THe truthe of thys proposition (good Christian rea­ders) is not onely by the whole ordre, and forme of the estate of gods people in th' olde lawe, (whych was also the true churche of god) long before the com­ming of our sauiour in to this world, but by the dailie experience also, of ciuile and polytike gouuernenement, most manifestly confirmed. For who is there so blynde that he seeth not, that in the whole frame of this worlde, there is no kingdom so mighty, no realm so puysant, no cytie so populous, no towne so welthy: yea on the cō ­trary part also, no village so littell, no family so small, finally no societe of men, no not of those that haue wrapped them selues in league, to robbe and spoile, that can anie while continue wythout a head to gouern them. If therefore to lyue vnder the gouuernement of a head be a matter of such importance, as wythout the whych neyther great nor little, riche nor pooer, good nor bad can stande: how much more necessary shall we thinck it in Christes churche here militant in earthe, where the diuell in hys membres, is continually occu­pied in raysing of schismes, in stirring vp discord, to vex and molest the people of god, to haue thys wholesom prouision for th' appeasing thereof, and the restoring of the same being troubled to quietnes again?

[Page 5] And because good Christian readers, you shall well per­ceaue, that this is no nowe deuise, or fantasie imagined by m [...]: I will here lay before your eyes, the iudgement of cer­tein notable men, whom god gaue to his churche to serue for a wall for the same, ageinst the incursions of the wicked Phylistins his enemyes. In whom you shal most plainely perceiue, this ordre in Christes churche to be so necessarie, that the onely breache or lack th [...]r [...]of, hath byn by them taken, to be the highe way, and very path that leadeth to all heresies.

And first to begyn wyth that blessed martyr of god S. Cyprian, hath he not cōcerning this matter, in an epistle by hym written to Cor [...]elius then bishop of Rome, thiese wordes?Lib. 1. Episto. 3. Neque enim aliunde obortae sunt haereses, aut nat [...] sunt schismata, quàm indé qu [...]d sacerdoti dei non obtemperatur, necvnus in ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos, et ad tempus iudex, vice Chri­sticogitatur that is, neyther yet truely doe heresies aryse, or schismes growe,The high vvay to heresyes to thynck that there is not one iud­ge in earth in the steed of Christ. of any other cause, then thereof, that men obey not the priest of god, neyther doe thinck, that there is in the churche in the steed and place of Christ, one prieste, and one iudge for the time.

Hetherto S. Cyprian. By the whych wordes good chri­stian readers, it is so euident, that there must be one priest in the churche, whom all other must obey, that the same must be taken of vs, for iudge here in earthe, in the stede of Christe:The Apo­log [...]e of the En­glysh churche reproued by S. Cy­prian. that you see I nothing doubt, great cause to condēne, the grosse ignorance of our late apologie: Wher in the authors, contrary to thys doctrine of S. Cyprian, most impudently pronounce, that in hys church, Christ our lord vseth not, the help of any one man alone to gouern the same in his absence, as he that standeth in [Page] neede of no such help; and that if he did, no mortall man could be found, hable alone to doe the same: and finally wyth the same S. Cyprian, who dyed a holy mar­tir, and is no dout a saincte in heauen, to whome the be­lief of both these two articles seemed not onely not im­possible, but also very necessary; to lyue and dye in th' obedience of this priest, and vnder such a iudge, then wyth a sort of lewd losels,The de­finitiō of the pro­testants Church. in whose churche (being a certein secret scattred congregation vnknowen to all the world beside, and to their own fellowes toe) is nother head, ordre, obedience, neyther yet certein rules or groun­des where on to stay, to runne hedlong ye wot no more then your guides whither.

But S. Cyprian, was he trow yow of this minde alone? No verilie,Contr [...] L [...] [...]iferian [...]s. for S. Hierom is of the same, as by thiese his wordes it is most euident. Ecclesiae salus, in summi sacerdotis pendet dignitate, cui si non exors, & ab omnibus eminens detur po­te [...]tas, tot in eccles [...]a efficientur schismata quot sacerdotes. The health (sayth he) and welfare of the churche, dependeth apō the estimatiō of the chief priest,One chief prie [...]t to auoide sc [...]ism [...]. who, if he haue not auctoritie peareles [...]e, and aboue all other; ye shall haue in the churche, so many schismes, as there be priestes.

And again in an other place, speaking of the apostles he writeth thus.Ad [...]. Quòd vnus po [...]teà electus est qui caeteris praeponere tur, in schismatis remedium factum est, ne vnusquisque ad se tra­bens ecclesiane rumperet. that is, That one was afterward chosen to rule the rest, that was donne for a remedy ageynst schismes, least while euery man would chalenge to hym self the churche, by such halyng and pullyng they might br [...]ake the same.

Leo, of whom the whole councell of Calcedon, as one [Page 6] of the greatest for nombre: so of all men accōpted emon­gest the fower general for auctoritie, reported so honora­bly, that they did not onely wyth one voice all, openly professe them selues to beleue as he did, but called him also, by the name of Sanctissimus & beatissimus, that is most holy and blessed of all other, speaking of the mysticall body of Christes church writeth after this sort.Epis [...]ola ad Anastasi [...] ̄ Episcop [...] ̄ Thess [...]l. Haec con­ [...]exio, totius quidem corporis vnanimitatem requirit &c. This combination and ioining together, (he speaketh of the body of Christes church) requireth an vnitie of the whole body, but especîally of the priestes, emongest whom although there be one dignitie common to them all, yet is there not one generall ordre emongest them all. For euen emongest the blessed apostles in that similitude of honor, was there yet a differēce of power: and where­as in ther election, they wer all lyke, yet was yt giuen to one to, be aboue all the rest. Out of whych forme is ta­ken our difference of bishops, and by merueylouse ordre and disposition ys yt prouided, that euery one should not chalenge to him self euery thing,Bishops. but that in euery prouince, there should be one, whose iudgement emongest the rest of his brethern should be chief,Ar [...]hebis­hops. and of most auctori­tie. And agein certein appoincted in greater cityes whose care should be greater,Pope. by whome to the onely seate of Pe­ter, the charge of the vniuersal churche might haue recourse, that nothing might at any time dissent from the head.

Hetherto haue yowe hard good readers, beside th' expe­rience that we haue of ciuile policy, and worldly gouer­nement, the opinions also of S. Cyprian, S. Hierom, and holy Leo, all three agrei [...]g in one, that there must nedes be one iudge in Christes churche in his steede,Ciprian. that the [Page] health of the churche dependeth apon the auctoritie of the chief priest,Hieron. that if his auctoritie be not aboue all the rest, there will so many schismes breake in apon vs as there be priestes, that for th' auoyding of that mischief, there was one chosen euen emongest th' apostles, to go­uern the rest:Lco. Last of all, that that vsage in christes chur­che to haue one head, is no newe inuention (as some men falsely report) but taken from th' example of th' apostles them selues.

I can not heare stay, to examyne curiously euery word in these auncient fathers, but leauing that good readers to your discretion, and not douting but that in these graue witnesses, in a matter of such weight and importance, as whereapon dependeth the health of the whole churche: you wilbe no lesse diligent, then you would be in exami­ning the depositions of your owne witnesses, or your aduersaries in a triall of landes, or other temporall com­moditie: I shall procede to the cōsideration of the second reason, which before I touched, of the people of Israel, if I fyrst warne you to considre but this by the way (that ye may trust those auncient fathers by ther word the better an other time) how many schismes, be burst in apō vs in our country of England, for one common receiued truthe in the dayes of our fathers (when we remained in the obedience of one chief priest and iudge) which shake now so myserably the same: howe quietly in one loue, in one truthe, in one doctrine, in one churche, in one head thereof god almighty, and his ministre vnder him appointed ouer the same, we liued then, and other in other places doe nowe.

But to procede. For the estate of the Iues, god by his [Page 7] seruant moses did so prouide, to take away schismes that apō the doutefull wordes of the lawe might arise, that he appointed them a place to resort unto, and aiudge to flee vnto, in all such ambiguites and doutes. For so is it written in the booke of Deuteronomium. Cap. 17 And shall we not by good reason thinck, that he hath prouided as well for his churche? except we will say, that he hath byn lesse carefull of it, then he was of that. Which must necessaryly folow, if he prouyded for them one chief iudge, to haue recourse vnto in hard and doutefull questions, and to vs hauing no lesse, yea farr much more neede then they: he left ether at all none, or many to make the matter more doutefull. For I remēbre a sayeng of Gregorius Nazianzen [...]s. Vbi nullum est imperium, nullus or­do; vbi multorū, Lib. 3. de Theologia. ibi seditio; vt & sic nullum imperium nullus ordo existat. Vtrumque [...]nimeódem absurditatis perducit. Where is none to rule, there is no ordre: Where manie rule, there is sedition: so that after that manner of gouernemēt also, there ys no gouernement, there is no ordre for bothe to haue none to rule, and to haue many, leade vs to lyke inconuenience. How shall we then say, Diligi [...] dominus Syon super omni [...] tabernacula Iacob? Our lord loueth Syon aboue all the tabernacles of Iacob?

There is no dout therefore, but that Christ hath pro­uided for his churche, which he redemed so dearely, as wyth thexpence of his own most preciouse bloud, a iudge and chief ruler, to end and determine so many con­trouersies, as he knewe should mol [...]st and infest the same. They can not say, that a [...] aduersaries, and kyck ageinst this truthe, that thys which I alleage, was in the old lawe, and in a shadowe, that these dai [...]s and this tyme requier [Page] other manners. For that argument hath ther english apo­logie soluted, and pronounced that so to saie, wer plusqua [...] ridiculum, seing there was then, idem deus, idem spiritus, idem Christus, eadem fides, eadem doctrina, eadem spes, eadem [...]aer [...]ditas, idem f [...]edus▪ eadem vis verbi dei, the same god, the same holie gost, the same Christ, the same faithe, the same doctrine, the same hope, the same heritage, the same couenaunt, the same strenght of gods worde.

But yet this I protest, that apon the auctoritie of ther apologie (which with me is in that cōceit, that it is with all honest and learned men, that is to say, taken as in deede it is, for a fardle of lies:) I am no whytt the bolder to reason thus. But because I haue perceiued, that god in that people, in ther lawe and priesthood, shadowed out vnto vs, like a cunnyng worckeman the whole forme and proportion of his churche, as witnesseth S. Paule. Lex vmbram habet futuror [...]m bonorum non ipsam imaginem rerum, [...] 10. The lawe conteineth a shadowe of the good thin­ges to come, but expresseth not manifestlie the truthe of things: therefore I thought I might well reason from the shadow to the body, frō the resemblaunce and image, to the truthe thereto answering. From the whych kinde of reasoning, S. Paule sometimes absteined not, as when he laboured to proue,1. Cor. 9. that the lawe of the gospel would beare, that they whych preached the gospell should liu [...] thereby: he reasoned after this sort. Nunquid secundū hoīem haec dico? Speake I this as a mā? that is to say, proue I this by wordly reasons? [...] 25 An & lex haec nō dicit? Sayth not the lawe so toe? and so goeth he forward, and proueth yt by this text of the old lawe. Thow shalt not moosell or binde vp the mouthe of the labouring Oxe. as though he should [Page 8] haue saide: it was so in the shadow, therefore yt must be so in the body and in the truth signified by that shadow. Thus ye see good readers, that I ma [...]e say wyth S. Paule, haue I proued onely by reasons fetched from the doings of men, by examples of all common welthes and societes well go [...]erned, that in Christes cōmon weale there must be also one to rule? haue I affirmed this because S. Cy­prian, S. Hierom, blessed and holy Leo so said? Who yet were while they liued here but men, although now sayntes in heauen. Nunquid non & Lex haec d [...]it? sayth not the lawe so toe? But here I knowe our aduersaries will say that these proofes neded not, to proue that Ch [...]istes church must haue a head, and a iudge to ordre and determine doutefull questions, whych happen [...] ­mongest vs, and where of the world is now so full. For that will they say, they know as well as Cyprian, Hierom, Leo, or any of them all; although they will not admit the same iudge or the same head that they doe.

But what head thinck you good readers appoynt they to gouern christes churche here in earthe? what iudge to determine controuersies? Forsooth the head of the churche theie saie (wherein we finde no faulte but saye the same our selues) is Iesus Christ, [...]polog. Eccles. A [...] ­glic. sol. [...]. and the iudge of all controuersies arisinge therein, they call the scriptures. Here suffer me a littell I beseche you, to shake these m [...]kers ow [...]e of there cloutes, and to make open to the [...]orld ther great dissimulation and sottelty, whereby vnder the name of Christ, and his most holy word, so glittring at the first showe in the eyes of the simple, yea perhappes of some of the wiser sorte also, that it is to be feared lest yt strike them blinde alltogether: they seme [Page] to haue purchased to them selues a double benefite at once: fyrst, greate credit by pret [...]nding and vsing, nay rather abusing, the name of Christ and his word: next great securite, both for ther owne p [...]sones, and also for all such dyuelish doctrine, as they or any other heretikes lyst to vtter. Whilest on thone side, they take them selues to be out of all check of man, and maie be controlled of none, as thei saye, but of god onely, (who if he let them alone till that time that they thinck he will, then bid thei vs let them shift for them selues, theie shall haue ti­me enough, in the meane season to preache, and teache wythout controllment what they lift:) and on the other syde, whilest by prouoking to the scriptures as ther iudge, they th [...]nk them selues to stand apo [...] a suer grounde: seing they ar already wyth the [...] selues at a poinct, to re­ceiue no other interpretaty on thereof, then shal make for ther purpose, and they also see, that emongest so many heresies as haue hetherto troubled the churche of god, there was neuer yet any one so horrible and absurd, that the author thereof hath not by this meanes, in his owne indgement, byn right wel, able to sustein and defend. But of this I will entreate more largely hereafter. In the meane season, that theie will haue of Christes church here in earthe, no other head but Christ him self, therein they fare me thincketh not much vnlike, to a certein [...]e­lon, of whome I haue harde, that being areigued [...] [...]he bar for a felonie, when he had pleadid to the [...] not guilty, and was (after the manner) demaunded how he would be tried, he would (suspecting his own case, and knowing that if he satisfied the law in putting him self apon the tryall of the country, there wer no moe [Page 9] waies with him but one) make thereto no other an­swer, but onely that he would put him self apon god, the righteous iudge of all, who although he saide truely that god was the chief iudge of all, as the protestants doe, in calling Christ the head of the churche: yet was there in his case an other iudge here in this worlde vnder god, by whom he must haue byn tried, as there is in theirs an other head here in the churche to ordre them and kepe them vnder, and in whom Christ the chief head of all, vseth in all necessary knowledge to giue answer. And as the felon knewe well that there was an other iudge besi­de god, and appealed not to him, as though before him he should haue ben acquitted, and proued not guilty: but onelie to gaine a longer time of life and libertie: so doe (I dout not) our aduersaries the protestants. And trulie to both thiese kynde of men being bothe theeues, th'one sort doing violence to the body, the other to the soule, if such pleas might be allowed, howe so euer they be co­loured with the name of Christ, betwene them both, they would freelie robbe the body, and murther the soule.

But let vs now examine this reason of theirs whereof they ar wont so much to triumphe:The com­mon rea­son of the protes­tants a­geinst the Suprema­cy of the Pop [...]. Christ is head of the church, Ergo the pope is not, Ergo it c [...]a haue no other head. That Christ is the head of the church we graunted befo­re, and none of our syde did euer yet deny yt. But as it is most manifest that Christ him self is the worcker of all his sacraments (for he baptizeth, he forgiueth sinnes, he consecrateth his blessed body, and bloud, he ioineth to­gether in matrimony the man and his wife) and yet, foras­much as he should nedes departe out of this worlde, and could not alwaies dwell with vs, after a corporall man­ner, [Page] he hath chosen ministres, to dispense those his giftes by: And we saye, and no fault found therewith, that the priest his ministre baptizeth, that he forgiueth sinnes, that he consecrate [...]h his most pre [...]ious body, and bloud: So after the same manner and for the same cause, that is to say because he could not be alwayes present with vs, in such sort as we might see him, and speake with him fa­ce to face, to be resolued at his mouth of such doubtes, and questions as should ar [...]se emongest vs: he left vs also one, that in that his absence should gouern, and rule his whole churche. He remaineth neuerthelesse head thereof, he ruleth, he reigneth, he exerciseth his power and autho­rite in the same, but yet by man his ministre, whome for that cause, most aptly the Scholasticall writers haue ter­med, Hovv Christ is head of the churche, and hovv the Pope. ca [...] min [...]eriale, that is to saye a head, but yeat by the reason of his seruice and ministerie vnder an other, that is Christ [...]ho is onelie absolutely, simply, and without all relation to any other, the head thereof. Not, as though he wer not hable to rule the same, without any such help or instrument (which he could haue doen also in the ol­de lawe, where his pleasure was that the people should resort to the chief priest,De [...]ter. 17 to be resolued in all doutes ari­sing apon the lawe, and had no more nede of help then, then he hath now) but, for that this waye it hath pleased hym, to [...] his ex [...]eding great loue towards mankind, [...] of emongest men, such as he will execute [...] worlde, [...] as he will vse as his mouth, to [...] the secretes of his hol [...]e pleasure to vs, and f [...]ally such as should represent to vs his owne parson.

Because Ch [...]st [...]s king of all kinges,Apoc [...]ip. Cap. 17. and lord of all lord [...], because if it so pleased him, he could rule all [Page 10] this worlde much better then it is ruled, without the help of any other (whereof he hath his absolute power considered no nede [...]) shall we therefore say, that there be not, nor nede to be, any kynges here in [...]the?1. Cor. 11. When S. Paule called the man the head of the woman, denied he therefore Christ to be her head? Kin­ge Saul when he was called by the prophet Samuel caput in tribubus Israël, 1. Reg. 15. the head of the tribues of Israel, was god thinck you excluded that he should not be their head? To vse examples more familier, th'archebishop of Cauntor­bury is the head of the bishoprick, and diocesse of Lon­don (as he is of all the bishoprickes within his prouince) and yet can not a man infer apon this, that therefore the B. of London is not the head of that his diocesse.

But Christ hath no suche nede our aduersaries crye still, to haue any man to be in his stede to succede him in the whole enheritance. Nam & Christum semper adesse eccle siae suae, & vicario homine qui ex asse in integrum [...]uccedat non [...]gere, these be their very wordes in their apologie.

Here would I like a frinde aduertise them, that for ther pooer honesties sake they harp not to much on this string,Hosiu [...] the Car­dinal scla­undre by the hereti­kes, left by their so doing they comme as nere to the heresie of Suenkfeldius, as he whom in their apologie they falselie sclaunder therewith, is far bothe from that and all other. For Suenkfeldius, emongest other his abho­minable heresies, hath also this, in my opiniō the chiefest, that we ought to banish vtterly from emongest vs all scripture: and (as Hosius writeth of him) thys heresie of hys,Lib. de Hae resib nostri temporis. to derogate from the scriptures all auctoritie, he went al­so about to proue bi scripture. But howe I praie you good readers? By what reason thinck you would he haue pro­ued [Page] this diuelish, and most absurde doctrine? Beleue me, or rather your owne iudgements, seing and perceiuing most plainely that I lie not, by the self same reasons, that our aduersareis doe vse to proue, that Christes churche here in earth, can haue vnder him, no head or chief gouernour to gouern the same. Thow must not be parfect in the scriptures, saith this stincking heretike Swenckfield. But whie? because forsooth we must be taught at gods mouth, because his worde teacheth truly, the scripture is not his worde, but dead lettres, and no more accompte to be made of them, then of other creatures, emongest the which they ar to be reconed. We must loke to be taught frō heauen, not out of bookes. The holie ghost vseth to cōme frō aboue without the help of meanes, as hearing, preaching, or reading the scriptures. Thie [...]e be that wicked heretike his folish and vnsauery persuasions. And what other thing is it, I praie you good readers (iudge indiffe­rentlie) to say as the Huguenotes and heretykes doe, then to leane and rest, apon the same groundes for the banishing of the head of Christes churches, on which the Swenckfeldians doe, for th'abolishing of the scripture? For the one sayeth, we must haue no scripture because god can teache vs without: the other, we must haue no head of Christes churche because he is the head him self, and can rule vs without any other to be his vicair. The one saieth the scriptures ar but dead lettres, and no more accompte to be made of them then of other creatures: the other saieth that the pope is but a sinfull man as other ar, and that therefore there is no more accompte to be made of him, then of other sinfull men. Finally the Swenckfeldians bar god of all meanes to worck his will [Page 11] by, and so doe the protestants, while they alow him not a ministre to gouern hys churche in externall gouerne­ment, but tell him that he is of age and able to doe it him self, and that therefore there is no remedie, but he must needes comme downe and giue answere to all our wise demaundes in hys own person.

And thus whilest most shamefully to the greate disho­nor of the whole realme (vnder whose name as it wer that fardell of lies, their apology was sent abroade) they haue not byn ashamed,Hosius Cardinalis. to charge with this heresie of Suenckfeldius, one of the greatest estates, bothe for lerning and vertue that at this daye Christendom hath: we may see that they haue not onely showed them selues to be very wicked, and shameles men, (the truthe to their vtter and perpetuall infamy and shame, had they any, plainely to the contrary, in the worcks of him, whome they so selaundred, bearing witnesse ageynst them) but ar also runne, into the same growndes whereon Swenckfilde builded his heresie, their owne selues.

For gods sake good Chrystian readers, for your owne soules sake, and the loue that you beare thereto, gyue eare to no such seditious voices, how euer they be cloked wyth the name of Christ, which the diuel then doeth most inculcat, when he would driue vs sonest from him.

What other thing did their forefathers Ch [...], Dathan, Numer. 1 [...] and Abyron, in rebelling ageynst Moses, and Aaron the ministres of almightie god? what other persuasion vsed they to the people? what other reason brought they to al­lure from their obedience to rebellion, from quiet rest to seditious wandring without a head, the flocke of god: then the verie same, that these miserable men [...] our time [Page] doe? Their apologie saieth, that there nedeth here in the churche no head to gouerne it,The pro­testants reason as Chore, Dathan and Aby­ron did. because Christ is alwaies wyth it. And did not those wicked men in their rebelliō against Moses and Aaron vse the same reason, when they tolde them to their face: Sufficiat vobis, quia omnis multitu­do sanctorum est, & in ipsis est dominus? let it suffice you that all the multitude is holy,Numer. 16. and they haue god present wyth them, Cur eleuamini super populum domim? and whie then take yow apō your selues the rule ouer the people of our lord? As who would saie, hauing no neede of any other ruler, god being with them. But as almighty god was then emongest his people and vsed yet neuerthelesse the ministery of men: so is Christ (no dout) our sauiour now present alwayes wyth hys churche, and chief head and gouern or thereof, and yet gouerneth he the same by man. And as Chore, Dathan, and Abiron, be gone befo­re, swalowed alyue by hell, there to taste of those rewar­des which for such rebelliouse wretches ar prepared: so must our Chore and his compagniōs folow their trace, onlesse by their repentaunce they molify, and asswage the iust wrath of god.

But yet let vs good readers, that nothing may remaine that might in any wise seeme to blemish this truthe, goe one steppe farder. For as yet will our aduersaries I know well saye, that I neuer can where it grew. For our case saye they, is far otherwise then you take yt: seyng that we vtterly denye not, that Chryst worcketh by meanes, but onely swarue from yow, in that we take those instruments and meanes, to be other then you doe. For the scripture we say whych Christ hath left to vs, is the true meane, wherebi in all doutes and controuersies, [Page 12] we maie sufficiently content and satisfy our selues. This is that iudge, whych can not deceaue, this ys that touche­stone that can not lye. Thus say our aduersaries, with whom in that that they appeale to the scriptures no man is offended, yea we praise them therefore, and doe the ly­ke, our selues. But in that that they hold the scripture to be of it self alone, to ende and determin all controuersies, rising apon,The scri­pture not hable to determi­ne all the contro­uersies that maie rise apon the meaning of the let­tre. the doutefull meaning of the lettre, able and suffycyent: therein we vtterly dyssent from them, and as we thynck, not without great cause. For omitting here, that almighty god commaunded in th' olde lawe as be­fore you haue hard, that his people the Iues, in doutefull questions arising apō the lawe, should resort to the pries­tes, and to him that was the chief iudge for the time, to be resolued therein: and bad them not, for the tryall the­reof whych sense wer most true, to lay and confer one text with an other, (which without all dout had he knowen it to be the best and surest,Deuter. 17 as it is the readyest and easiest way he would not haue let to haue doen:) experience also hath taught vs the contrary thereof. For emongest so many as at all times haue disquieted the church, what one heretike ar they able to recon ouer­throwen by the scryptures? was Arrius vanquished by them? Naye, if yow brought to conuince him this text, Pater & ego vnum sumus, my father and I ar one: he would tell you again that the same Chryst that so sayd, sayd also pater meus maior me ests, my father is greater then I. what had yow thē wonne at his handes, that would tell you, that one place of scripture must expounde an other, and that therefore your place must be expounded by his? And if you would wade farder with him, he would interprete [Page] your place (as he did wyth the catholikes) to be vnder­stand of vnitie in will and not in substance, and bring yow scripture toe, although wrested from the true sense, that should seeme well to proue his distinction. As when our sauiour praied vnto his father in this sorte, [...]an. 17. Pater san­cte, serua eos in nomine tuo, quos dedisti mihi, vt sint vnum sicut & nos, kepe them â holy father in thy name whom thow hast giuen to me, that they may be one, as we two at one.

In th' exposition and right vnderstanding of these fewe wordes, Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body: how happeneth it that the Caluinistes and the Lutheranes agre not, by conferring one place of scripture wyth an other, yf that be so ready a waie? Doeth not Caluyn wyth all hys, teache vs that the sense and true interpre­tation of thiese wordes, must nedes be atteined by the conference of one place of scripture with an other? and to that ende doe they not fondly alleage S. Paule cal­lyng Chryst a rocke, [...]. Cor. 10. yea Chryst calling hym selfe a vi­ne,I [...]an. 15. when he was in dede, neither the one nor the other, but by a fimilitude? As though because th' apostle, or Chryst hymself vseth a fygure in one place, we must thincke that in all other he neuer spake other wise. By which abhominable doctrine what letteth, if a man would be so wicked, to affirme that Chryst the sonne of god, and second parson in trinitie, wer not the true and naturall sonne of god, but by adoption onelye: and for that wycked heresy to bring this texte, dedit eis pote­statem filios dei fieri, I [...]an. 1. he gaue them power to be made the sonnes of god. Which wordes we knowe being spoken by vs men, must be vnderstand by grace and adoption: [Page 13] and frowardly to mainteyne, that all the places whych any good man can bryng for the defence of the con­trary, should be drawen to thys texte alleaged by them, and expownded and vnderstand thereby.

The Anabaptystes who deny the baptesme of in­fants, leane they not thyncke yow to thys grounde of yours? yea truely, and good reason it is that being all heretykes as you ar, although in some poyntes dissen­tyng, yet all ioining and agreing in one cancred hatred against the churche, you should all vse the same rules and principles. For that I may here passe ouer that reason of the Anabaptistes which belongeth to an other place, that therefore infants must not be baptized because it is not expressed in scripture (a principle also of your reli­gion) but deliuered vnto vs by tradition: saye they not also, that they haue the scripture playne for them agein­st vs?Marc. 16. where yt hath, Qui erediderit & baptizatus fueri [...], saluus erit, he that beleueth and is baptized shalbe saued: and again in an other place, vna fides, vnum baptisma, one faythe, one baptesme. By whych places say they it appea­reth, that say the must goe before, and baptisme folowe after. And when the catholykes to represse, and vtter­ly ouerthrowe this bru [...]ysh and beastely opinion an­swer: that for infants thus baptized the faithe of the churche is sufficient, and accounted for theirs: crie they not as yowe doe, that in this controuers [...]e one place of scripture must expound an other? and that therefore, where as the scripture requireth in him that is baptized faith, that theie must haue it of their owne, according to th'apostles saieng,Rom. 10. fides ex auditu faithe commeth by he­aring, which infants can not haue, and according to the [Page] saieng of the prophete,Abacue. 2. Iustus ex fide sua victurus est, the iust man shall liue by his owne faithe

I am sory that in answering to this fond reason, I haue bin compelled to make anie mencion of such horrible he­resies as thiese ar, which I had much rather, wer with their first authors buried in hel, from whence theie cam, where neither they, nor their name might euer hereafter offend, the conscience of any good christian man. But as I haue necessarily laied before your eyes thiese, that by a part yow may iudge of the whole: so haue I willingly staied my self from rehercing whole swarmes of such opinions, as being of all men taken for confessed heresies, onely depend apon this one false ground, that we nede here in earthe no other iudge, to decide and determine doubtes arising upon the s [...]ripture, then the scripture it self: whych being (they saye) laied and conferred to ge­ther one text with an other, will not faile to bring vs to the right vnderstanding thereof.

If your hartes good readers be moued with thiese here­sies in the reading, as truely god I take to witnesse mine was in the writing, abhorre those that teache them, shonne and auoide such principles and groundes, as ha­ue byn the foundacion not of thiese onelie, but of all that now reigne in the worlde, and may be of any other hereafter, that any desperate heretyke lysteth to in­uent. Stick to those by which all heretykes haue byn and thiese shalbe, to their vtter confusion vanquished. Shrincke not rashelie from that fundaciō, whereon your elders and forfathers fastening them selues, haue passed ouer so many hundred yeares, in the true confession of one god, one faith, one truthe, to them that hauing yet [Page 14] scarse fourty on ther backes, haue notwithstanding emō ­gest thē (creaping all out of the filthy neast of one Martin Luther) so manie faythes and yet no faith, so many tru­thes, and yet no truthe, neuer a one agreing with the other, as there be mad frantick heads emongest them. Giue no eare to that subtil generation walcking in the darck like blinde battes, without a head, without a iud­ge, and all to thend ther iuggeling might not be espied. Tell them that yow haue sene them thriue so euel apon that presumption of theirs, so many heresies, so many schismes and lewd opinions, brought in thereby, that yow ar at a poinct with your selues to leaue them, and take that way that S. Hierom in the like case hath doen before yow: who although his knowledge in the tong­ues wer such, as by the report of most men, it passed anie others in his time: yet would not he take apon him, in the discussing of doutes, to leane to that rule of theirs, to lay and confer to gether one texte with an other,S. Hierō in doutes referred him self to Peters Seate but referring him self to the see of Rome he alwaies protes­ted, that by that seate and faithe praised by th'apostles owne mouth would he be counceled and ruled, Beati­tudini tuae id est cathedrae Petri communione consocior, Tom. 2. epist. ad Dama­sum. To your holines (saith he writing to Damasus then the bishop of Rome) that is to say to Peters chaire am I ioined in communion: and he addeth a cause whie,The churche buil­ded on S. Peters chair. Super illam Petram aedificatam ecclesiam scio. I knowe that on that rock (Peters chaire) the churche is builded. Say vnto them (as, S. Hierom, said vnto the the heretikes, Vitalis and Miletus) because they ar aduersaries to this seate that yow knowe them not,ibid. that they scatter and ar schismatikes alltogether out of the churche, that gather not with [Page] Peters successor.In quaest. veteris & noui testa­mēt. q. 110 Tell them boldelie with S. Austen that yow will owe neither sute nor seruice to their chaire of pestilence, nor be a membre of that bodie, that either lac­keth a head,The he­retikes churche a dead trōck, or a lyue monstre. and is a dead tronck, or hath many and is a liue monstre. Aske of them with what face they could so many yeares to gether, call king Henrie the eight su­preame head of the churche of England immediatlie vn­der god, and nowe our gracious souereigne lady his daughter, supreame gouernor in all ecclesiasticall thinges and causes ouer the same (which how so euer they plea­se them selues with fine fetches and coloured deuises, is with th'other title in effect all one) if this reason of theirs wer good: Christ is head of the churche, therefore there is no other head thereof vnder him? And how was king Henrie then? if they say that their meaning is, that no man can, because Christ is head of the vniuersall church; be vnder him head of the whole, but may well be of some particuler churche, as Kinge Henrie was, and the Quenes maiestie now is: then demaund of them what reason they haue to leade them to say, that a particuler membre of the churche (as the churche of England can be no more) may haue an other head be­side Christ, and the whole bodie maie not? and why one mēbre maie haue two heads, more then one bodie? Final­ly, if at that time they flattred the king and gaue him that which neither they could giue, nor he receiue, and abu­sed his good nature to the destruction of so manie no­table men, as for th' onelie refusall to saie as they said, by most exquisite and painefull tormentes, lost ther li­ues: saie vnto them, that they yet at lenght acknowledge their fault, and admonish that good ladie our maistres [Page 15] that she consent not to vse that title, which because it belongeth to Christ, she may not haue, or if theie thinck and will stand in it that she may without offen­ce, that they doe yet at the least confesse, that reason of theirs to be very weake and of no strenght: Christ is head of the churche therefore it maie haue no other. Ex­cept they will perhappes say, that he is head of all other churches, and hath onelie lest oures headles, so that be­cause he is not head thereof, we ar out of the feare of falling into that inconuenience of hauing manie, and maie therefore choose some one emongest our selues whome we list.

Thus I trust good readers you see sufficiently proued, that Christes pleasure is for the repressing of heresies, and calming of tempestuouse schismes, that there be one head of his churche here in earthe, supplieng his corpo­rall absence for the time: his honor in the meane season nothing thereby the more diminished, then it is in other thinges wherein he also vseth the ministerie and serui­ce of men.

It foloweth now that I show to yow who is and of right ought to be that head: if first I doe yow to vn­derstand, that it must necessarilie be a priest, and that so by iust conse­quence neither laye man, woman nor childe, can be capable of that of­fice.

GRegorius Nazianzenus, In oratio­ne de mo­destia in disceptat. tenenda. that auncient father and mais­ter to S. Hierom, in a certein oration that he made, of the femelie ordre that ought to be in Christes churche, hath thiese wordes. Nemo delphinum vidit terram sulcan­tem neque bouem in vnda laborantem, quemadmodum nec solem in nocte crescentem, aut decrescentem, siue lunam interdiu, ignis flammam emittentem, whych is in englishe to saie thus much. There is no man that euer sawe the dolphin, for­saking the sea plowe the lande, or the oxe leaue the earth to swymme and labour in the water, no more then the sonne in the night rising or falling, or the moone in the day shining. And as thiese kepe the ordre and course to them by god and nature appoincted, the dolphin the wa­ter, the oxe the land, the sonne the daie, the moone the night, without entremedling them selues ether in others function: so is there (saith he) in christes churche an ordre taken, that one shalbe a head to rule and giue councell, some other in place of feete to goe, some handes to worcke, other some eares to heare and eyes to see, some shepherds to feede, other some shepe to be fedde, some in one office, some in an other. This most bewtifull order in Christes churche, is on our behalfes (as many as wilbe accompted membres thereof) inuiolably to be ob­serued, onlesse in obedience towardes our creator, we will by brute beastes suffer our selues to be vanquished and ouercome. This is that ordre, whereapon dependeth [Page 16] the welfare or illfare, of the whole worlde. This is that ordre which so long as it remaineth whole and not bro­ken, so long common wealthes florishe, so long vnitie and peace ar norished, so long Christes true religion trium­pheth: as contrary wise, the breache thereof, (when the feete that should goe, will vsurping th'office of the head presume to giue councell, the eyes wil heare, the eares wilbe eyes, the head wil goe, the shepe feede their shep­pherds, the scholer teache his maister) is in verie dede, the breakeneck of all good ordre and common quiet. This is that orderly cōiunction of one membre with an other, and euerie one in his owne place, which although it be, and euer hath byn, a greate mote in Satans eye: yet neuer durst he or any of his directly impugne it. And therefore hath he by those his ministres, whome in thiese our daies he hath sturred vp ageinst Christ and his truthe, found out such a bie waie, as wherebie he maie bothe remoue this let whych hindreth so much his cour­se, and seeme yet neuertheles, to stād stoutelie in the defen­ce thereof. For what? doe our aduersaries trow yow, ex­pressely mainteine that ordre is naught, that the scholer should teache the maister, the shepe feede ther shepherd, that thinges should be so iumbled together, and such a hochepot made of all estates, that it should be lawfull for euerie man to comptroll, one an other in his of fice? No no, they be wiser then so I warrant you. For al­though in deede all their driftes tend to that ende, yet couet they to make men beleue, that they minde no­thing lesse. For if they should openly pretend so much, then wer the matter at an end, and ther credit vtterlie lost, And therefore for the sauegard thereof, they would [Page] cast before our eyes such a mist, that we should beleue, those that be in very dede scholers to be maisters, shepe to be shepherdes, the feete to be the head and the head to be the feete, and that vnder such gouernement, there wer of ordre no breache at all. This is no newe or strange practise good christian readers, but vsed euen from the beginning, and continued dailie, by that old enemie to mankinde, and wily serpent the Diuel, to set vp vice and ouerthrow vertue. Thus cloketh he pride with the na­me of clenlinesse, couetousnes he termeth frugalitie, pro­digalitie liberalitie, adulterie in other men solace, in pri­estes and such as haue uowed the contrary, he couereth it with the honorable title of matrimonie: although the auncient fathers of Christes churche, haue not doubted, some of them to call it, not as doe the diuels ministres mariage, but adulterie: as dothe S. Ambrosead virg. lapsam Cap. 5. S. Basil in orat. de vir­ginitate. and Theophilactus:in cap. 7 1. Cor. some of them, as S. Hierom,lib. 1. contra Iouiniā. S. Austen,lib. de bono vid. cap 10. and Chrisostom,epist. ad Theodo­dor. lap­sum. not adulterie onelie, as doe th' other, but sacrilege and incest. This practise I say of the diuel their fathers, doe those his ministres most di­ligentlie imitate those clawebacks and princes parasites, whose fauour when they labour to winne, that vnder the shadow thereof, their heresie may finde the better entreteinement, and to the poysoning of the worlde the freer passage, they vse to them thiese perniciouse per­suasiōs, that they be here in earth by almighty god placed in his churche, to be the heads thereof, and not mem­bres, to be fathers and not children, to rule in causes of religion, and not to be ruled, that to them it belongeth in the right of their crowune, to approue doctrine or to condemne it, to alter at their pleasure the state of religion [Page 17] by actes of parliament without the consent of their cleargie, to depose bishops and put other in their places, in their stiles and titles boldely to write them selues gouernours in their realmes in all things and causes, aswell ecclesiasti­call as temporall: and yet no ordre all this while broken, because forsoth theie be such as theie beare them in hand they ar, that is to say the heades, the rulers, the shepher­des, the fathers, maisters and guides in religion.

Thiese be theie therefore good readers that as the prophete saith, call bonum malum, & malum bonum, tene­bras lucem, & lucem [...]enebras, good euel and euel good, darckenes light and light darckenes. Thiese be they that as their Idol of Geneua (in this poinct trulie) giueth an­swer, Caluinus bro. 4. in­stit. capit. 20. goe about to make princes iustle with god. Finally thiese ar those lowsy brokers, that leading as it wer by the hand, their good and vertuous princes, after this sweete poysoned bait, from the most pleasaunt and fertile valeis of humilitie, to the toppe of the highe barren, and craggy mountaines of pryde and arrogācie, showing them when they haue them there, the riches and ornaments of the churche, the landes and reuenues thereof (by good and vertuous princes their predecessors and auncestors,The cau­se of en­dovvinge the chur­che vvith landes. long time before for this entent especially thereto giuen, that the ministres of Christes most holy word and blessed sacraments being by hauing of their owne, deliuered from that comberouse care of prouisiō for them selues, that af­terward the holy ghost who was the procuror of such almoise, and stirred from time to time the deuocion of good men thereto, forsaw thorough the decay of pietie, and coldenes of charitie towardes the latter ende of the world, they wer likelie to fall into: might thereby the more [Page] quietlie folow their vocation:) promise of all the sa­me to make them the lordes and maisters, if they will doe them homage, and fall down and worship them, that is to say, harckē to their doctrine, submit them selues the­reto, and graunt to it within their realmes and domi­nions, fauorable entreteinement.

And that this is true good readers, that they haue thus shamefully abused and deceiued their princes, and not surmised or imagined by me to bring them in to hatred, whome god I take to recorde I pity much and hate no­thing: I hope by his assistāce who is the giuer of all good thinges, [...]o plainely to proue, that yow your selues shall at the eye see it, and they (if there remain yet in them anie sparcle of grace) shall not be hable to denie it. The which that I may the better perform, I shall truly bring furth, as it wer into the face of the open courte, all such euidence, of importance, as either parte hath to alleage for them sel­fe: so truely Itrust, that the councel of th'other side shall haue no cause to complaine, that either I haue suppressed and cōcealed, their necessary proofes one waie, or obscu­red their beauty in the bringing of thē furth on th' other.

But because an indifferent and vpright iudge, must al­waies haue an earnest eye to the issue, (which is betwene vs who should gouerne in ecclesiasticall causes, the prin­ce or the priest) it shall not be amisse (because to be chief gouernour in thinges and causes ecclesiasticall, is nothing elles but to haue the supreme iurisdiction thereto belon­ging) to examine first, in what poinctes that consisteth, that so by conferring our euidence wyth the same, whe­ther it agre with euery parte, with none, with some, and with which: we maie at the length by good scanning [Page 18] comme to the knowledge of euery mans owne.

