these plaine wordes agreeth the Doctrine of the olde Fathers S Chrysostome saith Quod est in Calice id est quod è latere fluxit illius nos sumus participes That whiche is in the Chalice is that Chrysost in Ephe hom 3. whiche flowed from his side and thereof wee are partakers And againe Vasa non participant nec sentiunt Sanguinem quem in se habent nos verò planè The vesselles partake not ne feele not the bloude which they conteine in them but we do partake it And as there Chrysostome saith the vessels haue the same bloud of Christe for the time which commeth to our hartes and soules Augustin epist 86. S. Augustine also saith dicit cessisse panipecus tanquam nesciens tunc in Domini mensa panes propositionis ponisolere nunc se de agni immaculati corpore partem sumere Dicit cessisse poculo sanguinem non cogitans etiam nunc se accipere in poculo sanguinem Vrbicus saith that the Lambe of the newe Testament hath geuen place to the bread of the new Testament being ignorant that both then the shew bread was wont to be put vpon the table of our Lord and that now also he taketh his parte of the Body of the vnspotted Lambe He saith that bloude of the olde Testament hath geuen place to the cuppe not considering that he nowe also receiueth bloude in the Cuppe Marke Reader this comparison of S. Augustine that as the olde Fathers did eate of the Lambe so do we of the true Lambe Christe and as the Priestes of the Law had bloud in their basens euen so haue we in our cuppe whence we receiue it The oddes onely is that their bloude was onely the bloude of Calues not hable to cleanse man but our bloude is the bloude of Christe which cleanseth al sinnes Our Sacramentes therefore are the spiritual noueltie of the new Testament not lacking either Aulter or Fire or Breade or Lambe or Bloude but hauing them al in Christes Body and Bloud into which the breade and wine are so conuerted that the verey true and real bloude of Christe is receiued in the cuppe Oecumenius also saith Oecumenius in cap. 11. 1. Cor. Pro sanguine irrationalium Dominus proprium dat sanguinem et bene in poculo vt ostendat vetus testamentum ante à hoc delineasse Our Lord in stede of the bloud of vnreasonable beastes doth geue his owne bloude and it is wel that he geueth it in a cuppe to shew that the olde Testament did foreshadow this thing Euthymius agreeth with the same Fathers If then it be cleere by Christes owne wordes and by the interpretation of the Fahers that the same bloude which was shed for vs and which ranne out of Christes side was in the cuppe and that thence it is partaken seing that wine was not shed for our redemption it is cleere that after Consecration wine was not in Christes cuppe except as I said before we take wine by a metaphore as Christ is the vine and his bloud is the wine of that vine which Christ is Notwithstanding that I haue great aduantage in the rest of M. Iewels wordes yet seing this much doth suffice for the Catholike reader I wil not spende moe wordes therein but wil passe away to some other mater Concerning the adoration of the Sacrament Adoratiō there is much more said of it in myne owne and in other mennes bookes then as yet M. Iewel or al his fellowes haue answered And that thing wholy dependeth of the real presence Of applying the merites of Christes Death to others in the Masse The 9. Chapter Harding WEe neuer taught that by our Masses wee applied and distributed al the merites of Christes death to men how soeuer they were disposed Iewel Pag. 297. The most catholike pillers of your catholike Church as namely Caietanus haue said that faith is not necessarie for him that receiueth the Sacrament of thankesgeuing notvvithstanding he acknovvlegeth this vvas an errour Harding What vanitie is this to laie that to Cardinal Caietane which your selfe cōfesse he defendeth not but acknowlegeth to be an errour The wordes by you alleged out of a booke made by one Paralip Vrsper anno 1518. that was as false a brother as your selfe do meane no more but that a man may receiue Christes body albeit he haue no faith as Iudas did What is this to the purpose that we speake of Moreouer if Caietane once had thought which he neuer did that by the Masse we applie Christes merites to menne not wel disposed yet seing you say he tooke it for an errour afterward by this meane I might prooue that M. Iewel were a Papist bicause once he professed the beleefe of the Catholike Church when verely that Church was only meant by Godfathers Godmothers and the Ministers which had the Sacrifice of the Masse and praiers to the Saintes and Praiers for the Dead But you can not M. Iewel allege vs any one man that saith that by the Masse we applie the merites of Christ to menne howsoeuer they be disposed Neither doth Gabriel Biel nor Iacobus de Valentia De venerab Sacramento altaris c. 1. nor S. Thomas teache so whose wordes you corrupt with false translation englishing Pro quotidianis delictis for the debte of daily sinnes where debte is not in the Latine And in deede the debte of al sinnes as wel actual as original was taken awaie by the Sacrifice of the Crosse But we see euidently that the acte or actual doing of al sinnes was not then taken awaie For euen now faithful menne do sinne daily Therefore wee neede stil a dayly Sacrifice of none other substance then that of the Crosse was but euen of the very same substance which substance hath in it al his merite of the Crosse And thus we offer Christes body and bloude not now in truth by bloudshedding as once only vpon the Crosse it was offered but in mysterie by changing the breade and wine into his body and bloude We offer it thus I saie to applie vnto deuoute persons by faith and sacramentes the merite of the Crosse praying vnto God that the death of Christ which is euer auaileable in it selfe may through his bloude which we offer in the chalice and drincke with our mouth and partake in our soules by faith and charitie be made auaileabe vnto vs. Iewel Catharinus one of the VVorthies of your late chapter of Trident saith Deincruēto Sacrificio Apparet c. Harding Whatsoeuer he said he is none of our Worthies nor yet is he allowed of the Councel of Trente when soeuer in any matter of Doctrine he speaketh otherwise then that Councel doth I doubte much M. Iewel how in the iudgemēt of wisemen these boish flowtes become a man of your professiō in that so vainly you praise vnto vs now Peter Lombard now Gratian now the Gloser vpon him now Lorichius now Cusan now Catharinus now Caietane now Alphonsus now Pighius
custome of falsifying al that he taketh in hande euen here also he playeth that parte as kindely as any where elles For although some suche wordes or the like be in deede founde in my writinges against him yet they beare not suche an owgly and lothsom visard as he putteth on them As for example whereas sometimes for good cause I can not finde in my harte to cal these mennes rash Innouation of the auncient religion their wicked abrogation of certaine Sacramentes their vile prophanation of the reste their horrible contempte of the body and bloude of Christe in the most blessed Sacrament of the Aulter whereas I say I can not finde in my harte to cal these thinges Godly procedinges restoring of the Gospel the sincere Worde the right Ministration of the Lordes Supper as they would al men to cal them but contrarywise Deuilish spite wickednes and villanie to cause the mater to seme more odious he reporteth my wordes thus your Deuilish spite your Deuilish wickednes your Deuilish villanie c as thoughe I had spoken them to him and to his felowes specially whereas for the more part suche wordes are spoken not in the second but in the third person of the Heretikes of our time indefinitely and in general Whiche neuerthelesse if I had spoken vnto him and them directly it had ben no greeuous sinne their desert considered For therein had I folowed the counsel whiche S. Antonie that blessed man gaue vnto his Scholers a litle before he departed this life To whom he said thus as S. Athanasius who wrote his life reporteth Athanas in vita Antonij Haereticorum venena vitate meumque erga eos odium sectamini Scitis quòd nullus mihi pacificus sermo cum eis fuerit Auoide the poisons of Heretiques and folow the hatred that I haue borne them Ye know that I had neuer any peaseable talke with them How so euer it be it had benne M. Iewels parte to haue vsed more truth in his writing But why did he not set forth my whole sayinges where suche wordes be placed What reason is it a man to burthen his Aduersarie with certaine wordes only and with silence to dissemble his entiere sentences By what laudable example hath he done thus Whiche of the olde Fathers euer did so If no man euer did it before these daies then so farre as the Catholique Church hath not erred in Faith and hath no neede now to receiue a new Gospel of Luther Zuinglius or Caluine by this practise he sheweth him selfe aswel a folower of the inuentours of new malice as a mainteiner of new Heresies Brentius the first author of this new deuise of laying the Aduersaries sharpe wordes together in one heape practized by M. Iewel This deuise of laying together in a heape al the sharpe wordes with whiche one feeleth him selfe prickte culled out of the aduersaries wriâ—â—nges is very strange and new and before this age whiche bringeth forth many rare nouelties was neuer vsed of any learned man In our time it is begonne and for ought I know first practized by Brentius who in the beginning of his booke against Bullinger entituled Recognitio propheticae Apostolicae doctrinae c written in defence of his newe doctrine of Vbiquitie laieth together in a heape al the wordes that Bullinger had vttered in his booke against him whiche might seeme sharpe rough and vngentle so softely must these menne now be handled after that they haue spent al their intemperate railing vpon the Pope the Papistes the most blessed Sacrament of the Aulter the daily Sacrifice the other Sacramentes and the godly Ceremonies of holy Churche Wherefore M. Iewel is not like to haue the glorie of this new deuise he must be content to yeelde it vnto Iohn Brentius whose ape and folower he is in this as in many other pointes worthy of smal praise Now if Bullinger the grande Captaine of the Sacramentaries of which secte M. Iewel is a professed mainteiner thought it not vnseemely for the grauitie of his Ministership to be so plaine with Brentius as to put him in minde sometimes of his deserued titles by saying he was Rixator Spiritus inflatus CaluÌ„niator c. a Branler In RespoÌ„sione BreÌ„tij ad primam partem Bullingeri pag. 8. 9. a pufte Sprite a spiteful speaker a skoffer a mocker a Hickescorner a peruerter a lyer vncleane impudeÌ„t a babler a brabler a craker a thrower of Christ out of his heauenly seate madde light childish a iangler a reuiler a sclaunderous person an Eutychian a Sophiste a railer woorse then Swenckefeldius him selfe Againe if he thought it not discommendable in him selfe being the chiefe Superintendent of Zurich to cal BreÌ„tius booke writen in defence of that new heresie Brentianas nebulas figmenta c. The mistes and deuises of Brentius Head vaine and peeuish â—oies knauish folies a doctrine dissoluing the hope of the faithfulles assured saluation in heauen a madnesse a phantasie Sophistrie crafty fetches most false deuises a feeble write Sophismes guiles a booke of Riddles a fabulous monstre a Sophistical Egypte stincking trifles prodigious Vbiquitie frantique wordes c If Bullinger I saie one of your noblest Worthies thought it not vnseemely for his degree and state to vse suche bitter eloquence and order of speach in reprouing Brentius and was neuer and it is like should neuer haue benne reproued for it among them of your owne Sacramentarie Secte M. Iewel why are you so heauy a Maister to me whom you esteeme muche lesse then Henrie Bullinger the Successour of your great Patriarke Zuinglius in the Chaier of your doctrine at Zurich as to blame that in me whiche you could not finde in your harte to disallow in Bullinger Wel how so euer in please you fauorably to iudge of your owne great Maisters and laye lode of reproches vpon me yet this muche you maie cal to your consideration Wordes considered alone without composition sounde good or euil according to their signification and al manner of wordes may be vsed without blame Of the sentences and whole sayinges onely where the circumstance may be considered and weighed faire or fowle speache is conceiued Now if thou wilt take the paines Reader to turne to the places of my bookes whence M. Iewel hath piked out those wordes for vse of whiche he reproueth me as a man of vncourteous vtterance thou shalt right wel perceiue in case heresie haue not vtterly bewitched thyne vnderstanding and bereued thee of al iudgement the verdure of my speache to be suche as may seme conuenient for a vessel of the holy Ghoste to taste of It may please M. Iewel to consider that by degree of Schoole and by lawful calling otherwise I stand in the place of teachers And therefore though at this present the Pulpite be denyed me yet I find not my selfe wholly so discharged of the office of teaching Now hauing no other conuenient meane to teache but by writing what ought I at this tyme to write
before you teache your doctrine It is most certaine they did not B. Shaxton and B. Capon repented Leaft out by M. Ievvel How so euer those two first named only in some part of their life taught amisse how afterward they repeÌ„ted abhorred your heresies and dyed catholikes it is wel knowen Now besides these whom elles can you name M. Iuel can shew no laufull successioÌ„ in the bishoprike of Salisbury If you can not shewe your bishoply Petigree if you can proue no Succession then whereby holde you Wil you shew vs the letters patentes of the prince Wel may they stand you in some stede before men before God who shal cal you to accompte for presuming to take the highest office in his Churche not duely called thereto they shal serue you to no purpose I cast out by M. Ievvel Here if you alleage an interruption of this Succession of doctrine as it hath ben alleaged by some of your side then must you tel vs when and where the same beganne which you can neuer do In prascis ptionibus aduersus haereticos These be TertulliaÌ„s vvordes You know what Tertullian saith of suche as ye be Edant origines ecclesiarum suarum c. We saye likewise to you M. Iewel and that we say to you we saye to eche one of your companions Tel vs the original and first spring of your Church Shewe vs the register of your Bishops continually succeding one another from the beginning so as that first Bishop haue some one of the Apostles or of the Apostolike men for his author and predecessour For by this waye the Apostolike churches shewe what reputation they be of As the Church of Smyrna telleth vs of Polycarpe by Iohn the Apostle placed there The Church of the Romaines telleth vs of Clement ordeined by Peter S. Augustine hauing reckened vp in order the Bisshops of Rome to Anastasius successor to Siricius who was the eight and thirteth after Peter saieth that in al that nuÌ„ber and rolle of Bishops there is not found one that was a Donatiste Epist 165. and thereof he concludeth Ergo the Donatistes be not catholikes So after that we haue reckened al the Bishops of Sarisburie from Bishop Capon vpward we shal come at length in respect of doctrine and orders to S. Augustin the Apostle of the English who was made bishop by S. Gregorie and from S. Gregorie vpward to S. Peter And in al that rewe of Bishops we shal finde neuer a one that beleeueth as M. Iewel beleeueth ergo your Zuinglian and CaluiniaÌ„ beleefe M. Iewel and of the rest of your felowes is not catholike Leaft out by M. Ievvel But what speake we of succession to them who haue no orderly succession as no secte of heretikes euer had Hard queâ—â—ionâ— proponed to M. Iuel Therefore to go from your Succession which ye can not proue and to come to your Vocation how say you Sir you beare your selfe as though you were Bishop of Sarisbury But how can you proue your Vocation By what auctoritie vsurpe you the administration of Doctrine and Sacramentes What can you alleage for the right and proufe of your Ministerie Who hath called you Who hath layd handes on you By what example hath he done it How and by whom are you consecrated Who hath sent you Who hath committed to you the office you take vpon you Be you a Priest or be you not If you be not how dare you vsurp the name and office of a bishop If you be tel vs who gaue you Orders The institution of a Priest was neuer yet but in the power of a Bishop Bishops haue alwayes after the Apostles tyme according to the Ecclesiastical Canons ben consecrated by three other Bishops with the consent of the Metropolitane and confirmation of the B. of Rome Leaft out by M. Ievvel Thus Vnitie hath hitherto ben kept thus Schismes haue ben stayd And this S. Cyprian calleth legitimam ordinationem For lacke of which he denyed Nouatian to be a bishop or to haue any autoritie or power in the Church Hereto neither you nor your felowes who haue vnlaufully inuaded the administration of the Sacramentes can make any iust and right answer I am sure Athanas in Apologia 2. What do not you remember what iudgement Athanasius and the Bishops of Egypte Thebais Lybia and Pentapoli were of concerning Ischyras the Arian And why may not al good Catholique men iudge the like of you Ischyras and M Iuel compared together Macarius a Priest of Athanasius as it was layd to his charge by his accusers pulled Ischyras from the aulter as he was at Masse ouerthrewe the holy table brake the chalice The matter brought to iudgement Athanasius and those bishoppes both denied the fact and also though it were graunted yet defended the same as wel done because Ischyras was not a lauful minister of the Church And why so Because he was not lawfully made Priest nor with churchly laying on of handes consecrated Leaft out by M. Ievvel Colluthus HuÌ„c presbyteri Diaconi Mareotici vocant noÌ„ verum sed imaginarium episcopum Epist. ad Curiosum Phylagrium Apolog. 2. apud AthanasiuÌ„ For proufe thereof they alleaged that neither he was of the number of those whom Alexander bishop of Alexandria before Athanasius receiued into the Church made Priestes by Meletius the heretique neither that he was by the sayd Alexander created Then how is Ischyras a priest say they or of whom hath he receiued his orders Hath he receiued them of Colluthus For this shift onely remaineth Colluthus was an Arian who bare him selfe for a bishop and gaue Orders being but a priest Now Colluthus say they in their reply could not make him a priest for that he died in degree of priesthod himselfe and neuer was consecrated bishop and that al imposition of handes or geuing of orders was compted of no force and that al they whom he had consecrated were brought downe againe to the order of the laitie and vnder the name and in order of lay men receiued the coÌ„munion Hereof they conclude that Ischyras could be no priest And therefore it was denied that there was the mysterie of the body and bloude of our Lorde VVhat may be iudged of the nevv communion By which example besides other points we are taught what to iudge of your pretensed Communion Againe what say you to Epiphanius who writeth against one Zacchaeus of his tyme for that being but a laye man with wicked presumption tooke vpon him to handle the holy mysteries and rashly to do the office of a Priest CoÌ„tra haereses lib. 2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Least out by M. Ievvel Likewise where he findeth great fault with two other of which the one dwelt at a monasterie in the wildernes of Egypt the other at Sinaeum for that they feared not to execute the thinges that belong to Bishops not hauing receiued the imposition of handes The doiÌ„g
