer, that Gratian doth no more but ioine together diuers decrees, and his wordes depende [Page] vpon those that folow. For he referreth him selfe to the Decrees, whiche he there immediatly after reciteth. These Decrees are, the one of Pope Pelagius the second, the other of Pope Gregorie the first, whiche both refused the name of Vniuersal Bisshop, as also al their successours haue donne. But neither of them both refused that sense, and meaning of the name, wherein the fourh Councel offered that name vnto Pope Leo:In vvhat sense the fourthe Coūcel of fred vnto Pope Leo the title of vniuersal Bishop vvhiche the catholiques defende. Greg. li. 7 Epis. 64. and that sense we only defend: To witte, that the See of Rome is Head of al Churches, and maie correcte, or supplie the want of any Church whatsoeuer, by sending a Bisshop to it where none is, or by deposing him, that is vnwotthy of that roume. For hereof the same S. Gregorie (who refused to be called, Vniuersal) writeth thus. Quod se dicit (Primas Bizancenus) sedi Apostolicae subijci, si quae culpa in Episcopis inuenitur, nescio quis ei Episcopus subiectus non sit. Cùm verò culpa non exigit, omnes secundùm rationem humilitatis aequales sunt. Whereas the primate of Constantinople saith, he is vnder the Apostolike See,A saying of S. Gregorie to be noted touching this whole controuersie. if any faulte be founde in the Bishops, I know not what Bishop is not subiect hereunto. But when no faulte requireth so, al are equal, according as humilitie would it should be.
Concerning the Supremacie of the Bishoppe of Rome, I thinke it not conuenient to stande here any longer about it, seing al the Articles therof are sufficiently by me handled already, both in my Answer to the Chalenge, and also in the Confutatiō of th'Apologie, M. Dorman also hath answered to the Obiection out of the sixth Coūcel of Carthage, and M. Stapleton hath wel handled the mater of Appeales, of the cōfirmation of Councels, [Page 192] of the Popes iurisdiction ouer the East, and of their not erring in the faith. D. Saunder hath shewed Peter to be the Rocke, and the Popes to be his successours. He hath shewed also, how the other Apostles were equal with Peter, and how in other respectes they had lesse power, for ordinarie continuance in their successours, then Peter had.
But if I were of M. Iewels boasting humour, I should now dissemble al this, and write it in here a fresh, as though nothing had benne said thereof before. But I trowe wise men espie that smoky pride in him wel ynough. I wisse lesse bookes might haue serued him, for any good stuffe that is to be founde in them.
The fourth Booke conteineth a ful refutation of al that M. Iewel hath laid together in his pretensed Defence touching the Succession of Bishops in the Churche from the Apostles time, vnto this present age: Item a proufe of the necessitie of Confession.
WRITING the Confutation of the Apologie, I had occasion to speake of the Succession of Bishoppes. Thereto M. Iewel in his pretensed Defence hath replied at great length. Wherein bicause he may perhaps to the vnlearned seme to haue some colour of aduantage against vs, the matter being of good weight, I iudge it not vnprofitable to bestow some labour, and here to cōfute his whole Defence touching that point, whereby I doubte not it shal appeare, how litle credite he deserueth, if his sayinges be throughly examined, where he blazeth forth most shew of learning. That it maie appeare, how directly he answereth the pointes of this Controuersie, and of what pith his owne sayinges, and how muche to the purpose his testimonies be, and how truly alleged, and that al be made the more plaine and cleere: I wil reherse, first, the place of the Apologie, that gaue me occasion to treat of Succession, then the wordes of my Confutation, against whiche M. Iewel bendeth the force of his Defence. After this I wil laie forth his whole Defence sentence by sentence, worde by worde, as I finde it in his [Page 193] booke, and so briefly as I can, refel the same. I am driuen to reherse that discourse of my Confutation againe, bicause a great parte of the Defence depending thereof, and being directed against the same, onlesse it were againe by rehersal commended to the readers view and memorie, our whole disputation would be obscure, and vncertaine. And this haue I donne also the rather, to thintent the reader might haue that parte of my Confutation intier and whole, whiche M. Iewel hath caused to be set forth in his booke, pared, hewed, dismembred, and altogether disgraced.
The Apologie parte. 2. Cap. 5. Diuis. 1. in the Defence. Pag. 125.
Furthermore vve saie, that the mi [...]ister ought laufully, duely and orderly to be preferred to that office of the Church of God, and that no man hath povver to vvrest him selfe into the holy Ministerie at his ovvne pleasure. VVherefore these persons do vs the greater vvrong, vvhiche haue nothing so common in their mouthes, as that vve do nothing orderly and comely, but al thinges troublesomly and vvithout order: and that vve allovv euery man to be a priest, to be a teacher, and to be an interpretour of the scriptures.
Confutation. fol. 56. a.
Al from starre to starre leafte out by M. Ievvel.Saing and doing are two thinges. Ye saye wel in outward appearance. Would God your doing were accordingly. Albeit the manner of your saying had ben more cōmendable, if in so weighty a point you had spokē more particularly and distinctly, not so generally, and confusely. * Ye saye that the minister ought laufully to be called (for so hath your Latine) and duely and orderly to be preferred to that office of the Churche of God. Why do ye not so? why is not this obserued among you Gospellers? [Page] What so euer ye meane by your Minister, and by that office, this are we assured of, that in this your new Church Bishops, Priestes, Deacons, Subdeacons, or any other inferiour Orders ye haue none.No holy orders, among the gospellers. Le [...] out by M. Ievvel. In saying thus we speake not of our Apostates, that be fledde from vs vnto your congregations. Who as they remaine in the order which they receiued in the catholike Church: so being diuided and cut of from the Church and excommunicate, laufully they may not minister the sacramentes. * For where as after the doctrine of your newe Gospel like the foreronners of Antichrist ye haue abandoned thexternal Sacrifice and priesthod of the newe Testament, and haue not in your secte consecrated Bishops, and therefore being without Priestes made with lawfull laying on of handes, as Scripture requireth, al holy Orders being geuen by Bishops only: how can ye saie that any among you can laufully minister, or that ye haue any lauful Ministers at al?
This then being so, let me haue leaue to oppose one of these Defenders consciences. And that for the better vnderstanding I may directe my wordes to a certaine person, let him be the author of this Apologie, or bicause his name to me is vnknowen, let him be M. Iewel. for with him gladly would I reason in this point the rather for acquaintaince, and for that he beareth the name of a Bishop in that Churche, where my selfe had a rome.
How saye you Syr minister Bishop, ought the Minister to be laufully called? ought he duely and orderly to be preferred to that office, or (as the Latine here hath) promoted or put in authoritie ouer the Church? in the Apologie this Defender saith yea.Leaft out by M. Ievvel. Then answer me directely. [Page 194] How proue you your selfe laufully called to the roume you take vpon you to occupie? First, touching the ordinary Succession of Bishops, from which as you knowe, S. Iraeneus, Tertullian, Optatus and S. Augustine bring argument and testimonie of right and true religion: do you allow the same with those fathers, or no? If not, then dissent you from the learned and most vncorrupte antiquitie. which is not reasonable, neither then are you to be heard. If yea, then how can you recken vs vp your succession, by which you may referre your imposition of handes and consecration to some of the Apostles, or of their scholers, as the foresaid fathers did, to repel the nouelties of heresies, and defende their continual possession of the Churche? Which if ye go about, how can ye but to the great hinderance of your cause bewraye your weake holde? For whereas succession of doctrine must be ioyned with the succession of persons, as Caluine in his institutions affirmeth, and Beza auouched at the assemblie of Poyssi in Fraunce, and we also graunt:Succession of doctrine ioyned vvith succession of persons. how many Bishoppes can you recken, whom in the Churche of Sarisburie you haue succeded as wel in doctrine as in outward sitting in that chayre? How many can you tel vs of, that being your Predecessours in order before you, were of your opinion, and taught the faithful people of that Dioces the doctrine that you teache? Dyd Bishop Capon teach your doctrine? did Shaxton? did Campegius? did Bishop Audley? Briefly did euer any Bishop of that See before you teache your doctrine? It is most certaine they did not.B. Shaxton and, B. Capon repented. Leaft out by M. Ievvel. How so euer those two first named only in some part of their life taught amisse, how afterward they repēted, abhorred [Page] your heresies, and dyed catholikes, it is wel knowen.
Now besides these whom elles can you name?M. Iuel can shew no laufull successiō in the bishoprike of Salisbury. If you can not shewe your bishoply Petigree, if you can proue no Succession, then whereby holde you? Wil you shew vs the letters patentes of the prince? Wel may they stand you in some stede before men: before God, who shal cal you to accompte for presuming to take the highest office in his Churche not duely called thereto, they shal serue you to no purpose.
I cast out by M. Ievvel.Here if you alleage an interruption of this Succession of doctrine, as it hath ben alleaged by some of your side: then must you tel vs when and where the same beganne, which you can neuer do.In prascis ptionibus aduersus haereticos. These be Tertulliās vvordes. You know what Tertullian saith of suche as ye be. Edant origines ecclesiarum suarum &c. We saye likewise to you M. Iewel, and that we say to you, we saye to eche one of your companions. Tel vs the original and first spring of your Church. Shewe vs the register of your Bishops continually succeding one another from the beginning, so as that first Bishop haue some one of the Apostles, or of the Apostolike men for his author and predecessour. For by this waye the Apostolike churches shewe what reputation they be of. As the Church of Smyrna telleth vs of Polycarpe by Iohn the Apostle placed there. The Church of the Romaines telleth vs of Clement ordeined by Peter. S. Augustine hauing reckened vp in order the Bisshops of Rome to Anastasius successor to Siricius, who was the eight and thirteth after Peter, saieth that in al that nūber and rolle of Bishops there is not found one that was a Donatiste,Epist. 165. and thereof he concludeth, Ergo the Donatistes be not catholikes. So after that we haue reckened al the Bishops of Sarisburie from Bishop Capon vpward, [Page 195] we shal come at length in respect of doctrine and orders, to S. Augustin the Apostle of the English, who was made bishop by S. Gregorie, and from S. Gregorie vpward to S. Peter. And in al that rewe of Bishops we shal finde neuer a one that beleeueth, as M. Iewel beleeueth. ergo your Zuinglian and Caluiniā beleefe M. Iewel and of the rest of your felowes is not catholike.Leaft out by M. Ievvel. But what speake we of succession to them, who haue no orderly succession, as no secte of heretikes euer had?Hard que [...]ion [...] proponed to M. Iuel.
Therefore to go from your Succession, which ye can not proue, and to come to your Vocation, how say you Sir? you beare your selfe, as though you were Bishop of Sarisbury. But how can you proue your Vocation? By what auctoritie vsurpe you the administration of Doctrine, and Sacramentes? What can you alleage for the right and proufe of your Ministerie? Who hath called you? Who hath layd handes on you? By what example hath he done it? How, and by whom are you consecrated? Who hath sent you? Who hath committed to you the office you take vpon you? Be you a Priest, or be you not? If you be not, how dare you vsurp the name and office of a bishop? If you be, tel vs who gaue you Orders? The institution of a Priest, was neuer yet but in the power of a Bishop. Bishops haue alwayes after the Apostles tyme according to the Ecclesiastical Canons ben consecrated by three other Bishops with the consent of the Metropolitane, and confirmation of the B. of Rome.
Leaft out by M. Ievvel.Thus Vnitie hath hitherto ben kept, thus Schismes haue ben stayd. And this S. Cyprian calleth legitimam ordinationem. For lacke of which he denyed Nouatian to be a bishop, or to haue any autoritie or power in the Church. [Page] Hereto neither you nor your felowes, who haue vnlaufully inuaded the administration of the Sacramentes, can make any iust and right answer, I am sure.
Athanas. in Apologia. 2.What, do not you remember what iudgement Athanasius, and the Bishops of Egypte, Thebais, Lybia, and Pentapoli were of concerning Ischyras the Arian? And why may not al good Catholique men iudge the like of you?Ischyras and M Iuel compared together. Macarius a Priest of Athanasius (as it was layd to his charge by his accusers) pulled Ischyras from the aulter as he was at Masse, ouerthrewe the holy table, brake the chalice. The matter brought to iudgement, Athanasius and those bishoppes both denied the fact, and also though it were graunted, yet defended the same as wel done, because Ischyras was not a lauful minister of the Church. And why so? Because he was not lawfully made Priest, nor with churchly laying on of handes consecrated.Leaft out by M. Ievvel. Colluthus. Hūc presbyteri & Diaconi Mareotici vocant nō verum, sed imaginarium episcopum. Epist. ad Curiosum & Phylagrium. Apolog. 2. apud Athanasiū. For proufe thereof they alleaged, that neither he was of the number of those whom Alexander bishop of Alexandria before Athanasius receiued into the Church made Priestes by Meletius the heretique, neither that he was by the sayd Alexander created. Then how is Ischyras a priest, say they, or of whom hath he receiued his orders? Hath he receiued them of Colluthus? For this shift onely remaineth. (Colluthus was an Arian, who bare him selfe for a bishop and gaue Orders being but a priest). Now Colluthus, say they in their reply, could not make him a priest, for that he died in degree of priesthod himselfe, and neuer was consecrated bishop, and that al imposition of handes or geuing of orders was compted of no force, and that al they whom he had consecrated, were brought downe againe to the order of the [Page 196] laitie, and vnder the name and in order of lay men receiued the cōmunion. Hereof they conclude that Ischyras could be no priest. And therefore it was denied, that there was the mysterie of the body and bloude of our Lorde.VVhat may be iudged of the nevv communion. By which example besides other points we are taught, what to iudge of your pretensed Communion.
Againe what say you to Epiphanius, who writeth against one Zacchaeus of his tyme, for that being but a laye man with wicked presumption tooke vpon him to handle the holy mysteries, and rashly to do the office of a Priest?Cōtra haereses lib. 2 [...] Least out by M. Ievvel. Likewise where he findeth great fault with two other, of which the one dwelt at a monasterie in the wildernes of Egypt, the other at Sinaeum: for that they feared not to execute the thinges that belong to Bishops not hauing receiued the imposition of handes,The doīg of a bishops office by one that is not a bishop. that perteineth to the consecration of a Bishop. And wil you vnderstand what Epiphanius iudged of that wicked disorder? He acknowledgeth it to be the part of men that of a certaine presumption of minds violently and besides all truth play the rash and dissolute wantons. VVhat Epiphanius iudgeth of it For so the Greeke signifieth [...]. Thus they be neither Priestes nor Deacons, which be not consecrated laufully according to the order vsed in the Church, that is to wit, by bishops laufully consecrated, but either by the people or the lay magistrate, as it is in some places where this doctrine is professed, or by monkes and friers Apostates, or by excommunicate priestes hauing no bishoply power.In Dialogo contra Luciferia nos.
Hereof S. Hierome saith notably. Hilarius cùm Diaconus de Ecclesia recesserit, &c. Hilary forasmuch as he wēt from the Church being a Deacon, and is only (as he thinketh) [Page] the multitude of the world, can neither consecrate the Sacrament of the aulter being without Bisshop and Priestes, nor deliuer Baptisme without the Eucharist. And where as now the man is dead, with the man also the Sect is ended, because being a Deacon he could not consecrate any clercke, that should remaine after him. And Church is there none, which hath not a Priest. Sacerdotē But letting go these fewe of litle regard that to them selues be both lay and Bisshops, listen what is to be thought of the Church. Thus S. Hierome there. In whom leauing other thinges I note, that if there be no Church where is no Priest: where is your Church like to become after that our Apostates that now be fled frō vs to you, shalbe departed this life?Leaft out by M. Ievvel. By S. Hierome the English [...]hurch shal be no Churche at al. And yet being with you as they be, your Church is already in such state as S. Hierome reporteth, that is, no Churche at al, howe so euer ye set foorth your newe gospel vnder the name of the Church of England. Bucer being once charged to geue accompt of his vocation, had no other shifte, but to acknowledge for defence of his ministerie, that he had taken Orders of a bishop after the rite and maner of the Catholike Church.
Luthers aduise touching Muncers vocationSleidan recordeth that Luther himselfe wrote to the senate of Mulhusen concerning Muncer the preacher of the Anabaptistes, who stirred the common people of Germanie to rise against their nobilitie, that the senate should do wel to demaund of Muncer, who committed to him the office of teaching, and who had called him thereto. And if he would name God for his authour, that then they should require him to proue his vocation by some euident signe or miracle. If he could not do that, then he aduised them, to put him awaye. For this is the [Page 197] wont of God said he, when so euer he willeth the accustomed forme and ordinarie maner to be changed, to declare his wil by some signe.Of vvhat maner is the vocation of our super intendet [...] Therefore this being true, it remaineth M. Iewel, you tel vs, whether your vocation be ordinarie, or extraordinarie. If it be ordinarie, shewe vs the letters of your Orders. At lest shewe vs that you haue receiued power to do the office you presume to exercise, by due order of laying on of handes and consecration. But order and consecration you haue not. For who coulde geue that to you of al these newe ministers how so euer els you cal them, whiche he hath not him selfe? If it be extraordinarie (as al that ye haue done hytherto is besides al good order) shewe vs some signe or miracle, If you faile in al these, why ought not you to be put awaie?The Defenders haue nothing to say for defence of their vocatiō. If you can shew no signe or miracle, as your vertue promiseth vs none: bring vs forth some example of your extraordinarie vocation out of the Stories of Christes Church that hath folowed the Apostles. If you be destitute also thereof, at lest shewe vs, what prophete in the olde Testamente euer was heard extraordinarily without signe, or miracle, or testimonie of God.Leaft out by M. Ievvel.
Finally what can you answer to that,Lib. 1. Epist. 6. whiche may be obiected to you out of S. Cyprians epistle to Magnus touching Nouatian? It was at those dayes a question, whether Nouatian baptized and offered, specially where as he vsed the forme, manner and ceremonies of the Churche. Cyprian denieth it.Eusebius Ecclesiast. Hist. li. 6. cap. 43. in Graec. For he can not (saith he) be compted a Bisshop, who setting at nought the Tradition of the Gospel, and of the Apostles, nemini succedens à seipso ordinatus est, succeding no man, is ordeined bisshoppe of [Page] him selfe. For by no meanes may one haue or holde a Churche, that is not ordeined in the Churche. Leaft out by M. Ievvel. M. Ievvel and the rest of his companions, be no bishops, but vsurpers of an vndue office and ministerie. I leaue here to recite the rest of that Epistle perteining to this point, and al against you, for that it were to long. Thus it is euident, for as muche as you can neither prooue your doctrine by continual Succession of Priestes, nor referre your Imposition of handes to any Apostle, or Apostolike Bishoppe, nor shewe your Vocation to be ordinarie for lacke of lauful ordination and consecration, nor extraordinarie for lacke of Gods testimonie and approbation by signe or miracle, or example of the olde or newe Testament: that you are not laufully called to the administration of Doctrine and Sacramentes, that you are not duely and orderly preferred to the Ministerie whiche you exercise, that you go, not being called, that you runne, not being sent. Therefore we may iustly say, that ye haue thrust your selfes into that Ministerie at your owne pleasure and lyst. For though the Prince haue thus promoted you, yet be ye presumers and thrusters in of your selues. Wel, landes and manours the Prince may geue you, Priesthod and Bishophod the Prince can not geue you.Ierem. 23. This being so, we doo you no wrong as ye complaine, in telling you and declaring to the world, that touching the exercise of your Ministerie ye do nothing orderly, or comely, but al thinges troublesomly and without order. Onlesse ye meane such order and comelines, as theeues obserue among them selues in the distribution of their robberies.
Lastly, if ye allowe not euery man, yea and euery woman, to be a Priest, why driue ye not some of your felowes to recant, that so haue preached? why allow ye the [Page 198] bookes of your newe Euangelistes, that so haue writen?Leaft out by M. Ievvel. And whether ye admitte al sortes of the common people to be your Ministers of the worde, to teache the people, and vnreuerently to handle the holy Scriptures, or no: our proufe is nedelesse, the thing is manifest. *
Harding.
Here treating of Succession, as thou seest Reader, I haue among other things brought forth Tertulliā demaū ding of the Heretikes the Original of their Churches,Tertul. lib. de praescription. and the Register of their Bishops succeding one an an other from the beginning til his tyme. Againe I haue alleged S. Augustine naming. 38. Popes of Rome in order,August. Epist. 165 and thereof cōcluded, that bicause neuer a one of them was a Donatist, the Donatists were al Heretikes. Whereupon I also concluded, that, seing among al the Popes from S. Peter til this daie, none was of M. Iewels opinion, he and his felowes, the Zuinglians, and Caluinistes, must by the rule S. of Augustine, be taken for Heretiques. For the true Churche is, where the true ordinarie, and manifest Succession is, from the Apostles til these our dayes. This only I require of thee gentle reader, that thou woldest vouchesafe to reade this matter through: and not to iudge before al be heard. For in deede following M. Iewelles confuse order of writing, I could not dispose my thinges in such Methode and Order, as the weight of the matter requireth. Bicause the matter is of importance, I intend to leaue out no parte of M. Iewelles woordes, whereby he maie seeme to impugne the Catholique doctrine. And by the treatie of this one poynte it will appeare, what huge bookes we should write, if we should [Page] directe a ful answer to euerie parte of his idle talke in the pretensed Defence conteined. Thus then he beginneth.
Here hath M. Harding taken some paines, more then ordinarie. He thought, if he could by any coloure make the vvorld beleeue, vve haue neither Bisshoppes, nor Priestes, nor Deacons this daie in the Church of England, he might the more easily claime the vvhole right vnto himselfe.
And in deede if it vvere certaine that the religion, and truth of God passeth euermore orderly by Succession, and none othervvise: then vvere Succession vvhereof he hath tolde vs so long a tale, a verie good substantial Argument of the Truth.
Harding.
Irenaeus saith it is a certaine Rule to knowe the Truth by. For hauing reckened twelue Popes, who in order succeded after S. Peter, to wit, Linus, Anacletus, Clemens, Euaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anice [...], Soter and Eleutherius, who then was the twelfth Bishop from the Apostles,Irenaeus lib. 3. ca. 3. immediatly he saith thus: Hac ordinatione, & successione, ea quae est ab Apostolis in Ecclesia Traditio & veritatis praeconiatio, peruenit vs (que) ad nos. Et est ple [...]issima haec [...]stensio, vnim & eandem viuificatricem fidem esse, quae in Ecclesia ab Apostolis vsque nunc sit cō seruata & troditain veritate. By this order and Succession, the Tradition, and preaching of the truth, whiche is in the Churche from the Apostles time, came euen to our daies. And this is a most ful declaration, that the faith, whiche is kept in the Churche, and deliuered in truth from the Apostles time euen til this present hower, is the one selfe same faith, which is the causer of life and of saluation. He saith it is a most ful declaration of the [Page 199] true and liuely faith. And you wil confesse I trow, that where that faith is, there is the true Churche of God.
Such a Succession of Bishoppes in diuers countries we haue, and can shew it from the Apostles time til this daie. As the rew and order of Popes in al Chronicles doth shew to the eie, and witnesseth to the vnderstanding.
But such a Succession M. Iewel, and his fellowes haue not: therefore by his owne confession, we haue a good substantial Argument of the Truth.
But Christe saith, In cathedra Moysi sederunt Scribae, & Pharisaei: by order of succession, the scribes,Math. 22. and Pharisees sitte in Moyses chaier.
Harding.
Wel handled M. Iewel. You bring these wordes, as though Christe had spoken them in the reproche of Succession: Whereas Christ in that place made an Argumēt for Succession in this wise: Super cathedram Moysi sederunt Scriba & Pharisaei, Math. 23. omnia ergo quaecunque dixerint vobis, seruate, & facite. Vpon the chaier of Moyses, the Scribes, and Pharisees haue sitten. Therefore kepe ye, and do ye, what so euer they saie vnto you, or commaund you to kepe.
Could you not see that Ergo M. Iewel, whiche is to saie, Therefore? Could you not perceiue that Christ made a plaine argument why, and why only the Scribes, and Pharisees should be obeied? The matter goeth as if in moe wordes it had ben thus said: The Scribes and Pharisees be naughtie men, their workes are not to be folowed, they [...]ie heauy and importable burdens, laying them on mens [Page] shoulders, Math. 23. but they themselues wil not so much as once m [...] them with their finger: They do al their workes for a shew. (Thus Christ him selfe doth paint them forth) al whiche notwithstanding, for onely Successions sake, bicause by order of Succession they sit in Moyses chaier, which my father and I haue planted, in respecte thereof doo ye, and kepe what so euer they commaund you to doo and kepe.
Mark the vvord of keeping.Marke that he bindeth the people to obeie the very Scribes for Successions sake, and to obeye them in keeping, and obseruing the former lawes, and rites. To keepe I saye. Beware of that Bishop, who not succeding, but vsurping the Chaier of good men (as M. Iewel doth hauing iustled him selfe into the Chaier of good S. Osmund, and others mo in the Churche of Sarisburie) doth yet commaund the people not to keepe thinges, but to cast them away.These nevv Bisshoppes vvil not the people to kepe their faith, but to chāge their faith. There is no Bishop of this newe Religion, that commaundeth the people to keepe their olde faith, and law: but alwaies he biddeth them to change it. But Christe bad the people to doo that, whiche the Pharisees commaunded them to keepe, and not to folow their deedes. The Pharisees killed Christe, but by keeping their lawes and Orders, they should neuer haue come thereto. If euer place of holy Scripture made for any truth in the Gospel, this place, which M. Iewel bringeth against Succession, maketh for it, and so for it, that it can neuer be auoided. What Doctor euer wrote vpon the holy Scriptures, who might not now be brought for a witnesse of this my assertion? S. Augustine saith, that Christe made the people secure concerning euil Rulers. Ne propter illos doctrinae salutaris Cathedra descreretur, August. Epist. 166. in qua coguntur etiam mali bona dicere. Neque enim [Page 200] suae sunt quae dicunt, sed Dei, qui in cathedra Vnitatis, doctrinam posuit veritatis. Lest for their sakes the chaier of holesom Doctrine should be forsaken, in the whiche, yea wicked men are forced to saie that whiche is good. For the thinges whiche they saie, are not their owne, but Gods, who in the Chaier of Vnitie, hath placed the doctrine of Veritie. And immediatly S. Augustine bringeth forth this texte of Christe, whereupon we now dispute.
S. Chrysostom saith,Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 74. Benefite graunted vnto Succession. Iohannes Sarisburiensis in Polycratico, de Curialiū nugis. li. 6 cap. 24. Platina in Vitis Pontificum. whereas Christ could not make the Scribes and Pharisees worthy of faith for their manners, he doth it à sede Moysi & doctrina, for that they sate in the seate of Moyses, and taught his doctrine. So that, albeit Scribes and Pharisees did sit in S. Peters chaier at Rome (as M. Iewel affirmeth one Ihon of Sarisburie to saie, who in deede saith it not of him selfe, but in familiar talke reported, vnto Adrianus quartus, the Pope, what was bruted abroad by the common people): yet for their Chaier, and Successions sake, they must be obeied. For in the Chaier of Vnitie God hath put the doctrine of Veritie: and in that Chaier euil menne haue benne constrained to saie the Truth, as I could shew at large by the example of Pope Vigilius, who a thowsand yeres past, before he came to be Pope, promised the Emperesse to confirme the Patriarke of Constantinople being an Heretique: but being once in the Chaier of Peter, he chose rather (through Gods grace) to suffer death, then that he would so defile the See Apostolike, as by open bishoply facte, to establish an heretike in a bishoply seate.
Annas and Caiphas touching Succession, vvere as vvel Bishops, as Aaron, and Eleazar.
Harding.
Not fully so wel: bicause perhaps they came to it by Simonie; and yet bicause they were Bishops, and sate in that Chaier, God honoured them, I wisse not for any vertue of theirs, but only for theire Chaiers sake. The honour which God gaue them, was the gift of Prophecie, as it appeareth by that which he gaue euidently to Caiphas, who was the Bishop of that yere. August. tract. in Iohan. 11. Which thing S. Iohn witnesseth in these wordes. Vnus ex Pontificibus Caiphas nomine, cùm esset Pontifex anni illius, prophetauit, quia Iesus moriturus erat pro gente. One of the chief Priestes Caiphas by name, whereas he was Bishop of that yere, prophecied, that Iesus should die for the people. Vpon which place S. Chrysostom saith:Chrysost. In Iohan. homil. 64 Vides quanta sit pontificalis potestatis virtus? Cum enim pontifex esset, licet indignus, prophetauit, nescius tamen quid diceret, & ostantùm Gratia, non autem foelestum cor attigit. Doest thou see, how great the vertue of bishopply power is? For whereas he was a Bishop, albeit vnworthy, he prophecied, yet not knowing, what he said. And the Grace touched his mouth only, but not his wicked hart. And afterward againe.
Quid signat▪ quum esset pontifex anni illius? What meane thes [...] wordes, whereas he was Bishoppe of that yere? Among other this custom was corrupted. For now the hye priesthood was not during life, but made a yerely dignitie, and was geuen yere by yere, from the time that the chieftie was to be solde for monie. Veruntamen etiam [Page 201] sic aderat spiritus. Yet that notwithstanding the holie Ghost (or gift of God) was yet present. Postquàm autem in Christum manus extenderunt, tunc eos dereliquit, & abijt ad Apostolos. But after they extended their handes vpon Christe, then the holy Ghost forsooke them, and went from them to the Apostles.
S. Augustine likewise writeth thus.August. in Iohannē. tract. 49. Hîc docemur etiā homines malos prophetiae spiritu futura praedicere: quod tamen Euangelista diuino tribuit sacramento, quia Pontifex fuit, id est, summus sacerdos. Here we are taught, that euen euil men foretel thinges to comme by the spirite of prophecie, the which thing yet the Euangelist ascribeth to the diuine Sacrament, bicause he was the Bisshop, that is to saie, the high Priest.
If then Caiphas being one of the vilest menne that euer was, and committing the most horrible sinne that can be deuised in murdering Christ, yet for his successions sake, had the gift of prophecie: shal we now geue eare to M. Iewels itching humour, wherein he so reioyseth to recken vp the faultes of the Popes of Rome?
Be it some of them were proude, and some coniurers,The Popes teach truth not vvithstā ding their euil life. or neuer se great sinners besides: yet so long as they sit in Peters chaier (which doubtlesse hath no lesse priuilege, thē Moyses chaier had) we saie, they haue the holy ghost to this effect, that they keeping them selues in the faith of their Predecessours, shal not be suffered to teach vs false doctrine out of the Chaier of Vnitie, whiche Chaier of Vnitie Optatus more then eleuen hundred yeres past, affirmed Peters Chaier to be,Optat. lib. 2. contra Parmen. and reckened vp the Bishops thereof in order til his owne time. Therefore as from Moyses time til Christes Comming, [Page] God of his mercie prouided, that a Bishop, and high Prieste, with other Priestes and Leuites about him, should not faile in Moyses Chaier, whom al men vnder paine of death (as it is said in the booke of DeuteronomieDeut. 17.) were bounde to heare, and obeye: so muche more in the time of Grace, God hath prouided, that in the Chaier of S. Peter (to whom louing Christe more then the other Apostles,Iohan. 21. he consequently gaue Authoritie to feede his sheepe, in suche superioritie aboue the other Apostles, as he loued aboue them): muche more I saie now God hath prouided, that there shal not lacke til Christes second comming a Bishop, or high Prieste in Peters Chaier, with other Bisshops, and Priestes not onely about him in that one Citie of Rome, but also ioyned with him in the same faith and doctrine in manie Countries and Nations together, whose final sentence in matters of faith, and of good manners, who so euer heareth, and obeieth, heareth, and obeieth Christe, but who so euer despiseth the same, he despiseth Christe him selfe. Now I saie to you M. Iewel, what Bishop had your faith with preachers, Ministers, or Deacons about him from age to age, who mighte wittnesse in al generations the Doctrine of Christe, and the ordinarie Succession of the Churche?
Of Succession S. Paule saith to the faithful at Ephesus: I know that after my departure hence, rauening wolues shal enter,Act. 20. and succede me. And out of your selues there shal, (by succession) spring vp men speaking peruersly.
Harding.
I thought so: you haue a succession to, but it is of rauening Wolues. They are your Predecessours, and yee are their Successours. For this saying,M. Ievvel falsifieth the Scripture. as you haue handled it, is yours, and no [...] [...]. Paules. He saith not, that rauening Wolues should succeede him, as your blasphemous penne hath vttered: but he saith onely that after his departure rauening Wolues shal enter in.Scriptures falsified by M. Ievvel.
But he addeth not that they shal succede him (that is your accursed addition) but he saith, non parcentes gregi, which you haue left out. Those rauening Wolues shal not spare the flocke, but shal diuide the faith, and scatter the flocke, as you haue doone. For where one Faith was, you haue made two, and where charitie was, you haue set debate. Now whereas S. Paule farther saith, men speaking peruerse things shal spring out of them selues, he saith not,Act. 20. they shal spring by Succession: That is your foule corruption of the holy texte.
He addeth also other wordes immediatly, whiche you haue leaft out as vtterly betraying your foule Heresies. It foloweth in the selfe same clause and sentence, vt abducant discipulos post se: There shal spring out of your selues men speaking peruerse thinges,Act. 20. to leade away scholars after them. Vt abducant, to lead away. Whence shal they lead them? from the Apostles, and from their Successours, and from the flocke, wherein they liued before. Whither shal they lead them? Post se, after them selues. That is to saie, they shal not keepe the former Succession of Doctrine and order, teaching as their Fathers haue donne, but they shal [Page] departe from that Succession, and shal leade and cari [...] others awaie with them, and become peruerse Teachers, in suche sorte, that they shal haue Disciples of their owne, who shal beare their name: as Luther hath the Lutherans, Zuinglius hath the Zuinglians, Caluine hath the Caluinistes after him, who goe away from their forefathers Doctrine, and them selues set vp a new beleefe, comming in Christes name, and pretending his Gospel, but yet not teaching his truth, bicause thei leaue the Succession, where only his truth was, and is taught. For it onely doth by open practise shewe, and witnesse the true meaning of his worde.
vvho be the leaders avvay of the Flock 3. Reg. 12.This, this M. Iewel is the Succession that we claime by. Tu abducis, you leade awaye the flocke from their auncient Pastours, and shepeherds, we tarie stil behinde in the old Succession of Peters Chaier. Ieroboam went out from Moyses Chaier, and caried ten tribes after him, so did Arius, and so did Luther, so did Caluine, so doo you. The Prophetes taried behind with Moyses Chaier, in so muche that good Simeon, Anna, Zacharias, Elizabeth, and our Ladie the Blessed Virgin Marie, chose rather to dwel in Gods Church with the vnclean scribes, and Pharisees, then to goe out ofter the Samaritans, and to seeke a cleaner Congregation, either in the mount Garizim, or in Egipte in the Scismatical Temple of Onias. Euen so doo we abyde stil in the olde Church, neither are we greatly moued with your mockes, and scoffes, when ye cal it the Mumpsimus Churche. Yea we abide contented with the olde translation of the Bible, with the olde Portuises, and Masse bookes, yea perhappes also emong some Scribes, and Pharisees. But [Page 203] yet there by Goddes grace, we wil looke for our Lords glorious comming, who commended our forefathers to the special charge of Peter,Ioan. 21. and therein vs to his Successours.
We are within the Fold, ye without, we are Sheepe, ye are Goates: we keepe in al that we can, ye drawe away, and pul out al that ye can: we sprang not out of you, but ye out of vs. If S. Paule had spoken of his Successours in that place, he would not haue said, Vt abducant, to leade away scholars. For when some be leadde away, some others tarie behind. Now the Successour, if he abide not behinde, he is no Successour,Nestorius a skatterer of the flock. but a leader away. In so muche that Nestorius being Bishop of Constantinople, yet when he taught otherwise of Christes Person, then his Predecessours had donne, he was then no Successour of Alexander, Paulus, and S. Chrysostome, because he disalowed those his Predecessours, but he was a scatterer of the flocke, and a leader away of Scholars after him selfe, and not after his Predecessours.
Thinke you that any true beleeuing man taketh you M. Iewel for one of the Successours of S. Augustine our Apostle,M. Ievv. no Successour of our Apostle S. Augustine, who conuerted our English nation from Idolotrie to Christe? Are you his Successour? Why, you lead men away from him, and persuade in this your booke, that he was not our true Apostle, nor any true teacher of Gods worde, but a cruel, and blouddy man,1. Ioan. 2. and proud aboue measure. Away Woolfe, and deuoure thy Goates abroade, thou camest from vs, but thou wert not of vs, for if thou hadst benne of vs, thou hadst remained stil with vs. I exhorte al Christian menne to returne [Page] vnto the Succession of Peter, and of al other faithful menne, who abide in the same faith with him.
S. Hierome saith, they be not alvvayes the children of holy men, that (by Succession) haue the places of holy men.Dist. 40. Non est.
Harding.
Double holines.There is a double holinesse, one of life, an other of state, or office. Concerning life, it is true, that many times euil men succede in the place of good. And so meant your Author,M. Ievv. falsifieth S. Hierome. Dist. 40. Nō est facile. as his owne wordes (whiche in the same sentence you haue leafte out) doo witnesse. For thus he saith: Non Sanctorum filij sunt, qui tenent loca sanctorum, sed qui exercent opera eorum. They are not the children of the Saintes, who holde the places of the Saintes, but those who practise the workes of the Saintes. In this sentence you haue leaste out the ende, and haue caste in of your owne the worde (alwayes) and these two wordes (by Succession). And when al is done the sentence is not S. Hieromes, but Gratians owne, added to the former woordes of S. Hierome. Howbeit they are somewhat altered.Hierom. epist. ad Heliodorū For thus saith S. Hierome, Non est facile stare loco Pauli, tenere gradum Petri, iam cum Christo regnantium. It is not an easy thing to stande in the place of Paule, and to holde the Degree of Peter, now raigning with Christe. of whiche ye can take no aduantage against Succession, whereof we treat.
Holinesse of degree and office Ioan, 1.But concerning holinesse of Degree, state, and office, there is the same holinesse in the Successour, which was in the Predecessour. For it is Christe that baptizeth, [Page 204] and that in like ministeries worketh by the euil man, as wel as by the good, so long as the Succession is not broken of, and forsaken. For if that be once done, he that maketh the breache, is not properly a Successour in truthe, but a beginner of errour. As for example: Who wil say that Cranmer was the Successour of S. ThomasCranmer no Sucessour of S. Thomas. the blessed Martyr, or of Bishop Warrham in the Chaier of Cantorburie? I trowe he him selfe would not say it, if he were a liue, seing he succeded not in their Faith, and Doctrine.
Not vvithstanding the Pope him selfe vvil say, as it is before alleged,Dist. 40. Non nos. If the Pope vvant good thinges gotten by his ovvne merites, the good thinges vvhich he hath (by Succession) of S. Peter his predecessour are sufficient.
Harding.
They are sufficient for him to doo his ministerial office towards other, and so to make him holy by office: but not sufficient to make him holy in life.The ministerie of an euil man is auaileable to the effecte of sacramētes, And the place doth euidently shewe, that onely to be the Popes meaning. And I suppose your selfe M. Iewel doo not denye, but that an euil man may doo the office of a good Predecessour, as wel to the peoples saluation in ministring Sacramentes, as a man being neuer so good. Why then skoffe you at the Pope for this saying? What gredinesse of gainesaying is this, to control where no fault is?
The Glose thereupon saith, Petrus fecit Papas haeredes bonitatis suae. Peter made the Popes Heieres of his goodnes by Succession.
Harding.
M Ievvel falsifieth the Glose. In Glosa. Distīct. 40. Non nos.It is not so, but thus: Petrus ad hoc transmisit dotem meritorum cum haereditate innocētiae ad posteros, vt essent haeredes bonitatis suae. Peter made ouer the dowrie of his merites, with the inheritance of his innocencie vnto his Aftercommers, to the ende they might be the heires of his goodnesse. There is oddes betwene these sayinges, Peter would haue them to be heires of his goodnesse, and, Peter made them heires of his goodnesse. The first he might doo, the second he was not hable to doo. For goodnesse commeth onely of God.
Distinct. 19 Sic omnes. in Glosa.Againe the glose saith. Papa sanctitatem recipit à Cathedra The Pope receiueth holinesse (by succession) of his Chaier.
Harding.
He receiueth holinesse of dignitie, degree, and office, but not of life. For that is the very meaning of the lawe, which saith that al the holy Decrees of the See Apostolike are so to be taken, as if they were strenghthened with the diuine voice of S. Peter hem selfe.
Marke, he speaketh of Decrees, but not of good workes. And I trow M. Iewel him selfe doth not denye, but that Baptisme ministred, or the Worde of God preached by Iudas, was as good as that which was done by Peter. Why then scoffeth he (for hitherto he doth none other) but onely to playe his parte?
Iohan. 8. Iohan. 9.Such affiance sometyme had the Scribes, and Pharisees in their succession. Therefore they said, vve are the children of Abrahā. Vnto vs hath God made his promises: art thou greater, then our father Abraham?
Harding.
If the Iewes vsed these wordes in such sense, that how so euer they liued, they should be saued, as being the children of Abraham: it was a naughty sense. But if they had vsed the same wordes against the schismatical places of praier, either of Ieroboam, or of the mount Garizim, or of Onias temple in Egipte: they had vsed them right wel. For as Christe said, Salus ex Iudaeis est, Iohan. 4. Saluation is of the Iewes, and not from the Samaritans, or any other Schismatikes. And so concerning successiō of dignitie, and not of life, they might wel say, vnto vs God hath made his promises. For so in deede he had, but yet with such condition, if they dishonoured not God, 1. Reg. 1.2 and despised not Christe their Sauiour. For in doing so, al the promises made to them were at an ende, bicause God would seeke a newe people to him selfe,Deuter. 32 in case they woulde forsake him, and seeke to them selues a newe God.
But now the Scribes and Pharisees vsed not these woordes against Schismatikes, but against Christe him selfe, whom bothe the olde Prophecies, and his owne marueilous workes witnessed to be the true Messias.Iohan. 5. And yet Christe came euery yere to the Temple, and kepte al the Lawe, and honoured the Scribes, and Pharisees, for that they sate in Moyses Chaier, so that there was now no cause why they should talke of their Succession, and of Gods promises against him, who denied none of them bothe, but mainteined them bothe. For S. Paule said euen after Christes death vnto the Iewes,Actor. 13. To you we ought first to preache the woorde of God, But bicause [Page] ye refuse it, and iudge your selues vnworthy of euerlasting life, beholde we are turned vnto the Gentiles. For so our Lorde commaunded vs. The Iewes then abused them selues against Christ in pretending Succession, and promises, where obedience and faith should haue ben vsed. Euen so if the Pope, or any other Bishop now at the second comming of Christ, would make claime to heauen by his Succession of S. Peter, or S. Iames, he should but deceiue him selfe. But in the meane time any catholike Bishop may lawfully vse the argument of Succession against heretikes, and schismatikes, who runne out from the true Succession of Bishops,3. Reg. 12. as Ieroboam did from the high Priestes of Moyses. It skilleth much M. Iewel how euery place of scripture be applied. For that which serueth very wel against Heretikes, wil not serue at al against Christe.
Ioan. [...].The Pharisees said, As for Christ, vvee knovv not from vvhence he came, or vvhat he can shevv for his Succession.
Harding.
Albeit the Pharisees would not see or heare, what predecessours Christe was hable to shew for him selfe, yet God hath so notably commended the matter of Succession in Christes owne person according to his manhode, that I marueil you would once bringe forth any example thereof, seing it maketh so euidently against you. Christ verely to geue example to al the world, how much they ought to esteme the order, and Succession, as wel of Bishops in matters of Religion, as of Kinges and Ciuile Gouernoures in politike matters, prouided that his [Page 206] line, and succession should be most notable euen from Adam, til his owne Mothers time, the blessed Virginne Marie, as S. Matthew,Matt. 1. Luk. 3. and S. Luke haue testified.
Neither could either the calamitie of the people of the Iewes, or the sinnes of the howse of Dauid by any meanes hinder, but that Christ would come lineally from Abraham, and from Dauid, which thing was written for our learning, and instruction, Rom. 15. to shew thereby that no sinnes of the Bishoppes, nor of the faithful people, shalbe hable to stay, but that his prouidence in gouerning the Churche by his Apostles, and their Successours,Continuance of Succession. Psal. 88. shal continew for euer, accordingly as Dauid hath foretolde at large, saying, If his children forsake my lawe, and walke not in my pathes, if they prophane my righteousnes, and kepe not my commaundementes, I wil visite their iniquities with the rodde, and their sinnes with scourges, but my mercie I wil not separate from them: that is to say, from the seede of Dauid, whiche is meant to be the faithful people,Gal. 3. whiche beare the name of Christians. And to the Apostles Christe said,Matt. 28. I am with you al daies vntil the worldes ende.
If he be with them til the ende, they likewise are in the worlde, til the worldes ende. But they liued not so long in this worlde, therefore it is meant, that from age to age, and from man to man Christe will haue alwayes some to sitte in the Chaieres, and Seates of his Apostles by ordinarie Succession, vntil the worldes ende.
Of this Succession Dauid in the person of Christ spake in spirite, saying to the Church: For thy Fathers, Psal. 44. Sonnes [Page] are borne vnto thee. Thou shalt ordeine them the Chiefe Gouernours ouer al the earth. The Church answereth. I shal be mindeful o Lorde of thy name in euery Generation and Generation, therefore the peoples shal geue praise, and thankes to thee for euer, and from age to age.. So that the cause, why the Churche continueth, are the Gouernours by God appointed vnto it, and as the Churche continueth from age to age, so do they gouerne from age to age. For the Visible Flocke of shepe can not long lacke their Visible shepeheard at any time, but that the Wolues wil enter in, and disperse them a sunder.
VVhen Christ beganne to refourme their abuses, and errours, they said to him,Luc. 20. Mark. 11. Beda in Lucam li. 5. cap. 80. by vvhat povver doest thou these thinges, and vvho gaue the this authoritie? vvhere is thy Succession? Vpon vvhiche vvordes, Beda saith: They vvould haue the people vnderstand, for that he had no solenne Succession, that al that he did, vvas of the Deuil.
Harding.
See vvhat cōueiāce M. Ievv. vseth to helpe his cause.Scarse one line hath passed your handes, into the whiche you haue nor conueied of your owne head, the worde, Succession. Whereas neither S. Luke, nor S Mathew, nor S. Marke, nor S. Paule, nor S. Hierome, nor the Pharisees, nor Bede, whom you allege, vsed that worde at al. But to make your tale sound against Succession,M. Ievv. falsifieth al his testimonies. you driue al to that point: and thereby you falsifie euery place, that you bring, as euery man shal finde, who doth conferre the matter with the Originals: and so al your Defence standeth vpon fialsified Authorities. But our cause (God be praised for it) is so strong,Christes true Succession. that we neede not to care, though al that were true, whiche you allege. For albeit the Pharisees would not harken [Page 207] to Christes Succession, yet in deede he Succeded lineally to al the Kinges, and Patriarkes, and thereby to the Priestes also of the best Order, to wit of the Lawe of nature, and not of the Law of Moyses, whiche was an inferiour Lawe in respecte of that of Nature.
Christ therefore had not onely a most perfite Succession, which is described in the Gospel, from Adam til Ioseph the husbande of the Virgin Marie: but also with that his Succession he stopped al the mouthes of his Enemies. For thus he said to them. VVhat thinke you of Christe, that is, of your Messias, whom you looke for?Matt. 22. VVhose Sonne is he? They say to him, the Sonne of Dauid. Christ saith to them. Psal. 109. How then doth Dauid cal him Lorde in spirite, saying, The Lord hath said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, vntil I put thy enemies, as a foote stoole vnder thy feete: If then Dauid cal him Lorde, how is he his Sonne? And no man was hable to answer him a worde. Neither durst any manne after that daye aske him any moe questions.
Here it is first to be noted, that the Scribes, and Pharisees knew Christ to haue a Succession from Dauid. For his Sonne (they said) he must be. Therefore M. Iewel in making the Pharisees to acknowledge no Succession of his, hath corrupted the texte of the Gospel, and vttered a great Vntruthe. The Pharisees knew, that Christe should succede in the very beste line: but they would not attende, nor consider, how that Succession was now brought to passe in the Sonne of Marie, who being of the howse of Dauid, had miraculously brought forth Christe the perfite ende of the Lawe. So likewise M. Iewel knoweth, that the Churche of Christe [Page] must needes haue a perpetual Succession: but he wil not consider, how it is preserued chiefely in the Chaier of Peter,Ioan. 21. to whom aboue al others the sheepe of Christ were committed.
Wel, Christe then geuing the Iewes to vnderstand, that he succeeded in the line of Dauid,Christ not only the Sonne of Dauid, but also the Sône of God. would haue had them farther to consider, that he also was the sonne of God, and so shewed, that he, who was Dauids Sonne, was also called the Lord of Dauid: his Sonne by flesh, his Lord by Godhed, which thing did put them al to silence. Euen so that weake, mortal, and some time miserable, and sinful man, whome sitting at Rome, M. Iewel despiseth, when he heareth him to be according to the gifte of God, the Vicare of Christes loue (as S. Ambrose calleth him) in feeding his shepe,Ambr. in cōmment. in Luc. c. 24. and the Successour of the chiefe Apostle: he is surely astoined at it, and would be put to silence, if he were not worse, then a Pharisee. For admitting that the Pope were not S. Peters Successour, but onely one of the lowest Bishoppes of Christes Churche: yet who would not woonder to see him keepe his Succession so notably fiften hundred yeres together, wheras al the Patriarkes, and thousandes of Bishops besides, are so mangled, and so brought to nought?
But now if wee adde hereunto, that the same is euen by our enemies confession, and euer was the first See, how muche more ought they to woonder at the special prouidence of God in that behalfe? Therefore euen as it was miraculous, that the line of Dauid was so notably preserued in so many changes, and captiuities of the Iewes: right so may we say of the Bishoppes of Rome, in suche sorte, as smaller thinges doo imitate the greater, [Page 208] and may in their manner be compared to the greater.
Cyrillus frameth the Pharisees vvordes in this sorte.Cyrillus in Cathen. in Luc. 20. Thou Being of the tribe of Iuda (and therefore hauing no right by Succession vnto the Priesthood) takest vpon thee, the office that is committed vnto vs.
Harding.
Here againe you adde these wordes (hauing no right by Succession vnto the Priesthode) of your owne head.M. Ievv. falsifieth Cyrillus by adding vvordes of his ovvne. Howbeit euen there Cyrillus sheweth, that Christe had right by Succession, which you should not haue conceeled, had you dealt truly. For there it foloweth. Sed si nouisses, ô Pharisee, scripturas, recoleres quòd hic est Sacerdos, qui secundùm ordinem Melchisedech offert Deo in se credentes, per cultum qui legem transcendit. O thou Pharisee,Christe had right also by successiō. if thou haddest knowen the Scriptures, thou wouldest remember that this is the Priest, which after the order of Melchisedech offereth vp vnto God those that beleue in him, by a seruice of godly worship, which passeth the law.
Why would you not see those wordes that folowed in Cyrillus M. Iewel? First Christ had a Predecessour in his Priesthod, euen Melchisedech the high Priest. Secondly, Melchisedech is here declared to haue offered vnto God, and that Christ in offering vnto God, fulfilled his figure: whereas you would haue Melchisedech to make his oblation to Abraham, and not to God. Thirdly, the thing offered by Melchisedech, was not only bread and wine, but Abraham the Father of al beleeuers was offered vnto God by Melchisedech: And so Christe in his last Supper offered vnto God, not now bread and wine only: but by his almighty power he turned the [Page] bread into the seede of Abraham, and so he offered vnto God al the faithful, which by reason of their head Christ being truly conteined vnder the formes of bread and wine, were also signified present as members ioined with the head, and so were al offered [...]nto God.
Now whereas Christ was of the tribe of Iuda, that made for him, for out of that tribe the Messias was looked for, by the Succession of the h [...]se of Dauid, as the Pharisees them selues confessed. And thereby they ought to haue vnderstanded, that their Succession from Aaron should yeeld vnto the Succession of Dauid, who had said that his Lorde,Psal. 109. and Sonne, should be also a Priest after the order of Melchisedech. And the Iewes knew, that they ought to haue yelded to their Messias, as to their chiefe head so long before promised.
If you can shew vs M. Iewel, that as Christ was prophecied of to put the Priestes of Aaron out of their places, so Luther, Zuinglius, or Caluine was prophecied of, to destroie the Succession of S. Peter, we yeeld vnto you. But as the high Priestes, and Pharisees were neuer bound to yeeld vnto any mā, but only vnto Christ at his first comming: so S. Peters Successours ought neuer to yeeld, but only to Christ at his second comming. And so by al meanes the Succession is perpetual, and the true Religion neuer lacked it visible and cleare, as this new Religion doth, which for lacke of it can not possibly stand long, no more then that of the Arians, or of the Nestorians did.Sap. 4. For Bastard slippes take not deepe rootes. And therefore though they seeme to florish for a time, yet soone they vanish away. But the Tree, which Christe hath planted, that onely shal endure for euer. [Page 209] That, saie we is the Chaier of Peter, with al suche Successions of Bishops, as keepe them in the vnitie of Peters Chaier.
Chrysostome imagineth the Pharisees thus to say.Chrysost. in Math. Hom. 39. Thou art not of the house of Priestes. The Councel hath not graunted it thee, the emperour hath not geuen it thee.
Harding.
You know this author is not S. Chrysostome, and yet stil you name him so, not so much as addīg,M. Ievvel very ofte allegeth the writer of opus imperfe [...] ctum in Mattheum for Chrysostome, knowing him not so to be. Hom. 39. in opere imperfecto, whereby we might vnderstand whom you meane, wherein of purpose you doo vntruly. Now to the matter. This writter (whether he was Maximinus Arianus, as some auouche, or who so euer he was) doth not onely shew, that the Pharisees might haue had suche thoughtes, but also he sheweth that the signes and the true priesthod agreed al, and mette vpon Christ, who had his power, not of men, but of God. And farther he addeth there in this wise: Sacerdos qui est secundùm Deum, omnem Sacerdotem timet offendere, quia omnes ex Deo fieri arbitratur; quamuis ex hominibus sit factus.
Euery Priest which is of God, feareth to offend any Priest, bicause he thinketh euery Priest to be made of God, although he be made of men. But you M. Iewel thinke no Prieste at al now to be made of God. To be made I say. For you wil graunt none other Priesthod, then that Spiritual and internal Priesthod, which is common to wemen, and children, as wel as to men. As for external Priesthood you thinke none at al to be made, and therfore you despise not only euery Priest made of men, but also you despise the highest Priest of al, to wit the Bisshop [Page] of Rome, and al his predecessours, being aboue thirtie Martyrs, and mo Confessours, and blessed Saintes, that haue sitten in that See, and haue exercised their power ouer the whole Church, as it is wel knowen of S. Clement, Eleutherius, Victor, Stephanus, and others.
The Pharisees wordes may be truly applied to you M. Iewel. For you wil haue no spiritual power to be in the Church, but that which the temporal Counsel, or Emperour,Laie Princes made gouernours of Christes Churche in al thinges ād causes or some like secular Prince doth geue. For these officers haue you made the supreme gouernours of Christes Church in al thinges, and causes. He that saith in al, leaueth out nothing at al, wherein the temporal Prince is not supreme Gouernour. Therefore in your Church it is a good argument, thou maist not doo the office of a Bishop, preach, absolue, or Baptize, bicause thou art not admitted thereto by the Ciuile Magistrate. I wisse they of the Clergie in the Primitiue Churche would rather haue suffered a thowsand deathes, then they would haue submitted the power, which Christe gaue to them, vnto the laie gouernours, who although Christ alloweth them and commaundeth them to be obeyed, yet were not made by him maisters of his Religion, and of his Churche. The power must come from the Apostles by lawful Succession, which shal rule Christes Church, and not from the Emperour, or from the Kinge, muche lesse from a woman, or from a childe, hauing otherwise neuer so good right to thinheretance of a Crowne.
Thus to maineteine them selues in credite, for that they had Succession and continuance from Aaron, and sat [...] in Moyses chaire, they kept Christs quite out of possession.
Harding.
They would haue done so in deede M. Iewel, but he did put them out of possession, bicause they would haue had there priesthod to continue longer, then the prophecies had foretolde, and Goddes Counsel had determined. For the lawe, and Prophetes brought al to Christe, and there was shewed, that a change should be made by him. Bring vs forthe the like Prophecies, that Luther, Zuinglius Caluine, or that lusty Gospeller Beza must put the Pope out of possession, and forthwith by like Miracle bring you to passe, that the whole Churche, (I meane al them that professe the Faith of the Romaine Church) be dispersed, and destroied, as Christ dispersed, and destroied the Iewes: then we wil leaue the Pope, yea Christ also, and follow you, and them, as our second Messias. But if, as from Aaron til Christes first cōming, the High Priestes ought to haue yelded their possessiō to no man that euer came, so from S. Peter til Christes second comming, the Pope S. Peters successour ought to yelde his Chaire to no creature: Then be ye assured,3. Reg. 12. that as Ieroboam setting vp a Succession against the Succession of Aaron before Christ, was a wicked Schismatike, and an Idolatour: so what soeuer King, Queene, or Priest setteth vp a Succession against S. Peters Chaire before Christes seconde comming, is a Schismatike, and shal, without he, or she repent, be damned in hel fire with Idolatours for euer. For S. Peters Chaire to the new Lawe is that, which Moyses Chaire was to the olde Lawe.
The Pharisees said vnto Christ then, euen as M. Harding saith novv vnto vs: VVho euer taught vs these thinges before thee? VVhat ordinarie [Page] Succession, and vacation hast thou? VVhat Bishop admitted thee? VVho confirmed thee? VVho allovved thee?
Harding.
What meaneth this man? wil he take vpon him to be Christ him selfe? I thought he would haue put Luther, Zuinglius,M. Ievvel shevveth vs in him selfe an Image of Antichrist. Caluine, or Beza in Christes place. But he wil now haue it himselfe. Marke his wordes good Reader, thou shalt see a very Image of Antichriste. We must be like the Pharisees, and he must be like Christe: And therefore as Christe did put the Pharisees from their former Temple, Chaire, and Lawe, so we must yelde to M. Iewel. For it was prophecied before for soothe, that as Christe was the ende of the Lawe, so M. Iewel should be the ende of the Gospel. And as al the former Successions of high Priestes, and of Leuites gaue place to Christe, and to the new Order, which he appointed: so must now al the former Successions of the Apostles, and the new lawe, yeld vnto M. Iewel, and vnto the order that he shal take hereafter, in Religion. For he seemeth as it were to say, I am Christe, and M, Harding is a Pharisey. And as the Pharisees asked Christe who euer taught vs these thinges before thee, so M. Harding the Pharisey asketh M. Iewel (who now is become Christ) what ordinarie succession or vocation hast thou? What Bishop admitted thee? who confirmed thee? who allowed thee?
Marke I praie thee good Reader, how it commeth to passe, whiche Christe said before, that many should come in his name, and should seduce many.
There shal arise (saith he) false Christes, and false Prophetes: Math. 24 that is to say, men shal come, who, excepte [Page 211] they attributed to them selues mine owne glorie, authoritie, and power, should not deceiue you. Suche a one is M. Iewel. For I say vnto him in good earnest, that beside Christe him selfe, who was aboue al Succession, and might alter, and change the same, he can haue none other man possibly from Adam the first man, til this hower,No man euer was, or shalbe of auctoritie, to take avvay, or change the lavvful Succession of Bishops. but that lawful Succession of Bishops and Priestes ought to be heard, and followed against that man, what soeuer he were. Cain ought to haue obeied Adam, to haue remayned with Seth, and not to haue constituted a newe companie in suche sort, that there should be one Citie of the children of menne, and an other of the Children of God. Nemrod ought to haue kepte him selfe in the Succession of Seth continewed by Noe, and not to haue made him selfe a Prince by force, by which occasion the faith beganne to be abandoned. Ismaël, and Esau should haue taried in the Succession, and not haue suffered their ofspring the Agarenes, and Edomites, to leaue the olde Religion of Abraham, Isaac, and Iacob. Core, Dathan, and Abyron should not haue forsaken the Succession of Leui and of Aaron. Ioseph lib. 11. Antiquit. ca. 8. Ieroboam should not haue forsaken the Succession of Moyses Chaire: Manasses the brother of Iaddus should not haue forsaken the same Succession, and haue gon to builde a new Temple in the mount Garizim. Iosephus de bello Iudaic. lib. 7. ca. 30. Onias should not haue forsaken the knowen Succession at Ierusalem, and haue built a Temple in Egypte. The Samaritanes should not haue sacrificed but only in Ierusalem. Onely Christe, onely Christe I say, might lawfully according to the prophecies forsake the former ordinarie Succession,Ioan. 21. and electe a newe, as he did saying to Peter, feede my [Page] sheepe. From which howre til the ende of the world, no man what so euer he be, may forsake the Ordinarie Succession of Peter, but must keepe him selfe in the same house of God with him, and his Successours, vntil Christ come againe.
From that Succession departed Marcion, Arius, Eunomius, Nestorius, Pelagius, Eutyches, and briefly al other Heretiques, whiche al haue benne condemned of Peters See, and of al other Bishoppes, that were ioyned and lincked in vnitie of faith and Doctrine with that See. Nowe for M. Iewel to take vppon him Christes owne peculiar office, such as no Patriarke, no Prophete, no Apostle euer had, and to require, that he maie abolishe the Masse, and change the order of the Communion, diminish the number of Sacramentes, and transferre the Order of Succession from the Apostolike See, they can not tel whither, and al this, none otherwise then Christ him selfe did: is not this the proper spirite of Antichrist? Remember your selfe M. Iewel, whiles you haue time to repent. And consider, that either you thinke your selfe to be in very deede the Messias of the worlde, who was annointed only of God, and needed no vocation of man: or els be you assured, that you are bound to holde of the ordinarie Succession, of them I meane, who sit in S. Peters chaire, and are of the same faith, and communion with S. Peters successour.
Therefore good Christian Reader, let not these M. Hardings great vvordes much abashe thee. The Scribes, and Pharisees in the like cases vsed the like language long agoe.
Harding.
Wherefore shal not the Christian Reader be abasshed at my wordes, demaunding of M. Iewel, where his ordinarie succession is? Wherefore I say, shal not the Christian Reader be abashed? Forsoth bicause by like M. Iewel is Christ, or rather better then Christ, who putteth away Christes former Church, and the succession of his Apostle S. Peter, as Christ did put away Moyses former Law, and the Succession of Aaron. Therefore as Christ passed Moyses, in so many degrees must M. Iewel passe Christ, if his doings shalbe iustified. Therefore good reader be not abasshed, if M. Iewel be Christe. But if thou thinke not so, and yet doest thinke in religion as he doth, then be thou worthily abasshed. For surely he is either Christ, who maketh a new Succession of Priesthod, and of Bishops: or Antichrist, who goeth aboute to vndoo the olde former Succession, whiche Christe had established.
Touching the Church of Rome, I vvil say no more at this present, but only that vvas spoken openly by Cornelius the Bisshop of Bitont [...] in the late Councel of Trident. Vtinam non à religione ad superstitionem, à fide ad infidelitatem, à Christo ad Antichristum velut prorsus vnanimes declinassent. VVould God they vvere not al gonne by consent together from religion, to superstition, from saith, to infidelitie, from Christ to Antichrist. These fevv vvordes, considering either the speaker, or the place vvhere they vvere spoken may seme sufficient.
Harding.
If you had considered either the speaker, or the place, so as you ought to haue donne, you might haue benne ashamed, to haue alleged the woordes of a Catholike Prelate for your purpose. For what soeuer [Page] he meant by them, you may be wel assured, he meant not to say, that the Catholique Churche was gonne from faith to infidelitie, or from Christe to Antichrist. Otherwise he him selfe would not haue stil continued in that Catholique Churche, which had seemed to him to haue lacked faith,Cornelius episcopus Bitōtinus and Christe. But nowe the man is knowen in al Italie, and is aliue to this daye, who stil continueth in dayly preaching, and in exhorting al men to flie from your heresies to the Catholike faith, and to keepe them in the Churche: so that his deedes do wel shewe, what he meant by his wordes.
The whiche rule S. Augustine would haue kepte in the vnderstanding of what so euer Writers,A lesson hovv to vnderstande mennes vvordes in matter of Religion Contra epist. Parmen. li. 3. cap. 4. and specially touching religion. And who so euer doth not so vnderstand mennes wordes by their deedes, vpon his blindnesse he cryeth out in this sorte. Incredibilis est coecita hominum, & omnino nescio quemadmodum credi posset esse in hominibus tanta peruersitas, nisi experimento verborum suorum factorúmque patesceret, vsque adeo se clausos habere cordis oculos, vt commemorent sanctae Scripturae testimonia, nec intueantur in factis prophetarum, quemadmodum intelligenda sint verba Prophetarum. It is an incredible blindnesse of menne: and verely I knowe not howe it might be beleeued, that there is suche frowardnesse in menne, onlesse by the proufe of their wordes and deedes it appeared openly, that the eyes of their harte were so fast closed, that they allege the testimonies of holy scripture, and do not consider by the doinges of the Prophetes, how the wordes of the Prophetes are to be vnderstanded.
And straight after where S. Augustine saith those [Page 213] wordes, he sheweth by example, what he meant. Hieremie had written,Hier. 2. what hath Chaffe to doo with the Wheate? The Donatistes thereupon reasoned, that the Catholikes were Chaffe, and them selues Wheate: but, saith S. Augustine by waie of exposition there, did Hieremie, that said, the Iewes were Chaffe, forsake their Church and fellowship? No verely. How so euer then Hieremie the prophete meant, we ought to vnderstand his wordes according to his deedes. And seing as concerning his deedes he liued in one Temple, and faith with them, whom he called Chaffe, we may be wel assured, that by the name of Chaffe, he meant not, that the Iewes had not true Faith and Religion, but only that they had not true Charitie and Obedience.
Euen so if M. Iewel would consider, that the Bishop of Bitonto goeth not from Italie to Geneua, nor to Germanie, nor to England, but both abideth stil in his Bisshoprike, and hath so much preached against these present Heresies of Luther, Zuinglius, and Caluin, that now three whole Volumes of his eloquent Italian Sermons are extant in print: if he would haue considered this, he might haue benne ashamed with such a great brauarie and so ofte to haue alleged a Catholike mannes woordes against Rome the mother Churche of al Catholikes.
S. Augustine calleth it an incredible blindnesse so to doo, and suche as no man would beleeue, except he saw it vsed. But by whom? Verely by Heretikes, who hauing no truth for them, doo stil make vaine bragges and shewes of woordes, when the very deedes of them, whose woordes they bring, are against them. Which thing I stand the longer vppon, bicause M. Iewel hath [Page] vsed this practise aboue a thowsand times in his pretensed Defence.M. Ievvel euery vvhere allegeth their vvordes for him, vvhom by their deedes he vvel knoweth to be against him. Aboue a thousand tymes I say, he hathe alleged the woordes of Schoolemen, Gloses, Summistes, and Canonistes for his purpose, whereas he wel knoweth, they beleeued al suche, as he is, to be detestable Heretiques, and for suche condemned them. Yet must they be brought in, and that so often, so seriouslie, and with suche Preambles, as though he woulde beare the worlde in hande, they were cleare of his side.
Neither did Cornelius the Bisshoppe of Bitonto speake of the Bisshoppes of Rome specially, as M. Iewel would beare the Readers in hande,Bitōtinus in oratione habita in Concil. Tridentino but generally of the Christians, saying, that they haue wandered like sheepe in hilles, and feeldes, and that the chiefe of them are turned from authoritie, vnto Lordlynes, from right, vnto wronge, and would God (saith he) they were not vtterly as it were with one consent, bowed from Religion, to superstition, from faith to infidelitie, from Christ to Antichrist.
Neither doth he say, they are al gonne, as M. Iewel englisheth the woordes.Hovv M. Ievvel falsifieth his allegation. The woorde (al) is not there. Againe he saith not, they are gonne by consent altogether, but, velut prorsus vnanimes, as it were vtterly of one minde. The worde velut, as it were, doth temper his woordes: but M. Iewel hath leafte out velut, and hath put in this worde al, lest if the sentence of that Bishop should be thus tempered, it should not seeme greuous inough.
His meaning was to complaine, as euery good man dayly doth, vppon the vices of menne, who liue as [Page 214] if they had neither Faithe, nor Religion. And that woulde haue appeared most plaine, if M. Iewel had not cutte of the later woordes of Cornelius, vncourteously stopping him from telling out his whole tale. For in the very same sentence it foloweth, A Christo ad Antichristum, quin à Deo ad Epicurum, vel ad Pythagoram, velut prorsus vnanimes declinassent. Would God they had not as it were vtterly with one consent gonne a side, from Christe, to Antichriste, yea rather from God to Epicure, or to Pythagoras. These last woordes, whiche made al plaine, were omitted by M. Iewel, as his custome is, and the authours tale is falsified, and his woordes abused. For any man woulde soone iudge, that they goe not to Epicure, or Pythagoras, to the ende to mainteine the doctrine and opinions, that those Philosophers helde.
Pardonne me good Reader, if herein I seeme to long. For at this tyme I doo but as it were geue thee a shewe, what and howe muche might be said in euery other Article of the Booke, if I thought it labour worthe to discusse them particularly. For I assure thee, in my conscience, there is not any thing in this pretensed Defence, whiche might not be wel and easily answered, were not that it seemeth to me a thing both superfluous so to answere suche heapes of lyes, and gloses, and also an vnprofitable bestowing of good time.
They are gonne from Faith to infidelitie, from Christe to Antichrists.
Harding.
Which they M. Iewel? Did he speake of the Pope [...] of Rome?M. Ievvel odiously layeth that to the Bishops of Rome, vvhiche vvas spoken generally by vvaie of cōplaint of al euil Christiās. You say, touching the Church of Rome, &c. And yet now you bring forth that, which was generally spoken, and that by waie of complaint, of al euil Christians, and not namely of the Bisshops of Rome.
Againe how are they gonne from faith to infidelitie, and from Christ to Antichrist? Verely bicause they are gonne frō God to Epicure, that is to say, bicause many of them liue, as if they had neither faith, nor Christ, nor God. Last of al, he saith not, they are gonne as you falsifie his wordes: but with a moderation, would God they were not gonne: He sheweth him selfe to feare, lest they be gonne: he taketh not vpon him boldly to affirme it, as you doo.
And yet al other thinges failing, they must holde onely by Succession: and only bicause they sit in Moyses Chaire, they must claime the possession of the vvhole. This is the right, and vertue of their Succession.
Harding.
Is it not reason, if secular men hold their kingdomes, landes, goodes, and rightes by Succession, yea when al other rightes, forces, and vertues faile, that Gods Ministers, if they had nothing els leaft, should hold stil their owne also by Succession? It is wel knowen, that the Bishops of Rome haue more then only Succession. For they make good Decrees, they geue answer to great consultations, they cal General, and Prouincial Councelles, they execute the Canons of them, and send forth Preachers, as of late they haue done euen vnto the new found Indies, beside many other godly and vertuous [Page 215] actes, which they exercise for the saluation of their own soules, and of the people.
But what if they had nothing, but Succession? Would you then haue men forsake their folde, and Church? Did Isaias so? did Esdras so? did Iudas Machabeus so? did Zacharias so? did S. Iohn Baptist so? Can you deuise the Popes to be worse then Caiphas, or the Pharisees?Math. 23. And yet Christ willed them to be obeied, albeit they had litle els beside Succession. It is this Succession M. Iewel, which shal lie in your, and in your companions waie at the dredful day of accompte. It shal not be demaunded of euery man, why he studied not the Scriptures, which most men haue not learned to reade: But it shalbe demaunded, why they haue no faith, nor charitie. No faith, by forsaking the open, and knowen Succession: no charitie, by breaking vnitie. Euery man seeth Succession, ignorance can not be pretended, and euery man shalbe iudged by it concerning his Faith.
The vvordes of Tertullian M. Harding, vvhich you haue here alleged, vvere spoken of certaine your ancient fathers, that had raised vp a nevv religion of them selues, as you haue also done, vvithout either vvorde of God, or example of the Apostles, and holy fathers.
Harding.
It is happy that at the length,Here at length M. Ievvel beginneth to ansvver my vvordes: but how, consider. you beginne to answere my wordes. We shal now see, how wel you touche Tertullians meaning. You say his wordes were spoken of certaine my ancient Fathers. That can not be so. For none are in this behalfe my fathers, but those, who loue wel the Succession of Bishops. But Tertullian spake of [Page] those,De Prascription. aduersus Haret. that esteemed the Succession of Bishops, as litle as you do. And therefore they are your fathers, of whom he speaketh: that is to say, they are Heretikes, of whom he speaketh. For in dede no heretike can abide Succession, bicause they would faine iustle out the olde Succession, to schuffle in their new Intrusion.
You say the men, of whom Tertullian speaketh, raised vp a new Religion of them selues, and therein you say truth. You adde, as I also haue donne: but therein you belye me, for ye are not hable to laye any one point of doctrine to my charge, wherein I follow not that old Succession, which abhorreth al new Religion. Let al the worlde iudge, who raiseth vp a newe Religion, you, or I. You say the Heretiques, of who Tertullian spake, raised vp a new Religion without the Worde of God, example of the Apostles, or of holy Fathers. If you meane without the true meaning of Gods worde, you say truth: and then you also are without Gods worde, bicause you are without the Church, whereunto Gods worde with the true interpretation thereof was geuen: and we are not without it, bicause we conteine our selues within the Churche. But if you meane, that these heretikes did not sounde the wordes of the Scriptures in their lippes, as falsely, and withal, as fast, as you doo, then you say not truly. For Tertullian in that booke doth shew, that the Heretikes also appealed to the Scriptures,Tertullian in Prascript aduersus haeret. and he answered, that to striue with heretiques vpon the scriptures, was a thing of vncertaine victorie, bicause one saith, it is not holy Scripture, an other saith, it is holy Scripture, one saith, it is meant thus, an other saith, it is [...]t otherwise. But (saith Tertullian) [Page 216] the interpretation of the Scriptures belongeth to them,It booteth not to striue vvith heretiques about the Scriptures. who haue the true faith, and he concludeth, that they haue the true faith, who haue the perpetual Succession of Bishoppes from the Apostles time til their owne daies.
Scripturas obtendunt, & hac sua audacia statim quosdam mouent. The Heretiques pretende to bring Scriptures for them selues, and with that their impudencie forthwith they shake some. And afterward.Ibidem. Ergo non ad scripturas prouocandum est, nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla, aut incerta victoria est, aut parum certa.
Therefore we must not alwaies appeale vnto the Scriptures, neither must we striue about them, in which either no victorie at al, or an vncertaine, or verely not very certaine victorie is obteined.
Then sheweth he that heretikes of right haue not to doo with the Scriptures, but onely the Catholiques,Heretiques of right haue not to doo with the Scriptures. Tertulliā. Ibidem. to whom the Apostles deliuered them: and not them only, but other thinges also, viua voce, by mouth, and worde, without writing. Si hac ita sunt, constat proinde omnem doctrinam, quae cum illis Ecclesiis Apostolicis, matricibus, et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandam, reliquam verò omnem doctrinam de mendacio praeiudicandam, quae sapiat contra veritatem Ecclesiarum, & Apostolorum, & Christi, & Dei. If this be so, then is it euident, that al such doctrine, as agreeth with those, that are the Apostolique Churches, the mother Churches, and the original Churches of the faith, is to be taken for true, and that al other doctrine is to be adiudged to come of lying, as that which sauoureth against the truth of the Churches, of the Apostles, of Christ, and of God.
Our doctrine proued to be true by the Successiō of the Apostolique Churche.Now concerning our Churches, it is euident, that we agree with the original, and mother Churches, which were planted by the Apostles. For we agree in faith with the Churche of Rome, which was planted by the most blessed Apostles S. Peter, and S. Paule, and alwaies kepte her Succession til this present daie: and therefore our doctrine is true. But you agree in faith with no Churche at al now extant in the worlde, which came from the Apostles: and therefore your doctrine by the rule of Tertullian, is false, and lying.
Whiles he then disputed with Heretikes, as we doo now with you, he said, either these Heretikes confesse, that they beganne since the Apostles time, and they are false teachers: or if any of them dare intrude them selues into the Apostles age, Edant origines Ecclesiarum suarum, then let them bring forth the beginninges, or shew the original euidences of their Churches, let them vnfold the order of their Bishops, so ronning along from the beginning by Succession, that he who is the first Bishop, had for his founder and predecessour, one of the Apostles, or of the Apostolike men, who continued til the ende with the Apostles in the same faith. Hoc enim modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt. For by this way the Apostolike churches do shew forth along their publike registers.
At length hauing brought forth the examples of the Churche of Smyrna, and of the Churche of Rome, and of other like Churches, he concludeth thus confidenly, Consingant tale aliquid Haeretic [...]; let the Heretiques feine some suche matter. He bad them feme, For he wel knewe in truth, they coulde shew no suche Succession.
I haue then shewed that Tertullian spake not of Heretikes, who lacked the pretense of Gods worde,M. Ievvels Doctrine is proued by Tertulliā erroneus for lacke of Succession proued. but of them, who had no Succession of Bishoppes from the Apostles time til their owne age. And one such Succession of Bishoppes in any one Church of al the worlde seing M. Iewel can not bring forth, it remaineth that he is an Heretike, and that his Doctrine is erroneus, false, and heretical.
Tertullian saith not vnto vs, but vnto you, and suche as you be, let them shevv forth the Originals of their Churches.
Harding.
Is that al he saith M. Iewel? Why went you not forth to the next wordes?The Scrolles or rolles of Bishops names. Let them vnfold the order of their Bishoppes. He calleth it vnfolding, bicause the Bishoppes names were vsed to be kept, and written in order in long Rolles, the whiche Rolles must be vnfolded, when they are to be read. He meant not therefore such Originals M. Iewel as you imagine: to wit, particular examples of this, or that facte: but he meant the Original copies, or instrumentes, and euidences of founding, and planting of their Churche, who it was that preached the Faith first vnto them, and who was their first Bishop, who the second, who the third, and so forth vntil the present time.
Euen so vve say vnto you, shevv vs the Originals of your doctrine.
Harding.
You say not euen right so as Tertullian said. For he [Page] called not for the Originals of Doctrine, but of Churches:Originals of Churches. For by the Churches the Doctrine is knowen, to be good or euil, to be allowable, or reproueable.
Shevv vs any one of the Apostles of Christe, or of the learned Catholike Doctours of the Churche, that euer said your priuate Masse. Shevv one at the lest, either Greeke or Latine.
Harding.
It was not that, which Tertullian required. He demaunded only for the Originals of Churches, and for the order and Succession of Bishops. But for that you durst not cal, knowing, that we could shew, how S. Augustine conuerted vs, being sent into England from S. Gregorie the Pope, whiche Pope S. Gregorie succeded S. Peter in his Chaier. Thus we can shew the Originals of our Churches, bringing them from the Catholike Bishops, whiche are yet aliue,M. Ievvslyly diuerteth from the present matter, to an other mater impertinent touching priuate Masse. vpward vntil S. Peter.
But you are fallen away from the matter of Succession, which only Tertullian presseth, and are now come to demaunde of a particular facte, whether any Apostle, or olde Father euer said priuat Masse, or no. I say, al of them might haue said priuate Masse, and that I proue by Tertullians reason, and rule, bicause the vse of saying priuate Masse came to vs time out of minde by Succession, without any change or innouation noted therin by any storie or Chronicle. And yet was ther neuer any strange or new thing receiued and vsed in the Churche, but that great trouble came thereof (as now there doth of your changing of Religion) the whiche trouble of Churches, and common Weales, is at no time omitted in the stories [Page 218] of that age, wherein it falleth. But now seing the vse of saying priuat Masse came so peaseably to vs from hand to hand, and no first author thereof can be shewed: it is out of al controuersie, that it was euer accompted a Godly and a lawful thing.
But what neede I now to repeate that I haue already written in that argument? Answer that parte of my booke better to the purpose then yet ye haue donne, whiche treateth of that point, where many plaine euidences be brought forth of Sole ReceiuingSole Receiuing. in the Primitiue Churche,In my ansvvere, Art. 1. and likevvise in my first Reioindre. Aug. Epi. 165. whiche Sole Receiuing is the onely thing, for whiche you reproue priuate Masse, as you cal it. It is cleare, that S. Chrysostom and certaine others said Masse, and yet had no man to receiue with them, as I haue other where declared. I thinke not good now to fal into that Disputation againe, and therefore here I wil cal you home to the present Argument of Succession.
S. Augustine saith of so many Bishops of Rome, there could not one be found, that had benne a Donatiste: Euen so in like sorte say vve to you, of al the same Bishops of Rome, there can not be one found, that euer agreed vvith M. Harding in saying Masse. Or if there vvere any such, shevv his name, vvith other Circumstances, vvhen, and vvhere, and vvho vvere vvitnesses of the doing. Shevv vs your Originals M. Harding: Confesse the Truth: deceiue vs no longer. It is a nevv deuise: ye haue it only of your selues: and not by Succession from the Apostles.
Harding.
You pretend to reason like S. Augustine, as though he had reasoned vpon a particular facte, and not vpon the Doctrine. Euen so in like sorte, say you, and it is [Page] not euen so, nor in like sorte. S. Augustine concluded, that the Donatistes were Heretikes,S. Augustines example cā not be fitly applied to M. Ievels purpose. S. Augu. speaketh of doctrine, M. Ievv. of a particular facte. bicause no Bishop of Rome taught that doctrine which they taught. And you turne al the mater of doctrine to a manner of doing. It were surely hard to proue, that euer any one Pope, not only of those 38. whom S. Augustine nameth, but also of al the rest til this hower, did say priuate Masse. For if M. Iewel should put me to the proufe, that Paulus tertius, or Pius quartus, Federicus Fregosius that noble and learned Bishop of Salerno, or Bellaius that worthy Bishop of Paris, or any the like, who liued in our time, had said Priuate Masse, and that in such wise, as if I were not hable to shew him, when they said it, where they said it, and who were witnesses thereof, I should not be credited for want of due proufe: I were not hable to proue it, either for that I liued not at Rome, and in the places where they made their abode, or elles bicause, though I liued in those places, I was not so curious, nor careful to know, what they did therin. And so it would followe, by this fond collection of M. Iewels Logique, that euen yet to this daie, no Pope, nor other Bishop, faith priuate Masse, bicause I can not proue it, and shew the circumstance, where, when, and how it was donne.