Iurisdiction therefore ecclesiasticall,Eccle [...]ias­tical iuri diction [...]here in it con [...]is­teth. consisteth espe­cially in thre poinctes: in auctoritie to iudge ouer doctri­ne whych is sound and which is other, in the power of the keyes, that is to say as our sauiour him self hath ex­pounded it, in loosing and binding, excommunicating and absoluing,Matth. 16. in making rules and lawes for the gouer­nement of the church and in the ministery of the word and the sacraments.

To the first of thiese three what title Kinges and prin­ces haue, it shall if theie haue anie, be seene hereafter. But for priestes yow shall see to begin withall, an auncient commission out of the scriptures: where almighty god speking to Aaron vsed thiese wordes:Leuitici. Cap. 10. Praeceptum sempiter­num e [...]t in gener ationes vestra;vt habeatis scientiam discernendi inter sanctum & prophanum, inter pollutum & mundum, doc [...]a­tisqué filios Israel omnia [...]egitima mea: that is to say, it is a pre­cept that shall euer endure thorough all your generations to haue the knowledge to discern and put difference, be­twene holy thinges and prophane, betwene cleane and polluted: and that yow teache the children of Israel all my commaundements.

To whome gaue almightie god here the power to iud­ge of doctrine? whome commaunded he to teache? anie other then Aaron and his race which wer priestes?

In the booke of Deuterō. Cap. 17. saieth he not also that if there arise any hard or doutefull question, the priest must be consulted, that he that of pride will spurn ageinst his or­dinance shall suffer death therefore?cap. 21. and agein in the same booke in an other place, that apon the priestes word all causes shall hang.

[Page] Ezechiel the prophete doeth he not witnesse the same▪ Cap. 44. and when there is anie controuersy (sayth he) they shall stay in my iudgements and giue iudgement.

Aggeus and Malachias, prophetes bothe, bid they vs enquier for the law of god, at the priestes handes, or at the kinges? No assuredlie, they send vs not to kinges (which had they bene the chiefe gouernours in those matters without faile they would haue doen) but to the priestes: whose lippes they promise, shall not misse to ke­pe the true knowledge,Aggeus. 2. because theie ar our lordes an­gels.Malac [...]. 2. Haue we any such warrant of worldely princes? No trulie. And wer it not more thē necessary that we should if princes should rule them in matters of religion, of whom thiese wordes be spoken?

But to procede, is this auctoritie giue to them onely in the olde testament [...]ar they not put trow yow, in as greate trust in the newe? Or ar they thinck yow excluded, and kinges admitted the [...]e [...]? If it had bene so neuer would S. Paule t [...]at bles [...]ed apos [...]le, [...]. Cor. 12. haue made his accopte, that god had placed in his churche, first apostles, next to them prophetes, then doctours, and so furth. Emongest all the which, although that frantick foole that preaching not many yea [...]e [...] sence at Powles crosse, went about with his rayling Rhetoricke, to make his audience as foolish as he was ma [...]de, in bele [...]ing that this place should make a­geinst the auctoritie of the pope, because forsoth he could he saide, finde no roume for him there: and therefore of his charitie [...] that if any good fellow emongest his audie [...]ce wer we [...]rie of his roume he might be placed the re: as verilie [...] both thinck and knowe there wer manie, that wished bothe them selues away, and him in Bedlem [Page 19] emongest his compagnions neuer to come more in pul­pit, especiallie in that place, to dishonor the vniuersitie his mother from whence he cam, by such vnreasonable not reasoning but rayling: although he I say, could finde the­re no place for the pope, he might yet haue wyth his yong sight founde at the least that,Lib. 4. I [...] sti. cap. 3. sect. 4. which Iohn Caluin could before with his old and dimme eies espie out, that is, that the chiefest place of gouernement in Christes churche, belonged to the apostles, and so to the bishops and prie­stes their successors. Except his braine would serue him to say, that Christes churche died with his apostles.

But if a man should aske this great clercke that hath so narowely scanned the texte, what roome he found there for Kinges. I maru [...]ll what his wisdome would answer. There is but one word in all the texte that should seeme to make place for any tempora [...]l magistrate, and that hath Caluin watred with such a glose, that it can in no wise serue his purpose. The worde is gubernationes, gouernements placed beside so far from the chiefest and first place, (if it wer to be vnderstand of temporal ma­gistrates) that it occupieth the seuenth. But Caluin saieth it may not so be vnderstand, but that the apostle ment by that word such spirituall men, as wer ioined to the preachers for the better ordre in spirituall gouer­nement. And he addeth a reason, why it may not be vn­derstande of ciuile magistrates: because (saith he) there wer at that time none of them christians. By which wordes this mery man maie see, that if he will nedes daunce after his maister Caluin his pipe, he muste saie that there is not, not onelie no roume in this place for ciuile magistrates, but that he is excluded al [...]o from [Page] the hope of finding for them anie,That ci­uile magi­strates should gouern in the chur­ch, it can not be proued by the nevv testament by Caluīs [...]eason. (I meane in the go­uernement in ecclesiasticall causes) in any other place of the newe testament.

But not in this place onely was S. Paule of that min­de, that priestes should gouern the churche of christ, but in that notable sermon of his also, that he made to the priestes of Ephesus at his departure from thence, where he giueth them this exhortation, Attendite vobis & vniuerso gregi, Actuum. 10. in quo vos spiritus sanctus posuit episcopos, regere ecclesiam dei. Looke saith he to your selues, and to your flock in the which the holie ghost hath placed yow to rule, and gouern the church of god.

Can there be any plainer euidence then is this? Let them therefore eyther rule (as S. Paule saith they ar ap­pointed thereto, and that by the holie ghost) or if prin­ces must, let vs deny sainct Paule his auctoritie, and say that the spirite failed him, for surelie bothe maie not.

And thus for the scriptures (good readers) ye see, to whom of right that parte of ecclesiasticall gouerne­ment, which standeth in the alowing and condemning of doctrine dothe apperteine. For that doe the auctorites by me out of the old testament alleaged, expressely pro­ue: as also doe those brought out of the newe, by a ne­cessarie consequence, in that they giue to them the whole gouernement and chief souereintie, of which this is, as is before saide, a parte.

The nexte membre of spirituall gouernement, is the­power as Christ him self calleth it of binding and loo­sing. Which power to excomunicate and to absolue our sauiour gaue to his apostles,Matth. 19. when he saied to them: what so euer yow binde in earth shalbe bound in heauē, [Page 20] and what so euer yow loose on the earthe shall be loosed in heauen. Wherein and in the last which is to preache and ministre the sacramentes, because thiese peuish proc­tours pretend not as yet any greate title for princes, but seeme rather to ground their action in the first: I will lea­uing them bothe as either by the scriptures in all mennes iudgements sufficiently defended, or by our aduersaries them selues not assaulted, examine of what minde tou­ching this controuersie, the holy doctours of Christes churche from time to time haue byn. Not as though mā ­nes word should haue with vs more auctoritie then god­des, or that it nedeth to be boulstred vp there with, but for this causeonelie, that if it happen thē to wrangle, as their manner is, about the true interpretacion thereof, all men may perceiue that we giue no other, then the fathers of christes churche before vs haue giuen.

And here to begin with Ignatius that holy martir,Ignatius. who for the faithe of Christ was with the teethe of wild beastes torn, and as he writeth him selfe, sawe our sauiour in fleshe: cōsidre I beseche yow in the prescribing of such ordre for obedience in Christes churche as wherebie vnitie might be preserued,Epist. ad Philadel­phe [...]. what place of pree­minence he giueth to Emperours (who ar of the laietie the greatest estates) and what to bishops. his wordes ar thiese, Principes obedite Caesari, milites principibus, diaconi praesbiteris sacrorum prefectis: praesbiteri, diaconi & reliquus clerus, vnâ cum omni populo & militibus & principibus & Caesa re, episcopo: episcopus Christo, sicut Christus patri, vt ita vnitas per omnia seruetur. Princes (saith he) obey your emperour, souldiors your princes, deacons the priestes which haue the charge of religion: priestes, deacons, all the rest of [Page] [...] [Page 20] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 20] [...] [Page] the cleargie with the people what so euer they ar, soul­diors, princes, yea the emperor him self, be yow obedient to your bishop: the bishop to Christ, as Christ is obe­dient to his father, that so vnitie maie in all poinctes be obserued. Here may we see good readers, that euen in the daies of this holie martir Ignati [...]s, it was then thought necessary and expedient, that for the better obseruing of vnitie, the emperour him self should obey the bishop. well I wot our aduersaries will not restreine this obe [...]i­ence to temporall gouernement, and therefore it must nedes be vnderstand of spirituall and in causes ecclesi­asticall. But if th'obseruing of this obedience be the way to conserue vnitie, what shall we alas thinck of them that laboure to violat and breake the same? as doe all they that trauail to make princes in matters of religion to rule, and bishoppes to obeye.

The same worthy bishop and constant mart [...] Ig­natius, Epist. ad Smyrnens. writing in an other place ad Smirnenses, biddeth he them not to honor first god, next the bishop as be­ring his image, and then after the king.

Policarpus, Epist. ad Philippens. disciple to saincte Iohn theuangelist, of priestes and deacons writeth thus, Subiecti estote praesbiteris, & diaconis sicut deo & Christo. Be ye subiect to the priestes and deacons as to god and Christ. Is this any other to say then as thapostle said before him, Obedite ijs qui vigi­lant pro animabus vestris. Obey yow them which kepe the watche for your soules?

Here considre I beseche yow, [...]. Cor. 12. that S. Paules placing of th'apostels, and in them the bishops and priestes their successors, in the first and chiefest place in Christes churche,Actor. 20 his calling of them the rulers thereof, and [Page 21] appoincted so to be not by man, but by the holie gost, was not to deceiue vs.

Remembre, that if in matters of religiō the [...]ishoppes, and priestes should haue solowed the ciuile magistrates ordinaunces, it had byn in vaine that Ignatius and Poli­carpus bad the people, emperours and Kinges none ex­cepted, to be obedient and subiect to them. For wherein should they be subiect, or in what thing should they obey, if not in religion and matters thereunto apper­teining? Reade ouer the auncient histories aswell of the Griekes as of the Latines: peruse the doinges of Iues and Gentiles, paganes, heathen, or what so euer people or nation yow list, and yow shall neuer finde any to haue byn so barbarouse or far out of ordre, that first they had not their religion, and next their bishoppes, and priestes to whome they wholie referred th'ordre and disposition thereof.

But to procede,Homel. 38 in ca. Mat. 21. Chrisostom calleth the priestes the hart and stomack of the churche. his reason is,The prie [...] tes chief gouer­nors in spirituall matters. quia in rebus Spiritualibus per eos totus pop [...]lus gubernatur. because in spirituall gouernement all the people is gouerned by them.

Lo good readers here may yow see that in Chrisos­tomes time, in that pure state of the primitiue churche, all the people was in matters spirituall gouerned by (not the kinges or other ciuile magistrates) but the bisshoppes and priestes. Then wer the priestes in those matters iud­ges; and emperours them selues subiectes. Then had em­perours and kinges this persuasion that they could gar­nish their stile with none more excellent title, or name more honorable, then to be called the children of the [Page] churche. [...]o [...]stanti­ [...]s.

Thus thought Constantinus the greate, the first emp [...] ­rour that is reported to haue openly professed Christ. who as Ruffinus witnesseth of him,Lib. 10. [...]ap. 2. [...]ccles. [...]ist. being present at the first generall councel of Nice which was assembled abo­ue twelue hundred yeares agoe, had there deliuered vnto him certein libelles and billes of complaintes, that the bishoppes had one of them put vp ageinst an other. The which all as he receiued and put vp into his bosom: so after that he had refused to be iudge in their causes, Con [...]tan­ [...]ine the emperour refused to be iud­ge in the bishops causes. Onelie god the iudge of bishops causes. affirming that it becā not him to iudge them, to whome god had giuen power to iudge him, and that therefore their querels (what so euer they wer) they should re­ferre to the iudgement of almighty god, as hauing no other iudge emongest men: he caused without once opening them to see the contentes, to be throwen into the fier, that the brawle and discord he said of priestes, might neuer goe farder into the knowledge of men.

But here our aduersaries (as blame thē I can not seing they will nedes be patrones to desperat causes, if theie be glad to catche holde of a little) will perhappes [...]ay that I haue vndiscretely behaued my self in alleaging this auctoritie, which fardereth me not so much one waie, as it hindreth me an other, in that by the historie it ap­ [...]eareth that th'emperour sat in the councell with the bishoppes. Well, of th' alleaging of this place who is like to get shame, and who honestie, who to winne and who to lose therebie (for our aduersaries also I am not igno­rant thereof ar wont to bring this example for them:) the triall thereof I leaue till such time as it shalbe laied more whotly to my charge, which shalbe hereafter in [Page 22] bringing to light such simple store, as they haue gathe­red together for the confirmation of their parte, from th' examples of such emperours, as sence christes time ha­ue reigned. Yeat this may I be bould to say in the meane season, that as Constantinus sat in the councell with the bishoppes, there was neuer yet emperour nor kinge for bidden I dare well say to sitte, nor neuer I trowe shall. And ouer this, that in there being it is not very likely that he encroched any thing apon the spirituall iuris­diction, bothe by that which yow haue hard before, and also for this,Epist. 166 that being on a time as S. Austen reporteth of him, required by the Donatistes to take apon him the hearing of the cause, which depended betwene them and Cecilian, th'archebishop of Carthage: he refused to meddle there with all, because (saith he) non est ausus de causaeepiscopi iudicare, because he durst not be iudge in a bis­shops cause. But leauing this for the while, let vs exami­ne, the doings of other good and catholike emperours.

Valentinianus th'emperour,Valentinia­nus. was from that desire of gouerning in churche matters and ecclesiasticall causes so far,Tripart. histor. lib. 7. cap. 12. that as Sozomenus writeth of him, being required on the behalf of the bishoppes that inhabited the partes of Hellespontus and Bithinia, that he would vouchesauf to be present with them to entreat of certein pointes in religion to be refourmed: he made them this asnwer. To me,Valenti­nian his ansvver being required to entre. meddle in matters of religiō ▪ being one of the people, it is not laufull to se­arch out such thinges. But the priestes, to whome the charge thereof belongeth, let them assemble them sel­ues where they list.

This is the same Valentiniā, who willing the bishop­pes to chose a meete man to the see of Millain being by [Page] the deathe of Auxentius then voide,T [...]eodorit. lib. 7. hist. eccl. cap. 8. vsed to the [...] thiese wordes. Talem in pontificali constituite sede, cui & nos qui gu­ber [...]amus imperium sincer [...] nostra capita submittamus, & cuius [...]onita dum tanquam homines deliquerimus, necessariò velut cu­rantis medicamenta suscipiamus, that is to say. Choose yow such a bishop, as to whome euē we which gouerne the empire may syncerely submit our selues; and whose mo­nicions, while like men we fall, as pacients doe the phi­sicions receiptes,Nicol [...]us papa in epi­stola ad Faustu [...]. we may necessarily receiue. This to be short is he, which would not so much as be present whē Sixtus the B. of Rome was charged with certein accusa­tions, To. 1. cōcil. de expurg. Sixti. Valētiniā the sonne but rising from the councel left him to be iudged of him self.

His sonne also Valentinian succeding his father in th'empire, proclaymed he him self chief gouernor in causes ecclesiasticall? True it is, that being yet a childe, and seduced by his wicked mother Iustina, to fauour the horrible heresie of the Arrians: he began to affect that title.Lib. 5. epi­s [...]ol. 33. But after S. Ambrose like a true bishop, and faithe­full councelor, had tolde him that it apperteigned not to him, to pretend any auctorit [...]e or right to meddle with the ouersight of gods matters, that to him belonged his palaces, and to the priestes the churches, that he should not auaunce him self but be subiect to god, and giue to hī that wich was his,Lib. 5. epi­ [...]t [...]l. 32. reseruing to Cesar that which was Cesars: after that he had proposed to him the example of his father, who not onelie in wordes saide, that it was not his parte to iudge emongest the bishoppes, but esta­blished also a lawe, that in causes of faithe and religion, yea in th'examination of the maners of bishoppes and priestes, onelie [...]ishoppes should be iudges: after that he [Page 23] had willed him to searche the scriptures, where he should finde that bishoppes ought in matters of faithe to be iud­ges ouer Emperours, not they contrariwise ou [...]r bishop­pes: After that he had bidden him call to his remēbraun­ce, if euer he so much as hard, that in a matter of faithe thelay mē weriudges ouer the bishoppes, and finally told him that if he should giue him such councell, or being vnminderfull of that right which belongeth to prieste­hod, Our cou [...] ­trefeit bi [...] ­s [...]ops pro­used true flatteres by S. Am­brose. cōmit that to other which god had giuen to him, that he should not then treade in the vpright pathes of tr [...]th and simplicitie, but walck in the crooked way of a­dulatiō and flatterie, and that at the lenght he should (he douted not) him self, as he grewe to more ripenes in yea­res, well vnderstand what māner of bishop that wer, that would submit the auctoritie of priestes to the iudgemēt oflay men. After I saie all thiese persuasiōs, he found that good emperour so well [...]eclaimed, that him self reporteth of [...] an epistle which he wrote to Theodosius, Epist. 34. lib. 5. that where before he persecuted him, nowe he loued him, where before he tooke him for his mortall enemy, nowe he reuerēced him as his father. Which (S. Ambrose neuer yelding in his or [...] gods right) the emperour would neue [...] vndoutedly haue doen, had he not well knowen that S. Ambrose was in the right and he in the wrong.

What should I here alleage the wordes of Basilius the emperour, who being present at the eight si [...]ode, the fourth of Constant [...]nople, made there a notable or [...] ­tion in the which to the [...] he vsed thiese wordes: De vobis autem [...] etc. [...] of you that ar lay men whether yow besuch as haue dignities in the common weale or none: I haue no more to saie, but that in no wise it is [Page] lawfull for yow to dispute or reason of causes ecclesias­ticall. For to searche out those thinges it belongeth to the patriarches, the bishoppes and the priestes, who ha­ue receiued the office to rule, who haue the power to sanctify, to lose and to binde, in whose handes ar the ecclesiasticall and heauenlie keies: not vnto vs who must be fedde, who haue nede to be sanctified, to be bound and to be released fr [...] ̄ our bandes. For the lay man, of how greate deuotion and wisedom so euer he be, yea although he haue all the vertue that is possible to be in a man: yet whilest he is a laie man, he is in the place of a shepe.

Hetherto Basilius the emperour, to whome I might ioine bothe the doinges and saienges of many other, wer it not that euen of those earthely rulers who haue byn tyrants and persecutors of the christians, we want not yet examples to beate downe thiese beastelie flatterers with all. Emongest a nombre of the which that might be here brought, I shall for this time be contented to al­leage onelie three: Gallio the proconsul of Achaia, Theo­doricus king of the Gothes, and Aurelianus th'empe­rour of Rome.Act. ca. 18. Of whom the first although he wer an infidell, yet refused he to he [...]re the accusations layd in at Corinthū ageinst S. Paul, and saied in plain wordes: Ego iudex horūes [...]e nolo, I will not take on me to iudge in thie­se matters, because th'accusation concerned religion where with he had nothing to do [...]. The second al­though an Arrian, yet would not presume to be present at a certein councell of bishoppes whereunto he was called,In. 4. s [...]nod Rom. sub Simacho papa. but modestlie excusing him self, made this ans­wer: that in matters of the church he had nothing to [Page 24] doe,In churc [...] matters vvhat the prince hath to doe. but onelie to beare towardes them his reuerence The third being an ethnike and of the Christians a cruel persecutor, when the catholike bishoppes who had excō ­municated the heretike Paulus Samosatenus, and depriued him of his bishoprike,Aurelianus resorted to him for his help tou­ching the remouing of the said Paulus out of the man­sion house belonging thereto, the possession whereof he then kept:Eusebius lib. eccle. hist. 7. cap. 26. would not take apon him the knowled­ge of this matter where bishoppes wer parties, but re­ferred the iudgement thereof to the bishoppes of Italie and Rome.

If heretikes good Readers, tirantes and Ethnikes, wer yet so modest that they would not,Psalm. 2. or of the wrath of god (which brooseth into fitters the proudest of the all like the sherdes of a potters pot, as continually was re­presented vnto ther eyes, by the terrible examples of the two kinges Ozias and oza) so fearefull, that they durst not with Saul cut any parte of Samuels coate, with Ozi­asinuade the priestes office, and straie out of the limites of that iurisdiction which god had giuen to them: what may then the kinges and princes of our age say, who by thiese [...]urious fire [...]randes haue bene so farre abused, that they haue not douted to take on them that, which heretikes and miscreants of cōscience haue refused? For this by the way is well to be noted, that as thiese being heretikes and Ethnikes refused to intrude them selues in to ecclesiasticall iurisdiction: so was there neuer empe­rour sence first they became Christened, onlesse he wer him selfe an heretike or by heretikes set on, that attem­pted to doe otherwise: and that immediatly in so doing, what so euer he wer, as he was by heretikes mainteined: [Page] so by good and catholike bishoppes, such as of whose bothe vertue and learning no ma douteth, was he both earnestly and sharpely reproued.

And here to begin with that inconstant Constan­tius, Constā [...]ius. who of a catholike emperour becam a wicked Ar­rian: Lib. 2. cap. 41. in whose time as Socrates reporteth, there wer no [...]ewer them nine faithes. When he began to take apon him the part of Ozias, a. paralip. cap. 26. the priestes office in deciding questions and matters of religiō, in deposing the catho­like bishoppes and placing Arrians in their roomes, in prisoning some in banishing moe, in vexing and disquie­ting all: had not god thincke yow his Azarias ready to matche with him?

Was not there first [...]iberius the pope,Liberius. of whom when he (meddeling in matters of religion,) most earnestly required, that he would subscribe against A thanasius, (promising on the one side greate rewardes if he did, and threatening on the other exquisite tormentes if he refu­sed) he receiued this answer.At [...]anas. in epist. ad solitariam vitam agē ­ [...]es. Non ita [...]e habet ecclesiasticus canon, neque vnquam accepimus talem a patribus traditionem. Quod si omnino Imperator curam suam pro ecclesiastica pace in­interponere quaerit, aut scripta à nobis pro Athanasio deleri iubet: deleantur quoqué ea quae contra eum scriptasunt, fiatquè deinde ecclesiaflicasynodus vbi nec Imperator praestò sit, nec Comes se in­gerat, nec iudex minetur. The rules of the churche quoth he teache vs no such thing, nor we neuer receiued of our fathers any such tradition. But if the emperour will ne­des be carefull in procuring the peace of the churche, or cōmaund that I retract those thinges which I haue writ­ten in the behalfe of Athanasius: let them also be called in that haue byn written against him, and let there be after [Page 25] that, an ecclesiasticall synode assembled, far from his pala­ce, where neither the emperour shalbe present, neither his lieuetenant intrude him self, nor iudge threaten.

Thus was the emperour answered by that greate good olde man,Hosius. and true confessor Hosius the bishop of Cordu­ba in Spayn, Histor. eccles. lib. 5. cap. 16. to whom as Theodoretus writeth, Athanasius was wont to say that no man came sicke and wounded, that went not away hole and cured. This notable and auncient father, this true confessor of Christes faithe (for so did also Athanasius call him) when he sawe that the emperour Constantius would nedes take apō him the go­uernement of the churche which belonged not to him: first he proposed to him th' example of his brother Con­stans, who liuing like a vertuouse prince within his boun­des neuer attempted the like, and after he writeth thus. Ne te misceas ecclesiasticis, Athanas. in epist. ad so­litariam vitam agē ­tes. nequè nobis in hoc genere praecipe, sed potius à nobis ea disce. Tibi deus imperium commisit, nobis quae sunt ecclesiae concredidit. Et quemadmodum qui tuum imperium malignis oculis carpit contradicit ordinationi diuina: ita & tu­caue ne quae sunt ecclesiae ad te retrahens, magno crimini fias ob­noxius. Date (scriptum est) quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, & quae Dei deo: that is to say. Entremedle not your self (o emperour) in ecclesiasticall causes, nor take not apon yow to com­maund vs in those matters, but the thinges that belong thereto learne yow them rather of vs. To yow hath god commited th' empire,A necessa­ry admo­nitiō for princes that entre meddle in mat­ters of the churche. and to vs the busines and affaires of the churche. And euen as he that will with comptrol­ling eye checke your gouernement resisteth the ordi­naunce of god: so take yow also good hede, lest in dra­wing to yow those thinges which apperteine to the chur­che, yow incurre a greate and a heynouse faulte. Giue (it [Page] is written) to Cesar that which is his dutie, and to god that which is gods.

Athanasius speaking to this purpose sayeth,Athanasius In epist. ad solitar. vi­ [...]ā agentes. Siistud est iudicium episcoporum, &c. If this iudgement belong to bis­shops, what hath th' emperour to doe therewith? or if on the contrary part these matters be wrought by the threa­teninges of Cesar, what nede is there of any men beside to beare the bare title of bishops? when from the begin­ning of the world hath it byn hard of, that the iudge­ment of the churche hath taken auctoritie of the empe­rour? A questiō to be ans­vvered by the Hu­guenotes. Or when hath this byn agnised for any iudgemēt? Many synodes haue there byn before this time, many councels hath the churche holden, but the time is yet to comme that euer either the fathers went about to per­suade the prince any such matter, or that the prince sho­wed him self to be curiouse in matters of the chur­che. Arrius he resie first brought in that prī ­ces should medle in matters of the churche. But nowe haue we a spectacle neuer seene before brought in by Arrius heresie.

And towardes the ende of the same epistle, of Constan­tius attempting to meddle in causes ecclesiasticall he wri­teth thus. Quid igitur hic quod Antichristi est omistt? aut quid ille vbi venerit plus committere poterit? aut quomodo ille in ad­uentu suo non repererit sibi expeditam uiam ad dolos abisto prae­paratam? Siquidemiam denuò in locum ecclesiasticae cognitionis, palatium tribunal earum causarum constituit, sesequè ea­rum litium summū principem & authorem facit. What is the­refore sayth he, to be doen by Antichrist, that Constantius hath omitted? or what can Antichrist doe more at his commyng then he hath doen allready? Or how can it be that he shall not find the way ready made by hym when he commeth for all his disceytfull wyles. For euen no­we [Page 26] again in the place of the ecclesiaticall iurisdiction,A poinct [...] of Anti­christ for a lay man to entre­meddle in spiritual iurisdi­ction. he hath placed and appointed his owne palace, to be the cōsistory of those causes that should haue byn determi­ned thereby, and he maketh him self the chief iudge and arbitre thereof. And a little after he addeth: Quis enim vi­dens eum in decernendo principe se facere episcoporū, & praesidere iudicijs ecclesiasticis: non meritò eam ipsam abominationem de solationis dicat esse que a Daniele praedicta est? Daniel ca­pit. 9. for who seeing him in iudgement make him self the chief of the bishop­pes, and rule in causes ecclesiasticall, may not worthely say that he is that abhomination of desolation that Da­niel prophecied of.

Thus haue yowe hard good Readers, how thiese aun­cient fathers, Liberius, Hosius, and Athanasius, reproued the doings of Constantius th' emperour, the first (that we read of and yet him self an Arrian and prouoked the­reto by that wicked broode) that tooke apō him to med­dle in ecclesiasticall iurisdiction.

Next after him succeded in the empire Iulian,Iulianus. of the historiographers called apostata, for that that being once a professed Christian, he afterward renied his faithe and became a wicked infidell. He robbed churches, he pluc­ked priestes from the aultars,Lib. [...]. hi­stor. eccles. cap. 50. and sent them to the war­res. he did sacrifice and called him self as Sozomenus writeth of him by the name of bishop: and finally by cō ­tempt termed the Christians Galilei, and was to them a more cruell scourge then any that went before him. Of him it is likely that Gregorius Nazianzenus who li­ued in his time would saie no lesse,Oration. ad subdit [...]i­ [...]ore per­culs. & Im­per. irasc [...] ̄ ­ [...]em. then of Valens the emperour plaieng not much vnlike parte he did. whome in the middest of that ruffle which he made in the [Page] churche he told to his face, that his power was subiect to his consistory and him self a shepe of his flocke.

I can not here passe ouer in silence the answer (I wot not whether I may call it more pleasant, more wittie, or more godlie) that Theodoretus in his ecclesiasticall histo­rie writeth to be made by one Eulogius, Lib. 4. ca. 18. a man for his ver­tues emongest his neighbours highly estemed (the histo­rie calleth him primarium inter suos, the chief of the pla­ce where he dwelled) to an officier of Valens th' empe­rour touching this matter. This Valēs fauoring the here­sie of Arrius, encroched so far apon cclesiasticall iuris­diction, that he fell to the depriuing of bishoppes, and the placing of other in their roomes, besides many other sondry enormites, and outrages. It happened so, that coming on a time to a certein towne in Mesopotamia cal­led Edessa, where this Eulogius was then gouernour, and thincking to doe there as elles where he had (that was to place there a chaplain of his to be bishop) he was by this good man and certeine other withstand. The offi­cer that had to doe vnder the emperour, trauailed ear­nestly to get his consent, and emongest other persuasi­ons that he vsed to induce him thereto,A plea­sant vvit­ty and godlie an svvere, to stop their mouthes vvithall, vvho in matters of religiō obiect alvvaies the prī ces auc­toritie. it chaunced him to cast out thiese wordes. Coniungere cum imperatore, Be contented man to ioyne with the emperour. Set your harte at rest he will haue it so. Tumille (faithe the history) placidè & festiuê Numquid vnà cum imperio etiam ille pontifi­catum est consecutus? whie, answered he coldely and plea­santly, was he made a bishop that daie that he was cro­wned emperour? as who would saie, what although he be emperour, yet hath he not thereby gotten auctoritie to depose bishoppes and ordeine newe▪ which onely bis­hoppes [Page 27] must doe. So strange a thing semed it then good readers in Christes churche which nowe we see so com­monly done.

Long after thiese emperours start vp Leo Isaurus, em­perour of Constantinople (he that made war with ima­ges.) Ageinst him god raised vp also his Azarias, one to warn him of his duetie, and that was that notable lear­ned man Iohn Damascenus. Sermon. 1. Giue (saith he) the apostle Paule crieth, to euery one his due, honor, feare, pension, tribute, to eche one that which they ought to haue. The charge that kinges haue, is to see well to their com­mon weales, the ordering of the churches apperteineth to the pastours and teachers. This manner of inuading other mennes offices, I can terme it no better my bre­thern then robbery and plaine violence. And a little after he hath thiese wordes: Tibi ô rex in ijs quae pertinent ad pre­sentis vitae negocia &c. As for those thinges ô king which concern onely this pres [...]nt life, in those we willingly obey the. In ordering th [...] state of the churche, we haue shepherdes which haue spoken to vs the worde of god that is to saie taught it vs, and haue left vs rites and ordres therefore. And in the same place he addeth. Non recipio re­gē qui per tyrannidem sibi sacerdotiū vsurpat. I acknowledge him for no king, that vsurpeth by tirany the priestes of­fice. And last of all to knit vp the knot in plaine wordes he saith. Non assentior vt regum legibus gubernetur ecclesia, sed patrum potius traditionibus, siue scriptae hae sint siue non scriptae I consent not saith he that the churche of god shalbe go­uerned by the lawes of kinges, but by the traditions ra­ther of oure fathers be they written or vnwritten.

And thus much hetherto good readers haue I thought [Page] good to reherce, that yow may the better vnderstand how the auncient fathers of Christes churche, haue not ceased continually from time to time, to resist the vnlau­full attempt of such princes, as being heretikes or enuei­gled theretoe by heretikes (for of other perdy it was ne­uer gone about, nor of all them neither) would contra­ry to the expresse worde of god, the custome of Christes churche from the beginning continued, the alowed exā ­ples of all ages, of all common weales Christian and hea­then hetherto practised, mingle heauen and earth, holie and prophane together, by vnlawfull vsurping to them selues, the supreme and chief gouernement in causes ec­clesiasticall.

To come nearer home to our owne time and daies, if in it any prince haue attempted the like, there hath not lacked also stoare of diuerse mē, singuler bothe for their vertuous life and exquisite learning, which haue rather chosen to withstand the same with the expence of their bloud, and losse of this present life, then to the vtter de­structiō of both body and soule, and losse of that which must continue for euer, to consent thereto. But if thiese examples please not the deinty tast of the aduersaries as being ouer stale: I shall set before them their owne deare derling, the piller while he liued of their religion, the very head of their churche (if they be not all together headlesse) their Idol and their god in earthe, whose doctri­ne and opinions at other times, and in other thinges, they haue so rauenouslie deuoured, Iohn Caluin him self. For if kinges and temporall gouernours (as our aduersaries af­firme) ought euerie one of them in their realmes, signo­ries, and dominions, to gouerne in causes ecclesiasticall [Page 28] and matters of religion: whie did then that monsterous beaste in his comentaries apon the prophetes Os [...]e and Amos, in Ose [...]. cap. 1. rayl apō our late souereigne lorde king Henrie the eight, calling him homo belluinus a beastelie mā,Amos. 7. and com­paring him with Iehû, whome he termeth wicked and nought? Why termed he thē blasphemers that first buz­zed into his eares that vaine desire to be called chief head of the churche of England (for of other yow wot well he neuer attempted to be nor euer was called) vnder Christe here in earth? If Caluin haue taught the truthe, then haue his scholers taught vs and yeat doe feede vs with lies. If they wer blasphemers that called king Hen­rie chief head of the churche of England vnder Christ, (which is to saie in effect nothing elles but to be chief go­uernour in all causes belonging to the same) who was yet a man although laie, and thereto also of great wisdo­me and learning: in what degree of blasphemie shall we place them, that giue this title not to laie men onelie, but to women also and children with out respect? If Cal­uin, who touching the giuing of this vnlaufull title to our late lord and maister was vtterly innocent, cōplained yet that euen his conscience was wounded not a little there withall: how much more daungerousely wounded ought they to thinck them selues, who of so many hor­rible and bloudly woundes (whereby for the refusall to folow this example in christes churche neuer hard of before, so many godly, learned and innocent men in this realme haue died: some by heading, some by hanging, some by quartering and tearing peace meale one membre from an other, haue by ther false and vntrue suggestions byn the chief and onelie occasion? who yet like cruell [Page] bloudsuckers and bloudy bourre [...]aus, cary about in their murdering aud malicious mouthes the naked knife, which wer it laufull for them they would sheathe in the throates of euerie one of vs that thinck not as they doe.

But if now on the contrarie part their maister Caluin wer deceauid, if they be in the right and he in the wrong, why steppeth none of them furth, to defend and vindi­cate from perpetuall infamy, that prince of famouse me­mory which by his railing writinges this wretched cay­tiff goeth about to bring him into? why haue they left him so long vndefended, who did no other thing then whereof them selues wer the authors and first begin­ners? Or why at the least purge theie not them selues, of the horrible crime of blasphemie laied by him to their charges and all such as theie ar? for if they wer blasphe­mers that called king Henrie head of the churche of En­glande, what priuilege ha [...]e thiese that calling not onelie him, but his sonne and daughter by the same title in effect, they should not incurre the same crime? Where is now their spirit of vnitie that they ar wont so much to bragge of, which dissent not here in any small poinct, or from any meane man, but euen from the chiefest caterpiller (whyle he liued) of their congregatiō? who not onely in thiese places before by me alleaged kepeth as it wer with their proceadings a combat, but elles where in his Institu­tiōs doeth merueilous [...]y discredit the same.Lib. 4. cap. 11. sect. 4. And in steede of manie places which might be brought here out of his worckes: I shall onely for this time be cōtented to alleage one, in such sort as I finde it in the frenche, because at the writing hereof I had not, nor could getanie other copie. The place is thus: Pour tant ceulx qui despouillen [...] l' Eglise de [Page 29] ceste puisance, pour exalter be magistrate, ou la iustice terriene, non seulemēt corrōpent le sens des paroles de Christe par faulse interpre­tation, mais aussi accusent d' une grande vice, les sainctz euesques qui ont estè en grand nombre, depuis be temps des Apostres, comme [...]iilz eussent vsurpè la dignitè & office du magistrate, subz fauls se couerture. That is to saie in englishe. Those therefore which to exalt the magistrat or earthely iustice, doe spoi­le the churche of this power (he meaneth and speakith of the ordre touching churche matters) doe corrupt, not onelie the sense of Christes owne wordes by false inter­pretation, but doe also accuse of a heynouse faulte the ho­lie bishops, (whereof the nombre is not small) which ha­ue bin sence the apostles time, as though they had vsur­ped by false colouring the matter, the office and dignitie of the magistrate.

Nowe choose good readers, whether ye had rather be­leue Caluin mainteining the auctoritie and iurisdiction of the churche, or our clawebackes and parasites which impugne the same. The one hath scripture to defende it.Deuter. 17. The other hath nothing to assaulte it. The scripture saeith that in doutefull questions we should resort to the priestes,Ezech. cap. 44 that at their word should all matters be decided, that they should iudge, that at their handes we should demaunde knowlege, [...]ggeus. 2 that their lippes be the ke­pers thereof because they ar our lordes angells. Nowe cō ­meth the heretike, the peruerter of scripture, he telleth vs that we must seke it at the princes handes, that he is goddes chiefest ministre in thinges and causes aswel ec­clesiasticall as temporall.1. Cer. 12. The scripture reaconeth in the first place in Christes churche apostles, that is to say prie­stes (for we maie not thinck that in that place the apostle [Page] described a forme of the churche to endure but for that onelie age). The heretike will haue princes placed aboue and priestes benethe.Actor. 20 The holie ghost appointed bishop­pes and priestes to gouern the flock of Christ, that is the churche. The diuell in his mēbres appointeth ciuile ma­gistrates to rule, and priestes to obey. So that herebie we maie most euidentlie see, how manifestly they peruert and corrupt the true sense and meaning of gods worde.

As for the other poinct which Caluin also laieth to their charge, of accusing of a most heynouse and grie­uouse fault the auncient bishoppes that haue bin sence th'apostles time, as though they had by vnlaufull mea­nes vsurped to them selues the office and dignitie of the Magistrate: it is also if their doctrine wer true, most plai­ne and euident euē at the eye. For first if kinges must be the chiefe gouernours in matters of religion,Ig [...]tius. and bishop­pes their vnderlinges,Epistol. ad Philadel­phens. who seeth not then, how far Igna­tius that holy martyr abused bothe him self and vs, to bid all men without exception, euen th'emperor him self by name, to the obedient to the bishop, to tell vs that after him next, the king is to be honored. If this be true which they teache,Liberius. who is he that can excuse Liberius that holie father, who for the determining of matters cōcerning the cuhrche, would haue a sinode kept where the emperour should not so much as be present: Or that reuerend father Hosius, Hosius. who willed th'emperour not to entremedle in ecclesiasticall causes, nor to comptroll or commaunde the bishoppes therein, but to learne of the in those thinges, to whose charge they wer committed, not to his.Athanasius Or Athanasius that strong piller of Christes churche, who when he saw that wicked emperour Con­stantius, [Page 30] doe that which the heretikes of this our time, perswade the Kinges and Emperours that now arre to doe, as the Arrians did those of their age: that is to take apon him the determination of matters ecclesiasticall, to make him selfe chief iudge bothe of the bishoppes and causes belonging to the churche, called him that abhomination of desolatiō spoken of by Daniel the prophet, and prono­unced that for his so doing his impietie was such, as An­tichrist when he should comme him self, should not be able to goe beyond: termed it a newe deuise brought in by the Arrians, and finally demaunded but one example ab oeuo condito, from the beginning of the world, where by it might appeare that the doinges of the churche should ta­ke their auctoritie from th'emperour, till Arrius his time. Or Gregorius Nazianzenus, Gregorius Naziāzenus who told th'emperour, that by the lawe of Christ his power was subiect to his con­sistory, and that although he wer an emperour, yeat was he not withstanding a shepe of his flock. Or S. Ambrose, Ambrose. that bad the emperour set his hart at rest, and not to thin­ke that he had by the right of his crowne, any auctoritie in those matters that concerned religion: that his palaice belonged to him, and the churche to the priestes. Or Chrisostom,Chrisos­tom. who comparing the power of a King, with the auctoritie of a priest, calleth the one a prince aswell as the other,Homilia. 5▪ de verbis Esaiae. and greater thē he toe, by so much as heauen is greater then the earth, and addeth that god him self to witnesse the same, hath brought vnder the handes of the priest the head of the prince.Heb. 7. For that saith he that is les­ser is blessed of the greater. Who in an other place saieth that the power which is geuen to priestes is such,Libr. 3. de sacerdotio. as the like thereto was neuer giuen to Angels or Archangels, [Page] seing that to none of them it was euer said: what so euer yow binde in earthe shalbe bound in heauen, or what so euer yow loose in earthe shalbe loosed in heauen. Or how wer it possible if this doctrine of our aduersaries wer true, to excuse Damascenus Damasce­nus. for reprehending Leo Isaurus (as yow haue hard before) the emperour, and many a one more of the holie fathers, which for breuities sake I am here constreined to passe ouer in silence.