the very last man had drunke of that cup once filled and once coÌ„secrated for to that end this word al doth serue And that may wel appeare by S. Luke Luc. 22. who geueth vs Christes wordes in this wise Accipite diuidite inter vos Take yee and diuide it betwen you Which wordes S. Augustine saith were spoken of the Cup of the newe Testament Augustin de consensu EuangelistaruÌ„ lib. 3. c. 1. Enim Matt. 26. Drinke ye al of this in vvhat sâ—â—se vvas it spokeÌ„ Marc. 14. Diuide this Cup betwen you and drinke yee al of this doth make al one sense and that may more plainely appeare by the word enim for which doth follow in Christes saying Drinke ye al of this for this is my Bloud As if he said were not this my bloud eche of you might drinke vp the whole cup if occasion of thirst so required But now it is geuen not to quench bodily thirst but to nourish the Soule Therefore drinke ye so that al may drinke of this one Cup. Et biberunt ex illo omnes And al they dranke of it Thus we see by the Circumstance of the place that the worde al doth nothing elles but warne them of the Mysterie present in the Cup whereof we may not inferre that al which at any time doo communicate in one Churche must needes drinke of one Chalice as the Apostles did as neither that there muste be stil twelue to drinke of euery Cup. For that was a Circumstance so vsed in Christes Supper as we can make no lawe thereof The true lawe to directe vs in that behalfe was committed to the Apostles who taught the Churche that alwayes at the Consecration it was needeful for bothe kindes to be offered and receiued as wel that the being of Christes Soule aparte from his Body at his death might be signified as also that the publike Minister might wholy represent by his outwarde action that here is al foode necessary for mannes comforte whether it be meate or drinke that he needeth As for the reste it shoulde be al one whether they that communicated receiued one or bothe kindes bicause the whole Body Bloude Soule and Godheade of Christe is fully present in either kinde Concerning that S. Chrysostome and Theophylactâ— haue said as wel of the cup as of the bread Doo this in my remembrance it meaneth that as wel when we consecrate the Body as when we consecrate the Bloud or when we receiue either of them bothe the end of our doing must be the memorie of Christes death Whereas Paschasius addeth expressely that the Ministers must as wel drinke of the Cup as the reste of the faithfull you name vs not the place where we maye find it And therein you haue done more politikely then vprightly or plainely For in deede it maketh not for you Paschasius speaketh of the spiritual eatiÌ„g or drinking Paschasius ca. 15. Paschasius in that place disputeth of spiritual eating or drinking and saith that as wel the faithful people as the ministers muste drinke spiritually of this Cup. His wordes immediatly before are these Solus Christus est qui frangit hunc panem per manus ministrorum distribuit credentibus dicens accipite bibite ex hoc omnes tam ministri quà m reliqui credentes It is Christ alone that breaketh this bread and diuideth it by the handes of his ministers vnto the beleuers saying take ye and drinke ye al of this as wel ministers as also the other beleeuers this is the Cup of my Bloud Lo as wel the ministers as al others are bid to drinke of the bread or Cup indiffereÌ„tly to wit of Christ so that he speaketh no more of the Cup then of the bread but al in like wise of Christ alone For Paschasius saith ca. 15. that Christe brake the bread saing take yee and drink yee al of this this is the Cup of my bloud He then so mingleth the breaking of the bread with the drinking of the Cup that a man may wel perceiue that he rather spake of the thing it selfe conteined vnder those formes then of either kinde or forme by it selfe Iewel Pag. 230. M. Harding him selfe is forced to confesse by the reporte of Leo Sermone 4. De qua drages that the first knovven deuisers and authors of his Communion in one kinde vvere the olde heretikes called the Manichees Harding Where haue you any such word in al my booke M. Iewel I must beare with you for customes sake M. Ievvel forgeth vvordes vpon his Aduersarie For this is your accustomed manner to make me speake that which I neuer thought It is to be vnderstanded that before the time of Leo and in his time also the manner and custom was that the faithful people receiued either one or bothe kindes as their deuotion serued them By occasion of which custom The Manichees heresie denying Christes true flesh the Manichees also couered their pestilent heresie as they who beleued that Christ had no true flesh and consequently no true bloude but onely a phantastical or apparent body without real truth of flesh and bloud They then perceiuing that at the mysteries some Christians vsed to receiue one kind alone mingled them selues alwaies with them and wholy absteined from the Chalice Which thing when Pope Leo perceiued he gaue a watch worde thereof vnto the people saying Sermone 4. De qua dragesim Cùm ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse mysterijs ita in Sacramentorum communione se temperant vt interdum tutius lateant Ore indigno Christi corpus accipiunt sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrae haurire omnino declinant Whereas they to hide and cloke their infidelitie be so bolde as to be present at our Mysteries they behaue them selues so in the receiuing of the Sacramentes that now and then they may lurke the more fafely They receiue with vnworthy mouthe the body of Christe but as for the bloud of our redemption they vtterly refuse to receiue it Now if these men came thus to the mysteries among the Christians to hide their heresie and infidelitie it is not to be thought that they alone receiued one kinde For then they had forthwith ben betraied But whereas other men receiued either the body or the bloud as occasion or deuotion required the Manichees euer receiued only the body of Christ and neuer the bloud and that with this false and heretical opinion that Christe had no true bloud Gelasius then being Pope not long after Leo willed al the Christians who before were at libertie to receiue bothe kindes that thereby al oportunitie and occasioÌ„ might be taken from the Manichees any more so to lurke and to cloke their impietie Now to declare this muche is not to confesse that the Manichees were the first deuisers of Communion vnder one kinde Wherfore you maie haue good leaue M. Iewel to take that spiteful Vntruthe to your selfe home againe
A DETECTION OF SVNDRIE FOVLE ERROVRS LIES SCLAVNDERS CORRVPTIONS AND OTHER false dealinges touching Doctrine and other matters vttered and practized by M. Iewel in a Booke lately by him set foorth entituled A Defence of the Apologie c. By Thomas Harding Doctor of Diuinitie Psalm 4. Filij hominum vsquequo graui corde vt quid diligitis vanitatem quaeritis Mendacium O ye sonnes of menne how long wil ye be dul harted what meane ye thus to be in loue with Vanitie and to seeke after Lying RESPICITE VOLATILIA COELI ET PVLLOS CORVORVM IF LOVANII Apud Ioannem Foulerum Anno 1568. CVM PRIVILEGIO REgiae Maiestatis Priuilegio concessum est Thomaâ— Hardingo Sacra Theologia Professori vt Librum inscriptum A Detection of sundrie foule errours lies sclaunders c. per Typographum aliquem Iuratum imprimere ac impunè distrahere liceat Datum Bruxellis 24. Maij. Anno 1568. Subsig Vander A A. The Preface to the Reader AT the first comming of this Treatie to mens handes what saith one so smal a Booke for answer to so great a Volume Shal this Detection conteining litle aboue one hundred streetes of Paper matche the Defence that is almost foure hundred sheetes What meaneth D. Harding Is he not hable to confute M. Iewel Or is he loth to take paines To this I answer How hable I am to confute what so euer M. Iewel hath written not onely in his late pretensed Defence but also in his Replie or in the Apologie whereof at leaste he is thought to haue benne the penneman let it be iudged by the learned this wil I boldly saie if he haue no better meane to make his partie good then hitherto he hath vsed write he what him liste it shal be no great praise to any man to haue confuted him As it had benne smal glorie for valiant Achilles to haue beaten Thersites whom Homere describeth ready of his tongue and a coward of his handes so among the skilful Diuines he may not looke to winne great coÌ„mendation of learning who confuteth M. Iewelles writinges For certainely good Reader if thou haue but a meane insight in these Controuersies nowe so much disputed of betwixte the Protestantes and vs and wilt bestowe some good labour about the exacte trial of the thinges he hath written thou shalt easily espie the feeblenesse of his side Thou shalt finde that he perfourmeth more in shewe then in acte that commonly he maketh vp in Tale where he lacketh of Weight that with multitude of wordes he couerâ—th thâ— pâ—nurâ—â— of Râ—â—â—â—â— that with huge numbers of Doctours sainges he setteth foorth the barrennesse of substantial Prouâ—â—â— aâ— mâ—ny do their thinne Hippes with stufte Hosen and their solender Armes with bombast Sleeues This being so whereas the dewe discussion of these pointes in controuersie descendeth vnto the bottom of thinges and swimmeth not aboue vpon the fome of wordes euery man can soone conceiue howe meane learning may suffice to confute such a Writer If therefore I make profession of sufficient habilitie in this case there is no cause why I should be reprehended as one that attributeth more vnto him selfe then male seeme to stand with modestie This muche being said for proufe of habilitie some perhappes would beare what I haue to saie for my selfe that I am not lothe to take paines For he that is hable to doo a good and profitable worke and refuseth the labour to doo it seemeth to be gilty of slâ—wth True it is to refel al that M. Iewel hath written or rather gathered together out of others for in deedâ— he doth nothing els in manner but laie together heâ—pes of other mennes sayinges against the Catholique Churche and against the Catholique Religion it were greate paine By iudgement bothe of Cicero and Quintilian the labour of writing is accompted very greate And the Scripture saith Eccles 12. Faciendi plures libros nullus est finis frequénsque meditatio carnis afflictio est There is no ende of making moe Bookes and the often breaking of a mannes braines about suche studie is a greate pounishment to the bodie If any doubte hereof let him set him selfe a worke earnestly about writing in suche sorte as I speake of and he shal saie as I doo I doubte not And therefore it behoueth them that geue them selues to writing to haue not onely health but also good strength of bodie Al this M. Iewel knewe right wel And for that very cause when he sawe that smal bookes would fone be answered as it appeared by my Answer made to his Chalenge and by my Confutation of the Apologie he thought it better policie or it was so put in his head by the aduise of his brethren to goe an other waie to worke that is to saie to replie vpon me and to make his Defence with huge Volumes that either a long time should passe before an answere could be returned hoping that in the meane while his Gospel should take too deepe a roote afterward to be pluckt vp out of the Readers haâ—tâ—s by any what so euer booke that should come to their handes or that I should be wearied and worne out with the labour of answering and perhappes die before I came to the ende or that the very hugenesse of the bookes should fraie me from the enterprise of making aâ—swer In this case it seemed to mee best neither by taking vpon me to answere the whole Bookes and euery parcel of them to geue our Aduersaries the aduantage of the time not to shorten my life by immoderate paines emploied to no great profite nor by my silence and by open geuing ouer the whole as it were by fleeing out of the fielde to leaue them vnto their Triumphe but by answering the pointes of greatest importance to set forth a sufficient Defence of the truth for staying of the doubteful to confirme them in the true doctrine and thereby to geue out a cleere euidence what truthe is to be looked for in the reste of his superfluous stuffe sith he hath shewed him selfe so vntrue a dealer in the chiefe matters Thus haue I doâ—ne not yeelding to slewth but moued with good aduise noâ— as being loth to take paines and to susteine a long trauaile but as one who the state of the present time considered and the vncertaintie of thinges to come mistrusted thought it better to doo some good out of hande though it were of losse labour then by long differring whiles a larger Volume were intended to suffer to the losse of many soules so muche false doctrine to grow in credite As touching the Replie what hath benne donne to those that reade our bookes it is not vnknowen What so euer he had to bring against the Râ—â—â—â—resâ—nce against the Sacrifice of the Bodie and bloude of Christâ— against the Masse whereat the Priest receiueth the Communion without other companie receiuing sacramentally with him in the same place against the Churche Sâ—â—â—ice in a learned tongue against the anciâ—â—◠〈◊〉 of
his quotations to be in my said two Bookes whiche are not there in deede altogether in that order and meaning as he vntruly hath alleged them I proue his dealing herein partely to be agreable to his other false demeanour and partely that good and iust causes there were why I should writing against him vse suche order of language Furthermore bicause he woulde the great and manifolde Vntruthes with whiche I charged him to seeme no Vntruthes at al but that al is the Gospel what so euer commeth from his Mouthe and whereas for proufe thereof he hath set forth a View of his Vntruthes the least of al that he could espie by me noted against him and pretendeth to iustifie the same his least Vntruthes in the said View I haue made an answere to that View of Vntruthes and there doo shewe manifestly specially in the chiefe pointes where errour is most perilous that he was truely and iustly charged with those Vntruthes and that for ought he hath yet said in Defence of them he remaineth stil chargeable with the same as before This muche I haue perfourmed in the first Booke After this in foure bookes folowing I detecte his Errours Lies Cauilles shiftes Sclaunders and sundrie vntrue matters founde in the firste and seconde parte of his Defence And in respecte thereof I cal the Treatie A Detection of sundrie foule errours lies sclaunders c. At length hauing tried by very certaine experience and exacte view of the whole Booke that there was no ende of lying what place so euer in reading my eie lighted vppon I thought it most profitable and most agreable with my profession to let passe thinges of smal importance the handeling of whiche serued him specially to scoffe to vtter vile matter againste the Churche and to fil vp his Booke in tended at the beginning to be made greate and to treate of the Articles of Doctrine in defence of the Truthe and to confute what he hath brought to the contrarie Among whiche Articles of doctrine of some I haue treated briefly as being alreadie treated of in my Confutation and otherwheres of some at good length and with more diligence as of Succession and of the vnlawful Marriages of Priestes and al other Votaries wherein he is very large and copious of Doctours sayinges of al sortes but vtterly destitute of any one saying that maketh cleerely for his parte In the ende I doo most euidently disproue and refel what he was hable to bring for Defence of two pointes which he is not ashamed to affirme seming to me the one very false the other very sclaunderous The first is as he auoucheth them that matters of faith and Ecclesiastical causes are to be iudged by the Ciuile Magistrate The other is that the Papistes haue taught that simple Fornication is no sinne How weake proufes he bringeth for the one and for the other and yet how shamelesly he goeth about to prooue them by conference of bothe our Treaties it shal appeare Withal there I haue added a Comparison of Errours in mistaking names of menne bookes Chapters c. with whiche M. Iewel chargeth me and I him Matters let passe vvith treating vvhereof the Defence is grovven to a Huge Volume Thus haue I declared in fewe the Summe as it were and Order of this Treatie As for sundrie other matters as of forged Scriptures of the doctrine of Deuilles so he calleth the forbidding of Priestes Monkes Friers and Nunnes to marrie of the fruites of single life whereof he laith out great stoare of filthy sayinges of S. Iames Epistle whether it be Canonical Scripture of sundrie ancient Traditions now growen out of vse of the Fourmes and Accidentes whereat he scoffeth like a Vice plaier of the number of the Sacraments of the Churche which we defende to be seuen he affirmeth to be but two or els so many as the thinges be vnto which the name of Sacrament is by any Writer applied which are very many of the Faith of Infantes of their new found Imaginatiue Faith or rather phantastical Imaginatiō that eateth the bodie and drinketh the bloud of Christ of the Popes Dispensations of dissensions among the Fathers of Nominales and Reales of Thomistes and Scotistes of diuersitie of religious persons Apparel wherein he saith they put great holinesse of the variance betwen the Lutherās and the Zuinglians of the fable of Dame Iohane the woman Pope of the Marble Image lying in the high way at Rome of the stoole of easement of Porphyrie stoane at Lateran of Athenes and Rome whether they were Vniuersities in the time this Dame Iohane is feyned to haue liued in of the vicious life of Petrus Aloisius Duke of Parma and Placentia of Iohn Diazius death of the slaughter of the Boures of Germanie that tooke weapons against the nobilitie there prouoked by the preaching of Luther and his scholers of Constantines Donation of Poison ministred in the Sacrament as he reporteth feined fables for stories of great soothe of the abomination of desolation of the state of the Church of Rome of Antichrist of the mistaking of Cardinal Hosius of their pretensed burning of the Scriptures of S. Augustine the Apostle of the English Nation that he was a wicked man of Priestes keeping of Concubines of Images of Latine Praiers and Churche Seruice of Comparison of learning betwene the Catholiques and the Protestantes of Rome whether it be Babylon of summoning of Councelles of the Stewes in Rome whereof gladly he vttereth muche talke of kissing the Popes foote of the Popes hurling of Franciscus Daldulus fast tied in chaines vnder his table there to gnaw boanes with his Dogges of the Popes Bridle and Stirop to be holden by Princes of Pope Hildebrandes surmised wicked deedes as they fable of the Popes treadding on the Emperours necke of the Pope whether he be euer holy of the Popes Exactions of the Cheast in the Popes bosom whether the Pope be God of the Popes power feined to be ouer Angels whether the Pope can commit Simonie whether the Pope be King of Kinges whether the Pope be aboue general Councels whether the Pope maie erre or no whether the Pope be a Kinge Of these and of a great many moe suche matters whereof some be lothesom some be fabulous vaine and friuolous some be false sclaunderous and spiteful some blasphemous some alreadie sufficiently treated of briefly al tending vnto the contempt of the Catholique Religion as M. Iewel handleth them in which matters he hath vttered the stoare of his learning Of these I saie I haue said nothing much disaduantaging my selfe thereby and the common cause which I defend for so much as in the making vp of his great Booke with heaping together these ministerly matters he hath vttered as he doth euery where els good stoare of most euident and grosse Lies of which his owne frendes and best fauourers in case thei were detected would be ashamed These forenamed be the thinges which I haue briefly handled and these other and
