THAT the sentence prefixed before my boke to proue the Protestants Schismatikes, was not abused: and that M. No­well hath passed ouer in silence the chiefe pointe in it. The. 1. Chapter.

I TOLDE yow M. Nowell before, that in this youre long Reproufe of mine so fewe leaues, yow had for youre pleasure walcked oftentimes farre out of the way, and that therfore I woulde in no wise binde my selfe allwaies to fo­lowe your steppes. As euen here in the very entrie (to giue men to vnderstande what they are lyke to finde yow in youre whole processe) leauing S. Austens interpretation vpon the place of scripture wherby he proueth them to be Math. 7. the rauening wolues that are schismatikes, and those to be schismatikes, who communicate not with all nations, nor those churches that haue bene founded by the Apostles labour: yow slily slip from that to youre owne, and beare vs in hande that we are the Phariseis of whome oure Saui­our spake the saide wordes, Because we walcke grauely in long garmentes, pretende long praiers &c. Leauing therfore all this by talcke of youres, as wide from our purpose, I will come to the pointe of the question, which is betwene vs M. No­well, whether I lacked iudgement or store of choise in choosing this sentence of S. Austen to sette before my bo­ke, or no. Of the which I saie, that all were it so that yow had clerely vanquished S. Austen, and proued that this texte had bene to be vnderstande against vs, because we go in long gownes grauely, and yow clime in clokes vp in to pulpites, or walcke in long robes lightly: yeat had this [Page] mised to leaue no one suche sentence vnanswered. Ergo, the reader maye iudge by this, how likely yow are to deale truly hereafter, that begin so trustely.

That the places alleaged by me oute of S. Cyprian, Lib. 3. epist. 11. and lib. 4. epist. 9. were alleaged to the purpose. The. 2. Chapter.

I conclude therefore; that these places are by M. Dorman fal­sely, Nowell. Fol. 2. b. 7 and shamelesly alleaged, to make a showe or as he calleth it an introduction to the B. of Romes auctoritie, whereunto they appertaine nothing at all, but onely to the euersion thereof.

I neuer brought these places M. Nowell to proue the Dorman. popes supremacie. Yow nede not therfore to trouble you­re selfe with the prouse of this, that they apperteine to the deacon disobeing his bishop Rogatian, and to Pupianus a­busing S. Cyprian. But allthough I graunte yow thus much M. Nowell, yeat that these places because they proue not the popes supremacie, appertaine therefore nothing at all to him, but only to the euersion of his auctoritie, that faultie and vntrue conclusion I can in no wise graunte to yow: not allthough yow thinke to vnderproppe that rui­nouse collection (as yow doe) with this sclendre staye, that there is not one worde in these places of the bishop of Ro­me Fol. 2. a. 1. &. b. 6. or hys Supremacy, nor he as muche as once named therein. For yow shoulde haue considered M. Nowell, that I entre­ate here in this place of the maner and nature of heretikes and schismatikes. Which is I saie to rebell against their hea­des, to contemne their superiours and laufull gouernours. Nowe as youre selfe woulde not I trowe saie, that if anie of yow shoulde by writing or anie other vnlaufull meanes (which god forbid) go about to stirre vpp the people a­gainst oure laufull Quene, he shoulde speake impertinent­ly to the purpose, that to disswade them therefro, shoulde begin his purposed talcke after this manner: Remembre [Page 3] my frendes, that the nature and propretie of heretikes is and allwaies hath bene, after that they be once waxen strong, to rebell and make warre against their laufull go­uernours: Remembre the late tumultes raysed in Fraunce by the Huguenotes there against their gouernour: as I saie, it is not to be thought that yow woulde reiect this mannes exhortation, calling it impertinent to the matter, tending to the euersion of the Quenes auctoritie, because the ex­ample brought, was of disobedience to an other prince, be­twene him and his subiectes, and not in termes of the Quene oure maistres: so surely ought yow no more to haue quarelled against me bringing these examples out of S. Cyprian. Especially seing that I presupposed and after­wardes proued in the discourse of that article, that the B. of Romes auctoritie was no lesse ouer the whole churche in spirituall matters, then is that of other princes ouer their seuerall kingdomes in temporall iurisdiction. The which pointe (if yow had done ordrely) yow ought first to haue confuted, that so iustlie after suche disproufe yow might haue reproued the applieng of these auctorities.

There is no mention made in anie of these places of the B. of Cauntorbury, ne yeat of London neither, all though youre selfe graunte that by these places yt is proued, that euery inferiour ought to be obedient to his owne bishop as Fol. [...]. b. 14. his superiour, and that the disobedience of suche is cause of schi­smes and heresies. Whereupon what letted me in my preface, to applie aswell these places to the disobeing of the B. of Rome, allthough he be not there named, as for yow when the case shall so requier, to applie them to the bishoppes of Cauntorbury or London, no more there then the pope mentioned by name. Who is as I saide before as truly the bishop of the whole church, as anie other is ouer his owne [Page] propre diocesse. Yow go forwarde and saie.

Onely this is moste euident in what sense so euer S. Cyprian Nowell. fo. 2. b. 19. taketh these wordes (One bishopp that ruleth the churche) the B. of Carthage is that one bishop, and not the B. of Rome, and therfore that phrase of one bishop can make nothing for the B. of Rome his supremacie, but rather dothe vttrely ouerthrowe it, as apperteining specially to the B. of Carthage in Afrike not to the B. of Rome in Italie: and declaring in dede the bishoppes of all places to be equall in auctoritie, and consequently ouerthrowing the supremacy of one ouer all.

I denie not but that this phrase maye here specially ap­perteine Dorman. to the B. of Carthage. No more ought yow ma­ke strange to confesse, that if S. Cyprian woulde saie that heresies and schismes rise of the contempte of the B. which is one in a diocesse, muche more of him which is one in the whole churche, and who is the chiefe and roote of by­shoply ordre as shall hereafter be by S. Cyprian declared. And thus yow see, that I applied it not euill to the purpo­se, although it proue not immediatly the popes supremacy, the thing which here I take not vpon me to proue. That which yow saie of these testimonies, that they declare the A lye fa­thered v­pon. S. Cyprian. 3 bishoppes of all places to be of equall auctoritie is a moste vaine and impudent lye fathered vpon S. Cyprian.

That the place of S. Basile was alleaged to the purpose, and that the same and the other taken oute of S. Cy­prian, are bothe falsely impugned. The. 3. Chapter.

It is farre (yow saie) from all purpose that I alleage by Nowell. patching here and there out of Basilius magnus his 69. epistle to the bishoppes of Italy and Fraunce &c.

If yow in this Reproufe of youres had brought nothing Dorman. furder from the purpose, it woulde neuer by the tenth parte haue bene halfe so greate as it is. For I tell yow once [Page 4] againe that my purpose was not here (as yow vntruly sur­mise) to proue the B. of Romes supremacy. My meaning was to persuade men to continue and abide in the obedi­ence of the heade of the churche: the rather, because as Ci­prian before gaue a generall rule, that all heresies and schi­smes rise by going from the heade: so here S. Basile exem­plifieth the same, in that vnreuerent demeanure and vnse­mely behauiour that the Arrians of his time vsed towardes their heades and gouernours: how saie, yow maketh the place for this purpose or no?

I abuse bothe the Readers, mine owne, and other mennes time Nowell. fol. 3. b. 1. (yow saie) in charging yow with the crimes of those men whose heresies and wickednes it is well knowen yow detest.

I trust no man thinketh so but yow and youre felowes Dorman. M. Nowell. For standing the case so, that yow detest the Arrian heresie where withall I charge yow not and there­fore A lye. 4. yow haue beelied me: yeat maye yow this not with­standing right well agree with them in other their euill maners. I will not charge yow to be infidelles with Iulian the Apostata, yeat is youre hatred against the crosse off Christe no lesse then his.

Yow note me in the margent for turning the wordes Nowell. fol. 3. a. b. praesidentias inuadunt, they inuade and sett vpon their hea­des, and saye: He shoulde haue saide, they doe inuade the chiefe roumes or places, and againe: for ioyning blasphemias protulit, to those which folowe ad populi episcopum.

For the first I susteine that I translated the wordes well Dorman. and truly, as he shoulde, that woulde giue to the worde po­testati resistit in S. Paule, this englishe, resisteth the magi­strate, Roma. 13. by the figure called Metonymia. As for the faulte in pointing (if it be one) yeat of this am I suer, that neither [Page] is it greate, nor came of malice suche as it is, but of some suche small ouersight as maye happen some time to the diligentest writer that is. Howe euer it be, this the ri­gorouse nothing thereof maye giue men to vndrestande, that it went harde with yow when yow were driuen to seke after suche aduauntages.

Yow saye of this place of S. Basile, that it dothe moste Nowell. b. 30. liuely represent the doinges of the Papistes.

Youre onely proufe hereof standeth vpon a heape off Dorman. sclaunderouse lies: Because the place of S. Basile is extant to be seene, I will trouble no fardre the learned reader, but desire him only to confer it withe these M. Nowelles scla­undres.

Here M. Nowell yow charge me once againe with a conclusion, gathered (yow saie) out of that which hetherto Nowell. fol. 4. b. 22 hathe bene alleaged out of S. Cyprian and S. Basile, and saie that I am not ashamed to applye the places before mentioned to the proufe of the B. of Romes supremacy.

First, I gather here no conclusion out of the places be­fore Dorman. alleaged, and therfore applye not by the waye of con­cluding these auctorities to the B. of Rome his supremacie, and so that is an other lye. It is a transition rather, so dra­wen A lye. 5. out of the 3. first alleaged auctorities, that it serued al­so to make a steppe, and a newe degree to the seconde pointe touching more specially the pope: wherein I much maruell that yow shoulde so fowly misse youre termes M. Nowell. And as here yow missed the quisshin: so plaied yow as homelie a parte in making me to reason vpon the pretended conclusion in this wise: The entry into all heresies M. No­well ma­keth me to reason after his pleasure. fol. 5. [...], 1. is to make open warre against the bishopp appointed by God to be the laufull gouernour and heade of the churche: but the B. of Rome is the bishopp appointed by God, to be here in earthe the laufull gouernour and heade of the churche. Ergo, the entrye into all heresies is to make open warre against the B. of Rome. [Page 5] The which reason althoughe it be moste true in it selfe, and I minded to defende euery parte thereof, yeat reaso­ned I not so here, but minded only in this place to passe to the example of Nouatus the heretike, that as before I had showed how heretikes in diuerse particuler churches went from the obedience of their laufull bishoppes: so here I might set before the Readers eyes one, who spared not euen the Bishop of Rome him selfe, that so this propertie of heretikes and schismatikes might appeare and be the better proued, while they forsake not onely the inferiour bishoppes, but him also that is the chiefe of all other.

But what if I had reasoned as you woulde make me to reason M. Nowel, might I not haue defended that argumēt trowe you? Yeas forsothe might I, not prouing my minor by this place of S. Cyprian, but supposing it to be true, till suche time as I came to the place where it ought to be pro­ued. So that you nede not to tormente and vex youresel­fe about these wordes (the bishopp appointed by God to be the laufull gouernour and heade of the churche) which I neuer al­leaged, (as you vntruly saye of me) to proue directly the B. of Romes supremacie, but only to proue A fortiori, that muche greater occasion there was of heresies and schis­mes, when men shoulde departe from the obedience of the pope the chiefe bishop of all other, and therefore neither without cause or guilefully to deceiue the simple, as yow vncharitably surmise. Which youre selfe also perceiued ve­rie well, and therefore by the figure called extenuatio, you terme this reason of mine a simple collection, after this maner.

Now if he thinke yeat that he might make suche a simple col­lection Nowell fol. 5. a. 31. of S. Cyprian and S. Basile his wordes as this, that as the beginning of heresies in their time was the contempte of the infe­riours towardes their owne bishoppes (for so Saint Cyprian tea­cheth) [Page] so in likewise is the contempte of the Pope as the highest of all bishoppes, the beginning of heresies nowe: First I denie the ar­gument, for that it foloweth not, though it be euill for the infe­riour to disobey his owne bishop to whose obedience in all god­lines he is bounden, therefore it is euill for a straungier not to o­bey a straunge forraine vsurper, to whome he oweth no dutie of obedience. Againe I saie, though it be the beginning of heresie to disobey Cyprian, Rogatian, yea or Cornelius being godly or ca­tholike bishoppes: yeat is it not likewise the beginning of heresies, to disobeye any the late Popes of Rome, who were not only no godly bishoppes (as were Cyprian, Rogatian, and Cornelius) but bothe moste wicked, and in deede no bishoppes att all, but false vsurpers of wordly tirannie. Whome for the subiectes of an o­ther Christian and laufull soueraigne to obeye, and not to disobey, is the beginning of heresies, treasons, and other mis­chiefes.

This is my simple collection you saie. I acknowledge it D [...]man. for mine as simple as it is, and to youre double answere thereto replye as foloweth. First, to the first, that it is moste false that you laye for a grounded truthe, that the bishop of Rome is a forraine vsurper, as when I so gathered in my introduction I minded to proue in the handling of the first principall article of the popes auctoritie, and so sence haue done. Whereof seing youre selfe are not ignorant, you haue delt not simply but doubly, labouring to decei­ue the simple, by defacing (as you thougth) my preface as vnskilfully written, for that I haue there only sayde and not proued, that the pope is the chiefe heade of Christes churche in earthe, whereas that I referred (as by good ordre of writing the learned knowe I ought) to the first article of the popes supremacie. To the reasons and proufes in which place brought, as in all youre answere you neuer come neare, but cauill and wrangle against my Introdu­ction, whiche showeth the cause of schismes to be diso­bedience against pastours and bishops: so if they be applied to this place as they must, then shall it appeare how falsely [Page 6] you saye, that the wordes of S. Cyprian were alleaged with­out all cause.

But because the whole force of this first answere of you­res to proue my argument naught standeth in this, that the bishop of Rome being a forriner, no suche reason can be made from S. Cyprian and S. Basile his wordes: I will here ouer and aboue that which I haue allreadie saide in the handling of this article in his propre place, presently proue The pope taken for no foriner by S. Cy­prian and S. Basile by S. Cyprian and S. Basile bothe, that he was taken by them for no foriner, neither in Africa, Fraunce, Spaine, neither yeat in the Easte churche, of the whiche S. Basile was.

For Africa first, was the B. of Rome thinke yow taken Afrike. there by S. Cyprian to be a forraine vsurpar, whose chur­che he called ecclesiae catholicae radicem & matricem, the roote, Lib. 4. epist. 8. and mother churche of the catholike churche? If the chur­che of Rome be the roote and mother to all other chur­ches, then, if the mother be aboue the children: if the mo­ther and roote be no foriners to the children and bran­ches of the tree, it will folowe verie wel, first that the chur­che of Rome, as it is no foriner to the churches of Afri­ca and to the other churches through out the worlde, but aboue them all, that so the bishop of the same is aboue the B. of Carthage and all other bishoppes, and no foriner or vsurper. And as carnall children how farre so euer they ly­ue from their naturall parentes cease not therfore to be their children, nor their saide parentes become therby for­riners: euen so the bishop of Rome who gouerneth that churche that is mother to all other, ceasseth not to be a father to his children dwell they neuer so farre of. Was the B. of Rome reputed a straunger to the bishoppes of Africa, Lib. 4. e­pist. 8. who vsed to sende their legates to him to pacifie matters, [Page] and to bring knowledge of the truthe? Whose commu­nion to holde, S. Cyprian calleth in this epistle the firme holding and allowing of the vnitie and charitie of the ca­tholike churche. When all the African bishoppes assem­bled together in councel, directed their lettres to the bishop Apud Au­gust. epi▪ 90. of Rome, praying him to confirme their doings by the au­ctoritie of the Apostolicall See, pro tuenda salute multorum & quorundam peruersitate corrigenda, for the preseruation of the healthe of manie, and the amendement of the fro­wardenes of diuerse: toke they him thinke yow for a forri­ner? If S. Cyprian had had of the See of Rome that opiniō that you would gladlie persuade men he had, woulde he thinke we haue saide of those schismatikes that sailed oute off Africa to Rome to complaine vpon him to Cornelius: Post ista adhuc insuper, &c. Beside all this they haue bene so Lib. 1. Epist. 3. bolde hauing appointed to them by the heretikes a false bishop, to saile euen to Peters chaire, and the principal churche from whence priestly vnitie sprang, and to carie from schismatikes and propha­ne men, lettres: not considering that the Romaines are they whose faithe by the Apostles mouthe is praised, and to whome false faithe can haue no accesse? Woulde he haue saide: Romam cum men­daciorum suorum merce nauigarunt, quasi veritas post eos na­uigare non posset, quae mendaces linguas rei certae probatione con­uinceret? They are sailed to Rome with their marchandise of lies, as though truthe coulde not saile after them, able to conuince their lieng tongues by suer and vndoubted prou­fe? Naye he shoulde, and woulde you maie be suer had he bene of youre minde, haue saide: Let them go on goddes name, what care I for the bishop of Rome. Shall I be so foolishe to folowe them to debate the matter before him, who is a plaine forriner to vs, and hathe nothing to doe therein? For thus woulde yow I dare saie, at this daye an­swere, [Page 7] if one shoulde go to Rome and complayne of you. But nowe considering that saint Cyprian saied not thus, but contrariewise made his account to stande with them and trie the matter before the bishop of Rome, as it is ma­nifest by these wordes (as though the truthe coulde not saile after them, &c): seing that this whole epistle was chiefely written to Cornelius to exhorte him to giue no credite to those schismatikes, as by this amongest other may appeare, that he saith to Cornelius: Non attendas numerum &c. Cōsider not their nombre: seing that the wordes, rei certae probatione conuincere, to ouercome by euident proufe, againe: Ita enim scelera festinant quasi contra innocentiam festinatione prae­ualeant, for so do wicked deedes hasten as though they shoulde by haste preuaile against innocency, be wordes of iudgement (for where be prouffes offred, where doe men preuaile in sutes but in iudgement?) finallie, seing men that thinke them selues wronged, neuer vse to complaine but to such as they are persuaded haue auctorite to helpe them: of al these thinges it foloweth, that in Africa where S. Cypriā gouerned, the Pope was taken to be no foriner. Nowe from Africa to Fraunce.

Of Arles a towne in Fraunce was bishop in S. Cyprians Fraunce. time one Martianus, a folower and professour of the here­sie of Nouatus. Of him S. Cyprian writeth to Stephanus the Pope in this wise. Dirigantur in prouinciam & ad plebem Lib. 3. epist. 13. Arelate consistentem a te literae, quibus abstento Martiano alius in locum eius substituatur, & grex Christi qui in hodiernum ab illo dissipatus & vulneratus contemnitur, colligatur. that is to saye: Addresse youre lettres to the prouince and people of Arles, by the which Martianus being excommunicate, an other maie be put in his place, and the flocke of Christe which to this daye being scattred and wounded is contem­ned, [Page] may be gathered together. Now cōsidre I pray yow that haue learning and wisdome to iudge, whether it be likely that S. Cyprian if he had taken the B. of Rome to be a for­riner in other countries, woulde haue euer willed him to haue sent suche lettres, as whereby he shoulde excōmunica­te, and depriue of his bishoprike a stubborne or wilful here­tike, when with as good right as M Nowell dother here, the heretike bishop might haue bidden him go shake his eares foreine vsurper as he was, and meddle in his owne dioces­se with excommunicating, depriuing and placing of his owne subiectes, and let Arles in Fraunce where he had no­thing to doe, alone. Considre whether these wordes (and the flocke of Christe scattred &c. maye be gathered together, doe not argue as muche, as that when peculier pastours doe not their duties, recourse ought to be had to the bishop of Rome the heade and chiefe shepherd of all? Finally Let M. Nowell considre, whether he would him selfe (hauing that opinion that the B. of Orleance for example, in Fraunce, were as he is, a forriner in England) write vnto him, to sende his lettres to the citie and people of London to ex­communicate, and depriue M. Grindal because he is an he­retike. If he woulde not (as that is to be iudged) trulie he shoulde doe S. Cyprian wrong to make men beleue that he woulde playe suche a foolishe parte as he woulde not him selfe. It foloweth therfore, that in Fraunce by the iudg­ment of S. Cyprian the B. off Rome was taken for no foriner. Spaine.

Of Spaine, whether there the B. of Rome were a fori­ner, let the restoring of Basilides by Stephanus the Pope to his bishoprike, be a witnesse. Against which sentence when S. Cyprian with the other bishoppes of Africa gathered to gather defendid Sabinus the newe made bishop, they had [Page 8] no other thing to obiect, but that Basilides the heretike had Cyprian Lib. 1. Epist. 4. deceiued Steuin the bishop of Rome, longè positum, & rei ge­stae, ac veritatis ignarum, dwelling far of, and being ignorant of the case and truthe, by wrong information. If Steuin the Pope had bene taken by S. Cyprian to be a forriner in Spaine, woulde he not rather haue taken against his sen­tence that peremptory exception, then haue vsed that which confirmeth his auctoritie in Spaine? For seing the sentence was vniust for no other cause, but because the sug­gestion was vntrue, it foloweth that if it had bene true the sentence had bene good, and the iudge not forreine but laufull. Otherwise shoulde S. Cyprian neuer haue saide: Neque enim tam culpandus est ille cui negligēter obreptū, quám hic execrandus qui fraudulenter obrepsit. For he is not so muche to be blamed that was stollen vpon by negligence, as he is to be abhorred that guilefully did steale vpon him. But he shoulde contrary wise haue saide rather: He is not so much to be blamed, that to helpe his own matter tolde a false tale, as he is to be abhorred, that would presume being a forriner, to meddle in strange countries where he had no­thing to doe. But S. Cyprian saide not so, and therefore vp­pon this place, and also the vertue and holines of Steuin considered, who dieng after for Christes faithe a blessed and constant martyr, woulde not it is like doe willingly suche wrong as to inuade an other mannes iurisdiction, I maye be bolde to conclude, that as in Africa and Fraunce, so in Spaine also, the B. of Rome was by S▪ Cyprian taken for no foriner.

To come nowe to S. Basil, Let his epistle written to Epist. 52. How the Pope was estemed of S. Ba­sill. Athanasius, wherein he sheweth his aduise to be, that the bishop of Rome be written vnto, to sende his legates in to the Easte where they were, to condemne the false councell [Page] of Ariminū, be a sufficient testimony, whether at that time his power were coūted forrain or vsurped. For if they had iudged his auctoritie there to be none, neuer woulde they haue vsed this word: vt ipse auctoritatem rei conciliet, that he may get auctoritie to the matter, or deuised betwene thē selues to haue suche men sent frō Rome as might be meete to gouerne, and admonishe those that shoulde be founde fro­warde and peruerse emongest them, to vndoe and ouer­throw the actes of the heretical councell holden at Arimi­num before. If S. Basile had taken the bishop of Rome for a foriner, neuer woulde he haue sent to Rome for visitours Epist. 57. to be sent from Italy to visite thē in the Easte parte of the worlde. Finally if the B. of Rome had bene a foriner, neuer durst he haue bene so bolde as to haue sent to Caesaria, so farre from Rome, his legates Lucifer and Eusebius, to ap­pease the strife that was there betwene S. Basil and Eusebius. Grego. Nazianz. in Monodia.

By this that hath bene alleaged yowe haue hearde M. Nowel inough, and more perhappes then you woulde toe, to showe that S. Cyprian, and S. Basile toke not the B. of Rome his auctoritie for forreine or vsurped. So that I maie nowe be bolde to conclude, that this first answere of you­res being proued to be false, there is no let in that, but that my simple collection (as you call it) maie be taken as it is, for good and sufficient.

Youre seconde answere (for the first it semeth that you­re Euill ma­ners of rulers no cause to with dra­we obe­dience. selfe mistrusted, and therfore added this as it were to vndreprop it) is of all other moste vaine and fonde. For what scripture haue you, what Doctours, what councelles, if it were graunted to yow that the bishoppes of Rome haue bene of late yeares wicked men, to proue that be­cause of their euill maners, their subiectes maie forsake them? Oure Sauiour saide of the Phariseis (allthough Matth. [...]3. [Page 9] naughty and wicked men) to his disciples, that no man shoulde withdrawe his obedience from them, but euery man Doe what they taught to be done, but not what they did them selues: vpon the which wordes S. Austen saith. Illa er­go De doctr. Christ. l [...]b. 4. Cap. 27. cathedra, non illorum sed Mosis, cogebat eos bona dicere etiam non bona facientes. Agebant ergo sua in vita sua: docere autem sua cathedra illos non permittebat aliena. That chaire therfore being not theirs but Moyses his, compelled them doing euill, to speake good thinges. They did therfore in their owne life their owne deedes, but to teache their owne an other mannes chaire woulde not suffer them. If moyses his chaire had this priuileage (as if yow wil beleue S. Austen it had) that they that possessed it, how vile so euer their lyues were, were yeat assured allwaies to teache no euill doctrine: what obiect you for defence of youre running oute of the church, and forsaking the head therof, the euil life and wic­ked maners of thē that of late yeares haue (you saie) sitten in Peters chaire, for whome oure Lorde praied that his fai­the Lucae. 22. might neuer faile. as though oure Lorde god had only remembred the Iues and forgotten his churche. But consi­dre I praie yow M. Nowel against what men yow speake. Yow reason against the gouernement of the bishoppes of Rome, whose succession hath continued these 1500 yeares, and holde, that because of the euill maners of the latter popes they are not to be obeid, as who woulde saie, so long as their life was vpright, and maners honest they were to be obeied: otherwise this exception shoulde be in vaine. Noweturne that parte of the wallat that hangeth before yow, and is euer in youre eyes, behinde, and placing the other before, loke vpon youre owne bishoppes not yeat settled in full 15. yeares quiet possession. See whether they that before cried out vpon ambition, pride, couetousnes, [Page] lacke of hospitalitie and suche like, haue not in these fewe yeares ouertaken the bishoppes of 900. yeares before them, and gone beyonde them toe. What were to be loked for then (might yow quietly continue) after one hundred yea­res, that haue profited in wickednesse so muche in these fewe? Might not youre scholers thinke yow euen by youre owne lesson, bothe nowe and then giue yow ouer in the plaine fielde? But if there be no remedie but that yow will nedes conclude thus of the popes of this latter age (by which I thinke yow vnderstande as yow are wont all since S. Gregories time, and without anie greate streining of curtosy him toe) that because of their euill maners they were no bishoppes at all: then giue me I praie yow leaue good sir, to saie as muche to yow being as yeat no bishop, but taking vpon yow to reproue the chiefe of al bishoppes, as did S. Cyprian to Pupianus iudging his rulers, no lesse then yow doe nowe all the latter popes Quis est enim hic superbiae tumor &c. VVhat swelling pride is this? VVhat ar­rogancie Lib. 4. epist. 9. and puffing vp of minde, for the to call to thy examina­tion thy rulers and priestes, and except we make oure purgation before the, and be absolued by thy sentence, for the space of six ye­ares, neither had the brotherhode anie bishop, neither the people a­ny heade, neither the flocke anie shepherd, neither the churche any gouernour, neither Christe any bishop, nor God any prieste. Is it not so with vs M. Nowell, not for the space of six yeares, but for the continual space of 900, if it were true that yow Absurdi­tie. saye? Should not the church by this meanes haue bē with­out any heade at all, vniuersall or particuler? Seing that all other bishoppes thorough out the worlde haue bene made bishoppes by the popes, who being them selues no bis­shoppes coulde not haue the auctoritie to make other. And then will it folowe also, that the churche hauing no [Page 10] bishoppes, coulde haue no priestes: if no priestes, no sacra­mentes rightely ministred, beside infinite absurdities mo that will folowe, if that of all other moste foolishe doctrine of youres were true, that naughty maners shoulde make of bishoppes no bishoppes.

Thus youre double answere made to my simple colle­ction being confuted, it remaineth that either yow con­fesse the collection to be good, or seke out newe matter to impugne it. One sclaunderouse lye of youres there remai­neth yeat to be confuted. Which allthough to the learne­der sorte be nedelesse, yeat for their sakes who be of the simpler, with whome youre chiefe labour taken in youre boke, is to deface me, I shall shortly answere therto in mine owne defence. Nowell. fo. 5. b. 23.

In the conclusion it is to be noted, when Basile speaketh of all the bishoppes of the East as the shepherdes striken, M. Dorman altering the nombre, speaketh it of the Pope as the only shepherd.

Here appeareth M. Nowell youre singuler honestie, who burne with suche a hatred towardes my persone, that so that somewhat you maie saye to ease youre stomacke, yow passe not, all is one to yow by what right or wrong. For I A sclaun­derouse. lye. 6. neuer alleaged these wordes as the wordes of S. Basile, but alluded only to the scriptures, where the prophete ha­the: Zachar. 13. Percute pastorem & dispergentur oues. Strike the shep­heard and the sheepe shall be scattred. Yow haue ther­fore delt vncharitably so falsely to sclaundre me, and giuen the worlde withall to vnderstande, that youre maliciouse affections beare no lesse swaye in youre pen in writing, then in youre tongue in preaching.

That the historie of Nouatus is truly applied, and that I am cleere from those lyes which M. Nowell sclaunderously laieth to my charge. The. 4. Chapter.

Yow say M. Nowell, that I maie be ashamed to forge so manifest alye, as that Nouatus exacted an othe against the Popes suprema­cie, Nowell. Fo. 7. q. 3 or that yow folowe Nouatus in exacting the like othe as he did, and to proue this conclusion of youres, you laie for a ground, that Nouatus his othe is not onely vnlike, but cleane contrary to youre othes, that the controuersie betwixt Cornelius and Noua­tus was not, whether the B. of Rome were the supreme heade as it is nowe betwene yow and vs, but whether Cornelius or he was by right the B. of Rome.

I neuer saide that Nouatus exacted an othe against the Dorman. popes supremacie. I saide, and do still, that he exacted an vnlaufull othe against Cornelius then Pope, and in that respecte the heade and gouernour of Christes church. The likenes of the othe wherein I matched yow, was, that bothe that othe which Nouatus offred, and this which yow ten­dre, tende to one ende, to trouble the beautifull ordre of Christes churche, and to withdrawe men from the obe­dience of their laufull pastour. For as laufully is the B. of Rome in spirituall matters oure heade, as he was heade to Nouatus. So that what so euer yow saie here of the con­trouersie betwene Cornelius and Nouatus for the bishop­rike of Rome, what so euer yow imagine of the laufulnesse of youre othes, being as yow saye of obedience to youre naturall prince and oures, and of the iniquitie of Nouatus othe being against his laufull bishop, all is to no purpose. For I susteine still, that let the controuersie be as yow ima­gine it was, yeat till yow be hable to proue that the B. of Rome is to vs a forriner, and that oure obedience to him in spiritual causes cā in no wise stande with oure lauful o­dience to oure prince in temporall iurisdiction, the resem­blaunce made betwene Nouatus and yow, will euer holde and be good. Of oure obedience towardes oure prince [Page 11] (whome as Gods ministre in earthe in worldly affaires we honour and reuerence) as oure doinges for the time past can beare sufficient testimonie: so shall I trust oure demea­nure for the time to come be such, as shal be able to stoppe the mouthes of al such fawning parasites, as labour to ma­ke princes beleue, that these two obediēces can not stande together, as here M. Nowell doth, making that the grounde of this lye of his, that Nouatus his othe was not only vnlike but A lye. 7. cleane contrarie to theirs.

You bring for an other difference betwene Nouatus ca­se Nowell. Fo. 6. b. 27▪ and youres, that his othe concerned the maintenaunce of his heresie, which aswell S. Cyprian B. of Carthage, as Cornelius B. of Rome with all other godly bishoppes condemned.

What conclude yow M. Nowel herof? Do the that proue anie difference? Naie dothe not that match you together so Dorman. much themore? For youre othe is it not for the mainteina­unce of your heresies, which be so horrible, that aswel by al generall councelles, and all the godly learned bishoppes in the world, as by Pius the Pope thy are condemned.

Yow saye that as Nouatus required an othe of his folowers &c: Nowell. fol. 7. a. 7. So did the professours of the same heresies trauell in Afrike with their disciples there being Africanes, that they shoulde not returne to Cyprian B. of Carthage to communicate with him, which as it maketh nothing for any supremacie of S. Cyprian B. of Car­thage, no more maketh the other for anie supremacy of Corne­lius B. of Rome.

If yow meane that the professours of Nouatus his here­sies Dorman. in Afrike did exacte an othe as did Nouatus, as youre wordes, so did the professours &c. (which must nedes haue relation to that which goeth before) doe importe no lesse, or if yow meane not so, but that they traueiled to wyn men from Cyprian, as the other did from Cornelius, how so euer yow meane, yow can not proue so muche out of [Page] the place that yow alleage. If yow coulde, yeat woulde it Lib. 4. epist. 9. make nothing for youre purpose. for I neuer alleaged the othe of Nouatus to make for the bishop of Romes supre­macie, and therfore care not whether this that yow saie the folowers of Nouatus did in Africa, make for S. Cypri­ans supremacie or no. I alleaged the facte of Nouatus to proue that heretikes trouble the ordre of the churche: that did they that yow speake of in Africa, aswell as Nouatus in Rome. If Dorman had writen thus absurdely he had drea­med, but suche egle byrdes as M. Nowell is, neuer sleepe I warraunt yow, but be allwaies waking. It foloweth:

And where Nouatus began first his heresie in Afrike by stri­uing Nowell. fol. 7 [...]. 24. against S. Cyprian, and not by striuing first against Corneli­us B. of Rome (as M. Dorman vntruly reporteth) the beginning of heresies is rather to make warre and strife against the B. of Car­thage, then against the B. of Rome.

Yow obserue well the preceptes of youre arte, to staye Dorman. vpon small pointes, when to the greater yow be hable to saye nothing. But to the matter, where so euer heretikes be­gin: in Africa (as yow saie of Nouatus concerning his here­sies vntruly, though concerning schisme trulie) or in Ger­manie, as did Luther, or in England as diuerse haue done: as immediatly they make warre against the whole chur­che, so striue they specially against the heade, whose par­te is to prouide for the bodie. For seing that no man is to be counted an heretike, but he that renounceth the vnitie of the churche: no man do the that, who is contented to o­beye the heade thereof: it foloweth verie well, that who so euer is an heretike, whether he beginne in Africa, England, or elles where, striueth furthwith against the pope the hea­de of the churche, which can not be saide of the bishop of Carthage, who hath no suche office in the churche.

I haue done (you saie) maliciously and vntruly calling Nouatus Nowell. b. 11. youre auncestour, and youre bishoppes as his disciples, indurate heretikes.

You purge youre selfe of that which before I charged Dorman. yow not withall. For I compared yow only together in that one pointe of forcing men by othes to forsake the B. of Rome. Yeat forasmuche as you take the matter as you doe, bragging here of youre moste earnest and pithy ser­mons and writinges against Nouatus doctrine &c. I shall desire the learned reader to conferre this place of S. Ambrose, Lib. 1. de paenitentia cap. 2. Hist. Tri­part. lib. 8. cap. 9. written of the Nouatians, with youre doctrine of penaun­ce: Sed aiunt se domino deferre reuerentiam cui soli remitten­dorum criminum potestatem reseruant. But they saie that they are reuerent towardes God, to whom only they reserue po­wer to forgiue synne. Doe not you maintaine that man hath no auctoritie to remitte sinne, and call vs at youre ple­asure for saying that God hath giuen the same power to man his ministre? Be not yow the folowers of Nouatus in this pointe?

Yow saye. I beleue also that M. Dorman in the allegation off Nowell. Nouatus his othe, had a further respecte to that he maketh men­tion of the bodie and bloude of Christe: by the whiche because Nouatus caused them to sweare, M. Dorman thought belike, the­reby to proue, or at least to make an insinuation to the simple, that the bodie and bloude of Christe shoulde be corporally pre­sent in the Sacrament. But the daily othes of blasphemouse men swearing likewise in his corporall absence doe confute that colle­ction.

What respecte so euer I had, this answere of youres to Dorman. this place, borowed of Ruffians and ribauldes, not of any that haue either learning or witte, is most farre from the auctours meaning, whiche as anie that vieweth the place will easely perceiue: so is it in Eusebius from whome Ni­cephorus [Page] toke it, moste euident euen at the eye. For Euse­bius hath, that Nouatus made them sweare per ea quae vnus­quisque tenebat in manibus, by those thinges which euery one Lib. 6. cap. 34. of them helde in his handes: but they sware by the bodye and bloud of Christe saieth Nicephorus: ergo, they had the bodie and bloud of Christe in their handes. Well al­though you doubted whether youre stamping, staring and swearing alehouse solution, shoulde finde with all men suche credite that they woulde by and by beleue yow: yeat of this you doubted nothing, to make some men at the least beleue, that the doctrine of transsubstantiation Fol. 8, a. 4. were by this place quite ouerthrowen, and withall to set furth youre selues to the worlde as the verie folowers of the primitiue churche, in deliuering the sacrament into the receiuers handes. But this ioy (if you conceiued anie here­of) you are like to enioy but a while M. Nowell. For both Eusebius and Nicephorus calling here the sacrament by the name of bread, are to be vnderstand to haue folowed ther­in, the phrase of scripture, which either so calleth it (as did S. Paule) because a littell before it so was, as Moises rod be­ing 1. Cor. 11. turned in to a serpent was in scripture called notwith­standing Exod. 7. a rod, and saide by the name of a rodde to haue deuoured the roddes of the enchauntors, which were also serpentes, or as oure sauioure him selfe did, not meaning by this worde bread, the substance of materiall bread, but the true bread of life. Ioan. 6.

Whereas you saye oute off Nicephorus, that they Fol. 8. b, 5. tasted that which they receiued, and expound it thus that is to saye bread, that is youre owne blinde glose, and is not in the text. If you woulde nedes playe the expositour yow should haue referred that tasting of theirs to the bodye and bloude of Christ, which he made them sweare by, and which went [Page 13] next in the sentence before. So shoulde yow haue done the part of a true interpretour and haue made Nicephorus agree with the auncient fathers of Christes churche, and namelie to omitt Tertullian, Chrisostome, and diuerse other, with Cirillus the B. of Alexandria, who saith of this matter: quo­modo Lib. 4. in Ioan ca. 14 non viuemus qui carnem illam & gustamus & manduca­mus? How can it be that we shoulde not liue who doe both taste and eate that fleshe? But what speake I of making him to agree with other, when by this meanes you shoulde haue made him to agree with him selfe? who in other places for that which he calleth here simply bread, ioining thereunto an epithetō calleth it vitalis panis, liuely bread. And (whereas Lib. 1. cap. 30. yow would haue him to saye, that in this place the com­municantes held breade in their hādes and tasted breade) in rehearsing the oration which S. Ambrose made to Theo­dosius the emperour minding to entre in to the churche of Milain, bringeth in S. Ambrose emongest other thinges speaking after this sorte. Quomodo manus extolles quae caede Lib. 12. cap. 41. iniqua diffluunt? Quomodo in eis diuinū etiam corpus excipies? Quomodo sanguinē praetiosum ad os afferes per quod ira trans­uersim actus tantū effudisti sanguinis? that is: How wilt thow lift vp thy handes which flow with wicked murdre? yea how wilt thow receiue in them the diuine body? How wilt thow bring to thy mouthe the pretiouse blood, by the which being caried away with angre, thow hast spilt so muche bloud? B. 15. S. Austen calleth the sacra­ment of Chr [...]stes bodie and bloude the sacra­ment of the altar

I made no lye, neither yeat dissembled the truthe or clo­ked the matter, (as yow charge me vntruly) by calling this heauenly and liuely bread, the blessed sacramēt of the altar, with the which worde if yow be offended yow maye cha­lenge S. Austen, for his worde it is and not mine. It is yow M. Nowell that haue muche daungered youre honestie by [Page] falsifieng this place of Nicephorus. For where he hath, Cum Lib. 10. de Ciuit dei cap. 6. oblationes offerret qui mos sacerdotibus est, when he offered the oblations as the maner of priestes is: yow adde to the text, this worde, his: and saye, when he made his oblations. Which The pla­ce of Ni­cephorus falsified worde of youres so conueighed in, is such a spiteful worde, as destroieth the whole minde of the auctor. For whereas we defende the consecration of Christes bodye and bloude (of which name yow are ashamed as appeareth by youre, Consecratiō as they terme it, although S. Austen so affirmed the same against Manicheus the heretike, that he saieth plainely iff Lib. 20. cap. 13. the bread and chalice be not consecrate, it is foode for re­fection but not a sacrament of religion) whereas we I saye, defende such consecration to be an oblation and sacri­fice, when yow sawe the wordes of Nicephorus to meane the publike oblations of the whole churche, which are the bodye and bloude of Christe, yow thought that sense to be litle for youre aduantage, and therfore it semed good coun­sell, to shift in the worde (his) to the intent it might be thought, that Nouatus had offred somewhat of his owne priuate deuotion. Let the worlde nowe iudge M. Nowell, whether this be true dealing or no.

As for youre bragging how yow folow the vsage of the primitiue churche, by giuing the sacrament into their han­des who receiue it: I aske yow this question, grounding the Ad Ianuar epist. 118. same vpon S. Austen, why yow wrangle more aboute the giuing the sacrament in to the receiuers handes, be­cause they so toke it in the primitiue churche, then yowe doe about the receiuing it fasting, which Christ and his a­postles did not? If that be altered which Christ and his a­postles did, for the more honour of this greate sacrament: why might not (for the same reason or for some other as greate or greater) the other, manner of receiuing it into [Page 14] the handes be abolished also and taken awaye, and yow counted schismatikes for breaking the peace of the church? Why cause yow not yong babes to communicate againe as once they did in the primitiue churche, and then make youre bragges thereof to, that yow kepe the vsage of the primitiue churche?

Now that yow haue discoursed learnedly as yow thinke Fo. 9. a. 3. vpon the place of Nicephorus, with charging me off min­gling impertinent thinges by the waye &c. Whereas he that ha­th but halfe an eye maye see, that without I woulde haue out of halfe the sentence I coulde doe no otherwise then I did. Which if I had, yow woulde not belike neither haue taken in verie good parte, seing that euen for that which as not perteining to the matter I omitted, yow reprehende me, cauilling that I haue passed ouer in silence that which is against me:

Yow returne (yow saie) to the purpose againe, and to dis­credite Nowell. a. 17. me for euer, yow couche together a nombre of eui­dent lies which yow affirme, no lesse then in one halfe leafe siue on a clustre, to haue bene made by me.

Well seing then nowe we be come to that pointe, let vs Dorman. two counte together that by euen reconing we maye con­tinue long friendes, and see who is in others debt. Nowe saye on M. Nowell, which is the first of these fiue lyes?

The first lie is, that after his discourse out of S. Cyprian of the Nowell. bishop appointed by God to be the gouernour and heade of the churche, he saieth the B. of Rome is that heade, whereas by S. Cyprian the contrarie is euident: and that him selfe, or B. Roga­tian is that heade whereof he speaketh.

They are two thinges to saye, that the B. of Rome is the heade appointed by God to gouerne the churche, and Dorman. that in the places alleaged out of S. Cyprian for an other purpose, S. Cyprian ment so. I saide I graunte that the B. [Page] of Rome is the heade appointed by god to gouerne the churche: proue yow the contrarye then saye I haue lied. That S. Cyprian in the places by me alleaged was of that minde, that saide I neuer: as by the place whither I referre my selfe I offer to be tried. So that of this I am cleered, and the lye returneth to yow for belying me, not alone but ac­companied with an other in that yow saie, that by S. Cypri­an A double lye. 8. 9. the contrarie is euident, that is to saie, that the B. of Rome is not heade of the churche, and so is this on youre parte a pregnant lye.

The seconde is, that to make warre against the B. of Rome, is the first entrie in to heresie. Whereas S. Cyprian teacheth that the Nowell. a. 24. contempt of euery godly Bishop in his owne diocesse by suche as are their inferiours is the beginning of heresies.

If yow meane that directly I vsed as for a proufe S. Cy­prian, Dorman. to proue that to make warre against the B. of Rome is the first entrye to heresie, that I denie: and so yow belye me therein. If yow meane that because I concluded so mu­che by the waye of introduction that therefore I lyed, then yow haue made youre selfe a lye that waies. For the argu­ment holdeth and is verye good: The beginning and entrie into heresies is to rebell against the heade. ergo a fortiori, to rebell against the chiefe heade of all other, by S. Cyprian must nedes be the beginning of schismes and heresies. And so this standeth for an other lye. A lye. 10.

The. 3. lye that yow laye to me is, because I saie that No­uatus made his first entrie in to his heresies by making open warre against the B. of Rome &c. Which yow call a double lye, because first Nouatus began his heresies by youre opinion in Afrike: next, because I saie that Nouatus made warre against Cornelius as the gouernour and heade of the churche. For yow saye my wordes, Thus did Noua­tus, [Page 15] must nedes be referred to that which went before▪

To the first parte of this forcked lye I answered before, in prouing that wheresoeuer heretikes begin, they assault the heade of the churche: and therefore to saye the con­trary because Nouatus shoulde begin his heresies first in Af­rike, is a lye on youre behalfe. As is also the seconde parte, when yow charge me to haue saide that Nouatus striued against the pope as heade of the church, thinking to proue the same by referring my wordes, Thus did Nouatus, to tho­se that went before: which if yow doe, yow shall proue therby naught elles, but that he made warre against the beautifull ordre of the churche, and the bishop of Rome by god appointed to be the heade thereof. Not all one, to striue a­gainst the heade of the chur­che, and to striue a­gainst him as heade of the churche two Lies 11. 12. For those are the wordes that go before. And so haue yow made here two lyes.

The fourth lye that yow burden we withall, is a very sclaunderouse and moste peuish lye, without al reason wre­sted and wrong by force out of my wordes to make vp a nombre. As first that I saye the receiuing of the blessed sa­crament of the altar in stede of the distribution of the bread, that you count one lye, because Nicephorus you saye b. 25. 26. hath no suche wordes. Nicephorus hath not I confesse the same wordes, nor I euer saied he had, nor promised to allea­ge the verie same, but was contented to vse a worde signi­fieng asmoche and better knowen to all men then the o­ther, and therefore as long as I kept the sense of the auctor as you can not denie but I did, I lyed not: Ergo, yow lyed The other surmised lye is, because I saye, they that minded to receiue it etc. And why is this a lye M. Nowell? Yow answere: because they had receiued it allready in to their handes. Yea but I tell you againe M. Nowell that they came not thither as muche as yow triumphe of receiuing in to their [Page] handes, to receiue it onely in to their handes, but especially to receiue it into their bodies: and therefore yow should to proue me herein a lier haue concluded, that they coulde not be said minded to receiue, as they who had receiued all­ready bothe into their handes and bodies. And of this prin­cipall M. No­well a wrangler. receiuing seing yow coulde not be ignorant that I ment, yow haue not onelie proued youre selfe a lier, but de­clared also to the worlde that yow conforme not youre selfe in writing to that spirit that becommeth a diuine, but to such wrangling and quarelling where no cause is, as ve­rye common skoldes would be ashamed to vse.

The 5. lye is, that I affirme, (you saye) that yow swea­re Nowell. fol. 10. a. 1. men in suche sorte as Nouatus did. And here yow re­peate againe, that the othe exacted by Nouatus was vnlaufull, because he exacted an othe of the Romaines to cleaue to him a­gainst their owne bishop: you require an othe of subiectes English men, of obediēce to their and oure natural prince, and of renoun­cing all foraine and vsurped power. Again, Nouatus caused thē to sweare that his heresie was the truth, and that Cornelius true do­ctrine was heresie: yow haue no suche matters in hande but are on Cornelius side against Nouatus &c. Vpon these two differen­ces yowe conclude, that loke how often I saie, so did Lu­ther, so did Caluin, So doo those wicked men in oure country: &c as ofte as I saie. They exacted this othe &c. If he giue not this othe &c. so many lowde and lewde lyes I haue made.

Vntill yow be hable to proue M. Nowell, that the B. of Rome is not oure laufull bishop that be English men, Dorman. that his power is fortaine and vsurped, euen in this pointe shall yow agree with Nouatus, that you sweare men against their laufull bishop as he did. Yow maye not thinke youre selfe sufficiently discharged because yow saie his power is vsurped, for that colour Nouatus also I warrāt yow gaue to his wicked doinges. As for the heresie of Nouatus although youre othe tende not specially to the maintenaūce of that, [Page 16] yeat maketh it directly for the maintenaunce of diuerse o­ther more abhominable. But yow contrarie to all good le­arning, as though yow wrote only to deceiue the simple not passing for the iudgement of the learned, thinke youre selues marueilously well discharged, if the comparison ma­de betwene yow and Nouatus agree not iustly in euery small point. Thus you see for 5. lyes which in these feweli­nes yow sclaundre me to haue made, whereas I haue nowe cleered my selfe of them al fiue, it foloweth that as often as yow saie that I lye, so often times, that is to saye fiue, yow haue lied youre selfe, and thrise more beside, as in the count betwene vs it appeareth. So that nowe that I haue answe­red you for suche matter as from the beginning yow coulde charge me withall, yow must not thinke me to dea­le hardely with yow, if I call yow also to account of suche manifest and inexcusable lyes, as hetherto in these fewe leaues of youres yow haue made. Wherein I shall desire the (gentle reader) to shewe thy selfe a good and vpright audi­tor betwene vs.

First yow saye M. Nowell, that the sentence of S Au­sten In the be­ginning of his boke. prefixed by me before my booke, maketh directly against the papistes, as yow terme vs. That is an euident lie as hathe bene declared.

Item, that you promised to leaue no saying of anie olde doctour vnanswered, alleaged by me. Which seing you ha­ue not perfourmed in that which being brought out off S. Austen was of all other the first, but haue passed ouer in silence these wordes. Thow doest not communicate with all nations, wherein the force of the place consisted, this is the seconde lye.

Item that Cyprian declareth in deede in the 9. epistle of the fourth boke, that the bishoppes of all places be of equall fol. 2. b. 28 [Page] auctoritie, it is an other lye grounded falsely vpon S. Cy­prian.

Item, that I falsefied S. Basile his wordes (of the which I fol. 5. b. 22. made no mention) it is a sclaunderouse lye.

Item, that Nouatus began his heresie first in Afrike, it is a lye falselie fathered vpon S. Cyprian, who mencioneth fol. 7. a. 24 Li. 2. epi. 8. his schisme, not his heresy, which all writers agree that he fell first into at Rome, vpon displeasure conceiued of the repulse that he suffred in standing for the bishopricke off Rome.

Item, that the professours of Nouatus heresies trauailed in Afrike against S. Cyprian as Nouatus him selfe did in Lib. 4. Epist. 9. Italie against Cornelius the B. of Rome, it is affirmed by yow M. Nowell to be proued by S. Cyprian, but the place fol. 7. a. 7. hauing bene examined hathe no such thing.

Item, whereas Nicephorus hath: Cum oblationes offerret fol. 8. a. 17. when he offred the oblations, you cast in this worde his, and so belie Nicephorus.

The grosse and total some of al your lyes hetherto made, beside those, which because hauing all readie declared that Nouatus and you agree in swearing men against the bis­shop of Rome, I am clered of, how often so euer I saye: so did Luther: so did Caluine: so do these wicked men in our coun­trie: fol. 10. a. 13. as ofte as I saye, They exacted this othe, &c. If they geue not this othe, &c. must nedes also returne to you) riseth to 15. lyes, and with that capitaine lye, of al other which hetherto you a. 22. At Paules crosse. haue made, aswell for the place which was publike, as the audience which was honourable (in saying that you had not founde any one auctoritie by me, so farre as then yow had reade, truly alleaged) the verie greatest of all, to sixte­ne. Nowe kepe yow the counte and let vs procede.

You finde faulte with vntrue coating of the places allea­ged, [Page 17] which although to all writers it be a thing that com­monly happeneth, and to none so common I referre me to your Apologie. as to those of youre occupation: yeat in me so maliciouse a man I am, it must nedes be of sett purpose that suche as woulde be desirou­se to see the originalls might not to spedely finde oute the lew­denesse Nowel 26. of my allegations, seruing nothing to the purpose, vnlesse perhappes (yow saie) I did neuer vse mine owne eyes in vewing of those places.

Well M. Nowell I praye you yeat stande good maister Dorman. vnto me, or at the least fauour your selfe. For I thinke for a­nie greate faultes that be yeat committed, yow are ronne as far into the lashe as I, although in the space of one leafe b. 4. or little more, yow saye that of fower onely places alleaged, thre thereof be noted vntruly. For touching the first, whiche yeat you noted before with the other two in the margent, but here rhetorically for lacke of store, yow serue to the ta­ble againe dressed after an other sorte (a point of cookery much vsed by yow in this boke of youres) yeat iwysse two of them maye so be excused, that youre cancred suspition shall take no place. For whereas I alleaged the first senten­ce of S. Cyprian as out of the thirde booke the 11. epistle, whereas it is the 9. epistle, the copie is extant to be sene printed first by Griphius at Lyons Anno Domini. 1537. then at Basile, anno 1540, wherein bothe the places by the printers errour it is so printed as I alleaged it. The second errour in printing the 30. chapitre of Nicephorus for the thirde, was committed by this meanes. I wrote in my copie, cap. 3^o. as yow see here. The composer of the letters vnacquainted with this kinde of writing, mistaking the o aboue for a fi­gure that should stande beneathe placed it so, and made of thre, thirty.

I would haue bene lothe to haue troubled the (good re­ader) with so manie wordes in the excuse of so sclendre [Page] faultes, were it not that mine aduersarie chargeth me so heinously therewithall as he doth, and that I perceiue them to be the greatest that he coulde finde in my boke. The third escape was also the printers faulte, although I be not able to proue it so well, and yeat as well to, as he shall be to proue the contrarie. For the which he neded not to ta­ke the matter so whot, him selfe hauing alleaged before an epistle of S. Cyprian, where is no suche thing to be founde Fol. 7. a. 11 lib. 4. epis. 9. as for the whiche he bringeth it in.

Where yow obiect to me I wote not what collectours, whome I shoulde trust in these places: Suerly vnlesse yow had saide perhappes, which helpeth the matter, yow must Fol. 10. b. 2 A lye ex­cused by perhappes nedes haue scored vp an other lye there had bene no reme­dy. But as good then as now, for it foloweth euen there, where yow saye that yow moste abhorre Nouatus and his A lye. 17. heresies. For I noted yow an other point before beside the swearing against the B. of Rome, wherein yow were plai­ne In the. 4. chapitre. Fol. 12. a. Nouatians, and therfore that is a bragging lye.

Yow saye that this othe which I talke of, was neuer required Nowell. B. 18. of suche of the Cleargie as be in prison.

The othe that I talke of is of forsaking the B. of Dorman. A lye. 18. Rome. Will yow stande to this lye, that this othe was neuer required of suche of the cleargie as be in prison? Diuerse of them, euen of the best, haue died therfore con­stant martyrs in prison yow can not truly denie it: If some of them that remaine, pine not (as you saye) but fare wel and of other mennes cost to: the greater cause haue they to thāke god and their friendes therefore, emongest whome perhap­pes although you be at no greate parte of the cost, yeat you maye in this respect deserue also some thankes, that remem­bring them oftentimes in youre charitable deuotion at Powles crosse, yow procure them by suche hartie remem­brance, [Page 18] the rather the almoise of good men. If all pyne not away: if some be well fedde and in good liking, and so fat­te (as you saye) that they wallow to: as they haue the more to render thankes to allmightie god who giueth suche abi­litie so well to beare aduersitie: yeat are there other some, and no small some to, whose holow eyes, pale faces, and heauy lookes, beare witnesse sufficient of an other maner of pasture then oure smothe smicker ministres liue in.

You are able to name no greate nombre hanged in stoc­kes Fol. 10. b. 23. by legges, or fingers, as some of them (you saie) that be in prison vsed others &c. and those that were so serued (if a­nie so were) if the matter were wel knowen, it was their vnruly and vnbridled tongues, their vnsemly language to­wardes their superiours, (from which kinde of behauiour let these six yeares passed ouer in durance beare witnesse for the Catholikes how far they be) and not religion, for which they were so ordered. This mildenesse of the Ca­tholikes onely defending the catholike faithe and libertie of their consciences, without either bitter talcke, seditiouse bookes, or other by practises against their prince and ma­gistrates by her appointed, was the cause I nothing doubt, why her highnesse naturally enclined to mercy, extendid the rather her gratiouse fauour to the enlarging of their prisonnes, which yow by a scornefull terme to showe how sore it was against youre will, call progresses. Besides that, there is at all no comparison betwene men forsaking the common knowen faithe as youre selues confesse of these last nine hundred yeares through out all the worlde, and suche as departing from the rest of Christendome, ioi­ne them selues to a faithe whereof there was not one man to be founde in all the whole worlde fifty yeares ago. Which consideration (in a maner I assure my selfe) hath not [Page] bene the least respect, why the Quenes grace hath allwaies so mercifully regarded those pore prisoners, and withall so gratiously withstanden youre cruell motions tending to their dispatche oute of the waye: whome she thinketh to haue punishement inough of prison, losse of liuinges, and libertie, though she take not from them their liues: who tea­ching and defending that faithe which they were borne and baptised in, which they manie yeares continued in, which all the world within these fifty yeares beleued, can not so sone be brought from the same.

I loked euer when yow would answere to that where Fol. 11. a. 1. with I charged you, for offering the othe against the pope to gentle men, laye men, and scholers of the vniuersities without all face or colour of lawe, but youre owne consci­ence tolde you that you had therein done suche iniurie to her graces lawes, so extended and racked them to serue youre furiouse spirit, that it shoulde be best as you doe, to passe that ouer in silence, and not so muche as once to twang vpon that string of youre harpe. If there were any punished for not swearing to the pope in times past, they were punished by ordre of lawe: why mention you that to excuse youre vexing of men beside lawe?

Yow take on like a mad man and aske of me: seing Nowell. b. 1. Fol. 11. b. that so many aswell learned as vnlearned: as well of the laitie as of the clergie, women as men, yong as olde haue lost liuinges and gooddes, and after long punishements and pyning most paineful and pitefull also, haue finally lost their liues being most cruelly cōsumed by terrible flames of fier into ashes, if they might obtei­ne so much mercy as to escape that vsual lōg lingring in slack and smoke fier: why I shoulde thinke it muche, that they who haue in this wise vsed others for refusing of moste wicked othes, and the auctoritie of a false forain vsurper shoulde them selues lacke VVhat suche personnes M. Nowell r [...]teine any parte of their li­uinges? so­me part of their liuinges and libertie, for refusing to acknowledge the laufull auctoritie of oure naturall souereigne.

Here before I answere to youre question I woulde Dorman. faine know what they were either learned or vnlearned of the laitie, what womē, what yong men, to whom this othe was offred, and how many died for the refusal therof? Tru­ly the greatest nombre that suffred in England died for the sacramentarie heresy, not in suche lingring flames as yow speake of, but compassed about with bagges of gonne pou­der procured by their owne meanes (a kinde of practise e­mongest Christes Martyrs neuer I trow harde of) the soo­ner This a­greeth not with the martyrdo­me of Po­licarpus. Vide Euse. li. 4. cap. 15 to dispatche them selues, as with mine own eyes I sawe Ridley and Latymer burned. But if it had bene true that so manie had died for refusall of this othe as yow suppose, yeat were they not, for answere to youre demaunde I saye, laye gentlemen, nor scholers that vsed them so. And there­fore no reason is it why you shoulde wreake your selues vpō them. And this yow wote is the question that is dema­unded of you. Againe how euer you name the othe wic­ked, yeat is it laufull and nothing derogating the Quenes auctoritie, which we couet asmuche to mainteine as you, although we flatter not so muche, but youres is wicked and moste abhominable, and therefore it is no good com­parison that you make betwene vs, Finallie how euer it be, the othe was then tendred there as it was offred, accor­ding to the law, you offered it to those that I spake of, iniu­riously without auctoritie of speciall commission.

As for youre promise that yow make, in place conue­nient fol. 11. b. to bring good proufe that the B. of Rome hath wickedly exacted most vnlaufull othes both of subiectes and of princes, &c. when you doe so yow shall heare what I will answere: in the meane season I count it but an ordinary brag.

Of the place of S. Basile epist. 70. that it was tru­lye applied to the heretikes of ou­re time & cae. The. 5. Chapter.

M. Nowell woulde induce the reader to thinke, that this place of S. Basile shoulde be brought by me to persuade that he and his companions were Arrians. And therfore purging him self and his mates of this crime, he concludeth thus.

Wherfore his sainges in that Epistle apperteine nothing to Nowell. fol. 12. b. 18 vs, who are nothing guiltie of those crimes and heresies, but they are brought in by dreaming M. Dorman without anie cause and beside all purpose.

What nede this affected ignorance M. Nowell? Yow Dorman. knowe well inough that I neuer charged you with the Ar­rian heresie. But thus it pleaseth yow to handle me, as though yow might by this meanes bringe me in to an euill conceite with the reader, by persuading that I alleage no place to the purpose. The Arrians yow wote well (for it is a thing incident to heresies) had beside their errours in do­ctrine manie foule deformities in maners. Now what a newe kinde of reason is this I praie yow that yow vse: I am not like Dauus or Syrus in one or two properties that they haue: Ergo in no propertie at all. Doe you agree with the Ar­rians in no pointe of their maners, because yow beleue (you saye) well concerning the doctrine of the Trinitie? If you beleue well, God continue you therein, at the least some of your pewe felowes pretēding once as good affection therto as you do nowe, haue come so farre, that they not on­ly haue blasphemed it in open sermons, but prote­sted See Staphylus in En­glishe. fol. 113. a. also to be readier to returne to their Cloisters, then to beleue thereoff as the catholike churche do­the. But let that be their faulte, I saye not here that you be yeat come so farre, which notwithstanding, youre conclu­sion [Page 20] that you infer (wherefore his sainges in that epistle apper­teigne b. 18. nothing to vs) is false. For you ouerthrowe churches, you pull downe altars, you contemne the traditions of the fathers (the diligent obseruation whereof S. Basile saieth in this place was condemned by the Arrians as a greate faul­te) beside other thinges, as maie to them that reade the hi­stories more plainely appeare. So that when you called me dreaming for bringing this as not to the purpose, you were belike youre selfe nodding.

Yow aske: why these bisshoppes of the Easte (whose epistle Nowell. b. 25. I alleaged here) wrote not to the pope, as head of all the church, but indifferently to all the bishoppes of Fraunce and Italy, with­out any mention of the B. of Rome at all, whereoff yow ga­ther a folishe fonde coniecture, and of that, that S. Basile placed the bishoppes off Fraunce before the Italian bisshoppes, which I, (you saie) craftely dissembled, that the B. of Rome shoulde not be head of the churche.

Trulye M. Nowell I neuer brought it to proue the bis­shop of Romes supremacie: I brought it to proue, that the face of oure time was not muche vnlike to that of the Ar­rians, and to that it is not impertinent. For youre demaun­de I aske you againe, what if he wrote to the pope speciall lettres for his aide in these difficultyes? And if he did, how that should not make greately for his supremacie, to who­me he woulde not write as to a common bishop emongest other, but seuerally to him selfe alone, as being the head of his other brethern. Trulye there is an epistle of his not ma­ny before this, written by him to Athanasius, wherein con­ferring with him about the withstanding of the Arrians heresie, he telleth him, that his counsell is, that they sende lettres to the B. of Rome, that he may considre the matter and Epist. 52. giue his sentence, that bicause it woulde be verye harde to haue [Page] first a common councell called, and then so to sende from thence, he him selfe chosing mete men for the purpose, suche as shoulde as­well be hable to beare out the paines of the iourney, as for their gentlenes and sinceritie off manners to warne and reproue suche peruerse men as troubled them, should giue auctoritie to the mat­ter, &c.

Why might not this epistle M. Nowell, be touching the same matter whereof he wrote to the bishoppes of Fraun­ce and Italie? why might it not be that knowing the ho­nour of that see of Rome to be so greate as it is, he woulde by no meanes wright vnto the bishop thereof alone, but ioyntly together with bishop Athanasius: whose fame he knewe to be in the churche suche, that he could aske no reasonable petition whiche shoulde not be graunted: or what can you saye why the epistle written to Meletius, that they two shoulde sende to Rome for visitours to visite their countrie whiche was in the Easte, might not be con­cerning Epist. 57. this matter? How euer it be, these two places argue, that the omitting of the B. of Rome his name here, was not as you suppose, for contempte of his auctoritie. And thus is this fonde coniecture of youres showed to be vaine and of no force. Now for dissembling (as you saie) the ordre of the bishoppes named in the epistle, truly you shewe youre selfe to be made euen of the paringes of malice, who iudge so maliciously where no cause is. For to what purpose sho­ulde I conceale that, which no man coulde suspect, that a­nie woulde euer haue bene so foolishe as to haue brought for an argument against the popes supremacy?

It foloweth: S. Basile with the other bishoppes of the Easte, Nowell. fol. 13. a. 3. called the bishoppes alltogether brethern and felowes in the mi­nisterie, which they would neuer haue done, had they had this opinion of his supremacy, that M. Dorman and other papistes do no­we [Page 21] defende and maintaine. But in the saide 70. epistle the saide bishops of the East, which do not once speake of the pope, do pray the Frenche and Italian bisshoppes to make humble sute to the Emperoure, that he by his auctoritie woulde represse their enne­mies the Arrians, and relieue their miseries, which maketh ra­ther for the Emperours supremacy in the churche then for the bishoppes of Rome.

I tolde you a litle before of S. Basile his counsell to Dorman. Athanasius, to sende to the bishop of Rome for helpe a­gainst Epist. 52. the Arrians. Wherby as it appeareth to be more then probable, that these latter lettres were written to the other bishoppes of Italie and fraunce only, not to the pope: so is it euident also, that the mention of the emperour and si­lence of the pope, came not of lacke of acknowledging his auctoritie, (to the which before they fledde) but of this, by ioyning bothe the swordes together, the spirituall and the temporall, the rather to vanquishe and discomfite the ene­mie. But nowe if it were so that emongest the rest the bi­shop of Rome had bene comprehended in this epistle, yeat the calling of him brother or felowe in the ministerie, is no cause to conclude (as you doe) against his auctoritie. For neither doe I nowe, nor euer hathe anie Catholike hether­to, so defended or mainteined the popes supremacy that it hathe not bene allwaies acknowledged, that bothe he and other bishoppes be the ministres of one common maister, allthough that maister haue made him the ruler of his fe­lowes and ouerseer of his brethren. Yea the popes them selues haue euer vsed to call the other bishoppes their bre­thern and felowe bishoppes, not renouncing therby the aucto­ritie of their seate. What marueile is it therfore, if the bis­shoppes of the East had called the pope (emongest the other to whome they wrote) brother and felowe in the mi­nisterie, by the which name he calleth him selfe, it can not [Page] be denied.

Nowe where M. Dorman speaketh of persecution, as he dyd Nowell. Fo. 13. a. 13 alittle before of oure moste cruell practise, I referre it to the iud­gement of all the worlde, whether the papistes or we be more cru­ell persecutours: and wheather haue suffred more persecution they or we.

If they be more cruell persecutours that lacking power Dorman. shewe notwithstanding more crueltie in wordes then other doe in deedes: if their crueltie be greater who punishe besi­de and against lawe, then theirs who folowe lawe: if it be no crueltie at all, to punishe a fewe to saue the nombre, by terrour of lighter paines (to vse the wordes of S. Austen to [...]ib. de vinit. eccl. cap. 17. the Donatistes complaining of the Catholikes as you doe nowe) to preserue from greater euills, then is the matter iud­ged allreadie in all vpright iudgement, then nedeth there no furder processe. As for the lenitie by the which you woulde commende youre selues to the worlde, youre cha­ritable sermones made aswell before the Quenes moste ex­cellent maiestie at the courte, as before the nobles and other honorable of the Realme at the Crosse: in the which yow haue consumed all youre eloquence, to prouoke oure moste gratiouse soueraigne to imbrue her chaste and vn­spotted handes with the innocent bloude of true Catholi­kes, hathe long since made that wel knowen to the worlde. So that I maye nowe truly saye to yow, as did S. Austen to certeine heretikes in his time, bragging of their lenitie to­wardes the catholikes, as you doe of youres. Nulla bestia si Epist. 48. neminem vulneret propterea mansueta dicitur, quia dentes & vngues non habet. Seuire vos nolle dicitis: ego non posse arbitror. No beaste if he wounde no man, is therfore called tame, be­cause he lacketh teethe and nailes: you saye you will vse no crueltie: I thinke yow can not. Is not this youre verie case [Page 22] M. Nowell? See you not a perfect pattern, of youre pitie, a copy of youre dissembled and countrefeite kindenesse? O were youre murdering mouthes by oure most grati­ouse Souereignes commaundement vnmoosseled, (which god for her sake forbid) youre bloud thirsty handes at li­bertie: how woulde these tame beastes bestirre them?

You saye that I go about to burthen you with enuie of chur­ches either pulled downe or altered to other vses, and of altars Nowell. a. 12. destroied, muche like as the rebelles did burthen king Henry the eight &c.

How the rebelles burdened king Henry, or whether Dorman. they burdened him at all or no as you saye they did, I will not entremedle my selfe therein. Of this I am suer that you be burdened of me none otherwise, then S. Hie­rome burdened the Hunnes and wandalles being infected Epist. ad Heliodorū. with Arrius heresie, when he wrote of them after this sorte: The churches be ouerthrowen, at the altars be horses stabled, and a litle after. Howe manye monasteries be their taken? And againe, none otherwise then Optatus the bishop of Lib. 6. cō ­ [...] Dona­tist. Mileuite in Afrike burdened the Donatistes there doing the like: when he tolde them that there coulde be no greater sacrilege then to breake, shaue and remoue cleane away the altars off God, on the whicht bothe they them selues some tymes had offred, and the prayers off the people and mem­bres off Christ were caried. As for youre excuse that you make, why Abbayes were ouerthrowen in oure countrye, it is not trulie muche pertinent to oure purpose in this pla­ce. For had it bene all true whereof the greatest parte was moste certeinely false, that you sclaunderously and falsely laied to the charges of religiouse men (emongest whome as there were manie offendours, euen those that haue bene since in England greate pillers, and in youre newe [Page] churche chiefe fauourers of youre newe religion: so were there manie innocent and good, who ceassed not daie and night to lament the disordred life of those other their bre­thren, to praie most earnestly to almighty god for their sin­nes and the sinnes of the people) yeat was this no cause sufficient, to turne vp the churches, to ouerthrowe the al­tars. Which you youre selfe also perceiuing, and knowing that aswell in king Henries time, those good fathers of the Chartrehouse, as in the late reigne of Quene Marie, bothe they in Shene, the mōckes of westminstre, the Franciscanes of Grenewich, the preachers of S. Bartilmewes, the nonnes of Sion and Dertford, liued euery ordre so honestlie in all vertue and godlines according to their rule, that manie wer edified by their good examples, none offēdid by their euil: yow flee to an other shifte, against the fundations off su­che religiouse houses forsothe.

Which because (you say) were laied vpō prayer for the redemp­tion Nowell. fol. 13. 2. 23. of the soules of their founders and their progenitours soules. &c. Were so vnsuer and weake or rather wicked, that they coulde no longre beare suche huge superstructions and buildinges as were laied vpon them.

Well, suche fundations maye be well counted weake Dorman. or rather wicked by wicked Aerius who was condēned for Aug. lib. de haeresib. haer. 53. lib. 3. haere. 75. the like heresie as witnesse bothe S. Austen and Ephipha­nius aboue 12. hundred yeares since. But to all good Chri­stian men they seme and euer haue done proufitable and meritoriouse, as to him that will take the paines to reade the boke of late learnedly written of purgatorye, it shall I doubt not euidētly appeare. Beside that, by this meanes our colleages at home in the vniuersities, yea your cathedrall churche and Deanery it selfe M. Nowell, might be in some daunger to be ouerthrowen, if you fal to suche scanning of [Page 23] their first fundations.

Here you compell me to entre with you into a dispu­tation about altars. And for the iustifieng of your commu­nion Fol. 14. b. Altars. Nowell. 1. Cor. 10. table, you alleage first that oure sauiour instituted the sa­crament at a table &c. And that S Paule calleth it mensam domi­nicam oure Lordes table.

To the facte of Christ maye be answered two wayes. Dorman. First, that we considre not in this word (altar) so muche the matter whereof it is made, as we doe the thing which is executed vpon it. For it is not stone that maketh it to be called an altar: no more then wood, siluer or golde, but it is the sacrifice done vpon it which maketh it so to be cal­led. So that when Christ our sauiour instituted this sacri­fice or oblation of the newe testament (as namely the auncient father Irineus calleth it) although (as yow saye) Li. 4. c. 32 men had in those daies in their houses no altars in stede of tables, yeat was this table made an altar by Christes offring him selfe thereapō. Again if you will yeat reason that because it was a table of wood or a woodden altar, therefore we must change the ordre off Christes churche, and downe with oure stone altars and set vp tables of wood: then must I answere you, that this was one of the thinges, which oure sauiour determined nothing of, but lefte to the discretion August. epist. 118. of his Apostles by whom he would dispose the busines of the church, and that by the same very mene that you wolud haue altars pulled downe, you may also ouersthrow chur­ches. b. 13. A reason of M. No­welles to ouerthro­we chur­ches. For except you think M. Nowel (to vse your own rea­son made here against altars) that mē vsed to dwelle in those daies in churches in stede of priuate housen, you wil gra­unte I dare saye that Christ instituted this sacramēt in a priuate house, and so by that reason of youres down with the churches, and let your cōmunion be ministred in parlors of [Page] priuate houses.

Neither I, nor al the papistes with me (yow say) cā bring so mu­che Nowell. b. 20. out of the newe testament for altars as you haue done for the Lordes table.

Yes that I can my selfe alone M. Nowell without a­nie Dorman. other helpe. Is the first epistle of S. Paule to the Co­rinth. anie parte of the newe testament? I trust you wil sa­ye yea, seing that one of youre places is taken out of that epistle. Yea but is the ninth chapitre anie parte of that epi­stle? If it be, then haue you there expresse mention of altars, where the texte saieth that they that serue the altar shall li­ue by the altar. And againe to the Hebrues: we haue an altar whereof they maye not eate that serue the taberuacle. Where you 1. Cor. 9. can not saye, that he ment of any altar other then of the Hebr. 12. newe testament: for he compareth together the tabernacle of the olde law and the altar of the new. How saye you no­we M. Nowell haue we scripture for altars out of the newe testament or no? I thinke you will say that we haue, and he that shal wel way the places, that they are better applied thē are youres toe. For whereas you woulde seme to wipe away all such places of the fathers and aunciēt writers (which be infinite, and the worde altara hundred times no doubt mē ­tioned in their writinges for the worde table once) by a figuratiue speche (by which reason and by better to as you haue by figures robbed vs allready of Christes body and bloud, the sacrifice of the churche: so you might bring the tem­ple it selfe to a figure, because the Apostle saieth, templum Dei quod estis vos: the temple of God which are you) it is the worde table that is figuratiuely vsed, aswell in the scri­ptures as the fathers writinges. As namely in this place he­re alleaged by you of the Apostle, where it is saide: Yow can [Page 24] not be partakers of the table of the Lorde, and of the table of the 1. Cor. 10. diuels. Is not the worde table which you here bring to pro­ue M. No­well auoiding the worde (al­ta [...]) by a figure, al­leageth the worde table that can not otherwise be vnder­stand. youre communion table by, (whereas if you woulde nedes vse that worde, you shoulde haue taken the table he­re mentioned in the seconde place which agreeth more aptly thereto) is it not I saye a plaine figuratiue worde, sig­nifieng to vs the feast or banket exhibited thereupon? For when he sayeth, partakers of the table, it shoulde go verye harde with them that shoulde eate, if that were pro­pre speache you wote well. And thus you maye see, that we haue not onelye scripture for altars aswell as you, but more proper also, and that better proue the same then the places by you brought.

You saye, that if S. Basile and some other olde writers call it Nowell. fol. 14. b. 27. an altar, that is no propre but a figuratiue name &c.

O M. Nowell you knowe well inough howe euer you Dorman. woulde here extenuate the matter, that it is not S. Basile a­lone with some fewe other that so call it, but all the aun­cient writers euen from the Apostle Paules time to oures, haue so called it, and that the contrarie is moste true, that as they haue vsed this worde table seldom times: so they ha­ue vsed it at suche times (as did S. Paule) to signifie by a fi­gure either the heauenly banquet deliuered vpon the same, or for that an altar hath the office and is in dede a spirituall table. The whiche thing youre selfe woulde not sticke to graunt, were it not that the graunting of a true altar were like to enforce a true sacrifice. But to the entent the worl­de may perceiue how you abuse them both in the one and the other: I wil here oute of certaine aunciēt writers saye so muche as I trust they shall all perceiue, that this figuratiue altar and figuratiue sacrifice, is the false fable and vaine dre­ame [Page] that you speake of, onely mete for such figure flingers as you are your selfe. M. Nowell,

Touching altars that they be not so called of the fathers by figure but truly, what better proufe can you haue then out of Martialis the B. of Burdeaulx, one of the 70. disciples of our Sauiour: who speaking of suche altars as were thro­wen downe by the Apostles, and at the last of that dedica­ted to the vnknowen God, whereof is mention made in the actes of the Apostles, writeth thus. Dum altaria daemo­num Act. ca. 17. Epistol. ad Burdega­lens. in puluerem redigerentur, aram ignoti Dei reseruari iussi­mus. Qua dedicata in nomine Dei Israel, & ipsius testis Stepha­ni, qui pro eo a Iudeis passus est, non hominis cultum sed Dei in ea frequentatis. That is to saye: while the aultars of the di­uels were brought to powder, we commaunded the altar of the vnknowen God to be reserued. The whiche being dedicate in the name of the God of Israel, and of his witnes­se Steuin which suffred for him of the Iewes, you doe not now practise thereupō the worshipping of man but of god. Can there be a plainer place then this M. Nowell to proue that which you denie, and which you woulde drawe to so greate an absurdite, as that because the Iewes had altars, b. 25. therefore it were vnlaufull for vs to haue them. Whereas you here may learne, that Christes owne disciples without pulling downe, without anie other changing or altering then by dedicating it in the name of god and S. Steuin, v­sed a material altar to worship God vpon. Can you cal this a figuratiue altar?

Chrysostome in a certaine homely or sermon that he Homil. 53. made to the people of Antioche asketh this question. Si quis hanc destrueret domum & hoc suffoderet altare nonne qui­ [...] [...] prophanum & impium? [...] [Page 25] woulde not euery man caste stones at him as a prophane or wicked man? How thinke you M. Nowell when to o­uerthrowe altars they must be digged vp, ment Chryso­stome of figuratiue altars or reall tables? There nedeth you wote wel neither matock nor pykeax to remoue you­re tables. If there did they woulde not I trow walke their stations so often in the churche from place to place as they doe, especially if the clarcke or ministre shoulde be in da­unger to be stoned to deathe, to be taken for a prophane and wicked man so often as he shoulde doe it. For altars this maye suffice, especially the testimonie of Chrisostome, who liuing in the same age ought to persuade all reasonable men what maner of altars they were that S. Basile ment of, rather then M. Nowels simple reason, because it is saide that Fol. 15. a. [...] Christ offred him selfe vpō the altar of the crosse, therfore no altars maie be set vp vnlesse we will turne all crosses in to altars. Wheras although it were true, that he imagineth, that the crosse whereon Christ suffred was called an altar by a figure (as in dede to him that considereth the greke worde it is not true [...] but false, for a true altar was it) yeat had it not folowed, that because there was a figure in those wordes, where so euer in anie place elles there shoulde be mention made of an altar, there it shoulde be vnderstand by a figure

For the sacrifice offered vpon oure altars which we saye to be the verie bodye and bloude of Christe: Yow phan­tasye to be a spirituall thankes giuing onely, and drawe to the sacrifice of praier, how muche might here be saied to the contrarye if it were not impertinent to the matter? Omitting therefore Irinaeus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Austen, Chrisostome, Cirillus, Athanasius with the rest: I shall here be contented to haue alleaged one onely testimonie oute [...] councell of Calcedon so euident to the purpose, that [Page] [...] [Page 24] [...] [Page] bothe the distinction of the bloudy and vnbloudy offering of Christes body and bloude, (which yow M. Nowell thought you might here vpon the credite of youre bare ho­nestie without farder proufe affirme to be abused) is pro­ued thereby to be good, and youre onely spirituall sacrifice vtterly condēned. The place is taken out of the libell which one Is [...]hyrion a deacō of the church of Alexandria offered vp to Leo the pope, and the whole councell against Diosco­rus the bishop there, and is this: Tanta autem contra omnes Act. 3. (non sicut decebat episcopum, & maximè tantae ciuitatis, & euan­gelicae illius sedis praesulem constitutum perpetrare ausus est, vt etiam & frumentum quod a pi [...]ssimis nostris imperatoribus, eccle­sijs Libiae propter ariditatem illius prouinciae, & quia ibi omnino triticum non nascitur, praestitum est, inprimis quidem vt ex ipso hostia offeratur: deinde vt & peregrini, nec non etiā & prouin­ciales pauperes ali quod mereantur solatium, non permit [...]eret susci­pere sanctissimos episcopos illius prouinciae, sed aestimaret me­moratum frumentum largissimis praetijs, ipsum verò in tempore famis amarissimis estimationibus venundaret. Et ex hoc, neque terribile & incruentum sacrificium celebratum est, neque sic (vt dixi) peregrini aut prouinciales hoc so­latio fruiti sunt. That is to saye. He hath bene so hardy to commit so greate thinges against all men (not as it became a bishop, and especially of so greate a citie and of that euangelicall seate) that euen the verie corne which was giuen by oure godlye emperours to the churches of Libya for the barēnesse of that prouince and because there gro­weth no wheate there, chiefelie Vt ex ipso ho [...]li [...] off [...] ­ratur. that the sacrifice might be offred of that, and next that strangiers and suche pore nedy men also as be of the same prouince, might receiue some reliefe therby, he suffreth not the holy bishoppes of that prouince to receiue, but prysing the saide corne at [Page 26] excessiue prices, in time of famine he selleth it most rigo­rously. And thereby neither is the dreadefull and vnbloudy sacrifice celebrate, neither doe either strangers or those of the prouince enioye this comforte. Hetherto the wordes of this godly deacons supplication, whereby all men maye see, that the beliefe of the churche at that tyme was, that the vnbloudy sacrifice which was offred on the altar, stoode not in the onely offering vp of praiers and praises vnto god. Which kinde of sacrifice might and may be offred at al times were there neuer so great lacke of corne, and can be by no meanes called dreadefull. For it is not dreadefull M. Nowell to prayse god inwardly: it is the onely comfort to oure consciences, so far is it from all terrour. But terrible is it to come to goddes table, where we shall receiue either to oure damnation or saluation the very bodie and bloud of Christ. Go nowe and saye that the wheate here mentioned was figuratiue, that this naughtie bishop solde, and toke monie for it by a figure. For excepte yow saie thus yow can neuer auoide this place.

Now whereas yow call it a false phantasie that the bodye Fo. 15. b. 13 and bloud of Christ are offred for the quicke and the deade &c. therein surely yow note not so muche me of dreaming, as if it were true that yow saye, yow shoulde note all the fa­thers of Christes churche of sleping. For to begin with S. Iames the apostle of oure sauiour, praieth he not in his mas­se extant in the greke tongue to be sene, that this oblation sanctified by the holy ghost maye be acceptable to purchase rest for their soules which slepe before vs? Doe not Chrisostome and S. Basile the like in their masses? Doth not Athanasius ex­pressely affirme, that by the vnbloudy oblation the soules of sin­ners Lib. de Va­rijs quest. q. 34. In cap. 11. prouerb. departed this worlde receiue comfort? Doth not S. Hiero­me holde that veniall sinnes maye be purged after this life by the [Page] praiers or almoise dedes of their frindes, or by the celebrating off masses? As for S. Austen who calleth it a tradition of the fa­thers, De verb. apost. serm. 52. an obseruation of the whole and vniuersall churche, to of­fer for the soules departed the sacrifice of Christes moste pretiouse body and bloude, the sacrifice of oure mediatour, who offred the Lib. confes. 9. cap. 13. same for the soule of his mother Monica, and had it offred after his deathe for his owne: these and manie other places in his worckes, are to moste men so well knowen, that to alleage them here it maye seme superfluouse. What remai­neth nowe M. Nowell, but that as S. Austen saide to Iulian a scholer of Pelagius, after he had alleaged against his heresies the learned writers of the churche: Ego a Pe­lagianis Lib. 2. con­tra Iulian. cir [...]asin. ad istos: tu ab istis ad quos? I go from the Pelagi­ans to these (learned fathers) thowe from these to whome wilt thow go: so I saie to you (a scholer of Caluins) tou­ching this matter: I go from the Caluinistes to S. Iames, to Chrisostome, to Basile, to Athanasius, and you M. No­well from these to whome will you go? If you saie to the scriptures, wherby it appereth that Christ offered him self once for al, &c. thē harkē how you be yeat pressed farder by S. Austen. Hebr. 10. VVhy (saieth he) be al thinges so out of frame, is darcknesse so come to passe to be light and light darkenesse, that Pelagius, Ce­lestius, Ibid. Iulianus, should see: and Hilary, Gregory and Ambrose should be blinde? Why M. Nowel, is the ordre of thinges so in­uerted, that Nowel, Iuell, Grindall, Horne, yea Luther and Caluin if yow will, should see this obiection, and S. Iames, Basile, Athanasius, Hierome, Austen, and he which mo­ueth the same obiection out of the 10. chap. of S. Paule to the Hebrues, Chrilostom him selfe, and answereth thereto, shoulde be blinde and not see it? Thus appeareth it, by how fo. 16. a. 10 good right you ouerthrow our altars, on which the greatest Idolatrie that you feine to haue bene committed, was the [Page 27] oblation of Christes bodye and bloud, which you see to be by the iudgement of the most auncient fathers of Chri­stes churche iustified, and therefore were the examples of Asa, Iosaphat, Ezechias, and Iosias, moste wickedly abused by you for the ouerthrowing of oure altars, and conse­quently that youre doctrine is diuelishe whereby altars are taught to be ouerthrowen, whereby the visible sacrifice of the church is abolished, and suche like.

As for the holie daies how euer you kepe those that be left, you can not denie but that manie a one instituted by the churche you haue put downe, and would count the keping of them now superstitiouse. And as for hymnes and singing in the night if you counted it not superstition: why haue you taken that maner awaye, which Chrisostom Homil. ad popul. An­tioch. 59. witnesseth that the monkes in this time vsed for the moste part of the night? Which singing of theirs in the darcke and whē other were a slepe, he preferred before the melodiou­se harmonie of any musical instrumēt what so euer it were, and therefor to this you haue answered but sclēdrely, saing that you haue such godly and goodly songes in the daye, as though we had song only in the night and not in the day.

Your ministres what maner of men they be I am cōtent to leaue to their iudgemēt who liuing in the realme emō ­gest thē cā better witnesse thereof. Of whose cōning in the English tōgue as much as you brag and deface the latin, as did once a gentlemā in kinge Edward his time, who min­ding to cōmend to Hoper for orders forsoth, one of these mere English brethren, said of him verie sadly, that he was an honest mā, in whō a mā should find no other lacke saue that he had no knowledge in the popish tōgue: yeat could I name you some iwisse, euē the pewterer of Oxford with one eye, that whē he happened vpō the wordes of the prophet. [Page] [...] vpon him, was streight in a greate rage against the papistes, saing that they had corrupted the liuely word of the lord by adding to the texte the worde (ostes: againe that other greate clerke that for Christe is the propitiation &c. reade Christe is the prouo­cation: these I saie with other of like skill in the Englishe tongue manie mo, I coulde name if I thought it nedefull. And all though these haue not perhappes yeat anie greate learned mannes liuing: yeat hathe he, that was made not manye yeres since beleue by these wordes Missa fuit a Co­rintho (which are in some bibles after the ende of the epist­le to the Romaines) that the name of the masse was expres­sely Cole. mentioned in the scripture.

To cloke the better the ignoraunce of youre ministres, Nowell. fo. 17. a. 11. you tell vs, that S. Peter a fisher and S. Paule a tente maker vsed their artes after their calling to the Apostleship, that you muche merueile of my iudgement who doe place Peter the fisher in the highest roume aboue all bishoppes, and can not suffer other honest artificiers sufficiently exercised in the scriptures to haue any place at all in the inferiour ministerie.

Peter was a fisher, and placed aboue all bishop­pes, Dorman. not by me (to take awaye youre merueilinge) Hom il. in Math. 55. but by Christe him selfe, if you beleue Chrisostome, who saieth of him, that Christe promised to make him by these wordes. And I saie vnto the that tho warte Peter &c. being an obscure fisher, the shepeherde and heade of the churche, Matt. 16. that God the Father saing to Hieremias: I haue placed the as an Iron piller, and a brasen wall, made him the gouernour but Herem. 1. of one nation, but that Christe placed Peter ouer all the worlde. Paule had his learning in the scriptures and so had Peter to Note. by inspiration. Will you nowe because after their calling to the Apostleship they vsed their occupations, make this spe­cial [Page] working of God, done of his high [...]dom [...] the princes, and worldly wise of this world, a cloke for eue­ry malapert artificer to brag of the spirit, to clyme into the pulpit, more mete as one no lesse truly then merely saide, to clyme a dawes neast as though Christ vsed now to worke by miracles, as he did thē, and not by ordinarie meanes and degrees. This is a reasō, M. Nowel reiected of al learned mē, but common I confesse to youre apren ministers. Reade the epistle of S. Hierome to Paulinus, and you shall see, that although the Apostles were Theodidacti, yeat men must lo­ke now adayes to come to the knowledge of scripture by exercise and daily meditation.