Leauing therefore our aduersaries thus at square, both with the old fathers and their newe doctours: it is high time good readers that I remembre to discharge my self of my promise, which was to laie before your eyes, such euidence as in this matter ether part had to bring for thē selfe. Which as I haue for the catholikes according to my simple wit and pooer knowledge allreadie done: so shall I by goddes grace on the contrary parte for the protestā ­tes and Huguenotes, faithefully endeuor to doe the like. And because, for that aswell of all the poisoned reasons touching either this matter, or almost any other at this day in question, the late apologie of the churche of Englād (for so is it by th' authors termed) may well be called as it wer the some or abridgemēt, as also for that there is as it should seme and sence hath byn cōfessed, in it comō consent of all the fantasticall congregation, I meane of them that trouble Christes churche in our countrie of England: I could not me thought either for their part (which I coue [...] to make as strong as the naughtines of the cause will suffer) doe better, or for mine owne assu­rance worcke more warily, then to take and cull out such proufes, as for the maintenaunce of their opinion they haue there heaped to gether. For them, because there I [Page 31] persuade my selfe the reader may finde, the verie force and strength of all that they haue for thē selues in this matter to saie: as the place where bothe of good reason they should, and for their craftie conueiance I nothing doubte but they would, bring furth of their groundes the very best, if they haue any better then other. For my parte or rather for Christ and his churches whose quarell although farre vnworthy, at this time I susteine, it shall thus stande in steede, that if it fortune in your iudge­mentes good Readers their said groundes and reasons to seeme such, as any good man, yea happely with some of them, some of them selues may mislike: they cā not yeat flee to their olde starting hole that it is but one doc­tours minde, as they vse being sore pressed customably to doe, whereas the booke bothe by the manner of the publishing thereof appeareth, and sence hath byn ac­knowleged, to be no priuat mannes acte.

The first argument therefore of theirs,The first argument of the protestants. to proue that lay men in that they be kinges may take on them the or­dering of matters in religion, that to them belongeth the auctoritie and ouersight thereof, is taken frō the ex­ample of Moyses, Moyses. who being a ciuile magistrat, receiued neuerthelesse at the handes of almighty god, bothe the charge and ordre of all the religion and ceremonies, de­liuered the same to the people, and when Aaron being a bishop had contaminat the true religion by making the golden calf, he failed not sharpely to rebuke and repre­hend him therefore.

To this argument good Readers which out of this example they frame, that therefore by good consequen­ce it foloweth that the kinges, emperours, and other ci­uile [Page] magistrates of our time may doe the like, thus doe we answer:The ans­vvere. that, that auctoritie which Moyses had ouer the priestes, was not because he was a prince but in that he was a priest,Psalm. 9 4 as appeareth most euidentlie in the psal­me where he is so called.

But ageinst this answere laboureth (as they say) with toothe and naile,The Re­ply. the author of that booke which wal­keth abrode in manie mennes handes, vnder the name of a harborough for faithefull subiectes. whose replie is this, that in that psalme how euer the olde interpre­tors haue giuen vs the word, the hebrue text hath Co­hanim, a word indifferent to signify priestes or princes, aud that therefore such as doe best vnderstand the tong­ue giue it thus: Moyses & Aaron inter ministros eius, Moy­ses and Aaron emongest his ministres. And to proue that it may well so be, the scripture he saieth calleth Dauid his sonnes Cohanim that is to saie ministres, for well he woteth that no man wilbe so fond to saie, that a kinges sonnes wer priestes: yea he addeth that the best emongest the Hebrues interpreting thiese wordes giue it in Chorei Shemo: Moyses & Aarō inter eos qui inuocāt nomen eius, Moyses and Aaron emongest them that call apon his name. Thiese in effect be the reasons that moued the man to thinke that Moyses was no priest.

To be short.The solutiō, pro­uing that Moyses vvas a priest. Whome he taketh for the best, or whome he accōpteth for the worst in the hebrue tōgue, or what his habilitie to iudge thereof is, I confesse in good fayth I knowe not. But of this I am well assured, that S. Hierō, Pagninus and (whose translatiō for his religion he nede not to suspect, Sebastianus Munsterus, emongest all men taken for singulerly learned in that tongue) inrerpret [Page 32] the worde to signify priestes. And if all this satisfy him not, the 70. interpretours trāslate it so. For thiese ar thei­re wordes: [...] that is, Moyses and Aaron in the nombre of his priestes. And for so vn­doubted a truthe was it taken with S. Hierom, that he in the exposition of this psalme vsed thiese wordes.Hieron. in Psalm. 9 8 Vterqué Moyses scilicet & Aaron, domini aduentum sacerdotali praeco­nio nunciauit. Bothe of them, that is to say Moyses and Aaron, did with their priestly voyce denounce before hand, the comming of our lorde. Now touching the indifferency of the worde Cohanim to signify a minister or a priest, we graunte it to be true: but that because in some one place it so signifieth, it ought therefore so to be expoūded in this, that we vtterly denie. And for proo­fe hereof we bring Abrahamus Esdras, emongest the olde Rabbini called Sapientissimus. He expownding this pla­ce of the psalme, calleth Moyses and Aaron by the na­me of priestes. And because no man should cauill about the ambiguitie of the worde Cohanim, he graunteth it to be a worde doubtfull. But to take away all such ambigui­tie, and to make vs assuredly vnderstād when it signifi­eth this or that, he giueth this rule, that being ioined and applied to the name of god, or any thing to him be­longing (as here it is) it signifieth allwaies a priest: but otherwise referred to prophane thinges, a minister: as maie be answered of Dauids children in the second boo­ke of kings the .8. chapiter. And surely so long as he stan­deth apon his bare vauntes of the best without naming at all any: I se no cause but that we may well rest in that interpretacion which thiese [...]ower, for their knowledge in that tongue of the learned sort accompted most excellent, [Page] beside the nombre of the .70. interpretours haue deliuered vnto vs, especially seing that interpretacion which the very best emongest the Hebrues he saith ha­ue giuen apon that place, that is, Moyses and Aaron emongest them that call apon his name: I thinke to him that considereth well the wordes that followe Et Sam­uel inter eos qui inuocant nomen eius, will seme and proue to be euen the very wurst. But because yow shall well per­ceiue that Moyses was in dede a priest, beside the testi­monies allready brought furth, I shall here alleage cer­tein other to proue the same.

First S. Austen writing apon the same psalme where bothe he and Aaron ar called priestes,Psalm. 9 8 maketh as it wer ageinst the priestehood of Moyses a certein obiection, and afterward concludeth that Moyses was not with­standing a priest. His wordes ar thiese: Ibi quidem non vi­detur sacerdos essenisi Aaron. Aper [...]è enim in illis literis Aa­ron nominatur sacerdos dei. De Moyse nō ibi dicitur quòd sacer­dos erat. Sed si hoc non erat, quid erat? Nunquid maior sacerdo­te esse poterat? Expropriat psalmus iste quia & ipse sacerdos erat: Moyses & Aaron in sacerdotibus eius. Ergo erant illi domini sacerdotes. Exod. 28. that is to say, there it semeth that there was no other priest but Aaron: for in that place is he plainelie named a priest, but of Moyses there is no such word. But if he wer not a priest, what was he then? Could he be greater? The psalme vttreth that he was a priest: Moyses and Aaron emongest his priestes. They wer therefore both our Lordes priestes.

Here I beseche yow good readers behold the false and vneuen dealing of an heretike, the author of the harbo­rough, of whom a little before I made mention. He min­ding [Page 33] to elude this manifest exposition of S. Austen, ans­wereth in this manner: that S. Austen was ignorant in the Hebrue tongue, whereby being easely deceauid and wrapped in thiese two places of scripture, wherein the­re seemed contradiction, he leaueth them at a iarre as he found them, the one to saie he was a priest, thother to sa­ie that he was none. Which manner of interpretation and reconciling of scriptures how it is to be liked, he lea­ueth he saieth to the learned reader to iudge.

For answer to this mere cauillation of this vaine ian­gler before I procede any farder, because he shall not abu­se S. Austens ignorance in the Hebrue tongue to the de­ceauing of yow good readers, yow shall vnderstand that S. Hierō was not ignorant therin, and yeat doeth he so expounde the place. The .70. interpretours chosen and picked as it wer out of the best learned and cūning est in that tongue (by all likelihood) that could be found: Sanctes Pagninus and Sebastianus Munster, yea that most learned Rabbine, Abrahamus Esdras [...] Iewe born, wer not ignorant but pearlesse Paragōs therein, and yeat doe all thiese expound the Hebrue word to signifie priestes as Sainct Austen doeth. And where he saieth that S. Austē being thus wrapped in thiese two contrarie textes, was driuen to leaue them as he found thē, the one to saie he was a priest, tho­ther that he was none: in th'one he hath belied [...] the holie scriptures, in thother he hath sclaundred that holie and learned bishop. For where, or what scripture saieth, that Moyses was no priest (as he saieth that one texte saide he was, an other that he was none?) Let him show somme such scripture, or elles hath he lied apon the scripture. He may show I confesse where the scripture (as there apon [Page] S. Austen made his obiection) speaking of him, calleth him not by the name of a priest: which in many other places it doeth also of Aaron. Is this therefore a good rea­son to saie? The scripture in that place made no mention that he was a priest: therefore it saied that he was none. Yea truelie, euen as good as is this. The scripture maketh no mention that th'apostles wer euer baptized: therefo­re it saieth that theie neuer wer baptized. Or doe thiese textes make anie iarre, the one affirming the other deni­eng, to saie Aaron the priest in one place, and Moyses and Aaron his priestes in an other? But as this is a lewd lye, so to goe about to note S. Austē to the world of such igno­rance in the scriptures, as though he had not byn able to vndoe this simple knot (a knot if it be) but was forced to leaue the two places at a iarre vnreconciled: I can call it no better, but euen by the name of wilfull malice. As ap­peareth by that, that guilefully in alleaging after their mā ner without cotatiō, (the easelier thereby to deceaue the reader) this place of S. Austen: he left out thiese later wor­des, Ergo erant illi domini sacerdotes, therefore they wer (Moyses, and Aaron) our lordes priestes.

Now here note I beseche yow diligently that ar of the learned sorte, thiese wordes of S. Austen, which import in them thus much. It maie seeme saieth he, to some man, that Moyses (because the scripture nameth there onelie Aaron by the name of a priest and not him) wer no priest:Exod. 28. but of them that so gather I would know, if he wer no priest what he was then, whether they can make him King, Emperour, or any thing that should be greater. And although the scripture in that place doe not call him by the name of his office, yet neither doeth it therefore deny [Page 34] him to be a priest, nor we ar destitute of other places to proue the same by, as namelie this psalme, wherein expres­selie he is so called. Wherefore seing neither that place or any other, doe saie that he was not a priest, and there is plaine scripture that doeth call him one: I maie boldelie conclude, Erant ergo illi sacerdotes domini. Therefore they wer bothe our lordes priestes.

This is (no dout) the true sense of S. Austēs wordes, wherebie yow maie see how greate the difficulties wer, in which he was wrapped, and how he woūd him selfe out.

But then saieth this stout champion, there wer two high priestes at once, which could not be by the lawe, and also Moyses must nedes be inferior to Aaron, because Aa­ron and not he, is there called the high prieste.

This obiection hath in dede a showe of somewhat, although in their manner of gouernemēt, to haue manie heades wer no greate absurditie at all. But to this obiec­tion answereth most fully S. Austen him self in an other place,In quaesti [...]. Sup. Leuit. Lib. 3. cap 23. after this sorte. Cùm ergo videatur, &c. Seing there­fore that the highe priestehood, seemeth to haue be­gonne in Aaron, what thincke we that Moyses was? If he wer not a priest, how did he thē all those thinges which he did? If he wer, howe say we that the high priestehood began in his brother Aaron? Although the Psalme also where it is saide,By the bisshoppes appare [...]l [...] vnderstād the executiō of the things be [...]longing [...] Moyses an [...] Aaron emongest his priestes, doeth remoue all cause of [...]oubte, affirming that Moyses was also a priest. Wer they therefore Moyses and Aaron, bothe chief priestes, or rather Moyses the chief and Aaron vnder him? yea Aaron also the chiefest in respect of the bishoppes apparell, and Moyses the chief in re [...]pect of a more excellent ministery.Exod. 4. For [...]t the beginning wa [...] it said to [Page] Moyses of Aaron. Hovv Moyses vvas chief and hovv Aaron. He shall be thy director in those thinge [...] that ar to be handled with the people, and thow his, in such busines as is to be done with god.

Hetherto S. Austen, by whome we learne that it is no absurditie, that two should be chief in two seuerall respectes, the one in ouerseing and prescribing what shalbe doē, th'other in practising, and putting in execution, the thinges prescribed: the one absolutely without relation, the other in a respect by a comparison. As in the newe lawe (a figure whereof diuerse well learned mē haue expoun­ded this priestehood of Moyses and Aaron to be) Christ we see, is of his churche onely, simply and absolutely the head: Peter and after him his successors, no otherwise but in comparison of other inferiour membres. Moyses as he was with god more familier thē anie other, as he receiued immediatly (without the help of anie other instrument to conuey it by vnto him) from the mouthe of almightie god his holie will and pleasure: he was there is no doute thereof, the high and chiefest priest. Aaron also, as he was by almightie god chosen to publish to the people those thinges which Moyses had giuen him in charge: as he of­fred the sacrifices and executed the ceremonies, he had also therein the souereintie and superioritie.

And thus much for answer to that obiection made of two high priestes. But to make this matter more eui­dent and to folowe my purpose, this is not sainct Au­stens minde alone,In oratione quā habuit in praesent. Gegor. fra­tris Basilij de Moyse & Aaron. that the man should so fret and fume at him therefore. For Gregorius Nazianzenus, hath of Moyses and Aaron, in plaine wordes, that they wer bo­the priestes, and alleageth to proue it (as sainct Austen did) the Psalme where they ar so called, with diuerse [Page 35] other auncient writers whome because I take the case to be cleare emongest the learned I here forbeare to allea­ge: and am for this tyme contented (to giue to our ad­uersaries the larger scope) to put the case as though Moyses had being no priest, corrected and reproued Aarō that was one,Leuit. capi­te. 8. that he prescribed to him what he should doe, that he made him priest as it appeareth by the scrip­tures he did. The which imagined to be true, I aske this question, whether it doe therefore folow that princes being lay men, may at this day in matters of religion, comptroll the bishoppes, and prescribe vnto them what ordre they shall obserue and folow therein? whether they maie also giue ordres to priestes, and consecrate bi­shoppes now, because Moyses consecrated Aaron then? No trulie if yow will beleue Iohn Caluin,Lib. Instit. 4. cap. 11. Sect. 8. it is an vn­true and a false collection▪ For that Moyses saieth he, had bothe the charges, that is of thinges aswell eccle­siasticall and spirituall as ciuile and politike together: to that I answer that it was done first by miracle, and secō ­darily that that was but temporall,Caluins ansvver to the obiection of Moyses. till such time as thinges wer better staied. For afterward saieth he, as sone as god had ordeined a forme such as he [...]ould should continue, there remained to Moyses but onely the ciuile gouernement, concerning the priestehood, it was necessarie that he should resigne that to his brother Aaron. And good reason whie [...], for it passeth naturall power that one man should susteine bothe the charges. Hetherto Caluin.

Now if it be so that this auctoritie of Moyses cam to him by miracle, or that he had it by especiall commission, then can we not yow wot, of either of these two cases [Page] gather a necessary consequence. And thus might we ans­wer our aduersaries good readers, euen by their owne Doctour. But cleauing to the scriptures, and auncient fathers of Christes churche, we hold the first opinion that Moyses was a priest, and that in that respect he had auctoritie ouer the priestes, and not as he was a prince.

The next example that they alleage is of Iosue, The secō ­de exam­ple. who being also a ciuile magistrate, receiued (they saie) at the time that he was appoincted to gouerne the people, ex­presse commaundement and by name,Iosue. of religion and worshiping of god. But by what wordes that would I faine knowe. For in that chapitre by them in their a­pologie alleaged, can I finde no wordes wherebie there might be grounded in temporall men, as we call them, or ciuile magistrates anie such auctoritie ouer matters of religion, as they labour to induce. For first this is out of all question, that in one of these two sentences it is which I shall here alleage, or that elles it is not there to be looked for. The first of the which two is this: Confor­ [...]are & esto robustus &c. Be of good comfort and be strong, that thow maiest kepe and doe all the lawe, which Moy­ses my seruant hath commaunded the. Swarue not eit­her to the right hande or to the lefte, that thow maiest vnderstande all thinges that thow doest.

Is there here good readers any auctoritie giuē to med­dle with religion? was there not as much as this cometh to, saied to euery one of the children of Israell, that they should trulie obserue the cōmaundementes giuen to thē by Moyses? Is there not as much saide to euery one of vs touching the obseruing of the commaundementes of almighty god? and yet had neither the children of Israel [Page 36] then, nor we nowe, auctoritie ouer religion pardie. The other sentence is this. Non recedat volumen &c. that is to saie: let not the booke of this lawe departe from thy mouthe, but thow shalt spend thy time bothe nighte and day in the meditation thereof, that thow maiest ke­pe and doe all thinges that ar written therein. Thē shalt thow directe thy waie and vnderstande the same.

Where I pray yow is Iosua here cōmaunded to meddle with religiō? in that that he is bidden to study the scrip­tures? Now surelie that is far fetcht and nedeth no greate refutacion. For this know I well will they graunte, and for a maxima and very principle is it holden in their reli­gion, that thiese wordes perteine to euerie man a like, aswell to the cartar as to the king or duke, and make as much for the one to be a king, as theie doe for the other to entremeddle in the order of religion. Well may euery man and easelie perceiue, how much they would haue triumphed, if they had had but one suche texte to serue their purpose for kinges, as the catholikes haue for pri­estes out of the holie scriptures many. If they could haue foūde but one place in all the whole corps of the scriptu­res, where had bene saide that the lippes of the ciuile ma­gistrate should kepe the knowledge of goddes moste holie will and pleasure, and his mouthe be the treasour of the same, as is saide of the priestes: O lord howe is it likely that their lippes, mouthes, and tongues should haue sow­ned and clattered thereof long before this, that ruffle so with the example of Iosue, because (or for no cause) that he was willed to study the scriptures? dissembling in the meane season the .27. cha. of the booke of Numeri where in plaine wordes it is to be found, that Iosue was subiect [Page] to Eleazarus the high priest, at whose bidding the scriptu­re saieth he should goe furth and come in, he and all the children of Israel.

It foloweth,The .3. example. that king Dauid brought home the arc­ke, restored religion, was present not onelie as to ad­monishe or encourage them that accompanied it,1. Paralip. cap. 13. but deliuered also to them psalmes and himnes, disposed the order of euery thing, instituted the ceremonies and solemnitees, and ruled after a sorte the priestes. That Da­uid brought home the arcke it can not be denied, to the house at the least of Obed Edom. Although in an o­ther place we reade, [...]. Paralip. cap. 15. how Dauid being strooken with a merueilouse feare, for that which so latelie before he had sene happen vnto Oza, for the onelie staieng (being no priest) th'arcke, which otherwise was in greate daun­ger to fall: he would not presume to carie the same into the tabernacle prepared to receiue it, but called vnto him Sadock and Abiathar the priestes, willing them in ex­presse wordes to carie it to the place appointed therefore,The bringing ho­me the arck vvit­hout the priestes acknovv­leged by Dauid to be an vn­lauful act lest happely god might strike them once again, for doing the like vnlaufull acte to that, which thorough their ab­sence before they had done. He made psalmes and wrote himnes to the glory and praise of god. And who is there I praie yow, that at this day forbiddeth anie prin­ce or king to doe the like? He appoincted and esta­blished to serue the temple for euer, some to sing, some to plaie on the organes, some and a greate some, the scripture hath fower thousande, to kepe the dores. And what conclude they hereof, if Dauid had appointed plaiers and singing men as he did not,3. Paralip. [...]p. 15. but willed the chief of the Leuites to appoint some of their brethern [Page 37] thereto? that therefore he was chief gouernour in all causes ecclesiasticall. O what newe logick is sodenly sprong vp with their newe diuinitie. How manie notable Kinges hath our littell countrie had, which in their da­ies haue established for the like purposes like fundations, by our aduersaries at this daie almost all ouerthrowen, of whom no one euer by this meanes, thought him selfe anie thing the more auctorised, to gouerne in matters of religion the cleargie of his countrie. But for this exam­ple that which I haue allreadie saide maie suffise, bothe because I thincke they leane not much theretoe, for that theie can showe no greate store of Kinges, yea I ma­ie be bould to say none at all, by them persuaded to buil­de anie churches, or to establish anie fundacions of such as shoulde there continually serue god, and also for that the place it selfe (howe euer in the apologie the conclu­sion conteine more then the premisses) semeth not to be brought in directly to proue any such thinge. For our a­pologie which alleageth it, hath onely, & quodammodo praefuit sacerdotibus, that is, and in a māner or after a sort he was aboue the priestes. And therefore will I procede to their other examples.

Salomon (they say) builded and dedicated to god a chur­che,Salomon. 3. Reg. Cap. 8. made to the people an oration concerning religion and worshiping of god, deposed Abiathar the bishop placing Sadoc in his roome.

Ezechias purged the temple,Ezechias 4. Reg. cap. 18. commaunded the lightes to be kindled, encense to be doen and sacrifice offred, af­ter the old accustomed manner: finally the brasen serpēt which was then worshipped by the people, to be vtterlie taken awaie and broken all to fitters.

[Page] Iosaphat Iosaphat. toke awaie the hilles and wooddes whereby the people was hindred from the common temple of Ierusalem.

Iosias Iosiat. warned the priestes and bishops of their duties.

Ioas restreined their riot and insolency:Ioas. and last of all, Iehu put the wicked prophetes to deathe.Iehu.

These be th'examples good readers which the aduer­saries to the truthe bring for the maintenaunce of the contrarie, out of the old Testament. Which manner of reasoning from examples in that age vsed, if it might be at these daies in all poinctes laufull to folow, what and how houge a nombre of inconueniences, might by iust consequence thereapon be easelie grounded and brought in, I nede not here to reherse, anie man but meanelie ex­ercised in the holie scriptures may with him self easely conceiue. If the miracles, examples significatiue, and sin­guler priuileages, doē, practised and graunted in that age, might without any daunger, aswell be to the present esta te of the churche which now is, drawen, applied and ac­comodate, as the morall preceptes of that lawe maie and ar: whie haue not then the Kinges now a daies, as many wiues as had King Dauid then? why should it not be as laufull for the cleargie (I will not onely say to admonishe and reprehend) to put Kinges doing amisse at this tyme to death, as it was at that for Samuel to cut in pieces with his owne hādes,1. Reg. 15. the body of Agag king of Amalech? why not for thē to depose kinges, aswell as kinges to depriue them? For if they bring to vs th'example of Salomon, who deposed Abiathar the priest, and placed Sadoc in his roume,1. Reg. 15. &. 16, they shall heare of vs again, that Samuel by gods own cōmaundemēt pronoūced Saul depriued of his king [Page 38] dome, and settled Dauid in the same.Numer. Cap. 25. Phinees being a pri­est, killed with his dagger the Israelite and the Madianite as they filthely abused thēselues: and haue priestes the­refore at this day thinck we like iurisdiction? Or woulde god (is it likely) praise him for the doing that would no­we doe the like, as he then did him? No no good readers, they treade not vprightely that so interprete the scriptu­res. And thus yow see howe generally all these exam­ples and auctorities, being euen after this sort answered, make no more for kinges to rule in matters of religion, then other places doe for the cleargy to depose kinges, or to kill them, or other doing amisse.

But to descend nowe more particulerly to the seue­rall examination of these examples. I would gladly as­ke this question of some of these our newe Rabbines, that being graunted to them by the way of reasoning which theie presuppose, that is, that king Dauid entremedled in th' affaires of religion, how this argument holdeth not withstanding: Dauid being bothe a king and a prophete had the rule of religion. Therefore the kinges of our ty­me must haue the like. And in deede thus must they rea­son, if they will reason trulie. For so was king Dauid they can not all deny it. And as well am I able to proue, that if he had any such power it was because he was a prophe te, and not in respect of his kingedome, as they shall euer be, to proue the contrary. So that to make this reason of theirs haue, yea seeme to haue, some apparence of truthe, of two thinges must they nedes doe one, that is either proue our kinges nowe a daies prophetes also, or Dauid in his daies to haue bene but a king simply.

In Salomon also, is the case trowe ye all so cleare as [Page] they make it? For touching the depriuation of Abiathar the priest, to that I answer, that as in breaking the wicked packe of Adonias, Abiathar, and other their complices, who had conspired to haue put Salomon beside his king­dom: 3. Regum. cap. 1. he vsed the councell of Sadoc and Nathan to defeat them: so vsed he their auctoritie and ministery to punis­he them. Nor it forceth not, that the scripture saieth. Eie­cit ergo Salomon Abiathar vt non esset sacerdos domini, there­fore cast Salomon Abiathar out, that he should no lenger be our lordes priest, as though that therefore it wer his own deede, and could be doen by no other, seing that that is a phrase of speche common not in the scriptures onelie, but in common talck also: as if for example a man should say, that Quene Mary (whose soule god assoile) depriued Thomas Cranmer of the archebishoprick of Cantorburie (whose treason also ageinst her was no lesse then that of Abiathar ageinst Salomon) he should not say a misse. And yet was not she god wot the chief doer the­reof, but an instrument ioining with the pope in the execution of his determination, touching the rooting out of that wicked membre. So saie we in like manner that the prince hath made such a man bishop, when in ve­ry dede he onely commended him by his lettres or wor­de, leauing the free election notwithstanding to them, to whome of right it apperteineth, as this placing of Sa­doc in Abiathars office may welbe vnderstande.

To th'example of Ezechias I answer with the scripture, that of all those thinges here rehersed,Ecclesiastici cap. 48. and what so euer elles may be, he was onelie the executor, the councell and ordering thereof, comming alwaies from Esaias the prophete: Who as the mouth commaunded the arme, [Page 39] that is the prince, to doe and put in execution this or that. In like māner I answer to the example of Iehu who killed the wicked prophetes, but by thaduertisement and sentence as it wer first giuen ageinst them,4. Reg. Cap. 9. by Haelizeus the prophete, sent to Iehu as king, by him to be put in execution.

How Iosias warned the priestes of their office and duety,Cap. 22. it appeareth in the fourth booke of the kinges, where he required the priestes to demaund at goddes handes councell, what he and his people should doe: so that what so euer he did also, he cā be counted no other­wise to haue doen, but as a ministre, apon the aduerti­sement and relation of the priestes.

Nowe as for Iosaphat and Ioas, if th'one ouerthrewe the wooddes and hilles where the people lurcked from the temple, the other warned the priestes to see better to the reparation of the same: what greate matter is this I praie yow? or how doeth this proue that kinges ought to haue, the chief rule ouer the churche? If princes that haue byn in times past, had so well looked in this point to their duetie as of right they ought, and all good men wishe they had: if they had scoured your luskes corners, and ouerthrowen the wooddes, the blinde cellers and rotten barnes, in which yow first vttred your poisoned doctrine: neither had that made thē rulers of the church but faithefull and trusty ministers, nor yow byn here nowe, to trouble the churche of god as yow doe. As if on thother side, they had also folowed th'example of Ioas in calling apon the reparation of goddes house, nei­ther would any good man haue found faulte therewith all, nor any wise man haue thought, that this should ha­ue [Page] made thē the chief gouernours in religion: nor finally so many churches lien at this day flat on the ground, so many monasteries in which god was serued and the pooer relieued, made stables for horses, housen for shepe, or sties for swine.

And thus may yow see good readers, that all thiese examples alleaged by our aduersaries ar to no purpose, as of the which some, as of king Dauid (who was not a king onely but a prophete also) conteine a manifeste fallacie, other as that of Iosue, that he should receiue es­peciall commaundemēt of almightie god to meddle with religion, an impudent lie: some as of Salomon, Ezechias, and Iehu, a figure or phrase of speche, as by the scriptures I haue proued,4. Reg. Cap. 22. and as of Iosias may be also truely ans­wered, who enterprised nothing, before he had caused the priestes first, to goe and consult what he should doe: and other some such, as of Iosaphat and Ioas, as no man euer denied to kinges, yea many wishe that in the pra­ctising thereof, they had in times past, and at this daie also would, showe them selues much more forward then they haue or doe. And last of all yow may see, that all wer it so that euery example had plainely concluded their intention, that yet it is no good reason to say, that therefore our kinges nowe a daies must haue the like auctoritie: no more then this, that if Moyses had byn no priest, it should folow that other temporall gouernours might consecrate bishoppes, because he did being none consecrate his brother Aaron, or that because Dauid had many wiues, therefore our kinges also maie: or the cle­argie put to death kinges because Samuel did, or priestes kille adulterers after th'example of Phinees, or one spoile [Page 40] an other (I meane of them that be of contrarie opinions in religion) because the children of Israel spoiled the Egiptians.Exod. 3. &. 12.

And here there cōmeth to my remēbraunce an other cause, why that reason of theirs should be naught which is this, that the priestehod of the Iewes was altogether carnall and fleshelie, and might therefore the rather be subiect to the kinges, whereas the priesthod of the ne­we testament is so much more excellent then that, as by how much the matter and obiect about which it is oc­cupied,Psalm. 109. the head, author, and chiefe priest thereof (which is no other then Christ him self the eternall priest ac­cording to the ordre of Melchisedech) doeth far sur­mount either the matter, the priest or priestehod of theirs. Which thing S. Petre did not obscurely signify by these wordes:1. cap. 2. vos estis regale sacerdotium yo we ar a kingelie priestehoode. as who should say the priestehood before was not kingly, for that that kinges ruled ouer priestes, but nowe is the priestehod kingly, for that to it be subiect euē kinges them selues. Which neither is any such grea­te absurditie (if we indifferentlie wey the matter) as some men would haue it seme to be,That kin­ges should be subiect to priestes no absur­ditie at all. considering that Ignatius disciple to S. Iohn the euangelist, that all the auncient fathers, doe most plainely affirme the same: neither yet anie greate reason why thiese wordes should be to any man cause of offence, seing that when all is counted, this honor of gouernement resteth not in the priestes, but goeth farder to god him self whose ministres they ar: as contrarywise the dishonor, the contumelies and re­proches doen vnto them, ar doen also to Christ as him selfe witnesseth.Lucae. 10. Qui vos spernit me spernit, he that dispiseth [Page] yow dispiseth me. The which thing I would to god our aduersaries which glory so much of the name of Chri­stians, vaunt them selues of the knowledge of the gos­pell, would not thinck scorne to learne by the exāple of a pagane and infidell, I meane Alexander the greate. Who although he wer by religion an ethnike,Lib. 4. histor. suae by nature in­tollerably proude, so that not contentid as Quintus Cur­tius writeth of him, to be born of the race of mortall men, he cōueighed his petigrue frō the goddes, not suf­fering but commaunding also, that apon peine of his in­dignation all men should call him the sonne of Iupiter: and to encrease the more that naughty humor of his, and to poure as the prouerbe is, oile in to the fier, by fortune so happy, that the whole worlde was in a manner, by the dent of his sword conquered and brought vnder, that at his name the proudest tirants trembled, and barbarou­se nations stooped: he yet all this not withstanding, be­ing such and so mighty a Monarche,Iosepus lib. antiq. 11. cap. 16. when on a time he should entre in to the citie of Ierusalem, as sone as he once perceiued Iaddus the highe priest comming towar­des him,Origin. contra Celsum lib. 5. fell downe and reuerenced him. Whereat whē Parmenio one of his trusty friendes marueiling not a lit­tle, had demaunded of him, why he whom all other men worshiped,Alexāders reuerence tovvards the high priest. and had in reuerence, did worship the prin­ce of the Iewish priestes: his answer was, that he wor­shiped not him, but god whose ministre he was.

By this which hetherto good Readers yowe haue hard, forasmoch as it appeareth, that our aduersaries stād alltogether destitute and as it wer naked, of such proui­sion out of the scriptures, as with the vaine title whereof, they persuaded them selues their part to be well boul­stred, [Page 41] and them selues ageinst all that would mainteine the contrary, sufficiently furnished: it remaineth nowe, that I first bring furth to yowe such examples, as hauing happened in Christes churche sence his departure hence and his apostles, they alleage for them selues: then after, [...]hat I refell the same, and proue that they make as little or lesse for their purpose, as doe the other before brought furth of the scriptures.Exam­ples brought by the protes­tants.

And first for Constantinus the greate, although by con­sent of all historiographers it be well knowen and most apparent, (as before hath byn showed) howe farre he was of all other, from that vnlaufull desier of entremeddling in matters of religion: yeat for asmuch as the impudency of thiese men is such, that they ar not ashamed to abuse his name emongest other, for the maintenaunce of their opinion, and that they labour to make him a piller to sus­teine and hold vp their rotten building, alleaging his cal­ling together of the councel of Nice, his sitting there presently with the bishoppes and fathers, his admonis­shing them how to procede, that is according to the doc­trine of the prophetes and apostles: I will first answer thereunto, and after procede to the rest.

Constantinus the truthe is, called together to the roo­ting out and vtter extirpation of the heresie of Arrius, that greate and famouse councell of Nice, as after him did diuerse other good emperours, diuerse other. But nei­ther of this acte of his, or that of theirs can any man righ­tely gather, that either the one or the other had ouer matters of religion anie thing thereby the more auctoritie. But euen as the handes or armes reaching a thing far of,A simili­tude. ar when it is brought nearer to sight, nothing therebie [Page] the more authorised to iudge of the value and goodnes thereof, to dispose howe it shalbe ordered, but that remai­neth still in the head by whose councell and commaun­dement the handes and armes reached it thither: euen so in this case maie it be saide. In Christes churche there is, and as it hath bene before proued necessarily must be one head. As there is a head, so is there a bodie, armes, legges, and other membres answering to the same. Emō ­gest the which, princes and kinges haue of our elders not amisse, bene termed the handes and armes to aide and suc­cour the head. If nowe the bishoppes of Rome for the ti­me being (for theie ar vnder Christ the true heades of this churche, as hereafter by goddes grace I shall make it moste manifestly appeare) haue emongest so many ene­mies and backe friendes as Christ and his gospel had, be­ne glad to bid the handes doe their dutie, to call to the emperours and kinges for help which had so long hin­dred, if by this meanes they compelled them to comme in for feare of the temporall sword, who feared not the spirituall: if theie vsed this rigorouse meanes where leni­tie could haue no place: who is so voide of wit to thinc­ke, that princes had thereby auctoritie ouer religion?

Naie but Constantinus (saieth our apologie) did not o­nelie call together the councell of Nice, but he sat in the same with the bishoppes, nor sat there barely as a cipher, but warned them how to procede by the scriptures. He­re marcke diligently I beseche yowe good readers, either the manifest malice of them that wittingly mangle the holie histories, or intollerable folishenes which alleage that that theie neuer them selues sawe, but onelie haue by reporte of others: or last of all their grosse ignorance, [Page 42] that thinck they haue to doe with them, who without anie farder searching of such places as ar by thē alleaged, will streight waies giue full credit to their bare honesties.Libro. 3. de vita Con­stantini. Eusebius who writeth the historie of Constantinus, Cōstanti­nꝰ vvould not fit in the coun­cel vvith the bis­shops be­fore he had asked leaue of them, so to doe. and whole discours of his life, witnesseth, that comming in­to the councell last of all, hauing prepared ready for him a seate lower then any of the rest: he would not before sit downe in the same, then first he had asked of the bishoppes and they graunted him licence so to doe.

The very same doeth Socrates report of him, and euen he out of whome the apology alleageth this example, Theodoretus him self: whose wordes ar these.Lib. 1. Cap [...]. te. 8 Minore verò sede quám alijs posita, in medio eorum sedit, primò tamen petens sibi hoc episcoporū iussione concedi. Hist. eccles­trip. lib. 2 [...] Cap. 5. And hauing (that is to say) appoincted for him a place or feate meaner then any of the other, he sat him down in the middest of them, de­siring yet first, that by the commaundement of the bis­shoppes it might be grau [...]ted him so to doe. If this be true (as if the histories and olde recordes doe not witnes the same then let me neuer be farder beleuid) what mea­neth then this lieng generation to bring in for example, to susteine and vphold their wicked doctrine, this vertu­ouse emperour Constantinus? then whome if they would haue laied all their heades together for that purpo­se, they should neuer haue founde one, whose doings and whole life had made [...] more for vs, or more ageinst them.

If he wer chief of the councell, and ruled all as theie say, why had he in that place (where by all likelihood there lacked nothing that perteined to semelie ordre) a seate lesse statelie then hi [...] inferiours? Places ar I knowe [Page] of their owne nature thinges indifferent and of no grea­te account. yeat haue theie at all times, in all ages, and emongest all men, bene taken for meanes to distinct ac­cording to their worthines in degre, one from an other. So that it can be to no man doubtefull, but that, if of the councell gathered and assembled together he had byn the head and chief, there should haue byn prepared for him, if not a seate such as might by the maiestie aboue the rest well haue declared the same: yet at the least such a one, as should not by the basenes thereof compared with thother, well and plainely haue proued the con­trary. If the whole some and ordre of religion belonged to him being th'emperour: Why then in that place whi­ther they wer all for that purpose (to entreate of religiō) assembled, had the head of that parle, no place but by li­cence? why asked he leaue of the bishoppes to sit in the councell and not rather they of him?

Yea but he warned the bishoppes, how they should procede in the councell, that is, by the doctrine of the prophetes and apostles. If they would here haue delt truly, and vprightely with vs, and not rather haue fo­lowed their father in lieng and patching: they would not haue rehersed Gloria patri without Sicut erat, nor taken a piece that seemeth to make for them, leauing out that which maketh ageinst them. But because they ar sworn to be true to their occupation and so maie not: I, who I thanck god therefore, am none of the company, will take the paines to stoope, and doe it for them. It folo­weth in Theodoretus after he had mentioned the oration which Constantin had in the councell: Haec & his similia, tanquā fi [...]us amator pacis, sacerdotibus veluti patribus offer [...]bat. [Page 43] These wordes and such like, as a sonne that loued peace, he offred vp to the priestes as to his fathers.

Lo good readers, was not here trow yow a greate pre­sident for our Emperours and kinges to meddle with the ordre of religion? Well he was as the histories beare wit­nes, the first christian emperour that openly professed the faithe and name of Christ (for of Phillip the histo­ries make no greate accompt) and before that time the church was gouerned,The church gouerned before Constan­tinus ti­me, either by prie­stes or by infidelles or by no­ne. either by infidleles and tirantes, as Nero, Domitianus, and such other: or by priestes, or by none. And this was the very cause that they would so faine haue wonne to their parte, the first Christian em­perour.

The next example that they bring, is of Theodosius th'emperour, that he not onely sat emongest the bishop­pes, but was also the verie chief of the conference, be­twene the Catholykes and the Arrians. That Theodosius did in this matter nothing of him self, but all by the councell of Nectarius the B. of Constantinople, had not our aduersaries, as they did before in th'example of Con­stantine, mangled the historie, any man might easely ha­ue perceuid.Histor. ec­cles. trip. libro. 9. cap. 18. For reade the beginning of the chapiter, where this matter is mencioned, and yow shall finde, that Theodosius called to him Nectarius then B. of Constanti­nople, asked of him his aduice, what ordre wer best to be taken, for thappeasing of that schisme which then so miserably troubled the churche: and finallie embrased him self, and commaunded all other to receiue, the same doctrine, not which him self had determined to be true, but which Nectarius and the other catholyke bishoppes had deliuered and commendid to him. And truly maruell [Page] had it byn if he had otherwise doen in matters of reli­gion any thing, to the preiudice of that auctoritie, which bishoppes and priestes of right ought to haue in those matters: who at other times had so often declared his minde persuaded to the contrary,Concilium Aquileien se. and namelie in that councell that he caused to be assembled at Aquileia: whe­re in the sommons of that Sinode he openlie protested, that controuersies arising apon matters of doctrine, can not be better tried, then by being referred to the bishop­pes, that they quoth he, from whome the very groun­des and principles of doctrine haue proceded, may if there fall out anie doubtes, dissolue the same. For the which wordes, being afterward rehersed in the councell, it ap­peareth how greately S. Ambrose praised him, when he saide openlie. Behold what ordre the christian emperour hathe taken. he will not doe anie iniurie to the priestes, he referreth to the bishoppes the interpretation of all doubtes. If Theodosius had taken apō him to iudge in mat­ters of faithe, being a lay man, coulde S. Ambrose thinc­ke yow that florished vnder him haue byn ignorant the­reof? If he could not, would he haue praised him for that he did not? would he haue asked of Valentinianus the yonger beginning in his youthe (although he after repē ­tid) to encroche apō the spirituall limites and iurisdiction:Lib. 5. [...]pist. 32. Quando audisti clementissime imperator in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo iudicasse? when did yow euer heare most gentle emperour, that in matters of faith lay men, haue iudged of the bishoppes doinges? Might he not haue answered, (if it had bene as our aduersaries say) I haue not hard one­lie but knowē also by experience, that mine owne felowe in the empire Theodosius, hath doen so, So that hereapon [Page 44] we may be bould probably to conclude (S. Ambrose ver­tue, wisdome, lerning, long experience and greate practise in Christes churche well cōsidered) that Theodosius attē ­pted no such matter, nor did anie thing in religion with­out the councell of such bishoppes as being catholike, enstructed him what he should doe, for thaduauncement and setting forwarde of Christes catholyke faithe.

