for the Supremacie But it foloweth And so consequently gaue the same povver vnto al Pastours and Doctours Be it so But what is consequently How M. Iewel taketh it I can not tel but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greke which phrase S. Basile vseth signifieth the Pastours that folow in order and row after S. Peter Now Order requireth that although al be Pastoures yet they may not take vpon them and rule coÌ„fusely al in a clampe togeather but euery man in his place degree according vnto y â— proportion of his Flocke and Charge And therfore this hitherto proueth rather that y â— Pope of Rome is the Chief after Christ and that al other what so euer they be go not cheeke by cheeke by him as worthy or Supreme as he but euery man in his order and degree after him But this that foloweth is perchaunce altogeather for M. Iewel what is that Marie A token vvhereof is this that al Pastours dooe equally both binde and loose as vvel as he True it is M. Iewel the most simple in al the world doth binde and loose like as the Pope him selfe But this is true in such thinges as are permitted vnto his Iurisdiction For in some kind of Faultes the partie must be referred vnto the Iudgement of the Bishoppe â–ª And in cases of Heresie Breaking of Uowes and Robbing of Churches the Bishop hath not in his hands to absolue the offender but the whole must be reserued vnto the Pope And therefore although in such faultes as euery Prior or Priest may forgeue or retaine the Iurisdiction which he excerciseth be as effectual as if S. Peter himself had absolued or bound the Parties yet this is nothing against the special Priuilegies aboue al others which are graunted vnto the See of Rome As in example of fiue hundred Capitaines in a Field Or fiue hundred Lordes in a Countrie euery one commaundeth the Souldier of his band or Tenant of his land and yet this is not preindicial vnto the worthines excellencie of the General Capitaines and chiefe Lordes The Angels doe al of them waite and attende vpon God and at the later Day al the Electe shal haue euery one his penie and reward yet the Cherubins are of higher Authoritie than the inferiour Angels and the Apostles shal be in greater Glorie than Confessours What shal we say of Christ him selfe As my Father saith he sent me so end I you And vvhen he had said this he breathed vpon them and saith vnto them Take ye the holy Ghost VVhose sinnes you shal forgeaue them they are forgeuen them and vvhose sinnes ye do reteine they be reteined Here loe you may see that he hath made the Apostles equal with hym How then wil you conclude that Christ is not supreme in his Church and that he hath not the authoritie of binding and loosing in a more high degree than any of his Apostles Such yet is your diuinitie M. Iewel that because al Pastours do equally bind loose therefore the Pope hath no special Priuilege aboue other But you lacked the vnderstanding that al do equally bind loose in such cases and Persons as are subiected vnto them And that because euery Bishop can not exercise the power of his Orders when and where it pleaseth him therefore it is euident that all are not equal but that the Superiours may restraine the Iurisdiction of the Inferiours which is inough to proue a Supremacie Thus hath M. Iewel brought foure seueral Auncient Fathers al in a cumpanie togeather to proue that the B. of Rome hath no speciall Priuilege aboue others of binding and loosing and there is not one of them al which proueth that CoÌ„clusion For S. Cyprian is plaine for one head notwithstanding the equalitie of the Apostles in honour and power Origen and S. Cyril speake not literally but mystically And S. Basile last of all telleth such a Trueth as euery Catholike wil confesse and is nothing contrarie to the doctrine of the Supremacie excepte there be so vnsensible an heretike that wil think the lowest Minister in the congregation to be as high in Authoritie as the greatest Superintendent or general because he preacheth and baptiseth and ministreth the Lordes Supper and burneth if neede be in his opinion in lyke sorte as the Chiefest Superintendentes themselues doe And this vanitie and falsehood of M. Iewels when he allegeth Auncient Fathers wordes without their Sense is so common that I wil be bounde to make a whole boke of his So saith S. Cyprian and Therefore S. Hierome saieth and other such Idle Illations if either it were not inough to note only what he is Or if my wil and leisure serued me so much as to be occupied in so tediouse A mater But now let vs goe forwarde with the Doctours and shew how shamefully he hath abused them Our Sauiour saith D. Harding out of S. Augustine gaue not commauÌ„dement in vvhat Order the SacrameÌ„t should be receiued meaning to reserue that mater vnto the Apostles by vvhom he vvould direct and dispose his Church Ergo the obseruation of number of CommunicaÌ„ts of Place of Tyme of Order Maner and Circumstance in Receiuing dependeth of the Churches ordinaunce and not of Christes Institution S. Augstine abused S. Augustine speaketh not one worde of any number He speaketh of a power left with the Apostles to apoint in what order the Sacrament should be Receaued but the Order and Manner of doing a thing extendeth it self to al Circumstances ergo to number also And therefore it is no wrong dealing to inferre A particular vpon the graunt of the proper vniuersal thereof Againe whereas the blessed Apostle after certaine talke had about the Sacrament concluded saying Caetera cum venero ordinabo As for the rest vvhen I come my selfe I vvil set in Order S. Augustine inferreth Vnde datur intelligiâ—quia multuÌ„ er at vt in epistola totuÌ„ illum agendi ordineÌ„ insinuaret quem vniuersa per orbâ— seruat ecclesia ab ipso ordinatum esse quod nulla moruÌ„ diuersitate variatur Wherof it is geauen vs to vnderstand that it vvas ordeined of the Apostle that vvhich is not varied by any diuersity of maner fashion because it vvas much for him to shevv in an epistle al that order of Celebrating and Ministring the Communion vvhich the vvhole Church through out all the vvorld doth obserue As who should say If it had not ben that the Apostle had not place inough in his Epistle to the Corinthians to declare his mind at ful In what order and with what Ceremonies and Circumstancies he would haue the celebrating of y â— mysteries to procede he would haue left it in plaine writing how al thinges should be don but because that was to much for an epistle to receaue And because the order which he would haue obserued was not so quickly appointed as to Reade A â–ª Chapiter or two of the Bible and to tell the storie
of the Pope as at these Daies is allowed But what shall we say It can not be denied but the Bishoppes of the Easte those of whome Sozomenus and Socrates speake did take themselues to be as good as the Bishop of Rome and disdayned to yâ—lde obedience vnto him But were they Catholiks or Heretiks Undoutedly Heretikes and that of the worste â—â—king For they were Arâ—ians Howe proue I this Mary by Sozomenus and Socrates both which agree in telling the Storie And that is this At what tyme S. Athanasius fled to Rome being persequâ—ted of the Arrians â—or defending of the Consubstantialitie of God the Sonne with the Father it so â—ame to â—asse that at the same time Paulus Bisshoppe of Constantinople and Marcellus Bisshoppe of 〈◊〉 and Asclepas Bisshoppe of 〈…〉 Bisshop of Hadrianoâ—le 〈◊〉 also to Rome being al Catholike Bisshoppes and al dryuen out of their Churches and Sees through the Accusations and Iâ—uasions of the Arrians Herevpon Iulius the Bisshoppe of Rome vnderstanding what faultes were layed to their charges And perceiuynge that all were of one mynde concernynge the Decrees of the Nicene Couâ—cell he thoughte it meete to communicate with them as with men of the same faith and opinion with him And as Sozomenus writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of the vvorthines and digniti of his See or as Socrates saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forasmuch as the church of Rome had the Prerogatiues priuilegies â–ª he restored euery one of them to his See And wrote freely and sharply to the Bishops of the East which had expelled them declaring that they had troubled the Churche and that they had not iudged aright of the forsaid Bishops Requiring furthermore y â— some of them should appere at an appointed day before him aâ—d that he would not suffer it if they ceased not to be newfangled The Arrian Bishoppes vppon the receipt of this letter and for indignation that the Bishop of Rome had restored to their lauful Sees the catholike Bishops â—â—hanasius Paulus Marcellus Asâ—leâ—â—â— Lucius whom they had vnplaced they called a Councel at Antioche and 〈◊〉 againe a faire letter to Pope Iulius ful of prety scoffes and tauntes and not without sharpe threatenings also And emong other points these that M. Iewel reckeneth are some that forsoth they ought not to be accompted inferiour to the Church of Rome And that they ought not to be ordered by the Romaine Bishope Hitherto is the storie as I gather it out of Socrates and Sozomenus Consider now of it indifferent Reader Was Athanasius an holy Bishope or no Was he a most worthy and tried defendour of the Catholike faith or no Did almighty God miraculously defend him against al his enemies or no Eusebius Sozomenus Socrates Theodoritâ—s al y â— euer wrote the storie of y â— time speak so much good of him 〈◊〉 declare such a prouidence of God to haue ben about him that he must be a very blinde and wretched Arrian which seeth not his worthines Or 〈◊〉 at his Glory And whom then follow you M. Iewel Those Bishops of the East whom your wisdome and Religion bringeth in for substantial witnesses They condemned Athanasius And for what other cause so principally as for his defending of the Catholike faith against the blasphemies