As for that that you saye they are sufficiently exercised in the scriptures, because no man shall saie that I charge you furder then by them of youre owne side hathe bene acknowledged: call to your remēbraunce the oration made in the conuocation by him that was then prolocutour not longe since, wherein speaking of youre ministres he vttred these wordes: Hodie plerisque locis reperias aut sutorem, aut bu­bulcum, Ianuarij. 13. 1562. aut tonsorem, aut circulatorem & circumforaneum, aut aliquē huiusmodi ministerio adhibitū, qui bonas liter as ne à limi ne quidē vnquā salutarit. At this daye in manie places a man shal finde, either a shoemaker, or a cowhearde, or a barbar, or a iuggler, or a mountebancke ronneagate, or some suche other made ministre, who neuer strided so muche as o­uer the tresshold into the schole where good learning is taught.

Where you saye that we haue burned so many of youre learned clerckes that you are driuen to supply small cures with fol. 17. a. some honest artificiers: surelie loke ouer youre calendre a­gaine and you shal finde, that the greatest nombre of them was of suche craftesmen as we speake of, and that the lear­ned [Page] that passed that waies, were verye fewe to haue furni­shed those cures that youre honest craftes men, be as it is we­re into their shoppes crept into.

Howe the saing of S. Cyprian that heresies and schis­mes rise of the contempt of the bishop which is one, is applied to the B. of Rome. The 6. chapitre.

I saied that it had bene declared by S. Cyprian before, Epistol. 9. Lib. 4. that the diuell in his attemptes against the churche vsed al­waies to beginne with the banishement of the bishop whi­che is one, &c. By this one bishop in this place you saie I make Saint Cyprian vnderstande the B. of Rome. I doe so M. fo. 17. b. 18 Nowel, but not directly or immediatly. You are deceiued much and vnderstād not my meaning if you so thinke. For as I confesse that bothe in the one place and in the other of S. Cyprian, he maie vnderstande the bishoppes and go­uernours of euery particuler churche: so am I not also ig­norant, that youre conclusion. Ergo, there is not one wor­de ment off the bishop off Rome. is moste false. For when S. Cyprian saied in these places that schismes whiche arise by the diuels worcking, where so euer they springe vp, come by the banishing of their auctoritie who be appointed to gouerne the churche (let it be I graunt so muche, of euery bishop in his owne diocesse) might not I who presuppo­sed in this introduction of mine (which in the processe also I proued) that the B. of Rome was the chiefe heade of all other, conclude, that then by a greater reason S. Cyprians minde was that schismes and heresies shoulde come by the forsaking of the B. of Rome, allthough by name he spake not of him. As if for example it were written in the lawes of oure realme. Treasons and rebellyō ryse by the cōtemning of [Page 29] the lieuetenaunt which is one in the Shiere: shoulde he now sa­ye amisse that to exhorte men to abide in the obedience of their prince, woulde reason from the auctoritie of the la­we, that by contempt of the kinge, rebellion the trouble­feast of all good ordre taketh beginning: I thinke no man will so saye. And yeat speaketh not the lawe by name off the king. Allthough no man can denie, but that if the lawe woulde so saie of an inferiour membre, it woulde not let to saie as muche of the chiefe membre of all. Yow will gra­unte youre selfe, that although S. Cyprian named not the B. of Rome, yeat in that sence, as he is bishopp of the dio­cesse of Rome, he ment of him. Which seing you doe, why maie not I, who take him to haue aswell iurisdiction ouer the whole churche, as ouer that of Rome, applye to him by the waye of introduction this place as well as you doe to euery particuler bishop, notwithstanding they be not by name mentioned, which is youre reason here made to the contrary? And thus muche for the applieng of this place to the B. of Rome. And as for the quietnes, peace, secu­ritie, B. 25. plenty of thinges &c. that (yow saye) you haue nowe more then of late vnder the pope: if you meane of youre selfe and youre companions, comparing youre present state with that of late of Geneua, surely I thinke yow saye truthe. Al­though I ment generallie and of the better parte of the re­alme. For allthough you wallow in wealth, and youre selues be so prouided for, either to abide or to flye, with youre banckes as it is supposed all readye made in the marchan­tes handes: although the wooddes wasted, the leade plucked from the greate palaces haules and kitchins (to greate for youre little hospitalitie and small roste) the beneuolences exacted of the pore priestes, haue filled youre coffers: final­ly although youre brattes be prouided of the best fermes [Page] and manours belonging to the churches, to the whi­che by the olde canons (I speake of the children of Con [...]i [...]. To­l [...]an. 9. Can. 10. priestes, for you I vnderstand are but a single solled mi­nistre) they ought to be bond sclaues: yeat are other men pinched and complaine of the lacke of that quietnes, that peace, that securitie, and plenty of thinges that 30. yeares ago they had. For you abuse men to much to compare the time present, with the late time of Quene Marye, in the which neither was the popes auctoritie fully restored with all men, neither would Dauus suffer vs to enioy this quietnes, peace &c, that you speake of: who by violent armes, by sedi­tiouse bokes, by sclaunderouse tongues, by infamouse and lieng libelles, finally by all meanes sought to hindre the sa­me, and to stirre vp the subiect against the prince. And yeat in good sooth the comparison being so made, the oddes is not so cleare as yowe take it to be. But how euer it be M. Nowell, I spake here of no suche worldly respectes as yow woulde seme to make me. I spake and ment of ouerthro­wing of churches and altars, of the contempt of learned men, of the teaching of euil doctrine, of the promoting to ecclesiasticall ministeries, weuers, tynckers, coblers, brome­men &c. I ment of peace and quietnesse in conscience, of simplicitie and vpright dealing betwene man and man, with suche like thinges. Which if youre selfe doe not per­ceiue since oure first reuolt from the pope to be muche empaired, then are yow a piece of deade fleshe and despe­ratly braine sicke. For so saieth Hippocrates of them who being sicke feale not the griefe of their disease. Youre pro­mise to proue that where the pope hath had the greatest auctori­tie, there he hath brought in with him all miseries, mischiefes &c. shall in the place where you perfourme it be answered.

Howe Maximus, Vrbanus and Sidonius, went from the churche by not acknowledging the au­ctoritie of the B. of Rome, and how they returned to the same againe by acknow­ledging it. The. 7. Chapter.

M. Nowell, after that he hath declared that the state of the controuersie betwene Nouatus (whome Maximus, Vrbanus, and Sidonius folowed) and Cornelius the pope, was, which of them two was a catholike bishop holding the tru­the, and truly, and laufully chosen by God, and which was the in­truder, and not of the catholike churche, but an heretike, conclu­deth thus:

Wherefore it is euident, that when M. Dorman saieth, tha [...] Nowell. Fo. 19. a. 32 those men returned againe to the churche by this waye, that is to saye, by the acknowledging Cornelius to be the heade of the vni­uersall churche, he saieth moste vntruly.

Yf you considre well my wordes M. Nowell that went Dorman. last before, and vpon which these depende, you shall finde that I doe here as sence the beginning I haue done, kepe my selfe close to the argument of my preface or introdu­ction. Which is to shewe, that the going from the heade is the cause of all schisme, and the returning to the same the cause of vnitie and concorde. This as it is euident­ly true whether the heade be particuler or generall: so the more that suche heade is generall and vniuersall the more true is it. The schisme hath bene proued by the de­parting of Nouatus the heretike from Cornelius his lau­full head, the B. of Rome: The vnitie is here declared by the returne of Maximus, Vrbanus, and Sydonius from the Lib. 2. epist. 12. faction of Nouatus to pope Cornelius. What nede yow then here to laye to my charge, that I saye vntruly [Page] that these men returned to the churche by acknowledging Cor­nelius to be the heade of the vniuersall churche, which as I saye not in this place, so was it not nedefull that I shoulde. My wordes haue relation to those other where I saye, that we first reuolt frō the church by contemning and not acknow­ledging the heade (without any expresse mention of the he­ade of the vniuersall churche) and that so muste our returne thither againe be by the cōtrary &c. And that so did those that after their falle with Nouatus, S. Cyprian receiued into the church againe. What (So) did they, construe englishe M. Nowell I praye yow) did they not so returne to their heade as they had forsaken him? Doe not yowe confesse as mu­che youre selfe in this verye place? well then this place pro­ueth well that vnitie acknowledged is the ende of diuision, which is the onely marke that I shoote at in this preface. That this vnitie is especially to be considered in the pope, that was not to be showed here, but woulde folowe I knew of it selfe vpō this fundatiō laied, here after, there where the popes auctoritie shoulde of purpose be handled. It cōmeth in by the waye as it were, that the example is founde be­twene the B. of Rome and Nouatus going from his vni­tie, and Maximus returning to it. Any other example would haue serued my turne in this behalfe, but the case standing so, that I had to treate of the B. of Rome, those examples liked me best which being directly of him, might better declare the vnitie and more liuely set furthe the schisme, by how muche the one or the other was greater, as falling from or ioyning with him, who was not a common bishop but the head or chiefe of all other. Although I might well defende that this exāple is suche (as is that which foloweth of Vrsatius and Valens) as maye serue bothe for my prefa­ce to commend vnitie, and for the matter it selfe to proue [Page 31] the popes auctoritie by acknowleding thereof. For you see here that they confessed that there must be one bishop in the catholike churche. Which wordes not withstanding that you labour to drawe to an other sense, and I denie not but that they haue some ambiguitie: Yeat if we considre of whome they were spoken, that is of Cornelius the B. of Ro­me, and successour of Peter, called by Arnobius an auncient writer, Episcopus episcoporū, the bishop of bishopps, it wil not be absurde to thinke, that by that one bishop they mēt the B. In psal. 138. of Rome successour of Peter and so the bishop of bishoppes.

Here because no small vaūtage as you iudge, lieth in the trāslating of these words in ecclesia catholica, you thinke that Nowell. Fol. 20. a. 20. I shoulde haue said, in a catholike church.

In dede if I were of youre minde that the chaire of S. Dorman. Peter were but one emongest manie like or equall, and his churche as one of the rest, the translation might well haue bene vsed that you speake of. But whereas I am resolued and proue it in place, that there is difference betwene S. Pe­ters Lib. 2. de baptis. cōtra Do­nat. Cap. 1. chaire (as hath S. Austen) and the chaires of other bis­shoppes, that the churche of Rome is not onely a catholike churche being taken for a peculier place: but in a true sense also the catholike churche, when it is taken for the mother churche of all Christes flocke, because it is all one to saye the churche of Christ in earthe, and the churche of Ro­me, as by S. Ambrose it is to be proued: who when S. Paule had saide the churche of God to be the piller of truthe, S. Am­brose wel knowing that he spake not of any one church but 1. Timoth. 3 of the whole, doubted not yeat to say cuiís hodie rector est Damasus, whose ruler at this daye Damasus is, who was thā pope: you maye not marueile if I trāslate not the wordes as you doe. The same S. Ambrose in the funerall oration of his brother Satyrus telleth, that minding to receiue the­blessed [Page] sacramēt wherby he had a litle before bene saued frō drowning in the sea, he asked the bishop at whose handes he thought to take it, whether he agreed with other catho­like bishoppes, that is (saieth S. Ambrose) with the churche of Rome. What was this elles but to aske him whether he a­greed with that churche, which because it conteined all ca­tholike bishoppes in her lappe, and none he toke for a ca­tholike but him that agreed with that churche: he iudged to be the catholike church. Yow see therfore M. Nowel that it is no suche absurditie as yow thinke, to translate these wor­des in catholica ecolesia in the catholike church. For what pri­uileage haue you I praye you more then I, that yow maie translate the worde catholicae ecclesiae: of the catholike churche, and that I must englishe the same wordes of a catholike so. 19. b. 8 churche? Or why shoulde it be laufull for you so to translate them twise, when alleaging those wordes of S. Cyprian Episcopo Cornelio in catholica ecclesia, Yow englishe them the second time, the B. C ornelius in the catholike churche, which fo. 20. a. 8 Cipr. li. 3. epist 13. you will not suffer me to doe so much as once? Ah M. No­wel is this euen dealing? Or thinke you when you haue do­ne to colour the matter by a feined rule of youre owne making, which saieth that Episcopus catholicae ecclesiae, and Episcopus in ecclesia catholica are as much to say as a catholike bishop. I graunte that in some places they are so M. Nowell. Will you therefore make a generall rule that they must al­waies be so taken, and in no place otherwise?

Muche like to this is the argument that you make Li. 3. Epist. 11. f. 20. a. 13 to proue that Maximus and his fellowes called not Corne­lius bishopp of the catholike churche in this place here brought by me, Cyprian (saye yow) called not Cornelius bis­shop Li. 3. ep. 13 of the Catholike churche: but bishop Cornelius ordeined in the catholike churche. Ergo, Maximus and his two compa­nions [Page 32] called not Cornelius bishop of the Catholike churche Is not this a goodly kinde of reasoning? Wil you see the li­ke? M. Nowell preached not at Poules crosse that there was no scripture, no councelles, no doctours, no allowed exam­ples of the primitiue churche to proue the supremacye of the B. of Rome, ergo, M. Iuell did not. I thinke M. Iuell wo­ulde giue you a good flice out of his benefice vpon the condition that you coulde proue this consequent to be good. And that thus you reason can you not denie. For the Lib. 3. epi­stol. 11. wordes alleaged by me here out of S. Cyprian be not Saint Cyprian his, but the verie wordes by his owne confession of the pore penitentes. And therefore to bring a phrase out of S. Cyprian to proue that because he did not so saye, the­refore an other did not, if this were all, were a greate faulte in reasoning. But now if the wordes had bene in bothe the places S. Cyprians owne, then had youre reason bene like to this: M. Nowell preaching before the Quenes highnes at the courte saide not that it woulde do him good to rase his buckler vpon a papistes face: ergo, he saied not so at Pow­les crosse.

You obiect againe against this place to be ment of one chiefe bishop ouer the whole churche, that then as there is o­ne Nowell fol. 20. b. 12. onely God and none but he: so there shoulde be but one one­ly bishop and no more but he.

That were true M. Nowell, if as God is the name off a Dorman. moste simple nature and excellencie, so the name of a bis­shop were suche as woulde admitte no degree of dignitie. When it is saide that there is one bishop in the catholike churche, it is ment one chiefe bishop. For it is not necessa­rie that in all pointes this similitude of one God, and one bishop shoulde agree. It ought to suffise you, that the simi­litude standeth vpright in that, wherein the comparison is [Page] made, which is here of gouernement: that as one God go­uerneth heauen and earthe: so there shoulde be one chiefe bishop to gouerne vnder him the churche in earthe. Thus forasmuche as there be degrees in bishoppes, though in God there be naturally none (for by abuse of Idolatres, and by participation of name there be also manie Goddes and manie lordes as witnesseth S. Paule) it is sufficient, that as 1. Cor. 8. there is one God, so there ought to be one chiefe bishop, not excluding the reste, but referring them to their heade, by meanes whereof and in which sense there is one bishop­rike and one bishop. And so consequently it foloweth, that my marginall note of one God: one bishoppe (meaning as you saye I did) was not in vaine.

The next obiection of youres, why in this place these wordes one bishop in the catholike churche, shoulde not be vn­derstand of one especiall bishoppe ouer all: you confirme by S. Cypriā in diuerse places. First by that which he hath of o­ne Nowell. fol. 21. a. 6 Lib. 4. Epist. 9, Bishop in the firste booke the 3. epistle, then by a sentence taken out of his epistle to Pupianus, afterwardes by certaine wordes of his to Antonius, and last of all by that which he hath in his bo­ke de simplicitate praelator. or de vnitate Ecclesiae. not farre from the beginning. To the first two places youre selfe seme not mu­che Dorman. to trust (although folowing the preceptes of youre ar­te you are content to vse them to make a shewe of store) either because youre conscience telleth you that the reason foloweth not. He saieth so in this place: therefore he must nedes saye so in the other, either elles, because youre selfe perceiued, that there is a greate difference betwene these places by re­ason of the worde catholike. For in the place here alleaged, the schismatikes returning to the churche confessed that there must be one bishop in the catholike churche: in these two places auouched by you S. Cyprian saieth that here­sies doo spring or arise by contempt of the bishop whiche [Page 33] gouerneth the churche and is one. Now as the latter wor­des maye according to the circumstances of the place and here are I doubte not, taken for the seuerall heade of euery bishoprike: so the firste can not well otherwise be taken then to exclude all particuler churches, by reason of the worde catholike which signifieth vniuersall, addid thereto: especially the wordes being translated the catholike churche and not a catholike churche, as by youre owne so turning of them and otherlike to them it appeareth they must. Off the thirde place out of the epistle to Antonius you con­clude nothing neither, but turne the matter ouer to the la­ste auctoritie of S. Cypriā, in his boke De simplicitate praelat. where moste plainely (you saye) he declareth his minde of this one bishoprike wholly and equally possessed of all and ouerie bi­shop. Well then at the length M. Nowell from post to piller, you be come thither where you will cast ancre. Where­with I also for my parte am well contented, and desire no better then to be in this controuersie tried by S. Cyprian.

Now showe how S. Cyprian maketh for you, that is, nothing for the B. of Rome his supremacie, but directly against it. For those be the wordes that yow conclude Nowell. fo. 21. b. 25. Lib. de Simplicitat. praelator. Dorman. withall vpon this place. That doe yow after this maner. S. Cyprian saieth that there is one bishoprike which euery bishop hath wholy for his parte. Ergo, consequently all bishoppes be e­quall and no one can be aboue an other. I denie the cōsequent M. Nowell. Will yow knowe why? This worde (episcopatus) comprehendeth here by S. Cyprian his minde, the whole nature of that kinde of gouernement which bishoppes ha­ue, as if in like wise a man shoulde saie: Vnum est sacerdotium there is one priestehode in the churche, which euery pri­este hath wholly for his parte, woulde yow now thinke that vpon this proposition it were well done to conclude of priestes (as yow doe of bishoppes) that therefore because [Page] in nature off priestehode they be all equall, the meanest as trulye and wholly participating the nature thereof as the chiefe, there shoulde be no one priest in dignitie of gouernement aboue the other, and so ouerthrowe the of­fice of archipresbiteri, chiefe priestes, whereof the councell Can. 15. itē Concil. Carthag. 4. can. 17. of Toures in Fraunce aboute the time off Pelagius the first aboue a thousand yeares past maketh mention. But what speke I of priesthode, will yow condemne the who­le churche of Christe for making of Archebishoppes? I thinke yow wil not. And what signifieth this worde Ar­chebishoppe but a chiefe bishop? If there maye be one chiefe bishop in euerye prouince, aboue the rest of his fe­low bishoppes, and yeat no hindrance to the rest or dimi­nishing of their power, that they shoulde not be bishoppes aswell as he, why maye not the same proportion be kept betwene the pope and the rest of the bishoppes of Chri­stendome, that is betwene the archebishop and the other bishoppes of the prouince? But these be but wordes yow saye. Call them what you will, they lacke not reason, and therefore answere them as yow can, for answere them you must, without you will giue ouer in the plaine fielde. But I will ioyne to reason auctoritie, not of any meane writer but euen of S. Austen him selfe, who it is likely vnderstode as well the meaning of S. Cyprian, as yow M. Nowell. I trust yow will not be angry with me for saing so. For as good I saye it as other thinke it. The wordes of S. Austen writing to pope Boniface about the resisting of the Pela­gians heresie, are these. Cum verò non desinant fremere ad do­minici gregis caulas, atque ad diripiendas tanto praetio redemptas Lib. 1. cō ­tra duas epist. Pe­lag. Cap. 1. oues aditus vndecunque rimari, communisque sit omnibus nobis qui fungimur Episcopatus officio, quamuis ipse in eo praemineas celsiore fastigio speculae pastoralis, facio quod possum pro mei par­ticula [Page 34] muneris&c. Nowe whereas the heretikes ceasse not to gnash and whett their teethe at the foldes of our lordes flocke, and by all meanes possible to searche out, where they maye finde any entraunce to spoyle those shepe, that haue bene so dearely raunsomed, and the bishoprike the office whereof we susteine is common to vs all, although your selfe haue the preeminence therein, by reason of the higher toppe of the pastorall watche tower: I doe what I can for that pece of charge which is commited to me, as much as oure lorde by the helpe of youre prayers vouchesauffeth to giue me, to withstand their pestilent and deceitfull writinges by other that shall be bothe who­lesom and defensiue, whereby either the rage wherewith they are starcke madde, maye be vtterly cured, or at the One bis­hoprike common to all, ex­cludeth not one B. to be a­boue all the rest. least kept frome hurting of others. These be the wordes of S. Austen, who confesseth with S. Cyprian, that the office of a bishoppe is cōmon to al bishoppes with the pope, and yeat condemneth notwithstanding most plainely youre consequent falsely brought in there vpon, Therefore all bi­shoppes be aequall and none aboue an other. For you haue hearde, that the pope Boniface, to whome he wrote, was aboue all the rest in expresse wordes. Thus is this conclu­sion of youres. Euery bishopp hath in solidum, that is to saye, fo. 22. a. b. fully and wholy that one bishopricke or bishoply function and office. ergo no one can haue more than the whole, and therefore no one can be aboue all other, by grauntinge the consequent to be true touching the nature and substaunce of a bisho­pes auctoritie and office, but denieng it to folow in preemi­nence and dignitie, shewed to be a false conclusion.

But yeat yow goe forwarde and saie, that this one bishop­rike Nowell. a. 25. is diuided aequally emongest all bishoppes, as faithe and baptisme are aequally and wholy deuided emongest the faithful baptised, and that therefore as no one man hath any superioritie In solidum [Page] in baptisme or faith aboue other truely faithfull and baptised, so hath no one bishop superioritie ouer other bishoppes, &c.

S. Cyprian maketh not his comparison here betwene Dorman. faithe, baptisme and the whole bishoprike of the churche, otherwise then in this respect that eche of them is one, and the point that he compareth them in, is this, that as baptis­me is one, as the faith of all faithful christiās is one, and yeat al faithful and baptised haue not aequall auctoritie in gouer­nement, so the bishoprike is one, that as no man hath su­perioritie in baptisme or faithe to be more a faithfull man or more baptised thē an other: so no bishop hath of the one bishoprike common to all touching the true nature and substance of bishoply ordre, more superioritie of being a bishop then an other, but all bishoppes a lyke, the one as truely a bishop as the other touching ordre, although as you heard before out of S. Austen, the pope altius praeemi­net, hathe the higher preeminence, that is to say, is in higher auctorite of iurisdictiō then other bishoppes are. Thus mu­che touching youre surmised comparison, which if it shoulde haue bene made, as you imagine, then must yow either condemne S. Cyprian him selfe for bearing the name of an Archebishop, or feine, that there is also an archebap­tisme to set against the dignitie of archebishoprike, off the which two as no good man will doe the firste, so no wi­seman will thinke the last. But howe so euer yowe take the matter M. Nowell, there is no comparison ma­de in this place, till yowe come to the sentence, Epis­copatus vnus est, there is one bishoprike. For the better knowledge whereof, it is to be vnderstande, that the thing which in this place S. Cyprian laboureth to persuade, is (bo­the in the bishoprike and in the churche) vnitie. To proue this he vseth a cōparison, in this wise. Episcopatus vnus est, [Page 35] &c. Ecclesia vna est, quomodo solis multi radij, sed lumen vnum &c. The bishoprike is one etc. The church is one, euen as many sonne beames make one light etc. But now let vs exa­mine some one of these seuerall comparisons, and you shall see, how litle this worde in solidum, wholly, maketh for your pretensed aequalitie emongest all bishoppes, and whether S. Cyprian ment as you do, or no.

Imagine you therfore with S. Cypr. this whole bishoprike The bis­shoprike of the churche compared to a tree. of the church to be a tree, the brāches wherof be the bishop pes seuered, the bodie of the tree the same bishoppes ioyned together, the roote, the chiefe bishoppe that holdeth thē to­gether. Except this be the meaning of S. Cyprian, you can not make this comparison agree. For the waye to make the things cōpared agree, is (because of thē selues both the bowes of the tree, and bishoppes of the church are many) to reduce thē to one beginning. And as the same thing that maketh the tree one is a membre and parte thereof: so must that which shall make the bishoprike one, be a mēbre of the same bishoprike, that is to saye, a bishop, although in that respect that he is a parte of the same bodie, equall with the rest, as the roote by being of one cōmon substāce with the bodie and brāches, is aboue the other partes of the tree not­withstāding, because they are all made one thereby; and take theire life thereof, as appeareth at the eye. For cut away the roote and the bodie perisheth: Take awaye the roote of this bishoprike, that one chiefe bishop, which conioyneth all in one, you shall see so many schismes, as there be bishoppes, and so shall all come to naught. Thus maye appere, how litle the worde, in solidum, wholy, whereby you would wrest S. Cyprian to a forced meaning of youres, to saye, that be cause euery bishop had a part of this bishoprike wholy, the­refore they were all equall in that bishoprike, maketh for [Page] you, whereas in this tree compared to the whole bishopri­ke of the churche, all and euery bowe thereof hath of that common life which is in it, parte thereof in solidum, wholly, as well as the roote, which conteineth them together, and the roote hath but his parte of that life in solidum no more then hath the least branche there, and yet is the chiefe par­te of the tree for all that. Thus you see, how euen by S. Cyprians owne auctoritie, you be cast in your own turne. And loke what hath bene sayed of the tree, the same may be sayed of the light of the sonne, or of many riuers comming frome one heade spring.

As for that, that you note me of falsehoode for remo­uing of the worde Sanct [...]ssimae, frome his place, and chan­ging fo. 19. b. 4 it into Sanctissimum, for the remouing of any word, that is a false lye. For it is you that place the word Sanctissi­mum A lye. 20. out of his ordre, putting it before Episcopum, whereas it shoulde and dothe folowe in S. Cyprian after, and not I. As for the worde Sanctissimae changed in to Sanctissimum, I confesse, that the best bookes reade otherwise. Which faulte either I committed by following some copye, which had so, either els as it is a thinge easely done in writing, by taking out the place amisse. For to doe it of sett purpose as youre spiders nature, whiche is to turne all into poyson, surmiseth, what vauntage shoulde I haue gotten thereby? If such titles would helpe, I coulde haue brought furth the Aug. epist. 90. et 92. epistles of the fathers of the councels of Carthage, and Mi­leuet, where in their seuerall letters, they vse oftentimes to the pope, the worde Sanctitas tua, your holynesse, with di­uerse other to that effect.

To conclude the matter (you saie) that Maximus and his Nowell. fo. 22. b. in fin. fellowes had a controuersie with Cornelius altogether diuerse frome oures, and therefore that their example apperteineth no­thing 1 [Page 36] thing to this case of the Popes supremacie, which then was neither moued nor knowen. And againe, that being priestes of Rome, it 2 was no merueile, thoughe they reconciled them selues to theire owne bishop whome they had offended.

For the first, what controuersie so euer they had it ma­keth Dorman. no matter. For heretikes they were, and went from the 1 communion of the bishop of Rome, whether as heade off the church, or their peculier bishop and Diocesan, I care not. This is that which I entendid here to proue, that they forsoke their heade, and so fell into schismes, oute of the whiche it is impossible for any to rise without they ioyne them selues to their heade againe, as these did here. And iff they were priestes of Rome, as I thinke they were not, 2 but suche as at that time folowed Nouatus in Rome, yeat maketh this still thus farre for me, that euery schisme must be holpen by returning to the heade, what so euer he be. Which is the thing (to make you with often repeating to vnderstande it) which I seeke in this place. For I am here in my preface, where euē as in my first proposition it is inou­gh to proue that it is expediēt to haue one heade in Chri­stes church to gouerne the same, although I proue it not of the B. of Rome: so is it here sufficiēt to proue that heresies beginne by forsaking the heade, and that they must ende by returning to the same, though I name not any heade by na­me. Although for any thing that hath bene saied to the cō ­trarie, I might defende, that euen in this place the same is proued in the Bishop of Rome the generall head of all.

That the recantation of Vrsatius and Valens offred vp to Iulius then pope maketh muche for the Bishop of Ro­mes Supremacy. The 8. Chapitre.

Doth not M. Nowell thinke you good readers playe the M. Nowel answereth to that which no man obie­cteth. mery man, bothe with you and me and all the worlde besi­de in the handling of this place of Vrsatius or Vrsitus and Valens? First while he maketh me to reason of the titles that these two bishoppes vsed in their libell of recantation, and then solemly confuteth my reasons by other out of Saint Augustin and S. Ciprian, with double epithetons for my sin­gle, whereas I haue no suche one worde. Next in cōcluding the whole matter to recreate your foreweried spirites and to sende euery man to his home in loue and charitie, with a fitte of mirthe. For his musike rewarde you him as you shall see cause, for, for youre sakes it was and not mine. To his answeres to my reasons of the titles of beatissimus Dominus Papa the moste blessed lorde pope, or what so euer el­les, I will replye when that or anie other shall be proued to be mine. In the meane season to this reason off his: Vrsatius and Valens offred vp their recantation to Athanasius the Nowell. fol. 23. b. 22. bishop of Alexandria: ergo, This maketh as muche for the Supre­macy of Athanasius as it doth of Iulius the Pope, because it ha­the some apparence, I will here make answere. First I saye Dorman. M. Nowell that the antecedent, that is, that they offered in 1 like maner their recantations to Athanasius is a manifeste A lye. 19. lye: then, that if it were true, that yeat the conclusion doth not folowe, and so the reason is faulty. For the first, let Ni­cephorus 2 be examined, whome you here alleage in two pla­ces, the 9. boke the 13. and the 27. chapitres. I meane the 27. for in the other chapitre there is no worde of that matter, and so shall it appeare whether you be a lyer or no. Nice­phorus hath, that to Iulius the B. of Rome they offered li­bellum poenitentiae, a libell of their repentance: of Athanasius he saieth no more, but onely that after their reconciliation to the pope they wrote lettres to him, signifieng that they [Page 37] were nowe quieted, and agreed in communion with him whome before they had so cruelly persecuted. Of their re­cantation, which is vnderstand by the worde Libellus poe­nitentiae, he mentioneth no worde at all. But let vs now cō ­pare together the wordes, first in the libell offred to the po­pe, and then in the lettres sent to Athanasius. To the pope they saie, Beatissimo domino papae Iulio Vrsitius & Valens. To the moste blessed Lorde, pope Iulius, Vrsitius and Valens. To Athanasius they write: Domino fratri Athanasio episcopo, Vrsitius & Valens episcopi. To oure Lorde and bro­ther Athanasius the bishop, Vrsitius and Valens bishoppes. I doe not here vrge these wordes as you bring me in at youre pleasure M. Nowell (To the moste blessed Lorde &c.) to proue thereby the popes supremacy, but I will here note to the reader in this comparison, the familier kinde of wri­ting to the one, calling him brother, and the reuerent ma­ner of writing to the other, where of reuerēce they abstei­ned from that worde. To Athanasius they called them 1 selues bishoppes: To Iulius they vsed their propre names without all titles. And will yow knowe the cause why? VVhy Vrsitius and Valēs called not Iulius the Pope bro­ther. Forsoth whē they wrote to Iulius, they knewe them selues to stande at his mercye as men that were oute of the chur­che, therefore neither durst they call him brother being a catholike bishop and chiefe of all other, neither them selues bishoppes, hauing made them selues vnworthy that name. But as sone as they were pardoned of the pope, in their let­tres sent to Athanasius, they vsed boldly the titles of bro­ther and bishop. Whereby maye easelie be gathered that it was no recantation that they sent to Athanasius. In the 2 recantation offred to Iulius, they professe to desire to be in communion with Athanasius. This request (saye they to him) we trust you will not denie, praecipuè quum pietas tua [Page] pro insita sibi integritate gratiā nobis erroris facere est dignata. Nicephor. li. 9. ca. 27. especially seing that youre godlines according to that na­turall vprightnes which is in you, hath pardoned vs allrea­dy oure faulte. They adde furder, that if these of the Easte 3 churche woulde wickedly, yea if Athanasius him selfe Note. woulde call them into the lawe touching these matters, that without his consent they woulde not goe. Finally 4 they abiure Arrius the heretike with all his fautours: In the letters to Athanasius there is no renouncing of the Arrians heresie: there is no mention of pardon, neither of anie thing elles, but that he might vnderstande that they were nowe reconciled. Whereas if they had conteined a recan­tation, the matters shoulde (no doubte) in as ample maner haue bene specified, as in that to Iulius they were. The Tripartite historie saieth, that these men offered to Iulius, libellum poenitentiae, their recantation in writing, and that to Lib. 4. cap. 34. Athanasius, miserunt literas, seqùe ei deinceps communicare pro­fessi sunt: they sent lettres, and professed that they woulde communicate with him hereafter. Of all other Epiphanius writeth of this matter moste plainely. His wordes are these. Vrsatius ac Valens vnà cum libellis profecti ad B. Iulium Ro. Lib. 2. hae­resi. 68. episcopum pro ratione reddenda de suo errore ac delicto, qúod ca­lumnias struxissent papae Athanasio: At suscipe inquiunt nos ad communitatem ac ad poenitentiam. Sed & ad ipsum Athana­sium ijsdem conscriptis confirmationibus vsi sunt propter poeni­tentiam, that is to saie: Vrsatius and Valens going together with their libelles to Iulius the B. of Rome to giue ac­count of their errour, and faulte for that that they had gone about to entrappe Athanasius: But receiue vs (saie they) to the communion and to penaunce. Yea and to Athanasius him selfe they vsed the same confirmations for penaunce. Lo M. Nowell one of the places that I of set purpose B. 31. [Page 38] woulde not note, least my fraude might be perceiued in al­leaging that which made nothing to the matter. Maketh it 1 not to the matter that these two being bishoppes of the East churche, shoulde vpon the forsaking of their heresies take on them so long a iorney, offre them selues to suche daungers by sea and by lande, to their no small costes and charges, to make their submission in writing, which they might haue sente, and auoided all those difficulties by tari­eng them selues, (as they did in writing to Athanasius) at home, if the B. of Rome had bene but equall to Athanasius and had had no more to doe in the matter then he? Is it 2 impertinent that they confesse of the pope, that he hath pardoned them their faulte, whereas of Athanasius there is no such worde? Or is it lightly to be estemed that they pro­mise 3 to doe nothing in those matters of their faithe, not at the calling of the bishoppes of the Easte or Athanasius him selfe, without the popes consent? Is it not to the pur­pose 4 that they went to the pope to giue an accompt of their errour, and fault committed against Athanasius, that 5 they desired of the pope to be receiued to penaunce, and wrote to Athanasius for their penaunce?

Well by this I trust it appeareth, that as I had no cause to cōceale these places, as though (as you saie) I feared lest the­reby it would fal out that the world should vnderstand my guile in alleaging that which made not to the purpose: so, that it is you, who in saing that Vrsatius and Valēs offred vp their recantation aswell to Athanasius as to Iulius, haue to furder youre heresie made an impudent lye, and fathered Li. 9. ca. 27. that vpon Nicephorus which is not in him, and thought to dor vs and out face vs to with a carde of tē. Beside this I say as I saied before, that if it had bene true, that they had made their recantation to Athanasius also, that yeat the conse­quent [Page] foloweth not, that then the B. of Alexandria shoulde haue bene by this meanes aswell heade of the churche as Iulius. For what letteth why the pope might not enioine them after their recantation made at Rome, to make the same againe to the propre bishop of that place where their heresies were moste notoriouse? Or how is this any dimi­nishing of his auctoritie? The force of this example consi­steth VVherin the force of the ex­ample of Vrsitius and Valēs dothe consiste. in this, that being bishoppes so farre from Rome, they should skippe Alexandria and come to Rome: why they we­re reconciled at Rome first, and then in Alexandria after­ward. So that, what letteth now to conclude as I did: By this meanes returned they to the church &c. What letteth me to re­ply to youre: I toke my harp into my hande and twang quoth A twang of M. No­welles harpe. my stringe a: Youre stringe is broken betwene youre handes, and where is now youre twang a? O M. Nowell, when you thought with suche a seely twang of youre harpe as this is, to shift youre hādes of this graue and weighty testimonie, you thought belike withal so to bring all the worlde a sle­pe with that sweete melodie, or rather as Orpheus is repor­ted by the poetes to haue by the musike of his harpe mo­ued wooddes, mountaines, and rockes, to appease the furye of wilde beastes, so contrary wise by that sweete noise off youres, to make wise men suche tame fooles, by a strange metamorphosis so to turne them into blockes and stones, as that they shoulde not be hable to perceiue youre vneuen dealing. Surely in my pore conceite yow littell regarded youre calling, yow muche empaired your name, in answe­ring thus lewdely. Was this deanlike? Was this preacherlike? Was this minister like? Nay truly it was minstrellike.

That the places hetherto alleaged, are not im­pertinent to the Popes auctoritie. The. 9. Chapter.

Although I haue heretofore in the seuerall defence off euery one of these places, saide so much as maye suffice for the iustifieng of them to be alleaged to the purpose, yeat doth youre Rhetoricall repeating of them here, enforce also me to trouble the reader therewith againe. I saye therefore as I did before, that if the going out of the churche be by the rebelling of the deacon or prieste against his bishop, as S. Cypriā saide in the case of the deacon disobeieng his bis­shop Rogatianus: if Pupianus ought to reconcile him selfe to Cyprian his bishop and metropolitan, that then by this rea­son of S. Cyprian, muche more ought the going out of the church to be by the Deacon, prieste▪ or bishoppes rebelling against the Pope the chiefe bishop of al other: muche more ought they to reconcile their selues to him, who is chiefe shepherd of their soules in earthe. If S. Basile spake of the bishoppes in the east churche, it is but a sory shift to saye, that his wordes maye not be extendid to all rulers where so euer they be. If Nouatus sware men to sticke to his here­sie, to take him and not Cornelius for their bishop, he sware men against the Pope and so do you. If Maximus, Vrbanus and Sidonius reconcile them selues to their owne Romaine bishop whome they had vniustly forsaken, yow must doe the like to him being your bishop (although not so immedi­atly) whome you haue as vniustly forsaken. If Vrsatius and Valens offred onely their recantations to Iulius and not to Athanasius as I shewed before, then haue you made a lye, and so bothe this auctoritie and the other are not imperti­nent but to the purpose.

An answere to suche lyes, scoffes, sclaunders, falsefied auctorities, and other cancred matter as M. Nowel in the 25. 26. 27. and 28. lea­ues, hath powred oute a­gainst the Popes. The. 10. Chapter.

As I minde not to defende the euill maners of Popes, as neither of temporall princes if any haue gouerned euill, and haue abused perhappes the power giuen to them by God: so will I neither measure their auctoritie by their liues as did the frantike Donatistes, and Anabaptistes doe, nei­ther reueale the turpitude of my father as did wicked Chā, Gen. 9. neither iudge my heade as is the maner of heretikes and schismatikes to doe, as witnesseth S. Cyprian, as hath bene said before, applied thē to the same sense that it is now. For Li. 4. ep. 9 of this am I suer, that how euil so euer their liues be: how far so euer they abuse the auctoritie giuen to thē, yeat shall that nothing preiudicate the churche, nor hurt the innocēt Chri­fliās. If these were my words I cā gesse what were like to be youre answere, but being not myne but S. Augustine his, nor his so, but that they be grounded vpon the wordes of Christe: truly if I were my selfe an heretike, I confes­se I knowe no waye to auoide them. The wordes of S. Au­gustine after that he had rehersed by name, all the popes that were from S. Peter to Anastasius time, 39. in nombre, emongest whome▪ there was he saide no one Donatist to be founde, are these: In illum autem ordinem episcoporum qui Epist. 165. ducitur ab ipso Petro vsque ad Anastasium qui nunc eandem ca­thedram sedet, etiamsi quisquàm traditor per illa tēpor a subrepsis­set, nihil praeiudicaret ecclesiae & innocentibus Christianis, quibus Dominus prouidens, ait de praepositis malis, quae dicūt facite, &c. Vt certa sit spes fidelis, quae nō in homine sed in domino collocata, nū (que) tempestate sacrilegi schismatis dissipetur, that is to saye. In to this range of bishoppes drawen from Peter him selfe to Anastasius which now sitteth in the same seate, althoughe some betrayour had within that compasse crepte in: yeat [Page 40] shoulde this nothing haue preiudicate the churche and in­nocent Christians, for whome oure Lorde prouiding fa­ieth of euill heades. Do what they bid yow doe, &c. That Matth. 23. the hope of the Christian man maye be sure, whiche being groun­ded Note. not vpon man but vpon God, can not by wicked schisme be scattred.

This place good Reader, as it maye serue the for a lesson to beware how thou rashely iudge of their doinges whome God hathe so especially priuileaged: so ought it to be no small comfort to all true Christians to thinke, that god hath prouided for them suche a heade to direct them here, as whose iudgement, what euer his lyfe be, they are sure can not be false: and maye withall serue for an answere to all suche spottes as M. Nowell here, and other elles whe­re (were they all true and muche worse then they speake of) haue noted in the popes manners to ouerthrowe their auctoritie. Whereby allso standeth that proposition of mi­ne fol. 25. a. 15. saulfe, ment of thinges concerning his office: the pope commaundeth it, ergo it must be obeyed: if S. Augustine haue a­nye credite with vs: if Christ maye be beleued. Who beside the wordes alleaged by S. Augustine, hath giuen vs also an other moste sure staye to grounde oure selues vpon, when Lucae. 22. he assureth vs, that Petres faithe shall not faile, whiche al­though it please you M. Nowel in youre swinishe eloquen­ce, to saye that it pertaineth as muche to the pope as dothe a saddell to a sowe, yeat was S. Bernard (to alleage him ra­ther then anie other, for that youre selfe in this place bring him in against the pope, and M. Horne I am credibly en­fourmed gaue to him not longe since, in the vniuersitie of Oxford suche praise, as that he hath it is supposed not a lit­tle enflamed the hartes of diuerse younge men, to the stu­die of that blessed author) of a farre other iudgement [Page] then you are. For he writing to Innocētius the pope, after salutatiōs beginneth his epistle thus. Oportet ad vestrum re­ferri Epist. 190 Ap [...]stolatum pericula quaeque & scandala emergentia in regno Dei, ea praesertim quae de fide contingunt. Dignum nan­que arbitror ibi potissimum resarciri damna fidei, (vbi non possit fides sētire defectū. Haec quippe huius praerogatiua sedis. Cui enim Lucae. 22. alteri aliquando dictum est: Ego pro te rogaui Petre vt non de­ficiat fides tua? Ergo quod sequitur à Petri successore exigitur, Et tu aliquando conuersus confirma fratres tuos. That is to saye. All daungers and offences rising in the kingdome of God must be referred to youre apostleship, those especial­ly which concerne the faithe. For there doe I thinke it to Note. be moste mete that the hurtes of faithe shoulde be redres­sed, where faithe is sure not to faile. For suche is the prero­gatiue of this seate. For to what other was it euer saied: I haue praied for the Peter that thy faithe maye not faile? There­fore that which foloweth is demaunded of Peters successour. And thow being once conuerted strengthen thy brethern. Hetherto S. Bernard, against whose learning and life as you can take no exception: so haue youre selfe clered him of all suspi­tion of flatterye, by those wordes which so frely and franc­kly without all dissimulation he vttred to pope Eugenius. Which maketh not a little for his faithe and vprightnesse in applieng this text as he doth. This you well perceiuing, either elles to shewe youre selfe learned in the canon La­wes, attribute rather to Bonifacius the 8. those wordes Ecc [...] duo gladij, then to S. Bernard whose they are in dede vttred fol. 25. b. 13. Lib. 4. ad Eugen. in this sorte. Quid tu denuo vsurpare gladium tentes, quem se­meliussus e [...] ponere in vaginam. Quem tamen qui tuum nega [...] non satis mihi videtur attendere verbum domini dicentissic. Con­uerte gladium tuum in vaginam. Tuus ergo & ipse: tuo forsitan nutu etsi non tua manu euaginandus, &c. VVhy then does thow [Page 41] assaye to vsurpe the sworde which thow wast once bidden to putt vp into thy sheate? VVhiche yeat he that denieth to be thine, se­meth not to me well to considre the worde of oure Lorde saing: put vp thy sworde into thy scabbard. The sworde is therefore thi­ne, to be drawen out at thy becke percase, although not by thyne owne hande. Otherwise if it shoulde haue perteined to the no wa­ye, oure Lorde woulde not haue answered to his Apostles saing. Beholde here two swordes: it is enough, but he woulde haue an­swered, it is to muche. Bothe the swordes therefore belong to the churche, the spirituall and the materiall: but this is to be occu­pied for the churche, that of the churche. Thus muche S. Ber­nard, which wordes notwithstanding I confesse, and those other also of the prophete Hieremias: Behold this daye do I Cap. 1. set the ouer people and kingdomes, Bonifacius modestly appli­eth B. 18. to the churche and ecclesiasticall power, and to the po­pe no otherwise but as to the chiefe ministre of this power, Cap. vinc. de maiorit. & obed. extrauag. com. as appeareth by this conclusion, Ergo si deuiat terrena pote­stas iudicabitur a spirituali. If the earthly power therefore be out of the waye it shalbe iudged of the spirituall.

By this it appeareth, that what so euer S. Bernarde hath written or spoken against the pompe and abuse of the B. of Romes auctoritie, that yeat by his example we are taught this lesson, not to cut of oure heade because it aketh. And therefore him selfe when he had saide all that you are wont to bring against the abuses of the courte of Rome in his ti­me, yeat he confessed, that as in heauen angelles and archan­gelles, De consi­derat ad Eugen. li. 3 Seraphins and Cherubins are disposed vnder one heade which is God: that so here also vnder one high bishop, be prima­tes, patriarches, archebishoppes, bishoppes, priestes, abbattes, with the rest in like maner, which head in how manie places of his worckes dothe he call the B. of Rome?

Yoy saye that the popes bragge that they haue in the box off Nowell. fo. 25. a. 8. their bosoms all scriptures, all interpretation of doctours, &c.

The popes that yow name are Boniface the 8. and Dorman. Paule the 2. The place of Boniface is you saie sext. Decre­ta. lib. 10. tit. 2. cap. licet. Yow shoulde haue saide primo. No greate faulte I confesse if there were either so manie bokes and not onelie fiue, or if yow vsed not so rigorously to note suche scapes in other men youre selfe, laing to their charge that they meane to entangle the readers that their fraude (yow saye) maie not be espied. Whereas surely in you there might be greate cause to thinke no lesse. For what? Doth Bonifacius saie in this place that he hathe all the lawes in his brest? No truly doth he not. But he saieth A lye. 21. that pontifex Romanus censetur habere. The B. of Rome is iudged or presumed to haue, although sometimes it maye otherwise happen. I merueile that you remembred not the chapitre beginning praeterea in the decrees, where the B. of Rome hath, speaking of lawes, that he neuer reade any suche thing, except by forgetfulnes he be deceauid, wher­by Dist. 22. you might haue vnderstode, that some time by the po­pes owne confession it maie happen otherwise. But if he had saied as you saie he did, had he done anye otherwise then borowed a phrase of the emperours Honorius and L. omnium C. de testā. How▪ ru­lers are vnderstandē to haue the lawes in their breastes. Theodosius, who vsed first the same? Whereby is signified, that suche states by reason of their learned councell, which they haue allwaies about them ready to instructe them, are presupposed to haue the lawes ripe in their remembraunce. As for Paulus the seconde, I maruell how it happeneth that Platina maie be allowed to be a witnes against him, A 19. professing in his life so little good will towardes him, for the putting him out of his office, seing yow are in the ex­amining of other witnesses so harde. But let it be true that [Page 42] Platina saieth hardely, it maketh to oure purpose neither of nor on.

It is a worthy thing to be reade in Platine you saie, how Gre­gory Nowell. b. 26. Matth. 16. the 7. vpon these wordes what so euer thow doest binde or lose vpon the earthe shall be bounde or losed in heauen, gathereth this reason, that muche more the bishoppes of Rome in earthe maye take awaye and giue empires, kingdomes, principates, and what so euer mor­tall men haue elles.

It is a worthy thing to be noted, howe you continue Dorman. allwaies like youre selfe, in feeding the reader with vaine matter nothing to the purpose, and alleaging suche places as yow bring otherwise then they are in the Originalls from whence you take them. For loke in Platine once a­gaine, and you shall finde, that the wordes be not so odiouse as you woulde haue them seme to be. For whereas you affirme them to be spoken of the Pope, Platine hath, that the B. of Rome spake them of Peter and Paule. Howe euer it be, it is no pointe to be reasoned here as being, impertinent to oure principall question of one heade, beside that (as I protested in the beginning of this chapitre) if these wordes or anie other like were vntruly or arrogantly spo­ken, yeat they coulde derogate nothing from the auctoritie otherwise laufull.

Yow care not what you saye, nor how shamefull or sclaunderouse youre lies be, so that yow maye satisfie youre cancred hatred against the Pope, as appeareth here by this, that you woulde make men beleue, that Iulius the third f. 25. b. 2 [...] caused to be stamped on his coyne, these wordes: the nation and people that shall not serue me shall perishe: as though mēt Hierem. 1. of him selfe, whereas you might haue aswell saied that they were to be referred to the monie it selfe, as though all the worlde should be sclaues to monie, and yeat neither of the­se [Page] the true meaning of it. But if his coyne had anie suche in­scription, as it maye be doubted for anie proufe that yow here auouche M. Nowell to proue it, the meaning was ra­ther this, that that coyne apperteining to the church shoul­de beare vpon it that prophecy, whiche was spoken of the churche, as a posy moste meetest for that place, specially the maner of that See being, to stampe on the one side of their coyne the image of Petre and Paule.

The pope maye be blamed of no mā doe he neuer so much hurt Nowell. fo. 26. a. 5. Dist, 50. cā. si. papa Dorman. you saie. Although the worde from whence yow gather this, be redarguere, blame or reproue: yeat the wordes which folowe, conteining the reason of the canon, are, a nemine est iudicandus, that is, he is to be iudged of no­ne, and so they doe vs to vnderstand, that laufull and reue­rent admonishing the pope of his faultes is not forbidden to his brethern, but as laufull for them to doe now, as it was for S. Paule euer, but only the iudging of him. And except this were the true meaning of the word redarguere in this place, surely a homely sense were it to saye. The pope must be blamed of no mā because he cā be iudged of no mā. Your other place alleaged out of the glose yow vnderstode as e­uill as you did the texte. The texte and the glose bothe Extranag. Iuan. 22. cap. fin. de Conces. praeb. speake in that place of the deuiding of certeine churches vnited together: in which thinges saieth the glose no man maye be so hardye to aske the pope why he dothe so. Because in those thinges that belong to the positiue lawe he maye dispense as shall reasonably please him. Thus be the wordes of the glose to be vnderstanden and restreined, which it becommeth yow as handsomly to talke of, as doth a golde ring the groine of a sow. But it is a token that diui­nitie goeth lowe with yow, and is at a very ebbe when yow fall to the alleaging of lawe. Remembre the prouerbe M. [Page 43] Nowel. Ne Sutor vltra crepidam.

Youre text, Principes gentium &c. Princes of nations beare rule ouer them: but yow shall not so, but he that will be chiefe let a. 14. Math. 20. Lucae. 22. him be youre seruant &c. with the rest that folow, taketh not awaye auctoritie to rule from the cleargie, but ambitiouse and tiranouse ruling, as appeareth by S. Bernard, who allea­ging this very text to Eugenius the Pope, saieth notwith­standing in the same booke: Habent illi sibi assignatos greges, singuli singulos: tibi vniuersi crediti vni vnus Nec modo ouium sed & pastorum tu vnus omniū pastor. They haue their propre flocke assigned vnto thē, euery one one: to the being one all are cōmitted in one, neither only arte thow the only shep­herd of the shepe, but of the shepherdes to. The apostles thē selues ruled they not because they wer seruāts? What maner of seruile slauish seruice yow would haue the pope brought to I wote not: but S. Paule serued I wote well his maisters so, the Corinthiens, that he asked them whether he should come to thē with the rodde. He gaue some of them to the 1. Co. 4. 1. Cor. 5. 1. Ti. 1. Act. 5. diuell. S. Peter was such a seruant that Ananias and Saphyra his wife he punished by deathe. If yow saie yow denie not this power but speake against the abuse, of that yow harde my minde before, and I thinke all good men be of the sa­me, who praye moste earnestlie (the onely remedye that Christe hath left vs in this case) that suche as abuse the same maye acknowledge the faulte and spedely redresse it. So shall their mouthes be stopped, who when they can saie nothinge against the power it selfe, are driuen to picke qua­relles and finde faultes in the ministers thereof,

If you shoulde make a voiage to Rome to the pope, to tell him beside the textes of scriptures that you haue allea­ged, which are, Principes gentium, &c. Nolite vocari Rabbi, &c. Vos omnes fratres estis. Ne sitisseu dominium exercentes in [Page] cleros: that by the doctours also and councelles he is forbidden to Nowell fol. 27. a. b. 7. vse suche tyrannicall power, yow shoulde yow saye profite no more by suche allegations, then by the allegation of the scripture it selfe.

Why you should doe wel to proue it M. Nowel. It is not Dorman. vnlikely, but that so eloquent a man as you are, and there­to so well practised in the Popes owne gloses, were like su­relye to be admitted to his speache, and to persuade verye muche. Well you will not putt the matter in trial you saye, fearing lest by that meanes you might be canonized in M. Foxes calendre, and shrined in his dounghill, and therefore you are contented to bring furth your doctours and coun­celles against me, whome yow take I doubt not to be the popes proctour. Youre councelles are the councell off Car­thage, a. 22. Cipr. in cō ­cil. Carth. and an other whole councell allso you saie, although you name no other neither brokē nor whole. Your doctours S. Cyprian and S. Augustine. Whiche councelles and doctours Aug. lib. 2. contra Do­nat. cap. 2. saye thus muche: Nemo nostrum episcopum se episcoporum con­stituit &c. None of vs maketh him selfe bishop of bishoppes, or do­the by tyrannnicall feare force his fellowes to the necessitie off o­being, seing euery bishop hath according to the licence of his liber­tie, and power, his owne iudgement, as he that can not be iudged of an other, seing that him selfe can not iudge an other. These be the wordes of the councell: these be the wordes of Saint Cyprian and S. Augustine, which serue as muche for your purpose, as doth a rammes horne to make a flight.

For the better declaration whereof it is to be vnderstan­de, that as these wordes were spoken by Saint Ciprian in a prouincial councell that fell into an errour, so was the me­aning of them to auaunce the opinion of S. Cyprian tou­ching the rebaptising of those that had bene baptised by heretikes, which doctrine is now condemned by the chur­che [Page 44] for an heresie. To bring this the better to passe, he tel­leth them first, that he had receiued lettres from Iubaianus a bishop, who although he were before of a contrary opi­nion, was now come to his parte. It remaineth (saieth he) that euery one of vs show his minde what he thinketh of this matter, no man iudging an other, or remouing any man from the communion if he thinke otherwise then he doth. For none of vs maketh him selfe the bishop of bishoppes, and so furthe with gentle wordes the rather to winne them to his opinion, and to assure thē that they maye be bolde to saye their mindes, seing that e­uery one of them had (he saide) licence to vse the iudge­ment of his libertie and power. Which worde (pro licentia) M. Nowel mangleth S. Cipriā. yow guilefully lefte oute of youre translation, showing youre selfe thereby to be no simple translatour, but a crafty falsefier. Now if they had licence in that councell of theirs euery man to saie frelye his minde, if S. Cyprian saide that notwithstanding he was their archebishop, and bishop off them all, yeat for the present time he did renounce that au­ctoritie (as in this sense his wordes are to be taken) what ma­keth that against the auctoritie of the B. of Rome? Dothe not the B. of Rome saye asmuch to all his fellow bishoppes in all general councelles? Had not you the same offer ma­de vnto you in the laste councell of Trent, to haue bene quietly harde, and no man by tirannie to haue bene com­pelled In saluo cō ­ductu cōci­lij Trident. to the necessitie of obeing?

If this answere satisfie you not, let S. Augustine teache you the true vnderstanding of this place. Who expounding August. li. 3. ca. 3. cō ­tra Donat. these wordes of S. Cyprian, Seing euery bishop hath according to the licence &c. against the Donatistes, writeth thus: Opinor vtique in his quaestionibus quae nondum eliquatissima perspe­ctione S. Cypriā expoūded by S. Au­sten. discussae sunt. Nouerat enim quantam sacramenti profun­ditatem tunc omnis ecclesia varia disputatione versabat, liberum [Page] que faciebat quaerendi arbitrium, vt examinata veritas pande­retur. I thinke verilie (that is to saie) that S. Cyprian mea­neth in those questions, which be not yeat by manifest ex­amination discussed. For he knewe what a depe misterie it was that was then tossed in the whole churche, with ambi­guouse disputations, and made it free for euery one to sear­che and enquire, that the truthe being examined might be reuealed. Thus you see M. Nowell, that youre falsehoode in leauing out in youre translation the worde (pro licentia) wil not helpe you, S. Augustine by this worde (liberum facie­bat) VVherein one bis­shop cannot be iudged of another. he gaue them licence, expounding the meaning of S. Ciprian, and telling vs beside, that this place of bishoppes libertie whereby euerie one maye thinke what he will and can be iudged of no other, is while thinges be not decided but remaine in doubte. And therefore if you haue no other do­ctours or councelles to present to the pope but these, yow did like a wise man to tarie at home.

That you saie, that neither the texte of the scriptures, nor the fol. 27. b. 7. interpretation of doctours, nor iudgementes of councelles can haue any credite against the pope, and bring Pighius to proue it, that is a manifest lye. For when Pighius saieth that for the A lye. 22. moste parte there is nothing done in generall councelles, but that the bishoppes comming together giue their con­sent to that which the Apostolike See decreed before, he sa­ieth not that it is so allwaies, that it can be no otherwise? As though the time of deliberation during, the Apostolike See vpon the reasons of the councell might not be moued to decree that which otherwise it hath not determined: he saieth not that against the pope neither the texte of the scriptu­res, nor the interpretation of doctours, nor iudgementes of coun­celles b. 24. can haue any credite. And therefore moste impudent­ly (againe I tell yow) yow haue belyed Pighius. The [Page 45] councell is no councell if it lacke the auctoritie of the he­ade No gene­rall coun­cell with­out a head the B. of Rome. And therefore you haue Pighius at no such aduantage, because he saieth that the onely iudgement of the See of Rome is more sure then the iudgement of an vniuersall councell of the whole worlde. which if it be true VVhy councelles be called. then were it (you saye) for bishoppes to come to councelles a vaine thing. Not so M. Nowell: For although before God 1 and with good men, the iudgement arrested vpon by the see of Rome be certeinly true and can not deceiue, yeat be­cause men ignorant in the scriptures and lawes of the chur­che: some of thē sometimes, because heretikes for the repressing of whome councelles be most cōmonly called, for the moste parte be not thus persuaded, the pope vseth to com­municate with the generall councell concerning decrees to be made. The which being with generall consent appro­ued and confirmed by the pope, bothe the weake or vnle­arned catholike maie be fully persuaded, and the stubborne heretike with his owne weightes quite ouer weighed: whi­le bothe to the one and the other suche vniforme consent, can not but argue the merueilouse grace and assistence off the holie gost. An other cause maie be, for that the pope by 2 this meanes will be certified by the bishoppes off euery countrie, what circumstances, what maners of people in eache place, maie require the decrees according to the na­ture of diuerse diseases, to be losed slacker or streined har­der. For although he be so priuileaged that in making la­wes for the churche he can not erre, yeat hath he not the spirit of prophecie to knowe being absent all the offenses and imperfections in the churche. Beside this where as o­therwise 3 it might euer be doubted whether the pope made any suche decrees or no in places farre distant from Rome, hereby all suche occasion is taken awaie, the bishoppes off [Page] euery countrie being present, who be able to make faithe hereof to their subiectes. Last of all this calling together of 4 councelles is not in vaine, while Christian princes being present and hearing all thinges debated, promise the rather their assistance for the execution of suche thinges as shalbe concluded. And thus is this pelting obiection of youres an­swered. Now to the next.

Pighius (yow saye) teacheth that to the see of Rome the or­dering, Nowell. fo. 28. a. 7. defining, and determining of all questions and controuer­sies is giuen by Christe &c. And the same dothe M. Dorman to teache in the 62. leafe b. out off pope Innocentius epistle

That which I haue there affirmed, I haue by the auctori­tie Dorman. not of Innocentius alone (which yeat to anie reasonable Apud Au­gust. epist. 90. 91. 92 93. man might seme inough, considering that they were no babes to whome he wrote) but euen by the auctoritie also of those fathers of the two councelles of Carthage and Mi­leuite, especially of S. Austen, expressely affirming that he answered them to all their questions euen as was right and for the bishop of the apostolicall See mete, sufficiently proued. Answere yow to it when yow shall be hable. In the meane season it is true that I saide, that the auctoritie of the B. of Rome is the fundation of all true religion, the comfort and staye of the catholikes &c. Against the whiche fewe wordes cou­ched in lesse roome then fiue lynes, yow haue not in fower leaues and more, brought truly so muche as one worde, but in the whole processe plaing the ape in mocking, mowing, and tossing of suche graue auctorities as maie serue for the confirmation thereof, yow haue not impugned my propo­sition but scoffingly confirmed it. Which maner of an­swering how it is to be liked, I praye (the discrete reader) to iudge.

Of the necessitie of one heade in Christes churche. The 11. chapitre.

When I minded to handle in writing the preeminence and superioritie of the B. of Rome ouer Christes vniuer­sall and catholike churche, and considered first that the scripture it selfe, then the fathers and councelles: finally the examples of the primitiue churche alowed the same: I laied for a fundation to builde vpon, that there must nedes be one heade in Christes churche to gouerne it. Not as though if to the wisdome of him who dothe in his wis­dome all thinges it had so semed, the gouernement of Ari­stocratie, that is to saie, off the best and wisest men might not haue bene preferred by him which is Lorde ouer nature before the rule of Monarchie, that is of one alone, whiche is moste agreable to nature. And for this cause I saied that of necessitie it must so be. Which necessitie if I had not bene able to proue (as the contrarie shall hereafter appeare, by that, that you keping youre selfe to the title of youre boke haue onely reproued and not disproued anie one re­ason off myne) yeat must all men off necessitie nedes confesse, that seing Christ committed in the scriptures the whole charge of his church to only Peter, giuing him auctoritie to feede al, Lābes, and shepe: seing that the fathers with Ioan. 21. such cōformitie confesse the same of Peter and his succes­sors, as namely to omit other, because I haue hādled this matter elles where, and this is not the place propre therefore, Chrisostome, who saieth that Christ committed the whole charge of all to Peter, and his successours: nedes I saye must Homil. in Maeth. 55 & li. 2. de Sacerdot. all mē acknowledge, the necessitie of that one heade which by suche good proufes they see confirmed, although I nor any man elles were able to proue the same by reason. To make the matter more clere by example: the churche of [Page] Christe holdeth that oure blessed ladye was a perpetuall virgin, aswell after the byrth of Christe as before: Eluidius the heretike holdeth the contrarie. If I now to ouerthrowe Eluidius, shoulde first place this proposition for my funda­tion to builde vpon against him: That of necessitie that womā what so euer she were, of whom the Sauiour of the worlde should take fleshe, ought aswel to be preserued pure (that that place might not be defiled through which Christ him selfe had passed) after her bringing furthe, as before it was preserued from being contaminat because he should passe through: if this proposition were not proued or coulde not by reason or scriptures be pro­ued, woulde yow then that Eluidius shoulde go from the receiued faith of the churche, and saye there neded no further battery or vndermining to be made, to ouer­throw that which is manifestly proued in the persone off oure lady by the faithe of the churche (as the matter is here in the personne of the pope) What if disputing against a Iewe or infidell that woulde denie that Christ suffred death for the synnes of the world, I should laye for the fun­dation, this saing of the gospell, Oportebat Christum pati &c. Luca. 24. If Iwer not able to proue this necessitie because goddes omnipotent power might by other meanes haue wrought our saluation, doth it by and by folowe, that the infidell hath proued his purpose, that Christ did not suffer death for vs? I wright not this as though I mistrusted the prouing off this proposition of mine, that there must be one heade &c. but to encountre with you who beinge comen but thus far­re, beganne to repent yow of the long iourney that yow had to make, and therefore to abridge the same, thought here to make, and therefore to abridge the same, thought here to make the reader beleue that it shoulde be nedelesse to goe so farre as to Rome to the Popes owne sight, that so youre shunning of the matter might seme to [Page 47] come of politike forsight, not of dastardly cowardnesse.

I saide that the state of goddes people in the olde la­we, and experience of ciuile gouernement did proue the Nowell Fol. 29. 2. 23. necessitie of one heade. Yow answere: that as goddes people in the olde law were one seueral people and had one high priest, so that no further can be gathered thereof, but that likewise in euery diocesse or countrie it were good to haue one chiefe bishop to ru­le in the cleargie.

Oh M. Nowell, think you thus to ouerbeare youre pore Dorman. neighbours? You must remembre, yow must remem­bre, that you fight against truthe, that will not so be outfa­ced. You must remembre, that when we talke of the Iewes as of the people of God, we doe not in that point recon them as one seuerall people. They were in dede seuerall, in respect of other natiōs which had forsakē God, but neuer in such sorte seueral, as though the whole church of god were not vnder the gouernemnet of their lawe and chiefe priest. They were therefore a figure, not onelie of one diocesse or one countrie, but of the whole churche that now is, and made the churche that then was. And so the example hol­deth still.

You make my reason taken frō the exāples of kingdomes, fol. 30. a. 21. societies, families, etc. and applied by force of greater reasō to the church, to come from S. Cyprian to Pighius, to D. Harding and so to me. The mo that haue it the gladder I am. But I pray you what is this to the purpose whose it be, except yow doe this to shewe youre selfe to be a man of greate reading, and ignorant neither in the olde writers nor in those of latter time. What so euer yow make of me, or how so euer it please you to take me: I am not iwisse so verye a dolt but I could haue made this reason euen by the experience of those thinges which ronne dailie into myne eyes, and neuer haue lo­ked [Page] either in S. Cyprian or Pighius, or borowed it off D. Harding, and had not youre memorie failed you, you could haue saide youre selfe, that I tolde yow that experience was the thing that moued me to saye it.

Whose argument or reason so euer it be blinde yow saie it is. That let indifferent eyes trye M. Nowell. I reason thus: Euery kingdome hath his seuerall king: euery people, citie, towne village, house and so furthe, haue their seuer all head or gouernour. ergo: the whole churche which is but one, diuided into many membres (as saieth S. Cyprian) must haue one heade as wel as hath one kingdome, one people, one citie, &c. Now what faulte finde you Li. 4 ep. 2. with this reason, I praie you that see so clerely, and haue euē youre eies as a man woulde saie in youre handes? For so the I should haue concluded with S. Cyprian (yow saye) ergo, b. 11. in likewise euerye diocesse, and euery churche ought to haue their seuerall heade prelate or bishop. I toke not my reason oute off S. Cyprian, and therefore I folowe not his conclusiō. What so euer it be my reason is, that the whole churche dispersed through the whole worlde, is as truly one kingdome of he­auen, one societie, one body, as any other company throu­ghe oute the worlde is one, be it greate or litle. Therefore if I had concluded as S. Cyprian dothe, vpon your graun­ting the same to be true (as here you saye you woulde haue done) that euerye diocesse and particuler churche nedeth a heade, it woulde well haue folowed spite of youre bearde, ergo, in the whole churche being also one, is more nede of one heade. These cōclusions of S. Cipriās and mine be not cōtrary but stande wel together. Euē as if one should infer­re in our countrie vpon suche a proposition as is this of S. Cyprians: ergo, euery citie, euery shiere hath nede of a hea­de to gouerne it, and then vpon that againe: ergo the whole realme it selfe conteining all these cities and shieres hathe [Page] muche more nede of one heade to gouerne that. And yeat yow (so shamelesse you are) saye, that S. Cyprian hath the cle­ane b. 21. contrarie to this conclusion, saing thus: Singulis pastoribus, &c. that is. To euery pastour is a portion of our lordes flocke ap­pointed, the whiche euery one ought to rule and gouerne, who shall giue accompt of his doing to oure Lorde. This place (you saye) Lib. 1. epi­stol. 3. maketh plainely againste the supremacy off one. These wordes conuince you plainely of a lye. This place if you knowe A lye 22. not how to vnderstand it, be not ashamed to learne of S. S. Cypriā expoūded by S. Ber­nard. Bernarde, of whome you disdaine not to learne matter to reproue the maners of the bishoppes of Rome, when yow thinke he maye serue you to that effect. He telleth vs spea­king to pope Eugenius: Habent illi sibi assignatos greges: sin­guli Lib. 2. ad Eugen. singulos: tibi vniuersi crediti, vni vnus, that is to saie: They haue also (he meaneth the other bishoppes of the churche) euery one their seuerall flockes assigned vnto them: to the being one all are committed in one. Lo M. Nowell S. Ber­nard telleth you, whome youre selfe bothe alleage for you­re purpose, and to whome you giue the title of a blessed sa­inct, that this reason of youres is not good: Euerye pastour hath a portion off Christes flocke allotted out to him to gouerne: Ergo, there is no one heade ouer all. For by this meanes if su­che collections might be allowed, aswell might euery par­son and vicair because he hath also a portion of the flocke committed to his charge by him selfe, be discharged from the obedience of his bishop, as maye the bishoppes from the gouernement of one chiefe heade. The maior, bailif or other officier of anie the Quenes good townes in En­gland, hath a portion of the realme committed to his char­ge to gouerne: will youre wisedome serue you M. Nowell to conclude vpon this, that therefore there is no one in oure saide countrie, who hathe the supremacie ouer all?

This is S. Cyprian his reason, this is (you saie) his conclusion. You beelye S. Cyprian M. Nowel: he neither reasoneth nor fol. 30. b. 30. concludeth against the supremacy of one, as I trust I haue made euident. You might rather thinke that he who was for euery portion so hofull, woulde be no lesse carefull to prouide for the whole, where was more daunger and cause of feare. For that you reason after youre maner negatiuely, that neither S. Cyprian nor any other learned man doth vse these examples or similitudes any where, to proue that the­re ought to be one heade or gouernour ouer the vniuersall churche: that reason showeth it selfe from whence it com­meth. Will you now as you haue taught vs a newe kinde of diuinitie, so teache vs also a newe waye of reasoning? Yea will you teache the learned Lawiers and graue iudges off the realme neuer to decide case but suche as they shall fin­de recorded in their yeare bokes in the same termes? Shall it not be laufull for them by youre depe diuinitie, whereas it is impossible so to conceiue lawes that all cases maye be expressely comprehendid, when suche a case shall happen, to procede therein by the iudgement giuen in other cases, where although the case be diuerse the reason is one? Iff youre discretion will serue you to alowe this kinde of rea­soning in the lawe, whiche is nothing elles but altogether reason: why take you then suche holde of this, that S. Cy­prian did not in termes, that is to saye in the selfe same case of one heade ouer the vniuersall churche, applye these ex­amples, seing that as I proued before, S. Cyprians reason is one in bothe the cases, yea greater and of more force in the fol. 30. b. 31. case of one heade ouer the whole church, then of one ouer euery particuler churche.

Because M. Nowell thinketh as the truthe is, that this conclusion, that there ought to be one generall heade ouer all [Page 49] churches liketh me well, and yeat that I haue handled it but ill: it pleaseth him here of an extraordinarye liberalitie for the pitie that he taketh vpon me, to playe once againe the scholemaister in his olde dayes, and now because I am past my Grammer to teache me logike. I shoulde haue reasoned thus my maister saieth: There is one generall king ouer al the Nowell. fo. 31. a. 2. worlde, one generall heade ouer all people &c. Therefore there must be one generall heade ouer all the churche.

My maister plaieth here with me, as S. Thomas More Dorman. writeth that a poet of Cambridge did once with his boye whome (plaing with him being a yong Sophister on a time for his pleasure) he offred to proue an asse: which when the boye denied, well quoth the poet thow wilt graunte me this first, that euery thing that hath two eares is an asse. Nay mary maister will I not quoth the boye. No wilt thow quoth the poete? Ah wyly boye there thow wentest beyond me. For and thow wouldest haue graun­ted me that, I woulde haue proued the an asse anon. Mary maister quoth the boye ye might well, and so might euery foole toe. Well quoth the poet I will goe now an other waye to worcke with the. Thow wilt graunt me that eue­rie asse hath two eares. Naye marie will I not maister quoth the boye. Why so boye quoth he. Mary maister quoth he, some asse maie happē to haue neuer a one, for they maie be cut of bothe. Naye then quoth the poet I giue the ouer, thow arte to frowarde a boye for me. Woulde not yow now M. Nowell make me here to reason as pleaseth you, as the poet woulde haue made his boye to answere? But how little nede I haue of youre helpe (God I thanke therefore) to frame this reason to my purpose, the argument made be­fore will speake though I holde my peace. In the meane season this of youres might haue some probabilitie, if as [Page] Christe hath appointed one churche: so God had assigned one kingdome in the whole worlde. But seing that from the time the tongues were dispersed in Babilon, many seue­rall companies of men, and not long after many seuerall Gen. 11. nations: and consequently manie seuerall heades were so appointed by God, that whether it were for the paine of sinne, or elles to haue the partes of the earthe more quick­ly inhabited, ones they were not one of them bounde to be vnder the other, nor all to be vnder one heade in earthe (whereas on the other side Christ came to gather together Psal. 146. the dispersed of Israel in to one bodye, one kingdome, one folde, and all the churches in the worlde be reduced accor­dingly to one churche, which can not be saide of all the kingdomes) for you nowe to requier no more one heade in the churche, then there is one king in the worlde, it is suche a kinde of argument, as I thinke beside youre selfe it would haue bene harde to haue founde one other so foolishe that woulde haue made it.

What D. Harding saieth out of Homere or Aristotle it fol. 31. a. 15 maketh no matter to me, allbeit it proueth verye well that those Gentiles sawe, that the gouernement of one bodye belongeth to one heade. And therefore if they had bene as verilie persuaded then, that the whole worlde is but one kingdome, as you are that the churche is but one bodie, as they woulde of all likelihod haue concluded that it had not bene good to haue manie rulers: so liuing now and be­ing persuaded the like of the churche, it is not to be doub­ted but that they woulde haue bene touching the same off the same opinion. As for that that you adde scoffingly to deface it, that it is M. D. Hardinge his poeticall argument for the popes supremacie. I praie you be good M. Nowell to poe­tos, of whome you sauour so muche in youre sermones and [Page 50] writinges, and who the time hathe bene, were the fairest floure in youre garland. Otherwise you will giue men oc­casion bothe to thinke and to saie, that the olde prouerbe is true in you, that the parishe prieste remembreth not that once he was parishe clercke. But I praie you maye it be laufull for you to folowe poetes in lieng as you doe, and maie not other men alleage for their purpose, one graue sentence of a poete: yea all were it so that it were directly to proue the popes supremacie as this is not so brought in? If it be so, then scoffe also hardely at S. Paule, who to proue the omnipotent power of God, alleaged the sentence of the Act. 17. poete Aratus, not so famouse iwisse as Homere is.

Aristotle misliketh not the gouernement of the best and wisest, yeat preferreth he Monarchie, the gouernement that is to saie, of one alone, before Aristocratie. Euen so doe bo­the D. Harding and I, And therefore to saye that I am in fol. 31. b. 1. this point against bothe my maister (for so you call D. Har­ding and I will be alwaies readie to confesse no lesse, so long as it shall please him not to be ashamed of suche a scholer) and Aristo [...]le so noble a philosopher, I can call it no better but A lye. 23. a verie lye.

You saye that the gouernement of the vniuersall churche Nowell b. 5. consisting of so many or rather innumerable thousandes of men and women, of all countries, nations, and languages, can not pos­sibly be ruled by one, neither was by God appointed to be so go­uerned.

What God hath appointed I showed in the article of the Dorman. popes supremacie, whereunto you durst not approche, and this will be bolde to saie thereof in this place, that Monar­chie Not im­possible to gouerne the church by one. being as youre selfe can not denie of all other the no­blest kinde of gouernement, it is likely that Christe would prouide the same for his spouse the churche: in the which wil­ling [Page] especially vnitie and concorde, and commaunding no­thing more, it foloweth, that he woulde binde it in one with that bande wirhout the which it coulde not either at all be had, or not so commodiously had. As for the possibi­litie, I praye the gentle reader considre with thy selfe what preachers and maisters thow hast, who are nowe so male­part with God, that beside that whiche their peuishe hea­des shall like to fantasye, they will allowe him to be hable to doe nothinge.

Thus in oure present question doth M. Nowell, hauing so muche at the length prouffited by teaching in the scho­le, that he dareth now take vpon him to set God him selfe to schole, and to tell him plainly that this ordre of his ap­pointing in the churche one heade, is suche, as by no mea­nes possible can stande. Thinkest thow not good Reader that he mistrusted all other proufes when he fleeth to this sorye shift? Yes verelie doth he. For as in the matter of the sacrament verie nede driueth them to this misera­ble refuge: so persuade thy selfe that it standeth with them here.

But nowe to yow M. Nowell: is the arme of God shronc­ken Esaiae. 50. & 59. or shorter then it was wont to be thinke you? Can not he that appointeth one sonne to giue light to the whole worlde, he that by diuerse riuers, streames and brookes, dis­persed thorough the partes of all the earth, maketh one bo­dy of the elementes of water, bothe to come from one hea­de the sea, and to returne to the same againe: he that of so manie contrarie and disagreing qualities, as heate, colde, moisture, drougth, maketh one well agreeing worlde: is not he M. Nowell possibly able to rule and gouerne his church dispersed through all the earthe by one chiefe and supreme heade? Especially sith one prince or Monarche, as namely [Page 51] Assuerus being him selfe an infidell, was able to go­uerne Hester. c. 1. from India to Aethiopia, a hundred twentie and se­uen prouinces. The which as he gouerned by captaines and vnder officers, after the example of Moises, who being Exod. 18. not able to beare the burden of ruling the whole people a­lone, did it notwithstanding with much facilitie by the hel­pe of suche rulers as he called to parte of his charge: whiche were captaines or heades, some ouer thousandes, some ouer hundreds, other some of fifty, yea of ten: so the pope gouer­ning the whole churche, by patriarches, primates, archebis­shopps, bishoppes, Archedeacōs, Archepriestes and priestes, euery one in their degree, with grace in him for that purpo­se by the worcking of God sufficiently multiplied, is right well able to rule and gouerne the church were it greater then it is. And this al wise mē, and such as yealde to the om­nipotency of God, see to be so farre from all impossibilitie, that some one perhappes moued with iust indignation a­gainst youre blasphemouse reasoning, is likely inough to tell you, that I maie iustlier saie to you, that suche talke pro­cedeth not so muche from the absurditie of the matter, as b. 12. Nowell. Fo. 32. a. 6. it dothe from the disposition of youre noddies nowle M. Nowell, and sight not dimme but altogether blinde, then you doe to me affirming the contrarie, that it maye seme to some that suche kinde of speache springeth not so muche out of the absurditie of the matter, as out of the disposition off my drowsy head.

Note that M. Nowel aloweth to bishop­pes the or­dre of re­ligion, to kinges and o­ther go­uernours the procu­ring of ciuile or­dre and peace. Dorman. It foloweth, that schismes and troubles rising in the church maye by the seuerall bishoppes of euerie diocesse, and seueral chiefe prelates of euerie prouince aswell be auoided and appeased, as the seuerall kinges of euerie kingdome, the seuerall gouernours of euerie countrie and citie &c. are able to ouersee their seuerall char­ges and to kepe their people in ciuile ordre and peace:

Not so M. Nowell, the reason of difference betwe these [Page] two states of ecclesiasticall and temporall gouernement is greate. For in the one, that is in that which perteineth to the The dif­ference betwene the two states off the world and the church. worlde, euery kingdom, euery nation, euery people haue their propre and seuerall lawes: yea often times not diuerse onely but cōtrarie the one to the other. This bredeth no dis­ordre because they be diuerse bodies. But to come to the church which as it is one, so hath it by Christ one faith, the same lawes, the same sacramentes deliuered to be cōmon to all that wilbe membres thereof, without varietie in matters of substāce: here what nede is thereof one head, that this one faith may be of all mē and euery where inuiolably holden? Seing that euen in kingdomes and common wealthes dai­ly experience telleth vs, that how well and quietly so euer such kinges and rulers gouerne their subiectes, them selues they be not yeat hable so to gouerne (while I proude and thou proude eche one thinketh him selfe as good as the o­ther) that they can absteine from mortal and cruel battaile, wherby their innocent people perishe ful oftē on both sides most miserably. If this be so emōgest worldly kinges, where the dissenting of their lawes and ordonaūces the one from the other, is no breach of amitie: how much more is it to be feared emongest bishoppes, where one faith must be com­mon in all, where vnitie maye be so lightely broken? Which if it happen, howe shoulde it be suppressed? The de­bates and quarelles of princes are tried for moste parte by battaile. Will you that in this case eache bishop make his frēdes and trie the matter by most voices. The chiefe prelates (you saie) of euery prouince are able to take ordre in the matter. What M. Nowell is the winde in that dore? Haue yow so soddenly founde a superioritie in bishoppes, that so lately before pronounced, that as no man hathe anye Superioritie in baptisme or in faithe aboue other truly faithefull and baptised: [Page 52] so no one bisshop hathe any Superioritie ouer other bishoppes? Is it nowe at the length founde out, that you mistooke S. Cyprian, M. Nowel contrary to him selfe in one leafe. when in the 22. leafe of youre boke, a. you groun­ded vpon him, that there was no difference of dignitie e­mongest bishoppes? Maye yow not be ashamed in this ve­rie leafe, firste to saie that there be chiefe prelates in euery prouince, and yeat after in the seconde side of the same lea­fe, to affirme by the auctoritie of S. Ciprian wrongly con­strued, that none but naughty and desperate men doe thin­ke the auctoritie off some bisshoppes to be inferiour to other? Will you nedes be of the nombre of those naughty and de­sperate men? Well M. Nowell, as verye necessitie forced yow to go from that principle of youres, that all bisshoppes be of equall auctoritie, because otherwise you sawe that schis­mes coulde not possibly be kepte oute of particuler chur­ches: so shall I trust the same, before yow and I haue ended, force you to acknowledge a chiefe prelate ouer the whole and vniuersall churche for the appeasing of schismes there­in. In this pointe because the verye necessitie of one heade to gouerne Christes churche dothe specially consist: I shall desire the learned reader to vse good circumspection, and with aduised deliberation to waye with him selfe the rea­sons brought on bothe sides. I obiect therefore to M. No­well, that for the appeasing of schismes, and restoring the church being troubled to quietnes, it is necessary that there be one chiefe heade. He maketh me answere as you heard before, that the seuerall chiefe prelates of euery prouince are aswell able An absur­de doctri­ne that schismes may as wel be ap­peased by manie he­ades as by one. to take ordre therfore, as the seuerall gouernours of euery coun­trie for their seuerall charges. The absurditie of this answere shall appeare by a demonstration. There is nowe a contro­uersie in their newe churche of Englande about no small matter, but concerning the reall presence of Christes bles­sed [Page] bodie in the sacrament: M. Gest preaching at Rochester for the reall presence, M. Grindall at London for the con­trary. Shall these two prelates be tried by M. D. Parkar of Cauntorbury suspected to be a Lutheran? Although that I thinke M. Nowel would be lothe to graunte being him sel­fe a Caluinist, yeat if he did, and the matter were thorou­ghly decided on the one side: might not the like schisme arise in the prouince of Yorke, and bachiler Yong there calling his brethern together determine the cōtrouersy on the other side? If this shoulde happen (as it easely might) in this equalitie of power betwene these two in these seuerall prouinces, how should the schisme be appeased? They wol­de perhappes procure a parliament to be called, that by au­ctoritie thereof the matter might be determined. Were the bishoppes that coulde not agree before, like the sooner to forsake their cōtentiouse mindes by this meanes? Or should the matter be put only to the debating of the laitie? Or ho­we euer it were, the matter being brought thither, and then the ordre of the house being suche, that it must passe as wel through the lower house as the higher, might not the hou­se be equally diuided, or the thinge brought to so narowe a pointe, that the conclusion of this weightie controuersie might depende vpon the mouthe of some simple burgoise and meane artificer, who might easely by lacke of iudge­ment choose the worse part? Or if they all agreed vpon the truthe, might not the like controuersie, arise in Fraunce, Germanie, Spaine, or in some other countrie, and euery one determine either in this article, or any lyke, contrary to the other? If they did, as by the confesion of Augspurg, and the­ir communion boke allowed by the parliament of Englande, the one so muche disagreing with the other it appeareth they doe, shoulde not the churche in this case be miserably [Page 53] shaken notwithstāding the labour of the chiefe prelates of euery prouince? Now to come to princes, and tēporall go­uernours, if they haue as many seueral or contrary lawes as their be seuerall countries or nations, cōcerning the keping of their people in ciuile ordre and peace, what breache off vnitie? What hurte? What disordre in the worlde will fo­lowe hereof I praye you? So that to haue made this reason of youres probable, you shoulde thus haue reasoned. As in the whole worlde there is no disordre, because seuerall princes haue seuerall and contrary lawes: so in the churche will there be also none, if diuerse bishoppes teache diuerse and contrary faithes. But as no man is so blinde but he se­eth the falsehode of this comparison: so is no man I truste so voide of wit but that he seeth this to be as true, as that which you made before.

Thus by reason we finde, that schismes can not be ap­peased without one heade in the churche, to whome the greater causes ought to be referred, whome the rest ought to credite and obeye. To the which heade because he is by Christes owne mouthe so priuileaged in Peters faithe, that as he neuer yeat deliuered to the churche any erroniouse doctrine to be beleued, but hathe allwaies continued the faith receiued from the Apostles, so are we suer that he ne­uer shall: we ought and maye in matters of faithe giue full and assured credite. As by S. Austen we be counceled, who to this purpose bringeth this saing of the ghospell: Quae di­cunt Epist. 165 Matth. 23. facite &c. Doe what they bidde you doe, and addeth for the reason, that in so doing, oure faithe being moste certaine, as being grounded not vpon man but vpon goddes promise, can neuer be scattred by the tempest of anie schisme. This being most true, we maie boldely conclude, that this state of Monar­chie, that is of gouerning the churche by one heade, as it is [Page] moste necessarie, so because we are suer that this one heade can not giue wrong iudgement in matters of faithe, it is of all other for the churche the moste conuenient, as being the verie best. For in this pointe doe all men agree, euen the moste aduersaries to this state, that if one Monarche were suer allwaies to gouerne well, that then that state off gouernement were to be preferred before all other.

To all this that hathe bene saide maye be added, that iff you will nedes haue the seuerall diocesses and churches off euerie bishoprike to be like seueral kingdomes, then as there is no only kingdome in earthe: so by you it shoulde folowe that there is no one only churche in earthe. Or if it may be enough for the church in earthe to be one body because Christe in heauen is the one heade thereof: why maie not then the kingdomes of the earthe be in earthe one, because Christe in heauen is the king of them also? This being not I thinke vnknowen vnto you, howe vneuen this compa­rison of youres was made, yow will nowe leauing youre re­ason, trie the matter by auctoritie.

S. Cyprian (yow saie) dothe most plainely teache that Nowell. fo. 32. a. 30 it is right and reason, that seuerall bishoppes haue the gouerne­ment of seuerall diocesses, euen for the same cause for the which I (yow saye) doe vntruly alleage the necessitie of one heade.

To the place of S. Cyprian beginning: Cum statutum sit Dorman. Lib. 1. Epist. 3. omnibus nobis &c. I answere: that it is right and reason that seuerall bishoppes haue the gouernement of seuerall dio­cesses, and that to appease schismes and correcte vices, as of­ten as these thinges maie be in suche seueral diocesses com­modiously done. But that this maie be allwaies perfour­med in particuler bishoprikes, and that if it can not, re­course maie not be had to higher power, that yow shoulde haue proued, and that S. Cyprian hathe not. Therefore this [Page 54] place maketh not against the auctoritie of one heade. But you force it further and saie.

S. Cyprian affirmeth all suche appellations from a bishop off Nowell. one countrie to a bishop of an other countrey to be vnlaufull, for that, that all bishoppes of all countreys be of like auctoritie, and that none but naughtie and desperate men doe thinke the auctori­tie of some bishoppes to be inferiour to the auctoritie of other.