Thinke you M. Iewel, that the Religion of Christe dependeth vpon any particular facte of menne? Is that your Diuinitie? Al the Popes, and al the Apostles agree with vs in Doctrine, bicause wee can shewe diuerse Churches, whiche haue benne planted of them, and haue kepte from time to time the Religion, whiche they receiued from hande to hande of [Page 219] them. This is our demonstration of the Truthe. This is that, whiche Christe allowed, when he commaunded his disciples to doo, and keepe, that which the Scribes and Pharisees, who sate in Moyses chaire, bad them to keepe and doo. Euen so doo we M. Iewel, we say priuate Masse (so ye wil needes cal it) bicause the Popes, and other bishops, who sit in Peters, and in the other Apostles chaire, doo tel vs, that it is lawful to say priuate Masse. And we doubte not also, but that it hath benne vsed for euer to be said, though the people, either were not present, or being present, would not receiue with the priest, as it is plaine in S. Chrysostome,Chrysost. homil. 61. ad Pop. Antiochē. who stode at the Altare, and did that which belonged to priestly duetie, that is to say, he said Masse, and looked for some communicantes, to come to receiue the communion, but he stode in vaine, for any that would come to him. Yet did he stil come to the altare, when so either the feaste, or his deuotion required.
But vvherefore telleth vs M. Harding this long tale of Succession?
Harding.
Bicause it is a special marke of the true Churche, asLib. 3. cap. 3. Ireneus,De Praescript. Tertullian,Lib. 2. contra Parmen. Optatus, and S.Ep. 165. Augustine doo teach: and your Church hath no Succession that is thirty yeres olde, nor any Bishop at al lawfully planted. But ours hath a Succession of a thowsand fiue hundred threescore and eight yeres, with a great number of Bishops in al countries, and times.
Haue these men their ovvne Succession in so safe recorde? VVho vvas [Page] then the bishop of Rome next by succession, vnto Peter? VVho vvas the second? vvho the third? vvho the fourth? Irenaeus reckeneth them together in this order: Petrus, Linus, Anacletus, Clemens: Epiphanius thus, Petrus, Linus, Cletus, Clemens: Optatus thus, Petrus, Linus, Clemens, Anacletus. Clemens, saith, that he him selfe vvas next vnto Peter, and then must the reckening go thus. Petrus, Clemens, Linus, Anacletus. Hereby it is cleare, that of the first foure bishops of Rome, M. Harding can not certainely tel vs, vvho in order succeded other. And thus talking so much of Succession, they are not vvel hable to blase their ovvne Succession.
Harding.
Here is a deepe consideration, I promise you. What if al writers being sure of these foure Bishops of Rome, yet be not sure who was before other? Is therefore our Succession vncertaine? We are wel assured, that Peter was the first, and after him there was a Second, a Third, and a Fourth. We are also assured, that the same were Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Anacletus. And what skilleth it vnto vs,The true order of the first Popes succeding one another. Damasus in pontificalt. Clemens epist. 1. Tertulliā. De praescr. who was Second, who Third, who Fourth? But now al this busines is ended, if we make a distinction. And that is this.
S. Peter being yet aliue made two Suffraganes, Linus, and Cletus, who might doo the outward busines of his office, whiles him selfe did attende to praier, and preaching. So saith Damasus in the life of S. Peter. Againe when S. Peter saw his death to be at hand, he chose Clement to be his successour, as we reade in S. Clementes epistle, and in Damasus. Yea Tertullian also confesseth, that the Church of Rome sheweth Clement to haue benne ordeined of Peter.
Thus were there three Bishops in Rome, but not three Bishops of Rome, when S. Peter died, of the whiche S. Clement had most right to succede. But he hauing seene before the good experience of Linus and Cletus, did yelde the administration to them, one after the other, first to Linus, and then to Cletus, after whose death Clement him selfe gouerned the Apostolike See. And after him came Anacletus, whom some Greeke Writers tooke to be one with Cletus.
Thus are al matters reconciled.Discussiō of al doubte touching thorder of the first Popes in Rome. Ruffin. in Praefat. ad lib. Recognit. And that not by me onely, but by Ruffinus eleuen hundred yeres past, who also receiued it of his Forefathers. He saith, Quidam requirunt, quomodo, cùm Linus & Cletus in vrbe Roma ante Clementem hunc fuerint episcopi, ipse Clemens ad Iacobam scribens, sibi dicat a Petro docendi Cathedram tradit [...]m [...]cuius rei hanc accepimus esse rationem. Quòd Linus, & Cletus fuerunt quidem ante Clementem episcopi in vrbe Roma, sed superstite Petro, vt illi episcopatus curam gererent, ipse vero Apostolatus impleret officium. Sicut inuenitur etiam apud Caesaream fuisse, vbi cùm ipse esset presens, Zachaeum tamen à se ordinatum habebat Episcopum. Et hoc modo vtrumque verum videbitur, vt & illi ante Clementem numerentur Episcopi, & Clemens tamen post obitum Petri docendi susceperit sedem. Some aske this question, howe Clement him selfe, writing to Iames, saith, that Peter leafte to him the Chaire of teaching, whereas Linus, and Cletus were Bishops in the Citie of Rome before this Clement. Of whiche thing we [Page] haue learned this to be the reason: That Linus, and Cletus were bishops in the Citie of Rome, but in the life time of Peter, to thintent they should take vpon them the charge of the bishops duetie, and he him selfe fulfil the office of an Apostle. We finde that he did the like also at Caesarea, where, though he were present him selfe, yet he had Zachaeus, whom he ordered him selfe, to be the bishop. And thus both may seeme true, to wit, that they were taken for bishops before Clement, and yet that Clement after the death of Peter tooke the place of teaching.
Ruffinus inuented not this solution of him selfe, but he tooke it of others. For he saith accepimus, asmuche to saie, we haue receiued, we haue heard, we haue learned this: so that it was a thing knowen, and taught from the beginning, which yet M. Iewel either knew not, or willily dissembled: As though it were a great hinderance or preiudice to the Emperours Maiestie, if it were vnknowen now, whether Vitellius had ben Emperour before Galba, or Galba before Vitellius: with such toyes he stuffeth his booke.
I might farther say, that Peters See Apostolike vvas ouer the Ievves, and not at Rome ouer the Heathens.Gal. 2. For so S. Paule saith: The Gospel of the Vncircuncision was committed vnto me, as the Gospel of the Circuncision vnto Peter: God that was mightie in Peter in the Apostleship of the Circuncision, was mightie in me emong the Heathens. Therefore if the Pope this day vvil claime only by Peters title, and require no more then Peter had, then must he seeke his Primacie emongest the Ievves, vvhere Peter had his iurisdiction limited, and not at Rome emong the heathen Christians, emong vvhom, as S. Paule saith, he had not much to doe.
Harding.
The lewdnes of this licencious Minister passeth al reason. He excludeth not only the Pope from the gouernement of the whole Churche, but also from his owne Chaire at Rome: neither only the Pope, but euen the blessed Apostle S. Peter. And he thinketh him selfe to haue the Scripture agreable vnto his malicious, and fonde conceite.VVhy S. Peter had to doo at Rome vvith the Gentile Christiās. Mar. 16. S. Peter had to doo with those Christians at Rome, which before had ben Heathens, or Gentiles, for foure special causes. First, bicause he was one of the twelue Apostles, al which had to doo with any Christiā, whether he had ben Iewe, or heathen before. For Christ said to them al, Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to euery creature: that is to say, to men of al nations, were they Iewes, or Gentiles. So that who so euer denieth, that S. Matthew, S. Thomas, or who soeuer els of the Apostles had to doo with the Christians being conuerted from their heathenish Idolatrie, he denieth plainly Gods word. If then euery Apostle had right to exercise any Apostolike duetie at Rome, in case he had come thither: what ignorance is it to say, that S. Peter could not doo that in Rome, which any one of the twelue might lawfully haue donne?
Secondly, Christ him selfe hauing said before,Ioan. 10. that he had other sheepe beside the Iewes, whiche he would bring into his Folde, said afterward to S. Peter, Feede my lambes, Ioan. 21. Feede my sheepe. Seing then the Heathens, or Gentiles, that became faithful, were Christes sheepe, they were commended also vnto S. Peter. And therefore he had to doo with them aboue al other men.
Thirdly, God chose, that is to say, purposely prouided, [Page] that the Gentiles should heare the worde of the Gospel by S. Peters mouth, Actor. 10. & 15. and beleue. Therefore it was the special wil, and choise of God, that S. Peter should haue to doo with the Heathens, that should be conuerted, which is directly against your saying M. Iewel.
VVhen S. Peter came vnto Rome. Euseb. Histor. eccles. lib 2. c. 14. Hierom. in Catalo. VVhen came S. Paule vnto Rome. Euseb. Ecclesiast. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 22.Fourthly S. Peter came to Rome before S. Paule. For S. Peter came thither in the dayes of Claudius the Emperour, as Eusebius, and S. Hierome with diuers others doo witnesse: And there he preached the Gospel: & salutaris praedicationis verbo primus in vrbe Romae Euāgelij sui clauibus ianuam regni coelestis aperuit: and first opened the gate of the heauēly Kingdom in the Citie of Rome with the keies of his Gospel by the word of heathful preaching.
But S. Paule came to Rome long after, in the daies of Nero the Emperour, as Eusebius also recordeth. S. Peter therefore must nedes haue to doo with those Christians, who were conuerted at Rome, no lesse then S. Paule. And thence also S. Peter wrote his first epistle, as Papias one of the Apostles scholars doth witnesse.
Euseb. Histor. lib. 2. cap. 15.Did not you know al this M. Iewel, as wel as I? How chaunceth it then, you are so impudent, as to bring into doubte, whether S. Peters See Apostolike was ouer the Heathens at Rome, or no? You answer, for so saith S. Paule. What, doth he say, that S. Peter was not ouer the faithful Heathens at Rome? He neither saith it, nor meaneth any such thing. His meaning is to shew, that he was made an Apostle not by Peter, or Iohn, or Iames, or by any other man, but only by Iesus Christe. And therefore although three yeres after his conuersion he went to Ierusalem,Gal. 1. Gal. 2. to see Peter, and fourteen yeres afterward he cō ferred with him, concerning the Faith, which he preached: [Page 222] yet neither Peter, nor Ihon, nor Iames did geue him any thing, or make him either the better learned, or endewed him with more power, and authoritie. But rather they ioined handes with S. Paule, and tooke him into their fellowship. Why so? In consideration that they saw, God had no lesse committed to him the preaching of the Gospel vnto the Gentiles, then he had before cōmitted to Peter the preaching of the gospel vnto the Iewes. And how saw they either this, or that? Bicause the effect shewed it so. For as God had wrought mightily emong the Iewes in conuerting them by S. Peters preaching, so they saw that he wrought mightily emong the Gentiles by cōuerting them at the preaching of S. Paule. So that by the very euente of the matter, they saw that S. Paule was called in deed of God to the Apostleship.
S. Paule then meant not in these wordes, that S. Peter by Christes cōmission had to doo only with the Iewes, and him selfe only with the Gentiles.Act. ca. 13. For S. Paule had also to do with the Iewes, and he preached to them in their Synagogs through diuers partes of Asia, and otherwhere: Yea at Rome it selfe, he preached to the Iewes.Act. 28. Shame it is to you M. Iewel, the shame of ignorance I meane, or, (which is more likely) the shame of impudencie if you see not, that both S. Peter had to doo with the Gentiles, and S. Paule with the Iewes, and eche of them with both.
But what saying of holy scripture, or of holy doctour did you euer allege against the truth, without some corruptiō? In S. Paules words you leaft out a smal word in appearance, but yet great of strength. The worde, [...], enim, M. Ievv. corrupteth S. Paule. which in english doth signifie, for. This word (for) geueth great light to S. Paules meaning. For whē he had said, that [Page] the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles was cōmitted vnto him, euen as the preaching of the Gospel to the Iewes was cōmitted vnto S. Peter: least any man should thinke, that he meant of a special commission purposely reserued to him alone by God: he declareth, how that commission might be proued. Qui enim operatus est Petro, For he that hath wrought in Peter in the Apostleship of the Circuncision, that is to saie, of the Iewes, hath wrought in me also emong the gentiles. That same, enim, for, doth make the place plaine. They knew that God had no lesse committed the Gentiles to Paule, then the Iewes to Peter. How knew they it? For he wrought now as mightily with Paule emong the Gentiles, as he had wrought before with Peter emong the Iewes. So that S. Chrysostome wel noteth,Chrysost. in 2. ca. ad Galat. non dixit, postquàm audissent, sed cognouissent, hoc est, ex ipsis didicissent factis. He said not, after they had heard, but after they had knowen: that is to say, after they had learned by the deedes them selues. Marke M. Iewel, marke the deedes them selues. It was now the commission of the deedes, whereby God declared him selfe to haue wrought in them both. But that not withstanding, S. Peter did, might and ought to preache vnto the Gentiles, and to plant, and dispose their Churches, no lesse then S. Paule: And S. Paule might likewise plante, dispose, and order the Iewes Churches. For their right was one, concerning the Apostolike authoritie.
VVhere you say, that according to the ecclesiastical Canons, euer from the Apostles time, Bishops haue euermore ben consecrated by three other bishops, vvith the confirmation of the bishop of Rome,
Harding.
I said, M. Ievv. falsifieth my saying. with the consent of the Metropolitane (which you haue here pared awaie) and Confirmation of the Bishop of Rome. I added also, thus Vnitie hath euer benne kepte, whiche you also haue vntruly leaft out.
As if vvithout him no man might be allovved to be a Bishop, yee should not so vnaduisely report so manifest Vntruth. For I besech you, vvhere be these Ecclesiastical Canons? VVho deuised them? VVho made them? VVho gaue the Pope that singular priuilege, that no Bishop should be admitted in al the vvorlde, but onely by him?
Harding.
Among the Canons of the Apostles, this is the first: Episcopus à duobus, aut tribus Episcopis ordinetur. Let a Bishop be ordered (or made Bishop) by two, or three Bishoppes. These Canons are allowed by the sixth General Councel. Yet can you aske, where be these Ecclesiastical Canons? who deuised them? who made them? By a Decre of Hilarius, no Bishop can be cōsecrated without the Metropolitanes consent. What Consecration could M. Iewel, and his felowes haue, who hath neither Metropolitan at al, nor lawful Bishop to Consecrate them? Howbeit touching this I nede to saie litle: for in the very nexte side of the leafe M. Iewel confuteth him selfe. Where, as one that had quite forgoten him selfe, he saith thus. Our Bishoppes are made in Fourme, and Order, as they haue benne euer, by free election of the Chapter, by the Consecration of the Archebishop, and other three Bishoppes. If this be the Fourme and Order of making Bishops, that hath benne euer, to be Consecrated by tharchebishop, and three other Bishops, why were you so hote against [Page] me, in calling for th'Ecclesiastical Canōs: which you bind your selfe now to shew, or elles you must confesse, that you haue made this new order, that hath not ben euer.
Anacletus In epist. Decret. The Popes autoritie of cō fiming Bishops is of Christ. Ioan. 21.But now concerning the Popes authoritie to confirme Bishops, to omit for this present the olde Canon of Pope Anacletus, which is afterward alleged, and to shew the first author of this mater: Christe, who made Peter the chiefe Pastour of al, and who gaue commission to him louing him more, then the other Apostles did, to feede accordingly as he loued, that is, to feede more then the o [...]her Apostles did: Christe who inspired Peter to goe to Rome, and there to settle the Apostolike See and Chaire of his Bishoply Primacie: Christe, who inspired Peter to make S. Clement, and the other Bishoppes of Rome his Successours, gaue the Bishop of Rome Peters Successour this Priuiledge, that no Bishop ought to be a Bishop without his consent. For what reason can suffer, that any man shal gouuerne any part of those sheepe, whiche are al committed to the Bishop of Rome, without the Bishop of Romes consent, which consent is a Confirmation sufficient to any Bishop for the due gouernmēt of his flocke.
Now this consent of the Bishop of Rome was many wayes knowen. For when soeuer he cōsented to the general order of the catholik Church, to wit, that he should be a Bishop, whosoeuer were laufully chosen by the Clergie,Optat [...]us lib. 2. Communicatorie letters. then his cōsent was geuen generally. And when after the election made, cōmunicatorie letters thereof came to Rome, as to be head place of the Christian Cōmunion, then was the said Bishop specially cōfirmed, and so cōfirmed, that the Pope could not choose but cōfirme him, except he could make any iust exceptiō against him. For as [Page 224] no man ought to gouuerne in the Church without the Popes confirmatiō (when it may cōmodiously be had without impediment) euen so the Pope must nedes confirme those, who are lawfully chosen, except he wil vpon good ground change the gouuernmēt of the Dioces to a more profitable order, as many times it hath ben don. This mater would require a large Treatise. But it is in part handled already in my first booke set forth against the Articles of your Chalēge M. Iew. wher you might haue sene what I alleged, why the Pope should confirme Bishops, so that now this thing should not haue ben so strange vnto you.
I remember your Canonistes haue said,Felin. D. constitut. ca. Canonum statuta. col. 6. ver. fallit. M. Ievvel speaketh as if he had ben a Canonist many yeres agoe. the Pope may make a Bishop only by his vvorde, vvithout any farther Consecration.
Harding.
Do you remember it M. Iewel? It was clearkly spoken forsooth, and in such sort, as if you had ben an olde studēt of the Canō law many a winter past, and that now whiles you had ben occupied in higher maters yet some of these former meditations had come againe to your minde, and worthily. For it was a thing much to be mused vpon of him that occupieth a Bishops place, what Felinus, or Panormitan said cōcerning the Pope. The truth is M. Iewel, you either had this stuffe in some of your Germaine gatherers, or elles it was ministred to you by some of your Cōministers, if not by your blind lawier, whose help you haue bought with a pece of an Archdeaconrie. For you beganne not I suppose to studie the Canonistes, and the gloses of the Law, before you occupied the place of a Bishop, if then at the least you did. But how soeuer that be, your memory might haue ben better bestowed, thē in keping in stoare such a toie. The Canonistes meane, that the [Page] Pope, as being the highest iudge, is not bound to the obseruation of any thing in the law, whiche is only Ceremonial: so that he may dispense with those maters, when he seeth cause, and may with his only worde promote a man to the authoritie of a Bishop, the omission of any Ceremonie notwithstanding. But they speake only of rites and Ceremonies, such as I suppose you your selfe would not, or should not sticke vpon, when either necessitie, or vniuersal profite should require a thing to be spedily donne. As for any point necessary to the Sacrament of holy Orders, the Pope may not omit in any wise.
Panor. de cōstitutiō. translato.And Abbate Panormitane moueth a doubte, vvhether the Pope by the fulnesse of his povver may depriue al the Bishoppes of the vvorlde at one time. But thus they say, that care not greatly vvhat they say.
Harding.
When you had only said that Panormitane moued the doubte, you conclude with, thus they say: as though he had said, that in deede the Pope might depriue al the Bishoppes in the worlde at once. Certainely the mouing of the doubt sheweth him not to say it. For many doubtes be moued, you know pardy, not to the ende men should thinke, that al may be donne, whereof by learned men, a question is moued: but that they may the better carie away the answer. So question is moued emong the Scholemen, An Deus sit, whether God be? not that any man at al doubteth thereof, but to see, how the doubte might be resolued, if any man were so mad as to moue it. Once it is certaine, that the Pope can not depriue al Bishoppes. For although they be vnder him (specially if they [Page 225] do amisse, or nede any helpe) yet they are as truly Bishops, as he is, and are the Successours of the Apostles, who knowing the Primacie to belong vnto S. Peter, did yet make Bishops by Gods ordinance, where so euer they thought it expedient. Aaron was the chiefe emong al the Priestes, and Leuites, yet he could not therfore depriue al the Leuites, and Priestes. And euen so your owne Panormitane, whom you make to doubte, concludeth with these wordes. Quod si papa vellet, c. Translato ex. de Constitut. non posset remouere omnes Episcopos, cum repraesentent omnes Apostolos. If the Pope would, he could not remoue al Bishops, for as muche as they represent al the Apostles. Cal you this a doubting, when he so plainely determineth against that, for which you alleage his doubting?
Verely Nilus a greeke vvriter saith thus:Nilus d [...] primatu Rom. Pontificie. The Bishop of Constantinople doth order the Bishop of Cesarea, and Other Bishops vnder him, But the Bishop of Rome doth neither Order the Bishop of Constantinople, nor any other Metropolitane.
Harding.
It neither much skilleth, what Nilus doth say,Nilus a late vvriter, and mainteiner of the Greekes Schisme. whose authoritie, is so litle worth, being a late mainteiner of the Schisme of the Grecians, and yet though his saying were true, it skilleth also as litle, bicause it speaketh of a matter of facte, and not of power. For he sayth not, that the Bishop of Rome is not hable, or hath not power, to order some Metropolitane, but only that he doth not so, meaning that he vseth not so to doo. And if the not doing proue any impotencie, or vnablenes to doo it, then it maie be said, Christe is not hable to ordeine a Deacon, bicause we read not that euer he did so, by his owne [Page] mouth,Actor. 6. or handes. For Deacons were ordeined by his Apostles after his Ascension. But albeit the Pope vseth not to Order Metropolitanes with his owne handes, yet Nilus I trow meant not, but that he was of power to doo it: or if he was so folish as to thinke so, yet you M. Iewel should not in that behalfe beare the bable with him, as who confesse, that he was euer as great a Patriarke, and much more auncient then the Bishop of Constantinople was: so that the Bishop of Constantinople can not be able to doo that, which the Pope also can not doo.
To be short, you that can cal so many gloses to your remembrance, could you not remember that, as Liberatus, Liberatus in breuiari [...]. ca. 21. recordeth, Anthenius the Bishop of Constantinople being yet aliue, but deposed for heresie, Agapetus that good Bishop of Rome consecrated, and ordered with his owne handes Mennas, who professed the Catholike faith, making him Bishop of Constantinople, in stede of the other heretical Bishop? Are you then so farre to seeke in your Logike, as not to know, that if the Bishop of Rome did lawfully once order the Bishop of Constantinople, that stil he were of authoritie and power so to doo, if nede were?
But hereof I haue spoken more at large in my former Replie to M. Harding.
Harding.
But thereof you are confuted more at large by M. Stapleton in his Returne of Vntruthes vpon you, and yet could you dissemble the matter, as though your fourth Article, and namely that part, whereof here you speake, were not founde as ful of Vntruthes, as of Allegations.
Certainely S. Cyprian vvilleth, that Sabinus, being lavvfully elected,Cyprian. Lib. 1. Epist. 4. and consecrate Bishop in Spaine, should continevve Bishop stil, yea although Cornelius, being then Bishop of Rome, vvould not confirme him.
Harding.
By this a man may know, what a Dodger you are, and whence your great bookes procede. Verely from certaine heretical Notebookes made by some Grāmarians, or Scholemasters of Germanie. For alwaies your allegations, and reportes, come out after the same sorte. If once they conteined an open lye, being neuer so often repeated, they shal stil conteine it: and reason. For they were alwayes written out of one lying fountaine.In the Returne Artic. 4. Fol. 127. M. Stapleton had told you of this very matter before. He shewed, that your note booke is false. It was not Pope Cornelius, but Pope Steuen, who would haue restored Basilides to his bishoprike against Sabinus, who was newly elected in Spaine. But the staye, why Pope Steuens Decree stoode not, was only for lacke of true information in Basilides appeale made to Rome.
Now reason, and lawe sheweth, that when a thing is not done only vpon a certaine cause, that cause ceasing, the thing should be right wel done. Sabinus might continue Bishop not withstanding that Pope Steuen wrote, against him, onely bicause Basilides, for whom the Pope wrote, had deceiued the Pope by false suggestion.
Therefore if a true suggestion had ben made to the Pope, his Decree should haue preuailed, although it extended it selfe as farre as Spaine, and that for [Page] the restitution of a Bishop against him, that was newly elected a Bishop, by the consent of al the Bishops of Spaine. Therefore the Popes authoritie ouer other Bisshops, grounding it selfe vpon a right and true information, was acknowledged in the Primitiue Church.
Dist. 64. cap. fin.In dede touching euery Metropolitanes seueral Iurisdiction, Gratianus noteth thus: Illud generaliter clarum est, quod si quis praeter sententiam Metropolitani fuerit factus Episcopus, hunc magna synodus definiuit Episcopum esse non oportere. This is generally cleare, that if any man be made Bishop vvithout the consent of his Metropolitane, the great councel (of Nice) hath decreed, that such a one may not be Bishop. So likevvise saith Socrates of the Bishop of Constantinople. VVithout the consent of the Bishop of Constantinople let no man be chosen Bishop.Socrates Lib. 7. cap. 28. Here is a right, reserued specially to the Bishop of Constantinople and to euery Metropolitane vvithin his ovvne prouince. But of the Bishop of Romes vniuersal right of Confirmation vve heare nothing.
Harding.
You reason vpon authoritie negatiuely, as though if the Councel of Nice, and Socrates, speake not of that confirmation, whiche belongeth to the Bishop of Rome, therefore there could be no suche. But it appeareth by S. Cyprian in diuers Epistles, that it was the custome in his time for a Bishop newly made, to sende letters to al the other Bishops, intimating his Election. Now as those letters came first, and specially to the Bishop of Rome,Cyprian. Lib. 1. Epist. 3. as fitting (by S. Cyprians owne confession) in the principal chaire, and succeding S. Peter: euen so if the Pope for iuste causes had not receiued the letters, and communion of the said newe Bishop: he then for lacke [Page 227] of the Popes confirmation could not rightly haue enioyed his Bishoprike, as it appeareth by many examples, which would require a discourse ouer long for this place, nor very needeful, sith the confirmation of Bishoppes is not our principal matter, but only the Succession. Yet M. Iewel who remēbreth of olde so much Canon Lawe, may cal to his remembrance, what I haue said in my Answer to the Articles of his Chalenge:In my Ansvver Artic. 4. where I haue shewed, that the Pope had three Legates in the Easte,In epist. Simplicij ad Acatiū. one in Constantinople,In epist. Bonifacij ad Eulalium. the other in Alexandria,Leo epistol. 82. the third in Thessalonica. Whereunto M. Iewel hath replied nothing, as also M. Stapleton hath noted in the Returne.
Now if those Bishops being not only Metropolitanes, but also two of them Patriarkes, were neuer the lesse the Popes Legates: it is easy to see, how the Popes confirmation was geuen to the Bishoppes generally vnder those Primates, seing the Primates them selues were confirmed by him, or els they were not accompted lawful Bishops, for lacke of his cōfirmation,Zonaras in vita Constātis nepot. Heraclij. as it is euident in the exāple of Pyrrhus the Bishop of Cōstantinople, who both was put into his bishoprike by the bishop of Rome, when he had persuaded him, that he was Catholike, and againe was put out by his autoritie, when it was perceiued, that he had dissembled.
Neither doth M. Hardinges counterfeite Anacletus claime al the Bisshops thorough the vvorld, as belonging to his Admission,Epistol. 3. dist. 93. iuxta Sanctorū. but only a parte. These be his vvordes. Omnes episcopi qui huius Apostolicae sedis ordinationi subiacent. Al the bisshops that are vnder the ordering, or confirmation of this Apostolike See.
Harding.
If Anacletus be counterfeite,Anacletus not counterfeite. it is farre from our knowledge. For we found that Epistle in his name, registred emong the epistles of other Popes aboue a thousand yeres past. And Isidorus, who gathered them, found them so intitled, as we reade them. Therefore your slaunderours tongue toucheth not vs.
Ordination, and Confirmation, are diuersConcerning that you accompte Ordering, and Confirmation to be al one, it is a grosse errour both in Grammer, and in knowledge of histories. Ordinatio is ordering, and Confirmatio is confirmation. The Ordering of bishops was done by the bishops of the same Prouince, with the consent of the Metropolitane:Nicen. Concil. ca. 6. But the confirmation was made by other Bisshops also without the Prouince, and specially by the Bishop of Rome, who these many hundred yeres hath confirmed them alone, bicause the vse of communicatorie letters is leaft, and that is reputed don [...] by the whole body, which is done by the head thereof.
Sozom. li. 6. cap. 23.So likevvise vvriteth Damasus to the Bisshops of Illyricum. Par est omnes qui sunt in orbe Romano magistros consentire. It is meete, that al the teachers vvithin the Romaine iurisdiction should agree together.
Harding.
The olde stuffe of M Iewels Replie here repeated.Before you referred these matters to your Replie, as though you would haue said no more thereof, and yet al this while you do but write out your Replie againe. To what purpose you allege these wordes, I cannot tel, as the which make euidently against you, and nothing for you. The Romaine world, or iurisdiction, was both East, and [Page 228] Weast, as farre as the Romaines had conquered, and they had conquered al the countries, wherein al the Patriarchal Sees were placed. If therefore by Damasus you wil proue, that he confirmed al the bishops in the Romaine circuite, surely you proue thereby, that he confirmed the three Patriarkes, of Alexandria, of Antioche, and of Ierusalem with al the bishops vnder them. So wel your owne tale is tolde. And in dede better it can not be tolde, seing euery thing that is true, is agreable with the truth, and therefore what soeuer you falsifie not, must needes proue against you, who susteine the false cause.
Againe, that you say, a Bisshop hath alvvaies benne consecrated by other three Bisshops, vvhether it be true, or no, it may vvel be called in question, a [...] being of your parte hitherto very vveakely affirmed.
Harding.
My affirmation therein is taken out of the fact of the three Apostles, S. Peter, S. Iohn, and S. Iames,Euseb. histor. Eccl. lib. 2. ca. 2 who as Eusebius witnesseth, did consecrate our Lordes brother the first bishop of Ierusalem. And he againe reciteth it out of Clemens Alexandrinus. So auncient was this tradition whereof now M. Iewel doubteth. The same likewise is againe witnessed in the fourth CouncelConcil. holden at Carthage,Cartha. 4 where two bishops are prescribed to holde the booke of the Gospels ouer the Bishops head,Can. 2. whiles the third blesseth him.
Surely Petrus de Palude, De potestate Apostolic. one of your ovvne Doctours, vvould haue told you thus. In the Churche one Bisshop is sufficient to consecrate [Page] another. And it is nothing els but for the solemnitie of the matter, that the Church hath deuised, that three Bisshops should ioyne togeather.
Harding.
Surely you tooke great paines to finde out sumwhat for your excuse, when you forsooke the example of the Apostles, and of the auncient Councelles, and went from S. Peter the Apostle to Peter de Palude for your Defence. And yet he saith nothing, that maketh against vs. For he saith not that any Catholike Bisshop was euer consecrated of lesse then three: but that one sufficeth to consecrate a Bishop. I meant, that in al solemne consecrations it hath ben so, and Petrus de Palude denieth it not, but he saith one sufficeth, and meaneth, that in a case of extremitie one bishop alone may consecrate an other: and the same I denie not. But consider for what purpose I spake it. My talke was directed to you M. Iewel, and your fellowes, who after fifteen hundred yeres in a realme, that hath not lacked Christian pastours, and bishops in it for the space of these thirteen hundred yeres togeather, ought not now to pretend any necessitie, as though three Bishops either in that countrie, or in the next could not be founde, who might solemnize your Ordering, and Consecration.
Likevvise Iohannes Maior an other of your ovvne Doctours vvould haue said vnto you, Quis ordinauit Petrum, &c. VVho ordered Peter,In 4. sentent. dist. 24. q. 3. and made him a bishop? They can not shewe me three Bisshops that ordered him. Therefore I say, that a bisshop be ordered of other three Bisshops, it is an ordināce made by man. For Paule when he ordered Titus, and Timotheus, he sought not about for other two Bisshops.
Harding.
See now againe how farre this man is gonne from the Doctours of the first six hundred yeres. If you wil stand to their iudgement M. Iewel whom you allege,M. Ievvel allegeth the Schoolemenne, vvho are vvel knovven to be altogether contrarie to him. they cō demne you for an Heretike, and a Schismatike, bicause you haue forsaken that Doctrine of faith, and that holy fellowship, wherein they liued, and died. They offered the external sacrifice of the Churche, and taught it to be offered for the liue and dead in Christe, who died for both, and least vs his owne body in a Sacrament to be made and consecrate by the priestes of the new testament, for the application of Christes merites to euery particular faithful man, and for the whole body of the Churche. Seing you say, this is Idolatrie, why seeke you for helpe at their handes, who haue taught vs this doctrine, for which you tel vs, they be in hel? Againe, admit, it be an ordinance of man, that a bishop should be consecrate of three other bishops. Is it therefore in your power to breake euery ordinance of man? It was the ordinance of men, that ye should paye this, or that tribute vnto your prince. May ye therefore cease to paie it at your pleasure?
That, which man ordeined,By what man may the ordinance of man be changed. may in deede be altered by an other man, but he must then be of the same power, that he was of, who ordeined it. The Apostles ordeined, that a Bishop be consecrate of three. An Apostle therefore is not bound to that ordinance. But are you, and your brethren Apostles, that ye take vpon you to alter the Apostolike ordinances? If ye were but the scholars of the Apostles, ye would keepe their Successions, [Page] and follow their steppes. But now whereas they kepte Christian men in one bonde of peace, yee skatter the flocke into so many sectes, as there are proude and vaineglorious men emong you.
VVhereas it farther pleaseth you to cal for my letters of Orders, and to demaunde of me, as by some authoritie, vvhether I be a Priest, or no: vvhat handes vvere laid ouer me, and by vvhat order I vvas made: I ansvver you, I am a Priest, made long sithens, by the same Order and ordinance, and I thinke also by the same man, and the same handes, that you M. Harding vvere made Priest by, in the late time of that most vertuous prince King Edvvard the sixth. Therefore you can not vvel doubt of my Priesthoode, vvithout like doubting of your ovvne.
Harding.
Neither by the same Ordinance M. Iewel, nor by the same man, nor by the same handes, nor in the time of the same late King. How be it, you tel not halfe my tale. I laid for my foundation out of S. Hierome these wordes:Dialog. contra Luciferianos. Ecclesia non est, quando non habet Sacerdotem. Church is there none, which hath not a Priest or Bishop, and such a Priest he there describeth, as may consecrate the Sacrament of the Aulter, that is to say, that may offer External Sacrifice, and such a Bishop he describeth, who may order priestes. For Sacerdos, as you know, doth signifie bothe a Priest, and Bishoppe.Sacerdos, Bishop, or Priest. Nowe S. Hierome there disputed against Hilarius a Deacon, whom being alone in his newe secte, and not hable to offer Sacrifice, nor to make Priestes, it behoued needes to leaue that his congregation without a Priest.
I aske you then as wel of your bishopply vocation, and of your Sending, as of your Priesthoode. Geue me leaue I praie you, here to put you in minde of my wordes once againe. Thus I said,Confut. fol. 57. b. Hard questions proponed to M. Ievvel and yet you haue not answered me. Therefore to goe from your Succession, which ye can not proue, and to come to your Vocation, how say you Sir? You beare your selfe as though you were a Bishop of Sarisburie.
But how can you prooue your Vocation? By what authoritie vsurpe you the administration of Doctrine, and Sacramentes? What can you allege for the right and proufe of your Ministerie? Who hath called you? Who hath laid handes on you? By what example hath he donne it? How, and by whom are you consecrated? Who hath sent you? Who hath committed to you the office you take vppon you? Be you a Prieste, or be you not? If you be not, howe dare you vsurpe the name and office of a Bisshoppe? If you be, tel vs who gaue you Orders? The institution of a Prieste, was neuer yet but in the power of a Bisshoppe. Bisshoppes haue alwaies after the Apostles tyme according to the Ecclesiastical Canons benne consecrated by three other Bisshops with the consent of the Metropolitane,Cut of by M. Ievvel. and Confirmation of the B. of Rome. * Thus vnitie hath hitherto benne kepte, thus schismes haue benne staied. And this S. Cyprian calleth, Legitimam Ordinationem, Cyprian. lib. 1. epistol. 6. Lawful Ordering. For lacke of whiche he denied Nouatus to be a Bishop, or to haue any auctoritie or power in the Churche.
Hereto neither you, nor your fellowes, who haue vnlawfully inuaded the administration of the Sacramentes, [Page] can make any iust and right answer I am sure. *
These being my questions M. Iewel, you answer, neither by what example handes were laid on you, nor who sent you, but only you say, he made you priest, that made me in king Edwardes daies. Verely I neuer had any name, or title of Priesthod geuen to me during the raigne of King Edward. I onely tooke the Order of Deaconshippe, as it was then ministred: farther I went not. So that if you haue none other Priesthoode, then I had in King Edwardes time, you are yet but a Deacon, and that also not after the Catholique manner, but in a Schismatical sorte. Truly after that I had wel considered with my selfe those questions, which in my Confutation I moued vnto you, I tooke my selfe neither for a Priest, nor yet for a lawful Deacon in al respectes, by those orders,Rom. 13. which were taken in king Edwardes daies. For I cō sidered, that, whereas al power commeth from God, most specially the power, whereby the Church is gouerned, commeth from him by Christe. And seing al men know and see, how the power, whereby temporal kingdomes are gouerned, is, and ought to be wel witnessed by lineal descent of bloud, or els by election, and such other vocations, as are among men: and seing that external witnesse, whereby their titles are proued, is both good and necessary: I thought, that it was much more conuenient to graunt, that the power, whereby Christes Churche is gouerned, ougtht to be wel witnessed euen outwardly, [...]. Timo. 3. sithens S. Paule requireth also, that a Bisshoppe, or Priest, should be of a good name emong the Infidels, if he liue with them. And seing Christ came into the worlde to be seene, and to minister, and to institute visible [Page 231] Sacramentes, and to sende visible Preachers:Iohan. 02 I considered, what an absurditie it was, after his Ascension for man to chalenge an Inuisible Churche, or Succession to him selfe.
Furthermore when I vewed the state of the Primitiue Churche, and saw that Bishoppes euermore succeded lineally one after an other, euen from the Apostles time: and had read that same order of Succession to be vrged, and pressed vpon by S. Irenaeus, S. Cyprian, Optatus, and S. Augustine (as is afore noted): And perceiued, that who soeuer forsooke the open and knowen Successiō of Bishops, he was condemned for an Heretike, as wel in the Latine, as in the Greeke Churche: al these thinges being set before myne eyes through Gods grace, who shewed me them: I esteemed not the title of any Ministerie, which I might seeme to haue receiued in King Edwardes time, so muche as I should haue done, if I had receiued it of a Catholique Bishop, and after the order of the Catholique Churche, being wel assured that those, who tooke vpon them to geue Orders, were altogether out of Order them selues, and ministred them not according to the rite and manner of the Catholique Churche, as who had forsaken the whole Succession of Bishops in al Christendome, and had erected a new Congregation of their owne planting, the forme whereof was imagined only in their owne braines, and had not benne seene, nor practised in the world before. Now the same reasons, which with many other moued me, I proponed to M. Iewel, not being wholly without hope, but that through Gods grace they might haue moued him also. And yet he not vnwitting, that I had returned to the vniuersal [Page] [...] [Page 231] [...] [Page] and onely true Churche, and that I had taken a better ground of Priesthod, then his Secte hath, among whom al external Priesthod is vtterly denied: he dissembling al this, wil seeme to be a Priest by my knowledge, and confession, as if he, and I had benne made priestes by the same man.
No, no M. Iewel. We were in parte together, but I thanke God of it, wee were not wholly together. For I was with you with feare of God, and with misliking of many your deedes, and opinions, and with desire to serue God in that Truthe, Religion, and Churche, wherein I might safely reste, and quiet my selfe. In your fellowship I soughte that safe quietnes, but I neuer founde it, bicause my feete were not staied vpon the Rocke, nor vpon anie sure grounde, sith I sawe, what ye misliked, but I sawe not, what ye woulde haue: I sawe, what ye pulled downe, but I sawe not, what ye set vp: I sawe, from what auncient Churche ye were departed, but I sawe you not to goe to any elder societie of faithful men, then your selues were. And yet I knewe, and at the length considered, that Christes Churche must be aboue fifteen hundred yeres olde, whereas your Churche (place it at Wittenberge, at Zuriche, or in what other corner so euer ye wil) is not yet ful fiftye yeres olde, and your firste Preacher can shewe no commission, either ordinarie, or miraculous for him selfe.
These reasons with diuers other moued me: the same also ought to haue moued you. And bicause you can not [Page 232] answer them, you dissemble them, and therefore of your lawful Commission, Vocation, and Sending you speake neuer a worde.
Father, as if you vvere my Metropolitane, ye demaunde of me, vvhether I be a Bishop, or no. I ansvver you, I am a Bishop, and that by the free, and accustomed Canonical Election of the vvhole Chapter of Sarisburie, assembled solemnely together for that purpose.
Harding.
It was no free Election M. Iewel,M. Iewels canonical election to the See of Sarisburie. when the Chapter, whiche chose you, saw, that excepte it chose you, it selfe shoulde be in danger of the lawe, and of the Princes displeasure. It was no Canonical Election, when he was chosen, whom the olde Canons haue iudged vnable for that Vocation.
For howe can he be chosen Bishoppe, that is to saye, highe Prieste, who teacheth, that there is not at al any external Priesthod in the Churche? Howe can he be chosen Bishoppe, that is to saye, highe prieste, who teacheth with the olde condemned Heretique Aerius,Epiphan. Haeres. 75. that by Gods lawe there is no difference betwen a Bisshoppe, and a priest? How can he be lawfully chosen Bishoppe in Sarisburie, according to the olde Canons, who teacheth al the olde Canons to be superstitiouse, wherein from the Apostles time Praiers for the dead were commaunded and prescribed? What Canon can allowe his Election, who breaketh the Vnitie of the Churche, and diuideth him selfe, and his flocke, [...] [Page] Quenes Chappel, let M. Richard Chaundler prebendarie there, and Archedeacon of Sarisburie, let your owne frende and faithfelowe M. Parry Chauncellour of that Churche be demaunded, whether I was present at your Election, and gaue free, and open consent vnto it, or no. I maruel that you, who can remember so many sayinges of Glosers, and Canonistes, could not remember to cal for the Registers booke, or for the witnesse of those of that Church there with you daily present, to vnderstand the truth hereof before you wrote this much. You knew it, you knew it right wel M. Iewel, that both I, and M. Richard Dominike, that Reuerend and vertuous Priest, Prebendary also there (whom in your visitation for the Quenes highnes, ye appointed to be a prisoner, as also my selfe in myne owne house at Sarisburie) vtterly, and with expresse wordes refused to geue our voices, and consent to your pretésed Election. Truly we accōpted it no lesse crime to haue chosen you Bishop of Sarisburie, then to haue chosen Arius, Eunomius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Aerius, Pelagius, or any other the like Heretike. Wherefore reuoke so manie Vntruthes, you haue here vttered with one breath. Your Election was neither free, nor Canonical, the whole Chapter was not present, I was not one of that cōpanie, I gaue not my consent. Now that you haue so impudētly affirmed al this notwithstanding, take heed, (that I may vse your owne wordes) your owne breath blowe not against you, al good and true men blowe not against you, your owne conscience (which is more to be feared) blowe not against you, and before God the true and iust Iudge, blowe not you vpside downe.
As touching the impertinent tales of Ischyras, and Zacchaeus, they touch vs nothing, they vvere none of ours, vve knovv them not. Our Bishops [Page 234] are made in fourme, and order, as they haue ben euer, by free Electiō of the Chapter, by Consecration of the Archbishop, and other three Bishops.
Harding.
These true Histories, not tales, M. Iewel, touch you in this behalfe, bicause Priestes are not so consecrated with you, that they may stand to offer the Sacrifice at the Aulter, as it was reported of Ischyras, that he had done. As for breaking of a Chalice,Athanas. in Apolo. 2. whiche was laid to Macarius charge Athanasius Priest, who pulled Ischyras from the Aulter, for that he tooke vpon him to celebrate the mysteries, being made no Priest by laying on of handes of a Bishop, with you this is a smal faulte. For your felowes haue broken certaine hundredes of holy chalices in these low coūtries, without making any cōscience therof at al.
Moreouer Epiphanius writeth of Zacchaeus, Contra haeret. to. 2. lib. 3. ludenter sancta Mysteria contrectabat, & sacrificia cùm laicus esset, impudenter tractabat. He boldly handled the holy Mysteries, and whereas he was a Laye man, he impudently handled the Sacrifices. What Sacrifices (I praie you) hath your Religion, which a Laye man may not handle, as wel as a Priest? But bicause you haue abandoned al external Sacrifice, and Priesthood, therefore you iudge the example of Zacchaeus belongeth nothing vnto you. Certainely by those examples it is proued, that ye are no Bishops, and so farre they be not impertinent.
Your Bishoppes are made (you saie) in fourme and order. What fourme and order meane you?The fourme and order of these nevv Bishoppes. Meane you the olde, whiche was vsed in the firste fiue hundred yeres, or the newe? In the olde fourme after the Election notise was geuen to the Bishop of Rome, and to al the Bishops of the Church, that such a man was lawfully chosen Bishop within the Church, and not schismatically. [Page] And so al the other Bishops knew by the Communicatorie letters,Cyprian. li. 3. ep. 13. to whom they should sende, or of whom they should receiue such letters. But so ye were not made Bishoppes: If ye were, shew vs to what Bishoppes out of England ye wrote any such letters. After that the custome of those letters became to be out of vse, the only Bishop of Romes Confirmation was in steede of the said notise, and by him surely you were not confirmed. And yet seing he is a Bishop, if ye wil not graunt him the Confirmation, ye ought at the lest, to put him to knowledge of your Election, that he may know you to be men, with whom he may Communicate. But for as much as you wrote not to him in that matter, ye shewe, that ye be no Catholike Bishops. Fot neuer was there any Catholike Bishop in the Church, which did not one waye, or other, shew him selfe to communicate with S. Peters Successour, from the beginning til this daye.
Hovve vvas M. Ievv. cō secrate by an Archbishop, and how the Archbishop him selfe.But ye were made (you saie) by the Consecration of the Archebishop, and other three Bishoppes. And how I praie you was your Archebishop him selfe Consecrated? What three Bishops in the Realme were there to laye handes vpon him? You haue now vttered a worse case for your selues, then was by me before named. For your Metropolitane, who should geue authoritie to al your Consecrations, him selfe had no lawful Consecration. If you had ben Consecrated after the forme and order, which hath euer ben vsed, ye might haue had Bishops out of Fraunce to haue consecrated you, in case there had lacked in England. But now there were auncient Bishops inough in Englād, who either were not required, or refused to consecrate you, which is an euident signe, that [Page 235] ye sought not such a Consecratiō as had ben euer vsed, but such a one wherof al the former Bishops were ashamed.
Our Bishops are made by the admission of the prince: And in this sorte not long sithens the Pope him selfe vvas admitted,Platina in Seuerino Papa. and as Platina saith, vvithout the Emperours letters patentes vvas no Pope, as hereafter it shalbe shevved more at large. Therefore vve neither haue Bishops vvithout Church, nor Churche vvithout Bishops.
Harding.
The admission of the Prince is not reproued of vs,The admission of a man by the Prince to a Bishoprike. when it is done in his place. For it is conuenient, that as in the old time, beside the Clergie, whiche of right did chose the bishop, the people were called to see, who was chosen, and to shew, whether they liked, or misliked him: so much more the Prince, who beareth the peoples person, should haue his place of assent, and consent in naming the Bishop, and in commending him, to the ende he may gouerne his shepe with the more loue, and quiet, when no man withstandeth his Election. And in that sorte it was in deede the custome, that euery Bishop of Rome should expect the Emperours consent, vntil the Emperours them selues partly being content to remitte that custome, did commit al to the Clergie, and partly leafte it by prescription.
Neither was it of late, that this custome ceased, but wel neare seuen hundred yeres ago,In Hadriano. 3. as it may be seene in Platina. But seing your Bishops were neither consecrated by those, who lineally succeded the Apostles, nor haue by your owne confession more power by Gods law then a Priest: you both haue false Bishops without the true Church, and a false Churche without true Bishops. [Page] For the true Church hath Bishops,That a Bishop is aboue a Priest. which by Gods lawe ought to be aboue Priestes, bicause S. Paule writing to Timothee a Bishop,1. Timo. 5. biddeth him not to admit an accusatiō against Priestes without two witnesses, licencing him to admit such accusations, when there are two witnesses. It is his part only to admit accusations against Priestes, who is the iudge of Priestes: and euery Iudge is aboue him, ouer whom he sitteth in iudgement. Therefore a Bishop by Gods lawe is aboue a priest, whose iudge he is allowed to be.Epiphanius har. 75. Which argument Epiphanius bringeth against Aerius the heretike, who said (as now M. Iewel saith) that Priestes and Bishops were equal.
Hieron. ad Euagriū.Againe S. Hierome, who defended that the names of Bishops, and of Priestes were confounded in the beginning, and that the order of priesthod in them was one (both which thinges are true): yet he made an euident difference betwen the power of them, graunting that a Priest could doo al that a Bishop can,Hieronymus aduersus Luciferianos. excepta ordinatione, the ordering, or geuing of holy orders excepted. In that point then he beleued a Bishop to be aboue a Priest. Now say I, such a Bishop, as by Gods lawe is aboue a Priest, as who may only make Priestes, and geue them power to consecrate, and in Christes person to make, and offer vnto God his body and bloud: such a Bishop, or such a Priest you haue not in al your Church, vnlesse they be Apostates, and Renegates, who being once made priestes with vs, haue now denied the faith wherein they were Christened, and are runne out of the Church vnto your false Congregations, and scattered troupes.
Neiter doth the Church of England this daye depende of them, [Page 236] vvhom you so often cal Apostates, as if our Church vvere no Churche vvithout them.
Harding.
S. Hierome said, no Priest, no Church: Aduersus. Lucifer Epistola ad Heliodorum. and by a priest he meant him, that maketh Christes body with h [...] holy mouth, and offereth the same. For these are his own wordes: but such a priest is made only of a Bishop, who is by Gods law aboue him. And such Priestes haue you none besides Apostates. Therfore your Church either is none, or dependeth of Apostates, and Renegates.
They are no Apostates M. Harding, that is rather your ovvne name, and of good right belongeth vnto you.
Harding.
He is an Apostata, who forsaketh the good profession,VVho are Apostates. which he once had. But the profession either of Monkes, or of the Catholikes (whom you cal Papistes) is good and godly. For concerning Monkes, they are the men, who after the counsel of our Sauiour,Matt. 19. professe to geue awaie their goodes to the pore, or forsake the hope of goodes whiche may be had in the world, and follow Christe, gelding them selues, or making them selues Eunuches, for the kingdom of heauen This must needes be a good profession. And as for the Catholikes, they are the onely true members of Christes Church, and none other can be Catholiques beside those, whom you cal Papistes: Bicause none others haue benne alwaies in al places, and al times sith Christes Ascension. And we haue ben so, as our predecessours, [Page] and pastours in the See of Rome, with al other pastours agreeing therewith, doo euidently shew euen to the eye. Therfore who so haue forsaken their profession and rule, as Renegate monkes, and Friers haue, or our Chur [...]h, as those priestes haue, who being rightly ordered in the catholique Churche, communicate now with you they are Apostates, and Renegates.
And wheras you say, that to be my name, and of good right to belong vnto me: there can be no iuste cause to cal me an Apostata, except it be for departing from you. But ye are al Apostates your selues. For it can be named but of what Catholike felowship ye are departed, whom ye leafte behind you (al Italie, Fraunce, and Spaine &c.) who went out with you (a peece of Germanie, Suitzerland, England, and Scotland) and after whom ye went, some after Luther, some after Zuinglius, some after Caluin: Therefore ye are al Apostates. Now when I departed from you, with whom notwithstanding I neuer remained wholly, I departed from Apostates, and came to that fellowship, which neuer forsooke their former faith, nor went out, nor leaft any behind them, who might complaine of their departure, nor had any peculiar Captaines, but onely the Apostles, and their Successours, that folowed them lineally from age to age. Therefore the name of Apostata belongeth not to me, but to you, and to your felowes.
If the Reader say, that we doo but sclaunder one the other, let him consider the reason, and not the wordes. An Apostata is one,The Protestantes be Apostates. who faileth and depareth from some certaine lawful head. We departe from none, but kepe God, Christ, and his Ministerial headdes, Bishops, Priestes, [Page 237] Kinges, and Magistrates. But the Protestantes haue denied al the Bishops aliue in the whole earth, who liued before, and in Luthers time. They haue, and doo, rebel, in al countries for the pretence of Religion. And so they forsake both the obedience of spiritual, and temporal gouernours: therefore they are by al meanes Apostates.
They are for a great part learned, and graue, and godly men: and are much ashamed to see your solies.
Harding.
There is no learning against faith. What learning cal you it, when a man learneth to denie this to be Christes body, which he said to be his body? Or to holde,Matt. 26. that the Church is sometimes hid,Matt. 5. which Christ said to be a Citie built vpon a hil, that can not be hid? What grauitie is this, to be moued and caried out of the Church, and to be tossed, hither and thither, with euery puffe of new doctrine? Nowe to be a Hussite, then a Lutheran, now a Brentian, afterward a Zuinglian, and last of al a Caluinist? Yea what grauitie is it, to defende, that al these sectes may be saued, seing they te [...] contradictorie doctrine, and wil come to no agreement? Concerning our folies, which you say they see, they are folies to worldlynges, and to men wise in their owne eyes: as a man to shut vp him selfe in a Cloister, to watch, to fast, to praye, to liue chaste, to bewaile his sinnes, to geue awaye al his goods for Gods sake, to honour Gods frendes with a due reuerence and worship, to beleue Christ rather then our eyes, and to trust the wit of our Predecessours, rather then our owne: These are in deede our folies, in [...], we glorie, through Gods grace leauing the pride o [...] [...]o [...] [Page] new trāslations of the Scriptures, your Sectes, and wordly wisedom, the breaking of vowes, the liuing in incest, and open filthinesse, with impudent maintenance therof, to your great learning, grauitie, holinesse, and wisedom.
Notvvithstāding if there vvere not one, neither of them, nor of vs leaft aliue, yet vvould not therfore the vvhole Church of Englād flee to Louain.
Harding.
Who euer said, that the whole Church of England must flee, or was fled to Louaine? You kepe some parte of it fast inough from fleeing to Louaine, or any whither els, if the Tower, the Fleete, the Marshalsea, the Counters, the Kinges Beanch, and other prisons in London be hable to kepe men fast. But if you speake of your owne Church, surely you had Apostates, and renegate priestes in it,Aduersus Luciferiā. or you had no Church at al, as out of S. Hierome I shewed before, who saith, no Priest, no Church. And verely no trew Church euer was there without an External and publike Sacrifice, which it might offer to God to acknowlege, that he is the beginning and ende of al grace and goodnes. But where no external Priesthod is (as you now beleue ther is none) there is no external Sacrifice, and cōsequētly no true Church. And seing renegate priestes can not make a true Church, nor their Sacrifice can be acceptable vnto God, yea rather seing they are of the mind and belefe, that it is not lawful to honour God with the external Sacrifice of Christes owne body and bloud leaft to vs for that intent: it doth stil follow, that although ye haue true Priestes which runne from vs, yet haue ye neither true Sacrifice by them, nor true Church.
T [...]rtullian saith, Nonne & laici sacerdotes sumus? scriptum est [Page 238] &c. And vve being laye men, are vve not priestes? it is written,In exhortatione ad Castitatē. Christ hath made vs both a kingdome, and priestes vnto God his father. The authoritie of the Church, and the honour by the assemblie, or Councel of Order sanctified of God hath made a difference betwen the laye, and the clergie, whereas there is no assemblie of ecclesiastical Order, the priest being there alone (vvithout the companie of other priestes) doth both minister the oblatiō, and also baptize. Yea, and be there but three together, and, though they be laye men, yet is there a Church. For euery man liueth of his owne faith.
Harding.
Wonder not M. Iewel (as you confesse that once you did) at your misfortune, and euil lucke, in that by vs a thowsand faultes are sooner fownd in your bookes, then you could wel without blushing (if any shame were in you) note two hundred in myne. For who so euer writeth against the truth, can not possibly bring one word, which for maintenance of an vntruth may be altogether truly applied after the writers minde, out of whome the same is alleged, onlesse that writer were him selfe an Heretike, or in that behalfe by better iudgement noted of some errour. Therefore it is easier to find many thowsand Lyes in your bookes, then any fewe in myne. And as that hath ben shewed in many other examples heretofore, so shal it now appeare most euidently in this, which you bring out of Tertullian.Tertulliā. in exhort. ad castitatem. Mōtanus, and Tertullian cō demned the secōd Mariages.
First, the booke and worke, that you allege, is one of those which Tertullian wrote against the Churche, after that he became an Heretike, and was one of the disciples of Montanus. For as Montanus did condemne the second Mariages, so did his scholar Tertullian: Who hauing corruptly interpreted many places of S. Paule, commeth at the length to proue his heresie [Page] by conferring the olde Testament with the new. Ecce in veteri lege, &c. Beholde (saith he) in the olde lawe, I finde the licence of mariyng ofte to be inhibited. It is enacted in the booke of Leuiticus, Sacerdotes mei non plus nubent, my Priestes shal not marrye any more. But the fulnes of the law, as in other pointes, so in this, was reserued to Christe alone. VVhereupon it was more fully and more streightly prescribed, that those ought bo be of one matrimonie, who are chosen in the Priestly ord [...]r. In so much that I my selfe remember certaine menne for hauing had two wiues, to haue ben remoued from their place (of Priesthod).An obiection of Tertulliā against him selfe. But thou wilt say: Then is it lawful for other menne (to marrie twise) for so much as exception is made against them (to wit against Priestes) to whom it is not lauful (to haue ben twise maried). Hitherto Tertullian hath gon about by the example of the Priestes of the olde and new Testament to shew, that Laye men also may not marrye but once. For in the newe Testament S. Paule would haue them only chosen to Priesthod,Tit. 1. The husband of one vvife who are, or haue benne the husbandes of one wife, that is to saye, haue neither had two wiues at once, nor haue married a widowe, nor haue had two wiues one after an other. For al this doth the Apostle meane, and the auncient Fathers do so witnesse.
Now Tertullian saw euidently, that there was a difference betwen Priestes, and laye menne, whereupon he made the former obiection to him selfe, that the second mariages, which only do staye a man from being Priest, are absolutely lawful for him, who wil be no Priest, but wil remaine stil in the degree and state of laye men. To the which obiection being to strong for Tertullian, it behoued him so to answere, as yet his heresie against the second [Page 239] mariages might be mainteined. So that nowe M. Iewel bringeth forth his heretical answer made vnto a Catholikes argument. Thus then Tertullian goeth forwarde. Vani erimus si putauerimus, quòd Sacerdotibus nō liceat, laicis licere, nonne & laici Sacerdotes sumus? We shal be deceiued (or we shalbe vaine men) if we shal thinke that to be lawful for Laye menne, whiche is not lawful for Priestes. We that are Laye men, are we not Priestes also? And so he goeth forward with that which M. Iewel did allege for his purpose.Double priesthod For wheras there is a double Priesthod, one publike and external, which is onely cōmon to those, that receiue power to consecrate Christes Body and Bloud at the Altare, the other priuate, and internal, which is indifferently common to the Priestes, and to laye men, whereby they al receiue power in Baptisme to offer spiritual Sacrifices vnto God, 1. Pet. 2. as S. Peter saith: Tertullian would haue the argument to be good, that as none are made publike and external Priestes, whiche haue had two wiues, so none who are internal priestes, might haue two wiues. But Tertullian is deceiued in his heretical argument, as wel as M. Iewel is in alleging an heretical authoritie.
Whereupon S. Hierome saith. Montanus, Tertulliā enemie [...]o s [...]cōd mariages. & qui Nouati schisma sectātur, putant secunda matrimonia ab Ecclesiae communione prohibenda, cùm Apostolus de Episcopis & Praesbyteris hoc praecipiens, vtique in caeteris relaxârit, non quòd hortetur ad secunda matrimonia, sed quòd necessitati carnis indulgeat. Montanus, and those who followe the schisme of Nouatus, thinke that the second Mariages ought to be forbidden from the Communion of the Church, whereas the Apostle geuing that commaundement [Page] vnto Bishoppes, and priestes, hath doubteles released it in other men. Not that he exhorteth them to secōd mariages, but bicuase he yeeldeth to the necessitie of the flesh. So that S. Hierome reproueth that very argument of Tertullian, which now M. Iewel setteth forth. And in that very place, S. Hierome nameth Tertullian, as an enemie of second mariages.
But verely the case is not like in Bishops, and Priestes. For euerie man of necessitie is borne a laye man, therefore it were not reason to force him, who could not chose but be a laye man, to marye but once, whereas none are made Priestes, but those that know before hand, that the Apostle willed such only to be chosen Priestes, as are the husbandes of one wife, that is to say, as haue not had two wiues, but either none, or but one. This law being foreseene, causeth it to be no iniurie, to forbid the second mariage, if any man wilbe an external and publike Priest. For he needeth not to be such a Priest, except he him selfe be willing thereunto.
Againe the internal Priest needeth no more, but an internal sanctitie, whiche may be kept in the second mariage, and whereby God is specially pleased, and that bicause he is only his owne Priest. But the external Priest, must also professe an external sanctitie, bicause he beareth the person of the whole Churche, and by his order witnesseth,2. Cor. 11. that the Church (as S. Paul saith) is despoused, or maried to one husband alone, verely to Christ: so that in the internal Priesthod it is inough to haue inward holinesse without any outward signe peculiarly belonging therunto, bicause it is a Priesthod, which is geuen in Baptisme, where the soule is inwardly washed, ād prepared to receiue other sacramentes. But in the external Priesthod [Page 240] there must be also an external signe of holines, bicause that external priesthod is of it selfe a Sacramēt, that is a visible signe of a holy thing wrought inwardly.Internal priest, ād external do differ. ad Heb. 5.
Thirdly the internal Priest hath only to offer his owne spiritual Sacrifices vpon the Aultare of his harte: but the external Priest hath to offer giftes, and external Sacrifices vpō the outward Altare also, for the sinnes of the whole people, as S. Paule saith. Therefore both Tertulliā in this point the Mōtanist, and M. Iewel the Caluinist are in like sort deceiued. The Montanist in making it no more lawful for a laye man to be twise maried, then for him to be made a Priest, who had ben twise maried: The Caluinist in making the internal, and external Priest to be al one. For whereas I reasoned out of S. Hierome, no Priest (or Bishop) and no Church (and S. Hierome meant of suche a Priest, as is aboue a Deacon) M. Iewel would proue out of Tertulliā, that where three Christiā laye men are, there is a Church. I cōfesse where but one Catholike layeman is, there is one of the Church, in which Church there are many external Priestes: but if ther be a thousand layemen belonging to such a congregation, as doth not acknowledge any external Sacrifice, and Priesthod (as the protestantes doo not): there those thowsand neither are the Church, nor of the Church, bicause no Church is without an external Priest, or Bishop, who may offer publike Sacrifice, and also consecrate an external priest.
Tertullian was not of this mind, that there was no external Priesthod: but his errour was,Tertulliās errour. in that he wold haue the internal, and external Priestes to be in like case concerning the second mariages. But otherwise his wordes confesse, that not only the authoritie of the Church, [Page] but also the honour sanctified of God by the assemblie of priestes, Tertulliā. Ibidem. hath made a difference betwen the Order (of priestes) and the laie people. His wordes are, differentiam inter ordinem, & plebem constituit Ecclesiae authoritas, & honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus à Deo. The authoritie of the Church, and the honour sanctified of God by the assemblie of the Order (to wit, of priestes) hath made a difference betwen Order (that is priesthood) and the Laitie.
Two thinges haue made this difference betwen priestes, and laymen, the one is the authoritie of the Church: the other is Christ him selfe: Who beside the authoritie of the Church, by the Sacrament of holy Orders hath instituted this difference of priestes, and of layemen. The sacrament of holy order is geuen,Consecration of a Bishop. whiles God sanctifieth the honour, that is the preferment of him, vpon whom the bishop in an assemblie with many priestes about him laieth his hande.
This Consecration of the bishop, with other bishops, or priestes, Tertullian calleth Consessum ordinis, the assemblie of Order: and the Sanctification of God, is that which is geuen by the Sacrament of Priesthod. For euery Sacrament doth sanctifie the worthy receiuer, as S. Paule namely saith of the Sacramēt of external priesthod vnto his disciple Timothee.1. Tim. 4. Despise not the grace which is in thee, False trā slation, to minister the oblation, for to offer vp Sacrifice. which hath ben geuen thee by prophecie, with the laying on of the handes of priesthod. Now a priest thus made might baptize, and offer Sacrifice, albeit he were alone. But the worde offerre, to offer, M. Iewel turneth, to minister the oblation. But what peruerting of wordes is this? What corruption of the sense? What licencious [Page 241] translation? Speaketh not Tertullian of the action of a Priest? You meane by your ministring of your oblation, that the Priest ministreth to the people that thing, which the people offered to the priest. and so you make the people to offer bread vnto the priest, but the priest to offer nothing vnto God. But Tertullian saith the priest doth baptize, and doth offer, meaning that he offereth to God. But if your sense be true, the people doth offer to the Priest, and not the priest vnto God, and consequently the priest doth not offer at al.
Againe ye demaund of me, vvhat Bishop of Sarisburie euer sithence Augustines time mainteined this doctrine. I might likevvise, and by as good authoritie demaund of you, vvhat Bishop of Rome before the same English Augustines time maintained your doctrine? Or, as I said before, vvhat Bishop of Rome euer before that time, either saide, or knevv your priuate Masse?
Harding.
The questions are not like M. Iewel, there is a thowsand yeres distance betwen them. I demaund of your Predecessours from this day vpward til S. Augustines tyme, who first brought the faith vnto the English nation. But you demaund not from our time to S. Augustines, and so vpwarde: but only from S. Augustines time vpward. Many thinges haue ben, or might haue ben lawfully concluded betwen this and S. Augustines time, which is the space of a thowsand yeres, albeit the same had not ben vsed before, or, not throughly knowen,The Eucharist ministred to childrē at their Baptism. and decided. As for example, the vse hath ben these later thowsand yeres, to minister baptisme vnto children rather without geuing them the Sacrament of the Altare, [Page] then otherwise, and that euen in those Churches, in some of which within the first fiue hundred yeres, the Sacrament of the Aultare was geuen to children at their baptisme. And yet M. Iewel can not saie, that this later custome is worse then the first was, but rather that it is better, as the councel of Trent hath declared.
I demaunde then of any M. Iewels Predecessours in Sarisburie, euen til our Apostle S. Augustines time: but he skippeth ouer these last thowsand yeres, and asketh me of that which was before. Whiche inequalitie not withstanding, I answer to his question, and saie, that al the Bishops of Rome, as wel before S. Augustines time, as sithence, mainteined our Religion. And that I proue, bicause the B. of Rome that now is, Pius the fifth, doth allow our Religion. For we communicate with him, and he with vs. And this present Bishop agreed with his predecessour Pius the fourth, and he againe with Paulus the fourth. And so if we go vpward from man to man, from Pope, to Pope, euen vnto S. Gregories time: we shal find, that concerning any question which is betwen the Protestātes, and vs, there was neuer Pope yet, which disagreed with his predecessours, or aftercommers. For euery one of them doth prayse, and follow. S. Gregorie. Now S Gregorie sent S. Augustine into England, who turned our English nation to the faith: and S. Gregorie him selfe agreed in saith with his predecessours, euen til we come to S. Peter. Neither can it be shewed, whiche Pope did euer breake, or change the vniuersal faith, which was in Rome, or any where els before, concerning either priuate Masse, as you terme it, or any other Article.
If then Pius the fifth, or any Pope els do allow priuate [Page 242] Masse, as it is euident he doth, and the General Councel of Trent with him: certainely euery Pope before him did allow the same. For this Pope agreeth with his predecessours. Or els if vntil S. Gregories time priuate Masse (in such sense as we now dispute of it) had not ben heard of, being so hainous an offence against God, as that whereby the Institution of Christes supper is broken, which Pope so euer had begonne it, he should haue ben noted for his new Inuention, as they haue ben, who haue begonne any change, as in certaine ceremonies some haue done.Platina in vitis Pontifi. For pope Sergius is noted to haue ben the first, that changed his former name: Leo the third was the first, that placed the empire in Fraunce and Germanie: and Hadrianus the third was the first, that chalenged to be pope without the Emperours authoritie, and so forth in many like matters.
But seing M. Iewel can name no man who beganne to saie, or allow priuate Masse, and yet seing it is said and allowed thoroughout al Christendom, it is S. Augustines owne rule, that the said vse of priuate Masse came from the Apostles them selues. For thus he writeth.August. ad Ianuarium. Epist. 118. Quod vniuersa tenet Ecclesia, nee Concilijs institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissimè creditur. What thing the whole Churche keepeth, and hath not ben instituted in Councels, but hath ben alwayes reteined: the same is most rightly beleued to haue ben deliuered none otherwise, then by Apostolike authoritie. Neither M. Iewel, nor any man els can shew vs, which Coūcel instituted first Priuate masse: and the Church from age to age is found to haue had priuate masse, neither can any one man be named, that first said it: therfore priuat Masse, and also the other necessary [Page] pointes of our religion, are most rightly beleued to haue proceded onely from the Apostolique authoritie. Thus I haue answered M. Iewels question. Now let him answer myne.
Touching the Bishops of Sarisburie, you your selfe haue named tvvo, Bishop Shaxton, and Bishop Capon, both learned, and graue fathers, and both preachers, and professours of the gospel.
Harding.
Bishop Shaxton not to be accōpted of M. Iew els syde.Emong the wise, a man is accompted to be suche, as that is, be it good, or euil, wherein he maketh abode, and what thing is done by a man but once, or seldom, and wherein he maketh no continuance, thereof he hath not his name. For example: he is not accoumpted vertuous and iuste, who once or very seldom doth vertuously, or iustly,Aristotel. in Ethicis. Vna Hirundo nō facit ver. Math. 10. but he that doth often so, and stil desireth so to do. This much M. Iewel you shoulde haue learned of Aristotle, who teacheth you, that it is not one Swalow, that maketh the Springtide. After this sense Christe him selfe said, they are blessed, that continue vntil the ende. But Bisshop Shaxton, although he sometime preached certaine partes of your doctrine, as a man being deceiued by Luthers, and the Lutheranes bookes, before he had wel examined them: [...]. yet he continued not in your congregation, but repented him earnestly of it, and reuoked his former vnaduised doinges. If then his iudgement with you be of some accoumpte, his last iudgement must stand. It is said (you know) by the wise, and reason so geueth, that the second thoughtes are better aduised, and of more wisedome. To saie few, it is wel knowen in al therealme, that he died a Catholique, and coulde by no meanes be [Page 243] brought to reuolte to you againe in al King Edwardes time. And so you haue no helpe by B. Shaxton.
Touching bishop Capon, he was neuer in his life wholy of your beleefe,Bishop Capon [...]o Protestant. none otherwise but as euery man most loueth him selfe, and the thinges of the worlde, so he is the more enclined to your side, and hath the more liking of your lewde, fleshly, and licencious Doctrine. And who, that is more carried awaie with the lustes of the fleshe, then is ruled by the aduises of the Spirite, would not be glad to hearken vnto such a fleshly Gospel, and as it were vpon a softe coishon, to leane the elbowes of his loose conscience? Whereby I meane not to accuse that Bishop of any vnknowen crime, but only to shewe, that whiles he was loth to displease the Prince, and glad to please him selfe, and for feare confourmed him selfe to the worlde: he seemed to fauoure sundrie pointes of your proceedinges, and in some parte rather did like vnto you, then beleeued as you do: as it is wel knowen by the order of his life, and specially by his ende, whiche trieth a man best, at what time he shewed him selfe thoroughly Catholique, and hartily repented, that he had euer gonne so farre with you. And bicause he was knowen not to haue ben of your side in harte, he was suffered to keepe his state, and bishoprike in Quene Maries time, when al the Protestantes were remoued from suche roumes.
Thus haue you neither Shaxton, nor Capon for your predecessour, and consequently you are (as S. Cyprian said of Nouatian) Nemini succedens, à teipso ordinatus, Cypria. li. 1. epist. 6. a Bishop succeding no man, but ordeined of your selfe. Which thing would yet haue benne more plaine, if you [Page] M. Iewel had not practized your olde false sleight in cutting of my wordes. For when I had asked whether D. Capon, Shaxton, Campegius, or Audley, or any other bishops of Sarisburie taught your doctrine, I answered thereunto, it is most certaine they did not. How be it I staied not there, but went forward to remoue that your obiection of Capon, and Shaxton, whiche I forsawe you would make: And thereunto I said thus. How so euer those two first named (Capon,M. Ievvel left out al these wordes, bicause thei ansvvered him fully. and Shaxton) onely in some parte of their life taught amisse, how afterward they repented, abhorred your heresies, and died Catholikes, it is wel knowen. Now beside these, whome els can you name?
Al these wordes of myne, you leafte out M. Iewel, as if I had neuer printed them. You leafte them out, not onely by not answering them, but also you did not suffer them to be printed in your booke emong myne owne wordes, leaste you should haue benne answered, before you had replied, as most times you are, as it should appeare, if it would please the Reader, but to vew and peruse my woordes ouer againe, and diligently to conferre them with yours. Which I wish him to doo not only for trial of this point, but also al others, whereof so euer both we haue treated. And he shal say, you were answered before you made the Replie, confuted before you made your pretensed Defence.
But what conscience haue you, that liue, at least mainteine the life of your estimation among them of your Secte, by lying, by dissembling, by cutting of, by adding vnto, by mangling your Doctours, briefly by deceiuing the reader one waie, or other? You were ashamed to haue no predecessour at al in the See of Sarisburie, and to be [Page 244] like Nouatian, or Donatus, and such other the like Heretikes. And therefore you name two Predecessours, both which protested at their death, that you, and al your felowes are Heretikes, and repented, that euer they communicated with you so farre as they did. Thus you come of your selfe, as the Deuil doth, and shal come in his chief member Antichrist. And you come not holding by lineal Succession, nor by lawful Sending, as Christ came, being sent of his father, and being borne of the seede of Dauid, and of Abraham: But you are without Predecessours, and I am sure, if God for our great sinnes forsake not our Coū trie, you shal not long haue Successours.
For the rest of the bishops that vvere before them, vvhat faith they held, and vvhat they either liked, or misliked, by their vvritinges, or sermons, it doth not greatly appeare.
Harding.
What neede wordes, when dedes speake? It is euident, they kepte that, which they receiued of S. Augustine our Apostle, and that, which was before, and afterward beleeued in al Christendome. Thei said Masse, they adoured Christes body in the blessed Sacrament, who doubteth of it? They asked their cōfirmation of the bishop of Rome, and acknowledged him to be the Apostle S. Peters Successour. Therefore they were not your Predecessours, in faith and doctrine, you may be assured M. Iewel.
I trust they held the foundatiō, and liued, and died in the faith of Christ.
Harding.
Now, now M. Iewel you haue bewraid,M. Ievvel be wraith him selfe. what you teach in corners, now that lurking heresie is cropen out, [Page] whereof I spake in my Preface to you before my laste Reiondre touching the Sacrifice of the Masse. There I shewed, that the Catholike Church must be beleeued in al pointes of Religion, and that they were Heretiques, who persuaded them selues, that it was inough to beleeue certaine Articles of the faith, and to let the rest alone, not regarding whether this, or that be true. But what cal you the Foundation of the true faith? You knowe, that al your Predecessours acknowleged the Popes Supremacie, said Masse, and beleeued the doctrine of the seuen Sacramentes, and taught so. Otherwise they had ben noted for Heretikes of others, who liued together with them, as you are of them, who liue with you. Seing then you know they did so, what can you meane by the foundation, but onely the beleefe of the Trinitie, and of Christes birth, death, and Ascension? As though it were inough to beleue those thinges, what so euer become of the reste.
Math. 12. Math. 18. Luc. 10. But Christ saith, he that is not with me, is against me. He that heareth not the Church, let him be to thee as a heathē, and a publicane. He that heareth you, heareth me, he that despiseth you, despiseth me, and him that hath sent me. And S. Paule saith,1. Tim. 3. Iacob. 2. Agust. epistol. 29. ad Hieron. The Church is the piller, and sure stay of truth. And S. Iames, he that faileth in one, is made giltie of all, that is, as S. Augustine expoundeth it, he that faileth or sinneth against Charitie, is giltie of al other faultes. Nowe charitie is broken, if vnitie be broken: and vnitie is broken, if the bishops beleeue not euery Article of the faith expressely, which the Churche teacheth to be expresly beleeued. Therefore either your predecessours were with you, or against you. There is no midle, or meane. [Page 245] With you they were not, bicause they taught seuen Sacramentes, and the Popes supremacie, and the Sacrifice of the Masse, &c. Therefore they were against you. And then ye are the first of that faith and doctrine, whiche now ye teache. You therefore came of your selfe, and are without Predecessours.
If they had liued in these dayes, and seene that you see, they vvould not haue ben partakers of yours vvilfulnesse.
Harding.
These are the wordes of an Antichrist, who seeking to make him selfe equal with Christ, doth vse such Phrases by his wicked members, as Christe did vse concerning his owne person. In deede Christ and only Christ might say such wordes, bicause he only shewed such miraculous workes, that were hable to haue turned Sidō, and Tyrus,Ioan. 2. & 10. or any other hard harted people.
But what haue we seene in these dayes M. Iewel, which would haue ben hable to haue made al your Predecessours to haue yelded vnto your new faith? Haue ye spoken with al tonges, as the Apostles did? Nay ye haue cōfoūded, and dispersed them, as it was done at the building vp of the toure of Babylō. For whereas in holy matters, and specially in the Church Seruice, we seemed to be deliuered from the curse of the Diuisiō of tongues, bicause many nations of diuers lāguages were vnited and knit together in one Latine, or Greeke Church Seruice, you go about to set the worlde againe as farre a part by diuers vulgare tongues, as euer it was before Christes cō ming. Haue ye built vs new Churches, or schooles, or [Page] hospitalles, or colleges? Nay ye haue pulled downe the olde, and defaced them to the vttermost of your power. Haue ye made peace in the earth, and reconciled al dissensions? Ye haue rather diuided the subiecte from his Prince, the child from his father, and the wife from her husband. What is it then, wherein your Predecessours, if they had now liued, and had seene it, would not haue benne so wilful, as we are? They should haue seene in you Diuisions, sectes, factions, pride, wantonesse, fleshly libertie, crueltie, murders, treasons, rebellions, Churche robbinges and to be short al impietie, and contempte of God. Pride accompained with malice, couetise, and lecherie, was the foundation. A foule mouthed Frier, as euer liued on the earth, and a Nūne incestuously coupled together, was the building that rose vp of your doctrine, which to this daie goeth forward, with like increase. And yet if your Predecessours had seene that which we see, they would forsooth haue ben astonned to see the heauenly fruites, which these men bring foorth.
To be short, vve succede the bisshops that haue ben before our dayes, vve are elected, consecrated, confirmed and admitted as they vvere.
Harding.
Here is no lye at al. That I may speake of no other difference, the Bishops, whom you succeede, were al confirmed by the bishop of Rome, and so is none of you.
If they vvere deceiued in any thing, vve succede them in the place, but not in errour.
Harding.
By their place is meant specially their doctrine and [Page 246] beleefe, which seing you haue not, you are not their successour, no more then Paulus Samosatenus the heretique, was the Successour in S. Peters chaire in Antioche, no more then Gregorius the Arian was S. Markes successour in Alexandria, no more then al the Bisshops of Christendome are to be accompted the successours of the Heathnish Priestes, which in the same Cities before worshipped Idols. It is the Doctrine, and place together which maketh the Succession, and not the walles of the towne, Churche, or house alone.
They vvere our Predecessours, but not the rules, and standardes of our faith.
Harding.
As long as they remained in that vnitie of Doctrine, which they receiued of the Apostles, or of the Apostolike Churches, as Tertullian doth wel shew, so long they are presidentes, and their continual Succession is a good rule, and standard of our faith. For they are pillers of the Church, the Successours of the Apostles,Luc. 10. whom he that heareth, heareth Christ. Now when those that breake the Vnitie, which was in the Church before, come to sit in any bishops Chaire, they in deede are no presidentes, no rules, nor standardes of our Faith, bicause the Apostle biddeth vs obserue, and beware of them, 2. Thess. 3. that walke inordinatly, and make dissensions. For the Church of God hath no suche custome to striue,1. Cor. 11. and to resiste at once al the Bishops of the whole Church, as Martin Luther did.
Or rather, to set apart al comparison of persons, the doctrine of Christ this day, M. Harding, succedeth your doctrine, as the daye succedeth the [Page] night: as the light succedeth darknesse, and as the truth succedeth errour.
Harding.
VVhat is the daie, vvhat is the night in M. Ievvelles iudgement.That is to say, your doinges, and proceedinges are the daye, the light, and the truth: but the Catholique faith whiche we teache, and al our predecessours in al the worlde haue euer taught, is the night, the darkenesse, and errour. But sir, if your doctrine be daye, or light, and ours night, or darkenesse: how chaunceth it, that our doctrine was euer openly seene in the whole worlde from the Apostles time vnto these daies, in so many Bishoppes throughout al nations, teaching al one thing, and yours was not sene by your owne confession for nine hundred yeres together? This was a long night pardy M. Iewel. Is it the nature of the light not to be seene? Who sawe not our Altars, our external Priestes, and our Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ in the whole world from East to Weast,Malac. 1. as Malachias prophecied, and the euent shewed?
But your no Aulters, your no external Priestes, and your no sacrificing of Christes body, briefly, the Imaginatiue face of your Negatiue Religion, or rather of your no Religion, who could see, before that now of late ye pulled downe our Aulters, to shewe howe ye had no Aulters, and before violently ye bannished our Priestes, and draue them out of their Churches, to shewe howe ye had no Priestes, and denied Christes Real Presence, to shew how ye had no Sacrifice? Our Munkes, and Friers from S. Ihon Baptistes dayes, and from the tyme of those, that liued a very holy life in Egypte, frō the time of S. Marke the Euangeliste vnto the time of [Page 247] S. Basil in the East, of S. Augustine, S. Benedicte, S. Frauncis and S. Dominike in the Weast, had replenished Christendom with Cloisters, and Monasteries: to those our Monkes, I say, al the worlde beareth witnesse. But your no monkes, Renegates, and Apostates, liued in Turkie, or in Hel: for in the landes of Christendom no such doctrine shined, none suche was heard of, whiche should auouche, that it is not lawful by Gods grace to make a vowe, that a man wil renounce the riches, and pleasures of the worlde, and liue continently, vnder the obedience of a spiritual Father.