of y â— Arrians Alow yow then his condemnaâ—oâ— Utter now your stomake and speake plainly whether you beleue y â— Christ is of one the selfe same Substanâ—ce with his Father Shew yourselfe as you are in your Opinions and put of the name and person of an honest Superintendent which you would seeme to beare and with al boldenesse vtter your secrete Diuinitie For hâ—re nowe I chalenge you here I charge you Alow you the Condemnation of â—thaâ—asius which your Bishops of the East concluded vpon If you doe Auaunt Arriaâ—â— â–ª If you doe not how can you but thinke euil of such arrogant and wicked Arrians which not oÌ„ly put him our of his See but also when he was restoâ—ed againe vnto it by the Iudgement of the Bisshop of Rome contemned that his SenteÌ„ce with greater spite and Insolencie than they had expelled Athâ—nesius and others at the first I say further If Athanasius Paulus Marcellus Asclepas and Lucius so 〈◊〉 Fathers â–ª â—eing â—râ—elled by the 〈◊〉 of the Easte thought themselues safe inough against all their Enemies hauing the letters of the Bishop of Rome for their lawful Returne vnto their Sees should not this alone be Argument inough to any Indifferent Protestant in all y â— world that he should not Contemne Abandone and Accurse the Authoritie of the See of Rome For whereas the Examples of Learned and Holy men are to be followed And whereas M. Iewel the Challenger w t others of his vaine doe pretend greate Reuerence towardes Antiquitie prouoking their Aduersaries to bring Testimonies out of the Primitiue Church And exhorting their Hearers and Readers to consider the practise of the Auncient tymes and Fathers how should he not haue the Bishop of Rome in greate Admiration whom he seeth to haue ben so highly estemed of the greate Bishops or Patriarches rather of y â— Easte Church Athanasius Paulus Marcellus c. y â— his letters were of more force w t them to restore them to their Sees than their own Power Habilitie was to kepe theÌ„selues in their own places when they had them Note also that whereas they were expelled by violence And wer seâ—t home again not with an Armie but with Letters onely Yet those letters preuailed so much with the People also of their Cities and Countries that straite wayes they were gladly receiued And had it not ben for the Conuenticle and Conspiracie of the forsaid Arrian Bishops of the East in which they not onely set al their owne Power against the Catholike Bishops Athanasiâ—s Paulus c. restored by the Pope of Rome but accused them to the Emperour CoÌ„stantinus making him to vse Uiolence against them the Catholike people of Constantinople Alexandria and other places would haue honored and Obeyed them stil as their owne true and lauful Bishopes Of which it is easy to gather that First the Blessed and Reuerend Bishops themselues Athanasius Paulus c. did seâ— very much by y â— Bishop of Romes letters and sentence And then that the Catholik and deuout people also of those quarters did regard and obey the same Thirdly that such as resisted then the Authoritie of y â— Bishope of Rome were plaine Arrians And last of al that it was not done by law or any order that those holy Bishopes Athanasius Paulus c. enioyed not the right of their own Seeâ— but by false Accusations of the Arrian Superintendenteâ— and Indignation Stomake Ediâ—â— Uiolence Persecution of the Emperour Constantius How litle then doth this Example of the Arrian Bishoppes make for M. Iewels purpose Yea rather how much doth it make cleane against hym For when wicked and nawghtie mens
the constitution through he maketh mentioÌ„ only Huius Regia Civitatis of this princely Citie meaning Constantinople and especially of the greate Churche there Of which he hath suche care and for which he taketh such a Special order that he apointeth how many Priestes Deacons and Subdeacons c. it should haue and not aboue As three skore a hundred Deacons and Women fortie which were not you may be sure their Wyues excepte two men and an halfe should haue gone to one Subdeacons nynetie Readers a hundred and ten Singers fiue and twentie so that al the number of the most Reuerende Clerkes of the most holy Great Church shal consist in foure hundred twenty and fiue besides and aboue a hundred of them which are called Oâ—â—arij that is Porters So many then Iustinian aloweth to the number of one Church in Constantinople for all his staie made that Clerkes should not encrease And that â–ª because that one Church was wel hable to find so manie without borowing of others or laying to pleage of their owne But with the Church of Rome or with Monks he doth not once meddle I faiâ— it againe M. Iewel he doth not meddle so much as once With what Face then and Conscience referre you this Constitution to the Church of Rome And in so greait a mater as the Supremacie is wherefore abuse you the Authoritie of the Emperour in making your Reader conceaue that Iustinian for all that the Papistes call the Churche of Rome Holy feared not yet to made a Lawe that it should not haue aboue a certaine number of Uicars Monkes and Prebendaries of which it would folowe by likelyhood that the Emperour tooke him selfe for a worthier Head of the Church than the Pope A plainer ExaÌ„ple thaÌ„ this to shew M. Iewels falsehod I can not lightly haue but that he shal not say that this is al I can obiect against him for mistaking or miâ—nsing of the Clinâ—e Lawe behold an other The Law saith Generaliter dictum Generaliter est accipâ—endum The thing that is spoken Generally most be taken Generally The Law saith it not â–ª But wheras a Legacie is to be paid pareÌ„tibus liberis to parents and children no mention being made in the Testament how farre these names should stretch For in the name of Parents Father Mother Grandsire and Grandmother And in the name of Children not only the Natural but the Adoptiue sonnes and daughters c. are vnderstanded The Pretor in this case answereth that they may be referred vnto al that may be comprehended within the forsaid Names Hereof the Lawiers gather a Rule that The thing that is spoken Generally must be taken Generally But the Law it selfe 〈◊〉 it not Now these Rules of the Lawiers witte and coâ—lection are not General but indefinite neither they in al places true but in certaine They are as some call them but Burchardica that is of the making of Burchardus the B. of wormes or as other say Brocardica that is to say meete Rules for such fine felowes emonge Lawiers as brokers are emong the Merchants They geue a shew of cunning learning as though he that vseth them boâ—h knewe and spake law but in deede none but triflers and pelters vse them except they prosecute them in their right sense For how sone maie it be Obiected by any man that if this Rule were true no man should be so hardie as to kill a lowse because the law of God saieth thou shalt not kil and M. Iewels lawe saieth that the thing that is spokeÌ„ generally must be takeÌ„ generally vpoÌ„ which obiection if M. Iewel would byd me staie a while and to vnderstand the lawe of God according to the Rule of reason and equity and that the killing only of man is forbydden such as proceâ—eth without lawful Authoritie or tendeth to the breache of Charitie c I would Replie not so wisely in dede as it should become a reasonable man but after as wise manner and fasshion as M. Iewel vseth and saie It is commonly said vbilex non distinguit stiguit nos distinguere non debemus â—here the law maketh no distinction theâ—â— ought we to make no distinction And therefore awaie with this Sophisticall distinction of lawful and vnlawful killing and goe to the Text it selfe whiche saith expressely Theu shalt not kil And so by this meane which M. Iewel foloweth an Heretike might be lousie by Authoritie nor only of the Law of God but the Rule of man except he would be so merciful as not to kil the vermyne but by some other waie put them awaie from hym Now if M. Iewel know not so much as that these Rules which he allegeth are not to be vnderstanded Generally although they sounde Generally why would he meddle with that which he dyd not knowe On the other side if he knâ—we wel inough that there are manie limitations vpon these rules why would he put that furth to be taken of his Reader absolutely and Generally which is not true but in certaine cases only â—ertainely â–ª y â— leaâ—ned in law wheÌ„ they speake of these very rules they restâ—ict theÌ„ many waies which I nede not rehearse vnto you being acquainted very well with the ciuile Lawiers or law Otherwyse if you were not you should do wel to reade Alciat de verboru singnifi Nicoâ—aus Euer ardus in his booke intitled Loct argumentorum legales And because one example against you to opeÌ„ your naughty dealing in this point is inough as also because the example is better â—erceiâ—ed of the coÌ„mon people then the rule I wil reherse y â— one most sensible case which the lawâ—ers theÌ„ selues do put to proue that y â— foresaid rules which you haue put furth for general must he limited Suppose y â— there is an act or law made by the prince y â— whosoeuer stryketh A man within his court and maketh him bleede shal leese his head or his hand for it Here the law is general in saying whosoeuer without exception of persons therfore as M. Iewel would haue it some it must be taken Generally It chaunceth then after this y â— some of y â— priuy ChaÌ„ber lieth sick of a pleurisy And the PhisitioÌ„ being at hand he counseleth y â— party to be let bloud And this being y â— most preseÌ„t remedy the Bargar cuÌ„meth stretcheth the vaine maketh the Gentleman bleed and loketh for a good reward I aske theÌ„ whether the Barbar shal leese his head or his hand for his labor And who seeth not that no Yet the law was general that whosoeuer strecheth c. yea but the Rule is not general that the thing that is generally spoken must be takeÌ„ generally For where y â— coÌ„mon wealth should take hurte by it if the lawe were vnderstanded generally as in the case of the Barbar it is not for the coÌ„mon wealthes profite that he an Innocent should leese either life or lymme there