S Cyprian affirmeth not here that all appellations from Dorman. one bishop to an other be vnlaufull. He saieth that it is rea­son and hathe bene ordeined emongest them, that the sub­iectes of euery bishop haue their causes hearde, there where the faulte was committed. And maye not the B. of Rome doe this by sending his legates in all such cases of appeale to the places where the offences were commit­ted, there to examine the processe, to receiue witnes, to determine the matter? Beside this, if S. Cyprian had in this place vttrely forbidden all maner of appeales to Rome: yeat by the phrase of his wordes it appeareth, that it was decreed emongest them by a locall statute of their owne, for the better maintenaunce of brothrely concorde. Which as it extēded no fardre then to that place: so if anie of them that once a­greed to that ordre, refuse at anie time to obey it, although it ought to be a barre to him that once gaue his consent to the cōtrary, yeat is it none to the pope, why he maie not procede in the cause (who neuer renounced his right) if it be appealed to him. The like to this is to be seene in the colleages of oure vniuersities, where the founders in most places ha­ue ordeined by their statutes, that the membres of such col­leages for the better reteining and vpholding of quiet and brotherly agrement emongest them, shall propose suche quarelles and contentions as happen emongest them to the seuerall heades of suche colleages. This ordre thus ta­ken [Page] right and reason woulde haue kepte, but if some fro­warde body not contented with this, will complaine furder to the chauncelor of the vniuersitie or chiefe patron of his colleage, he may at their handes haue iustice. That this was the case that S. Cyprian speaketh of, manie thinges may per­suade. First that he saieth: Cùm statutū sit omnibus nobis wheras an ordre is taken emōgest vs all, he giueth vs two thinges to vnderstande, that whereas they toke suche an ordre emōgest S. Cypri­ans place expoun­dyd. thē, it was not ordinarily so before, but accustomed rather to be otherwise, or elles what neded a statute to be made to for bid a thing neuer any otherwise practised? Nexte, that it was but for thē only, for he saieth, omnibus nobis, emōgest all vs. So that in other places he denieth not, yea by these words he cōfesseth rather, that it was otherwise. And therfore you ha­ue done lewdly and made alowde lie M. Nowel, to gather of this place, this generall propositiō, that all appellations from the bishop of one countrie to the bishop of an other be vnlaufull. Whereas this ordre being taken only in Afrike by common Cypr. lib. 1. epist. 4. consent of the Africans, was not in Spaine, as appeareth by the appealing from thence of Basilides to Rome. Which if it had bene vnlaufull, neuer woulde S. Cyprian we may be suer, haue made other exception why the sentence gi­uen by Stephanus the pope for his restitution shoulde not be good, then this, because it was giuen by him that was no iudge at all, of all other the best and moste peremp­tory: neuer would he haue obiected that it was obteined by false suggestion and wrong information, which argueth the goodnes and validitie of the appellation of it selfe. But what speake I of Spaine, when S. Cyprian his owne labou­ring Li. 1. ep. 3. at Rome with the pope by lettres, by legates, by all meanes possible, that this vniust appeale might not be re­ceaued, when his counting to saile after them, to conuince [Page 55] their lieng tongues by vndoubted and assured proufe of the truthe, ought sufficiently to make faithe, that seing the po­pe had neuer confirmed this locall statute of theirs, and therby not renounced his right: seing his subiectes against the ordre taken had appealed to Rome, he must also nedes answere the appeale, for the vnlaufulnes wherof on their partes that folowed it, he alleageth here their own consent, in these words omnibus nobis, agreed by al vs, to moue therby the rather the B. of Rome not to receiue their appeale, but to remit the cause home againe.

Whereas you saie that S. Cyprian hathe, that none but naughty and desperate men doe thinke the auctoritie of some bis­shoppes to be inferiour to the auctoritie of other, surely yow go about bothe to proue youre selfe, S. Cyprian, S. Austen, and all the learned fathers of Christes church naughty and de­sperate men. You condemne in like maner the auncient ge­nerall councelles and continuall practise of the catholike churche. For who is so ignorant that he knoweth not, that the bookes of the learned fathers, the canōs of the aun­cient councells, the vsage of Christes churche, haue so reli­giously alwaies obserued this difference of bishoppes, that the verie names of patriarkes, primates, Archebishoppes, re­teined allwaies and vsed in the churches, are able to conuin­ce him to be an impudent lier that shall susteine the con­trary. Youre selfe confesse, that there be chiefe prela­tes in euery prouince. If chiefe, Ergo inferious. You call him a naughty and desperate man that thinketh the auctoritie of some bishoppes to be inferiour to the auctori­tie of other. Yow saye the same youre selfe by graunting that there be chiefe prelates. Hauing sought all the meanes that my pore witte can inuent to exempt yow from this companie of naughty and desperate men, I finde no other [Page] then this, that perhappes you only saye it for a shift, and thinke it not in deede. But if you were to be accounted naught and desperate for this, yeat had you in this respecte cause to reioyce, that yow were like to haue the companie of S. Austen: who telleth Bonifacius the pope, that in the Lib. 2. de baptism. contra Donat. cap. 1. gouernement of the church he was not onely aboue him, but a­boue all other bishopps (although the office be common to all) in sitting in the highest top of the pastor all watche tower: who saieth, comparing together S. Petre and S. Cyprian. Sed & si distet cathedrarum gratia, vna est tamen martyrum gloria. But although betwene the grace of their seates there be dif­ference, yeat the glory of martyrdome is all one. And agai­ne comparing Innocentius the pope with Irinaeus, Cipri­an, Hilary, he hath: Cum his Innocentius Romanus Pontifex consedit, etsi posterior tempore, prior loco. With these sate Innocentius the bishop of Rome, although behinde them Lib. 1. cōtra Iulian. c. 2. in time, yeat before them in place. Yea to comfort you the more, I dare promise yow the companie of S. Cyprian him selfe. For if he had not bene of the minde that some bishop­pes are inferiour to other in iurisdiction, althoughe not in the substance or nature of bishoply ordre, woulde he haue exhorted, yea and required the B. of Rome to write lettres in to Fraunce, to direct them to the prouince and people of Arles, wherby they shoulde depose Martianus the B. the­re? Lib. 3. epi. stol. 3. With what face could he haue done this had he thought that the auctoritie of one bishop were no greater then that of an other? But here you will vrge me that it is not e­nough to shewe by probable coniectures that in these wor­des Saint Cyprian had no suche meaning, vnlesse I showe withal what was his meaning. Yes verily M. Nowell it were enough for me to proue that the sense which you giue to these wordes of his coulde not be true, but for their sakes [Page 56] who desire to knowe not onely what is false, but what is all so true, I will open that pointe to. This is therefore by this epistle of S. Cyprian moste euident, that these naugh­ty men who complained vpon S. Ciprian at Rome, went first before they toke their iourney to Rome in to Numi­dia, and there ioyned them selues to certeine hereticall bis­shoppes of whome Fortunatus was made a bishop, and so by reason that none were made bishoppes that stode ex­cōmunicate it must nedes be that he was by them first ab­solued. These hereticall bishoppes of Numidia, these wic­ked subiectes of his owne, who demaunded helpe and complained where they ought not, he calleth by the name of a fewe lost and desperate men, who had attempted and done so manie thinges to the derogation of the auctoritie of the­ir owne primate, and submitted them selues to the vnlau­full auctoritie of heretical and schismaticall bishoppes, qua­si minor videatur esse authoritas episcoporum in Africa con­stitutorum. As though the auctoritie seme to be lesse of the African bishoppes, then of those of Numidia (we must sup­plye) who toke vpon them to defende and mainteine For­tunatus and his felowes condemned in Africa before. By which is ment Africa the lesser wherein Carthage stoode, from which Numidia was a distincte prouince, whereas yow M. Nowell take Africa for the whole, as it is counted the thirde parte of the worlde, pretending as thoughe no one bishop of the other two partes of the worlde had more auctoritie then the bishoppes of Africa. Excepte this be the meaning of the place, you can not excuse S. Cyprian of be­ing contrary to him selfe, as by the auctoritie acknowled­ged by him in the pope, in Fraunce, in Spaine in Car­thage, as you haue hearde, as by the calling in this verye e­pistle the churche of Rome the mother churche and roote [Page] of the catholike churche, it dothe manifestly appeare. Whi­che of so graue an auctor is not to be thought. To conclu­de therefore, S. Cyprian dothe not here forbid all appella­tions 1 from a bishop of one countrie to the B. of an other: He saieth not that all bishoppes be of like auctoritie, that 2 none but naughtie and desperate men doe thinke the 3 auctoritie of some bishoppes to be inferiour to other. Laste off all there is no worde tending to this sense, that schis­mes 4 maye be allwayes (whiche yow must proue to defa­ce the necessitie off one heade ouer all) appeased by the seuerall bishoppes of seuerall diocesses: therefore you haue made fower lyes vpon S. Cyprian. A clustre of lyes. 27

You repeate againe, (as that is a greate figure with you) Nowell. fol. 33. a. 6. that which yow saide before, that it is impossible that there shoul­de be one generall heade in earthe ouer the vniuersall churche, or that suche a heade can ouersee his charge, and kepe all churches from schismes and troubles, and pacifie them when they are risen. This as a thing tried by the state of the worlde at this daie and euer sith the first beginning thereof, you will leaue to the reasonable re­ader to determine betwixt vs.

As for the impossibilitie I answered before, and saie agai­ne, Dorman. fol. 50. b. that how euer it seme impossible (the weake nature off mā cōsidered), yeat suer we are that he that appointed that ordre, God him selfe, is so able to multiplye grace in his ministre, and to prouide him of suche helpe by the meanes of other inferiour ministres gouerning their seuerall char­ges vnder him, that it shall not only not be impossible but easy enough. Whether this one heade be hable to kepe the churche from schismes and pacifie them when they are ri­sen better then many heades, let the indifferent reader on Goddes name, take the late table of Staphilus, and after he hathe vpon the viewe thereof ioyned the fruiteful encrease of heresies in oure daies, to the quiet agrement in faithe [Page 57] wherein we liued vndre the obedience of one heade, lett him iudge whether he thinke more necessary for either the auoiding of schismes, or suppressing of them when they be raised. Which offer of youres to betried by the state off the worlde at this daye, argueth to the worlde that yow haue neither wit in youre nowle, nor shame in youre foreheade.

That the place taken out of S. Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 3. proueth that for the which it was brought, that is, that there ought to be one generall chiefe heade ouer Christes vniuersall Churche. The 12. chapitre.

I promised to bring the iudgement of certaine notable Nowell. fo. 33. a. 29 men to proue the necessitie of one heade, lest anie man shoulde thinke me to be the auctor of that assertion. Yow saie it was the inuention of ambitiouse popes.

I thinke other men haue bene ambitiouse aswell as the Dorman. popes of Rome. Yeat neuer was there hetherto any king or emperour, muche lesse bishop or spirituall man, able so manie hundred yeares to mainteine a superioritie by ambi­tion only without all good title. Neither was the diuell able to plant a succession of so many and so notable martirs, confessours, learned and vertuouse men as haue bene in the See of Rome, to deceiue the worlde by the instrumen­tes of Christe. It is Christe M. Nowell who hathe so by his auctoritie disposed the ordre of his churche, that if you Lib. de vnit. eccl. will beleue S. Cyprian, to make the same one, he hath ap­pointed one heade thereof in earthe, as many riuers haue one spring, many braunches one roote &c. Which neded not by youre high diuinitie, seing that it hath Christe the heade thereof in heauen, in which respecte it might be one. [Page] But nowe to the place of S. Cyprian here by me alleaged, seing thus muche maye serue to proue you to haue made a saunderous [...]e lye.

Yow saie, that this place of S. Cyprian here alleaged by me Nowell. fol. 33. b. is not spoken of the pope.

Neither dothe it skill whether it be spoken of the pope Dorman. or no. And yeat in this pointe yow spende a greate many of idle and superfluouse wordes. For I am not as yeat come to proue the pope to be supreame heade of Christes churche, but am only in the prouing hereof, that it is necessarie that there be one suche heade. If you woulde nedes comp­trolle the alleaging of this place, you shoulde showe that S. Cyprian speaketh not at all, of anie necessitie to haue anye one heade or iudge in the stede of Christe obeied in earthe, neither in particuler churches, neither yeat ouer the vniuer­sal churche. For so long as you cōclude not thus, it will euer Note. folowe, that if one prieste must be obeied in his owne dio­cesse for the auoiding and appeasing of heresies and schis­mes, that by muche more greater reason must one prieste aboue all priestes be obeied in the stede of Christe, to appe­ase heresies and schismes in the vniuersall churche of God. I had thought M. Nowell that you had knowen the pro­portion that is betwene the parte and the whole, the lesse and the greater in the same kinde. If one villaige can not consist without a heade, muche lesse can one citie, and yeat lesse can one shiere, and lest of all can a prouince or whole kingdome. Nowe when we speake of the churche, one diocesse is in respecte of the whole churche, as one vil­laige, towne, or shiere is in respecte of a whole prouince or kingdome. As therfore it is not sufficient for the quiet gouerning of a prouince or kingdome, that euery village and citie within the same haue a seuerall heade to ouersee [Page 58] the inhabitantes of suche villaiges, or cities, without there be beside one generall heade to ouersee all those infe­riour heades: Euen so the seuerall gouernours in parti­culer diocesses, exclude not, but inferre by a stronger rea­son, the necessitie of one heade ouer all other heades in Christes being he­ade of the Churche, excludeth not the ministerie of man. the whole churche. Which reason you can not shift awaie by saing that Christe is that only heade: for so (it maie be truly replied to you) he is of all the particuler churches in the worlde toe. And yeat (this not withstanding) as there woulde heresies and schismes rise in particuler churches if (to vse S. Ciprians wordes) there were not one prieste and iudge obeied in the same, in the steede of Christe, and for this cause one suche in euery diocesse supplieth the roome of Christe not visibly present in earthe: so is not Christes being heade ouer the vniuersall churche, any more let why there shoulde be a visible heade in his steede of the whole churche, which is but one. Especially seing the bishoppes maye as easely, and are muche more likely to styrre vp schismes in the whole churche, as are the particuler mem­bres of euery particuler diocesse, as the examples of youre first 600. yeares in which there was neuer yeat anie nota­ble heresye that was not by bishoppes either begonne or mainteined, sufficiently beare witnes. Which chaunce hap­pening, seing that meanes must be sought to appease it, as­well as the schismes of particuler churches, and yeat Christe no more visibly present to be consulted in this case, then he is in the other: what remaineth to thinke, but that he hath supplied the lacke of his visible presence by appointing as in well one in his steede to the behooffe of the whole churche, as of particuler churches? For this one heade (lest any man might cauill that he might erre and drawe all after Lucae. 22. him) Christ him selfe prayed, saieng in the gospell to Peter [Page] whome he left in his place to be that heade. I haue praied for the that thy faithe maye not faile. We may not doubte ther­fore but that he obteined his petition. We haue no cause to doubte, considering that hetherto all other apostolicall seates and moste famouse churches of the worlde, as An­tioche, Alexandria, Hierusalem, Constantinople, hauing perniciously erred in the faithe and being quite ouerthro­wen, this onley seate of the chiefe heade of Christes churche, the churche of Rome I meane: against so manie wicked Emperours openly assaulting it, so ma­ny De vtilit. credendi ad Hoaorat. Cap. 17. subtile heretikes craftily vndermining it, and barcking rounde about it as S. Austen saieth, so manie meanes inuented to bring it to defende euill and perniciouse doctri­ne, hathe in all these difficulties continued allwaies, and by goddes grace euer shall continue, pure and vnspot­ted.

Beside this, (to stoppe all youre starting holes at once nowe for hereafter) yow can not saye, that by this rea­son of mine, whereby I go about vpon the necessitie of one heade in euerie diocesse, to proue the like ouer the whole churche, it shoulde folowe aswell that there ought to be o­uer all the kingdomes of the worlde, one chiefe king or emperour, because as I saide once before, all the kingdomes in the worlde meete not together by goddes ordinaunce in one kingdome, as all the churches doe in one churche: Which if they did, off necessitie they shoulde being one bodye haue one heade. And therfore in this case I Lib. de vnitate eccles. Cap. 12 maie saye with S. Austen: Nèque enim quia & in orbem terarrum plerunque regna diuiduntur ideo & Christiana vnitas diuiditur. Neither because kingdomes for the moste parte be diuided through the worlde therefore is Christian vnitie diuided also. And yeat this is the thing that [Page 59] M. Nowell laboureth to bring to passe, that because there be many kingdomes and consequently many kinges, there shoulde be many churches, and so many rulers of the chur­che: or goddes apointment of gouerning the worlde by many kinges made frustrate, and so no mo kingdomes then there be churches.

Thus I haue showed yow M. Nowell howe this place of S. Cyprian maketh for my purpose, referring those wordes: Neque vnus in ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos & ad tempus iudex &c. Neither that there is one prieste and one iudge acknowledged in the churche in the steede of Christe for the time, to the proufe of the necessitie of one heade ouer the whole churche, by an ineuitable consequent taken from S. Cyprians wordes, not as directly ment of the pope, as you laboure to make men beleue, spending manie wordes here in vaine to proue that these wordes shoulde be spoken of S. Cyprian him sel­fe. To all the which long processe of youres I will then make answere, when I shall vse the place to suche purpose as you imagine I doe. Although this I will aduertise you of by the way, that the case is not altogether so clere as you take it to be, that this place of S. Cyprian is only to be taken as spoken of him selfe and not of Cornelius, as to him that shall considre that no particuler bishop is able to staye schismes so conueniently (whereas the bishoppes of diuerse prouinces be of equall auctoritie) as that one bishop that hathe auctoritie ouer the whole nombre of bishoppes, it can not but be manifest. And yeat maie euerie man see in this place, that the one bishopp of whome S. Cyprian speaketh, should be suche, as being obe­ied there shoulde be no schismes in Christes church. Which can be vnderstande of no one particuler bishop, but of some such one, as because his auctoritie is vniuersal, it will folowe [Page] that the obeing of him shall procure to the whole churche, to the colleage of priestes, quietnes and vnitie. Againe, when S. Cy­prian 2 handling of purpose this argument of the vnitie off the church, telleth vs, how the the diuel haleth men to he­resies and schismes, because they go not to the beginning of the truthe, seeke not out the heade, obserue not the heauenly maisters teaching, and addeth immediatly that our lorde saide to Peter: Thow arte Peter, &c. (as though he woulde teache Not as M. Iuell iuglgeth with this place in. 3. his prin­ted sermō. vs ther­by Matth. 18. to come to the beginning of the truthe, to finde out the heade, to kepe the teaching of Christ,) that he disposed by his auctoritie that vnitie shoulde begin of one: Last, of all that he holdeth not the faithe that holdeth not the vnitie of this churche that began of Petre: ought not these wordes vttred to teache vs to auoide schismes, be a rule to directe vs to S. Cyprians meaning in this place, where he saieth that heresies and schismes rise, because one iudge in the church in the stede of Christe is not obeied? But leauing the defence of this inter­pretation, to those that haue so alleaged and vnderstode the place (who are able it is not to be doubted to giue good reason of their doinges) I will procede to that which folo­weth.

Concerning the Apologie wherewith I founde faul­te for saing, that Christe in the gouernement of his churche [...]ol. 38. b. 7 vseth not the ministerye off anye one generall heade, &c, which you labour here to defende, I saie: that it hathe not onely committed this faulte in denieng this maner off go­uernement 1 in Christes churche, (the contrarie whereof S. Cyprians wordes by a necessary consequent importe) but 2 is blasphemouse also against Christe (whose ordonaunce it is to haue one heade to gouerne in his steade the churche) by affirming so peremptorily, that it is not possible for a­nye man alone to be hable to susteine that office. To the [Page 60] which two if I shoulde adde this beside, that it was moste 3 foolishely vttred, first of the Apologie, and nowe moste impudently defended by yow, it might perhappes moue Not im­possible for one man alone to gouer­ne the churche vnder Christe. youre cholere a litle, but yeat M. Nowell it is true. For what man that had but a cromme of witt in his heade, woulde call that a thing impossible to be done, which him selfe for the space of 900. yeares can not denie to haue bene done? Denye if you can, that thus manie yeares the whole worl­de hathe not in spirituall matters obeyed one heade the B. of Rome? I presse you not nowe with the first six hundred yeares before, in the which the ecclesiasticall histories and writinges of the fathers make moste euident mention, that this auctoritie of one generall heade, was thorough out the whole worlde acknowledged of all men. To this one he­ade appellations were made from all partes of the worlde. This one heade executed the censures of the churche vpon See M. Doctor Hardinges booke the seconde e­dition fol. 111. b. malefactours and transgressours of the ecclesiasticall ca­nons, confirmed the ordinations and elections off bishop­pes, approued or disalowed councelles, restored bishoppes wrongfully condemned and depriued, receiued into the church such as had erred and gone a straie, and all this tho­rough out the whole worlde. But with all this I saye I will not presse you, because youre Apologie and you be it neuer so easy to be proued, will yeat for your honour sake per­happes denie it. Only this I aske of yow, how yow be not ashamed to saie, that it is impossible for one man to gouer­ne the whole churche, seing by youre owne confession for 900. yeares it hathe bene so? If yow will saie that the chur­che hathe bene euill gouerned these latter 900. yeares, all­though that yow coulde right well proue, as you shal ne­uer be hable: what maketh that for this assertion off youres that one man can not possybly gouerne the whole [Page] churche, conteining (to vse yowre owne wordes) so ma­nie nations, so diuerse Languages and natures of men, Howe proueth it, that one generall heade can not so ouersee his charge that he shall be able to kepe all churches from schis­mes and troubles, and pacifie them when they are risen? If one man alone coulde for the space of 900. yeares so rule all churches dispersed thorough out all the worlde, that he Note. was able to plant emongest so manie nations, so diuerse langua­ges and natures of men, one naughty and corrupte faithe, (as yow saie) might not the same, or maye not an other with as muche facilitie haue planted or plant (if it were to be planted) a truthe thorough out the whole worlde? If the churche haue bene so gouerned during this terme of 900. yeares, that all the affaires of the churche haue by one hea­de bene so ordered, that no membre hath had iust cause to complaine, that all membres haue agreed in perfecte quiet­nesse one with an other and all with their heade, as youre selfe hereafter confesse, allthough yow labour to qualifye the matter in this wise: In deede we must nedes confesse a tru­the, M. No­wels con­fession cō cerning the quiet agrement vnder the gouerne­ment off the Pope. fol. 56. b. 25. that whilest we all remained vnder the quiet obedience off youre Romishe heade, in doctrine of his traditiōs, there was a co­loured hinde of quietnesse, concorde, and loue, emongest all the membres of that heade, the subiectes of that one gouernour and ruler, and specially emongest the cleargie of that one churche: if I saye, (by youre confession) there was suche a quiete a­greing thorough out all the worlde in false doctrine, will you still abide by it, that the same one heade that gouerned in this peasable maner all the worlde whome he fedde with euill doctrine, might not haue gouerned them as quietly if he had deliuerd to them sounde and wholesome doctrine? Or will you saye that God can doe lesse in procuring good thinges, then the diuell in promoting euill? that God can make one man hable alone to gouerne all the worlde [Page 61] without schismes, or to appease them being moued as great as it is, in euill gouernement, but not in good? If you will not saye thus, you must nedes saie, that it is nothing impos­sible for one man assisted by goddes grace, to gouerne the churche of the whole worlde were it greater then it is, and so to confesse with all, that the Apologie in saing the con­trary, and yow in defending the Apologie, haue bothe off yow, falsely, blasphemously and foolishely erred.

As for the reason whereunto the Apologie and yow le­ane, that as God hathe giuen to no one king to be aboue all, so to no one bishop to rule the whole churche, that is as I tolde you before, to appoint God, because he hathe made manie kingdomes to make many heades of the churche which is but one, and so consequently to multiply religi­ons, and make many faithes. But because you repeate verie often this comparison, and thinke it so absurde that there shoulde be any more one heade ouer the whole churche, thē one chiefe king aboue all the kingdomes in the worlde: I will here proue, that within the first six hundred yeares it was taken for no absurditie. There is no man I thinke that hathe bestowed anie time in the ecclesiasticall histories ig­norant, what a doe Theodora the Empresse, wife to Iustini­an the Emperour, made, to haue Siluerius the pope depriue Menna the good archebishop of Constantinople, and to restore Anthimius the heretike laufully before by Agapetus the pope depriued. To the which wicked attempt when by no meanes the good pope coulde be brought to consent, false accusations were brought in against him, and so he was by tirannie remoued, and cōstreined to flee to a towne called Patara of the prouince of Lycia. Whither the empe­rour Liberatus in Breuia­rio cap. 22. on a time comming, the bishopp there (as Liberatus the Archedeacon of Carthage writeth) complaining to [Page] him, and calling to witnesse the iust and terrible iudgemēt of God, for the vniust expulsion of the bishop of so greate a seate, addeth at the last these wordes: Multos esse in hoc Many Kinges to go­uerne the worlde, one pope to gouer­ne the churche. mundo reges, & non esse vnum, sicut ille papa est super ecclesiam mundi totius a sua sede expulsus: that there are manie kinges in this worlde, and that there is no one only kinge, as that pope is ouer all the whole churche of the worlde, expelled from his seate. Doe you not here see M. Nowell that with­in the first 600. yeares the whole worlde was gouerned by one heade in spirituall matters, without anie necessitie to haue it so gouerned in temporall? Woulde this good bi­shop (is it credible) being a suter to the Emperour, if the churche had not bene gouerned by one heade at that time, or if it had bene an absurditie that there shoulde be one chiefe bishop and manie equall kinges, haue dasshed the Emperour in the mouthe with suche an absurde and flatte lye? Or woulde the Emperour vpon this talcke, immediat­ly haue caused Siluerius to be called backe againe into Ita­lie, and not rather haue checked the bishop for abusing him with a lye, if he had not acknowledged his wordes to be true? Thus muche I trust maye serue to make the indiffe­rent reader vnderstande, that I reprehended not the Apo­logie without iust cause.

Youre railing against me because it is (as youre selfe cō ­fesse) fol. 39. a. beside the matter, I passe ouer. But so can I this by no meanes, that yow take it for no reproche (yow saye) to haue Nowell. b. 1. youre congregation secrete, scattred, and vnknowen to all the worlde, because this is common to yow with the primitiue chur­che of oure Sauiour Christe, and his holie Apostles.

Considre I beseche the good Reader, whether these ne­we Dorman. vpstart heretikes of oure age be not brought to a very Exigent, and to extreme desperation, when to excuse the [Page 62] secretenesse of their congregation, their hidden and vnkno­wen churche, they wrappe them selues like crafty wolues for feare of being betraied, in the fine fleeses and soft wooll of the name of Christe and his Apostles. As though after so manie hundred yeares that Christes faithe hath floori­shed thorough out all the worlde, it were nowe newe to begin againe. Considre whether they ought not to be ashamed (if shame there were anie in them) to saie, that the churche was in Christes time and his apostles secrete and vnknowē, seing that to them that shall reade the Actes Act. 2. 4 & alibi. of the Apostles it can not be vnknowen, howe mightely the churche encreased euen in their tyme: Seing that the Apostle S. Paule witnesseth the contrary in saing, that the Rom. 1. faithe off the Romaines (Christes true faithe) was prea­ched euen then in the vniuersall worlde. It is therefore a A sclaun­derouse and blas­phemouse lye. 28. moste sclaunderouse and blasphemouse lye to saye, that Christes churche was at anye tyme after the comming downe of the holie ghost secrete or vnknowen. It is a lye to saie that it was so hidden, that who so euer woulde at anie time haue ioyned him selfe thereto might not haue knowen it. But this is an olde shift off the Donatistes, who when they coulde finde none off their religion but only in Africa, were driuē to say that there the church was only, as you must say it was 50. yeares agoe in Germanie, or elles no where. Of whom as S. Austē said then, so will I saie of you now: O impudentē vocē &c. O impudēt voice, is there no church because thow arte not in it? See to thy selfe lest thow be not (in it) In psalm. 101. therefore. For the churche shal be allthough thow be not. This ab­hominable, this detestable voice of presumption and falshoode, boul­stred with no truthe, lightened with no wisdome, seasoned with no discretion, vaine, rashe, hedlong, perniciouse, did the spirite of God forsee, and spake euen as it were against them, when he preached [Page] vnitie: In gathering the people and kingdomes together to ser us Psalmus 101. oure lorde. Where is now I praie you youre churche spred thorough all nations? Where was there anie signe thereof in all the worlde the yeare before that Martin Luther begā to preach his gospel? When I call youre cōgregation scattered and vnknowē, I haue relatiō to that time in which you first shewed your selues to the world. For that you now brag that the pope and his, haue both more knowledge and feling also of your cōgration thē liking, that is cōmon to you, seing you will nedes holde in cōmon, with the Arriās. Whose heresies we­re as famouse in the world as yours are, and yeat coulde neuer by time so grow in credite God be praised therfore, that their first beginning bewrayed them not to the worlde, as youres doth you. Might you not be ashamed M. Nowell, if there were anie shame in you, to goe about to persuade mē, that Christes churche after fiftene hundred yeares, shoulde be now in her enfancy, yea within these fifty yeares not borne at all? Ihon Caluin youre late maister, in a litle treati­se that he made against Michael Seruetus whome for his heresies he put to deathe in Geneua, disputeth thus against him. Ecclesiam fingit ab annis mille ducentis & sexaginta fuga­tam Caluins opinion of the churche. a mundo fuisse, vt coelum illi exilium fuerit. Nos certé é splendidis aedibus eiectam fuisse fatemur, sed it a vt electas a se reli­quias admirablili gratia seruauerit dominus. Alioqui mentitus foret, qui semper aliquem sibi populum in terra fore promisit, quā ­diu Sol & Luna in coelo fulgebunt. Scimus quid passim de aeterno Christi regno testentur prophetae. An eius sedem in coelis locant? Imò fore praedicunt, vt sceptrum eius é Sion procul dominus osten­dat quo dominetur ab ortu vsque ad o [...]casum, & eius haereditas sit terrarū orbis. Nunc ergo populo eum priuare qui nomē eius ce­lebret, est ac si abscissa eius parte, ipsum in coelo multilum includere tentemus. Seruetus (saieth Caluin) feineth the churche these [Page 63] 12. hundred and thre score yeares to haue bene chased oute of the world, so that it must be in banishement in heauen. We trulie confesse, that she hath bene cast out of glittring and shining palaces, but yeat so that the lorde hathe preser­ued his chosen remenātes by his merueilouse grace. Other­wise he shoulde haue lyed, who euer promised to him selfe some people in the earthe, so long as the sonne and mo­ne shoulde shine in the firmament. We knowe what the prophetes doe in euerie place witnesse of the aeternal king­dom of Christe. Doe they place his throne in heauen? Yea trulie they prophecy that it shoulde come to passe, that the lorde shoulde showe a far of his sceptre out of Sion, with the which he shall rule frō the easte vnto the west, and his enheritaunce shall be the whole worlde. Now therefore to depriue him of his people which shoulde glorifie his name, it is euen as though cutting of a parte of him, we woulde assaie to include him mangled in heauen. Thus farre Cal­uin touching the church. And therfore you may not blame me M. Nowell, if I reason as youre maister dothe, nor maie not thinke your selfe well excused, if after fiftie yeares you shewe a fewe remenantes of youre church, which at the be­ginning thereof, 51. yeares ago, coulde not shewe in all the worlde one man that might be as a stone thereof, so secrete, so scattred, so hidden and vnknowen was it.

Yow are not headlesse you saye, yow haue Christe in heauen and youre prince vnder him &c. you haue the rules and groun­des Nowell. fol. 39. b. 3 of goddes worde.

You are not headlesse, if so manie bishoppes as you haue, so manie heads you be vnder. But you ioyne in no one head Dorman. in earthe, for which cause onelie I call you headlesse. Your prince in earthe (for now youre minde is changed, and be­ing past the places of S. Cyprian, which made so muche for [Page] the auctoritie of priestes and bishoppes, yow crie that the prince is youre heade) can not make you haue a heade in earthe, in so muche as youre whole congregation whereof I trowe yow will confesse youre selues in Englande to be membres, is not vnder any one prince▪

Yow haue not the rules and groundes of goddes worde to staye vpon, forasmoche as you reiect the certeine mea­nes and waies to vnderstande goddes word by. And therfo­re you knowe not whither to goe nor whereupon to rest.

That S. Hierom was of the minde that there ought to be one chiefe bishop in Christes churche. Dialog. aduersus Lucifer. The 13. Chapter.

Yow graunt M. Nowell, that saint Cyprian and saint Hie­rome fol. 30. b. 23. fol. 40. a. 1. were bothe of one minde. Therefore saie I, they bothe proue the necessitie of one heade. Neither care I whether S. Hierome speake in this dialogue of the B. of Rome by name or no. It suffiseth to proue my entent, that as by youre owne confession S. Cypriah is of the minde that in euerye diocesse there must be one prieste and iudge in the stede of Christe whome all the rest must obeye: so S. Hie­rome also is of the same. The which being once graunted, it foloweth verie well, that seing for one litle diocesse, a he­ade ouer so meane men as parishe priestes be, is precisely necessarie, muche more is a heade in earthe ouer all the bishoppes which haue euerie one of them so greate power ouer their owne flocke (lest theye abuse the same) of gre­ter and more forcible necessitie. And therefore you take greate paines to no purpose, to proue that S. Hierome spe­aketh not of the B. of Rome, but of euery other bishop, the which thinge I woulde hier you to proue for me. For whe­reas if he had spoken of the B. of Rome by name, it had be­ne a reason grounded vpon the auctoritie of S. Hierome a­lone, [Page 64] now being spoken of euerie bishop, it confirmeth by reconing the necessitie of one heade particulerly in euerye diocesse, the greate necessitie of the same one heade in the whole bodie of the churche by naturall reason also, which proueth my purpose better then any priuate mānes aucto­ritie can doe. If cancred malice, and desire to be reuenged had not caried yow so far and fast awaye, that it gaue you no leisor to loke backe to the title of the argument that is here handled, youre selfe woulde sone haue perceiued ho­we litle it were necessarie, to haue in this place anie speciall mention made of the B. of Rome. Which if yow had once marcked, then woulde you neuer haue gathered so fooli­lishely and vnlearnedly, out of the argument of the dialo­gue fol. 40. a. 6 writen by Erasmus: Liber est, &c. The booke is very wor­thye to be reade, as the whiche doth conceine manie▪ wholesom pre­ceptes M. No­well a weake reaso­ner. concerning the life of bishoppes, that there was nothing in the same dialogue, not asmuche as one worde that is special to the B. of Rome onelye. For all thoughe there be no one wor­de there speciall to the B. of Rome, as it is not necessary that there be: how shoulde yeat this auctoritie presse him that woulde maintaine the contrary, and saye to you: what M. Nowell I thinke your wittes faile you: Maye there not be some one worde speciall to the B. of Rome in that dia­logue, because it conteineth manie wholesome preceptes concerning the life of bishoppes? Is not the B, of Rome a bishop? Muche like or more foolishe then this, are youre o­ther notes gathered here and there out of this dialogue to proue that which you saie of euerye bishoppes auctoritie, and to reproue my wresting as you terme it of this place to the auctority of one bishop ouer the whole church. For who sence reason was first poured in to mannes heade, harde euer of one that occupieth the place of a wise man, a mo­re [Page] folishe or brainesicke kinde of reasoning then is this: S. Hierome speaketh in diuerse places of this dialogue of manye bishoppes, because the question was whether bishoppes retur­ning from their heresies shoulde be vnbishopped or no, before they were reconciled. Ergo, He meant not in the place alleaged that there shoulder be one chiefe bisshoppe in the churche. This semed to your self to be farre from the marke I doub­te not, when you promise to come nearer to the place by fol. 40. b. 22. fol. 41. b. me alleaged. And therefore you bring in certeine sentences going next before, to proue that which I denie not, that S. Hierome speaketh of euery bishop in his owne diocesse. And thereupon you conclude.

And therefore this whole matter is altogether impertinent to Nowell. fol. 42. b. 9 D. Harding and M. Dormans purpose of one onelye heade ouer the whole churche. Vnlesse M. Dorman woulde frame vs thereof this lewde argument. S. Hierome saieth that euery bishop ought to haue auctoritie aboue all other priestes of his owne diocesse: Ergo, the B. of Rome ought to haue a preeminence peerelesse a­boue all bishoppes of all diocesses, and ouer the whole church thorough out the whole worlde.

No M. Nowell I will not reason so in this place, because Dorman. the argument whiche I handle forceth me not so to doe. But if I had so reasoned or woulde so reason, as yow thinke no man being awake wil: yeat am I he, that euē in my slepe M. Nowell were able to defende that argument againste yow, staring with bothe youre eyes wide open vpon me. And that youre selfe perceiued well inough, and therefore like a tendre harted mā, as lothe to breake my sweete slepe, you stolle from it as softlye as you might. For this being, I praye you first graunted, that euery bishop ought to haue auctoritie aboue all other priestes of his owne diocesse, and the reason being (as S. Hierome hathe here, and you in ma­king the argument guilefully left out) for the auoiding of schismes: I woulde infer for the minor or seconde proposition: [Page 65] but the same reason (for the auoiding of schismes) dothe no lesse, yea more enforce that one haue perelesse auctoritie o­uer the bishops and priestes of the whole world. Ergo, there must be one suche heade, and that by a consequent the B. of Rome, who hathe euer so bene reputed and taken, ex­cept you by youre deanely auctoritie haue power to ap­point some other. But I brought not S. Hieromes aucto­ritie VVhy S. Hierome was first alleaged. M. Nowell to conclude so particulerly, or to force it to the B. of Romes supremacy, but only to proue the ne­cessitie of one generall heade ouer Christes vniuersal chur­che, the which no reasonable man can denie but that most effectually it dooth. So that nowe youre greate musing at any man that shall to this sense alleage this place of S. Hie­rome, maye appeare rather to procede off some dumpish melancolike vapours occupieng youre fonde and idle hea­de, or lacke of other matter to thinke vpon, then vpon any iust cause or good grounde, and that also yow haue vntru­ly saide of me that I haue wrested this place.

In answering the place of S. Hierom to Euagrius you saie, Nowell. fo. 4 [...]. b. 18 first that he sheweth that praesbiter and episcopus, a prieste and a bishop, be all one by the first institution and by the lawe of God.

If it had pleased yow so to haue taken S. Hierome, he Dorman. might haue ment that the name of a prieste, and the name of a bishop was all one in the vse of speche, in the holie scri­ptures, and in the sacrament of ordres, but not in dignitie, preeminence and auctoritie. For a bishop is preferred befo­re a prieste in iurisdiction, allthough their names were once confounded. Neither are all those thinges by and by to be confounded as one in truthe and nature, the names where­of be confounded. Otherwise because the Apostles are in the gospell called disciples, an Apostle and a disciple are all one, which is well knowen not to be so. Likewise though [Page] the termes of prieste and bishop were common, yeat the thinges were neuer one: in so muche that S. Austen ma­king mention of the heresie of Aerius saieth, Dicebat etiam praesbiterum ab episcopo nulla differentia secerni debere. He saide Ad quod vult Deum haeres. 57. also that a prieste ought to be distinguished from a bishop by no difference.

But what meane you here M. Nowell to talcke so much of the equalitie of bishoppes and priestes, being a matter in this place nothing to oure purpose? Or if it were, seing it might be saide, that euen as the olde canons (as I declared before) in that equalitie which is in priestehode, vsed yeat In the 6. chapitre. fol. 33. b. the worde Archipraesbiter, chiefe prieste, and ordeined su­che a dignitie in the churche: so there is nothing that let­teth, why in the equalitie of bishoppes and priestes, while no one is more bishop or prieste then an other, there maie How one bishop is equall to an other. not be degrees notwithstanding of superioritie, allthough not in the sacrament of ordres, which is common to them all, yeat in the execution of that power that is conferred thereby. But perhappes you be of the opinion youre selfe that there ought to be no difference betwene a bishop and a prieste, and therefore are the gladder to snatche occasion by all meanes, direct or indirect, to vtter youre minde ther­in. Nowe foloweth vpon this grounde laied, that bishoppes and priestes be by the first institution and the lawe of God one, youre conclusion: whereby you will make it appeare, that you haue not without cause made mention of this e­qualitie of bishoppes, and priestes.

So that all bishoppes, which be the successours of the Apostles, Nowell. b. 24. be also praesbiteri, that is to saie elders or priestes. Whereof it fo­loweth also, that there is an equalitie emongest all bishoppes by goddes lawe, as the equall successours of the Apostles. And that this is S. Hieromes minde in that place, all learned men who ha­ue reade the saide epistle doe well knowe.

This was not the minde of S. Hierome, but is an idle Dorman. phantasy of youre owne. The learned knowe and to their iudgement I appeale, that his minde was here to compare together the state of a prieste and a bishop in the sacrament of holie ordres, common aswell to the one as to the other: that so he might refell the better the errour of those, who helde that deacons ought to be equall to priestes, as appea­reth by these wordes of his in the beginning of the epistle: In this epistle ad Euagri [...] Nam quum Apostolus &c. For whereas the Apostle teacheth manifestly that priestes and bishoppes be one, what eyleth the seruaūt He meaneth dea­cons. of widowes and tables, arrogātly to extoll him selfe aboue them, at whose praiers the bodie and bloud of Christe is made. Doth not this example, put in the consecrating of the bo­die and bloude off Christe (the whiche the poorest pri­este that is, hathe as good auctoritie to doe, giuen hym in the sacrament of holie ordres as the pope him selfe) declare that S. Hieromes minde was no otherwise to make priestes equall to bishoppes, but in the only ordre of priestehode common to bothe? Yea but yow will saie that the Apostles were equall in all respectes. (for if you saie not so you can not conclude absolutely as yow doe, that all bishoppes their successours be so equall). If yow saie so, that is but your bare Lib. 1. con­tra Iouinianum. saing only, not by the auctoritie of S. Hierome confirmed, but most plainly by the same impugned. Who in one place saieth, that emongest the twelue there was a heade chosen, Peter by name, and in an other place, that Christ made Peter In cap. Marci 14. Note the cause of appoin­ting one heade. the maister of his house, THAT VNDER ONE SHEPHERD THERE MAY BE ONE FAITH. Which is directly against the equalitie that you build vpō. But let it be graunted vnto you that the apostles were equal, yeat shall not your cōclu­sion folow for all that. For it is to be considered that in the Apostles there is a double respect which is to be weighed [Page] nowe of vs. Either we considre them as they were all Apo­stles, or as they were bishoppes. As they were Apostles they How the Apostles were all equall. were all equall, they had all like power to preache and tea­che thorough out the whole worlde. As they were bishop­pes and rulers of particuler churches, they were all subiect to Petre the chiefe bishop of all. As they were Apostles, that is to saye generall legates, to plante Christes faithe thorough out all the world, to founde churchs, to preach the word of God, finally to gouerne vniuersally in all places where their should come, they trāsmitted this right none of thē to their successours, but only Peter: who was the generall shepherd of all. Which is the cause that some of the fathers (namely S. Austē, saie, that the power giuen to Peter was giuē to him In psalm. 208. in the persone of the church, because it was not giuē to him alone, but to all his successours to cōtinue for euer. As the Apostles were bishops of particuler places their auctoritie en­ded not with them, but wēt further to the whole church to cōtinue for euer. Now to applye this to our purpose, howe doe the bishoppes that now are succede the Apostles? They succede them as bishoppes, not as Apostles. For if they suc­ceded them so, who seeth not that as the Apostles made la­wes, absolued, excommunicated and ruled thorough out all How bis­shoppes be the successours of the Apostles. the worlde where so euer they came, so might the bishoppes that nowe succede thē doe the like. The which thing seing we finde by no recordes sith the apostles time that euer it was practised in the church, and if it should, it were the nex­te waie to disquiet al the worlde, and to fill the churche full of schismes and heresies, reason it selfe dothe conuince, that the ordre taken emongest the Apostles was but by speciall priuileage, not appointed to continue for euer, or to dero­gate anie thing from the generall ordre begonne in Peter, and appointed to be perpetuall as long as the church shoul­de [Page 67] endure. To conclude therfore, I graunte to you M. No­well that the Apostles were equall as they were all the ge­nerall legates of Christe, but not as they had their speciall bishoprikes and charges limited vnto them. In which latter sense because the bishoppes that are nowe, succede the A­postles, in which pointe they were not equall, it foloweth against you that all bishoppes be not equall. Iff yow will saye that the Apostles were also equall, euen in that, that they were bishoppees of priuate places: yow haue a­gainst yow S. Hierome him selfe. Who can not be otherwi­se taken thē to meane thus, by calling Petre (as you hard before) the heade of the other Apostles, the maister of Christes house, the one shepherd vndre whome there might be one faith. You shall speake against Chrisostome, who speaking of S. Iames the B. of Hierusalem, hathe: Quôd si quis percontaretur, quomodo Homil. [...]lt. in cap. Ioan. vlt. igitur Iacobus sedem Hierosolomis acceperit: responderem hunc totius orbis magistrum praeposuisse. That if any man woulde aske, how then Iames came by the bishoprike of Hierusalē: I woulde answere that the maister of all the worlde (Peter) made him bishop. And a litle after in the same place. Nam quum magna Christus Petro communicasset &c. For when Christe had communicated greate thinges to Peter, and committed to his charge the care of the whole worlde &c. Last of all, if you will nedes contentiously mainteine that Petre was no more aboue the Apostles as they were bishop­pes, Arnobius. then as they were Apostles: thē (to omitte diuerse other that might be alleaged to this effect) yow shall saie againste that auncient, eloquent, and learned father, who liued in the In psalm. 138. time of persecution before the reigne of Constantine the greate, Arnobius, the scholemaistre of that eloquent and learned Lactantius: who by name calleth Peter EPISCO­PVS EPISCOPORVM the B. of bishoppes. Seing nowe [Page] that Peter is cōfessed by the fathers to be the heade of the a­postles, the one pastour, the maister of the whole world, and bishop of bishops, which cā not be in that respecte that the Apostles were all the generall legates of Christe thorough out the whole world: what remaineth but to acknowledge that superioritie to haue place (as Arnobius wordes impor­te) ouer them, as bishoppes. And so is youre argument taken from the equalitye of the Apostles shewed to be insufficient to proue your fantasied equalitie of all bishop­pes.

Hetherto you haue talked generally of this epistle of S. Hierome to Euagrius. Nowe will you come to the place (you saie) alleaged by me oute of this epistle: Quòd autem postea vnus electus est, &c. That one was afterwarde chosen to rule the reste that was done for a remedie against schismes, &c. To this place you adde an other sentence of S. Hierome, where for example of that which he had saide, he bringeth the churche of Alexandria, VVhere from Marke the Euan­gelist vnto Heracla and Dionisius being bishoppes, the priestes did euer place one chosen off their companye in the higher roume, and named him bishoppe. &c. Vpon this place yow conclude as foloweth.

VVhereby it appeareth plainely, that the wordes of Saint Hier­rome, Nowell. [...] ▪ a. one chosen afterwarde emongest them to rule the reste, for a remedie of schismes, doe apperteine to euery bishoppe as heade ruler of the cleargie off his own [...] diocesse. For saieth Saint Hierome suche an heade ruler was chosen at Alexandria in Aegypt &c.

The example of Alexandria maketh nothing against Dorman. my vnderstanding of these wordes to be ment of the Apo­stles. For why might not S. Marke the B. of Alexandria, be made bishop there after this fourme of gouernement v­sed emongest the Apostles, that as emongest the Apostles [Page 68] one was aboue the reste: so in Alexandria shoulde be one chiefe ruler aboue the rest of the cleargie there? But in this pointe I will contende with no man. For howe euer they be to be vnderstande, of the Apostles, or of euerye bishop as heade ruler off the cleargye in his owne diocesse, once this is cleere, that by them is proued, that of one company there must for the better auoiding of schismes be one hea­de. Againe on the other side, you seme to be as indifferent, and therefore you adde:

And withall what so euer was done afterwarde, was not done Nowell. fol. 43. a. 23 de iure diuino vpon the grounde of Goddes lawe, but of an ecclesiasti­call ordre and policie.

I praye you what if this were but an ecclesiasticall ordre Dorman. M. Nowell? Thinke you it nothing to breake the canons and constitutions of the vniuersall churche? Because with men of youre vocation that is counted a small faulte, I will proue to the reader euen by S. Hierome him selfe, that this ordre to haue one generall heade ouer Christes churche, is neither the inuention of ambitiouse popes (as before scla­underously you saide), neither grounded only vpon anye ecclesiasticall ordre and policie, (as here vpon better aduise more modestly you reporte) but vpon the infallible groun­de of Christes owne expresse ordinaunce.

S. Hierome therefore writing against one of youre aun­cestors Iouinian the heretike, who maintained that vota­ries and professed persones might laufully mary, for the de­fence Aug. lib. 2. Retractat. cap. 22. Haeresi. 82. of this heresie of his (for so hath S. Augustine termed it) brought the example of Peter, who was he saide a ma­ried man. By this occasion offred, S. Hierome vttreth of S. Peter these wordes. At dicis, super Petrum fundatur ecclesia, Lib. 1. cōtr [...] Iouin. licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat, & cuncti cla­ues regni coelorum accipiant, & ex aequo super eos ecclesiae fortitu­do [Page] solidetur: tamen propterea inter duodeeim vnus eligitur, vt capite constituto schismatis tollatur occasi [...] ▪ Sed cur non Ioannet electus est virgo? AEtati delatum erat, quia Petrus senior erat, ne adhuc adolescens ac pené puer, progressae aetatis hominibus prae­ferretur, & magister bonus, qui occasionem iurgij debuerat au­ferre discipulis, &c. causam praebere videtur inuidiae. That is to saye: But thou saiest the churche is builded vpon Petre, all­though the same in an other place be done vppon all the Apostles, and al of them receiue the keyes of heauē, and in­differētly vpon thē is the strength of the church grounded: yeat therfore is there one chosen emōgest the 12, THAT BY APPOINTING A HEADE, OCCASION OF SCHISMES BE TAKEN AWAYE. But why was not Iohn chosen being a virgin? Age was preferred because Peter was elder. Lest a strippling and yeat almost a childe, should be preferred be­fore auncient and elderly mē, and the good maister which Christ ap­pointed Peter to be heade. shoulde take from his scholers occasion of strife, &c. might some to ministre cause of enuie. Hetherto the wordes off S. Hierome. Of the which maye be concluded: Firste, that 1 this ordre to haue one heade in Christes churche is no ec­clesiasticall ordre and policie, but an ordre appointed by Christes owne mouthe to begin in his blessed Apostles: in whome if this gouernement were necessary for the auoi­ding of schismes, howe muche more necessary it is emon­gest vs, I leaue to the learned and wise to iudge. The secōde 2 cōclusion that I gather vpō this place, is, that here S. Hiero­me teacheth vs, that this common obiection of the hereti­kes, that Christ gaue power of losing and binding to al in­differently, and that therfore Peter had no more preminēce then the rest, is a naughty and vntrue reason, as appeareth by these wordes of S. Hierome, tamen etcae. yeat one is 3 chosen etc. Thirdly I gather, that seing the apostles were [Page 69] bishoppes, this Maxime of youres is cleane ouerthrowen, that all bishoppes be equall, and that no one hathe anie o­ther ouer him: seing the Apostles being bishoppes had Pe­ter to be their heade. Fourthly I note, that this confession 4 was wroong as it were by violence from S. Hierome, by the force of his aduersarie his reason. Which being that priestes might marie, seing Peter the heade of the Apostles was maried: it had bene for S. Hierome his vantage to ha­ue denyed that he was heade of them, to haue sayde as yow doe, that they were all equall, and no one aboue the other. And so woulde he we maie be suer, being so vehe­ment and learned an aduersary as he was, if it had not bene so manifest a truthe, that it coulde be no more denied, then that Peter was maried. His qualifieng of the place here, that the churche was in an other place builded vpon all, maie giue vs to vnderstande what he woulde quickly haue done, if Christe had not for all that, specially made Peter the heade. By this appeareth the corrupt iudgement of Erasmus, who in his notes vpon the epistle Ad Marcellam where S. Hierome hath againe, that the churche was buil­ded Tom. 2. ad Marcel­lam adue [...] ­sus Monta­num. vpon Peter, giueth this iudgement: Hoc detorquet in commendationem Petri. This he wresteth to the commen­dation of Peter. Last of all it is to be noted, that in S. Hie­romes time it was acknowledged euen by heretikes, that 5 Christe appointed this ordre of one heade, as appeareth by this, that Iouinian grounded him selfe thereupon in reaso­ning against S. Hierome for the maintenaunce of his he­resie. Vpon the which last note some other maie happely note, that yow and youre companions are more shame­lesse heretikes, then were Iouinian and his.

To this place of S. Hierome I will adde one other, to shewe that yow abuse his auctoritie to muche in labouring [Page] to founde vpon him this vntrue proposition of youres, that not by goddes lawe but by mannes, this ordre of one heade in Christes Churche shoulde be established. The wordes off S. Hierome alluding to the house mentioned in the ghospell, where Christe eate his passeouer are these: Dominus domus Petrus apostolus est, cui dominus domum suam In cap. 14. Marci. credidit, VTSVBVNO PASTORE SIT VNA FIDES. The maister of the house is Peter the Apostle, to whome One head shepherde that the faithe maye be one. oure Lorde committed his house, that vnder one shepheard the faithe maye be one. Doe yow not see M. Nowell the necessitie of one heade, that vnder one shepherd the faithe maye be one. Heare yow not that it is not mannes deuise that it be so, but Christes owne ordinaunce? Haue you not with all S. Hierome expounding (as it were) the wordes of S. Cyprian: tamen vt vnitatem manifestaret, vnitatis eiusdem ori­ginem Lib. de vnitat. ecclesiae. ab vno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit, yeat to ma­ke vnitie manifest, he (Christe) disposed by his auctoritie the beginning of this vnitie to procede from one) by these wordes of his: That vnder one shepherde there maye be one faithe?

By this it appeareth, that S. Hierome is not of that minde that yow woulde haue him to be, that is, that this ordre of hauing one heade in the churche shoulde be off mannes ordinaunce, not of Christes institution. But here yow will aske me how I can then reconcile him and make him agree with him selfe: who in this place hath, that one Quòd vnus postea elec­tus est. S. Hierom expoun­ded by him selfe. was afterwarde chosen to rule the rest. If after (saye yow) then not vpon goddes lawe. Yes I reconcile him after this sorte M. Nowell. If yow vnderstande this place to be of the Apostles, then he expoundeth him selfe in the place that you harde before: where allthough he confesse, that in one place Christe builded the churche equally vpon all [Page 70] his Apostles, (which was done streight after his resurre­ction) Ioan. 20. yeat in an other he graunteth, that the good maister (for so he calleth Christe there) builded it vpon Peter, a little before his ascension into heauen whome he ap­pointed Ioan. vlt. to be the heade of the rest. So that the worde here Postea, afterwardes, hath relation to that ordinarie preroga­tiue of S. Peter giuen to him at Christes assension, at whi­che time he perfourming the promise made before to Pe­ter in the future tense, to builde his churche vpon him, Matth. 16. appointed him as Chrisostome saieth vpon that place, to haue orbis terrarum curā, the charge of the whole worlde. Homil. vlt. in Ioan. vlt. If yow vnderstande not these wordes (one chosen after­warde to rule the rest) of the Apostles, but of the go­uernement in particuler churches (as because of the ex­ample brought by S. Hierome of the churche of Alexan­dria you thinke they shoulde) then Postea, afterwarde, must haue this sense, that whereas vnder one generall heade of Christes churche, the particuler churches were at the beginning gouerned by manye heades and com­mon consent (whiche was as Epiphanius saieth because the apostles could not furthwith take ordre for all thinges: his wordes are, non enim omnia statim potuerunt Apostoli con­stituere, for the apostles could not furthewith take ordre for all things) afterwardes the state of the church being bet­ter Lib. 3. hae [...]es. 75. setled, and being come (to vse the words of Epiphanius) ad propriā mensurā, to her own measure, that ordre appearing to be such as was not cōueniēt for the gouernemēt of the churche, was alltered, and one chosen to rule alone for the auoi­ding of schismes in euery particuler church: not as though S. Hierō should meane that the vniuersall churche lacked at anie time one heade, or had bene gouerned by diuerse (the cōtrarie wherof he affirmed before) but that afterward par­ticuler [Page] churchs began to see the necessitie of one head ouer euerie churche, according to the patern wherein Christ ap­pointed Peter to be the chiefe head of all. As S. Hierom him selfe in an other place doth well declare: where he saieth: An tequàm diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent &c. Before by the instigation of the diuell, factions were made in religion, and In cap. 1. epi. ad Tit. 1. Cor. 1. one saide: I am of Paule, I am of Apollo, I of Cephas, the churches were gouerned by the cōmon councell of priestes. But after that euery one thought those that he baptized to be his and not Christes: it was thorough out all the worlde decreed, that one being chosen out of the priestes, shoulde be set ouer the rest, to whome all the care of the churche should belong, and the occasiō of schismes be taken away. Thus farre S. Hierom. By which words as it appeareth, that the schismes were in particuler churches, so the heades of whome he speaketh, were afterwarde by his min­de chosen in particuler churches. Thus is S. Hierome expo­unded by him selfe, which I trust the learned will like much better, then suche crooked gloses of youres, as tende to no other ende, but to the defacing of the graue and learned fa­thers: as this coulde not choose but here discredite S. Hiero­me, if in a matter of suche weight as this is, he shoulde be founde contrarie to him selfe. It foloweth:

This which was thus done afterwarde saieth S. Hierome, was done rather for the honour of priestehod then for the necessitie of Nowell. fol. 43. b. 4 the lawe. For by the lawe of God which is first, the prieste (as S. Hierome saieth (may doe asmuche excepting ordering only, as maye the bishop: but afterwarde for ordre, one was placed in the highest place for the auoiding of schismes. And if a prieste by S. Hieromes minde may doe as muche as a bishop, I thinke also one bishop may by goddes lawe doe as muche as an other bishop.

Beholde here (good reader) in M. Nowell a singuler Dorman. pointe of false and vntrue dealing, which although it be with him in this booke of his, and other his companions in their other doinges, a thing verie common, and therfore [Page] the lesse to be merueiled at: yeat surelie is it in the wresting of this place of S. Hierome of all other moste euident to be perceiued. For whereas S. Hierome in his Dialogues a­gainst the Luciferians, hath, that this ordre in the churche, (that the bishop confirmeth those that are Christened not the prieste), was taken rather for the honour of priestehode then for the necessitie of the lawe. M. Nowell to make the matter S. Hierom beelied by M. Nowell. 29. probable, that this ordre of hauing one heade in the church shoulde not be grounded vpon goddes worde, and that there is no necessitie in it, but done rather to honour priest­hode: applieth it to these wordes of S. Hierome to Eua­grius, where in expresse wordes he hathe, that the appoin­ting one to rule and gouerne the rest, was to be a remedie against schismes. For the better vnderstanding of this false dealing of his, I shall wishe those that either haue not the worckes of S. Hierome at hande, or if they haue vnder­stande not them in Latine, or if they doe, can not so easelie turne to the place, to considre them as they folowe here in this place: Quôd si hoc loco quaeris quare in ecclesia baptizatus nisi per manus episcopi, non accipiat spiritum sanctum, quem nos asserimus in vero baptismate tribui: disce hanc obseruationem ex ea authoritate descendere, quod post ascensum domini spiritus Hieron. in dialog. aduer. Lu­cifer, sanctus ad apostolos descendit. Et multis in locis idem factitatum reperimus, ad honorem potius sacer dotij quam ad legis necessita­tem. Alioqui si ad episcopi tantum imprecationem spiritus sanctus defluit, lugēdi sunt qui in viculis aut castellis, aut in remotioribus locis per praesbiteros, & diaconos baptizati, ante dormierunt quàm ab episcopis inuiserentur. That is to saye. But if in this place thow aske of me wherfore he that is baptised in the church dothe not receiue the holie ghost but byt he handes of the bisshop, the which holye ghost we doe all affirme to be giuen in true baptisme? Learne this obseruation to come [Page] of that auctoritie, that after the ascension of oure lorde the holie ghost came downe to the Apostles. And we finde that the same is done in manie places, rather for the honour of priestehode, then of necessitie of the lawe. Els if the holie ghost come downe only at the praier of the bishop, they are to be lamented who being baptised by pri­estes and deacons in litle townes or villages, or places fur­ther of, doe dye before they be visited by the bishoppes. He­therto the wordes of S. Hierome. Nexte after the whiche because it foloweth, that the high prieste must haue auctoritie peerelesse aboue all other, otherwise that there will be as manie schismes in the churche as there be priestes, M. Nowell thinketh that he might vnderstand, both the peerelesse auctoritie a­boue all other that is mentioned in the dialogue against the Luciferians, and the preeminence that one had giuen to rule the rest as for a remedye against schismes, spoken off in this epistle to Euagrius, to be ment of onely power to confirme children or other lately baptised, which becau­se bishoppes had, and priestes had not, he thinketh S. Hie­rome should call by the name of a peerelesse power, able to be a remedie against all schismes. For so vnderstandeth he this place here and before. fol. 41. b. 20.

But nowe I praye yow let me aske of you M. Nowell, when S. Hierome had saide, that this obseruation that the bishop shoulde confirme and not the prieste, came of this that the holie ghoste after Christes ascension came downe to the Apostles, when he added. Et multis in locis idem facti­tatum reperimus, &c. And in manie places we finde the same to be done rather for the honour of priestehod, then necessitie of the lawe: What idem, what same thing (constrew M. Nowell) was it, that was so done to honour priesthode, rather then for necessitie? Was not it the ministring of the Sacrament [Page 72] of Confirmation? Doe not the wordes that folowe nexte after: Alioqui si ad episcopi, &c. Otherwise if the holye gho­ste come downe only at the praier of the bishop &c. spo­ken to proue, that there was no suche necessitie of the Sa­crament of Confirmation, as thoughe to them that dwel­ling far from the bishop, and dieng before they were con­firmed, the holye ghost shoulde not be giuen in baptis­me) euidently conuince, that S. Hierome ment off that pointe of preeminence that the bishop hathe aboue a prie­ste in ministring of this sacrament, that that was not of the necessitie of the lawe &c, not of that power of gouerne­ment that we dispute of? But what labour I to conuince this wresting of youres to belieng and vntrue, which who so euer shall reade the place, can not but presently percei­ue, if he haue his common senses? Who is so verie a dolt, that when he heareth you bringing in S. Hierome proui­ding for the peace of the churche, that is the auoiding off schismes, this souereigne remedie that the bishop of euerye diocesse maye confirme children or other lately baptised, which the priestes cā not do: and that there in cōsisteth his peerelesse power, wil not be able to tel you that this reason procedeth from some franticke braine M. Nowell, not frō the staied and graue heade of S. Hierome? For what staye for schismes, what remedie against heresies were it like to be (tell vs I coniure you by youre wisedome that first foun­de out this speciall remedie) if the bishop had only this po­wer more then a prieste, that yow speake of? Might not the meanest prieste in his diocesse for all this, imagine and so­we emongest the people what lewde opinions he list, and tell the bishop to his face, if he shoulde reproue him there­fore, that he passeth the boundes of his office, who hathe nothing elles to doe but to confirme suche as were lately [Page] baptised? If this be true M. Nowell, where is nowe, Vnus ad tempus index vice Christi, one iudge for the ti­me Lib. 1. epi­stol. 3. in the steede of Christe, mentioned before by S. Cy­prian, and acknowledged by youre selfe, to be the bishop in his diocesse? If he be the iudge in Christes stede ouer al the rest, then his power extendeth further I trowe then to con­firmation. For what iudiciall acte is there done in the mi­nistring thereof? Thus it appeareth howe shamefully you haue beelied S. Hierom, how lewdely you haue abused his wordes, to suche a foolishe sense as no learned or wise eares can abide.

Nowe to youre thinking, that if a prieste by S. Hiero­mes minde may doe as much as a bishop, that then one bis­shop maie doe as muche by Goddes lawe as an other, Isa­ye: S. Hierom beelyed a­gaine. 30. that I thinke not but I knowe and beleue, that you lye vpon S. Hierome, who saieth not nor is of that minde that a prieste maye doe asmuche as a bishop. For in this epistle to Euagrius, he excepteth the power of making priestes: in the dialogue against the Luciferians, the auctoritie of ordi­nary confirming, and in bothe the places, he graunteth to one (which must nedes be the bishop) a peerelesse power aboue all the rest, for the auoiding of schismes. So that this being true, you shoulde rather haue thought that one bis­shop might doe as muche as an other certeine thinges excep­ted, or elles you shoulde haue bene better ocupied to haue thought vpon some other matter. I maruell M. Nowell that you harpe so muche vpon this string of making bis­shoppes and priestes equall, whereunto if youre Archebi­shoppes and bishoppes loke not in time: I thinke those goodfelowe ministres, shoemakers, weuers, tinkers, broo­memen, coweherdes, fidlers etc, whome youre bishoppes haue made equall to you that be▪ inferiour ministers, [Page 73] yow of youre goodnes will shortly make equall to youre bishoppes and archebishoppes. You procede and saye:

Further seing this one afterwarde chosen to rule the rest was Nowell. fo. 43. b. [...] chosen as well at Alexandria as at Rome orolles where &c: It must nedes fall out, that these wordes one chosen to rule the rest, either make for no supremacie of any one bishop ouer all the churche, as apperteining to euery bishop in his owne diocesse, or if M. Dor­man will nedes inforce a supremacie by the saide wordes, he shal­be inforced to confesse the saide supremacie to be common to the B. of Alexandria (where S. Hierome saieth this one was chosen to rule the rest) with the B. of Rome, as by the other place last al­leaged by M. Dorman out of S. Cyprian, the saide Supremacie shoulde apperteine to the B. of Carthage &c.

I haue shewed so often before howe I inforce vpon the­se Dorman. wordes a supremacie ouer the whole churche, to wit, not directly but by an ineuitable consequent, that it is neede­lesse to repeate my wordes againe. And therefore in thus applieng this place to my purpose, there is no feare of brin­ging the generall gouernement ouer the whole churche to Charthage or Alexandria. If yow haue no other thing to trouble yow then that, yow maye be quiet and take youre rest. As for that, that yow saye, that Christe is as muche A sclaun­derouse lie 31. blasphemed at Rome, as he is either at Alexandria or Carthage, that is one of youre sclaunderouse lyes, as they can well tell, who trauailing thither heretikes, and finding there more feruent deuotion then elles where, with all thinges contrarie to youre sclaunderouse reportes made at home in youre sermones and writinges, haue returned (God be praised therefore) good and perfect catholikes. Of the true religion vsed in the which place, as if it were not imperti­nent here, I coulde saie muche: so one thing written by S. Hierome in the praise of Rome (which I doubte not but yow count emongest those blasphemies that are there you saie vsed against God) I cā in no wise omitte. Vbi (saieth he) [Page] alibi tanto studio, & frequen [...]ia ad ecclesias & ad martyrum s [...] ­pulcra Hieron. in proaemio. 2. epist. ad Galatas. concurritur. Where in anie other place is there suche concourse, with suche affection and nombre, to the chur­ches and sepulchres of martirs? Seing that this, a praise and token of deuotion (for so saieth S. Hierome in this place) is more in the Romaines where this frequeting of churches, visiting of martyrs is so muche vsed, then in other places where it is lesse, yea nothing at all, as at Carthage and A­lexandria: if there were nothing elles this alone woulde proue you a lier. For euen at this daie the same deuotiō is as muche vsed at Rome as in S. Hieromes time it was and in Carthage and Alexandria where Machometans now dwel, as muche frequented as it is with you and youre felowes in England.

S. Hierome saith expressely that all bishoppes be equall, and Nowell. fo. 44. a. 3 none superiour and inferiour to another by goddes lawe.

S. Hierome saith that all bishoppes be of one priestehod Dorman. and merite, that is to saie, no one more a bishop then an o­ther. That no one is in iurisdiction aboue or beneathe the other, that he hathe in no place. And yeat is this the thing that yow shoulde proue.

It hurteth not oure cause in case that we graunte, that this pla­ce Nowell. do the apperteine to the Apostles, and that one was chosen e­mongest the Apostles them selues to haue the chiefe place: that is to speake first, to moderate other, to staye contention, and to re­medie schismes Naie it maketh with vs directly, who doe graunte that as emongest those 12. one was so chosen to be ruler, so it is good that in euery competent nombre of priestes and cleargie, [...] be chosen likewise to be ruler.

If yow will be liberall M. Nowell, be liberall as yow Dorman. shoulde be, and marre not all with a little pelting. If yow will at the length yealde to the truthe that Petre was heade Lib. 1. con­tra Iouiniā. of the other apostles, confesse also with S. Hierome that it [Page 74] was not the Apostles doing to choose him emongest them▪selues, Note. but that it was magister bonus, their good maister who chose Peter to be the heade, for the auoiding of schismes. Confesse that this maketh not with yow but directly a­gainst yow, who mainteine that all bishoppes be equall in iurisdiction, and no one aboue the other. For yow deceiue youre selfe and other toe, when you saie, that as emongest the 12. apostles there was one aboue the rest: so in euerie competent nombre of priestes there ought to be one chiefe ruler chosen: as though only Petre had bene a bishop, and the other apostles pore priestes and no more. Where is no­we the equalitie that you are wont to obiect to vs of the Apostles with Petre? Who maketh the Apostles more infe­riour to Peter you or we? We saie the Apostles all of them were bishoppes in one place or other: you make youre count that they were only inferiour priestes. Now being all of them bishoppes and Peter by youre confession their he­ade: Who seeth not that the ordre planted by Christe in his church is, that there be one bishop for the pacifieng of schi­smes ouer the rest? Againe, if 12. persones so well instructed by the spirite of God as the Apostles were, had a heade ap­pointed ouer them for remedie against schismes: what reason leadeth yow to thinke, that emongest so manye [...]ades as be in the vniuersall churche gouernours of particuler churches, not so priuileaged with grace, there maye not be the like, yea greater cause to feare schismes, and so consequently that there ought not to be the same remedie, that is to saye one heade? So that if you counte youre selfe hurt when it is proued that there ought to be one chiefe heade of Christes churche, you are by graun­ting of this prerogatiue to S. Peter aboue the rest of the Apostles, verie daungerously hurte. Yea but you were pro­uided [Page] for all suche after clappes before I doubte not. Other wise so circumspect a man as you are, woulde neuer haue yealded so farre. And therfore you adde.

And if M. Dorman vpon this graunte woulde inferre suche a Nowell. supremacie of one ouer the rest of the Apostles, as the pope clai­meth ouer the churche, S. Paule reprouing Peter more sharpely Galat. 2. to his face, then is laufull nowe for any bishop to deale with the pope, dothe proue that Peter had no suche supremacy.

One thing I must here tell you by the waie M. Nowell, Dorman. that in debating this matter of the auctoritie of S. Peter aboue the rest of the Apostles, except you forsake S. Hie­rome, you must forgo this example of S. Paule his repro­uing of S. Peter, which S. Hierome holdeth against S. Au­sten (how truly I dispute not in this place) to haue bene but a made matter betwene them, that Paule shoulde re­prehende, and Peter suffer him selfe to be reprehendid for vsing the legall ceremonies, as appeareth in the epistles written to and fro betwene them. And therfore if you will­be tried by S. Hierome, he shoulde rather holde with this supremacie, as the man who if he erred in striuing with S. Austen about this reprehending of Peter, erred onely be­cause he thought it a thing vnsemely and vnlikely, that S. Paule woulde so reprehende the prince of the Apostles. Which was he saieth the cause, why Origen and other to stoppe the mouthe of Porphirius the heretike, who laied to S. Paules charge that he was ouerbolde to reprehende Peter the chiefe of the Apostles, expounded this place as he did.

But leauing S. Hierome, and graunting that Peter was truly and in deede reprehended by S. Paule, let vs examine whether suche a supremacie as is here spoken of, maie not by the iudgement of the learned fathers of Christes chur­che, stande wel inough for all this reprouing of S. Peter v­sed [Page 75] by S. Paule I will emongest other alleage to this pur­pose two only S. Cyprian and S. Austen. Epist. ad Quintum.

The wordes S. Cyprian are these: Na [...] nec Petrus quem primum dominus elegit, & super quem aedificauit ecclesiam suam &c. For neither Pure whome oure lorde chose to be the chiefe, and vpon whome he builded his church when he contended after with Paule about circūcision reuenged him selfe, or chalen­ged anie thing insolently or arrogātly in saing that he had the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeied of those that were no­uices and came after. Thus farre S. Cyprian. With whome a­greeth S. Austen as he that alleageth this verie place, to pro­ue that S. Cyprian (to whose auctoritie the Donatistes lea­ned, Lib. 2. de baptis. contra Do­natist. ea. for the baptising againe of suche as were Christened by heretikes) woulde easely suffer him selfe (for his humili­tie), being but one bishop, or the doinges of his owne pro­uince either, to be corrected by the statutes of the whole churche, seing that he praised S. Peter in whome was the primacie of the Apostles, for the same vertue of humilitie, in suffering him selfe to be reproued of S. Paule. Thus it ap­peareth that S. Paules resisting of S. Peter was no derogatiō to S. Peters auctoritie, as the which by the confessiō of both these learned fathers remained saufe and whole, notwith­standing the reprehension of S. Paule, and withall that you and your fellowes M. Nowell, who vse so often to the dero­gation of S. Peters auctoritie to cite this place of the epistle Galat. 2. to the Galathians, doe shamefully abuse the same, with no small iniurie to the blessed apostles bothe.

But yeat you fare that I haue saide nothing all this while to this, that Peters supremacie was no suche as is the popes, whome no man may blame what so euer he doe. Yes sir the pope maie be blamed: Neither doe the texte nor the glose by you here alleaged saye the contrarie. And so haue diuerse [Page] good men freelie reprehended diuerse popes. S. Bernard a mōke reprehended Eugenius the third, more sharpely iwisse (as youre selues can full well tel and therfore make much of him in that respect) then euer did S. Paule reproue S. Petre. Paulus 4. was admonished by lettres writtē by one in Rome, of the vnhonest behauiour of his nephues the two Caraffas He toke the aduertisemēt in good parte; and banished them the courte immediatly. What should I remembre the lettres written by Petrus a So to a frier also, to Pius the pope that nowe is, wherin he admonished him freely, to take ordre that bishoppes and other inferiour pastours might be com­pelled Dat. Tri­denti. 17. Aprilis Anno Do. 1563. Nowell. fol. 44. b. 24. to kepe residēce with their charges, and threatened to him vtter dānation in the iudgemēt of God, vnlesse he did.

It foloweth not you saye, that one being chosen to beruler emongest twelue, that therefore one maie be also chosen to be ruler ouer all the cleargie of the worlde. No more do the it that because there was one chosen of euerye one churche or diocesse to rule the reste, that therefore there shoulde be one chosen to ru­le all bishoppes of all diocesses: namely at Rome, and the saide ru­ler to be called pope or heade of the vniuersall churche.

The first answere touching that one heade emongest Dorman. Institut. li. 4. cap. 6. Sect. 8. fol. 53. a. b the Apostles, you learned of youre Maister Caluin, against whome I haue proued that the consequent holdeth ve­rye well in my first booke. The argument I haue sho­wed oftentimes howe it holdeth, and last of all in the be­ginning of this chapitre. That, that one heade shoulde be the bishop of Rome, that was not to be proued here, it is proued hereafter there as it should be. No more doe we care for the name, whether he be to be called pope, heade of the vniuersall churche, or by what so euer name elles, so that yow acknowledge his anctoritie ouer the whole church indede.

Where as you saie that this kinde of collection vsed by me fol. 44. b. 3. [Page 76] yow haue proued by my former reasons and similitudes, by my owne witnesses S. Ciprian and S. Hierome, to be vaine and lewde, the reader hathe now my replye in those places to yowre answere. Iff to the learned it seme so, then yow maye brag­ge. As I trust I haue satisfied the sounder iudgementes there in: so will I when yow perfourme youre greate promise that yow here make, assaye good willing to do the like.

That the testimonie of LEO is authentike, and proueth directly that, for the whiche it was firste alleaged. The 14. Chapitre.

To beginne with that which you note in the margent, fol. 45. [...]. that I haue otherwise alleaged this place then it is in all the printed bokes that yow haue sene: I inferre, that then you haue not sene all. For you haue not sene that copie which being printed at Colon by Iohn Birckman the yonger, beareth the date of the yeare off oure Lorde 1561. and rea­deth as I alleaged. But of that yow giue me more oc­casion to speake hereafter. Nowe to the place of LEO it selfe.

Yow graunte, that the councell of Chalcedon called Leo of Nowell. whome we nowe dispute, sanctissimum & beatissimum, moste holye and moste blessed, but with all (you aske) what that maketh for a. 21. his supremacie.

If it make not for his supremacie, it is no greate matter Dorman. M. Nowell. For who brought it for the proufe of his supre­macie I praie you let me aske you that question? You playe with me here as yow did before, when you brought me in solemly reasoning vpon certaine titles vsed by Vrsatius and Valens to Iulius the B. of Rome to proue his supremacie, of the which notwithstanding to be applyed to that pur­pose as I neuer made anie mention: so neuer entred there [Page] anye suche imagination into my minde. Yeat bothe there then and here nowe, you fight with youre owne shadowe like a tall man, vnder S. Cyprians baner, and count the fi­elde halfe wonne, where there is no man to matche with yow. Iff I shoulde vse yow so M. Nowell, yow woulde sa­ye and so yow might iustlye, that I dreamed. What su­che dealing ought to be called in yow let the wise Reader iudge.

To the purpose why I alleaged this honourable men­tion made by 630 fathers assembled out of all the worlde of Leo the Pope, I did it to encountre with the sclaunde­rouse reporte of that venimouse viper hissing oute of his donne of Geneua, who when he coulde not denie that he Caluin. Lib. Instit. 4. cap. 8. Sect. 11. was bothe learned an eloquent, woulde yeat (he thought) take from him that, whiche is and ought in all men to be chiefely valued, the name of vertue and holynesse: and the­refore he saieth, that he was a man aboue measure desirou­se of glorie and dominion. This I iudged also, not amisse, woulde be a chiefe exception against this blessed bishop by his scholers and folowers in Englande, and therefore I prouided so to arme his innocencie by the iudgement off so manie vertuouse and learned fathers, as who so euer woulde hereafter depraue his name, well might he shewe him selfe a maliciouse fole, but the fame of Leo with wyse men he shoulde neuer be hable to empaire. And surely if Leo to auaunce his owne See had taught a false doctrine, the councell woulde neuer we maye be sure haue called him moste holye. But that matter the fathers them selues in that certificate of theirs which they sent to him, bothe by wordes and deede haue put oute of all doubte. By wor­de, Act. 3. when they called him the man to whome oure Lorde had committed the custodie of his vin yarde: By deede, when they [Page 77] desired him to ratifie and confirme their doinges. But nowe you will propose youre exceptions against this testimonie of Leo, in ordre and fourme of lawe, and fight with me he­re vpon mine owne grounde.

First you laie for the fundatiō of youre first exceptiō, that Nowell. fo. 45. b. 6 Borowed of Caluin li. 4. Inst. cap. 8. A lie. 32. it is moste euident that the epistles caried about in the names off the first auncient popes, are either forged or at the leaste corrupted by their ambitiouse successours of latter time. Yow proue yt to be moste euident, because it is you saie, easie to be percey­ued. As yow will hereafter by manye circumstances de­clare.

If yow neuer declare it, it will neuer be perceiued. It Dorman. will be taken in the meane season to be but as it is, a sclaun­derouse lye. Which youre selfe as it shoulde seme halfe sus­pecting, graunte vnto vs that it maie be taken for Leo his owne epistle. And suerlie if yow woulde not haue graun­ted it, yow had bene muche to blame. For Caluin youre Maister durst not denie it to be Leo his, yea confessing that there remained true epistles of the olde bishoppes off Rome, wherein the auctoritie of that See was sett furthe (of which sorte saieth he, are some epistles of Leo) he noteth e­mongest other for one of them this epistle to the B. off Vbi supra. Thessalonica. To the which youre maister had nothing to saye, but that whether the churches then beleued his testimo­nie Caluins vaine re­prouing of this e­pistle of Leo. when he so aduaunced him selfe, that is it (quoth he) in dede that is in controuersie. From the which without anie further proufe why it should be in cōtrouersie, he passing, addeth: But it appeareth that manie offendid with his ambition did also withstand his gredie desire. The whiche he also affirmeth without anie proufe, as though his wordes ought to haue with vs the auctoritie of epistle or ghospell. Except the next sentence that folowe proue it, where he mentioneth [Page] that in this epistle, Leo appointed in his stede the B. of Thessa­lonica thorough out Gracia and other countries adioining, the B. of Orleance or some other thorough out Fraunce, Hormisdas B. of Hispalis to be his vicair in Spaine. Against all the which he hath nothing elles to saie, but that he euer graunted his cō ­missions vpon this condition, (whiche we graunte and ne­uer pope denied) that the metropolitanes should haue their auncient priuileages saufe and whole: so muche was youre maister either more shamefast then you or lesse impudent, who when he acknowledged this to be the true epistle off Leo, and had as manie subtile shiftes to auoide it as yow, durst yeat neuer bring into the light suche foolishe excep­tions as yow doe. But now let vs here you propose the first, for the which you haue laied as a fundation to leane vnto, so notable a lie.

The first exception against this testimonie of Leo is this: Nowell. b. 13. No man maie be witnesse in his owne cause nor iudge. Therefore Leo his testimonie brought furthe for the preeminence of his own See is not to be admitted &c. This exception of youres yow proue by reason, by scripture, by lawe.

First to answere youre reason if reason theire maie be in Dorman. anie so vncharitable a iudgement: I saie it is false that the holiest and best men be lightly partiall in their owne mat­ters. He is neither holie nor good, much lesse to be accoun­ted amongest the holiest and best, that for the bettring off his owne cause will swarue from the truthe. Youre testi­monie alleaged out of the ghospell is not to the purpose. Ioan. 5. For that place proueth not, that allwaies the testimonie that a man giueth of himselfe is false, but that when a man hath to doe with aduersaries that will not otherwise beleue him, as the Phariseis woulde not Christ, then he must vse the testimonie of other thē him selfe. Which as Leo in such [Page 78] case you maie be suer did: so whē the matter was so farre frō being by anie aduersarie gainesaide, that he made his com­mission B. 25. to the bishop of Thessalonica to be in his steade thorough out Grecia and other countries adioning as he did here, what nede had he there to bring anie proufes, where there was at all no doubte? If yow will saie, that I de­fending the auctoritie of the pope bring Leo against yow which are the aduersaries, and that therefore nowe becawse you are against Christes vicair, as the Phariseis were a­gainst Christe him selfe (for so doe yow confesse that you M. No­well con­fesseth him selfe to reason against Leo as the phariseis dyd a­gainst Christ. reason as they did, although perhappes yow woulde haue bene angrie with an other that should haue saide so much) so I must bring other witnesse then him except I will take the foile: To that I answere, that you come nowe to late with that exception if it had no other faulte. For to answere you who dispute so depely oute of the lawe like one that is not alltogether ignorant therein, conclusum est in causa M. Nowell, & sententia transijt in rem iudicatā. I nede not to ex­pounde these termes vnto you who haue the marow of the glose euen at youre fingres endes. For other men who haue not atteined to such knowledge, I saie: that seing in Leo his time when he appointed in this epistle the bishop of Thes­salonica in his steade thorough out Grecia, and other coun­tries adioining, in an other place the B. of Orleance or some other thorough out Fraunce, Hormisdas bishop of Hispalis to be his vicair in Spaine, the churches that thē were and in to whose power the churches of this time succede, excepted nothing against these doinges of his in his owne cause as you surmise, but suffered thē to passe till our time, the space of 1100. yeares and odde: I answere I saye for replie to youre exception, that had this testimonie bene (being vrged by the rigour of the lawe) insufficient, that yeat forasmoche as [Page] the churche from that time hetherto accepted it for suffici­ent, you come now to late to propose matter against it. To make the matter by example more plaine: if my auncestor a hundred yeares past in a contention betwene him and so­me other aboute a piece of landes, woulde vpon trust of the vpright conscience of some neare kinsman of his aduer­saries, admit him to be a witnesse or iudge in the matter whome he might laufullie repell: might I if sentence were giuen against my auncestor by the meanes of this iudge or witnesse, come after the 100. yeares and excepte against the witnesse or iudge? Leo speaketh not nowe M. Nowell, he gaue this testimonie that the giueth 1100. yeares agoe. The whole churche iustified his persone then, to be bothe holie and blessed. It is to late and to muche shame also for yow to starte vp now and saye the contrary.

Thus muche might be saied if it were true that Leo had bene witnesse or iudge in his own cause. But the truthe is, it is not his cause, it is the cause of Christes church and of the whole ordre of priesthod. For he pronoūceth for that seate vnde vnitas sacerdotalis exorta est, frō whence priestly vnitie Cipr. li. 4. Epis. 9. & [...]libi. came: Neither is Leo in this place more to be reiected for mainteining the supremacie of Peters seate wherein he thē sate, then are the testimonies of S. Cipriā, mainteining the iurisdiction of his owne bishoprike against stubborne re­belles. Shall S. Hieromes auctoritie against deacons who woulde be equall with priestes, be of no auctoritie because him selfe was a prieste? This is not the meaning M. Nowell of the glose, as greate a gloser as you be. The glose meaneth that in priuate matters that concerne the pope, as he is like­wise How the glose brought by M. Nowell is to be vnder­stande. a priuate mā, he shal not him selfe be iudge, but in those thinges which concerne the whole bodie of the church and belōg to the ordre therof, and haue no other iudge in earth, [Page 79] it taketh not away the power of being witnesse or iudge.

Pighius you saye alleaged beside the decree of the pope, the co­uncell Nowell. fol. 46. a. 1 of Vienna, lest anie man might estemethe auctoritie the les­se as proceding from the pope in his owne case. And by this yow saye it maye seeme that he thinketh the popes onelie testimonie in his owne cause not to be sufficient.

Pighius was neuer of that minde that you would haue him seme to be. When he spake these wordes he touched Dorman. the humour and noted the fashion of heretikes, and therfo­re ex abundanti he cast in the mention of the councell of Vienna, which I coulde doe also if that woulde helpe the matter, and for Vienna giue yow Calcedon: for 300. bringe yow 630. bishoppes, that called Leo the kepar of Christes vineyard, vniuersal bishop, with other termes to that effect.

I forbare to alleage (I confesse so muche) in one place off a, 28. my boke, the notable testimonies of Clemens, Anacletus, Euaristus, Alexander, Xistus, Telesphorus, Pius, Victor, Fabia­nus, and suche other, onely because the gainesaiers might happelie haue excepted against them, that because they we­re bishoppes of Rome they were not in that cause which was there owne, indifferent witnesses. How saye you M. Nowell what gather you hereof? That you might laufullye take exception to them as not indifferent? If you gather so you wrangle with me. My wordes that went before, in whi­che to iustifie their persones and to shewe how vnlaufullie you shoulde doe it, I called them martirs and in the whole course of their liues verie apostles, doe witnesse with me the contrarie. Yeat saide I that you might doe it, de facto not de iure, as you maie kill a man in dede but not by lawe. As fast as you saie I laied on loade of not onelie popishe wit­nesses, but popes them selues: for popes I thinke it will be harde for you to name but one beside Leo, Innocentius and Gregorie the first, whose sainges I alleaged. And why I [Page] brought those rather then other I showed good cause. I de­nie not yeat for all that, but that euen this onely Leo I thin­ke is a heauier loade then yow woulde be gladde to beare. That I yealded so muche at that time as to omit the testi­monies of those notable popes. I repent me therof. By po­pishe witnesses you can meane no other but the fathers off Christes church, and those to within the first six hundred yeares, for other I alleaged none. If as you would discredite A shift of M. No­welles not hear­de of be­fore to discredite all the fa­thers that make for. the popes auctori­tie. the popes because they be popes: so you will discredite these aūcient writers because they be popish and write for the po­pe, then you haue founde a more neare waie I confesse then M. Iuell coulde. Who alloweth all within the first 600. yeares.

As before for the fundatiō of this your first exceptiō you laied a false sclaunderouse lye to builde vpon: so now to vn­derprop the same, vnder the colour off a more reasonable cause of exceptiō, you bring in a feined story of Sozimus bisshop of Rome, who (you saie,) did falsefie the decrees of the Nicene councel, whereupon you will conclude, that neither Leo b. 3. nor anye other pope neither, is to be beleued in this matter. Not vnlike to the foolishe gentle woman that sware she woul­de neuer loue oure Ladie more, because she was a Ie­we borne and the Iewes had put Christe to deathe. I knowe I shall seme to manie men to digresse to far from my purpose in folowing youre rouing from the matter, yeat something will I saye thereto, because I knowe it to be one of the principall baites whiche suche fishers as you be M. Nowell, vse to laye to bring men from the obedience of the Sea of Rome, and hetherto in oure English tongue no­thing hath bene answered thereto. But because it is here impertinently entermedled with the answere to Leo, I will first to auoide confusion ende that matter, and then handle [Page 80] the other by it selfe.

Yow saye that Pighius affirmeth and I denye, that the title Nowell. fol. 48. a. 9 off oecumenicall or vniuersall Patriarke apperteineth to the bis­shop of Rome of right, and that therefore there must nedes be so­me erroure.

You report vntrulye of me M. Nowell. Loke better v­pon Dorman. the place. I reherse there the wordes of S. Gregorye who reprehended Iohn the B. of Constantinople for ta­king on him the name of vniuersall bishop. Which title al­though it perteined to that Iohn in no sense, and was as he affected it a prophane title and altogether mete for Anti­christ: yeat in that sense and meaning that it belonged to S. Gregorie (in which sense onelye it is to be taken when it is applyed to the bishop of Rome) I denied it not to pertei­ne to the pope. Thus doe Pighius and I agree. Thus is there no errour: thus goe you forwarde to encrease the numbre Lye. 33. of youre lyes.

Yow merueile greatly that Leo woulde so ambitiously cha­lenge Nowell. a. 14. in this epistle the same title in effect which he refused so free­ly offred vnto him by the whole councell &c.

LEO, Gregorie after him, Pius whiche is nowe, nor Dorman. anye pope that euer was before did striue about titles yow maye be suer. The best title that they haue eche off them, hathe bene and is, to be called Seruus seruorum Dei, the ser­uaunt of the Seruauntes of God. But of this maye be mer­ueiled more in what schole yow haue learned this man­ner, with him that of humiltie refuseth suche titles as se­me to gloriouse, to deale so hardelye, that because he refu­seth the name, he must nedes be depriued of the thinge. The histories make mention that Vitellius the emperoure woulde neither be called Augustus nor Cesar, Cesar refu­sed the name of kinge: Augustus and Antonius of Lordes. [Page] Woulde youre wisedome haue serued yow nowe M. No­well if you had liued in their time, to denie them their Em­periall, kingly, and lordly auctoritie, because they woulde not be called by suche names?