If your doctrine be the light, and the daye, howe commeth it to passe, that not so muche as one Churche, or chappel in the whole earth can be named, where before these fiftie yeres it was vnlawful to occupie holy Chrisme in bishopping of childerne, or to saye Masse, or to teache the seuen Sacramentes, to praie for the dead, to celebrate the Churche Seruice in the Latine tongue, to desire the Apostles, Martyrs, and the other Saintes to praie for vs, al which thinges now you accompt for vnlawful? Can the light be so darkened, that it should be vnknowen vnto you, whether ye had any auncestours at al, or no? We can, if neede were, set forth a rolle of our Pastours and Bishops, from this daye vpward vnto S. Peters time in such sort, as you shal name no one time, of whiche we are not hable to saye vnto you, these many prelates, and Pastours were knowen to preache Christes gospel, at once in diuers nations.
Marcke M. Iewel, what I saye to you, and consider of it wel: For herein your vtter Confusion appeareth, that ye are not hable to bring the continuance of your doctrine [Page] vp vnto S. Peters time without interruption, albeit you should be bounde to name for euery fiftie yeres in Order, but one man in the whole worlde at once. Thinke of it with al your witte, and geue me an instance. There are since Christes time fifteen hūdred yeres passed. Geue me for euery hundred yeres two Catholike men, one liuing after the other, whom you may iustifie to haue ben of your faith, holding that doctrine whiche you holde, and so geue me in al but thirtye menne, liuing, and knowen to haue lyued, eche of them about fiftie yeres one after the other, and for my part I wil release you of your bond of subscription.
Such a lightsome Churche ye haue, that 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, [Page 248] 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.
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 l [...]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.
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 t [...]e Councel of three hundred and thirtie Bishoppes assembled at Sinuessa pronounced aboue twelue hundred yeres past.Tom 1. Concil. Primasedes non iudicabitur à quoquā. 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.
Pope Syluester the secōd 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 Pontificū. 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.
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 [Page] of a certaine Canon, as the other copies had not, yet did no man lay to his charge, that he had corrupted the Coū 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 dispositiō, 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 eleuē 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 Returne Article. 4. fol. 30. & sequētib. I think it not good, to stād about it here, bicause the matter is wel handled already by M. Dorman, M. Cope, and M. Stapletō. But you dissembling what they say, go on to mainteine the Successiō of lies in your own generatiō.
Pope Liberius vvas an Arian Heretike.
Harding.
Or els you are an errant sclaūderous lier. The truth witnessed by al sortes of writers, is, that he suffered bannishment by Constantius the Arian Emperour, for the true Catholik faith,Hieron. in Chronicis & in Catalogo. and (as S. Hierome reporteth, being ouercome with the tediousnesse of his bannishmēt, subscribed to the Heresie after a sort, to wit, by setting his hand to the bannishment of Athanasius. For the Popes power was then knowen to be so great, that the Emperour knew the Patriarke Athanasius could not seeme iustly to be deposed, [Page 250] onlesse both other Bishoppes, and specially the Bishop of Rome had agreed vnto it. But when Liberius would not agree to the Emperours vniust request, he was bannished,Theodorit. lib. 5 hist. Tripart. cap. 18. and as Theodoritus witnesseth, he returned home to his See at the request of the vertuous Matrones of Rome, who knew him to be farre frō the Arians heresie, and iudged so wel of him for it, that they would not cōmunicate with Felix, whom the Emperour had placed in Liberius roume. For somuch as no man knew the cause, and state of Liberius better then Athanasius, of al otherlie is chiefly to be heard. His wordes are these.Athanasius in Epist. ad Solitariā vitam agentes. VVhat Athanasius iudged of Liberius. Liberius deinde post exactum in exilio biennium inflexus est, minis (que) mortis ad subscriptionem inductus est. Verùm illud ipsum quoque, & eorum violentiam, & Liberij in haeresim odium, & suum pro Athanasio suffragium, cùm liberos affectus habebat, satis coarguit. Afterward, Liberius hauing passed ouer two yeres in bā nishement, stooped, and by threates of death was brought to subscribe. But that very selfe same facte of his is a sufficient argument, both of their Violence, and of the hatred, that Liberius bore to the heresie (of the Arians) and what his consent, and opinion was concerning Athanasius, at what time he had his desires free, that is, when he might both speake, and do freely, what semed to him most mete and expediēt in that cause. How plaine are these wordes against you M. Iewel? Athanasius, who liued together with Liberius, and knew his whole state, sawe right wel, that the Subscription, which he made, proued him not an Arian Heretik, but rather a Catholike, bicause he subscribed not voluntarily, but violently cōstrained, and that not with a vaine feare only, but also with the present bannishment of two yeres, and farther with the threatninges [Page] of death. Therefore although Liberius sinned greuously in yelding for feare, yet he neither was an Arian, nor preached he their heresie in his Churche at Rome after his returne: but rather repented his deede of subscription, and amended it by preaching, and doing al that he was hable against the Arians, and therfore after his death, Epiphanius calleth him beatum, Epiphan. Haeres. 75 Tripart. lib. 7. c. 23 In Apolog. 2. blessed: and Theodoritus calleth him sanctissimum, most holy.
In an other place Athanasius writeth of him thus. Eximiarum vrbium Episcopi, & capita tantarum Ecclesiarum, et verbis mihi patrocinati sunt, & exilia sustinuerunt, in quorum numero est & Liberius Romanus praesul, qui, quanquam non vsque ad finem exilij maela perpessus est, biennium tamen in ea transmigratione perdurauit, non ignarus sycophantiarum quas patiebamur. The Bishops of famous cities, and the heades of great Churches fauoured me bothe in wordes, and (for my sake also) susteined bannishement. Emong whom was Liberius the Bishop of Rome: who although he suffered not the miseries of bannishement vntil the ende, yet he continued in that place whiche he was carried vnto, two yeres, not vnwitting what were the sclaunders that we suffered.
This Liberius then, although perhaps he subscribed at the length, yet was there neuer good, or honest man, that euer would cal him an Arian, who in dede neuer loued the Arians, but abhorred their opinion. But perhaps (perhaps I say) he was wearye of his long bannishement, and after terrible threates of death being otherwise weake subscribed. Wel maie such a forced subscriptiō argue the lacke of fortitude, certainely it proueth not heresie. For an Heretike doth stubbornely defende his opinion. But [Page 251] Liberius was so farre from defending the Arian heresie, that he could hardly with terrour of death after two yeres banishmēt be forced, to put his hand vnto the booke against Athanasius, which was in deede a derogation to the faith by a cōsequēt, but directly it was not Arianisme.
How seemeth not this wicked generation to spring of the Deuil, sithence it maketh the worst of euery thing, speaking euil of that, which may wel, and ought charitably to be defended? And yet if he had benne an Arian with al his harte, so long as he neuer decreed any thing according to the Arian heresie, nor did set it foorth by publike authoritie of the See of Rome: that should not hurt our matter of Succession.
Pope Leo, as appeareth by the Legende, vvas likevvise an Arian.
Harding.
Here are al thinges stoutely spoken, and nothing proued. There haue benne ten Popes, euery of whiche was called Leo, but none of them al (for ought that can be prooued) was an Arian. But it appeareth by the Legende, say you. What an obscure proufe is this? yet how cleare is the sclaunder? What Legende meane you, M. Iewel? Is it so notable, that it was ynough to say, the Legende, whiche manner of speache we vse, when we speake of knowen thinges? Or were you a shamed to name the authour? Verely onlesse you meane Leo the first, I dare boldly say, you can shewe vs no Legende written of any other Pope of that name. And doth it appeare by his Legende, that he was an Arian? Certainely the contrarie appeareth. That holy and learned Pope bothe [Page] by his owne learned workes,Leo the first farre from al suspicion of Arianisme. wherein he speaketh much against the Arians, and by the witnesse of the fourth General Councel, and of al the worlde besides, is so purged from the suspiciō of that infamous name, that your sclaunder in such a case must needes be most damnable vnto your selfe. Truly me thinketh I lacke wordes to set foorth in due colours the lewd licentious tongue of this Sclaunderer, and yet he alleageth nothing at al for al those hainous crimes, which he imputeth vnto so many innocent and worthy menne.
The vvorthy Legende, by vvhich it appeareth to M. Ievvel that pope Leo vvas an Arian. Iacobus de Voragine.But wilt thou know learned Reader, what a worthy peece of worke it is, that M. Iewel here calleth the Legende, whereby he would proue, that Pope Leo was an Arian? Forsooth there is an old motheatē booke, wherein Saintes liues are said to be conteined. Sometimes it is called Legenda Aurea, sometimes Speculū Sanctorū, sometimes Legenda Lombardica, or Historia Lombardica. Gesnerus of Zurich saith, one Iacobus de Voragine a Black Frier was the author of it. It shal not greatly skil, who was the author of it: Certaine it is, that among some true Stories, there be many vaine Fables written. Among which this is one, that M. Iewel here allegeth in great sadnesse. Neither is this reported of Pope Leo that he was an Arian, in a special Legende written of Leo, but in a Legende of S. Hilarie of Poitiers in Fraunce, whose holy reliques the Huguenotes in their late vproares in Fraunce villanously abused, burned to Ashes, and threw awaie, as likewise the boanes, and Reliques of S. Martine Bishop of Toures, and of that auncient and glorious Martyr S. Ireneus Bisshop of Lions.
That it may the better be knowen, what a worthy [Page 252] Doctor the writer of this Legende was,Historia Lombardica De sancto Hilario. Legendae. 17. Hilarius dicitur ab Altus, & ares. let the beginning of the same Legende be taken as it were for a taste, where ful Clerckely discussing the Etymologie, and first original of S. Hilaries name, thus he saith. Dicitur Hilarius, quasi Alarius, ab Altus, & Ares, virtus: quia fuit alius in scientia, & virtuosus in vita. Vel Hilarius dicitur ab ile, quod est quasi primordialis materia, quae obscura fuit. Et ipse in dictis suis magnam habet obscuritatem, & profunditatem. Of such geare the Reader may finde great stoare there, when so euer he is disposed to lawgh.
Now let vs heare the Legende, or rather the Fable, by which it appeareth to M. Iewel, that Pope Leo was an Arian. Thus it is tolde word by word. Eo tempore Leo Papa haereticorum perfidia deprauatus, &c. At that time Pope Leo corrupted with the false beleefe of Heretikes, assembled a Councel of al the bishops. They being called together, Hilarius came in amōgest them not sent for. Which thing when the Pope (Leo) hearde of, he commaunded, that no mā should rise vp vnto him, nor geue him place. When he was come in, the Pope said vnto him. Arte thou Hilarius the Frenche man? I am not a Frenche man, quod he, but one of Fraunce. that is to say, I am not borne in Fraunce, I am a Bishop of Fraunce. Then said the Pope, If thou be Hilarie of Fraunce, I am the Bishop of the Romaine See, and Iudge. Then said Hilarius: Although thou be Leo (that is to say, Lion) yet thou arte not the Lion of the tribe of Iuda. And though thou sitte as iudge, yet thou sittest not in the Seate of Maiestie. At that the Pope (Leo) arose with disdaine, saying, Abide a while, til I come againe, and paie thee that thou deseruest. To whom Hilarius answered. If thou come [Page] not againe, who shal make answer vnto me in thy steede? I wil come againe by and by, quod he, and wil bring downe thy pride.
When the Pope was gonne to do the secrete busines of nature, he died of a dysenterie, and auoiding foorth at the Pryuey al his entrailes, he ended his life miserably. In the meane ceason Hilarie seeing, that none woulde rise vp vnto him, tooke pacience, and setting him selfe downe on the grownde, saied: Domini est terra. Our Lordes is the earth. And therewith the earth by the wil of God, whereon he sate, lifted it selfe vp, and stoode vp equal with the seates of the other Bishops. Hereupon when tidinges came that the Pope was dead miserably, Hilarie arose, and confirmed al the Bishoppes in the Catholique Faith, and so sent them home. This is the wise Legende, by which it appeareth to M. Iewel, that Pope Leo was an Arian Heretique.
To let passe the other folies of this Fable, what a vanitie is it to make Leo the Pope, and S. Hilarie the Bisshop of Poitiers, thus to braule together at an assemblie of Bishoppes, whereas it is most certaine, that S. Hilarie died at least one hundred yeres, before Leo was borne? M. Iewel should not so falsly haue conceeled, what followeth immediatly in the same Legende, whereby this tale is discredited. For thus saith the authour him selfe. Hoc autem miraculum de morte Leonis Papae dubitationem habet, tum quia historia Ecclesiastica, vel Tripartita nihil de hoc loquitur: tum quia aliquem Papam talis nominis tunc fuisse, Chronica non testatur: tum quia Hieronymus dicit, quòd Sancta Romana Ecclesia semper immaculata permansit, & in futuro manebit sine Haereticorum in sultatione. But of [Page 253] this miracle of Leos death it is doubted, partly bicause neither the Ecclesiastical, nor the Tripartite storie speaketh of it: partly bicause the Chronicle witnesseth not, that there was any Pope then of that name:S. Hieromes testimonie for the Churche of Rome out of his ovvne Doctor. also bicause S. Hierome saith, that the holy Romaine Churche hath euer continued vnspotted, and so shal continue for tyme to come, that Heretiques shal haue no cause to insult at here. Marke M. Iewel, if your Legende be ought worth, with how cleare testimonie of S. Hierome, your imputing of Heresie vnto the See of Rome is confuted.
After this by waie of gheasse, the Authour saith, to make a bad defence of the fables vanitie, wherein he sheweth also his owne folie, and vanitie, that it might be sayd (that is to witte, if a man would lye) that at that time there was some Pope so called, not canonically chosen, but set in by tyrannical intrusion. Whereas he feared this would not serue, he addeth an other gheasse, Vel fortè Liberius &c. Or els perhappes (saith he) Pope Liberius, who fauoured Constantius the Heretique Emperour, was after an other name called Leo. Whiche al are very poore, and peeuish shiftes to sooth the vaine fable of this Legende.
Suche Donghilles, and broken haies M. Iewel is faine to rake, and skrape, to finde some Ragges, wherewith to couer the fowle nakednes of his wretched cause. Yet the Storie set out in the name of Amphilochius, touching S. Basiles miracles, is muche more probable, and maie beare the name of the text, where this Legende shal not be thought worthy the name of the Glose.
Pope Coelestinus vvas a Nestorian heretike.
Harding.
coelestinus Pope falsly charged vvith the heresie of Nestorius Photius in epist. ad Michaelē Bulgariae principē. Prosper in Chronic.Who euer heard such an impudent man? It was Coelestinus, who condemned Nestorius, and al his heresies. It was Coelestinus, in whose place Cyrillus the Archebisshop of Alexandria sate president in the third General Councel at Ephesus, where Nestorius was accursed, and condemned. Of this Coelestinus the learned Bishop Prosper, who then liued, writeth: Nestorianae impietati praecipua Alexandrini Episcopi industria, & Papae Coelestini repugnat authoritas. The special diligence of the Bisshop of Alexandria, and the authoritie of Pope Coelestinus, resisteth the impietie of Nestorius. And yet is Pope Coelestinus a Nestorian? No truly, but M. Iewel prooueth him selfe a most impudent Lyer, and a wicked sclaunderer.
Pope Honorius vvas a Monothelite heretique.
Harding.
Of Pope Honorius.Now at length M. Iewel you say that, which hath some face of truth. For Honorius in deede fel into the heresie of the Monothelites. But he fel into it, when as yet it was not euidently condemned by the Churche in any general Councel. He fel into it, but he defended it not: and yet the crime of heresie is not properly incurred, without a stubborne defence of falsehod.
Againe, he did not only not make any heretical Decree, touching the defence of that heresie, by the authoritie [Page 254] of the See Apostolike, but rather as a publike person, he did resist that heresie.Platina in Honorio. For he induced Heraclius the Emperour to bannishe Pyrrhus the Patriarke of Constantinople, and Cyrus the Patriarke of Alexandria, who were giltie of the Monothelite heresie. How then standeth it together, that Honorius did bothe fauour, and hate the selfe same heresie?
Some men considering what he did, say, that he was falsly accused of the heresie, but others thinke rather, that in his harte he fauoured the heresie, yet bicause the Romaine Churche, to witte, the Bisshoppes of Ostia, of Porto, of Preneste, of Velitro, of Sabini, and suche others, that hauing their bishoprikes neare there about, are moste commonly resident in Rome, or are moste easily assembled thither to euery Consistorie with a great number of Priestes, of Deacons, and of other learned men, who are the Councel,Cypria. in epist. ad Clerum vib. Rom. and Senate of the Pope: bicause I say, they are and euer haue benne euen from the beginning, men of great experience (as it may appeare in S. Cyprians workes) and of constancie in the faith, as who liued with diuerse Popes one after the other: bicause then this reuerend companie were knowen to resiste, as wel the Monothelite heresie, as al other heresies: it standeth wel together, that, Pope Honorius, albeit in his owne person he fauoured that heresie,Pope Honorius only burdened vvith the crime of heresie among the Popes yet durst not to publishe it in the cōmon assemblie, but contrarywise did there, as they gaue him Councel. Whereby it came to passe, that he both deposed Monothelites openly, and yet fauoured their opinion priuily. And this is the only Pope, who may iustly be burdened with heresie.
But now consider good Reader the worke of God, when he should come to confirme his brethrene, that is to say, to doo any open thing, whereby the other Bisshoppes might be established in their faith: then was he constrained to doo that, whiche might edifie, and not hinder the true faith, that God might be iustified in his woordes,Math. 16. who sayd to S. Peter, vppon this rocke I wil builde my Churche, and Hel gates shal not preuaile against it, Luc. 22. and thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethrene: feede my sheepe, Ioan. 21. feede my lambes.
For when Honorius came to this pointe, whether in publike Consistorie the Monothelite heresie (whiche taught, that there was but one wil in Christe) should be allowed or no! then, as Platina recordeth, the Pope infourmed the Emperour, as wel by letters, as by messangers, that Christe had two willes: and that was done by the common assemblie, and the letters went, as the deede of the See, and Churche of Rome: whereas in the meane time Honorius was of an other minde within him selfe. And they that are about great personages knowe right wel, that they doo many times sende many messages, and letters, through the aduise of their Councel, whiche the greate personages them selues would not haue to take place. Thus we see a double person in him that gouerneth: one, which he hath in respecte of his owne priuate minde, and iudgement, the other, which he hath, or rather taketh as put vpon him, by the publike office, which he beareth.
Now concerning the matter of Succession, the publike person is only to be regarded, which in Pope Honorius was Catholike. For that is the personage, whiche may [Page 255] hurte, or hinder the Church. Of that publike personage Pope Agatho, who followed not long after Honorius, doubted not to write, as it is recited in the sixth general Councel Act. 4. Concil. 6. General. Act. 4. concerning this very heresie of the Monothelites. Apostolicae memoriae meae paruitatis praedecessores dominicis doctrinis instructi, ex quo nouitatem haereticam in Christi immaculatam Ecclesiam Constantinopolitanae Ecclesia praesules introducere conabantur, nunquam neglexerunt eos hortari, atque obsecrando commonere, vt a praui dogmatis haeretico errore, saltem tacendo desisterent, ne ex hoc exordium dissidij in vnitate Ecclesiae facerent, vnam voluntatem, vnámque operationem duarum naturarum asserentes in vno Domino nostro Iesu Christo. The predecessours that were before me, seelie man that I am, men of Apostolike memorie, and instructed in the Doctrine of our Lorde, since that the Bishops of Constantinople endeuoured to bring an heretical noueltie into the vnspotted Church of Christe, neuer ceased to exhorte them, and with earnest meane to admonish them, that they would, at the least wise by forebearing talke, surcease from the heretical errour of their wicked opinion, least affirming, that there was in our Lord Iesus Christe but one wil, and one operation of two natures, hereby they should cause strife to beginne in the vnitie of the Church. Thus the predecessours of Agatho, emong whom Honorius was one, did, as he reporteth, alwaies openly defende the Catholique faith against the Monothelites.
It is to men knowen perhaps sometimes, that the Pope, or prince leadeth an euil life, as for example, in fornication, or in Aduouterie. Yet so long as their lawes forbid [Page] them bothe, the menne are of euil example, but the lawes are good and holesom, and the common Weale is wel prouided for. But if once Aduouterie, or Fornication should be made lawful by Lawe (as some menne say that vserie somewhere is) then is the common Weale domaged.No heresie euer decreed openly by any of the Popes But sithens the time that S. Peter sate first at Rome, God hath wrought this miraculous, yea thrise miraculous worke, that there was neuer yet any open Assemblie or Synode kepte, wherein any Heresie, by any one of so many as haue ben S. Peters Successours, was euer decreed. The publique sentence, and iudgement of the See Apostolike, in matters of faith, was neuer to this daie defiled, or defaced with false doctrine. That is the Succession which we holde of, and whereof S. Augustine said so long time past:August. in Psalmo contra partem Donati. Numerate &c. Recken vp by tale the priestes euen from the very seate of Peter, and in that rew of Fathers, see who succeded other: that is the Rocke, which the proude gates of Hel doo not ouercome.
Pope Ihon 22. vvas reproued by Gerson, and by the schoole of Paris for an Heretike.
Harding.
Of Pope Iohn. 22. his errour, see my Ansvvere to M. Iewels Vievv of his vntruthes, before fol. 64.He was reproued for an opinion M. Iewel, which he helde before he was Pope many yeres, what the opinion was, I haue declared before at large, to whiche place I referre the reader for a ful answer. But when being Pope he would haue confirmed that his wrong opinion (that the soules of the iuste lacked the sight of God face to face vntil the daye of Iudgement) God tooke him out of this life, that al the world might know, come who shal to sit in Peters chaier, he shal neuer decree any Heresie, to [Page 256] be mainteined as the Faith. How be it it was not to be accoumpted heresie at that time, as yet not being determined by the Church, and semed to haue ben holden of certaine olde doctours of the Church, as is before said. The miracle of God, in staying that man from confirming that errour by authentike decree in open Synode, ought more to moue you (if you were a man whom Gods workes could moue) then his priuate erroneous opinion, which hurteth no man but him selfe.
Petrarcha saith, Rome is a sanctuarie of al heresies.
Harding.
I neither beleue you, nor him. I am sure that men of greater authoritie, then euer that ryming Poet was of, hath said the contrarie. But it may be right wel, that your sclaunderous penne belieth Petrarcha.Ambrosius in Epist. ad papam Siricium. Cyprian. Lib. 1. Epist. 3. In Math. cap. 16. Once you name not where he saith it. But what so euer Petracha saie, S. Ambrose, whom we more regarde, said, that the Church of Rome kepeth alwaies the Apostolike beleefe whole and vndiminished. And S. Cyprian saith, that infidelitie can not haue accesse vnto the Romaines.
Lyra saith, that many Popes haue fallen into heresies.
Harding.
He saith, many, as wel princes, as chiefe priestes haue fallē from the faith, but not that many haue decreed heresies, as to be followed, and embraced of others. But how truly he saith, that many haue fallen from the faith, let him answer to it: For I find not those many, nor yet M. Iew. him selfe, as diligēt as he is about it. Wherin Lyra maie helpe vs for opening the text of holy Scriptures, we gladly vse him: as for his auctoritie, specially touching antiquitie, being so [Page] late a writer, you know how litle weight his worde beareth in the iudgement of the learned. And how is it come to passe, that Nicolaus de Lyra is now so good an author with you M. Iewel, who being a professed Frier in his life time followed the faith of the Romaine Church, and beleued the Bishoppe of Rome to be the chiefe Bishop of Christendom, and the Romaine Churche to be the head of al Churches?
You knovv, that Pope Hildebrand, as he vvas charged by the Councel of Brixta, vvas an aduouterer, a Chu [...]che robber, a periu [...]ed man, a mankiller, a Sorcerer and a renegate of the faith.
Harding.
I know that you lye, I may saie it, sauing my charitie, rather then your worship. For Pope Gregorie the seuēth, otherwise (before he was Pope) called Hildebrandus, was a very holy man, as Marianus Scotus doth witnesse, who liued in the same time,Marianus Srotus in Chronicis. Pope Hildebrādus persecuted, and accused by Hērie the Emperour. Marianus Scotus of Pohe Hildebrand. and knew, that Henrie the Emperour being enemie to Pope Hildebrand (bicause the good Pope warned him of his faultes) did procure a false conuenticle at Brixia, and caused false accusations there to be laid in against him: as he did the like also in Rome it selfe, whence the Pope was constrained to flee. Videns autem (saith Marianus Scotus) Henricus papam aufugisse, congregatis 30. Episcopis, fautoribuss suis, in ipsa Romanae vrbis obsidione iussit haberisynodū, in qua Gregorius papafalsis & inauditis criminationibus à fautoribus Henrici fictè compositis absens accusatur. Denique dicebant cum prophanum, scelestum, amatorem discordiae, virum sanguinū, sedem Apostolicam vsurpare per necromantiam. Conspirantes ergo qui cōuenerunt in vnum aduersus Dominū, & [Page 257] aduersus Vicarium eius Papam Gregorium, dānauerunt eum. But Henrie seing that the Pope was fled, assembling together 30. Bishops, who fauoured his part, commaunded a synode to be kept, euen as he was at the fiege of the citie of Rome: in which Synode Gregorie the Pope being absent, is accused of false crimes, and such as were neuer heard of, the which Henries fautours had purposely forged. To be shorte, they said he was a prophane man, a wicked man, a louer of discorde, a bloudy man, and that he had vsurped the See Apostolike by Necromancie. They therefore who had thus assembled them selues together, conspiring against our Lorde, and against his Vicare Pope Gregorie, condemned him.
If you were but a ciuil honest man M. Iewel, you would not take that for a Truth, which one enemie saith of an other.Hildebrand acquitted by true and indifferēt historiographers. It maie please you to read those Historiographers which wrote without partialitie, as Marianus Scotus, Platina, Lambertus Schafnaburgēsis, and Nauclerus, with such like. By perusing them you shal finde yourselfe a Lyer, and Pope Hildebrand a vertuouse man, and one that was zelously bent to correcte such faultes, as were in the clergie, at that time, specially Simonie. But though he had ben otherwise, it hindereth not oure cause, as long as he kepte the same Faith, whiche he receiued of his forefathers.
Platina calleth the Popes sometimes in scorne, Pontificulos, Platina in Romano. 2 litle petite Popes, sometimes monstra, & portenta, monsters, and vnnatural, and ilshapen creatures.
Harding.
If Platina speake so of some Popes, it is the more signe, [Page] that he either hated the Popes, or els that he spake as he thought, and that he wrote not for flatterie, as sometimes you saye of him. I praye you what cause had Platina to flatter with them (as with Hildebrand) who were so long dead before he was borne? And as for those with whom he liued, he flattered them neuer a whit, as maye appeare by the life of Pope Paulus the second.Platina cā not seme to haue flattered the Popes in vvritīg their liues Wel, were then some Popes monsters? Verely I thinke so with Platina concerning some few of their liues. But euen those, that were worste, made no breache in the rule of the faith. God so prouided alwaies, that although Hel gates, to wit, al vices, and al the power of the Deuil were bent against the Popes, and the Churche of Rome, yet al should not preuaile against the Rocke, and true Confession of the Faith, which euer hath ben, and shalbe in the Succession of Peters Chaire. Whereupon, S. Hierome doubted not to saye,Hieron. epist. ad Damasū. Cathedrae Petri Communione consocior, super illam petram aedificatam Ecclesiamscio. I am ioyned in communion to the Chaire of Peter, vpon that Rocke I knowe the Churche is builte.
Pope Adrian the fourth vvas vvoont to saye, vve succede not Peter in feeding, but Romulus in killing.
Harding.
Were it true, you would haue named your authour. Now your saying semeth to procede out of your owne Forge. But what if it were true, that Pope Adrian said so by waye of complaint? This proueth, that as some of his predecessours were euil men, so alwaies God gaue his grace to some other Popes to disallowe their faultes, and yet to continewe their Faith, Doctrine, and Succession.
And to leane Dame Ioan the vvoman Pope, vvith many others mee of like vertue, and holinesse, as hauing no pleasure in this rehersal.
Harding.
There was no such woman Pope: and yet God knoweth, you take stil great pleasure in the rehersal of a vaine dreame (as you doo of many other false tales) dreamed first by Martinus Polonus.
For as much as M. Harding began this matter vvith Sarisburie, to ende it vvith the same, Ioannes Sarisburiensis saith,In Polya cratico. in Romana Ecclesia sedent Scribae & Pharisaei, In the Church of Rome (by Succession) sitte the Scribes, and Pharisees.
Harding.
The matter that I began here to treate of, was not of Sarisburie, but of your Successiō in Sarisburie, for which notwithstanding the huge stuffe you bring, you shewe your selfe to haue nothing to saie. Touching Ioannes Sarisburiensis, if it were so that Scribes, and Pharisees sate in the Churche of Rome, yet you should be damned for departing from them,3. Reg. 12. euen as Ieroboam was for departing from the Chaire of Moyses. You are bound to communicate in Doctrine with the chiefe Chaier, what soeuer they be, that sit in it. For Christe bad vs kepe that,Matt. 23. which they commaunde. Now as the Scribes, and Pharisees sitting in the Chaire of Moyses, did exactly kepe his Succession, and witnessed the continuance of that Temple, whereunto al the Iewes were bound: So the Popes of Rome sitting in S. Peters Chaire, do exactly mainteine his Succession, and witnesse that to be the true Rocke, and Churche, whereunto al we are bound to be obedient, as sheepe to the chiefe Pastour.
But sith you are desirous to end this matter, begonne, as you saye, of Sarisburie, with Sarisburie, whereby you meane the auctoritie of Ioannes Saresburiensis: therewith I am right wel contente. For your parte, that is to say, against the Churche of Rome (whose faith we professe, whatsoeuer be the manners of some great persons in that Churche) you allege Iohn of Sarisburie, saying, that Scribes, and Pharisees sitte in the Churche of Rome. True it is, these wordes be in Iohn of Sarisburie in deede. As for the Addition (by Succession) it is your owne, it is not his. But you must vnderstand, they be not his owne wordes, as spoken by him selfe, but reported by him, as wordes of the common people. For being required of Pope Adrian the fourth, who was an Englishman, in familiar talke, whereto for his learning and wisdome he was admitted, to declare freely, what was commōly said abroade of the Pope, and of the Churche of Rome: among other thinges bruted abroade by waye of complaint, specially against the Briberie, and coueteousnes of great personages of that Churche, he rehersed those wordes out of the Gospel.Matt. 23. At the ende of his tale thus he concluded,Iohannes Sarisburiensis in Polycratico de curialium nugis. lib. 6. cap. [...]4. signifiing whose tale he tolde. Haec inquam Pater loquitur populus, quandoquidem vis, vt illius tibi sententias proferam. These thinges, Father the people speaketh, for asmuch as you wil haue me to vtter vnto you, what they saie. Thus M. Iewel by testimonie of your Ihon of Sarisburie, you proue nothing against our Doctrine of Succession, but onely put vs in mynd, what the common people in those dayes said of the gouernours of the Church.
If you would with as good sinceritie haue alleged [Page 259] on the other side, what good he in the same booke, and Chapter reporteth of them, as with malice you reherse the euil: you should haue laid forth a very good tale for them. For immediatly after the wordes before rehersed, thus it foloweth there. Et tu, inquit, quid sentis? And what is your opinion, quod the Pope. Thereto answereth Iohn of Sarisburie. Angustiae (inquam) sunt vndique. Vereor enim ne mendacij, vel adulationis cortraham notam, si solus populo contradixero. Sin autem, reatum vereor Maiestatis, ne tanquam qui os in coelum posuerim, crucem videar meruisse. I am driuen (quod he) to straightes on euery side. For I feare me, I shalbe noted for a Lyer, or a flatterer, if I alone be in my tale contrarie to the people. Elles (if I should saie as they saie) I feare the gilte of treason, least I seme to haue deserued the pounishment of death, being as it were one that haue set my mouth vp against heauen. This Preface semeth to conteine the wordes of one, that intendeth to vtter the truth plainly, and discretely.
And although there in deede he touche the Popes, and the Romaine Clergies faultes freely, yet on the other side he confesseth him selfe moued in cōscience to speake muche also in the praise of many. These be his wordes. Vnum tamen audacter conscientia teste profiteor, Ibidem. quia nusquàm honestiores Clericos vidi, quàm in Ecclesia Romana, aut qui magis auaritiam detestentur. Albeit some be faulty, yet one thing, my conscience bearing me witnesse, I dare be bolde to saie: that no where I haue sene Clerkes of more honestie, then in the Churche of Rome, or that doo more deteste coueteousnes. Of such good and vertuous Clerkes, there he reckeneth vp some by name. At length speaking of the number of the good in general, he [Page] saith, Plurium tanta modestia, tanta grauitas est, vt Fabrici [...] non inueniantur inferiores, quem agnita salutis via modis omnibus antecedunt. The modestie, and grauitie of the more parte of them, is so great, that they are founde nothing inferior to Fabricius (the noble Romaine of famous memorie for his vertue) whom in respecte of that they acknowlege the waie of Saluation (which he knew not being an Infidel) by al meanes they passe and excelle.
Then folow these wordes immediatly, which are most to our purpose, and most worthy of consideration. Quia verò instas, vrges, praecipis, cùm certum sit, quòd Spiritui sancto mentiri non licet: fateor quia quod praecipis faciendum est, & si non sitis omnes operibus imitandi. Nam qui a doctrina vestra dissentit, aut haereticus, aut schismaticus est. For asmuche as you are instant vpon me, and wil haue no nay, and commaunde (me to saie what I thinke) sith it is certaine, that I maie not lye vnto the holy Ghoste: I graunte, that what you commaunde vs to doo, we must doo, although ye be not al to be folowed in your deedes. For he that dissenteth from you Doctrine, is either an Heretique, or a Schismatique. These wordes being wel and duely considered of, I reporte me to thine indifferent iudgement discrete Reader, what M. Iewel can seme to any wise man to haue wonne by Iohannes Sarisburiensis. He accuseth the vices of the Romaine Clergie, and of some Popes them selues. We also accuse the same. Their euil deedes be not to be folowed, saith he. We saie the same, and praie God to amende them. Scribes, and Pharisees sate in the Church of Rome, said the people in his time. Were it true, yet were they to be obeied touching doctrine, and to be beleeued, bicause [Page 260] they sate in the Chaire of Peter, as Christ cōmaunded the Scribes, and Pharisees of the Iewes to be obeied, and thinges to be done and kepte, whiche they said, bicause they succeeded Moyses, and sate in Moyses Chaire.
Howbeit what the people of Rome, of Italie, and of Germanie said of the Pope at that time, it ought the lesse to be regarded, bicause they spake vpon grudge conceiued against him: the Romaines,Platina, in vita Hadriani. [...]. for that (as Platina witnesseth) he denied them their ernest request, which was, that they might liue freely vnder the gouernement of the Consulles, and be exempted from their subiection to the Church: the Italians, and Germains, for that they were muche vexed with warres by William the King of Sicilia, and Frederike the firste, Emperour, from whiche vexation and troubles they saw they should haue benne deliuered, if the Pope woulde haue benne content to suffer the Landes of the Churche to be inuaded, and taken awaie by those Princes. Euen so in these daies the Popes be the worse spoken of, and finde the lesse good wil at many mennes handes in some partes of Christendome, bicause they can not be induced to allow and confirme the possession of certaine ecclesiastical Landes, which haue ben taken frō the Church by vnlawful meanes, in such wise, as they them selues would haue it allowed, and confirmed.
To be short, agree with vs M. Iewel vnto the doctrine, which the Church of Rome teacheth, where the Succession is certaine, wherunto your owne doctor Ioannes Sarisburiensis leadeth you: and we wil agree with you in reprouing the vices and faultes of that See, the proufe of [Page] which for a great part of them, for ought ye can shewe, is vncertaine. Would God, ye would once consider, how sclender and weake the Argumentes, ye make against the catholique Faith are, which alwaies ye deduce, à moribus ad doctrinam, that is, from reproufe of manners, to the reproufe of doctrine.
This is M. Hardings holy succession: though faith faile, yet Succession must holde.
Harding.
Nay syr, Succession doth holde, that faith maye not faile. For you haue not proued by any one example, that faith did euer faile in the Churche of Rome. In the Church, I saye, which consisteth of the Pope, and of a college, and an assemblie of graue Bishops and priestes professing them selues the faith, and teaching it others. In that open assemblie neuer was there false religiō decred, or taught, whereas so many heresies haue ben (not fewer then a hundred) and so many Archeheretikes, of whom some haue ben in the other Patriarchal Sees, but in Rome neuer was there an Archeheretike, or any Pope, who in Councel, or Consistorie decreed, or confirmed any heresie to be admitted.
To him that knoweth the ecclesiastical histories, and conferreth the See of Rome with al other Churches, it is such a miracle, as therby God hath witnessed that Succession to be the Rocke of the faith. In so much that the Bishops of the prouince of Tarracon in Spaine wrote thus vnto Pope Hilarius. In Tom. 1. Concil. epist. 2. Ad fidem recurrimus Apostolico orè laudatam, inde responsa quaerentes, vnde nihil errore, nihil praesumptione, sed pontificali totum deliberatione praecipitur. [Page 261] We resort vnto the faith praysed by the mouth of the Apostle, seeking answers from thence, whence nothing is commaunded by errour, nothing by presumption, but al by bishoply deliberation.
For vnto the succession, God hath bound the holy Ghost.
Harding.
No, but vnto the holy Ghost, The holy Ghost causeth the Successiō to abide faithful. God hath bound the Succession. For he causeth the Succession to abide faithful, bicause he causeth it to follow the inspiration of the holy Ghost: that it may so be knowen for euer certainly true in the chiefe Apostles Chaire, and in the fellowship abiding with him. Christ saith, he that heareth you,Luc. 10. heareth me. I am with you al dayes vntil the worldes ende.Math. 28. I haue prayed for thee, that thy faith faile not,Luc. 22. and thou being once conuerted, confirme thy brethern, feede my sheepe,Ioan. 21. feede my lambes. I wil beseeche my father,Ioan. 14. and he shal geue you an other conforter, that he remaine with you for euer,& 16. the spirite of truth, he shal teach you al thinges, and al truth. The Romaine faith is preached in the whole worlde.Roma. 1.
For lacke of this Succession, for that in our Sees in the Churches of England, vve find not so many Idolatours, Necromancers, Heretikes, Aduouterers, Churcherobbers, Periured persones, Mankillers, Renegates, Monsters, Scribes, and Pharisees, as vve may easily finde in the Church of Rome, therefore I trovve M. Harding saith, vve haue no Succession: vve are no Bishops: vve haue no Church at al.
Harding.
Your Church of England hath yet scant continued so many weekes, as the Churche of Rome hath continued [Page] yeres. But if it had passed ouer such times of persecution, as Rome hath, if it had ben so assaulted by al sortes of enemies, as wel within, as without, as wel with prosperitie, as aduersitie: I trow your Church would haue had before this, as many Idolatours, Necromancers, Heretiques, Aduouterers, and such others by you named, as the Church of Rome hath had Bishops. And certainely already it hath had mo sortes of Heretikes, and that within these xx. yeres, then Rome hath had euen by your owne accompte euil men, within these fiften hundred yeres.Idolatrie annexed vnto Heresie. For your beginning, progresse, and the whole profession of your life is nothing but heresie, whereunto Idolatrie is euermore annexed. For an heretike doth alwaies worship his owne conceit, and phantasie for truth, and whereas God is truth, he worshippeth his phantasie for God, which is Idolatrie.
If the pope committed any faulte by frailtie, he defended it not, as you mainteine in open pulpites the breache of laudable, and godly vowes, and the marriages of consecrated persons, who haue absteined from marriage euer since the Apostles tyme, whose marriages saith S. Hierome be not so much Aduouteries, Aduersus Iouin. li. 1. as Inceste. But in the number of mo then two hundred Popes, within fiften hundred yeres, you haue falsely numbred sixe, or seuen, as Heretikes: whereas you can not denie, but there haue ben in the same Succession aboue thirtie martyrs, who died for Christes sake, and as many confessours, or moe, whom al the good men in the Church haue accompted for holy and blessed men. There was neuer general Coū cel holden by catholique Bishops, which did not cōmunicate with that See, and reioysed to be honoured, and cōfirmed by it, From S. Peters time to our age you cannot [Page 262] name any one daie, or howre (marcke wel M. Iewel, you can not name one daie, or howre, I say) in which any knowen Catholike Bishop in al the world, did, or might euer say with the approbation of good men: I defie, or I despise, or I do not communicate with the Church of Rome, how soeuer some one Pope might seeme not cō mendable, yet the Church, the faith, the Doctrine, the Succession was euer commended of al Catholike men.
To that See appealed, and resorted, as to the chiefe Light of the Church,Li. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus, De Praes. Tertullian, Lib. 2. Optatus, Ad Siriciū. ep. 81 S. Ambrose, Ad. Damasum. S. Hierome, Epi. 165. S. Augustine, De vocat. gent. li. 2. c. 16. Prosper, with al the fathers besides. That See promoted the Gospel into the endes of the world, into England, Scotlād, Ireland, Denmarcke, the low Countrie, Germanie, Polonia, Lituania, Prussia, Liuonia, Hungaria, Bohemia, Bulgaria, and presently into the new founde Landes.
That See conquered al heresies, cōfounded them, and al their authours, and mainteiners, from Simon Magus to Martine Luther, and Ihon Caluin, who now beginneth to be brought very lowe, and by Gods wil shalbe brought lower shortely, the follie, and rebellious sprite, which his Doctrine breedeth in his adherentes, breaking out, and shewing it selfe daily to the world more and more. See M. Iewel, you, and your fellowes are as sore a fraid, as euer was the gilty theefe of his iudge, or the naughty boye of his maister. But do I say (trow you) that ye therfore haue no Succession, or that yee are no Bishops, and haue no Church, bicause in your Churches of England there are not to be founde so many Idolatours, so many Necromācers, so many Heretiques, Aduouteres, Churcherobbers, Periured persons, Mankillers, Renegates, Monsters, Scribes, [Page] and Pharisees, as many easily be founde in the Church of Rome? Nay I trow M. Iewel you take your marke amisse. For if I thought so, as it pleaseth you to thinke of me, I would not haue denied you, neither Succession, such as it is, nor Bishops, nor Churches, or rather Congregations, nor Ministers, nor Minstrels neither, for the better furnishing of them withal, if these so many worthy qualities, could worke so great an effecte. For, that I speake not here of Heretikes,The clergie of these nevv cō gregatiōs vvherby Successiō is claimed. and so cōsequently of Idolatours, which faulte is common to you al: what aduouterers, whoremasters, Incestuous persons, Churche robbers, Church breakers, Periured persons, Mankillers, Renegates, Abiured men, Friers, Apostates, Lecherous Munkes, Tapsters, Hostlers, Pedlers, Tinckers, Coblers, Summoners, Viceplayers, Deuil Players, Fellons, Horse stealers, Newgate menne, briefly what vile, and rascal rable want ye to fournish vp your Succession, your bishoprikes, your Synagogues, and Ministring roumes withal? Verely if this geare could make a Succession, it shal soone be made good, that ye haue also a Succession such, as it is. And ye neede not to mistrust any whit at al, hauing so many of euery sorte, as shalbe more then inough for you. Marie put these away out of your congregations (I would cal them Churches, were not that name to good for you) I feare me you would leaue but a poore seely clergie behinde.See hovv M. Ievvel vvil proue his so many Idolatours &c. In the Church of Rome.
But how easy is it (trow you M. Iewel) to find so many Idolatours in the Churche of Rome, as you beare vs in hande there may be founde? Doth one poore facte of S. Marcellinus alone, for the whiche he repented foorthwith, and dyed a glorious Martyr of God, make vp with you so many Idolatours? I am wel assured, [Page 263] that if you could haue found but one Pope more that had done the like, you would not haue spared him (your modestie is such) but he should haue ben scored vp also, to make vp your number of so many Idolatours.
Be it that Syluester was a Necromancer,So many Necromā cers. and Hildebrand too, who was of that crime (as of many other) vntruly sclaundered by his enemies, that could not abide to heare of any correction for their enormous faultes, and therefore spited that good Pope, as you doo al the Popes: wil yet those two make such a number of Necromancers in that See, that it were a very easy matter to finde so many, as you would gladly make your Readers beleeue there were?
Be it that Liberius, Leo, Coelestinus, Honorius, So many heretikes. and Ihon the 22. holding priuate opinions without open maintenance of them had ben Heretikes, as you most sclaunderously reporte them out of baudye Bale, and braine-sicke Illyricus: yet these fiue make not so great a number pardy, that it should be an easy thing for you to finde so many Heretikes in the See of Rome, as ful rhetorically you set the matter forth. Now with what face pretende you vnto the worlde, that it is an easy matter, to finde so many Heretiques emong the Bishops of Rome, whereas with long prying, and pooring in al your brethrens bookes, you could finde but fiue, to whom you durst to impute that crime, of whiche yet three are vniustly sclaundered, and the other two, only misliked for their priuate assertions, and neuer denounced Heretikes for stubborne maintenance, or making any open Decree touching that, whereof once they erroneously iudged.
But yet you wil saie, that among the Bishops of Rome [Page] there were many Aduouterers,So many aduouterers, &c many Church Robbers, many Periured persons, many Mankillers, many Renegates. It is happy M. Iewel, that your worde is no sclaunder. But I pray you good sir, how many can you truly name of al these? For of so great a number as you speak of, it is wel likely, you can name some: and your malice is such against the Popes, that you wil spare none, howe smal a surmise soeuer you haue inducing you to thinke so euil of any Pope. Go to then M. Iewel, of your so many, name vs some one infamous in eche of these great crimes, which indifferently you laye to the charge of the Bishops of Rome, leauing an euil suspicion in your Readers head, that for the most parte, al the Bishoppes of Rome were giltie of the one, or the other. How many Aduoutrers then can you name to vs? Pope Hildebrand (saye you) was an Aduouterer, that is a starke sclaunderous lie. But were it true, how many mo can you name? let vs heare them. Is there no mo but Pope Hildebrand? Is one now become many with you, and many but one?
So many Churche robbers.Perchaunce yet of your Churche Robbers you haue greater stoare. And who were they I praye you emong the Popes, that committed that heynous facte? Hildebrand you tel vs againe was a Church Robber. Doubtelesse this poore Pope hath offended you very muche, whiche argueth he was a good Pope. And were there no mo Churche Robbers amonge the Popes, but Hildebrand? Cough vp M. Iewel, voide the malicious humour of your stomake. Of so many Churche robbers as are in that rewe of Bishops, name vs but one more. For vpon so great a vaunt, your Reader may happely thinke, that you could name some other besides Hildebrand. But suppose [Page 264] that this Hildebrand had ben no Churche Robber (as in deede he was none, and you could not iustly haue charged him therwith, had you not put your felicitie in sclaū dering good and vertuous men) where then might a man so easly haue found, I say not so many Churchrobbers, as you tel vs of, but only one emōg al the Bishops of Rome?
Wel yet of Periured persons, we shal find great numbers, that you might not be found a sclaunderer in that point,So many Periured persons. how wel soeuer you haue acquited your selfe of the former. Go to then, tel vs how many Periured persons occupied that roume, and who they were. You tel vs once againe, that Hildebrand was a Periured person. Verely you are much beholden to Hildebrād, but specially to that wicked cōuenticle of naughtie Bishops assembled by the Emperour at Brixia, who most vniustly sclaū derd that godly Pope. For had they not ben, you had lost a faire rhetorical lie, I should haue said a foule cōclusion.
But yet perhaps there were emong the Popes many Mankillers, and many Renegates,So many mākillers and Renegates. whom if you can name to your Reader, you may peraduenture seeme to him at the lest in this, a true reporter, and not a malicious sclaū derer. Who then were these so many Mankillers? so many Renegates? Of likelyhod you know many such, or els you would not so stoutly auouch it. Tel on, Perge mentiri, name vs them. Yet once againe you tel vs, that Hildebrand was a Mankiller, Hildebrand was a Renegate. But what, was there none but Hildebrand M. Iewel? Among two hundred Popes, and vpward can you finde none that was an Aduouterer, a Churchrobber, a Periured person, a Mankiller, a Renegate, but only Pope Hildebrand? And yet you tel vs, that of men of these qualities there [Page] haue ben such a number in that rewe of Bishoppes, that of euery sorte it were (or elles you lye, sauing other mennes honestie) an easy matter to finde many. Are they now so suddainly vanished out of sight, that, to saue your poore honestie, you can bring vs forth none, but onely Hildebrand? And howe can Pope Hildebrand, whom most vniustly, and vpon the manifest sclaunder of his enemies, you haue here accused, make vp the number of your so many Aduouterers, so many Church robbers, so many Periured persons, so many Mankillers, so many Renegates? Are you not ashamed thus notoriously, and withal most sclaunderously to belye that blessed Succession of Bishops, which hath through the miraculous working of God continewed without interruption from S. Peters time vntil these our dayes?
Leaue, leaue M. Iewel these vaine, Rhetorical, lying, and sclaunderous conclusions. Goe simply, and plainely to the matter, tel no more then you are wel hable to proue. Learne rather to speake wel of your forefathers, then with such impudencie to diffame, and speake il of them, who are departed this world in the vnitie of the Churche, and peace of Christe.
And whereas you charge me with saying that ye haue no Succession, no Bishoppes, no Churche, bicause ye haue no Idolatours, Necromancers, Heretikes, and such like, and then would seeme to salue the matter againe with an (I trow): I trow it be no good manner, and lesse honestie, to saie that of your aduersarie, which by no colour possibly, you can pike out of his wordes. How be it I forgeue it you, for that euery man may easily perceiue it, to be but a pretie sleight of your arte (whiche [Page 265] as I trow) most menne cal the arte of lying.
But S. Paule saith,Rom. 10. faith commeth (not by succession, but) by hearing, and hearing commeth (not of legacie, or enheritance from Bisshop to Bishop, but) of the vvorde of God.
Harding.
If faith come of hearing, and hearing come of Gods worde, I aske you, whether the hearing shal endure for euer, or no? I saie it shal, bicause it is written,Math. 28. Luc. 1. I am with you al daies to the worldes end, and al generations shal cal me blessed, and Christ the sonne of Dauid shal reigne in the house of Iacob for euer. This can not be but where that hearing is. Now if hearing endure for euer, seing hearing was at the first by the preaching of Bishops: I saie, that the Succession of Bishops endureth for euer.Ephes. 4. For God hath geuen pastours, and doctours vnto his Church (saith S. Paule) vntil we shal al meete in vnitie of faith, which shalbe at the seconde comming of Christe. Therefore it is not only not true, that the hearing of the faith preached doth any thing withstand the perpetual Succession of Bishops, but rather the Succession is proued thereby. For as Christe instituted first the preaching of the faith by the Apostles, who were also Bishops, and as after the Apostles, they were Bishoppes, who chiefely continued the preaching of the same faith: euen so vnto the worldes ende, there must lacke no Bishoppes, by whom the same maie stil be preached. For Isaie saith,Isai. 62. Vpon thy walles ô Ierusalem I haue sette watchemen, no daye, nor night shal they holde their peace. Suche watchemen haue ben alwaies in the Churche of Rome: suche M. Iewel can not recken to haue ben alwaies in his Churche. Therefore the preaching [Page] of the faith hath ben in the Romaine Church, and not in his.
They are not alvvaies godly, that succede the godly.
Harding.
Much lesse are they godly, who forsake the godly. But our question is not of godlinesse, but of true faith, which may be where godlinesse is not. For they that preached the true faith for enuie against S. Paule,Philip. cap. 1. had the true faith, yet were they not godly.
Manasses succeded Ezechias.
Harding.
And therefore Christe was as wel borne of Manasses line, as of Ezechias. For albeit the godlinesse were not like in the men, yet Christe wrought then the mysterie of his Birth, and now he worketh the preseruation of his faith, as wel by the euil, as by the good.
Hieroboam succeded Dauid.
Harding.
3. Reg. 12.There you were deceiued M. Iewel. Roboam succeded Dauid. Hieroboam diuided the kingdome, and the inheritance of the Succession of Dauid. But God saith often times, that he kepte some of Dauids line in his throne,3. Reg. 11. et 15. et 4. Reg. 8. that a candel might remaine to his seruant Dauid for euer. God surely accompted the line of Hieroboam no succession of Dauids, but rather the vndoing of it, as much as laye in Hieroboam. For Hieroboam was of an other tribe then Dauid was.
By Succession the Turke this daye possesseth, and holdeth the foure Patriarchal [Page 266] Sees, of the Church of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioche, and Ierusalem.
Harding.
No M. Iewel, it is by violence, by force,The Turk commeth not as a Successour, but as an inuader. by power of armes, by tyrannie, and not by Succession, as you hold the Churche of Sarisburie by force of the Princes sworde, and by none other right. Succession, is when a man commeth in the same place, whiche his predecessour had, by the same order, and lawe, by which his lawful predecessour came to it. The sonne succedeth his Father in his landes, but the theefe, and robber, or he that by force inuadeth, and keepeth them, is no Successour. The olde Patriarkes of whom you speake, came to their place by Election, and Confirmation: the Turke by neither of both, but only by tyrannie and violence. Your Predecessours, I meane the true Bishops, came to the Churche of Sarisburie orderly, by professing them selues to communicate, and by taking Confirmatiō of the Bishop of Rome. So came not you in: therefore you came in by the windowe, and not by the doore.
But now how blinde are you,The Turk by Gods special prouidē ce kepte frō Rome as not hable to consider, why God permitteth the Turke to possesse Constantinople, Antioche, Alexandria, and Ierusalem, whereas he keepeth him yet from possessing Rome? When the Turke had gotten Constantinople, and had so farre entred into Croatia, and Hungarie, as it is wel knowen: Rome was both nearer to him, then Alexandria, and easier to come by, as it might wel haue appeared. For the Soldan Lord of Aegypt, and Syria, and the Sophy ioyned with him, were thought farre stronger to resiste him, then the power of Italie. But the truth [Page] is, it was the scourge of God, to reuenge al Rebelles that would not obey the Church of Rome, where the chiefe pastour was placed by Christe, whose voice al the shepe ought to heare.In Epist. Nicolas. 1 ad Michaelem Imper. Bessarion in Epist. ad Graecos But when the Grecians of pride and disdaine beganne to make a schisme, and to diuide them selues from the See of Rome, and being ofte warned, and terribly threatned, yet would not reconcile them selues, but, though at certaine meetinges they were confounded, as at Lions, and Florence, yet would stil returne to their wilfulnesse, and disobey the chiefe Bishop: God at the length, who made them, that would not obey Samuel his Prophete, to obey Saule, and to feele his heauy hande: suffered them vtterly to be ouerthrowen and vanquished, and to lye vnder the yoke of most miserable bondage and slauerie, which the cruel Turke laieth vpon them. The particular declaration of which storie would require a longe Treatie. But sure it is, that for the withdrawing of their obedience from the Succession of Peter, the Grecians are compelled to obey the Succession of Mahomet.
Math. 24By Succession, Christe saith, desolation shal sitte in the holy place, and Antichriste shal presse into the roume of Christe.
Harding.
M. Ievvel falsifieth the Scripture.Doth Christe saie, it shalbe so by Succession? You falsifie the wordes of God, and man, and that verely by Succession: For so haue al Heretiques, your forefather [...] done before you. And I pray you, beholde, how wel your wordes hange together. Desolation shal fitte in the holy place by Succession, and yet Antichriste shal presse in. That which is by Successiō, is without pressing: and that which [Page 267] commeth in by pressing, commeth not in by Succession. Nay contrarywise, Succession is the chiefe way for any Christian man to auoide Antichrist. For he that remaineth in that faith, whiche came lineally, and by Bishop after Bishop from the Apostles, he is sure of his enheritance, and needeth not to feare, lest he obey Antichrist. For Antichrist (as S. Paule saith) cōmeth not,2. Thess. 2. except defection (and Apostasie) goe before. He that forsaketh succession, may right wel fal vpon Antichriste. But he that keepeth him selfe in the chiefe Succession, shalbe sure not to fal from faith. And good reason why. For Antichrist commeth in to breake order: yea rather the Deuil breaketh the order of Christes Church, to prepare a waie for Antichrist. For if al menne keepe them selues in one faith, and Doctrine, when soeuer Antichrist should preache against that, he should be detected, and knowen vnto al menne. But now when there are so many beleefes in the world, why may not Antichriste gete a companie to follow him, as wel as other Archeheretiques doo? He therefore that once changeth his faith, except he returne from whence he went, can not tel in what Church he is, and whether it be Antichristes Churche, or no. But he that keepeth that, whiche was from the beginning, he is sure to holde that faith, against which Antichriste must striue, and fighte.
Wherfore S. Iohn speaking of Antichrist, saith thus: Vos quod audistis ab initio, in vobis permaneat. 1. Iohan. 2 Let that abide in you, which ye haue hearde from the beginning. Not that which ye began to heare of late, but that whiche yee heard from the beginning, let that abide in you, let it abide, and not be changed. Hac scripsi vobis de ijs qui seducunt [Page] vos, VVho are leaders out of the vvaie. I haue written these thinges to you, concerning them, who leade you out of the waye. Marke the wordes, who leade you out of the waye, which from the beginning you were set in. Did not Luther leade vs from the waye, wherein we were? Did not Caluine lead both vs, and some Lutherans too out of the former way? There S. Iohn also saith of heretikes, Exierunt ex nobis, they are gonne out of vs. Nunc Antichristi multi facti sunt, Nowe many Antichristes are made. It is the going out that maketh an Antichrist, and not the abiding within the tentes of the Churche. And therefore when Christe forewarned his Disciples of the desolation to come,Math. 24 he said among other thinges, Nolite exire, go not out, leaue not your olde enheritance, and your Succession, for a vaine promise of a new lande.
It is not sufficient to claime succession of place: it behouet vs rather to haue regarde to succession of Doctrine.
Harding.
Therefore you are no Successour in the Bishoprike of Sarisburie by your owne confession. For you keepe not the Succession of Doctrine. And we ioyne both together. For we know who succedeth in the same Doctrine, by his quiet Succession in the place. If there be no change in the Churche, no tumulte no dissension, or contradiction: then is it certaine, that it is a perfit Succession as wel in place, as in Doctrine. But if a dissension arise, and one saie, this is true, and the other saie, this is not true, or if the new Bishop accuse his Catholike Predecessours Doctrine: then is it sure, that there is no succession [Page 268] in doctrine. Now I saie, ronne ouer al the Bisshops of Rome, and you can saie of neuer a one, this man cōming 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, sentēce, and profession, with al the predecessours, and successours.
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.
So saith S. Augustine, Ipsum characterem multi & lupi, Cont. Donatist. lib. 6. 1. q. 3. vocantur ca [...]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, cā 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 [Page] 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.
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 Successiō from the chiefe and most glorious Apostles Peter, and [Page 269] 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.
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 cō 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, [Page] 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 cā 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 [Page 270] 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 ob [...]rued?
It is a worlde to see, how these men applye the witnesses of the Scriptures, or of the auncient Fathers. M. Iewel meant to shewe, that by Gods worde we might forsake our Predecessours examples. But S. Cyprian rather sheweth, that if our predecessours be taken, as they ought to be taken, that is to say, for those that keepe the tradition, and doctrine of the Apostles: that then their Tradition is Gods worde.Goddes VVord not written. For he putteth it to be Gods owne worde, that Christe offered his Chalice mingled of water and wine. Yet of water there is no mention in the storie of the Supper. In what worde then is it written, that Christe had water in his Chalice? Verely in the worde of Apostolike Tradition,Traditiō. in the vnwritten word, in the worde of General Succession. For in al Churches he sawe water mingled with wine: and being assured that the Apostles, who saw Christe to do it, taught it so: doubted not to say, that our Lorde taught vs by his example, and worde, to mingle water with wine, and so to offer the Chalice. Verely you were farre ouerseene M. Iewel, when you alleged this example, as being suche, whereby your selfe, and al them of your side are vtterly condemned. And what should ye do? Except ye would repēt (which God graunt, if it be his wil) ye must needes adde lye vnto lye, without ende or measure, or geue ouer the enterprise, wherof you made your boasting Chalēge.
Cōpare the vse of our Churches M. Harding, vvith the Primitiue Church [Page] of God, and ye shal easily see the right of our Succession.
Harding.
Diuersitie betvven the primitiue Churche, and the Churches of this nevve Gospel. Rom. 10. Ioan. 20. Tit. 1. Damasus in pontifi. VVho sendeth you M. Ievvel, who sent your felovves? Ioan. 10.If I should compare your Churches with the Primitiue Churche of God so narrowely, as I might, from the beginning to the ending, we should finde scant any shadowe in your Churches of the Primitiue Church. There no man preached, but he that was lawfully sent, as S. Paule saith. And sent he was, either of Christ visibly, and sensibly speaking vnto him, as when he said to the Apostles, as my Father sent me, I send you: or els by the Apostles, as when S. Paule sent Titus, and Timotheus, and S. Peter sent S. Clemēt, and so S. Clemēt afterward sent others, and so frō man to man. Now tel vs, who sendeth you to preach? Not the Bishops, which are the Successours of the Apostles, whom ye despise. Who then? Forsooth one is sent of the common Weale, which neuer had power to send him: an other of the Ciuil Magistrate, who also had no such power: An other runneth before he be sent, and therefore commeth of him selfe, and is an Antichriste.
Moreouer the Apostles, and their scholars preached that,Irenaus lib. 4. c. 3. which they had heard preached, whether it were written, or no, as S. Irenaeus witnesseth. But you wil haue nothing preached, except it be written: and neuerthelesse yee preache that, which is neither written, nor deliuered you by Apostolike Tradition, but as euery vaine,Iustin. in Apolog. 2. Lib. 4. cap. 32. light, and idle braine imagineth of it selfe. They mingled water with wine, so doo not you. They taught the Supper of our Lorde to be the new oblation of the new Testamēt, as saith S. Irenaeus. You saie, there is no external Oblation of the new Testament, beside Christes death. [Page 271] In the Primitiue Churche, he that had ben twise maried,Tit. 1. could not be Priest, according to S. Paules doctrine. You teache it to be lawful to make him Priest, that hath ben ten times married: and onlesse euery Priest,1. Timo. 5. and Minister among you be married, ye iudge not wel of him. S. Paule speaketh of olde Widowes, who might marrie no more: you haue none such.
But what ende shall there be of wordes? If I would go thorough an hundred articles together, it should appeare, that ye haue nothing like the Apostles, or like the Primitiue Churche. There, were Exorcismes, Insufflations, holy Oile, holy Chrisme, Incense, Altares,De Eccles. Hierarchia. as we read in S. Dionysius: of al whiche ye haue not one, and condemne the hauing of them. They fasted a certaine number of daies, as they who keeping the example of Christe, fasted the forty daies,Ignatius. Epist. ad Philippēs. Actor. 2. &, 4. et. 5 Math. 19. whiche we cal the Lenten Faste. They prayed, watched, gaue away al their goodes, and vowed so to doo: they vowed chastitie, and most exactly perfourmed the same, they commended the Dead to God with praiers, almose, and Sacrifices: whiche thinges ye for the most parte despise, and accompt superstitious.
S. Cyprian saith, Si canalis aquae &c. If the pipes of the conduit,Ad Pompeium contra Epist. Stephani. which before ranne with abundance, happen to faile, do we not vse to search to the head? The priestes of God keeping Gods commaundementes, must doo the same, that if the truth hath fainted, or failed in any point, we returne to the very original of our Lorde, and to the Tradition of the Gospel, and of the Apostles, that there hence we may take the discretion of our dooinges, from whence the order it selfe, and original first beganne.
Harding.
S. Cypriā alleged by M. Ievvel in an il cause. The errour of S. CyprianIt is to be knowen M. Iewel, that S. Cyprian vsed this saying in an euil cause, as your selfe can not denie. And therefore he defending a falshood, was driuen to the very same shiftes, whereunto al Heretikes are driuen. He in deede was no Heretike. For although he falsely beleued an vntruth, and earnestly taught, that those, who had ben baptized of Heretiques, if they came to the vnitie of the Catholike Churche, should be baptized, as hauing before no true sacrament of Baptisme, yet he protested many times, that he iudged no man, that thought, or taught the contrarie.Cyprianus In epist. ad Iubatanū. & contra Epist. Stephani. For he would not denie vnitie, neither for that, nor for any thing elles, but liued a true Catholique, and died a blessed Martyr.
Notwithstanding, whiles he defended his errour, he was deceiued in that Principle, which now you allowe. For whereas Pope Stephanus, knowing, that by Successiō the vse of the only laying of handes vpon them that had ben baptized of heretikes, without baptizing them a new, was deriued from the Apostles, and receiued generally euen in Afrike it selfe, vntil Agrippinus a Bishop of Carthage before S. Cyprian brake it: whereas Pope Stephanus, I say, knowing this, decreed, that nothing should be changed, or be taken vp a new: S. Cyprian not being able to denie the tradition, whereof Pope Steuen spake, and which S. Cyprians predecessour Agrippinus first beganne to change, fled to this common place, that the worde of God was against the custome, and therefore the custome ought to be broken.
The Pope defended with diuers other Bishops, th [...]t the custome, and Tradition was not against Gods worde. [Page 272] Then said S. Cyprian, seing we are at variance, let vs resorte to the very beginning, and to the Original, which is our Lordes worde, and the Apostolike Tradition. This was wel said. But the Apostolike Tradition was so, as Pope Steuen defended, and not so as S. Cyprian woulde haue had it. And this M. Iewel neither doo you, nor can you denie. For your selfe I trow, wil not allow, that they should be baptized againe in your owne Churche, that haue ben before baptized in an other Churche, which ye accompte for false, heretical, or schismatical. What meant you then to consecrate S. Cyprians errour, and to allege his authoritie therein, where it ought not to be admitted and allowed? But with you the ouersightes of the Fathers, the errours of the Greekes, the sayinges of heretiques, the examples of Schismatiques, the obiections of Schoolemen, and Canonistes, and the pelfe of Gloses is alwaies good stuffe.
S. Cyprian saith, If the Pipes of the conduite, vvhich before ranne vvith abundance, happen to faile, do vve not vse to searche to the head?
Harding.
Yeas, if they could faile. But in Christes Churche the Pipes can not faile,The Pipes of the Cō duite of Christes Church can neuer faile. Math. 28. bicause Christe promised to be with his Apostles (and thereby with their Successours) al daies vntil the worldes ende. If the Pipes of Christes grace, and of his Churche faile to runne any one daie, then is not Christe that daie with his Pastours and teachers, and consequently he is not al daies, or euery daie with them. But if his worde can not be false, then the Pipes neuer failed, ne shall not faile: and that was wel seene in S. Cyprians question. For although [Page] they in Afrike had cut of the Pipes by force, in changing the former custome, and Tradition: yet in Rome the Pipes ranne stil, and therefore Christe was stil with the Bishops of Rome, and with the other Bishops, who remained in his Communion.
Example of agreeing in cō munion, vvhere is disagreeing in opinion.Yea Christe was also with S. Cyprian, bicause S. Cyprian departed not from Pope Steuens Communion. But he was with S. Cyprian, not in that question, wherein he dissented from the Pope, but in that he consented and agreed with the Pope. For he both dissented concerning the particulare case, and consented concerning the general bond of vnitie: wishing to haue his owne sentence followed, but if it were not followed (as it was not) content to yelde to his brethren, rather then to breake of, and to make a Schisme. For thus he endeth that epistle which he wrote in that argument to Iubaianus. Cyprianus Ad Iubaianū de Haereticis baptizād. Si quis putatur contentiosus esse, nos talem consuetudinem nō habemus, neque Ecclesia Dei. Seruatur à nobis patienter & firmiter charitas animi, collegij honor, vinculum fidei, et concordia Sacerdotij. If any man be thought to be geuen to strife and debate, we haue no such custome, nor the Churche of God. The Charitie of minde, the honour of the societie, the bonde of faith, and the concorde of Priesthoode is both patiently and firmely keepte of vs.
If M. Iewel, if before him Luther, and Caluine, if al the rest of these Gospellers had none otherwise dissented from the Pope, and the whole college of Bishops, then S. Cyprian did: they might haue ben saued, as he vndoubtedly is, a glorious Martyr in heauen. But they imagined the Pipes, whereby grace, faith, and al other giftes are deriued from Christ vnto vs, to haue ben broken of for the space [Page 273] of these nine hūdred yeres past, deuised with them selues, how they might repaire to the head, and so might fetche the watter of life vnto vs by new Conduites, and Pipes. But they were deceiued. For after Christe did once set the Pipes a ronning, they neuer ceassed, nor shal ceasse to ronne, til the day of iudgement. For the holy Ghost is promised to abide with the Apostles,Ioan. 14. Esai. 59. The B. of Rome is the successour of Peter. Cyprian. lib. 4. epi. 2 ad ant [...] nianum. Luc. 22. and their Successours, in aeternum, for euer. And their Successours are the Bishops. And as the Chiefe of the Apostles was S. Peter, so S. Cyprian saith of Fabianus, who was Bishop of Rome two hundred yeres after S. Peter: Cùm Fabiani locus, id est, cùm locus Petri, & gradus Cathedrae sacerdotalis vacaret, when the place of Fabian, that is to say, when the place of Peter, and the steppe or degree of the Priestly Chaire was voide. So that as Peters faith was most specially prayed for, and that not only for his owne sake, but to the ende he should strengthen, and confirme his brethren: euen so was euery Bishop of Romes Faith prayed for, to the ende euery one might strengthen, and confirme his brethren, whiche are al Bishoppes, in the truthe of the Faith, and in the Gouernement of the flocke.
That Succession of the Bishop of Rome,Augu. in in psalmū cōt. partē Donati. and of the See of Peter is the Rocke, which as S. Augustine saith, the proude gates of Hel do not ouercome. So he said eleuen hundred yeres past, so vntil this howre the thing it selfe proueth, so doo we beleeue, that it shal be perfourmed by him that promised it, vntil the worldes ende: bicause it is the Rocke whiche shal euer confesse the true Faith, and feede the sheepe of Christ, and staye vp the howse of God, and confirme al the faithful that leane vnto it.
Thus haue I confuted (M. Iewel) your treatise of Succession,The Pipe of Christes doctrin hath cōtinued in the catholike Churche onely. which I tooke in hande specially to treate of, bicause it sheweth most euidently, that ye haue no true Churche, bicause ye can shew no Pipe, or Conduicte, which from Christ vntil your Sectes hath stil continued ronning, or hath stil deriued his doctrine, and grace vnto them of your side. It is the Catholike Church (whiche you cal the Papistical Church) which hath that Pipe: and can euidently shew, where the streame hath gonne, and how it hath ben mainteined from age to age, from generation to generation, yea from man to man, without any interruption.Isai. 62. Matth. 5. Philipp. 2. Matt. 28. Ioan. 14. & 16. Esai. 59. 1. Timo. 3.
Such should the state of the Churche be, according to Gods worde, where watche men should neuer holde their peace, where the citie built vpon the hil can not be hid: where the children of light shine like sterres in the middest of the infidelles: where Christe is al dayes vnto the worldes ende: where the holy Ghoste is for euer teaching al truthe: where the piller, and sure staye of truthe is visibly seene, as with whiche menne be conuersant in this worlde, as S. Paule saith: where to be shorte,Ioan. 21. Christes sheepe are fed of Peter, al abiding within the vnitie of his one Folde in this worlde, thence, and thence only, to be transferred vnto the glorious Pasture of life 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 [Page 274] loueth his soule health,If thou vvilt be [...]u [...]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 Successiō of Shepe, nor of Bishops. Therfore he that resteth with M. Iewel, is out of the Folde. And he that wilbe 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.
VVe saie, that priuate Confession to be made vnto the Minister, is neither commaunded by Christe, Chrysost. [...]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 obey [...] the Prophete saying, open thy waye vnto the Lorde.
Harding.
Conf [...]ssiō 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 retein [...] 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 cō fessiō 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. [Page 275] 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 remē brance, and to cōfesse 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 [Page] 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 cōmēded, or spokē of. A wise, and a good mā wil cōferre, 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 shalbe thought worth the labour, they shalbe 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. Cō 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 [Page 276] what soeuer personnes, or els to whom? Hereunto he maketh this answer. Necessarium est confiteri peccata ijs, quibus administratio mysteriorū Dei concredita est. Sic enim & qui olim poenitentiā egerunt, coram sanctis fecisse comperiuntur. Scriptū est enim, in Euāgelio quidē, quòd Iohanni Baptistae confite bantur peccata sua: in Actis verò, Apostolis ipsis, à quibus etiam omnes baptizabantur. It is necessarie to cō fesse sinnes vnto them, to whom the dispensation of the mysteries is cōmitted (those are the priestes). For so they that in old time did penaunce are founde to haue done before the Saintes. (He meaneth priestes). For it is written in the Gospel, that they confessed their sinnes to Ihon Baptist: In the Actes, that they cōfessed them to the Apostles, of whom also they were al baptized. By S. Basil then it is necessarie to confesse sinnes vnto the priestes, who are Christes ministers: by M. Iewel it is not necessary at al. Who is the likelier of these two to be a lyer?
M. Harding him selfe is forced to confesse, that the expresse terme of Articular, or Secret Confession is seldom mentioned in the auncient fathers. His tale had ben truer, if he had said it is neuer mentioned.
Harding.
True it is in deede, seldom we finde the expresse name of Auricular, or Secrete Confessiō, bicause the custome in olde time was, rather to confesse great sinnes openly. But what skilleth it, whether we finde the expresse name of Secrete Confession, seing that is ordeined only in fauour of the penitent, whom if he do it not secrtely, it behoueth to do it openly. For done it must be, if he wil enioye the forgeuenes of sinnes, which to imparte vnto penitentes, Christe gaue power to his Apostles,Ioan. 20. and by them to such Priestes, as are lawfully sent by the Superiour for that purpose.
But yet to gratifie M. Iewel, I wil bring forth one aū ciēt witnesse for secret Cōfession. Leo the great, vnderstāding that in some Churches of Italie the custome was the sinnes of menne to be openly published, and read out of a paper: willeth the said custom to be abrogated, and taken awaie,Leo epist. 80. cùm reatus conscientiarum sufficiat solis sacerdotibus indicari per confessionum secreta: forasmuch as it suffiseth, that the gilte of the consciences (that is to saie, the faultes where of men are giltie in their consciences) be shewed vnto the priestes by the secrete meanes of Confessions. How thinke you M. Iewel, is not this the Secrete Confession, which you required to be once shewed in the Auncient fathers?
Leo goeth forward in declaring the mater. Quamuis plenitudo fidei videatur esse laudabilis, quae propter Dei timorem apud homines erubescere non veretur, tamen quia non omnium huiusmodi sunt peccata, vt ea quae poenitentiam poscunt, non timeant publicare, remoueatur tam improbabilis consuetudo, ne multi a poenitentiae remedijs arceantur, dum aut erubescunt, aut metuunt inimicis suis sua facta reserare, à quibus possunt legum constitutione percelli. Sufficit enim illa Confessio, quae primùm Deo offertur, tunc etiam Sacerdoti, qui pro delictis poenitentium precator accedit. Although the fulnes of faith seemeth prayse worthy, which standing in awe of God, feareth not to blush before men: yet bicause al mennes sinnes be not such, that they haue no cause to feare the publication of those thinges which require penaunce: let so disalowable a custom be remoued, lest manie be withholden frō the remedies of penaunce, whiles either they be ashamed, or afraid, to open their deedes vnto their enemies, of whom they may be troubled [Page 277] (therefore) by the ordinance of the lawes.Confession is to be made to God first, then to the Priest. For that Cōfession sufficeth, which is first offered vnto God, then afterward also vnto the Priest, who commeth to make intercession for the sinnes of the poenitent.
Here M. Iewel you see, it is both necessarie to cōfesse our sinnes vnto God, and also vnto the Priest. You see also, that it is laudable for a man to cōfesse them openly: but it is to hard to bind him to it, seing the Secret Confession maie suffice. But one of them both must of necessitie be made to the Priest, for great, and mortal sinnes, which neede the Priestes Absolution. For thereof S. Augustine speaketh notably, declaring howe a sinner is brought out of death, out of the graue, and as it were out of the bondes of sinnes by three degrees.Aug. in Psal. 101. conc. 2. Cùm audis hominem poenitere peccatorū suorū, iam reuixit. Cùm audis hominem confitendo proferre conscientiam suā, iam de sepulchro eductus est, sed nondū solutus est. Quādo soluitur? Math. 18. A quibus soluitur? Quae folueritis (inquit) in terra, erūt soluta & in coelo. When thou hearest, that a man repēteth him of his sinnes (that is by harty sorow and cōtrition) now he is brought againe to life: When thou hearest, that a man by making his confession vttereth his conscience (that is by confession either open, or secret at the lest) now he is brought foorth of the graue, but he is not yet loosed. When is he loosed? Of whom is he loosed? What thinges ye loose in earth (saith he) they shalbe loosed also in heauen. This Absolution is made by the Priest. So that God calleth vs to life againe by inward contrition, and we preuented with his grace come our selues to confesse, yet if the Absolution of the Priest follow not, we remaine stil bound. I saie not that we are dead, but we are bounde.
And verely as long as we are bound, we can not enter into heauen. For as Lazarus being called vp by Christ, yet if he had either remained in the graue, or if his winding sheete had not yet ben loosed (as it was by the Apostles) he should naturally haue ben stifled vp a fresh, and haue died againe in his owne graue and bandes, that he was tied withal: euen so after cōtrition, if confession, and absolution folow not, there is in deede a certaine seede, beginning, and towardnes of life, but the man is choked vp in his owne bondes, and can not enioy the lyfe, which is begonne in him. For Christ wil haue some ministerial part of penaunce done by his ministers in earth, that his owne ordinance be not void, and that the power he gaue them to remitte sinnes, be not frustrate and superfluous.
This doctrine grounded vpon the holy Scriptures, and so expounded by the learned Fathers, and so practized by the Catholike Church, is sound M. Iewel. Knocke and beat at it, as long as you wil: you shal but cause it to be the better tried. As for the gewgawes of Scholemen, and Gloses, which you bring in this matter, I vtterly despise them. It is wel knowen, whatsoeuer the Schoolemen, or Canonistes saie, they taught not your sacrilegious Doctrine, but would haue yelded to the holy general councels of Florence, and of Trent, where this our faith was discussed to the great admiration of al sober wittes in the worlde. There I say mo Bishops, and Doctours cōcluded that, which we defend, then you can bring Gloses, or sophistical deuises against it.Of the povver of Priesthod He that listeth to see more of the necessitie of Confession, maie resorte to M. Allens learned booke of the lawful power of Priesthod to remitte sinnes.
The fifth booke conteineth a Detection of M. Iewelles errours, lies, sclaunders, &c. touching the Marriages of Priestes and Votaries, the Canonical Scriptures, the Sacramentes, and other pointes of Doctrine.
The wordes of the Apolagie. In the Defence 2. parte. ca. 8. Diuision. 1. Pag. 163.
VVe saie, that Matrimonie is holy, and honourable in al sortes and states of personnes: as in the Patriarkes, in the Prophetes, in the Apostles, in the holy Martyrs, in the Ministers of the Churche, and in Bishoppes: and that it is an honest and lavvful thing (as Chrysostom saith) for a man liuing in matrimonie, to take vpō him therevvith the dignitie of a Bishop.
Confutation. fol. 73. b.
Matrimonie is holy and honorable in al persons and an vndefyled bedde, as sayth S. Paule.Hebre. 13. Yet is it not lawful for them to marye, whiche either haue by deliberate vowe dedicated almaner their chastitie vnto God, or haue receiued holy order. For the vowed be forbidden mariage by expresse word of God. Those that haue taken holy orders, by tradition of the Apostles and auncient ordinaunce of the Church.
Touching the first, the Scripture is plaine, bicause a vowe is to be performed,Psal. 75. Vouete & reddite Domino Deo vestro. Vowe ye and paye (or render that ye vowe) to your Lorde God. Christ also sayeth in the gospel,Matt. 19. there be some eunuches that haue made them selues eunuches for the kingdome of heauens sake. He that can take, let him take. Vovve-breakers in vvhat danger they stād. 1. Tim. 5. Againe S. Paul speaking of young widowes, which haue vowed and promised chastitie, sayeth, that when they waxe wanton against Christ, they wil mary, hauing damnation, [Page] bicause they haue broken their first faith. Whether these scriptures perteine hereto, and be thus to be vnderstanded, we referre vs to the primitiue Church, and to al the holy Fathers.Frō starre to starre leafte out of M Ievels booke VVhat the Fathers haue iudged of mariages after vovv of chastitie. De bono viduitatis Whosoeuer haue thus vowed chastitie, or by receiuing holy orders haue bound them selues to the bond of cōtinencie to the same by auncient constitution of the Church annexed, if afterward presuming to marye, excuse the satisfying of their carnal lust with the name of wedlocke, be they men, be they women: they liue in a damnable state, and be worse then Aduouterers. * Suche mariages, or rather slydinges, and falles frō the holier Chastitie that is vowed to God, S. Augustine doubteth not, but they be worse then aduowtries. S. Cyprian calleth this case plaine incest, S. Basile accompteth the mariages of vailed Virgins to be void, of no force, and facrilegious.
She that hath dispoused her selfe to our Lorde (sayeth S. Basile) is not free.lib. de virginitate For her husband is not dead, that she may mary to whom she list. And whiles her immortal husband lyueth, she shal be called an aduoutresse, whiche for lustes of the flesh hath brought a mortal man into our Lordes chamber.Leaft out by M. Iev. The case is like in the man.
And whereas such persons with deliberate vowe purposed to consecrat them selues to our Lord only, maides by virginitie, widowes by chastitie of widowehod, priestes by single life and continencie: they may not with good conscience marye, bicause the lust of the flesh foloweth not that former purpose, but draweth the soule to her vices from that whereto it is bounde. For what so euer is the worke (sayeth S. Basile) before whiche reason, and lawe goeth not in the mynde, the same is [Page 279] of the conscience noted for vnlawful. Of al such after many wordes vttered in reproufe of their lewdnes, he concludeth, that they folow not wedlocke, but aduoutrie. But for proufe that vowed persons may not marye, it were not hard to alleage so muche out of the fathers, as would fil a volume.Clerkes boūde to cōtinēcie Li. 1. c. 11 Paphutius. Li. 1. c. 23.