vsed against it he had without al doubt some Prerogatiue of Iurisdiction aboue any other and by Consequence some more power then the rest of the Apostles bad And this I speak with the least because our Aduersaries be contentious knowing in dede y â— if I would presse theÌ„ further with this Testimonie of S. Cyprian they could not honestly denie but such a wisdome of God and prerogatiue of S. Peter was expressed in erecting one Head and beginning as should keepe the Church in vnitie And be a sure and certaine way for al them to take whiche liue in danger of heresies Which can not be so meane a thing as to sit first only in a place or speake only before other without further superioritie aboue other but enough is alreadie said both to de clare y â— trueth of S. Cyprians words the falsehoode of M. Iewel in abusing them Origene abused Origene saieth An verâ— soli Petro c. What hath Christ geauen the keies of the kingedome of heauen vnto Peter only and shall no holy man els receaue them This saieng To thee vvil I geue the keies of the kingdome of heauen is coÌ„mon also to the rest To whom the rest Uerely to euery good man which shal haue it reueled vnto him that Christ is the sonne of the lyuing God How thinke you then M. Iewel hath euery good and Faithfull Christian in the world as great as special authoritie as S. Peter If it be so how doth S. Paule say that God hath apointed in his Church first Apostles then Euangelistes Thirly doctours c. How saith he in an other place that Christ hath geauen to his Church some to be Apostles some Prophetes other Euangelistes and other to be Pasteurs and Doctours Or how is not the Subdeacon as great in authoritie as the Priest and the Priest as the Archebishope Yea the common laie men or women stedfastly confessing Christ how haue not they y â— Reies of y â— kingdome of heauen in their hands euen as the Apostles or S. Peter himself had For Origene pronounceth without exception that to haue the keies of the kingdome of heauen is promised to al that haue it reueled vnto them that Christ iâ— the Sonne of the Liuing God If therefore this sense can not stand we must â–ª of necessitie seke an other And consider in what sort Origen saith the keies of the kingedome of heauen to be geuen not only to S. Peter but to the rest also of good godly men But nothing more easy to be found For Origen y â— place as his maner is gathereth a mystical or moral sense of the literal and plaint historie Not by denying the Historie but by applying it to edificatiâ— Like asâ— Paul writing vnto the Galathians declaring vnto theÌ„ y â— the two sonnes of Abraham the one borne of Agar y â— seruant the other of Sara the free womaÌ„ signified the two Testamentes meant not to make vs beleue that there was not such a man as Abraham is described to haue ben or that such real and corporal promises were not made vnto him as the Scriptures doe testifie but out of the Literal historie he gathereth a mystical sense knowing that vnto the Fathers of the old law al things chaunced in figures the Trueth of which is reueled by Christ vnto his Church Now that Origen doth so as I do say it is plaine by his owne words For after he had shortly goâ—e ouer y â— text of Christs questioÌ„ to his Apostles vvhoÌ„ do men â—ar the sonne of maÌ„ to be the Apostles answering thervnto then entring as it were into a new mater leuing y â— historie y â— he might come to y â— moralitie he saith Fert assis auteÌ„ quod SimoÌ„ Petrus respoÌ„deÌ„s 〈◊〉 Christus filius dei 〈…〉 Thou art Christe the Sonne of the lyuing God If vve shal likevvyse saie as Peter did being reueled vnto vs not of fleshe and blud but of the light vvhich lighteth our hart froÌ„ the Father vvhich is in heaueÌ„ vve also are that vvhich Peter vvas c. And afterward he saieth that if we confesse as Peter dyd it shall be saied vnto vs Thou arte Peter and so furth as it foloweth in the Gospel So that the Church is builded vpon euery such good man and the keies of the Kingdome of Heauen are geauen vnto him and the gates of hel shal not preuaile against him And againe if any man say to Christ Thou art Christ the sonne of the hâ—ing God Non ex carnis aâ—t sanguinis reuelatione sed patris qui in coelis est consequetur ea quae dicta sunt vt euangelij quidem scriptum habet ad illum Petrum vt verâ— docet illius spiritus ad quemuis quit alis factus â—uerit qualis erat ille Petrus That is If any say to Christ thou art the sonne of the lyuing God not by reuelation of flesh and bloud but of the father vvhich is in heateÌ„ he shal attain vnto those things vvhich as the vvriting of the Gospel hath it vvere spoken of to that Peter but as the sprite of him or thereof teacheth vnto vvhomsoeuer you vvil vvhich shal be made such a one as Peter vvas It is plaine then by these wordes of Origene that he setteth a difference betwene the Literal sense and the Spiritual And that according to the text of the Scripture Thou art Peter was spoken vnto that singular Apostle S. Peter But according to a Mystical or Spiritual sense it is and may be spoken vnto any good and Faithful Christian. Yet euery one of them shal not be an Apostle Or haue power to forgeaue sinnes or exercise Iurisdiction This is therefore much to be noted and to be abhorted in M. Iewel He taketh the wordes of A Doctour which in the Doctours owne sense are true and godly and draweth them to his owne Interpretation in which they are moste false vnreasonable So haue rebels don hertofore as y â— rebels of Iermanie saing out of the Scriptures Bretherne ye be â—alled 〈◊〉 libertie and gathering thervpon that 〈…〉 The greater is M. Iewels fault which knowing except he haue vtterly lost his wiâ—re that it is to the present daunger of the common Reader to haue the words of any Doctour alleaged vnto him without the plaine declaration how they are taken doth for al this suffer yea teach him to beleue that Literally which is true only mystically or morally As that S. Peter had no greater Priuilege than any other because after a spiritual vnderstanding it is said vnto euery one that confesseth Christ accordingly Thou art Peter After which rate our Ladie only should not be the singural and natural Mother of Christ because whosoeuer doth y â— wil of his Father is his Mother S. Cyril abused S. Cyril saieth Apostolis eorum in Ecclesijs Successoribus plenam concessit potestatem Christ gaue â—ul power
vnto the Apostles and others that succeded them in the Churches 〈…〉 And the Correction due and ready for them whiche without license obteined meddle in an other mans Office doe plainely proue the contrarie And therefore vndoubtedly if you wil haue this place vnderstanded particularly of euery Bishope and saie that God hath geauen eche of them ful power the practise not only of al Christendome but of your owne congregation wil confute you In which there is difference betwen the Superintendent of Sarum and of Canterburie But if you wil refer the gift of ful power vnto some singular successours of the Apostles then is this text nothing preiudicial to the Supremacie of the Bishope of Rome in whom alone when ful power resteth the saying of S. Cyril may be verified For what they haue it is true to say that the Apostles successours haue it And this alone were inough to answer But now I say further That S. Cyril hath not as you report For in repeting shortly the Spiritual sense which was to be gathered out of those two actes of Christ the one when he passed ouer the See of Tyberias signifying therby the forsaking of the Iewes and wente vp againe into an hil with his disciples The other when he cast vp his eyes and beholding a number of people comming toward him fedde them to the ful with fiue loaues and two fishes of this miraculous fact of our Sauiour he saith Quare vetera noua scripturae mandata fidelibus per Apostolos apposita intelligebamus cuius myslerij plenaÌ„ Apostoli eorum in Ecclesijs successores gratiam possidebunt By which thing that is by Christes feeding of fiue thousand with fiue loaâ—es and two fisshes vve vnderstand the Olde and Nevy Commaundementes of the Scripture to be sette by the Apostles before the faithful The full grace of vvhich ministerie both the Apostles and their successours in the Churches shal possesse Conferre now Indifferent Reader these thinges togeather M. Iewel telleth thee as out of S. Cyril of a ful power S. Cyril speaketh of no more than a ful grace M. Iewel by this ful power would haue thee thinke that in the authoritie of binding and loosing no Bishop is higher then an other S. Cyril by his ful grace comprehendeth the grace of preaching only instructing of other The ful grace which S. Cyril nameth is so coÌ„fessed to be in y â— Apostles their successours y â— yet he signifieth not whether al should haue it equally or som be therin before their fellowes or whether the heades of the Church should apoint the Preachers which is nothing coÌ„trary to a Supremacie or euery man vse his gift before he be licenced which were altogether one of order M. Iew. concludeth of that ful povver which he maketh S. Cyril to speake of not only y â— such a povver was in the Apostles is in their Successors but also that it is ful in euery one of their successours that the B. of Rome hath not y â— Supremacie for which his handeling of y â— auÌ„cient Fathers if he may yet escape y â— note of a Falsifier then go not the procedings forward by indifferencie but with hatred of the contrary side with euident iniurie And now foloweth immediatly the abusing of an other Doctor S. Basil abused And S. Basil saith Christ appointed Peter to be Pastour of his Church after him And consequently gaue the same power vnto al Pastours and Doctours A tokeÌ„ wherof is this that al Pastours do equally binde and loose as wel as he First let vs see vpon what occasion to what end these words are spoken S â–ª Basiles purpose in y â— who le Chapiter out of which those words are takeÌ„ was to exhort vnto obedieÌ„ce such as liued in solitarines excercise of perfectiâ— HervpoÌ„ he bringeth furth y â— authoritie of Scripture saying Let euery man be subiect vnto the higher povvers Which Text by his collection proueth more strongly that Religious men should obey their Priors than Teâ—poral men the Princes of the world Agaiâ—e he alleageth Obey your Prepositours and be ye subiect vnto them After this he commeth to the Examples of Abraham in the Olde Testament and the Apostles in the New and 〈…〉 hanging vpon Crosses and diuerse other thinges But how For their owne sakes onely No but Vt per eos formaÌ„ relinqueret â—andâ— sequuturae posteritati that by them he might leaue the same Example and Paterne to the Posteritie that should folovv What Paterne Mary the Paterne of Obedience that as the Apostles folowed Christ through al Contradictions of the world and Aduersities and Deathes so should Religious men obey their Fathers and Superiours in al things Then doth it folow Atque hoc à Christo ipso docemur dum Petrum Ecclesiae suae pastorem post se constituit And this vve be taught of Christ him selfe vvhen he appointed Peter to be the Pastor of his Church after him What This be we taught Whether that one Apostle is as good as an other or one Bishope as high as an other or the Curate of as great Authoritie as the Person or the Person of as large a Iurisdiction as the Bishope No. But that we should be obedient vnto our Pastours For thus it foloweth in S. Basile Quem admodum igitur c. Therefore lyke as Sheepe obey the Sheepeherd and go vvhat soeuer vvay he vvil so they that excercise them selues in godlines must obey their Rulers and nothing at al serch their commaundementes curiously vvhen they haue no sinne in them but coÌ„traryvvise to accomplish them vvith most readinesse of minde and diligence As if he should shortly haue said Christ appointed Peter and other after him in order to be Sheepherds Ergo Christe appointed such as were vnder their Charge to be as Sheepe But Sheepe obey their Shepherd without making any inquisition vpon his leading and guiding of them Ergo we be taught obedience by Christ him selfe in this also that he made Peter y â— Pastour of the Church after him To this ende by these meanes S. Basile bringeth his discourse in the foresaid Chapiter which I haue the more at large opened vnto thee that thou maist see Indifferent Reader how litle he intended to speake against the Popes supremacie or for the equalitie of Priestes of Bishopes that one of them should be as high as an other What moued then M. Iewel to vse S. Basil in this place Or what words are they here by which he coÌ„â—irmeth his AssertioÌ„ His Assertion is y â— the old Catholik Fathers could neuer vnderstande any such special Priuilege of binding and loosing as M. Hardinges Athanasius attributeth to the See of Rome But how proueth he this Christ saith he out of S. Basil appointed Peter to be Pastor of his church after him Note then that Christ is First and S. Peter Next And this maketh directly
of Christs entring into his passion and that done to receiue bread and wine in remembrance thereof and to be thankeful therefore he promised to come hymselfe and set thinges in order and therefore such orders and maners as the whole Church hath and doth throughly vse about the celebration of the Mysteries are to be thought to haue come from the Apostles Of these words then also As for the rest vvhen I come my selfe I vvil dispose it maie with good reason be gathered that the Apostle did prescribe orders and rules to be obserued concerning Persons Time and Place with other Circumstances And that the Institution of Christ stretched no further than to Consecration Oblation and Participation of his pretious bodie And that one alone or manie togeather to receaue was not by Christ apointed but left to his Apostles to be ordered But it foloweth in M. Iewel that S. Augustine in this place speaketh not one word of any number But only of the time of Receauing whether it might seme conuenient to minister the Communion after Supper You be verie bold either with S. Augustine or with your Reader Doe ye cal y â— speaking only of the time where the question of tyme is not at al spoken of Reade the place who wil and if there be any such question intreated as M. Iewel reporteth although I haue many Arguments to the contrarie yet wil I say he is an honest and true man In the fifthe chapiter of that epistle these questions are mentioned whether vpon good friday Oblation and Sacrifice should be done twise in the morning first and then after supper Item whether the people should first keepe their faste then eate that daies meale and last of all haue the Oblation and Sacrifice made Or first keepe their faste and then haue the Sacrifice made and last of al go to their meales meat To which questioÌ„s his answer is that euery man should in these points do as y e vse of the church is vnto which he cummeth Because ther is nothing in them against either Faith or good maners In the next chapiter folowing out of which D. Harding toke his testimony the question doubt is not whether one might Offer or Receaue in the morning or at euening which perteineth to tyme but whether he that had eaten the same daie before might afterwardes either Offer or Receaue the bodie of Christe whiche is A Question concerninge the state of the Persons only And not the qualitie of Tyme Unto which his answer is that it hath pleased y â— holy Ghost that for the honour of so great a Sacrament the bodie of our Lord should first enter into the mouth of a Christian before external and carnal meates Now because the heretike might say as some in these daies vphold where is it in al the Scripture that a man should come fasting to the communion And whi might not one if he would receiue after Supper as the Apostles dyd or in the Supper tyme as the Corinthians dyd S. Augustine meeteth with this obiection alleging that sentence which M. Harding to like effect vsed and saying That in vvhat order the Sacrament should be receiued Christ gaue no precept thereof but left that office to his Apostles Let M. Iewel now defend hymselfe if he can and proue that he hath not falsly reported of S. Augustine in the place of the Epistle ad â—anuarium saying of hym that he speaketh not one word of the number of CoÌ„municantes but only of the tyme of Receauing That he speaketh only of the time of Receauing it is false For these be his wordes Saluator non praecepit quo deinceps ordine sumeretur vt Apostolis per quos dispositurus erat ecclesiam seruaret hunc locum Our Sauiour gaue no commaundemeÌ„t in vvhat order it should be Receaued to the intent he might leaue that mater to his Apostles by vvhom he vvould dispose his Church Hereof I gather this Argument The apointing of Order how thinges should be don doth extend itself to more than apointing only of the time in which it is to be done But of the Authoritie left with the Apostles to set an Order in Receauing of the Sacrament S. Augustine doth speake in his epistle 〈…〉 speaketh only of the tyme of receauing S. Gregorie abused In the communion As the people saied the Lordes praier altogether as it is noted by S. Gregorie so they Receaued al togeather Are ye not ashamed so to say that it is noted so by S. Gregorie we haue I thinke his epistles in the same priâ—t as you haue them and y â— effect of that epistle out of which you haue gathered this note vpon S. Gregorie is that he answereth certaine persons which thought it was vnmeete that he should goâ— aboute to keepe vnder the Church of Constantinople but his owne Church And of the Pater noster he saith Dominica oratio apud Graecos ab omni populo dicitur apud nos autem a solo Sacerdote Our Lordes praier is said among the Grecians of al the people but with vs it is saied by the Priest alone Here then I appose you againe M. Iewel was the Masse of S. Gregories tyme a Communion or Priuate Masse â–ª for you make an oppositioÌ„ betwen these two thinges If it were a priuate masse then must you yeld and subscribe because it is then found by your own confession within the first six hundred yeres If it were a Communion how say you that the people said the coÌ„munion praier al together as it is noted by S. Gregorie wheras you see him so plainely to testifie that in Rome the Priest alone dyd saie our Lordes Praier Yea say you perchaunce but it was otherwise emonge the Greekes and in their Communion the people saied the Lords praier al together Yea but S. Gregorie noteth not only such point and he speaketh not of their communion or not CoÌ„munion So that you be exceding much to blame for abusing the names of holy Doctours so vainely and making them to be compted to thinke that which they doe not speake S. Cyprian abused The Catholâ—ke Faith is that the Churche is not bound by the vertue of Christes Institution to deliuer the Sacrament vnder forme of wine vnto the people The hereâ—ikes repiâ—e against it and saie that by Christes Institution the people should Receiue the Cup also But how wil this be proued By many old Fathers But In steede of many for shortnes sake to allege but one S. Cyprians wordes in this mater be verie plaine Remember then what the mater is You must proue out of S. Cyprian that the people should Receaue not in the one kinde alone of Bread but of wine also And if you M. Iewel wil not remember it yet I praie thee gentle Reader to marke diligently whether he proue any such thing out of S. Cyprian Some ther be that in sanctifiyng the cup and deliuering it
