Harding. THE communion likewise of the Sacrament, Diuis. 1. is a publike feast by Christ through the mini­sterie of the priest in the same: prepared for euery faitheful person.

Iewell. The first Vntruthe:Pag. 1. The first Slaunde­rous Vn­truthe of M. Iewel, for char­ging D. Harding vvith Vn­truthe, where none is. Harding. For there is no such prepara­tion.

Stapletō. There is preparation made by the Priest, for all such as wil receiue. When none will receiue, no such preparation is ma­de. Yet bicause euery faithefull person duly prepared thereun­to may receiue, if he will, and for all such the feast is prepared of Christ by the ministerie of the priest, it is prepared for euery faithfull person.

And so being common by order of the firste institution, and by will of the ministres, it ought to be reputed for com­mon not priuate.

Iewell. The second Vntruthe. There appeareth no suche will in the Mi­nistre.

Stapletō. Though there appeare no such will in the Minister to you M. Iewell, and others, The secō ­de Vntru­the of M. Ie­wel, and that a Sla­underous. which will deme the worste of the Priest, yet to all well meaning folcke, such will doth appeare, who knowe the duty of the priest to be, to distribute vnto all which duly prepared come to receiue. The priestes will is not to be iudged of any externall vsage or practise, such as you ga­ther, but of this only, if any coming to the communion, duly and semely prepared be repelled of the priest. Which thinge bi­cause [Page] in no priest appeareth, or if euer it appered, by the Chur­che it was neuer allowed, therefore it is true, that by the will of the minister admitting gladly al faithful folcke prepared there­unto, the feast is commō for all, not priuat for the priest alone. These two Vntruthes are gathered only of the externall beha­uiour of the priest: whereas the truth thereof dependeth of the preparation and deuotion of the people ioyntly concurring with the ministerie of the priest, by the meanes whereof the feast is commō. It appeareth also by Reseruation, that the Ca­tholike Churche prepareth more for the people, then the pro­testants which abhorre from all Reseruation.

Harding. Diuis. 2. Therefore in this respect, we do not acknowleadg any pri­uat Masse, but leaue that terme to Luthers schoole, where it was first diuised.

Iewell. Pag. 2. The third Slaunde­rous Vn­truthe.The 3. Vntruthe.

Stapletō. Here is an Vntruthe noted, but no cause or reason brought to proue it so. Therefore vntell M. Iewell bringe some elder thē Luther, which termed priuat Masse of the Sole Receiuing of the priest, it is truly saied, that, that terme in that sence was in Luthers schole first diuised.

Harding. Diuis. 5. The vnblouddy and daily sacrifice of the church, common­ly called the Masse.

Iewell. Pag. 4.The 4. Vntruthe. The olde Fathers neuer commonly called it so.

Stapletō. Yet the younge Fathers in kinge Edwardes dayes called it the Masse. For in the first communion booke, it is saied. The Cōmunion,The 4. slaunderous Vn­truthe, [...]oyned vvith an other Capitain Vntruthe touching the olde Fathers, vvhich maketh the fifte. Ambros. 33. epist. Leo ep. 81. Greg. li. 4. epist. 32. otherwise called the Masse. Howbeit all were it true, that the olde Fathers neuer commonly called it so, yet were it no Vntruthe, to saye it is commonly called so: For if these ix. C. yeares onely the daily sacrifice had ben commōly called the Masse, were it an Vntruthe, trowe ye, to write, cōmonly called the masse? The ile of Brytanny is now commonly called Eng­land [Page 2] and, and Scotland. Yet the olde writers aboue litle more then a thousand yeares, neuer called it so. Shal it be now an Vntruth if a writer saie, The ile of Britanny commonly called England and Scotland? But the olde fathers euen within the compasse of six hundred yeares, did commonly call it so. S. Ambrose, Leo the first, and S. Gregory. The olde fathers in the councells off Can. 12.Milleuet, of whom S. Augustine was one, and in the Can. 3. second at Carthage in Afrike,Can. 2. the olde fathers of the councells of A­relat, off Can. 22. Orleans, and Can. 21. & 47. Agatha in Fraunce, the olde Fa­thers of the councels of Can. 4. Ilerd and Ca [...]. 3. Gerund in Spayne, all within the compasse of 500. yeares speaking of that dayly sa­crifice do call it by the name of Masse. Iudge now gentle rea­der, whether it be an Vntruthe, to saye, Commonly called the Masse.

Harding. VVe Haue for proofe of the sacrifice beside other places &c, the Institutyon of Christ in the new Testament.

Iewell. The 5. Vntruthe. Christ speaketh not one worde of any Sacrifice.The 6. Slaunderous Vntruthe.

Stapletō. Christ speaketh not one worde of any Sacrament in the last Supper, and yet it is no Vntruthe to say, For proofe of the Sa­crament we haue the institution of Christ in the new Testa­ment. But a [...] Christ instituted a Sacrament by doing, not by 1 speaking, so Christ instituted a Sacrifice by doing and sacrifi­cing in dede, not by speaking or reporting a Sacrifice. Againe 2 that Christ instituted a Sacrament in the last Supper, we lerne it not by any expresse naming of a Sacrament in the Scriptu­re. But by the authorite of the Church expounding so the Siripture. Right so that Christ sacrificed in dede vnto God the Father, his precious body and bloud in the last supper, we lerne by the Fathers of the Chrurch, expounding vnto vs the Institution of Christ, not by the expresse termes of Sacrifice in the Scripture. The consent of the Fathers so teaching vs is other where at large expressed. In the 34. Vntruthe. Last 3 [Page] of all, the sacrifice of Christ on the crosse is not of any Euan­gelist named, and yet off the Euangelistes we lerne, that Christ was sacrificed on the Crosse.

Harding. That S. Andrew the apostle, touching the substaunce of the masse, worshipped God euery day with the same seruice as priestes now doe in celebrating the externall sacrifice of the Church.

Iewell. The .6. Vntruthe. S. Andrew saide the Communion and not the Masse.Pag. 5.

Stapletō. First the Masse and the Communion Dewly ministred is all one.The 7. vntruthe Slaunde­rous, and the 8. touching. S. Andre­vve. Therefore you doe but fondly to make as though it were a Contradiction bewene the Communion and the Mas­se. Againe S. Andrew offred vnto God the sacrifice of his dere Son, the body and bloud of our Sauiour. This is the sub­staūce of the Masse of which only D. Harding here speaketh. This was no such Communion as ye do practise, where no externall sacrifice of Christ his body is. This was masse where such externall sacrifice is made.

Harding. Abdias who saw Christ our Sauiour in the flesh.

Iewell. The 7. Vntruthe. This Abdias neuer saw Christ in the flesh. It is a very legende of lyes.

Stapletō. If Abdias neuer sawe Christ in the flesh, it is an Vntruthe of the history, which in the name of Abdias so reporteth. It is no Vntruthe on D. Hardinges part.The 9. Slaunde­rous Vn­truthe. But how proueth M. Iewell the history of Abdias to reporte Vntruly? Marry saieth he of it. It is a very legende of lyes. This is sone saied, but nothing proued. As for that which in the text M. Iewell bringeth for proofe hereof, it is of M. D. Harding thouroughly confuted.

Harding. They shall finde in Clement the whole order and forme of the Masse, set foorth by the Apostles them selues.

Iewell. The 8. Vntruthe. There is no maner token or shew of priuat Masse.

[Page 3] Stapletō. Clement is brought to proue the Sacrifice of the Masse not to proue Priuat Masse, that is,The 10. Slaunderous Vn­truthe. Sole Receiuing of the priest in the Masse. Therefore it is true that in Clement touching the Substaunce of the Masse, which is the daily Sacrifice of the Church, the whole order and fourme of the Masse is to be founde, though there be in him no token or shew of Priuat Masse.

Harding. They shall finde the same most plainly treated of, and a forme of the Masse much agreable to that is vsed in these dai­es, set foorth by S. Dionyse.

Iewell. The 9. Vntruthe. It is the very fourme of the Communion, and no thinge like the priuat Masse.

Stapletō. It hath external Oblation, Consecration of the Mysteries, Prayer for the dead, Aultar, Censing, Memory of the saintes,The 11. Vntruthe Slaund. Eccles. Hier. ca. 3. al which thinges M. Iewelles Communion lacketh and the Masse hath. And to proue the Masse it was brought, not to proue Priuat Masse.

Harding. I do farder referre thee to Iustinus the martyr, and philoso [...]her, To Irenaeus the martyr and bishop of Lyons etc. To the olde Bishop and Martyr Hippolytus.

Iewell. 10. A Burthen of Vntruthes.

Stapletō Not one Vntruthe. For all these Fathers do clerely testifie the Sacrifice of the masse, for the which they are brought. Reade the 2. Apologie of Iustinus martyr, The 12. Vntruthe Slaund. Ireneus lib. 4. cap. 32. and Hippolitus, as it is in M. D. Harding alleaged. Iustinus saieth Panis, vinum, & aqua offeruntur. The bread, wine and water are offred. Ireneus saith of Christ in his last Supper, Noui testamenti nouam docuit Oblationem, quam ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens in vniuerso mundo offert deo. He taught a new sacrifice of the new Testament, which the Church receiuing of the Apostles doth offer vnto God through out all the worlde. Hippolytus [Page] saieth Pontifices immolare preciosum Corpus & Sanguinem Christi quotidie. That bishops do offer the precyous Body and Bloud of Christ daily. These considered, I trust the burthen will sone be dis [...]urdened

Harding. Finally I referre them in stede of many to the two wor­thy fathers, Basill and Chrysostom, whose Masses be lefte to the posterite at this time extant.

Iewell. The 13. Vntruthe Slaund. and the 14. be­lying S. Bas [...]l and Chryso­stom.The 11. Vntruthe. They conteine the very order of the Cōmunion.

Stapletō. Basil and Chrysostom are brought to witnesse the Sacrifi­ce of the Masse, as the other fathers aboue are. That to be true let their wordes testifie. In the Masse of S. Basil after the Con­secration of the mysteries the priest offreth them vnto God, saying. Tua ex tuis tibi offerimus per omnia & in omnibus. We of­fer vnto thee thy owne of thy owne thourough all thinges and in all thinges. The very same wordes are in the Masse off Chrysostom.1. Ob [...]ation of the my [...]e­ries. After which (as well in the Masse off S, Basyll, as of Chrisostom) a commemoration of the blessed Saints in heauen, namely of our Lady, of Saint Iohn Baptist, and of the Saint of the day,2. Memory of Saints. is made, and praier for the dead in the faith of Christ, is had. Is this the very order of the Communion M. Ie­well? Doe you offer the mysteries in your communion? Make you any Cōmemoration of the Saints?3. Praier for the dead. Pray you for the dead? Is it now an Vntruthe that S. Basill and Chrysostom in their Masses, do witnesse the daily sacrifice of the Church? Or is it true that the Masses of S. Basill and Chrysostom do conteine the very order of the Communion? For though a number of communicants be mentioned in bothe those masses, yet doth al the rest conteine the very order of the Communion, as you now vse it M. Iewell?In sua Translat. Againe your frende Erasmus M. Iewell, calleth the lyturgie of S. Chrysostom, Masse. I trust it shall be no Vntruthe with you M. Iewell to call thinges as Erasmus [Page 4] calleth them.

Harding. Amongest all Cyrillus Hierosoly mitanus is not to be pas­sed ouer lightly, who at large expoundeth the whole Masse v­sed in Hierusalem in his time, the same which now we finde in Clement.

Iewell. The 12. Vntruthe. It is the very expresse order of the Communion: It is no priuat Masse.

Stapletō. This is not alleaged for Priuat Masse,The 15. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous and the 16. in be­lying S. Cyrillus. In cate­chesi My­stagogica. 5 but to proue a Sacri­fice the substaunce of the Masse, and the order of the whole Masse in his time concurring with the Masse that nowe is. This his owne wordes shall trie which are these. Cum hoc sacri­ficium offerimus, postea facimus mentionē etiam eorum qui ante nos obdormierūt. Primum patriarcharum, Prophetarum, Apostolorum, Martyrum, vt deus orationibus illorum & deprecationibus suscipiat preces nostras. Deinde pro defunctis sanctis patribus & episcopis, d [...]ni­que pro omnibus oramus, qui inter nos vita functi sunt maximum esse credentes animarum iuuamen pro quibus offertur obsecratio san­cti illius & tremendi quod in altari positum est, sacrificij. When we offer this Sacrifice, afterward we make mētion of them which haue dep [...]rted this life before vs. First of the patriarches, of the Prophets, of the Apostles, of the Martyrs, that God by their praiers and intercessions may receiue our petitions. Then for the holy fathers and bishops departed, last of all, for all men we pray, which amonge vs haue deceased, beleuing it to be a great relief of soules, for whō the intercessiō of that holy and dread­ful sacrifice, which is layed vpon the aultar, is offred. Thus far­re Cyrillus. 1 Here is a Sacrifice offred, and that vpon an Aultar. 2 Here is a memory and intercession of Saints: 3 Here is prayer for the dead. Is this the very expresse order of the Communion M. Iewell? Or bicause it maketh nothing for priuat Masse (for the which it was not brought in of M.D. harding) is it therefo­re [Page] Vntruly brought in for the Masse and Sacrifice therof? These V. last Vntruthes were gathered to make a number,The lew­de dea­ling of M. Iewel. vpon this false grounde, as though they were all brought to proue Priuat Masse. Now M. Iewell knewe well enough that from the first part of this 5. Diuision, hetherto, profes are brought onely for the Sacrifice and substaunce of the Masse. And againe he knew that in the very next Diuis [...]on only he beginneth to speake of Priuat Masse, where the wordes of M. D. Harding are these. Now this presupposed, D. Hard. in the 6. diuision pag. 13. that the Masse standeth vpon good and suf­ficient groundes, for the stay of all true Christen mens b [...]lefe, let vs co­me to our special purpose, and say somewhat of Priuat Masse. These words of M. D. Harding, do immediatly folow the former al­legatyons of Dyonise, Basill, Chrisostom, Clemēt, and Cyril­lus. Now what Vntrue dealing is this, to heape so many Vntruthes, vpon one false grounde to euidently appearing? God a­mende you M. Iewell, and sende you some shame or honesty, that you dissemble no more so impudently.

Harding. The feast is common. All be inuited.

Iewell. The 13. Vntruthe. They inuite no man.

Stapletō. The 17. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. For by order of the churche all be in­uited.Though the priest expressely inuiteth no man by worde or by gesture, yet the order of the Church, the sermons of the Priest, the counsel in Confessions do inuite al men to frequēt the holy Sacrament. In this sence it is true that all be inuited. In this sence wrote D. Harding. Of any wordes off the Priest or gesture of the Deacon in the seruice of the Masse he meant not, nor spake not. Now M. Iewell, bicause he will ima­gine no other inuiting but this, he calleth it a manifest Vntruthe, that all be inuited. But to proue an Vntruthe in the Au­thor, yow must take the meaning of the Author, and not ap­point him what meaning yow list. So euery foole may comp­troll the wise.

Harding. They hauing quite abrogated the other two (Consecra­tion [Page 5] and Oblation) and not so much as once naming them in their bookes of seruice.

Iewell. The .14. Vntruthe. The Sacrifice is specially named in the Commu­nion booke: And in the masse it selfe consecration is not named.

Stapletō. The Sacrifice of Christes body and bloud,The 18. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. as in the last Sup­per our Sauiour first offred it, the Oblatiō of the holy Myste­ries, in the Cōmunion booke, is neither named, nor practised. The sacrifice of Christ on the crosse is mentioned. The sa­crifice of prayse and thankes geuing on Our parte, the offring vp of our selues, our soules and bodies to be a reasonable, holy, and liuely sacrifice to God, is in the Communion booke wel mētioned, if the Daily Sacrifice of the Church, the precious body and bloud of Christ, vnder the forme of bread and wine, were offred there also. By the which we offer in dede a Sacrifi­ce of prayse and thākes geuing vnto God, by the which we of­fer vnto God a reasonable holy and liuely Sacrifice, not our selues onely, but much more the most precious Body and Bloud of our Sauiour, and by that and with that our selues also. Without this Sacrifice to saye in your Communion booke, that ye offer a Sacrifice of thankes geuing, to saie that ye offer your sel­ues a liuely Sacrifice vnto God, it is but mockery with God and the Church: you doe damnably abuse your selues and the people. For M. Iewell, you omitt the Institution of Christ, and make one of your owne. Harken to the holy Fathers, to who­me you offer to yelde, and lerne that you do so.Lib. 2. Epist. 3. S. Ciprian sa­yeth. If Iesus Christ our Lorde and God he himselfe be the highe priest of God the Father, and he him selfe first offred a Sacrifice to God the Father and Cōmaunded the same to be done in the remēbraunce of him, surely that Priest doth truly perfourme the office of Christ who foloweth that, that Christ dyd, and thē doth offer a full Sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, if he so beginne to offer according as he [Page] seeth Christ to haue offred. What Sacrifice is that M. Iewel which Christ offred to God the Father and commaunded the same to be done in the remembraunce of him? Was it the Sacrifice vpon the Crosse? Did Christ commaunde the Church to Sa­crifice him on the Crosse in the remembraunce of him agai­ne? Was it not in his last Supper, that he commaunded vs to do in his remembraunce? Doth not S. Ciprian dispute there ex­pressely Cōtra Aquarios against such as would Cōsecrat the Sacramēt with only Water, prouing vnto them that they must v­se bothe Wine and Water, where you vse Wine only and no Water in your detestable Communion? Dothe he not expressely speake of the Sacrifice in the last Supper? Can you denie al this M. Iewell? Or will you yelde to this one Clere Sentence of so Auncient a Father so longe aboue the compasse of your 600. yeares?

Againe S. Ciprian saieth, That Priest doth truly perfour­me the office of Christ, Lib. 2. Epist. 3. who foloweth that that Christ did, and then doth offer a full Sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, if he so beginne to offer, according as he seeth Christ to haue offred. But what did Christ offer in the last supper? Let S. Cyprian in­struct vs. In the same place and epistle he saieth. Quis magis sacer­dos dei summi quàm dominus noster Iesus Christus qui sacrificium deo patri obtulit? & obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech ob [...]ulerat, id est, panem & vinum, suam scilicet corpus & sanguinem. Who is more the priest of God most highe, then our Lorde Iesus Christ, which offred a sacrifice to God the Father? And offred the same which Melchisedech offred that is, bread and wine, that is to saie his body and bloud.VVhat Sacrifice the Communion Booke lacketh. This is the Sacrifice which Christ offred in the last Supper. This Sacrifice the true Prie­stes of Christe doe offer in the church, and so as Christ himsel­fe offred. This sacrifice the Cōmuniō booke hath not, nameth not, vseth not. This sacrifice, this Oblation of the holy myste­ries, [Page 6] of Christes body and bloud S. Ciprian speaketh of. This Sacrifice M.D. Harding most truly saied that you haue abrogated. This Sacrifice most truly he saied that not ones you haue named it in your bookes of seruice. Goe now M. Iewell, and if ye wil note an Vntruth in M.D. Har. note not, as here you note, The Sacrifice is expressely named in the Communion booke. but note, This sacrifice is expressely named in the Communion boo­ke. And so shall yow in dede make a great manifest Lie on your owne part, and finde no Vntruthe at al in M.D. Harding. For alas it is to true, that you haue not the Sacrifice of the church in your Communiō booke. Alas it is to true that damnably yow haue omitted Christes Institution. Cursedly you deceaue the people, and most miserably [...]yow condem­ne your owne selues. Other Fathers that doe witnesse an externall Sacrifice which in the Communion booke is vtterly lefte out and omitted, when I come to the 34. Vntruthe, I shall haue more occasion to recite. As touching Consecration, S. Augustin saieth, speaking of the blessed Sacrament, Certa Con­secratione fit nobis Mysticus panis. Contra Faustum Mani­chae. Lib. 20. cap. 13. The Mysticall Breade is made vnto vs by a certaine and knowen Consecration. Such Con­secration the Cōmunion bokes haue not. And though in the Masse booke no mention thereof be made, yet the order the­reof being so many hundred yeres before taken, such speciall mention is not nowe nedefull or required. But the Commu­nion bookes containing a new order of the Ministration,In the commu­nion of England there is no con­secration of the Myste­ries. if therin they had vsed any Cōsecration at al, that being one principal parte of Christes Institution, they ought to haue expres­sed the same. Howbeit certaine it is not only by that they make no mention thereof, but also by that they geue the remnant of their bread to the dogges, that they vse no Consecration at all, but accompte it as very cōmon bread. Li­kewise the wine that is left, either the Minister drinketh it [Page] with his common meate, or if very litle remaineth, it is cast in the flowre, as Poynet a late pretēded bishop of Winchester did in an open Communion ministred in the Cathedrall Church of Winchester. By these their doinges, saie and pretende what they lift in wordes, all the worlde seeth and knoweth, they vse no Consecratiō at al. For good and euident proof thereof I [...]e­ferre the studious Reader to the treatise of our lordes Supper lately sette forthe by D. Sanders: In the seconde booke the xiiij. Chapter it is proued that the figuratiue doctrine of M. Iewell and his felowes, can not stande with a Sacrament, which hath Consecration.

Harding. The number of communicants together in one place is no parte of Christes institution.

Iewell. The 15. Vntruthe. For S. Basill thinketh the number is parte of Christes institution. Exercitationis ad p [...]etatem Sermone 4.

Stapletō. Would God M. Iewell, as to proue the Institution of Christ you alleage onely the iudgement of S. Basill,The 19. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. and the 20. For S. Basill by the place alle­ged, is not pro­ued to thinke any such matter. so you would stande to his onely iudgement, or to the iudgement of the lerned Fathers in other matters. But S. Basill saieth no such thinge. This he saieth in the place by you alleaged. Spiritualis lex non pauciores quam duodecim esse vult, mysticum pastha come­dentes. The spirituall lawe admitteth no lesse then twelue to eate the mysticall passeouer. Now M. Iewell is this the Institu­tion of Christ, or is it not? If it be, why then do you in your Communion bookes take an expresse order that three may make a sufficient Communion? Why breake you the Institu­tion of Christ, in the very springe of your ghospel? If it be not the Institution of Christ, nor S. Basill meant no such thinge, why speake you so Vntruly, why saie you S. Basill thinketh the number is parte of Christes Institution? For other wordes tending to any such purpose, in al that Sermon he hath none. [Page 7] But S. Basill his meaning is this.The true meaning of. S. Pa­sils place alleaged by M. Ie­well. He willeth that such as take vpon them the contemplatiue life, should liue in some num­ber together and not vnder ten or twelue in a company, that their life and behauiour might be voide of all sinister suspi­cion. For that purpose he bringeth the exāple of the twelue at Christes maunde where that most holy mysteries were wrou­ght. But as touching the matter it selfe, whether a number of communicants be parte of Christes Institution, Brefely thus I saie. Christ gaue it to a number, Christ gaue it after meate, Christ gaue it at night time.That the nu [...]ber of Com­municāts is no par­te of christ [...]s Insti­tution. August. ad Ianua­rium. Epist. 118. You with vs do confesse the two later pointes to be no Partes of Christes Institution. You geue it neither after meate, neither at night time, but in the fore noone, and before all other meates. Why so? Forsothe bi­cause bothe you and we beleue as S. Augustin did, quòd si hoc monuisset Christus, eum morem nemo variasset: that if Christ had commaunded that, no man would haue chaunged that ma­ner. Wherein S. Augustin and we bothe haue left the fact of Christ, and folowed the tradition of the Church beleuing v­pon the custome of the Church, that the same fact of Christ was no Cōmaūdment. Right so M. Iewel bicause the Church of Christ so many hundred yeares hath celebrated this holy Sacrament without a number of communicāts, we beleue ve­rely that Christ neuer commaunded a number in this celebra­tion, and we beleue that if he had so commaunded, eum mo­rem nemo variasset, no man would haue chaunged that maner or order. This is our belefe M. Iewell grounded vpon the Do­ctrine of the Church: which we are assured by holy Scriptures (as I haue otherwheres at large proued) can not erre in the faith,In the Fortresse par. 1. Cap. 3.4. & seq. but must for euer (not only v. or vj. C. yeares as it shal please you to appoint) continew in sounde and vpright do­ctrine. Your opinion to the cōtrary procedeth by schismaticall departing from the Church.

[Page] Harding. Diuis. 8. The maner, number, and other rites of receiuing, is not fi­xed nor determined by the Institutiō of Christ, but ordred by the Churches disposition.

Iewell. The 16. Vntruthe. Christ appointed a number, although no cer­tain fixed numbre.Pag. 18.

Stapletō. The 21. Vntruthe Slaund. and the 22. For the num­ber is no part of Christes Institu­tion, as it shall yet farder ap­peare.If it be truly saied, Christ appointed no certain fixed numbre, why note you it for an Vntruthe, The number is not fixed by the Institution of Christ? What difference is there in those two say­inges? Or is the one true bicause M. Iewell saieth it, and the o­ther Vntrue bicause D. Harding saieth it?

But how proue you M. Iewel that Christ appointed a number, and yet no certain number, Bicause Christ saied Take ye, eate ye, drinke ye all, diuide ye amonge your selues, doe ye this in my remembraunce? All this was saied to a certain numbre, as to twelue. By these textes therefore, if these textes be a Commaundement, you must haue no lesse then twelue at a Com­munion. Now three by the Communion booke are suffici­ent. But as ye vrge al these textes, so we may vrge you, with vespere facto, Matt. 26. Caenantibus eis, discumbebat cum duodecim At eue­ning time, as they supped, he sate downe with the twel­ue, and so forth, we may vrge you I saye, with these, and saye, You breake Christes institution, You do it not at euening time, You do it not after supper, Luc. 22. Mar. 14. Mat. 26. You sitt not but knele at it, You haue so­metime lesse, sometime more then twelue to communicat, and those not all waies priests as the Apostles were. What answer you to this? Is not all this the Scripture? Is not all this writen of the Euange­listes? Is not all this reported in the ghospell euen in the very same place, where the rest of Christes Institutiō touching this blessed Sacrament is writen? Why then are not these partes al­so of Christes Institutiō, or why omitt you them as no partes thereof? Why is not the fact of Christ as well a Commaunde­ment, [Page 8] as his wordes, Diuide ye, &c? What can you saye here,The Pra­ctise of the C [...]urche. but that the Practise of Christes Church hath declared that al these of time, and place be no substantiall Partes of Christes Institution, but Circumstances accidentall, and casull Cerimonies? Euen so we answer you that the Church also hath decla­red vs by the Practise of many hundred yeares, the number to be no part of Christes Institution. We answer I saie, that as no certain numbre (as you confesse) is appointed by Christ, so no number at all is by him necessarely prescribed. Bothe these pointes we lerne of the Church, expounding to vs the Scripture when it is a Commaundement and when it is not. The one of these you haue also lerned of the Church, the other you ler­ne of your selues, and of your late vpstert masters of Germa­ny and Geneua against the church. I saie the church of these last ix. C. yeres by your owne confession,In the fortresse par. 1. per to­tum. which is the true Church of Christ no lesse then the first vj.C. yeares, as I haue proued vnto you out of holy Scripture otherwere.

Harding. Christes example importeth necessite off receiuing onely, the other rites, as number, place, Diuisi. 9. time &c. be of congruence and order.

Iewell. The 17. Vntruthe. For number is not only of Congruence but also of Institution.pag. 22.

Stapletō. The 23. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. That the number of Com­municāts is no par­te of Christes Institu­tion. Iewell. Pag. 202. Though this Vntruthe serueth but to make vp the score, as being the same with the last Vntruthe noted before, yet bi­cause M. Iewell standeth so gladly on this grounde, we will trie farder what sure holdefast he hath to staie him self thereon. I aske of M. Iewell, why is the number more a parte of Christes Institution, then a certain number, then time, and place? He saieth Christ hath by speciall wordes appoynted a number to receiue, when he saied, diuide ye amonge your selues, take ye, eate ye, breake ye, do ye this &c, All this sayeth he, importeth a nūber of necessite. I answer. First all this was saied to the Apostles as to prie­stes. [Page] For none but Priestes can do that which Christ did, none 1 but Priestes can minister the holy Sacrament as Christ then 2 did. Againe a number receiueth daily thourough out the who­le Church of Christ, a number eateth, breaketh, and dothe that which Christ did. And so the commaundement of a number 3 is fulfilled. Last of al this is in dede the example of Christ, that in his blessed Supper, a number did communicat. But this is no commaundement of Christ that for euer a number should in like maner cōmunicat together. He saied: Hoc facite, doe ye this, bicause they were then made priestes that should so do, he saied not Sic facite, do ye after this sorte as ye see I haue done. For thē not only the number, but also the time, and the maner in all pointes ought precisely and inuiolably to haue ben obserued.

Ievvell. Pag. 22. The ob­iection. The An­swer.Well, saieth M. Iewell, it was a commaundement, and that appeareth well for that the Apostles and holy Fathers of the primiti­ue Church practised it so. Well saie we, it was no commaunde­ment, and that appeareth well for that the Apostles succes­sours and holy Fathers of many a more hundred yeares did practise it otherwise. I meane the bishops and priestes of the church of Christ these ix.C. yeares. What ende now shall there be of this controuersie? You appeale to the first 600. yeares for example of a number. I appeale to the later ix.C. yeares for the contrary. You saie the first 600. yeares kept the true Institution of Christ. And I saye the later ix. C. yeares kept the same also. No saie you, these later times haue broken the Institution off Christ. For thus you saye in the text.pagina 22. & 23.

Iewell. Christ sayed not do this in Hierusalem, or in this parler, or after supper, or at this table,The re­plie. or being so many together, or standing, or sitting. But he saied thus. Do ye this, that is, take ye bread, blesse it, breake it, geue it, in my remembrance. This is not a Ceremonial accident, but the very ende, purpose, and substance of Christes Institution.

How thē?The An­swer. Must a nūber take it, blesse it, breake it, and geue it, in one place at ones? Thē you must haue not onely a numbre to receiue at ones, but also a nūber to Minister the cōmuniō at [Page 9] ones. For as to Take it, pertaineth to a number of Communi­cants, so to Blesse it, to Breake it, to Geue it, pertaineth to a nū ­ber of Ministers, and Priestes, not to all that communicat.

But to the matter brefely I saie. The approuing of the bre­ache of Christes Institution is a damnable errour. No damna­ble errour coulde haue ben allowed in the vniuersall churche these ix. C. yeares. Ergo the breache of Christes Institution could not possibly be approued these ix. C . yeares in the vni­uersall church of Christ.In the Fortresse &c. par. 1. The minor or seconde proposition is proued abundantly out of the psalmes, the prophets, and the ghospell, otherwhere. The maior you can not denie. So the conclusion is vnuincible. What then? Forsothe then it remai­neth, that neither the first 600. yeares in the communion of a nūber, neither the later ix.C. yeares, in the Sole Receiuing off the priest, which you cal Priuat Masse, did breake Christes In­stitution. Bicause the churche can not vniuersally erre at all, much lesse for anye continuance of time. This being so, it re­maineth clere, that the number of communicants is no parte of Christes Institution, nor commaundement of Christ.

Harding. Diuis. 8. In whiche thinges the Church hathe taken ordre, willing and charging that all shall communicat that be worthy and disposed.

Iewell. The 18. vntruthe. The Church of Rome hath taken no such ordre.

Stapleton. The 25. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The daily and continuall Practise of the church of Rome, repelling none, that are worthy and disposed, declareth suche Order to haue ben taken. Yea the churche hath taken expresse order that ones in the yere at the lest all faithefull persons shall communicat. Againe the embarring of this holy sacrament from excommunicated persons, from notorious offenders, and open penitents, declareth that to other not so excommunica­ted, not such notorious offenders, not yet continuing in their enioyned penaunce, this holy sacrament is not embarred, but is [Page] free and open to be receyued of such as desire it. Touching the first, if any well disposed person were euer repelled from the blessed sacrament, let M. Iewell proue it, and then shall he pro­ue his Vntruthe. Touching the later, al Canōs and Decrees, yea euen the Practise of the Protestants thē selues in their preten­sed religiō, doth witnesse it. True it is therefore, that seing none Worthy are repelled, and only the Vnworthy by decree is re­pelled, that for the admitting alwaies of the worthy the Chur­che hath taken order.

Harding. Diuis. 10 It is not called communion, bicause many or as M. Iewell teacheth, the whole Congregation communicateth together in one place, but bicause of the effect of the Sacrament, &c.

Iewell. pag. 25. The .26. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The .19. Vntrueth. For of communicating together it was called Communio.

Stapleton. The .27. Vntruthe in abryd­ging D. Hardings wordes.Yea forsothe, but not of communicating together in one place. These wordes in One place, you leaue out to make an Vn­truthe where none is. For as we all confesse the worde Com­munion to be vsed of the Fathers, for the communicating to­gether, either of eche of vs with and amonge our selues, or off vs all with God by the knot of this most heauenly Sacrament, So that this cōmunicating together ought of Necessite to be of the Whole Congregation in One place, that M.D. Harding denieth, that the Fathers neuer saied, that you can neuer proue M. Iewell. In that sence the worde Communion is not taken.

Harding. diuis. 10. Thus we see S. Hierom and S. Augustine were of one Communion, and did communicat together, although they we­re farre asunder.

Iewell. pag. 26. The .28. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The .20. Vntruthe: Rising of the ambiguite or doubtfull taking off this worde Communion.

Stapleton. If this worde Communion be (as you confesse) ambiguous, if it signifie sometime A consent of religion (as after in the texte you saie pag. 28.) then yet vpon your owne confession it will [Page 10] folowe, that saint Hierom and saint Augustine who consented in religion, were of one communion together, and commu­nicated together, in that sence of the worde Communion, and so is it by your confession no Vntruthe that in a sence they we­re of one Communion, and Communicated together. For as you knowe, that saying is not Vntrue, which in any one sence or meaning is True. You could not therfore iustly, note this for an Vntruthe, being but of the minde that you are. But now D. Hardinges saying is so True, that he saieth no more then S. Hierom him selfe saied and professed. That is, that S. Augu­stin was Episcopus communionis sua, In epist. ad Augustin. A bishop of his Commu­nion. If saint Augustin were a bishop of saint Hieroms Com­munion, which saint Hierom him selfe saieth,M. Iewell noteth that for an vntru­the in D. Hardinge which is the very saying of S. Hierō. then were saint Austen and saint Hierom of One communion, which D. Harding saieth. If then this be an Vntruthe which D. Harding sa­ieth, then is it also an Vntruthe that S. Hierom saied. Go no­we M. Iewel and note a number of Vntruthes vpo [...] saint Hie­roms workes, and let this stande for one, as truly as you haue noted D. Harding therfore. Againe as they were of One Communion, so they communicated bothe together: Whe­rein M, Iewell? In religion and faith only? If they did so on­ly, yet thē were it true that they Communicated together.Howe S. Hierom and S. Augustin cō municated toge­ther thoughe the one neuer sawe the other. For in this sence they Communicated. But nowe not only so. For they were saied to be of One Communion, bicause they com­municated together in the blessed Sacrament. All Catholikes in that sence were saied to be of one communion. Heretikes M. Iewell, in that sence were not of one communion with the Catholike Fathers. Heretikes neuer communicated together with the Catholikes in the Churche. A clere and moste mani­fest example of this, is the daily Excommunicatian vsed in Christes Churche. For what is Excommunication but embar­ring from communicating in the Churche with other Chri­stians? But as one excommunicated in London, if he be iustly [Page] excommunicated, is excommunicated not only in Londō, but through all England, yea and through all Christendom beside (as longe as in Religion Englande ioyneth with the reste of Christendō) so he that cōmunicateth in London, and is of one communion with the faithfull people of London, he commu­nicateth also with al England, and all Christendom beside, and is of one communion with them all. So were saint Hierom and saint Augustin of one communion, so they communicated to­gether, though they neuer receiued the sacrament together, in all their life time, but liued in farre distant countries the one from the other, the one in Afrike, the other in Palestine.

Harding. diuis. 11. The priest after that he hath receiued the Sacrament in the Church, taketh his naturall sustenance, and dineth, and then being called vpon, carieth the rest a mile or two to the sicke, in eche house none being disposed to receiue withe the sicke, he doth that he is required, (21) doth he not in this case commu­nicat with them, and do not they communicat one with an other, rather hauing a will to communicat togeather in one place also, if oportunite serued?

Iewell. The .29. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The .21. Vntruthe. M. Harding saieth, the priest doth communicat and not cōmunicat bothe together. Which is a cōtradiction in nature.

Stapleton. D. Harding saieth, the priest hauing saied Masse, doth Com­municat with the sicke persons Receiuing their Housell after his masse, bicause they communicat the precious Body and Bloud of Christ, whereby they are made one in Christ, and betwene them selues. Againe he saieth, they do not communi­nicat for all that in One Place together. So in the first they haue a Communion. In the seconde they haue none. In one sence they haue, in an other they haue not. This is M. Iewell no contradiction in nature, nor yet in reason, and therfore no Vntruthe at all on D. Hardings parte. You know M. Iewell by [Page 11] your logike. Omnis Contradictio est ad idem. Euery cōtradiction is about one selfe thing.

Harding. If this might not be accompted as a laufull and good Com­munion, either people shoulde be denied that necessary vitaile of life at their departing hence, which were a cruel iniury and a thinge contrary to the examples and godly ordonances of the primitiue Church, or the priest &c.

Iewell. The .30. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The 22. Vntruthe. This order was taken not for euery sicke party, but for persons excommunicat.

Stapleton. Con. Ni­ce. C [...]n. 12. Con. Carth.Such order was not taken for persons excommunicat, but for such as being before excommunicated, and after reconciled receiued it, being in sickenesse and daunger of death, as al other Christen men did, as appereth by the Canons made in this be­halfe. And who doubteth, but much more for sicke persons not excommunicate? Vnlesse the wisedom of M. Iewell will thinke the primitiue Church to haue graunted that benefitt to excommunicat persons, which to other not excommunicated was not graunted. Yes he saieth.Iewell. Pag. 32. The .31. Vntruthe Consi­sting in false Do­ctrine. Lib. 1. Epist. 2. Such reconciliation was thought ne­cessary at thende for solace of the party. Yea truly M. Iewell would haue this Sacrament to be but an outward Solace and Token of his Reconciliation amonge the faithfull. But Cum ad hoc fiat Eucharistia, vt sit accipientibus tutela, seing the Eucharist is therefore made, that it might be a sauegarde and protectiō to those which receiued it, as S. Cipriā saieth, therefo­re not only to excommunicat persons in time of Sicknesse for their reconciliation or Solace (as M. Iewell fancyeth) it was graunted, but also for their sauegard and protection. It was cal­led their Viaticum, their Vitail or foode of life, not only a Tokē of their reconciliation to the Church. This being the reason of the decree, it is to be thought the primitiue Church prouided not only for excommunicat persons, but also for euery sicke party which though not for the bonde of excōmunication, yet [Page] for other considerations might stande in nede of this blessed Sacrament no lesse then the other.

But what nede many wordes? M. Iewel him selfe confes­seth, that Christen folcke in their sickenesse had the Sacrament ordi­narely sent home vnto them.Pag .32. M. Ie­well is contrary to him selfe For the which he alleageth Iustinus Martyr Apolog. 2. If so M. Iewell, then to denie to sicke per­sons their housell, is contrary to the example and godly ordo­naunce of the primitiue church by your owne Cōfession, and the Authorite of Iustinus Martyr. Which is the thing that D. Harding saied, and you most vntruly and contrary to your selfe haue noted for an Vntruthe.

Harding. Diui. 12. Now if we excepte those thinges which be necessarely required to this Sacrament by Christes Institution, either de­clared by written Scriptures, or taught by the holy ghost, as bread and wine mingled with water for the matter &c.

Iewell. pag. 32. The .32. Vntruthe Slaund. The .23. Vntruthe. The mingling of wine and water together is nei­ther Catholike, nor necessary. Scotus.

Stapletō. The .33. Vntruthe auou­ching a clere he­resy. Cipria. li. 2. epi. 3.Yes forsothe this is Catholike and therefore it is necessary. That it is Catholike I proue by the cōsent of the Catholike Fathers of all coūtres in the primitiue church. In Afrike S. Cipriā B. of Carthage affirmeth it in these words. Copulatio & coniun­ctio aquae & vini sic miscètur in calice domini, vt commixtio illa non possit abinuicē separari. The coupling and ioyning togeather of Wine and Water is so mingled in the Cuppe of our Lorde, that the same mingling maye not be separated the one part from the other. And againe. Sic in sanctificando calice domini offerri aqua sola non potest, quomodo nec vinum solum potest. Nam si vinum tantum quis offerat, sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis. Si vero aqua sola, plebs incipit esse sine Christo. Quādo autem vtrū ­que miscetur, & adunatione confusa sibi inuicem copulatur, tunc sa­cramentum spirituale & caeleste perficitur. In sanctifying the cup­pe of our Lorde so water alone can not be offred, as neither wine alone can be offered. For if any offer wine alone, then the [Page 12] bloud of Christ beginneth to be without vs. But if Water be alone, the people beginneth to be without Christ.VVater must be mingled vvith vvine in the Sacrament. But whē bothe is mingled, and ioyned together, then the spirituall and heauenly Sacrament is perfyted. Thus much S. Cyprian and much more in that place disputing against those which vsed only water in consecrating the holy mysteries, teaching the Institutiō of Christ to be, that both Wine and Water be min­gled to the perfyting of that heauenly Sacrament. S. Augu­stin an Africane about two hundred yeares after S. Cyprian witnesseth this practise of Christes church in his time also.Li. de eccl. dogmat. Cap. 175. The seare his words. In Eucharistia nō debet pura aqua offerri, vt qui dā sobrietatis fallūtur imagine, sed vinū cum aqua mixtū. In the Euchariste Only water ought not to be offred, as some vnder the coulour of sobriete are deceiued,Ad Quod­uult deum haere. 64. but Wine mingled with Wa­ter. In an other place he reckoneth these in the rolle of hereti­kes, which offred Only water without Wine in the holy Sacrifice of Christes church. And against such heretikes the 3. Coū ­cell of Carthage vnto the which S. Augustin subscribed, made an expresse decree, not yet forbidding vtterly Water, but com­māding wine and water Both to be mingled together. These are the words of the decree.Con. 3. Carth. can. [...]4. Vt in sacramētis Corporis & Sāguinis domini nihil amplius offeratur, quàm ipse dominus tradidit, hoc est, panis & Vinum aquae mixtū. That in the Sacraments of the Bo­dy and Bloud of our Lorde, nothing elles be offred, then oure Lorde him selfe deliuered, that is, bread and wine mingled with Water. This the Councell decreed not as then a new In­stitution, but as a Tradition coming from Christ him selfe. Thus we see in Afrike in S. Cyprians and S. Augustins time, the mingling of Water and Wine in the blessed Sacramēt was accompted Catholike and necessary. In Fraunce how the Sa­crament was there celebrated, let Ireneus a very auncient wri­ter and nigh vnto the Apostles wtnesse. Writing of this bles­sed Sacrament, and by the verite of Christes body and bloud [Page] here in, prouing the verite of his true flesh and bloud walking here on earth, he hath these wordes. Quando & mixtus Calix, & factus panis percipit verbum dei, fit Eucharistia corporis & sangui­nis Christi, Irenaeus Lib. 5. ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia. that is. Whē the mingled Cuppe, and the made bread receaueth the worde of God, it is made the Euchariste of the Body and Bloud of Christ, of the which the substāce of our flesh is aug­mented and cōsisteth. The Mingled Cuppe that Ireneus spea­keth of, cānot be meāt of any other, thē of wine mingled with water. Of such a cōmixtion in the blessed Sacrament a Coun­cell holden in Fraunce aboue vnleuen hundred yeares past mencioneth. In Italy what the practise of the primitiue church was, by two witnesses it shall appere. Alexander the fift Pope of Rome after S. Peter, writeth thus, not as a new decree of his owne,Concil. Auraicense Can. 17. but as he saieth, vt a patribus accepimus, as we haue receaued it frō the Fathers. Repulsis opinionum superstitionibus, panis tantum & vinum aqua permixtum in sacrificio offerantur. Laying aside all other superstitious opinions,Epi. 1. To. 1. Conc. let only bread and wine Mingled with water be offred in the Sacrifice. S. Ambrose no Pope but a lerned and blessed B. of Millain, wri­teth thus.Lib. 5. de Sacramēt. Cap. 1. Diximus quòd in altari constituitur Calix, & panis. In Calicem, inquit, mittitur vinum: Et quid aliud? Aqua. Sed tu mihi dicis. Quomodo ergo Melchisedech panem & vinum obtulit? Quid sibi vult admixtio aquae? Rationem accipe. Primo omnium figura &c. that is. We saied before that vpon the aultar is put a Cuppe and bread. In to the Cuppe, saieth he, wine is putt. And what elles? Water. But thou saiest vnto me. How then did Melchise­dech offer bread and wine?Two causes geuen by S. Ambrose of Mingling the VVa­ter with VVine in the B. Sa­crament. VVhat meaneth this Mingling of water? Harken to the Reason. First of all the figure, and so for­the, where S. Ambrose at large geueth ij causes of mingling VVater with wine in the blessed Sacrament: The one to an­swer to the figure of the Water running out of the rocke, stric­ken by Moyses, which was Christ, that is, betokened Christ. An [Page 13] other, that as water and bloud ranne out of the side of Christ on the Crosse, bothe to redeme and to cleanse mankinde, so in this blessed Sacrifice being an expresse resemblance of Christes passion, Wine and Water be offred vp to perfit the Sacrament of Christes bloud. Thus now we haue Catholi­ke witnesses of the primitiue Church in Italy, Fraunce, and Afrike, touching the Mingling of Water with wine in these holy mysteries. In Spaine also wi [...]hin the compasse of M. Ie­welles 600. yeares,Conc. Braca [...] [...]. Can. 1. we reade the same confirmed in a Councel holden at Braccara, and the very wordes of S. Ciprian aboue alleaged, brought in. Iewell. But (saieth M. Iewell) Scotus and In­nocentius witnesse that the Greke Church in their time vsed it not.

Is it come to that M. Iewell?pag. 34. Must we trie our Catholike faith, doctrine, and euen the meanest cerimonies by the con­sent of the first 600. yeares, and will you proue a doctrine not Catholike by the practise of certain countres litle more then 300. yeares past?M. Ievvel claimeth by here­tikes. For about that time liued Innocentius and Scotus. At that time the grekes as they had many other er­rours, so no maruail if they had this also. And you do but your kinde to disproue the Catholike seruice by the exāple of here­tikes. For the greke Church, M. Iewell, in the first 600. yeares remaining yet Catholike and vnder the obedience of the See of Rome, vsed this Mingling of Wine and Water as all the west Church did. You shall heare the lerned Fathers of the greke Church and of that time to saie so. First in the Greke Synods kept about a thousand yeares agoe, and gathered by Martinus bishop of Braccara in Spaine within the com­passe of M. Iewelles 600. yeares we reade thus.In capituli [...] g [...]acarum Synodorū. Cap. 55. Non oportet aliquid aliud in sanctuario offerri, praeter panem & vinum & a­quam, quae in typum Christi benedicuntur, quia de corpore eius dum in cruce penderet sanguis effluxit & aqua. Nothing must be of­fered in the holy place beside bread and Wine and Water, which are blessed for the remembraunce of Christ: bicause [Page] while he hanged on the Crosse, bloud and Water rāne out of his Body. Iustinus Martyr a greke writer and very nigh the A­postles, calleth this part of the Sacramēt (as M. Iewell cōfesseth and mēcioneth him selfe) [...].Iustinus Apolog. 2. The Cup­pe of water and mixture. Why, but bicause in the holy mi­nistration Water was mingled in the Cuppe with wine? S. Ba­sill in his Liturgie and masse Mingleth Water and wine in the Consecration of the holy mysteries,S. Basill. saying at the Conse­cration time these wordes, Similiter & calicem de genimine vi­tis accipiens, miscens, gratias agens, benedicens, sanctificans, &c. Ta­king in like maner the Cuppe, of the frute of the Vine, Min­gling it, geuing thankes, blessing it &c. S. Iames the Apostle in his Lyturgie or Masse at the Consecration time recording the fact of Christ,S. Iames. hath these wordes. Similiter post quam caena­uit, accipiens calicem, & permiscens ex vino & aqua, & caet. In like maner after he had supped, taking the Cuppe and Mingling it with Wine and Water, & caet. By the which wordes of S. Ia­mes and S. Basill affirming that Christ him selfe mingled Wine with Water in his blessed Supper, we beleue verely he did so, though no mention thereof be made in the ghospell. Especially considering the consent of the Fathers, aboue al­leaged, S. Cyprian, Alexander the fifte Pope after S. Peter, the 3. Councell of Carthage wherat S. Augustin was present, who al affirme that it came from Christ him selfe, that in this bles­sed Sacrament, Water shoulde bê Mingled with Wine.

Last of all Gregory bishopp of Nissa S. Basill his brother, Chrysostom vpon the Ghospell of S. Iohn, Homil. 84. and Theophilact repeting the very wordes of Chrysostom in his commentaries vpon S. Iohn do note this maner of Christes Church mingling water with wine in these holy Mysteries.In serm. ea techetico a­pud Euthy [...]nium lib. 2. Pano pliae tit. 21. In cap. 19. Theophilact a greke writer about 800. yeares past in the same place toucheth the Armenians for mingling water with wine in these wordes. [...] [Page 14] [...]. Let the Armeniās be here cōfounded, whi­che mingle not water with wine in the Mysteries. These Arme­niās for this matter also were pronounced heretikes in the sixt generall Councell holden in Trullo. By this it appeareth, I trust,Cap. 32. M. Iewell that the mingling of water and wine is allowed for Catholike and therfore necessary. If at the lest the diffinitiō of a generall Councell, and the consent of so many fathers from so many places of Christendom, may proue any thing to be Catholike: To you M. Iewel, especially, which offer to yelde to the Sentence of any One olde Father, or generall Councell in a number of matters of as litle importance as this is. By this also it appeareth that you M. Iewell, and all the newe clergy of of England by not Mingling water with wine, do against the clere and vniuersall Practise of the primitiue Church, do holde the heresye of the Armenians, and of the late grekes also if you will, do also breake a part of Christes Institution, as you haue heard. Finally by this it appeareth, the saying of D. Harding not only to be no Vntruthe, but also your opinion to the con­trary to be a Clere Heresy.

Harding. And therfore that one may Communicat with an other, diuis. 14. thoughe they be not together in one place, and that it was thought lawfulll and good by the Fathers of the auncient Church neare to the Apostles time, it may be well proued by diuerse good Authorities.

Iewell. pag. 38. The .34. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The .24. Vntruthe. There appeareth no such thinge in any auncient Father.

Stapletō. Howe true this Vntruthe is, we shall see by the wordes off the Fathers immediatly folowing, alleaged by D. Harding.

Harding. Diuis. 15. Irenaeus his wordes be these. The Priestes (by whiche name in this place bishops are vnderstanded) that vvere a­fore thy time, though they kept not Easter as they [Page] of Asia did,Euseb lib. 5 cap. 24. [...]ist. eccles. yet vvhen the Bishops of the Churche there, came to Rome, did sende them the Sacra­ment 25. Thus those Bishops did communicat togeather before their meting in one place.

Iewel. pag. 30. The .25. Vntruthe. Ireneus sayeth not, they did Communicat to­geather.

Stapletō. The 35. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.No Sir: He saieth not so in these wordes alleaged. But he meaned euen so, and brought it to proue a Communion, as by the whole processe it shall nowe appeare. Thus was the case. The bishoppes of Asia dissented from Victor pope of Rome in obseruing the feast of Easter.Eusebius hist. [...]cc [...]es. li [...]. 5. cap. 24. The pope (sayeth Eusebius who writeth this historye, and out of whom the wordes off I­reneus are taken) totius Asiae ac vicinarum prouinciarum Eccle­sias, à Communionis societate abscindere nititur. Goeth aboute to excommunicat the Churches of all Asia and the prouinces ad­ioyning. This seuerite of the Pope liked not other bishops, sa­ieth Eusebius, and amonge the rest Irenaeus a vertuous bishop then of Lyons in Fraunce writeth to Victor the Pope thereof and complaineth of his seuerite. Amonge other reasons, whe­reby he persuadeth the Pope not to excommunicat those bis­hops of Asia, but to admitt them to his Communion, he bringeth in the Examples of his Predecessours, the Popes before him, who all notwithstanding that diuersite did yet Commu­nicat with them. For proufe whereof, he saieth, when such ca­me [...]o Rome, the Pope sent vnto them the blessed Sacrament. whereby he declared to all the worlde that he communicated with thē. This was the Reason of Irenaeus to Victor the Pope persuading him to communicat with the bishoppes of Asia as his predecessours had done before him. For thus he reasoned. Your predecessours Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus and Xystus did communicat with forrain bishops, notwithstanding this diuersite of opinion in obseruing the feast of Easter, Therefore you ought not now so sharpely to excommunicat them. They dis­sented [Page 15] from your predecessours in this opinion, Nunquam ta­men ob hoc repulsi-sunt ab-ecclesiae societate, Yet they were neuer for that matter remoued from the felowship of the Church. How shew you that Ireneus? How proue you they were neuer remoued or repelled from the felowship of the Church? It foloweth immediatly. Eucharistiam illis mittebant. They sent vnto them the Sacrament. What? Was this sending of the Sacrament any Token or Argumēt of their Cōmunicating together? Yea trul [...]. Or els did Ireneus reason weakely and persuade wrongeful­ly and vtterly beside the purpose, with Victor the pope. But an easier matter it is to let M. Iewell be ouersene in this Vntruthe a [...] he hath ben hetherto in all the rest, then to marre the reason of Irenaeus so lerned, and famous a writer, writing in so earnest a cause, and to such a person as the Pope was. By this it appea­reth though Ireneus saie not expressely, they did communicat together, to whom the Sacrament was so sent, yet vndoubtedly he meaned so and reasoned so. Thus not only this Vntruthe is proued true, but also which went next before, where M. Iewell very boldly s [...]ied, that there appeared no such Cōmunicating together in sundry places, in any ancient Father. For now we haue one at the lest, in whom such a Communion appeareth. Let vs now considre an other.

Harding. Diui. 16. Apologi­a. 2. Iustinus Martyr saieth thus, VVhen the priest hath made an ende of thankes and praìers, and all the people thereto haue saied, Amen, they vvhich vve call deacons, geue to euery one then present, bre­ad and vvater and vvìne Consecrated to take par­te of it for their housell, and for those that be not present, they beare it home to thē. Thus in that time they that serued God together in the common place of praier, [Page] and some others that were absent, letted from coming to their compaine by sickenesse, busynes, or otherwise, communicated together though not in one place.

Iewell. pag. 41. The .36. Vntruthe Slaund.The .26. Vntruthe. Iustinus speaketh not one worde of communica­ting together.

Stapletō. What then M. Iewell? Ergo they did not Communicat to­gether? How foloweth this reason? How holdeth your argu­ment proceding negatiuely? But Iustinus saieth. The Sacra­ment was sent vnto them that were at home. Ergo they which were at home did cōmunicat with them which receiued in the Church or place of common praier. How saye you? Did they or did they not? If they did, then is D. Hardinges saying true. If they did not, then either they receiued the Sacrament at home without any Cōmunion at all, or els they had a seuerall Com­munion by them selues at home.A Com­munion in distin­ction of places is proued. If they had a seuerall Com­munion by them selues at home, then were there two Com­munions one day in one parishe, one in the Church of such as receiued there, an other at home of such as receiued in their houses. Let now M. Iewell chose, whether he will graunt that they which receiued at home communicated with the other and made but one Communion with the rest which Communicated in the Church (as M.D. Harding saieth, and as truthe is they did) or els that, they in the Church made one Com­munion by them selues, and they at home an other seuerall Communion also. For so shall we haue by M. Iewells confes­sion two Cōmunions in one parish vpon one day, which is as much as ij Masses in one parish in one day. The thinge which he stoutely denieth in an other Article. If they which receiued their housel at home receiued it without a Communion at all, then the priuat housell of sicke persons at home, though none Communicat with them, is proued by this example of the pri­mitiue Church. A Thinge cōtrary to the doctrine of M. Iewell and his felowe protestants in the Communion booke.

[Page 16] Harding. Diuis. 17. Lib. 2. ad vxorem. Tertullian saieth thus. Non sciet maritus quid secre to ante omnem cibum cibum gustes? Et si scierit, panem, non illum credet este qui dicitur. VVill not thy husband knowe what thou eatest secretly before al other meate? And if he do knowe, he will beleue it to be bread, and not him who it is called.

Iewell. Pag. 43. The. 37. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The .27. Vntruthe. The translation wilfully corrupted. It, violently turned into, him.

Stapleton. No Vntruthe at all, no wilfull corruption, no violent tran­slation M. Iewel, in al these wordes. But rather a more distinct and euident translation, the better to expresse the Authors minde. For the worde illum, though it be referred as you would haue it to Panem Bread, yet it signifieth not materiall bread, such as the baker maketh, but it signifieth, that bread which ca­me downe from heauen, it signifieth that Bread,Ioan. 6. which geueth life to him that eateth, of it. This Bread is Christ him selfe. It may therefore well and truly be translated not only, it, that is, that Bread, that I saye, which came downe from heauen, which ge­ueth life to the receiuer thereof, but also him, that is, Christ. For bothe come to one. Whether you translate, illum, it, that Heauenly and lifegiuing Bread, or him, that is Crist, which is heauēly and lifegiuing bread. Thus there was no cause to note an Vntruthe (but if it were to make vp a numbre) or to crie vpon Wilfull corruption, or Violent translating of one worde for an other, Seing bothe wordes meane one thinge, being tru­ly and sincerely taken.

Harding. He who it is saide to be of Christen people, or who it is cal­led, that is our Maker and Redemer, or which is the same, oure Lordes bodie.

Iewell. The .38. Vntruthe Slaund.The 28. Vntruthe. The Sacrament was neuer called our maker or Redemer by any of the olde Fathers.

[Page] Stapletō. What then if no olde Father euer wrote so? How is this an Vntruth on D. Hardinges part? Doth he saie, the olde Fathers called it so? No Sir: he saieth no such thinge. But that the Christē people called it so. And not precisely in such termes, but which is the same, our Lordes Body. Now M. Iewell, thinke you it an Vntruthe to saie, that in Tertullians time Christen folcke or the olde Fathers called, that bread, the B [...] ­dy of Christ, and so consequently our Maker and Redemer? Tertullian him selfe saieth of that bread. Pan [...]m illum Corpus suum fecit. Lib. 4. contra Marcionē. He made that Bread his Body. If Christ made it so as Tertullian saieth, thinke you M. Iewel it was not called so of the Christen people, as D. Harding saieth? But what saieth our Sauiour himselfe in the gospell? Doth not he saie of that Bread which he toke in his handes, which he brake and bles­sed This is my Body?Luc. 22. Doth he not in these wordes call it, his body? Thinke you M. Iewell Christen people did not so call it also? If Christ so called it him selfe, and Tertullian after him in expresse wordes witnessed it, how is it an Vn­truthe so to expounde Tertullians wordes, as bothe him selfe otherwere expressely speaketh, and as Christ him selfe in the ghospell pronounceth? But you stande vpon the­se wordes. Maker and Redemer. Why M. Iewell? What diffe­rence is there betwene Christes Body, and our Maker and Redemer? Is Christes Body any other then Christ him selfe? Doth not Christ saie of his owne flesh to be eaten of the Christians, Qui manducat me, viuit propter me? He that eateth me,Ioan. 6. liueth thourough me? If then Christen people receiuing the Body of Christ, do receiue Christ him selfe, if Christ him selfe be our Maker and Redemer, how is this Vntrue, that this most Blessed Sacrament is called of the Christen people their Maker and Redemer? How the aunciē [...] Fathers haue so called it, which here D. Harding saied not, and therefore you do but peuishly, to builde your Vntruthe vpon that reason, it shall he­reafter [Page 17] be sene vpō the Vntruthes of the xxj. Article. For there it is proued out of the Fathers that it was called our Lorde and God, which is as much as our Maker and Redemer. You maye not M. Iewell Miscere in len [...]e vnguenium, confounde questions together.

Harding. Omnes in Eremis solitariam vitam agentes,Diuis. 18. v­bi non est sacerdos, Communionem domi ser­uantes, à seipsis communicant. All they which liue a solitary life in wildernesse, where no priest is to be had, kee­ping the Communion at home, do communicat with them selves alone.

Iewell. pag. 47. The .39. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. The 29. Vntruthe. M. Harding hath corrupted the translation. These wordes (with them selues alone) are not in S. Basill.

Stapleton. No are M. Iewell? What then meaneth that greke which you your selfe after do put in the margin of your text? These wordes I saie, what meane they? [...]. Mary saie you, Iewell. Pag. 49. The .40. Vntruthe For it, may not be well so vnder­standed.the english is, They receiue of them selues. VVhich say you may well be vnderstanded, that one of them receiued of an other for wtte of a priest. It may so be vnderstāded, you say. Then it may also otherwise, I saye. But that not only it may, but ought also otherwise to be vnderstanded then you saie, I proue. These Eremites came not one at an other. But liued, as S. Basil sayth, a Sole life. For betwene Eremites and Monkes this was the difference that the one liued as Anchorets did, vtterly without company. The other liued by great numbers vnder one Fa­ther. As it appeareth well by S. Augustin and S. Basill him sel­fe other where. Therefore receiuing at home,Aug. Lib. de moribus eccles. Cath. c. 31. Bas. in Asceticis. they receiued of them selues alone. But how then is the greke truly tran­slated? Forsothe well enough M. Iewell. For that preposition in Greke [...], doth not allwaies signifie of or from, but so­metime per, by and with it selfe alone.Xe [...]ophō in Cyro. As where we reade in Xenophon, [...]. It is in Latin [Page] truly translated, per se potens prodesse, a man able to doe good by him self alone. And so hath D. Hard. expressed truly, the greke [...]. VVi [...]h them selues alone. It semeth you were not vtterly ignorant hereof your selfe: And therefore you saie in your text,I [...]well. pag. 49. th [...]t you will not greatly striue aboute it. Yet must you nedes note it for an Vntruthe, to make vp a number, specially in this first Article, that so euen at the first you might discre­dit your aduersary for euer. Done, like a true Rhetoriciā M. Ie­wel but not like a good Diuine, and searce like an honest mā.

Harding. In this saying of Basill, it is to be noted. First that neces­site here hath respect to the lacke of Priest and Deacon. So as (30) in that case the Sacrament might be receaued of a faithfull person with his owne hande.

Iewell. The .41. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The 30. Vntruthe. S. Basill saieth. The Communicant receiued with his owne hand euen in the presence of the Priest.

Stapletō. The Lewdenesse of you M. Iewell, hath no measure. The wordes of S. Basill saie two thinges. First this they saie. As concerning this, that it is no greuous offence for one to be driuen by necessite in times of persecutiō,The lew­de dea­ling of M. Iewel.to receiue the Communion with his owne hande no Priest nor Deacon being present, it is a thinge super­fluous to declare, for that by longe custome and practise it hath ben confirmed and taken place. These are the wordes of S. Basill which D. Harding alleaged, and vpon the which he noteth most truly, that in the lacke of Priest and Deacon, in that case I saie, the Sacrament might be receiued of a faithfull person with his owne hāde. The other wordes of S. Basill mēcioning of an other sorte of common people, not Eremites, which in the Church taketh it in their owne handes euen in the pre­sence of the Priest, are not noted by D. Harding in this place, but in the former, as I said. You haue done therefore most Lewdely in so clere wordes of S. Basil to note an Vntruth on D. Hardings part, You should haue marked, that though S. Ba­sill [Page 18] saie of some in the Later Part of his sentence that in the presence of the priest the Communicants receiued with their owne handes, yet he saieth of other before in the Former part that no priest nor Deacō being present they receiued the Cōmunion with their owne handes. You should also haue marked that D. Harding noteth the First maner spoken of by S. Basill, not the Later, as his wordes folowing do Clerely declare, where he saieth. Harding. And that for the ratyfying of so doing he alleageth conti­nuance of custome. For, this Custome S. Basill alleageth in the Maner of the Eremites, which receiued Alone M. Iewell, not in the Maner of those which Receiued in the Church in the presence of the Priest, as his words aboue allea­ged do declare. Thus you should haue marked, if you had minded to deale Truly. But you wil be allwaies like your self. Lewde, False, and Vntrue. God amende you M. Iewell, and geue yow grace ones to be Honest, True, and Plaine Dea­ling.

Harding. the 21. di­uision. Euen in the Church of Rome it selfe (13.) where the true Religion hath euer ben most exactly obserued aboue al other places of the worlde.

Iewell. pag. 56. The .42. and 43. Vntru­thes both Slaunde­rous. For Rome is nowe th [...] Mother of VertueThe .31. Vntruthe. Rome is now become the Mother of Fornica­tion. Apocal. 17.

Stapletō. M. Iewel­les Argu­ments.From wanton Lewdenesse you procede to Rayling Ribaul­dry. You note it for an Vntruthe that true Religion hath euer ben exactly obserued in Rome. But how disproue you this v­niuersall proposition? You saie. It is nowe become the Mother of fornication. How holdeth this argument M. Iewell, you that haue framed so many lewde arguments against D. Hardinge, such as he neuer dreamed of?

Rome is the Mother of Fornication.

Ergo she lacketh true Religion.

[Page]The fondnesse of this Argument maye be tried by the like.

Englande is full of vice.

Ergo it lacketh true religion. Or this.

Certain of the bishop of Sarisbury his mē are f [...]ōs and murderers.

Ergo, The Bishop of Sarisbury hathe no true Religion.

Is this Argument good M. Iewell? Verely as your Religion can not iustly be disproued, bicause some of your houshoul­de cōmit Felony and Murder, so can not now the Religion of Rome be proued naught or Vntrue, bicause in that Cyte For­nication is vsed.Fol. 161. Touching this matter M. Iewell, you haue the answere of D. Hardinge in the Confutation of youre Apolo­gie more at large. Answere to that, and then proue this Ar­gument good. But what maketh here your note of the Apoca­lypse the 17. Chapter? Is it writen there, that Rome is now the Mother of Fornication? This is but a Blasphemy lerned off Baudy Bale, and your fonde notes in the Englishe Transla­tion, whiche nowe for very shame you haue left oute in your later editions. Rome is not there named at all. But you thinke, or at the lest would haue other men to thinke, that by the gre­ate whore of Babylon, Rome shoulde be meaned. Yea yea, pro­ue this Master Iewell by the Fathers of the firste 600. yeares, by the Scriptures, or any generall Councell of that tyme, and then we will beleue, yelde, and Subscribe to yow in that poin­te.

Harding. And from whence (he meaneth Rome) all the Churches of the VVest haue taken their light. As the Bishoppes off Gallia, that nowe is called Fraunce, doo acknowleadge in an Epistle sent to Leo the Pope in these wordes. Epist. pro­xima. post. 51. inter Epist. Leonis. Vnde Reli­gionis nostrae propitio Christo Fons & Origo ma­nauit. From the Apostolike See by the Mercye off Christe, the Fountaine and Spring of oure Religion hathe [Page 19] come.

Iewell. The 32. Vntruthe.The .44. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. and the 45. Vn­truthe touching the faithe of the Vvest Church. Iewell. pag. 56. M. Iewell confuteth him selfe. The Faithe of the West Church came not first from Rome.

D. Harding saieth not so muche. But that the West Churche toke their Light from Rome. Whereby he meaned that all the West Churches, haue had from Rome, thoughe not their verye Apostles and first Preachers, yet (whiche you your sel­fe Confesse in the Texte M. Iewel) the Cōfirmation of Doctrine, and also other great conference and comfort. For all this M. Iewell, is it not a light and helpe to Religion? This D. Harding sai­yeth, the West Churches had from Rome. This you confes­se they had and that you saye at the beginning. Why then note you D. Harding for Vntruthe in the Margin, which youre selfe saieth and confesseth for Truthe in the Text? But the Fai­the off the VVest Church (saye you, adding it in the margin for a reason of the Vntruthe) came not first from Rome. First, they to­ke their light, though not their first faith. And therfore youre Vntruthe is no Vntruthe on D. Hardinges parte. But on your part how Vntrue it is, you shall see.Fraunce toke their first faith from Ro­me. First for Fraunce one of the greatest pillers of the West Churche, you haue in D. Har­ding his wordes a Confession of the Frenche bishoppes them selues aboue xj.C. yeares past, that the Fountaine and Springe of their Religion came from the See Apostolike, recorded in the vndoubted and Authentike workes of Leo. Therefore that you bringe to the contrarye in the text, off Nathanael, off La­zarus whom Christe raised, and of Saturninus, that they should first preache the faith in Fraunce, and yet as you saye, no Commission from Rome appearing, whereby they shoulde be sent thither, it is a Vaine Gheasse, against the expresse Te­stimonye and Confession of the Frenche bishoppes them sel­ues aboue vnleuen hundred yeares paste, that whether by Commission from Rome, by the Mouthe of those that yow name, or whether by Romanes them selues, or other sent [Page] from Rome,S. Grego­ry witnesseth, that the first faith of Fraunce came frō Rome. Lib. 4. epist. 51. Bothe Englande Scotlan­de recei­ued their first faith from Ro­me. Beda Lib. 1. Cap. 4. Lib. 1. Cap. 13. Howe the faith came to vs Engli­shmen. and not these whiche withoute any Author or Writer, M. Iewel bringeth in here vpō his Owne Credit, whi­che waie so euer it came I saye, that from Rome it came. No­we not only Fraunce receiued their very first faithe from Ro­me, as by the testimonye of the Frenche bishoppes them selues appeareth, but many other principall countres of the Weste Churche also.

Our owne countre being first called Britanny, and pos­sessed of the Britons, whose posterite now only remaineth in Wales, receiued the faith from Eleutherius Pope of Rome, a­bout the yeare of our Lorde 156. as Venerable Bede in the hi­story of our Church of Englande recordeth. In the yeare of our Lorde 411. The Scottishmen receiued their first bishop Pal­ladius from Celestinus then Pope of Rome, as witnesseth Bede also. Shortly after this time the Britains being forsaken of the Romains, oppressed with the Peightes and Scottes their euill neighbours, and last of all so ouerronne with the Saxons and English people, sent for in to ayde them, that with in lesse then ij. hundred yeares, all that is now called England, was brought vnder the dominion of the Saxons, and English people (the olde Brittons beinge driuē to the straightes, which they yet ke­pe) being all heathen and infidels, then to our countre of En­gland and to vs Englishmen liuing in paganisme and idolatry, that holy and blessed bishop of Rome S. Gregory directed the holy and vertuous Monke S. Augustin our Apostle, who in his time conuerted Kent and Essex to the faith, whose felowes and Scholers conuerted in short space all the realme of En­gland, that is, all the English people, to the faith of Christ. So that, as the olde Brittons from Eleutherius, the Schottishmen from Celestinus bothe holy Popes of Rome, so we English­men from S. Gregory a blessed and lerned Pope also,In the first and second bookes. receiued not only the Light of our religion, but also our very first Faith and belefe in Christ Iesus. All which may furder appeare to [Page 20] him that will peruse the History of Venerable Bede lately sett forthe in English. Not only England, Fraunce, and Scotland,Germany receiued their first faith frō Rome. Platina in Sergio, & in Grego­rio. 2. Henr. Mu­tius lib. 7. Bedali. 5. Cap. 10. Vide Pla­tinam & Blondum lib. 2. dec. 2. Lib. 7. Cap. 30. but the most part of Germany receiued euen from Rome the­ir very first faith and knowleadg off Christ. For as Saxony had their first faith of Sergius the Pope about the yeare of our Lorde 690. so shortly after (an. 716.) all the inwarde partes of Ger­many receiued the faith from Gregory the second, a vertuous Pope also, by the preaching of Bonifacius (a Schottishman borne) directed thither frō Rome. Friselande in like maner conuerted to the faith by Willebrorde (an English monke) had him their first byshop confirmed from Rome. So Norwaie by the preaching of Adrian the fourth, Pope of Rome, Bulgaria by Nicolaus the first, Dalmatia and Sclauony, all much about a ti­me, from the Church of Rome also receiued the faith. Socrates writeth that the Burgunyons came to the faith of Christ, per­ceauing by them selues [...], that the God of the Romains did mightely helpe such as feared him. How thinke you now M. Iewell? Had not D. Harding good cause to saie, and truly to saye, that the west Church toke their light from the Church of Rome, yea and to saye that the faith of it came first from Rome, which is mo­re then D. Harding saied, and yet no Vntruthe neither, as the lerned do knowe?

Harding. As touching that the Oblation of the Body, Diuis. 23. and bloud of Christ done in the Masse is the Sacrifice of the Church, and proper to the newe. Testament (33) Commaunded by Christ to be frequented according to his Institution &c.

Iewell. The .33. Vntruthe. Christ neuer commaunded or named any such sacrifice.pag. 57. The 46. Vntruthe Slaund. 1

Stapleton. This Vntruthe doth but serue to make vp a number. It is the same in effect, with the fifte Vntruthe. There it is answe­red. There it is proued that Christ Commaunded a Sacrifice, [Page] though he named none. And D. Harding saieth, it was Com­maūded by Christ, not named. I referre the Reader to the next Vntruthe folowing. Though M. Iewell may repete Vntruthes to make vp a number, yet it is not our ease nor the profit of the Reader, to repete idely one thinge, being ones thourough­ly proued.

Harding. Diui. 25. The opinion of the Fathers is, that the daily and conti­nuall Sacrifice ought (34) Daily to be Sacrificed, that the death of our Lorde, and the worke of our redemption might alwaies be celebrated, and had in memory.

Iewell. pag. 60. The 47. Vntruthe Slaund. And the 48. Vn­truthe, For no Fathers saie pla­nely the contrary.The .34. Vntruthe. The Fathers say not so, but plainely the con­trary.

This Vntruthe, emplieth two Notorious and manifest Vntruthes on M. Iewelles part. First by denying the saying of D. Harding. Secondarely by auouching the contrary to be plaine in the Fathers. This second point M. Iewell should not only haue auoutched, but haue proued it also in his text, by the testimony at the lest of some one Father. Now as it is a manifest lie, and can neuer be proued, so no maruail if he brought nothinge for proufe thereof. As touching the first point, because he saieth, The Fathers say not so, I will now brin­ge him the Fathers, which say so. M. Iewell in denying the Fathers to saye, that the Daily Sacrifice ought to be celebra­ted, denyeth it in the externall Sacrifice done on our part. For (saieth he) Iewell. pag. 61. Linea. 16. Heb. 7. & 10.the strength and vertu of Christes Sacrifice resteth in it self and not in any diligēce or doing of oures. And for proufe here­of he allegeth S. Paul to the Hebrewes. That Christ Iewell. Iewell. pag. 61. Lin. 58.hath offred vpō the crosse one sacrifice for al. Ful and perfit. Therfor we nede none other. One, and euerlasting. Therefore it nedeth no renewing. By pri­uilege geuen to him selfe only. Therefore it can not be wrought by a­ny other. These are M. Iewelles gloses vpon S. Paule. These are his reasons, that the Sacrifice of Christes Crosse is called the daily Sacrifice, Not for that it must be renewed euery daie, but for [Page 21] that being once done, it standeth good for all daies and for euer.

For these are his owne very wordes. It shall be now proued against him out of the fathers that not withstāding the wordes of S. Paul the Church yet offreth a Daily Sacrifice, not as vpō the Crosse, but the selfe same thing which was offred on the crosse: nor to the derogatiō of that, but for the remēbraunce of that, which is the thing that D. Harding saied, that the Church teacheth, that Christ him self in his last Supper commaunded. The Doctours expounding these wordes of S. Paule to the Hebrewes, of one euerlasting Sacrifice, ones done for all, full, and per­fyt, &c. do make thereupon them selues a doubte of the daily Sacrifice of Christes Church.How the Church offreth a daily Sa­crifice at the Aul­tar, not­withstan­ding the One and Sufficiēt Sacrifice vpon the Crosse. How that may stande with the one Sacrifice of Christ vpon the Crosse ones offred for all. This doubt, if no such Sacrifice had ben, they woulde neuer haue moued. If there had ben only a remembraunce of that Sa­crifice by the holy Ministration, as M. Iewell saieth, there had ben no cause of doubte, how that remembrance might stande with the one Oblatiō of Christ. For one thinge may be a thou­sand times remembred, and yet the thinge remaine One still. If none other had Offred, as M. Iewell saieth, but Christ Ones for all, then had not the doctours neded to moue this question, how Christ alone Offred Once for all, and yet how the Prie­stes in the Church do offer daily. Now the doctours do moue all these doubtes and questions (which M. Iewell bringeth as a plaine and clere doctrine) and do also resolue the same, writing their lerned commentaries vpon S. Paule to the Hebrewes. I will now bringe their owne wordes truly translated in to En­glish. First Chrysostom after he had declared according to the minde of S. Paule, that the Sacrifices of the olde lawe were ofte repeted, as being weake and vnsufficient to purge sinne, but the Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse was a Full and Perfitte oblation for all Mankinde, and therefore but Ones offred for [Page] all, mouing this doubt of the Daily Sacrifice of the Church which M. Iewel denieth, he sayth. Quid ergo nos? Nōne per singulos dies offerimus? What thē do we? Do we not Offer euery daie? Lo M. Iewell.Chrysost. Hom. l· 1 [...]. ad Habr. Notwithstanding the One oblation of Christ, yet we, we bishops and Priestes (as Chrisostom was) do offer daily. For it foloweth. Offerimus quidē, sed ad recordationem facientes mortis eius, We offer in dede. But making (that oblation) for the remembraunce of his Death. Lo againe M. Iewell, not on­ly a remembrāce, but an oblation is made, for that remembraū ­ce. But how then is it One oblation? How One Sacrifice? Chrisostom goeth forthe and telleth you. Et vna est haec hostia non multae. And this is One Hoste, One Sacrifice, not ma­ny. Yea? One Sacrifice done by vs Daily, and yet One vpon the Crosse done Ones for all? How can that be? Chrisostom will teache vs this also.Howe One Sa­crifice vppon the Crosse, and [...]ow One dai­ly in the Church. For he saieth yet farder. Quomodo vna est & non multae? Quia semel oblata est insancta sanctorum. Hoc autem sacrificium exemplar est illius. Id ipsum semper offerimus. Nec nunc quidem alium agnum, crastina alium, sed semper eundem ipsum. Proinde vnum est hoc Sacrificium haec ratione. How is it One Hoste, One Sacrifice, and not many? Bicause it was ones offe­red in to the holy of holyes. But this Sacrifice (which we daily offer) is a paterne of that. (And why or how?) we Offer allwa­ies the selfe same thinge. Not now One Lambe, to morowe an other, but euery daie the selfe same. Therefore it is One Sa­crifice by this reason. Vnderstande you this reason M. Iewell how and why it is One Sacrifice? Chrisostom saieth, it is one Sacrifice, bicause the Hoste, that is, the thinge Sacrificed, the thinge Offred now, is but One with that which was Offred on the crosse. It is one and the self Lābe, which was thē offred and which is euery daie offred. What is the lābe M. Iewell, that Chri­sostom speaketh of, but the Body and bloud of Christ? This sa­yeth Chrisostom, is One and the selfe same (.eundem ipsum.) But how doth Chrisostom proue, it is One Lambe which we [Page 22] do offer now, to morowe, and euery daye? He saieth in the wordes immediatly folowing. Alioquin quoniam in multis locis offertur, multi Christi sunt? Nequaquam. Sed vnus vbique est Christus, & hic plenus existens & illic plenus, Vnum cor­pus. Sicut enim qui vbique offertur vnum Corpus est, & non mul­ta Corpora ita etiam & vnū sacrificium. One christ euery vvhe­re. One Bo­dy. The Real presence proueth one Sacrifice bothe vpon the Crosse and vpo [...] the Aul­tar. Or els bicause it is offred in many places, are there many Christes? Not so. But there is one Christ euery where being Full and perfitt here, and full and perfitt there. One Body. For as he which is Offred euery where, is One Body, and not Many Bodies, so also this is One Sacrifice. Lo vpon the reall presence of Christes body (which is but One) Chrisostom defendeth the daily Sacrifice of Christes Church to be but One: and the One Sacrifice vp­pon the Crosse not to exclude the Daily Sacrifice of the Church, which in the Hoste, that is in the thing offred is One Selfe Same Sacrifice With the other: but in the maner of doing (bicause it is Vnbloudy) it is in recordationem eius in the re­mēbrance of that. But you M. Iewel do denie the real presence bicause you can abide no externall Sacrifice offred by vs. And you denie the externall Sacrifice bicause you will haue no reall presence. Here then is one Father, whiche sayeth, Wee doo offer euery daie, and that Christe him selfe, in the remembraunce off his Passion. And how many Fathers do saye the li­ke? Theodoret a Greke Writer also in his Commentaries vpon this place of Saint Paule hath these wordes.Theodoret. In cap. 6. ad Hebr. If bothe the Priest­hood that is of the Law be ended, and the Priest according to the Or­der of Melchisedech hath offred a Sacrifice, and hath made that other Sacrifices be not necessary, whye do the Priestes off the newe Testa­ment celebrate the Mysticall Sacrifice, or Liturgie? It is manifeste to those whiche are instructed in the matters of God, that we Offer not an other Sacrifice, but do celebrate the memoriall of that One and holsome Sacrifice: For this our Lorde hath commaunded vs, sa­ying. Doo this in Remembraunce of me. Hetherto Theodorett. [Page] Where you see he teacheth vs that we do celebrat in dede a Sa­crifice, and that as Christe commaunded vs in his Last Sup­per, and yet no other Sacrifice (as touching the thinge Sacrifi­ced) then that one Sacrifice on the Crosse.Primas [...]us In ca. 10. ad Hebr. Primasius a ler­ned scholer of S. Augustine writing vppon this place of Saint Paule, is for the daily Sacrifice moste euident. I will alleage his wordes in English truly and sincerely.The olde Sacrific [...]s VVhy did God com­maunde (saieth Primasius) the olde Sacrifices to be daily offred? For the weakenesse of it. Bicause it coulde not perfectly cleanse. To the en­tent (by that meanes) their sinnes might be remembred and rebuked. VVhat shall we saye then? Do not oure Priestes doo the very same daily? The daily Sacrifice of oure Priestes. Do they not offer a Sacrifice daily? They do offer truly, but for the Remembraunce of that deathe. And bicause we sinne daily, and haue nede daily to be clensed, bicause Christe can no more dye, he hathe geuen vs the Sacrament of his Body and Bloude, that [...]uen as his Passion, VVhy it is daily. was the Redemption and Cleansing of the worlde, so this Oblation also might be a Redemption and cleansing for all such as Offer it in the true Faith, Howe it differeth from the olde, being yet repe­ted as that was. and haue a good Intention. For herein doth our Sacrifice whiche is also repeted, differ from that olde Sacri­fice oftentimes repeted, bicause this is the Truthe, that a Figure: 1 This maketh a man perfit, that not so. 2 And this is repeted not bicause of any weakenes in it, as not being able to geue perfit saluation, but for the Remembraunce of Christes Passion, euen as he him selfe saied. 3 Do this in my Remembraunce. Here M. Iewell we haue an other Fa­ther, which affirmeth that the daily Sacrifice ought to be cele­brated (nothwithstanding the One Sacrifice on the Crosse) and that for two causes.Note these two Causes. First bicause we sinne daily, and haue daily nede thereof. Secōdarely bicause Christ commaunded it so to be done for his Remembraunce. The like cause geueth Eusebius Emissenus in these wordes.Eusebius Emissenus Homil. 5. de Pascha. Colitur iugiter per My­sterium, &ce. It is daily celebrated in a Mystery, which was o­nes offred for oure Redemption. To the entent that bicause the Re­demption for Mankinde was Daily and neuer Ceasing, the Oblation [Page 23] also of th [...]t Redemption might be Continuall, An Oblation rightly One and perfit, to be estemed by Faith not by outwarde shape, and not to be iudged by externall Appearance, but by inwarde Affe­ction. Thus we haue three Fathers affirming not only a daily Oblation, but also that there ought so to be, partly for oure comfort and reliefe, partly for the Remembraunce of Christes death and Passion, the only comforte of al our faith in Christ Iesus.