The councel is no councel where the heade is absent or [...]. [...]0. cōsenteth not being present, and therfore if here this cōpa­nie gathered togather in giuing this title to the pope had iudged amisse, yet had not the councell erred. I denie not as you saie I doe, that the councell did well: bothe the coun­cell did well in offring a name mete to expresse the aucto­ritie which the pope had, and so erred not, and the bishop also well to refuse the same. Except yow will saye, that S. Paule when he refused the almoise and charitie off good 1. Cor. 9. men, either did euell in refusing it, or they euill in offring it. The pope claimeth not this title, no more then Leo dyd accepte it being offred. Calle him by what sobre honeste name you list: Graunte him the auctoritie due to him, let all titles goe. This is that whiche the pope claimeth and you ought not to denie. This is that whiche Leo most modestly, not as yow falselye terme it (ambitiously) cha­lenged to Peters seate. Nowe let all reasonable men iud­ge hardely of the goodnesse of this exception, whiche is a. 24. youre first.

The seconde exception that you vse against this testi­monie of Leo (for now yow saie yow will goe an other waye Nowell. a. 28. to worke with me) is, that Leo saieth here vntruelye (if these be Leo his wordes, for that yow saye is yeat in controuersie). But before you proue it, yow will first aske me a question, whether I haue trulye translated the place, and iff I haue, howe I can make these wordes in this epistle, there is one dignitie common to all bishoppes, to agree with these folowing, there is difference of power emongest them, and, it is giuen to one to be aboue all the reste whose iudgement is of moste auctoritie, b. 1. and howe this man is not in dignitie differing from the rest?

Yow doe like a wise man to goe an other awaye to wor­ke, Dorman. for some men thinke, you did but plaie before. But I merueile why you shoulde put anie doubtes whether these be Leo his wordes or no, seing that Caluin confesseth this epistle to be true and to be his. To youre first question I answere, that I haue translated this place trulye according to the copie printed at Colein anno 1561. To the next mo­ued vpon this, how then I can make these wordes agree, one dignitie common to all, and difference of power, that they a­gree thus, that allthough they haue all one dignitie of prie­stehode or bishoprike, that yeat there is difference of power in iurisdiction. If spirituall examples like yow not: if you can not perceiue this agrement at home in youre owne chapitre, where being all equall in the dignitie of canons or prebendaries, yeat one deane, him selfe also a canon and in that respecte equall to the rest, is aboue the other in power, nor in youre prouince of Cauntorburie where all the bis­shoppes equall in that dignitie, are yeat inferiour to the Archebishop in power, as youre selfe some times graunte, namelie before fol. 32. a. where you vse the worde chiefe pre­lates of euerie prouince: yeat take the paines to make a step to westminstre hall, where when yow beholde the honorable iudges sitting in their places, although they beequall in this dignitie that they be all the Quenes iudges, yeat is there you can not denie difference of power emongest them. And so haue they all one dignitie common to them, allthough so­me of them be in superioritie aboue the other. I showed yow before, but it pleaseth yow that it be repeated here a­gaine, where with I am also not offendid, that so the reader maie the better vnderstande youre vanitie, how S. Austen Contra duas epist. [...] ea. 1. Tom. [...] writing to Bonifacius then pope, confesseth that he and o­ther bishoppes haue all one bishoprike common with him [Page] (beholde the dignitie common) but that yeat altius praesidet he sitteth higher, preaeminet celsiore fastigio speculae pastoralis he is aboue the rest in the higher top of the pastorall wat­che tower. And what is this but in one dignitie, difference of power, whilest other bishoppes sit beneathe and loke onely euerie one to his owne flocke, and he that sitteth a­boue hathe power to ouerloke all? This Iarre as yow call it, is framed M. Nowell. Yow maie now when it shall please yow doe this greate acte that you speake of, that is proue Leo vntrue by two witnesses against one. Although this M. No­well cal­leth Leo thiefe by crafte. I can not passe ouer in silence, that where yow call Leo suche a witnesse as if a man shoulde aske youre felowe whether yow be a thiefe or no, you liken and resemble him in those wordes to a thiefe, whome the whole councell of Calce­don B. 24. as youre selfe confesse, called moste holye and moste bles­sed: yow sclaunder him whome they reioised that God had Allocutio­ne Calcedon Concil. ad Martia­num Imp. prouided for his churche an impregnable defendour against all errours, whome they called their heade, and the kepar of oure Lordes vineyarde. Youre venimouse and virulent tongue hath not spared him being deade, whome Attila that cruell In Relatio. Synod. ad Leon. barbarouse tyrant, he whome the worlde called flagellum dei the scourge of God, durst not touche being a liue. Paulus Diaconus an approued historiographer maketh mention, Lib. 5. de Gestis Rom. that when hauing now spoiled Thracia, Illiricum, Macedo­nio, Moesia, Achaia, Graecia, Hungarie, Germanie, he was entred with like furie into Italie, and had taken euen the high waie to Rome to sacke and destroie that, this holye bishop and vertuouse olde man Leo, accompanied (as some saie) with one Consul, and parte of the Senate, met him in the waye. To whome after he had made a verie shorte but pithy oration, to this effect to shewe mercy to the citie off Rome, the cruell monstre without anie furder hurte doing [Page 82] reculed backe, graunted to the bishop euen as he had wished before: and confessed after to those that were nearest a­boute him, merueiling at and demaunding the cause of this sodeine chaunge of his minde, that it was not for the feare of his persone who came vnto him, but of an other reue­rent olde man standing by him in priestly habite, who thre­atened him terribly with a sworde ready drawen, vnlesse he accorded to all thinges that he shoulde require. Now con­sidre you good readers what maner of man he is that rai­leth thus vpon suche a father as Leo was, and thinke what it is that he will take conscience in the doing or saing, who is not ashamed to diffame the chiefe man in his time of all the worlde. But nowe let vs see how yow proue Leo to be vntrue.

Yow saye that he dissentith first from S. Cyprian, and next Nowell. fo. 49. a. 23 from S Hierome. From S. Cyprian, because he is of the minde that controuersies shoulde be determined in the place where they doe arise, and that this sentence of his, and that no, appellations shoulde be made to anie B. of an other prouince, yea and that na­melie not to the B. of Rome, nor that he shoulde sende anie lega­tes Laterall to heare or determine forraine matters, doth the who­le councell of Carthage where in was S. Augustine, Orosius, and Prosper confirme.

Youre allegation out of S. Cyprian is of no effect Dorman. because yow belye him. He speaketh not there against laufull appellations but onelie, that criminall causes shoulde be iudged at home. And so the pope allwaies obserueth. He calleth not the witnesses to Rome from farre countries, but delegateth a legat to the prouince where the cōtrouersie is. The thing that specially grieued here S. Ciprian was, that these desperate men of whome he speaketh, ran to certeine Numidian bishoppes to be reconciled of them. Of the B. of Rome that he neuer ment to diminish his auctoritie, his sen­ding [Page] a messenger to Rome to purge him selfe and prosecute the matter against those naughty mē, with other diuerse ar­guments and cōiectures mētioned before in the 11. chap. doe well witnesse. Of the 6. African councell because it depen­deth vpon the matter of Zosimus, I shall in the nexte chapi­tre entreate.

S. Ciprian you saye applieth manie suche places of the scrip­tures Nowell. 49. b. 3. as are customably alleaged for the popes supremacie ouer all bishoppes, to the declaration of the equall auctoritie of euerie bis­shop in his owne diocesse.

The places brought by S. Cyprian, are alleaged to per­suade Dormen. obedience to those that be heades and gouernours. The graunting of one chiefe heade ouer all diminisheth not the auctoritie of inferiour bishoppes, who in respecte of the priestes and people vnder them, are in their diocesses the high priestes and princes of the people. And thus muche doth Leo graunte in this epistle him selfe. Therfore he­therto there is no Iarre betwene S. Cyprian and him.

You bring the place of S. Cyprian in his boke De simplicitate praelatorum, or as the truer copies reade, De vnitate ecclesiae, to ouerthrowe Leo. The which place because youre selfe haue pitefully mangled, as one that was not ignorant how euell it woulde haue serued youre turne without so­me helpe of youre accustomed squaring: I will take the paines to alleage it trulie for you. The wordes are these. Et quamuis Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem po­testatem tribuat & dicat: Sicut misit me pater, & ego mitto vos, accipite spiritum sanctum: Si cui remiseritis peccata remittentur illi, si cui tenueritis tenebuntur: tamen vt vnitatem manifestaret vnitatis eiusdem originem ab vno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit. Hoc erant vtique & caeteri apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis, SED EXORDIVM [Page 83] AB VNITATE PROFICISCITVR VT ECCLESIA VNA MONSTRETVR. That is to saye: And although oure Lorde gaue like power to all his apostles after his resurre­ction and saide: As my father sent me, so sende I you. Take you the holie ghost, whose synnes you forgiue they are for­giuen, whose sinnes you reteine they are reteined: yeat to set furthe vnitie he disposed by his auctoritie, the same vnitie to beginne of one. That were trulie the other apostles also that Peter was, indued with like felowship of honour and power, but the beginning commeth from vnitie, that the churche maie be declared to be one. These be the wordes of S. Ciprian faithfullie alleaged and trulie englished. I will now repeate the matter euen from the beginning and doe you good Readers to vnderstande, the cause why S. Cypriā mentioneth here at all S. Peter, and why he entreth in to this comparison betwene him and the other apostles, and then after make you priuey to the misteries of M. No­welles sleight in alleaging this place, which he perhappes thinketh that no man knoweth but him selfe, and woulde I dare saie be lothe that anie mo shoulde. For the first it is to be vnderstande, that not manie lines before this place that I haue nowe in hande, S. Cyprian complaining of the fraude and subtilite of oure enemie the diuel, saith, that now that idolles be euerie where destroied, he hath bethought him of a newe waie to deceiue mankinde, and that is by he­resies and schismes to carie them oute of the churche. And this commeth to passe (saieth he) while men come not to the begin­ning of truthe, the heade is not sought out, neither the doctrine off oure heauenly maister kepte, which thinges if a man woulde con­sidre and examine, there woulde nede no long discourse nor grea­te argumentes. The truthe hath made the way to proue the faithe easy: Oure Lorde saieth to Peter and vpon this rocke will I buil­de Math. 18. [Page] my churche. &c. And after his resurrection he saieth to him, fee­de my shepe. And although after his resurrection he gaue all his apostles like power, and so furthe as I rehersed before. After all this he addeth: Hanc ecclesiae vnitatem qui non tenet, tenere se fi­dem credit? This vnitie of the churche he that holdeth not, thinketh he that he holdeth the faith? Thus farre S. Cipriā. The occasion you see that moued him to mention Peter, Note. and to compare him with the other apostles, was because to auoide schismes we must he said seke out vnitie by the scrip­ture, where we shoulde finde, that our lord woulde haue his churche to begin of one: of him, to whome he saide: thow art Petre and vpon this rocke will I builde my churche. Well then must this be reteined as a truthe in the meane season, if we will be within the vnitie of the churche, we must kepe vs in that churche which beginning and springing out of one roote, or flowing out of one heade founteine (for these be also in this place S. Cyprians similitudes) is one. Now let vs applye the place as it is alleaged by you M. Nowell, and see whether you haue vsed S. Cyprian wel or no. You alleage the place to proue such an equalitie emongest th' a­postles as that there should be no difference emongest thē, and so ouerthrowe all S. Cyprians drift whereby he woulde proue the churche to be one, because it taketh beginnin­ge of one. For if they be all equall and no difference betwe­ne them, then either the churche hathe no one beginning or 12. beginninges. If no one beginning, howe can the vnitie procede of that which is not? if 12, how can the chur­che be therefore one because as S. Cyprian saieth the vni­tie thereof beginneth of one, or what beginning call yow that of vnitie, that commeth from suche an equall multi­plicitie? If therefore it be builded vpon one alone (as by S. Cyprian it appeareth that it must) then is that one aboue [Page 84] the rest. Nowe to haue the churche builded vpon one, is thus muche to saye, that as in a materiall building there is one foundation whereupon all the rest thereof, stone, tym­bre, Iron and what so euer elles, leaneth: so there is in the churche one, to whome after Christe the great rocke and firste grounde, all the rest that be membres thereof muste as it were leane, he him selfe bearing the burdē of the who­le building. Is not this to be the chiefe stone in Gods buil­ding? If you shoulde here perhappes wrangle, and saye that although it appeare by this place, that Christe disposed the beginning of vnitie to procede from one, and from Peter toe, that yeat here is no mention that the churche shoulde be builded vpon him, notwistanding that Christe speaking off Peter saide he woulde builde it vpon that rocke: then I remit you for the proufe that S. Cipriāmeaneth so here, to those places of his lib. 1. epist. 3. epist. 8. 12. lib. 4. epist. 9. lib. de ha­bit. Virgin. lib. de bono pati. epist. ad I ubaianum. And last of all to the epistle ad Quintum where he hath in expresse wordes against this equalitie that you dreame of: Petrus quem Do­minus primum elegit & super quē aedificauit ecclesiā suam. Peter whome oure Lord chose to be the chiefe and vpon whom he builded his churche. This because yow sawe M. Nowell M. No­well sha­mefully misuseth S. Cypriā, that the verie wordes of S. Cyprian in this place did pur­port, and that alleaged wholly they were to vnequall to serue your fantasied equalitie, you first hewed of this knot, Et quamuis, and although. Then you shaued cleane awa­ye, tamen vt vnitatem manifestaret, yeat that he might make vnitie manifest, vnto this place. Hoc erant vtique. And yeat that sentence escaped not youre fingers, for the last parte thereof: Sed exordium, but the beginning procedeth from vnitie, you pared cleane awaye. First the worde Quamuis, althou­ghe, is of suche a nature, that where so euer it be put, it is a [Page] messenger that signifieth some diuersitie like to followe, as when S. Cyprian saide here, although the Apostles were e­quall, that which foloweth, yeat he disposed the beginning off vnitie to begin of one, argueth in that point some inequalitye. Againe, the wordes that folowe: tamen vt vnitatem manife­staret, yeat that he might make vnitie knowen, and, vt ecclesia v­na monstretur, that the churche may be shewed to be one: These you passed ouer because in them lyeth the very cau­se, why oure Sauioure hath appointed one to be aboue the rest, for vnities sake: because otherwise it coulde not haue bene chosen, but so manie rulers so manie faithes, and then where had vnitie bene? Beside this, the worde ab vno incipi­entem, beginning of one, lefte also quite oute, ouerthroweth that false proposition of youres, that to vnite the churche and make it one in earthe, there neadeth no other heade then Christe which is in heauen. Whiche if it had bene so, what nede was there that Christe shoulde appointe a mor­tall man to that office, as here it appeareth he did Peter. To this moste shamelesse mangling and mutilating of this and other lyke places of the fathers vsed by you and youre fel­lowes, I saye as S. Cyprian in this verie place saieth to such like craftes men, that vsed so to alleage thinges to their va­untage in his tyme. Corruptores euangelij atque interpretes fal­si extrema ponunt & superiora praetereunt, partim memores, par­tim subdole corrumpentes. Vt ipsi ab ecclesia scissi sunt, ita capi­tuli vnius sententiam scindunt. That is to saie. The corrup­ters of the ghospell, and false interpretours take that which commeth behinde, and leaue out that which goeth before, partly mindefull, partly craftely corrupting. As they are them selues cut from the churche, so deuide they the mea­ning The an­swere to the place of S. Cy­prian. of one sentence. Thus muche of youre falsehode in alleaging this place. Nowe to the place I answere, that S. [Page 85] Cyprian sayeth not, that Christe gaue like power to his A­postles in all respectes absolutely, but determineth particu­lerly wherein this equalitie dothe consist, as in being sent to preache thorough out all the worlde as Christ was sent by his Father, in power of forgiuing sinnes. Which power being giuen to them streight vpon Christes resurrection, and being common to them as they were all the generall legates of Christe thorough out the worlde, derogateth no­thing by S. Cyprians minde from that speciall auctoritie that Christe departing out of this worlde gaue to Peter to continue. And therefore to shewe that this was his mea­ning, euen as before S. Hierome after the like equalitie mē ­tioned Cap. 13. in the Apostles, concludeth, (that notwithstanding) that Peter was chosen to be the heade emongest them: so dothe here S. Cyprian after the generall rule that they had all like power, adde as an exception from the rule, the same that S. Hierome hath in other wordes: Tamen vt vnitatem &c. yeat to make vnitie manifeste he disposed the begin­ning thereof by his auctoritie to begin of one. Thus much maye suffice to satisfie youre wondring M. Nowell, with what face I haue bene so boulde and busye with S. Cy­prian.

To the place of S. Hierome which you bring also to fol. 50. a. 9. b. 6. proue that the dignitie of a bishop is not estemed by the greatnesse of his diocesse or citie, and that all be equall in office, I saie: that it is true that the dignitie of a bishop de­pendeth not vpon the greatnesse of his diocesse: but it is false that there be no degrees in the office of a bishop. That yow bring Erasmus to proue it, it forceth not. For he is with Catholikes of no more auctoritie thē Pighius is with yow.

That betwene S. Cyprian Hierome and Leo there is no disagrement. The 15. chapiter.

Yow are now come to the comparing of the sainges of S. Cyprian and S. Hierome, with the testimonie of Leo bearing witnesse (yow saye) to him selfe. The which you compare firste after this sorte.

Leo saieth, In the holie Apostles them selues there was a dif­ference Nowell. b. 8. of power, and that it was geuen to one to be aboue all the rest. On the contrarie parte S. Cyprian saieth, the Lorde gaue like and equall auctoritie to all his apostles: all the Apostles be in­dewed with like felowship both of honour and power.

Neither are Leo his wordes trulie alleaged, neither ye­at Dorman. S. Cyprians. Leo sayeth, that inter beatissimos Apostolos False dea­ling in al­leaging the wor­des of Cyprian, and Leo. in similitudine honoris fuit quaedam discretio potestatis, emon­gest the blessed Apostles in likenesse of honour there was a certeine difference of power, & quum omnium par esset ele­ctio, vni tamen datum est, vt coeteris praeemineret. And where­as they had all one calling, yeat it was giuen to one to be aboue the rest. S. Cyprians wordes are, that although oure Lorde after his resurrection gaue all his Apostles like power, (behold the likenesse of honour that Leo speaketh of &c.) yeat to make vnitie knowen he disposed by his auctoritie that it should begin of one (Lo here, quaedā discretio potestatis, that cer­teine difference of power acknowledged by S. Cyprian, that Leo mentioneth). What iarring is there here M. No­well, their wordes being trulie alleaged? Naie what swete consent is there betwene these two learned fathers? Leo sa­ieth there was emongest the Apostles a likenes of honour, but yeat a certeine difference of power, he saieth their cal­ling or election was like, but yeat giuen to one to be aboue [Page 86] the rest. Doth not S. Cyprian saie the same, when first in their election to be sent into all the worlde to preache, then in the power of remitting sinnes he maketh them equall, and yeat in adding afterwarde this particle tamen, but yeat, he noted a certeine difference of power, this forsoth, that vpon one of them the beginning and verie fundation of v­nitie should be laied, notwithstanding all the equalitie o­therwise? Is this true dealing M. Nowell thus to bring in M. No­well man­gleth the wordes of Leo and S. Cypriā to make them di­sagree. mangled at youre pleasure the sainges of the fathers, to de­face them to the worlde, as here yow doe, by taking from the wordes of Leo this particle quaedam, making him to seme the more to differ from S. Cyprian, and cutting from S. Cyprian those wordes, that vnitie should begin of one, con­teining that certeine difference in likenes of honour that Leo speaketh of? Yow saie that S. Cyprian hath this in his boke De simplicitate praelatorum, noting them as double faced prelates that teache or attēpt to make one bishop aboue an other. The true title of the boke is De vnitate ecelesiae, of the vni­tie of the churche, as to him that shall reade it, maie easly by the contentes thereof appeare. Yow are therefore a dou­ble faced or manie headed prelate, that for one chiefe heade giue vs so manie.

You procede in youre cōparison and saie, that Leo hathe: out of this fourme is taken oure difference of bishops, that in euerie prouince one be Dorman. chiefe and of most auctoritie, and the bishop of greter cities to haue greater care, and consequētly that he that sitteth in Peters chaire should haue charge and be head of the vniuersal church. Thus (you say) Leo saieth because he him selfe wold be Lord and head ouer all the church, wheras S. Cyprian on the other side saieth: Euerie bishop hath his seuerall portion of Christes flock to rule and gouern &c. that those who are vnder the charge of the B. of one coūtrie, may not appeale to a bishop of an other, for that the auctoritie of one bishop is not inferiour to an other, nor the auctorite of the B. of Afrike is lesse then the auctoritie of the bishopps of Italie, or Rome it selfe (for his wordes haue euidentlie [Page] that relation (and that none thinke the auctoritie of one bishop to be lesse then the auctoritie an other but a few wicked and despe­rate men.

You were driuē to the wall M. Nowell when you were forced Dorman. for a pore shift to say, that Leo said as he did, because he wolde haue bene lord and heade ouer the church. S. Cipriā saith that euerie bishop hath his seuerall portion. The same saieth. Leo. Leo saieth that the charge of the vniuersall church must Lib. 1. ep. 3 haue recourse to Peters chaire. S. Ciprian saieth not the cō ­trarie. Yea so saieth S. Ciprian toe, calling Rome matricem, the mother church. And whither should children I pray you haue recourse for succour but to their mother. He saith not that the subiecte of one bishop may not appeale to an other, Lyes. that is one lie: He saieth not that the cause determined by o­ne 34 bishop may be called before no other, that is an other lie. He maketh no comparison as you say he doth, betwene the 35 bishoppes of Afrike, Italie and Rome, behold the third lye. He saieth not that none but a fewe wicked and despe­rate 36 men thinke the auctoritie of one bishop to be lesse then 37 the auctoritie of an other: which if he shoulde youre selfe were like by that meanes to be of the nombre of such despe­rate and wicked men, who before acknowledged chiefe pre­lates, a worde that presupposeth other that be inferiour, and fol. 32. 2. be cōtrarie to him selfe, as I proued before by his writing to Steuen the pope, wherby he required him to take ordre by his lettres for the remouing from his bishoprike, Martianus the B. of Arles, and by that, that him selfe sent to Rome to Cornelius to trie the matter before him with those euill mē that complained vpon him there, by his excepting againste the sentence giuen by the pope for the restitution of Basili­des, for no other cause but because it was obteined by false information. All which exāples doe not only proue that he was not of the minde that no one bishop was aboue an o­ther, [Page 87] but this also, that the B. of Rome was of greater aucto­ritie then the bishoppes of Fraunce, Spaine, or Afrike.

Hetherto of the disagrement betwene S. Ciprian and Leo, which by this time all men, I trust perceiue to be no suche as you vaunted it was, yea to be none at all, but suche consent rather as in diuerse wordes there can not be grea­ter. It foloweth that we examine how Hierome and Leo agree.

S Hierome (yow saye) hath, that all churches worshipping one Nowell. fo. 51. a. 10 Borowed out of Caluin Inst. lib. 4 cap. 7. Sect. 3. Christe and obseruing one rule of truthe, are equall with the chur­che of Rome, that all bishoppes be the successours of the Apostles and of one priestehod, and of the same merite and dignitie. But Leo saieth contrarie, that it was giuen to one to be aboue all the rest, and that they who be in greater diocesses or cities haue more care and auctoritie, and that the onelie see of Peter hath charge of the vni­uersall churche and is heade thereof.

Yow belye S. Hierome. He saieth not that all the chur­ches Dorman. A lye. 38. in the worlde be equall. If he did, he shoulde saie con­trarie to Irinaeus, who saieth that the churche of Rome hath potentiorem principalitatem, greater souereintie then other churches haue: contrary to S. Cipriā who calleth Rome the Li. 1. cap. 3 Lib. 1. ep. 3. mother churche, the roote and principall churche, and con­trarie to S. Austen who calleth it the churche in the which the principalitie of the apostolicall see hath allwaies flori­shed. Epist. 162. He saieth that Christes church is not diuided, Nec alte­ra Romanae vrbis eccle­sia, altera totius orbis existi­manda. as tho­ghe Rome were one and the whole worlde an other. As for that, that he saieth that all bishoppes be the successours off the apostles, those wordes make merueilously for the opi­nion of Leo against you. For vpon that proposition of S. Hierome I reason thus. All bishoppes be the successours of the Apostles: but the Apostles were not all equal, because as S, Hierom saith Peter was their head. Ergo by S. Hieromes, minde all bishoppes who be their successours be not equall, [Page] but haue the successour of Peter their heade. Againe, Pe­ter was heade of the Apostles, and made because there shoulde arise no schisme emongest them. Ergo the B. off Rome who is Peters successour, must be heade of his felo­we bishoppes for the same cause. These two propositions, that there was emongest the Apostles one heade, and that that was Peter, be S. Hieromes owne in his first boke against Iouinian. The wordes although I rehersed before, yeat be­cause they perteine not onelie to this matter, but to shewe also how these thre, Ciprian, Hierome, and Leo, mete and knit as it were together in this sentence, that Christ appoin­ted ouer his church one generall heade: I will recite once a­gaine. The wordes therfore of S. Hierō to Iouiniā be these: At dicis, super Petrum fundatur ecclesia, licet idipsum in alio loco super omnes apostolos fiat, & cuncti claues regni coelorum ac­cipiant, & ex aequo super eos ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur, tamen propterea inter duodecim vnus eligitur, vt capite constituto schis­matis tollatur occasio. That is to saie. But thou saiest: The churche is builded vpon Peter, although the same in an o­ther place be done vpon all the Apostles, and all of them receiue the keyes of heauen, and equallye is the strength of the churche grounded vpon them: yeat for all that is the­re one chosen emongest the twelue, that by making a hea­de emongest them occasion of schisme maye be taken a­waye. See yow not nowe by this place of S. Hierome, M. Nowell howe the equalitie of power that S. Cyprian spea­keth of, the similitude of honour and equalitie of calling, that Leo remembreth, the building of the churche in one place vpon all the Apostles indifferentlie that S. Hierome mentioneth, notwithstanding: they all three conclude in o­ne maner (with this worde tamen, notwithstanding) that the churche was builded vpon one, that there was one he­ade, [Page 88] that there was one preferred before the reste. This pla­ce of S. Hierome as it vtterly stoppeth their mouthes, who reason that the Apostles were absolutely in all pointes e­quall: so confirmeth it moste strongly the answere made before to the place of S. Ciprian (that the Apostles were all of equall power and auctority) that that was true at the first, but Ioan. 20. that after, oure Lorde (last before his ascension) gaue the Ioan. 21. chiefe auctoritie to one, in respecte as one was chosen from the rest vpon whome the churche shoulde be builded. S. Hierome saieth that al bishoppes are of one priesthode and of the same merite: you plaie the falsefier and adde of youre owne, and of the same dignitie. The gentlewoman that trans­lated a. 24. S. Hierom falsefied by adding the word (dignitie) whiche is not in him. the Apologie hath preeminence: whiche maketh me to thinke, that you borowed this patche of her, as liking bet­ter to be a folower of her falsehoode then of his simplici­tie, that translating Caluins institutions translated the pla­ce truly.

Nowe for further answere to this place of S. Hierome it is to be vnderstande, that he speaketh here of the custo­me which was in Rome, that at the testimonie off dea­cons priestes were promoted to ordres. The whiche when he saieth, he speaketh not of the B. of Rome him selfe and his auctoritie, but of the vse and custome of that one citie. Nowe is this a thing moste certeine, that neither dothe the pope requier nor euer did, that all churches shoulde folowe the priuate customes of his churche. And therefore saieth S. Hierome, that the custome of the citie of Rome is not the custome of the worlde. Yea in suche a case if the custo­me came to be tried, the pope him selfe woulde saie: Si au­ctoritas quaeritur, orbis est maior vrbe. If you seke to maintei­ne this custome by auctoritie, the worlde is greater then is a citie. Againe where as you woulde persuade men that all [Page] bishoppes be equall, because S. Hierome saieth that they be of equall merite and priesthode: So were the Apostles toe, yeat was one aboue the reste for all that, as Hierome him selfe confesseth calling Peter the heade appointed by Christe.

You haue hearde good readers and I trust in parte vn­derstode, what shamefull shiftes M. Nowell hathe made, howe busilie the man hathe bestirred him selfe with false additions, wrong translations, hacking, hewing, and dis­membring of sentences, howe he hath spared no vilanouse wordes or impudent lies to deface this vertuouse and lear­ned father Leo.

To shewe him selfe no changling, he concludeth with a conclusion lyke to his premisses, that he thinketh that fier and water are not of a more contrarie nature, then are S. Nowell. a. 31. b. 13. Cyprian and S. Hierome contrarie to this epistle alleaged as Leo the popes epistle, beside S. Augustine and 200. and mo bishoppes agreing with them against this Leo. He repeteth againe his ex­ceptions, that Leo in his owne cause is to be suspected, that it is to 1 be doubted whether it be Leo his epistle in dede or an others vn­der 2 his name, that the wordes of his testimonie be eather manife­stly falsefied, or at the least in diuerse copies not onelye diuerse 3 but cleane contrarie. And here his tendre harte coulde not suffer him anie longer to refreine him selfe, but needes he fol. 52. a. 2. must burst oute and lament as it were the case off the po­pe and poperie, that is brought nowe to suche mise­rie, as that being forsaken of all men almoste learned and graue, it coulde finde no other patrones but suche as I am. Allthoughe for that he confesseth, that all suche as are godly and loue the truthe haue cause to thanke almightie God.

Howe contrarie Leo is to S. Cyprian and S. Hierome, Dorman. let the learned iudge: how S. Augustine and the other bis­shoppes [Page 89] make for you, the next chapitre because it depen­deth vpon the historie of Zozimus shall make euident. To the being witnes in his owne cawse, to the doubte of the worcke whether it be Leo his or no, hathe bene answered before. Allthough to certifie yow further in the last point, albeit reason woulde yow shoulde haue showed some better cause of youre doubte then yow haue, lest by that meanes euerie auctoritie brought against yow maie be called in to controuersie, if it please yow to doubte therof: I doe note to yow here in the margent other places out of the same Sermon. 1. 2. 3. In die Aniuers. assumpt. suae ad Pontificat. Leo his worckes, no epistles but certeine sermons of his, where yow shall finde that Peter into whose place he saieth that he vnworthily succeded, had the same right ouer the vniuersall churche that here in this epistle he chalengeth.

For the wordes that they be not falsified in this epistle, I alleaged before a copie printed at Coleine, which readeth as I doe. But then you saie that the wordes be cleane contra­rie, and so that it is impossible that bothe shoulde be true. Nowell. B. 22.

I am content M. Nowell to yow, that yow take the Dorman. place of Leo how yow will, and reade either as some copi­es haue, without non, or as other haue, with non: and when yow haue done, all shall come to one sense. For allthough non being but a little sillable be notwithstanding of greate importaunce generallie, yeat here by reason of the worde ordo which is ambiguouse, and signifieth either a corpora­tion and bodie, as we vse to saie the honorable knightes off the ordre, or proportiō in aray, as when the herauld telleth euerie Lord what ordre he shall kepe in their solēne proces­sions or other assemblies, where this word is taken in an o­ther significatiō: and also of the word dignitas which being in like manner ambiguouse, signifieth either the dignitie of the state of bishoppes, or superioritie in that state: it maketh [Page] no diuersitie at all. When we reade thus: Quibus etsi digni­tas non sit communisest tamen ordo generalis. To whome all though there be not one dignitie common, yeat is there o­ne ordre generall: we vnderstande by this worde (order) the whole order of bishoppes, emongest whome allthough there be diuersitie of dignities, yeat because bishoppes, ar­chebishoppes, primates, patriarches, popes, be all bishoppes, we saie: that, that order of being bishop is common to them all. Likewise in this reading we take dignitas, for superioritie in that ordre. As contrariewise in the other reading, Qui­bus etsi dignitas sit communis non est tamen ordo generalis, we vnderstand that dignitas dothe signifie that, whiche ordo did before, and ordo signifieth that which dignitas did, that is superioritie and preeminence in that vocation. We were not blinde you see M. Nowell, and I trust will beare vs witnes. I thinke we sawe more then yow woulde we shoulde haue done. As for my parte, by whose taking this cawse in hande yow iudge that the matter shoulde be brought to greate extremitie, I confesse (God is my wit­nes) that had I knowen that he had minded to haue writ­ten therein who dyd, that I thinke I shoulde neuer haue taken pen in hande to haue written, nor when I had do­ne and ended my laboure, and knewe howe muche, how learnedlye had bene sayde for the defence thereof, should euer haue suffered the same to goe in to the knowleadge off men, had I not folowed the iudgement off my betters therein. To which good meaning of myne at the firste, and readie obedience to my superiours at the last, seing that it hath pleased almightie God to giue suche successe, as that M. Nowell hauing vttred all his eloquence, and spent all his other store in awnswering (of 143. leaues) to one­lye 15. hathe not yeat answered trulye to 15. wordes: I can [Page 90] not but thinke, that his pleasure was by a young man su­che as I am, to shewe how little those greate pillers off their side were hable to doe. I am not I confesse of that rea­ding and studie in diuinitie that manie other be in oure countrie. What so euer it be that is in me, I vowe it to Chri­ste and his catholike faithe against all heretikes and heresi­es during my life. And suerlye that littell which I haue, shal I trust (I will saie with S. Cyprian, dico prouocatus, dico do­lens, dico compulsus, I saie it being prouoked, I saie it sorow­fully, I saie it compelled by yow thereto) be sufficient at all times to matche with yow in anie of those foure questions that I haue handled in my boke. For why should I doubte, by the aide of God to be hable to saie in defence of the ca­tholike faithe, more then yow shall against it?

Yow saie, that hetherto I haue proued nothing, and that I Nowell. fo. 51. b. 1. haue gone about most lewdely to gather, that because euerie seue­rall countrie, citie, and companie, haue their seuerall princes, ru­lers and heades, that all churches dispersed in all countries, cities, townes, villages &c. shoulde haue one onelie heade here in earthe.

I reasoned and yeat doe reason in this wise: Euerie se­uerall Dorman. countrie, because it is one bodie, euerie seuerall citie and companie for the same cause, must haue their seuerall rulers and heades: Therefore all the churches in the worlde being but one misticall bodie, must haue one chiefe heade to rule and gouerne the same. I reasoned after the same mā ­ner: Euerie particuler churche as hath S. Ciprian and S. Hierome, must haue one bishop to rule the same, and to be the heade thereof. Therefore the whole churche of Christe where the daunger of schismes is greater, and the mischiefe likelier to happen, must haue in like case one heade. I haue shewed yow nowe that youre reasons to the contrarie: There is no one head ouer all the kingdoms in the world, and it is [Page] impossible that there shoulde be one suche, therfore in like maner it is impossible that there shoulde be one generall heade in earthe ouer the vniuersall church, Fol. 32. b. 14. ar of no force, forasmo­che as the difference of these two states is suche, as suffreth Supra cap. 11. fol. 49. b. &. 50. b fol. 50. a & 61. a. not youre argument to holde. As because the diuision off vnitie, (that is of faithe) in the churche, for the maintenaun­ce wherof this ordre was takē that there should be one hea­de in the whole church, is merueilouse daungerouse to christian men, forasmoch as without faith there is no saluatiō, as hath our Sauiour him selfe: Qui non crediderit condemnabi­tur: Marci vlt. Heb. 11. he that beleueth not shall be damned. And the Apostle, Sine fide impossibile est placere deo, To please God without faithe it is a thing impossibile. Whereas it is not so touching the obseruation of anie other vnitie emongest Christian men in ciuile policie, forasmuche as it is not necessarie that all agree in common gouernement, but they maie well according to the diuersitie of countries, tongues, conditions of men, haue diuerse maners of liuing and gouernement. Yea it is necessarie (the contrarie natures of men and coun­tries so requiring) that there be not onelie diuerse but con­trarie positiue lawes in diuerse countries and prouinces. When notwithstanding, no diuersitie of natures, no varietie of customes, no circumstances what so euer they be, can excuse them from the vniforme obseruing in all the whole worlde of godde [...] commaundementes, and ministring of his sacramentes, without the which there is no en­traunce to life. To this maye be added, that to gouerne the whole churche in spirituall thinges, how harde and im­possible a thing so euer it seme to you, is yeat much more easie to be done then to gouerne the worlde in temporall go­uernement, bothe because the businesse and affaires of the worlde are more diuerse and contrarie then are those of the [Page 91] church, and also because the sworde of excommunication wherewith the heade of the churche dothe punishe rebelles, and suche as forsake the truthe, passeth soner and easelier to the correction of suche offendours be they neuer so far of, then doth the materiall sworde which the temporall ma­gistrate vseth. Againe, that there shoulde be one head ouer the whole churche it is Christes institution, who woulde so haue it, when committing to Peter the charge of aswell his shepe as his lambes, he made him generall shepherde, and Homil. 87 in cap. 10. han. 21. ruler as saith Chrisostome, ouer the whole world. Whereas in temporall gouernement, it appeareth not by the scriptu­res that he planted euer anie suche ordre. Naye the scripture Eccles. 17. maketh mention of the contrarie if we will beleue yow. It foloweth. Nowell b. 17.

You haue hearde also, how ignorantly (if he did not vn­derstande) how shamelesly (if he did vnderstande) he hathe alleaged S. Cyprian and S. Hieromo for him &c.

Men haue hearde M. Nowell doubt you not, how like a Dorman propre mā you haue quit your selfe. And yeat as though no man had sene you hetherto, with a shamelesse repetition of a nombre of lies made before, you turne you as it were a­bout againe to be better considred. Howe S. Ciprian and S. Hierome make not againste me but euidentlye with me, how vaine or rather a balsphemouse lye it is to saie, (seing God hath so appointed it to be) that it is im­possible that there shoulde be one only heade ouer the who­le churche: How my witnesses agree with moste perfite consent, it hathe bene to your shame before declared.

Yow see there was no suche opinion, muche lesse knowledge, Nowell. of any suche heade emongest the Apostles or in the primitiue churche, but that it is a newe diuelishe deuise of the late ambitiouse bishoppes of Rome: who when they were neuer able yeat hither­to, well to rule the churche of Rome, one citie (as by all histories [Page] and experience is euident) woulde yeat of the worlde vsurpe the superioritie and supremacy. And if S. Paule did thinke he was not meete to haue charge of one church who coulde not well go­uern his own house: of what mōstrouse ambitiō and presumption is he that being neuer yeat hable to gouern one peculier church, doth claime the regiment of all churches thorough out the world, whereas he is not hable to tell the onelie names of a small parte of the saide churches, neither knoweth in what parte a greate many of them be.

Are yow not ashamed M. Nowell to call it a newe di­uelishe Dorman. deuise of the late bishoppes of Rome, and to saye that there was no suche opinion of one heade emongest the Apostles or in the primitiue churche, seing that S. Cy­prian, and Hierome who yow saye vntrulye are againste Epist. ad Quint. fra­crem. Lib. 1. ad­uers. Ioni­nian. me, doe make mention thereof as I shewed before? The wordes I alleaged before, it shall here suffise to note the places. There was neuer yeat suche a gouernour, as coulde so rule his charge were it of anye compasse, that there were not manye thinges amisse therein. The churche off Ro­me hathe bene so gouerned, that it was neuer hetherto steined with heresies, whiche seing none of the other apo­stolicall seates can saye, bothe must yow be inforced to ac­knowledge Gods mightye prouidence in preseruing the same, and to graunte withall, that if that ordre to haue one generall heade ouer the whole churche were nowe to be­gin, and the heade to be chosen, that there were none to be preferred before the bishop of that See. Because yow ma­ke mention of S. Paule, who thinketh him vnmete to haue 1. Timoth. 3. the charge of one churche that can not gouerne well his owne house: you put me in remembraunce, that S. Am­brose expounding the same place, calleth Damasus the po­pe, the ruler of the whole churche. And so there is one witnesse more by youre good occasion giuen, to proue that this maner of heade was not vnknowen in the primi­tiue [Page 92] churche, and that therefore you falselye slaundered the late popes and so haue encreased the nombre of youre lyes Two lies. 40. with two mo. If no man maye haue vnder his gouerna­unce greater compasse then that he can tell if he be requi­red the names off the cities, townes, villages, hamlettes, &c. that he is king or Lorde ouer, and in what parte of his re­alme they stande, yow will with youre wise diuinitie, bring the worlde to a good passe shortlye. It is not necessarie that the Frenche kinge, the Kinge of Spaine, the Quene oure maistres, or anye other Prince, doe knowe the names of all the partes that they be chiefe gouernours of. It suffiseth that their inferiour officiers doe, and that if there arise anie suche controuersie as they be not able to ordre and deter­mine, they maye then aduertise the chiefe gouernour off all, who maye by his greater power redresse the same. Euen so is it in the Pope M. Nowell, who hathe the ouersight of the whole churche, not to gouerne all the membres thereof hym selfe by him selfe, but by the helpe of his bre­thren, who are called into parte of that charge with him.

That Zozimus the bishoppe of Rome, corrup­ted not the canons off the Ni­cene councell. The 16. Chapitre.

BECAVSE yow shall not suppose M. Nowell, that I answere here to youre by talke of Zozimus, as forced by necessitie, but onelye as I tolde you before, for this that all­though it be not pertinent to the matter, it is yeat a foule fol. 46. b. 3. sclaunder to that blessed bishop, and brought commonlye by youre maisters, to bring into hatred the See of Rome: I will this tell you before hande, that yow are lyke to haue as litle honestye by the proposing of this exception in for­me [Page] of lawe against my witnes, as you had worshippe (when being prolocutour in the conuocation house, yow woulde as it is reported, haue first passed by the house, that they shoulde all be taken for heretikes that woulde not agree to a lawe that shoulde be afterwarde made. And when yow thought to conclude (being earnest to haue youre wise de­uise take place) vpon the silence that then was in the house (euerye man being astonied at so foolishe a demaunde) by this maxime in the lawe: Qui tacet consentire videtur, he that holdeth his peace semeth to consent, where a wise man and a greate lawier telling you that in making of lawes the consent must be expresse and not presumed: you sate dow­ne in youre place, as wise as before you stode vp. If here therefore happening vpon the rule: Qui semel est malus sem­per praesumitur malus. He that is once euill is euer presumed naught, yow thought, that if you were able to proue Zozi­mus a falsefier, yow shoulde discredite also Leo, because he was a pope as well as the other, you were surelie greatelye deceaued. For this rule is personall M. Nowell and not lo­call. Otherwise because it is in anye courte in Englande a good exception against his testimonie that seruing some­times in youre churche of Powles, and being nowe one of youre chiefe preachers, stale away the chalice, a man might take the same exception to anye other honest man of the same church. But this being I suppose well inough knowē, how childish and vnsauorie a kinde of proufe, howe farre from the purpose this that you bring of Zozimus is; let vs examine howe true it is, that he falsefied the canons of the councell of Nice. How proue yow this to be true M. No­well I praye yow?

I proue it (saie yow) not by two onelie, but by 217. wit­nesses, Nowell. fo. 46. b. 23 the whole councell of Afrike, emongest whome was S. Au­sten, [Page 93] Orosius, Prosper, with manie other bishoppes notable in lear­ning and vertue.

Well I am content to winke at yow M. Nowell as cruell Dorman. M. No­well reie­cting Leo as witnes in his ow­ne cause alleageth the Afri­canes in their own cause. Nowell. fo. 47. a. 1. as yow were with me, for bringing the testimonie of Leo in his owne cawse, and I will be ignorant that this was the Africanes cause, or that they were Africane bishoppes that gaue this sentence that you speake of. But what be the wor­des I praie yow that they vse against Zozimus? Doe they call him expresselye a corrupter and a falsifier?

They all, as in their epistle to Celestine one of the successours of this Zozimus appeareth, testifie that there was no suche matter for the B. of Romes superioritie as was by pope Zozimus allea­ged, neither in their vsuall copies of the Nicene councell, neither in the authenticall examples which were sent them by Cirill pa­triarke of Alexandria, and by Atticus patriarke of Constantino­ple: which authenticalles agreing with their owne copies, and all other copies euerie where, had no suche thing as Zozimus allea­ged, but had the cleane contrarie: for that the 6. and 7. decree off the saide Nicene councell, make the patriarkes of Alexandria, Anti­ochia, and Hierusalem equall with the B. of Rome.

If this be all M. Nowell, then are yow a corrupter and Dorman. a falsifier of the sainges of 217. bishoppes. The mo they be 217. bi­shoppes sclaun­dred by M. No­well. in nombre, the greater in vertue and learning, the more is youre faulte to be detested of all men. They saide that they had receiued from Cyrillus and from Atticus certeine co­pies of the Nicene councell, in the which they coulde finde no suche thing as the pope claimed. What thereof M. No­well, was then the copie that Zozimus had at Rome falsi­fied? Or if it were falsified must it nedes be by and by fal­sified by Zozimus? Might he not alleage it as he founde it left by his predecessours? Seing these learned fathers neuer vsed suche wordes, but on the contrarie parte called him in their lettres to Bonifacius after his deathe, beatae memoriae, Venerabilis memoriae, of blessed remembraunce, of venerable [Page] memorie: suerlie you haue with the better sorte not a little empaired youre estimation, to vse suche cancred wordes, and father them falselie vpon the councell. But not staing here, nor contentid onelie to haue saide this, yow charge him further, with the mainteining of one Apiarius against his fo. 46. b. 19. bishop called Vrbanus. This is a maliciouse surmise of youres M. Nowell and hath no grounde.

Yow saie, that Zozimus pretended that it was decreed at Nowell. fol. 46. b. 12. Nice, that the B. of Rome shoulde be the chiefe iudge aboue all other bishoppes, and that it shoulde be laufull for anie man vn­der anie other bishop, to appeale to the B. of Rome as to the hi­ghest iudge ouer all ecclesiasticall persones.

Yow haue made two lyes at once. For first, whereas Dorman. to make men beleue that the Africanes acknowledged no maner of iurisdiction in the B. of Rome, yow feine the sta­te of the cawse betwene the pope and the bishoppes of A­frica to haue bene, that he pretended a decree of the coun­cell of Nice to be chiefe iudge aboue all other bishoppes, as though the Africanes had denied that, and not stoode ra­ther vpon this pointe to limite and restreine his auctoritie in matters criminall, and causes of correction, that is one spitefull lie. As to them that considre howe in matters con­cerning A lye 41. faithe, the Africanes submitted their doinges a­gainst August. epist 90. Prosper lib. contra Collator. cap. 41. Pelagius and Celestius the heretikes, to Innocentius, and this verie councell to Zozimus the popes, by them to be approued: how they required Innocentius to cite to Ro­me Pelagius the heretike being then in the Easte so farre from Rome, it is a thing moste euident. So that to alleage this facte of the Africanes truly, helpeth nothing youre cause at all: as by a familier example of oure owne countrie maie be proued vnto you. It is not vnknowen, that there be some places in Englande so priuileaged, that for contractes [Page 94] made within those places, they can be called frō thence to none of the kinges courtes, yeat ceasse they not therefore to be the kinges subiectes. Nowe if the Africanes pretended that they were not to be called out of their owne countrie to Rome, for suche causes as seemed to them reasonable, na­mely as they them selues alleaged, because it was a com­brouse thing to call witnesses for euerie thing by daunger of sea to Rome: yeat woulde they not hereby take awaye his auctoritie, and withdrawe their whole obedience. The seconde lye is, that the B. of Rome shoulde pretende that it Concil. African cap. 105. A lie. 42. shoulde be laufull for anie man vnder any other bishop to appeale &c. That this is a lye the epistle written by the bishoppes of Africa to Bonifacius the pope dothe manifestly shewe, in the which they making mention them selues of such poin­tes as were conteined in the popes lettres, saie, that the thirde was, de tractandis praesbiterorum & diaconorum causis apud finitimos episcopos, si a suis excommunicati perperā fuerint, of pleading the causes of priestes and deacons before the nexte bishoppes, if they were vniustly excommunicate by their owne. Is this nowe sincere dealing M. Nowell, to saie that the pope pretended that any man vnder any other bis­shop might appeale to him, whereas here appointing the priestes and deacons to the bishoppes of their owne countrie, he releaseth all suche right. But hereoff I shall haue anon more occasion to speake, when I come to that place where you charge the councell of Africa with making a decree, against sailing ouer the sea with contro­uersies or appellations to the B. of Rome. In the meane sea­son I will returne to the accusation put in by you against Zosimus.

Seing M. Nowell you haue for your parte done what you are hable, to proue Zozimus a falsefier and can not: I will [Page] for the iustifieng of his innocencie, proue by suche mea­nes as a negatiue maie be proued, the contrarie, that he is no falsefier. First I saie therefore, that this canon of the coun­cell of Nice was not onelie alleaged by Zozimus, but, if not before Zozimus was borne, yeat surelie almost 100. yeares before he was euer pope, by Athanasius B. of Alexandria, by all the bishoppes of Aegipt, Thebais and Lybia. Who wri­ting to Felix the pope make expresse mention thereof, not by heare saye, but of their owne certeine knowledge, as they that were present at the making thereof. Their wor­des are these. Nam scimus in Nicaena magna Synodo &c. For Epist. A­thanasij et Aegipt. pontific. ad Felicem de in festat Arianorū. we knowe that in the greate Synode of Nice where were 318 bis­shoppes, it was of them all by one consent confirmed, that neither councelles shoulde be holden, nor bishoppes condemned without the B. of Rome his sentence: that these and many other verie neces­sarie synodicall chapitres are burned and taken from vs The heretikes bur­ned the canons of the coun­cell of Nice. by here­tikes, which dailie molest vs and seke oure destruction, that they maie thereby the easelier entrappe vs. VVhereupon hauing founde occasion, all canonicall and Apostolicall auctoritie indifferently contemned, they driue vs vnlaufullie, An absurditie to depriue bis­shoppes vvithout making the pope priuey therto without making you pri­uey thereto from oure owne bishoprikes, inuade the shepe commit­ted vnto vs from Christe The apostolicall seate ma­keth bis­shoppes. by the Apostolical grace, and depriue vs of oure degrees. To Marcus who was bishop of Rome before Felix, they write for the true copie of the councel: they ma­ke expresse mention of 70. canons that were there by their owne knowledge agreed vpon. Marcus writeth againe: his epistle is to besene, that he hath not onelie enquired out the truthe of those canons of suche aboute him as were al­so present at the saide coūcell, but by searching the recordes of Rome, had founde all things to be as they had written in their lettres. Nowe ioine these two lettres of Athanasius together M. Nowell with the answere made by Marcus, [Page 95] and crie shame to youre selfe that haue so iniuriouslie dif­famed this blessed bishop, as with the crime of forging a de­cree, which Athanasius and all the bishoppes of Aegipt, Thebais, and Libia, testifie by their lettres to haue bene trulie made almost a hundred yeares before his time, in the coūcel of Nice, where they were present. Cōferre now the testimonie of the bishops of Africa, with the witnesse that Athanasius and the other bishoppes of the easte giue to this matter. The one parte saieth they could finde no such canon in the copies that were sent from Constantinople and Hierusa­lem: and no maruell the canons being burned as Athana­sius saieth so long before: The othersaieth, it was in the co­pie sent from Nice to Rome. The one parte denieth not but such a canon might be elles where: The other saith the­re was suche a one, and sheweth that it with other were bur­ned by the Arrians in the easte churches, that they might the rather ouerronne the catholikes. The one parte giueth a perfect cause of their testimonie, because they were pre­sent when the matter was concluded. Imagine nowe the o­ther, who hauing sought in the east churche for suche a de­cree saide they founde no suche, to saie (which they doe not) that they had harde of some that were present at the councell, that there was no suche thing decreed, which wit­nesses were to be beleuid?

This that hath bene saide, maye seme I doubte not to a­nye reasonable man a sufficient cause, why we ought to giue full credite to Athanasius, and those other bishoppes, and pronounce for the innocencie of Zozimus. Yeat to make it the better appeare how true it is that Athanasius Manie ca­nons ma­de in the 1. councell of Nice. that we haue not nowe. saieth of the burning of the Nicene canons, I will note vn­to yow certeine canons, which the fathers and stories off the churche witnes, to haue bene concluded in that coun­cell, [Page] which yeat are not emongest those twentie whiche we haue. I will first beginne with S. Ambrose, who telleth you M. Nowell, that you haue done euell being twise ma­ried, 1 Epi. 82. li. 10. colū. 11 Note. M. Nowell. to thrust youre selfe into the ministerie of the church, not only because the apostle (he saieth) forbiddeth it, but the fathers also in the councell of Nice.

S. Augustin reporteth that there was a decree made in 2 the councell of Nice, that a bishop shoulde not ordeine his Epist. 110. successour bshiop with him, notwithstanding that him sel­fe (he confessed) by ignorance thereof, was so ordeined by Valerius his bishop and predecessour.

Iustinian the emperour saith, that it was defined by the 3 first foure generall councels, that the B. of Rome should be Constitut. 131. the chiefe of all other priestes.

S. Hierome saieth, that the booke of Iudith was co­unted 4 emongest the canonicall by the fathers of Nice. In praefat. in Iudith.

Theodoritus alleageth a decree of giuing ecclesiasti­call degrees, of consecrating bishops, made also by the councell 5 of Nice. Lib. 5. cap. 9.

Leo affirmeth that there was an other canon touching 6 the doctrine of Christes incarnation. Epist. ad Leonē, 78.

Where is there anie canon of the obseruation of the E­aster daye, the desire of the vniforme obseruation whe­reof, 7 Histor. tri­part. lib. 1. cap. vlt. Haere. 70. Lib. 2. ca. 2 was one cause why the councell of Nice was called? Yeat dothe bothe Epiphanius and the tripartite historye, make mentiō of a decree made by the fathers touching the same.

Youre Apologie citeth out of the councell off Nice, that 8 we ought not to be humiliter intēti ad panem et vinum, ouer basely bent to breade and wine. We confesse it to be true, but shew you it emongest the canons.

Who doubteth that the councell of Nice was assembled ▪9 [Page 96] together against Arrius? Yeat shewe one canon againste him emongest the 20. that remaine. Was there thinke yow none made? That were surely a strange matter, that in the whole doinges thereof, nothing should haue bene conclu­ded against him, for the repressing of whome the councell was specially called together?

Howe saye you now M. Nowell, is it likely that the Ar­rians burned the canons of the councel or no? Are all these falsaries and corrupters that haue alleaged thus manye ca­nons to be of the councell of Nice, because at this daye the­re is none of them extant? I thinke you will not saye so. If yow will not, why Zozimus more then they? Yes you saye there is an other cause, why if not Zozimus (for I thinke by this tyme you be ashamed of that matter) yeat some o­ther hath fasified those canons. What is that I praye yow?

Because there appeared in the copies sent from the Easte, the Nowell. fol. 47. a. 11. cleane contrarye to that whiche the pope claimeth. For the sixt and seuenth decree off the sayde Nicene councell, make the pa­triarkes of Alexandria, Antiochia, and Hierusalem, equall with the bis­shoppes of Rome.

Trulye if it had bene so, it is merueile that Athanasius, Dorman. who was there present, shoulde haue bene ignorant of it. Therefore excepte you will saye that either this epistle is feined and not Athanasius owne (as that is wont in other auctorities brought against yow to be youre common and last refuge when you be sore pressed, which if you doe, you must not onelye saye it, but proue it also): Or that his me­morie was so euill that he coulde not remembre so nota­ble a thing so latelye before done, or his malice so greate that he woulde faine that which neuer was done: you mu­ste nedes graunte, that this sixt and seuenth canon haue an other meaning then to make the patriarkes of Alexandria, Antiochia, and Hierusalem, equall with the bishoppes off [Page] Rome. And so haue they in dede. For the true meaning of The true vnderstanding of the 6. and 7. canon of the councel of Nice. them is, to appoint the limites and boundes of those pri­mates iurisdictions, of whom mention is there made, accor­ding to the custome of the bishop of Rome. As the wor­des whiche answere trulye to the greke and are in Lati­ne these, doe wel declare. Antiqui mores obtineant in Agipto, Libia, & Pentapoli, vt Alexandrinus horum omnium habeat potestatem, quia & episcopo Romano hoc consuetum est. Similiter etiam per Antiochiam & in caeteris prouincijs priuilegia seruen­tur ecclesijs. Let olde customes be kepte in Aegypt, Libia, and Pentapoli, that the B. of Alexandria haue the auctori­tie ouer them all, for as muche as the B. of Romes maner is suche. Semblablye also, thorough out Antioche and in other prouinces, let the churches haue their priuileges kepte. These wordes of the councell, as they doe nothing at all diminishe the B. of Romes auctoritie, so doe they confir­me it verie muche. The reason of the councell why the iu­risdiction of the B. of Alexandria shoulde extende so far, being (beside the auncient custome in those partes) the cu­stome also of the B. Rome, who it is to be thought vsed of long time so to alow it, by conteining in his rescriptes those prouinces vnder the patriarchie of Alexandria. Which was now brought as an argumēt to confirme and continue the same. For this meaning that they should be all equall in po­wer and auctoritie, there is no worde there able to induce. Except a man woulde bring in those graue fathers reaso­ning thus foolishely: because the B. of Rome hath iurisdi­ctiō ouer his owne bishoprike (for more you giue him not, and the councell nameth no place at all) therfore the B. of Alexandria shall haue iurisdiction ouer all the bishoppes of Aegipt, Libia, and Pentapoli. Had not this bene thinke you a goodly making of them equall? If you will saie that the [Page 97] councell ment that the B. of Rome shoulde be patriarke in the west partes, and therein they shoulde be equall, besi­de that there be no suche wordes in the councell to infor­ce suche a meaning, yeat shoulde we of England be neuer the nearer, for oure lot being to be still vnder the bishop of Rome, all youre laboure were lost. And againe one chiefe rule of youres ouerthrowen, that all bishoppes be equall. Which I desire the learned reader to note diligētly. Because yow kepte before M. Nowell suche a stirre to haue all bis­shoppes M. No­well cast in his owne tune. equall. Whereas euen this verye councell that you­re selfe bring, by making only three of all the world equall (if that were the meaning of the councell) do the euident­ly ouerthrowe you. Wel, whether be liker of these two senses to be the sense and meaning of the councell, I will leaue to the indifferent and learned to iudge, who I doubte not when they shall easelie perceiue, that the coun­cell attributed so much to the auctoritie of the B. of Rome, that his custome was alleaged to proue the iurisdiction of the B. of Alexandria, to be as a directiō not onelie for that, but also for the conseruing of the priuileges to other chur­ches thorougheout Antiochia and other prouinces, he will with as like facilitie espie, how this sixt and seuenth canon, doe not onelie not disagree with that alleaged by Zozimus, but also peaseably agreing together, the one confirme the other. Thus muche touching these canons that you woul­de so faine haue made cōtrarie, without shewing the poin­tes wherein the patriarkes shoulde be equal with the B. of Rome) to the other alleaged by Athanasius, and after him by Zozimus.

Hauing allreadie sufficientlie declared, that Zozimus is not guiltie of the crime laide to his charge, I wil adde this as for a more confirmation, that Zozimus if there had bene No cause way Zo­zimus shoulde forge a canon. [Page] no suche canon in the councell of Nice, had yeat no cause to forge one (which he was not so simple but he wel kne­we woulde not if he did, long be vnespied, and then the sha­me woulde light vpon him) seing that he had for him the councell of Sardica, not long after that of Nice (for Osius the B. of Corduba in Spaine was present at them bo­the) nor of muche lesse auctoritie neither, as in the which were. 300. bishoppes, not of one prouince, but gathered to­gether out of all the worlde, out of Rome, Spaine, Fraun­ce, Italie, Campania, Calabria, Aphrica, Sardinia, Panonia, Misia, Dacia, Dardania, an other Dacia, Macedonia, Thessa­lia, Achaia, Epiros, Thracia, Rhodope, Asia, Caria, Bithinia, Helespontus, Phrigia, Pisidia, Capadocia, Pōtus, Cilicia, Phry­gia againe, Pamphilia, Lidia, the Ilandes called Cyclades, Ae­gipt, Thebais, Libia, Galatia, Palestina and Arabia. Seing I saye that he had for his purpose the canons (namelie the fourthe and seuenth) of so generall a councell as this was, in which were also the bishoppes of Africa them selues, who­me he might haue obiected. 300. if you goe to nombring (Athanasius that strong piller of Christes churche being one of them) against. 217, witnesses all (if I would reason as you doe (in their owne cause. I am not ignorant that Cal­uin being not so impudent as you, saieth that Zozimus al­leaged this decree of Sardica as a decree of the councell of Nice. But as you in that point more wily thē he, saw that he Distitut. li. 4. cap. 7. Sect. 9. coulde neuer be hable to proue that: so perceiued you also that he had farre ouershot him selfe in making of the coun­cell holden at Sardica anie mention at all, and therfore you thought it wisedome slyly to slippe it ouer, and to inuolue it vtterly in silence, lest thereby you might giue occasion to some to searche that councell, that otherwise woulde neuer haue thought of it. It foloweth.

And the saide. 217. bishoppes made a decree in that African Nowell. Fol. 47. a 15. Concil. A­frican. cap. 105. councell, that no sailing ouer the sea with controuersies, nor ap­pellations to the B. of Rome, nor sending of his legates Laterall in to their countries as iudges, shoulde be vsed, according as by the epistle of the saide whole councell sent to pope Celestin it appea­reth.

Beholde good Reader a moste impudent man, who is Dorman. not ashamed to name an epistle for the proufe of that whiche is not there. Reade ouer the epistle here mentio­ned, if there appeare to be anie suche decre made there as he saieth there is, neuer let me be credite more. The bishop­pes of Africa in those lettres of theirs, desire Bonifacius the Pope in this wise: Vt deinceps ad aures vestras hinc veniētes non 1 facilius admittatis, that you will not hereafter ouer easely ad­mit to be hearde suche as come to you from vs. Againe, they applie the canon of the councell of Nice forbidding to re­ceiue Can. 5. to communion suche as be excommunicat of other, to this, that the pope receiue not suche, vel festinatò, vel prae­propere, 2 vel indebite, either with to much haste, or to rashly, or not duly: they desire hys holinesse to repell improba refu­gia, wicked refuges. Finally, they praie him to call home his 3 legate from thēce with these wordes, probitate ac moderatio­ne tuae sanctitatis salua, the goodnes and moderatiō of youre holynesse excepted. Where be nowe the wordes M. Nowell that yow grounde youre decree vpon? Dothe not the con­trarye rather appeare by this epistle, that he might recei­ue suche appeales, but not commonly, and rashely, not but vpō greate aduise? Otherwise to what end were those wor­des of not receiuing complaintes facilius, to lightly: or the­se, praepropere, indebite, &c. to rashely, vniustly? Why sayde they not rather boldely and freely, oure auctoritie is as greate as youres? Why inuade you other mennes iurisdicti­on? Why vsurpe you where you haue no right? Why bad [Page] they him not call home his legate, telling him if they had made suche a decree as you saie they had, that they had ma­de a lawe emongest them selues that neither they shoulde sue to him, nor he sende his legates to them? What meaneth all this humble submissiō of theirs, but the contrarie to this which you affirme, that there was yeat no decree made, or if there were (which notwithstanding appeareth not by this epistle) by this humble demeanure of theirs towar­des the pope, to moue him the rather to beare with, and to confirme their doinges? But there appeareth no suche de­cree to be made emongest them, by the epistle here allea­ged. Excepte of that particuler narration of theirs of the incommodiouse calling of witnesses to Rome by sea, of that they founde not (they saide) ordeined by anie councell of fathers that his holinesse (I will vse their owne wordes) shoulde sende anielegates laterall thither (all the which was written to moue the pope as is maie seeme, to consent to their petition) excepte I saie of this particuler narration, youre witte will serue you to make a generall decree. Which is like enough to be youre meaning by the wise rea­son that foloweth, taken from the superscription of the let­tres sent to Celestinus. Belike you remembred the maxime of the lawiers, that those thinges which helpe not alone, maye yeat gathered together stande in some stede. You go forwarde and saye.

For the which it pleaseth D. Harding to call the Aricans, e­mongest Nowell. [...]. 25. whom S. Austen, Orosius, and Prosper with manie other learned and godly bishoppes were, schismatikes: as those that sub­mitted not their neckes to the pope, and folowing Hosius his au­ctor, he saith that Africa cōtinued in this schisme 100. yeares, to wit from Boniface the first to Boniface the seconde.

M. Doctour Harding neuer mentto inuolue S. Austen, Dorman. [Page 99] Orosius, or Prosper in anie schisme with the Africanes. For as at this councell it appeareth not in the recordes thereof, that Orosius (who neuer was bishop but only a prieste, and therfore could giue no definitiue voice in the councell that cōsisted of only bishoppes) or Prosper either, were present: so is it more then probable, that S. Austen who to the first epistle sent to Bonifacius gaue his consent and subscribed with other, wherein they protested to obserue all thinges demaunded by the pope till they coulde get from the Easte the true copies of the councell of Nice, it is I saie more then probable, that forasmoche as in this latter epistle to Celesti­nus, no mention is made of him at all, notwithstanding that he was legat for Numidia, his name so famouse, his bis­shoprike so greate, that he sawe in the meane season so mu­che right in the bishop of Romes cause, and so little in the other (allthough by no meanes their doinges tended to the vniuersall abrogating of the popes auctoritie) that he refu­sed so muche as to put his name, or suffer him selfe to be named in those lettres of theirs. So that before yow had charged M. D. Harding thus odiously, you ought to haue proued that suche a decree was made in the African coun­cell, and haue noted to vs the canon, then that Orosius and Prosper were present at the making thereof, and gaue their consentes therto: Last, because yow seing that the decree of the councell was not to be founde, referred youre selfe to the epistle written to Celestinus, yow shoulde haue tolde vs in what wordes there the mention of this decree laie hid­den, and proued allthough S. Austens name be not there mentioned, that yeat he consented therto. Againe M. No­well, whē this matter betwene the B. of Rome and the Afri­canes began first to be called in question, it was entreated with suche humilitie and submission by the Africanes, as [Page] appeareth by this epistle to Celestinus, that they coulde by no meanes be accounted schismatikes. Afterwardes in dede the matter grewe so farre, that it burst out in to open schisme, and so continued to the time of Boniface the 2. To the which schisme that euer S. Austen, Orosius, or Prosper con­sented, or any other good catholike prieste or bishop, yow shall neuer be able to proue. And so this lye with that houge Lye. 43. heape of all the rest remaineth with you, and the truth with vs. But because you bragge as you doe of the companie of S. Austen and Prosper, and sclaundre them to the worlde to be schismatikes: I will in defence of their innocen­cy alleage out of their workes so muche, as shall I trust with the better sorte suffice for their purgation.

Who is it I praie you M. Nowell that saieth of the church of Rome, that in it the principalitie of the apostolike chaire ha­the August. epist. 162. euer florished? Who calleth Bonifacius, (the same in who­se time this controuersie was moued) the bishoppe that hathe Lib. 1. con­tra 2. epis. Pelag. ca. 1 the preeminence in the bishoply care aboue all other? Who calleth the See of Rome (alluding to the wordes of Christe in the Psalm contra par­tē Donat. gospel) the rock which the proude gates of hell shal not ouercome? Who but S. Austē, whom you be not here ashamed to mat­che with your selfe, as thinking of the pope and See of Rome as heretically as you doe. To come to Prosper, when you here him acknowledg, that Zozimus (of whom all this talke riseth) added to the decrees of the African councelles, sententiae suae robur, the strength and force of his sentence: Lib. contra Collatorem cap. 41. that with Peters sworde to the cutting of, of wicked men he ar­med the right handes of all bishoppes, (for so are his wordes in Latine) ad impiorum detruncationem gladio Petri dexteras o­mnium armauit antistitum. When you are not ignoraunt (if you knowe anye thinge) that the same Prosper saieth, Lib. contra Collatorem cap. 10. that the holye See of Rome spake to all the worlde by the mouthe [Page 100] of Zozimus: Will you not for shame call backe againe that wretched sclaunderouse lye off youres, that Prosper shoul­de be touching the bishoppe of Rome of the same min­de that yow are? Was Zozimus taken off Prosper to be a corrupter and falsarye, a countrefeite catholike, and in deede a false schismatike from Christe and the truthe, as youre veni­mouse tongue hath not feared to pronounce of him? Is fier more contrary to water then is this iudgemēt of youres, to that of Prospers for his vertue and auctoritie? You pretend that the fathers of the coūcel of Carthage would barre Zo­zimus of al auctority: Prosper telleth vs that so much he was estemed of them, that they had the strength of his sentence ad­ded to their decrees, as muche to saye, as to confirme and alo­we them. You call him a corrupter, a falsarie, a countrefeite ca­tholike, a false schismatike: Prosper calleth him one that armed the right handes of al bishoppes with Peters sworde to cut of wic­ked mē from the rest of Christes mistical body the church. You restreine his power to Rome: Prosper confesseth that by his mouthe the See of Rome spake to all the worlde. If this be not more then impudencie good reader in M. Nowel, then what is impudencie I confesse I know not.

But acknowledged Prosper this auctoritie in Zozimus onely? no verilye. For in Celestinus to whome this epistle here mentioned was sent from the African bishoppes, he witnesseth that there was suche power, that he cured the I­land The po­pe med­dled in England, Scotland, Fraunce, and in the East. off Britannye infected with Pelagius heresie, that he ordei­ned Palladius bishoppe ouer the Scottishe men, that with the A­postolicall sworde he aided Cirillus the B. of Alexandria, to pur­ge the churches of the East of a double plague, the Nesto­rians and Pelagians: that in Fraunce he put them to silence who reported euill of S. Augustins writinges. Finally to them that reiected certeine bookes of S. Augustins vpon [Page] pretence that they were not allowed by the pope, he an­swered An excep­tion in the primi­tiue chur­che again­ste bookes that they were not allowed by the Pope. Ibid. ca. 43 in this wise: Agnoscāt calumniatores superfluò se obijce­re, quòd his libris non speciale neque discretum testimonium si [...] perhibitum, quorum in cunctis voluminibus norma laudatur. Apostolica enim sedes quod a praecognitis sibi non discrepat, cum praecognitis probat, & quod iudicio iungit, laude non diuidit. That is to saie: Let these wranglers knowe, that they obiect superfluously that there is no speciall nor seuerall testimo­nie giuen to these bookes, the rule and doctrine whereof is praised in all bookes. Note. For the Apostolicall See alloweth with those bookes that it knewe before, those that differ not from thē, and those which it ioyneth together in iud­gement it seperateth not in praise. Nowe to conclude M. Nowell, are you no otherwise a schismatike thinke yow then S. Augustine, and Prosper? I woulde to God ye were not. Then woulde you acknowledge with S. Augustine a preeminence in the B. of Rome aboue other bishoppes, the seate of Rome to be suche as hell gates shall not preuaile against it. Then woulde you submit to the pope your doin­ges to be alowed, as bothe S. Augustine and the whole co­uncell of Afrike did: then woulde you extende the iurisdi­ction of that See to England, Scotland, Fraunce, and to the Easte churches. Then woulde you confesse that the B. of Rome for the time being is the mouthe to speake to all the worlde, and beareth the sworde of Peter to cut of wicked men, to helpe and arme the good. For all these thinges doe S. Austen (as hathe bene declared) and Prosper acknow­ledge. Whereby appeareth, howe shamefully you haue scla­undered them with the maintenaūce of your schismaticall and erroniouse opinions concerning the See of Rome. To S. Augustine, Orosius, and Prosper, you ioyne the patriar­kes of Alexandria and Constantinople, Cirillus, and Atti­cus. [Page 101] But why them I praie you M. Nowell? Because in tho­se canons that they sent there was no mentiō of that which the B. of Rome alleaged. I graunte you, for they were bur­ned by the Arrians as by the reporte of Athanasius yowe hearde before. And must they nedes be schismatikes with yowe because the Arrians burned the true copies of the councell of Nice, and they sent suche as they had? Howe holdeth that argument I praie yow? Well, yow thought e­uerie thing woulde helpe and therefore yow iumbled all together, let it speede as it might.

The an­swere to the obie­ction ma­de of the African councell. Nowe to returne to the African councell, and to con­clude in fewe wordes all that hathe bene or maie hereafter by me be saide therein: I first saie that the African councell 1 made no suche decree as yow saie it did: nexte that at this time when S. Austen and the other bishoppes of Africa 2 were assembled, about the time of Bonifacius the pope the firste, the controuersie was not about the vniuersall aucto­ritie of the B. of Rome, but touching the moderation and limiting thereof in certeine causes of appellation. The like whereunto as it hathe bene attempted and done in this re­alme of England, in the daies of that noble prince Edward E. 3. anno 25. &. 27. the thirde, by restreining the popes power in conferring of ecclesiasticall promotions, and barring the triall of certeine sutes out of the realme, without breache of vnitie, or re­nouncing due obedience to that See: so was it at the be­ginning in Afrike, although after it brake out in to an open schisme. Thirdly I answere, that if there had bene suche a decree made as is pretended, yeat this considered that it had 3 but the auctoritie of one prouince, it ought to giue place to that councell, at the which there were present bishoppes, not of Africa only, who were also there, but off all the par­tes of the worlde beside: I meane the councell of Sardica, [Page] in the third and 7. canon whereof (the bishoppes of Africa consenting thereto) 300. if you go to nombring M. No­well for your 217., and chosen men all of purpose to matche with the Arrians, agreed vpon this which the Africanes denied, to wit, that it should be laufull for any bishop con­demned to appeale to the bishop of Rome. Last of all, iff 4 you thinke M. Nowell that it maie be laufull for you to ob­iect against vs the facte of the Africanes, who vpon suche beginning as hathe bene declared came at the last to open rebellion against their laufull heade, I doubte not but to all that be learned or wise, it will seme as reasonable, that we obiect to yow againe, the perfecte reconciliation and hum­ble submission of the saide Africanes, made after a hundred Epistol. Bonifacij 2. ad Eu­lalium A­lexand. Tom. 2. Concil. yeares wandring a straie, after greate plagues by lōgue cap­tiuitie, vnder the moste barbarouse and cruell Wandales, by Eulalius the Archebishop of Carthage in the name of that whole prouince, to Bonifacius then pope, the seconde off that name. Thus muche touching the African councell. It foloweth.

After this Zozimus, his successour Bonifacius the firste, Celestine the first, with all others allmoste, folowing Zozimus steppes and Nowell. b. [...]4. ambition, haue with toothe and naile striuen for this supremacie, and for that purpose did sticke still to the falsified Nicene canon, and haue likewise falsified other councelles in sundrie places, and haue forged a greate many of the epistles nowe abrode, in the na­mes of the olde popes, Clement, Anacletus, Euaristus, Telesphorus and other their predecessours.

Suerlye M. Nowell if there had bene that sinceritie in Dorman. yow and vprightnes that shoulde be in a diuine: yff that grauitie and poise that shoulde be in a writer: yff that com­mon honestie, that shoulde be in euerie Christian man: yow woulde either for the one respect or the other, haue so tempered youre stile, that there shoulde neuer haue slip­ped [Page 102] from youre pen into the viewe of the worlde, suche cancred and rancorouse slaunders against suche learned and vertuouse fathers, so sclendrelie yea by no meanes at all proued. Bring furthe the canons therefore that yow saye haue bene falsified: name the popes that haue forged these epistles? Name them not onelie but proue it, other­wise yow wilbe taken for a maliciouse Lier. Thinke yow that it maye be sufficient for yow to borowe this oute off Caluins Institutions, and without anie farder proufe bid Lib. 4. Inst. cap. 8. Sect. 11. all the worlde beleue you? Yow be not Caluin M. Nowell, nor England is not Geneua God be praised therefore? But yow proue it thus.

Whereas euer those godlye olde fathers euer subiect to per­secution Nowell. fo. 48. a. 3. and deathe, neuer thought of anie suche matters, neither had lust or leisour to occupie their heades and pennes aboute such ambitiouse matters.

You are foulie deceauid M. Nowel: for the greater the Dorman. persecution was, the more necessarie must it nedes be, to teache that ordre which Christe left in his churche of the necessitie of one heade, that so the membres acknowleging the same, might be out of the feare of all schismaticall dis­corde. Neither made they so often mention thereof for ambition sake, as youre spiders nature sucketh out, hauing learned at their Maisters handes before, that the greatest e­mongest them shoulde belike the least. Who seeth not that Lucae. 22. by suche foolishe collections as this is, a frowarde heretike might denie S. Paules epistles to the Corinthiās, especiallie the Latter, in the which (the case so requiring) he glorieth so farre, that him selfe confesseth that he hath played the foo­le 2. Corinth. cap. 11. 1 [...]. compelled thereto by them. Ywisse S. Paule was as much subiect to persecution and deathe as anie of the popes that you haue named. He had as litle lust or leisour to occupie [Page] his heade or pen about the setting furthe of him selfe, to boaste of his apostleship, to tel of his reuelations, as anie of them. But necessitie compelling bothe him and them to stande vpon their auctoritie, it was expedient that they shoulde earnestlie set furthe the same. The epistles that you speake of here to haue bene forged, were gathered together aboue nine hundred yeares past by one Isidorus, archebis­shop of Hispalis in Spaine, so that when you come to pro­ue this matter, those popes of these latter nine hundred yeares you see how they be discharged. Now M. Nowell, if you thinke that you haue walcked long inough out of the waye, we will returne thither from whence we departed, to the. 53. Leafe of youre booke. The which because as the reader maye see, it conteineth nothing but very matter of bragges not worthy to be answered, I steppe ouer.

Ofschismes and sectes wherewith M. Nowell burdeneth the Catholikes. The 17. Chapitre.

HERE M. Nowell by occasion of a fewe lines (but such Nowell. fol. 54. a. belike as touched him to the quicke and made him to wynse) discourseth in manie leaues in defence of schismes and sectes. This note of mine, whereby I admonished the reader for better credite to be giuen hereafter to the aun­cient fathers Cypriā and Hierom, (who telling vs that the not obeing of one chiefe heade in one seuerall diocesse is the cause of schismes and heresies, saye withall allthough not in expresse wordes asmuche by force of greater rea­son, vnlesse there be one suche heade acknowledged and obeied in the vniforme gouernement of the whole chur­che) to haue an eye to the present schismes, whiche haue [Page 103] burst in vpon vs in oure countrie, in stede of one commō receiued truthe in the daies of oure fathers: this note I saie, so graueled M. Nowell, rubbing him on the verie heade of that festred boile of his poisoned heresie, that he coulde finde no grounde to stande vpon, but nedes must he fling out and laie about him, as a man halfe wood, and beside himselfe, sparing none, not the blessed Apostles them sel­ues. He beginneth this pastime after his accustomed ma­ner, with this Lewde lye.

It is well knowen that there is as muche consent in true do­ctrine Nowell. A facing lye. 44. in the churche of Englande at this time, as euer was in anie realme at anie time.

What a face thinke you hath this man, or hath he anie Dorman. face or forheade at all? I will not trouble him with forein realmes, shewing him what consent in true doctrine the­re is presently in manie Catholike countries, nor I will not appeale to all the former ages that haue passed. I will only put him in remembraunce, of the consent in true doctrine in oure owne countrie fifty yeares ago. Can you saye M. Nowel (for with you I loue gladliest to talcke) that there was then anie dissention in doctrine at all? Can yow recken vs vp anie diuersitie of opinions touching beliefe in all the realme of England at that time? Will you saie they had no true doctrine at all, and therfore no consent in true doctrine? If you saie so, then name vs a time when there was euer true doctrine in Englande, that suche a time being knowen, it maie be proued vnto you, that there were no suche sectes and schismes then, as rage emongest you nowe. Note vnto vs the yeare and religion vsed at any tyme since oure realme was firste christened, when yow write nexte, that we maye aske you whether at that tyme Caūtorbury, Rochester, Glocestre, were of one opiniō cō ­cerning [Page] the presence of Christes most blessed body & blou­de in the sacramēt, and Londō, Winchester, and Dirham, of a cleane contrary, as they are nowe that occupye these roo­mes. Who hathe not hearde of a sermon latelye preached before the Queenes maiestye in the defence of the reall presence, and the preacher called of his brethern for his la­bour an asse in a Rochet, the Sermon it selfe, by a mightye Samson shortly after as it semed confuted? Is this a con­sent in true doctrine M. Nowell? Haue you not hearde off these Sermones? Or if you hearde them did you nodde there while and beare so litle awaye, that you haue cleane forgotten the whole matter, telling vs nowe scarse oute of youre sleepe, that you haue as muche consent in true do­ctrine as euer was in anye realme at anye tyme? How many of youre brethern be of Verons minde touching predesti­nation? Let M. Moulins the vsurper of the Archedeacon­ry of London youre neighbour, tell you M. Nowell, why he did excommunicate M. Thomas Walbot a ministre in London. Let the saide Walbot instructe you who they are that in his learned supplication to M. Doctour Parker, he calleth Florinitians. Tell vs M. Nowell whe­reof it procedeth, that three of the moste graue, modeste, and learned emongest yow, men, to saye the truthe, in all respectes (heresye set a parte) worthy to beare the office off M. D. Parker. M. Chey­ny. M. Gest. true bishoppes in Christes churche, are of their subiectes so contemptuouslye set at naught: whereof I saye it proce­deth, that one is called Matthewe meale mouthe, a Lince wolsy bishoppe &c. that the other hathe Moyer the mini­stre of Wootton vnder headge borne out against him, the thirde termed an Asse, but of this that there be schismes and sectes emongest you? Are you ignoraunt M. Nowell what cōmunion M. Whittingham celebrated at Duresme, [Page 104] not onely against the mynde of his bishoppe, but the or­dre appointed also by the communion booke? Neuer hear­de you what a singuler and straunge maner off baptisme he deuised and ministred at Duresme? Is al this in your eye consent in true doctrine, when you agree not emongest youre selues neither in the substance of the chiefest Sacra­mentes, neither in the maner of their ministration? Are we ignoraunt thinke you of the Anabaptistes, Arrians, El­uidians, and whole swarmes of these and other heretikes, that lye smoothering in corners looking for the ioyfull ty­me of their deliueraunce in to the world and broade light, as you and youre felowes did 30. yeares ago? Are we igno­raunt thereoff, because when some of them sturring befo­re their tyme are brought before youre bishoppes, they are with good wordes (of greate policie) dismissed, with exhor­tation to them to lyue lyke quiet subiectes, &c. Lest su­che hastie and vntimely teeming, might be not onely the vtter ruine and ouerthrowe of all those heresyes that ha­uing nowe continued almost twentie yeares begin to gro­we to mannes state, but of so muche faire issue allso as that cursed moother is lyke to bring furthe hereafter? Iud­ge you vs to be suche doltes, and so depriued of common sense, that we vnderstand not to what ende the fauour she­wed to an Anabaptist, an Eluidian or anye other heretike, for the crueltie practised on the catholike, tendeth? Argueth it not to the worlde that you seke rather meanes politikely for the tyme to staye them, then vtterly for euer to represse them?

Well, thus muche off youre priuate dissensions, and lur­king heresies (whereof one of late in spite of all polycie su­stening Verons heresie touching praedesti­nation. to abyde no longre burst oute) hathe the blaste off common fame blowen ouer to vs. What other priuey store [Page] of opinions and seuerall doctrines maye be founde emon­ge you, they knowe best that best are acquainted with you. We as we can not knowe all, so we can not reporte all. This that hathe bene brought is sufficient to proue yowe M. Nowell a lowde lyer, vntill you shewe the like to haue bene emongest vs before your heresies began. The whiche because yow dispaired to be euer able to doe (for yow con­fesse hereafter that there was at that time a coloured kinde off quietnesse emongest vs, fol. 56. b.) Yow bethought yow off a better councell, that is, to saye that emongest the A­postles of Christe, the learned fathers of the councell off Nice, and other off no lesse fame in Christes churche, there haue bene also schismes and sectes. Youre wordes are these.

And though there were not a perfecte consent of all men in all pointes, what merueile yeat were it, if that shoulde happen emongest Nowell. vs, which was not alltogether lacking emongest the Apostles themselues, &c.

This impudent and blasphemouse shifte you haue bo­rowed Dorman. of your Apologie, the Apologie of Iohn Caluin, he of that greate Lombard the diuell him selfe. But here I be­seche Staphilus in Epist. ad Episcop Eystetēsen. the considre with me good reader, what either a mi­serable and detestable religiō is this, either elles what wea­ke but shamelesse patrones hathe it founde, when suche faultes as be noted therein can no otherwise be excused, but by sclaundring moste wickedly the learned doctours of the churche, the generall councelles of the same: yea the moste blessed and gloriouse apostles them selues. Tell the­se newe gospellers that whereas the churche of Christe is Matth. 5. a citie builded vpon the toppe of a hill, a candell set in the house to giue light to all that be in it: a kingdome that re­acheth from sea to sea, and from the East to the west, that Lucae 11. Psalm. 71. [Page 105] their churche that they boast of is a secrete scattred con­gregation vnknowen to all the worlde and to them selues toe, yow shall haue a peuishe proctour steppe furthe and answere as M. Nowell dyd before: we take this obiection as Supra. fol. 39. a. 32. no reproche being common to oure congregation with the pri­mitiue churche of oure sauiour Christe and his holie apostles, specially in the time of persecution. Charge them as I doe here with schismes, and you haue hearde the answere thereto allready. The reporter whereof and as manie as before ha­ue vsed this and like defences: I can resemble to no world­ly thing better, then to a filthy and beastly sowe, who being fowle and bemired her selfe, neuer careth to be cleane, but fodeth on still in the durte beraieng all thinges that she meeteth or rubbeth her selfe vpon, as these schismaticall proctours doe, not caring so muche to purge them selues, as to laie their filthe vpon other that be cleane, and to make them tomble and walowe in the mire as they doe. Now to this blasphemouse shift because it is in the confutation of In the 3. parte fol. 136. and seq. the Apologie so learnedly answered, I will saie no more, but that it is moste directly repugnant to the holie scriptu­res, 1 which beare witnesse, that credentiū erat cor vnū & ani­ma vna. Those which beleued (at the first preaching of the Act. 4. Apostles) were of one harte and of one minde. It tendeth The A­postles varied dot in doctri­ne. openly to the defacing of that marcke which Christe as of all other the moste certeine and suer to discerne those whi­che are his, gaue to his disciples, when commending peace 2 and vnitie he tolde them: In hoc cognoscent omnes quia mei Ioan. 13. discipuli estis si diligatis inuicem. In this (marcke) shall all 3 men knowe that you are my disciples if you loue together: M. No­well char­geth the Apostles, as the hea­then phi­losophers dyd. that finally it commeth from the ethnike and heathen spi­rite of certeine vaine philosophers as witnesseth the lear­ned father Cirillus the B. of Alexandria, who made in his [Page] time this verie obiection that M. Nowell nowe dothe. Th [...] Lib. 1. con­tra lulianū which place maie it please the learned reader to viewe, and there shall he finde, that this good bishop was so assured off that perfecte agrement of the Apostles, that he was not a­fearde to make the offer to those vaine philosophers (that so reasoned with him as M. Nowell dothe with me) to lea­ue to defende them anie farder, in case they coulde proue anie disagrement emongest them in doctrine. Nowe that yow haue done with the Apostles, yow come to the fa­thers and doctours of Christes churche, of whome yow saye.

What wondre if that were emongest vs touching some pointes, Nowell. that was not wanting in the primitiue churche emongest the olde fathers? Let the variance emongest the bishoppes assembled at Nicene councell: let the contention betwene the bishoppes of the east and west churche about the keping of Easter daye, Beholde an arro­gant spi­rite, taking vpon him to iudge and repre­hende, the most ver­tuouse and lear­ned bi­shoppes of the East and west churche. Dorman. a matter not worthy of suche variance, be a witnesse thereof.

This vaine obiection, borowed also of youre Apologie, as is allmost alltogether what so euer yow haue here pat­ched vp in fiue leaues concerning this matter of schismes, is in the answere therto made, abundantly satisfied. Thither I referre the (good reader) where as thow maiest finde, that some of these controuersies here mentioned by M. Nowell were of matters indifferent and not determined by the churche, other some not of doctrine or religion, but off priuate quarelles, as happened emongest the fathers in the councell of Nice: finally, some suche, as be schismes (if they be schismes at all) in logike, not in diuinitie or matters off faithe: so in matters of weight arrested vpon by the deter­mination of the churche, such striffes can not be named, neither by this schismaticall proctour neither yeat by anye other. So greate cause we haue to giue thankes to allmigh­tie [Page 106] God the preseruer of his churche, who hathe so mighte­ly defended the same, that when schismatikes and heretikes haue done all that they can, for the better cloking of their dissension, to proue the like in the fathers and learned do­ctours that haue gone before, they being not able with all that malice can deuise or falsehode inuent to spotte them there with, are compelled at the last with shame inough to twhite this greate post to a pudding pricke, saing that there be schismes emongest the catholikes about Genus and Species, and the rest of the predicables, because forsothe so­me men be of one minde about them, and are called by a name agreable to their opinion, Nominals: other some off an other minde, and be called Realles. But yow haue better stuffe then this yow will saie, for yow aske.

VVhat be these Benedictines, Cistertiās, Carmelites, Carthu­sians, Dominicans, Franciscanes, with others like an huge numbre Nowell. 54. b. 25. but names of popishe schismes and sectes? Who all forsaking the religion and name of Christe, haue chosen to be called religiouse, as by a speciall name of a seuerall religion, and to be named after Matth. 23. men their fathers on earthe, forsaking the heauenly father &c.