〈◊〉 in one case may 〈…〉 〈◊〉 that 〈…〉 haue you that haue 〈◊〉 â—aith remayning yet vnto you And â—ou that haue no sâ—ith And mynde 〈◊〉 knoweth when 〈◊〉 for all that 〈…〉 it 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 them selues wil not in some pointes speake against it For now not to beleue the Canonical Scripâ—ures who dareth And how greate cause hath A fainte and weake harte to assent vnto them whiles the enemies of the Catholike faith doe not openly denie them But when hereaftâ—r Iniquitie and Impudencie shall so aboâ—nde â–ª that faith shal be measured by Reason and not by Authoritie and when by litle and litle men shal be accustomed to conteâ—â—e mocke the Appariâ—ions made vnto holy persons by Angels Saintes the Mother of God or Christ hymselfe and lyken them to fables and Illuâ—ions of the 〈◊〉 Poetes and wicked Sprites that raigned â—mong the Panymes what credite wil be geaueÌ„ shortly after to the Scriptures themselues Wil not the Commyng of the three Angels to Abraham and the Feast which they toke at his handes wil not the wrastling of the Angel with Iacob a whole â—â—ght longe together wyl not the Angels that appeered to Agaz Iosue Balam â–ª Manâ—e Dauid Elias wil not the fiery Chariots that Elizeâ—s saw wil not the Terrible horse wâ—th one in golden armour sitting vpon him and two goodly and glorious yong men in bewtifull apparel which scouâ—ged Heliodorus that would haue spoyled the Orphanes and wydowes and other of their goodes that late in safe keepinge in the Temple of Hierusalem wil not the Angels appeering to the Maries and the Apostles al in white and the Angel that byd S. Peter aryse and put on his hose and shewes wil not al these thinges be quikly and desperately resembled to the conuersations which Homers Goddes and Goddesses had with such as they fauored Nothing is so easie as to cal thinges into doubt to disgrace a true and holy Storie by obiecting a lyke vnto it of the telling of Idolatours or the making of Poetes In which kind of Confounding Marring and Spoyling of thinges M. Iewel hath a Folissh Grace and if he had any Reuerence to Old and Approued Stories he woulde neuer haue ioyned Sozomeâ—us and Homer together He therefore that hath Faith let hym thanke God for it and praie for the increase he that hath none but is negligente or Indifferent let hym thinke aduysedly vpon the sauing of both soule and bodye and make speede to beleue the Scriptures themselues whiles so litle contradiction is against them For other writers then afterwardes let hym consider whether it will stand with saluation to beleue none or whether it be of necessitie to admiâ— al Or whether it can agree with any reason and constancie to contemne them whome he hath for good cause once alowed In beleuing nothing but Scripture there is present daunger For by that Reason Scripture it selfe can not be â—redited because it is not writen in all Scripture In beleeuinge euery thing there is absurditie because of so many Contradictions and Contrarieties as are found emong Writers In beleuing of certaine bookes not yet as Scripture but as the bookes of Lerned Auncient and Generally receiued Authors and sayinges as worthie to be credited and esteemed as our owne opinions there is wisedome and discretion But â–ª if as M. Iewel hath geauen most shameful Examples any man wil contemne the selfesame whome he would seeme to allowe that is such a point not only of Hypocrisie but of Iniurie also that as he should BEWARE OF M. IEWEL for it so should â—e take heed to hym selfe least he fal in it How M. Iewel vseth the selfesame testimonies of the first six hundred yeares against whiche he bringeth Exceptions when his Aduersarie allegeth them THus far then we are come against M. Iewel y â— I haue proued him to â—ind y â— Catholikes vnto y â— first six hundred yeres bysides al reason and equitie And that hymselfe alleageth Authorities of later yeres with all holdnes and libertie Thirdly that he wil not stand to the witnesses of the first six hundred yeres vnto which he appealed so precisely Aâ—d what is there now that maie be added vnto his Chiualrie For in deede this maie be well called his Chiualrie to prouoke as it were al the world and to make conditions such as 〈◊〉 hym and when the battel increaâ—eth â–ª to chainge his armour to put on a 〈◊〉 face to denie that he alowed to alow that he denied In which as he hath shewed hymselfe like as I â–ª by Examples haue declared A 〈◊〉 so what he maie or hath addâ—d therunto to would be considered And I find that his noble Courage and tried Magnanimitie is so greate that the selfe same Authorities against which he fought too the and naile in the Chappiter before he hymselfe in his owne proper person aloweth in other places of his Replie and vseth for substantial and good Argumentes This to proue at large were very easie but in recompense of the last Chappiter before which hath been longer than my opinion I wil make this preseÌ„t one shorter than my first determination And shortnes also maie wel be taken wheÌ„ the mater is in sight that is to be proued I saie therefore Against S. Chrysostomes Masse M. Iewel doth argue in the 10. page of his Replie And not only reasoneth simplie that it can no◠〈◊〉 his but taunteth also them preâ—ily that would haue it to be S. Chrysostomes But â–ª how much he is deceaued in his Aâ—gument and how litle cause he hath to dalie as though he had the victorie it is sufficiently declared alreadie fo 53. of this booke The same M. Iewel in the 89. and 90. page of the Repliâ— where the place of S. Chrysostome There is none to Communicate is layed against hym there I saie he vseth the testimonie of this Liturgie conâ—esseth it to be S. Chrysostomes For these be his wordes Chrysostome himselfe in his Liturgie saith thus Againe But what needeth much proufe in a Case that is so plaine Chrysostome hymselfe in his Liturgie that Commonly beareth his name foloweth the same order Againe This was the order of S. Chrysostomes Masse touching the Clergie and that by the wytnesse of S. Chrystostom himselfe Note the wordes Indifferent Reader and see what proportion is in M. Iewels doeings That Liturgie which before could not be S. Chrysostomes because it praieth for Pope Nicolas and because A praier is there for the Empire and Victorie of the Emperour Alexius and because I trowe it were prophesieing and noâ— praieing that Chrysostome praied for men by name seuen hundred yeres before they were borne that same nowe is S. Chrysostomes by M. Iewels owne confession And not only S. Chrysostomes but Chrysostomes hymselfe For herein also is a greate strength that y â— place which was obieâ—ted against hym beinge taken out of S. Chrysostome he thought to adde a Grace
somuch vsed in the primitiue Church The Church sence that tyme hath chaunged the maner of kissing and kepte the signification whiche was in it by geauing of the pax or peace But this peace say you was not a litle table of syluer or somwhat els as hath bene vsed yea and is still vsed in the Churche of Rome but a very cosse in deede in token of perfit peace and vnitie in faith and religion So Iustinus Martyr saieth speaking of the tyme of the holy Mysteries we salute one an other with a cosse So likewyse Chrysostome and others True it is M. Iewel and knowing so much of the practise in the Primitiue Church why doe ye not vse this so Auncient and holy a Ceremonie If you will not haue the Pax of syluer either for sparinge of charges Or feare of Commissioners vpon Church goodes Or in despite of the Church of Rome vse then in your mysteries a very cosse in deede according to the Paterne of the Primitiue Church And iâ— neither old nor newe Ceremonies can please you why crake you in contemning the Later that yet you regarde stil the Auncient and Approued Orders Or with what face doe you allege these approued Fathers testimonies by whose sayings you wil not be ruled M. Iewel is alwaies â—â—sie iâ— proâ—ing that the people in the Primitiue Churche dyd Communicate with the Priest As though the concluding of that were a cleane ouerthrowe to the Catholike Religion yet no Catholike did euer deâ—se it and aâ— this tyme also when Charitie is 〈…〉 yet doe the people often in the yere 〈◊〉 with the Priest Now by occasâ—on of proâ—ing this which I must againe saie no man denieth he saieth in diuerse places of his Replie The Deacons receiue the Communion aftervvard the Mysteries be caried vnto a place vvhere the people must Communicate It is lawful only for the Priestes of the Church to enter into the place vvhere the Aultare standeth and there to Communicate Let the Priestes and Deacons Communicate before the aultare the Clerkes in the quiere and the peoâ—le vvithout the quiere Howe like you these dstinctions of Places and Persâ—ns M. Iewel Yea rather why lyke you them not Haue not yoâ—â—ulled downe Chauncell Taken away partitions made the pauement thoroughout leuell Set the Communion table in the myddle Set formes for the Laitie to sit about it And haue not your selfe geauen strange orders as it were to al the people noting it by your owne wit as appâ—ereth out of Fabian the Pope that men and women made the sacrifice of the aultare and of bread and wine and therefore after the order of Melchisedech But if the people could not so much as come nigh the Aultare where the Priest stode or receyâ—e at the most in the quier how far of were they at those daies from y â— irreuereÌ„cie y â— now is vsed And how far wide are you froÌ„ y â— towardâ—es is reforme al things by the paterne of the primitiue Church Yet are you not afraied nor Ashamed to allege those Councels and Authorities which condemne your â—rocedinges vtterly S. Basile saieth M. Iewel thinking still all thinges to helpe hym that proue a coÌ„munitating of moe together reporteth an ecclesiastical decree or CanoÌ„ that at the receiuing of the holy Communion which he calleth Mysticum pasca ther ought to be twelue persons at the least and neuer vnder And you to proue your selues folowers