Againe this Sacrifice is a daily Sacrifice and neuer ceaseth bicause the Priesthood of Melchisedech,The third Cause off a daily Sacrifice. of whiche Priesthood this is the Sacrifice, is euerlasting and neuer ceaseh. This the Holy Fathers do teache vs. Oecumenius, expounding how Christe is a Priest according to the Order of Melchisedech for e­uer saieth.Oecumeni­us In com­mentar. in Hebr. ca. 5 Allthough Christ offred not an vnbloudy Hoste (for he Offred his owne bodye) yet those whiche by him are made Priestes (whose high bishop being God him selfe he hath vouches [...]fed to be) shal offer an vnbloudy Sacrifice. For this, the worde In aeternum,The euer lasting Order off Melchisedech proueth a continu­all Sacri­fice. For e­uer doth signifie. For the Sripture would neuer haue saied (he is a Priest) For euer, hauing respect to that Oblation and Sacrifice Ones made off God (vpon the Crosse) but hauing respect to the Priestes that now are, by whom as meanes Christ dothe Sacrifice, and is Sa­crificed. VVho also in that Mysticall Supper deliuered vnto them the maner of this Sacrifice. Hetherto Oecumenius. Lo M. Iewell yet an other Father of the greke Churche which confesseth an Euerlasting and Neuer Ceasing Sacrifice, not that only which Christe made Ones for all in the Crosse (as you saie) but that also whiche the Priestes of Christes Church do nowe Offer. That I saie, which in the last Supper was taught vs and deliue­red vs by Christ him selfe, for a liuely remembraunce of his death and Passion. In this sence as doth Oecumenius, speaketh also S. Augustine, when he saieth that Christ,August. e­pist. 23. ad Bonifaciū. semel immolatus in seipso, Ones being Offred in him selfe, whiche was vppon the Crosse, tamen in sacramento non solum per omnes Paschae solem­nitates, [Page] sed omni die populis immolatur. Yet in a Sacrament not o­nely in euery solemnite of Easter, but euery daye he is of­fred for the people. This Sacrament, he callethe in an other place.Lib. 10. cap. 6. De ciu [...]. Dei. Sacrificij in Cruce p [...]racti Sacramentum, id est, sacrum sig­num. The Sacrament, or holy signe of the Sacrifice done in the Crosse: But what? No Sacrifice therfore it selfe? Yes he c [...]lleth it euen there, Quotidianum Ecclesiae Sacrifi­cium. The daily Sacrifice of the Churche. This daily Sa­crifice of the Church is a Sacramēt or holy Signe of that excelling Sacrifice on the Crosse.The 49. Vntruthe standing in false transla­tion. Iew. pag. 61. Lin. 24. Immolari populis. Lib. 10. per totum. M. Iewell maketh the peo­ple his God. In this Sacrament Christ him sel­fe is offred not only in principal feastes, but Omni die euery day and that, not to the people as you turne (populis immolari M. Ie­well) but for the people. For immolari doth not signifie to be of­fred, as offring or profering a thinge in to a mās hande, but im­molari signifieth to be offred vp, to be Sacrificed, to haue that seruice which appertaineth neither to man nor to Angels, nor to diuels, but to God only, as S. Austen at large disputeth in his bookes de Ciuitate dei. But you M. Iewell, making the peo­ple your God, and drawing the blessed Sacrifice of Christ him selfe, to the offring of your pece of bread in to the peoples han­des, you turne Immolari populis, to be offred vnto the people: which by the rules of all grammer, not of diuinitie only, doth signifie to immolat or Sacrifice for the people. For euen as S. Austen saied before, semelimmolatus est, He was ones offred vp, meaning in the Crosse,Offred in the Cros­se, and Offred e­uery daie. so now he saieth, omni die immolatur populis in Sacramento. He is offred vp for the people euery day in a Sacrament. Immolari, in bothe places must haue one sence and meaning. Els the Cōparison and reason of S. Austē had bē fonde and foolish. O M. Iewell, leaue ones for gods loue and your owne, this false Iuggling and Lieger de main of you­res, in matters of such weight and importaunce. Turne not the daily offring vp of Christ in a Sacrament for the people, [...]. August. to the of­fring [Page 24] of a piece of bread vnto the people. This chaunge you for­ce them to make damnably for your selfe and them to, vn­lesse God call you and them to repentaunce. Of this daily Sa­crifice S. Austen writeth of his Mother quotidie Altari solitam assistere, M. Iewel. Augustin. Lib. 9. confess. Cap. 13. that she was wonte euery day to stande at the Altar, that is, euery daie to be present at the Sacrifice. Of the which S. Ciprian also saieth. Sacrificia dei quotidie celebramus. We do celebrat the Sacrifices of God euery daie.lib. 1. ep. 2. An Ob­iection putt of. And that this was not a daily sacrifice, such as the people daily celebrated by recor­ding the passion of Christ, and by Offring them selues vnto God,The daily Sa [...]rifice is Offred by prie­stes. but a daily Externall Sacrifice vsed of Priestes Only by the waie of Ministery, it appereth euidently, by that certain Fathers, for the Continuall and daily practise of this most dread­full and holy Sacrifice, haue thought it in no case meete for priestes bounde daily thereunto, to haue Wiues. In this sence writeth S. Ambrose, when he saieth: Nunc quia non carnalis suc­cessio, sed perfectio spiritualis inquiritur, Ambro­sius In cap 3.1. ad Ti­moth. consequenter sacerdotibus vt semper altari queant assistere, semper ab vxoribus continendum. Now bicause not a carnal succession (of Priestes, as in the olde lawe) but a spirituall perfection is required, Priestes, that they may al­waies serue at the aultar, must alwaies refraine from mariage. S. Hierom in like maner.Hierony­mus. li. 1· in Iouinia­num. Sacerdoti cui semper pro populo offerenda sunt Sacrificia, semper orandum est▪ si semper orandum, ergo semper carendū matrimonio. The priest which must alwaies offer Sacrifi­ce for the people, must allwaies praie▪ If he must alwaies praie, then he must allwaies be vnmaried. Innocētius the first agreeth with these lerned doctours in the same maner of reasoning, and saieth. Tenere omnino Ecclesia debet, Innocen­tius. 1. ad Decen­tium dist. 31. Cap. Tene­re. vt Sacerdotes & Leuitae cū vx­oribus suis nō misceantur qui ministerij quotidiani necessitatibus occupantur. The Church ought to obserue that the priestes and deacōs cōpany not with their wiues, which are occupied with the necessary busynes of the daily Seruice. This daily seruice the first Councel of Toledo calleth, quotidianū Ecclesiae sacrificium, [Page] as S. Austen before did, the daily Sacrifice of the Church, and bindeth the clergy to serue thereat daily. Go now M. Iewell, and denie the Fathers to saie that the daily Sacrifice ought to be daily celebrated.Iewel as before. You haue heard Chrisostom, Primasius, Eusebius Emissenus, Oecumenius, S. Augustin to saie that this daily Sacrifi­ce is and ought daily to be celebrated, 1 partly for the Remem­braūce of Christes death, 2 partly for remedy of our sinnes, 3 partly also bicause by this Sacrifice the priesthood of Melchisedech is practised for euer. 4 You haue heard all these, and Theodore­tus also to witnesse an externall Sacrifice on our part notwith­standing that one Sacrifice on the Crosse. 5 You haue heard S. Augustin againe, S. Ciprian and the Fathers of the first Coun­cell of Toletu [...] to confesse a daily Sacrifice in the Church. 6 Last of all you haue heard by the testimonies of S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, and of Innocentius the firist (the Pope of Rome in S. Augustins time) this daily Sacrifice to be so necessary, that for that respect priestes ought to refraine from mariage. Now pro­ue you that the Fathers euer taught plainely the contrary, as you saie they did.Iewell. Pag. 43.

To leaue S. Basill ad Caesaream patritiam Can. 49. the Councell of Laodi­cea,can. 52. the Councell of Constantinople holden in Trullo, and the Sy­nodall Epistle sent from the Bishoppes of the East parte in the defence of Macarius. &c.

Stapletō. All these Fathers M. Iewell will leaue, bicause he hath good store of other to bring. But let these that he bringeth, trie what the store is which he omitteth. It is not credible that M. Iewell hath either so litle witt, or so small good will, that he will leaue the strongest and best allegatiōs, and bringe in a fewe that ma­ke nothing at all for him. Then if these which he alleageth, are founde feble and to no purpose, I leaue it to the readers discre­tion to consider what the rest woulde haue appeared, if they had durst to shew their faces. Therefore to passe here (this being of D. Harding otherwhere handled) his dumbe witnesses, let vs see what weight his other Authorites doe beare. He saieth.

[Page 25] Iewell. S. Augustin saieth. The Sacrament of this thinge is prepared or consecrate in the Church, and receiued of the Lordes table in some places euer [...] daye, in some places v­pon certeyn dayes.

Stapletō Lo S. Augustin saieth. In some places the Sacrament is conse­crated euery daye. In Ioan. tract. 26. And yet he is brought against the daily Sa­crifice, and against the daily Cōsecration. What? Thinketh M. Iewell that Daily, and Euery daye is contrary? Or thinketh he the daily Sacrifice is either so auouched of the lerned Fathers, or so defended of the Catholikes that in all Places there must be a daily Sacrifice? Hath he forgot that in meane parish Churches it was neuer customably so?

Iewell. In epi, & Timoth. 1. cap. The .50. Vntruth.Likewise saieth S. Ambrose. Euery weeke we must celebrat the oblation, although not euery day vnto strangers, yet vnto the inhabitants at the lest twise in the weke. Stapletō For none saieth. Not eue­ry daie. S. Augustine saieth, the Sacrament was ministred at certain da­yes. S. Ambrose saieth sometimes twise in the weke, and (50) not euery daye.

Iewell. S. Augustin saieth in some places euery daie. And S. Ambrose saieth not, not euery daye, But at the lest twise in the weke. Thus twise in the weke is the lest. But what? Thinke you M. Iewell it may not be truly called a daily Sacrifice, though it were but twise in the weke? You saie your selfe in this very page of your Replie. VVhich also (meaning the Sacrament) may be called the daily bread, not for that it is daily receiued,pag. 36. but for that ther is no day excepted, but it may be receiued euery daye. Let your wisedome I beseche you, instruct vs M. Iewel, why the Sacrifice may not in like sence be called daily bothe of the Fathers and of D. Harding, as well as the Sacrament,M. Iewel confuteth him self. though it were not preci­sely euery daye celebrated, which yet in some places was so, as S. Augustin by you alleaged expressely saied? So properly you alleage the fathers to proue the Contrary. Againe that is not Vntruly called daily which in respect of so many daies in the yere is done euery weke twise at the lest. as S. Ambrose saieth, the Sacrifice was. For in S. Augustins and S. Ambrose his time the Sacrifice being wekely at the lest receiued, and yet the people [Page] of duty then, as now a dayes, coming but once in the yere to receiue (as bothe S. Augustin and S. Ambrose do otherwhere expressely witnesse) the daily Sacrifice was after ministred without any company to receiue with the Priest,Au. Hom. 28. de ver. Dom. sec. Luc. Amb. lib. 5. de sa [...]r. Cap. 4. for ought that appeareth. Againe the priest of duty at the lest euery Son­day celebrating, and yet the people of duty but ones in the yere receiuing, if without a company the priest could not receiue, he coulde not celebrate the Daily Sacrifice, yea he shoulde perhaps celebrat it but once in the yere. Thus the meaning of a daily Sacrifice though it were but wekely, not daily, (as the fathers expressely call it) yet in that sence also it should well serue the purpose of Priuat Masse, as M. Iewell cal­leth it. But now to your last allegation.

Iewell. Concil. Tol. 4. cā. 9. The .51. Vntruthe For this can not be well gathered.But what recorde hereof can be plainer, then the Councell of To­ledo? The wordes in english be these. There be sundry priestes in Spayne that touching the prayer that the Lorde taught, and commaunded Daily to be saied, saie the same only vpon the Sonday, and vpon no daye els. (51) Hereof we may wel gather, that if the priestes in Spayne saied the Lordes prayer one­ly vpon the Sonday, for so much as Communion is neuer ministred without the Lordes prayer, therefore the priestes in Spaine ministred not the Communion, but onely vpon the Sonday.

Stapletō. It appereth by the Councell that these priestes in Spayne saied Masse in the weke daies, without the Pater Noster. And therefore M. Iewelles Conclusion is vntruly gathered. The Councell in that Canon alleaged concludeth thus. VVhosoeuer therfore either of the priestes or of the inferiour clergy, do let passe our Lords prai [...]r ei [...]her in th [...] publike Seruice, or in the priuat Seruice, for his pride being cast le [...] him be depriued. Thus those priests omitting our lordes praier in the publike seruice, in the other weke da­ies, we may wel gather, that they saied Masse in the other weke daies (the Masse being the chiefest part of the publike seruice) and omitted therein the Pater Noster which that holy Coun­cell worthely condemneth in this place. These be the fathers which, M. Iewell auoucheth in his Vntruthe, to saye plainly [Page 26] the contrary, [...]hat is, to denie vtterly the daily Sacrifice. These be the picked Authorites which he hath chosen, to leaue such and such, as you heard him saie. Two of his allegations spea­keth directly against him. The third is builded vpō an Vntrue collection, and vpon a condemned Abuse, if it were true.

Harding. S Augustin expounding the fourthe petition of our Lor­des praier, Geue vs this day our dayly bread,diui. 26. De verbis domini s [...] ­cundum Lucā Ho­mil. 28. shewing that this may be taken either for materiall bread, either for the Sacrament of our Lordes Body, or of spirituall meate, which he alloweth best, woulde, that concerning the Sacra­ment of our Lordes Bodie, they of the Easte shoulde not mo­ue question, how it might be vnderstanded to be their daily Bread, which were not daily partakers of oure Lordes Sup­per, (35)Thse be the ve very wordes of S. Augu­stin. VVhere as for all that, this bread is called daily Bread.

Iewell. pag. 62. The .52. Vntruth Slaunde­rous, and peuish.The .35. Vntruthe. For S. Augusten saieth. In illis partibus non intelligitur quotidianus panis. In those partes it (the B. Sacrament) is not vnderstan­ded to be daily Bread.

Stapletō. M. Iewell taketh holde vpon these wordes (where as for all that) as though D. Harding had sayed, where, that is, in which countres of the East. Which in dede had not ben only contrarye to S. Augustine, but to him selfe also which confesseth in the next line before that they of the East were Not daily partakers of our Lordes Supper.Cum iste panis &c. not vbi. But these wordes (where as for all that) haue no relation to the place, but to the bread. And so I thinke euery One that vnderstandeth Englishe perceiueth wel enou­ghe. Nowe M. Iewell will forgett not onely all Diuinite and Grammer (as you sawe before in turning the wordes, Popu­lis immolatur) but also his very Englishe Tongue, rather then he will lacke a number off Vntruthes to heape vp [Page] in this firste Article. O miserable shiftes, off willfull Ma­lyce.

Harding. Although many times the people forbare to come to the Communion, diuis. 28 so as many times (36.) none at all were founde disposed to receiue.

Iewell. pag. 64. The .53. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The .36. Vntruthe. M. Harding is able to shewe no such case.

Stapleton. Whē we come to the last Vntruthe of this Article the .45. in numbre, it shal be proued that D. Harding hath already shewed a Clere Case where the Sacrifice being celebrated, yet none dyd Receiue, and that out of the wordes of Chrysostome. To that place I remit the Reader

Harding. Diui. 29. Dist. 1. hoc quoque. VVhiche auncient decree (the decree of Soter, that tvvo at the lest must be present at the celebration of the Sacrifice) requireth not that all the people off Ne­cessite be present, (37) much lesse that all so oftentimes shoul­de communicat Sacramentally.

Iewell. pag. 66. The .54. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The .37. Vntruthe. For all that were present, were willed either to Communicat, ot or departe.

Stapleton. Where were they so wisled M. Iewell? In this decree of So­ter? There is no suche worde in all the decree. And then it is no Vntruthe to saie, that by Soters decree, all are not commaun­ded to Communicat sacramentally: which is the thinge that D. Hardinge sayed, meaning it off Soters decree which he al­leaged. But in the texte M. Iewell addeth farder and will proue that the two whiche Soter speaketh of, were bounde to Com­municat. But how proue you that M. Iewell? Forsoothe yow saie.

Iewell. pag. 68 Dist 2. per acta. The .55. Vntruthe. For this decree is of the bis­hops Mas­se. Sote [...] decree is of the Priestes. De consecr. dist. 1. Epis. Deo.Consider this decree writen in the name of Pope Calixtus. The Consecration being done let all Communicat, vnlesse they will be remoued from the Chur­che. For so the Apostles appointed, and so holdeth the holy Churche off Rome. By this decree these two were bounde, either to Communicat with the Priest, or to departe foorth of the Churche.

[Page 27]I answere. This decree of Caliztus was made of the Cler­gy only and of the bishop, when he executed. It is not made of the Priestes and their Masses, as the decree of Soter is, and therefore you deceiue your Reader shamefully and with a ma­nifest Vntruthe. The whole decree of Calixtus is this. The bishop sacrificing vnto God, let him haue with with him witnesses. In the more solemne dayes; seuen or v. or iij. Deacons. whiche be called the Bishoppes eyes, and subdeacons and other Ministers. VVhich clothed in holy vestimentes before and behinde him, the Priestes also on the si­des of him, on the left and the right hande, all with a contrite h [...]rte, and an humbled sprit, standing with their face bowing to the groun­de, keping him from euill willing men, and geuing their consent to the sacrifice. But the Consecration being done, let all communicat, vnles­se they will be remoued from the Churche. Lo M. Iewell. This is the whole decree of Calixtus. You see it is all spoken of Dea­cons, subdeacons, Priestes and other Ecclesiasticall Ministres. Nowe the two commaunded to be present in Soters decree, to answer to the Priest, it was indifferent whether they were off the laie or of the clergy. But you wil proue they ought to be of the clergy that Soter speaketh of. For this purpose you bringe vnder the name of Anacletus, this selfe same decree,M. Iewell maketh two alle­gatiōs off one. which you brought before vnder the name of Calixtus (so false and lewde) you are to deceiue your Reader) and you bring the former piece thereof, to witt, that the Bishop must haue aboute him a certaine numbre of Deacons, subdeacons, and other Ministres ▪ I answer. The decree is made of a, bishop and that in solemnioribus diebus, in the more solemne daies, not of euery Priest, in euery meane or lowe day. But the decree of Soter is de praesbiteris, of priestes ex­pressely, and of their Masses. Yet you bringe an other decree of Soter, to proue that these two must be of the clergy▪ that is, you saye,De Cons. Dist. 1. vt illud. That euery Priest making the Sacrifice haue by him an o­ther Priest to assiste him, and to make an ende of the Ministration, if any quamme or sickenesse happen to fall vpon him. When will [Page] you leaue to deceiue your Reader M. Iewell? This decree spea­keth not absolutely that all Priestes ought off Necessite allwa­yes so to haue. But the decree expressely saieth. Vbi temporis, vel loci, siue cleri copia suffragatur. The .56. Vntruthe Standing in f [...]lse Applica­tion. When the time dothe serue, or when the place admitteth it, or when good store of the clergy is present. Thus the decree prouided not absolute­ly so to be allwayes, but when the tyme was more solem­ne, the place more publike, or the clergye at commodite to helpe: as hauing not saied Masse them selues before, as in so­lemne dayes and in Cathedrall Churches moste did, and no­we doo. But that Euery Priest ought allwayes so to haue, that the decree saieth not. And therefore you haue not yet proued that they ought to be of the clergy. And more then this proof hereof you haue nothing in your text. Therefore farder they might be of the laye: and then not bounde to receiue with the Priest. Which being so, euen in this decree of Soter a Priuat Masse is proued, and a case is shewed where masse is saied of the Priest without any company bounde to receiue with him. Yet you conclude most impudently in your text, Iewell. pag. 68. The 57. Vntruthe touching Soters de­cree.that whether they were of the clergy or of the laite those two whose presence Soter required, that the lawe constrained them to receiue togeather with the Priest. This I saie you conclude most impudently, hauing no Lawe, or Decree, or piece of Decree, that the Laite was bounde to receiue with the Priest, and hauing brought certain apparent pieces for the Clergy bounde to receiue, which yet in dede ioyned to the whole decree haue made no deale for you,The 58 Vntruthe. For more then an inckling of Priuat Masse is founde in Soters de­cree. as hath ben proued. After this you conclude, that M. Harding hath founde a Communion, and no manner token or in­klinge of priuat Masse. Which how true it is in this one point, I leaue to the iudgement of euery indifferent Reader.

Harding. Diuis. 31. In that Councell of Agatha we finde a decree, made by the Fathers assembled there, whereof (38) it appeareth that prie­stes oftentimes sayde Masse without others receiuing with [Page 28] them.

Iewell. The 38. Vntruthe. There appeareth no such thinge,pag. 71. The 59. Vntruthe Slaund. The 60. Vntruthe For the Contrary dothe no [...] appeare. Can. 21. but rather the contrary.

That we will now trie M. Iewell. The decree of the Co­uncell is thus much in English. If any man will haue an oratorie or [...]happell abrode in the countre beside the parish Chur [...]hes, in which laufull and ordinary assemblie is, for the rest of the holy daies that he haue Masses there in consideratiō of the werynesse of the houshoulde, with iust ordinaūce we do permitt. But at Easter, Christes birth, Epiphanie, the Ascension of our Lorde, Whitsonday and the Natiui­te of S. Iohn Baptist, and if there be any other speciall festes, let them not k [...]pe their masses, but in the Cities and parishes. And as for the Clerkes if any will do, or haue their Masses at the foresaide, festes in chappels, vnlesse the Bishop so commaunde or permitt, let them be trust out from the Communion. Hetherto the decree. By this decree. (saieth D. Harding) we lerne that then Masses were com­monly saide in priuate Chappels at home, at such times as the people we­re not accustomed to be houseled. And the reason hereof he geueth in these wordes.The reason of D. Harding For when by commaundement and common order they receiued their rightes, as in the afore named feastes, then were the Priestes prohibited to say Masses in priuat oratories or chappels with out the parish Churches. The argument of D. Harding shortly is this.

The cause why people was commaunded to resorte to the Cities and parish Churches in principall feastes, was their Communicating.

Ergo being permitted to haue Masse in priuat Chappels, it appea­reth, that in those priuat chappels they did not communicat.

Harding. Now what saie you against this argument M. Iewel? Which as it is no necessary demonstration, nor was not brought for such, so is it a probable and well apparent reason. And for such, D. Harding brought it, saying expessely, that by this decree it appeareth priestes oftentimes saied Masse without others [Page] receiuing with them. M. Iewell Replieth not to the rea­son of D. Harding, but appo­seth of his owne. You saye, there appeareth no such thinge, and therefore you make it an Vntruthe. But how proue you M. Iewell that no such thinge appeareth? What saie you to the reason or argument of D. Harding, whereby he gathereth that such a thinhe appeareth? You saie to his argument not one worde. You make an argument or two of your owne, which he made not, and against them you insult after your facion. Af­ter that you appose him, and aske him, Iewell. pag. 71.what leadeth M. Harding thus to saie? His reason that leadd him so to saie was in the text, but you would not heare it at all. Againe you aske. Was there no company at all in the Chappell to communicat vvith the priest?The 61. Vntru­the, stan­ding in manif [...]st falsyfy­ing of the decree. If the­re were any, shewe you. Truly there appeareth none, by any worde of the decree, either to haue bene, either to ought to haue bene. Yes saie you. It is prouided by the decree it selfe, that there should be a lawful and an ordinarie companie. And you note in the Margin. Can. 21. In quibus est legitimus ordinariusque cōuentus, that is in English, in the which there is a lawful and an ordinary as­semblie. In what which M. Iewel? Who is the Antecedēt to qui­bus?M. Ievvel maketh false con­struction to main­tayne his false reli­ [...]ion. I wil putt you the whole sentēce, and then see how you can construe it. Si quis extra Parochias, in quibus est legitimus ordina­riusque conuentus, oratorium in agro habere voluerit. that is in En­glish, If any man wil haue a Chappel in his groūde, beside the parishes, in which (s· parishes) there is a lawfull and an ordinary assemblie. Now M. Iewel. This priuat Masse that is saide to appere by this decree, is in the Chappel. You disproue the priuat Masse, bicause you saie the Decree hath prouided that there should be a lawfull and an ordinary assemblie in the parish churches. Thus by false cōstructiō M. Iewel, you deceiue againe your Reader, wittingly and willingly, and do nought els but wrāgle chil­dishly, by some meanes or other to weary your aduersary.

After this you leape from Agatha to Gangra, from Fraun­ce to Grece, to proue that in these oratories and priuat houses, [Page 29] there was a Communion. And thus you reason.

In Grece about a hundred and fiftie yeres before, the Communion wa [...] receiued in priuat houses.

Ergo in Fraunce so longe after, in their priuat Chappelles, M. Iewel­les Argu­ment. there was also a Communion.

The lewdenesse of this argumēt wil better appeare by the like.

In Fraunce within these fifty yeres all Churches had priuat Masses.

Ergo now in England all Churches haue the same. As true is the one as the other.

But now M. Iewell saieth, He will geue a clere answer to M. Hardinges blinde gheasses. What is that trow we?The .62. Vntruthe ioyned with a Slaūder. Co. Agath. Can. 60. Epist. de­cret. Siri­cij. Forso­the an other Canon of the selfe same Councell, which biddeth the penitents to depart out of the Church with the Nouices that were not yet Christened, Item a decretal epistle of Siricius, Commaun­ding in like maner notorious offenders to departe out of the Church. Ergo the rest that remained, did communicat. I answer. All this was in Cities and Parish Churches vnto which the Noui­ces and open penitents resorted. This was not in Chappels of priuat houses, of which this decree of the Councelle of Aga­tha speaketh. This is M. Iewelles clere answer.

They communicated in great cities and Parish Churches,

Ergo in Priuat houses. An other like vnto that is this.M. Iewel­les Argu­ment.

In the Church of Sarisbury, the Minister at euery Communion weareth a Cope.

Ergo in all other Chappels at euery communion a cope is woren. Let now euery indifferent Reader iudge, whether any thinge hath ben brought by M. Iewell, why by the decree aboue men­tioned, there should not appeare, in those priuat Chappelles to haue ben priuat Masses.

Harding diuis. 23. In the wordes of Leon­tius. At that time (39) he saieth Masse in his Chappell, ha­uing no other bodie with him but his seruaunt.

Iewell. pag. 74. Stapletō. The .63. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The .39. Vntruthe. There was neuer Priuate Masse saide in Alexan­dria neither before this time, nor at any time sythens.

Here it may be sene howe true it is, that S. Paule saieth Scientia inflat, Knowleadg puffeth vp. For what a pride is this [Page] of M. Iewell so stoutely and peremptorely to pronounce that in Alexandria there was neuer priuat Masse neither before the ti­me of Leontius, The .64. Vntruth, impudēt­ly auou­ched. nor sithens. What? Hath M. Iewell such a con­fidence in his Knowleadg, that he is perfit of the Whole order of Gods Seruice that euer hath bene vsed or practised in Alexā dria, a Cyte (as he saieth him selfe)Iewell. pag. 78. a thousande myles beyonde all Christendom, and where the faithe of Christ hath continued so many hundred yeres before the time of Leontius, and lon­ge after also? Is M. Iewell so sure that all that time in that great Cyte there was neuer priuat Masse, that though Leōtius a wri­ter of more then 900. yeres sithens do write so, yet he is sure it was neuer so? Hath M. Iewell sene all? Hath he reade all? And Dothe he remembre all thinges that were euer done in the Churche Seruice of that Cyte? What is Impudency, what is Puffing Pride, what is Presumptuous Rashenesse, if this be not? As for the wordes which he noteth for an Vntruthe, they are the wordes of Leontius alleaged by D. Harding, they are not the wordes as auouched of D. Harding. And then truly if there were neuer priuat Masse in Alexandria, it was a greate Vntruthe on Leontius parte to write so.This Leō tius is much cō mended in the .7. Generall Councell Act. 4. Now whether M. Ie­well be better to be beleued herein then is Leontius, a knowen approued writer these many hundred yeres, I leaue it to the Readers discretion. Leontius saieth plainely of Ihon the holy bishop of Alexādria. Facit Missas in oratorio suo, Nullum habens secum nisi ministrum suum. He saieth Masse in his Chappell, ha­uing None other bodie with him, but his seruāt. Here is a clere witnesse of priuat Masse,He liued aboute the time of S. Gre­gory, within the first 600. ye­res. Con. Nice. [...]. Act. 4. as M. Iewell termeth the receiuing of the priest without a company of communicants. And that within the first 600. yeres. For this Leontius (as the Fathers of the seuenth generall Councel do saie) floruit circa tempora Mauritij Imperatoris, flourished aboute the time of Mauritius the Emperour. Whose raigne begāne in the yere of our lord. 585. The witnesse being so clere, M. Iewel though good to out face [Page 30] the matter, and stoutely to saie that neither before this Leon­tius, nor euer sithens there was euer priuat Masse saied in Alexandria.M. Iewel. outfaceth matters, when proofes faile him. This shamelesse and impudent facing semeth wel to be resembled by the Gorgons head with the Anticke that M. Ie­welles printer hath placed at the ende of euery Article. Where spare roome was. Frons perfricta, Os impudens.

Whereas in the text M. Iewell woulde make vs beleue that Missae here should not signifie Masse, but any other kinde of praier (for he careth not what he make of it,The 65. Vntru­the, aboute the si­gnificatiō of Missas facere. Ambros. lib. 5. Epist. 33. so it be not Masse) he may as soone persuade any that is lerned that the Crow is white, as that Missas facere in this place doth not signifie to say Masse. For so he may tell vs that Missā facere caepi in S. Ambro­se, doth not signifie I begāne to say Masse, but matins or euen­song or some like thinge. Any thinge M. Iewell, so it be not Masse. And when S. Gregory charged Maximus the intruded bishop of Salona that being excommunicated, Missas facere praesumpsit it shall not signifie He presumed to saie Masse, Gregor. lib. 4. epist. 34. but he presumed to saye his matins or euen songe, or any other kinde of praier, which no person excommunica­ted is forbidden to saie. In like maner when the Councell of Arels chargeth the bishops that for certain offenses, Anno inte­gro Missas facere non praesumant, Concil. Arelae. Can. 2. it shall not signifie that for the space of a whole yere they presume not to saie Masse, but that they presume not to saye matins or euensong all the yere longe, or some other kinde of prayer, what ye wil, so it be not Masse. But what shifte is there so impudent that M. Iewell will not v­se, rather then to yelde, and acknowleadge his vanite and er­rour? An heretike (saieth S. Paule) is suo iudicio condemnatus, Tit. 3. cō ­demned in his owne iudgement. M. Iewell knoweth him selfe that in this place he hath kicked and striued against a manifest Truthe. Yet he will not yelde. What other shiftes he hath vsed to defeate this clere Testimony, bicause it is in the Confutatiō of D. Harding, particularly refelled, I shall not nede presently [Page] farder to entermedle. And this litle maye seme sufficient to iustifie the Vntruthe, of Leontius (iff it were an Vntruthe) for his wordes they are, not off D. Harding, whose wordes they a­re not.

Againe M. Iewell denieth the Conclusion. For whereas Leontius saieth, that Iohn the bishop of Alexādria saied Masse in his Chappel,M. Iewell denieth the Con­clusion. hauing no other body with him, but his seruāt, and of this it is Concluded, that in Alexandria there was pri­uat, Masse, M. Iewel denieth the Conclusion and saieth stoute­ly, there was neuer priuate Masse in Alexandria, neither befo­re the time of Leontius, nor at any time sithens, and putteth that for an Vntruthe, which is Concluded. Wherein he fareth as a foole of Sanford by Oxforde was wonte to doe. Who re­sorting to the vniuersite at Christmasse time, and being by certaine sophismes made in the waye of pastime, proued to be an Asse, woulde allwayes denye the Conclusion, and saye. Na­ye: but I am no Asse. Wherein he shewed him selfe to be an As­se in dede.

Harding. diuis. 33. Euen as our Sacramentaries do ascribe all to faith onely, and (40) call the most worthyest Sacrament none other but tokening bread, whiche of it selfe hath no diuine efficacy or o­peration.

Iewell. pag. 81. The .66. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. Articu. 6.¶ The .40. Vntruthe. We neuer called it so.

You Sacramentaries of Geneua do so call it, if you agree with the doctrine of Iohn Caluin youre Master. Who in his resolutions vppon the Sacramentes, hathe these verye wordes. Although the bread be geuen vnto vs as a Marke or pleadge of the Communion, yet bicause it is a signe, not the thinge it selfe, nor hathe not the thinge included in it, they which staie their mindes thereupon, worshipping therein Christ, they make an idoll of it. In these wordes Caluin maketh the Sacrament only a tokening bread, a signe without the thinge included in it, which is a bare signe and to­ken. [Page 31] Nowe to iudge the doctrine of the scholers, by the printed and published doctrine of the Master, it is no Vntruthe.

Harding. Nowe one place more for priuate Masse, diuis. 34. & caet. (41.) This place is twise founde in Chrysostom.

Iewell. The .41. Vntruthe.pag. 87. The .67. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. Stapleton Priuate Masse is neuer founde in Chrysosto­me.

The daily Sacrifice offred, without any to Communi­cat, is (in your sence M. Iewell) priuat Masse. But that is founde in Chrysostome. Ergo priuate Masse is founde in Chrysosto­me. The Maior or first proposition is clere. The seconde is the saying of Chrysostome. These are his wordes.Homi. 61. ad p [...]p. A [...] ­tioch. The daily sacrifi­ce is offred in vaine. We stande at the aultar for naught. There is not one that will be houseled. Here lo is a daily Sacrifice offred, and yet not one to Comunicate, This place M. Iewell, if you wil stande to the letter, (as you do in all other places alleaged) you can neuer auoyde while you liue. And therfore there is no re­medy. You must Subscribe.

Harding. But all was in vaine (42) for none came.

Iewell. The .42. Vntruthe.The .68. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. There came many bothe of the people and also of the clergy.

Chrysostome sayeth. Nullus qui communicetur. There is not one that will be houseled. M. Iewell saieth it is not true, there came many. Then Chrysostom lieth, not D. Harding, who sa­yeth no one worde more herein, then Chrysostome him selfe saied. Then score vp this Vntruthe vpon Chrysostom, not vpō D. Harding.

Harding. In that greate and populous Citye of Antioche, where the Scriptures were daily expounded and (43) preached.

Iewell. The .43. Vntruthe. There was no such daily preaching, as shall ap­peare.The .69. Vntruthe Slaunde­ro [...]s.

And how shall that appeare M. Iewell? Mary you alleage in your text Chrysostome which confesseth that such open sermons were made to the people but ones in the weke. What [Page] then?How the Sacrifice and the preaching is called daily. Thē, saye you, it is an Vntruthe, to saie it was daily. No Vntru­the at al M. Iewell. For when the saying of an Author is true in that sence which he meaned, then is the saying true. Nor daily preaching, nor daily Sacrifice is so auouched, that precisely euery daie in the whole yeare, either sermōs were made, either the Sacrifice offred. That is called daily in the olde writers whiche was often done and ones at the lest euery weke. So was the preaching, so was the sacrifice. You heard S. Austen before call the Blessed Sacrament, our daily bread. And thereuppon you conclude your selfe,pag. 63. lin. 11. The people then receiued the Sacrament euery daye. And yet in the next page before disputinge againste the daily Sacrifice,M. Iewell contrarye to him selfe. you saye. Neyther was the Communion then Ministred euerye daye. For proufe whereoff yow alleage an epistle sent from certaine bishoppes, wherein it was con­fessed that the ministration was only vpon the Sondaies.pag. 62. lin. 3. Now then M. Iewell if the people receiued the Sacrament euery da­ie, and yet the Communiō was only ministred vpon the Son­daies, either you must graunt that they receiued without a Communiom which is by your doctrine a great abuse, either that a thinge may be called daily though it be done but o­nes in the weke. And then if you may so interpret the dai­ly Sacrifice, why may not we interpret the daily preaching in like maner, bicause it was done ones in the weke, as the place which you alleage out of Chrysostom against D. Harding, witnesseth expressely?pag. 63. lin. 35. Thus it was no Vntruthe for D. Harding to call that daily preaching which was but ones in the weke, no more then it is for you to saye The people receiued euery daye,The 70. Vntruthe For befo­re he sa­ied: The people re­ceiued eue­ry daie. and yet The communion was ministred only vpon the Sonday.

Againe to shifte away the daily sacrifice, you saie the Sa­crament may be called daily bread not for that it is daily receiued, but for that there is no day excepted, but it may be receiued euery day. By this meanes also we may saie, The preaching in Antioche was called daily of D. Harding: bicause there was no day ex­cepted, [Page 32] but that there might be a Sermon made euery day. Thus M. Iewel by your owne phrases and expositions,M. Iewell confuteth him selfe. the say­ing of D. Harding is proued to be no Vntruthe. Wherefore you had very litle occasion to geue out such a Solemne Sentence, and to say. I note not this for that I mislyke with daily preaching,The 71. Vntruthe For there was no Vntruthe so bolde­ly presu­ued. but for that Vntruthe so boldely presumed should not passe vntouched. You should rather haue saied, But for that otherwise the hart would haue broken, if malice this way had not vttered her ve­nim. For truly M. Iewell you haue shewed your selfe herein to be made euen of the scrapinges of malice it selfe, which in a matter by your selfe not mislyked (as you confesse) would yet picke out a faulte, where none at all is. Which in your next Vntruthe appeareth yet more euidently.

Harding. Either the Sacrifice ceased, and that was not done, which (44) Christ Commaunded to be done in his remembraunce, &c.

Iewell. The 72. Vntruthe Slaund. The .44. Vntruthe. Christ commaunded no such daily Sacrifice.

Stapleton. Why put you in the worde daily? That is more then D. Harding saied. But that Christ commaunded a Sacrifice to be done in remembraunce of him, yea and a daily Sacrifice, that hath ben proued before M. Iewell, in the 34. Vntruthe. Which you bothe before in the 5. the 33. and the 34. Vntruthe,M. Iewell repeteth one Vn­truthe foure ti­mes. and now againe the fourthe time haue repeted only to make vp a num­ber of Vntruthes, in this first article, wherein you thought to bringe D. Harding out of credit at the beginning for euer. For euen here you Boast and Vaunt out of measure, and that with such Impudency, as no man of lerning woulde vse but you. And you saie.Pag. 91. The 73. Vntruthe ioyned with pas­sing impudency.

Iewell. O M. Harding, is it not possible your Doctrine may stande vvith­out lies? So many Vntruthes, in so litle roome, without the shame of the worlde, vvithout feare of God?

To the which I answer. O M. Iewel. Is it not possible to defende your most Vaine Chalenge, without such Impudent [Page] Lies? So many Vntruthes Charged vpon D. Harding in so li­tle roome, euen at the entry of your Maine Labour, and not one of them True? All returned backe vnto you? And haue you done all this so Impudently, so Facingly, so extreme Braggingly, without the Shame of the worlde, Wihout Fea­re of God? You a preacher of Gods holy worde, you an in­structer of the people, you a Bishop, and God will? Teache you Truthe at home, which haue printed openly so many noto­rious Lies, so outragious Vntruthes, so facing fashoods? Are not your selfe now guilty of all these Vntruthes (lege talionis) which in so [...]tle roome and so many you haue forged vpon D. Harding?

Harding. By reporte of Chrysostom the Sacrifice in his time was daily offred, that is to saie, the Masse was celebrated. But ma­ny times no body came to communicat Sacramentally with the priestes, (45) as it is before proued.

Iewell. pag. 88. The 74. Vntruthe the Slaund.The .45. Vntruthe. This is not yet proued.

Stapleton. Yes M. Iewell it is so proued, that you shall neuer be able to auoide it, I meane euen by this place of Chrysostom. This is the syllogismus, or brief argument of the whole.

Priuat Masse proued out of Chry­sostom. VVhere the daily Sacrifice is made and none doth communicat with the Priest, there is Masse without communicants.

But Chrisostom saieth the daily Sacrifice was made, and no body did communicat.

Ergo by Chrysostoms saying, there was a Masse without commu­nicants. Of this it foloweth.

A masse without communicants is priuat Masse.

Ergo there was priuat Masse.

Here M. Iewell to defeate this argument presseth and wrin­geth him selfe, as many waies, as arte or witt coulde helpe him. And yet none will serue. First he demaundeth.

Iewell. pag. 88.Whether M. Harding wil rest vpon the bare wordes of Chrysostom, or qualifie them somewhat, and take his meaning.

[Page 33] Stapleton To the which his answer is. He will rest vpon the wordes of Chrysostom not bare, but taking also his meaning. Which is to meane as he spake, and not contrary to his speache. M. Ie­well disputeth on bothe sides. First he saieth.

Iewell. If he presse the wordes precisely,The 75. Vntruthe For it fo­loweth not by Chryso­stoms wordes that he him selfe did not Commu­nicat. then Chr [...]ostom him selfe did not Communicat. For he was Some body. And the plaine wordes be, No body did Communicat.

Who euer thought M. Iewell had bene so very a foole, as to be ignorant, that in an vniuersall speache, s [...]mper excipitur persona loquentis. Euer the party that speaketh is excepted? Na­mely in such thinges which signifie an Action not touching the Speaker him selfe. As here. Chrysostom saying that No bo­dy did communicat, speaketh it of the communicating of Other with him, not of his Owne communicating. After this M. Ie­well disputeth vpon Chrysostoms meaning by a Gheasse vt­terly Vntrue, as it shall now appeare. He saieth.The .76. Vntruth. For S. Chryso­stom spe­keth no one word of small compai­nes.

It appeareth Chrisostoms purpose was to rebuke the negligence of the people for that of so poppulous a Citie, they came to the Com­munion in so small compaines.

This Gheasse as it is vtterly vntrue, so it is vtterly vnpro­ued. I will tell you Chrisostoms purpose, and proue it to by his owne wordes. His purpose was to persuade the people frō their vsuall ones receiuing at Easter, and to come oftener to receiue the holy Sacrament.The pur­pose of Chryso­stom in the place alleaged These are his wordes euen next before the wordes last alleaged. I see great inequalite of thinges a­monge you. At other times when as for most parte ye are in cleane li­fe,, ye come not to receiue your rightes. But at Easter though ye ha­ue done some thinges amisse, yet ye come. O what a custome is this: O what presumption is this? Homi. 61. ad Pop. A tioch. The Daily Sacrifice is offred in vaine &c? Lo M. Iewell you heare what Chrisostōs purpose was by his own wordes: not by a Vaine Gheasse contrary to his wor­des. For you saie,The 77. Vntruth. as before. vpō your former Vaine and Vntrue Gheasse that he calleth those Compaines, in a vehemency of speache & cae, No body. Now he speaketh against the custome of ones recei­uing [Page] of all the people at Easter, as it is nowe, and saieth that for all the Daily Sacrifice, yet Not One receiued. As for that you bringe exāples of Scripture and of Chrysostō, that Nemo, No Body, Doth sometime signifie a fewe and small company, you must remembre M. Iewell, that examples serue to expresse and to make clere one matter by an other, not to proue and con­clude one thinge vpon an other. You knowe the rule. Exempla dilucidant non probant. Examples doe open that which is darke: they proue not. If you had first proued that Chrysostom by the word No body had meant smal Compaines, then for example of the like, your allegations would haue ser­ued well. Nowe to proue this can not serue, but only to exem­plifie. Thus your simple gheasse vpon Chrysostoms mea­ning is founde vtterly Vaine, Fonde, and Vntrue. So bothe the wordes and the meaning of Chrysostom make directly against you and proue clerely that none did communicat oftētimes in the daily Sacrifice, which is priuat Masse.

Yeat M. Iewell hunteth after other shiftes, and sacketh euery corner of his olde notes, to ouerthrow and obscure this clere testimony of Chrysostom for priuat Masse. And saieth:

Iewell. pag. 89.And albeit, this onely answer compared with the maner of Chri­sostomes eloquence, which commonly is hote and feruent, and with the cōmon practise of the Church then,The 78. Vntruth. For this only An­swer is in sufficient as shall appeare. may suffice to a man more de­sirous of truthe then of contention, yet I haue good hope &c.

Stapletō. If you M. Iewell had bene more desirous of the truth, which your forefathers beleued, then of Contention to maintaine your late vpstert Faction the Lutheran Secte, if you had min­ded in dede to yelde to the Lerned Fathers, as you professed in your Sermon to doe, if your whole intent and ende in this Re­plie had not bene to defende your ouer fonde and rashe Cha­lenge, with the which your owne brethern are offended, but to trie the Truthe of our faithe in Christ Iesus, you woulde your self haue iudged that this your Answer to the place of Chryso­stom [Page 34] had bene very Fonde, Childish, and Peuish. For what Child but you, would call the wordes of Chrysostō in doub­te, saying, There is no Body that Dothe Communicate, Bicause he him selfe communicated, which was some body? For I pray you M. Iewel, if these wordes cā not proue the Sole Receauing of the Priest which you call priuat Masse, what wordes shall euer be able to proue it? Did you Deuise your Chalenge vpon Certain Termes,The In­tēt of M. Iewelles Chalēge. which you thought could neuer be founde in the Auncient Writers, or did you seke after the Matter com­prised in such termes? If the first, then you your selfe M. Iewell are the man (that you speake of) more desirous of Cōtention, then of Truthe. If the last, then you haue here a Priuat Masse. You haue a daily Sacrifice which the Latin Church hath cal­led the Masse euē before Chrysostōs time, without Cōmuni­cāts. If this, as I saied, do proue no Priuat Masse, I beseche you M. Iewel tel vs by what words wil you haue it proued? Wil you denie we haue had Priuat Masse these later 900. yeres? Wil you denie, the Catholikes haue it at this howre in Italy, Fraūce, Germany, Spayne, Portugall and other Christened Coūtres? I dare say, you wil not put vs to proue this. But if you should, I thinke verely we could neuer bringe better recorde out of any writer for any Countre,VVhy Priuat Masse cannot easely be proued in plaine termes. then is Chrysostom in this place for Antio­che. For why? Many thinges are so well knowen, so certaine, so common, that therefore they are not put in writing. What example can you bringe M. Iewell out of all the first 600. yeres, that euer any man saied his Pater Noster Priuatly to him selfe alone, out of the Churche or Congregation?P [...]iu [...]t Pater Noster. And yet who doubteth but Thousandes did so att that tyme? And truly in lyke maner to proue by Recordes and writinges of lerned men, that Priuat Masse was saied in Spaine (for example) fourty yeares agoe, woulde be a thinge of as greate Dif­ficulty, as to proue it in the first 600. yeares, if so plaine wordes as Chrysostomes are, maye not be admitted. For what can be [Page] more plaine then this? We stande at the aultar, we Offer the daily sacrifice, and none doth Communicat. Yet thus muche saied Chri­sostome. Therefore againste this Clere and Euident Assertion of Chrysostome, we admitte not youre Pelting Exception off Chrysostomes owne person, nor the bolde shifting off No bo­dy into small companies, exemplified, not proued. This answer I saye we admitt not, not for Contention sake, which doe not defende herein any Priuate Particular Doctrine of our owne, but the Faythe of oure forefathers, and the Faithe of all Chri­stened Countres, beside you and a fewe others, but we reiecte it M. Iewell for Truthes sake. The Truthe I saye of that Faithe in the which bothe you and we were baptised, bothe your pa­rents and oures haue yelded their soules to God. But nowe let vs see what is the hope that you haue conceiued although this Answer be reiected. You saye.

Iewell. The .79. Vntruthe For it is Master Iewelles Nemo, not D. Har­dings, nor Chryso­stoms neither.I haue good hope, it may be proued, notwithstanding Master Hardinges Nemo, that Chrysostome neither was alone, nor coulde be al­one at the holy Ministration, and therefore coulde saye no priuate Masse.

Beholde good Readers, howe M. Iewell deceiueth you. He will proue that Chrysostome coulde not be alone at the holy Ministration, and therfore coulde saye no Priuate Masse. And howe many Thousandes of Priestes do daily saye Priuate Masse, which yet be not alone at the holy Ministration? But if M. Iewell will proue that Chrysostome coulde saye no priuate Masse,M. Iewell stealeth from the Matter. he must proue that Chrysostom coulde not Receiue A­lone. For what is Priuat Masse, as M. Iewel and his felowes take it, but the Sole Receiuing of the Priest? Proue then M. Iewel that Chrysostome could not Receiue alone. Marke, what the Answere of M. Ie­well ought to be. Truly iff you can do so, you shall proue that vpon Chrysostome, whiche Chrysostom him selfe denieth. For beholde Chrysostom saied. He hath not one to Communicat. M. Iewell will proue. It is not possible but he shoulde haue some Body to Communicat. And so M. Iewel [Page 35] wil proue that thinge to be done,M. Iewell wil proue S. Chry­sostom a lyar. whiche yet Chrisostome sa­ieth in plaine wordes, was not done. But because he woulde not seme to fight against Chrysostome, and his wordes: but a­gainst D. Harding and his wordes, he protesteth to proue this, Notwithstandinge M. Hardinges Nemo. He shoulde haue sayed, if he woulde speake truly.M. Iewell iuggleth one word for an o­ther to make pa­stime. Notwithstanding S. Chrysostomes Nullus, Not one. For that worde Nemo, No body whiche M. Iewell sporteth him selfe so much with in this place, is not founde ei­ther in Chrysostome, or in D. Hardinge: But is deuised of this Sir Iohn Hicke scorner to make sporte, and passe time withall. In dede the worde Nullus, Not one: which so graueleth M. Ie­well, is the worde of Chrysostome, but not of D. Hardinges inuention. Thus he altereth and iuggleth, prouing and placing one thinge for an other, so to steale awaye and beguile the Re­ader. For you shal see, M. Iewell with al his Allegations, Shiftes and Euasions shall neuer be able to proue, that Chrysostome coulde not Receiue Alone at the holy Ministration, which is the only waye to proue that he coulde saye no priuat Masse. You shall see his wordes,

Iewell. For if the whole Companye of the laye people woulde haue for­saken him, yet had he Companie sufficient of the Priestes and Deacōs,pag. 89. and others of the Quiere. And if the whole Quiere woulde haue for­saken him, yet had he Companie sufficient▪ of the people, as it maye be clerely proued.

Stapleton Lo you see, his proufes do tende not to proue that a com­panye Communicated with Chrysostome, but to proue that a company was Present. Now if the Presence of a company ma­ye disproue Priuate Masse, then is there at this daye no Priuate Masse, nor neuer was in any Cathedrall or parish Churches v­pon Sonday or holy day. Yet let vs consider M. Iewelles prou­fes.

Iewell. That there was then a greate numbre to Serue in the Ministery, it may diuersely wel appeare.

Stapleton Lo againe. He talketh of Wayters on, not of such as doe Cō municat. [Page] And yet all this that he bringeth hereafter of the cler­gy, is Vtterly from the Purpose.

Iewell Ignatius calleth Presbyterium, the sacred Colledge, the Councel and Cō ­panye of the Bishop.

Stapletō. This proueth a companye to serue at the aultar with the Bishop. But it proueth not that they communicated with the Bishop. And thoughe it did, yet it proueth not that euerye o­ther Priest had Alwaies at his Masse a Companie to cōmuni­cate with him. And Saint Chrysostome when he wrote the­se wordes (of whiche we nowe treate) was no Bishoppe, as it shall anon appeare. Therefore this is Vtterly from the Pur­pose.

Iewell. Chrysostome him selfe in his Liturgie sayeth thus, The Deacons bringe the dishes with the holy Breade vnto the holye Aultar, the Rest carie the holye Cuppes. By whiche wordes appeareth bothe a number of the Mini­sterie, and also prouision for them that woulde Receiue.

Stapleton This then was the order, when people did receiue. It pro­ueth not that people did at euery Masse receiue. As well you might, M. Iewell, bringe the latine Manuall of some churches, against Priuate Masse, where also order is taken for such as will receiue.

Againe this was a solemnite in the Churche of Constanti­nople, when S. Chrysostom was bishop there. But the wordes of Chrysostom which we treate of nowe, were spoken in An­tioche when he was yet but a priest, no bishop.

Iewell. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 43. Nazianzen in Apolo­get.Cornelius writeth that in the Churche of Rome there were four­tie and sixe priestes, seuen deacons, seuen subdeacons, forty and two A­coluthes, Exorcistes, Readers, and other officers of the Churche fiftie and two. VVydoues and other afflicted people that were there relieued a 1500. Nazianzen complaineth of the number of the clergie in his ti­me, that they semed to be moe then the rest of the people. Therefore the Emperor Iustinian afterwarde thought nedefull to abridge the number and to make a lawe that in the great Churche at Constanti­nople, where Chrysostome was bishop,

Stapleton (But not when he wrote this homelie out of the which [Page 36] the wordes are taken, to the which M. Iewel nowe maketh an­swer)

Iewell. There shoulde not be aboue the number of 60. priestes, one hundred deacons, fourescore and tenne subdeacons, one hundred and tenne Readers, and fiue and twenti Singers.

Stapleton All this proueth that your clergy of Laie Craftesmen, and Younge Scholers hauing only Ministres and deacons, is farre vnlike to the clergy of the primitiue Church, who had so ma­ny degrees beside of holy Orders: It proueth not that All these did at All Times Receiue with the Bishop. And for proufe he­reof you bringe not one worde, but thus you Conclude M. Ie­well.

Iewell. Hereby we maye see, that Chrysostome being at Antioche in so po­pulous a Citie, although he had none of the laye people with him, yet coulde not be vtterly lefte alone.

Stapleton This is loe, M. Iewelles Conclusion and this is his argu­ment.The effect of M. Ie­welles former Allegations. Ignatius a bishop of Antioche had a number of Pries­tes to waite vpon him, Chrysostom when he was bishop in Constantinople had the like, Cornelius bishop of Rome had so also, Nazianzen complaineth of the great number of the clergy, and Iustinian longe after Chrysostoms time restrained the nūber of the clergy in Constantinople, Ergo Chrysostome being no bishop but a Priest only at Antioche, had in Antio­che Alwaies a Number to Serue and Waite vpon him. For thou must vnderstande (gentle Reader) when Chrysostom spake these wordes, which we are nowe aboute,Hom. 6 [...]. ad Pop. Antioch. Socrates. li. 6. cap. 3. Niceph. li. 31. ca. 2. (The daily Sacrifice is offred in vaine: we stande at the Aultar for nought: There is not one that will receiue) he spake those wordes in an homilie made to the people of Antioche where he toke the inferiour orders as Socrates and Nicephorus do write, where he was made Rea­der, deacon, and priest. He was then no bishop at all, but only a Priest at Antioche. Therefore all this number that M. Iewell hath hetherto proued, is vtterly beside the purpose. And that for ij. causes. First bicause all his allegations being of bishops, of Ro­me, [Page] and of Constantinople,Al M. Ie­welles al­legations haue proued no­thinge. they make nothinge to the wordes of Chrysostom who was then but a Priest and that at Antio­che. Secondarely bicause, al these allegations proueth a number to Waite and Attende vpon the bishop, but they proue not a whit, that such a number ought allwaies to Receiue with the bishop. Nowe let vs see howe M. Iewell procedeth.

Iewell. The 80. Vntruthe ioyned with a Slaund. scoffe.Nowe if we saie that some of these priestes, deacons, or other Com­municated with the Bishop, I tell them (saieth M. Harding) boldely and with a solemne countenaunce, which must nedes make good proofe, This is but a poore shifte and will not serue their turne.

Stapleton D. Harding did not only tell you so M. Iewell, but he added also a reason wherefore. To the which reason you haue not an­swered one worde, but like a Hicke Scorner you thought to face out the mattter, making your Reader beleue, that it was on­ly tolde with a bolde and solemne Countenaunce. Nowe this Shifte M. Iewell is not only Poore, but very Beggarly and star­ke False, and such as you are neuer able to Proue. To witte, that Euery Simple Priest at Euery time that he saied Masse, had a Number of other Priestes and deacons to communicat with him. For vnlesse you proue this M. Iewell, it will allwaies be but a Gheasse to saie, Chrysostom had certaine priestes and deacons to communicat. Yet you saie.

Iewell. But if it be true, it is riche enough, if it agree with Chrysostomes owne meaning, it is no shifte, and therefore sufficiently serueth our purpose.

Stapleton Proue it to be true, then it shall be ritche enough. Proue it to agree with Chrysostoms meaning, then it shall be no Shif­te. You procede and saie.

Iewell. The .81. Vntruthe ioyned with a scoffe.And bicause he sitteth so fast vpon the bare wordes, and reposeth all his hope vpon Nemo, if we list to cauil in like sorte.

Stapletō. It is no cauilling to presse the Authors wordes and mea­ning, as hath bene proued. But to wr [...]st the Author to that which he neuer meant, as M. Iewell hath done, that is in dede to cauille.

[Page 37] Iewell. VVe might soone finde warrant sufficient to answer this matter euen in the very plain wordes of Chrisostome. For thus they lie.The .82. Vntruth. For these plaine wordes of Chri­sostom include no nūber to Recei­ue vvith him. Fru­stra assistimus Altari. In vaine we stande at the Aultar. VVe stande, saieth he, and not. I stande, and therfore includeth a number and not one alone.

He includeth in dede a number to stande at the Aultar, but he includeth no number to receiue at the Aultar, vnles­se M Iewell be of the opinion, that they receiued standing. Againe Chrysostom complaineth not only of him selfe and his owne flocke, but of other priestes also and their flockes. 1 We stande, we priestes do stande at the Aultar, we offer the daily Sacrifice, and yet: Nullus qui communicetur. 2 There is not one that dothe communicat.

Iewell. How be it, our shiftes are not so poore: We nede not to take holde of so small aduantages.

Stapleton It is a pointe of Rhetorike to make great Bragges, when Matter fainteth. But when M. Iewell hath all saied, it will ap­peare that this Small Aduantage, is the best holde he hath. It fo­loweth.

Iewell. It is prouided by the Canons of the Apostles, that if any bishop or priest or Deacon, or any other of the Quiere, after Oblation is made, doe not receiue, Cā. Apost. 8. De Cons. Dist. 1. Episcopus. onlesse he shewe some reasonable cause of his doing, that he stande excommunicat. The like lawe in the Churche of Rome was after renewed by Pope Anacletus.

Stapletō. M. Iewell did well to expounde the Canon of the Apost­les by the lawe of Anacletus. For as the lawe of Anacletus speaketh expressely of bishops only, and of their Masses, so do­the Canon of the Apostles also, if at lest they be like: as M. Ie­well saieth. And then they make nothinge to the Present Pur­pose. For (as it hath bene shewed before) Chrysostom was then no Bishop,The .83. Vntruthe in falsi­fying the Canō of the Apo­stles. when he spake the wordes which we nowe treate of, but a Priest in Antioche. Againe M. Iewell to stretche the Canon of the Apostles farder then it was intended, hath falsi­fied a parte therof. For where he saith (or any other of the Quire) it is in the greke [...] in Latin, aut alius or­dinis [Page] [...] [Page 37] [...] [Page] eccl [...]siastici, in true english, or any other of the Clergy. For of the Clergy only this Canō was made, who in the Apostles ti­me, and many yeres after, whē the bishop celebrated, vsed customably to receiue. For in that time many right holy and lerned men continewed in the inferiour orders of the clergy all the daies of their life. And were not admitted to priesthood but being called, and in a maner forced thereunto. Such at that ti­me in the beginning of the faithe communicated with the bi­shop, bicause otherwise (as the Canon saieth) he shoulde seme to be, author offensionis populo, & suspicionem praebens in offeren­tem. A cause of offence to the people, and to bringe the party that offred into suspicion As being such a one, with whom his Clergy woulde not communicat. For this re pect at that time, such communicating with the bishop was thought necessary. The state of Chrisostoms time foure hundred yeres after was otherwise.

Iewell. pag. 90. Can. 14.The Councell of Nice decreeth thus. Let the Dea [...]ons in order after the Priestes receiue of the bishops, or of the Priest the holy Communion.

Stapleton This proueth, that when the Deacons receiued, in such order they should receiue it. It doth not proue that at euery Ministration they were bounde to receiue. Againe the decree speaketh of bishops and of their Celebrating. Chrysostō now was no bishop.

Iewell. Carth. 6. Can. 18.Likewise the Councell of Carthage. Let the Deacons receiue the Com­munion in order after the Priestes, either the bishop or the Priest ministring it.

Stapleton Likewise we answer as before. They were not commaun­ded at euery Ministration to receiue &c.

Iewell. Can. 59. T [...]l. 4. cap. 17.So the Councel of Laodicea. It is lawfull only for the Priestes of the Church to enter in to the place where the Aul [...]ar stan [...]eth, and there to Cōmunicate. So the Councel of Toledo. Let the Priestes and Deacons communicate before the Aul­tar: the Clerkes in the Quiere, and the people without the Quie [...]e.

Stapletō. To these I answer as before. It is an order howe, it is no cō ­maundement when, and how often they should receiue.

[Page 38] Iewell. Nicolaus Cusanus hath these wordes. This thinge is specially to be noted, that the Priest did neuer celebrat without a Deacon. A [...] Clerū e [...] literatos Bohaemie The .84. Vntruthe [...]uching the time of Chry­sostom. In litur­gia. And that in euery Masse the Deacon receiued the Sacrament in the kinde of Bread at the Priestes hande, and the Priest the Cuppe at the Deacons hande.

Yea forsothe they did so (as he saieth) but in the Apostles ti­me only, and certain yeares after.

But what nedeth much proofe in a case that is so plaine? Chryso­stom him selfe foloweth the same order. After that the Priestes haue recei­ued (saieth he) the Archedeacon commaundeth the Deacons to come fort [...]e and they so coming receiue as the Priestes did before.

Stapleton This proueth they did so in certain solemne and principall feastes. But that they did so allwaies euery daye or Sondaye, and that of bounded duty (whereby only it should be impossi­ble that Chrysostom should communicat alone) that it pro­ueth not, nor saieth no such thinge.

Iewell. Now let M. Harding iudge vprightly whether these shiftes be so poore as he woulde make them.

Stapleton Now let not only M. Harding, but all the worlde iudge vp­rightly whether these be not (not onely Poore) but very Beg­garly and moste Miserable Shiftes, and suche as proue no dea­le at all, that Chrysostome coulde in no wyse Communi­cate alone, and therfore did not Communicat alone. Whi­che is the Purpose, wherefore all these Allegations are brought.

M. Iewell perceauing very well that for all his former Alle­gations he could not proue the Clergy bounde to the daily cō municating, nowe he goeth aboute to proue it in the People. And that therefore Chrysostom must nedes haue some to cō ­municat with him, yea though he saied him selfe he had not o­ne. These are his wordes.

Iewell. Chrysostome in diuers places Semeth to diuide the whole multi­tude into three sortes, whereof some were Poenitent some Negligent, and some Deuoute.

Stapleton We see presently all this is but a bare Gheasse, by the very [Page] wordes off M. Iewell, Semeth to diuide. But let vs heare for­the.

Iewell. The .85. Vntruthe For the deuoute Receiued not alwa­yes.The Penitent were commaunded awaye, and might not Com­municate. The negligent sometyme departed off them selues, and woulde not Communicate. The deuoute remained and receaued to­geather.

Howe proueth M. Iewell, this later pointe? Yow shall he­are.

Iewell. Nowe, that the deuoute remained stil with Chrysostome, the who­le time of the holy Mysteries, it is plaine by the verye same place, that M. Harding here alleageth for his purpose.

Stapleton Yea: But you must proue that those deuoute, not only Re­mained still, but also Receiued with Chrysostom. How proue you that? You go forth and alleage your place.

Iewell. Ad pop. Antioch. Homi. 61.For thus Chrysostome saieth vnto the people. Thou art come into the Church, and hast songe praises vnto God, with the rest, and hast confessed thy selfe to be one of the worthy, in that thou departedest not foorth with the vnworthy. By the­se wordes he sheweth that some were worthy, and some vnworthy. That the vnworthy departed, and the worthy remained.

Stapleton Yea M. Iewell. But here is not One Worde that those Worthy whiche Remained, did Receiue. That is but youre Gheasse. Neither yet is there any worde that those whiche Re­mained, were all Deuoute. For in dede withoute Gheasse or ayme those vnworthy which departed, were the penitents on­ly, whiche were commaunded to departe the Church with the Catechumins or Nouices in the faith, straight after the Sermon. And those which remayned were all the reste of the people, as well Deuoute as not Deuoute. Agayne though they were all Deuoute,Ad Ianu­arium. epi­stol. 118. yet will it not folowe that they all Receiued. For by S. Augustins iudgement, a man maye bothe Receiue and Re­fraine from Receiuing with Deuotion. The one he compareth to Zachaeus which gladly and hastely receiued Christ in to his house, The other to the Centurion, whiche with no lesse loue of Christ,Luca. 7. saied yet, Lorde I am not worthy, that thou shouldest en­tre [Page 39] vnder my [...]oufe. Yea Chrysostom in that place, After he had saied in a greate Vehemency,Homi. 61. a [...] pop. Antoch. who so doth not Communicat, is one of the poenitents, straightwaye refrayning him selfe, lest he shoul­de seme to condemne all that were present, he sayeth, At ex his non es, sed ex his qui possunt esse participes, & nihil curas, aut mag­num opus censes. O but you are not such a poenitent, but of the number of those whiche maye Communicate.Those which re­mained in the Churche Rece­iued not. But you care not much for the matter, or you thinke it is a greate Busynes, &c, In which wordes it appeareth plainly that those which re­mained, were such as might Communicat: but yet such as part­ly of Negligence, partly of Feare and Reuerence did refraine. And therefore Chrysostome tempering his vehement talke sa­ieth vnto such. Considera quaeso, Mensa Regalis est apposita, The drif­te of Chrisostom in the Ho­milie alleaged. & caet. Consider I beseche you. The kinges table is layde, and so for­the in many words, persuading them to come and Receiue of­tener. After all whiche longe persuasion he concludeth att length, saying. Ne maius itaque vobis iudicium faciamus, vos ex­ [...]ort [...]mur, non vt accedatis, sed vt praesentia vos & accessu dignos constituatis. Therefore that we may not encrease youre iudge­ment (meaning, that the more they were warned, the more should be their Damnation, if they obeied not) we do exhorte you not to come and receiue, but to make youre selfe wor­thy bothe to be present and to receiue. In which words he lea­ueth their Coming or not Coming to the Sacrament as free vnto them, charging them only to make them selues. Alwayes Worthy thereof, to the entent that at Easter, the Epiphanye, and such other principall Festes they shoulde not be founde Vnworthy. For so he disputeth in fewe lynes after sayin­ge. Dic mihi, quaeso, post Annum Communionem sumens, Qua­draginta ne Dies ad totius temporis Peccatorum purificatio­nem tibi satis esse putas? Et Hebdomade ipsa rursum ad Prio­ra reuer [...]eris? Tell me I praye thee.Ones Receiuing in the yeare. Thow cominge to Receiue after a yeares space, thinkest thow that fourty [Page] daies (he meaneth the Lent time) will be sufficient to puri­fie thee of thy sinnes of all that time? And then in that very weke thou returnest againe to thy former sinnes. For this cause that after Easter the people fell to dissolutnes, Chryso­stom exhorted them so to liue the rest of the yeare, that they should Alwaies, though not Come and Receiue, yet be Wor­thy to come and Receiue. This is the Drift and Ende of all Chrysostoms disputatiō in that homelie, al most directly with out Gheasse or Ayme prouing Priuat Masse, that is the daily Sacrifice without Company of Communicants.

Iewell. And againe in the same homelie he saieth. The deacon standing on high, calleth some to the communio [...], The 86. Vntruthe standing in the manifest Corrup­tion of Chryso­stom. Stapleton and putteth of some, th [...]usteth out some, and bringeth in some. Chrysostom saieth. Some are called, and, some are brought in to receiue with the priest. VVhere then is now M. Hardinges Nemo?

Will you neuer leaue to deceiue your Reader and to abuse all the worlde with Patched Sentences beside the purpose? Chrysostom in these wordes telleth the maner of the deacons at the Seruice time, howe none but worthy are admitted. He speaketh not of any ordinary custome of the peoples receiuing at euery Ministration, as M. Iewell would haue it to seme. For Chrysostom after he had (as I shewed before) persuaded with the people to make them selues allwaies Worthy to Recei­ue, that they might not at Easter come Vnworthy, telling them therefore, that liuing in sinne all the yeare Longe, the fourty daies of Lēt would scant serue to purge them, and speaking the same so earnestly, that his hearers began to be afearde euen of that ones coming to the Sacrament, he saieth at last vnto them. Haec dico non vno & annuo vos prohibens accessu, sed vos semper ad sancta volens accedere. Ho [...]lia 61. ad pop. Antioch. I speake these thinges not forbidding you to come ones in the yere, but desirous to haue you come alwai­es to these holy mysteries. After which wordes it foloweth. Propter hoc & Diaconus acclamat tunc sanctos vocans, & per hanc vocem omnium taxans maculas. For this cause (that ye may co­me worthely) the deacon crieth at that time (at the masse time) [Page 40] calling, the holy, and by this worde (Holy) rebuking the faultes of al. After which wordes, discoursing in a fewe lines by a com­paryson takē of a flocke of shepe, at lenght he saieth of the Dea­con. Stans erectus, omnibus appar [...]ns, & magnum in illa tremenda quiete exclamans, hos quidē vocat hos autem arcet, non manu hoc faciens, sed per linguam quam per manum e [...]fica [...]ius. Illa nanque vox in aures incidens nostras, tanquam manus, hos quidem pelli [...] & ei [...]ci [...], hos autem introducit & assistit. He standing vpright, in the sight of all the people, and crying Alowde, in that dreadfull Silence, some he calleth, and some he putteth of, not doing it with his Hande, but by his toumge more effectuously, then with his hande. For that worde (Holy) falling into our eares, like as a hande, driueth out some, and bringeth in other. This is lo, M. Iewell, the thrusting out, and bringing in, that the Deacon vseth. Not as though he brought in some to Receiue as you would make your Reader beleue, and as you expressely (but vntruly) do saie, but bicause, Crying out Holy, he excluded all Vnholy and vn­worthy persons. Al which Chrysostō brought in only to set before the peoples eies, how none but Holy and Worthy might be admitted to receiue those Holy Mysteries. He speaketh not one worde of the peoples cōmunicating with him in Smal Cō ­panies. But cleane contrary, rebuketh their Ones Coming in the yeare, not so much for that they came but Ones, as for that they came euen then Vnworthy, or els soone after Easter fel to their olde negligence and naughtynes.

Therefore (to Conclude) notwithstanding all your vaine Gheasses, Exceptions, and Allegations, [...]riuat [...]asse Conclu­ded. it is Clere not only by the Wordes, but also by the Meaning and whole discourse of Chrysostom in that Homely, that the People Receiued but O­nes in the yeare by any lawe, o [...]der, or Custome, and that of­tētimes the Daily Sacrifice was made, and yet Nullus qui com­municetur. There was not one that came to communicat.

Thus cōtrary to the Vntruthe noted by you vpō D. Harding, [Page] The Daily Sacrifice was celebrated when Not One came to cōmunicat Sacramētally with the priest. Which is as much to sa­ie, there was Priuat Masse. Thus also the 36. Vntruthe, where you saide M. Harding is able to shew no such case,pag. 64. where none of the people were founde disposed to receiue, is iustified and proued no Vntruthe. For in this Masse of Chrysostō Not One was founde. Thus Againe the 41. Vntruthe, where you noted that Priuat Masse is neuer founde in Chryso­stom, is disproued also, and proued most true. Last of al thus we haue a Priuat Masse with­in the first 600. yeares, and thus you must Subscribe. There is no remedy.

Harding. Diuis. 1. WHereas vnder either kinde (46.) whole Christ is verely present, this healthefull Sa­crament is of true Christian people with no lesse fruite Receiued vnder One Kinde, then vnder bothe.

Iewell. pag. 89. The 87. Vntruth. Slaunde­rous.The .46. Vntruthe. proceding only of the Grosse errour of transub­stantiation.

That Christ is wholy Receiued vnder either Kinde, semeth an Vntruth to M. Iewell. And why so? Forsothe bicause it pro­cedeth of the Grosse errour of Transubstantiation. Thus he salueth one sore with an other, and defendeth one heresy with an other, and that condemned in a generall Councell. But for Truthes sake which here I defende, though this heresy of M. Iewelles be already determined in Generall Councell,In Concil. Lateran· and the­refore of no good Christen man any more to be disputed or doubted of, yet I will assaye shortly proue it. The rather bicause a greate pith of this Article lyeth herein. For if this doctrine of whole Christ to be Receiued vnder either kinde, procedeth (as M. Iewell saieth) of Transubstantiation, this being proued, the o­ther is Concluded. This being Cōcluded that to Receiue vn­der One Kinde, is not any Iniury to the Receiuer, but as heal­thefull and frutefull as to receiue vnder bothe Kindes, the are the great Outcries and Complaintes of the enemies of nods Churche cutt of, vpbrayding the vniuersall practise of Chri­stendome these many hundred yeres by their owne Confes­sion, [Page] as guylty of Cruell Iniurie Done to Gods people. And then haue they lesse Cause in this Sacrament of Vnite, to rayse vp such a piteous storme of Variaunce and Dissension. Though yet M. Iewell full wisely in his text saieth, (of Recei­uing whole Christ vnder either kinde).

Iewell. This matter is moued by M. Harding out of season, as being no parte of this Question.pag. 98.

Stapleton For so farre it belongeth to this Question of Communion vnder one Kinde, that it being ones graunted, there is no iniu­ry that can be pretended, to be done to the people, as yet M. Ie­well out of the Schoolemen him selfe laboureth to proue, con­trary bothe to his owne last wordes,The .88. Vntruth ioyned with a folie. and to the whole doctri­ne of the Schoolemen Alexander de Hales, and Durandus, whom he alleageth very sadly in this place. But to be shorte, I proue Transubstantiation by Scripture and by authorite of the Fathers. If they teache vs grosse errours, for such let it be taken.Transub­stantiatiō proued by Scrip­ture. Luc. 22. The Scripture saieth. Hoc est Corpus meum, This is my Body. Which this M. Iewell? Can you saie. This bread is my Body? You knowe, Hoc, this, is the neuter gendre. Panis Bread, is the masculin. Then what this? This forsothe which Christ had blessed, and made saying, This is my Body. For the saying of God is making. God maketh with his wor­de.Genes. 1. The worde saied: Let light be made and light was made. The word saied This is my Body. And we beleue in so saying bicause it was not so before, he made it so euen then, For, Sine paeni­tentia sunt donae Dei & vocatio. Rom. 11. God repēteth him not of his gif­tes and calling. If then that which God hath saied, can not be reuoked, and Christ true God saied (holding in his hand which before he spake, was but bread) that it was his Body, vndoub­tedly as he was true God, so by saying he made it his Body. Now bicause if Christes true Body were ioyned with the na­ture of Bread, as his true Godhead was with the Nature of Fleshe, then the nature of Bread should be assumpted and ioy­ned in one person with the body of Christ, as his flesh and [Page 42] Humanite was ioyned in one person with his Godhead (which to saie is a most wicked and blasphemous heresy) the­refore it must of necessite folow, that the nature of Bread be vtterly changed in to the Body of Christ, and not to remaine with it. This if it be so, then is it a clere and vndoubted Trāsub­stantiation, of the whole nature of Bread in to the whole and perfit Body of Christ. Neither is it any grosse errour, but a cle­re doctrine euidently gathered out of holy Scripture.

By authorite of the Fathers thus I proue Transubstantia­tion. S. Ambrose saieth, speaking of the Sacrament. Forte dices. Aliud video. Quomodo tu mihi asseris quod Christi corpus acci­piam? Et hoc nobis adhuc superest, vt probemus. Transub­stantiatiō proued by the Fathers. Quantis igitur vti­mur exemplis vt probemus non hoc esse quod natura formauit, sed quod benedictio consecrauit, maioremque vim esse benedictio­nis quàm naturae, quia benedictione etiam ipsa natura mu­tatur. Thou saiest perhaps vnto me.Lib. de ijs qui ini­tiantur mysteriis. Cap. 9. I see an other ma­ner of thinge. How then do you tell me that I receiue Christes body? Then this yet remaineth for vs to proue. And how ma­ny examples may we vse to proue, that it is not that, which Nature fashioned, but that which the Blessing Cōsecrated, and that the Power of Blessing ouercometh Nature, bicause by Blessing euen very Nature is chaunged? Thus farre S Ambrose. In the Sacrament, that which Nature made,Nature is Chaunged. is bread. This Nature saieth S. Ambrose is chaunged. And how? By Blessing. Into what is it chaūged? In to that which Blessing Consecrated. Nowe what dothe Blessing Consecrate, what is the ende of the Consecration made by Blessing? What els but the Body of Christ? Therefore by S. Ambrose his iudgement the nature of bread is chaunged in to the body of Christ. This is a Clere Transubstantiation by the verdit of S. Ambrose. Eu­sebius Emissenus an other auncient and lerned Father spea­keth of this chaunging of Breade in to Christes body, more e­uidently. His wordes are.De Pascha Homil. 5. Inuisibilis Sacerdos visibiles creaturas [Page] in substantiam corporis & sanguinis sui, verbo suo, secreta potestate conuertit, ita dicens: Accipite & edite: hoc est enim Corpus meum. The inuisible Prieste (Christe) turneth by his worde, with a se­crete power, the visible creatures in to the substance of his Bo­dy and Bloude, saying. Take and eate. For this is my bodye. What are here the visible Creatures turned into the Body and Bloude of Christ, but the Breade and Wine whiche he toke in his handes at the last Supper? What is Transubstantiation, iff this be not? Go nowe M. Iewell and against the holy Scrip­ture, and such lerned Fathers, call it a grosse errour, if ye list. Truly none but grosse Capharnaites can call this Doctrine grosse,The Ca­tholike Doctrine of Chri­stes Reall presence in the Sa­crament. which in dede is the kaye of all our Coniunction with Christ, the assured warrant of oure Resurrection, the continu­all Miracle of the Sonne of God, the most heauenly and dre­adfull Mystery that Christ left to his Churche. Of this moste assured Doctrine, bicause Christe is no more any deade body (for death shall no more preuaile ouer him) it foloweth euidently that his body is not withoute Bloude. M. Iewell requireth so­me auncient Doctour to saye so. Yea truly he is full of his de­maundes. But when all is saied, and a number of Doctours brought, it nothing moueth him. Touching this pointe, iff either Doctours or Scripture can persuade him, that Christes whole Humanite is really in the Sacramēt (whereof he saieth, Iewell. pag. 98.Bolde Vauntes haue ben made, but was neuer yet proued) Let him reade the booke lately sett foorth of our Lordes Sup­per,By D. Sanders. and the Cōfutation of the Fifte Article of his Replie the­rein, he shal finde Doctours and Scriptures abundātly to auou­che the same. Wherein being ones persuaded, he wil neuer aske. what Doctour in expresse wordes saied, that whole Christ is vnder o­ne kinde. Or iff he be so Franticke and wilful as alwayes to stri­ue vpon Termes, when the Thinge is euident, yet all wel mea­ning folcke wil soone be persuaded, that receiuing Christ re­ally present vnder the forme of Breade, they receiue not onely [Page 43] his blessed Flesh, but Bloude also, without the which the Flesh of Christ is not. Wherein they shall see there is no iniury done vnto them, as M. Iewel declaimeth, hauing it vnder one kyn­de. Nay rather (which I beseche al good Readers to Marke) M. Iewell and his felowes doth most open and cruell iniurye to al good Christen people of Englande,Protestāts do a thousand folde more In­iury to the Peo­ple, by their double kin­de, then the Ca­tholikes in One Kinde. geuing them but Bread and Wine, in the Remembraunce of Christes deathe, whereas the Catholike Churche beside the true Body of Christe really present vnder fourme of Breade, geueth also to the people a cuppe of Wine, and so geu [...]th the other kinde as muche as they do, geuing no more but mere wine at their Communion ta­ble. Thus if we esteme the outward formes Catholikes geue as muche. If we esteme the thinge it selfe, Catholikes geue the very true Body of Christ really present, which Protestants ge­ue not, and Wine also no lesse then the protestants.

Harding. diuis. 2. Nowe concerning the outewarde formes of Breade, and VVine, (47) their vse is imployed in signification onely. And be not off Necessite, so as Grace may not be obtayned by worthy receiuing of the Sacrament, vnlesse bothe kindes be Ministred.

Iewell. The .47. Vntruthe.pag. 99. The .89. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. For the Breade and Wine signifie the Body and Bloud of Christ. The whitenes, the roundnesse and other outward formes signifie nothing.

Stapleton D. Harding saieth: the outwarde formes of bread and wine do but signifie, that is, are but the figures of the Body and bloude of Christe, and therefore seing (as it was proued before in prouing Transubstantiation) that the Body of Christ is real­ly present vnder the forme of Breade, and without Bloud the body of Christ is not, the other kinde for grace to be obtained is not Necessary. For receiuing whole Christ, there can be no wante of grace. M. Iewell saieth: All this is an Vntruthe. And [Page] why? For (saieth he) the Breade and Wine signifie the Bodye and Bloude of Christe. This is in plaine termes the Sacramentary heresy clerely ouerthrowen by the real presence of Christe in the Sacrament, which being (as I saied before) so clerely and a­bundantly proued against M. Iewel, it shal not nede here to stā ­de aboute the confutation of it.

Harding. In distributing the blessed Sacrament to Christen people the Church hath vsed libertie (which Christ neuer embarred by any commaundement to the cōtrary) so as it hath euer be­ne moste for the behoulfe and commodite of the Receiuers. And hath ministred sometimes bothe kindes, sometimes one kinde only, as it hath ben thought most expedient in Regar­de of time, place, and personnes.

Iewell. The 90. Vntruthe Slaund. The 91. Vntruthe in bely­ing the state of the que­stio [...].The .48. Vntruthe. The Church neuer thus ministred the Sacra­ment vnto the people in any open Congregation within the space of 600. yeares.

You alter the question M. Iewell, and in so doing you yel­de. Your first Chalenge was. Or that there was any Communion Ministred vnto the people vnder one kinde. Thus it stādeth in your Sermō, and thus it is againe repeted in the frōte or title of this Article. Now bicause you see your selfe clene ouerthrowen in that ouerbolde assertion of youres, you put in these wordes (in any opē Cōgregatiō) which is no part of your Chalēge, and the­refore of D. Harding not intended to be confuted. So in the very entrie of this article, you tell the reader (and in so telling him, you mocke him and deceiue him) that the question mo­ued betwene D. Harding and you, was moued, thus. Iewell. Pag. 96.Whether the holy Communion at any time within the space of sixe hundred yeares after Christ, were euer ministredThose wordes are not in in the Sermon, nor in any part of the Cha­lenge. Openly in the Churche: vn­to the people vnder one kinde. This is a manifest and notorious Vntruthe, M. Iewell. These wordes Openly in the Church, be not in your Sermon, They be not in your Chalenge. You neuer moued your question so. Why do you so lie and deceiue your [Page 44] Reader? If you had moued the Question so, you had bene by D. Harding so answered and satisfied. Now hauing neuer mo­ued your question with that condition (Openly in the Church) you crie out,M. Iewell crieth Guilty and yel­deth. that D. Harding hath brought priuat houses and priuat men to proue Communion vnder one kinde, and not done Openly in the Church. Whereby you crie Guilty, and yelde that your Chalenge is ouerthrowen. But now you will renewe the Combat, and make a newe state of the Question: And when that shall be Answered then you maye yet ones againe Renewe it, and Adde farther some other Clause or Condition vnto it, and so neuer haue ende of Quarelling. As touching this Vntruthe, bicause D. Harding saieth only the Church mini­stred sometimes in bothe kindes, sometimes in one kinde, which you confesse of priuat men he hath proued it, you note it an Vntruthe, bicause he hath not proued it to haue ben so ministred in open congregation. Which is no vntruthe on D. Har­dinges parte, which hath proued that which he saieth, and that which you craked no man aliue could proue. But it is on your part M. Iewell a double and a pregnant, Vntruthe. First to note an Vntruthe where none is. And then so Impudently to Alter the question. You haue cried shame and Corruption against your selfe. God amende you.

Harding. As touching the wordes of Christ, diuis. 3. bibite ex hoc om­nes. Drinke ye all of this. They pertaine to the Apostles only and their successours.

Iewell. The .49. Vntruthe. For these wordes pertaine as well to the people as to the priestes, as shall appeare.The .92. Vntruthe Slaund. Stapleton Iewell. pag. 191.

Stapleton In the text M. Iewel bringeth these reasons to make it so ap­peare. First, he saieth.

If M. Harding will folowe the letter, the wordes be plaine. Drinke ye all of this.

I answer. If M. Iewell will folowe the letter, then not only all the people such as be of lauful yeares and discretion, but also [Page] all infantes and children that are Christened, must receiue bo­the kindes. Which yet in the religiō of protestants is thought so great an abuse, that the Cōmunicating of infants being in S. Augustins time and longe before a customable thing, they note it for an errour in the doctrine of S. Augustin, that infants ought to communicat. And yet the wordes of Christ be plaine. Drin­ke ye all of this. Therefore the letter as it forceth not infants to receiue vnder any kinde at all, so neither doth it force the lay people to receiue vnder bothe kindes. M. Iewell goeth forthe.