It foloweth in the apologie. In the coūcel of Calcedō the ciuile magistrate condēned for heretikes by his sentēce, Diosco­rus, Iuuenalis, Thalassius, being all bishoppes, and iudged them vvorthy to be degraded. Here would I faine knowe in what place, or where they finde this historie written. If they saie in the. 5. booke and tenth chap. of Socrates histo­rie, as the place is in the margent coated, I must nedes tell them that the place hauing byn there sought for, can not be found. And as littell hope is there of finding the same elles where, if a man maie beleue vehemēt presumptions. For if in that coūcell, Iuuenalis and Thalassius had bene at all condēned by any magistrat either ecclesiasticall or ci­uile, as well should it of all likelihood haue byn mencio­ned in the actes and recordes of the coūcell of Calcedon, as was the condemnatiō of Dioscorus, they being all accused, and partakers of one crime. True it is (although in the pla­ce by thē alleaged there be no such thing) that in the ac­tes yet of the councell we finde a record, where the ciuile magistrates consented, that Dioscorus had well deserued to be of his bishoprick depriued, and of all priestely digni­tie degraded. But how, I beseche yow diligently to con­sidre: if to the bishoppes, to whome god had committed the charge to giue that sentence, it should so seme good. And thiese ar not my wordes but his that was sent from [Page] the whole councell to Dioscorus, Actio. 3. (who then after the manner of all heretikes fled from the face of the coun­cell, and lurcked I wot not where) Ioannes the bishop of Germanicia, who after he had told him in what termes he stoode, that was, condemned by the whole councell, he added this clause, Si hoc placuisset sanctissimis episcopis, quibus hanc inferre a domino deo creditum est, if it so semed good to the holy bishoppes to whome god had commit­ted the power to giue that sentence.

This sentence afterwarde (the said Dioscorus contin­uing in his obstinacie) was by the whole councell alo­wed, Act. 3. Euag [...]ius Lib. 2. cap. 4. and by the legates of the bishop of Rome in his na­me pronounced, no mans name subscribed, or consent asked thereto, besides the onelie bishoppes. And thus much for Dioscorus: for of Iuuenalis and Thalassius, till they show where, and when they wer condemned for heretikes and worthy to be degraded: I can saie nothing. Although this in the meane season I may boldelie say, that if they (the ciuile magistrates I meane) gaue anie such sentence, it is verie likely that they would qualifie it (as yow hard before that they did in Dioscorus) with this adiection, if the bishoppes thinck good, to whom that matter belongeth. Which if they did, what haue they then gotten by th'alleaging of such a sentence I praie yow?

The next proufe that they bring,Constanti­nus. is out of the third councell of Constantinople, where Constantinus (they say) did not onelie sit emongest the bishoppes, but sub­scribed also with them to the councell.

To this I answer, that this being graunted that Con­stantinus sat in the councell and subscribed also thereto, [Page 45] neither weakeneth our parte, nor strēgtheneth theirs. For who euer yet denyed that Christian emperours might not be present at the councelles,The dif­ference be tvvene the bis­shops subscribi­ng in the Councel, and the Empe­rours. yea and subscribe there­unto also? The thing wherein we differ from them is, in the onely manner of subscribing. For we saie that the bis­shoppes subscribed, as defining and iudging, the empe­rours, as folowing and cōsenting: that the bishoppes ar ne­cessary parsons in the councelles as without whome they can not be kept, that the emperours ar ornamentes and not of the substance. The which difference of their pre­sence, Ex relatiō. Sinod. Cal­cedon. ad B. papam Leon. and the cause thereof there, if it wer by no place el­les to be proued, this onelie testimony which I will here alleage of the councell of Calcedō, written by the whole consent of the fathers and others there assembled, to Leo then pope,Hovv the Empe­rours go­uernemēt in the councel is to be vn­derstand. where they all professed that he (as the head) was in his legats that there supplyed his roome, of all the rest (as membres) the gouern our: and that the emperours gouerned there ad ornandum, to be an ornament: woulde be sufficient to persuade.

This thing would also most manifestly haue appeared,Concilio. Constanti­nopolit. 3. Act. 18. if our aduersaries had faithefully alleaged the wordes which the emperour vsed in subscribing, which wer (after the subscription of all the bishoppes, a hundred and seuenty in nombre) thiese.Note the difference betvvene the bis­shops and the Em­perour, Subscrip­tions in the old councels. Legimus & consensimus. we haue rea­den and giuen our consent. Whereas the subscription of euerie bishop was, Definiens subscripsi, I defining haue sub­scribed. And thus should they if they will nedes glory of the emperours subscribing haue alleaged this example, that thereby might haue byn perceiued, the manifest dif­ference betwene con [...]enting in the one, and defining in the other: that men might yet at the least haue wondred, [Page] if emperours and kinges bare the sway in religion, and ru­led all, if the bishoppes and priestes wer their vnderlin­ges and gouerned by them, what should then meane that strange manner of subscribing in them that should leade and rule, to say they subscribe consenting, whereas the bishoppes that should be ruled by them, write that they subscribe determining, and defining.

And thus much touching the diuersitie of subscribing, betwene the bishoppes and the emperours: whereby may easely be iudged, what auctoritie th'emperour and ciuile magistrate had in the councell. As for th'other differen­ce wherein they and we vary, that th'emperours presen­ce in the councell, is not of the substance thereof, as is the bishoppes, they I thinck them selues, (except they will say that the first councell assembled after Christes ascen­sion in Ierusalem,Act. 15. was of no force: or of lesse, as though there wer not all the parsones necessary for the holding thereof) will not deny. No more then we doe this, that emperours haue vsed to be present at such councels as haue byn kept, and subscribed also thereto, but al­wayes as for the suerer confirmation, and trusty execu­tion (and yeat not that with the better sort neither, but with such as regarded more, and stoode in greater awe of present punishement in this world, then of goddes in­dignation in an other) of such thinges, as wer agreed a­pon there: that they seing th'emperours and rulers of the world (in worldely matters) assenting thereunto: that the which they feared not in the bishoppes and priestes, prop­ter conscientiam, they might feare in the ciuile magistrates propter [...]iram. Concil. 2 Aurasi [...]a­num. Thus deny we not that many yeares before this, in the second councel Aurasicane subscribed to the [Page 46] doinges of the councell, those notable lay men (the ex­ample also of whome our aduersaries obiect ageinst vs) Petrus, Marcellinus, Felix and Liberius. But ô lord god I would once at the length, they woulde alleage such thin­ges as they bring ageinst vs, simply, truely, and as they finde them in the originals with their circumstances. Then should they haue told vs, that as these men subscribed to the councell: so was it by licence of the fathers. Then would we haue asked of them, why bring you then to vs that example, that maketh not onely not at all for yow, but also much ageinst yow.

But how I proue this perhappes yow will aske. For­sooth by the actes of the same coūcel, about th'ende the­reof. Where I finde these wordes spoken by the fathers. Et quia definitionem antiquor um patrum nostrámq [...]e,Hovv the laie men subscri­bed in the councel Aurasicanque su­prascriptaest, non solum religiosis, sed etiam Laicis medicamen­tum esse & desideramus & cupimus: Placuit, vt etiam illustres ac­magnifici viri, qui nobiscum ad praefatam festiuitatem conuene­runt, propria manu subscriberent. And forasmuch say they as our desire is, that those thinges which be aboue written, defined of old time by th'auncient fathers, and now pre­sently by vs, should be not to the cleargy onely auailea­ble, but to the profit and health of the laytie also: it plea­seth vs, that those noble men that haue byn assembled with vs at this present councell or solemnitie, should also with their owne handes, subscribe to the actes thereof.

Here note I beseche yow good Readers this word, pla­cuit, it hath pleased vs, or wear content. Is this thincke yowe a phrase of speche meete for them that can doe no other? If these lay men had subscribed, by their owne right, as hauing an interest thereunto, would the bishop­pes [Page] in the councell haue euer showed them selues so pre­sumptuously foolish, as to say to them, it pleaseth vs that yow subscribe: who might haue answered them by the rule of the lawe, Eius est velle cuius est nolle what tell yowe vs that yow ar cōtented who can neither will nor choo­se, he maie onely say he will or is contented, that can say the contrary, that is, that he will not, or is not cōtented. Doeth not this place argue most manifestly ageinst thē, that the ordre touching matters of religion, was all in the bishoppes hande [...], as to whose doinges they could not so much as witnesse their consent by subscribing, vnlesse the bishoppes had first cōsented thereto? yea trulie doeth it, except we haue of those wise and learned fathers that opinion, that we thinck they wer all starcke fooles. As any mā might haue of our countrefeict bishoppes in En­gland, if they should assemble together and agree, that e­uery Baron within the realme should haue a voice in the parlyament house.

Thys therefore being presupposed, as till they be ha­ble to showe the contrary it must, that those bishoppes had their right wittes,The pro­testāts ex­ample ta­ken out of the councel Aurasican maketh ageinst them. and knew what they did, this argu­ment holdeth verie well: The fathers assembled in the councell Aurasican wer contented, that laie men that wer there should subscribe to the councell with the cleargie. Ergo they might haue chosen. And then howe maketh th'auctoritie of this example for them? Nay who seeth not howe much it maketh ageinst them?

It foloweth that Iustiniā being a Christian emperour,Iustini [...]. deposed yet notwithstanding two popes, Siluerius and Vigilius. Hereby our aduersaries thinck, to haue not a littel help to proue the superioritie of emperours and [Page 47] kinges ouer bishoppes and priestes. Trulie that Iustinian did this, it is but barelie affirmed, nor any place in th'apologie is there coated where a mā that doubted might see it proued. And therefore with the same auctoritie might it be denied, with the which it is proposed to be beleued. True it is, that Theodora th'empresse as some write, being alltogether giuen to the heresie of Eutiches, after she had long trauailed first with Siluerius, and after Vigilius bothe bishops of Rome, to haue Menna the ca­tholike archebishop of Constantinople depriued of his bishoprick, and the heretike Anthimius remoued by Agapetus before restored again, and could not obteine at their handes her wicked purpose: did apon displeasure conceiued by this repulse [...] procure by the meanes of Belisarius Iustinians chief [...]apitaine, the banishement first of th'one, and after of th'other. Who so euer depo­sed them, or who so euer ban [...]shed them: true is it, that this was the cause thereof and no other. Which being as in dede it is most true, let vs nowe graunte to our aduer­saries that it was not the empresse, but the emperour him self that deposed them: and let vs see how they be hable to proue thereby, that emperours and kinges may degra­de priestes, and depose bishoppes. If they will deale vp­rightely they must to proue it [...]eason thus: Iustinian o­therwise a Christian emperour, but in this point a cruell heretike, tirannously deposed two popes, Siluerius and Vigilius, onely because they would not doe wrong (that is depriue him of his bishoprick) to a catholike bishop, and restore an heretike laufully before depriued. Ergo th'emperour is aboue the pope. Ergo kinges be aboue bishoppes. Is not this a propre kinde of reasoning trowe [Page] yow? Might they not haue reasoned after this sort that Nero deposed S. Petre, that Traian put downe Clement, with a nombre of such like examples? For to saie that Iustinian was a christian whereas thiese wer infidelles, is but a mist cast in to th'obiection to desell our eyes. For who seeth not, if he be not allreadie blinde, that this deede (if it should haue bene Iustinians) to mainteine and defend an open heretike, ageinst a faithefull and true catholyke, had bene the act of a tyrant and infidell, not of a Christian and good prince; and that it is no better rea­son to say and conclude that he deposed them, and the­refore iustlie, then it should be to say that he defended the heretike Anthimius, and therefore rightefullie.

But seing this example will not serue our aduersaries turn,The ad­uersaries obiection turned a­gainst him self. let vs assaie to make it serue ours. And first let vs examine what should be the cause, why Iustinian should be so earnest with these two bishoppes of Rome, to de­pose the B. of Constantinople, and to restore the here­tike that stoode depriued? was he not emperour of all the worlde? had he not by the meanes thereof, as our newe doctours beare vs in hande, the chief gouerne­ment ouer all matters spirituall and temporall? was on the other side the auctoritie of the bishoppes of Rome at that time such, that it extended, I will not saie out of their owne diocesse to any other bishoppes in the La­tine churche, but to Constantinople the chief of the Grieke?

Here ar they taken how so euer they answer. For first if th'emperour had bene of that auctoritie that they saie the laie magistrates arre, why did he not then by his owne mere and absolute power, displace the one and pla­ce [Page 48] the other? Might he not as well haue deposed one bis­shop at Constantinople as two at Rome? But if on the contrarie parte they answer, that the pope was he that must necessarilie place and displace, euen at that time and in the Grieke churche, and not the emperour: whie then should it be laufull at this time for emperours or kinges to doe that, which was not laufull to be done then? Or why should it not now be laufull for the B. of Rome which at those daies was not vnlaufull?

Thus may yowe see good Readers howe this history wholly and truly alleaged, maketh not onely not against vs, but also much with vs, if it had bene true that th'apo­logie saieth, that Iustinian had deposed those two popes. Yea but say they yowe can not denie, that the emperour made lawes of matters of religion, that he absteined not euen in matters of the churche, frō thiese termes, Sanci­mus, iubemus, we ordeine, we commaunde, with such like. Trulie this can I not denie,Bishop­pes and priestes forbidden to marie by Iustinians Con­stitution. and if I would there be who­le constitutions of his, ready to be brought againste me: as that where he commaundeth that none be made bis­shop that hath a wife, and of them that haue had, such as haue had one [...]ie one, the same no widowe, neither de­uorced from her husband, neither forbidden by the ho­lie canons: and also that, where he commaundeth that of priestes no other be receiued to that ordre, but such as vel coelibem vitam agunt, vel vxorem habuerunt, aut habent legitimam, & eam vnam & primam, nequé viduam, nequé di­uortio separatam à viro, aut alioquiî legibus aut sacris interdi­ctam canonibus. that is to saie: as either leade a single life, or haue had a laufull wife, or presently haue, and that one and the first, no widowe, none diuorsed from her hus­band [Page] or otherwise by the lawes or holie canons forbid­den: and that of deacons also, where he giueth cōmaun­dement, Chastitie vovved in Iustiniās time. that if he that should be deacon, haue no wife presently, he be not otherwise promoted, except being first asked of him which giueth the ordres, whether he cā from thence furth liue without a wife, he answer yea. In somuch that th'emperour plainely pronounceth, that he that ministreth to him the ordres can not dispence with him to mary after, and that if he should so doe the bishop which suffred it should be deposed.

But although this be true, that th'emperour Iustinian not onelie in thiese matters which touched the cleargie, but in manie other also, hath entremedled: yet hath he alwaies so tempered the matter, as he hath showed him selfe to be a folower not a leader, a ministre to execute, not a gouerner to prescribe. The which thing his owne wordes, in all such places where he entreateth of such matters placed as it wer for the nones,Hovv Iustinian made la­vves in matters of the churche. to take awaie all such sinistre suspiciō, doe manifestlie declare. For either he hath these wordes: Sequentes ea quae sacris definita sunt canonibus folowing the definition of the holy canons: or thiese, Sacras per omnia sequentes regulas, in all poinctes fo­lowing the holie rules, or such like: wherebi he would haue testified to the worlde,The first fovver general councel­les defi­ned the popes su­perioritie not Pho­cas as the protestāts maliciou­ly affirme that he meaneth by his pe­nall lawes, seuerelie to execute the canons of the churc­he, and nothing lesse then to make newe him selfe. In this sense vsed he the worde Sancimus, Constit. 131. we ordeine: Where speaking of the first fower generall councels and the B. of Rome, he hath thiese wordes: Sancimus vt secun­dum eorum definitiones sanctissimus veteris Romae papa, primus omni [...]m sacerd [...]tum sit. We ordeine according to their [Page 49] definitiō (the first fower generall councels) that the most holie pope of olde Rome be the chief prieste. Finallie how in all like matters [...] Iustinian is to be vnderstande,Epistola inter claras C. de sum. tri. & fid. cathol. if no­thing elles, his epistle written to Iohannes then B. of Ro­me is able sufficiently to enstruct vs. where he most ma­nifestlie protesteth, to suffer nothing that apperteigneth to the estate of the churche,The. pope confessed by Iustinian the empe­rour to be the head of all churches. to passe, yea although the truthe thereof be perspicuouse and out of all doubte, without the bringing thereof first to the knowledge of his holinesse, and he addeth for a reason quia caput est o­mnium sanctarum ecclesiarum, because he is the head of all the holie churches that be.

To conclude therefore, touching the exāples brought from the doinges of the emperour Iustiniā, what so euer theie be, I answer that he did those thinges as folowing the olde canons and rules of councelles before, deuising nothing him selfe, but by his lawes adding to them ter­rour, to cause thē to be of all men the better obserued, or elles that what so euer he ordeined him selfe and put furth in his owne name, he did first communicate with the B. of Rome (as in the epistle before alleaged he promised he would) and procured it to be ratified by his auctoritie. And these answers I hope yow haue hard by the emperour him selfe in the places by me before alleaged, sufficientlie proued.

The substance and verie strength of our aduersaries reasons yowe haue hetherto harde. There remaineth one or two testimonies mo, brought of late by M. Haddō in answere to the learned epistle of Hieronimus Osorius, Ro. 13. as that S. Paule saieth that euery soule should be obediēt to the higher powers: in which wordes they saye that [Page] neither bishop prieste nor moncke is excepted, and that S. Peter willeth all men to be subiect to euery humaine creature for goddes sake,1. Cap. 2. whether it be to the king as to the chiefest and so furth. The which reasons (if reasons theie maye be called that consist of mere folie) because they ar so childishe that euerie childe maie in a manner answer them, and so foolishe that he is more then a foole that is by them moued: as lothe to spende so much time invaine, or trouble your eares and eyes for nothing, I passe ouer. Onelie this I say, that euen as priestes and all without exception, owe obedience to their prince in those thinges that cōcerne his iurisdiction, I meane thin­ges temporal: so on th'other side ment neither S. Peter nor S. Paule, to giue them any preeminence in matters ecclesiasticall. For in those thinges, they call as fast apon obedience to be exhibited towardes the cleargie,Hobr. 13. namelie S. Paule, who addeth the reason to be, for that theie ar the watche men, which watche to giue the account for our soules. The which wordes cā no more be vnderstād of ciuile magistrates (who could then full euel be called watchemen for other, being them selues fast a slepe and drowned as it wer, in the deade slepe of infidelitie) then their other place of obedience towarde the king, can be vnderstand of matters concerning religion. Which anie man that hath but halfe an eye maie easelie percea ue it cā not, if he cast but a quarter thereof to that time in which S. Peter wrote those wordes: which was in the reigne of Nero. whome by all lykelihood (being to christ and his littel flocke an vtter enemie, and extreme persecu­tor) he would neuer make or name to be, (a cruel gredie, and rauenouse wolfe) the gouernor and leader of the [Page 50] meke and simple shepe. To bid them obeie him in mat­ters of religion, had bene to bid them to disobey Christe, to refuse him and cast him of. Wherefore that obedience must be restreined, which it can be to no other thinges, then such as onelie consist in ciuile and politike gouernement. Thus hauing I trust good readers satisfied both yow and my promesse, it foloweth nowe that I showe who is that priest, that ought to be the heade of Christes chur­che here in earthe.

THose blockes and stumbling stones be­ing at the length remoued and tumbled out of the waie good Christian readers, which they that entende then the breac­he of all good ordre, nothing elles, here­tikes and enemies to our faithe had there placed for the nones, to ouerthrowe the weake: we ar come to that principall point of the B. of Rome his su­premacie ouer all other bishoppes, his chief gouernemēt and superioritie ouer Christes whole catholike and vni­uersall churche. Wherein trulie emongest all other thin­ges that ar at this daie called in to controuersy, I can not ynough maruell at the shameles impudencie of him, that bloweth abrode that we haue not one auncient doctour, one olde general councell, one allowed example of the primitiue churche, to proue that the B. of Rome was within the first sixe hundred yeares after Christ, called head of the churche, or for so taken. Whereas in good faith to me, thincking not lightelie or sclenderlie apon [Page 51] this matter, and minding some thing to vtter touching the same to the worlde, and to imitate, at the leaste in good will, that honest example of them, who hauing with greate daunger escaped them selues, the peril of drowning, being nowe saufelie arriued on the lande, thincke nexte of the deliuerie of their pooer compagni­ons, who floting one while aboue the water, an other struggling for life and deathe vnder the same, ar in daun­ger to fall into that which theie so latelie before escaped: cast them either a boorde to beare them vppe, or reache them a pole to drawe them to the shore, or by such o­ther meanes as theie maie, cease not busilie to procure their spedie recouerie: there happened nothing more hard, then in such copie and varietie of substantiall wit­nesses, to satisfie my selfe (for all neither my leasure woulde serue me to alleage nor the aduersary demaun­deth many but e [...]en onelie one) in the choise of those, that should for vertue and learning, gaine with the ho­nest readers most weighty credite.

Here first of all, because I minde to kepe me within the limites and terme of yeares by yow master Iuell appoin­ted to me: I will begin euen with the first pope S. Peter him selfe, frō whome I make this argument: S. Peter was bishop of Rome, S. Peter was called by thaunciēt fathers that wrote within the first sixe hundred yeares, the head of Christes churche.That S. Petre vvas B. of Rome. Therefore the B. of Rome was with in the firste sixe hundred yeares called and taken for hea­de of the churche.Lib. 1. hist. apostol. The first parte of this sillogisme the maior, that is that Peter was bishoppe of Rome, I proue by Abdias a man of the apostles age:Lib. 7. cap. 6. by Orosius who wri­teth that he planted there the faith,Ado. by Ado who beareth [Page] witnesse that he was bishop there 25. yeares,Lib. de praescript. ad­uers. haer. vntil the last yeare of Nero his reigne: by Tertullian, who in tea­ching vs howe to trie out heretikes,Tertulli [...] ̄s rule to knovve an hereti­ke. which he saieth is if they be not able to deriue their doctrine from some churche where the apostles haue planted first the faithe, either from Rome where Peter was, or Smirna where S. Ihon the euangelist taught: doeth most manifestly giue vs to vnderstand, that they wer both bishoppes in those places.Lib. 1. Epistol. 3. What shall I here remembre S. Ciprian, who had called Rome in vaine S. Peters chaire, if he had neuer be­ne bishop there?In Catalo­go. Or S. Hierom, who in one place reconeth howe manie yeares he possessed the bishoprike there, and in diuerse other calleth Damasus the B. of Rome,Epist. 42. successor in Peters faith and seate. Or Optatus B. of Mili­uetum in Africa, Lib. 2. contra Do­ [...]atistas. who told Parmenian the Donatist, that he could not alleage ignorance, knowing right well that the bishoppes chaire was first giuen to Peter in the citie of Rome, in the which he sate being head of all the apostles. And to conclude, woulde trow [...] we (in skirmishing with the Donatistes) S. Austen haue bidden them viewe the bishoppes of Rome sence S. Peters time, if he had neuer bene bishop there?

This therefore standing as manifestlie true, it remai­neth that I proue the second parte, which is that S. Peter being bishop of Rome was called head of the churche. The which thing is easie to be proued by the testimony of diuers auncient writers and first of S. Austen. Who in a certeine sermon of his entreating of Peters deniall of Christe hath thiese wordes.Sermo [...]. 124. de tē ­pore. Totius corporis morbum, in ipso capite curat ecclesiae, & inipso vertice componit membrorū o­mnium sanitatem, that is to saie. In the head of the churche [Page 52] it selfe (he meaneth of S. Peter) hath he cured the dis­ease of the whole bodie, and in the chief parte thereof the very top, doeth he set in ordre the health of all the membres.

Leo the B. of Rome the first of that name, whome al­though Caluin (because he sawe in his doinges so ma­nie tokens and signes of chief gouernement ouer the churche as by no meanes he coulde auoide but that he so was) calleth proude and orgulouse: the substance yet of the world for learning and vertue, gathered together at Calcedon honored with the name of ter beatus, thrise hap­pie or blessed, whome Martianus the emperour called Sanctissimus most holie:Sermon. 1. & 3. he I saie nameth Peter to be not onelie bishop of the see of Rome, but primate also and chief of all other bishoppes.

Chrisostome a doctour of the grieke churche,Homil. in Math. 55. Cap. 16. affirmeth the same in moste plaine and euident wordes, saing: Petrus futurae ecclesiae pastor constituitur ac caput piscator homo. Hunc vniuerso terrarum orbi Christus praeposuit. Peter a fis­sher man is appoincted to be the shepherd and head of Christes churche that he will builde. Him hath Christ made ruler ouer all the worlde.Homil in Math. 59. And in an other place he saieth: Christus Petro ecclesiae primatum gubernationemque per vniuersum [...]undum tradidit. Christ deliuered vnto Peter the primacie of the churche, and rule thereof thorough out all the worlde.

Last of all note I beseche yowe to this purpose out of Chrisostome,Lib. 2. de Sacerdot. thiese wordes. Quanam item de causa Christus sanguinem effudit suum? Certé vt pecudes eas acquireret quarum curam tū Petro tū Petri successoribus committebat. Which is in english to saie thus much. For what cause I praie yow did [Page] Christ shed bis bloud? Truelie to redeme those shepe whose charge he committed to Peter and to Peters suc­cessors.

Here would I aske of yow M. Iuel this question, whe­ther yow thincke that Christ died for all his churche, or for some parte thereof onelie?Au inuincible ar­gument that by Chrisostō the char­ge of the vvhole churche vvas cōmitted to the BB. of Ro. Peters successors. Chrisostome in answering to this question for whome he shed his bloude, answe­reth as hath bene saide, for them whome he committed to Peters charge and his successors. If the whole chur­che be not committed to Peter and his successors, but onelie one parte thereof, then foloweth it that either Chrisostome thought he died for no other, or elles did he euel solute his owne question. But for so vndoubted a truthe was it taken with Chrisostome and in his time with all other, that S. Peter and the popes after him had the vniuersall charge of Christes churche, that he was not a fearde by suche a periphrasis or circumlocution to vtter his minde, as euery man he wyst as sone as he hard would easelie vnderstande.

Yow haue here harde M. Iuell, for the confirmation of the minor of mine argument or second proposition, not one but three substantiall witnesses, that haue called S. Peter heade of the churche,Augustin. bishop not of Rome one­lie, Leo. but of all other bishops the chief, that haue affirmed that to him was committed by Christ,Chrisost. the gouernement and superioritie ouer the churche thorough out all the worlde, that he and his successors haue the charge of those shepe for whome Christ died. So that apon the cō ­clusiō which necessarilie foloweth (Ergo the bishoppe of Rome was of one auncient doctour in the firste sixe hundred yeares after christ called head of the churche) [Page 53] I might M. Iuell if I wou [...]d euē out of hande (if yow ha­ue allready yealded to none other) chalenge yowe for my prisonier: your importune request being as yowe see suf­ficientlie satisfied.

For yowe cā not say pardy, that although yowe graunte 1 with the aunciēt fathers, that S. Peter was heade of the churche, that the bishoppes yeat of Rome his successors wer not. First, because that wer as much in effect to saie, as that Christ would that there should be a heade of his churche and no heade, a head while Peter liued and af­ter none. And if that be your answer I praie yowe tell vs a cause whie, and showe vs some scripture where, our Sa­uiour Christ so taught, or his apostles deliuered, or the auncient councels and holie fathers haue so affirmed.

Secondarily yow ar barred of this plea, because the 2 verie nature of succession is such, that excepte he or some other hauing auctoritie, into whose place an other succe­deth, expresselie prouide for the contrary (which yet re­maineth to be proued that euer Christ or S. Peter did) he cōmeth directly in to all the righte and interest what so euer it be, that his author had before him.

Last of all yowe can not vse this friuolouse exception,3 that this title of heade of the churche began and ended alltogether with Peter (as most foolishely Iohn Caluin doeth,Lib. 4. Inst cap. 6. Sec­tione. 8. who graunting that Peter was in dede the heade and chief of the apostles, because he saieth the verie or­dre of nature requireth, that in all companies there be one to gouerne the rest, denieth yet, that the B. of Ro­me succeding in Peters office, should be heade of the churche nowe, as S. Peter was of the apostles which re­presented the same then, and that for so the, because that [Page] which had place emongest a fewe, maie not sodenlie be drawen to all the worlde, for the gouernment whereof no one man alone can suffise). For this grosse errour is bothe by auctoritie and also reason easie to be confuted. By the auctoritie of S. Chrisostome, who as ye hard be­fore named in the gouernement of the churche, as far forwarde the successours of S. Peter as S. Peter him selfe:Lib. 2. de Sacerdotio. By reason, because if there wer such feare of disordre in twelue parsones, so small a nombre, so well ordered and directed by the spirite of god as the holie apostles wer, that euen emongest them for the auoiding thereof the­re must nedes be had one heade: howe much more ne­de is it, to haue one emongest so manie thousandes, as the churche consisteth of? If a fewe be likelier to agre then a greate nombre, if vnitie be named of one, because lightelie none iarreth or is at dissention with him selfe, if the nearer that all nombres come to that one the lesse confusion, and the farder we goe from it, the greater is like to folowe: then is there no man I trust so blinde but that he maie easelie see, that the same cause of schis­mes and disorder (yea so much more greater as the churche is more amplified and encreased) to be fea­red, remaining still,Hi [...]ron▪ ad Eua­grium. the remedie which is to haue one heade must also endure and continue still. And as for that sory shift of the compase and largenesse of the chur­che which no one man is hable to rule, of what value and force that is, he that listeth to cast his eye, first to the time passed and gouernement in those daies, when nexte vnder god all was gouerned by one, and then after to this miserable time of oures, in which there be so manie heades, one of the churche of England, an other [Page 54] of that of Geneua, one of VVittemberge, an other of Franck­ford, of euerie churche one and in all none: euerie one chalenging to him selfe merum imperium absolute iuris­diction out of the checke of anie other, and to considre with him selfe in eche of these gouernementes their se­uerall effectes, the quiet re [...]gne of one truthe in the one, the diuerse sectes and heresies in what parte of the worl­de so euer theie sprang vp ouerthrowen and repressed, the sondrie triumphes that Christes churche hath had ouer them these fiftene hundred yeares: in thother scar­se yet of forty yeares cont [...]nuance, the tumultuouse hur­liburlie, the perniciouse and horrible heresies neuer be­fore hard of, the sondrie schismes and sectes so manie as there be heades, the arrogancie of the capitaines and maisters, while euerie one boasting of the spirite and va­unting as S. Hierom saieth that he hath the churche on his side, will submit him selfe to no other, the implacable hatred of the scholers and disciples, euery one standing apon his maisters honor and reputation, with an infinite nombre and whole swarme of euels mo which I reserue to an other place: shalbe easelie able without the helpe of anie other him self to iudge. I omit here touching this foolishe reason (that therefore there can not be nowe one heade of the churche as in S. Peters time there was, because the churche is so encreased that no one mā is able to gouerne the same) proceding first from Caluin, and patched afterwardes into our englishe apologie: that seing he, that at the beginning appointed this one heade where he might haue appoincted more, and did not, ne­uer chaūged that ordre sence, being all this while not ig­norāt to what greatenes his churche should after growe, [Page] it can to no man that hath the vse of reason seme other, but that either he thought that one, ruling by such as he should appointe vnder him, might suffise for the go­uernement of his churche, or suerlie at the leaste that he hath not circumspectly prouided therefore.

But if all these mere cauillations had bene good and strog reasons, yet haue I showed yow ynough in this one B. of Rome S. Peter, (who hath bene called yow ha­ue hard howe often, heade of the churche and chief of all bishoppes) to gaine yow, if yowe will stande to your worde to our parte M. Iuell. Because notwithstanding I would haue yowe with your good will, I will yeat showe yow the like titles giuē by the auncient fathers to other bishoppes of Rome. And to frame my selfe the more to your humour (although I thinck yow put no difference betwene thiese termes heade of the churche, ruler of the churche, chief of all other priestes with such like manie other, that the fathers and auncient generall councels haue not spared to vse, as often as theie had oc­casion to either write or speake, to or of, the B. of Rome) I will here first alleage vnto yow certeine auctorities, where the B. of Rome hathe bene called, sence S. Peters time (and yet within the first sixe hundred yeares) euen in expresse wordes heade of the churche: and then after the testimonies of diuerse other, who although theie vse not the same wordes, affirme yet and confirme the same preeminence and auctoritie.

Vincentius therefore Lirinensis, Secundo commonito rio. a man of singuler lear­ning and of the olde age (for he florished vnder Theodo­sius and Valentinian, th'emperours (writing of the bishop­pes that wer assembled at Ephesus in the councell there [Page 55] ageinst the heretike Nestorius, maketh mention of two bishoppes of Rome, Foelix the martir and Iulius, whose epistles after that he had tolde wer there readen in the councell ageinst the saide heretike, he addeth immedatlie after thiese wordes: Et vt non solum caput orbis verumetiam ipsa latera illi iudicio testimonium perhiberent,The B. of Rome he­ade of all the vvorl­de.adhibitus est à me­ridie B. Cyprianus, à Septentrione S. Ambrosius, that is to saie. And that it might not be saide that the heade of the worlde onelie gaue witnesse to that iudgement (ageinst Nestorius) but the ribbes also and sides: there was present from the Southe blessed Ciprian, and from the Northe holie Ambrose.

In the fourthe generall councell assembled at Calce­dō we finde, that the legates of the B. of Rome writing in a certeine epistle to the emperour,Ex Epist. Pasch [...]sini & aliorū collegarum de dam [...] natione Diosco [...]. what theie had doen in the councell touching Dioscorus, had these wordes: Vnde s [...]nctissimus & beatissimus Papa caput vniuersalis ecclesiae, &c. whereapō the moste holie and blessed pope Leo, heade of the vniuersall churche, by vs his legates, the holie coun­cell consenting thereto, hath depriued him (Dioscorus) of his bishoprick and degraded him of his priestehoode.

If the B. of Rome had not at that time emongest all men beneso reputed and taken: is it credible that they would euer haue bene so bo [...]ld, nay impudent rather, to giue him apon their owne heades anie suche title? Or if they woulde haue nedes so called him being not so, durst they in their lettres to themperour? Wel if they had onely so called him, some brable theie might yet perhap­pes haue made thereabout, but seing the whole bodie of the councell, the corps of Christendome, the churc­he it selfe (for such is euerie generall councell laufullie [Page] assembled) in that epistle which they sent by common consent, and is rightely termed the certificate of their doinges, to Leo the pope, wherein they called him the heade and them selues the membres, and in that that they termed him the man to whome our lorde committed the keping of his vineyarde, doe moste plainelie affirme the same, there is nowe left to our aduersaries no starting hole to escape. Besides all this that yowe haue hard, there is a notable testimonie of Iustinian the emperour, who in his Codex calleth in plaine wordes Ioannes that was then the pope of Rome,Epist. inter claras [...]de­sum. triuit & fid. Cath. caput omnium ecclesiarum, that is, the heade of al churches. And thus much for such as with­in the first sixe hundred yeares, haue called the B. of Rome by this name heade of the churche.

To come nowe to those who although they haue not vsed the same terme, haue named him yet notwithstan­ding by the like, and haue attributed vnto hī, and acknow­leged in him, in all poinctes the same iurisdiction and auctoritie. I shall first bring furth the testimonie of that strōg piller, and vnmoueable rocke of Christes churche Athanasius, Athanasius and yet not him alone, but accompanied with the whole nōbre of the bishoppes of Egipt, Thebaida, and Libia. Who writing to three seuerall popes; Marcus, Libe­rius, and Felix, called first Marcus, S. Ro. & Apostolicae sedis at (que) vniuersalis ecclesiae papam, that is the bishop or pope (for the worde is in the auncient doctours vsed indifferentlie for bothe) of the holie apostles seate at Rome, and also of the whole vniuersall churche of Christ, and the churche of Rome the mother and heade of all churches: acknowle­ged in the secōde written to Felix, that almighty god had placed the bishoppes of Rome,The po­pe called the B. of the vniuersall churche of Christ. insummitatis arce, omnium [Page 56] ecclesiarum curam habere praecepit in the chiefest tower, that he had commaunded them to take on them the charge, not of their owne propre and peculier churche of Rome onlie,The first councell of Nice alleaged by Atha­nasius for the Popes auctoritie as though their charge extended no farder, but of all churches vniuersallie: witnessed beside, (whereof theie coulde not be ignorant, them selues being present there, and then which they coulde not haue brought a stronger proufe to proue the superioritie of that See) that in the first councell holden at Nice, it was ordeined and agreed apon, that no councells should be holden or bis­shoppes condemned, without the auctoritie of the B. of Rome. And in their lettres last of all to Liberius the po­pe [...], doe so openlie and manifestlie witnesse their opini­on in this controuersy, in saieng that to him as pope was committed the vniuersall churche of Christe, to labour for all, to helpe euerie one: that I can not ynough maruell at your impudency M. Iuell, who standing in defence of the contrary, beate in to the eares of the people that this doctrine of the popes auctoritie is newe, and hath for warrante thereof not so much as one auncient writers approbation, and that as suerly as god is god, the Catho­likes (if they had vouchesaufed to folowe the scriptures, the generall councels, the examples of the primitiue churche or opinions of th'auncient fathers (would neuer haue brought in the pope again, being once banished out of the realme.

The seuerall answers of euerie one of thiese popes, wherein they acknowleged no lesse burden of charge then was by these fathers lai [...]d apō thē, I here forbeare to bring in, lest theie maie by yow perhappes be chalēged, as principall partes to the title in strife. The which be­cause [Page] I knowe yow can not say, by S. Hierom S. Ambro­se S. Austen and other such like, I shall here of many alle­age some for the confirmation thereof.In praefat. in. 4. euāg. Chief prieste. S. Hierome called Damasus who was B. of Rome, the chief and high­est prieste. S. Ambrose calleth him ruler of the churche. Ecclesia (saieth he) domus dei est,1. Tim. 3. Ruler of the chur­che.cuius hodie rector est Damasus. The churche is goddes house the gouernor whereof at this day is Damasus. S. Austen saieth in writing to Bonifa­cius the pope ageinst the Pelagians,Ad Boni­fac, contraduas epist. Pelagian. lib. 1. cap. 1 that although the of­fice of being a bishop be to them all comon, that yet he was in that care placed aboue the rest. And in an other place comparing together the blessed apostle S. Peter and the holie martir S. Ciprian,Placed aboue all Bishop­p [...]s. he had cause to feare he sa­ied, least he might seme to be towardes S. Peter contu­meliouse, not as though touching the crowne of mar­tirdome they wer not bothe equall, but in respect of the­ir seates and bishoprikes.Lib. 2. de Baptismat. Cap. 1. Quis enim nescit illum apostolatus principatum, cuilibet episcopatui praeferendum? for who is quoth he ignorant, that that principalitie of apostleship, is to be preferred before all bishoprikes?

To these shall I adde Theodorite the B of Cyrus, who writeth in this wise to Leo the pope.Epist. com­mentar. in Pauli epist. pr [...]fix. Si Paulus praeco ve­ritatis, tuba sanctissimi spiritus, ad magnum Petrum cucurrerit, vt ijs qui Antiochiae de institutis Legalibus contendebant ab ip­so adferret solutionem: multò magis nos qui abiecti sumus pu­silli, ad apostolicam vestram sedem currimus, vt ecclesiarum vl­ceribus medicinam à vobis accipiamus. Vos enim per omnia pri­mos esse conuenit. If Paule (that is to saie) the messanger of truthe, and trumpet of the holie ghost, ran vnto mighty Peter to fetch from him the resolution of such doubtes, as rising apon th' obseruation of the Lawe, ministred to [Page 57] them occasion of strife that wer at Antioche: much more neede had we which ar weake and abiect, to run vnto your apostolicall seate, from thence to fetch salues for the sores of the churche. For expedient is it that in all pointes before all other,The churche of Rome ru­leth all the vvorl­de. yow haue the preeminence. And a little after he addeth, that the churche of Rome is of all other, maxima, praeclarissima, & quae praeest orbi terrarum the greatest, the noblest, and that which ruleth all the worl­de.