of Antiquitie and Restorers of ecclesiastical Canons haue decreed that three shall make vp a Communion and for A neede the Prieste and the sicke person alone Si haec vasa c. If the mater be so daungerous to put these sanctified vessels vnto Priuate vses wherein is conteined not the very body of Christ but the mysterie or Sacrament of Christes body c. You iudge I perceiue the Author of that booke to be S. Chrysostome and this place to be true and godly Therefore â–ª that you maie consider it the better and by your commendacion other Protestantes I wil englishe the whole sentence vnto them The Author of that booke whosoeuer he were persuading with the people to vse wel their tongue least vncleane spirites doe enter thereby into their bodies If it be synne and daunger saieth he to put haloued vessels vnto priuate vses as Balthasar teacheth vs vvhich because he dranke in halovved cuppes vvas put byside his kingdome and his life If then it be so daungerous a mater to put these sanctified vessels vnto priuate vses in vvhich the true bodie of Christ is not but the mysterie of his bodie is conteined hovv much more behoueth it vs concerning the vessels of our bodie vhich God hath prepared for himselfe to dvvel in not to geaue the deuil place to doe in them vvhat he vvil A stronge argument surely and persuasible For if deade metal which by it selfe is not apte to receiue holinesse be had yet in Reuerence because of the speciall vse which it serueth for in the temple of God how should not our bodies the lyuely vessels of our reasonable Soules be kepte still pure and Inuiolâ—â—ed If for the vessels which Balthasar â—â—phaned which serued in the Figurâ—â— of the old law which had not y â— very body of Christ in them â–ª but A signe and Mysterie only thereof If for these God plagueth and striketh how shal they escape which receiue into their bodies the very true Body of Christ and haue God corporally dwelling in them through the Mysterie of his Incarnation and vertue of his Consecration And yet dare turne themselues vnto prophane vncleane vses This is the true sense of that place But when begyn you M. Iewel to tell openly the daunger which they incurre before god though y â— world alow it which Either after vow made of Chastitie haue turned them selues first out of their Monasteries and shortly after haue ouerturned themselues into Incestuous Carâ—alitie Either spoiling the Churches of God of the halowed and consecrated vessels haue conuerted them into prophane vses and drinke in Chalices at their Tables No doubt by the example of Balthasar but that they are in sore daunger which serue themselues anâ— their priuate Affections with the 〈◊〉 and proper vessels appointed for God And if it be so in corruptible and base maters are not the polluted weddinges of Nonâ—es Monkes harlottes and Renegates much more accursed and execrable But when wil you protest this much M. Iewel And if you like not this consequence why refuse yoâ— your owne witnesse This place also that foloweth is made to serue for prouâ—e that there were that Communicated with the Priest They that haue fallen into Heresie and do penance for the same vvhen the Nouices that be not yet Christened be commaunded to depart out of the Church let them depart also â–ª Ergo they that remained did Communicate togeather Wel to let go y â—
worse for his handling And cause truly he hath none why he should allege any Glose of the Canon law at al. For whereas himselfe regardeth not no not the Text it selfe and the Catholiks also wil not be bound to make â—ood the priuate sayâ—ing of any Gloser it is a greate vanitie to bring in such â—itnesses as him selfe may well knowe are not sufficient Yet though I say so â—e shall not require of me to mocke straitewayes at any Gloses Or to bring furth vnto y â— knowlege of the siâ—e wittes of y â— worlde some simple deuises and disâ—ourses that they haue made to theâ—tent thei may be laughed at For there are Degrees in euery thing and he that wil not be so good as to praise euery Inuention of the Glose needeth not to be so il as to seeke how to finde fault with it but may wel inough be suffered to hold his peace Now concerning M. Iewels behauiour if he hath such an itche y t he thinketh to rubbe vs on the gal by alleaging such witnesses as we may and do laufully refuse Why doth he not allege them truely Why doth he tel their tale after them in such sort as he findeth not in their owne words Why doth he vpon this preiudice emong the greater number that Glosers are but Ignorante and trifling men bring forth blind and vain sentences out of them which in dede are not theirs though it wil be easily susspected but M. Iewels whome many compte so honest that he wil not in any case make a Lie or missuse his own witnesses in any point This Obiection of mine to Exemplifie or Prosequâ—te at large I dooâ— not intend but in one or two examples I wil beginne the Chapiter that he which herafter wil adde more vnto it may haue a plaine peculiar place where to put it In the Answere to D. Hardinges Preface it pleaseth M. Iew. to open his mouth awide and to auouch that the Pope speaketh after this maner I can do what so euer Christ him self can do I am al and aboue al Al power is geuen to me as wel in Heauen as in Earth You are not so honest as to be trusted vpon your bare worde and therfore name vnto vs your witnesses which may depose for you that the Popes haue euer vttered wordes with such Arrogancie And you referre vs to the Glose De Maioritate Obedientia vnam Sanctam But what saith that Glose Doth it tel of any one Pope by name Or doth it report so much of the order and succession of them that euery one of them hath in his course and for his time â—ounded it out into al the world that I can do what so euer Christ him selfe can do c You wil Answer because there is no other shift that the Gloser speaketh such words of the Pope not that y â— Pope himself doth speak them in his own person of him selfe Why then I Iudge you by your own words that you haue made an open lye in attributing that vnto the Popes owne Act which is not his â–ª but y â— Glosers collection vpoÌ„ the Canon law Then further I say that many thinges are verfied in sundry Persons concerning their Uocation or Office which iâ— cannot become the persons theÌ„selues to appropriat to them selues For the Apostles of Christ vvere lightâ— of the vvorlde Yet if S. Peter had begon his Epistlâ—s with this stile and Title Peter the Apostle of Iesus Christ and one of the lightes oâ— the world he could not haue beâ— thought to haue folowed the humility which was in Iesus Christ. Lykewise euery man that is in the state of Grace is vndoubtedly the Sonne of God and Felow of Angels and Conquerour of Diuels vutyl he doc forsake that Grace â—et if you M. Iewell should â—â—ent yourselfe of al your bragging 〈◊〉 â–ª lying â–ª c. and Reâ—urne to y â— Catholike Church be receiued into the Communion of Sainâ—es it would not be liked in you to write yourselfe Ihon Iewel A Conqueror of y e wicked Sprites A terrour to heretikes A CoÌ„fort to Catholikes A welbeloued of al Virgins Confessours Martyrs Apostles and Patriarchs A felow w t the Angels A Cusson of our Ladies A sonne of Almighty God And so the Conclusion being true that there is no Autoritie in the world compâ—rable to that which Christ gaue to S. Peter his Successors â–ª yet doth it not agree that the Pope should in the first person crake or sound out of himselfe I can doe whatsoeuer Christ himselfe can doe For whereas high dignitie Autoritie is geuen vnto men for others sake which are to be gouerned not for their owne which beare the Office and whereas such Gifts Graces fo gouernemeÌ„t make not the 〈◊〉 of them acceptable as saith hope charitie doe there is no occasioÌ„ to â—rake of that which perteineth not to any man in respect of his Person but only of his Office On the other side wheras to coÌ„feâ—â—e the worthinâ—sse of an Office may wel become a wise and worshipful man so that he attribute nothing therof vnto himself as he is one singular person if the Pope Concerning his Office do confesse it that the chiefe Bishoppe in the Church must rule al Christians and be subiect to none of them al M. Iewel must not therefore slaunder him that he openeth his mouth a wide and vttereth blaspemies and soundeth out these wordes into al the world I may iudge al meÌ„ but al the world may not Iudge me But by such forme of speach the simple Reader and common Protestant coÌ„ceiueth of the Pope that he standeth a tipp toe And ouerlooketh al the world And is in great loue and conceipt of him selfe And respecteth alwayes his priuate Estimation And forgetteth that there is a God and right Iudge and that him selfe is a Man and a Sinner as other folkes are and that he attributeth an Omnipotencie to his owne proper person c. Wherevpon he taketh an Indignation and accompteth him to be a very Beast or Diuel and no man that so preferreth him selfe before other men And is ready to accurse and detest and reuile and speake and iudge the worst y â— he can of the Pope And this is one of the vile and wicked kindes of Rhetorique that is vsed nâ—w in the worlde For when it is plainely and simply said Christ breathed vpon the Apostles and saied take ye the holy ghost whose sinnes ye forgeue they be forgeuen whose sinnes ye retaine they be retained he that wil finde any faulte must not be angry w t the Apostles which take the Grace but with the Author and geauer of it Iesus Christe But no Christian I thinke and faithful man doth abhorre to heare these woordes spoken Now then The Diuel which seeth Christe his owne person to be in much honour and that when wordes are considered as spoken of him the Christians harts are subdued by them What doth