Iewell. The .93. Vntruthe For S. Paule there hath not ope­ned these wordes drinke ye all of this in that sence as M. Iewell fancyeth.If M. Harding will leaue the letter and take the meaning, S. Paule hath opened it. For writing vnto the whole Congregation at Corin­the, he saieth thus. As often as shall eate this bread, and drinke of this Cuppe, ye shall declare the Lordes death, vntill he come. If he doubte S. Paule, yet the ve­ry practise and continuall order of the primitiue Church fully decla­reth what Christ meant. And they saie, Custom is the best interpreter of the lawe. If he will take neither the wordes of Christe, nor Christes mea­ning, then I know not how to deale with him.

Doubt you not M. Iewell. D. Harding will take and o­bey bothe Christes wordes and his meaning with all his har­te. As for the wordes, you see they can not be precisely takē for all without exception. For then (as I saied) children and infan­tes should be forced to receiue. Which you thinke a great abu­se,The .94. Vntruthe That pra­ctise de­clareth no such meaning [...] is by [...]. Iewell before [...]uouched and we are persuaded that it nedeth not. Now then for the meaning of Christ, you bringe S. Paule and the practise of the primitiue Church which ministred vnder bothe kindes to the people, and here you wil haue Custome to interpret the lawe. I graunte S. Paule and the primitiue Church vsed so to do lon­ge and many yeares. But after the same Church of Christ many hūdred yeares also vsed the contrary. As your selfe can not de­nie. Now then here be two Customes. Here is a double practise of the Church. What then? Hath one of these two brokē Chri­stes Institution? No M. Iewel. We holde (and I haue proued it in an other place) that the Church of Christ can neuer erre damnably.In The Fo [...]tresse &c. As truly to breake Christes Institution is a damna­ble errour. Therefore by these two customes of the Church of [Page 45] God, by this double practise of Christian people, we gather the meaning of Christes wordes (drinke ye all of this) not to haue ben precisely spoken as a commaundement to all Christen people, but to the Apostles and their successours, which should for euer Celebrat and receiue that holy Sacrament vnder bo­the kindes. I will put you a clere example hereof confessed by your selfe. In the primitiue Churche certain hundred yeares, the Sacrament was ministred to infants and sucking Children being Christened, yea euen ioyntly with their baptim. The Church of many hundred yeares folowing, altered this custo­me, and admitted only Christen folcke of ripe yeares and di­scretion vnto this holy Sacrament, as we see it in our daies pra­ctised. This custome you haue not altered, but kepe it still, and thinke it no offence either against Christes literall wordes, Drinke ye all of this, either against the meaning of the wordes interpreted by the custome of the primitiue Church. Now as you would thinke him vnreasonable M. Iewell, which would say to you, Sir. Christ saied drinke ye all of this. The wordes be plaine, and excludeth none.M. Iewel. is cast in his owne turne. VVerefore then do ye not admitt babes and infants to drinke thereof? If ye will not folowe the letter, yet the very practise and continuall order of the primitiue Church at what ti­me Babes did Communicat, fully declareth what Christ meante· The­refore if you will take neither the wordes of Christ, nor Christes mea­ning, then I knowe to not how deale with you, As I saie you would and might well thinke him very vnreasonable, specially if he were instructed by you that the vniuersall Churche of Christ, vsed the contrary order many hundred yeares after, whereby he might lerne neither the wordes nor the meaning of Christ to touche precisely infants or Babes, so truly are you M. Iewel ve­ry vnreasonable, and a trifling wrangler, to presse the literall wordes of Christ, which your selfe must nedes limit, and so to vrge the meaning of Christ vpon the practise of S. Paule and the primitiue Church, dissembling the contrary practise of the Church these many hundred yeres, whereby you knowe your [Page] selfe that neither the letter nor the meaning of Christes wor­des do of necessite touche the laye people, to do I saie all this, and then to conclude, If he will take neither the wordes of Christ, nor the meaning, I knowe not how to deale with him. Truly with such a wrangler and Childish quareller as you be, with such a dissembler and deceiuer of Gods people, I knowe not in the worlde how to deale.

Harding. Aboue one hundred yeres past (50) chaunging the olde cu­stome of the Church of receiuing the Communion vnder one kinde by their priuat authorite. diuis. 4.

Iewell. pag. 102. The .95. Vntruthe Slaunde­rours, and peuish.The .50. Vntruthe. They chaunged not but restored the olde custome.

Stapleton The schismatikes of Bohem (of whom D. Harding spea­keth) chaunged that olde custome, which the Church then v­sed and had before many hundred yeres vsed. This was true. And therefore no vntruthe of D. Harding to saie it. But they restored the olde, saieth M. Iewel. What then? Ergo they chaū ­ged not? This fonde peuish argument will the better appeare by the like. The Apostatas and rēnagat Sacramentaries of Lith­uania playing now the Iewes and vsing Circūcision,M. Iewel­les Argu­ment. are char­ged of the Catholikes to breake the accustomed lawe of the Church of God. They answer and reason thus. We restore the olde lawe of God testified in holy Scripture. Ergo we chaun­ge not the lawe of God. Who seeth not the Fallacy of this lew­de Argument, by the aequiuocation, or similitude in termes of the two olde and accustomed lawes of God? Howbeit those schismatikes of Bohem are not so much charged by D. Har­ding for chaunging the olde custome, as for doing it by their priuat authorite. This was the cause of their schisme: Not the change it selfe.

Harding. Diuis. 6. Luther instructed of the Diuell with arguments against [Page 46] the Sacrifice of the Masse, (51) that the memorie of our re­demption by Christ wrought on the Crosse, might vtterly be abolished.

Iewell. The .51. Vntruthe ioyned with a slaunder.The .96. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. Neuer man spake more reuerently of the oblation of Christ vpon the Crosse.

Stapleton What is the Vntruthe M. Iewell? Is it not true that Luther had argumentes geuen him of the Diuell against the Sacrifice of the Masse? Then let the shame be Luthers, who made such a lye of him selfe. For he writeth so him selfe in his booke De Missa angulari. Which booke also D. Harding alleaged in the margent of this place in his owne booke, though it be here by you or your printer omitted. You put to the Vntruthe a slaun­der. And why? Forsothe bicause Luther spake reuerently of the oblation of Christ vpon the Crosse. So the Arrians spake re­uerently of Christes Humanite, but yet denied his Diuinite. And the Manichees spake reuerenly of Christes Diuinite. But yet denied his true flesh and humanite. Heretikes speake allwa­ies some thinges well and truly. Els they should be infidels not heretikes. That the Masse and daily Sacrifice of Christes Churche is a clere memory of our redemption wrought vpon the Crosse it may appeare by the testimonies of the Fathers brought in the former Article to proue a Daily Sacrifice.In the leafe. 21. The­refore to abolish the Masse and the Daily Sacrifice of Christes Church, whether it were Luthers intent or the Diuells that in­structed him, certaine it is, the ende thereof was to abolish the memory of our redemption. And how well you kepe that me­mory in your bread and wine, it shall appeare by the Con­futation of M. Iewelles. xvij. Article.

Harding. A canon alleaged for receiuing vnder one kinde out of the first Councell of Ephesus, Taken out of Vrbanus Re­gius a Doctour of Luthers schoole, in his booke De locis communibus.

[Page] Iewell. The .97. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The .52. Vntruthe. There was no such Canon touched or once mo­ued in that Councell.

Stapleton Then it is an Vntruthe of Vrbanus Regius, youre owne pewfelowe, not off D. Harding. Let the shame be his, if it were not true: And yet it is not proued false, but only bicause M. Ie­wel neuer sawe it.

Harding. Nestorius amongest other Errours helde opinion, (53.) that vnder the Forme off Breade in the Sacrament is contay­ned the Bodye off Christe withoute hys Bloude.

Iewell. The .98. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The .53. Vntruthe. Nestorius neuer dreamed of anye suche fo­lye.

Stapleton If Nestorius neuer dreamed any such thinge (as M. Iewell maketh him selfe sure) then Vrbanus Regius, Alardus, Michael Veh, Hosius and other Writers oute of whom D. Harding to­ke this saying (as also the Canon that shoulde be made in the Ephesine Councell) were deceiued. It is no Vntruthe of D. Hardinge to Reporte that he findeth writen in good Authors. Vnlesse also by M. Iewelles diuinite, we maye saye Saint Am­brose and S. Augustine wrote Vntruly, alleaging certain Ca­nons of the Nicene Councell, which yet nowe in that Coun­cel are not to be founde.The sin­gular l [...]wdenesse of M. Iewel. M. Iewell is so at square with all Writers and lerned men that haue ben these ix. hundred yeares (excepte a fewe sence Luthers tyme, whiche wil saye as he sa­yeth) that he will beleue nothinge at their Reporte, vnlesse he finde it recorded in the first 600. yeares also. And then I mar­uail why he beleueth the very Writers of the firste 600. yeares, seing he can not knowe that those Writers wrote in that age, but by the Historyes, Chronicles and Testimonies of these la­ter writers, as by Thrithemius, Gennadius, Vrspergensis, Sabelli [...]us, and such like. For as well might he saye that these later Writers had forged such bookes as S. Augustine S. Hierome, S. Basill, Chrysostome, Ambrose, and other lerned Fathers are saied to [Page 47] haue writen, and all suche Councelles, whiche in those yeares are saied to haue ben holden, as to discredit other parcels off the Fathers, or Canons of Councels whiche are reported by them, though suche thinges in the Fathers and Councells are not to be founde. And so may M. Iewell make a Religion off his owne, beleue him selfe no man and yet require all men to beleue him.

But bicause M. Iewell speaketh so peremptorely, that Ne­storius neuer dreamed no suche thinge, you shall see howe ly­kely he was not to dreame only but euen to Speake and tea­che suche an heresye or foly, as M. Iewell termeth it,M. Iewell cōfesseth a foyle in the Lutherans. as to saie that vnder the fourme of Breade in the Sacrament is contay­ned the Body of Christe without Bloude. Whiche yet the Lu­therans graunting the real presence of Christes body with the breade and teaching withall that the people receiuing vnder one kinde, haue iniury, and do receiue lesse then if they recei­ued both [...], are not farre from. For by their opinion it folo­weth, that lacking somewhat vnder the one kinde, and hauing yet the Body of Christ, they lacke the bloude whiche is vnder the other kinde only. Nowe M. Iewell though he be a Sacra­mentary, yet hathe he good cause to fauour the Lutherans,Peter Martyr. for his olde Masters sake, who at his first coming to Oxford, was an vpright Lutheran, and specially for Luthers sake who stro­ke the first sparckle of this greate glorious light, that M. Iewell and his fellowes, so vaunteth of. As touching Nestorius, his o­pinion was that we receaued the Flesh of Christe in the Sacra­ment without his diuinite. These are the wordes of Nestorius him selfe, as Cyrillus recordeth them. N [...]storius inquit, Audi­te attendentes verba. Qui manducat car [...]em meam, Cyrillus ad Euoptium: In oppos [...] ­tione ad Anamathe [...]ismum 11. Tom. vlii. memores esto­te quòd de carne est sermo: & quòd non a me adiectum est carnis no­men, ne videar sinistre interpretari. Qui manducat meam carnem & bibit meum singuinem, in me munet & ego in eo. Non ditit: Qui manducat meam diuinitatem, & bibit meam d [...]uinitatem. Qui man­ducat [Page] meam carnem, inquit, & meum sanguinem bibit, in me manet & ego in eo. Memores estote, quod de carne dictum sit. Nestorius sa­ieth. Heare and harken to the wordes, He that eateth my Flesh. Remember that Flesh is here mentioned, and that the name of Flesh is not added by me, lest I seme to expounde amisse. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Bloude, abideth in me and I in him. He saieth not. He that eateth my diuinite, and drinketh my diuinite. He that eateth my Flesh, saieth he, and drinketh my Bloud, abideth in me and I him. Remember that this is spoken of the Fleshe. Thus farre Nestorius persuading his hearers that we receaued the bare Fleshe of Christe in the Sacrament without the diuinite or Godhead adioyned. Again­ste the which damnahle Heresye, Cyrillus disputing in the sa­me place saieth. Num hominis comestionem nostrum hoc Sacra­mentum pronuncias, & ad crassas cogitationes vrges eorum qui cre­diderunt mentes? Doest thou (speaking to Nestorius) cal this our Sacrament, the eating of mans Flesh, and prouoke the Hartes of the faithefull to grosse cogitations? This then being the O­pinion of Nestorius, as it is here euident that it was, that in the Sacrament we did eate the Fleshe of Christe onely, and drinke the Bloud only without the Diuinite adioyned, it must consequently folowe that his opinion was, that the bare Flesh was in the Sacrament a part by it self, and the Bloud by it selfe. For (and marke well this reason) the cause why the Catholike Church beleueth that vnder one part of the Sacrament whole Christ is contained,VVhy the Ca­tholikes beleue that vn­der either kinde whole Christ is present. and therefore the bloud with the body, is bicause it beleueth that vnder that one part of the Sacra [...]ent Christ is as God, and not as bare man or bare flesh. Vpon this belefe also it is groūded that whole Christ is at one time in many places by the way of this most mystical Sacramēt, as Chry­sostom and Primasius vpon the 10. chapter to the Hebrewes, do in expresse wordes declare.See their wordes before fol. 22. Now Nestorius not beleuing any such diuinite to be ioyned with the body of Christ in the [Page 48] Sacrament, but the bare flesh to be by it selfe, and the Bloud in like maner by it selfe, it is easy to iudge that he was of this opi­niō, that vnder the forme of Bread in the Sacramēt, was the Body of Christ without Bloud, which is the thinge that D. Har­ding and those other lerned writers do reporte of him. And the which M. Iewell peremptorely denieth without any proofe or Reason in the worlde to the contrary, but only by his Negati­ue Proofes, Such and such mention no such thinge, Ergo the­re was no such matter. Thus whether D. Harding spake beside Truthe and lerning, let the indifferent reader iudge.

Harding. Diuis. 10. For whereas Christ commaunded the Apostles to baptise in the name of the Father and the Sonne and the Holy Gho­ste, they baptised in the name of Iesus Christ (54) only.

The .54. Vntruthe. A foule deprauation of the Scriptures.I [...]well. pag. 113. The .99. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. not only to D. Hard. but to S. Hilary whose very wor­des those are.

This deprauation M. Iewell laieth to D. Hardinges charge for putting the worde (only) in the last place. Truthe it is, that the Only baptim mencioned in the Actes of the Apostles, is mencioned to haue ben geuē in the name of Iesus. As in the se­cond, the tenth, the eight and the seuententh chapters it may be sene. And so it is no Vntruthe, that by the letter of holy Scripture, the Apostles baptised only in the name of Iesus Christ. The displacing of a worde which altereth not the sence (vnlesse M. Iewel cā proue it was done of fraude or malice) is no Vntruthe in any vpright iudgement. The sence of holy scripture being kept, the Scripture is not depraued, though some worde be put out of order. Now that the Scripture so saieth, bothe the only mentioning of such forme of baptim, in all the Actes of the A­postles, bothe the letter it selfe I saie, and the meaning also of the letter, if we beleue the iudgemēt of S. Ambrose, cōuinceth. S. Ambrose disputing of this baptim mencioned in the Actes of the Apostles, hath these wordes. Cum dicitur, In nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi, per vnitatem nominis impletum mysterium est. De spiritu S. lib. 1. Cap. 3. [Page] When it is saied, In the name of our lorde Iesus Christ, by the vnite of the name, the sacrament is complete. For (as S. Ambrose saieth also in that place) he that is blessed in Christ, is blessed in the name of the Father and the Sonne and the Holy Ghoste. Thus by the letter and by the meaning of the letter (if we beleue. S. Ambrose) baptim was geuen in the name of Christ Only without mencioning the Father and the Holy Ghoste, and yet in dede, in the name of all.

A clere Example of M. Ie­well [...]s Grosse Ignorāce, or els of VVilf [...]ll Malice.But beholde (good Reader) either the Grosse Ignorance, or the Wilfull Malice of M. Iewell. This very saying and propo­sition of D. Harding, which M. Iewell noteth for an Vntruth, and which Slaunderously he calleth, A foule deprauation of ho­ly Scripture, those very wordes I saie, are the clere saying of that most lerned and most holy Father S. Hilary, vttered of him aboue twelue hundred yeres past. For that holy Father allea­ging against the Arrians, as D. Harding doth here against M. Iewell and his felowes, that many thinges Commaunded by Christ, were altered by the Apostles, and their Successours, bringeth this very matter for an example as D. Harding dothe, and vttereth these very wordes. Apostoli baptisare in Nomine Patris & Filij & Spiritus Sancti iussi, In lib. de Synodis aduersus Arrian [...]s. Tantum in Iesu Nomine Baptisauerunt. The Apostles being Commaunded to Bap­tise in the Name of the Father and the Sonne, and of the Holy Ghoste, they baptised in the Name of Iesus Christ Only. Goe nowe M. Iewell, take your penne, and score vp this Vntruthe vpon S. Hilary,M. Iewell in Slaun­deri [...]g D. Har­ding, slaū dereth S. Hilary. as you haue done here vpon D. Harding. Tell your Reader, whom you fede with lies and Slaunderous Vn­truthes, that S. Hilary hath made A foule deprauation of the S [...]riptures as you Slaunderously haue tolde him that D. Ha [...] ­ding did make. Be wise I pray you A [...]one, vnderstande the Scriptures Alone, Beleue your selfe no Body, and yet looke to be beleued Alone. By such Impudency, you vpholde your Re­ligion.

[Page 49] Harding. diuis. 10. To the Apostles only, and their successours, and to none o­ther the (55) Catholike Church hath euer referred the necessi­te of that commaundemeut, Drinke ye all of this: And that in the celebration of the Sacrifice.

Iewell. The .55. Vntruthe. The Catholike or vniuersall Church, neuer vn­derstode it so, but onely the Church of Rome,pag. 118. The 100. Vntruthe Sl [...]und. The 101. Vntruthe For the Churche of Rome is neither late, nor particular which is but late and mere particular.

The Church of Rome is at this day the most auncient Church in Christendom. The succession thereof hath conti­newed from S. Peter the Head of the Apostles vntill these our daies without interruptiō, by the number of 230. bishops which yet M. Iewell calleth a late Church, euen as he calleth the Ca­tholike religion a corruption of late yeres.

Againe he saieth, it is a mere particular Church, and there­fore no Catholike Church. Yes forsothe M. Iewell it is called the Catholike Church of the lerned Fathers of the first 600. yeres. When S. Paule saied the Church of God to be the piller of tru­the, what Churche meant he M. Iewell?1. ad Timo. 3. Meant he any particu­lar Churche and not rather the Catholike and vniuersall churche of all Christendom, which in dede can not swarue from the truthe, as particular chu [...]ches bothe may and haue done? Yeat S. Ambrose expounding that place of S. Paule, and spea­king of that vniuersall Church of God, saieth:In com­mentar. in 1. ad Tim. 3. Cuius hodie rector est Damasus whose ruler at this daye Damasus is. This Damasus was then Pope. Lo by the iudgemēt of S. Ambrose (who I may be bolde to saie, vnderstode the Scriptures as wel as M. Iewell) the bishop of Rome, is the Ruler of the vniuersall Church. And how then is the Church of Rome of which the Pope is bishop a mere particular Church? Verely S. Hierom calleth the faith of Rome, the Catholike faith, writing against Ruffinus in these wordes, Fidem suam quam vocat?In Apolo­gia 1. aduersus Rufinū. Eam ne qua Romana pollet Ec­clesia? an illam quae in Origenis voluminibus cōtinetur? Si Romanam [Page] responderit ergo Catholici sumus. Sin Origenis blasphemia illius fides est, se haereticum probat. What dothe he call his faith? Meaneth he that faith,The fai­the of Rome. which the Church of Rome alloweth? or that which in the bookes of Origen is taught? If he answer, it is the faith of Rome, then we be Catholikes. But if Origens blasphemy be his faith, he proueth him selfe an heretike. Thus the faith of Rome and the Catholike faith is to S. Hierō all one. Last of al S. Cyprian calleth the Church of Rome Catholicae ecclesiae radicē & matricē. The roote and mother church of the Catholike Churche.Lib. 4. [...]pist. 8. Go now M. Iewell and call the Church of Rome a mere particular Church. It shall be no Vntruthe neither for D. Harding, nor for any man elles, to call the determination of the Church of Rome, the determination of the Catholike Church, as longe as we haue S. Ambrose, S. Hierom, and S. Cy­prian to saie with vs.

Harding. Diuis. 12. The two Disciples in Emaus as soone as they knewe Christ in breaking of the Bread, he vanished away from their sighter t [...]at he tooke the Cuppe into his handes and blissed it, and gaue it vnto them, (56.) as it appeareth euidently enough to S. Augustin, to Bede, and to all other that be not willfully opinatiue.

Iewell. pag. 122. T [...]e .102. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. The .103. Vntruth. For besi­de S. Au­gustin and Bede S. Chry­stom (one other aū ­cient fa­th [...]r) is of that minde.The .56. Vntruthe. Neither S. Augustine, nor Beda, nor any other Auncient Father hath any such word, but rather the contrary.

Yeas forsoth. Both S. Augustin and Bede, and Chrysostom an other auncient Father do teache the same Breaking of Bread to haue ben the Sacramēt. Which is the thing that D. Harding there affirmeth. And that Christ tooke not the Cuppe at all, it was no dede to alleage doctours. The Scripture in that place of S. Luke is plaine. Where no one worde of the Cuppe is ma­de. S. Augustin saieth of this place. Non incongruenter accipimus, hoc impedimentū in oculis eorū a Satana factū fuisse, ne agnosceretur [Page 50] Iesus: Sed tamē a Christo facta est permissio vsque ad Sacramentū [...]is, August. In li. 3. de consensu euangeli­starum cap. 25. vt vnitate Corporis eius participata remoueri intelligatur impe­dimentum inimici, vt Christus possit agnosci. We thinke it not amisse to saye, that their eyes were blinded by the Deuill, so that they could not know Iesus. Yet notwithstanding that was done by the permission of Christ, vntill the Sacrament of the Bread. To thentent that the vnite of Christes Body being participated, the let of the enemy might be remoued, and Christ acknowleadged. This exposition yea and these ve­ry wordes of S. Augustin,Beda. li. 6. Theophyl. In cap. Luc. 24. Bede in his commentaries vpon S. Luke foloweth and repereth. As also Theophilact foloweth herein Chrysostō (whose words we shal In the .57. Vntruth. hereafter recite) and saieth, [...]. He insinuateth yet an other thin­ge. That these Discipes participating the blissed Bread, had their eies straight waies opened to knowe Christ. For the flesh of our Lorde hath a great and vnspeakeable vertu. Thus lo by the iudgement of S. Augustine and Bede, of Chrysostom and Theophilact, that Bread which Christ gaue to the disci­ples in Emaus, was the Sacrament of his Body. Here is no one worde neither in the Scripture, neither in those Doctours off the Cuppe. And therfore by their iudgemēt here is a clere case of a Communion vnder One kinde Ministred by oure Saui­our him selfe. And so it is proued true, that Doctour Hardinge saied of a Communion vnder one kinde ministred to the disciples at Emaus. What saieth M. Iewell to these Doctours? He sa­yeth.

Iewell. pag. 123. The .104 Vntruthe For it was the Sacrament, as it hath bene proued.First, the Breade that Christ brake at Emaus, was cōmon table brea­de, and not the Sacrament.

S. Augustine, and Bede, S. Chrysostom and Theophilact sa­ye the contrary. Who is better to be credited? M. Iewell, or the­se [Page] auncient Fathers? Truly he offreth him selfe to yelde vnto them.

Iewell. The .105. Vntruthe For it is gathered by good proofe oute of Gods worde.Secondely that, albeit some Writers seme to call it the Sacrament, yet none of them saieth, it was Ministred in one kinde, as M. Hardinge by his (105) sclender Gheasses would seme to gather.

Not some writers, but some auncient Fathers, not seme to call it, but in expresse wordes do call it the Sacrament as you haue heard. And though none of them saie it was ministred in one kinde, yet bothe they and the Scripture making no mention at all of mo kindes then one, do geue vs to vnderstande that vn­der one kinde only it was Ministred.Lucae. 28. And that by the rule off Master Iewell him selfe,pag. 68. who sayeth. Argumentum ab authori­tate negatiue, is thought to be good, when so euer proofe is taken off Gods worde. And is vsed not only by vs, but also by Sainte Paule, and by manye Catholike Fathers. Therefore it is no sclender Gheasse,Luc. 28, but a good Proofe out off Gods Worde. Saint Luke in that place mentioned but One Kinde. Ergo Christe Ministred at the tyme vnder one kinde.M. Iewell saieth and vnsaieth. Yet here to this Ar­gument M. Iewell saieth. This Argument maye be good in Ma­ster Hardinges Dyuinite, but it is off Small force in goodlogike. And thus when it maketh for M. Iewell, it shall be a good Argu­ment, and such as bothe S. Paule, and the holy Fathers ha­ue vsed. But when it maketh againste him, then it is of small force, &c.

Iewell. The .106 Vntruthe For Christes example pro­ueth well our pur­pose. The 107. Vntruthe For these two disciples in E­maus we­re thē no priestes.Thirdly although he were able to proue that Christ Ministred so at that time and in that place, yet were all this (106) nothinge to proue his purpose. For we ioyne issue of the people. He (107) answereth of the Priestes.

Those two disciples in Emaus were of the .72. disciples, not of the Apostles: And therefore at that tyme they were no Priestes. Againe iff Priestes maye receiue vnder one kinde, mu­che more the people. For the order of Priesthood is the more excellent.

I speake of the Churche: He speaketh of an Inne.

The .108 VntrutheIn the tenour of your challenge you speake of no Churche. [Page 51] You haue so altered the question sence.For in your challenge you speake not of the Churche. Bicause you see you a­re ouerthrowen in your assertion. Againe the example of Christe (me thinketh M. Iewell) should preuaile with you whe­ther it were in Inne or Church. Vnlesse by the like reason you will except against the example of Christe in his last Supper. For that was also done in an Inne (Master Iewell) and not in a Church.

Iewell. And to conclude by this example it (109) appeareth that Christ him selfe receiued in one kinde.The .109 Vntruthe For that appeareth not in the Scripture Whiche one thinge ouerthroweth all that M. Harding hath built.

Howe proue you M. Iewell that Christ Receiued with the disciples at Emaus vnder One kinde? It appeareth not in Scri­pture that with those disciples he receiued him selfe at all, ei­ther vnder one kinde, or vnder bothe. Againe if he did, wil you teache Christ his duty? Though Christ commaunded all pri­estes to receiue vnder bothe kindes, when they ministred to o­thers, yet you will not (I trow) be so malapert, as to force Christe thereunto. Christ is God blessed for euer M. Iewel. You are a Base Creature.

M. Iewell goeth forthe and bicause S. Augustine him selfe in an other place, Bede, and S. Gregory do saye,August. in caten [...]. in 24. Lucae. Greg. in Euang. ho­mil. 23. that those two di­sciples vsed a kind of Hospitalyte in Emaus, strayning Christ, (whom they toke for a straunger) to come into the Inne and refresh himself with thē, bicause I saye, these Doctours saie so, he inferreth that it was not the Sacrament which Christ brake and gaue vnto them. His reason is this.M. Iewels Argumēt

The Disciples in Emaus vsed Hospitalite to Christ in an Inne.

Ergo Christ did not geue them at that time the Sacrament.

This fonde argument wil appeare by a like.

Christ and the Apostles did eate the Iewes passeouer in an Inne. M. Iewell alleageth late wri­ters againste the ol­de Do­ctours.

Ergo he did not celebrat the Sacrament there.

Now that after al this, he alleageth Dionysius the charter mō ­ke, Antonius Iulianus, Nicolaus de Lyra, and Wildefordus in a [Page] contrary sentence to S. Augustine and Beda, to Chrysostom and Theophilact, if we should do so, he would Laugh vs to scorne, and turne them of with his Cōmon Prescriptions of 600. yeres and so forth. Therefore trouble your selfe no more M. Iewell, with heaping vp these writers against the Aunciēt Fathers, vn­lesse you will beleue and saie as they do in the Substance of oure Faithe. Whiche if you doe, yow shall not mislike the di­uerse Iudgementes of diuerse lerned men, agreing yet in O­ne Faythe. Howbeit in all suche Diuersite, bothe you and we muste allwaies preferre the Auncient Fathers by so Vni­uersall and Longe Consent of the Church allowed, and Au­thorised, before late writers not so allowed and authorised. And thus I leaue to the iudgement of euery indifferent Reader, not only how vntruly you haue charged D. Harding, but much more how vntruly yow haue quarelled against this clere proofe of Communion vnder one kinde, out of holy Scripture it sel­fe.

Harding. diuis. 13. Chrysostom and other Fathers vnderstande that Bread that S. Paule in perill off shipwracke tooke, gaue thankes ouer, brake and eate, to be the Holy Sacrament.

Iewell. Iewell. pag. 125. The 110. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The .57. Vntruthe. Chrysostom vnderstandeth it of Common mea­te.

Stapleton. To this you haue ben answered M. Iewell longe before your booke came forth in printe, by a Briefe answer of D. Har­ding to this and other your Slaunderous Vntruthes, where with you charged him at Paules Crosse in your Sermon made there the viij. of Iuly this last Sommer. Yet you haue lett it go forthe stoutely for an Vntruthe, dissembling vtterly all that hath bene saied in defence thereof. Yea you vaunte furder and you saie in your text.

Iewell. pag. 126. The .111. Vntruth. [...]or he gaue it to S. Luke and his other dis­ciples: VVho were no infidels pardy. The .112. Vntruth. For this expositiō is not contrary to the other saying of Chry­sostom. If S. Paule gaue the Sacrament being at that time in the Shippe, he gaue it (111) only to infidels, that knewe not Christ.

No forsothe he gaue it to Luke and his other disciptes, as [Page 52] Chrysostom saieth, who were no infidels, you will your selfe confesse. You shall heare anon the wordes of Chrysostom.

And Chrysostomes exposition euen in the same place is (112) plaine to the contrary. For thus he enlargeth S. Paules wordes that he spake to the mariners. I pray you take some sustenaunce, It is beboufull for you that ye so [...]oo. That is to say, take some meate, least perhaps ye die for hunger.

No man denieth, but that the mariners were infidels. No man saieth that by Chrysostoms minde, Paule gaue them the Sacrament. And therefor you haue proued that no man deni­eth. But what conclude you of all this? You saie.

Iewell. The .113. Vntruth. For D. Harding. hath ma­de no vn­true reporte of his doctour.Now let M. Harding either say these wordes are spoken of the Sa­crament, or confesse that he hath made (113) Vntrue reporte of his do­ctour.

No M. Iewell, he will saye neither of these: and yet shall his first saying be true. For how saie you M. Iewell? Hath Chryso­stom mentioned this fact of Paule in no place, but in his com­mentaries vpon that place? If you had ben a sobre writer, and not a quarelling wrangler, you might iustly haue saied. Sir I finde no such thinge in Chrysostom vpon that place, and the­refore vnlesse you name vs where Chrysostom so saied, it may be thought, you haue missereported him. Thus or in some like maner, as you knowe best your selfe, M. Iewell, had not this willfull heresy taken awaye all modesty, you might haue laied to D. Hardinges charge. Now you first put it for an Vntruthe in the margin, yea and repete it againe in the next Vntruthe fo­lowing, then you charge him in your text for an Vntrue Repor­ter of his doctour, and al most Vntruly and Slaūderously on your parte. For these are the wordes of Chrysostom, or as M. No­well speaketh,Hom. 17. operis im­perfecti. of an auncient writer printed with Chrysostom and longe taken for him, Sed quia de sanctis caepimus dicere &c. Bicause we haue begonne to speake of holy thinges, it is not to be left vnspoken, that sanctification is one thinge, and that which is sanctified an other. For Sanctification is that which sanctifieth an other. But that which is sanctified, can not sanctifie an other, though it selfe be holy. As [Page] for example: The sig­ne of the Crosse. Thou makest the signe of the Crosse ouer thy bread, right so as S. Paule saieth. For it is made holy by the worde of God and praier. Thou hast sanctified it, thou hast not made it Sanctification. But that which the priest geueth with his hand is not only a thinge sancti­fied, The Bl. Sacramēt is a sancticationfi. but also Sanctification. For as much as not only that is geuen, which is sene, but also which is vnderstanded. And so it is laufull to cast of the sanctified bread to beastes, and to infidels, bicause it doth not sanctifie the receiuer. But if that which is tak [...]n of the hande of the pri­est were such a thinge as that which is eaten from of the borde, all would eate from of the borde, and no man would eate of the priestes hande. VVherefore our Lorde also did not only blesse the bread in the waye (he meaneth at Emaus) but gaue it also with his hande vnto Cleophas and his fellowe. [...]uc. 24. And Paule as he was vnder saile did not on­ly blesse the bread, Act [...]. 27. but also gaue it to Luke and to his other disciples. Now that which is geuen with the hande, is not to be geuen to beastes, nor to infidels, for that is not only Sanctified, but also Sanctification and sanctifieth the receiuer. Thus farre Chrysostom. In which wordes he doth bothe expounde the place of the 24. of S. Luke (whereof I spake a litle before) for the Sacrament, and also saieth expressely touching this place which we now talke of, the 27. of the Actes, that S. Paule in the ship gaue the bread with his han­de to Luke, and to the rest of his disciples (not to infidels M. Ie­wel) and that the same was not only a holy Thinge, more then Common Meate sanctified by praier, and the worde of God, but also Sanctification, which Sanctifieth and maketh Holy the Receiuer, which is the Blessed Sacrament M. Iewell, not Common Meate. And thus M. Iewell, Chrysostom is not missereported of D. Harding, but D. Harding is Slaundered by M. Iewell.

Harding. diuis. 14. It is not to be maruailed at, albeit S. Paule deliuered to the Corinthians thinstitution of our Lordes Supper vnder bo­the kindes, that yet vpon occasion geuen, and when condition [Page 53] of time so required (58) he ministred the Communion vnder one kinde, &c.

Iewell. The 58. Vntruthe. S. Paule neuer ministred the Communion so.pag. 126. The .114. Vntruth [...] slaunde­rous.

This dependeth vpon the other Vntruthe that went be­fore, which being by Chrysostom iustified, appeareth now no Vntruth on D. Hardinges part, but on Chrysostoms part, who reporteth that S. Paule in the shipp, gaue to Luke and his other disciples that Sanctification which sanctifieth the receiuer, which is the blissed Sacrement. And in that place no mention is made of the Cuppe, and therefore by M. Iewelles owne ru­le, whereof I tolde you before, it may be well gathered that he ministred vnder one Kinde.

Harding. S. Paule toke that holy mystery vnder one kinde for the whole Sacrament, as we perceiue by his wordes, where he sa­ieth, 1 Cor. 10. One Bread and one Body vve being many are, all that doo participat of one Bread (59) where he speaketh nothing of the Cuppe.

Iewell. The .59. Vntruthe. For immediatly before he saieth.The 11 [...]. Vntruthe slaunde­rous. The Cuppe of bl [...]ssing, which we blesse, is it not the Communion of Christes bloud?

To this M. Iewell, you haue the answer of D. Harding al­ready in his Briefe answer touching certain Vntruthes with which you charged him at Paules Crosse the viij. Day of Iuly last. Yet bicause you vaunte here, as though you had neuer heard of it, and prouoke your Reader by your wonte repeti­tions and hypocriticall exclamations (which it nedeth not he­re to insert) to take him for a Deceiuer, &c. I will repete the very wordes of D. Harding, as they lie in his Answer. These are his wordes, after his other wordes aboue alleaged.

Harding. Nowe iudge who list whether in respect of those wordes of S. Paule, One Bread and one Body &c. I might not [Page] saie as I did, VVhere he speaketh nothing of the Cuppe. And that my worde (vvhere) hath relation to that sen­tence of S. Paule Only, not to the whole Chapter. For neither coulde I be so blinde, as not to so see mention of the Cuppe made Next Sentence before, and how absurde had it bene by denying so knowen a trouth to haue geuen such aduantage to the aduersarie? Now that S. Paule in that sentence spea­keth nothinge of the Cuppe, I will be tried by the most aun­cient and truest copies bothe Greke and Latine, and by iudgement of them of M. Iewelles own secte them selues, yea by the English Bibles and newe Testaments of best authorite.

This was D. Hardinges Answer then, and this it is nowe.

Harding. diuis. 19. VVill not thy husband knowe, saieth Tertullian, what thou eatest secretly before all other meate? And in case he do knowe it, he will beleue it to be Bread, not him who it is cal­led.

Iewell. pag. 131. The .116. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The .60. Vntruthe. Standing in the false translating of Tertul­lian.

Stapleton. This Vntruthe was noted before in the first Article, and is in number the xxvij. There it is answered. Yet here it is repe­ted to make vp a number.

Harding. Diui. 22. It hath ben a (61) custome in the Latin Church from the Apostles time to our daies that on Good Friday as well Prie­stes, as other Christen people receiue the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread Onely, consecrated the day before, not without signification of a singular mysterie.

Iewell. pag. 135. The .117. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The .61. Vntruthe VVithout any colour or shew of truthe.

Be bolde and blushe not M. Iewell. It may well become [Page 54] a bishop of your religion to scoffe at the Mysteries of Christes Church, and to saie they haue no Colour or shewe of Truthe in them. Truly as you haue in the whole processe of this your Replie rather moued your reader to Laughter and Contempt of the Catholike faithe, by making a sorte of Lewde Argumē ­tes, such as you knowe D. Harding did neuer make, then by reason persuaded him the Truthe of the Cause: so haue you in this point plaied the right Hicke Scorner. But please not your selfe herein to much M. Iewell. Porphyrius, Lu­cian, Iulian the Apostata and Celsus haue farre passed you in this Arte, though they were neuer takē for bishops of Chri­stes Church.

But to omitte all your scoffing toyes alleaged out of Inno­centius, Thomas Aquinas, Gerson and other, which they writing onely to the Lerned Deuoute Reader, thought it no such chil­dishnes (as you make it) to Deuise of a good and Godly vsage, Causes not euill nor vngodly, though not so proper and waighty, to omitt those I say, I wil rest vpon that Cause which Hugo Cardinalis by you alleaged, reciteth. Whiche is this, that whereas the daily Sacrifice of Christes Churche, is a Memo­riall and Remembraunce of Christes death on the Crosse (as it hath before out of no childishe fathers ben proued) vppon good Fridaye being the daye it selfe,VVhy the Sacri­fice is not celebrated on good Frid [...]e. in which our Sauiour suf­fred, the Churche M. Iewel (which you ought not to scoffe at, were you a Childe of that Mother) thought good that day for the better expressing of the thinge it selfe to omitt the Accu­stomed remembraunce thereof. Whiche omitting being Rare and Singular, did more liuely strike the Affection of Christen folcke, then the Accustomed Solemnities woulde haue done. For this cause also that daye we see the Churche withoute all pompe or Solemnitie, as though it were in heauinesse and la­mentation to expresse the greate sorowe and desolation off our Lady and the blessed Apostles, which then at that time be­ing [Page] the onely Churche of Christ, suffred, by the death of their dere Master, whom they loued so tenderly, and of whose Re­surrection they were not then persuaded thouroughly. This is M. Iewell in fewe wordes: a parte of the singular mysterie whiche the Church of God vseth in omitting the daily Sacrifice, on good Friday.1. Cor. 2. If this do not satisfie you, I maruail not. Ani­malis homo non percipit ea quae Dei sunt. The Sensuall man per­ceiueth not those thinges which are of God. Only this maye suffise to proue that this custome which D. Harding speaketh of, is not (as you Vntruly charge him) voide off all Colour or Shewe of Truthe.

Harding. diuis. 28. Christ gaue no necessary Commaundement either for the one or for bothe kindes (beside and without the Celebration of the Sacrifice) but lefte that to the Determination of the Church.

Iewell. The .118. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The .62. Vntruthe. Christes Institution perteineth as well to the people as to the priest.

This Vntruthe hath before at large ben answered, in this very article, being before noted by M. Iewell, and now againe re­peted to make vp a number. It was before the 49. Vntruthe.

Harding. diuis. 31. VVe beleue stedfastly with harte, and confesse openly with mouthe, that vnder eache kinde the very flesh and Bloud off Christ and whole Christ him self is present in the Sacrament (63) euen as Gelasius beleued.

Iewell. pag. 147. The .119. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The .63. Vntruthe. Gelasius neuer beleued so.

Stapleton. Ex Gelasio contra Eu­ [...]ic ben.How are you sure of that M. Iewell? You are very bolde and peremptory in all your assertions. But you proue as litle as he that saieth nothing. For notwithstanding his wordes which here you alleage, he beleued as al other bishoppes of Rome be­leued, he beleued the reall presence of Christe in the Sacra­ment, as it is at large proued againste yow M. Iewell in the Confutation of your Apologye, fol. 98. To that place I re­ferre [Page 55] you for better vnderstandinge off Gelasius his belefe he­rein.

Harding. diuis. 31. VVhereas before (64.) off some the Sacrament was re­ceiued vnder one Kinde, and off some vnder bothe Kindes.

Iewell. The .64. Vntruthe.Iewell. pag. 148. The .120. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.. M. Iewel­lee chalenge is an­swered. But he Altereth the Question pag. 69. and .142 pag. 132. pag. 148 No Catholike congregation euer receiued the Sacrament in one kinde.

D. Harding saieth not so much, but that some haue so re­ceiued it, which he saied truly, and proued it before in the Arti­cle abundantly. Whereby your challenge is also in this pointe answered. The tenour whereof was, that within the compasse of .600. yeares the Communion was neuer Ministred to the people vnder One kinde. Now that you adde before Openly in the Church and then againe. The whole people, and nowe a Ca­tholike Congregation, this ofte Altering of the Question M. Ie­wel is but a mere wrangling, and a plaine proclaiming of your selfe Guilty. For had you ben able to haue auouched your first assertion, you would neuer haue added so many newe Condi­tions vnto it. And had not D. Harding vtterly ouerthrowen the same, you woulde not haue sought such shamelesse shiftes, as to make a newe Question of the whole matter, and to re­quire a proofe of that which you had not yet denied: and whi­che D. Harding, vnlesse he had had the Sprit of prophecye, to foresee these your alterations and extensions of the question, was in no wise bounde to proue. But M. Iewell, to knitt vp this mattter, to let passe your slaunderous charging of D. Harding with so many Vntruthes, and not one yet found to be such, fi­nally to speake one worde shortly of this whole matter, thus you shall vnderstande.

1 It hath sufficiētly appeared both by the treatise of D. Hardin­ge, and by the Iustifiyng of these Vntruthes, The Insti­tution off Christ, & Practise of the Chur­che. that the Institutiō of Christ in the last Supper bindeth not all laye personnes or other to communicat vnder both kindes. 2 Also that within the space of the first 600. yeares th [...] Church of God of that tyme [Page] ministred vnto diuerse of Gods people the blessed Sacrament vnder one kind. This being so proued, this de Iure, and also De facto both by Right and by Practise appearing euidently, now for you M. Iewel to quarel, De facto alterius generis, of a practise more general, for you to require proofes in Churches, in Opē Assemblies, in an Open Order and Vsage off the Church, it is the part of a quareller and wrāgler. It is not the part of one that seketh vnite. It is no Bishoplike demeanour, no charitable dea­ling, no Christiā or Catholi [...]e vsage. This is a Sacramēt of vni­te.The dou­ble Pra­ctise of Gods Churche. The Church of God hath vsed it bothe waies, and hath by that double vsage, interpreted vs the meaning of Christes institutiō, touching the people, to be indifferēt. For we beleue M. Iewell (and let this be the ende of al) that the knowen Church of Christ not only of the first 600. yeares, but also of these later 900. yeares is and hath ben alwaies so guided and preserued of almighty God, (according to the Clere Promises of God in the psalmes, the prophets and the ghospel) that neither in Do­ctrine of faith,See the Fortresse annexed to Vene­rable Be­de. neither in Practise of seruing him, it cā or hath at any time swarued, much lesse broken his owne Institutiō and ordonāce, in so weighty and daily a matter, as the Ministration of his holy Sacramētes is. This is our faith grounded vpō holy Scripture, and the worde of God. By thi [...] faith we beleue and doo, as the church beleueth and doth, though we had no one testimonie of the anciēt primitiue Church, to cōfirme and wit­nesse the doinges of this later Church of our daies. For M. Iewel, the Church of God is but One: And hath conti­newed without interruption (sense the coming of Christ) in a knowen Multitude, and shall so Continewe euen to the worldes ende.

IF you meane M. Iewell, D. Hard. Diuis. 1. by the peoples Com­mon praiers such as at that time they cōmonly made to God in priuate deuotion, I thinke they vttered them in that tounge, which they vn­derstode, (65) and so doo Christian people now for the most parte.

Iewell. The .121. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The .65. Vntruthe. For vnder the subiection of the bishop of Rome, the people for the most parte praieth in latin.

Stapleton. They do not so now M. Iewell. For Now not only in these countries of the lower Germany where we now liue, but also in Fraunce and Italy (as I knowe by experience) the common people haue their common praiers in their vulgar tounge Doutche, Frenche and Italian. And in our countre (whatsoeuer they did fifty or fourty yeres agoe) in the late reigne of Quene Ma­rie, the people had their common matins bookes bothe with la­tin and with english. Therefore that Now the people for the most parte praieth in the vulgar tounge, it was truly saied of D. Harding, and the contrary on your parte vntruly auoutched. Againe he speaketh of praiers made in priuat deuotion, which is not allwaies bounde to the booke, but oftentimes expresseth it selfe without booke, as thousandes doe, that can reade in no booke.

Harding. Aboute 900· yeres paste (66) it is certaine, the people in some Countries had their seruice in an vnknowen tounge, as it shall be proued of our owne countre in England.

[Page] Iewell. The 122. Vntruthe Slaund.The .66 Vntruthe. This certainte will neuer be proued.

Stapleton. Yes M. Iewell, I will make you a shorte argument whereby it shall be clerely proued.

At the first planting of the faith amonge vs englishmen S. Gregory sent churche bookes to England from Rome for the Church Seruice of the new conuerted Englishmen.

But those Church bookes sent from Rome were in the latin tongue.

Ergo the Churche Seruice of the new conuerted English­men was in the latin tounge.

The Ma­ior. Bed [...]. Lib. 1. Cap. 29. Histor. Angl.For proufe of the Maior, or first proposition, I bringe the testimony of Venerable Bede, a lerned countreman of oures, writen in the yere of our lorde, 730. His wordes be these. Far­der more the saied Pope, (he meaneth S. Gregory) for so much as Augustine had aduertised him that there was a great haruest, and fewe workemen, sent him with his saied legates, more preachers: of the which the chefest were Mellitus, Iustus, and Ruffinianus. By them also he sent al such thinges as were necessary for the furniture and mi­nistery of the Church: As holy vessels, aultar clothes, ornaments for the Churches, apparell also for the priestes and clergy. Also relikes of the holy Apostles and martyrs, and many Bookes. Thus farre Bede. In who­se wordes we see for the Furniture and Ministery of the church Bookes to haue ben sent from Rome: That this was done at the first planting of Christen faith amonge vs Englishmen (vs En­glishmen I saie, occupying at that time all that is now called England, the olde Brittons being driuen in to the straights of Wales) let the whole History of Venerable Bede be a witnesse to all englishmen, though M. Iewell in this Article afterwarde, most impiously, and impudently after his maner do denie it.

Now touching the Minor, or second proposition that these Churche bookes sent from Rome were [...]n the latin tounge,The Mi­nor. it nedeth not I trust to proue. It is euident that our english Saxon tounge was not at that time vnderstanded at Rome, neither of [Page 57] those which came frō Rome, at their first arriual in to our coū tre, but the Latin tounge only. And therfore those bookes sent from Rome for the Furniture and Seruice of the Church were in Latin and not in English. Thus the premisses being clere, the Conclusion is vndoubted. Other argumentes are brought afterwarde in this Article by D. Harding, to the which how well M. Iewell hath replied, it will appeare in the Con­futation thereof. Vpon this conclusion, that the Church serui­uice was in the Latin tounge, it shal not nede I trowe to infer­re. Ergo it was in a straūge and vnknowen tounge to English men. I trust M. Iewell will not be so impudent as to saie that all Englishmen then conuerted to the faithe vnderstode the Latin tounge. Which if he will saie, as truly with no lesse im­pudency he denieth the faith to haue ben then first planted a­monge vs englishmen and most wickedly violateth the bles­sed memory of our Apostle S. Augustin, the History of Vene­nerable Bede lately set foorth in the english tounge shall pro­ue him a manifest lyar in the one, and a most notorious slaun­derer in the other.

Harding. I saie, as I saied before, that the seruice was then (with­in the compasse of 600. yeres after Christ) in a toung which some people vnderstode and some vnderstode not. Diuis. 3.

Iewell. The .67. Vntruthe.The .123. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. M. Harding is not able to shew one nation that vnderstoode not their Common seruice.

Stapletō. Yes forsothe M. Harding hath shewed it, as it shall well ap­peare before we haue ended this Article. Yet presently for the iustifying of this Vntruth (wherein in dede the whole Ar­ticle dependeth, and the which being iustified your assertion M. Iewell is ouerthrow [...]n) I proue that within the first 600. yeres certain nations vnderstode not their commō seruice. Thus I reason.

[Page] Churche Seruice proued in a toū ­ge not vnder­standed. All the inhabitans of Smyrna, Pontus, Cappadocia, Lyaconia, Caria, Thracia had their Common seruice in the Greke tounge.

But all the inhabitants of those Nations vnderstode not the Gre­ke tounge.

Ergo all those inhabitans had not their seruice in a tounge which they vnderstoode.

The Ma­ior.For proufe of the Maior or first proposition, I wil bring the testimony of S. Hierom. S. Hierom writeth thus. Alexandria & Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis, Hesychium laudat authorem. Con­stantinopolis vsque Antiochiam, Praefat. in Parali [...]. Luciani Martyris exemplaria pro­bat. Mediae inter has prouinciae palestinos codices legunt, quos ab Ori­gine elaboratos Eusebius & Pamphilus vulgauerunt, totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat. That is. Alexandria and Aegypt in their Greke copies of the Bible do vse that trā ­slation of the 70. which Hesychius hath sett forthe. From Constantinople vnto Antioche the copies sett foorth by Lu­cianus Martyr are allowed. Other prouinces lying betwene these, do reade the bookes of Palestina, which Eusebius and Pamphilus, being first corrected by Origen, did sett foorth, and all the worlde in this triple variete of copies contendeth one with the other.

By these wordes of S. Hierom it is euident, that in all the East parte of the worlde (which he calleth here the whole worlde) from Aegypt to Constantinople, and within all the countres lying betwene, comprehending al Asia the les­se, these three copies only of the Greke Bibles were vsed. For in this triple diuersite, he saieth all that parte of the world con­tendeth. Of those midle prouinces lying betwene Constanti­nople and Antioche, are those countres aboue named of the lesser Asia, except Thracia which is of the proper Iurisdictiō of Constantinople and no parte of the lesser Asia. As the skill­full in Cosmographie do knowe right well. Now out of this place of S. Hierom for proofe of the Maior or first propo­sition, [Page 58] thus I reason.

The common seruice of those countres was for the most parte taken out of their Bibles and holy Scripture.

But by S. Hieroms testimony their Bibles were only in the Gre­ke tounge of the 70. translation, sett forth either by Hysichius, or Lucianus the Martyr or Eusebius and Pamphilus.

Ergo their common seruice was only in the Greke tounge.

The maior of this Syllogismus, is euident bothe for that the Psalmes and the lessons are knowen to be the greater parte of the Seruice, and also by diuerse canons of that age and time,Concil. Carthag. 3. Cā. 40. commaunding Scripture to be read in the Church seruice. The minor is S. Hieroms. So the Conclusion is certaine. Againe, S. Basill celebrated the Seruice in Cappadocia in the Greke tounge as it appeareth by his Liturgie yet extant in gre­ke: Chrisostom also in Thracia, as it appeareth by his Litur­gie or Masse yet extant also in Greke. Ergo the Publike Seruice in Cappadocia and Thracia were in the Greke tounge.

The minor or seconde proposition of the firste Sylllogis­mus, which is, that all those countres aboue named,The Mi­nor. vnderstoo­de not the greke tongue, is proued in this Article by D. Har­ding, by diuerse testimonies, First of Strabo and Plinie, as in the discussing of the 70. and 71. Vntruthes, I shall haue anon occasiō more largely to speake. And to speake particularly of so­me of these. That the vulgar tongue of Lycaonia, was not gre­ke, it appeareth in the Actes of the Apostles, where it is sayed,Act [...]. 14. that the people of Lystra a City in Licaonia, cried out to Pau­le and Barnabas in the Lycaonicall tongue. Saint Luke which wrote the Actes in greke, if that crye of the Lycaonians had bene in greke, woulde not haue termed it a seuerall language from the greke, as he doth, calling it Lycaonicall. Againe that the vulgar tongue of Thracia, was not greke, Chysostom him selfe bishoppe of Constantinople in Thracia doth witnesse. [Page] For he preaching in greke,In 1. Cor. 14. Homi 35. reakoneth vp amonge diuersite off tonges, the tongues of the Scythians, of Thracians, of Roma­ines, of Persians, of Indians, of the Aegyptians, and of other. Thirdly, that the vulgar tōge of Caria was no greke but a for­rain and straunge tongue from the greke, Strabo is a suffi­cient witnesse, who speaking of the proper Language off the Carians,Strabo lib. 14. faieth of it: Permulta Nomina Graeca per mixta habet. It hath many greke Names mingled in it. Wher [...]of it is eui­dent it was a cleane different tongue from the greke. Lyke as our Englishe tongue hathe a number of Frenche wordes in it, being yet a language vtterly diuerse from the Frenche. Four­thely the people of Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia, of Phrygia, and Pamphylia:Actor. 2. Audiebat vnusquisque lingua sua illos loqu [...]ntes, hearde the Apostles to speake euery one in their owne tongue. And the Miracle was suche, that they saied one to an other. Are not all these that speake, of Galilee? Et quomodo nos audiui­mu [...] vnusqu [...]sque linguam nostram, in qua nati sum us? And howe haue we hearde euery one of vs oure tongue in the whiche we were borne? Vnlesse the tongues, of Pontus and Asia, of Cap­padocia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia (al countres of the lesser Asia) had bene so diuers and distincte natural tounges, that eche one vnderstode not the other, what Miracle or what cause of admonition had there bene in those peoples hearing the Apostles to pronounce and speake, euery of their natural and natiue toun­ges? What Miracle is it for the Notherne man and the Wester­ne man to vnderstande the Southerne preacher at Poules? But if the Spanyarde, the Italian and the Frenche man (being only skilfull of their Mother toungues) coulde yet vnderstande a Latine preacher, that were a Miracle in dede. For so were the the tongues of Pontus and Asia, of Cappadocya, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, deriued and deducted oute of the greke, as the Frenche. Italyan, and Spanyshe are deriued out of the Latin. And these proprietes of Languages were so diuers, and infinit, [Page 59] that althoughe of certaine, as of the Atticke, the Ionicall, the Dorical, and the Aeolical tōgues proprietes might be gathered and collected in to some Orders of Rules, the other yet by no meanes coulde be so reduced, but were rather taken for diuerse and different toungues, then for proprietes of tounges. There­fore Ioannes Grammaticus writing hereof, saieth.I [...]an Grā. [...]. Barbaras in multitudine existentes & incompraehensibiles non est facile tradere. Alioqui neque dicendum ipsas Dialectos, sed linguas. The Barba­rous greke tounges being infinit, can not easely be brought to any rules to be taught by. And they are not so much to be called Dialectes or proprieties, as tonges. Such Diuers [...]tes, mul­titudes, and differences of tounges and languages there were in the greke Churche, in the lesser Asia, and in that which in Ec­clesiasticall writers is called the East parte of Chrystendome. Last of Master Iewell him selfe confesseth in this Article, that Iewell. pag, 166.The Nations of the East parte of the worlde, had seuerall tounges and spake not all one onely tounge. This then being so, and yet the E­aste parte of the worlde (as it hath bene proued) hauing onely the greke Seruice, it remaineth clere, that a Nation, yea sondry Nations are shewed which h [...]d their Seruice not in their com­mon knowen tounge, but in a lerned tounge whiche they vn­stoode not.

Againe M. Iewell is of the minde in this Article that in Rome the Seruice was euer in Latine. For he saieth,pag. 167. they had their exhortations and sermons in Latine. True it is the Church of Rome had the Seruice allwaies in the Latine tongue. The Ser­mons and Exhortations also for a greate space. But howe lon­ge thinketh M. Iewell? He confesseth that S. Augustine sent in by S. Gregory to preache the Faith to vs Englishmē, prayed in Latine, and sayed Masse in Latine. And it is euidēt in the wor­kes of sainte Gregorye that the Church Seruice in Rome was in his tyme Latine.Lib. 7. E­pist. 63. An [...] he writeth that the people of Rome answered to Kyrie [...]leeson, at the Masse tyme, as they doe [Page] to this daye. Yet what thinketh M. Iewell? Did the peo­ple of Rome vnderstande Kyrie eleeson. Those wordes are Greke. But did they vnderstande Latin in Rome at that time? Verely the histories teache vs the contrary. Namely Sabellicus writeth that before the time of S. Gregory,Aenead. 8. Lib. 5. euē frō the first co­ming in of the Longobardes to Italy, they lefte vtterly in Ro­me to speake latin. This was longe before the six hundred ye­res expired. And no maruaile. For before that time, the Wan­dalles and Hunnes had spoyled Rome. The Gothes inhabited the very cyte of Rome and the rest of Italy many yeres. The Longobardes also had their dwellinges and remaining there. Yet was the Churche Seruice vntill S. Gregories time and e­uer sithens only in the latine tounge. Thus bothe in the greke Churche, and in the latine, the Churche seruice was in greke and latine, which soundry nations of grece, and the very Ro­manes them selues vnderstoode not. Thus the Vntruthe is ius­tified, and a natiō, yea sundry natiōs shewed, which vnderstoo­de not cōmonly their Cōmon Seruice, and thus in this Article euen at the beginning M. Iewell must yelde and Subscribe. Which yet, before we come to the ende, M. Iewel by Gods grace, shall diuers mo waies be forced vnto, if at lest he will stande and abide to his large offers and ouer bolde challenge.

Harding. diuis. 3. If M. Iewell, or any of our learned aduersaries, or any man liuing coulde shewe good euidence and proufe, that the publike seruice of the Church was then in the Syriacall or Arabike, in the Aegiptian, Aethiopian, Persian, Armeni­an, Scythian, Frenche or Britaine tongue, then might they iustly claime prescription against vs in this article &c. But that doubtelesse can not appeare.

Iewell. pag. 154. The 124. Vntruthe Slaund.The .68. Vntruthe, For doubtelesse it will soone be shewed.

Stapleton. This shall appeare by the proufes which you bringe, M. Ie­well. [Page 60] Here in this place you saie somewhat. Afterwarde you sa­ie more. To that which here you bringe, I will here presently answer. To that which you bringe afterwarde, I will answer when I come to it, which will be in the Returning of the .78. Vntruthe. Here you saie.

Iewell. For as much as the first tongue that M. Harding nameth amon­gest other, is the Syriacal, let him reade S. Hierom describing the pom­pe of Paules funerall. These be his wordes.Hieron in epitaphio Panloe. The 125. Vntruthe For this was no parte of the com­mon Ser­uice, as it shall ap­peare bo­the here and mo­re at lar­ge in the 78. Vn­truthe. At her funerall all the multitude of the Cities of Palestine mette together. The psalmes were songe in order in the hebrew, greke, Latin, and Syrian tongue. Here may he see that in one Citie foure se­uerall Nations, in their Common seruice vsed foure Seuerall tongues amonge which tongues is the Syriacal. Which thing M. Harding thin­keth all the worlde can not shewe.

M. Iewell shooteth faire, but farre from the Marke. His pur­pose is to proue that the Common seruice of the Church was in the Syriacall tongue. And he telleth vs of certain psalmes songe at the funeral of a noble woman in the Syriā tongue. Of such psalmes or songes we shal speake more at large hereafter in the [...]8. Vntruthe, aboute the allegation of M. Iewell touching Ephrem. Presently let vs consider shortly M. Iewelles Argu­ment. Thus he semeth to frame it.

Psalmes were songe of the people at ones funerall in the vulgar tongue.

Ergo the Churche seruice was alltogether in the vulgar tongue. M. Iewel­les Argu­ment.

Soothely (good Reader) if it had liked M. Iewel to haue ge­uen the leaue to reade forthe the whole sentence of S. Hierom, thou shouldest haue sene this singing of psalmes was no parte of the Church seruice, but an extraordinary deuotion of that people toward that good woman deceased. For thus it folo­weth immediatly after the wordes by M. Iewell alleaged. Psal­mes were songe not only for three daies space, vntil the time she was buried vnder the Church nygh to the vawte of our lorde, but also through out the whole weke: al that came, thinking it their owne fu­nerall and their owne sorowe. Now vnlesse M. Iewell will saie [Page] that al the weke longe they were a saying her diriges, or that in a sett seruice of one Churche there should be a confusion of so many tounges, or that the Seruice was in all those foure to­unges at once, this can nothing helpe him. Verely of such psalmes as were songe at her buriall as a parte of the seruice, S. Hierom mentioned that before in these wordes. Being caried to her graue by the handes of the bishops, Hieron. in Epitaph. Paulae. carying the b [...]ere vpon their necke, while other bishops aryed candles and tapers b [...]fore her, other guided the quyer of the singing men, she was laied in the middle of the Church, of our Sauiour. Here is the Seruice, here be lightes and tapers, here is a quyer of singing men. Thus M. Iewelles psal­me helpeth nothing his whole Seruice, but vtterly ouerthro­weth the whole maner of their naked funeralls. He proueth the whole by a piece, the ordinary vsage by a casuall solemnite, the common Seruice by a priuat Funerall. Vpon such bare Gheasses, this great Alteration is builded. And here commeth an other to vnderproppe it.

Iewell. S. Augustin willing the priestes to applie their study to correct the errours of their latin speache,De [...]a [...]e [...]hi sandis ru­dib. cap. 9. The .126. Vntruthe For it is spoken only of latin to­unge. addeth thereto this reason. That the people vnto the thi [...]ge that they pl [...]inely vnderstande, may say, Amen. This of S. Augu­stin seemeth (126) to be spoken generally of all tongues.

It seemeth so M, Iewell. Yea forsoothe, he that seeth no marke must shoote by ayme. D. Harding asketh of the Syriacal, A­rabike, Aegyptian, Aethiopian, Persian, Armenian, Scythian, Frenche or Britain tongue, and you answer of the Latin seruice vsed in Afrike. This is M. Iewelles argument.

M. Iewel­les Argu­ment. The Latin Seruice was vsed in Affrike in Latin and the people thereto answeared, Amen.

Ergo the Arabyans, Scythians, Aethyopians, Frenche men and o­ther had their seruice in their vulgar tounge.

This argument hangeth loosely. Euery childe may see thourough it. The foly of it will appeare by the like.

[Page 61] In Rome at this houre the seruice is in Latin, and the people an­sweareth Amen.

Ergo Spaine, Fraunce, and Dutcheland haue their seruice in their vulgare tounge.

The truthe is. In all places and countres, the priest must so distinctly pronounce the Seruice, that when the people of duty must answer, he may be vnderstanded, what he say. So children and Parisheclarkes are taught to answer the Priest, knowing well the wordes what he saieth, though not vnder­standing what the wordes meane. And as now for the whole people one or a fewe doth answer, being taught and instructed thereto, so in the primitiue Church all the people for the most part was so instructed and did so answer. Thus M. Iewell hath hitherto proued the Latin Seruice, but for Seruice in the vul­gar tounge he hath brought nothinge. But he goeth forth, and saieth.

Iewell. M. Harding him selfe at the ende of his treatie confesseth that the Armenians, Russians, Aethyopians, Slauons and Moscouites,middot; ha­ue from the beginning of their faith in their publike Seruice vsed euer more their owne naturall countre tounges. Wherefore by M. Har­dinges owne graunte, we may iustly claime prescription, and charge him with Antiquite, and require him to yelde to the Authorite of the primitiue Churche.The .127. Vntruthe for none of these examples are of the primitiue Church.

It is well, M. Iewell, that all other stories, Doctours, Coun­cells, and witnesses faylyng you, yet D. Harding hath stoode your good frende, to serue your turne in this distresse. How­beit D. Harding though he might gladly pleasure, you yet coulde he in no casse so forgett him selfe, as to require you to proue that thinge, which he should after graūt you. Therfore you shall vnderstāde M. Iewel first that those Armenias, Rus­sians and Aethiopiās vsed not such vulgar Seruice with in the first 600. yeres, but longe after. His question here is of that ti­me and no other. Againe he asketh of such practise allowed and taken for good. Your answere vpon his graunte is of such [Page] as vsed it so in Schisme. Thus hetherto it hath not appeared that any Countre had their Seruice, Within the first .600. yeres in a vulgar Barbarous tongue.

Harding. I say that if I can shewe that the people of some Countries of the Greke Church (69) which all had their Cōmon praiers and Seruice in the Greke tounge, for the more parte vnder­stoode not the Greke toung, more then Englishmen nowe the Latin tounge, then I haue proued that I promised to pro­ue. &c.

Iewell. The 128. Vntruthe Slaund.The 69. Vntrueth. For it is certaine that sundrie of the East nations had not their Seruice in the greke tongue, as shall appeare.

Stapleton It shall appeare, saieth M. Iewell. But when and where? For­sothe in the 15. Diuision of this Article. In that place he repea­teth this Vntruthe, and laboureth to poue it at large. In that place it shall appeare,It is the 78. Vntruthe. that he hath proued nothing. But take heede good Reader, in the meane while. Vnlesse thou eye M. Iewell well, he will steale from thee. For in this point lyeth the whole pith of this Article.The principal Issue of this Article. D. Harding putteth it here for clere and vndoubted, that all the Greke Church, and namely all the lesser Asia being a great parte thereof, had their Seruice in the Greke tongue. This being so clere and true that no lerned mā. would euer haue denied it (for whereof is it called Greca Eccle­sia, the Greke Church, or Congregation, but bicause in al their assemblies and Churches the Greke tongue was vsed, Scriptu­res were read in Greke, homilies in Greke, and so forthe, as the writinges of S. Basill, of Gregorie Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nissa, al bishops in Asia the lesse do clerely conuince?) this I say being in the iudgement of all lerned men so clere a matter, D. Harding neither proued it, neither thought it nede to proue. No nor M. Iewell doth not then flatly denie it. But (saieth he) [Page 62] Iewell. pag. 160. if it be denied, M. Harding with all his learning is not able to proue it. Yet he will not graunte it neither, bicause the graunting ther­of were a clere ouerthrowe of his assertion. This therefore being put for truth of D. Harding, he proueth that many coū ­tres of Asia the lesse vnderstode not the Greke tongue. Where­of it should folowe, that many countres of Asia the lesse had their Seruice in a toungue which they vnderstoode not. Bicause of this conclusion so directly folowing M. Iewell seing the Minor or second proposition to be directly and abundantly proued, and the Maior or first proposition no whit proued, to the Minor or second proposition, he saieth,Iewell. pag. 162. M. Harding ouer much paineth him self, to proue that thing that no wise man will denie him. And then he bringeth some proufes him selfe to hel­pe forthe the matter. To the Maior or first proposition, bicau­se it stoode vnproued, he toke his aduantage, and nowe de [...]ied it vtterly, though it were of it selfe most clere and euident. Now bicause an vniuersall proposition being denied, an instā ­ce in some particular must be geuen by order of reason, therfo­re he taketh vpon him (as you heare him to saie in this Vntru­truthe) to proue afterwarde that sundry Natiōs of the East Church had not their Seruice in the Greke toung.Iewell. Whereby the vniuersall proposition of D. Harding, that all the East or Greke Church had their seruice in the greke tounge, D. Har. shall be ouerthrowen. This as I saied he will proue afterwarde. In the 78. Vntruthe I shall haue occasion to answer vnto the whole. Looke (gentle Reader) in that place, and marke how well he proueth it, and remēbre that if his proufes faile him (as I trust in God they shall euery one) that then Some Countres are founde in the Greke Churche of the first 600. yeares which had their Ser­uice in a toungue that all the people vnderstoode not: That so M. Iewelles Assertion will be ouerthrowen, and he bounde to Subscribe, if he stande to his offer.

Harding. Strabo who trauailled ouer all the countres of Asia,Diuis. 8.[Page] nere about the time of S. Paules peregrination there, who also was borne in the same, in his .14. booke of Geographie writeth, that whereas within that Cherronesus that is the straight betwene sea and sea there were sixtiene Na­tions by reporte of Ephorus, of them all onely three were gre­kes, all the rest Barbarous.

Iewell. The .70. Vntruthe. Missereporting Straboes wordes.

Stapleton. The .129. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous..It greueth M. Iewell, that D. Hardinge shoulde speake anye Truthe in his whole booke. So ofte he noteth him of Vn­truth, not only where none is (as he hath yet hitherto euer do­ne) but also in such matters, which whether it be true or no, no­thing helpeth or furdereth the state of the question. D. Har­ding will proue that in Asia the Lesse there were soundry Coun­tres whiche vnderstoode not the Greke Toungue. D. Hard. M. Iewell sa­yeth.

Iewell. pag. 160.To what ende? For neither is it denied by any of vs, neither is it any part of our questiō. And yet notwithstanding is not M. Harding (130.) able to proue it with all his Gheasses.

The .130. Vntruthe For by this Authori­te of Strabo it is clerely proued.Lo: He will disproue D. Hardinges proufes, thoughe they make nothing to the purpose, yea though he denie not the thinge which is proued. And why so? Forsothe to encrease the quantite of his Replie, to deface (as he thinketh) his aduer­sary, and to leaue in the Reader some token of his learning and knowleadge, though he leaue withall a greate blott of his honesty. For marke good Reader I beseche thee, the demea­nour of M Iewell in this pointe.The sin­gular lewdenesse of M. Iewel. Bicause by no reason nor tru­the he could ouerthrow the report of D. Harding out of Stra­bo, he in his text, repeting the text of D. Harding hath put in one worde more, then either D. Harding spake, or Strabo wro­te, intending thereby to proue D. Hardinge to Missereporte Strabo. What worde is that? The worde is. Then. For whereas D. Harding out of Strabo reporteth, that, Harding. whereas there were six­teene [Page 63] soundrye Nations in Asia the lesse by reporte of Ephorus, off them all only three were Grekes, all the reste were Barbarous, M. Ie­well, repetinge these wordes, repeteth them in this sorte, Whereas there were Then Sixtene sundry Nations,The .131. vntruthe, i [...]altering the te­xte of D. Har­ding. Iewell. pag. 161. &c. And then he crieth out.

I knowe not whether M. Harding be vn wittingly deceiued him selfe, or wilfully go aboute to deceiue others. But wel I knowe, that this is no parte of Straboes meaning. For Strabo speaketh not this of his owne time, &c. And a litle after. For if Strabo had meant this of his owne time, to what ende, &c.

Lo you see his proufe is directed againste the worde, Then: whiche worde D. Hardinge wrote not. He will proue it was not so in Straboes time, which D. Harding saied not at all. For euidence hereof I reporte me to all the copies extant, as well in both the printes of D. Hardings Answer, as also to the Copie, inserted here in M. Iewelles Replye. If there be any lye in put­ting in the worde Then, you haue made the lye, for you haue put in that worde. Then beshrowe the lyar. Thus M. Iewell, to fasten an Vntruthe vppon doctor Hardinge, and to proue him a deceiuer off the people, hathe dealed him selfe moste Vntruly, hath deceiued the people, and much abused his Rea­der.

Harding. Likewise Plinius in the sixt Booke. Naturalis Histo­riae. ca. 2. declareth that within the circuit of that lande, we­re three greke Nations only, Dores, Iones, Aeoles. And that the rest were Barbarous.

Iewell. The .71. Vntruthe. Missereporting the wordes of Plinie.The .132. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.

Stapleton. The wordes of Plinie are these. In omni tractu eo proditur­tres tantum gentes Graecas iure dici, Doricam, Aeonicam, Aeolicam, Caeteras Barbarorū esse. Within all that circuite (he meaneth off Asia the lesse) it is written, that onely three nations be rightly called grekes, and that the rest are of the Barbarous. Nowe ho­we hath D. Harding missereported Plinie his wordes? M. Ie­well [Page] in his texte to proue they are missereported, saieth nothin­ge. Let then the Reader iudge, by conferring together the wordes of Plinie and the wordes of doctor Hardinge, whether he saie any thinge more or lesse in effecte then Plinie doeth. In which two pointes Missereporting consisteth. Plinie saieth. Proditur. It is writen. And D. Harding vpon his auouching re­porteth it. Plinye saieth. Three Onely Nations are rightly cal­led Greke. So much saieth D. Harding also. Naie, sayeth M. Ie­well.

Iewell. pag. 160. The .133. Vntruthe For Plinie can not so meane. In that he saieth, tres tantum gentes Graecas Iure dici, that only three Na­tions be rightly or naturally called Grekes (133) he must nedes meane that the reste were called Grekes also, althoughe not so rightly, and naturally as the other: For els the exception of this worde, Iure, that is, rightly or naturally, had bene in vaine.

Stapleton. Touching the language they were not called Grekes at all rightly. That is the saying of Plinie. He saieth not, Not so rightly, as M. Iewell gloseth. But they were not rightly Grekes, bicause they neither spake the greke tonge naturally, neither had arri­ued into that parte of Asia the lesse, as had the other three, but out of other Barbarous Countres. And the reason why onely those three Nations Dores, Iones, Aeoles, were rightly called gre­kes, is not (as M. Iewel fancieth) to make an exceptiō betwene rightly, and not so rightly, but it is (as Plinie expressely telleth vs) to make an exception that the other were no grekes at all. And therfore, he addeth immediatly to his former words. Caete­ras Barbarorum esse. That the rest were of Barbarous. Now Syr. The Barbarous and the Grekes are two distincted Nations touchinge language at the lest, though lyuing in one Countre. As the grekes are not called Barbarous, so neither the Barbarous are called Grekes. And S. Paule maketh a clere difference be­twene the Grekes and the Iewes,Rom. 1. and the Barbarous. In that worde Barbarous, comprehending all other Natyons not Ie­wes nor Graekes. So dothe Strabo as we shall anon heare.

Iewell. [Page 64]And thus M. Harding seeking to proue that the people of Asia were no grekes, alleageth Plinius,The 134. Vntruthe For it ap­peareth not so by Plinie. by whose wordes it appeareth necessarely that they were grekes.

It appeareth by Plinie three only were rightly called Gre­kes. All the rest were mere Barbarous. But this is not yet the Conclusion of D. Harding. M. Iewel sawe wel enough that he had first alleaged Strabo in whō the matter is more plaine, and that Plinie was brought but for the like. Therefore hauing hi­therto shot at Rouers, nowe he cometh home to his longe But­tes, and saieth.

Iewell. But M. Harding will force the matter further. Strabo saieth, that these three Nations excepted, the rest were Barbarous: Ergo they vnderstoode no Greke. Vhe .135. Vntruthe Slaund. And hereupon resteth his whole proofe. But this is an other falsifica­tion of Straboes minde.

Stapleton So saieth M. Iewell, and so he hath added in the Margin. Thus. M. Harding falsifieth S [...]raboes minde. But nowe it shall appeare that al this is but a Slaunderous Vntruth. And that M. Iewell either vnderstode not in dede Straboes minde, or els, hath wilfully falsified his minde. For loe thus he foloweth the Matter.

Iewell. For Strabo calleth them Barbarous, which vnderstoode and spake Greke.The .136. Vntru­the.

This is a manifest Vntruthe. Strabo calleth such, Barbari­loquos, men of a barbarous speache, not Barbaros, Barbarous, As it shall anon appeare. But first let vs heare M. Iewelles proufes. He saieth.

Iewell. And what beter witnesse can we herein haue, then Strabo him selfe?

Stapl. Verely his witnesse is good. But M. Iewell vnderstandeth him not.

Iewell. Thus he writeth. Barbarismum in hijs dicere consueuimus, qui male loquun­tur Grece, non au [...]em in [...]lis qui Cari [...]e lóquunur. Lib. 14. Geograph. Sic etiā barbariloquos & barbari sermonis homines eos accipere debemus, qui male Graeca pro [...]un [...]iant. We take a barbarismus, or a barbarous maner of speache to be in them that spea­ke the Greke d [...]sorderly, and not in them that speake a straunge tounge as is the tounge of the Carians. So we ought to take them to be * bar­barous, [Page] or men of barbarous speache,The 137. Vntruthe in false trāslatiō. Barbarilo­quus. is not barbarous, but a man of barba­rous speache. The .138. Vntruthe For Stra­bo saieth not so. that ill fauouredly pronounce the Greke. Thou maiest see good Reader with what faithe M. Harding alleageth the Authorite of olde writers. He woulde proue by Strabo that these people spake no graeke bicause they were Barbarous. And Strabo him selfe (138) saieth, not withstāding they were Barbarous, yet they spake Greke.

M. Iewell hathe saied. But he hath saied many thinges vn­truly. As for the faithe which D. Harding is presumed not to haue vsed, let it be tried by the Truthe that M. Iewell him sel­fe hath vsed. Verely he vnderstoode not his Author, or els he hath wilfully dissembled the Truthe. For thus it is. Strabo cal­leth not such men that spake greke ill fauouredly, Barbaros barbarous (as M. Iewell hath wrongely translated Strabo) but he calleth them Barbariloquos & barbari sermonis homines, men of barbarous speache. You haue deceiued your Reader M. Ie­well willfully, or els your selfe grossely and ignorantly, with the similitude of termes.

For Barbari, barbarous, a [...]d Barbariloqui, men of a barbarous speache in Strabo are not all one.Barbari and Barbariloqui. For whereas the Ion [...]s (who spake cleane greke) called the Ca [...]ians Barbariloquos, men of a barbarous speache, in contempt and cōtumely, bicause (as Strabo writeth) they had much contention and continuall warre with them, and thereupon Anacreon their Poet termed them [...],Strabo Lib. 14. men of barbarous speche, Strabo asketh Quare eos barbarici sermonis appellat, Barbaros vero nunquam? Why doth he cal thē men of Barbarous speache, and not Barbarous? And af­ter he saieth. Omnes qui crasse loquuntur Barbari dicuntur, quales sunt Nationes omnes praeter graecos. All which speake thicke and grosse are called Barbarous, such as all nations are beside the graekes. Therefore Chrysostom a Grecian reakoneth the Ro­mans them selues inter barbaros, In 1. Cor. 14. Hom. 35. amonge the barbarous. In like maner Tully, Liuie, and other latin writers call all other Nati­ons (except the pure grekes) in comparison of them selues, Bar­barous.Lib. 14. And therefore (saieth Strabo) A nacreon called the Carians [Page 65] properly Barbarous at the beginning, bicause of their harde and rou­ghe speache, But afterwarde we abused that worde as a common name to distinguish them from the grekes. Thus much of the worde Barbari, barbarous, or (in better englishe) forraine or straūge. After this he speaketh of such as were called Barbariloqui, men of barbarous speache (which M. Iewell confoundeth with the worde barbarous,) and saieth.Strabo. Ibidem. Alia quaedam & quasi barbara lo­quendi prauitas in lingua nostra videbatur, si quis non perfecte grae­ca pronunciaret, quod & apprimé Caribus contingit. There semed yet an other and a certaine barbarous offence in our tounge, if any pronounced greke not perfitly: which in these Carians is most euident. So he cōcludeth against Anacreon that the Ca­rians were not called Barbariloqui, men of barbarous speache for their owne Carian tounge (for so they were called, Barbari barbarous, as al other Nations beside the greke were) but bicau­se they pronounced not well the greke tounge which they ler­ned. Vpon this he vttereth the wordes which M. Iewell allea­geth, touching those which are properly called Barbariloqui, men of barbarous speache. Which is, that they are such as spea­ke the greke tounge euill fauouredly: but barbari, barbarous are they whose lāguage is not greke at al, but a diuerse toūge from the greke, as you heard before in Straboes wordes. Nowe M. Iewel confoundeth the worde Barbaros, barbarous, and the wor­de Barbariloquos, men of barbarous speache, together, and so deceiueth the Reader (as I saied) in similitude of termes. It is therefore to be noted that bothe the wordes of Strabo before, reakoning by the reporte of Ephorus but three greke Nations only in Asia the lesse, and all the rest to the number of sixtene Barbarous, and also the wordes of Plinie affirming the very same, are spoken not of Barbariloqui, but of Barbari: not of mē of a Barbarous speache, which spake al Greke euil fauouredly, but of mere Barbarous, that is (in better english) of forrain and straunge Nations, hauing eche their tounges and languages [Page] seuerall. For of the Grekes, as the same Strabo in an other pla­ce reakoneth, there were in Asia the lesse but foure Lāguages: the Attica, which yet he cōfoundeth with the Ionica (making but three in substance) Dorica and the Aeolica.Strabo. Libr. 8. So that all that were called Barbarous in Asia the lesse, as the Carians, the Ly­caonians, the Cappadocians, the Phrygians, the Pamphylians, the Galathians and other to the number of Sixtene Nations had their seuerall and distinct languages from the greke. As for exāple Strabo speaking of the proper language of the Ca­rians, saieth of it. Permultae nomina graeca permixta habet. It hath may greke names mingled in it. Like as our English toung hath a number of Frenche wordes and that of the best sorte in it,Libro. 14. being a language vtterly diuerse from the Fren [...]he. That the Lycaonians spake not vulgarly greke, but Lyc [...]ni [...]e in the Ly­caonicall tounge,Act. 14. nether Attice nor Aeolice nor Doricè, and therefore no greke at all, the Actes of the Apostles do expresse­ly witnesse. Againe Cappadocia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, all prouinces of Asia the lesse, spake a diuerse language, that one vnderstode not the other. Els it had ben no miracle that al they (as the Actes do mention) hearing S. Peter to preache,Cap. 2. should eche of thē haue thought, that he spake their seueral lā ­guages. Last of all this is afterwarde by D. Harding proued so clerely, namely by the Galathians a parte also of the lesser Asia,Hierom. in pro [...]m. 2. ad Gal. Plinius li. 7. c. 24. Hist. Na [...]. and by the .22. tounges lerned of Mithridates kinge of that countre, that he might speake to all his people without an interpreter, that M. Iewell crieth out and calleth all that la­bour Vanitas vanitatum, and a great tokē of idlenesse to proue that which no man d [...]nieth. Yet you see how he laboureth by gheas­ses to ouerthrowe the authorites of Strabo and Plinie, and to proue him selfe the contrary, though yet he dare not affirme it him selfe,but saieth Iewell. pag. 164. pag 16 [...] 162. it is not denied by any of vs Whereby it appeareth that if D. Harding had not proued it in dede at large and substancially, M. Iewell would vtterly haue denied it, as he [Page 66] doth vtterly denie the other proposition, that all the Greke Church had the greke Seruice, bicause there were no proufes brought for it, the matter it selfe being to al the lerned so open and manifest. Thus you see no Vntruthe on D. Hardinges parte, but a great wrangling folie on M. Iewelles parte, and such a pelting contention, as litle becometh a diuine, and much lesse a Bishop as he would seme to be. Thus also you see the proposition of D. Harding clerely proued, that sundry Coun­tres in Asia the lesse vnderstoode not the Greke tounge, but had a seuerall language from the greke as well in substaunce, as in speache and vndestanding.

Harding. Hitherto of the Greke, and of the Seruice in that lan­guage.

Iewell. The .72. Vntruthe.middot; The .139. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. For he hath not hitherto spoken one worde of thē Seruice.

Stapletō. D. Hardinge in this same Article the 7. Diuision, taketh it as graunted of M. Iewell that the Greke Church had the greke seruice, and therefore he saieth in that place.middot; Harding. That the Seruice was in the Greke tōge, and vsed in the greke Church I graūte. And again,Harding. Diuis. 7. Thus much by vs bothe conf [...]ssed M. Iewell, and agreed vpon (tou­ching the limitation of the Greke Church) I say that if I can shewe, that the people of some Countries of the Gr [...]ke C [...]urche, which all had their Common prai [...]rs and S [...]ruice in the Gr [...]ke tonge & caet? And afterwarde. Harding. Diuis. 8. That the people of the l [...]sse Asia being a principall part of the Greke Church had their Seruice in the greke tounge, it is conf [...]ssed as manif [...]st, no lerned man wil denie it. In all those places he speaketh of the greeke Seruice. And yet M. Iewel saieth here stoutely, Iewell. that he hath not hitherto spoken one worde of the Seru [...]ce. Let now the reader iudge who speaketh Vntruly. As touching the matter, D. Harding in dede (as I saied before) proued it not bicause as you heare him saie, he toke it as a matter conf [...]ssed, and such as no lerned man would denie. And M. Iewell him selfe doth [Page] not denie it, but he saieth that Iewell. if it were denied, M. Harding we­re not able to proue it. Yea farder M. Iewell in this Article confesseth no lesse in a greate parte, saying.