That whereof youre Apologie for shame woulde saie Dorman. nothing, you, so muche are you one alone more impudent then so manie as were the compilers thereof, set out to the vauntage, making a greate matter therof. Youre Apologie saieth, I saie nothing of so manie diuersities of friers and mockes. You saie, they shall not escape youre handes so. You call their names, the names of popishe schismes and sectes, their persones you charge with the forsaking of the name and religion of Christe &c. Had it not bene better for you M. Nowell to haue imitated also the countrefeit modestie of youre Apologie, rather then by suche vnmercifull dea­linge to slaundre and beelye youre Christian brethren? [Page] Thought you that you should be able to make anie honest nature beleue, that these religiouse men whome you here name, professing to be of this, or that ordre, shoulde in so doing forsake bothe the religion and name of Christe? What is, if this be not an impudent lye, of all other that I haue hear­de, moste like to that made by youre felowe Fox, when he saieth that Bradforde was charged by the Quenes councel that then was, emongest other thinges with the beleuing Actes and monumen­tes fo. 1173 b. and preaching of Christe crucified. What will these lieng Maisters be ashamed to feine that vtter suche vntruthes as these are? It is false that you saie (to coloure the better you­re slaunderousse reporte) that they haue chosen to be called re­ligiouse as by a speciall name of a seuerall religion. For as the re­ligion is not seuerall but the same that is common to all true Christians: so neuer gaue the professours therof anie suche name to them selues to be called religiouse. The vni­forme consent it is of good men thorough out al the worl­de that hath giuen them that name, as to those that hauing chosen a kinde of life more streighter and painefull thē the common sorte of men haue done, the rather to atteine to the perfection (as muche as mannes infirmitie wil suffer in this life) of that one religion which we all professe: haue semed best worthy therof. It is the maner therfore of con­uersation and liuing in this one common religion, that seuereth the folowers therof from the rest, not religion Religion hath two significa­tions. it selfe. Religion hathe two significations M. Nowell. The one concerneth faithe, and so there is in all the worlde but one religion, to witte of the catholike Christians, as S. Austen noteth: the other perteineth to vertue and good life. And so there are bothe diuersities and degrees of religion, as the same S. Austen reconing vp Anacho­retes, Eremites, Cloister monckes, nonnes, and collea­ges [Page 107] of religiouse, not without reioising therein obiecteth Lib. de mo­rib. eccl. Cath. cap. 31. to the Manichees. But how forsake they the religion and name of Christe M. Nowell, why tell you vs not? Thin­ke you that it maye be laufull for you in print to vse youre pulpite talcke, and flowing in your ruffianly Rhetorike to droppe in slaunderouse lies, as yow doe, without all proufe? These religiouse men that yow mention, folowe Christe in pouertie as the Apostles did, and manie ho­lie men in all ages haue done, and as Christe him selfe ga­ue the yong man councell to doe, that asked what waye he shoulde take to get heauen, when he bad him, if he Matth. 19. woulde be perfecte, to sell all that he had, giue it to the pore and folowe him. They vowe chastitie to be the more ap­te to serue Christe as the Apostle saieth of them that be 1. Cor. 7. vnmaried. They renounce them selues vtterly (by vowing obedience to their heade) whiche oure Sauiour willeth Lucae. 9. them to doe that will folowe him. In all this what is there to be misliked? where is anie forsaking of Christes name and religion? Where are the popishe schismes and sectes, that you rauingly talcke of? If these be schismes and sec­tes, if to liue thus be to forsake Christes name and religiō: then is Christe the auctor of oure schismes, then haue the holie fathers Paulus, Hilarion Anthonie, Basile, Hierome Austen, yea the Apostles them selues forsaken Christes name and religion. Who bothe haue prac [...]ised this kinde of life in them selues, and earnestly comm [...]n did the same to their folowers. O God for thy mercy how perilouse are the daies that we liue in? How farre are the heresies of our time passing those whiche in times past haue bene raised vp, and haue raged in thy churche? This maner of life which M. Nowell here declameth against, and calleth schis­maticall, persuaded by Christe, practised by the Apostles, [Page] and from their time continued in the churche till oures, as the stories of all ages beare witnesse, hathe bene by good men alwayes honoured, by tirantes and infidelles wondred at, euen by the worst kinde of men well spoken of, onelye proude protestants, and licentiouse Libertines, who neither can saye well nor doe well, call it schismatical, terme it a for saking of Christes name and religion. Whereof as we ha­ue here by one of them a glimmering in generall wordes: so hath his felowe giuen vs a perfect sight and full vie­we thereof, in the combate that he kepeth with the blessed spirite of that holye saincte, then whome since the Apostles tyme I maye be bolde to saye, there liued not one that ex­pressed Fox ke­peth a cō ­bate with S. Fraūces in his Ac­tes and monumē tes fol. 70 more neare the lyfe and conuersation of oure sa­uiour, S. Frauncis him selfe. He calleth him Assisian asse (because he was borne in a towne called Assisium) rude idiot, and Frantike frauncis: him selfe being as verie an asse as euer was breade in the mountaines of Arcadia for so sa­ing, a right idiott for calling the wisedome of God foo­lishenes, 1. Cor. 3. and if not when he made that houge donghill, yeat surelye at that time when he imagined him selfe to be an Vrinall, a frantike Fox. And why giueth he to him these reprochefull titles I praie you? Forsothe he calleth him As­se, rude Ideott &c. because (I will vse his owne wordes) hearing vpon a tyme howe Christ sent furthe his disciples to pre­ache Foxes te­stimonie of Saint Frauncis. he thought to imitate the same in him selfe, and his disciples, and left of shoes, [...] but one coate, and that of Vile clothe, in ste­de of a latchet to [...], and of a girdle he toke aboute him an hempen corde, and [...] appareled his disciples, teaching them to fullfill (for so he speaketh) the perfection of the ghospell, to appre­hende pouertye, and to walke in the waye of holye simplicie. He left in writing to his disciples and folowers, his rule, which he cal­led Regulam euangelicam. i. the rule of the ghospel, as though the gospel of Christ were not a sufficiēt rule to all Christian men but it must take his perfectiō of frātike Fraūcis. Hetherto this frātike fox. [Page 108] Now whether these be iust causes to storme and toke on as he dothe against this blessed saincte (for either these be the causes or he giueth none at al) let the wise and godly reader iudge. Whereas he calleth him frantike, for calling his rule the rule of the ghospel, what woulde he haue sayed of him, if he had termed it a rule of mannes inuention, which no­we rageth so for calling it the rule of the ghospell? But he quarelleth with him, because by this rule giuen by him to his disciples it shoulde seme that the ghospell off Christe were not a sufficient rule &c. O fonde man. By that mea­nes might he also call S. Paule frantike, for writing: Folo­we Philipp. 3. me brethern, and marke them whiche walke so, as we haue gi­uen yow the example: As thoughe the example of Christe were not sufficient, but it must take his perfection in saint Paule. For euen as S. Paule willed the Philippenses none o­therwise to folowe him, then as he folowed Christe: so did saint Frauncis giue no other rule then Christe had giuen before, as the title of his rule it selfe dothe declare. And as S. Paule willed them to folowe him because he folowed Christ, so deliuered S. Frauncis to those that would folow him, that rule of Christe to be embrased, in suche sorte as he had giuen them the example before. This fox runneth on his course, and spareth not with his taile to caste his vri­ne in mennes eyes. For he addeth: This Frauncis as he was su­perstitiouse Fox counteth it su­perstition to cast awaye worldly Goddes. in casting all thinges from him, euen also the girdle, girding a coarde aboute him: so in outewarde chastising of him selfe: so streight he was to him selfe (leauing the ordinarye remedye appointed by God) that in winter season he couered his bodye with yse and snowe. He called pouertie his ladie, he kept nothing ouer night. Merueile not nowe good reader if M. Nowell call religiouse men popishe schismes and sectes, if he char­ge them with forsaking the religion and name of Christe, when thow hearest the abandoning and casting awaye of [Page] worldly gooddes, the embrasing of pouertie, the free com­mitting of a mannes selfe to Goddes prouidence, without carcke or care what shall become of him on the morowe (according to Christes owne counsell) the chastising off Matth. 19. & 6. the bodye to make it seruiseable to the spirite, vsed by saint Paule, when I saye thow hearest all this expressely called superstition, ceasse to merueile anye longer. Of this blessed 1. Cor. 9. saincte S. Frauncis, I coulde saie muche listed I to make im­pertinent discourses. Although of his vertue and holynesse there can be no greater testimonie, then that his ennemies them selues can finde nothing to obiect against him but that which Chirste and his Apostles taught and practised, and euerye good man shoulde wishe to be in him selfe. For which cause Henricus Pantaleon an heretike as M. Fox is, but yeat of a more calmer spirite, speaking of him in hys Chronographie, vseth these wordes: S. Franciscus Asisius Pag. 95. Hispanus, sanctitate & eruditione illustris in Italia claret. S. Frauncis a spaniarde of the towne of Asisium, famouse for his holynesse and learning florisheth in Italie. Wel yow see good readers what Nowelles oure vnhappye age that can abide nothing that well is, hathe brought furthe. Yow see what foxes Sathan the maister of the game hathe vnkenel­led in oure countrie of England to destroye oure Lordes vineyarde. Yow are not ignorāt what flesheflies and canon crowes haue builded their neastes euen in the churche off God. Oure Lorde graunte vs as we see them and knowe them, so to flee them and auoide them. But now to returne to M. Nowell, some man maie happely aske me what an­swere I make to the scripture noted here in the margēt for­bidding expressely that we call not men oure fathers on Fol. 54. b. 31. Matth. 23. earthe which these ordres of religiouse men doe. To this I answere with Euthimius, Theophilact, and S. Hierom vpō [Page 109] this place, that we are not by these wordes forbidden to Euthimius Theophi­lactus, Hie­ron. in. ca. Matth. 23. call them that begot vs either to the worlde by the fleshe, or to God by the spirite, fathers. The wordes of Euthimi­us are these. Hoc dixit non prohibens vocari patres eos qui iux­ta carnem genuerunt &c. This Christ spake, not forbidding them to be called fathers who haue begotten other either carnally or spiritually, but that we might knowe who is chiefely and as the verie first cause to be called oure father. For that father of oures is god only that is in heauen: they that begette vs after the fleshe or after the spirite, be worckers together with God and ministres rather of oure natiuitie. He saieth therfore, call none youre fa­ther in earthe, as youre chiefe father, and first cause (of youre being) for that father is but one which is in heauen. With Euthi­mius agreeth Theophilact, saing of this place. Nō vt neminē patrem vocent, sed ne ignorent quem principaliter patrem vocare oporteat. Not that we shoulde call no man father, but that we shoulde not be ignorant whome we ought specially to call fathers S. Hierome moueth this verie obiection vpon this place, Howe then the monckes of Aegipt, and Palesti­na were called fathers, how S. Paule contrary to this pre­cepte 2. Cor. 5. (forbidding aswell the name of maister as of father) called him selfe the maister of the gentiles. To the whiche he answereth agreing with Euthimius and Theophilact, that there is one principall maister, one speciall father, that all other be fathers and maisters, but not properly. Thus called S. Paul the Corinth. His children and him sel­fe 1. Cor. 4. their father. Thus called the monckes in S. Austens ti­me their heades fathers. Thus call those of S. Benedicte Lib. de morib. eccl. cathol. cap. 31. his ordre S. Benedict their father, because Christ wrought by him as an instrumēt this spirituall birthe in them. Thus doe the Cistertians, Carmelites, Chartusians, Franciscans, with the rest. Emongest whome I can not but note how [Page] warely and wisely yow passed ouer the Augustines, left yow shoulde either haue bene driuen to make S. Austen the auctor of a popishe and schismaticall secte, or elles be compelled to recant youre wordes. Nowe for answere to youre scripture moste vntruly applied, I saye, that in that sense which Christe forbiddeth vs to call men oure fathers, that is as oure chiefe and speciall fathers, either carnall or spirituall, the Benedictines, Cistertians Carmelites &c. ne­uer called anie man their father, acknowledging allwaies and confessing, that that father is but one, god him selfe which is in heauen. M. Nowell marching on lustely in his lies and vntrue application of scripture, addeth:

And continuing and accōplishing the schisme first begonne in Nowell. fol. 55. a. 1. 1. Cor. 1. S. Paules time, after the example of those who saied, I am off Paule, I of Cephas, I of Apollo, saing I am of Dominicke, I of Be­nedicte, I of Frauncis, who also maie directly answere S. Paule asking, was Paule or anie other sauing only Christe crucified for yow? Yea maie the franciscanes saie, S. Frauncis was crucified for vs of his familie, and beholde the woundes in his side, handes, and feete.

It lotheth me to see howe shamefully yow abuse the Dorman. moste holie and sacred scriptures. The schisme that was emongest the Corinthians was in a most necessary pointe of doctrine, to witte, about the grace conferred in the sa­crament of baptisme, eache of them thinking that the ver­tue thereof depended vpon the excellencie of the ministre that ministred it, as bothe by the texte it selfe and the iud­gement of S. Austen thereupon is moste euidently to be seene. Nowe is this diuersitie of professions in religiouse De praedes. Sanctorum cap. 5. lib. 3. contra. Crescon. Grammat. cap. 1 [...]. men, not in doctrine or faithe as was theirs, but in maner and trade of life, which all though it be in some streighter, in other some looser, yeat because all tende to one ende, that is to the perfection of the ghospell, allthough not by [Page 110] one meanes, and agree beside in the three substantiall poin­tes of their profession, chastirie, pouertie, and obedience: yow can by no meanes call them schismes. It is a fowle lye therefore M. Nowell, that yow labour here to colour with the pretense of goddes worde, to saie that religiouse men doe folowe the example of those, who saide I am of Paule, I of Cephas &c. Who agreing all in one faithe and doctri­ne, how euer they differ in certeine outewarde obseruati­ons, saye not neither (as yow also vntruly reporte) I am of Dominike, I off Benedicte &c. But I am of that ordre that S. Dominike was, that is to saie, I haue professed to serue God in suche sorte as S. Dominike while he liued did, and so of the rest: none of them in the meane season pre­ferring their patrones the one before the other, or iudging them selues to be the better for folowing this rule or that, but leauing the iudgement thereof to him who in the da­ye of the reuelation of his iust iudgement shall giue to Rom. 2. Six lies in 8. lynes. euery one according to his worckes. To conclude therfo­re, you haue here in eight lines made no fewer thē six lies. The first is in calling the diuerse orders of religion that are 1 in the churche popishe schismes. The seconde in saing that 2 the professours therof haue forsaken Christes religiō. The. 3 3. that they haue forsaken his name. The 4. that they haue 4 chosen to be called religiouse. The 5. that they haue chosen 5 to be so called by a speciall name of a seuerall religion, is a lye, if you meane (as it is to be thought you doe, for other­wise it is no schisme) by the worde religion, religion in fai­the, ot in maners or trade of life. The sixte, that you char­ge 6 thē to folowe the exāple of the schismatikes of S. Paules time, betwene whome there is no maner of resemblaunce at al, as hathe bene declared. So that now hauing quit your selfe like a propre man in these fewe lines, you will take a [Page] conscience to lye anie more for a while, and therfore you dare not precisely affirme, that the franciscanes doe saye that S. Frauncis was crucified for them, but saie that they maie saie so. Blessed be God you can not charge them M. Nowell that anie suche thing they doe saie, whiche seing you can not, how holdeth the argument I praie you, whe­reby you proue them schismatikes suche as were in S. Pau­les time, because they maie so saye? Nowe M. Nowel what maie not you saye, and so proue yourselfe, not only a schis­matike, but also an heretike if all thinges whiche you maie saye you should be also charged in dede to saye? You maie saye (for some of your schoolefelowes haue saide so much Lucas Sternber­ger of o­muluke in Mora­uia Sta­phil. in Englishe fol. 112. a. Instit. li. 3. cap. 23. before you) that to worship the name of the blessed Trini­tie, is to imagine falsely three Goddes: you maye saie and must saye if you will folowe your Maister Caluin, that God is the auctor of their damnation that are damned: woulde you nowe be contented because you maye saie thus, and yeat woorse toe, if worse maye be, that one shoul­de conclude against you that you be a schismatike or an heretike. And yeat who seeth not, that suche a conclusion were muche more liker to be true, youre felowes and Mai­ster hauing taught suche opinions before, then this where­with you burden these pore Franciscanes, of whome there was neuer yeat anie I beleue that had so idle a braine, as to imagine so vainely of S. Frauncis and wickedly bothe, as you haue done. You procede in your pastime and saye.

If S. Paule aske againe, is Iesus Christe diuided? Yea, maie a fal­se Nowell. Hypocrite one of the secte of the Iesuites saye: for we haue the one parte of Iesus, therof called Iesuites, and haue left the other parte Christe, to the seely soules abroade, to holde them selues cō ­tented therewith, and with the name of Christians therof deri­ued.

When you speake off a secte of Iesuites, I knowe not Dorman. [Page 111] what you meane. I maie gesse that you meane those reli­giouse men that are called of suche as knowe them. The cō ­panie or societie of Iesus. If that be your meaning what haue you to saye to them? Mary saie you, one of that secte maie saye Iesus Christe is diuided. And you, maie not you also saye so if you list M. Nowell? Who doubteth but that you are in as good possibilite to saye so as they or anie other? Why then, because bothe you and they, and all other maie saye so, are you therfore and they, and all other schismatikes, hi­pocrites, and so furthe? But why maye they saie so more then anie other. For so the because they are called Iesuites. For so the they be not so called truly. Loke in the decrees of the The pro­fession of the cler­kes of the societie of Iesus. Late councell holden at. Trent, and there you maie learne how they be called. They beare the name as I saide, of a companie gathered together in the name of Iesus to serue him wholly and perfectely, abandoning all worldely care. Their profession is to teache the liberall sciēces to youthe without rewarde, to bring vp their companie in the studie of diuinitie, in knowledge of the tongues aswel the vulgar and common, as the learned and principall tongues, the la­tine, greke, and Hebrue, to preache at their home, to con­uert infidelles abroade to the faithe, and heretikes to the church, and all this in the name of Iesus, and for the loue of Iesus. Hereafter you finde faulte M. Nowell with such or­dres of religiouse men, as beare the names of sinfull men, as of S. Benedicte, S. Dominike, and S. Frauncis: nowe you blame them which beare the name of Iesus him selfe, as you imagine. Why wright you so contrarily, but because it is not the name that grieueth you so muche as the thing, the ordre, the rule of religiouse men. The whiche because you are notable to reproue so truly as you are (a man euen made for that purpose) to scoffe at the name wretchedly, [Page] you floorishe agaainst the coate, and foyne against their garmētes, but their ordre you can not reproue, their bodie you can not perce vnto. For speake of the ordre, life, and behauiour of these whom you cal Iesuites, and speake truly M. Nowel, and one colleage of that cōpanie, as for exāple that in Rome, or in Conimbra of Portugall, shall shame for vertue and learning (beside the sincerity of religiō) al your congregations of protestātes what so euer or where so euer they be. The miraculouse cōuerting to the faith of infinite millions of infidelles, in more then 20. diuerse kingdomes of the Easte and West Indiās, and other moste ample coū ­tries of late yeares discouered, the miracles by thē wrought, the Apostolical trauaile by lande and by see a of these good fathers, the cruell martyrdome of manie for preaching the faithe of Christe to infidelles (all whiche maye at large be sene in the epistles called Diuersi auisi &c. in the Italian tongue, set furth from the yeare 1551. vntill the laste of 1564. in foure seuerall partes) doe euidently declare, bable and prat­tle, rane and rage as muche as yow liste, that their ordre is no schisme or hipocrisye as yow lewdely talke, but a blessed and learned companye of holye men, raised vp by God in these wicked dayes, bothe to staye the faithe readye to fall in these partes, to plant it in other places where it was ne­uer hearde of before, and finally for the vtter ouerthrowin­ge Augusta. Dilinga. Prussia. Brunsberg. Vienna. Ments. of heretykes where so euer theey be, as in Germanye e­speciallye (where diuerse learned colleages are of them) to the no small harte burning off youre felowe protestan­tes and yow M. Nowell, God be praysed they haue done. Whiche olde grudge made yow I beleue in this place mo­re spitefully to speake off them, then of anye other ordre of religiouse men. For thus you continue yeat to inuey a­gainst them.

VVhy is Iesus one then and Christe an other? Be there two Nowell. Christes then, or one diuided into two? One of these muste nedes be.

Neither is Iesus one and Christe an other, neither are Dorman. there two Christes, nor one diuided in two, neither was this the meaning of S. Paule when he asked whether Chri­ste were diuided, howe euer it please yow pleasantly to dal­ly thereuppon, abusing the holy scripture moste wickedly to serue youre scoffing and railing spirite. If there had bene emongest the Corinthians no other schisme then that so­me of them for the loue of Iesus Christe leauing all worl­dly substance and hope thereof; had assembled them selfe in to a companie together, to preache, to teache, to instru­cte freely all men, and that for Iesus sake, professing to be called by the title of a companie gathered together in his name, and other some not minding to folowe suche highe perfection continuing the common course of lyfe were called by the common name of Christians, he woulde ne­uer we maye be suer haue asked whether Christe were di­uided. And surelye if this shoulde haue bene S. Paules min­de, I see not but yow might haue brought a more euident place, then yow haue brought anie yeat, to proue that euen in S. Paules tyme Iesus Christe was diuided, and that so the­re were then schismes. For in the Actes of the Apostles we Act. 11. reade, that at Antioche the disciples were first called Chri­stians, and then if S. Paule chaunced to be in that compa­nye, as it is not to be doubted but he was of that compa­nye, you might proue S. Paule by his owne wordes to haue diuided Iesus Christe, and so to be a schismatike. For the texte hathe yow wote well, that the disciples were called Christians, not Iesuchristians. But God be praised M. No­well, S. Paule had no suche meaning as yow woulde make [Page] the worlde wene he had, no nor anye suche wordes nei­ther as yow ascribe to him, and therefore yow haue moste wickedly falsified the scriptures the more pleasantly to scotne and scoffe at the seruauntes of God. S. Paules wor­des M. No­well falsi­fieth the scripture. 1. Cor. 1. are. Nunquid diuisus est Christus? is Christe diuided? Why make yow him to saye, is Iesus Christe diuided? Was there no other vauntage to be founde against those whom you call Iesuites but to make such a homelie shift as this is? Nowe Iesus be praysed therefore, in whose name they are gathered together.

Ells if Iesus Christe be not two but one (as he is moste cer­teinly Nowell. one) and being not diuided (as he moste certeinly is whole) then are yow Iesuites, were your religion good, nothing ells but Christians.

It were pitie to interrupte youre pastime, otherwise I Dorman. woulde put yow in remembraunce that there be no suche religiouse men (as yow fantasie) called Iesuites, but then were all the sporte marred: and therefore let the societye of the name of Iesus be called for youre pleasure at this tyme, Iesuites. And nowe I saye to youre obiection, that if yow take Iesuites precisely for all that beleue in Iesus Christe, I graunte to yow, Iesuites and Christians are all one. But they are not called Iesuites M. Nowell (if they were so cal­led at all) because they beleue in Iesus Christe. So they be­leued before they were Iesuites. But why they are called as they are, yow haue hearde before. And thus this argument of youres is proued to be but a sophisme, which being thus ouerthrowen, all that yow heape thereupon hereafter, fal­leth downe also, as when proceding in this lewde kinde of talcke, yow saie.

Then are all Christians Iesuites also, then doe yowe in vaine Nowell. bragge of a seuerall name of religions, if youre religion and oures be one.

All Christians are Iesuites, and all Iesuites are Christi­ans Dorman. touching the faithe and beliefe in Christe. But in that some of a more passing loue to the honour of God become to be of the compaine of suche as forsake the worlde, the pleasure and libertie therof to folowe Iesus only, to prea­che his holie worde to infidelles, to conuert heretikes, to in­struct youthe in good learning, to professe the tongues, Grammer, Logike, Rhetorike, Philosophie and Diuinitie, without rewarde or peny taking: in that I saie some addicte them selues to this trade of life, and are therefore called the companie or societie of Iesus, not euery Christian is suche a Iesuite M. Nowell. You youre selfe were not I am suer when yowe receiued youre stipende for teaching at westminster: whether you be now sodenly become such a Iesuite, that other men knowe better then I. Where yow saie that they bragge of a seuerall name of religions, that is one of your ordinarie lies M. Nowell. Would God you and I with other that haue not yeat perfitely renounced this wicked worlde, coulde as well practise in oure doinges that lesson of S. Paule: modestia vestra nota sit omnibus hominibus. Phillip. 4. Let youre modestie be knowen to all men, as they haue doen and to the greate encrease of Christiā faith, daily doe. Againe their religion is not seuerall in respecte of faithe which they professe, being no other then that one knowen faithe of Christes vniuersall churche, but of maner and kinde of liuing, whiche maie be diuerse without feare off schisme.

But if youre religion be hipocrisie (as it is in dede) then haue yow stirred vp an horrible schisme diuiding and cutting the glo­riouse Nowell. name of Iesus, in the which onelye is saluation: yea tearing Christe him selfe in pieces, infinitly more wickedly and cruelly, then euer did the wicked souldiors that crucified Christ, who had a remorse to cutte his coate a sondre.

Hetherto M. Nowell hathe wrangled about the name, Dorman. supposing the religion of those of the societie of Iesus, as good as his. And trulie were it no better, it were but a starc­ke lump of heresies, partly olde newly scoured: partly newe lately inuented. Now he commeth to the religion it selfe, and vpon a bare supposition that it is hipocrisy, this lusty Rhetorician dischargeth a peale of threateninges, and con­cludeth vpon the same, that the professours thereof are a horrible schisme, diuiding, tearing and cutting Christe him selfe, and so furthe. But what if the religion of those whom yow call Iesuites be no hipocrisy M. Nowell? Yow bid me proue that. On goddes name I saie it is no hipocrisye in de­de. How thinke yow haue I not well and substantially pro­ued it? Doe not I proue it to be no hipocrisy, as you proue it is hypocrisie, when yow bring only to proue it this bare assertion of youres (as it is in dede): as though euery worde that yow spake were the ghospell it selfe? If yow saie that yow minded not to proue it but to affirme it, then it shalbe inough for me also to affirme the contrary onely, without anie nede to proue it at all, attending after youre proufe, that so I maie haue some matter to answere to. Therefore I repeate againe, if the religion that yow speake of be no hipocrisy as it is none in deede, then haue yow malitiously lied. When yow speake of cutting the gloriouse name off Iesus Christe, the tearing of him selfe in to pieces, you put vs in remembraunce of that miserable and moste horrible tearing that yow haue made of Christe, yow cause vs to thinke how yow haue cut his misticall bodye the churche by schismes and heresies, how yowe haue haled and man­gled his sacramentes, how yow haue rent his true body in that moste blessed sacrament, how yow haue troden it vn­der your beastly feete, infinitly more wickedly and cruelly [Page] on the altar, thē did those wicked souldiours that crucified him on the crosse.

And lest all these sectes of hipocrites shoulde not be knowen Nowell. sufficiently, by only diuersitie of names, they haue by other infinite wayes and meanes trauailed to seuer their sectes a sondre, stu­dieng for diuision as for the best, and flieng all shewe of vnitie as the worst of all thinges.

The Catholikes being sufficiently proued schisma­tikes Dorman. by the diuersitie of names, M. Nowell wyll not staye there, but by other infinite meanes and wayes he will (he saieth) proue the same. Nowe I praie yow good Readers marcke well these infinite meanes and waies. For excepte they were of greate force, M. Nowell yow maie be suer, woulde haue contented him selfe with suche stuffe as he hath in suche abundance brought allreadie, without hea­ping anie more.

Wherfore to their diuersitie of names, they haue ioined di­uersitie Nowell. of fashions, and diuersitie of colours in their apparel, di­uersitie of girdles, hose and shoes, diuersitie of shauing, diuersitie of going, becking and bowing, diuersitie of diete and meates, di­uersitie of reading, singing, and tuning, diuersitie of churche ser­uice, and diuersitie of rules of life.

Who is it now M. Nowell that magno conatu magnas nu­gas Dorman. agit? That plaieth the triffler so earnestly? Who proueth quidlibet ex quolibet, all thinges of euery thing? What greate triffles vtter you to proue a schisme emongest religiouse men? What childish diuersities heape you together to pro­ue the horrible crime of schisme? If these diuersities be (as you saie they are) the verie propertie of schismes and sectes: what shall we saie to oure seruing men, that go in diuerse liuories, the aldermen of London that go in one coloure, and the burgeoises and meaner Citezins that go in an o­ther? What will you make of the graue Iudges and learned Seriātes at the lawe. Shal they be schismatikes and sectaries, [Page] because the one sorte is cladde in scarlet, the other in fine blacke? Doctours in the vniuersitie in their scarlet gownes, and Maisters of Arte in their schoole habite, are they sectes by your iudgement M. Nowell? Your selfe with your long gowne and square cap, mainteine you a secte because yow go otherwise apparailed then other laye mē doe? Or if iud­ges, Doctours, Aldermen, scholers, seruing men, maye haue diuersitie of fashions, diuersitie of colours in apparell, and yeat this diuersitie in them no propertie of schismes and sectes: maye not religiouse men also being of diuerse voca­tions and professions, haue the like diuersitie of appareile and suche other thinges, without suspition of sectes and schismes? Let your wisdome if you saie nay, instructe vs when you write nexte and shewe the cause why. But I pra­ie you good sir, that affirme so peremptorily that this di­uersitie is the verie propertie of schismes and sectes, haue you anie scripture that leadeth you to saie so? Haue you a­nie learned writer within the first six hundred yeares that giueth this marcke to knowe schismatikes by? Is there anie beside your selfe and the Apologie, and some other of like credite, that describeth schismes and sectes by this diuersi­tie? Naye if this diuersitie that you vainely obiect to vs, we­re the verie propretie of sectes and schismes, might you not perhappes by that meanes proue Christe and his Apostles schismatikes? For as yow haue no scripture to proue that they went al in one liuory, so is the likelihode and presump­tion on the contrarye parte, that they went diuersly appa­reiled. But how so euer they were clothed, this is most cer­teine, that those good men that wandred about the worlde in pelttes and gotes skynnes, of whome S. Paule maketh Heb. 11. mention, and saieth that the world was not worthy of thē, had apparel diuerse and distincte from other men, and yeat [Page 115] I trust you will not make them schismatikes.

As for the other diuersities that you gather, as of sha­uing, going, becking, bowing &c. Who woulde euer haue thought that a man of youre qualities had bene so scru­pulouse or superstitiouse, as to requier that all men should be shauen a like, that they vse the like gate in going, the sa­me maner of becking and bowing, and such like? But if in shauing there must nedes for the auoiding of schismes be one vniforme fashion, why not in clipping I praie you M. Nowel? And then you might doe wel, when you preache nexte, sobrely to persuade withe the barbers, that they cut hereafter all mennes beardes alike, all a la marquesato all a la philippina, all a la moresca, all forcked, all square, or o­therwise, as to youre wisdome shall seme best, so that all be a like and schisme hereby auoided. Let your discretion also prescribe some one vniforme maner of going, becking and bowing. Nowe concerning diuersitie of diete and meates, you will not I thinke take vpon you to prescribe al Englā ­de one diete and one kinde of meate, you will rather turne it ouer to the phisicion, and bid him vnder perile of schis­me to appointe one suche diete to the whole realme. But if this be a note of schismes or sectes M. Nowell for one or­dre of religiouse men to vse one diet, an other to feede af­ter an other sorte, bothe of them notwitstāding susteining nature with no other then with suche as by ordre and law they maie: what are they I praie you, that in the holie time of lent when all the worlde absteineth, and from the A­postles time hetherto euer hath absteined from flesh, doe then of al other times moste greedily desire the same? That religiouse men haue not allwaies obserued vniformitie neither in cutting their heare, neither in their diete, emon­gest other of the auncient fathers none witnesseth more [Page] euidently then Epiphanius the B. of Cypres: who descri­bing the fourme of the church in his daies, when he com­meth to make mentiō of the religiouse men, writeth thus. Quidam verò ex solitariā vitā degentibus &c. Some of these that Sub sin. lib. 3. contra haereses. Diuersi­ties of li­uing e­mongest religiouse men in the primi­tiue chur­che. Acto. 18. leade this solitarie life in the church, dwell in cities: Some continue in monasteries, and get them farre out of the waye. Some haue thought good to let their heare growe for cōlinesse sake, of the pro­pre inuentiō of their minde, not of anie cōmaundemēt of the gospel or tradition of the Apostles: for S. Paule the Apostle cut of this attyre. There be beside other moste excellent conuersations of lyfe, which are obserued in the same holye catholike churche, I meane off them which absteine from all fleshe, foure footed beastes, byrdes, and fishe, yea egges also and cheese, and other diuerse rules of lyfe, For euery one shall receiue his rewarde according to his owne la­boure. And some truly absteine from al these: other some from fou­re footed beastes only, eating fowle and all other meates. Some ab­steine from fowle, and vse egges and fishe. Some eate no egges nei­ther, some eate fishe onely. Some absteine allso from fishe, and eate cheese. Some there be that eate not so muche as cheese. Beside these, there be other whiche absteine from breade, other allso from harde fruites, nuttes, and all sodden thinges, manye haue the grounde for their bedde. Other weare no shoes: other were priuey sacke clothe VVearing of sacke clothe for penaunce. for vertue and penaunce sake, which do trulye well. For it is vn­semelye to be sene openlye wearing sacke clothe, as some doe. He­therto Epiphanius touching the diuersitie of maners emon­gest religiouse men in his tyme. How saye yow M. Nowel, were yow ignoraunt of this place when yow made youre description of sectes and schismes, or knewe yow of it? Iff you were ignoraunt thereof, acknowledge at the length that you were deceiued: if yow knew it, crye shame to you­re selfe that durst charge the Catholikes with schismes, v­sing suche maners, as the primitiue churche of Christe v­sed? [Page 116] Nowe iudge good Reader whether thou haddest rather beleue, Epiphanius or M. Nowell. The one, (Epiphanius) taketh occasion by these diuersityes to sette furthe the be­auty of the churche: the other (M. Nowell) to obscure the­reby and deface the same. The one calleth these diuer­se fashions off lyuing, praeeminentes vitae conuersationes, mo­ste excelling conuerastions of lyfe: the other, the vorie pro­pertye of schismes and sectes. Epiphanius sayeth they shall be rewarded: M. Nowell as muche in effect, as that they shal be condemned. But where hathe Epiphanius these wordes, for that maketh not a little to the matter? Forsothe in that worke of his, where he doeth nothing elles but fight against he­resies and sectes, in the very ende thereof, when hauing de­clared before howe heretikes and schismatikes had defor­med the church, he would as it were oppose and set against them, the holy lyfe and vertuouse conuersation off suche good men as had decked and garnished the same. So that if these diuerse fashions of liuinges had bene the verye pro­pertye of sectes and schismes, he woulde neuer we maye be sure that wrote purposely against them, haue cōmended thē for good and vertuouse. Now for reading, singing and tuning, it greueth me to heare how farre you be M. Nowel from all good tune. As though it were either nedefull, or youre churches at home, vsed thorough out all the real­me one tune and not diuerse. But for this matter I will le­aue yow to the musicians mercy, for diuinitie maketh no matter thereof, I assure yow. Yeat there is an other diuer­sitie and that is of churche seruice. If diuersitie herein ma­ke a schisme, then wo be to you M. Nowell and your com­panions, who haue altered the common receiued seruyce thorough out all the latine churche: Ex ore tuo te iudico ser­ue nequam. But it is not euery diuersitie of churche seruice [Page] that maketh a schisme, but onely suche diuersitie as is done against ordre and lawe: I meane Goddes lawe, the lawe off the church, giuen by those spirituall rulers and gouernours whome Christe hathe appointed for the building off his Ephes. 4. Acto. 20. misticall bodye the churche, and to guyde and rule the sa­me redemed with his pretiouse bloude. Is there anye suche diuersitie M. Nowell in church seruice emongest religiou­se men? Or howe euer the same seruice be emongest them in this pointe diuerse, that in some places it is longer and hathe therefore mo lessons, Antiphones, Responces, then in other: in some places shorter, and therefore fewer (whi­che procedeth of this that some of these ordres being spe­cially instituted to preache, as the Dominicanes and those of the Societye of Iesus: other some to lyue in contemplations The cause of diuersi­tye off churche seruice e­mongest religiouse men. and meditations, as the Carthusians, must bestowe more time in studye and contemplation then in publike prayer: other to be wholly in the churche to praye for their sinnes and the sinnes of the people, as the Benedictines and other, who maye and ought therefore to haue their seruice longer) yeat all this notwithstanding, the churche seruice is in the substance thereof in all places vniforme. For all reli­giouse men worshippe one God, call vpon his blessed sain­ctes to helpe vs, praie for the deade, &c. This because the whole churche of Christe doeth and euer hathe done, (de­nye it if yow can) and yow doe not in youre seruice, the blowe that yow had thought to haue fastened vpon vs is light vpon youre owne nowle, and youre seruice thus farre differing frō Christes churche, not theirs that agreeth the­rewith, is schismaticall. Youre last diuersitye is of rules and life. Is it anie maruell good Reader, if they that after the Apostles first practised the imitation of their life, in reno­uncing the worlde and vanites thereof, as S. Basile. S. [Page 117] Austen, S. Benedict, S. Dominike, S. Frauncis, did deliuer to their folowers diuerse rules of life, this considered that allthough Christ were the only marcke that they all shot at, yeat the meanes that they vsed to compasse and atteine therto were diuerse? S. Dominike for example, had this speciall meaning to make Christe knowen to the rude and ignorant by preaching. S. Frauncis bothe by worde and example enforced him selfe to persuade to the proude and arrogant, humilitie and contempt of riches. Who can now denie but that suche meanes are here to be prescribed, as by the which the professours of this ordre or that, maie sonest atteine to their desired ende? As it is in these, so is it in all other, Benedictines, Carthusians, Bernardines &c. Emon­gest all the which, it suffiseth vs that yow are able to name no suche diuersitie of rules and life, as being diuerse one from the other, are anie of them against the commaunde­mentes of God: whereas contrarywise how diuerse so euer they seme to yow, they all agree in the ende of glorifieng God, allthough they differ in the meanes, the one worc­king this waie, the other that, and yeat euery waie good.

All times woulde faile me if I shoulde or coulde reherse all Nowell. their diuersities, which is the verie propretie off schismes and se­ctes.

Helpe the man to a daie more, some good bodie for Dorman. goddes sake. Will yow see so much worthy matter lost for lacke of time to vtter it. If not a daie, some man spare him an idle houre, perhappes it would serue his turne as well as a yeare. O that there were now an other Iohannes de tempo­ribus to lende yow M. Nowell some of his time. But if the worst happen that no suche creditour can be founde, rather take the morow after Domes daie, or the Griekes calendes, and holde men in suspense till that time: put them not out [Page] of all hope by suche discomfortable wordes. Well we haue all that we shall haue at this time I perceiue, what conclude yow therfore of these diuersities that yow haue rehersed al­ready? Forso the that they are the verie propretie of schis­mes and sectes. Nowe iwisse M. Nowell if yow had all ti­mes at commaundement, if yow coulde proue no otherwi­se schismes and sectes to be emongest vs then by this mea­nes, you nede to take no longre daie, the time that you ha­ue spent allready was long inough, and to long to without yow had better bestowed it. S. Austen teacheth you an o­ther S. Austens definition of a schis­me. lesson to knowe schismes by, then this that you haue learned of the Apologie, of Bale, and suche like maisters, of the diuersitie of coates, hosen, shoes &c. For thus defineth he a schisme: Schisma est recens congregationis ex aliqua senten­tiarum Lib. 2. cap. 7. contra Crescon. Crammat. diuersitate, dissensio. Schisme is a newe dissension of a companie by some diuersitie of opinions. Now I praie yow what schisme or secte haue yow proued all this while to be emongest Catholikes, or what suche schisme or secte coulde yow proue if all times failed yow not? The learned fathers Cyprian, Austen, Optatus, and other, describe schis­matikes to be such as set vp chaire against chaire, erect al­tar against altar. How far wide is this frō your description?

These be those schismatikes and sectaries, with an infinite mul­titude Nowell. whereof, of late Englande was replenished, of the whiche nowe thankes be to God the realme is well ridde.

Vpon youre false and vntrue premisses yow inferre as Dorman. false and as vntrue a conclusion. I will make therefore the conclusion true and right for yow. These be the religiouse persones, who embrasing the perfection of christen religi­on, after the counsell of oure Sauiour, after the example of the Apostles, of the learned and holie fathers, S. Hierome S. Austen, and S. Basile, who professing voluntary pouerty, [Page 118] holy obedience, and perfecte virginitie, serued God bothe daie and night, preached the Catholike faith, praied for all estates, relieued the poer aboute them, kept liberall hospi­talite. These be such, whose profession and order is blame­lesse, though the life of many were faulty, as it was also e­uen in the primitiue church, in the time of S. Paule, of S. Basill, S. Hierom and S. Augustin, who yet haue ben tolera­ted in Christendom for the good and vertuous sake, (as e­monge all other sortes of men, the euil are tolerated for the goodes sake). These are they, with a great multitude whe­reof, praised be God, and the deuotion of such as were the authours of such godly fundations, our dere countre of England, not of late onelie M. Nowell, but euen sence the first cōming of Christen faithe in to England, abunded, to the honour of God and welth of the realme, of the whiche now, thankes be to lewde Apostatas, to rennagat friers and monkes, to vowebreakes, and incestuous votaries, to vpstert protestants, the realme is miserably spoiled, so that if yow passe from one ende of the realme vnto the other, of so many thousand monasteries, hospitals, almes houses, chappels and cloysters as then stode, partly endued with bountefull liuely hods, partly charitably maintained of the inhabitants to the great weale of their soules, of so many I saie so standyng, you shall not see one stande now, but ei­ther defaced, or prophaned, either all ruinouse, or in the hā ­des of such, who vse it as temporall landes, not for the ma­intenance of spirituall exercises.

So that if you meete a thousande men and women, one after an Nowell. other, and aske of them, of what religion be you, they shall al and euery one answere you, I am a Christian, we be all Christians: the­re shall not one answere to you (as was wont vnder your heade) I am of the religion of S. Frauncis &c.

I tolde you before that this worde (Religion) was consi­dered Dorman. [Page] two wayes, either as it perteineth to faithe or to ma­ners. In the first sense there was neuer man nor woman yeat, that woulde otherwise haue answered you, not if yow had met ten thousande one after an other, but that they were all Christians. That they did customably otherwise answere, it was in this latter sense, as taking those that asked them the question to meane of their rule and profession of life not of their faithe, whereof they had cause to thinke that the demaunders of suche questions being Christians were not ignorant. Of this there can be no better proufe, then that if in Englande when religiouse men were there, of Fūladres, Spaine, Italy or any place where they now be, a knowen Iue or infidell shoulde aske any religiouse man or woman, of what religion they were, they woulde to su­che a one answere furthwith that they were Christiās, not Franciscanes, Dominicanes etc. because they would iudge the question to concerne religion as it perteineth to faith, not otherwise. And so what haue you gotten by this.

These so diuerse sectes of false religion abandoned now out of Nowell. fo. 56. a. 1. England, and the one true religion of oure Sauiour Iesus Christe only there remaining: I merueile with what face you can charge vs with schismes and sectes, which is youre owne speciall sore.

These so diuerse ordres of religiouse men being all of Dorman. one religion by beliefe, and therfore no schismes nor sectes of false religion: these by youre meanes being wickedly a­bandoned out of Englande, whereas they remaine yeat in all catholike countries to the inestimable comforte of good people, and so manie false religions, schismes and he­sies brought in by you in to their place, as well with vs as elles where, where you haue displaced them, I merueile with what face you can charge men and wemen of one fai­the and beliefe, with schismes which is a breache of the cō ­mon [Page 119] faithe. I merueile with what harte you coulde charge the blessed Apostles, the Nicene councell, the learned fa­thers, with norishing of schismes and sectes emōgest them, for squaring only about priuate matters. I merueille with what stomake you coulde alleage schoolemen and Logici­ners, to proue schismes▪ and sectes emongest the Catholi­kes. I merueile with what vnbridled boldenes you coulde call the diuersitie of apparell, girdles, hose, yea shoes, diuer­sitie of meates &c. the verie propertie of schismes and se­ctes. Last of all▪ I merueile, with what face you can charge vs with schismes and sectes, which is youre owne special sore.

And where you warne the renders vpon experience of the mul­titude Nowell. of schismes lately risen, sithen the forsaking of that one po­pishe heade, to credite the auncient fathers as witnessing with you against vs: you might as iustly warne them to credite the auncient Phariseis rather then Christe and his Apostles: bothe for that the In psal. 54 first heresy as S. Augustine saieth, sprang emongest the disciples off Christe &c. and also for that in the Apostles time, some vsed such schismaticall sainges as these: we holde of Paule, some other, we holde of Cephas &c. whereas there was no such dissention emon­gest the highe priestes and phariseis, but greate vnitie and concor­de amongest them against Christes Apostles.

Nowe M. Nowell hauing done what he can to charge Dorman. vs with schismes, and knowing withall howe simple the stuffe is that he hathe brought, hath founde at the length that it is best to renewe his former plea, that is, that it is no such greate matter though they agree not emongest them selues, especially seing that, as before he tolde vs that the Apostles were at dissension emongest them selues: so here he will proue the like of the disciples: and againe to deface oure vnitie and quiete agrement, he hathe founde it to be right good councell to saye, that that is no such great mat­ter as the which is cōmon to vs with the Phariseis against [Page] them, Christes Apostles and disciples forsothe.

Nowe is not here as I tolde you before a goodly reli­gion, Protestāts deface vnitie. that maketh the Apostles and disciples of Christe schismatikes, that when it can not haue vnitie to main­teine it, laboureth all that it can to deface it? But no­we let vs heare howe he proueth that their side ought not to be charged with schismes and sectes, because I might as iustly (he saieth) warne men to credite the auncient phariseis ra­ther then Christe and his Apostles. Why then were there sectes and schismes betwene Christe and his Apostles as there are betwene Luther and his folowers? or agreed the Phariseis in vnitye of one truth not onely against Christ and his but emongest them selues also, as we Catholikes doe and euer haue done against Luther (whome in this argument M. Nowell yow resemble to Christe and his Apostles?) For sectes and schismes to be betwene Christe and his Apo­stles, that yow dare not plainely affirme, but whereas that being the pretence whereby yow woulde defende youre schismes, that yow shoulde haue proued: yow leauing it al­together vnproued, thinke youre selfe sufficiently dischar­ged, because the disciples of Christe fell into heresie. Not doubting but emongest the simpler sorte, heresie being proued within lesse then two lynes after the mentiō of the Apostles in the disciples, they not obseruing the difference betwene Apostles and disciples, woulde easely be deceiued, and beleue that yow had sufficiently proued the Apostles heretikes. For answere to this that yow bring here of the disciples, I saye in fewe wordes: that these disciples were not of the Apostles, but of suche folowers and hearers of Christe, as forsooke him before his passion, when he prea­ched of the blessed Sacrament, as it appeareth in the ghos­pell. The Apostles remained still with Christe their hea­de, Ioan. 6. [Page 120] and forsooke him not. Betwene Christe and them was moste perfecte vnitie and agreement. Howe can yow then I praye you, charge Christ and his Apostles with schismes, because of the disciples departing frō Christ? Let vs graūte your imaginatiō, if you cā not otherwise vnderstād reason, that Luther were Christ and Carolstadius, Melanchthon, with some other his Apostles. If this your new Christe, and his Apostles agreeing all in one faithe, some other disci­ples comming to them shoulde reuolt and departe from them againe, were this nowe a iust cause to call Luther and his companye agreeing all in one, schismatikes? I thin­ke yow will not saye so, at the least there is no reason, why suche departure shoulde preiudicate or hurte them that re­maine quiete still as they did before. If yow will not, nor can not saye thus of Luther, why saye yow so off Christe and his Apostles? Why saye yow that we maye as iustlye call them schismatikes as we doe yow: whereas youre false Christe and his owne Apostles neuer agreed together, and oure true Christe with his his neuer disagreed? And this is the cause why we call yow heretikes and schismatikes, be­cause yow nourishe and encreasse those heresies and schis­mes, that sprong vp euen with youre first maister and his scholers, as youre selues can not denie, and departe from Christes knowen churche (or elles Christe had no chur­che at all) as those disciples off Christe that you speake off did. With whom youre resemblaunce is so muche the grea­ter, because that as these first heretikes departed from the church (Christe and his Apostles) because they would not beleue in Christes doctrine of the blessed sacrament: so haue you parted a greate nombre of yow, from vs for the same cause, and mainteine the same heresie as S. Augustine In psalm. 54. calleth it. Nowe as it were no good reason to proue vs [Page] schismatikes, because yow are parted from vs: being on­oe as yow can not denye, of vs: so can no man iustly charge Christe and his Apostles with that crime, because his disciples parted from him. And as I answere to this, so doe I to youre other obiections of the schismatikes in S. Paules time, of those other also of the Nicolaites, the Simonians, Cerinthians, &c. who all parting from the knowen chur­che of Christe, ought not to preiudicate the same. For the­ir departure was alwaies so sensible, that the true christian might saye with S. Iohn. They haue departed from emongest Ioan. 1. cap. 2. vs, but they were none of vs. The Apostles and their compa­nye remained alwaies a visible and knowen churche. So that these examples can nothing helpe to couer your schis­maticall sores, whereas in Christe and the Apostles them selues, there was neuer anye breache of vnitie, whiche yow shoulde haue proued lykewyse, therby to excuse your first Christ and his Apostles.

Whereas an other plea of youres is, that emongest the high priestes and Phariseis there was no dissention but gre­ate vnity and concorde emongest them against Christes Apostles: to that I saye, that although they agreed in this all to per­secute the Apostles: yeat emongest them selues they were Ioseph. lib. Antiq. Iu­daie. 13. cap. 8. diuided into sectes and schismes, some being called Phari­seis, other some Sadduces, and yeat a thirde secte called Es­seni, so that they resemble more liuely yow protestantes, then vs catholikes, agreing as the Phariseis did against the truthe, and diuided also with them into sectes emongest youreselues. If you departed from vs as Christ and the Apost­les (you saie) did from the high priestes and their churche, then should you be at vnitie and concorde emōgest your selues as the Apostles were, then must you shewe out of the scri­pture, the fall of the churche of Christe, the corruption of Esaiae. 6 [...]. [Page 121] the same, and the restitution in the latter daies to come, all Esaiae. 66. Hierem. 6. Ezech. 44 Habacuc 2. Act. 7. 13. &. 28. foreprophecied in the lawe, as the Apostles proued oute of the scripture, the fall of the Sinagoge, the corruption of the high priestes, the comming of Messias, the placing of the newe lawe that shoulde continue. When yowe can proue this and defeate Christes promise made of his churche to be visible, and vniuersall ouer all the worlde, and to his churche, to continue for euer, then call vs phariseis harde­ly Matth. 16. and spare not, calle youre selues Christe and his apostles, we giue yow leaue.

For furder excuse of your schismes and diuisions, yow fo. 56. b. 1. tell vs of the troubles that rose in Iurie, and shortly after o­uer all the world, vpō the preaching of Christes gospell &c. If diuisions and troubles were then it is not to be meruei­led at, oure sauiour him selfe, saing of him selfe: non veni pa­cem Matth. 10. mittere sed gladium, I come not to sende peace, but a sworde. But oure age is not nowe M. Nowell the primitiue churche, oure faithe is not nowe to be begonne of newe. It hathe bene with consent of all the worlde established these 12. hundred yeares. And therefore youre comparison is lewde, and vntrue. Yow saie furder.

And as iustly might yow charge the Apostles and their doctrine Nowell. with those schismes, sectes, and troubles, as yow do charge vs with those that haue risen in oure dayes.

Euer yow harpe vpon that string that yow woulde be Dorman. like the apostles, which (when yow can proue that Christ promised to builde an other churche, beside that whereof he made Peter the heade, and that frier Martine Luther shoulde be the seconde Messias, and Zuinglius or Carolsta­dius the heade therof) then we will easely graunte to you. But note againe I praie yow M. Nowell, the difference of the schismes arising in the Apostles time, and of youre [Page] schismes arising in our time. The Apostles were not at di­uision emongest them selues: yow are. The Apostles were before those schismes: yowe haue risen together with the schismes. Those schismes departed out from the Apostles: your schismes are within youre selues. Againe see the agre­ment of those schismes with youres, and confer the case of the state of the churche nowe, with that of the primitiue churche then. Those schismes and sectes departed out off the primitiue churche: euen so haue yow departed nowe oute of the same churche being of longre continuance. They being departed multiplied into mo schismes, and par­ted into farder diuision, yow being departed multiply daily from schisme to schisme, and newe sectes haue risen sence youre departure from Martin Luther. They troubled and disquieted the primitiue church of the Apostles: yow trou­ble and disquiet the catholike churche that nowe is. If you demaunde the prouffe of this which I saie, answer the boo­ke (which I am suer yow will neuer be hable to answere) lately set furthe in oure tongue, moste truly called, The for­teresse of the faithe &c. And shewe vs, as you will stande to it hereafter, when the faith and light of goddes holy word, which yow saie hathe nowe of late sprong againe, was ex­tinguished, where, and by whome.

Where it is well knowen to the worlde, that oure learned men Nowell. haue by their writinges more oppugned and repressed the saide sectes then all the papistes haue done.

This is that whiche I saide before, that yow in dede Dorman. wright diligently one against an other, which is a moste e­uident assurance of youre dissention in doctrine. And if these youre writinges were in the vulgare tongues to be re­ade of all men, there woulde be no better argument in the worlde to disgrace youre doctrine for euer. Whereas yow [Page 122] compare your diligence in writing with that of the catho­likes: if the late writinges of learned catholikes of all coun­tries, especially of Germanie it selfe, were in dede compa­red to youres, it shoulde appeare howe false and vntrue this is.

In dede we must nedes confesse a truthe, that whilest we all re­mained Nowell. vnder this quiet obedience of youre Romishe heade, in one doctrine of his traditions, there was a coloured kinde of qui­ [...]tnesse &c.

Foelix necessitas quae cogit ad meliora. Happye is the Dorman. necessitie whiche forceth to the better. Here M. Nowell correcting him selfe, for that before he charged vs so hey­nously withe schismes and sectes, wyll somewhat mitiga­te that cruell sentence off his, and therefore he muste he saieth, nedes confesse, that there was when we lyued vn­der the obedience off the pope, a coloured kynde off qui­etnesse emongest vs. Surelye I am sorye M. Nowell that we can not saye as muche off yow, that we can fynde no tyme, when emongest yowe there was so mu­che as anye shadowe off coloured quietnesse. But doe yow remembre withe what schismes and sectes yow char­ged vs before? The Thomistes and Scotistes, the No­minalles and Realles, met they not daily at the scooles? The Benedictines Cistertians, Carmelites &c. kept they their names so priuey that they were knowen to no man? Their habite in some whit, in other blacke &c. were men so blin­de they coulde not see? Their diuerse diet, their shauing, going, becking, bowing &c. were they thinges so priuilie vsed, that no man knewe of them? If these thinges were knowen to all men as they were, how saie you that there was a coloured kinde of quietnesse emongest vs, when the greatest and all the schismes and sectes that you coulde [Page] falsely charge vs withall, were so farre from all colour, that M. No. well wri­teth con­traries. they were manifest and open to the eyes of all men. And thus are you manifestly contrary to your selfe, saing here that we had emongest vs a coloured kinde of quietnes, and before, that lest the religiouse men whome you call sectes Fol. 114. a of Hypocrites shoulde not be knowen, they studied for di­uision, and fled all shewe of vnitie.

But when that Christe the auctor of that light, as he him selfe, Nowell. so. 57. a. 7. and by his Apostles bewraied the errours of the Iuishe traditions by the saide light first springing, and withall troubled their vnitie and concorde in the doctrine of suche traditions, and their quiet­nesse in their Sinagoge so settled before: so nowe the same oure sa­uiour, in the time by his wisdome appointed &c.

In this place M. Nowell openeth to the worlde the se­crete Dorman. iudgementes of God, about the restoring the truthe quite extinguished in these latter daies. For proufe wherof the indifferent reader maye note, that he who triumpheth so much of holie scripture, and of the necessitie of prouing all thinges by the expresse lettre therof, bringeth nowe no one texte or piece of texte, out of the whole bible. Yeat shal you see how weightie the matters are that he affirmeth. First (he saieth) that oure Sauiour in the time by his wisedome ap­pointed, hath disclosed that the pope and his haue obscured, hid­den, broken and forbidden the lawe of God. Againe, that this he hathe done by the light of his holie worde againe springing and shining to them sitting in palpable darckenes &c. Nowe these pointes M. Nowell vttered by you without all warrant of scripture, as they are the fundation of all youre religion, so conteine they against oure Sauiour, and his holie worde moste horrible blasphemies, as the which importe an vtter ouerthrowe of the church, and suche a terrible Eclipse and defect of light in that cleere sonne, wherein the sonne of God hath pitched his beautiful tabernacle, that the darcke­nes Psal [...]. 18. [Page 123] you saye was palpable, and coulde by no meanes be chased awaye, till a lewde Apostata and ronneagate frier, the worst man by the iudgement of his owne scholers that liued in his time, and worst able to bridle his affections, vpon malice, enuie, and couetousnes, restored the same a­gaine. All that foloweth you builde vpon this fundation, the which being naught the matter laied vpon it must ne­des come downe withall. And therfor it foloweth.

By this occasion, is there risen a like schisme betwene you and Nowell. vs, as was betwene S. Paule and the Phariseis &c.

Here you heape nombre of lies together, laing to oure Dorman. charge, that the cause why we crye and barcke (you saie) against you, is because by this occasion of the light oure gaine is decaied, oure quietnes troubled, oure rest interrupted, oure good cheare marred, oure pompe abated. We are not offendid with you for this M. Nowell. The cause of oure misliking with your religion, and why we call you schismatikes you dare not so muche as name, which is, because you separate youre selues from Christes churche, because you teache contrarie to the scriptures, that the churche of Christe prophecied by the prophetes, promised by Christ to continue for euer, hathe bene quite ouerthrowen. To this because you can not an­swere, you feine other causes at youre pleasure to bring vs into hatred. Of the which faultes obiected by you to the catholikes, I saye generally as S. Austen did to the Donati­stes obiecting the like. In his omnibus nullum crimen orbis Li. de vnit. eccl. cap. 2. Christiani esse ostendimus, we shewe you that in al these thin­ges (which you laye to vs) there is no faulte of the whole christendome. And againe: ad quosdam quippe illa perimere possunt, non ad vniuersum orbem christianum: for those faul­tes maye perteine to some, they can not be the faultes of al Christendome. Leaue therfore M. Nowel these extraua­gant [Page] excursions, of railing against the euill life of some, or abuses of certeine, wherewith a greate parte of this idle Re­proufe of youres is stuffed, and come to the doctrine it sel­fe. Proue vs your negatiue diuinitie by the rule and trial of holy Scripture, by the councels and decree of the church, or by the learned fathers if yow be hable. It is an easie matter sayeth Saint Augustine to the Donatistes, either for yow Lib. de v­uit. eccl. cap. 5. to call vs Phariseis, or for vs to cal yow so: It is as easy for vs to saye that yow persecute vs the true beleuers as the Phariseis persecuted the Apostles, as it is for you to saye (as yow doe here) that we folowe the Phariseis in persecuting yow. It is as easy for vs to saye that you are lyke painted graues, full of olde rotten bones within, pretending oute­wardly Gods worde, contempte of the worlde, brotherlye charitye, &c. being within couetouse, whoorders vp, grea­te exactours of mony, proude, cruell, with suche lyke, and so call yow Phariseis, as it is for yow to saye and write the same of vs. But M. Nowell, though Christ as the searcher Rom. 8. and iudge of mennes hartes might boldely so pronounce of the Phariseis, whome he knewe better within then other did without, yeat we must not iudge other, lest we be iud­ged oure selues as the ghospell teacheth vs. Briefly the stri­fe Matth. 7. wil be endelesse, vaine, and childishe, if in controuerfie of doctrine and religion, suche impertinent discourses be entremingled. Wisedome it had bene for yow M. Nowell, to haue pricked directly at the matter of schismes, dischar­ging thereof plainely youre selues, by shewing that yowe ioyne in communion with all the worlde, and not to haue roued as you haue done, now here, nowe there, at no cer­teine marke.

And so finally for this parte of purgation of oure selues, against Nowell. fol. 58. a. youre sclaunders of schismes and troubles as by vs raised, doe we [Page 124] alleage the effecte of the same parable of the stronge man so quiet in his house vntill a strongre then he came and disturbed him, whiche Christe oure sauiour in like sclaunder, rehearsed for de­fense of himselfe.

Although the parable serued our Sauioure against the Dorman. Phariseis, yeat it serueth not yow against the churche off Christe. When yow can proue that which yow only with­out proufe blasphemously hetherto haue affirmed, making it aswell of the application of this parable, as of all that you elles haue sayde touching comparing of vs to the Phariseis, youre selues to Christe, and his Apostles, the verye foun­dation: that all faitheful Christians were in that case when Martin Luther beganne first to preache, that the Phariseis were at the comming of Christe, then applye it and vse it, it will wel serue your purpose. Yeat truly to make this parable in some wise to serue youre turne, it maketh well for youre Sacramentaries againste the poore Lutherans, whome you haue in dede not onely disquieted, but driuen from their possessions in moste places, and deuoured also and swalowed into your hongresteruen paunches, e­uen as is saide that Pharao dreamed of the seuen leane carion oxen, that they had eaten vp the fatte. And so let Gen. cap. 41. this parable and dreame bothe if you wil, serue youre tur­ne.

Iff the reader shall thinke that I haue bene to tediouse in an­swering Nowell. this matter here but touched as it were by the waye, I trust he will beare with me therein, for that M. Dorman, as he be­gan and floorished the first face of his boke, with blotting vs with the sclaunder of schismes, so hathe he hetherto continued in the same, and applied all his allegations out of S. Cipriā, Basile, Hiero­me, Nicephorus, and others, chiefely to that purpose, &c.

The reader must beare with yow in mo thinges then Dorman. this, or elles it will be wrong with yow. And euen in this me thinketh, and so I doubt not but other thinke to, wher­in [Page] yow craue pardon as hauing sayde to much, he had ned [...] to beare with you for saing so little. For your owne de­fence, till yow proue vs by Scripture that Christes churche shoulde decaie and come to vtter ruine, and that so it dyd, yow haue sayde nothing: against vs, till yow bring better matter then different opinions of schoolemen in disputa­ble matters, of Logiciners aboute the predicables, of reli­giouse men in clothing, diet, going, becking, bowing, &c. yow haue sayde as little. The first sentence that I prefixed before my booke out of Saint Augustine, yow haue not yeat answered. If yow had answered it there as yow pre­tended that you woulde, you shoulde not haue neded here to haue troubled either youre selfe or the reader with that matter. For answere once directly yea or nay to this, whe­ther yow communicate with all nations, and with those churches founded by the Apostles labour, and the matter is answered who be the schismatikes in fewe wordes, you or we. Where you saye that my allegations out of S. Cy­prian, Basile, Hierome, Nicephorus, were applyed chiefly to this, to note you of schismes: I muste note, that you be here contrarye to youre selfe and youre sainges before. For M. No­well con­trary to him selfe. in youre reproufe vpon these places, you make me to haue suche sense, as though I had alleaged them all directly to proue the popes supremacy. And for that cause you labour with toothe and naile, to proue that they ought not so to be taken.

Neither are they contented here with, but doe also plaie with Nowell. pictures very pleasantly as they thinke, in the which they painte out a multitude of suche heretikes or rebelles, as oure confedera­tes or allies, whose opinions we do moste abhorre, and against whome we continually bothe preache and wrighte.

Yea forsothe this was the matter in deede, allthough Dorman. [Page 125] yow be lothe to confesse so muche, that made yowe to la­uish out youre store in defence of schismes and sectes. It was this table, this arbor as you call it, or crooked tree that made yow to daunce. But what saie yow to this tree I praie yow. Yow saie, that we haue placed there a multitude of heretikes whose opinions yowe doe moste abhorre. We marueile not though yow like not all, for therein standeth the grace of the table, that of so manie sectes as be there set out, no one of them liketh the other. Yowe shoulde haue done well to haue named the opinions which yow doe ab­horre, as perhappes yow would, had it not bene for waking some of youre felowes that seme to be a sleepe. That these sectes appeare not all of them euidently emongest yow, as they doe in Germanie where youre heresies first beganne, VVhy se­ctes and schismes shewe not them sel­ues so eui­dently in Englande as they doe in Germanie as that excuseth yow not being all membres of that malig­nant churche youre mother, so is it the lesse to be meruei­led at, because the states of these two countries are not like. England is ruled by one souereigne heade, Germanie by di­uerse. Which is the cause that the heades being diuersly af­fected in religion, auaunce euery of them that religion whiche liketh him best. Whereas in Englande yow lacke that commoditie being vnder the rule of one only heade, whiche is an inuincible argument to shewe how necessarie in the churche of God it is, to haue one heade to gouerne the reast. Had yow in Englande as they haue in Germanie, your free cities, youre dukes, youre Lantgraues, youre Pals­graues, euery one a king within his owne dominions: O how yowre sectes woulde triumphe in the courtes of prin­ces, what combattes they would kepe in open pulpites, that nowe dare not but by steal the and in corners, one of them snatche and snarle at the other. As for youre continuall preaching and writing against these sectes, whereof yowe [Page] bragge so muche, what yow preache against the Luthe­rans, Anabaptistes, Osiandrins, or any suche like, I reporte me to them which be youre hearers. I thinke what so euer face yow set vpon it here, yow be colde and rare inough in that argument, and be as plentifull and whot as you will, yow shall haue these heretikes and suche other in places where they dare, saie as muche of yowe. As for youre writing, yow protestantes at home haue not written anie one worde that is to be sene abroade against anye secte of the table, more then in some sely translations of you­re felowes bookes, as yowe terme by contempte that kinde of excercise. So busy yowe are in doing the mes­sage of youre father in setting furth to the worlde youre Sacramentarie heresie, and defacing the popes auctoritie, that as little leisour haue you to wright against other sectes (if yow mislike them as yow pretende) as yow haue to ex­horte mē by preaching, to fasting, to praier, to good worc­kes. And therefore youre writing I let passe as a manifest Lye. 51. lye.

And all this doe they for that they are not ignorant, that suche Nowell. though moste false sclaunders, being yeat so importunely and cō ­tinually laied to oure charge, are of muche effect to offende the weake and simple, and to stirre vp their hatred against vs. And therefore they vse suche constant asseuerations for argumentes, as in their schooles they are taught to doe, when they are destitute of due prouffes &c.

If we sclaunder yow, how easy a matter had it bene for Dorman. yow to haue recouered youre good name, by saing: There be not so manie sectes sprong out of Luther as the table saieth there are, and then haue named some suche as had bene falsely noted in the same. The which because yowe haue not done (not for lacke of good will as appeareth.) yow haue verie muche confirmed the truthe of the table. [Page 126] Whereas yow stande vpon the bare deniall against mani­fest proufe, yow make vs in deede remembre a saing of the schooles: plus potest asinus negare quàm Aristoteles probare. But because this table offendith yow so muche, yow maie perchaunce shortly haue an other of allmoste 90. diuerse sectes gathered together by the reuerent father WILLIAM In Dubi­tantio suo. LINDAN Bishop of RVREMVND. But perhappes yow count this a sclaunder, because yow acknowledge but one religion of Iesus Christ, how manie sectes so euer there be emongest yow. For so it foloweth.

For we as we haue no religion but onelye Christes, so desire we Nowell. to be called after the name of none but his, &c.

Whiche we M. Nowell? For so saieth euerye secte Dorman. in the table aswell as yowe sacramentaries doe. It is not inough for you to saye that you haue no religion but the religion of Christ, the contrarie whereof neuer he­retike durst yeat in wordes professe. Proue it first, then saie it afterwardes. Begin from the Apostles and come to oure time, and shewe youre religion in euery age, as oures hathe A reaso­nable chalenge to the protestāts of late bene learnedly shewed, and then bragge that you ha­ue none but Christes religion. We offer you faire, refuse vs not, in goddes name and in the behalfe of his church I saie, refuse vs not. If you dare and mistrust not your cause, pro­cure vs libertie freely to sende in oure bookes, and to other indemnitie for hauing and reading thē. It is the thing, that (if you meane as you pretende the planting of true re­ligion in the hartes of all men) you shoulde most earnest­ly haue desired: refuse it not therfore being frely offered. It is the thing, that on youre knees ioyntely together with vs, you ought to become humble petitioners to the Quenes moste excellent maiestie to voutchesaufe to graunte, and [Page] to remoue all suche occasions, as might stoppe or hinder in anie wise the course of so necessarie an attempt. It is the waie to ende all controuersies, to ceasse all striffes, to resto­re vnitie, to betraye schismatikes, to make manifest the true catholikes, and so consequently to make it appeare, whe­ther you haue no religion but only Christes. The whiche saing of youres till you proue by this meanes, wil be coun­ted no better then a bragge common to all heretikes.

Thinke they that if we list and had leisor as they haue, we coul­de Nowell. not frame an arbor or tree, twise as greate as they haue deui­sed? &c.

Now let this pleasant deuise of youres come furth when Dorman. you wyll M. Nowell. What shall you proue or wyn there­by? No schisme, no secte, no cōtrarietie of opinions in doc­trine of the faith, cā ye proue or shew there. No blasphemy against the blessed Trinite, no heresy against the Sacramēts of Christes church, against the godhead of Christ, against our blessed lady, no article of our Crede denied, shal you fin­de in that your deuised arbor, as in the table of your peti­grue M. Nowel, all such thinges are to be founde. But thin­ke you againe, that if we list and had leasure to be euil oc­cupied, we coulde not deuise as fonde foolish toyes, as your sharpe wit hath imagined, (touching your ministres and their wiues, your ronnagatfriers and mōckes with their strompets, your late skirmish vpō square cappes and copes, your diuersites of apparell, of hattes and clokes, of beardes and such like trifling toyes) more mete for children in a Christmas playe, or for laddes of the countrie in a whit­son game, then for a preacher and pretended deane in his printed workes? Wherefore I conclude omitting all o­ther not necessary trifles in this your trifling processe, that the crime of schismes and sectes most truly laied to youre [Page 127] charge, hath most falsely, vniustly and barrenly ben, reuer­sed vpon vs, and do rebounde directly and truly vpon you and your felowes, in such sorte, that while you liue M. No­well, nor in many yeres after the storme of your heresies be calmed, this your horrible diuision and multitude of schismes in so fewe yeres spronge vp; shall at any time be forgottten, or blotted out of eternall memory, to the perpe­tuall ignominie of protestants, and great glory of God and his church.

That the place brought out of the. 17. Chapitre of Deuter. is well and to the purpo­se alleaged. The 18. Chapitre.

YOW saye M. Nowell, that the circunstances of this place Nowell. fol. 59. a. 27. B 26. of Deuteronomium being well considered, they maie easelie in­forme the reader, that the popes tirannie to saye and doe what he liste, can not be grounded vpon this place, and that if the pope or anie creature doe commaunde against goddes worde, he maie and ought to be disobeied therein. And that therfore bothe Pi­ghius and I, haue in vaine alleaged this place for suche suprema­cie as the pope claimeth. The circunstances to be cōsidered are, the A 27. place which God hath chosen; the prieste which must be Leuitical. Thirdlie the place to be doubtefull, whether the whole determi­nation B 1. doe perteine to one or to many, &c. Fourthly, that it is re­quisite that the saide priestes or prieste, doe teach according to the lawe of God, and not at his owne pleasure.

To youre texte M. Nowell for shame, will you euer be Dorman. thus raunging at randon? It was not my purpose here to proue by this place of Deuteron. the bishop of Rome his supremacie ouer Christes whole churche, no more then it is Pighius his in the place by you alleaged. The mat­ter that I haue here in hande, is to proue that there must be one heade to gouerne the churche now, as there was to gouerne the same in the olde lawe before. Whether it [Page] be at Rome, at Hierusalem, or in anie place elles I dispute not here. And therfore youre first The place. consideration and The prieste. secōde, came without all consideration out of season. But I maie beare with you the better, because I haue bene v­sed to this maner of dealing of youres before, as the reader I doubte not can beare me witnes. One thing yeat I can not by the waye but merueile at, why in chalenging the pope to be no Leuiticall prieste: you did not aswell ex­cept against Rome because it is not in Iudea. For why shoulde not the place be all one as well as the prieste? Well it shall suffise for this tyme M. Nowel, that as when it is not impertinent it shalbe proued that Rome is the place which God hathe chosen: so in the meane season it is not nedeful, that the prieste shoulde be of the Leuiticall ordre whiche now is abrogate, but of that onely which Christe hauing Hebreo. 7. planted in his churche to continue for euer, hathe succeded in place of the other,

VVhe­ther the place be to be vn­derstande of one prieste or many. Youre thirde consideration commeth nearer, and is in dede to oure purpose, of one heade in the churche or ma­nie, yeat that also if it had bene so well considered as it ought: iff yow had as depelye weighed the wordes that fo­lowe: nolens obedire Sacerdotis imperio, that will not obeye the prieste his commaundement, as yow lightlye and glad­ly snatched at those that went before, Thow shalt come to the priestes of the Leuiticall sorte: You shoulde easelye haue sene, that the plurall numbre doth note rather the continuaun­ce of the commaundement from prieste to prieste in suc­cession, then that it should be ment of many priestes at o­ne time. The iudge of the nation ioyned with the prieste, maketh for the seculer sworde executing the lawe off the prieste.

Of iud­ging ac­cording to the la­we. The fourth consideration brainsicke Brentius conside­red [Page 128] before you. To the which I answere, that whereas no­we you flee to the olde translation, who at other tymes call vs to the fountaines, to the Greke and to the Hebrue veri­tie, as semeth best to serue for your aduauntage, that I, not with M. Stapleton, but with the late learned and godlye councell of Trent, affirming the olde translation to be spe­cially folowed in the correction of maners or determina­tion of faithe, doe auouche the same, and that yeat you are thereby neuer the nearer to youre purpose, the common translation as well ouerthrowing you as dothe the Hebrue veritye. For the wordes whereupon you grounde youre selfe: And thow shalt doe what so euer they shall saye vnto the, who gouerne the place that oure Lorde hathe chosen, and what so euer they shall teache the according to his Lawe, as though saie you, the prieste might teache otherwise, and then he shoul­de not be obeyed: be not conditionall, but enunciatiue, that is to saye, wordes that expresse what he shall doe in dede, to assure the rather the ignoraunt man to obeye his comma­undement. This interpretation maye manye wayes be pro­ued. First because it ought to be presumed, and all men are 1 bounde as muche as maye be to indeuour, that the olde translation and the fountaines maye agree together. Which because by this meanes is brought to passe, and by that sen­se whiche you giue in no wise it can, it foloweth, that this meaning is rather to be receiued then youres. An other 2 cause is, the circumstance of the place it selfe, which tel­leth vs, that the people was bidden goe to the priestes, and to the iudge whiche shoulde be for the tyme, to aske hys iudgement of harde and doubtefull questions. If euery one of the people had bene hable to finde out in the question that he shoulde propose to the iudge, what were agreable to Gods lawe and what were not, when the iudge tolde [Page] him truthe and when he failed: Neither coulde there anye question haue bene doubtefull, neither shoulde there con­sequentlye haue bene anye nede to haue had suche a iudge. When shoulde those wordes haue bene euer put in execu­tion that folowe: He that off pride refuseth to obeye the prie­stes commaundement shall dye, if this had bene the meaning that you dreame of? Might not anye man haue wrangled as ofte as he had listed, that the sentence was not according to the lawe? And therfore to put the matter out of al doub­te, the Scripture saieth in this verye place, indicabunt tibi in­dicij veritatem, they shall tell truthe and giue thee right iud­gement. To conclude, there is one place in the scripture off 3 all other moste plaine, to couince this sense that the catho­like doctrine mainteineth. Reade Malachias the prophete the second chapitre, and you shall finde, that it was a coue­naunt made by God with Leui, that his priestes shoulde Malath. 2. obserue in iudgementes, truthe and equitye. He pronoun­ceth that the lippes of the prieste shoulde kepe knowled­ge, that the lawe shoulde be required at his mouthe, because he is Goddes angell. Can there be anie thing that might more assure vs off the meaning of that place then this?

As for that that you obiect of S. Paule, threatening venge­aunce fol. 59. b. 14. to the high prieste, and of S. Peter also and S. Iohn the A­postles, who woulde not obeye him because the last condition off commaunding after Goddes lawe was lacking: for S. Paule Actor. 23. I might answere yow, that he repented him afterwarde and pleadid ignoraunce, although I doubte not but that bothe by him he was iustlie reprehended, and by S. Peter and S. Iohn lawfullie disobeied. And yeat will it not folowe, that therefore in this place of Deuter, whiche we handle, the prieste might erre in his iudgementes. Will yow knowe [Page 129] why? Forsothe because as saieth. S. Cyprian, oure Lorde Lib. 1. epist. 3. being now crucified, the priestes began to be sacrilegouse, wicked and bloudie, and reteined nothing of priestly honour and aucto­ritie. Lo M. Nowell why yow maie not conclude as yow doe, because the priestes had nowe lost their auctoritie that before they had. The high prieste (yow saie) charged them not B. 24. as guyltie of deathe for this disobediēce. The texte hathe that Act. 4. they sent the apostles awaie, non inuenientes quomodo puni­rent eos propter populum &c. Not knowing howe to punishe them because of the people. Are yow able to saie that yff they had not stoode in this feare of the people that they did, that the apostles shoulde haue escaped so? Thus far I haue thought good to ioyne with you concerning this pla­ce, from the which (crauing helpe of Bucer and Brentius) yow thought to scape by wrangling about the wordes, iux­ta legem eius, according to his lawe. Whiche wordes toe when all is done, if they were conditionall as yow woulde make men beleue they are, be to the vttermoste fulfilled in the pope. Of whose predecessours being in nombre 235, yowe are not able to name anie one, that euer deliuered to the churche anie wrong faithe or false opinion to be beleued. If anie of them erred as men, yeat were they priuileaged as the successours of Peter, and either spedelie forsoke the sa­me, or keping it within their owne breastes, were neuer by goddes prouidence suffred, to vtter it to the hurte of the churche. For a notable example whereof Vigilius the pope maie serue vs. Who obteining that seate by vnlaufull mea­nes, that is to saie vpon promise made to the Empresse to restore to the bishoprike of Constantinople Anthemius, depriued thereof by Agapetus for heresie: as sone as euer he entred into that seate, the empresse chalenging him off his promise (so was his wicked minde by gods speciall pro­uidence [Page] soddenly altered) made answere, that rather then▪ he woulde restore an heretike to his seate from whence he was iustlie remoued, he woulde soner suffer all the extre­mitie that might be. And so did he in dede, lyeng longe in prison, suffer bothe hongre, colde and diuerse other tor­mentes. Whiche notwithstanding he acknowledged to be worthilie due vnto him for his greate offense. The priui­leage therefore I saie of this seate is suche, that we be assu­red by his promise that saide to Peter that his faithe should Lucae. 22. not faile, that as hetherto the pope hathe allwaies fedde Christes churche withe sounde faithe and wholesome do­ctrine, so shall he continue to doe so long as there is in ear­the anie churche at all, that is so longe as there is a worlde, so long as Christes churche militant here in earthe and tri­umphant in heauen, mete not in one to ioyne together. And therefore yowe talcke of the popes tirannie to doe and say what he listeth, yow talcke without boke M. Nowell, and continue youre accustomed wont of sclaun­dring and lyeng.

Because yow well vnderstode that all this rouing talcke of youres was wide from the marcke that we shoote at, and that happelie some one might saie vnto you, that the mat­ter which nowe is handled, is whether there ought to be o­ne generall heade in Christes churche or no, and that the­refore this place was brought in, not to proue who it shoulde be, or where he shoulde be resident: yow thought it good to saie somewhat to this effecte, to proue that this place is vntrulie applied to the proufe of the supremacy, of one heade. But howe proue yow this M. Nowell?

Because S. Cyprian alleageth this and other like places of scri­pture, Nowell. fo. 60. a. 6 to make for the seuerall auctoritie of euerie peculier [Page 130] bishopp in his owne diocesse, not of one heade ouer all bishop­pes.

What thereof M. Nowell, maye not one texte be applied Dorman. by diuerse men diuersely, and yeat no sense contrarie to the truthe? The commaundement of S. Paule. Omnis anima Rom. 12. potestatibus sublimioribus subditasit. Let euerie soule be sub­iect to the higher powers, maketh especiallie for the aucto­ritie of Emperours and kinges, because it importeth moste that they be obeied: yeat will you not I thinke saie, that if the Iustice of a shiere, or maior of a citie, woulde bringe this texte to some stubborne man to wyn him to obedien­ce, that it were euill applied, or were not (when occasion serueth thertoe) to be applied to the obedience of a kyng or emperour, because it serueth also for his subiect. The meaning of S. Cyprian was to persuade obedience to suche priestes as haue the charge to rule, to the whiche purpose the example of the high prieste is well applied, if it were for no other cause, yeat euen for this, that euerie bishop is in his owne diocesse the high and chiefe prieste of all the o­ther, that be of the same: and no lesse to be obeied (in that portion of his charge) of those that be vnder him, then he him selfe is bounde to obeye the pope, the chiefe and heade in earthe of all bishoppes.

It agreeth not (you saie) that because the Iues one nation, had Nowell. one chiefe prieste, therefore all nations thorough out the worlde shoulde haue one high prieste ouer all other.

You misuse the reader with the terme (nation). For not Dorman. as one nation, but as one Sinagoge, as the onelie churche that then God had, they had one highe prieste. And so all Christians being but one catholike churche though manie nations, ought to haue one heade bishop ouer all nations. For as for the impossibilitie that yeat once againe you re­peate [Page] of hauing one heade, it hathe bene sufficinetly pro­ned allreadie, that that plea of youres is of no force, and so far wide from the truth, that it is not otherwise possible to haue the church well gouerned and without schismes, God hauing nowe taken that ordre. Which I saye as of the chur­che consisting of fraile and sinfull men. For as touching God, as you saie it is possible to him to gouerne the church without one heade: so saye we it is not impossible to him, to giue vs one heade to rule the whole, and so to direct him that he neuer faile in his decrees, concerning oure faithe. Which because hetherto in dede he hathe done, and beside hath promised that the faithe of Peter shall not faile, we sa­ye Lucae. 22. of necessitie, that it is and must be so.

S. Cyprian (you saye) alleageth this place of Deuteronomie of obedience to the high priest, aswell for the auctoritie of Rogatianus Nowell. a. 21. b. 28. as for his owne.

This is no more then you saied before, which you ofte Dorman. repeate to seme by ofte saing one thing to saie somewhat. In dede it confirmeth verie muche my answere made be­fore. For whereas it is manifest that this place concerning the obedience due to the high prieste, is alleaged as well for the auctoritie of Rogatianus who was an inferiour bishop, as also for S. Cyprian the archebishop and Metropolitane of Africa, it foloweth, that S. Cyprian in the citing and al­leaging therof had no other meaning, then to persuade o­bedience to euerie bishop, of what calling so euer he were, bishop, Archebishop, primate, patriarke or pope. Excepte you will saye that he was of the minde that betwene bis­shoppes and Archebishoppes he put no difference.

Yea verilie saie you of that minde was S. Cypriā in dede. Nowell. b. 15. For he confesseth in the beginning of his epistle to Rogatianus, that he did but of courtesy and not of dutie, refer this matter of [Page 131] his disobedient deacon by complaint to him &c.

I nede not muche to trauaile to proue that S. Cyprian Dorman. shoulde not be of this minde, seing that the learned knowe that the verie worde it selfe Archiepiscopus, vsed in the chur­che bothe in S. Cyprians time and long before, doth proue the contrarie, and youre selfe haue vsed before the worde chiefe prelates of euerie prouince: which were toe foolishe to be saied if there were betwen bishoppes no difference at al. Li. 3. epist. 9. The wordes of S. Ciprian praising Rogatianus for that he did honorably towardes him, and according to his accu­stomed hunulitie, in referring the matter of his stubborn deacon to him being his archebishop, whereas he him selfe by his owne auctoritie might haue punished him, make nothing for this equalitie betwene all bishoppes. If they had bene equall, then might belike Rogatianus haue punis­shed aswell one of S. Ciprians diocesse, as he might the dea­con who was of Rogatianus diocesse. Which if you saye, then will it folowe that euerie diocesse hath not now one chiefe ruler but manie. If you will not so saye, then muste you yealde to this, that Rogatianus complaining to the Ar­chebishop, graunted, that notwithstanding that superioritie whiche he had ouer all that were of his diocesse, there was yeat the archebishop aboue him. And if these two maie stande together: Euerie bishop is the heade and chiefe priest of his owne diocesse, and yeat there is one archebishop a­boue all: then why may not these propositions stande to­gether, Euerie Archebishop is chiefe of the prouince where he is Archebishop, and yeat there is one pope chiefe of thē all? Rogatianus did here more then he neded: who denieth that? If the B. of London haue in his diocesse a stubborne and vnruly prieste, who doubteth but he maie first punishe him by his owne auctoritie if he list? And yeat if he refer [Page] the matter to the Archebishop of Cauntorburie, he dothe the Archebishop more honour, and sheweth him selfe to be the more humble. The Archebishop is an eye to ouersee the bishop that he doe his dutie, as the pope is to ouersee all. So long as the bishop is hable to take sufficiēt ordre for all occurrētes in his diocesse him selfe, if he vse not this po­wer, but referre it to the Archebishop, he dothe more then he nedeth, but yeat honorablie for the Archebishoppes parte, and humbly for his owne.

Where you saye, that suche by S. Cyprian transgresse the Nowell. fo. 61. a. 1. lawe of God in the Deuteronomie, that make them selues bishop­pes ouer other bishoppes. &c.

It is true in S. Cyprians meaning, that is in suche as Pu­pianus Dorman. was, who being an inferiour membre, no primate, no patriarche, no pope: woulde take vpon him to iudge S. Cyprian the archebishoppe and iudge appointed of God. This place includeth no more the pope who is heade bis­shop ouer all other bishops, and heade iudge ouer al iudges, then it dothe note the bishoppes of euery diocesse, for taking vppon them, to be the iudges of the curates that be vnder them, who in their seuerall cures be iudges in Chri­stes steede it can not be denied. For they haue power gi­uen them of God to loose and binde, to iudge inter lepram & lepram betwene syn and syn. It perteineth I saye no mo­re to the pope, then it dothe to the Archebishop, who iud­ging and ouerloking the bishoppes doinges, falleth not I trust by youre owne iudgement into this faulte that S. Cy­prian noted in Pupianus. If then the bishop maye iudge o­uer suche priestes as be vnder him (Goddes iudges in their particuler cures) and, the Archebishoppes againe ouer the bishoppes, without anye offence, why may no [...] I praye you the pope be iudge of the doinges of the Archebishops and [Page 132] all other? Youre argument which is this: Pupianus the bis­shoppe, might not be iudge ouer the doinges off Saint Cyprian An absur­de reason. who was an Archebishoppe: Ergo the pope maye not be the iudge off all other bisshoppes, is like to this: M. Nowell maye not make him selfe iudge ouer the bishop of London, ergo the Archeb. of Cauntorbury dothe not well and is a false vsurper in making him selfe heade bishop ouer all the bis­shoppes and chiefe iudge ouer all the iudges in his prouin­ce. For such a one as is M. Nowell, was Pupianus that proude arrogant man, a priuate persone for anye thinge that appeareth to the contrarye, as he is. This propertie whi­che you falselye note to be in the pope, is the propertie of your good Lorde M. Grindall with his felowes, who occu­pye the places of other laufull bishoppes yeat liuing, and therefore make themselues (as S. Cyprian noteth of Pupia­nus) bishoppes ouer bishoppes, and iudges ouer the iudges off God for the time appointed.

That the place of Gregorie Nazianzen was applyed aptly and to the purpose. The 19. Chapitre.

BECAVSE I saye; that I remembre a sayng off Gre­gorye Nowell. fol. 61. b. 3. Nazianzene, yow infer thereuppon M. Nowell, that men maye note that I haue a good memorie &c, which not­withstanding had I (yow saie) enlarged to a fewe wordes going before, it had appeared, that these wordes being spoken of one god gouerning the whole worlde, had bene impertinent to proue that there ought to be one pope to gouerne the whole churche.

You maye note good readers that M. Nowell hath mo­re Dorman. wit then honestie, that can cauill at a phrase of speache pleasantly, when the matter it selfe he can not reproue trulye. For yow saye M. Nowell full clerckely, that this pla­ce b. 29 is alltogether impertinent to the purpose. Yeat in the [Page] verye nexte wordes folowing youre shrewde wit put yow in remembraunce, that there was a waie how I might bring it, to make yeat at the least some shewe to the purpose. And therefore you saye.

Nowe if M. Dorman list to transfer the sentence from God go­uerning Nowell. b. 29. all the worlde, to men ruling in the worlde, after this sor­te: Nazianzene saieth there is one onely God who gouerneth all: Ergo there must be one onely pope or heade bishoppe to gouerne all the churche: I denie the argument, and affirme that it foloweth no more, then that there must be one only Emperour to gouerne all the worlde.

I reason not M. Nowell altogether so barelye as yow Dorman. surmise, that there is but one God, and that therefore there must be but one heade to gouerne the churche. The force of my conclusion dependeth vpon the reason why there is but one God, which is this: where many rule there is sedition. This argument of myne I so little repent me of, that I will here presse you with one other comming from the same moulde. S. Austen labouring to proue the certeintie of one God, emongest other reasons vseth this for one. Sicut enim in ipsa rerum naturamaior est auctoritas vnius ad vnum omnia Lib. de ve­ra religio. cap. 25. redigentis, &c. For euen as in naturall thinges the auctoritye off one bringing all thinges to one is greater, neither hath any multi­tude in the kinde of man any power, but such as consentith, that is, thinketh one thing: so in religion the auctority of them ought to be greater and of more credite, who call vs to one. Of the place of Gregorie Nazianzene as before I reasoned, that as there was but one god in the worlde to auoide confusion: so the­re must be in the churche but one heade for the same cau­se. Euen so from this faing of S. Augustine I reason in lyke maner, that as the auctoritye of them is greater in religion, who call vs to one God, because their opinion maketh mo­ste [Page 133] for the conseruation of vnitye, so ought their auctori­tye and credite to accounted greatest, who call vs in the churche to one heade. Now what haue yow to saie against this maner of reasoning M. Nowell? Yow denie the argu­ment, and saie that it foloweth no more, then that there must fo. 62. a. 3. be one onely Emperour to gouerne all the worlde.