the Church of Rome either the Prerogatiue which himselfe â—ath from the Church of Rome without asking of leaue of y â— B. of Rome No surely the Effect can not worke vpward towardes the cause or worke so excellently douneward as the cause neither the Bisshops of Constantinople or Iustiniana taking their Prerogatiues from Rome can endue others with like Priuileges without consent of the Bishop of Rome Therefore although the Bisshop of Constantinople hath the Prerogatiue of the Litie of Rome it foloweth not that the Bisshop of Rome is nothing superiour to the Bishop of Constantinople And if y â— Lord President in Wales should haue geauen vnto him all the Prerogatines of the Kings Court in England it foloweth not that the King and he are Hayle felowes wel mette for euer after And Christ our Sauiour although he said vnto his Apostles As my father sent me so I send yow geauing thereby vnto them as greate Prerogatiue as himselfe had yet he meant not that y â— Apostles should think themselues as good as their head euen in those thinges which they should doe as wel as Christ. M. Iewel therefore doth very unteasonably conceiue of the Law that the Popes Supremacie was not acknowledged because the Communicating of his Prerogatiue with some other Bisshops is found expressed in the Law But it wil be replied that Generaliter dictum generaliter est accipiendum The thing that is spoken generally must be taken Generally I answer this Rule fayleth when by other expressed texte of the Law that which seemeth to be spokeÌ„ Generally in one place is restricted limited in an other For in the next title before this of which we speak the Emperour sayth to y â— B. of Rome Omnes Sacerdotes vniuersi Orientalis tractus subijcere vnire Sedi vestrae Sanctitatis proper auimus Vve haue made speede both to subiecte and to vnite vnto the See of your Holmes all the Priestes of the Vvest partes Againe in the same law a litle after Vve vvil not suffer sayeth Iustinian that anything vvhich perteineth to the state of Churches although that vvhich is in controuersie be vndoubted and manifest shall not also come to the knovvledge of your Holines Quae Caput est omnium Sanctarum Ecclesiarum Vvhich is the Head of al boly Churches Let the Bishope then of Constantinople enioy the Prerogatiue of the Citie of Rome in as large and General sense as M. Iewel wil yet this must be prouided for first of al that the Prerogatiue which the B. of Constantinople shal enioye doe not contrary the former law which Subiecteth al Priestes of the vvest vnto his holynes And which confesseth him to be head ouer al Churches Thus haue I sufficiently and manifestly proued that M. Iewel hath abnsed the Canon Law The Lawiers themselues haue more to say vnto him for his impudencie if he be so impudent as euer to shew his face before them And nowe to the Olde Fathers and Doctoures How M. Iewel hath abused the Auncient Fathers IT is incredible how M. Iewel hath abused the Doctours Incredible I meane not in respect of Protestantes which thinke so wel of him that they beleue no oue euident vntruth to be within all his Replye but of Catholikes which knowing the cause that he defendeth to be vtterly false may iustly suspect euery Witnesse that he bringeth in for his Doctrine And which hauing already taken him in manifest corrupting of Witnesses cannot but know him for one that loketh suspitiously wheÌ„ so euer he is about Auncient Fathers Yet I assure thee â–ª Indifferent Reader the Catholikes themselues did not thinke that any man would so haue corrupted true Sentences as he hath done Or so ofre haue folowed such vnlawful craftes as are not once to be vsed of honest men But these you will say are but wordes let us therefore come to the thinges themselues And first concerning such Illations of M. Iewels as he vseth in geuing of the cause or proufe of his sayinges He applieth thereto the Testimonies of Auncient Fathers so loosely and so disagreeably as if a man would saie The Waters of Bath are exceding good against the Ache in the Ioyntes And 〈◊〉 the Prophete saieth Omnessitientes venite ad aquas Alye that be a thirst come to the waters Yea M. Iewels Applications doe worse agree with the premiâ—â—es For his position lightly is heretical or erronâ—ous and his Authoritie for it is no more proper vnto it than the foresayed sentence of Esaie serueth to the commendation of the Baâ—hes in England For proufe hereof I wil choose but our place in which for establishing of his Assertion he bringeth one vppon an other very thicke foure Auncient Doctours togeather Of all which there is not one that serueth his purpose M. Hardinges Athanasius saieth Power to bind and loose is geauen to the holy See of Rome And yet the old Catholike Fathers could neuer vnderstand any such special Priuilege Marke now Indifferent Reader whâ—ther the places whiche M. Iewell wil allege do proue any such thing at al. S. Cyprian abused S. Cyprian saieth Quà muis Dominus Apostolis omnibus c. The Lord read And although our Lorde after his Resurrection gaue like power vnto his Apostles Reade all his Apostles yet to declare vnitie he disposed by his Authoritie the Original of vnitie Reade of the same vnitie beginning of one The rest of the Apostles were euen the same that Peter was endewed with like felowship both of honour and of power here doth M. Iewel make a full pointe yet it foloweth in the same very sentence But the Original cometh of vnitie to declare that the Church is one In this testimonie of S. Cyprian those wordes And although which M. Iewel left out in the beginning of the 〈◊〉 are first to be considered as depending of the sentences which immediatly went before And opening the question which now we haue in hand For after S. Cypriane had declared that the Deuil seeing the Idols and Temples which he occupied before to be forsaken and lefte void through y â— increase of the Faithfull conuerted his craft to deuising of Schismes and Heresies by whiâ—h he might ouerturne the Faith corrupte the trueth and cut or diuide vnitie After this he â—â—ferreth â—oc eò fit fratres dilectiss dum â—d veritatis origâ—em non reditur nec caput quaeritur nec magistri coelestis doctrina Seruatur This moste deere brethren vnderstand that Heresies are set abroad doth therefore come to passe for that vve return not vnto the original of truth And for that an Head is not sought for nor the Doctrine of our heauenly Master is obserued Now because euery man perceiueth not the force of this saying and diuerse would haue it better opened and expressed vnto them He addeth Probatio est ad fidem facilis compendio veritatis that is The proufe hereof to make thee beleue it is easy because of the compendiousnes of the truth
And how is that It foloweth Loquitur Dominus ad Peâ—rum c. Our Lord speaketh to Peter I tel thee saith he that thou art Peter and vpon this Peter or Rocâ—e I vvil builde my Church and the gates of hel shâ—lnot ouercome it Vnto the vvil I geue the keyes of the kingdome of Heauens and those thinges that thou shalt bind in earth shal be bouÌ„d in the heauens also and vvhat soeuer thou shalt loose vpon earth shal be loosed also in the Heauens And vnto the same Peter after his 〈…〉 my sheepe By these wordes then it is manifest what is Original Head and Doctrine of our heauenly Maister that is to the forsaking of which Sainct Cyprian imputeth the Proceedinges of the Diuel and of Heresies Uerely no other than that which our Sauiour by the foresaid expresse Scriptures gaue to S. Peter But now heere ariseth a greaâ—â— doubt and question that S. Peter can not wel be the Heade because euery one of the Apostles was as great in Power as he And this in deede is the Argument that M. Iewel maketh out of S. Cyprian against the Supremacie Which if Sainct Cyprian hadde not espied and Answered then should M. Iewel easily be pardoned But now what an intolerable kinde of soule dealing is this to take an Obiection out of an Olde Father and either for Hast. Or Negligence Or Craftines Or Desperatnes to let go the right answer vnto it For concerning the Obiection Sainct Cyprian thus withstandeth it saiyng And although he gaue after his resurrection lyke povver vnto al his Apostles c. yet to declare vnitie he desposed by his Authority the Original of the same vnitie begining of one By the Obiection then it scemeth that no more accompt should be made of S. Peter then of the vest of the Apostles which seuerally was as greate in power as he But by the Aunswere made with this Aduersatiue Tamen Yet it is manifest that notwithstanding the equa litie among y â— Apostles S. Peter yet was y â— First and the Head among them For Christ disposed by his Authoritie saith S. Cyprian the Original not of vnitie as you mangle it M. Iewel but of the same vnitie which vndoubtedly was in the Apostles beginning of one which is S. Peter As in the Sentence folowing more manifestly appeereth to the further opening of S. Cyprians right meaning and your false dealing For the one halfe of the Sentence is this in deede the rest also of the Apostles vvere the same that Peter vvas endevved with like fellovvship honour and povver This half M. Iewel you rest vpon and build your Conclusion that one of them had no more Priuilege than an other And why interpreted you no further Is the sentence or Sense thinke you at an ende when you haue your purpose Doth not S. Cyprian Interpret Correct Amend or Determine it with an Adnersatiue yet saying least any maÌ„ should through his former words set lesse by S. Peter or his Chaire But yet the Original commeth from vâ—itie that the Church may be shevved to be one And what other thing is this to say but that notwithstanding it to be true that the Apostles were endewed with like honour power as S. Peter was yet no manne ought to gather heereof that there was no Order among them Or that one Bishope now hath as large and absolute Authoritie as an other But this rather must folowe that because schismes and Heresies doe grow apase vvhere no Original or Head is sought