authoritie to any heresie or errour I denie vtterly neither shal M. Iewel or any of his felowes what so euer be hable to proue the contrarie That any where I haue tolde them sadly and in good earnest that the bishop of Rome is a king if he meane the expresse name of a King I tel him here eftsones sadly and in good earnest and without Saulue la vostre that it is a starke lye Confut. fol. 280. a. The pope hath kingly power yet is he no king In the first place of my Confutation by him coted I say The pope hath a kingly power ouer his owne subiectes euen in temporal thinges and now I tel you here for example he hath it as Moyses had yet he taketh not vpon him to be a King nor chalengeth vnto him that title Neither doth he in his owne person bicause he acknowlegeth him selfe to be no King exercise the function and office of a King but committeth such charge vnto other Laye persons If ye enuie the Pope his kingly power and possessions whiche he holdeth by right beware you be not at length thought vnworthy and remoued from the landes of a Baron and the Earledom of S. Osmunde whiche you holde vnduely If that happen to come to passe where then shal we finde your good Lordship In the other place of the Confutation vpon occasion geuen by wordes of the Apologie I say that the Pope maie rule temporally Confut. fol. 305. b. and more there say I not touching this matter Item there Iewel That vnto him belongeth the right of bothe Svvordes as vvel Temporal as spiritual Confut. fol. 247. b. Harding What so euer I bring in my Confutation concerning both Swordes committed vnto the Successour of S. Peter it is S. Bernardes it is not myne Wheras the Apologie maker were it M. Iewel or who so euer it was by the multitude of the light scoffes it appeareth that he was the Penneman of it mary the stuffe I heare say was gathered by the whole Brotherhead whereas I say he steppeth forth very peartly and saith thus Confut. fo 247. a. I haue a special fansie to common a worde or two with the Popes good Holinesse and to say these thinges vnto his owne face Tel vs I praie you good holy Father c. Which of the Fathers euer said that bothe the Swordes were committed vnto you To this question the answere I make in the Popes behalfe is this Confut. fo 247. b. L. Si quis C. d. test Of the Popes teÌ„poral Svvorde De Considerat li. 4 Math. 26. Let S. Bernard writing to a Pope answer for the Pope He is a sufficient witnesse Where your selfe doo allege him much against the Pope you can not by the lawe iustly refuse him speaking for the Pope The spiritual sworde you denie not I trowe Of the temporal sworde belonging also to the Pope thus saith S. Bernarde to Eugenius He that denieth this sworde to be thine seemeth to me not to consider sufficiently the worde of our Lorde saying thus to Peter thy predecessour put vp thy sworde in the scaberd The very same then is also thine to be drawen forth perhappes at thy becke though not with thy hande Elles if the same belonged in no wise vnto thee where as the Apostles said Lucae 22. The Churche hath both svvordes by S. Bernard beholde there be two swordes here Our Lorde would not haue answered it is yenough but it is to muche So bothe be the Churches the spiritual sworde and the material But this to be exercised for the Churche and that of the Churche That by the hande of the Priest this of the souldier but verely at the becke of the Priest and commaundement of the Emperour Thus touching the Popes bothe swordes you are fully answered by S. Bernarde I trust you wil not be so vncourteous as to put him beside nor so parcial as to allow him when he seemeth to make some shewe for you and to refuse him when he is found plaine contrarie to your false assertions Vpon this place of S. Bernarde M. Iewel in the Defence sitting forsooth M. Iewels graue sentence pronounced against S. Bernarde Defence pag. 528. Ibidem as it were vpon the Benche like a Iudge hauing power to geue sentence either of life or of death saith ful grauely and Iudgelike and pronounceth this sentence S. Bernarde saith The Pope hath bothe swordes But S. Bernardes authoritie in this case is but simple But why I praie you Sir Iudge Marke the cause and profounde reason of this Iudge He liued saith he eleuen hundred yeeres after Christes Ascension in the time of King Henry the first the King of England in the middes of the Popes route and tyrannie And shal we for this cause shake of S. Bernarde Then why maie we not as wel sitte in Iudgement vpon M. Iewel and in like sorte but with more reason pronounce this sentence M. Iewel saith the bodie of Christe is not in the Euchariste the bodie and bloude of Christe are not to be adored in the Sacrament The Churche hath no externall Sacrifice no external Priesthod Praier made for the dead is vaine and superstitious There be not seuen Sacramentes but onely two and by the same grace is not conferred or geuen but onely signified The Pope is Antichriste and al that holde the olde Faith of the Churche who are Papistes perteine to the Kingdome of Antichriste c. But M. Iewels authoritie in these cases is but simple He liued almost sixteen hundred yeeres after Christe and is yet aliue in the time of Quene Elizabeth the Quene of England in the middes of the Caluinistes route and tyrannie The same sentence with a smal change of wordes maie with like reason be pronounced vppon Luther Zuinglius Peter Martyr Bucer Caluine Beza Baudie Bale Hooper Cranmare and the rest of that wicked route It were a thing worthy to be knowen why S. Bernarde should be condemned in respecte of his age and of the route whiche this man telleth vs the Popes then bare and these Apostates should be beleeued and honoured with al mennes assent yelded to their sayinges and teachinges their age being foure hundred yeeres later the tyranny crueltie vilanie and outrage whiche in sundry places by them of that side is vsed farre surmounting any what so euer seueritie of gouernement whiche the Popes vsed in that time their learning not equal with the learning of S. Bernarde their witte muche inferiour to his of eithers vertue and good life what shal I speake To compare theirs with his it were a kinde of blasphemie so holy a Father was he so dissolute Apostates are these Item there Iewel That all kinges and Emperours receiue their vvhole povver at his hande and ought to svveare obedience and Fealtie to the Pope For these be his vvordes euen in this bâ—rke so boldly dedicated vnto your Maiestie It is a great eye soare saith M. Harding to the ministers of Antichriste to see the
my Confutation with these wordes It was not the Pope that armed Henrie the sonne against Henrie the fourth For it had ben absurde in reason and nature to make Henrie the seconde sonne to Henrie the fourth There needed not so great a Tragedie to be made for reproufe hereof Touching the pretensed leauing out of the worde Quodammodo out of S. Augustines saying Iudge reader of M. Iewels truthe by the truth in this pointe thus he aggrauateth the matter That in alleging of Liberatus I leafte out this worde quodammodo it was onely an errour For why I should of purpose doo it there was no cause specially that worde bearing in that place * Ye as si◠in that place the vvorde beareth great vveight and could not be leafte out but vvith foule corruption no greater weight But M. Harding alleging these wordes of S. Augustine Christus quodammodo ferebatur in manibus suis not of errour but as it maie be thought of set purpose leafte out Quodammodo as knowing that in that one worde rested the meaning of the whole How iustly M. Iewel excuseth him selfe and accuseth me for leauing out this worde Quodammodo To this I aunswere M. Ievvel in the Replie pag. 287. That you for your parte haue falsified Liberatus Maister Iewell you can not choose but Confesse That ye didde it by onely errour and ouersight and not of set purpose he that knoweth you as we knowe that be now acquainted with your humour can neuer beleeue it And whereas ye saie Liberatus cap. 13. that the worde quodammodo beareth smal weight in that place of Liberatus the Circumstance of the place and the storie of the time must needes conuince you See the Returne Fol. 155. a. in sequent Which thing hath benne already tolde you largely plainely and truly by M. Stapleton in his Returne of Vntruthes whiche you dissemble as if you went inuisible and were not espied for an Author of suche fowle Vntruthes Ye shal neuer be hable to scoure suche spottes out of your cote M. Ievvel most impudently belieth bothe S. Augustine and me touching this vvorde Quodammodo Wel yet ye thought to excuse this your falsehed by obiecting the like vnto me But Sir what if whiles ye go about to excuse your selfe you shewe your selfe worthy to be accused bothe of me and of S. Augustine too If S. Augustines wordes be as I alleged them then who hath belied me who hath belied S. Augustine Go to S. Augustine good reader and thou shalt finde the wordes truly by me alleged and quodammodo not by any falshed leafte out at al for in that place from whence I tooke his testimonie the worde is not nor in any parte of that Sermon which I quoted See the first Concion vpon the. 33. August in Psal 33. Concione 1. sub finē psalme There he saith thus Et ferebatur in manibus suis Hoc verò fratres quomodo posset fieri in homine quis intelligat Quis enim portatur in manibus suis Manibus aliorum potest portari homo manibus suis nemo portatur Quomodo intelligatur in ipso Dauid secundùm literam non inuenimus in Christo autē inuenimus Ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis quando commendans ipsum corpus suum Math. 26. ait Hoc est corpus meum Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis c. And he was carried in his handes This brethern how it might be done in man who can vnderstande For who is borne in his owne handes With the handes of others a man may be borne with his owne handes no man is borne Christe at his supper vvas carried and borne in his ovvn handes How it maie be vnderstanded in Dauid him selfe according to the letter we finde it not but in Christe we finde it For Christe was carried in his owne handes at what time commending his owne body it selfe vnto his disciples he said This is my body For he bore that body in his owne handes c. This testimonie M. Iewel doth directly ouerthrow your doctrine of the Sacramentaries A cleare testimonie for the Real presence and teacheth vs Christes body to be really and in deede present in the most blessed Sacrament For if that substance which is in the Sacrament after consecration were but a signe a token or a figure of Christes body as they of your secte and you doo teache what cause is there why S. Augustine should make so great so straunge and so wonderful a thing of it For if it were but the figure of Christes body that he helde in his hande when he said this is my bodie what wonder was it Dauid of whom there he speaketh could haue done that yea what is that man that can not beare the figure of his bodie in his handes But S. Augustine saith that Christe did beare his owne body in his handes when at the Supper he commended it vnto his disciples sayng this is my bodie Which thing neither Dauid nor any man could euer doo And here consider Reader how S. Augustine speaketh as if it were of purpose to take awaie al occasion of cauil from suche heretiques as should denie the real presence whiche M. Iewel doth The bodie that Christ commended and gaue vnto his disciples was saith S. Augustin ipsum corpus suum his owne bodie it selfe with which vehemēcie of expresse speache he excludeth al such Tropes Figures Significations Remembrances and Energies as do derogate from the real presence And that bodie illud corpus saith he Christ did beare in his handes Which was miraculous and aboue the power of Dauid or any other man Thus we see clearely that where S. Augustine speaketh of the truth and real presence of Christes bodie borne of Christ in his owne handes he speaketh plainely and precisely without this worde Quodammodo But in an other Sermon where he speaketh not specially of his bodie being verily borne in his handes but how and after what manner it was borne in his handes there to signifie the secretnes of the Diuine Mysterie he vseth this word Quodammodo August in Psalm 33. Concio 2. For hauing demaunded this question Quomodo ferebatur Christus in manibus suis How was Christ borne in his owne handes touching the manner thus he answereth Quia quum commendaret ipsum corpus suum sanguinem suum accepit in manus suas quod norunt fideles ipse se portabat quodammodo cum diceret hoc est corpus meum For when he commended and gaue vnto his disciples his owne bodie it selfe and his owne bloude he tooke into his handes that which the Faithful do know and he him selfe did beare him selfe after a certaine manner when he said this is my bodie In which saying the worde quodammodo asmuche to saie after a certaine manner doth not withdrawe our minde from beleefe of the true presence of the bodie borne in Christes handes but from conceiuing a carnal cōmon
lib. coÌ„t 9. sectas In the booke in tituled Recta fides de Caena Domin nor by writinges nor by worde nor by deede as the Lord hath commaunded whether he be Zuenckfeldius or Zuinglius or what soeuer he be called And in an other place he condemneth by name Zuinglius Carolostadius and Oecolampadius with al their diuers and dissonant sacramentarie heresies Nicolaus Amsdorffius a famous Superindent in Germanie saith thus plainely Thirdely we condemne the Sacramentaries Zuinglius and his felowes The publike write of the princes of Mansfeld and of the yonger princes of Saxonie doth recken vp in the rolle of condemned Heretiques the Sacramentaries by name Ioachimus Westphalus saith No false doctrine is so farre spred none with such labour and hypocrisie is defended â—oâ—e hath more beguiled the worlde then this false doctrine of the blessed Sacrament meaning Caluines owne doctrine learned first of Berengarius of whom you haue no cause you saie to be ashamed If Heretiques of your own schoole can not make you ashamed of Berengarius and his doctrine what say you to the great General Councel holden at S. Iohn Laterane in Rome vnder Innocentius the third CouÌ„cel of Laterane thereof called Concilium Lateranense That Councel was an vniuersal assemblie out of al partes of Christendom Platina in InnoceÌ„tio tertio The great Assemblie of Laterane Councel as wel out of the Greeke Church as out of the Latine The Patriarkes of Constantinople and Hierusalem were there present Archebishoppes were there threescore and ten Bishoppes foure hundred and twelue Abbates and Priores more then eight hundred There were at that Councel the Ambassadours of both Emperours both of the West Churche and of the East also of the kinges of Hierusalem of Fraunce of Spaine of England and of Cyprus In this Councel so general and vniuersal the Heresie of Berengarius was condemned Concil Lateran Cap. 1. and the doctrine of Transubstantiation by occasion of his heresie exactly and fully discussed was by general consent of al plainely and clearely confirmed If the Sentence Consent and Accorde of the whole vniuersal Church can moue you M. Iewel then haue you good cause to be ashamed of Berengarius whose heresie was in so ful ample and General a Councel condemned as none in this worlde was euer greater If al this moue you not yet let Berengarius him selfe De Consecrat Dist 2. Ego BereÌ„garius whom you esteme so muche moue you to be ashamed of his doctrine of the whiche he him selfe was so muche ashamed at length and not onely in iudgement openlâ— recanted but also 〈◊〉 the houre of his Death ful bitterlâ— and hartily repented him selfe thereof as by sides otherâ— Guilelmus Malmesburiensis recordeth saying thus Guilelmus Malmesburiensis de gastis Anglorum lib. 3. Ipse Berengarius die Epiphaniorum moriens gâ—â—iâ—â—â— producto recordatus quot miseros quondam adolescenâ— primo errâ—ris â—alâ—tâ— secta infecerit bodie inquit in die Apparitionis suae apparabit mihi Dominus meus Iesus Christus vel propter poenitentiam vt spero ad gloriam vel propter alios vt timeâ— ad poenam Nos sanè credimus post benedictionem Ecclesiasticam illa Mysteria esse verum corpus sanguinem saluatoris adducti veteris Ecclesiae authoritate maltis noâ—iter ostensis miraculis Berengâ—rius himselfe as he laie dying vpon the Epiphanie daie whiche we cal Twelfth daie and with heauy be wailing called vnto remembrance how many miserable personnes he had infected with his heresie in youth at the firste heatâ— of the Sacramentarie Errour spake these wordes He alluded to the vvord Epiphanie vvhiche signifieth appearing or reuealiÌ„g This daie my Lorde Iesus Christe being the daie of his appearance shal appeare vnto me either to glorie as I truste bicause it repenteth me of my heresie or to pounishment as I feare me for the sake of others whom I haue seduced What so euer it shal please God to doe with me Truely I beleeue that after Consecration vsed in the Churche those Mysteries are the true Bodie and Bloude of our Sauiour being persuaded both by the authoritie of the auncient Churche and by many Miracles shewed of late yeres Thus ye maie see how so euer ye be not ashamed of Berengarius that yet Berengarius is ashamed of you Iewel Pag. 48. But as for your doctrine bicause it is only of your selues therefore it falleth daily and is novv forsaken the vvorlde through Harding Our doctrine is the doctrine of the Fathers not of our selues neither is the same forsaken The Catholique doctrine The .16 Chapt. The Fathers of the first 600. yeres reiected In institut Cap. 18. de coena Domi. Iacobus Acontius StratageÌ„ Sathan lib. 6. whiche you cal oures hath ben by your owne Confession welneare a thowsand yeres olde I cal your Confession your solemne prescription of the first .600 yeres For prescribing the one ye renounce the other It can not therefore seeme to be of vs that liue now whiche by your owne Confession hath ben so auncient Howbeit it is euident the first 600. yeres stande as fully for vs as doo the later Therefore Iohn Caluine accuseth the first 600. yeres of Iudaisme and of Iewish superstition namely in the matter of the blessed Sacrifice Therefore Iacobus Acontius one of your owne side in his booke dedicated to the Quenes Maiestie plainely misliketh and reproueth such as offer to be tried by the auncient Fathers calling it perniciosissimam omninoque fugiendam consuetudinem a most pernicious custome and altogether to be auoided Therefore M. Nowel as this Acontius calleth it a * Valde amplum spatium Novvel in the preface of his first booke large scope to trie matters by the Fathers And he that hath vttered so muche blasphemie against the Crosse of Christe for his parte also protesteth plainely In the booke against the Cross that he wil not be tried by the Fathers And why al this M. Iewel Mary thâ—y know â—ight wel that by the Fathers you are condemned and that our doctrine by them is clearely established Wâ— therefore haue learned of our Auncestours al that we teache We haue inuented nothing of our selues Your beginning is knowen and is yet in mannes memorie When Papistrie as you cal it beganne you can neuer 〈◊〉 for your life The Gospelleâ— I shal neuer be haÌ„ble to shevv vvhen Papistrie beganne otherwise then with the beginning of Christes gospel Shewe once M. Iewel when in what age in what place Countrie Citie or Churche of whom vnder what Pope Emperour or Prince Papistrie beganne and then saie hardely it is our Doctrine and only of our selues Except you shewe this your lie wil seme palpable If ye haue ought to shew for the worship of your cause bring it forth be it but one sentence or one halfe sentence The Catholique doctrine vntruly reported by M. Ievvel to be forsaken al the vvorld through In like manner a sensible and a palpable lie it