Iewell. Polycarpus in Smyrna, S. Basill in Cappadocia, Amphilochius in Lycaonia all preached in the Greke tounge.pag 161. T [...]e .140 Vntruthe the peo­ple of Lycaonia and of Cappadocia vnderstoode not the Greke tounge, as hath befo [...] bene proued. And the people vnder­stoode them.

Nowe all these Countres are in Asia the lesse. Whereof it will folowe that they had the Greke Seruice, which the people also might vnderstande by M. Iewelles confession, in a greate parte of Asia the lesse, though not in the whole greke Churche. Which yet also he must be driuen to confesse being not able (as it shall appeare hereafter, when I come to the .78. Vntruth) to geue any one instaunce or exceptyon in any one Countre of the greke Churche. And so D. Harding though he haue not proued it him selfe, yet M. Iewell hath proued it for him. For an Vniuersal proposition is well proued by Order of Schooles, and Reason, when no Instance, or Exception can be brought to the Contrary.

Harding. Bicause the first preachers of the faith came to these west partes from Rome, &c.

Iewell. The .141. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous ioy­ned with a grosse ignorance.The .73. Vntruthe. The first preachinge of the Faith in these Weste Countries came not first from Rome.

This Vntruthe was noted before by M. Iewell in the firste Article, and here it is repeted to make a number. It was the .32. Vntruthe. In that place we haue satisfied it, and shewed that Fraunce, Germanye, and the Englishe Nation our Forefathers had all their firste faithe from Rome. Maye it please thee gent­le Reader to haue a recourse to that place,See in the leafe. 19. and 20. and then iudge what the impudency of M. Iewell deserueth: not only in repe­ting it now againe for an Vntruthe, but also auoutchinge it in the texte and noting also in the Margin that M. Hardinge wit­tingly and willingly auoucheth Vntruthe. He bringeth in surmi­ses [Page 67] without Authoritye that Nathanael, Saturninus and Laza­rus preached first the Faithe of Fraunce. For this surmise and Gheasse of his, you had before alleaged a testimonye of the Frenche bishoppes them selues aboue a thousand yeares paste, confessing they had their Faithe firste from Rome. If that suf­fise not, beholde the particular testimony of diuerse the prin­cipall Churches in Fraunce to recorde the same. Demochares a Frenche Writer of late dayes reakoning vp the Bishops of e­uery bishoprike and Archebishoprike in Fraunce,De Sacri­ficio Missa lib. 2. by the recor­des of the Chapters of eche Churche, nameth vs their firste bishops to be these. Of Senes the first Bishop was S. Sauinia­nus sent from S. Peter, as also Antoninus witnesseth.Cap. 25. tit. 6. pri­mae partis Historiarū. Of Paris the first bishop was S. Denys sent by Clement, as the Monu­ments and Antiquites of Paris do yet testifie. Of Chartres A­uentinus sent from S. Peter was the first bishop. Of Orleans Altinus sent likewise with the other two by S. Peter. By S. Clement Pope of Rome soone after S. Peter, were sent also di­uers. Nicasius the firste bishoppe of Rhone, Exuperius of Ba, ieux, and Taurinus of Brye. The firste Bishop of Antissio­dorum was S. Peregrinus sent from Sixtus the Pope of Rome, in the yeare of our Lorde. 30.

Whereas M. Iewel writeth that Nathanael, Lazarus,The .142. Vntruthe For Saturninus preached in Fraunce .200. yeares aft [...]r the first preachers Petrus de Natalib. lib. [...]. ca. 5. li 1. cap. 9. & lib. 10. cap. 41. and Sa­turninus preached the Faith first in Fraunce, he hath taken that by lyke out of some Legēda aurea, and yet hath not al together truly reported it. For as touching Saturninus, he was bishop of Tolose in Fraunce in the persecutiō of Decius more then 200. yeares after Christ, and therfore could be none of the first that preached there the faithe. For Nathanael, Vrsinus is named to be the firste bishoppe of Burges. Of Lazarus arriuing to Mas­silia with Marye Magdalene, and Martha it is written, but that they planted the faithe in Fraunce it is very vncertaine. As for the coniectures of M. Iewell, from whence our countre receiued the faithe, I haue before in the 32. Vntruthe declared [Page] the contrarye oute of the approued Historye of Venerable Bede.

Iewell. Tertullian calleth Hierusalem, the Mother and the spring of Religiō So doth the Prophet Esaie longe before Prophecye:T [...]tul cō ­tra Marci. lib 2. Esa. 2. De Syon exibit lex & verbum Domini de Hierusalem. The lawe shall come forthe of Syon and the worde of the Lorde oute of Hierusa­lem. Our Sauioure also sending forthe his Apostles, biddeth them to beginne at Hierusalem, to preache to Samaria, and so vsque ad extremum terrae. Acto. 1. euen to the vttermost of the ear­the. In that sence all the worlde had the faith from Hierusa­lem. And so S. Augustine in the place by M. Iewell alleaged, when he saieth,August. Epist. 178. The faithe sprange first from the Grekes, by the grekes meaneth not the countre of grece, but the countre of Iury, who at that tyme was a part of the greke Churche, as by the greke Liturgie of S. Iames bishop of Hierusalem, by the greke Homilies of Cyrillus bishop there also, before S. Augustines time, l [...]st of all by the wordes of S. Augustine him selfe in that selfe same epistle alleaged by M. Iewell it is euident. For in that same Epistle shewing that we ought not to reiect the greke worde [...] expressing the consubstantialite of Christ with God the father, bicause it was not written in holy Scripture, but made by the greke Fathers, saieth thus. Non enim in Afri­ca, aut in cuncta Barbariae sed in Syria vel Graecia vbi & ipsa caro voluit de virgine nasci dominica, decuit vel oportuit verba fidei compendiose firmare. For not in Afrike nor in all the rest of bar­barous and forrain countres, but in Syria or Grece where it li­ked our Sauiour to take Flesh of the Virgin, the wordes of our faithe ought or might wel be established. In whiche wordes he calleth Iury (where Christ was borne) by the name of Grece. The which also he doth in an other Epistle calling that coun­tre.August. Epst. 70. Radicem Orientalium Ecclesiaru [...] vnde Euangelium in A­fricam venit, vnde terra si eis afferatur, adorant. The Roote of of the East Churches from whence the Ghospell came vnto [Page 68] Afrike, and from whence the earthe if it be brought to them is worshipped: which can be meaned of no Lande but of the Ho­ly Lande. Yet notwithstanding all this, that principally all Christendom hath their faithe from Hierusalem: thoughe she be the true Mother to vs all, though S. Augustine do confesse that from thence the faith came to Afrike, yet I saye notwith­standinge all this Saint Augustine in this very epistle, 70. in number, confesseth also that the Faythe came to Afrike from Rome. For speaking off the Donatistes condemned apud Ecclesiam transmarinam, whiche was at Rome by Melchia­des the Pope, he addeth vnde ad istas partes Christianae fidei ma­nauit authoritas, from the which Church of Rome the au­thorite of Christen faith hath ben deriued in to these partes. And so S. Gregory saieth that from Rome,Greg. Lib. 7. ep. 32. Indict. 1. in Africanis parti­bus sumpsit ordina [...]io saecerdotalis [...]xordium, In the Coastes of A­frike, the beginning of priestly Order did springe. Thus not­witstanding that Hierusalem is the Mother of all Chrysten­dom, yet the Weste Churche (as we haue particularly declared in Fraunce, in Germany, in our countre, and last of all now in Afrike) hath taken their first faith properly and immediatly from Rome. And so hath there ben no Vntruthe auouched by D. Harding, but a manifest and willfull falshood defended by M. Iewell.

Harding. They planted and sett vp in the Countres by them conuer­ted the Seruice of the Church of Rome or some other very like, and that (74) in the latin tounge onely, for ought that can be shewed to the contrary.

Iewell. The .74. Vntruthe. For the first preachers them selues spake no lati­ne.The 143. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.

If this be all that you can shew to the contrary, then haue you shewed nothinge. For all those which S. Peter and S. Clement and other Popes sent vnto Fraunce, those which Eleutherins, [Page] Celestinus, and S. Gregory sent to Britanny, those which other Popes sent to sundry partes of Germany and other the Northe partes as we haue before particularly declared, last of all those, which (as S. Augustin witnesseth) authorised the Chrystian faith in Afrike, thinke you M. Iewell that all they sent from Rome, had not the Romain language, which is the latin ton­ge? Bicause S. Peter was a Iewe borne and a Grecian, thinke you therefore they spake no latin? Where was then the gifte of tounges geuen to the Apostles? You should haue done well M. Iewell to haue named the first preachers of the west Church, which coulde speake no latin, and to haue proued that also. So you mihgt iustly haue charged D. Harding with an Vntruthe, affirming they spake al latin, for ought that can be she­wed to the contrary. You haue noted it for an Vntruthe: but you haue shewed nothinge to the contrary. It is an easy matter to denie a Truthe. You knowe the prouerb M. Iewell. Plus potest Asinus negar [...] quàm Aristoteles probare.

Harding. He shall finde in the olde Fathers, that to Per omnia secula seculorum, to Dominus vobiscum, to Sur­sum corda, and to Gratias agamus domino deo no­stro, the people answered (75) as nowe also they answer: A­men, & cum Spiritu tuo, habemus ad dominum, dignum & iustum est.

Iewell. The .144. Slaund. The 145. Vntruthe For D· Harding knoweth the con­trary.The .75. Vntruthe. It is not so nowe. M. Hardinge knoweth, The people now answereth not the priest.

It appeareth M. Iewell, you heard not Masse many a daie. If you had heard as many Masses while you were on this side of the seas, as you were present at Cōmunions, no doubt but you should haue sene the Catholike people to answer the priest at Masse euen now at this day, in all such wordes and termes, as D. Harding here mencioneth. Doubt you not but these wor­des [Page 69] and answeres are kept still in the Masse at this daye in all Catholike countres, euen as they were in the olde Fathers da­ies, in the times of Chrysostom, of S. Ciprian, and S. Augustin.Chrysost. Homil. de Eucaenijs et Euchae­charistia. Ciprianus in expos. orat. Dō. August. in epist. 57. & serm. 44. de tempore. Yea and the people answereth the priest now as they did then. Come to Masse and you shall see it so. But you saie. Then all the people answered the priest, and that in such sorte, that Sainte Ba­fill compareth the sounde of the people to the sounde of whaues bea­ting against the sea bankes, and S. Hierom compareth it to a thun­derclappe. Then if this be all the difference that at that ti­me the whole people answered, and now a fewe only of the people, or the Quiere for the people answeareth Amen, and such other thinges, it is no Vntruthe that the people doth answer, though not in so common and Large a maner as they did then, yea though they answer not euery one particularly, but some of them for all the rest, or some other for them all: As in great churches the Quyer, and in meane parishe churches the parish clarke. And thus also the maner expressed in S. Pau­le to the Corinthians (if that be spoken of the Church Serui­ce) is perfectly obserued.Epist. 1. Cap. 14. For there it is not required that the people it selfe (expressed by the name Idiota) do answer Amē, but that he which supplieth the place of the people, do answer Amē. This place of the people is supplied either by the Quie­re, or by the parish clarke: And so the people answeareth, Amē. For he is not Vntruly saied to do a thinge, which doth it by an other. So the Commōs geue their assent in Parliament by their Burgeoses, and so the Prince executeth Iustice by his Depute.

Harding. The Constitution of Iustinian for celebrating the holy ob­lation not closely, Diuis. 14. but with vtteraunce and sounde of Voice was ordained only for the greke Church, and thereto onely it is to be referred for that some thought the sacrifice should be celebrated rather with silence, after the maner of the Churche of Rome, specially at the Consecration.

[Page]The .76. Vntruthe. For it touched the whole Empiere.

Iewell. The .7 [...]. Vntruthe. Fo [...] the Priestes in Rome prai [...]d alowde, as appe­reth by S. Hierome,pag. 171. T [...]e 146. and the 147. Vn­truthes bothe Slaund. Leo, Ambrose &c.

Stapleton. These two Vntruthes noted by M Iewell in one sentence, I will Iustifie also in one labour, per [...]sing alōge the whole text of M. Iewel that appertaineth hereunto. Thus M. Iewel in his text procedeth.

Iewell. The glose tha [...] M. Hardinge hath here imagined, wherewith to de­feate this g [...]od Emperours w [...]ole pu [...]pose, maye seeme somwhat vn­to th [...] igno [...]ant.

Iewell. I doubte not but it s [...]meth also sufficient euen to the ler­ned, for ought that you ha [...]e Replied to the contrary, as nowe it shall appea [...] (God willing) to the vnlerned also.

Iewell. Iustinian (saieth he) s [...]eaketh of the open vtteran [...]e, and soun [...]e of voi [...]e and agreeth with S. Augustine [...] p [...]ace, de M [...]gi [...]ro. T [...]e [...]efore it no [...]hinge tou­che [...]h Praiers to be had in the vulgar tonge. The .148 Vntruth. [...]or this Conclu­s [...]on is good and right. H [...]re is a very vulgar Con­clusion: as, I trust, hereafter shall a [...]peare. Good Ch [...]istian Reader, if it shall please thee onely to peruse these worde [...] of the Emperour Iu­stinian and of S. Augustine by vs alleaged, I will make thee Iudge and Arbitrour of the whole.

Stapleton M. Iewell speaketh faire. But when the Fox preacheth, be­ware your geese. In dede if it will please vs to be deceiued and mocked by M. Iewell, we may soone so be. If it wil please vs to peruse the wordes of S. Augustin by him alleaged, and to se­ke no farder, but to truste his allegation, the Iudgement may happe to goe on his side. But if we take S. Augustin and looke in his very text, we shall see that M. Iewell spake not so faire without a vauntage. For he hath in dede wilfully and of pur­pose vtterly missereported and missealleaged S. Augustine, as anon we shall see.

Iewell. S. Augustine saieth. VVe nede not vtterance of voi [...]e to praye vnto God. For the Sac [...]ifi [...]e of iusti [...]e is sanctifie [...] in the temple of our min [...]e, and in the secre­ [...]e [...]hamber of ou [...] harte.

Iewell. This is hitherto true. S. Augustin saieth so in dede. But nowe M. Iewell will iuggle.

[Page 70]Hereupon S. Augustine demaundeth this questyon. VVherefore then doth the P [...]iest lif [...]e vp his voi [...]e, and praye alow [...]e in the open assemblie in the Chu [...]che.

Iewell. This is the first Vntruthe.The .1 [...]9 Vntruth. S. Aug [...] ­stin demaundeth no such question. S. Augus [...]in moueth no such question, as it shall straighte way appeare.

He answereth, Not that God, but that man may [...]eare him, that the peo­p [...]e by the sounde off his voi [...]e, and vnderstandi [...]g his meani [...] may be put in [...] and by co [...]sent be ioy [...]e [...] togethe [...], an [...] lif [...]ed vp to God. This is the ve­ry meaning and minde of S. Aug [...]stine.

Iewell. S. Augustin as he made before no question,The .150 Vntruthe in falsi­fying S. [...]ugustin so he maketh he­re no answer. Againe these wordes (and vnderstanding his mea­ning) [...]re not the words of S. Augustin, but of M. Iewel pretely conueyed in to the text of S. Augustin, the better to fu [...]nishe and fashion vp his Vulgar Se [...]uice. Last of all this is not the meaning of S. Augustin, as M. Iewell affirmeth. And so in the­se fewe wordes of S. Augustin, M. Iewell hath couched foure Vntruthes.

Stapleton. To proue all this, it shall suffice to recite the whole wor­des of S. Augustin as they lie in the place alleaged. If any of M. Iewelles frendes that is vnlerned, mistrust my dealing he­rein, let him aske the aduise of any his lerned frendes, and trie my truth thereby. I wil put the whole wordes first in latin, and after geue you the true english therof. S. Augustin writeth thus. Vbi putas Sacrificium Iusticiae sa [...]rifi [...]a [...]i nisi in t [...]mplo mentis & in cubilibus cordis? [...]bi aut [...]m sac [...]ficandum est, ibi & orandum. Lib de Magistro. Cap. 1. Where thinkest thou the Sacrifice of righteousn [...]sse is sacrifi [...]ed but in the temple of our minde, and in the se [...]rete chamber of our ha [...]te? But where we must Sac [...]ifice, th [...] we [...]ust praye. And hereof he concludeth in these wordes. Quare non opus est locutione cum oramus, id [...]st sonantibus verbis, nisi [...]orte, sicut Sacer­dotes faciunt, significandae mentis suae causa, non vt D [...]us, sed vt ho­mines audiant, & cons [...]nsione quadam per commemorationem sus­pe [...]datur in D [...]um. [...]herefore we nede no Vtteraunce of [Page] wordes, that is, no sounde of voice when we praye, vnlesse perhaps as Priestes doe to signifye their mynde, not that God, but that men maye heare them, and with a certaine consent throughe putting in minde, maye be lyfted vpp vnto God.

These are the true wordes of Saint Augustine. Here is no question demaunded, wherefore Priestes do lifte vp their voi­ces in the Churche, as M. Iewell alleageth. But it is brought in of Saint Augustine as an exception against his ge­nerall proposition, that in prayer we nede no vtteraunce of voyce. Againe the reason why the Prieste so lifted vp his voice is not (as M. Iewell sayeth) that the people vnderstandinge his meaning maye be put in mynde, &c. Saincte Augustine hath no such wordes: but he lifteth vp his voice Significandae mentis suae causa, to signifie his owne minde. And what minde of the Priest is that? No [...] that God maye heare him (who seeth the harte and ne­deth no vtteraunce of voice) but that the people maye heare hym. And howe? To vnderstande what he saieth? S. Augustin saieth no suche thinge. But Vt consensione quadam per commemoratio­nem suspendantur in Deum, to the entent that the people wi [...]h a certaine consent (not of vnderstanding the Priest, but) through putting in minde (by the voice of the Priest) maye be lifted vp vnto God. This is the very meaning and minde of S. Augustin and as M. Iewell alleageth,

Iewell. Agreing fully with these wordes of S. Cyprian, The Prieste before Prayer prepareth the mindes off his B [...]etherne, In exposit. orat. Dominicae. s [...]yinge thus. Lifte vpp youre har­tes. To the entente they maye be put in mynde, they ought to thinke off nothinge els, but off the Lord For not the sounde off voice, but the min [...]e and vnderstanding must praye vnto the Lorde with pure Intention. The 151. Vntruthe in Nip­ping of quite in the mid­dest the wordes of S. Ci­prian.

S. Augustine as M. Iewel saieth, agreeth with these wordes of Saint Cyprian, whiche shoulde the better haue appeared, if he had not nipped quite in the middest, these wordes. Dum respondet plebs, Habemus ad Dominum, while the people answe­reth (euen as they do nowe in the Masse to Sursum corda, lifte [Page 71] vp your hartes) Habemus ad Dominū. We lifte them vp to oure Lorde. For the priest saying, Sursum corda, and the people an­swering, Hab [...]mus ad dominum by answering those wordes, Ad­mon [...]ntur (as S. Ciprian saieth) nihil aliud quàm dominū cogitare debere: t [...]ey are put in minde, they ought to thinke of nothing els but of God. And so are the people put in minde at this daye, where the Curat dothe his duty, though they vnderstande not the vulgar sence of the wordes, no more then the cōmō vulgar people of Afrike (where S. Ciprian spake these wordes) did, who had a punicall vulgar tounge beside the latin, (as it is in this Article at large proued) and yet the seruice in latin. But the­se wordes, while the people answereth, Habemus ad dominum M. Iewell thought good to nippe of quite in the middest of the Sentence, knowing very well, that his Newe Corrupt Doctrine, can not stande without the manifest Corrupti­on of the Olde Doctours. Againe the later wordes of S. Cypri­an which M. Iewell alleageth, as one continuall text,The 152. Vntruthe as appea­reth. of the Author, and as a reason of the wordes that wēt before, these wor­des I saie, For not the sounde of voyce &c. are no part [...] of that sentence nor do pertaine therunto, but doe close vp an other Principall Sentence folowing, which is this. Clandatur contra aduersarium pectus &c. Let our breast be closed vp against the enemy, and be opened to God only, not suffring the en [...]mye of God at praier to haue accesse vnto vs. For he crepeth on oftenti­mes and perceth in, and guilefully deceiuing vs calleth awaye our praiers from God making vs to saye one thinge and to thinke an other: VVhereas not the sounde of voice, but the minde and vn­derstanding ought to praie to God with pure intention. Here Loe these wordes are placed of S. Cyprian, not to proue, as M. Iewell woulde force them by wronge placing them, that we ought of necessite to vnderstande the Priest, but that when we praie, we shoulde praie in harte and minde, not in tounge or sound of voice only. Which harte and minde of vs is stirred vp [Page] when the Priest lifteth vp his voice more at sometimes then at other, as towarde the time of the Holy Consecration of the most Dreadfull mysteries, when he crieth out allowde to the people Sursum Corda, as the Graecians al­so cried out [...]:Chrysost. in Litur­gia. though the common peo­ple neither in Afrike neither in Grece did allwaies customa­bly and generally vnderstande the latin or the greke tounges. Thus with two notorious Vntruthes committed in the alle­gation of S. Ciprian, M. Iewell hath brought S. Augustin and S. Ciprian bothe agreing not with him, but with the Consti­tution of Iustinian against him, as it shall anon appeare.

Iewell. The .153. Vn [...]r [...]the For D. Harding s [...]i [...]d no such thinge. All thi [...] (saieth M. Hardinge) per [...]eine [...]h to the sense and vnderstanding of the praier, and nothing to the vulgare toun [...]e.

As M. Iewell hath corrupted S. Augustin and S. Ciprian, so nowe he corrupteth the very text of D. Harding. For the wor­des which M. Iewell as and for the wordes of D. Hardinge, al­leageth, are not to be founde in his text. D. Hardinge saieth that this Constitution of Iustinian maketh not for the Seruice to be had in any vulga [...] tonge, but only that the Seruice be pronounced by the priest alowde, that it be vocall, not mentall, speaking not whispe­ring with the breathe only. Which Custome agreeth to the ma­ner also of the latin Churche as it is recorded by S. Augustin and S. Ciprian bothe. Who doe testifie the custome of the la­tin Masse as we haue it nowe, that the priest speaketh alowde Su [...]sum corda, and the people answereth, Habemus ad dominum. By which lowde speaking of the priest, the people is stirred to praier. This D. Harding saied to be the meaning of Iu [...]i­nians Constitution. Against this what doth M. Iewell Re­plie? Verely to the matter nothinge. But hauing first corrup­ted S. Augustin, nipped S. Ciprian, and then altered the wor­des of D. Harding, he confuteth tha [...] which was not auouched and fighteth with his owne shadowe, thus.

Iewell. And dothe he thinke, the people can vnderstande the praie [...], without [Page 72] vnde [...]standing of the tounge?

As the people is not bounde to vnderstande the praier of the priest, so neither is it nedefull that they vnderstande the to [...]nge.Stapl [...]ton Such vnderstanding of the people neither Iu [...]tinian nor S. Augustin, nor S. Cyprian do require, neither the wordes of D. Harding doe affirme.

Iewell. S. Augustine if he were aliue,Vhe .154. Vntruthe t [...]ere is [...]o cause of suc [...] sha [...]e geuen. woulde be ashamed to see suche a Comme [...]t vpon his wordes.

Ye [...] M. Iewell not only S. Augustin but S. Ciprian also if they were aliue, woulde be ashamed and highly offended, to see their wordes so corrupted and mangled, and so vsed of you to maintaine a Schisme in the Churche which they so greuously abho [...]red. Iustinian if he were aliue, how would he be ashamed to see his Constitution so racked to proue a Vulgar Seruice, which he neuer dreamed of? And had you any shame or regar­de of your selfe M. Iewell, you woulde be ashamed and sorye to, thus to abuse bothe the doctours and auncient Fathers, and also the very text which lyeth open for any man to reade and peruse.

Iewell. He saieth further. The pries [...] lif [...]eth vp his voice, The 155. Vntruthe in falsi­fying the text of D. Hard. not that the people may vn­derstan [...]e him, but onely fo [...] a toke [...] to s [...]ewe, that he praieth.

What passing impudency is this? Is the [...]e nothinge in you but Vntruthe and falshood M. Iewell? Is the answer of D. Har­ding so good that you can not Replie without altering his wordes, or adding to his wordes? For first where you affirme, that D. Harding saieth, The priest lifteth vp his voice not that the people may vnderstande him, true it is he meaneth so, though he saied not so. But here you must remembre you make D. Har­ding to saie two contrary thinges. Before you reason with him as though he had saied, the people ought to vnderstande the praier, when you saied And dothe he thinke &c. Nowe you ma­ke him to saie, That the priest [...]ifteth vp his voic [...] not that the people may vnderstande him. But nowe to come to your present Vntruthe, when you saie But onely for a token to shewe that he praieth, [Page] that is a manifest Vntru [...]he. For D. Hardinge tolde you out of S. Augustin, that the priest lifted vp his voice, to the ende that the people hearing the priest, might be lif [...]d vp vnto God, and how: By a certaine cons [...]nt, through putting in minde of the priest.

Iewell. And thus he maketh the Mi [...]ister of God, worse then a b [...]asen trom­pet,The 1 [...]6. Vntr [...]the ioy [...]ed with a Slaund. which, if it g [...]ue no certaine sounde, as S. Paule saieth, no man can prepare him selfe to warre. This is the iust iudgement of God that who so seketh to blinde others, shall be geuen ouer, and become blinde him selfe.

It is an easy matter, when a mans eies be pluckt out, to proue him blinde. As longe as you make D. Harding to speake at your pleasure, no maruail if you confute at pleasure. In dede if the Priest lifted vp his voice only for a token that he praied, and neither praied him selfe in dede, neither stirred other the­reby to praier, then truly M. Iewelles collection might stande for good, and then the Belles were as good as the Priest. But if the Priest lifting vp his voice at the Seruice time bothe praieth him selfe vnto God,The .157. Vntruthe For those wordes of S. Au­gustin. are not spoken of the pr [...]st August. de Magi­stro. The .158. Vntruthe For the people vnderstā ­deth what is tokened according to S. Au­gust. meaning. and stirreth also the people thereunto, as S. Augustin and S. Ciprian bothe haue saied, then is the priest a true Minister of God, then he geueth out a certaine sounde, and bothe doth well him selfe, and edifyeth other. And then M. Iewell hath lost a good argument.

And notwithstanding S. Augustines minde cōcerning the speaking of the priest be plaine in it selfe, yet afterwarde in the same Booke he o­peneth it in this maner more at large. VVe are agreed vpo [...] this, that the (157) wordes we speake be tokens. But a token, vnlesse it betoken some thinge, is no token. Nowe if the priest after M. Hardinges construction vtter his wordes, which are the tokens of his meaning, in an vnknowen tounge, and (158) the people vnderstande not, what is tokened, according to S. Au­gustins meaning, he speaketh, and yet saieth nothinge, and sheweth to­kens, and yet tokeneth nothing.

All this cometh to one ende. The wordes of the Priest vt­tered in an vnknowen tounge, do vtter yet his meaning vnto the people,. For his meaning is, not that the people shall vnder­stande the wordes that he speaketh (that hath not bene yet [Page 73] proued), But his meaning is that the people thereby be stirred to deuotion, be put in minde of their duty in the Churche, and with one consent praie with the Priest. This is that which S. Augustin and Cipriā reporte. This is the meaning of Iusti­nians Constitution. And this is so true that amonge such infinit diue [...]site of tounges and languages as well in the East Churche as in the West, the Seruice hath yet neuer bene in any other tounge then Greke and Latine, as it shall the next Vntruthe, at large appeare.

Iewell. Further S. Augustines wordes be clere.The .159 Vntruthe For D. Harding saied no such thinge. The Priest in the assem­blie speaketh alowde. Significandae mentis causa, vt homines audiant &c. To the ende to declare his minde, that men may heare him and by the sounde off his voi [...]e be put in remembraunce. But M. Hardinge saieth. No. The P [...]iest speaketh not alowde, to thentent to declare his minde, nei [...]her that men may heare him, nor be put in remembraunce, but (159) only to geue a token that he praieth. And thus by his glose, he vtterly destroyeth the texte.

Stapleton Had this place of S. Augustine bene clere and euident on M. Iewelles side, he would not haue vsed such Shiftes, such Di­scourses, such Repetitiōs, such Alterations, such Coursing and Coyling of it, as he hath done. You see how ofte he hath tur­ned and tossed it to make it serue, and yet it will not be. For whatsoeuer S. Augustin saied herein, D. Harding saied it also, who alleaged the whole wordes of S. Augustin in his text, and by those wordes interpreted the Constitution of Iustinian. Now cometh M. Iewell and after all other Shiftes, affir [...]eth D. Harding to saie all quite contra [...]y to S. Augustin. I can saie no more herein but desire the discrete and indifferent Reader to peruse the wordes of D. Harding in his owne text. D. Har­ding denieth not (as M. Iewell saieth here, he doeth) that the Priest speaketh alowde to thentent to declare his minde, that men may heare him. He denieth not that the Priest p [...]tteth the people in remembrance. Neither dothe he saie that the Priest geueth only a token that he praieth. But he saieth all the Contrary [Page] euen as S. August in saieth, and in S. Augustins owne wordes. These three Vntruthes M. Iewell hath made againe vpon the wordes of D. Hardinge.

Iewell. Now let vs resolue bothe S. Augustines and Iustinians wordes, in­to their causes: which is an infallible waye of vnderstanding.

Stapletō. This way is very well to be liked, if it be done truly and clerckly. Let vs see.

Iewell. The ende of them bothe is according to the doctrine of S. Paul that people may saie. Amen. The .160. Vntruthe

Stapleton S. Augustin speaketh of no such matter in all his wordes that haue bene hitherto alleaged. This is therefore one Vntru­the. Yet be it, the ende of Iustinians Constitution was suche. Procede M. Iewell.

Iewell. Then further: the people must answer Amen vnto the pra­yer.The .161. Vntruth. For by the do­ctrine of S. Paule the peo­ple is not bounde to answer Amen.

You shoulde haue added, or els one that supplied the Roome of of the people. For so runne the wordes of S. Paule. If you will grounde vpon scripture, diminish not the worde of the Lord, M. Iewell.

Then must they vnderstande the praier.

Here your Resolutiō faileth you: And that for .ij. Causes. For it is sufficiēt that one do answer for the whole people, and thē he only hath nede to vnderstande it and not the people. Agai­ne the people may answer though they vnderstande not,The .162. Vntruthe standing in an Vn­ture Col­lection. with­out the breache of S. Paules doctrine. And to proue the possi­bilite hereof, we haue the Confessed Practise of the vniuersall Churche these 900. yeres. We haue also the practise of the first 600. yeres. At what time the Seruice was only in Greke and Latin (as it shall in the next Vntruthe appeare) and yet sundry Nations vnderstode not at that time the very Greke and La­tin. This therefore is a very weake and false proceding of M. Iewell, in auouching that thinge, the contrary whereof is by [Page 74] such an vniuersall practise of Christes Churche proued and iustified. For euery good Resolution M. Iewell, proceding from the causes to the effectes, (as this your Resolution would seme to doe) ought to procede A Causis per se & proximis. from proper causes, and those the nearest, not of bastarde surmised causes and those farre sought. As you do heare M. Ie­well. For when you inferre, The people must answer, Amen, Ergo they must vnderstande the praier, making the vnderstan­ding of the people, to folowe necessarely of the answering Amen, you make a Fallax, of Non causa pro causa. For as I sayd, the people may and haue these many hūdred yeres answered Amen to the priest, though they vnderstāde not the priest. But the cause why the people must answer Amen, is as S. Augu­stin and S. Cyprian hath tolde you M. Iewell, partly to geue their consent to Gods Minister, partly thereby to lifte vp their hartes to God, and to praie with him. Thus therefore, as one linke of a chayne being broken, all that foloweth, falleth of, and will hange no more together, so your resolution fayling here in the middest, that which you drawe after, must nedes dragge behinde, and come shorte of the whole purpose. How­beit M. Iewell limpeth on, as well as he maye, and saieth.

Iewell. Yet further. The people must vnderstande the praier: then must the priest vtter the same bothe with a loude voice, and also in the vulgar tounge.

Stapleton This Conclusion falleth downe right: It was broken of be­fore quite in the middest: Therefore it hangeth very loosely. Euery Childe maye see thourough it.

Iewell. Let vs againe resolue it forewarde.

Stapleton You see hitherto M. Iewel hath wrought backewarde, and therefore no maruaill if all his worke came to nought, Nowe he saieth, he will worke the matter forewarde.The 163. Vntruthe standing in false Colle­ction.

Iewell. The priest, by M. Hardinges Iudgement, maye praie openly in a stra­unge tounge, then nedeth he not to speake alowde.

Yes forsothe the priest must speake alowde significandae [Page] mentis suae causa, to signifie his owne minde as S. Augustine sa­ie [...]h, Which is as S. Augustin expoundeth that men may heare him, and by the sounde of his voice be put in remēbraunce, bo­the to geue their cōsent, and also to lifte vp their hartes to God and to praie with him. All which maye be done though the priest do praie in a straunge tounge. I saye straunge, that is, not Vulgar. For the Latin tounge in that respect as it is no Vulgar tonge, is to the Vulgar people a straunge tounge. Yet to the Latin Churche in an other respect it is no straunge tounge.The Straunge to­unge. But that is straunge to the latin Churche, which in the latin Chur­che was neuer vsed. As is in dede all Seruice in the vulgar toun­ge, beside greke in the greke Churche and latin in the Latin Church. For this is so straūge a thinge that these xv.C. yeres in the Church of Christ it was neuer vsed, but vpon special priui­lege, and that in this later age. As it shal in the next Vntruthe appeare. Thus the priest must speake aloude, and his so speaking shal not be frutelesse, though he praie in a straunge, that is, in an vnknowen tounge to the Vulgar people. And thus M. Iewel­les Resolution faltreth and shaketh euen at the beginninge.

Iewell. The 164. Vntruthe For th [...]re is no breache of S. Paul [...]s doctrine commit­ted.He speaketh not alowde, then cā not the people vnderstāde him. The people vnderstandeth not the priest then can they not sa [...]e Amen. Thus M. Hardinge must nedes conclude his glose with the open breache of S. Paules doctrine.

The people may answer Amen, as farre as S. Paule requi­reth them, though they vnderstande not the Priest. S. Paule re­quireth not the whole people so to answer, but qui supplet locū idio [...]ae. Him that supplieth the roome of the ignorāt. Againe to answer Amen requireth not an Vnderstanding of the wordes which the Priest speaketh, but it requireth a Cōsent to the wordes spoken, a lifting vp of the harte at the wordes spoken, and a praying with the priest so speaking. It is not to be doubted but the whole vniuersall Churche of Christ these many hundred yeres, vnderstoode the wordes of S. Paule as well M. Iewell do­the. [Page 75] And it is not D. Hardinges glose, but the continuall practi­se of the vniuersall Churche which concludeth with the open breache of S. Paules doctrine, if to haue the Seruice in a toun­ge vnknowen to the common people,M. Iewell co [...]dem­neth the vniue [...]s [...]ll Churche with the open breache of S. Paules doctrine. be a breache of S. Pau­les doctrine. And thus M. Iewelles Resolution bothe backe­warde and forwarde, faltring and fayling in the very begin­ning, falleth downe right in the ende, and proueth his purpo­se nothinge. Beside that in the whole drifte thereof he rangeth cleane wide from the wordes of S. Augustin and Iustinian, whose wordes he saied he woulde resolue into their causes. For neither S. Augustin nor Iustinian speaketh any one worde that the people ought to vnderstande the Seruice. But bothe do saie that the priest ought to speake alowde. The cause why; out of S. Augustin yon haue hearde allready. Iustinian also geueth the same, whose wordes are these, as M. Iewell him selfe alleageth them.Authen. Constit. 123. VVe commaunde all bishoppes and priestes to Minister the ho­ly Oblation and the praier at the Holy baptisme, not vnder silence, but with such voice, as may be hearde of the faithefull people: to [...], that thereof the hartes of the heare [...]s maye be sturred to more deuotiō, and honour geuing to God. For so the holy Apostle teacheth, saying in the first epistle to the Corinthians. For if thou only blisse with the Spirit, how shall be, that supplieth the roume of the ignorant, saye, 1. Cor. 14. Amen, to God at thy thankes geuing? For he knoweth not what thou saiest. Thou geuest thankes well. But the other is not edified. For these causes therefore it behoueth, that the praier at the holy Oblation, and also other praiers be offred with lowde voice of the holy bishoppes and priestes vnto our Lorde Iesus Christ with the Father and the holy Ghoste. Thus farre the Constitution of Iustinian. His wordes do require (as S. Augustins also before) that the Priest do speake alowde at the holy Oblation time. And the cause thereoff he geueth. Not that the people may vnderstande him. For in Iustinians time, fewe or none of the common vulgar people vnderstode the lerned Greke or Latin wherein the [Page] Church Seruice was then only saied. But that the people hea­ring the priest, might thereof be stirred to more deuotion, and ho­nour geuing to God. To the which deuotion the people is stir­red, when the priest lifteth vp his voice, stretcheth his han­des, and knocketh his breast, with other such godly tokens of the inwarde man, though they vnderstande not the very wordes that the priest speaketh: Yea and better also then if they vnderstode them, as the very experience of deuotion in olde time,Vulgar Seruice Distra­cteth frō Deuotiō. and at these dayes dothe euidently declare. For no­we the people (as I haue heard them my selfe complaine) harkening to the Minister reading the Scriptures in English, and vnderstanding the meaning thereof as much as if they were readd in greke, they spende the litle time which they abi­de in the Churche rather in wondering at suche straunge mat­ters, then in priuat deuotion and praier. Yea by that externall noyse of the English Seruice familiar to their eares, and stran­ge to their vnderstanding, they are forced to harken to that which they attaine not, and remaine distracted from that which they woulde doe. But in the olde Latine Seruice when the priest saied his Confiteor, all the Parishe woule knele downe and lifte vp their hartes to God with him. Likewise some­what before the Sacring, when the priest speaking more alowde, beganne to saie Per omnia secula seculorum, and that which foloweth, the whole Parish woulde stande vp, and lifte vp their hartes also to God with the priest, deuoutely attending the presence of their Maker in those most Holy and Dreadful Mysteries. Neither was there any so ignorant in al the parishe which did not at that time lifte vp his harte to God with the Priest, though he vnderstode no one worde that the Priest saied. For they came then to the Seruice to praye vnto all­mighty God: They came to Sermons to lerne and to be in­structed. In this deuotion many a thousand of englishmen, though they vnderstode no one worde of the Priest, haue yel­ded [Page 76] their soules to Cod and attained to the blisse euerlasting, these nyne hundred yeres and vpwarde, all which time the English Church hath bene Christened and hath had the Church Seruice only in the latine tounge. Thus much of the mea­ning of Iustinians Constitution, of the which M. Iewell for all his Replie can not yet picke out his Vulgar Seruice. But nowe it shall farder appeare, that though that Constitu­tion had bene made of such Countres, where the people vn­derstode the Seruice, yet it was no generall Constitution nor touched not the latin Church, as you haue hearde in the wor­des of D. Harding before alleaged, vpon the which M. Iewell though him selfe to haue a good occasion to note a Couple of Vntruthes. His Note in the Margin you haue heard befo­re. Nowe he prosecuteth it in his text, and saieth.

Iewell. M. Harding saieth further. This lawe toke place onely in Constantinople, The 165. Vntruthe as shall appeare. Stapletō. and not in the Churche of Rome. And so he coucheth two manifeste Vntru­thes together in one sentence.

First M. Iewel alleageth not the wordes of D. Harding truly. D. Har. saieth, Iustinian ordained thus for the Greke Church onely, and to that onely it is to be referred. Nowe Constantinople is but a parte of the greke Church. M. Iewel therefore after his maner, hath restrained much the wordes of D. Harding, thereby to make the Vntruthe more apparent, and the matter more odi­ous. But nowe M. Iewell: Howe proue you this to be Vn­trewe. Thus he flourisheth.

Iewell. But what? wil he saye, Iustinian, was not Emperour of Rome, or had nothinge to doo in the Churche of Rome.

Stapletō. What nede is there, that D. Hardinge shoulde saye so mu­che? You knowe M. Iewell by your lawe, that the lawes and statutes of Emperours do not allwaies extende to all the pro­uinces of the Empire. Which shall euidently appeare by that which your selfe anon alleageth.

Iewell. Verely he writeth him selfe the Emperour of Rome, of Fraunce, of [Page] Almanie and Germany, &c.

Iustinian dothe no where write him selfe Emperour of Rome.The 166. Vntruthe Iustinian writeth not him selfe Em­perour of Rome. In prefat. in lib. No­vel. Procopius lib. 3. Blondus dec. 1. li. 8. Ioan. Fab. & [...]oa. de P [...]a. Bloud. li. 7. Les Anna­les de Fra­unce. Gagn. li. 2. Gagn. li. 1. And it is euident by the stories he had in Italy (as Contius noteth) But dubium Imperium, a doubteful and not settled Empiere. It is knowen that the Gotthes then possessed Ita­ly, that Belisarius the Capitaine of Iustinian ouerthrewe them in often battailes, but did not yet vtterly extinguish them. And the first depute of the Greke Emperour at Rauenna in Italy, [...]lled Exarchus, was in the time of Iustinus successour to [...] Iustinian. Neither was Iustinian Emperour of Fraunce. Fo [...] though he be called Francicus, yet that was not (as Blondus semeth to saie) of that we call nowe Fraunce, but of a parte of Almanie so called, as diuers other do write. And certain it is by the Chronicles of Fraunce, and other, that in the time of Iustinians Empire, Chilperic and Clotarius were kinges of Fraunce, succeding to Clouis who one hundred yeres before the Empire of Iustinian in the time of Theodosius the secon­de occupied the realme of Fraunce. Sence which time Fraun­ce was neuer subiect to the Empire, more then other realmes were.

Iewell. The .167. Vntruthe For not I [...]sti­nian [...]eposed them but the wicked Empresse by her Captaine Bel [...]s [...]rius viol [...]ntly banished them. Tom 2. Concilio­rum in vi­ta Si [...]ue [...]ij.And deposed two Bishops of Rome, Syluerius and Vigi­lius. VVhereof it may appeare he had somewhat to doo in the Chur­che of Rome.

Verely a small power woulde serue to bringe this to passe. The Emperesse Iustinians wife being an Eutychian he­retike and offended with Pope Siluerius for not restoring Anthemius the Eutychian bishop of Constantinople, whom Agapetus the Pope, predecessour to Siluerius had deposed, and ordred in his place Menna, founde the meanes by her Ca­pitaine Bellisarius, who occupied and defended Rome at that time against the Gotthes, to banishe the Pope Siluerius. This was no great Acte for such a Capitain as Bellisarius was to banishe a holy bishop. Such Imperiall despositions you [Page 77] vse. Vigilius in like maner being placed in the roome of Silueri­us by the drifte also of Belisarius at the Commaundement off the Eutychian Empresse, to whom he had promised that being Pope he would restore Anthemius,Ibidem in vita Vigi­lij. whereas being made Pope in dede he woulde not perfourme his promise, nor contami­nare that holy See with the approuing of any Heresy, he was by a trayne brought to Constantinople and so banished.Liberatus Cap. 22 And all this was done rather by the wicked Empresse then by Iusti­niā, who as Liberatus w [...]i [...]eth restored againe Siluerius (though by the meanes of Belisarius he was caried awaye againe into banishmēt) and Vigilius also as it appeareth in his life,Tom. 2. Concil. in vita Vi­gilij. though he died by the waie in Sicilia. But what wil M. Iewel conclude hereof: Will he reason thus?

Iustinians wife being an heretike expelled two godly bishoppes of Rome by violence.

E [...]go his Constitution of pronoūcing the Seruice alowde, was ma­de for the Church of Rome?

This argument hangeth very loosely. Euery childe maye see thourough it.

Iewell. Touching this Constitution, the lawe saieth. Generaliter dictum, The .168. Vntruthe for these lawes do not tou­che this Constitution of Iustinian. gene­rali [...]er est accipiendum. The thinge that is spoken generallly, muste be ta­ken generally. And it is commonly saied. Vbi le [...] non distinguit nos distin­gue [...]e non debemus. Where the Lawe maketh no distinction, the [...]e ought we to make no distinction.

These lawes M. Iewell, are as good arguments for truantes, and as fitte tooles for cauillers as can possibly be deuised. And you knowe M. Iewell, Dolosus ve [...]satur in generalibus. The Wrangler walketh in generalls. And will you see howe manye exceptions this lawe, generaliter dictum, admitteth? It must be restrained and vnderstanded, 1 first according to the matter whe­reof the lawe treateth. 2 Then accordinge to the Conditions and qualites of the persons of whom the lawe speaketh. 3 Thirdly the Circumstances of the place and time must be considered. 4 Againe [Page] the wordes which went before, or which come after: 5 The Common maner of speache: 6 Some other lawe speaking more specially, 7 Last of all (as the learned lawier Baldus teacheth you) secundum rationem expressam, Baldus. L. Si. quis seruo. Cod. de fu [...]tis. vel subsequentem, vel tacitè inhaeren­tem, it must be vnderstanded according to the cause expressed, or folowing after, or secretly pertaining thereunto. These ma­ny Conditions and twenty moe, if a man would playe the La­wyer, might be alleaged to restraine this generall rule of M. Ie­well, vnder the which he thinketh to cloke his erroure.

L. i §. Ge­neraliter. ff D. leg praestand.And to touche some of thē particularly, the lawe saieth. Verba generalia secundum sui naturā generaliter intelligi debent. General wordes must be meaned generally accordinge to their nature. And so do the doctours expound the law alleaged by M. Iewel. Againe the lawe saieth.L. plenū §. equitj. ff. d. vsu et ha­bit. L. ex militari. ff D. testa. milit. L. cum pa­ter. §. dulcis simis. ff. D. leg. 2. Verba generalia restringuntur, secundum qualitatē person [...]rū ad quas referūtur. General wordes are restra­ined according to the qualitees of the persons vnto the whi­che they are referred. And so this lawe of Iustinian though the words runne generally, yet it is to be restrained only to such of the Greke Churche as it was made for. Farder the lawe saieth. Verba generalia regulātur a sua ratione. General words are ruled by their reason or cause. And so the reason or cause of Iustiniās Constitution being not the vnderstanding of the Priestes pra­yer, but the stirring of the people to deuotion, which may and hath longe tyme bene done thoughe the prayer be not vnder­standed vulgarly,L. filius fa­milias. ff. D. act. et obligat. iuncta. L. j. ff. ad Sena [...]us. Maced. & L. iuris gentiū, §. si paciscar. ff. d. pact. iun­cta L. tran sigere & i­bi. glo. de transact. it maketh nothing for M. Iewels Vulgar Ser­uice. Lex simpliciter & indistincté loquens debet distingui secundum alias leges specialiter & distincté loquentes. The law speaking plai­nely and without any distinction, muste yet be distinguished according to other lawes speaking specially and distinctly. So certaine it is that M. Iewel hath alleaged. Where the law doth not distinguish, we must not distinguish. And therefore yet againe the lawe saieth, Lex generaliter & indistincté loquens non refertur ad casus specialiter notatos. The lawe that speaketh generally and [Page 38] indistinctly, is not referred to cases specially noted. And to she­we briefly what a fickle and feble grounde M. Iewell hath la­yed to builde his wronge construction of Iustinians Consti­tution vppon notwithstanding his generall rules,L. sanctio degū. ff. de poenis. L. doli clausula. ff. de stipulat. L. j. § quod ait. ff. ne quid in loc. sacr. the lawe ex­pressely saieth. Verba quantumcunque generalia ad consonum in­t [...]llectum restringuntur. Wordes be they neuer so generall are re­strained to a conuenient vnderstanding. By all whiche lawes it appeareth that although generall wordes by their owne na­ture be generall, as it is proued in M. Iewelles lawe, yet circun­staunces doe quite alter, order, and dispose the sence thereof. And thus the generall wordes of a lawe are not vnlike to a pie­ce of clothe not yet cutt oute to make any garment. Which by circunstances being framed to some speciall thinge, doo then stande well and rightly for that speciall thinge. Otherwise it woulde happen which the lawe saithe. Plerumque dum proprie­tas v [...]rborum attenditur, sensus veritatis amittitur. C. propter­ea ex. de verb. signi. Oftentimes while we sticke to the propriete of the wordes, we lese the vn­derstanding of the Truthe. These rules therefore of M. Iewell, make no argument to proue that Iustinians constitution is ge­nerall to all the Worlde, but is only a smothering smoke to da­sell the light of the Truthe, bicause in dede (as M. Iewell hathe saied him selfe) Dolosus versatur in generalibus. pag. 262. The deceitefull and wrangler walketh in generalles.

To come nowe more particularly to this Constitution off Iustinian, the lawe geueth vs yet an other Circunstance to lighten this matter more, and that is this. The lawe saieth.L. si vno ff. locati. Verba in­telligi debent secundum subiectam materiam. Wordes are to be vn­derstanded according to the matter proposed. And in an other place it speaketh more expressely, saying of wordes euen gene­rally spoken. Generalia verba non extenduntur ad non cogitata, L. Empto. §. Lucius et ibi Bart. ff. de pact. sed ad id tantum de quo agitur. Generall wordes are not extended to that which was neuer intended, but only to the matter whe­reof it is treated. And so Iustinian making this Constitution for [Page] the greke Church, though he spake generally, yet his wordes a­re to be drawen only to that which was of him intended, whi­che was only the greke Churche, as it shall anon appere. As for example. If a lawe were made: Whosoeuer draweth blood with in the Courte gates, shall be hanged. These generall wordes ge­nerally taken (according to the wisedom of M. Iewell) wil hange the poticary of surgyan that letteth bloode by the Rules off his Arte to some Noble man lying sicke in the Courte: In like maner a generall pardon geuen by the Clemency of the Prin­ce, shall acquitte traytours, by the wisedome of M. Iewell, thou­ghe yet the Prince intended not so. But as in bothe these lawes, the generall wordes are to be restrained to the intent of the la­we maker, whiche is vnderstanded, either by the Common maner of speache vsed in such lawes (as in the Case of generall pardons) or by the persons intended in the lawe, as in the firste Ca [...]e, where poticaries and surgians were not meaned lettinge blood by their Arte, euen so in the lawe of Iustinian, thoughe his wordes runne generally, yet they are not therefore general­ly to be taken. Againe there is in the Constitution of Iustinian a Circunstaunce secretly included, which declareth the lawe not to be so generall, as to extende to the Romaine Empire. In the ende of the Constitution Commission is geuen to the Officier of Constantinople, Vt per prothemata in consuetis locis R [...]giae Ciuitatis affixa in cognitionem omnium perdu [...]ere festinet, In Authē. Const. 137 & manis [...]sta facere omnibus qui prouincijs praesunt. That by procla­mations sett vp in the accustomed places of Constantinople the lawe should be published, and notise be geuē to al that gou­uerne the prouinces. Here the Officer of Constantinople is appointed to publishe this Constitution. Nowe woulde the Romaines take notise of him, who had as high Officers to publish such matters, as any was in Constantinople? And therefo­re Iustinian in his most generall Constitutions when he will haue them to extende to Rome, maketh expresse mention of [Page 79] Rome by name. As when he saieth. Et hoc non solum in veteri Roma, vel in hac Regia Ciuitate sed in omni terra vbicunque Chri­stianorum nomen colitur, obtinere sancimus. This lawe we will to take place not only in olde Rome,Cod de E­pisc. & cle. L Genera­liter. or in this Imperiall Cytye of Constantinople, but also in in all the worlde, where so euer the name of Christians is had in honour. Rome therefore in this Constitution of M. Iewell, being not expressed, it semeth by the lawe to be omitted. For the law saieth.L. Item a­pud. §. h [...]c edictum. ff. d. iniurijs. Ea quae notabiliter fiunt nisi specialiter notentur, videntur quasi neglecta. Suche thin­ges as are notably done, vnlesse they be specially noted, they seme to be as though it were neglected. And thus it appeareth, notwithstanding the generall wordes of the Constitution, and the generall rules alleaged by M. Iewell, not only that there­fore the Constitution is not necessarely to be generally taken, but also by the Circunstaunce of the lawe yt is gathered, that it ought not generallye to be extended to Rome, or to the Empire thereof. If we listed in other differences and Circunstances to vse the aduise of the lawyers, many moe rea­sons might be brought for this purpose, as the lerned in the la­we do knowe right well. But these fewe many suffise to declare that M. Iewelles Generall lawes can nothinge helpe to proue this Constitution to be Generall. Now let vs consider whether in the residewe he bringe any better lawes.

Iewell. And what reason hathe M. Hardinge,The .169. Vnt [...]uthe For D. Hard. sa­ied not that O [...]ly this lawe tooke no place, &c. or what witnesse more then his owne that this onely Lawe toke no place in the Churche off Rome?

Forsothe he brought you a right good reason in his text, whiche yowe M. Iewell thought good to dissemble vtterlye. For thus D. Harding saied. As [...]hat Constitution pertained to the gr [...]kes and not to the Latines, so was it not found in the Latine boo­k [...]s, vntell Gregorius Haloander of G [...]rmany of late yeres transla­ted the place. This is one reeson M. Iewell why this Consti­tution [Page] appertaineth not to the Latin Churche. That is. Bi­cause it hath bene onely in Greke and not translated into La­tin vntill nowe of late yeares. For if it had bene made for the Latin Churche, no doubte but it shoulde haue bene tran­slated into Latin as the other Nouelles were euen from the ti­me of S. Gregorye hitherto:xi. q. i. C. 35. Itemin Decretal. tit. de test. cap. 1. & lib. 11. epist. 54. Contius in prefat. in lib. Nouell. as it appeareth by certaine of the­se Nouel Constitutions alleaged in Latin after the olde tran­slation by S. Gregorye. And this reason also touched by D. Harding, is noted before of Contius: who geuing a reason why manye of these Nouell Constitutions haue hitherto lac­ked in the Common Latin translation, saieth. Cur autem multae deperierint, in Causa haec sunt. Erant inter has leges permultae constitutiones [...] & locales, quarum nullus fere vsus esse visus est: illis praesertim Longobardis plus aequo Musas & humaniores literas abhorrentibus, nihilque quod non [...] conduceret, magni fa­cientibus. Why manye of the Nouell Constitutions haue pe­rished, these are the Causes. There were amonge these la­wes manye Constitutions priuat, and proper to certaine pla­ces, whereof there semed to be no vse at all, specially to those Longobardes (who vpon the ende of Iustinians Empire pos­sessed Italy) mē abhorring frō all good lerning, and regarding nothing that made not for the peny. This is one cause, why this lawe of Iustinian tooke no place in the Churche of Ro­me. And this reason was so good, that yowe M. Iewell, in all your Replie woulde neuer come nere it. But when the pla­ce came that yow shoulde haue awnswered it, yow turne the Readers minde an other waye, telling him that D. Harding semed to touche Gregorius Haloander with corruptiō of these lawes,pag. 173. and so yowe entre to defende him, whom no mā founde faul­te with, Onelye D. Harding saied.

As that Constitution perteined to the grekes, and not to the Latines, so was it not founde in the Latine bookes, vntill [Page 71] Gregorius Haioander of Germany off late yeares translated the place.

At these wordes yowe startle and wince, as feeling perhaps some sore touched, which yowe were lothe anye man shoulde come nere. And therefore yowe saie.

Iewell. Gregorius Haloander, whom M. Harding semeth to touche withe corruption of these lawes, was a lerned man, and a faithefull transla­tour, and for his diligence deserued thankes: and therefore nedeth no excuse. He addeth nothing more then is to be founde in the Ori­ginall.

What nede so muche a doo M. Iewell, if there were not some suspicion in the matter? Let euerye indifferent Reader Iudge, whether, the wordes of D. Harding do charge Haloan­der with any such matter as yow haue imagined. But the verse of Cato will allwaies be true. Conscius ipse sibi de se putat omnia dici. The guilty conscience thinketh all is spoken of him selfe. Yowe saie: Haloander was a faithefull translatour, and added nothing more then he founde in the Originall. Yet Contius a lerned lawyer, calleth this translation of Haloander,In praefat. in lib. No­uell. A quo­dam priuato homine propria authoritate contaminatam translatio­nem, A corrupted translation set forthe by a priuat man by priuat authorite. And againe he saieth of it. Dum vitat barba­riem incidit plaerumque in prauam affectationem. While he coue­teth to be Eloquent, he falleth oftentimes in to a corrupted af­fectation. This is the faithefull translation which M. Iewell so muche commendeth, and that beside all purpose. For this being brought in of D. Harding, as a reason why that Consti­tution remayning all this while vntill late yeares in the greke tounge and not translated in to Latine, as the other Nouell Constitutions were, shoulde appertaine to the greke Churche and not the Latin, M. Iewell to the reason and to the matter answereth nothinge, but seketh occasion to procure enuie to his aduersary, charging him with that which he neither saied [Page] nor intended, whiche yet other lerned men haue bothe saied and writen. Done truly like a shifting Rhetorician, but not li­ke a true dealing diuine.

Iewell. The 170. Vntruthe For many [...] them w [...]re [...] & [...]ocales, proper to certaine places.Certainely the rest of the same Nouell Constitutions were made not onely for Constantinople, or for Rome, but also for the whole Empire.

Iff all the rest were so made, then were it very probable that this Constitutiō should also be so made. But if some only were generall, some other were not, then this argumēt proueth nothinge. For as well maye this Constitution be of that sorte whiche are not generall, as of the other sorte whiche are gene­rall. Nowe M. Iewell speaketh indefinitly, and doubtefully, as not knowing him selfe what to pronounce herein. The truthe is, some of these Nouell Constitutions were generall and so­me were not, as it hath bene before declared out of Contius, and as it shall by that which foloweth oute of M. Iewell farder appeare.

Iewell. T [...]e .171. Vntruthe For in the same [...]it­le w [...]ich is Dediuer [...]s Ecclesi­as [...]i. capit. the wor­des allea­ged are not [...]oūd.And the Emperoure Iustinian in the same Title sayeth thus, VVhat so euer thinges, touchinge this matter, were nedefull [...]or this Imperiall Cy­tye off Constantinople, we haue comprised it in a speciall lawe ffor the sa­me.

By this it appeareth that all the Nouell Constitutions are not generall. But some made especially for Constantinople. But what leadeth M. Iewell to thinke that this Constitution should be therefore generall? He sawe there was small force in these wordes: and therefore he foloweth, and saieth.

Iewell. But what nede manye wordes? The Emperour him selfe calleth the Constitution that concerneth the clergie, a lawe generall, by these wordes.In Authē. Col. 1 vt def [...]it. nu­merus [...]eri [...].

It is true M. Iewell. He calleth suche a lawe a generall lawe. But what lawe meaned he? Meaned he this Consti­tution whereof we now treate? You perhaps would haue it so. [Page 81] But Contius a better lawyer then you are M. Iewell, noteth that the same Constitution was made. In lege Graeca de ordina­tione Episcoporum quae non exiat. In a Greke lawe touching the ordaining of Bishoppes, which is not extant.Contius i [...] marg. D. auth. vt def. &c. Whereby it is eui­dent, that the Constitution which we nowe treate of, by the iudgement of Contius is not that generall lawe whiche the Emperour meaned. For the Constitution which we nowe tre­te of was translated of Contius him selfe, oute of Greke into Latin. Againe this Constitution of Iustinian,In Authē. Const. 137 which we nowe treate of, though it speake in dede at large, [...], &c. Of the ordaining of bishoppes, yet it hath no one worde,Authent. Col. 1. vt def. sunt numer. cler. de ordina­tione Mulierum Diaconissarum, of the ordayning and admitting of Nonnes (for such were the Diaconissae, whiche the lawe spea­keth of) such as the generall lawe meaned by Iustinian expres­sely treateth of. For so the wordes do reporte.Eo. §. in alijs. De ordinatione ve­nerabilium Episcoporum, & reuerendissimorum clericorum, nec non Mulierum Diaconissarum. We haue enacted in generall lawe touching the Ordering of the Reuerent bishoppes, and clerkes, and also of Nonnes. This Constitution therefore of Iustinian though it concerne the clergy, yet is it not that other generall lawe concerning bothe the clergy and Nonnes. This therefore can nothing helpe M. Iewell, vnlesse he minde to reason thus. Iustinian enacted by a generall and a Common lawe concer­ning the clergy and Nonnes, which is not extant.M. Iewel­les Argu­ment. Ergo in this Constitution whiche is extant and of the clergy onely, not off Nonnes he enacted also by a generall and Common lawe. This argument procedeth very weakely. Vnlesse Master Iewell loo­ke better to it, I trowe it wil proue but a childish argument. Yet he limpeth forth as well as he maye, and saieth.

Iewell. And in the Code intreating namely of Bishoppes and Clerkes,Cod. de E­pis e [...] cler. General [...] ­ter. he hathe these wordes. Et hoc non solum, & caet. This Lawe we will ha­ue to take place, not only in the Cytye off olde Rome, or in this Imperiall Cytye off Constantinople, but also in all the worlde, where so euer the name off Christians is had in honoure.

[Page] Stapleton Hetherto M. Iewell hath brought lawes in apparence for him selfe. Nowe he bringeth a lawe quite directly against hym selfe. For as I sayed before, so I saye nowe againe, this Consti­tution extending it selfe to Rome expressely, geueth vs to vn­derstande that the other Constitution (whiche we nowe trea­te of) making no suche expresse mention of Rome, dothe not extende it selfe to Rome. And the reason is, bicause (as the lawe saieth) Suche thinges as are notably done, L. Item a­pud. §. h [...]c [...]dictum ff. vnlesse they be specially no­ted, they seme to be as though it were neglected. The special mentio­ning therefore of Rome in other lawes (which of no other prouince or Countre is vsed) is an euident argument, that this la­we making no mention of Rome, is not extended to Rome at all. As for example. Bicause in some lawes and certaine sta­tutes of oure Countre, the free Denyses and sometimes other straungers not Denyses are especially comprysed, and men­tioned, it is an vndoubted argument, that other lawes wherein they are not so mentioned, do not extende to such persons. And thus farre M. Iewell hath pleaded the lawe. Wherein if he haue missed the Cuishin, no maruaile: his Counsell perhaps had as much good lawe, as him selfe hath good Diuinite. Verely his lawe hathe not yet bene so weake aboute this matter, but his Diuinitye which foloweth, is much more weaker. For thus he procedeth.

Iewell. And howe can M. Harding make him selfe so sure, that the Church of Rome was neuer subiect to this lawe?

Stapletō. Forsothe bicause that Constitution was neuer yet trans­lated into the Latine tounge, whereby it might haue serued the Latine Churche, vntill nowe of late dayes in our present age, and also for other reasons aboue specified. But especially M. Ie­well, he made him selfe sure of it, bicause he knewe that you with all youre lawe and Diuinitie to, were neuer able to proue [Page 82] that Constitution of Iustinian to be generall, and to extende it selfe to Rome.

Iewell. Certainely bothe by Leo Bisshoppe off Rome,De Ieiu [...]. 7. me [...]s· Serm. 6. De Sacra. lib. 4. ca. 5 The .172. Vntruthe For it appeareth not by a­ny of these Fathers that the Churche of Rome was sub­iecte to this lawe. and also by Sainte Ambrose bisshoppe of Millain and other holy Fathers it appeareth o­therwise.

Beholde good Readers the grosse ignoraunce of M. Iewell. He will proue by Leo and Saint Ambrose, that the Constitu­tion of Iustinian toke place in the Churche of Rome. Nowe vnderstande good readers, that Iustinian was Emperour in the yeare of oure Lorde fiue hundred and thirty. Leo was bishop­pe of Rome in the yeare of oure Lorde foure hundred and fourty, and S. Ambrose was bishoppe of Millain threscore yeares before Leo. Thus by M. Iewelles wisedome the Constitution off Iustinian toke place in the Churche of Rome a hundred yea­res and more before it was made. Vnlesse he will saie that Leo and S. Ambrose wrote of Iustinians Constitution by the Sprit of prophecye. Ah M. Iewell. Remembre youre owne poetry.Vide Henr. Pantaleon [...] in Chrono­graph. Ec­clesia. Nonsa [...]i co [...]modè diu [...]sa sunt temporibus tibi Daue haec. And what were they likely to saie of this Constitution of Iustini­an? M. I [...]well did well to bringe them forthe dumbe. Of like th [...]ir wordes woulde haue stode him but in small stede. How­beit seing he hathe so diligently quoted them in the margin (for the whiche quotation to fournish vp the Margin I thinke they were rather alleaged then for any weight in their wordes to M. Iewelles purpose) I will laye the wordes forthe to the Re­ader, and leaue it to his Iudgement, how much they touche ei­ther Iustinians Constiturion, or M. Iewelles Vulgar Seruice. The wordes of Leo are. Hoc ore sumitur, quod fide creditur, Leo de Ie­i [...]io. 7. mens. serm. 6. fere in fine. & frustra ab illis Amen respondetur, à quibus contraid quod accipitur disputatur. That is receiued by the mouthe (he speaketh off the blessed Sacrament) whiche is beleued by Faithe: and they doe answer Amen in vaine, who dispute against that whiche they [Page] do receiue. The wordes of S. Ambrose are. Dicit tibi Sacerdos, Corpus Christi: Ambros. de sacram. lib. 4. cap. 5. & tu dicis, Amen. Hoc est, verum. Quod confite­tur lingua, teneat affectus. The Priest saieth vnto thee. The Bo­dy off Christ. And thou saiest: Amen, that is, It is true. That which thy toungue confesseth, let thy affection kepe. These be the wordes of Leo and Saint Ambrose, by the whiche M. Iewell will proue that Iustinians Constitution made a hun­dred yeares after tooke place in Rome. Hathe not M. Iewell (trowe ye) shewed him selfe herein a trim Diuine? Thinketh M. Iewell that wheresoeuer he findeth the worde, Amen, in the Doctours, straightwayes he hath founde his Vulgar Seruice? Or thinketh he that bicause the people confessed the Reall presence of Christes Body in the Sacrament, answering Amen to the Priest, and confessing it to be true that the Priest saied, therefore the people had their Seruice in the Vulgar toungue? By such argumentes M. Iewell maye make his brethern beleue that to this daye in these Countres here, we haue also the Ser­uice in the vulgar toungue bicause in the Masse bookes here, he maye reade the like.M. Iewelles Argu­ment. Nowe to laye forthe brefely M. Iewelles ar­gument, vppon these places thus he reasoneth.

S. Ambrose about the yeare of our Lorde thre hundred and fou­re score, and Leo about the yeare foure hundred and fourty do wit­nesse the people answered Amen to the Priest.

Ergo the Constitution of Iustinian made aboute the yeare fiue hundred and four [...]y of the speaking alowde of the Prieste, or (as M. Iewell woulde haue it to seme) off the Vulgar Seruice tooke place in the Church of Rome.

If suche argumentes maie serue, I graunte M. Iewell hath Replyed well. And then if M. Iewell had come before his Father, he might haue maried his Mother. Nowe let vs consi­der the other holy Fathers whiche M. Iewell alleageth to saye the like.

Iewell. In psal. 45S. Augustine saieth of the Churche of Rome. Vnum psalmum canta­mus. [Page 83] Vnum Amen respondemus. We singe one psalme, and we awnswer one Amen.The .173. Vntruthe For S. Augustin sa­ied not those wor­des of the Churche of Rome.

Stapletō. Psalm. 54S. Augustine saied not those wordes of the Churche off Rome, more then of anye other Churche. Nay he speaketh it properly of the Africanes, and of the Donatistes, which had separated them selues from the vnite of Christes Churche in Afrike. For expounding the wordes of the psalme, Veniat mors super illos, descendant in infernum viuentes. Let death come vpon them, and let them descende into hell aliue, making the Ca­tholike to speake to the Donatiste, thus he writeth. Quid pa­teris frater &c. What ayle you Brother? We are brethern. August. in Psal. 54. We call vpon one God. We beleue in one Christ. We heare one ghospell. We singe one psalme. We answeare one, Amen. We sounde out one Hal­leluia. VVe celebrat one Easter. VVhy then are you withoute (the Churche) and I within? These are the wordes of S. Augustine bothe that goe before, and that folowe the wordes of M. Ie­well alleaged. By all the whiche we see he spake those wor­des especially of the Africanes in his owne Countre, and tou­ched therein Rome, nomore then anye other Countre. Yet saieth M. Iewell. S, Augustin saieth of the Churche of Rome. Thus he hathe taken suche a custome to lie, that he careth not what he vtter. Againe what is there here touching the Constitu­tion of Iustinian? We singe at this daye in all Christendom (all that remanye in the Catholique faithe) one psalme. We answer, one Amen. We sounde out one Halleluia. And so for­the. What is this to M. Iewelles Vulgar Seruice, whiche vpon Iustinians Constitution he woulde so faine builde? Last of all S. Augustin liuing in the time of S. Ambrose a full hun­dred yeares before Iustinians Constitution was made, howe can he possibly witnesse anye thinge for that lawe to take pla­ce in Rome? Where was M. Iewelles witt and remembrance when he wrote this? Will he euer forgett him selfe, like to Dauus? Let vs procede and see whether his next allegation be [Page] any better.

Iewell. The 174. Vntruthe in falsifi­ing the wordes of S. Hierom as shal ap­peare. Tom. 2. & 7. contra Iulian. li. 2.S. Hierom saieth. Euen in Rome, at the ende of the praier, the people so soun­ded out Amen, as if it had bene a thunderclappe.

This toucheth Rome in dede, and therefore is so muche better then the other. But when liued S. Hierom M. Iewell? Liued he not in the time of S. Ambrose and of S. Augustine more then a hundred yeares before Iustinian was Emperour? Are there not letters extant betwene him and S. Austen? And dothe not S. Augustine alleage his writinges against the Pela­gians? What a forgetfull Dauus is M. Iewell? He hathe allea­ged vs here foure Doctours to proue that Iustinians Consti­tution toke place in Rome, who all were dead and buried be­fore Iustinian was borne. It is nowe sence Iustinian made that Constitution a full thousand yeares.The sin­gular folie of M. Ie­well. And in all this time a­monge so many writers M. Iewell whiche spareth none, be he neuer so base, whiche alleageth scholemen, gloses, lawyers of al ages, with whom, Nicolaus de lyra, Thomas of Aquine, Du­randus, Eckius, Hugo Cardinalis, Iohn Billet, Cusanus, Sco­tus, Innocentius the thirde, and all other late writers are cur­rant, he can yet amonge them all finde not one in the space of a thousand yeres to testifie that Iustinians Constitution tou­ched the Churche of Rome, but he is fayne to runne to Leo, to S. Augustine, S. Ambrose and S. Hierome and to make them speake a good worde for him that the lawe of Iustinian toke place in Rome, who all as I saied liued and died longe before that Constitution was made. Wherein he dealeth as if a man to proue the meaning of a lawe made in Quene Maries dayes would alleage the Iudgement of bishopp Warrham that dyed in kinge Henry the eightes dayes. Verelye this was a mighty Constitution that toke place in Rome a hundred yeres befo­re it was made.

Touching the place of S. Hierom, his whole wordes are [Page 84] these. Vbi alibi tanto studio & frequentia, ad ecclesias & ad marty­rum s [...]pulchra concurritur? Vbi sic ad similitudinem coelestis tonitrui, Amen reboat, & vacua idolorum templa quatiuntur? Non quòd aliam habent Romani fidem, nisi hant quam omnes Christi Ecclesiae:In proaemio li. 2. Com­ment. in epist. ad Gal. sed quòd deuotie in eis maior sit, & simplicitas ad credendum. Where els are the Churches, and the Sepulchres of Martirs withe so feruent deuotion and withe so great cōpany resorted vnto? Where doth Amē geue so lowde a sounde like the thun­derclappe out of the ayer, so as the tēples emptied of Idoles do shake with it? Not bicause the Romanes haue any other faith, then that whiche all the Churches of Christ haue, but bicause there is in them a greater deuotion, and simplicite to beleue. Thus farre S. Hierom. His intent in this place was to shewe that the faithe of the Romanes whiche the Apostle S. Paule commended, remayned still in the same feruour and zele, as it did from the beginning. For proufe whereof he bringeth in their frequenting of Martyrs toumes. How like you that de­uotion M. Iewell? Then also their crying out Amen so low­de and so thicke in the Churche, that he compareth it to the noyse of a thunderclappe. Suche a noyse I haue heard in the Churches of Fraunce many times my selfe, and also at Rome in the Lent tyme. Yet I neuer heard there or otherwhere the Vulgar Seruice. If the crying out of Amen maye either pro­uethe Vulgar Seruice or the Constitution of Iustinian to be generall and to extende to Rome, then M. Iewell hath talked to the matter. If neither of these twayne, then what hathe he done but trifled and deluded the ignorant Reader, withe idle allegations, and shewe of lerning?

To furder the matter, M. Iewell hathe the added to the wordes of S. Hierome, these wordes: At the ende of the praier. For those wordes are not to be founde in S. Hierom. Suche shifting and toyling is made to proue a Vulgar Seruice out of Iustinian, and yet it will not be. Let vs procede.

[Page]Againe, if this Constitution serued onely for the Greke Churche, and only the priestes there spake alowde, and the others of the Latine Churche spake in silence,The .175. Vntruthe. For it is not denied that the Latine Churche spake aloude, at th [...] Common praiers. The .176. Vntruthe For it is not supposed by D. Hard. that S. August. in Afrike prayed in silēce, but that in Rome the Cōsecra­tion was in silence. howe then doth M. Harding expounde this lawe by S. Augustine, who as he supposeth did the contrary, and was neuer subiect vnto that lawe? Or howe can he make contrarietes a­gree together? Hath he so soone forgotte him selfe? Or will he expoū ­de speaking by silence, or singing out, by whispering?

The verye wordes of D. Harding being laied forthe will soone answer all this wondering of M. Iewell. His wordes in the texte are these. And thus he ordeined for the greke Chur­che onelye, and thereto onely it is to be referred, for that some thought the Sacrifice should be celebrated rather with silen­ce, after the maner of the Churche of Rome, specially at the Consecration. In these wordes D. Harding reporteth the ma­ner of the Churche of Rome specially at the Consecration time to haue bene, to speake in silence, where as the grekes vt­tered those wordes allwaies alowde. But the agreing of S. Au­gustins wordes withe the meaning of Iustinian is spoken of the Churche of Afrike not of the Churche of Rome. And a­gaine of vttering the wordes before the Consecration, as Sursum corda and such like (as by the Conference of S. Cy­prian alleaged by M. Iewell it appeareth) not of the very Ca­non of the Masse whiche in the Latin Churche hathe euer secretly bene pronounced. Thirdly the agreing is this, that neither Iustinian nor S. Augustine, do speake any thinge for the Vulgar Seruice, but only for the lowde speaking of the priest, whiche though it were vsed in Afrike, yet will it not folowe that it was vsed in Rome. Last of all though we graunted that bothe Afrike and also the Churche of Rome vsed suche lowde speaking of the priest at the Common Seruice in Saint Augustins time, yet it will hardly folowe that the same was done by the force of Iustinians Constitution made a full hundred yeares after, or that the Churche of Rome shoulde [Page 85] therefore be subiect to that the lawe made so many yeares af­ter. The expounding therefore of the sence and meaninge of Iustinians Constitution by the wordes of Saint Augustine bredeth no Contradiction in D. Hardinges Collection, vnles­se M. Iewell wil haue this Argument to stande for good.

The Priestes in Afrike spake alowde in S. Augustins time according to the meaning of Iustinians Constitution, M. Iewelles Argu­ment.

Ergo the Churche of Rome a hundred yeares after was subiect to that Constitution.

If M. Iewell will this to goe for an argument, then let him cōsider it better. Els it will proue I trow but a childish argumēt.

Iewell. To conclude Iustinian saieth, The Constitutions were generall. The .177 and .178. Vntru­thes, as shall ap­peare. M. Har­ding alone saieth they were not generall.

To conclude, Iustinian saied no such thinge either of all the Nouell Constitutions (of the which Contius confesseth many where [...], & locales, proper and peculiar for certaine places) either of this same Constitution of which we haue so long tre­ated, which bothe the lawe proueth it was not generall, and by the reason of Contius alleaged, semeth to be a mere particular Constitution touchinge onely the Greke Churche. There­fore D. Hardinge not alone, but with the lawe and with Con­tius affirmeth this Constitution to be not generall.

Iewell. Iustinian saieth, They toke place in all the VVorlde. The .179 and .180· Vntru­thes, as shall ap­pearel M. Harding alone sa­ieth. They toke place only in Constantinople.

In these wordes M. Iewell hath committed two manifeste Vntruthes. For neither Iustinian spake those wordes of these Nouell Constitutions of whiche this is one that nowe is in Controuersie, but he spake those wordes in the Code of other lawes comprised there: Neyther dyd D. Hardinge saye that this Constitution toke place only in Cōstantinople, but he sa­ied, Only in the Greke Church: of the whiche Constantinople is but a parte.

Iewell. [Page] The .181. Vntruthe ioyned with an extreme folie. Stapletō.S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Hierome, Leo, and others say. They we­re obserued in the Churche of Rome. M. Harding alone saieth. They were neuer obserued in the Church of Rome.

Leo liued at the lest foure score yeares, S. Ambrose, S. Augu­stin and S. Hierome liued well nere two hundred yeares before these Nouell Constitutions of Iustinian were made, and the­refore they could not possibly (except it were by Spirit of pro­phecy or reuelation) speake anye one worde off or on of these Constitutions of Iustinian whiche were so many yeares after made and writen. Beside, the Wordes of these Doctours, as hath before bene declared, haue no lyke matter to the Vulgar Seruice whiche M. Iewell would so faine picke out of this Cō ­stitution.

Iewell. Iff he will thus deceiue vs in plaine thinges, howe may we thē trust him in doubtefull thinges?

Stapleton Be it a bargaine M. Iewell. He that deceaueth in plaine thin­ges, let him neuer be trusted in doubtefull thinges. But what deceite can be more plaine, more euident, more manifest, then to alleage for the sence and meaning of a lawe, the witnesse off those men,M. Iewell is caste in his owne turne. who were dead and buried many a score of yeares before the lawe was made, yea before the man was borne that made the lawe? Howesaie you M. Iewell? Haue you not here deceiued youre Reader in a verye plaine and manifest matter? Haue you not alleaged to proue that Iustinians Constitution was obserued in the Churche of Rome, and that the Churche of Rome was subiect to that lawe, the testimony of foure Do­ctours, who all were dead so many yeares before the lawe was enacted? Can you denye that those foure Doctours lyued all and died (as I haue saied) many a score of yeares before Iustini­an made that lawe? Do not all Histories, yea Carion, Pantale­on and your brethern of Magdeburge testifie the age of those Fathers all before Iustinian the Emperour? Then by your ow­ne rule Master Iewell, You that haue deceiued youre Reader [Page 86] in so playne a matter, let him not truste you in doubtefull mat­ters.

It is writen of an Enuious man, that to make his neighbour to lese one eye, he was content him selfe to lese bothe. Verely M. Iewel you haue euen in suche sorte dealed here. So that you might by some meanes bringe doctour Harding oute of some credit, you haue (as it maye seme) of purpo [...]e made a playne Exception against your owne Credit for euer. Pate [...]e leg [...]m quā ipse tuleris.

Harding. It appeareth by Arnobius vppon the Psalmes, by Epi­phanius writinge against Heresyes, and by S. Augustine in his bookes, De Doctrina Christiana, that by accompte off Antiquitye there were .72. Toungues in the VVorlde. Psal. 104 Haeres. 39 in Tusc. q. Cicero sayeth, that they be in number infinite. Off them all (.78.) neither M. Iuell, nor anye one off his syde, is able to shewe, that the publike Seruice of the Church in any Natiō, was euer for space of six hundred yeres after Christ, in any o­ther then in the Greke and Latin.

Iewell. The .78. Vntruthe.The .182 Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. For it shall appeare that we are able to shewe manifest Examples to the contrary.

Nowe is the tyme and place come that M. Iewell will acquit him selfe of his Promise, made now Page. [...]55 157.159. and .169. the fift time in this Arti­cle, that he will bringe forthe his Examples of such Countres that haue had their Church Seruice in a Vulgar knowē toun­ge beside Greke and Latin for the space of the first six hundred yeres after Christ. But marke here diligently good Reader, and for the better vnderstanding of M. Iewelles proufes,Fol. 61. b. turne bac­ke to the .69. Vntruthe, and remembre that his Promise in that place is, not only to bringe Examples of the Church Seruice in some other toungue beside the Greke and Latin, (which is proper to this Vntruthe here noted) but also to bring Examples of [Page] sundrye Nations of the East Church, namely of the lesser Asia, which had not their Seruice in the Greke tounge. For that be­fore was by M. Iewell auoutched in the .69. Vntruthe. That he must proue in this Article. Or els his Assertion is ouerthrowen. As thou maiest (good Reader) clerely perceiue if thou turne backe to that we haue saied vpon the .69. and the .72. Vntruthes. But let vs nowe heare what M. Iewell saieth,Fol. 61. b. & fol. 66. a. and how manife­ste Examples he can bringe, that sundry Nations of the Easte Church, namely of Asia the lesse, haue had their Church Ser­uice in the vulgar tounge beside Greke and Latin for the space of the first .600. yeres after Christ.

Iewell. The .183. Vntruthe For D. Harding altereth not the case, but fo­loweth it. StapletonM. Harding being required by me to shewe any one example that the people had their Common Seruice in a straunge toungue, and as it appeareth, not able to shewe any, he altereth conningly the whole case, and willeth me to shewe.

No M. Iewell D. Harding willeth not to you shewe that any Countre had their Seruice in their Vulgar tounge, whiche you yet affirme all the Worlde had, and which he hauing Tradition with him for the Lerned tonge, might more reasonably require you to shewe an Example of your Vulgar tounge, then you re­quire him for the Lerned, hauing an vniuersal Traditiō of the [...]e 900. yeares by your owne confession against you, this I saye D. Harding requireth not of you, but (and Marke well good Ch [...]istian Reader) whereas D. Hardinge hath proued abundantly that in the East or Greke Churche, many Christened Nations vnderstande not the Greke, and in the West or Latin Churche many Christened countres also vnderstoode not the latin, he affirming that all the Greke Churche had only the Greke Ser­uice, and all the latine Churche only the Latin Seruice (where­of it foloweth that many countres had their Seruice in a tonge whiche they vnderstode not) requireth you M. Iewell if you denye it, to geue him some instaunce or Exception of anye one Countre which had the publike Seruice any otherwise then in [Page 87] the Greke or Latine toungue. This is no Alteration of the Case Master Iewell, but a right approued way of Reasonin­ge. For, to disproue an Vniuersall Affirmatyue, it behoueth by Order of Scholes to require an Instaunce in the parti­cular. Therefore you haue no cause to complayne and to saye.

Iewell. Whiche thinge notwithstanding I might iustlye refuse to doo by the order of anye Scholes,The .184. Vntruthe for by order of all Scholes [...]ou are forced to geue an Instance, denying the vni­uersall. yet I am well content to yelde to his re­quest, bothe for the goodnesse and pregnancie of the cause, and also specially, good Christen Reader, for the better contentation of thy minde, not doubting, but of thee selfe, thou wilt be able to finde some distrust, and wante in M. Hardinges side. Who notwithstanding so many wordes, and so great vauntes yet is able to shew nothinge.

On Gods name. Let M. Iewelles proufes trie what weake­nes there is in D. Hardinges side, and what assuraunce in his own Vaunting Chalenge. He saieth.

Iewell. And, to auoide multitude of wordes, the case being plaine, Eckius saieth: The Indians had their Serui [...]e in the Indian tounge.

But when, where, and how M. Iewell?The 185. [...]truthe in man­gling the wor [...]es of [...]c­kius. Do yow remembre the state of the question? See good Reader that M. Iewell de­ceiue thee not. He must proue that within the first 600. yea­res in all the East or West Church any other Seruice was vsed beside the Greke and Latin. And beholde forthe cometh Ec­kius a man lyuing in our dayes, whiche telleth vs of certaine Indians whiche at this present haue the Seruice in their Vul­gar toung. But I will geue thee good Reader the whole wor­des of Eckius, whereof M. Iewell hath snatched a piece to ser­ue his turne, concealing from thee the whole circumstance bothe of time and of place, whereby the question is limited. The wordes of Eckius are these. Non negamus Indis Australibus permissum, vt in lingua sua rem diuinā faciant, quod clerus eorum hodie [...]bseruat, vt vidimus & audiuimus ipsi. We confesse it is permitted to the South Indians to haue their Seruice in their [Page] owne tounge. Whiche their clergie obserueth to this daye, as we haue our selues bothe sene and heard. In these wordes mar­ke good Reader three conditions, whereby M. Iewelles asser­tion is vtterly ouerthrowen. 1 First Eckius saieth, they haue it by permission. This condemneth your late Alteration done without all permission or graunte of the [...] the onelye right Iudge in all suche cases. 2 Secondarely [...] [...]peaketh of a matter of these dayes, as the whiche he bothe sawe and hearde him selfe. This is farre from the first 600. yeares after Christe. 3 Last of all. This is an example of the South Indians latelye conuerted to the faithe. This is no parte of the East or west Church. To be shorte, this is M. Iewelles reason.