Touching the second, the Apostles forbidde those that come single to the Clergie, to marye, except such as remaine in the inferiour orders, and procede not to the greater, as we find in their canons. Can. 25. Paphnutius as Socrates and Sozomenus record in their Ecclesiastical storie, said at the Nicene Councel, that it was an old tradition of the Church, that such as come to the degree or order of Priesthod single, should not marye wiues. And this is that holy Bishop Paphnutius, whom these Euangelical vowe-breakers pretend to be their proctour for their vnlawful mariages.
Leaft out by M. Iev. Siritius and Innocentius vver not the first ordeiners of clerkes cōtinēcie.Neither Pope Siritius and Innocentius the first, who liued long aboue a thousand yeres past, were the first makers of the lawe that forbiddeth Priestes to marie, but declaring that the same was of olde time ordeined and vsed of the Church, they condemne the disorders against the same committed. * Reade who list the epistle of Siritius ad Himerium Tarraconensem. cap. 7. the second epistle of Innocentius to Victricius Bishop of Roen. cap. 9. and his third epistle to Exuperius B. of Tolouse. cap. 1. and weighing wel these places he shal perceiue, that these holy Popes forbad the ministers of the Church the vse of wedlocke by the same reason, by which the priestes of Moses lawe were forbidden to come within their owne houses, in the time when their course came to serue in [Page] the holy ministeries. By the same reason also by whiche S. Paule required maried folke for a time to forbeare the vse of their wiues,1. Cor. 7. that they might attend praying.
The place of S. Chrysostome alleaged by this Defender wel considered,Ansvver to Chrysostoms place. disproueth no part of the Catholike doctrine in this hehalfe, but condemneth both the doctrine and common practise of his companions these newe fleshly Gospellers. His wordes be these vpon the saying of S. Paule,In 1. cap. ad Tit. homil. 2. that a Bishop ought to be without crime, the husband of one wife. The Apostle (sayeth he) stoppeth the mouthes of Heretikes which condemne mariage, shewing that it is not an vncleane thing, but so reuerent, that with the same a man may ascend to the holy throne or seate (he meant the state of a Bishop) and herewith he chastiseth and restraineth the vnchast persons, Tvvise married may not be Bishops, ād vvhy? Secōd mariages lauful, yet open to accusations Leaft out by M. Iev, not permitting thē who haue twise maried, to atteine such a rome. For whereas he kepeth no beneuolēce toward his wife deceased, how can he be a good gouernour? Yea what greuous accusations shal not he be subiect vnto daily? For ye al knowe right wel, that albeit by the lawes the secōd mariages be permitted, yet that matter lieth open to many accusations. And therefore he would a Bishop to geue no occasion (of euil) to those that be vnder him. * Thus Chrysostome. Where, with S. Paule, first he putteth to silence the Cerdonistes, Marcionistes, Seuerians, Tatians, Manichees, and al other Heretikes that condemned marriage, and said it was an impure thing. Secondly he alloweth matrimonie fo farre, that he acknowledgeth a maried man may ascend to a Bishops seate. ThirdlyLeaft out by M. Iev. Big [...]mie lauful rather then cōmendable. leafte out by M. Iev. The Bigamie of the gospellers condēned by Chrysostom and Paule-Strōpets, he putteth Bigamie, that it to witte, marying an other after the first, or a widowe, to be lawful, rather then commendable.*
[Page 280]Nowe as wee doo not condemne marriage, neither denie, but that married menne in the Primitiue Churche, and before the Ghospel was so generally receiued, as it was at length, were and might be called to the dignitie of Bishoprike, when scarcetie, and lacke of single menne worthy of that rome was founde: * so we see the impure Bigamie of our holy gospellers condemned both by S. Chrysostom, and S. Paule, of whom many being Priestes and (as they saye) Bishops, at lest presuming to occupie that holy seate, for custodie of their chastitie after their former olde yokefellowes decease, solace them selues with newe strompettes. By a better name I would cal them, if I wist I should not offend. For what woman soeuer coupleth her selfe in such damnable yoking, how can she appeare either to be honest, or to haue care of her soule health? As for the simple that be deceiued by the importunitie and craft of those lurdens, as they are not to be borne withal, so yet I thinke them to be pitied.
But if this Defender presse vs with Chrysostome, we answer that though Chrysostom graunte, that a married man may ascende to the holy seate, yet he sayeth not, that a man may descend from that holy seate to the Bride bedde. For we denie vtterly,After holy orders receiued mariage neuer cō pted lauful amōg catholikes. that any man after that he hath receiued holy orders, maie marye. Neither can it be shewed, that the mariage of suche was euer accompted lawful in the catholike Church. In deed we know that in Germanie, and in Englād, and certain other prouinces, at dissolute times, when the discipline of the Church was shaken of, Priestes haue ben maried, as we reade of the time, in whiche Anselmus was Bishop of [Page] Cantorbury.Priestes maryed in Englād in the time of Anselmus. But that disorder was alwayes by due correction of bishops punished and redressed. So that what soeuer Bale, Poinet, or any other of that filthy railing rable bring out of Huldrike of Auspurg, Huntingdonensis, Capgraue, Chronica Chronicarum, or such other obscure and barbarous stories for witnes of priestes marriages, seing the same were by good rulers of the Churche at al times controlled and resisted, as vnlauful and wicked: it is of no force nor auctoritie. How, why, and when maried men were admitted to be priestes, and wher the profession of chastitie and absteining from companie of their wiues was required of them, and many other poinctes touching the vnlawful mariages of priestes, who so euer is desirous to be amply instructed: the same I referre to a large treatise written hereof by a lerned man in our owne tonge. I thinke not good here to recite the thinges, that be so wel treated already.
Here I graunte M. Harding is like to finde some good aduauntage, as hauing vndoubtedly a great Number of the holy Fathers of his side. &c.
That Priestes, and Votaries maie not marrie. The first Chapter.
Harding.
The Fathers be on our side by M. Iewels ovvne confessiō. THEN vndoubtedly you haue not the holy Scriptures on your side. For the holy Fathers haue neuer in great number determined, or weighed against the Scriptures. For the same Christ that gaue vs the holy Scriptures, gaue vs also Pastours and Doctours (as S. Paule teacheth) to make perfite the [Page 281] Saintes, that is, the Christians, by their ministerial working, and to build vp the body of Christe, whiche is his Churche. Seing then M. Iewel confesseth, that for this point we haue a great number of the Fathers on our side, let him make his Moustre of Glosers, Summistes, al the Canonistes, Schoolemen, and of his other late petie Doctours, whom, when they serue vs, he calleth the Blacke Garde, neuer so great: we wil content our selues with the great number of Ancient Fathers.
And if the Fathers be on our side, what remaineth, but that the Reader make his choise, to whiche side to incline, to the olde Fathers of the Auncient Churche, of whose holinesse wee are wel assured, or to these yong Fathers of this new Churche, whose Children do geue vs better witnesse, that they be fathers, then doth their life, that they be holy.
Wel, how great number of holy Fathers so euer we haue on our side, certaine it is, that M. Iewel wil not yeelde. Let it then be considered, how he defendeth this point, and what pith there is in al that number of the Doctours sayinges, whiche he would seme to allege for his purpose.
As concerning the wordes of my confutation of the Apologie touching this point of the marriage of Priestes, and Votaries, bicause I knew, these married Apostates doo charge vs, as hauing an euil iudgement of Matrimonie, directly answering the wordes of the Apologie, first, I commende Matrimonie,Heb. 13. To marrie vnlauful in tvvo cases. and approue the saying of S. Paule vttered in the Epistle to the Hebrewes in praise of it. Neuerthelesse I say, that to marrie it is vnlawful in two cases. The one is, if any person haue vowed continencie: [Page] the other, if any man haue taken holy Orders. The first I proue by Scripture, and the Fathers: the second, by the Ordinance of the Churche, and also by testimonie of the Fathers. Then I answer to the place alleged out of S. Chrysostom, who saith, that a married man may be promoted vnto the dignitie of a Bishop. In discoursing whereupon I shew, that the Bigamie of the married Apostates of our time, is by sentence of S. Chrysostome vtterly condemned. After this, graunting that in the olde Church married men vpon good causes were made Bishops, I denie, that Bishoppes were euer made married men, after they were Bishops.
The foure thinges that in this matter M. Ievvel hath to defende.These then be the thinges, that here M. Iewel hath to defende. First, that is is lawful to marrie after the Vowe of Chastitie. Secondly, that it is lawful after the taking of holy Orders. Thirdly, that Bigamie, or second marriage is lawful in Priestes, Monckes, Friers, and Nonnes. Fourthly, that in olde time Bishoppes were married after they had once ben consecrate Bishops. These foure if he doo not defende, he perfourmeth nothing touching this point, but sheweth him selfe to al menne ouercomme, though his Doctours allegations besides the purpose be neuer so many.VVhat is that M. Ievvel. perfourmeth in this mater of Priestes and Votaries marriages.
Now commeth me M. Iewel in, and allegeth Doctours as thicke as haile, olde, and newe, knowen, and vnknowen, allowed, and disallowed, Schoolemen, and Summistes, vea the very marginal Annotations vpon the Glose of Gratian are haled in to helpe at a pintche, and yet al helpeth not.
Of his owne in manner he saith nothing, but thus, Origen saith, Tertullian saith, suche a one saith, and suche an [Page 282] other saith, and he saith, and againe he saith, &c. Then he laith downe their Latine, be it true, be it false, and putteth a translation vnto it, suche, as becommeth shifters to vse in a false matter, and thus furnisheth out a great booke, that the worlde may thinke, he is a great Clerke.
Were al that he allegeth to the purpose, then were it somewhat, yet were it no great commendation, to make bookes onely out of Notebookes already made, and gathered to his handes.
First (to declare his order) keeping him selfe a luffe of,M Iewels order in his treatie of this pointe, and his tvvo principles. and comming nothing neare the point, wherein my Confutation consisteth, he bringeth the holy Fathers into suspicion of not dealing vprightly and indifferently herein, bearing the Reader in hande, they haue swarued from truth, either in the auauncing of Virginitie, or els in the disgracing of lawful Matrimonie. To make proufe of this, he allegeth no smal number of sentences out of certaine Fathers, in whiche not being thoroughly examined, they seeme to speake hardly of Marriage, specially of the second Mariage. For this point his Doctours be these, Tertullian in Exhortatione ad Castitatem: the author of the vnperfite worke vpon S. Matthew, whom he calleth Chrysostom, whereas it is wel knowen not to be his, as that, whiche conteineth sundry heinous heresies: S. Hierome writing against Iouinian, Heluidius, and to Gerontia: Athenagoras in Apologia pro Christianis: Nazianzen in dictum Euangelij, Cùm perfecisset Iesus &c. Origen in Lucam, Homilia. 17. for which his cotation hath, Homil. 19.
Nexte, he reckeneth vp so many menne, as he hath read of, that being Married, were afterwardes made Bisshops. Of whom he saith, that they vsed Mariage them selues in their owne personnes, which is more then he is liable to proue, if by vse of Marriage, he meane the carnal copulation.
M. Iewels tvvo Principles.These two, that is to say, the Fathers disgracing of Matrimonie and their hauing of wiues them selues, he calleth by the name of his two Principles, whiche being laid, he maketh his stoute vaunte, that he is the better hable to consider the substance of my reasons, for so he saith, and there at length he addresseth him selfe to shape an Answere to the parte of my Confutation aboue sette out.
Now to say somewhat to his Principles, before I come to his Answer, were it true, that certaine Fathers speaking of Matrimonie, vsed immoderate, and extraordinarie speaches, for so he termeth them: Againe, that many of them had ben married before they came to be Bishops: what perteineth that to the defence of the marriage of Votaries, and Priestes, whiche was the point presently treated of? What, wil he make this fonde and childish Argument, Certaine Fathers spake ouer vehemētly concerning Matrimonie, Item, some of them were called to the dignitie of Bishops, from the state of married menne: Ergo, Priestes, Monkes, Friers, and Nonnes, who haue vowed Chastitie, may lawfully marrie wiues, and take husbandes? Truly either this is his reason, or els hitherto he hath no reason at al. And of what smal substance this reason is, the veriest Cobblers of al their Ministers, if they can reade any English besides their communion [Page 283] booke, may easily perceiue.
Touching the Fathers speaches in reproufe of Matrimonie, one answer M. Iewel,Ansvver to M. Ievvels doctours. in manner may serue to refute al that you would inferre of their sayinges. Onely I excepte Tertullian, who being fallen into the fowle Heresie of Montanus, in his booke intituled, Exhortatio ad castitatem, wrote otherwise of Marriage (specially in that he condemned second marriage) then the Catholique Church holdeth, or the trueth beareth. And S. Hierome witnesseth (as Beatus Rhenanus noteth) that booke to haue ben written against the Churche. Now we thinke not our selues bounde to defende, what so euer they say, whom the Churche condemneth for Heretiques. As for Origen likewise, you knowe, of how litle credite he is, in regard of sundry great errours: albeit touching the case of the second, and third Mariage,The Fathers cal immoderate luste, an euil thing, for vvhiche they be thought of some vnlearned, to reproue marriage De peccato originali contra Pelag. & Coelestiū. lib. 2. c. 37 Lib 1. de Nuptiu et Concupiscent. c. 22 speaking where of you allege him: he may better be defended, then Tertullian may.
As concerning the other Fathers by you alleged, the thing, for which they seeme sometimes to speake of Matrimonie not fauorably, is the immoderate concupiscence or luste now after sinne by our first parentes committed, which is of the holy Fathers reported to be malum, asmuch to say, an euil thing, and to procede not of God, but of sinne, without which euil thing, the thing, that is good in Matrimonie, that is to say, generation, can not be perfourmed.
This, besides other Fathers S. Augustine calleth oftentimes, malum, an euil thing, as carnalis concupiscentiae malum, the euil of fleshly luste, and malum libidinis, the euil thing of carnal pleasure, &c. He saith that natural [Page] shamefastnesse sheweth it so to be, by whiche it commeth to passe, that although married personnes glorie in Children, yet when they attend vpon the worke of begeting Children, they choose them selues secrete places, and wil al witnesses to be out of their waie, thereby confessing the shamefastnesse it selfe of Nature. And this muche our first Parentes confessed, after they had sinned,Gen. 3. by that they were ashamed, and coouered their shamely partes with Figge tree leaues, as the Scripture plainely declareth.
Neither proceedeth this euil thing of Marriage, but of sinne,August. in Psal. 70. and it is the paine of sinne. In married personnes it is euil, but no sinne, malum poenae, not malum culpae, as the Scholastical Diuines cal it. And this is the meaning of that saying of the authour that wrote the vnperfite worke vppon S. Matthew,Opere imperfecto in Matth. Hom. 1. sub finem. whome you wil needes to be S. Chrysostome. The saying is this. Haec ipsa Coniunctio Maritalis malum est ante Deum. Non dico, Peccatum, sed malum. This very wedlocke Coniunction it selfe is an euil thing before God. I saie not, it is Sinne, but I saie, it is an euil thing. In translating whiche woordes, you doo very falsly demeane your selfe, and beguyle your vnlearned Reader. For in that place the authour meaneth not by Coniunctio Matrialis the Copulation of Matrimonie, as you translate it, as though he said,VVhat is that vvhich is of the Fathers accompted euil in vvedlok vvorke. Matrimonie it selfe were an euil thing: God forbid, any should so speake of Goddes holy ordinance. But he meaneth the coniunction of the Husband with his wife in the acte of generation. Neither yet vnderstandeth he the coniunction or acte it selfe, in wedlocke to be an euil thing (so it be not to the end to [Page 284] saciate luste and pleasure, but to the ende to begete a childe, that being againe begotten and regenerate, may serue to fil the Citie of God, as S. Augustine speaketh) but the immoderate concupiscence and luste, without the whiche that wedlocke acte is not done. Whereof S. Augustine saith,August. de Nuptijs et concupiscent. lib. 1. cap. 24. Cùm ventum fuerit ad opus generandi, ipse ille licitus & honestus concubitus, non poterit esse sine ardore libidinis, vt peragi possit quod rationis est, non libidinis.
This immoderate concupiscence, this inordination, this rebellion of the fleshe, and preuenting and ouerbearing of reason, this filthy motion swaruing from reason whereof shame is taken, without whiche the acte of Wedlocke is not donne, is the thing, whiche the authour of that vnperfite worke vppon S. Matthew, and sundry holy Fathers, haue called Malum, asmuche to say, an euil thing.The euil thing of wedlock vvorke of married persons vvel vsed. The three good thinges of marriage. à cap. 10. vsque ad cap. 16. Whiche euil thing notwithstanding, married personnes doo vse wel, bicause of the three good thinges that Matrimonie hath, by which it is excused.
Those three thinges are these, Fides, Proles, Sacramentum. Faith, or Fidelitie, Issue, and the Sacrament, whereof S. Augustine teacheth learnedly in his firste booke De Nuptijs & concupiscentia ad Valerium. By these three good thinges, as S. Augustine, and the Churche teacheth, the vse of Matrimonie is excused, not as an acte that of it selfe is euil, is excused thorough ignorance, or infirmitie, whiche is rather an excuse of the partie that worketh: but it is excused, for that otherwise it should be a sinne, excepte it had these three good thinges ioyned together. Whiche when it [Page] [...] [Page 284] [...] [Page] hath, the Circumstances to euery good acte behooful presupposed, it is an acte lawful, honest, good and laudable.
Now this being considered, whereas you M. Iewel iudge the holy Fathers to speake otherwise of Matrimonie, then the honor and holinesse of that state deserueth: you shew your selfe to be of the nūber of those deceiued men,August. de Nuptus et Concupis. lib. 1. ca. 5. of whom S. Augustin saith thus. Profectò errāt, qui, cū vituperatur libido carnalis, damnari nuptias opinantur, quasi morbus iste de connubio sit, non de peccato. Verely they are deceiued, which, when fleshly luste is rebuked, thinke that marriage is condemned, as though this disease were of wedlocke,August. de peccato originali contra Pelag. & Coelestiū lib. 2. c. 37 and not of sinne.
Likewise he saith againe, Quia iam ista conditione mortalium, nunc simul aguntur concubitus & libido, eò fit, vt cùm libido reprehendatur, etiam nuptialis concubitus licitus & honestus reprehendi putetur ab eis, qui nolunt discernere ista, vel nesciunt. Bicause as the condition of men is now (after Sinne) the acte of generation and lust, are done both atonce, thereof it commeth to passe, that, when luste is reprooued, the lawful and honest dealing of them together that be coupled in wedlocke, is thought also to be reprooued, of them, whiche wil not discerne betwene these thinges (he meaneth the acte, and the lust) or els know not how to discerne them. To cōclude, what so euer certaine Fathers say, and how so euer they seeme to speake of Matrimonie, this perteined nothing to the purpose. Al your great number of allegations might haue ben leafte out, for asmuche as thereby your Vowbreakers marriage is nothing iustified, nor defended.
M. Iewels second, Principle for defence of Vow-breakers marriages, answered, which is, that Bisshoppes and Priestes were married in olde time.
Your second Principle (for so you cal it) wherein you put the chiefe confidence of this cause, is, that many Bishops and Priestes in olde time were married, for so you dispose your wordes. I tel you M. Iewel, you haue not so much as one example for you, that a bishop was married, I meane, that any was euer married in the olde Church, and allowed in it, after that he was Bishop. That diuers and sundry married menne were for their vertue and holy life made Bishops, I denie not, ne neuer yet denied. You allege al the examples of antiquitie that you can, yet not so much as one to the purpose.
That Tertullian was a married man,Tettulliā of a married man made Priest. Spiridion made Bisshop frō being a married laie man. S. Hilarie married by M. Ievvel. In the Reioinder against the Sacrifice of the Masse fol. 172. b. and afterwarde made a Priest, I graunte. You say, Spiridion the Bisshop of Cyprus, was married, and had children: I denie, that Spiridion being a Bishop, was married: but I confesse, that being a married laye man before, he was chosen afterwarde to be a Bishoppe, and had one daughter, named Irene. Whether he had mo children I knowe not, of mo children of his I haue not read.
You make S. Hilarie the bishop of Poitiers a married man. Your proufe is the Epistle to Abra his daughter. If I denie, that he was euer married, how can ye prooue it? The Epistle to Abra, is a peeuish Apocryphal, and forged write, as I tolde you in my last Reioindre, where you vtter this same very stuffe in great sooth, whereby the worlde may vnderstand, what simple ragges ye haue wherwith to coouer your brethern the Apostates filthy [Page] lecherie. That Prosper the Bishop of Rhegium was a married man, you say it, but you prooue it not. And were it so, yet it serueth not your turne, bicause if he were maried, it was before he was priest.
Neither haue you good authoritie for proufe, that Chaeremon Chaeremō the Bishop of a Citie called Nilus, whom you recken among married Bishops,Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 6. cap 42. was married. Eusebius saith, that in time of persecution he fled vnto a Hil in Arabia, with her that liued with him, [...], and was neuer founde againe. That she was his wife, it appeareth not. She might be some woman of his kinne, or some other old womā, that kept him, and dressed his meate, and attended him as a nourse, of whom he had neede, being a man of extreme age, as Eusebius reporteth of him, saying that he was [...], that is to say, passing olde.
Polycrates, Polycrates. you say, being a Bisshop, sometimes said, that seuen of his Fathers, or Ancestours, had ben Bishoppes. What healpeth this your cause at al? Marry say you, the Greeke word is, [...], [...] and Ruffinus translateth it, Patres. Wherunto sticke you? vnto the Greeke word, or vnto the Latine? If you sticke vnto the Latine worde, Patres, which signifieth Fathers, or Ancestours, you meane not I trow, that Polycrates had seuen Fathers, for that were to much by six, you knowe. One Father is ynough pardy for one man. If he had seuē Ancestours, what gather you therof? that he was married, bicause he had seuen Ancestours? Where is your Logique becomme M. Iewel? The truth is good Reader, here is Ruffinus belied.Ruffinus belied. He trāslateth not [...], Patres, but, Parentes: whiche goeth further of in signification, then the word Patres doth, as the learned in the Ciuile Lawes doo knowe. And this Greeke [Page 286] worde [...], properly signifieth kinnesmen, them that be neare in bloud, them that be of one familie, and of the same kinred. S. Hierom translateth it propinquos, Hiero. in Catalogo. in Polycrate. and him foloweth Sophroniꝰ, putting for S. Hieromes Latine word [...], signifiing them that were nye in bloud. Now Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus said, in his epistle to Pope Victor, that 7. Bishops in that See before him, were of his house, his familie, his stocke, his bloud, or his kinred. Let M. Iewel make the most of this place. Thereof he can cō clud nothing for any of the foure pointes before mencioned, which he hath taken in hand to defende.
That S. Peter was a married man,Ignat. ad Philadelp. Origen falsified by M. Ievvel. Origen. in Commēt. in epist. ad Rom. c. 1. VVhether S. Paule had a vvife ot no by the opinion of S. Ambrose. M. Ievvels foule contradictions. Replie. Article. 17. Diuision. 11. for which you allege S. Ignatius, and Clemens Alexandrinus, and Eusebius the reherser of his words, it was neuer denied. This haue you nowe tolde vs diuers times. But where you say thus, Origen saith, that S. Paule, and his wife were called to the Faith, both at one time: you deale with Origen, as you do with the reste, whom so euer you allege, falsifying them more or lesse. Origen saith not as you reporte him, but thus, Paulus (sicut quidam tradunt) cum vxore vocatus est. S. Paule (as some say) was called with a wife, that is to say, hauing a wife before. That he had a wife, he affirmeth it not for certaintie, but maketh it a matter of a Some say. And there it foloweth immediatly (aliis videtur, sine vxore) that others were of the opinion, he was free, and called to the Faith hauing no wife at al.
But sir touching this point, whether S. Paule had a wife or no by the opinion of S. Ambrose, whome here you cal to witnesse, whether is truer man, Maister Iewel, that wrote the Replie, or Maister Iewel, that wrote this pretensed Defence? There he sayth thus, [Page] The twelue Apostles, Ambros. in 2. Cor. 11. saith S. Ambrose, only S. Iohn excepted, were al married. Here he saith otherwise, S. Ambrose saith, Omnes Apostoli, excepto Iohanne, & Paulo, vxores habuerunt. Al the Apostles had wiues, only Iohn, and Paule excepted. Here S. Paule hath no wife, there S. Paule hath a wife. If you were a true man there, then are you falfe here. If you be true here, then were you false there. Or he had a wife by S. Ambrose, or he had not: say which ye wil, M. Iewel is contrarie to M. Iewel. Againe by M. Iewel in his Defence pag. 184. S. Paule had a wife. But by the same M. Iewel in the same booke page. 512. the same S. Paule had no wife. Faine would I know, which of these M. Iewels were to be trusted.
Hieron. contra Iouinian. Lib. 1. In the 2. Keioinder. fol. [...]75. b.The place of S. Hierome against Iouinian, saying, that Priestes in his time had Matrimonies, that is to say, were taken from the state of maried personnes to be Priestes, helpeth you nothing. To the same I haue answered in my second Reionder, as to sundry thinges els here by you againe rehersed. Hitherto M. Iewel hath smal aduantage, as thou seest Reader. Remember the foure pointes I noted to thee before, which is his parte to defende, whiche not being defended, he may of any man be chalenged to yeelde, at leaste in this matter of the marriage of them, that haue vowed perpetual chastitie. Before he commeth to the point, he saith litle of him selfe, but bringeth in heapes of other mennes sayinges nothing perteining to the question, as I iudge, to make a shewe of learning to the ignorant. Among which this is one, pretended to be alleged out of Damasus, for proufe that many Popes were Priestes sonnes. Thus he saith.
Pope Damasus shevveth vs,Distin. 56 Osius. A vaine and a fonde thing ascribed to Damasus, as though he vvrote of thīges done lōg after his death. that a greate number of Bishoppes of Rome vvere Priestes sonnes: As Pope Syluerius: Pope Deus dedit: Pope Adrianus. 2. Pope Iohn. 15. Pope Felix. 3. Pope Hosius: Pope agapetus: Pope Gelasius: Pope Bonifacius: Pope Iohn. 10. Pope Theodorus. And concludeth thus: Complures etiam alij inueniuntur, qui de Sacerdotibus nati Apostolicae Sedi praefuerunt: many others beside there are founde, that being Priestes Sonnes, ruled the Apostolique See of Rome.
Harding.
What shal I say vnto this felow? Who euer saw so impudent a man? Doth Pope Damasus shew you al this M. Iewel? Phy for shame man. You a minister of Gods worde? Nay, a minister of vaine Fables, a minister of open lyes. What may we cal this in you, foolish ignorance, or shamelesse malice? How could you be so ignorant, or so witlesse, as once to dreame, that Damasus that learned Pope should thus write? That you might seeme a ioily proctour for your brothers the married Apostates sacrilegious, incestuous, and abominable yoking (for Marriage is too honorable a name for that filthinesse) must Damasus needes be made a Prophete, and such a Prophete, as the worlde had neuer the like? A Prophete I say, for onlesse he had a strange gifte of Prophecie, how was it possible, that he should tel, who should be the Fathers of menne borne so many yeres after his death?
Consider Reader I pray thee (for it booteth not to tel it M. Iewel) how this tale hangeth together. Damasus was the .39. Pope. Syluerius, whom M. Iewel putteth in the first place, was the .60. Pope. Deus dedit was the .70. Pope. Adrianus the seconde was the .109. Pope. Iohn the .15. was the .143. Felix the thirde was the .50. Agapetus [Page] was the .59. Gelasius the .51. Bonifacius the first (whereas there were diuers of that name, whom he meaneth I know not) was the .44. Ihon the tenth was the .126. Theodorus the first (if he meane any other of that name, he was farther of from Damasus) was the .75. Pope.
Pope Hosius, a Pope of M. Iewels making.As for Pope Hosius, he is a Pope of M. Iewels owne making Verely in al the Registres of Popes I find none so named. A smal mater, if M. Iewel, who maketh so many Popes Priestes sonnes, make vs one Pope, who is neither Priestes, nor laie mānes sonne, nor any mānes sonne at al. What a maruelous Prophet then was M. Iewels Damasus, that could thus prophecie of so many Popes so long to come after his death, and tel, who should be their fathers, so many yeres before their great Grādfathers were borne?
If for some excuse you say, that this much you found in Gratian, Distinct. 56. it cā not helpe you. The printed Gratian hath neither this forme of wordes, nor this order of names, nor so many Popes names by three. For he hameth not Iohn. 10. nor Iohn. 15. nor Adrian. 2. So that you must take it vpon you your selfe, and beare the shame of it. And what if the book of Gratian had it, as you haue alleged? Doo you not know, that such thinges in Gratian be of no authoritie sometimes, which be rehersed vnder this worde, Palea? Palea. Palea, good Reader, is asmuche to say, as Chaffe: and where so euer this word (Palea) Chaffe, is put in Gratian, by the same it is signified, as some doo iudge, that the saying immediatly folowing is with litle iudgement infarced, and that it is litle worth, as Chaffe is litle worth in cōparison of cleane wheate. Such Chaffe, and vaine fables M. Iewel is dryuen to take holde of, to mainteine his brothers filthinesse, for lacke of better stuffe.
And were it true, that these Popes, or some of them, whose names be founde here in Gratians Chaffe, were Priestes sonnes: yet had he benne a true dealer in this cause, he should not so vniustly haue conceeled, what the Glose saith in the same place, specially seing that he is so wel acquainted with the Glose, and furnisheth his great booke specially, and aboue al other Doctours, with the stuffe of the Glose. Thus there we finde.Distinct. 56. in Glossa. Omnia ista exempla intellige de ijs qui in Laicali statu, vel minoribus ordinibus orationibus parentum suscepti sunt: quando suis parentibus licebat vti vxoribus suis. Vnderstande thou al these examples of them, that were receiued (at Goddes hande) by the prayers of their fathers being in the state of laie menne, or in the lesser Orders: when their fathers might lawfully vse their wiues.
Thus, for any thing you haue brought hitherto, is your Great Poste of Priestes Marriages, thwited to a pudding pricke. As for that, whiche after al this you pretende to allege out of AEneas Syluius, AEneas Syluius. whom you cal Pope Pius, whereas at the time when he wrote De gestis Concilij Basiliensis, he was neither Pope, nor Pius, and out of Polydorus VergiliusPolydorus Vergil. the late Prebendarie of Poules in London (whom in the Chronicles you reporte falsly) and laste of al out of fabling FabianFabian. the late Merchant of London, a man of smal learning, and of as litle authoritie in these pointes, though a special fauourer of your side, as it is tolde, and therefore the readier to reporte vntruth: I am sure menne of meane knowledge wil litle esteme, and I accompt it not worth the answering. Make the best you can of it, thereby perhaps, or by some part of it, ye may proue, that of Married menne some were made Bishops, [Page] which as I haue oftentimes tolde you, we denie not: but that Bishoppes, or Priestes were euer in any wel ordered Churche permitted to marrie, you shal neuer be hable to proue.
Now that you haue laid your two Principles, as you cal them, let vs see how substancially you defende your foure pointes aboue mencioned. And first, that it is lawful to marry after the Vowe of Chastitie, and after holy Orders taken, shewe vs by what learning, or authoritie ye proue it.
First of al, his obiection of Vovves nothing toucheth the Clergie of England. For it is knovven, and confessed, that the Priestes of England vvere neuer V [...]taries. Yet for further ansvver vve graunte, it is reason, and conuenient, that vvho so hath made a Vovve vnto God, should keepe his promise. Cyril in Leuitic. Lib. 3. Cyrillus saith, Si castitatem promiserit, & seruar [...] non poterit, pronunciet peccatum suum. If he haue promised, [...] vvovved Chastitie, and can not keepe it: let him pronounce, and confesse his Sinne.
Harding.
How long wil you go about the bush, as they say, when come you to the purpose? These bye matters not touched in my Confutatiō, haue made your booke great, but the same geue euidence, that you put more truste in multitude of wordes, then in substance of matter. If ye had the cleare truthe on your side, what needed so many wordes? One plaine sentence might haue better serued you. That you wander not abroad, here once againe I cal you home, and require you to leaue your delaies, and answer to the very point, or to confesse your errour. Remember, my wordes of the Confutation be [Page 289] these. It is not lawful for them to marrie, Confutat. fol. 73. b. which either haue by deliberate vowe dedicated al manner their chastitie vnto God or haue receiued holy Order."
Ouer against these my wordes, you haue placed in the margent of your booke, this note with your starre.Defence. pag. 163. Vntruthes, two together, as better appeareth by the Answeare. By which you charge my saying with two Vntruthes. Of such notes your booke hath great stoare. But God be thanked, the world seeth, you are ryfer of vpbraidinges, and sclaunders, then of substantial proufes. Nowe by your note you haue bounde your selfe to shewe vs, that it is lawful to marrie after the Vowe of Chastitie, likewise also after the holy Orders taken.
Before you came to proue either of these two pointes, you tel vs, that the Priestes of England were neuer Votaries, that is to say, that they neuer made Vow of single life, and chastitie, whereby to binde them selues not to marrie. Neuer is a long daie M. Iewel. Wel, be it, as it is. If they be not Votaries, they may marrie say you. But answer directly to the point I pray you.M. Ievvel ful coldly maketh that but reasonable, and cōueniēt, that is necessary. May they marrie, who haue vowed chastitie? Say yea, or nay. VVee graunte, say you, it is reason, and conuenient, that who so hath made a Vowe vnto God, should keepe his promise. This is somewhat, though it be coldely spoken.
But yet you must come nearer vnto the point. You speake generally, and faintly. We speake not of a Vowe, or promise in general. If a man make a promise to an other man, it is reason, and conuenient, that he keepe it. But how saie you to the vow of chastitie, deliberatly made, of man, or woman to God? Is it in any wise necessary to perfourme it, or no? If it be necessary, why [Page] speake ye so coldly, it is reason, and conuenient? What meane you by your reason and conuenience? Is it any more, but that if a Moncke, or a Frier feele him selfe moued with luste, he shal by and by take a woman vnder pretense of Wedlocke, and so quenche heate? that your Nonnes also, if they beginne to be wanton, shal take husbandes, and so mortifie the lustes of their flesh? For making the perfourmance of the Vow but a matter of reason, and conuenience, ye seeme easily to dispense with their marriages in case of hote, and vrgent temptations. For so men are wont to dispense with that which semeth reasonable and conuenient, when a greater reason seemeth to moue them to the contrarie.
But let vs leaue your saying to your owne construction.The Foū ders, and chiefe maisters of this nevv Gospel are iudged vnreasonable mē by M. I. him selfe. By the same this much you graunte at the least, that so many of your Gospel, as haue broken their Vow of Chastitie, and haue married, haue don otherwise, then was conuenient, and agreable to reason. Thus ye make the Founder of your Religion Frier Luther, an vnreasonable man. Such was Oecolampadius, such was Bucer, such was Peter Martyr, such were in manner al the reste of your fleshly Prelates, Teachers, Preachers, and Ministers, who being Religious by taking Yokefelowes vnto them, haue broken their Vow and promise to God.
I canne you thanke M. Iewel for graunting this muche, althoughte it be too litle. Mary to your companions, I doubte not, it seemeth too muche. And litle thanke doubtelesse shal you haue at their handes for it. For the breache of their Vowe being graunted to be against reason, and a thing inconuenient, how shal Gods people beleeue, their doctrine to be reasonable, and their [Page 290] liues to be conuenient? Sure I am that neither Luther him selfe, nor Bucer, nor Peter Martyr, nor any of the reste, could euer be persuaded to acknowledge, and confesse so much. And were they now a liue, they would be offended with you for so saying. And how your good married brothers of England wil like you for it, I doubte, for asmuch at it is not for their profite, the people should vnderstand, that by your owne confession, their Preachers, and spiritual Gouernours (specially such as were professed in any Religion, for certaine it is that they be Votaries) by taking wiues haue done the thing, that is inconuenient, and al together against reason. What a hainous crime it is to contemne the vow of Chastitie, and to breake promise with God, it may be declared in an other place. Here onely we take that you confesse your selfe, that it is against reason, and not conuenient.
As for the saying you allege out of the third booke of Cyrillus in Leuiticum,Forgerie. it can serue you to no purpose, but to witnesse your forgerie, and falshoode. For there is no such saying in that booke. If any man be moued to breake his vowe vpon warrant of those wordes, you are gilty of the crime.
If the Priestes of England be no Votaries, as you say, yet what say you to the Priestes of other countries? Is it lawful for them of Germanie, Fraunce, Italie, Spaine, and of other landes, who haue made the vow of chastitie, to marrie? That it is not lawful, I haue sufficiently proued in my Confutation. For the Scriptures be plaine, that a Vowe made to God, is to be perfourmed. Neither willed I that which I said in my Confutation, to be vnderstanded [Page] of your felowes of England onely. How excuse you then your brethren of other Countries,VVhat hath M. Ievvel to say in defence of the votaries mariages in other lādes besides England? that firste gaue the onset, and aduentured to set your Gospel a broche? What say you for Luther, for Peter Martyr your owne good frende and Maister, and for many such others, who were not onely Priestes, but also Religious menne, and feared not to yoke them selues in pretensed marriage vnto Nonnes? If they did wickedly therein, as no man lyuing can excuse them, how is not your Gospel builded vpon an euil foundation? But this is too large a fielde at this present, for vs to walke in. I looke stil, when you wil come to the point, that requireth your direct Answer.
As for the Priestes of England, what moueth you to say, they be no Votaries? What priuiledge haue they aboue al other Priestes of Christendome, at least of the Latine,That priestes of England be Votaties. and West Churche? Who euer said it? Who euer wrote it? Where euer found you it? Or if any where it be found (which I trow ye shal neuer be hable to shew in any authentical writer) what reason hath the reporter for it? O say you, it is knowen, and confessed. But your word M. Iewel is no Gospel. Your bare affirmation is of smal credite. If ye haue no better proufe for it, and ye wil doo by my reade, in case you be a Priest, be not ouer hasty to take a Yokefelow yet, as your companions haue don. For surely not withstanding your maruelous knowledge, and bold confession, you are like to proue deceiued. Mary if you be no Priest, as I can not tel what to make of you, then go to it, and God send you better lucke, then some of your felowes haue had.
For proufe that Priestes of England are Votaries, this [Page 291] is most certaine, that the Vowe of Chastitie is annexed vnto holy Orders by statute of holy Churche, and that with most conuenient reason the Church hath ordeined,The vovv of chastitie annexed vnto holy Orders. that al from a Bishop to a Subdeacon, shal vowe Chastitie. Which thing the Grecians also admitted, though not vniuersally. For although they marrie not after holy Orders receiued, yet they vse matrimonie before holy Orders contracted. Wherfore there is no doubte, but euery man that taketh holy Orders, be he of England, or of what countrie soeuer in the west Church, promiseth cō tinencie, ipso facto, that is to say, by the very taking it selfe of Orders, whether he expresse it in wordes, or holde his peace.
That the vowe of Chastitie is required at the taking of holy Orders, we haue these plaine wordes of S. Gregorie,The vovve of Chastitie required at the taking of Subdeaconship. by whose procurement our English nation was conuerted to the Faith, and at whose handes the Church of England receiued al order and institution necessarie to Christian life: Nullum Subdiaconum facere praesumant Episcopi, nisi qui se victurum castè promiserit. Let Bishops not presume to make any Subdeacon, onlesse he promise to liue in chastitie. Iustinian that Christian Emperour, who liued within fiue hundred yeres after Christe,Grego. li. 1. epi. 42. gaue the like charge vnto Bishops. Neither was it S. Gregorie, that first made this Decree, or statute.Nouell. 123. He did but commaund the auncient Order and Tradition of the Churche to be renewed, and more exactly to be kepte, as certaine others his after commers Bishops of Rome did, when they sawe the olde discipline broken, and austeritie of life in some parte of the clergie slaked. The Fathers of the second Councel of Carthage, which was holden aboue [Page] eleuen hundred yeres past,Concil. Carthag. 2. Ca. 2. Leo epist. 92. ca. 3. say expressely that these three Degrees, Bishops, Priestes, and Deacons, are annexed and tyed vnto chastitie. S. Leo that learned Bishop of Rome writing to Rusticus the Bishop of Narbon in Fraunce, saith. Lex continentiae eadem est Altaris ministris, quae episcopis atque presbyteris. Qui cùm essent laici, siue lectores, licitè & vxores ducere, & filios procreare potuerunt. Sed cùm ad praedictos peruenerunt gradus, coepit eis non licere, quod licuit. The ministers of the Aulter (that is to say Deacons, and Subdeacons) be bounde to the same lawe of continencie, as Bishops, and Priestes be. When they were Laiemen, or Readers, it was lawful for them both to marrie wiues, and to begete children. But after they came to the foresaid degrees, what before was to them lawful, began now to be vnlawful.
Distin. 31. Quoniam.Whereas the Fathers of the sixth General Councel holden in Constantinople do agnise and confesse (as Gratian reherseth out of Iuo Carnotensis) that it is cōmaunded by the Romaine Canon, that they who tooke the holy order of Deaconship, or Priesthod, should professe and promise to cōpanie no more with their owne wiues, which they had maried before they came to take orders▪ thereof it is vndoubtedly concluded, that, if any came single to those holy orders, they were, as they might be with more right required afterward neuer to marrie.
Chastitie promised at the raking of holy Orders also in the aū cient Greke Church Concil. Neocaesar. Cap. 1.Neither was it the custome of the Latine Church only, that who so euer tooke holy orders, should promise chastitie: but also of the Greeke Churche, and that before the first Councel of Nice. The Fathers of the auncient Councel of Neocaesaria now called Trapezus, Trapezonda in vulgare language, whereat S. Basile, and S. [Page 292] Gregorie Nazianzen were present, decreed, presbyterum si vxorem duxerit, ab ordine suo deponi debere, that a priest should be deposed from his order, if he married a wife.
In the olde councel of Ancyra we finde this decreed concering Deacons. Quicunque Diaconi tacuerunt, Concil. Ancyran. cap. 10. & susceperunt manus impositionem, professi continentiam, si postea ad nuptias venerini, à ministerio cessare debebūt. What Deacons so euer helde their peace (when they tooke orders) and receiued the laying on of the Bishops hande, so hauing made their profession of continencie, if afterwardes they come to marrie, they ought to ceasse from the ministerie.
The Fathers of the councel of Gangra,Concil. Gangren. in fine. in the ende of their decrees concluded with these wordes. Haec aūt scripsimus, non, qui in Ecclesia Dei secundū Scripturas sanctū propositū Continentiae eligunt, vituperantes, sed eos qui abutuntur proposito in superbiam, & extolluntur aduersus simpliciores, abscindimus, &c. We haue written these thinges, not reprouing them, which in the Church of God according vnto the scriptures doo choose the holy Vow or purpose of continencie, but we cutte of (by excommunication) those that abuse suche purpose to pride, and becomme haulte and lofty against the simple.
The Coūcel of Laodicea speaking of Priestes, Deacōs,Concil. Laodicēs. cap. 24. and others, that haue geuē them selues ouer to liue in the holy ministratiō, saith, nō oportere eos, qui in proposito continētia sunt, tabernas intrare, that they who haue purposed to keepe Chastitie, may not be haunters of Tauernes.
Origen,Origen. in Numer. homil. 23. whom I may wel allege for a witnesse of the Church of his time, saith, that none may offer the cōtinual Sacrifice, but such only as haue vowed cōtinual Chastitie.
The auncient Fathers of the Churche, who ordeined the vowe of Chastitie to be made by them that would be admitted to holy Orders, were moued thereto partly by the holy Ghoste author of al purenesse, partly by the deuotion of them selues that came to the holy ministerie, partly also by the Tradition of the Apostles, who touching chastitie of ministers made this Decree. Exijs qui coelibes in Clerum peruenerunt, iubemus, vt lectores tantū, & cantores, Canonum. Apost. can. 25. si velint, nuptias contrahant. Of them that haue comme to the clergie single, we commaunde that the Readers, and singing men marrie, if they wil, and none elles.
Some of our married Priestes of England wil here perhappes saie vnto me. Sir, when I was made Priest, I made no vowe,Vovv of Chastitie made in facte, though no vvordes be spoken. nor promised at al to liue the single life: For I said nothing to the bishop that laid handes vpon me, and he required no such thing of me. How am I then a Votarie? And why may I not marrie? To whom I answer, you tooke this charge vpon you, before you came to be made Priest, when you tooke Subdeaconship. For that is the first among the holy Orders. Vnto which for so much as the vowe of Chastitie by common Tradition, by special statute and ordinance of the Church, is annexed, in taking that Order, you hounde your selfe ipso facto, that is to say,Promises other, ād Grauntes, made in deede vvithout vvorde. in fact it selfe, to that condition, which thereto belongeth. For Vowes, Promises, Othes, Grauntes, and such other the like, may be made, and professed by facte and dede, though wordes of vowing, promising, swearing, or graunting be not expressed. Many a man that marrieth a wife, doth not tel her before, or at the time of marriage with expresse wordes, that he wil loue her, cherish her, [Page 293] keepe, defend, and mainteine her, render wedlocke duetie vnto her, &c: Yet in that he marrieth her, al these he is bounde to performe, as being vnderstanded to be conteined in the condition of marriage, and hath promised no lesse by taking her to wife. And if being required of the wise to render these dueties vnto her, he refuse, and say, nay wife, thou shalt pardō me, I neuer made thee promise to do this much for thee: may not she say againe, why husbād, you haue married me, and that is promise ynough?
The partie that taketh an Othe, commonly saith nothing, but by laying his hande vpon a booke, and by kissing the booke, or, as the custome is in some countries, by holding vp his two forefingers, geueth his consent, and protesteth to doo that is included in the condition of the othe. Some time menne geue consent to a thing, not by speaking ought at al, but by going vnto a side: which of the olde Romaines was termed, pedibus ire in sententiā.
The SouldierSouldier. by taking his badge, and yelding his name to be booked, which is a deede, though he speake nothing, promiseth, and so farre forth bindeth him selfe, to obey his Captaine, and to abide the fortune of warre. The Gētiles in old time, that receiued Circuncisiō, who were called, Proselyti, Proselyti. by that very facte, made Vowe and protestatiō, to perfourme what Moyses law required, though they said nothing. And many a Christian man in the time, when the faith was persecuted by heathen Tyrātes, made promise, and profession of Idolatrie,Thurificati. onely by casting a litle frankencense into the Fier, when they vttered no wordes of Idolatrie at al. Many other such exāples might here easily be rehersed, by which it is declared, that a man in some cases voweth, promiseth, and professeth a thing, [Page] good or euil, in acte and deede, where wordes of Vowe, promise, or professiō be not spoken. And to this sense the common English prouerbe (if it may be applied to so sad a matter) leadeth vs: As good is a becke, as a Dieu garde, wherby is meant a cōsent,Vovv of Chastitie made in silence. Concil. Ancyran. cap. 10. geuen by dede without worde.
But what neede I to proue this by examples? The plaine texte of the tenth Canō of the most auncient Coū cel of Ancyra aboue rehersed, putteth this matter out of doubte. Where it is said of Deacons, that if, when they receiued the Bishops laying on of hand vpon them, they required not licence to marrie, but helde their peace, thereby (professi continentiā be the wordes of the Councel) hauing vowed, promised, or professed to continew in Chastitie: in case afterward they married, they should geue ouer the holy ministerie. Lo there by taking the holy order only, without wordes of a Vowe expressed, the promise and Vow of Chastitie is by those learned Fathers pronounced to be made. Neither is the partie, that after holy Orders taken marrieth, excused by that he ceaseth from the ministerie. The cessation from the ministerie, is a pounishement in the courte of man: there remaineth to such a one an other pounishmēt in the courte of God, for his breache of promise. Thus it is cleere, that the Priestes of England were Votaries, as wel as other Priestes of the Latine Church be, which M. Iewel only vpon warrant of his owne auctoritie denieth.
Sith then it is so Reader, that M. Iewel keepeth him selfe a luffe of, and wil not come to the point, wherein the controuersie lyeth, not being hable in deede to iustifie the marriage of them that haue taken holy Orders, or otherwise haue made Vow of Chastitie: I thinke it good [Page 294] here briefly to reherse the summe of his allegatiōs, wherwith he hath blotted so much paper about this matter.The summe of M. Ievvels allegations for proufe of priestes marriages
Hauing denied the Priestes of Englād to be Votaries, he bringeth in sayinges of Fathers, reporting that Virginitie is a harde thing, and that it is not in our choise, but the mere gifte of God. Which thing as it maketh nothing to the present purpose, so I graunte to be true. We ought not to choose that state of life, but vpon good trial of our selues. But when we haue taken that yoke vpon vs, it behoueth vs to pray for the assistance of Gods grace, and to vse al suche good meanes, by whiche we may atteine helpe towardes the perfourmance of our promise.
Then he allegeth other sayinges counseling those, that either can not, or wil not keepe Chastitie, to take the remedie, that God hath ordeined, that is to say, to marrie. Which counsel is vnderstanded to be geuen vnto them, that haue made no Vow at al to the contrarie.
After this he bringeth in certaine testimonies speaking in fauour (as they seeme) of marriage after a Vow of Chastitie, taken out of S. Cyprian, S. Augustine, Epiphanius, S. Hierome. In al which places those holy Fathers are to be vnderstanded to speake of them, that haue made a secret or simple Vow, as they terme it, and not a Solemne Vow. Neither doo they allow such marriages simply,Bonifac. 8. in c. vnico. de voto. in 6. The determination of the Churche, in vvhat case of a Vovve made marriage holdeth, in vvhat case it holdeth not. For vvhat reason marriage holdeth in the case of a Simple Vovv, othervvise in the case of a Solemne Vovve. but in cōparison of a woorse iniquitie. The matrimonie of such, is not to be dissolued, yet is the breache of their promise a mortal sinne. Now so it is by determinatiō of the Church, that a Solēne Vow is made at the professiō of any approued Religiō, and at the taking of holy Orders, and by whom such Vow is made, they may not go backe to marriage, neither if they marrie, doth that marriage holde, but [Page] is taken for none. In the case of a simple Vowe, marriage standeth for good, and may not be dissolued, albeit the partie who Vowed, and promised the contrarie, by contracting marriage, as I said sinneth mortally.
The reason hereof is this. In a Simple Vowe there is made but a bare Promise, and the dominion of the thing which is promised, remaineth stil with him that promiseth. But in a Solemne Vowe, there is not onely a promise, but also a deliuerie made of the thing that is promised, asmuche to say, of him selfe, and so there is also an acceptation, and a possession to the interest of Christ taken of the Churches part. This is the differēce betwixt both. And it is a thing natural, and apperteining to the lawe of al nations, that a bare promise be of lesse efficacie, then the exhibitiō, surrendre, and deliuerie of Possessiō of the thing that is promised. He that hath promised one a howse, or a portion of Lande, hath not yet taken away from him selfe the dominion of the thing. Wherefore if afterward he make deliuerie of it to an other, the deliuerie shal stand for good. Yet to the other he is bounde to make recompense, which commonly is iudged to be the valour of the thing promised. And he that hath now deliuered vnto an other a howse, or Lande, hath altogether depriued him selfe of the dominion thereof, neither can he now geue it to an other, as being an others thing.
The case is like in the Vowe of Chastitie, which is a certaine cōtracte betwen man and God. And reason it is, that what we acknowlege ourselues bound to perfourme vnto mā in a worldly cōtract, we be bound to perfourme no lesse vnto God in this spiritual cōtracte. The bare promise made to God differeth much from the exhibiting: [Page 295] and therfore if after a simple Vow of Chastitie, which cō sisteth in promise only, a man deliuer his body to another, which thing is done by Matrimonie: the deliuerie standeth firme and good. But if he geue vp also his owne body to keepe chastitie vnto God, and by entring into some Religion, or by taking Orders: now he can not dispose of it otherwise, as not being in his dominion, neither if he attempt it, shal it stand for good. This muche touching the diuersitie of a Simple, and Solemne Vow, I thought necessary to be said in this place.
This much being weighed, and considered, it must appeare certaine, that the places, which M. Iewel allegeth out of S. Augustine, affirming the mariages of such as marrie after the Vow of chastitie, to be true mariages, and to be such, as may not be dissolued: are truly vnderstanded of mariages contracted in the case of a Simple Vowe, and not of a Solemne Vowe. Howsoeuer a man, or a woman make a Vowe to liue the single life, chaste and continent, and do not solemnize the same, either by entring into some Religion, or by taking holy Orders: if not withstanding the Vow they presume to marrie, the marriage holdeth. But if they marrie after they haue solemnized their Vowe by entring into Religion, or by taking holy Orders: the marriage is none at al,M. Dorman defended against M. Ievvel. Defence pag. 169. Dorman in his first booke, fo 16. b. and therefore is to be dissolued, bicause they haue made deliuerie of them selues before the Church into the handes of their Superiours, and be not in state now to dispose of their personnes or bodies otherwise, as being deliuered vp to custodie of perpetual chastitie.
Hereof it appeareth, how litle cause you had M. Iewel to reproue M. Dorman, for calling the mainteiners of [Page] marriage in this case, the Deuils ministers. In this case I say, for he speaketh expressely of Priestes. And therefore you may consider, how wel it became you to say that by the iudgdment of our late Louanian Clergie, S. Augustine is become the minister of the Deuil, for these be the termes of your seemely eloquence. Here therefore I returne vpon you M. Iewel those wordes, which without cause, you imagine S. Augustine to say vnto me. Ye speake fondly, and vnaduisedly, and vnderstand not what ye speake.
Here to returne to M. Iewels order, among other thinges,M. Ievvel chargeth the holy Fathers vvith ouersight for zele and heat. for answere vnto certaine places of the Fathers, calling such kinde of marriage, worse then Aduoutrie, Inceste, and Sacrilege: he saith, that such wordes haue proceded more of zele, and heate of minde, then of profound consideration, and iudgement of the cause. And so in effecte he reiecteth the holy and auncient Fathers, as men vnworthy of credite. But ô Lorde, what Fathers? Verely the chiefe, and best learned, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Basil, S. Chrysostome, S. Augustine. Ah good Sir, lacked these learned and holy Fathers consideration and iudgement, and do you acknowledge it in your selfe, and your companions? O menne of deepe consideration, and great iudgement, that coulde so easily prouide them selues of wemen to geue the bridle vnto luste!
Among al other thinges that he bringeth in defence of his Companions vnlawful marriage, this is the fardest from reason, and hath least colour of learning, that by his doctrine the vow of Chastitie is to be broken, and that al Monckes, Friers, Priestes, and Nonnes, may lawfully marrie, bicause il promises, filthy Vowes, and wicked Othes ought not to be kept. For proufe that il Vowes are to be [Page 296] broken, he allegeth Isidorus out of Gratian saying,22. quaest. 4. In malis. In malis promissis rescinde fidem, in turpi vot [...] muta decretum. Quod incautè vouisti, ne facias, impia est promissio, quae scelere impletur. In an il promise breake thy faith. In a filthy Vow, change thy purpose. What thou hast vnwarely vowed, doo it not. It is a wicked promise, that is fulfilled with mischeefe.Marc. 6. Act. 23. 22. quaest. 4. Inter caetera.
Againe he saith, It is not sufficient to say, I haue vowed. Herode vowed Iohn Baptistes head. The Iewes vowed S. Paules death. Hubaldus made a vowe that he would neuer helpe his owne mother, or brethren, were there neede neuer so great. He allegeth also the 8. Councel of Toledo. Where it was declared, and decreed, that wicked vowes ought not to be made, and if they were made, that in any wise they should not be perfourmed. Where for example the vowe of Herode is mencioned,Iudic. 11. and that of Iephte, who through his vow thought him selfe bounde to sacrifice his daughter.
But what reliefe bringeth al this vnto his cause, onlesse he be hable to proue, that Chastitie is an il, and a wicked thing, as the murdering of S. Iohn Baptist, and of S. Paul, and as the sacrificing of Iephtes daughter was? But how excellēt a thing chastitie is, and how acceptable it is vnto God, and of how much more merite it is then matrimonie, both Christ him selfe in the Gospel, and S. Paule in his Epistle to the Corinthians doo partly teache vs,Mat. 19. 1. Cor. 7. and the holy Fathers in māner al haue most largely declared, specially S. Basil, S. Chrysostome, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, who haue written special Treaties of Virginitie,Iouinians heresie. and S. Hierom, and S. Augustine disputing moste learnedly against Iouinian, that helde opinion, Marriage and Virginitie [Page] to be of equal merite, to whose Heresie our fleshly Gospellers beare special fauour, and maintenance.
As for the eight Councel of Toledo, I maruel, how he durst be so bolde,Concil. To letan. 8. Cap. 7. in Epitom. Married Priestes of olde times called Apostates. as to allege it, which maketh so litle for him touching the breache of a Godly Vowe, and so much against him, touching the marriage of them, that haue taken holy Orders. For the wordes of the Councel be these. Si verò ad coniugia, morésque seculi redire attentauerint, omni Ecclesiastica dignitate priuentur, & Apostatae habeantur, & in monasterio donec vixerint, sub poenitentia retrudantur. In case they geue the attempte to returne vnto marriages, and vnto the manners of the worlde, let them be depriued of al Ecclesiastical dignitie, and reputed for Apostates: And let them be shut vp in a Monasterie to doo penaunce, so long as they liue. By this M. Iewel may see, by what menne his married Brethren were called Apostates, and by how many hundred yeres, before he and I were borne. I trust he wil beare the more with me, if I happen to cal them by that their auncient name some times.
Concerning that you pretende to allege out of one Alphonsus de Castro, Philippica. 19. whom you say to be one of M. Hardinges greatest Doctours: in good sooth he is no whit a greater Doctour of mine,Alphonsus de Castro alleged by M. Ievvel in stede of Alphonsus Viruesius Episcopus Canariē. then is the man in the Moone. For in deede there is none of that name, that euer wrote Philippicas. It is one Alphonsus Viruesius M. Iewel, a learned man of this present age, Bishop of Canaria, who writing against Philip Melanchthon, called his Orations, or Treaties, Philippicas, after the imitation of Demosthenes, who so named those most eloquent Orations, that he made against King Philip of [Page 297] Macedonia the great Alexanders Father. A like errour to that you reproue me of so often, and so bitterly, by ouersight naming Iosue, for the Prophete Osee. Thus you see your selfe not cleare of the faulte, you charge me so muche withal. Neither is this your only ouersight of that sorte.
Howbeit that I alleged out of Osee vnder the name of Iosue, maketh clearly with me: and this you allege out of Bishop Viruesius vnder the name of the Obseruant Frier Alphonsus de Castro, maketh quite against you,Viruesius Philippica 19. and your Brethren. For this is that Viruesius writeth. If a man haue vowed (saith he) and can not conteine, and hauing assaid al meanes, yet preuaileth not: in this case I would aduise him, to prouide for his safetie by Marriage, not doing it of his owne head but by the authoritie of the Pope. Thus he. In which wordes he geueth but his priuate aduise, referring the partie so standing in danger, vnto the Pope for dispensation of his Vowe. Your Brethren on the other side, notwithstanding their solemne Vowe, as being, some, Religious personnes, some Priestes, ronne hedlong to Marriage, as they cal it, hauing assaied fewe due meanes or none at al for the obteining of Chastitie, neuer calling better menne then them selues to counsel, nor sticking for any dispensation for their Vowe to be had at al. To say the least of both: his aduise is sober, and leaneth to Obediēce: these men seeme to play the merchants venturers, their dooing is rash comtemptuous, and altogether disobediēt.
But how farreforth this aduise of Viruesius is to be allowed, whether the case be to be admitted, that by Praiers, fasting, by streight discipline, and chastisment of the flesh, by any asking, seking, knocking, nor by any meanes, [Page] a man hauing deliberatly, and deuoutly made a Vowe of continencie, with intent the more expeditely and purely to serue God, can not obteine at his mercie the necessarie gifte of continencie, and whether, if through frailtie, and negligence perhappes he fal, he shal not repent, and study how to amend that he hath done amisse, and continually fight against temptatiōs, but streight waie take a woman, and marrie, and how safe it is for a man in this case to sue vnto the Pope for a dispensation of his Vowe: and whether when he hath married, he be sure to be deliuered from al temptations of incontinencie: these pointes I wil not take vpon me here to determine, but leaue them to the consideration of their consciences, that be learned in these cases,Novv M. Ievv. cō meth to the point at length. and haue the true feare of God.
At length M. Iewel commeth vnto that point, which he should haue answered long before. At length I say, bicause after that he hath filled fiue leaues of Paper with diuers sayinges of the Doctours gathered out of his Notebookes, and heaped together to litle other purpose, then to shewe of a great booke. Now then thou shalt here see good Reader, how substantially he proueth it to be lawful for Priestes to marrie, and that the Marriage of Priestes hath ben accompted lawful. As concerning Monckes, and Friers, and Nonnes, that haue taken the vaile of their profession, they must defend their Marriages, or rather yokinges, aswel as they can them selues: for this man hath nothing to say in their defence. If he had, out it should, to help to make vp the heape, neither could he be spareful of it, fauouring the cause so much as he doth. That then being leaft as a desperate cause, let vs see, what good stuff he bringeth for the Mariages of Priestes.
M. Harding vnvvares falleth into the same Negatiue Diuinitie, that h [...]s [...] often, and so muche abhorreth. For thus he saith, vve denie vtterly, that any man, after that he hath receiued holy Orders, maie marrie.
Neither can it be shevved, that the Marriage of suche vvas euer accompted lavvful in the Catholique Churche. If this tale be true, then be al the Greeke Priestes Votaries, as vvel as the Latines.Distinct. 31. Quoniam. in Margine. But it is noted vpon the Decrees, Graeci continentiam non promittunt, vel tacitè, vel expressè. The Greekes make no promise of continent, or Single life, neither secretly, nor expressely.
Harding.
If you take them to be Votaries,In vvhat sense are the Greke Priestes Votaries. that make a Vowe neuer to marrie for time to come, so are the Greeeke Priestes Votaries by law of the Greeke Churche, as wel as the Latines. but if you accompte them to be Votaries, that Vowe vtterly to absteine from the vse of a woman, whether they had wiues before they tooke holy Orders, or otherwise: in this sense the Greekes are not ne haue not ben Votaries generally, that is to say, in al places and at al times, as the Latines were, and yet be, as among whom more austeritie of life hath alwaies ben vsed.M. Iewels chiefe autoritie is a marginal note vpon the Glose. So that in this respecte your Argument is naught, and concludeth not. As for your marginal note, it is besides the texte, and therfore of smal authoritie. It is a signe, ye lacke good euidence for this matter, fith that for proufe of it, ye are driuen to serue your selfe of such weake stuffe. Albeit the same note is thus to be vnderstanded, that they of the East Church, what time they were promoted to holy Orders, made no promise to absteine from the companie of their lawful wiues, vnto whom they were married, before they tooke suche Orders. And so muche you [Page] might haue found in the texte,Distinct. 31. Quoniam. being a Decree of the sixt synode, that you needed not to haue scraped helpe out of the bookes margent. Now shew vs your better stuffe. For this is litle worthe.
Concil. Ancyran. cap. 9.In the Councel holden at Ancyra, it is concluded thus, Diaconi quicunque ordinantur, si in ipsa Ordinatione protestati sunt, & dixerunt velle se Coniugio copulari, quia sic manere non possunt, Hi si postmodum vxores duxerint, in Ministerio maneant, propterea quòd Episcopus illis licentiam dederit. Deacons as many as be ordered, if at the time of receiuing Orders, they made protestation, and said that they vvould marrie for that they finde not them selues hable so to continue vvithout Marriage, if they aftervvard marrie, let them continue in Ministerie, for asmuch as the Bishop hath geuen them licence. M. Harding, I trovv, vvil not denie, but Deaconship is one of the holy Orders.
Harding.
Ansvver vnto the Canon of the Coū cel of Ancyra.This proueth not, that Deacons did marrie: nor that any Bishop euer gaue them licence to marrie, but onely, that if they would marrie, the Bishops licence therto obteined, they should not be remoued from the ministerie. Whether any with licence married or no, you are not yet hable to shewe. And whereas no deacon might marrie, but such as had made protestation that he would marrie, before he tooke holy Orders, and had obteined leaue of the Bishop so to doo: by this we vnderstand, that for a Deacon to marrie, simply to speake, and of it selfe, it was vnlawful. For otherwise what needed protestation, leaue and licence? What so euer is lawful, may be done without protestatiō or licence, and what may not be done but with protestation and licence, the same of it selfe is vnlawful. And so my saying by this testimonie is confirmed, it is not confuted.
Againe it is to be considered, that by this Councel, a Deacons Marriage was not made firste allowable after that he was promoted to the Order of Deaconship, but before he receiued that holy Order. For if he made no protestation that he would marrie, and asked no licence thereto, but helde his peace: by the wordes that follow in the same Canon, it is cleare, that he bound himselfe to perpetual continencie, and might neuer marrie afterwarde, as he that had by taking that Order, professed, and promised chastitie. Those wordes are these, which you should haue rehersed, had you dealt truly and vprightly. Quicunque Diaconi tacuerunt, &c. Concil. Ancyran. cap. 10. What Deacons so euer helde their peace (when they tooke Orders) and receiued the laying on of the Bisshoppes hande, so hauing made their profession of continencie, if afterwarde they come to marrie, they shalbe bound to ceasse from the ministerie. The case of our Apostates is not like vnto this case. He that made his Protestation that he would marrie, and that for necessitie, and had licence of the Bishop: when he married in deede, was suffered to remaine in the Ministerie, as they that were admitted vnto holy Orders with wedlocke. For he seemed already in harte and affecte, a married man. And such that Prouincial Councel did beare withal, when for lacke of other worthy menne, the more parte yet remaining in infidelitie, the Bishops were compelled to admitte to the Ministerie of the Churche married menne. Your brethren can not claime by this example. For they neuer made any suche protestation, when they were ordered, neither demaunded they euer any such licence of their Bishops, but eche, as they felt them selues moued with the spirite of luste, vpon warrāt of your Gospel, and their owne spirite, went lustily to [Page] their yoke felowes, and vnder pretence of Marriage concluded a lusty bargaine. If ye haue no better stuffe then this, for the marriage of the Apostates your companions, wel you may receiue your fee of them, verely it is not yet sufficiently defended.
So saith Pope Steuin,Dist. 31. Aliter. Graecorum Sacerdotes, Diaconi, aut Subdiaconi Matrimonio copulantur: The Greeke Priestes, Deacons, or Subdeacons are coupled in Matrimonie.Glos. dist. 31. Aliter. Vpon vvhich vvordes the Glose noteth thus, Multi ex hac litera dixerunt, quòd Orientales possunt contrahere in Sacris Ordinibus. Many haue said vpon occasion of this texte, that the Priestes of the East Church (contrary to that M. Harding so certainly here assureth vs) may marrie, being vvithin holy Orders.
Harding.
Diuersitie betvven the East, and vvest Churche touching libertie of Clerks mariagesHad you rehersed the whole Decree, as you found it, you had marred your cause, and plaid a simple Proctour. Your married brethren therefore do commend your police, I doubt not, who see their marriage condemned by that Decree of Pope Steuen▪ The whole is this. Aliter se Orientalium traditio haebet Ecclesiarum, aliter huius Sancta Romanae Ecclesiae. Nā earum Sacerdotes, Diacons, aut Subdiaceni Matrimonio copulātur. Istius autem Ecclesiae, vel Occidentalium nullus Sacerdotum à Subdiacon [...] vsque ad Episcopum licentiam habet coniugium sortiendi. The Tradition of the East Churches, is otherwise, then is the tradition of this holy Romaine Church. For their Priestes, Deacons, or Subdeacons are coupled in matrimonie▪ but there is neuer a Priest of this Church, or of the weast partes, that from a Subdeacon to a Bishop hath licence to marrie.
By this Decree it is euidēt, that so many as from a Subdeacon to a Bishop do marrie in these weast partes, doo [Page 300] contrary to the Tradition and order of the Church. And whereas you allege the Glose for you, you make al that be hable to reade the place, witnesses of your impudēcie. For it maketh altogether against you. First whereas the Decree hath, Matrimonio copulantur, asmuche to say, the Priestes, Deacons, or Subdeacons of the East Church are coupled in Matrimonie, the Glose expoundeth it thus, and that truly, id est, copulato viūtur, that is to say, they vse Matrimonie, wherein they were coupled before they tooke orders. As for the other wordes of the Glose, Multi ex hac litera dixerūt, &c. Many vpon occasion of this text haue said, that they of the East Chucrh may marrie within holy Orders: it is not the minde of the Glose, but a some say, as I may terme it, and a fansie of certaine, whom the author of the Glose there confuteth, with these woordes immediatly folowing, which by your cōmon sleight of falsifying, you nipte away from the end of the sentēce. Sed eis obstat infrà Distinctio proxima, Si quis eorū. &c. But the nexte distinction that foloweth, whose beginning is, Si quis eorū, is contrary to their opinion. Distin. 32. Si quis eorum. That nexte Distinction taken out of the sixth Councel hath thus. Si quis eorū qui ad Clerū accedūt, voluerit nuptiali iure mulieri copulari: hoc ante ordinationē Subdiaconatus faciat. If any of them that come vnto the Clergie, be willing to couple with a woman in right of Marriage: let him do it, before he be made Subdeacon. Vpon that place the Glose saith thus, whereunto it made relation in the former Distinction: Istud caput euidēter est cōtra illos qui dicūt, quòd Graci possunt cōtrahere in sacris ordinibus. This Chapter is euidētly against them, which say, that the Greekes may marrie, being within holy Orders. Lo M. Iewel, what haue you gained by the Glose? he that [Page] examineth your bookes, specially that of your late pretensed Defence, wil say with me, there was neuer such a false Gloser, as you are, by abusing al other writers that you allege, but specially the poore Glose vpon Gratian.
Of the Priestes of the vvest Churche Cardinal Caietane saith, Papa potest dispensare cum Sacerdote Occidentalis Ecclesiae, Catharinus contra errores Caietani, errore. 103. vt vxorem ducat, nulla existēte causa publicae vtilitatis. The Pope may dispense vvith a Priest of the vvest Churche to marrie a vvife, although there be no manner cause of common profite.
Harding.
It goeth harde with you M. Iewel, when you haue no better testimonies for the Marriage of Priestes, then the Obiections which the Glose maketh to him selfe, and the errour of Caietaine, at least whiche Catharinus noteth for an errour. But to whom wil you sticke? To Catharinus? or to Caietanus? If to Catharinus, then Caietane helpeth your cause nothing at al.Caietan. in Opusc. lib. 5. tractatu. 27. For of Catharinus it is condemned for an errour. If you sticke to Caietane, then you disannul Catharinus, who is your author. For els you must tel vs, where Caietane saith so, and vpon what groundes he saith so.
vvhether the Pope may dispense vvith a Priest, or religious person to marrie in a case.Touching the Question, whether the Pope may in a case dispense with a Priest of the West Churche, or a religious man to marrie a wife, or no, here I dispute not. I confesse, the Single state of the Clergie, not to be Iuris Diuini expressely, but Iuris Ecclesiastici positiui. And to say, that the Pope may in no case at al dispense with a Priest of the West Churche, or with a religious person to marrie, it is against the Diuines, against the Canonistes, [Page 301] and against the authoritie,Raymeri [...] made kīg of Aragō of a Mōke and married by dispensation. See the historie of Franciscus Tarapha. which the Churche of Rome hath in some cases vsed de facto, as they speake, as it is knowē by the example of Raymeris the king of Aragon in Spaine, with whom about the yere of our Lorde, 1160. the Pope dispensed, yea he compelled him, as we reade, to geue ouer the Profession of his Religion, and to marrie (whiche is more, then to dispense with a secular Priest) for sauing of Christian bloud, and for the necessary disposition of that kingdom. The like example happened in the kingdome of Pole. Casimirus the onely that remained a liue of the kinges bloud,Munster. Cosmographiae, lib. 3. in Schlesia. & lib. 4. in Polonia Mart. Cromerus. being a Moonke and a Deacon, by sute of the Nobles of that realme, Dispensation of the Pope obteined, was taken out of his monasterie of the Order of Cisterce, made Kinge of Pole, and married. But suche a singular case maketh no common rule. Againe where a thing is not done, but by special dispensation, the dispensation it selfe argueth the same of it selfe, that is to say, considered without dispensation, to be vnlawful. Therefore my Assertion, that no man may marrie after holy Orders receiued, and that such Marriage was neuer accompted lawful in the Catholique Churche, standeth true, as before.
Athanasius saith,Athanas. ad Dracontium. Multi quoque ex Episcopis matrimonia non inierunt: Monachi contrà Parentes liberorum facti sunt. Many of the Bisshoppes (he saith not al, but many) haue not married. By vvhiche vvoordes he geueth vs to vnderstande, that some haue married) contrarievvise, Monkes haue becomme fathers of Children.
Harding.
This testimonie is bodged with your forged Parentheses. Whereby you signifie, that of it selfe, and without addition of your owne wordes, it helpeth you litle. Al standeth vpon trial of the translation. If you could haue alleged S. Athanasius owne wordes, as he wrote in Greeke, a right answere might soone be made. The translatour litle thinking of their sleightes, that be Proctours for the Marriages of Votaries, had rather hauing respect to the finenesse of the Latine, so to turne it, then otherwise. If the place were thus latined, Multi ex Episcopis matrimonia non inierant, or, non habuerunt, Monachi contrà parentes liberorū extiterunt, whereby is signified, that many Bishops had neuer contracted Marriages, and that some Monkes had ben fathers of children, if the place had thus benne turned, as I suppose the Greeke hath: it would haue serued you to no purpose. For I graunt you, that some bishops haue had wiues, but before they were made Bishops, as Spiridion, S. Gregorie Nazianzenes father, and Gregorie of Nyssa S. Basils brother, and that some Monkes were fathers of children, whiche they begote in lawful wedlocke, before they entred into that profession, and order of life.
Albeit, if we allowed you this translation for good and true according to the Greeke, yet of these woordes you can not conclude, that by iudgement of S. Athanasius the Marriages of bishops are accompted lawful. by the circū stance of the place in that Epistle to Dracontius, S. Athanasius may seeme to speake those wordes in dispraise of certaine Bishops, and Monkes, and not at al in their commendation, and so you ought not to allege it for an allowed [Page 302] example. But hereof we shal be more assured, if they of Basile wil sette foorth that Fathers workes in Greeke.
Cassiodorus vvriteth thus. Cassio. li. 6. cap. 14 In illo tempore ferunt Martyrio vitam finisse Eupsychium Caesariensem (Episcopum) ducta nuper vxore: dum adhuc quasi sponsus esse videretur. At that time they say, Eupsychius the Bishop of Caesaria died in Martyrdom, hauing married a vvise a litle before, being as yet in manner a nevv married man.
Harding.
A man would thinke, if this wil not serue the turne, that nothing wil serue. A blessed man Eupsychius, bishop of Caesaria, a holy Martyr, married to a wise but a litle before his Martyrdome. The writer of the Storie Cassiodorus, a noble man, and graue Senator of Rome, a man of good credite. What can a man desire more? But phy vpō such shamelesse falsifiers. O lamentable state,A falshod in excusable, and in tollerable of M. Ievv. where the people of God be cōpelled to heare such false Prophetes. What wil he feare to speake in pulpite, where he is sure no man shal control him, that is not ashamed, thus to write in bookes openly published vnto the world, which he knewe should not escape the examination of his Aduersaries?
The truth is good Reader, Neither Cassiodorus wrote thus, nor Eupsychius was euer Bishop of Caesaria, nor of any other place, nor so much as a Priest, Deacon, or Subdeacon. The writer of the Storie which we haue of this blessed Martyr Eupsychius, is Sozomenus the Greeke. Who with the Ecclesiastical Storie of Socrates, and Theodoritus, was translated into Latine by one Epiphanius Scholasticus. out of whiche three Cassiodorus gathered [Page] the Abridgemēt that we haue vnder the name of the Tripartite historie.Histor. Tripartit. lib. 6. c. 14 The place truly reported hath these wordes. In illo tempore ferunt vitam finisse Martyrio Basilium Ecclesiae Ancyranae Presbyterum, & Eupsychium Caesariensem Cappadociae ducta nuper vxore, cùm adhuc quasi Sponsus esse videretur. They say, that at that time Basiliꝰ a Priest of the Church of Ancyra ended his life in Martyrdom: Also Eupsychius the Caesarian of Cappadocia, hauing married a wife a litle before, and when as yet he seemed to be but a new married man.
Here is no mencion made, that Eupsychius was the bishop of Caesaria. The storie, as we haue it in Latine of Epiphanius turning, calleth him only Eupsychium Caesariensem Cappadociae, that is to say, Eupsychius a mā of Caesaria, that is in Cappadocia: whiche is added to signifie of whiche Caesaria he was, for that there was an other famous Citie of that name in Palestina, an other likewise in Mauritania, and others moe in other countries. Sozomenus him selfe, who is the authour of the Storie, addeth a worde more, signifying of what estate and condition he was, whereby the opinion of his being the Bishoppe of Caesaria, is quite taken awaye. For thus he reporteth of him in the Greeke,Sozomen. lib. 5. c. 11 [...], i. Eupsychiū Caesariensem Cappadociae Patriciū, asmuch to say, Eupsychius of Caesaria in Cappadocia, a nobleman, or, one of the Lordes of the Citie. Thus is Eupsychius, whom M. Iewel hath made a Bishop (as much as he is him selfe) founde to be a Laie gentleman, or noble man of the Citie of Caesaria. And whereas he married a wife, but a litle before his Martyrdome, what is that to the purpose for proufe that it was in olde time lawful for Priestes [Page 303] to marrie? Bicause M. Iewel knew this muche rightwel, contrary to the custome he vseth at other times, he dissembled the greeke Original, and thought he might better father this shameful lye vpon Cassiodorus, meaning the latine Translation of Epiphanius. And to helpe the matter,An impudent falsifying. he stickte not to put in this word (Episcopum) Bishop of his owne, and so calleth him boldely, Eupsychius the Bishop of Caesaria. Let these menne haue leaue thus to corrupte and falsifie the Fathers, and by them they shal be hable to proue, what they liste.
M. Iewel standeth so muche in his owne conceit for the example of this Eupsychius,Nicephorus belyed by M. Ievv. Defence. pag. 514. that for proufe of this very matter he bringeth it in againe in an other place, in his pretensed Defence of his Apologie. But there he allegeth it out of Nicephorus. His wordes be these. Nicephorus saith, that Eupsychius, being a Priest at Caesaria in Cappadocia, married a wife a litle before that he was martyred.
Now let vs heare Nicephorus tel his owne tale.Nicephorus. lib. 1 [...] cap. 20. Thus he saith in like sorte as Sozomenus said before him. Hoc ipso tempore & Basilius Ancyranae Ecclesiae Praesbyter, martyrio est defunctus: atque item Caesariensis Eupsychius Cappadox, veteri familia, loco (que) claro natus. At the very same time Basilius a Priest of the Church of Ancyra, died a martyr. Euen so likewise did Eupsychius the Caesarian of Cappadocia, borne of an aunciēt howse, and of noble parētage. Thus hath M. Iewel belied and falsified, both Sozomenus, and his translator, and also Nicephorus. Let vs see, what substantial witnesse he bringeth for legitimation of his Priestes Marriage, in the last place.Dist. 84. Cum in praeterit [...] in Glossa.
Likevvise M. Harding might haue founde it noted in his ovvne Glose,
M. Ie [...]el saith of my [...] seemeth▪ that than he [...] Nicepherus sp [...] king of the two Apollinar [...]s, Father, and Sonne, both heretiques,Apollinaris the elder not married, after he was made Priest. saith, P [...]ter Presbyters, filius Lect [...]ris ordine [...] [...] ti [...]ebat, the Father obteined the Order of a Priest, the sonne of a P [...]der. Of this it seemeth not, that the father was married, after th [...] he obteined to be a Priest, but rather contrariwise, that he was married before he was Priest. For Ni [...]ph [...]r [...] saith, the father obteined to be a Priest, whereby he seemeth to signifie (if we may say, what seemeth to vs) that he was a father before he was made Priest, and not first a Priest, and afterward married, and so made a father.
But perhaps M. Iewel g [...]her [...]th his seeming of these wordes following in Nicephorus: Senex Alexandriae [...]ri [...], Beryti d [...]c [...]it & [...]ucta Laodicia coni [...]g [...]; Apollinari [...] fili [...] proge [...]it [...]smuche to say. The olde m [...] was borne at Al [...]xandria, [...]ught a [...] Berytu [...], married a wife at Laodice [...], and beg [...] Apollinaris his sonne. Of this order of wordes he can conclud [...] no more that the older Apollinaris was married after that he was Priest, then that he was borne at Alexandria after that he was an old man. If he could proue that he was an old man b [...]ore he begote the yonger Apollinaris, and that he was Priest, before he came to Laodicea, when he married, then should he seeme to proue, that an Heretique was married after he was Priest, as many be now adaies. Vntil he proue so much, which s [...]l a [...], this his seeming [...] seeme litle worth.Chrysost. in Epist. 1 ad Timo. Homil. 1 [...]
Chrysostome speaking of the Marri [...]ge of Bishops, saith thus, Quamuis nuptie plu [...]imum di [...]u [...]tatis in s [...] hab [...], ita tamen assumi [Page 305] possunt, [...] perfectiori vitae impedimento non sint, Notwith [...]ing marriage haue in it much tr [...]ble yet so it may be taken, that [...]shalbe no hinderance to perfite life. He saith marriage may be tak [...] or chosen: and he speaketh namely of the marriage of Priestes and Bishoppes.
Harding.
Why nipte you of the ende of the sentence M. Iewel?M. Ievvel nippeth of vvordes of his doctor. Though you, nor your good brethren the married Apostates, like not wel of them: yet for true dealinges sake, you should not so haue gelded your Doctor of the wordes, that so iointly hang to the sentence by you alleged. They be these.It is a hard thīg that marriage should not be a lette vnto the perfites life by iudgemēt of S. Chrysostom. Verum id planè perquam rarò atque difficile. Marriage may be so taken, that it shal not be a lette vnto the perfiter life (so much goeth before) but certainly that is a thing very seldome, and of great difficultie. Doo ye heare syr, what your owne Doctor saith? That marriage be not an impediment vnto perfiter life, which Priestes doo professe, it is very seldome seene, and a thing of very great difficultie, saith your Chrysostome.