great folie I wil not saie also a blasphemie A great folie it is for you and your felowes to contemne the General Councelles of late yeres for that they be newe as you say your selues and your doctrine being yet so newe and of so litle age Verely no age or time of Christes Churche to any Christen man ought to seeme newe in respecte of doctrine and faith If he beleeue the holy Scriptures describing the Church vnto vs he can not without folie in that respecte cal it newe The time may be newe or late bicause it commeth and passeth The Faithe and Doctrine remaineth one and the same not changed with the course of times Nowe as the Worde of God and our Faithe dureth for euer so Christes Churche being one and the same as it hath in al ages continewed so shal it continewe to the worldes ende This before hath benne prooued and by your selfe confessed The Councelles therefore I meane the doctrine of Faith opened discussed and agreed vppon in Councelles by the Bisshoppes whom the holy Ghost hath ordeined to rule the Churche Act. 20. Ephes 4. and by the Pastours and Doctours whome God placeth to the edefying of the Churche that we be not carried awaie by euerie winde of doctrine is not newe The discussion and plaine opening of it may be newe The doctrine is olde as truth it selfe is olde Ansvver to the obiection of the later CouÌ„celles being contrarie to the olde Your second cause why these later Councelles doo beare with you the lesse Authoritie is for that as you say they be so many waies contrarie to the olde It had benne good reason that if these later Councelles be so many waies contrarie to the olde you had shewed presently at the lest one of those so many waies Shal it be sufficient for you to geue out such a Reproche iâ— a matter of so greate Importance without any prousâ— at al It had benne plaine dealing at the lest to haue named some one Councel and to haue touched some one pointe wherein that Councel should be founde contrarie to the olde This therefore I lette passe for a Notorious and a Reprocheful Vntruthe boldely auouched but no waie proued Onely I aduertise the Reader that it is not possible any general Councel shoulde be contrarie to an other in matter of faith One Churche one faith and necessarie doctrine As the Churche in Faith is but one so the Faith discussed determined and agreed vpon in Councelles truely representing the whole body of the Churche is but one As the Churche can not be contrarie to it selfe in Faith so general Councelles assembled in the holy Ghoste can not be contrarie to them selues Marke wel good Sir what I saie One general Councel can not in a matter of faith be contrary to an other CouÌ„cel Math. 18. In doctrine and matter of Faith no lawful General Councel truely and rightly that is in vnitie and Charitie assembled hath or can at any time determine contrarie to an other likequalified For so the one should erre in Faith whereby Christes promise should seeme to faile who said wheresoeuer two or three are assembled together in my name there am I in the middest of them In my name faith S. Cyprian that is in vnitie and in the body That later Councelles haue determined some matters not before in other Councelles determined it is euident and not denied Heresies haue caused many matters to be more opened then they were before as S. Augustine noteth But new articles of the faith be not decreed in CouÌ„celles That also in matter of manners and of external order or gouernement some Councelles haue done coÌ„tratrarie to other according to the state of times and diuersitie of circumstances it is not denied Yea that it be so done sometime the state and present case of the Church of necessitie requireth it Aug. epist 5. ad Marcellinum For which S. Augustin saith notably Non itaque verum est quod dicitur semel rectè factum nullatenus esse mutanduÌ„ Mutata quippe teÌ„poris causa quod rectè antè factuÌ„ suerat ita mutari vera ratio pleruÌ„que flagitat vt cuÌ„ ipsi dicant rectè noÌ„ fieri si mutetur contrà veritas clamet rectè non fieri nisi mutetur quia vtruÌ„que tunc erit rectuÌ„ si erit pro teÌ„poruÌ„ varietate diuersum It is not therefore true which meÌ„ say looke what thing is once wel done it ought in no case to be changed For the state of the time being altered that thing which was wel done before good reason oftentimes requireth so to be changed that whereas they say it is not wel done if it be changed the truth on the other side crieth out It is not weldone if it be not changed bicause both shal then be right and wel if it shal be diuers according to the varietie of the time But that in matter of faith or doctrine Ansvver to that M Iâ—vvel obiecteth against the later CouÌ„cels for that by the same al our doctrines vvhiche they impugne 〈◊〉 conâ—irmed as is a fore said any General Councel lawfully assembled was euer contrarie to the other it is a mere vntruthe and a false sclaunder that can neuer be proued Where you say for a third cause or reason why these later CouÌ„cels are of lesse autoritie for that there is none of our errours so grosse and palpable but by some of them it hath ben coÌ„firmed to that we answer Quod das accipâ—mê° we admit gladly that in these late CouÌ„cels al such matters as we defend which it pleaseth yau to terme grosse and palpable errours haue ben confirmed We are then discharged and the whole Church of late yeres is charged But Sir being confirmed by General Councelles why cal you them Errours grosse and Palpable Saie you not also herein that the whole Churche erred at that time grossely and palpably Let vs take one Councel and one Age for example to auoide confusion of general discoursing and to bring this matter to some cleare issue The Lateran Councel vnder Innocentius 3. In the yere of our Lorde 1215. aboue three hundred yeres past in the General Councel holden at S. Iohn Laterane in Rome with ful consent of a thousand two hundred fourescore and fiue Fathers assembled there out of al partes of Christendome as wel out of the East Church as out of the West the Ambassadours and Oratours as wel of both Emperours being present as also of diuers other Kinges Princes and States it was by mature discussion found TransubstaÌ„tiatioÌ„ and agreed vpon and decreed so to be beleeued that in the blessed Sacrament of the Aulter due consecration being made the substance of breade is changed into the substance of the body of Christ and the substance of wine into the substaÌ„ce of his bloode the worde Transubstantiation whereby much that belongeth to that mysterie is by a coÌ„modious breuitie expressed was allowed the opinion of Berengarius was condeÌ„ned
al the Christian worlde specially for condemning of the Pope bicause his supreme Authoritie can not beare with sundry your errours and Heresies as against any man in the worlde besides The force of your argument is this Wee maie not beleeue Paule him selfe if he speake any thing of his owne Head thereby to condemne Priestes for their liuing Ergo Peter hath no more authoritie ne no more power to rule then the other Apostles O M. Iewel cal in these argumentes for shame of the worlde why suffered you them to escape your penne That S. Paule said somevvhat of his ovvn 1. Cor. 7. But how saie you Sir Shal you not finde where S. Paule spake of his owne some thing Haue you forgotten who said Nā caeteris ego dico non Dominus For to the reste I saie not our Lorde and yet you must beleeue him if you denie not the Scripture Againe saith he not some thing of worldly reason as you haue translated humanum Rom. 6. where he writeth to the Romaines Humanum dico propter infirmitatem carnis vestrae I speake as one that foloweth the trade of mannes reason for the infirmities sake of your fleshe I trust you wil be intreated to beleeue him Thus how discretely you bring in the Fathers to speake for you I neede not to declare Your owne bad stuffe sheweth it at large The Apologie Cap. 3. Diuis 5. pag. 108. And as Hierome saithe Al Bishoppes vvhere so euer they be be they at Rome Ad Euagrium De Simplicitate praelator be they at Eugubium be they at Constantinople be they at Rhegium be al of like preeminence and of like priesthood And as S. Cyprian saithe There is but one Bishoprike and a peece thereof is perfitely and vvholy holden of euery particular Bishop Confutation My lady the Interpreter not without the wil and aduise of this Defender hath altered the sense of the latine as the author of the Latine hathe altered the wordes of S. Hierome For neither speaketh S. Hierome of Bishoppes in the plural number neither saith the Latine Apologie that the Bishoppes be al of like preeminence whiche this translation hath but of the same merite and of the same Priesthood c. Iewel Pag. 109. Here to dissemble these childish Cauillations of the altering of Numbers the Singulare into the Plural and of the changing of this vvorde Merite into this vvorde Preeminence vvhiche great faulte if it vvere any by M. Harlinges ovvne Confession proceeded only from the Interpreter and not from the Authour c. Harding Dissemble hardely M. Iewel what ye liste so that with al ye confesse the truth that you are not hable honestly to discharge your selfe of that whiche you passe ouer by dissimulation Suche dissembling shiftes serue your turne not seldome as the which you cā sooner vse then against the truth shape a reasonable answere But leauing aside your dissimulation Tel me I praie you where finde you that euer I confessed that the faulte of chaunging this worde Merite into this worde This vvorde Merite changed by M Ievvel into this vvorde Preeminence Preeminence proceded only from your good lady the Interpreter and not from the Authour Haue not I in plaine wordes tolde you the contrarie Haue I not laid the fault as much vpon the Authour that allowed the Interpretation as your good Maistresse M. C. saith in her epistle as vpon the Lady Interpreter How then can you deliuer the Authour from al blame by myne owne Confession Looke better M. Iewel vpon the booke againe where if you shal finde no suche Confession of myne but the plaine contrarie remember who is not ashamed openly to auouche Vntruthe But it wil not be otherwise you haue by long practise gotten a ful perfite habite thereof Iewel Pag. 109. VVhat S. Hierome meant hereby Erasmus a man of great learning and iudgement expoundeth thus Hieronymus aequare videtur omnes Episcopos inter se c. Harding Erasmus answered Difference founde betwen Deacon and Priest in Order and betwen Bisshop and Bisshop in power of gouernment And is Erasmus in deede a man of suche learning and iudgement The .28 Chapt. as you say If he be howe happeth it that you condemne those articles of religion which he confesseth true He agnised the real presence of Christes body and bloud in the blessed Sacrament of the Aulter whiche you denie Erasmus against the false Gospellers Aduersus Pseudeuāgelicos fratres inferioris Germaniae Howe happeth it if he be a man of great learning that he wrote so earnest an epistle against the false Gospellers so he calleth them of your side of which number you are How happeth it that he wrote that vehemēt and long Epistle to the Brothers of the Inferiour Germanie cōmonly called the Lowe countrie to beware of al such heresies whiche you and your felowes do now professe If Erasmus be not such a one as you say why do you allege his autoritie whose iudgemēt in sundry articles ye contemne But what hath Erasmus to helpe you in this matter Truely when al is searched nothing at al. Yet by the waie it is to be marked that you would binde vs with Erasmus authoritie a man of our time whom your selfe in diuers Articles as in the approbation of the Masse of the real presence free wil and of such other do greatly dislike yet you wil not sticke to denie vtterly not only the autorities of the Fathers within these last nine hundred yeres but also of them sometimes that wrote within the first six hundred yeres For so do you deale afterward with that holy and great learned Father S. Leo whom you labour to discredit being pressed with the witnesse he geueth of the prerogatiue of the See Apostolike of Rome as though his desire were Pag. 111. as your false surmise is to enioie as great honour as he could for his owne time Haue you no better meane to auoide that Fathers authoritie M. Iewel but by charging him with ambition Where Erasmus saith Erasmus in Antidoto post Scholia in epist Hieronym ad Euagriū that S. Hierome seemeth to put in equal matche al Bishoppes together as if they were al equally the Apostles Successours that parte of his saying you could wel remember but where he saith within fiue lines folowing that the Metropolitane hath a certaine dignitie and Iurisdiction aboue other Bishops whiche taketh awaie the equalitie that you dreamed of your eyes without being called on that parte of the sentence were very loth to see Take the one with the other M. Iewel then is the equalitie of Bishoppes in regiment quite gonne though they remaine equal in the order of Priesthood and in that that the highest Archebisshop in the worlde yea the Pope him selfe is no more a Prieste nor Bishop then is the poore Bishop of Eugubium or who so euer is the lowest Bishop in the worlde though his authoritie to rule and to gouerne be more ample and large then
any others Reade the olde Fathers in suche sorte that you may vnderstande them without mistaking their right and purposed meaning then maie you cite them both to your owne honestie and to the commoditie of others The errour of one Falcidius One Falcidius a foolishe man vtterly deceiued went aboute to preferre as S. Hierome of him to Euagrius seemeth to reporte or to matche in one equalitie as S. Augustine saith the order of Deacons with the order of Priesthood For suppression of whiche errour the rather to abbase the Deacons vanitie August in Quaest veter no. Testam Quest 101 S. Hierome disputeth that in diuers places of the Scripture in certaine respectes Priestes are taken for Bishoppes and Bishoppes for Priestes so that if the Deacons be aboute the Priestes sith the Scripture doth cal Priestes by the name of Bishoppes it wil folowe that Deacons should also be aboue Bishoppes Which absurditie is so euident as no man maie graunt it Therefore for the auoiding of this absurditie whiche would followe vpon Falcidius false assertion it behoued him and suche as helde with him vtterly to reuoke that errour that Deacons are either aboue Priestes That a Priest is aboue a Deacon or equal with them A Priest maie doo al that a Bishop doth saue that he can not geue Orders A Deacon can not doo al thinges that a Bishop doth saue onely the geuing of Orders for he can not consecrate the body and bloude of Christ in the blessed Sacrament Ergo the Priest that hath more power then the Deacon must be aboue the Deacon This is S. Hieromes very drifte in that Epistle to Euagrius with the whiche meaning of S. Hieromes your authour Erasmus doth wel agree Erasmus in Antidoto post Scholiam in epist ad Euagriū where he writeth thus vpon the same Epistle Itaque quòd hic aequat humilium vrbium Episcopos cum alijs ad Diaconos est referendum qui nonnullis locis praeferebantur presbyteris quos propemodum aquat Episcopis Where as he doth here equally matche the Bisshoppes of the meaner Cities with other that are Bisshopps of great Cities it is spoken for the Deacons sake who in certaine places were preferred before the priestes whom almost he maketh Bisshoppes felowes And againe In hoc igitur aequales sunt Episcopi presbyteri quòd vbicunquesunt Diaconis sunt praeferendi Touching this pointe Bishoppes and Priestes are equal for that they are to be preferred before Deacons where so euer they be But that there is greate difference in authoritie of gouernement betwixte Bishoppes ' Priestes and Deacons S. Hierome is plaine in the laste sentence of that Epistle where he writeth thus Et vt sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento quod Aaron filij eius atque Leuitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia And that we maie knowe the Apostles Traditions were taken out of the olde Testament what Aaron and his Sonnes and the Leuites were in the Temple Bisshoppes Priestes and Deacons maie chalenge to them selfe the same in the Churche But Aaron being the high Priest and Bisshop was in auctoritie farre aboue al the rest Ergo if Priestes be named in Scripture Bisshoppes as S. Hierome reasoneth against their folie that preferred Deacons aboue Priestes There is one Bisshoppe founde out that ought to haue special rule ouer al the reste and that by a consequent of the very Scripture Whereas S. Hierome condemned the lewde disorder of the Citie of Rome not of the Churche of Rome as M. Iewel vntruly interpreteth which he saith is one with the Churche of the whole worlde keeping one rule of truth with the rest for hauing Deacons in more honour then Priestes and putteth the mater to be tried by authoritie saying that the authoritie of the vniuersal Church of the whole worlde with the which the Church of Rome is one is rather to be folowed then the corrupte manner and custome of that one Citie there is no reason why he should seeme in that place to haue vsed the word Merite Merite for Preeminence after M. Ievvelles iudgement for this worde Preeminence as M. Iewel ful vainely iangleth and can not prooue His seely argumentes stande thus The authoritie of the worlde that is to saie of the vniuersal Churche of the whole worlde and therefore of the Churche of Rome also being One Churche with the reste is greater then the authoritie of the Citie of Rome Ergo the worde Merite in the nexte sentence folowing must signifie Preeminence Againe the power of riches and the basenesse of pouertie maketh not a Bishop either higher or lower Ergo the worde Merite in the sentence before muste signifie Preeminence This is strange Logique by vse whereof euery foole maie seeme to reason wisely if it were once allowed in open schooles The vvorld is more thē the Citie expounded Whereas S. Hierome to Euagrius speaking against the euil custome of Rome where a Deacon was preferred before a Prieste saieth Si authoritas quaeritur Orbis maior est vrbe If wee seeke for Authoritie the worlde is more then the Citie he meaneth not as the circumstance of that Epistle geueth that authoritie there should signifie authoritie in gouernement as M. Iewel hath interpreted making S. Hierome to saie that in Authoritie of gouernement the whole worlde is greater then the Citie of Roome whereby he thinketh to displace the Pope and to depriue him of his authoritie in gouernement and to bestowe it confusely abroade in al the worlde whereof in deede the Confusion whiche they may beste holde and stande by might be procured The truthe is S. Hierome there is not to be vnderstanded to speake of the Churches authoritie in gouernement but of common and publique authoritie to be folowed for auoiding of that errour that made a Deacon better then a Prieste or at least equal with a Priest In Controuersies we folowe authoritie Now saith S. Hierome If we seeke for authoritie the worlde is greater then the Citie As who should saie let no man defende the errour by the authoritie of the Citie of Rome bicause there a Deacon is preferred before a Prieste for what shal we esteme the custome of one Citie the whole world holding the contrarie And the authoritie of no one Citie can be cōparable to the authoritie of the whole worlde Therefore pretending one to obiecte vnto him that the manner was at Rome for a Priest to be ordered at the testimonie of a Deacon he saieth Quid mihi profers vnius vrbis consuetudinem what bringest me foorth the custom of one Citie As who should say Neither at Rome vvas more honour geuen to Deacons then to Priestes it were not to be regarded in cōparison of the custom of the whole world Nowe that the Churche of Rome gaue not greater honour to Deacons then to Priestes by S. Hierome him selfe it seemeth to be euident for so