By occasion of this place of Theodoritus, calling the churche of Rome the chief of all other, (which yet he doeth not alone neither, for so did well neare two hun­dred yeares before his daies Irinaeus, Lib. 3. Cap. 3. when he would haue euery churche, that is as him selfe expoundeth it, all fai­thefull Christians from all partes of the worlde, to mete and conforme them selues to the imitation of this chur­che, propter potentiorem principalitatē saieth he, for the chie­fest souereintie that it hath:De vocat gentium lib. 2. cap. 6. and after him aswell S. Am­brose whose opinion was that Rome hath bene more honored thorough the preeminence and principalitie of the apostolicall priestehood, by hauing there the chief tower of religion, then it was before when it had there the chief throne of worldly power and ciuile iurisdi­ction: as also S. Austē,Epist. 162. affirming that in that churche the preeminence and chief honour of the apostolicall pries­tehood hath alwaies florished:) I shall here make this ar­gument, for the better cōfirmation of this controuersie, that the B. of Rome is the heade and chief of the whole churche (this allwaies presupposed that yowe M. Iuell whome I desire to solute this argument ar stille of this minde that the aun [...]iēt fathers ar good groundes to buil­de [Page] apon).A reason to proue the pope head of the chur­che. Irinaeus, S. Ambrose, S. Austen and Theodoritus, affirme that the churche of Rome is the chief of all other churches. Ergo the B. and heade of that churche, is chief and heade ouer all other bishoppes and heades of all other churches. And thus much by the occasion offred.

Stephan (to return from whence we haue digressed) the archebishop of Carthage,Chief bis­shoppe of all bishoppes. with three councels of A­frica, called the B. of Rome pater patrum & summus omnium praesulum pontifex: that is to saie father of fathers, and chief B. of all bishoppes.In confes­sione sua. Constantinus the emperour in one place calleth him summus pontifex the chief bishop, and in an o­ther vniuersalis papa, In aedicto. vniuersall pope. In which place he also commaunded that the churche of Rome, should be called the heade of all other in the worlde, and for so reputed and taken.

Hetherto haue I proued vnto yow, that the B. of Ro­me hath bene of the auncient fathers of Christes chur­che, within the firste sixe hundred yeares after Christes departure hence, called heade of the churche, ruler of the churche, chief prieste, chief of all other bishoppes, bishop of the vniuersall churche and vniuersall bishop. Nowe will I showe that the doctours and fathers in the primitiue churche, haue not onelie in wordes (which yet proceding from the mouthes of such men as they wer might to anie honest man seme sufficient) so termed him, but by seuerall actes also of theirs well witnessed to the worlde, that in their consciences for so theie tooke him. And euen as in the lawe, to proue the possession of a lordshippe or manor, it is a sufficient proufe to bring in euidēce, that he who is disturbed therein hath quietlie [Page 58] without interruption or contradiction, ma [...]ured and tylled the grounde, reaped and receauid the fruites, or in a controuersie of iurisdiction, to proue the doing of such actes as properlie belong thereunto: euen so in this case if I proue vnto yow, that the auncient fathers of Christes churche (the same whome I named to yowe before) haue, some of them from the fardest parte of the Easte churche, complained to the B. o [...] Rome of wronges don to them, some of them required him to confirme their actes and ratifie their doinges, other so­me sente to him their worckes by him to be examined and iudged: I nothing doubte but yow will easelie gra­unte, that these ar to induce and proue his iurisdiction ouer the whole churche, argumentes moste strong and inuincible. To perform [...] this the better, call to your remembrance I beseche yowe, that which a littell before I alleaged to yow out of S, Chrisostome, where he wit­nessed that Peter and his successors had the charge of those shepe for whome Christ shed his bloud, and then iudge I praie yowe whether of likelihood he thought not as he saide, when being chased from his folde and flocke at Constantinople where he was archebishop, and vniustlie driuen into banishement, he wrote vnto Innocentius then being pope and the chief shepherd, for helpe after this manner.Epist. ad Inno [...] tium [...] 5. Obsecro scribas quôd haec tam iniqu [...] facta, & absentibus nobis & non declinantibus iudicium, non ha­beant robur, sicut neque sua natura habent: illi autem qui iniquè egerunt, poenaeecclesi [...]sticarum legum subiaceant. that is to saie. I praie yow (saith this holie father to the pope) addresse furth your lettres to signifie that those thinges, which haue so vniustly bene decreed ageinst me in my absence not [Page] proceding of contumacy maie be of no force, as of their owne nature theie ar not, and that they which haue giuen this vniust sentence, maie suffer the smart of the ecclesiasticall lawes.

Beholde here good readers a moste manifest place, to proue in those daies the vniuersall auctoritie of the pope. Two thinges there ar here to be noted which Chriso­stome desireth the pope to doe: first to declare that all that was doen ageinst him should be of no force, nexte that he would write that they might be punished which had thus misused him. Nowe if the pope had had no­thing to doe out of his owne churche, then had wote yow well Chrisostome bene a mad man, to make labour to him to sende his commaundementes to the Grieke churche, to entremeddle in the affaires thereof, who might easely haue receiued of the doers of those iniuries which wer membres thereof (as Chrisostome was) this short answer, to meddle with his owne matters and to let thē alone with theirs. Or if he had had nothing to doe in that cause, which was concerning the archebishoprike of Constantinople: woulde he (is it like) haue excommu­nicate Arcadius th'emperour with Eudoxia th'empresse,Niceph [...]. lib. 11 cap. 17. for not permitting Chrisostom quietly to enioye his said bishoprike,The te­nor of the excō ­munica­tion pro­nounced by Inno­centiꝰ the pope, a­geinst Arcadius the Em­perour. as Nicephorus reporteth of him that he did by thiese wordes? Itaquè ego minimus, & indignus peccator, cui thronus magni apostoli Petri creditus est, segrego & reijcio te & illam à perceptione immaculatorum mysteriorum Christi Dei nostri. Episcopum etiam omnem a [...]t clericum ordinis sanctae dei ecclesiae, qui administrare aut exhibere ea vobis ausus fuerit ab ea hora qua praesentes vinculi mei legeritis literas, dignitate sua ex­cidisse d [...]cerno. That is to say. I therefore (Innocentius the [Page 59] pope) of all other the leaste and an vnworthy sinner,This vvas aboue a thousand yeares agoe. to whome the throne of the greate apostle Peter is com­mitted, doe sequestre and reiect both the and her (the Empresse he meaneth) from the receauing of the imma­culate misteries of Christ our god. The bishop or clerck within the ordre of the holye churche of god, which shall presume what so euer he be, from the time that these letters conteining the band of our [...]xcommunication shall come to your knowledge, to ministre the sacramē ­tes vnto yow: him pronounce I depriued of his dignitie. Nowe if he had then auctoritie ouer Constantinople in the Grieke churche, whie doe yowe at thiese day­es M. Iuell, thrust him out of Englande in the La­tine churche?

S. Hierom as yow harde before, called the B. of Rome chief prieste and successor to Peter. If he had not thought as he saide, would he euer haue penned his fai­the and sent it to him to be allowed,To. 1. [...]. 42. with thiese wordes? Haec est fides beatissime papa quā in ecclesia Catholica didicimus, quamque semper tenuimus & tenemus. In qua si minus perité aut parū cauté aliquid forté positū est▪ emendari a te cupimus qui Pe­tri & fidē & fedē tenes &c. This is that faithe most blessed pope which I haue learned in the catholike churche, and which I haue euer hetherto mainteined and still doe. In to the which if anie thing by me be either not cunning­ly, or without due circumspection infarsed or put in, that desire I by yow to be corrected, who possesse bothe the faithe and seate of Peter. And if this confession of my faithe, be by the iudgement of your apostleship alowed, who so euer he be that will afterwardes carpe and repro­ue the same, proue he maie wel him selfe a foole, or ma­liciouse, [Page] or not catholike, but me an heretike shall he ne­uer proue.

Hetherto S. Hierome. with whome if one would after this sorte expostulate: What meane yowe S. Hierō to bo­aste so much apon the iudgemēt of one, who as he is a mā (although learned yet not the learnedest in the world) so maie he both d [...]ceaue and be deceauid. Whie saie yow that who so euer [...]ndeth faulte with your faithe▪ after Damasus the popes approbation and allowance thereof, shall neuer be hable to proue yowe an heretike? Maie not many heades finde out that, wherein one hath failed? Me thincketh I saie, to him that should thus question with him, I heare him expounding his owne wordes, and answering for him selfe in this wise. What arte thow man that findest faulte with my wordes, and vnderstādest not my meaning? Am I thinckest thow he, that will pinne my faithe to anie mans backe what so euer he be? Doe not I knowe as well as thow, that Damasus is a man, that he maie deceaue and be deceauid? yea truelie. But on thother side, as I knowe all this rightwell, so am I not ignorāt that he that sitteth in Peters chaire, that the B. of Rome in matters of faithe can not giue wrong iud­gement. And therefore cease to maruell, if apon the trust of this priuileage I chalenge all the whole worlde, and saie that of them all, there is no one that can proue me an heretike, whome Damasus being thus qualified hath alowed for a good christian. It is not Damasus (so hath this qualitie to be the chief gouernour of Christes churche altered him) that I stay my self apon. It is Peter, it is Christ him self. If apon anie other persuasion I had vsed thiese wordes▪ well might I haue bene saide to haue [Page 60] abused my self. But that this was euen from the begin­ning my meaning, and not inuēted sence for my defence: loke once again to my wordes, where I saie not simplie I desire to be corrected of the, but of the which holdest Peters faithe and seate, nor yeat spake of the alowing of my faithe by Damasus, but apostolatus sui iudicio by the iudgement of his seate, of his apostleship.

Thus much touching S. Hierom. of whose minde if any man yeat doubte in this cōtrouersy, him shall I praie to take the paines for his better instruction, to reade a certeine other epistle of his to Damasus, Tom. 2. Epist. 41. and apon these wordes which he vttred of Peters chaire: Quicunque extra hanc domū agnū comederit prophanus est, who so euer eateth the lambe (he meaneth receiueth the blessed body and bloud of Christ) out of this house he is prophane,Erasmus iudgemēt against the Pro­testants. to ser­che for the iudgement of Erasmus: where he shall finde in expresse wordes, that S. Hieromes opinion was, that all churches should be subiect to the churche of Rome.

S. Austen (as before yow hard) called Peter B. of Rome, heade of the churche: he tolde Bonifacius his successor that he was placed in Christes churche a­boue the rest of the bishoppes. And did he not well de clare by sending to the same Bonifacius his boke writ­ten ageinst the two epistles of the Pelagiās, to be iudged and examined by him, that he tooke him for no lesse in deede, then he had pronounced of him in wordes? For trulie S. Austens learning being such, as in his age there liued not his matche: for the perusing of his worckes bo­the had he had little neede o [...] his helpe, and if he had had much, there liued yet manie to haue bene consulted the­reapon, better learned then he, and more nearer to him [Page] toe, then was Rome to the place where he had his abi­ding: had it not bene that persuading him selfe as did S. Hierome in the like case before, he had made his full and sure account, first that his iudgement in that that he was Peters successor and heade of the churche, was by the verie mouthe of Christ him selfe warranted, in mat­ters of faithe neuer to erre, and nexte that his worcke being confirmed by auctoritie, such as was his, should so quell and beate downe to the grounde the heretikes his aduersaries, as with the worlde they should neither be ha­ble to susteine their credite gotten, nor after that gaine newe.

Theodoritus saide of the B. of Rome: Vos enim summosesse conuenit. for yow must be the chiefest of all other, and of the churche it selfe, that it was the greatest, the noblest of all other, and that which gouerned all the worlde. It is euidēt that he wrote as he thought, whē being vniust­ly deposed he appealed to the B. of Rome, desired his hel­pe, and that he would cōmaunde him to appeare before him, there to pleade his cause and showe his righte, as he did in dede and was restored by him.

By these auctorities it appeareth M. Iuell, that the fa­thers of Christes churche be not so thinne sowē on our side, as yow beare the worlde in hande theie ar, seing that I haue here brought yow not one alone as yow demaun­ded, but manie: not their bare wordes, which (although of thē selfe moste plaine and manifest) might perhappes haue bene subiect to your wrangling interpretations: but their seuerall actes and deedes (the best expositors of their owne mindes) confirming most manifestly the same.

Will yow haue nowe some allowed example of the [Page 61] primitiue churche to testifie the same? What better ex­amples can yowe haue, then that in all controuersies arising either betwene bishop and bishop priuatelie,Examples of the pri­mitiue churche to proue the B. of Rome his suprema­cy. or in the whole churche publickelie sence the beginning, the B. of Rome hath bene onelie he, to whome the parties grieued wer they catholikes or heretikes, good or bad haue had recourse for helpe? What better examples then that emongest so manie appeales made vnto him, there is not so much as one instance to be giuen of some one, that laufullie and orderly appealed from him, and whose such appeale toke effect?Tripart. hist. lib. 4 cap. 6. Who hath cited to his cōsistorie euen from the fardest parte of the Easte chur­che (and as Theodoritus writeth ecclesiasticam secutus regu­l [...] folowing the rule of the churche) offenders and transgressors of the holie canons?The odorit. lib. 2. cap. 4. The B. of Rome.

Who is it without whose licence and consent,Triparti. histor. lib 4. cap. 9. the primitiue churche forbad councels to be holden or bis­shoppes to be condemned? Trulie the pope. The whole councell of Nice affirming the same, if we will giue cre­dite to Athanasius, Epist. ad Felicem. who was present thereat and affir­meth it to be so, although the canon thereof (for of. 70. there agree apon we haue onelie at this daie 20.) be perished and not nowe to be had. Where I can not but note by the waye, the circumspect manner of writing vsed by Athanasius, who saieth not that the councell of Nice decreed or ordeined this, but onelie that by their iudgemētes they cōfirmed and renewed the same. His wordes ar these. In Nicena synodo. 318. episcoporū concorditer ab omni­bus roboratum▪ it was in the councell holden at Nice by ful consent of all the bishoppes in nombre. 318. roborate or confirmed, non deberi absque R. pontificis sententia cele­brari [Page] concilia nec Episcopos damnari, that without the auc­toritie of the B. of Rome neither councelles should be kepte nor bishops condemned. So that herebie we may gather that it was before taken for a truthe, but then by reason of some busie braines that began to call it in to question, by the iudgement of the councell con­firmed and put out of all doubte.

Who but he excommunicated all the churches of A­sia and prouinces bordering apon it,Eusebius lib. 5. cap. 24. no man finding fault with the doing thereof for lacke of iurisdiction (which would no doubte where partes be taken as at that time there wer aboute the keping of the Easter daye, of all other things first haue bene espied and reprehended if it had bene doen with out auctoritie) although some complained of ouer much rigour,He liued in the ye­are of our lorde. 193. and would haue wis­shed a little more discretion in Victor then pope which did it?

But to goe forwarde in thexamples of thauncient councels,Conciliū Constan. about the yeare of our lorde 369. ca. 5. To whome did the second generall councell gathered at Constantinople declare that the honour of being chief ouer all other bishops did apperteigne? To anie other then to the bishop of Rome?

In whose place was Cirillus president of the thirde generall councell holden at Ephesus but in the B. of Ro­me his?Concil. Ephesinū in the yea­re of our lorde. 433.

Whome called the fowerth generall councell of Cal­cedon,Counciliū Calcedō. The yea­re. 453. Act. 8.vniuersae ecclesiae episcopum bishop or ouersear of the vniuersall churche, but him? Who commaunded the bodie of the same councell that theie should in no wise suffer Dioscorus the bishoppe of Alexandria to sit emon­gest them,Sessione. 1. but the pope by his legates? Whie was Lucen­tius [Page 62] one of the popes legates forbidden at the same time to accuse Dioscorus, but because the fathers tould him that the parsons of the iudge and th'accuser must be distincte▪ and that the iudge might in no wise take on him the o­thers name or office? And howe was Lucentius emon­gest them a iudge? because he represented the popes par­son. And whie was the pope his maister iudge? because he was the chief iudge and heade in earthe of the chur­che. Can yow tell anie other cause M. Iuell? And for this cause Lucentius gaue ouer and Eusebius an other bishop accused him. Finallie to make an ende with this councell of Calcedon, knowe ye that after manie reasons on bothe sides and long debating toe and fro in the same touching the B. of Rome his prerogatiue, the fathers at the length concluded the matter and knit vp the knot in this wise.Act. 16. Ex his quae gesta sunt vel ab vnoquo (que) deposita perpendimus,The Cō ­clusion of the Coū ­cel of Cal­cedon tovv­ching the Popes su­perioritie.omnem quidem primatum & honorem prae­cipi [...]um secundum canones, antiquae Romae Deo amantissimo archiepiscopo confirmari. That is to saie: By those thinges which haue passed emongest vs or haue bene by euerie one of vs alleaged, we perceiue according to the canons, all souerentie and chief [...]onour to be confirmed, to the welbelouid of god tharchebishop of olde Rome. No­te here I beseche yowe good indifferent readers (which a littell before I noted to you out of Athanasius alleaging for the B▪ of Rome his s [...]erioritie the first councell of Nice) that the councell of Calcedon determined here no newe thing of the popes auctoritie, but confessed them selues by boulting out the truthe to haue founde, that the canons and rules of the churche in times past had giuen him that chief honour aboue all other, and [Page] that therefore theie perceiued that by them it ought to be confirmed. What can we here thincke of the councell of Calcedon referring it selfe to the canons, but that it mēt of the councell of Constantinople and Nice going be­fore? And of the councel of Nice what can we iudge, but that their confirmation had relation to the verie insti­tution of Christe him selfe?

The fathers assembled in the two councels of Cartha­ge and Mileuite,Concilium Carthag. Mileuitanū of whome S. Austē was one, wrote vnto Innocentius then pope of Rome to confirme their doings ageinst the two heretikes,Apud August. epist. 90. Pelagius and Celestius. The who le councell of Carthage writing to the pope, did so theie saide: vt statutis suae mediocritatis etiā apostolicae sedis adhi [...]ea­tur authoritas, to the entent that to their ordonāces which wer but of meane auctoritie, the weight and maiestie of th'apostolicall seate might adde the more. The fathers in the councell Mileuitan, of their writing for the con­firmation of their decrees alleaged this to be the cause, Quia te Dominus gratiae suae praecipuo munere in sede apostolica collocauit, August. epistlā. 92. that is, because our lorde hath placed yow by the gift of his especiall grace in the apostolicall seate.

To the first of these two councels Innocentius the pope making answer,August. epist. 9 [...]. how doeth he praise and extoll the fa­thers, for that that theie not leaning to their owne iud­gementes, had (obseruing th' examples of auncient tradi­tions, Not man but god hath refer ued to the pope the determi nation of all doub­tes. and being mindefull of the ecclesiasticall discipli­ne, not contemning the ordinaunces of the fathers in times past: who decreed, not by the sentence of man but of god him selfe, that the determination of all doubtes should be reserued to the See of Rome, from whence all other churches should receaue the same, none other­wise [Page 63] then as all waters procede from the heade spring) referred the whole processe of their doinges to his iud­gement?

To the other councell he made answer,August. epist. 93. that theie had behaued thē selues bothe diligentlie and decentlie in re­garding th' apostles honour, his honour quoth he I saie, who beside the care of externall thinges hath also to pro­uide for all churches, in asking what was to be folowed in doutefull matters: wherein he saide theie had folowed the forme of the auncient rule. He added also that as oftē as there was anie doubte of matters of faithe, his bro­thers and fellow bishoppes should referre the same to no other but to Peter, in which doing theie should refer thē to the giuer bothe of that name and the honour belon­ging theretoe, with manie o [...]her wordes to this ende. And last of all in the same letters he excommunicated bothe Pelagius and Celestius, commaunding that his sentence re­mained inuiolable, that they entred not in to the chur­ches, that theie shoulde haue no pastorall charge, but yet that if theie repented pardon should not be denied them.

Here perhappes some one will aske of me, why pas­sing ouer the notable testimonies touching this matter, of Anacletus, Clemens, Euaristus, Alexander, Xistus, Telesp­hours of whome the last liued within seuen score yeres after Christe, I rather allege Innocentius, The yea­re or our lord. 470 who although he be also aunciēt as li [...]ing well neare eleuen hundred yeres agoe, and proue right well [...]he point for the which he is brought in, might yet either for the one respect or the other, haue giuen place to any of them. To whome I make this answer, that as I haue willingly and witting­ly suffered my selfe, to lacke such necessarie defence for [Page] the proufe of this controuersie, as out of the writinges of such graue fathers and holie martirs, our aduersaries them selues (I appeale to their consciences) knowe right well that we might abundantlie and in greate store ha­ue heaped together, onelie because the gainesaiers might happelie haue excepted ageinst them, that not with stan­ding they wer martirs, and in the whole course of their liues verie apostles, yet because they wer bishoppes of Rome, theie wer not in that cause which was their ow­ne, indifferent witnesses: so would I also haue forborne the alleaging of this answer of Innocentius for the same cause: had it not bene that S. Austen him selfe had iusti­fied his parson ageinst our aduersaries in this behalfe. For he writing to one Paulinus a bishoppe,Epist. 106 after long dis­coursing with him touching the heretikes Pelagius and Celestius, telleth him at the length, howe the councels of Carthage and Mileuite had written about them and their heresies to Innocentius the pope, not onelie the cer­tificate of their doinges but also certeine familier letters beside. To all the which saieth he, ille no bis rescripsit eode [...] modo quo fas erat, atque oportebat apostolicae sedis antistitem he answered vs by his lettres againe, euen as it was right and as was for the B. of the apostolicall See meete.

Nowe I praie yowe considre here with your selues good Readers▪ if Innocentius when he wrote to these fa­thers, to auaunce him selfe and his See, had being led thereunto by blinde affection, without the warrant of goddes worde, the vsage of the churche, the auctoritie of the canons, praised them, that keping and obseruing the examples of antiquitie and hauing in remembrance the ecclesiasticall discipline, they had referred as theie [Page 64] ought their doinges to his iudgement: if he had besides borne them in hande, that the auncient fathers had de­creed, not by mannes iudgement but by goddes him sel­fe, that what so euer wer to be doen wer it of those pro­uinces that wer neare to Rome or far of, it should not be determined before that it wer brought to the knowled­ge of that seate of his: if he had excommunicate Pelagius and Celestius without auctoritie, and finallie doen and sai­de so manie thinges (as ar in his saide epistles more at large to be sene) for the prerogatiue of his churche, and all false: howe had then S. Austen saide trulie, that he an­swered in all pointes aright, and as the B. of the aposto­licall seate shoulde? Shall we thincke that S. Austen was ignorant and so deceauid, or that he flattred and so lied? Orcan we iustly thincke that S. Austen if he had not ta­ken him as heade of the churche, would euer haue willed him to haue cited Pelagius (being not then in Britaine but in the east partes as in the same epistle it appeareth) to co me to Rome?Epist. 95 But thus much be saide by the waie to that question whie I rather vse the auctoritie of Innocentius, then anie of those other popes before him.

I might here bring furth for examples alowed of the primitiue churche, seing hetherto they haue bene practi­sed and neuer disalowed, howe that Vrsatius and Valens two ringleaders and chiefe capitaines emongest the Ar­rians, at the length being wearie of their heresies and har telie sorie therefore,Epiph [...]. heresi. 68. Athan. [...]a­polog. 2. Histor. trip lib. 4. cap. 34. of al [...] the bishoppes in the worlde went to no other but to onelie Iulius the pope to be ab­solued, and by him receiued into the churche and ad­mitted to the cōmunion and cōpanie of the faithefull, as witnesseth Epiphanius and other: howe that the same [Page] Iulius restored to their bishoprikes being vniustely de­priued, Socrates Lib. 2. cap. 15. Athanasius to Alexandria, Paulus to Constantino­ple, Marcellus to Ancyra, and Asclepas to Gaza, all in the East churche, and therefore impossible to haue bene doē had not his auctoritie bene vniuersall. I might here put yow in remembrance of a nombre of bishoppes of Rome, that wrote their lettres in to the fardest parte of the worl­de, sometimes commaunding, other whiles forbidding this or that: of the like that directed their commissions to this bishop and to that, to execute their auctoritie in countries and prouincies far from Rome: as namelie (to passe ouer Pius, Victor, Fabianus, and such other) of Leo the first, who in Grece and the countries bordering thereapō appointed the B. of Thessalonia, Epist. 85. 83. 89. in Fraunce the B. of Arles, and in Spaine Hormisdas an other bishoppe, to be his vicaires and deputes in those parties. Which had bene a mat­ter of all other to be laughed at, if they writing such let­ters, and making such delegations, had had nothing or no more to doe there, then other men.

But omitting manie other bothe before and sence that haue doen the like, I shall at this time onelie alleage Gregorie, the first of that name, him rather then anie of the rest, because in this controuersie yowe beare your selfe on his auctoritie so bolde. Did not he ordeine that Maximianus the B. of Siracusa, Lib. 2. Epist. 4. should in his stede ouer­see all the churches of Scicilie? Did he not write his let­tres to all the bishoppes of Numidia cōmaunding them that they should giue ordres to no Donatistes?lib. epist. 1. epist. 75. Did he not direct his letters to Adeodatus the metropolitane of Numidia, to take good heede that none wer promoted to holy ordres by mony? And will yow yet M. Iuell hea­ring [Page 65] this, persist in your lewde opinion, that S. Gregorie (then whome emongest all that range of bishops that haue either gone before him or folowed after, yowe coulde neuer haue founde one that more maketh in this point for the catholike faithe and lesse for yow) should be a patrone of your heresie?S. Grego­ries place brought by the Protestāts ageinst the Popes suprema­cy exami­ned. But because it maie the bet­ter appeare to all men in what distresse yow ar, that be dri­uen to such shamefull shiftes and extreme refuges for the vpholding of your newe founde religion: I shall he­re (occasion so aptelie offering it selfe) examine that pla­ce of S. Gregorie, which yowe tosse so cōmonlie in your mouthes, repete so often in your bookes, where he sharpe lie reprehendeth Iohn the B. of Constantinople, for taking apon him the name of vniuersall bishop, a title alltogether (he saithe) prophane and mete for antichris­te, a title which Leo his predecessour hauing offred vnto him by the whole councell of Calcedon refused. Thus hath S. Gregorie.

To this auctoritie the tr [...]the it selfe compelling me, I must nedes folowe in answering, that excellent clercke and man for his lerning not in one thing or two but V­niuersallie in all, emongest those of the olde worlde wor thie to be reconed, (for for no lesse doe the wise and lear­ned iudge him to be howe euer some foolish calfe haue in vaine murmured to the contrarie:) who being vrged as yowe knowe by your selfe M. Iuell with this place, tolde yow that it serued nothing to disproue the souerein­tie, as in deede it doeth not. For if yow had reade S. Gre­gorie so diligentlie as reason woulde yow should before yowe had alleaged him so impudentlie, then had yow founde that allthough the B. of Rome had neuer bene [Page] called vniuersall bishoppe, yeat had that bene no proufe that he is not therefore heade of the churche, thē would yowe not so foolishelie haue noted apon D. Coles wor des in the margēt of your boke, that no B. of Rome befo­re S. Gregories time would euer be called vniuersall bi [...] ­shop: finallie then would yowe not so ignorantlie haue confounded together,The vvord vniuersall B. not taken vvith S. Gregorie to signifie the head of the churche. Lib. 4. cap. 76. these termes vniuersall bishop and heade of the churche, as though theie had in that place sig­nified all one thing. The which that theie doe not, no mā doeth more plainelie expresse then S. Gregorie him selfe, who writeth of S. Peter after this māner. The charge saith he and supremacie of all the whole churche was commit­ted to him, and yeat was he not called vniuersall apostle.

Lo M. I [...]ell if you had taken the paines to haue scan­ned the place of S. Gregorie alleaged by yow by this and such other, would yow euer haue brought in to the ligh­te this deade mouse, this false argument and vntrue con­sequent: There was neuer anie B. of Rome called, or that would be called by the name of vniuersall bishop, therefo­re▪ theie be not or ought not to be heades of the churche.S. Grego­rie expoūded to make nothīg for the protestāts by his ovvne vvordes. Seing that S. Peter as saithe S. Gregorie had the charge of the whole churche although he wer neuer called by the name of vniuersall apostle. If S. Peter might be heade of the churche, and without anie absurditie haue the char­ge thereof as (S. Gregorie thought) although he wer not called vniuersall apostle, whie should yow thicke it now anie more impossible for the pope to be called head of the churche, although he be not called vniuersall bishop­pe? And so haue yowe by the waie an answer to your wi­se demaunde also, that is, if no B. of Rome would euer take apon him to be called th'vniuersall bishoppe or hea­de [Page 66] of the whole churche for the space of six hundred yeares after Christe, where then was the heade of the vniuersall churche all that while, or howe it coulde then continue without a heade more thē nowe. For we saie vnto yow, that that is moste false and vntrue which yowe lay for a grounded truthe, that is that no B. of Rome woulde e­uer be called by the name of heade of the churche wit­hin the first six hundred yeares after Christe, as hath be­ne sufficientlie proued before, and that also as we haue declared, yowe abuse your selfe in the framing of your saide questiō, in taking for all one the heade of the chur­che and the vniuersall bishoppe. And thus haue yow one cause whie this place of S. Gregorie maketh nothing a­geinst the supremacie of the B. of Rome.

And other cause is for that, that Iohn the B. of Con­stantinople by this name or title of vniuersall bishoppe, vnderstoode him selfe onelie to be a bishoppe and none elles.In vvhat sence it is true that no B. of Rome vvould e­uer be cal­led vniuer­sall bis­shop. Which meaning neither in the first six hundred yea­res nor at anie time sence, anie B. of Rome that I could yeat heare of euer had. And that this is the true meaning of S. Gregorie and not forced by me, the verie wordes of the same man written to Iohn archebishop of Constan­tinople doe well witnesse with me. Qui enim indignum te esse fatebaris,lib. epist. 4. Epist. 4.vt episcopus dici debuisses, ad hoc quandoque perdu­ctus [...] es▪ vt despectis fratribus episcopus appetas solus vocari, that is to saie: for thow (Iohn B. of Constantinople) which once grauntedst thy selfe to be vnworthie the name of a bishoppe, art nowe at the length comme to that passe, that thowe labourest to be called a bishop alone. And a little after. Thow goest about (saieth he) to take awaie that honour from all other, which by singularitie thow [Page] desirest vnlaufullie to vsurpe to thy selfe.

Thus maie yowe see M. Iuell howe this place being by th'author him selfe expounded, fardereth yow no­thing at all, and also by suche auctorities and reasons as haue for our par [...]e bene before alleaged, vnderstand, howe vnaduisedlie it was saide of yowe, that the catholikes as sure as god is god, if theie would haue vouchesaufed to folowe either the scriptures,In the. 2. ansvvere to D. Co­les. 2. let­ttres. either the aunciēt Doctours and coūcels, would neuer haue restored again the supre­macie of the B. of Rome after it was once abolished. Doe yow not hereby giue occasiō to mē to thinke that your lacke of faithe and mistrust in goddes omnipotency in other thinges, groweth euen thereof that yow thincke god is not god? For towching the supremacie, hauing in the scriptures nothing, in the councels as little, in the fa­thers writinges onelie thiese fewe wordes, that might se me to impugne the same and yet doe not: howe will yow be able to discharge so manie auctorities of the fathers, such consent of councels, such conformitie of examples and force of reasons, as haue bene and maie be brought ageinst yow? howe will you satisfie your owne consci­ence which telleth yowe, that so manie ceremonies, so manie ordonances, so manie decrees of bishoppes of Ro­me, as Thomas Beacon otherwise called Theodore Basi­le, or by what name so euer he be elles termed hath hea­ped together,The anti­quitie of holie vvater. deliuered by them to the worlde, some of them, as emongest a nombre that which of all other yo­we make lest account of, holie water, within little more then a hundred yeares after Christe, and the most parte in the pure state of the primitiue churche, would neuer haue bene by such common and generall confent with­out [Page 67] contradiction of anie, receiued by the whole worl­de, vsed and frequented in all the churches scattred and dispersed thorough out the same, onlesse the authors thereof had had vniuersall auctoritie to establishe that which hath bene vniuersallie receiued.

Thus hauing hetherto touching the supremacie saide so much as maie presently serue for your chalenge, leauing the rest for a whole booke either by me when god shall sende better laisure, or some other better able when he shall thincke best, to be thereof made: I shall nowe passe to the nexte article in question.

TErtullian an auncient writer of Christes churche,Lib. de prescript. ad [...]ersus. haer reporteth of heresie that the na­ture thereof is, either when it is pressed with the auctoritie of scripture to denie it platlie to be scripture, or if she receiue it with additions and detractions to the fra­ming of her purpose to peruert it, or finally with false gloses and vntrue expositions in such sorte to water it, that it maie seme to haue a far other sense, then had euer the holie ghost the author thereof. This lesson and manner of olde heretikes was neuer I trowe more dili­gently put in execution or earnestlie practised, thē in this our most miserable and wretched time, nor in anie con­trouersie more perspicuouse and easie euen at the eye to be perceiued, then in this of the moste blessed sacrament of Christes owne bodie and bloude. For when our ad­uersaries demaunde of vs scripture for the confirmation of our parte, and we bring them the wordes, not of Peter, not of Paule, not of anie of thother apostles, but of [Page 68] Christe him selfe that saieth: This is my bodie, and not contented there with (least some man might otherwise construe his wordes because he had at other times spo­ken by figures) addeth, the selfe same which shalbe be­traied for yowe: (then which wordes if all the worlde would lay their heades together, to deuise howe he might haue spoken more plainelie, theie shall neuer finde the waie): they bring vs a glose cleane contrarie to the texte, that it signifieth his bodie, that it is a figure thereof. But what? seing (as S. Ambrose saieth) oure lorde Iesus witnesseth vnto vs that we truly receaue his body and bloud,Lib. 4. de Sacramēt. Cap. 5. shall we dout of his credite and witnes? Naie we haue other councell and better by Cirillus, Super illud Lucae. Hoc est corpus. who biddeth vs not to doute whether this be true or no, but to embrace in faith the wordes of our Sauior, who for as much as he is the truthe it selfe, we maie well be suer can not lie.

Thus maie yowe see good Readers what it is to deale with heretikes, whose propertie is alwaies to crie for scripture, and in whose mouthe there is nothing so cō ­mon as verbum domini verbum domini, the worde of the lorde the worde of the lorde, and yet when all is done and their request satisfied, that is scripture brought to them, theie ar not asshamed (such is their impudencie) either to saie that it is at all no scripture, or that it ma­keth nothing ageinst them, or to call that euident for them that in the iudgement of as manie as either ar wise or learned, is moste euident ageinst them. And of this disease if yowe had not M. Iuell bene daungerouslie sic­ke, yowe would neuer haue put me or anie man elles to the paine, to labour anie farder in the boulting oute of [Page] that truthe wherein Christe hath so plainelie opened him selfe, as neither hath he nede by anie other to be ex­pounded, nor easelie can anie such I trowe be founde, as shalbe hable more plainelie to expresse the same, then hath Christe him selfe our maister allreadie doen. Notwithstanding because bothe yowe and your compaig­nions like cauilling Capernaites, stande apon Christes meaning, which as yowe saie was not all one with his wordes, and also on this that we haue no olde writers to mainteine as it pleaseth yowe to terme it, oure newe do­ctrine of Christes reall presence in the sacrament: I shall assaie to make yow vnderstande, at the least those good people whome yow haue so far abused, that we haue a­greate sorte more that saie with vs, that Christes blessed bodie after the wordes of consecration duelie by the pri­est pronounced, is reallie, substantiallie, and corporal­lie, the same that was borne of the virgin Marie, the sa­me that he walcked in here in earthe, the same that as him selfe witnesseth was deliuered for vs to be crucified on the crosse, present in the sacrament, then euer yow or the best that taketh your parte, shall in susteining the contrarie, be hable of them all to giue a right answer to anie one.

And here I shall first alleage that auncient writer Ter­tullian, Tertulliā in the yeare of our lord. 200, in whome (writing aboue thirtene hundred yeares sence) I finde to this purpose these wordes. Caro corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur vt & anima de Deo sagine­tur:Lib. de Resur. carnis.non possunt ergo separ ari in mercede quas opera coniungit. that is to saie. Our fleshe feedeth on the bodie and blou­de of Christe, that the soule also maie be made fat by feading on god: theie can not therefore be separated in [Page 69] rewarde, which haue bene ioined and coupled together in worcking.

Note here I beseche yow good readers ageinst our ad­uersaries, that would shift of this place with their olde accustomed answer, that the breade is called his bodie for that it signifieth and representeth no lesse vnto vs, those wordes of Tertullian where he saieth, that the bo­die and the soule can not be seuered in receauing their re­warde, whome one office o [...] ministerie ioineth together. If the bodie fede apon bare breade as our aduersaries af­firme, and not apon Christes blessed bodie and blood as Tertullian saieth, howe then cā theie be saide to concurre in one ministerie, where as either of them fedeth diuer [...]lie on diuerse thinges? Or will yowe saie M. Iuell that flesh can fede apon signes or figures? Trulie whe­ther it can or no I durst referre the resolution hereof to your selfe, if being shut vp without meate or drincke two or thre daies in some close roume, it might be my chaūce to come to your spe [...]he at the last. I thincke yow would be [...]hrowe him that would r [...]ake yow such an a [...]gument: Yowe haue thought earnestlie apon meate all this whi­le therefore yowe haue eaten your fill. And would con him but little more thancke, that would painte on the walles of your chambre the signe of a fat capon, and bid yow eate and spare not.

But was Tertullian thincke we of this minde alone? No trulie. For besides him we haue to confirme the fai­the of the churche in this pointe all the auncient wri­ters, as manie as by occasion make anie mention of this moste blessed Sacrament.Ciprian▪ The yea­re. 349. Emongest whome I [...]hall next alleage S. Cipriā that holie and blessed martir. Who in his [Page] worcke De duplici martyrio touching this matter hath these wordes. Reliquit nobis edendam carnem suam, Reliquit bi [...]ndū sanguinem, vt per eadem al [...]remur per quae sumus redemp­ti. Christ hath left vs his fleshe to eate▪ and his bloude to drincke to the entent we might be noorished by the same thinges, by the which we wer redemed. Trulie if we be noorished by the same thinges by the which we haue bene redemed, then ar we not noorished we maie be bol­de to saie, with a signe or figure of his bodie, which one­lie and nothing elles these newe founde vpstartes would make vs beleue to be in this Sacrament.

The same holie martyr in an other place hath to the same purpose these wordes.Sermon. de [...] d [...] ̄i. The breade which our lorde deliuered to his disciples, being changed not in forme or shape but in nature, by the omnipotencie of the worde is made fleshe.

This place of S. Cyprian serueth me to double vse. For bothe it manifestle proueth the reall presence, and (which yowe also denie and call a newe inuention,Transub­stantiatiō v [...] ­knowen to thauncient fathers, and first harde of in the councell holden at La [...]er [...] vnder Innocentius the thir­de) the transubstantiation of the breade into Christes naturall fleshe. Your cōmon answer, that the base crea­tures of breade and wine be after the consecration chan­ged and transmuted from common breade to be a Sacra­ment, to be a signe, a remembra [...]nce, a signification of Christes bodie and bloude, yea to be in the steade of his bodie it selfe, whereas before the consecration it was no such thing, can serue yowe no longer. For all this indu­ceth no change in the nature or substance of the breade, no more then if a cartar to daye should be turned into a [Page 70] kinge to morowe, or placed in his seate of maiestie to re­present his parson, he coulde be saide to be changed in na­ture.

Athanasius writing of the miracle that happened a­boute a certeine image of our sauiour,Ath [...]nas. the yeare 379. Lib. de passione imagi [...]is Christi Cap. vl [...]. whome certeine Iewes (M. Iuell) in a towne named Berytus in Syria nailed vnto a crosse, and so long continued their malice in per­secuting the same after the māner of their fathers crueltie towardes Christ him selfe, or ourefalse Christians beha­ueour towardes his saide image in these our daies, that water at the length and bloud issued in greate quantitie oute of the syde thereof, hath these wordes. Nec esse [...]liter aestimandum est à veré catholicis praeterid quod à nobis scribitur, quasi ex carne & sang [...]ine Christi aliquid possit in mundo inu [...]niri▪ nisi [...]illud quod in ara per manus sacerdotum quo [...]idie spiritualiter efficitur. That is. Neither is it by true catholikes otherwise to be thought then we haue allrea­die written. As though there might be founde anie parte in the whole world of Christes [...]eshe and bloud, sauing that which [...] on the altar by the handes of the priestes dailie spiritually made.

Thus much touching this matter hath Athanasius. But this auctoritie I knowe yow will assaie to auoide, by cauilling apon the worde, spirituallie made. In which sence yowe will saie, yow denie not but that Christes fleshe and blood, although not on the altar is yet neuer­theles present on your communiō table. But ageinst this sorie shifte we replie, that Athanasius saide not in this place that Christes fleshe and bloude was spirituallie on the altar (which if he had so long as he excluded not the corporall presence also, had made nothing ageinst vs: [Page] for we bothe knowe and graunte, that after bothe those manners his blessed bodie is there) but that by the priest the same was spirituallie made, as though by the adiectiō of this worde (spirituallie) he woulde take awaie all oc­casion of offence▪ from such either weake or froward [...] consciences, as happelie might imagine some other kin­de of making Christes fleshe and bloud then by the om­nipotent power of goddes moste holie spirite. And that this was the meaning of Athanasius and no other, it shall most manifestlie apon the knowledge of the cause for which he spake these wordes appeare. It is apparent by the place that he was of this minde, whereas the bishop of Berytus caused diuerse vessels of glasse to be made, and parte of this blood that issued out of the image to be put in the same, and to be distributed in to diuerse partes of the worlde, that all men might vnderstande the maruei­louse worcking of almightie god: that that bloud which was showed in manie places in his time, and saied to be of Christes, was parte of this whereof he wrote. For truelie quoth he, sauing on the altar, there is no where elles in the worlde any other parte of Christes fleshe and bloud.