This fonde reason of youres hath bene sufficiently an­swered. The 11. and 12. chap. It is in dede the effect of youre whole answere in this youre Reprouse as yow call it. Yeat haue yow not (so greate a clercke yow are) in youre whole boke, brought so muche as one pore sely reason for the confirmation of it. But yow (as if yow were in the pulpite tanquam auctori­tatem habens) affirme manie thinges stoutely, and wilbe be­leued at youre worde, without reason or proufe at all. Where yow saie: There is no confusion in the worlde nor disor­dre, Nowell. a. 13. for that sundry partes of it haue sundry ciuile gouernours: Surelie youre wittes failed yow muche, and yow nodded Dorman. a little M. Nowell. For what wise man seeth not, what lear­ned man readeth not, of yearelie and almost daily batailes, quarelles, contentions, bloudeshead, conspiracies, and of in­finite suche disordre to be in the worlde at this present, and to haue allwaies bene by the reason of sundrie ciuile go­uernours? Oure Sauiour when it pleased him to take fle­she, and redeme man, chose that state wherein moste quiete and rest shoulde be, that men might so the better attende to the preaching of goddes word, which by warres and tu­multuouse hurly burlies can not but be hindred. He chose to come at that time, when but 15. yeares before, the whole knowen worlde of Europe, Asia and Afrike, was vnder the obedience of one Romaine emperour Octauius Augu­stus. In that state the worlde was ruled certeine hundred [Page] yeares after, vntill the Christian faithe was published and dilated vnto all the partes of the worlde. Doe we not reade M. Nowell, that the same emperour August bis clausit Ianum, as muche to saie, had twise in his daies a perfecte Alexander ab Alexan­dro lib. 1. Gema. dier. cap. 14. peace thorough out all the partes of the worlde, yea thrise as some write? Before that state of one vniuersall Empe­rour was, and sence that state hath decaied, how manie war­res haue bene to the disquieting of all Christendome stir­red vp? How manie battailes cruelly fought? How muche innocent bloude vnmercifully spilt? What one yeare in one place of the worlde or other, hath not plentifully brought furthe suche fruites as these are? Are not all histories full? Haue we not daily experience? Haue we not hearde of the Turkes warres scarse yeat colde against vs at the Isle off Malta, of the late warres in Fraunce and Scotland, of all­moste the continuall warres in the daies of Charles the fif­the, now with Fraunce, nowe against the Mores, nowe in Germanie, now in Italie it selfe? All this is but in one parte of Europa. If we had before oure eyes the actes of other countries, how muche might be saide thereof? And yeat M. Nowell as though all the worlde were shutt vpp in the house where he dwelleth at Poules, saieth there is no con­fusion in the worlde nor disordre, for that sundrie partes of the same haue sundrie ciuile gouernours. This is I confesse a matter more mete for some practised Counselour to de­bate, then for scholers suche as I am professing no such po­licie to entreate of. It reacheth I wote well beyonde the compasse of my discourse to saie herein, but some small parte of that which might be saied. Yeat this small note, shall I trust be sufficient to instructe the ignorant, and ha­ble to moue the learned to farder consideration.

Yow saie, the scriptures declare it to be so appointed by Nowell, a. 16. [Page 134] God, that sundrie partes of the worlde shoulde haue sundrie ciui­le gouernours. Eccles. 17

So hathe the churche toe sundrie seuerall gouer­nours, Dorman. in sundrie seuerall diocesses, and yeat one chiefe heade ouer all notwithstanding. And therefore that texte might be verified well inough, allthough there were one generall Emperour or other ruler ouer all the worlde. And suerlie if this place of Ecclesiasticus were so to be vnderstan­de, as that it did forbid the hauing of one generall ruler o­uer the whole: neuer woulde yowe maie be suer oure Sa­uiour, haue chosen that time to be borne in, and that for a speciall liking (as al writers agree) that he had in that state of gouernement that then was. But if it were so that God had appointed the ordre of the worlde to be suche, as that there should be of necessitie in euerie particuler countrie a parti­culer heade, and no one ouer the whole (which negatiue wordes the scripture hathe not): yeat might there be a secrete cause of goddes prouidence, why this ordre shoulde be rather in worldly gouernement then in spirituall, whi­che we be not worthy to knowe. Perhappes to be a puni­shement for sinne this ordre was taken, that one off vs might be a whippe and scourge to the other, whiche all­though God by his iustice doe to oure bodies, thorough battaile and warre punishing them, yeat woulde he not of his mercie so punishe by schismes and heresies oure soules. You note to the Reader after the Hagiographa in the En­glish The boo­ke of Ec­clesiasti­cus reie­cted by the pro­t [...]stants, alleaged. Bibles, that this boke of Ecclesiasticus is of the nōbre of thē, that are not to be alleaged for the proufe of doctrine. Nowe what double dealing is this I praye you M. Nowell, there to reproue it, and here to alleage it, and grounde a do­ctrine vpon it neuer hearde of before, to witte, that of ne­cessitie euerie countrie must haue a seuerall supreme go­uernour? [Page] If you shoulde preache openly this doctrine in pulpite M. Nowell, how soone woulde you either proue a traitour your selfe, or make other traitours? For were it not thinke you a faulte to the crowne of Englād, in the nature of high treason, to saie that Ireland being a seuerall coun­trie diuided from England by the maine Ocean, ought to haue a seuerall gouernour other then Englishe? Were it not treason for youre brethren protestantes of these lowe countries, to preache by this texte as you write, that becau­se Spaine and Flaundres be farre diuerse and seuerall coun­tries, for this cause they ought not to be vnder one heade prince, and kinge as they are? Therefore if you loue the quiet of the realme, and esteme youre dutie to youre so­uereigne and oures, twange no more vpon that stringe I warne you like a frende. You prosecute youre fonde argu­ment and saye.

So is their no disordre that seuerall churches haue seueral bis­shoppes to their heades. Nowell. a. 17.

No disordre at all, but moste conuenient ordre, if those Dorman. seuerall bishoppes obeye the one heade placed by Christe ouer them. But to make those seuerall bishoppes to rule the seuerall churches, without recourse when occasion shall re­quier to a higher as you doe, we saye it is a greate disor­dre.

To returne to Nazianzene his saing, where is no rule the­re Nowell. a. 27. b. 1. is no ordre: where many rule there is sedition: you saye, that if manie magistrates haue equall auctoritie in one common weal­the, or if manie ecclesiasticall persones, haue equall auctoritie in o­ne seuerall churche, it is like to their fantasie who woulde haue manie equall goddes to rule the worlde. But one seuerall ruler in one seuerall dominion, one seueral bishop in one seuerall diocesse, doe resemble one God ruling one whole worlde.

I take you at youre worde M. Nowell, that if many ma­gistrates Dorman. haue equall rule in one common wealthe, it is like to their fantasie who woulde haue manie equall goddes to rule the worlde. But the churche of Christe saye I, is but o­ne An argu­ment a­gainst M. Nowell vpon his owne graunte. christian common wealthe, therefore it foloweth by youre owne confessiō, that if manie doe equally rule, with­out relation to one head, it is like to their fantasie who woulde haue manie equall goddes to rule the worlde.

One seuerall bishop in one seuerall diocesse dothe not fo. 62. b. 4. resemble one God ruling one worlde as you dreame, but one chiefe bishop in the catholike churche, whiche in your crede you professe to be but one, he M. Nowell resembleth trulie one God, without anie presumption at all, seing goddes pleasure is it shalbe so. It was no presumption in the apostles to sit still and suffer Christe to washe their Ioan. 3. feete. You knowe what Peter had saide vnto him for strei­ning curtosye as he did. That you saie, it is a thing vnheard of but in the pope of Rome, there you made your bargaine so­mewhat wiselie. We graunt the same, and adde beside, that it were intollerable presumption for anie other to lay clai­me to that auctoritie. And yeat we trust because S. Peter Homil. vlt. in Ioan. was pope, and (as Chrisostome saieth) maister of the whole worlde, and thereto out of the compasse of the last nine hundred yeares, and had this auctoritie by Christe and not from Phocas: you wilbe the better for his sake to all the rest. Now foloweth youre conclusion.

VVherefore M. Dorman and D. Harding maie as well saye, that Nowell. b. 19. the worlde is seditiously gouerned by diuerse Princes, as the chur­che by seuerall bishoppes. But as Nazianzene neuer dreamed of one Emperour ouer all the worlde to auoide sedition, though he teacheth there is one God: no more did he though he teache one Christe, yeat euer dreame of one only heade bishop or pope. &c.

I haue oftentimes shewed here before, that the regiment Dorman. [Page] of the churche is farre different from that of the worlde. It shalbe nedelesse to repeate it here againe. Yow can not therefore reason from the one to the other. Whereof Nazianzene dreamed I knowe not: of this I am suer, that to applye by drift of reasoning the sentence of an Auctor to that which he neuer ment or intēded (so that to his me­aning and intent it be in no wise repugnant or contrarye) is not onely no dreame, but the vsage also and practise off learned men. And therefore in the lawe, manye a case is de­cided by wordes which the lawier neuer dreamed perad­uenture, that they euer shoulde be so applyed. The better and more excellent the Author is, the more ample sense maye be gathered in his writinges. As in the Scripture es­pecially, the infinite variety of commentaries doth declare. Wherefore I doe the more meruell that you a man traded and brought vp in good lettres, and a professour off the sa­me, shoulde raue rather waking, then talke after suche a sorte in yowre slepe dreaming. But I knowe the cause, youre parte is here altogether to reproue, not to proue, as by the title of youre boke you warned vs before.

He speaketh further in his sleape and sayeth. Howe shall we Nowell. fol. 63 a. 1. Psalm. 86 then saie, oure lord loueth Syon aboue al the tabernacles of Iacob? What this dothe meane or to what purpose it is, I knowe not. Nor I beleue M. Dorman when he waketh (if euer he wake) can tel him selfe.

I am glad that my name ministreth you so muche Dorman. matter of scoffing mirthe, and sorie that so excellent in­uention shoulde be more then halfe loste, for that that the gretest parte of youre ministres thorough lacke off the Latine tongue, can not perceiue that swete allusion, that is betwene dormire in Latin, and Dorman in En­glishe. [Page 136] But thinke you thus to passe ouer the scripture with a sleepish scoffe? Thinketh youre noddis nowlle (I might saye M. Nowell, if I listed to contende with you in this kin­de of eloquence) so to delude the worde of God, that yow maye call it a dreame, and so let it slepe? No M. Nowell tru­the will ouercome, when it shalbe with you as it was in the beginning. And therefore I repeate againe: if the Sinagoge of the Iues had one heade to rule them, and the churche more ample, and therefore in more daunger of schisme, and consequently standing in more nede of one heade, haue yeat no suche heade: then I saye M. Nowell, howe dothe God tendre Syon the churche of Christe, aboue the Syna­goge of the Iues? By Syon is ment therefore in this place the churche, which oure Lorde loueth more then the Sy­nagoge, as Saint Augustine vpon this place dothe in these wordes well declare. Diligit illam spiritualem ciuitatem super In. psalm. 86. omnia figurata, quibus intimabatur illa ciuitas semper manens. He loueth that spirituall citie aboue all the figuratiue thin­ges, by the which that citie which euer shall continue was signified. This being therefore true, it foloweth, that he ha­the left to vs aswell one heade to rule vs and directe vs in one vniforme faithe, as he gaue to the Synagoge. Nowe am I awake M. Nowell yow see, and can tell you, and haue tol­de yow what I meane by these wordes. Iff yow coulde as well tell what you meant by that musicall twang of youre harpe, you should take out of many mennes heades manie odde crachettes. You nede not now to be carefull for Pi­ghius waking, or to make any combate with his spirite for the matter, who slepeth not, excepte you will defende the heresie of them that beleue so of all soules, but is in perfect rest I trust, or in assured hope to be.

Howe God hathe prouided better for the churche then for the Synagoge, and of the strength of my reason drawen from the Sy­nagoge to the churche. The 20. Chapter.

God hath prouided for the churche (you saye) as well as he Nowell. fol. 63. a. 24. did for the Iues and better too.

Here you graunte all that I saied and more too. But let Dorman. vs marcke youre mightie reasoning howe you proue it I praye you.

For whereas they had but one chiefe bisshop for their whole Nowell. nation, he hath prouided for the churche in euery diocesse one, that they may be the better gouerned and lesse pained to trauaile far, for the decision of their doubtes and controuersies.

To this saye we, if God had done no otherwise, he had Dorman. done lesse for the church then for the Iues. For better it is to haue one heade vnto the whiche doubtes of greate im­portaunce maye be referred, then to haue manie in manie places, and euerie one (without respect to one chiefe) to doe as he shall thinke good. Howe thinke you M. Nowell, is it not better in one familie to haue one Maister, in one citye one Maior, in one shiere one lieutenant, then in a familye manie maisters, in a citie manie Maiors, in a shiere many li­eutenātes? I know not who gouerneth in your house, your wife, or you, or bothe: but this I thinke I maye be bolde to saye, that if youre wife were, not quarter maister onely, but as muche maister as you, that you were not therefore in better case then youre nexte neighbour, that had the who­le rule of his house him selfe. Iff the streightes off youre owne house like you not, loke vpon the largenes of the whole realme, and iudge whether it be better to haue one [Page 137] liege souereigne or manie. Yow hearde S. Augustines opi­nion Lib. de ve­rarelig. ca. 25. (a better diuine I trowe then yowe) touching this matter before, concluding that their auctoritie was greater, and they of better credite, that reduced all thinges to one God, because in the worckes of nature he saied it was so. So in the churche M. Nowell, seing that as God is one the faithe is also one, one heade is better to conserue that one faithe and the vnitie thereof, then many. Therefore if the Iues had one heade bishoppe, and the churche diuerse hea­des, it is by all reason worse prouided for. Excepte you will saie, that to haue manie equall rulers in one bodie, in one common wealthe, is better then to haue only one. Which notwitstanding before yow resembled to their fantasy, who woulde haue manie equall goddes to rule the worlde. But yow saie, there is muche labour and paines saued. Here while yow seke for ease yow leese vnitie: while yowe diminishe paines, yow prepare the high waie to the multiplieng off schismes. Yow haue an eye to the resorting to that one he­ade from all places of the worlde, but yow considre not the fruite of peace and vnitie that is thereby procured. Ma­ke diuerse equall heades in the churche, and you shall ne­uer be hable to auoide schismes in the same, whiche S. Hierome as yow hearde before, saieth can not be kepte out of particuler churches, without there be one prieste of perelesse auctoritie aboue the rest. Now let the learned rea­der iudge whether paines be well redemed, by suche an in­estimable benefite. Yow clatter still that this heade emon­gest the Iues was but of one nation. I tell yowe againe as I dyd before, it was the churche that God had in earthe at that time.

But M. Dorman dealeth not truly with the Apologie &c. The Nowell. fo. 62. b. 7 Apologie saieth, that as the church decaied in the olde lawe, where [Page] was the same God, the same Christe, the same holie ghoste &c. then as is nowe, so maie it and hath it decaied now. M. Dorman handleth the matter as though he coulde proue by the Apologie, that because where was the same God, the same Christe, the same holie ghost &c. in the Iuishe church as is nowe, therfore must there be one heade bishopp ouer all the christian churches thorough out the world, as there was one heade bishop ouer all the Iues, whiche foloweth no more, then that we muste haue circumcision nowe, for that the Iues had it then.

I merueile that yow be not ashamed to make anie men­tion, Dorman. The rea­son of the Apologie, The church decaied in the olde la­we, ergo it maie and hathe deca­ied in the newe, con­futed. of that foolishe, false and blasphemouse reason vsed by the Apologie. For the concealing whereof reason woulde yow shoulde rather haue thanked me, then haue accused me of vntrue dealing. But wilt thow see good Reader how vntrulie I haue delt. Forsothe because the proposition off one God, one Christe &c. brought by the Apologie, ser­ued not for the proufe of that for whiche it was brought, I vsed it being a generall and true maxime, to proue a true conclusion. But why shoulde it not serue his purpose as well yow will saie, as mine? I will tell yow the cause. One especiall cause why this argument of the Apologie, The Synagoge hath decaied; Ergo, the church hath decaied, defen­ded here stoutely by M. Nowell, shoulde not be good, is, because God hathe made other maner of promises for the continuance of his church, then euer he made to the Sy­nagoge. He hath promised that hell gates shall not preuaile Matth. 16. against it. This were not true if it had bene either these 15. or nine hundred yeares either, ouerrun with heresies. He hath appointed it to continue with the sonne, and to re­maine till the monel be taken awaie. If because the churche Psalm. 71. of the olde lawe was brought to that paucitie that some ti­mes there were but eight, as in Noes time, or but Elias alo­ne Gen. 7. as he was persuaded, but yeat in dede 7000. mo as God tolde him, and that in Israel (for in Iuda notwithstanding 3. Reg. 19. [Page 138] the churche florished) although your Apologie had not reade so farre: If I saie the churche of Christe might after 15. hundred yeares continuance be brought to the same ca­se In the Portress [...] the 6. 7. 8. and 10. chapitres. nowe, where were all these promises with diuerse other, diligently of late gathered together, made to the churche and of the churche? If because in the olde lawe God was Notus in Iudea, & in Israel magnum nomen ei us, knowen in Psalm. 75. Iurie and his name greate in Israel, but so no farder, it maie be laufull for yow to defende youre secrete conuenticles at Geneua or elles where, where is then, thorough out all nati­ons Lucae. 24. beginning at Hierusalem? Where is the prophecie of Da­uid spoken before hande of Christes kingdome the chur­che, that it shoulde rule from sea to sea, and from the floud to the Psalm. 71. ende of the worlde? Seing therefore these greate promises ha­ue bene made by all mightie God to the churche, whereas to the Synagoge the figure thereof there were made no such: although it decaied, although at the last it vanished awaie as the priestehod and lawe did: we can not conclude that therfore the same should happen to the church which hath other maner of staies to holde it vp. The compilers of youre Apologie might be ashamed M. Nowell, if they had not abandoned all shame and honestie, to abuse after this sorte the examples of the holie scripture to proue that Christes churche might faile, because in the olde lawe it was brought to some pancitie [...], whiche reason they bo­rowed of the Donatistes those wicked heretikes, as ap­peareth by Saint Augustine who confuteth the same. And Lib. de v­nitat. eccle. cap. 12. thus haue I shewed you M. Nowell a cause, why this sa­ing of youre Apologie could not be applied to the chur­che of Christe that is nowe: it remaineth that I answere youre obiection made of circuncision, whiche you saye I maie aswell proue to be to be vsed nowe, because it was v­sed [Page] in the olde lawe, as proue the necessitie of one chiefe heade therby. No that I can not, I will in fewe wordes tell you a cause why. The newe lawe is called by the scripture Hebr. 9. tempus correctionis the time of reformation, because it cor­recteth and reformeth the olde whiche brought nothing to perfection. Circuncision in the olde lawe was one of Hebr. 7. those thinges, that God woulde in the time of grace take a­waye, and substitute in the place therof a better, that is Bap­tisme. So was not the placing of one heade ouer the Sy­nagoge, which being done for the quieting of controuer­sies, you maye be suer God would no lesse shoulde conti­nue in the ordre of his churche which he loued so dearely, then in the Synagog which was but a figure thereof. And yeat if we shoulde folowe youre iudgement, the wisdome of God which came to reforme the olde lawe and make a newe perfecte lawe, should by appointing ouer his churche manie heades for one, make the lawe in that pointe lesse perfecte then was the other. Thus you see I can not reason as you saye I might, circuncision in respect of baptisme being vtterly an imperfection of the lawe, whereas that or­dre of one chiefe prieste was moste perfite and appointed to continue for euer, excepte you can proue, that God hath changed that ordre for the better, as he hath in taking a­waye circuncision.

This first side of the. 64. leafe conteineth no other mat­ter fol. 64. a. then greate bragges of the Apologie, withe a prophecie of M. Nowells, that none of the Romishe cleargie shal euer be able to answere it to anie purpose. That prophecie is now thankes be to God proued false, and M. Nowell with­all a vaine lier and a pelting prophete. And nowe I thinke M. No­well a false pro­phet [...]. that by this time all honest men will maruell the lesse, to see so manie lies in this Reproufe of M. Nowelles, seing that [Page 139] he hath bene so friendely to shewe him selfe a patrone in defending this lewde lieng Apologie: of the whiche iff I haue made any lye, it is because I called it but a fardle of lyes, whereas I should haue called it as M. Nowell hath sen­ce taught me, a whole lighter.

You blame me not you saye, for alleaging anie thinge out Nowell. b. [...]6. of the olde Testamēt, but for my guilefull and vntrue application of places of the olde Testament, and of the doctours to suche pur­poses as they apperteine nothing vnto at all, nay are most contra­rie to the same.

You refuse not scripture, but the wrōg applicatiō. So wil Dorman. anie heretike saye to yow (except the Swenckfeldian) with whome you shall haue to doe. I applie this scripture as the catholike consent of all the worlde dothe applye it, whome folowe you in refusing it?

That there hathe ben nothing proued by me, neither fo. 65. a. 3. by reason, nor by examples of common wealthes, it is an impudent lye of youres M. Nowell. I haue proued by bo­the, A lye. 52. that as euerie kingdome and countrie hathe his tem­porall head to gouerne the same, by like statutes, lawes, and customes: so the church which is but one, muste haue one head to directe it in one faith and religion. No reason, no examples be againste me: for no reason admitteth, no ex­ample teacheth, that one bodie shoulde be better gouerned by manie heades then by one. And therfore that is an other Lye. 53. lye. S. Cyprian and S. Hierome, thoughe they speake but of Byshoppes in theire owne diocesse: Yeat by greater rea­son their wordes take place in the whole church, as before hathe bene declared. That euerie diocesse haue a peculier bishop it is not contrary to the Popes supremacy) as you vn­truly say). And if it should be cōtrarie, how would you then auoyde his reason, that woulde inferre here vpon, that the [Page] hauing then of seuerall gouernours of euerie shyre in a re­alme, shoulde be contrarie to the gouernement of one su­preme gouernour the kinge or the Quene? Wel then sein­ge it is not cleane contrarie to the hauinge of one general heade, to haue manie inferiour heades, S. Cyprian and S. Hierome be not cleane contrarie to me, nor contrarie nei­ther. This is therfore allso a lye. I gaue to Leo such an epi­theton Lye. 54. as the whole councell of Calcedon gaue to him be­fore. Yf you be angrie there at, wreke your selfe vpō them. Leo maketh for vs directlie all were it trewe, that you ca­uill of Zozimus. But as the reader vnderstandeth by this ti­me I dowte not, both Zozimus is proued innocente, and you a false slaunderer. a 18.

Neither the lawe, neither S. Cyprian vpon the lawe, speaketh against one head bishop. That is an other flat lye M. Nowell: For to testifie one sense of scripture whi­che Lye. 55. Sainte Cyprian doth, is not to condemne an other. My collection from the one head bishop of the Synagog hath ben proued to be good and laufully deduced. I neade not here to repeate it againe.

You wishe that I and all other aduersaries of the truth (so it Nowell. a. 17. pleaseth you to call vs) woulde reason from the shadowes off the olde lawe, as did S. Paule, but you saye we doe not.

You proue youre sayeng by a bare deniall. And then Dorman. yowe passe to an other cleane wyde from the purpose. But suche is youre rhetorike moste worthye to be no­ted. Well let vs examine, youre wanderinge extrauagant note.

VVe haue made yow (yow saye) off Christians Iues: and Nowell. fol. b. 14. oure selues off ministers off the Ghospell Aaronicall Leuites, & cet.

Not we M. Nowell, but the primitiue churche as youre Dorman. [Page 140] selfe confesse in this place, in saynge that these thinges be­ganne in Saint Hieromes tyme. Yow do well to folowe so Lib. 4. cap. 18. neare the steppes of youre Maister Caluin, who charge­the in his institutions the fathers of the primitiue churche, for counterfeiting the Iuish maner of sacrificing more nearly, thē The fa­thers off the pri­mitiue churche. sclaunde­red by Caluin. other Christ had ordeined, or the nature of the gospell did beare. But if these thinges were in the primitiue churche, then be­are the people no more I praye you in hande, that you re­semble the primitiue church: Iff S. Hierome complained of suche thinges in his time, then appeale no more to the first six hundrethe yeares if you be wise. Then terme not churche ornamentes late superstitions. But if S. Hierome complained not at all of suche ornamentes of the church, but in the Epistle ad Nepotianum lamented only that we­ightier matters, as the true decking of Christes churche with good ministers, were neglected: If in the epistle ad De­metriadem, he plainelye saieth: Non reprehendo, non abnuo: I reproue it not: I dissent not: then haue you abused the re­ader with S. Hieromes name, and belied him once agayne. That whiche foloweth is but a common place of railing, wherein because you talke but in youre facultie, I can the lesse blame you. And to reason sadlye with an outragious rayler, were but (you wot well) to preache to frantike Tom of Bedlem.

The foundation you saye, of altars, belles, banners, candels, Nowell. fol. 67. a. 3. &c. leaneth to this reason of mine: It was so in the shaddowe, therfore it must be so now in the body, in the truth, in our church: This reason you thinke (you saie) that I like as well as the for­mer reason of one heade, and that reason it is that so I shoulde thinke.

No M. Nowell, you are fouly deceaued if you write as Dorman. you thinke. But what? It semeth to me that you foregtte [Page] yourselfe. Will you I praye you on high dayes, when you distribute those holye misteries of youres, weare no cope? Or if you doe, muste the foundation of the wearing there­of be grounded vppon the Iuish ceremonies? No you will answere, I weare it because the Quenes Maiesties iniun­ctions will haue me doe so. And oure priestes weare them because the lawes of the churche will haue them doe so. Iff of youre doinges the Princes lawe maye be the grownde: Whie maye not the churche be the same of oures? Now if the Prince may commaunde the ministre to weare a cope, Why maye not the same commaunde the bishop to weare a mitre, albes and tunicles? Whye maye not by the same commaundement, altars, belles, banners, candels, plentie of golde and siluer, be brought into the churche? And then if the Prince maye commaunde it, why maye not the chur­che of Christe doe as muche? Thus reteine we these thin­ges as commaunded by the church, not as vsed by the Iues. Who euer vseth them so is a Iue: who so vseth them so, sin­neth deadly. Neither is the reason like, why I should reason from ceremonies in the lawe, appointed but for the while (as you woulde haue me) to that, by whiche I argue from thinges foreshadowed in the Synagoge to continue in the church for euer.

You procede, and (after my maner of reasoning) you aske, Nowell. a. 13. why you maye not also reason for the scriptures to be had in a language that the people do the vnderstande: For priestes to haue wiues, for images to be taken awaye, seing that in the Iuish chur­che, all the people, men, women and children, had the scripture in a language that they did well vnderstand, the Leuites and priestes had wiues and children, seing that in that church there were no I­mages, especiallie when reason beside the lawe proueth that it ought to be so:

Who can denie suche a frende his requeste? Will yow Dorman. [Page 141] gladlye learne, why my argumente shoulde holde and not youres? Listen a while and you shall knowe. Firste for the Scriptures, I take not here vpon me to resolue that que­stion, whether it be expedient that they shoulde be in the vulgare tonge or no. For I knowe it is impertinent to oure matter. But to youre question I answere, that whereas you saie that women and children, had the scripture in a lan­guage that they did well vnderstand, that is once false: for firste that Hebrue tongue, wherein the scriptures were written, was not the common tongue, that the people v­sed emongest them selfes, but suche as being peculier to the learned, coulde not beinge vttred by the prieste be vn­derstande, excepte he did firste expounde and interprete it. Nexte beinge writen without pointes, that is without anye vowell at all noted in the texte, as we haue it nowe poin­ted, when or by whom it is not certeinlie knowen, but by the learned Iues them selues as it is thought, beinge gathe­red together in a councell at a towne called Tiberia, it fo­loweth that the vnlearned, coulde as euill reade it as vnder­stande it beinge readen, till it were expounded. And for this cause the 72. elders had onelie power and auctoritie to interprete the scripture, and to reade it to the people, as here in the Chapiter by yow alleaged, Moyses dyd. This beinge Exod. 24. most true, as for the first point we haue the testimonie of that learned bishop, Theodoretus the B. of Cyrus, for the nexte (that of longe time the hebrue tongue remained vn­pointed) the consent of the beste stories: howe had then the people of the Iuishe church, men, women, and children, the scripture in a language, that they did well vnderstande being readen by other? The wordes of Theodoretus are the­se. Vocem Hebraicam arbitroresse sacram. Quemadmodum e­nim In quaest. in Gen. q. 60 in templis Graecorum quidam sunt literarum characteres pe­culiares, [Page] quos sacros appellarunt: Sic deus omnium per Moysen donauit hanc linguam, non naturalem sed ad docendum aptam. Siquidem cum reliqui omnes loquantur lingua gentis suae in qua nati fuerint, & nati in Italia Italorū vtantur vòce, qui in Graecia voce Graecorum, qui in Perside Persarum, & qui in Egipto lingua Aegiptiorum loquantur: nihilominus nulli pueri Hebraeorum reperiuntur, qui statim hebraica lingua vtuntur, sed eorum apud quos nati sunt. Deinde cum parum adoleuerint, do­centur literarum characteres, & discunt literis scripturam diui­nam hebraica voce scriptam. That is to saie. The hebrue tonge I thinke to be holie, for as in the Greke temples there be certeine peculier characters of lettres whiche they call holie: euen so the God of all, by Moyses hathe geuen this tongue, not naturall but apte to teache: for whereas all o­ther do speake the tonge of theire owne nation, wherein they were borne, and they whiche be borne in Italie vse the Italian tongue, being borne in Grece speake the greke tongue, in Persia the Persian, and in Egipte the Egiptian tongue: yet notwithstandinge none of the children of the Hebrues be founde, whiche from the beginninge vse the hebrue tongue, but their language emongest whom they be borne. Afterwarde when they waxe somewhat bigge, they be taughte the caracters and letters, and learne in lettres ho­lie scripture writen in the Hebrue tongue. Yowe here M. Nowell that the hebrewe tongue wherin the old lawe was written, was no naturall tongue, that the characters and letters were peculiar, that is to saie not to be vnderstande of euery man, and for that cause called holy, as those were that the Grekes had in their temples. Yow here that it was not learned by nature as are the Englishe, french, Italian and o­ther vulgare tongues, but by arte as are the latine, Greke and Hebrue with vs. So that as the readinge of scripture in la­tine [Page 142] helpethe nothinge the vnlearned Englishman, no more did the reading of the lawe in the Hebrewe tongue proffit the vnlearned, till the reader did expounde it. For whiche cause by the lawe the people was commaunded, to Malach. 2. demaunde the lawe at the priestes mowthe who kepte it. And thus much for the lawe: for your reason that they that are bounde to obey goddes lawe ought to vnderstande it, it is true I graunte, by such laufull ministres as are appoin­ted Cap. 31. to teache it, as appeareth by the verie place of Deute­ron. that yow alleage here.

For the mariage of priestes, why yowe maie not reason from the olde lawe to the newe to establishe it, the firste 1 cause is, because the priestes of the olde lawe did serue in the temple by turnes, and when their courses came to serue they were seperated from theire wiues. In the lawe of the Lib. 1. con­tra Iouinia. Ca. 3. 1. ad Timoth. distin. 31. cap. tenere. ghospell, the prieste must be readie continually and daylie to ministre. This doe, S. Hierome S. Ambrose, and Inno­centius the firste confirme by this argument; The priestes off the olde lawe absteined from their wyues when their course came to ministre, but the priestes of the newe lawe must be alwaies rea­adie 2 to ministre: therfore they may not marye at all. Againe the church makethe suche only priestes as doe vowe chastitie. This vowe is free to be made or not made: when it is made not the church onelye, but the law of God forceth men to 3 kepe it. The single state in the olde law was not so cōmen­ded, nowe it is by the Apostle preferred before honorable wedlocke. Beside this the Apostle sayeth: The maried thin­keth 1. Cor. 7. on those thinges, that perteine to the worlde, and how he ma­ye please his wife: the vnmaried man vpon those thinges, that per­teine 4 to God, how he maye please hym. Therefore he exhorteth all men (most of all the ministers of God) to be like to him selfe, that is single and vnmaried. The fifth cause of differēce 5 [Page] may be, because priestehode went then by successiō within one tribue, and therefore it was necessarie, that they maried to continue the same, whereas oures goeth by lauful voca­tiō, and the priestes are and may be chosen through out the worlde, and therefore there is no such necessitie. Last of al 6 I answere as Sainte Austen did to Faustus the Manichee, ob­iecting Lib. 22. Cap. 47. to Iacob as a greate crime, the hauing of foure wi­ues: Quando mos erat crimen non erat: & nunc propterea cri­men est quia mos non est. When the maner was so it was no faulte: and nowe therfore it is a faulte, because it is not the maner. Are not these M. Nowell reasons sufficient to assoi­le youre doubte, why priestes should not now mary, becau­se they were maried in the olde lawe? Replye first againste these, and then shall you here more. In the meane season thus much be sayed to the lawe. Nowe to your reason, why ptiestes should be maried nowe, as well as they were in the olde lawe.

You reason not with S. Paule: as you bragge here, but a­gainst him. For whereas he saieth, that such younge wido­wes a▪ 28. 1. Timot. 5 as after theire vowes maried, haue theire damnation, you bring him for the contrarie, disagreing by that meanes bothe with him selfe, and the auncient fathers, who agree all in the interpretation of this place. He that can not con­teine, let him marye &c. that it is to be vnderstanden of such, 1. Cor. 7. Amb. cap. 5. ad virg. lapsam, & alij alibi. as hauing not vowed to the contrarie be yeat in the ful pos­session of their libertie, and intende not to vse the meanes to atteine chastitie. Yow reason against S. Paule, whome you wrest here to this meaning that he should will all men to marye. Whereas he wissheth on the contrarie parte in this very chapitre all men to be vnmaried, as he was him selfe. He meaneth here M. Nowell, as witnesse S. Hierome, S. Lib. 1. con­tra Iouin. Amb. in hoc cap. 7. Chrysost. hom. 9. in hunclocū. Ambrose, and S. Chrysostome, that the Corinthians (who­me [Page 143] saieth S. Ambrose, he sawe so to swarme with vices, that he thought it very harde for them to liue continentlie) should continue to kepe euery man the cōpanie of his ma­ried wife, which they doubted whether it were laufull for them to doe or no, and therefore consulted S. Paule the­rein. That this is the true meaning of the place, beside the auctoritie of these fathers, by the whole discourse also of the chapitre, and these wordes that followe nexte after those alleaged by you, Vxori vir debitum reddat &c. Let the man yealde to his wife the due debt of mariage, it maye mani­festly appeare.

To your last question of images, I answere, that suche images, as Christian men haue, were not forbidden. They were idolles, that were forbidden, or images to be wors­shipped as God, of which sorte we haue none. Men doe not stoupe to insensible blockes or stones, no more than he dothe reuerence to wax or parchement, that kisseth the Quenes broade seale, and therefore that reason argueth him, that of men hauing life or reason so saieth or thinketh, to be him selfe for his witt a blocke, for his Christian cha­ritie a verie stone. The honour, that we giue to images, is to the thinges that they represent, not to the matter of the i­mage it selfe.

You haue by this time I trust M. Nowell, your request satisfied, not by greate leasoure, but all other busines set a­parte with as much spede, as I coulde. The reason you see, why I maie reason as I doe, but not you as you woulde, is other than my bare pleasure. And therefore I will now pro­cede further.

In this leafe and first side you saye, first that Christ is the o­nelie fo. 68. a. Nowell. heade of the catholike churche and none but he alone, then that the scriptures are the iudge of all controuersies, because they [Page] shall iudge vs in the last greate daye.

Christ is onelie the chiefe heade of his churche, and af­ter Dorman. that manner there is no other heade thereof, but he. Whiche as he is also of all the particuler churches that be in the worlde, and yeat that no let, but that there be o­ther inferiour heades vnder him, so is his being heade ouer the whole churche no more let, that there shoulde be an other inferioure heade to rule in his corporal absence ouer the whole churche here in earth.

When you talke of Scripture, and thinke it straunge, that it shoulde not be the onelie iudge in all controuersies, we merueile not, seing we remembre, that you haue rea­son to holde with youre forefathers olde condemned here­tikes. But of this, I shall, when I come hereafter to your dis­course vpon this point, haue more occasion to speake. Pre­sently I will note to the reader the wise reason, that yowe bring, to proue that the onelie scripture ought to be the iudge of all controuersies, which is, because it shall iudge bo­the yow and vs in the latter daye. So shall oure Sauioure in his visible personne M. Nowell. So shall the 12. Apostles: wil you proue therby, that Christ and the twelue Apostles in their visible persones ought to be the iudges of all con­trouersies, that arise now in the churche? Beside that, these wordes can not be vnderstande of the text written, (there being then when Christ spake these wordes neuer a word written) and therefore must be taken to be ment as well of his worde vnwritten, as written: of tradition M. Nowell, euen that worde of God, that once shal iudge you. So good be youre reasons, and suche wise consequences depend the­reon. And yeat you ende with a checke, as though you had giuen the mate, and saye. M. Doman auoide the contem­pte, th [...] you may escape the iudgement. Nowe M. Nowell you [Page 144] haue proued no contempte, and therefore I feare not the iudgement. Let this be necke, till you giue a better checke.

Of certeine externall furniture of the chur­che, where with M. Nowell chargeth the catholikes to haue blinded the worlde. Of the Scri­ptures being iudge in all contro­uersies. The 21. Chapitre.

BECAVSE I desired that I might be suffered a little 22. by the readers patience to open to the worlde youre craf­tye dealing, and to shake yow oute off youre maskers clouttes &c. Yowe crie, holde not the man for Goddes sake, Nowell. & cet.

No haste but good sir, youre fantasie feineth that rea­son Dorman. neuer tolde you. I call not the holye Scripture youre A lye. 56. clouttes, (I refer me to the place for my discharge, and to proue you a lyer) but youre owne clouted gloses are the clowtes, the maskers apparell, the glittering showes, the whiche I speake off, and by the whiche yow blinde not onelye the ignoraunt, but the wyser sorte allso. To dis­charge youre selues hereof, it is a world to see how worke­manly you handle the matter, by discoursing shortly vpon two pointes.

The first is, that we by copes, vestimentes, gilted crosses, cā ­delstickes, 1 deade mens and ofte deade beastes bones, by cerimo­nies, Nowell. fol. 69. a. 13. minstrelfye, belles, banners, and other bables, haue so be wit­ched and stroken blinde bothe the simple and manie of the wiser sorte also, that neither they can see anie thing of Christe their sa­uiour, nor here and vnderstande ought of his moste holie worde. Yea that we haue compelled them in stede of the true worship­ping of God, to put all religion in the outewarde and dom­be ceremonies, and not to regarde the God off their Father. [Page] The seconde, is a iustifieng of youre religion by the losse 2 which manie of youre parte haue susteined in the defence thereof, of liues and libertie.

To the firste I make answere, that the ceremonies and Dorman. ornamentes wherewith you scornefuly twite vs, were par­tely The vse of ceremonies. reuerent ceremonies to stirre vp deuotion, partlye cō ­ly ornamētes to decke the house of God, that euen by such outewarde meanes, men might eftsones be put in remem­braunce to vse no demeanure vnsemelye for that place. So far was it from this that the people was hindred thereby from the vnderstanding of Christe and his holye worde, that dull affections were muche whetted, and colde deuo­tion not a little enflammed thereby. Let the maners off men that liued in that age, when these ceremonies and or­namentes were most in vse, beare witnes betwene you and me, whether they were anie hinderaunce to the knowledge of Christe and his worde or no. It is a sclaunderouse lye of youres to saie, that we compelled men in the steede off the A l7e. 57. true worshippe off God, to put all religion in ceremonies, & cet. As it is also till you can proue it, that deade beastes bones we­re A lye. 58. burnished ouer with burning golde. But this is M. Nowelles rhetorike good reader. After that he and his companions haue brought vs from firme faith to a rashe cōfidence, from the truthe it selfe to signes and tokens, from one faithe to a nombre of contrary schismes and sectes, from the feare of God to a dissolute securitie, from praieng and fasting, to plaieng and banqueting, from repentaunce and confession, of oure sinnes to laughter and mockerye of that holie and moste necessarie sacrament: after that they haue spoiled the churche of fiue holie sacramentes (the other two whiche remaine being made but bare signes and tokens, the one a piece of breade, the other a badge or signe of Christianitie: [Page 145] after they haue robbed God of his due honour (the blessed sacrifice of his bodie and bloude) the sainctes and friendes of God of their due worshippe, the soules departed of all charitable reliefe: after they haue spoiled the realme of mo­ste godlie fundations, monasteries, colleages, hospitalles, almes houses, commeth solemnelye this protestant pro­ctour, and reconuenteth vs for copes, crosses, candlestic­kes. &c.

As for the seconde pointe M. Nowell it is not iwisse the fo. 69. b. 1. imprisonment of heretikes, not the death of your stincking martirs, not all the Actes and monumentes of Fox, that can proue one protestant to be a good catholike. Doe not Catholikes also suffer imprisonment, losse of goddes, lacke of libertie, wiues and childern? Are they not in banishemēt in a strainge lande out of their own countrie, (then which there is no worldly thing the lacke wherof grieueth them more), not in suche wealthe M. Nowell as Marchantes mainteined yow, no one penie (whiche we neither requier nor loke for, but onelie note youre state and oures herein how different they are) comming from them to vs. Haue not manie of them also suffred bitter deathe, yea more dre­adefull (to vse also in this respect youre own wordes) then is vsuall to felons, murtherers, or to most sauage, noysome wilde beastes? Let the drawing, hanging, and quartering, of that nombre of holie fathers of the Charter house, the cruell execution of that good olde man father Forest, and of others: let the deathe of those two most worthy pe­arles of Englande, B. Fisher, and Sir Thomas More: let the deathe of diuerse Abbates, religiouse men, gentlemen and other, testifie, that Catholikes when deathe was offe­red haue not forsaken to dye for religion also. But what Deathe meaketh not the cause good. then M. Nowell, is this a sufficient argument to proue the [Page] cause good? No, no, M. Nowell, if it were so, yow Sacra­mentaries and Lutheranes shoulde be of all sectes lest este­med. The Anabaptistes doe in this pointe go far beyonde yowe. Who to this houre dailye suffer in all countries where they be to be founde. And that deathe being tom­bled headlong in sackes into the water they suffer secretely. Whiche maner of execution, if it had bene practised vpon Lutheranes and Sacramentaries, that without the sight of the worlde, the admiration and applause of the brotherho­de, without glorie and renowne they might haue ended in this worlde their wretched lyues, it is thought that ma­nie of them had yeat liued, either for worse or for better. I might here bring the example of the Donatistes, whose excessiue desire to dye, and to seale with their bloude their heresies, S. Augustin in diuerse of his epistles and in the la­ter ende of his thirde boke against the epistle of Parmenia­nus dothe well declare. But this that hath bene saide maye Tom. 7. suffise to conclude M. Nowell, that if all England shoulde run to morowe nexte with the bloude of heretikes (as God of his tendre mercie forbid suche hardenes of harte in those that professe them selues to be Christians) yeat ought not therefore the cause to be iudged anie whit the better, seing that we see the cursed secte of Anabaptistes, and haue heard of the wicked Donatistes, and knowe beside that the diuell hathe aswell his false witnesses, readie to suffer gladlie mo­ste bitter deathe for their conceaued opinions, as Christe hathe his true martirs to doe the like for the true catholike faithe.

Thus muche be saide to M. Nowelles impertinent dis­course of copes, vestimentes, gilted crosses, candelstickes &c. and to his other idle talcke of the persecution forsothe, and martirdome sauing youre reuerences of his deare bre­thern. [Page 146] Nowe at the length he commeth to that whiche he shoulde chiefely haue answered in this place, that is of the­trieng of all controuersies by the only scripture. To proue that of controuersies rising about the true vnderstandinge of the scripture, the scripture it selfe should be the iudge, he vseth a similitude, wherin he compareth vs to the phariseis, and him selfe and his companions to the Apostles. And v­pon that comparison reasoneth in effecte as foloweth.

As in the controuersie betwene the Apostles and the Phariseis, Nowell. fol. 69. a. 1 the question being whether Christe were the true Messias, the A­postles affirming, the Phariseis denieng, if the matter had bene re­ferred to the interpretation and determination of the high prieste and his consistorie, we mighte yeat haue loked withe the Iues for Messias to come: and as it was no reason that in the controuersie betwene the saide highe priestes and the Apostles, whether they had put Christe iustlie or vniustlie to death, they shoulde be them selues the iudges, who were not onelie accessaries, but the princi­pall partes to the murther: so must we nowe with the Apostles make the scripture the iudge of oure controuersies, and the pope by all reason must be excluded, as he that is the sinke of all the ab­hominations wherewith he that hath but halfe an eye maie see, how shamefully the lawe of God is, as it was by the Phariseis, cor­rupted.

Youre similitude M. Nowell halteth, and is not able Dorman. therefore to go so far as it should. For the better declaration whereof it is to be knowen, that as sone as Iohn the Baptist Matth. 11. began to preache, the Synagoge which had no promise to continue for euer, began to languishe, and so was at the length weakened, that after Christes deathe it came to no­thing, Christe hauing then established a newe church, and made his Apostles the doctours and iudges thereof, and Peter the gouernour of all. Now see I praye you how this similitude of youres holdeth. The Apostles being the true church of Christe, referred not their controuersies to the Phariseis which perteined not to the church, yea were ene­mies [Page] and persecutours thereof, but referred the same to the scriptures, and iudged by the scriptures them selues, ergo, the church of Christe that is nowe, maye not be the iudge of controuersies, but we must refer the same to the scriptu­res. I denie that consequent M. Nowell. You proue it, be­cause the Apostles did not referre their controuersies to the high priestes and Phariseis. I graunte you, for their priestehode, and auctoritie was expired. When you shalbe hable to proue vs Phariseis, and your selues the true chur­che, then maie you by this similitude reason, that as the A­postles referred not the iudgement of the meaning of the scriptures to the Phariseis, which were not the church nor of the church: so you will not being the church, refer the mat­ter to vs, but iudge of the scripture your selues as the Apost­les The A­postles being the true chur­che of Christe iudged of the scrip­tures. did. In the meane season as the Apostles alleaged for thē selues the scripture, and saied it made for thē (wherein they gaue iudgement of the scripture,) so foloweth it that Chri­stes church which is now, (the same that was then) iudgeth in al controuersies which is the right and true sense. Neither can it serue you to saie to the contrarie, as you doe sclaun­derouslie, that the worde of God hauing bene moste shamefully by vs corrupted, as he that hath but halfe an eye maie well see, it is no reason being parties that we shoulde be iudges therein: Seing that thus might the Phariseis haue saide euen of the Apostles them selues, and laied to their charges partialitie, because they were Christes scholers and disciples, and so parties to the cause whiche they mainteined, and also for that you haue not as yeat proued, nor euer shalbe hable to proue, that Christes church hath euer erred in the faith, or the heade thereof at anie time deliuered to the church any tradition or erroniouse opinion, whereby the worde of God hath bene corrupted. Which assertion of youres being [Page 147] moste directly against the scriptures, bearing witnes so ma­nifestly Math. 14. 16. Ioan. 14. & alibi. of the continuance of the churche incorrupted, so often auouched by you, and being the only fundation of this plea of youres that we be the Phariseis, and you Chri­stes true Apostles, me thinketh you should haue done well once in so often affirming it, to haue proued by one sen­tence of scripture, or some approued auctor, and not facing­ly to saye, that he that hathe but halfe an eye maie see that it is so, or elles till you coulde haue proued it, it had bene more for your honestie to haue absteined from suche vn­mercifull and vnchristianlike demeanure, as you vse to­wardes bothe the church of Christe, and the head thereof. Where you saye that I will haue the scripture reiected, there you reporte vntrulie of me. This I saie, that scripture (not thorough anie imperfection or insufficiencie that is in it, but onelie by occasiō of stubborne, wrangling and con­tentiouse natures, who neuer will giue ouer the opinion that they haue once conceiued (euerie one being at apoint to receiue no other interpretation thereof thē to them shal seme good) is not hable to ende and determine al cōtrouer­sies moued vpō the lettre thereof, and that therfore euen as in the lawes of the realme, whiche were to decide all con­trouersies sufficient, so that the lawe being broughte e­uerie man woulde furthewithe yealde to it, because they will not, there be iudges by the prince appointed to cut of all altercations, and to preserue the realme in quiet: who when the councellours bothe of the one parte and the o­ther haue contentiouslie disputed the matter, eache of them affirming that the lawe is on his side, shall by opening the meaning thereof ende the strife: So is it not to be thought, but that God forseing the innumerable sectes of heretikes that shoulde trouble his churche, of whome there shoulde [Page] be no one, no not of them that directlie blush not to teache Suenc­feldius. that there ought to be no scripture at all, that woulde not colourablie defende the same by scripture, it is not I saie to be thought, that he woulde in this case make lesse proui­sion for his churche, then a temporall king will for the due administration of his lawes, and the preseruing of vni­tie emongest his subiectes. Neither is it anie iniurie to the scripture, or derogatiō to the maiestie thereof, that the ma­lice of men maketh it lesse sufficient to condemne heresies: especially seing as Tertullian saieth, the scriptures haue bene Lib. de praescript. haeretic. 1. Cor. 11. by the will off God so disposed, as that they might ministre matter to heretikes, seing it is writtē that there must be heresies, which cā not be withowt the scriptures. To this obiection of myne, that the scriptures be so written, that there was neuer heretike yeat, that dyd not alleage scripture for the maintenaūce of the same, and that thought not by the scriptures him selfe wel able to defende the same, note I besech the good reader that M. Nowel maketh here no answere at al. Onely he ma­keth against this an other obiectiō, that so the pope maye vn­der b. 5. the name of the church mainteine and defende all errours and superstitions. Whiche if it were true, what woulde folowe other of this conclusion, but that there shoulde be no iudge at all? Is not this a propre kinde of answering trowe you? But because the matter shall not remaine in that incertein­tie, I will M. Nowell answere youre reason although you woulde not answere mine. I saye therefore, that the pope as heade of Christes churche, that is to saye, defining or de­creeing anye thinge concerning the affaires and busines thereof, neuer erred yeat, nor euer shall. I proue it by aucto­ritye and by reason. By the auctoritie of oure Sauiour him selfe, who praing that Peters faithe might not faile, coulde Lucae. 22. not but obteine. Whiche priuileage so obteined, seing that [Page 148] Christe builded his churche, not to continue for Peters ly­fe tyme, but for euer: we maye not doubte but that it was giuen also to his successours. S. Augustine (as I noted befo­re) Epis. 165. applied the wordes of Christ spoken of the Phariseis sit­ting in Moises chaire: Quae dicunt facite: quae autem faciunt Matth. 23. nolite facere. Loke what they bid you doe, doe it: but do not as they do, to the bishoppes of Rome succeding Peter, and addeth, that in so doing oure faithe shalbe suer and certeine, as the whiche being placed not in man but on God, can neuer be scattred with anye tempest of schisme. You haue the auctori­tie of the Scripture: you haue the iudgement of S. Augu­stine, that Peters faithe shall continue in him and in his successours, that to doe as they commaunde, is to make oure faithe suer and defensible against the tempestes of all schis­maticall stormes. Now harken to reason. Christe promised for euer to abide with his churche. S. Paule calleth it the Matt. 28. 1. Timo. 3. piller of truthe. If Christe be with it, it can not erre: if it be the piller of truth it admitteth no falsehode, if it can admit no falsehode, the pope whiche is the heade thereof and ap­pointed by God to gouerne it in earthe, can not in the go­uernement thereof erre. For if the heade might erre, then might the whole body which is bound to folow the heade. And thus bothe by auctoritie and reason, by experience of these 1500. yeares it appeareth, that there is greate difference betwene the two likelihodes that you put in the pope, and in other priuate men, touching the interpretatiō of the scri­pture. And therefore vppon the ouerthrowe of this, downe commeth all that you builde thereupon, eitherin this place or elles where. Hauing nowe taken youre pleasure suffici­ently at vs, comparing vs with Annas and Caiphas, calling vs theeues, aduersaries of the ghospell, guiltie of manye he­resies, corruptions of religion and false superstitions, you [Page] entre in to a common place of councelles, whereof you sa­ye as foloweth.

But the aduersaries off the Ghospell deale thus with vs: Nowell. b. 20. The Pope and all hys cleargye being guiltie off manye heresies, &c. and thereof accused, doe assemble them selues together in a councell, in the whiche nothing maye be moued, muche lesse de­termined, but suche as pleaseth the Pope him selfe; there is enqui­rie made of vs (who doe accuse them thereoff and offer to proue it) and there vnhearde and vnseene we are condemned of our ad­uersaries. &c.

Yow here note in the margent (for the proufe hereof Dorman. that nothing maie be moued in the councell but suche as pleaseth the pope) Pighius in his 6. booke and first chapi­tre of his Hierarchie. This place yowe alleaged before. As I tolde you then so doe I nowe, that you haue beelied Pi­ghius. Supra. fol. 24. b. For he saieth not as you doe here, that nothing maie be moued in the councell but suche as pleaseth the pope. He saieth: Haud feré fit, almoste it is not otherwise, not de­nieng as you saye he dothe, that it can not be otherwise. The wordes of Pighius note rather the greate diligence of the pope, whiche is suche, that when all the worlde shall meete together in a generall councell, they can not for the moste parte name anye thinge to be refourmed or conclu­ded, that the Bishoppe of Rome with his learned councell about him, hath not before forseene and handled, then take awaye libertie from anye man to moue anie doubte to be resolued not considered before by the pope. That the pope moueth ordinarily suche doubtes to the councell, ist that offende you, be angry with S. Peter his predecessour, who practised the same first in the generall councell mentioned in the Actes of thapostles. You accuse the pope and his, and Act. 15. offer to proue it. It is in deede the cōmon bragge of you al, to saie you can proue vs Phariseis, corrupters of religiō, that [Page 149] the churche of Christe hathe vtterly failed, and so furth. The whiche if yow feare to proue in generall councelles, yeat yow might me thinketh giue vs a taste of your prouf­fes in youre poisoned writinges. To that that yowe com­plaine, that yow are condemned vnhearde and vnsene, we saie as yow gessed we woulde, that yow might be hearde if yow listed, against the whiche answere of oures yow re­plie.

How we are called and how we maie be heard, let Iohn Husse, Nowell. fo. 70. a. 2 called by the emperour Sigismunde his saulfe conduct vnder his greate emperiall seale, to the councell of Constance with Hierom of Prague, (who bothe were contrary to the faithe giuen them by the greatest christian prince in the world, condemned and burned to asshes) be an eternall witnesse: yea let their owne decree made in the saide councell, which was: that no faithe nor promise is to be kepte to anie heretike, nor that anie man by anie promise, standeth bounde to an heretike &c. be a perpetuall testimonye off the same.

Beholde howe manie lyes in howe fewe lynes. Iohn Dorman. Husse being called to the councell of Constance, brake the conditions of his saulfe conduct. For wheras he promised the emperour to continue at the councell to the ende, and therupon had the saulfe conduct graunted, he not trusting therto, conueighed him selfe out of Constance couered in a carte with strawe. He absteined not beside being excom­municate, and not hauing learned so farre as yow are come nowe, from saing of masse, contrarye to the lawes of the churche and expresse commaundement of the councell. So that seing in euerie saulfe conduct the partie to whome it is graunted, is aswell bounde to obserue the conditions on his parte to be obserued, as he that graunted it, is to per­fourme semblably his promise, the which Husse dyd not, yow haue herein sclaundred the councell and made a lie. Lye. 59. If yow denie this yow maie consulte the historie of Vlri­chus [Page] Reichentall, who being a citezin of Constance was su a Teutonic. histor. de Concil. Constant. then presente at the councell when these thinges happe­ned, and reporteth thereof as hathe bene declared. That yow ioine to Husse Hierome of Prague, that is an other lye. For as Hierom neuer would venture so farre as to trust A lie. 60. to anie saufeconduct, so was he taken against his will and Actes and monu­mentes fo. 243. brought to the councell, as witnesseth youre felowe Fox. Nowe foloweth the greatest lye of all, and that is of a de­cree that shoulde be made in the councell off Constance, that no faithe or promise is to be kepte to anye heretike, nor that anye man by anye promise, standeth bounde to an heretike. I will here alleage the wordes of the decree, which this fal­sefier durst not for feare of being betraied. They are these: Praesens sancta synodus; ex quouis saluoconductu per imperato­rem, [...]ess. 19. reges, & alios seculi principes, hereticis vel de heresi diffama­tis, putantes eosdē sic a suis erroribus reuocare quocunque vinculo se astrinxerint concesso, nullū fidei catholicae vel iurisdictioni eccle­siasticae praeiudiciū generari, vel impedimentum prestari posse seu debere declarat, quominus dicto saluoconductu non obstante, li­ceat iudici competenti & ecclesiastico de huiusmodi personarū er­roribus inquirere, & aliàs contraeos debite procedere, eosdemque punire quantum iustitia suadebit, si suos errores reuocare pertina­citer recusauerint, etiamsi de saluo conductu confisi ad locum ve­nerint iudicij alias non venturi, nec sic promittentem, quum aliàs fecerit quod in ipso est, ex hoc in aliquo remansisse obligatum. That is to saie. This present holie sinode declareth, that notwithstanding any saufeconduct graunted by the empe­rour, kinges, or other seculer princes, to heretikes or diffa­med of heresie, vpon hope thereby to call them from their errours, with whatsoeuer bonde they haue bounde them selues, that yeat there shall not or maie not, growe thereby any preiudice to the catholike faithe or ecclesiasticall iu­risdiction, [Page 150] in suche wise that it maie not be laufull for the competent and ecclesiasticall iudge, to enquier of the er­rours of suche persones, and otherwise to procede duly a­gainst them and to punishe them, as iustice shall requier, if obstinately they refuse to reuoke their saide errours: yea all­though they trusting vpon the saufeconduct came thither, which otherwise they woulde not haue done, and that he that maketh this promise, when otherwise he hathe done what is in him to doe, remaineth not hereby in anie thing bounde. These be the wordes of the councell, this is the de­cree that yow pretende to feare. Yow saie the councell ha­the decreed that no faithe is to be kepte to anie heretike: the councell hathe onlie, that suche faithe as is giuen by temporall princes (in matters of heresie not perteining to their iurisdiction) is not to be holden, in suche wise as it might preiudice the ecclesiasticall iurisdiction. The cleane contrarye therefore appeareth by the councell to that whi­che yowe saie: that is, that faithe giuen by some men shoulde holde and be good, (otherwise the exception of se­culer princes had bene made in vaine, wheras the councell might haue saide as yowe doe, that no faithe without ex­ception shoulde be kepte). Wherfore I conclude, that all faithe gyuen to anye heretique by anye ecclesiasticall per­sone laufully auctorized is good, and to be kepte, and The coū ­cell of Cō stance fal­sified by. M. No­well, by making a triple. lye. 63. that therefore you haue falsified this councell, in making it to speake generally of all men, of all faithe, of all here­tikes, whiche speaketh but only of seculer princes, who haue no auctoritie to make any suche promise of that whi­che perteineth not to theire power and iurisdiction. And therfore euen as he that promiseth an other mannes facte, promiseth his only diligence and is bounde no f [...]rder, so the councell declared that seculer princes promising to [Page] heretikes saufeconduct to come and to go, because they promised factum alienū the deede of other men, were ha­uing done their diligence to perfourme their promise, dis­charged, and no longre bounde. Nowe I praie you M. No­wel, because you complaine that offering to proue the pope and his cleargie guiltie of manie heresies, corruption of re­ligion &c. you can not be hearde, or if audiēce were graun­ted to you, promise were not like to be kepte because of this decree of the councell of Constance, let vs examine how true this is. The councell of Constance, as by the wordes of the decree euidently appeareth, declared only that promises made by laie princes did not binde the ma­kers. When you were called to the last councell of Trent, was the saufeconduct that was offered to you made by the emperour only, or some other seculer prince? Was it not made by the bodie and heade of that moste holie and learned councell one of them, that euer was assembled, with suche assurance for youre indemnitie, as greater by mannes witte coulde not be deuised? Why came you not then, why put you not in youre accusations, why durst The pro­testantes feine fal­se cau­ses to ex­cuse thē, for not appea­ring at the gene­rall coun­cell. you not shewe youre faces? Who seeth not that the preten­ding (for the cause of your refusall) of this forged decree, proceded of feare to be vanquished in youre heresies, not to be harmed in youre bodies? Who perceiueth not that in this drawing backe of youres, you countrefeited some co­wardly yeoman, that fearing to be pressed to the warre, causeth his wife to binde a clowte about his heade, and then his kerchiefe being sicke, he must nedes tarie at home forsothe, who if sicknes had not lette him, woulde haue kil­led the enemies all of them him selfe, as you woulde the pope and all his cleargie, had not this decree bene. Wel your witte shewed it selfe more in tarieng at home, then youre [Page 151] honesty hath done here in falsifieng this decree.

They saie we are heretikes, we doe denie it: if our naie maie not Nowell. a. 14. Dorman. defende vs why shoulde their yea condemne vs? &c.

We saye not onelie that you be heretikes. Reade M. No­wel the. 8. cause in the conclusion of my firste boke. Reade the discourse annexed vnto the Apologie of Staphilus la­telie set forthe in English. Reade the fortresse. You shall The first parte the last chap. finde there a numbre of your assertions holden generallie of al protestantes, to be olde condemned heresies in the first six hundred yeares: you shall finde that the doctrine of Iohn Caluin youre Maister, bothe in the doctrine of the blessed sacrament of the altar, and of baptisme, is stuffed with a nombre of olde heresies condemned also in the pri­mitiue churche. Discharge youre selues first of these here­sies, and then saye that we saie onelie that you be heretikes. We saie not onely that we be the churche, but we proue it also, and haue made it moste euident that you can by no meanes be the churche. As of late hathe bene proued, an­swere it when you can.

In some countries if the partie accused pleade not guilty, and sa­ye a. 19. Nowell. naie to the crime obiected, if he by diuerse tormentes enforced to confesse, doe still mainteine his naye he is discharged and let goe. But it can not helpe vs accused as heretikes to denie the false accusation &c.

I blame you not M. Nowell though for heretikes yow Dorman. clayme the fauour that is wont to be shewed to murderers, theues and other malefactours, allthough this reason of you­res that heretikes the greatest offenders that are (for no crime is so greate as the faulte of heresie) shoulde haue this fauour, because other malefactours lesse offending haue it, woulde scarselie be founde sounde, if it shoulde be by the rigorouse rules of logicke examined. But it nedeth not, it hath other faultes enough. For allthough in some coūtries [Page] the parties accused denieng the faulte in suche wise as you saye, be vpon their denial discharged and let go: yeat is the­re no countrie, where if the partie accused for thefte would confesse the dede, but saye it were no faulte, he shoulde be be so discharged (the lawes cōdemning theft by deathe) and let go. And yeat this is youre case M. Nowell. For you con­fesse the dede. You denie (for example) sacrifice and praier for the deade: you stande in defence of it as did A [...]rius a Epiph. lib. 3. haeresi. 75. condemned heretike aboue. 13. hundred yeares ago. Onelie your denial is that it is no heresie, which thinge if it might be laufull for euerye heretike to doe, and to escape, euerye one giuing to heresie the title of true doctrine, howé ma­nye thinke you woulde be condemned? Did not Michael Seruetus put to deathe by the procurement of Iohn Caluin at Geneua, denye that he was an heretike as you doe? Did Caluin anye wrong to him in condemning him, who saide he coulde bring as good testimonie of his innocencye oute of Gods worde, as you saye you can for youre heresies? Did Cranmer any wrong to Ioane of kent, because she saide she was no heretike? Doe not the Anabaptistes dailye saye the same? It is toe greate an absurditye M. Nowell, and sauoreth of your cholere ouer much, that while you labour to bring the catholikes in hatred, as though they showed you lesse fauour then they doe to theeues, murderers, and other of­fendours, you forget that in so doing you shewe youre sel­fe M. No­well pla­yeth the proctour for all he­retikes. a proctour for heretikes of all sortes, and that yeat you misse of your purpose, the fauour of the lawes extended to heretikes, being greater then is practised vppon anie other trangressours. For make the cōparison aright, and you shal make it betwene a theefe sorie for his theft, or murderer for his offence, and an heretike denieng and repenting his he­resies. Nowe who knoweth not in this case who hathe the [Page 152] greatest fauour, the heretike vppon repentaunce being re­ceiued to mercy, whiche fauoure other offendours haue not? To make suche false and vntrue comparisons as you doe, if it procede not of ignoraunce M. Nowell, surelye it commeth of malice, and that is worse? Where you saye A lye. 64. b. 6. that I deuise God to be absent, that I saye that he is dombe, I saide not so. Why doe you falsely burden me with that whiche I neuer thought? I sayde that he is In my boke. fo. 9. b not present with vs in suche sorte as that we maye see him, and speake with him face to face, to be resolued at his mou­the of suche doubtes and questions as shoulde rise emon­geste vs. Saie not you the same? Doe you call him then dombe, or saye that he is absent? If you doe not, why I mo­re then you? Nowell. fol. 71. a. vnto fol. 74. a. 26. in which compasse the testi­monies brought to proue that only Scripture is sufficiēt to deter­mine all cōtrouer­sies are examined. Dorman.

S. Depecca. merit. libr. 1. cap. 22. Ad Cresc. lib. 2. cap. 31. & 32. Augustine contending againste those who doe attribute Goddes grace and giftes to the the worthynesse of mennes me­rites, concludeth thus. Cedamus & consentiamus auctoritati Scripturae sanctae, quae nescit falli nec fallere. Let vs giue place to the auctoritye of holy Scripture which can not be deceiued nor deceiue.

We saye with S. Austen. Let vs giue place and agree to the auctoritie of the holy Scripture which can not be deceiued nor de­ceiue. Will not two heires striuing aboute their fathers good des saie as muche as this commeth to of his testament, desi­re that it maie be brought furthe, and both of them offer to be tried by it and to stande to it, and yeat the wordes being doubtefull require a iudge notwithstanding.

S. Augustine preferreth the Sriptures before the pri­uate opinion off Saint Cyprian. So doe we toe, and be­fore anye other doctour disagreing from the scripture expounded to vs in generall councelles, and by com­mon consent of all nations, Howe farre this sense whiche you woulde wrest out of Saint Augustins wordes, that the [Page] church maie not be iudge of the true meaning of the scrip­ture, Contra e­pist. fundament. Ma­nicheor. cap. 5. is from the mynde of S. Augustine, his wordes in an other place doe well witnes: where he protesteth that he woulde not beleue the Ghospell: if the auctoritye of the churche did not moue him thereto. How often beside doth Lib. 2. contra Iulian. & alibi. he in writing against Iulian the Pelagian, obiect to him the doctours of the church expounding the scriptures againste his opinion?

As for that whiche you bring oute of Saint Augustine against councelles, it is falselye and vntrulye applyed. For b. 10. Lib. contra Maximinū 3. cap. 14. Saint Augustins yealding to the aduersaries, whome he sa­we frowardly bent to stande to the hereticall councell off Ariminum, dothe no more proue him to be of the mynde to eneruate and weaken thereby the auctoritye of generall councelles, then if I woulde saie to you (disputing with you vpon the reall presence of Christe in the sacrament, and knowing that you were as wholly bent to mainteine the Confession of Augspurg, or perhappes the solemne cuppe councell in Martin Luthers house at Wittemberg, as I am to defend the coūcel of Nice, Ephesus, or Lateranū: Well M. Nowell, neither shall you at this tyme bring fur­the youre Confession of Augspurg, or the solemne con­clusion agreed vpon at Martin Luthers house, nor I wil al­leage Howe S. Austē re­nounced the auctoritie of the Nice­ne coun­cell. either the councell of Nice, Ephesus or Lateranum but the scriptures &c. then I saie you coulde proue here­by, that I, who trusting vppon the goodnesse of the cau­se, quit for the tyme the alleaging of the councelles, were of the minde that the auctoritye of the councelles made nothing for the decision of controuersies. And that this was the meaning of S. Augustine, to relinquishe onelye for that present tyme the auctoritie of the councell off Nice, that the heretike might forsake his schismaticall coun­cell, [Page 153] not that he estemed either the councell of Nice or anie other laufull generall councell so lightly as yow suppose, bothe this aduerbe nunc, nowe, (whose nature is to limite and restreine) whiche yowe fearing lest it woulde marre all the marcket, and perceiuing that it woulde be harde to deceiue the learnedersorte with this place, alleaged trulie in A lie by omission 65. the latine but left owt in the englishe, thinking that youre parte shoulde be well enough plaied, if yowe were able to blinde the ignorant and vnlearned: bothe dothe this I saie argue the meaning of S. Austen to be as I saie, and not as yow pretende, and also that he dothe euerie where against the Donatistes alleage, Concilium plaenarium totius orbis, the Lib. 1. de baptis. con­tra Donat. cap. 18. Epist. 118. ad Ianuar. fo. 72. a. 3. S. Austen beelied. [...] Howe the scripture is iudge and howe it is not iudge of a [...] contro­uersies. full councell of all the world, and saieth of councelles, quo­rum est in ecclesia saluberima auctoritas whose auctoritie is in the churche moste wholesome. It is not to be forgotten in this place, that where S. Austen calleth the scripture by the name of a witnes, yowe conclude that he calleth the scri­pture iudge. Which if he had done might easelie haue bene answered to be true also, when the churche hathe declared what the scripture ment. As the lawes of all countries are the iudges of suche controuersies as rise there but not the iudges alone, because they be subiecte to wrangling in­terpretations, and therefore requier an other iudge to iud­ge their meaning. But seing S. Austen calleth not the scri­pture iudge but witnes, yowe haue delt vntrulie by con­cluding more vpon his wordes then is in them.

To the places brought here by yowe owt of Chrisosto­me, Fol. 72. [...] ▪ I answere, that we saie as muche in the commendation of holie scripture as he doeth. For none of those places ma­ke holie scripture the onelie sufficient triall of all contro­uersies. Therefore where as they saie, we muste beleue scrip­ture rather then men, that if we woulde beleue them we shoulde [Page] fall in to no errours: we graunte it to be true in scripture as it is deliuered by the fathers and expounded by the church. For the first place of S. Hierom, he there reiected an allega­tion of vncerteine auctoritie commonly called Apocriphū, about the person of that Zachary which was slaine betwe­ne Matth. 23. the tēple and the altar, which because he knewe was not receiued by vniuersall tradition, there remained no other grounde of prouing it but by scripture: where sith it was not, he might well saie it is as easely contemned as proued. M. No­welles ig­norance in the writ [...]nges off the fa­thers. The laste place, non adferamus stateras dolosas &c. is not S. Hieromes, as yow trusting ouer much Gratianus (to whom belike yow haue recourse for youre auctorities owt of the doctours, to auoide either furder paine, either elles because yow delight not muche in suche companie) reporte it here Lib. 2. de baptis. cap. 6. to be. It is taken owt of S. Austin M. Nowell, a token that manie a man speaketh (to vse the olde Englishe prouerbe) of Robin hood that neuer shot in his bow, and maketh no­thing against me, who wishe you would in dede way thinges with lesse deceitefull waightes of scripture thē you doe.

The places here noted owt of S. Austen and Chrisostom B. 14. touching the conference of one place of scripture with an other, of the darcke and obscure with the clere and light, are brought to proue conference to be good and proffitable, which we denie not. But that which we denie and therfore yow shoulde haue proued, neither those places nor anie o­ther that yow haue alleaged doe proue. First that allwaies suche conference can assure vs of the true meaning of the scripture: secondarily that in this conferring of places there is no difficultie, varietie or vncerteintie: which we affirme, and proue to be, because to one man (to the Lutheran) it semeth that hoc est corpus meum, this is my bodie, and ver­bum caro factum est, the word is made flesh, are places of like [Page 154] phrase and speache: to yow. M. Nowell it semeth, that Ego sum vitis vera, I am a true vyne, is like to this, This is my bo­die. Why yow will saie I haue proued this by Chrisostome, who saieth: Ad ipsum diuinae scripturae scopum accedamus quae Chrisost. in 2. cap. Gen. Ho­mil. 13. seipsam interpretatur: and againe, Sacra scriptura seipsam ex­ponit, & auditorem errare non sinit. Let vs come to the marc­ke of the holie scripture whiche expoundeth it selfe. The holie scripture expoūdeth it selfe and suffereth not the hea­rer to erre. I knowe that these be Chrisostomes wordes: I knowe that they make nothing for your purpose: I kno­we, and be it knowen to all men, that they are most shame­fully by yowe abused and mangled. For whereas Chriso­stome confuting the errour of those that grounding them selues vpon this place of Genesis: & inspirauit in faciem eius Gen. 2. spiraculum vitae, and he breathed vpon his face the breathe of life, mainteined that the soule of man was off the same essence withe God: where I saie, Chrisostome specially in this pointe saieth that the scripture expoundeth it selfe, you make him generally to saye, that the scripture dothe so in all doubtes. The whiche to persuade the better, whereas the laste of those two sentences of Chrisostome by yowe alleaged, hathe thus: quamuis sacra scriptura quum nos tale Chriso­stomes wordes mangled by M. Nowell. quiddam docere vult seipsam exponit, & auditorem errare non sinit. Allthough the holye scripture when it wyll tea­che vs anye suche thinge expoundeth it selfe, and suffereth not the hearer to erre: yowe mangling the sentence, cutt awaie the middle wordes, quum nos tale quiddam docere vult, when it will teache vs anie such thing, lest by those wor­des the reader might vnderstande that Chrisostome gaue there no general rule, but spake onely of that special pointe or some other like vnto it. If this were not youre meaning M. Nowell why cut you of the worde quāuis at the begin­ning, [Page] and these other in the middest? Tell vs some other cause if you can.

Next after these auctorities, you alleage a treatie of one fo. 73. a. Borowed of the cō ­fession of witten­berge. Tit. de Ec­cles. that you set furth Rhetorically, calling him an auncient au­ctor printed withe Chrisostome and of long time taken for him, to proue that the churche must be tried by the scriptures.

To this place I answere, that whether it be Chrisosto­mes owne worcke from whence it is taken or no, this is a thing moste certeine, that it is to be warily readen, as the boke which hath thrust into it if it be Chrisostomes owne, or anie other catholike mannes, by some false Arrian here­tike manie poisoned and perniciouse sentences for the maintenaunce of the Arrians heresie. Emongest other to note to you one or two, euen in the. 48. homilie, whiche is the verie nexte before this that you alleage here, the Catho­likes for mainteining the equalitie of Christe with God the father, are nombred emongest heretikes, and in the. 45. they are called heretikes, that holde that the blessed trinitie is e­quall of like substance and auctoritie. And therefore in su­che places as this auctor who so euer it be, dissenteth from the common faithe of Christes churche, we haue iust cau­se to suspect, that there this heretike (who hath it appeareth ouerronne the whole,) hath dipped in his fingres, and the­refore that we reiect. As in this place it is likely that he thought to make a waie for his heresies, by chalenging to be tried by the scripture onelie, the common request of the Arrian heretikes, because the worde they saide Homousion was not to be founde in the scriptures. But nowe if these wordes were Chrisostomes owne, and not put in by the heretike: yeat foloweth it not that because the churche is to be tried by the scriptures onelie, that therefore all other questions maie be decided by the same alone. For God [Page 155] whose wisedome diuised, whose holie spirite brethed, whose finger wrote the scriptures: as for heretikes that cō ­temne the auctoritie of the churche, he hath so disposed them (as Tertullian writeth) that they might ministre them Lib. de praescript. aduers. hae­res. matter: so hathe he againe for them that shalbe content humblie to rest in the lappe of the same, made that matter by the scriptures so clere, that a catholike man maie be bol­de to prouoke an heretike, yea all the heretikes in the worl­de to dispute by scripture onelie of that question, whiche and where is the true churche. And suerlie so was it expe­dient that it shoulde be, that the churche whiche shoulde iudge of the true sense and meaning of the scriptures, shoul­de by the scriptures be so euidentlie proued, that about that their might be no wrangling. As it is not to be mer­ueiled therefore, if anie catholike man giue councell to proue the church by the scriptures, (the scriptures speaking of the churche as hath S. Austen more plainelie then they [...]narrat. in psal. 30 doe of Christe him selfe, and therto being writtē so euidēt­ly that the textes making for the trial therof nede no inter­pretatiō) Lib. de v­nitate ec­des. ca. 16 so can you not reason that all other controuersies in semblable wise, must be tried by the scripture, because the scripture is more ambiguouse in other maters, and because the church is proued so plainelie, that it might afterwarde hauing the continuall assistence of Goddes holie spirite, and being the piller of truthe, assuer vs being in doubte of the true meaning of scripture. And thus muche for answe­re to your long place alleaged to so little purpose, out of that auncient auctor printed withe Chrisostome, and of long time takē for him. By whose auctoritie lest the wore­kes of S. Clement making so muche against youre newe A sleight of M. no­wells. doctrine might get anie credite, being here alleaged by this auncient auctor printed with Chrisostome and of long ti­me [Page] taken for him, you toke youre pen in to youre hande, and cut that sentence clene awaie.

Hauing nowe spent youre store of testimonies brought fo. 74. b. 9 by you to proue that the scripture alone ought to be the iudge of all controuersies, you returne to youre olde plea so often auouched and neuer proued, that we be the phari­seis, and therfore can not be the true churche of god, that you alleage scriptures against vs as the Apostles did against the phariseis, of whom and vs you saye furder as foloweth.

And I am suer that the high prieste withe his Iuishe chur­che, Nowell. b. 29. was able to saye as muche for the ordinarie succession of the highe priestes his predecessours euen from Aaron vntill his time, for antiquitie, for consent, and for vniuersality against Christe and his Apostles (so fewe in comparison, and as it semed la­telye start vp): as yowe are able to saye for youre churche or a­gainste vs. But yeat we doe thinke, that the worde of God as it was alleaged by Christe and hys Apostles againste the saide high prieste and his churche, so maye it and ought it allso to be al­leaged by vs againste youre highe prieste and youre churche, & cet.

What so euer the Phariseis had to saye againste the A­postles Dorman. for them selues, they had not this to saye whiche we haue againste you, that theire churche was by the testimo­nies of the Scriptures promised to continue for euer. The Apostles proued to them the contrary oute of the scriptu­res: if you can doe the lyke to vs, and shewe by euident scri­ptures that the churche of Christe shoulde for the space of fiftene hundred or nine hundred yeares either be ouer­throwen, and at the length restored by a newe Messias, we renounce the benefite off succession, we giue ouer an­tiquitie, consent, vniuersalitye and what so euer elles. Thus alleaged the Apostles the worde of God against the Phari­seis. Thus must you alleage it against vs, if you will alleage it at all.

And whether you be so or no (the true church of god) seing it Nowell. fol. 75. a. 23. is in question, and a greater doubte and controuersie emongest men I am suer, then can be aboute the sense of anye place off the scripture, yow shall neuer be hable to make anie exception to the scripture as no competent iudge in controuersies, but we shall be able ten tymes more to make exception to youre Pope and his churche, as no indifferent nor meete iudge.

We make no exception nor euer did, againste the scrip­ture Dorman. as of it selfe an incompetent iudge to determine con­trouersies. This we saye, that the frowardenes of men ad­dicted to mainteine their once receiued opinions, maketh that the scripture is not alone sufficient to decide the sa­me, till the church haue giuen sentence betwene those that shall thus contende, which is the true meaning of the scrip­ture How the scripture decideth controuet sies. aboute the which the variaunce is. The whiche sen­tence being giuen, then dothe the Scripture alone decide the matter, as that which cōteined allwayes the same truth, whiche is nowe manifest, being before secrete and hidden.

Whereas you saye that you can make suche good ex­ceptions againste vs that we be not the churche, if you had proposed youre exceptions, you should haue hearde mine answere. But to proue the contrarye that we be the true church, I refer the Reader to the Fortresse of the faithe off late set furthe. And further those that haue the vnderstan­ding of the Latine tongue, to that shorte but notable epi­stle of saint Augustine to Honoratus a Donatist, where this Epist. 161. verye question (Honoratus claiming the true churche to their syde as you doe nowe, Saint Augustine defending the contrarye) is attempted to be betwene them louinglye de­bated. Vide eundē in psalm. 101. conci­one. [...]. That whiche serued Saint Austen mainteining that the churche of Christe muste be thoroughe oute all the worlde, and that therefore he who was of that faithe that all the worlde helde had the right churche on his side, not [Page] Honoratus whose churche was onelye in Africa: why shoulde it not serue for vs against you, whose congregation within these fewe yeares, was not onely not in anye whole parte of Germanie, but in no one knowen man of Germa­nie, nor of all the worlde beside neither. Tell vs how Chri­ste lost his churche and it came to you? Thus muche for this present maie suffice, for it is not meete that euerye ex­trauagant proposition of youres, cast in to make youre bo­ke swell with impertinent matter, because you lacked bet­ter stuffing, shoulde be here handled at large, of the whiche eache alone woulde rise to a iust treatise.

You reioise mightely in the prosperouse successe of your fo. 76. 2. 6. newe ghospell. Who can let beggers to make much of their ragges? Yeat is it not so farre anaunced as was the heresie of Arrius before. Neither haue you so muche cause to trium­phe vpon the matter all thinges well considered. What marchandise you make and how youre gaine riseth in de­ceauing poore simple craftesmen I knowe not: youre market is thought therein to stande at a staye. But this I knowe, in other countries, and here crediblie that in ou­re owne, the wyser and better learned fall dailye from yow.

You woulde here make men beleue that I was wont in tymes paste to make pastime vppon the stage by playeng b. 11. the vice. If you speake this of youre owne deuising it com­meth of malice: if you speake it vpon the reporte of others, of want of discretion, so lightly to beleue euery false ru­mour. Howe euer it be a lye it is, maliciously feined to dis­credite my persone and writinges. Although if it had bene Alye. 67. as you saye, bothe manie honest and learned men haue oc­cupied that place in exercise of learning in the vniuersities, and yow off all other might worst finde faulte therewith. [Page 157] Whose profession the time hath bene was emongest other thinges to plaie the maister foole, and to frame your scho­lers to these manners. Of whome some one came sence to suche excellencie herein, that whether he atteined to his maisters grace I am not able to pronounce, but of this I am suer, that of all that were in Oxforde in his time he bare the bell. Yow knowe I dare saie Alexander Nowell, that taught Gnato his nurtor to drawe his cap ouerthwart his felowe Parmeno his nose, when he saluted him with plurima salu­te suum impertit Parmenonem Gnato. And thus much might be saide to yowe had I euer practised that whiche yowe so often haue taught other to doe, as by the lessons whiche like a maister in that facultie yow here giue, maie to anye man easely appeare. My parable of the felon is not imperti­nent, being brought in to disproue the heretikes assertion crieng for onelie scripture, and reiecting the visible heade of the churche, whiche is the thing that in this first propo­sition I take on me to proue. Yow will helpe yow saie the surmised felon. Yow doe well. Why shoulde not one frin­de helpe an other. I perceiue the olde prouerbe is true, kin­de will creepe where it can not go. For how doe yow hel­pe him I praie yow? Forsothe yow saie.

If the felon appealing for the triall of his innocencie to God, Nowell. fo. 77. a. 12 can bring for him so manie testimonies of goddes owne mouthe, as we are able for oure innocencie to bring testimonies of wordes proceding from the mouthe of God, and of oure sauiour Iesus Christe, and yeat it will not serue the seelie felowe, nor helpe him anie thing in his plea of not guiltie: then I thinke there can not be a fitter lawe to procede against him then the popes canons (which yow knowe well M. Dorman for yowe haue therein spent more time thē in the studie of the scripture) neither can he haue a meeter iudge to cōdemne him then the pope him selfe: and a handesomer man emongest all men to be, I will not saie his hangman but the forman of a popishe quest to passe against the seely soule, shall not anie man I beleue easelie finde, nor a fitter then is M. Dorman. [Page] And thus I let his parable passe.

By what name yow call me M. Nowell, hangman or Dorman. forman it forceth not, youre tongue is no sclaundre. It maie beseme me well inough to be miuried by that ton­gue by the whiche Christe suffreth him selfe and his bles­sed sainctes to be blasphemed. But I praie yowe how helpe yow this pore felon for all the malice that yowe beare to me? If he coulde yow saie, bringe as good testimonie of his in­nocencie owte off goddes worde, as yowe can for youres. &c. If he brought no better, then were he like to stretche a hal­ter. For let vs suppose youre selfe (as meete a man as anie that I knowe) to occupie this felons roume at the barre, and see for youre onelie iustifieng faithe what one worde off scripture yow haue? That the sacrament of the altar is on­ly a figure, what testimonie of goddes mouthe coulde yow bring? That the laie princes are appointed by Christe to be the supreme gouernours in all ecclesiasticall thinges and causes, (no prince being Christened at the writing of the scriptures) that all controuersies ought to be tried by one­lie scriptures, where is the scripture? If the felon coulde bring as good testimonies as yow, were he not now thinke yow like to be muche holpen by yowe? But I merueile where youre wittes were M Nowell, that yow be so far o­uersene, as where as I putt the case in a felon guiltie and that had well deserued to dye: yow woulde euer make such a supposition, as though suche a malefactour might finde anie testimonies in the scripture to proue him innocent. But I knowe youre meaning well enough. Yow thought couertly to signifie, that there was no felon that had so grieuously offendid, but that he might aswell proue his in­nocencie by the scriptures, as yowe youre doctrine thereby. Except yow so ment, to wrest my example to youre mea­ning, [Page 158] or to suppose a thing that can not be (as that an of­fendour worthy to dye by the lawes shoulde finde scriptu­re for his defence) either it lacketh (to saie no worse) poli­cie or honestie. And thus I let this parable passe.

That whiche foloweth of Sardanapalus, Nero, Helioga­balus, fo. 77. b. 4 Ventriloqui, and suche like, is but a twang of youre harpe, whiche hathe nowe so often sounded vpon one string, that yowe make vs beleue that yowe haue no more varitie in harping, then hathe the cuckow shift of descant in singing.

It is a world to see how here yow lash owt the gospell in B. 26. the margent of youre boke, against pardons, masses, sou­le masses, trentalles, diriges: how yow defende the cause of Math. 21. 23. Marc. 12. the pore widowe that had her onelie cowe yowe wote not where taken awaie. As though S. Mathewe and S. Marcke had expressely made mention of these thinges, the wido­wes cowe and all: whereas there is no suche thing in them to be founde, sauing that there is mention of suche as rob­be widdowes housen, and in an other place of the castinge of the byers and sellers owte of the temple, which if yowe thinke yow maie applie to such pore priestes emongest vs, as were rewarded with a grote after they had saide masse for a soule departed this worlde: what Marchandise is it I praie yowe that youre ministres make, in taking a marcke, ten shillinges, a noble at the leaste for euerie funerall ser­mon?

I will not matche with you in Plautus termes, in who­me fo. 78. a. [...] it appeareth you haue bestowed more time then in S. Austen, or an other good doctour of the church, and per­happes I might adde, haue better borne awaie suche Plau­tine periphrases, then oute of the scripture good Christian lessons. Yeat this I must nedes marueile at M. Nowell, how [Page] you be so sodenly fallen out with pore priestes, lasshing at them so cruelly with youre Plautine periphrases. To the whole ordre of whome in king Edwardes daies you pre­tended, either for feare or flattry, to beare so muche good will, that whereas the auctor of the comoedy called An­drisca, had feined a prieste to haue misused him selfe withe a curriers wife: you exhibiting the same comoedy before the reuerend father in God, the B. that then was of west­minstre, turned the prieste (whome nowe it pleaseth yow to call by a plautine periphrasis trifur trifurcifer) in to a souldior, whome yow named Trisimachus. At this sodeine change I saye of minde I can not choose but maruell, and of the same can finde no cause, excepte it be that from a so­bre and modest scholemaister, you be transformed into a lewde and Ruffianly souldiour, as by the warlike phrases in youre booke, and gonneshot of terrible threateninges and boasting bragges so common to yow in youre sermo­nes, yow giue men iust cause to thinke.

Of this argument of the Protestants: Christe is heade of the churche Ergo the Pope is not. Ergo there is no other. The 22. Chapitre.

FIRST where as you saie that I made a wōdring before, fo. 73. b. 22. that Christe shoulde be heade of the churche, I neuer won­dered thereat, but saide we founde no faulte therewith, but confessed the same oure selues. You beely me therefore. As A lye. 68. for your argument surely it shall neuer be worth a pypt nutte. Yes saye you, the argument is good.

Because the Apologie taketh the worde churche for the Vni­uersall Nowell. churche, which hath not nor can possibly haue, anie earthe­lie [Page 159] heade ouer it to gouerne it, as hath bene often at large hereto­fore declared.

Wheresoeuer you haue declared anie thing before tou­ching Dorman. See the 11. Chapitre before, and the. 12. this impossibilitie of one heade ouer Christes chur­che, there haue I answered yow, thither I refer the reader. Yow might declare the good affection, that yow haue to proue it, and therfore yow saide circunspectly that you had declared, for surely yow neuer proued it hetherto.