accusations when there are two witnesses It is his part only to admit accusations against Priestes who is the iudge of Priestes and euery Iudge is aboue him ouer whom he sitteth in iudgement Therefore a Bishop by Gods lawe is aboue a priest whose iudge he is allowed to be Epiphanius har 75. Which argument Epiphanius bringeth against Aerius the heretike who said as now M. Iewel saith that Priestes and Bishops were equal Hieron ad EuagriuÌ„ Againe S. Hierome who defended that the names of Bishops and of Priestes were confounded in the beginning and that the order of priesthod in them was one both which thinges are true yet he made an euident difference betwen the power of them graunting that a Priest could doo al that a Bishop can Hieronymus aduersus Luciferianos excepta ordinatione the ordering or geuing of holy orders excepted In that point then he beleued a Bishop to be aboue a Priest Now say I such a Bishop as by Gods lawe is aboue a Priest as who may only make Priestes and geue them power to consecrate and in Christes person to make and offer vnto God his body and bloud such a Bishop or such a Priest you haue not in al your Church vnlesse they be Apostates and Renegates who being once made priestes with vs haue now denied the faith wherein they were Christened and are runne out of the Church vnto your false Congregations and scattered troupes Iewel Neiter doth the Church of England this daye depende of them vvhom you so often cal Apostates as if our Church vvere no Churche vvithout them Harding S. Hierome said no Priest no Church Aduersus Lucifer Epistola ad Heliodorum and by a priest he meant him that maketh Christes body with hâ—â— holy mouth and offereth the same For these are his own wordes but such a priest is made only of a Bishop who is by Gods law aboue him And such Priestes haue you none besides Apostates Therfore your Church either is none or dependeth of Apostates and Renegates Iewel Pag. 131. They are no Apostates M. Harding that is rather your ovvne name and of good right belongeth vnto you Harding He is an Apostata who forsaketh the good profession VVho are Apostates which he once had But the profession either of Monkes or of the Catholikes whom you cal Papistes is good and godly For concerning Monkes they are the men who after the counsel of our Sauiour Matt. 19. professe to geue awaie their goodes to the pore or forsake the hope of goodes whiche may be had in the world and follow Christe gelding them selues or making them selues Eunuches for the kingdom of heauen This must needes be a good profession And as for the Catholikes they are the onely true members of Christes Church and none other can be Catholiques beside those whom you cal Papistes Bicause none others haue benne alwaies in al places and al times sith Christes Ascension And we haue ben so as our predecessours and pastours in the See of Rome with al other pastours agreeing therewith doo euidently shew euen to the eye Therfore who so haue forsaken their profession and rule as Renegate monkes and Friers haue or our Churâ—h as those priestes haue who being rightly ordered in the catholique Churche communicate now with you they are Apostates and Renegates And wheras you say that to be my name and of good right to belong vnto me there can be no iuste cause to cal me an Apostata except it be for departing from you But ye are al Apostates your selues For it can be named but of what Catholike felowship ye are departed whom ye leafte behind you al Italie Fraunce and Spaine c. who went out with you a peece of Germanie Suitzerland England and Scotland and after whom ye went some after Luther some after Zuinglius some after Caluin Therefore ye are al Apostates Now when I departed from you with whom notwithstanding I neuer remained wholly I departed from Apostates and came to that fellowship which neuer forsooke their former faith nor went out nor leaft any behind them who might complaine of their departure nor had any peculiar Captaines but onely the Apostles and their Successours that folowed them lineally from age to age Therefore the name of Apostata belongeth not to me but to you and to your felowes If the Reader say that we doo but sclaunder one the other let him consider the reason and not the wordes An Apostata is one The Protestantes be Apostates who faileth and depareth from some certaine lawful head We departe from none but kepe God Christ and his Ministerial headdes Bishops Priestes Kinges and Magistrates But the Protestantes haue denied al the Bishops aliue in the whole earth who liued before and in Luthers time They haue and doo rebel in al countries for the pretence of Religion And so they forsake both the obedience of spiritual and temporal gouernours therefore they are by al meanes Apostates Iewel Pag. 131. They are for a great part learned and graue and godly men and are much ashamed to see your solies Harding There is no learning against faith What learning cal you it when a man learneth to denie this to be Christes body which he said to be his body Or to holde Matt. 26. that the Church is sometimes hid Matt. 5. which Christ said to be a Citie built vpon a hil that can not be hid What grauitie is this to be moued and caried out of the Church and to be tossed hither and thither with euery puffe of new doctrine Nowe to be a Hussite then a Lutheran now a Brentian afterward a Zuinglian and last of al a Caluinist Yea what grauitie is it to defende that al these sectes may be saued seing they teâ—â—â— contradictorie doctrine and wil come to no agreement Concerning our folies which you say they see they are folies to worldlynges and to men wise in their owne eyes as a man to shut vp him selfe in a Cloister to watch to fast to praye to liue chaste to bewaile his sinnes to geue awaye al his goods for Gods sake to honour Gods frendes with a due reuerence and worship to beleue Christ rather then our eyes and to trust the wit of our Predecessours rather then our owne These are in deede our folies in 〈…〉 we glorie through Gods grace leauing the pride oâ—â—oâ—… new traÌ„slations of the Scriptures your Sectes and wordly wisedom the breaking of vowes the liuing in incest and open filthinesse with impudent maintenance therof to your great learning grauitie holinesse and wisedom Iewel Pag. 131. NotvvithstaÌ„ding if there vvere not one neither of them nor of vs leaft aliue yet vvould not therfore the vvhole Church of EnglaÌ„d flee to Louain Harding Who euer said that the whole Church of England must flee or was fled to Louaine You kepe some parte of it fast inough from fleeing to Louaine or any whither els if the Tower the Fleete the Marshalsea the
Counters the Kinges Beanch and other prisons in London be hable to kepe men fast But if you speake of your owne Church surely you had Apostates and renegate priestes in it Aduersus LuciferiaÌ„ or you had no Church at al as out of S. Hierome I shewed before who saith no Priest no Church And verely no trew Church euer was there without an External and publike Sacrifice which it might offer to God to acknowlege that he is the beginning and ende of al grace and goodnes But where no external Priesthod is as you now beleue ther is none there is no external Sacrifice and coÌ„sequeÌ„tly no true Church And seing renegate priestes can not make a true Church nor their Sacrifice can be acceptable vnto God yea rather seing they are of the mind and belefe that it is not lawful to honour God with the external Sacrifice of Christes owne body and bloud leaft to vs for that intent it doth stil follow that although ye haue true Priestes which runne from vs yet haue ye neither true Sacrifice by them nor true Church Ievvel Pag. 131. Tâ—rtullian saith Nonne laici sacerdotes sumus scriptum est c. And vve being laye men are vve not priestes it is written In exhortatione ad CastitateÌ„ Christ hath made vs both a kingdome and priestes vnto God his father The authoritie of the Church and the honour by the assemblie or Councel of Order sanctified of God hath made a difference betwen the laye and the clergie whereas there is no assemblie of ecclesiastical Order the priest being there alone vvithout the companie of other priestes doth both minister the oblatioÌ„ and also baptize Yea and be there but three together and though they be laye men yet is there a Church For euery man liueth of his owne faith Harding Wonder not M. Iewel as you confesse that once you did at your misfortune and euil lucke in that by vs a thowsand faultes are sooner fownd in your bookes then you could wel without blushing if any shame were in you note two hundred in myne For who so euer writeth against the truth can not possibly bring one word which for maintenance of an vntruth may be altogether truly applied after the writers minde out of whome the same is alleged onlesse that writer were him selfe an Heretike or in that behalfe by better iudgement noted of some errour Therefore it is easier to find many thowsand Lyes in your bookes then any fewe in myne And as that hath ben shewed in many other examples heretofore so shal it now appeare most euidently in this which you bring out of Tertullian TertulliaÌ„ in exhort ad castitatem MoÌ„tanus and Tertullian coÌ„demned the secoÌ„d Mariages First the booke and worke that you allege is one of those which Tertullian wrote against the Churche after that he became an Heretike and was one of the disciples of Montanus For as Montanus did condemne the second Mariages so did his scholar Tertullian Who hauing corruptly interpreted many places of S. Paule commeth at the length to proue his heresie by conferring the olde Testament with the new Ecce in veteri lege c. Beholde saith he in the olde lawe I finde the licence of mariyng ofte to be inhibited It is enacted in the booke of Leuiticus Sacerdotes mei non plus nubent my Priestes shal not marrye any more But the fulnes of the law as in other pointes so in this was reserued to Christe alone VVhereupon it was more fully and more streightly prescribed that those ought bo be of one matrimonie who are chosen in the Priestly ordâ—r In so much that I my selfe remember certaine menne for hauing had two wiues to haue ben remoued from their place of Priesthod An obiection of TertulliaÌ„ against him selfe But thou wilt say Then is it lawful for other menne to marrie twise for so much as exception is made against them to wit against Priestes to whom it is not lauful to haue ben twise maried Hitherto Tertullian hath gon about by the example of the Priestes of the olde and new Testament to shew that Laye men also may not marrye but once For in the newe Testament S. Paule would haue them only chosen to Priesthod Tit. 1. The husband of one vvife who are or haue benne the husbandes of one wife that is to saye haue neither had two wiues at once nor haue married a widowe nor haue had two wiues one after an other For al this doth the Apostle meane and the auncient Fathers do so witnesse Now Tertullian saw euidently that there was a difference betwen Priestes and laye menne whereupon he made the former obiection to him selfe that the second mariages which only do staye a man from being Priest are absolutely lawful for him who wil be no Priest but wil remaine stil in the degree and state of laye men To the which obiection being to strong for Tertullian it behoued him so to answere as yet his heresie against the second mariages might be mainteined So that nowe M. Iewel bringeth forth his heretical answer made vnto a Catholikes argument Thus then Tertullian goeth forwarde Vani erimus si putauerimus quòd Sacerdotibus noÌ„ liceat laicis licere nonne laici Sacerdotes sumus We shal be deceiued or we shal be vaine men if we shal thinke that to be lawful for Laye menne whiche is not lawful for Priestes We that are Laye men are we not Priestes also And so he goeth forward with that which M. Iewel did allege for his purpose Double priesthod For wheras there is a double Priesthod one publike and external which is onely coÌ„mon to those that receiue power to consecrate Christes Body and Bloud at the Altare the other priuate and internal which is indifferently common to the Priestes and to laye men whereby they al receiue power in Baptisme to offer spiritual Sacrifices vnto God 1. Pet. 2. as S. Peter saith Tertullian would haue the argument to be good that as none are made publike and external Priestes whiche haue had two wiues so none who are internal priestes might haue two wiues But Tertullian is deceiued in his heretical argument as wel as M. Iewel is in alleging an heretical authoritie Whereupon S. Hierome saith Montanus TertulliaÌ„ enemie â—o sâ—coÌ„d mariages qui Nouati schisma sectaÌ„tur putant secunda matrimonia ab Ecclesiae communione prohibenda cùm Apostolus de Episcopis Praesbyteris hoc praecipiens vtique in caeteris relaxârit non quòd hortetur ad secunda matrimonia sed quòd necessitati carnis indulgeat Montanus and those who followe the schisme of Nouatus thinke that the second Mariages ought to be forbidden from the Communion of the Church whereas the Apostle geuing that commaundement vnto Bishoppes and priestes hath doubteles released it in other men Not that he exhorteth them to secoÌ„d mariages but bicuase he yeeldeth to the necessitie of the flesh So that S. Hierome reproueth
from his Prince the child from his father and the wife from her husband What is it then wherein your Predecessours if they had now liued and had seene it would not haue benne so wilful as we are They should haue seene in you Diuisions sectes factions pride wantonesse fleshly libertie crueltie murders treasons rebellions Churche robbinges and to be short al impietie and contempte of God Pride accompained with malice couetise and lecherie was the foundation A foule mouthed Frier as euer liued on the earth and a Nūne incestuously coupled together was the building that rose vp of your doctrine which to this daie goeth forward with like increase And yet if your Predecessours had seene that which we see they would forsooth haue ben astonned to see the heauenly fruites which these men bring foorth Iewel To be short vve succede the bisshops that haue ben before our dayes vve are elected consecrated confirmed and admitted as they vvere Harding Here is no lye at al. That I may speake of no other difference the Bishops whom you succeede were al confirmed by the bishop of Rome and so is none of you Iewel .. If they vvere deceiued in any thing vve succede them in the place but not in errour Harding By their place is meant specially their doctrine and beleefe which seing you haue not you are not their successour no more then Paulus Samosatenus the heretique was the Successour in S. Peters chaire in Antioche no more then Gregorius the Arian was S. Markes successour in Alexandria no more then al the Bisshops of Christendome are to be accompted the successours of the Heathnish Priestes which in the same Cities before worshipped Idols It is the Doctrine and place together which maketh the Succession and not the walles of the towne Churche or house alone Iewel They vvere our Predecessours but not the rules and standardes of our faith Harding As long as they remained in that vnitie of Doctrine which they receiued of the Apostles or of the Apostolike Churches as Tertullian doth wel shew so long they are presidentes and their continual Succession is a good rule and standard of our faith For they are pillers of the Church the Successours of the Apostles Luc. 10. whom he that heareth heareth Christ Now when those that breake the Vnitie which was in the Church before come to sit in any bishops Chaire they in deede are no presidentes no rules nor standardes of our Faith bicause the Apostle biddeth vs obserue and beware of them 2. Thess 3. that walke inordinatly and make dissensions For the Church of God hath no suche custome to striue 1. Cor. 11. and to resiste at once al the Bishops of the whole Church as Martin Luther did Iewel 131. Or rather to set apart al comparison of persons the doctrine of Christ this day M. Harding succedeth your doctrine as the daye succedeth the night as the light succedeth darknesse and as the truth succedeth errour Harding VVhat is the daie vvhat is the night in M. Ievvelles iudgement That is to say your doinges and proceedinges are the daye the light and the truth but the Catholique faith whiche we teache and al our predecessours in al the worlde haue euer taught is the night the darkenesse and errour But sir if your doctrine be daye or light and ours night or darkenesse how chaunceth it that our doctrine was euer openly seene in the whole worlde from the Apostles time vnto these daies in so many Bishoppes throughout al nations teaching al one thing and yours was not sene by your owne confession for nine hundred yeres together This was a long night pardy M. Iewel Is it the nature of the light not to be seene Who sawe not our Altars our external Priestes and our Sacrifice of the body and bloud of Christ in the whole world from East to Weast Malac. 1. as Malachias prophecied and the euent shewed But your no Aulters your no external Priestes and your no sacrificing of Christes body briefly the Imaginatiue face of your Negatiue Religion or rather of your no Religion who could see before that now of late ye pulled downe our Aulters to shewe howe ye had no Aulters and before violently ye bannished our Priestes and draue them out of their Churches to shewe howe ye had no Priestes and denied Christes Real Presence to shew how ye had no Sacrifice Our Munkes and Friers from S. Ihon Baptistes dayes and from the tyme of those that liued a very holy life in Egypte frō the time of S. Marke the Euangeliste vnto the time of S. Basil in the East of S. Augustine S. Benedicte S. Frauncis and S. Dominike in the Weast had replenished Christendom with Cloisters and Monasteries to those our Monkes I say al the worlde beareth witnesse But your no monkes Renegates and Apostates liued in Turkie or in Hel for in the landes of Christendom no such doctrine shined none suche was heard of whiche should auouche that it is not lawful by Gods grace to make a vowe that a man wil renounce the riches and pleasures of the worlde and liue continently vnder the obedience of a spiritual Father If your doctrine be the light and the daye howe commeth it to passe that not so muche as one Churche or chappel in the whole earth can be named where before these fiftie yeres it was vnlawful to occupie holy Chrisme in bishopping of childerne or to saye Masse or to teache the seuen Sacramentes to praie for the dead to celebrate the Churche Seruice in the Latine tongue to desire the Apostles Martyrs and the other Saintes to praie for vs al which thinges now you accompt for vnlawful Can the light be so darkened that it should be vnknowen vnto you whether ye had any auncestours at al or no We can if neede were set forth a rolle of our Pastours and Bishops from this daye vpward vnto S. Peters time in such sort as you shal name no one time of whiche we are not hable to saye vnto you these many prelates and Pastours were knowen to preache Christes gospel at once in diuers nations Marcke M. Iewel what I saye to you and consider of it wel For herein your vtter Confusion appeareth that ye are not hable to bring the continuance of your doctrine vp vnto S. Peters time without interruption albeit you should be bounde to name for euery fiftie yeres in Order but one man in the whole worlde at once Thinke of it with al your witte and geue me an instance There are since Christes time fifteen hūdred yeres passed Geue me for euery hundred yeres two Catholike men one liuing after the other whom you may iustifie to haue ben of your faith holding that doctrine whiche you holde and so geue me in al but thirtye menne liuing and knowen to haue lyued eche of them about fiftie yeres one after the other and for my part I wil release you of your bond of subscription Such a lightsome Churche ye haue that
that there is no succession in doctrine Now I saie ronne ouer al the Bisshops of Rome and you can saie of neuer a one this man coÌ„ming into his Predecessours See did oppugne his doctrine or preached with the Churche of Romes contentation against that which was in vse before So that in Rome al thinges are euen at this day concerning faith as S. Peter leafte them For euery man hath agreed in outward Decree senteÌ„ce and profession with al the predecessours and successours Iewel Pag. 132. S. Bernard saith Quid prodest si canonicè eligantur In concil Remen non canonicè viuant VVhat auaileth it if they be chosen in order and liue out of order Harding It auaileth nothing to the euil liuer but yet it auaileth muche to him that obeieth the good and true doctrine of the euil teacher Iewel So saith S. Augustine Ipsum characterem multi lupi Cont. Donatist lib. 6. 