Here good Reader that thou be not begyled, I must tel thee this muche. Whereas M. Iewel beareth thee in hand, that S. Chrysostome saith, Marriage may be taken or chosen, and that of Priestes, and Bishops, for of their Marriage he speaketh, saith this manne: al this is false.M. Ievvel buildeth his prouf vpō a forged sentence added vnto S. Chrysostome. For first vnderstand thou, this sentence is not in S. Chrysostome at al: not in the Greeke, I saie, in which tongue only he wrote. For I haue seene the Greeke, and diligently conferred it my selfe. But it is added vnto his texte, either by the translation, or by falshod vsed at the printing, as in these corrupte times false printers haue corrupted many bookes of the olde Fathers. Yet this muche wil I say of this sentence, that it may right wel [Page] stand without any euil m [...]ning gathered of it, though [...] be not S. Chrysostom [...], the Greeke examples supposed to be true. For the Circumstance of the place beareth it to be spoken, not specially of the Marriage of Priestes, and Bishoppes, as M. Iewel taketh it in this place, but of Marriage indefinitely, and generally, as it maie be proued (if there were nothing elles to proue it) by the same M. Iewel in an other place, namely in the page 179. before, where he saith thus, in the first line of that page, S. Chrysostome saith generally of al menne, Quamuis n [...]ptia plurimum difficultatis habeant, &c. Thus M. Iewel in the 514. page. is confuted by M. Iewel, in the 179. page. Of such Contradictions he hath good stoare.
That it may appeare the plainer, thus is it that we reade in S. Chrysostome.I [...] prim. cap Titi. hom. 2. Si igitur qui vxorem duxit, &c. Then if it be so, that he which hath married a wife, be careful for the thinges of the worlde, and of conuenience a Bishop should not be touched with any suche care: how said the Apostle before, vnius vxoris virum, that a Bishop, should be the husband of one wife? Some vnderstand such a one to be signified (by these wordes) that shal be made a Bishop after his wiues death. Albeit he, that hath a wife, may be, as one not hauing. And this much he graunted them very wel in consideration of the time, 1. Cor. 7. and nature of the thing, as the case then stoode. And a man may take that thing honestly, and lawfully, if he wil. For as richesse doo hardly bring a man into the kingdom of Heauen (yet often times many riche men haue there entred in) so also doth marriage. Thus farre goeth the greke in S. Chrysostom, and no further touching this matter. For immediatly follow, not the wordes that M. Iewel buildeth his proufe vpon, but other wordes cōcerning [Page 306] an other thing, as euery learned man may see in the [...]nted Greeke booke, in the 20. leafe, the seconde pag. t [...] 20. line.
You might haue sene this in the Greeke M. Iewel, or your Greeke Frende for you, aswel as you saw that other place of S. Chrysostome by me truly alleged and trāslated, where he expoundeth these wordes of S. Paul,Tit. 1. ho. 2 The husbande of one wife. Which place you wring and wr [...]st very violently to serue your purpose, and yet it wil not be,M. Ievv. in his defence pa. 175. vseth false trā slation. and the learned may easily perceiue your false iuggling in it. There you wil nedes haue, [...], to signifie, the wife that is gonne from her husband by diuorce, and therefore you turne it, Vxori quae decessit (àse) whereas you should haue followed the allowed translation that is in vse, which hath Defunctae vxori, the wife deceassed, or departed this life. So I haue turned the place in my Confutation according to the Greeke, and as the common Latine translation hath.
Consider therefore how impudently you reproue me without cause. First in the margent of your booke, [...]. Pag. 164. ouer against this testimonie of S. Chrysostom, truly translated by me out of the Greeke worde for worde (For whereas be [...]epeth no beneuol [...]nce towarde his wife deceased, how can he be a good gouernour? You haue set this odious note of reproufe, directing it by your sterre vnto the worde, deceassed * Vntruthe. For M. Harding fowly mistaketh S. Chrysostomes meaning. And there again immediatly. * Vntruth standing in false exposition. Not being content with this in your te [...]te, page 174. lin. 3. you say further? Those wordes M. Harding in his translation hath purposely falsified. I haue not purposely falsified them M. Iewel for they be [Page] not my [...], but they be the word [...] of the common tr [...] slation, and the same i [...] according to the Greeke: For th [...] verbe, [...], [...] signifieth not to departe away by diuorce, as you haue violently turned it, but simply to departe, or goe awaye, and sometimes, as in this very place, to departe out of this life. You might haue learned so much of the common Greeke Lexicon.
VVhat secōd marriage not forbiddē by the lavves.Now that S. Chrysostome is so to be vnderstanded, S. Chrysostome him selfe clearely sheweth in wordes of the same sentence there. For whereas he speaketh of that second marriage, which he confesseth not to be forbidden by the lawes: what other second marriage meaneth he, but that, when as a man marrieth againe after the deceasse of his first wife? For I trow you wil not say, that the lawes after Christes comming, among Christian men permitted a man to marrie againe, his wife being aliue, and so to haue two wiues at once, specially in the case which your translation importeth, that is, when the wife (is not put away for Aduoutrie of her parte, but) departeth from the husband, which she may not do, but for aduoutrie of his parte.
It is not likely, S. Paule would debarre a man from comming vnto the dignitie of a Bishop, that had two wiues at once. For such a one, excepte he repented, and had put awaye from him one of them, was not admitted to be made a Christian man. What trow ye, that he required not a farr [...] mo [...] p [...]rfection in him, that was to be made a Bishop?
Thus you see good reason, why Ambros [...]s-C [...]ild [...]le [...] sis that learned man, trāslated, [...] (for that is S. Chrysostoms word, and not [...], as you haue [Page 307] noted in your bookes margent) by this worde, Defunctae, and why I turned it, the wife disceassed. You may now of your courtesie take backe againe your bitter reproches of fowle mistaking, of false exposition, of purposed falsifying, to your selfe. For these special qualities be proued to be yours, they be not myne.
For two other testimonies in proufe of Priestes Marriage, M. Iewel craueth helpe at Erasmus, and Cornelius Agrippa. Thus he saith.
Erasmus saith, The Priestes of the Greeke Church this daie, not vvithstanding their Orders, marrie vviues. The like vvriteth Cornelius Agrippa against the Iouanians.
Harding.
Erasmus, and Cornelius AgrippaErasmus, and Cornel. Agrippa. be menne of smal credite God wote in this cause, which in their time they f [...]uo [...]red, as much as you do now. It is cōmonly reported (you know) for a vaine shifte of a theefe, to say, Aske my fellow, whether I be a theefe, or no. Herein we are moued with the authoritie of these two smatterers of your Gospel, in their daies but newly broc [...]ed, no more then if we heard Frier Luther, Monke H [...]p [...]r, Peter Martyr the regulare Chanon of S. Augustines order, and suche other married Apostates, to speake a good worde in fauour of their vnlawful yokinges. How be it the truth is, both Erasmus, and Cornelius Agrippa, belye the Greeke Churche herein, as the Doctours of the Sorbo [...]e in Paris haue in their Censures againste Erasmus truely declared. For by the lawe, it was neuer, nor yet is to this day, lawful in the Greeke Churche, for Priestes to marrie wiues, after that they haue taken [Page] the holy Order of Priesthood [...].
Likevvise Cardinal Caiet [...]n [...] saith; Nec ratione, nec authoritat [...] probari potest,Caietan. in Quod libet. quod absolute loquendo Sacerdos peccet, cōtrahēdo matrimonius▪ It can not be proued, neither by reason, nor by a [...]th [...] ritie, speaking absolutely that a Priest offendeth God, [...] marrying a vvife,
Harding.
Cardinal Caietane hath his errours, for which he hath ben reproued and confuted. We are not bound to mainteine, what so euer he saith. How be it this saying of his seemeth to haue no great errour,VVhere of is it, that the Marriage of Priestes in the vvest Church is vnlavvful. Statute of the Churche and Vovvannexed. so it be vnderstanded, as he meant. There be two thinges, that make the marriage of Priestes in the most Church vnlawful, the S [...] of the Church, and the Vow annexed. The Statute and cōstitution of the Church, bindeth clerkes receiuing holy Orders neuer to marrie. As touching the Vow like as the Order and h [...]b [...]e of Monkes (by which [...]a [...]e al religious be vnderstanded) hath Chastitie [...]nexed by [...] that institut [...]d the habite, and the [...]le for monkes to [...] in, and therfore he that receiueth it, is said therewith to make a Vow cōsequently [...]en so holy Order among the Latines, or thereof the West Church, by the Churches cōstitution, hath [...] anne [...]d inseperably, and therfore who so euer t [...]k [...]th it, willingly bindeth him selfe therunto in fact and deede, though no word of the bo [...]d be spoken. So [...]h [...]t this b [...]nde procedeth both of the statute of the C [...] [...]nd of the Vow.VVhat meaneth Caietane by this vvorde, Absolutely. And for this consid [...]ration the [...] Priest [...] is vnlawful. Bu [...] speaking [...]bso [...]t [...]ly sai [...]h [...] that is to say, if there were no such stature, of the [...], nor Vow at [...]et in this case [...]f [...] Prie [...]st [...]rried for any thing that is in reason, [...] in th [...] [...] of [...] presse Scriptures to the cont [...] [Page 308] he [...]ould not sinne. Wherby he signifieth, that, the case [...]tanding as it doth, Priestes marriage is vnlawful. Now remaineth M. Iewels last proufe of this matter.
[...] likewise, Anselmus saith in a Dialogue betvvene the Maister [...]d the Scholare, touching these matters.Anselmus in Dialog. Inquisitione prima. Desideramu [...] certificari tua sol [...]tione super vulgari in toto orbe quaestione, quae ab omnibus penè quotidie ventilatur, & adhuc lis indiscussa celatur. Scilicet, an liceat presbyteris, post acceptum ordinem vxores ducere. VVe are d [...]sirous by your ansvver to be certified, about this common question, that is novv tossed through the vvorlde, and as yet lieth vndiscussed, I meane vvhether a Priest, being vvil his Orders, may marrie a vvife. Hereby a appeareth, that in the time of A [...]selmus, vvhich vvas aboue a thousand yeres after Christe, this matter laye in question, and vvas not yet discussed.
Harding.
Anselmus wrote three Dialogues,Anselmus vvrongfully made a spokesman for the Apostates marriage. in which he maketh the Maister and the Scholare to talke together. The first, is De Veritate: the second, De Libero Arbitrio: the third, De Casu Diaboli. An other Dialogue he wrote also of an other matter, in which he appointeth for talkers together, Anselmus, and Beso Moe Dialogues he neuer wrote, for ought that can appeare by the workes, that be extant in printe vnder his name. And in these, neither in any of these, there is no such Dialogue betwene the Maister, and the Scholare touching these matters, as you say. And whereas you haue in the Maigent of your booke, Inquisitione prima, I maie inquire for suche an Inquisition a longe time, before I finde it, for there is no suche thing at al among his Dialogues. Whether Frier Bale, Illyricus, or some other suche gatherer of Rifferaffe haue deceiued you, or of your selfe you were disposed [Page] in this place to [...] you [...] owne inuention (I w [...] [...] cal it pl [...]e lying) I knowe [...]ot: certainly amongest [...] printed workes, there is no s [...]ch Dialogue to be founde.
But if there were any such, what should that releiue your sory, causes? If the Maister had in good so [...]h so tolde the Scholar [...], it had [...]en some what. Now th [...]t [...] Scholare saith it is a common question, and much toss [...]d betwen menne, and as yet lyeth vndiscussed: what other thing doth the Author by these wordes, but prouoke the Readers attention, that the Answer be the more diligētly weighed, and considered of? You knowe M. Iewel the writers of suche Dialogues, may make the demaunder to talke, what they liste. Neither is any thing to be auouched for true or false the sooner, bicause the demaū der so reporteth. By this you may see, that the author had a desire to discusse this matter by the Scholars mouing of the question, you can not argue, that at that time, this point was so muche in question.
And whereas by the a [...]thors fictiō, the Scholare saith, it was then a common question, and laie vndiscussed, by that a ma [...] may ghess [...] that in Anselmus time, suche, as whom it bec [...]me to be Scholars, and not Maisters, were busy in common table talke aboute suche questions, as the like personnes now a daies occupie their heades, and wheat their tongues aboute the like, and other questions of greater weight, wh [...] [...] them selues in their bolde and sto [...] [...]ss [...]erations more like maisters; the [...] Scholars.
And againe, whereas the Scholare in the pretensed Dialogue said, that question laie as yet vndiscussed, it is to be referred to those daies, and to the comp [...]ss [...] of that [Page 309] time, sine [...] [...]hiche that matter in that age beganne to [...] in question. Thereof you may not conclude, that it was neuer before discussed in Christes Church, for the sp [...]ce of a thousand yeres, as you thereof would seme to g [...]ther. For among learned men, and the gouernours of Christes Churche, it was euer from the Apostles time certaine, and without al controuersie, that Priestes being in holy Orders might not marrie. And this is al that M. Iewel was hable to bring for proufe, that Priestes, and who so euer haue Vowed Chastitie, may marrie. Let vs see further, how wel he defendeth his Apologie against my Confutation, touching this matter.
And as Sozomenus saith of Spiridion, and as Nazianzene saith of his [...] Father, vve saie, that a good and diligent Bishop doth serue in the ministerie neuer the vvorse, for that he is married, but rather the better, and vvith more hablenes to doo good.
The Confutation. fol. 76. a.
Were it not that the weight of these matters required an vpright and plaine dealing, for ciuilities sake I could be content sometimes to spare you, and where ye make manifest lyes, to vse a softer word, and terme them fittens.Lying much vsed of this defender. But now if I tel you that you vse your accustomed figure pseudologia, which is lying in plaine english: I trust you wil beare with my plainenes, amend your owne fault, and cōsider the power of truth, that causeth me to be so bold with you. This I am sure of, that neither Sozomenus, nor Gregorie Nazianzene,Sozomenas, Gregorie Nazianzene nor Eusebius lib. 10. cap. 5. as you haue caused your bookes both Latine and English to be noted in the margent, where ye mistake [Page] Eusebius for Ruf [...]u [...] [...]o [...] N [...]ia [...] [...] [...]ther i [...] M [...] nodia,Eusebius belyed by the aucthour of the Apologie. as you note also in th [...] margent, n [...]r in the fu [...] oration that he made of his fath [...] hath any such saying as ye report of them. For how could they say that a bis [...] serueth in his ministerie neuer the worse, but rather the better, and with more ablenes to do good for that he is maried, the Scripture being so plaine to the contrary [...] What, wene ye they were either so ignorant, or so forgetful, or so much inclined to promote your carnal doctrine of priestes mariages, as to say so, not withstanding that S. Paule writeth to the Corinthians?A bishop is not able to do his ministerie the better for that he is maried to a vvife. Saith he not of them that be maried, that such shal haue tribulation of the flesh? Saieth he not, he that is without a wife, careth for the thinges of our Lord how he may please God? Of him that hath a wyfe saieth he not, that he careth for the thinges that be the worldes how he may please his wife, and is diuided? finally sayth he not, I tel you this thing for your profite, not to tangle you in a snare, but for that which is honest, and comely vnto you, and that which may geue you readines to praye to God without lette? Wherfore recant for shame that fowle errour, that a bishop serueth the better in his ministerie, and is the more able to do good, for that he is maried.Leaft out by M. I. * Verily here ye seme to be of the flesh rather then of the spirite. Neither are ye to be called any longer, if ye mainteine this doctrine, spiritual men, as in times past they haue ben, whose romes ye occupie, but rather fleshly men. * Such men, such doctrine, fleshly men, fleshly doctrine.Left out by M. Iev * Neither see I, what ye can say for Defence of this doctrine, onlesse ye bristle your selues against S. Paule, and maugre his auctoritie affirme impudently, that it is no lette for a Bishop from the seruice of God, [Page 310] to haue the tribulation of the flesh, that he may serue in [...] vocation better, taking care for the thinges that be the worldes, and seeking how to please his wife, then if he studie for the thinges that be our Lordes, and seeke how to please God: that a man may do more good, being by occasion of his wife diuided and distract, then being whole and in him selfe vnited finally that a bishop shal serue the Church better being entangled and clogged with worldly affaires, then hauing power and oportunite to pray to God without lette. *
Now therfore see you not how great is your impudencie in that you lye your selfe, and father such a fowle lye vpon Sozomenus, and that light of the world in his time Gregorie Nazianzene?Left out by M. Ie. The place of Sozomenus examined * But for then dealing let vs heare what Sozomenus sayth concerning Spiridion. For Rufine in the tenth booke added to Eusebius touching this matter reporteth nothing, but that he had a daughter named Irene, who died before her father a virgin. * The wordes of Sozomenus be these.Cap. 5. lib. 1. cap. 11. [...], that is to say, Spiridion was a Husbandman, hauing wife and children, and yet for al that he was neuer the worse about Gods seruice. Of this place we graunte ye may saye with Sozomenus, that Spiridion serued God neuer the woorse for that he was married. But how, and whereof gather ye, that he serued God the better, and was more able to doo good because of his marriage?Left out by M. Ie. * Now SpiridionSpiridion was a man of passing holinesse, and in power and vertue surmounted al other menne of his time, as one that wrought greate miracles, and was taken for a prophete. [Page] For Rufine, where [...] [...]ompareth P [...]pl [...]utiu [...] with the Apostles,Ecclesiast. Histo. lib. 10. cap. 4. & 5. s [...]m [...]th to pro [...]tes Spiridion before him. If this one Saint of so great excellencie being made bishop of a maried man serued God neuer the worse for that he was maried; wil ye therefore make a general doctrine, that bishops and priestes shal ma [...]y, and that thereby they shal be no whit hindered from Gods seruice? * Spiridion obteined that priuiledge through especial grace by his exceding ve [...]ue, which is graunted to fewe. And the priuileges of a fewe make not a lawe for al in general ye knowe, as Nazianzene saieth.
The place of Sozomenus alleaged by the defender maketh vtterly against them. Leaft out by Mil.Furthermore if the wordes of Sozomenus that ye build youre annal doctrine vpō be wel examined, ye shal finde, th [...] he maketh more against you then with you. For signifying that he had wife and children, he addeth, [...]. Yet for al that he was neuer the worse about God [...] seruice. This reuocation, or exceptiō negatiue (yet for al that &c.) implieth a cōfession affirmatiue of the contrarie. * As though by reason the sentence should beare this meaning. He had wife and children, and therefore was lesse apt and able to serue God in bishoply ministerie. If there were no repugnance betwen the state of a bishop, and mariage, but the hauing of a wife were a better abling of a man to serue in that vocation, as ye say: then Sozomen us neither would, nor should haue vsed that maner of speach, [...], (as much to say, yet for al that but [...]ther thus he should haue spoken, [...], that this sence might rise of his wordes, Spiridion was a husbandman, hauing wife and children, and therefore he was the better disposed and readier to serue God. *
[Page 311]Neither maketh the place of Gregorie Nazianzene [...]y what for you more, then this of Sozomenus doth:Nazianzenes vvordes returned vpon the defender. whose wordes be these after the translation of Rapha [...] Volaterranus varying much from the Greeke. Hic Basilij pater Basilius item appellatus, et si matrimonio se vinxit, ita tamen in eo vixit, vt nihil propterea ad perfectam virtutem, ac Philosophiam consequendam impediretur. Basiles father who was named also Basile, although he put him selfe in bondes of matrimonie, yet he liued so herein, as he was letted no whit from the atteining of perfitte vertue, and holy knowledge. Were not marriage a lette and hinderance to perfection requisite in a Bishop, this learned man could not rightly haue said, ita tamen in eo vixit, &c. yet for al that he liued so, &c. Leaft out by M.I. * Bicause the hauing of a wife is a hinderance to perfection, therefore of good reason in the praise of that holy Bishop, who was married long before he tooke that degree, yet notwithstanding (saieth this writer) he was not therefore letted from perfection. By which manner of speach he acknowledgeth marriage in others to be a lette to perfection. Who vnderstādeth not for what cause of these two speaches, the one is reasonable, the other absurd: he is power, yet for al that liberal, and, he is power, yet for al that sparing? The like consideration duly conceiued, retourneth the auctoritie by this Defender alleaged against him selfe. For the like absurditie is in this saying, Basiles father was married, yet for al that he was not thereby letted from perfection: if for hauing a wife a man be the better able and readier to serue in the holy ministerie of a Bishop. *
Right so it is easy to put him from the holde he taketh [Page] of Chrysostome, by Chrysostom him selfe. For least my man should thinke,Tit. 1. whereas S. Paule sayeth, a Bishop ought to be the husband of one wife, that the same order contineweth stil in the Church, thereto he saieth in his seco [...]d homilie de patientia Iob: non ea ratione quod id nunc in Ecclesia obseruetur. Oportet enim omni pr [...]rsus castitate S [...]cerdotem ornatum esse. S. Paule (sayeth he) required this not in consideration that the same be nowe obserued in the Church. For it behoueth a Bishop to be garnished with al manner a chastitie.
Here commeth M. Hardinge in a lofte vvith Io Triumphe, as hauing beaten dovvne al the vvorld vnder his feete: And as being already in sure possession of the victorie, he crieth out, Impudencies, Loude his, foule Faultes, and pietie Fittens. And ful terribly chargeth vs, like a Conqueroure, to render oure selues, and to r [...]cante for sonne. This nevve courage is suddainly blovven vpon him, for that he th [...] keth, vve haue intruded v [...]on his office, and as he saieth, ha [...]e corrupted, and falsified the holy Fathers. But it vvere a vvorthie matter to knovve vvherein. Forsoothe vve saie, by the reporte of Soz [...] menus, and Gregorius Nazianzenus, that Spiridion, and Gregorie Father to Nazianzen, being bothe Married Bishoppes, notvvithstanding theire Marriage, vvere neuer the vv [...]rs [...] hable to doo theire Ecclesiastical offices, but rather the better.
The vvordes importe it not.Here M. Harding of himselfe, and freely confesseth, these Holy Fathers vv [...]re ne [...]r the vvorse hable to d [...] their offices? For so muche th [...] [...] of [...] importe, [...]. But that they vvere the better hable to doe their [...] offices, [...]cause of theire VViues, that he d [...]nieth vtterly, and herein he saie [...]h me are corrupters, and falsifiers of the Fathers. And thus the vvhole difference, that is betvvene M. Hardinge and vs touching this matter, standeth [Page 312] onely in these tvvo poore vvordes, Rather the better, and [...]euer the v [...]rse.
Novv gentle reader,I beseche thee also Reader to vveigh my Ansvver. that thou maiest be the better hable t [...] i [...]dge betvvene vs, I beseeche the indifferently vveigh these vv [...]des.
Gregorie Nazianzene hereof, that is, of the helpe,Vntruth for then he vvas not Bishop, but an infidel Nazian. in Epitaphi [...] patris. that his Father, [...] being the Bishop of Nazianzum had by his vvife, vvriteth thus: Illa quae data est Adamo, &c. Eua that vvvas geuen to Adam for a helper for asmuch as it vvas n [...] good for man to be alone, in steede of a helper became his enemie. It follovveth, Meo autem Patri Mater mea data illi à Deo, non tantum adiutrix facta est, id enim minus esset mirū, sed etiā dux, & princeps, verbo, facto (que) inducens illū ad res optimas. Et aliis quidem rebus quamuis optimum esset subditam esse viro, propter iura coniugii tamen in pietate non verebatur seipsam illi magistram exhibere: My mother being geuen to my father of God, became not onely his helper, for that had ben no great vvonder, but also vvas his leader, and Captaine,She vvas his Maistresse before he knevv, vvhat the faith of Christ vvas yet they serue you to no purpose. False. He vvas not then Bishop of Nazianzum, nor yet a Christian. bothe by vvord and by deede, trayning him vnto the best. And albeit in other thinges it vvere beste for her to be subiecte vnto her husbande for the right of marriage, yet in religion, and Godlinesse, she doubted not to becomme his Maistresse.
These vvordes M. Hardinge, be plaine, and cleare, and vvithout fitton, Gregorie Nazianzen sayeth, that his ovvne [...]ther vvas vnto his father the Bishop of Nazianzum, a helper and a directour, both by vvorde and deede, to leade him to the best: and that in al other thinges being his inferiour, yet in [...]eligion and Godlinesse she vvas his [...] VVhat a do vvould this fellovv make, if he had me at a Vantage in deede, that thus fareth vvithout cause, as by the ansvver it shal better appeare. Maistresse. And yet m [...]st al these vvordes so open, so plaine, so cleare, be drovvned vvith your simple distinction, of Rather the better, and neuer the vvorse. Maie vve not novve allovve you vvith fauour, to take al these, that ye cal sitions, lyes, corruptions, and falsifienges, home againe vnto your selfe?
[Page]If you [...]r cr [...]le th [...]se t [...]ges before is [...] must remembre al truth must not be measured by your reading▪
Harding.
To beginne with these last wordes, as I require not al truth to be measured by my r [...]ding M. I [...]w [...]l, so neither is it to be measured by your writing. Whether I euer readde these thinges before, or no, it skilleth not. Certaine it is, where you readde al that ye haue here alleged out of S. Gregorie Nazianzene, you readde also that, whereby your false, and vnreasonable assertion is confuted, teaching that his Father being Bishop of Nazianzū learned the doctrine of Godlines of his wife. Hauing read and seene the truth of this point in that very place, and here conceeling it, that you might not seeme confuted, yea, and so boldely auouching the contrarie: how make you not al menne, that know this, witnesses of your falshode, and impudencie?
M. Ievvels gay eloquence minister-like.As for your vaine, and light tauntes of my comming in a lofte, with Io Triumphe, of my terrible charging of you like a Conquerour, of the new courage suddainly blowen vpon me, and such other prety eloquence fitter for a Minister, then for a sober man: I can easily contemne. No wise man that readeth my wordes, for which ye ruffle so with me, wil iudge you had iuste cause, with suche sporte to delight your selfe. Neither said I, if you marke my wordes wel, that you had corrupted and falsified the holy Fathers, for that you said vpon reporte of Sozomenus, and S. Gregorie Nazianzene, that Spiridion, and Gregorie Father to Nazianzene, were for their marriage neuer the worse hable to serue God, but rather the better (which neuerthelesse is false): but for that you speake [Page 313] it generally of a Bishop: as though Bishops should do [...] that apperteineth to their charge the better, if they married wiues. For truth whereof I referre me to the place.Spiridiō, and Gregorie Nazianzenes father.
Those two holy Fathers, were menne endewed with a singular and special grace, and the example of so few, is not to be drawen to be made a rule in general, as I said in my Confutation. Yet the most that is said of them, is, that they serued God neuer the worse by reason of their Marriage.
Againe,M. Ievvel defēdeth after his manner but fevv partes of the Apologie. whereas I answered to euery parte of your Apologie in this place, you defende but one thing by me confuted. Neither to say the truth, doo you defende the same, but say, what you were hable, to shew some colour of a Defence. This argueth that the other thinges you brought, are fully confuted. For elles why did you not defende them? And this muche is the Reader here to be warned of by the waie: That whereas most commonly I answere to euery thing by the Apologie obiected vnto the Catholikes, in your pretēsed Defence, you laie much of my Confutatiō together, and in your Answere, either you touch no point by me confuted, or very few pointes, but fil your booke with new matter, not perteining to the defence of that which is confuted, taken as it seemeth out of the stoare of your Notebookes, which Illyricus, Frier Bale, and certaine others of that cutte haue made to your hande.
Touching this present matter, you would, if you wist how, persuade the worlde by the example of Gregorie Nazianzenes Father, that a Bishop is not only not letted or hindred from doing that, which belongeth to his duetie by hauing a wife, but also muche holpen, and that for [Page] being marrried, he is the better hable to discharge the seruice of a Bishop. To proue this, you allege muche out of S. Gregorie Nazianzene in Epitaphie patris. In vvhat respecte saith Nazianzen of his Mother, that she vvas to his Father, a leader. &c. And the wordes, whiche you allege, be there in deede. Which wordes reporte, that S. Gregorie Nazianzenes Mother, was to his Father a helper, a guide, a Leader, a Capitaine, by worde, and by deede training him vnto the best, yea further, that in Religion, and godlinesse she was not ashamed to becomme his Maistresse. Al this is true M. Iewel, I confesse, and yet it proueth not your purpose at al. How so?
M. Iewels falshed discouered.Marke Reader, and consider of it wel, how M Iewel begyleth thee. Gregorie Nazianzen hereof (saith he) that is, of the helpe that his Father, being the Bishoppe of Nazianzum had by his wife, writeth thus. Illa &c. Here lyeth the deceite, in that he maketh S. Gregorie Nazianzenes Father Bishop of Nazianzum, when he had suche helpe of his mother, as though it were credible, that a Bishoppe should be taught of his wife, how to teache his flocke the doctrine of our Religion. If S. Gregorie Nazianzene had meant thus, he had made his Father but a simple Bishop. It is a weake flocke, they say of sheepe, where a Yew beareth the belle. So truely it must be an infortunate Dioces, where the Bishop is his Wiues scholare.Gregorie Naziāzē expounded.
Now Reader al these great crakes, that M. Iewel vttereth here so liberally, in thy iudgement must come to naught, when thou vnderstandest the truth of this matter. Thus then it is. Gregorie the elder, S. Gregorie Nazianzenes Father, was a married man long before he was Bisshop: and before he was married vnto his wife, and also [Page 314] long after, he was in Infidel. She, S. Gregories mother, contrariwise was a Christian woman, borne of Christian parentes, and descended of a stocke, that had ben Christian of long time. Her learned sonne speaking of her, [...], &c. fol. 124. a. Aldi. Hypsistarij vvhat menne they were in comparison of his Father, saith, that she was not taken out of the wilde Oliue, and engraffed into the good Oliue, as he was: But that she had vertue, and the true faith of Christe, as by auncient inheretance, from her godly forefathers. Of him he saith, that he was a branche of a Roote, that was not to be praised, that was not disposed to godlines, that was not planted in the howse of God. Touching the religion that he was of, speaking more particularly of him, he saith, that he was one of them, who were named Hypsistarij, of whom I haue not readde, but in S. Gregorie Nazianzene. These Hypsistarij, as he describeth them, were neither altogether Heathens, nor Iewes, but (as a man following S. Gregorie might terme them) mongrels betwen both. For (as he saith) of the Heathnish errour, they exchewed Idolles, and Sacrifices, and yet honoured the Fier and Lampes, and of Moyses lawe they had in reuerence the Saboth daie, and vsed the Iewish superstition about certaine meates, but Circumcision they vtterly refused. Suche a one touching Religion, was this Gregorie.
Now that vertuous and holy woman his wife on the other side, taking great thought for her husband, [...]nd, as her sonne writeth, hauing great griefe at harte, that being yoked together in wedlocke, [...]. they drewe not one waie together through diuersitie of faith, that she was vnited vnto God but in respecte of halfe, that the copulation of the spirite was not ioined with the bodily copulation, being most desirous to remedie [Page] this, and y [...] not being [...]ble to bring it to passe: she f [...]l downe (saith h [...]) befo [...] God daie and night, she besought and craued of him the saluation of her husband, with muche fasting, and with many teares. Withal she was instant vpon her husband to come to the Christian faith, she vsed al the waies she could deuise whereby to winne him, [...], &c. Gregorie the Fathers Vision. with chidinges (saith he) with admonitions, with [...], &c. Gregorie the Fathers Vision. kinde and louing seruices, with tokens of displeasure. To be shorte, [...], &c. Gregorie the Fathers Vision. it coulde no otherwise be (saith he) but that the droppe of water with continual falling should at length make a hole in the stoane, and that the thing in time should be brought to passe, that was so earnestly intended.
There then speaking particularly of the meanes, by which Gods prouidence brough him to Saluation, and to become a Christian man, among other thinges, he saith, that his Father was muche furthered with a vision in a dreame, wherewith (saith he) God oftentimes benefiteth [...] soule, which he accompteth worthy to be saued. It seemed vnto him in his dreame, that he sange that verse of Dauid the Prophete. Laetatus sum in ijs quae dicta sunt mihi, in demum Domini ibimus. Psal. 121. that is to saye, as he vttereth it out of the seuenty Interpreters, It reioised me to heare them, that said vnto me, Come on, let vs goe into the howse of our Lord.
This vision he tolde his wife. She, being very glad of it, as hauing assured hope, that her long praier and desire was heard, interpreting it to the best sense, and signifying vnto him, how great fauour God shewed vnto him, made al the haste she could possibly, that he were Christened, fearing, as her sonne writeth, lest by differring some thing might happen in the meane while, that should be a hinderance to that blessed calling, and defeit [Page 315] al, [...] she had so much and so long gonne about to bring to affecte. To be shorte, within a while after she founde the meane, that he was Christened by the holy Father Leontius Bishop of that Dioces, at what time out of al coaster of the worlde the Bishoppes repaired to Nicaea, there to holde a General Councel, to the condemnation of the heresie of Arius. After this he liued a holy life, and at length by Gods prouidence, he was promoted vnto the bishoprike of Nazi [...]nzum.
This much is (though in a farre larger processe) declared by S. Gregorie Nazianzene in the Oration, which he made at the burial of his Father. Whereby it is made cleare to al menne, how his Father was holpen by his wife, not as being a Bishop, as M. Iewel doth vntruly say, but as yet being an Infidel. That her sonne reporteth of her, that she was vnto his Father, a helper, a guide, a leader, Faithful vviues haue ben cause of their husbandes conuersion to the faith. Monica S. Augustines Mother laboured to cōuert Patricius her husband. Confessionum. li. 9. cap. 9. a Captaine, an instructour, a teacher a maistresse in religion, and godlinesse: al this is to be vnderstanded of the time, in which he remained an vnbeleuer, not of the time, in which he was Bishop of Nazianzum.
Herein she did the parte, that many other godly and faithful wiues haue donne, who haue vsed the like diligence and care, to bring their husbandes being Infidels, vnto the faith of Christe. That holy woman Monica S. Augustines mother, did the like with her husband Patricius, of whom he writeth thus in his booke of Confessions, speaking vnto God, as there his manner is: Tradita vira seruiuit veluti Domino, & sategit cum lucrari tibi, &c. When she was married out vnto her husband, she serued him, as if he had ben her Maister, and tooke care how she might winne him vnto thee, ô Lorde. Againe he said there [Page] afterwarde. Vir [...]m s [...]m iam in extrema vita temporall eiu [...] lucrata est tibi. She wanne her husband vnto thee (ô Lorde) now in the ende of his temporal life.
In consideration that God oftentimes worketh such grace by the wife to the winning of the husband vnto God, S. Paule requireth, that a Christian woman put not awaie her husband from her being an infidel, if he cōsent to dwel with her. For how knowest thou o woman (saith he) whether thou shalt saue thy husband or no? 1. Cor. 7.
Either you haue read these thinges M. Iewel, in the place from whence you tooke the wordes, which here you allege, or you trusted the gatherer of your Notes. If you trusted your gatherer, you should haue tried the testimonie wel, before you had spoken so peremptorily. If you haue readde and seene al this, in that you haue conceeled the truth, and spoken so much to the contrary, you shew your selfe to be one, that is litle to be trusted.
Certainely al menne may nowe see, howe iust cause I haue, not to take these fittons, and corruptions againe vnto me, but to leaue them with you, and to charge you with them, as I did before in my Confutation of your Apologie.
After this M. Iewel bringeth in a great meany of Doctours sayinges, with whiche they commende Marriage and seeme to blame them that despised, and condemned Marriage, and were of the opinion, that a man could not be saued if he were married. Whereunto I thinke al answere needeles, for asmuch as we are not they, that condemne Marriage, as it hath now ben oftentimes said. we esteme it as honorable, and where marriage is lawful, and lawfully vsed, we accōpt that bed vnspotted and cleane, [Page 316] as S. Paule calleth it. Mary we say,Heb. 13. that who soeuer haue bound them selues to liue in continencie by solēne Vow, as Priestes and Religious persons, for them it is not lawful to marrie, and their Marriage is vnlawful, or rather, none at al. Against whiche doctrine M. Iewel hath nothing to say, nor to allege, and yet touching Marriage, he hath filled a great deale of paper with the doctours sayinges. So ready he is to bring muche, and so litle hable to bring ought, that maketh clearely for him.
What thinges certaine Fathers haue writen against impure heretikes dispraising marriage in al men,VVith vvhat stuffe M. Ievv. furnisheth out this pointe at large. Defence Pag. 187. 188. 189. the same he allegeth now, as if they were spoken against the Catholikes condemning the Marriage of these Apostates. He bringeth in a long saying of Origen, spoken of the Marcionistes, and Cerdonistes, and such others. He allegeth Epiphanius against the filthy Origenians. Chrysostome against wicked wemen, that keping the name of Maides, liued worse then hartlots in the Stewes. Briefely so many mo as he founde, old, and late writers of al sortes, speaking bitterly against the impune life of il menne, and wemen. Whereunto I answere briefly: As al the married Apostates approche neare vnto the filthinesse of Deuils, so some of the Catholique Clergie, and religious personnes, be farre from the purenesse of Angelles. God geue vs al grace to amende, that is amisse, and you M. Iewel a better harte, and more charitie towardes his Church. With which grace being endewed, you wil take lesse pleasure in reporting il of her Ministers.
I neede not here after this sorte to trauaile any farther in this matter against Maister Iewel. What soeuer is beside that, whiche I haue here answered in the [Page] whole booke of his pretensed Defence touching th [...] point, it is either not worth the answering, as altogether impertinent, or sufficiently refelled in my former Confutation. Compare the one with the other Christian Reader, and if thou be hable to iudge of these thinges, assure thy selfe, my sayd Confutation maie satisfie thee, for ought that M. Iewel bringeth. Now bicause it were infinite to stand vppon euery pointe, and to discusse so many tedious, and impertinent allegations: I thinke it more conuenient to vse an other waie, and by laying together certaine his Vntruthes, to make shorter worke.
M. Iewels Vntruthes, and flatte Lies concerning the Marriage of Priestes, and Votaries.
1 He steineth the authoritie of S. Hierome, S. Chrysostome,Pag. 165. S. Gregorie Nazianzen, and diuers other learned and ancient Fathers, as disgracing lawful Matrimonie, and the Marriage of Widowes, and Widowers.
2 He saith, S. Hierome in Catalogo witnessed, that Tertullian was a married Priest.Pag. 166. The place wil shew this vntruth. Albeit I denie not, but that he was married, before he was Priest: and so were diuers others, as Spiridion, S. Gregorie Nazianzenes Father, Gregorius Nyssenus, and certaine others.
3 He saith, S. Hilarie Bishoppe of Poitiers was married, and that he prooueth by an Apocryphal epistle to one Abra his daughter. These toies are vaine, and more fabulous, then Esops fables.
4 So he maketh Prosper the bishop of Rhegium, a married man, vpon a felender coniecture, how soeuer it be, [Page 317] it can not be prooued, that he was married after that he was Bishop. that is ynough for vs.
He saith, that Polycrates had seuen of his Fathers 5 Bishops before him. The meaning of the testimonie alleged for that purpose is, that seuen of his howse, and kinred, had benne Bishoppes in his Churche before him. For so signifieth the Greeke worde [...], [...] as is before noted.
That which he allegeth vnder the name of Pope Damasus, 6 is intitled in the Decrees, Palea, as muche to say, Chaffe, by which name in the Decrees of Gratian, that is signified, which is by some other mā added vnto Gratian. and wel may this be so named, bicause it is a thing forged, and litle worthe. And how could Damasus write of so many Popes, whiche liued after his death certaine hundred yeres?
He saith, alleging for his authour Fabian the late merchant 7 of London,Pag. 167. that Marriages of Priestes in England were free a thousand yeres together, and yet it is euidēt, that the English Clergie was gouerned according to the order which our Apostle S. Augustin leaft, who by S. Gregories rule, might not allow married Priestes.
He saith, the Priestes of England were neuer Votaries, 8 for proufe, he saith boldely, it is knowen, and confessed, which stout asseueration maketh weake proufe. And were it so, then surely if any had maried, although he had sinned thereby, yet the mariage should haue continued, whiche is knowen to haue alwaies benne vsed otherwise.
He calleth the Vow of Chastitie, an euil promisse,Pag. 168. 169. and 9 an vnhonest Vow, whiche worde was neuer yet spoken [Page] by any good or honest man. For our Ladie vowed her chastitie vnto God,Luc. 1. as it is euident by the interpretation of many holy Fathers vpon S. Lukes Gospel.
10 He denieth primam fidem, the first faith in S. Paule to be meant of the Vow of Chastitie,Pag. 170. 1. Tim. 5. whiche is directly against the aunciēt fathers doctrine. For although it were expounded of baptisme also, yet none but Heretikes, euer denied it to apperteine to Vowes.
11 He beareth the world in hande, as though we violently forced yong Maidens to receiue Vowes.Pag. 171. It cōmeth of their owne choise, and of Gods grace, and not of any constraint of ours.
12 He turneth, Offerre, to Minister the oblation, or holy communion, Pag. 172. whereas it is to make the oblation, before that it be ministred.
13 He taketh halfe the sense of S. Paule awaye, concerning those, whom he exhorteth to absteine from the vse of wedlocke for a certaine time of praier, as I prooued before.
14 He saith, Paphnutius alone, was proctour for the truth against the whole Councel of Nice, Pag. 173. intending thereby to bring his reader in beleefe, that one is better, then three hundred and seuenteen. For 318. Bishoppes were at that Councel. Thus he seeketh to discredite Councelles.
15 He burdeneth vs, as seming to say, that the cōpanie of man and wife is filthinesse, which we say not, but teach Marriage to be a Sacramēt, but yet, as, not betwen father and daughter, so neither betwene Frier and Nonne.
16 He saith, I haue falsified S. Chrysostoms woordes. But it is not so.Pag. 174 For S. Chrysostom saith, that neither he, that had two wiues at once, nor he, who had ben againe [Page 318] married after his first wiues death, may be made Priest by S. Paules rule, he speaketh of the seconde Marriage after the first wiues death, saying. Qui defuncta vxori beneuolentiam non seruat, he that rendreth not good wil to his wife being dead, how can he be a good gouernour ouer the Church? So that by S Chrysostomes interpretation, S. Paule literally forbiddeth him to be made Priest, who hath had mo Wiues then one, whether it were at once, or one after an other.
He corrupteth the text of S. Chrysostom, putting for 17 the Greeke word, [...], this Latine,Pag. 175. Chrysost. in epist. ad Titum Hom. 2. quae discessit (à se) her that is gone frō him, in stede of this worde defunctae, which is, dead. His coniecture taken of the Greeke worde, is void, and nothing worth. For [...], decedo, doth signifie also to depart this life. And it is plainer, that S. Chrysostom expressely cōfesseth this sense, which we defend, saying, Quidam hoc ita intelligunt, vt ad episcopatū is assumatur, qui vnius fuerit vxoris vir. Some men do vnderstand this mater, that he be taken to Bishophoode, who hath ben the husband of one wife. And that this last sense not being reproued of S. Chrysostome, is the most literal sense, it may appeare by these wordes of S. Paule. Let her be chosen a widowe, quae fuerit vnius viri vxor, 1. Tim. 5. which hath ben the wife of one husband. Wherefore as by the wife of one husband, she is meant, which hath not ben twise married: so by the husbād of one wife, he likewise is vnderstanded, that hath not ben twise married.
Cassiodorus (saith M. Iewel) writeth, that Eupsychius, 18 who suffered Martyrdome being newe married,Pag. 176. was a Bishoppe. What a shameful corruption is this, to adde the woorde, Bishoppe, vnto the text, whereas it is [Page] euident by Sozomenus the authour of the Storie, and by Nicephorus, that Eupsychius was a laie gentleman of Cesarea in Cappadocia, as is before declared. What vile forgerie is this M. Iewel, to turne a Gentleman, or a Noble man, into a Bishop, only that a Bishop might seeme to haue married? So litle can your Marriages of Bishoppes, and Priestes be mainteined without Lies.
19 He leaueth out the better halfe of the Glose, reciting that parte,Pag. 175. which the Glose alloweth not, leauing that, which it alloweth.
20 He saith, that a good and diligent Bishop serueth rather the better, bicause of marriage. But how vntruly he saith it, it is before sufficiently declared. Certainly (I may say) were it true, then Christ, who was the best Bishoppe that euer was, and omitted nothing, whereby he might haue ben most perfite) would haue ben married.
21 He saith, S. Paule gaue rules to the Clergie, that Bishops,Pag. 182. and Deacons should be the husbādes of one wife: the sense is not wel geuen. It is to be vnderstanded, that none other husbandes should be Bishops, or Deacōs, but such, as had ben, or were, the husbandes of one wife.
22 He saith further, immediatly after the former rule of one wife, in the same tenour and course of speache S. Paule sheweth, that some shal forbid to marrie. This is false. It doth not follow immediatly. For there goeth betwen a cōmendation of the Church (which S. Paule nameth the piller of truth) and likewise of the Incarnation of Christ. After which wordes S. Paule saith. [...]. Tim. 4. The spirit saith plainely, that in the last daies some shal depart from the faith. From whiche faith? Verely from that faith of the incarnation, and that, whereof the Churche is the piller. [Page 319] Marke the worde discedent à fide, Discedent à fide. they shal depart from the faith. He that departeth from the faith, once had the faith. We neuer had your faith M. Iewel, neither in any other point, nor in this concerning the marriage of Priestes. But we had, and haue the faith, that the lawful Marriage of Christian persons is a Sacrament, and that faith had you once, when you were baptized, and incorporate in our Church. You are gon from that faith, and not we. S. Paul then teacheth, that some shal forbid Marriages, as the Manichees, Encratites, and Marcionistes did, of whom the Apostle prophecied, as S. Chrysostom, and diuers other Fathers doo expounde. But (saith M. Iewel.) He that condemneth Marriage in a few, Pag. 182. must likewise be called a condemner of Marriage. Why sir, doo you allow 23 Mariage betwen the Father and the Daughter, or betwen the Brother and the Sister? If not, then you condemne Marriage in a fewe. It is to be knowen, that Marriage is then forbidden, when it is taught, that a man hauing no impedimēt in his owne person, or when there is no impediment in the person, whom he would take, is yet forbidden to marrie: as if Marriage of it selfe were il, or, as if it were an il thing in it selfe, a man to marrie.
There is impediment, as of blould, as betwen brother and sister, so of Solemne Vow, and of Religion, as betwen a Priest and a Nonne, or any other woman. And as S. Paul doth allow the impediment of bloude, counting him a great sinner, who had his fathers wife:1. Cor. 5. so doth he allow the impediment of a vow, when he saith, that the yong widowes (if they should be receiued into the number of those chast persons, whom the Churche vsed to feede) were like to haue damnation, bicause they would desire [Page] to marie, and so would in harte at the least breake their former faith, or promise of perpetual Chastitie. But (saith he) let yonge widowes marrie, 1. Tim. 5. and bring forth children. As who should saie: If they were receiued into the solemne number of Widowes, then they should make promise not to marrie: and that promise perhaps they would breake, if not openly, yet in hart.
Thus it is no Deuils doctrine to teache, that a person hauing once vowed, can not marrie: bicause he him selfe geueth the impediment, and not the lawe of the Churche. For that lawe was in S. Paules time, as I now haue shewed after S. Chrysostoms minde. Oecumenius saith, Pactae sunt quòd Christo adiungerentur, reijciunt autem ipsum ad humanas reuolutae nuptias. (Item pòst) verùm quia hoc faciunt, nubant, seipsas Christo non despondeant. They couenaunted that they would be ioined vnto Christe, but they shake him of, and turne them selues to humaine Marriages. But bicause they doo so, let them marrie on Goddes name, let them not (by Vow) betroth them selues to Christe. Marke Reader, S. Paule would not haue them marrie after their profession of Chastitie (that might not be in any wise) and therefore he wil haue them not to be professed, and so to marie.Pag. 182. Pope Innocentius is belied. he condemneth 24 not Marriage, but Incest, and vnlauful Marriage, and preferreth in Priestes, and Deacons, holy continencie, 25 before the satisfying of Carnal luste. Likewise Pope Siricius is fowly belyed. If thou deale not chastly, 26 yet deale charily, Pag. 183. what is meant thereby, and how reasonably it is said,Infra. li. 5. cap. 15. I shal hereafter declare in due place. Where I shal cleare the Canonistes of the sclaunder you [Page 320] vtter against them of teaching the people, that Simple fornication is no sinne, whiche they neuer taught.
We saie not that men in Marriage can not please God: 27 but that such men can not please God, who hauing promised by taking holy Orders, that they wil liue chaste, do breake their promise. It is better to marrie in a case, then 28 to liue single: to some man I graunt, it is the auoyding of a greater euil, but not of it selfe better. For the Apostle saith, he that ioyneth his virgin in Marriage, doth wel, 1. Cor. 7. but he that ioyneth her not, doth better.
Whom God hath ioyned, let no man sunder. But God neneuer 29 ioyned a Priest in Christes Church to a wife after his Priesthood, bicause the mans owne facte, and vow,Pag. 185. is against his Marriage. Againe he is alreadie married to Christe, who liueth for euer, and so whiles his firste spouse liueth, he maie marrie no more. that is S. Basils reason. Although simple fornication be not now pounished 30 with deposing the Priest, yet it is not leafte vnpounished.
Last of al you repeate manie abuses of the Clergie, which as in some part maie seme to arise and come of single life, so I doubt not, but if Priestes were commonly married, the case would be muche worse. Certainely seeing Christe said, there are Eunuches, Math. 19. who gelde them selues for the kingdom of heauen, the Churche hath done right wel, to reserue the highest order for them, who do most force vnto them selues, for heauens sake. And seing S. Paule would haue al men chaste without Marriage, as him selfe was: muche more it is to be thought,1. Cor. 7. he would haue his owne Successours in the publike ministerie to be suche.
Againe if among married men, he be meetest to be chosen Priest, who hath had but one wife, he yet were more meete, who had none at al. If before Priesthod one wife be the most, afterward one is to much. If perfection, and an Angels life be in most perfite chastitie, that same is most meetest for Priestes, who are the Angels of God. If married persons ought to be apart for a time, to haue the more leisour to praye, and to communicate: he that must stil attend the publike prayer, and must bothe offer, and minister the Communion, had nede stil to absteine from wedlocke: specially seing the Priestes of the lawe during the time of their ministerie, did not companie with their wiues.
Eusebius, and Epiphanius, accompt those counselles, and praises of single life, which are in holy Scripture, to apperteine to Priestes, as to the most excellent degree, and not vnto the Laie men: as who are permitted to vse a lower state of perfection. If no man that liueth in warfare to God, doo wrappe him selfe in secular busines, and yet S. Paul saith,1. Cor. 7. that the maried person doth thinke vpon the thinges of the world, and is distracted thereby: how conueniently hath the West Churche ordeined, that he should only be made a Priest, who by Gods grace is content to professe and leade a single life? Or how can that Bishop, or Priest wholy attend hospitalitie and almose dedes, and the profit of his flocke, and the setting vp of common schooles, of vniuersities, of hospitals, and almose houses for the poore, and such other like dedes of mercie, and of publike profit: who hath his wife and children to prouide for? Had we now had in al England the furniture of Colleges, and Scholes (whiche God be praysed [Page 321] we haue, and should yet haue had more, had not the blaste of your Euangelical spirite ouerthrowen them) if the Clergie had alwaies ben married? Nay the married Bishops, that now liue so merily, and kepe such continual dalliance and cheere vpon other mennes paines and trauailes, were nourished in the Vniuersities, specially by their almose, and foundations, who were single, and chaste Bishops, and Priestes. Thus though nothing be perfite in this life, yet the single life, of the two, is more conuenient for the Clergie, both by Gods Worde, and by the experience of Ciuil policie.
Of the Canonical Scriptures, the Worde of God, Traditions, &c. The second Chapter.
In prooem. in prouer. Salomon.Touching the booke of the Machabees vve saie nothing, but that vve finde in S. Hierome, S. Augustine, and they holy fathers. S. Hierom saith, the Church receiueth them not emong the Canonical allovved scriptures.
Harding.
The bookes of the Machabees canonical emonge the faithful.S. Hierome speaketh of such Canonical Scriptures of the olde Testament, as the very Iewes allowed for Canonical. Such in deede the bookes of the Machabees are not. But why haue you not alleged S. Augustines wordes, as wel as S. Hieromes? Certainely bicause they condemne you. For if yee said al that of the bookes of the Machabees, which S. Augustine saith, you would allowe them for Canonical Scriptures amonge faithful Christians.August. de De Ciuitat. Dei, lib. 18. ca. [...]6. He saith Machabaeorum libros non Iudaei, sed Ecclesia pro Canonicis habet. As for the bookes of the Machabees, not the Iewes, but the Church accōpteth them for Canonical. Hereunto I mai [...] adde: but M. Iewel, and his Companions, accompte not the bookes of the Machabees for Canonical [...] the [...]in they are of the Iewes Synagog, and not of the Church of Christ. Now see good Reader▪ [...] be made, when he said as thou findest noted in the m [...]rge [...] of his booke, Pag. 191. that he would denie no more, then S. Austine, S. Hierom and other Fathers haue [...]enied. If you say, ye deny not the bookes of the Machabees▪ [...] [...]eproue you praying for the dead, which is so suffici [...]y proued by those bookes? Soothly if you allow the one, you must allow the other.
S. Iames epistle.Eusebius saith, S. Iames Epistle vvas vvritten by some other, and not by S. Iames, VVe must vnderstand (saith Eusebius) that it is a bastard epistle.
Harding.
You haue abused Eusebius. For he leaueth not there, but goeth forward, shewing, what he ment by his word,li. 2. c. 23. li. 2. c. 23. [...], whiche you turne, is a bastard. But Ruffinus more ciuilly translated it, à nōnullis non recipitur, The epistle is not receiued of some men. And Eusebius him selfe addeth: Nos tamē scinius etiā istas cū caeteris publicè apleris (que) fuisse Ecclesiis receptas. Yet we know that S. Iames, and S. Iudes Epistles with the rest, haue ben publikely receiued of most Churches, wherby we learne that Eusebius meāt by the worde, [...], asmuch to say, as it is accompted of some men, not to be S. Iames owne. Touching his owne iudgement, he sheweth him selfe to be of the opinion, that it is S. Iames epistle. Of some, he cōfesseth by those wordes, that it was doubted of. Therfore you haue reported Eusebius vntruly, making him to pronounce negatiuely of the epistle, which directly he hath not don.
S. Hierome saith: It is said, that the Epistle of S. Iames, vvas set forth by some other man vnder his name.Hiero. i [...] catalog [...].
Harding.
I graunte. But S. Hierom had said before those wordes, which you allege, Vnam tantum scripsit Epistolam, quae de septem Catholicis est. He wrote onely one epistle, which is one of the seuen Canonical Epistles.Hiero. i [...] catalog [...] Ecclesi. script. Againe after the wordes by you alleged, it followeth, that the said epistle in processe of time hath obteined authoritie.
VVe (Lutherans and Zuinglians) agree throughly together in the vvhole substance of the Religion of Christe.
Harding.
I perceiue the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud, [Page] is no substantial point with you: and yet he that receiueth it vnworthily,1. Cor. 11. receiueth his damnation. And he can not receiue it worthily, who beleeueth amisse of it. But either the Lutherans, or the Zuinglians, or bothe, beleeue amisse thereof, bicause in that behalfe they [...]eache cleane contrary doctrine. Therefore either both, as the truth is, or one of those two sectes, as them selues must confesse, receiueth alwaies vnworthily: and consequently they must confesse, that one of the two sectes is vtterly damned, without any hope of saluation. And certainely the Zuinglians, as also the Caluinistes are the worse, bicause they beleeue. Goddes word lesse in some degree, then Luther taught; and go further from the literal sense of his Gospel,1. Timo. 3. and from the beleefe of the Church, which is the piller of truthe.
The Church is not God, nor is able of her selfe to make, or alter any article of the faith.
Harding.
Esai. 59. Ioan. 14.But she is the spouse of God, and to her he hath promised both his wordes, and his spirite, to remaine with her for euer. And therefore she is the chiefe witnes of al the articles of the faith. Wherefore seing you hear [...] not her witnesse, you ought to be vnto vs, as an Heathen,Matt. 18. and a Publican.
Isai. 8.Esaie saith, to the lavv rather, and to the testimonie. If they ansvver not according to this vvorde, they shal haue no Morning light.
Harding.
Iere. 31. Hebre. 8.This lawe is written also in our hartes, as Ieremie, and S. Paul doo witnesse. And the successours of the Apostles [Page 323] geue also a testimonie of Christe no lesse,Ioan. 15. then Christe said the Apostles should doo. Therefore the lawe and testimonie, whereunto Esaie calleth, is as wel that, which is written in faithful mennes hartes, and which is witnessed in the Church, as that which is written in the olde, and new Testament.
M. Harding saith further, If quietnesse of Conscience comme of the vvorde of God onely, then had Abel no more quietnesse of conscience then vvicked restlesse Cain. &c. VVho vvould thinke, that M. Harding bearing suche a countenance of Diuinitie, vvould thus goe about to deceiue him false vvith a pointe of Sophistrie?
Harding.
Who would thinke, that M. Iewel being pressed with a point, whereunto he is not hable to make answere, would not thus go about to deceiue his vnlearned Reader with a point of Sophistrie? I praie thee reader take the paines to peruse, what the Apologie saith, what I haue said in my Cōfutation, and what M. Iewel bringeth in the Defence, touching this matter. I desire no more, but that thou read it, and then iudge, as thou seest cause.
It is an easy matter for M. Iewel, when he hath made me to speake, what he listeth, to frame an answere accordingly. But I must alwaies warne the reader, not to beleue M. Iewel, when so euer he reporteth either my wordes, or any other mannes,M. Ievv. shifteth him selfe from Scripture, to Goddes vvorde. but to repaire to the Original. Fot seldom is he founde cleere of the crime of falsifying. And here he entwiteth me of Sophistrie, wheras in deede he vseth the grossest sleight of Sophistrie him selfe. He conueigheth him selfe from the Canonical Scriptures, to Goddes worde. Now I spake of the [Page] Scriptures, and he answereth of Goddes worde.
Defence. pag 191.Whereas it is said in the Apologie, that onely in the Canonical Scriptures of the olde, and new Testament mannes harte can haue setled reste: Against this I bring the example of Abel, Noe, Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, and of those holy menne, that liued before the time of Ezdras, when the Scriptures were loste: and here I demaund whether their hartes neuer founde setled reste. For if reste be founde onely in the Scriptures, how could they haue reste, when no booke, nor parte of the Scriptures was written? If it be true, as the cōtrarie can not be proued, that Moyses was the first, that euer wrote any parte of the Scriptures, shal we iudge, that al the holy Patriarches, that were before that time, had no setled reste in their hartes?Cōfut fol. 82. b. If this be true, then (say I) had good Abel no better reste in his harte, then wicked restlesse Cain. As I said in my Confutation, so, for ought that M. Iewel is hable to bring in his Defence, I saie here againe, what foolish, and absurde Doctrine is this?
Now how dooth M. Iewel defende this Doctrine of his Apologie? What is his answere? I wish no more, but that it be read, and cōferred with my Cōfutation: here to write out al againe, it were too long. He slincketh awaie from his own wordes, and by change of wordes, maketh of it a new question. M. Harding (saith he) saith further, If quietnes of cōscience, come of the word of God only, then had Abel no more quietnes of cōscience, then wicked rest lesse Cain.
You belie M. Harding, as your custome is: he saith not so. Let the booke be trial betwen vs bothe. The question is not, whether mannes harte findeth his setled reste only in Goddes worde: (the quietnesse of the conscience [Page 324] was not spoken of) but whether that reste you spake of in the Apologie, be found only in the Scriptures. In your Apologie ye said, yea, in my Confutation I saie nay. And now in your Defence, your selfe also saie Nay:Galat. 2. and so ye destroie, what ye builded before, and therby proue your selfe a preuaricatour asmuch to say, a false hartlot.
For in that now ye cōueigh the matter from the Canonical Scriptures of the old and new Testamēt, vnto Gods word, what is this, but a secrete recantatiō of your former false tale? If your said former tale were true, and might be mainteined, why do you so shifte your handes of it? are you a shamed to be accoumpted a Recantour, and yet recante in deede? Who seeth not great diuersitie betwen Gods word, and the written Scriptures? These be more special, that is more general. By skipping from the writtē Scriptures, to Gods worde, you thought to set your selfe at h [...]re libertie. And yet hauing taken your libertie, as it were by breaking loose out of your chaine, neuer so much, as you seme to geue ouer your former saying, and to recant: so you proue not your later saying. You allege S. Chrysostome saying,In Gen. Ho. 2. Heb. 1. in Iob. 27. that God from the beginning spake [...] m [...]n by him selfe: S. Paule, that God in olde times spake m [...]ny waies, and in sundrie sortes vnto the Fathers: S. Hierome, that the holy Scriptures be euerlasting, though the w [...]ld shal haue an ende, and that the thing, which is promised by the holy Scriptures, shal last for euer, though the paper, parchement, and leaues of bookes shalbe abolished. Againe you allege S. Chrysostome, saying,2. Cor. hom. 18. that S. Paule calleth Preaching not written, the Gospel. But to what purpose al this? How proueth this, either, that you auouched in your Apologie touching the setled rest of mannes harte, [Page] to be founde only in the Canonical Scriptures of the old; and new testament, or, which now you teache, hauing reuoked your former doctrine, that it is founde onely in Goddes worde?
Verely by ought that you haue said yet, either in your Apologie, or in your Defence, you haue neither shewed, where mannes harte shal finde the reste you spake of, nor where we shal finde you: so like a hunted foxe you starte, from one thing to an other, as it were, from bushe to bushe, from hole to hole. So must they doo, who seruing the Maister that you serue, take vpon them to impugne the Catholique Doctrine, and to defende Vntruthe.
Ibidem.God him selfe in his ovvne person and presently spake vnto Abel. &c.
Harding.
That would I confesse: But he spake not to him by paper and incke. And yet we are not now in worse case then the old fathers were. And the word of God in their hartes (whereof they could not doubte) was euer much more cleere and plaine, then that, which is in our bookes, whereof some men doubt many times. Therefore we also in Christes Church haue as wel Gods word in our hartes, as in our bookes, whence also (to wit, out of our hartes) we may resolue the doubtes, which arise vpō our bookes. But let vs see this matter ripte vp more deeply.
VVe speake not so precisely and nicely of Gods vvord vvritten in paper, for so it is a corruptible creature, and shal perish.
Harding.
Why then bind you vs in al cases to the written word, [Page 325] and wil haue nothing to be beleued, or done, that is not written?
Chrysostom saith, Preaching not writtē Paul calleth the Gospel.Homil. 18. in 2. Cor.
Harding.
But we only haue preaching not written,Preaching not vvritten. for you wil haue nothing preached, which is not also written. Therefore we only haue the whole Gospel, and you haue but one peece thereof.
S. Antonie the Eremite vvas notably learned,Aug. de Doctrinae Christ. li. 1. in prologo. and perfite in the scriptures.
Harding.
But without knowledge of letters, as with S. Augustine your selfe must confesse. This proueth that by the Scriptures the sense, and meaning is vnderstanded, and not the bare letter. Now the meaning of the Scriptures, not only tolerateth, but conuinceth the vnbloudy Sacrifice of Christes body, Transubstantiation, praiers to the Saintes, and praiers for the dead, as diuers learned men haue declared at large.
The force and substance bothe of prayer, and of meditation dependeth of reading.Aug. de scalis paradisi .c. 11
Harding.
Not only of reading. For then vnlearned persons should neither praie, nor meditate, nor haue Gods word. Marke stil, we denie not the written word: but we say besides it, there are vnwritten Verities,Basil. de Spiritu Sancto. cap. 27. which thing you impudently denie.
S. Basil reckeneth Traditions to be equal vvith the vvorde of God, but [Page] that he vvrote those vvordes rather of zeale, then of iudgement it [...] appeare, bicause the traditions he nameth, are forgotten euen in the Churche of Rome, as not to kneele in the Churche vpon the sonnedaie.
Harding.
If bicause some Traditions be altered,Traditiōs. or abolished, they were not Gods word, then the precepte of absteining from strangled meates,Actor. 15. is not Gods word, bicause it is now abolished. But you misse M. Iewel. What soeuer God commaundeth but for a time, it is his worde: And whatsoeuer his ministers do commaunde, as profitable to the Church for the present tyme, it is Gods word, as him selfe said;Luke. 10. He that heareth you heareth me. He that despiseth you despiseth me. How be it S. Basil speaketh not altogether as you reporte. He maketh not al Traditions equal with Gods worde, simply, and in al respectes: he speaketh of three thinges, of Doctrines written, and doctrines vnwritte, and of customes, for which we haue no scripture. Of the vnwritten doctrines it is, that he speaketh, not of customes, that they haue equal force with the written doctrines, ad pietatem, to traine vs to godlinesse. As touching vnwritten customes, many thinke your example false. For we were neuer forbidden to kneele at al vpon the Sonnedaie, but at our Lordes prayer, whiles it is said at Masse time, as some interprete it. At which time al the Popes Chappel to this daie vseth to stand vp, and not to kneele.
The reste of S. Basiles traditions stand in hallovving of vvater, and blessing of oile: &c.
Harding.
Those Traditions, which belong to Sacramentes, as that of the blessing of the oile doth, maie neuer be changed. Those that are mere ceremonial, maie be abrogated by custom, as the thrife dipping of the childe, or of any other that is to be baptized, and such others the like, which neither S. Basile, nor we euer made equal with Goddes expresse worde.
S. Paule saying, holde the Traditions which yee haue receiued, 2. Thess. 2. either by epistle, or by worde calleth them traditions, although thei vvere conteined in his epistles and deliuered to them by vvriting.
Harding.
And also, though they were not deliuered by writing. You leaue out halfe. For he saith by writing, or per sermonem, that is to saie, by speache. The writing contemed wordes: ergo, the speache, which differeth from writing, were wordes without writing.
VVhereas S. Paule vvil haue his ovvne thinges to be kepte,Hieron. in 2. Thes. 2. he vvil haue no straunge thinges thereto to be added.
Harding.
We adde no strange thinges, but beleeue, that S. Paule preached, and deliuered the Sacrifice of the Masse vnto the faithful people so plainly in practise, and wordes, that the writing was not hable to shew his minde so fully in that behalfe. And by Tradition we haue as wel that, which he taught by practise, as that, which he preached, whether he wrote it, or no.
S. Paule by the vvord, Traditions, meant not Ceremonies, or certaine [Page] secrete vnknovven Verities, [...]. Cor. 15. but the substance of the Gospel I haue deliuered vnto you that Christ died for our sinnes, saieth he.
Harding.
M. Ievvels Secret vnknovven verities.He meant not only Ceremonies, I graunt. And as for secrete vnknowen verities, we haue no suche, excepte you are so mad, as to cal praying for the dead a secrete vnknowen veritie, which hath euen benne knowen to al menne, yea wemen, and children in the Church of God. And that custome of praying for the dead, S. Paule did teach, as wel as al other the Apostles, as Tradition telleth vs,Homil. 69. Ad populū Antiochē. witnessed also by S. Chrysostom. So that as the whole Gospel commeth vnto vs by Tradition, so doth Masse, Dirige, Holy water, Lenten fast, and others.
Epist. [...]6.S. Augustine findeth is not appointed by Christ, or the Apostles, vvhat daies vve ought to fast.
Harding.
Lenten fast is not founde in the Apostles vvritinges, but in the Apostolike Traditions. Aug. in epist. 86.You kepe your kinde, in alleging thinges out of their kinde. S. Augustine there speaketh of that, which is to be founde in the writinges of the Apostles. For thus it went before, In Apostolicis literis, in the Apostolike writinges. There he findeth not the Lenten fast. But he findeth it in the Apostolike Traditiōs, saying in the very same epistle. In his rebus de quibus nihil cert [...] statuit scriptura diuina, mos populi Dei, vel instituta maiorū prolege [...]edendasunt. Looke in what thinges the holy Scripture hath determined nothing of certaintie, the custome of the people of God, o [...] the ordinaūces of the Forfathers,Custom is a lavve. are to be kept as a lawe.
Marke that the custom of Gods, people must be [...]olden for a law: prolege, for a law M. Iewel. It is the epistle alleged by you, that saith, Traditiōs, and customes must be [Page 327] kept for a law. And his owne wordes another where are Vt quadraginta illi dies ante Pascha obseruetur, Augustin. epist. 118. Ecclesiae consuetudo roborauit. That the fortie daies before Easter should be kepte, the custome of the Church hath confirmed, and strengthened it. And generally he saith: Quae non scripta, sed tradita custodimus, quae quidem toto terrarum orbe obseruantur, dantur intelligi, vel ab ipsis Apostolis, vel plenarijs Concilijs commendata, atque statuta retineri. Looke what thinges we kepe, not being written, but deliuered by tradition, which are obserued al the worlde ouer, thereof intelligence is geuen vs, that they be kepte in vre, as thinges cōmended vnto vs, and ordeined either by the Apostles them selues, or by the General Councelles.
Nowe seing the Faste of the fortie dayes was, and is generally kepte in the Churche, and yet not firste commaunded by any general Councel: it remaineth according to S. Augustines rule, that it was instituted of the Apostles. And S. Hierome by name saith, it came from the Apostles. In fidei regula discrepamus. We differ in the rule of faith from the Montanistes. For they denie three persons confounding them into one. They accompt the second Marriages as il, as Aduoutrie, and make three Lenten fastes. Nos vnam Quadragesimam secundùm traditionem Apostolorum toto anno, tempore nobis congruo ieiunamus: We faste at a time conuenient one Lent, in the whole yere, according to the Traditions of the Apostles.
M. Harding saith, Persona, Ingenitus, Homousion, are not founde in the scriptures, but the sense and meaning is found there.
Harding.
So is the sense, and meaning of Masse, of transubstantiation, and of praying to Saintes founde there.
Gennadius saith, the perpetual Virginitie of our Ladie is proued sufficiently by scriptures.In catalogo.
Harding.
Gennadiin catal. in Heluid.This is a lowde lie. Trie it out who wil, Gennadius saith not so but only, that S. Hieromes booke, which he wrote against Heluidius, affirming that our Ladie bare children, after she had borne Christ, was sufficiently fournished withDocumentes testimonies of the Scriptures. For although it be not expressely written, that she was a perpetual Virgin, yet the faith thereof is most agreable to the Scriptures, and most certaine in Tradition. But were not the Tradition so strong, the Scriptures certainely might be doubtful ynough in that behalfe.
Of God and his vvord they vvould euermore haue vs stand in doubt: but of the Pope, and his vvord, they say, in any vvise vve maie not doubt.
Harding.
Our doubte is not whether Gods word ought to be beleeued, no man doubteth thereof: But onely what is the meaning thereof. And then besides to vnderstand it the better, we ioine vniuersal tradition with it, and in al further doubtes we say, the Pope, or the General Councel is the highest, and laste iudge in earth to declare vnto vs the meaning of Gods worde. Otherwise we should neuer haue an end of Controuersies, as we see by experience betwen the Lutherans, and Zuinglians.
Hovv knovv you saith M. Harding, that the scriptures, be the scriptures? [Page 328] &c. The Church of God had the spirit of vvisedom, vvhereby to discerne the true scriptures from the false. So saith S.In prooemi. in Luc. Ambrose. S.cōt. Fau lib. 22. Augustin. and80. li. 6. ca. 2. Eusebius. Yet vvil it not folovv that the Church is aboue the scriptures.
Harding.
If the Church of God haue the spirite of wisedome, to discerne the true scriptures from the false, shal it not also haue the same wisedom of God, to expound the holy Scriptures, and also to determine any question arising thereon? Neither doo we say, that the Church is aboue the Scriptures in authoritie: but that it is to vs better knowen, and as a more liuely, so a more plaine teacher, then the Scriptures be.
For if we aske the Scriptures any question,Clemēs Alexand. li. strō. 1 be it neuer so hard, as Clemens Alexandrinus hath wel noted: They wil answer vs no more, then it is written. But if any man aske the Church neuer so manie questions, if the knowledge be behooful for mannes soule health, it wil euer make him to eche question an answer, and so wil dimisse him with a ful satisfaction touching al his doubtes.1. Tim. 3. For this cause the Church is called the piller of truth: And as you confesse, that the Church hath shewed vs, which be the true Scriptures: so must you likewise graunte, that the Church hath the spirite of God, to shew vs the truth in al behooful cases, yea euen in those, which be not expressely written. For where is it written expressely, that the church of God should haue the spirit of God, for this ende to shew vs the true Scriptures, to approue the true Scriptures, and to condemne the false forgeries?Luc. 10. Mat. 18. Christe said generally of al matters, He that heareth you, heareth me: Item, he that heareth not the Church, let him be to thee, as an Heathen, and a Publican.
Of the Sacramentes of the Churche. The thirde Chapter.
M. Harding saith, there be seuen Sacramentes, vvhich (as he saith) do not only signifie a holy thing, but also doo make holy those, to vvhom they be adhibited. But hovv can Matrimonie sanctifie a man, and make him holy? Or by vvhat institution of Christ conteineth it grace in it selfe, and povver to sanctifie?
Harding.
Ephes. 5.S. Paule answereth you thus. Ye husbandes loue your wiues, as Christ hath loued his Church. And then he proueth the wife to be the flesh of the husband, as also the Church is the body of Christe. And so both waies the Prophecie of Adam is verefied,Gen. 2. that two shalbe in one flesh. Sacramentum hoc magnum est in Christe & Ecclesia. Sacramēt Mysterie. This is a great Sacrament (or a great Misterie) in Christe and the Churche. For we stand not now vpon the worde, but vpon the thing. What is that great Mysterie? First Matrimonie is alwaies a coniunction of two in one, both by natural consent of myndes and also (if it be consummate) by corporal coniunction. Now by Christes institution, that coniunction is also made inseparable,Matt. 19. when he said, That which God hath ioined together, let not man separate, or put a sunder.
Nowe then this coniunction is made to be inseparable betwen faithful persons, it is directed by Christ, and instituted purposely to signifie his inseparable coniunction with the Church. And whiles it is instituted of Christe to signifie that thing, it is made a Sacrament, or Mysterie, whereunto Christe geueth grace, and holinesse [Page 329] for that purpose. For when any thing, or action is appointed by Christ to signifie a holy thing in Religion, that action is thereby made a Sacrament, and doth sanctifie the worthy receiuers of it. We see that Circumcision might be made, and was vsed among some Infidels, and to them it was no Sacrament.Gen. 17. But when the faithful were commaunded to circumcide them selues, to signifie the Circumcision of the harte, which Christe should make in them that beleeued, by his spirit and grace: then Circumcision was made a Sacrament, and did sanctifie the worthy receiuer. Euen so it is in Matrimonie, as S. Augustine saith.August. lib. 1. de Nupt. & Concupis. cap. 10. Ephes. 5. Quoddam Sacramentum nuptiarum commendatur fidelibus coniugatis. Vnde dicit Apostolus, viri diligite vxores vestras, sicut & Christus dilexit Ecclesiam. A certaine Sacrament of Marriage is commended vnto the faithful married personnes. Whereupon the Apostle saith, ye men loue your wiues, euen as Christe loued his Churche. Huius proculdubio Sacramenti res est, vt mas & foemina connubio copulati, quàm diu viuunt, inseparabiliter perseuerent. Nec liceat excepta causa fornicationis, à coniuge coniugem dirimi: hoc enim custoditur in Christo, & Ecclesia, vt viuens cum viuente in aeternum nullo diuortio separetur. The thing doubtlesse of this Sacrament is,The thing of the Sacrament of Matrimonie. that the man and woman ioyned together in Marriage, as long as they liue, continew together vndisseuered, and that it be not lauful for the one to be separated from the other, but for fornication. For this thing is kept in Christ, and the Church, that he lyuing with the liuing for euer by no diuorce be separated.
Here we learne, not only that the name, but also that the thing of a Sacrament is in the Marriage of Christians: [Page] which thing doth sanctifie those persons, that come worthily to Marriage. For as Marriage was from the beginning ordeined to begete Children, so by Christ it is ordeined to a higher signification, verely not to be separated, whiles the parties married together doo liue, and thereby to signifie Christes inseparable vniō with his Church.The chief signification of Matrimonie. And as that vnion of Christ with vs is an inseparable sanctification to faithful men, so is the signe thereof a special sanctification to them, who married in our Lorde. It is knowen, that as S. Augustine assigneth, there are, tria bona matrimonij, August li. de Nuptijs & Concupisc. fides, proles, & Sacramentum: Three good thinges are in Mariage, the faith (or fidelitie of wedlocke which the man, and wife must kepe, rendring duetie the 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.
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, [Page 330] the best interpreter of the same.
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,Sacramē 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, shalbe 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 [Page] 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 AlterAgaine this Sacrament was preserued euen in the Primitiue Church, and sent by Deacons to those, that were absent, as S. In Apologia. 2. Iustinꝰ the Martyr, and S. Apud Euseb. lib. 5. c. 24. Irenaeus do witnesse. Exuperius also the Bishop of Tholosa (as S.In epist. ad Rustic. Monachū. Math. 24. Arius. Nestorius Hus. Luther. Zuinglius Hierō sheweth) carried it in a wicker basket. So that it is but the lewd Sowters Diuinitie, to expounde, here is Christ, and there is Christ, of the being of Christes bodie in the Sacramēt. And what was Christes meanīg in those wordes, it is expressed in the Gospel, that diuers false prophets should arise in diuers corners of his Church, as Arius at Alexandria, Nestorius at Cōstātinople, and likewise other Archheretikes in other corners, of the which euery one should chalenge Christ to him: As for example, that Iohn Hus would say, Christ is wel preached with vs in in Bohemia onely: Not so quod Luther, but Christ is wel preached here at Wittenberg only. Zuinglius then would say no thereunto, but that he is wel preached at Zurich only. Nay saith Caluine, he is most excellently, and most [Page 332] purely preached at Geneua. Tush quod Suenkfeldius, Suenckfeldius. he is better preached in Silesia. Ye are al deceiued quod Waldo, VValdo. he is best of al preached in certaine dennes about Lions. I perceiue quod Bernardinus Ochinus, Bernardi. Ochinus. ye neuer were in Polonia: for there is the very syncere woorde of God professed, and the doctrine for a man to haue mo wiues at once, is allowed. But Osiander Osiander. for his parte crieth out, that in Prussia the Gospel hath more libertie, bicause Duke Albert is for his owne tooth. Wel quod Brentius, Brentius. when al is done, there is no doctrine like to the Vbiquitie frankly taught in the Duchie of Wirtemberg. Ye are al far out of the waie, say the Anabaptistes,Anabaptistes. for Friseland is alone, and there onely Christ is truly preached, and that should wel appeare, if our kingdom begonne at Muster had gonne forward.
Now last of al crepeth me forth one Browne at London, with his vnspotted Congregation, otherwise called Puritanes. Puritanes As we come laste, say they, so we are purest, and cleanest of al others. For we wil haue no iote of the Popes dregges, nor any religion, what so euer hath ben to fore. awaie with al: for al was naught vntil we came, and our waie doubtlesse is without fault. These and many other contrarie Sectes (M. Iewel) chalenging eche one of them the truth to them selues, are these Corner crepers, who ceasse not to crie, here is Christ, and there is Christ, Math. 5. of whō we are al warned to beware. For in the meane time Christ is preached truly in the only Catholike Church, in the light of the world, where his Candle stādeth vpō the Cādlestick to geue light to al that are in his great Howse. And in this sense do al the Fathers expoūd these words of Christ, as I might at large shew, if I had your boastīg vaine, [Page] and coueted to seeme to say much vpon euery thing, be-it neuer so plaine.
M. Hardings fellovves are not yet vvel agreed vvhat to make of their ovvne Consecration.
Harding.
Your long needelesse processe is answered with one worde. Their question is concerning a point not necessarie, to wit, how Christ did consecrate. But they are al agreed, that he made and consecrated his owne body and bloud, by what meanes so euer he did it.
VVe vse the vvordes, that Christ vsed. If Christ and his Apvstles cō secrated, then do vve vndoubtedly likevvise consecrate: And our intention is to doo that, Christ hath taught vs to do.
Harding.
Christ was a Priest, and consecrated as a Priest, asLib. 2. epist. 3. S. Cyprian, andAd Heliodor, & ad Euagrium. S. Hierom doo witnesse, that as Melchisedech in foreshewing the figure of Christ had done, panem, & vinum offerens, offering breade and wine: ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis & sanguinis repraesentaret, Christ him selfe also should make present the truth of his body and bloud. And when Christ had thus consecrated his body and bloud, then he made his Apostles also Ministerial Priestes,Luc. 24. saying, doo ye this (wherein is conteined, make this) in my remembrance. And so they consecrated alwaies as Priestes, and taught vs the oblation of the new testament,Lib. 4. cap. 32. as S. Irenaeus witnesseth. But as for you M. Iewel, beleeuing, there is no external priesthoode, [Page 333] and refusing to take the Sacrament of O [...]ders, which the Church hath alwaies had: how can you haue either the intention to consecrate, and offer vp Christes body, or to do that thing, whiche you falsly beleeue may not be donne?
There is the body of our Lord (saith M. Harding) be the receiuers beleeuing, or not beleeuing. But S. Augustine saith:In Iohan. Tract. 26 This is the eating of that meate, and the drinking of that drinke, that a man dvvel in Christ, and haue Christ dvvelling in him.
Harding.
That is in deede the worthy eating, and drinking, wherof S. Augustine speaketh. But S. Paule sheweth, that he,1 Cor. 11. who eateth vnworthily that meate, is giltie of the body of our Lord, which should not be so by his eating, except it were the body of our Lord, which he doth eate.
Origen saith, Est verus cibus quem, nemo malus potest edere. In Math. cap. 15. Etenim si malus posset edere corpus Domini, nō scriberetur, qui edit hunc panem, viuet in aete [...]num. The body of Christ is the true foode, vvhiche no euil man can eate. For if the euil man could eate the body of our Lord, it should not be vvritten, he that eateth this bread, shal liue for euer.
Harding.
You haue fowly corrupted this place M. Iewel. Origen speaketh not of the Sacrament in those wordes, nor of the Sacramental eating. Yea expressely hauing spokē before of the Sacramēt,Origen. in Mat. c. 15. he endeth his talke thereof in this sort. Et haec quidem de typicosymbolico (que) corpore. And these thinges I haue said of the typical and figuratiue body. Where it is to be noted,Figuratiue bodie. that the Sacrament is called a figuratiue body, bicause it is made present for a figuratiue [Page] purpose, that is, to thend the death of the same body (whiche death is: nowe past and absent) may be remembred most effectually by the presence of the selfe same body, that died. Nowe goeth Origen forward, saying: Multa porrò & de ipso verbo dici possent, quod factum est caro, verúsque cibus, quem qui comederit, omnino viuet in aeternum, quem nullus malus potest edere. Et enim si fieri posset, vt qui malus adhuc perseueret, edat verbum factum carnem, cùm sit, verbum & panis vinus: nequaquam scriptum fuisset, quisquis ederit panem hunc, viuet in aeternum. Moreouer muche might be said of the word it selfe, how that it was made fleash, and the true foode, the whiche, he that eateth, shal be sure to liue for ouer, the whiche no euil man can eate. For if it could so be, that he, who continueth euil stil, should eate the worde made fleash, whereas it is the woorde, and liuing bread, it should not haue ben written, whosoeuer eateth this bread, shal liue for euer.