Now I praie you good Readers iudge in differentlie, if Christes true fleshe and true blood had not bene in the sacrament, but a signe or a representation thereof onelie, is it likelie that Athanasius would haue made an exceptiō of that which was not at all? that he would haue written so foolishelie, as no noddie would haue spoken? Euerie exception must be of some thing conteined vnder the rule, bothe lawe and reason saie from the which the ex­ception is made. And therefore if one would saie there is no man that runneth sauing such a horse, he that should [Page 71] so saie would be counted but an asse. We may therefore boldely conclude that this auncient father and learned doctour, bothe spake and ment of Christes bodie tru­lie, naturally, and corporally present in the sacrament: seing that otherwise to haue made in that place any men­tion thereof, had not onelie bene impertinent and no­thing to the purpose, but fond also and a thing moste ri­diculouse.

Eusebius Emissen. of this matter in a certeine homelie of his hath these wordes,Homil. 5. de Pasch [...]. Sicut autem quicunque, qui ad fi­dem veniens ante verba baptismi adhuc in vinculo est veteris de­biti, his verò commemoratis mox exuitur omni faece peccati: ita quando benedicendae verbis coelestibus creaturae sacris altaribus [...]p [...]nūtur, antequâm inuo ea [...]ione summi nominis consecrentur▪ substan [...]i [...] illic est panis & vi [...]i, post verba autem Christi, corpus & sanguis Christiest. Quid mirum autem est, si ea quae verbo cre [...] r [...] potuit, possit cr [...]at [...] conuertere? The which wordes in our tongue sounde thus much. Euen as he that comming to our faithe what so euer he b [...], before the wordes of baptesme pronounced is y [...]t still in the daunger of the bande of his olde deb [...]e, and the same being once rehersed is now quit thereof and free from all spot of sinne: so when the creatures ar laide on the holie altars to be blessed with the heauenlie wordes, before theie be by the calling on the name of the highest consecrated, there is the substance of breade and wine. But after the wordes of Christ pronounced, there is his bodie and bloud.

Terribilis est locus iste M. Iuell, This is a terrible place and able alone to breake the backes and stoppe the mouthes, of all that brutishe broode crept in to the world from the filthie neaste of Luther or Caluin his winges. This one [Page] auncient father wer hable if we had no other, to discre­dite yow before all the world, which haue so impudent­lie auouched that we haue not all emongest vs so much as one auncient writer, to affirme no not colourablie, the doctrine of the catholike churche concerning transub­stantiation. Transub­stantiatio Doeth not Eusebius in this place so affirme it truelie without all manner of colour, that euen the ta­king awaie of our sinnes by baptesme, is by him com­pared with the departure of the substance of breade and wine in the sacrament? If therefore there remaine after the wordes of consecration anie substance of breade and wine, saie also that after baptesme our olde sinnes rema­ine still. For so reasoneth here Eusebius, that the one is as true as the other, otherwise his similitude should halt and be of no force. And if yow yeat make strange to graunt thereto,To allea­ge the ō ­nipoten­cy of god vvhat had it neded, if there had bene no other chaunge in the bread and vvine thē the Pro­testants saie there is? doe not his wordes that followe mani­festly conuince this to be his meaning, where he asketh this question: what meruell is it if he that could create all thinges with his worde, be able to turne and conuert one thing in to an other? But of that greate nombre of testimonies which might be here for the confirmation of this truthe brought out of Eusebius, this one for this time maie suffise.

The nexte auctoritie that I will here alleage, shalbe takē out of that valiant champion of Christes churche and holie bishoppe of Millaine S. Ambrose. Who is in this matter for vs so plaine, both in the controuersie of the presence,Ambrosius The yea­re of our lorde. 380 and also of that other of transubstantiation, as he that fauoreth those opinions most can not whatso euer he be, to that effect expresse his minde more fullie. His wordes I will here trulie reherse (as theie ar in his [Page 72] worckes to be founde) worde for worde in englishe. This breade (saieth h [...]) is breade before the wordes of consecratiō,Lib. 4. de Sacrament cap. 4. after the which of breade is made the fleshe of Christe. Let vs therefore proue that which we saie. How can breade be made the bodie of Christe?Note that of breade the fleshe of Christ is made. By con­secration. But this consecration with what wordes, or with whose is it done? By the wordes of our lorde Iesus. For thorough all the rest which ar spoken, thanckes ar offred vnto god, praiers ar made for the rulers, for the people and for other thinges. But whē the priest is come to the consecration, nowe vseth he no longer his owne wordes, but the wordes of Christ. It is therefore Chri­stes worde that maketh this sacrament. What worde of Christe? Trulie that, wherebie all thinges wer made, that whereby our lorde commaunded and heauen was framed, that wherebie the sea and lande was created and euerie other creature fourmed. Seest thow therefore of what power Christes worde is? If it be of such force that of nothing it is able to make some thing, howe much more is it able to turne those thinges which wer before made, in to some other thing? Thus far S. Ambrose.

The same S. Ambrose in an other place hath these wordes. Thow wilt perhappes saie I see an other thing, howe doe yow tell me that I take the body of Christe?De ijs qui init. myster. cap. 9 And this remaineth yet for me to proue. Howe manie examples vse we therefore to persuade, that it is not that which nature hath fourmed but that which blessing hath consecrated? and that the force of blessing is greater then that of nature, because by blessing euē nature it sel­fe is changed. Moses helde in his hande the rodde, he cast it from him and it becam a serpent, againe he toke it by [Page] the taile and it returned to the nature of a rodde. And af­ter this example with manie other to this ende by him out of the holie scriptures alleaged, he cōcludeth in this sorte. If mannes blessing wer of such force that it was able to conuerte nature, what siae we to that diuine consecration, where the verie wordes of our sauior doe worcke?

This thought S▪ Ambrose a proufe strong ynough to cōuince the truthe of this sacrament. And although the substance of the rod being turned in to the substance of the serpent, lost also there with all his first outewarde nature, the accidētes I meane, which in this miraculouse change in the sacramēt is otherwise, where theie remaine for our infirmities sake saufe and sounde: yet was this in his iudgement no let why he might not well reason af­ter this sorte: Moses goddes seruant was able to turne a rod in to a serpent. Therefore god his maister is able to turne breade in to his fleshe. Neither thought he it anie iuggling because to sight breade and wine remained still, as that blasphemouse tongue which of late hath taken apon him to be your champion M. Iuell, ageinst a cer­teine treatise by a notable learned man made in the de­fence of the catholike faithe, in certeine pointes by yow not so much by learning impugned, as by malice malig­ned, hath termed it: but the miraculouse worcking of god aboue nature. And yet this good man forsoothe, maie not abide in anie wise to be noted one, that should put anie manner of mistrust in the omnipotēcie of god, but that he graunteth as freelie as we doe with Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, that god is able to perfourme what so euer he doeth promise, that no worde is impossible to [Page 73] him, that he hath done what so eu [...]r his will was to doe. And therefore he saieth that theie that so r [...]porte of him and his compagnions, th [...]ie must nedes do [...] it either of hatefull blinden [...]s orignorant malice.

Truelie good readers this man semeth to me, to be like a makeshifte, that falling into a companie of others ma­king merie, braggeth and boast [...]th of his purse wherein is neuer a crosse, that he hath to spende as largelie as the best, and will beare his parte as fran [...]k [...]lie as the proudest what so euer he be, and yeat for all his high lookes and greate bragges made before, when it commeth to the ga­thering of the shotte he slippeth faire and well awaie, and leaueth the honest companie to paye for all. Euen so I praie yowe mar [...]ke, when it commeth to the reconing of this heauenlie bancket, where is prepared for vs the mos­te pretiouse bodie and bloude of oure sauiour Christe, where is required of vs for the shotte that faithe as saithe holie S. Basile that Christes wordes (This is my bodie) teache vs:In respon­ad quaest. 172. let vs I saie marcke howe well for all his brag­ges he paieth his parte. Forso theyowe shall see. If Chris­te had made his bodie in the sacrament to appeare like a bodie,A Protes­tants fai­the. and his bloud to taste and showe like bloude, if he might haue sene it with his eyes, as the people of Israel sawe the rodde, as th [...]ie tasted of the water: if Christe had euer done anie such miracle before as this is, that is to saie if he had turned the substance of one thing in to an other, and left still vnchanged the qualities of th'o­ther thing that it was before, that it might not haue se­med a iuggling, if finally he had had anie nece [...]sitie to constreine him to worcke anie suche change, then he woulde haue beleued as we doe notwithstanding all the [Page] apparence of impossibilitie to the contrarie.

These be the conditions requisite to the faith of this protestant. But here it is a worlde to see, while he would seme humblie to graunte the omnipotencie of god, and to deliuer him selfe and his companions, from that no­te of infamie, whereinto by long struggling ageinst the same theie ar runne with all men, while he patcheth and cobbleth with his rottē lingells a nombre of clouted ifs, and is like the false tincker that mendeth one hole and maketh two newe, or craftie Couper that to fasten one whoope looseth three: he tumbleth hedlōg in to a grea­te heape of absurdities, whereof euerie one is as greate as that which he thought to haue auoided, and wherein yeat he sticketh not withstanding. For if thow beleue­dest man (as thowe vainelie braggest that thowe doest) that god wer omnipotent, wouldest thow so limite and restreine his power, that he shoulde not change the natu­re and substance of a thinge, onlesse he change the acci­dentes thereof withall? Wilt thow first see blood and tas­te it as did the children of Israel the water, and then af­ter beleue? O notable faithe to becōpared with the gray ne of a mustered seede, whose guydes the eyes and other fallible senses be. Quid memorabile facis si videas & credas? what greate act doest thow to beleue after thowe hast seene I maye say to yow,Lib. 1. as Theophilus the B. of Alexan­dria sayd vnto one Autolicus to whome he wrote. [...]. 15. Thus saide the Iues of Christ our sauiour hanging apon the Crosse. Descendat nunc de cruce vt videamus & credamus. Let him come downe now from the crosse that we maye see and thē beleue. And except you may see fleshe and bloud, is it iuggling? what yow meane herebie I knowe not, of [Page 74] this suer I am, that greate blasphemie it is so to terme th [...] miraculouse wor [...]king of almightie god, besides the hor­rible presumption to apointe god in what sorte he shall doe his miracles, and last of all extreme folly to saie that he rather iuggleth, that turning the substance of one thing in to another leaueth yeat vnchanged the olde for me (which no iuggler is able to doe) then he that alte­reth the fourme although he can not the substance, which dailie experience telleth vs that euerie iuggler to our sight doeth. So that almightie goddes worcking is moste vnlike to iugglers iuggling, and rather might yow haue saide, that Moses wand was aiuggling sticke for that that commonlie iugglers seme to doe as Moses did, then that in this high misterie consisting all in faithe, anie such false dealing should take place. Yow that call this iuggling, so far vnlike theretoe, if Christe I feare me had turned in this sacrament in dede the accidentes and outewarde forme, which euery Iuggler promiseth and semeth to doe in his trickes: your false faithe is such, that yowe woulde not haue letten to haue called that plaine iuggling, besides other pretie termes that yowe kepe in store.

But leauing yow to your trickes of liegier de main, wherein considering your excellencie we will in no wise contende with yow, but wisshing yow yeat like a frinde to make some more store thereof, and quietly here­after to kepe them in your iugglers boxe till yowe meete with such companie as whose eyes yowe maie be able easelier to dymme: tell me I praie yowe familierlie, whe­ther for all your greate bragges, yowe mistrusted not the omnipotencie of god, when yowe made this weake rea­son [Page] that it was not his will to haue his bodie present in the sacrament, because in all the scripture beside yow rea­de of no such miracle, that one thinge was changed into an other reteining still the qualities of the first. Is not trowe yow god in good credite with you, of whose mira­cles you beleue no one till he haue doē two? what neded yow to haue asked this question, where he did the like before had yow not douted of his habilitie? Is this Abra­hams faithe, is this Isaac his, is this Dauid his that yowe­boast your selfe to haue? what scripture haue yow where anie of them did this? Did our blessed ladie whē she had receiued that strange message that she being a moste pure and immaculate virgin, should conceiue and bring furth a childe, desire first to see it done in an other? And yeat e­mongest all the miracles that euer wer doen before or sence, was there euer anie so strange? Ar theie now blin­de or maliciouse that charge yow with mistrust in god­des power? Haue theie not righte good cause to saie that yow see no farder then Ismael and Agar, that confesse yourselfe not to beleue this miracle because Christ ne­uer did the like before?

Your last reason is of all other moste vnreasonable, and maketh me to thincke that sence the time that I last spake with yowe, there is some mischaunce happended vnto yow, that hath sore broosed your heade and let our your witte. For who I praie yow hath made yow at anie time a councelor to god, that so presumptuouslie yowe dare affirme that there was no necessitie,Esaiae. 40 Rom. 11. whie Christe should worke such a miracle, as to giue vs his bodie re­allie and carnallie in a sacrament to be eaten? Is this all the than [...]kes that yow giue him for so greate a benefite [Page 75] and pretiouse a iewell, that he might haue chosen being at libertie not constreined by necessitie, whether he would haue doen it or no? Trulie these reasons so [...] and weake haue betraied yow, and giuē vs to vnd [...]rstand, that the chiefe staie why yow beleue not this truthe, is euen that which yow would so gladlie kepe from our knowledge, that is to wit, lacke and defect of power, which yow persuade your selfe to be in god to the per­fourmance of so greate a miracle. And euen as the here­tikes Basilides, Cerdo, and Marcion, because theie could not atteine to the vnderstanding how a virgin might bring furth, toke the occasion of their heresies, to saye that Christ toke no fleshe of the virgin Marie, and there­fore suffred not in a true but in a fantasticall bodie: so fa­reth it with yow and your companie, who because yow can not see howe Christes bodie maie be in the sacramēt reallie present, and in manie places at onee, falle flat to the deniall thereof, and bring it to a simple figure, or fan­tasticall vnderstanding.

Now let vs returne againe to S. Ambrose, from whome your peuish proctour (M. Iuell) hath made me somwhat to straie. The same holie bishoppe hath touching this matter in an other place these wordes.De Sacr [...] ­mentis. Lib. 6. Cap. 1. Sicut verus est dei fi­lius D. noster Iesus Christus, nō quemadmodum homines per gra­tiam, sed quasi filius ex substa [...]ia patris: ita vera caro sicut ipse dixit quam accipimus & verus est potus &c. Euen as our lorde Iesus Christ is the true sonne of god and not as men ar by grace,Christ [...]s true fleshe in the Sa­crament but as his sonne of the substance of his father: so is it true fleshe and true drincke which we receaue as he him selfe hath witnessed. But thow wilt peraduenture obiect (as euen Christes owne disciples did, at that time [Page] when theie harde their maister saie: Excepte ye eate the fleshe of the sonne of man &c) how is it true fleshe? I whiche see the similitude of bloud see not true bloud in deede. [...]. 6. First of all I tolde the of Christes worde, which is in operation so mighty that it can change and alter, yea the common and accustomed ordonances of nature. Af­terwarde when the disciples could not abide this com­munication of their maisters theie departed. But onelie Peter saide, Thow hast the wordes of life euerlasting. Least therefore more might saie thus, as though there should be a certeine horror and fearefulnes of bloud,VVhie in the Sacra­ment the accidents be not changed. but yet the grace of redemption should remaine, therefore trulie thow receiuest this sacrament in a similitude or li­kenes, but so that thowe receiuest also the grace and for­ce of his true nature.

Hetherto S. Ambrose: in whose wordes two thinges there ar especiallie to be noted, first that of the true pre­sence of Christes bodie in the sacrament he toke him sel­fe to be so suer, that euen as certeine a truthe as it is that Christe was the true sonne of god, not by grace onelie or adoptiō: so certeinlie and trulie he toke his bodie to be present in the sacramēt, not by grace or spirituallie alone but truelie and reallie. The seconde poincte that is dili­gentlie to be obserued is, whie Christe contrarie to his accustomed maner of worcking in his miracles, chan­geth not here in this sacrament the outewarde shape and forme, but onelie the inward nature and substance, which is as this holie doctour saithe, for oure infirmities sake, to auoide that horror and feare which if we should receaue thē in their owne likenes, and not vnder the for me of thīges wherewith we ar better acquainted: we wer [Page 76] of all likelihood suer to fall into. I cā not here passe ouer in silēce that notable and euident testimony of this wor­thy bishop and learned father,Lib. 4. de Sacra [...]. Cap. 5. vttred to this purpose by him in an other place in thiese wordes. Antequâm cōsecre­tur panis est, vbi autē verba Christi accesserint, corpus est Christi. Ante verba Christi calix est vini et aquae plaenus: vbi verba Christi operata fuerint, ibi sanguis efficitur qui plaebē redemit. that is to say, before that it be cōsecrate it is breade, but whē the wordes of christ ar come vnto it, it is christes body. Before the wordes of Christ there is a cup filled with wine and wa­ter, as sone as Christes wordes haue wrought their ef­fect, there is made that bloud which redemed the people.

If these auctorities alleaged out of S. Ambrose be not able to stop the mouthes of our aduersaries, if they will yeat nedes presse vs with their faithelesse howes and whies, and will deale with almightie god so streightly that they will graunt him to be hable to doe no more, thē their simple wittes cā atteine to the māner of the doing whereof: I shall yeat moste humblie desier them to beare with me, if I alleage once againe the same excellent and learned bishop (S. Ambrose I meane) most plainely re­felling all such faitheles Caparnaites, as leaning more to fraile reason then firme faithe, haue their doubtefull min­des euer waltering and tottering in the truthe of this sa­cramēt. His wordes ar these.De his qui initian­tur myst [...] r [...]js. Cap. vl [...]i. Nunquid naturae vsus praeces­sit quum Iesus dominus ex Maria nasceretur? Si ordinem quae­rimus, viro mixta foemina generare consueuerat. Liquet igitur quôd praeter naturae ordinē virgo gener auit, & hoc quod cōficimus corpus ex virgine est. Quid hic quaeris naturae ordinem in Christi corpore, cum praeter naturam sit ipse D. Iesus partus ex virigine? That is, when our lorde Iesus was borne of the virgin [Page] Marie, was natur [...]s vsage practised? If we seke after her ordre, women haue first the companie of men, and then so conceiue and bring furth after. It is manifest therefore that the virgin brought furth besides the course of natu­re: The bo­die conse­crate by the priest the same that vvas borne of the virgin and this bodie which we doe consecrate is the same that was borne of the virgin. Whie demaundest thow here (in the sacrament) the order of nature to be kepte in Christes bodie, where as besides nature oure lorde Iesus him selfe was borne of the virgin?

Hetherto haue yowe harde of what minde holye S. Ambrose was, touching the controuersie moued in these our infortunate daies,Lib. 6. de Sacram Cap. 1. Christes true flesh in the Sa­crament euen as Christ vvas the true sonne of his fa­ther. about the moste blessed sa­crament of Christes bodie and bloud. In whome I haue taried somewhat the longer, for that that bothe he pro­ueth moste manifestlie the presence (when he affirmeth that Chrstes fleshe in the sacrament is so verilie his true fleshe, as Christe was the true sonne of his father, and ex­cludeth all figures, all signes, all representation, when Christ was in none of these senses his fathers sonne) and also the chāge and alteration of the breade and wine in to the true substāce of Christes fleshe and bloud,It had be­ne in vai­ne to haue brought examples of thin­gest ur­ned in substance, to proue the same in the sacra­ment if there had bene no such chā ­ge there. by alleaging th'examples (which had otherwise bene in vaine) of Mo­ses rodde turned in to a serpēt, the yron flotting aboue the water, the bitternes of the waters of Marath turned into swetenes and such like, with answer to such carnall ob­iections as ar wont to be commonlie made ageinst this truthe: and last of all for that of all other he giueth moste plainelie vnto vs the cause, whie in this greate miracle our lorde god chaungeth not the accidēts but onelie the substance. By all which thinges he giueth vs moste ma­nifestly to vnderstād, that he ment no lesse thē he spake. [Page 77] For otherwise if Christes bodie had not bene trulie the­re but a signe thereof, not in veritie but in imagination, all his proufes to proue the same had bene nedeles, whe­reas he might and for his greate wisdome and learning no doubte would, to all such as either had doubted of the presence or trāsubstantiatiō with much more facilitie ha­ue answered with our aduersaries, that there was no chā ­ge at all in nature or substance, nor no presence there of Christes true bodie: then to haue heaped together a nombre of examples whereof euerie one conteined a true chaunge in nature, to haue proued that which was not: or to haue alleaged the miraculouse conception of Chris­te, or to giue anie cause why his bodie appeareth not like a bodie, wherebie to bring the simple people in to a per­niciouse and damnable errour. But forasmuch as his greate trauailes taken in the defence of Christes church ageinst the wicked Arrians, doe well witnes to his pos­teritie how far he was from all such impietie, we must ne­des conclude that S. Ambrose did not onelie so write but also beleue, that in the blessed sacrament after the wor­des of consecration, is the verie true and naturall bodie of our lorde Iesus Christe, the substance of breade and wine passing into the substance of his fleshe and his bloud.

From S. Ambrose let vs goe one steppe farder to S. Austen.Augustin­an. 400. He in a certeine place examining these wor­des of the Prophete, A dor ate scabellum pedum eius: worship­pe ye his fotestole psalm. 98. hath these wordes. Suscepit enim de terra terram,in psal. 98quia caro de terra est & de carne Mariae carnem accepit. Et quia in ips [...] carne hi [...] ambulauit, & ipsam carnem ad manducandum ad salutem dedit, nemo autem illam [Page] carnē manducat nisi prius adorauerit, inuentū est quēadmodū ado retur tale scabellū, & non solum non peccemus adorādo, sed pecce­mus nō adorādo. That is to saie: for he toke earthe of earthe because fleshe cōmeth of earthe, and of Maries fleshe he toke fleshe. And forasmuch as he walcked here in that fleshe, and hath giuen to vs the same fleshe to be eaten to our saluation, and no man eateth it but he first wor­shippeth it: the meanes is founde how such a fotestole of our lordes maie be worshipped, and we not onelie not sinne in worshipping it, but sinne in not worshipping it. Heare yow M. Iuell S. Austen telling yow that Christes fleshe is here giuen to vs to be eaten,A sinne not to vvorship Christes bodie in the Sacra­ment. the same that he to­ke of the virgin Marie, the same that he caried about with him in this worlde? Heare yow not your selfe van­quished which take from it all manner of worship in the sacrament,Adoratio. and violentlie wrest these wordes of S. Austen to Christes bodie in heauen? which interpreta­tion how far it goeth from the minde of the author to omit all other proufes, your owne selfe haue well decla­red, when you graunte that there he must be worshipped where he is eaten, which seing it is here in earthe, what moued yowe to conclude that therefore he must be worshipped in heauen, trulie I knowe not, but suer I am that the argument holdeth à loco topico: Baculus stat in an­gulo Ergo Christus non est in coelo.

I am lothe here to presse yowe with farder auctorities in this pointe, bothe because I woulde not gladlie stray frō that which I haue in hāde, and also least therebie you might falsely thinke that you had trulie answered the pla­ce allreadie alleaged. And therefore I forbeare to laye to your charge Chrisostomus, who exhorteth in a certcine place [Page 78] of his worckes all Christian men,Homi [...]. 24 in 1. Cor. 10. Christe to be vvorship­ped on the altar. to imitate and folo­we those barbarouse men who worshipped Christe lien­ge in the mangier, in worshipping the same on the al­tar: who telleth yowe and vs all twise in one sentence, that Christes blessed bodie being in heauen is showed vnto vs here in earthe,Ibidem. and that it is Summo honore dignum, worthy the chiefest honour. But although of gentlenes I release yowe of the paines in answering to these places of S. Chrisostome, yeat all the worlde loketh for thus much at youre handes, that yowe shoulde giue some rea­son (for as much as yow so vnderstande the place of S. Austen) whie Christes bodie maie not aswell be worship­ped on the altar as it shoulde in heauen. If yow saie be­cause there it hath annexed to it the diuinitie, doe we separate them on the altar?Hovv Chr [...]ste [...] b [...]die is vvorship­ped in the Sacramēt Or doe we directe our wors­hip to it for anie other cause then for that it hath the deitie inseparably vnited thereunto? wherefore of fine force yowe must confesse, that seing S. Austen hath gra­unted that Christes bodie is receiued of vs here in earthe, and yowe can giue no reason whie it should be rather honored in one place then in an other, that he ment as he spake, of honour to be to be doen thereto, then and there as it is receaued, which is not in heauen but in ear­the. And trulie if there wer no auctoritie therefore, very reason doeth conuince the same. For who is there so fo­lishe or rather starcke madde, that if his prince should doe to him being a pore man that honour, that he would vouchesaufe to visite him in his pore cotage, like a rude beaste without cap or knee would stande staring in his face, and saie that when he meeteth him in his courte, or findeth him in his throne (as though there vnto wer tyed [Page] all his princely power, and that he caried not the same with him whither so euer he went) then he will not faile to doe his dutie to the vttermost. Who would not detest such a lourdaine, that whereas for such exceading greate kindenes of his lorde and king he ought the more to haue honored him, he abuseth now the same as a cause to take all honour from him?

But let vs returne to S. Austen, and of manie testimo­nies that he hath concerning the truthe of this contro­uersie, Psalm. 33. alleage onelie one other. which is there where he expoundeth these wordes of the psalme. Et ferebatur in manibus suis: and he was caried in his owne handes. His wordes ar these. Ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis quan­do commendans ipsum corpus suum ait, Hoc est corpus meum. Fe­rebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis. The wordes (saieth he) of the prophete ar founde to be true, not in Dauid (for how he or anie other could carie him selfe according to the lettre in his owne handes we finde not) but in Christe: for he was caried in his owne handes when cō ­mending his bodie (to his disciples) he saide. This is my bodie. For he caried that body in his handes.

If the diuels ministres will here goe about to persua­de yow good readers, that S. Austen ment not that Chri­ste caried in his hādes his true bodie, but a figure thereof: tell thē that S. Austen excludeth all figuratiue speche in that that he hath, how Christe caried him selfe according to the lettre, and that if he had ment as theie saie he did, it had bene no greate harde thing for either Dauid or anie other, to cary in his handes the figure of him selfe. If they yet presse yow with that that S. Austen vseth the worde quodammodo after a certeine māner: tell them that [Page 79] he mēt not therebie to infirme the truthe which before he had so manifestlie confirmed, but to teache the man­ner to be miraculouse and aboue the reache of reason, and withall to withdrawe vs from such fonde fantasies, as discussing this misterie by the manner of reasoning in other thinges, we might perhappes haue fallen in to. I would here make an ende of alleaging anie more auc­torities for the confirmatiō of this article, wer it not that happelie some man might thincke that I contemned that notable piller of Christes churche in Grece Chri­sostome, if out of him hauing for this controuersie so manie testimonies, as in no one there can, either more in nombre or stronger in proufe be founde: I should not al­so bring to lighte one at the leaste or two. He therefore when he compared together the departure out of this worlde of our sauiour and Helias, Chrisosto­mus. and noted therein this difference, that the one, Helias, lefte behinde him to his disciple his cloke stripping him selfe thereof,Ad populū Antiochen. homil. 2. but Christe the other, left with vs bothe his cloke (for so calleth he there his fleshe) shifting him selfe thereof,Christes cloke his fleshe. and yet ascen­did into heauen and caried the same with him also: wit­nessed not he manifestlie his faithe in this controuersie? If Christ left not his fleshe here behind him, how could he thē haue saide that in that pointe he was like to Heli­as? if yow saie that he left a figure of his fleshe, or a repre­sentation thereof onely, how is it thē true that he left the same behinde him that he caried with him, seing that the scriptures teache vs that the fleshe wherein he ascendid, was no such as Marcion saide suffred on the crosse, and as yow affirme to be in the sacrament, but reall, naturall, and true fleshe? when he complained of the outrage doē [Page] at Constantinople by the meanes of Th [...]ophilus B. of Alexandria, Epist. 1. ad Innocē ­tium pa­pam. where he saide the souldiors rifled the holie places of the churche,Nicephor. lib. 13. cap. 19. and that the moste holie bloude of Christe was shedde and spilt on their garmentes, did not he plainelie witnesse with vs ageinst yow?

Hetherto yow haue harde maister Iuell for one, seuen auncient doctours of the primitiue churche, all within fower of the first six hūdred yeares that you demaunded.

But all this not withstanding you will yet perhappes stand still apon your negatiue and beare the world in hand, that although I haue by diuerse auctorities allea­ged, Tertullian. sufficiently proued that Christes body is present in the sacrament, forasmuch as the auncient fathers haue, one that fleshe fedeth in the sacrament on his body and bloud, an other that we eate the same fleshe, and drinck the same bloud by the which we wer redemed,Oyprianus. that the bread in the sacrament is turned not in fourme or shape but in nature,Athanas. that by a spirituall meanes the same fleshe and bloud is daily made by the handes of the priest apon the altar, that before the consecration there is bread and wyne,Eusebius [...] Ambrosi. that after there is the body and bloud of Christe, with such like: that yet I say for all this I haue proued no thing, because forsooth I haue not vouched your ter­mes, Really, substantially, corporally, carnally, or natu­rally. If yow flee to this bare and miserable shift, then shall yow doe all men to vnderstand that yow ar driuē to an Exigent, when to defend your diuelish doctrine yow ar faine to cauill apō wordes and termes, which also you shall but wrangle about in vaine, the thing it self being most euidently proued, which those termes and wordes could doe no more then signify. Besides that, yow shall [Page 80] well showe your selues to be mu [...]h either more foolishe or maliciouse, then wer those faithelesse Capernaites. Of whome there was yet no one emongest them all, so voide of wit or fraight with malice, who hearing our sa­uiour cōmend to them the eating of his fleshe and drinc­king of his bloud, beleued not streight waies thorough­ly, that he ment as he said, of his true and naturall fleshe and bloud, all wer it so that he neuer mencioned your termes, Really, naturally, substantially corporally, or car­nally.

And truly to say the truthe, I see no cause why yowe might not also if yow listed, renew Marcion his heresie again, and say with him that Christ suffered not in a true but in a fantasticall body, if such pleas on your parte may be allowed, that except certein termes such as yow list to demaunde can be founde, otherwise let the truthe be vttred in wordes neuer so apt or propre, yow will ne­uer graunt theretoe. For the Euangelistes (I pray you M. Iuell) which of them euer told vs in describing Christes death and passion, that his body was nailed on the cros­se, Really, substantially, with the rest of your termes? And will you therefore with Marcion deny that he suf­fred in a trewe body, onlesse we can finde to yow such termes as you demaunde? Or if yow saie that in this ar­ticle of our faithe you make no such demaunde, but that yowe holde your selues fully contented with such wordes as you finde vttred in the scriptures for the ex­pressing thereof: Why then beleue you not as well the veritie of this article, being by Christes owne mouthe first, by the voice of his churche sence in all ages confir­med, as you doe the Euangelistes touching the suffring [Page] of his blessed body? Or why might not Marcion de­nieng Christes body on the crosse then, haue bidden Tertullian and other that stroue against him, proue it by these termes Really, substantially, corporally, carnally, or naturally, aswell as you denieng it nowe on the altar, driue vs to the prouing the presence thereof there by the same? Especially the wordes vttered by the Euangelistes to ascerteine vs of the true suffring of Christes body on the crosse, being no more manifest to that effect then ar the wordes of Christ to the other, that is to giue vs to vnderstand of the true being of the same apon the altar.

Well, yet shall I euen in this point assay to satisfie (if it may be) your deintie and delicat appetite. Although this must I nedes by the way confesse, that the auncient wryters vsed not thiese termes so commonly as the latter ha­ue doen. For in that pure and vnspotted age of the pri­mitiue churche, when no heretike durst once open his mouthe to impugne this veritie, there was not to say the truthe like occasion, as sence Berengarius his time hath bin ministred. Or rather the innocency and parfect sim­plicitie of those dayes, thought it not necessary for them to vse your termes, corporally, carnally with the rest, which had said, the same body that suffred death on the crosse, the same that walcked here on the earth: whereas it might probably be thought, that they whom such wordes should not persuade to yelde in this point to the truthe, would not faile also in such wise to cauill and wrāgle about the other, that had they bene vsed neuer so often, they would yet by one shift or other seme to auoid them, and so cōtinue in their olde heresie still. And this I feare me will hereafter appeare by your doinges, how euer [Page 81] for the time yow dally with your dilatory exceptions, which being brought to wise mēnes scanning be not all worth a blew point, or a rotten rushe. But nowe I come to your termes.

The first, which is, realiter, Really,Really. is a barbarouse word, and therefore of likelihod not to be founde in the learned eloquēt worckes of the auncient fathers. Which thing maketh me to thinck that if in your chalenge M. Iuell, yow ment good faith, yow will not take it in euell parte if for that which cā not be had, I giue you an other as good: I meane for this terme really, the word truly or verely. For in right iudgement they signifie I dout not all one thing. This being presupposed, your chalenge tou­ching this term may be answered by the words of our Sa­uiour, where he entreateth of this most blessed sacramēt, and in expresse wordes taught his disciples, that his flesh which he would giue them and they should eate,Ioan. 6. should be truly meate, and his blood truly drinck. Which if it be so, then is it not by fiction or imagination (as yowe and your companions dreame) but in true, and to speake af­ter your manner in reall existence.

If yow say that the wordes of Christ be here by me racked, and violently wreste [...] to a far other sense then him self had in them: then turne I yow ouer to trye that mat­ter, He liued Anno, dn̄i 371. to Hilarius that worthy Bishop of Poyctiers in Fraunce. Who reasoning ageinst the heresy of Arrius, as I doe now ageinst yours, applieth them after this sort to the same purpose. De naturali in nobis Christi veritate quae dicimus, nisi ab eo discimus, stultè atque impiè dicimus. Ipse enim ait, Caro mea verè estesca, & sanguis meus verè est potus. De veritate carnis & sanguinis, non est relictus ambigendi locus. Nunc enim & ip­sius [Page] domini professione & fide nostra, verè caro est & verè sanguis est. The which wordes in our English tongue sound thus. Of the naturall veritie of Christ in vs what so euer it be that we teache, except we learne it of him we teache bothe foolishly and wickedly. For he saith him self, my flesh is truly meate, and my blood is truly drīck. Of the truthe of his flesh and bloud, there is not any place left to dout. For now both by the testimony of our lord hī self, and by our faith, it is truly his flesh and truly his bloud.

Hetherto Hilarius, by whom in this place may be ga­thered good readers, first that in the primitiue churche, apon these wordes of Christ, my flesh is truly meat, &c. the fathers, and bishops of that age grounded the doctri­ne of Christes true presence in the sacrament, and so consequently that I deserue no blame, who vse this auctori­tie no otherwise, then I finde by good and laufull recordes, that the learned fathers of Christes church haue doen before me: next, that apon this doctrine once set­tled, they buylded an other, that Christ dwelled natural­ly and truly in vs, against the Arrians who denied it: And for so vndouted a truthe was this true and reall presence of Christ taken to be with Hilarius that blessed bishop, that a littell before the place euen now alleaged, to proue that Christ dwelled naturally in vs,Natural­ly. he vsed this argu­ment or reason: The word was truly made flesh in Chri­stes incarnation: we receaue the same word truly made flesh in our lordes foode. Therefore he dwelleth naturally in vs.

To this auncient father,Concilium Ephesinū. [...] Anno do­mini. 433. for the better iustifieng of this terme truly or verely, I shall here adde the auncient councell holden at Ephesus, one of the first 4. generall, [Page 82] and therefore allowed with vs at home for good by act of parliament. The fathers in this councell assembled, to Nestorius, who (as by that councell it may appeare) bele­ued the bread in the sacrament to be so turned in to flesh, as that it should haue no manner of coniunction at all with the godhead, nor be any other thing then the flesh of a pure and holy man, wrote after this sort: that we should thinck that we receiue flesh in the sacrament, non vt hominis, vnius ex nobis, sed vt verè propriam eius factam, qui propter nos filius hominis est factus & vocatus: that is to say, not as the flesh of a man, one such as we ar, but such as was truly made his owne propre flesh, who for our sakes was made and called the sonne of man. Can there be any plainer proufe, to show that Christes flesh is truly present in the sacrament, then this M. Iuell? You can not here shift of this place with Oec [...]lampadius, and say as he most impudently did, that this auctoritie is no part of th'actes of the councell. For if yow so say, the inscription of the epistle (out of the which these wordes ar taken▪) sent by the councell to Nestorius will ouerthrow you, and proue yow bothe liers. The wordes ar these. Religioso, & amabili consacerdoti Nestorio, Cyrillus & quicuque sunt apud Ephesi synodum. To the religiouse, and welbeloued of god our fellow priest Nestorius, Cyrillus and as many as ar gathe­red together at the synode of Ephesus. By the which it ap­peareth that there was in the sending of this epistle common consent, and agrement of them all, which is ynough to sober wyttes, and hone [...]t iudgements to proue, that this epistle is and so ought of all men to be taken, laufull and authentike.

But what labour I to proue by the auncient fathers [Page] this terme verely, or which is all one therewith Really, which in Iohn Caluin him self is to be founde in his cō ­mentaryes apō S. Paules epistles, where he writeth thus: Concludo nobis realiter in coena dari Christi corpus,1. Cor. 11.vt sit animis nostris in cibum salutarem: I conclude (saith he) that in the supper is giuen to vs really the body of Christ, to be to our mindes a wholsom meate.

Thus haue yowe had proued to yowe M. Iuell, that Christes body is in the sacramēt truly, and that we may not so much as doubte thereof, that it is there naturally (for that was Hilarius meaning, when he prooued that Christ dwelled naturally in vs) and last of all as Caluin hath and yow haue hard, really.

Here I feare not a little, least after the manner of chil­dren, that whine and whimper till they haue gotten at their mothers handes some trifling thing such as their childishe appetite listeth after, which so soone as they haue once fingred, they streight way cast in the durt and trāple vnder their feete: You will play the like part with her, that of right ought to be your mother the Catholi­ke church of Christ. And whereas to satisfy your wāton request, not for any necessitie that she knewe you stood in thereof, she showeth you by good and laufull recor­des, and some other, such as your self in times past haue accōpted for sound and worthy credit, where the body of Christ hath bene said to haue bene in the sacrament truly, naturally, and really, and myndeth to doe the like in your other termes demaunded hereafter: I feare me I say, least when yow haue all your asking, yow handel them in such homely manner as was said before, by cas­ting them in to the mire of your distinctions, (as you vse [Page 83] them to subuert the truthe, not durty but poysoned) Symbolice, Sacramentaliter, Spiritualiter, and such other. Which if yow doe, thincking that to such places as ex­pressely mencion that Christes fleshe and bloud is truly present in the sacrament, may be answered that it is the­re truly by a figure, by a signe, Sacramentally or Spiritu­ally: then how euer this seeme to be a childishe guise, yeat will it prooue in the ende an old knauish practise of Valentinus the heretike and his mates, who liued almost fourtien hundred yeares ago. For he and his (as yowe ar not I am suer ignorant) denied that Christ had any true or naturall body, such as mans nature consisteth of, graunting neuerthelesse that he suffred in true fleshe on the crosse, as yow will perhappes (clea [...]ing to your dis­tinctions) not denie that he hath fleshe and bloud truly in the sacrament.Lib. 5. Contrahae­reses Vale [...] tini & a­liorum. Now euen as Irenaeus told them when they so said, Neque enimesset verè sanguinem, & carnem ha­ [...]ens, per quam nos redemit, nisi antiquam plasmationem Adae inse recapitulasset. Christ should not truly haue had bloud and fleshe by the which he redemed vs, onlesse he had renewed in him self the old shape of Adam: so may we tell yow M. Iuell saing that Christes flesh and bloud is truly in the sacrament, but yet in a figure, in a signe onely and spiritually, that then he is not there at all hauing true fleshe and blou [...], the same that the scriptu­res, and fathers say he redemed vs with all, except he be in that old shape of Adam. And thus much of the termes verily or Really, and naturally or by nature.

The next of your termes is, substātially,Substan­tially. after the which manner of being, I prooue Christes body to be present in the sacrament by Irenaeus. Who after many vaine opi­nions [Page] of Valentinus and his compagnions by him reher­sed, as that Christ had a certein fleshe brought with him from heauen, not true or naturall such as oures is, with other like: inferreth thereapon these wordes.Vbi supra. Sic autem se­cundum haec videlicet, nec dominus sanguine suo redemit nos, ne­que panis quem frangimus, communicatio corporis eius est. San­guis enim non est, nisi a venis & carnibus & a reliqua que est se­cundum hominem substantia, that is to say. By this meanes neither did our lord redeeme vs with his bloud, neither the cup of the sacrament is any part of his bloud, nor the bread the cōmunication of his body. For bloud the­re can not be without there be vaines, fleshe, and other substance such as man is made of.