1. q. 3. vocantur caâ—es Character vvhat it signifieth in the Sacraments lupis imprimunt The outvvarde marke or right of a bisshop many geue to vvolues and be vvolues them selues Harding By Character is not meant an outward marke but rather an inwarde marke and print which through the receiuing of certaine Sacramentes is imprinted in the soules of them who receiue them of whiche sorte are Baptisme Confirmation and holy Orders And those sacramentes being once receiued caÌ„ not be repeated or be againe receiued of the same person For the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud although it be an outward signe yet it leaueth not any Character or suche inward print in the soule as may be no more repeated But letting that errour passe of the true interpretation of this worde Character I graunt that Heretikes may baptize heretikes euen without the Churche and the Baptisme shal stand although it be vnlawfully ministred What maketh that against the Suceession of Bishops It rather proueth that seing the Sacramentes may be ministred if not to saluation of them that are of discretion yet truly and really without the true Churche there must be an other rule taken to know the true Church by besides the administration of Sacramentes And that true and certaine rule is the perpetual Succession of the See Apostolike Iewel Pag. 132. Therefore the auncient father Irenaus geueth vs this good counsel Eis qui sunt in Ecclesia presbyteris obedire oportet Iren. lib. 4. ca. 43. qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundùm beneplacitum patris acceperunt It becommeth vs to obey those Priestes in the Churche vvhich haue their succession from the Apostles and together vvith the Succession of their bishoprikes according to the good vvil of God the Father haue receiued the vndoubted gifte of the truthe Harding Al this maketh against you M. Iewel For seing you can shew no such Priestes hauing their Succession from the Apostles and hauing receiued the vndoubted gifte of the truth whom ye doo obeye it is certaine that ye haue not the gifte of the truthe among you On the other side seing we haue Priestes that is to say Bishoppes of Rome who are also Priestes which haue their SuccessioÌ„ from the chiefe and most glorious Apostles Peter and Paule and seing such Priestes and Bishops keeping stil the same faith and doctrine from man to man haue receiued the vndoubted gifte of the truth according to the good wil of God the Father doubtelesse the vndoubted marke of the truth is with vs only and not with you at al who haue no Succession at al of any Priestes and much lesse of any suche Priestes that succede lineally from the Apostles them selues Iewel 132. S. Cyprian being likevvise charged for dissenting from his predecessours Lib. 2. epist 3. ansvvereth thus Si quis de antecessoribus meis c. If any of my predecessours haue not obserued and kepte the same that our Lorde hath taught vs both by his example and also by his coÌ„maundement his simplicitie may be pardoned but we if we doo the like can hope for no pardon being nowe admonished and instructed of our Lorde Harding Cough vp man it wil choke you Phy. vvhat a fowle corruption is this Lib. 2. epist 3. if you let it tarry within your throte Here is but halfe the bone there is yet in S. Cyprian no ful point it foloweth in the same sentence Vt calicem Dominicum vino mixtum secundùm quod Dominus obtulit offeramus We can hope for no pardon who are now admonished and instructed of our Lorde that we should offer our Lordes chalice mixed with wine accordingly as our Lorde offered the same Either M. Iewel tooke this saying of S. Cyprian vpon the Germaine credite as he found it noted in their bookes and then his false brethren deceiued him or els he wrote it out of S. Cyprian himselfe and then his studie and wil was to deceiue vs. He would ful gladly haue geuen vs an authoritie that we might forsake the example of our Predecessours but he was loth we should see the thing wherewith the authoritie was exemplified For if at any time he say al he is sure to speake against him selfe and no wonder because he speaketh against the truth and euerie good saying euermore agreeth with the trtuh First he corrupteth S. Cyprian in putting in meis for nostra my predecessours in stede of our predecessours For S. Cyprian speaketh not of his owne Succession but of what soeuer Priest or Bishoppe that liued before his time Againe S. Cyprian spake not of any such custome as had ben generally vsed of al Bishops for then it had ben of ful authoritie but of that which some one man vsed priuatly and without keeping the lawe of Succession And therefore S. Cyprian said Si quis if any man Thirdly the thing he spake of was that some were said to offer water alone in our Lordes supper and not wine withal Now saith he if any before our time haue vsed to offer water and not wine mingled with water wel he may be pardoned by our Lordes mercie but we that are admonished and instructed to offer our Lordes chalice mingled with wine that is to say consisting not of water alone but of water and wine mingled together we caÌ„ not be pardoned except we mingle water with wine and so do offer our Lordes Chalice as he him selfe did offer it Nowe applie this geare Christian Reader to our new brethrens deedes Do they offer our Lordes Chalice at al Or do they graunt that our Lord in his Supper offered it Do they mingle water with wine at the time of consecrating the mysteries If they do neither of both what folie yea what madnesse was it for M. Iewel to bring foorth these wordes of S. Cyprian thereby to accuse him selfe and his owne Communion as not obseruing that whiche our Lorde commaunded to be obâ—â—rued It is a worlde to see how these men applye the witnesses of
of God Traditions c. The second Chapter Ievvel Pag. 193. In prooem in prouer Salomon Touching the booke of the Machabees vve saie nothing but that vve finde in S. Hierome S. Augustine and they holy fathers S. Hierom saith the Church receiueth them not emong the Canonical allovved scriptures Harding The bookes of the Machabees canonical emonge the faithful S. Hierome speaketh of such Canonical Scriptures of the olde Testament as the very Iewes allowed for Canonical Such in deede the bookes of the Machabees are not But why haue you not alleged S. Augustines wordes as wel as S. Hieromes Certainely bicause they condemne you For if yee said al that of the bookes of the Machabees which S. Augustine saith you would allowe them for Canonical Scriptures amonge faithful Christians August de De Ciuitat Dei lib. 18. ca. â—6 He saith Machabaeorum libros non Iudaei sed Ecclesia pro Canonicis habet As for the bookes of the Machabees not the Iewes but the Church accoÌ„pteth them for Canonical Hereunto I maiâ— adde but M. Iewel and his Companions accompte not the bookes of the Machabees for Canonical 〈◊〉 theâ—â—in they are of the Iewes Synagog and not of the Church of Christ Now see good Reader â–ª 〈…〉 be made when he said as thou findest noted in the mâ—rgeâ— of his booke Pag. 191. that he would denie no more then S. Austine S. Hierom and other Fathers haue â—enied If you say ye deny not the bookes of the Machabees â–ª 〈◊〉 â—eproue you praying for the dead which is so sufficiâ—â—â—y proued by those bookes Soothly if you allow the one you must allow the other Ievvel Pag. 193. S. Iames epistle Eusebius saith S. Iames Epistle vvas vvritten by some other and not by S. Iames VVe must vnderstand saith Eusebius that it is a bastard epistle Harding You haue abused Eusebius For he leaueth not there but goeth forward shewing what he ment by his word li. 2. c. 23. li. 2. c. 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whiche you turne is a bastard But Ruffinus more ciuilly translated it à noÌ„nullis non recipitur The epistle is not receiued of some men And Eusebius him selfe addeth Nos tameÌ„ scinius etiaÌ„ istas cuÌ„ caeteris publicè aplerisque fuisse Ecclesiis receptas Yet we know that S. Iames and S. Iudes Epistles with the rest haue ben publikely receiued of most Churches wherby we learne that Eusebius meaÌ„t by the worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 asmuch to say as it is accompted of some men not to be S. Iames owne Touching his owne iudgement he sheweth him selfe to be of the opinion that it is S. Iames epistle Of some he coÌ„fesseth by those wordes that it was doubted of Therfore you haue reported Eusebius vntruly making him to pronounce negatiuely of the epistle which directly he hath not don Iewel S. Hierome saith It is said that the Epistle of S. Iames vvas set forth by some other man vnder his name Hiero. iâ— catalogâ— Harding I graunte But S. Hierom had said before those wordes which you allege Vnam tantum scripsit Epistolam quae de septem Catholicis est He wrote onely one epistle which is one of the seuen Canonical Epistles Hiero. iâ— catalogâ— Ecclesi script Againe after the wordes by you alleged it followeth that the said epistle in processe of time hath obteined authoritie Ievvel 194. VVe Lutherans and Zuinglians agree throughly together in the vvhole substance of the Religion of Christe Harding I perceiue the Sacrament of Christes body and bloud is no substantial point with you and yet he that receiueth it vnworthily 1. Cor. 11. receiueth his damnation And he can not receiue it worthily who beleeueth amisse of it But either the Lutherans or the Zuinglians or bothe beleeue amisse thereof bicause in that behalfe they â—eache cleane contrary doctrine Therefore either both as the truth is or one of those two sectes as them selues must confesse receiueth alwaies vnworthily and consequently they must confesse that one of the two sectes is vtterly damned without any hope of saluation And certainely the Zuinglians as also the Caluinistes are the worse bicause they beleeue Goddes word lesse in some degree then Luther taught and go further from the literal sense of his Gospel 1. Timo. 3. and from the beleefe of the Church which is the piller of truthe Iewel 194. The Church is not God nor is able of her selfe to make or alter any article of the faith Harding Esai 59. Ioan. 14. But she is the spouse of God and to her he hath promised both his wordes and his spirite to remaine with her for euer And therefore she is the chiefe witnes of al the articles of the faith Wherefore seing you hearâ— not her witnesse you ought to be vnto vs as an Heathen Matt. 18. and a Publican Iewel Isai 8. Esaie saith to the lavv rather and to the testimonie If they ansvver not according to this vvorde they shal haue no Morning light Harding Iere. 31. Hebre. 8. This lawe is written also in our hartes as Ieremie and S. Paul doo witnesse And the successours of the Apostles geue also a testimonie of Christe no lesse Ioan. 15. then Christe said the Apostles should doo Therefore the lawe and testimonie whereunto Esaie calleth is as wel that which is written in faithful mennes hartes and which is witnessed in the Church as that which is written in the olde and new Testament Iewel Pag. 194. M. Harding saith further If quietnesse of Conscience comme of the vvorde of God onely then had Abel no more quietnesse of conscience then vvicked restlesse Cain c. VVho vvould thinke that M. Harding bearing suche a countenance of Diuinitie vvould thus goe about to deceiue him false vvith a pointe of Sophistrie Harding Who would thinke that M. Iewel being pressed with a point whereunto he is not hable to make answere would not thus go about to deceiue his vnlearned Reader with a point of Sophistrie I praie thee reader take the paines to peruse what the Apologie saith what I haue said in my CoÌ„futation and what M. Iewel bringeth in the Defence touching this matter I desire no more but that thou read it and then iudge as thou seest cause It is an easy matter for M. Iewel when he hath made me to speake what he listeth to frame an answere accordingly But I must alwaies warne the reader not to beleue M. Iewel when so euer he reporteth either my wordes or any other mannes M. Ievv shifteth him selfe from Scripture to Goddes vvorde but to repaire to the Original Fot seldom is he founde cleere of the crime of falsifying And here he entwiteth me of Sophistrie wheras in deede he vseth the grossest sleight of Sophistrie him selfe He conueigheth him selfe from the Canonical Scriptures to Goddes worde Now I spake of the Scriptures and he answereth of Goddes worde Defence pag 191. Whereas it is said in the Apologie that
Apud Euseb lib. 5. c. 24. Irenaeus do witnesse Exuperius also the Bishop of Tholosa as S. c In epist ad Rustic MonachuÌ„ Math. 24. Arius Nestorius Hus. Luther Zuinglius HieroÌ„ sheweth carried it in a wicker basket So that it is but the lewd Sowters Diuinitie to expounde here is Christ and there is Christ of the being of Christes bodie in the SacrameÌ„t And what was Christes meaniÌ„g in those wordes it is expressed in the Gospel that diuers false prophets should arise in diuers corners of his Church as Arius at Alexandria Nestorius at CoÌ„staÌ„tinople and likewise other Arch-heretikes in other corners of the which euery one should chalenge Christ to him As for example that Iohn Hus would say Christ is wel preached with vs in in Bohemia onely Not so quod Luther but Christ is wel preached here at Wittenberg only Zuinglius then would say no thereunto but that he is wel preached at Zurich only Nay saith Caluine he is most excellently and most purely preached at Geneua Tush quod Suenkfeldius Suenckfeldius he is better preached in Silesia Ye are al deceiued quod Waldo VValdo he is best of al preached in certaine dennes about Lions I perceiue quod Bernardinus Ochinus Bernardi Ochinus ye neuer were in Polonia for there is the very syncere woorde of God professed and the doctrine for a man to haue mo wiues at once is allowed But Osiander Osiander for his parte crieth out that in Prussia the Gospel hath more libertie bicause Duke Albert is for his owne tooth Wel quod Brentius Brentius when al is done there is no doctrine like to the Vbiquitie frankly taught in the Duchie of Wirtemberg Ye are al far out of the waie say the Anabaptistes Anabaptistes for Friseland is alone and there onely Christ is truly preached and that should wel appeare if our kingdom begonne at Muster had gonne forward Now last of al crepeth me forth one Browne at London with his vnspotted Congregation otherwise called Puritanes Puritanes As we come laste say they so we are purest and cleanest of al others For we wil haue no iote of the Popes dregges nor any religion what so euer hath ben to fore awaie with al for al was naught vntil we came and our waie doubtlesse is without fault These and many other contrarie Sectes M. Iewel chalenging eche one of them the truth to them selues are these Corner crepers who ceasse not to crie here is Christ and there is Christ Math. 5. of whoÌ„ we are al warned to beware For in the meane time Christ is preached truly in the only Catholike Church in the light of the world where his Candle staÌ„deth vpoÌ„ the CaÌ„dlestick to geue light to al that are in his great Howse And in this sense do al the Fathers expouÌ„d these words of Christ as I might at large shew if I had your boastiÌ„g vaine and coueted to seeme to say much vpon euery thing be-it neuer so plaine Iewel 208. M. Hardings fellovves are not yet vvel agreed vvhat to make of their ovvne Consecration Harding Your long needelesse processe is answered with one worde Their question is concerning a point not necessarie to wit how Christ did consecrate But they are al agreed that he made and consecrated his owne body and bloud by what meanes so euer he did it Iewel 209. VVe vse the vvordes that Christ vsed If Christ and his Apvstles coÌ„secrated then do vve vndoubtedly likevvise consecrate And our intention is to doo that Christ hath taught vs to do Harding Christ was a Priest and consecrated as a Priest as a Lib. 2. epist 3. S. Cyprian and b Ad Heliodor ad Euagrium S. Hierom doo witnesse that as Melchisedech in foreshewing the figure of Christ had done panem vinum offerens offering breade and wine ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis sanguinis repraesentaret Christ him selfe also should make present the truth of his body and bloud And when Christ had thus consecrated his body and bloud then he made his Apostles also Ministerial Priestes Luc. 24. saying doo ye this wherein is conteined make this in my remembrance And so they consecrated alwaies as Priestes and taught vs the oblation of the new testament Lib. 4. cap. 32. as S. Irenaeus witnesseth But as for you M. Iewel beleeuing there is no external priesthoode and refusing to take the Sacrament of Oâ—ders which the Church hath alwaies had how can you haue either the intention to consecrate and offer vp Christes body or to do that thing whiche you falsly beleeue may not be donne Iewel Pag. 209. There is the body of our Lord saith M. Harding be the receiuers beleeuing or not beleeuing But S. Augustine saith In Iohan. Tract 26 This is the eating of that meate and the drinking of that drinke that a man dvvel in Christ and haue Christ dvvelling in him Harding That is in deede the worthy eating and drinking wherof S. Augustine speaketh But S. Paule sheweth that he 1 Cor. 11. who eateth vnworthily that meate is giltie of the body of our Lord which should not be so by his eating except it were the body of our Lord which he doth eate Iewel Pag. 109. Origen saith Est verus cibus quem nemo malus potest edere In Math. cap. 15. Etenim si malus posset edere corpus Domini noÌ„ scriberetur qui edit hunc panem viuet in aeteâ—num The body of Christ is the true foode vvhiche no euil man can eate For if the euil man could eate the body of our Lord it should not be vvritten he that eateth this bread shal liue for euer Harding You haue fowly corrupted this place M. Iewel Origen speaketh not of the Sacrament in those wordes nor of the Sacramental eating Yea expressely hauing spokeÌ„ before of the SacrameÌ„t Origen in Mat. c. 15. he endeth his talke thereof in this sort Et haec quidem de typicosymbolicoque corpore And these thinges I haue said of the typical and figuratiue body Where it is to be noted Figuratiue bodie that the Sacrament is called a figuratiue body bicause it is made present for a figuratiue purpose that is to thend the death of the same body whiche death is nowe past and absent may be remembred most effectually by the presence of the selfe same body that died Nowe goeth Origen forward saying Multa porrò de ipso verbo dici possent quod factum est caro verúsque cibus quem qui comederit omnino viuet in aeternum quem nullus malus potest edere Et enim si fieri posset vt qui malus adhuc perseueret edat verbum factum carnem cùm sit verbum panis vinus nequaquam scriptum fuisset quisquis ederit panem hunc viuet in aeternum Moreouer muche might be said of the word it selfe how that it was made fleash and the true foode the whiche he that eateth shal
happeth bicause we yeelde and consent vnto sinne and not bicause the concupiscence of it selfe is sinne before we haue consented vnto it Ievvel 217. S. Augustine saith in most plaine vvise Contra Iulianum lib. 5. c. 3. The concupiscnce of the flesh against vvhich the good spirite lusteth is both sinne and the paine of sinne and the cause of sinne Yet the late blessed Chapter of Trident in spite of S. Augustine hath published the contrarie Harding Thus ye speake in spite of the CouÌ„cel Verely the CouÌ„cel of Trent did determine that which it fouÌ„d in S. Augustin who teacheth most manifestly that the CoÌ„cupisceÌ„ce is not properly sin but is only called so And thereby you know how S. Augustine is to be vnderstaÌ„ded in the place by you alleged His most plaine words are these Augustin coÌ„t duas epist Pelagi li. 1. ca. 13. Dicimus Baptisma dare oiÌ„m indulgentiaÌ„ peccatoruÌ„ et auferre crimina noÌ„ radere Sed de ista coÌ„cupiscentia carnis falli eos credo vel fallere cuÌ„ qua necesse est vt etiaÌ„ baptizatus hoc si diligeÌ„tissimè proficit spiritu Dei agitur pia mente confligat Sed haec etiaÌ„si vocatur PeccatuÌ„ non vtique quia peccatuÌ„ est sed quia peccato facta est sic vocatur Sicut sciptura manus cuiusque dicitur quòd manus eaÌ„ fecerit We say that Baptisme geueth remissioÌ„ of al sinnes and that it taketh crimes quit away and doth not shaue them as who would saye it leaueth not the rootes behind But I suppose that as touching this ConcupisceÌ„ce of the flesh they be either deceiued them selues or that they deceiue others For of this ConcupisceÌ„ce he also who is baptized yea though he profit neuel so wel and be guided with the spirite of God must of necessitie suffer in his Godly mind some conflicte But this Concupiscence albeit it be called sinne yet verely it is not so called bicause it is sinne but bicause it is made by sinne As for example any writing is called the hand of him that wrote it bicause the hand made it If then S. Augustine say most distinctly that the Concupiscence in them that are baptized is not a sinne how spitefully yea how falsely also haue you said that the Councel of Trent defined the contrarie in spite of S. Augustine I pray you be not so angry with the Councel of Trent If your stomake wil not holde in that spiteful humour but you must nedes vtter it yet wil truth be truth Of the Real presence of Christes Bodie in the Sacrament of the Aulter The 5. Chapter The Apologie Pag. 218. VVe saie that Eucharistia that is to saie the Supper of the Lorde is a Sacrament that is an euident representation of the Bodie and Bloude of Christ vvherein is sette as it vvere before our eies the death of Christ and his Resurrâ—ction and vvhat so euer he did vvhilest he vvas in his mortal Body to the ende vve maie geue thankes for his deathe and for our deliuerance And that by the often receiuing of this Sacrament vve may daily renevve the remembrance thereof to thintent vve being fedde vvith the Bodie and bloude of Christe may be brought into the hope of the Resurrection and of euerlasting life and maie most assuredly beleeue that as our bodies be fedde vvith bread and vvine so our soules be fedde vvith the Bodie and Bloude of Christe Confutation fol. 90. b. Among al these gay wordes we heare not so much as one syllable vttered whereby we may vnderstande that yee beleeue the very Bodie of Christe to be in deede present in the blessed Sacrament of the Aulter Ye confesse the Eucharistia whiche commonly ye cal the Supper of the Lorde to be a Sacrament and al that to be none other then an euident token of the Bodie and Bloude of Christe c. Iewel Defence Pag. 220. Here is no mention saith M. Harding of Real presence and thereupon he plaieth vs many a proper lesson Notvvithstanding here is as muche mention made of Real presence as either Christe or his Apostles euer made or in the Primitiue Catholique Church vvas euer beleeued Harding COnsidering how ofte this matter hath ben handled and how few men are ignorant what ech side saith I wil be the shorter in this place First I graunt the eating of Christes body by faith to be necessarie Againe I graunt the Sacrament to be a mystical figure of Christes death and of his visible body But I say farther that besides eating by Faith our flesh and body receiueth Christes body and that really Matt. 26. That these vvordes this is my body this is my Bloude are meant properly TertulliaÌ„ de resurr Carnis Which conclusion is proued bicause the wordes of Christ this is my body are meant properly and without any figure of speach albeit the manner of the presence be figuratiue My reason to proue that Christes wordes are meant properly is the perpetual interpretation of the auncient Fathers the sense and custome of the Churche To beginne with Tertullian he saith in this wise Caro abluitur vt anima emaculetur Caro vngitur vt anima consecretur Caro signatur vt anima muniatur Caro manus impositione adumbratur vt anima spiritu illuminetur Caro corpore sanguine Christi vescitur vt anima de Deo saginetur The flesh is washed that the soule may be made without spot The flesh is annointed that the soule may be consecrated The flesh is signified that the soule may be fenced The flesh is shadowed with the laying on of handes The flesh is the meane vvhereby the grace of God passeth vnto the soule that the soule also may be lightened with the holy Ghost The flesh is fed with the body and bloude of Christe that the soule also may be made fat of God In these wordes as diuers Sacramentes are ioyned together so herein they agree al that the flesh is the meane by which the grace of God passeth to the soule As therfore in Baptisme the flesh is washed that the soule may be cleansed so in the Sacrament of the Aulter the flesh is fed with the body and bloude of Christ that the soule may be nourished with the godhead which dwelleth in that fleshe It is then to be noted that the fleshe eateth not material bread and wine but the body and bloud of Christ For as the thing wherewith we are washed is water and that wherewith we are anointed is oile euen so that wherewith the flesh is fed is the body and bloud of Christ The instrument therefore of Gods grace is none other in the Supper beside that flesh wherein the fulnesse of the Godhed dwelleth It is wel knowen that our flesh hath no faith to eate Christes body withal Therefore when our flesh is said to be fed with Christes body it is clearly meant that our flesh is also really fed with Christes owne substance as it is washed with