Origen fovvly corrupted by M. Ievv.These are the true wordes of Origen. But M. Iewel hath so mangled them, that the sense is cleane altered. For in steede of verbū caro factum, the worde made flesh, he hath placed the body of Christ, referring it to the Sacrament. And whereas in Origen it is (edere) verbum factum carnem (to eate) the word made flesh: he hath made exchange thereof into edere corpus Domini, to eate the body of our Lorde. And so whereas Origen meant, that euil men can not eate spiritually, and effectually the Diuinitie of Christ, so as it dwelleth corporally in his flesh: M. Iewel hath taught him to say, that an euil man can not in the Sacrament eate Christes bodie.
VVe say vvith S. Augustine the Sacrament is not our Lorde,In Iohan. Tract. 5 [...] but the bread of our Lord.
Harding.
S. Augustin denieth not the Sacramēt to be our Lord, he hath no such wordes. Howbeit we our selues would denie it, in some sense. For some tyme the Sacrament is taken for the forme of bread and wine, and that in deede is not our Lord.
M. Harding might accompt not only seuen, but also seuenteen sundry Sacramentes.
Harding.
I accompt onely seuen in such sense, as the Churche properly taketh a Sacrament. And how that is, I shewed before.
Thus vve say it can not be proued, that this number is so specially appointed. As for the reasons of seuen seales, seuen trumpettes, seuen starres, seuen golden Candelstikes, and seuen eyes, they are childish.
Harding.
We ground not our seuen Sacramentes vppon those similitudes.Seuen Sacrametes. August. de Ciuit. Dei li. 11. c. 30. & de doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 16. Albeit if any man applie some of those matters to the seuen Sacramentes, it is not childishely done: seing S. Augustine confesseth, that the Mysteries of numbers be great in the holy scriptures.
Vnto euery Sacrament tvvo thinges are necessarie: a sensible outvvard Element, as in Baptisme VVater, in our Lordes Supper Bread and VVine, and the vvord of Institution.
Harding.
Thus farre we are agreed with you.
Matrimonie, Order, and penaunce haue the vvoorde of God, but they haue no outvvard creature or Element. Extrems Vnction, and Confirmation, haue neither vvoorde, nor Element.
Harding.
To answere you herein M. Iewel I can not doo better,Conci. Florentin. in vnione Armeniorum. then to send you to the Councel of Florence, and to the bookes, wherein the order of our Sacramentes are conteined. Where you shal finde, that there lacketh neither the woorde of Institution, nor conuenient Element. It is yenough to vs, that both by the woorde of God, and by the perpetual doctrine of the Churche we are taught,Act. 8. Iacob. 5. Luc. 22. Ioan. 20. that these seuen are Sacramentes. Confirmation is proued in the Actes of the Apostles: Extreme Vnction in the Epistle of S. Iames: Order in S. Luke, and in S. Iohn. Now baptisme, and our Lordes supper, your selfe graunt: of penaunce, and Matrimonie I haue said sufficiently already. To be short, we are in possession of seuen Sacramentes: neither can you, nor any man now aliue, or that euer liued sith the Apostles, shewe, that euer the Church was without so many Sacramentes. Impugne them when you list, I doubt not but you shalbe answered. For that ye haue said hitherto is litle worthe, and most thinges are lyes.
De Sacramēt [...] Eucharistia.The auncient Fathers hauing occasion to intreate of purpose, and specially hereof, speake only of tvvo Sacramentes, and so Bessarion namely saith.
Harding.
None of them al hath written purposely of al the Sacramentes of the Church, but as occasion serued,M. Ievvel belyeth the ancient Fathers touching the number of the Sacramētes. Dionysius De Ecclesiast. Hierarch. Tertulliā. lib. de resur. carnis. Cyprian. lib. 2. Epist. 1. ad Stephanū. Bessarion de Sacramēto Eucharistiae. Bessarion belyed by M. Ievvel. they now speake of two, now of moe. Of two they speake the more specially, bicause the custome was to geue them both together, to those, that were of discretion.
Howbeit Dionysius Areopagita the most auncient of al, intreateth of many moe, as his booke de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia doth witnesse. Tertullian besides Baptisme, and the body of Christ nameth together with them Anointing, and Signing, and Imposition of handes. And the Doctours which you bring, affirme two, but they denie not moe. Yea S. Cyprian, whom you cite in the first place, can not be proued there to meane by both Sacramentes, Baptisme, and the supper of our Lorde.
Bessarion saith, two were deliuered plainely in the Scriptures, but he confesseth moe whiche are deliuered also in the Scriptures: though not so plainely as the other two. And he expressely nameth Chrismatis Sacramentum, the Sacrament of Confirmation, or of Bishopping. Of the other Sacramentes in general he speaketh twise in the beginning of that Treatie. Wherefore there is an impud [...]nt he included in your wordes, where you saie, that I haue in expresse wordes, The onely two Sacraments of the Churche. So that nowe we maie couple you with Beza, [...]o teacheth the same doctrine in his Confession, and iu [...]ly cal you bothe false teachers.
Al these thinges not vvithstanding the Tridentine Councel concludeth seuen Sacramentes.
Harding.
So it ought, and maie easily doo M. Iewel, any thing that you haue yet brought, notwithstanding. You proue in dede that there are two Sacramentes, but that there are no moe, you haue not brought so much as one apparent authoritie, Sauing that of Bessarion, who neuerthelesse is vtterly against you. For he beleued, and taught, that there were seuen Sacramentes,Bessarion De Sacramento Eucharistiae. as by that Treatie it maye wel appeare. But what should I do good reader, should I now proue that there are seuen Sacramentes? Certainely it were easy for me so to doo, and to set out a booke of that Argument farre greater, then M. Iewels is. And that may wel appeare true by that Ruardus Tapper, Cardinal Hosius, and Petrus a Soto with diuers other learned menne haue done in this behalfe. I am sure M. Iewel wil not denie, but I were hable to english at the lest that, which I should find in their Latin bookes. And yet therein standeth his whole shewe. For in deede he doth litle els, but english that which the Germaines and Geneuians bookes haue.The 7. Sacramētes proued out of S. Augustine. Augustiniana Cō fessio. The vntruthes, and scoffes, that he addeth of his owne, though they be many in number, yet doo they not greatly increase the bulke of his volume. Besides al other Catholique bookes there hath one benne set forth of late by the learned Iesuites of Dilinga in Germanie, intituled Augstuiniana Cōfessiō, where in manner no worde is founde besides that, whiche is in S. Augustins owne workes. And there al seuen Sacramentes are proued at large, out of S. Augustin alone, and that maie suffice in this behalfe. For if ye refuse S. Augustines authoritie, I know not whose authoritie ye wil allowe.
Of the power of Baptisme in infantes, and of Concupiscence. The 4. Chapter.
Harding.
What M. Iewel would saye in this matter,Incertaintie of M. Iewels doctrine. Pag. 215. Pag. 216. Pag. 215. I can not certainly tel: he is so inconstant, and like a man, that is halfe ashamed of his doctrine. For one while he saith, the Sacrament dependeth of no man. At another time, The iust man shal liue not by the faith of his parentes, but by his owne faith. And yet he saith, S. Augustine, Iustinus Martyr, S. Cyprian, S. Hierom, and others write plainely, that the faith of the Parentes doth helpe. But how truly that is written, he wil not saye.
Againe, he saith, that Infantes are not void of faith: Pag. 216. A litle after he writeth, God is able to worke saluation both with the Sacraments, and without them. And then he mingleth the Signe with the Thing, and the Thing with the Signe. Last of al he saith, In deede, Pag. 217. and in precise manner of speache, Saluation must be sought in Christe alone, and not in any outward signes. In effecte he sticketh, and maketh muche a doo (and faine he woulde if he durst) bring forth this proposition plainely, condemned of the Churche in olde tyme, That infantes maie be saued without Baptisme. But it is the heresie of Pelagius, and the same is against the word of God, saying,Ioban. 3. Except a man be borne againe of water, and of the holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of heauen. For whereas saith with the vow and desire of baptisme in a time of necessitie, doth serue him, that hath discretiō to beleue,Augustinus Epist. 23. seing the said faith is not in the child, excepte baptisme, which is the Sacrament of faith, be receiued of him: it doth [Page] folow, that Children dying without Baptisme, are condemned. This much maye suffice for that point.
Concupiscence remaining in the faithful after baptisme, is sinne forcing S. Paul to crie out, Rom. 7. I see an other law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and leading me prisoner to the law of sinne. And againe. O wretched man that I am, who shal deliuer me from this body of death?
Harding.
1. Pet. 3.It is to be vnderstanded, that whereas Baptisme saueth vs, as S. Peter saith: al sinne is washed away therein. And we are made a new creature, according to that S. Paul saith In Christ Iesus, Gal. 6. Chrysost. Ibidem ad Galatas. neither Circumcision is ought worth, nor vncircuncision, but the new creature, meaning by a new creature, as S. Chrysostom, and other holy Fathers expound it, that our nature, which was waxen old in sinne, Repētè baptismi lauacro renouata est, non aliter quàm si denu [...] esset condita, is renued in the washing of baptisme, none otherwise, then if it had ben made a newe. So that no sinne at al can be in vs now baptized, if wee haue worthily receiued Baptisme. Whiche notwithstanding, there is euidently perceiued in our fleashe a certaine resistance, and rebellion against Reason: in suche wise that, as our minde, and soule being indued with grace desireth to do al goodnes: so do our senses, and sensual appetites intise and prouoke vs to muche naughtinesse.
Now bicause the sensual appetite deliteth vs, and so ouercommeth vs commonly, more or lesse: therefore it is called the law of the fleash, or the law, which the fleash would gladly follow, and obey: which law, or concupiscence, leadeth vs prisoners to sinne, so much as lieth in [Page 337] it, and so ofte as we obey it.
Whether concupiscence be sinne, though we consent not vnto it.
But the point of the question is, whether it be truly and in deed a sinne in vs, although we consent not vnto it. We saie, it is not properly sinne. M. Iewel defendeth the contrarie: but S. Paules wordes proue not the concupiscence which remaineth, to be a sinne, except we obey it. Otherwise if of it selfe it were sinne, we had not benne made a newe creature in Baptisme. For the creature wherein sinne is, remaineth stil an old creature. But albeit al sinnes be taken awaye in Baptisme, yet God suffereth the concupiscence to remaine in our fleash, partly that we maie by the Rebellion thereof, perceiue from what an enimie our soule is deliuered, and so geue thankes to God, as the Apostle doth in this place,Rom. 7. which M. Iewel alleaged: partly that we may be exercised with tentation, to thende we may be crowned for our victorie. I therefore (saith S. Paule) in minde (or soule) obey the lawe of God, but in fleash I obey the law of sinne. And who knoweth not, it is the consent of the mind, and not the desire of the fleash, which maketh a man to be a sinner?
Concupiscence is in my fleash onely, and not in my minde, except I consent vnto it, and so take it into my minde, and then in truth it is a sinne. And this is the very discourse of S. Paule. For when he had said, in mind (or in the highest part of my soule) I obey the lawe of God, he concludeth thereupon,Rom. 8. Nihil ergo damnationis est his qui sunt in Christo Iesu, qui non secundùm carnem ambulant. Therefore no part of damnation is to them, [Page] who are in Christ Iesus, who walke not according to the flesh. For if a man walke according to the flesh, then in deede his Concupiscence, which before was no sinne, is becom a sinne. Thus albeit our flesh be the flesh of death, that is to say,Ibidem. mortal, as S. Chrysostom expoundeth it, and therefore S. Paul would faine be deliuered from it, as fearing lest he should at any time yeeld vnto it: yet if he do not yeelde vnto it,Rom. 8. there is no sinne in him. For the law of the spirit of life (which is the grace that iustifieth vs in baptisme) deliuereth him from the law of sinne, and of death euerlasting.
Lib. 10. epist. 84. S. Ambrose saith. There is not found in any man such concord (betvven the flesh and the spirit) but that the lavv (of concupiscence) vvhich is planted in the members, fighteth against the lavv of the mind. And for that cause the vvordes of S. Iohn the Apostle are taken,1. Ioan. 1. as spoken in in the person of al Saintes. If vve say, vve haue no sinne, vve deceiue our selues and there is no truth in vs.
Harding.
I graunt that in this cōtinual fight we are daily so conquered in some smal sinne, or other, that we neuer remaine any long time without venial sinne. But that happeth, bicause we yeelde, and consent vnto sinne, and not bicause the concupiscence of it selfe is sinne, before we haue consented vnto it.
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 Coūcel. Verely the Coū cel [Page 338] of Trent did determine that, which it foūd in S. Augustin, who teacheth most manifestly, that the Cōcupiscēce is not properly sin, but is only called so. And thereby you know how S. Augustine is to be vnderstāded in the place by you alleged. His most plaine words are these.Augustin. cōt. duas epist. Pelagi. li. 1. ca. 13. Dicimus Baptisma dare oīm indulgentiā peccatorū, et auferre crimina, nō radere: Sed de ista cōcupiscentia carnis, falli eos credo; vel fallere, cū qua necesse est, vt etiā baptizatus, & hoc, si diligē tissimè proficit, & spiritu Dei agitur, pia mente confligat. Sed haec etiāsi vocatur Peccatū, non vti (que) quia peccatū est, sed quia peccato facta est, sic vocatur, Sicut sciptura, manus cuius (que) dicitur, quòd manus eā fecerit. We say that Baptisme geueth remissiō 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 Concupiscēce of the flesh (they be either deceiued them selues, or that they deceiue others. For of this Concupiscēce 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 Resurr [...]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.’
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 wilbe the shorter in this place. First, I graunt the 1 eating of Christes body by faith to be necessarie. Againe, 2 I graunt the Sacrament to be a mystical figure of Christes death, and of his visible body. But I say farther, that besides 3 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. Tertulliā. 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 [Page] 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 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 Tertulliā 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 carnē, 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 [Page 340] 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 [Page] manibus quidem ad tempus contin [...]tur, in ill [...]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 holdē 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▪ 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 [Page 341] 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 cōmunicating 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 [Page] 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 vpon in the minde, for imitation. For he that so receiueth the bloud of his Sauiour with this minde, that he is not yet willing to folow his Passion: hath put the bloud but vpon one poste.
The very same bloud which is receiued with the mouth of the hart, is also expressely taught, to be receiued with the mouth of the body. It is not therefore bread, that entreth into the mouth of the body, and it is the flesh of Christ, that entreth into the hart. But the selfe same thing, which the hart feedeth on, entreth in at the mouth. These are such testimonies, that can neuer be auoided by any Answere, and at this present they may suffice for this controuersie of the Real Presence. For what soeuer M. Iewel bringeth, wel may it perhaps proue a figure, which I graunt, but that figure is also the truth: as it may appeare by these witnesses now alleged. For the Fathers be not contrarie one to the other, but agree al in one faith, and doctrine, specially in this matter, which was euer so continually beleeued and practised in the whole Churche.
That in olde time many faithful at the celebration of the holy Mysteries stoode by, who receiued not the Communion. The 6. Chapter.
Good menne, saith M. Harding, vvithdravve them selues, and are contented to be present only, and to stand by, but receiue not the sacramēt.Ad ephes. homil. 3. But Chrysostom saith, thou maist no more stande here, then an Heathen, that neuer vvas christened.
Harding.
YOu euer make your aduantage of vntrue reporte. I did not cal men good, for withdrawing themselues: but whereas in cōsideration of their vnworthinesse they would humbly withdraw them selues: I said, this desire to be present, and deuoutely to stand by,VVhom S. Chrysostom calleth a Catechumē, M. Ievvel interpreteth a Heathen. was cōmendable. As for S. Chrysostom, you abuse him very much, by interpreting, whom he calleth a Catechumen, who is a learner of the faith, a Heathē as though they were Heathens, that professe the faith, which is taught in the schoole of Christ. It was truly an heathnish interpretation of yours.
But that very place of S. Chrysostome proueth, it was become to be a custome in those dayes, the Christians to be present at the holy Mysteries, and to stande by, although they did not receiue. And S. Chrysostome also suffered his owne people and diocesans, so to do. How be it reprouing them for negligence in not receiuing, he vehemently exhorted and stirred them to ofte receiuing. Qua ratione Praecodicit, Abite, qui preces fundere nō potestis? Chrysost. ad ephes. homil. 3. Tu vero impudēter perstas. Verum nō es istorū, sed de illis qui communicare possunt. Et tamē rem hāc nihil curas, nihil aestimas? (Item). Aduenisti, hymnum cecinisti, cum cībus reliquis ex eorum te numero esse qui digni sunt, hoc ipso confessus es, [Page] quòd non cum indignis abscessisti. Quomodo cùm manseris, de mensa ista non participas? For what consideration saith the Crier of the Church, depart ye, that can not praye? Yet thou standest stil impudently. But (thou wilt saie) thou art none of those, but of them, who may communicate, and yet carest thou nothing for it, regardest it nothing? Item afterward. Thou art come hither, thou hast songe an hymne, in this thy facte, that thou didst not departe with the vnworthie, thou hast confessed thy selfe with al the rest, to be one of them, that are worthie. Wherefore then doest thou not participate of this table, seing thou remaynedst behinde?
Thus we see, it was the custome for the faithful people, to be present at the mysteries, and to stand by, though they receiued not the communion. And albeit S. Chrysostom reproueth them fot not communicating, yet he doth not excommunicate them, as breaking the order of the Church in tarying. And yet if there had ben such an order, he would haue caused the Deacō no lesse to haue driuen them out, then the Catechumens, the possessed of Spirites, or the penitentes. But this oddes there was, that they only were of necessitie driuen out of the Church, who though they would, might not communicate: But the reste that might communicate, did, and might tarie, albeit they would not communicate.
Now a wise man (as M. Iewel taketh him selfe to be) would vnderstand, that how earnestly soeuer S. Crysostom speaketh, to prouoke those that were present, to communicate: yet his meaning was not to burden them with any mortal sinne for standing by without receiuing the cōmunion. His wordes therfore import a counsel rather [Page 343] then a precept. And verely of the two, it were lesse euil to stand by, and not to cōmunicate, then neither to communicate, nor to stand by. Neither is the standing by that, which chiefly S. Chrysostome reproued, but the absteining from the Communion. And there is no doubt, but if (whereas none at al by his owne wordes did sometime communicate) S. Chrysostom had seene euery one go out of the Churche, and him selfe leafte alone: he would then as fast haue called them in againe, bidding them at the lest, to honour the Sacrifice with their presence, if they would not sacramentally communicate.
S. Augustine crieth out vpon those Heretikes,Augustin. cōt. episto. Parmeniani. lib. 3. cap. 4. that bring the wordes of the Prophetes, whiche they spake against the high Priestes, and yet wil not looke to the deedes of the Prophetes, who alwayes remained in the same Churche with those high Priestes, whom they so muche reproued. But now the Lutherans, and Zuinglians, reprouing vs for certaine thinges, departe from our companie, faith, doctrine, and Church: wherein they haue no example, neither of the Prophetes, nor of the Fathers,
Of Communion in one, or both kindes. The 7. Chapter.
M. Harding saith, neither Christe commaunded, nor the Apostles ordeined, that the Sacrament should be deliuered to the people in both kindes. Certainely these vvords of Christe, Drinke yee al of this, doo this in my remembrance, are very plaine vvordes of commaundement, and institution.In 1. Cor. homi. 27. 1. Cor. 11. Therefore Chrysostome saith, that Christe said, bothe in the bread, and also in the cup, Doo this in the remembrance of me. And Theophylacte, The reuerend cup is in equal manner deliuered to al. And vvhereas Christ saith, drinke yee al of this, Paschasius putteth thereto these vvordes, tam ministri, quàm reliqui credentes, as vvel the ministers, as the reste of the faithful.
Harding.
Matt. 26. The literal meaning of drink ye al of this.THe literal sense of those wordes, Drinke ye al of this: was none other, then that the Cup should be diuided betwen al the twelue in such sort, that two, or three of them should not drinke it vp, as thinking to haue it filled againe for the reste: but that Peter should so drinke, as to leaue some for Ihon, and Ihon so, as to leaue some for Androw, and so eche mā to leaue some deale, til the very last man had drunke of that cup, once filled, and once cōsecrated: 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 Euangelistarū. lib. 3. c. 1. Enim. Matt. 26. Drinke ye al of this, in vvhat s [...]se vvas it spokē. Marc. 14. Diuide this Cup betwen you, and drinke yee [Page 344] 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 Theophylact [...] 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 eatīg 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, quàm & 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 indifferētly, 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.
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 [Page] 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 occasiō 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.
You saye, yee exhort the people to receiue their maker. VVhat Scripture, vvhat father, vvhat doctour euer taught you thus to saye? It is the bread of our lord,In Iohan. Tract. 59. as S. Augustine saith, it is not our Lord. It is a creature corruptible, it is not the maker of heauen, and earth.
Harding.
Iohan. 6. That vve receiue our maker in the B. Sacrament.Good wordes M. Iewel, I praie you. Christ saith: he, that eateth me, shal also liue for me. Was he, that spake these wordes, the maker of heauen, and earth, or no? If he were, accursed be he, that demeth him so to be. If he be our maker, and God, when we exhort men to receiue him in the blessed Sacrament, why maie we not exhort them to receiue their maker? And the body of Christ hath no other person to rest in, or to be susteined of, beside him only, [Page 346] who being the Son of God, is maker of heauē and earth.
You know, that our forefathers were taught to cal it their maker, euen as S. Augustine confesseth, that his people called the Sacramente of the Aulter, vitam, life.The blessed Sacrament our Lord, and maker by verdit of S. Augustine. Augustin. in Iohan. Tract. 59. 1. Cor. 11. You make as though S. Augustine denied the Sacrament to be our Lord, which he neuer doth, but rather saith, Illi manducabāt panem dominum, they did eate the bread their Lord: but Iudas did eate Panem Domini, the bread of our Lord, against our Lord Illi vitam, ille poenam, They did eate life, he did eate paine. For he that eateth vnworthily (saith the Apostle) eateth damnation to himselfe. If the Apostles at the supper of Christ did eate only the Sacrament (for the scripture speaketh of none other thing eaten) and yet they did eate the bread, which is our Lorde (as S. Augustine saith): Certainely the heauenly bread of the Sacramēt is our Lord. But Iudas is said to haue eaten the bread of our Lord against our Lord, bicause he did eate the Sacrament vnworthily, and so he did not eate our Lord, as he is bread, that is to say, as he feedeth, but as he is a iudge, and as he condemneth the vnworthy eater to euerlasting paine. For otherwise S. Augustine saith,Augustin. Epist. 162. Iudas did care his maker. that Iudas did eate his maker. Sinit accipere venditorem suum, quod norunt fideles, pretium nostrum. He suffereth him that sold him, to receiue our price, which the faithful knowe. Our maker was our price through his humaine nature.
In illo Sacramento Christus est (saith S. Ambrose) quia corpus est Christi Christ is in that Sacrament,Ambros. de ijs qui initiant. cap. 9. bicause it is the body of Christ Wherfore you see, how litle cause ye haue to be so muche offended with me, for saying, when we exhort the people to receiue the blessed Sacrament, that then we exhorte them to receiue their maker.
Of Transubstantiation, and M. Iewels falsehod in that matter. The 8. Chapter.
THe Real Presence is the grounde of this doctrine. For seing Christ said,Math. 26. take, eate, this is my body, these being propre, and not figuratiue wordes, as it hath benne shewed before: it followeth thereof that the body of Christe, whiche is not made of nothing, is at the lest wise made really present by vertue of the Consecration, the substance of bread and wine conuerted and changed into it.Ambros. De Sacrament. li. 4. cap. 4. Chrysost. De Eucharistia in Encenijs. For which cause S. Ambrose saith: Vbi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. When consecration is come thereunto, from of bread is made the body of Christe. Likewise S. Chrysostom saith: Num vides panem &c.
Seest thou bread? Seest thou wine? God forbid. Thinke not so. Like as if waxe be putte into the fire, it is made like vnto it, neither remaineth ought of the substance of waxe: euen so here thinke the Mysteries to be consumed away with the presence of that body.Sermone 5. de Pascha. Eusebius Emissenus, in catechetica Oratione. Gregorius Nyssenus, in Leuit cap. 22. Hesychius, in Iohan. 6. Theophylante, de orthodoxa fide. li. 4. cap. 14. Theophylact in ca. Math. [...]6. Damascen, and al the other Fathers, teache the same doctrine, as it hath benne ofte tolde in other places.
VVhat one vvorde speaketh Theophylact either of your Transubstātiatiation, or of your Real Presence, or of your corporal, and fleshly eating?
Harding.
Can there be any greater impudencie in the earth, then to save, that Theophylact speaketh not one word, of these pointes? Beside al that I haue alredy brought out of Theophylact in my Confutation, how plaine is he, where he writeth thus vpon S. Matthew? Ineffabili operatione trāsiformatur, etiam si nobis videatur panis, quoniā infirmi sumus, [Page 347] et abhorremus crudas carnes comedere, maximè hominis carnem. Et ideo panis quidem apparet, sed re vera caro est. It is transfourmed by an vnspeakeable operation, although it seeme bread to vs, bicause we are weaklinges, and do abhorre to eate rawe fleshe, specially the flesh of man: And therfore it appeareth to be bread, but in deede it is flesh. Can these woordes be eluded, or shifted by your phrases, and figuratiue speaches? It seemeth bread, but in deede it is flesh, saith he, what is then become of the bread? It is transfourmed, or made ouer into another thing. Into what other thing, but into the flesh of Christ? And why remaineth the fourme of Breade, whereas in deede it is made fleshe? Bicause (saith he) we abhorre to eate rawe flesh, and specially mannes flesh. And yet speaketh not Theophylact one word of Transubstantiation, or of the Real Presence of Christes flesh? Many other places in him are as plaine as this, but he that hath such a face, as to denie this one, wil not be moued, if we bring forth neuer so many. Hauing thus abused Theophylact, perhappes he wil seme for antiquities sake to beare more reuerence towards S. Ambrose, whom here he now taketh in hand.
S. Ambrose saith of the bread and vvine, Sunt quae erant, & in aliud mutantur. They remaine the same, that they vvere, and are chaunged into an other thing. S, Ambrose saith not so. Phie, vvhat falsifiyng is this? The natural creatures of the bread and wine in the supper of our Lord (saith S. Ambrose) remaine stil in substāce, as they were before: yet are they changed into an other thing, that is to say, they are made the Sacrament of the bodie and bloude of Christ, vvhich before they vvere not.
Harding.
Many other places M. Iewel make me doubte, left [Page] you haue your conscience marked with the signe of Antichrist, that is to say, lest, although you see, and knowe your self to lie, and to falsify the holy Fathers, yet you wil not yeld vnto the truth in any point. Much a doo we had to perswade you, that Sabellicus wrote Decades: and I think you would neuer haue graūted it, except other men might haue found the booke in Powles Churchyard, and so haue sene your f [...]lsehood. But of al other impudencies, this which you stād in cōcerning this saying of S. Ambrose is not the lest of al.Confutat. fol. 97. For you defend it, and repeat it againe and again, notwithstāding it was fully by me cōfuted: and yet it is so childish an errour, that I can not thinke you to be deceiued therin, but rather to be set desperatly in defence thereof, for which ye haue nor learning, nor reason, and onely bicause you would not seeme ouercome. Who would thinke, that a man of your studie, and learning, and of that place, would say and maintein it, that S. Ambrose meaneth bread and wine after Consecration, to remaine stil in substāce that, which they were before?
M. Ievvel defendeth his parte by falsifiyng S. Ambrose Ambros. de Sacra. lib. 4. cap. 4.To beginne first here with the terme of bread and wine is no part of S. Ambroses wordes: it is your forgerie, it is your corruption, it is one of your owne falsifiyinges: His words are these: Panis iste, panis est ante verba Sacramentorum, vbi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. Hoc igitur astruamus. Quomodo potest, qui panis est, corpus esse Christi? Consecratione. Consecratio igitur quibus verbis est, & cuius sermonibus? Domini Iesu. Nam reliqua oīa qua dicūtur, laus Deo defertur, oratio praemittitur propopulo, pro regibus, pro caeteris: vbi venitur vt cōficiatur venerabile Sacramentū, iam nōsuis sermonibus sacerdos, sed vtitur sermonibus Christi. Ergo sermo Christi hoc cōficit Sacramētū. Quis [Page 348] sermo Christi? Nempe is, quo facta sunt oīa. Iussit Dominus, et factū est coelū. Iussit dominus, et facta est terra. Iussit Dominus, et facta sunt maria. Iussit Dominus, et omnis creaturage nerata est. Vides ergo quā operatorius sit sermo Christi. Si ergo tāta vis est in sermone Domini Iesu, vt inciperēt esse, quae nō erāt: quantò magis operatorius est, vt sint quae erāt, & in aliud commutentur? Coelum non erat, mare non erat, terra non erat. Sed audi dicentem: Ipse dixit, & facta sunt: ipse mandauit, & creata sunt. Ergo tibi vt respondeam, non erat corpus Christi ante Consecrationem, sed post Consecrationem dico tibi, quòd iam corpus est Christi. Ipse dixit, & factum est: ipse mandauit, & creatum est.
This bread is bread, before the wordes of the Sacramentes: when Consecration commeth to it, of breade is made the flesh of Christ. Let vs confirme this. How can that, which is bread, be the bodie of Christ? By Consecration. With what wordes then is Consecration made, and with whose wordes? With the wordes of our Lord Iesus. For as for al the rest, that is there said, praise is geuen to God praier for the people is sent before, for kings, and for al other. When the Priest commeth to make this honourable Sacrament, he vseth not now his owne wordes, but the wordes of our Lord. The worde therefore of Christ maketh this Sacrament. What worde of Christ? Verely that wherwith al things were made. Our Lord cōmaunded, and heauen was made. Our Lord commaūded, and the earth was made. Our Lord cōmaunded, and the seas were made. Our Lord cōmaunded, and euery creature was brought forth. Thou seest therefore howe workeful the word of Christ is. If then so great force, and strēgth be in the word of our Lord Iesus, that those things [Page] should beginne to be, whiche were not: of how muche more strength is it to worke, that the things which were, be, that is to say, haue a beeing, and be changed into another thing? The Heauen was not, the Sea was not, the Earth was not. But harken to him who saith: He saied, and they were made, he cōmaunded, and they were created. Therefore that I maie make thee an answere to this question, it was not the body of Christ before Consecration: but after Consecration I tel thee, that now it is the body of Christe. He said, and it was made, he commaunded, and it was created.
Who seeth not here this drifte of S. Ambrose, to proue, that as the Worde, or speach of our Lorde, made al thinges of nothing, euen so it is much more hable, to change one thing into another thing? And bicause I required M. Iewel to cōstrue S. Ambroses wordes, which yet he would not do, though he promised to do it: I wil construe them for him, and wil shewe his extreme blindnesse, or rather his wilfulnesse in the vnderstanding of that sentence. Ergo, then, si tanta vis est, if so great strength be, in sermone Domini Iesu, in the speach of our Lord Iesus, vt, that, quae non erant, the thinges which were not, inciperent esse, beganne to be, that is to saie, to haue a being: quantò magis operatorius est, how much more is our Lordes speach workful, vt, that, quae erant, the thinges which were, sint, be, that is to saie, haue a being, & in aliud commutentur, and be changed, into an other thing? By these wordes it is cleere, that S. Ambrose here speaketh generally of al thinges, whiche God worketh by his word, and not particularly of bread, and wine.
Now wil I construe the same woordes, as M. Iewel would haue them to be takē. First, he vnderstandeth, and supplieth, bread and wine, to be the nominatiue case to the verbe, sint, be, or rather to the verbe, Sūt, as for his aduantage he altereth that holy Doctours wordes. Wheras it is euident, that in the same whole sentence, breade, and wine are not particularly once named.
Secondly, he beginneth the construction with the verbe (sint) whereas (quae erant) should go before it, as it may wel appeare by setting the one part of the comparison against the other. For the one part is thus to be set, Quae non erant incipiunt esse, the thinges which were not, beginne to be. Therefore the other must be thus set accordingly: quae erant, sunt, & in aliud commutantur. The thinges whiche were, be, and be changed into an other thing.
Thirdly, betwen quae, and erant, M. Iewel conueieth in a pronowne demonstratiue, which hath no place there, saying, which (they) were, as if bread, and wine were respected. Againe, you translate, Sunt, quae erant, they remaine the same, that they were. And those wordes you put forth in great texte letters. Is Sunt, to be englished, They remaine the same? Sunt, is no more, but They be. If S. Ambrose would haue said, as you vntruly translate him, his wordes had benne these, manent eadem: for that is the Latine of this your English, they remaine the same.
But S. Ambrose meaneth thus. Those thinges that were not, by Gods word beginne to be: And those that were, by Gods word be also, but they be another thing. How so? Bicause they are changed into an other thing. But M. Iewel beginning the construction amisse, teacheth [Page] vs, that Gods worde causeth things to be, that they were, whiche is not S. Ambroses minde. For then Gods worde should cause bread to be bread stil, and that were onely the conseruing of creatures, and not a changing of creatures. But now al S. Ambroses reason procedeth to proue, that Gods worde is of force to change creatures, and he meaneth of change in substance. For al his comparison consisteth about the wordes, non esse, & esse, and, esse, & aliud esse. Things that were not, be, and those that be already, become to be an other thing. If they become to be onely an other thing in qualitie, then they are onely already a thing in qualitie, whiche is false. For the being that they haue, is a certaine substance or substanciall being. Therefore the other being, or change, which they haue, is an other substance.
And I praye you, who would not woonder to see S. Ambrose labour so vehemently to prooue, that Gods worde is able to chaunge a creature in qualitie, as though a man were not hable to change a thing in qualitie? Can not the Cutler make rustie iron bright? Can not a Pargeter make a browne wal white? Can not a Cooke make colde liquour hote? And can not you M. Iewel shew your selfe sometimes sweet, and quiet, sometimes eager, and waspish, sometimes a true man, more oftentimes a lyer? Wherin standeth this great force and working of Gods woorde, whereof S Ambrose speaketh? Soothly in the change of the substance of thinges. For as he beganne his disputation, before the wordes of Consecration, quod he, the bread, is bread: but when Consecration is come vnto it, de pane, from of bread it is made Christes flesh. Marke, whence is the change made, from [Page 350] bread. And into what is it made? Into flesh. This then is that S. Ambrose must proue, That Gods word hath power to change bread into flesh.
To make short, this very sentence, whereof we nowe dispute, is in an other place thus vttered by S. Ambrose. Sermo Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, De ijs qui initiantur mysterijs. cap. 9. non potest ea quae sunt, in id mutare quod nō erant? The worde of Christ, which could make that, which was not, of nothing, can it not change those things which be, into that which they were not? He geueth an euident reason of his owne wordes, saying: Non enim minus est nouas rebus, dare, quàm mutare naturas. For it is not lesse, to geue new natures vnto things, then to change natures. As who should say, he that can geue new natures, can much more change natures. Now sir, I pray you, when God geueth new natures, doth he not geue new substances? When therefore he is said at the same time to worke in changing natures, it is meant that he changeth substances, to wit, bread into the bodie of Christ, and wine into his bloud. You haue a giltie conscience M. Iewel, if al this considered, yet you wil hold your owne, and say stil, that S. Ambrose meant not a change in substāce, but only in qualitie. For either you haue lost your wit, or els you doo see, to what purpose S. Ambroses discourse goeth.
Besides al this, consider good Reader, howe S. Ambrose concludeth, and endeth this discourse: Ergo didicisti, quòd ex pane corpus fiat Christi. Nowe then thou hast learned, that of bread the body of Christ is made. His purpose then was to shewe, not that a newe qualitie, but that a newe substance was made by change of the olde substance: Of breade (I saye) the Bodie of Christe [Page] was made, and of wine was made his bloud. And yet it appeareth not bloud,Ibidem. vt nullus horror cruoris sit, that there might be no abhorring of bloude. But as in deede our sinnes are vtterly taken away in Baptisme, where the olde Adam dieth, and a newe creature is made in righteousnes: euen so although it appeare not bloud, yet in deede the olde substance of the wine is changed into the new substance of the bloud of our Sauiour. Thus the bread, and wine are changed in substance, and yet kepe stil their olde outward formes.
VVhat moueth you M. Harding to make this piteous out crie? VVe chāge not S. Ambroses vvordes, but report them simply, as vve finde them. These they are. Panis & vinum, sunt quae erunt, & in aliud mutantur. The bread and vvine are the same that they vvere, and are changed into another thing.
Harding.
You haue learned this falshed of that false man Berengarius. Panis, and vinum are not there, and for that cause Lanfrancus denied those wordes so alleged by Berengarius to be in S. Ambrose.Lanfrancus in lib. de sacramento Eucharist. Againe in the Latine al these wordes lacke, whiche you put in English, to witte (the same that they) there is no Latine I say for those wordes. The nominatiue case to, sint, is not bread and wine, but thinges imported by these woordes, quae erant, thinges whiche were. The sense is, the thinges whiche were, be, and be changed into an other thing. Bread and wine were, but they are not any more breade and wine: and yet they are somewhat, to wit, they are that, into whiche they are changed, that is, the body and bloud of Christe. This onely can be the meaning of [Page 351] S. Ambrose by the very literal construction of the place, as euery man may see, that is hable, and willing to construe, and parse it. As for M. Iewel, he hath no waie to shifte his handes hereof, auoiding al lying and falsifying. I should be a shamed thus to descende to these Grammare pointes, were I not driuen vnto it by M. Iewelles vntrue dealing.
By this Logike,In Math. cap. 18. vvhere S. Hierome saith pride is changed into humilitie, M. Harding may saie, it is changed, therefore pride is, or remaineth stil.
Harding.
How so euer it like you to esteme my Logique, my Argument remaineth vnanswered. If your skil in Logique were answerable to your boasting, you should see the difference betwen change of accidentes, and change of Substances, whereof you seeme ignorant. Howbeit, I said not the bread is changed, Ergo, bread remaineth stil: it is you, that saie so. I said the bread is changed into another thing. Ergo, it is. But I saie not, that it is bread, but that it is that, into which it is changed. And therfore it hath a being, though it haue not the same being in substance, which it had before consecration. For it is not made nothing (as you are woonte to cauil of it) but is it made an other thing: and so it is stil: but it is not that it was.
Your example of pride, is more proudely, then wisely alleged. For pride is no substance, nor creature at al. Man only in his vnderstanding considereth it as somewhat, whereas it is only a defecte, and failing from humilitie. For God neuer made vice. Pride is a vice, and therefore
But what shal a man saie to this fellow? When the name of Substance seemeth to make for him, then it standeth properly, as the Philosophers vse the worde, which is in Greeke [...]: but when it seemeth to make against him, then it standeth for grace, faith, wordes, and Sacramentes: which in some writers are named Substance, as the diuines somtimes vse the terme, whereto the Greeke terme Hypostasis answereth, as S. Paule vseth it, Heb. 11.
How the Church is resolued in doubtful cases.The truth is, that seing wordes for the more parte, are doubteful, ambiguous, and subiect to cauilles, Christ hath not planted his Church in such sorte vpon wordes, that his faithful members should thereby be diuided into many sectes. For as he considering our infirmitie, lefte vnto vs his holy wil conceiued in such wordes, as menne vse in their common speache, he lefte also with those wordes a high Pastor,Iohan. 21. Luc. 22. by whom we should be fed, for whose faith he prayed, and his prayer is heard. To which chiefe Pastor he gaue power, and commaundement to strengthen, and cōfirme his brethren. So that it is in dede litle worth to hange of syllables, and letters, but it behoueth vs alwaies to seeke for the meaning of the worde. And bicause we should neuer agree among our selues vpon wordes:Math. 18. he bound vs to heare the Church, the chiefe and ordinarie mouth whereof S. Peter was, whiles he liued, and after him the Bishops of Rome his Successours, haue euer had the same place.
He then that wil be sure to know, how euery worde that belongeth to matter of the faith, must be taken in this, or in that place of holy Scripture, or of holy writers, must be ruled by the mouth of his chiefe Pastor.
Act. 20.Now that Pastor calling to him out of al the worlde the [Page 353] chiefe and best learned Bishoppes, ordeined by the holy Ghoste Gouernours of particular flockes, hauing seene, and heard al that might be said too and fro in the middest of foure hundred threescore and ten Bishoppes, and of moe then a thousand learned Diuines besides, the assistance of the holy Ghoste called for, mature deliberation had, and diligent examination of the Scriptures, and holy Fathers made, founde, and by al their consente determined,Concil. Lateranen. ca. 1. that the substance of bread and wine (in the Sacrament of the Aulter) is by the power of Gods worde changed into the substance of Christes Body and Bloud. After whiche determination we know, how Gelasius, and how Theodoritus must of necessitie be vnderstanded, if at the lest we wil heare the Churche, as vnder paine of damnation we are bound to doo. This answer may suffice al the cauilles, that are moued, and tossed by M. Iewel touching nature, substance, subsistence, or any like worde. Al wordes are ambiguous, as S. Augustine confesseth.In lib. de Dialecti. The highest iudge in the highest courte of Christendome hath geuen sentence. He that obeieth, hath humilitie, and seeth his grounde. He that being loth to seeme deceiued wrangleth, as M. Iewel doth, is proude, vaine, contentious, and disobedient: which custome Heretikes haue, and euer haue had, but as S. Paule saith,1. Cor. 11. the Church of God hath it not.
To leaue these vnfruitful gheasses, vve saie that the cuppe of blessing, vvhich Christ calleth the Cuppe of the nevv Testament notvvithstanding it vvere made in a Mysterie the Sacrament of Christes Bloude yet in nature and substance vvas very vvine stil and as Christe him selfe calleth it, the very fruite, and generation of the grape, as it vvas before. The [Page] vvordes of the Euangelist S. Mathevv are very plaine.
Harding.
Would God, I could so clearely shew to the Reader, as the weight of this matter requireth, how lewdly you playe as wel with the Gospel, as with me. It is not I M. Iewel, that am incōstant in saying, now these wordes were spoken before consecration, and now after, and perhaps at both times, whereat you ieast, and scoffe: it is not I, that changed my minde. But whereas one of the Euangelistes telleth the matter one waye, and the other an other waye, and whereas sometimes they tel thinges out of order, as your selfe can not but graunt: my answer must needes be such, as by al meanes to saue the truthe of the Gospel: that howsoeuer these wordes were spoken, which be obscure, yet the plaine truth should not be hindred by them. You sticke to the plaine wordes of S. Matthew, as you saie. And why sir I praye you, may not I as wel claime, that S. Lukes wordes are as plaine?Luc. 22. I then haue myne eye to bothe, and so make a distinction, shewing how bothe together may be defended. You litle esteming S. Luke, talke to vs onely of S. Matthew: whereby you declare, that you beleue none other Euangeliste, ne none other word of God, beside your owne fansie.
Likewise you dissemble, how diuersly the Fathers haue expounded the fruite of the Vine, and vtter many wordes about a most knowen truth,The fruit of the vine. which no man denieth, wherein as you deserue smal praise of learning, so you lose amonge the wise the commendation of discretion. For answer to al which I saie, that it is a certaine case, and cleere out of question, that there was wine in [Page 354] Christes chalice, whereof the Sacramēt should be made, and yet forsoothe you would nedes proue it in many Pages together. Againe I say, that, as there was wine in the chalice whereof the Sacrament should be made, so after it was made, there was no more the substance of wine. And that I wil proue so plainely,That after cōsecration there vvas no more the substance of vvine in Christes cup. Luc. 22. that you shal neuer be hable to answer to it.
Christe him selfe said (if at the leste you admitte S. Lukes Gospel) This Cuppe is the newe Testament in my Bloude, whiche (cuppe) is shedde (or, shalbe shedde) for you. The Cuppe shalbe shedde for vs, saith Christe, that is to saye, the liquour conteined in the Cuppe, shalbe shedde for vs. But natural, or artificial wine was not shed for vs, but onely Christes owne Bloude was shed for vs: Ergo, onely Christes owne Bloude is in that Cuppe, and the substance of wine is not there at al.
The wordes are plaine, that, which is in the Cup, or chalice, shalbe shed for vs: that was onely Christes Bloude: Therefore onely Christes Bloude is in the Cuppe or Chalice. But Christes Bloude is no wine, excepte wee cal it wine in suche respecte, as Christe him selfe is called the Vine, and the grape: Therefore no material wine of the common grape is in the Cuppe of Christes Supper.Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 10.
With these plaine wordes agreeth the Doctrine of the olde Fathers. S Chrysostome saith: Quod est in Calice, id est, quod è latere fluxit, & illius nos sumus participes. That whiche is in the Chalice, is that,Chrysost. in Ephe hom. 3. whiche flowed from his side, and thereof wee are partakers. And againe Vasa non participant, nec sentiunt Sanguinem, quem in se habent, nos verò planè. [Page] The vesselles partake not, ne feele not the bloude, which they conteine in them, but we do partake it. And as there Chrysostome saith, the vessels haue the same bloud of Christe for the time, which commeth to our hartes, and soules.
Augustin. epist. 86. S. Augustine also saith, dicit cessisse panipecus, tanquam nesciens & tunc in Domini mensa panes propositionis ponisolere, & nunc se de agni immaculati corpore partem sumere. Dicit cessisse poculo sanguinem, non cogitans etiam nunc se accipere in poculo sanguinem. Vrbicus saith, that the Lambe (of the newe Testament) hath geuen place to the bread (of the new Testament) being ignorant, that both then the shew bread was wont to be put vpon the table of our Lord, and that now also he taketh his parte of the Body of the vnspotted Lambe. He saith, that bloude (of the olde Testament) hath geuen place to the cuppe, not considering, that he nowe also receiueth bloude in the Cuppe.
Marke Reader this comparison of S. Augustine, that, as the olde Fathers did eate of the Lambe, so do we of the true Lambe Christe: and as the Priestes of the Law had bloud in their basens, euen so haue we in our cuppe, whence we receiue it. The oddes onely is, that their bloude was onely the bloude of Calues, not hable to cleanse man, but our bloude is the bloude of Christe, which cleanseth al sinnes. Our Sacramentes therefore are the spiritual noueltie of the new Testament, not lacking either Aulter, or Fire, or Breade, or Lambe, or Bloude, but hauing them al in Christes Body, and Bloud, into which the breade, and wine are so conuerted, that the verey true and real bloude of Christe is receiued in [Page 355] the cuppe.
Oecumenius also saith:Oecumenius in cap. 11. 1. Cor. Pro sanguine irrationalium Dominus proprium dat sanguinem, et bene in poculo, vt ostendat vetus testamentum ante à hoc delineasse. Our Lord in stede of the bloud of vnreasonable beastes, doth geue his owne bloude, and it is wel that he geueth it in a cuppe, to shew that the olde Testament did foreshadow this thing. Euthymius agreeth with the same Fathers. If then it be cleere by Christes owne wordes, and by the interpretation of the Fahers, that the same bloude, which was shed for vs, and which ranne out of Christes side, was in the cuppe, and that thence it is partaken, seing that wine was not shed for our redemption: it is cleere, that after Consecration wine was not in Christes cuppe, except (as I said before) we take wine by a metaphore, as Christ is the vine, and his bloud is the wine of that vine which Christ is.
Notwithstanding that I haue great aduantage in the rest of M. Iewels wordes, yet seing this much doth suffice for the Catholike reader, I wil not spende moe wordes therein, but wil passe away to some other mater.
Concerning the adoration of the Sacrament,Adoratiō. there is much more said of it in myne owne, and in other mennes bookes, then as yet M. Iewel, or al his fellowes haue answered. And that thing wholy dependeth of the real presence.
Of applying the merites of Christes Death to others in the Masse. The 9. Chapter.
Harding.
WEe neuer taught, that by our Masses, wee applied and distributed al the merites of Christes death to men, how soeuer they were disposed.
The most catholike pillers of your catholike Church (as namely Caietanus) haue said, that faith is not necessarie for him, that receiueth the Sacrament of thankesgeuing: notvvithstanding he acknovvlegeth this vvas an errour.
Harding.
What vanitie is this, to laie that to Cardinal Caietane, which your selfe cōfesse, he defendeth not, but acknowlegeth to be an errour? The wordes by you alleged out of a booke made by one,Paralip. Vrsper. anno. 1518. that was as false a brother, as your selfe, do meane no more, but that a man may receiue Christes body, albeit he haue no faith, as Iudas did. What is this to the purpose, that we speake of? Moreouer, if Caietane once had thought (which he neuer did) that by the Masse we applie Christes merites to menne not wel disposed: yet seing you say, he tooke it for an errour afterward, by this meane I might prooue, that M. Iewel were a Papist, bicause once he professed the beleefe of the Catholike Church, when verely that Church was only meant by Godfathers, Godmothers, and the Ministers, which had the Sacrifice of the Masse, and praiers to the Saintes, and Praiers for the Dead.
But you can not M. Iewel allege vs any one man, that [Page 356] saith, that by the Masse we applie the merites of Christ to menne, howsoeuer they be disposed. Neither doth Gabriel Biel, nor Iacobus de Valentia,De venerab. Sacramento altaris. c. 1. nor S. Thomas teache so, whose wordes you corrupt with false translation, englishing, Pro quotidianis delictis, for the debte of daily sinnes, where debte is not in the Latine. And in deede the debte of al sinnes, as wel actual, as original, was taken awaie by the Sacrifice of the Crosse. But we see euidently, that the acte, or actual doing of al sinnes was not then taken awaie. For euen now faithful menne do sinne daily. Therefore wee neede stil a dayly Sacrifice of none other substance, then that of the Crosse was, but euen of the very same substance, which substance hath in it al his merite of the Crosse. And thus we offer Christes body, and bloude, not now in truth by bloudshedding (as once only vpon the Crosse it was offered) but in mysterie, by changing the breade, and wine into his body, and bloude. We offer it thus I saie, to applie vnto deuoute persons by faith, and sacramentes, the merite of the Crosse, praying vnto God, that the death of Christ, which is euer auaileable in it selfe, may (through his bloude, which we offer in the chalice, and drincke with our mouth, and partake in our soules by faith and charitie) be made auaileabe vnto vs.
Catharinus one of the VVorthies of your late chapter of Trident, saith,Deincruē to Sacrificio. Apparet &c.
Harding.
Whatsoeuer he said, he is none of our Worthies, nor yet is he allowed of the Councel of Trente, when [Page] soeuer in any matter of Doctrine he speaketh otherwise, then that Councel doth, I doubte much M. Iewel, how in the iudgemēt of wisemen these boish flowtes become a man of your professiō, in that so vainly you praise vnto vs, now Peter Lombard, now Gratian, now the Gloser vpon him, now Lorichius, now Cusan, now Catharinus, now Caietane, now Alphonsus, now Pighius, now Bitontino, and I can not tel how many moe. As though we leaned to them, more then to the Scriptures, or to the ancient Fathers. If you wil know, what we beleue, and wil not be deceiued therein, reade the Councel of Trent, the doctrine I meane of the Canons in the same decreed, and so shal you not lose your labour. We tel you, though ye be not ignorant thereof, that sundrie thinges haue ben said, and written by Glosers, which we defende not, no more then you defende, either al baudie Bales lyes, al Luthers diuelish doctrines,Beza in c. Luc. 22. or al Bezas filthy verses, wicked writinges in defence of hainous actes, and blasphemies against S. Lukes Gospel. And yet Catharinus saith not that, which you should proue, when al is done. He saith in dede fondly, but he vttereth not that fondnesse, which you lay to vs, as his wordes, and yours, doo shew to him, that listeth to reade bothe.
We receiue the merites of Christes death only by faith.
Harding.
That we receiue the merites of Christes death by faith,The merites of Christes death be not rec [...]iued by Faith only. we graunt, but that by only faith we receiue them, it is a false doctrine, and repugnant to many expresse sayinges of the holy Scriptures. God according to his mercie hath saued vs (saith S. Paule) by the washing of the second [Page 357] birth, and of the renuing of the holy Ghost. Tit. 3. By receiuing saluation, we receiue the merites of Christes death: but we receiue saluation by Baptisme, Ergo, we receiue the merites of Christes death by Baptisme. And sith that Baptisme is not faith, but a different grace from faith, verely we receiue not the merites of Christes death by faith onely.
Againe the merites of Christes death are receiued of him, whose sinnes are forgeuen.Christes Merites receiued by Loue, or charitie. Luc. 7. 1. Cor. 13. But Marie Maudelenes sinnes being many, and great, were yet forgeuen her, bicause she loued much, as Christ him selfe said: and yet loue is not faith, for S. Paule saith, faith, hope, and charitie are three thinges: Wherefore the merites of Christes death are not receiued of vs by faith only. The like Argumētes might I make out of Gods word, for the feare of God, for hope, and for many other vertues, and specially for the grace of God,Matth. 5. whereby wee suffer vniustly for righteousnes sake. For as Christ specially was exalted according to his manhod in glorie, for that in humilitie, and meekenesse he suffered most vniustly:Philipp. 2. euen so he graunteth to them the greatest merites of his death, who by his grace suffer together with him vniustly for the defence of his iustice, as the holy Apostles, and Martyrs haue donne. That,in Ioan. tractatu. [...]0. which M. Iewel here saith out of S. Augustine, that the water of Baptisme worketh, bicause it is beleued, proueth Faith to be nec [...]ssarie, which thing we graunt: but it proueth it not to be sufficient alone, which was the point we sp [...]ke of.
Hesychius saith, the grace of Go [...] is receiued by onely faith.in Leuit. lib. 4. ca. 14.
Harding.
Lib. 4. cap. 14.You l [...]aue out halfe, as your custome is. For Hesychius saith, The grace of God is receiued by faith alone, non ex eperibus, vt Paulus dicit, not of workes, as S. Paule saith. Nam gratia iam non erit gratia. For if the grace of God were deserued by workes, now grace were not grace. Thus Hesychius saith, that Gods grace is receiued by faith alone, onely to exclude their vaine opinion, who thought workes, which were without faith, to deserue faith, or iustice, which is not so. For we are iustified freely without workes, that may deserue the grace that God geueth. Yet it is not denied, but that, when faith is geuen vs, then hope in God, and the loue of him is also geuen vs. By which hope, and loue spread in our hartes, we receiue the merites of Christe, and not by faith onely.
For Purgatorie matters wee referre you to M. Allens Booke, and to that I said thereof in my Confutation, whiche is more railed, and scoffed at, then answered.
Of the Intercession made to Saintes to praie for vs. The 10. Chapter.
If Christ only be the mediatour of Saluation, vvherefore do you thus cal vpon the blessed virgin Christes mother, Salua omnes, qui te glorificant? Saue thou al them that glorifie thee. Here ye intrude vpon Christes office.
Harding.
A Wrangler wil neuer lacke wordes.Saue vs o blessed virgin, in vvhat sense is i [...] taken. Whereas you know by our doctrine, and profession, that we beleue, not the blessed Virgin, but only Christ to be our mediatour, what fishe you for wordes to trappe vs in them? When we saie to the Virgin, saue vs, we meane thus: praye for vs to God, that we may be faued. And herein we speake, as S. Paule did speake, who saith to Timothee: doing thus (that is to saie, preaching, and geuing good example of life) & teipsum saluum facies, 1. Tim. 4. & eos qui te andiunt. Thou shalt saue bothe thy selfe, and those that heare thee. What? Doth S. Paule make Timothee a mediatour and Sauiour in these wordes? They are thus wel meant: Thou shalt be a meane to saue thy selfe, and others, that is to saie, whereby the sooner saluation may freely for Christes sake be geuen of God to thee, and to others. Euen so, saue vs virgin, is to saie, O virgin praie to God, and to thy sonne Iesus, that through his death saluation may be geuen vnto vs. I might bring many such speaches out of the holy Scriptures, if I thought this might [Page] not suffice. He is a contentious wrangler, who knowing our meaning, doth pike quarels of dissensiō vpon wordes only, taken in euil sense, the good sense dissembled.
Ibidem.VVherefore saie yee thus of Thomas Becket: O Christ make vs to ascende vnto heauen, vvhither Thomas is ascended, euen by the bloud of Thomas, that he shead for thy sake. Here you seeke saluation in the bloud of Thomas.
Harding.
This is an obiection for a Cobler, as the other was, and not for a Diuine,Hovv it is lavvful to saie in praier. super Thomae Sanguinem, and the like. Esai. 37. whose duetie it were to depend of thinges, and not of wordes. Albeit you make it otherwise to your aduantage, then the Latin wordes reporte, yet thus we saie: It is lawful to aske mercie of God onely for his owne sake: it is lawful also at the time of asking mercie, to present to him the remembrance of any gifte, or grace of his.
God him selfe saith by his Prophete Isaias: Protegem ciuitatem istam vt saluem eam propter me, & propter Dauid seruum meum. I wil defende this citie to saue it for mine owne sake, and for Dauides sake my seruant. Now bicause we know, it was a most gracious gifte of God, that he gaue S. Thomas grace to dye for his honour: when we desire to be holpen by his bloud, representing the memorie of S. Thomas vnto Christe our Sauiour, and as it were putting him in minde of his death suffered for his sake, we desire to haue Gods grace the soner geuen vnto vs through that mercie, which he shewed to the said S. Thomas.Philip. 1. Scio quia hoc mihi prouen [...]et ad salutem, per vestram orationem, & subministrationem spiritus Iesu Christi. I know (saith S. Paule) that this thing shal [Page 359] helpe forwarde my saluation, by your prayer, and by the helpe of the spirite of Iesus Christe.Prayer of good mē and Gods spirit ioyned together in healping vs. Here are ioyned together two thinges: the praier of good menne, and the helpe of the spirite of Christe. They are both vttered by this syllable, per, by or through.
But what? Is S. Paule become blasphemous, bicause he ioyneth mennes prayers with Gods spirite? No, no. He meant, that the prayer of menne might helpe him, not of them selues, but by Gods gift. But the spirite of Christe was hable to help him of it selfe, as being the spirite of God. And yet those two helpes so far vnlike, are put together in one sentence, and expressed by one kinde of speache. But it is not a phrase of speache, whiche maketh the difference, it is the harte of the faithful, which distinguisheth al. Your wordes be faire M. Iewel, but your harte vnwares to your selfe doth honour the Idol Caluine, more then Christe Iesus. For you are ashamed of Christes olde Churche, and deformed spouse, as you thinke: But the trimme strompet of Caluins setting out, pleaseth you right wel. It is that fowle, and blind harte of yours, that shal condemne you, and not letters, or syllables, whiche in al your bookes you hunt after. Whatsoeuer our wordes be, you maie assure your selfe, our faith, and harte putteth difference inough betwen S. Thomas Becket a good man, and Christ Iesus God, and man. If it shal please you to conferre this praier touching S. Thomas with a praier that I shal anonne allege out of S. Ephem, I truste, you wil reuoke your rash iudgement, wherein you condemne the Catholique Churche for this, and the like praiers.
You in your imagination of the Saintes of God haue made Idolles.
Harding.
It is you that haue made Idolles of the enemies of God, to wit, of Luther, of Caluin, of Peter Martyr your maister, and of others the like. As for our honour geuen to the Saintes, it is no greater, then the primitiue Church gaue to them, that is, that they heare vs in Christ, and praie in great charitie for vs. And so did al the olde Fathers beleeue, as being so taught of the Apostles. S. Irenaeus so nigh vnto the Apostles,S. Marie the virgī is the aduocate of Eue. Irenaeus li. 5. doubted not to say, that the Virgin Marie obeied God, Vti virginis Euae Maria virgo fieret aduocata. That the Virgin Marie should be made the aduocate of the virgin Eue. And yet doth he not make her equal thereby with Christe. For our Ladie is in an other sense, and sorte our aduocate, then Christ is. Christ by right may pleade for vs, the Virgin Marie by grace may intreate for vs.
S. Gregorie Nazianzene, who praied him selfe to S. Basil being departed this life,Gregorius in monodia. Idem. in laudem Cypriani. Hilarius in psalm. 124. Homil de 40 martyribus. reporteth thus of S. Cyprian, Virginem Mariam rogauit, vt periclitanti virgini opem ferret. He desired the Virgin Marie to helpe the Virgin which was in daunger.
S. Hilarie saith, we haue no smal garrison in the Apostles, and in other Saintes.
S. Basil speaking of the fortie Martyrs, saith, He that is pressed with any calamitie, ad hos confugiat, vt à malis liberetu [...]. Let him flee to these, that he may be deliuered from euil thinges, hos oret, let him praie vnto these, &c.
S. Hieromes minde is wel knowen writing against Vigilantius. Hom. 66. ad populū Antioch.
S. Chrysostome saith, that the Emperour (the pride of his purple laid a syde) stat Sanctis supplicaturus, standeth to make his supplication to the Saintes, that they make intercession for him to God.
S. Augustine sheweth it to be a commoditie,De cura pro mort. gerenda. cap. 4. that Christian menne should be buried nigh to the Saintes, that the frendes of the dead, eisdē Sanctis tāquam patronis susceptos apud Dominum adinuandos, orando commendent: that the frendes of the dead may by making their prayer, commende the dead, as clientes to the same Saintes, as to their patrones, by them to finde helpe with God.Theodorit. De curatio. graecarum affect. li. 8,
Theodoritus at large treateth of this mater, saying, that they whiche go on Pilgrimage, praie vnto the Martyrs to be their companions on the waie, not (saith he) that they make them Goddes, but they praye vnto the Martyrs, as being the menne of God. He sheweth moreouer, that after their returne, some dedicated Images, or figures of Eyes, some of Handes, some of feete made in siluer, or golde. S. Paulinus, S. Leo, S. Gregorie, S. Bede, and al the other holy and learned Fathers, agree herein.
VVhereas yee teache the people thus to praie vnto the blessed Virgine, Monstra te esse Matrem, commaund thy sonne, vse thy motherly authoritie ouer him, let him knovv thee to be his mother, this you saie, is no blasphemie, but a spiritual dallying. Novve verely this must needes be a blessed kinde of Diuinitie, that can turne prayer into dallyance.
Harding.
You scoffe wel, but what say you to my reason, that the spouse in the Canticles dallieth in such sorte with [Page] Christe her spouse? Why is the worde ieasted at, and the reason let passe? But syr I pray you, who taught you to english, Monstra te esse matrem, Commaūd thy Sonne. where haue ye these wordes, let him knowe thee to be his mother? Monstrare, is to shew, you knowe. The English of monstra te esse matrem, Monstra te esse matrem. is, shew thy selfe to be a mother, and it may wel be vnderstanded, by relation made as wel towardes vs, as towardes Christe: Towardes him by nature, towardes vs by affection.
But doo not the wordes next following sufficiently declare the mater? Sumat per te preces, qui pro nobis natus tulit esse tuus. Shew thy selfe to be a mother, let him take praiers by thee, that is, offer praiers vnto him who for our sakes was content to be thy sonne. So that al this notwithstanding, we may demaunde of you, where it is written, that we bid our Ladie to commaunde her sonne. For whiche demaunde you scoffe at M. Cope, without witte,Pag. 313. or reason calling him, One of my Beauperes of Louaine. Why you should so cal him, I know not, nor your selfe, I beleeue. For Beaupere in frenche, is a Father in lawe. And neither I haue married his daughter, nor he my mother. You say likewise of him ful wisely, that, he as a man carrieing his face in his hande, saith boldely, &c. I doubte howe this boyerie maye seeme to becomme so olde a Minister. But let suche toyes go.
Neither did I graunte you, that it was so written, but I said in case it were so written, or said, yet it might be wel taken, if it came to an honest mans interpretation. For to the vncleane, nothing is cleane, bicause their owne conscience is vncleane.
Bembus for calling our Ladie Deam, Pag. 314. Our lady called Dea by Pet. Bembus. (for whiche you storme so muche) is not commended of vs, how beit it came rather of a poetical, or a Ciceronian spirit, coueting ouermuch to vse the old Latin prophane termes, then of any vnbeleefe, or heresie.
I thinke no man called our ladie Gods fellow, which you impute vnto vs. The Latin wordes, whiche you bring, may be wel taken by relation to Christe, to witte, that whereas al others forsooke Christ at his passion, yet our ladie his mother stode by him, as a most faithful keper of her sonnes companie.
If you finde faulte with the Councel of OxfordeThe Coū cel of Oxford. for leauing out Christes name, we take it not lefte out, where his father is named, with whom he is one substance.Heb. 1. Otherwise you may finde great faulte with S. Paule, who sometimes nameth God the father, without mention of the Sonne, and them both without the holy Ghoste. But where no contempte is, these omissions are not imputed.
You saie, the blessed virgin hath more grace geuen her,De sanctae virginitate. ca. 3. then any creature: excepte yee can name a greater grace (saie you) then to be the mother of God. Verely M. Harding, to be the childe of God, it is a great deale greater grace, then to be the mother of God, as S. Augustine saith.
Harding.
If our Ladie were the mother of God, and not the child of God also, it were somewhat that you bring out of S. Augustine. But sith that she is both, and bicause I being sure of it, thought you had beleeued it too: therevpon I said, that our Ladie being as shee is, was aboue [Page] al creatures in grace. For shee is the childe of God with many others, but shee is the natural mother of God aboue al others. Now when we tel the excellencie of any person, I had thought, we should specially haue told that, wherein the same passed al others, and not that, which is common with many others. But a man may wel perceiue, that M. Iewel goeth about to bring the blessed Virgin into contempte, by whiche way so euer he maie bring it about: as though the way to honour the Sonne, were to dishonour the Mother.
But touching the mater it selfe,
Harding.
I crie you mercie M. Iewel, haue you benne a wandering al this while, and now at the very ende come you firste to touch the matter? In dede you leaue it ful ofte vntouched, euery where in manner, taking an occasion of some bye word to fal into your peeuish gloses, and into your common Phrases, letting passe the chiefe point of the question. But now touching the mater, what saie you?
Ad Rom. c. 1. S. Ambrose saith, Therefore we are brought to the presence of kinges by Lordes, and officers, bicause the king is a man, and knoweth not to whom he may commit his realme. But to obteine Gods fauour, to whom nothing is secrete, and knowyng vvhat euery man is meete to haue, we neede no spokesman, but a deuoute minde. For vvhere so euer such a one speaketh to God, God vvil ansvver him.
Harding.
Remember you what you promised?Ansvver to S. Ambrose, Said you not, [Page 362] you would touch the matter of praying to Saintes? Verely. S. Ambrose speaketh these wordes of the vnbeleeuing Gentiles, who despised God, and putting the hope of their Saluation in Goddes creatures, made to them Goddes, and Idolles of them, and adored them, and praied to them, as if there had benne many Goddes. And they praied to them so, as though the highest God, (whom they acknowledge by discourse of reason after a sorte) had neede of their helpe, as not being hable to know al, and to gouerne al thinges alone. So that they despising God, adored the Sunne, the Moone, the Starres and other Creatures, as S. Paule in that Chapter saith, and S. Ambrose expoundeth.
But now what say you touching the mater M. Iewel?Rom. 1. Would you not know S. Ambroses mind therein gladly? I dare saie, you woulde not. And if a man might looke into your harte, I thinke he should espie, that you know for certaintie, that S. Ambrose thought not of praying to Saintes, as you doo: Or els verely you are not so wel seene in S. Ambrose, as I tooke you to be.
Howsoeuer it be, I wil here geue the reader a taste of S. Ambroses minde, touching the very mater of praying to the Saintes whiche liue with Christe.Ambros. in lib. de viduis. S. Ambroses minde touching praying to the Saintes. Rogauerunt pro vidua Petrus, & Andreas. Vtinam existat aliquis, qui tam citò possit rogare pro nobis, vel certè iste, qui pro socru rogat Petrus, & Andreas frater eius. Tunc enim pro affinitate poterant, nunc iam possunt pro nobis, & pro omnibus impetrare. Videtis enim, quòd magno peccato obnoxia minus idonea sit, quae pro se precetur, certè quae prose impetret. Adhibeat igitur ad medicum alios precatores. Aegri enim, nisi ad eos aliorum precibus medicus fuerit [Page] inuitatus, pro se rogare non possunt. Infirma est car [...], mens agra est, & peccatorum vinculis impedita, ad medici illius sedem debile non potest explicare vestigium. Obsecrandi sunt Angeli pro nobis, qui nobis ad praesidium dati sunt: Martyres obsecrandi, quorum videmur nobis quoddam corporis pignore patrocinium vendicare. Possunt pro peccatis rogare nostris, qui proprio sanguine, etiam si qua habuerunt peccata, lauerunt. Isti enim sunt Dei Martyres, nostri praesules, speculatores vitae actuum (que) nostrorum. Non erubescamus eos intercessores nostrae infirmitatis adhibere, qui & ipsi infirmitatem corporis etiam cùm vincerent cognouerunt.
Peter and Andrew praied for the Widowe. Would God there were some body, who would so speedily pray for vs, yea that it were this Peter, who praieth for his mother in law, and Andrew his brother: for then they might for their kinsfolke obteine, but now they may obteine for vs, and for al others. For ye see, that a woman being thral to a great sinne, is not so fit to praie for her selfe, at leste to obteine for her selfe. Let her therefore vse some other mans helpe, and prayer to the Physician (for her). For they that are sicke, onlesse the Physician be brought to them by the meanes and prayers of others, can not (come and) desire him them selues. The fleshe is feeble, the minde is sicke, and so entangled in the bandes of sinne, that it can not set forth her faint and feble foote towardes the seate of that Physician. The Angels are to be called vpon for vs, who are geuen vnto vs to be our Garde. The Martyrs are to be praied vnto, of whom it seemeth we maie (as it were) chalenge a certaine assistance, for that we haue their bodies in pledge. They may wel pray for our sinnes, who with their owne [Page 363] bloud haue washed away their owne sinnes, if they had any. For these are the Martyrs of God, our chiefe Prelates, and the ouerlookers of our life, and doinges. Let vs not be ashamed to vse them as intercessours for our infirmitie, whereas they them selues euen then when they wanne the victorie, knew wel the infirmitie, and weakenesse of the bodie.
This place M. Iewel, sheweth, that S. Ambrose, who wil not haue any man to flee to Idolles, woulde haue al faithful menne to praie to the Saintes for them. And yet you for lacke of better stuffe, were faine to make your Reader beleeue, that the wordes written against the accursed Idolles, might be applied by you against the blessed Apostles, and Martyrs. Whereby you shewe, what good opinion you haue of that blessed companie of the house of God, who reigning with him in heauen, see in the face of the Lambe our hartes, so farre as belongeth to their ioye, and our comfort.
This one place of S. Ambrose might haue suffised,The practise of the Churche touching the prayer to Saints, ād honour to them exhibited but it shalbe good, that we ioyne therewith the practise both of the Church in those daies, and also of the Heretikes, that as wel the Catholikes may see, how the Saintes were esteemed in olde time, as M. Iewel may perceiue, that he is not the first heretike, whom it grieued to see Gods Martyrs so to be honoured, as they are among the Catholikes. Let vs then heare what S. Paulinus writeth in the life of S. Ambrose, who liued in his time.Paulinus in vita Ambros [...]. Per idē tēpus sancti Martyres Protasius, & Geruasius se sacerdoti reuelauerūt. Erāt enim in Basilica positi, in qua sunt hodie corpora Naboris, et Felicis Martyrum. Sed sancti Martyres Nabor & Felix celeberrimè frequentabantur: Protasij verò & Geruasij [Page] Martyrum, vt nomina, ita etiam sepulchra incognita erant: in tantum, vt suprà ipsorum sepulchra ambularent omnes, qui vellent ad cancellos peruenire, quibus sanctorum Naboris, & Felicis Martyrum ab iniuria sepulchra defendebantur. Sed vbi sanctorum Martyrum sunt corpora leuata, & in lecticis posita, multorum ibi Satanae aegritudines perdocentur. Coecus etiam Seuerus nomine, qui nunc vsque in eadem basilica quae dicitur Ambrosiana, in quam Martyrum corpora sunt translata, religiosè seruit, vbi vestem Martyrum attigit, statim lumen recepit. Obsessa etiam corpora à spiritibus immundis curata, summa cum gratia domum repetebant. Sed his beneficiis Martyrum in quantum crescebat fides Ecclesiae Catholica, intantum Arianorum perfidia minuebatur. Denique ex hoc tempore sed [...]ri coepit persecutio quae Iustinae furori accendebatur, vt Sacerdos de Ecclesia pelleretur. Tamen intra palatium multitudo Arianorum cum Iustina constitut [...] deridebat tantam Dei gratiam, quam Ecclesiae suae Catholica Dominus Iesus meritis Nartyrum suorum conferre dignatus est, venerabilémque virum Ambrosium narrabat pecunia comparasse homines, qui se vexari ab immundis spiritibus mentirentur, atque ita ab illo, sicut & à martyribus, se torqueri dicerent. Sed hoc Iudaico ore loquebantur Ariani, suppares scilicet eorum. Illi enim de Domino dicebant, Quoniam in Beelzebub principe Daemoniorum eijcit Daemonia. Isti de Martyribus, vel de Domini Sacerdote loquebantur, quòd non Dei gratia quae per ipsos operabatur, immundi spiritus pellerentur, sed accepta pecunia se torqueri mentirentur. Clamabant enim daemones, Scimus vos Martyres: Et Ariani dicebant, Nescimus esse Martyres.
About this time the holy Martyrs Protasius, and Gernasius reueled them selues to S. Ambrose. For they were buried in the Church, where at this daie are the bodies of the Martyrs, Nabor and Felix. But menne haunted very muche vnto the holy Martyrs, Nabor, and Felix, and as for the Martyrs Protasius, and Gernasius, as theire names were vnknowen, so were also their Graues, where they laie, in so muche that men, that were desirous to come to the Grates, wherewith the toumbes of the blessed Martyrs, Nabor, and Felix, were fenced from iniurie, walked vppon their graues.
But after that the bodies of the blessed Martyrs were taken vppe, and laid in their cofines, that many were there cured of their Diseases, it is wel knowen.Seuerus a blinde man by touche of martyrs garment, receiued fighte. A blinde man named Seuerus, who at this daie ful deuoutely serueth in the same Churche, nowe called S. Ambroses Churche, whither the bodies of the Martyrs were translated: after that he had once touched the garmente of the Martyrs, foorthwith receiued his fight. Many bodies also possessed of wicked Spirites were cured, and returned home with great grace. But howe muche the faith of the Catholique Churche by these benefites of the Martyrs grewe more and more, so muche did the perfidious falshood of the Arians wexe lesse and lesse. Finally after this the persecution, which was enkendled by the rage of Iustina the Emperesse, which sought to driue Saint Ambrose out of his Churche, beganne to slake. Neuerthelesse the rable of the Arians, who were in the Courte with Iustina, [Page] scoffed at this great grace of God, whiche it pleased our Lord Iesus to bestow vpō his Catholike Church through the merites of his Martyrs. And they bruted abroad that the reuerēd Bishop Ambrose had hiered mē with money, that should feine them selues to be vexed with vncleane Sprites, and saie, that they were as wel tormented by S. Ambrose, as by the Martyrs. But this the Arians like verie Iewes vttered, as being (in malice) their owne companions. For the Iewes said of our Lorde: He casteth out Deuilles in Beelzebub the Prince of Deuilles. But the Arians said of the Martyrs, and of S. Ambrose the Priest of our Lord, that the vncleane Sprites were not cast out by the grace of God, which wrought by them, but that menne hiered with money, feined them selues to be tormented. For the Deuilles cried out: We know you to be Martyrs, But the Arians said, we know not them to be Martyrs. Thus farre S. Paulinus.
Doo you know your Father M. Iewel, if ye saw him? I meane not your natural Father, would God you were so good a man, and of so good a faith, as he was. But I meane your other father, that begote Arius, whose yonger brother you are. At that time the Arians mockte at the miracles wroughte by the Saintes, and that at their Toumbes, euen as you doo nowe. But at that time the Catholikes honoured the Saintes, as we doo now. If the Arians were heretikes, you know your brethren.
Hovv S. Ephrem praied for the helpe of Saints, ā [...] to the Saintes.Before I conclude this matter touching praying vnto Saintes, I would the Reader to vnderstand, what good menne thought thereof twelue hundred yeares agoe. It may be cōceiued by that we find in S. Ephrem that blessed man, whom S. Basil esteemed so much. Thus he saith [Page 365] speaking vnto God. Grex tuus electus, Ephraem De Compunctione cordis. li. 1 cap. 13. Monachorum quoque conuentus, & omnium Sanctorum, qui placuerunt ante te, qui nunc in Paradiso exultant, iam deprecantur pro me, & obsecrant te solum amatorem hominum. Exaudies quo (que) eos, & saluabis me obsecrationibus eorum. Ego verò per eos tibi gloriam & laudem offeram, qui exaudisti orationem eorum, & misertus es mihi, & non despexisti petitiones eorum, quae pro salute animae meae profusae sunt.
Thy chosen Flocke, and cōpanie of Monkes, and of al the Saintes, that haue ben acceptable before thee, who now reioise in Paradise, at this present do praie for me, and be suters vnto thee the only louer of men. Thou shalt heare them, and shalt saue me for their praiers. And I shal offer glorie, and praise vp vnto thee, who hast heard their praiers, and hast mercie of me, and hast not despised their requestes, which haue benne made for the health of my soule.
Some wil say perhappes, This place witnesseth, that the Saintes praie for vs, but not that we maie praie to the Saintes. Who so euer is desirours to see this point witnessed by holy Ephrem, let him read a praier, that he made in praise of our Ladie the virgin Marie. Where she is honoured with these high titles, without preiudice of Christes glorie, Regina omniū, spes desperantiū, spes Patrū, Ephraem. in orati. de Sanctiss. Dei Matris laudibus. gloria Prophetarū, omniū Princeps, omniū Dux. The Quene of al, the hope of them that be without hope, the hope of the Fathers, the glorie of the Prophetes, Princesse of al, the captaine of al. Yea further praying vnto her he saith, which M. Iewel wil euil abide, Per te reconciliati sumus Christo Deo meo filio tuo. Tu peccantium, & auxilio destitutorum adiutrix. Tu portus procella vexatorum, solatium mū di, [Page] carcere clausorum liberatrix celeberrim [...]. Tu Orphanorum susceptio, tu captiuorum redemptio, tu agrotantium exultatio, & omnium salus. By thee we haue ben reconciled vnto Christ my God thy Sonne. Thou art the helper of them that sinne, and be forsaken of helpe. Thou art the heauen of them that are tossed with tēpest, thou art the comforte of the worlde, the famous deliuerer of them that are shut vp in the Prison. Thou arte the receite of Orphans, thou art the redemption of them that be taken Prisoners, thou arte the reioising of them that be sicke, and the health of al.
These petitions stand not in this order together. But they are truely reported. Item he saith there: Sub alis tuis custodi me, & protege. Miserere mei, quisum luto inquinatus, qui sceleribus quàm plurimis Creatorē Deū meum, et iudicē offendi. Non mihi alia fiducia ô virgo sincera. Imple os meū gratia dulcedinis tua. Illumina mentem ô gratia plena. Keepe me, and defende me vnder thy Wings. Haue mercie of me, that am defiled with durte, that haue with very many wicked deedes offended the Creator my God, and Iudge. I haue none other trust, ô pure Virgin. Fil my mouth with the grace of thy swetnes. Lighten my minde ô ful of grace.
Item there he saith further. Dignare virgo te tuum seruum laudare, & dicere: Aue Dei splendidissimum, & luculentissimum vas. Aue Pax, Gaudium, & Salus mundi: Aue vallum fidelium, & mundi Salus. Aue progenitoris illius Adā Resurrectio, aue refugium peccatorum, & hospitium, aue propitiatorium laborantium. Aue spes omnium proborum aduersis casibus afflictorum. Aue mundi Mediatrix gloriosissima, aue vniuersi terrarum orbis conciliatrix. Aue porta coelorum, ascensus omnium, aue reseramentum portarum Paradisi, Aue clauis Coelorum, & regni Christi. Aue portus optime huius [Page 366] vita Nautarum, aue animae meae spes bona & fida, aue Christianorum omnium firma salus.
Vouchesafe Virgin, that I thy seruant praise thee, and saie: Haile the brightest, and cleerest Vessel of God. Haile Peace, Ioie, and health of the worlde. Haile Bulwarke of the faithful, and health of the worlde. Haile Resurrection of Adam that first Father of ours. Haile refuge, and herborough of sinners, haile propitiatorie of them that laboure. Haile hope of al good folke oppressed with aduersities: Haile most glorious Mediatresse of the worlde, haile reconciler of al the rounde worlde. Haile gate of heauen, the ascending vp of al, haile the vnlocking of Paradise gates. Haile keie of heauen, and of the kingdom of Christe. Haile the best hauen of the Marriners of this life. Haile good, and trusty hope of my Soule. Haile the stronge health of al Christians.
Consider Reader, whether, Tu per Thomae sanguinem, Whereat M. Iewel maketh so much adoo, may not wel seeme iustified by the prayer of the Aunciente Father Ephrem. I denie not, but that if there be such excessiue speaches, as seeme to attribute to our Ladie, or to any Sainte, that, which is propre, and belonging to Christe only: they ought by a conuenient interpretation, and vnderstanding be drawen vnto such a sense, and meaning, as is agreable vnto the Scriptures of God, and faith of the Catholike Church.
Of the possibilitie of keeping the commaundementes of God. The 11. Chapter.
Harding.
1 WIthout the grace of God no one commaundement can be done or kepte, as it ought. For Christ said,Ioan. 15. sine me nihil potestis facere: without me yee can do nothing. And the whole Churche praieth continually,Grace necessarie to the keeping of Gods cō maundementes. Math. 6. forgeue vs our debtes (or trespasses). With the grace of God, the commaundementes may be so kepte, that the keepers of them may atteine life euerlasting. For Christ said of the commaundementes, Si vu ad vitam ingredi, serua mandata. If thou wilt entre vnto life, kepe the commaundementes. And againe, Hoc fac, & viues, 2 do this, and thou shalt liue. Non enim auditores legis iusti sunt apud Deum, Math. 19. Rom. 2. for the heares of the law be not accompted iust before God, but the doers of the lawe shalbe iustified.