for or regarded And because it should be perceiued that the Church is One in that it coÌ„sisteth of one Head vnto whome al the rest were they neuer so high or felow like must be refer red therefore Christ by his Authoritie disposed the Original of that vnitie â— endewed S. Peter with a singular Prerogatiue that he shoulde be that One in the Church from whom whosoeuer departed should not be of the Church And note wel the Cause why the beginning must rise of One vt Ecclesia vna monstretur that the Church might be shevved to be one Why Should it not be One though in euery Diocese through the world euery seueral Bishop were Chief therein No surely by S. Cyprian it should not be But in that the Head therof is but one the vnitie of her doth folow necessarily How doth it folow Mary Whosoeuer holdeth not with this Head he is not in the Church and so must none remaine within her but the Catholike obedieÌ„t Christians How caÌ„ they but agree then al in one Head if they mind to coÌ„tinue in y â— Church wheras y â— departure from hâ—m is to take an other Church bisides that whose special marke is Vnitie in one Head This conclusion then standing that S. Peter was set by the Autoritie of Christ in the first place was that no special Priuilege trow you Or was he First to that intent oÌ„ly that in reckening vp the Apostles men should know where to begin Or that in their meetings together he should sitte first Or speake first Or subscribe first How simple things are these for the wisedome of God to think of And how litle auailable to the preseruing of the Churche in Unitie if no further Preeminence were geuen him And againe if the B. of Romes authoritie now as S. Peters was then were of no more force yet beeing of so much if other would sit before him Or speake before him in any Councel should they not be Offenders against the ordinance of God How can it be otherwise whereas he appointed by his Authoritie the Original of Vnitie to begin of One Suppose then that some one transgresseth this order who shal reproue him If none how vnreasonable is it to set a law and not to include therby an authority to punish the transgressor of the Law If any who more worthy of that Office then the Chief Bishope Ergo there was in S. Peter a proper Authoritie ioyned to that dignitie of his first place which M. Ie. grauÌ„teth vnto him by which he had power to coÌ„troll them y â— should or wold â—esist that Primacie of his in how smal thing so euer it consisted And if there were such Authority Ergo some special Pâ—â—â—lege of Binding or Losing which no other of the Apostles had Except ye wil be so mad as to thinke that in coÌ„trolling of a fault committed against any Excellent Person his Inferiour should be Iudge in the mater and bind or loose at his wil or discretion I leaue it therefore as most manifest that notwithstanding the Apostles were equal in felowshipp of honour and power â–ª with S. Peter yet the Original of 〈◊〉 was appointed by our Saluiour himselfe to begin of S. Peter only and none other And this his preeminence make you it as litle as you can requiring A Proportional Authoritie to be graunted vnto him for the defense therof against al disdaine or disobedience that might be procured or
S. Hierome And to this effect he draweth his ernest and sharpe Interrogations But y â— case vnto which S. Hieromes words do rightly answer is only this Whether he that hath had carnal knowledge of his Wife the night before do not wel to absteine the next day from going to y â— Memories of Martyrs and the Churches abroade Or whether he may not Receaue the Sacrament at home To which his Answer shortly is this that he may as wel receiue at church as at home and that he should doe wel not to receaue at al the day folowing the night of his carnal pleasure w t his wife For after he had said that he would neither reproue nor coÌ„mend the Custome of daily receiuing of the faithful of Rome he coÌ„meth in with an aduersatiue But in this sort Sed ipsorum conscientiam conuenio qui eodem die post coitum coÌ„municant c. Quare ad Matyres ire non audent Quare non ingrediuntur ecclesiaes But yet I appose their coÌ„science vvhich coÌ„municate the same day after they haue carnally knovven their Vviues VVhy dare they not goe to the Martyrs Memories VVhy goe they not to Church Is Christ one abroade an other at home That vvhich is not lavvful at Church is not lauful at home To God nothing is hidden yeâ— darkenesâ—e also shineth before him Let euery one examine himself so come to the body of Christ. To this end therefore S. Hierome bringeth his whole Argument not that it were simplie to be reproued to receâ—ue at home but that such as had companied with their wiâ—es the night before should not the day after Receaue at home considering that they are worthily abashed to come before the Martyrs Reliques after such nightes and that Christ is to be honoured aboue al and in al places both at home and abroade Of which conclusion it would folow that Matrimonie is not so good as Uirginitie which was one of the heresies of the Protestant Ioninian whereas by the Acte of Matrimonie the partie is made for a tyme vnmeete to Receaue the blessed Sacrament Iudge thou now Indifferent Reader whether S. Hierome doth ernestly reproue the custom of Receiuing at home without any addition of such Circumstance as varieth the whole question S. Angustine abused â—ho is he saieth D. Harding out of S. Augustine that knovveth not that the Principalitie of Apostleship is to be preferred before any Bishoprike that is Which words S. Augustine speaketh because of a comparison which he made betwene S. Peter and S. Cyprian For whereas the Donatistes dyd much obiect against the Catholikes that S. Cyprian with many other his Felowbishopes concluded and determined in a CouÌ„â—el had emong themselues that such as were baptized of heretikes should be rebaptized againe wheÌ„ they came to the Catholike Church by which Authoritie of S. Cyprians name other Bishops many thei thought to bear downe y â— papists before them S. Austine like an holy reuerend father conteÌ„neth not the Authority of S. Cyprian but preferreth y â— authoritie of S. Peter before it Now these foresaid words making expressly for the Principalitie of the Apostleshipe which was in S. Peter what saicth M. Iewel vnto them Mary his first Answer is that Principatus Principality doth not signifie an vniuersal power Of which Answer we haue already spoken but shortly this may be repeted that although Principatus put alone by it self doth not signifie alwaies an vniuersal power for in euery degree of act and art the best hath the Principalitie and yet he shall not be Pope or Emperour yet Principatus Apostolatus the Principalitie of Apostleshipe 〈◊〉 declare that in that Order itselfe of Apostles he that hath the Principalititie is the Chiefe And surely then the Chiefe emong the 〈◊〉 which were heads of the world must needes be Supreame Gouernour ouer al Christendom And thus muche shortly concerning M. Iewels first Answer The second Answer or not answer properly but Caâ—â—laud and quarel is That M. Harding dissimbleth the words that S. Augustine in the very same place allegeth out of S. Cyprian very wel seruing to this purpose To what purpose To proue that there is no Supremacie in the Church 〈…〉 The wordes be these Nec Petrus vendicauit c Neither did Peter challeÌ„ge any thing or proudly presume of himselfe to saie that he had the primacie and that therfore others as Nouâ—â—es and Vnderlinges should be Obedient vnto hym All these thinges M. Harding dissimbleth Is this it that very well serueth to the purpose Doth the omitting of this senâ—ence make D. Harding A Dissimbler In these wordes as you allege them I see the humilitiâ— of S. Peter much commended but I see not the Principality of his Apostleshipe disproued Wherefore then should D. Harding haue alleged them or why laie you dissimulation to his charge for omitting that which if it had ben vttered had nothing hindered the Principalitie of Apostleship which he sought to declare But I praie thee Indifferent Reader to consider M. Iewels sinceritie in this place In this place I saie where he 〈◊〉 it againe anâ— againe and triumpheth vpon it that M. Harding dissimbleth and that to fournisshe out his mater and to smoothe his Reader he leaueth out what he listeth O the Trueth that is in M. Iewel It semeth by him that if he might winne whole kingdomes be would not leaue out any iote of Chapiter that should very wel serue to the purpose But is he not deceiued in his owne opinion of himself Is not he himselfe properly a dissimbler Behold what be hath done In this very sentence for leauing out of which he noteth D. Harding hymselfe leaueth quite and cleane out those wordes which if he had interpreted as he did the rest of the sentence it should easily haue ben perceaued that D. Harding had no cause to dissimble What mâ—aâ—e I here by Mary this I mean that this sentence which M. Iewel would haue to be taken as qualifieing and diminishing the Principalitie of Apostleshipe by whiche D. our Lord chose him to be first and that vppâ—n him he builded his Church 〈…〉 But wil A man see a dissimbler You M. Iewel are he And that in this 〈◊〉 place where you are busy in finding fault with other for dissimbling These wordes M. Iewel touching S. Peter Whom our Lord chose to be first or Chiefe and vpon whom he builded his Church Dyd ye not see these words M. Iewel How could ye but see them wheras they stand in that sentence which you so much tied that for not speaking of it you â—ind fault with D. Harding The begynning and end of which whereas you interpreted vnto the Reader how could ye but see the myddle And therefore seeing the wordes and yet skipping them who now is the dissimbler if we may come before equal Iâ—dges The words which you leue out are not light they are not impertinent to the question of y â—