M. Iewels Argumēt The Indians of the South partes at this daie haue their Seruice in the Vulgar tongue.

Ergo Sundry Nations of the East and VVest Church had their Seruice in a like maner a thousand yeares agoe.

Iewell. The .186 Vntruthe For Du­randus speaketh not one worde of Iewes. De diuinis officijs lib. 4. cap. 1.Durandus saieth. The Iewes that were Christened had their Ser­uice in the Hebrew tounge.

Durandus saieth. In primitiua Ecclesia diuina mysteria Hebraicé celebrabantur. The diuine mysteries were celebrated in the primitiue Churche in the Hebrewe tounge. But neither he nameth the Iewes that were Christened, neither speaketh of the Churche Seruice: Both whiche Master Iewell affir­meth him to saie. 1 And as it is probable that the Publike Serui­ce of the Churche at that time, was not so priuat, but that the gentiles and the Iewes newly Christened assembled together thereunto, of whom very fewe vnderstode the Hebrew toun­ge, so if this was a Publike seruice, it will well folowe thereof that the Seruice was then in a tounge whiche the hearers vn­derstode not. And thus M. Iewell hathe brought Durandus against him selfe. 2 Againe this is yet no Vulgar tounge besi­de greke and Latine, of the whiche onelye D. Harding spake, and to the whiche M. Iewell in this place ought to directe his [Page 88] proufes. For of the Seruice in some Vulgar tounge the que­stion is, not of the lerned Hebrewe tounge, whiche of the common Iewes them selues howe litle in Christes time it was vnderstanded, it appeareth by theyr well vnderstan­dinge of Christes wordes vpon the Crosse, Eli Eli lamasaba­thani: My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me. For they thought (as the ghospell witnesseth) that Christ had cal­led vpon Elias &c. 3 Farder this was no order of Seruice vsed and continewed in Christes Churche. For Durandus imme­diatly vpon the wordes before alleaged, saieth. Sed tempore Adriani primi Imperatoris graecé in orientali ecclesia graecorum ce­lebrari caeperunt. But in the time of Adrian the firste Empe­rour of that name (whiche was litle more then a hundred ye­res after Christe) the mysteries beganne to be celebrated in greke in the East Churche of the grekes. This order of Serui­ce continewed, and of suche is the question. 4 Last of all this was not the publike Seruice of any Nation (of such is the que­stion expressed) but as it maye seme a matter practised of cer­taine Iewes in certaine places dispersed among other Nations. For the Publike Seruice in Hierusalem it selfe, the Head off all Iury, was in greke, as it is euident by the greke Liturgie or Masse of S. Iames the Apostle the firste bishopp in that place, yet extant in greke. So properly M. Iewell hathe alleaged Du­randus. A writer otherwise as muche estemed of M. Iewell, as one of the blacke garde. For so he calleth him in his Replie to D. Cole.

Iewell. Yet was neither of these tounges neither Greke nor Latin.Stapletō.

No truly. And so neither of your Examples serueth your turne. For the one is not within the first 600. yeres, but lacketh more then 900. thereof, the other is of no Vulgar tounge, nor of no Continewed publicke Seruice. So neither of them is of any nation in the Latin or greke Churche, but the one off South Indians, the other of Iewes, that I pitie yowe to haue sought so farre and yet missed of your purpose.

[Page]Nicolaus Lyra, and Thomas of Aquine saye. The Common Seruice in the primitiue Churche was in the Common Vulgar tounge.

Iewell. The 187. Vntruthe for Tho­mas of Aquine sa­ieth it with a Peraduen­ture, which worde M. Iewell. hath left oute. In 1. Cor. 14.It goeth harde with M. Iewell when he bringeth such do­ctours. He was wonte to call them, the Blacke Garde. Nowe they are Sadde witnesses and men of Authorite. And yet God wote, they make as muche for him, as dothe a Queste for the Guilty. The wordes of S. Thomas are these. Sed quare non dan­tur benedictiones in Vulgari, vt intelligantur a populo & cōforment se magis eis? Dicendum est quòd hoc forte fuit in Ecclesia primitiua, sed postquam fideles instructi sunt, & sciunt quae audiunt in Commu­ni officio, fiunt benedictiones in Latino. Why are not the Bene­dictions (whiche S. Paule speaketh of) made nowe in the Vul­guar tounge, that they maye be vnderstanded of the people, and they comforme them selues thereunto? I answere that in the primitiue Churche Peraduenture, it was so. But after that the faithefull people were ones instructed, and do knowe suche thinges as they heard in the Common Seruice, the Be­nedictions are made in Latin. Lo what a witnesse M. Iewell hath brought for him selfe. He auoucheth not the matter, but saieth. Peraduenture it was so. And then if it were so, he geueth a reason of it, which is: the Necessarye Instruction off the people at their first Receiuing of the faith: whereas nowe the faith being so longe Rooted in the hartes of men, and the People thouroughly instructed in all matters cōcerning their saluation, neither is it necessary that they vnderstande all thin­ges, neither do they missedoubt of any thing which the Priest saieth, but answereth vnto all Amen, and geueth their consent to his praiers without all scruple or curiosite to knowe what he saieth. What dothe all this helpe M. Iewelles Vulguar Seruice? Onlesse he will forme his reasons thus.

M. Iewelles Argu­ [...]ent. The people is allready sufficiently instructed.

Ergo they must haue all t [...]inges in their vulgar language.

Or thus.

[Page 85] The praiers be made in Latin.

Ergo the people must vnderstande them.

Verely these are very Vulgar Argumentes. But nowe to his other doctour Nicolaus Lyra, His wordes are these. In pri­mitiua Ecclesia Benedictiones & caetera communia fiebant in vulga­ri. Sed postquam populus multiplicatus fuit, In 1. ad Cor. 14. & consueuit se confor­mare Ministris Ecclesiae, vtpote stando quando dicitur Euangelium &c. Fiunt in Latino in Ecclesia Latina. Et sufficit quòd clericus respondeat pro toto populo. In the primitiue Church the Benedi­ctions and other common thinges were done in the Vulgar. But after that the Christian people multiplied, and was ones accustomed to conforme thē selues to the Ministers of the Chir­che, as in standing when the Ghospell is reade, and so forthe, thinges are done in Latin in the Latin Church. And it suffiseth that the clarke do answer for all the people. Nicolaus Lyra as in many other places, so here also foloweth S. Thomas. And that which he affirmed with a peraduenture, this man putteth out of peraduenture. Yet all this proueth not it was in any o­ther language beside the Greke and Latin. For at that time the primitiue Church wrote all in Greke or Latin as it appeareth by the Scriptures of the new testaments and by the Fathers wri­tinges: Which are al together in Greke or Latin, and none at al in any other vulgar toungue. Againe the Greke and the Latine were at that time and certain hundred yeares after vulgar toun­ges to many Nations, as it is euident and vndoubted to the ler­ned. Therefore this doctour helpeth the matter no more then the other did. Vnlesse M. Iewell thinke this reason good.

The Latin and the Greke tounges were in the primitiue Churche Vulgar tounges. M. Iewel­les Argu­ment.

Ergo the Seruice was neither in Latin nor Greke.

If he conclude not thus, he concludeth nothing against D. Harding. And if he do conclude thus, you see how loose­ly it hangeth together. Euery childe maye see thourough it. Yet [Page] he setteth much by it, and pronounceth it stoutely, saying.

By these fewe it maye appeare, it was but a brauerie, that M. Har­ding saide.The .188. Vntruthe For D. Ha [...]ding added (for the space of 600. ye­ares) whi­che M. Iuell left oute. Iewell. Stapletō. Neither M. Iuell nor anye one of that side is able to shewe that the publike Seruice was in anye other toungue then in Greke or Latine. For it is easy to be shewed, euen by the Doctours of his ow­ne side.

By these fewe it maye appeare, M. Iuell hath made but a sim­ple brauerye in this forewarde of his doctours. And if the body and rerewarde serue him no better, he may wipe his bill and go to rouste. Let vs see what foloweth.

But what if Doctour Harding him selfe haue in plaine wordes con­fessed the same?

But what if he haue not? Then hath M. Iewell loste a good argument.

Iewell. The .189. Vntruthe ioyned with a slaunder. StapletonAlthough he haue wantonly denied Christ, yet, I trowe, he wil not denie him selfe.

He denieth Christ wantonly, which forsaketh his olde reli­gion that he was baptised in, and embraceth a wanton ghospel, planted by a wanton frier, yoked with a wanton Nonne, not he which forsaketh such wanton lewdenesse, to returne to his old and approued Faith.

Iewell. Consider, good Reader, his owne wordes hereafter folowing in this selfe same Article, But S. Paule (saye they) requireth that the people geue as­sent, and conforme them selfe vnto the Priest, by answering Amen to his prayer ma­de in the Congregation. Hereunto M. Harding answereth thus. Verely in the primitiue Churche this was necessary, when the Faithe was a learning and therefore the prayers were then made in a Common toungue knowen to the people. What can there be more plainely spoken?

Stapleton Yes forsothe. If he had added, and that in neither greke nor La­tin, then had it ben more plainely spoken, then had it bene contrary to him selfe. Now it is no more then S. Thomas and Ni­colaus de Lyra saied before. And therefore as we haue proued before, their sainges to make nothing for M. Iewell, so doth not this of D. Hardinges neither. As they spake of no other vulgar [Page 90] toungue but of Greke and Latin which then were Vulgar, soo doth here D. Harding speake of none other tonges but of gre­ke and and latin also, which thē were Vulgar. What nedeth no­we all this myrthe and triumphe that M. Iewell maketh, say­ing?

Iewell. M. Harding hath vtterly forgotten him selfe.The .190 Vntruth. For they stāde well together. Stapletō. His sayinges can not (190.) stande togeather, If he be true in one, in the other he must nedes be false.

Put vp your pipes M. Iewell, and take your ease. D. Harding remembreth him selfe well enough. His sayinges do stande wel together, and bothe are true.

Iewell. Yet good Christian Reader for thy better Satisfaction, it maie plea­se thee to knowe, that in the primitiue Churche,The .191. Vntruthe For the whole Congre­gatiō did neuer the Office of the Minister. the Common Ser­uice was not ministred by one man alone, but by the Priest and whole Congregation alltogether, as maye appeare by the generall consent of the olde Fathers.

M. Iewell speaketh faire. It is reason he be hearde, and beleued also if after such smothe wordes, he bringeth vs sounde and substantiall proufes. But if al this gaie talke wanteth matter, let him be knowen for an earnest trifler.

Iewell. Clemens Alexandrinus saieth.Clem. A­lex. Strom. lib. 7. Stapleton The .192. and 193. Vntru­thes committed in salsifying Clemens. In orationibus v [...]luti vnam vocem habent communem & vnam mentem. In the (Common) praiers they haue all as it were one voice and one minde.

M. Iewell hath in these fewe wordes vsed two feates of hys Arte. He hathe gelded the wordes of the doctour, and shif­ted in a worde of his owne, which vtterly altereth the doctours minde. The whole sentence of Clemens is thus. Est ergo quod est hic apud nos altare, terrestris congregatio eorum qui sunt dedi­cati orationibus, qui veluti vnam vocem habent communem & vnam mentem. The aultar therefore which we haue here (he talketh of the Sacrifice of praier) is an earthly congregation of those, whi­che are dedicated to praiers, which haue as though it were one voice and one minde. He talketh of such as were dedicated to [Page] praier, of the clergy or other religious men who praie altogea­ther with one voice and minde, not of the people. He talketh of their vsuall Seruice, not of the Common praier of the people. The Worde (Common.) M. Iewell hath added of him selfe more then he founde in the doctour. Now of the clergy or religiouse men dedicated to praier, that you maye not thinke I faine or fa­ble, Clemens mencioneth in this same booke, within litle more then a leafe after this place, where he saieth. Nonnulli certas ac definitas horas constituunt orationi, vt tertiam, sextam, nonam. Ma­ny do appoint certaine set houres for praier, as the thirde hou­re, the sixt howre, and the ninth howre· But what if al this were spoken of the people, and that they all praied with the clergy? We knowe this Clemens was a preacher in Alexandria. And there the Seruice was in Greke. Therefore this helpeth not yet M. Iewell any whit except he minde to reason thus.

M. Iewelles Argu­ment. The people in Alexandria had their Common Seruice in Greke.

Ergo they had it in no Vulgar tounge b [...]side the Greke.

Such straunge Conclusions become wel this strange altera­tion of Gods Seruice.

Iewell. S. Chrysostom sayeth. Not only the Priest geueth tankes to God, but also all the People, The .194 Vntruthe in man­gling the wordes of Chryso­stome. And what doest thou maruail to see the Priestes and people in prayers tal­ke togeather.

Surely M. Iewell, no maruaill at all. But a great maruaill it is, that a called bishopp as you be should blinde Gods people, First with suche patched sentences of the holy Fathers, then with such Betle arguments as you make. For the first, the who­le wordes of Chrisostom are these. Againe in the same dreadfull mysteries, the Priest wisheth well to the people, and the people wisheth well to the Priest. For (with thy Spirit) is nothing els to say, then this, that al that belōgeth to thākes geuing, is cōmō. For not only the Priest geueth thankes but also al the people. For taking first their answer, and gathering them together that this Mysterie might be done wor­thely and rightly, he beginneth the Eucharist. And what doest thou [Page 87] maruaill, if the people speaketh with the Priest? VVhereas also with Cherubin, and other heauenly powers, they sing those holy himnes in common. Al this is but the Accustomed answering of the people to the Priest, in the preface of the Masse, as to this day it is vsed. Which will easely appeare to the lerned and discrete Reader, d [...] ­ligently cōsydering the whole place. Now touching the Argu­ment these be M. Iewels reasons.

The people prai [...]th withe the priest. And the priest praieth in Greke.

Ergo the people had not their Seruice in Greke.

Vnderstande good Reader. Chrisostome was bishopp of Constantinople a parte of the Greke Churche. His Mas­se or Liturgie is yet extant in Greke. He praied in Greke, and preached in Greke. Aske M. Iewell when thou metest him next, if all this be not true. And then if he graunte it, aske howe his Greke Masse can proue the Seruice was not in Greke. Truly he shall haue nothing to saie, vnlesse he saie that Greke is no Greke. Chrysostome is not Chrysostome. Nor Iewell is not Iewell.

Iewell. And here to leaue S. Augustine, S. Hierom S. Basile,The 195. Vntruthe For he leaueth not S. Hierō, nor S. Basill, but alleageth thē bot [...]e straight­waies for his mat­t [...]r. Nazianze­nus, Dyonisius Areopagita, withe many other Fathers.

Here is brought in a whole troupe of doctours in a ranke. Augustin, Hierom, Basile, Nazianzenus, Dyonisus Areopagi­ta and many other Fathers. And who woulde not be afraide to see suche an armie come against him? Howbeit (gentle Reader) be of good [...]heare. All this is but a Camisado. The­se be but visardes, they be no faces. They are brought in like Mummers for a shewe, and say nothinge. That M. Iewell lac­ked in weight, he woulde nedes make vp in tale. But doub­telesse, if any greater weight had ben in these, then in the rest whiche come after, he woulde neuer haue forsaken S. Hierom. S, Augustin, S. Basill, and Nazianzenus, to alleage Isidorus, [Page] Aeneas Syluius, Innocentius tertius, and Iohn Billet, or (as he hathe allready) Thomas of Aquine, Nicolaus Lyra, Duran­dus and Eckius. Vnlesse the gentlenesse of M. Iewell be suche, that he will reserue the best for himselfe, and geue to his Rea­der the worste. Nowithstanding this one thinge I will saye for M. Iewell in his behalfe and for the Readers comfort, that though here somewhat rigorously he spareth his copie, and will not parte (he saieth) from suche and suche, yet afterwarde, (so kindenesse ouercame him) he hathe beside his promis ge­uen vs two of his Doctours which here he saieth, he wil leaue. That is S. Hierom and S. Basill. But nowe bicause M. Iewell is in haste, and will leaue so many good authorites, let vs dispat­che the rest that he bringeth. He saieth.

Iewell. De ecclesi. off. cap. 10 Isidorus describing the Order of the Church in his time, writeth thus. When they singe they must singe alltogether. When they praie, they must praie alltogether. And when the lesson is readde, silence being commaunded, they must heare alltogether.

Iewell. Stapletō. First Isidorus speaketh of the Quyer and the clergie, not of all the Common people. Then he speaketh of the Lati­ne Seruice, not of anye Seruice in the Vulgar tounge besi­de the Latin. Last of all, if all this were spoken of the people, and of the Seruice in a Vulgar tounge beside Greke and La­tin, yet hathe M. Iewell vtterly missereckened him selfe, and so gotten nothing. For this Isidorus was without the compasse of the first 600. yeres.Vide Sige­bertum de viris illu­str. ca. 55. pag. 80. Euen about that time that Iohn the Al­mes geuer liued, whome M. Iewell reiecteth before for proufe of priuat Masse. Lo thou seest good Reader what stuffe M. Iewell hathe chosen, to leaue (as he saieth) S. Augustine, S. Hierom, S. Basill, Nazianzenus, Dyonisius Areopagita withe many other like Fathers.The .185. Vntruthe For all these ex­ampl [...]s of the olde Fathers were of Seruice in the ler­ned toūge Let vs goe forthe and see the rest.

It were very muche for M. Harding to saie. All these thinges we­re done in a lerned tounge, and that the Vulgar people in euery Coū ­tre vnderstoode either the Greke or the Latine.

[Page 92]Truly that were very much in dede. But neither haue your examples ben of euery Countre, nor of all the Vulguar people, but of three Cities only: of Alexandria in Aegypt, of Constan­tinople in Thracia, and of Hispali in Spayne. And then part­ly not of the people at all but of the clergie, partly of suche people as vnderstode the lerned tounges Greke and Latine, in which ij. tounges only these mencioned countres had their Seruice. Alexandria and Constantinople in Greke, Spaine in Latin. Therefore as it is no nede to saie that the Vulgar people in euery countre, vnderstode, either the Greke or the Latin, so shall it be enough to saie, that all these thinges were done in a lerned tounge, and so shall all your authorites sufficiently be answe­red, vntell you proue it otherwise.

Yet for that nothinge seemeth harde for him to saie let vs see what the olde Fathers will reporte in that behalfe.Iewes.

Stapletō. Hitherto it semeth M. Iewell hathe but dallyed and made as though it were but a flourish to the matter. Hitherto he ha­the proued nothinge. Nowe he will saie somewhat. Hitherto he hathe talked at randon, now he will folowe the game mo­re particularly. For hitherto (as yowe see) he hathe brought nothinge for the Common Seruice in any other tounge besi­de Greke and Latin within the first 600. yeres. Whiche is the matter that he ought to proue, yowe knowe. Nowe then by Gods grace, we shall haue somewhat worthe the bearing a­waye.

Iewell. I haue allready shewed by Theodoretus, Sozomenus, and S. Hierom, that the Seruice was in the Syrian tounge. [...] Vnt [...]h [...] For th [...]t hathe not bene she­wed, as it s [...]ll now appeare.

Yet more posting and delaying M. Iewell? Yowe knowe the pith and grounde of this Article lieth herein. And therefo­re you ransack al the corners of your rusty Rhetorike to beau­tifie the matter as well as maye be. First yowe brought newe Doctours, them D. Harding him selfe, after him olde Do­ctours [Page] a couple. This done, you tell vs of your Copie whiche for haste yowe leaue: and yet Isidorus muste not be forgotte. Then you shuffle in a shifte to saue all that went before, if it might be, and so you renewe the battaill againe, and prouoke your Reader to farder expectation. Whiche before you come to perfourme, yowe put him in minde of your former feates, and stratagemes, thus to persuade him, before you bringe any thinge. But goe to. Let vs make the moste of it. Where haue you shewed allready in Theodoretus and Sozomenus, that the Seruice was in the Syriacall tounge? I remembre in this Article before, you alleage them bothe together for that pur­pose. These are your wordes in that place.

Iewell. pag. 157. T [...]eodoret. lib. 4. cap. 29. The .198 Vntruth. Ephrem made neither hymnes nor psalmes.If M. Harding thinke this coniecture to be weake, let him vnder­stande further, that as Theodoretus reporteth, the same Ephrem ma­de hymnes and psalmes in the Syrian tounge. And that, as Sozome­nus saieth plainely, the same Hymnes and psalmes were songe in the Churches of S [...]ria.

M. Iewell woulde faine proue the Churche Seruice by sin­ging of songes and sonnets. It seemeth he Vnderstandeth not that in the primitiue Churche there were beside the psal­mes of Dauid songe in the Churche out of holye Scripture Vulgares psalmi, psalmes or songes made in the Vulgar tounge, whiche were made of priuat men of deuotion or of some o­ther occasion (as it shall anon appeare) and were sometime songe in certain Churches.Concil. Laodic. cap. 59. Of suche the Councell of Laodi­cea hathe a Canon in these wordes. Non oportet ab idiotis psalmos compositos & Vulgares in ecclesiis dici. Psalmes made off priuat men and in the Vulgar tounge shall not be saied in Churches.Con. Cart. 3. Can. 47 This restrainte was made at that time bicause onely holy Scripture shoulde be read there, extept the liues of holye Martyrs whiche in their festes were readen. For of the Chur­che psalmes that all the people did not singe that listed, men wemen and boyes, as it is nowe in the deformed congrega­tions, [Page 93] but only such as were admitted thereunto, it appeareth by a Canon of the fourth Councell of Carthage holden in the yeare of our Lorde .436. Where we reade thus. Psalmista, id est, Can. 10. Cantor potest absque scientia Episcopi sola Iussione Praesbyteri officium suscipere cantandi, dicente sibi prae [...]sbytero: vide, vt quod ore cantas, corde credas, & quod corde credis, operibus comprobes. The Psalmiste or singing man maye take the office off singin­ge by the onely commaundement of the Priest withoute put­ting the bishoppe to knowleadge, the Priest sayinge vnto him thus. See that whiche thou singest with the mouthe, thou beleue it with thy harte. And that whiche thou beleuest in thy harte, thou perfourme it in thy Workes. Thus by Order he was admitted that songe Psalmes in the Churche, and thus the Vulgar Psalmes made of Priuate men as they we­re for a tyme suffred in some Churches, so we see by Or­der off Lawe they were at an other tyme forebidden the Churche.

This being premised, let vs nowe come to those Hymnes and Psalmes, whiche Master Iewell saith, Ephrem made, and whiche he saieth, were songe in Churches in the Syrian tonge. Whereof he seemeth to frame this argument.

Ephrem made songes in the Syrian tonge. M. Iewel­les Argu­ment.

E [...]go the Seruice was in the Syrian tonge.

Vnlesse he will haue this to goe for an argument, he hathe proued nothing.VVhat Ephrems Psalmes were. For the Psalmes and Hymnes whiche he spea­keth of, were no parte of the Churche Seruice, but certayne songes contayning. Catholyke doctryne, whiche that good Deacon made, for the people to singe in place of other songes containing Hereticall doctryne, which one Harmonius an He­retike had made before, and infected the people withall. This was Ephrems songe, and this to be so Theodoretus in hys Ecclesiasticall History telleth vs, euen in that place whiche Master Iewell hathe alleaged. These are his Wordes. [Page] [...].T [...]eodor. li. 4. ca. 5. Whereas one Harmonius the Sonne of Bardesanes of whose Heresy Epiphanius hath written, had lately made certain son­ges,Tom. 1 lib 2. haeresi 56. and mingling wicked doctrine with the pleasant Harmony intised the hearers, and hunted after their corruptiō, this Ephrē folowing the note and melody of the other, made a godly dit­tye: and gaue to the hearers bothe a pleasaunt and a profitable Medicine. These songes also do yet to this daye make more royall the festes of the triumphant Martyrs. Here we see what Hymnes and Psalmes they are which M. Iewell speaketh off. They are by a straunge Metamorphosis turned into songes and sonnets, and vsed to displace songes off Heretykes. They are neither Hymnes nor Psalmes pertayning to the Churche Seruice, (whiche were onely taken out of holy Scripture) but godly songes made for the peoples instruction against Heresy and wicked doctrine. Now that these Syrian songes were son­ge at Martyrs festes, it proueth no more that the Seruice was in the Syrian toungue then Christmas carolles songe in English, Frenche, and Dutche do proue the Seruice at Christmas to be in English, Frenche, or Dutche:

And thus M. Iewelles Syrian songe doth nothing, proue his Vulgar Seruice, except he minde to reason thus.

M. Iewel­les Argu­ment. English Carolles were songe at Christmasse.

Ergo the Seruice was in English.

Now where M. Iewel addeth that Sozomenus saieth plaine­ly that suche Hymnes and Psalmes (he shoulde saie songes and sonnets) were songe in the Churches of Syria, If the wordes be so plaine, he should haue alleaged them, or at the lest haue no­ted in the margin where they were to be founde. But no mar­uaill [Page 94] if he noted not that, which he coulde no where finde. And yet is this Sozomenus at the least iiij. times auoutched in this Article, to be a witnesse of the Seruice in the Syrian toungue. But remembre your selfe M. Iewell. Iewell. pag. 10.If Sozomenus beareth wit­nesse to your Vulgar Seruice, why speaketh he not? Why co­meth he forth so dumbe? What? Hath he naught to saie in this behalfe? Or is his word not worthe the hearing? Or is he so ol­de that he can not speake? Or must we nedes beleue M. Iewell without euidence? And thus much of Theodoretus and Sozo­menus, by whome M. Iewell saieth he hathe shewed that the Seruice was in the Syrian toungue. Hereunto he addeth S. Hie­rome. To the place of S. Hierom I haue answered before in the 68. Vntruthe. He did well to ioyne Theodoretus and S. Hie­rom together. For they speake bothe of Vulgar songes,Fol. 60. [...]. not off the Psalmes songe in Churche Seruice, as I haue before decla­red. Nowe I trust M. Iewell will come to the matter direct­ly; and bringe vs some clere Example of the Churche Seruice in some Vulgar tounge beside Greke and Latin for the space of the firste .600. yeares. He hathe tolde vs what he hath lefte, and what he hath saied, nowe I trust he will to the Matter. Let vs see.

Iewell. Olde Father Origens wordes in my iudgement be verye play­ne.The .199. Vntruthe except he meane, they are very plai­ne beside the pur­pose.

Blessed be that olde Father whiche speaketh so plainely for M. Iewell, to saue his poore honesty in this greate distresse. For nowe or neuer D. Hardinges Assertion shall be confoun­ded.

Iewell. Writing against one Celsus a wicked heathen, he sayeth thus. The Grekes name God in the greke toungue, and the Latines in the Latine toungue. Lib. 8. contra Celsum And all seuerall Nations praye vnto God and prayse him in their owne naturall and mother toungue. For he that is Lorde off all tounges, heareth man praying in all toun­gues, none otherwise, then iff it were one voice pronounced by diuers tounges. For God that ruleth the whole VVorlde is not as some one man, that hathe gotten the Greke or Barbarā. Latin tounge, and knoweth none other.

[Page] Stapleton. As I can easely yelde in parte that by this olde Fathers Te­stimony all toungues and Nations do praise and praie to God, so if M. Iewell can proue that this same Origen euer saied the Seruice in any tounge then the Greke,Pag. 35. or in any of all his wor­kes once vsed the name of Seruice in a vulgar tounge, I will as gladly yelde to the whole. But if Origen neuer spake worde of Seruice in the vulgar tonge, howe is he here brought in to pro­ue the Seruice in a vulgar toungue? Iewell. Howbeit M. Iewell kno­weth, it is an easy matter to mocke the ignoraunt with the glo­rious name of olde Fathers. Origen saieth, that all Nations and al tonges do praie vnto God. This thing neither is denied, nei­ther in any point toucheth the publike Seruice of the Church. We confesse with Origen and S. Augustin to,August. Epi. 178. that vna rogatur vt mis [...]reatur à cunctis Latinis & Barbaris vnius Dei natura, the one nature of God is praied vnto for mercy of al people bothe Latines and Barbarous. And yet we saye with S. Augustin also: Amen & Hallelulya, quod nec Latino nec Barbaro licet, in suam linguam transferre, Hebraeo cunctas gentes vocabulo decantare, that Amen and Halleluya (proper wordes of the Churche Seruice) are songe of all Nations in Hebrewe termes, which it is not lau­full for neither the Latin or Barbarous to translate into theyr owne tounge. I thought good to accompany S. Augustin with Origen for the better vnderstanding of his meaning.

Hereof M. Iewell semeth to reason thus.

M. Iewelles Argu­ment. All Nations do praie vnto God in their owne toungue.

Ergo al Nations haue their Church Seruice in their own tonge.

And then against S. Augustin thus.

All Nations do praie vnto God.

Ergo Amen, Halleluya, and such other partes off the Churche Seruice must be translated into the tounges of all Nations.

This maketh well For M. Iewell: but this vtterly ouerthro­weth the doctrine of S. Augustin.Iewell. Pag. 36. Litle thought that olde Fa­ther, that euer his wordes shoulde be thus vsed or so violently [Page 95] forced to such Conclusions.

Iewell. In 1. Cor. 14. The. 200 Vntruthe In nip­ping of the last wordes of S. Am­brose. pag. 62.S. Ambrose speaking of the Iewes that were conuerted to Christ, saieth thus. These were Iewes, whiche in their Sermons and oblations, vsed so­metime the Syrian tounge, and sometime the Hebrewe.

M. Iewell findeth small force in olde Father Origen to proue that he seeketh for. And therefore he runneth to S. Ambrose for helpe. Howbeit for him, I muste nedes saie, he hathe taken wronge, and is ill vsed at M. Iewelles hande, as be­ing by violence and perforce made bothe to suppresse that he woulde saye, and also to saye that he woulde not saye, and yet in the ende saieth not one worde for the Vulgar Seruice. S. Ambrose expounding the wordes of S. Paule, In the Churche or Congregation I will rather speake fiue wordes withe iudgement to instruct other, then ten thousand wordes in the tounge, saieth that the Apostles meaning is, that it is farre more profitable to speake a fewe wordes In aper­tione ser­monis. in preaching that all maye vnderstande, then to vse a longe talke in an vnknowen language. And then he addeth, who they were that vsed suche longe talke in strange tounges, when the Christians were assembled to praye, and saieth. These were Iewes whiche at Sermons and Oblations, vsed sometime the Syrian tounge, sometime the hebrew This M Iewell left quit [...] out ad Cōmendationē, for a vaine glorie, and commendation. For they gloried to be cal­led H [...]brewes bicause of the merit of Abraham. These wordes of S. Ambrose as they proue nothinge that the Iewes had their Seruice, in the Hebrew or Syrian tounge, so it blameth open­ly the Iewes for vsing these tounges at the Seruice and obla­tion time. If M. Iewell had geuen thee (good Reader) the whole wordes and sentence of S. Ambrose, thou shouldest ea­sely haue sene, howe litle they made for the Vulgar Seruice, vnlesse M. Iewell will reason thus.

S. Paule blameth the Iewes for vsing the Hebrewe or Syrian tounge in the Seruice.

[Page] Ergo the Seruice was in the Hebrewe or Syrian tounge.

For of this premisse it will rather folowe.

The Iewes are blamed for vsing the Hebrew and Syrian tounge in the Seruice. M. Iewel­les Argu­ment.

Ergo the Iewes had not their Seruice in the Hebrewe and Sy­rian tounge.

And thus M. Iewell hath brought S. Ambrose against him selfe, and hath not yet founde his Vulgar Seruice.

Iewell. In epist. ad Clericos Neocaesari­enses. The 201. Vntruthe For the Commō people of Cappadocia vnderstode not the greke tounge as hathe bene before prouedS. Basill writing vnto the lerned men of Neocaesarea and shewing in what order the people vsed to resorte to the house of praier in the night season, and to singe psalmes in sides, and to praie together, towardes the ende thereof, hathe these wordes. As it were f [...]om one mouthe and from one harte, they offer vpp vnto the Lorde the psalme of confes [...]ion, and the wordes of repentaunce euery of them applieth parti [...]ularlye vnto him selfe. Hereby it is plaine that the people in S. Basiles time, son­ge the psalmes together, and vnderstode what they songe.

Here M. Iewell remembreth him selfe better, and whereas he saied before he woulde leaue S. Augustine, S. Basill, S. Hie­rome, and other, (suche copie he pretended then to haue) nowe he alleageth notwithstanding S. Basill and S. Hierome bothe, declaring in this point, bothe his former brauery and his present wante.

These wordes of S. Basill as they make nothing for the Ser­uice in the Vulguar tounge other then the greke, so do they verye well declare, the auncient custome of the primitiue Churche of the clergie rising at midnight, and singing psalmes together withe the people. But what will M. Iewell gather he­reof? Will he reason thus?

The people songe the psalmes together in the Greke tounge.

M. Iewel­les Argu­ment. Ergo the s [...]ruice was in neither Greke nor Latine.

Vnlesse he conclude thus, he concludeth nothinge against D. Harding. M. Iewell confesseth before that S. Basill preached in Greke and the Vulgar people vnderstode him. Iewel. pag. 161. And thinketh he by the Greke Seruice whiche the people (as he confesseth) vn­derstode [Page 96] (the Greke Seruice and the Greke sermons of S. Ba­sill beinge both in like Greke as his Liturgie and homilies yet extant do testifie) to conclude that the Seruice was not in Greke? Thus by M. Iewelles reason Greke and not Greke, Vulgar and not Vulguar, somethinge and nothing shall be all one. But he felt him selfe the weakenes of this argument. And the­refore he laboureth to adde some more force vnto it, and saieth.

Iewell. And least M. Hardinge should slippe awaye, as his wonte is and say, All this was done in the Greke tounge, and not in anye tongue barba­rous, S. Basill hath allready preuented him.

Stapletō. It is well that M. Iewell foresawe the Checke. I trust he will auoide the Matto.

Iewell. For immediatly he addeth further, as it foloweth. Iff ye fli [...] vs for thus singing and praying together, then muste ye flie the Aegyptians and bothe the countres of Lybia, and the Thebanes, and the Palestines, and the Arabians, and the Pheni [...]ians and the Sy [...]ians and the borderers of Euphrates, and generally ye muste flie all them that haue watchinges and praiers, and common psalmodie in estim [...]tion, I trowe M. Harding will not saie: All these nations spake Greke or Latine.

Stapletō. No more trowe I neither. Yeat if he shoulde so saie M. Ie­well withe all his learning is not able to proue the contrarye. But what if he saie that all those nations had their Seruice in Greke, allthough they spake not all Greke? What if all those countres be but a parte of the East Churche, whiche all had the Greke Seruice? Coulde they not singe and praie together onlesse they praied in their Vulguar knowen tounge? Or can not the deuoute applie particularly to him selfe the wordes of repētaunce, except he vnderstand the psalme that he singeth? This is but a Gheasse M. Iewell, that bicause the common psalmodie was practised in Aegypt and other countres, there­fore all those countres vnderstode the psalmodie. Let vs con­sider the forme of your argument.

[Page] In Aegypt Lybya, Syria and other countres common psalmodie was had in estimation. M. Iewel­les Argu­ment.

Ergo the Seruice in all those countres was in the Vulgar tounge.

Withe the like reason you might conclude against the Ser­uice whiche withe our owne eares we heare to be in Latin, that yet it were not in Latin. As thus.

In Dutcheland Fraunce and Italy the common psalmodie i [...] bothe practised and highly estemed specially in monasteries.

Ergo in Dutchelande Fraunce and Italye the Seruice is in the Vulgar tonge.

We see and knowe the contrary of the conclusion. We see and knowe the premisse to be true also. Therefore we see and knowe the argument to be naught. And why? Forsothe bicau­se you conclude the whole by a parte, and the parte by a Sur­mise. As the whole Seruice yowe conclude of the psalmodie. And the psalmodie yowe Gheasse, was vnderstanded. Which yet if it were graunted, there remaineth for yowe yet to proue that they vnderstode nor Greke nor Latin, and then that the Seruice was in neither nother. Thus you see M. Iewell, howe Soone ye Conclude, and yet howe much yow lacke to make vp the Conclusion.

Iewell. The 202 Vntruthe For S. Hierome is not so muche as apparent.S. Hierom writing vnto Heliodorus, of the death of Nepotianus, seemeth to auouche the same.

Yet haue yowe but a Gheasse then. Howbeit all that S. Hierom saieth, is not so much as a Seeming Gheasse to prou [...] M. Iewelles purpose.

These be his wordes. Nowe bothe the voices and letters off all nations do sounde out Christes passion and Resurrection. I leaue the Iewes, the Grekes and the Latines, whiche n [...]tions the Lorde hath dedicated withe the title of his C [...]osse. The sauage nature of the Bessians, and people that f [...]r their wildenesse go cladde in skinnes, whiche sometimes made sacrifices of mens bodies, haue turned their barbarous speache in to the swete harmonie of Christ. Christ is nowe the voice off the whole worlde.

Stapletō. It is nedelesse to answear such places as make no shew off [Page 97] proufe. S. Hierom as M. Iewell well knoweth, hath neither he­re nor els where,Iewell. Pag. 64. either the name or the sence of anye Seruice in the Vulguar toungue. Onely he sayeth that all the worlde soundeth Christe, confesseth Christ, praiseth Christe. Nowe iff M. Iewell thinke he maye founde his vulgar Seruice vpon this place, he maye also presume the like vppon Dauids Psalme, that where he saide, In omnem terram exiuit sonus eorum, The Noyse of the Apostles preaching the Ghospell, went through out the whole earthe, he meant to erecte a Seruice in the Vulguar toungue, through oute the whole earthe. Or els vppon the wor­des of saint Gregory, saying of our Forefathers, as saint Hierom sayed of the Bessians,Exposit. in Iob. lib. 27 Cap. 6. Beholde the toungue off Britanny which kne­we nothing but to rore rudely, hathe of late begonne to singe the He­brewe Alleluya, geuing praise to God, he maye also conclude, that Britanny had the Seruice in Hebrewe. Truly at this pre­sent Italy, Fraunce, Spayne, Portugal, Dutchelande, Burgundy, and diuers other Catholike countres do sounde oute Christes passion and resurrection, do turne their Barbarous speache into the swete Harmony of Christe, and Christ is the voice of them al. Yet no one of these Nations hath the Seruice in the Vulguar knowen toungue.

Iewell. Aeneas Syluius saieth, that when Cyrillus and Methodius had conuerted the Sclauons vnto God, which was about the yeare of ou­re Lorde .860. and were suters that they might minister the Common prayers and other Seruice vnto them in their Common Sclauon toungue,In the ye [...] re of oure Lorde .860. and greate staye was made therein by the Pope and hys Cardinalls a voyce was hearde, as it had bene from heauen. Let euerye Spirite prayse the Lorde, and let euerye toungue acknowleadge hym. And that thereuppon they were suffred to vse theyr owne langua­ge.

Iewell. pag. 75.This is the best proufe of all other. A shorte answer maye well serue it. For being but a litle vewed, it is able to answer it selfe.

Stapleton. 1 It was done by the order of the Pope. And so maye it be do­ne nowe. 2 The matter being so harde that a confirmation from heauen was necessarye, declareth verye well, that before, other [Page] countres had it not so. 3 Last of all, it is farre withoute the com­passe of the first 600. yeares. It was aboute the yeare of oure Lorde .860.

Iewell. Touching this matter Innocentius the thirde hath decreed thu [...]. and whether it make for the purpose or no, let M. Hardinge him sel­fe be iudge.Extra. de Officio Iu­dicis ordi­narij. Quoniam in plerisue. His wordes be these. Quoniam in pleris (que) partibus intra eandem Ciuitatem atque Diaecesim permisti sunt populi diuersarum linguarum, habentes sub vna fide varios ritus, & mores, districtè praecipimus vt pontifices huiuscemodi Ciui­tatum & Diaecesum prouideant viros idoneos qui secundum diuersitatem rituum & linguarum diuina illis officia celebrent, & Ecclesiastica Sacramenta ministre [...]t. The .203 Vntru­the, Standing in the no­torious and will­full falsy­fying of the Au­thor alleaged. For so much as in many places with in one Citie and one Diocese there be Nation [...] mingled together of many toungues hauing diuer [...] or­ders and Customes vnder one Faith, we do therefore straightly com­maunde that the bishoppes of such Cyties or Dioceses prouide meete men to minister the holy Seruice, According to their Diuersitye off maners and tounges.

Stapleton. Iewell. Pag. 81.Iff this serue not the turne, nothinge I trowe, will ser­ue. The Authoritie of the Popes Canon or rather of the who­le generall Councell of Laterane, wherein this decree was ma­de, is so greate, the wordes so cleare, the Commaundement so straight. But two thinges only cōsidered, all this mighty Forte, will proue but a Paper walle. The one is the tyme and Cir­cumstaunce of the decree. The other, the legerdemaine off M. Iewelles translation. Touching the first, this decree is far­re benethe the firste six hundred yeares after Christe, as being made in the Councell of Laterane more then twise six hun­dred yeares after Christe. Therefore M. Iewell hathe herein maruailously missereckoned him selfe. Againe the decree is not made for Seruice in the vulguar toungue which at that tywe in all the West Churche was in Latin by the witnesse of S. Tho­mas of Aquine,S. Thom. I [...] 1. Cor. 14. whome Master Iewell alleageth liuing aboute that very time. The meaning of the decree is, that whereas at that time the greate Cytye of Costantinople being subdued to the Latine Churche oute of the Grekes Dominion by the [Page 98] Frenche men and the Venetians, so that in that one Cytie bo­the the olde Grecians and the newe Latines inhabited, whereas also their Patriarche at that time was either of the Frenc [...] mens appointement or of the Venetians, and so a Latin (for so it was agreed that when the Emperoure was Frenche,Blondu [...] li. 6. dec. 2 the Patriarche was a Venetian: as at that tyme Balduin of Flaundres was the Emperoure and Maurocene the Venetian was the Patriarche) the Patriache (as I saied) being of the Latine Churche, the Grecians coueted to haue an other Bishoppe beside to serue their Churches according to their toungue and maner.

The Councell therefore to auoyde this Inconuenience that o­ne Cytye and one Diocese woulde haue two bishoppes, com­maunded straightly that one Bishoppe being appointed, he shoulde prouide to haue Pastours and Curats vndernethe hym suche as might serue bothe the Latines and the Grekes, and a­gaine euery seuerall Nation of the Latines and Grekes, with their owne accustomed Seruice and vsuall Administration off the Sacramentes, and that according to the Diuersitye of theyr toungues and maners. Not that euery Nation should haue the Seruice in their owne toungue; but that both, the Sacramentes shoulde be ministred to euery Nation in their owne toungues, and the Seruice celebrated to euery Nation, after their accustomed rites and Ceremonies. This to be the meaning of the de­cree, both the History of that time cōsidered, and the very con­struction of the wordes (which M. Iewell hath corrupted), do­the make manifest. And this is lo the Legerdemain of his fal­se translation, whiche nowe shall be opened. The Latine hathe, Qui secundum diuersitates Rituum & Linguarum, diuina illis of­ficia celebrent, & Ecclesiastica Sacramenta ministrent. The true English is this. VVhich (he speaketh of meete persons to be pro­uided by the Bishoppe in such Cytyes where diuers Nations do concurre) accordinge to their Diuersitye of their Rites or Ceremo­nies and toungues do celebrate to them Gods Seruice, and do minister [Page] the Sacraments of the Church. Here by the order of al good Con­struction, the firste accusatiue case (Diuersite of Rites or Cere­monies) is to be referred to the first verbe (do celebrate Gods Ser­uice) and the seconde accusatiue case (Diuersity: of toungues) to the seconde verbe, Do minister the Sacramentes of the Churche. So that the literall meaning of the decree must be, that where diuers Nations do concurre in one Cytye or Diocese, eche Na­tion haue diuers Pastours and Ministers, partly to celebrate the Seruice according to their owne Rites, Ceremonies, maner and Facion (for in that point not only the Grekes and the La­tines, but the very Latines amonge them selues do differ and varye in some Certaine Ceremonies and Rites) partly and that chiefely to minister the Sacramentes of the Churche: as Bap­tim, Confession, Matrimonye, and suche other to euery Na­tion in his owne toungue. For in suche Sacramentes the Vul­guar toungue is vsed. Nowe Master Iewell knowinge right well that if he had put the whole Englishe with the Latine, e­uerye Childe woulde haue sene the true Construction and the true Relation of the accusatiue case with the verbe, he there­fore hath vtterly left out one of the Verbes in his Englishe, whiche is, to minister the Sacramentes of the Chur­che. Thus he hathe beguiled the Englishe Reader, making him to beleue that the Decree spake onely of sayinge the Common Seruice, and nothinge at all of Ministring the Sacramentes off the Churche: vnto the whi­che as I sayed, The Diuersyte off toungues must be referred. This is the playne dealing of ghospelling Bishop­pes. Thus must an euill cause be defended. And thus is oure dere Countre abused by such as occupie the place of Reuerend bishoppes.

Iewell. The .240 Vntruthe or rather a bragging Lye.Here I might alleage much more out of diuers writers, euen oute of Abdias him selfe, whome M. H [...]rdinge so muche estemeth.

[Page 99] Stapletō. I finde no fault with M. Iewelles Rhetorike. But I trowe Rhetorike in this case maketh small proufe.Iewe.ll pag. 166. He will allwaies seme to haue muche store, and that he leaueth more behinde then he bringeth forthe. This is a great face sett vpon no­thinge. M. Iewell will leaue Abdias a writer in the Apostles time, and whom trowe ye, will he alleage vs in his place? You shall see.

Iewell. The .205 Vntruthe For a Cō plainte is no prous [...]But I will only note the complainte of one Iohn Billet concerning this case, and so make an ende.

Alas, what toole is there so weake that M. Iewell will refu­se to strike withall? To proue his imagined Vulgar Seruice, he leaueth Abdias, and (as he saied before) S. Augustine, Gre­gorius Nazianzenus, Dyonisius Areopagita and manye other Fathers; and bringeth vs forthe one Iohn Billet, a good ho­nest man of late yeares. Well, you are well come home M. Iewell. Nowe youre Antiquites are spent, a poore mans tale maye be heard. But what saieth this honest man? Lett vs heare.

Iewell. His wordes be these. It w [...]s forbidden in the primitiue Churche, In summa de Diuinis officiis. that no m [...]n shoulde speake with tongues, onlesse there were some present to expounde it. For what shoulde speaking auaile without vnderstanding? And hereof grewe a laudable custome that after the ghospell was read litterally, it shoulde straight way be expounded in the Vulguar tongue. But w [...]at shall we doo in our daies, when as there is none at all, or very seldom that rea [...]eth or heareth and vnderstandeth? It seemeth it were better nowe to holde their peace, then so to singe.

Stapleton Lo yowe haue this weighty authorite placed last, that it might best be remembred, and brought in place of Abdias and diuers other writers. But truly what M. Iewell will gather thereof, I see not, onlesse he will frame his reasons thus.

When the ghospell is reade in Latine, M. Iewel­les Argu­ment. it muste be expounded in the Vulgar tounge.

Ergo the Seruice was in nei [...]her Greke nor Latin within the first 600. yeres. Or thus.

[Page] No man vnderstandeth the Seruice.

Ergo it is in the Vulguar tounge.

This is a very Vulguar Conclusion.

Iewell. Note: The 207. Vntruthe For none of all the­se Fathers haue pro­ued M. Iewelles purpose. The .208 Vntruthe For this hathe not yet bene shewed.Here haue I alleaged for prou [...]e (207) of our purpose of the old Fa­thers, Clemens Alexādrinus, Origen, S. Basil, S. Hierō, Theodoretus, Sozomenus, and Isidorus: of the later writers, Aeneas Syluius, Inno­centius tertius, Iohn Billet, Thomas of Aquine, Lyra, Durandus, and Eckius. Therfore I trust, M. Harding will no more denie but we (208) are able to shewe somewhat, that the Common Seruice in the primi­tiue Churche, was in some other tounge, and not onelye in Greke or Latine.

Nowe the Battaill is fought. M. Iewell crieth a Retraict, and bloweth vpp the Victory. Yow see the Ranke of his Capitai­nes bothe younge and olde: you haue felte the dynte of their weapons. Some haue geuen drie blowes, Some haue striken neuer a stroke. Other came vtterly to late. Not one hath stri­ken right downe. And all by the default of M. Iewell, sha­mefully Abusing so faithefull Captaines. Yet he reneweth the Challenge and saieth.

Iewell. The 209 Vntruthe For M. Iewell will neuer yel [...].If M. Harding be able to shewe any such sufficient example of his side. I will yelde according to promise.

To the whiche thus I answer. M. Iewell hath brought no­thinge. Lesse then nothinge M. Harding coulde not bringe. Ergo he hathe brought as sufficient examples as M. Iewell. And then: Ergo M. Iewell muste yelde according to promise. Againe M. Iewell hathe brought no example of anye other Seruice then in Greke and Latine in the firste 600. yeares. Ergo it is no Vntruthe to saie, that M. Iewell can bringe no suche thinge. Ergo In the primitiue Churche the Seruice was onely in Greke and Latine, Ergo manye countres of Asia the lesse whiche (as D. Harding hathe proued) vnderstode no Greke, Fraunce and great parte of Afrike whiche vnderstode no Latin, had their Seruice the one in Greke, the other in La­tin, bothe in a tounge whiche they vnderstode not. Ergo So­me [Page 100] countres in the first 600. yeres had their Seruice in a stran­ge tounge. Ergo ones againe M. Iewell of necessite must yel­de and Subscribe.

Harding. The people off Gallia or Fraunce had their Seruice then in Latin, as all the west Churche had.

Iewel. The 210. Vntruthe slaunde­rous.The 79. Vntruthe. Boldely auoutched, but no waye proued.

It is proued M. Iewell by the place whiche your selfe allea­geth out of Sulpitius, especially if yowe had put in the whole wordes, and not broken it of in the middle, as if you had had the Choynecough. The whole place is this. At what time S. Martin should be created bishop of Tours in Fraūce, Sulpitius saieth.Lib. 1. in vita S. Martini. Inter episcopos qui affuerant praecipué Defensor quidam no­mine dicitur restitisse. Vnde animaduer sum est grauiter illum le­ctione prophetica tunt notatum. Amonge the bishops that were present, one whose name was Defensor, is reported to haue re­sisted aboue the rest. Whereof it was perceiued he was chec­ked by the prophet, then readde. And then it foloweth which M. Iewell alleageth. Nam cum fortuitu lector, cui legendi eo die officium erat, interclusus a populo defuisset, turbatis ministris, pag. 184. dum expectatur qui non aderat, vnus e circumstantibus sumpto psalterio quem primum versum inuenit, arripuit. Psalmus autem hic erat. Ex ore infantium & lactentium perfecisti laudem, The .211. Vntruthe In nip­ping of the last wordes of Sul­pitius. propter inimicos tuos, vt destruas inimicum & Defensorem (these wordes M. Ie­well brake of) quo l [...]cto clamor populi tollitur, pars aduersa con­funditur. For whereas by chaunce the Reader, whose office was to reade in the Church that day, was shutte out by meane of the throunge, and the ministres were troubled, looking a­bout for him that was not there, one of the companie tooke the psalter and readde that verse, that came nexte to hande. The verse of the psalme was this. Out of the mouthe of in­fantes and sucklinges thou hast wrought praise, to destroye the enemy and Defensor. Which being read (the name of De­fensor [Page] being heard) the people made a shoote, and the contra­rye part was confounded.Iewell. pag 184. Here (saieth M. Iewell) whether it were in the Vulguar tounge or in the Latin, it was a tounge kno­wen to the people. To the whiche I awnswere, that whether the people vnderstode it or no, certaine it is the psalme was read in Latin. For the cause of the shoote that the people made was, the worde of the verse Defensorem, which is a Latine wor­de and no frenche. Bicause thereby they toke the bishopp (whose name was Defensor) to be noted in that verse. Nowe as I will not contende but that some of the people there pre­sent vnderstode that verse being read in Latin, so is it moste manifest that the common frenche people had their proper frenche tounge for their Vulguar tounge beside the Latine. This is euident not only by that which D. Harding alleageth in this Article, but by this same writer him selfe Sulpitius Seu [...] ­rus, testifying that then at that time and in that countre whe­re the Seruice was in Latin, as it is before manifest, the people spake yet Gallicé & Celticé the frenche tounge and the Celti­call. For in this Dialogue of S. Martins life when the course came to Gallus to speake, excusing his rusticite of language, his felowe saied vnto him.Lib. 3. Tu vero, vel Celticé aut si mauis Gal­licé loquaris, dummodo iam Martinum loquaris. Speake vnto vs either in the Celtes language, or if thou haddest rather, in the Galloes language, so that thou speake of Martin. And after­warde he calleth sellulam rusticanam, a countre stoole, in the frenche tounge tripetiam which the lerned call tripodem. Thus in Sulpitius his time all moste xij.c. yeares past the Latin Ser­uice was vsed in Fraunce, and yet the Latin was not the Vul­gar tounge. Whereof it must folowe that either all the people vnderstoode Latin beside their mother tounge, or els had their Seruice in a tounge whiche they vnderstoode not.

Sn [...]ygou­danus in praefat. in psal.For farder proufe of the Latin Seruice in Fraunce it is to be remembred that the Latin psalter whiche S. Hierom tran­slated [Page 101] at the request of Damasus is of the olde writers called Gallicanum exemplar, bicause the Churches of Gallia folowed that copie.

Harding. The faithe hath continued in this lande amonge the En­glishe people from the 14. yeare off the reigne off Mauritius the Emperour, allmost these .1000. yeares.

Iewell. The .211. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The 80. Vntruthe. His examples reache nothing so farre.

Mauritius began his reigne in the yeare of our Lorde 582· In the xiiij. yeare of his reigne, Saint Augustin was sent to our countre to preache the faith. The History of Bede in the first booke the xxiij. chapter witnesseth so. Therefore it is no Vntruthe for D. Harding to saie so. Touching the firste coming in of the faith to vs Englishmen, when I come to the 91. Vntruthe, I shall speake at large.

Harding. As concerning the order off Common prayers and publi­ke Seruice in suche sorte as we haue nowe and that age had not, Sainte Paule mentioneth nothinge, neither speaketh one worde in that whole Chapter, but off the vse of the miracu­lous gifte as is saied before. And therefore his sayinges out of that chapter be not fittly alleaged of M. Iewell, and the rest of our aduersaries, against the maner of prayers, and Seruice off the Churche nowe receiued, and of longe tyme vsed.

Iewell. The 212. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. The 213. Vntruthe For no olde Do­ctours doThe 81. Vntruthe. For Sundrie Doctours bothe olde and new al­leage these wordes to this selfe same purpose.

This Vntruthe was well noted M. Iewell, if yowe be able as well to proue it. Consider good Readers, the whole Accu­sation whiche these disobedient Children of Gods Churche, haue layed in against their Mother for the publike Seruice in [Page] the Latin tounge, the onelye Scripture, by whiche the [...] char­ge all Christendome beside wi [...]h the breache of Gods com­maundement, [...] w [...]rdes to that purpose. is the place of S. Paule in the fi [...]ste epistle the xiiij. Chapter to the Corinthians. It behoueth therefore M. Iewell and his felowes openlye, plainelye, and abundantly to proue that the wordes of S. Paule in that Chapter do proue and Commaunde a Vulgar Seruice. Vpon this place of S. Paule lyeth the only Staye of all this Alteration of Gods Ser­uice. This therefore ought clerely, plentifully and with­out all ambiguite be proued and discussed. But (good Rea­ders) suche is the weakenes of their groundes, that they can bringe no one olde Doctour expounding that place as a Cō ­maundement of the Seruice to be had in a Vulguar and kno­wen tounge to the Common people. This weakenesse, this feblenesse shall nowe appeare in M. Iewell who will seme to be able to saie as muche herein, as any of all the rest. For in all that he hathe Replied against this place of D. Harding, where this place of holy Scripture, is by him opened and declared, he hathe not brought one olde Doctour to expounde the place as he and his felowes dothe expounde it. Let vs consider M. Iewelles whole Replie to this place.

Iewell. The .214. Vntruthe For by-this gra­unte your cause is muche hindred, as shall [...]ppeare.We may safely graunte some parte of M. Hardinges longe talke, without (214) preiudice of our cause. In dede S. Paul in the place alleaged, spake of the gifte of tounges as it was a speciall miracle endu­ring onely for a while, not gotten by labour or study, but freelye in­spired by the Sprite of God.

Loe M. Iewell graunteth that S. Paule in that place to the Corinthians spake of the gifte of tounges &c. This gifte off tounges the Corinthians abused, whiles in Common assem­blies not at praiers proper to the Christians, but at Prea [...]hin­ges, to the whiche infidels and all other resorted, they talked in straunge tounges, whiche the assistants vnderstode not, and were not therefore edified thereby. This S. Paule founde [Page 102] faulte withall, bicause in suche assemblies it was a time of ho­milies and exhortations, where the people ought to be edified. This then being graunted to be (as it is) the principall purpo­se of S. Paule in that place, let vs see howe M. Iewell can picke out his Vulguar Seruice out of the rest. He foloweth and saieth.

Iewel. The .215. Vntruthe For D. [...]. saied. It is not by way of mi­racle. He saied not It is no [...] a­ny Miracle at all. M. I [...]w [...]ll al­tered the wordes to make matter for a scoffe. The .216. Vntruthe ioyned w [...]the a Slaunder and open Iniury to the Vni­u [...]rs [...]ll C [...]urche of [...] manye h [...]n [...]r [...]d y [...]r [...]s. [...]ipr. lib. 4. epi [...]t. 9. But the Latine tounge (saieth M. Harding) as it is nowe commonly vsed in the Romane Se [...]uice, is not geuen by any suche prompting of the holye Ghoste, nor is now (215) any Miracle at all. Therfore the place of S. Paule cānot be applied vnto i [...]. We graunte well, it is no miracle, as it is nowe vsed, nor any waie sa­uoureth of the Sprit of God. But this is a great miracle to see either any man so (216) wicked, that so will vse it: or so impudent that so will defende it, or so patiēt that so wil suffer it. This verely is a marueilous miracle.

Nowe M. Iewelll dothe his kinde. Nowe he doeth his Fa­ther the diuell good Seruice. Nowe he plaieth the right Pro­testant. He chargeth the Churche of God with wickednesse, that hath vsed these xv.c. yeares the Latin Seruice in the La­tin Churche. He calleth it an Impudency to defende the vni­uersall practise of so many hundered yeres, and saieth they are very patient whiche can so suffer it. If it be wickednesse that hathe so longe and so vniuersally bene committed, then lett vs saye to yowe M. Iewell in defence of oure forefathers off xv.c. yeares, that whiche S. Cyprian saied to Pupianus the heretike in defence of six yeres only. Nisi apud te purgati fue­rimus & sententiae tua absoluti, etiam sex annis nec fratern [...]as ha­buerit episcopum nec plebs praepositum, nec grex pastorem, n [...]c eccl [...]sia gubernatorem, nec Christus antistitem, nec deus sacerdotem. Subue­niat Pupianus & s [...]ntentiam dicat &c. Vnlesse we be iudged innocent of thee, and absolued by thy sentence (o Pupianus saied S. Cyprian, and o M. Iewell saye I) then not all these six yeares (I saie allmoste these sixtene hundr [...]d yeres) neith [...]r the brotherhood had a bishop, neither the people an oue [...]seer, n [...]i­ther the flocke a Pastour, nor the Church [...] a gouuernour, nor [Page] Christe a bishop, nor God a priest. Let then Pupianus come helpe and geue sentence &c. Let then M. Iewell of pitie suc­our the poore departed Christians of fore time, whiche haue wickedly vsed the Latine Seruice, and none other. If it be im­pudency to defende suche an vniuersall and Continuall pra­ctise of Gods Churche, then what will M. Iewell pronounce of S. Augustine,Ad [...]anu [...] ­rium [...]pist. 18. who saieth, De hoc quod tota per orbem frequen­tat Eccl [...]sia, quin ita faciendum sit, disputare, insolentissimae insaniae est. To dispute or call in doubte that whiche the vniuersall Churche through out the worlde frequenteth, whether it ought to be done or no, it is the point of a moste arrogant madnesse. It is like that M. Iewell will saie that S. Augustine him selfe was impudent and madde to write so. Suche wic­kednesse we committ, (M. Iewell) that vse the Latine Seruice, and so impudent we are that defende the same. For we defen­de and practise herein that, whiche the whole Churche off God bothe East and weste, bothe Greke and Latine hath euer in the publike and approued Seruice vsed and obserued. As it hathe euidently appeared by that hitherto M. Iewell with all his labour, Conference, and helpe of his felowe protestants that haue writen before him, hath not yet alleaged one poore Countre that had the publike Seruice in anye other tounge then Greke and Latine, vnlesse he will take parte withe Schis­matikes and heretikes. Thus M. Iewell by his Miracle, hathe proued him selfe a very Monster. For neuer was there a more Monstrous saying of anye Christen man, and one that bea­reth the roome of a bishop, then the wordes of M. Iewell last­ly auouched.

Iewell. The 217. Vntruthe Slaunde­ro [...]s. For D. Har­ding ma­de no s [...] ­c [...]e Ar­gument.M. Harding hereof semeth to reason after this sorte. S. Paule fore­badde the Corinthians to vse the spe [...]iall miracle and gif [...]e off God without pr [...]fiting the Congregati [...]n. Ergo, Nowe h [...]uing the Latine tou [...]ge without miracles, we may mini [...]ter the Seruice therein although the Congregation [...]aue no profite by it. Thi [...] reason is straunge and holdeth as simply as the reste.

[Page 103]This reason is your owne M. Iewell, It is not D. Hardin­ges. It is straunge in dede, and holdeth as simply as the rest doe in this your Replie, all of your owne making, all slaunderous­ly forged vppon Doctor Harding, all peuishely and childishly framed of youre selfe. Suche lewde shifting becometh Boyes and Children, or rather Cōtentious Sophistes in scholes. But of this youre Demeanour I trust you haue hearde more par­ticularly in an other place. The reason of Doctour Hadinge is this.

S. Paule in that Chapter to the Corinthians speaketh not one worde off the Publike Seruice but off the vse off theyr miraculouse Gifte. D. Har. Argumēt

Ergo Master Iewell and his felowes haue not fittely alle­aged those wordes off S. Pawle to proue the Vulguar Seruice.

This is the Argument of D. Hardinge, as to him that will consider his wordes aboue alleaged it maye euidently appea­re. To this Argument bicause. Master Iewell either woul­de not or coulde not answere, therefore he thought good vtterly to dissemble it, and to make an other off hys owne in place thereof. Let vs procede with M. Iewelles text.

Iewell. Yet hathe he geuen Speciall Aduertisement in the Margin, that this place of S. Paule, serueth nothinge to our purpose.

Stapletō. This was not only his Note in the Margin, but his Conclu­sion in the text, if you had listed to marke. But what saie you to the Note?

Iewell. The .218 Vntru­thes. For no olde doctours take this place in M. Iewel les senc [...].If this Note be so certaine, and so Authenticall as he woulde seme to make it, then were the Doctours bothe newe and olde that toke it otherwise, not well aduised.

This is a small Absurdite in you M. Iewell, specially with your brother Calfhill, who setteth so litle by the doctours Iud­gement vpon holy Scripture, that he appealeth from them, and protesteth to the Reader (full protestant like) that he will not [Page] be bounde vnto them, as being able (he saieth) to charge all the Fathers euery one of them from Christes time hetherto with some grosse errour or other.In his answer to the firste Article of the Cros­se. And your self Master Iewell when you were ones pressed with the vniuersall consent of all the Fa­thers, touching the Inuocation of Saintes, did you not answere these wordes. Est communis error Patrum, It is a Common Errour of the Fathers? Thus you answered then, yet nowe you will seme to holde sadly by them. Thus you laye on bothe si­des, and like as the Stoikes of Athens before the people wor­shipped the Goddes and confessed a multitude, but at home in their houses disputed againste all suche vanityes, so in youre challēge and here you wil seme to Reuerēce the Fathers, but an other tyme when it shall like you, you set naught by them, and care not for them. And thus one of you saieth one thinge, ano­ther saieth an other thinge. In answearing to M. Iewell we must stand to the Fathers Iudgement, which we most gladly doe and euer haue done. In answering to Calfhill, we must proue the Fathers Iudgement to be good, and require him to stande to thē. But what are those Fathers which toke that place of S. Pau­le as you do, to proue a Vulguar Seruice thereby? You go forth and saie.

Iewell. The .219. Vntru­in mang­ling the wordes of Lyra, as shall ap­peare.For Lyra writing vppon the same, saieth thus. Iff the people vnder­stande the prayer off the Priest, t [...]ey are the better brought vnto God, and with greater Deuotion they answere Amen. Therefore S. Paule saieth. Iff thou being a P [...]ieste b [...]sse with the Spirite and the people vnderstande thee not, what profite then hath the people being simple and not vnderstanding thee? Therefore in the primitiue Church, bothe the blessinges and all other thinges, were done in the Vulgar toungue. The vulgar toungue, saieth Lyra, was vsed in the Primitiue Churche, vpon occasion of these wordes of S. Paule.

Stapleton This was the Iudgement of Nicolaus de Lyra. You were wonte M. Iewell to saye, his name was Nicolas the Lyar, but af­terwarde was called Nicolaus de Lyar. So muche you esteme this writer. This man was a grey Frier of S. Francisces Order, [Page 104] he liued about about two hundred yeares agoe. He was lerned and is so accompted: but yet farre vnder the estimation of anye Doctour or Father of the Churche. To this place I haue befo­re answered in the 78. Vntruthe, and haue there declared howe litle it maketh for the vulgar Seruice. But nowe to saye some­what more therein, 1 firste it is to be noted that M. Iewell hathe mangled and falsifyed his Auhor. For when he asketh the que­stion. VVhat profit hath the people being simple and not vnderstanding thee? It foloweth in Lyra (whi­che M. Iewell thought good to nippe of quite in the middest) Nihil aut modicum: quia nescit se conformare tibi, qui es Minister Ecclesiae respondendo, Amen. Nothinge or litle. For he can not conforme him selfe vnto thee whiche arte the Minister of the Churche, by answering, Amen. 2 Againe whereas M. Iewell sa­yeth out of Lyra, the blessinges and all other thinges wer done in the Vulgar toungue, the wordes of Lyra are, Benedictiones & caetera communia. The blessinges and other Common thinges, not, and all other thinges were done in the Vulgar toungue. 3 Last of al Lyra in all these wordes dothe not gather or conclude, that the Seruice ought to be in the Vulgar tounge, as you and youre fe­lowes doe M. Iewell. And therefore you haue brought yet no doctoure newe or olde that applieth this place of Saint Paule as you doe. For it is two thinges to saie. In that wordes S. Paule spake of the Seruice in the Vulgar toungue. And to saie. S. Pau­le in those wordes Commaunded the Seruice to be allwaies in the Vulgar toungue. For the first you haue alleaged Master Iewell no olde doctour, but onely Lyra and Iustinian as it shall anon appeare. For the laste you can alleage neyther olde nor newe. This is youre owne Singular Opinion and He­resye.

Iewell. In the Councell of Acon it is writen thus.C [...]ncil. A­qu [...]sg [...]an. C [...]. 132. The voice and minde off thē that singe vnto the Lorde in the Churche, must agree together. The reason there­of is taken out of this place of S. Paule. I will singe with my Spiri [...], I will sin­ge [Page] with my minde.

The .220 Vntruthe This Co­ouncel of Acon do­the not applie this place of S. Pau­le to the Vulguar Seruice.This is a morall application, this is no literall Deduction. He that celebrateth the Seruice (and of such the Councell spea­keth) and praieth for the whole flocke, ought to vnderstande that which he saieth, to the entent he maye praie with spirite and with mynde. But the ignorant laie people who are not bounde to celebrat the Seruice, but to assiste and geue theyr as­sent vnto it, and of whom that Councell in those wordes spea­keth not, are not bounde particularly to vnderstande what is sa­ied or done, being ones first instructed of the whole sufficient­ly. And therefore in the nexte Canon of the same Councell it is prouided who, and what men, and with what Moderation the Synginge in the Churche shoulde be vsed. The wordes are these. Tales ad legendum, cantandum, & psallendum in Ecclesia con­stituantur, Can. 133. qui non superbè sed humiliter, debitas Domino laudes per soluant: & suauitates Lectionis ac Melodiae & Doctos demulceant, & minus Doctos erudiant. Plusque velint in L [...]ctione vel cantu po­puli Aedificationem, quàm popular [...]m vanissimam Adulationem. Let such be appointed to Reade and to singe in the Churche, which may praise almighty God not vaine gloriously, but humbly: which with their swete Melody and softe reading, may bo­the delight the lerned, and instructe the vnlerned, desyringe ra­ther by their reading and singinge to Aedifie the people, then to seke after a vaine applause and Commendation of the peo­ple. By this it appeareth, the Councell applied the wordes of S. Paule not to proue a vulgar Seruice, as M. Iewell and his felo­wes doe, but to moue those whiche did singe and reade in the Churche, to doe that thinge from the harte not by mouthe o­nely. Wherein they did but renewe the auncient decree off the fourthe Councelll of Carthage, where the Priest appointing one that shoulde singe in the Churche,This was in the y [...] ­re of oure Lorde 430. (for not euery one that lifted, songe at that time, as in your disordered Congregation Master Iewell, nowe they doe) sayeth vnto hym these wordes. [Page 105] Vide vt quod ore Cantas, Corde Credas, & quod corde credis, operi­bus comprobes. See that that whiche thou singest withe thy mouthe, thou beleue in harte, and that which thou beleuest in harte, thou perfourme in dedes.

Chrisostom saieth, S. Paule driueth (221) the whole tenour of this matter vnto the profit of the hearers. These be his wordes.Conc. Cart. 4. Can. 10 The 221. Vntruthe For Saint Paule do­the not by Chrysostoms minde driue the Celebra­ting off the Seruice to the profit of the hea­rers. S. Paules saying standeth thus. Onlesse I vtter my wordes so as they maye clerely and plainely be perceiued of you, but onely shewe me selfe to haue the gifte of tounges, ye s [...]all haue [...]o fruite of those thinges whiche you know not. For what profit can ye geate of a voi­ce, that ye can not vnderstan [...]?

M. Iewell hathe sone done with his newe Doctours. Nowe he cometh in with his olde. And yet of all the Doctours, he alleageth only Chrysostom. And he is in dede an olde Do­ctour, but yet no olde Doctours. Now howe dothe Chryso­stom applie this place of S. Paule to proue a Vulgar Seruice? Mary he saieth, that S. Paule driueth the whole tenour of this mat­ter vnto the profit of the hearers. Of whiche Matter M. Iewell? Of celebrating the Churche Seruice? No M. Iewell. Yowe maie not so deceiue vs. Chrysostome expounding this four­tenth Chapter of S. Paule in the first to the Corinthians, de­clareth the purpose of the Aposte in the beginning of the Chapter to be thus. Comparat inter se dona, Chrysost. In. 1. Cor. Homil. 35 extenuans illud lin­guarum, non inutile prorsus quidem, nec vtile tamen vehementer per sese ostendens. The Apostle compareth the giftes of the holye Ghoste betwene them selues, extenuating the gifte of toun­ges, shewing that it is not vtterly vnprofitable, yet by it selfe not very profitable. S. Paule persisting in this comparison, soone after the beginning of the Chapter, transferring the matter to him selfe saieth.1. Cor. 14. Nowe brethern if I come to yowe my selfe speaking in tounges, what shall I profit you, vnlesse I spea­ke vnto you either by reuelation, or by knowl [...]adge, or by prophecye, or by Doctrine? Vpon these wordes of the Apostle Chryso­stome saied the wordes whiche Master Iewell hathe alleaged, [...]s expounding the literall meaninge off the Apostle, Saint [Page] Paules saying standeth thus. vnlesse I vtter my wordes so that they maye clerely and plainely be perceiued of you, and so forthe, as they lye in the text of M. Iewell last alleaged. Nowe I woulde M. Iewell him selfe woulde Iudge whether these wordes ei­ther of the Apostle or of Chrysostome do speake or meane a­ny thinge at all of celebrating the Churche Seruice. Here in this place, Donum linguarum, & prophetiae the gifte of tounges and of Interpretation are compared together. But prophetare, to haue that gifte of Interpretation, is (as the Apostle him sel­fe in that place expoundeth) hominibus loqui, ad [...]dificationem, exhortation [...]m, consolationem. To speake vnto men, to aedifie them, to exhorte them, to comforte them. This is done in ho­milies and sermons, not in the Churche Seruice, not in pub­licke prayers and blessinges. If there be in this Chapter anye wordes spokē of the Church Seruice, they are the other which folowe many sentences after, where the Apostle saieth, If thou blesse in Spirit, howe shall he that supplieth the roome of the ignorant, answer Amen to thy thankes geuing? they are I saie these wordes, not the other aboue recited, vpon the whiche Chrysostome made that exposition whiche M. Iewell brought. Therefore these wordes of Chrysostome are by M. Iewell brought besi­de the purpose, as the whiche speaketh nothinge of the Vulgar Seruice, nor of applying the wordes of S. Paule thereto, as M. Iewell and his felowes doe applie them.

Iewel. The .222. Vntruthe For this is S. Pau­les owne text, not the say­ing of Chryso­stome.And againe the same Chrisostom saieth farther. Euen so you onlesse you geue a sounde that maye be knowen, as the prouerbe [...], yowe shall throwe for the your wordes into the winde, that is to saie, [...]e shall speake to no man.

Here M. Iewell notably betraieth him selfe, and openeth in some parte the great affected vanite whiche he vseth in this whole Replie to alleage And multyplie Doctours without purpose. For these wordes whiche are here layed forthe for a shewe of Chrysostoms wordes, are no wordes of Chryso­stome at all: but they are the wordes of S. Paule and of that [Page 106] text whiche Chrysostome there handleth. And M. Iewell straightwayes will alleage them for Saint Paules (as you shall heare) but presently he alleageth them solemnelye bothe in Latin and in English, as the wordes of Chrysostome to make a shewe (as I saied) of Doctours. This is but a parte of that va­nite in the whiche he a bundeth through this whole Replie, as hathe bene in good parte declared and published to the world allready. Touching the matter they appertaine expressely to the wordes aboue alleaged, as to him whiche will consider but the text of the Apostle it is euident. They appertaine to that whiche the Apostle calleth Donum linguarum, the gifte off tounges, whiche except it be ioyned withe prophetia or Inter­pretation, whereby the Congregation maye be edified, exhor­ted and comforted, it auaileth litle to the Audience, but are as though it were wordes throwen to the winde. All this is spo­ken of preaching and opening the wordes,In cōment. in 1. cor. 14. Apertionem sermo­nis Saint Ambrose calleth it. For as he saieth vpon this place. Docere nemo poterit n [...]si intelligatur. No man can teache vnlesse he be vnderstanded of the hearers. And Chrysostome vpon this place inmediatly saieth.Chrisost. ibidem. Ita nihil habere magnificū linguas vndique fere monstrauit. Thus he sheweth euery waye (mea­ning the similitudes of the Musicall instrument and of the Trumpet before alleaged) that the gifte of tounges is of no great value. And he compareth that gifte to a singer. For as if yowe plucke one finger awaye from the rest, it can doe you no more Seruice, so if they vsed the gifte of tounges, without prophetia, that is, the Interpretation of tounges, it were but a vaine and vnprofitable matter. This therefore that M. Ie­well hathe hitherto alleaged, toucheth nothinge the Vul­guar Seruice, nor is not anye whit by Chrysostome applied thereunto. And yet is Chrysostome the onelye Auncient Doctour that M. Iewell here alleageth, promising before to alleage Doctours bothe olde and newe.

[Page] Iewell. The 223. Vntruthe For Iusti­nian ap­plieth not this place to the Vulgar Seruice.So likewise the Emperour Iustinian, where he commaundeth all bishoppes and priestes to minister the Sacramentes and other praiers alowde, and withe open voice, he auoucheth the same by this place of S. Paule. For thus he saieth. So the Apostle saieth: If thou onely blisse or praie with thy Spirit, howe shall he that supplieth the roome off the vnlerned, saie, Amen, vnto thy blessing? For he knoweth not what thou saiest.

Iustinian was an Emperour, he was no Doctour of the Churche suche as M. Iewell promiseth to bringe. And he applieth this Scripture not to the Vulguar Seruice, whiche he neuer knewe other then Greke in the Greke Churche, and Latin in the Latin Churche. But he applieth that place of S. Paule to the lowde speaking of the priest at Seruice time. Of the whiche matter we haue treated before at large in the 78. Vntruthe, where the meaning of this Constitution is expo­unded, by the like sayinges of S. Augustine and S. Cyprian. It maketh no more for the Vulgar Seruice (vnto the whiche M. Iewell and his felowes most impudently vpon their owne heads, without the Authorites of the Aunciēt Doctours do applie this place) then doth lowde speaking of the priest at this daye in the Masse, where the people also answereth Amen.

Iewell. The .224 Vntruthe For it ap­peareth neuer a whit so.It appeareth by these Authorities, notwithstandinge M. Hardin­ges note, that S. Paule maketh somewhat for our purpose.

It appeareth not by anye of all these Authorities that the Seruice ought to be in the Englishe tounge (that was D. Har­dinges note) or in any other Vulguar tounge. It appeareth by none of them all, that the place of S. Paule is applied to pro­ue a Vulgar Seruice. It appeareth thereby M. Iewell can brin­ge not one olde Doctour to proue it. And so it appeareth that M. Iewell hathe noted a wronge Vntruthe, and that he and his felowes doe most Vntruly applie this place of S. Paule to proue their schismaticall alteration of Gods Seruice. But now M. Iewell bicause all Doctours doo faile him, bicause he can not builde vpon them, he saieth he wil builde vpon holy Scri­pture it selfe. For thus he foloweth the matter.

[Page 107] A Burthē of Vntru­thes. whiche particularly shall be noted in the Answer hereunto folo­wing.Howbeit we builde not our proufes vpon the Miracle and giftes of tounges, that lasted but for a while, but vpon these expresse and plaine wordes of S. Paule, which no man can denie. He that speaketh with tounge speaketh not vnto men, but vnto God. For no man heareth him. If the Trumpet geue an vncertaine voice, who shall prepare him selfe vnto the warre? E­uen so you, onelesse ye vtter such wordes, as haue signification, howe shall it be knowen, what ye saie? For ye shall speake into the winde. I will praie with my Spirite, I will p [...]aie with my minde. I will singe with spirite, I will singe with my minde. If thou blisse with thy Spirit, howe shall the ignorant saie, Amen, vnto thy thankes geuinge? For he knoweth not what thou saiest. In the Churche I had leuer to speake fiue wor­des with my minde, so that I maie instruct others, then a thousande wordes with my to [...]ge. Let al thinges be done to the profit of the people. These words be euident. The exposition of Lyra, of the Councell of Acon, of Chrysostom, and Iustinian is plaine. And yet must we vpon M. Hardinges warrant in the nedes beleue that all this maketh nothinge for the English Seruice in the Churche of Englande.

Stapletō. There nedeth no more but this only place to proue you M. Iewel a wicked deceiuer of Gods people, a wilful Corrupter of Gods worde, and a most Impudent Forger of Notorious Vn­truthes. This is a greuous Accusation, you will saye. Verely it is so. But if it be not a true and vpright Accusation, proclaime me for an open slaunderer, and neuer to be credited, at Paules Crosse or where els you list. I saie therefore. You haue in this place Corrupted Gods worde. In that Corruption you haue deceiued Gods people, and you haue committed diuers Noto­rious Vntruthes. All this I proue. He corrupteth Gods worde, which bringeth a parte thereof to persuade one waye, leauing out the other part which should persuade the contrary waie. So do you in this place M. Iewell. Ergo, &c. Your ende and intent in this place is to persuade your Reader that for the Seruice to be had in the Vulgar tounge, you haue the word of S. Paule to builde vpon, and to haue it in a Strange tounge, you haue the same wordes against vs. Is not this your intent and purpose in this place? Goe you not aboute in this place (as you did before out of Lyra, the Councel of Acon, Chrysostom and Iustinian, so nowe out of the wordes of S. Paule him selfe to proue that [Page] the Seruice ought not to be in a straunge tounge? The Read [...] which hath perused the whole issue which I ioyne with you in this Vntruthe can not be ignorant hereof. Then I saie you bringe certain wordes of S. Paule which may seme to leade that waye, and you leaue out other of his wordes which doe expres­sely declare that he meaneth no such matter.

The .225. Vntruthe in guile­fully lea­uing oure the wor­des of the Apostle.As nowe to come to your wordes, first you alleage S. Pau­les wordes thus. He that speaketh with tounge, speaketh not vnto men, but vn­to God, for no man heareth him. It foloweth immediatly which you le­aue out, Spiritus autem loquitur mysteria. But the Spirit speaketh mysteries, or as the grekes do reade that text, Spiritu licet myste­ria loquatur. Although he (which speaketh with tounge,) in the Spirit speaketh mysteries. I saie if you had added these wordes, it should haue appeared that S. Paule neither spake those wordes of vttering the Seruice in a straunge tounge, neither did vt­terly discommende speaking with tonges.Chrysost. et Theodoret. ibidem. For as Chrysostom and Theodoretus vpon this place do saie, those wordes are ad­ded, ne vel supernacaneum, vel inutile, temereque concessum put [...]mus. Lest we shoulde thinke the gifte of tounges to be superfluous, vnprofitable, or to be geuen of God without cause. And againe this being added (The Spirit speaketh mysteries, or, In the spirit he speaketh mysteries) the Reader might soone haue conceiued, that neither that speaking of tounges was vtterly to be discommen­ded, neither that same dyd any thinge appertaine to the Serui­ce in the latine tounge, where euery man knoweth, there is no such speaking of mysteries in Spirit. These wordes therefore haue bene by you guilefully lefte out M. Iewel thereby to blin­de the iudgement of the Reader, and to make him beleue that S. Paule had spoken those wordes, of speaking the Seruice in a straunge tounge. For to that purpose you alleaged those wor­des. Now to omitt the long processe of S. Paule which here fo­loweth, as is by you with the like fraude vtterly left out M. Ie­well, to omitte I saie the Comparison that S. Paule maketh be­twene [Page 108] Loqui lingua and prophetare, to speake with tonge, and to Interpret, the one edifying him selfe only, the other edifying the whole Congregation, whereby also the former wordes shoulde the better haue bene vnderstanded of the English Reader, let vs consider that which you next immediatly alleage fo­lowing in S. Paule not immediatly, but after manye sentences betwene. You alleage.

Iewell. Iff the Trumpet geue an vncertaine voice, who shall prepare him selfe vnto the warre? Euen so you vnlesse ye vtter such wordes, as haue such signification how shall it be knowen what ye saie? For ye shall spe [...]ke into the minde.

Stapleton All this is spoken of the Apostle to shewe that the gifte of ton­ges,Chrysost. ibid. is (as Chrysostome expoundeth) pulchrum necessarium­que donum, sed tum si qui interpretari possit, accedat. A commen­dable and necessarye gifte, but then if one that can interprete the toungue be added also. Here therefore M. Iewell (I doe not saye, hathe corrupted the Scripture) but hathe deceiued the Re­ader. For all this by the Iugement of Chrysostome and Theo­doret being spoken of the gifte of Interpretation to be ioyned with the gifte of toungues, what maketh it here against the La­tin tonge in the Seruice of the Latin Church, for the which M. Iewell alleaged it?