3 I graunt we can not so fulfil the lawe, that we shalbe without venial sinne, and many imperfections of life. None but Christ so fulfilled the law.1. Iohan. 1. If we say, we haue no sinne, the truth is not in vs, saith S. Iohn. But the fulfilling of the law is not so required of vs, that we neuer swarue any whit from the line of perfection, but so as we neuer turne backeward from God (after grace once receiued) by wilful consent to mortal sinne.Augu. de Spirit. & lit. ca. 27. Non impediunt (saith S. Augustine) à vita aeterna iustum, quaedam peccata venialia, sine quibus haec vita non ducitur. Certaine venial sinnes, without whiche this life is not passed ouer, doo not let the iuste man, from the atteining of life euerlasting. He then is iuste, who though he haue venial [Page 367] sinnes, is cleere and voide of al mortal sinnes.VVho is luste in this life? Luc. 1. Otherwise how should the Scripture saie, that Zacharias, and Elizabeth were both iuste before God, walking in al the commaundementes, and righteousnesses of our Lorde without complaint?
Yee seeme in some parte to renevve the Pelagian olde condemned errour.
Harding.
Ye doo vs wrong to raise that euil surmise vpon vs.Hieronymus ad Ctesiphontem. The Pelagians heresie vvhat vvas it. August. ad Quoduult Deum. Heres. 88. Ibidem. Heres. 88. A point of heresie common betvven the Pelagians, and the Caluinistes. Deuteron. 6. Math. 22. Deut, 17. We are as far from that heresie, as yee are from the Catholique faith in many other great and weighty pointes. S. Hierome sheweth that the Pelagian heresie was, posse hominem sine peccato esse, si velit, that a man may be without sinne, if he wil. And S. Augustine saith, Credunt sine gratia Dei posse hominem facere omnia diuina mandata: They beleue, that a man without the Grace of God, can do al the commaundementes of God.
We defie these two opinions. But they had an other erroneous opinion, from the gilte whereof you M. Iewel being a scholer of Caluines schoole, shal hardly cleere your selfe. They taught, as S. Augustine doth witnesse, that infantes might haue, not in deede the kingdom of God, but yet life euerlasting without Baptisme. And you teache, that they may haue both life euerlasting, and the kingdome of heauen without Baptisme. Therefore I leaue it to be considered, how farre ye differ from the Pelagians.
God saith, thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with al thy hart, with al thy soule, with al thy power. Yee shal not turne, neither [Page] to the right hande, nor to the lefte.
Harding.
This precepte of louing God with al our hart, &c. was geuē to vs, not as a thing to be fully done whiles we liue, but as a thing to be in this life by faith begonne, and to be hoped for presently by the helpe of Gods grace, but really, perfitely, and in deede, to be accomplished in the life to come.De spiritu & litera cap. 36. Philippē 3
So saith S. Augustine: Ideo nobis hoc etiam nunc praeceptum est, vt admoneremur quid fide exposcere, quò spem praemittere, & obliniscendo quae retrò sunt, in quae anteriora nos extendere debeamus. Ac per hoc quantum mihi videtur in ea qua penficienda est iustitia, multum in hac vita ille profecit, qui quàm longè fit à perfectione iustitiae, proficiendo cognouit. Sed dici potest quaedam iustitia minor huic vitae cōpetens, qua intus ex fide viuit, quamuis peregrinus à Domino: & ideo per fidē ambulens, non dū per speciē, nō absurdè dicitur etiā ad istā pertinerè ne peccet: Abacuch. 2. Rom. 1. 2. Cor. 5. neque enim fi esse nō dum potest tanta dilectio Dei, quanta illi cognitioni plenae perfectae (que) debetur, iam culpae deputandum est. Aliudest enim totam nondum assequi charitatem, aliud nullam se qui cupiditatem.
Therefore this also now is geuen vs in commaundement (that we loue God with al our harte, &c.) to put vs in minde what we ought to aske (of God) by faith, whither to sende before our hope, and to what thinges that are before vs, we ought to stretche forth our selues, forgeting the thinges that are behinde. And by this, for so muche as seemeth to mee, in that righteousnesse, whiche is to be perfourmed, he hath profited muche in this life, who in profiting knoweth, how farre he is from the perfection of righteousnes. But there maie be named an other lesser Righteousnes competent for this life, in [Page 368] which the righteous man liueth of faith, although he be as yet a forreiner (or Pilgrime) from our Lord:A lesser righteousnes competēt for this present life. and therefore whiles he walketh by faith and not as yet by sight, it is not absurde to saie of him, that he belongeth to this (lesser righteousnes) that he sinne not. For if there can not yet in this life be so great a loue of God, as is dewe vnto that ful, and perfite knowledge, it is not to be imputed vnto vs for a fault. For it is one thing, not to attaine as yet the whole Charitie, and an other thing, to follow no lust.Hovv the precept of louing God vvith al our povver, is fulfilled in this life.
By these wordes we learne, first, that the precepte of louing God with al our power, is after one sort fulfilled in this life, if doing what we can, we beleue, and hope, as we ought, that wee shal loue God with al our power in the other life. For it is here so set before our eyes, as a marke whereunto we should presently directe our selues as nigh as were are hable, with certaine beleefe, and trust, that if we do here by the helpe of Gods grace that which wee are hable to doo according to the measure that God geueth vnto vs: wee shal in deede attaine the righteousnes of perfit Charitie.
Againe the lacke of that perfit righteousnes is not now to be accompted in vs a sinne,Humaine perfectiō. but if we do our best endeuour it is a degree of righteousnes inferiour, and baser, then that, whiche is to come. So that the righteousnes of the way, or of this life, albeit it be not the greatest, that euer shalbe, yet it is a certaine humaine perfection,The lesser righteousnesse. Hierom. lib. 1. aduersus Pelagianos. and fulnes, and as S. Augustine calleth it, quaedam iustitia minor, a certaine lesser rightheousnesse, S. Hierome calleth it, perfectionē secundū humunae fragilitatis modulū, Perfectiō according to the smal measure of humaine frailtie: the highest degree whereof is a man to bestow his life [Page] for his frendes, whiche thing by Gods grace many Martyrs haue done: who loued God with al their power, as farre as in this life of man he could be loued.
Hieronymus ad Cresiphōt.Of this lesser righteousnes S. Hierome saith, Iusti appellantur, non quòd omni vitio careant, sed quòd maiori parte virtutum commendentur. Men are called righteous, not for that they be without al vice, but for that they are furnished with the more parte of vertue.
Hieron. Lib. 1. aduersus Pelagianos. Double Perfectiō.Againe in an other place: Perspicuum est duas in scripturis sanctis esse perfectiones, duas (que) iustitias, & duos timores. Primam perfectiomem, & incomparabilem veritatem, perfectam (que) iustitiam, Dei virtutibus coaptandam. Secundam autem, quae competit nostrae fragilitati: iuxtà illud quod in psalmis dicitur: non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis viuens, ad eam iustitiam, quae non comparatione, sed Dei scientia dicitur esse perfecta. It is manifest, that in the holy Scriptures there are two perfectiōs, and two righteousnesses, and two feares: And that there is a first perfection, and an incomparable truthe, and a perfite righteousnesse, which is to be set with the vertues of God. And that there is a second perfection, whiche standeth with our frailtie:A distinction vvherby al M. Ievvels obeictiōs maie sone be ansvvered touching this point. The Pelagians heresie. according to that whiche is said in the Psalmes: Euerie one that liueth shal not be accompted righteous in thy sight (asmuch to saie) in comparison of that righteousnes, which not in comparison, but in the knowledge of God is said to be perfite. By this double perfection al is answered, what so euer M. Iewel bringeth against vs, either out of the Scriptures, or out of the Fathers. It is possible to doo the law in this life, after that perfection, which belongeth to Pilgrimes, but not after that, which belongeth to Heauen. But the Pelagians held, that a man [Page 369] might if he would, perfourme the perfection, and that by the benefites of nature, and by free wil without grace.
If a man consider the doctrine whiche we haue taught hitherto concerning Perfection, it shal appeare, that many thinges, which M. Iewel hath alleged in the Defence, are of vs confessed. Whereof then riseth the difference? verely of the wordes of the Apologie,In the Apologie. Defence, pag. 315. which are these. Wee are hable by no meanes to fulfil the lawe of God in this life. This proposition M. Iewel I haue confuted. This haue you taken in hande to defende. But in al your Defence I finde nothing to that purpose. I haue now shewed,By vvhat meanes vve fulfil the lavv. that by some meanes we may fulfil the lawe, to wit, by present faith, and hope, and by going daily forward in Charitie, vntil we come to perfection in Heauen.
Furthermore we maie die also for Goddes sake,The glad sufferāce of death for Christes sake, is one meane to fulfil Godslaw. Cap. 1. & vlt. and for the defence of his truth. This is one meane, whereby the lawe is fulfilled. Therefore your Proposition remaineth stil giltie of erroneus doctrine. Besides this, it is not impossible for a man actually to fulfil the lawe in this life: bicause God may geue a man so muche grace as to doo it, if it please him, as S. Augustine hath declared twise in his booke De spiritu & litera. Therefore by some meanes we may be able to fulfil the lawe, and that perfitely, although I confesse, we doo not fulfil it. But remember, you said not onely we do not fulfil the law, but that wee are not hable to fulfil it by no meanes. Whereby you abbridge the power of God. For Gods singular grace, is a meane to perfourme it. S. Hierome also graunted to Pelagius, possibilia mandata dedit Deus, Ad Ctesiphont. [Page] & quis hoc negat? The commaundementes whiche God gaue vs, are possible to be don, and who saith nay thereto? Forsooth M Iewel in his Apologie.
Of Faith without Workes, and of the Merite of good workes. The 12. Chapter.
I Had said, there is a true Faith, whiche is not liuely, but idle. M. Iewel after his florish made at diuers Scholemen, of whom I intende not muche to speake, saith thus.
1. Tim. 5. Tit. 1.He that hath no regarde to his owne, specially such as be of his howsehold, hath denied the faith, and is worse then an infidel: And againe, they, saie they know God, but by their workes they denie God.
Harding.
This is brought to proue, that in euery great Sinne, at the lest we lose our Faith. Adde hereunto that whiche Martin Luther said:In Artic. 35. Nemo est certus se non semper peccare mortaliter, propter occultissimum superbiae vitium. Noman is sure that he sinneth not alwayes mortally, for the most priuie vice of pride. If then at euery mortal sinne the faith be lost, and noman be sure, but that he is alwayes a mortal sinner, doubtelesse no man is sure, that he hath any Faith. And so Only faith is brought to no faith at al.Onely Faith become no faith at al. 1. Tim. 5. Faith denied by euil vvorkes. Tit. 1. Double knovveledge of God. Of Vnderstā ding, and of vvil, and obedience. Naked Faith. Faith clothed vvith Charitie. So wel these men profit in their Doctrine. But how saith S. Paule, that he who hath not care of his houshold, hath denied the faith? Surely M. Iewel answereth him selfe out of S. Paule, who saith, They professe them selues to knowe God, but by their deedes [Page 370] they denie him. For so S. Chrisostome also doth expound the former of these places by the later.
So that there is a double knowledge, one in the vnderstanding onely, which those haue that beleeue in God, and breake his commaundementes by killing, or stealing, or any other mortal sinne. There is another knowing of God in wil, and obedience of hart, when a man preuented with grace, is desirous to doo, and kepe Gods commaundementes, which are not heauy, nor greuous to him, that hath grace. The first kinde of knowledge, is bare, and naked Faith. The second, is Faith furnished, and clothed with Charitie. This later Faith he hath denied, who doth not take care of his howsehold, and of them of his kinne, &c. But that notwithstanding the former Faith remaineth, bicause he may yet beleeue al the Articles of the Faith, which verely seing it is a grace of God, and a great furtherance to euerlasting life, and yet hath none other name at al euer inuented for it, beside the name of Faith: it must needes be a true Faith, though it be not a profitable Faith, as al Theeues and Periured persons are true men in nature, though they be not honest menne in maners, nor true menne of their deedes. Al which wordes vttered in manner with the same order in my Confutation, M. Iewel hath quite striken out of his booke of Defence, bicause they opened the point of the controuersie. There I said, Faith, Hoape, and Charitie were three:1. Cor. 13. And that as there is a Faith working by Charitie of great profit, so is there a Faith, whiche may be without Charitie, nothing worthe to euerlasting life.
Iacob. 2.S. Iames saith: Faith without workes is dead, but a dead faith is no more a true perfite faith, then a dead man, is a true perfite man.
Harding.
Did not you 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. [Page 371] 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.
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 shalbe 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, [Page] 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 shalbe 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 thende 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 [Page 372] 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, shalbe 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 haue fought a good fight, I haue ended the rase, I haue [Page] kepte the faith, as for the reste the Crowne of righteousnesse is laid vp for me, which our Lord the iust Iudge wil render to me in that daye. And not only to me, but also to them, who loue his comming. Here are first rehersed S. Paules workes, to fight, to ronne, to kepe the faith: Then is their reward rehersed, which is a Crowne, not onely of mercie, but of iustice, of righteousnes, which God wil not only geue him, but he wil render it to him, and not onely to him, but to al that follow his Faith, Hope, and Charitie. And yet shal wee saye, that God rewardeth not workes of such duetie as him selfe apointed? That which God promiseth for working, is due to him that hath wrought. And this is the doctrine of S. Augustine, and of al the other Fathers, and Councels, which might be at large brought forth, but that the scriptures are therein so plaine, that they onely suffice. For he that beleueth not them, wil hardly beleeue the Fathers, or Councels.
In vvhat respecte is life euerlasting freely geuen, and in vvhat respecte it is due for good vvorkes. Rom. 6.Therefore to ende this question, if wee looke to the cause of al our good workes, seing it is not Nature (which was corrupted) but Grace, which hath repaired Nature through Christe: in that respecte life euerlasting is freely geuen, and not deserued. And so the Apostle saith, Life euerlasting is the grace (or free gifte) of God. But if wee speake of them, who haue already grace by Gods gifte, and doo now worke wel: to them life euerlasting is by promise due for their good workes. Hereof no man speaketh more circumspectly, or profoundly, then S. Augustine,Augustin. epist. 105. VVhether vve haue merites. who saith thus. Quae merita iactaturus est liberatus, cui si digna suis meritis redderentur, non esset nisi damnatus? Nulláne igitur sunt merita iustorum? Sunt planè, quia iusti sunt. Sed vt iusti fierent, merita non fuerunt.
What merites (or desertes) shal he that is deliuered boast of, who if he were rewarded according to his deseruing, could not be but damned? Are there then no merites of the iust? Yes verely there are, bicause they are iust. But they merited not to be made iust.
And againe.Ibidem. Quod est ergo meritum hominis ante gratiam, cùm omne bonum meritum nostrum non in nobis faciat nisi gratia, & cùm Deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronet, quàm munera sua? & pòst. Vnde & ipsa vita aeterna quae vtique in fine sine fine habebitur (& ideo meritis praecedentibus redditur) tamen quia eadem merita, quibus redditur, non à nobis parata sunt per nostram sufficientiam, sed in nobis facta per gratiam, etiam ipsa, gratia nuncupatur, non ob aliud nisi quia gratis datur. Nec ideo quia meritis non datur, sed quia data sunt & ipsa merita, quibus datur. Et pòst. Vnde etiam & Merces appellatur plurimis scripturarum locis. What then is the Merite of man before grace, whereas nothing worketh our good merite in vs but grace, and when God crowneth our Merites, he crowneth nothing els, but his owne giftes? And afterward. Whereupon life euerlasting it selfe, which doubtlesse at the ende we shal haue without ende (and therefore it is geuen to the Merites going before) yet bicause those Merites vnto whiche it is geuen, be not gotten of vs by our owne sufficiencie, but are wrought in vs through Grace, that Life also is called Grace, for none other thing, but for that it is geuen freely. Nor therefore bicause it is not geuen to Merites, but bicause the Merites them selues, to whiche it is geuen, are geuen. And afterward. It is called also in many places of the Scripture, Wages.
Thus in effect then the Scriptures, and after them S. Augustine, and with him al Catholikes do say: Life euerlasting is rendred or paid, as wages, or as a due rewarde to good workes. But bicause the very same workes are not good, but by Grace, therefore the life euerlasting is also called Grace. Both these partes we graunte, the Heretikes denie the one, to witte, that good workes merite euerlasting life.
Of the Resurrection of the flesh attributed to the worthy receiuing of the blessed Sacrament. The 13. Chapter.
I Said, the Resurrection of the flesh is attributed in the Scriptures not only to the spirite of Christ, that dwelleth in vs, but also to the real eating of Christes fleshe in the Euchariste, bicause in S. Iohn Christe saith,Ioan. 6. he that eateth my flesh, and drincketh my bloude, hath life euerlasting, and I wil raise him againe in the last daye.
VVhere is your real, and substantial eating?
Harding.
The eating of Christes supper was a real eating, and thereto the wordes of S. Iohn doo apperteine, as the very circumstance, and also as al the olde Fathers declare, namely S. Chrysostom, and Cyrillus vpon that chapter.
S. Augustine expounding the same vvordes, saith, beleue,In Ioan. tract. 25. and thou hast eaten.
Harding.
S. Augustine saith it, though not vpon those wordes. But he meant of the spiritual eating by Faith only. You stil confounde eating by faith, with eating really at the Sacrament.
Nicolas Lyra,Nicol. Lyra in Psal. 111. one of your ovvne Doctours, saith, these vvordes of S. Iohn perteine nothing to the Sacrament. Thus he saith, Hoc verbum directè nihil pertinet ad Sacramentalem, vel corporalem manducationem. This saying (of the sixth of Iohn) perteineth nothing directly to the Sacramētal, or corporal eating. It vvas some ouersight of your parte M. Harding, to seeke to proue the eating, of the Sacramēt by those vvordes that by your ovvne doctors iudgemēt perteineth nothing to the Sacramēt.
Harding.
But it was a more ouersight of you M. Iewel to-blemish your credite by belying my doctor,Lyra fovvly belied by M. Ievv. if Lyra be my Doctor. For Lyra neuer said the wordes, that you allege. Your cotation directeth the Reader to the Psalme: 111. Read thexposition that Lyra maketh vpon that Psalme, who liste, he shal find him to saie no such thing. In deede he expoundeth that Psalme of the Euchariste, and saith quite cōtrarie to your doctrine,Lyra in Psal. 110. In praecedenti Psalmo actū est de Sacerdotio Christi & eius sacrificio, quod est Eucharistia: in isto agitur de Eucharistiae efficacia. In the former Psalme the Priesthod of Christ was treated of, and his Sacrifice, which is the Euchariste: in this Psalme the efficacie of the Euchariste is treated of. There ye haue a plaine testimonie bothe of Christes Priesthod, and of his Sacrifice, whiche he perfourmed otherwheres then vpon the Crosse, which you denie. For which cause specially, I suppose, ye cal him one of mine owne doctours. In consideration whereof al the Doctours of Christes Church be my Doctours, they be not yours. For that Doctrine is generally taught by them al.
Lyra vnderstode Christ in the 6. of Iohn to speake of the Euchariste. Ioan. 6.Tha [...] Lyra vnderstode the wordes of Christe spoken in the sixth Chapter of S. Iohn, of the Euchariste, it is cleere, bothe by thexposition of that Psalme, and also of that chapter. In the exposition of the Psalme, to declare the benefite of the Sacrament worthily receiued, h [...] allegeth those wordes of Christe, Si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane, viuet in aeternum. If any man eate of this Breade, he shal liue for euer. Touching the 6. chapter of S. Iohn, vpon these wordes, Operamini non cibum qui perit, [Page 375] &c. Thus he writeth: Haec autem esca est Christi corpus in Eucharistia, &c. This meate (whereof S. Iohn speaketh) is the Bodie of Christe in the Euchariste, as it appeareth by the letter following, in whiche he speaketh very diffusely of the Sacrament of the Euchariste, shewing what is conteined in it really. Whereof it is said in this very Chapter hereafter, my Fleash is very meate, and my Bloude is very drinke. Whereby the errour of Berengarius is taken awaye, who said the Body of Christe to be conteined in this Sacrament, as in a Signe. For the whiche he recanted his saying, as erroneus. Thus Lyra. By these, and by many other wordes there, Lyra sheweth at large, that he was of the opinion, that sundrie sayinges of Christe, in the 6. Chapter of S. Iohn perteine to the Sacrament. Whereby it appeareth, how falsely you haue belyed him.
The wordes which you allege M. Iewel to entwite me of ouersighte, are not the wordes of Nicolas Lyra mine owne Doctor, as you saie, but of one Matthias Doring,Matthias Doring. who wrote Replies against the Additions of Paulus Burgensis printed with Lyras expositions. Wherein as you haue deceiued your Reader with false forgerie, fathering that vpon Lyra, that Lyra neuer said, nor dreamed of: so you haue fowly corrupted also this poore Doctor Doring, with cutting of his wordes, pretending him to speake of these wordes of S. Iohn, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloude, hath life euerlasting, and I wil raise him againe in the last daie, which I alleged: whereas in deede he spake neither of these wordes specially, nor of Christes whole discourse in that chapter of S. Iohn in general, but onely of these special wordes of S. Iohn, Nisi manducaueritis carnem filij hominis, & biberitis [Page] eius sanguinem, non babebitis vitam in vobis. Except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, and drinke his Bloude, ye shal not haue life in you.
That the truth be knowen, and your falsehed detected, thus it is. Burgensis had written these wordes: Licet Iohannis sexto legatur, Purgen. Additione 1. in Psal. 112. Nisi manducaueritis carnem filij hominis, non habebitis vitam in vobis, per hoc tamen secundùm Doctores non imponitur praeceptum necessitatis ad sumptionem huius Sacramenti, prout Augustinus declarat. Vnde sumptio huius Sacramenti corporaliter quantum ad populum, vel Laicos, cadit sub consilio potius, quàm praecepto. Although we reade in the sixth Chapter of S. Iohn, except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, ye shal not haue life in you, yet hereby after the Doctors minde we are not charged with a precept of necessitie to receiue this Sacramēt, but only the thing of the Sacrament. (By the thing of the Sacrament is meant the Vnitie of the Church) as S. Augustin declareth. Wherefore the receiuing of this Sacramēt bodily, as touching the laie people, is such a thing, as is rather counseled, then cōmaunded. Hitherto Burgensis.
Now cōmeth me in Doctor Doring, whom M. Iewel would haue menne beleue to be Nicolas Lyra, and findeth fault with Burgensis for alleging the said wordes of S. Iohn, excepte ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man, &c. to this sense,Matthias Doring in replica in Psal. 110. that the corporal Communion, as touching the laie people, is a matter of counsel. Per hoc non satisfit Haereticis modernis. The Heretiques of our age wil not be satisfied with this, saith he. And why? It followeth there: Quia litera non habet illud dictū fundamentum. Bicause that saying (that the bodily receiuing of the Sacramēt in laye folke is a matter of counsel) hath not his foundation [Page 376] out of the texte. And therefore concerning the Sacramental Communion, it hath not the force of a precept, neither for the Clergie, nor for the laitie, as touching al, according to the true vnderstāding of that text. Howbeit in the same place it is declared, of what eating, and drinking it ought to be vnderstā ded, to witte, of the spiritual. For it foloweth, he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Which S. Augustin expoundeth saying, Hoc est manducare illam escam, & bibere illum potum, in Christo manere, & Christum manentem in se habere. This is to eate that meate, and to drinke that drinke, a man to dwel in Christ, and to haue Christ dwel in him, which is no thing els, but to be in Charitie.. Then followe these wordes, whereof M. Iewel would take aduantage. Hoc aūt omnibus indifferēter est praeceptū implicitè, sed nihil directè pertinet ad Sacramē talem, vel corporalem manducationem. Hoc verbum nisi mā ducaueritis, &c. This is geuē in cōmaundement to al men indifferently by waie of implying: But this saying, Except ye eate the flesh of the Sōne of man &c. This word, or this saying, perteineth nothing at al to the Sacramētal, or corporol eating. Thus farre Matthias Doring.
Thus you maie vnderstand M. Iewel, the wordes you allege be not Lyras, but one Doringes, and the same haue relation not to the place of S. Ihon that I brought, but onely to these wordes, Excepte ye eate the fleshe of the Sonne of man, ye shal not haue life in you. Whiche wordes after that Doctours mynde importe not a precepte of necessitie of the Sacramental, or corporal eating, and so thinke I to. And though he iudged, they were not aptly alleged of Burgensis to proue that the bodily receiuing of the Sacrament is a mater of counsel, [Page] and not of precepte, bicause they perteine not to the Sacramental Communion at al: yet the other saying, he that eateth my fleshe, and drinketh my bloude, hath life auerlasting, and I wil raise him againe in the last daie, maie wel be alleged for benefite of the Resurrection of the fleshe to redounde to the faithful beleeuer, of the worthy receiuing of Christes Bodie in the Euchariste, for whiche purpose it was by me alleged. You should haue sene these thinges better, before ye had entwited me of ouersight.
Hovv liued then the Patriarkes, and Martyrs, and hovv shal children haue life, vvho neuer receiue the Sacrament?
Harding.
Pag. 324.I make not the real eating of Christes flesh the onely meane of Resurrection to life. And therefore your long talke is to no purpose, which you vtter in this place. They shal liue by the spirite of Christe, who gaue them Faith, and Charitie. But doth not therefore S. Iohn speake also of real eating? as though one effecte may not be wrought by diuers meanes concurring thereunto? Ego (saith Cyrillus) id est, Cyrill. in Iohā. li. 4. cap. 15. corpus meū quod comedetur, resuscitabo eū. I wil raise him, that is to say, my body, which shalbe eaten, shal raise him. Thus you see plainely, that touching this point, no lesse Clerke then Cyrillus teacheth the same, that I said, which you haue vniustly, and rashly controlled, as you haue done the reste of the Catholike Doctrine.
That matters of faithe, and ecclesiastical causes are not to be iudged by the Ciuile Magistrate. The. 14. Chapter.
That a Prince, or magistrate maie not lavvfully calae Prieste before him to his ovvne seate of Iudgement, or that many Catholique, and godly Princes haue not so done, and done it lavvfully, it is most vntrue.
Harding.
I haue tolde you M. Iewel,Confut. Fol. 299. ae. that the duetie of Ciuil Princes consisteth in Ciuil maters, and euer said, that Bishoppes ought to be obedient to Princes in suche cases, whither so euer they cal them. And if they make any temporal Decree, the Bishoppe, who hath temporal goodes vnder the Prince, must obey without grudge,Confut. Fol. 302. ae or gaine saying, so farre as the Decree standeth with the honour of God. But that in Ecclesiastical causes, and maters of Faith, mere temporal Princes haue any authoritie of them selues to cal Bishoppes and Priestes to their Seates of Iudgement, or euer did it lawfully: we vtterly denie.Ambrosius. lib. 5. Epist. 32. Priestes only ought to be iudges ouer Priestes by Theosius. S. Ambrose said to the Emperour Valentinian: Nec quisquàm contumacem iudicare me debet, quum hoc asseram, quod augustae memoriae patertuus non solùm sermone respondit, sed etiam legibus suis sanxit, in causa fidei, vel ecclesiastici alicuius ordinis, eum iudicare debere, qui nec munere impar sit, nec iure dissimilis: Haec enim verba Rescripti sunt. Hoc est, Sacerdotes de Sacerdotibus voluit iudicare.
Quinetiam si aliâs quoque arguerelar Episcopus, & morum [Page] esset examinanda causa, etiam hanc voluit ad Episcopule iudicium pertinere. Neither any man ought to iudge me as stubborne, seing I affirme that, whiche your father of most renoumed memorie not onely answered in worde, but also established by his lawes: that in a case of faith, or any ecclesiastical order, he ought to be iudge, that is neither vnequal in office, nor vnlike in right, or authoritie: For these are the wordes of the Rescripte. That is, he would Priestes to be iudges of Priestes. And also, if otherwise a Bishop were reproued, and a cause concerning behauiour and manners were to be examined, he would this cause (of manners) also to apperteine to the Bishoppes iudgement.
Vpon these wordes of Theodosius, alleged, and allowed by S. Ambrose,An argument, prouing that a Ciuile Magistrat maie not be iudge oner Priestes in causes ecclesiastical, and matters of Faith. thus I reason with you M. Iewel. He can not be iudge of Bishoppes and Priestes, nor cal them to his seate of Iudgement in Ecclesiastical causes, and maters of Faithe that is vnequal in office, or vnlike in right and authoritie. But the Prince is vnequal to the Bishop in office, and vnlike vnto him in right and authoritie: (For he hath no right nor authoritie to sacrifice, to preache, to binde, to loose, to excommunicate, and minister Sacramentes) Therefore the Prince can not be iudge of Bishoppes, and Priestes, nor cal them to his seate of Iudgement in any ecclesiastical cause, or mater of Faith.
Againe, no man hath authoritie ouer his superiour: But the Bishop, in maters of Faithe, and Ecclesiastical causes, is superiour to euery Prince: Therefore in those causes the Prince hath no authoritie ouer the Bishop. And if he haue no authoritie ouer him, he can not cal him to his seate of iudgement.
Furthermore, were it true, that the Prince were equal with the Bishop in Ecclesiastical causes, and matters of faith, yet could he not cal him to his seate of iudgement,ff. ad S. Trebel. L. ille. § Tē pestiuum. quia par in parem non habet potestatem, bicause the equal hath no authoritie, or power ouer his equal. But to see M. Iewels arte in facing out this mater, let vs consider the authorities, that he bringeth to proue his purpose. And bicause he blaseth this saying in the toppe of his margent with great letters.VVhat it is to be conuēted before a Magistrate. Spiegelius in verbo conuenire. A Bishop conuented before the Magistrate, let vs first define, what it is to be conuented before a Magistrate.
The lawiers saie, Conuenire, est aliquem in ius vocare, To conuent a man, is to cal him into the lawe: and so Conueniri coram magistratu, est in ius vocari à magistratu, to be conuented before a magistrate, is to be called into the lawe by the magistrate. To cal a man into the lawe, is a iudicial acte, proceding of superiour authoritie in him that is iudge, both of the partie so called, and also of the cause, wherefore he is called. As if the Maior of London would conuent any of the Citizens, he must both haue iurisdiction ouer that Citizen, and also authoritie to iudge in that cause, for whiche the Citizen shal be conuented. But no ciuil magistrate hath authoritie by vertue of his temporal office, to be iudge our Bishoppes in ecclesiastical causes, as it is before proued, and shal hereafter appeare: Therefore no temporal magistrate can conuent any Bishoppe, or Priest before him, in any Ecclesiastical cause. But let vs heare M. Iewel.Cod. de Episcopis et clericis. L. Nullus.
Iustinian the Emperour him selfe, vvho of al others most enlarged the Churches priuileges, saith thus: Nullus Episcopus inuitus ad ciuilem [Page] vel militarem iudicem in qualibet causa producatum, vel exhibeatur, nisi princeps iubeat. Let no Bishop be brought, or presented against his vvil before the captaine, or Ciuil Iudge, vvhat so euer the cause be, onlesse the Prince shal so commaunde it.
Harding.
Seing Iustinian (as you saie) of al others did most enlarge the Churches Priuileges, is it likely, that he would most of al others breake them? And whereas he made a lawe,Authent. 83. Coll. 6. vt Clerici apud proprios Episcopos. that, Clerici apud proprios Episcopos conueniantur primùm, Clerkes shoulde be conuented first before their owne Bishoppes, in causa pecuniaria, in a money mater, and afterwarde before the Ciuil Magistrate, if either for the nature of the cause, or for some other difficultie the Bishop could not ende it: yet he addeth priuilegijs omnibus custodit is, quae reuerend issimis Clericis sacrae praestant cō stitutiones, al Priuileges kepte, whiche the Emperours lawes doo graunt vnto the reuerend Clerkes, And saith farther, Si verò Ecclesiasticum sit delictum, egens castigatione ecclesiastica, & mulcta, Deo amabilis Episcopus hoc discernat, nihil communicantibus clarissimis prouinciae Iudicibus. Neque enim volumus talia negotia omnino scire ciuiles iudices, quum oporteat talia ecclesiasticè examinari, & emendari animas delinquentium per Ecclesiasticam mulctam, secundùm sacras & diuinas regulas, quas etiam sequi nostra non dedignantur leges: If the faulte be ecclesiastical, and neede ecclesiastical pounishment, and discipline, let the wel beloued Bishop of God iudge and discerne it, and let not the honorable Iudges of the Prouince intermedle with it at al. For it is not our pleasure, that Ciuil Magistrates haue at al the examination of suche matters, seing suche matters must be examined ecclesiastically [Page 389] after the order of the Canons, and the offenders must be punished by Ecclesiastical discipline, according to the holy and diuine Canons, whiche our lawes doo not disdaine to folow: Seing Iustinian hath so ordeined, no wise man that hath read his Lawes, wil saie, that either he in fringed those Priuileges, or, as one contrarie to him selfe, made a lawe against the Liberties of the Churche, without any mention of the former, that he him selfe had made. Wherefore Iustinian in the Law, that you reherse M. Iewel, is to be vnderstanded, to speake of ciuil, and tē poral cases: and that in those cases no Bishop should be brought before the Lieutenant, and Ciuil Magistrate, except the Prince so commaunded it.
Now, whereas you vpon those wordes say, that a Bisshop maie be conuented before a Ciuil Magistrate, we graunt, and euer so said, that in Ciuil causes, and temporal maters, of which Iustinian speaketh, Bishops may be cō uented before a temporal Magistrate. But that is not our question. But this is that which we say,The very point of this Question. that it is not lawful for a Prince, to cal a Priest to his seate of iudgemēt in Ecclesiastical causes. And in this your owne authour Iustinian condemneth you. He saith, as you heard before:Autent. 83. col. 6. vt Clerici. Si ecclesiasticū sit delictū, &c. If the faulte be ecclesiastical, let the welbeloued Bisshop of God iudge and discerne it. Let the honorable Iudges of the Prouince intermedle nothing at al with it. For we wil not, that Ciuil Magistrates haue the examination of suche matters. And againe.Cod. de Episco. & clericis. L. Clericus. Si verò crimen sit Ecclesiasticum, episcopalis erit examinatio, & castigatio. If the faulte be Ecclesiastical, the examination, and pounishing of it shal apperteine vnto the Bisshoppe.
But peraduenture you wil replie to this, and saie, that Iustinian in the lawe by you rehersed, speaketh not onely of Ciuil, but also of ecclesiastical causes, and willeth a Bishop, in qualibet causa, in any cause, to be conuented before the temporal magistrate, if the Prince do so commaunde. If you, or your lawier make this obiection, we answer, that it can not be shewed out of al Iustinians lawes,Anthent. 83. col. 6. vt Clerici. that he willed a Bishop, or Prieste to be conuented before a temporal Magistrate in an Ecclesiastical cause, or to be pounished for any hainous offence, before he were degraded of his Bishop. And hereof, if you had but a meane smattering in the Ciuil Lawe, you could not be ignorant.
Besides that already alleged, you find in the Code this Lawe:Cod. de Episco. & Clericis. L. Statuimus. Statuimus vt nullus Ecclesiasticā personam in criminali quaestione vel ciuili trahere ad iudicium seculare praesumat contrae cōstitutiones imperiales, & canonicas sanctiones. We ordeine and decree, that no man presume to bring any Ecclesiastical person to the seate of iudgement of any seculare Magistrate in a criminal, or ciuil cause, contrarie to the Imperial Constitutions, and canonical Decrees. By this you see, that it is against both the Emperours constitutions, and Canons of the Churche, that a Bishop should be conuented before a Magistrate in an Ecclesiastical cause. As for the vantage which you seeke in those wordes, In qualibet causa, in any cause, it is none at al. Had not you benne blinded with malice, and your lawier with ignorance, you might haue learned,A Maxima amōg the lavviers. that it is a Maxima, and a Principle with the lawiers, that, Leges tales indefinitè loquentes, intelligendae sunt secundùm aliam legem speciatim loquentem. [Page 380] Such lawes speaking indefinitely, must be vnderstanded by an other lawe, that speaketh specially and particularly. Wherefore seing the lawe, Clericus, in the Code, and the Antentike, vt Clerici in the new Constitutions, make special mention, that Bishops, and Priestes should not be conuented before Ciuil Magistrates in Ecclesiastical causes, and permitte no temporal Iudge to meddle with Ecclesiastical personnes, excepte it be in Ciuil matters, and that with a Limitation, and a Prouiso also: it had ben your parte, and your blinde Lawiers also, to haue vnderstanded those wordes, In qualibet causa, in any cause, spoken there indefinitely, by the other Lawes, that speake more specially. But then had you lost a peeuish sophistical Argument, and menne had not knowen your worthy skil in the Lawe: which no doubte wil appeare great by your practise.
The Emperour Martianus cōmaundeth, if the cause be criminal, that the Bisshop be conuented before the Lieutenant, vt coram Praeside conueniatur.
Harding.
For your credite touching Martianus commaundement, you referre vs to the Code of Iustinian.L. Si qui ex consensu, de Episco. Audient. L. Cum Clericis, de Episco. & Clericis. As for the first, you may tel your lawier that he hath fouly deceiued you, and therefore is not worthy to haue his fee. That lawe, Si qui ex consensu, Cod. de Episcop. Audient. was neuer made by Martianus the Emperour, but by Arcadius, and Honorius, and requireth neither Bishop, nor Prieste, nor Clerke to be conuented before the Lieutenant, but declareth, that if any by mutual consent, wil haue their matter debated before the Bishop as an arbiter, [Page] it shal be lawful for them so to do, as euery man that either considereth the law, or readeth the Summe set before it, may easily see.
M. Ievv. forgeth.As for the other lawe, Cum Clericis, although it be Martianus decree, yet hath it not those wordes, vt coram Praeside conueniatur, that the Bishop be conuented before the Lieutenant, nor any clause or sentence sounding to that pupose. For trial whereof I referre me to the booke, and to any indifferent man, that can reade, and vnderstande it.
But suppose it to be true, that the Emperour Martianus had geuen suche a commaundement, what could it aduantage your cause M. Iewel? You should proue, that a Christian Prince may lawfully cal a Bishop to his Consistorie for matters of Faith, and Ecclesiastical causes And not hable to do that, you tel vs like a Trifler, that, if the cause be criminal a Bishop may be conuented before the Lieutenant. And in so doing, you prooue that, which no man denieth. As Cranmare Archebishop of Cantorburie was called to the Princes Consistorie,Cranmare. and imprisoned in the Tower for treason against the Quenes Maiestie, and afterwarde degraded, and burned at Oxford for heresie: So any Bishop for like treason, or like hainous and criminal offence, may not only be summoned to the Princes seate of Iudgement, but also be cast into prison, and after degradation according to the Canons be depriued of his life. This we do not denie. But that whiche we denie, and you should prooue (for I must tel you one thing often bicause you are alwaies forgetful of the very point that is in controuersie) is, that in matter of Faith, and in Ecclesiastical causes, a Prince [Page 381] may cal Bishops to his consistorie, as their superiour and gouernour in Ecclesiastical causes. This is the matter in controuersie betwen you and the Catholiques M. Iewel. Let vs heare, how substanrially you proue that.
Pope Innocentius 3. him selfe confesseth,De maior, & obedient. ca. 2. Innocent. 11. q. 1. Cleric. nullus that the Pope may make a laie man his Delegate, to heare and determine in Priestes causes. The like hereof ye maie finde in your ovvne Glose, Papa laico delegat causam spiritualem. The Pope committeth the hearing of a spiritual mater vnto a laie man.
Harding.
If any reason may be forced vpon the Authoritie of Innocentius, and the Glose to your purpose, it is this: The Pope may make a Laie man his Delegate, to heare and determine Priests causes: Ergo, Bishops and Priestes may be conuented before the Ciuil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical causes. But to vnrippe the rudenes of this Argument, imagine M. Iewel, that you were infamous for Simonie, and accursed for extorsion and vniuste exactions amongest the clergie of Sarisburie Dioces vnder the name of a beneuolence towardes the setting vp of your howse: And that the Metropolitane hearing of it, fearing least great dishonour should rise to your Person, and infamie to the Gospel, as ye cal it, would haue the mater examined, and to that ende, sendeth a commission to the Maior, and Bailiffes of Sarisburie, and maketh them his Delegates to examine, and enquire of your doinges, and that the Maior, and Bailiffes vppon vertue of that Commission from the Metropolitane conuent you before them: Al this then imagined to be true, shal it be said, that M. [Page] Iewel was conuented in a cause of Simonie, and extorsion before the Maior, and Bailiffes of Sarisburie, as Maior and Bailiffes of Sarisburie, or as commissioners, and delegates from the Metropolitane? If you confesse that you were conuented before them, as the Metropolitanes Delegates, then must you confesse, that you were not conuented before them, as Maior, and Bailiffes of Sarisburie, and mere laie Magistrates. In like manner, when the Pope maketh a Laie man his delegate to heare and determine Priestes causes, the Priestes cause, whiche is hearde, and determined by that Laie man so delegated by the Pope, can not be said to be heard and determined by a Laie man, as a Laie man, but by the Popes Delegate. And seing,Extr. de offic. Deleg. c. Sanè. Delegatus gerit vices delegantis, a degate susteineth the steede of him, that geueth him commission, the Bishop, or Priest, who is conuented before the Popes delegate, shalbe said to be conuented before the Pope him selfe, and not before the Laie Magistrate, as a mere Ciuile and temporal Magistrate.
M. Ievvel begileth his Reader vvith false allegations.But what meane you M. Iewel thus to begyle your Readers with false allegations? Innocentius hath no such wordes, as you reporte, de Maior. & obedient. cap. 2. Innocent. Neither is the Decree that is there registred, the Decree of Innocentius, but of Gregorius, and nothing at al God wote to the purpose, for which ye allege it. More ouer the Glose brought out of the 11. cause, and first question, saith not, Papa Laico delegat causam spiritualem, the Pope committeth the hearing of a spiritual mater vnto a Laie man, but, Si Papa, if the Pope doo committe a spiritual mater to a Laie man. And what then M. Iewel? Forsooth in that case a Clerke maie be conuented before a temporal [Page 382] Iudge. But that temporal Iudge is the Popes delegate, and deriueth his authoritie from him, as the Commissioners in London haue their authoritie from the Queene. So that the exceptions there alleged by the glose, proue, ius commune esse in contrarium, that the common lawe is to the contrarie, that is, that no Bishop, or Prieste ought to be conuented before a Ciuile Magistrate.
Yea, further ye shal finde euen in the Popes ovvne Decrees, that the Pope hath committed a spiritual mater in a cause of Simonie, to be heard,2. q. 5. Mennam. and ended by a vvoman: and that Brunichildis, being a vvoman, by Vertue of the Popes commission, summoned a Bisshop to appeare, and solemnely to make his purgation before her.
Harding.
If the Pope did euer committe any spiritual cause to a woman,VVhat vvas that Brunichildis had to do in the cause of Menna by cōmissiō of S. Gregorie. as you tel vs he did to Brunichildis Queene of Fraunce: then was the Queene of Fraunce by your Confession, the Popes commissioner in that cause, and Delegate, to heare, and ende that mater of Simonie. But what if we can not finde in the Popes Decrees, to whiche you referre vs, that the Pope euer committed a spiritual mater in a cause of Simonie, to be heard, and ended by a woman, and that Brunichildis had neither commission from the Pope to summon a Bishoppe, neither euer summoned a Bishop to appeare and solemnely to make his purgation before her? What then shal we say, but that M. Iewel is a shamelesse falsifier, a deceiuer of al that beleeue him?
The wordes of that Decree, being the woordes of S. [Page] Gregorie,Grego. lib. 11. epist. 8. 2. q. 4. Mennam. stand thus. Mennam verò reuerendissimum fratrem & coëpiscopum nostrum, post quàm ea, quae de e [...] dicta sunt requirentes, in nullo inuenimus esse culpabilem: qui insuper ad Sacratissimum corpus beati Petri Apostoli, sub iureiurando satisfaciens, ab ijs quae obiecta fuerant eius opinioni, se demonstrauit alienum: reuerti illum purgatum absolutúmque permisimus: quia sicut dignum erat, vt si in aliquo reus existeret, culpam in eo canonicè puniremus: Ita dignum non fuit, vt eum adiuuante innocentia, diutius retinere, vel affligere in aliquo deberemus. Purgationem tamen antè duobus sibi sacerdotibus iunctis, vbi accusator cessauerit, eundem ex se praebere tuo commisimus arbitrio. We licensed our most reuerende brother, and felowe Bishoppe Menna to returne home, after he had made his Purgation, and was assoiled of the crime laid to his charge, specially, sith that after long enquirie made concerning those thinges, whiche were reported of him, we founde him culpable and blame worthy in none: And he him selfe besides making satisfaction vppon his othe at the moste holy body of the blessed Apostle S. Peter, hath declared him selfe to be free, and cleere from al those thinges, that were obiected to impaire his good name. For as it was conuenient, that we should seuerely haue pounished him according to the Canons, if he had benne giltie in any thing: So it was not meete, that we should staie him, or trouble him any longer, seeing his owne innocencie did so helpe him. Notwithstanding we haue geuen charge, that he him selfe, taking before two Priestes vnto him, make his purgation, when the accuser hath geuen ouer his action, before you at your arbitrement. Thus farre S. Gregorie.
But this proueth not your intente, and purpose M. Iewel. For I beseeke you Sir,M. Iewels forgeries. where is it said in al this Decree, that the Pope committed a spiritual mater in a cause of Simonie to be heard, and ended by a woman? Where is it said, that Brunichildis being a woman, by vertue of the Popes commission, summoned a Bishop to appeare, and solemnely to make his purgation before her? In the texte it is not, nor in the glose, that you so solemnely allege. Or if it were, had your lawier forgotte to tel you, or were you so simple, that you could not conceiue, that (whiche is commonly said) Maledicta est Glosa quae corrumpit textum, it is a cursed glose, that corrupteth the texte? But seeing you builde so muche vpon the Glose, let vs see, what the Glose saith.
In your Glose vpon the same place, it is noted thus. Fuit tamen hoc nimium papaliter dispensatum. The Pope vvas to Popelike in this dispensation.
Harding.
To let passe your scoffing and ministerlike interpretation, let vs come to the matter.M. Ievvel corrupteth his Glose by nipping avvay the ende of the sentence alleged. What dispensation is it, that the Glose speaketh of? Why suffred you not the authour of the Glose to tel forth his whole tale? Ye alwaies make your aduantage among the vnlearned of falsifying and corrupting your testimonies.
It followeth there, Quòd Episcopus expurgatus coram Papa, cogitur adhuc coram muliercula se purgare: that a Bishoppe hauing made his purgation before the Pope, is forced to purge him selfe before a woman. And this is the dispensation, that the Glose misliketh, [Page] as to popelike, according to your interpretation. But if either the Gloser had considered the reason that moued the Pope, or you, that followe the Glose, would haue marked the litle cause, that standeth by the Glose in the margent in the last printe of Paris, where it is said, hoc totum ideo fuit, vt fama eius clarior appareret: al this was done (by the wisedom of S. Gregorie) to the ende his good name might appeare more cleare: neither he would so rashly haue controlled S. Gregories order in that behalfe, nor you so fondly alleged it. And of a worde spoken in ieast, as the Canonistes sometimes speake, you take a weake holde, as of a matter spoken in great soothe.
Notwithstanding you wil saie, the wordes of the Decree are plaine, tuo cōmisimus arbitrio. We haue geuen a commission to your arbitriment, that he purge him selfe before you. If you make this obiection, we answer, that if the wordes were exactely sifted by the true and grammatical construction, you would hardly maineteine this interpretation. But I wil not contende about wordes. Let it be, as you would haue it. Let Brunichildis haue a commission from the Pope to see, that Bishop Menna made his purgation before her. Your purpose and saying is nothing proued by it. For first you saie, The Pope committed a spiritual mater in a cause of Simonie to be heard, and ended by a woman. And this is a vaine tale, and vntrue fansie of yours, not hable to be gathered by any worde of that decree. For the cause of Simonie whereof Menna was accused, was heard, and ended by the Pope, and he not founde faultie in it, was absolued, and sent home. And a cause once heard, and determined by the Pope, is not wonte to be committed afterward to [Page 384] the hearing, and determination of a woman.
After this, as though this lie had not ben lowde ynough, you tel vs, that Brunichildis being a woman, by vertue of the Popes commission, summoned a Bishop to appeare, and solemnely to make his purgation before her: and for your credite you referre vs in the margent to Gratian. 2. q. 5. Mennam. It is. 2. q. 4. But that Brunichildis did either summon a Bisshop, to witte, Menna, to appeare, or required him to make his purgation before her, it is not to be found there, nor any where elles, that M. Iewel hath alleged, or can allege, as I doubte not. For Brunichildis Queene of Fraunce being so holy, so vertuous, so religious a Lady, as S. Gregorie reporteth she was: it is to be presupposed, that she would not disquiet a good and an innocent man, nor put him to farther trouble, who, when his cause was heard, and ended by the Pope, was founde in nullo culpabilis, blame worthy in nothing that was laid to his charge, by the euident testimonie of S. Gregorie declared in his epistle sent of purpose to Queene Brunichildis. Wherefore M. Iewel these fantasies of yours are but wanton and vaine, emploied to none other ende, but to deceiue the vnlearned.
The Emperour Constantinus vvrote thus vnto the Bishoppes, that had ben at the Councel of Tyrus. Cuncti, Socrates. lib. 1. c. 34 quotquot Synodum Tyri compleuistis &c. Al ye that haue ben at the Councel of Tyrus, come vvithout delaie to our campe, and shevve me plainely, and vvithout colour, hovv vpprightly ye haue delte in iudgemement, and that euen before my selfe, vvhom ye can not denie to be the true seruant of God.
Harding.
These letters were written by the Emperour Constantinus [Page] to Arian Bishoppes, that had made a false conuenticle or conspiracie, (and not a lawful Councel M. Iewel) at Tyrus: and they were written vnto them vppon the complainte of S. Athanasius that worthy Patriarke of Alexandria, made both against the iniuries, and violences, that Flauianus Dionysius the Emperours Lieutenant attempted against him, and also against the sclaunders, that his enemies the Arians had wrongfully laied to his charge. And these sclaunders were not of Faithe maters, but that Athanasius had murdered one Arsenius,Ruffin. in Histor. Eccles. li. 10. cap. 17. Socrates. Li. 1. c. 29. and had committed a foule rape with a woman, and that with an Arme cut of from Arsenius bodie, he practized Witche crafte: for the whiche crimes these Arians sought Athanasius death. Wherefore no marueile, if that good Emperour being Gods minister to see iustice ministred, and the Violences, and iniuries of his Lieutenantes and Officers pounished, and these ciuil causes of Felonie, Murder, and Rape to be truely and thoroughly examined, ad vindictam malorum, to the reuenge of malefactours, wrote his letters to al them, that had ben at the foresaid conuenticle at Tyrus, and required them to appeare before him, as before the syncere minister of God, and to render accompte of their dealing against Athanasius in those Ciuil cases.Of this mater See the Returne. Art. 4. Item the Countreblast. lib. 2 Cap. 2. &. 3 For he might wel doo it, and nothing further M. Iewel in proufe of his desperate cause, that a Bishoppe was conuented in maters of Faith, and ecclesiastical causes, before the Ciuil Magistrate, as his lawful, and ordinarie Iudge.
Iustinian the Emperour in the lavve, that he maketh touching the [Page 385] publique praiers of the Churche, saith thus, we commaunde al Bishoppes and Priestes to minister the holy oblation,Authentica constit. 123. and the prayer at the holy Baptisme, not vnder silence, but with suche voice, as maie be heard of the faithful people, to thintente the hartes of the hearers, maie be stirred to more Deuotion, &c. Aftervvarde he addeth further. And let the holy Priestes vnderstand, that if they neglecte any of these thinges, they shal make answere therefore at the dreadful iudgement of the great God, and our Sauiour Iesus Christe, And yet neuerthelesse we our selues vnderstanding the same, wil not passe it ouer, nor leaue it vnpounished. Hereby vve see, that Godly princes maie summone Bishoppes to appeare before them, euen in causes Ecclesiastical, to receiue such pounischement, as they haue deserued.
Harding.
For answere to this, or any thinge that you can bring out of Iustinian, for breuities sake, I referre you to Iustinian him selfe. By whose constitutions, and Godly lawes, it maie easily appeare, how farre he was from claiming superioritie ouer Bishoppes, or gouernment, as supreme iudge in causes Ecclesiastical, as he who decreed according to the definitions of the 4. general Councelles, that in Spiritual causes the Pope of the elder Rome should be taken for the chiefe of al Priestes, and aduertised Pope Iohn, that there should be nothing moued perteining to the state of the Churche, but that he would signifie it to his Holinesse, being Heade of al Churches, and declared, that in all his Lawes, and dooinges for matters Ecclesiastical, he gaue place to the holy Canons made by the Fathers, and willed, that when any Ecclesiastical matter were moued, his Laie [Page] officers should not intermelde, but suffer the Bishoppes to ende it according to the Canons.
In this very Constitution whiche you haue alleged, with these special wordes he committeth the Iudgement, and pounishment of al sortes of offences committed by them of the Clergie, to such as the Canons haue put in authoritie.Authentica constit. 123. Thus he decreeth. Quotiescunque aliquis vel Sacerdotum, vel Clericorum, vel Praesulum, vel Monachorum, vel de fide, vel de turpi vita, vel quòd contra sacros aliquid Canones peregerit, accusatus fuerit, si quidem is, qui accusatus, Episcopus fuerit, huius Metropolitanus, ea, quae proferentur examinato: Si verò Metropolitanus, beatissimus Archiepiscopus, sub quo censetur: si Presbyter, aut Diaconus, aut alius Clericus, aut Praesul Monasterij, aut Monachus, Religiosissimus Episcopus, sub quo hi censentur delata in accusationem examinato, & veritate cōprobata, vnusquis (que) pro modo delicti Canonicis censuris subijcitor iudicio eius, qui causae examinationem accommodat. As often as any either of the Priestes, or of the Clerkes, or of the Prelates, or of the Monkes is accused, either of faith, or of filthy life, or that he hath done ought against the holy Canons, in case, he that is accused, be a Bishop, let his Metropolitane examine the thinges, that shal be laid to his charge: if he be a Metropolitan, let the Archebishop, vnder whom he is, haue the examination: If he be a Priest, or a Deacon, or some other Clerke, or a Prelate of a Monasterie, or some Monke, let the Bishop, vnder whose iurisdiction they are, examine the thinges that be laid in accusation. And when the truth is tried out, let euery one abide the Censures of the Canons for the rate of the faulte by the iudgement of him, [Page 386] that sitteth vpon the examination of the matter.
Againe how farre he was from the minde and wil that Bishops, or any other whatsouer Ecclesiastical personnes should be summoned to appeare before him, or his temporal officers in iudgement for any Ecclesiastical cause, this expresse Decree, which there also ye might haue founde, sufficiently witnesseth. Si Ecclesiasticum negotium sit, nullam Communionem habento Ciuiles Magistratus cum ea disceptatione, sed Religiosissimi Episcopi secundùm sacros Canones negotio finem imponunto. If the matter be Ecclesiastical (that is to be iudged) let the Ciuile Magistrates haue nothing to doo with it: But let the most Religious Bishoppes make an ende of it according to the holy Canons.
By these, as also by the purporte of sundrie other Iustinians constitutions, ordinances, and decrees, al menne maie see, that he neither chalenged any supreme dominion ouer Bishops, and Priestes in Ecclesiastical causes, nor enacted this, nor any other lawe, as chiefe Gouernour of the Churche, but followed the holy Councels, and willed the Canons to take place, and confirmed that, which was decreed by them.
For special answer then to this special obiection made out of the 123, constitution, I saie that Iustinian threatned to pounishe them with the seueritie of temporal lawes, who would not be conteined in their duetie by Ecclesiastical discipline, and order of the Canons, that feare might force, where loue and conscience could not binde. Which policie we doo not mislike, seing (Duo vincula fortius ligant) two bondes binde faster then one.
To be shorte, Iustinian leaueth the correction of [Page] Clerkes offending in any thing against the Canons, to the cēsures of the Canons. And if any refuse to abide the order appointed by the Canons, and vtterly shake of the yoke of the Canons: then, that is to say, in the case of extreme stubbornesse, and contempte of the Canons, like a Godly prince, he threateneth reuenge, and pounishment. In which case the Church doth now cal, and alwaies hath called for the aide of the Seculare Arme against those, that vtterly refuse to be corrected by the censures of the Church, and seeme incorrigible.
So neither by the lawes of Iustinian, neither by the example of Brunichildis, neither by the Gloses, that you so solemnely allege, it can not be seene, that Godly Princes might euer summone Bishops to appeare before them, to receiue any pounishment at their handes, as their superiours and supreme gouernours in ecclesiastical causes. Peraduenture if we put on eyes of better sighte, we maie see it hereafter, if wee diligently attende, what you saie. Foorth therefore M. Iewel.
The Emperour Constantinus in his letters to the people of Nicomodia,Theodorit. li. 1. c. 19. speaking of the vvilful errours and heresies of Priestes, and Bishoppes, saith thus: Illorum temeraria praesumptio, mea, hoc est, ministri Christi, manu coercebitur. Their rashe attemptes shalbe repressed by my hande, that is to saie, by the hande of Christes seruant.August. cō tra epist. Parme. li. 1. cap. 7. So likevvise S. Augustine saith to the Donatistes: An fortè de religione fas non est vt dicat Imperator, vel quos miserit Imperator? Cur ergo ad Imperatorem legati vestri venerant? Is it not lavvful, that the Emperour, or the Emperours deputie shoulde pronounce in a case of Religion? VVherefore then vvent your ovvne Ambassadours to the Emperour?
Harding.
If you had said M. Iewel that Constantinus in his epistle to the Nicomedians, had threatned to pounishe Bishoppes, and Priestes, that were Arians, that is, cursed, and abominable heretiques, you had in some parte said the truthe. But where you saie, that he spake of the wilful errours, and heresies of Priestes and Bishoppes, and adde not Arian Priestes, and Arian Bishoppes, you conceele parte of the true Storie, and declare your malicious hart against Priestes, and Bishoppes. But to leaue that cankred spite of yours to the iudgement of God, why doo ye not report the Emperours wordes, as they are in your authour Theodoritus?M. Ievvels corruptiō Wil you neuer leaue this your accustomed vile corruption? Theodoritus saith not as you reporte, but thus:Theodorit. lib. 1. cap. 19. Quòd si quis audacter inconsultéque ad memoriam & laudē pestium illarū exarserit, illius statim audacia, ministri Dei, hoc est mea executione coercebitur. If any man be inflamed boldely and incircumspectly at the remembrance and cōmendation of those wicked and pestilent heretiques, his boldenes shal be repressed straightwaie by execution done by me, that am the minister of God. And these threatning wordes of the Emperour are to be referred to the people of Nicodemia, for to them the epistle was directed. And hauing tēporal iurisdiction, as power of life, and death ouer them, he put that terrour into their hartes, that they should be neither in loue, nor in admiration of those accursed Bishoppes, whom he had bannished for the Arian heresie. Or if M. Iewel wil haue those wordes of the Emperour to be referred, as wel to the Bishoppes, and Priestes, as to the laie people: Let him vnderstand, that, as it is lawful for any Prince to pounish heretiques that are excommunicate by the [Page] Churche, and deliuered to the secular power, be they Bishoppes or priestes: So it was lawful for Constantine to pounishe these wicked Arian Bishoppes excommunicated, and accused by the. 318. Bishoppes in the Councel of Nice. And as the prince that now as an executour of Iustice pounisheth heretikes by death, is not for that cō sideration, neither iudge in causes of heresie, nor supreme gouernour of the Churche: So Constantine at that time had no iurisdiction ouer Bishoppes in ecclesiastical causes, albeit he bannished them, and threatned them other pounishmēt, if they fel in loue of those cursed Arians. For the princes threatning of pounishment for heresie, is no argument to build a superioritie in ecclesiastical causes.
As for the place whiche you bring out of S. Augustine, you brought it before in your Replie, to proue, that Emperours might receiue Appeales in ecclesiastical causes.Art. 4. fol. 104. 105, 106. And a sufficient answere was made vnto it in the Returne of Vntruthes vpon you. Why conceele you that? If you had ben studious of the truthe for Goddes sake, you should haue yelded vnto it, or if you had iudged it false, haue confuted it, and not let it passe in silence, and now trouble the Reader with the same stuffe againe.
But peraduenture you wil saie, that you neuer sawe that booke, and therefore that you dissemble not the answer. If it were credible, that you would not see a booke written directely against you, and one that toucheth you so neare, this excuse were tolerable. But seing it hath no colour of truthe, there can be litle pretended to saue you from the gilte of dissimulation and hypocrisie in this case. I answere you therefore, as [Page 388] he did S. Augustine spake in that place against the stubborne Donatistes, of whom Parmenianus was one, whiche complained that the Emperour Constantine, (eos ad campum, id est, ad supplicium duci iussit) commaunded them to be brought foorth into the fielde, that is, to pounishement. And in reasoning against him, he tooke aduantage of his owne doinges, not as allowing the Appeale to the Emperour, but as prouing him vnreasonable, who for aduantage would appeale to the Emperour, and when the Emperour had pronounced sentence against him, would striue and repine at the sentence, and saie, that he being a temporal prince, ought not to pounishe Bishoppes. Like as if you M. Iewel (hauing made the Queene supreme gouernour of your Churche) should saie, in case you were condemned of heresie, or of Simonie by the Prince, Her grace ought not to condemne me in these cases: a Catholique that flattereth her not with that title, would reason against you, and saie: No sir? Is it not laweful for the Queene to condemne you in a case of heresie, and Simonie? Why then made you the Queene supreme gouernour of your Churche? Euen so did S. Augustine reason against the Donatistes. And bicause by their appeale to his Maiestie they had chosen him iudge in their cause, and after said, he could not condemne them: S. Augustine vsed their owne weapon against them, to cō uince their folie, and said as you saie. Is it not lawful, that the Emperour, or the Emperours deputie should pronounce in a case of Religion? Wherefore then went your owne Ambassadours to the Emperour? &c. But as the Catholique reasoning in suche wise against you, can not [Page] be said by that to allowe the Queenes supremacie: So S. Augustine in this talke against the Donatistes, can not be said to allowe the Emperours authoritie in condemning of Bishoppes, and other ecclesiastical causes. For he answering an other Donatiste that said,Augustinus epist. 162. Non debuit episcopus proconsulari iudicio purgari, a Bishop ought not to make his purgation before a temporal magistrate, said, If he be worthy to be blamed, whom the temporal iudge hath absolued, whereas he him selfe did not require it, how much more are they to be blamed, whiche would haue a temporal prince to be iudge in their cause? By this it appeareth that he thought, that Princes could not be iudges ouer Bishoppes.
Ibidem.Moreouer he reporteth, that Constantine, who appointed iudges to heare their cause, did it, à sanctis Antistitibus veniam petiturus, as minding to aske pardon of the holy Bishoppes for his facte. And the same Emperour seing their importunitie in repairing to him as iudge, said,Optatus li. 1. cōtra Parmen. O rabida furoris audacia. Sicut in causis Gentilium fieri solet, appellationem interposuerunt. Oh see the desperate boldenesse of rage and furie. As if it were in the suites of Heathens, and Paganes, so these menne haue put vp their Appeale.
Nowe sir, if he had ben of the minde that you imagine, or had thought it lawful for Constantine to heare, and determine ecclesiastical causes, or a right apperteining to his Emperial estate: he woulde not haue tolde vs, that he thought it a faulte to intermedle in suche matters, and therefore asked pardone of the holy Bishoppes. Neither would so wise an Emperour, [Page 389] seing those Bishoppes appealing in that cause, haue d [...]t [...]sted their doinges, and cried, O rabida furoris audacia, oh the desperate boldnesse of rage and furie. Wherefore M. Iewel, neither this facte of Constantine, nor that authoritie of S. Augustine, can furder your pretended conuention of Bishoppes before Ciuil Magistrates. Let vs see what foloweth.
But vvhat speake vve of other Priestes, and inferiour Bishoppes? The Popes them selues, notvvithstanding al their vniuersal povver, haue submitted them selues, and made their purgations before kinges and Emperours.2. q. 7. Nos si. Gerson in Serm. Paschali. Pope Liberius made his humble appearance before the Emperour Constantius. Pope Sixtus before Valentinian. Leo the thirde before Carolus Magnus, Leo 4. before Levves the Emperour. Iohn 22. vvas accused of heresie, and forced to recant the same vnto Philippe the French king.
Harding.
The higher euery good man is, the more humbly he behaueth him selfe. If then the Popes hauing an vniuersal power ouer Christes Churche, did submitte them selues to Princes, and Emperours, they shewed muche humilitie in their hartes, and confidence in their causes: and proue against you M. Iewel, that if this submission had not ben made voluntarily by them, nor King, nor Caesar coulde haue had authoritie, or power to haue benne iudges ouer them: as you maie see by the example of that good Emperour Constantine, refusing to be iudge ouer Bishoppes, and saying,Sozo. lib. 1 cap. 17. Deus vos constituit sacerdotes, & potestatem vobis dedit de nobis iudicandi, & ideo à vobis rectè iudicamur, vos autem non potestis ab hominibus iudicari, God hath appointed you Priestes, [Page] and geuen you power to iudge of vs, and therefore we are rightly iudged of you, but ye can not be iudged of menne, that is, of laie menne, and menne (as S. Ambrose reported of Theodosius, whiche I declared before) that are vnequal in office, M. Ievvel failing of his purpose, falleth from the Popes purgatiō before Emperours, to their appearance before Emperours, vvhiche no man denied. Liberius appearing before Constantius. T [...]odorit. Eccles. Hist. lib. 2 cap. 16. Pope Sixtus after vvhat forte he made his purgatiō and for vvhat cause. and vnlike in authoritie, and right. Of suche, Bishoppes maie not be iudged.
The Pope Liberius, you saie, made his humble appearance before Constantius. It is true. But appearance is not purgation M. Iewel. You promised to tel vs of Popes, that submitted them selues, and made their purgations before kinges and Emperours, and beginning with that good Pope, you forgette your selfe, and for making of a purgation, you tel vs of making appearance. Whereby we gather, that either you passe not what you saie, or remember not what ye promise. Liberius dealing with Constantius the Arian Emperour at that appearance, was suche, as became a Bishoppe of the Apostolike See. For in that cause he would neither be ouerborne by the authoritie of the Emperour, nor yelde vnto his wickednesse against Athanasius for a longe time, muche lesse acknowledge him for his superiour, or iudge.
As for Pope Sixtus, it is certaine, that he made his purgation before the Emperour Valentinian. But he did it M. Iewel in Concilio, in a Councel of Bisshoppes, and not in a courte of the Prince. And he did it of humilitie to auoide the suspicion, and malice of his aduersaries, and not to geue any President to others to doo the like, nor to preiudicate the authoritie [Page 390] of the Apostolique See. These are his wordes in the place, that your selfe allege. Vnderstande ye, 2. q. 4. Mādastis. Nostra authoritate. that I am falsely accused of one Bassus, and vniustly persecuted. Whiche the Emperour Valentinian hearing, commaunded a Synode by vertue of our authoritie to be assembled. When the Synode was assembled, I satisfying al with great examination, albeit I might otherwise haue escaped, yet auoiding suspicion, I made my purgation before them al, discharging thereby my selfe from suspicion, and from emulation and enuie, Sed non alijs, qui hoc noluerint, aut non sponte elegerint, faciendi formam dans, But not geuing a president to others to doo the like, that either shal not be willing, or wil not voluntarily choose this kinde of purgation.
Lo M. Iewel, your owne authour condemneth you. Pope Sixtus made his purgation, not onely before Valentinian, but, coram omnibus, before al Bishoppes, and others assembled in the Synode. And he did it not by compulsion of any superiour Authoritie, but of humilitie, to declare his innocencie, and not to geue any other a president to doo the like. And by this ye maie perceiue, that the Emperour had of him selfe nor authoritie to cal that Councel, nor power to summone the Pope to his Iudgement Seate, nor any iurisdiction to force him to make his Purgation before his Maiestie. For al was done by the submission of the Pope. He consented to the Emperours calling of that Councel: he gaue him licence to heare his purgation, and to be iudge in that cause. And he that geueth an other authoritie and commission, is by natural reason higher: and [Page] of greater power in that case, then he that receiueth the authoritie, and commission. Wherefore Pope Sixtus making his purgation before the Emperour Valentinian, can not be said to haue benne conuented before a laie Magistrate, as his superiour, and lawful iudge.
Leo 3. and Leo 4.Concerning Leo the thirde, and Leo the fourth, their case is like. When they made their Purgation, the one said euen in the place, that you allege: hoc faciens, non legem prascribo caeteris, 2. q. 4. Audite. 2. q. 7. Nossi. doing this, I doo not prescribe a lawe to force other menne to doo the like. The other gaue the Emperour licence to appointe Commissioners, to heare his cause, and submitted him selfe to their iudgement, and therefore we saie the Emperour was not their iudge, nor superiour by any princely authoritie, but by these Popes permission, and appointement.
As for Pope Iohn the 22. (of whose errour you make muche a doo in so many places of your bookes) I haue said sufficiently before, in the Answer to your View of your Vntruthes. Fol. 64. & sequent. Where I haue declared, how falsly you belie him, and wherein he erred touching the state of the Soules of the iust after this life. And here I saie againe, that it is most false, that euer he recanted any heresie before Philippe the Frenche king. In deede the errour whiche he helde, as his priuate opinion, was condemned at the sounde of trompettes in presence of that king, as Gerson writeth: but that was done, before he was Pope.
Your ovvne Glose saith, Dist. 63. In Synod. in Glos. Papa potest dare potestatem Imperatori vt deponat ipsum, & sese illi in omnibus subijcere.
[Page 391]The Pope maie geue the Emperour povver to depose him selfe, and maie in al thinges submitte him selfe vnto him.
Harding.
Be it that our Glose saith so M. Iewel, your Glose I might rather saie. For the Gloser seemeth to be your chiefe Doctour. There was neuer Diuine, that serued him selfe with the stuffe of the Glose, so muche as you doo. What inferre you vpon it? If you can like a good Logician frame this argument vppon that Glose: The Pope maie geue the Emperour authoritie to depose him selfe, Ergo, the Pope maie be conuented before the Magistrate, as one that through vertue of his temporal office, is his superiour in Ecclesiastical causes: let vs haue it in writing, and we wil returne you the like with as good consequence, and saie: The Queene may geue anie of her Lordes, and subiectes power to depose her from her roial estat, and to transferre it to an other: Ergo, shee maie be conuented before that Lord and subiect of hers, as one that hath authoritie to depose her of him selfe, without commission and authoritie from her grace. And if you finde fault with the sequele of this, find fault with the sequele of you own. For they are both like.Dist. 93. cap. vltim. in Glossa. The Law saith: Ex alterius persona, quis consequitur, quod non habet ex sua. A man getteth of an other-mannes person, that, which he hath not of his owne. Wherefore the Emperour hauing authoritie of the Pope to depose him,Extr. de off. iudicis Deleg. c. Sanè. hath not that authoritie of him selfe, or any his Imperial power, but of the Pope. And seing Iudex delegatus à Papa gerit vices Papae, a Iudge delegated of the Pope, occupieth the roome of the Pope, the Emperour in this case shal [Page] not depose him as Emperour, but as the Popes Vicegerent, and Delegate.
Franciscus Zarabella saith, De schemate, & Concilio. It is, de Schismate pontificū. Papa accusari potest coram Imperatore de quolib [...]t crimine notorio: & Imperator requirere potest à Papa rationem fidei: The Pope maie be accused before the Emperour of any notorious crime, and the Emperour maie require the Pope to yelde an accompte of his faith.
Harding.
Neither Franciscus Zarabella, nor Franciscus Zabarella (for so is his true name) saith as you reporte, that, Papa potest accusari coram Imperatore de quolibet crimine notorio, M. Ievvel falsifieth his Doctor by addition of his ovvne to helpe his mater. The Pope maie be accused before the Emperour of any notorious crime. Those wordes (coram Imperatore) before the Emperour, are of your owne interlacing, and be not in the Authour. You ought to be ashamed so fouly to corrupte your authours, and deceiue the people.
Againe Zabarella sayth not, Imperator requirere potest à Papa rationem fidei, the Emperour may require the Pope to yeelde an accompte of his faieth, They are your woordes Maister Iewel. That, whiche Zabarella saith is thus.Zabarella made to saie, What pleaseth M. Ievvel Si Papa est de haeresi suspectus, potest (Imperator) ab eo exigere, vt indiret quid sentiat de fide. that is, if the Pope be suspected of heresie (the Emperour) may require of him, that he declare, what he thinketh of the Faith. Nowe sir, to require a man to yeelde an accompte of his Faith, and to require him [Page 392] to declare what he thinketh, are twoo diuerse thinges. For the one can not be donne, but by Superiour authoritie: the other by waie of friendship and common charitie.
But as for Superiour authoritie,In vvhat case of necessitie the Emperour may entermedle vvith matters of Faith and religion, after the minde of Zabarella Zabarella alloweth the Emperour none ouer the Pope, nor graunteth, that he maie intermedle in Ecclesiastical causes, but in an extreme necessitie, to witte, if there were two Popes at one time (as there were when he wrote this Treatie whence you fetche your falsified sentences) and neither would yeelde vnto the other, nor the Cardinalles take order for the quiet gouernemente of the Churche in procuring a General Councel, and if he saw the Antipape to geue ouer his vsurped Authoritie: then the Emperour, whose duetie is to defende the Catholique Faithe, maie intermedle in Ecclesiastical causes, saith Zabarella. His wordes are these.
Cùmergo deficit Papa, vel Cardinales, Francis. Zabarella de Schismate pontificū. qui subrogantur Papae in Congregatione Concilij, vt dictum est in praecedenti quaestione, ad ipsum Imperatorem, qui pars post praedictos est praecipua, Concilij spectat Congregatio. Nec quenquam moueat, quòd Imperator est Laicus, vt ex hoc putet esse inconueniens, quòd se intromittat de clericis. Non enim semper prohibetur iudicare de clericis: sed tunc prohibetur, quando non subest ratio specialis. Nam propter specialem rationem permittitur, vt ratione feudi. Hoc autem casu subest ratio specialis, imo specialissima, ne fides Catholica ruat, quod nimium periclitatur, diu permittendo pluralitatem in summo Pontificatu. In quo maximè est Imperatoris, & praecipuam habet potestatem. Nam permittere plures in Papatu, est offendere illum fidei articulum, [Page] vnam sanctam Catholicam, &c. Therefore when the Pope faileth, or the Cardinalles, who are nexte in roome vnto the Pope substituted to the Pope in assembling of a Coū cel, as it was said in the nexte question before, the assembling of a Councel apperteineth vnto the Emperour, who after the Pope, and the Cardinalles, is the chiefe parte. Neither it ought to moue any man to thinke it inconuenient, that the Emperour, in that he is a laie man, should intermedle with maters belonging to clerkes. For he is not alwaies inhibited to iudge of Clerkes. But then he is forbidden, when there is no special cause. For it is permitted for some special reason, as in consideration of fealtie. And in this cause there is a special, yea a most special reason, that the Catholique Faith come not to ruine, bicause it is in great danger by long suffering of pluralitie in the Popedome, that is to say, of moe Popes then one. In which the Emperour is the chiefe doer, and he hath the chief power. For to permitte many Popes in the Popedome, is to offende that article of the Faith, I beleeue one holy Catholique, and Apostolike Churche.
By this and the whole discourse, that Zabarella your authour maketh there, it appeareth M. Iewel, that the Emperour hath not the authoritie you pretende, but in that case of extreme necessitie. And by your aduocate in the Lawe, if he had not benne halfe in a phrenesie, you might haue learned,L. Nā ad ad ea. ff. de legibus. ff. de regu lis iuris. that, ex ijs quaeraro accid [...]nt, lages non fiunt, of those thinges, that happen seldome, lawes are not made. And, Quae propter necessitatem recepta sunt, non debent in argumentum trahi, those thinges, that are receiued for necessitie, ought not to be drawen [Page 393] to an argument, or president to be followed. Wherefore [...]ither vpon the doinges of the Emperours in that great and lamentable schisme of the Church, neither vpon Zabarella you can builde, that Bishoppes may ordinarily be conuented before a ciuil Magistrate in ecclesiastical causes.
But sir, seing you thought it conuenient for your purpose to vse the authoritie of Zabarella (although you haue fowly falsified, and misreported his wordes) tel vs by what reason, you maie refuse his authoritie, if we can allege it against you. He saith in the same treatie that you allege, Papa est vniuersalis Episcopus, Zabarella M. Ievvels ovvne doctor alleged agaīst M. Ievvel. Papa non habet superiorem. Papa habet iurisdictionem, & potestatem super omnes de iure. Sedes Apostolica errare non potest. The Pope is the vniuersal Bishop: The Pope hath no superiour: The Pope hath iurisdiction, and power ouer al by lawe. The Apostolique See can not erre. Why admitte you not this? Is it reason that you should admitte an authours saying, the whiche he spake, and allowed in a case of necessitie, for auoiding of a greater danger, and not admitte the same authours saying in the same treatie, whiche he speaketh according to receiued, and approued doctrine of the Catholique Church? Aske your aduocate,L. Si quis. Cod. de testibus. and he wil tel you, that reason, and lawe faith, That si quis vsus fuerit testibus, ijdem (que) testes producantur aduersus eum in alia lite, non licebit personas eorum excipere. If one vse witnesses (in a cause) and the same witnesses be brought against him in an other controuersie, it is not lawful for him to make exception against their personnes. And if either reason, or lawe could preuaile where heresie hath entred, you should not onely admitte this, but also [Page] that, whiche he saith in an other place [...]stas [...] immediate pendat à Deo, Ioan. 21. per illa verba, Pasce [...] Papa habet potestatem supra omnes quic omnes sunt [...]s. Papae vicem Dei gerit in terris, Zabarella in Clemēt. de Sentēt. & reiudicata cap. pastoralis. Ibidem in Clement. de magistris cap. Inter. de Sentent. excommu. cap. ex frequētib. The power of the Pope dependeth immediatly of God, by those wordes; feede my sheepe. The Pope hath power ouer al, bicause al be sheepe. The Pope beareth the person of God in earth. For he spake this with as good aduise, as he spake the other. And this is generally allowed, and that but in a case. Wherefore if his authoritie be good in the one, ought it not to be good in the other?
Now therefore M. Iewel I reporte me to your indifferent iudgement, how true it is that you saie, that a Prince or a ciuil magistrate maie lawfully cal a Priest before him, to his owne seate of iudgement, and that a Bishop maie be conuented before the Magistrate, as his lawful and superiour iudge in ecclesiastical causes. No one example, or sentence that ye haue yet alleged, doth proue that vaine assertion of yours: Neither could ye haue had any aduantage by them, if ye had truely reported their wordes, and declared the circumstances why, and wherefore they were spoken. But that liked you not. Wherefore referring your corruption, and false dealing in these matters of weight to the judgement of God, and examination of the indifferent and wise, I conclude against you, with S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, and al other Catholique Fathers, that it is not conuenient,Extr. de Maiorit. & obed. cap. 2. in marg. nor lawful for a king to cal priestes before him to his owne seat of Iudgement, as their superiour in ecclesiastical causes. As for the note glosed in the Decretalles, which ye bring to proue that priestes [Page 394] are exempted from the Emperours iurisdiction by the Popes policie, and the princes consent, and not by the worde of God: we tel you, that suche glosed notes declare you to be a very Gloser, and argue that your stoare is farre spent, when you rest vpon such marginal glosed notes. Were it graunted (which in no case we graunt) that Bisshoppes, and priestes were exempted from the Emperours iurisdiction in ecclesiastical causes, onely by the Popes policie, and consent of princes, for confirmation whereof they haue made diuers lawes, and geuen out large priuileges: yet these lawes standing vnreapealed, and priuileges vnauthorized, they can not be conuented lawfully before the ciuil magistrate. For it standeth not with the Maiestie of a prince to doo against his owne lawes, and breake the priuileges by him selfe graunted to others, before he hath with as mature aduise, and consideration reuoked them, as he did first graunte them.
That the Canonistes are wrongfully charged by the Apologie, with teaching the people, that Simple Fornication is no sinne. The 15 Chapter.
They be the Popes ovvne Canonist [...] vvhiche haue taught the people, that Fornication betvven single fo [...] i [...] no sinne.
Harding.
A sclaunder vttered by the Apologie against the Canonistes, not recanted in the Defence. touching the thing, but only touching the errour of the name.IN my Cōfutation I saie, that this is a greuous offence, and worthy to be pounished, in processe I saie to the make [...]s of the Apologie, How proue ye it? They allege for it, one Iohn de Magistris. How be it M. Iewel hath recanted that errour, and confesseth him selfe to haue ben deceiued. For he graunteth, it was Martinus de Magistris, whom he meant, or should haue meant. He should doo wel to recant diuers other the like his errours. For he hath not only ben deceiued by his note bookes, or his Notegatherers, in naming Iohn de Magistris, for Martinus de Magistris, but also in the names of sundrie other menne, as it shal be declared in the nexte Chapter.
But touching the sclaunder of the Canonistes, if Martinus de Magistr [...] had so taught, yet the matter is not cleare, for he w [...] no Canoniste, but a Schoole Doctor of Diuinitie. Again [...], he [...]ht not the people, as our Maisters of the Apologie [...]e, but onely wrote of that matter after the Scholastical manner, from vnderstanding whereof the peoples simple capacitie is farre of.
Wel, let these three errours, Lyes, or ouersightes, be [...]in [...]ed at. Hitherto the Canonistes are not touched, but sclaundered. What shal we answer for Martinus de Magistris? Certainely neither that Doctour taught either the people, or any other person, that vngodly, and false Doctrine. Certaine it is, that in this Treatie, De Temperantia, quaestione 2. he taught the contrarie, where he proueth very sufficiently, and copiously, that simple Fornication is mortal sinne.Alphonsus contra haeres. li. 5. Coitus Defence. pag. 362. But Alphonsus chargeth him with saying, that to beleeue the Contrarie, is not a point of Heresie. And thereof M. Iewel in the Defence taketh holde, geuing ouer al his other false holdes. Let it be as Alphonsus saith. Yet wil it not thereof follow, that the Popes Canonistes, or Diuines taught the people, it is no sinne.