This place of Irenaeus good readers let it not I beseche yow belightly runne ouer. For if any one of the rest prooue all M. Iuelles termes and more then he demaun­deth toe, by flesh and vaines, this is it. For the better vn­derstanding whereof,An absur­ditie in Ire­naeus time to graunt that in [...]he Sacra­mēt vver not such blood as yssueth from vai­nes, or­such fleshe as is of the Sub­stance of mā, such I meane in substance not in maner of being. reteine well the cause that moued this aunciēt father, and learned bishop to write as he did. The cause was the absurde doctrine of them, that taught that Christ had no naturall fleshe such as we haue, against whom he reasoned thus: If he had no true body, of such nature as oures is of, then was not his bloud shed on the crosse, then doe we not eate his fleshe, nor drinck his bloud in the sacrament. For as there could be no bloud shed on the Crosse, so there can be none dronck on the altar, except there be vaines, fleshe, and other substan­ce of man.

Here haue yow proued to yow M. Iuell, that Chris­tes fleshe and bloud is present in the sacramēt, in humain substance, therefore substantially, that there be vaines [Page 74] and fleshe such as bloud vseth to issue furth of,Substanti­ally, Corpo­rally, Car­nally. therefore corporally, carnally, and real [...]y. Of the which wordes of Irenaeus yow may if it please you gather also, that so con­fessed a truthe it was emongest all men in that age, that Christes blessed body was truly present in the sacramēt, yea euen with the heretikes thē selues, that the true suf­fring of the same apon the crosse, was holden for no more certein, and vndouted a truthe. And truly if it had not so bene, a pooer argument had Irenaeus made, to in­duce any man to beleue that Christ had a true naturall body as we haue, because there is fleshe, vaines, bloud, and the very substance of man in the sacrament. Whereas he ageinst whome he should so haue reasoned, might haue bidden him goe proue first the grounde that he toke for the fundation to builde his reason apon, that is that Christ wer present in such sort in the sacramēt, and then to come to him again afterward. But well wist he that the heretikes thē selues could not denie it, and therefore he so reasoned.

After this manner of reasoning disputed Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria ageinst Origen. who was in this er­rour that he thought the bodies should be after their re­surrectiō mortall again, and that after many other yeares passed ouer, they should vanishe away and become no­thing. His wordes ar these:Lib. [...]. Paschal. Nec vanitatem appellamus sub­stantiam corporalem vt ille astimat, alijs verbis in M [...]nichaei scita concidens,Maniche­us taught that Christ had no true but a fantasti­cal body.ne & Christi corpus su [...]iaceat vanitati, cuius aedulio saturati ruminamus quotidieverba dicētis: Nisi quis comederit car nē meā etc. that is: neither doe we call corporall substāce va­nitie, as he thincketh, (Origē he meaneth) falling thereby although in other wordes in to Manichaeus doctrine, lest [Page] by that meanes Christes body might be subiect to vanitie with the foode whereof being filled, we chewe daily the wordes of Christ saing except yow eate my fleshe &c. What had here Theophilus ment to obiect to Origen, that by this opinion of his it would follow, that Christes bo­dy which we receiue and eate in the sacrament, should vanish away and become vaine, if it had bene there not in substance, but in a figure or baresigne? If he had not bene there corporally; and substātially, to what purpose (seing he spake of corporall substance) mencyoned he his body in the sacrament, and not rather the same be­ing in heauen, which no heretike could haue denied? Truly we can no lesse doe but thinck, that both for his greate learning and wisdom he would so haue doen, had he not bene fully persuaded that the same body which is in heauen is in the same substance, the same truthe of nature, and in the same moment in the blessed sacrament of the altar.

Eusebius Emissenus when he taught the people that the visible creatures of breade,Homil. 5. de paschate and wyne ar turned in to the substance of Christes body and bloud said he not that Christes body is in the sacrament substantially? Or Chrisostome, when he taught the people, Quēadmodum si caeraigni adhibita illi assimilatur,Homil in Encenijs.nihil substātiae remanet, nihil superfluit: Sic & hic puta mysteria consumi corporis substantia. Euen as wax if it be cast in to the fier,The mis­teries he calleth the bread and vvine becommeth like to the fier, nothing of the substance remaineth nothing abundeth: euen so thinck that here (in the sacrament) the misteries ar consumed with the substance of Christes body: was his meaning thinck we any other?

I passe ouer here the testimonies for this matter that [Page 85] [...]ight be brought out of the workes of that noble bishop Cirillus Bishop of Alexandri [...]: In Io [...]. lib. 10. cap. 13. Lib. 11. cap. 27. who in sundry places there of absteineth not from thiese termes, corporaliter, substan­tialiter, carnaliter, corporally, substantially, carnally, and diuerse other, because I hope these which allready haue bene alleaged shalbe sufficient. Or if this suffise not, then beseche I you M. Iuell and your companions to drawe vs out in writing a forme of wordes to proue that Christes bodye and bloud ar present int the sacrament:A reasonable re­quest to M. Iuell and his fellovves. such as your selues will promise if we be hable to proue by the scriptures, fathers or councels, to stand to simply, without adding thereto gloses, distinctions or inter­pretacions.

When I minded here to haue knyt vp this knot, be­hold it cam to my remembraunce, that I had yet answe­red nothing to the foolishe, and vnsauory reasons of your aduocat (who so euer he be) who more stoutely then wysely, beareth out euen to the hard hedge, this diuelish doctrine of yours. First forsooth he beareth vs in hand, that Christ when he sayed. This is my body, the same which shalbe betrayed for yow, ment not that we should receaue his very true naturall and fleshly body, but vsing a figure called Metonymia, gaue the name of his bodie to the signe, that is to the breade. And this interpretation he saith maie be proued by a nombre of examples out of the canonicall scriptures, as in one place where circuncision was called a couenaūt, being in deede but a signe and testimonie thereof, in an other the paschall lambe called the passeouer, Christe him selfe a vine, a rocke, with suche like.

But here note I beseche you good readers, what a strā ge [Page] kinde of reasoning this is. In the scriptures is vsed a fi­guratiue kinde of speche in one, two, three, fower, or mo places. Ergo Christ in that place where he instituted the sacrament is to be vnderstād by a figure. Or thus: the scriptures speake figuratiuelie in some places. Ergo in all, and no where otherwise. This kinde of Sophistication in arguing, is the olde shift of the wicked Arrians, who like as this man taketh awaie now from the blessed sacrament the verie bodie and blood of Christe, by expounding his plaine wordes by a figure, vnder colour of some other places where such allegories must nedes haue place, and wer no otherwise to be taken: so did they take from Christes blessed parson his omnipotent godhead, and would not graunte him to be equall with almightie god his father, but the plaine textes of scripture which proued his god­head they expounded wrong and frowardlie, not onelie by some other textes that semed to saie otherwise, but al­so as this man doeth now, by some allegories, affirming that he was called god,Exod. 7. and the sonne of god in the scrip­ture, by such māner of speaking as the scripture for some propertie calleth certeine other personnes goddes, and gods sonnes in other places: as where god saide to Moses I shall make the Pharao his god,Exod. 22. and in an other place. Thowe shalt not backbite or sclaunder thy goddes. And where he hath, I haue saide that yowe be goddes, and the sonnes of the highe god all of yowe.Psalm. 81. But surelie if this māner of reasoning maie be allowed for good, that becau­se of allegories vsed in some places, euerie man maie at his pleasure drawe euerie place to a figure, we shall shortlie bring the scripture from a faire flat figure I feare me, to a sorie simple cypher. Yea saith he, if we had not these ex­amples [Page 86] with a greate nombre mo in the holie scripture to iustifie our manner of interpretation, yeat the verie wordes which the spirite of god by singulier prouiden­ce hath vsed in the Euangelist and S. Paule, doe leade vs vnto this sence rather then vnto that that yow haue de­uised. For in the second parte of the sacrament whereas Mathewe and Marc saie. This is my blood of the newe testament: that Luke and Paule vtter in this māner. This is the newe testament in my blood. Which can not be o­therwise vnderstand, but that the sacrament is a testimo­nie or pledge of his last will, and gift of our saluation confirmed by his moste pretiouse blood. Wherefore if yow saie neuer so often times with Mathew and Marc This is my bodie: This is my blood. We will repete as of­ten with Luke and Paule who wer ledde with the same spirite. This is the newe testamēt in my bodie, and blood.

Hetherto haue reached the wordes of your frende M. Iuell. Who if he repete neuer so often the wordes of Lu­ke and Paule, shall spende but his winde in wast, and gaine when all is doē not so much as one ynche, towardes the furderance of his and your heresie in this pointe.The scripture belied by the he­retike. For if he repete their sainges trulie, theie varie in wordes from the other two, but in the second parte of the sacrament, and saie but onelie: This is the newe testament in my blood▪ and then can he no [...] wot ye well as here he false­lie doth, repete (which theie neuer saide) This is the ne­we testament in my bodie and blood, and so adde to the holie scripture the worde, [...]odie. And then the case stan­ding thus, that all fower agree in the first parte of this sacrament and call it Christes bodie, and two in the later calling it his bloud, and all, so far as no one denieth it to [Page] be his blood: a man maie aske of your frende, whie he should rather sucke out a figure in those wordes of the first parte which all fower agree apon, onelie because in the second parte two doe speake figuratiuelie, then so to interprete that figuratiue speche of those two vsed in the cup, as to giue place to the literall sense by two in the second parte and all in the first, so firmelie and by so full consent agreed and arrested apon.

But of this he (as it semeth) him selfe being notigno­rant, if the matter should be by him left thus rawe, that there is no man so euell aduised but he had rather vnder stand two by fower, then so manie by two: he laboureth merueilouslie to proue, that the olde writers haue so vn­derstande those wordes of Christe as he dothe.

To be shorte we denie not nor euer did, that the olde fathers haue some times apon considerations called this sacrament a figure, a signe, a similitude, an example: but neuer in that sense we saie, to take awaie the veritie of his blessed bodie therein. For as it wer but a homelie pe­ce of logick to saie that Christe wer no true man, becau­se S. Paule saith that he was made in similitudinem hominū, Philipp. Cap. 2. after the likenesse of men (as by occasion of that text and other, Marcion and Appolinaris the heretikes did as wit­nesse Tertullian and S. Ambrose): lib. 5. con­tra Marciō cap. penult. Epist. 47. or to reason that he wer not of the same substance with god his father and very god him selfe, with Arrius and his mates, because the same S. Paule calleth him the image of god and figu­re of his fathers subtance:Colloss. 1. Hebre. 1. so truly to reason in the sa­crament, that because it is called a figure, a similitude, a representation, that therefore it is not his true body is an argumēt most false and faulty. And all were it so that we [Page 87] had not these places of the scripture and the fathers mā ­ner of speaking and manie other,Hovv the sacramen [...] is called a figure of Christe [...] bod [...]e. which plainelie teache vs that the selfe same thing maie be a figure of it selfe (as the bodie of Christe in the sacramēt inuisiblie offred on the altar, is a figure of the same visiblie offred on the cros­se): yet of fine force (excepte we woulde discredite a greate parte of the auncient writers as though they had written contrarie to them selues) should we haue bene driuen to haue founde out this answer. Seing of them all that call it in one place a figure, it will be harde to bring furth anie that calleth it not in diuerse other the veritie and thing it selfe.

As for his similitude fetched frō the courte, well maie it be fine and he please him selfe therewith: but other men I suppose such as haue more learned then deintie eares, he should haue pleased a greate deale better, if al­though in sluttishe eloquence, yet plainelie and trulie he had vttred better sense. For I for my parte, (and therein I thinck I maie be bolde to measure other by my selfe) had rather drincke a cup of holsom beere in a sluttishe cup, then a draught of poisoned wine in a fine golden goblet. But I praie yow (for yow I am suer knowe him) when yow happen apon him nexte, aske of him how he is able to proue the like change in the parchement of his lettres patentes, as hath bene proued to be in the breade and wine in the sacrament. It hath bene showed oute of the holie martir S. Ciprian, that this breade is changed not in the outewarde shape but in the inwarde nature, that by that change it is made fleshe. It hath bene proued by Eusebius Emissenus and holy S. Ambrose, that before the wordes of consecration, there is the substance [Page] of bread and wine, but after those wordes the bodie and blood of Christe. The same hath bene sufficientlie pro­ued by diuerse other. Let him now if he can, finde one o­ther so verie a dizzard as him selfe, that will saie the na­ture of the parchement of his lettres patentes, to be chā ­ged in to earthe, grasse, wood, waters, worthe by the yeare a thousand pounde.

If there had bene no other change in this breade but that it is nowe as he saithe made of common and prop­hane, holie and consecrate, neuer woulde Chrisostom haue exhorted vs to worshippe that bodie on the altar,Homil. 24 in. 1. Cor. 10. which the wise men worshipped in the mangier:Christes body vvorship­ped in earthe not in heauen onely M. Iuell. neuer woulde S. Austen haue saide that theie sinne which wor­shippe it not.

By this maie it appeare, that your friende is he M. Iuell that hath plaide the lourdeine with his maister, and therefore well worthie the whip. For where he had pro­uided for his geastes a moste preciouse and costlie feaste, this honest companion stealeth all awaie,In psalm. [...]8. and leaueth them in stede thereof a bare piece of bred. And thus much to satisfie your chalenge in this pointe. Now to the next article which is of the vse of the Sacra­ment vnder one kinde.

EVen as in the controuersie of the popes supremacy yow denie M. Iuell, that the­re ought to be any other heade ouer the churche here militant in earthe then Christ him selfe, which is the chief, not as though yow knewe not right well that gouernement for the appeasing of schismes and repressing of heresies to be the best: or as though if your god Iohn Caluin had had that auctoritie ouer all the worlde wer it twise as lar­ge againe as it is, you would haue founde any faulte the­rewithall, and not haue thought him able to rule the sa­me well ynough, but onely of a cancred hatred that you beare to the Catholike churche sometimes your mo­ther, a vaine pleasure that yow take to thwart her in her doinges, and last of all because that gouernement serueth not your turn: as yow finde faulte with priuate masses, not as though yow alowed any, but onely to banishe frō the fathers sight if it might be the laufull enheritor, and to set vp the misbegotten bastard, to abolishe and vtterly extinguishe the sacrifice of the newe testament, which that crafty wily serpent forsawe so long before, if he wer once able to quenche that burning charitie and ear­nest desire of often receauing the blessed body and bloud [Page] of Christ, which then was so commonly emongest chri­stian men in vse, and he alas hath nowe obteined, he should in time to come by his wicked membres be with the more ease able to bring to passe: euen so in this pre­sent controuersy fareth it with your doinges. When all the worlde maie see, that you which charge vs so hotely with no lesse then that greate and heinouse crime of sa­crilege, as of robbing the laie people of Christes bloud in the communion (which is notwithstanding an impu­dent lie) robbe not onely them but the cleargy also (ex­cept yow had rather call it by an honester name of ex­chaunge) bothe of Christes body and bloud toe. The which thing leauing to the indifferent reader by him at his laisure more earnestly to be weighed, I shal nowe proue vnto yow that within the first six hundred yeares after Christe, the sacrament of the altar was ministred vnder one kinde.

But here I must warne yowe of this one thing before hande, that I meane in this article and the nexte to giue yow but onely a taste of oure proufes, not a full bytte as in the two first I haue. Which I praye you not to impute to want either of matter or good will, but onely to this, that when I was thus far entred in this simple treatise it was giuen me by a frinde to vnderstande, that aswell in this point as in all the reast by yow chalenged, yow haue of late by a notable learned man bene so applied with stoare of wholesome viandes, that the wiser [...]orte take yow to be rather in such termes, as yow care more how to digest that which yow haue allready receiued, then that yow once thincke of crauing any more. Beare with me therefore if I beare with your weake stomacke. No­we [Page 89] to the matter.

Yow saye that to ministre the communion to the lai­tie vnder one kinde is an acte vnlaufull, cōtrary to Chris­tes ordinaunce, and a thing in the primitiue churche ne­uer vsed or harde of. But for proufe of the cōtrarie I rea­son thus. Christ our sauiour ministred this sacrament vnder the onely kinde of breade: his apostles practised the vse thereof after the same māner: The churche receuing it from them hath continued the same vsage. Therefore it is laufull which we defende and blamed of our aduer­saries without cause.

That Christ first ministred this sacrament vnder one kynde,Christ mi­nistred the sacra­ment vn­der one kinde. it appeareth by the historie of the ghospel, where is mencioned howe that oure sauiour in the waye betwe­ne Hierusalem and Emaus, happening apon two of his disciples entred with them in to a certeine house,Luc. 24. where he ministred to them the sacrament vnder that one kin­de of breade. That this was the sacrament and not com­mon breade, these wordes of the euangelist: Benedixit ac fregit & porrigebat illis, he blessed it, he brake it, and he deli­uered it to them, doe well proue. Seing that those wordes he blessed and brake it, ar in no place of the scripture to be founde, applied by Christ or his apostles to prophane or common breade: nexte for that the effect wrought by that breade, that was the opening of their eyes, doeth gi­ue vs also to vnderstande that it was his blessed body and no other thing.

To these reasons, I maye here adde the auctoritie of S. Austen, Chrisostome, Beda and Theophilactus, all fower a­greing that this was the blessed sacrament, and not as the aduersaries woulde haue it common or prophane breade. [Page] S. Austens wordes ar these:Lib. 3. de consens. Euangelist. Cap. 25. Non autem incongruen [...]er accipi­mus hoc impedimentū in oculis eorū a Satana fuisse factum. &c. that is to saye: We doe not verilie take it amisse to thinc­ke that this miste was cast before their eyes by Sathan that they should not knowe Iesus, but yeat euen suffred by Christ so to doe, vntill they had receiued the sacra­ment of breade, that being thereby made partakers of the vnitie of his body, the lette or impediment of the enemie the diuell being remoued and taken awaye, they might knowe Christ.

Hetherto S. Austen, with whome speaking incidently of this breade, the vertue and holinesse thereof, agreeth that learned bishop Chrisostom, in an homely that he writeth apon the .7. chapitre of S. Mathewe in this wise.Homil. 17. Si aūt tale esset quod de manu sacerdotis accipitur, quale est quod in mensa manducatur. &c. If it wer such which is receiued at the priestes handes, as the breade which is eaten at the table, euery man would receiue it from the table, and no man at the priestes handes. Therefore oure lorde by the waye did not onely blesse the breade, but he gaue it also from his owne handes to Cleophas and his companion. And Paule as he sayled, did not onely blesse the breade, but he deliuered it also to Luke and the other disciples. And within a fewe wordes after he addeth. This breade is holinesse it selfe and maketh holy the receiuor therof.

By the testimonie of thiese twoo notable pillers of the Grieke and Latine churche it appeareth, how this histo­rie of the ghospell is to be vnderstande, not of common breade but of the blessed sacrament, and so withall that Christ the author of this sacrament ministred the same vnder one kinde, which our aduersaries so stoutely denie, [Page 90] and yow especially emongest the rest with termes moste odiouse, ageinst the whole councell of Constance M. Iuell.

That th' apostles did the like, and practised the same in such wise as Christe their maister did before, thereof if there be any mā that doubteth, him sende I to S. Luke: in whome he shall finde that as many as receiued the apost­les doctrine,Act. [...]. Eran [...] perseuerātes in doctrina apost [...]lorū & cōmu­nicatione fractionis panis & orationibus: wer cōtinuing in the doctrine of the apostles, the communion of breaking of breade and praiers. In which wordes you can vnderstāde M. Iuell no other breade then the sacramentall breade, if yow pondre reuerently the text. For truly the writer of that historie, making there mention of such spirituall ex­ercises as the faithefull spen [...] their time in, it is not likely that betwene the doctrine of the apostles which he re­membred in the first place, and their paiers which he pla­ced in the last, he woulde euer haue couched the brea­king of prophane breade in the middest.Act. 20. Of this breaking of breade haue we also mention in an other place where it is sayde. Vna autem sabba [...]i cùm conuenissemus ad frangen­dum panem. The morow after the Saboth day when we came together to breake breade.

What remaineth now M. Iuell, seing that the scriptu­res beare so manifestly wit [...]esse of the communion mi­nistred first by Christ, and after by his apostles vnder the kinde of breade, but that either yow yealde and ioyne with vs, or flee to youre olde and last refuge the help of some fauorable figure, as before yow Melanchton being sore pressed with these auctorities was forced to doe. This figure for soothe is yow saye Syne [...]doche, by which S. Lu­ke [Page] would by naming the one parte of this sacrament, sig­nifie the whole. But truly, whereas euen in them that take in hande to write prophane histories, such figures ar nothing commendable, where the truthe ought wholly and truly without concealing or dissembling any parte thereof to be expressed, but that the same lawe ought of all other especially in holy histories, and those that cōteine the actes and doinges of Christe hym selfe, inuiolably to be obserued, there is no man I thincke that douteth. And yeat of all other if any of the Euangelistes would so haue written, of them all S. Luke was moste vnlikely, as the man who by the common veredict of the learned, was not of his wordes scarse or pinching, but plentifull and liberall. Or if he woulde nedes vse figures where was no nede, yeat ought euery good man to thincke that the holy ghost the director of his penne (to whome being god and hauing all thinges present before his eyes, this troubelouse hurliburly that should afterwardes happē in the churche aboute the receauing of this sacramēt either in one kinde alone or bothe together coulde not be vnknowen): would so haue prouided, that so little a wor­de whereby so greate troubles might be raised, should not by any figure in this place, in this high mysterie, in this pretiouse iewell, where all thinges ought most perspi­cuously to be expressed, haue bene omitted. And thus much touching the apostles ministring of this sacra­ment.

Now that the churche long after the apostles con­tinued the same manner,Laica com­munio. what better proufe can yow haue, then maye be deduced from that worde so well knowen to the fathers, so frequent and common in the [Page 91] olde generall councelles,Lib. 4. epist. [...]. Laica communio, the laye mans communion? Of this communion of the laye men ma­keth mention the blessed martyr S. Cyprian in an epistle written by him to Antonianus, where he telleth of one Trophimus that hauing bene a bishop and an heretike, was then returned from his heresies and become a ca­tholike, and receiued thereapon by him in to the chur­che and admitted also to the communion, but so that he shoulde communicate vt laicus non vt sacerdos, as the laye man vseth to doe not as the priest.Ca [...]. 2. Of this communion reade we,Can. 50. first in the councell holden at Sardica vnder Iulius then pope, aboue 12. hundred yeares sence, next in the coūcell kept at Agatha in Fraunce in the yeare of our lorde. 430. and in diuerse other which might be here alleaged.

What can we here thincke M. Iuell, but that there was a difference in the laye mannes cōmunion and the prie­stes? And what other difference can yow giue then this, that the one receiued bothe the kindes the other but one? For of all other it is moste ridiculouse, that for answere hereunto you ar wont to alleage, that the priestes vsed to receiue the sacramēt in a place of the churche appointed therefore by them selues alone, and the laytie in some other place a parte also, and that hereof rose the worde Laica communio. For admitting this to be true, how doeth yet the place make a difference in the communion? Be­twene his dinner that sitteth at the vpper ende of a table and his that is placed at the neither, if there be the same meates, like courses of seruice, semblable arte of cookery, can yow put any differēce. Beside this, the auncient coun­cell of Sardica maketh in such wise mention of the laye [Page] mannes communion, that the wordes will in no wise ad­mit your wrangling interpretation. For there in the se­conde canon is it decreed ageinst such bishoppes as cha­unging their bishoprikes be translated to other, that they shalbe excluded from euer receiuing the communion, ita vt nec Laicam in fine communionem talis accipiat, so exclu­ded, that such a one shall not be admitted so much as to the laye mannes communion, no not in the ende of his life, not at the houre of his deathe.

Thus haue we here plaine euidēce, that the laye man­nes communion is not to be vnderstande of difference of places in the churche: whereas the canō of this coun­cell hath, that at the houre of his deathe he shall not be admitted thereunto. At which time euery man will I suppose, thincke him to be at home in his chambre, not out of his house at the churche.

After this sorte appeareth it by S. Austen that his mo­ther Monica receiued this sacrament.Lib. 9. Confess. When as he saieth, being on witsonday refresshed with that breade that ca­me downe from heauen, she continued by the space of a whole daie and a night without all corporall foode.

Thus much semed he also to signifie to vs in an other place,Epist. 180 where he hath these wordes. Si autē ministri adsint, pro viribus quas eis dominus subministrat omnibus subuenitur: alij baptizātur, alij recōciliantur, nulli dominici corporis cōmuni one fraudantur. that is to sai. If the ministres be present, ac­cording to the strength that god hath giuen thē all men ar holpen: some ar baptised, other some ar recōciled, no­ne ar deceiued of the communion of our lordes body.

Much more might here be saide touching this point wer it not that I am lothe to trouble yow with the oftē [Page 92] repeating thereof, that I feare me you ar sory to haue hard so much as once. And therefore if this sati [...]fie you not, for the rest I remitte you to that learned worcke of late sette furth at Lo [...]ain [...], wherein you haue I doubte not allready for this matter founde, such stoare of testimonies, such weight of auctorities, as in your owne iudgement yow maie haue cause to thincke, t [...]at yow holde by the worst ende of the staffe. Your obiections also ageinst the ca­tholike faithe in this article, because they arre there with like dexteritie answered and soluted, I here passe ouer in silence. One I excepte emongest the rest, which because yow mencioned it not in your sermon (where vnto the author without wandring any farder kept him selfe) he also in his booke speaketh not of.Theophil. Alexandr. alleage [...] by M. Iuell. The place that yow bring ageinst vs, is yow say out of Theophilus Alexandri­nus, and is alleaged by yow without cotation after this sorte. Si Christus mortuus fuisset pro diabolo non negaretur illi poculum sanguinis. If Christe had died for the diuell the cup of the bloud should not haue bene denied him.

Here M. Iuell good faithe and true dealing woulde, that yow shoulde haue coted to vs this place. But I feare me it will so fall oute in the ende, that in all Theophilus worckes there shall no such place be founde. True it is that these wordes we finde in him. Si enim & pro demoni­bus crucifigitur vt nouorum dogmatum assertor affirmat, quod erit priuilegium, aut que ratio vt soli homines corporieius sangui­nique cōmunicent, & non demones quoque pro quibus in passione sanguinem suum [...]? That is to say: for if Christ wer crucified (as this [...] of newe doctrine affirmeth) for the diuelles also, what priuileage haue men or what rea­son shoulde there be, why they onelie should be parta­kers [Page] of his body and bloud, and not the diuelles also for whome in his passion he should haue shed his bloud? If this be the place that you meane, why alleage you it so falsely, and corrupte bothe th'authors wordes and minde? If this be not it, then showe vs where we shall finde it. which if yow coulde doe then shoulde yow be answered in this wise: that in Theophilus time the vse of this sacra­mēt was indifferent, to be receiued (as the deuotiō of the receiuor thereof serued him) either vnder bothe the kin­des or one alone, as a thing by Christ so left, and the li­bertie whereof the church directed by the holy ghost, had not as then in any wise restreined. So that at those daies the prieste had doen him opē wrong, to whome desiring bothe the kindes he woulde haue giuen but onely one: yea if it had bene the diuell that he had denied it to, if Christ had died for the diuell.

But now I praie yow applie this testimony to the pre­sent state of the churche which nowe is, and you shall see how handsomly it fitteth yow? Theophilus Alexan­drinus when the churche had as yet not restreined the vse of this sacrament touching the laie people to one kinde, was of the minde that in this case to denie to the diuell (if Christe had died for him) the cup, had bene a disordre: Therefore now that the churche hath decreed that they shall communicate vnder onely one, he is also of the same minde. Thus must yow reason if yow deale truly, which if you doe, how little this place maketh for your purpose a meane wit wilbe easely able to iudge.

Thus much touching this present controuersy: nowe to the next which is (as by our aduersaries it is termed) of priuate Masse.

OVr lorde be thancked therefore, truthe which well may be for the tyme pressed, but neuer shalbe vanquished, hath at the length with much a doe gottē of her ene­mies maugre their heades, the confession of that which hetherto they haue all so stoutely denyed. For now relinquishing and geuing ouer their olde plea, that the Masse is a new inuention, the name strange, and to the auncient doctours vnknowē, they flee to an other shyft (as here by their common proctour M. Iuell, yowe may good readers perceiue) and saye, that there was no priuate Masse in all the whole world,In His sermon folio. 35. for the space of six hundred yeares or more after the apostles time.

Here M. Iuell, forasmuch as this terme, priuate, which by reason of the equiuocation that it hath, might haue brought vs into some doubte how yow had vnderstand it, is by yow expounded in diuerse places of your sermō, to be taken for the priestes sole, or alone receiuing of the [...]acrament without company, and so as yowe take it, as this worde priuate is contrary to publike, or common to many: And yowe herein stick not scrupulously in the o­ther significations thereof, as some of your fellowes doe, that is, that that Masse is no lesse priuate which is saide [Page] in priuate mennes houses out of the church, or which is done especially for some one man or woman,Cap. 32. Lib. 8. but seeme honestly to confesse, that S. Austen mencioneth these two kinde of masses: the first in his bookes de ciuitate Dei, where he reporteth that a pri [...]st of his diocesse saide Masse in a ferme or house of the countrye troubled with euell sprites,Euel Sprites and heretikes hate the Masse alike. who immediatly thereapon (none otherwise thē do the heretikes of our time) auoyded the place, and we­re no more hard of. Where we might also stande apon this till the contrary were proued, that the priest receiued then alone. For by the place it appeareth not of any that receiued with him. The second, in his bookes of confes­sions. Where he telleth vs that he offred for his mother after her deceasse,Lib. 9. Cap. 12. sacrificiū praetijnostri, the sacrifice of our raunsome. Forasmuch I saie as yow seme not to pitche in these last pointes, I shall assaye to satisfie yow in the first, and then after to answere such obiections as you make for the fortifieng of your parte.

Yow saie that within the first six hundred yeares af­ter the apostles and more, there was no Masse saide in the churche, vnlesse there were some that did receiue with the priest. Against this I reason thus. Chrysostome liued within the space of fower hundred yeares after the apostles time; but Chrysostome and the priestes in his ti­me sayd Masse when none did communicate, ergo to you M. Iuell, within the first six hundred yeares after th'apos­tles time, there was priuate masse in the church although there wer none to receiue with the priest. That this lear­ned doctour with other priestes saide Masse when none did communicate, (for that I am suer yow will denie) by this cōplaint of his vttred in these wordes, it may moste [Page 94] euidently appeare.Ho [...]il. 3. in epist. [...] Ephes. Frustra [...]betur quotidiana obla [...]io, frustra [...] ad altare. Nemo est qui communicat. th [...] daily offering is had in vaine: we stand at th'altar in vaine. There is no­ne that receiueth with vs. Yf there wer daily oblation, yea when none receiued, why beare yow vs in hand M. Iuell th [...]t for that long space of six hundred yeares, the priest might neuer offer the same without company to cōmunicate with him? Yf that were true, how did Chri­sostome and the other priestes of Antioche offer yt, and that daily (that yow may vnderstand a necessitie that en­forced them thereto) whether the people came or no? Yf they receiued not them selues, how could he haue said that there was none that did receiue with them?

But here yow will aske me perhapps,The true meaning of Chri­sostomes place. how I dare allea­ge this place, which saieth that the oblation was had in vaine because there was none to communicate. To this I answere (that being first taken for graunted which in no wise you can denie, that is, that daily this oblatiō was had whether any came or no) that this holy doctour in this place is not to be vnderstand, as though simply he ment the oblation to be in vaine, but in a respect, forasmuch as they came not who wer loked for to haue byn partakers thereof, concerning this expectation it was had in vaine, and the priestes stode in their churches not at the table, but at the altar in vaine. A [...]d that this was the very▪ mea­ning of Chrisostomes wordes, and not as you fal [...]lie sur­mise, there nedeth no other reason to perswade any rea­sonable man, then the learning, the vertue, and great wisedom [...] of the man him selfe. For if the sacrifice had byn offered by him in vaine, so often as there was none to be partaker thereof with him, what a heynouse act had [Page] this bene of him, especially stāding at liberty without any more necessitie to offer, thē the laie man hath to receiue, if it were true that yow and your compani affirme? Shall we not rather thinck if he had so ment, that he would vtterly haue absteined, before he would by celebrating and receiuing, practise the abuse of so preciouse a iewell? Woulde he not rather when he came to the altar, haue sent the people awaie with a drie communion, when he sawe none redie to receiue? Would he not at the least ha­ue bene as circumspect in procuring warning to be giuen to him by them that were disposed to receiue, (if offering without communicants he should haue offered in vaine) as yow and yours, our new Rabbins, ar about your apis­he communion? No, no, Let no man thinck but that he was well ware, that to offer the bodie and bloud of Christ in vaine, had bin a fault nothing inferior to the receiuing of it vnworthily, whereūto he was not ignorāt that S. Paule threateneth damnation. If he would giue his owne life as he saide him selfe, [...]. Corin. 11. before he would gi­ue our lordes bodie to an vnworthy man,Homil. 83. In Math. and that he would haue his blood shedd out of his bodie, rather then he would giue to the vnworthy oure lordes blood, we may easely coniecture how hardlie he would haue bin brought to haue offred the same in vaine.

To this testimony of Chrisostom shall I adde one more, and so after come to those obiections which yow bring for the maintenaunce of the contrary. Leontius a bishop of the Grieke church, writing almost a thousand yeares sence the life of that vertuouse Patriarke of Alex­andria, Iohn the almoisner or almoise geuer (for that na­me obteined he for his charitie towardes the pooer) re­porteth [Page 95] emongest other thinges of him, how that he be­ing on a certeine time at Masse, perceiuing after the rea­ding of the ghospell, that the people went out of the churche and fell to talking and babbling in the churche­yarde: went also out of the churche after them and spake to them being all amased in this wise. Filioli vbi oues illic & pastor: aut intrate intro & ingrediemur: aut manete hic, & ego quo que manebo. Ego propter vos descendo in sanctā ecclesiam, nam poteram facere mihi Missam in Episcopio. Children (that is to say) where the shepe ar there is the shepherde: either therefore get yow into the churche and we will goe to gether: or bide yow still here and I will tarie with yow. It is for your sakes that I come to the holy churche, for to my selfe coulde I haue saide Masse in my house at home.

Here I trust you will at the length yealde and graunte M. Iuell, that priuate Masses wer laufull and in vse in the primitiue churche. For first that the Masse here spoken of was priuate, the worde mihi missam facere, say or ce [...]ebra­te Masse to my selfe, doeth well declare. He saide not I might say Masse to my frindes, to my kinsfolckes, to my household seruauntes but mihi, to mine owne selfe. And when you heare him s [...]ie that he might doe it, I trust yow thincke it was not vnlaufull. But now I come to your obiections ageinst the priestes sole or alone recea­uing of the sacrament.

After yow haue taken your pleasure in triumphing ouer oure pouertie (as yow thinck) yow bring furth your store.M. Iuelles proufes against Priuate Masse ex­amined. And because yow will make the matter sure and out of all doubte, yow vse our owne friend as a witnesse against vs, the Masse booke forsothe. where yow saie the [Page] priest according to the direction of that booke, turning him self to the people, saith: Dominus vobiscum, item, Ore­mus. Orate pro me fratres & sorores, what then M. Iuell? Ergo what so euer prai [...]rs be vsed about the ministraciō of the sacrament ought to be the cōmon requestes of all the people? What inferre yow hereapon? Ergo the priest maie not saie Masse without he haue some to commu­nicate with him. That ergo is false M. Iuell, and not trulie deduced out of the premisses. But I crie yow mer­cy this is yow saie but by the waie, before yow entre in­to the matter. Here yow did but dribb and flurt: your o­ther arrowes taken oute of the same quiuer. Accipite, edite. Habete vinculum charitatis, vt apti sitis sacrosanctis misteri [...]s, that is, take, eate: haue ye the band of charitie, that ye maie be mete for the holie misteries. And last of all o­ther, those wordes that ar spoken by the priest after the Agnus dei, Haec sacrosancta commixtio &c. This holie com­mixtion and consecration of the bodie and blood of our lorde Iesus Christ, be vnto yow and to all that receiue it health of bodie and soule: these ar they that paye ho­me, and cleaue as a man would saie the verie face of the white.

I shall now rehearse first your wordes, as in your sermon printed they ar to be sene, that all men maie vnderstand how handsomely my L. of Salesburie can plaie hi [...]k scornersparte: and then after shape thereto such an an­swere, as I trust shall to all reasonable men be sufficient. Moreouer the priest by the masse booke is taught to saie,Iuell. acci­pite, edite. Take ye, eate ye. and habete vinculum charitatis &c. that is, Haue ye the band of charitie that ye maie be mete for the ho [...]e misteries. And to vvhome shall vve thinke the priest spea­keth these vvordes? It vver a vaine thing for him in the open congregation to speake to him selfe, and specially in the plurall [Page 96] numbre: yet vver it a greate deale more vaine for him to spea­ke the same vvordes to the bread and vvine, and to saie to them: Take ye, eate ye, or haue ye the band of charitie, that ye may be me [...]e for the holie misteries. Therefore it is euident that these vvordes should be spoken to the people.

I haue good hope M. Iuell, bothe by these testi­monies alleaged out of the Masse booke so far from the purpose, and also by your chalenge wherein yowe promise being ouercome to yelde, that yowe will at the length doe as honest soldiours pressed against their mindes to serue in an euell cause ar wont to doe, that is, when it commeth to the push, either cast awaie their weapons, and suffer them selues to be taken, or keping them in their handes fight verie weaklie. For suerlie M. Iuell if this be not your meaning (beare with me if I tell yow as the truthe is and as I beleue) it must nedes be a greate deale worse, and such as declareth inuinciblie to the worlde your cankred stomack, and maliciouse minde towardes your mother the catholike church. For standing the case so, as yow meane nothing lesse, then that good which I conceiue of yow: what true dealing is this of youres (to proue that no Masse maie be saide without there be company to receiue with the priest) to alleage these wordes, Take, eate, as spoken by the priest) to the people? Whereas your owne consci­ence, if yow haue any, telleth yow I dare saie, that they ar a parte of other wordes going before, cutt by you from the rest to serue your scoffing spirit: and that they ar not, nor euer were any more taken for the priestes owne wordes, then ar those that immediatlie followe, This is my bodie. And as yow would I nothing doute laughe at his simplicitie, that hearing the priest say. This is my bo­die, [Page] would take the consecrated host to be the priestes bo­die, because he repeteth the same wordes at the altar that Christ spake at his supper: So perswade your self that other men cease not to lament from the bottom of their hartes, to se yow not of simplicitie, but of malice will­fullie to do the like. But I shall here whollie alleage the wordes as they ar in the canon of the Masse, that yowe maie if it be possible, be deliuered of that greate scruple that so troubleth your minde, whether those wordes, Take, eate, should be spoken by the priest to him self in false latin, which yow thinck were to greate an ouer­sighte, or to the bread and wine, which yow thinke (and I would yow neuer might thinck worse) were a farre greater. The wordes ar these. Qui pridie quâm pateretu [...] &c. who the daie before that he suffred, toke bread in to his holie and venerable handes, and lifting vp his eyes into heauen to the o god his father allmightie, geuing to the thanckes, blessed, brake, and gaue it to his disciples saieng: Take, eate, this is my bodie. By these wordes if yow doe not, euery man I trust elles doth moste manifestlie per­ceiue, that these ar not the priestes wordes, and there­fore neither spokē to him self, neither yet to the bread or wine. But because I doubte not but yow ar werie to heare so much of your owne follie, therefore I will dwell no longer in the aggrauating of that, which as in the eyes of all men is brimme ynough, so would I to god that yow had neuer geuen occasion to me or to anie other, once to haue mencioned it.

To your other obiection that yow make of these wordes habete vinculum charitatis, haue yow the band of peace that yowe maie be mete for the holie mysteries: [Page 97] I answere, that if there be any such place in the masse booke, as hauing sought therefore I finde none such, that such wordes first forbidde not the priest to saie mas­se, if none be disposed to communicate with him, then that they do not necessarilie prouoke the people to the sacramentall receiuing, but maie well be vnderstand of the spirituall communicating with the priest in those holie misteries, by earnest meditacion of Christes death and passion, the which the more effectually to doe they ar exhorted to be one with an other in loue and charitie. And thus vnderstand we that other place where the priest after the Agnus praieth, that that holie commix­tion of Christes bodie and bloude maie be bothe to him and to all that receiue it, healthe of bodie and soule. For we saie, that as many as being present at the masse doe hartely ioine with the priest in the swete remēbrance of Christes bitter death and passion, doe all receiue with the priest Christes bodie and bloud, they spirituallie, and he corporallie. And this call we a true communion.