To procede with M. Iewells Allegation out of S. Paule,The .226 Vntru­the, in o­mittinge yet other word [...]s of the Apo­stle. be­holde good Readers howe much he hath omitted, necessarely appertayning to the vnderstanding of S. Paules minde. For af­ter these wordes the Apostle cōcludeth. Et ideo qui loquitur lingua oret vt interpretetur, And therefore he that speaketh with tonge (that is, he that hath that gifte) let him praie that he may Interpret. For (as saieth Chrysostom) si diligenter postulabit, po­tietur. If he aske it diligently, he shal obtaine it. And the reason why this gifte of Interpretatiō or vnderstanding is to be praied for, the Apostle addeth, saying. Nam si orem lingua, spiritus meus orat, mens autem mea sine fructu est. For if I praye in the Tonge, my Spirit prayeth, but my Mynde or vnderstanding is without fru [...]e. What meaneth saint Paule hereby? Speaketh he of saying [Page] the Seruice in the Latine or Greke tounge, whiche are bothe common toungues to the Latin or Greke Churche? Nothinge lesse. Chrysostom vppon this place saieth. There were off olde ti­me many whiche had the gifte of praying and the gifte of tounges io­yned together, Chrysost. ibidem. and they praied and founded out the Toungue, as the Persian or the Romaine toungue, but in Minde they vnderstode not what they sayed. Therefore (saieth the Apostle) if I praye with the toungue the Spirite praieth, that is the gifte whiche is geuen vnto me and whiche moueth my toungue: but the minde hathe no profit there­by. VVhat then is herein best to be done? VVhat ought we to aske off God? Forsothe to praye bothe with the Spirit and with the Minde. Thus farre Chrysostom.In commentar. ibidē. Thus also Theodoretus, and S. Am­brose do expounde this place. All this therefore beinge so spo­ken of the miraculous gifte of tonges, not of the Seruice it sel­fe in any straunge toungue, M. Iewel (alleaging a longe the te­xte of S. Paule) vtterly lette oute. For as before the gifte of spea­king with toungues, the Apostle called, Mysteria spiritu loqui, aedificare seipsum, to speake Mysteries in the Spirite, to speake to God, to aedifie him selfe, so nowe he calleth it Spiritu orare, to praye in the Spirite, Plena sine dubio Consolationis verba, al wor­des full of Consolation vndoubtedly (as Chrysostome saieth), and all commending the speaking in toungues, though the gif­te of Interpretation, be muche preferred before it. Bicause it edifieth more. Whiche edifying of the Congregation was the chefe and onely scope of the Apostle in this Chapter. This be­ing so concluded of the Apostle, he goeth forthe, and sayeth. Quid ergo est?The .227. Vntruthe For addinge to the Apostle. The worde What then is it? Or, as you haue hearde Chrysostome before to expounde it, What is beste and moste profitable to be done.? The Apostle answereth. And here co­me in the wordes that Master Iewell alleageth.

I will praie with My, is not in the texte of Sainte Paule. my Spirite, I will praie with My, is not in the texte of Sainte Paule. my Minde, I will singe with My, is not in the texte of Sainte Paule. my Spirite, I will singe with My, is not in the texte of Sainte Paule. my Minde. These words what they meane, you haue hearde before out of Chrysostome. Let vs goe forthe [Page 109] with the text of S. Paule as M. Iewell alleageth it.

Iff thou blisse with thy Spirit, howe shall the ignorant sue Amen vnto thy thankes geuing? For he knoweth not what thou saiest. In the Churche I had leuer &c.

In these wordes Loe, M. Iewell hath wickedly corrupted and mangled S. Paule. First, where he saieth,The .228. Vntruthe in adding to holye Scripture Iff thou blisse with thy Spirit· For the worde, Thy, is not in the text of the Apo­stle, but is presumptuosly added to holy Scripture by Master Iewell. For it is a matter that skilleth muche, and that alte­reth muche the meaning of the Apostle. The Apostle mea­neth here B [...]nedicere Spiritu, to blesse in Spirit, as he meaned before, orare spiritu, to praie in Spirit. That is, as Chryso­stome saieth, P [...]regrina lingua gratias agere. To blesse or geue thankes in a strange tounge, euen as before to praie in Spirit, was to vse the gifte of strange tounge in praier. 1 For the scope of the Apostle being in this place to debace the gifte of toun­ges, not vtterly, but in comparison of the gifte of Interpreta­tion, bicause this edifieth the whole congregation, the other 2 not, as before he vsed the Comparison of the musical instru­ment, whiche vnlesse it be in tune, deliteth not the hearer, and 3 of a Trumpet, whiche vnlesse it be blowen after the certain and accustomed noyse, it dothe not instruct the souldyar, as the Apostle vseth also herein the comparison of familiar cō ­munication 4 wherein if I vnderstande not the partye withe whom I speake, nor he me, bothe I to him, and he to me is barbarous, straunge, and vnprofitable, as he vsed also the ex­ample of priuat praier done by the gifte of toungues in a 5 straunge language where he that so praieth, vnderstandeth not him selfe what he praieth, and so his minde is not edified thereby, though he praie in the Spirit and vseth well the gifte of God, so nowe last of all the Apostle maketh an other ex­ample off the Common praier, and saieth. Iff thou blesse or geue thankes by the gifte of tounges, which is to praie open­ly [Page] in a tounge vtterlye straunge and vnknowen howe shall &c. This much for the worde Benedicere Spiritu, to blesse in Spirit, according to the meaning of Chrysostome. Nowe if the Apostle had saied (as Master Iewell alleageth him) If thou blesse in thy Spirit, it coulde not haue bene taken, for bles­sing by the gifte of tounges, as Chrysostom taketh it: For that gifte procedeth not of oure Spirit, but of the Spirit of God. And it is a kinde of blessing not in our Spirit, but in that Spirit, which as Chrysostome saieth, is Donum concessum lingua [...]que mouens. A gifte that is graunted, and that moueth the tounge. Verely a Miraculous gifte, geuen as Chrysostom saieth, Olim, in the olde time, in the very primitiue Churche, not geuen then in his time, or at any time sence.

The 229. Vnthruthe A foule and wic­ked de­priuatiō of holy ScriptureBut nowe to an other moste manifest corrupting of this text committed by M. Iewell: Iff thou blisse with thy Spirit, (saieth M. Iewell out of S. Paule) how shall the ignorant saie, Amen? Saint Paule hathe not so, but thus. The true wordes of S. Paule Howe shall he that sup­plieth the roome off the ignorant, saye Amen? So ha­ue all Copies bothe Greke and Latin, that are knowen to be extant. Beholde therefore good Reader, a moste manifest Corruption of holy Scripture by M. Iewell. It is greate skill whether we reade, the ignorant, or, he that supplieth the roo­me of the ignorant. Indoctum, saieth Chrysostome promiscuam plebem voca [...]. Prima­sius in 1. Cor. 14. Idiota qui. Idio [...]a [...]antū pro­priae lin­guae tenet. Se [...] [...]ius in 1. Co. 14 By the ignorant the Apostle meaneth the Com­mon people. But he that supplieth the roome of the igno­rant, and of the Common people, he that (as Primasius saieth) pro idiota, id est pro ignaro respond [...]t, Amen, answereth Amen for the ignorant, he is him selfe no ignorant, but lerned. He is called Idiota, whiche hathe skille onelye of his proper and Mother tounge: But whosoeuer hathe lerned the Common lerned tounge beside, as the Greke in the Greke Churche, the Latin in the Latin Churche, he is no more Idiota, but ac­compted [Page 110] amonge the lerned, and suche a one as maye supplie the roome of Idiota, and answer for the ignorant. Againe, Idiotam appellat eum, qui in laicorum ordine constitutus est. The Apostle (saieth Theodoretus) calleth that man Idiota, which is yet in the order of the laye people. But he that sup­plieth the roome of the Idiota, Theodore­ [...]u. in 1. Cor. 14. is or ought to be of the clergy. Thus much difference there is betwene the Ignorant, and him that supplieth the roome of the ignorant. Why therfore dothe M. Iewell thus wickedly corrupt the wordes of the Apostle? Why dothe he alleage, the ignorant, in stede off him that supplieth the roome of the ignorant? Is not this an euident and manifest Corruption of holye Scripture? Had it not bene much for the vauntage of M. Iewell to conceale those wordes of the Apostle, he woulde not so shamefully haue nipped them of, quite, in the middest. And who will trust yow nowe (M. Iewell) in doubtefull matters, whiche doe so deceiue vs in plaine thinges? In dede M. Iewell would haue S. Paule to saie that the Ignorant him selfe shoulde answere, Amen: whereby he thinketh he might conclude that they ought therefore to vnderstande the priest. But neither Saint Paule requireth the ignorant to answer, but him that suppli­eth the roome of the ignorant, neither dothe S. Paule speake here of the Seruice done in a Common lerned tounge, but in a strange tounge vsed by the waie of the miraculous gifte of tounges.

For (and marke well gentle Reader) there was in the pri­mitiue Churche in the Apostles time beside the Common praier and set Seruice of the Churche, a certain peculiar gifte of praying in a straunge tounge, of the whiche the Apostle here speaketh, and Chrysostome in an other place thus wri­teth. Vná cum his omnibus (Prophetiae, sanitatum, linguarum donum dicit) erat & precum donum, In epist. ad [...]om. Hen [...]. 14 quod & ipsum Spiritus di­cebatur. Quo qui praeditus erat, pro pl [...]be vniuersa preces fundebat. [Page] Beside all other giftes (of prophecy, of healing, and of toun­ges) there was also a gifte of praier, whiche was called, the gifte of the Spirit. He that had this gifte, praied for the whole multitude. And he geueth hereof the reason, shewing also the maner in these wordes. For whereas not knowing what is good for vs, we aske many thinges of God that are not profitable for vs, this gifte of praier came vpon some one of them whiche then liued, who for suche thinges as might be profitable for the whole con­gregation, bothe stoode him selfe and praied for all the other, and also taught the other. The Apostle therefore In the v [...]j. to the Ro­manes. here calleth by the na­me of Spirit bothe suche a gifte, and also that soule which receiued such gifte, and praied vnto God and mourned. For he that was founde worthy of this gifte, standing vpp withe great compunction off minde, and also with much lamentation, such lamentation I saie, as from the harte lyeth prostrat before God, and praieth for all suche thinges as are behoofull for the congregation. Of the whiche maner, the deacon at this daye is a token praying for all the people. Thus farre Chrysostome. This praying by the waie of a miracu­lous gifte, was no sett, ordinary, and appointed Seruice, to be readen out of the booke, as nowe we haue it, and as in Chry­sostoms time it was, but a maner of miraculous praying vpon the sooden, so as the Spirit moued. Againe he that had this gifte of praying, did not onely praye him selfe, but also alios edocebat, he taught and instructed other. To praie, it was not requisit he should be vnderstanded. For that was done gemitibus ijs qui ipsa quidem mente deo se prosternunt: by sighyn­ges, suche as from the harte doo prostrat them selues before God. But to teache other, it was necessary that he shoulde be vnderstanded. Therefore when anye man vsed that gifte of prayer withe the gifte of tounges together, praying in a straunge tounge, without prophetia the gifte of vnderstan­ding added thereunto, he spake mysteries, he prayed to God, he edified him selfe, he prayed in Spirit. But he edified not the [Page 111] hearers, he praied not (mente) in minde and vnderstanding. When he so praied, the lerned him selfe whiche supplied the roome of the ignorant did not vnderstande him, nor coulde not an­swer Amen to his praier. Why? Bicause he praied in a straun­ge tounge, bicause he vsed or rather abused (touching the edi­fying of other) the miraculous gifte of tounges.The .230 Vntruthe in leauing oute agai­ne other wo [...]d [...]s of the Apostle Chrisost. hom. 35. In. 1. Cor. Theodo­retus in. 1. Cor. 14. Oecume­nius in. 1. Cor. 14.

And therefore the Apostle immediatly sayeth (which wor­des also M. Iewell hath quite in his text left out, and so dece­uied ones againe his Reader.) For thou geuest thankes well, but the oth [...]r is not ed [...]fied. that is, as Chrisostom expoundeth, spiritu concitatus sonas, thou geuest out a sounde, being stirred vp with the Spirite: as Theodoretus expoundeth it. Thou prais [...]st God being moued with that diuine gifte, but he that heareth thee, is no whit edified. So Oecumenius saieth. The Apostle referring wor­thy praise to the gifte of tounges saieth, For thou geuest thankes well, &c. Thus by the minde of these lerned Fathers, all this geuing of thankes and blessing in the Spirit, or in a strange tounge, is a geuing of thankes or blessing by the waie of that miraculous gifte of tounges, not by vsing the sett and ordinary Seruice in any lerned or Common tounge knowen to the lerned that, supplieth the roome of the Ignorant. The Apostle in all this Chapter speaketh of no such Matter. You see therefore good Readers howe fittely and truly M. Iewell and his felowes do alleage this place of S. Paule against the Seruice in a common lerned tounge, suche as the Greke tounge is to the Greke Churche, and the Latin to the Latin Churche.

But let vs graunte a while to M. Iewell that S. Paule hath all this while spoken of the Seruice in a lerned tounge vnkno­wen to the Common ignorant people, let vs I saie for a while graunte it against the exposition of so many lerned Fathers, and against the very euidence of S. Paules text. Yet S. Paule saieth of such a one as so praieth. Tu quidem bene gratias agis. Thou geuest thankes well, Nay, saieth M. Iewell, It is a maruai­lous [Page] miracle that any man will be so wicked as so to vse it.M. Iewel calleth that thin­ge wicked of the whiche S. [...]aule by his opi [...]ion speaking, sai [...]t [...] was w [...]l do [...]e. These are your very wordes M. Iewell aboute the beginning of your text vpon this Vntruthe. Nowe I aske you M. Iewell.

Did S. Paule speake in this place of praying in a straunge tounge by waie of the miraculous gifte, which the speaker him selfe sometime vnderstode not, and which was done by some one man moued thereunto vpon the soden? Did he speake it of praying in a lerned tounge though vnderstanded of the spea­ker him selfe, yet not vnderstanded of the Common people, and ordinarely vsed for the Seruice of the Churche? If the fir­ste, then what maketh this for your vulgar Seruice? then why doe you bringe it here against the Seruice in a ler [...]ed tounge? then why do you and your felowes all, so stoutely applie this place to proue that the Seruice ought to be in the Vulgar toun­ge?A. dilem­ma to M. Iew [...]l. Last of all then howe do you bringe that miraculous pray­ing of some one man moued thereunto by the Spirit against the Ordinary sett Seruice of Gods Churche? If the seconde why do you call that wicked so to be vsed, and those men impudent which w [...]l [...] defena [...], which the Apostle in expresse wordes saieth, was VVell done. Answer to this dilemma M. Iewell with all the shiftes, phrases, gloses, and euasions that you can possibly deui­se. I thinke the best answer that you can make, is to prouide that our bookes be stayed at Grauesende, and the worlde may neuer see your nakednesse, wickednesse, and abominations.

The .231. Vnt [...]t [...]e in o [...]it­ti [...]g yet other [...]orde o [...] the [...]po [...]tle.Before I come to the rest of the wordes which you haue alleaged oute of S. Paule, I muste put the wordes whiche goe before, left out by you againe fraudulently M. Iewell. I saie, Fraudulently, bicause the concealing of them hathe hindered the truthe, as it shall nowe appeare. After that S. Paule had saied, Thou geuest well thankes but the other is not edified, it foloweth. I thanke God that I speake (my selfe also) with the tounge of you all. In cō [...]ē ­tarijs I [...]id [...]m that is, as Chrysostom expoundeth it, Theodoretus also and Oecumenius, I haue the gifte of tounges more then any of you [Page 112] all. But I had leuer (here beginneth M. Iewell,The .232. Vntruthe For Saint Paule sa­ieth not. with my tounge, but In lingua. In the tounge that is, by the gifte of straunge tounges. The .233. Vntruthe in adding againe to S. Paules text. leauing out also the worde, But) to speake fiue wordes with my minde, so that I may instructe others, then tenne thousand wordes with my tounge, Then it foloweth after many sentences, which M. Iewell straight adioyneth, let all thinges be done to the ed [...]f [...]ing of the people. And yet the wordes, of the people, are not the wordes of S. Paule. Now what meaneth the Apostle in these wordes? Forsothe he prosecuteth the vsing of the miraculous gifte of tonges. I my selfe, saieth S. Paul, can speake in as many straunge tounges as anye of you all, or as the grekes do reade, Magis quàm omnes vos linguis loquor, I speake in tounges more then all yowe. Yet I do not affect this speaking, with toun­ges. I had rather speake fiue wordes to edifie other, then ten­ne thousand of wordes, (not with my tounge, as M. Iewell hathe falsely translated it, but) in lingua, in the tounge, that is, by the miraculous gifte of tounges alone, where the gifte of Inter­pretation is not also vsed, whereby the Congregation might be edified. Nowe who seeth not that all this discourse of the Apostle is farre wide from vttering the Ordinary Seruice of Gods Churche in any tounge knowen or vnknowen? Yet that the matter maye be more clere and euident euen to all men, let vs produce and prosecut yett farder the wordes of S. Paule which doe folowe: though not alleaged by M. Iewell at all, vntell we come to his laste wordes. Let all thinges be done to edifie.

It foloweth in S. Paule.The .234. Vntruthe in o [...]it­t [...]ng, [...] of the Apostle. C [...]rysost. H [...]n. 36. i [...] 1. Cor. Brethern, be not like Children in vn­derstanding. But in euill doinge be childern, in vnderstandinge be ye perf [...]ct. For (as Chrysostome vpon this place saieth) Childern vse to gape and wonder at small matters, but at weighty thinges in dede they wonder nothinge at all. Therefore seing th [...]se Corinthians hauing the gif [...]e of tounges thought th [...]y had thereby all thinges, all­though that were the v [...]ry lest of all the other gift [...]s, the Apostle sa­i [...]th vnto them. Be not like children &c. You see the Apostle prosecuteth the matter of the miraculous gifte of tounges, and [Page] speaketh yet nothinge of the Common Sett Seruice. Let vs goe forthe withe the texte.Esa. 28. For it is writen in the lawe. For I will speake to this people in other tounges, and in other lippes: and yet they shall not so heare me neither, saieth the Lorde. All this is to debace the gifte of tonges when it is vsed by it selfe alone. The Apostle goeth forthe. Therefore tounges serue for a to­ken not for the faith [...]full, but for the vnfaithefull. But prophecies (or interpretation) are not for the vnfaithefull but for the faithe­full. Such a token or prouocation to admiration, the gifte of tounges was to the gentiles of Parthia, Theodore­tus ibidem. Media, Mesopotamia, and diuers other nations, when they hearde the Apostles to preache in all tounges vpon Whitsondaye. But prophecies, whiche consiste in interpretation or reuelation do serue for the faithefull, do moue and strik them. So by the gifte of pro­phecy Ananias and Saphira (saieth Chrysostom) were striken to deathe of S. Peter.Chrisost. Homil. 36. Nowe to put an example of all this, the Apostle saieth. If therefore the whole Congregation come toge­ther, and all speake in tounges, and some infidels or ignorant men do enter, will they not saie, you are madde? For so, many of the infi­dels vpon Whitsondaye hearing the Apostles to speake in tonges mocked thē therewith, and saied, they were droncke. But many other also wondered thereat.Ibidem. Therefore (as Chrisostom here saieth) Non signum, sed ruditas accusatur increduli: Not the signe of speaking withe tounges, but the rudenesse of the vnbeleuer is here blamed of the Apostle. Thus the speaking of tounges is allwaies debaced, but yet not vtterlye reproued. But if all do prophecy (that is, doe interpret or reuele that which is spoken in tonges) and then anye infidele or ignorant doe enter, he is conuinced of all men he is iudg [...]d of all men for the secrets of his harte are made open: and so falling on his face, he will adore God, and pronounce that ver [...]ly God is in yowe. All this is spoken, saieth Chrisostom, vt interpretem adiungere cogat, to force the Corinthians, to adde to the speaker in tonges, an Interpreter. [Page 113] Nowe therefore the Apostle concludeth, and saieth. What is it then brethern? VVhen you come together, euerye on of you hath a psalme, hath doctrine, hathe reuelation, hathe the tonge, hathe In­terpretation. Let all thinges be done to edifie. Thus farre the whole text of S. Paule from the beginning of M. Iewelles allegation to the ende thereof.

The drifte of S. Paule is this. You come together, one of you hath the gifte of singing. For (as Chrisostom saieth) psallere sic quondam doni diuini fuit, sicut docere. In olde time, singing was of the gifte of God, euen as teaching was. An other hath the gifte of Reuelation, an other of speaking with tonges, an other of prophecy or Interpretation. But to be shorte. Non est longo donorum dis [...]rimine opus. Vna res est quam volo, quam quae­ro: vt proximus edificetur. Chrisost. homil. 36. Ibidem. There nedeth not such a longe di­stinctiō of giftes. It is but one thing that I desir, that I seke for. That your neighbour may be edified. Loe here is according to the doctores Iudgementes, the whole issue, processe and dis­course, of the blessed Apostle in that Chapter, whiche also in that which foloweth he prosecuteth yet more, geuing a parti­cular order howe they shall speake with tounges, and howe they shall interpret one after an other, not talke confuselye without an interpretour. We see the whole drifte of the A­postle is that the Corinthians in vsing the gifte off tounges, shoulde adde also the Interpretation thereof vnto it, that the Audience might be edified. Here it may be obiected. If the Apostle require the Corinthians to haue an interpretation and exposition of that whiche was spoken in straunge toun­ges, at the time of Common Praier: doth not the same reason binde vs also to haue our Common praier either in no straun­ge tounge at all, or els to haue with all an Interpretation the­reof, to the entent that the people nowe also maye be edified? To this I answer diuers waies. And Marke well gentle Reader our answer herein. First I saie the Apostle speaketh not of the [Page] straunge tounges vsed at seruice time, at the Oblation time, at the time of celebrating and Ministring the holy mysteries, but at the time of preaching. Proue this you saie. Thus I proue it. First, the Apostle persuadeth in all this Chapter, the Corin­thians not to affecte so much the gifte of tounges, as the gifte of Interpretation. And the reason he addeth, saying. He that speaketh in the tounge, speak [...]th not to men, but to God. For no Man heareth (that is, vnderstandeth) him. But in the sprit he speaketh mysteries. Nowe he that prophecyeth (that is, which interpreteth and expoundeth) he speaketh to men, he speaketh to edifie, to ex­hort and to conforte. Nowe who doubteth but this edifying, which consisteth in Exhortations, and in Counforte geuing, apperteineth properly to homilies, sermons, and preaching? In this case therefore it is necessary that the people vnderstande that which is saied. Nowe in the Oblation, and holy ministra­tion, it is a time of praier, not of exhortation and preaching. This to be the ende, intent, ad drifte of the Apostle it appeareth by this entry and beginning which he maketh. To this purpo­se hath he alleaged all that before hath bene saied, as the com­parisons of the musicall instrument, of the Trumpet, and so forthe. At the ende also of his disputation it appereth yet more euident. For thus he saieth. Si ergo conuenit vniuersa ecclesia, & omnes fore loquantur, intrent autem idiotae & infideles, nonne dicēt quòd insanitis? If there the whole Congregation doe mere to­gether, and all speake with tounges, and then bothe ignorant men and infidels doe enter, will they not saye, that you are madde? Lo, that whiche the Corinthians did in these assem­bles, where they spake in tounges and so forthe, was so open, that infidels and all might enter and bothe haue and see what was done. But such might only come to Sermons, not be pre­sent at the holy ministration. Therefore that which the Co­rinthians did in those assemblies was no parte of the holy mi­nistration or oblation, wherein the mysticall praiers were vt­tered. [Page 114] The maior or first proposition of this argument is the expresse saying of the Apostle. The minor or second proposi­tion is euident and manifest to all that are lerned and expert in the practise of the primitiue Churche. For as the Catechu­mins, so muche more all infidels departed out of the Church as soone as the sermon was done. To the sermons the very in­fidels came sometime, and to nothinge els. To certaine praiers also the Catechumins were admitted, but not to all. Whereof we read of Missa Catechumenorum, August. fer. de [...]ēp. the Masse or seruice of the Catechumins. Post sermonē (saieth S. Augustin) fiet Missa Cate­chumenis. The Sermon being ended the Catechumins are dimis­sed. By these therefore it is euident that this vsing off straunge tounges was not at the time of Prayer and oblation, but at the time of sermons and exhortations. And this be the first answer.

Secondarely I make this answer. The Apostle in dede amon­ge other examples, as of the Musical instrument, of the Trum­pet, of priuat comunication, of priuat praier, bringeth also for example, the Common praier vsed in a straunge tounge, when he sayethe: If thou blesse in spirit, howe shall he that supplieth the roome of ignorant, answer, Amen. That is, as hath bene before declared, if thou geue the Benediction in a straunge tounge, by that miraculous gifte of tounges, howe shall &c. But here (and marke well gentle Reader) it is to be vnderstanded, there are two sortes of straunge tounges. One is prorsus peregrina, vtterly straunge and foraine as well to the lerned as to the vnlerned, as well to him that supplieth the roome of the ignorant, as to the ignorant him selfe. So Chrisostom a greke Father, reakoneth vp for such straunge tounges, the Persian and the Romaine, Homil. 35 in 1. Cor. 14. not the lerned greke tounge. which yet to the common people of grece was (no doubte) straunge and vnknowen. This kinde of straunge tounges was vsed of them whiche had that miracu­lous gifte, not only at the time of sermons, but also at the time [Page] of praier. Of such S. Ambrose speaketh, qui aliquando Syra lin­gua, plerunque Hebraea in tractatibus aut oblationibus vtebantur ad commendationem, Amb. in. 1 Cor. 14. which vsed sometime the Syrian tounge, oftē ­times the Hebrewe tounge bothe in their Sermons and in their Oblations, as well at praier time as at preaching for a vaine glorye. This kinde of straunge tounges vsed in Common pra­ier, where the gifte of prophecye or interpretation is not ad­ded with all, the Apostle bringeth in for an example, to shewe howe absurde it is to vse the same in preaching. For as in the praier the lerned whiche supplieth the roome of the ignorant, can not answer, Amen, to that whiche he knoweth not: so in preaching much lesse can the people be edified when such straunge tounges are vsed without an Interpreter. An other kinde of straunge tounge is that, whiche to the ignorant only, is straunge. For to him euery tounge is straunge beside his na­turall and mother tounge.Sedulius. in. 1. Co. 14. For he is in S. Paule called idiota, an ignorant, whiche vnderstandeth no more then his owne tounge, such as are men of the Countre and handy cratftsmen, but he that supplieth the roome of the ignorant, he hathe knowleadge of more then his owne naturall tounge. For there is and allwaies hathe bene in the Churche of Christ a Common lerned tounge, which tounge, though to the igno­rant it is straunge, yet to the Churche it is not straunge. That tounge in the whiche, the Scriptures, decrees, the lawes, the Councels, the Fathers writinges, and the publike pra­iers of the Churche are conteined, is the Common toung of the Churche, and is no straunge tounge to the Churche. Suche is the greke tounge to the greke Churche, and the latin tounge to the latin Churche.Bessarion in epist. ad Graecos. Tertia enim dari non potest. For a thirde Churche beside these two can not be geuen, saieth Bessarian a lerned writer and a greke borne. Of the Common Greke tounge to all the Greke Churche, S. Hierom witnesseth,In pr [...]emio [...]. ad Gal. saying that the Galathians, excepto sermone [Page 115] Graeco, quo omnis Oriens loquitur propriam linguam eandem quam Treuires habuere, beside the Greke tounge the whiche all the East spake, had also their proper Mother tounge, the verye same, that the people of Treuires (a parte of olde Gallia) had. This was called the proper tounge of the Galathians, bicause the Greke, which the Galathians as the rest of the East Chur­che vsed, was not their proper and naturall tounge but a Cō ­mon tounge to all the East Church. Common to all, not par­ticularly, but generally, not to euerye one of euerye parte of Grece, but to some of all partes thereof. Common gentium sa­pientibus, to the wise men of the gentiles,Tractat. in Ioā. 117. for whose sake as S. Augustine saieth, the Greke tounge was so estemed, and made Common. Last of al the Greke was a common tounge to the East Churche, as the Latin tounge was to the Weast Church. Of the which Venerable Bede a lerned light of our Countre, writeth very notably, speaking of oure owne Countre of En­glande.Lib. 1. Histor. gentis Angl. ca. 1. Hec in presenti quinque gentium linguis vnam eandemque veritatis scientiam scrutatur & confitetur, Anglorum videlicet, Britonū, Scotorum, Pictorum & Latinorum, quae meditatione scri­pturarum omnibus est facta Communis. This Ilande at this pre­sent withe fiue sondry languages, dothe study and sett forthe the knoweleadg of one perfect Truth, that is, with the langua­ge of the Englishe, of the Brittaines, off the Scottes, off the Peightes or Redshankes, and of the Latines, whiche Latine tounge by the study of holye Scripture is made Common to all the rest. Lo the Latine tounge was the Common tounge, and no straunge tounge to those people of diuers languages: and howe? by the study of holy Scriptures. For in that tounge they had their Scriptures, their Doctours, their Councelles, and their publike Seruice. Yea this lerned tounge was then so Common to vs Englishemen, that vnder Theodore that ler­ned Archebishop of Caunterbury aboute nine hundred yeres agoe,Beda. li. 4. they coulde speake the Latine tounge (as Venerable Bede [Page] reporteth) yea and the Greke also as readely as their own mother tounge. Cap 2. Histor. genis Anglor. And as this was in our owne Countre, so oute of all doubte it was through all the west Churche. I meane the La­tin tounge was common and familiar to them all. This com­mon tounge he that vnderstode not was called Idiota, In 1. Cor. 14. the ig­norant, saieth Sedulius. Vpon this distinction of straunge tounges it is euident that though the Apostle by the waye off an example, blameth the blessing at Common prayer made in a straunge tounge, that yet he meaneth not by that straunge tounge, that whiche is the Common lerned tounge of the Churche, and whiche he that supplieth the roome of the ig­norant is acquaynted with all, though it be a tounge of the ig­norant him selfe not vnderstanded, but that he meaneth ther­by such a straunge tounge, as was vsed by the miraculous gifte of speaking withe tounges, and whiche was so straunge, that neither the ignorant, nor he that supplied the roome of the ig­norant vnderstode, yea and the whiche the Minister or priest him selfe vnderstode not. Therefore Chrysostome saieth. If thou geue thankes in a straunge tounge, Hom. 35 in 1. Cor. 14 which n [...]ither thou doest vnderstande thy selfe, nor doest interpret vnto other (suche was not the Common lerned tounge, whiche euerye Minister in the Apostles time vnderstode right well) subijcere Amen plebis non potest. He that is of the people can not awnswere Amen, and when thou saiest, secula seculorum, which is the end of the praier, he that heareth thee, will not saye, Amen. For why? Thou talkest in a tounge vtterly straunge, whiche thy selfe vnderstandest not. This was not the Common lerned tounge, which bothe then and now euery priest vnderstandeth, but it was a straunge ton­ge, vsed by the miraculous gifte of the holy Ghoste. To awn­swer therfore shortly to the obiection made, I saie. The Chie­fe disputation of the Apostle in that Chapter is not of straun­ge tounges vsed at the Oblation and praier, but at the Ser­mons and preaching. Therfore his disputation in that place [Page 116] toucheth nothing the Seruice of Christes Churche now vsed in the Common lerned tounge. Secondarely the Apostle though he speaketh by the waye of an example of the Com­mon praier vsed in a straunge tounge, yet he meaneth that straunge tounge whiche was vsed by the waye of mirac [...]ous gifte, he meaneth not the Common lerned tounge, which to him that supplieth the roome of the ignorant (whose duty it is to awnswer Amen.) is not straunge, though to the ignorant him selfe it be perhappes straunge. that is, not vtterly vnkno­wen, but not distinctly vnderstanded. The thirde awnswere maye be, that the same blessing in Spirit in a straunge tounge (whiche the Apostle by the waye of example bringeth in) though it was done in the Cōmon praier, yet that blessing was no parte of the Common praier, sett in bookes, and ordinare­ly vsed (as we haue it nowe, and as in Chrysostomes time they had it) but it was a blessing or thankes geuing that some one of the Congregation vsed vpon the soden being moued and stirred thereunto by the Spirit, as we haue before out of Chry­sostome proued at large. By all this it maye appeare that this fourtenth Chapter of the firste to the Corinthians, as of M. Iewell and all his felowes not onely vnfittely, but very grosse­ly and ignorantly applied to proue their Vulgar Seruice.

What will they saie, if it maye nowe be proued out of Saint Paule, that in the publicque praiers of the Church, as no stran­ge tounge is to be vsed, which he that praieth or he that in ste­de of the ignorant dothe answer, can not vnderstande, so also no mere Vulgar tounge must be vsed? Let vs consider the rest of Saint Paules comparisons and examples in this place of the whiche B [...]nedicere Spiritu, to blesse or praie openlye in Spirit, that is, in a straunge miraculous tounge is one. 1 The musi­call instrument must haue a certain and proper time. But for whose sake? Forsothe only for his whiche hath skill in that arte, to whom euery light discorde is a great anoying. The [Page] Trumpet geueth out a certaine, propre, and distincte sounde. 2 But to whom? To the souldyar which is acquaynted ther­with, and who hathe lerned to guide him selfe thereafter. To other men the sounde of it signifieth nothing. 3 Againe if I speake or talke priuatly with one, I must speake to an English man in English, to a Frenche man in Frenche and so forthe. If my talke be to a Frenche man, though all that stande about be English, and vnderstande onely Englishe, yet I will speake Frenche only, bicause my talke is to none but to him. 4 Fourth­ly, if I praie priuatly to my selfe, and will praie (mente) in the minde my wordes muste be suche that I my selfe maye vnder­stande. And then if I vnderstande Greke, Frenche or La­tine: I maye praye in Greke, Frenche, or Latine: though an other perhaps shoulde not vnderstande that praier. 5 For why? I praie in this case by my selfe alone. Laste of all, to come to the last comparison which the Apostle vseth of pub­like praier, if I blesse or geue thankes in the publike Seruice, I must be vnderstanded. But of whom? Of all the people? That is not necessary. But of him or them whiche ought to make answer, and to whome I speake in that publike office. Who is that by the worde of the Apostle? Not idiota, but, qui supplet locum idiotae. Not the ignorant, suche as promiscu [...] pl [...]bs common people (saieth Sedulius) is, but it is he that sup­plieth the roome of the ignorant, which is lerned, whiche hath skill of the Common lerned tounge. He muste make awn­swer, to him I speake in the publike praier. He therfore must vnderstande me. Nowe that he maye answer me and that he maye vnderstand me, I nede no more to vse the Vulgar toun­ge, then the Musicion, the Trumpetter, the talker, or the pri­uat praier, nede to applie his musike, to blowe his trumpet, to vtter his talke, and to praie after suche a sorte as all other maye vnderstande and take profit by. But only it suffiseth, that he which supplieth the roome of the ignorant, doe vnderstande [Page 117] me, it suffiseth that I speake in the Common lerned tounge, which he is acquaynted withall, euen as the Musicion plaieth to please the skilfull, the Trumpetter bloweth to geue war­ning to the souldiar, and so forthe. Mary to preache, as I then direct my talke to the whole people, so it is nccessarye that I speake in such a language, as all the people maye vnder­stande me. And so the Churche of Christe doth and allwaies hathe done, as well in the one as in the other. Thus the dis­putation of Sainte Paule in this place, not onelye helpeth no­thing your Vulgar Seruice M. Iewell, but, I may saye to you, it geueth a greate cracke thereunto: Let nowe euerye indiffe­rent Reader Iudge, whether the Latine Seruice be vsed in the Latine Churche withe the breache of S. Paules Doctrine, as you moste wickedly and fondle doe bable at Paules Crosse, and as yowe M. Iewell in this your facing Replie doo impu­dently bragge and crake.

Iewell. The .2 [...]. Vntr [...]. For not vpon D. Hardin­ges war­rant, but vpon the Doctours of Chri­stes churches warrant you muste so beleue.And yet must we vpon M. Hardinges warrant nedes beleue that all this maketh nothinge for the Englishe Seruice in the Church of England.

Not vpon D. Hardinges warrant, but vpon the warrant off the holy Fathers, Sainte Chrysostome, Theodoretus, S. Ambrose, Primasius, Sedulius and Oecumenius aboue allea­ged, yowe muste so beleue, if yowe will be a Childe of those Fathers, M. Iewell.

Harding. And for as much as all the people can not heare the priestes praiers at the Aultar, (which hath frō the Apostles time hetherto euer ben a place to celebrat the oblation at) turning him selfe for the moste parte to the East, according to the Apostolike traditiō, in what tounge so euer they be vt­tered for distaunce of the place they remayne in, it is no in­cōuenience (suche admitted in to the Quire as haue better-vnderstanding [Page] of that is saied or songe) that the rest re [...]a [...] ­ne in semely wise in the neither parte of the Churche &c.

Iewell. The .236. Vntruthe. Slaunde­rous.The 82. Vntruthe. The Aultars or Common Tables stoode in the middes of the Churche, as shall appeare.

No man saieth the contrary M. Iewell. We knowe in Aun­cient Churches, at Ments in Germany, and in diuers Cities in Italye, especially in Rome it selfe, diuers Aultars sto [...]de at this daye towarde the middle of the Churche, so that the priest at Masse hath his face to the people, as we haue sene in those pla­ces. Neither doth D. Harding say that the Aultars stoode otherwise in the Apostles time. Only he saieth. Aultars haue bene euer sence the Apostles time. Nowe M. Iewell to shewe his good will to D. Harding, and to vtter some Copie of his knowleadg, maketh D. Harding to saie that he doth not saye, to make an vntruthe where none is, and to pro [...]e that no man denieth. Therefore in repeting the wordes of D. Harding he altereth them in to sondry Frames and facions, to picke mat­ter of quarelling, and to multiplie vntruthes, and saieth.

Iewell. There haue bene Aultars (saieth M. Harding) euen from the Apostles time.

Stapleton. It is true he saieth so, and saieth it truly, as shall appeare.

Iewell. The .237. Vntruthe. In falsify­ing the text of D. Hardinge Iewell. The 23 [...]. Vntruthe. as before. And that as it is vsed nowe farre of from the Body of the Churche.

That is not true. D. Harding saieth it not. His wordes may be sene before alleaged.

Iewell. The .239. Vntruthe. Neither could the people beneathe heare the priest standing aboue at the Aultar

Iewell. The .240. Vntruthe.This is an other Vntruthe. D. Harding speaketh of no such maner in the Apostles time.

Or vnderstande what he meant.

This is the thirde Vntruthe touching the Astostles time.

But only were instructed by holy reuerend Ceremonies.

[Page 118]This is the fourth Vntruthe. Neither D. Harding saieth so, nor any mane [...]. For beside Ceremonies, the people by prea­ching is taught.

Iewell. The .241. Vntruthe in like maner. And gaue consent vnto all that was saied by the priest, and yet knewe not what be sayed.

This maketh the fifte Vntruthe. D. Harding saieth no such matter. Nowe after that M. Iewell hathe charged D. Harding withe all these propositions, as if he had affirmed them eche one, printing them all in a distinct letter, as the wordes of D. Harding, then he crieth out and saieth.

Iewell. The 24 [...]. Vntruthe ioyned with a Slaunder.This man coulde neuer vtter so many Vntruthes together without some speciall priuilege.

O M. Iewell. You coulde neuer haue auouched so manye Vntruthes of your own, nor so vntruly haue charged D. Har­ding withe suche a Number, but that your booke was printed VVithe Special Priuilege. And now we vnderstande M. Ie­well why your booke is come forthe, more then other bookes are, VVithe Speciall Priuilege. Forsothe (as it maye seme) bicause you might vtter your Vntruthes with some special priuilege. For without some speciall priuilege, you saie,The cause vvhy M. Ievvelles Replie is printed. VVith Speciall Priui­lege. D. Har­ding coulde neuer haue vttered so many Vntruthes. You did well therfore M. Iewel to get you a Special Priuilege, For the better auouching of your so special and so many Vntruthes. Nowe touching Aultars which D. Harding saieth haue bene sence the Apostles time, and you denie, what haue you to the contrary? You saye.

Iewell. There were no Churches in the Apostles time. And shall we thinke that Aultars were builte before the Churches.

Stapletō. This is a good Masons reason in dede. But it is no reason of a diuine, and much lesse of a bishopp, as [...]ou write your selfe. [Page] For how saie you M. bishop? Your brethern of Frau [...]ce, how minister they the Communion without Churches. With you (as you saie after) an aultar and a holy table is al one. How saie you then? Thinke you they minister without tables bicause they haue no Churches? Or if they haue holy tables without Churches bicause they haue a Communion, thinke you the Apostles had no Aultars, bicause they had no Churches, ha­uing yet a Sacrifice. You knowe M. Iewell. An aultar in gre­ke is [...]. as much English, as The place of a Sacrifice. Then to proue the Apostles had no aultars, if you will reason like a diuine, this is a good reason. They had no Sacrifice, ergo they had no aultars. But you knewe it was a harder matter to proue that they had Churches, then that they had a Sacrifice: And therfore you had rather to reason like a Mason, then like a diuine. How beit that there were Churches built euen in the Apostles time, certain olde Churches yet standing in Fraunce do beare witnesse. As at Orleans a Church called yet S. Pier­re le vif. bicause it was builded S. Peter yet liuing. And an o­ther at Paris called S. Estienne de gr [...]s, bicause it was builded by S. Denys and his cōpanyons which were grekes, in the honour of S. Steuen. Verely of aultars in the Apostles time, Martialis, Dyonisius Areopagita, and Ignatius lyuing all with the Apo­stles do testifie.In epist. ad Burdegal. Martialis saieth. Sacrificium deo creatori Offertur in ara, nō homini ne (que) Angelo. A Sacrifice is offred vnto God the Creatour vpō an Aultar, [...]pist. 6. not to mā nor to Angel. Ignatius sa­ieth. Vnum est altare toti Ecclesiae. The whole Church hath one Aultar. Dyonisius Areopagita writeth of the bishopp going Doune frō the Aultar to the nether parte of the Church, with incense, ac rursum ad altare ipsum sacrificij consummandi causa re­remeantem, Hierarch. par. 3· ca. 3· and then returning vp againe to the Aultar to ma­ke an ende of the Sacrifice. That Origen and Arnobius (whom M. Iewell alleageth) affirmeth the Christians to haue neque [Page 119] aras neque templae, neither aultars, nor churches, they meane the Christians had none such in honour of stockes and sto­nes, not that they had none at al. Els by the same reason M. Iewel may plucke downe churches as he hath done aultars, bi­cause those doctours saie, the Christians had no churches. S. Augustin herein speaketh very notably saying.Augus. Epis. 49. They which vn­derstande Christian letters of bothe testamentes, finde no faulte in the wicked rites of Paganes, they build Church [...], ordaine priesthoods, and offer sacrifices, but for that they do these thinges in the honour of idol­les and diuels.

Last of all we confesse and knowe, the Aultar is common­ly called the holy table amonge the Doctours, bicause of the heauēly banquet ministred therein. But an aultar or [...] it is called [...] for the very sacrifyce. Therfore the plucking doune of aultars is not hereticall bicause the stone is bro­ken, but bicause the externall Sacrifice is denied,Augu lib. 17 ca. 20. & lib. 10. c. 6. et 20 De Ciuit. Dei. Harding. the true pro­per and due worshippe of Allmighty God, as S. Augustin ve­hemently and at large proueth in his bookes de Ciuitate dei.

For the priest vnderstandeth it for the better part, if he be lerned, and (83) the people be not vtterly ignorant. Bicau­se of often preaching, longe custome, solemne feastes and sun­dry Ceremonies.

Iewell. The .243. Vntr [...]uhe Sl [...]unde­ro [...]. Stapletō.The 83. Vntruthe. For the simple people vnderstandeth not one worde or syllable of the latine tounge.

How hangeth this reason of youres M. Iewell? The people vnderstandeth no one Syllable of the latine tounge, Ergo nei­ther by often preaching, nor by longe custom, nor by solemne festes, nor by Ceremonies they vnderstande not the Seruice. The fondnesse hererof wil easely appeare by the like. The peo­ple vnderstandeth not one worde or syllable of the latin toun­ge, Ergo by no preaching nor instruction they can vnderstan­de [Page] the doctrine of S. Augustin, S. Hierom and other Fathers writen onely in the latin or greke tounge. Or thus, Ergo the people can not vnderstande a great parte of M. Iewelles Re­plie, which hath so much latin in it. Although the english be annexed straight, and the whole expounded vnto them. No doubt but the people bothe may and dothe vnderstande gre [...]t parte of the Seruice, where the Curat doth his duetie. But if the Curats do not their dutye, or rather bicause in dede off longe they haue not herein done their duties, therefore God whippeth vs iustly with these your heresies and schismes M. Iewell. Howbeit we trust of his mercy, he will at lenght cast the rodde in the fire, and restore vs to vnite.

Harding. And when we shal appeare before Christe in that dread­full daie of iudgement (84) we shall not be required to geue an accompt of our vnderstanding, but faith presupposed, of our Charite.

Iewell. The .244 Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. Stapletō.The 84. Vnt [...]uthe. For it is writen. He that knoweth not, shall not be knowen. 1. Cor. .14.

It appeareth hereby M. Iewell, that either you haue smal di­uinite or litle charite, either you are a petite doctour, or els a very malicious wrangler, and a pelting hicke scorner. For as touching this matter wherof you note here D. Harding as spe­king vntruly, you maye take your penne Master Iewell, and score it vpp also for vntruthe vpon holye Scripture whiche saieth that in the daye off iudgement God shall rewarde euery man according to his workes, not according to his knowe­ledge. And againe. opera illorum sequuntur illos. their workes do folowe them. And in the ghospel where our Sauiour describeth vnto vs the forme of his iudgement, he [...]aieth to our charge the lacke of good workes, as not visiting the sicke, not clothing the naked, not feeding the hungry, and such like. S. [Page 120] Paule also after he had declared, that in the Churche were Apostles, prophets, teachers, the giftes of miracles, of healing the sicke, of speaking with tounges, of interpretation of ton­ges, yet he saieth adhuc excellentiorem viam vobis demonstro. I tell you yet of a more excellent waye. And that is Charite M. Ie­well,Matt. 2 [...]. which S. Paule in the next chapter folowing commen­deth aboue all knowleadg, all giftes, all speaking withe toun­ges, yea aboue faithe it selfe,1. Cor. 12, concluding at the ende of the chapter these wordes. Now therefore remaine these three. Faith, [...]ope, Charite. But the greater of these is Charite. Cap. 13. And is it nowe an Vntruthe M. Iewell to saye that we shall geue an accompt of our Charite (faith presupposed) and not of vnderstanding? You knowe S. Paule againe saieth knowleadge puffeth vp, but [...] edifi [...]th. And the inferiours are commaunden to obay their ouerseers, which watche and warde for their soules. But you alleage vs a text of S. Paule, where he saieth. 1 Cor. 14. He that knoweth not, shall not be knowen. What knowleadg is that M. Iewell? Let S. Paule him selfe teache you. He saieth. I haue iudged my selfe to knowe nothinge amonge you, but Iesus Christ and him crucified. To knowe Christ is the sufficient knowleadg (for saluation) for euery Christian man, not called to the charge of others. And so according to the saying of S. Paule, he that knoweth not Christ, he that hath no faith, shal not be knowen of God. But faith presupposed, not knowleadg but Charite shall be re­quired of the people.

Harding. For as muche as the Seruice consisteth in maner altoge­ther of the Scriptures.

Iewell. The .245. Vntruthe. Slaunde­rous two w [...]ie [...].The 85. Vntruthe. In the Romish Seruice there are infinit vanities besides the Scriptures.

This is but a slaunderous lie M. Iewell. I haue pervsed your whole text in this place, looking to haue founde some one of [Page] these infinit vanities, noted by you. But I finde not one worde thereof. Therfore M. Iewel as it was soone saied, so, vntell you prou [...]i [...], it will be thought to be a lie, as it is in dede, and a very slaunderous lie against the Church of God. Malice made you speake it. But Truthe choked you; not able to proue it.

Harding. Though we vnderstande not the (86) wordes of the Scripture, whiche we vtter with oure mouthe, yet the hea­uenly powers and Angels (saieth Origen) vnderstand them, and thereby be inuited, and that with delite to helpe vs.

Iewell. The .246. Vntruthe. Slaunde­rous.The .86. Vntruthe. For Origen speaketh of the ignorance of the Allegorie, not of the wordes.

Stapleton. That Origen speaketh of the wordes and not of the Alle­gorie, it appeareth euidently by the similitude whiche he ma­keth in that place. His similitude is thus. As amonge the infidels (saieth Origen) the Cōtrary powers (he meaneth diuels) by such and such names in verses or enchantments, do serue and attends, and applie that, vnto which they are called by such and such names, per­fo [...]rming at though it were their bounden dutie therein euen so and much more the heauenly powers and Angels of God, which ac [...]mpanie vs (as our lorde in the gospell of the litle ones of the Church saieth, that their Angels do allwaies assiste in the sight of God beholding his face) do take it gratefully and gladly if we alwaies vtter out off our mouthe the wordes of holy Scripture, and the sounde of thes [...] na­mes, like as certain verses and enchantments. For though we vnder­stand not that which we vtter with our mouthe, yet those heauenly powers which assiste vs do vnderstande them, and are delighted, as inuited with a certain verse to helpe vs and succour vs. Thus farre Origen. By this similitude it is euident he meant of wordes and not of the allegorie first bicause the similitude consisteth in enchantmēts. These enchantmēts are done by bate wordes, not by any allegorie, and that when those wordes are not vn­derstanded. [Page 121] Then by Origens minde the Angels are also de­lighted to heare vs pronoūce the wordes of Scripture though we vnderstand them not. Secondarely Origen speaketh of the ignorance of that whiche we vtter withe our mouthe. But that are the wordes only, not any allegorie. Therefore he speaketh of the ignorance of the wordes not of the allegorie

Iewell. The 247 Vntruthe For Ori­gen spoke off the Scriptu­res reade in homi­lies and lessons, a part of the Seruice.Nowe whereas Master Iewell saieth, Origen his purpose was here to speke of reading the Scriptur [...], not of the church Seruice, and noteth therefore bothe in the text and in the Margin ve­ry solemnely, that D. Harding wresteth Origen, hauing caste such a blott vpon him, he saieth it only and proueth it nothin­ge. But that Origen spake of the Scriptures read in the Ser­uice, it appereth probably firste for that the Scriptures were at that time in Alexandria first read in the Seruice as lessons, and after expounded by the waie of homilies: and also that Origen him selfe was at that time the Common and ordinary maker of suche homilies: and laste of all that these verye wordes of Origen are a parte of such an Homilie ordinarely made after the Seruice. Let nowe the truthe speake, whether D. Har­ding hathe wrested Origen, or M. Iewell slaundered D. Har­ding.

Harding. If all praiers made in an vnknowen tounge be a moc­king of God (as Beza saieth) then were the praiers vttered by miracle in the primitiue Churche with tounges, which the vtterers them selues vnderstode not (after the minde of Chri­sostome) a mocking of God. For I see nothinge, whereby they are excluded from his (87) generall saying and vniuer­sall proposition.

Iewel. The 248. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous and peuish.The 87. Vntruthe. This generall saying of Chrysostome is Vn­truly reported.

Here M. Iewell for lacke of better game, hunteth after let­ters [Page] and rippeth vpp syllables. Vpon the terme (His) he woulde founde an Vntruthe, him selfe construing vntruly the saying of D. Harding. For D. Harding by these wordes (his generall saying) meant not any generall saying of Chryso­stome, but the generall saying of Beza, whiche went but fewe lines before, and is this. VVhat Praiers so euer be made off any man in a tonge that he vnderstandeth not, they be to be taken for a mockery of God. From this generall saying off Beza M. Iewell, they are not excluded (saieth D. Harding) which in the primitiue Church vttered the praiers with toun­ges which the vtterers them selues (after the minde of Chry­sostome) vnderstoode not. For euen these also by the ge­nerall saying of Beza were mockers of God. This is no bi­shoplike demeanour M. Iewell, but a childish behauiour: no sadde writinge, but a rascall wrangling: no shewe of honesty but a mere scurrilite, to fight vpon termes, and quarell aboute sillables, either contrary to your owne knowleadg and iudge­gement, or els without all iudgement, with much ouersight, lightnes and rashenes.

Harding. As the Vulgar Seruice pulleth their mindes frō priuat deuo­tion, to heare and not to praie, to litle benefit of knowleadge for the obscurite of it: so the Latine geuing them no such mo­tion, they occupie them selues, whiles the priest praieth for all, and in the person of all, in their priuat prayers, all for all and euery one for him selfe.

Iewell. The 249 Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The 88. Vntruthe. For the vulgar Seruice encreaseth deuotion, as by sundrie Authorities it shall appeare.

Stapleton. Whether vulgar Seruice encrease deuotion or plucke from deuotion, it is not the Authorite of lerned men, but the expe­rience of the people that trieth it. Verely in our countre the [Page 122] people it selfe confesseth, they are much distracted from their deuotion, by attending to the Minister reading the Seruice and not vnderstanding it. Yea do not your owne doinges M. Ie­well confesse it? You haue taken order in certaine places of the realme (as we certainely vnderstande) that betwene your ma­tins and the Communion there be a staye made of halfe an howre or so, to thentent the people in that meane while may attende to their priuat praier and priuat deuotion. Why is this order taken, but bicause at Seruice time the people is distracted from priuat praier, and priuat deuotion? And truly herein, whe­ther the priuat deuotion of the people be not much more now distracted by harkening to there english Seruice which yet they vnderstande not alltogether, then it was att the latin Seruice, when they vnderstode nothing, I dare to make the people itt selfe iudge thereof. The reason M. Iewell, why you esteme the english Seruice to encrease deuotion, more then the latine, is bi­cause you imagin for certain that the people vnderstandeth it. As I will easely graunt they do sometimes vnderstande some part thereof: so that they do allwaies vnderstande the whole, though you would graunt, yet no wise man wil graunte it, and the people it selfe, I dere wel say, wil denie it. Verely I haue hear­de of a Gentleman which reading the Booke of the Statutes in english, confessed he oftentimes vnderstoode not what the Statutes meaned. And doubtlesse Holy Scripture iff it were not much harder then the english Statutes are, so many lerned com­mentaries shoulde not haue ben made thereupon: so many he­resies had not ben grounded vpon the doubtefull interpreta­tion thereof. Brefely itt had not bene so many hundred yeares read only in the lerned tounges greke and latin. The Scripture therefore being not allwaies vnderstanded though in the mo­ther tounge, no maruaill if the people be some times distracted. For when the Minister readeth on still, and the people Harke­ning thereunto knoweth not what it meaneth, what shall they [Page] do? Shall they harken? It is to no profitt. Shall they let the Seruice goe and fal to priuat praier? Your order is against it, whereby if any harken not to the Seruice, he shall be taken for a papist. Thus by your vulgar Seruice the people oftētimes ei­ther is forced to be idle, or if he will be well occupied, incur­rech displeasure. What is distraction from priuat deuotion, if this be not? Thoching your Authorites, the saying of Chri­sostom (that praying together in the Church with our brethern, De incōprehensibili dei natura Hom. 3. a­uaileth more then when we praie alone &c.) maketh directly a­gainst your first protestanticall doctrine off praying vnder headges and in chambers when you should come to Churche, but for common praier in a vulgar tounge itt maketh not so much, as for the priuat praier of eche one praying in the Churche eche by him selue, and all with the priest. Lyra saying that the people answereth Amen to the priest withe more deuotion when he vnderstandeth the praier, saieth truly touching the duty of an­swering.1. Cor. 14. But that (according to the Doctrine of S. Paul) stādeth not in the whole people, but in him qui supplet locū idiotae that supplieth the roome of the ignorant, which wordes M. Ie­well in alleaging the whole place of S. Paul pag. 194. guilefully and fraudulently left out, to make the reader beleue that the whole people was bound to answer Amen. Iustinian speaketh of the lowde speaking of the prist, not of the Seruice to be vn­derstāded as we haue before at large declared. In the 70. Vntruthe The saying of S. Augustin (how can he singe duly whiche knoweth not what he sin­geth? In prologo super psal.) pertaine euidently ad Psalmistas to such as were appoin­ted by order of the priest to singe (as we haue before declared out of the 4. Coūcel of Carthage) not to al the people, whose duty it was to praie in the Churche, not to singe psalmes. The particular application of the psalmes which are songe to our owne selues (whereof S. Basill speaketh) maye as well be done of deuoute people in the latin Seruice as in the english.Ad clericos Neocaesa­rienses. Certain it is the people of Cappadocia (of whom S. Basil there [Page 123] speaketh) had not the greke for their vulgar tounge, as hath bene before proued in the 69 Vntruthe, and yet were these psalmes, (as all the other Seruice vnder S. Basill) songe and saied in the greke tounge, as appeareth by the praiers yet extant in greke in the Masse or liturgie of S. Basill. Then as the people of Cappadocia applied the greke seruice to them selues, so may the people of England applie the latine Seruice to them selues, if they will assiste deuoutely, geue their assent to the priest gods Minister, and lifte vpp their hartes to God with him. So hath the Church these many hundred yeres vsed. It is not now to lerne of you M. Iewell. She hath, and att all times hath had (marke this well M. Iewell) the holy Ghoste to prompte her, to guide her, and to assiste her, and shall so haue in aeternū for euer,Ioan. 14. if Christ be true of his promise. Thus are your authorites an­sweared. Thus is the truthe auouched and proued M. Iewell: and you founde a slaunderer not so much of D. Harding, as of the Truthe, which shall at lenght confounde all that be against her.

Harding. The nations that haue euer had their Seruice in the vul­gar tounge, the people thereof haue continued in Scismes, er­rours, and certain Iudaicall obseruances, so as they haue not bene reakoned in the number of the Catholike Churche. As the Christians of Moscouia, of Armenia, of prester Ioan his lande in Aethiopia.

Iewell. The 250 Vntruthe Slaunde­rous, and peuis [...].The 86. Vntruthe. For the Seruice in the Vulgar tounge neuer was cause of Schisme or heresy.

D. Harding saieth not so much. Their Vulgar Seruice was not the cause of their Schisme. But there schisme and other heresies were the cause of their Vulgar Seruice. For hauing ones diuided thē selues frō the Church in Doctrine, they chose also that order of Seruice, which was cōtrary to the Church. I perceiue M. [Page] Iewell. It is all one with you, whether a man bidde you drinc­ke ere you goe, or goe ere you drincke.

Harding. VVherefore to conclude, seeing in sixe hundred yeres af­ter Christ the Seruice of the Church was not in any other, then in the greke and latine tounge, for that any man is able to shewe by good proufe, &c.

Iewell. The 251. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. The 252. Vntr [...]the For the Contrary hath not bene pro­ued at all.The .90. Vntruthe. The Contrary is sufficiently proued in the 15. diuision of this Article.

All M. Iewelles proufes are sufficiently and particulary att large disproued in the same diuision. See the answer to the 78. Vntruthe. So the conclusion of D. Harding is sure, and M. Ie­well according to promise must subscribe.

The heape of Vntruthes, which M. Iewel saieth in his mar­gin are here laied together in the Conclusion, haue ben all be­fore particulary examined and iustified.

Harding. As the bolde assertion of M. Iewel is plainely disproued, so the olde order of the Latine Seruice in the latine Churche whereof Englande is a prouince, is not ráshely to be condem­ned: especially whereas (91.) being first committed to the Churches by the Apostles of our countrie, and the first prea­chers off the Faith here, it hath bene authorised by the conti­nuance off allmost a thousand yeres without controll: &c.

Iewell. The 253. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. Capitain and No­torious. pag. 190.The 91. Vntruthe. For the first preachers off the Faith in this I [...]e­lande we [...]e grekes and Hebrewes, and not Latines.

This hath ben told vs twyse or thrise before, and nowe to awnswere it fully, I thinke it good, bothe for Countrie sake, that the State of her touching the firste cummyng of Reli­gion vnto her maie be knowen, and that Trueth also maie not be suppressed, by any alleaging of an other trueth. And [Page 124] first, what M. Iewells discourse is abowt this mater we shall consider. After that, we will shortlye declare who were in deede the Englishemens first Apostles, withe defence of their honour and worthynes. Touching the first.

Iewell. 190.Ghildas saieth, that Ioseph of Arimathea, that toke donne Christe from his Crosse, being sent hyther by Philipp the Apostle out of Fraū ce, began first to preache the Gospell in this Realme, in the tyme of Tyberius the Emperour.

Stapleton But what successe had it? How deepe roote toke it? How was it spreade abrode? How was it receiued? For, the cum­myng of Ioseph hither, proueth not, that the whole countrie was conuerted, but that the Gospell was there preached. And an argument maie hereof be gathered, not that they openlye professed the Christian faithe, but that they had the waie she­wed vnto them, by which they might come to the knowledge and loue of their Saluation. So that yow can not inferr, The whole State of Britaine was turned from their Idolatrie to the Christ by cummyng of Ioseph of Arimathea, but this you might saie, that euen in the vttermost partes of the world the sownde of the Gospell was heard immediatly after Christes Ascension, and that al the world might see his mercie and Sal­uation, and that al excuse was taken awaie from Idalotours, if they would not repent and beleue in the onelye and true and Almightie God.

Iewell. Nicephorus saieth, that Simon Zelotes aboute the same tyme, ca­me in to this Ileland and dyd the lyke.

Stapleton He came in dede as Nicephorus sayeth, but he came not lyke a Lieger, but lyke and Embassadour: not to tarye and couert the whole, but to doe a message for the whole in the hearing of a few.Niceph. lib. 2. cap. 40. For Simon Zelotes (saieth he) in preaching the Ghospell went thourough Aegypte, Cirene and Aphrica, and after­warde, through Mauritania and all Lybia, and brought the same doctrine euen to the weast Occeane, and to the Iles of Britannie. [Page] So that it appeereth he went a pace like a Cursor that telleth good newes, but he conuerted not (I trow) euerye countrie through which he went.

Iewell. The 253. Vntruthe For Theodoretus maketh no singu­lar men­tion of S. Paule or the tyme of his cū ­myng.Theodoretus saieth, that S. Paule Immediatly after his first dely­uerie in Rome, vnder themperour Nero, preached the Gospell in this Ileland, and in other Countries of the weast.

It is wonder that he should not heare, that Ioseph of Ari­mathea and Simon Zelotes had conuerted it alreadie: if, as yow imagine, Britanie receiued the Faith when they preached there. But doth Theodoretus saie, that S. Paule, by name, prea­ched the Gospell there?

I beseech the (gentle Reader) to consider in this place, how particularly and distinctly M. Iewell setteth furth vnto the, the cummyng of S. Paule in to Britannie. He nameth him singularly (S. Paule) he noteth the tyme (after his first delyuery in Rome) he setteth it furth by the name of the Emperour (vn­der the Emperour Nero) and all this he dothe, to make the be­leue, that Theodoretus speaketh so distinctly of S. Paules cū ­myng in to our countrie and preaching there, in his own per­son, that it were impossible to doubt thereof. Nowe, if Theo­doretus saie so muche, then is M. Iewell discharged: if he doe not, what a bold and shameles felow is he that dareth so to make witnesses speake at his pleasure, and so to abuse the cre­dulitie of the vnlerned. Theodoretus wordes are these. Nostri illi piscatores, Lib. 9. de curat. Gre­carū [...]ffect. ac Publicani, sutor (que) ille noster, cunctis nationibus, leg [...] Euangelicam detulerunt &c. Those our fisshers, and Publicans, and that owr sower (of tentes) haue brought the law of the Gospell vn­to all nations. And they haue persuaded, not onelye the Romanes, and them that lyue vnder the Romane Empire, but the Scythians also, and Sauromatas, and further, the Indians, the Aethiopians, the Persians, the Seres, the Hyrcanians, the Britanus, the Cymmerians and Germans, and (at one word) al man kinde, and al nations they haue persuaded, to take the Lawes of the Crucified, (Christe.) And [Page 125] they haue not vsed herein harnesse or weapōs, nor infinite numbers of peeked shouldiars, nor Perficat and Barbarous Violence, but persua­sion of wordes, declaring by them, the Vtilitie and Profitablin [...]sse off the lawe which they preached. Thus farre Theodoretus.

And where now is here, that speciall cummyng of S. Paule in to Britannie. And that after His first delyuerie in Rome? Where is it M. Iewell? And being not here, why re­port yow it so, as though it were here? What singular thing here is attributed to S. Paule, which maie not be saied of euerie of the Apostles? And thinke you, that euery one off them, went through out and about the world, and that euery one of them preached personally in the Ile of Britannie?

If yow had saied (as of Theodoretus Authorite) that all the Apostles came at the begynning to this Ileland, It woulde haue seemed incredible. For, there were more Countres (be­side Britannie) to be gone vnto, and all the Apostles neither could nor woulde goe to euery place, nor it is likely they would al of them goe to one litle Ileland, so far from the most populouse nations of the world. But nowe, craftely, yow cul out S. Paule out from the rest, and to make it probable, that he shoulde haue tyme and leisure to doe it, you saie, that it was af­ter his first delyuerie in Rome. That he came to Britannie. Yet not only S. Paule, but all the Apostles are mentioned by Theodoretus.

But what to haue done? To haue gone personally ouer the world? No truly, but to haue instructed the worlde and to haue brought them vnto hym that was Crucified. And how thinke you, might not that be done without their presen­ce. Who doubteth thereof, but he that hath no experience. For euen at this daie the Fishers and Publicanes and sowers of Tentes, whom Theodoretus speaketh of, which are S. Peter, S. Andrew, S. Iohn, S. Iames, and S. Matthew, And S. Paule, the­se doe instruct the world at this present. But how? By their suc­cessours [Page] by their Gospels and Epistles by their Praiers, and not by personal and visible presence of bodye.

See then how openly M. Iewell deceaueth thee (Christian Reader) by drawing that specially to S. Paule, which is spoken of all the Apostles generally. And by referring that to the Persons them selues, which is vnderstanded of their writinges only or their succession.

Iewell. Tertullian saieth the Ileland off Britanie was subiecte vnto Christ in his tyme. And Origine witnesseth the lyke of the same I­leland in his tyme. At which tyme Lucius the kinge of this re [...]lme was b [...]ptized, and receiued the Ghospell and sent to Rome to Eleu­therius the Bishopp there for his aduice touching the ordering of hi [...] Church and Realme.

Stapleton Who was Elder, thinke you Origine or Lucius? It see­meth Lucius. For he was now at mans state when Eleuthe­rius was Pope An. D. 181. And Origine was not then borne but somewhat after about the yere of our Lorde .190. Then further Eleutherius was Pope .xv. yeres, and of hym Lucius re­ceiued the Ghospell, so that before Origine was .xv. yere old the Ileland of Britayne was conuerted. The testymonies therefore, which Tertullian and Origine geaue, of the Gho­spell of Christ, vnto which the Ileland of Britayne shoulde be subiect, was not of the tyme before Lucius raigne, but of the state which it had after his receiuing of the faith from Rome.

For, besides the manifest accompt of yeares, which will not suffer either Tertullian either Origene to haue bē hable to write vppon the Scriptures, or speake as in the place by you allea­ged, they doe, before kinge Lucius receiued the faithe: howe vnreasonable and absurde were it, that (as you saie out of Ter­tullian and Origene) when the Ileland of Britaine was subiect vnto Christ, then should Lucius send to Rome and receiue the Ghospell.

For what needed any sending to Rome, if the Realme were alreadye nowe subiected vnto Christe?

Bu [...] here also, your Craftines appeareth, that whereas the truth [Page 126] is, that before Lucius raigne the Ghospell was not by publike Authorye receiued in the Ile of Britaine, you to make the matter lesse,Craft in placing of witnesses. sett Tertullian and Origine before to saie that it was subiect vnto Christe in their tyme. So that by alleaging of Lu­cius after them, it shoulde be thought, that his sen [...]ing to Ro­me, was not for anye Ghospell to be planted in his Realme, but only for some certaine Aduise of Eleutherius bishoppe, touching the ordering of his Churche and Realme. So that, as muche as he can, M. Iewell seeketh alwayes, how to diminishe or take awaye the prayse, Thankes, Obedience, and Reuerence, that are due to the Bishops of Rome, for their labours taken in conuerting of Britaines and Saxons bothe.

Iewell. Helen [...] being an English woman, wife vnto Constantius the Em­peroure, and mother vnto Constantinus, is notablie praised for here Faithe, and Religion, by S. Ambrose, by Eusebius, by Sozomenus and others.

Stapletō. True it is, and so muche is proued hereby that there were Christian folckes in England, after that Fugatius and Damia­nus sent from Rome by Eleutherius, had established the Faith there, and before the Saxons had vtterly destroied it, by chasing away the Britaines.

But note here (gentle Reader) what difference there is be­twixt Protestant and Protestant, Ciuile and Frantike, sp [...]aking by Authoritye or prating of his sense. I praise you in this place (M. Iewell) that you commende that Godly Emperesse Hele­na [...]o notably, and that you agree so well in that pointe, with Sainte Ambrose, Eusebius, Sez [...]menus and others. It is well done of you, to honour her with youre Testimonie, whome Sainte Ambrose and others, doe notablye praise for her Faith and Reli­gion.. And what beast then must he be that calleth that A Tale, Calfe. ar­ti. 3. pag. 86. whiche Sainte Ambrose and other, whome you alleage, doe not onelye take for a true Storye, but also worthye to be rea­den and regarded? The Storye I meane of her, goinge a pil­grimage [Page] to Hierusalem. and seeking of the holy Crosse, and so deuoutly ordering it when she had founde it, & caet. Certaine it is (saieth he) Superstitius she was. Againe, She was a Concubine to Constance. As for her Superstition, it is to euident. O worse then beastlynes. to Obiect vnto anye person A faul­te forgeauen. Small Grace surely is in that minde, whiche withoute cause will speake to the dishonoure of Excellent per­sonnages, and depraue the good giftes of God in anye off hys Seruauntes, what shoulde a man saye to suche felowes as wyse as Calues or as wanton as Calues? A litle sope of the good milke, whiche you (Master Iewell) haue geauen in this place, woulde profite him muche. For, if he will be instructed off yow, then can you tell him of Sainte Ambrose, Eusebius, Sozomenus, how they prayse her notablie for her faith and Religiō. And if he wil not, it shal be knowen, I trust, how obedient the inferiour ministers are to their Superintendents. But you perchaunce your selfe wil plaie the shreude Cowes part, and kycke down with your heeles, this faire deal of prayses which you geaue here to Helena if yow shal be asked whether her pilgrimage to hierusalem, and seeking and honoring of the Croosse, were cōmendable. Wel, how so euer you esteeme of her in dede we denie not but she was an English woman and Christian, and that in her time the Faithe was there, as af­terwarde also itt was in S. Chrisostomes tyme, whome for that purpose you alleage. The Conclusion ys: that as before Lucius time the Catholike faith was not openly receiued in England, so we wonder not if it remained there afterwarde, as you haue proued by Tertullian, Origene, Helena, and S. Chrisostome.

But that it was not altogeather geauen to Idolatrie at the cummyng in of S. Augustine what saie you thereunto?

Iewell. Nowe let vs consider, in what state this Realme stoode, touching Religion, att the cummyng of Augustyne, att which tyme M. Har­ding [Page 127] surmiseth the whole faithe was vtterly decaied.

Stapleton Yea mary let this be considered. And here prepare thy selfe (Gentle Reader) to see what A discourse M. Iewell will make.

Iewell. First Beda saieth there were among the Britaines, Seuen Bishoppes, and One Archebishoppe &c.

Stapleton Yow saie truthe. This was in wales, but you promised, to shew what state England was in, touching Religion att the cum­myng of Augustine. To that point speake I praye you and shewe against D. Hardinge that the Faithe was not vtterly de­caied.

Iewell. As touching the Englishe nation itt appeareth by Beda that the Queene her selfe was Christened, and had S. Martins Churche apoin­ted vnto her, freely to praie in, withe her cumpanie.

Stapleton But where was she Christened? in England or Fraunce? In Fraunce truly. For she was the Frensch and Christian kinges daughter, and being maried to a Panyme, yet she obtained to vse (for her owne person and her companie) such religion as was in their owne countrie of Fraunce. By which it appee­reth, that (as D. Harding saieth) the Faith was vtterly decaied in England, concerning the natural Inhabitours of the Coū ­trie, and the state thereof. And that you haue brought nothing to the contrarie, by telling vs of the Queenes Faith and God­lynes whiche was no English woman. Yet you reason and saie.

Iewell. A Gheas­se. VVhereof it maie be thought the king was no greate enemie vnto the Faithe.

Stapleton. In dede he was no such enemie to it, but he did suffer his Queene to doe as she woulde, but what of that? dyd he hym selfe alow it? or went he to churche withe her? And this spe­ciall priuilege graunted to her, dothe it not proue that the commō order and Seruice of the Realme was otherwise? but, goe ye furth.

Iewell. And therefore the lyke also maie wel be thought of a great number of the number of the people.

[Page] Stapleton Be it so. As the king was, so were many of the people: but the kying suffred his best beloued to haue her church and Reli­gion after her tradition, ergo many of the people also suffered it. Al this M. Iewell, is reasonnable. For the Panymes then were not so cruell and desperate as hugonotes and prote­stantes are at this present. For they hauing the gouernement in their handes coulde suffer Christians to folowe the faithe in which they were borne, but heretikes now are so Spritishe and Impatient, that where they haue no Iurisdiction at all, yet they dare to kyl Priestes, to chainge magistrates, and to sett forthe the Gospell with sword and terror. But what haue you with al this concluded? That Englishe men Fauored the Gospell at S. Augustines cumming? Nothing lesse. But only that the king with some other were no greate enemies vnto it: that is to saie, they loued it not themselues, yet they hated not the Queene the straunger and her cumpanie which loued it. And yet yow be not sure neither of this, but you saie as it maie be thought, Which argument is not grounded vpon any others Autho [...]ite but a Gheasse of your owne. It foloweth.

Iewell. Thus much shortly of the first planting of the Religion [...] of Christ within this Ile­land &c.

Stapleton Surely then yow haue deceaued vs: For when yow moued attention, and prepared a waie to further mater, saieing, Now let vs consider in what state this R [...]alme Stoode touching Religion, at the cumming of Augustine: I thought yow would haue dispro­ued D. Harding by good and substantial Recorde, and shewed thath in the Englishe Nation the Faithe was not vtterly decai­ed. But now, before you had well begonn, you haue sodanely made an ende; and can saie no more, but that, as it maie be thou­ght, the Saxons were not enemies to the Gospell. By which it appeareth, that A short horse is soone curried, and that a Faint cause can not strongely be mainteyned.

Thus then endeth M. Iewels discourse. He sheweth that [Page 128] the Faith was emong the Britannes, from the begynning: but that is nothing to vs which speake of Englishemen and not of welchemen. he cummeth to the Englishemen, and geaueth a greate Gheasse at a matter nothing tending to any purpose, Concluding that as it maie be thought the Englishemen were not enemies to the Faith, because forsothe the Quene a stran­ger borne serued God after the Catholike and true maner: but when they were made frindes of God, and partakers of Christs Faith he saieth nothing. Let vs therefore now declare that, which M. Iewell is afraied to haue knowen and credited. And let vs shew, how the Faith hath come to vs Englishemen only from Rome, that the vnkynd and cruell Childerne against the­ir only parents, maie in time, whiles Repentance will b [...] taken; returne againe to the Obedience of that See, by whose Autho­ritie and prouision the Englishe were first conuerted vnto the Faithe. Which to make the more open, let vs shortly reherse in what State Religion was in Britannie before the cumming of the Saxons in to it.

Of the cumming of Ioseph of Arimathea, of Simon Zelotes or of any other, in to this Ileland, there shall be no question be­twene vs and M. Iewel. For who so euer came, and how so euer they came, The first open and knowen profession of the faithe in this Ilelande was by the preaching of Fugatius and Damia­nus, sent from Eleutherius then Pope of Rome, at th [...] req [...]st of Lucius kinge of Britanny, as Polidore writeth.The faith openly profe [...]sed emong t [...]e Bri­tans. P [...]l [...]dorus lib. 2. For at the coming in of those ij. preachers, notwithstanding the faithe preached by Ioseph of Arimathea, there were in Britany at that preasent, eight and twenty Flamines of in [...]idels and three Arche flamines, in whose roome Lucius the first Christē kinge of Britanny placed so many bishops and Archebishops. These three Archebishoprickes were of London, of Yorke and of Glouce­ster. This was done about the yeare of our Lord, Clxxxij.

From this time the faith continued in Britanny vntell the [Page] tyme or the raging persecution of Diocletian and Maximi­nian, which fell in the yeare of our Lorde three hundred and odde. In that persecution S. Albane with sundry other Brittai­nes suffred martyrdome,Beda lib. 1. the 6. and 7. chap. The f [...]ith d [...]ca [...]eth amōg the Britannes Lib. 2. as Polydore, and Bede do witnesse. Through the rage and fury of that persecution (sayeth Poly­dore by the reporte of Gildas a Brittain him selfe) ita relegio re­frixerat vt sit penè extincta, the religion waxed so fainte that it was well nere extinguished.

After being receiued somewhat in the time of Constan­tin the great,Beda lib. 1 the 8. and the 17. chap. it was much infected with heresies, first of the Arrians, and after of the Pelagians. The faith notwithstan­ding remained amonge a number of the Catholike Brittains, sounde in substaunce and perfitt. Before the infection of the Pelagian heresy, the Brittaines being forsaken of the Ro­maines, and ouerpressed with the inuasions of the Scottes and Peightes or Redshankes,The first booke, the xv. chapter. Britans dryuen owt of their Coū trie. called to their succour out off the highe Germany, Saxons, English and Wites. For these three nations (as Bede calleth them) arriued in to Brittany out of Germany. This their arriuall fell in the yere CCCC. xxix. These peoples as they deliuered the Brittaines from the forrain inuasions of the Scottes and the Redshankes, so in short time, they draue away the Brittaines them selues in to the straightes off wales, whiche their posterite nowe occu­ieth, and possessed them selues all the rest of Brittanny, ex­cept Scotland,

All these peoples that come out off Germany were vtter­ly heathens and infidels. The greatest number of them were Angli, English. they possessed for their share att the first spoy­le, all that is nowe called Englande, except Kent, Essex and Sussex. Whiche the Saxons possessed, and except the ile of Wyte,England owt of th [...] knowledg of God. 150 yeres. Hampshere and parte off the westcountre, whiche the Vites or Wites possessed. In time the whole was called En­gland and the people English. These peoples English or Sax­xons [Page 129] continewed heathen and infidels for the space of a hun­dred and fifty yeares. All which time the Brittain Christiās (as Gildas a countreman of their owne bitterly complaineth) neuer vouchesafed to preache the gospel of Christ vnto them. But the goodnes of God (saieth Venerable Bede) did not so forsa­ke his people, The xxij. Chap. whome be foreknew to be called to saluation. But proui­ded for the English people much more worthy preachers, to bringe them to the faith, then those vnmercifull Britaines were. And who were they M. Iewell? Were they Hebrewes or Grekes? It foloweth in the History of Venerable Bede a lerned and holy man by the verdit of all Christendom, these ma­ny hundred yeares, in the sorte. The yeare off the nation of our Lorde VC.lxxxij. Mauritius the 54.Bede the first boo­ke, the xxiij. Chap. Emperour after August reigned Emperour of Rome xxj. yeres. In the tenth yere of whose raigne, Gregory a man of the greatest vertu and lerninge of his time, was Bishop of the Romaine and Apostolike See, which he gouuerned xiij. yeres, vj. moneths and x. dais. This Gregory the xiiij. yere of the reigne of the said Emperour, and about the hundreth and fiftie yere of the coming in of the Englishe men in to Britanny, being moued by inspiratiō of god ther [...]ūto, sent the seruāt of God, Augustin, and certain otheer Monkes, which feared God, with him, to preach the word off God vnto the nation of the Englishmē. VVho obeying the bishops commaundement &c. The first conuersi [...] of englād to the Faith. (as in the History it selfe it may at lar­ge be sene in many Chapters folowing.) This man of God (as Bede oftentimes calleth him) Augustine, arriued into Brit­tanny then possessed for the most patt of the Saxons and en­glishmen our forefathers, he preached vnto Ethelbert then king of Kent, he conuerted him and all his people to the faith. His companions and scholers in fewe yeres after conuerted the whole nation. This Augustine with other monkes that ac­compained him, at their first coming, expressed (as Bede wri­teth) the very Apostolike order of liuing of the primitiue Churche, seruing God in cōtinual praier, watching and fasting, and preaching [Page] the worde of life, to as many as they coulde, despising the commoditie of the worlde, as thinges non [...] off their owne. takinge off them whom they instructed, only so much as might serue their neces­sites, A [...]i. 8. fol. 151. liuing them selues according to that they taught other and being ready to suffer bothe troubl [...]s, and death it self in d [...]fense of the truthe that th [...]y taught. By these means God so wrought, that (as I saied) the king and his people were conuerted and Christe­ned.The 255. Vntruth. For he cō uerted thousan­des of in­fidels, but kylled no godly.

This w [...]s a sh [...]rte Victory saeth M. Iewell Peter and Paule coulde neuer so ea­sely conquer kingdomes. But this matter stood not so much in winning the vnfaith­full, as in kil [...]ing the godly.

O impudent, shamelesse and blasphemous Iewell. I spea­ke in Gods cause, in the quarell of our Apostle blessed S. Augustin, in the defence of all our forefathers the Christen inhabitants of the realme of England. The planting of that Christen faith, by the which, so many hundred yeres, the who­le estat of England, the Noble Princes, the honourable Nobili­te, the holy bishops, the lerned clergie, the deuoute people haue yelded their soules vnto God, the preaching of that faith which all Christendome beside, of Italy, Fraunce, Spaine, Portugall, Afrike, Germany, of all the Northecountres, of Grece it selfe in great part haue holden with vs and we with them, the planting and preaching I saie of that faithe, shall impudent and blasphe­mous Iewell, bringe out of credit, calling it, a killing of the Godly? Let here that impudent varlet answer, not worthy no more the name, either of English man or of Chri­sten man, let him answer I saie, what godly did Augustin kil­le. Is the conuerting of infidels to the faith of Iesus Christ, a killing off the Godly▪ Is this the voice of a Chri­sten man, of a preacher of Gods worde, of a bishop?

Venerable Bede saieth of S. Gregory which sent this Au­gustine to preache the Faithe.Lib. 2. ca. 1 VVe may well and are also bounde [Page 130] to call him oure Apostle. For he being high bishoppe ouer the whole worlde (saieth Venerable Bede) made our Nation the Churche off Christe, whiche had ben euer vnto that tyme the bondslaue of Idol­les. And howe was that (os impudens) but by the meanes of holy Augustine whome he sent to preache and to conuerte vs? Lett the Epitaphe written vppon the toume of that holye man te­stifye. Whiche (as S. Bede recordeth) was thus conceiued.

Here lyeth Blessed Augustine,The .3. Chap. the first Archebis­shoppe of Caunterbury, vvho vvas sent hither off holy Sainte Gregorye Bisshoppe of Rome, and strenghthened of God by vvorking of miracles. VVho conuerted kinge Elbert and his realme frō the vvorshipping of Idolles to the faith of Christ. Was this no winning of the vnfaithefull, was this a killing off the Godly? Who woulde so speake and write, but some infidell him selfe or Iewe, M. Iewell? Hathe heresye so rooted oute all shame and honesty from your harte, that the conuerting frō infidelitye and paganisme vnto Christ, and that of youre ow­ne Countremen and Forefathers, you call the killing of the godly?

Let vs I praie you, cōsider your scoffing Sprit. This was a short victory, saye you, Peter and Paule coulde neuer so easely conquer kingdomes. O Syr. Must the Spirit of God be measured with the wisedom of your braine? Must God worke at your leasure and appointement? Goe Syr and scoffe in like maner at S. Pau­le,Rom. 15. that he (as he witnesseth him selfe) had filled all places with the ghospell of Christe, from Hierusalem as farre as Illyricum. An o­ther Iewell may scoffe and saye here also: This was a shorte vi­ctory, & cet. But thinke you by the cancred malice of your scof­fing Sprit, to blotte the Blessed memorye of oure Apostole, the signet of whose Apostoleship we are in oure Lorde, who thoughe not to other, yet to vs, is an Apostle: For by the Ghospell he begotte vs in Christe.

[Page] Iewell. pag. 185.Is there nowe, after the continuaunce of that faith well nere a thousand yeres planted by him and his companions or scho­lers, vpstert one, and that in the roome of a bishop, in that selfe countre, and of that countre and nation, whiche writeth hym an Hypocrite, a superstitious man, cruell, Blowdye and proude aboue measure?

Knowe you the wordes M. Iewel? Remembre you whose they are? They are the Cancred wordes of the Spirit that speaketh oute of you. The Spirit of Malice, Rancour and Contradictiō. They are your owne wordes M. Iewell. In the thirde Article, pag. 185. Thus you speake of Saint. Augustine our blessed Apo­stle.

Iewell. The .256. Vntruthe. For none that knew him euer sa [...]ed so of him. Galfrid. li. 8. cap. 4.He was a man, as it was iudged by them that saw him and knewe him, neither of Apostolike Spirite, nor anye waye worthy to be cal­led a Sainte: But an Hypocrite, a superstitious man, Cruel, Bloudye, and proude a­boue measure.