By Alphonsus, whom M. Iewel allegeth, this Doctor Martinus de Magistris saith two thinges. That Fornication is deadly sinne, and yet that to beleeue the contrarie, Non sit haereticum, is not heretical, or a case of heresie. The first he proueth substantially: The second he proueth not sufficiently, as it appeareth to Alphonsus. The reason, whereby he would proue it, is this, Quia testimonia scripturae sacrae non sunt expressa, The varietie of meaning betuixt Martinus de magistris ād Alphō sus de Castro, touching simple Fornication. bicause the testimonies of the holy Scriptures are not expresse, that is to saie, bicause simple Fornication is not expressely so called. And though it were so, yet maie it otherwise be plainely, as it is most plainely signified. Now this question riseth betwen Martinus, and Alphonsus, whether to beleeue, that Fornication is not mortal sinne, be a case of Heresie, or no. Alphonsus saith it is, Martinus saith it is not. And what if he say [Page] it be not a case of heresie so to beleeue, yet it ma [...] be a wicked opinion so to beleue, and a more wicked thing to committe the crime, which Martinus doth not only not denie, but affirmeth, and proueth very earnestly, and that perteineth to the present purpose. Euery false beleefe maketh not a case of heresie, but whosoeuer stubbornely holdeth, and mainteineth a false beleefe contrarie not onely to the bare letter, but also to the sense of the Scripture, specially if it be determined, and published by the Churche, is to be accompted an heretique. How soeuer it be, and whether Alphonsus impute that saying to Martinus de Magistris, as erroneous, or no: Hitherto M. Iewel proueth not, that the Popes Canonistes haue taught the people, that Simple Fornication is no sinne. Let vs see with what other testimonies he can proue it.
Dist. 34. Is qui.Thus it is noted in the Decrees, Qui non habet vxorem, loco illius Concubinam debet habere. He that hath not a vvife, in steede of her must haue a Concubine.
Harding.
Is it likely, that any Christian euer wrote so? It was neuer so written, and that M. Iewel him selfe knew wel ynough.Concil. Tolet an. 1. cap. 17. For he confesseth the printed booke, that so reporteth, to be a false copie. Wherefore then would he allege it? Like wil to like. False manners seeke to be defended by false hed. For of true dealing they can procure them selfe no reliefe. But se [...] Reader what pleasure he hath in Vntruthe.
Ye vvil saie, there is errour in the prints. Be it so, yet t [...] [...] [Page 396] extant i [...] many Copies. And it is vvel agreable to your common pr [...]tise. For the best that you can make of the same place, is this: Is qui non habet Vxorem, et pro Vxore Concubinam habet, à Communione non repellatur. He that hath no vvife, and in steede of a vvise hath a Concubine, let him not be remoued from the Communion.
Harding.
What shame is it to allege the errour of a false booke, that hath either crepte in by the negligence, or put in by the malice of the printers Compositour? The most, and truest Copies haue otherwise, and that could you not be ignorant of directing the Reader by your cotations vnto Gratian, and vnto the first Toletan Councel, from whence the testimonie is taken out.
And what saie you sir, doth not this place proue, that the popes Canonistes teache Simple Fornication to be no sinne? For this is the thing, whiche you haue taken vpon you to proue. If you faile in proufe thereof, you maie not blame vs, if we accompte you for a Lyer, and a sclaunderer. O saie you, lo, here a man is allowed to haue a Concubine. For in as much as he is not to be repelled from the Communion, that hath a concubine,The keper of a cōcubine not repelled from the cōmunion, and yet simple fornication not allovved, by the Coūcel of Toledo. how is not a man allowed to keepe a Concubine? And shal we not saie, that they which teache this doctrine, teache Simple Fornication to be no sinne? If al this were graunted you, yet how truly haue you burdened the Canonistes with this Doctrine? For these wordes you know, be not the wordes of the Canonistes, but the wordes of the first Coūcel of Toledo, that was aboue a thousand yeres ago.
Here is good geare M. Iewel for you to iuggle withal. And how can it be, but that your selfe doo knowe, that you doo impudently? You peruerte the texte, you [Page] misconster it, you leaue out that goeth before, and [...] followeth immediatly after. Bicause you know this place might serue your purpose to deceiue the vnlearned, who can not espie your falsehed, you thought ye might be bolde, as you are in many other places. And so without blusshing you sclaunder Christes Churche, burdening it with the allowance, and maintenance of Concubines. You plaie like a shrewde boye of the Grammar schoole, who hauing a Theme appointed him by his Maister to dilate, and write vpon, purleth, and gathereth out of euery booke, as manie sentences, as he findeth to haue one worde of his Theme, or sounding towarde his Theme. So haue you here, or your Coadiutor, done, to finde somewhat in the writinges of the Catholikes, that might seme to allowe simple Fornication and the keping of Concubines. And here ye bring vs forth a peece of a Canon concluded in the first Councel of Toledo. But in good sooth it maketh asmuche for your purpose, as that sentence, Diuinum auxilium maneat semper nobiscum, made for his purpose, that being among others demaunded a prety sentence concerning Wine, after al had said their sentences, alleged this for his parte, bicause in the worde, Diuinum, the first syllable taken awaye,vvhat is meant by a cōcubin in the coū cel of Toledo, in the Ciuile and Canō lavv, and other vvhere. there is Vinum, which signifieth Wine. In much like sorte you haue done here, dissembling the Circumstance of the place, and omitting the Chapter, that in Gratian goeth immediatly before, In which Chapter he declareth, what in that place, and certaine other there by him alleged is meant by a Concubine, saying, Concubina autem hîc intelligitur, quae cessantibus legalibus instrumentis vnita est, & [Page 397] coniugali affectu ascistitur. Hanc coniugem facit affectus, Dist. 34. Omnibus. Cōcubin. Concubinam verò lex nominat. By a Concubine here (to witte, in certaine Canons alleged in the former Distinction 33.) is vnderstanded such a woman, as is coupled vnto a man without any formal writinges according to the Ciuil Lawes, and is taken with intent and affection of marriage. This woman the intent and affection maketh a wife, but the lawe, (that is to saie, the Ciuil lawe) nameth her a Concubine. Yea the Canons also doo name such a Woman a Concubine sometimes, and not a wife, vntil the Marriage be solemnized, not that shee is a whoore, but that with the reprocheful name of a Concubine, as it were with a secrete rebuke, suche personnes be driuen to solemnize, and publish their marriage in the face of the Church. Nowe let it be iudged by the Learned, what you are worthy to haue for dissembling this much.
Gratian had alleged certaine Canons,Dist 33. c. Laici. &c. Fin. wherein mention was made, that they might continue in holy Orders, and minister, who before they were made Priestes, had had Concubines. In this sentence therefore that now I translated, he expoundeth, how the worde Concubine is to be taken in those Canons, asmuche to faie, for a wife taken priuately without publique Solemnization. For saith he, the Ciuil law taketh not for a wife, but nameth a Concubine (whiche is a baser and a more reprocheful name) her, which a man taketh, and vseth for his wife without any solemne and publike instrument made concerning the dowrie, and other matters accustomed to be agreed vpon betwen the man and wife. And this with diuers other solemnities, to take away occasion [Page] of strife,30. q. 5. c. [...]. 3. & 4. and sinne was politikely ordeined by the Ciuil Lawe, and Canon also. But assoone as that writing was made, and publique Solemnite perfourmed, the children borne before, were accompted lawfully borne, and the Concubine to haue ben a wife from the beginning. And this woman the lawe nameth in the meane time a Concubine,§ Nec non Iustin. de nuptijs. Concil. Toletan. 1. cap. 17. and not a whoore.
And Gratian to proue this exposition to be true, and good, alleged the Councel of Toledo, saying, De hac dicitur in Concilio Toletano, Is qui non habet, &c. Of this Woman it is said in the Councel of Toledo, he that hath not a wife, but hath a Concubine for a wife, let him not be put backe from the Communion. Whiche wordes, you bring to proue, that the Churche doth allowe Concubines. Wherein it is plaine, that the worde, Concubine, is taken for a wife taken priuately, and not openly married with due solemnitie in the face of the Churche, yet kepte in bed, and at burde, as a wife, with intent of wedlocke, which was in olde time very common in Spaine, and yet is in some places. And the Councel there holden doth not repelle from the Communion those that haue suche wemen in that sorte. Whereas if the worde Concubine signified a whoore in that Canon of the Councel of Toledo, as it doth most commonly in other places, the Councel would not haue wincked at that sinne, nor suffered suche personnes to comme vnto the Communion, but would haue repelled them,Dist. 56. Toto titulo & ext. le filijs presbyt. 3. Reg. 12 as by many other Decrees the Church doth, and also repelleth their children, and bastard broode, from the holy order of Priesthoode, whereunto ye admitt [...] the rascalles, and the outcastes of al the people to [Page 398] further your carnal Doctrine, as Ieroboam admitted the like, to bring the people of Israel to Apostasie, and Idolatrie.Dist. 34. Audite. Aug. li. 50 homiliarū homi. 49.
That the Church alloweth not Concubines taken in the worse sense, euen in the same place, it is witnessed by S. Augustine alleged in the Decrees, in whom thus we finde. Concubinas habere non licet vobis: & si non habetis vxores, tamen non licet vobis habere Concubinas, quas postea dimittatis, vt ducatis vxores, tantò magis damnatio erit vobis, si volueritis habere vxores, & Concubinas. It is not lawful for you to haue Concubines: Albeit ye haue no wiues, yet it is not lawful for you to haue such Concucubines, as which afterward ye maie put away to the ende to take wiues: so muche the greater shalbe your dā nation, if ye wil haue both wiues, and Concubines.
And this signification of Concubina, is not strange, that when a man mindeth to marrie a woman, she be called a Concubine, whiche in deede is a true wife before God, though she be not knowen so to be in the publique fame of the people, til the marriage be solemnized.A concū bine is a vvife secretly takē vvith out solē nitie of marriage It maie please you to looke on your brother Matthias Flacius Illyricus in his booke entitled Clauis Scripturae, in the word Concubina. And you shal find the word takē in this sense, and the same proued by diuers authorities.
Ioannes de Turre Cremata a man right wel learned vpon the Chapter Omnibus before alleged, saith thus. Abraham praeter Saram habuit Agar ancillam vxorem, sic enim dicitur Genes. 16. Dedit Sara ancillam viro in vxorem Suam, post mortem verò Sarae, accepit Abraham Ceturam vxorem, vt legitur Gen. 25. Et quia istae non fuerunt acceptae cum illa solennitate, quamuis essent vxores affectu, [Page] & in veritate, dictae tamen sunt Concubinae, vt Genesis. 25. vbi dicitur, dedit Abraham cuncta quae possidebat, Isaac, filijs verò Concubinarum, munera. In libro etiam Iudicum idem habetur, videlicet quòd vxor vocetur Concubina, vt patet Iudic. 19. &c. Abraham beside Sara, had Agar to wife, that was his wiues maide seruaunt, for so it is said in the 16. Chapter of Genesis, Sara gaue her maide vnto her husband to be his wife. And after the death of Sara Abraham tooke Cetura to be his wife, as we reade in Genesis the 25. chapter. And bicause these wemen were not taken with that solemnitie, as the wiues were, although they were wiues in affection, and in truth, yet were they called Concubines, as in Genesis 25. Chapter, where it is said, Abraham gaue al the thinges, which he possessed, to Isaac, but to the sonnes of his Concubines, he gaue giftes. The same is also to be founde in the booke of the Iudges, that a wife is called a Concubine, as it appeareth Iudges 19. chapter. &c. This therefore proueth not your sclaunder M. Iewel, wherewith you burthen the Canonistes, as defending Simple Fornication to be no sinne. Let vs see, whether your other stuffe be any better to that purpose.Constit. Othonis Boni decō cubinis clerico remonendis, licet ad pro sugandū. in glossa. In eadem glossa.
Likevvise it is noted in the Glose vpon the constitutions of Otho Bonus: Videtur quòd crimē meretricij Ecclesia sub dissimulatione trasire debeat. It semeth, that the Church ought to passe ouer the crime of vvhooredom vnder dissimulatiō (and not to see it). In vvhich Glose ye shal finde these vvordes, Si non castè, tamen cautè: If ye doo it not chastely, yet doo it charily.
Harding.
You mistake your marke M. Iewel naming Otho Bonus, for Otho. They were diuers menne, as you might [Page 499] haue sene in the Constitutions, that you allege: wherein your skil in the Canon lawe appeareth. If you had laid forth the place wholly, as true and vpright dealing requireth, it should soone haue appeared, vpon how smal a matter you pike so great a quarrel. Thus it is. Iohannes de Athon, who wrote the Glose vpon the Constitutions Legatine of Otho, hauing declared how a Clerke (by which worde is not meant onely a Priest, as you alwaies interprete, but any that is within Orders, be they the lesser, or the greater) is to be pounished for hauing a Concubine, at length after his manner demaundeth this question. Sed quid dices de punitione ipsarum Concubinarum, si ad suam excusationem coram Iudice ecclesiastico se asserant publicas Meretrices quaestu corporis viuentes? But what wilt thou saie of the pounishment of the Concubines them selues, if for their excuse they saie before the ecclesiastical Iudge, that they are common whoores lyuing by the gaine of that filthy seruice of their body?
Now immediatly there foloweth the answer, which M. Iewel bringeth against the Canonistes, not without a litle point of falsifying by nipping awaie this word, Hoc, an ordinarie marke of his workemanship.Hoc nip [...]e avvaie by M. Ievv. a vvorde of important si [...]uification. Videtur quòd Hoc crimen Meretricij sub dissimulatione transire debeat Ecclesia. It seemeth, that the Churche ought to passe ouer this Crime of whooredome vnder dissimulation, that is to saie, to dissemble it. The cause why the Churche ought to dissemble this crime in suche wemen as professe publique whooredom, whiche the author of that Glose saith not precisely, but speaketh it as an opinion, and as a thing that seemed to some menne reasonable, I had rather M. Iewel heard it of an other [Page] man, then of me. Certainely he maie iudge, it is not altogether without cause, that al Christendome ouer, whereas al other wemen be pounished for the sinne of the flesh, onely the common and publique whoores be let alone vnder dissimulation. Yet it argueth not, that simple fornication is made no sinne. If M. Iewel would haue read further in that Glose, he should haue founde these expresse wordes, by whiche the Canonistes are cleered, and he further charged with a false sclaunder. Dic tamen quòd hoc peccatum prosequi debet Ecclesia vt mortale. Ibidem. Yet saie thou (by whiche wordes he signifieth his owne opinion) that the Church ought to pursue this sinne,Vnde illud vulgare, Si non castè, tamen cautè. as deadly sinne. Whereof it foloweth, that continuing in suche life, they might not be admitted to the Sacramentes of holy Church.
As for those other wordes, whiche we finde in the Glose, Si non castè, tamen cautè, they are there rehersed, as a common saying, not as a rule, or a precepte of the Canon Lawe, neither perteine they to clerkes, more then to the laie sorte. The circumstance of the place considered and weighed, al thinges maie seme there to be wel, and discretely said. Of two that committe Fornication, he doth lesse euil, that dooth it secretely, then the other, that doth it openly. For the open fornicatour increaseth the offence by his il example, by the offence the people take of it, and by the contempte of his owne fame and good name. Of suche a one it is said there out of the Lawe, quòd famae suae prodigus, etiam quoad homines suspensus est, licet occulta fornicatio quoad Deum, turbet bonam conscientiam, that being a recheles loser of his owne fame, he is suspended also as concerning the estimation [Page 400] of menne, although the pryuie Fornication doo trouble a good conscience, as touching God.
So then if it be an il thing a man to be suspended among menne, and to lose the fame of his honestie,Crudelis est, qui famam contemnit. if he be accompted cruel, and desperate, that careth not for his good name, if it be dangerous to the soule also, to prouoke others to offend by il example, al these euilles folowing the publique, and open fornicatour, though secrete fornication ought also hartily to greeue and vexe the conscience before God: how shal not that vulgare saying seeme to geue good counsel, Si non castè, tamen cautè, whereby a man is not animated at al to doo il, but (if he hap to do his vncleane lust,If not chastely, yet charily. or wil not be staid from it) is admonished to doo it charily, though not chastly. And if there were any il meaning in this vulgare saying, as there is not, though it maie be abused to cast some shadow vpon euil lyuers, the iudgement of the Canonistes were not to be reproued thereof, but the custome of the worlde, from whence it proceeded.
Likevvise saith Petrus Rauennas, one of your notable Canonistes,Extra de immunitate Ecclesiarū. Pet. Rauēnas. vpon the Decretalles: Quamuis tactus & oscula sint praeludia incontinentiae in Laicis, secus tamen est in Clericis. Nam Clericus praesumitur ista facere pro charitate, & bono Zelo. Notvvithstanding handeling, and kissing in laie Personnes be the occasions, or beginninges of incontinent behauiour, yet in Priestes it is, far othervvise. For a Priest is presumed to do [...] these thinges of Charitie, and of good zele.
Harding.
Yet Petrus Rauennas saith not, that Simple Fornication is no sinne, That is the thing, you haue taken in hande [Page] to proue against the Canonistes. When touche you the point? In Italie, where this lawier liued, to kisse a woman is taken for a certaine earnest of a wanton bargaine promised, and therefore openly men kisse not women at first, and last salutations, as the vse is in England. But bicause that thing maie be in it selfe diuers, according to the diuers manners of Countries, and therefore maie be deemed good, nolesse then euil, menne being bounde to iudge the best of that whiche maie be wel done, or is at least indifferent: the Lawier considering the vertue, and degree of a Clerke, saith, that an euil presumption is not lightly to be taken thereof, but willeth it to be taken for courtesie, and charitable salutation, as it is taken in England, and in sundry other countries.Extra de Prebend. c. nisi in principio. For the qualitie and state of the person doth oftentimes purge the suspicion, that otherwise is woont to rise of any acte. Let vs heare what other Gloses this Gloser bringeth for his purpose.
11. quaest. 3. Absit, in Glossa.Likevvise it is noted in your Glose, Si Clericus amplectitur mulierem (Laicus) interpretabitur, quod causa benedicendi eam hoc faciat. If a Priest imbrace a vvoman, a laieman must iudge of it thus, that he dooth it to the intent to blesse her. VVhere also ye shal finde this special note set out in the margine for the purpose, Clericus amplectens mulierem praesumitur benè agere. A Priest imbracing a vvoman is presumed to doo vvel.
Harding.
It can not be proued by al these Gloses, that the Canonistes teache the people, that simple fornication is no sinne. And therfore they stande you in no stede [Page 401] otherwise th [...]n to seoffe. How be it if the meaning of this Glose were wel considered, it could not seme very fitly to furnish you with any good matter of scoffing. Gratian alleged a saying out of S. Hierome vnder the name of Pope Antherùs.Hieron. ad Heliodorū 11. quaest. 3. Absit. Absit vt quicquam sinistrum de his arbitremur, qui Apostolico gradui succedentes, Christi corpus Sacro ore conficiunt, per quos nos Christiani sumus, qui claues regni coelorum habentes, ante iudicij diem iudicāt. God forbid that we should thinke any sinistre thing of them, who succeding the Apostles in degree, with their sacred mouth doo consecrate the body of Christe, by whom we are Christians, who hauing the keies of the kingdom of heauen, iudge before the daie of Iudgement.
This sad and graue saying you could not wel brooke. It liked you better therfore to purle in the Glose. Now laye al that the Glose saith, together, and let it be iudged, how much it maketh for your scoffing humour. God forbid, saith S. Hierome, we should thinke any il, or sinistre thing of them, that with their holy mouthe consecrate Christes bodie. Tpon this worde, Sinistrum, the Glose saith. Hoc est verum in ijs quae possunt trahi ad bonum, & ad malū, vbi semper in meliorem partem est interpretandum. Si ergo Clericus amplectitur mulierem, interpretabitur (Canon) quòd causa benedicendi eam hoc faciat. This is true in those thinges that maie be drawen to good, and to euil, where alwaies we must interprete (that whiche is done) in the better parte. Therfore if a Clerke imbrace a woman (or laie his armes ouer her) this Canon wil interprete it, that he doth it to blesse her. These wordes, a laie man must iudge of it thus, be your owne wordes, the Gloses [Page] worde, interpretabitur, doth not so signifie. Neither is it to be vnderstanded of the secrete iudgement, whiche a man conceiueth in his owne harte to him selfe, of suche a deede beholden with his eies, but of the interpretation made of it to others, for so doth interpretari signifie. This then is the sense of that Glose. If a clerke or a Priest embrace a woman, for so muche as it maie be drawen to good, that is to saie, it maie in a case be done to good purpose, as to blesse her, to praie ouer her, or to doo the courtesie of salutation according to the manner in some countries: the Canon wil interpret it, that is to saie, if we folow the minde and deuotion of S. Hierome, whose wordes that Canon conteineth, we shal (he saith not iudge) but interprete it, as done to thintent to blesse her. Why I make Canon nominatiue case to the verbe interpretabitur, it is not to be marueled at, for so the Glose it selfe teacheth me, where immediatly it foloweth, tamen quandoque Canon solam confabulationem interpretatur in deteriorem partem. Yet sometime the Canon doth interprete the onely talking (with a woman) in the worse parte.
To be shorte, if a Priest maie embrace any woman with honest, and good intent, if it be not of it selfe vtterly vnhonest, and vnlawful: when he is sene so to doo, by the godly Counsel of this Canon, which is the faying of S. Hierome, and by the exposition of the Glose, the facte is to be taken and interpreted, not in the worse, but in the better part, for so the order of charitie requireth, and so specially the honour of the Apostolike Degree, whereunto Priestes be admitted in making or consecrating the pretious body of Christe, requireth. Now as [Page 402] the sinne of a Priest is more hainous then the same sinne in a laie man, so when he doth a thing that maie be both wel, and euil done, for the reuerence, and honour of that high and holy order, it is to be reported with the better interpretation. And thus that Glose maketh nothing for defence of Fornicatiō betwen single folke, for proufe whereof, to the reproufe of the Canonistes it is by you alleged. Now let it be indifferently iudged, how iuste cause you had, thus to triumphe.
These be your Canonistes: these be your Schoolemaisters: these be your Doctours, M. Harding: thus they vvrite, not onely in the singulare, but also in the Dual, and plural number. They vvould neuer so lightly haue iudged hereof, if they had thought, your Simple Fornication had benne Sinne.
Harding.
Blow your trompet, and make your Triumphe, when ye haue wonne the victorie, and obteined a true conqueste.
Somevvhat it must needes be,Concil. Basilien. Sess. 20. Erasmus in Enchiridio militis Chris. cap. 14. Vt leue cō missum, neutiquā refugiunt. that in your Late Councel of Basile, enforced the Bishoppes there to decree, that Fornication should be Sinne. Erasmus saith, a great many of them, vvhom the common sorte taketh for good and godly menne, not a vvhitte abhorre simple Fornication, and a sober vse of pleasure, reckening it to be but a litle petite faulte.
Harding.
The Bishoppes of the Councel of Basile made no such Decree, that Fornication should be Sinne. That was before decreed by God. And so muche the Councel it selfe in that very place, vnto whiche you directe vs by your cotation, signifieth most plainely. For thus it saith:Sess. 20. Cùm omne fornicationis crimen lege diuina prohibitum sit, sub peccati mortalis poena necessariò euitandum, [Page] (Concilium) monet omnes Laitos tam vxoratos, quam solutes, vt similiter à concubinatu abstineam. Nimis enim reprehensibilis est, qui vxorem babet, & ad alienam mulierem accedit. 1. Cor. 7. Qui verò solutus est, si continere nolit, iuxta Apostoli consilium vxorē ducat. Whereas the whole crime of Fornication is forbidden by Goddes lawe, of necessitie to be auoided vnder the paine of mortal sinne: the Councel admonisheth al laie menne, as wel married, as single, that in like sorte they absteine from keeping Concubines. For he is very much worthy to be rebuked, who hath a wife, and yet haunteth the companie of an other womā. As touching him that is single, if he be not disposed to cōteine, according to the Apostles counsel, let him take a wife. By these wordes they decreed not that Fornication should be sinne, but they admonished menne as wel married, as vnmarried to forebeare the companie of cōcubines, bicause it was mortal sinne by the law of God.
Erasmus.As for that you allege out of Erasmus, whom you cal a man of singulare learning, and Iudgement, which the Diuines finde not in him, it helpeth you nothing. Only he as his cōmon manner is, accuseth the loose life of some whom the people nameth good, and godly menne. You haue fasly turned his wordes, for he saith not, as you make him to speake, that they recken Fornication to be but a litle petite faulte: He saith, vt leue commissum, neutiquam refugiunt, they flee it not, as if it were but a light offence.
Iacobus de Valentia, Iacobus de Valentia. whom also you allege, maketh quite against you. For naming Iewes, and Saracenes, and il Christian menne expressely, he semeth not to meane the Popes Canonistes, whom here you burthen with mainetenance of Fornication, whiche sort [...] [Page 403] of menne he would not haue letted to name, had the matter ben so cleare, as you sclaunder them.
Touching that you tel vs out of Antoninus, and Alexander de Hales, It is not worth the answering. Mary a [...] for that you bring vs S. Augustine, bicause worthily he is of great auctoritie, it is wel to be weighed, what he saith. Thus you make him to tel his tale, or rather your owne tale. For his it is not, as you set it forthe.
And likevvise S. Augustine, Illa Fornicatio, quam faciunt, August. in quaest. in Exod. quaestion. 20. qui vxores non habent, cum foeminis, quae viros non habent, an prohibita inueniri possit, ignoro. That kinde of fornication, vvhiche Single menne committe vvith Single vvomenne, vvhetber it be forbidden, or no, I can not tel. Thus you haue M. Harding, not onely vvhat your Canonistes, but also vvhat your Schoole Doctors haue taught, and thought of Simple Fornication.
Harding.
What M. Iewel,M. Ievv. maketh S. Augustin to be ignorant, vvhether Simple Fornication be forbidden, or no. are you so farre become the Deuils slaue, that now he maie vse your seruice, not onely to persuade menne to beleeue false Doctrine, but also to leade a wicked life? And the rather to perfourme this, make you S. Augustine to say, that he can not tel, whether Simple Fornication be forbidden, or no? Who is to be beleeued, if S. Augustine be not? And if he being so great a learned man, as euer Christes Churche had, could not tel, whether Simple Fornication be forbidden, or no, who is he that can tel? And if there be no man that can tel vs, it is forbidden, the same once persuaded, the inclination to the fulfilling of fleshly luste being in mankinde so general: what a window, yea what a wide gate shalbe opened to menne to rush in, and without al [Page] conscience [...] to follow filthy pleasure?
But where hath S. Augustine this saying? Your cotation hath thus. August. in quaest. in Exod. quaest. 20. Certainely in that shorte Chapter he saith no such thing. What, maie we thinke, that of purpose you haue l [...]ad your Reader awaie from the place, leaste your falshed should be espied, and least you should be taken, as they saie, with the manner: Truly it is not vnlike. O M. Iewel though we beare with you in your common custome of falsifying the places ye allege, yet thinke not, that we maie wincke at you, when by the vse of that sleight you open a way vnto so great wickednes, and edifie vnto hel.
The place from whence you tooke these wordes, is in S. Augustine, Quaestoinum super Exodum, lib. 2. quaest. 71. To open, and set forth the circumstance of the pointes, whereof he disputeth there, it were very long. The learned maie reade him. Hauing said, that the woman committeth Aduouterie, which hath carnal companie with a man, that is not her husband, though he haue no wife, and that the man likewise committeth Aduouterie by sinning with her, that is not his wife, though she haue no husband:Hovv fornicatiō is forbiddē in the Decalogus. He addeth further, Sed vtrum si faciat, &c, But if one doo this, who hath no wife, with a woman, that hath no husband, whether (in this case) bothe be holden for transgressours of the precepte (he meaneth this precepte, Thou shalt not committe Aduouterie) The Question is for good cause moued. For if they be not giltye of transgression, Moechia, Aduouterie called Fornication in the Scriptures. then is not Fornication forbidden in the Decalogus, that is to saie, in the ten Commaundementes, but onely Moechia, that is Aduouterie, howbeit al Aduouterie is vnderstāded to be Fornicatiō, as the Scriptures speake. For our Lord [Page 404] saith in the Gospel, whosoeuer putteth away his wife, Scriptures. the cause of Fornication excepte, causeth her (Moechari) to commit Aduouterie. This he calleth Fornication, if she sinne with an other man, that hath a husbande, whiche thing is Moechia, that is (Adulterium) Aduouterie. And so al (Moechia) Aduouterie in the Scriptures is called also Fornication.
But (on the other side) whether al Fornication maie be called (Moechia) Aduouterie, vvhether fornication be called aduouterie in the Scritures. in the same Scriptures I can not yet cal to my minde the example of suche a speache. (Now folow the wordes, that M Iewel would seeme to allege, and hath alleged falsely) Sed si non omnis Fornicatio etiam Moechia dici potest, vbi sit in Decalogo prohibita illa Fornicatio, quam faciunt viri, qui vxores non habent, cum foeminis, quae maritos non habent, vtrum inueniri possit, ignoro: but if it be so, that al Fornication can not be called also (Moechia) aduouterie, where that Fornication, which men commit, that haue no wiues, with women, that haue no husbandes, is forbidden in the table of the ten commaundementes, whether it can be found, or no, I can not tel.
This is that (M. Iewel) S. Augustine cōfessed he could not tel, whether Simple Fornication were forbidden,vvhat is that properly that S. Augustine here cōfesseth, he knevv not. or no, as you tel vs, for he knew right wel it was forbidden: but whether, if al fornicatiō be not cōteined in the name of Moechia, aduouterie, which word is expressed in the tē cōmaundementes, that kinde of Fornication which men hauing no wiues cōmit with womenne hauing no husbandes, can be found forbidden (he saith, not al, but) in decalago, in the table of the ten commaundementes. This is that, and none other thing, whereof S. Augustine in that place confesseth him selfe to be ignorant.
Ibidem. Fornication forbiddē vnder the name of aduouterie. Robberie forbiddē vnder the name of Theafte.Now that such kinde of Fornication is to be thought to be forbidden vnder the name of (Moechia) aduouteri [...], with these wordes he declareth there immediatly his determinate sentence, and iudgement. Sed si furti nomis ne benè intelligitur omnis illicita vsurpatio rei aliena: non enim rapinam permisit, qui furtum prohibuit, sed vtique à parte totum intelligi voluit, quicquid illicitè rerum proximi aufertur, profectò & nomine Moechiae, omnis illicitus concubitus, atque illorum membrorum non legitimus vsus prohibitus debet intelligi. But if al vnlawful vsurpation of a thing, that is an other mannes, be meant by the name of Theafte: for he that forbad Theafte, hath not permitted Robberie, but would the whole to be vnderstanded by the parte, what so euer thinge of the neighbours is vnlawfully taken awaye: verely likewise we ought to vnderstand, that vnder the name of (Moechia) Aduouterie, euery vnlawful carnal acte, and vse of those partes not allowed by Goddes lawe, is forbidden.
The effecte of this whole discourse is this. S. Augustine confesseth the name of that which we cal Simple Fornication, not to be founde expressely in the Table of the ten Commaundementes. Neuerthelesse he saith, that it is to be vnderstanded in the name of Aduouterie, which is there expressed, and that so it is forbidden vnder that name, as also euery vnlawful acte, and vse of those partes, that serue to the Generation. And al this procedeth of like reason, as we ought to iudge, that (Rapina) Robberie is forbidden, though in that Table it be not expressely named, as also euery vnlawful taking awaye, and deteining of an other mannes thinges, as being vnderstanded in the name of Theafte in that Commaundement [Page 403] only expressed, as oftentimes by reason the whole must be vnderstāded in the name of a parte.Saepe intel ligitur à parte totum. For elles we should thinke it lawful to robbe, and commit rauine, whereas Theafte onely is by expresse terme forbidden: wherein we are controlled by reason it selfe, without further aduise of Goddes written word. Mow iudge good Reader what rewarde M. Iewel is worthy to haue in a wel ordered common welth, for suche abusing of S. Augustines name, and auctoritie, to the Defence, and mainteinance of Simple Fornication. Certainely the libertie, that through this pleasant Gospel the world is now growen vnto considered, it was litle neede to teache such Doctrine in open Bookes at these daies.
A Comparison of Errours, with whiche M. Iewel chargeth me, and I on the other side, charge him. The 16. Chapter.
BIcause Reader M. Iewel to excuse a few errours, with which I charged the Authour of the Apologie, chargeth me likewise with errours, and ouersightes, committed in my Confutation, and in my first Reioinder, that it maie appeare euidently vnto thee, who standeth more charged, he, or I, bothe in respecte of the number, and also of the weight of the matter reported in the errours: I wil here truly and plainely reherse those hainous errours, whiche he laieth to my charge, and then also I wil laie forth certaine of his errours, as they came to hande. Certaine I saie, for to laie forth so many as by searche I might easily finde, it would require the charges of an other booke. These then be the great and weighty matters, wherein I seeme to M. Iewel worthy of great blame.
M. Harding maie remember,Confut. 4. 6. a. Confut. 312. b. Confut. 47. a. Reioinder. fol. 287. a. Confut. 332. a. that he him selfe in steede of the Prophete Osee, hath alleged vs the noble Iosue: and that by an other like ouersight, he hath alleged the 8. booke of Socrates Scholasticus vvhere [...]s Socrates neuer vvrote but seuen. M. Harding him selfe in hi [...] Confutation of the Apologie, in steede of the 22. of Luke, hath printed the 2. of Luke. Likevvise in his Reioindre, in steede of these vvordes [...], be hath printed, and sente vs quite the contrarie, [...]. To be shorte, M. Harding in this selfe same booke, in steede of these vvordes, lulled a sleepe, by errour hath printed, lulled a sheepe.
Harding.
Of al these great and dangerous errours, I acknowledge but one to be mine, which is, that by ouersighte I named Iosue, in steede of Osee. And ô that there were no greater sinne in me, for which I ought to crie God Mercie. And yet that it is an errour, and a faulte too, I confesse: would God, you M. Iewel woulde as readily confesse yours. As for the reste, you muste quarrel with the Printers seruauntes, with whom I am offended: not onely for these faultes, but also for many mo, no lesse then you. Were they diligent and true workemenne, I perceiue touching this case, you should haue litle to say. Now let the indifferent Reader compare these my errours, or rather this my one errour, whiche in so many places you haue obiected vnto me, and whiche onely after so long searche you haue founde, with a fewe of yours noted out of your late booke, intituled The Defence of the Apologie. Sure I am for your excuse, you can not laie the faulte vpon your Printer, nor by any other meanes iustifie them. Thus among other infinite Vntruthes, you say.
Ye maie remember that tvvo of the principal pillers of yuor Chapter (at Trent) Petrus a Soto, and Catharinus, dissented euen there openly, and shamefully, and that in great pointes of Religion: and vvrote the one mightily against the other: the one charging the other vvith errour and heresie, and could neuer be reconciled.
Harding.
Here I must tel you M. Iewel that you affirme more, then you are hable to abide by. By this also, as by other [Page] [...] [Page 406] [...] [Page] infinite places, ye geue your Reader to vnderstande, what a sure carde you are to trust vnto,Catharinus, and Petrus a Soto be lied by M. Ievvel. For Catharinus and Petrus a Soto, were neuer together at the Councel of Trent, as any doers there, muche lesse as principal pillers. Yea Catharinus was dead ten yeres before Petrus a Soto came to the Councel, as one to haue any doing there. For Catharinus died Anno 1552. and Petrus a Soto came to the Councel Anno 1562. Sixtus Senensis in Bibliotheca sancta. lib. 4. Wherefore I maruel that you are not ashamed so precisely to affirme an open and shameful vntruth. For if they were not at the Councel together, how could they dissent there openly, and shamefully, as you terme it.
Hereunto you adde an other great Vntruth, that they wrote mightely, the one against the other. For I am wel assured, you can not proue, that euer they wrote the one against the other at al. Albeit I wil not saie, but that Petrus a Soto peraduenture doth disallowe some certaine erroneous opinion of the others in some parte of his workes. That you saie, they could neuer be reconcilied, is most false in your meaning. Howbeit in a contrary sense it maie be truely said. For Reconciliation presupposeth a falling out. But where there was neuer falling out (as betwen them there was not, as farre as it can appeare by their writinges) there could not be any Reconciliation.
To like effecte, and with as litle truthe you speake of them bothe Pagin. 350. In deede some such thing there was betwen Dominicus a Soto and Catharinus. Albeit their Dissension was not so outragious, as you would haue it seeme. I merueile that you should so much, and so often after one sorte be ouerseen, especially [Page 407] if you haue read their bookes, as you pretend, or elles if you haue read Illyricus de Sectis, with stuffe out of whose dragges you haue somewhat enlarged your 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 shalbe 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 [Page] 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. Alphōsus de Castro mistaken by M. Ievvel for Alphōsus 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 [Page 408] 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 knovvē. 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 [Page] I know not: You added in the margent, If I knew him no [...], 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 Carnotens [...], 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 rn̄ into m̄, 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 cōparison 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 Sciē tiarum. cap. [...]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 [Page 409] him Ioannes Camotensis Episcopus. But whether he beareth that name of the one, or of the other, it maketh no great matter. If it be so, it remaineth, that you can tel vs, in what parte of the worlde, whether in Asia, in Aphrica, or in Europa, or in the new founde landes, there be any place of that name. I thinke you must be faine to looke ouer al the Geographical tables, and bookes you haue, and borrowe some of your felowes too, and put on your spectales of the best sight, and yet for al that (I warrant you) not finde it, except it be in Vtopia.
Wel M. Iewel, that you maie vnderstande, that the more occasion you geue me to seeke, the more I finde matter of Vntruthe and ignorance to charge you withal, I tel you in deede, that you haue named Ioannes Camotensis in steede of Ioannes Carnotensis, if you haue respecte to his Bishoprike.Ioannes Camotensis, must be Ioānes Sarisburiensis, vvho vvas Bishop of Chartres in France, and thereof in Latine called Carnotensis. Defence. pag. 613. But if you wil haue his Countrie signified, then must you cal him Ioannes Salesberiensis (or Sarisburiensis, choose whether) as you haue done Pag. 132. I might saie that this Ioannes Sarisburiensis was a Bishop in al respectes farre better (to vse your owne wordes, not, then Leontius, Hippolytus, or Clemens, as it liketh you to skoffe at those learned and blessed Bishoppes, but) then Iohn Iewel of Sarisburie, if you, naming your selfe Iohn of Sarisburie, could iustly be accompted any Bishop at al. But betwen a Bishop, and no Bishop in this behalfe, there can be no comparison.
This is not the first time, that you haue alleged your witnesses by a blinde gheasse, hearesaie, or reporte, not hauing seene their bookes, nor knowing what the [Page] Authours were. You can saie much by rote, and prou [...] litle by skil, as in many other places, but here moste euidently it appeareth. For if you had knowen, that your Ioannes Camotensis, is the selfe same Ioannes Sarisburiensis (otherwise named Carnotensis) for that he was in his time Bishop of Chartres in Fraunce,Pag. 132. named Carnotum in Latine, whiche you haue alleged before out of his woorke entitled Polycraticon, but neuer declaring out of what booke thereof, being eight bookes in the whole, or what Chapter (bicause yee neuer readde the place in the Authour him selfe, but receiued it by the waie of almes of frier Bale, Flacius Illyricus, or some suche other): if, I saie, you had knowen so muche, as you might, if you had taken the paine to peruse the Polycration your selfe, you would neuer haue made so muche a doo about so smal a matter.
Now for your better instruction, and fuller satisfaction, maie it please you to vnderstand, that he whiche is misnamed in Epitome Bibliothecae Gesneri, Ioannes Camotensis, is in Partitionibus eiusdem Gesneri tituli. 5. fol. 95. rightly called Ioannes Carnotensis. And that your Ioannes Camotensis is by you blindly mistaken for Ioannes Carnotensis, it euidently appeareth by the sentences alleged by your owne Necromantical Doctor Cornelius Agrippa, and by an other of the Spritish sort of your gospel Paulus Scalichius in his railing Libel De Choraea Monachorum, Paul. Scalichius. and by lying Illyricus in Catalogo testium veritatis, which are adscribed by Baudy Bale 2. Centur. Scriptorum Britanniae, pag. 212. too Ioannes Carnotensis out of his Polycraticon. And in deed they [Page 410] are there to be founde, albeit not to that purpose, that al the packe of your holy brethren haue vntruely alleged them for. And therefore neuer a one of you al hath quoted either number of the booke, or Chapter, where any of those sentences are to be founde, lest your falsehed might haue benne espied, and that by reading the whole discourse of the places, your euil purpose should haue benne nothing furthered, but much hindred. But if it wil please either you, or the Reader to peruse the 16. chapter of the 5. booke, and the 24. of the 6. booke of the sayd Polycraticon: you for your parte shal haue occasion to vnderstand your errour and folie, and the Reader for his parte, not to be deceiued with your blinde reporte.Pag. 51. Cusanus sovvly, and ignorantly belied of M. Iew.
You beare your Reader in hand pag. 51. that Nicolaus Cusanus wrote a booke, entituled, de Auctoritate Ecclesiae & Concilij, supra, & contra Scripturam: Of the Authoritie of the Churche and Councel, aboue and against the Scripture. And as though you had seene the booke, and wel perused it, you referre your Reader thereunto in 14. mo places of this your pretensed Defence, as it shal appeare to him,A false forged booke odiously attributed by M. Ievv. to Cardinal Cusanus in xv. Sundri [...] places. that wil take the paines to turne to these pages here truely quoted. 53. 55. 78. 157. 331. 438. 439. 474. 558. 593. 665. 674. 704. 724.
Now M. Iewel notwithstanding al these quotations of yours, if you be hable to shewe vs any booke of Cusanus so entituled, either in print, or in autenticke written hande, I wil saie, that you wil proue your selfe a truer man, then euer I tooke you to be.
But bicause this maie litle moue you, I wil more adde [Page] on the contrary side, if you be not hable to shewe the same after so many allegations out thereof, it wil consequently folowe, that you are a shamelesse man, I might saie, a false harlot. If a man were disposed to dally with you in a matter most certaine, as you vse to doo with others, when you thinke you haue gotten any smal shadowe of some counterfeit aduantage (for an vndoubted example whereof I referre the readers to the page 414.) he might perchaunce dash you quite out of countenance, and deface you for euer, yea euen before your frendes, and the flattering vpholders of your dooinges, which would greeue you at the harte. Now might one chalenge you, and saie: M. Iewel, if you be hable to shew any booke, or halfe booke, oration, or epistle, or any litle pamphlet, whereunto Cusanus hath geuen this title, then wil the Catholiques graunt you more then euer you were hable to gete yet at their handes. If you haue al the bookes in your studie, either of your owne, or of other menne, that you allege, then bring the booke with this title forth, and you shal discharge your selfe of a most impudent lie, and sclaunder. And if you be hable so to doo, then I praie you let it be proclaimed by you with your booke in your hand at Powles crosse, (as you haue done at other times, to your worship forsooth) that al the worlde maie beare witnesse thereof. Verely M. Iewel it appeareth, that you haue readde more, then you vnderstand, or at least then you haue liste to vnderstand: and yet you allege more, then euer you readde in the bookes whereunto you referre vs, as it maie wel be proued by this present example, and many other the like. You maie beshrewe him, to whom [Page 411] you gaue so light credite herein. Couet not praise by making great bookes. Write fewer wordes, more truth. Truste not euery pelting booke, that seemeth toothsom vnto you, yea write nothing but truth, and ye shal ease vs of much paynes. Now a mannes life wil not serue him to discouer the multitude of your Lies, to such impudencie ye are growen. What man is there, hauing any sparke of shamefastnesse, that would referre vs so often, and so confidently to a booke by a title, which it neuer had, ne neuer was any such written? And therefore vntil you bring forth your authour hereof, you must be content to beare al the blame of a sclaunderous and impudent Lier.
It had ben an easie matter for you to haue vowed Tritemius de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, Conradus Gesnerus Bibliotheca, or his Epitome, or elles Cusanus workes printed at Basile anno 1565. which was out almost two yeres before your Defence was published, where you should haue founde, that he neuer wrote booke of any suche title. What is to be thought hereof, but that, either you haue maliciously inuented this Lie of your selfe, to deface the authour withal, or elles that you haue vnwisely receiued it of some other, who is not hable to abide by it? If of your selfe, then, maius peccatum habes, if of any other, then bring him forth a Goddes name, to discharge your selfe of malice, albeit not of folie.
I do ghesse, that you wil peraduenture bring forth a greate Stoareman of yours, who furnisheth you with suche gaie stuffe, and maketh you a greate Truant, a felowe meete for the purpose, that wil neuer faile suche a [Page] false merchant at a neede. I take him to be that sures bee of yours, Matthias Flacius Illyricus. For you declare your selfe, that you, beside other bookes of his, haue benne busie with his Norma Concilij Tridentini. And there I finde written:In altera parte clauis Scripturae. pa. 541. Nicolai Cusani, post quam factus est Cardinalis, sententia, de auctoritate Ecclesiae, & Concilij supra, & contra Scriptutam. But yet this wil not discharge you of malice. For he saith not, that he entituled his booke so, as you doo affirme, but doth pretende to recite Cusanes minde of that matter, as this worde, Sententia, declareth. Now one maie gather an other mannes minde concerning any matter out of his writinges, though he neuer made any worke of that title.
Neither doth Illyricus specifie in that place the worke out of the which he hath drawen that, whiche he there allegeth, and whiche you receiued of him againe at the seconde hande. So that I can not perceiue, but that the blame bothe of folie, and of malice must reste stil vpon your owne persone. For I suppose you wil not haue your selfe taken for so ignorant, as to thinke Sententia is latine for a booke: or if you wil, then why doo you so bragge, as it were, and boast of your great reading and learning?
Moreouer you haue not onely geuen vs a false title of your owne imagination to Cusanus writinge, but also of an Epistle you haue made a Booke. That your good intente and plaine dealing herein maye be more euident, I wil recite the title of thal Epistle, as it is to be founde amonge his workes printed at Basile Anno [Page 412] 1565. Pagin. 851. 852. Epistola 7. Nicolai de Cusa Cardinalis ad Clerum, & Literatos Bohemiae, and thereunto in the toppe of the leafe is added, De amplectenda vnitate Ecclesiae. Let bothe these Titles be conferred, and your malicious intent in so wilfully deprauing the authours wordes, to bring him out of credite, must most manifestly appeare.
Wel, perchaunce you wil saye, though the title be altered, yet his wordes out of that same Epistle be truely recited, wherein consisteth the chiefe effecte, and principal purpose. If you so saye, you wil be proued no lesse a Lier, and false reporter herein, then you haue benne in the reste. And for example hereof I wil bringe euen the very firste place that you haue alleged out of him. You tel vs page. 55. that, thus he saith. Sequuntur Scripturae Ecclesiam, & non è conuerso: Cusanus fovvly falsified by M. Ievvel. The Scriptures of God followe the Churche: but contrariwise the Churche followeth not the Scriptures.
You haue here clipped the Authours sentence, and quite altered the sense. His wordes are these. Ecclesia igitur, sicut recipit Scripturam, ita & interpretatur. Pag. 858, Sequuntur Scriptura Ecclesiam, quae prior est, & propter quam Scripturae, & non è conuerso: The Churche, as it receiueth the Scripture, so doth it expounde the same. The Scriptures therefore do follow the Churche, which is the former, and for the which the Scripture is ordeiined, and not contrariwise.
What oddes is betwixt this sentence of Cusanus, and that whiche you haue fathered vpon him, any meane witted man maie ealsily perceiue. For Cusanus wordes [Page] in their right forme doo bothe stande wel, and haue a good meaning. But your false changing of them causeth them to importe an intollerable Derogation to the Scriptures without any colour of truth. For as it is most true, that the Church was before the Scriptures (that is to saie, the written worde of God) and that the Scriptures were ordeined and appointed for the Churche, but not contrariwise the Churche for the Scriptures: so is it very false, that the Scriptures doo followe the Church, and the Church not the Scriptures. For why hath the Church receiued the Scriptures, but to follow them, and put them in execution both in our inward beleefe and in our outward actions? Doo you not blush M. Iewel thus wilfully to peruerte that with your false iuggling, and conueying awaie of those wordes quae prior est, & propter quam Scripturae, whiche before had a right good sense? You thought by like, you should neuer heare thereof againe, nor be called to any reckening: or elles you would haue had more regarde ro your good name and honestie. You can pretende no tollerable excuse, as that you had not Cusanus workes at hande. For euen Illyricus, vpon whose credite you haue taken vp al that you haue out of this epistle, doth not otherwise reporte the same,Pag. 544. in 2. parte Clauis Script. then they are to be founde in the authour. But you thought you would passe him an ase in falsehood, although he be his craftes master therein.
How fowly you haue ouershote your selfe in falsifying sentences, and misreporting authour for authour, and booke for booke, that which hath hitherto ben declared, maie be sufficient instruction to any man, that is willing and desirous to vnderstande the truthe, and not [Page 413] content to be lead into wilful blindnes and errour. Howbeit to make the matter a litle more sensible and plainer and also to geue you occasion the better to know your folie, and not to exalte your selfe ouermuch with pride, vaine glorie, and presumption, of I can not tel what extraordinarie knowledge, as you seeme to doo: I wil set before your eyes such a glasse of your grosse ouersight, ignorance, and blindnes to looke in, as you may, and peraduenture wil be ashamed thereof, if you be not altogether past shame already. Many times either to hide your ignorance, or to weary the searcher, or to couer your falsehood, you bring vs in such general quotations without number of Booke, or Chapter, as a man shal be litle the nearer. For examples whereof, Pag. 15. 158. 265. August. Pag. 51 August. de Ciuitate Dei. Pag. 50. 267. Cyprianus Pag. 37. Eusebius. Pag. 29. Theodorit. in Histor. Ecclesiast. Pa. 11. Theodorit. de curand. Graec. affect. Pag. 482. 532. Baldus. pa. 486. Eckius. Pag. 564. Hieronymus. 629. Fortalitium fidei. Itē 401. 313. Antoninus. 498. Liriensis Episcopus. 447. Eusebius Emissenus. Pag. 13. You referre vs to a Councel of Carthage as you remember, you can not tel whiche.
In al these and such like places, a man hath occasion iustly to suspect your couert dealing: that either the place maketh nothing for your purpose, if it were considered, or that there be no such wordes there at al, or at the least, that you doo not speake of certain knowledge, but by some ghesse, or vpon an other mannes reporte. But where you are so bold, as to quote vnto vs the Chapters, there it were to be supposed that you shoulde speake ex speciali scientia, of your precise knowledge, and so muche the more, as you ofte inculcate one place. [Page] And yet for al that it is to be proued, that euen in suche places you doo but set a great looke on the matter, to outface your readers, and gainesaiers withal. Example most notable hereof is to be taken of your quotations of one Heruaeus de Potestate Papae, a greate and familiar Doctour with you. About 37. times, and euery where (sauing in two places, that is to wit Pag. 331. 608.) you haue quoted vnto vs precisely the Chapter, and yet he hath not diuided his booke into any Chapters at al. Therefore by like you had a good sight, that could so often see so many, and distincte Chapters, where there be none. Yea whiche is more, that you could recite so many sentences out of him, and some of them not without lothsomnesse oftentimes repeated, and yet neuer a one of them to be founde in such forme of wordes in al the booke. This maie seme a very strange matter vnto them, who tooke you to be the chiefe Doctour, and the most precious Iewel of al our Ministers of this English Congregation. And therefore they wil surmise, that I speake this in a dreame of you. But that they maie knowe I speake not of reporte, but by trial and experience, I wil here set out before the Readers eyes the Pages, where Heruaeus is quoted in the margent of your booke, that if he can come by the booke, whiche is in deede of an olde printe, he maie by conference proue, whether I haue said herein otherwise then truthe.
| Pagina. | 119. | Cap. | 13. |
| 162. | 12. | ||
| 399. | 13. | ||
| 400. | 12. | ||
| 13. | |||
| 401. | 19. | ||
| 405. | 13. | ||
| 13. | |||
| 528. | 16. | ||
| 532. | 16. | ||
| 533. | 20. | ||
| 536. | 11. | ||
| 12. | |||
| 13. it should be 14. | |||
| Pagina. | 537. | Cap. | 19. |
| 538. | 19. | ||
| 544. | 12. it should be 13. | ||
| 607. | 14. | ||
| 615. | 18. | ||
| 651. | 18. | ||
| 652. | 8. | ||
| 653. | 18. | ||
| 660. | 18. | ||
| 692. | 17. | ||
| 694. | 13. | ||
| 696. | 18. | ||
| 15. |
Now is neuer a one of al these places in Heruaeus, but in Ioannes de Parisiis. Whom M. Iewel maketh a distinct Authour from the other: and yet doth he recite out of the selfe same booke of his diuers sentences, and referreth them vnto him, as it maie appeare.
| Pagina. | 53. | Cap. | 3. |
| 102. | 3. | ||
| 467. | 3. | ||
| 535. | 5. | ||
| 649. | 5. | ||
| 652. | 5. |
A Note of certaine places of the texte of my Confutation, leafte out by M. Iewel in his Defence.
GOod Reader, I haue here set before thee a briefe Note, or Table of certaine places, of purpose, and guilefully leafte out by M. Iewel in his recital of the texte of my Confutation, printed in the booke of his Defence, whiche places in making this Detection I had occasion to expresse. By the same thou maist see, and as in a fewe haue a taste (for to note al it woulde amounte to a iuste volume) how he deceiueth thee in the reste, bearing the countenance of one, that hath answered the substance of the whole Confutation. For so much he telleth thee him selfe with these wordes.
To ansvver M. Hardinge to euery parcel of his Booke, being so long, it vvould be tedious. M. Ievvel in the beginning of his De, fence. Pag. 2. VVherefore leauing many his impertinent speaches, and vnnecessarie and vvaste vvordes, I vvil touche onely so muche thereof, as shal beare some shevve of substance, and maie any vvaie seeme vvorthy to be ansvvered.
How wel and truely M. Iewel hath kepte this promise, and how at the first greeting, and entrie of his Booke he begileth thee, by these fewe places here noted, and in this Detection at large set forth, thou shalt see and perceiue. For trial therefore of his truthe, haue recourse vnto the leaues of this Booke here quoted, and looke what places of the Texte of my Confutation there recited, be comprehended within two starres (as I doo also there in the Margent warne thee) assure thy selfe, that al those, and an infinite number of [Page 415] suche other places, are by M. Iewel in this his Defence quite leafte out, as if no such thing had ben written. And then whether such places by him so leafte out, be but impertinent speaches, and vnnecessarie and waste wordes, or right worthy to be answered, I leaue it to thine owne indifferent iudgement to discerne. Verely if it maie be lawful thus to deale in the handling of Controuersies, it shal not seeme harde to confute the workes of any write [...], be they neuer so learned and substancial.
But nowe to the Note, wherein I direct thee, to the Leaues and Pages of this my Detection, in such order, as by occasion such his false sleightes haue bene by me detected.
- The first place. fol. 3. b. line. 27. vntil. fol. 4. a. line. 9.
- The ij. fol. 21. b. line. 31. vntil. fol. 22. a. line. 3.
- The iij. fol. 43. b. line. 7.
- The iiij. fol. 45. a line. 6.
- The v. fol. 121. b. line. 28.
- The vj. fol. 129. a. line. 16.
- The vij. fol. 129. b. line. 8.
- The viij. fol. 193. a. line. 22.
- The ix. fol. 193. b. line. 4.
- The x. Ibidem. line last.
- The xj. fol. 194. a. line. 29.
- The xij. fol. eodem. b. line. 10.
- The xiij. and xiiij. fol. 195. a line. 7. and line 28.
- The xv. fol. eodem. b. line. 17.
- The xvj. fol. 196. a. line. 11.
- The xvij. fol. eodem. b. line. 13.
- The xviij. fol. 197. a. line. 15.
- The xix. fol. eodem. b. line. 2.
- [Page]The xx. fol. 198. a. line. 2.
- The xxj. fol. 230. a. line. 24.
- The xxij. fol. 278. b. line. 4.
- The xxiij. fol. eodē. line. 24.
- The xxiiij. fol. 279. a. line. 18.
- The xxv. fol. 279. b. line. 23.
- The xxvj. fol. 280. a. line. 6.
- The first lie. fol. 1. b. line. 27.
- The ij. fol. 3. a. line. 15.
- The iij. fol. 4. a. line. 17.
- The iiij. fol. 6. a. line. 5.
- The v. fol. 6. b. line. 25. and 7. a. l. 17.
- The vj. fol. 7. b. line. 12.
- The vij. fol. 8. b. line. 15.
- The viij. fol. 9. b. line. 12.
- The ix. fol. 10. b. line. 19.
- The x. ibidem. line. 28.
- The xj. fol. 12. b. line. 25.
- The xij. fol. 13. b. line. 9.
- The xiij. xiiij. and xv. fol. 15. a. line. 3.
- The xvj. xvij. and xviij. fol. 16. b. line. 5.
- The xix. and xx. fol. 19. a. line. 2. and 17.
- The xxj. xxij. xxiij. xxiiij. xxv. and xxvj. fol. 20. b. l. 6.
- The xxvij. fol. 45. b. line 30.
- The xxviij. fol. 46. a. line. 28.
- The xxix. and xxx. fol. 47. a. line. 4. and 26.
- [Page 416]The xxxj. fol. 48. a. line. 20.
- The xxxij. fol. 62. a. line. 22.
- The xxxiij. fol. 63. a. line. 13.
- The xxxiiij. fol. 64. a. line. 25.
- The xxxv. fol. 66. b. line. 10.
- The xxxvj. fol. 67. a. line. 24.
- The xxxvij. fol. 74. b. line. 28.
- The xxxviij. and xxxix. fol. 75. a. line. 10. and 18.
- The xl. fol. 78. b line. 14.
- The xlj. fol. 81. a. line. 17.
- The xlij. fol. 81. b. line. 26.
- The xliij. fol. 82. b. line. 9.
- The xliiij. xlv. and xlvj. fol. 83. b. line. 23. 28.
- The xlvij. fol. 84. b. line. 8.
- The xlviij. fol. 85. b. line. 1.
- The xlix. fol. 87. b. line. 20.
- The l. fol. 88. a. line. 17.
- The lj. fol. 93. a. line. 22.
- The lij. fol. 95. a. line. 23.
- The liij. fol. 96. a. line. 11.
- The liiij. fol. 98. a. line. 10.
- The lv. conteniing more then v. petit Vntruthes in it fol. 99. a. 100. a. line. 9.
- The lvj. fol. 100. b. line. 3.
- The lvij. fol. 101. b. line. 13.
- The lviij. fol. 102. a. line. last.
- The lix. fol. 103. a. line. 7.
- The lx. and lxj. fol. 106. a. line. 2. 3.
- The lxij. fol. 108. a. line. 27.
- The lxiij. most vile and filthy. fol. 120. a. line. 24. 121. lines 16. & sequent.
- [Page]The lxiiij. fol. 128. b. line. 17.
- The lxv. 145. a. line. 17.
- The lxvj. and lxvij. fol. 169. b. lines 14. and 15.
- The lxviij. lxix. lxx. and lxxj. fol. 171. a. lines. 24. 25. 26. and 27. Item fol. 171. b. and 172. a.
- The lxxij. fol. 172. b. line. 3.
- The lxxiij. fol. 186. b. line. 21.
- The lxxiiij. fol. 187. b. line. 16.
- The lxxv. fol. 189. a. line. 21.
- The lxxvj. fol. 207. a. line. 22.
- The lxxvij. fol. 209. b. line last.
- The lxxviij. fol. 215. a. line. 21.
- The lxxix. fol. 229. b. line. 8.
- The lxxx. fol. 232. a. line. 6.
- The lxxxj. most Impudent. fol. 232. b. line. 20.
- The lxxxij. fol. 234. a. line. 2. b. 18.
- The lxxxiij. fol. 245. b. line. 20.
- The lxxxiiij. fol. 249. a. line. 24.
- The lxxxv. fol. 249. b. line. 20.
- The lxxxvj. fol. 251. a. line. 14.
- The lxxxvij. fol. 253. b. line. first.
- The lxxxviij. fol. 255. b. line. 19.
- The lxxxix. fol. 256. b. line. 12.
- The xc. fol. 262. b. line. 28.
- The xcj. and xcij. fol. 263. a. lines. 5. and 15.
- The xciij. and xciiij. fol. 263. b. lines. 17. and 21.
- The xcv. and xcvj. fol. 264. a. lines. 7. and 18.
- The xcvij. fol. 265. b. line. 15.
- The xcviij. fol. 266 a. line. 3.
- The xcix. fol. 266. b. line. 25.
- The c. fol. 268. b. line. 2.
- [Page 417]The cj. fol. 269. a. line. 18.
- The cij. fol. 271. b. line. 1.
- The .ciij. fol. 282. b. line. 3.
- The ciiij. fol. 283. b. line. 23.
- The cv. fol. 285. a. line. 18.
- The cvj. fol. 285. a. line. 24.
- The cvij. fol. 285. b. line. 28.
- The cviij. fol. 286. a. line. 17.
- The cix. fol. 287. a. line. 3.
- The cx. fol. 287. b. line. 6.
- The cxj. fol. 288. a. line. 19.
- The cxij. fol. 288. a. line. 21.
- The cxiij. fol. 290. a. line. 17.
- The cxiiij. fol. 296. b. line. 25.
- The cxv. fol. 299. b. line. 15.
- The cxvj. fol. 302. a. line. 17.
- The cxvij. fol. 303. a. line. 15.
- The cxviij. fol. 305. a. line. 7.
- The cxix. fol. 305. a. line. 22.
- The cxx. fol. 306. a. line. 10.
- The cxxj. fol. 308. a. line. 16.
- The cxxij. fol. 309. a. line. 25.
- The cxxiij. fol. 321. b. line. 22.
- The cxxiiij. fol. 322. a. line. 14.
- The cxxv. fol. 323. b. line. 28.
- The cxxvj. fol. 327. b. line. 7.
- The cxxvij. fol. 333. b. line. 20.
- The cxxviij. fol. 335. a. line. 1.
- The cxxix. fol. 342. a. line. 14.
- The cxxx. fol. 345. a. line. 6.
- The cxxxj. fol. 347. a. line. 26.
- [Page]The cxxxij. fol. 352. a. line. 14.
- The cxxxiij. fol. 356. a. line. 4.
- The cxxxiiij. fol. 357. b. line. 2.
- The cxxxv. fol. 358. b. line. 13.
- The cxxxvj. fol. 360. b line. 3.
- The cxxxvii. fol. 370. b. line. 6.
- The cxxxviij. fol. 373. b. line. 2.
- The cxxxix. fol. 380. b. line. 4.
- The cxl. fol. 381. b. line. 20.
- The cxlj. fol. 382. a. line. 16.
- The cxlij. fol. 383. a. line. 19.
- The cxliij. fol. 387. a. line. 13.
- The cxliiij. fol. 391. b. line. 15.
- The cxlv. fol. 392. b. line. 19.
- The cxlvj. fol. 399. a. line. 21.
- The cxlvij. fol. 401. a. line. 31.
- The cxlviij. fol. 402 b. line. 23.
- The cxlix. fol. 404. a. line. 12.
- The cl. fol. 406. b. line. 2.
- The clj. fol. 410. a. line. 15.
- The clij. fol. 412. a. line. 18.
A Table of the chiefe matters treated of in this Booke.
- AErius his heresies. fol. 133. b.
- Agreing in Cōmunion, vvhere is disagreing in opinion. fol. 272. b.
- Almaricus. fol. 111. a.
- Almaric and Abailard Heretiques. fol. 102. b.
- Alphonsus impudently belied by M. Iewel. fol. 63. a.
- Alphonsus shamefully abused by M. Iewel. fol. 6. b.
- S. Ambroses minde touching praying to Saintes. fol. 362. a.
- Anacletus his Decree expounded. fol. 60. b. 61. a.
- Answer to special wordes of discourtesie noted by. M. Iew. fol. 45. a.
- Answer to M. Iewels View of his vntruthes. fol. 56. b.
- Angelles and Archangelles. fol. 142. b.
- Anacletus not cōunterfeite. fol. 227. b.
- Ancyran Councel answered touching the cōtinuance of married Deacons in the ministerie. fol. 298. b.
- Anselmusmade wrōgfully a spokesmā for Priestes Marriages. fol. 308. a.
- Apostasie of the Protestantes. fol. 35. b. 36. a. b.
- Apostata, who so is, and vvhat it signifieth. fol. 35. b. 236. a.
- The Apostates married of the English Congregation. fol. 36. b.
- Application of Christes merites to others in the Masse. fol. 355. b.
- Appollinaris the elder not married after he vvas priest. fol. 304. b.
- Argumentes hanging from heauen to earth. fol. 142. a.
- An Argument prouing this new Congregation not to be the true Churche. fol. 92. a.
- Augustine falsely alleged by. M. Ievvel. fol. 113. a.
- Augustines Doctrine of General Councelles. fol. 113. b. 114.
- Augustines place to Dardanus expounded. fol. 117.
- BAptisme 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.
- Berēgarius vvordes as he laie dying. 105. b. his heresie cōdemned. 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.
- [Page]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 Frāce. fol. 382. a
- 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 Lirinēsis. fol. 124. b.
- Catholique Church stāding 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.
- Cōtinuance of the Church vvithout intermission. fol. 31. a. 89. 90. 91. 92.
- Councel of Laterane a great assemblie. fol. 105. a.
- [Page]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. [...]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.
- 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 cōdēned by Bishops, not by the Ciuil magistrate. fol. 72. 73.
- Dissensions among the Protestātes. 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- [Page]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.
- GErmanie for many partes remaining Catholike. fol. 96. a.
- Gerson impudently belied by M. Iewel. fol. 64. a. 100. b. 101. a. b.
- Goodmās traiterous writing. fol. 14. b.
- Gospel commeth vnto vs by Tradition. fol. 326. b.
- Gratians wordes alleged by M. Iev. for the Coūcel of Carthage. fol. 59. b.
- Grace necessary to the kepīg of the commaundementes. fol. 366. b.
- Gregorie Nazanzenes saying touching a married Bishop expounded. fol. 61. b. 313. b.
- 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. 28 [...]. 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.
- [Page]Hypsistarij vvhat mēne they vvere. fol. 314. a.
- 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 pronoū ced against S. Bernard. fol. 12. a.
- Hovv M. Ievv. may be pleased. fol. 38. b.
- Flovvres of M. Ievvels modeste speache. fol. 50. 51. 52.
- M. Ievvels scoffes, and scornes against God, his Church, and his Saintes. fol. 52. a. b.
- M. Ievvels Sacramentarie scoffes. fol. 52. b.
- M. Ievvels scoffes against the Pope, Bishops, and Priestes. fol. 52. b. 53. a.
- M. Ievvels general, and particular scoffes. fol. 53. 54.
- M. Ievvels Outcries, and scoffing Oes. fol. 55. b.
- M. Ievvels modest marginal Notes. fol. 54. b. 55. a. b.
- M. Ievv. plaieth many vntrue partes at once fol. 68. a.
- M. Ievv. falsifieth my ansvver made in the Confutation. fol. 44. b. 45. a. 68. b. 69. a. 128. b. 141. a. 147. a. 153 b. 180. b. 223. a.
- what it is to confute M. Ievv. vvritinges. fol. 76. b.
- M. Ievv. repeateth obiections and allegations already ansvvered ād confuted, dissembling vtterly al answer made. fol. 83. b. 84. a 226. a. 227. b. 248. 249. 253. b. 255. b. 256. b.
- M. Ievvel defendeth opē rebellion, and treason. 86. a. b. 88. a. Item 183. and 184. in defending wickless trayterous heresie.
- M. Ievvel reasoneth against the Church, euen as the Donatistes did. fol. 90. b. 91. a.
- M. Ievv. blasphemously maligneth the conuersion of infidels to the faith. fol. 96. b. 97. a.
- M. Ievv. contrary to him selfe. fol. 98. a. 101. b.
- M. Ievvels extreme impudencie. fol. 106. b. 160. a. & b. 221. a.
- M. Ievvels. deceite in equiuocation of termes. fol. 119. a. 134. a.
- M. Ievvels fond limitation against Lirinensis. fol. 124. b. 125. a.
- M. Ievv. fond conditions, to admit one head of the Churche. fol. 138. a.
- M. Ievvels vaine skoffing. fol. 141. b. 150. b.
- M. Ievvels negatiue argumentes fol. 143. a. 226. b.
- M. Ievv. alleageth obiections of the Doctors made against the Truth: [Page] as Truthes auouched by the Doctours. fol. 144. a.
- M. Ievvels vvaie to continevve vvrangling fol. 147. b.
- M. Iewelles ridiculous and loose Argumentes. fol. 143. a. 152. b. 155. b. 160. b. 161. a. 162. a. 184. b.
- M. Iewel falsely alleageth the Fathers sayinges. fol. 6. b. 113. a. 156. b. 157. a. 166. b. 173. b. 208. a. 240. b. 269. a. 286. a. 333. b. 387. a.
- M. Iewel falsifierh the holy Scripture. fol. 160. a. 202. a. 222. a. 265. a. 266. b.
- M. Iewelles dissembling shifte. fol. 163. a.
- M. Iewel misseallegeth the Ciuil Lawe. fol. 168. b. 169. a. 380. b.
- M. Iewel missealleageth and falsifieth Gratian, and his Glose. fol. 169. a. b. 190. a. 191. a. 204 b. 383. a
- M. Iewel falsifieth the Councels. fol. 183. a. 189. a.
- M. Iewels forging of the Fathers sayinges. fol. 185. a. 186. 290. a. b. 203. b. 209. a.
- M. Iewel chargeth me with three mayne Lyes. 189. b. Item with moe Lies. fol. 287. a. 285. a. 295. b. 316. b. 303. a. 285. b. 310. b. 374. b.
- M. Iewel a scatterer, no Successour of any one Bishop. fol. 203. a.
- M. Iewel falsifieth al his Testimonies against Succession. fol. 206. b.
- M. Iewel plaieth the very parte of Antichrist. fol. 210. b. 245. a.
- M. Iewel falsifieth Bitontinus. fol. 213. b.
- M. Iew. continually alleageth those mens sayinges for him, vvhose dedes he knovveth to be against him fol. 213. b, 229. a
- M. Ievvel neuer ordered Priest, nor Bishop. fol. 230. b. 222. a. b.
- M. Ievvel sticketh not to saie vntruely, I vvas present, and consented to his Election. fol. 232. b.
- M. Ievvel can shevve no one Predecessour of his Religion in the See of Sarisburie. fol. 241. 242. 243.
- M. Ievvel bevvraieth his lurking heresie. fol. 244.
- M. Ievvels daie, and night. fol. 246. b.
- M. Ievvels Lying, and Rhetorical addition of vvordes, and sentences to his Authors sayinges. fol. 199. a. 201. b. 203. b. 204. a. & b. 205. b. 208. a. 258. a. 265. a. 302. a. 313. b. 305. a.
- [Page]Intercession to Saintes to praie for vs. fol. 358. a.
- Iohn the. 22. his errour. fol. 64. b. 65. 66 255. b.
- Iohn Huss. fol. 83. a. b. 103. b
- Iohn of Sarisburie. fol. 258. 259. 260.
- Iohn 22. charged by M. Iew. with the errour of Iohn. fol. 23. 66. b.
- Iohn of Constantinoples ambition. fol. 141. a.
- Iosue mistaken for Osee confessed. fol. 143. b.
- Iouinians heresie making Marriage and virginite of equal merite. fol. 296. a.
- Iuuenalis and Thalassius not condemned in the Councel of Chalcedon. fol. 73. b. 74. a.
- Iuste, who maie be called in this life. fol. 367. a.
- LAteran great Councel. fol. 105. a. 110. b.
- Lady Interpreter noted of presumption. fol. 120.
- The Lawe by what meanes it is fulfilled. fol. 369. a.
- Leaders awaie of the Flocke who be they. fol. 202. b. 267. b.
- A Legende of Leo alleged by M. Iewel a fonde fable. fol. 251. a.
- Lenten Fast a custom of the Churche, fol. 327. a.
- Leo the first defended from Arianisme. fol. 172. b. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 251. 252.
- Liberius defended from Arianisme. fol. 62. a. b. 250. a.
- Life euerlasting how freely geuen, and how for good workes. fol. 372. b.
- Light not put out in the Churche for a thousand yeres. fol. 90. a.
- This terme, my Lorde, vsed of the Antiquitie. fol. 175. a
- Loose Apostates, whether the diuisers of this new Gospel maie not so be called. fol. 35. b.
- Luthers dogge eloquence. fol. 127.
- Lutherans and Zuinglians dissension. fol. 322. b.
- MAcabees booke Canonical among the faithful. fol. 321. b.
- Magistrate Ciuil not iudge in Ecclesiastical causes. fol. 377. a.
- Manichees heresie denying Christes true flesh. fol. 345. a.
- Marie the Virgin aduocate for Eue. fol. 359. b.
- Marie our Ladie Queene of al, hope of the Fathers. &c. fol. 365. a.
- Marcellinus Pope Martyr. fol. 248. b.
- Marcus Callidius an Oratour. fol. 42. b.
- Marriage after Vowe of Chastitie, what the Fathers haue iudged thereof. fol. 278. b
- Married twise maie not be made [Page] Bisshoppes. fol. 279. b.
- Marriage after holy Order euer accompted vnlawful amōg Catholiques. fol. 280. a.
- Married Priestes in England in Anselmus time. fol. 280. b.
- Marriage vnlawful in twoo cases. fol. 281. a.
- Marriages three good thinges. fol. 284. a.
- Married Priestes in olde time called Apostates. fol. 296. b.
- Marriage a let vnto perfiter life by S. Chrysostome. fol. 305. a.
- Matrimonie a Sacrament that geueth grace. fol. 328. b.
- Masse said by Iohn Husse in his last daies. fol. 83. a. b.
- Menna absolued. fol. 382. a. b.
- Merite changed by M. Iewel into Preeminence. fol. 163. a.
- Merites of Christes death be not receiued by faith only. fol. 356. b.
- Merites of workes. fol. 369. b. & sequentib.
- Ministers of Tourney. fol. 85. a.
- Monica. S. Augustines mother laboured to conuert her husband. fol. 315. a.
- Montanistes heresies. fol. 327. a.
- NEstorius a scatterer of the flocke. fol. 203. a.
- Nicephorus belied by M. Iew. fol. 303. a.
- Nilus a late Greeke Schismatike. fol. 225. a.
- Nipping of Doctours by M. Iewel. fol. 305. a.
- North partes conuerted to the faith in these later ages. fol. 94. b.
- Oddes betwene the Protestantes and Catholiques. fol. 30. a. 107. b.
- An Oration forged in the name of Pius. fol. 4. 97. b.
- Order of Popes at the first succeding one an other. fol. 219. b.
- Ordination, and Confirmation, diuers. fol. 227. b.
- Origen falsified by M. Iewel. fol. 286. a. 333. b.
- Orders Ecclesiastical. fol. 134. b. 135. a.
- Papistrie can not be shewed when it beganne. fol. 106. b
- Patriarkes. fol. 180.
- Peter Martyr in Strasbourg a Lutheran, in England a Zuinglian. fol. 34. b.
- Peter Martyr and dame Catherine his wife. fol. 36. b.
- Peter Martyr at variance vvith Brentius. fol. 117. b.
- Peters authoritie and prerogatiue. fol. 174. a. 175. 176.
- Peter ouer the Christian Gentiles. at Rome. fol. 221. [...]
- [Page]Peter when he came to Rome. fol. 221. b.
- Peter the feeder of al sortes in the flocke. fol. 148. b. &c.
- Peters humilitie. fol. 153.
- Peter offended twise. fol. 157.
- Peter foloweth the rest, yet head of al, by S. Augustine. fol. 158.
- Peter receiued into indiuisible vnitie with Christ. fol. 174. a.
- Peter ioyned with fol. Leo. 176. a.
- Pelagius heresie mainteined by the Caluinistes. fol. 367. a.
- Perfection, double, one of Pilgrimes, the other of heauen. fol. 368. b
- Petitio principij, muche vsed by M. Iewel. fol. 89. a.
- Platina no flatterer of the Pope. fol. 257. b.
- Pope the Heade of the Churche. fol. 130. b.
- The Popes Supremacie proued. fol. 146. 147. 148. 149. 159. b. 179. 186. a. b.
- The Pope Prince of Pastours. fol. 177. b 178. a.
- The Pope leaft the Vicare of Christes loue towardes vs. fol. 148. a.
- The Popes confirming of Bishops. fol. 223. b. 224. & seq.
- Popes charged with heresie, and other enormites, defended. fol. 248. 249. 250. 251. 252. 253. 254. 255. 256. 257. 258.
- The Pope Peters Successour. fol. 273. a.
- The Pope laufully called the Princ [...] of Pastours. fol. 177. b.
- Possibilitie of keping Gods Commaundementes. fol. 366. b.
- Priesthood double. fol. 239. a.
- Priest aboue a Deacon. fol. 164. b.
- Priestes of England are Votaries. fol. 290. b.
- Priestes of Greece, in what sence they are Votaries. fol. 298. a.
- Priestes and religious menne, whether they maie be dispensed to marrie. fol. 300. b.
- Priestes only Iudges ouer Priestes. fol. 377. a.
- Praying for the dead, taught by S. Paule. fol. 326. b.
- Protestantes dissent not onely one from an other, but also from them selues. fol. 34. a.
- Protestantes varie from the Primitiue Churche. fol. 270. b.
- Protestantes be Apostates. fol. 336. b.
- Protestantes are proued by an inuincible Argument, to be no part of Christes Churche. fol. 90. a. b. 92.
- Puritanes. fol. 139. a. 332. a.
- RAymeris made king of Arragon, of a Monke, and married by dispensation. fol. 301. a.
- Real presence cleerely witnessed. fol. 79. a. proued. 339. & sequentib.
- [Page]Rebellion against Princes mainteined by M. Iewel. fol. 86. a.
- Religious menne married, the first foūders of this new Gospel. fol. 36. b
- Reseruation of the Sacramente. fol. 331. b.
- Righteousnes competent for this life. fol. 368. a.
- Rounde capped Ministers. fol. 86. b.
- Ruffianrie of M. Iewel detected. fol. 120. b.
- Ruffinus belied by M. Iew. fol. 285. b.
- SAbellicus falsified by M. Iewel. fol. 139. b.
- Sacramentes meanes to receiue grace. fol. 330. a.
- Sacramentes seuen. fol. 334 a.
- Sacrament of the Aulter called our maker, and Lorde by S. Augustine. fol. 346. a.
- Sacramentaries persecuted by the Lutheranes. fol. 95. b. 96. a.
- Sacramentaries condemned by the Lutheranes. fol. 104. b.
- Seruus seruuorum Dei, the Popes stile. fol. 187. b.
- Seuerus a blinde man by touche of a Martyrs garment recouered sight. fol. 364. a.
- Shaxton Bishoppe, no Protestant. fol. 241. b.
- Shaxton and Capon Bishoppes of Sarisburie, repented. fol. 194. a.
- Shaxton B. not of M. Iewele side. fol. 242. b.
- Sharpe vvordes founde in the Scriptures. fol. 27. b.
- Sheepe of three sortes. fol. 149. a.
- Siritius and Innocentius vvere not the first ordeiners of Clerkes cō tinencie. fol. 279. a.
- Sozomenus, Gregorie, Nazianzen, and Eusebius belied by the Apologie. fol. 309. a.
- Sophistrie of M. Ievvels shifting from the Scriptures to Goddes vvorde. fol. 323. a.
- Spiridion made Bishop of a married laie man. fol. 285. a
- Syluester. 2. Pope. fol. 249. a.
- Succession of Bishoppes treated of at large. Lib. fol. 4.
- Succession of Bishoppes, a certaine rule to knovve the Churche by. fol. 198. b. 199. & sequent.
- Succession can not lacke the Truth. fol. 199. 200.
- Succession lavvful can not be taken avvaie by man. fol. 211.
- TErtulliā of a married man made a Prieste. fol. 285. a.
- Tertullians errour. fol. 239. 240.
- Three vvaies of vvriting against an aduersarie. fol. 42. b.
- Tradition. fol. 270. a.
- [Page]Traditions belonging to Sacramēts maie not be changed, Ceremonies maie. fol. 326. a.
- Traditores what they were in the primitiue Churche. fol. 91. a.
- Transubstantiation. fol. 110. b. treated of. 346. b.
- This is my Bodie, meant properly. fol. 339. a.
- Turkes inuasion brideled. fol. 266. a.
- VAriance of opinion betwen two Ministers of Valencenes in the time of the Siege. fol. 84. b.
- Victor the Pope his death. fol. 58. a
- Virgilius Pope his Cōstancie. fol. 200. a
- Vnitie can not be without a supreme head. fol. 140. b. 141. a. 152. 153. a.
- Vniuersal Bishop truly attributed to the Pope. fol. 185. b. 186. 187. 188. & sequent.
- Votaries maie not conueniently marrie by M. Iewel. fol. 289. a.
- Vow breakers in what danger they stande. fol. 278. a.
- Vow of Chastitie annexed to holy Orders. fol. 291. a.
- Vow of Chastitie made in facte, though no vvordes be spoken. fol. 292. b.
- Vovve made in vvhat case marriage holdeth, or holdeth not by the determination of the Churche. fol. 294. b
- Vrspergensis set out by Melanchthon onely. fol. 57. b.
- VVAldenses heresies. fol. 102. b.
- VVedlockes il thing is inordinate luste. fol. 283. b.
- VVickleff his heresies. fol. 82. b. 63. a.
- VViues that couerted their vnfaithful husbandes. fol. 61. b. 350. a.
- VVordes of God not written. fol. 270. a.
- VVorkes, hovv meritorious of infinite revvarde. fol. 371. b.
Faultes escaped in the printing.
| Faulte. | leafe | line | Correction |
| my | 27. a. | 27. | may |
| sor- | 38. a. | 12. | sory |
| Golfridus | 83. b. | 25. | Galfridus |
| lustly | 135. b. | 23. | lusty |
| famofum | 170. b. | 9. | fumosum |
| to | 179. b. | 28. | lut it out |
| least | 180. b. | 28. | leaft |
| S. of | 198. a. | 19. | of S. |
| In the margent. | 202. a. | a note superfluous |
Liber hic D.M.N. Thomae Hardingi lectus & approbatus est à viris Anglici idiomatis & Theologiae peritissimis, vt sine periculo imprimi & publicari possit, Quanquam alioqui & ipse D. Hardingus mihi tàm probè notus est, vt de eius cruditione, fide & prudentia nihil sit dubitandum.
Cunerus Petri, Pastor S. Petri Louanij. 21. Maij. An. 1568.