But what if now in euery leafe of the masse booke M. Iuell you had foūde exhortacions to the people to cōmu­nicate? Verely except yow had founde withall that vn­lesse they would the priest should not, all would not helpe: yea it would hinder yow thus much, that where as you and your mates haue borne the worlde in hand, that the cleargie hath kepte the laitie from communicating, now it woulde appeare by this, that the priest loketh for them, and their owne defaulte kepeth them awaie.

Well, if the masse booke haue failed yow M. Iuell, as it was neuer other like but that it would, yow haue yet I dare saie, other witnesses. Yea verely, yow vaūte to ha­ue [Page] the helpe of the canons of the apostles, of Clemens, of Dionisius, of Calixtus, of Iustinus, of Leo, of Chrisostome, of S. Gregorie, yea of S. Paule, and of Christ him selfe. Which be suerly good witnesses and such as in lawe maie be called omni exception [...] maiores, and for the better abeling of thē of whose credite might most be doubted: your sel­fe haue saide so much as no man I trow can saie more.M. Iuell cōfesseth the doc­tours to be good groundes to builde apon. For you call thē good growndes to builde apon. So that now there remaineth no more but to consider how they pro­ue your entent. The which that I maie the better doe, I shall alleage your owne wordes as they ar in your sermon touching this matter to be founde, that so the reader maie be the more able to iudge,In the se­cond an­svvere to d. Coles letters. whether your euidence be to the yssue or no.

In the .xxxv. leafe of your saide sermon, yow haue these wordes.Iuell. And I trust yovv shall clearlie see, that for so long time (six hundred yeares after Christ) there vvas no pri­uate masse in the catholike church, in any countrie or coast tho­roughe ovvt the vvorlde.

A harde matter is it M. Iuell that yow take apon yow to proue, for it is a negatiue so generall, that to proue it is a thing impossible. To proue that there is no Masse saide (imagine with your selfe) in all London how har­de a matter it were. You ar not able for your life to proue, that there is no masse saide in the diocesse, whereof yow call your selfe bishopp. For how shoulde yow proue it being denied but by witnesses? how is it possible to haue witnesses to depose for euery church, for euery corner in euery churche, euery towne, euery house in euery towne, euery chamber and secrete place in e­uery house, not for once in the weeke, but for euery daie, not for euery daye but for euery hower of the daie, [Page 98] all which he must doe that will conclude a necessarie proufe. And yet all this haue yow M. Iuell vndertaken to proue, not in the citie of London, or diocesse of Sa­lesburie, but in all England, Fraunce, Spayne, Scotland, Portugall, Denmarck, Germanie, Italie, emongest the Indians, the Mauritaniās, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Arabians, the Armenians, the Grecians, or in any other place or coast thoroughout the whole worlde: not that there was no priuate masse in some one of these places, but in neuer a one of them, in neuer a towne of al those countries, in neuer a house of all those townes, in neuer a place were it neuer so secrete of all those houses, not for one, two, or thre yeares, but for the continuall space of six hundred. A greater matter I confesse, then if yow had stoode to the lawe yow coulde peraduenture haue bene constreined to haue done: but seing yow trust so much to your selfe, let vs heare how yow proue it. For (saye yow) All the vvriters that vver vvithin the compasse of that time,Iuell. haue lefte behinde them vvitnesse sufficient of a com­munion, but not one of them all coulde euer tell vs of anie pri­uate masse.

Here if a man should desire of yow, good sir, a catalog of all such writers as wrote within the first six hundred yeares, I thinck for all your greate bragges you woulde turne him ouer to your frend Gesnerus: where I am sure he were like to finde many a worcke named, that nei­ther he nor yow, nor any man elles a liue euer sawe yet, and I thinck and feare it to (the more is the pitie) I maie adde no man hereafter shall see. But let this passe, yow kepe not your quarters so close, but that a man maie r [...]a­che yow a rapp when he will. If one shoulde aske yow whether yow haue but [...]ene all those writers that be [...]ng [Page] extant and to be sene, wrote within the compasse of the first six hundred yeares: I thinck such a question would grauell you. But if he shoulde goe farder and con­iure yowe apon youre false faithe trulie to answe­re him, of those fewe that yowe haue sene, how much yow lefte behinde in them that yow neuer reade: Esopes dawe neuer was cause of so greate laughter to her other fellowes being spoiled of her borowed fethers, as yow woulde bring shame to your companions, when your counterfeite lions skinne being plucked ouer your ea­res, and your loftie lookes and greate bragges broughte to nought, yow shoulde appeare to the worlde in your simple asses carcas. But let this be graunted to your spirite of arrogancie, that yow maie saie frelie that yow haue sene all the writers, which no man elles aliue hath done: let it be a figure of rethorick that yowe haue ransacked euery corner in their worckes, who haue not reade the twentith parte thereof, and of that little which you haue reade, haue not borne awaie perhapps the hundreth. Yet all this I saie being graunted, what logike is this of youres to reason after this sort? All these holy doctours haue geuen vs perfect euidence of a communion, wit­hout mencion making of any priuate masse, Ergo there was in Christes churche within the first six hundred yeares no priuate masse. If apon your witnesse yow bring not in this conclusion yow saie nothing against vs. If this be your conclusion, in effect yow saie as little: forasmuch as euery childe is in a manner able to teache yow, that this consequent is nought: he speaketh not of such a thinge, Ergo there is no such thing. Or as yowe reason, they did not, Ergo they coulde not.

[Page 99] I would alleage your auctorities of Clemens, Dionisius, Iustinus martir, Ambrose, Hierom, Austen, Leo, sauing that we finde in them that which we denie not, that is to saie, that with the priest, the people did vse to com­municate: but that if (as yow saie) the people would not, the priest should not, thereof we finde not one worde, which till yow proue to vs, Chrisostome his yea wilbe taken for better then youre naie. In the meane season, yow maie if it please yow take this for an answere. That as the catholikes forbidde no man to receiue with the priest that will: but hartelie wisshe that all men would so dispose thēselues, that at euery Masse with the priest there might be some to cōmunicate: so neither can they constreine them to receiue whose deuotion thereto ser­ueth them not, nor maie them selues absteine from the sacrifice whereunto Christes institution bindeth them. Which reason allthough it please one of youre coate (I meane him that toke on him your defence of late, as ap­peareth by a little treatise by him sent a brode) to call the roote of all the abuses of the L. supper, and farder to affir­me that Christes institution maketh no mencion of any oblatiō or sacrifice to be done by the priest, sauing onelie the sacrifice of thankes geuing: Yeat ar we able well to proue, that bothe the sacrifice which is offered is not of thanckes geuing onelie, but of the very bodie of Christ, bothe owt ofepist. ad Burdegal. Martialis the B. of Burdeaulx one of the disciples of Christ, S.in Luca cap. pr. Ambrose, S.de ciuita­te dei li. 10 cap. 20. et lib. 17. cap. 20. Austen, S.in epist. ad hebreos in cap. [...]0. Homil. 17. Chrisosto­me, and others: and also that it ought dailie to beHieron. cap. 1. in. Tit. Amb. epist. 33. offered, and so was vsed in the primitiue churche, and last of all that Christe himChrisost. 1. Cor. 10. [...]omil. 17. selfe commaunded him selfe to be offered.

[Page] If yow thin [...]ke that this be but a shift, and that we meane nothing lesse then that the people should com­muni [...]ate and receiue together with the priest: lookea­pon that citie, cast your eyes to that churche, which of all other I dare saie in the worlde yow hate moste, Rome I meane: and there shall yow by the comon and frequent communicating of the people with the prieste well per­ceiue, how greately yow haue iniuried vs with that sela­underouse diffamatiō, that oure priestes inhibite and for­bid the lait [...]e to communicate with them at their Masses. Loke apon those religiouse men of the societie of Iesus, whose chieffest-profession is to enstruct youthe in ver­tue and learning, to trauaile about the worlde to bring in to Christes folde infidelles and heretikes. Which they haue so done within these fewe yeares, with such spiri­tuall fruite and encrease, with such exceding greate gaine of lost soules, (not sparing their owne bloud and liues in Christes cause) in Africa, in India, in Persia, and elles where, that god hath well testified by sundry miracles wrought now by them in those parties, no lesse then once in the primitiue churche by his apostles, how high­ly he estemeth their labour: loke I saie apon them, who­se vertuouse life and godly conuersatiō shall once I trust, be the bane and vtter ruine of all heresies [...], and yow shall finde it to be true, that bothe at Colein, at Augusta, at Treuires, at Cambray, at Tournay, and in other places of their abode, there passeth no Sonday or holie day in the yeare, in which there communicate not with the priest bothe of men and women greate store. And yet arre they it is well knowen; as farre all this while from yowe in your heresies, as yow be from them in perfection of life. [Page 100] and true religion.

Well although the testimonies of Clemens, Dionisius, Iustinus martir, with the rest sarue not your purpose: yeat yow haue other that touche vs more neere you will saie.The. 10. canon of the apos­tles brought against priuate Masse. as fivst the. 10. canon of the apostles which yowe alleage in this manner. Fideles qui in ec [...]lesiam ingrediuntur, & scrip­turas audiunt & communionem sanctam non recipiunt, tanquâm ecclesiasticae pacis perturbatores a communione arceantur. that is to say: Such christian men as come to the churche, heare the scriptures and receiue not the holy communiō: let them be excommunicated as men that trouble the peace and quietnes of the churche.

To this I answere,The an­svvere. that this canon being truly alleaged according to the Greke, the founteine from whence it was taken first hath no such thing in it, that all that be present at the Masse or holy communion shoulde com­municate, but onely continue there to the ende, that by their either often whipping in and oute, either ouer hasty departure from thence, they might not trouble the chur­che, or be scandulouse to any. Secondarily, that if it wer to be vnderstand as yow say, that yeat yow must adde some more force thereto before it well will serue your turne, seing there is neuer a worde there that forbiddeth (which is the thing that yow must proue) the prieste to receiue alone, if none will receiue with him.

And for the first, that yowe maie perceiue how this translation hath deceiued yow, and how euell it squareth with the grieke, knowe yow, that the founteine and o­riginall copie hath thus: [...] which wordes Haloander a birde of the same wing that yow arre, translateth after this sorte: neque apud [Page] praeces & sanctam cōmunionem permanent, that is, they that abide not out, or continue not to the ende of the pra­iers and holy communion.

This translation, beside that the wordes in the greke doe beare it, [...] for the other there is neuer a wor­de to signifie or [...]resse the receauing of the communi­on, it hath also to [...]inteine it the auctoritie of Theodorus Balsamon, the grieke writer and Pat [...]ke of Antioche, who in his commentaries apon the canon next before this, hath these wordes. Dicere fideles laicos & consecratos qui sacra non tractant, oportere qu [...]die sanctis comm [...]care, alioqui segregari, nec est ex sentētia canonis nec potest fieri. E [...] ideo nonus canon dixit puniri [...] qui non [...] that is: To saie that the faithefull laie men, and those that be not laie but yeat handle [...] the holy misteries, ought daily to communicate, [...] to be excommunicate, it is nei­ther the meaning of the canon, nor it can s [...] be: and the­refore the. 9. canon (the next, which in some bookes is noted for the. 9. in some other for the. 10.) hath, that the faithefull not continuing to the ende shalbe punished.

Thus vnderstandeth he the seconde canon of the councell holden at Antioche,The yea­re of our lorde 274. in the daies of Aureliaenus the emperour. Where examining those wordes of the canon, by which all they arre excōmunicated who com­ming to the churche, refuse the holy participation of the sacrament propter aliquam insolentiam, for some insolency, he writeth thus: Di [...] quôd i [...] non existimabuntur sacram par­ticipationē auersari, qui [...]am odio habent & abominantur: velqui vt nonnulli dicebant, propter pietatē & humilitatē [...]am fugiunt. Illi enim non solum segregabuntur, fed etiam vt haeretici exter­min abuntur: hi vero propter pietatem venia digni habebuntur. [Page 101] Sed illi, qui prae contemptu & arrogantia ex ecclesia ante sanctam participationem inordinatè exeunt, & nec intueri sustinent. That is in effect to say thus much. Thincke not that the canon here speaking of thē which shoonne the participation of the blessed sacrament, is to be vnderstand of them that haue it in hatred or abhomination, or of them (as some saied) that of a certeine pietie and humilitie absteine from it. For of these two kinde of men, the first shall not one­ly be segregate for a time, but as heretikes rooted out for euer: the other, for their deuotion and worthy reueren­ce towardes the sacramētes, shalbe thought worthy par­don. But those ar they whome this canon noteth, who of contempte and arrogancie, departe ageinst ordre out of the churche before the holy participation, not so much as vouchesausing to beholde the same.

Thus yow see M. Iuell, how this patriarke and lear­ned Grecian expoundeth the canon by yow alleaged, not as to signifie a precise necessitie in all that be present at the Masse to receiue with the prieste, but to continue there onely to the ende, that by that meanes, although they did not sacramētally, they might year at the leaste in ioining their praiers with the priestes, and by holy medi­tating apon Christes deathe and passion together with him, communicate the one with the other spiritually. He addeth in his saide commentaries apon the aboue na­med seconde canon of the councell of Antioche, that he thinketh the distribution of the [...] (by which name I iudge he calleth oure holy breade) [...] to haue bene taken oute of this canon, that they which wer not partakers of the liuely and holie misteries, shoulde be boūde to tarito the ende of the diuine ministery, and to receiue the same [Page] at the priestes handes ad sanctificationem, to sanctifie them.

Thus vnderstandeth this greke canon Ioannes Mona­chus Zonoras, him selfe a Grieke borne also, as in his com­mentaries extant thereapon, to him that listeth to sear­che maye be more at large seene.

But let the canon be expounded euen as oure aduer­saries would haue it, let it be so that the primitiue chur­che appointed greate penalties for them, that being pre­sent at the Masse woulde not receiue with the priest: Yeat is there all this while nothing brought ageinst the priestes receuing the sacrament alone:M. Iuelles allegatiōs be not to the issue. why he may not take it being so disposed if other will not. And yet is this the point ye wote well that yow must proue.

The nexte auctoritie that yow alleage to this purpose;Anacletus. is taken oute of the first epistle of Anacletus, and neuer written as yow ignorantly sayde it was, by Calixtus. But whose so euer it be yow handle it like youre owne. For hauing cut of that, which otherwise might haue bewray­ed your falsehoode,l. inci [...]ile. ff. de legib. yow bring vs in a piece, that semeth without the rest to make for your purpose. Truly the ci­uile lawes call it inciuile euen in worldly matters, to iud­ge apon the onely bare viewe of some one parte of the lawe, what the meaning is of the whole. What they wer like to call mangling and hackling, tearing and dis­membring, such as yow vse in goddes matters, I referre it to your owne conscience to iudge, by the argument of L. Cornelia. de Fals.

The wordes of Anacletus arre these. Episcopus Deo sacri­ficans testes vt praefixum est secū habeat &c. The bishop when he doeth sacrifice to god, let him as is before saide haue witnesses, and mo then an other priest. For as his honour [Page 102] is greater, so hath he nede of mo witnesses. For apon hi­ghe and solemne feastes shall he haue with him, either seuen, or fiue, or thre deacons, which ar called his eyes, besides subdeacons and other ministres. Who hauing apon them the holy vestimentes shall stande with hum­ble spirite, contrite harte, and demure countenaunce be­fore him and behinde him, the priestes on the right han­de and on the left, garding him from euell disposed par­sons, and giuing their cōsent to the sacrifice. It foloweth: Peracta consecratione omnes communicent &c. The consecra­tion being ended, let them all communicate: they that will not shalbe suspendid from entring in to the churche. For so haue the apostles ordeined, and the holy churche of Rome o [...]serueth.

These arre the wordes of Anacletus, which if yow had wholly according to true meaning alleaged, euery man shoulde haue easely perceiued how little this place had made for youre purpose: euery man could haue saide,The true vnderstanding of the place of Ana­cletus that the wordes (let all communicate) shoulde be restreined to the priestes, Deacons, and other ministres, of whome assisting the bishop at Masse he had before spoken, and not to be racked as by you they violently arre, to all the whole people: that they should take place not in euery pri­estes masse, but in euery bishoppes, not at all times but at high and solemne feastes.

But what M. Iuell if as now it appeareth that this place maketh nothing for the prouse of youre assertion (that there was not or coulde not within the first six hundred yeares after Christ, or now may not, any masse be saide without there be [...]ome present to communicate with the priest): so I make the same place (to th' intent [Page] yow may not be sayde to haue taken the paines to haue alleaged it in vaine) to serue for vs ageinst yow. Truly I nothing doubte but that in right and indifferent iudge­ment I shall be hable to doe it.

The assistentes to the bishop at his masse, should ye wote well as appeareth by this place of Anacletus, The place of Ana­cletus brought by M. Iuell tur­ned a­gainst him selfe. cōmu­nicate peracta consecratione, after the consecration. But what if they had refused at any time so to doe? What should then haue bene done with that which was conse­crated? To haue reserued it vntill an other time youre doctrine in that point would not haue permitted: to ha­ue cast it away or abused it to profanevses, your reueren­ce to those highe misteries could not haue alowed it. I put here no case either impossible or vnthought apon. For Anacletus him selfe prouided yow see, a punishement for those that woulde not receiue, which might as well haue bene all as one.

Thus I hope for this matter we shall not neede to trye the lawe. Yow will easely graunte your selfe, that the bis­shop might haue finished his masse and haue receiued a lone, and so either haue song or saide a priuate masse, contrary to that which yow haue hetherto affirmed.

To the place of Chrisostome, and that other of S. Gregori, by the which it appeareth that such as woulde not receiue with the prieste wer commaunded away: al­though it wer ynough for vs to answere, that all this pro­ueth nothing that when they be gone, the prieste which came thither for that purpose may not goe forwarde in his Masse and receiue yea alone: so that resting on this pointe we might looke for youre replye: yeat although these testimonies be not I saye to the purpose, foras­much [Page 103] much neuerthelesse as they goe nearer to vs, then any of the other auctorities before alleaged, while they seme to barre the people to be present at the masse without they will receaue the sacrament with the prieste: I shall there­unto in fewe wordes answere after this sorte.

First,Hovv the auncient vvriters at to be vnderstād forbid­ding all to be pre­sent at the Masse saue those that vvil rece­aue vvith the priest that these fathers of a vehement and earnest zeale that they had, to reuoke and call in to vse againe that fre­quent and common vsage of receauing with the prieste, from whence they then sawe the people thorough col­denesse of deuotion (which by the cruell and often per­secutions of the heathen emperours was wont to be kindled and enflamed in them) to be not a little swarued and fallen away: vsed a phrase and manner of speche, al­though exactly considered in it selfe not all together simply true, yet for that time and those manners very much bothe expediēt and necessary. For euen as no man reprehendeth him that minding to make a crooked wa­nd streight,A fimilitu­de. boweth it first to a greate deale more croo­kednesse on the other side then it had before, not that he aloweth that any more then he did the other, but onely because he knoweth right well, that to make it at all streight this is the onely way: euen so these fathers, if they commaunded them awaie that being present at the Masse woulde not communicate with the prieste, if they threatened them that if they wer not worthy to receiue the communion, they wer not worthy to haue any parte of the common praiers: yea if they added that excepte they wer worthy euery daie to receiue, they shoulde not be worthy once in the yeare: we must ne­des thinke that here they bowed these crooked pieces as farre an other way, and that they ment no more to haue [Page] them stande thus then as they did before.

If you here demaunde of meapō what groundes I dare, leauing the manifest wordes of these fathers, giue this in­terpretation: knowe ye that two causes there arre which haue moued me so to doe. The first is, for the auoiding of absurdities and inconueniences (for which causes they that be learned in the lawes will tell you that it is not vn­laufull to swarue often times and goe frō, euen the plaine wordes of he lawe or statute) which otherwise we should of necessitie fall in to, and from which of good re­ason we ought to thinke those holy and learned fathers, in all their actes and doinges to haue bene most farre. For if they had mēt verely as their bare wordes imporre, what coulde haue bene spoken more absurdely then this, that he that is not worthy to receiue the, blessed body of Christe in the sacrament, is not worthy also to be praied for? Whereas all men knowe that thē more vnworthy he is of the one, the more worthy he is of the other (if the sicke be worthy to haue a phisiciō and not the hole) that by the meanes thereof he maie become worthy to receiue that, of which he was before vnworthy. If we so sticke in the barcke and rinde and come no nearer to the pith, what sense will yow make S. Ambrose to haue, in saieng that he that is not worthy to receiue the sacrament dai­ly, is not worthy to rceiue the same once in the yeare? Might it not so happen, that many a good man which now receiueth worthily once in the yeare, shoulde by this meanes not receiue worthily once in his life?

But of this māner vsed in speaking or writing, haue we not in some of these fathers expresse testimonies, namely in Chrisostome? who trauailing in a certeine place of his [Page 104] worckes to persuade the true and reall presence of Chris­tes body in the sacramēt, vseth these wordes. Seest thow not thy lorde offred vp, the prieste doing his priestly of­fice, pouring oute his praiers, the people rounde aboute him, imbrued and made redde with that pretiouse bloud? which wordes I knowe yow will easely graunte with vs to be not in all pointes simply true, but yet not discom­mendable or vnsemely, being spokē as sensibly as might be, the more firmely to persuade the truthe of that, which although it be there as truely as though it had bene sene, was yet hidde and to carnall eyes inuisible.

But what needeth it here to alleage the manner of spea­king of the auncient and olde fathers, seing that yow M. Iuell and your cōpanions oure newe maisters and yong fathers, vse the same or not much vnlike in your cisguised communion: And yeat for all your terrible thundre boul­tes shotte ageinst them that being present receiue not, yow see neuer a one the more for feare thereof departe oute of the churche: yea he that I thinke should, wer well like perhappes to heare thereof to his coste before his Or­dinary. But there is not the simplest in a parishe but he kno­weth, that youre meaning is not to driue thē oute of the churche, as youre wordes sounde, but to stirre thē vp the­reby the oftener to come to youre schismaticall commu­nion, and therefore they tarrie still. Or elles if this be not youre minde, of so many that be present cōtinually the­reat and be not partakers thereof, why haue yow puni­shed all this while no [...]e.

An other cause that hath moued me thus to vnder­stand these fathers is, for that the practise of the churche appeareth to haue bene in their time such, as that the peo­ple [Page] was willed euen then, to be present at the church and to heare Masse (at the leaste on the Sundaies) when they stoode neuerthelesse at libertie, touching the receauing of the sacrament any oftener then thrise in the yeare: as appeareth by the councell holden at Agatha in Fraunce aboute Chrisostomes daies, and by S. Austē neere also vn­to the same time.Canon. 47 &. 18. S. Austens wordes arre these. In die verò nullus se a sacra Missarum celebratione separet, ne [...]ue otiosus quis domi remaneat. Sermo. 251 De [...]ēpor. On the Sunday let no man absente him selfe from the holy celebration of the Masse, nor re­maine within the doores idle. And alittle after he addeth: Adhuc quo [...]ue quod detestabilius est, ad ecclesiam aliqui venien­tes non intrant, non insistunt praecibus, non expectant cum silen­tio sanctarum Missarū celebrationem. that is to say: Besides all this, which is a thing more to be detested, some cōming to the church entre not in, they praie not, they tarie not out with silence the celebrating of the holie Masses.

And thus it appeareth (the vse of the churche being at that time such as the people was by ordre bounde to hea­re Masse on the Sūday, whether they receuid or no) that in no wise these fathers can be so vnderstande, as though they ment to driue them vttrely from the Masse, whither the churche had bounde them to come, but onely to put them in remembraunce so to come, and so to be present thereat, as in times past in that olde feruency of deuoti­on they had bene wont.

Thus much for the first answere: Secondarily to the places before alleaged I saie, that [...]ing graunted (which denied by vs yow shall neuer be able to proue) that in the primitiue churche such as woulde not receiue with the priest wer not suffred to be present at the mass: Year [Page 105] is it no good reason to saie, that therefore it must necessa­rily be so now. Seing that in those thinges which haue by Christ bene left indifferent (of which this is one) the spirituall gouernours haue power, to change and alter as occasion giueth. Will yow see it proued by examples? There was a time when to absteine from bloud and strā ­gled meates,Act [...]. 5. was a thing so necessary to be obserued, that it was by a solemne decree of the apostles enacted: and as light a matter as some will perhappes make thereof, yeat added the apostles thereto this weight and poise of wor­des: Visum est Spiritui sancto & nobis, it hath semed good to the holy ghost and to vs. Yea the text hath that they accounted such abstinence inter necessaria, in the nom­bre of those thinges that were necessary to be obserued, euen as to absteine from fornication. Of the continuan­ce of this decree in his force, the place mencioneth no­thing, so that thereof can be gathered no other, but that it was a lawe made to endure for euer, although at this daye it be not practised well yow wote pardye.

Were it well done thincke yowe now to reason thus: In the apostles time the churche absteined from blou­dinges and stiffled meates: Therefore we must in these dayes doe the like? Yeat wer this truly a stronger reason drawen from an ordonaunce and commaundement of the apostles, then is youres leaning apon examples (if yow had any such) which as they neuer had their be­ginning of any commaundement or precept of the ho­lie scriptures, but by them lef [...]e at libertie were by the spi­rituall gouernours as the present time required drawen to a necessitie: so by the same apon contrary, occasion maie at all times be released. But yow haue at all no such [Page] commaundement in the whole scripture that soundeth that waies,No Scrip­ture for­biddeth the priest to receaue alone, or the alie man to be present thereat vvhen he commu­nicateth not. that the prieste maie not saie Masse and re­ceiue the sacrament alone without companie, or that no man maie be present with the prieste at his Masse the­re with him to communicate spiritually, onlesse the sa­me will also communicate sacramentally.

For that yow alleage most fondly for the proufe of the contrary, that Christ gaue this holy sacrament not to one alone, but to many being together, and that he saide farder by the waie of charge,In his Ser­mon. fol. 34. Doe this, that is yow saie: Practise this that I haue here done, and that in such ordre and fourme as yovv haue sene me doe it, it ferueth nothing for youre purpose. For who seeth not, that the­se wordes of Christ enforce no more a necessitie to haue this sacrament ministred to company,Math. vl [...]. then his other wordes to his apostles and disciples at other times spoken in the plurall numbre,Marci. 16. of preaching to all the worlde, of baptizing, of loosing and binding of sinnes, doe implie a necessitie to haue a company of priestes together at these daies, to execute either the one function or the o­ther. If the prieste alone being thereto disposed maie not receiue the sacrament, because Christ deliuered it to ma­ny: why saie yow not also, that the same maie not mini­ster the sacrament of baptisme alone, because Christ ga­ue that auctoritie to many together, or preache [...], or ab­solue, all which powers he gaue to no one alone? Yea how dareth one of you alone minister youre cōmunion, seing the wordes by the which youre warrant (if you ha­ue at all any) taketh his strength, ar vttered in the plu­rall nombre?Lucae. 22. 1. Cor. 10. for Christ saide not, hoc fac doe thow this, but hoc facite doe ye this. Must there be now M. Iuell, if [Page 106] not twelue, yet at the least in euery parisshe two mini­sters, to stand at the cōmunion table to minister the com­muniō together? Truly I account him not wise that seeth not to what shiftes yow arre driuen, that graspe after such sclendre holde of these wordes of Christ, Take ye, eate ye.

Of youre seconde obiectiō followe many absurdities. For if Christe had ment as yow saie the wordes Doe this, importe: that is that they should practise that which they sawe him doe, in such fourme, in such ordre as they sawe him doe it: then beside the nombre of communicantes that yow demaunde, I can not see how yow can dis­charge youre selfe, in ministring it to a lesse nombre or greater either, then the same that Christe him selfe first obserued. For if you doe, then where is hoc facite, doe this, that yow crie out apō so much? how doe yow it then in the same manner and after the same sorte that he did it?

If yow saie as in deede the truthe is, that the presence of that companie at Christes last supper, was no parte of his action, but that the same consisted in taking breade, in blessing, in breaking, in offering it to god the father as the sacrifice of the churche (as witnesseth the blessed and holie martir S. Ciprian) and that the distribution thereof to other,Lib. 2. epist. 3. was no more of the substance of that action, then as there was company r [...]ady and disposed to be partakers thereof at that time: The which as when like occasion is we maie in no wise omitte to doe:Lib. 3. de ciuitat dei lib [...]. contr­aduersl [...]eg. & proph. cap. 20 Serm. 6. de Pasch [...]t. so if no such offre it selfe, we maie not suffer that the first vse of this sacrament which was as S. Austen and Leo saie, to be a sacrifice to succede in the place of the sacrifices of the olde lawe, should hang all together apon the second vse thereof, which is to be meate and drīke to the faithe­full. [Page] If I saie yow saie thus, then saie you truly and speake against vs nothing. But if yow will nedes sticke to your tackelings, and still crie oute that we must in all pointes doe euen as Christ did, and although yow can giue no reason, why you should in giuing to fewer or to mo then he did, not be saide to doe otherwise then he did: if the wordes Doe ye this, yow will still mainteine to be to be vnderstande not in offering that sacrifice as Christe did,Vbi supra. and S. Cyprian vnderstandeth them, but in obseruing the time, the place, the sexe, the nombre, the qualities of the parsons with such like: how can yowe then I saie excuse youre selues, that yow haue not swarued and yeat doe from Christes example, and done otherwise then he did, that ministre that in the morning which he gaue in the euening, and to men fasting which he gaue to them īmediately after supper? How haue yow obserued the pla­ce in deliuering it in the churche, which Christe did in a prophane house? how the sexe, that for onely men giue it also to women? how the nombre (as I saide before) that for iuste twelue, sticke not at one time (if so many there be that desire it) to giue it to twelue hundred, or to bare two if there be no mo that will, or to as many aboue or as fewe vndre as yow list? how the qualities of the par­sones, when yow giue that to all laie men, which Christ did to onely priestes? when yow put from this table no­torioùse sinners, whereas Christ repelled not the traitor Iudas? Is this hoc facite? Is this to doe all thinges in such forme and sorte as Christ did, whereas in some thinges yow doe more, in some thinges lesse, in other some clea­ne contrary to that which he did?

Thus while (I doubte not) yowe see, that for the [Page 107] auoiding of a nōbre of absuroities, which otherwise your selues shall in your procedinges necessarily fall in to, yow must of force cōfesse, that time, place, nombre, sexe, with the rest, ar in the ministration of this blessed sacrament no parte of the substance but onely mere accidentes, and may be presente or absent, vsed or left of, as to the chur­che shall seme best to take ordre,Epist. ad Ianuar. 118. as witnesseth S. Austen: yow must also in like māner graunte with vs, that Chri­ste in the institution of this sacrament or elles where, ne­uer made mention of any nombre to communicate to­gether, nor euer forbad his action to be practised with­out company, and last of all, that these wordes: Hoc fa­cite, doe ye this, include not the vsing of euery circumstā ­ce which Christe vsed, but onely giue auctoritie (as I pro­ued before by S. Cyprian) to offer this sacrifice, which is Christe, as he him self first did.

So that now to returne to your argument: In the pri­mitiue churche it vvas so. Erga it must now also be so: we maye be bolde to tell yow once againe, that although the first parte of your argument the antecedent, wer mos­te true, yet the consequent deduced therefro is moste faulse and vntrue. Forasmuch as the matter whereof we entreate being indifferent, maye by the churche at all ti­mes be changed and altered, especially when newe occa­sions shall vary the olde circumstances. Which as it hath bene proued to yow to haue bene doen by the churche in the apostles decrees and ordinances: so arre we able al­so to showe, that the apostles haue chaunged Christes owne cōmaundement, and that the church hath altered that and restored the first againe. Did not Christ com­maunde his apostles, that in baptesme they should vse the [Page] name of the father,Math. vl [...]. the sonne and the holie ghost? Chan­ged not the apostles this commaundement when they baptised in the name of Iesus? Ast 8. &. 10.

The primitiue churche forbad the sacrament of baptes­me to be ministred at anie other time, then at Easter and witsontide, excepte in case of necessitie where the infant were like to perishe witheout it: yeat nowe the churche permitteth to baptise at all times. And your congrega­tion M. Iuell is content also, to goe from the olde man­ner and to baptise on the Sundayes and holie daies, whe­ther there be anie necessitie or none.

If all this satisfie yow not, but the churche must ne­des appeare coram vobis in youre L. consistorie, to giue a reason whie she forbiddeth not all men now to be pre­sent at the masse sauing those that will communicate, as once yow saie she did: although he shoulde offre yow no wronge, that should first bidde yowe proue that she were subiect to youre iurisdiction, and then afterwarde to pro­pose youre interrogatories, yet will she not deale with yow after that sorte, but is contented (because she is il­lustris persona and can not be compelled by the lawe per­sonallie to appeare) to send yowe her aduocate S. Austen,Lib. contra Faustū. 32. cap. 14. & Confess. lib. 3. cap. 7. who answereth for her in this sorte. Sicut aeger non debet repreh [...]ndere medicinalem doctrinam &c Euen as the sicke man ought not to reprehend the phisicions prescrip­tes, commaunding him one thing to daye, an other to more we: yea forbidding that which before he cōmaun­ded (for so required the healthe of his bodie to haue it) Euen so man kinde, from Adam vnto the ende of the worlde, so long as the corruptible carcas being sicke and wounded annoieth the soule, maie not finde faulte with [Page 108] goddes phisike, if in this it commaunde one thinge, in that an other, one thinge first, the contrarie after.

Lo M. Iuell I trust yowe see, that lawes maie be in the churche altered and changed as the time and manners of mē require, and that no mā ought to grudge or murmure at the change thereof. And by this also I trust it appeare vnto you, that it was not so vnhandsome a cōparison as yow saide it was, that M.D. Cole made when he resem­bled the state of the churche in the apostles time, to the age of infancie. The which because yow sawe your selfe yow coulde not well denie, and that by the graunting thereof your parte woulde be the worse: yow turne his wordes an other waie (because yow woulde seme to saie somwhat) and impudentlie father apon him, that he shoulde call Christe and his apostles enfantes. But I praie yow good sir by the waie, let me be so bolde to aske yow being a marchant of logicke, and sent from the wisdom of your father to scoffe at all other mennes reasons that went before yowe, emongest whome yow haue not spared S. Austen,In quaest. ex nou. testam. q. 75. although either of malice, or of ignorā ­ce yowe attribute his reason of Peters primacy, and so by a consequent the B. of Rome his, to Roffensis: what pri­ce bare logike which at other times was yowe saye so good cheape, when yowe made this argument? he saith the churche vvas in Christes and in his apostles time in her en­fancie Ergo he calleth Christe and the apostles enfantes. Trulie I thincke the marcket was risen and good stuffe verie dea­re, when my L. bishop thought to vtter such homelie ware as this is.

If a man had saide of the famouse vniuersitie of Paris in Charles the greate his time, when it was first erected, that it was then in her enfancie, had he called Alcuinus [Page] that greate clercke, and all the rest of the learned doc­tours called thither to plant good learning, babes and in­fantes? If of your scattred congregation one shoulde saie, that it were yet vnder that age of infancie, I wene no man woulde thincke that Iohn Caluin (if he now liued) wer called a babe. No he wer like to kepe his olde name still for all that I warrant yow, and the rest of your pil­lers to? But here it is a worlde to see, howe thorough ignorance yow be shamefullie deceauid in taking one for an other. If yow had readen S. Austen so diligently as reason woulde yow shoulde, bothe him and the rest of the doctours toe, before yow had made your chalenge: Yow shoulde haue founde, that yow reprehended not so mu [...]h M. Cole,In psa [...]m. 36. co [...]. c. 3. as yow did vnwares S. Austen. Whose wordes agreing with his I haue thought good here to alleage, that all men maye see how ignorance hath de­ceiued yow. The wordes arre these. Dominus enimipse in corpore suo quod est ecclesia, iunior fuit primis temporibus & ecce­iam senuit. For oure lorde (that is to saye) him selfe was in his body that is the church yonge at the first, and now lo beholde he is becomen olde. And a little after.The chur­che hath her times of gro­vving. autem Christi quod est ecclesia, tanquâm vnus quid am homo pri­m [...]o iunior fuit, & ecce iam in fine seculi est in senecta pingui. The body of Christ which is his churche, was as it wer a man, at the beginning yong, and now beholde in the ende of the worlde it is in a ripe or f [...]ll age.

But leauing this as wide of my purpose I shall retur­ne thither from whence I haue digressed. Well let it be graunted yow wil saye, that the churche hath power to alter and chaunge thinges indifferent apon occasion, and as necessitie requireth: what such occasion was there [Page 109] here to reuoke that olde commaundement, that all that wer presente at the masse shoulde receiue with the prieste or elles departe.

Will yowe know? I shall shewe yowe an occasion. If the churche then, when although all woulde not, so­me yet there were that failed not dailie to communicate with the prieste, forbad those that would not, so much as to be present with other that did, thinking therebie to drawe the worse to the imitation of the better, founde at the length by experience, that not onelie by this restre­inte theie were nothinge amendid, but by absteining from that communion in the which oftentimes before theie were wont spirituallie by the swete remembraunce of Christes deathe and passion in those holie misteries, to ioyne with the prieste, in their manners and liues not a littell empaired: If the churche I saie apon these conside­rations bearing like a good mother with the infirmities of her children, willing rather to holde her selfe conten­ted with a littell with their good willes, then to leese all deuotion with their euell, released the former cōmaun­dement, was it not trowe yowe cause sufficient? But all this M. Iuell I must desire yowe to take as spoken vnder an if, that if yow can be hable to proue anie such com­maundement of the churche, yowe maie haue a reason whie the same hath bene abrogate and taken a waie.

To make an ende and to knit vp the knot of this pre­sent article, I haue here thought good M. Iuell (that if yow minde to write againe yow maye finde in fewe wordes couched together the some of all that hath be­ne saide touching this matter before) briefelie to showe the catholike doctrine in this pointe, which is this.

[Page] First the catholikes forbid no man meete for the holie misteries to receiue with the prieste,The ca­tholike doctrine touching priuate Masse. when and as often as he listeth, but wishe and hartelye praie that all men woulde so put thēselues in ordre as at euerie masse there mighte be, that would cōmunicate with the prieste some.

Secondarilie they teache, that this sacramēt ministred in the masse,Tvvo speciall vses of the Sa­crament. was chiefelie instituted to be a sacrifice, to be offred vp to god by the prieste for his owne sinnes and the sinnes of the people, and nexte to be a spirituall foode for all Christian people, and nexte to be a spirituall foode for all Christian people to feede apō, and that as the first vse of anie thing maie not depend apon the second, but contrarie wise this apō that: so in this sacrament, the obla­tion which is the chiefest vse thereof, and whereunto the prieste is bounde, maie not so depend on the peoples cō ­municating which is the seconde, and whereunto (tou­ching so often receiuing) theie ar not bounde but stand at libertie, that without their deuotion serue them to re­ceiue it, he maie not doe his dutie, that is to offer it.

Thirdlie, that although for lacke of company the prieste doe receiue alone, the sacrifice is yeat neuer the more priuate or lesse cōmon. For as no man is so madde to saie, that a greate riche man keping a common table for his pooer neighbours hath left his olde accustomed wont and maketh nowe his table priuate, if the gates of his house standing wide open as theie wer wont to be, his tables furnished with plentie of meates, and all thin­ges in a readinesse, his geastes forbeare to come: euen so it fareth in this case, where the table is laide, the gates be open, the goodman of the house (the prieste supplieng the place of Christe) abideth loking for his geastes, who onelie refraine to come. Is this table priuate? is he a nig­gard? [Page 110] or shall he not eate that woulde, because theie will not that shoulde? Is a conduict builded in the middest of the open market place of a towne, the lesse publike or common if the inhabitantes for whose ease it was made refuse to fetche water thereat.

Last of all we saie,M. Iuell hath not brought so much as one proufe against priuate Masse. that hethertoe yow haue not dis­charged your promise, which was to proue, that within the first six hundred yeares after Christe there was neuer Masse saide, nor might be, without a nombre to receiue with the priest. So that now we may saye vnto yow, Vbi est illa seuitia? vbi est ille fremitus Leonis? Nonne sagittae infantum factae sunt plagae eorum? Where arre now become youre cruell wordes ageinst the Catholikes? to what ende is your Lions roring,In the Sermon fol. 43. O Gregory, O Augustine, O Hierome, O Chrisostome, O Leo, O Dionise, O Ana­cletus, O Xistus, O Paule, O Christ. If we be deceiued yow haue deceiued vs:Psalm. 63. to what ende I saie is it brought? Nonne sagittae infantum fact [...]e sunt plagae eorum? Ar not the woundes that yow haue giuen vs such, as childrens coc­keshootelles ar wont to make?

Well these be the pointes that the catholike doctrine standeth apon in this article. To the which if youre sto­macke serue yow to replie, and that yow haue digested that which yow haue allready receiued, I moste hartely praie yow to kepe yow, without straieng from the mat­ter or alleaging proufes impertinent, as close as yow can. So shall yow doe bothe to youre selfe in writing, and to me in answering a very greate pleasure. while I am suer your euidence is so much, that six lines (I speake with the moste) will receiue with ease all that yow shall haue to write.