Stapleton. If Seuerus that hereticall bishop of Antioche had his tounge cutt out of his heade, for his blasphemies that he vttered again­ste the holy Councell of Chalcedon, what you should deserue M. Iewell, if you mett with an other Iustinus, it is easy to be cō sidered. His blasphemy folowed of one hereticall opinion, your intolerable Malice procedeth against the whole cause of Christen Religion. He resisted the Catholike doctrine in one or two pointes only. You [...]aue against your Apostle, of whome you receiued Christ. It had ben your part (if any such Reporte had bene made of our Apostle) either to haue suspected the au­thor, or to haue boulted out the Truthe by other writers, or att the leste to haue dissembled it. But you are one of them off whiche the Prophet saieth. [...]s [...]i [...]. 1. Filios enutriui & exaltaui: Ipsi autem spreuerunt me. I haue brought vp my Children, yea and I haue exalted thē to high vocations. but they haue despised me. What Englād hath done for you, and how much you are bounde to that coūtre, you know best your self, and we cā not be ignorāt. And haue you nowe for all rewarde, blased out the Apostle of that people, with these Charitable Titles: Hypocrite, Supersti­tious, [Page 131] Cruel, Bloudie, and Proude aboue measure. You, you M. Iewel ha­ue vttered this blasphemous Slaunder, and Slaunderous blas­phemy, (against our blessed Apostle) A Blasphemy I saie, not to be comptrolled with the penne, but to be whipped whithe the Scourge. For they are (as I haue saied) your owne wordes. They are not the wordes of Galfride of Munmouthe, whom you allege in the Margin. He hath no such wordes. You be­lie Galfride and you slaunder our blessed Apostle. Galfrid off all his nine bookes wreten of the Actes of the kinges off Bri­tanny, only in the eight booke the fourthe Chapter (the place by you quoted) speaketh of our Apostle S. Augustin.The 257. Vntruthe For Gal­fride hath no suche wordes as M. Iewel referreth vnto him Galfr. lib. 8. cap. 4. In that whole Chapter he hath no such wordes, nor any like or lea­ding thereunto. Only he telleth. how Augustine was sent in to britanny by S. Gregorie, to preache the Gospell vnto the Englishmen, which were panymes at that tyme. And howe he required subiection of the Britones, and that they woul­de togeather withe him, take the paines to preache the Go­spel to the Englishmen: And how Edelbert kyng of Kent see­ing their disdainefulnesse, stirred kinge Edelfride kinge off Northumberland, and other princes off the Saxons against them: And how the Britones where ouercummed and a grea­te number of monkes slaine. But to S. Augustine he geaueth not one Title good or badd, and muche lesse such cruell and bloudieones as M. Iewel alleageth.

If Galfride had so reported beinge A Welcheman, and one that liued att the lest iiij. hundred yeares after the time of S. Augustines arryuing vnto Enlande, and being a writer other­wise, (I reporte me to Merlines prophecyes libr. 4. to kinge Arthures Conquestes againg the Emperour Leo, and his ho­ste of C C C C. and LX. thousand men, to the two Gyantes &c) so fabulous, vayne and poeticall,lib. 7. that he resembleth more the Beuis of Hampton or Guy of Warrycke, then a graue or true historiographer, you might certainely without any par­tialyte, [Page] haue iudged, that beinge of that Countre he speake of Affection, or liuing so longe after, might well misse the Tru­the, or at lest, that he was not worthy to be a witnesse against Venerable Bede and holy S. Gregory, who bothe do highly commende our Apostle S. Augustin, as partly I haue before declared, partly shall strayte waies declare. But nowe seeing that Galfride, your alleaged Author sayeth no such thinge, of what a facing and desperat Sprit be you, so to Slaunder our Blessed Apostle, and then to father your Slaunder vpon an other.

Iewell. 185.But it maketh you to be the more bolde to saie as you doe off S. Augustine, Because thei that saw him and knew him, Iud­ged him to be a man neither of Apostolike Sprite, nor any waie worthie to be called a Sainct. And what are their names I praie you then? Or from whence came they, or whither wil they? was Galfride one of them? It were hard for you so to saie, consi­dering that he lyued iiij ^C yeres after S. Augustine the mon­ke, and by reason therefore coulde not see him or know him. And if it were some other, why named ye him not in your text or the margine?

Yet who so euer he were did he see him or know him bet­ter than Saint Gregorie, who choose him, who sent hym, who commended him, who honored him? If there were nothing in all S. Gregories workes to the praise off S. Augustine, yet, this being so wel testyfied, that himselfe first, (before he was Pope,) was mynded to goe in to Englande to conuert it, and that afterwardes he continued in his holy and mercifull and gracious intent in sending an other to doe that Office: who but vnsensible coulde Imagine, that so wise A man, woulde committ so greate a cause as the conuersion of a whole Coū ­trie ys, either to him whom he neuer sawe, or whom he dyd not know? Vndoubtedly therefore, If we had no other argu­ment, yet this alone, that S. Gregorie trusted him in so great [Page 132] a matter and so greately tendered of his holynesse, is sufficient inough to proue, that he knew S. Augusti [...]eth right wel what he was. But we haue other Argumētes out of S. Gregorie hym selfe, by which it shall be perceaued not only thath he knew S. Augustine, but also lyked and praised him.

For he commendeth hym to Desiderius and Sigarius bishop­pes or Fraunce, by speciall letters,Gregor. li. 5. ep. 54. requiring them to helpe and cumfort, Augustinum seruum dei, praesentium portitorem, cuius zelus & studium bene nobis est cognitum, Augustine the seruant of God, the bearer of these present leters, whose Zeale and good wil ys well knowen vnto vs. By the selfe same wordes he commendeth him also to Theodoricus and Theodebert kinges of Fraunce calling him The seruant of god: lib. 5. epist. 58. whose Zeale and good mind is well knowen vnto vs.

Besides this, he calleth him, his brother Augustine, lib. 7. epist. 5. ep. 30. And in an other place testifieth that he was A Monke of his Monasterie, and sent by him into England, which vnto that tyme continued wicked and naught, in cultu lignorum ac lapidum, in the wor­shipping of Stockes and Stones. And further, he testifieth that ei­ther Augustine himselfe, or they that were Sent with him, dyd shyne by so many miracles in that Countrie, that the notable thinges which they doe, maie seeme to folow and resemble the workes and Power of the Apostles. And againe. That at Christmassetyde, S. Augustine baptized more than ten thowsand Englishmen,

He saieth further, to the praise of S. Augustine, that so gre­te a multitude of the Englishe nation was turned to the grace of the Christian Faithe,Lib. 9. ep. 52. that he had neede to send more labo­rers thither, And in that epistle he calleth him,epist. 58. our most Reuerēt brother and felowbishope Augustine To be short, God so wrought by the handes of S. Augustine, to the conuersion of England,VVho would thinke that any man woulde dare thinke him Cruel, bloudy or proude aboue measure, whom God, cō ­mendeth by gift of miracles and S. Gregorie by so many good wordes? that S. Gregorie thought it good to write vnto him, a most wyse and louing letter, least the greatnes of his giftes and mi­racles should extol him, For after he had wōdered at the migh­te [Page] Grace of God which had brought greate thinges to passe in England, by the meanes of simple and weake men: yet (sai­eth he) there is in this heauenly gift (most deere brother Augustine.) a thinge that with, greate wil, ought to be feared most vehemētly. For I know, that almightie God, hath shewed, by meanes of the greate wonders, towardes that Coūtrie which he would to be Chosen, Wherefore it is necessarie that of the self same heauenly gift thow bothe reioyce with feare, and be also afried with gladnes. I meane that thow shoul­dest be glad, because the sowles of Englishemen are drawen by the outward myracles vnto an inwarde grace, and that thow shouldest, fea­re least emong the signes and myracles which are wrought, the weake mynd should lift it selfe vp, with presumyng vpon it selfe

Now least any peruerse interpretour, should thinke S. Grego­rie, by this care ouer S. Augustine least he should be puffed with any vanie glorie, to signifie; that he was a proued and high min­ded felow, it foloweth in the same epistle. Haec autem dico &c? But I speake these thinges, because I would laie downe the mynde of my hearer vpon humilitie. As for thy humilitie (saieth he to S. Au­gustine) Let it haue her proper hope and trust, for Synner as I am, I hold this most Sure hope, that, by the grace of our almightie maker and redemer, God and lord Iesus Christ, thy synnes are already forgeauē, and that thow art an Elect and Chosen, to the end other mens Synnes might be forgeauen through thee. Thus far S. Gregorie.

Let M. Iewell now come furth and shew, either that there is One which better saw and knew Augustine than S. Gregorie Or that S. Gregorie dyd euer compt him Superstitious, Cruell, Bloudie, or Proude aboue measure, Or that euer any man that knew S. Augustine hathe reported so wickedly, Cruelly and Proudly of him. Galfridus to whom only M. Iewell referreth vs could not know S. Augustine, and againe he hath no such wordes a­gainst him, as are obiected by M. Iewell. On the other syde S. Gregorie knew his cōuersatiō, alowed his behauyour, sent him of Trust in to England, Commended him to bishoppes and [Page 133] kinges, wondereth at the workes that God shewed by him, calleth him seruant of God, most Reuerend felowbisshoppe, moste deere brother, and hopeth most certainly that he shall haue no accompt to be made after this life for anye fault or gyltines remaining. And dareth a wretched heretyke loden with Synnes, either to burden an holye and Vertuous Father withe Slaunders vnproued, either to refuse the testimonie of true and wel deserued praises geauen to S. Austen, by S. Gre­gory him selfe which knew him so well?

Iewell. Pag. 186. The [...]58. Vntruthe pregnant and full.Now that which M. Iewell alleageth out of the History of Beda, to bringe that holy man S. Augustine our Apostle out of credit, is withe passing impudency auoutched of him. I be­seche thee (good Christen Reader) to haue recours to the History it selfe, it beinge nowe set forthe and published in the english tounge. If thow be lerned and missetrust the transla­tion, conferre the latin therwith all. Reade the whole second Chapter of the seconde booke, out of whiche M. Iewell ha­the culled a piece for his purpose, and thou shalt easelye see, that Venerable Bede in recordinge that Historye had a farre other iudgement in it, then the spiderlike venim of M. Iewell hathe sucked out. But one thinge I maye not presentlye o­mitte to warne thee of. M. Iewell alleageth out of Bede, that vpon the refusal of the Britains accorde with S. Augustin, Ethelber­tus the kinge raised his power, and slewe great numbers of the Brittains, and a thousand and two hundred godly Religious men. For in this one sentence he hath couched three moste mani­fest Vntruthes. First that the same slaughter was made vpon the refusall of the Brittaines accorde. For longe before that slaughter the holy bishop Augustin departed this life,Lib. 2. Cap. 2. as Bede in that Chapter recordeth. Wherby it is euident that. S. Austin was not the cause of that slaughter,Polidore also wit­ne [...]seth the same Libro. 4. as M. Iewell woulde haue it to seme. Secondarely it was not Ethelbertus the kinge of Kent whom S. Austen had conuerted, who made that slaugh­ter, but Ethelfridus the king of the North partes of England, [Page] whom Bede in the last chapter of the first booke compareth to Saul for his great Victories. M. Iewell named for Ethelfri­dus the heathen, Ethelbertus the Christened kinge, that it might seme to haue bene done by S. Augustins procurement. Thirdly he calleth them godly Religiouse Men, who were in dede obstinate schismatikes, as the which being gently admonished of their schismatical Obseruatiōs, cōtinewed notwithstāding peruersely in the same,Lib. 2. Cap. 2. as appeareth more largely in Bede.

Thus much by occasiō of M. Iewelles blasphemyes I haue sayed in Defence of our Apostle blessed S. Austen, and of the faith first planted by him among vs Englishemen.

Harding. She Seruice of Englande that now is, lacketh some thin­ges necessary, and hath some other thinges repugnant to the Faythe and custome off the Catholike Churche.

Iewell. The 259. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The 92. Vntruthe, ioyned with a slaunder. Oure Seruice contei­neth nothinge contrary to the faithe.

Stapleton. As the Crede of the Arrians was iudged by the Fathers of the Nicene councell, contrarye to the faith, bicause it lacked the Consubstantialite or vnite of Substaunce of Christ with God the Father, though otherwise it had no wordes in it con­trary to the faith: 1 so the English Seruice containeth in it, thin­ges repugnant to the faithe, in that it wanteth the Consecra­tion and the oblation of the Holy Mysteries, as I haue before proued. 2 Also Prayer for the soules departed, Memories and inuocations of the blessed Sainctes, 3 All which the Catholike faithe beleueth and practiseth in the Churche seruice, though in the englishe Seruice, no worde were expressed contrary to the Catholike faith.

But I praye you M. Iewell, are the homilies parte of your Church Seruice or no? You wil not denie but they are. 4 Then your homilies of only faith iustifying, are contrary to the fai­the of S. Iames the Apostle, saying expressely, man is iustified [Page 134] by workes not by faithe only. 5 Your homilie against Images is contrary to the faithe which the seuenth Generall Councell of Christendom established against the peuish heretikes Ico­nomachi, your forefathers.Iacob. 3. 6 To be short the very Order of your Seruice being in the Mother tounge, contrary to the practise of all Christendom hetherto (as it hath in this Article appea­red,) and of all the Catholike Church beside, at this present, is mere schismaticall, and damnable: 7 So is also the Ministration of your bread and wine in bothe kindes, by priuat authorite, and condemning withall, other Catholike Countres whiche vse the contrary. 8 So is in like maner the not mingling of your Communion Cuppe withe water: whiche the Catho­lique Churche bothe Greke and Latin hathe practised:Fol. 12. & seq. as I haue before in the firste Article at large proued. In these manye pointes Master Iewell youre Seruice partelye lacketh some thinges necessary, partly hath some thinges repugnant to the Faithe and custome off the Catholike Churche, as D. Harding moste trulye saied. And thus M. Iewell you were slaundered with a Truth.

Now good Christian Reader for the better contenting of thy minde, and for a full declaration that in Iustifying onely these Vntruthes, whiche it hathe pleased M. Iewell to score vpon D. Harding (most slaunderously, as nowe thou seest) the chiefe and principal pointes of this Article haue bene dis­cussed, and M. Iewelles Replie in the most waightiest poin­tes answered, I beseche thee to looke backe and to consider the whole substaunce of these M. Iewelles Vntruthes in this Article,Fol. 56. b. & 57. b. e [...] s [...]q. item fol. 100. [...] and to remember what hath by occasion thereof be­ne saied. First it hath bene shewed and proued that not onely in our Countre from the first beginning of the faith among vs Englishmen, but also long before both in the greke Chur­che, and in the Latin namely in Rome, and Fraunce, the Ser­uice [Page] was in the greke and Latin tounges, whiche the cōmon Vulgar people vnderstode not. And herein M. Iewell is for­ced if he will abide to his promise, to yelde and Subscribe. Next the Constitution of Iustinian which hath so longe ser­ued M. Iewell and his felowes for a mighty and principall Achilles to fortifie their Vulgar Seruice withall,Fol. 69. b. & seq. is proued at large to make nothinge therefore: and M. Iewelles long lying Replie in that behalfe at large confuted.Fol. 86. et seq. Thirdly M. Iewelles Examples (as he calleth them) wherein he laboured to shewe that within the first 600. yeares some Countres had their Ser­uice in the Vulgar tounge, are all and euery one particularly answered, confuted, and proued no Examples of any Vulgar Seruice in that age. Whereby it remaineth, that no Vulgar Seruice in all that time in any one place appearing, the Only Seruice was then in the lerned tounges Greke and Latin, as it is now.Fol. 101. & seq. Fourthely the Only place of holy Scripture that M. Iewell and his felowes haue to maintaine their Vulgar Serui­ce by, namely the fourtenth Chapter of the firste to the Co­rinth. is proued at large to make nothinge for the Vulgar Seruice, but rather to ouerthrowe the same. And M. Iewell in that place is founde ten times to haue corrupted the texte of S. Paule. Last of all the blessed memory of oure Apostle holy S. Austin the Monke sent by holy S. Gregory to prea­che the faith to vs Englishmen then Heathens and paynims, is defended and deliuered from the most impudent lies,Fol. 122. & se. q. dete­stable Slaunders, and desperat Reproches, wherwith the ten­der harte of M. Iewell hath with passing Impudency charged him. Other Vntruthes as they were of lesse weight, so they are with lesse labour, sufficiētly yet and thouroughly, discharged. It is nowe thy parte, gentle Reader, in­differently to Consider the vprightnes of M. Iewell, and the Truthe of the Cause.

D. Hard. Diuis. 1. THe Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, that is to saye, Supreme power, and auctoritie ouer and aboue all Bishoppes, and chiefe gouuerne­ment of Christes flocke in matters pertai­ning to Faith and Christen Religion, was in the first six hundred yeares, acknowleadged and confessed.

Iewell. The .93. Vntruthe. For there was no such power confessed.Pag. 220

Stapletō. The .260. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.This power is confessed by S. Gregory a Bishop of Rome within the first six hundred yeres. I alleage him to you M. Ie­well though he be a bishop of Rome him selfe, bicause you ha­ue in this Article alleaged him so Plentifully and so stoutely against D. Harding, as if he had clerely condemned such Su­preme Authorite him selfe. I will alleage and vrge the very pla­ce that D. Harding bringeth, and answer to all that you saie against it, that the Christen Reader may see with what Passing Impudencie you alleage S. Gregory against him selfe, and yet crie out with open mouthe against D. Hardinge, as though he had done so. The wordes of S. Gregory are these. Cunctis Euan­gelium scientibus liquet, Gregori­us lib. 4. epist. 2. quòd voce Dominica Sancto & omnium A­postolorum Petro Principi Apostolo totius Ecclesiae cura commissa est. Ipsi quippe dicitur: Petre amas me? pasce oues meas. Ipsi dicitur. Ecce Satanas expetiuit cribrare vos sicut triticum:Ioan. 21 Luce. 22 & ego pro te ro­gaui Petre, vt non deficiat fides tua: & tu aliquando conuersus con­firma fratres tuos. Ipsi dicitur. Matth. 16 Tu es Petrus & super hanc petram aedíficabo Ecclesiam meam, & portae inferi non praeualebunt aduer­sus eam. Et tibi dabo claues regni coelorum &c. Ecce claues regni coe­lestis accepit, potestas ei ligandi & soluendi tribuitur. Cura ei totius Ecclesiae & principatus committitur. Et tamen vniuersalis Aposto­lus [Page] non vocatur. It is euident to all (saieth S. Gregory) that kno­weth the gospell, that the cure and charge of the whole Church hath bene committed by the wordes of our lorde to the ho­ly Apostle Peter, Prince of all the Apostles. For to him it is saied. Peter louest thou mee? Fede my shepe. To him it is saide. Beholde Sathan hath desired to sifte you as it were wheate, and I haue praied for thee Peter that thy faithe faile not. And thou being once conuerted strengthen thy brethern. To him it is sai­de. Thou arte Peter and vpon this Rocke I will builde my Church: and the gates of hell shall nor preuaile against it. To thee I will geue the kaies of the kingdome of heauen: &c. Be­holde he receiueth the keyes of the heauenly kingdome, the power of binding and loosing is geuen vnto him. The charge of the whole Churche and principalite is committed to him. Yet Peter is not called the Vniuersall Apostle. Thus farre Gre­gory. In whose wordes I beseche thee gentle Reader consider thre thinges. 1 First that the Charge of the VVhole Church and Principalite thereof is committed vnto Peter. 2 Secondarely that the Commission of that charge was made by our lorde and Sa­uiour him selfe to Peter by name, and that in three seuerall ti­mes in the gospell. In S. Matthew at his Confession of Christ. Before Christes passion, when the Apostles were in most da­unger to falle, and after Christes passion for full confirmation of all that went before. 3 Last of all that not withstanding all that preeminēce of Peter, notwithstanding the Charge that he had of the VVhole Church, not withstanding he was Prince of all the Apostles, and had the Principalite of the whole Chur­che committed vnto him, notwithstanding I saye all this, yet by the name of an Vniuersall Apostle he was not called.

Touching the first point, note the matter and pithe of this Article to be confessed, which is the chefe gouuernement of Christes flocke in the Bishop of Rome. For as Peter was Bishop of Rome, as the Churche to him committed endureth [Page 2] for euer, as that Authorite was not geuen for Peter only, so are the Bishops of Rome his successours, so doth that commission endure for euer, and so doth that Authorite take place, force, and effect for all the Church of Christ, from that time fore­warde for euermore. Therefore Chrisostom saieth expressely, that Christ did shead his bloud, vt pecudes eas acquireret, Lib. 2. de sacerdo­tio. quarum curam tum Petro, tum Petri successoribus committ [...]bat to winne those shepe, the charge of whom he did committe bothe to Pe­ter, and to the successours of Peter. Of the which charge in an other place he saieth. Ecclesiae Primatum gubernationemque Petro per vniuersum mundum tradidit, Homil. 1. de p [...]eni­tentia. Tom. 5. that Christ deliuered to Peter the Primacy and gouernement of the Church throughout the whole worlde. In which wordes we see M. Iewell the chiefe gouuernement in Christes flocke to be confessed in Peter the Bishop of Rome, and in his Successours.

Touching the seconde point, that this chiefe gouuernemēt so cōfessed is grounded vpon the Scriptures, and Authorite of our Sauiour him selfe. For S. Gregory after he had affirmed this chiefe gouuernement in Peter, he added the reason thereof and saied. Ipsi quippe dicitur. For to him it is saied: Fede my shepe. Lo vpon this Commission of Christe geuen in holy Scripture to Peter Only, Gregory groundeth the Authorite of Peter. So doth also Chrysostom in the place aboue alleaged.

Touching the last pointe, marke I beseche thee (good Rea­der) diligently, that though such principall Authorite ouer the whole Churche be graunted in Peter, yet he is not fo [...] all that called an Vniuersall Apostle. The Power is confessed, the Na­me or Title is denied. Right so of any Bishop of Rome euer sence Peter, that title or name of Vniuersal Bishop, was neither de­sired nor vsurped. And yet the Authorite notwithstanding hath bene bothe confessed and practised. Neuer Pope more practised this vniuersall Authorite then Gregory him selfe. His writinges, decrees, and Epistles yet extant doe most euidently [Page] declare it. Yet no man euer more abhorred the name then he. M. Iewell in all this Article hath not shewed One Pope that euer called or wrote him selfe Vniuersall Bishop. It is therefore a great vanitie and but a point of a cōtentious sprit in M. Iewell, to crie and call vpon the name of Vniuersall Bishop in the Pope, the power and Authorite vniuersall being confessed, the name also by the Pope him selfe neither desired, neither vsur­ped. For as S. Augustin most truly telleth you M. Iewel. Quid est contentiosius quàm vbi de re constat, certare de nomine? VVhat is more Contentious then to striue vpon the name,Epist. 174. when the thinge is cōfessed? Let vs see therefore what you answer to this place of S. Gregory alleaged by D. Harding. You saie.

Iewell. Pag. 225. The .261 Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.If S. Gregorie were now aliue, he would charge M. Harding with open iniurie, not only for altering his whole meaning, but also for mangling and maiming his very wordes.

Stapletō. Here be two great faultes in dede M. Iewell. First to alter the meaning of S. Gregory, then to mangle and maime his wordes. But how proue you these two faultes to haue ben committed? Let vs see. You folowe and saie.

Iewell. The .262 Vntruthe as appe­reth.M. Harding to proue that the Bishop of Rome was called the vniuersall Bishop alleageth these wordes of S. Gregorie.

Stapletō. Vntruthe M. Iewell. D. Harding doth not alleage them the­refore. You belie him impudently. He saieth in the very begin­ning of this Article. Harding. By what name so euer the Bishop of Ro­me was called &c. this is cleare, his Primacy and Supreme power is confessed. VVich thinge being so, whether then he were called by ether of these names (he meaneth of the Vni­uersall Bishop, or Head of the Church) or no, it is not of great importance. And yet for the one of them (he meaneth the na­me of Vniuersal Bishop) somewhat, and for the other (of head of the Church) an infinit nūbre of good authorites may be alleaged. But thereof Hereafter. Harken M. Iewell. Of [Page 3] these Names D. Harding saieth he will speake Herafter. What then will he proue now at this present? He telleth you. Now Concerning the chiefe point of this Article, which is the Pri­macie of the Pope Peters successour. First it hath bene sett vp and ordained by God. This, this, M. Iewell is the thinge that D. Hardinge first will proue. For this matter he alleaged before Anacletus, and now he alleageth Gregory. For this point I saie, to proue that the Popes supremacy was ordained by God, Gre­gory is alleaged. And we haue heard Gregory to proue it in Pe­ter, whose successour the Pope is,The Sha­melesse Impuden­cy of M. Iewell. by no lesse then three seue­rall authorites of holy Scripture. Here therefore I beseche thee (gentle Reader) consider and marke the shamelesse impudencie of M. Iewell. VVhich not being able to answer to the Matter it selfe of the Popes supreme Authorite, telleth thee that these wordes were alleaged to proue the Name and title. He deceiueth thee, he mocketh thee, he abuseth thy patience gentle Reader. He turneth thy minde away form the Matter, to make thee be­holde only the Name. For thou shallt see that vpon this Name and against this Name he driueth all his talke that foloweth, vtterly beside the Purpose, and quite out of the Matter. For now he alleageth the wordes of S. Gregorie.

Iewell. The .263 Vntruthe Capitain and No­torious, in falsy­f [...]ing. S. Gregory. Stapletō. Ecce Petrus claues regni coelorum accepit, & potestas ei ligandi soluendique tribuitur. Cura ei totius Ecclesiae & principatus com­mittitur. Beholde, Peter receiueth the kayes of the kingdome of hea­uen. To him is geuen power bothe to binde and to loose. The charge and chiefe rule of the Church is committed to him.

Here is an other notable and exceding legerdemain of M. Iewell. He hath left out in his English, the worde Totius VVhole. where he should haue saied, the charge and Chiefe rule of the VVhole Church, he turneth it, of the Churche, and leaueth out, VVhole. O M. Iewel may we not most iustly and truly turne ouer to you your owne wordes, bothe that whiche go before, and these which folowe now? If S. Gregorie were now aliue [Page] he would charge M. Iewell with open iniurie, not only for al­tering his whole meaning, but also for mangling and maiming his very wordes. For in taking away the worde VVhole from the Church, you haue maimed his wordes, and altered his sence. Which was, that to Peter the Charge and chiefe rule Totius Ec­clesiae of the whole Churche was committed by Christ him selfe. But now let vs heare forthe your wordes.

Iewell. The .264. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous and Scorne­full.Thus farre Gregory, saieth M. Harding. And why no Farther? was he stayed with the Choynecough, and forced to breake of his tale in the middest? But marke well gentle Reader, and thou shalt see S. Gregory set to Schole, and kept in awe, and not suffred to vtter one word mo­re, then M. Harding will geue him leaue.

Stapletō. Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur. Chaunge the name, and all ths tale is tolde of you M. Iewell. For when you En­glishing the wordes of S. Gregorie, saied the charge of the Church, for, the charge of the VVhole chur [...]h was committed to Peter, when you coulde not coughe out that worde VVhole, were you stayed with the Choynecough M. Iewell, and forced to breake of that worde in the middest? Haue we not sene S. Gregory set to Schole by M. Iewell, kepte in awe by M. Iewell, and not suf­fred to vtter one worde more then M. Iewell would geue him leaue? S. Gregory would fayne haue saied in English the whole Churche, as he saied in Latin, Totius Ecclesiae, but M. Iewell would not geue him leaue to saie so much. Thus M. Iewell, you haue tolde a good tale for your selfe. Now let vs see how you haue tolde it for D. Harding. It foloweth in your text.

Iewell. The nexte wordes that immediatly folowe in the same sentence are these. Tamen Petrus vniuersalis Aposto [...]us non vo [...]atur. Yet Peter is not called the vniuersal Apostle.

Stapletō. It is true M. Iewell. They folowe in dede. And they are left out by D. Harding. What of that? Is not the sentence full en­ded before? Is not the Supreme authorite of Peter fully auou­ched before? Do these wordes any thinge derogat from that Supreme Authorite? If they do not, how is S. Gregory either maimed or māgled, when his whole sence and wordes are ful­ly [Page 4] reported, and nothinge concealed that might alter, weaken, or diminish the same? If they doe, then by like you will shew it. Let vs see how you folowe the matter.

Iewell. The .265. Vntruthe as appea­reth.M Harding saieth, The Bishop of Rome was called the vniuersall bisshop.

Stapletō. Vntruthe againe M. Iewell. D. Harding in this place saieth no suche thinge. You euer shoote at a wronge marke.

Iewell. But S. Gregorye euen in the selfe same sentence, that M. Harding hath here so hastely broken of, saieth. Peter him selfe being the Apostle of Christ yet was not called the vniuersall Apostle.

Stapletō. The .266. Vn­truthe for D. Hard. hath not broken of any part of the Sen­tence al­leaged.This dothe not derogate from the Power before confessed in Peter, but from the Name which is not the quaestion at this present.

Iewell. The .267. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. These wordes do folo­we: they were not in the middes. Concil Constan­tinopol. 8. [...]io­ne. 8.And woulde M. Harding haue the worlde beleue, that the Popes power is greater and more vniuersall then S. Peters?

Stapletō. Lo, howe you runne from the Name to the thinge, from the Calling to the power. S. Gregorye confesseth the Power, but denieth that Name. You bicause he denieth the Name, would haue him to denie the Power. S. Gregorye confesseth the one and proueth it by Scripture, but yet denieth the other. You bi­cause he denieth one, would force him to denie bothe. Thus M. Iewell (not D. Harding) altereth and mangleth S. Grego­ry. We will not haue the worlde to beleue that the Popes po­wer is greater then S. Peters, but that the Pope being succes­sour of Peter hath the same power which Christ gaue to Pe­ter, and not only to Peter, but to his successours, as we haue heard Chrisostom expressely saie.

These wordes M. Harding thought good to nippe of in the middes. Such is his dealing in the allegation of the Auncient Fathers. If I liste to vse his owne termes, I might well call this Foysting or Cogging, or I know not what. Certainely the holye Fathers in the Councell off Constantinople saie thus. It is not meete for Catholike men thus to choppe and to pare the sayinges of the holy Fathers. It is rather the very property of heretikes.

You teache vs still M. Iewell howe to answere your owne demeanour. This worde (Whole) wherein the effect of S. Gre­gories meaning stode, M. Iewell thought good to nippe of in the middes. Such is the dealing of M. Iewell in the allegation [Page] of the Auncient Fathers: So he corrupted before Clemens Alexandrinus, S. Ambrose, Seuerus Sulpitius, S. Hierom and others. If I liste to vse M. Iewelles termes, I might saye he had the Choynecough &c. Certainly the holy Fathers in the Councell of Constantinople saie thus. It is not mete for Catholike men thus to choppe and to pare the sayinges of the holy Fathers. It is rather the very property of heretikes. Exore tuo te iudico serue nequam. Luc. 19.

As for the sentence which M. Iewell chargeth D. Harding to haue nipped of in the middes, neither was it in the middes, but a sentence folowing, neither did the omitting thereof any thinge derogat from the meaning of S. Gregory. M. Iewell the­refore hath talked hetherto against him selfe pleasantly and largely, but to the matter he hath yet saied nothinge. Neither doth he say any thinge in many wordes after. He imagineth D. Harding to obiect that S. Gregory though he blamed the name of vniuersall B. in Iohn of Constantinople,A fayned obiection of M. Ie­well. yet he clai­med the same to him selfe, as a title only belonging to the See of Rome. Hereupon he heapeth vp a Mayn number of sayin­ges of S. Gregory against the title of Vniuersall bishop as well in him selfe, as in any other. All that is to no purpose. For it is not here defended by D. Harding. And it is not in this place at all disputed of, nor at al in any other place vpholded in that sence as S. Gregory blameth it. It is neither required nor vsed of any Pope. Therfore M. Iewell I may well call your labour therein Vanitas Vanitatum. For it is a great token of idlenes­se to be so earnest and so copious in disprouing that thinge that no man affirmeth. And yet M. Iewell so forceth this matter, as if all the right of the cause lay vpon it. It is a lewde kinde of logicke so stoutely to disproue that no man defen­deth, and to leaue that thinge vntouched, which only shoulde be answered. Therefore you conclude nothinge against D. Harding, when you saie.

[Page 5] Iewell. Pag. 227By these it may appeare that S. Gregory being Bishop of Rome would not suffer the Name of Vniuersall Bishop to be geuen neither to any other Bishop nor to him selfe.

Stapletō. All this is confessed. The Name of Vniuersall Bishop, as being the only Bishop for all, No Pope hath euer required, taken or vsed. But to the Authorite of the Pope S. Peters Successour what saie you? You answer at the length, and you saie.

Iewell. The .268 Vntruthe For S. Paule spake not in like Sen­ce. 2. Cor. 11 The .269 Vntruthe in misse­repor­ting the Text of S. Paule.And whereas S Gregorie saieth: The char [...]e and chief [...]y of the whole Chur­che is committed vnto Peter, in the sense it is spoken in, we denie it not. S. Paule likewise saieth of him selfe in like sence. Incumbit mihi quotidiana cura omnium Ecclesiarum. There lieth vpon me the Daily charge of all Churches. And further saieth. I reken my selfe to be nothinge infe [...]iour in t [...]a­uail to the highest Apostles.

Stapletō. The wordes of S. Paule are not truly reported of you M. Iewell. You haue lefte the common Latin translation, and made an other of your owne. The Latin and the Greke also do reade thus. [...] Praeter ea quae extrinsecus sunt, instātia mea quotidiana, Sollicitudo omniū Ecclesiarū. Beside the forain troubles and aduersites, my daily occupatiō, the care of all cōgregations. And how? It foloweth. VVho is troubled, and I am not troubled, who is offended, and I am not offended?2. Cor. 11 In this sence M. Iewell eue­ry good Bishop, and Priest, yea euery good Christē man hath a care of all the Churches in the worlde. But [...] is sollicitudo not cura & principatus, a hofulnesse and care, not a charge and Principall rule, such as is confessed in Peter. Againe if Paule being a chosen vessell, beside all the other Apostles, had also such a care and charge as Peter aboue the rest had, yet he had no Successour therereof, except at Rome, where it pleased God he should take the crowne of marrtyrdō with S. Peter.Gregor. li. 1. Epist. 24. Petrus Authore Deo [...]anctae Ecclesiae principatū [...]e [...]ens. Wherefore that Authorite ether died in him, or if it had any Successi [...]n after him, the See of Rome hath it. But M. Iewell that S. Gre­gory spake of a farre other charge and chiefty ouer the whole Chur [...]he in Peter, then was in Paule or any other Apostle, (though other holy Fathers, as S. Hierom and S. Ciprian seme [Page] to make all the Apostles equall) it appeareth euidently by an other Epistle of S. Gregory, which your selfe alleageth in this place.Lib. 4 Epist. 38 Thus he saieth. Certe Petrus Apostolus primū membrū sanctae & vniuersalis Ecclesiae est. Paulus, Andreas, Ioannes, quid aliud quam singularium pl [...]bium sunt capita? Et tamen sub vno capite omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae. Truly the Apostle Peter is the chiefest membre (vnder Christ) of the holy and Vniuersall Church. Paule, Andrew and Iohn what other thinge are they then the heads of Particular flockes? And yet all are the mem­bres of the Churche vnder one head, Christ. The charge there­fore and Preeminence geuen to Peter by S. Gregories confes­sion, is greater and more ample, then the charge of Paule, or ony other Apostle. Peter had the charge of the whole Chur­che, Paule and the other, of particular flockes. And dothe M. Iewell thinke to persuade the worlde that. S. Peter had the charge of the whole Churche, in the like sence, as S. Paule had the carefulnesse of all Churches? Or is it likely that M. Iewell knoweth S. Gregories minde better then euer S. Gregory knewe it him selfe? This shifte therefore can not serue M. Iewell. What other hath he? We shall see by his wordes.

Iewell. The .270 Vntruthe in for­ging a false Ar­gument vpon D. Harding.And will M. Harding hereof reason thus, Peter had the charge of the whole Churche. Ergo the Pope is an vniuersal Bishop?

Stapletō. No M. Iewell. It becometh only your scoffiing sprit to rea­son so. D. Harding reasoneth thus. Peter is confessed by S. Gre­gory to haue the charge of the whole Churche committed vnto him, by Christ him selfe. Ergo the Primacy of Peter by the testimony of S. Gregory hath bene sett vp and ordained by God. Ergo the Pope Peters Successour, hath his Primacy Iure domino by Goddes lawe, not only by mans lawe. Ergo the power and Authorite ouer all Christes flocke is acknowlead­ged and confessed in the Bishop of Rome. And that not only by S. Gregory, but by Chrysostom also. Ergo then the Vntruthe which you noted, is no Vntruthe, but you M. Iewell stande [Page 6] guilty thereof. Ergo whether the Name of Vniuersall Bishop were geuen or no, it is not of great importance, the Authorite and Power being confessed.

Iewell. The .271 Vntruthe Slaunde­rous. For the Pope at this daye chalen­geth no such title.Certeinely S. Gregorie saieth▪ Peter him selfe notwithstanding he receiued the whole charge, yet is he not called the Vniuersal Apost­le. And can the Pope be that thinge, that S. Petre him selfe coulde not be? S. Gregorie dreueth his reason thus. If this title of Vniuer [...]alite might belonge to any man, it shoulde ch [...]f [...]ly belonge vnto S. Peter, but it belong [...]th not vnto S Peter. Therefore it can belonge to no mā Hereby it is plaine that the Bishop of Rome challengeth this day a title S Peter neuer had, that no holy, nor godly man would euer take vpon him, that S. Gregory vtterly refused and detested and cal­led blasphemy.

Stapletō. M. Iewell allwaies harpeth vpon a wronge stringe. By such idle talke his Replie is waxen to a great quantite. We answer M. Iewell. You talke of that no man affirmeth. You slaunder the Pope. You abuse the Reader. We call not the Pope Vniu [...]r­sall Bishop. The Pope writeth not him selfe so, but Seruum ser­norum Dei. the seruant of the seruantes of God. D. Harding goeth not aboute to proue it. Therefore you fight with your owne shadowe.

Iewell. And yet will he seme to maintayne his estate by the Authorite of this holy Father.

Stapletō. Yea forsothe the state of his Primacy is by this holy Fathers not only writinges, but much more doinges so maintained and established, that M. Iewell shall neuer auoide it, if (as he dothe here stoutely) he will stande to the Authorite of this holy Father. But the Name of Vniuersall Bishop, neither we, nor the Pope maintaineth by this, or by any other holy Father.

And nowe bicause M. Iewell hath heaped out of the Epi­stles of S. Gregory a mayne number of allegations against the title of Vniuersal [...] B [...]shop, quoting them with such Ambition in the Margin, that one very allegation he quoteth Iewell. Pagina. 226, thus three times immediatly one after the other,lib. 4. Epist. 39 lib. 4. Epist. 39 and in the same sentence two other allegations,lib. 4 Epist. 39 as lib. 4. Epist. 32. and lib. 4. Epist. 38. he quoteth thrise also (eche of them) where as for these nine seuerall quo­tations [Page] in the margin of bothe booke and Epistle, one only quotation of the booke and three seuerall quotations of the Epistles had bene sufficient, because I saie, he hath with such extreme Ambition so heaped and multiplied his Allegations against that Title, which (as it hath bene saied) is of no Bishop of Rome vsurped, required, or mayntayned in that sence as S. Gregory reprou [...]th it, (that is, to be a Bishop Alone excluding all other) I will nowe (by Gods helpe) declare by the Epistles of S. Gregory him selfe, that notwithstanding he so abhor­red that Name, calling it a puffe of arrogancie, a newe Name, a Rashe, Grego. li 6 Epist. 2. & .24. Item li. 4 Epist. 32.38. & .39 a Foolish, a proude, a pompouse, a Peruerse, a Superstitious, an vngodly, and a wicked title, a Name of errour, a Name of singu­larite, a Name of vanite, a Name of Hypocrisie, and a Name of blasphemie, notwithstanding he saieth, that Whoso euer calleth himselfe Vniuersall Bishop, Lib. 4. Epist. 38 or desireth so to be called, is in his pride the forerenner of Antichrist, last of all, notwithstanding, he vttertly refuse that Name, to be geuen either to any other Bishop or to him selfe, that yet I saie all this notwithstanding, he practised him selfe the Vniuersall Authorite ouer the whole Churche, and euery parte thereof, through out all Christen­dom, as occasion serued. M. Iewel saieth.

Iewell. Pag. 226 Grego. lib. 4. Epist. 38. The . [...]72 Vntruthe For the reason that S. Gregory forceth, serueth not a­gainst the Bishop of Rome.The reason that S. Gregory forceth against the Bishop of Con­stantinople, maye serue as well against the Bishop of Rome. For thus he saieth. VVhat answer wilt thou make vnto Christ, that in dede is the head of the Vniuersall Churche, at the triall of the last Iudgement, that thus goest aboute vnder the Name of Vniuersall Bishop to subdue all his membres vnto thee? This is the very definition of an Vniuersall Bis [...]op. Thus the Bishop of Rome at­tempteth to subdue the whole Churche of God, and all the mem­bres of Christ vnto him selfe. Therefore by S. Gregories iudgement he is the forerunner of Antichrist.

Stapletō. The reason that S. Gregory forceth against Iohn of Constā ­tinople, can not be so forced against the bishop of Rome, nei­ther is that reason only so forced as M. Iewell imagineth. For the first, touching the Subiection of the whole Churche of God to the B. of Rome, as mēbres vnto their head, and sh [...]pe [Page 7] vnto their Pastour, S. Gregory him selfe shall anon be witnesse sufficient, that it was so, and ought to be so. Though therefo­re Iohn of Constantinople, who was no head of the vniuer­sall Churche, might worthely be blamed of S. Gregory, for subduyng the whole Churche vnto him, vnder pretence of that proude and vnlawfull Title, yet the Bishop of Rome (whose Supremacy ouer all the Churche none more then S. Gregory him selfe practised) can not be blamed if he claime that vniuersall authorite. But this is not the chefe or only rea­son that S. Gregory forceth against Iohn of Constantinople for vsurping that Name of vniuersall Bishop, that thereby he woulde make him selfe head of the vniuersall Churche, but that thereby he would make him selfe, the Only Bishop of all the Churche, and all other no bishops at all. In this sence S. Gregory reproued that Name not only in Iohn of Constan­tinople, but also in him selfe or any other. Therefore writing to the Emperour Mauritius he vseth these wordes.Gregorious lib. 4. epis. 32. This Ne­storius and Ma­cedonius were both Bishops of Con­stantino­ple. What man is this which against the commaundements of the gospell, and decrees of the Canons, presumeth to vsurpe to him selfe a new Name? Would God, the same man might well be one Bishop, without the hindera­unce of other, which desireth to be called the vniuersall [...]ishopp. Cer­tainely it is knowen that many bishops of Constantinople, haue fallen in to the whirlepoole of heresy, and not only bene heretik [...]s but also Archeher [...]tikes. For from thence came Nestorius, which teaching that Our Sauiour Christ was two persons, not beleuing that God coulde be made man in one person, fell euen to Iuish infidelite. From thence came Macedonius who denyed that the holy Ghoste was God con­substantiall with the Father and the Sonne. If therefore any man in that Churche (of Constantinople) do take that Name vnto him (of vniuersall bishop) what was the iudgement of all good men? Then forsothe the Vniuersall Churche loste her state and being (which God forbidde) when he which is called Vniuersall f [...]ll. But God kepe this blasphemous name from the hartes of all Christ [...]n men. [Page] In the which the honour of all priestes is taken awaye while it is of one man arrogantly vsurped. Verely for the honour of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles that Name of Vniuersall bishopp was offred to the bishop of Rome by the Reuerent Councell of Chalcedon. But no bishop of Rome did eu [...]r take that Name of Singularite vnto him, or euer consented to vse it. And why so S. Gregory woulde none of your predecessours vse this Name or title? It foloweth immediatly. Ne dum priuatum aliquid daretur vni, honore d [...]bi­to sacerdotes priuarentur vniuersi. Lest that whiles any Singu­lar thinge shoulde be geuen to one, all priestes should be de­frauded of their dew honour. In this sence S. Gregory abhor­red that Name, as it was a Name of Singularite, as a Singular ti­tle defrauding other of their right, as a name in the whiche the honour of all other priestes is taken awaye. For so did this Iohn of Constantinople affecte this Name of vniuersall bishop, as it signified the Name of one only bishop for all. Therefore S. Gregory in a letter writen at the same time to Constantia the Emperesse saieth thus.Lib. 4. Epis. 34. Triste valde est, vt patienter feratur, qua­tenus despectis omnibus praedictus frater & coepiscopus meus solus co­netur appellari episcopus. It is a heauy hearing, that it shoulde be patiently tolerated, when the saied Iohn my brother and felo­we bishop, coueteth to be called The only Bishop, setting all o­ther at naught. And againe in an other epistle to this Io [...]n him selfe of Constantinople he saieth.Lib. eodem epis. 38. Ad hoc quandoque per­ductus es, vt d [...]spectis fratribus episcopus appetas solus vocari. Thou art brought at length to this pointe that setting thy bre­thern at naught, thou couetest to be called the Only bishop. And in the same epistle againe. Generalis pater in mundo vocari appetis. Lib. 7. epis. 69. Thou couetest to be called the Generall Father in the worlde, as desiring in dede to be the Father and Master of all alone. And to the Bishop of Thessalonica he writeth of Cy­r [...]acusthis Iohns Successour coueting in like maner that Ti­tle, Si vnus (vt putat) vniuersalis est, restat vt vos episcopi non sitis.

[Page 8]If one (as he supposeth) be an vniuersall bishop, it remay­neth that you be no bishops at all. In this sence that Name was so greuously abhorred of S. Gregory, and for that cause (bi­cause it emplied such a sence, as might doe iniury to all other bishops and rulers of the Churche) neuer vsed of S. Gregory, or of his predecessours, or of any Pope sithens, that M. Iewell is able to name. And therefore S. Gregory (geuing the same reason) saieth expressely in an other epistle to Eulogius the Patriarche of Alexandria, in this wise. Your holynesse knoweth, Lib. 4. Epis. 36. that by the holy Councell of Chalcedon this name of Vniuersalite was offred to me as bishop of the Apostolike See, But none of my pre­decessours euer consented to vse this prophane title: Bicause verely if one Patriarche be called vniuersall, other are made no Patriarches at all. Which reason also in the same epistle he repeteth yet againe,Patriarcharum nomen coeteris de­rogatur. Honor pa­triarcharū omnium negatur. as being in dede the chiefè and only cause why he and his predecessours other bishops of Rome, vtterly refused and abhorred that Title. Thus it appeareth that S. Gregory forced not that reason only or chiefely against the bishop of Con­stantinople, which M. Iewell imagineth, bicause by that Title he woulde become Head of all the Churche, but the reason which S. Gregory principally forceth against the bishop of Constantinople, and for the whiche he him selfe and his predecessours refused that Title, is, that by the same Title he would be the bishop Alone, the Patriarche Alone, the priest Alone. To Conclude. S. Gregory forceth two reasons against the bishop of Constantinople, why he may not be called the Vniuersall Bishop. And he geueth one reason why he and his predecessours haue refused that Name. The two reasons a­gainst the Bishop of Constantinople are these. First and prin­cipally bicause appetit solus episcopus vocari, he coueteth to be called the only Bishop: bicause by that Name, Patriarcharum nomen coeteris derogatur. Other Patriarches are made no Patri­arches at all. This was a newe, a prophane, a blasphemous, and [Page] [...] [Page 8] [...] [Page] an Antichristian attempt. The second reason is by a conse­quence. For so it woulde folowe that he woulde subdewe all the Churche to him, whose Churche is knowen to haue be­ne oftentimes the Ringleader and founder of wicked heresies: Which were the greatest absurdite that might de deuised. For thereof it woulde folowe that the whole Churche shoulde pe­rish, the Vniuersall Bishop perishing. The one onely reason that S. Gregory geueth, why he and his predecessours, though by the whole generall Councell of Chalcedon Vniuersales ob­lato honore vocati sunt they were called Vniuersall Bishoppes that honour being offred them,Lib. 4. epist. 38. VVhy the Pope is not cal­led vni­uersall. woulde yet neuer vse or enioy that title, is (not bicause he and his predecessours shoulde the­reby become heades of the vniuersal Churche, as if that Au­thorite wer iniurious, but) lest that (as in foure seueral epistles he repeteth) si sibi in pontificatus gradu gloriā singularitatis ar­riperet, Lib. 4. epist. 32.36. &. 38 & lib. 7. epist. 30. Meus ho­nor est fra­trum meo­rū solidas vigor. hanc omnibus fratribus denegasse videretur. if any of his predecessours shoulde take vnto him that singular preferment in the degree of bishopricke, he might seme to denie the same (preferment of bishopricke) to al his brethren, that is, the Po­pe by that meanes might seme to become the Onely Bishop ouer all Christen people, as that Iohn of Constantinople at­tempted to be. For this reason, for this inconuenience empli­ed in that Name, no bishop of Rome euer vsurped, or desired that name, though of other men before Saint [...]regories ti­me they were so called, as it shal in the [...].8. Vntruthe appeare. Nowe the other reason off being Heade ouer the vniuersall Churche of Christ, Saint Gregory fo [...]ceth not against him selfe or his predecessours the bishops of Rome, bothe bicause the See of Rome fel neuer to heresy, but by the especial praier of Christ for Peter the first bishop therof is preserued, vt nun­quam deficiat fides eius that their faithe maye neuer faile,Luc. 22. as in the 108, Vntruthe we shall more particulary declare, (whereby the absurde consequence falling in the bishops of Constan­tinople [Page 9] hath here no place) and also bicause S. Gregory him selfe as his predecessours before him, was in dede the Head gouuerner of the Vniuersall Churche of Christ, and practised that Headship and Iurisdiction in all partes of Christēdome, as oc­casion serued. Which nowe according to promise, out of the very Epistles of S. Gregory him selfe, I entend God willing to declare.

To omitte the particular Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Ro­me in all Italy it selfe, where he is the Metropolitane, and where only at this present M. Iewell and his felowes woulde limit his Authorite, if at lest they will graunte him so muche (for by some of their iudgements he shoulde rule only his owne dyo­cese, and by some other not them neither, for such woulde ha­ue no Bishops at all touching Order and Iurisdiction) but to omitte the practised Authorite of S. Gregory within the bondes of Italy it selfe where in Rome standeth, let vs consider howe the same was extended, as well ouer the Alpes to vs warde Northe and West, as ouer the sea to all the worlde beyonde, bothe southe and East.

The Iurisdiction and Supreme Authorite of S. Gregory ouer the Realme of Fraunce appeareth euidently in one of his Epistles directed Vniue [...]sis Episcopis Galliarum, Gregorius lib. 4. Epist 52 to all the Bishops of Fraunce. Where thus he writeth worde for worde. Bicause the place is longe,Fraunce. and the booke is common to be had, I leaue the L [...]ine, and geue thee (gentle Reader) the En­glish thereof faithefully and sincerely translated. Bicause (saieth S. Gregory) eue [...]y duty is then semely perfourmed, 1. S. Gr [...] ­go [...]y the Pope hath his Legat in Fraun­ce. when there is one Ruler, to whom recourse may be had, we haue therefore thought it conu [...]nient to appoynte our brother Virgilius Bishop of Arles oure Legat according to the olde Custome, in those Churches which are subiect to our most Excell [...]nt Sonne Childebert the kinge (of Fraunce,2. Accor­ding to the olde Custo­me.) to the entent that bothe the right Catholike faithe (that is, such as by the foure generall Counc [...]ls is d [...]fined) maye with [Page] hofull deuotion by Gods helpe be preserued, and also that if perhaps any contention arise among our brethern and felowe Priestes he may appease it by vertu of his Authorite, as occupying the roome of the See Apostolike, according to his discrete moderatiō. To whom also we ha­ue enioyned that if such questions of certaine Matters do arise, for the discussing whereof the presence of many is ned [...]full, let him with a competent number of our brethern and felow Bisshops gathered toge­ther, discusse the matter with equite and according to the Canons vprightly determine it. But if any Contention or question arise tou­ching the faith (which God forbidde) or a Matter springe vp that is of some waighty cōtrouersie, so that for the greatenes of it, the Iudge­ment of the See Apostolike semeth necessary, the truthe of the Matter being diligētly examined, let him by his owne relation bringe it to our knowleadg, to thentent that from vs it may with an agreable and vndoubted sentence be determined. Also because it is necessary that before oure Legat, as ofte as he shall thinke it behouefull, the Bisshops at conuenient times do appere, for conference to be had, we exhorte you, that none presume to disobey his cōmandements therein, neither slacke to be present at such Common assembles, except perhaps either bodely sickenesse, or some other iust impediment do staie him from thence. In which case who so euer is so absent, let him yet directe in his place some Priest or Deacon, to thentent that such thinges as by our Legat through Gods helpe shall be determined or decreed, may by faithefull relation come vnto him that is absent, by the party so sent, to be of him firmely and surely obserued. And let not the excuse of any occasion presume to violat such thinges as he shall decree. Thus farre S. Gregory to the Bishops of Fraunce, lib. 4. Epist. 52. How saye you nowe M. Iewell? Wonder I pray you no more hereafter, that D. Harding will maintayne the Popes estate by the Authorite of this holy Father. Iewell. Pag. 227 1. Here S. Gregory the Pope hath his Legat in Fraunce. 2. and that according to the olde custo­me. 3. to preserue the faithe. 4. to appease controuersies arising, either by him selfe, 5. or if they be more wayghty, by a number [Page 10] of other Bishops, 6. or last of all if they touche the faithe, by referring vp the Matter to the Pope him selfe, 7. Finally all Bishops are commanded to obey his Legat. Such was the su­preme and Vniuersall Authorite of S. Gregory being Bishop of Rome, ouer all the Bishops of Fraunce and their Churches though yet he woulde not be called, saluted, or intitled their Vniuersall Bishop. Other examples of his practised Supreme Authorite in the Realme of Fraunce,Lib. 11. Epist. 8. &. 10. li. 7. Epist. 112. & 115. as of graunting Priui­leges to Monasteries and Hospitals, of preferring Bishops, &c. are in other of his Epistles to be sene, which for breuities sake I omitte. That he had the like Authorite and Iurisdiction in Spayne, it appeareth also in his Epistles,Spay­ne. as well by the Palle (a Bishoply preferrement graunted only by the Pope) sent to Le­ander a Bishop of that Countre,Lib. 7 Epist. 125 as also by his Commissioner Iohn sent thither with Instructions touching cases and con­trouersies to be determined amonge the clergy.Lib. 11. Epist. 54. & 50. And namely of the restoring of one Ianuarius vnto his Bishopricke, who had appealed to the Pope being wrongefully deposed by a number of other Bishops and had one Steuen placed in his roome. S. Gregory by Iohn his Commissioner sent to Spay­ne for that Purpose, restoreth Ianuarius to his Bishoprike, in­ioyneth a halfe yeres penaunce to those Bishops which had presumed to Consecrat Steuen in his place, and the saied Ste­uen he commaundeth to be degraded, and so either to remaine a [...] presonner to Ianuarius, or els to be sent to Rome.Lib. 11. Epist. 53. Iohn the Commissioner executeth the Sentence. And the very tenour of the execution is yet to be sene in the Epistles of S. Gregory. Such Authorite practised S. Gregory ouer the membres of Gods Churche, and yet feared not to be any forerunner of Antichrist therein.

To passe from Spayne to Afrike, the Authorite that S. Gregory practised ouer all the Bishops there,Afri­ke. is euident also in the Registre of his Epistles. Where as in Numidia certaine [Page] which had bene Donatistes being promoted to Bishoprickes woulde also be Metropolitanes, he rebuketh and expressely forbiddeth that disorder: writing to all the Bishops of Numi­dia in this sorte. Peti [...]stis per Hilarium Cartularium nostrum, a Beatae memoriae decessore nostro, vt omnes vobis retro temporum con­suetudines seruarentur, quas a beatae Petri Apostolorum principis ordinationum initijs hactenus vetustas longa seruauit. Lib. 1. Epist. 75 Et nos qui­dem iuxta seriem relationis vestrae, consuetudinem, quae tamen contra fidem Catholicam nihil vsurpare dignoscitur, inuiolatam permane­re concedimus, siue de primatibus constituendis, caeterissque capitulis, exceptis his qui ex Donatistis ad Epis opatum proueniunt, quos pro­uehi ad primatus dignitatē, etiam cum Ordo eos ad locum eundem de­ferat, modis omnibus prohibemus. You had required by Hilarius our Notary, of our Predecessour of blessed memory, that all your auncient Customes might be reserued, which from the beginning of the Constitutions of blessed Peter Prince of the Apostles, longe Antiquite had continewed. And we verely ac­cording to the tenour of your relation made vnto vs, do gra­unte that the Custome remaine inuiolated, except it be such as maye seme to vsurpe any thinge against the Catholike fai­the, whether it be of making of Primates and Metropolitanes, or other matters, except such as from Donatistes come to be Bishops. For such we vtterly forbidde to be made Metropolita­nes, yea though by order they were called to that degree. Let it suffise t [...]em to beare the charge of their owne flocke, and not to be preferred in obtayning the Metropolitanship, before those Bishops, which the Catholike faithe hath brought vp and instructed allwaies in the Churche. Thus farre Saint Gregory. In whose wor­des it is easy to be sene, bothe what Authorite he practi­sed him selfe ouer Numidia, and also what Orders his Pre­decessours, the See Apostolike from the beginning, had ap­poynted in that Countre. By vertu of the like Authorite whe­reas Paulinus the Bishop of Rhegium in the coastes of Afrike, [Page 11] had committed symony in geuing of orders, and certain o­ther outrages, as his clergy complained of him to the Pope, S. Gregory appointed Commissio [...]ers ouer that bishop, Victor and Columbus bishops of Numidia, with Hil [...]rius his notary, for Iustice to be done in that behalfe.Grego. lib. 10. epist. 33. & 34. Againe whereas the pri­mat of that Countre admitted boyes and Children to holye Orders,Lib. 2. epi· 47. Indic. 11. he made this Columbus a bishop of Numidia his legat and Cōmissioner to see that disorder punished and corrected. The like also he did for the extirping of the Donatistes heresy, springing vp againe then in Afrike, willing this Columbus,Lib. 3. epi. 35. lib. 2. epist. 33. Indict. 10. to sende vnto him to Rome, Paulus the bishopp of Rhegium, who semed to be a promoter of that matter, to be examined and corrected according to the Canons. Also to depose one Maximianus a bishop for committing symony. And whereas Bonifacius a noble man of Afrike tooke parte with heretikes, S. Gregory willeth him to come to Rome, there to be instru­cted, or at the lest in any wise to beware that he dye not out of the faithe of that See. His wordes be these.Lib. eodem epist. 41. Matth. 16. Hortor vt dum vitae spatium superest, ab eiusdem beati petri Ecclesia, cui cla­ues R [...]gni caelestis commissae sunt, & ligandi ac solu [...]ndi potestas attributa, vestra anima non inueniatur diuisa, ne si hic benefi­cium eius despicitur, illic vitae aditum claudat. I warne you, that while your bodely life endureth, your soule be not founde se­parated from the Churche of S. Peter, to whom the kayes of the kingdome of heauen are committed, and the power of bi [...] ding and loosing is geuen, lest that while here in this life, you despise his benefyt, in the life to come he shutt you out of life. So necessary is it (gentle Readers) by the iudgement of lerned and holy S. Gregory, to be ioyned and vnited to the Churche of Rome. Therfore he commendeth in an other place Domi­nicus the Metropolitane off Carthage for his diligent duty that he declared to the See Apostolike, writing thus vnto him.Lib. [...]. epist. [...]2. Indict. 1. You knowing very well from whence the beginning of priestly Or­der [Page] hath spronge in Afrike, doe cōmendably, in that by tendering the See Apostolike, you haue recourse to the springe of your Office, by discrete remēbrance therof, and with laudable cōstancy doe pers [...]uere in the loue of it. For certainly, it is the encrease of your honour what soeu [...]r Reuerence and priestly deuotion you shewe to that See. For so you prouoke her to tēder you againe. Thus the Church of Afrike in like maner as Fraunce and Spayne was a childe of the mo­ther Churche of Rome, was subiect to that holy See and dire­cted by the Authorite thereof, vnder S. Gregory the Pope at that time. Neither feared S. Gregory notwitstāding such Sub­iection and obedience on their parte, or such Authorite and gouernemēt on his parte, to be a forrunner of Antichrist ouer them, as M. Iewell woulde make S. Gregory him selfe to saie and Iudge.

Before we passe to the other side of Italye, and the East parte of the worlde, let vs consider what Authorite S. Grego­ry practised in the Ilandes lying aboute these Continent lan­des of Fraunce, Spayne, and Afrike. And first of our owne countre of Englande which vnder this blessed Pope and by his holy meanes was conuerted frō paganisme and infidelyte to the faithe and Christianite.

The Supreme Authorite that S. Gregory practised ouer all that parte of Brittanny which is nowe called Englande,In Interrogationi [...]s B. Augu­stini Cap. 9. & Be [...]a lib. 1. ca. 27 ap­peareth by that he writeth to S. Augustin our blessed Apostle the first Archebishop of Caunterbury, in these wordes. Bri­tanniarum omnes episcopos tuae fraternitati committimus, vt indocti doceantur, infirmi persuasione roborentur, peruersi authoritate cor­rigantur. All the Bishops of Britanny we commit to thy Bro­therhood, to thentent the vnlerned may be instructed,Englā de. the weake may by thy persuasion be strengthened, and the fro­warde by Authorite be corrected. In these wordes the Ar­chebishopp of Caunterbury is constituted and appointed by Pope Gregorye his Legat in the Churche of Englan­de, [Page 12] and to occupy in all the prouinces of the same the pla­ce of the See Apostolike. And what childishnes were it for S. Gregory to appointe one that him liked, by whose Authorite other Bishops might be corrected, if he him selfe had no Au­thorite in the Countre, but were a mere forrain Bishop, as his successours nowe (after the quiet possession of so many hun­dred yeres), are called and estemed of such, as haue forsaken not only that obedience, but also that Faithe and religion, in the which we Englishmen were first made Christen men, and in the which we haue cōtinewed almost these thousand yeres?

In Corsica and Sardinia two other Ilandes lying in this west parte of the worlde, betwene Italy and Afrike,Cor­sica. what Su­preme Authorite S. Gregory practised, his epistles do witnesse. By vertu of this Authorite whereas the bishopricke of Sagon in the Ilande of Corsica had bene a longe time vacant, he chargeth Leo a bishop of that Countre to take charge of the same writing thus vnto him.Lib. 1. Epist. 76. Quoniam ecclesiam Sagonensem an­te annos plurimos obeunte eius pontifice omnino destitutam agnoui­mus, fraternitati tuae visitationis eius operam duximus iniungendā. Bicause we vnderstande the Church of Sagon by the decea­se of the bishop, hath these many yeres bene vtterly desti [...]u­ted, we thought good to enioyne to you the visitation therof. And in the next epistle folowing he transferreth Martinus bishop of an other dyocese in that Ilande to this bishoprike of Sagon in these wordes.Lib. eodem Epist. 77. In ecclesia Sagonensi quae iam diu ponti­ficis auxilio destituta est, cardinalem te secundum petitionis tuae mo­dum hac authoritate constituimus sine dubio sacerdotam. In the Churche of Sagon which hath this longe time lacked her bishop, we do appointe you by this Authorite according to your request the Chiefe priest, that is, bishop thereof. By the like Authorite in the same Ilande, whereas a certain bishop through infirmite was not able to doe his Office, he writeth to the fore saied bishop Leo, willing a newe election to be ma­de,Lib. 7. Epist. 50. [Page] and then (saieth S. Gregory) ad nos veniat ordinandus. Let him come to vs here to be consecrated. The like he writeth to the same bishop of Corsica Leo, touching an other bishop v­pon the like occasion in the Incumbents infirmity, to be new­ly elected,Lib. eodem Epist. 51. of whom thus he writeth. Dum fuerit postulatus cū solemnitate decreti omnium subscriptionibus rōborati, vestrarum quoque testimonio literarum, huc sacrandus occurrat. When such a one shal be nominated by the solemne decree confirmed with the subscriptions of eche one, let him come hither to be consecrated, with the testimony also of your letters. Such Au­thorite practised S Gregory ouer the bishops of this Ilande of Corsica.

In Sardinia to Felix a bishop thereof disobeying the Popes legat in those partes the Archebishop of Iustinianea,Lib. 4. Epist. 7. S. Grego­ry writeth these wordes. It is come to our hearing that your bro­therhood refuseth to obey according to the custome, Iohn oure bro­ther, Sardinia. bishop of Iustinianea the first, and that you will not subscribe n [...]yther to his decree, neither to the relation which he made vnto vs according to the Custome. If this be so, we are very sory to see such manifest token of pride in you. We exhorte you therefore that lay­ing asyde this proude stoma [...]he, Distri [...]tam canonicā (que) disciplinae correctionē contuma­ciae tuae nos s [...]to vlci­sce [...]ter i [...]a­ponere. you cease not to obey and shewe your selfe lowly to our foresaied brother and felowe bishop, of whom you haue bene made bishop: so that both God may reioyse in the agreement of your brotherhood, and other also maye take good example of you. For if (which we mistrust not) you continewe in this pride, knowe you that we wi [...]l surely punish your stubbornes, according to the straight and Canonicall order of dis [...]ipline. It appeareth I trowe by these wordes, that S. Gregory in this Countre also of Sar­dinia exercised a Supreme Authorite, howesoeuer he mislyked the name and Title of vniuersall bishop. By the like Authori­te whereas Ianuarius a bishop of this Countre had iniured Ne­re [...]a a Noble woman, and she had complained thereof to the See Apostolike, S. Gregory writing to the bishop of those [Page 13] complaintes and accusations made against him, hath these wordes vnto him. Hortamur vt aut pacifica (si fieri potest) ordi­natione definias, aut certé ad deputatum a nobis iudicium personam instructam dirigere non omittas. We exhorte you either to ende the matter peasably betwene your selues, or els not to faile to direct some instucted party (in your behalfe) to the iudgement appoynted by vs.Lib. 7. Epist. 55. And for this purpose I haue directed Redemp­tu [...], our Commissioner the bearer hereof, that he maye bothe call the parties to iudgement and by the vertue of his trauaille, put in execu­tion the Sentence. Thus farre S. Gregory, and thus without feare of any Antichristian presumption he vsed a Supreme Authorite ouer the bishopps off Sardinia, as he did ouer o­ther af all the west parte of the worlde, as it hath particulary in sondry prouinces appeared.

To passe nowe to the other side of Italy, the next adioy­ning lande on the East parte, is Dalmatia and all the coastes of Illyricum.Dal­matia. In those partes what Supreme Authorite this lerned and holy Pope Saint Gregorye (whom Master Iewell imagineth to stande most against the Popes primacy, and wondereth that D. Harding will maintayne the same by this holy fathers authorite) vsed and practised him selfe, it shall nowe in like maner as before by his owne epistles commonly extant in his workes appeare. To all the Bishops of Dalmatia S. Gregory writeth concerning the disobedience of one Nata­lis a Bishop there, in promoting one Honoratus an Archedea­con to the Order of priesthood contrary to his minde and pleasure. For the which disobedience in his letters to the saied Bishops S. Gregory pronounceth this sentence against Natalis the disobedient bishopp, in these wordes.Lib. 2. Epist. 15. Indict. 10. We therefore haue thought good by the bearer of these presents to warne ones againe the saide Natalis bishop, being with so many letters warned allready and yet persisting obstinat, that he restore againe Honoratus the Archedeacon to his former roome at the presence of the bringer here­of. [Page] Whom if he restore not, continuing in his contumacie, first we depriue him of the vse of the Palle (which by the graunte of this See he obtayned) for his former contumacie paste: But if after the losse of this dignite, he continewe yet in the same cō [...]umacie, we com­maunde him to be remoued from the Communion of oure Lord [...]s Body and bloude. The whiche his sentence in effecte he writeth to Natalis him selfe threatning him farder a depriuation from his Bishoprike,Lib. eodem Epist. 14. if he obeyed not. By this one example it maie appeare what authorite S. Gregory being pope of Rome had and vsed ouer the Bishops of Dalmatia.

To all the Bishops of the coaste of Illyricū he writeth son­dry letters in whiche his Authorite ouer them is most clere and euident. Whereas aboute those partes certaine bishops by for­rain inuasions of the Enemye had benespoyled of their Chur­ches and all other liuelyhoods,Illyri­cum. he writeth to the Bishops of Il­lyricum, being commaunded by the Emperour, to receiue and harbour those desolat bishops, prouiding them victuals and all thinges necessarye, that yet they shoulde haue no Authoryte in their dyoceses, and saieth. Nullam eis nos in vestris ecclesijs Au­thoritatem tribuimus, Lib. 1. Epist. 43 sed tamen eos vestris solatijs cōtineri summope­re hortamur. We geue them no Authorite in your Churches. But yet we greatly exhorte you to relieue them. This had bene a very fonde fauour of S. Gregory, if he had had no power ouer them. But what the Authorite of S. Gregory was ouer the bis­shops of Illyricum it may wel appeare by the cause of Maximus bishop of Salona,Lib. 4. Epist. 34 Lib. 5. Epist. 25. whom for his disobediēce S. Gregory suspen­ded, and excommunicated. Aboute whose excommunication when certaine of his Citye had communicated with him, S. Gregory blaming them therefore, saieth. Debuistis filij charissimi pensare ordines: Epist. 26. quem sedes Apostolica repellebat, repulsum iri cognos­cere. You ought derely beloued children consider the orders (of the Churche.) You ought to knowe that whom the See Apo­stolike repelleth, he shal be repelled. But for most euident prou­fes [Page 14] of his practised Authorite ouer the whole prouinces of Illy­ricum, Slauony, Dalmatia, Pannonia, Mysia and all the rest, it is to be considered howe farre the Archebishop of Iustinia­nea prima, the Metropolitane and primat of all those countres according to the appoyntment of Pope Vigilius in the dayes of Iustinian the Emperour, was subiect to S. Gregory. First whereas all the bishops of Illyricum had elected Iohn to be their Archebishop and Metropolitane of Iustinianea prima, Authen. de Eccles. tit. Coll. 9. Ideo (que) Sancimus. he confirmeth their election, writing vnto them in these wor­des. Iuxta postulationis vestrae desiderium, praedictum fratrem & coepiscopum nostrum in eo in quo est sacerdotij ordine constitutus, Lib. 4. Epist. 9 nostri assensus authoritate firmamus, ratam (que) nos eius consecratio­nem habere, dirigentes pallium, indicamus. According to your re­quest we do Confirme by the Authorite of our Consent oure foresaied brother and felowe bisshopp (Iohn) in the order of priesthood in whiche he is placed, and sending vnto him the palle, we declare that we do ratefie and [...]llowe his Consecra­tion. To the same Iohn also he writeth, sending him the Palle, and making him his legat in those countres as his predecessours had bene before made of other Popes.Lib. eodem Epist. 15 Pallium ex more transmi­simus, & vices vos Apostolicae sedis agere, iterata innouatione de­cernimus. We haue sent you the palle after the Custome. And we decree againe of newe that you shall occupie the roome of the See Apostolike. And whereas the same Iohn had vniustly deposed Adrianus a bishop of those quarters, Pope Gregory re­stored him, as he witnesseth in his epistles, where thus he wri­teth. Quia ab antefato Ioanne primae Iustinianeae Episcopo contra ius canonesqúe depositus honoris sui gradu carere non potuit, Lib. 2. Epist. 7. Indict. 11. in sua eum reformari ecclesia, at (que) in propriae dignitatis ordine decreuimus reuocari. Bicause this Adrian being against right and order de­posed of Iohn the Bishop of Iustinianaea, coulde not so lese his degree, we haue decreed that he be restored to his Church and to the degree of his former dignitie. In the same letter he willeth [Page] that if any other matter can be layed against Adrian the Bishop accused, it be either tried by his Officers or sent ouer to him, saying. Vel per eos qui nostri sunt vel fuerint in vrbe regia responsa­les, si mediocris est questio cognoscatur, vel huc ad Apostolicam sedem si ardua est, Ibidem. deducatur, quatenus nostrae audienciae sententia decida­tur. Either let it be tried by our Officers that are or that shal here after be in the Cyte, if it be a meane question, or els if it be of some difficulty, let it be brought hither to the see Apostolike, by our Audience and Sentence to be decided. Thus all maner of waies, in Confirming of bishops newly elected, in restoring of bishops vniustly depriued, and in finall decision of matters of controuersie, the Authorite and Supreme Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome (whiche nowe is so muche abhorred of the disobedient children of Gods Churche), is by S. Gregory in all Countres practised. And yet will M. Iewell and his fe­lowes by this holy Father goe aboute to ouerthrowe the Po­pes Primacy.

Iurisdi­ction practised in the East. Churche.Hetherto of the West Churche, and of the Prouinces and Countres thereof, Fraunce, Spayne, Afrike, Illyricum, the Ilan­des of Britanny, Corsica, and Sardinia, we haue out of the Epi­stles of S. Gregory treated, and declared the Supreme Authori­te by him practised ouer them in Matters Ecclesiasticall. Now of the East Churche and of some partes thereof for examples sake,Co­rin­the. I purpose to doe the like, as farre as by the Registre of his Epistles I shal for this present be informed. S. Gregory writing to all the Bishops of Corinthe, touching Adrian a Bishop ac­cused of certain Crimes, and sodenly dismissed by an agree­ment made with the party playntif, shewing him selfe nothin­ge pleased with that soddain Agreement commandeth the Matter to be farder examined, and sayeth in his letters vnto them these wordes.Gregor. li. 2. Indict. 11. Epist. 38. Quoniam ea quae dicta sunt, indiscussa rema­nere non patimur, Sedis nostrae Diaconum ad ea inuestiganda diri­gimus, &c. Bicause we may not abide those thinges that are [Page 15] saied, to remaine vndiscussed, we direct for the Examination thereof a Deacon of our See: And why? It foloweth. Bicause the qualite of the Crime signified vnto vs dothe vehemently moue vs not to dissemble that which we haue heard. And what neded S. Gregory to sende to Corinthe in Grece a Deacon from his See, to examin Matters a fresh, which had bene there agreed? Forsothe he sayeth. Cum accusatores & Accusatum inter se fecisse gratiam indicastis, hoc nobis necesse est subtilius perscrutari, ne for­tasse eorum sit comparata concordia. Bicause you haue signified vnto vs that the Accused Bishop and the Accusers haue agreed betwene them selues, we must nedes serche this Matter more narrowly, lest perhaps this their Agreement be a wrought Matter. Why what if it be? What woulde you S. Gregory haue to doe there in those partes, being but a Bishop of Rome? We shall heare by his owne wordes immediatly folowyng. Quae si (quod absi [...]) non ex charitate, sed ex praemio facta constiterit, maiori hoc emendatione plectendum est. If this Agreement shall be founde to haue proceded not of Charyte (which God forbidde) but of bribery, this is with more rigour to be punished. Yea. But who shall punish these Greke Bishops, or what pertayneth that to you? This lerned Father nothing doubted of this Authorite, And therefore he saieth farther. Nos qui Canonice reuelante Deo, mala si quidem verasunt resecare praecedentia festinamus, com­missam postmodum culpam sine vindicta nulla ratione dimittimus. We which labour to cutt of the former mischiefs according to the Canons, God willing, if they be true, can in no wise suffer a trespasse after and a fresh committed to escape with out pu­nishment. Thus farre S. Gregory writing Vniuersis Episcopis Co­rinthijs, to all the Bishops of Corinth. It appeareth hereby that the Pope at that time had a Supreme Authorite ouer those Bishops, more then M. Iewell woulde gladly he nowe had ouer him and his felowes, which beare them selues to for Bishops forsothe. With the like Authorite writing to Iohn the Bishop [Page] of Corinthe of a Redresse to be had aboute the Simony that he and other vsed, he vttereth these wordes. Si quid tale aliquid deinceps fieri senserimus, iam non verbis, sed Canonica hoc vltione cor­rigemus. Et de vobis (quod non oportet) aliud incipiemus habere Iu­dicium. Gregorius lib. 4. Epist. 55. If we shall perceiue any such thinge hereafter to be do­ne, we shall correct it no more with wordes, but with such pu­nishment as by the Canons is prescribed, and we shall beginne to conceiue of you an other Iudgement, which behoueth not. Such Authorite practised that holy and lerned bishop S. Gre­gory ouer the bishops of Grece, and yet feared not to be accō ­pted therefore an Antichrist ouer them. And therefore in his next epistle writing Vniuersis episcopis per Helledam prouinciam constitutis, Lib. eodem Epist. 56. to all the bishops placed in the prouince of Grece, properly so called, aboute the same matters as he wrote before particularly to Iohn the Bishopp of Corinthe, he saieth vnto them these wordes. Si aliter factum denuo senserimus, districta ac Canonica illud noueritis vltione compesci. If we shall perceiue a­gaine that you doe otherwise (then I haue willed you to doe) knowe ye, that it shall be punished straightly and according to the Canons.

In like maner and about the very same matter of Simony and bribery committed aboute Spirituall preferments,Epi­rus. writing to the bishops of Epirus an other parte or Grece, S. Gregory after his exhortatyon, concludeth in this sorte. Si (quod nō cre­dimus) fieri tale aliquid senserimus, Gregori. li. 5. epist. 7. Canonica illud (vt dignum est) seueritate corrigemus. If we shall perceiue that you committe any such matter (as we trust you will not) we shall (as it is me­te) see it punished by the rigour of the Canons. Thus in Grece it selfe as well generally as particularly S. Gregory bishopp of Rome not only intermedled by waie of exhortation but also Gouuerned, Corrected, and Punished by waie of Authorite.

What Authorite and Iurisdiction S. Gregory practised in Corcyra an Ilande adioyning to Grece and pertaining pro­perly [Page 16] to the Metropolitane of Nicopolis in Thessalia the de­termination of a longe Controuersie betwene the bishop of Corcyra and the bishop of Isauria touching the Iurisdiction of Cassiope a towne of that parte or Grece, may serue for a suf­ficient Example. For notwithstanding the determination of the Metropolitane,Cor­cyra. yet the Authorite of the bishop of Ro­me was required to Confirme the same. Therefore S. Grego­ry writing to Alcysonus the bishop of Corcyra, to whom the Metropolitane of Nicopolis had adiudged the Iurisdiction of Cassiope, confirmeth the Sentence of the Metropolitane in these wordes.Grego [...]ius lib. 12. Indict. 7. epist. 2. Quoniam Andreas venerabilis memoriae frater noster Nicopolitanus Metropolita, innitente quoque sibi Princi­pali iussione, in quaei causae huius fuerat iniuncta cognitio, prolata (sicut nobis patuit) noscitur statuisse sententia, antefatum Cassiope Castrum sub Iurisdictione ecclesiae tuae (quemadmodum semper fuit) debere persistere, Formam eiusdem Sententiae comprobantes, Apostolicae Sedis Authoritate eam fauente Iustitia Comproba­mus, Confirmamus, at (que) per omnia robustam manere Decernimus. Whereas Andrewe our brother of Reuerent memory the Mè­tropolitane of Nicopolis, by vertu of the Princes letters, where­by he was sett in Commission ouer this matter, hat [...]e deter­mined by Solemne Sentence (according as we be informed) that the foresayde towne of Cassiope ought to remayne in the Iurisdiction of your Churche, (as it hath allwayes bene) we Allowyng the Forme of that Sentence, doe in regarde of Iustice by the Authorite of the See Apostolike Approue it, Confirme it, and doe determine that it remayne in his full force and vigour thourough out. And bicause Mauritius the Emperour had intermedled in this matter, more then the Ca­nons woulde well beare, and bothe at the beginning vpon Misse information had pronounced against the bishopp of Corcyra,Lib. e [...]dem epist. 3. Nec iussio eius (quia contra leges & Canones Data fue­rat) habuisset effectum, though yet his Sentence tooke no place, [Page] bicause it was geuen against the lawes and the Canons, and also afterwarde had put the bishop of Isauria in possession of the towne, notwithstanding the Contrary Sentence of the Metropolitane of Nicopolis (whome yet the Emperour him selfe had put in Commission bothe to examine and to ende the matter) bicause I saie th [...] Emperour Mauritius had thus farre intermedled against right and Order of the Church, this lerned and holy Father S. Gregory vsing a discrete and wise moderation, to thentent he might neither exasperat his Prin­ce, neither yet let fall the Right of the Cause, woulde neither precipitat his Sentence against the Emperours commaunde­ment in the behalfe of the bishop of Corcyra, lest (as he sayeth of him selfe) contra iussion [...]m clementissimi domini Imperatoris, vel (quod absit) in despectum eius al quid facere videamur, Epist 3. lib. 12. He might seme to doe any thinge either contrary to the cōmaun­dement of his most gracious Lorde the Emperour, or (whiche God forefende) in contempt of him, neither yet woulde forsa­ke either the Right of the party, or his owne Authorite. The­refore writing to Bonifacius a deacon of Constantinople, thus he willeth him to doe. Dil [...]ctio tua pietati eius cuncta di­ligenter insinuet, Lib. & Epist. prae­not. atque constanter astruat hoc omnino illicitum, om­nino prauum, omnino iniustum & sacris esse valde Canonibus ini­micum. Et ideo hoc peccatum temporibus suis introduci in eccl [...]siae praeiudicium non permittat. Sed quid de hoc iudicio iudicatum an tefati quondam Metropolitae iudicium contineat, vel a nohis quali­ter ea quae ab illo decreta sunt, Confirmata fuerint, suggerat, at (que) id agere studeat, vt cum eius iussione nostra illic s [...]ntentia transmit ta­tur. Quatenus & serenitati ipsius (si [...]ut dignum est) reseruasse, & ra­tionabiliter correxisse quae malae presumpta sunt videamur. Qua in re omninodanda opera est, vt si fieri potest, etiam iussionem suam ip­se tribuat, in qua ea quae a nobis definita sunt, s [...]ruari praecipiat. Doe you diligently signifie to his highnes all thinges, and de­clare vnto him boldly that this his doing is vtterly vnlaweful, [Page 17] vtterly naught, vtterly vniust, and directly repugnant to the holy Canons. And that he suffer not therefore this offence to take place in his dayes, to the preiudice of the Churche. But put him in minde as well of the Iudgement passed by the fo­resaied Metropolitane of Nicopolis, as also of our Cōfirming of his sayde Sentence, and doe what you can that our Senten­ce with his commaundement maye take place. To thentent that it maye appeare, that bothe we haue reserued the matter to his highnesse ( [...]s mete is) and also that we haue with good reason and right corrected that which hathe bene done amis­se. Wherein you must also labour to gett out (if it be possible) a commaundement from him, by the which he commaunde to be kept, that which we haue determined. By this dealing of that lerned Bishop of Rome, we see euidently what Authorite he had in the east Churche, in Grece it selfe, bothe to Correct, and to Confirme, and also to Moderat the vnaduised and wrongefull attempts of Mauritius, an Emperour more wil­full and busy against the Churche then many of his Predeces­sours were.Abbas V [...]sper­gensis in Mauritio. For the which also (as it may seme) God punished him sharply at the ende, when his wife and all his children being murdered before his face, of one of his owne subiects, he was last murdered him selfe also.