I saide that youre argument did not holde, whereby yow reasoned that there could be no other heade of Chri­stes vniuersall churche because Christe was him selfe: no more then if one woulde saie, that the prieste did not bap­tise, forgiue sinnes, &c. because Christ do the these thinges by the meanes of his ministres. To this yow saie, that these examples make rather againste me then with me. But why M. Nowell I praie yow? Youre reason foloweth.

For one chiefe heade hath diuerse vndreministres in diuerse Nowell. fo. 79. a. 1. seruices, and places vsually: but what perteineth that to proue that there must be one heade ouer all places, and seruices ecclesiasticall thorough out the whole worlde which is vnpossible to be?

These examples were neuer brought M. Nowel to pro­ue Dorman. that there must be one heade ouer the whole churche, but to remoue the foolishe argument made against that o­ne heade: now they make not for one heade saye yow, er­go, they make rather against me.

Neither can youre scholasticall distinction of caput absolutum and Nowell. ministeriale helpe the matter, nor yeat Hosius declaration ten­ding to the same ende, how bishoppes be bothe seruantes and lor­des, can in this case any thing furder you. For there can not possi­bly be one only heade ouer all the church, more then there can be one vniuersall ciuile heade absolute in earth, ouer all the worlde it selfe.

What a blinde harpar is this, that harpeth allwayes vpon [Page] one string, and giueth allwaies one solutiō to all argumen­tes, and yeat neuer giueth other reason (to fortifie that common solutiō grounded vpon Gods, not omnipotency but impotency, and lacke of power) then that sory and see­ly reason (which nedeth as muche to be vnderpropped as the other, and betwene which two comparisons the diffe­rence hath bene manifestly showed before allreadie) of gouerning the whole worlde by one vniuersall ciuile hea­de. He neuer proueth, but euer repeateth: It is impossible, it is impossible there shoulde be one heade, thinking that at the leaste by often repeting, and stoute bearing out the mat­ter he shall make it at the length to seme right well proued to the reader.

I knowe M. Dorman dothe so qualifie this the popes supre­macye Nowell. 22. a. terming him caput ministeriale the ministeriall heade, for that Christe is the absolute heade of all. But yeat in respecte off the whole churche, as being vnder the Pope, he will haue hym called caput the heade. But I woulde haue hym to make that relation of caput, and these wordes seruus seruorum to agree, and to be bothe caput and seruus or minister, respectu eiusdem: the head and the seruaunt in one respecte, especiallye claiming suche a M. No­wells ter­me. capita­litye as dothe the Pope, which can not agree with the humble ec­clesiasticall ministerie. &c.

Belike you woulde haue apposed Christe, if it had bene Dorman. youre chaunce to be present, when he saide. Qui minor est Lucae. 9. inter vos omnes hic maior est. He that is the leaste emongeste you all is the greatest. Belike you woulde haue asked hym how one could be the greater and the lesse. But do you not youre selfe confesse that euerye bishop is the heade of hys diocesse? And howe then M. Nowell doth that agree (I vse youre owne wordes) with the humble ecclesiastical ministery? Is your heade the bishop a headye seruant and a seruile heade? Kinges and Princes are they not the heades of the people [Page 160] whome they gouerne, and yeat in that verie respecte that they be heades, ministres notwithstanding (as S. Paule wit­nesseth) Rom. 13. and seruantes?

M. Dorman harpeth to muche vpon one string oute of tu­ne Nowell. b. 16. for his purpose, I meane the example off the Iuish high prieste. & cet.

Who twangeth moste vppon one string, that let the le­arned Dorman. reader iudge. Once this is suer, that the string that you shoulde strike here, you touche not so muche as on­ce. For I bringe not in this example of the high prieste off the Iues, at this tyme (as because I once did, you dreame that I doe still) to proue that there ought to be one onelye heade in Christes churche, as there was emongest the Iues, but to detecte the vanitie of this reason of youres. Christe is heade of the churche and able to rule the same him sel­fe alone, ergo, there nedeth no other. To this answered I, so was M. No­well dis­sembleth my reasō, and twā ­geth vpō a false string. he being God heade of the Iuish Synagoge also, and as wel hable to rule the same without anye helpe or meanes as he is nowe to rule his churche: Yeat was his pleasure to ap­pointe a highe prieste &c. And therefore that ought to be no reason to persuade vs that he dothe not or maye not do the lyke nowe. To this because yow were not hable to re­plye, you dissembled my meaning, as a little before in this verye place you doe, when you saye, that my examples make rather against me then with me. The whiche practi­se you vse also hereafter as in place shal be declared. For this matter I haue no more to saye, but to aduise you that you take youre harpe into youre hande, and twang once vpon the right string.

In prosecuting the confutation of that naughtie argu­ment fol. 80. a. 24. 1. Reg. 15. of youre Apologie, I vse the examples of Saule cal­led in the scripture the heade ouer the tribues of Israel, of [Page] the husbande called by Paule the heade of his wife, off the 1. Cor. 11. Archebishoppe heade ouer the other bishoppes of his pro­uince, and conclude thereupon, that as it is no good reason to saye: God was heade of the tribues of Israel, therefore Saule was not. Christe is heade of vs all, men and wemen: therefore the husbande is not heade of the wife: The Arche bishoppe is heade of the other bishoppes of his prouince, Therefore the bishoppes be not hedes: euen so that the ar­gument of youre Apologie: Christe is heade of his churche, therfore there is no other head, is a faulty argument, because if it were good, it shoulde exclude also (whiche it dothe not) the other heades that I named, confessed to be true heades in earthe. For, quae ratio partis ad partem, eadem totius ad to­tum: the same proportion that is of the parte to the parte, the same is the proportion of the whole to the whole: that is, if their maie be a heade of one diocesse in earthe which is parte of the whole, notwithstanding that God is heade of the whole, there is no let by this argument but there maie be an other heade also vnder him ouer the whole. And so I proue the reason of the Apologie naught in the whole, quia non valet in partibus, because it is not good in the partes. To this reason of mine you neuer make answe­re, but dissembling it as you did the other before, you saie, that I bring these examples to proue that there be diuerse seuerall b. 13. heades in earthe vnder Christe, So I did in dede. But why woulde I proue that? To proue that there ought to be one heade ouer the whole. Why saye you so for shame M. No­well? Why dissemble you that whiche anye man that hathe his common sense can not but see to be otherwise? I bringe it to shewe howe absurde it is for you to graunte, that ouer the tribues off Israel there maye be a heade, ouer seuerall churches there maye be heades, withoute derogation to [Page 161] Christes honour who is the chiefe, and yeat you will not graunte so muche to the whole churche for the impedi­ment of that pretended reason, (because Christe is the heade) which letteth not in particuler churches. And therfore nei­ther Hosius nor I care, whether Saul were head of the tribue of Leui or no, this example prouing how euer it were suffi­ciently our intent, whiche is to disproue your folishe reason that because Christ is heade of his church there nedeth no other. When Hosius or I alleage this place to gather thereby that there ought to be one head in earth vnder Christ ouer all churches, then we will folowe your minde in cōcluding. In the meane season we take youre argument, that because Christe is the onelie heade ouer the vniuersall churche, therefore there nedeth no other generall heade vnder him, to be by this example sufficiently confuted, as before I she­wed. Yeat because your desire is that it maie be considered, whether when the scripture saieth that Saul was made heade of the tribues of Israēl, he were appointed heade ouer the tribue of Leui also, that is ouer the cleargie, considre it I praie yow and spare not, and when yow haue all considered and done, yow shall perceiue howe muche this exemption of the cleargie from the auctoritie of king Saul maketh against yow and youre companions, that will make kinges to rule the cleargie in causes ecclesiasticall. I doubte not but some of youre side that haue more staied heades then yowe, and that are lesse passionat, will saie that yowe might haue kepte this consi­deration to youre selfe still.

And where yow mingle kinges and bishoppes together whose Nowell. b. 30. & fo. 81. a. 1. offices are distinct, and vse the examples of the Archebishop off Cauntorbury, and the bishop of London: what titles so euer your bishoppes when they were in those roumes vsed or abused, I am suer they who be nowe in place, take it for their chiefe honour to be and to be called also gods ministers in his churche.

What a worlde is this when protestantes complaine of Dorman. mingling kinges and bishoppes together? As though the worlde knewe not who confoundeth and iumbleth toge­ther these two offices, they or we. But the faulte is founde with me for reasoning from their offices whiche be distin­cte. Why yow knowe M. Nowell if you haue not forgotten youre logicke, that it is not necessarie that thinges compa­red should be one in all pointes. They agree in this that kinges and bishoppes are bothe heades and gouernours, the pointe where in the comparison was made. Nowe whereas to this that I saie, that the B. of Cauntorbury is heade off the bishoprike and diocesse of London (as he is of all the bishoprikes within his prouince) and that yeat a man can not infer vpon this that therefore the bishopp of London is not heade of that his diocesse, as yow doe in saing that be­cause Christe is heade of the whole churche therfore there is no other vnder him, whereas I saie to this yow answere, that youre bishoppes take it for theire chiefe honour to be and to be called gods ministres in his churche, so doe oure bishoppes to M. Nowell, and vsed no other titles, then those whiche your false bishoppes hauing falsely vsurped vse and abuse at this daie, but what is that to the matter that we en­treate of? Well be bolde man and blushe not: coffe owt that tuffe fleaume that lieth in youre throte, and saie that the ar­chebishop is of no more power then the bishop. If yow had saide thus, then had yow answered yeat some thing, where­as nowe yowe haue answered nothinge. Except this maie stande for youre answere, when yow proue it, that neither Archebishop nor bishop maie be called heades of the chur­ches fo. 81. a. 6. that they gouerne, but rather kinges and princes. Whiche opinion because yowe see that it is contrarie to all M. No­well la­boureth to helpe his owne contradi­ction by a folishe shift. that yow saied before touching the places of S. Cyprian [Page 162] and S. Hierome, where yowe confessed so often that eue­rie bishop was heade of his owne diocesse, to salue that sore yow saie.

Yeat I denie not but that bishoppes maie be, and haue bene Nowell. a. 17. though improprely, named heades euen by good writers, as the scholemaister of a prince, in that the prince is his scholer is his hea­de &c.

Surely bishoppes are muche beholden vnto yowe, that Dorman. yow graunte them so muche auctoritie ouer their flocke, as yow had ouer your scholers when yow were scholemai­ster of Westminstre. But I praie you M. Nowell cal to your remēbraunce, that S. Ciprian saieth of the bishop that he is in the diocesse where he ruleth the iudge in Christes stede, that S. Hierom calleth him the high prieste, that he must he saieth haue pearelesse auctoritie aboue all other, that schis­mes rise by not obeing him, and iudge with your selfe what a handsome comparison you haue made. But admit­ting euen youre owne similitude, you shall see how mu­che you haue saide for the auctoritie of bishoppes against that vnlaufull othe which you exact of all men. Euē as the scholemaistre is in his schole the heade of his scholers all­though they be princes: so be bishoppes the heades of suche as be in their seuerall bishoprikes all though they be prin­ces: but the scholemaister in his schoole is the supreme go­uernour in all thinges and causes belonging to the schole: his scholers allthough princes hauing in those thinges no power to commaunde. Ergo the bishoppes are, (euery one in his churche) the supreme gouernours in all thinges ec­clesiasticall, and princes haue no auctoritie to entremedle therein. The which conclusion deduced M. nowell from your comparison, as youre selfe with honestie can not mis­like, so I trust it shall displease no prince, considering that, [Page] as S. Ambrose saieth, there can be nothing more honorable for Epist. 32. ad Valent. the Emperour then to be called the sonne of the churche. For a good Emperour (saieth he,) is within the churche not aboue the churche. But because this sentence is become nowe in En­glande by the meanes of certeine clawbackes to be odiou­fe, I will in defence of M. Nowell, if anie perhappes woul­de quarell with him for giuing to bishoppes so greate au­ctoritie, adde out of Chrisostome, of hūdreds of places that might be brought to that effect, only one, which is this. Quanquā nobis admirandus videtur thronus regius ob gēmas af­fixas, Homil. 5. de Esaiae verbis, vi­di Dominū The po­wer of the prince and of the priest. & aurū quo obcinctus est: tamen rerum terrenarū admini­strationē sortitus est, nec vltra potestatem hanc preterea quicquā habet auctoritatis: verum sacerdoti thronus in coelis collocatus est & de coelestibus negotijs pronunciandi habet auctoritatem. That is to saye. Allthough the kinges throne seme to vs merueilouse for the pretiouse stones and golde wherewith it is garnished, yeat hath he only the administration of earthly thinges, and aboue this power he hathe no aucto­ritie, but the priest hathe his throne in heauen, and auctori­tie to pronounce of heauenly affaires. And thus muche by occasion of the auctoritie that you giue to bishoppes as greate ouer their diocesse, as schoolemaisters haue ouer their schooles. I woulde furder if it were not for troubling you, haue desired you to haue named some good auctor to iustifie this saing of youres, that bishoppes when they be called heades are so called improperly. But I refer that to youre good discretion and to your better laisour.

Whether Christe nede to haue one to go­uerne his churche vnder him and howe. The 23. Chapitre.

IT IS true the Apologie and we all likewise saye, that neither Nowell. a. 30. &. b. 1. hathe Christe nede of anie suche one only heade vicair ouer all his churche, which M. Dorman a little before dothe confesse him sel­fe: neither is it Christes will to haue any suche heade vicair. For though M. Dorman affirme that he so woulde, yeat shall he ne­uer by the holie scripture, wherein Christes will is declared be a­ble to prome it. Thirdly it is impossible for anie earthely man to haue and to execute anie suche office &c.

For the proufe of the first of these thre pointes yow Dorman. bring my selfe for a witnes in my boke fo. 9. b. Where I ha­ue no such thing, but onelie this, that Christe had as little nede to gouerne his churche in the olde lawe by the helpe of one heade, as he hath nowe. I denied not then but he had nede nowe. Therefore you continue youre accusto­med wont of beelieng me. If you aske me how he hath ne­de A lye. 69. which is God, I answere, that as he neded the witnesse of men as appeareth by this: There was a man sent from God Ioan. 1. whose name was Iohn to beare witnes of the light. And againe. Ioan. 15. Yow shall beare witnes of me because yow haue ben withe me from the beginning, for the infirmities sake of men, not for him selfe: so for vs which can not commodiously be go­uerned, Howe God ne­deth a heade to gouerne his chur­che. nor well kept in orde without one heade, (a man as we are oureselues) to whome in all controuersies we might haue recourse, God hath nede of suche a heade. Thus take I neede: now taking it in youre sense, for absolute nede, I sa­ie that he hath no more suche nede to haue anie in his place ouer euerie particuler church, then ouer the whole. For as well is he present where two or thre be gathered to­gether Matth. 18. in his name, and therefore withe euerie particuler churche or diocesse, as withe the whole. To the seconde point that Christ will haue no suche heade vicair, the contrary whereof (you saie) I shall neuer be hable to proue by the holie scripture, I answere, that if you will stande to the in­terpretation [Page] of Christes churche, and the learned writers of the same vpon suche places as I shall bring, I shall be able to proue it. Christe saide to Peter. And I saie to the that thow art Peter, and vpon this rocke will I builde my churche. Here is Matth. 16. scripture. Chrysostome sayethe that by these wordes, Homil. 55. in Matth. Christe made Peter the shepherd of his church, and a little after expounding these wordes: And what so euer thow shalt binde vpon earthe, that he made him the shepherd and hea­de thereof. And vpon that as a moste sure grounde and confessed truth, he disputeth against the Arrians, and pro­ueth, Note. that Christe who gaue suche preeminence to Peter, was not inferiour to his father. He compareth also Hie­remias, and S. Peter together. To Hieremias (saieth he) God Hierem. 1. the Father saide, lyke an iron piller, and like a brasen wall ha­ue I put the. But Hieremias the father placed but ouer one na­tion: Peter Christe placed ouer all the whole worlde. Christe Ioan. vlt. saide to the same Peter. Feede my lambes, feede my lambes. Feede my sheepe. His sheepe were the Apostles. His whole floc­ke consisted of Lambes and sheepe. He committed there­fore to his charge, young and olde, strong and weake. He excepted none not the Apostles them selues. We haue here that Christe gaue the charge euen of his Apostles to Peter: We finde elles where that he bad him cōfirme his brethern. Lucae. 22. Showe you one place in the scripture where any other had lyke preeminence, or where this was taken awaye, and then you maye saye that Christe will haue no suche heade vi­cair. Chrysostome vpon this latter place sayeth: Si amas, me fratrum curam suscipias. If thou loue me Peter take vp­pon the, the charge of thy brethren. And in an other place Lib. 2. de sacerdotio. because you shall not wrangle and saye that this auctoritye died with Peter, he hathe, that he committed the same to his successours also. S. Augustine expounding this place of [Page 164] S. Iohn hathe these wordes, Dicit Dominus Petro in quo vno Sermo. de verb. dom. 49. format ecclesiam, &c. Pasce oues meas. Oure Lorde saieth to Peter in whom alone he fasshioneth and frameth his chur­che, feede my sheepe. What other fasshioning or framing can you here vnderstande of Christes churche, then that there shoulde be one heade for euer after, as he drewe the plat thereof in making Peter heade of all? What other fas­shioning then that, where of S. Cyprian as you hearde be­fore Lib. de vnitat. ecclesiae speketh, when he sayeth that oure Lorde disposed the be­ginning of the vnitye of his church to procede from one. And thus muche for this time maye suffice for this se conde poin­te. Of impos sibilitie. The thirde hathe bene often times answered before.

That the groundes whereon the Swenckfeldians lea­ne fol. 82. a. to bannishe all Scripture, and those that the heretikes vse to spoile vs of one vniuer­sall heade ouer Christes churche, are like, and that M. Nowell in handling this argument hath vsed many sha­meful shiftes. The 24. Chapter.

IN THE handling of this matter of Swenckfeldius, I haue obserued that you haue diuided M. Nowell the who­le processe in to three partes. In the firste you purge youre selfe and youre companions of that whiche you saye I charge you with all, of agreeing with the Swenckfeldians in their opinion: in the seconde you shewe wherein I com­pare you together: in the thirde you compare vs with Suenckfeldius and his. In the prosecuting of these pointes, you shewe right well that Nowell will be Nowell, as well as Geta wilbe Geta, as if the reader vnderstand not I trust he shall ere it be long.

To the firste I answere, that I neuer burdened you with [Page] the selfe same heresie that Suencfeldius helde, but onely tol­de you that by harping to muche on this string: Christ is e­uer present with his churche, therefore there nedeth no man to succede him in the whole, yow might comme as neare hys heresie, as he that you charged therewith was farre from it. The laboure therefore that you toke, the incke and paper that you spent, to purge youre selfe in this pointe was su­perfluouse, and might well haue bene spared. And so would you I thinke also haue done, had you not thought that it shoulde helpe youre cause not a little, to persuade the rea­der off me, that I were an euill tongued man, and that I toke no conscience to scalundre and sowe vntrue repor­tes of suche good men as yowe be. And therefore you con­clude thus:

Wherefore M. Dorman you haue done nothing elles but be­wrayed Nowell. fol. 82. a. 19. youre moste maliciouse blindenesse, in saing that it is no other thing that the Huguenots and heretikes doe: and that we do leane and rest vpon the selfe same reasons and groundes as dyd Swenckfeldius.

Lo good reader, marke here I beseche the, the vnhonest Dorman. dealing of M. Nowell. Whereas I saye, that the heretikes in that argument of theirs: Christ is euer present with his church. &c. doe no other thing then leane and reste vpon the same groundes for the banishing of the heade of Christes chur­che, on whiche the Swencfeldians doe for the abolishing of the scripture, in steppeth M. Nowell that true dealing M. Mo­well alte­reth my wordes to saue him sel­fe from [...]heng. man, and here in his conclusion diuideth my wordes, and for this one thing that theye doe no other then leane vpon the same groundes, maketh me to saye two thinges: Firste that the Huguenots and heretikes doe no other then the Sweckfeldians: and that they do leane and rest vpon the same groundes that Swenckfeldius did. Is it all one M. No­wel to saie yo doe no other then Arrius did, and you leane [Page 165] to the same groundes that Arrius did? Against transsub­stantiation yow vse the same grounde, that the Arrians did against the word Homousion: for thei beleued it not because they saide it was not expressed in scripture, and yow beleue not the doctrine of transsubstantiation for the same cause: yeat is it not true that you doe no other thē they in al thin­ges, because yow doe the same that they doe in one thing.

Youre railing talcke, and slaunderouse reportes in cal­ling my doinges doltishe, my heade foolishe, &c. because fo. 83. b. 14 they be the floures of youre rhetorike strowed here to be­autifie this first pointe, and also because how true they are I had rather make the worlde iudge then my selfe, I esteme not, and therefore I passe ouer in silence. Whereas yow li­ken me to Iudas, for that yow saie I haue forsaken my mai­ster Christe in hope of worldly gaine, all though partly the condition and state of my life that I nowe leade will an­swere for me in that respecte: yeat thus muche I maie saie beside, that when I left youre pestilent and perniciouse o­piniōs being of age betwene fiftene and sixtene, it is not li­kely that I cast anie great eye after worldly gaine. If I had, I would belike hauing left my house and the hope of so good a felowship in so famouse a colleage as the new colleage in Oxford is knowen to be, for my cōscience sake in king Ed­wardes daies, haue ben afterward when the time serued bet­ter, a greater prowler, for liuinges thē I was, the greatest and only liuing that I had or desired to haue, being a felowship­pe in Allsollen colleage. Or if fortune had not fauoured me then, if worldlie gaine had bene so muche in mine eye, I woulde in this time haue putt my selfe forwarde, when I sawe some of mine owne fellowes as meane as I, called to be Chauncelours to bishoppes, other some to be Archedea­cons, manie to greate and riche benefices, and not contra­riewise [Page] haue abandoned all and sought strange countries, thinking there to finde worldlye gaine. As for D. Harding allthough he be able to saie muche more for him selfe, yet this maie I saie because it is manifest, that in refusing to ioyne with yowe in youre heresies, he lost as good promo­tions as yow haue anie, and was a man coulde he haue framed his conscience to your procedinges, like to haue had as good parte of worldly gaine as yow or a better man then yowe either. But of this lewde lye I can saie no more but A lye. 70. transeat cum coeteris. Nowe to the seconde point, in whiche yow procede thus:

Swenckfield (saieth M. Dorman) doth saie, we must haue no Nowell. fo. 84. a. 6 scripture &c. The Huguenotes and heretikes saie we muste haue no pope of Rome to be heade of Christes vniuersall churche. Lo Sir yow see a greate likenes betwene them &c.

No greate likenesse indede M. Nowell as yowe haue Dorman. handled the matter. But if yowe had trulie and whollie rehersed my wordes, and added the cause whiche the Swenckfeldian bringeth for his opinion (because God can M. No­well cut­teth away the chiefe parte off my wor­des. teache vs without) withe the reason that yowe alleage why we ought to haue no heade of the churche (because God is the heade him selfe, and can rule it without any other) then yff yow had cried, Lo Sir you see a greate likenesse betwene them, other men had bene like to haue soothed that in good ear­nest, whiche nowe yowe vtter so pleasantly in sporte. As yowe cutt of here the two reasons, in whiche bothe the Swenckfeldians and yow agree, they to banishe awaie the scripture, and yow to ouerthrowe the heade of the chur­che: so to make the conference the more vnlike, yowe chaunge my wordes by casting in of the name of the pope of Rome, whome I name not here, but intreate onelie in generall wordes of one heade that ought to be in christes [Page 166] churche.

The nexte pointe wherein I compare yowe withe the A. 10. Swenckfeldians is, that as they reiecte the scriptures sainge they are but dead lettres, so doe yowe the pope beinge the heade of the churche, saing that he is but a sinfull man as o­ther are, and therefore as vnmete being but a sinfull man to gouerne the whole churche, as is the scripture whiche they call deade lettres and to be accounted emongest other crea­tures, to signifie to vs the will and pleasure of oure Lorde God. Thus haue I shewed the similitude, why doe yowe skornefully mocke at it, and shewe not rather the dissimi­litude?

Finally I compare yowe withe the Swenckfeldians, be­cause A. 16. as they barre God of suche externall meanes as it ha­the pleased him teache to vs by, that is the scripture: so doe you of suche externall gouernour as it pleaseth him to go­uerne his churche by, that is, one generall heade to gouer­ne the whole. Thus I reasoned, and thus yow doe. Against the whiche yowe haue nothing to saie, but to singe youre olde song, often saide but neuer proued, that it belongeth to B. 8. onelie Christe to gouerue his churche, and that it is impossible for one only man to doe it, and so conclude with a fit of rai­ling against the pope, and there an ende.

Whereas M. Dorman procedeth saing, that we tell Christe that Nowell. fo. 85. a. 7. he is of age, and able to doe it him selfe, and that therfore there is no remedie but he must nedes come downe and giue answere to all oure wise demaundes in his owne person: I trust that all men do knowe that M. Dorman did knowe, that he lied lewdely when he did write this.

I lied not M. Nowell. For allthough yow saye not so Dorman. muche in wordes, youre dedes speake as much all together, seing that yow alowe vs not one suche heade, as maie by his auctoritie ende and determine all controuersies rising [Page] in the church, without the which either the churche must from time to time be miserably shaken with schismes (whi­che I thinke you meane not) either Christe come downe and giue answere in his owne person, whiche is the thing that yow be offendid with me for saing of you, vpon good and iust cause as you see. Hauing nowe as yow thinke well purged youre parte, yow will matche vs withe Swenck­field, and therfore you saye.

And M. Dorman and all the aduersaries to the truth maie be a­shamed, Nowell. a. 30. b. 3. to charge vs as not alowing Christe meanes to worcke his spirituall grace by, but vexing him by calling for his corporal pre­sence: whereas they them selues (as those that thinke he can doe nothing excepte he be corporall present) woulde turmoyle him euery houre, and minute also from place to place, and would im­prison him allso in narowe and streight roumes, passing little ease in the tower of London manifolde.

If you alowe him suche meanes as yow speake of, why Dorman. make you so muche adoe about this, that he can rule his churche alone, that he nedeth no other & cet? It is vntruly and blasphemously saide of you, that we woulde turmoile Christe euery houre and minute (which you meane of his presence in the blessed sacrament) from place to place, that that pretiouse body of his being reserued for the benefite of Christian men is imprisoned. We abhorre suche grosse and locall mutation as muche as yow. We saye withe Chriso­stome: O miraculum: O dei benignitatem, qui cum patre sursum sedet, in illo ipso temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur. Lib. 3. de Sacerdotio O miracle, o the benignitie of God, which when he sitteth aboue with his father is in the Note. same momēt of time hand­led with all mens handes. Thus it appeareth by Chrisosto­me, that Christe is not called out of heauen, but being pre­sent there with his father is also truly in the sacrament. We abhor youre figuratiue presence, your tropicall eating. [Page 167] We alowe not these meanes, because by the scriptures it is manifest that Christe excludeth suche meanes him selfe, and of his infinite goodnes giueth him selfe corporally to vs. Wherefore there is betwene vs and the Swenckfeldians in this pointe no conformitie at all.

The nexte point that you compare vs in to the Swenc­feldians, fo. 86. a. 6 Nowell. is, because they forbid the Scriptures vtterly: we for­bid them to be reade of the laitie, keepe them in an vnknowē ton­gue, and burne them written in knowen language.

There was neuer yeat any such prohibitiō that the learne­der Dorman. sorte of the laitie did not, or might not reade the scrip­tures. If to the vnlearneder sorte it were not permitted, you shall finde that it proceded rather of reuerence towardes the scriptures, and feare of that whiche nowe we see come to passe, lest while euerie man should folowe his owne sen­se, the worlde might be filled full of errours, and the holie scripture (as it happeneth to thinges that be common) con­temned and set at naught, then of anie suche minde as with the which those heretikes reiected the scripture. We burne Tindalles testament: we burne Mathewes, Couerdale his and Geneua Bibles, not because they are scripture, but be­cause they are by false translations poisoned scripture. If the mother take the poisoned breade oure of the childes han­de, you cā not infer hereupon that she will giue it no brea­de at all. We agree not therfore in this point with Swenck­fielde. Yow procede in youre comparisons and saie.

Thow must not be perfecte in the scriptures, say these false pa­pistes Nowell. to all laye men; it is ignorance that is the mother of deuo­tion: it sufficeth a laie man to haue fidem implicitam an implicate fai­the &c.

We saie not that men must not be perfecte in the scriptu­res. Dorman. The learned laye mē that be and in al ages haue bene of [Page] one faith with vs, so excellētly learned, and much more per­fectly traded in them then perhappes you would, doe suf­ficiently A lye. 71. couince this to be a manifest and a grosse palpa­ble lye. He that saide that ignorance is the mother of de­uotiō (if he so saide) ment not to exclude the knowledge of any necessarie point of oure faithe, but onely the desire of such curiouse vnderstanding, the which as being vnknowē it could not make men the lesse Christiās: so were it likely to bring to passe, that the thinges which vnknowen before they reuerenced and honoured religiously, they shoulde nowe first being knowen begin to dispute vpon, from disputing come to doubting, and frome doubting if not to denieng, yeat to lesse esteming of them. With whome if you be offendid: aske S. Augustine why he taught him to Contra e­pist. Fun­dam. Ma­nich. cap. 4 saye so before? whose wordes are these, after that he had spoken of the more learned sorte: caeteram quippe turbam non intelligendi viuacitas sed credendi simplicitas tutissimam facit: For the reste of the multitude, it is not the liuelinesse off vnderstanding, but the simplicitie of beleuing that maketh them moste sure. Lo M. Nowell you maie heare by S. Au­gustine, that it is no suche absurditie nor commeth not so nere to Swenckfeldius heresie as you woulde haue it, to measure the peoples knowledge. Oure forefathers that contented them selues with the knowledge off the articles off their faithe, the ten commaundementes of almighty god, (although it please you sclaunderously to saie of them that they coulde no more explicate what they beleued then can a Popeniaye) passed yet so farre youre chattring pies, and iangling Iayes in all ciuile honestie and godlye deuotion, as the speache of a man passeth that of a Popiniaye. I call all indifferent men to witnesse. Nowell. 28. a.

And the papistes speake of the holye Scriptures not onelye [Page 168] as vnreuerently and abhominably as euer dyd Swenckfielde, but Borowed oute off the Apo­logie. doe farre passe him in all outrage, calling the Scriptures most con­tumeliously and blasphemously a nose off wax, and affirminge it to be but an vncerteine thing and like a rule of leade, appliable to euerye wicked sentence and to all purposes, except it haue the popes direct on as a moste certeine and infallible rule. Dorman.

It is easy M. Nowell to be perceiued, howe you quarrell aboute nothing, and for lacke off better stuffe thinke to stuffe youre boke with suche trifflng toyes as these are. In the wordes that you alleage oute of Pighius what harme is there I praye you? What blasphemie haue you founde? fol. 87. a. 6 Pighius belied. Is Swenckfielde (you saye) calling the scriptures deade lettres, more wicked thē is Pighius blasphemouse, in terming it a nose of wax? Why content youre selfe M. Nowell, he calleth it not a no­se of wax. You beely him deadly. His wordes are, velut nasus A lye. 72. cereus, like a nose of wax. Is it all one to be, and to be lyke? So doe you also falsifie those other wordes of his, tanquam plumbea quaedam regula as a certeine leaden rule, and make the comparison betwene the heretike calling the scriptures deade lettres, and Pighius terming them a rule of lead, a nose of wax, and aske what difference there is betwene them: whereas if the wordes had bene trulye compared, it had bene eth for anye man to haue saide that the difference is greate, seing that Pighius spake but by the waye of simi­litude to signifie how ploiable the scriptures were to al pur­poses, not to condemne them as Swenckfielde did, but to warne men in the interpreting of scriptures to folowe that piller of truthe, the common sense and sentence of the catholike churche, for those are his wordes. By this meanes who can let you to quarell with the scripture it selfe, and saye that it speaketh vnreuerently of Christe whome it cal­leth a stombling stone: yea you maye finde faulte with 1. Petri. z. Matt. 4. 1. Thess. 5. Apoc. 3. e [...] 16. Christe him selfe, that likeneth his owne comming to iud­gement to the comming of a theefe. If you thinke you ha­ue [Page] anye vauntage at Pighius or anye catholike man elles, for sayng of scriptures that withoute the direction off the churche they be vncerteine and appliable to euerye wicked sentence, as for this you note vs also fol. 86. b. I reporte me to youre selfe whether this be true, seing that for this sen­tence of his of all other moste wicked, Swenckfielde hym selfe alleaged scripture. Although this sayng also to this ef­fecte be not originally the saing of Pighius, but of Tertul­lian Lib. de praescript. ad­uersus hae­reset. that auncient writer, who writing a treatise euen off purpose to displaie the maners and nature of heretikes, af­ter that he hathe warned vs that their propertie is whē scri­pture is brought to them, either vtterly to denie it, ei­ther elles if they admit it to peruert it with false and vntrue gloses, concludeth in this wise: Ergo non ad Scriptu­ras prouocandum est, nec in his constituendum certamen, quibus aut nulla, aut incerta, aut parum certa victoria est. Therefore (that is to saye) we maye not appeale to the scriptures, nei­ther is the strife to be ordered in them, by whome either there is no victorie to be gotten, either vncerteine, or not verie certeine. Nowe that you haue done with Pighius, you flee vpon Hosius, as fierce as a ramping Lion of Cottes. holde of whome you saie as foloweth. Nowell. fol. 87. a. 17.

Hosius youre greate estate for learning and vertue &c. in comparing the ghospell written in paper and inke, with the chur­che which he calleth the liuely gospell (as though the other shoul­de be called the dende ghospell) goeth as neare to Swenckfielde as foure pence doe to a grote.

I thinke you will not youre selfe denie if you were well Dorman. apposed M. Nowell, but that the lettre of the scripture com­pared with the sense thereof is deade. From whiche phra­se and maner of speache howe farre wyde are those wor­des Ioan. 6. of oure Sauioure: The lettre sleeth, it is the Spirite that quickeneth? Although yowe might if you had not [Page 169] made a vowe to interprete all thinges to the worst, haue giuen a more gentle interpretation to these wordes off Hosius.

It is a true proposition that Hosius vsed, that scripture is A. 27. the worde, not of God, but of the diuell as heretikes doe al­leage it. Why seing that Hosius toke it out of S. Hierome as yow confesse, doe yow not refell and confute it, but vsing youre auctoritie barely denie it? Why reherse yowe not his M. No­well al­leageth Hosius wordes falsely. wordes wholly, but cutt awaie these in the middest of the sentence: cui absit vt quicquam anteponendum esse putemus, before the whiche scripture God forbid we shoulde thinke anie thing to be to be preferred? For so hath Hosius: Scri­ptura quomodo profertur a catholicis est verbum dei, cui absit vt quicquam anteponendum esse putemus: quomodo profertur ab In fine lib. 4. contra Brentium. haereticis est verbum diaboli. The scripture as it is brought furth by the catholikes is the worde of God, before the whiche God forbid we shoulde thinke anie thing to be to be preferred: as it is alleaged of the heretikes, it is the worde of the diuell. Yowe sawe well inough if yowe shoulde not haue cutt awaie these wordes, all the grace of the compari­son in this pointe had bene marred by Hosius humble and reuerent speaking of the scriptures: but so were yow blin­ded with malice that all other yowe thought woulde haue bene as blinde as yowe, and no man haue noted so foule a faulte.

Yow staie not here, but to bring Hosius vttrely out of cō ­ceit and to deface him with all men, you charge him withe comparing the scriptures (Dauids psalmes) withe rymes onlye Nowell. fo. 88. b. 11 written by princes in oure daies, with a blasphemouse derision in matching them with fabulouse poēsies.

Hosius compareth not the scriptures withe rymes, but Dorman. Hosius once agai­ne misu­sed by M. Nowell. sed by M. Nowell. with metres quibus dei laudes celebret, to praise God by. With [Page] suche meetres what contempte or contumelie is it I praie yow to compare the scriptures? Are not Dauides Psalmes suche meetres? yow haue therefore once againe delt vnho­nestly with Hosius, to snatche a parte of his wordes, and to make youre vauntage therof, leauing those that most ma­nifestly declare his meaning. He matcheth not at all the scriptures with fabulouse poesies, that is an other lie of you A lye. 73. res. He saieth that as learned and vnlearned write poêsies euerie where: so maie euerie kinge or prince or anie other, write to the honour and praise of God without restreint. The comparison is not betwene the scriptures and poêsies, but betwene the libertie that men haue to write of the one argument or the other. And thus is this greate blasphe­mouse blast God be thancked well ouerblowen.

The Iues are not suffered by the pope to vtter most hor­rible A lye. 74. b. 27. blasphemies against Christe. It is a horrible lye.

We haue not giuen ouer preaching of goddes worde. fo. 89. a. 16 Lett those countries where Catholike religion florisheth, conuince yow to be a liar. Where there are in most meane A lye. 75. townes mo sermones in euerie of them in one daie, then a­re commonly in London in three. They be ordinarie also thorough oute the whole yeare, not bought with monie as youres be. We barre not the people from reading and hea­ring A lye. 76. it. To that I answered before. We saie not that the holie ghoste vseth to come from aboue into oure churche without all helpe of meanes, as hearing, preaching, or rea­ding. A lye. 77. That is the fistht lie, made within the compasse off these fewe wordes.

Thus yow see good readers I trust euidently, that he comparison made by me betwene the protestantes and the Swenckefeldians, is in that pointe of building vpon like groundes, the one parte to abolishe scripture, the other to [Page 170] ouerthrowe the generall heade of Christes churche in ear­the, like, and therefore trulie made. The whiche is confir­med the more, for that, that as I haue shewed before, the ad­uersarie not susteining to trie the comparison by such wor­des as I made it, leaueth oute their reasons wherein they meete, and then crieth, Lo Sir yow see a greate likenesse betwe­ne them fol. 84 a. 9. Yow see beside how to compare vs with Swenckfield he hathe wrested, mangled, and falsified the wordes of Pighius and Hosius, and laste of all charged the whole numbre of catholikes, with most euident and appa­rent vntruthes.

That Cardinall Hosius was impudently beelied and sclaundred by the Apologie of the churche of Englande, that M. No­well continuing the same addeth more matter therto. The 25. Chapter.

ITRVST that who so euer shall reade that conformitie be­twene Nowell. fol. 90 a. 1. the papistes and Swenckfeldius, and bothe theire heresies before declared, and specially by the wordes of Pighius and Ho­sius him selfe, shall vnderstande that Hosius was not without cause charged with some affinitie to Swenckfeldius his heresie, &c.

Is the matter nowe come to affirnitie M. Nowell? Well Dorman. let it be so, I nothing doubte the learned readers iudgement euen therein also. Although this can not be denied but that your Apologie which yow take vpon you here to defende, in the first editiō therof, charged Hosius with these wordes: Nos inquit, ipsas scripturas quarum tot iam non diuersas modo, sed etiam con­trarias interpretationes adferri videmus, facessere iubebimus, &c. VVe saieth Hosius, wil bid the scriptures them selues whereof we see so many not diuerse onely but plaine contrary expositions brought, fare­well: and will rather here God speaking then turne oure selues to these beggarly elementes, and put oure saluation in thē. VVe must [Page] not be cunning in the lawe and the scriptures, but be taught of God. The labour is vaine whiche is bestowed vpon the scriptures, For the scripture is a creature and a certeine weake element. Thus saieth Hosius. Your Apologie goeth farder, and vpon these wordes triumpheth ouer Hosius comparing him to Montanus and Marcion the heretikes. Is this but to burden him withe affinitie M. Nowell? Fy for shame how long wil yow halte downe right? Maye yow not nowe be ashamed if shame there remaine anie in yow, to saye that the author of the Apologie saing this of Hosius beareth witnesse to the truthe? I haue hearde of certeine lewde men in oure countrie, who agreing emongest them selues to name ea­che thing by a contrarie name, haue framed a newe En­glishe speache, wherein they haue bene able so to vtter their mindes, as beside their owne companions no other shoul­de vnderstande them. Except you be of this brotherhode I vnderstande not youre Englishe, to make anie other sense of it then a plaine lye.

Whereas I call Hosius one of the greatest states of Chri­stendome for learning and vertue, yow without all occa­sion make an impertinent discourse of Cardinalles, of their hattes, of their moiles, and that forsothe because you thin­ke it yow saye, neither vnpleasant nor vnproffitable. Iff fol. 92. 25. a. yow like a merie man studie to write pleasant thinges, and if occasion be not offred will take it youre selfe, rather then that suche pleasant matter shoulde perishe and be lost: I nei­ther couet to comende and make salable to the worlde my doinges by suche toyes, and of all other thinke it moste vnmete for men of oure profession, especially one of your yeares and calling, to trouble the reader with suche triffles. If this wandring discourse of youres had had anie proffit ioyned with the pleasantnes: yeat is not euerie proffitable [Page 171] thing to be handled in euery place. Vnlesse yow thinke M. Nowell (to vse youre owne wordes) that yow maie min­gle in lente vnguentum, thinges moste impertinent together. And therefore I passe ouer this as wide from the matter, the whole effect thereof being nothing elles, but that the pope called the persons and vicaries of the parishes in Ro­me to be Cardinalles: a greate matter forsothe and worthy to be discoursed of at large, and therfore M. Nowell, or el­les because he knewe not how to make his boke growe to the biggnesse that it is of, hathe about that onely matter bestowed all most three whole leaues.

For his learning yow make Hosius no bodie, as he that fo. 92. b. 5. hauing first borowed the matter of his bokes oute of other, was not hable neither without helpe to put it in good or­dre together. Whiche you iudge probably you thinke, by the stile and poeticall phrases vnmeete for Hosius age and vocation.

Here first the Apologie and yow agree not M. Nowell. The Apo­logie and M. No­well a­gree not about Hosius learning. For the Apologie sayeth of him, certè homo disertus, & non indoctus, & acerrimus ac fortissimus propugnator eius causae: truly an eloquent man, not vnlearned, and an earnest and moste strong defendour of that cause. If he borowed and stolle all the learning and reasons that are in his bookes, how appeareth it that he is not vnlearned? If he hired clerc­kes and stilewrightes as this cunning lyewrighte saieth he did to pen it, where is his eloquence? The Apologie iudged (the stile, poeticall phrases or verses notwithstanding) that his bokes shoulde be of his owne penning, otherwise there was no cause to call him eloquent. And surelie who so euer he be that penned the Apologie, if the matter came to be tried by the countrie, who were best able of yow two to iudge in these matters, yow were like to haue the worse.

His vertue you woulde drowne with polonishe pottes, fo. 93. 14. 2 and bring for youre witnes as honest a man as youre selfe Iacobus Andreae, his knowen aduersarie. Whereas the con­trarie is so well knowen in Polonia, that the greatest faulte that some finde with him is, that he will neither for anie mannes pleasure quaffe to other, neither answere anie other quaffing to him. Whiche league of Christian sobrie­tie, Martinus Cromerus and he making together being then bothe canons of the same churche, they haue so tru­lie kepte euer sence, that they haue at the length obteined full quietnes from being troubled anie more in any com­panie, withe suche sinfull ciuilitie. And a sobrer man is there not in his diete emongest you all (loke who is the sobrest) then Cardinall Hosius is, as a good and a learned man a countrie man of our owne, liuing nearer to him thē Iacobus Andreae, euen with him and at his owne table, and obseruing diligently his trade of life twelue monethes to­gether, hathe being earnestly required vppon his certeine knowledge, reported to me. But let this passe as one of the ordinarie sclaunders of heretikes. It is not the first time that Iacobus Andreae hathe deceiued you M. Nowell. It was he that made the compilers of youre Apologie to tell that fowle lye of Hosius, that afterwarde in the seconde edition they corrected. You see therefore what cause there is to tru­ste him in his reportes of Hosius.

And by the waye note that to speake trulye of a forrein [...] false Polonishe papist, is with M. Dorman accounted sedition, Nowell. b. 3. & cet.

And I desire the reader once againe to note, that M. No­well Dorman. will neuer make an ende of belieng me. I call you not seditiouse for anye thing that you speake be it true or false A lye. 78. [Page 172] against Hosius. The wordes that I call seditiouse be cloked with the name of Christe, of whome you make no men­tion speaking of Hosius. The wordes that I call seditiouse and warne men to beware of, are these: Christe is heade of the churche: therefore there nedeth no other. As appeareth by the sentence that foloweth nexte: VVhat other thing did their forefathers Chore, Dathan, and Abiron, &c. What meane you to saye here that yowe haue spoken trulye of Hosius in your Apologie? If you spake trulie, why did the same Apo­logie reuoke it in the second edition?

That the reason taken from the example of Chore, fol. 94. a. Dathan, and Abiron, against the gouernement of Moises and Aaron, is one with that whiche the protestants make again­ste the gouernement off one heade. The 26. Chapitre.

TO THIS reason you begin firste to answere in the fol. 95. b. 5 seconde side of the 95. leafe the 4. lyne. All that goeth befo­re is impertinent to the reason, and decked with the accu­stomed flowers of youre railing Rhetorike. The obiection of Moyses and Aaron, wherby you would proue that there were two high priestes at once, &c. is answered by me, if it had pleased you to haue taken the paynes to haue loked so farre in the 34. and 35. leafe of my firste booke. Nowe to the place of Chore, Dathan, and Abiron of the whiche you saye Nowell. B. 5. thus.

Concerning the reason made by Chore, Dathan, and Abi­ron, that the people ought not to obeye their gouernours because they be all holye, These wordes and the lorde is emō ­gest them left oute by M. Nowell. Dorman. and that therefore the magistrates ought not to lifte them selues aboue the Lordes people, it is not oure reason & cet.

No in dede M. Nowell as you haue alleaged it, it is not [Page] youre reason. But if you had trulye reported it, it woulde haue gone as nere to your reason as twelue pense to a shil­ling. But you doe here as you did before with the reasons of Swenckfielde, that is, leaue oute the chiefe reason whe­rein the comparison is made, and then crie oute vpon me for making suche wise comparisons. Who seeth not that I compare you hereto these schismatikes refusing to obeye Moises and Aaron, not because they saide they were all holy, but because they added, & in ipsis est Dominus, and the Lorde is present with the multitude, as you refuse that one heade of Christes churche, because Christ is present with his churche. As for the wordes that you note here in the mar­gent of youre boke, multitudo sanctorum, and populus domini papae, as though you coulde thereby make some shewe that this place might be applyed to Chanon Chore, Deane Dathan and his felowes, it deserueth to be rather laughed at then answered, seing that bothe it is a manifeste lye whe­rewith you sclaundre the cleargye, who neuer called them selues the holy people of the greate Lorde of Rome, as you here feine, and also it is well knowen, that what so euer li­bertyes and immunities the cleargye had, the same were gi­uen as the faithe encreased by Emperours and kinges them selues, and therefore they were moste far from the maner of reasoning vsed by these schismatikes.

Nowe whereas M. Dorman alleageth the Apologie as thus rea­soning, Nowell. B. 25. that the churche hathe no neede of anie other ruler, be­cause Christ is with it: truth it is, if M. Dormā doe meane one only heade of the vniuersall church. For Christe nedeth no suche gene­rall gouernour, seing he is bothe present him selfe continually by his spirite as he promised, and also for that he hathe in euery pe­culier countrie and churche his Moises and Aaron, that is to saye his feuerall deputies in his steede euerye where here in earth: for that no one mortall man can possibly suffice to the gouernaunce of the whole worlde or churche. &c.

If he nede gouernours of euery peculier churche, whe­re Dorman. he is no lesse present then with the whole: why nedeth he not aswell one chiefe heade to gouerne the whole? who shall emongest so manie heades diuided into partes, euerye one thinking his opinion to be best, strike the stroke and preserue vnitie? If yowe saie God maie so preserue euerie bishop that he fall not into heresie, you put god to worke daily mo miracles, then he doth to preserue the chiefe bis­shop of all whiche yet you stagger to graunte as a thinge impossible. The wordes folowing in youre Apologie, that no one mortall man can suffice to the gouernement of the whole fo. 96. a. 3. worlde or church, I of my accustomed sinceritie omitted yow saye. And what haue you gotten by it, nowe you haue alleaged it youre selfe? Verilie this, that you will make all men vnderstande, that god is able with you to doe no mo­re, then you list to giue him leaue: but of this I haue entrea­ted before sufficiently. You saye that you are far from rebel­ling Nowell. against youre naturall soueraigne and other gods ministers appointed to gouerne you &c. But how farre M. Nowell, I Dorman. praie you? Who made the boke of succession at home? Who sounded the two traiterouse blastes against the mōstrouse regiment of women their Quene being a woman? From whence were they blowen but from the lake of Gehenna? Who grudgeth against the princes ordinaunce in matters indifferent and of small importance, no greater then of a square cap? Who made warre against their prince in Scot­land? Who set all Fraunce in an vprore against their king? Who but that vnhappy vermine the protestants? That which foloweth fol. 96. b. and 97. a. b. is answered before.

That the waye to ouerthrow Fol. 68. vsque ad fol. 106. heresies is not by the only scripture. The 27. chapiter.

THIS matter hath bene sufficiently handled before in the 21. chapitre. And allthough in me it be a greate faulte and highly laide to my charge, to alleage thrise one place of scripture, yet muste yowe good readers beare withe M. Nowell, if he alleage his absurde and wicked assertions mo­re then six times thrise, and maie not in any wise twite him with the prouerbe Crambe his, that to muche of one thing is naught: yea allthough he neuer proue anie of them once. But maie yowe not be ashamed M. Nowell so vniustly to M. No­well repre hending other men for vnre­uerent speaking of the scripture, speaketh of all o­ther most vnreuerēt­ly him selfe. charge Pighius and Hosius with vnreuerent speaking of the scripture, when youre selfe in this place, applie your pro­phane prouer be to signifie that to muche of scripture maie be nought, that anie place thereof maie so often be alleaged that it shoulde become vnsauory? By what auctoritie clai­me yow (I praie yowe tell vs) suche libertie, that yowe maie speake of the scriptures that whiche is vnlaufull and plaine blasphemie, and other maie not vse so muche as si­militudes or comparisons betwene the scriptures and other prophane thinges? Why is it laufull for yow so oftentimes to repeate these heathenishe wordes, that it is impossible for one man (assisted by gods grace for otherwise we affirme it not) to gouerne the whole churche of Christe, that we be like to the Phariseis and high priestes of the Iues, you to Christe and his apostles, that there ought no more to be one chiefe heade to gouerne the churche then one empe­rour to gouerne the whole worlde, that the pope can not be iudge in his owne cause (as though goddes cause were his owne priuate cause) with suche like absurdities a nombre mo, and maie not be laufull for me to alleage thrise the ho­lie scripture of God, to proue three seuerall pointes. Firste [Page 174] that it coulde not be likely, that God prouiding for his cho­sen The place of Deuter. alleaged by me thrise, to three se­uerall purposes. people the Iues a chiefe and heade gouernour to ende and determine all their controuersies, woulde not for his churche whiche he loueth more tendrely, where he knewe shoulde be greater nede, doe the like: nexte to answere the­reby youre foolishe reason: Christe is heade of his churche, and present allwaies withe it, therefore there nedeth no other. By which reason I saide, that God shoulde haue prouided for the Iues no chiefe heade neither, because he was present also with them, and no lesse their heade then oures. Third­lye, to shewe that the onelye conference of scriptures is not sufficient to ende all controuersies rising vpon the doubtefull meaninge off the lettre, seing that if it so had, allmightie God woulde of all likelihode haue bidden the Iues doe so, and not trouble themselues and the high prie­ste for the matter. Thus yowe see good readers howe I alleage thrise thys one place off scripture, whiche argueth M. Nowell saieth miserable distresse. But I truste suche as be off sounder iudgement haue learned to giue that re­uerence to holie scripture, that what so euer they see con­firmed by one onelye sentence taken out of the same, that they will thinke as sufficiently proued, as iff there had be­ne many brought therfore. If a man should aske of M. No­well what distresse he was in, when to proue that there must be manie kinges to gouerne the worlde, he alleageth so often alone without anie other in his whole boke, that sentence of Ecclesiasticus some times twise in one leafe as Cap. 17. fol. 32. and. 62. which neither proueth his entent, and is ta­ken besides out of that boke whiche he and his companiōs In the ar­ticles a­greed vpō in the Cō uocation anno. 15 [...]2 haue noted to be insufficient to establishe anie doctrine by, I marueile what answere he woulde make. What shoulde I here mention the councell of Africa so many times [Page] brought in? What shoulde I tell you of the same textes and gloses so often rehersed to one purpose? Youre selues good readers in reading this boke of his, shall beare me witnes that I lye not. You haue here repeated againe, that the high prieste must iudge according to the lawe whiche no man denieth, for so saieth the texte that he shall: that S. Paule a 29. b. 28. threatened Gods vengeaunce to the high prieste, that S. Pe­ter and S. Iohn asked boldely him and his, whether it were right in the sight of god, to heare them rather then God, to all the which you haue my answere before in answering the. 59. b. and the. 68. leaues a. You haue beside serued in the seconde time, the places of S. Austen, and Chrisostome, to fo. 99. a. b proue that conference of the textes of scripture one withe the other, is a good waye to atteine to the vnderstanding of doubtefull places. Thus much was saide before in the. 72. leafe b. to the which in the same place I answered as I no­we doe, that it is a verie good waie in dede, but not suche as is able allwaies to assure vs of the right sense. Nowe iud­ge I beseche you good readers, who vseth oftenest to re­peate the same thing, M. Nowell or I.

Where as you saye: M. Nowell. And no doubte but the Iu­ish Nowell. b 26. priest appointed to resolue other men of their doubtes did him selfe vse the saide conference of scripture, &c.

To that I answere, that this maketh nothing for youre Dorman. purpose if he so did. For allthough the high prieste whose lippes were promised to keepe knowledge, were for the of­fice Malach. [...]. sake which he susteined, so directed in the conference of scripture that he neuer failed in his iudgementes: yeat hereof foloweth it not, that euery priuate man by suche conference shoulde be hable to doe the like. The generall councelles at this daie, the popes at all times, haue vsed you maie be sure this waye also of interpreting doubtes arising [Page 175] vpon the scripture. We mislike it not therefore in them to whome it apperteineth to explicate suche doubtes, but in suche onelie as being priuate men vse this for a cloke to co­uer their heresies: in them we mislike it thus far, as either they content not themselues with suche sense as the who­le churche hath allreadie vpon the conference of suche doubtefull places agreed vpon, either elles taking that of­fice from publike auctoritie, will presume them selues to giue suche sentence (proceding this waye) as maye best seme to make for their singuler opinions.

To this reason of mine, that if laing and conferring to­gether of one texte with an other were the surest and rea­diest waye to come to the true vnderstanding of all doub­tes, God woulde of all likelihode haue commaunded it, and not haue sent his people to the high priest, nowe at the length M. Nowell in the ende of two leaues and a halfe, in the which he hathe done no other thing but first vttred himselfe how muche this place of Deutero. grieueth him, then vainely repeated that the prieste is bound to iudge ac­cording to Goddes lawe, that when he did not S. Paule cur­sed him, S. Peter and S. Iohn disobeied him, that conference of the scripture is good and necessary: now I saye after that he hathe filled vp two leaues and a halfe with this matter denied by no man, and with the which he filled as manye before, he maketh a proffer to answere in this wise.

But saieth M. Dorman God cōmaunded not, any suche conferēce Nowell. fo. 100. a. 29. b. 1. of scriptures, but only to resorte to the high prieste: yeat I trust M. Dorman is not ignorant what it meaneth, that God and oure Sa­uiour Christ doe so earnestly exhorte all mē to the diligēt reading and studie of the scriptures, and doe condemne the ignorance or wāt of knowledge therof. And where he saieth, God hath not cō ­maunded suche conference of scriptures (which yeat in effecte he hath commaunded) it is happy that he can not shewe where God hath forbidden it, which if he coulde he woulde not haue failed to [Page] haue done.

You tell men what I saide, whiche they knewe before, Dorman. but your answere to my saing whiche here they loked to haue had, you giue them not. I saye that if conference of one place of the scripture withe an other had bene the su­rest waye to resolue all doubtes, God woulde rather haue commaunded that then going to the prieste: you answe­re, that God and Christe exhorte vs to the diligent studie of scripture, that The cō ­ference here mēt, is suche as must ser­ue for the finall re­solution of all doubtes. suche conference he hathe commaun­ded in effect (without shewing when, where, or by what wordes, notwithstanding that herein consisteth the an­swere to my obiection) that it is happy that I can not she­we where it is forbidden: whereas euen in the very place that I bring here, when I shewe that almighty God com­maunded the ordinarie waye of resoluing doubtes to be the sentence of the highe prieste, I shewe withall, that he forbadde also conference of scripture in such wise as we he­re take conference, that is to be the finall and laste resolu­tion of determining doubtefull controuersies arising vp­pon the lettre. Excepte any man (you thincke) maye be so desperate hardye, as when God hathe appointed one wa­ye, to choose anye other as not forbidden. That whiche foloweth: But seing, &c. is one of youre extraordinarye walckes, and perteineth not to my obiection, but yeat ser­ueth well for youre purpose to giue vs the slippe, and to wynde youre selfe from the matter. To my demaunde what heretike was euer vanquished by the scriptures, you saye:

I answere, the Arrians, Anabaptistes: and all heretikes without Nowell. fol. 101. a. 5 exception were vanquished and ouerthrowen by the scriptures: and that if they were not vanquished by the scriptures, they were not vanquished at all.

By youre answere it shoulde seme M. Nowell, that ei­ther Dorman. you vnderstande not my demaunde, or you will not vnderstande it. For when I speake of vanquishing of here­tikes, I meane of ouerthrowing, and so cōfuting their here­sies, as that they maye with the worlde be brought vttrely oute of conceite, and the memorye of them cleane abolis­shed and extinguished, as we see Arius heresie (once more vniuersall then youres) God be praised to be. I meane not you maye be sure, that the heretikes them selues shoulde confesse them selues to be ouercomen. Againe, when I as­ke how they were vanquished by the scriptures: I vnder­stande, by the scriptures alone, by the scriptures withoute a iudge, who in this doubtefull contention (where the Ar­rian bringeth scripture as well as the catholike, as apparent as the catholike, more plentifully then the catholike: where no other place of scripture can by the catholike be brought to make the matter plaine by waye of conference, but the aduersarie will be readie to alleage as euident for him) ma­ye giue sentence whether parte hathe better right, who al­leageth and conferreth the scriptures moste sincerely. Thus did the councell of Nice ouerthrowe the heresie of Arrius, although not so that he him selfe coulde be brought to ac­knowledge so muche: yeat in suche wise that in processe of time the worlde giuing credite to so learned and generall a councell, fell from his heresie, and nowe there is not one fauourer thereof in the whole worlde that dare shewe his face. Thus shoulde youre heresies and all other be ouer­throwen, if we woulde either in suche thinges as the chur­che hath already determined, folowe that sense of the scrip­tures that it hathe deliuered to vs, either elles in thinges ambiguouse and not defined, aske and folowe the iudge­ment therof. For that you here cauil, that the pope nor popish Nowell. b. [...]. [Page] church can be cōuenient and cōpetent iudges in controuersies no we risen, for that they are bothe parties and parties accused there­in, no more then the Iuishe high prieste with his churche of Scri­bes and Phariseis, were conuenient and competent iudges in the controuersies betwene them and Christes Apostles.

The absurditie of this comparison bothe I haue there whe­re Dorman. Cap. 12. fol. 164. before in like maner you made it, sufficiently declared, and the Arrians also might haue pleaded this plea againste the councell of Nice. In the whiche the fathers assembled were as muche affected against Arrius heresie, as the late councell of Trent, or anye that can be holden is againste youres. Yeat do not the histories mention that euer they were so impudent.

Touching the conference of Scriptures together, I did so late Nowell. b. 15. before at large intreate thereof, that I nede not nowe to repeate the same againe.

As largely M. Nowell as you intreated thereof, you sai­de Dorman. neuer a worde howe this controuersie betwene the Ar­rians and the catholikes bothe alleaging scripture for their M. No­well an­swereth not the force of my rea­son. defence, might be by onely scripture determined. To pre­tende therfore that it is no nede to repeate that which you neuer touched, it is a pretye figure to excuse silence in that wherein you are able to saye nothing. Iff you feared you shoulde haue dwelled to longe in that matter, you might haue eased that by cutting of manye impertinent discour­ses, that bothe go before and folowe after in this booke off youres, namely the nexte sentence that foloweth, whe­rein you labour to proue youre selues to be no Arrians, withe the whiche heresye neither I, nor anye other doe charge yowe. To procede, whereas I aske howe it hap­peneth that the Caluinistes and the Lutherans agree not by conferring one place of scripture with an other, to that you saye. Nowell. fol. 102. a. 23.

This is M. Dormans vsage, when he can saye nothing off the [Page 177] present case to entremingle foraigne matters, thereby to auerte the readers minde from his principall cause remaining vnpro­ued still.

The principall cause is, that there muste be one visible Dorman. heade in Christes church to appease controuersies and de­termine doubtes: the heretike saieth it nedeth not, the scri­pture by diligent conference beinge able to satisfie all men therein. To this I replied, how happeneth it then, that the Caluinistes and Lutheranes agree not &c? Nowe lett all men iudge how truly yowe reprehende me for entremin­gling foraigne matters. But let vs here youre answer to the question.

But how so euer Caluin and Luther agree in the exposition of Nowell. these fewe wordes, Hoc est corpus meum, This is my bodie, they agree bothe in this, that the papistes expounde them falsely.

Who euer hearde a more absurde or folishe answere? Or Dorman. what answere rather is this to my question, to tell vs that the Lutheranes and Caluinistes agree together against vs? So did as the scriptures beare witnesse the phariseis and Sad duces: so did Herode and Pilate agree against the pretiouse Lucae. 23. bodie of Christ at the Crosse, as yow doe against it at the altar. S. Austen saieth of heretikes, Dissentiunt inter se, contra Lib. siue Homil. de ouibus. vnitatem omnes consentiunt, Emongest them selues they are at variaunce, against vnitie they all agree. My selfe also in the nexte sentence folowing confesse as muche, that all­though heretikes in some point dissent, yeat they all ioyne and agree in one cancred hatred against the churche. What letteth by this meanes why yow shoulde not easelie recon­cile together all that huge rable of heretikes mentioned in the table of late set furthe by M. Stapleton, who hauing o­ne common father with yowe (allthough in manie pointes dissenting) agree yeat all with yow against vs? But what [Page] is this I saie to the purpose? Answere if you be hable: if scrip­ture can alone ende all controuersies, howe happeneth it that the Lutheranes and Caluinistes ende not theire strife thereby, whiche continueth notwithstanding their agreing against vs? It foloweth

For to vse the places by M. Dorman noted out of Hosius, he, Nowell. A. 26. nor all papistes with him shall neuer be hable to showe cause, why these wordes, Ego sum vi [...]is vera, I am the true vine, do not proue aswell a transsubstantiation, as Hoc est corpus meum. This is my bodie.

What this (For) shoulde perteine to the answering off Dorman. my question I see not, this I see well, it confirmeth stron­gly my saing, that by scripture alone all controuersies can not be iudged. For as Caluin bringeth for his opinion this place: so I trust yow are not ignorant that Luther had also his places to alleage for him selfe. When this question off the blessed sacrament shall be the principall matter betwe­ne yow and me, yow shall haue a cause why these wordes I am the true vine, proue not so well a transsubstantiation, as the other, This is my body, doe. In the meane season where as yowe aske what a rule yowe shoulde haue had, if Christe B. 1. had saide likewise: This is my true and verie bodie, as he saide I am a true or verie vine: trulie M. Nowell no highlier should the matter haue bene taken then it is. For to vs Christian men it is inough that Christe hathe once saide it is his bo­die. We woulde beleue an honest man vpon his worde if he shoulde tell his name and saie that he were suche a one, and neuer put him to saie that he were trulie suche a one: I see no cause but yowe might if it pleased yowe, haue as good an opinion of Christ. Who notwithstanding to stop the mouthes of suche Capernaites as yow are, hathe added also the worde (truly) saing: For my fleshe is truly (or verilie) meate, and my bloude is verily drinke. The whiche wordes Ioan. 6. [Page 178] Hilarius expounding, saieth, that there is no place left to doub­te Lib. 8. de Trinit. of the truthe of the fleshe and bloude of Christe, seing that bothe by oure Lordes owne wordes and oure faith, it is trulie fleshe and trulie bloude.

I saide, that if because the Apostle or Christe him selfe vseth a figure in one place, we must thinke that in all other he neuer spake otherwise, by that abhominable doctrine there were no let if a man woulde be so wicked, to holde that Christe were not the true and naturall sonne of God, but by adoption onelye, and bring for the maintenaunce of that wicked heresie, that texte, dedit eis potestatem filios dei Ioan. 1. fieri, He gaue them power to be made the sonnes of God. An obie­ction left vnanswe­red by M. Nowell. To this yow answere nothing at all: I trust it be not (yow knowe the rule since yowe were prolocutor in the conuo­cation) because, qui tacet consentire videtur, he that holdeth his peace semeth to consent. Charitie woulde rather inter­prete your silence to procede of lacke of iust matter to an­swere, and so doe I, allthough yowe deale not allwaies so frindely with me.

What so euer I haue saide here of the controuersie of the B. 9. sacrament out of place, leauing my purposed matter vn­proued, is (yow saie) verye fonde. What so euer I haue saide here of the sacrament, hath bene vttred vpon the occasion of Luther and Caluins disagrement: who because they can not be reconciled by the scriptures, that blocke laied by you in the waie, that the scripture onely is the sufficient iudge to ende all controuersies rising vpon the doubtefull mea­ning of the lettre is remoued, and so my purposed matter proued, that there must be an other iudge then the scriptu­re. What haue you nowe wonne, to shewe you that I am not ashamed of mine owne phrase?

As before I proued that the Arrians, Lutherās, and Cal­uinistes, [Page] coulde by no meanes by onelie scripture be ouer­throwen: so nowe I proued the same by the Anabaptistes, alleaging in like maner suche places of scripture as they bring for their defence. And as you answered before no­thing to the obiections of the Arrians, Lutherans, and Caluinistes: so doe you here passe ouer in silence the an­swere to the Anabaptistes, and purge your selfe and youre companions, that yow be no Arrians, no Anabaptistes, withe fo. 103. a. 8 M. No­well lea­ueth vnā ­swered that to whiche he should answere and an­swereth that, that nedeth no an­swere Nowell. the which Heresies you were neuer charged by me. You take holde also of those wordes of mine where I saie, that the catholikes doe represse and ouerthrowe the brutishe o­pinions of the Anabaptistes. To the which (being but wor­des incidently cast in) I marueile how anie man reading youre boke can forbeare laughing, to heare you slipping from the principall point, make this solemne answere to that which neded none at all.

VVe answere: that it is moste certeine and well knowen to the worlde, that oure men haue saide and written more against them then euer did the papists. VVherefore we be therein, as in all other thinges in deede, the Catholikes and not they.

What so euer you haue written M. Nowel against them: Dorman. you are notable by the scripture alone to ouerthrow them, whiche is the thing that being denied you ought to haue proued. But by the waye note I praie the that art the learned reader, a clerckly conclusion of M. Nowelles, whereby he A clerck­ly cōclu­siō made by M. Nowell. proueth his companions to be the Catholikes and not vs, because they haue saide and written more against the Ana­baptistes, then we haue done. Is not this trowe you a nota­ble argument to proue that no man is a catholike but he that hath spoken and written against heretikes, nor he nei­ther, if an other haue saide and written more then he.

You saie that the mention that I made of the Swenck­feldians b. 8. [Page 179] Arrians and Anabaptistes, was alltogether imper­tinent to my purpose. I haue proued the contrarie before: nowe let the learned reader iudge thereof. You charge me with declaiming against the scriptures and worde of God. That is a lye. You call it a seely similitude and cruell likeliho­de A lye. 79. Nowell. b. 12. that I make betwene the Iuishe high prieste and the pope. I maruell not that you so call it, for it cutteth the throate of all youre heresies. You vse often and gladly I perceiue, this worde Iuishe high prieste, as though you woulde therby insinuat to the simple and vnlearned, that my example we­re naught as taken from the Iewes, the very name of who­me, to those that haue more zeale then knowledge yow knowe to be odiouse, and therfore against that meaning I warne the vnlearned, that the Iewes that were then whe­reof this Iuishe prieste was heade, were goddes church and chosen people. You cal the pope and papistes heretikes, and their doctrine heresies. You acknowledge him not to be the supreme heade or gouernour ouer all the churche. As long as you be not able to proue it, it maketh no matter, youre tongue is not autentike.

Nowe where M. Dorman woulde proue the conference of Nowell. fol. 104. a. 1. scriptures a vaine or euill thing, because the Arrians and Anabap­tistes vsed it, and vs to be heretikes as they be, because we vse the same groundes, to witte, conferring of scriptures together: he might as well reiect all alleaging of scripture because the Diuell v­sed it, and conclude that we be of the diuell, because we vse the same groūdes that he doth, that is to say, the alleaging of the scrip­tures. Yea and he maye by the same reason▪ finde faulte withe Christe oure Sauiour and his holy apostles, who doe so muche vse the same alleaging of scriptures.

I go not about to proue the conference of scriptures a Dorman. vaine or euill thing, neither because the Arrians and Ana­baptistes vsed it, neither for any other cause: you haue ther­fore beelied me once more. I acknowledge it to be bothe A lye. 80. [Page] proffitable and necessarie: only I saie, that to ende all con­trouersies it is an insufficient meanes. Because reiecting the determination of the churche, you take vpon you as the Arrians did and the Anabaptistes doe, to mainteine youre heresies by this pretensed conference of scripture, not regarding that suche iudgement belongeth to the chur­che, therefore I call yow and iustly terme you heretikes. And as I doe reiect this conference that you talcke of, be­cause you vse it to that ende that these heretikes did: so doe I refuse all suche scripture toe as is falsely wrested, as was that whiche the diuell alleaged. In whiche sense becau­se Christe and his Apostles neuer alleaged anie, I can not finde faulte with them.

I can not (you saye) deuise a waye that shoulde satis­fye Nowell. a. 20. all heretikes withoute all contradiction or exception on their parte.

I can deuise no waie in dede M. Nowell to satisfie al here­tikes: Dorman. it passeth my power I cōfesse. But God hathe deuised a waye to ouerthrowe all heresies, if suche as you are woul­de The way to ouer­throwe heresies. be no let to his working. And that is the thinge that ought to suffice vs. Will you knowe what waye it is? Forso­the if this principle and grounde the which I labour to proue, that Christes churche here in earthe being but one and visible, hathe also one chiefe visible heade to rule and go­uerne the same, were thoroughly as it ought to be persua­ded to all men, then the heretike which nowe by coloured argumentes triumpheth ouer, not onely the meaner sorte but also oftentimes many of the wiser and better learned, the thinge called into question being either suche (as is the question of baptising of infantes) as whereof we haue no expresse scripture, but onelye a tradition continued in the churche from the Apostles time, and deliuered from hande [Page 180] to hande to vs, either elles so perplexe and doubteful, as the aduersarie will for his heresie bring not onely as many, but mo textes also, that shall seme to make for his purpose then shall the catholike, as did the Arrian: then shoulde I saye the heretike in al mens iudgemēt (although neuer in his owne) easely be discomfited and ouerthrowen. For then let the Anabaptiste crie as muche as he woulde, that the baptisme of infantes hathe no grounde of scripture, the meanest man in a parishe woulde be able to tell him: Sir, the churche whiche I am bidden to giue eare to by the scripture, vseth it, and hathe done from the beginning, this suffiseth me. Againe let the Arrian bringe and heape together all the scripture that he hathe, let him vse all his shiftes, distincti­ons, and gloses: when he hathe all done, the true catholike seketh after the interpretation of the churche, that inter­pretation to witte, that the membres agreing with the he­ade obserue and haue obserued vniuersally thoroughe out the whole worlde. Thus if the more parte of men woulde doe, (as they ought) neither woulde heretikes haue any list to publishe heresies, their starting holes being by this who­lesome remedie taken awaye, neither shoulde they being brought furthe into the light be hable anie while to conti­nue. And this call I the ouerthrowing of heretikes and he­resies. For to persuade an indurat heretike by anye meanes, I confesse it to be a thing impossible: seing that not euerye man that is a true Christian, can by conference of the scripture be by and by persuaded in all doubtes, as you here vn­truly saye he maye. When partes be taken in opinions e­mongest learned men, eache parte forcing the scriptures by conference and otherwise to make for that sense which he hathe conceiued, is no man a true Christian but he that cā be satisfied in this case by the scripture? Hath it not bene [Page] sene that the mainteiners of suche contrary opinions, bein­ge for vertue and learning estemed of the worlde, haue ma­de also right good Christians to doubte? And what case had Christe lefte vs in, if in this perplexitie there were not a churche to directe vs, if that churche had not a heade to speake to vs, which being in S. Augustine and Prospers ty­me Prosper lib. contra Col­lator. cap. 10. Zozimus the Pope as you hearde before, shewe vs no­we if you can, why Pius the pope shoulde not be the lyke? And thus you see M. Nowell (I truste) that you haue to muche abused bothe the Readers and me, in labouring, firste to persuade that I mislike the Scriptures (whiche I doe in no sense) or the conference thereof (whiche I doe not simply, but in this respecte that you contende that that waye alone is sufficient to ende all controuersies): nexte in this, that you altre my reason, whiche is, that because by this pretensed conference of youres heresies can neuer be ouerthrowen, while by the subtilitye of heretikes allea­ging scripture, conferring scripture, and that so probably that euen the best learned maye be shaken in their faithe, and so heresie mainteined, you make the same reason to be, because there can no waye possibly be founde able to satisfie all frowarde heretikes. Vppon this supposall of you­res, that I reiect this conference of scripture as no suffi­cient meane to ende all controuersies because it can not satisfie al men, you aske this question.

And thinketh he, that Popes of Rome, men of suche lyfe, su­che Nowell. b. 6. Holde the man a bowle for he will vomite. partialitie, suche ignorance, such vntruthe, such falsehode, such bribery, Simoniakes, poisonners, murtherers, shal satisfie all men, in all iudgementes of all causes and controuersies, yea in their owne verye causes wherein they be parties, and that without all exception? The diuell they shall and that I may saye truly.

Non loqueris sed latras, you speake not here M. Nowell Dorman. [Page 181] but you barcke, you reason not but you raile. If all these faultes that you here heape together were in one pope at one time, yeat shoulde they not be all any let why the sa­me might not and shoulde not, giue true iudgement and sa­tisfie all good men. To this I haue answered before where Cap. 3. fol. 8. b. & 10 fol. 39. b. yow gaue me like occasion, thither I remit the reader. Yeat this I woulde faine knowe of yowe by the waie, and desire yow when yow wright nexte to resolue me therein, whe­ther if these popes had the contraries to these vices, that is so manie vertues, yowe thinke they might giue true iudge­ment and satisfie all men. If yow saie they could not, what neded then this odiouse rehersall of so manie grieuouse faultes, seing by no meanes they coulde? If yowe saie that being good men they might, then shewe scripture, or bring reason to proue, that this auctoritie is lost by euill manners? In controuersies rising vpon the scripture, the popes cause is not handled but gods, and therefore they be no parties thereto. Whereas yowe promise so largely on the diuelles behalfe, yow maie be bolde for as muche as he is hable to doe, he is at youre commaundement.

To youre conclusion, that the worde of God is the true B. 13. iudge in all controuersies and doubtes of religion, I saie (as I saide before) that when the church hathe giuen sentence of the meaning and right vnderstanding of the scripture, that then in that sense and no otherwise, the scripture is the true iudge in all controuersies: otherwise I saie that the worde of God lieng yeat in the lettre as it were in the huske, is an vncerteine iudge to determine controuersies, what so euer Luther, Caluin or their adherentes, the rest of that blacke garde do saye to the contrarie, or be M. Nowell neuer so angry therewith.

Whereas I declared before what starting holes the Ar­rians Fol. 105. a▪ 23. [Page] rians, Anabaptistes, Lutherans, Caluinistes, and other he­retikes haue founde out for the mainteinaunce of their re­ligion, and that vpon the same groundes and principles, anye desperate heretike that is, maie mainteine anye here­sie: yow take occasion of that worde (desperate heretike) to reherce once againe a place of S. Cyprian, where he cal­leth by the same name (yowe saie) all suche as thinke o­ne bishop inferiour to an other (as I and all other papi­stes Cap. 11. sub finem. doe) but the contrarie to that I haue showed before. And surely to thinke thus if it be to be a desperate heretike M. No­well con­trarie to him selfe, or a des­perate he­retike and papist by his owne confessiō. or a papist either: I praie yowe what be yowe M. Nowell, that in youre boke fol. 32. a, confesse that in euerie prouin­ce, there be certeine chiefe prelates? Doeth not the worde chiefe import that there be other inferiour prelates? Which worde if yow will nowe reuoke againe, if youre bishop will not, I trust youre pretensed Archebishop will call yow to a count for it.

That whiche foloweth fol. 105. b. and. 106. a. because it conteineth but vaine wordes, and hathe bene in diuerse o­ther places handled, I will here passe ouer?

Of the place of S. Hierome taken out of his epistle to Damasus, and that it hathe bene alleaged to the purpose, without wre­sting or falsi­fieng. The 28. chapiter.

PROSEcuting this controuersie, whether the scrip­ture as we haue it written, were hable alone without o­ther meanes to determine all controuersies, the whiche the heretike seeth being proued that it can not, it will nedes folowe that there must be some other iudge to supplie that [Page 182] office: I saide, that S. Hierome notwithstanding his greate and excellent knowledge in the tongues, woulde not take vpon him to leane in the discussing of doubtes to that ru­le of theirs, to laie and confer together one texte with an o­ther, but referred him selfe to the see of Rome &c. whose example I exhorted also other to folowe. To this M. No­well answereth as foloweth.

S. Hierome saieth no where that he would enot compare the Nowell. fol. 106. a. 23. scripture together for the discussing of doubtes (as M. Dorman woulde beare vs in hande) and S: Austen saieth he woulde doe it, and exhorteth other to doe the same.

Where doe I beare yowe in hande that S. Hierome Dorman. saide that he woulde not not compare the scriptures toge­ther A lye. 81▪ for the discussing of doubtes? Why noted you not here the leafe and side? I denie not but that it is a necessarie and verie proffitable waie of reading the scriptures to conferre the places together. And so doubte I not but that S. Hie­rome aswell as S. Augustine vsed to doe. The whiche maketh verye muche for the Catholique opinion, that all questions can not be discussed by thys conference off scripture. For iff they coulde, what neded S. Hierome (so well learned as he was) in this controuersie betwene the Catholikes and the Arrians, to write so far out of the wil­drenes of Syria to Damasus the pope, a man allthough sin­gulerly well learned, yeat not comparable with him for learning, to be resolued at his mouthe what parte to take, whe­reas he had with him the scriptures of God, by the whiche (by youre saing) if he had diligently conferred them toge­ther, he might haue bene fully instructed in al pointes? What ment he elles that he vsed not nowe his accustomed ma­ner of conference, but that he sawe that this was a question that coulde not so be tried, and therefore he woulde con­sulte [Page] Damasus, who being he persuaded him selfe the suc­cessour of Peter, shoulde be able sufficiently by the grace giuen to that office, to resolue him in that, which by all his owne labour and diligence he were not at all, or not so soo­ne and certeinly, hable to finde out.

S. Hieromes wordes to Damasus Bishop of Rome make no­thing Nowell. against vs, nor with M. Dorman. For what merueile is it, if that S. Hierome borne in a coast of Italy, christened at Rome, brought vp at Rome, and made prieste at Rome, woulde in the faithe of the blessed Trinitie, rather ioyne him selfe in commu­nion with Damasus bishop of Rome a learned and godly mā, then with Vitalis and Meletius (whome M. Dorman calleth Miletus) and Paulinus, who were Antiochiā bishoppes, and therfore stran­giers to him, and also not cleere from the Arrian heresie?

That you reporte of S. Hierome that he was borne in a Dorman. The place of S. Hie­to me to Damasus Tom. 2. e­pist. ad Damasum examined Lib. de ec­clesiastie. scriptorib. coast of Italie, it is vntrue. For he was as he writeth him sel­fe, borne in a towne called Stridon in the borders of Dal­matia and Pannonia: whereas Italie it is well knowen neuer reached so farre, or if it had, neuer did the peculier prouin­ce of the bishop of Rome extende thither, for whiche re­spect Damasus might be accounted his bisshop. But sup­posing this to be as true as the rest, that he was Christened at Rome &c. Yeat the causes whiche S. Hierome addeth why he ioyned him selfe to him rather then to anie other, maie euidently make faithe, that neither because he was borne in a coaste of Italie, neither because he was christe­ned; brought vp, or made prieste in Rome, but because he was the successour of Peter, he ioyned him selfe to hym in communion, rather then to anie other. For that ment he by these wordes Beatitudinituae, id est cathedrae Petri, commu­nione consocior. To youre holinesse, that is to saye, to Peters chaire, am I ioyned in communion. Tell vs if you can what there neded here anie mention of Peters chaire to be ma­de, [Page 183] but that he woulde declare therby the only respect of his communicating with him to be, because he was the suc­cessour of Peter. An other cause, which yeat might trulier be called a cause or reason of the first cause, why he ioyned him selfe to him that sate in Peters chaire, your selfe woul­de seme to haue founde out in these wordes folowing.

But (will M. Dorman saye) S. Hierome addeth a cause (whiche is Nowell. fol. 107. a 10. the pyth of the matter) saing thus. Super illam petram aedificatem ecclesiam scio. I knowe that vpon that rocke (Peters chaire) the churche is builded, which is the cause why S. Hierome ioyned with Damasus, will he saye.

Will you see what a perilouse brained man M. Nowell is? Dorman. He hathe readen my answere allready, and can tell what it shallbe before I vtter it the seconde time. But you must gi­ue him leaue sometimes to scoure his Rhetorike lest it wax rustye, and therfore here vpon a brauery he setteth a lusty countenance vpon the matter, and that which he knoweth can not be passed ouer in silence, because it hathe bene mo­ued allready, he will so bring furthe the seconde time, as though suche a pore catholike as I am, had not had suche an obiection in store, without I had first receiued it by his liberalitie euen as it were in the waye of all moise. Yeat this I can not but mislike, that as sone as he had giuen it, it semeth that he wished that he had kepte it in his purse still, for it foloweth.

But he maye be ashamed, had he anie shame at all thus shame­fully Nowell. 14. by a false Parenthesis to intremingle these wordes (Peters chaire) in this sentence of S. Hierome, and so to falsifie it, as though S. Hierome had saide or ment in this place, that the popes chaire is the rocke whereon the church is builded.

Well these be but wordes M. Nowell, how proue yow Dorman. that this is a false Parenthesis, that S. Hierome ment not that the popes chaire (as it is S. Peters chaire) is the rocke whereō the churche is builded. Youre reasons to proue it folowe [Page] after that you haue charged me withe mangling of the sen­tence of S. Hierome, in this wise.

For he did see, that S. Hierome admonishing Damasus of hu­militie, Nowell. b. 20. and withall professing him selfe to folowe no chiefe or heade but Christe, not excepting Damasus case, but rather affirming him not to be primum, the chiefe, maketh cleerely with vs, who in this controuersie of the popes vsurped suprema­cy saie the same &c. furthermore he did see, that the wordes of S. Hierome folowing (vpon this rocke I knowe the churche to be builded) might and ought to be referred to Christe mentioned fol. 108. a. 1. by S. Hierome so nere before, and by Petre confessed to be that rocke whereon the churche is builded, and therefore M. Dor­man left out of S. Hieromes sentence the mention of Christe, that he might moste falsely and blasphemously refer the rocke to Pe­ters chaire, as though Peters rotten chaire or ruinouse Rome were the rocke whereon the churche of oure Sauioure Christe is builded.

Youre proufes that this Parenthesis is false conteined Dorman. in these wordes, are two. First because Hierome professed him selfe to folowe no chiefe or heade but Christe, not ex­cepting Damasus: nexte because these wordes (Vpon this roc­ke I knowe the churche to be builded) ought to be referred to Christe &c. as before. To the firste I answere, that you ha­ue M. No­well falsifieth S. Hierome in translating. not delt honestlie and sincerely in translating the wor­des nullum primum, no chiefe or heade: as though S. Hiero­me had bene of that opinion, that he woulde professe him selfe to folow no other heade in earthe vnder Christe, whi­che if it had bene so: howe agreeth this with youre owne He is con­trary to him selfe. wordes in this place, that Damasus was S. Hieromes owne bishoppe? If he were his bishop, he was his chiefe or heade. If he were his heade, you will not I trust make him to men­de youre owne cause, a rebelliouse membre. One of these two will folowe, that either S. Hierome (if youre transla­tion were true, condemneth all heades in earthe but onelye [Page 184] Christe, or that he will obeye them as far as he list him sel­fe. Is not this sincere handling trowe you of the fathers writinges? Is not this wholesom doctrine that you woulde make them to be patrones of? But I praie you that translate this worde nullum primum, so diuersly, three maner of waies in little more then the cōpasse of one leafe, first interpre­ting it, no chiefe or heade fol. 107. b. 5. lyne, then in the same side. 15. no chiefe heade, Last of all fol. 108. b. 21. no heade: tel vs when you write nexte, to whiche of these interpretations you will stande. For the second interpretation a man might graunte to you, and without preiudice to vs or gaine to you. For it is true in dede that in respecte of Christ there is no absolute chiefe heade but he: the pope is but chiefe and supreme heade nexte vnder Christe. Although this were not in this place the meaning of S. Hierome, but only to signifie, that nexte after Christe he ioyned him selfe to Pe­ters chaire, and that he folowed nullum primum nisi Chri­stum, none first but Christ, as muche to saie, as Christ first, and Damasus of all other next after.

Youre nexte proufe that the worde (rocke) shoulde be referred to Christe and not to Peters chaire, because Chri­ste is mentioned so nere before, and by Petre confessed to be that rocke whereon the churche is builded, leaneth to a verie fickle and weake grounde, and maketh me to thinke, that at the leaste you nodded M. Nowell if you slepte not downe right when you wrote this. For if you take the boke waking into youre hande once againe, you shall (I dare M. No­well ouer throwen by his owne reason. assure you) finde, that the worde (Peters chaire) is nearer to the worde rocke then is Christe, so that by youre owne ar­gument and reason it foloweth, that the worde (rocke) shoulde be referred to Peters chaire placed so neare before. Whe­reas you saye that Petre confessed Christe to be that rocke [Page] whereon the churche is builded, where hathe Petre those wordes? Note the place in youre nexte writing, elles will it be thought that you make and coine scripture at your plea­sure. We denye not notwithstanding but that Christe is the rocke whereon the churche is builded, although in Sainte Petre those words be not so to be found. Yeat foloweth it not that therefore Peters chaire or Petre (for bothe is here taken for one) is not also the rocke whereon it is builded. For Christe is Fundamentum primum & maximum, the chi­efe and greatest fundation (as witnesseth S. Augustine re­conciling together these places of the scripture, no man can In psalm. 86. 1. Cor, 3. Ephes. 2. laye an other fundation then that which is layed which is Christe Iesus, and this: Builded vpon the fundation of the Apostles and prophetes) and Petre is also a foundation, nexte after Chri­ste. As to make the matter plaine by example: if a man woulde builde a house vpon a rocke, that rocke were the How Christ is the rocke and howe Peter. chiefe and principall foundation, for it hathe soliditie and strength of it selfe not of an other, yeat all this notwith­standing, the firste stone of this building that shoulde be laide vpon the rocke, were also the foundation, but not as hauing soliditie or strength of it selfe, but of that other per­fect fundation whereunto it leaneth. To this alluded Saint Ambrose when in a certeine place he calleth Petre firmis­simam petrā, the moste strong rocke, quae ab illa principali pe­tra Lib. 2. de vocat. gēt. cap. 9. communionem & virtutis sumsit & nominis, which tooke from that principall rocke (he meaneth Christe) commu­nion bothe of vertue and name. What can be saide more plainely to expresse that Petre is called a rocke as well as Christe? to confirme this distinction of rockes or funda­tions?

Hauing nowe detected the vanitie of youre prouffes whereby you laboure to proue that this place of S. Hierom [Page 185] shoulde be falsified by me: I will confirme the catholike doctrine in this pointe, and showe that this Parenthesis ad­ded by me for the better vnderstanding of the place, was trulie added. And because yowe complaine of me for lea­uing out two lynes, I will proue not onelie by them, but by the preamble of the epistle, that S. Hierome wrote not to Damasus as to his owne bishop, but to him as heade of the churche, and successour to Petre.