water And as by water touching our flesh cleannes cometh to our soule euen so by the body of Christ touching our flesh the fatnes of God so TertulliaÌ„ speaketh that is to saie the plentiful grace of God commeth to our soule Coloss 2. For in that flesh God the sonne dwelleth corporally And by that only flesh grace is most abundantly ministred vnto vs for which cause that flesh is made the instrument of grace to vs. Ambros de Sacrament li. 6. cap. 1. Hereunto agreeth S. Ambrose Idem Dominus noster Iesus Christus consors est diuinitatis corporis tu qui accipis eius carneÌ„ diuinae eius substantiae in illo participaris alimento The same our Lord Iesus Christ is partaker both of Godhead and of body And thou which receiuest his flesh art made partaker in that foode of his Diuine substance There S. Ambrose spake of receiuing the Sacrament and expounded how Christe is the liuing bread that came downe from heauen Ioan. 6. His flesh saith he came not from heauen but whiles thou receiuest that flesh in that foode thou art made partaker of the godhead But if it were bread which we receiue at Christes supper in that foode of bread we should not be made partakers of the diuine substance For the diuine substance is in none other foode as to be receiued of vs but only in the flesh and bloude of Christ And there it is for our sakes and for that diuine substances sake the flesh of Christ is geuen really to vs that thereby the Godhead may the more mightily poure grace and the seede of immortalitie into our soules By faith we might feede of the Godhead but by that meanes onely we should not be made partakers of the godhead as by the best meane For the flesh of Christ with our faith is a better meane to deriue the godhead vnto vs then faith alone Faith suffised the olde Fathers bicause there was yet no better meane But when Christ had once taken flesh then his flesh together with saith Ioan. 1. was an other manner of meane to make vs partakers of more abundant grace Christe is touched novv of vs. Luc. 6. For now we touch really the flesh of Christ by the formes of bread and wine euen as in the daies when he liued in earth diuers personnes touched him by touching his garment which was about his flesh And by that meanes as they were most spedily healed so are we Chrysostom crieth out Chrysost in epistol ad ephes homil 3. Quomodo comparebis ante tribunal Christi qui manibus ac labijs immundis ipsius audes contingere corpus Et regem quidem nolles ore tuo foetido adosculari regem verò coeli anima graueolenti oscularis Oro te an voles manibus illot is ad oblationem accedere Atqui manibus quidem ad tempus continâ—tur in illâ—m ver◠〈…〉 resoluitur seu diuersatur Cur non vasa vides ita vndique lota ita splendida Illa non sunt capacia illius quem in se habent non sentiunt illum nos verò planè How shalt thou appeare before the throne of Christ who art so bold as with vncleane handes and lippes to touch his body Thou wouldest not aduenture to kisse the king with thy stincking mouth and wilt thou kisse the king of heauen with a foule stincking soule I praye thee wilt thou not washe thy handes before thou comest to the oblation And yet in thy handes he is holden but for a time but into the soule he is wholy resolued or there maketh his abode Wherefore beholdest thou not the vessels how they be cleane washed and shine ful brightly And yet they be not partakers of him nor feele him whom they conteine but we doo truly Christe holdeÌ„ in our hand In this discourse it is euident that we touch Christ in the Sacrament In so much that he saith the vessels hold him our handes holde him and our soule holdeth him Marke wel that the selfe same thing is in the vessels to wit in the patin and in the chalice and in the hand also which is in the soule Bread and wine are not in our soule but only Christes fleash Wherefore it is Christ also which is in the vessels and in our hand â–ª But he is holden in our hand saith S. Chrysostom ad tempus a while But he dwelleth in our soule none other wise then if one thing were made of bothe and one were resolued into the other Againe the vessels hold him but they partake him not bicause they lacke faith But it is the same Christ in the vessels and in our handes which is in our soule For from the vessels he commeth to our handes and from our handes into our bodies and so into our soules What extreme impudencie then is it to say that in these wordes S. Chrysostom meant not the bloud of Christ to be really in the Chalice and his body to be really vnder the forme of bread Leo the great saith Leo sermone 6. de ieiunio 7. mensis Christes bodie is receiued vvith mouthe ye ought so to communicate of the holy table that ye doubt nothing at al of Christes body and bloud Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur for that thing is taken in by mouth which is beleeued in faith But the thing beleeued in faith concerning Christes supper is the manhod and godhead of Christ Therefore the selfe nature of God and man is receiued in mouth What can be prentended here to the contrarie Cyrillus saith The mystical blessing Cyrillus lib. 10. in Ioan. c. 13. when it is becomme to be in vs doth it not cause Christ to dwel corporally also in vs by the coÌ„municating of his flesh Marke that the meane of Christes dwelling corporally in vs is the receiuing of the Sacrament And with Cyrillus it is wel knowen Hilarius de trinit lib. 8. Gregorius in Euangelia homil 22. how thorowly S. Hilarie agreeth Last of al S. Gregorie saith Quid sit sanguis Agni non iam audiendo sed bibendo didicistis Qui sangus super vtrumque postem ponitur quando non solùm ore corporis sed etiam ore cordis sumitur In vtroque etenim poste sanguis Agni est positus quando sacramentum passionis illius cum ore ad redemptionem sumitur ad imitationem quoque intenta mente cogitatur Nam qui sic redemptoris sui sanguinem accepit vt imitari passionem illius nec dum velit in vno poste sanguinem posuit What the bloud of the Lambe is ye haue now learned not by hearing but by drincking This bloud is put vpon both the postes when it is receiued not onely by the mouth of the body but also by the mouth of the soule For the bloud of the Lambe is put vpon both postes when the Sacrament of his passion is both receiued by mouth for our redemption and is also ernestly thought
Ievvel 230. You saye yee exhort the people to receiue their maker VVhat Scripture vvhat father vvhat doctour euer taught you thus to saye It is the bread of our lord In Iohan. Tract 59. as S. Augustine saith it is not our Lord. It is a creature corruptible it is not the maker of heauen and earth Harding Iohan. 6. That vve receiue our maker in the B. Sacrament Good wordes M. Iewel I praie you Christ saith he that eateth me shal also liue for me Was he that spake these wordes the maker of heauen and earth or no If he were accursed be he that demeth him so to be If he be our maker and God when we exhort men to receiue him in the blessed Sacrament why maie we not exhort them to receiue their maker And the body of Christ hath no other person to rest in or to be susteined of beside him only who being the Son of God is maker of heaueÌ„ and earth You know that our forefathers were taught to cal it their maker euen as S. Augustine confesseth that his people called the Sacramente of the Aulter vitam life The blessed Sacrament our Lord and maker by verdit of S. Augustine Augustin in Iohan. Tract 59. 1. Cor. 11. You make as though S. Augustine denied the Sacrament to be our Lord which he neuer doth but rather saith Illi manducabaÌ„t panem dominum they did eate the bread their Lord but Iudas did eate Panem Domini the bread of our Lord against our Lord Illi vitam ille poenam They did eate life he did eate paine For he that eateth vnworthily saith the Apostle eateth damnation to himselfe If the Apostles at the supper of Christ did eate only the Sacrament for the scripture speaketh of none other thing eaten and yet they did eate the bread which is our Lorde as S. Augustine saith Certainely the heauenly bread of the SacrameÌ„t is our Lord. But Iudas is said to haue eaten the bread of our Lord against our Lord bicause he did eate the Sacrament vnworthily and so he did not eate our Lord as he is bread that is to say as he feedeth but as he is a iudge and as he condemneth the vnworthy eater to euerlasting paine For otherwise S. Augustine saith Augustin Epist 162. Iudas did care his maker that Iudas did eate his maker Sinit accipere venditorem suum quod norunt fideles pretium nostrum He suffereth him that sold him to receiue our price which the faithful knowe Our maker was our price through his humaine nature In illo Sacramento Christus est saith S. Ambrose quia corpus est Christi Christ is in that Sacrament Ambros de ijs qui initiant cap. 9. bicause it is the body of Christ Wherfore you see how litle cause ye haue to be so muche offended with me for saying when we exhort the people to receiue the blessed Sacrament that then we exhorte them to receiue their maker Of Transubstantiation and M. Iewels falsehod in that matter The 8. Chapter THe Real Presence is the grounde of this doctrine For seing Christ said Math. 26. take eate this is my body these being propre and not figuratiue wordes as it hath benne shewed before it followeth thereof that the body of Christe whiche is not made of nothing is at the lest wise made really present by vertue of the Consecration the substance of bread and wine conuerted and changed into it Ambros De Sacrament li. 4. cap. 4. Chrysost De Eucharistia in Encenijs For which cause S. Ambrose saith Vbi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi When consecration is come thereunto from of bread is made the body of Christe Likewise S. Chrysostom saith Num vides panem c. Seest thou bread Seest thou wine God forbid Thinke not so Like as if waxe be putte into the fire it is made like vnto it neither remaineth ought of the substance of waxe euen so here thinke the Mysteries to be consumed away with the presence of that body a. Sermone 5. de Pascha Eusebius Emissenus b. in catechetica Oratione Gregorius Nyssenus c. in Leuit cap. 22. Hesychius d in Iohan 6. Theophylante e. de orthodoxa fide li. 4. cap. 14. Theophylact in ca. Math. â—6 Damascen and al the other Fathers teache the same doctrine as it hath benne ofte tolde in other places Iewel 239. VVhat one vvorde speaketh Theophylact either of your TransubstaÌ„tiatiation or of your Real Presence or of your corporal and fleshly eating Harding Can there be any greater impudencie in the earth then to save that Theophylact speaketh not one word of these pointes Beside al that I haue alredy brought out of Theophylact in my Confutation how plaine is he where he writeth thus vpon S. Matthew Ineffabili operatione traÌ„siformatur etiam si nobis videatur panis quoniaÌ„ infirmi sumus et abhorremus crudas carnes comedere maximè hominis carnem Et ideo panis quidem apparet sed re vera caro est It is transfourmed by an vnspeakeable operation although it seeme bread to vs bicause we are weaklinges and do abhorre to eate rawe fleshe specially the flesh of man And therfore it appeareth to be bread but in deede it is flesh Can these woordes be eluded or shifted by your phrases and figuratiue speaches It seemeth bread but in deede it is flesh saith he what is then become of the bread It is transfourmed or made ouer into another thing Into what other thing but into the flesh of Christ And why remaineth the fourme of Breade whereas in deede it is made fleshe Bicause saith he we abhorre to eate rawe flesh and specially mannes flesh And yet speaketh not Theophylact one word of Transubstantiation or of the Real Presence of Christes flesh Many other places in him are as plaine as this but he that hath such a face as to denie this one wil not be moued if we bring forth neuer so many Hauing thus abused Theophylact perhappes he wil seme for antiquities sake to beare more reuerence towards S. Ambrose whom here he now taketh in hand Iewel Pag. 246. S. Ambrose saith of the bread and vvine Sunt quae erant in aliud mutantur They remaine the same that they vvere and are chaunged into an other thing S Ambrose saith not so Phie vvhat falsifiyng is this The natural creatures of the bread and wine in the supper of our Lord saith S. Ambrose remaine stil in substaÌ„ce as they were before yet are they changed into an other thing that is to say they are made the Sacrament of the bodie and bloude of Christ vvhich before they vvere not Harding Many other places M. Iewel make me doubte left you haue your conscience marked with the signe of Antichrist that is to say lest although you see and knowe your self to lie and to falsify the holy Fathers yet you wil not yeld vnto the truth in any point
that were not by Gods word beginne to be And those that were by Gods word be also but they be another thing How so Bicause they are changed into an other thing But M. Iewel beginning the construction amisse teacheth vs that Gods worde causeth things to be that they were whiche is not S. Ambroses minde For then Gods worde should cause bread to be bread stil and that were onely the conseruing of creatures and not a changing of creatures But now al S. Ambroses reason procedeth to proue that Gods worde is of force to change creatures and he meaneth of change in substance For al his comparison consisteth about the wordes non esse esse and esse aliud esse Things that were not be and those that be already become to be an other thing If they become to be onely an other thing in qualitie then they are onely already a thing in qualitie whiche is false For the being that they haue is a certaine substance or substanciall being Therefore the other being or change which they haue is an other substance And I praye you who would not woonder to see S. Ambrose labour so vehemently to prooue that Gods worde is able to chaunge a creature in qualitie as though a man were not hable to change a thing in qualitie Can not the Cutler make rustie iron bright Can not a Pargeter make a browne wal white Can not a Cooke make colde liquour hote And can not you M. Iewel shew your selfe sometimes sweet and quiet sometimes eager and waspish sometimes a true man more oftentimes a lyer Wherin standeth this great force and working of Gods woorde whereof S Ambrose speaketh Soothly in the change of the substance of thinges For as he beganne his disputation before the wordes of Consecration quod he the bread is bread but when Consecration is come vnto it de pane from of bread it is made Christes flesh Marke whence is the change made from bread And into what is it made Into flesh This then is that S. Ambrose must proue That Gods word hath power to change bread into flesh To make short this very sentence whereof we nowe dispute is in an other place thus vttered by S. Ambrose Sermo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat De ijs qui initiantur mysterijs cap. 9. non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod nō erant The worde of Christ which could make that which was not of nothing can it not change those things which be into that which they were not He geueth an euident reason of his owne wordes saying Non enim minus est nouas rebus dare quà m mutare naturas For it is not lesse to geue new natures vnto things then to change natures As who should say he that can geue new natures can much more change natures Now sir I pray you when God geueth new natures doth he not geue new substances When therefore he is said at the same time to worke in changing natures it is meant that he changeth substances to wit bread into the bodie of Christ and wine into his bloud You haue a giltie conscience M. Iewel if al this considered yet you wil hold your owne and say stil that S. Ambrose meant not a change in substāce but only in qualitie For either you haue lost your wit or els you doo see to what purpose S. Ambroses discourse goeth Besides al this consider good Reader howe S. Ambrose concludeth and endeth this discourse Ergo didicisti quòd ex pane corpus fiat Christi Nowe then thou hast learned that of bread the body of Christ is made His purpose then was to shewe not that a newe qualitie but that a newe substance was made by change of the olde substance Of breade I saye the Bodie of Christe was made and of wine was made his bloud And yet it appeareth not bloud Ibidem vt nullus horror cruoris sit that there might be no abhorring of bloude But as in deede our sinnes are vtterly taken away in Baptisme where the olde Adam dieth and a newe creature is made in righteousnes euen so although it appeare not bloud yet in deede the olde substance of the wine is changed into the new substance of the bloud of our Sauiour Thus the bread and wine are changed in substance and yet kepe stil their olde outward formes Iewel pag. 248. 249. VVhat moueth you M. Harding to make this piteous out crie VVe chāge not S. Ambroses vvordes but report them simply as vve finde them These they are Panis vinum sunt quae erunt in aliud mutantur The bread and vvine are the same that they vvere and are changed into another thing Harding You haue learned this falshed of that false man Berengarius Panis and vinum are not there and for that cause Lanfrancus denied those wordes so alleged by Berengarius to be in S. Ambrose Lanfrancus in lib. de sacramento Eucharist Againe in the Latine al these wordes lacke whiche you put in English to witte the same that they there is no Latine I say for those wordes The nominatiue case to sint is not bread and wine but thinges imported by these woordes quae erant thinges whiche were The sense is the thinges whiche were be and be changed into an other thing Bread and wine were but they are not any more breade and wine and yet they are somewhat to wit they are that into whiche they are changed that is the body and bloud of Christe This onely can be the meaning of S. Ambrose by the very literal construction of the place as euery man may see that is hable and willing to construe and parse it As for M. Iewel he hath no waie to shifte his handes hereof auoiding al lying and falsifying I should be a shamed thus to descende to these Grammare pointes were I not driuen vnto it by M. Iewelles vntrue dealing Iewel Ibidem By this Logike In Math. cap. 18. vvhere S. Hierome saith pride is changed into humilitie M. Harding may saie it is changed therefore pride is or remaineth stil Harding How so euer it like you to esteme my Logique my Argument remaineth vnanswered If your skil in Logique were answerable to your boasting you should see the difference betwen change of accidentes and change of Substances whereof you seeme ignorant Howbeit I said not the bread is changed Ergo bread remaineth stil it is you that saie so I said the bread is changed into another thing Ergo it is But I saie not that it is bread but that it is that into which it is changed And therfore it hath a being though it haue not the same being in substance which it had before consecration For it is not made nothing as you are woonte to cauil of it but is it made an other thing and so it is stil but it is not that it was Your example of pride is more proudely then wisely