With the like Authorite he absolued Athanasius a Priest of a certain Monastery in Lycaonia (a parte of the lesser Asia) appealing to the See of Rome.Lyca­onia. This Athanasius was accused of heresy, and bicause a certaine hereticall booke was founde aboute him, Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople his Patriar­che was moued against him. Athanasius speeding him selfe to Rome and cleering him selfe there before the Pope, the booke also being sent from Iohn of Constantinople to S. Gregory, and information made, howe he had dealed therein against the saied Athanasius, all thinges debated and pondered,Gregor. li. [...]. Epist. 64. the Pope absolued him in these wordes. Ab omni te Hereticae peruersitat [...]s [Page] macula iuxta professionem tuam liberum esse decernimus, atque ca­tholicum & sincerae fidei in omnibus professorem, atque sequacem (Christi Iesu Saluatoris gratia) claruisse pronunciamus. Liberam quoque tribuimus licentiam ad tuum Monasterium in tuo te loco vel ordine nihilominus remeare. We decree you (according to your professyon) to be free from all spotte of wicked heresy, and we pronounce you to be Catholike, and to professe in all pointes the right faithe, and to shewe your selfe to haue folo­wed the same by the grace of Christ Iesus our Sauiour. Also we geue you free liberty (notwithstanding this Accusation) to returne to your Monastery in your former place or Order. Thus S. Gregory the Pope Corrected in Corinthe and Epirus, Confirmed in Corcyra, and Absolued in Lycaonia (all East partes of the Churche) as occasion serued, with iust right and Authorite, not fearing to be accompted an Antichrist therefo­re, or to doe any iniury to the proper Iurisdiction of other Me­tropolitanes and Patriarches there.Thes­salo­nica. In Thessalonica an other great Cytie of Grece what the Authorite of the Bishop of Ro­me was, and howe S. Gregory practised the same, it appeareth in sondry of his Epistles. In a place charging Eusebuis the Bishop thereof with diuers other Bishops of that Countre, howe they shoulde demeane them selues in a Synod which was called at Constantinople aboute the proude Attempte of Cyriacus the Patriarche there, and declaring vnto them parti­cularly what they shoulde doe, and howe they shoulde deale therein,Gregor. li. 7. Indict. 2. Epist. 60. he concludeth with them in these wordes. Vnde iterum coram Deo & sanctis ipsius admonemus, vt haec omnia summo studio, & tota mentis intentione seruetis. Nam si quis (quod non credimus) scripta praesentia aliqua ín parte neglexerit, a beati Petri Apostolo­rum Principis pace se nouerit segregatum. Wherefore yet ones againe we doe warne you before God and his Saintes, that with all endeuour and whole Intention of minde you kepe and obserue all these thinges. For if any man (which we trust [Page 18] not) do neglect these present writinges in any parte, let him knowe, he is separated and cutt of from the Peace of S. Peter Prince of the Apostles. As much to saie, he is excommunica­ted. It had bene a greate folie, or rather an extreme impudencie for S. Gregory thus to haue threatned those Bishops of Grece, and so farre to charge them to obeye and obserue his Writinges, if his Authorite ouer them had bene no other, then M. Iewell woulde haue the worlde beleue, it was then, or ought nowe to be. In an other place charging the same Eusebius Bishop of Thessalonica to see corrected certain offenders of his clergy, he writeth thus vnto him. Hoec igitur frater charissime diligenter attende, & ita stude, Gregor. li. 9. Indict. 4. Epist. 69. vt filios vestros vnitos ac deuotos (sicut decet) ha­bere possitis, & hac de causa denuo ad nos querela non redeat. The­se thinges therefore derely beloued Brother marke diligently, and take such hede, that you may kepe your children in peace and loue (as it becometh) and that of this Matter there come no more Complainte vnto vs. It had bene a great vanite for them which feeled them selues greued in Grece, hauing there their Metropolitanes and Patriarche, to runne and Complaine to Rome and to seke succour there against their owne Bishops of the Pope, if the Pope had no Authorite ouer their Bishops, or no power to see such Matters redressed.

Here Perhaps it may be surmised of some that liketh no deale this practised Authoryte of the Bishop of Rome,An Obie­ction. exem­plified in S. Gregory him selfe (who of all other Fathers se­meth most to helpe M. Iewelles cause against the Popes Su­premacy) in so many particular Countres and Prouinces, not only of the west Churche, but also of the East, and of Grece it selfe, that all this was but of other particular Bishops and Me­tropolitanes, and that the Bishop of Rome as a Patriarche had Authoryte to Correct, to Absolue, to Confirme, to Excom­municat and so forthe, but yet ouer the other Patriarches them selues, S. Gregory perhaps practised no such Authorite or Su­preme [Page] Gouuernement in Matters Ecclesiasticall. And there­fore his Authorite was not Vniuersall, but they were equall to him, and he to them, and so he was not the Head of all. To this I answer, that all were it so, he practised no such Authorite ouer any Patriarche, yet his Authorite extending to other Bishops subiect to those Patriarches,The Answ [...]r. and at this daye, no other Patriar­che of those foure Auncient Patriarches remayning but only the Bishop of Rome and such as he appoynteth, bothe it shoul­de yet stande that S. Gregory practised an Authorite Vniuer­sall ouer all those Countres, and also the obiection for this pre­sent time shoulde nothing helpe M. Iewell and his felowes, all the Supreme Power resting in the only Patriarche of Rome at this daye.

But that it maye Euidently and Clerely appeare that Saint Gregory practised an Vniuersall and Supreme Authoryte ouer all,Two thinges yet to be to [...]ched. None excepted, two thinges yet farder I will touche, and then returne to M. Iewell and his Replie. 1 First I will declare out of S. Gregories owne writinges as before, that the Patriar­che of Constantinople, one aboue all other euermore disobe­dient to the See of Rome, was subiect to the Bishop of Rome, and then by generall testimonies, that ouer all Churches, the See of Rome hath the Primacy, Preeminence, and principall Authorite.

2 It is not vnknowen to the lerned with what pride and Am­bition Iohn the Patriarche of Constantinople bicause of the Imperiall Courte remayning there,Con­stan­tino­ple. coueted to be called the Vniuersall Bishop, and that in such a sence as being the Only Bishop ouer all and for all, as we haue before out of S. Grego­ry declared: who is to be thought neither to haue bene igno­rant what meaning that Iohn had in that Name or Title, nei­ther to haue bene so vnwise or vncharitable as to charge him with a wronge meaning, not intended by the Patriarche. For thereby bothe a great folie woulde haue appeared in him befo­re [Page 19] all other churches, which had that Matter in debate, and also he had but encreased the Emperour Mauritius his displeasure and indignation who bothe assisted and vpholded Iohn of Constantinople herein, and was otherwise all waies to S. Gre­gory a heauy Lorde. In this Matter therefore, in this proude vnlawefull attempt of the Patriarche of Constantinople, what did the Bishop of Rome, or howe demeaned he him selfe therein? We shall see. First Pelagius the Pope predecessour to S. Gregory vnder whom this Iohn of Constantinople attemp­ted this Title, and assembled a Synod for the establyshing the­reof, Directis literis ex Authoritate Sancti Petri Apostoli, Gregor. lib. 4. Epist. 36. eiusdem Synodi Acta cassauit, Directing his letters thither made vtterly voide the Actes of that Synode by the Authoryte of S. Peter the Apostle,Res­pon­salis. and forbadde his Deacon which remained as Le­gat or depute of the See Apostolike at Constantinople not to kepe him company. This did Pelagius vnder whom that Ambitious Title of Iohn the Patriarche of Constantinople was first attempted. But what did Saint Gregorye his nexte Successour, a man of suche humilite and lowlynesse, that he woulde not suffer (as Master Iewell alleageth) the worde of Commaundement to be vsed to him? Did he thinke yowe (Master Iewell) not practise the like Authorite, as his prede­cessours did? Or bicause he was a holye and lerned Father, abhorred he (thinke yowe?) suche kinde of Superiorite and primacy ouer other? As the bishops of Rome, his predeces­sours vsed? Nay he saieth expressely, speaking of the proude disobedience of Maximus a bishop of Salona in Illyricum, who had in the open Cyte rent in pieces, the Popes letters, Ante paratus sum mori, Gregori. li. 7. Indict. 1. epist. 1. quàm beati Petri Ecclesiā meis diebus degenerare. I will rather suffer deathe it selfe, then that the Churche of blessed Peter shoulde degenerat in my dayes, meaning and writing expressely of the Authorite and obedience dewe to the same. Therefore in this Cause of Iohn of Constantino­ple, [Page] wherin the Emperour Mauritius also (a heauy Lorde all­waies of S. Gregory) toke parte, and commaunded the Pope, Vt pro appellatione friuoli nominis inter eos scandalum generari nō debeat, that vpon the Title of a trifling Name there should ari­se no Offence betwene them,Grego [...]ius lib. 6. epist. 30. Iohn the Patriarche and the Po­pe, as first he dealed with the Patriarche by all gentle meanes, so at the length he folowed the Sentence of his predecessour Pelagius. First he wrote to Iohn him selfe the Patriarche, a longe, lerned, and louing letter, labouring with him by al mea­nes possible, that he shoulde leaue that vaine and odious title, which so fondly and wickedly he attempted: Contra euangeli­cam sententiam, Lib. 4. epist. 38. Lib. eodem Epist. 34. contra beatum quoque Petrum Apostolum & con­tra omnes Ecclesias, contraque Canonum statuta. Against the Sen­tence of the ghospell (breaking humilite) against the blessed Apostle S. Peter (affecting vnlawefull Superiorite) and against all Churches (coueting to be a bishop Alone) and last of all against the decrees of the Canons. And of this his dealing thus he saieth. Ego per Responsales meos semel, & bis verbis humili­bus hoc, Lib. eodem Epist. 38. quod in tota ecclesia peccatur, corripere studui. Nunc per me scribo. Quicquid facere humiliter debui, non omisi. I haue by my deputies ones, and by humble wordes twise, laboured to re­dresse this matter, wherein the whole Churche is offended. Nowe I write my selfe. Whatsoeuer I ought to haue done by the waie of humilite, I haue not omitted. And bicause the Em­perour (as I saied before) bolstered vp this Iohn the Patriarche in his Attempt, and woulde not heare the Pope to the contra­ry, S. Gregory not making any accompte of his owne person, but hauing an eye to the place and roome that he occupied, writeth thus to Constantia the Emperesse. Haec in causa nequa­quā me pietas vestra despiciat. Gregorius lib. eodem. Epist. 34. Quia etsi peccata Gregorij tanta sunt, vt pati talia debeat, Petri Apostoli peccata nulla sunt, vt vestris temporibus pati ista mereatur. Let not your godlynesse despise me in this matter. For allthough the sinnes of Gregory be so greate, [Page 20] that they ought to suffer these thinges, yet the sinnes of the Apostle Peter are none at all, that in your dayes he shoulde so suffer. Thus that holye and meke Father dealed bothe withe Iohn the Patriarche him selfe, and with the Emperesse, at the first. Whereof also he writeth to the Emperour himselfe Mau­ritius these wordes.Lib. 4 Epist. 32. Ego dominorum iussionibus obedientiam prae­bens, praedicto consacerdoti meo & dulciter scripsi & humiliter. Vt ab hac inanis gloriae appetitione sese emēdet, admonui. Si igitur me au­dire voluerit, habet deuotū fratrē: Si vero in superbia persistit, iā quid assequatur aspicio. I obeying the Cōmaundements of my Lor­des haue writen to my foresaied felowe priest both softely and humbly. I haue warned him to amende him selfe of this Am­bytion and vaine glory. Therefore if he will heare, he shall ha­ue me a louing brother. But if he continewe in his pride, I see what will become of him. Thus farre S. Gregory proceding with that Patriarke by the waie of gentlenesse and humilitie. But in fine what did he? Forsoth as his predecessour Pelagius had done before him, so he did. That is. Whereas after the dea­the of this Iohn, Cyriacus his successour in Constantinople, had called a Synod vpon some other pretence, minding in coulour thereof, to establish this vaine Title of Vniuersall bi­shop, as being the One Only Bishop for all, S. Gregory wri­ting therof to Eusebius the bishop of Thessalonica and many other bishops together, and signifying vnto them howe Pela­gius his predecessour had condemned a former Synod called aboute the matter, forbidding his Legat to kepe companye with Iohn the Patriarche at that time, he saieth.Gregor. lib. [...]. Epist. 69 Indict. 2. Cuius rectitu­dinis zelo per omnia inhaerentes, statuta ipsius sine refragatione Deo protegente seruamus. Whose vpright zele we cleauing vnto in al poyntes, doe kepe also his determinatyons without deniall by Gods helpe. In which wordes he protesteth to doe as his pre­decessour had done. And therefore writing to Anianus a Dea­con of Constantinople that he shoulde in no wise kepe com­pany [Page] withe Iohn the Patriarche there, according to the Sen­tence of his Predecessour, he saieth. Sicut tibi iam transactis epi­stolis scripsi, nunquam cum eo procedere praesumas. As I haue befo­re in other letters passed betwene vs written vnto you, see that you neuer presume to come abrode in his company.Lib. 4. Epist. 39. And bi­cause the Emperour Mauritius at the same time by the procu­rement of Iohn the Patriarche had written to S. Gregory to be at peace with the Patriarch, wherby this Anianus the Dea­con for feare of the Emperours highe displeasure doubted what he might doe,Ibidem. S. Gregory writeth thus vnto him. Tua di­lectio in nullo trepidet. Omnia quae in hoc seculo videt alta esse con­tra veritatem, pro veritate despiciat: In omnipotentis Dei gratia at­que B. Petri Apostoli adiutorio confidat. Vocem veritatis recolat Dicentis. Maior est qui in caelis est, quam qui in mundo. Et in hac causa quicquid agendum est, Ioan. 14. cum summa Authoritate agat. Feare not. All thinges that you see in this worlde to be lofty against the Truthe, for the Truthes sake despise it. Trust in the Grace of Allmighty God and of his blessed Apostle Peter. Remem­ber what Truthe him selfe saied. He is greater which is in hea­uen, then which is in the worlde. Last of all whatsoeuer is to be done in this Matter, Doe it with Ful Authorite. It had bene more then a Vanite for S. Gregory thus to charge that Dea­con of Constantinople not to kepe company with his owne Patriarche, but to deale with him with full Authorite, not­withstanding the high displeasure of the Emperour likelye thereof to ensewe, if he had not a power and Authorite ouer the Patriarche, and a good grounde to staye him selfe on, a­gainst [...]he Princes Indignation. Verely his grounde was the Supreme Authorite ouer the whole Churche graunted to S. Peter whose successour he was, and by vertu whereof this Ho­ly and lerned Father knewe right well that the Churche off Constantinople was subiecte to the See of Rome. And so expressely this holy Father writeth in an other place, saying. [Page 21] De Cōstantinopolitana Ecclesia (quod dicunt) quis eam dubitet Se­di Apostolicae esse subiectā? Quod & dominus pijssimus Imperator, & frater noster Eusebius eiusdem Ciuitatis Episcopus assiduè pro­fitentur. As touching that they saie of the Churche of Con­stantinople, who doubteth but she is subiect to the See Aposto­like?Gregor. li. 7. Epist. 63. Which thinge bothe our most Gracious Lorde the Em­perour, and our brother Eusebius Bishop of the same Citie doe daily professe. So farre this Matter was confessed and vndoub­ted at that time. And to geue the, good Reader, a clere example hereof in fewe wordes, harken what S. Gregory writeth in the very next Epistle folowing. Thus he writeth to Iohn the Bishop of Syracusa, touching the Bishop of Constantinople, as the superscription and title of the Epistle lelleth vs.Gregor. li. eodem. Epist. 64 In quo­dam Crimine Byzancenus primas fuerat accusatus, & pijssimus Imperator eum iuxta statuta Canonica per nos voluit iudicari. Sed acceptis decem auri libris tunc Theodorus Magister obstitit vt mini­me fieret. Tamen pijssimus Imperator admonuit vt transmittere­mus, & quicquid esset Canonicum faceremus. The Primat of By­zance (otherwise called Constantinople) [...]ad bene accused of a certaine Crime. And the most vertuous Emperour willed him to be Iudged by vs according to the decrees of the Ca­nons. But Theodorus the Master being brybed with ten po­w [...]des of golde found the meanes to staye the matter hetherto. Yet notwithstanding the most Vertuous Emperour warned me to sende ouer, and to doe whatsoeuer was agreable to the Canons. This is that which S. Gregory sayed, bothe the Empe­rour and the Bishop of that Citie acknowleadged the Church of Constantinople to be subiect to the Bishop of Rome.

By reason of this Authoryte and Iurisdictiō the Bishop of Ro­me had customably a Legat remayning at Constantinople, to execut such Iustice, as thereunto appertayned. So S. Gregory him selfe in the dayes of his Predecessours was Legat at Con­stantinople, at which time he wrote his exposition vpon Iob, [Page] as bothe he him selfe writing to Leander a holy Bishop of Spayne, and Venerable Bede in the History of our Countre recordeth. So also when Phocas came to the Empire violently and by outragious treason, and therefore not finding there a Legat from the See Apostolike, semed to be offended there­with,In Epist. ad L [...]a i­drum pre­fixa expos. in Iob. S. Gregory writeth vnto him thereof in this wise. Quod permanere in palatio iuxta antiquam consu [...]tudinem Apostolicae Sedis Diaconum vestra serenitas non inuenit, non hoc meae negligen­tiae, s [...]d grauissimae nec [...]ssitatis fuit. Whereas your highnes founde not in your Courte a Deacon of the See Apostolike according to the Auncient Custome there to remayne,Beda lib. 2. Cap. 1 it proceded not of any my negligence,Gregor. li. 11. Epist. 43. but of a most vrgent Necessite. Such was the Custome, and such was the Authorite of the Bishop of Rome in the time of S. Gregory and by him selfe Confes­sed, P [...]actysed, and of his Auncetours Receiued. Authorite I saie not only ouer all chiefe Prouinces of the West and Latin Churche, but of the East and Greke Churche also: yea and ouer Constantinople it selfe, such an other Checke mate to Rome in Spir [...]tuall Iurisdiction, as Carthage of Afrike was in Temporall Empire.

Thus farre hitherto of particular Prouinces (a fewe for ex­ample) of the West and East Churche,Supreme I [...]di­ctiō ouer the w [...]o­le Chu [...] ­che. and of the Supreme Iu­risdiction in Matters Ecclesiasticall, practised by the holy Fa­ther S. Gregory Bishop of Rome, ouer them. To come nowe to the last point, for a Clere and vndoubted witnesse of a Su­preme Authorite ouer the whole Churche, let vs consider a fewe sayinges of this holy Father, as M. Iewell him selfe calleth him, and that often. First for receiuing Appe [...]le from any other M [...]tropolitane or Patriarche, in case that any su [...]h wan­ted,Gregor. li. 11. Epist. 54. he saieth. [...]i dictum fu [...]rit quia nec Metropolitam habuit, nec Patriarcham, dicand [...]m est, quia a Sede Apostolica, quae omniu [...] Eccl [...]siarum Caput est, causa audienda ac dirimenda fuerat. I [...] it be saied that (the party accused) had not any Metropolitane or [Page 22] Patriarche, it is to be saied, that the Cause ought to be hearde and determined of the See Apostolike, which is The Head of all Churches. Here lo by the waye M. Iewell you haue the Clere Sentence of One holy Father (by your selfe so con­fessed and called) and that with in your first 600. yeres which in plaine termes calleth the See Apostolike, The Head of all Churches, as much truly, as Head of the Vniuersall Churche.Head of all Churches. Wherefore you must, if you will stande to your promise twise repeted in Pulpit and more them twise sett forthe in printe, enen here Yelde and Subscribe. Or els saye plainely, that you stande vpon Termes, and seke not the Matter. So you shal pro­claime your selfe an earnest trifler, and an open Mocker of Gods people. In an other Epistle writen to S. Gregory by Iohn a bishop, and registred amonge his Epistles, thus we reade.Lib. 10 Epist. 56 Qui­bus ausibus ego sanctissimae illae Sedi, quoe vniuersali Ecclesiae [...]ura sua transmittit praesumpserim obuiare? With what attempt shoul­de I presume to withstande that most holy See (of Rome) whi­che sendeth forthe her lawes to the vniuersall Churche? As muche to saie. Of whome the Vniuersall Churche of Christ is directed, instructed, and gouuerned. But let vs heare againe S. Gregorye him selfe speake. Thus he saieth. Ea quae semel Apostolicae Sedis Authoritate sancita sunt, nihil egēt firmitatis. Gregor. li. 7. Epist. 115. Such thin­ges as are ones decreed by the Authoritye of the See Apostoli­ke, nede no farder strength or Confirmation. In like maner in an other place, speaking of a Synod whiche the Patriarche off Constantinople woulde haue kept, with other Bishoppes, and writing thereof to certain Bishops that they shoulde in no wi­se consent thereunto, he saieth.Gregor. li. 7. Epist. 69. Sine Apostolicae Sedis Authoritate atque Consensu nullas quaecunque acta fuerint, vires habent. What­so euer thinges shall be done (or passe in that Synod) they are of no value or effect without the Authoryte and Consent off the See Apostolike. And to shewe that all Bishops (none excep­ted) were subiect to the bishop of Rome, when anye thinge was [Page] committed against the Canons, for otherwise they were Bre­thern and equall, this One place of S. Gregory dothe suffici­ently and expressely declare it. Writing of the Bishop of Con­stantinople, howe being accused of a certain crime, first by bri­bery he founde the meanes the Matter came not to the Popes hearing, but afterward he semed to submitte him selfe to iud­gement, and to speake faire, S. Gregory writeth thereof in this sorte. Valde dubium est vtrum puré, an certe quia à coepiscopis suis impetitur, Lib. eodē. Epist. 64 nobis modo talia loquatur. Nam quod se dicit Sedi Apo­stolicae subijci, si qua culpa in Episcopis inuenitur, n [...]scio quis [...]i Episcopus subiectus non sit. Cum vero Culpa non exigit, omnes secun­dum rationem humilitatis aequales sunt. I doubte very much, whether he speake nowe thus vnto vs simply and truly, or els because he is driuen thereunto by his felowe Bishops. For as for that he saieth, he is subiect to the See Apostolike, verely if any Trespasse be founde in Bishops, I knowe no Bishop, but he is subiect vnto it. But as longe as no Trespasse committed re­quireth (such Subiection) all by the waie of humilite are equall. In these wordes S. Gregory teacheth vs three pointes all worthy to be noted in this great time of schisme and diso­bedience.Trhee thinges to be not [...]d. 1 First, that the Bishop of Constantinople one of the chiefest Patriarches professed him selfe to be Subiect to the See of Rome. 2 Secondarely that all Bishops none excepted if they be founde faulty in any pointe, are also Subiect to that Chiefe and Principall See of Rome. 3 Thirdly and last that this is no seruitude (as M. Iewell otherwhere calleth it) or mere subiection as subiects are vnder their Prince, or the seruaunt vnder his Master. For not offending, all are equall, and that by the waie of humilite. Which (offence being committed) must be chaunged into rigour, and Authorite.

Of this Authorite and principalite not only in Correcting that is amisse,Grego [...]ius lib. 2. epist. 30. but also otherwise, S. Gregory in an other place thus writeth. Quanto Apostolica Sedes Deo Authore Cunctis praelata [Page 23] constat Ecclesijs, tanto inter multiplices curas & illa nos valdé sollicitat, vbi ad consecrandum Antistitem nostrum expectatur ar­bitrium. As farre as the See Apostolike is well knowen to be sett ouer all Churches by the Appointment of God him selfe, so farre amonge other manifolde cares, this also maketh vs ve­ry ho [...]full, when to the Consecrating of a bishop, our Arbitre­ment is attended. In this point therefore also of Confirming bishopps to be consecrated and ordayned, we see the Autho­rite of the bishopp of Rome was required, and that bicause Cunctis Deo Authore praelata constat ecclesiis, it is knowen to be sett ouer all Churches (without exception) by the order and appoyntment of God him selfe. Of the which we hearde be­fore out of the wordes also of S. Gregory that in three seuerall places of holy scripture, Christ had so appoynted it:Before. fol. 1. b. making Peter head of the rest. These places of holy Scripture are of S. Gregory in an other epistle applied so againe, where thus he writeth.Gregorius. Lib. 6. Epist. 37. Quis nescit sanctam ecclesiam in Apostolorum Principis soliditate firmatam? Qui firmitatem mentis traxit in nomine: vt Petrus a Petra vocaretur? Cui veritatis voce dicitur. Tibi dabo cla­ues regni caelorum. Cui rursus dicitur. Et tu aliquando conuersus confirma fratres tuos. I terumque, Simon Ioannis amas me? Pasce oues meas. Itaque cum multi sint Apostoli, pro ipso tam [...]n principatu sola Apostolorum principis Sedes in Authoritate conualuit. Quae in tribus locis vnius est. Ipse enim sublimauit sedem in qua eti [...]m quiescere, & praesentem vitam (agere) dignatus est. Ipse deco [...]auit se­dem in qua euangelistam discipulum misit. Ipse firmauit s [...]dem, in qua septem annis quàmuis discessurus sedit. Who knoweth not that the Holy Church is strēghthened in the solidite and fast­nesse of the Prince of the Apostles? Who the sure stedfastnesse that he had in minde, toke also in his Name, that he was called Peter of Petra, the Rocke. To whom by the Mouthe of Tru­the it selfe it is saied. To thee I will geue the k [...]yes of th [...] kingdo­me of heauen. To whom againe it is saied.M [...]th. 16. Lu [...]. 22. And thou b [...]ing someti­me [Page] conuerted, Confirme thy Brethern. And againe. Sin on the Son of Iohn, louest thou me? F [...]de my shepe. Therefore whereas there are many Apostles, yet for the Principalite it selfe and Chiefty, Only the See of the Prince of the Apostles hath praeuailed in Authorite. Which See in three places is one persons. For he exalted the See of Rome wherein he Rested. He honoured the See of Alexandria, sending his disciple the Euangelist thither. He established the See of Antioche, remayning there him selfe 7. yeres, though to departe.

To Conclude, euident it is by S. Gregory, that the See Apo­stolike (wherof he saieth,Li [...]. 5. Epist. 64. Li [...]. 6. Epist. 37. Lib. 7. Epist. 64 Lib 11 Epist. 54. Cui praesidemus in the which we doe Gouuerne) Pro ipso principatu sola in Authoritate cōualuit. On­ly praeuayled in Authorite, to haue the Chiefty and Princi­palite. To that See he saieth, All bishops are subiect, si qua cul­pa in ep [...]scopis inuenitur: if any faulte be founde in bishops. This See he calleth Caput omniū ecclesiarū the Head of all Churches, and Cunctis praelatam ecclesiis. Li. 2. epist. 30. lib. 7. Epist. 115. Sett ouer all Churches. What soe­uer this See doth determine, nihil egent firmitatis they nede no other strength, and without the Authorite of this See, Nullas quoecumque acta fuerint vires hab [...]nt, Li 7. epist. 69. whatsoeuer dothe passe in Synod, shall haue no force. Of the which also (agreing with S. Gregory) S. Augustin saieth,A [...] Hono­ra [...]u [...]d [...] v [...]lu. Cred. Cap. 17. Cui primas dare nolle, vel summae prof [...]cto impi [...]tatis est, v [...]l praecipitis arrogantiae to the which not to geue and graunt the primacy, soothely it is a point either of most high wickednesse, or of headling arrogancie. And thus is in dede the estate of the See of Rome maintayned by the Au­thorite of this holy Father. Brefely thus much is D. Hardinge furthered by the Authorite of S. Gregory.

And that euery English harte that any thinge regardeth the benefyt of his Faithe, that reioyseth in the profession of Chri­stianyte, and that thinketh him selfe bounde to allmyghty God, that euer he and his forefathers were brought to the fay­the of Iesus Christ, and to the knowleadg of a better life here­after [Page 24] after to come, that euery such I saie maie haue the better cau­se, the more to consider, the sooner to acknoweleadg, the glad­lyer to embrace the Primacy of the bishopp of Rome so vni­uersally practised of this holy and lerned Father S. Gregory, I beseche euery English Reader diligently to marke and beare away the testimony and witnesse, that Venerable Bede the most of lerned light that euer shined in our Countie, geueth to this holy Father, and howe muche by his Iudgement we are bounde and beholding vnto him aboue all other men. Thus Beda writeth of him in his ecclesiasticall History, whiche for the confort of my dere Countre in this storme of schisme I haue of late sett forthe in the English tounge.B [...]l [...]li. 2. Cap. 1. Of this holy Pope Gregory it becometh me in this our history of the Churche of En­glande more largely to speake. Bicause by his diligence he conuerted our nation, that is, S. [...]rego­r [...] our A­postle. the Englishmen from the powre of Satan to the faithe of Christe. VVhome we may well, and also must call oure Apostle. For as soone as he was highe Bishop ouer the whole worlde, and appointed gouuerner of the Churches lately conuerted to the fay­the, he made our Natyon the Churche of Christe, whiche had bene euer vn [...]ill that tyme the bondslaue of Idols, So that we may lawful­ly pronounce of him the saying of the Apostle. 1. Cor. 9. That although he were not an Apostle to others, yet he was vnto vs. For the signet and token of his Apostl [...]ship we are in our Lo [...]de. Thus farre Venerable Be­da. This is that holy Pope, our Apostle, whiche Practised this Vniuersall Authorite ouer all the partes of Christendom. Let vs neuer thinke (Christian english Reader) that an Antichrist (as the Pope for his vniuersall Supremacy is called) shoulde bringe vs Englishmen to the Faithe of Christ. Neither let vs doubte, but whose godly Foundations God hathe so manye hundred yeres prospered, his doctrine, Religion, and practised Authorite, was good and godly.

Iewell. pag. 227.If S. Gregorie were nowe aliu [...], he would crie out, as he did to the Emperour Mauritius. O tempora, o Mores. O what a time i [...] this? [Page] O what manners are these?

Stapleton Verely if S. Gregorye were nowe aliue, he woulde crie out as he did to the Emperour Mauricius, nor against vs whiche continewe in the Catholike faith planted by holy Augustin, whom he sent to preache the faith vnto vs, whom he created the f [...]rst Archebishop of Caunterbury,Gregor. li. 5. e [...]ist. 54 59. l [...]b. 7. epist. 5.30.1 [...]3. li. 9. epist. 52.58. lib. 12. epist. 31. whom he in his epi­stles commendeth and extolleth, not against vs which conti­newe in the obedience of the Apostolike See, whereof in his time he was the gouuernour through out all Christendome, as hath bene declared. Which celebrat the holy Sacrifice of the Masse, Praye for the soules departed, Call vpon the blessed Saints, Adore Christ in the blessed Sacrament, Acknowleadg the seuen Sacraments of Christes Churche, all which thinges holy S. Gregory practised him selfe, but he woulde crie out a­gainst you M. Iewell, whiche call the workes of oure Apostle whom he sent,Iewell. pag. 187. the killing of the godly, which denie the greatest benefit that euer God gaue to our nation (the con­uerting of vs from infidelite to the faith) to make your selues the Apostles of the same, which call that holy man S. Grego­ry him selfe an Antichrist, and all his successours downewarde for vsurping (not that name which bothe he abhorred, and no other Pope euer vsed) but the Authorite of supreme gouuern­ment ouer the whole Churche of Christ, of S. Gregory so cle­rely Practised, which being in the roome of a bishopp, do con­demne all the bishops that euer sate in that roome before you, against you M. Iewell, which corrupt the sayinges of S. Gre­gory, which call his writinges Fables, which call him an obscure and a late Doctour other where, against you he would crie out, and might most iustly crie out,Iewell. pag. 420. O tempora O Mores. O what a time is this, O what manners are these?

Iewell. Thus muche is Master Harding furthered by the authorite of S. Gregorye.

[Page 25] Stapletō. And thus much is M. Iewell furthered by his longe staying vpon S. Gregory. Verely D. Harding is so much furthered by the Authorite of. S. Gregory, that if M. Iewell will stande to the same, euidence shall force him to confesse and acknowe­leadg the Charge and principalite of the whole Churche to haue bene committed to Peter by Christ, and to haue bene practised by S. Gregory his Successour thourough out all Christendom. Thus much are we furthered M. Iewell by the Authorite of S. Gregory.

Harding. Diuis. 5 S. Ciprian declaring the contempt of the highe Priest Christes Vicar in earthe, to be cause of schismes and Heresi­es, writeth thus to Cornelius Pope and Martyr. Neyther haue Heresies or schismes risen of ony other occasion, then of that, the Priest of God is not obeied, and that one Priest for the time not be Churche, and one Iudge for the time, in­steede of Christ is not thought vpon.

Iewell. Pag. 227 T [...]e .273 Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The .94. Vntruthe. For S. Ciprian speaketh these wordes of euery seuerall Bishop, not only of the Bishop of Rome.

Stapletō. If S. Ciprian speake not only of the Bishop of Rome as you confesse he doth M. Iewell, then he speaketh of the Bishop of Rome. D. Harding saieth no more in the wordes alleaged. Ergo it is no Vntruthe that he saied. Againe D. Harding meaned not, that this place of S. Ciprian should be spoken only of the Bishop of Rome, but that it is also well and truly vnderstanded of euery Seuerall Bishop in his owne Dyocesse, not only of of the Bishop of Rome. Therefore in this point D. Harding and M. Iewell do agree. And therefore it is no Vntruthe in the one, except it be in bothe.

Harding. To whom if the whole brotherhood (that is, the whole number of Christian people which be brethern togeather and were so called in the primitiue Churche) woulde be obedient &c.

[Page] Iewell. The .204 Vntruthe mere Sla­unde­rous.The .95. Vntruthe. Standing in the manifest corruption and fal­sifying of S. Ciprian.

Stapletō. Where probabilite and reason leadeth vs to the contrary there is no manifest corruption or falsifying of the writer. Ma­nifest corruption importeth a wilfull and purposed guile. No such to haue bene in this place, if I talked with a Bishop of Sarrisbery, and not with M. Iewell, I durst to make him Iudge. For first if this place be meant not only of euery seuerall Bishop, but of the Bishop of Rome also, by M. Iewelles owne graunte, then being with vs Catholikes a sure and vndoubted truthe that the whole brotherhood subiect to the Bishop of Ro­me, is the whole number of Christian people, to interpret that whole brotherhood, as D. Harding doth for the whole num­ber of Christen people, it is so farre from any manifest cor­ruption or falsyfying, that it is no corruption o [...] falsyfying at all. If M. Iewell will saye, that this presupposed opinion of the whole brotherhood, that is of the whole number of Christian people subiect to the Bishop of Rome, is a wronge and false opinion, he shall vnderstande our opinion herein is such as we haue lerned of the holy Fathers of Christes Churche. Chry­sostom saieth,Chrysost. lib. 2. de sacerdotio. Christ did shead his bloud, to redeme those shepe, the charge of whom he committed bothe to Peter, and to the successours of Peter. I trust M. Iewell will exclude no parte of Christen people from these shepe, which Christ with his bloud redemed. Then by Chrisostoms iudgement, are all Christen people the flocke not only of Peter but of Peters successours also, who are the Bishoppes of Rome. S. Ambrose speaking of the Church which S. Paule calleth the Piller and grounde of truthe, addeth, Cuius hodie Rector est Damasus. Ambro. In Com­mentar. in 1. Timo. 3 The ruler of which Churche at this daye is Damasus, who then was Pope of Rome. This Church which is the piller and grounde of truthe, is no parti­cular Churche, or parte of Christes flocke, but the Vniuersall Churche and the whole number of Christen people. Venera­ble [Page 26] Bede calleth the Pope S. Gregory,Beda lib. 2. cap. 1. Histor. praelatum Ecclesijs iamdu­dum ad fidem conuersis, gouuerner of the Churches lately con­uerted to the faithe. From those Churches none are excluded. S. Hierom saithe that Christ made Peter the Master of his house, Hierony­mus in cap. Mar. 14 that vnder one shepheard there may be one faithe. In the house of Christ and vnder one shepeard is one brotherhood, the whole number of Christen people. Thus then to interpret the whole brotherhood subiect to the Bishop of Rome for the whole number of Christen people, as D. Hardinge doth is no Vntru­the at all, nor no falsyfying of S Ciprian at all, seing that by M. Iewelles owne graunt S. Ciprian speaketh there as wel of the Bishop of Rome, as of other Bishops.

Harding. Diuis. 6 Amonge the Canons made by the 318. Bishops at the Nicene Councel, which were in number 70. (96.) and all burnt by Heretikes in the East Churche saue xx. &c.

Iewell. The .96. Vntruthe ioyned with folie as shall appeare.

Stapletō. The .275 Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.If this be an Vntruthe, and that ioyned with a folie, then haue you your selfe M. Iewell vttered an Vntruthe, and that with a folie. For these are your owne wordes M. Iewell, in your text folowing.

Iewell. Pag. 234 The .276 Vntruthe For that Athana­sius in that place saieth no such thinge.The true Athanasius, him selfe, of whom we make no doubte, saieth, that the Arrians of Alexandria, burnte the Catholike mens bookes and (276) therewithall the Canons of the Councell of Nice, in the time of the Emperour Constantius, Iulius being then Bishop of Rome.

Stapletō. And for this purpose you quote vnto vs in the margin: Athanasius in Epist. ad Orthodoxos. Now M. Iewell though this be a manifest Vntruthe that you reporte of that Epistle of Athanasius, (for in that whole Epistle there is no one worde of the Canons of the Councell of Nice, reade and see the Epistle who list) yet it is a farre ouersight in you to note that for an Vntruthe in D. Harding which your selfe auoucheth afterwardes for certain and true. Thus we might shortly Returne vpon you this Vntruthe by your owne assertion affirming [Page] the same. But bicause one Vntruthe is not well defended by an other Vntruthe, though the aduersary may so be answered, we tell you therefore againe that such Canons and in the number aboue mencioned were burnt in Alexandria, by the Arrians. 1 We bringe for witnesse thereof the Epistle of Athansius and other Bishops writing so to Marcus the Pope of Rome, and complaining thereof in their letter to him. 2 We bringe you also an Epistle of Iulius the Pope liuing at the very time of the Nicene Councel, writing to the Bishops of the East, such as had them selues bene at the Councell, and reporting in that Epistle to the number of .xxiiij. Canons beside the twenty which commonly are to be read in that Councell. 3 Beside all this, many other Canons are alleaged as of the Nicene Coun­cell by diuerse of the Fathers, which are not at this present to be founde in the Nicene Councell.In the disproufe M. No­welles Reproufe. Pag. 95. b Diuerse of which Canons are particularly mencioned, gathered together and sett forthe of late against M. Nowell. It shall not nede here to repete them. To that place I referre the Reader. Is not all this sufficient to proue that such Canons were loste? Is not Athanasius and Iu­lius sufficient to clere D. Harding of this Vntruthe? No. M. Ie­well will finde a shifte for them bothe. What is that? First as touching the Epistle of Athanasius to Marcus, he saieth it is forged. But how doth he proue that? For sothe after that he had affirmed (as you hearde in his wordes before) that the true Athanasius writeth of the burning of these Canons to Iulius the Pope, he addeth.

Iewell. The .277 Vntruthe in Slaun­dering Athana­sius. The .278 Vntruthe For Mar­cus was Pope on­ly. 2. ye­res. Plati­na.But M. Hardinges Athanasius, is either so forgetfull or his (277.) lies or so impudent and carelesse what he saie, that he maketh piteous complainte of the same burning vnto Marcus, that was Bishop in Ro­me before Iulius and was dead (278.) at the left .ix. yeres before the Canons were burnte. By such Doctours M. Harding vpholdeth the state of Rome.

Stapletō. Let vs suppose it were true that Athanasius wrote to Iulius, after the deathe of Marcus, of the burning of those Canons [Page 27] of the Councell of Nice. Is it not possible that those Canons were twise burnte in two sondry Copies at two sondry times? Might they not be burned first in the dayes of Marcus, and then (hauing of him an other Copie of the Canons, as by his letters to him Athanasius required) that other Copie be bur­ned in the dayes of Iulius? What Contradiction, or what Im­possibilite is there in this matter? Or howe is M. Iewell euer able to proue that suche Canons were not burnte before the time of Iulius?Socrates l [...]. 1 ca. 35.30. et seq. Certainely the heresy of the Arrians troubled the Churche of Alexandria where those Canons were burnte before the dayes of Pope Iulius, and Athanasius was banished in the reigne of Constantin the Greate, by the meanes of the Arrians, Eusebius, Theognis, Maris and other, hauing greuous and sondry accusatyons layed against him. It is not impossible nor incredible that those which founde the meanes to banishe the Bishop, were also able to spoyle his library, and to bur­ne his bookes, especially those Canons, wherein their wicked heresy, was with most waighty Authorite condemned. Con­sidered also, that in the Canons nowe extant of that Generall Councell of Nice, there is no one worde nor halfe worde a­gainst the Arrian heresy, against the which yet that Councell was principally and chiefly assembled. Thus though it were true that the Canons were burnte in the time of Iulius, and that Athanasius wrote thereof vnto Iulius, (as M. Iewell vn­truly saieth, he did) yet were not Athanasius the [...]fore a forget­full lyar, impudent, or carelesse what he saye (as it pleaseth the graue head of M. Iewell to call him) but bothe sayinges might right well be true, and stande together, the troublous estate of the Churche of Alexandria considered as well in the dayes of Marcus, Constantin yet liuyng, as of Iulius in the reigne of Constantius his Son.

But nowe seing Athanasius writeth no suche thinge of these Canons to Iulius, at the lest in the place by M. Iewell al­leaged, [Page] how forgetfull of his lyes, how impudent is M. Iewell, and howe carelesse what he saie, or what he write? And who will truste M. Iewell in doubtefull matters, which thus decea­ueth vs in plaine thinges? What is Impudency, if this be not? For as I tolde you before M. Iewell, Athanasius in his epistle, Ad Orthodoxos, written in the time of Iulius successour of Marcus,Athana­sius moste Impudēt­ly belyed of [...]aster Iewell. hath no one worde of the Canons of that Councell of Nice. You reporte him vntruly. You deceiue your Reader. Or els you were deceiued by some other, whose eyes, not your owne, it maye seme yowe vsed in this matter. For Reade the Epistle. M. Iewell. And if Athanasius write any one worde of the Canons of the Councell of Nice, in all that Epistle, let me neuer be taken for Christen man more. He saieth in that Epi­stle. Ecclesiis & baptisteriis flammae iniectae. Fyre was caste vpon the Churches,Athana­sius in epis. ad Ortho­doxos. and vpon the fountes. And againe. Sacros Scrip­turarum libros quos in Ecclesiis inueniebant comburere. That the heathen and infidels burned the bookes of holye Scripture, such as they founde in the Churches. Of any other burning or of the Canons of the Nicene Councell, there is not one worde, nor halfe worde. By suche Impudent Vntruthes M. Iewell will deface and bringe out of credit the wrytinges of the olde Fathers.

Nowe whereas you saie farder that Marcus, which was bi­shop of Rome before Iulius, was dead at the lest ix. yeres before the Canons were burnte, if it were true that in the time of Iulius those Canons were burnt, yet it will ill folowe that it was jx. yeares after the deathe of Marcus. For by the best and moste exacte accomptes of Chronographers,Damasus & Platina in Marco. euen of Henricus Pan­taleō of Basill, this Marcus was Pope but two yeres, and 8. mo­neths. Which accompte is founde first in Damasus, and after in Platina, and diuers other. The Arrians therefore commit­ting those outrages and spoyles aboue named in Alexandria, aboute the beginning of Pope Iulius in the dayes of Con­stantius, [Page 28] if they had at that time also burned the Canons of the Nicene Councell (whiche yet Athanasius sayed not) it woulde well lacke the better halfe of jx. yeres after the deathe of Marcus, that those Canons were burnte. Yet you adde be­fore to proue that in the dayes of Iulius the Canons were burnte.

Which obseruation of time appeareth also by Socrates in his storie.

Iewell. pag. 234. T [...]e 279. Vntruthe There appeareth no suche thinge in Socrates.Yow quote in the margin of this place. Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 14. Nowe verely what obseruation you can picke out of this pla­ce, touching the burning of those Canons, the Reader shall see and Iudge. Bicause the Chapter is but shorte, I will alleage the whole as it lyeth. Thus lye the wordes of Socrates. Aboute this time the Arrians remoued Gregory (their Arrian bishopp) from Alexandria, as one odyous to the people bothe for the burning of a Churche, and also for that he was not earnest enough, in defence of their opinion. And in his roome they placed George, who came then from Cappadocia, one that helde the doctrine of their religion. This is the whole .14. Chapter of Socrates in that second boo­ke. Of the Canons of Nice he speaketh no one worde. Of a Churche burned he speaketh. But what? Thinketh M. Iewell that the Canons of Nice were there burnte? In dede such lew­de Gheasses are mete to mayntayne such a lying Religion as M. Iewell defendeth. But neither Socrates in any other place,Ruff. lib. 1 cap. 19. Theodor. li. 2. cap. 4. neither Ruffinus, nor Theodoret nor Sozomenus all writing of this Arrian bishop Gregory and of his deposing do make any mention of such Canons burnte in his time. Only Sozo­menus openeth a litle more this matter, and declareth more then any of all the other dothe, what Churche and what bur­ning that was for the which this Gregory was of his owne fe­lowes depriued. For first of the Churche whiche was burned thus he writeth. Gregorius sedem Alexandrinam inuasit. Sozomenus lib. 4. ca. 6 Quod populus molesté ferens, ecclesiam quam Dyonisij vocant, qui episcopus illic fuerat, incendunt. Gregory inuaded the See of Alexandria. [Page] Whiche thinge the people taking greuously they sett a fire a C [...]urche called by the name of Denys, who had sometime bene bi [...]hop there. This was the Churche which was burned by the intruding of that Arrian bishop, and for the which also he was afterwarde partly depriued. For of his depriuation thus the same Sozomenus writeth in the same booke.Lib. eodem Cap. 7. Interca Ar­riani dogma [...]is fautores &c. In the meane while the Arrians remo­ued Gregory (their bishop) as being but negligent in establishyng their doctrine, and one much hated of the Cytyzens of Alexandria, by reason of the mischiefs that happened to the Cyte at his entring in, and the burning of a Churche. This is all that is writen of these ecclesiasticall writers touching any losse done by fyre in the time of the Arrian bishop Gregory. What obseruation of time can M. Iewell finde here, to proue that in the dayes of Pope Iulius the Canons were burnte, and not in the dayes of Mar­cus, as Athanasius him selfe writing to Marcus reporteth? The wordes of Athanasius to Marcus are plaine. M. Iewell will proue the contrary by a Gheasse.

Harding. And yet the whole number (of the 70. Canons) was kept diligently in the Church of Rome in the original it selfe sent to Syluester the bishop there from the Councell subscribed with the saide 318. Fathers handes.

Iewell. The 280 Vntruthe Slaunde­rous.The 97. Vntruthe: For there was no suche originall kepte in the Church [...] of Rome.

Stapleton. M. Iewell, to iustifie this matter telleth the Reader a longe lying tale to proue the Pope a Forger, and blaseth out that matter in mighty great letters, but withe a number of mayne and most impudent Vntruthes. Touching the matter it selfe, that 70. Canons were made in the Councell of Nice,Athana­sius ad Ma [...]cum. copied out, and sent to Syluester Pope of Rome from the Councell by the handes of his legates, it is euident by the epistle of A­thanasius vnto Marcus, where he and the other bishops of [Page 29] Lybia, of Thebais, and of Aegypt do expressely confesse the same. Also the Epistle of Pope Iulius to the Bishops of the East reakoneth vp the .xviij. th. the .xix. the .xxi. the .xxiij. the xxvi. the .xxvij. the .xxviij. the .xxxiij. the .xl. the .xlv. the .xlvij. the .xlix. the .lj. the .lij. the .liij. the .liiij. the .lv. the .lvij. the .lviij. the .lix. the .lx. the .lxj. the .lxiij. and the .lxvj.Tom. 1. Con. E­pist. ad Orient. Canons of the Councell of Nice, all at that time kept and reserued in the Ori­ginall Copie at Rome. This Iulius was aliue at the time of the Nicene Councell. He wrote this letter to the Bishops of the East Church, to many of them which were present at that ve­ry Councell. He rebuketh them in this letter for thrusting out of Athanasius from his Bishopricke. And by his Authorite he restored not only Athanasius, but also Paulus the Patriarche of Constantinople, Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra,Histor. tripart. li. 4. cap. 15 Socrates lib. 2. cap. 15. Asclepas Bishop of Gaza, and Lucius Bishop of Adrianopolis al expelled by the Arrians, vnto their Bishoprickes and Sees againe. And can M. Iewell persuade vs that the same Pope, to whom such holy Bishops appealled, (Athanasius, Paulus, Marcellus, Lucius and Asclepas) at that time and against those stubborne Arrians would alleage false forged Canons of his owne deuising, or belye the Councel of Nice, the Matter being yet so freshe in memorye? And what saieth M. Iewell against these so expresse witnesses, Athanasius and Iulius? What he saied to the Epistle of Athanasius you haue heard allready. By a mere manifest Vntruthe he woulde deface it. Other Matter he bringeth none but scoffes, as mocking at the Bishops for reducing the number of .lxxx. Canons to the number of .lxx. to represent the .lxx. dis­ciples of Christ, or els the .lxx. tounges knowen to the worlde. To the which no other answer nedeth (for any thinge that it proueth) then that M. Iewell doth not well to measure the doinges of that auncient Councell with the light estimation of mans fansie. But to this Epistle of Iulius what doth M. Ie­well answer? Forsothe whereas D. Harding saied, that Harding. Diuis. 6 these [Page] Canons being mencioned by Iulius, writing to them which were present at the making of the Canons, might take away all suspicion of Vntruthe, M. Iewell answereth.

Iewell. Pag. 237This remouing of suspition, I know not howe, semeth somewhat to encrease suspition. If there were not a soare, what should it thus nede to be salued?

Stapletō. This it but a flourishe. What saye you to the Matter? Be it a soare there was, howe like you the salue? Be it that to put the Matter out of doubte touching these Canons not com­monly extant (bicause of Caluin and such other, they haue be­ne before doubted of) the vndoubted Epistle of Iulius was al­leaged? What then saie you to that Epistle?

Iewell. The .281 Vntruthe Captay­ne and Notori­ous.In dede, Iulius alleageth a Canon: But M. Hardinges Canon he alleageth not.

Stapletō. The Canon of the Nicene Councell which D. Harding al­leageth out of Iulius is this. Non debere praeter sententiam Ro­mani Pontificis vllo modo Concilia celebrari, nec Episcopos damna­ri. That without the Authorite of the Bishop of Rome, neither Councells ought to be kepte, neither Bishops be condemned. How saie you M. Iewell? Doth not Iulius alleage this Canon? Will you neuer leaue your Vntruthes?An. 1551 In the first tome of the Councelles, fol. 309. after the Collen print, you may reade that Canon if you liste.

Iewell. Lib. 4. cap. 9. Hist. trip.It is also touched in the Ecclesiasticall History by Socrates. The other Canon of the Nicene Councell the .xliiij. in num­ber,Lib. 3. de Dogmat. Character. D. Harding alleaged not out of Iulius, but out of Francis­cus Tirrianus, as he noted vnto you in the margin, who as he writeth sawe many thinges of the Nicene Councell which are not commonly extant,The .282 Vntruthe for that Note touched not this Ca­non. [...] Niceni Concilij, in the Ecclesiasticall Actes of the Nicene Councell. But let vs see how M. Iewell prosecuteth the Matter of the Canon of Iulius. He addeth.

And the compiler of the Councelles gaue this Note in the mar­gin (2 [...]2.) touching the same. This de [...]ree may only be reduced to the v. and si [...]t [Page 30] chapter of the Councell of Nice. But expressely it is not founde. Such credit is to be geuen to this Iulius in his allegations.

Stapletō. An other Vntruthe M. Iewell. For this note in the margin that you speake of is founde in the first Epistle of Iulius, to the Bishops of the East. But the Canon which D. Harding allea­geth out of Iulius, is in the second Epistle of Iulius. Againe the note in the margin alleaged by you is of the Accusation and condemnation of Bishops not to be done without the know­leadg of the Bishop of Rome. But the Canon alleaged by D. Harding out of Iulius, and reported in the Ecclesiasticall history of Socrates, is of Councelles not to be called or holden wi­thout the consent of the Bishop of Rome.The Im­pudency of M. Ie­well. Such credit is to be geuen to M. Iewell in his allegations. What passing impudency is this M. Iewell, first to go aboute to discredit the writinges of the Ancient Fathers, and then to do the same by open and ma­nifest Vntruthes? Especially you which charge not only D. Harding, but in maner all sortes of writers, with Fables, For­geries, Dreames, Vntruthes, and so forthe, when you can not answer to the Matter it selfe.

To the whole Matter of the Popes Forgerie which M. Ie­well here so blaseth out, and so impudently auoucheth, it is allready sufficiently answered: and proued against M. Nowell, and against the lying Centuries of the Magdeburgenses, whose steppes M. Iewell hath folowed euen at the harde heles, that Zosimus the Pope was no forger, that the Africanes laied no such thinge to his charge, that they renounced not their whole obedience vnto that See of Rome, but only stoode vpon the Matter of appellations, (wherein it semeth by the writinges of S. Cipriā, they had bene of olde time Priuileged) that many Ca­nons are alleaged out of the Nicene Councell not only by the Popes, but by diuers others holy Fathers, as S. Ambrose, S. Hierō S. Augustin, Epiphanius and others without suspition of fay­ning or forgery, all this I saie is allready at large proued by M. [Page] Dorman in his answer to M. Nowell. I beseche the reader to haue recourse to that place. Notwitstanding bicause M. Iewell, as he hath bene more large, so hath dealed herein also much more impudently then M. Nowell,In the disprou­fe of M. Nowel­les Re­proufe the .16. chap. fol. 92. I haue thought good some­what to examine his Lying tale and to note his Vntruthes the­rein, for the better iustifying of this his Vntruthe scored vp he­re vpon D. Harding. Thus M. Iewell entreth his processe.

Touching the forgerie of this Councell of Nice, the very begin­ning of the quarell and the whole storie standeth thus.

Iewell. If it were forged, the beginning could not be here. For the better vndetstanding wherof,Pag. 235 The .283 Vntruthe Capitain and No­torious. I will note to the Reader the na­mes and times of the Popes that liued about this time, in which the forgerie is saied to be committed.

Stapletō. The Councell of Nice was holden in the yere of our lorde .328. or as some other thinke .326. vnder Siluester then Pope of Rome, whose place his two Legates Vincentius and Victor oc­cupied there. To this Siluester succeded Marcus and was Pope ij. yeres.Hist. tri­part. lib. 1. cap. 8 Niceph. lib. 8. cap. 14. Vnto this Marcus Athanasius directed his letters aboue mentioned. To Marcus succeded Iulius, whose Epistle was be­fore alleaged to the Bishops of the East, in defence of Athana­sius, and other. Some write that this Iulius was at the Councell of Nice him selfe. Certain it is he was Pope in the later dayes of Constantin the great,Platina. in whose reigne the Councell was holden. Iulius sate in the See of Rome .xvi. yeres. To him suc­ceded Liberius, Hieroni­mus in Catal. who ruled partly in that Bishopricke, partly in banishment the space of .xvij. yeres, Felix in the meane time oc­cupying the See one yere, vnder the banishment of Liberius. To Liberius succeded Damasus vnto whom S. Hierom wrote certain Epistles, and ruled the Churche .xviij. yeres. To Dama­sus succeded Siricius, and sate .xvj. yeres. To Siricius succeded Anastasius, who sate three yeres. To Anastasius succeded Inno­contius, and sate in the Chaire of Peter .xv. yeres. To this Pope [Page 31] Chrysostom Appealed being in banishment, who thereupon excommunicated the Emperour Arcadius. To this Pope S. Augustin and the Bishops of Afrike in the condemnatiō of Ce­lestius and Pelagius submitted their decrees.Palladius in vitae Chryso. Ni­cephor. lib. 13. cap. 34. Aug. epist. 90. To this Innocentius succeded Zosimus, and ruled the Churche only one yere, who is the man that is accused here of M. Iewell for a Forger, of certain Canons of the Nicene Councell. 1 Now as I saied, if su­che Canons were forged, the beginning hereof as M. Iewell saieth, coulde not be here. 2 Seing that bothe Athanasius writeth to Marcus for the copie of those 70. Canons, confessing that so many were made and sent to Rome to Siluester then Po­pe, and also that Iulius the Successour of Marcus alleageth a great number of suche Canons to the number of .xxiiij. more then are commonly read in the Councell of Nice, bothe whi­che Popes liued at the lest fourescore yeares before this Zosi­mus. See those Canons in the dis­proufe of. M. No­welles Reproufe. fol. 95. b. 3 Hereunto maye be added that S. Hierom and S. Ambrose who wrote in the time of Pope Damasus, that S. Augustin and Epiphanius in the time of Innocentius, do alleage certain Canons of the Nicene Councell not extant in the xx. Canons commonly readde. Therefore Zosimus who liued after all these Popes, if he were a Forger, yet was he not the first For­ger. Now as it were to great impudencie for M. Iewell to char­ge S. Ambrose S. Hierom, S. Augustin and Epiphanius with Forgerie, though he hath gone about to deface the testimonies of Athanasius, but that with manifest Vntruthes, as you haue sene, so truly shall he neuer be able to proue Zosimus or anye other Pope a Forger. This therefore touching the beginning of the Forgerie (if there were any suche) is the first Vntruthe. Let vs goe forthe.

Iewell. One Apiarius a priest of the Churche of Sicca in Aphrica as it ap­peareth a very ill man, being iustly excommunicat bothe by his own bisshop, and also by a great number of other bisshoppes together in the Councell there, appealed frō them all vnto Zosimus then bisshop of Rome.

[Page]All this is true. Let vs heare farder.

Iewell. Zosimus without farther knowleadg of the cause, neuer hearing the other parte, pronounced Apiarius to be innocēt and restored him to the Communion.The 284. Vntruthe Boldly auouc [...]ed but no waie pro­ued.

This M. Iewell saieth of his owne head. There appeareth no suche thinge in the Actes of the Councels. This only ap­peareth, touching this Apia [...]ius that after his Appeale to Ro­me, Zosimus sent his legat to the Councel of Aphrike, thē as­sembled, that he was restored to the Communion by the Afri­canes them selues, Zosimus in the meane while departing this worlde,Cōcil. Car. 6. cap. 101 and Bonifacius succeding him. This is euident in the epistle of the Aphrican Councell sent to Bonifacius succes­sour to Zosimus. That which M. Iewell telleth, not appearing in the Councell, may stande for an other Vntruthe, vntill it be iustified.

Iewell. The 285. Vntruthe as appea­reth. StapletonAnd vnderstanding there was a Councell gathered in Africa tou­ching the same.

Stapleton. An other vntruthe. For there appeareth no such Councell at all. The Councelles at that time gathered, in Africa were partly against the Cap. 76. Pelagians, Cap. 75. the Donatistes, and for the preseruation of the Cap. 1. Nicene Councell. But for the matter of Apiarius no Councell was gathered.

Iewell. The 286. A burthē of Vntru­thes.Sent thither Faustinus the bisshop of Potentia, withe two other priestes of Rome, Philippus and Asellus, not only to see that the saied Apiarius without anye furder triall might be restored vnto his right, but also to make plea in the open Councell that it shoulde be lawfull for any priest to appeale from his owne ordinary or Metropolitane or Councell vnto the Apostolike See of Rome.

Stapleton All this is but a fardle of vntruthes and slaunders. M. Ie­well auoucheth this onlye, but he neither quoteth nor noteth any Author therefore. The truthe is this. Zosimus sending his legates aboue mentioned to the Councell of Aphrica, gaue in commission amonge other thinges, that the Councell of Nice [Page 32] shoulde be inuiolatly kept and obserued, in that parte of the worlde as it was other where. The Councell of Nice was read­de in the Synod of the Aphricanes, and established by their whole consent and agrement thereunto.Cocil. Car. 6. cap. 1. & 2. Faustinus the Popes Legat brought forth a write from Zosimus, contayning a de­cree touching Appellatiō, made in the Councel of Nice. That decree not being founde in the copies whiche the Africanes had, the Africanes desired a time of deliberation,Cap. 3. before they subscribed thereunto. A deliberation was taken the Popes Le­gat consenting thereunto.Cap. 4. They wrote to the Bishops of the East Churche, to see their copies. Thus farre haue we gone with M. Iewell, folowing the tenour of the Councell. Nowe that Apiarius shoulde be restored without farder triall, or that such plea shoulde be made as M. Iewell speaketh of, it is not mencioned in the Councell: it is a double and Pregnant Vn­truthe of M. Iewell. Let vs go forthe.

Iewell. The bysshoppes of Aphrica answered there was no lawe it shoulde be so.The 287. Vntr [...]the For they made no s [...]che An­swer.

Stapleton. They answered, the decree of appellation to Rome was not founde in the Nicene Councell. They saied not it was not so by no lawe. So they shoulde haue saied vntruly. For in the Councell of Sardica where 300. bishoppes were assembled from all partes or Christendom before that time,Concil. Sard. Cap. 7. the very sa­me decree which Faustinus the Popes legat alleaged, was and is to be founde worde for worde. Though then they answered, it was not founde in the Nicene Councell, yet they answered not, there was no lawe it should be so. This therefore is a Facinge Vntruth on M. Iewelles parte.

Iewell. The 288. Vntruthe ioyned with a slaunder.Faustinus laied forthe this Canon of the Councell of Nice, not ma­de by the Authorite of the bisshops there, but onlye deuised by the bisshop of Rome.

This is a slaunderous vntruthe, to saie it was diuised at Ro­me. It was made long before in the Councell of Sardica. The­refore [Page] the modesty of Iohn Caluin in this point is more, who confesseth that the Pope alleaged this decree of Sardica, as a decree of the Councell of Nice, and maketh it an errour of the Pope,Instit. lib. 4. cap. 7. Sect. 9. not a diuising of his owne, as the modest sprit of M. Ie­well hath deuised. Forthe M. Iewell. Perge Mentiri.

Iewell. The 289. Vntruthe sauouring of Malice. The bisshoppes there, amonge whom was S. Augustine that fa­mous lerned Father, thought it was a forged Matter.

Stapleton. This is a malicious Vntruthe. There appeareth no suche thought or cogitation in the Actes of the Councell. And of what sprit is M. Iewell, that maketh suche good men to su­spect a forgerie in the chiefest bishop of Christendom, geuing forthe no token of any such suspicion?

Iewell. The 290. Vntruthe For not Therfore they sent &c. And therefore they sayde, they woulde sende vnto Alexandria, Antioche, and Constantinople for the verye Originall copies of the sayde Councell, and desired the bisshop of Rome to doe the same.

Stapleton. That all this they did, it is true. But that Therefore they did it, it is not true. And Therefore I can not excuse you here of an other Vntruthe.

Iewell. The 291. Vntruthe For they were not the true Authen­tike copi­es. The 292. Vntruthe ioyned with a sla­un [...]er.And saide, that in the meane while they woulde doo, as they had done before. Vpon this message and returne of the answer withe the (291) Authentike copies from Cyrillus the bisshopp of Alexandria, and Atticus the bisshopp of Constantinople, it appeared plainely to the worlde that the Canons were corrupted, and that the Pope had falsified the holy Councell.

Here be two Vntruthes, and the one ioyned with a sla­under. The first is, that the true Authentike copies were sent from Alexandria and Constantinople. True it is, they sent the truest that they had. But that those were not the very Authen­tike copies, made and lefte by the Fathers of Nice, it is euident by many reasons.

1 First, Iulius longe before that time alleaged against the bishoppes of the East, xxiiij. Canons of the Councell of Nice ouer and beside the xx. Canons of the copies sent from Ale­xandria [Page 33] and Constantinople. Therefore the other that lacked so many could not be the Authētike and perfit number of the Canons.

Secondarely betwene the tyme of the Nicene Councell and those bishoppes Cyrillus of Alexandria and Atticus of Constā tinople, certaine Arrians occupied those Sees,That the Copies of the Nice­ne Coun­cel sent from A­lexandria and Con­stātinople were not the true Authentike Co­pies. Socrates. lib. 2. Sozom. lib. 4. Theodoret. lib. 2. Nicephor [...] lib. 9. & 10. and therefore no maruail, if the Councell were corrupted.

In the Churche of Alexandria, after Alexander, who was present at the Councell of Nice, succeded Athanasius. This A­thanasius being often bannished, first Gregorius, then Geor­gius bothe Arrians ruled that See certain yeares. After A­thanasius being restored and dying in his bishoprike, Petrus a good Catholike bishop succeded, who being expelled and fly­ing to Rome, Lucius an Arrian was intruded, who occupyed the See many yeres vnder Valēs the Arrian Emperour. But vn­der Theodosius and Gratian he was expelled, and Timotheus brother to that Peter succeded, after Timotheus, Theophilus, and after Theophilus, this Cyrillus was bishop of Alexandria. Thus vnder the three Arrian bishops Gregorius, Georgius, and Lucius, no maruaill if the Councelles were corrupted and de­stroyed. Especially whereas Athanasius, complaineth thereoff him selfe, in his epistle to Marcus, the Pope, whiche M. Iewell would disproue but he can not.

In Constantinople after Alexander bishop therof in the ti­me of the Nicene Councell,Socrat. So­zom enus, Theodoret. & Niceph. vbi supra. Paulus a good Catholike bishop succeding was twise banished, and in the ende murdered. In the meane Eusebius the Arrian, and after him Macedonius, Eudo­xius, and Demophilus all Arrians occupyed for the space off fourty yeares and more, during the Empire of Constantius, Iulian and Valens, the See of Cōstantinople. This Demophi­lus vnder Gratian was depriued, and Gregory Nazianzene by Theodosius made his successour, who not continuing in the See, Nectarius was chosen to whom succeded Chrysostome, [Page] and to Chrysostome this Atticus here mentioned in the Afri­cane Councell. Now in so longe a tyme of the Arrians Domi­nion, who doubteth but they corrupted the Councell of Nice being specially called againste them? Namely seing that in the Councell now extant,Note this Reason. there is no one Canon againste the Ar­rian heresy, For the which yet that Councel was expressely cal­led and assembled.

Hereunto maye be added that in Antiochia also, whither the bishops of Africa sent for the Copie of the Nicene Coūcel, cer­taine Arrians had ruled betwene the time of the Nicene Coun­cell and the bishops then liuing. As Eustathius the Catholike being banished,Histor. Ec­clesiast. Nicephor. & tripart. per totum. Eulalius, Euphronius, Phlacitus, Stephanus, Leontius, Eudoxius, Euzoius, Theodorus Perinthius all Ar­rian Bishoppes: Whereas in all that time not one Arrian sea­te at Rome, but all Catholike and all defendinge the Nicene Councell.

Athanasius Apolog. 2. 3 Thirdly the same Iulius in his vndoubted epistle recorded in the workes of Athanasius, alleaged a decree of Appeale, from one Synod to a greater, by vertu whereof he cyted those Ar­rian bishops to Rome, concluded in the Nicene Councell, whi­che in the Copies sent to the Africane bishops appeareth not. These are the wordes of Iulius. Episcopi in magna Synodo Niceae congregati non sine Dei Consilio permiserunt, prioris Synodi Acta in alia Synodo examinari. The bishops assembled in the greate Councell of Nice permitted not without the will of God, that the actes of a former Synod, might be examined in an other Sy­node. Whiche Appeale from one Synod to an other that it was to Rome, appeareth well bothe by that Iulius by vertu thereoff called those Arrian bishops to appeare before him at Rome, and also by that longe after, Leo that holy and lerned Pope alleaged the very decree of the Nicene Coūcel by occasiō of an Appea­le of Flauianus to Rom [...]. For whereas in that outragious in­iurie done to Flauianus in the pretensed Synode of Ephesus [Page 34] the Popes legates (as Leo writeth) fideliter reclamarunt, & eisdem libellum Appellationis Flauianus Episcopus dedit. Did faithefully resist that iniurious decree, and to the saied legates Flauianus the Bishopp made a libell of Appeale,Leo epist. 25. ad The odosium Augustū. Leo writeth thereof to Theodosius the Emperour, and chalengeth by vertu of the Ni­cene Councell a greater Synod after the Appeale made, in the­se wordes. Quàm autem post appellationem interpositam hoc necessarió postuletur, Canonum Niceae habitorum decreta testantur, quae a totius mundi sunt sacerdotibus constituta, quaeque subter annexa sunt. Howe necessarely we require nowe to haue a greater Sy­nod, after the Appeale layed in, the decrees of the Nicene Ca­nons do witnesse. Which haue bene made of all priestes in the worlde. And which are here vnder annexed. Iulius against the Arrians, yea suche of whom some had bene present them selues at the Nicene Councell, and Leo to the Emperour Theodo­sius alleageth a Canon of the Nicene Councell, yea and a Canon of Appeale, which those Aphricane Copies haue not, and yet shall we thinke (because M. Iewell saieth the worde) that those only were the true and Authentike Copies and that Zozimus was a Forger, bicause he alleaged a Canon, whiche they had not?

Fourthely (as I noted before) diuers holy Fathers and Aun­cient writers haue alleaged in their lerned writinges yet extant and not doubted of, certain Canons of the Nicene Councell, which a [...]e not extant at all in the Copies sent from Alexan­dria and Constantinople to the bishops of Africa. S. Ambrose saieth, it was decreed in the Nicene Councell, Ne bigamus in clerum asciscatur, Ambrosius Epist. 82. that one twise maryed shoulde not be admit­ted to be of the Clergy. S. Augustin writeth it for a decree of the Nicene Councell, Ne episcopus sibi Successorem sufficiat, Augustin. Epist. 110. that a Bishop yet lyuing shoulde not appoynte his Successour. And therefore he repenteth him that he was of Aurelius his prede­cessour made bishop, he yet lyuing, saying that at that time he [Page] knewe not so much. S. Hierom writeth that the booke of Iu­dith was by the Nicene Councell decreed to be a parte of the holy Scripture. Last of all, all the Fathers of the seconde Ge­nerall Councell of Constantinople holden aboue thirty yeres before this Zosimus was Pope,In prefat. Iudith. Theodoret. lib. 5. cap. 9. Histor. Ecclesiasti. do mention in their letters wri­ten to the bishops of Italy Damasus and other, Veterem sanctio­nem & definitionem Nicaenorum patrum, an olde decree and de­termination of the Fathers at Nice, vt in vnaquaque prouincia, illius prouinciae cultores, assumptis etiam si videatur, finitimis, confe­rant ecclesiasticos honores ijs quos vtiliter gesturos esse confidunt, that in euery prouince the inhabitants thereof, taking vnto them (if they thought good) their neighbours also, might be­stowe Spirituall promotions vpon suche as they thought wor­thy thereof. Not any one of all these matters appeareth in anye of the Canons, or any parte of the Actes of the Nicene Coun­cell. What then? Shall we saie therefore according to the wise­dome and Charyte of M. Iewell, that S. Ambrose, S. Augustine, S. Hierome, yea and all those Fathers of that seconde Generall Councell of Chrystendome, were all Forgers and Falsifyers of the Nicene Councell? Or shall we not rather saye that those Fathers, and that holy Councell spake truly, but those Copies sent to the Aphricanes, are not the ful and perfit Copies? Thou­ghe verely I thinke they were the best that those good bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople, Cyrillus and Atticus had at that time.

Fiftely your owne Apologie of Englande M. Iewell allea­geth a Canon of the Councell of Nice,5. The Apo­logie off England. touchinge the Sacra­ment, that we ought not to be humiliter intenti ad panem & vi­num, ouer basely bent to breade and wine. If this be a true Ca­non of the Nicene Councel, shewe it in the Copies sent from Alexandria and Constantinople to the bishoppes of Africa. Ift it be not, then either confesse that you haue belied that Coun­cell, or els that the Copies sent from the East were not the true [Page 35] Authentike and originall Copies.

6 Last of all certaine it is bothe by Eusebius and by Epipha­nius, that the chiefest and most principall cause of the assem­bling of that Councell, was partly for repressing the Arrian heresy, partly for the vniforme obseruation of Easter.Euseb. lib. 3. de vita Constantini Epiphanius lib. 3. [...]om. 2. heres. 70 Yet in these copies whiche M. Iewell calleth Authentique, there is not one Canon or halfe Canon either against the Arrians, or touching the obseruation of Easter. And thinketh M. Iewell against all these most euident reasons, with the onlye warrant of his mouthe to persuade the worlde that those Copies lac­king so many Canons, and sent from suche suspicious places, are the true and Authentike copies of the Nicene Councell? I trust by these fewe euery wise and indifferent Reader is able to descrie this manifest Vntruthe of M. Iewell, and to marke withall the whole grounde of this pretensed Forgerie of the Pope to be ouerthrowen.

Iewell. Now to your second Vntruthe M. Iewell couched in your laste wordes alleaged, where you saie, that by those authentike copies it appeared, that the Pope had falsified the holye Councell. This as I saied, is a Manifest Vntruthe ioyned with a slaūder. Vntruthe, bicause the Authentike copies, whereby you would proue the Pope a falsifier, are now proued to be no Authenti­ke copies, but to wante manye of the assured Canons of that Councell. For if Zosimus be a Forger or falsifier of the Nice­ne Councell, bicause the Canon which he alleaged out of the Nicene Councell, was not founde in those copies sent from Alexandria and Constantinople, then is S. Hierō, S. Ambrose, S. Augustin, yea then is the Apologie of Englande a Forger and a falsifier of the holye Councell, whiche hathe alleaged a Canon out of the Nicene Councell not founde in the copies sent from Alexandria and Constantinople.

A slaunderous Vntruthe it is, bicause M. Iewel hath no Au­thor thereof but his felow protestants of Magdebourg and su­che [Page] like, and bicause it tendeth to the discredit not onlye of Pope Zosimus a man commended and reuerenced by the Af­ricanes them selues, but also of the whole See Apostolike from that time hetherto.Prosper, contra Col­latorem cap. 10. & 41.

Iewell. The 293. Vntruthe mere sla­underous And to thintent to auaunce his Apostolike See of Rome, had di­uised priuileges and prerogatiues of his owne.

Stapleton. Lib. 2. de SacerdotioM. Iewell continueth his slaunderous reproches. But it appeareth allready by S. Gregory and Chrysostom, and it shall hereafter in this Article yet more appeare, that the prerogatiue of the See of Rome was geuen to Peter by Christ him selfe, and to his successours, as Chrisostom expressely confesseth. Truly touching this matter, neither did the Africanes here vt­terly refuse the Authorite of the bishop of Rome, but only in this case of appellations, neither had Zosimus anye cause to faine a Councell for the prerogatiue of his See, hauing for the same beside expresse Scripture the great Councell of Sardica,Cap. 7. and as Iustinian the Emperour confesseth the very Councell of Nice it selfe (beinge one of the foure firste Councelles) though not in that Canon,Constitut. 131. yet in some other.

Iewell. The 294 Vntruthe In Nyp­ping a­way a great pa [...]te of the Sē t [...]nce.The bisshoppes in the Councell of Aphrica hauing thus through­ly examined the truthe hereof, wrote vnto Caelestinus then bisshop of Rome in this wise. Decreta Nicena &c.

If a man shoulde aske M. Iewell, why he beganne this his allegation out of the Aphricane Councell in the middes of a sentence, omitting all that went before, I thinke the best an­swer that he coulde make would be to saie he folowed therein the precepts of his Rhetorike, to bringe as muche as made for his purpose, and to omitte the rest that made against him. Well though his Rhetorike taught him that Arte, yet his Diuinite taught him not that Deceite. I will therfore note certaine sen­tences in the same epistle going before, and then procede with the wordes of M. Iewell alleaged. The Fathers of the Aphri­cane Councell declaring to Celestinus the Pope that though [Page 36] Apiarius by the meanes of his legat had bene restored to his order of priesthood (from whence he had ben deposed) yet now againe for other notorious crimes by him confessed he was iustly excommunicated, do write thus vnto him.In epist. Co [...]cil. Aphricani ad Caelest. Papam. Proefato ita­que debitae salutationis officio &c. Our due commendations being re­membred, we desire you earnestly that from hence for the you admitt not to your hearing ouer lightly such as come from hence, neither that you r [...]ceiue any more to your Communion such as are by vs excom­municated, Nicen. Con. cap. 5. bicause your Reuerentnes shall easely see that this is not d [...]fined by the Nicene Councell. For if it be there prouided for the in­fe [...]iour clergy or the laye, howe much more woulde it prouide for the bish [...]ps, that being suspended from the Communion in th [...]ir own pro­vin [...]e, they should not looke to be restored of your holynes, either ha­stely or rashely or vniustly. Also let your holynes repell the wicked refuges of priestes and the other clergy (as it becometh you.) Bicause this priuilege is not denied to the Churche of Africa, and (Lo here beginneth the allegation of M. Iewell.) Iewell. The decrees of the Ni­cene Councell haue committed bothe the inferiour clergie, and also the bisshoppes vnto their Metropolitanes.

Stapleton Before I procede in the allegation of the Councell (as it foloweth in M. Iewell) I beseche thee (gentle Reader) to consi­der the pithe of all those wordes so farre omitted by M. Iewel, as I haue before noted vnto thee. 1 First the whole maner of writing is not as to a Forger, a Foyster or a Cogger, as M. Ie­well termeth here the Pope, but in all humilite and reuerent­nes, as to a holy bishop and Reu [...]rent Father. 2 Secondarely that they do not vtterly repell his Authorite, but only in the case of Appellation,Ciprianus lib. 1. epist. [...]. wherein it semeth bothe then and longe before in S. Ciprians time the prouince of Aphrike wa [...] priui­leged.3 Last of all the appellation it selfe they do not vtterly denie, but desire the Pope that he will cutt away, Improba re­fugia, wicked refuges, of naughty men abusing the benefit of appellation, and againe they require him not in no case to [Page] with such as they do excōmunicat, but they desire him, vt non facilius ad aures suas admittat, not to admitt them to his hearing ouer lightly, vt non praeproperé, non indebité restituat, that he restore them not rashely or vniustly, before the cause be thouroughly examined. And so in S. Ciprian it appeareth, the excommunicated persons fled from Afrike to Rome,Ciprianus lib. 1. epist. 3. quasi (saieth S. Ciprian) veritas post eos nauigare non posset quae menda­ces linguas rei certae probatione conuinceret, as though the truthe coulde not saile after them, which by certain triall might con­uince their lying tounges. Wherein it is euident, that appella­tion was made from Afrike to Rome, though the bishops them selues of Afrike, as S. Ciprian in that selfe epistle com­plaineth, were troubled and offended therewith. But all this M. Iewell, as I saied, folowing the precepts of his arte, hathe thought good to omitte, making the Reader to beleue, that the Councell of Aphrica vtterly abandonned at that time the Po­pe, and pronounced him guilty of manifest Forgerie. Hither­to you see how litle they charge him withall. Let vs procede with the wordes of the Councell euen as M. Iewell hathe al­leaged them.

Iewell. Epist. 3. li. 1. Cū statutū sit omnibus nobis &c. For it was discretely and rightly considered that all matters are to be determined in the pla [...]es where they beganne.

These very wordes and reason S. Cyprian longe before the Nicene Councell was assembled, vseth, and that as a Ca­non, Statute, or Ordonnaunce. Whereby it semeth this de­termination of matters at home was an auncient priuilege of the Aphricane Churche, beside other countres of the west.

Iewell. Out of the Aphricane Coū cell And that no prouince can lacke the holy ghoste, whereby the bisshoppes off Christe may be able, bothe wisely to see, and also constantly to mayntaine the right. And spe­cially for that it is lawfull for euery man that shall mislike the discretion of his Iudges, to appeale either to a particular Councell within the same Prouince. The 295. Capitain and No. realme or to a generall Councell. On lesse perchaunce some man will saie, God is able to in­spire the triall of Iustice into one man Alone (bicause he is bisshop of Rome) and will not inspire the same in to a great number of bisshop­pes meeting togeather in Councell.

[Page 37] Stapletō. This latter sentence M. Iewell hathe printed with mighty mayne letters, as the whiche he would haue especially to be no­ted. And no maruaile. For they are his owne wordes a greate parte thereof, not the wordes of the Councell. And therefore also I haue printed the same sentence, as the wordes of M. Ie­well with a distincte letter from the wordes of the Councell. The true wordes off the Councell are thus. Firste in Latine. Nisi forte quisquam est qui credat vni cuilibet posse Deum nostrum examinis inspirare iustitiam, M. Iewell taken in manifest Forgerie. & innumerabilibus in Concilium sa­cerdotibus denegare. In English truly translated they are thus much. Vnlesse there be anye man that will thinke that one God is able to inspire the triall of Iustice to any one, and that he will de­nye it to a greate number of Bishoppes meeting together in Councell. Let vs nowe consider the manifest Forgerye of M. Iewell. His Forgerye is greate and standeth in these wordes. Into one man alone bicause he is Bis [...]oppe off Rome.

First for vni cuilibet, to any one, he hath put, into one man alone, and then to declare what one man, he addeth in a pa­renthesis, Bicause he is bishop of Rome. Which wordes are not at all in the Councell. And therefore he chaunged the wordes before, that they might seme to leade to such a sence. As though the Councell had expressely and namely spoken a­gainste the iudgement of the bishop of Rome being One man alone. Whiche sence persuaded to the Reader vnder the glorious name of the Aphricane Councell he thought would make gai­ly against the One supreme gouuernemēt of Christes vicar on earthe. By such manifest Forgerye M. Iewell will proue the Pope a Forger. Let vs nowe procede with the wordes off the Councell.

Iewel. out of the A­phricane Counc [...]l. And howe maye suche beyonde sea Iudgementes be thought good whereunto the personnes off the witnesses, which in triall off truthe are thought Necessary, either for that they be wemen, or for the Infirmitye off their age, or ffor many other incident let­tes can not be brought?

[Page]For such like cōsiderations the triall of certaine sutes out of the realme at the Courte of Rome were embarred, vnder the reigne of kinge Edward the thirde in oure owne countre, and yet neither the Popes authorite thereby disanulled,Ed. 3 an. 27. neither any breache of vnite committed.

Iewel. out of the A­phric. Councell. Now that any shoulde be sent abrode, as it were from youre holynes side, we finde it not decreed in any Councell.

Stapletō. This was expressely decreed in the Councell of Sardica in the seuenth Canon, aboute fourescore yeares before the time of this Aphricane Councell,Hist. tripa. lib. 4. cap. 23. & Theodoret. li. 2. cap. 7. as Socrates and Theodoretus bo­the in theyr Ecclesiasticall Histories recorde. Thoughe here the Fathers of this Councell seme to haue no knowleadge the­reof. And trulye as well they might misse the Canons of this Councell off Sardica, as they missed the Canons of the Nicene Councel, as it is already most euidently proued.

Iewel. out of the A­phr. Coū. As for that you sent vs lately by our Brother Faustinus, as parte off the Nicene Councell, we must do you to witte that in the Veriorib. truer. The .296 vntruthe. False translation. true Councelles, which we receiued frō oure holy felowe bisshop Cyrillus of Alexandria, and the Reuerent Father Atticus the bisshoppe off Constantinople, taken oute off the verye originalles it can not be founde. And sende you not any your Clerkes hetherto execute Iustice Quibus (que) potentibus. at any mans reque­ste, lest we seme to bringe the smokie puffe off the worlde into the church off Christe. Thus farre the wordes of the Councell.

Stapletō. Here M. Iewell hath placed in the margin, as the enseigne of Victorie, this posy. The Pope taken in manifest Forgerie. And by what wordes gathereth he that? Forsothe bicau­se the Canon which the Pope alleaged, was not founde in the Originall Copies sent from Alexandria and Constantinople. Then M. Iewell. Adde to your note. S. Augustine, Saint Hiero­me, S. Ambrose, Epiphanius, and Iustinian taken in Manifeste Forgerie, bicause (as I haue before shewed) all they do alleage certaine Canons of the Nicene Councell whiche are not to be founde in those Originalles. Then also adde to youre note, and cause it to be printed in the next edition of youre Englishe [Page 38] Apologie (if euer for shame you will printe that lying libell a­ny more). The Apologie of England taken in manifest Forgerie: Bicause you alleage there a Canon of the Ni­cene Councell, touching the blessed Sacrament, whiche is not to be founde in the Originalles sent from Alexādria and Con­stantinople. But M. Iewell, beside these absurdityes, I haue saied I trust sufficiently before, to proue these Originalles could not be, nor were not the very true and perfecte Originalles off the Nicene Councell. Though verely I thinke they were the best that those good bishops then had. This being so, M. Iewell hath stoutely saied but nothing yet proued, that the Pope is a Forger. Let vs see what foloweth.

Iewel. The .297. Vntruthe Slaunde­rous, fon­de, and Maliciouse.The Bishoppe of Rome when he sawe he was taken with the maner and founde an open falsarie, for that the Canons of his makinge disa­greed from the very Originalles (297.) thought It good police, to saye the Originalles were burnt by the Arriās, and so no true copie remai­ning, but his onely.

Stapletō. Here is a sadde Conclusion vpon a number of false premis­ses. From manifest Vntruthes M. Iewel procedeth to lewde and malicious coniectures. But to be shorte you knowe the rule. V­no absurdo dato sequitur quodiibet. Vpon a false grounde it is easy to builde Vntruthes apase. Howbeit yet we will see what they are. He saieth.

Iewell. The .298 Vntrut [...]e Slaunde­rous, fon­de and Malici­ous.And therefore he (298) imagined a letter to be writen in the name of Athanasius, and other bishops of Aegypt, vnto Marcus the bisshop of Rome, wherein they besought him a Copie of the Nicene Coūcell for that all their bookes were vtterly destroied. But this shifte was to sim­ple.

Stapletō. Yea truly a very simple shifte, and much more simple was al the posteryte of the lerned of Christendom, which in so many hundred yeares space, could neuer perceaue this wily drifte off the Pope, but haue euer liued vnder his Commaundement, vn­tell now at length this Iewell of Englande had espied it. But deceiue not your selfe M. Iewell. Neither was all Christendome [Page] so simple these many hundred yeares, neither are we at this pre­sent (thanked be God therefore) but we can descrie the clere light of Gods truthe from the misty cloudes of hereticall deui­ses. This Epistle of Athanasius to Marcus, was no deuised mat­ter of the Pope M. Iewell, but the true epistle of Athanasius, for ought you can bring to the contrary. And for such it hath bene taken before you were borne, and shall be (doubt you not) after you are gone. Yet let vs heare the reason that you geue of this simple shifte. You saie.