In the two lines that yow saie I cut of, are these wordes: cum successore piscatoris & discipulo crucis loquor, with the suc­cessour of the fissher (Peter) and a disciple of the crosse I speake. Of these wordes I make this argument: S. Hierome wrote to Damasus as to the successor of S. Peter. But S. Petre was acknowledged by S. Hierome to be heade of the church, therefore S. Hierome wrote vnto him as heade of the churche. The minor proposition is proued by S. Hieron. in Psalm. 13. Hierome writing vpon the 13. Psalme, where expounding these wordes: Non est qui faciat bonum &c. no (saieth he) not Petre him selfe, which is heade of the churche. Againe in an other place where he saieth: Coenaculum grande ecclesia magna In cap. Marci. 14. est, in qua narratur nomen domini strata varietate virtutum & linguarum, vt est illud: circumamicta varietate, in qua para­tur domino Pascha. Dominus domus Petrus apostolus est: cui do­minus domum suam credidit, vt sit vna fides sub vno pastore. That is to saie: The greate parler is the greate churche, in the which is preached the name of oure Lorde, garnished with varietie of giftes and tongues, according to the saing: Clothed with change of apparell: in the whiche is prepared our Psal. 44. Lordes passeouer. The maister of the house is Petre the a­postle, to whome oure Lorde committed his house, that Note this reason. there maie be one faithe vndre one shepeherd. The consequent of this argument is proued to be good by this reason of S. [Page] Hieromes, why God appointed S. Petre to be the ruler of the churche. For seing we muste nowe aswell auoide mul­titudes of faithe as the churche was bounde in S. Petres ti­me to doe, there must as necessarilie be nowe one heade as there was then, whiche no man can iustly doubte whether S. Hierome ment that Damasus shoulde be, seing he confes­seth that Damasus is Petres successour, who was by his con­fession that one heade. And that it maie the better appeare that this was in S. Hieromes time the faithe of the church, that as Petre was heade therof so were also his successours: S. Ambrose liuing with S. Hierome, calleth this verie Da­masus ruler of gods house the churche, whome I woulde In 1. Ti­moth. 3. not alleage but trie out S. Hieromes meaning by him selfe, were it not that yow might see how vniformely they agree in this point, Hierome calling Petre the maister: Ambrose calling Damasus his successour, the ruler of goddes house the churche. Moreouer, that in calling Peter heade of the churche and Damasus his successour, S. Hierome called Da­masus also heade of the churche, is proued by this, that S. Hierome in this place protesting that he was ioyned to Damasus in communion, expoundeth him selfe, id est ca­thedrae Petri, that is to saie to the chaire of Petre. Thus did S. Cyprian in his time describing the bishoprike of Rome by these wordes Locus Fabiani, Fabians place, expounde by and by his meaning in this wise: id est locus Petri, & gradus cathedrae sacerdotalis, that is to saie, Petres place and the de­gree Lib. 4. epist. 2. of the priestely chaire. If therefore the popes that suc­cede S. Peter haue the same place, the same chaire, that is to saie the same auctoritie (for this worde chaire signifieth no thing elles) that S. Petre had: who doubteth but that S. Hierom in this place acknowledging him selfe to speake to Petres successour, did agnise also the same auctorite in him, [Page 186] that he did in S. Petre?

Next after this, weigh I beseche yow the preamble of this epistle of S. Hierome to Damasus, vttred in these wor­des. Quoniam vetusto Oriens inter se populorum furore collisus. &c. Because the Easte being sore broosed and shaken with the ol­de furie of the people emongest them selues, teareth pece meale the whole and seamelesse coate of oure Lorde, and the foxes destroye Christes vineiarde, so that emongest the leaking pittes that haue no water, it is harde to vnderstande where is that sealed founteine and walled gardein: therefore I thought that Petres chaire and Rom. 1. the faithe praised by the Apostles owne mouthe, ought to be con­sulted by me, from thence nowe asking foode for my soule, from whence once I receiued Christes lyuory. Thus far S. Hierome. By which wordes we maie vnderstande, that he wrote this epistle to Damasus, as to him that being successour to Pe­tre was heade of the churche, and therefore in all doubte­full cases to be consulted, not as to his owne proprebishop. For if he had, why shoulde he then haue mentioned Pe­tres chaire, which worde because S. Peter was heade of the whole churche (as hath bene proued out of S. Hierome) ar­gueth a rule ouer the whole, not of a particuler place alo­ne? If nowe S. Hierome were not afearde to saie, that he ioyned him selfe in communion to Petres chaire, that in this doubtefull case he thought that that chaire was to be consulted, why take yowe the matter so whotly against me, for saing with S. Hierome that the churche is builded vpon Petres chaire? Why call you this more blasphemie then the other, to be ioyned in communion to Petres chai­re, to consult Petres chaire? Is it vnlikely that S. Hierome shoulde saie that Petres chaire was the rocke whereon the churche was builded, to the whiche chaire he sought for councel, to the which he protested to be ioyned in the same [Page] communion? Or is it likely, that he woulde haue so saide of anie chaire, saue that on the which the churche was buil­ded? I can not here but note by the waie how to make the matter seme odiouse to the vnlearned, you vse termes like youre selfe against this chaire of S. Petre, minding as I take it, to persuade that I shoulde drawe S. Hieromes wordes to suche a meaning, as that he shoulde meane that Christes churche were builded vpon a materiall chaire. You maye be ashamed M. Nowel where you lacke iust matter, to blot­te paper and waste incke with suche cauilling triffles as e­uerie man that hath common sense wil as sone as they haue passed once youre mouthe, be hable to discouer and repro­ue. Dothe not S. Hierome in this place make twise expresse mention of Petres chaire? Why triumphe you not ouer him as you crowe against me, with youre foolishe and vnsauory Rhetorike, and saie that he was well occupied to write from Siria to Rome for councell from a rotten chaire? that he was a wise man to ioyne him selfe in communion the­retoe? Who seeth not that yow woulde haue taken the matter as whotly with S. Hierome as you doe with me (ha­uing as good cause alltogether) sauing that yow feared the burning of youre lippes? I saie therefore M. Nowell that VVhat S. Hiero­me ment by Peters chayre. S. Hierome (to answere you in this pointe if you were so verie a dolt that you vnderstode it not before) by building the churche vpon Petres chaire, meaneth euen as he did in those two places before, where you can not denie but that he maketh expresse mention of that chaire. Sainte Hie­rome meaneth there no materiall chaire, and therefo­re no rotten chaire, as you like a rotten membre and deui­ded from the churche blasphemously saie. He meaneth as Matt [...]. 23 Christe doeth in the ghospell speaking of Moises chaire, as the fathers, Cipriā, Epiphanius, Austen, Ambrose, Optatus, [Page 187] and the rest doe, as often as they vse this worde, that is to saie by the chayre, the power and bishoplike auctoritie which Pe­tre hauing giuē to him, cōmitted to his successours. For euē as a riuer though it runne manie thousandes of miles, leeseth not yeat but reteineth neuerthelesse the name of the foun­teine and heade spring from whence it came: so fareth it in the succession of bishoppes, that how many so euer there be that succede, yeat they are all saide to possesse the chaire of him that ruled firste: yea allthough euerie of them had made for him selfe a newe chaire. For the matter consisteth not as I saide before in materiall chaires, no more then doth the opening or shutting of heauen gates depende vpon materiall keyes. And as well might you like a Lucianist, or a Porphirian haue scoffed at Christe for saing that the scribes and Phariseis sate vpon Moises chaire (which if they had had emōgest them, if euer Moises sate in anie, should at that time haue bene as rotten as is S. Petres nowe, there being betwene Moises and S. Petre not manie fewer yeares then are nowe betwene S. Petre and oure time) or for ma­king keyes for heauen, as yow doe against me. But to let this passe and to exaggerate no furder that, for the which at the handes of suche as be of the learneder and wiser sorte, you are like to susteine punishment enough by incurring the note of this infamie to be no learned reasoner, but a rai­ling wrangler: I will nowe as compendiously as maie be iu­stifie the inserting of this Parenthesis (Peters chaire).

First these wordes (vpon this rocke I knowe the churche to 1 be builded) ought to be referred rather as youre selfe before confessed (and in this case if in anie you ought to be bele­ued, for you haue bene a scholemaister and practised better in the gramer rules then in the scriptures and fathers wri­tinges) to the wordes that go nearest before: but the wor­des [Page] (Peters chaire) are placed nearest before. Therefore by youre owne confession, the building of the churche ought to be referred thither. Againe, S. Hierome in this place it is 2 to be presumed, alluded in these wordes (I knowe the churche to be buylded on that rocke) to the wordes of the ghospell: Tues petrus & super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. Thow Matt. 16. arte Petre and vpon this rocke wil I builde my church. But in that place Christe appointed an other fundation of the church beside him selfe to wit Peter: It foloweth therefore that S. Hierome in this place ment not of Christ but of Pe­ters chaire, that is, Peters auctoritie or Peter him selfe. Third­ly 3 it is more then probable, that sainte Hierome mēt not in this place of building the churche vpon Christe only, but vpon Petre also nexte after Christe, because to him that with iudgement wil reade the epistle, considre duly the cir­cunstances, especially the beginning, it shal appeare that his whole talcke is so framed, that whereas of purpose and di­rectly he maketh mention of consulting Peters chaire, off ioyning him selfe to Peters chaire, and in that whole dis­course of his setteth furthe the praises of the churche off Rome: he speaketh of Christe but incidently, and as it we­re by the waie of a parenthesis, and that toe, to auaunce the dignitye of the See of Rome, as before the which he woul­de preferre (he saide) none but Christe. The whiche being so, what sounde iudgement will not rather refer these wor­des aboute whiche the controuersie is, to that whiche is principally and directly handled, rather then to that which is mentioned but incidently and indirectly. Last of all, it is 4 to be iudged, that S. Hierome agreeth here with his owne writinges in other places. Nowe is this euident, that euen the thirde epistle before thys, he saieth in plaine wordes that the churche was builded vppon Petre. His wordes [Page 188] are: Apostolus Petrus super quem Dominus fundauit eccle­siam. Tom. 2. epist ad Marcellā. Petre the Apostle vpon whom our lorde founded his churche.

Thus you see good Readers I trust, howe falselye and withoute all cause, M. Nowell hathe quarelled with me for this parenthesis, added only to make more plaine the wordes of Saint Hierome. It foloweth that I showe to you howe he prosecuteth his purposed malice by the auctori­ties of Erasmus, and S. Augustine, in the 108. 109. and 110. leaues.

Erasmus (saieth M. Nowell) cleane contrarye to all papi­stes, Nowell. fol. 108. a. 18. saieth in his notes vpon these wordes: Super illam petram, &c. Non super Romam vt arbitror, &c. That is to saie. Vpon that rocke, not vpon Rome I trowe, &c.

From Erasmus thus farre we dissent not, that we knowe Dorman. as well as he, that the church was not built vpō Rome. For if Rome were sacked (as God forbid) to morowe nexte, the church should continue neuerthelesse, although the bishop went from thence and shoulde sit at the meanest towne in all Italye, or elles where. As for that that he woulde haue the churche to be builded by S. Hieromes meaning vppon Peters faithe: that first he affirmeth not confidently, but saieth he troweth so: next, it maye be saide, that in this place Erasmus telleth his owne opinion: in the other place off this epistle vpon these wordes Extra hanc domum without this house, he confesseth the minde of S. Hierome, whiche he saieth was vtterly that all churches ought to be vndre the Romaine See, or no strangers from it. If Erasmus in his inter­pretation before, saing that the churche was not as he thought builded vpon Rome, but vpon the faith of Petre, agree with S. Hierome in this pointe that all churches be subiect to the Romaine See: howe happeneth it that you [Page] and youre fellowes, to withdrawe all men from this subie­ction to that See, make that principle that the churche was builded not vpon Rome but vpon Petres his faithe, you­re chiefe grounde, seing that in Erasmus iudgement bo­the might stande well inoughe together? Iff on the con­trarye parte this interpretation made by Erasmus can not agree with the minde of Saint Hierome: Why shoul­de we rather credite Erasmus not sure off his owne opi­nion, then S. Hierome confidently affirming the con­trarye?

Yea and furder the same Erasmus in the beginning of his argu­ment Nowell. fol. 108. b. 1. vpon his treatye against the Luciferians, whiche is nexte to his two epistles to Damasus, hathe these wordes: Nulla haeresis gra­uius afflixit, &c. No heresie hathe more grieuously afflicted the churches of all the worlde, then the Arrians: in so muche that it hathe wrapped in the bishoppes of Rome, and the emperours them sel­ues. It pleaseth M. Dorman sometime to alleage Erasmus against vs, whose auctoritye if it be good, downe goeth the pope and all popery. For if the bishoppes of Rome haue bene infected with he­resie, then is not there that vniuersall rocke.

As good men as Erasmus and better to haue sustei­ned Dorman. the contrary, that there was neuer bishoppe of Ro­me heretike. But if there had, it foloweth not thereof, that there is not that vniuersall rocke. Let that be the answe­re till I come to youre question, What if the Pope be an heretike?

Nowe if M. Dorman did not see these notes of Erasmus vpon Nowell. b. 16. the place by him alleaged out of S. Hierome, I praise his diligence, he maye of Dorman be called Dormitantius, as S. Hierome (whome he falsely alleageth) called Vigilantius, and more iustlye bothe by nature and sounde of name may M. Dorman be so cal­led, then euer was Vigilantius by S. Hierome, &c.

I sawe them and vnderstode them it appeareth, better Dorman. then you. Reade S. Hierome contra Vigilantium ad Exupe­rium, [Page 189] and then see who is likely by S. Hieromes minde to be called Dormitantius: you, who with that drowsy sleeping heretike raile against the tapers and lightes in the churche, the worshipping of sainctes, the reuerent keping of their blessed relikes, or I, who with saint Hierome mainteine the contrary. But I thinke euen for that cause a little thinge woulde make yow to call S. Hierome Dormitantius to, for it appeareth that it pleased yow neuer a deale, that he shoul­de so roughly handle youre deare frinde, and therefore yow prefer youre allusion to my name, before that of his to the name of Vigilantius. But I woulde counsell yow M. No-well either to gette yow some new trym name, such as is Theodore Basile or some suche like, or elles to leaue scof­fing at other till this that yow haue conteining nothing well in it, maie be mended. Because yowe perceiued that Erasmus either made little for youre purpose, or that his auctoritie woulde not be muche set by, yow saie.

But if Erasmus iudgement be nothing worthe &c. I will yeat in Christes quarell, that he is the rocke and not Petres rotten Nowell. B. 26. chaire, bring furthe one witnes not onelie greater then Erasmus but also equall with S. Hierome, and aboue all papistes in credite and auctoritie: S. Austen in his 13. sermon vpon the ghospell off Mathew.

Yow fight with your owne shadowe M. Nowell, when Dorman. Fol. 109. [...]. 1. yow imagine to encountre with anie matche that shoulde offre Christe wrong. No man denieth to Christe that ex­cellencie to be the rocke of his churche: yow maie therfore put vp youre dagger, the fraie was donne before it begon­ne. But yeat hereof it foloweth not, that therefore Petres chaire, that is to saie Peter, is not also a fundation in Chri­ste the first and greatest fundation, as a little before I sho­wed. To the auctoritie of S. Austen I answere, that euen as [Page] youre other witnesse that yowe brought before, Erasmus, durst in this case affirme nothing boldely, but only shewed his minde doubtefully: so is S. Austen in this question as it Lib. 1. Re­tractat. cap. 21. appeareth in his worckes, not fully resolued. For in his first booke of Retractations (where yow saie most impudently that he repeateth and mainteineth moste earnestlie this interpre­tation An impu­dent lye. made vpō 12. S. Au­sten B. 18. that Christe and not Petre is the rocke) he proposing bo­the the interpretations, that Peter is the rocke (as he confes­sed that the same sense he had bothe him selfe giuen in wri­ting against Donatus, and was song in his time by the mou­the of manye in the verses of S. Ambrose, where speaking of the cocke, he saieth: Hoc ipsa petra ecclesiae canente, culpam diluit, at the singing of this cocke the rocke of the churche him selfe, purged his faulte): he proposing I saie this sense, and also that other, that Christ is that rocke, concludeth in this wise: Harum autem duarum sententiarum quae sit proba­bilior eligat lector. Of these two opinions let the reader cho­se that whiche he thinketh moste probable. Is this M. Nowell to defende moste earnestly that Christe and not Petre is the rocke, to sett men at libertie to beleue in this pointe as they list? Is this the candor, the sincere and vp­right dealing that yowe speake so muche of? But if yowe will yeat by no meanes graunte that S. Austen doubted of this pointe, if he were resolued on anie parte, I will proue by alleaging diuerse places against this one of youres, that he thought as we doe, and not with yow.

First in a sermon that he made of Petres chaire, he hathe these wordes: Petrū ita (que) fundamentū ecclesiae dominus nomina­uit, August. Serm. de cathedra. S. Petri & ideo digné fundamentū hoc ecclesia colit, supra quod ecclesi­astici aedificij altitudo cōsurgit. That is to saie, Our Lord ther­fore named Petre the fundation of the church, and for that cause dothe the churche worthily worship this fundation, [Page 190] vpon the whiche the heigth of the ecclesiasticall building riseth.

Againe in an other place, speaking of the firste miracle Sermon. de Sanct. 26. that S. Petre did in restoring to a lame man the vse of his feete, he writeth thus. Audistis frequenter ipsum Petrum a Act. 3. domino petram nuncupatum, sicut ait: Tu es Petrus & super Matth. 16. hanc petram oedificabo ecclesiam meam. Si ergo Petrus petra est supra quam aedificatur ecclesia, recté prius pedes sanat, vt sicut in ecclesia fidei fundamentum continet, ita & in homine membro­rum fundamenta confirmet. That is to saie. Yow haue hearde often times that Petre him selfe is called by oure Lorde a rocke, as where he saieth: Thow arte Peter and vpō this rocke will I builde my churche. If therefore Petre be the rocke v­pon the whiche the churche is builded, he did well, firste to heale the feete, that as in the churche he conteineth the fundation of faithe: so he shoulde in this man strengthen the fundations of his membres. I might here alleage diuerse other places of S. Austen to this sense, As in Psalm. 30. & alijs multis locis. but these two he­re vouched, and that other whiche he mentioneth him sel­fe in his Retractations, to be in his writinges against Do­natus, maie be sufficient to teache, that if he thought not fullie of this pointe as we doe, (as by these three places for one brought by yow it should seme he did) he was yeat in­different and not against vs.

But what if S. Austen had bene moste earnestlie against vs? Yeat could you not so presse vs with his auctoritie M. Nowell, by being greater then Erasmus, equall with S. Hierome, aboue all papistes in credite and auctoritie, that he should be abo­ue, Clement, Tertullian, Ciprian, Basile, Hilarius, Ambrose, Hierome, Cirill, Leo: who all with one voice agree in this interpretation that the church was founded vpon Petre. Epist. 1. ad Ia­cob. fra­tr. do­mini. Clement saieth of him, that by the merite of true faithe, he was [Page] determined to be the fundation of the churche. Lib. de prae­scrip. haeret. Tertullian af­keth whether any thing coulde be hidden from Petre, called the rocke of the churche to be builded. Sainte Cyprian libro. 1. epist. 12. libro. 4. epist. 9. Lib. de habit. virgin. Lib. de bono pat. epist. ad Iubaian. and epist. ad Quintum: in all these places affirmeth, that the churche was builded vpon Petre. Lib. 2. aduers. Eunoni. S. Basile because that Petre excelled in faithe to ke therfore (he saieth) the building of the church vpon him. In cap. Math. 16. Hilarie the B. of Poictiers in Fraunce calleth Petre Felix ecclesiae fundamentum, the happy funda­tion of the church Sermon 47.. S. Ambrose hath that Petre was called of Christe, ecclesiarum petra the rocke of churches. S. Hiero­me emongest manie other places, expounding the verie wordes of Christe. Thow art Petre, &c. Math. 16. giueth this sense: Aedificabo ecclesiam meam super te. I will builde my church vpon the. Lib. 2. in Ioannem cap. 12. Serm. 3. in Anniuer­sario as­sumptionis suae ad ponifica­tum. Ciril saieth that Christe in the giuing to Pe­tre his newe name, signified therby that in him as in a rocke and moste strong stone he woulde builde his churche. Leo (to make an ende) bringeth in Christe speaking of Petre after this sorte. Ego tibi dico: hoc est, sicut pater meus tibi manifestauit di­uinitatem meam, ita & ego tibi notam facio excellentiam tuam. Quia tu es Petrus: id est, quum ego sim inuiolabilis petra, ego la­pis angularis qui facio vtraque vnum: tamen & tu quoque pe­tra es, quia mea virtute solidaris, vt quae mihi potestate sunt pro­pria, tibi sint mecum participatione communia, & super hanc pe­tram aedificabo ecclesiam meam &c. that is to saye: I tell the, as my father hathe made manifest to the his diuinitie, so doe I declare to the thy excellencie, that thow arte Petre: that is Note how Christe is the rocke, and how Petre. to saie, whereas I am the inuiolable rocke and corner stone which make bothe one, the fundation beside the whiche no man can laye anie other: yeat arte thow also a rocke becau­se by my strength thow arte made sounde and massiff, that those thinges which are propre to my selfe by power, maye [Page 191] be common betwene vs by participation, and vpon this rocke will I builde my churche.

You haue hearde M. Nowell for one place brought by you out of S. Austen to confirme youre purpose, three o­ther euen taken from the same man to the contrarie. Yow In his bookes of Retractations. haue hearde that in that verie booke where withe better iudgement he ouerloketh and correcteth all his former doinges, he maketh it a matter indifferent to thinke either the one waye, or the other. Last of all you haue hearde the iudgemēt of nyne of the moste learned fathers in Christes churche agreing all in one sentence against you. Go youre waies nowe and boaste of S. Austen being against all these fathers and him selfe to if he shoulde be of the minde that you would haue him to be. I trust you shall neuer be hable to bring the wise or learned in to such a fooles paradise, as to make them leauing the whole consent of so manie lear­ned doctours, to folowe youre interpretation grounded v­pon one, not muche liking the same him selfe.

You gather of this place of S. Austen an argument a­gainst fol. 110. [...]. 17. religiouse men. You moued it before, and there the reader shall finde it answered. Yeat this to saye of the Au­gustiniās (of whome warily you forbare to make anie men­tion before) the reason that you make here why they shoul­de not be of S. Augustines institution, is false and vntrue. For neither the Dominicanes bearing the name of S. Do­minike, nor the Franciscanes of sainte Frauncis, neither yeat these Augustinians of sainte Augustine, doe beare these na­mes in suche sorte, as the Corinthians did claime to holde of suche as baptised them. How they did it appeareth by these wordes of sainte Austen here in this place by you al­leaged: Apostolus autē Paulus vbi cognouit se eligi & Christum contemni, diuisus est inquit Christus? The Apostle Paule when [Page] he perceiued that he was chosen and Christe contemned: why saieth he is Christe diuided? In this wise M. No­well because the Augustinians neither builde vpon sain­te Austen, nor are called after his name, there is no cau­se yeat shewed why they maie not be well inough of his institution, as that they are, Richardus Cenomanus in his learned censure vpon sainte Austens rule, hathe againste Erasmus moste euidently proued.

As for youre other witnesses that you can ioyne to Eras­mus, that popes haue bene heretikes, if that could be proued A. 24. by a hundred witnesses, yeat till you be hable to proue that they had erred in defining anye matter iudicially, and deli­uering the same to the whole churche of Christe, yowe haue proued nothing against this See that there is not the rocke.

With like fraude did M. Dorman leaue also that, whiche nexte Nowell. b. 17. foloweth in S. Hierome of the house, without the whiche he that eateth the paschall lambe is a prophane or vnholy man: and the arke of Noe, withoute the whiche all that be, perishe by the floude. For though in that place it might seeme to make for M. Dormans purpose concerning the supremacy of the B. of Rome (as Erasmus hathe noted) yet he knowing or some man warning him, that the house withoute the whiche the paschall lambe maye not be eaten, the arke, &c. by all doctours is interprete to be the one vniuersall church of Christe, and by none to be the churche of Rome, there­fore like a wise man, or elles a false fox, he let that folowing alone also, as he cut of Christe the heade going and ioyned nexte befo­re, and so he hathe tolde you a tale bothe withoute heade and tay­le, thereby to proue the pope who is Antichrist, to be the heade of Christes churche.

Is not this M. Nowell more then intollerable impu­dencie, Dorman. to charge me with fraude for the leauing out of that sentence, then which there is none either in the workes of S. Hierome him selfe, or anie of the other learned doctours, that more maketh for the dignitye of the see of Rome, for [Page 192] the omitting whereof in my boke, I deserued rather to be noted at the catholikes handes of ouermuche simplicitye, then at youres of fraude and sutteltye? But howe truly he­re let the place itselfe iudge. Omitting Erasmus whose iudgement nowe you condemne (which yeat in me might haue bene counted some pointe of leuitie, if I had euer pra­ised him as you did before, to be no vnskillfull or negligent viewer of the olde fathers writinges) I will come to the place it selfe, whiche I doubte not but by construing (for I truste although you care not muche for the rules of the churche you owe yeat for olde acquaintaunce youre reuerence to the rules of Grammer) to make bothe you and other men to vnderstād also how much this place maketh for me, and howe little cause I had to suppresse it, and howe muche yet lesse you had to make anye mention of it. Saint Hieromes wordes therefore concerning this matter are these. Ego nullum primum, nisi Christum sequens, beatit udini tuae, id est, ca­thedrae Petri, communione consocior. Super illam petram aedifi­catam ecclesiam scio. Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit, prophanus est. Nowe let vs construe M. Nowell. Ego I, sequens folowing, nullum primum, none first, nisi Chri­stum but Christ, cōsocior am ioyned communione in commu­nion, beatitudini tuae, to thy holynesse, id est, that is to saie, ca­thedrae Petri to the chaire of Petre. Super illā petrā, vpō that rocke (what rocke M. Nowel, but the same chaire of Peter to the whiche he professed him selfe to be ioyned in commu­nion going nexte before these wordes:) scio I knowe, eccle­siam the churche, aedificatam to be builded. Quicunque who so euer, comederit shall eate, agnum the lambe, extra hanc do­mú out of this house, prophanus est is prophane. Now the­se wordes being truly by me thus construed, euerye man learned and vnlearned maye see, that S. Hierome by the [Page] house whiche he here mentioneth, ment Christes vni­uersall churche, but builded Super illam petram, vpon that rocke, whiche rocke in the wordes nexte before he called Petres chaire, to saie Petres auctoritie. If you can construe them otherwise, and make them to haue any other relation then this and proue it by the rulers of Gramer, you maye vaunt that you haue showed vs a scholemasters tricke that neuer was harde of yeat. But I am halfe in dispare that you shall euer be able, seing that youre frinde Erasmus as good a Grammarian as you, and as euill in a maner affe­cted to the See of Rome, as appeareth in diuerse places by his notes and censures, coulde finde no suche shifte, and therefore was faine as you muste at the length, to confesse the truthe, that S. Hierome was of the minde that all chur­ches shoulde be subiecte to the churche of Rome, or at the least no strangers from it. Nowe whereas you saye that this house that S. Hierome mentioneth, is of none interpre­te to be the churche of Rome: what were that to oure pur­pose if it were so, seing it is interprete of the vniuersall churche, whiche is of all the auncient fathers acknowled­ged to be builded vpon Peters chaire as S. Hierome saieth here, and (as hathe bene declared before) S. Cyprian, who calleth the churche of Rome for that cause catholicae fidei Lib. 4. epist. 8. radicem & matricem, the rocke and mother churche of the catholike churche. Yeat lacke there not also fathers that in a sense, that is, as in the churche of Rome all other chur­ches are conteined, call it also by the name of the catholike churche. As in effect S. Ambrose did, when he called Da­masus the pope, ruler of the whole church, which he coul­de by no meanes be, but as he was bishop of Rome. Thus In commēt. in cap. 3. 1. Tim. muche maie serue for my purgation that I haue not delt fraudulently in leauing out this parte of S. Hieromes sen­tence. [Page 193] Nowe let vs procede.

Yow make much adoe about Vitalis and Meletius, and saie, that I saie vntrulie that S. Hierome saieth he knoweth not Nowell. fo. 111. a. 1. them because they were aduersaries to the seate of Rome, the cau­se being, because they were aduersaries to the true doctrine of the moste blessed Trinitie, whiche Damasus did defende.

I reporte me to the learned, whether I had cause to saie Dorman. so or no, not because of these wordes (who so euer gathereth not with the scattreth) alone, which might perhappes be trulie spoken to anie other catholike bishop: but because of the circumstances that go before ioyned to these, as the consul­ting of Petres chaire, the ioyning of him selfe thereto in communion. To the whiche because they did not ioyne them selues as he did, he refused them. If yow had spoken no more vntrulie then I, yowe woulde not to colour the matter the better, haue imagined, that emongest other causes why S. Hierome kepte not these schismatikes com­panie, one was, because they were foriners and not his owne bishoppes: an other, for that they were of a strange language. Ah M. Nowell did yow nodde here, that yowe coulde not see that S. Hierome affirmeth, that the folowed the Aegiptian confessors the bishop of Romes felowe bishoppes? Were not they as muche foriners to him as were Vitalis and Meletius? was not their language as strange? Yeat yow v­pon this, desire the reader to note, that S. Hierome woulde B. 25. not knowe Vitalis and Meletius because they were foriners not his owne bishoppes, &c. And so make a comparison betwene youre refusall of the pope, and S. Hieromes refusall of the­se schismatikes, laing for a grounde without anye proufe, that the pope is a foriner and hathe nothing to doe withe yow.

Of the place of S. Austen taken out of the 110. question of his questions vpon the olde and newe testament. The 29. chapiter.

HERE M. Nowell vpon the censure of Erasmus of this worcke of S. Austens, maketh this shorte but sharpe con­clusion against me. So that it were to muche impudency for Nowell. fo. 112. a. 30. Dorman. anie man but only M. Dorman, to alleage it for S. Augustines.

Beholde I praie the good Reader in what credite Eras­mus is nowe sodenly with M. Nowell, whome before no­ting S. Hierome to be of the minde that all churches shoul­de be subiect to the See of Rome, he estemed so little. Then he was no body, nowe hauing wonne M. Nowelles fa­uour againe, he is so extolled, that to denie that whiche he shall affirme, or contrarywise, is extreme impudency, so greate a matter is it to be in his good grace. But I praie you M. Nowell in what case then are those shamefull, shamefast and modest maisters I woulde haue saide, the compilers of youre Apologie, who notwithstanding his iudgement v­pon S. Austens libri Hypognosticon, haue yeat with to much impudency for anie man but onelye for them, alleaged them against purgatory? What case are yow in youre selfe, who notwithstandinge Erasmus iudgement vpon that worcke taken for Chrisostomes vpon the ghospell of S. Mathewe, were not ashamed as modest as yow woulde se­me Opus im­perfectum. to be, to alleage it against vs? I will not be so malapert as to compare withe youre Apologie, but surely me thin­keth of reason, I might as well vse anie thing in this worcke of S. Austens as yow in that of Chrisostome. If the diffe­rence betwene oure two cases be, that yowe handle the [Page 194] matter rhetorically, calling the auctor an auncient auctor printed withe Chrisostome, and of longe time taken for him, whereas I giuing no suche credite nor reuerence neither, to Erasmus iudgemente of the true or countrefeite wri­tinges of the olde doctours, like a plaine blunt felowe alle­age the place as I finde it: I will sone mende that faulte if it be one, and by imitation saie as yow doe, an auncient au­ctor printed withe S. Augustin and of long time taken for him. And nowe what saie yow to this auncient auctor?

First yow saie, that the greatest parte of these wordes allea­ged Nowell. by me, be not to be founde in the place by me noted.

I graunte, nor it is not necessary: for I doe not so alleage Dorman. the place as though euerie worde shoulde be there. I doe al­lude only to S. Austens wordes. It is enough that there is there sufficient to proue youre chaire, a chaire of pestilen­ce, and youre bodie, a bodie without a heade. Make of it then a tronck, or what yowe list elles. For the better decla­ration herof, I will reporte here the wordes of S. Austen, or rather this auncient auctor (that I misse not my termes) printed withe S. Austen and of longe time taken for him: whiche are these: Quoniam cathedram pestilentiae non esse de August. in ques [...]. veter. & noui test. q. 110. dei ordinatione asseuer auimus, etiam eorum qui extra ecclesiam, vel contra ecclesiam sedes sibi instituerunt, cathedram pestilentiae esse dicimus. Qui enim inconcessa praesumit, reus est, quanto ma­gis si & corrumpat traditionem eius cuius sedem vsurpat? Nam & ordinem ab Apostolo Petro coeptū, & vsque ad hoc tempus per traducem succedentiū episcoporū seruatū perturbant, ordinem sibi sine origine vendicantes, hoc est corpus sine capite profitentes: vnde congruit etiam eorum sedem cathedram pestilentiae appellare. That is to saye: for as moche as we affirmed that the chaire of pestilence was not of gods ordinaunce, euen their chaire [Page] also we call the chaire of pestilence, who haue made them selues sees without or against the churche. For he that pre­sumeth vpon that which he ought not, is guilty: how much more if he also corrupte the tradition of him whose seate he vsurpeth? For they trouble the ordre begonne of Pe­tre the Apostle, and kepte to this time by the continuance of bishoppes succeding, chalenging to them selues ordre without beginning, that is to saye, professing a bodie with­out a heade. These wordes M. No­well trās­lated fal­sely thus: wherefore it is agrea­ble their seate allso to appeare to be the chaire of pestilence. Wherefore it is agreable to call their seate also the chaire of pestilence. Hetherto S. Austen or &c? Of whose wordes I reason thus: who so euer make them selues sees against the churche or out of the churche whiche hath continuall succession of bishoppes from S. Peter, sit in the chaire of pestilence: But oure counterfeit bishoppes of En­gland doe so: ergo, their chaire is the chaire of pestilence. The maior is proued by this auncient auctor: the minor all­so by him, because they trouble the ordre begonne of Petre, and continued by the succession of bishoppes to their time. They trouble this ordre, because they chalenge to them sel­ues ordre without beginning, as they who deriue it not from S. Petre the chiefe rocke after Christe, and are a bodie without a heade. The which thing if you denie, M. Nowell thē let vs loke to the ordre begōne of Petre. what was that? Let S. Cyprian tel you, who in his boke de simplicitate praela­torū or rather De vnitate ecclesiae, witnesseth, that God by his auctoritie disposed the beginning of vnitie to begin of one, that was Petre. If this were the ordre begonne of Petre, who seeth not who be the troublers of this ordre? We, that for v­nities sake admitte but one chiefe heade bishop vnder Chri­ste, and no other but suche as be deriued from him, or yow that will haue manie heades without suche ordinary deriua­tion? Hath not this ordre bene kepte in the church euer sin­ce [Page 195] by the continuance of bishoppes without interruption till youre vnhappy time? Peruse if you list the ordre in oure churche of England of the bishoppes of Cauntorburie for example, beginning at william Warham, the last catholike bishop (before heresie founde first entreteinement there) and so ascende by degrees till you come to sainte Austen oure English Apostle. In all this succession (the space of all­moste a thousande yeares) this ordre hathe bene continued in Englande: so that you are not able to shewe for youre li­ues, anie one of all those bishoppes that continued not this ordre begonne of S. Petre. Nowe staye not here, but from S. Austen the first bishoppe of Cauntorburie, go to him from whence he receiued that ordre, to Gregory the bishop of Rome, from Gregory to Pelagius, from him to Benedictus, and so in ordre to S. Petre: and name if you can one of them in whom this ordre was not kepte? This being most true, where began nowe your ordre? Who was the auctor thereof but frier Luther? From whom conueighed he this ordre but from Sathan the father of all disordre, and lorde of all mis­rule? If it be not so proue the contrary. If you doe not dis­turbe the ordre begonne of S. Petre, then acknowledge one heade bishop ouer the reast, and kicke not against Gods or­donaunce, who hath so disposed, that the vnitie of the chur­che shoulde begin of one, that is of Petre. Confesse that the cause during still, why (as saieth saint Hierome) sainte In cap. Marci. 14. Peter was made ruler of the churche: vt sub vno pastore sit vna fides, that vndre one shepherd there maie be one faithe: that the same remedie ought to continue also, that is, that there be one heade. But to this will you by no meanes be brought, and therefore I maie iustly conclude that you are those headlesse bishoppes, that sitte in these pestilēt chaires, making to youre selues seates out of the churche and a­gainst [Page] the church by troubling the ordre begonne by sainte Petre, as bothe this auncient auctor saieth here, and Optatus moste euidently in his worckes against the Donatistes Lib. 2. doing the like.

But against this you reason and saie, that we must first Nowell. fol. 112. proue oure selues to be the true churche of Christe, which we shall neuer be hable to doe, being in deede the Sinagog of Antichrist.

We will not proue it M. Nowell, but will make you and Dorman. youre companions to proue it for vs in spite of your bear­des, be you neuer so lothe. For when being asked where youre church in the which you make youre ministres and bishoppes was but fifty yeares ago, you shall not be hable to answere, youre verie silence shall speake for vs, seing that a church Christe must haue allwaies, which because it could not be youres that was no where, it must be that of whiche we are, that was allwaies and euery where.

Your nexte refuge is to this, that these wordes (whose seate Nowell. fol. 113. a. 1. he vsurpeth), seme to proue that the auctor here, noted some Anti­pope, which hath bene no noueltie for these 3. or 4. hundred yeares to haue two or three popes at once: And so some writer in fauour of him by like, that was chosen and kepte residence at Rome, hathe written this against some other that vsurped Petres seate &c.

It is happy M. Nowell, that this is but a bare surmise of Dorman. youres leaning to no sure fundation, but confirmed by a pore by Like. As for the wordes (whose seate he vsurpeth) they make nothing for youre Antipope, but haue relation to su­che false bishoppes as being heretikes or schismatikes, corrupt the traditiō of catholike bishoppes whose seates they vsurpe, by making warre with the church, and chalenging to be of the ordre of bishoppes, and of the bodye of Christes church, whereas of their bishoppes they can shewe no beginning, and of their bodye they will haue no heade. You can not [Page 196] here saye, that because they were oute of the church thys auncient auctor called them a body without Christe their heade. For althoughe that be true. Yeat the wordes that go next before: They trouble the ordre begonne of Peter, &c. cha­lenging to them selues an ordre withoute beginning, that is to saie, professing a body without a heade, argue an other heade then Christe, whose auctoritie of being heade of his church, de­pended not vpon Petre you wote well, but contraryewise Peters vpon his. Whereas you restreine this place to be ment, against some false pope intruding him selfe into the bishoprike of Rome, you doe the auctor greate wronge, who as the learned will easely espye, speaketh here general­ly of all suche bishoppes, as make them selues sees out off the churche or against the churche. You might if it had pleased you haue gessed nearer, if you had saide that he had noted the false Donatist bishoppes, who making them sel­ues Sees against the churche, professed a bodye withoute a heade as you doe. As appeareth by Optatus liuing in the same time and writing of their bishoppes in this wise. Igi­tur Optatus lib. 2. de Schismat. Donatist. quia Claudianus Luciano, Lucianus Macrobio, Macro­bius Encolpio, Encolpius Bonifacio, Bonifacius Victori succes­sisse videntur: si Victori diceretur, vbi sederit, nec ante se aliquem illic fuisse monstraret, nec cathedram aliquā nist pestilentiae osten­deret, that is to saie. Therefore because Claudianus seemeth to haue succeded Lucianus, Lucianus Macrobius, Macro­bius Encolpius, Encolpius Bonifacius, Bonifacius Victor: if one shoulde aske Victor to whome he succeded, neither coulde he name any before him, nor shewe any other chai­re then the chaire of pestilence. That to colour the better this fond fantasy of youres, you saie it hath bene no nouel­tie for these 3. or 400. yeares, to haue 2. or 3. popes at once, as though some late writer were the auctor of this worcke, [Page] it is a most miserable shifte, seing that bothe there be store of olde writtē copies not vnwritten these 500. yeares, whe­re this worcke is to be founde in the name of S. Augustine, and therefore can this place by no meanes (excepte yowe woulde haue it written by prophecie before the thing we­re done) be vnderstande of anie suche schismaticall pope: and againe, if it be not S. Augustins, it is yeat more aun­cient, for as muche as the auctor thereof, counteth but 300. Quaestio. 44. yeares from the comming of Christe, to his time.

Howe so euer it be, the matter can not be applied to vs, who Nowell. a. 10. doe not vsurpe Peters chaire. Further what worde is there here to proue the chaire of Rome, to be the heade of the vniuersall chur­che, &c.

You trouble the ordre begonne of Petre, whiche is i­nough Dorman. to proue youre chaire the chaire of pestilence. For that I noted you of, althoughe by taking vpon you that whiche belongeth to that chaire, you vsurpe his chaire also. These wordes (the ordre begonne of Petre) include the aucto­ritye of the See of Rome, that ordre being first begonne in Peter that he was the heade of the reste, as hathe be­ne declared, and so are you answered to youre demaunde, what word there is here to proue the chaire of Rome to be the heade of the vniuersall church.

To procede, we hauing Christe to be oure heade, our chur­che Nowell. is no deade troncke, as lacking an heade: and hauing him oure heade onely, and other his ministres oure gouernours vnder him, oure churche is no lyue monstre as hauing manye heades: no mo­re then oure common wealth hauing God the onely heade in heauen, oure prince his seruaunt oure heade gouernoure in earthe, is therefore a liue monstre: or the whole worlde hauing God to his heade is therefore a deade troncke, because it hathe no one onely earthly heade, nor can haue any suche: no more can the vniuersall churche thorough oute the whole worlde, haue anye suche one earthly heade, &c. and so maye he conclude that God and Christe the authors of lyfe be no heades or no suche heades [Page 197] as can saue the bodies whereof they be heades, from being deade tronckes, excepte the saide bodies haue a false vsurper from Rome to be their heade beside, and to giue them life.

You twang here M. Nowell vpon that olde false string Dorman. that euer iarreth and neuer is in tune. For as I haue euer tolde you so often as you made mention of this compari­son betwene the state of the worlde and the church (which hathe bene in this Repronfe of youres verie often) that be­twene the gouernemet of the church and the whole worl­de there is greate o [...]es, so doe I nowe answere you againe. But you will saie, that I am the auctor of this comparison my selfe, who reason, that the churche must haue one hea­de, because kingdomes, countries, cities, be so best gouer­ned. It is my reason (I confesse) that euery thing that is o­ne is best gouerned by one. And therefore the worlde it sel­fe, were for vs that liue in the same best gouerned by one chiefe heade vnder Christe, if for the paine of oure sinnes God had not disposed the same to be gouerned by manie. Which when yow saie to be a thing impossible bothe in the church and in the world, you speake as you are wont with­out anie proufe, muche to the derogation of goddes om­nipotency. Nowe to come to youre comparison: see I praie yow whether if God had appointed all the kingdomes in the worlde to be one, as he hathe all the churches to be one (for he came into the worlde, vt dispersos congregaret in v­num, Psal. 146. to gather the dispersed together) it shoulde not be also a deade troncke if it lacked a visible heade to make it one. Your similitude betwene the churche and oure common wealthe, is made betwene Christe heade of the churche on­lye, a multitude of ministres gouernours of the same vndre him, and the common wealthe hauing God the heade in heauen, and one prince, his seruaunt and heade gouernour [Page] in earthe. This comparison maketh not onelye not withe yow, but verie muche also against yow. First it maketh not with yow, because yow supposing the churche to be one bodie and Christe the onelye heade thereof, allowe to the churche manie vndreheades, whereas in the common wealthe being allso one bodye and the other parte of the comparison, there is mention but of one heade vndre Chri­ste, the prince him selfe. So that thereupon to infer, that the churche hauing an infinite no more of heades beinge but one bodye, is no monstre, because the common wealth hauing but one visible heade like to it selfe is no monstre: it is a monstrouse conclusion, more meete to procede from a blocke that hathe no sense, or a monstre that hathe ma­nye heades but wit in none of them, then from a creature endowed with reason. It maketh against yowe thus: the common wealth where be manie heades and euerie one will gouerne, is a monstrouse bodye: but the churche is Christes common wealthe, and hathe as yowe saie, manie heades to gouerne it: therfore it is a monstre. Againe: The common wealthe that because Christe is the onelye heade thereof in heauen will admit no other chiefe heade in ear­the, is a blocke. But so doeth youre churche: therefore it is a blocke or deade troncke.

As for the conclusions that yowe saie I maie make, that God and Christe be no heades or no suche heades, &c. and againe, that aswell all kingdomes, and common weal­thes in Christendom be liue monstres as hauing many heades &c. In dede I muste nedes confesse a truthe, God hathe giuen me free will, and I maie abuse it if I list, and make as manye foolishe conclusions as yow haue done. But I trust yowe will not deale with me as yow ruffled before with the pore Franciscanes and those of the company of Iesus, to conclu­de [Page 198] that I will saie so because I maie saie so if I list to plaie the foole. Nowe to these conclusions I saie, that trulie I can not so conclude, the first of them folowing no better, then if yow M. Nowell woulde conclude, that God and Christe the auctors of all true doctrine can not instructe men (if it so pleased them) in all wholesome knowledge without the externall helpe of man, because they doe this by men. For euen as God vseth the ministery of men to teache and pre­ache, not as though he coulde not so doe without, for our infirmities sake, and because it pleased the diuine wisdome that Christe the seconde persone in Trinitie should not be allwaies visibly present with vs: for the same cause hathe it pleased all mightie God, to gouerne the membres of his churche, by the meanes of one visible heade the B. of Ro­me. The folie of youre seconde conclusion appeareth I doubte not, by the difference that is betwene all the chur­ches of the world, which make all but one, and the kingdo­mes which be diuerse and were neuer appointed to be one.

And had M. Dorman had so muche leasure from his diuinitie Nowell. matters, as to haue looked better vpon his notes of the canon la­we, his peculier studie, he woulde haue bene better aduised then to haue called vs Acephalos headlesse, and therefore deade trunckes, who doe obeie oure owne prelates, seing Acephali (as is there no­ted) are those who be subiecte to no prelate.

And had M. Nowell had so muche witte to haue loked Dorman first vpon the texte and then vpon the glose from whence he borowed this note, he woulde haue bene better aduised then to haue alleaged it of all other for their defence. For by the texte it appeareth, that those whome the glose there cal­leth Acephali, had heades, quos ministros seu custodes vel gar­dianos aut nominibus alijs appellant, whome they cal ministres, kepars, wardens or by other names. Why dothe the glose [Page] then call then headlesse? quia sub nullius veri praelati obedientia existunt, because they are vnder the obedience of no true prelate. This is the reason of the glose. But yeat let vs aske an other question: why were they vnder the obediēce of no true prelate? Because their heades were not alowed by the pope. This is the reason of the texte. You must not be angry with me M. Nowel for charging you as I doe with the canō law. For you bogge me in my peculier studie (as you saie), and you seme to haue cōceiued greate trust vpō this place, which maketh me the bolder and earnester to. With the texte and the glose agreeth reason: for if your head that standeth now vpon your shoulders, should sodenly be turned in to the hea­de of an Asse, he should not saye amisse that for all the long eares, shoulde saye you were headlesse, not for that that yow had no heade at all suche a one as it were, but in this respect that you had no suche heade as you shoulde haue, no suche heade as a preacher shoulde loke out of a pulpite withal. To come nowe nearer to the common case of you all, and to exemplifie it by some of youre lignage that haue gone be­fore you: were the subiectes of Nouatus trowe you that false bishop, Acephali without a heade, when forsaking Cornelius the B. of Rome, they obeied him? If they were, you are. For youre case is like, your bishoppes being no more truly bis­shoppes then Nouatus was, nor alltogether so truly neither. For he was made bishop by two bishoppes laufully made by the pope, whereas you were made by the commission, curre­bant & ego non mittebam. Nowe seing the canon lawe helpeth Hier. cap. 23. you not, yea seing it maketh directly against you, as the whi­che accounteth them headlesse that appointe heades to them selfe without the popes approbation, seing at the lawes of the realme you finde as I heare saie as little grace: seing that by the scriptures you are condemned for running not being [Page 199] sent, what remaineth but to saye, that the obeing of your I­doll bishoppes can not excuse you from being headlesse?

All this a doe hathe M. Dorman made nowe by the space of more Nowell. fol. 114. a. 1. Clem. li. 3. Tit. 13. de censib. & exact. cap. cum sit & lib. 5. de verb. sig. Tit. 10. ca. 1. Ex frequentib. Dorman. then three leaues to deface scripture as no fitte iudge in controuer­sies, and to persuade vs that the pope like an other Pithagoras, by his only bare worde maie and ought to satisfie all men, heretikes, and others, and that it shalbe sufficient for him only to saye, with­out reason of scripture why he so saieth, sauing this reason only, pa­pae est pro ratione voluntas with the pope will standeth for reason, as is mentioned in the boke of his owne canon lawe &c.

Not to deface the scripture M. Nowel haue I made al this a doe (there you belye me) but to deface heretikes, while by this meanes it shall not be laufull for thē to peruert and cor­rupte it with their false and vntrue expositions. The places that you bring out of the canon lawe, to proue that it is suf­ficient for the pope to saye without reason of scripture why he so saieth, are two: but in neither of those places is that which you saye. The first place speaketh of certeine priuile­ges which the pope for causes and considerations will not haue extendid to monasteries and churches after a certeine time. Here saieth the glose vpon this place, that the popes will in this case standeth for reason. Againe in the seconde place which is not there where you falsely note it here in the margent to be, but in the title de sententia excommunicat. cap. si summus pontifex, of the pope absoluing one excommu­nicate it saieth as muche, but no where in the popes lawe is this odiouse saing of youres founde. Loke therfore better bothe vpon the texte and the glose, and learne to vnderstan­de them before you bring them nexte.

An answere to. 8. demaundes made by M. Nowell touching the pope. The 30. Chapitre.

THE FIRST: what if there be two or three popes at once? Is it not to be doubted which of them shall be this certeine iudge in cō ­trouersies? Nowell. And is not the popish churche in this case, in daunger to 1 be a liue monstre as hauing manie heades?

If there shoulde be so manie popes at once, as truly po­pes, Dorman. as you professe to haue of your church manie heades at once, then should the church be, not only in daunger but in deede, a liue monstre, as youre schismaticall churche is. But whereas in truthe there is but one laufull pope, it is in no suche daunger as yow fantasy, not if there were ten that pretended euery of them right to the papacy. If any su­che chaunce happen, we knowe it chaunceth by Goddes permission, who as he hath hetherto so guided his chur­che, that when the like hathe happened, it neuer sustei­ned thereby anie detriment in faithe: so are we by his pro­mise assured who promised neuer to forsake his churche, that he will in no wise permitte in this doubtefull time anye such cōtrouersie to be moued, as that maye not with­oute the detriment of his church, remaine in suspense vntil suche time as God haue reuealed the right iudge and true pope.

What if there be neuer a pope at all? Shall all oure doubtes lye Nowell. b. 25. therewhile vndiscussed for lacke of a iudge, and youre popishe church so longe (two or three yeares together) lye as a dead tronc­ke 2 for lacke of an heade?

If your doubtes be suche as the vsage of the churche, the Dorman. consent of all nations, be not able to explicate, then is there no other remedie but by praier to desire allmightye God, to kepe from vs no longre this necessarie meane ap­pointed by him in earthe to signifie to vs his holye will and pleasure. The churche is not in the meane season a de­ade [Page 200] troncke, no more then one of youre particuler chur­ches is when the bishop dieth. For euen as there (although not in all thinges) the Chapitre supplieth the lacke of the bishop in many: so the See of Rome being voide by deathe, hathe a graue Senate, that supplieth, althoughe not in defining of controuersies, yeat in manie thinges, that want of the heade. I trust when the generall heade of the church of England in earthe dieth, you will not call your church a deade troncke.

VVhat if the pope sitte not at Rome in Italie? May we not doubt Nowell. of the certeintie of the iudge, not sitting in the chaire whereof he 3 hath all his certeintie?

The pope hathe not his certeintie of Peters materiall Dorman. chaire, but of the auctoritie and power giuen to Petre, the signe whereof the chaire is. And therefore you nede not to trouble youre selfe with that care: whether he sitte in the verye same chaire that Petre did or in some other, whether he sit at Auinion in Fraunce, or Toletum in Spaine, he is allwaies bishoppe of Rome, and successour to Petre. And as we saie, where the kinge is there is the courte: so where the pope sitteth there is Peters chaire, to saye Petres aucto­ritye.

VVhat if he doe erre? VVhat if he be an heretike? Nowell. 4. 5.

The pope maye haue his priuate and personall errours, Dorman. it can not be denied. God onely and not man is priuilea­ged that he can not so erre. But in determining any matter of faithe, or deliuering any doctrine to the whole churche, he that is the chiefe heade of his churche, will neuer suffer him so to erre. And therefore I saye with S. Augustine that August. e­pist. 165. his misdoinges doe not preiudice the churche. If it woulde please you M. Nowell to become scholer to those that you [Page] call my maisters (as for anie greate learning that you haue showen in this Reproufe of youres it might beseeme you well enough) Pighius and Hosius, in them shoulde you le­arne, Lib. 4. ec­cles. hie­rarch. cap. 8. Lib. 2. contra Brent. fo­lio. 83. & sequent. that all youre companions be not hable to conuince so muche as one pope emongest so manie as haue bene, to be an heretike. But let that be as doubtefull, as this is mo­ste certeine, that there was neuer yeat anye pope that gaue in any matter of faithe an hereticall sentence. And therfore you are much to blame to conceiue of Goddes prouiden­ce for his churche any such dispaire, not being hable for all the time past to shewe so muche as one example of that whiche you captiously demaunde.

VVhat if his election be vncerteine or vnlaufull? Must he yeat Nowell. fol. 115. a. 2 be the moste certeine and onely iudge?

6 If the election be not lauful, it giueth to the elected per­son Dorman. no right.

VVhat if we haue a shee pope, suche as was pope Ioane other­wise Nowell. Iohn the eight? 7:

What iff that be a lye, and to be founde in no storye Dorman. of worthy credite? Iff suche a chaunce should yeat happen, then were there no pope, but for the time the See vacant.

VVhat if the popes successours doe disanull, their praedeces­sours Nowell. popes decrees, &c? 8

In matters perteining to thinges indifferent it maye so Dorman. chaunce, time and place so requiring: but in faithe and do­ctrine deliuered to the whole church, that any such chaun­ge or alteration hath happened you are not able to shewe, nor euer shall, and therfore you might haue kepte this what if with the rest in youre purse.

Thus are these doubtes of youres answered M. Nowell, and so shall I trust the other great manie mo that you thre­aten me withall, which you loked for belike at the writing [Page 201] hereof to come shortly from Franckeforde marte.

The pope is not iudge in his owne cause. The cause is A. 19. gods and the churches. So I tolde yow before.

Yow make muche a doe to proue that the scriptures are the waye of truthe, iudgementes: yea and iudgementes off truthe, whiche no man denieth. For it hathe bene allwaies graunted vnto yow, that the scriptures conteine all truthe in them sufficient to confirme all true doctrine, and to o­uerthrowe the contrarie, when by the voice of the churche they are interpreted and made manifest. When we harcken to the popes interpretation of scripture, we acknowledge and so ought all true catholikes that we heare the holy gost speaking by his mouthe, in which case we saie that the cre­dite whiche we giue to his sentence, is not giuen to him as he is a man but to gods worde, whereby we are taught that the thing whiche mannes nature coulde not obteine, Chri­ste God and man obteined for Peter the first pope of Ro­me, Lucae. 22. that is that his faithe shoulde not faile, and so conse­quently for all that shoulde after him succede in the gouer­nement of the churche. And so is youre texte answered: God is true but euerie man is a lier. Or elles we coulde not be assured of that which the prophetes and Apostles teache vs.

Of the title, heade of the churche of En­gland, giuen to oure late souereigne Kinge Henry the 8. The 31. Chapter.

I ASKED here, by occasion of that foolishe reason of fo. 116. a. 1. your Apologie: Christ is heade of the church: Ergo, it hath or ne­deth no other, how it happened then, that youre compani­ons gaue to kinge Henry the 8. the title of heade of the [Page] churche of Englande, and yow youre selues to oure moste gratiouse lady his daughter, the same also in effecte? To this yow saie:

If it will please yow to resorte to the recordes of the 22. and 24. Nowell. 1. b. 7. yeares of King Henry the 8. there shall yow finde who they were, that first offred this title to the saide Kinge: there shall yowe finde that all Abbottes, and other religiouse, all the bishoppes, Deanes, Archedeacons and cleargie of both the houses of the conuocation then liuing gaue him that title. To the latter question of the Quenes maiestie, to that yowe will shortly answere yowe saie, but presently yow doe not.

When yow haue ransacked all the recordes, and saide all Dorman. that yow can, to make the Catholikes oure forefathers partakers withe yow of this facte: yeat is this moste surelie recorded in all mennes remembraunce, that all Catholikes ioyned not with yow, and those that did, were folowers and no leaders, consented to that title which was required, and offred it not of their owne motion. The first auctors that put that wicked deuise in to the kinges moste noble heade, were not the catholikes but heretikes, and the scho­lers of Luther, suche as were Cromwell, Cranmere, and other. I speake not this notwithstanding to excuse them who confesse their owne faultes, and are moste sorie and penitent therefore. This was a case wherein we maie saie withe oure forefathers: peccauimus, iniusté egimus, iniquita­tem fecimus: We haue sinned, we haue done vniustly, we haue committed iniquitie. But what is all this to the pur­pose? What if the catholikes did amisse withe yow as they did, how can yowe answere this, standing in youre wicked opinion still, that a particuler church maie haue one heade, gouernour vnder Christe in earthe, and the whole maie not? To that yow saie.

I truste the reason is not to seeke in the good readers memorie, Nowell. fo. 117. a. 22. seing it hathe bene so ofte declared before: yet will I answere M. Dormans question by an other question.

Yow burden verie sore the readers memorie to remem­bre Dorman. that which hetherto yowe neuer vttred. Yow are not wont to be so daungerouse (I reporte me to the reader) to repeate one thing diuerse times, but there was good cause that yow shoulde here doe as yow did, to wit, because yow are not hable (standing in strength the argument of you­re Apologie) to giue anie reason, why the churche of one particuler realme, hauing two prouinces, two archebishop­pes, and vndre them aboue 20. bishoppes, whereof Christe is as muche the heade as of the whole churche, shoulde more haue an other heade beside Christ ouer all these particuler heades, then all the particuler heades of Christes vniuersall churche shoulde haue an other heade beside Christe ouer them. Yeat I knowe yowe meane that reason of youres, whiche being so foolishe, so wicked and blasphemouse, that one man is not hable to rule and gouerne (vndre Christe) the whole churche alone, yow haue so often repeated, ha­uing no other shift of descant, that euen verie shame com­pelleth yow now at the last, to wrappe and inuolue it in si­lence. As for the answere that yowe make by a question: VVhy one kingdome maye haue in earth vnder God one head, and the whole world can not: to that I saie, that it is a false pro­position, that the whole worlde can not haue one onlye head in earth vndre God, often in this youre Reproufe stoutely af­firmed, but neuer as yeat proued. To this answere I ioyne also the seconde, that the questions be not like. But then you saye:

If M. Dorman saye the questions be not like, I aske with what Nowell. b. 1. face he can so saye, seing that in the beginning of this his treatie, he brought the example of ciuile gouernement, in the whiche euery [Page] kingdome hath his king, euerie countrie, citie, and companie haue their seuerall gouernours &c. to proue that the church ought like­wise to haue one head.

I acknowledge this example, and dare further make Dorman. you M. Nowell youre selfe the iudge, whether these que­stions of youres and mine be lyke. I compare one kingdo­me to the whole church which is also one, and therein re­steth the strength and force of my exāple: I make no com­parison betwene all kingdomes of the worlde whiche be manie, and all churches which are but one, as you doe here deceauing your selfe and other toe. For if I shoulde so haue done, then had not the comparison bene good. Nowe if it were as true that God had ordeined all the kingdomes of the worlde to make one kingdome and not manie, as he hath all the churches to be one and not manie: then if you denied to all these kingdomes ioyned in one, a visible king to be aboue all the rest, and to gouerne the whole, because god is the Monarche and ruler of all, as you doe to the v­niuersall churche for the same cause: I woulde saie that you offendid as muche therein, not alowing to all these kingdomes being but one, one heade and chiefe gouer­nour, as you shoulde doe if you woulde graunte to parti­culer kingdomes no particuler king: the reason being as greate why the whole shoulde haue one ruler ouer it, as why anie particuler membre shoulde. But nowe I can not so saye, because God hath appointed no suche ordre in the worlde, as he hath in his kingdome the churche, and ther­fore the questions be not like.

From this you runne as one that feared to tarie to long, to gesse what we woulde saie if the time serued vs, and here on Gods name you tel vs a long tale of the popes rule ouer all the worlde in temporalities, and of king Iohn, as muche [Page 203] to the purpose as if you had tolde vs of Robin hood, and therfore I passe it ouer, with youre other reasons that folo­we, fo. 118. b. made to boulster vp, the rotten reason of youre Apo­logie, because they haue bene so often answered by sho­wing the difference betwene the two states of the worlde and the churche.

The answere to the con­clusion. The 32. chapiter.

NOWE foloweth M. Nowelles conclusion, wherein drawing nere to the ende, and knowing howe weakely the matter hathe bene handled by him in the whole processe of his booke before, he thinketh by a certeine lusty brauery of wordes to make amendes, and so to beare awaye the garlande. But nowe let vs here howe he bestirreth him.

Thus I trust good Readers you see the insufficiencie, or more Nowell. fo. 119. a. 7. truly the lewdnesse of M. Dormans prouffes of the necessitie of o­ne only heade ouer Christes whole church here in earthe: you see where he saieth he hathe sufficiētly proued it to be Christes plea­sure, that there shoulde be suche an one heade, that he hathe not nor coulde not (for if he coulde he woulde) alleage out of the ne­we testament (where Christes will and pleasure is written, and de­clared moste largely and manifestly) as muche as one worde foū ­ding to that purpose so farre of is it, that it is, as he saieth sufficiēt­ly proued.

Thus I trust you see good Readers howe M. Nowell Dorman. hauing begonne with a lye in the verie title of his booke, calling it a Reproufe of my boke, which reproueth but on­ly. 15. leaues, hathe continued and nowe endeth the same in such wise as the middle and ende maye appeare in all men­nes iudgement to answere to the beginning. Yow see whe­re he saieth, that I haue not sufficiently proued it to be [Page] Christes pleasure that there shoulde be one heade in his steede in the whole churche, because I alleaged no testi­monie oute of the newe testament, that in restreining my prouffes to the only newe testament and calling the testi­monies brought out of the olde lawe (as he dothe hereaf­ter) olde shadowes, while he reproueth my prouffes for this cause, he semeth not to be farre from the heresie of the Manichees, who condemned the olde testament. It was not M. Nowell because I coulde not, that I alleaged no proufe out of the newe testament. But the cause (if you will nedes knowe it) was for this, that I thought it best to vse suche testimonies as consisting in facte, and ha­uing bene alreadye put in execution, you shoulde be lesse able to cauill against: especially making my counte, that the appointing of one chiefe prieste in the olde lawe being for the benefite of Goddes people. you woulde easely admitte that Christe woulde be as beneficiall to his churche in the newe lawe. Otherwise I coulde haue brought to you oute of the ghospell of S. Matthewe the wordes of oure Sauiour Matth. 16. to S. Petre, where he vsing these wordes: And I tell the that thow arte Petre, and vpon this rocke I will builde my churche: and againe, what so euer thow shalt binde vpon earthe, shall be bounde in heauen, &c. made Peter, as Chrisostom witnesseth, Shepeherd of the churche, heade of the churche, ruler ouer the whole Homi. 55. lu Matth. worlde. I coulde haue alleaged lhe place of S. Iohn where Christe committing to Peter the charge of all his flocke Ioan. vlt. excepting none, made by that meanes one ruler of the who­le, Homil. in cap. Ioan. vlt. and committed curam orbis terrarum, the charge of the vniuersall worlde to Peter, as saieth the same Chrisosto­me. These places coulde I haue alleaged and other also, had it not bene to auoide wrangling, and for that, that I persua­ded my selfe that this example takē from the gouernement [Page 204] of Goddes people the Iues, shoulde be to all indifferent mē sufficient enough to confirme my purpose, as til M. Nowell confute it, it is.

Yow see that schismes and controuersies by S. Cyprians iud­gement Nowell. and S. Augustins, with 217. bishoppes moe assembled in the African councell with him, and by good reason and experien­ce allso, maye be beste quieted in the countries where they ari­se.

You see that neither S. Cyprian, neither S. Augustine Dorman. neither the 217. bishoppes (emongest whome M. Nowell before nombred Orosius being no bishoppe but a prieste one­ly, and Prosper a bishop of Rhegium in Italie and therefore not like to be at anye councell in Africa) neither yeat rea­son or experience whiche teache the contrarye, doe saye Supra cap. 11. that schismes and controuersies maye be best quieted and decided in the countries where they arise. That which they saye, is ment of criminall causes, not of schismes about do­ctrine, as those wordes of S. Cyprian conteining the reason why he woulde haue suche causes hearde in the countries where they happen being these: but ought there to make an­swere to their causes where they maye haue accusers and witnes­ses of their crimes, doe well declare. And thus you see that this is a manifold lye.

Yow see that it becommeth man, vnhable well to gouerne a Nowell. verie little thinge, to humble him selfe and to yealde vp the ho­nour and glory of gouerning the whole worlde and churche to God, &c.

You see by the example of Peter refusing of humilitie Dorman. the seruice that Christ offred to him in wasshing his feete, Ioan, 13. that true humilitye is to doe that whiche Christe biddeth to be done. Yow see withall M. Nowells honestie, that to deceiue the simple, vseth here these wordes, Yealde vp the ho­nour [Page] and glorie of gouerning the whole world and church to god, as though any man so claimed the gouernement of the churche as that he woulde displace Christe thereof.

Also you see that in this treatie hetherto, as M. Dorman hathe Nowell. not one worde out of the newe testament, so hath he alleaged but only two textes out of the olde testament, one oute of Deuteron. cap. 17. &c. an other of Numeri. 16. which bothe make directly a­gainst him. &c.

You see and knowe I doubte not, that one texte of ho­lye Dorman. scripture is as good as a hundred. You see that M. No­well goeth guilefully aboute to abuse the simple by this terme (nation) as thoughe because the Iues whiche were but one nation had their chiefe prieste and high bishoppe, the­refore there shoulde folowe thereof naught elles, but that euerye nation countrye, diocesse or churche, shoulde haue also their chiefe bishoppe, withoute anye one heade ouer the whole: whereas the Iues althoughe they were but one nation, were yeat the chosen people and churche of God, and emongest diuerse heades of seuerall tribues there was ouer all those heades one chiefe heade. You haue seene that of S. Cyprians applieng of this texte to inferiour magistra­tes, can be gathered no necessary argument that it maie not be otherwise applyed, that is to the higher. You haue seene as many as haue readen my first booke. fol. 33. 34. 35. that Moises was a prieste, that yeat there foloweth no absurdi­tie of being two high priestes at once, because as S. Augu­stine Lu quaest. super. Le­uitic. lib. 3. cap. 23. saieth, they were bothe high priestes in diuerse respe­ctes, the one in commaunding to be done, the other in ex­ecuting thinges commaunded. And withall you see, that we are here by M. Nowell vntruly burdened of disobedience to oure Souereigne as not acknowledging suche auctori­tye in the same ouer spirituall matters, as was in Moises and [Page 205] Aaron.

VVherefore you maye well vnderstande that were it either Nowell. proffitable or necessary &c to haue such an one heade, God woul­de haue certified vs of a thing so proffitable and necessarie, more plainely and exprossely then by two olde shadowes of the Iuishe churche, which doe teache vs also the contrary.

God hath certified vs by building his church vpon one, Dorman. by making one generall pastour ouer all the rest, that his Matth 16. Ioan. vlt. pleasure was to appointe this maner of gouernement in his churche. But what meane yow to finde faulte with the testimonies of the olde testament, calling them shadowes, and to demaunde other of the newe, hauing brought for youre opinion not so muche as one piece of a sentence, out of either the olde testament or the newe?

Yow see howe blindely he going aboute to proue that there Nowell. fo. 120. a. 1 ought to be one onelye heade ouer all the church, bringeth in for proufe thereof the regiment of seuerall countries, kingdomes, ci­ties &c. by seuerall princes, seuerall magistrates and heades, whi­che maketh moste directly with vs, that seuerall churches, should in likewise haue their seuerall heades.

Yow see that oure question being whether the catho­like Dorman. churche of Christe whiche is but one, ought to be ru­led by one heade or manie: M. Nowell here like the blinde bayard that he speakethe of, saieth that my example pro­ueth for them that it ought to be ruled by manye, because many kingdomes haue many kinges: wherein yow see that diuiding the church which is but one, he goeth against the faithe of the churche. Yow see that he dissembleth my rea­son, which is, that as a kingdom because it is one is best ru­led by one heade: so the church which is but one is best ru­led by one heade. Yow see that to this reason hetherto he neuer answered.

Yow see how often S. Cyprian is by him alleaged for the po­pe Nowell. of Rome his supremacy, in those places where he speaketh of Rogatian and, of him selfe being bothe bishoppes &c.

Yow see howe the places of S. Cyprian and S. Hierom Dormna. expressely mainteining the superioritie of one aboue the rest in euerye diocesse, with the cause added, for the auoi­ding of schismes, brought by me to proue by more forci­ble reason the necessitie of one heade ouer the whole, M. Nowell wresteth to the directe prouing of the B. of Rome his supremacy: wherof in that place as it was not my pur­pose to intreate, so if I had, I had done preposterously and confounded my appointed ordre of writing. Yow see ho­we the place of S. Basile brought to declare the maner off heretikes in contemning the auctoritie of their bishoppes, he laieth to my charge vntruly, to haue bene brought as spoken of the pope of Rome. Yow see that the compari­son made betwene Nouatus and oure protestantes of En­gland holdeth in this, that either of them laboureth to withdrawe the subiectes from their laufull obedience. Yow haue heard good Readers the sory melodie of M. Nowelles harpe, whereupon twanging on a false string he made a shamefull lye, in saing that Vrsitius and Valens offred vp their recantation as well to Athanasius as to Iulius the po­pe. Yow see that he hath oftentimes beelied. S. Cyprian and S. Hierome, feining them to make all bishoppes equall in auctoritie, and no one to be aboue the other. Yowe see his owne inconstancie and disagrement withe him selfe, one while affirming all bishoppes to be equall and none to be aboue the other, an other while denieng, and making chie­fe prelates in euerie prouince: yow see him reiecting pope Leo as witnesse in his owne cause, and bringing in the African to esbeare witnesse to them selues.

Yow see to deface pope Leo howe shamefully he scla­undreth Zosimus, of whome the whole Africane councell wrote so reuerently. Yow see howe he burdeneth without all maner of proufe, Celestinus (of whome Prosper writeth so honorably) with other his successours, to haue forged a greate many of the epistles nowe abrode in the names of Clement, Anacletus &c. yowe see howe he spareth no iniu­riouse wordes to Leo calling him theefe, noting him of ambition whome the councell of Calcedon called thrise blessed, and God honoured withe miracles. Yow see that he chalengeth vntrulie the copies of Leo to be contrarye one to an other. Yow see that he is a plaine makebate, and to mende his cause by setting the doctours at variance be­twene them selues, how he heweth, mangleth, and cutteth awaie from the auctors that he alleageth, wordes, yea sen­tences to serue his purpose.

You see in defence of schismes howe he laboureth to finde vnquietnesse emongest the Apostles and disciples of Christe: you see that to deface vnitie, as he taketh it from the Apostles, so he attributeth it to the Phariseis and ene­mies of Christe. You see for lacke of weightier matter he chargeth vs with the disputable opinions of scholemen and logiciners, with diuersitie of apparell, of diete and mea­tes, which maners as you haue hearde, were yeat emongest the religiouse in the primitiue church.

You see how often he repeateth and neuer proueth, that it is impossible for one man to gouerne the whole churche. You see that Nazianzenes wordes were not al­leaged by me as spoken of one pope, and that therfore therein as in manie other thinges he hathe also beelied me.

You see the wordes of an auncient auctor printed with [Page] S. Austen, and of long time taken for him alleaged: why not as boldely M. Nowel as you without blusshing alleage a worcke by the title of being printed withe Chrisostome, and of long time taken for him?

And vniuersally you see M. Nowelles falsehode in trans­lating, or fraude in corrupting, mangling, or adding to su­che auctors as he dothe alleage: you see his lyes as thicke as leaues. You see my selfe discharged of suche false transla­ting, corrupting, mangling, as here vntruly he reproueth me of. 5. tymes in the margent. Neither is his deceite and fol. 120. b. 30. guile comparable to his impudency, as being not abasshed to alleage the epistle of the African councell sent to Ce­lestinus, for the proufe of a decree pretended to be made in the councell against appealing from thence to Rome, and sending legates from Rome thither, whereas there is no suche decree specified there. And thus you see good Rea­ders, while M. Nowell in this long Reproufe of his, hathe 1 answered nothing to the scripture alleaged but moste vai­nely and fondly this, that God hathe prouided better for his churche then for the Synagoge by apointing ouer it many heades, where as the Synagoge had but one, and also that the Iues were but one nation &c. which answeres ha­ue bene cōfuted before: while the argument taken from S. 2 Cyprian and S. Hierom concluding that seing schismes be raised by not obeing the particuler heades of euery dioces­se, that then by greater reason schismes are like to growe in the vniuersall church, if emongest so manie heades there be not one chiefe heade to rule the rest, is not yeat soluted: while the reason that euerie seuerall companie that is one, ought to haue a seuerall heade to rule the same, applied to 3 the churche, hath not hetherto bene answered, the only reason that M. Nowell leaneth to to the contrarie, that it is [Page 207] impossible for one man to gouerne the whole churche 4 being directed by the spirite of God (for otherwise we af­firme it not) neuer being proued: it foloweth, that my prouf­fes by the scripture, by the mindes of the auncient fathers, by good and probable reason, stande vpright against youre wrangling Reproufe M. Nowell.

Youre charging of me with impertinent discourses I answered before: let the iudgement of that matter be refer­red to the learned reader. But beholde nowe foloweth M. Nowelles conclusion.

Seing therfore this first and moste principall pointe of one heade of the churche is not proued &c. all the popes supremacie Nowell. commeth downe vpon their heades.

If I had proued this first pointe as weakely as you woul­de Dorman. make men beleue I haue, or not proued it all, yeat com­meth not downe the popes supremacy, as before in the be­ginning of the. 11. cbapitre I shewed. And therfore for the councell that you giue me here out of time, to recoyle from this Thesis of one heade of the churche, to the Hypo­thesis of the pope heade of the churche, as there is no nede to admit it, so there is no cause to thanke you for it.

You saie that I haue placed in the residue of my booke as in the rerewarde, bag and baggage, withe suche pages, drudges Nowell. and slaues to attende vpon the same, as are more readie to runne awaye then to abide anie brunt of battaile. The which (saie you) I haue not as yeat assailed, for that I saw the B. of Sarisbury his bā ­de bent vpon them, whose hādes if anie of that cowardly compa­ny escape &c. I promise to haue them shortly in the chase, vntill I haue left of all M. Dormans bragging but moste cowardly army of lewde popishe reasons and allegations, not asmuch as one soul­diour vntaken or put to shamefull flight.

Take heade what you doe and aske councel of your wife. Dorman. It is possible that the fauourable aspecte of Venus may mo­derate [Page] youre Martiall fury. In any case, if this great bishop­pes bande that you speake of, encountre not with this co­wardly company (as I heare saye he hath inough to doe al­ready and wil combre him selfe with no more) venture not your owne person so good a mannes bodye against suche drudges and slaues: Against whom as it is possible that you may take some hurte, so are you suer neuer to gett honour. What should so valiant a capitaine as ful oftē times you ha­ue at Paules crosse shewed your selfe to be, when that cora­giouse stomacke of youres hath prouoked the papistes to meete with you when they durst, whose daggers were as sharpe as theirs you tolde thē: when you offere your selfe with a small cōpanie, but yeat so that they were of the same spirite that you are, to kepe Newehauen against all the po­wer of Fraunce: when it woulde you saide doe youre harte good to rase youre buckler vpon a papistes face: What shoulde I save, so singuler a capitaine matche him selfe with suche a sorte of pages, drudges, and slaues as were tho­se mecocke and dastardly bishoppes assembled in the coūcelles of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Calcedon: as were Beholde what pa­ges drud­ges and slaues. M. Nowell hath foū ­de oute. Ignatius, Policarpus, Irinaeus, Ambrose, Hierome, Augusti­ne, Chrisostome, Athanasius, Theodoret, Leo, Innocen­tius, whome I placed as it were in the rerewarde, more like­lier as you saye to runne awaye, or to bide by it and laye their heades vpon the blocke, then to plaie the tosse buckler, to kepe a holde with you, or to dye in the fielde armed with youre maister Swinglius. But thanked be God this is but youre opinion, and a fewe other suche Bulliners as you are: emongest the learned they haue bene allwayes taken to be as they are, triarij milites, of the verie best soul­diors M. Nowell.

Of this question, whether a laye man, a woman or a childe maye be heade of the church. The last Chapitre.

THIS being the second pointe of my purposed ordre, to proue that the partye that shoulde gouerne in spirituall matters ought to be a prieste, no laye man, &c. it is a worl­de to see howe M. Nowell bestyrreth him selfe aboute it: and whereas he dareth not come neare to it, howe yeat he reacheth at it a farre of, as it were with a long pole or a mo­rispike, and so laboureth to saue his honour as well as ma­ye be. For he saieth that I proue those thinges whiche no man dothe denye, to witte, that no prince, man, woman nor childe, maie ministre the sacramentes, preache, excom­municate and absolute, &c. And lo this is the ioly pre­tense that M. Nowell maketh to shifte his handes of this seconde pointe, as that wherein for excuse of his silence he saieth, that there is no nede to write or saye anye thin­ge, because I haue no ennemie at all. And therefore he ad­deth.

For M. Dorman can not be ignorant, that we in all oure Ser­mones Nowell. fol. 123. a. 25. and writinges of suche matters, doe make a moste cleere and euident difference betwene the functions and offices of prin­ces ciuile magistrates, and priestes ecclesiasticall ministres: and neither did we euer teache that princes ought, neither did they e­uer desire to execute, the offices ecclesiasticall off ministring the Sacramentes, preaching excommunicating, absoluing and suche like.

I am not ignorant in deede of this qualification of you­res, Dorman. inuented the rather to intice some seely soules to the ta­king of youre othe. Whome in deede I maye well call see­ly [Page] that will therby any thing the soner be moued. For you­reselfe are not ignoraunt I trowe M. Nowell, that the cau­ses why we stande with you in this matter, are not onelye for ministring the Sacramentes, for preaching, excommu­nicating, absoluing, but as I tolde yow, and you here guile­fully conceale, this power extendeth farder, to the giuing and making of lawes for the churche, to auctoritie to iud­ge of doctrine wherewith the mēbres must be fedde, whe­ther it be soūde or otherwise: for these be offices that belōg to the heade not to the membres, excepte you will saie that the sheepe ought to iudge what meate is conuenient for them, not the shepherde. Againe to appease schismes, is the office not of inferiour mēbres but of the heade it selfe, and yeat belongeth as youre selfe haue graunted, to the chiefe prelaces of euery prouince. Finally to be heade of the chur­che is to haue the gouernement of so manye soules as be in that churche, whiche because no laye man &c. can haue in Note this rea­son. particuler bishoprickes, it foloweth that none can haue o­uer the whole churches of a realme vnited. Of the whiche matter Chrisostome saieth. At quum de ecclesiae praefectura, Lib. 2. de Sacerdotio. de credenda huit vel illi tam multarum animarum cura agitur, vniuersa quidem muliebris natura functionis istius moli ac mag­nitudini coedat oportet, item (que) & bona virorū pars. But when the question is of the gouernement of the churche, of the committing to this man or that the charge of so many sou­les, then must all the kinde of women giue place to the bur­den and greatenes of this office, yea and a greate parte of men also.

You bring the examples of king Dauid, Salomon, &c. who you saye had auctoritie in gouerning of the cleargie and churche matters, though they might not execute all ecclesiasticall functions and offices. This matter is answe­red [Page 209] in my first booke fol. 31. & sequ. Thither I referre the Reader.

What though oure moste graciouse souereigne ladye being a Nowell. woman, haue not so greate skill in feates of warre as haue her ca­pitaines, haue not so good knowledge in the lawes of her realme as her Iustices, and other learned men in the lawes haue, (thoughe she haue in al good learning and in the scriptures toe, more know­ledge then had anie of youre popes these seuen hundred yeares I beleue, and therfore no lette in that pointe, but she maie be heade of the whole churche aswell and rather then the pope. What if she fitte not in publike iudgement, nor determine controuersies as doe her Iustices, &c. what I saie if she can not execute all ciuile of­fices in her owne persone: woulde yow therfore take from her, her ciuile principalitie, &c? Surely yow maie with as good reason doe it, as yow would take awaie her superioritie ouer her cleargie from her, for that she can not, maie not, nor will not execute ecclesiasti­call functions.

Your comparison is false M. Nowell. For there is no lawe Dorman. neither of goddes nor mannes, that forbiddeth a Quene al­though a woman, to sitte in iudgemēt, or to be present with her armye in battaile, as Delbora did both. So that the not Iudic. cap. 5. doing herof procedeth not of lacke of habilitie or power, as contrarywise it doth that the prince meddleth not with ec­clesiasticall matters, whose condition in that, that he is a laie man maketh him vnhable for that function. Wheras M. No­well noteth the Quenes maiestie to haue more knowledge in all good learning and in the scriptures toe, then had anye pope these seuen hundred yeares, as I am not he that would abase those her maiesties rare giftes of excellent learning and princely qualities, farre more plentifully by the good­nesse of God bestowed vpon her, then anie other so noble prince, man or woman, that this daie liueth, but as my bo­unden dutie is, rendre moste humble thanckes to almighty God therefore: so can I in no wise but abhorre this moste impudent parasite good Reader, who vpon his beelefe (as [Page] though he had made neuer a lye in all this booke before) A lye. 82. addeth this of all other the moste shamefull. Whiche I no­thing doubte but her graces moste rare modestie can so e­uill abide to here, that longe ere this she hathe iudged him in her princely harte to be as he is, a vaine lyer and shame­lesse parasite. Whome if her grace shoulde commaunde to An Em­perours rewarde for a flat­terer. be rewarded for his labour, as Sigismunde the emperour rewarded one of the same profession, whome praising him aboue measure he buffeted as fast, answering him when he asked: why beatest thow me Emperour, why bitest thow me flatterer: as the rewarde were princely for suche a gift, so were the facte worthy so mightie a prince. But nowe AEneas Siluius li. 2. Com. de reb. gest. Alphonsi. to the good Reader, what cause haste thowe to trust here­after this mans beliefe in anie matter touching the pope, the learning considered of Innocentius the thirde, Aeneas Siluius called Pius the 2. Adrianus 6. Marcel [...]us 2. Pau­lus 4. and Pius. 4. that nowe is, and diuerse other within that compasse, as to the Learned is not vnknowen? This parasite staieth not here but going farder sayeth.

Though the Quenes maiestie haue not that vnderstanding of Nowell. fol. 124. a. 1. all the affaires of her realme, that experience in all thinges, that ac­tiuitie in executing them, that hathe the whole bodye of her mo­ste honorable councel, yeat dothe the whole bodye of her councell though moste honorable, humbly acknowledge her to be their he­ade, only proude priestes because some thinges are incidēt to their office, which the prince maye not VVhat if the prince listed? nor list not to doe, refuse their Souereigne to be their supreme gouernour.

You beely all priestes M. Nowell, and maye be ashamed to make the bishoppes only councellors in religion, whom Dorman. before you confessed by S. Cyprians minde to be iudges in earthe in Christes steede, whereas you would here make them no iudges, or iudges in the princes steede. You deale [Page 210] vntruly to sclaundre the cleargie as you doe. In whose de­fence I wil saye as S. Ambrose did to those that obiected to Lib. 5. ep. 32. him the Emperours auctoritie in matters of religion. Solui­mus quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, & quae sunt dei, deo. Tributu [...] Cae­saris est, non negatur. Ecclesia dei est, Caesari vtique non debet ad­dici, quia ius Caesaris esse non potest templum dei. Quod cum ho­norificenti [...] Imperatoris nemo dictum potest negare. Quid enim honorificētius quā vt imperator ecclesiae filius esse dicatur? Quod sine peccato dicitur, cum gratia dicitur: Imperator enim bonus in [...]ra ecclesiam, non supra eccl [...]siam est. We paye to Cesar that which is his, and to God that whiche belongeth to God. Tribute is due to Cesar, it is not denied him. The churche is goddes it maye not apperteine to Cesar, because the tem­ple of God, can not be Caesars right. The whiche no man can denie to be saied but with the Emperours honour. For what is more honorable then for the Emperour to be cal­led the sonne of the churche? The whiche when it is said, it is spoken with fauour, without offence. For a good Em­perour is within the church not aboue the churche. Thus muche S. Ambrose, a prowde prieste by youre iudgement, because he acknowledged not the Emperour to be his su­preme gouernour in causes ecclesiasticall. But because you thinke M. Nowell and saye also, that I haue lewdely abused my selfe in confuting that whiche no man holdeth, I will make it appeare that you haue lewdely done in so saing, and that I went not about to proue that the heade is not the heade be­cause it can not, or list not doe all offices of all the principall mē ­bres of the bodie, which you saie vntruly is the effecte of all my seconde long treaty, but that temporall princes can not be the heades because they can not doe the office of the heade. The whiche to proue I will alleage youre owne wordes, wherein the parte of a heade you saye consisteth. [Page] They are these.

To commaunde thinges aswell ecclesiasticall as ciuile to be do­ne, Nowell. to see them done, to commende and rewarde all well doers of them, to correct and punishe all euill doers of them, or negligent in their office, is the parte of a heade or supreame gouernour, to doe thinges commaunded is the office of inferiour membres and obedient subiectes.

We haue now good Reader M. Nowels owne limitatiō Dorman. wherein the office of the heade of the church consisteth. I praie the cōsidre when I alleaged scripture, that the gouerne­mēt Act. 20. of the church was cōmitted to bishoppes and priestes, that they must be obeied which watche for oure soules, spoken also of prie­stes: Hebr. 13. when I alleaged the blessed martyr Ignatus bidding vs Epist. ad Smirnē [...]es first to honour God, nexte the bishop as bearing his image, and then after that the king, willing all the people to obeye Epist. ad Piladel­phenses. Lib. 10. cap. 2 eccl. histor. Ambros. lib. 5. epi. 32. the Emperour, the Emperour to obey the bisshop, the bis­shop Christe &c. whē I alleaged the exāple of Constātine the first Christian Emperour, refusing to iudge ouer bis­shoppes, because God had giuen them power to iudge him: when I alleaged these wordes of S. Ambrose to the Empe­rour: Quando audisti clementissime imperator in causa fidei lai­cos de episcopo iudicasse? Ita ergo quadā adulatione curuamur vt sacerdotalis iuris simus immemores, & quod deus donauit mihi, hoc ipse putem alijs esse credendum? Si docendus est episcopus a laico quid sequitur? Laicus ergo disputet & episcopus audiat, episcopus discat a laico. At certe si velscripturarū seriem diuinarū, vel vetera tempora retractemus, quis est qui abnuat in causa fi­dei, in causa inquam fidei episcopos solerede imperatoribus, non imperatores de episcopis iudicare? Eris deo fauente, etiam senectu­tis maturitate prouectior, & tunc de hoc censebis qualis ille episco­pus sit qui laicis ius sacerdotale substernit. That is to saye, when haue you hearde moste gentle Emperour, that laye men haue iudged of the bishop? Be we therefore so crookened [Page 211] withe flattrye, that we shoulde forget the priestly right, and that whiche God gaue to me I shoulde thinke to be to be commited to other? If the bishop be to be taught of the Laye man, what will folowe? Let the laye man then dispu­te and the bishoppe be a hearer: let the bishoppe learne off the laye man. But truly if we will loke to the course of the Note. holy scripture, or call to memorye the times past, who can denye that in a cause of faithe, a matter I saie of faithe, the bishoppes were wont to iudge of Christian. Emperours, not Emperours of bishoppes. Yow shall be God willing youre selfe one daye of more ripe age, and then you shall iudge what maner of bishoppe he is, whiche bringeth the right of priesthode in subiection to lay men. Thus farre the wordes of Sainte Ambrose to Valentinian the Emperoure, taking vpon him by euell councell to entremedle in eccle­siasticall iurisdiction. When to these places I added the no­table testimonies out of Athanasius, where the Emperour In epist. ad Solitar. vitam agent. is bidden not to entremedle nor commaunde in ecclesiasticall matters: He is called Antichriste for making him selfe chiefe of the bishoppes, for ruling in ecclesiasticall iudgementes, for ma­king his palace the consistory of ecclesiasticall matters: Finally when I brought Caluin him selfe against this opinion of making temporall princes the heades in ecclesiasticall mat­ters, did I fight with mine owne shadowe? Did I laboure in confuting that whiche no man holdeth? Are not these auctorities directly against the commaunding of princes in ecclesiasticall thinges, against the taking vpon them to correcte or iudge bishoppes in matters of faithe, wherein the office M. Nowell saieth of the heade dothe consiste? You maye therefore nowe perceiue good Readers that it was but a pretended cause of M. Nowelles parte that he here alleageth, to shift of that to M. Iuell, at the least from [Page] him selfe, whiche he was suer he shoulde neuer be able to answere.

Wherefore nowe to conclude with you M. Nowell, I will giue you this frendely councell for a farewell, to striue no longre against priestes, lest it happen to you that the blessed Martyr S. Cyprian saieth was reuealed to him. Qui Lib. 4. epist. 9. Christo non credit sacerdotem facienti, postea credere in ipiet sa­cerdotem vindicāti. He that beleueth not Christ appointing the prieste, shall after begin to beleue him reue [...]ging the prieste. Struggle no longer against the See of Rome, of the A singu­lier testi­monie [...]or the chur­che of Rome. It maye be added be fore. fol. 192. b. Psal. contra pa [...]em Donati. which S. Augustine saieth: Ipsa est sedes Petri quam non vin­cunt superbae inferorum portae. That See is the rocke whiche the proude gates of hell shall not ouer­come. For iff you doe, you are like to lee­se youre labour as you see, except a lymme you thinke be able to doe more then the wide gates off the diuells palace. (?¿?)

Deo Gratias.