alleged For pride is no substance nor creature at al. Man only in his vnderstanding considereth it as somewhat whereas it is only a defecte and failing from humilitie For God neuer made vice Pride is a vice and therefore 〈…〉 But what shal a man saie to this fellow When the name of Substance seemeth to make for him then it standeth properly as the Philosophers vse the worde which is in Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when it seemeth to make against him then it standeth for grace faith wordes and Sacramentes which in some writers are named Substance as the diuines somtimes vse the terme whereto the Greeke terme Hypostasis answereth as S. Paule vseth it Heb. 11. How the Church is resolued in doubtful cases The truth is that seing wordes for the more parte are doubteful ambiguous and subiect to cauilles Christ hath not planted his Church in such sorte vpon wordes that his faithful members should thereby be diuided into many sectes For as he considering our infirmitie lefte vnto vs his holy wil conceiued in such wordes as menne vse in their common speache he lefte also with those wordes a high Pastor Iohan. 21. Luc. 22. by whom we should be fed for whose faith he prayed and his prayer is heard To which chiefe Pastor he gaue power and commaundement to strengthen and cōfirme his brethren So that it is in dede litle worth to hange of syllables and letters but it behoueth vs alwaies to seeke for the meaning of the worde And bicause we should neuer agree among our selues vpon wordes Math. 18. he bound vs to heare the Church the chiefe and ordinarie mouth whereof S. Peter was whiles he liued and after him the Bishops of Rome his Successours haue euer had the same place He then that wil be sure to know how euery worde that belongeth to matter of the faith must be taken in this or in that place of holy Scripture or of holy writers must be ruled by the mouth of his chiefe Pastor Act. 20. Now that Pastor calling to him out of al the worlde the chiefe and best learned Bishoppes ordeined by the holy Ghoste Gouernours of particular flockes hauing seene and heard al that might be said too and fro in the middest of foure hundred threescore and ten Bishoppes and of moe then a thousand learned Diuines besides the assistance of the holy Ghoste called for mature deliberation had and diligent examination of the Scriptures and holy Fathers made founde and by al their consente determined Concil Lateranen ca. 1. that the substance of bread and wine in the Sacrament of the Aulter is by the power of Gods worde changed into the substance of Christes Body and Bloud After whiche determination we know how Gelasius and how Theodoritus must of necessitie be vnderstanded if at the lest we wil heare the Churche as vnder paine of damnation we are bound to doo This answer may suffice al the cauilles that are moued and tossed by M. Iewel touching nature substance subsistence or any like worde Al wordes are ambiguous as S. Augustine confesseth In lib. de Dialecti The highest iudge in the highest courte of Christendome hath geuen sentence He that obeieth hath humilitie and seeth his grounde He that being loth to seeme deceiued wrangleth as M. Iewel doth is proude vaine contentious and disobedient which custome Heretikes haue and euer haue had but as S. Paule saith 1. Cor. 11. the Church of God hath it not Iewel Pag. 262. 263. To leaue these vnfruitful gheasses vve saie that the cuppe of blessing vvhich Christ calleth the Cuppe of the nevv Testament notvvithstanding it vvere made in a Mysterie the Sacrament of Christes Bloude yet in nature and substance vvas very vvine stil and as Christe him selfe calleth it the very fruite and generation of the grape as it vvas before The vvordes of the Euangelist S. Mathevv are very plaine Harding Would God I could so clearely shew to the Reader as the weight of this matter requireth how lewdly you playe as wel with the Gospel as with me It is not I M. Iewel that am incōstant in saying now these wordes were spoken before consecration and now after and perhaps at both times whereat you ieast and scoffe it is not I that changed my minde But whereas one of the Euangelistes telleth the matter one waye and the other an other waye and whereas sometimes they tel thinges out of order as your selfe can not but graunt my answer must needes be such as by al meanes to saue the truthe of the Gospel that howsoeuer these wordes were spoken which be obscure yet the plaine truth should not be hindred by them You sticke to the plaine wordes of S. Matthew as you saie And why sir I praye you may not I as wel claime that S. Lukes wordes are as plaine Luc. 22. I then haue myne eye to bothe and so make a distinction shewing how bothe together may be defended You litle esteming S. Luke talke to vs onely of S. Matthew whereby you declare that you beleue none other Euangeliste ne none other word of God beside your owne fansie Likewise you dissemble how diuersly the Fathers haue expounded the fruite of the Vine and vtter many wordes about a most knowen truth The fruit of the vine which no man denieth wherein as you deserue smal praise of learning so you lose amonge the wise the commendation of discretion For answer to al which I saie that it is a certaine case and cleere out of question that there was wine in Christes chalice whereof the Sacramēt should be made and yet forsoothe you would nedes proue it in many Pages together Againe I say that as there was wine in the chalice whereof the Sacrament should be made so after it was made there was no more the substance of wine And that I wil proue so plainely That after cōsecration there vvas no more the substance of vvine in Christes cup. Luc. 22. that you shal neuer be hable to answer to it Christe him selfe said if at the leste you admitte S. Lukes Gospel This Cuppe is the newe Testament in my Bloude whiche cuppe is shedde or shal be shedde for you The Cuppe shal be shedde for vs saith Christe that is to saye the liquour conteined in the Cuppe shal be shedde for vs. But natural or artificial wine was not shed for vs but onely Christes owne Bloude was shed for vs Ergo onely Christes owne Bloude is in that Cuppe and the substance of wine is not there at al. The wordes are plaine that which is in the Cup or chalice shal be shed for vs that was onely Christes Bloude Therefore onely Christes Bloude is in the Cuppe or Chalice But Christes Bloude is no wine excepte wee cal it wine in suche respecte as Christe him selfe is called the Vine and the grape Therefore no material wine of the common grape is in the Cuppe of Christes Supper Chrysost in 1. Cor. 10. With
him them selues The fleshe is feeble the minde is sicke and so entangled in the bandes of sinne that it can not set forth her faint and feble foote towardes the seate of that Physician The Angels are to be called vpon for vs who are geuen vnto vs to be our Garde The Martyrs are to be praied vnto of whom it seemeth we maie as it were chalenge a certaine assistance for that we haue their bodies in pledge They may wel pray for our sinnes who with their owne bloud haue washed away their owne sinnes if they had any For these are the Martyrs of God our chiefe Prelates and the ouerlookers of our life and doinges Let vs not be ashamed to vse them as intercessours for our infirmitie whereas they them selues euen then when they wanne the victorie knew wel the infirmitie and weakenesse of the bodie This place M. Iewel sheweth that S. Ambrose who wil not haue any man to flee to Idolles woulde haue al faithful menne to praie to the Saintes for them And yet you for lacke of better stuffe were faine to make your Reader beleeue that the wordes written against the accursed Idolles might be applied by you against the blessed Apostles and Martyrs Whereby you shewe what good opinion you haue of that blessed companie of the house of God who reigning with him in heauen see in the face of the Lambe our hartes so farre as belongeth to their ioye and our comfort This one place of S. Ambrose might haue suffised The practise of the Churche touching the prayer to Saints aÌ„d honour to them exhibited but it shal be good that we ioyne therewith the practise both of the Church in those daies and also of the Heretikes that as wel the Catholikes may see how the Saintes were esteemed in olde time as M. Iewel may perceiue that he is not the first heretike whom it grieued to see Gods Martyrs so to be honoured as they are among the Catholikes Let vs then heare what S. Paulinus writeth in the life of S. Ambrose who liued in his time Paulinus in vita Ambrosâ— Per ideÌ„ teÌ„pus sancti Martyres Protasius Geruasius se sacerdoti reuelaueruÌ„t EraÌ„t enim in Basilica positi in qua sunt hodie corpora Naboris et Felicis Martyrum Sed sancti Martyres Nabor Felix celeberrimè frequentabantur Protasij verò Geruasij Martyrum vt nomina ita etiam sepulchra incognita erant in tantum vt suprà ipsorum sepulchra ambularent omnes qui vellent ad cancellos peruenire quibus sanctorum Naboris Felicis Martyrum ab iniuria sepulchra defendebantur Sed vbi sanctorum Martyrum sunt corpora leuata in lecticis posita multorum ibi Satanae aegritudines perdocentur Coecus etiam Seuerus nomine qui nunc vsque in eadem basilica quae dicitur Ambrosiana in quam Martyrum corpora sunt translata religiosè seruit vbi vestem Martyrum attigit statim lumen recepit Obsessa etiam corpora à spiritibus immundis curata summa cum gratia domum repetebant Sed his beneficiis Martyrum in quantum crescebat fides Ecclesiae Catholica intantum Arianorum perfidia minuebatur Denique ex hoc tempore sedâ—ri coepit persecutio quae Iustinae furori accendebatur vt Sacerdos de Ecclesia pelleretur Tamen intra palatium multitudo Arianorum cum Iustina constitutâ— deridebat tantam Dei gratiam quam Ecclesiae suae Catholica Dominus Iesus meritis Nartyrum suorum conferre dignatus est venerabilémque virum Ambrosium narrabat pecunia comparasse homines qui se vexari ab immundis spiritibus mentirentur atque ita ab illo sicut à martyribus se torqueri dicerent Sed hoc Iudaico ore loquebantur Ariani suppares scilicet eorum Illi enim de Domino dicebant Quoniam in Beelzebub principe Daemoniorum eijcit Daemonia Isti de Martyribus vel de Domini Sacerdote loquebantur quòd non Dei gratia quae per ipsos operabatur immundi spiritus pellerentur sed accepta pecunia se torqueri mentirentur Clamabant enim daemones Scimus vos Martyres Et Ariani dicebant Nescimus esse Martyres About this time the holy Martyrs Protasius and Gernasius reueled them selues to S. Ambrose For they were buried in the Church where at this daie are the bodies of the Martyrs Nabor and Felix But menne haunted very muche vnto the holy Martyrs Nabor and Felix and as for the Martyrs Protasius and Gernasius as theire names were vnknowen so were also their Graues where they laie in so muche that men that were desirous to come to the Grates wherewith the toumbes of the blessed Martyrs Nabor and Felix were fenced from iniurie walked vppon their graues But after that the bodies of the blessed Martyrs were taken vppe and laid in their cofines that many were there cured of their Diseases it is wel knowen Seuerus a blinde man by touche of martyrs garment receiued fighte A blinde man named Seuerus who at this daie ful deuoutely serueth in the same Churche nowe called S. Ambroses Churche whither the bodies of the Martyrs were translated after that he had once touched the garmente of the Martyrs foorthwith receiued his fight Many bodies also possessed of wicked Spirites were cured and returned home with great grace But howe muche the faith of the Catholique Churche by these benefites of the Martyrs grewe more and more so muche did the perfidious falshood of the Arians wexe lesse and lesse Finally after this the persecution which was enkendled by the rage of Iustina the Emperesse which sought to driue Saint Ambrose out of his Churche beganne to slake Neuerthelesse the rable of the Arians who were in the Courte with Iustina scoffed at this great grace of God whiche it pleased our Lord Iesus to bestow vpoÌ„ his Catholike Church through the merites of his Martyrs And they bruted abroad that the reuereÌ„d Bishop Ambrose had hiered meÌ„ with money that should feine them selues to be vexed with vncleane Sprites and saie that they were as wel tormented by S. Ambrose as by the Martyrs But this the Arians like verie Iewes vttered as being in malice their owne companions For the Iewes said of our Lorde He casteth out Deuilles in Beelzebub the Prince of Deuilles But the Arians said of the Martyrs and of S. Ambrose the Priest of our Lord that the vncleane Sprites were not cast out by the grace of God which wrought by them but that menne hiered with money feined them selues to be tormented For the Deuilles cried out We know you to be Martyrs But the Arians said we know not them to be Martyrs Thus farre S. Paulinus Doo you know your Father M. Iewel if ye saw him I meane not your natural Father would God you were so good a man and of so good a faith as he was But I meane your other father that begote Arius whose yonger brother you are At that time the Arians mockte at the miracles wroughte by the Saintes
of Christes Church be my Doctours they be not yours For that Doctrine is generally taught by them al. Lyra vnderstode Christ in the 6. of Iohn to speake of the Euchariste Ioan. 6. Thaâ— Lyra vnderstode the wordes of Christe spoken in the sixth Chapter of S. Iohn of the Euchariste it is cleere bothe by thexposition of that Psalme and also of that chapter In the exposition of the Psalme to declare the benefite of the Sacrament worthily receiued hâ—… allegeth those wordes of Christe Si quis manducauerit ex hoc pane viuet in aeternum If any man eate of this Breade he shal liue for euer Touching the 6. chapter of S. Iohn vpon these wordes Operamini non cibum qui perit c. Thus he writeth Haec autem esca est Christi corpus in Eucharistia c. This meate whereof S. Iohn speaketh is the Bodie of Christe in the Euchariste as it appeareth by the letter following in whiche he speaketh very diffusely of the Sacrament of the Euchariste shewing what is conteined in it really Whereof it is said in this very Chapter hereafter my Fleash is very meate and my Bloude is very drinke Whereby the errour of Berengarius is taken awaye who said the Body of Christe to be conteined in this Sacrament as in a Signe For the whiche he recanted his saying as erroneus Thus Lyra. By these and by many other wordes there Lyra sheweth at large that he was of the opinion that sundrie sayinges of Christe in the 6. Chapter of S. Iohn perteine to the Sacrament Whereby it appeareth how falsely you haue belyed him The wordes which you allege M. Iewel to entwite me of ouersighte are not the wordes of Nicolas Lyra mine owne Doctor as you saie but of one Matthias Doring Matthias Doring who wrote Replies against the Additions of Paulus Burgensis printed with Lyras expositions Wherein as you haue deceiued your Reader with false forgerie fathering that vpon Lyra that Lyra neuer said nor dreamed of so you haue fowly corrupted also this poore Doctor Doring with cutting of his wordes pretending him to speake of these wordes of S. Iohn He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloude hath life euerlasting and I wil raise him againe in the last daie which I alleged whereas in deede he spake neither of these wordes specially nor of Christes whole discourse in that chapter of S. Iohn in general but onely of these special wordes of S. Iohn Nisi manducaueritis carnem filij hominis biberitis eius sanguinem non babebitis vitam in vobis Except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drinke his Bloude ye shal not haue life in you That the truth be knowen and your falsehed detected thus it is Burgensis had written these wordes Licet Iohannis sexto legatur Purgen Additione 1. in Psal 112. Nisi manducaueritis carnem filij hominis non habebitis vitam in vobis per hoc tamen secundùm Doctores non imponitur praeceptum necessitatis ad sumptionem huius Sacramenti prout Augustinus declarat Vnde sumptio huius Sacramenti corporaliter quantum ad populum vel Laicos cadit sub consilio potius quà m praecepto Although we reade in the sixth Chapter of S. Iohn except ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man ye shal not haue life in you yet hereby after the Doctors minde we are not charged with a precept of necessitie to receiue this SacrameÌ„t but only the thing of the Sacrament By the thing of the Sacrament is meant the Vnitie of the Church as S. Augustin declareth Wherefore the receiuing of this SacrameÌ„t bodily as touching the laie people is such a thing as is rather counseled then coÌ„maunded Hitherto Burgensis Now coÌ„meth me in Doctor Doring whom M. Iewel would haue menne beleue to be Nicolas Lyra and findeth fault with Burgensis for alleging the said wordes of S. Iohn excepte ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man c. to this sense Matthias Doring in replica in Psal 110. that the corporal Communion as touching the laie people is a matter of counsel Per hoc non satisfit Haereticis modernis The Heretiques of our age wil not be satisfied with this saith he And why It followeth there Quia litera non habet illud dictuÌ„ fundamentum Bicause that saying that the bodily receiuing of the SacrameÌ„t in laye folke is a matter of counsel hath not his foundation out of the texte And therefore concerning the Sacramental Communion it hath not the force of a precept neither for the Clergie nor for the laitie as touching al according to the true vnderstaÌ„ding of that text Howbeit in the same place it is declared of what eating and drinking it ought to be vnderstaÌ„ded to witte of the spiritual For it foloweth he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud dwelleth in me and I in him Which S. Augustin expoundeth saying Hoc est manducare illam escam bibere illum potum in Christo manere Christum manentem in se habere This is to eate that meate and to drinke that drinke a man to dwel in Christ and to haue Christ dwel in him which is no thing els but to be in Charitie .. Then followe these wordes whereof M. Iewel would take aduantage Hoc auÌ„t omnibus indiffereÌ„ter est praeceptuÌ„ implicitè sed nihil directè pertinet ad SacrameÌ„talem vel corporalem manducationem Hoc verbum nisi maÌ„ducaueritis c. This is geueÌ„ in coÌ„maundement to al men indifferently by waie of implying But this saying Except ye eate the flesh of the SoÌ„ne of man c. This word or this saying perteineth nothing at al to the SacrameÌ„tal or corporol eating Thus farre Matthias Doring Thus you maie vnderstand M. Iewel the wordes you allege be not Lyras but one Doringes and the same haue relation not to the place of S. Ihon that I brought but onely to these wordes Excepte ye eate the fleshe of the Sonne of man ye shal not haue life in you Whiche wordes after that Doctours mynde importe not a precepte of necessitie of the Sacramental or corporal eating and so thinke I to And though he iudged they were not aptly alleged of Burgensis to proue that the bodily receiuing of the Sacrament is a mater of counsel and not of precepte bicause they perteine not to the Sacramental Communion at al yet the other saying he that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloude hath life auerlasting and I wil raise him againe in the last daie maie wel be alleged for benefite of the Resurrection of the fleshe to redounde to the faithful beleeuer of the worthy receiuing of Christes Bodie in the Euchariste for whiche purpose it was by me alleged You should haue sene these thinges better before ye had entwited me of ouersight Iewel Hovv liued then the Patriarkes and Martyrs and hovv shal children haue life vvho neuer receiue the Sacrament Harding Pag. 324. I make not the real eating